The Church And The Origins Of Western Civilization

[Hollie]

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

" I find Hollie very intelligent..."

Well....since she is never able to comment on any of the material posted, and merely repeats the same phrases ad infinitum....

...that pretty well identifies you as a moron.

There's not much to comment on regarding your nonsensical cutting and pasting.

Stealing material from Harun Yahya makes you a laughable joke.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

" I find Hollie very intelligent..."

Well....since she is never able to comment on any of the material posted, and merely repeats the same phrases ad infinitum....

...that pretty well identifies you as a moron.

There's not much to comment on regarding your nonsensical cutting and pasting.

Stealing material from Harun Yahya makes you a laughable joke.

See what I mean?

 

[turzovka]

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

I am sure PoliticalChic can handle her own affairs,

but I do notice that you have nothing of value or specific criticisms of PC’s claims on this thread?
Which reminds me a lot of Hollie and her “rebuttals” which were vacuous save for attitude.

 

[Hollie]

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I don't "hate" religion, Do you hate atheists? You seem to think atheism is evil.

Like I said in my first response on this thread, Christianity played a role in the development of many aspects Western Civilization, including science.

Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science, including religious scientists doing real science.

You really have no grasp about the subject.

1. Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland




3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

a." Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



Do you begin to see the abysmal stupidity of "Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science"?

1. More of the abysmal stupidity that comes from the most prolific cut and paster on the board.

a. The abysmally stupid "Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.", is typical banter from religious zealots and simply ignores the fact that Christianity was a yolk around the nexk of humanity for more than 800 years. The church was so hostile to science and knowledge that many of the great thinkers were hounded relentlessly by the church capos.

2. According to the bible, god wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bibles say, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews).

3. The facts are that the waning influence of the church which kept Europe in the Dark Ages was the reason why Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology. It was science that carried knowledge and investigation into a sometimes less friendly scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

a. The idea of an old earth and a heliocentric solar system were ruthlessly condemned by the church and those promoting it were cast as villains. It was the church that chose to ignore theories about the ancient age of the universe, evolution, knowledge or any other scientific fact in formulating a coherent consistent theory of the nature of human existence.

What a shame that cut and paste fundie cranks would still hope to drag the planet back into their own miserable existence of fear and superstition.

 

[Hollie]

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

" I find Hollie very intelligent..."

Well....since she is never able to comment on any of the material posted, and merely repeats the same phrases ad infinitum....

...that pretty well identifies you as a moron.

There's not much to comment on regarding your nonsensical cutting and pasting.

Stealing material from Harun Yahya makes you a laughable joke.

See what I mean?

I see what you mean. You're befuddled.

You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences so absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're hopelessly incompetent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I don't "hate" religion, Do you hate atheists? You seem to think atheism is evil.

Like I said in my first response on this thread, Christianity played a role in the development of many aspects Western Civilization, including science.

Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science, including religious scientists doing real science.

You really have no grasp about the subject.

1. Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland




3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

a." Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



Do you begin to see the abysmal stupidity of "Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science"?

1. More of the abysmal stupidity that comes from the most prolific cut and paster on the board.

a. The abysmally stupid "Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.", is typical banter from religious zealots and simply ignores the fact that Christianity was a yolk around the nexk of humanity for more than 800 years. The church was so hostile to science and knowledge that many of the great thinkers were hounded relentlessly by the church capos.

2. According to the bible, god wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bibles say, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews).

3. The facts are that the waning influence of the church which kept Europe in the Dark Ages was the reason why Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology. It was science that carried knowledge and investigation into a sometimes less friendly scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

a. The idea of an old earth and a heliocentric solar system were ruthlessly condemned by the church and those promoting it were cast as villains. It was the church that chose to ignore theories about the ancient age of the universe, evolution, knowledge or any other scientific fact in formulating a coherent consistent theory of the nature of human existence.

What a shame that cut and paste fundie cranks would still hope to drag the planet back into their own miserable existence of fear and superstition.

What an improvement!

So, seems you were shamed into an actual attempt at a response.
Dragged kicking and screaming....but at least you did some work!



Keep it up, now!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

" I find Hollie very intelligent..."

Well....since she is never able to comment on any of the material posted, and merely repeats the same phrases ad infinitum....

...that pretty well identifies you as a moron.

There's not much to comment on regarding your nonsensical cutting and pasting.

Stealing material from Harun Yahya makes you a laughable joke.

See what I mean?

I see what you mean. You're befuddled.

You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences so absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're hopelessly incompetent.

Now don't ruin it!

You're making yourself look silly..."You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences..."

If that were the case,how could you have attempted to answer the post?


BTW...."pasting from Harun Yahya,"....you keep saying that....but I don't believe I know what that is.
I thought it was some sort of word salad characteristic of your.....condition.

 

[turzovka]

1. More of the abysmal stupidity that comes from the most prolific cut and paster on the board.

a. The abysmally stupid "Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.", is typical banter from religious zealots and simply ignores the fact that Christianity was a yolk around the nexk of humanity for more than 800 years. The church was so hostile to science and knowledge that many of the great thinkers were hounded relentlessly by the church capos.

2. According to the bible, god wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bibles say, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews).

3. The facts are that the waning influence of the church which kept Europe in the Dark Ages was the reason why Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology. It was science that carried knowledge and investigation into a sometimes less friendly scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

a. The idea of an old earth and a heliocentric solar system were ruthlessly condemned by the church and those promoting it were cast as villains. It was the church that chose to ignore theories about the ancient age of the universe, evolution, knowledge or any other scientific fact in formulating a coherent consistent theory of the nature of human existence.

What a shame that cut and paste fundie cranks would still hope to drag the planet back into their own miserable existence of fear and superstition.

So you’re an atheist? Big deal. Do not be surprised though that you cannot get your head around a God that created you and His blessings and promises go far beyond 75 years of trials and tears on this earth. But if that is all you care about, that is your problem. You want a few years of fun and to hell with what lies ahead.

THAT is called being intelligent???

You only accept the Bible when it speaks of judgments and loss of life. Then you become the judge. You ignore everything else. Why? Do you believe the Joshua story but not the Jesus story? Who needs a conniver like that? The answer to all your questions lies in the Word which you refuse to believe. I imagine (note: imagine, not that I know-for-a-fact) you choose not to believe because it makes you more accountable for your actions and choices. That makes sense. Man is selfish and lazy.

Your whole diatribe on what Christianity did to darken Europe is laughable. So is your propaganda about how Christianity stood in the way of science. You think it is so easy to discredit eternal truths by finding some who believe it and are found to be sinners and hypocrites. Note to you: God had no choice but to use sinners to try to lead a good life and disseminate His Word. There were bound to be more Judas’s along the way.

Finally, we do not need the Bible to prove God. All his signs and wonders that followed were given to us to validate that which man so wishes were not true. Don’t make the same mistake so many others have.

 

[Hollie]

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I don't "hate" religion, Do you hate atheists? You seem to think atheism is evil.

Like I said in my first response on this thread, Christianity played a role in the development of many aspects Western Civilization, including science.

Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science, including religious scientists doing real science.

You really have no grasp about the subject.

1. Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland




3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

a." Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



Do you begin to see the abysmal stupidity of "Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science"?

1. More of the abysmal stupidity that comes from the most prolific cut and paster on the board.

a. The abysmally stupid "Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.", is typical banter from religious zealots and simply ignores the fact that Christianity was a yolk around the nexk of humanity for more than 800 years. The church was so hostile to science and knowledge that many of the great thinkers were hounded relentlessly by the church capos.

2. According to the bible, god wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bibles say, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews).

3. The facts are that the waning influence of the church which kept Europe in the Dark Ages was the reason why Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology. It was science that carried knowledge and investigation into a sometimes less friendly scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

a. The idea of an old earth and a heliocentric solar system were ruthlessly condemned by the church and those promoting it were cast as villains. It was the church that chose to ignore theories about the ancient age of the universe, evolution, knowledge or any other scientific fact in formulating a coherent consistent theory of the nature of human existence.

What a shame that cut and paste fundie cranks would still hope to drag the planet back into their own miserable existence of fear and superstition.

What an improvement!

So, seems you were shamed into an actual attempt at a response.
Dragged kicking and screaming....but at least you did some work!



Keep it up, now!

As is always the case, you run for cover when your pointless cutting and pasting is challenged with the facts. And the fact is, you angry, self-hating fundie cranks have been an impediment to the human spirit seeking exploration and knowledge.

Actually, The fact is, man's ethics and morality beats out gods by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:

Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man finds this an abomination (those are some great gawds you believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Your gawds are not fair, in the bibles they are serial mass murderers and makes a sane, loving person revolted at the cruelty and atrocities.

 

[Hollie]

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

" I find Hollie very intelligent..."

Well....since she is never able to comment on any of the material posted, and merely repeats the same phrases ad infinitum....

...that pretty well identifies you as a moron.

There's not much to comment on regarding your nonsensical cutting and pasting.

Stealing material from Harun Yahya makes you a laughable joke.

See what I mean?

I see what you mean. You're befuddled.

You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences so absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're hopelessly incompetent.

Now don't ruin it!

You're making yourself look silly..."You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences..."

If that were the case,how could you have attempted to answer the post?


BTW...."pasting from Harun Yahya,"....you keep saying that....but I don't believe I know what that is.
I thought it was some sort of word salad characteristic of your.....condition.

I think it's actually comical just how befuddled you become when you can't find a handy cut and paste article to spam the thread with.

What a waste of bandwidth you are. And I mean that in a helpful way.

 

[sealybobo]

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

I am sure PoliticalChic can handle her own affairs,

but I do notice that you have nothing of value or specific criticisms of PC’s claims on this thread?
Which reminds me a lot of Hollie and her “rebuttals” which were vacuous save for attitude.

The other day I was watching this guy ask for people to call in and pay $70 x 10 months and said you will receive a miracle if you pay. Do you buy that? It's a scam!

Anyways, I just googled him and it turns out he makes over $1 a year.

You keep believing you dopes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" I find Hollie very intelligent..."

Well....since she is never able to comment on any of the material posted, and merely repeats the same phrases ad infinitum....

...that pretty well identifies you as a moron.

There's not much to comment on regarding your nonsensical cutting and pasting.

Stealing material from Harun Yahya makes you a laughable joke.

See what I mean?

I see what you mean. You're befuddled.

You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences so absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're hopelessly incompetent.

Now don't ruin it!

You're making yourself look silly..."You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences..."

If that were the case,how could you have attempted to answer the post?


BTW...."pasting from Harun Yahya,"....you keep saying that....but I don't believe I know what that is.
I thought it was some sort of word salad characteristic of your.....condition.

I think it's actually comical just how befuddled you become when you can't find a handy cut and article to spam the thread with.

What a waste of bandwidth you are. And I mean that in a helpful way.

Now, you know I'll be back....and when I post, be sure you actually try to respond to same.

 

[turzovka]

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

I am sure PoliticalChic can handle her own affairs,

but I do notice that you have nothing of value or specific criticisms of PC’s claims on this thread?
Which reminds me a lot of Hollie and her “rebuttals” which were vacuous save for attitude.

The other day I was watching this guy ask for people to call in and pay $70 x 10 months and said you will receive a miracle if you pay. Do you buy that? It's a scam!

Anyways, I just googled him and it turns out he makes over $1 a year.

You keep believing you dopes.

And that is as far as your investigation of Christianity goes? Or your desire to know the truth?

Well that explains a lot.

I am not sure how you can be reached? But we will keep trying. (but not judging)

 

[Carla_Danger]

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I don't "hate" religion, Do you hate atheists? You seem to think atheism is evil.

Like I said in my first response on this thread, Christianity played a role in the development of many aspects Western Civilization, including science.

Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science, including religious scientists doing real science.

You really have no grasp about the subject.

1. Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland




3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

a." Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



Do you begin to see the abysmal stupidity of "Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science"?

1. More of the abysmal stupidity that comes from the most prolific cut and paster on the board.

a. The abysmally stupid "Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.", is typical banter from religious zealots and simply ignores the fact that Christianity was a yolk around the nexk of humanity for more than 800 years. The church was so hostile to science and knowledge that many of the great thinkers were hounded relentlessly by the church capos.

2. According to the bible, god wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bibles say, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews).

3. The facts are that the waning influence of the church which kept Europe in the Dark Ages was the reason why Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology. It was science that carried knowledge and investigation into a sometimes less friendly scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

a. The idea of an old earth and a heliocentric solar system were ruthlessly condemned by the church and those promoting it were cast as villains. It was the church that chose to ignore theories about the ancient age of the universe, evolution, knowledge or any other scientific fact in formulating a coherent consistent theory of the nature of human existence.

What a shame that cut and paste fundie cranks would still hope to drag the planet back into their own miserable existence of fear and superstition.

What an improvement!

So, seems you were shamed into an actual attempt at a response.
Dragged kicking and screaming....but at least you did some work!



Keep it up, now!

As is always the case, you run for cover when your pointless cutting and pasting is challenged with the facts. And the fact is, you angry, self-hating fundie cranks have been an impediment to the human spirit seeking exploration and knowledge.

Actually, The fact is, man's ethics and morality beats out gods by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:

Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man finds this an abomination (those are some great gawds you believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Your gawds are not fair, in the bibles they are serial mass murderers and makes a sane, loving person revolted at the cruelty and atrocities.

Boy, they didn't teach us that in Sunday School!!! I didn't find out Noah was a drunk until I was an adult.

 

[Hollie]

There's not much to comment on regarding your nonsensical cutting and pasting.

Stealing material from Harun Yahya makes you a laughable joke.

See what I mean?

I see what you mean. You're befuddled.

You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences so absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're hopelessly incompetent.

Now don't ruin it!

You're making yourself look silly..."You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences..."

If that were the case,how could you have attempted to answer the post?


BTW...."pasting from Harun Yahya,"....you keep saying that....but I don't believe I know what that is.
I thought it was some sort of word salad characteristic of your.....condition.

I think it's actually comical just how befuddled you become when you can't find a handy cut and article to spam the thread with.

What a waste of bandwidth you are. And I mean that in a helpful way.

Now, you know I'll be back....and when I post, be sure you actually try to respond to same.

Yep, you will be back, with more of your pointless cut and paste drivel.

Read your history. Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jeebus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus? Both are mythical characters, they both had sons with superhuman powers (Hercules and Jesus -- now there would be a cool rumble), they both made human women pregnant, they both rule/create the universe, they both even had books written about them. Here's the difference: People briefly grew up around 2,300 years ago and started to realize the myths were just that-- myths, at least until you Christians put to the sword everyone who dared disagree with living in trembling fear of your mass murderer gawds.

 

[sealybobo]

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I don't "hate" religion, Do you hate atheists? You seem to think atheism is evil.

Like I said in my first response on this thread, Christianity played a role in the development of many aspects Western Civilization, including science.

Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science, including religious scientists doing real science.

You really have no grasp about the subject.

1. Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland




3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

a." Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



Do you begin to see the abysmal stupidity of "Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science"?

1. More of the abysmal stupidity that comes from the most prolific cut and paster on the board.

a. The abysmally stupid "Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.", is typical banter from religious zealots and simply ignores the fact that Christianity was a yolk around the nexk of humanity for more than 800 years. The church was so hostile to science and knowledge that many of the great thinkers were hounded relentlessly by the church capos.

2. According to the bible, god wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bibles say, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews).

3. The facts are that the waning influence of the church which kept Europe in the Dark Ages was the reason why Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology. It was science that carried knowledge and investigation into a sometimes less friendly scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

a. The idea of an old earth and a heliocentric solar system were ruthlessly condemned by the church and those promoting it were cast as villains. It was the church that chose to ignore theories about the ancient age of the universe, evolution, knowledge or any other scientific fact in formulating a coherent consistent theory of the nature of human existence.

What a shame that cut and paste fundie cranks would still hope to drag the planet back into their own miserable existence of fear and superstition.

What an improvement!

So, seems you were shamed into an actual attempt at a response.
Dragged kicking and screaming....but at least you did some work!



Keep it up, now!

As is always the case, you run for cover when your pointless cutting and pasting is challenged with the facts. And the fact is, you angry, self-hating fundie cranks have been an impediment to the human spirit seeking exploration and knowledge.

Actually, The fact is, man's ethics and morality beats out gods by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:

Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man finds this an abomination (those are some great gawds you believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Your gawds are not fair, in the bibles they are serial mass murderers and makes a sane, loving person revolted at the cruelty and atrocities.

I really do think you are very intelligent and wel

1. More of the abysmal stupidity that comes from the most prolific cut and paster on the board.

a. The abysmally stupid "Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.", is typical banter from religious zealots and simply ignores the fact that Christianity was a yolk around the nexk of humanity for more than 800 years. The church was so hostile to science and knowledge that many of the great thinkers were hounded relentlessly by the church capos.

2. According to the bible, god wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bibles say, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews).

3. The facts are that the waning influence of the church which kept Europe in the Dark Ages was the reason why Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology. It was science that carried knowledge and investigation into a sometimes less friendly scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

a. The idea of an old earth and a heliocentric solar system were ruthlessly condemned by the church and those promoting it were cast as villains. It was the church that chose to ignore theories about the ancient age of the universe, evolution, knowledge or any other scientific fact in formulating a coherent consistent theory of the nature of human existence.

What a shame that cut and paste fundie cranks would still hope to drag the planet back into their own miserable existence of fear and superstition.

So you’re an atheist? Big deal. Do not be surprised though that you cannot get your head around a God that created you and His blessings and promises go far beyond 75 years of trials and tears on this earth. But if that is all you care about, that is your problem. You want a few years of fun and to hell with what lies ahead.

THAT is called being intelligent???

You only accept the Bible when it speaks of judgments and loss of life. Then you become the judge. You ignore everything else. Why? Do you believe the Joshua story but not the Jesus story? Who needs a conniver like that? The answer to all your questions lies in the Word which you refuse to believe. I imagine (note: imagine, not that I know-for-a-fact) you choose not to believe because it makes you more accountable for your actions and choices. That makes sense. Man is selfish and lazy.

Your whole diatribe on what Christianity did to darken Europe is laughable. So is your propaganda about how Christianity stood in the way of science. You think it is so easy to discredit eternal truths by finding some who believe it and are found to be sinners and hypocrites. Note to you: God had no choice but to use sinners to try to lead a good life and disseminate His Word. There were bound to be more Judas’s along the way.

Finally, we do not need the Bible to prove God. All his signs and wonders that followed were given to us to validate that which man so wishes were not true. Don’t make the same mistake so many others have.

So you're saying she isn't smart enough to believe your unbelievable story? Fuck you. Fact is, we feel the desire to want to believe in a god too. We just can't believe what is unbelievable.

That's hard for you to understand because you are basically swallowing a fairytale on faith, because you WANT to believe, not because you are smart.

I'll share this with you:

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

 

[sealybobo]

See what I mean?

I see what you mean. You're befuddled.

You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences so absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're hopelessly incompetent.

Now don't ruin it!

You're making yourself look silly..."You're incapable of actually stringing words into meaningful sentences..."

If that were the case,how could you have attempted to answer the post?


BTW...."pasting from Harun Yahya,"....you keep saying that....but I don't believe I know what that is.
I thought it was some sort of word salad characteristic of your.....condition.

I think it's actually comical just how befuddled you become when you can't find a handy cut and article to spam the thread with.

What a waste of bandwidth you are. And I mean that in a helpful way.

Now, you know I'll be back....and when I post, be sure you actually try to respond to same.

Yep, you will be back, with more of your pointless cut and paste drivel.

Read your history. Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jeebus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus? Both are mythical characters, they both had sons with superhuman powers (Hercules and Jesus -- now there would be a cool rumble), they both made human women pregnant, they both rule/create the universe, they both even had books written about them. Here's the difference: People briefly grew up around 2,300 years ago and started to realize the myths were just that-- myths, at least until you Christians put to the sword everyone who dared disagree with living in trembling fear of your mass murderer gawds.

And if we don't 'get it" they feel sorry for us.

 

[sealybobo]

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

I am sure PoliticalChic can handle her own affairs,

but I do notice that you have nothing of value or specific criticisms of PC’s claims on this thread?
Which reminds me a lot of Hollie and her “rebuttals” which were vacuous save for attitude.

The other day I was watching this guy ask for people to call in and pay $70 x 10 months and said you will receive a miracle if you pay. Do you buy that? It's a scam!

Anyways, I just googled him and it turns out he makes over $1 a year.

You keep believing you dopes.

And that is as far as your investigation of Christianity goes? Or your desire to know the truth?

Well that explains a lot.

I am not sure how you can be reached? But we will keep trying. (but not judging)

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

I am sure PoliticalChic can handle her own affairs,

but I do notice that you have nothing of value or specific criticisms of PC’s claims on this thread?
Which reminds me a lot of Hollie and her “rebuttals” which were vacuous save for attitude.

The other day I was watching this guy ask for people to call in and pay $70 x 10 months and said you will receive a miracle if you pay. Do you buy that? It's a scam!

Anyways, I just googled him and it turns out he makes over $1 a year.

You keep believing you dopes.

And that is as far as your investigation of Christianity goes? Or your desire to know the truth?

Well that explains a lot.

I am not sure how you can be reached? But we will keep trying. (but not judging)

He talks about charlatans....but I bet he voted for Obama.

 

[turzovka]

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

I am sure PoliticalChic can handle her own affairs,

but I do notice that you have nothing of value or specific criticisms of PC’s claims on this thread?
Which reminds me a lot of Hollie and her “rebuttals” which were vacuous save for attitude.

The other day I was watching this guy ask for people to call in and pay $70 x 10 months and said you will receive a miracle if you pay. Do you buy that? It's a scam!

Anyways, I just googled him and it turns out he makes over $1 a year.

You keep believing you dopes.

And that is as far as your investigation of Christianity goes? Or your desire to know the truth?

Well that explains a lot.

I am not sure how you can be reached? But we will keep trying. (but not judging)

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

First of all, your tributes to science are far too magnanimous and noble. Science goes far beyond this pristine, honest altruism and honorable state you want to attribute to the entire historical endeavor. What did Mark Twain say?... “There’s something fascinating about science. You get such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

Jonathan Swift (17th century English satirist) was more specific to the crux of the matter. Referencing the achievements of science and its reflection upon its own laurels. ---- "And he, whose fortunes and dispositions have placed him in a convenient station to enjoy the fruits of this noble art; he that can with Epicurus content his ideas with the films and images that fly-off upon his senses from the superficies of things; such a man truly wise, creams off nature, leaving the sour and the dregs for philosophy and reason to lap up. This is the sublime and refined point of felicity, called, the possession of being well deceived; the serene peaceful state of being a fool among knaves."

In other words, science thinks far too highly of itself and does not even put a toe in the water to answer the greatest questions and needs about life and the person. Science may maintain their field of discipline does not deal with proving God, but it appears they are surely in the business of trying to disprove Him.

==========================================


No need to tell me about faith either. You and yours always try to put it in terms that fit nicely with your agnosticism or total disbelief. Our faith is not blind. It is based on evidence and reason. We are long past wondering if God is real or not and which God. We know it is Jesus Christ. Just because you demand that nothing can be known is no concern of ours. The faith we practice is in the areas of believing in some of God’s promises or teachings, but surely not of His existence. We have faith in the real presence in the Eucharist, that our sins are forgiven in the confessional, that the Lord is assisting us in our sufferings and the sufferings of others, that all our sacrifices and acts of kindness and prayers make eternal differences in our future and those others, etc. But we do not need faith to know who the One and Only is. That is very clear and known.

But as long as you continue to believe life sprang from lifeless rocks and then formed incredible cells with thousands of machines within them, and amazing organs all by random rendezvous of molecules without any intelligent designer, I do not see where I will ever convince you? As long as you take documented miracles and call it hysteria such as the 70,000 at Fatima showing up on the day three little shepherd children prophesied a miracle would happen for all to see, I will never be able to convince you. As long as you choose to ignore the apparitions of the Virgin Mary in 1968 at Zeitoun, Egypt seen by more than 200,000 Egyptians over 20 or more apparitions on top of a Coptic Cathedral – where neither legal authorities or science could explain the vision, or the colorful lights and smoke appearing each time, I will never expect to convince you.

As long as you keep demanding carbon dating ruled the Shroud a medieval fraud even though many scientists and studies since have given very plausible explanations for that faulty testing --- and also spoke to the inexplicable qualities of that image as impossible for a forger to produce --- as long as you walk away from that without being honest about its marvels, I will never be able to convince you. As long as you ignore or dismiss hundreds of weeping statues and paintings of Mary and Jesus and just laugh it off because a few frauds were detected by some zealous crazies, I will never convince you. (Note: I notice science stays far and clear of those bleeding statues, too.)

As long as you call all these fantastic Near Death Experiences the result of “a dying brain” which makes no scientific or medical sense, I will never convince you. As long as you laugh off the testimonies of so many witnesses to exorcisms who are freaked out by the child’s ability to speak of events in the witnesses’ past they would never know, or who speaks in Latin and other foreign languages the child could never know, who utters the most vulgar, obscene tirades at all present in the most disturbing guttural language, and so many other demonic manifestations, I will never be able to convince you.

As long as you insist the bleeding wounds from Padre Pio’s hands, feet and side were caused by him secretly gouging himself for 50 years, and deny the heavenly fragrance eminating from the wounds, and deny all the witnesses who say he can read their souls and minds, and has bilocated, and of course accept the fringe scientist who says he did it all with carbolic acid --- I will never convince you. Never mind there are many other stigmatics who science says they bleed regularly with their mind control. Right. As long as you insist all these scores of saints whose bodies remain incorruptible hundreds of years after their death are all secretly preserved by tricky nuns, I will never convince you. As long as every miraculous healing at the waters of Lourdes are dismissed as mind over matter and no thanks to prayers and faith, I will never convince you of the presence of God.

I cannot explain what appears to me as this denial or blindness? But I can understand their antipathy towards those like me who insist God is absolutely known and factual, no need for faith. Anyone can bombard you with their messages or cases of importance on TV or the internet or newsprint or political promises, but let a Christian send out his message and it’s a act of us “shoving our message down your throats.” Pardon our opinions of what’s going on here, differing from yours. But why must it become so unnerving for you or them? Because of what’s at stake, that’s why, I am guessing? (again) Deny it all you want, but for almost the entire cognizant world, to wonder what happens when they die (and possess great concern) is as natural as anything a human experiences. I do not care what Ingersoll is trying to sell us. It is temporal and flawed. He calls that freedom? I call that utter despair.