hopefulLandlord:


Lepasharon caused this by mentioning someone OP deliberately left out


OP already foresaw this which explains his refusal to mention that person

hopefulLandlord:


Lepasharon caused this by mentioning someone OP deliberately left out

OP already foresaw this which explains his refusal to mention that person

Joshthefirst:

Science is not competing with faith or prayer as you make it out to be. Prayer is (or should be) a very personal activity, and it's results are subjective, and personal, not a lottery. You can mock prayer if you want, it's like pushing against a hill. Humanity will always reach out in prayer to deity.

Joshthefirst:
1. Prayer, is entirely subjective. It means different things to different people cannot even know how much

2. We cannot completely apply limited human investigations to determine the out working of God's power.

3.They cannot even quantify the actual amount of people praying, random numbers of friends and family, etc. if we want to give them any leverage.

spacetacular:


The topic drew me and not the mention from anyone.

Ask Jackbizzle to come give us his supporting arguments. You cannot have your cake and eat it too can you?

JackBizzle:


Supporting arguments? What did I post in the op?


You are as dumb as felixomor. Enough said.


Just gerrout

spacetacular:
@ joshthefirst looking at your ID I can see you have been here since 2014 and I am just fresh on the scene but I think you need to be wise.

JackBizzle:


Supporting arguments? What did I post in the op?


You are as dumb as felixomor. Enough said.


Just gerrout

Joshthefirst:
prayer has nothing to do with science, prayer is spiritual. It is a supernatural communication, so why do you expect science to have an opinion on it? It is outside of the boundaries of science, so don't be unwise. Science is very limited, even in our bid to understand the physical universe. Man's heart yearns for the spiritual, and the impossible.

Life itself is a miracle. Things like people parading about with an unbelief in transcendence is a miracle.

It is not just logical, but it is necessary, for God to exist.
And telling someone to calm down and still using derogatory remarks like "sky daddy" is foolish of you. It seems you have a very annoying mentality that you are Intrinsically better and smarter than everyone else, and you are right and can never be wrong.

sonofluc1fer:

Hallo dear.

JackBizzle:
This thread is for Christians who are scientists, whether they are doctors, lab assistants, technicians, engineers etc.

HOW DO YOU BALANCE YOUR RELIGION WITH SCIENCE? THIS IS VECAUSE THEY CAN BE POLAR OPPOSITE AT TIMES.

JUST LOOK AT THESE QUESTIONS

1. As a biologist, how do you explain Jesus rising from the dead, when you know that a dead body can't rise again especially after 3 days?


2. Where does Jesus's other set of chromosomes come from if Joseph is not his father (no biological father)


3. As a geologist, wouldn't there be earth or soil under any body of water? Then how could God in genesis claim to have floated over deep waters and created the earth?

4. How do you reconcile pastors healing diseases with no cure? How can someone be healed of Aids, Ebola etc?

5. How can an astrophysicist look at the vast emptiness of outer space and agree that a great omniscient God created such a waste?

TLuzzie:
A mystery is no answer. Do you know why Christian theologians do call the Holy Trinity the "Mystery of Christian Faith"? It's another way of saying, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I refuse to listen to my rational mind screaming bullshit.

If you know this 'mystery', mind letting me in on it?

JackBizzle:



Don't be annoying. Yes I called for a civil debate. The term 'sky daddy' is just a joke. Stop the hypocritical overreaction.

Communication is a science. You can't claim that spiritual is different from science then now link them together as spiritual communication.


There is no evidence for a God. No matter how much faith you have, you will never see physical evidence for God.

JackBizzle:



Don't be annoying. Yes I called for a civil debate. The term 'sky daddy' is just a joke. Stop the hypocritical overreaction.

Communication is a science. You can't claim that spiritual is different from science then now link them together as spiritual communication.


There is no evidence for a God. No matter how much faith you have, you will never see physical evidence for God.

dalaman:
Religionists love to ride on the coat tails of science if they can make it seem like it supports their claim, tgey claim that there is no difference btw the two(which is a very big lie) but they slander science at every opportunity when it conflicts with their magic story, even as they benefit from the fruits of science such as a computer world, longer lives, air travel, cars, cell phones, media, antibiotics and good health care delivery in general, a growing wonderous understanding of our universe as well as the microscopic world, DNA, etc. When Newton couldn't figure out how the planetary orbits could remain stable, he quit looking for natural explanations and concluded that God must be intervening to put them back on track. He was wrong because he let faith cloud his thinking.

But people believe this things because their good religions told them so, and they've learned not to question "God" (or his self-proclaimed earthly representatives.)

Religious folks have just gotten used to not having their pet superstitions questioned(Most get angry when you question their pet superstitions). They like to feel like it's ennobling to believe in their version of magical thinking. I feel pretty equal about all superstitions--Scientology, Astrology, psychics, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism all mythologies, all belief in the paranormal, supernatural, and other pseudoscientific beliefs. They just don't hold up under testing at all and I'm tired of fooling myself and wonder why people do that. I'd rather not know something than believe a lie, and as far as the evidence goes, all belief in invisible beings is equally delusional. There is no more evidence for Thor than Jesus-God or any other God.

There is not 2 sides to "the debate." There is one
truth and so far science is the best path for illuminating the truth that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe. Same is NOT the same for religion.

On the flip side, there are millions of faiths humans have always invented Gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand. But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virginsto appease the Gods, there are no weather Gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops.

You picked one version of a magical story to believe over all the other possibilities because somehow you thought it was "the truth" but doesn't every believer think that? Certainly, no matter what is true, the vast majority of people are confused or mistaken or just wrong. Everyone is going to hell according to Somebody's religion.

Move forward to the early 21st century and the advances in science help explain what was once seen as supernatural (volcanoes, earthquakes, biology, physics, the universe, diseases etc). It is my belief the modern day religious apologists see the advances in science as influencing people to abandon their religious beliefs and worship the God of "science". Thus, the apologists stepping into the fray are faced either with trying to discount science or elevate religious belief to an equal of science.

At least that is what I see from the post on this topic and in most places.

If that understanding is correct then the modern day Christian apologist is doomed. Religion is not science and science is not religion. Science is based on observation and theories based on those observations. One can argue that is also what religious apologists attempt to do but the key difference is creating an experiment which will substantiate the theory. To the best of my knowledge, there is no chant, ritual, incantation, prayer, series of gestures, etc. which will consistently produce an entity which can be seen and measured and identified as "God".
Religionis NOT science and science is NOT religion.

spacetacular:


Hello son of the morning star.

sonofluc1fer:

How are you doing? You sound pissed.

spacetacular:
@ joshthefirst looking at your ID I can see you have been here since 2014 and I am just fresh on the scene but I think you need to be wise. Questions are thrown at you from a position already occupied by the one asking the question.

In the midst of the question he is also making known what he thinks about the answer you would give even before you have had the chance to give it.

You are being goaded!

When anyone asks a question you have the right to also ask WHY such questions are being asked so he or she can back them up with explanations (arguments). Do not just respond when atheists ask questions. They already have an end in mind and just want to use you to prove they were right all along.

JackBizzle:
Communication is a science. You can't claim that spiritual is different from science then now link them together as spiritual communication.

JackBizzle:
There is no evidence for a God. No matter how much faith you have, you will never see physical evidence for God.

sonofluc1fer:

How are you doing? You sound pissed.

spacetacular:


Hello son of the morning star.

JackBizzle:



You have nothing to say.

SWERVE!

Joshthefirst:
I understand. I always try to take advantage of threads like this to make put forward a point or two too, and if they deteriorate as in the case I'll show below, I let the conversation tether to a halt.

what are you saying? Communication is exchanging information. I'm not trying to link anything together, you are. Communing with God is exchanging information and presence with God, a spiritual entity. Science deals with what we can handle.

There you are going around with your dogmatic idi.ocy.
Let me show you: There is evidence of God. No matter how idi.otic you prove to be, you will never successfully deceive yourself completely into ignoring God's existence.

You've ended our conversation.

Joshthefirst:
and I've actually been here since 2012 in a different moniker.

CatfishBilly:


Come on, now.
You're a medical student. You know how invaluable clinical studies are in trying to determine the effectiveness of a line of therapy.
Double blind placebo controlled group trials are the best there is.
You can't just wave it off like that, you can as well wave off every single evidence based medicine plan you plan on using for your patients.

When a double blind study proved that religion was very helpful in dealing with depression, it was accepted by christians. But when it failed with prayers, it is now "We cannot completely apply limited human investigations to determine the out working of God's power."?

Besides, the prayers were proper prayers done in a church and the Bible described prayers as goal oriented, it never said anything about it being subjective.

So, in your opinion, what's the best way to measure the efficacy of prayers?

CatfishBilly:
Another promising thread derailed.
What is wrong with you people sef?

lepasharon:


Lol soz..but felix was mentioned

Joshthefirst:
and I've actually been here since 2012 in a different moniker.

adepeter26:

We could still manage Felix naw.

Space is damage beyond repair

dalaman:
Religionists love to ride on the coat tails of science if they can make it seem like it supports their claim, tgey claim that there is no difference btw the two(which is a very big lie) but they slander science at every opportunity when it conflicts with their magic story, even as they benefit from the fruits of science such as a computer world, longer lives, air travel, cars, cell phones, media, antibiotics and good health care delivery in general, a growing wonderous understanding of our universe as well as the microscopic world, DNA, etc. When Newton couldn't figure out how the planetary orbits could remain stable, he quit looking for natural explanations and concluded that God must be intervening to put them back on track. He was wrong because he let faith cloud his thinking.

But people believe this things because their good religions told them so, and they've learned not to question "God" (or his self-proclaimed earthly representatives.)

Religious folks have just gotten used to not having their pet superstitions questioned(Most get angry when you question their pet superstitions). They like to feel like it's ennobling to believe in their version of magical thinking. I feel pretty equal about all superstitions--Scientology, Astrology, psychics, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism all mythologies, all belief in the paranormal, supernatural, and other pseudoscientific beliefs. They just don't hold up under testing at all and I'm tired of fooling myself and wonder why people do that. I'd rather not know something than believe a lie, and as far as the evidence goes, all belief in invisible beings is equally delusional. There is no more evidence for Thor than Jesus-God or any other God.

There is not 2 sides to "the debate." There is one
truth and so far science is the best path for illuminating the truth that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe. Same is NOT the same for religion.

On the flip side, there are millions of faiths humans have always invented Gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand. But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virginsto appease the Gods, there are no weather Gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops.

You picked one version of a magical story to believe over all the other possibilities because somehow you thought it was "the truth" but doesn't every believer think that? Certainly, no matter what is true, the vast majority of people are confused or mistaken or just wrong. Everyone is going to hell according to Somebody's religion.

Move forward to the early 21st century and the advances in science help explain what was once seen as supernatural (volcanoes, earthquakes, biology, physics, the universe, diseases etc). It is my belief the modern day religious apologists see the advances in science as influencing people to abandon their religious beliefs and worship the God of "science". Thus, the apologists stepping into the fray are faced either with trying to discount science or elevate religious belief to an equal of science.

At least that is what I see from the post on this topic and in most places.

If that understanding is correct then the modern day Christian apologist is doomed. Religion is not science and science is not religion. Science is based on observation and theories based on those observations. One can argue that is also what religious apologists attempt to do but the key difference is creating an experiment which will substantiate the theory. To the best of my knowledge, there is no chant, ritual, incantation, prayer, series of gestures, etc. which will consistently produce an entity which can be seen and measured and identified as "God".
Religionis NOT science and science is NOT religion.