There is a very key difference here. Suppose you have two experts in their fields: a scientist and a priest/minister/religious scholar. They teach the layman, who otherwise doesn't really get what they're talking about. He has to take their positions "on faith." But here's the thing: the priest is also taking his propositions on faith--he's merely come up with a rationalized position for why he thinks his faith makes sense. The scientist is not taking his propositions on faith--they are either demonstrable, or contribute adequate predictions under a model that under Bayes' Theorem makes them more likely to be true.

With enough study, the layman can understand things on the level of the scientist, and can see his work demonstrated empirically. Regardless of how much study he undertakes, the layman can no more prove the existence of God/the resurrection/transubstantiation/divine inspiration than the priest can. He can only invent cuter and cuter rationalizations.

When you "take something on faith" from a scientist, you aren't really trusting him per se; you're trusting the process. When you taking something on faith from a minister, you're most definitely trusting his particular insights.

Agreed, there are qualitative differences of faith

Priests suck, Jesus and God agree imo (to say it simply). "Call no one teacher, for one is your teacher" and much more...but let's not get too carried away.

When you say "ah but the priest is rationalizing", all you're really saying is that he isn't rational. But that kinda is the question at hand. (even though I've already agreed that he's a little suspect )

I guess really, I don't put it past a scientist to be part of a conspiracy, since the implications for this overall question (non life to life) have a huge impact on law, and therefore money.

What huge impact will it have on law?

I’m not sure if the creation of the world requires power at all. I mean, if there’s nothing that can delimit the creative act, why would power be required to overcome what is essentially the absence of resistance?

I don’t think you can make (4) work without rejecting the theist’s definition of God. That is, I don’t think the non-existence of God (a self-caused, self-sustaining being whose very essence is to be) is conceivable.

So you're saying god exists because religious people can't conceive of god not existing?

Has anyone on this forum ever been converted? jw

Well, this is the question that divides materialists from ...bible version of God believer, essentially.

The bible believer should believe in The Law (Torah) (Matt 5:17). In the torah, legislation is prohibited (deut 4:2), the land is divided (num. 33:54), there are no taxes (besides providing food for the feasts).

To go back to my suspicion for a second, the same incentive, or motive for the scientist (mechanicalist), is likely there for the church leader as well. All kinds of professors (prophets? ) are suspect.

Over time, all of society has been infected, the law has been doubted, the believer is declared insane.

All on the mere possibility made to seem as fact, that the non living can become living.

Why? Morals decline as people don't know what is good or bad. They follow their flesh (forgetting their soul), and are conned out of everything.

Now instead of everyone (~) owning land, only a few do as materialism opened the door for "democracy", giving fools the right to have a say in legislation. (which is debatable now at this point, whether they even have that)

How did the Queen of the (United) Kingdom take an oath to uphold the laws of God (during the coronation ceremony), then give all legislative power to the House of Lords and Commons. (Baal worship imo, little lords) Now instead of her same allotment as everyone else, she's the richest woman in the world.

Another question is who funds these scientists? Do those guys own way more land than is allotted as well? In The Law, attaining multiple properties is doable, but the land has to be returned on the Jubilee every 50 years. So there is incentive, but not monopolization.

Back to the Queen, what did that joker do on the Jubilee? She gave the people like 3 days off from work? Lol.

jokerthief IIRC, but not because of the posts in the forum.

I was an atheist up until 2 years ago. I have since been "saved", if you will.

So how much of an educated of an atheist were you? And what converted you ? Evidence? Argument? God himself showed up at your front door?

I can't really believe an educated atheist can covert into a religious person. There is no existing evidence or argument out there that could do that for me.

There are plenty of testimonies from former atheist, educated and unrefined alike, that have been converted to theism.

You didn't answer my questions. Care to tell me what converted you? Former atheists who after reading their convention stories one could clearly see they converted due to their lack of reason.

I would wager that the large majority of former atheists were almost certainly apathetic.

Let me start with saying religion is a huge joke. Kind of like boxing being a sport.

I don't understand why people aren't smart enough to come to the realization that no one knows if god exists.

There could be a god, there could be no god. Does it really matter?

The important part is the fact that there COULD be a god.
Ill say this, I believe that if their is a god I will never find out even after I die.


Being an atheists is just as bad sa being religious.

Just be a human! Believe in yourself , there is no reason to worry about things you can't control.

That being said, I doubt a person can control if they believe in god anymore than they can choose to be gay or straight.

grunching from here.

If you were to come to the conclusion that the Bible is accurate and historical, then Jesus performs plenty of miracles that satisfy this.

I'm pretty sure many of them had no idea that they converted due to their inability to see through the BS that converted them. If only someone was there to point it out to them that they became victims of the snake oil salesman .

I'm sorry but how is not buying into religious claims as bad as being religious? Please explain.

But it is not accurate and is not historical, so from the beginning this is unrealistic unless one completely suspends logic and lies to himself that the bible is accurate and historical.

Not really.

Because no one knows whether god exists or not.
You are buying into atheists claims which is absurd when it is blatantly obvious that no knows the answer.

I will concede atheists side is more realist bc the religious reason for believing in god is based on lies(my bias showing lol). Where as atheists non belief is based on current human knowledge. Tho the existence of god remains unproveable

Obviously, no one knows for certain that god(s) doesn't exist. Everyone is agnostic to an extent. Atheists are simply rejecting the claims made, (usually) do to a lack of convincing reasons.

Very few people are gnostic atheists, like you claim, that think they know with absolute certainty that god(s) doesn't exist.

Do you see where you went wrong?

No