So... when faced with arguments you cannot refute, you resort to childish (and pointless) insults.
Well of course I do think it beyond you.
Well, DUH! You are agreeing with my statements, that science cannot comment upon the Super Natural (since, it is not subject to testing), and can only concern itself with the Natural world.
And this means that your "science" is without God - godless.
Another 'Well DUH!' moment... if the existence of 'something more' were testable... science would be happy to take a crack at explaining it. But, as long as this 'something more' (the Super Natural) remains untestable, and explanable only by Faith... then science cannot comment upon it --- either pro or con.
Yes. This is applied godlessness.
A direct lie. 'Atheism' states that there IS NO GOD.
Of course, as is typical of you, you are just ignorant and speaking on what you do not know. What you have described here is what is known as "strong atheism." It is virulently anti-theistic. Your science is not anti-theistic. It is, precisely as I have maintained, A-theistic - having no belief in and not being informed by God. It is without god - godless. (SEE atheism.about.com or hyperdictionary.com or wordiq.com.
As I have already explained, ad naseum to you... merely saying that --- as long as the Super Natural remains beyond the limits of testing, science CANNOT take a position upon it --- is MOST DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME as stating affirmatively that there "is no God". Time to quite lying, Johannes.
Of course I am not lying. You are obviously just ignorant - as usual.
You are lying again, I believe. If you truly believe that 'all is DEAD', we are not 'alive', then what is your objection to birth control or abortion? (Surely your statement above is misstated.)
It is not misstated in the least. I have but one objection to birth control and abortion. I have stated it repeatedly and most clearly. But you are terribly ignorant. I do not care even if you should decide to murder your children who are born. I do not care if you contracept at all, this, because you are already dead and can find life only if it comes to you. But I am alive. I know my identity both here and in the next world. I know this here in nature by reason. I know it for the next world by faith. Since I know myself and I know that murdering children is naturally, biologically and spiritually contrary to my natural and spiritual identity, I know you have no right at all to force me to support abortion in any way whatever. That is my position. it has always been my position. But you are ignorant. Intensely ignorant. Hopelessly ignorant. Dead.
By the way, I agree that living organisms are 'machines' (albeit, of biological origin and operation), and I have no problems envisioning 'thinking machines'....
You are as worthless as a moth, a tree, a cockroach or a rock, having no more value than any of these. You have no meaning at all. You are ignorant to the profoundest degree. Dead.
[Science is not] 'Godless' (I see no contradictions between science and religious beliefs in God... scientists are as free to believe in a Creator as anyone else). It is merely that the Super Natural remains ABOVE AND BEYOND the abilities and the reach of science... as long as it remains untestable.
When you say "untestable," what you are really saying is that as long as God is beyond nature, science cannot help but treat Him as if He does not exist. Science rigidly approaches knowledge only through nature, though knowledge is much bigger than this. As a result, science is atheistic, without god - godless.
Merely because science cannot confirm or deny any of the countless Super Natural claims of religion, does not mean that scientists cannot have Faith in any of these Super Natural claims that they personally believe in --- since the exact SAME LEVEL OF PROOF is available to them, as is available to anyone else: FAITH.
If a scientist by faith actually sees the Almighty God of All Reality and commences to intentionally and chronically ignore Him through your science, that scientist commits blasphemy. It is impossible for such a scientist to exist within a life of faith. He in fact has no faith. He merely deceives himself - as is typical of scientists these days.
(Pardon me for not exhaustively listing EVERY SINGLE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE HISTORY OF MAN! I'm sure you got my point --- before you proceeded to IGNORE IT, LOL!)
You commit a great error by referring to the invention of mechanical flight to by implication justify belief in the claims of science where it speculates on what allegedly happened a trillions of years ago. We can all see mechanical flight. We can all experience it here in nature. Not a single person can synthecise the manifold variables of creation that exist today, let alone those that existed billions of years ago, such that he can authoritatively declare what happened and what didn't. We have two sciences here: the empirical science responsible for such accessible things as flight and medicine, and then we have your blind faith-based magic.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LIE, REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your science is godless. There. i said it again. Stop being ignorant of atheism and grow up.
Also a lie (claiming that science doesn't rely upon empirical methods). This is your most ridiculous, 'way out in left field' claim of all, perhaps.
There is nothing ridiculous in tell the truth about the difference between real testable science and the crappy magic that you embrace as "science." You simply have no argument, except but to call the truth "ridiculous." And that is no argument at all.
Science can ONLY utilize empirical and logical proofs. These are it's tools.
Which is precisely why your science is fake science, making dogmatic claims about nature that it simply cannot prove by the very tools it claims to employ. Your science is a gigantic blind faith-based fraud. And this is fine. I have no problem with your living in such obvious blindness. Just do it on your own cotton-pickin' dime and stop stealing my money to promote it.
If a person was conscious of 'seeing God', and then denied it... that person would be a liar. No more, no less.
Which is why I say your scientists cannot have faith. They, at best, can only be liars.
No need to 'ignore', they might even personally believe. It's just that science itself can have no authoritative comment as long as testing confirmation and reproducable results are not possible.
Science is therefore godless.
LOL!!!!!! (At least they don't think that 'there is no knowledge and everything is dead'! Now, as far as YOU condemning them to Hell for that, I think that they can rest pretty easy on that score, realizing that the odds of you winding up in a Rubber Room are vastly greater....
Very well then. Let them continuing in their well deserved "rest."
I believe you are confused again, Johannes. Science is not a 'religion'... and I'm not especially aware of science having a major roll in Highway Robbery, or whatever you are alleging....
Your "science" is indeed a religion, the "Adam and Eve" story undergirded by its philosophy of applied atheism. It is a godless religion, the high priests of which are its ivory towered practitioners - so-called "scientists." Its temple our public institutions, especially educational institutions. Its evangelists are teachers and professors who have infested those institutions. Its bitter apologists, atheists almost to a person, are such men as Richard Dawkins, the now literally enLIGHTened Stephen J. Gould and Bill Provine. It is a religion pure and simple. And ultimately it is all based on the blind faith in its ability to reach back in time, across alleged trillions of years, to declare what took place there.
Churches DO THIS, ALL THE TIME. They speak out, issue official proclaimations, etc... Protestant denominations, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Shia, Sunni, Hindu, etc., etc., in near countless permutations.
They should be free to voice support for particular politicians. They don't do this all the time, unless they are churches headed by leftists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Ah... so you are objecting to the principles enshrined in our American Constitution! I suppose you should move to amend it then.
The separation of church and state, as it is practiced today, did not exist in 1787. It is a recent phenomenon.
If you believe that 'all church members should not be citizens of the State, not vote, not pay taxes, print their own currency, etc.' (guess that means no police, fire, or military protections for Baptists, either <G>),
The Church, by worldwide trade, would have more than enough funds to develop its own fire, police and military protections.
then you should go ahead and try to convince you fellow ('temporary', LOL) citizens to support this radical change.
Unfortunately too many people in the Church are not members at all, but are heathens who are too attached to your perishing world. The time will come soon enough when they will be sorted out. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the current idea of the separation of Church and state. There is no separation. The state just uses money to deny the Church its freedom of speech. What the state really does here is tell the Church that if it keeps quiet and doesn't speak what it knows to be true about a certain politician, then it can keep its money. The state is just afraid of speech. It is all hypocritical. There is no real freedom of speech here.
If memory serves, I believe we fought a fairly destructive Civil War over less far-reaching attempts to dismember the Union.... Lot's o'luck! (I can see that rubber room looming prominently in your future, <G>)
But at least, thanks be to God, there is not hell looming prominently in my future.
(Somehow, I distrust the honesty of your answer... in that you were ABLE TO USE A COMPUTER TO REPLY TO ME!)
Well, I still have my property here in the states. And even when I am at my home abroad I can communicate via computer. So, it is not exactly a pre-technological venue.
... Yeah... I can just SEE the patriotism rolling off of you....
There is no reason to be patriotic toward a nation that threatens to force my support of that which by nature's logic I am not.
Even Geniuses have been known to screw-up in the stock market.
Twain had no money and by the intentional ignorance that left him penniless, he had no God. So much for his wisdom. |
