California closes all "Places of Worship" indefinitely, or until they deem it safe to reopen them. This is a direct attack on our freedoms. Commiefornia doing what commiefornia does.
(media.patriots.win)
🐂 Bullshit 💩
Comments (710)
sorted by:
Don't mean to offend you, but I find it incredibly ironic that you use the language of the transcendence (Good vs Evil, Dark vs Light) and still can encapsulate yourself into being an "atheist".
I venture to say this attitude is a direct consequence of the Protestant obsession with the Text. It's unfortunate but it is divine will. The Protestant movement did great things to break the grid lock monopoly of the rotten carcass of the Latin church, but there is a limit to human inventions after all.
If you are a smart and humble person, you should be calling yourself agnostic not atheist. Atheism is nothing but a teenager game to rebel against their NPC Christian parents.
Take it from me as a former "atheist".
No offense taken and I was half-hoping someone like yourself would come asking. How can an atheist make such statements without believing in gods?
I am a bit offended that you would subtly claim that I am not smart and not humble by the way you have worded your response. Please climb down from your tower. We can play games with the meaning agnostic vs atheist all day long. Generally speaking, agnostic means a person who has not formed an opinion as to the presence of gods where an atheist has.
So, how is it that I can see the Good vs Evil and Dark vs Light without believing in gods? Simple really. I believe that there are PEOPLE that believe in those gods and act accordingly. Thus it is good people vs evil people and people of the dark vs people of the light that are battling.
View God as a metaphor and it all makes sense my dude.
Again, excuse my use of language, but I think being straight and direct is better than jumping around the bush. Plus, my background was autistically scientific before I became a Christian, so I'm used to jumping straight in the ring anyway.
So, let's have a small discussion if you are still willing.
One issue the atheists often mention is the lack of evidence. Ask yourself this: what kind of evidence do you want? Apparently, atheists desire "evidence". However, this an incredibly arbitrary desire and yet somehow made to be perceived as these "evidence" must be of a scientific nature. A scientific evidence is anything but arbitrary.
I don't know anything your professional field so I can't make any claim about it, so I will just mention statistics quickly because it is essential when you want to talk about scientific evidence.
Statistical reasoning is central to any and all scientific work. Even scientists themselves have to be incredibly careful with the results of a test, that's why you may have heard some one say something like "95% confidence", which is supposed to be "95% statistically significant". Mind you, in statistics there is nothing as true or false. A 95% statistical confidence does not deny or confirm anything. The number only pertains to the very narrowly worded criteria of the test in use. Thus, a set of data obtained through the scientific method is qualitatively bound to the questions raised at the beginning of the test only, nothing else. Data (usually) do not lie and data are not the same as 'evidence'. Thus, even the phrase "statistical evidence" is an oxymoron. So when atheists like you talk about evidence, you must be clear what kind of evidence you want to talk about.
Next, if you desire scientific evidence, then you must design a test using the scientific method. But how are you going to design a test to verify the existence of God? Science (the actual hard sciences like physics and chemistry -- not the fake "soft sciences" like economics) only deals with the physical reality where things can be measured. How do you measure God? Even theoretical physics itself is a very narrow field where they try to predict within very specific subsets of physical problems. There is a reason it is called theoretical, because there is absolutely no way to verify any claim at all, and some consistently calculated results from some assumed math functions are not the same as measured data. For example, if you dig a little bit only into the physics circles, you will even hear some arguments regarding the validity of string theory as a physics discipline.
If even physics, which is at the absolute frontier of chartering the human knowledge about the fabric of reality, has to be humble about the true nature of reality, don't think it is quite hasty on your part to proclaim 'God does not exist'?
So when you have no way to verify whether or a claim is true or false, your argument is as good as a Christian's faith.
Edit: again, not trying to offend your intelligence. I know the way I talk may appear too blunt so you have to excuse me. However, science (scientific data to be exact) is cold and hard, and isn't that why we all love to rely on it?