RevBogovac

"Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What have we to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!" Isaac Asimov in the tenth-anniversary issue of The Skeptical Inquirer.

True,, but it's damn hard (for me)... Especially on the three reoccurring themes: 1. Science doesn't "proof" anything... although it has been shown - many times - that science at least proves something, although not everything. But still more than some "faith". 2. Atheist don't care... which is quite insulting and he has been corrected many times. 3. Only religion provides meaning, which has actually been disproven by science and the scientific sources for meaning have been well documented and proven. But hey, see 1.

In short; yes, you actually believe that unfounded load of crap... good for you. And another point for apatheism; a so-called god that has absolutely no consequence in the real world is, by very definition, irrelevant. And now back to the real world.

Yes, because the professor actually has reviewed the scientific evidence and based on that (lack of) evidence dismissed creationism. Aren't we all "from the dust" according to your holy book...? You really are making it up as you go along; the first five verses take ONE day, according to the book at least... you either take the whole book literally or you don't.

Yes, because he's a scientist and a scientific open mind admits when he does not know and looks further for real answers. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever for a "creator". There is a lot of proof for evolution on the other hand. So, again, if a god/creator has absolutely no presence/consequences in the perceptible/existing world his (so called "proof" of) "existence" becomes totally irrelevant. (And I'm not even going into the fact that you so lightly step over your own sacred book [Genesis in this particular case] where there is no mention of this process, but I'm sure you have a loophole for that one too...)

Yeah, I considered myself a "liberal Christian" when I came onboard of this board. Now, I'm inclining to Apatheist. Fast and hard. Thank you!

Yeah, as I said: And that is just....

It is all just a "concept" that is "too hard to swallow" for Dan. Just imagine little 'ol us not being in the centre of it all!?!

No buts, no ifs Dan. Please read (my statement carefully). As I said: it is "highly unlikely". Your quotes with their circular statements prove nothing while: " 1 + 1 will still be 2, gravity would still pull objects towards the earth, the earth would still be revolving around the sun et cetera." Facts. Reality.

That simply isn't true Dan; if the bible and all knowledge of your god vanished today it is highly unlikely that any of it would come back in its present form. But if all science knowledge and books vanished today then - eventually - a big part of it all would come back in exactly the same form (because they are facts) : 1 + 1 will still be 2, gravity would still pull objects towards the earth, the earth would still be revolving around the sun et cetera.

Welcome Marie! Good to see you are enjoying yourself.

No, you don't understand... He's such a loving parent... [/sarc.]

Yep, it's not even "two minutes to midnight" any more, they started counting the seconds... https://time.com/5769610/doomsday-clock-100-seconds/

Very good; demagogic BS should be called out with real life consequences...

No, he didn't... he just asked Abraham to kill his child "as a test of faith" (Genesis 22:1-13)... 🤔

I saw a nice conversation where Ricky Gervais explained to Stephen Colbert the difference between religion and science very succinctly: Now, that's not an opinion... it's a fact.

I read a quite discerning article on this topic yesterday: Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it by Peter Harrison (an Australian Laureate Fellow and director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland).

"Prosperity gospel" at it's "best"...

Sure. Why should one think for himself if he has such a god, right? But, like Jonathan said (even if you believe the death penalty is something that humans should be entitled to do): But yes, your god is much more cruel and spiteful than that. Lord forbid (pun intended) that someone would "insult" him...

The most extreme version we can see through the so called "prosperity gospel"... even reality checks don't stick with people who have that world view... unfortunately.

And welcome to you too, Robert!

Yes, the distinction between punishment and suffering eludes Dan completely... Why am I not surprised (any more, by Dan)...? But yes, it does seem some Christians (including Dan) really believe that stoning is an appropriate "punishment"...

So, your "god" evolves from being a hard-core bastard who believes people should be stoned (for any reason) to a loving and understanding "god"... sounds more like people and sociaeties evovling than like an "all knowing" god to me, but hey... I'm not here to argue about that. Your position is crystal clear: Exactly. I am just here to ask you, Dan, politely to stop pulling both the "argumentum da hominem" as well as the "argumentum ad absurdum about "pacifists". When you have been in ("religious") war twice (in my particular case in Yugoslavia), then you might get to understand what that word actually means. For now, please stop using it in-vain. It's (especially) insulting (to someone who has seen first hand the results of "religious" actions).

I agree, up to e certain point... it becomes less "theoretical" once the society you live in (and their policymakers) is using that idea to "shape reality"...