[So... when faced with arguments you cannot refute, you resort to childish (and pointless) insults.]
"Well of course I do think it beyond you."
(fortunately, I am not responsible for your misperceptions and ignorance!)
[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."
You appear to have an irredeemable blind spot in your thinking... (not too surprising since you state that 'nothing is alive' and 'there is no knowledge'... all while you type away on your computer.... LOL!)
[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 explainable only by Faith... then science cannot comment upon it --- either pro or con.]
"Yes. This is applied godlessness."
'Applied godlessness'? HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a purblind RUBE you are, Johannes! Knowing that empirical tools are insufficient (and testing not possible) does not NEGATE the existence of the Super Natural.
[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."
I used the commonly accepted definitions for Atheism and Agnosticism --- as you well know!
You cannot muddy the waters by re-defining the terms.
[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 held that scientists cannot believe in a God. You are ignorant, and lying.
[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 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."
So, you have no objection to OTHER PEOPLE'S actions in this regard!
"But I am alive."
If you say so, LOL!
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."
I have NEVER made any effort to 'force' you do do anything, nor shall I!
"That is my position. it has always been my position. But you are ignorant. Intensely ignorant. Hopelessly ignorant. Dead."
Sounds like you are the 'ignorant one' if you persist in insanely believing that I am trying to 'force' you to do anything... particularly to terminate pregnancies, use condoms, etc., etc.
I couldn't care less what you do --- so long as you don't harm others.
[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."
Whatever, Johannes. I wouldn't give a plug nickel for you either. (I'm not away of any market for religious bigots, whereby a monetary value could be affixed, LOL!)
[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."
No. I never said 'God was beyond nature' (do YOU believe that God is not expressed in the natural world??????), and I never said that anyone --- scientist or other --- must 'treat him as if he does not exist'. You persist in setting Straw Men up to attack, while ignoring my actual words. Not too smart.
[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."
And if he doesn't, he doesn't.
[(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."
YOUR 'implication', not MINE, idiot. Another Straw Man, you are attacking something I never said.
[!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LIE, REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED!!!!!!!!!!!!]
"Your science is godless. There. i said it again. Stop being ignorant of atheism and grow up."
(LOL! Apparently you really like that lie! CHUCKLE.)
[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.""
Are you RETRACTING your ridiculous lie that 'science doesn't rely upon empirical methods', or are you merely riffing on your latest Straw Man argument... 'crappy magic'?
If it's merely another illogical, off topic tirade you are engaged in (and you are content to let your ridiculous lie about empirical methods lie abandoned --- hoping everyone will forget you ever uttered such nonsense), then perhaps you will stoop to mentioning wherever I have EVER supported 'crappy magic'?????
LOL!
[Science can ONLY utilize empirical and logical proofs. These are it's tools.]
"Which is precisely why your science is fake science..."
(So, you want 'real science' to ABANDON empirical methods, classical logic, and reproducible test results... and allow 'proof by Faith' or 'proof by some mystical utterance'? Grow up Boy! The Dark Ages do not exactly make a shining example for civilization.)
"Your science is a gigantic blind faith-based fraud."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Er, NO! (That's the so-called 'science' you are trying to foist off here!) HILARIOUS! Hoist by your own petard!
"Just do it on your own cotton-pickin' dime and stop stealing my money to promote it."
(I asked you to point out where I was 'stealing your money'... you failed to do so.)
[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."
Eh? are you aware of some scientist who has personally 'seen God', and then lied about it?
[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."
D-R-E-A-M O-N, oh Great Mystic (who claims that 'there is no knowledge' and 'we are all dead').
[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."
Let me know how that's coming along (when your Mystics split off from the United States of America and ignite the civil war).
[(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."
So... you DID overstate things a bit.... You do NOT live in a pre-technological environment, not at all.
[... 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."
I see.... |
