Watching Diane Sawyer’s interview with Bruce Jenner tonight on 20/20 I realized something that has been puzzling me. There is a common psychological issue or learning disorder that is associated with religious thinking, at least for some religious people, particularly with Muslims and Christians. I’m not sure if it comes from deference to authority or simplistic thinking or both… or other factors in combination. But this much I’ve observed: there is a common thread running through their thinking that seems to converge on not accepting facts that disrupt simple stereotypes.
We talk about “science denial,� but it is much more pervasive than just denying the science of evolution and denying the ancient age of the Earth despite the overwhelming evidence. Recently I realized science denial is involved when it comes to the obvious fact that manmade contributions to air pollution contribute to climate change.
What clarified this for me is the transgender issue. A segment of Christians and apparently an even larger segment of Muslims have long been in denial about same sex gender attraction being a something that is not a choice.
More recently we have the issue that has become more openly talked about because of Bruce Jenner. Here is a guy who set a world record in the decathlon, proclaimed the world’s greatest athlete, who has achieved the masculine ideal, yet he has always known he is female inside, not male despite his outward appearance. He is heterosexual, attracted to women not men, but he has always felt he was not a male deep within his psyche. Science supports this issue that gender attraction and gender identification are two separate issues. Because he has felt he has no choice but to be who he is, Jenner has suffered both economic and social consequences. Why would someone choose to be this way if it were not so compelling as to not be a choice at all?
But these facts seem impossible for a large segment of religious folk to accept. It struck me that expecting them to accept the truth, the facts, the evidence regarding homosexuality, transgender issues, evolution and other scientific evidence is impossible for them; that it is just as crazy to expect them to accept this reality as it is for the rest of us to accept that they cannot help but think they way they do. They are not being obstinate or evil or mean spirited. They simply cannot accept or appreciate what seems so obvious to others. Hence they deny the facts science presents and honestly believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to pervert the truth.
I don’t pretend to understand why this is so, but I am willing to accept that their science denial is as rigidly fixed as is gender attraction and identity. In other words, perhaps they have no more choice about denying scientific truth than homosexuals and heterosexuals have in denying who they are attracted to.
So, the affirmative of this subtopic is:
The refusal to accept evolution, a billions of years old Earth, climate change, homosexuality, and transgender issues is:
A. Science denial
B. These issues are related
C. Religious belief plays a role in denying the science behind these facts
D. People who deny these facts have little or no choice in their denial (they can't help it).
Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?
Science Denial is Not a Choice
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Science Denial is Not a Choice
Post #181[Replying to post 172 by Goat]
Hello Goat,
There are also passages in this post for you, Blastcat in addition to those in my post for you that follows. This post answers #172
There are scholars and archaeological authorities that claim Old and New Testament scripture unauthentic and there are authorities that claim that the scriptures are authentic. The Bible has been under attack against its authenticity since day one but it stood up. The side trusted is dependent on ones worldview and whether one trusts in God or not.
As for why an authority is trusted, why do you trust your parents? Is it by their care for you, etc? You trust authority figures by word, quality of care, etc. The tree is known by its fruit. Most basic trust of legitimate authority is based on trust in God that backs the authority up.
There are a lot of people begging for your trust and some are trying very hard to steal it. If not now, we will eventually end up trusting someone at some time or the other. If we never know who to trust and what really is truth, we will eventually know by who or what remains standing alone when it’s all over and will be sorry if we didn’t follow. How do we know now who or what to follow?
The best way I know how to show evidences of God outside of scripture is by speaking of natural hints and human aspirations for a higher guardian being.
Who or what brought the universe including you and me into existence? Has the ship called the universe a Captain? If there’s such, do we accept or reject the Captain even though a passenger on His ship? Do ships sail un-piloted? If you say you came from your parents, who brought parents into existence?
Ones god is his ultimate master. If he has two masters, one would be demoted by the fact that the other was obeyed above it when both made simultaneous demands. To some, self is Master.
Why is it so much easier for some to attribute the origin of the universe to mere chance than an intelligent being? Is it because mere chance is their god?
Is God an invisible spirit? Day-to-day events give us hints there is an invisible power above us. As for a person unfamiliar with the written word and thus never told of God, things beyond man’s control like the weather, sea, quality of harvest, or even a thunderclap of which we are at mercy serve as hints of a superior being that determines their course. So does conscience. The fact that conscience may be obeyed or disobeyed indicates a Being other than ourselves on the other side of the telephone line (John 8:9, Romans 2:15-16).
Do we want safety from possible adversities such as robbery or loss of a loved ones? Is there any higher being that may grant a request for such?
Despite the fact that the world is full of conflicting philosophies and beliefs, God gave His world at the beginning and starting with Moses, He gave us His written world. He sovereignly commands all to believe Him above the world’s influences. If He is our maker, why shouldn’t we? His word spells out whats hinted by our environment as stated above. He is that sovereign Figure!
All that’s around us serve as more than sufficient evidence that God is. But if we choose not to believe the evidence, the evidence is proof that we have no reason not to believe. If you or I can’t trust and believe God, the messenger of God, or the word of God, there’s no one to trust but fallible humanity. It is written, “let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4).� Without trust in God, which faulty compass would one prefer?
The term, “faith� in God that we see so often is simply unconditional trust in Him that deserves unconditional trust above all the world’s false influences. It keeps our hearts on a level above false influences. You will then know Him faithful in proving Himself trustworthy. This faith is to be guarded against anything that would steal this trust. I hope I put this into perspective despite the fact that you heard all of this.
I would ask an atheist why he prefers not to believe there’s a promised reward beyond this life. Don’t we all want a greater hope? Who doesn’t?
Whether I (or anybody) are able to give you tangible evidence of my claims or not, I can only give you my word that what I share with you was proven to me personally and that I have a heart to share only the real truth with you. Yes, it’s possible for me to share error that I will later have to correct. Whether you trust me or not is up to you. Is it possible to completely eliminate the risk of deception?
Is there a need to demand evidence only to contradict what’s said during an attempt to comply? If someone informed you of evidence of something you wanted very badly and told you to go after it, would you contradict him or would you rush after it? Hope that I speak of is what’s wanted by all of us.
My answer to your post is next, Blastcat.
Take care,
Earl
Hello Goat,
There are also passages in this post for you, Blastcat in addition to those in my post for you that follows. This post answers #172
There are scholars and archaeological authorities that claim Old and New Testament scripture unauthentic and there are authorities that claim that the scriptures are authentic. The Bible has been under attack against its authenticity since day one but it stood up. The side trusted is dependent on ones worldview and whether one trusts in God or not.
As for why an authority is trusted, why do you trust your parents? Is it by their care for you, etc? You trust authority figures by word, quality of care, etc. The tree is known by its fruit. Most basic trust of legitimate authority is based on trust in God that backs the authority up.
There are a lot of people begging for your trust and some are trying very hard to steal it. If not now, we will eventually end up trusting someone at some time or the other. If we never know who to trust and what really is truth, we will eventually know by who or what remains standing alone when it’s all over and will be sorry if we didn’t follow. How do we know now who or what to follow?
The best way I know how to show evidences of God outside of scripture is by speaking of natural hints and human aspirations for a higher guardian being.
Who or what brought the universe including you and me into existence? Has the ship called the universe a Captain? If there’s such, do we accept or reject the Captain even though a passenger on His ship? Do ships sail un-piloted? If you say you came from your parents, who brought parents into existence?
Ones god is his ultimate master. If he has two masters, one would be demoted by the fact that the other was obeyed above it when both made simultaneous demands. To some, self is Master.
Why is it so much easier for some to attribute the origin of the universe to mere chance than an intelligent being? Is it because mere chance is their god?
Is God an invisible spirit? Day-to-day events give us hints there is an invisible power above us. As for a person unfamiliar with the written word and thus never told of God, things beyond man’s control like the weather, sea, quality of harvest, or even a thunderclap of which we are at mercy serve as hints of a superior being that determines their course. So does conscience. The fact that conscience may be obeyed or disobeyed indicates a Being other than ourselves on the other side of the telephone line (John 8:9, Romans 2:15-16).
Do we want safety from possible adversities such as robbery or loss of a loved ones? Is there any higher being that may grant a request for such?
Despite the fact that the world is full of conflicting philosophies and beliefs, God gave His world at the beginning and starting with Moses, He gave us His written world. He sovereignly commands all to believe Him above the world’s influences. If He is our maker, why shouldn’t we? His word spells out whats hinted by our environment as stated above. He is that sovereign Figure!
All that’s around us serve as more than sufficient evidence that God is. But if we choose not to believe the evidence, the evidence is proof that we have no reason not to believe. If you or I can’t trust and believe God, the messenger of God, or the word of God, there’s no one to trust but fallible humanity. It is written, “let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4).� Without trust in God, which faulty compass would one prefer?
The term, “faith� in God that we see so often is simply unconditional trust in Him that deserves unconditional trust above all the world’s false influences. It keeps our hearts on a level above false influences. You will then know Him faithful in proving Himself trustworthy. This faith is to be guarded against anything that would steal this trust. I hope I put this into perspective despite the fact that you heard all of this.
I would ask an atheist why he prefers not to believe there’s a promised reward beyond this life. Don’t we all want a greater hope? Who doesn’t?
Whether I (or anybody) are able to give you tangible evidence of my claims or not, I can only give you my word that what I share with you was proven to me personally and that I have a heart to share only the real truth with you. Yes, it’s possible for me to share error that I will later have to correct. Whether you trust me or not is up to you. Is it possible to completely eliminate the risk of deception?
Is there a need to demand evidence only to contradict what’s said during an attempt to comply? If someone informed you of evidence of something you wanted very badly and told you to go after it, would you contradict him or would you rush after it? Hope that I speak of is what’s wanted by all of us.
My answer to your post is next, Blastcat.
Take care,
Earl
Re: Science Denial is Not a Choice
Post #182[Replying to post 180 by H.sapiens]
Hello Blastcat,
This post answers #176 and #178--#179.
Please don’t mix conflicting erroneous examples of religious morality by falsely exercised religion with the real thing found in the Bible.
You said,
--------
“FORTUNATELY, we have SECULAR LAWS to protect us all from each others religious moralities, which are NOT all the same or necessarily fair, nor fairly interpreted.�
---------
The dictionary defines “secular� as, “of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal.�
Do you know what that implies? Do you really prefer laws that don’t support what’s sacred? Please be careful. My respect for you is based on my religion and I count your life as sacred! Do you prefer otherwise? Would you prefer that I eliminate you with Big Bertha, an A-bomb, or what other weapon of overkill? You want none of me without my Biblical faith!
If you believe in moral living where everyone is treated fairly, you believe in living by the God-given Biblical commandments. What does, “love thy neighbor� mean? What about the Golden Rule? Religious conflicts are not from God, but man-made. You want nothing less than what comes from God! Can’t you see what godlessness is doing around us?
You said,
----------
Testimony relates to WHAT is believed, but does not give evidence that it is TRUE... It's not enough for someone to testify that a belief is true. We need some way to TEST the testimonies to see if they are true or false.
-----------
People testify on results that actually came to pass, not what’s merely believed.
You said that eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. Do you mean in general or in certain situations such as in court? Have you considered the possibility of a time that you may need a witness? Scientists write their papers as witnesses to the results of their experiments. Should they be trusted?
I clicked the URL you gave to watch the Scott Fraser video that only illustrated how adverse circumstances may lead to error that would distort an eye witness account. It did not show that eye witnesses are generally unreliable. Can we do without witnesses?
As long as an individual believes God unreal, he will believe everything that represents God as unreal and thus miss out on a source of much wisdom and understanding.
Take care,
Earl
Hello Blastcat,
This post answers #176 and #178--#179.
Please don’t mix conflicting erroneous examples of religious morality by falsely exercised religion with the real thing found in the Bible.
You said,
--------
“FORTUNATELY, we have SECULAR LAWS to protect us all from each others religious moralities, which are NOT all the same or necessarily fair, nor fairly interpreted.�
---------
The dictionary defines “secular� as, “of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal.�
Do you know what that implies? Do you really prefer laws that don’t support what’s sacred? Please be careful. My respect for you is based on my religion and I count your life as sacred! Do you prefer otherwise? Would you prefer that I eliminate you with Big Bertha, an A-bomb, or what other weapon of overkill? You want none of me without my Biblical faith!
If you believe in moral living where everyone is treated fairly, you believe in living by the God-given Biblical commandments. What does, “love thy neighbor� mean? What about the Golden Rule? Religious conflicts are not from God, but man-made. You want nothing less than what comes from God! Can’t you see what godlessness is doing around us?
You said,
----------
Testimony relates to WHAT is believed, but does not give evidence that it is TRUE... It's not enough for someone to testify that a belief is true. We need some way to TEST the testimonies to see if they are true or false.
-----------
People testify on results that actually came to pass, not what’s merely believed.
You said that eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. Do you mean in general or in certain situations such as in court? Have you considered the possibility of a time that you may need a witness? Scientists write their papers as witnesses to the results of their experiments. Should they be trusted?
I clicked the URL you gave to watch the Scott Fraser video that only illustrated how adverse circumstances may lead to error that would distort an eye witness account. It did not show that eye witnesses are generally unreliable. Can we do without witnesses?
As long as an individual believes God unreal, he will believe everything that represents God as unreal and thus miss out on a source of much wisdom and understanding.
Take care,
Earl
Re: Science Denial is Not a Choice
Post #183[Replying to post 182 by Erexsaur]
If you need God belief to keep you from killing people, then you'll kill people when you think your God commands it. That's a despicable morality, and yes, I'd prefer you act morally without a God belief. It'd make you a better person.
If you need God belief to keep you from killing people, then you'll kill people when you think your God commands it. That's a despicable morality, and yes, I'd prefer you act morally without a God belief. It'd make you a better person.
Re: Science Denial is Not a Choice
Post #184Because you are a true Scotsman and know what the Bible TRULY says, as opposed to what any OTHER KIND of Scotsman out there who are all bogus BUT YOUR KIND?Erexsaur wrote: [Replying to post 180 by H.sapiens]
Hello Blastcat,
This post answers #176 and #178--#179.
Please don’t mix conflicting erroneous examples of religious morality by falsely exercised religion with the real thing found in the Bible.
Please demonstrate that you are an authority on what the Bible REALLY means or says. Until then, I will take what you say as OPINION and not as the truth.
OTHERS claim to know what is REALLY found in the Bible and don't all AGREE WITH YOU... I will ask them the very same question. Who are THEY to tell me what is the real thing in a Bible full of conflicting ideas.. and as many interpretations as there are PEOPLE?
But NO, I will NOT just take it that YOU happen to be in possession of the "real thing" that is to be "found" in the Bible. You will have to DEMONSTRATE that you know the "real thing"... and are NOT some person pontificating.
Like Murder, like LYING, like STEALING.. Like having sex with another man's wife?.. these are PURELY SECULAR?Erexsaur wrote:You said,
--------
“FORTUNATELY, we have SECULAR LAWS to protect us all from each others religious moralities, which are NOT all the same or necessarily fair, nor fairly interpreted.�
---------
The dictionary defines “secular� as, “of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal.�
Why then, did GOD ( according to a story ) make LAWS concerning these issues.. they are TEMPORAL?... WORLDLY?.....NOT regarded as RELIGIOUS, spiritual, or sacred?
Please explain how your thoughts are consistent in this regard. I can't figure your thinking out.
Please define what you MEAN by what is sacred. If it means"comes from a god" then you will have to demonstrate that there IS such a thing in the first place. If you mean "held in very high regard", then we don't need a god at all to feel that something is "sacred". That's how I take the word to mean. I use it in my own thinking about things that I hold in EXTREME high regard, such as human life and flourishing.Erexsaur wrote:Do you know what that implies? Do you really prefer laws that don’t support what’s sacred?
I am a humanist, I take human life as "sacred" or very very very valuable and intrinsically so. No god needed, no ancient authority needed. Just reason and a bit of empathy to go along. I got both. I don't kill people.Erexsaur wrote:Please be careful. My respect for you is based on my religion and I count your life as sacred!
Apparently, without your biblical faith to restrain your psychopathy, I would be unsafe. I suggest then, that you NEVER lose your faith.Erexsaur wrote:Do you prefer otherwise? Would you prefer that I eliminate you with Big Bertha, an A-bomb, or what other weapon of overkill? You want none of me without my Biblical faith!
However, I am NOT a psychopath and would NEVER consider eliminating you for ANY reason.
No. I believe in a moral society where people are treated fairly AND I have no reason to believe in fairies, ghosts or whatever supernatural mumbo-jumbo people want me to believe in, thank you very much, INCLUDING your god. ( whatever that is )Erexsaur wrote:If you believe in moral living where everyone is treated fairly, you believe in living by the God-given Biblical commandments.
It means that ancient peoples thought about morality, in their barbaric way. We have gone a LONG way from the Biblical times when SLAVERY was seen as perfectly moral, for example. YOUR GOD never mentioned not to own people as property in the Ten Commandments.. oddly.Erexsaur wrote:What does, “love thy neighbor� mean?
It's ok.. for starters, but moral philosophers have found many problems with it. It's not a PERFECT rule as some people DON'T WANT to be treated the same exact way you want to be treated. But I agree.. for barbaric people, the Golden Rule WAS a very good improvement. Now, of course, we have gone way past it.Erexsaur wrote:What about the Golden Rule?
I agree, there IS no god that I can discern, but there ARE religious people who hold to some pretty barbaric ideas about morality.Erexsaur wrote:Religious conflicts are not from God, but man-made.
1. Which god?.. there are possibly BILLIONS of gods.Erexsaur wrote:You want nothing less than what comes from God!
2. WHAT GOD???..... please demonstrate the existence of a god.. and then I will entertain your idea that anything can COME from it.
Yes, I see a LOT OF GOOD in the world. Not just EVIL ... as you seem to imply. There WAS a time when SLAVERY was allowed as a natural course of events. THIS is what godlessness is doing around us.. it's getting us AWAY from barbaric, inhuman practices, and TOWARDS more fairness and kindness.Erexsaur wrote:Can’t you see what godlessness is doing around us?
And I have to refer you to my questions 1 and 2 above. WHICH god are we lacking in? And WHAT GOD.... I don't have any reason or evidence to believe that such a thing EXISTS other than in the MIND of misguided people holding to what they were indoctrinated into by their well meaning, but also misguided parents.
We need to CURE the world of irrationality, and that includes most religions.
This is your opinion that you aren't supporting at this time. I can plainly see that once again, the theist explains HOW he comes to believe in something by recounting WHAT he believes in. That was my point and .. that's what you did.. IN ORDER to try to discredit my thesis.Erexsaur wrote:You said,
----------
Testimony relates to WHAT is believed, but does not give evidence that it is TRUE... It's not enough for someone to testify that a belief is true. We need some way to TEST the testimonies to see if they are true or false.
-----------
People testify on results that actually came to pass, not what’s merely believed.
People testify on results that THEY CLAIM to be true OR BELIEVE came to pass. People do that all the time, for all kinds of reasons.
we don't BELIEVE THEM ALL.. because we KNOW that they aren't all telling us what IS REALLY TRUE.
But perhaps you are different. Perhaps you believe ANY CLAIM that someone makes for whatever reason at all and NEVER ask for any evidence or proof about what they say. You might be the kind of person who believes EVERY CLAIM is true, no matter what. I am not that kind of person. But you might be.
WHAT you believe in is that what was said was TRUE.. but you offer NO reason for us to know HOW you came to that conclusion. You "just" believe what you "just" believe.
You believe that what they said is true, SO, it's true. As I said earlier .. and you quote me:
"Testimony relates to WHAT is believed, but does not give evidence that it is TRUE... "
And now YOU testify that WHAT you believe in is true.
But that's not important. WE KNOW THAT YOU BELIEVE IT'S TRUE.
The QUESTION IS HOW do you know it's true?
What EVIDENCE do you have to show that it's actually true, and not just your opinion? ( as wonderful as your opinion IS )
Yes, courts are a VERY good example as we have overwhelming EVIDENCE as to the unreliability of eye-witness testimony. This is DOCUMENTED.Erexsaur wrote:You said that eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. Do you mean in general or in certain situations such as in court?
Maybe you think that courts aren't a good place to JUDGE what is true and what is false.. but that's their BUSINESS.. That's part of LIFE... Judges and lawyers and juries TRY AS HARD AS THEY CAN to get to the TRUTH of a matter.
In general life, people AREN'T so careful or knowledgeable. Or perhaps you think that COURTS are places where evidence and reason don't matter as much as in "general" life.
NEED isn't a criteria for what is true or false. We may DESPERATELY need a cure for cancer. That need means NOTHING about the truth of a claimed cure.Erexsaur wrote:Have you considered the possibility of a time that you may need a witness?
The SCIENTISTS earn their "trust" by presenting GOOD papers. HOWEVER, each paper is judged CASE BY CASE. we don't take whatever a scientist says as TRUE just because he says so. Some scientists make bad science. We need a method to know the difference. ANYONE and his goat can make any kind of claim. And many people DO .. including scientists.Erexsaur wrote:Scientists write their papers as witnesses to the results of their experiments. Should they be trusted?
We have EXTREMELY PRECISE METHODS to distinguish bull from true in science. And THAT'S why science WORKS SO WELL.. because we DON'T just take scientist's word for it. We DEMAND evidence for the claims the scientists make. That's why PLANES FLY so consistently.
Witnesses are important, no doubt.Erexsaur wrote:I clicked the URL you gave to watch the Scott Fraser video that only illustrated how adverse circumstances may lead to error that would distort an eye witness account. It did not show that eye witnesses are generally unreliable. Can we do without witnesses?
BUT as the video explained, WITNESSES, even when VERY CERTAIN , can be VERY WRONG, and for all kinds of REASONS. So we need BETTER kinds of evidence ( if at all possible ) than JUST testimony. And also.. the people in the video were trying to be HONEST.. they were HONESTLY mistaken... There ARE charlatans and huskers out there. It's important to take eye witness testimony with a grain of SALT.
Eye witness testimony is some of the WORST kinds of evidence.
You might want to accuse me of confirmation bias, but that won't STICK on me. I started off TRYING to find ways to confirm that my GOD did, in fact, exist.Erexsaur wrote:As long as an individual believes God unreal, he will believe everything that represents God as unreal and thus miss out on a source of much wisdom and understanding.
AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I still am here, asking theists for their evidence, AND will change my mind if I am convinced the methods are good and the evidence is clear.
What I get so far from theists is something that you also do here. When I ask for evidence, I get.. "you must be biased against the existence of god".. but THAT is NOT evidence FOR your god.. it's just smoke and mirrors. I don't fall for that diversion because I NOTICE that you have NOT provided any evidence AT ALL.. And what you do is try to make my demand for evidence not relevant to knowing if something is true or not.
That is a RED HERRING..
I'm not every falling for that.. I was a young man indeed when I stopped being impressed by smoke and mirrors. IF something is TRUE.. then there will be SOME kind of evidence, and not just "someone said it was true, so it's true."
I'm sorry, but JUST because someone in your holy book says something is true DOES NOT MAKE IT SO as anyone can make stuff up, have delusions or be simply mistaken.
I ask for PROOF and evidence NOT CLAIMS AND MISDIRECTION.
You want to sell me your "product"? Fair enough.. PROVE to me that your product is REAL and it's TRUE.. And DON'T try to pull the wool over my eyes.
Someone said so a long time ago SO IT'S TRUE?
I'm not 4 years old. I don't buy that line.
Re: Science Denial is Not a Choice
Post #185[Replying to Hatuey]
Hello Hatuey,
You said to me,
---------
“If you need God belief to keep you from killing people, then you'll kill people when you think your God commands it. That's a despicable morality, and yes, I'd prefer you act morally without a God belief. It'd make you a better person.�
----------
Really?
But before God commands it, He will have to violate Hebrews 13:8 by changing His nature which I know He would never do! Neither would He change to say that your life is not sacred! I would therefore never think that God would want me to kill you.
Even if He did change His nature and commanded me to zap you, what should keep me from interceding for you like Moses did for Israel when Israel angered God? I certainly would.
Were you mad with God for His wanting to destroy the people in the sight of Moses? How would you like to work ten great miracles (including Pharaoh’s release and the crossing of the Red Sea on dry ground) for a people only for them to remain rock-stubborn with unreasonable unbelief and thoughtlessly revert to mindless idolatry? Those people saw far more of God’s delivering power than we.
As you say you would be afraid of God for commanding me to kill, have you considered the same danger posed by your trust in human nature (let alone secularism)? I thought that human nature would be far more likely to turn you toward killing.
Since you are so afraid, what do you think you would have do to make God turn from His mercy and grace toward you to hire me against you? Please?
Take care,
Earl
Hello Hatuey,
You said to me,
---------
“If you need God belief to keep you from killing people, then you'll kill people when you think your God commands it. That's a despicable morality, and yes, I'd prefer you act morally without a God belief. It'd make you a better person.�
----------
Really?
But before God commands it, He will have to violate Hebrews 13:8 by changing His nature which I know He would never do! Neither would He change to say that your life is not sacred! I would therefore never think that God would want me to kill you.
Even if He did change His nature and commanded me to zap you, what should keep me from interceding for you like Moses did for Israel when Israel angered God? I certainly would.
Were you mad with God for His wanting to destroy the people in the sight of Moses? How would you like to work ten great miracles (including Pharaoh’s release and the crossing of the Red Sea on dry ground) for a people only for them to remain rock-stubborn with unreasonable unbelief and thoughtlessly revert to mindless idolatry? Those people saw far more of God’s delivering power than we.
As you say you would be afraid of God for commanding me to kill, have you considered the same danger posed by your trust in human nature (let alone secularism)? I thought that human nature would be far more likely to turn you toward killing.
Since you are so afraid, what do you think you would have do to make God turn from His mercy and grace toward you to hire me against you? Please?
Take care,
Earl
Re: Science Denial is Not a Choice
Post #186Really!Erexsaur wrote: [Replying to Hatuey]
Hello Hatuey,
You said to me,
---------
“If you need God belief to keep you from killing people, then you'll kill people when you think your God commands it. That's a despicable morality, and yes, I'd prefer you act morally without a God belief. It'd make you a better person.�
----------
Really?
If one is to believe the mythology that already happened, if one is to follow the history, that excuse has already been offered.Erexsaur wrote: But before God commands it, He will have to violate Hebrews 13:8 by changing His nature which I know He would never do! Neither would He change to say that your life is not sacred! I would therefore never think that God would want me to kill you.
Really?
Please provide some evidence for the existence of Moses without which your story is just a fable.Erexsaur wrote: Even if He did change His nature and commanded me to zap you, what should keep me from interceding for you like Moses did for Israel when Israel angered God? I certainly would.
Really?
Please provide some evidence that any of that ever happened. Most modern historians see that as allegorical, at best.Erexsaur wrote: Were you mad with God for His wanting to destroy the people in the sight of Moses? How would you like to work ten great miracles (including Pharaoh’s release and the crossing of the Red Sea on dry ground) for a people only for them to remain rock-stubborn with unreasonable unbelief and thoughtlessly revert to mindless idolatry? Those people saw far more of God’s delivering power than we.
Really?
"God wanted me do it." is a rather absolute and simple excuse for almost anything.Erexsaur wrote: As you say you would be afraid of God for commanding me to kill, have you considered the same danger posed by your trust in human nature (let alone secularism)? I thought that human nature would be far more likely to turn you toward killing.
Really?
I suspect that it would take little more than you deciding that was the thing to do. Religionists have proven to be trigger happy enough over the years.Erexsaur wrote: Since you are so afraid, what do you think you would have do to make God turn from His mercy and grace toward you to hire me against you? Please?
Take care,
Earl
Re: Science Denial is Not a Choice
Post #187The Bible has stories of the god ordering the killing of others for non belief.Erexsaur wrote: [Replying to Hatuey]
Hello Hatuey,
You said to me,
---------
“If you need God belief to keep you from killing people, then you'll kill people when you think your God commands it. That's a despicable morality, and yes, I'd prefer you act morally without a God belief. It'd make you a better person.�
----------
Really?
But before God commands it, He will have to violate Hebrews 13:8 by changing His nature which I know He would never do! Neither would He change to say that your life is not sacred! I would therefore never think that God would want me to kill you.
So, any order from your god can be changed if you can OUTWIT the god. Interesting.Erexsaur wrote:Even if He did change His nature and commanded me to zap you, what should keep me from interceding for you like Moses did for Israel when Israel angered God? I certainly would.
People aren't generally angry at fictional characters. Atheists don't spend time having EMOTIONS about something they don't consider is REAL. I am as angry at your god for his wanting to kill people as I am about Santa for not bringing me a race car set in 1964.Erexsaur wrote:Were you mad with God for His wanting to destroy the people in the sight of Moses?
If that was REAL.. people would be very stupid indeed to STILL not believe in what was plainly before their eyes something fantastic. Now a days, we have a lot more technology that can be used to fool us .. magic tricks ARE better than they use to be. If I were god and did all kinds of enormous miracles and the people STILL didn't get it.. I'd surely change who I dealt with. Those people would be too STUPID to follow the likes of me.Erexsaur wrote:How would you like to work ten great miracles (including Pharaoh’s release and the crossing of the Red Sea on dry ground) for a people only for them to remain rock-stubborn with unreasonable unbelief and thoughtlessly revert to mindless idolatry? Those people saw far more of God’s delivering power than we.
First off.. we KNOW that people kill people.Erexsaur wrote:As you say you would be afraid of God for commanding me to kill, have you considered the same danger posed by your trust in human nature (let alone secularism)? I thought that human nature would be far more likely to turn you toward killing.
We don't KNOW that there is a god ... it's just a story to us.
BUT if your god had all the power in the universe, the story goes that if we don't OBEY and WORSHIP this god , we are severely punished.. and death is just the start of it.
Again, people who don't believe in your god aren't AFRAID or ANGRY at your god. But the story is about a god who is evil, jealous, and vengeful. IN THE STORY.. your god is monstrous. Fortunately for everyone, we have NO reason to believe that this story book monster exists.Erexsaur wrote:Since you are so afraid, what do you think you would have do to make God turn from His mercy and grace toward you to hire me against you? Please?
Post #188
Proof is something that is impossible to prove, just as statistics do not always convince people, they can always attack the method of collection.
In my threads, people routinely ask me for 'proof' of God, and I tell them that you can't offer material proof for something immaterial, (besides the universe, which they deny is proof), so to turn the tables:
Science Denial is Not a choice:
Prove this to me. (You won't be able to).
Prove to me homosexuality is a choice (you won't be able to)
Prove to me climate change is real (you won't be able to)
Prove to me vaccines are safe (You won't be able to)
This will be fun.
Just to illustrate that I'm not straying off topic, everything is a choice, I am choosing to deny science, I am choosing to deny whatever proof you offer to me.
In my threads, people routinely ask me for 'proof' of God, and I tell them that you can't offer material proof for something immaterial, (besides the universe, which they deny is proof), so to turn the tables:
Science Denial is Not a choice:
Prove this to me. (You won't be able to).
Prove to me homosexuality is a choice (you won't be able to)
Prove to me climate change is real (you won't be able to)
Prove to me vaccines are safe (You won't be able to)
This will be fun.
Just to illustrate that I'm not straying off topic, everything is a choice, I am choosing to deny science, I am choosing to deny whatever proof you offer to me.
Re: Science Denial is Not a Choice
Post #189[Replying to post 185 by Erexsaur]
Don't lie. I never expressed fear or even discussed it at all in my post. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Don't lie. I never expressed fear or even discussed it at all in my post. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Post #190
[Replying to post 188 by joejoeson]
As long as you admit that there is no proof of God, as you have above, there is no reason that people should ask you for proof. People can believe or deny anything.
As long as you admit that there is no proof of God, as you have above, there is no reason that people should ask you for proof. People can believe or deny anything.
