OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[koshergrl]

Don't mistake your lack of reading comprehension skills/ incompetence with English as a first language to be a failure other than one you need to take ownership of.

... and the angry, religious zealot thing is getting old.

The angry zealot is yourself, as has been noted and pointed out by several people in several different threads.

I was paid to tutor college English comp honey. Shall I go through your offerings with a red marker?

Of course you were a tutor.

You also command the French forces at Waterloo, right?

I'm quite impressed that you have heard of Waterloo.

But of course you are using past tense....so it would be "commandED"

Unless you think there is a battle taking place there as we speak?

 

[Misty]

koshergrl, your opinion is meaningless.

you've been embarrassed off this site, forced to create an alias, and now get embarrassed more anew.

stfu, in other words. You're irrelevant to me.

I'm sure many of us feel the same way about you.

Your baby is cute though I wouldn't put her on an Internet message board. Not too bright are ya?

 

[koshergrl]

There actually is an inherent conflict.

Religious "miracles" are by definition in conflict with what we define as natural laws and processes.

Cite, reference and link please...

You don't need a reference or citation for a priori, or definitional knowledge. Grow a brain. Lmao...

"Religious miracles are BY DEFINITION"...please provide the definition, and then cite the source that proves they are in conflict with "what we define as natural laws and processes" and provide the definition that *we* are using for natural laws and processes.

If you are going to cite definitions and claim that we're "defining" something, then you get to provide those definitions. Because historically, you have no idea what the definition is. When you say "by definition" you mean "by my definition" which means absolutely nothing...and when you claim "what we define" you again mean you...you need to define who *we* consist of, and exactly what the definition that *we* use is...because your *we* probably isn't any sort of authority in any field. I suspect the *we* you refer to is you, yourself, and possibly your dog...though chances are, even your dog disagrees with you and thinks you're an idiot.

 

[Avatar4321]

This thread has seriously degernerated into a pile of crap.

There is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Both are supposed to teach us truth, they just have different methods to go about doing so.

There actually is an inherent conflict.

Religious "miracles" are by definition in conflict with what we define as natural laws and processes.

Simply because you don't understand the laws by which Miracles are done doesn't mean they are in conflict with natural law.

 

[G.T.]

koshergrl, your opinion is meaningless.

you've been embarrassed off this site, forced to create an alias, and now get embarrassed more anew.

stfu, in other words. You're irrelevant to me.

I'm sure many of us feel the same way about you.

Your baby is cute though I wouldn't put her on an Internet message board. Not too bright are ya?

why,what are people gunna do - text about her pic....her, to death?

dont be ridiculous.

 

[koshergrl]

I keep trying to explain that to the ignorami, but they don't get it. They appear to think that until something has been scientifically discovered, defined, and explained, it just doesn't exist.

So prior to landing on the moon and verifying it's existence, it was just a fantasy...a pretty picture in the sky with no substance or meaning. Prior to the discovery of the influenza virus, the flu was caused by evil little men with pitchforks that reside in our tummies....prior to the discovery of the genetic defect that results in mongolism, mongolism was the result of women being magically impregnated by retarded asians from afar. Because as all great scientific minds know....until a theory is proven, and until something is scientifically classified...IT DOESN'T EXIST.

 

[G.T.]

The buoyancy of humans had been discovered. You cant walk on water.

 

[newpolitics]

Cite, reference and link please...

You don't need a reference or citation for a priori, or definitional knowledge. Grow a brain. Lmao...

"Religious miracles are BY DEFINITION"...please provide the definition, and then cite the source that proves they are in conflict with "what we define as natural laws and processes" and provide the definition that *we* are using for natural laws and processes.

If you are going to cite definitions and claim that we're "defining" something, then you get to provide those definitions. Because historically, you have no idea what the definition is. When you say "by definition" you mean "by my definition" which means absolutely nothing...and when you claim "what we define" you again mean you...you need to define who *we* consist of, and exactly what the definition that *we* use is...because your *we* probably isn't any sort of authority in any field. I suspect the *we* you refer to is you, yourself, and possibly your dog...though chances are, even your dog disagrees with you and thinks you're an idiot.

Its called epistemology and logic. Study up, because nothing your saying makes any sense and is an attempt to avoid the burden of proof you take on claiming miracles are possible and in fact happened.

The definition of natural laws are not something I should need to explain. Look it up yourself if you'll need to, and this has nothing to do with subjective preferences, but objective demonstrations, for which NONE exist concerning miracles. In order to believe in miracles, you must take textual sources at face value, which is unjustifiable.

Just to help you out (because you obviously need it), miracles are necessarily an exemption from the natural laws of the universe, because if natural laws aren't required to be suspended, then you have no use for them, since it is then naturally possible, and god becomes unnecessary. You are logically trapped into believing miracles are a suspension of natural laws, otherwise, they do not exist... By DEFINITION.

 

[Hollie]

This thread has seriously degernerated into a pile of crap.

There is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Both are supposed to teach us truth, they just have different methods to go about doing so.

There actually is an inherent conflict.

Religious "miracles" are by definition in conflict with what we define as natural laws and processes.

Simply because you don't understand the laws by which Miracles are done doesn't mean they are in conflict with natural law.

Actually, I think we do understand the laws by which "miracles" are done: fear and superstition.

If you step back and objectively observe the claims to “miracles”, you will see that theists will reject the natural explanations over and over in favor of the supernatural assertions. What is the point of this? I've yet to see a creationist actually present a rational perspective relating to “miracles” with supportive evidence. They do not do it, and the reason is simple: They cannot. They can't answer even the simplest questions regarding alleged "miracles" without resorting to supernaturalism. Okay, you have a religious belief. No one says you're not entitled to a religious belief. However, trying to force a religious belief into a scientific paradigm while maintaining that your religion and your gods are extant to the exclusion of all the other gods is a bit of an affront to those gods and their believers.

The argument for supernatural interventions is "believe on faith" and I am not about to argue with anyone about whether or not they should have faith to believe. That's their call. The only argument against doing so is that there is then the desire to say the choice is made with logic and reason, and that's where I would differ. Make the choice in faith, and a happy life to you. But it's not made with "logic and reason" because logic and reason dictate that men don't walk on water, raise the dead, or rise from the dead themselves. Miracles by definition defy the idea of logic-- that is why we would call them miracles!

Appeals to “miracles” is a fool’s errand, because it relies completely on supernatural interventions)-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Belief in “miracles” is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.


Here’s a simple test for “miracles”:


Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any appeals for "miraculous" cures. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer or hoping for “miracle cures” they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

 

[koshergrl]

You don't need a reference or citation for a priori, or definitional knowledge. Grow a brain. Lmao...

"Religious miracles are BY DEFINITION"...please provide the definition, and then cite the source that proves they are in conflict with "what we define as natural laws and processes" and provide the definition that *we* are using for natural laws and processes.

If you are going to cite definitions and claim that we're "defining" something, then you get to provide those definitions. Because historically, you have no idea what the definition is. When you say "by definition" you mean "by my definition" which means absolutely nothing...and when you claim "what we define" you again mean you...you need to define who *we* consist of, and exactly what the definition that *we* use is...because your *we* probably isn't any sort of authority in any field. I suspect the *we* you refer to is you, yourself, and possibly your dog...though chances are, even your dog disagrees with you and thinks you're an idiot.

Its called epistemology and logic. Study up, because nothing your saying makes any sense and is an attempt to avoid the burden of proof you take on claiming miracles are possible and in fact happened.

The definition of natural laws are not something I should need to explain. Look it up yourself if you'll need to, and this has nothing to do with subjective preferences, but objective demonstrations, for which NONE exist concerning miracles. In order to believe in miracles, you must take textual sources at face value, which is unjustifiable.

Just to help you out (because you obviously need it), miracles are necessarily an exemption from the natural laws of the universe, because if natural laws aren't required to be suspended, then you have no use for them, since it is then naturally possible, and god becomes unnecessary. You are logically trapped into believing miracles are a suspension of natural laws, otherwise, they do not exist... By DEFINITION.

Look, more of the same.

A&E is doing a great job of educating you!

More blathering with no references to supporting documentation, no specific definition....despite repeated references to definitions that apparently don't exist.

You're doing great!

 

[koshergrl]

Typically, when people refuse to actually provide a definition of a term they're fond of using, it's because they're using it incorrectly.

Let's see if my theory holds water (this is where I provide supporting documentation to make you look like an idiot):

"
mir·a·cle

noun \ˈmir-i-kəl\




Definition of MIRACLE

1
: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

2
: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

3
Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law "

Miracle - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And look, I was right. You do look like an idiot, and nowhere in that definition is your *special* definition of miracle that both you and hollie proclaim is the *accepted* definition, and which *by definition* precludes scientific explanation for miraculous events.

YOUR definition (and I understand why you were reluctant to provide the real definition, since it looks nothing like this):

"miracles are necessarily an exemption from the natural laws of the universe, because if natural laws aren't required to be suspended, then you have no use for them, since it is then naturally possible, and god becomes unnecessary. You are logically trapped into believing miracles are a suspension of natural laws, otherwise, they do not exist... By DEFINITION."

There is exactly nothing in the DEFINITION of the word "miracle" that says that they are exempt from the natural laws of the universe, or that they require a suspension of natural laws, or else they don't exist..BY DEFINITION. The DEFINITION is right there, and it proves you, and hollie, are liars.

As if that was ever in doubt. You are, by DEFINITION, the epitome of liars.

 

[Hollie]

Typically, when people refuse to actually provide a definition of a term they're fond of using, it's because they're using it incorrectly.

Let's see if my theory holds water (this is where I provide supporting documentation to make you look like an idiot):

"
mir·a·cle

noun \ˈmir-i-kəl\

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle




Definition of MIRACLE

1
: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

2
: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

3
Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law "

4
: an extraordinary angry / self-hating religious fundamentalist believing herself capable of connecting words into coherent sentences.

 

[koshergrl]

Even the online dictionary proves you guys are idiots:

"mir·a·cle (m

r

-k

l)
n. 1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: "Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves" (Katherine Anne Porter).
2. One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder.
3. A miracle play.
miracle - definition of miracle by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

See anything about the suspension of *natural* law?

Pfffft....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....

Indication that you have a working brain would be a miracle indeed...one that might actually involve the suspension of natural law....but the exception does not prove the rule.

By definition, that is.

 

[koshergrl]

Typically, when people refuse to actually provide a definition of a term they're fond of using, it's because they're using it incorrectly.

Let's see if my theory holds water (this is where I provide supporting documentation to make you look like an idiot):

"
mir·a·cle

noun \ˈmir-i-kəl\




Definition of MIRACLE

1
: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

2
: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

3
Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law "

4
: an extraordinary angry / self-hating religious fundamentalist believing herself capable of connecting words into coherent sentences.

Oooh...I believe we have copywright infringement there, moron.

Can you say...."projection"? Because I'm laughing my buns off.

 

[koshergrl]

You don't need a reference or citation for a priori, or definitional knowledge. Grow a brain. Lmao...

"Religious miracles are BY DEFINITION"...please provide the definition, and then cite the source that proves they are in conflict with "what we define as natural laws and processes" and provide the definition that *we* are using for natural laws and processes.

If you are going to cite definitions and claim that we're "defining" something, then you get to provide those definitions. Because historically, you have no idea what the definition is. When you say "by definition" you mean "by my definition" which means absolutely nothing...and when you claim "what we define" you again mean you...you need to define who *we* consist of, and exactly what the definition that *we* use is...because your *we* probably isn't any sort of authority in any field. I suspect the *we* you refer to is you, yourself, and possibly your dog...though chances are, even your dog disagrees with you and thinks you're an idiot.

Its called epistemology and logic. Study up, because nothing your saying makes any sense and is an attempt to avoid the burden of proof you take on claiming miracles are possible and in fact happened.
The definition of natural laws are not something I should need to explain. I'm sure you feel that way, since you don't know what it is. Look it up yourself if you'll need to, Don't worry, I will....and this has nothing to do with subjective preferences, but objective demonstrations, for which NONE exist concerning miracles. In order to believe in miracles, you must take textual sources at face value, which is unjustifiable. I thought you had ruled out subjective preferences, you nitwit.

Just to help you out (because you obviously need it), miracles are necessarily an exemption from the natural laws of the universe, because if natural laws aren't required to be suspended, then you have no use for them, since it is then naturally possible, and god becomes unnecessary. That just gets funnier every time I read it, in light of the true definition, provided above. You are logically trapped into believing miracles are a suspension of natural laws, otherwise, they do not exist... By DEFINITION.

You do realize that doesn't make sense, right? You string words together and you pat yourself on the back thinking you've said something profound, when in reality, all you've done is produce gibberish.

natural law

noun





Definition of NATURAL LAW

: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law



Natural law - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

By definition, you have absolutely no concept of what that means. You just like to use the term.

In fact NATURAL LAW refers to laws that exist outside of society, and are usually attributed to...GOD. There are 7-105 natural laws of the universe, depending on who you reference...and NONE of them have to do with *science* except in the most existential way. They are laws that exist out of time and space with human society, and are simply the threads that connect the universe.

The idea that miracles exist outside of the natural laws of the universe is laughable, and directly oppositional to what *natural law* is.

 

[newpolitics]

"Religious miracles are BY DEFINITION"...please provide the definition, and then cite the source that proves they are in conflict with "what we define as natural laws and processes" and provide the definition that *we* are using for natural laws and processes.

If you are going to cite definitions and claim that we're "defining" something, then you get to provide those definitions. Because historically, you have no idea what the definition is. When you say "by definition" you mean "by my definition" which means absolutely nothing...and when you claim "what we define" you again mean you...you need to define who *we* consist of, and exactly what the definition that *we* use is...because your *we* probably isn't any sort of authority in any field. I suspect the *we* you refer to is you, yourself, and possibly your dog...though chances are, even your dog disagrees with you and thinks you're an idiot.

Its called epistemology and logic. Study up, because nothing your saying makes any sense and is an attempt to avoid the burden of proof you take on claiming miracles are possible and in fact happened.
The definition of natural laws are not something I should need to explain. I'm sure you feel that way, since you don't know what it is. Look it up yourself if you'll need to, Don't worry, I will....and this has nothing to do with subjective preferences, but objective demonstrations, for which NONE exist concerning miracles. In order to believe in miracles, you must take textual sources at face value, which is unjustifiable. I thought you had ruled out subjective preferences, you nitwit.

Just to help you out (because you obviously need it), miracles are necessarily an exemption from the natural laws of the universe, because if natural laws aren't required to be suspended, then you have no use for them, since it is then naturally possible, and god becomes unnecessary. That just gets funnier every time I read it, in light of the true definition, provided above. You are logically trapped into believing miracles are a suspension of natural laws, otherwise, they do not exist... By DEFINITION.

You do realize that doesn't make sense, right? You string words together and you pat yourself on the back thinking you've said something profound, when in reality, all you've done is produce gibberish.

natural law

noun





Definition of NATURAL LAW

: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law



Natural law - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

By definition, you have absolutely no concept of what that means. You just like to use the term.

In fact NATURAL LAW refers to laws that exist outside of society, and are usually attributed to...GOD. There are 7-105 natural laws of the universe, depending on who you reference...and NONE of them have to do with *science* except in the most existential way. They are laws that exist out of time and space with human society, and are simply the threads that connect the universe.

The idea that miracles exist outside of the natural laws of the universe is laughable, and directly oppositional to what *natural law* is.

You ARE right. Miracles are laughable, no matter which way you define them. If they are possible within the natural laws of the universe, then there is nothing special about them. They would be scientifically explicable, and therefore there is no need for a supernatural cause. If they are outside of the natural laws of the universe (Jesus walking on water), then evidence needs to be produced that such things are possible, which to date, has not been shown. Therefore, there is no justification for beleiving in such miracles, especially not simply because they are indicated in a few holy books.

You are also shying away from the implications of your own premises. You are trying to assert that miracles do not break natural laws, yet, presumably, you believe that Jesus walked on water. If you actually think that somebody walking on water isn't breaking the laws of the known natural universe, then you don't know what the essence of natural law is, even though you just cited its definition so proudly, which is odd.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, like most internet geniuses, now you're just making shit up with absolutely no regard to reality, scholarship, or terminology.

You're dismissed. I'd call you a pseudo intellectual, but that would be an insult to pseudo intellectuals. I suspect you're a 9th grade drop out who has filled your time with smoking dope and watching a lot of old vhs tapes that you checked out from the library.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah, like most internet geniuses, now you're just making shit up with absolutely no regard to reality, scholarship, or terminology.

You're dismissed. I'd call you a pseudo intellectual, but that would be an insult to pseudo intellectuals. I suspect you're a 9th grade drop out who has filled your time with smoking dope and watching a lot of old vhs tapes that you checked out from the library.

It is interesting to see the religiously insane stutter and mumble when their arguments for supermagical gawds collapse in front of them.

Walking on water would be a remarkable, gravity-defying event, quite in conflict with the natural, rational world. But then again, rationality has little place in the spirit world of fundie zealots.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, like most internet geniuses, now you're just making shit up with absolutely no regard to reality, scholarship, or terminology.

You're dismissed. I'd call you a pseudo intellectual, but that would be an insult to pseudo intellectuals. I suspect you're a 9th grade drop out who has filled your time with smoking dope and watching a lot of old vhs tapes that you checked out from the library.

It is interesting to see the religiously insane stutter and mumble when their arguments for supermagical gawds collapse in front of them.

Walking on water would be a remarkable, gravity-defying event, quite in conflict with the natural, rational world. But then again, rationality has little place in the spirit world of fundie zealots.

This must be the 90th time you've retreated to "stutter and mumble"....both boring and incorrect.

How about a little creativity???
Jeeeeezzzzzzz....you're not only stupid, but dull!


Here, watch this:


Until you came along I always wondered how the dinosaurs survived for millions of years with walnut sized brains.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah, like most internet geniuses, now you're just making shit up with absolutely no regard to reality, scholarship, or terminology.

You're dismissed. I'd call you a pseudo intellectual, but that would be an insult to pseudo intellectuals. I suspect you're a 9th grade drop out who has filled your time with smoking dope and watching a lot of old vhs tapes that you checked out from the library.

It is interesting to see the religiously insane stutter and mumble when their arguments for supermagical gawds collapse in front of them.

Walking on water would be a remarkable, gravity-defying event, quite in conflict with the natural, rational world. But then again, rationality has little place in the spirit world of fundie zealots.

This must be the 90th time you've retreated to "stutter and mumble"....both boring and incorrect.

How about a little creativity???
Jeeeeezzzzzzz....you're not only stupid, but dull!


Here, watch this:


Until you came along I always wondered how the dinosaurs survived for millions of years with walnut sized brains.

Heyzeus - this must be the 91st time you've spammed the thread with pointless babble.