The Religion Discussion

[achillies]

Science needs no defence?

You try to make science out to be this poster child of cooperation, who are you fooling though, yourself?

Can you count how many scientists died because of their experiments? can you tell me of any atrocities that we committed in the name of science?

You sit here and try to benefit off of these people's work, having total disrespect for the lives lost due to science, science is not innocent and some scientists have a moral cloth so dirty, it would make some religious zealots look like angels and some churches like safe houses.

seriously?

religious wars have caused far more death during mankind's history.
Up till today we see the senseless killing of Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Pakistan

I never said science is a posterchild.
it is what it is - "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

So you addressed the top half of my post, what about the rest? To say what, religion has killed" more" , lol, You have a serious beef with religion

You didn't have to say science is a poster child, but you did say that science needs no defence <---- what needs no defence?

Is science innocent?

I request a short answer please, if possible

LOL you request a short answer

is that why "God did it" works well for you?
c'mon, we're all here to discuss this and share ideas!

When I said "science needs no defence", I'm not sure what you understood by that, but I meant that science does not need me or anyone else to come to it's rescue to defend it e.g. a scientific fact is a scientific fact regardless of how popular it is or how many people like it.

I am not sure what relevance that has to your other question "Is science innocent?"
I am not sure what you are asking. Please explain.

Grrr

Atrocities has been committed in the name of science, not so?

Scientists have died pursuing scientific discoveries, not so?

People die everyday at the hands of science, or do you restrict science to the things we can sit and smile about over dinner?

Are you sure you even see how deep this rabbit hole goes?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ Atrocities in the name of science?
Science itself does not condemn anything.
A scientist may carry out harmful testing on children or use ill gotten funds or big pharmaceuticals may charge a hefty price for a cheap drug just because there is an outbreak - but those are all human actions. Blaming science for their actions would be like blaming mathematics when accountants commit fraud.
There was no 'science bible' that says kill non-believers for example. Humans action atrocities.

Scientists have died in the pursuit of science - yes!
Most popular would be Marie Curie who pioneered the science of radioactivity but eventually died from radioactive exposure at the age of 67.

People die everyday at the hands of science,

at the hands of science? what do you mean? As in someone dies while undergoing brain surgery? I can't see how that is science's fault!

or do you restrict science to the things we can sit and smile about over dinner?

what is the need for that? Science may tell us tomorrow that a giant meteor is heading for Earth and there is nothing in our current technology that we can use to stop it. It wouldn't change anything about what science is: "finding facts through observation and testing"

Not everything we find out in science is going to be nice and happy. Some facts we find maybe hard to accept, but if we can observe it and test it and the results proven then we just have to deal with the facts.

Are you sure you even see how deep this rabbit hole goes?

what rabbit hole?

[achillies]

^ Atrocities in the name of science?
Science itself does not condemn anything.
A scientist may carry out harmful testing on children or use ill gotten funds or big pharmaceuticals may charge a hefty price for a cheap drug just because there is an outbreak - but those are all human actions. Blaming science for their actions would be like blaming mathematics when accountants commit fraud.
There was no 'science bible' that says kill non-believers for example. Humans action atrocities.

Scientists have died in the pursuit of science - yes!
Most popular would be Marie Curie who pioneered the science of radioactivity but eventually died from radioactive exposure at the age of 67.

People die everyday at the hands of science,

at the hands of science? what do you mean? As in someone dies while undergoing brain surgery? I can't see how that is science's fault!

or do you restrict science to the things we can sit and smile about over dinner?

what is the need for that? Science may tell us tomorrow that a giant meteor is heading for Earth and there is nothing in our current technology that we can use to stop it. It wouldn't change anything about what science is: "finding facts through observation and testing"

Not everything we find out in science is going to be nice and happy. Some facts we find maybe hard to accept, but if we can observe it and test it and the results proven then we just have to deal with the facts.

Are you sure you even see how deep this rabbit hole goes?

what rabbit hole?

So which holy book says to kill non believers?

Is that book representative of all religions and of God?

How easy it is for you to separate science and the scientist but very difficult for you to separate a believer from religion and religion from God.

Weapons of mass destruction, guns and ammunition, biological warfare are all the results of science, engineered for one purpose, and one purpose only (do you need a gun bible to tell you what these things are for) <---- but this needs no defence, because it is not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people (evolution), except when he was holding a holy book, then it was religion that did the killing, in the name of religion, it is no longer 'Humans action atrocities'

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I think you have deeper psychological issues going on.

So what if science is used to invent and make weapons? That does not reduce the validity of facts that the scientific method finds.

[achillies]

^ I think you have deeper psychological issues going on.

So what if science is used to invent and make weapons? That does not reduce the validity of facts that the scientific method finds.

I am not questioning the validity of the facts that scientific methods have found, if I have, please point me to that part of my post?

Also point out the parts that led you conclude I have deeper psychological issues going on

I will wait!





What I am questioning is mainstream thinking, your thinking

[achillies]

lolwut? then he's very, very, very cruel, very egoist, self centred and is not really an ethical scientist if we are the experiments that he is conducting. Yeah you let that sink in if you can manage to understand the implications of it.

Cruel, egoist and self centered, and unethical, lol

Can you tell me why?

well then, I guess you didn't manage to understand it.

I am going to train under Mr. pioneer as a padawan troll. brb Dagobah system.

Actually, no I didn't understand it, you made some statements and I am asking why

Why is God cruel, egoist self centered and unethical, the moment you can tell me why, is the moment I can show you the weakness in your very own reasoning

[achillies]

Science needs no defence?

You try to make science out to be this poster child of cooperation, who are you fooling though, yourself?

Can you count how many scientists died because of their experiments? can you tell me of any atrocities that we committed in the name of science?

You sit here and try to benefit off of these people's work, having total disrespect for the lives lost due to science, science is not innocent and some scientists have a moral cloth so dirty, it would make some religious zealots look like angels and some churches like safe houses.

seriously?

religious wars have caused far more death during mankind's history.
Up till today we see the senseless killing of Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Pakistan

I never said science is a posterchild.
it is what it is - "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

Jack David Eller, an anthropologist of culture, violence, and religion who himself is an atheist, claims: "As we have insisted previously, religion is not inherently and irredeemably violent; it certainly is not the essence and source of all violence." and "Religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identicall. Violence is one phenomenon in human (and natural existence), religion is another, and it is inevitable that the two would become intertwined. Religion is complex and modular, and violence is one of the modules - not universal, but recurring. As a conceptual and behavioral module, violence is by no means exclusive to religion. There are plenty of other groups, institutions, interests, and ideologies to promote violence. Violence is, therefore, neither essential to nor exclusive to religion. Nor is religious violence all alike... And virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary

"When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is the "cause" of the trouble or that the parties are "fighting about religion". Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the groups than an actual point of contention between them."

It was very easy for you to separate the science from the scientist, and also quick to use the term Human action atrocities, but where was this separation when religion came into play, where was the term Human action atrocities?

Is it that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but when religion comes into play, guns nor people does the killing, is the killer now religion?

Religious war or human action atrocities, what say you?

So are you sure I am the one with deeper psychological issues?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I think you have deeper psychological issues going on.

So what if science is used to invent and make weapons? That does not reduce the validity of facts that the scientific method finds.

I am not questioning the validity of the facts that scientific methods have found, if I have, please point me to that part of my post?

Also point out the parts that led you conclude I have deeper psychological issues going on

I will wait!





What I am questioning is mainstream thinking, your thinking

What about it are you questioning?

[Habit7]

If it human social morality, then it is subjective and your opinion.

YES! I never said it wasnt! does that make it wrong? Every society, religion, civilization, group, family, institution etc. etc. has its own moral codes. They are not all based on religious morals at all.

If it is subjective as confirmed, what if one chooses not to affirm it.

Slavery (man selling and the indentured labourship spoken of in the Bible) and the equality of the sexes are principles we have from the Christian morality of the West.

I'm not sure what you mean here but the old testament states:

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.(Exodus 21:7)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21)

I understand that slavery was acceptable in those days - however man was living in the east, not the west.

I see that we have some consensus here. Slavery was a major contributing factor to the workforce of ancient times (even as you quote from Exodus, laws for the slavery for people, who Jews themselves were slaves just a few years before). But I hope you don't fall into the fault of other cursory viewers of Scripture and not acknowledge the hermeneutic of progressive revelation. While slavery had it place in the Old Testament laws to those people, at that time, the New Testament affirms the inherent worth of man created in the image of God and ideas of God honouring work and free will of man. So later men like William Wilberforce, enlighten by his Christian faith, was the main proponent of abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

China's moral basis is mostly in Buddhism which existed way before the recent atheistic communism.

"The Buddhist view is that moral behavior flows naturally from mastering one's ego and desires and cultivating loving kindness (metta) and compassion (karuna).

Karma Lekshe Tsomo, a professor of theology and a nun in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, explains,

"There are no moral absolutes in Buddhism and it is recognized that ethical decision-making involves a complex nexus of causes and conditions." - http://buddhism.about.com

Seems like Buddhism relies on the more natural human social morals than a strict religious code.

Nice research. But it still doesn't deny that China's moral basis is a result of Buddhism and not atheistic communism.

The claim of the God of Bible is bolstered by His explanation of our origins, fulfilled prophesy and His ability to speak completely about the nature of man. Its is a little bit more than just a claim as I succinctly put it.

"explanation of our origins" as in woman was made from the rib of a man who was made from dirt and every creed and race came from just those two people?

Which fulfilled prophesy?

Can you please reference the passages that speak completely about the nature of man?

If you are trying to strawman the Bible's explanation of the origin of man, then you will have to affirm that all life came from a puddle, and though chemically based, it cannot be reproduced today in our best labs. I think you have netflix, watch The Human Family Tree, and see how plausible it is for all ethnicities originate from 8 people (those who exited the Ark).

e.g. 1) The birth, life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The eternal God of the Bible explains that He created everything out of nothing. Big Bang does not explain the origin of eternal matter, it give no answer to origins, just an explanation to the start of our universe.

so you're saying that God can make something out of nothing, but the Big Bang cannot?

The Big Bang does not answer the origins of matter. It starts with eternal matter and goes forward.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

If it human social morality, then it is subjective and your opinion.

YES! I never said it wasnt! does that make it wrong? Every society, religion, civilization, group, family, institution etc. etc. has its own moral codes. They are not all based on religious morals at all.

If it is subjective as confirmed, what if one chooses not to affirm it.

then don't follow it!
In your very narrow point of view, I guess you feel we must be told what to do. I disagree.

Slavery (man selling and the indentured labourship spoken of in the Bible) and the equality of the sexes are principles we have from the Christian morality of the West.

I'm not sure what you mean here but the old testament states:

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.(Exodus 21:7)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21)

I understand that slavery was acceptable in those days - however man was living in the east, not the west.

I see that we have some consensus here. Slavery was a major contributing factor to the workforce of ancient times (even as you quote from Exodus, laws for the slavery for people, who Jews themselves were slaves just a few years before). But I hope you don't fall into the fault of other cursory viewers of Scripture and not acknowledge the hermeneutic of progressive revelation. While slavery had it place in the Old Testament laws to those people, at that time, the New Testament affirms the inherent worth of man created in the image of God and ideas of God honouring work and free will of man. So later men like William Wilberforce, enlighten by his Christian faith, was the main proponent of abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

consensus? hardly!

so you are telling me it took almost 1900 years to do that?

Also why is hermeneutics of progressive revelation is so needed? Why not just leave out chapters about how and when to kill your slaves?

China's moral basis is mostly in Buddhism which existed way before the recent atheistic communism.

"The Buddhist view is that moral behavior flows naturally from mastering one's ego and desires and cultivating loving kindness (metta) and compassion (karuna).

Karma Lekshe Tsomo, a professor of theology and a nun in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, explains,

"There are no moral absolutes in Buddhism and it is recognized that ethical decision-making involves a complex nexus of causes and conditions." - http://buddhism.about.com

Seems like Buddhism relies on the more natural human social morals than a strict religious code.

Nice research. But it still doesn't deny that China's moral basis is a result of Buddhism and not atheistic communism.

no where there did I deny their moral basis is a result of Buddhism - what I said was that Buddhism does not offer moral laws so your argument is still invalid.

The claim of the God of Bible is bolstered by His explanation of our origins, fulfilled prophesy and His ability to speak completely about the nature of man. Its is a little bit more than just a claim as I succinctly put it.

"explanation of our origins" as in woman was made from the rib of a man who was made from dirt and every creed and race came from just those two people?

Which fulfilled prophesy?

Can you please reference the passages that speak completely about the nature of man?

If you are trying to strawman the Bible's explanation of the origin of man, then you will have to affirm that all life came from a puddle, and though chemically based, it cannot be reproduced today in our best labs. I think you have netflix, watch The Human Family Tree, and see how plausible it is for all ethnicities originate from 8 people (those who exited the Ark).

e.g. 1) The birth, life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The eternal God of the Bible explains that He created everything out of nothing. Big Bang does not explain the origin of eternal matter, it give no answer to origins, just an explanation to the start of our universe.

so you're saying that God can make something out of nothing, but the Big Bang cannot?

The Big Bang does not answer the origins of matter. It starts with eternal matter and goes forward.

While I agree that Big Bang deal with the event and moving forward, "Let there be light" is not very revealing with regards to process.

How is it you can claim Genesis 6:5 describes the entire nature of man yet so much of the highly detailed volumes of archaeology and anthropology (libraries and libraries worth) and the human genome and its evolution you reject. Is it that you understand simple short sentences better?

[maj. tom]

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

__________________________________________________________________________


Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


..................................................................................................................................



Well so much for that. Duane you have an everlasting amount of patience and sanity. Most dedicated teacher in the world award.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I am not trying to refute any text - I'm just trying to understand why others think the way they do.
So I'm glad for the explanations

[Habit7]

If it human social morality, then it is subjective and your opinion.

YES! I never said it wasnt! does that make it wrong? Every society, religion, civilization, group, family, institution etc. etc. has its own moral codes. They are not all based on religious morals at all.

If it is subjective as confirmed, what if one chooses not to affirm it.

then don't follow it!
In your very narrow point of view, I guess you feel we must be told what to do. I disagree.

Slavery (man selling and the indentured labourship spoken of in the Bible) and the equality of the sexes are principles we have from the Christian morality of the West.

I'm not sure what you mean here but the old testament states:

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.(Exodus 21:7)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21)

I understand that slavery was acceptable in those days - however man was living in the east, not the west.

I see that we have some consensus here. Slavery was a major contributing factor to the workforce of ancient times (even as you quote from Exodus, laws for the slavery for people, who Jews themselves were slaves just a few years before). But I hope you don't fall into the fault of other cursory viewers of Scripture and not acknowledge the hermeneutic of progressive revelation. While slavery had it place in the Old Testament laws to those people, at that time, the New Testament affirms the inherent worth of man created in the image of God and ideas of God honouring work and free will of man. So later men like William Wilberforce, enlighten by his Christian faith, was the main proponent of abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

consensus? hardly!

so you are telling me it took almost 1900 years to do that?

oh and if hermeneutic of progressive revelation is so needed, why bother to put in chapters about how and when to kill your slaves?

China's moral basis is mostly in Buddhism which existed way before the recent atheistic communism.

"The Buddhist view is that moral behavior flows naturally from mastering one's ego and desires and cultivating loving kindness (metta) and compassion (karuna).

Karma Lekshe Tsomo, a professor of theology and a nun in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, explains,

"There are no moral absolutes in Buddhism and it is recognized that ethical decision-making involves a complex nexus of causes and conditions." - http://buddhism.about.com

Seems like Buddhism relies on the more natural human social morals than a strict religious code.

Nice research. But it still doesn't deny that China's moral basis is a result of Buddhism and not atheistic communism.

no where there did I deny their moral basis is a result of Buddhism - what I said was that Buddhism does not offer moral laws so your argument is still invalid.

The claim of the God of Bible is bolstered by His explanation of our origins, fulfilled prophesy and His ability to speak completely about the nature of man. Its is a little bit more than just a claim as I succinctly put it.

"explanation of our origins" as in woman was made from the rib of a man who was made from dirt and every creed and race came from just those two people?

Which fulfilled prophesy?

Can you please reference the passages that speak completely about the nature of man?

If you are trying to strawman the Bible's explanation of the origin of man, then you will have to affirm that all life came from a puddle, and though chemically based, it cannot be reproduced today in our best labs. I think you have netflix, watch The Human Family Tree, and see how plausible it is for all ethnicities originate from 8 people (those who exited the Ark).

e.g. 1) The birth, life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The eternal God of the Bible explains that He created everything out of nothing. Big Bang does not explain the origin of eternal matter, it give no answer to origins, just an explanation to the start of our universe.

so you're saying that God can make something out of nothing, but the Big Bang cannot?

The Big Bang does not answer the origins of matter. It starts with eternal matter and goes forward.

While I agree that Big Bang deal with the event and moving forward, "Let there be light" is not very revealing with regards to process.

How is it you can claim Genesis 6:5 describes the entire nature of man yet so much of the highly detailed volumes of archaeology and anthropology (libraries and libraries worth) and the human genome and its evolution you reject. Is it that you understand simple short sentences better?

Well its the same point I made to you earlier, don't put forward a secular humanistic viewpoint, then try to force an absolute morality on someone when yours is subjective.

1900 years should be a drop in the bucket if you believe in a million year humanoid? What, you find the 'evolution' of a moral view point took too long? Is that irony I smell?
The ordinances put forward in Pentateuch were specific to the Jewish nation, in that place, at that point it time. Like all of God's law it serves as a curb and a guide but most importantly, it serves to show us our sin nature, in that we cannot observe it. Thus God must judge us as law breakers. But God sent His Son to live the law perfectly yet He suffered and died under the wrath of God. This is because the sins of those who believe in Him were placed on Him and God crushed Him, and the righteousness that He lived is imputed to their account. So if one repents of his sin, and believes in Christ this transaction can be done. And just as Christ rose again to new life, so too believers rise to new life in Christ, with new minds willing to please God and forsake sin. And although they die physically, they receive new life as adopted sons in heaven with their Saviour. Those who reject this face the full punishment for their sins, which is eternal punishment for sinning against an eternally worthy God.

You are changing your story, first you quoted Buddhism doesn't have moral absolutes now you are saying that it doesn't offer moral laws? I beg to differ.

Glad to see that you agree that the Big Bang didn't create out of nothing like God did but the Genesis account is a historical narrative, not a science text book, so "let there be light" speaks of an omnipotent God, not just how stars are born. "archaeology and anthropology" doesnt explain the human genome, genetic biology does. And I thought we already did the back and forth about evolution earlier?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ plasters - You are jumping all over the place but not really showing proof

where did I try to force an absolute morality on someone?
Or is that what you are doing?

My viewpoint is my own. But you make a claim that everyone gets their morals from religion and claim that it is fact, when it is nothing more than your own viewpoint.

can we go back to my last question?

I am not contradicting myself, I am saying "I have no evidence to believe that aliens exists" is not denying or affirming aliens, I am an agnostic when it comes to aliens.

Let's do some word swapping:

To make an absolute statement like aliens doesn't exists would mean that either one has absolute knowledge or that one has searched every locale under every rock on every planet in every solar system, in every galaxy, in all the universe.

seems a bit more convinced than your average "alien agnostic" doesn't it?

[achillies]

^ But you just proved Habit7's point ??:

[Habit7]

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

__________________________________________________________________________


Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


..................................................................................................................................

Wow congrats, after 3500 years of the book of Genesis you pick up a contradiction in the first 2 pages that no one else ever saw. You superseded the Jews (numbskulls that they are) and have called into question something even the earliest readers never saw.






Or, it could just be that chapter 1 gives a chronological account and chapter 2 gives a explanatory account which may not be chronological, you know, the way that the Genesis creation account has always been taught.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ But you just proved Habit7's point ??:

so therefore he is agnostic about Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny too?

[Habit7]

^ plasters - You are jumping all over the place but not really showing proof

where did I try to force an absolute morality on someone?
Or is that what you are doing?

Well if you member this all started by me responding to nareshseep brainwashing list he is accused all religions of.

My viewpoint is my own. But you make a claim that everyone gets their morals from religion and claim that it is fact, when it is nothing more than your own viewpoint.

I never said that. I am trying to drive home the point that a secular humanist cannot morally convince me to do anything while in the other hand, attack my religion (the source of my morality) as nonsensical and unsubstantial.

I am not contradicting myself, I am saying "I have no evidence to believe that aliens exists" is not denying or affirming aliens, I am an agnostic when it comes to aliens.

Let's do some word swapping:

To make an absolute statement like aliens doesn't exists would mean that either one has absolute knowledge or that one has searched every locale under every rock on every planet in every solar system, in every galaxy, in all the universe.

seems a bit more convinced than your average "alien agnostic" doesn't it?

You and maj.tom are accusing me of not understanding your clear points. But so far neither one of you has even demonstrated a knowledge of science superior to mine and fail to even see your own lack of coherence.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

My viewpoint is my own. But you make a claim that everyone gets their morals from religion and claim that it is fact, when it is nothing more than your own viewpoint.

I never said that. I am trying to drive home the point that a secular humanist cannot morally convince me to do anything while in the other hand, attack my religion (the source of my morality) as nonsensical and unsubstantial.

no one attacked the moral values of your religion - if anything I think all of mankind agrees with "do unto others", though they did not necessarily all get that moral from the Bible.

I am not contradicting myself, I am saying "I have no evidence to believe that aliens exists" is not denying or affirming aliens, I am an agnostic when it comes to aliens.

Let's do some word swapping:

To make an absolute statement like aliens doesn't exists would mean that either one has absolute knowledge or that one has searched every locale under every rock on every planet in every solar system, in every galaxy, in all the universe.

seems a bit more convinced than your average "alien agnostic" doesn't it?

You and maj.tom are accusing me of not understanding your clear points. But so far neither one of you has even demonstrated a knowledge of science superior to mine and fail to even see your own lack of coherence.

I don't remember self flattery being a Christian trait, even when I was one.

I don't need to understand all of quantum science to understand basic logic. We are not arguing varying scientific hypotheses here.

I am not sure what anyone elses questions are, but I know I started asking in this thread "what makes your beliefs more right than anyone elses?" e.g.. What makes the Bible more right than the Qur'an? or vice versa?

[Habit7]

So you say you were Christian, explain your conversion.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ please answer my question first

[Habit7]

The Bible rightly demonstrates God reconciles man to himself through sacrificial atonement of Jesus. However, the Qur'an pressures man to work to be reconciled to Allah, with the hope that he will unjustly forgive those he chooses.

[marlener]

Habit you would need to clarify that question though conversion to or from Christianity,I think Duane is waiting on an answer to his question.Guys play nice.Will catch up on the rest of posts tomorrow.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

The Bible rightly demonstrates God reconciles man to himself through sacrificial atonement of Jesus. However, the Qur'an pressures man to work to be reconciled to Allah, with the hope that he will unjustly forgive those he chooses.

you didn't answer my question. I know you think the Bible's method is right, but what makes it right?

[Habit7]

You are asking a different question now, you originally asked what makes it more right than the Qur'an. Now you are asking what makes it right. While I am capable and willing to answer your question as demonstrated many times before, would you like to answer my questions?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ sorry my second structure should have included "more"

i.e. "I know you think the Bible's method is right, but what makes it more right?"

really, you haven't answered either.
all you gave me was your opinion.

or are you saying the Bible is right... or more right just because you think it is?

[Habit7]

I am beginning to question whether your questions even have answers.

When you ask me a question, do you want my opinion or yours.

Hears is what, think of your question, word it properly, then post it. But before you do that, would you answer mine?

So you say you were Christian, explain your conversion.

And for marlener's clarification, conversion to Christianity.

[nareshseep]

Matthew 7:5
"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Sometimes a man can be so sure of himself, that he cannot accept a notion that goes against his trend of thinking. Having been programmed, he cannot be deprogrammed for doing so he will question his very identity.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I have "Catholic" on my birth certificate. I didnt convert. I stopped following.

I didnt ask for your opinion!
I asked you why it was right or more right.
The only place it says "God reconciles man to himself through sacrificial atonement of Jesus" is in the bible itself. "The bible is right because it says so in the bible" is not a valid reason. That is circular logic.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Matthew 7:5
"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Sometimes a man can be so sure of himself, that he cannot accept a notion that goes against his trend of thinking. Having been programmed, he cannot be deprogrammed for doing so he will question his very identity.

the exact same can be said of you and your ability to change your point of view as well.

We need to be open minded.