White Jesus

You think science and math are delusions?

Men and women just as evil as everyone else? Who is left after men and women?

As opposed to where? Specifically.

Your post was very confusing.

No its not...I will explain it to you...

Quote:

You think science and math are delusions?

Nope...but people on the globe, sometimes are...

Quote:

Men and women just as evil as everyone else? Who is left after men and women?

Putting your faith into men and women who study math and science, who are just as evil and as wrong as everyone else on the planet....Is silly indeed to put the faith or your life in their hands and hope that there right with there findings, discoveries....

Quote:

As opposed to where? Specifically.

No where, that is the point...Every person is flawed, and wrong and evil...

Why would you listen and let another dictate what is right for you or wrong for you??? I would not do that...

and I think that that is just as delusional as an atheist saying putting faith in a God is delusional....

People on the globe are deluded? Of course. This isn't a counterpoint to anything.

It's not faith to trust science. The scientific method produces a theory which predicts something is supported by evidence, and explains to what degree of certainty such a theory can be defended. Faith is a matter of absolutes, science offers no absolutes. More importantly, science doesn't speak in a language of absolutes.

Your argument is a strawman. It is not silly to put trust in the methods of people who demonstrate actual progress. Religious faith is what is silly. The scoreboard on the healing of the infirm is far in the favor of medicine, not prayer.

Because you say so.

You're expressing a religious doctrine, not a matter of fact.

No I don't, but as a religious person, you actual do.

Everything you know about your choice of Christianity is from a human author. Every christian dogma you accept was crafted by man (like white Jesus). Religions are the institutions in which attempt to assert what is right or wrong for you.

A scientist saying "poison will kill you" is not them telling you that poison is bad--it's simply a statement of fact. The person with the poison may choose on their own to ingest it regardless of the scientist's statement. Science does not determine the morality of poison, only the physical effect of it. Human socialization is where the use of poison becomes a moral question. As long as scientists are human, they may very well speak to the science and social implications as they see fit.

You may think so,

but your view is that atheists put "faith" in science in the same way you put faith in your arbitrary choice of deity.

They aren't the same, and you're foolish for suggesting as much. You have a belief in a system. Your belief includes many claims. Those claims are unsupported.

Meanwhile, claims have been made in science that have been supported, and since both claims cannot coexist logically, you are the one that much live in delusion to insulate that the claims your beliefs are built on are logically impossible to coexist with the claims that have a wealth of support.

Do you understand?

Quote:

People on the globe are deluded? Of course. This isn't a counterpoint to anything.

Yes it is, I would put my faith in a pure God...and you can accept your science and math, since they can't coexist....

People are deluded, if a God exists he is not...

I will put my faith in God, over accepting human beings with flaws every time!

Quote:

It's not faith to trust science. The scientific method produces a theory which predicts something is supported by evidence, and explains to what degree of certainty such a theory can be defended. Faith is a matter of absolutes, science offers no absolutes. More importantly, science doesn't speak in a language of absolutes.

And are you not absolute in certain things in your life? saying that living off of scientific based theory's that don't speak in absolutes is wrong?? Or do you believe there is a chance God actually exists??

Quote:

Your argument is a strawman. It is not silly to put trust in the methods of people who demonstrate actual progress. Religious faith is what is silly. The scoreboard on the healing of the infirm is far in the favor of medicine, not prayer.

Says who you?? Why should I take your word for it? you don't take mine!! I was healed by God, not by medicine!! Healing in medicine??

you mean the same scientist who in America wish to get everyone and their mom hooked on prescriptions because their publicly traded corporations, and they make ten of billions?? no thanks that's not healing whatsoever, and more proof human beings can not be fully trusted....I can't, you can't, mathematicians can't, scientist can not....

Quote:

Because you say so.

Am I wrong?> you agreed people are deluded did you not?

Quote:

You're expressing a religious doctrine, not a matter of fact.

Show me one person who does not do evil or acted wicked in the course of their lifetime...Show me one!!

Quote:

No I don't, but as a religious person, you actually do.

Everything you know about your choice of Christianity is from a human author. Every christian dogma you accept was crafted by man (like white Jesus). Religions are the institutions in which attempt to assert what is right or wrong for you.

and your not asserting what is right or wrong for me right now??

showing men and women can not be trusted?? Let me ask you a question, (if God is real) who knows me better God, or you?

Quote:

A scientist saying "poison will kill you" is not them telling you that poison is bad--it's simply a statement of fact. The person with the poison may choose on their own to ingest it regardless of the scientist's statement. Science does not determine the morality of poison, only the physical effect of it. Human socialization is where the use of poison becomes a moral question. As long as scientists are human, they may very well speak to the science and social implications as they see fit.

And they could very well be wrong, and be leading billions of people astray, could they not?

Quote:

You may think so,

I know so!

Quote:

but your view is that atheists put "faith" in science in the same way you put faith in your arbitrary choice of deity.

What do they do then? Call it what you would like if you don't like the word faith...But your trusting men and women who very easily could be wrong, about what they know, and what they think....

Quote:

They aren't the same, and you're foolish for suggesting as much. You have a belief in a system. Your belief includes many claims. Those claims are unsupported.

This is your opinion, in which I could say, your miracle scientists with these drugs, or their theory's are no more proof to a believer, than miracles, or spirits walking the Earth are to a doubter....

Quote:

Meanwhile, claims have been made in science that have been supported, and since both claims cannot coexist logically, you are the one that much live in delusion to insulate that the claims your beliefs are built on are logically impossible to coexist with the claims that have a wealth of support.

What are these wealth's of supports that destroys the claims of religion??

I was under the impression that you can't mathematically rule God out???

So does that mean then, that you believe God is Non-existent, but yet you can't rule him out? therefor, you have the smallest ridiculously lowest number possible of faith, he in fact is real, do you not?

Quote:

Do you understand?

Yes I did, it seemed your the one who did not understand me in the first post, I never said I had a problem understanding you...So I will ask you, Did you understand all that I typed??

What defines purity? You're a christian. Your own religious texts contradict the purity of your god. You worship a being with a lower moral objection to torture and murder than you. Simply saying "pure" doesn't make it so. If you believe in your god, then you must also accept that in your life you demonstrate a baseline morality that is superior.

Why not? Becaause you say so? Why would a god not be deluded?

Except you don't. Everything you know about your god comes from human beings. The humans you call flawed. Had you grown up geographically elsewhere, you'd likely believe in a different god promoted by other deluded people. You might even believe in more than one!

There is knowledge and then there is belief. There is no absolute knowledge. Agnosticism is to accept there is not an absolute knowledge (gnosis) availible to us. Atheism is simply not including a belief in a god or gods among the list of things you believe. The relationship is such that a person may choose what they believe in based on the degree of knowledge they have. If they choose to believe in things they don't have knowledge of, it's called faith.

You believe because you want to believe. You have no special knowledge of the universe. We're both agnostics, you just choose to believe in things with no support. There's no more support for your god than any other, so your belief is a choice, not a logical or rational conclusion

You've just made a major claim. Now support it with evidence.

This is an absurd appeal to extremes. How about chemists that created the reverse osmosis filter making clean water more accessible? Being that +60% of disease is spread through water, how many lives have they saved over almost a century?

You are asserting things about an invisible being that can't be substantiated. Yeah, it's wrong.

If a person does an evil thing, they are evil?
Does it go both ways? If a person does a good thing, they are good? What about other things? If I go to karaoke, am I a singer?

You're setting the standard such that everyone is evil, and only evil. This is not a useful definition.

I most certainly am not.

I'm telling you what we know as a society about the universe, and nature. I have not spoken to the morality of your beliefs. That would be a different conversation. It would mean you telling me the things you believe, and the actions you take.

I do.

I hardly know you, and the answer is still me.

We are having a conversation; a dialogue. This means we exchange information, and learn about each other. You engage in a monologue internally in your head trying to talk to a god. In our small exposure I've learned more about you. If any gods are real, they aren't talking to you. You're talking to yourself. So while, I don't know you very well, you do know yourself probably very well. When you are convinced that talking to yourself is talking to a God, it would be easy to delude yourself to the conclusion that God knows you best since you've only been talking to yourself.

They could be wrong about their implications, they would not be wrong about the physical effect of the poison.

This matters.

Astray? This is very dramatic language. How has science lead people astray? Astray from what?

You think so; believe so. You aren't bestowed with special knowledge.

We're both trusting people. You trust clergy and I trust scientists. Clergy rely on authority, and dogma to assert what they believe and discourage criticism. Scientists, use data and precise methods to support their conclusions and encourage rigorous scrutiny/criticism.

We both trust people. I just choose to trust the group that is open to criticism, growth, and advancement. Here's the funny thing, scientific theories are proven wrong frequently. They're proven wrong by other scientific theories that have better data, and more disciplined methods. Religious theories are frequently found wrong (shape of the earth, solar system, the nature of disease).

Can you name a single religious theory that has trumped a scientific one?

They aren't proof to a believer? The proof is in the actions. A "believer" may not believe in the age of the earth, universe, because they reject radiometric dating. The science that makes such a dating process work however is the same process that will power their lives, make their electronics work, and allow people like us to talk over the internet on the backs of electrons. The proof, is in that a person will choose to believe selectively.

Religions claim to tell the historic record of the universe. They make specific claims about when and how things form. They make specific claims to bio-diversity and distribution on the earth. They make claims about lineage and human race. They make claims about disease.

These are bronze age claims made with no understanding of celestial bodies, atoms, sub-atomics, germs, and genes. The wealth of human knowledge is in watching religion's slow atrophy and retreat. The offense is in the apologetics lying that no such retreat has been made, or worse that these claims never existed. The clergy is full of revisionists.

That's not math's utility. Math also can't pick my sandwich.

As a matter of history, the Catholic church's rejection of the integer is pretty telling. The inclusion of a number "zero" was threatening because the potential of what cold be counted with it perhaps?

I have no more faith in your god, than you have faith in an invisible spaghetti monster. Both have equal bodies of evidence in their favor. Unfortunately for both, they also have the exact same bodies of evidence as Zeus, Ra, Odin, Kami, Shiva, and Jeff the god of biscuits.

I have no reason to put any gods under consideration.

I do, and it seems you're proving the point of this thread. If you're willing to engage in faith based thinking, details and facts will be less valuable to you. Jesus wasn't white if he was real, but this kind of detail is going to be more important to people who value rigorous and studious exploration of information. More importantly, if you accept with indifference this kind of ubiquitous portrayal, you will probably accept all sorts of other things that lack attention to detail.

No, serious believers with 5 min. with me would be convinced...

You think it is out right crazy because you deny God exists, let alone one of his messengers being here....typing to you...

If you think it is funny, or crazy then that is fine...

I am who I know I am, and what God has sent me to do...

Let me guess, you get to decide on who is a "serious believer."

It's crazy even if I believed a god or gods exist. Claiming to be a prophet is one notch way from jumpsuits, sneakers, and kool-aid.

It also simply doesn't make sense. You have made several statements on "if God exists," which is not the language a divine prophet would use. You wouldn't have an opinion on what Jesus would have looked like, you'd simply know.

I think the truth is you are heavily burdened with doubt and are desperately trying to overcompensate with grand claims. Fearful of denying the holy spirit perhaps? Maybe you can believe your doubt away? Good luck.

You think you're a prophet. You aren't. That means pretty clearly that you don't know who you are.