Are YOU Destined To Burn For Eternity?

[S.A.M.]

Science does not have a truth value.

 

[(Q)]

Science is a method. You need to understand that before making silly statements.

 

[Saquist]

Science is simply a method of understanding how things work. There is nothing wrong with the method, it does work. Therefore, it is technically incorrect to state science can be right or wrong.

Not true, Science is not only Fact but theory. As a rule Science must be wrong in order to find what is correct. Trial and Error. It's only logical. and far from a mere matter of technicality.

Most certainly, if something is verified in reality, it could be said to be fact. So, it remains to be seen as to how gods can be stated as fact when none have been verified in reality. Have you seen a god? Has anyone?

That's a Biblicaly exclusive Q, Our voice is not the only voice of consideration. The voice of the past and a well documented and dependable record is a credit not lightly removed.

Or, more likely, yours is also a religious point of view. I won't argue the differences between what you deem as fact and what other religions deem as fact, since neither are verifiable, and contradict each other.

If you believe so. I maintain there is no Biblical contradictions and as a result the purpose of the observer is to maintain that record.

So, at this point, I should take the time to provide an analogy on your take of science.

Let's take the example of the dinosaurs. There are three competing theories as to what may have driven the dinosaurs to extinction; meteor/comet impact, viruses, and mammals eating their eggs. The theories are competing simply because all of them have merit but not enough evidence is available yet to distinguish one as verifiable

.

I must congradulate you THAT was a good analogy.

However I know there is no merit in a religion whose followers do not reflect the evidence of a loving God that has created us with such wonderful attributes as full color vision and emotions such as love, the array of life and the complexity of the universe...there is really so much to consider.

That, of course, is a very ridiculous system of science, wouldn't you agree?

Yes of course.

Yet, you've committed to this form of science with your method of understanding and verification, just as those in the ME understand Islam and those in India, Sikhism.

Most likely then, if you were born in the ME or India, you wouldn't be here boasting the bible as scientific fact.

Mostly Likely I concur. The search pattern is different between science and religion but that doesn't mean their isn't a factual approach to both versus the "competitors" The religions you spoke of have more similarities than differences.

If you said Budhist or native american it would be far more difficult be we can still find commonality for comparison. Ultimately in the Religous serach there is more to the search than the facts. Unfortuantly the facts fall short for an individual search parameters. The facts get you more than 80% to your answer. That includes the contradictions that exist in all major religions. After all the facts are considered we must consider the world impact of a religion negative or positive.

Most never go to this point. Most rely on being born into a religion. For some there is no search onlly birth.

 

[(Q)]

Not true, Science is not only Fact but theory. As a rule Science must be wrong in order to find what is correct. Trial and Error. It's only logical. and far from a mere matter of technicality.

Sorry Saquist, but you need to understand the definition of science and what it entails. Currently you do not have that understanding based on your responses. Science is simply a method that does not have the capacity to be right or wrong, it is a method, not a result. The results of the method are theories and facts, hence it is those that you must refer to as being right or wrong.

Please try to understand this as it creates a serious disconnect in our discussion.

That's a Biblicaly exclusive Q, Our voice is not the only voice of consideration. The voice of the past and a well documented and dependable record is a credit not lightly removed.

We must keep in mind that those who wrote the bible were incredibly ignorant of the world around them. Superstitions and myths were treated as reality, just as much as those who wrote the Iliad, where Zeus and Poseiden are written to exist and have interactions with humans. Well documented and dependable for their time.

The voices of the past have been shown to be very wrong, hence it is not a point of credibility to consider their records as dependable or credible in any way. If you do such a thing, then you MUST take all other documented records, such as the Iliad, as fact.

If you believe so. I maintain there is no Biblical contradictions and as a result the purpose of the observer is to maintain that record.

You may maintain such, as those who maintain their records and make exactly the same claims as you do. It matters not what is believed, it matters what is demonstrable. And that is something you and they will always find impossible to achieve.

I must congradulate you THAT was a good analogy.

Thanks. You'll notice that science does NOT follow that method, religions, however, do.

However I know there is no merit in a religion whose followers do not reflect the evidence of a loving God that has created us with such wonderful attributes as full color vision and emotions such as love, the array of life and the complexity of the universe...there is really so much to consider.

Yes, quite right, there is much to consider. However, science is demonstrable and does answer questions like how did we get full color vision and emotions such as love. Unfortunately, your methods follow my analogy and are not demonstrable to answer such questions, they are merely asserted and are entirely unsubstantiated other than from a single book, written from ignorance and long before such explanations were available.

To follow a single book as reality would be folly.

Mostly Likely I concur. The search pattern is different between science and religion but that doesn't mean their isn't a factual approach to both versus the "competitors" The religions you spoke of have more similarities than differences.

But, one simply cannot believe a word from those who follow such methods, from either camp. Similarities would conclude ancestral connections, that there was once one type of religion that evolved into the modern day religions. And that would be shamanism

Most rely on being born into a religion. For some there is no search onlly birth.

My point exactly. If we use my analogy, those who live in the Americas will believe the dinosaurs were driven to extinction due to a meteor/comet impact, and they will believe this simply because they were born there and had passed along that belief from their parents, grandparents and so on, who very much believed the same thing.

 

[Photizo]

Photizo, why then are you here?

And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

So, Photizo, what in the universe are you trying to tell me?

When I admit that I am confused you usually throw that back in my face without any compassion whatsoever. Well, surprise, I am still confused! So feel free to laugh at me or whatever you want to do. Hopefully, I am serving as some form of entertainment value for you, at least, so enjoy!

Now, are you making me or any other human who disagrees with you equal to a legion of demons? Or are you saying that I am possessed by demons simply because I think critically about things? Is it because I don't like slavery, and genocide, and the killing my own family members? Does that mean that I am possessed by a demon in your eyes? If I were to embrace these three things would you like me again? Can you possibly find it in your heart to have compassion for someone who disagrees with your own view?

Just trying to figure out what you are saying and probably failing miserably.

I thought you were supposed to "love your enemies"!

Guess I am wrong again...

 

[Saquist]

Sorry Saquist, but you need to understand the definition of science and what it entails. Currently you do not have that understanding based on your responses. Science is simply a method that does not have the capacity to be right or wrong, it is a method, not a result. The results of the method are theories and facts, hence it is those that you must refer to as being right or wrong.

I can't follow you here. Science is linked to these theories or facts, thus I don't find it wrong to say Science can be wrong. I also understand what you're saying and I do agree....Science is a method. It's how it's carried out that establishes a righteous course. That being said, I believe that a far to litteral definition for the discussion. "Science can me "The community" aswell.

Please try to understand this as it creates a serious disconnect in our discussion.

Differences are apart of life. ts how we bridge them that enriches us.

We must keep in mind that those who wrote the bible were incredibly ignorant of the world around them. Superstitions and myths were treated as reality, just as much as those who wrote the Iliad, where Zeus and Poseiden are written to exist and have interactions with humans. Well documented and dependable for their time.

Ignorace is subjective. But yes they knew little about how the world worked. I will not make excuses for what they didn't know. However, there are no identifiable superstitions in the bible.

The voices of the past have been shown to be very wrong, hence it is not a point of credibility to consider their records as dependable or credible in any way. If you do such a thing, then you MUST take all other documented records, such as the Iliad, as fact.

Negative. Not as fact but as creditable. Fact must be established or fortified by other sources. So. yes...I tend to assert that there must be some amount of truth in every ancient account representing itself as history.

You may maintain such, as those who maintain their records and make exactly the same claims as you do. It matters not what is believed, it matters what is demonstrable. And that is something you and they will always find impossible to achieve.

Thanks. You'll notice that science does NOT follow that method, religions, however, do.

Science as a community follows that self same pattern unfortunantly.

Yes, quite right, there is much to consider. However, science is demonstrable and does answer questions like how did we get full color vision and emotions such as love.

Answers...I've heard nor seen no such answers, I've have heard undemonstratable belief Unfortunately.

your methods follow my analogy and are not demonstrable to answer such questions, they are merely asserted and are entirely unsubstantiated other than from a single book, written from ignorance and long before such explanations were available.

If you believe that is true then why engage in this discussion?

To follow a single book as reality would be folly.

How about sixty-six books and the evidence of history that backs them up.

But, one simply cannot believe a word from those who follow such methods, from either camp. Similarities would conclude ancestral connections, that there was once one type of religion that evolved into the modern day religions. And that would be shamanism

My research reveals that the origins of religion are unknown from a purely scientific persepective.

"as far as scholars have discovered, there has never existed any people, anywhere, at any time, who were not in some sense religious." -The New Encyclopedia Britannica


My point exactly. If we use my analogy, those who live in the Americas will believe the dinosaurs were driven to extinction due to a meteor/comet impact, and they will believe this simply because they were born there and had passed along that belief from their parents, grandparents and so on, who very much believed the same thing.[/QUOTE]

A failing to be sure...It's completely uninvestigative

 

[(Q)]

I can't follow you here. Science is linked to these theories or facts, thus I don't find it wrong to say Science can be wrong. I also understand what you're saying and I do agree....Science is a method. It's how it's carried out that establishes a righteous course. That being said, I believe that a far to litteral definition for the discussion. "Science can me "The community" aswell.

Sure, you can say the "Scientific" community, but that doesn't detract away from the fact that science is a methodology. The method is used widely and it produces results, valid or null. Therefore, one would refer to the results as right or wrong.

Differences are apart of life. ts how we bridge them that enriches us.

In our current medium of discussion, we can't afford to have disconnects, so it would only serve to make sure we agree on definitions. So far, it appears you agree that science is a method. We should have little problem moving forward, then.

Ignorace is subjective. But yes they knew little about how the world worked. I will not make excuses for what they didn't know. However, there are no identifiable superstitions in the bible.

I suppose that would be a matter of whether or not you believed such things as have been written in the bible as actually having occurred. Considering there are many supernatural events which took place that cannot be verified, one might be led to the conclusion the bible did have superstitions and myths.

Of course, you would have to acknowledge whether or not the Quran and the Talmud had superstitions and myths, as well. Or, any other form of scripture.

Science as a community follows that self same pattern unfortunantly.

Yet, you claim to be using science as your method. :bugeye:

Answers...I've heard nor seen no such answers, I've have heard undemonstratable belief Unfortunately.

Perhaps you've not been reading the right books? There are mountains of biological studies done on the human body. Perhaps the answers are simply not appealing to you?

How about sixty-six books and the evidence of history that backs them up.[/'quote]

If those 66 books are scriptural in nature, they cannot be used to back themselves as evidence. History does not support the bible, unfortunately.

My research reveals that the origins of religion are unknown from a purely scientific persepective.

That does not preclude the fact that this information is not available. Your research would therefore be insufficient.

A failing to be sure...It's completely uninvestigative

Why?

 

[Carcano]

I thought you were supposed to "love your enemies"!

Jesus doesnt 'love his enemies'.

He invented the hellfire speech.

 

[Saquist]

I suppose that would be a matter of whether or not you believed such things as have been written in the bible as actually having occurred. Considering there are many supernatural events which took place that cannot be verified, one might be led to the conclusion the bible did have superstitions and myths.

No, I can not follow you through this thought process. Superstition is not defined by by supernatural events. Your judgement here is forced. To describe Biblical events as an irrational belief merely because of faith in or belief in God is not part of the "method" but part of the society of science.

Once again, long before proving it the society of science strikes again. Motive becomes a deep point of conflict. You accuse me of not see what I don't wish to see. That is a question of my motive. I question yours. You've slanted the field of play by suggesting that anything supernatural is irrational.

Thus you've raised barriers to even continuing past this point. Like most that enter this forum...I ask why are you here? This is your only goal? You seek to prove yourself by disproving me?

This is ego. This is the Science you refer to. This is a judgement before analysis. Predjudice, just as wrong against a person as an ideology.
It's a common trait of atheism...nay. The characteristic lies solely to humans, falible and prideful. Not one of us immune.

 

[Hapsburg]

Do you follow your religion to a tee? Is there anything you've done in your life that would justify your god tossing you into his hell? Can you honestly admit to yourself that you do everything your religion prescribes for you to get into your heaven?

Luckily, I don't believe in a god, or a heaven per se.
Rather, I believe that one's spiritual energy either merges back into the universal quintessence and manifests itself again in another form, or destroys itself and becomes part of the universal void, depending on one's actions. This is not judged by some arbitrary deity or transcendent figure, but by an immanent natural force of balance.

In response to the main question, I think that I have done enough good to make up for any harm I have done. I have made up for negative actions with positive actions, and have therefore achieved a sense of balance. On the other hand, I have my whole life ahead of me, so it is completely unknown. For the most part, however, I live up to my philosophy, and implement it into my daily life as much as I can.

 

[(Q)]

No, I can not follow you through this thought process. Superstition is not defined by by supernatural events. Your judgement here is forced. To describe Biblical events as an irrational belief merely because of faith in or belief in God is not part of the "method" but part of the society of science.

Biblical events can be described as irrational by Muslims, Jews or any other faith, and not limited to disbelievers. In fact, they can be proclaimed such by those who follow the bible, yet may have a completely different interpretation as you. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "society of science."

Once again, long before proving it the society of science strikes again. Motive becomes a deep point of conflict. You accuse me of not see what I don't wish to see. That is a question of my motive. I question yours. You've slanted the field of play by suggesting that anything supernatural is irrational.

I never suggested that. I merely pointed out that supernatural events MIGHT lead one to conclude they are superstitions and myths. And again, those conclusions are not limited to the "society of science."

Thus you've raised barriers to even continuing past this point. Like most that enter this forum...I ask why are you here? This is your only goal? You seek to prove yourself by disproving me?

I have not come here making claims linking the bible to history. I'm merely attempting to discuss your claims and hopefully have you demonstrate them. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were here to demonstrate such.

I've raised no barriers, but merely have played an advocate. If you are unable to demonstrate your claims, yet authoritatively proclaim them, one would ask why you were here?

This is ego. This is the Science you refer to. This is a judgement before analysis. Predjudice, just as wrong against a person as an ideology.
It's a common trait of atheism...nay. The characteristic lies solely to humans, falible and prideful. Not one of us immune.

Again, you are mistaken in that atheism or ego has anything to do with it. Your specific claims of the historic significance of the bible are limited to yourself, perceived by a much larger group of atheists and theists alike as unsubstantiated.

There is no problem with that, other than your ability to demonstrate otherwise, if you can. I think I have been more than amiable and understanding to this discussion as possible. If you think otherwise, then it is your prerogative to walk away with your claims unsubstantiated.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Jesus doesnt 'love his enemies'.

He invented the hellfire speech.

Yes He did, but Photizo is still commanded to love his enemies anyway, according to Jesus.

Matthew 5:43-47
"43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Photizo is even supposed to be perfect like God!

Luke 6:27
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

Of course, I do not hate Photizo in the least, I just disagree with him on what the truth is.

Luke 6:35
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Photizo is even supposed to "rejoice" when he is persecuted. So I guess that perhaps I am really just giving him a reason to "rejoice", if you can call an Internet discussion, persecution. It does not take much for these people to feel persecuted. Often, all you have to do is disagree with them.

Am I now his enemy simply because I am asking him to think about the things that he holds as truth?

 

[Saquist]

Biblical events can be described as irrational by Muslims, Jews or any other faith, and not limited to disbelievers. In fact, they can be proclaimed such by those who follow the bible, yet may have a completely different interpretation as you. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "society of science."

"Descriptions" are labels, anyone can make a description. That is my point here. Interpretation is not what I go by. I go back the strongest facts. Interpretations are mostly arbitrary, decided by oxthodoxy and tradition. The Society of Science has the same. Belief because of tradition, belief because of peer presure and is no different that the presure that scientist get for Intelligent Design and Creationism. Nothings been proven least of all evolution and creationism. Yet Creationist believe merely what is written and attempt to fit the facts and evolutionist are taught to avoid giving any credibility to the Bible. It results in a superstition about the Bible. (believed yet not proven myths about what does substaniate the bible, namely as you put it "nothing.")

I never suggested that. I merely pointed out that supernatural events MIGHT lead one to conclude they are superstitions and myths. And again, those conclusions are not limited to the "society of science."

Irrational is an easily defined term. It essentialy means beyond reason. Many are irrational because they have motives that force them to contradict facts they look for misplaced context where there is none and they are beyond agreement.

I have not come here making claims linking the bible to history. I'm merely attempting to discuss your claims and hopefully have you demonstrate them. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were here to demonstrate such.

While we're on the subject of Irrational...Allow me to use SnakeLord as an example. He (without deep thought or research) irrationally takes an opposing perspective no matter what I say. He exhibts traits of a classic case of scientific superstition. He defies that method you describe science is supposed to have. While assumptions are not in themselves wrong, being locked into assumptions is dangerous and science has been accused of it many many times as well as a propensity for working on a circle of assumptions without establishing a foundation of facts.

That is one of the many reasons why it's next to impossible for me to understand evolution let alone believe in it. Suddenly from the mouths of Science Fanboys it's irrational to question the validity of assumptions and it all becomes very arbitrary. The word fact is bandied about in terms of what is still unobserved and yet some how it's all proven despite the negatives. Consequently no matter what is brought out the arrogance of a scientist will remain. "Hopeless, ignorant, troll." They really don't like their belief in evolution being questioned or being asked to prove their assumptions. That brings about the word "Taboo".

I've talked to scientist that describe a vise like effect when bringing up religious matters or relevancy. Not just frowned upon, measure are taken, people are shuffled. Recently this friend successfully sued (names will not be offered) for religous discrimination in the work place. The Taboo is strong. it's not the first time but Science is learning not place employment endanger because of these issues. Now they ask for appropriate disclaimers when statements are made so as not to have any sort connection to the statements of ID.

I was taught by the best that science is no different from other ideologies. Ridicule is a trait we don't lose in High School...It becomes more drastic and far reaching. If Intelligent design were found to be true or even (unlikely) creationism...scientist will have the hardest time living with it. They're incapable of being true to that method which you describe...unbiased and objective.

I've raised no barriers, but merely have played an advocate. If you are unable to demonstrate your claims, yet authoritatively proclaim them, one would ask why you were here?

One factor is desire. Ability is stemed by the desire to make reply. One must consider for example (as a christian) will this discussion be enlightening? Will the exange of information be fair? Science and truth are not the only factors for a Christian to consider when offering knowledge. If I'm viewed as beligerent or a troll it does not serve my God glory to press on those that have said with all authority that they do not wish to know or hear this perspective. We must also judge whether a discussion will merely be a display of irrational scenes that draw unwanted attention. Such has happened here.

This forum has let me know in several ways through several people, and through my own seeking, that I'm viewed as a threat.

Spuriousmonkey was the first.
SamCD was next. I recieved and infraction (see took that infraction away)
Othlito (or what ever his name is )
JamesR
Fragglerocker the last.

They don't want to hear this and have personally conveyed to me how much (not matter factual or not) they don't wish to listen or allow me the privilege of speaking. Thus it's not my authority by which I am mostly silent. Currently I judge if a post will be preachy and or an affront to evolution. I've noticed that when I linger on the topic too long the thread is shutdown. There is not free speech on this forum or on most forums that maintain some morral code...yet this one suppresses (like the scientific circle) All things religous with a firm hand...(bar justice and integrity) It's a club and the club chiefs don't like their members asking the wrong questions or...dare I say thinking for themselves.)

Why am I here? I'm highly scientific. I "pride" myself on objectivity. I grew up for a love of the Heavens stars and planets and also was shown how well God harmonizes with all that is around us. The astronomy section here is incredibly unimaginable and bare of original thought. Loving debate I settle in the Sci FI section and then in the Religous discussing...dishing out tidbits of what I know to this point...trying not to offend these scientificly delicate sensibilities.

Again, you are mistaken in that atheism or ego has anything to do with it. Your specific claims of the historic significance of the bible are limited to yourself, perceived by a much larger group of atheists and theists alike as unsubstantiated.

No I don't believe so, Q. My knowledge differs greatly. Expecially with statements such as yours. I get the sense I'm being goaded...and it wouldn't be the first time.

There is no problem with that, other than your ability to demonstrate otherwise, if you can.

A challenge or dare: I'm very unresponsive to such tactics. Adult discussions don't invovle juvenile displays or assertions like this. However what is expected there are many juveniles here.

I think I have been more than amiable and understanding to this discussion as possible. If you think otherwise, then it is your prerogative to walk away with your claims unsubstantiated.

The reassertion of the challenge with and added..."chicken!" to spot it off. I'm sorry. No offense to you Q but I'm not intrested. You've illstrated that what you desire most is a dare contest. The exact opposite of a meaningful discussion. So walk away may be an apt description but I'll remain right here.

 

[qwerty mob]

Are YOU Destined To Burn For Eternity?

No.

Next question-

 

[Saquist]

True...No one is destined to Burn for Eternity.

 

[(Q)]

"Descriptions" are labels, anyone can make a description. That is my point here. Interpretation is not what I go by. I go back the strongest facts. Interpretations are mostly arbitrary, decided by oxthodoxy and tradition. The Society of Science has the same. Belief because of tradition, belief because of peer presure and is no different that the presure that scientist get for Intelligent Design and Creationism. Nothings been proven least of all evolution and creationism. Yet Creationist believe merely what is written and attempt to fit the facts and evolutionist are taught to avoid giving any credibility to the Bible. It results in a superstition about the Bible. (believed yet not proven myths about what does substaniate the bible, namely as you put it "nothing.")

Then, what I'm able to conclude about your research is that you alone possess "facts" which no one else possesses. You alone do not interpret the bible while everyone else either interprets or ignores it.

Sorry Saquist, but that sounds entirely like it is simply your own set of beliefs. Or, you alone in the world know the truth. I'm forced to conclude the former.

Irrational is an easily defined term. It essentialy means beyond reason. Many are irrational because they have motives that force them to contradict facts they look for misplaced context where there is none and they are beyond agreement.

True, but the scientific method has no motives and cannot support contradictions, therefore whatever the results gleaned from it must be valid or null. If the results are gleaned from a larger and larger group of researchers and are found to be consistent with each other, those results begin to look very much like working theories.

If you alone glean results that no one else finds, your results cannot be valid.

While we're on the subject of Irrational...Allow me to use SnakeLord as an example. He (without deep thought or research) irrationally takes an opposing perspective no matter what I say. He exhibts traits of a classic case of scientific superstition. He defies that method you describe science is supposed to have. While assumptions are not in themselves wrong, being locked into assumptions is dangerous and science has been accused of it many many times as well as a propensity for working on a circle of assumptions without establishing a foundation of facts.

Your private war with Snakelord is not my business.

But, if you must bring him into the mix, I've read many of his responses and sources, which appear to be credible results gleaned from the scientific method. Those results are not meant to invalidate the bible, they just happen to.

That is one of the many reasons why it's next to impossible for me to understand evolution let alone believe in it. Suddenly from the mouths of Science Fanboys it's irrational to question the validity of assumptions and it all becomes very arbitrary. The word fact is bandied about in terms of what is still unobserved and yet some how it's all proven despite the negatives. Consequently no matter what is brought out the arrogance of a scientist will remain. "Hopeless, ignorant, troll." They really don't like their belief in evolution being questioned or being asked to prove their assumptions. That brings about the word "Taboo".

Evolution has mountains of evidence to support it and can easily be demonstrated. Almost every single science can be linked to evolution. Some fields of science exist entirely on the fact evolution is valid. Many medicines, some of which you are your family have prescribed were developed as a result of evolution. Why would you have a problem with that?

I was taught by the best that science is no different from other ideologies.

Taught by the best what? Again, you are clearly mistaken here and do not understand that science is a method, not an ideology.

Ridicule is a trait we don't lose in High School...It becomes more drastic and far reaching. If Intelligent design were found to be true or even (unlikely) creationism...scientist will have the hardest time living with it. They're incapable of being true to that method which you describe...unbiased and objective.

You are also incorrect. If ID or Creationism is demonstrated beyond a doubt to be true, scientists MUST and WILL accept it.

One factor is desire. Ability is stemed by the desire to make reply. One must consider for example (as a christian) will this discussion be enlightening? Will the exange of information be fair? Science and truth are not the only factors for a Christian to consider when offering knowledge. If I'm viewed as beligerent or a troll it does not serve my God glory to press on those that have said with all authority that they do not wish to know or hear this perspective. We must also judge whether a discussion will merely be a display of irrational scenes that draw unwanted attention. Such has happened here.

Surely, you must understand that others have their gods as well, which they also serve. And, as you know, there are those who serve no gods whatsoever. What makes you and your god special?

This forum has let me know in several ways through several people, and through my own seeking, that I'm viewed as a threat.

Spuriousmonkey was the first.
SamCD was next. I recieved and infraction (see took that infraction away)
Othlito (or what ever his name is )
JamesR
Fragglerocker the last.

They don't want to hear this and have personally conveyed to me how much (not matter factual or not) they don't wish to listen or allow me the privilege of speaking. Thus it's not my authority by which I am mostly silent. Currently I judge if a post will be preachy and or an affront to evolution. I've noticed that when I linger on the topic too long the thread is shutdown. There is not free speech on this forum or on most forums that maintain some morral code...yet this one suppresses (like the scientific circle) All things religous with a firm hand...(bar justice and integrity) It's a club and the club chiefs don't like their members asking the wrong questions or...dare I say thinking for themselves.)

I suspect that if you took the time to grasp the concepts of science and evolution before attempting to refute or invalidate it might help your case. But, I haven't seen you attempt to take the time to do that.

Why am I here? I'm highly scientific.

Sorry Saquist, I simply must disagree with that entirely. I have not seen anything to make me think you are scientific. In fact, you do not understand the concept of science, in that it is a method. You consider it an ideology, which is the flaw in your reasoning and your research.

I "pride" myself on objectivity. I grew up for a love of the Heavens stars and planets and also was shown how well God harmonizes with all that is around us. The astronomy section here is incredibly unimaginable and bare of original thought. Loving debate I settle in the Sci FI section and then in the Religous discussing...dishing out tidbits of what I know to this point...trying not to offend these scientificly delicate sensibilities.

To be objective of a god would mean that you actually observed a god, have you observed gods? And again, you are confusing science with belief.

No I don't believe so, Q. My knowledge differs greatly. Expecially with statements such as yours. I get the sense I'm being goaded...and it wouldn't be the first time.

You are free to sense that, I'm merely stating fact.

A challenge or dare: I'm very unresponsive to such tactics. Adult discussions don't invovle juvenile displays or assertions like this. However what is expected there are many juveniles here.

The only challenge is for you to demonstrate your claims. If you're unresponsive to that, why are you here?

The reassertion of the challenge with and added..."chicken!" to spot it off. I'm sorry. No offense to you Q but I'm not intrested. You've illstrated that what you desire most is a dare contest. The exact opposite of a meaningful discussion. So walk away may be an apt description but I'll remain right here.

Then, you must continue to expect people to challenge your claims, and if you aren't interested in responding, you'll be met with that which you've complained about above. In other words, there can be no meaningful discussion as you consider your voice alone is the authority over all others.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, as much as you want it to. If you choose to have a single voice of what you authoritatively proclaim the truth, then you will remain alone with it.

 

[(Q)]

No.

Next question-

And you know that how?

 

[(Q)]

True...No one is destined to Burn for Eternity.

You see, that is exactly what I'm referring, you make an authoritative claim with no supporting evidence or argument.

Your god would have in fact have already given you the green light for heaven, yet it isn't possible for you to know that, unless you've observed gods and they specifically told you weren't destined to burn for eternity.

 

[davewhite04]

You see, that is exactly what I'm referring, you make an authoritative claim with no supporting evidence or argument.

Your god would have in fact have already given you the green light for heaven, yet it isn't possible for you to know that, unless you've observed gods and they specifically told you weren't destined to burn for eternity.

Maybe you should actually read his posts and you'll then be able to understand how he arrived at this conclusion.