-136

Scientists explore truth but Christianity is the truth, scientists are just too prideful to accept that truth.

22%Agree78%Disagree
Myvis avatar Religion
Share
1 78

Maybe you're the one that's too prideful. That's a sin you know.

This comment was deleted by its author.
This user has deactivated their account.
@1933749

I see what you did there. I will edit it for you.

@Myvi Maybe I'm right. @muddy there you go.

Hah. There it is right there. "Maybe" you're right. If there's a maybe involved you can't call it the truth. Lulz

Kumquats avatar Kumquat Disagree +6Reply

Some scientists are christians... But being that close-minded is a no-no.

Skr3wBalls avatar Skr3wBall Disagree +5Reply
@Skr3wBall Some scientists are christians... But being that close-minded is a no-no.

The scientists that are Christians are the ones who have accepted "that truth." I'm not trying to sound insolent but your comment was pointless.....

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -2Reply
@Myvi The scientists that are Christians are the ones who have accepted "that truth." I'm not trying to sound insolent...

Your post was equally as pointless to me. You said scientists are too prideful to accept "the truth", but not all scientists are even like that.

Skr3wBalls avatar Skr3wBall Disagree +4Reply
@Skr3wBall Your post was equally as pointless to me. You said scientists are too prideful to accept "the truth", but not all...

The scientists who have accepted the truth aren't prideful. The ones who haven't accepted the truth because of their achievements are. That is the point of the post. I shouldn't have to explain.

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -2Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1933742

The post says "...scientists are just too prideful to accept that truth." NOT someone who isn't Christian.

@Myvi The scientists who have accepted the truth aren't prideful. The ones who haven't accepted the truth because of...

You should have to explain when you say that scientists are one thing, but Christians are something else.

@Myvi The scientists who have accepted the truth aren't prideful. The ones who haven't accepted the truth because of...

...so the only scientists who can be both successful and religious are the ones who don't achieve anything?

shelbmes avatar shelbme Disagree 0Reply

Truth requires facts. Please give us one single FACT that proves that Christianity is 'right' and there is an omnipotent being.

Loving the superiority complex, btw. It's funny, everyone else can see how incredibly wrong you are, but you read a couple of books and suddenly you know the origins and meaning of life.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1933721

John Lennox inspired the thought. The majority Richard Dawkins' points were nonsensical. Also, nearing the end of their debate Dawkins admitted he had faith which he first claimed was nonexistent.

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -2Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1933728

I wasn't degrading the "atheist population" I simply stated my opinion of Richard Dawkins views in the debate. Regarding my post I was not referring to the "atheist population" I was referring to scientists. Scientists can t least back up their reasons of disbelief with logic, Atheists can't and that is the difference.

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -1Reply
@Myvi I wasn't degrading the "atheist population" I simply stated my opinion of Richard Dawkins views in the debate...

"Scientists can t least back up their reasons of disbelief with logic, Atheists can't and that is the difference." Because theists can back up their reasons of belief with logic.

Finally. It's been a while since we had a funny POTD.

Lens avatar Len Disagree +2Reply

So scientists in Islamic/Buddhist/Etc. nations are too prideful to accept that Christianity is the truth? ...Right. There are way more religions than just Christianity (although I believe in none of them).

lt2010s avatar lt2010 Disagree +2Reply

I disagree with this post and its wording very much. But I can see from the above comments that you are prideful too, and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who will not listen. I respect your right to have an opinion even if it is the polar opposite of mine.

"scientists are too prideful"
First, why would scientists take pride in not accepting it ?
Second, you need to understand that science do not have opinions, dogms, or pride. It's all about objectivity.

I suspect a big hairy troll...

hugos avatar hugo Disagree +1Reply

1. "...many scientists working in areas completely unrelated to faith..."
This post of mine was obviously referring to the Philosophers of science specifically since I linked the post to the "The God Delusion Debate with John Lennox and Richard Dawkins." When you mentioned "...make any mention of computer-science, robotics, etc" That fact is not valid. Clearly because you are dense you read the post and assumed.
2. This "gold rule" of yours (not mine) is non exsisant. Simple minded followers believe that their is a "golden rule" specifically religious fundamentalist. Those are the ones who read the bible but do not understand the word. Again this "rule" is what fake Christians believe in. The prioties of followers may be to pray in tongues or to live like David once did ('m assuming you know who that is because you've supposedly read the bible). Once again this "golden rule" or yours (not mine) falls into a the category of religious practice which is the practically formed religious fundamentalism.
3. How am I trolling? Can I not state an opinion? Is that not what this website is for?

This user has deactivated their account.
@1933747

1. That is why you assumed that my post focused on the vast areas of science instead of philosophers.
2. Really? You are relying in Wikipedia. The "encyclopedia" that is written by internet volunteers I have to question your intelligence. Another invalid statements that you have made. When your website is creditable and your reasons are FACTS such as Richard Dawkins I will respond.
3. I admit I did post this to get a reaction.hehe smilie

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -2Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1933759

1. No, Loving thy neighbor is apart of the ten commandments which was a SET of commandments not one law but a set of laws given to Moses in the old testament and if you really read and understood the bible you wouldn't even ask me such an illogical question.
2. What I am sincerely saying is only foolish and carnal people sum up Christianity in one verse when there is so many aspects of the practice rather than simply loving your neighbor. What about the 1st commandment which is "You shall have no other gods before Me" or the other nine that you disregarded? Although you have read the bible you don't understand the word which is why you were angered by my post, also why you a backing up ONE commandment when there is ten and also why defending ONE verse where the are thousands. My point is that fact that you cannot sum up Christianity in one verse with this "golden rule" foolishness that you read n of all websites Wikipedia. There is no sense to practically anyone of your statements. Its like I am responding to a wall.

@Myvi 1. No, Loving thy neighbor is apart of the ten commandments which was a SET of commandments not one law but a set...

Their point is "don't be a dick. What would Jesus do?" is the fundamental point of the bible.

nope, YOU are the one who is too prideful to accept the truth. Religion is nothing but a set of lies, aimed to keep people be good to everyone. It just went the wrong way, which is a reason not to follow it. Scientists use logic, and everything in the universe works with logic. ACCEPT THAT!

The truth is the truth whether or not you choose to believe it. :)

faith is not science, but the religious try to use science to prove their faith!

I don't think that I can physically respond to this level of stupidity. Truth is defined as "that which is in accordance with fact or reality." Fact is defined as "the quality of being actual (a question of fact hinges on evidence)." Based on these definitions, which I believe to be widely accepted, Christianity could not be any further from the truth. Christianity, along with all other religions, is a belief. Who can say that a few centuries down the road people will not scoff at Christianity as untrue as we do the polytheistic Greek and Roman religions? There is no evidence to support Christianity or any other religion as truth. Keep in mind that I am not saying that science is absolute truth either. Science does not yet have all of the answers, but what it does have is backed by fact and evidence and trials. And as a final note, how am I supposed to take you seriously when you can't even use proper grammar in your posts?

Caitis avatar Caiti Disagree 0Reply

cos thats the most stupid thing i have ever read.

Do you really think that you are right ?

Anonymous 0Reply

It can be that both are stating the 'truth' but were just to prideful to admit it. Science gave us theories and conceivable evidences while Christianity gave us the binding force that unites us.

You guys have to be the worst atheists I've ever "argued" with. There is no facts all you post is mindless statements. There is no challenge
but I love the attempt.

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -6Reply
@Myvi You guys have to be the worst atheists I've ever "argued" with. There is no facts all you post is mindless...

"I'm going to stop replying to your comments even though I 'love the attempt' because I've run out of arguments" is what that means.

@Frank_n_Furter "I'm going to stop replying to your comments even though I 'love the attempt' because I've run out of arguments" is...

You've never made a point. All you did was comment useless statements and read. "Maybe you're the one that's too prideful. That's a sin you know," and "Their point is "don't be a dick. What would Jesus do?" is the fundamental point of the bible." There is nothing there.

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -3Reply
@Myvi You've never made a point. All you did was comment useless statements and read. "Maybe you're the one that's too...

Actually I did. "Maybe you're the one that's to prideful." The point was your hypocrisy. If "There point is 'don't be a dick. What would Jesus do?'" has no point, then your comment about the 10 commandments had no point. The point of that one was that yes, the golden rule is part of religion. So one, you're wrong that the comment never made a point, and two, you're being irrelevant, which makes you a hypocrite again because that comment serves no point.

@Frank_n_Furter Actually I did. "Maybe you're the one that's to prideful." The point was your hypocrisy. If "There point is 'don't...

1. This mindless golden rule is a title that has been accepted by fake Christians the ones who go around with stupid protests like "God hates gays" Real Christians do not accept that "golden rule."
2. You have obviously not studied Christianity because you are making rash assumptions as did Muddy.
3. My point about the other commandments is relevant because of the fact the she (muddy) only focused on one aspect of Christianity and clamed it as the "golden rule" that commandment is a religious practice which goes back to 1.

@Myvi 1. This mindless golden rule is a title that has been accepted by fake Christians the ones who go around with...

lmao what? If you follow the golden rule, you don't protest people's marriage unless you want people to protest your marriage. I seriously think you're a troll now. The point of religion is different for everyone, studying the bible has nothing to do with it- and from what I'm seeing, you thinking only fake Christians treat other people the way they would like to be treated shows you haven't studied the Bible. For most, the point is to be good to people. No one is saying the other commandments aren't relevant or that Christianity is the golden rule, just that the golden rule is a huge part of religion and for most, the fundamental point because the Bible teaches you how to be a good person.

@Frank_n_Furter lmao what? If you follow the golden rule, you don't protest people's marriage unless you want people to protest...

1. The Bible mainly teaches you how to fellowship and trust God not how to be a good person.
3. Carnal Christians believe in this "golden rule" of living by works.
4. Religion is dangerous when it becomes a system and shields everything else. Fake Christians believe that there IS A GOLDEN RULE and shield everything else. The is my point there is no such thing as a RULE.
6. I think I should major in Philosophy or theology now. hello smilie

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -1Reply
@Myvi 1. The Bible mainly teaches you how to fellowship and trust God not how to be a good person. 3. Carnal Christians...

You're not wrong, there is a lot of that in there. I'm talking about how religious people interpret the bible-which is that you should be a good Christian. What the heck is a carnal Christian? That doesn't make any sense based off what I know about the meaning of the word carnal. Yep, sure can be dangerous when it becomes a big system, on a personal level though, it's just fine. You're only looking at it macro level. You're being to specific for the sake of disagreeing with the golden rule. Every rule has exceptions. Rules get broken. The fact people aren't going to treat people how they want to be treated 100% of the time goes with out saying. To quote Pirates of the Caribbean, "it's more of a guideline." So you WERE tollin hehe smilie

@Frank_n_Furter You're not wrong, there is a lot of that in there. I'm talking about how religious people interpret the bible-which...

1. If you want to call it trolling what does it matter to me? I simply posted and opinion of mine.
2. Your deifition of carnality is a simpletons definition of carnality which is why you wouldn't understand that statemen.
3. What is this stuff about treating people how they ent or be treated my post is about SCIENTISTS.
4. Great movie there is going to be another one.

@Myvi 1. If you want to call it trolling what does it matter to me? I simply posted and opinion of mine. 2. Your...

1. OK? I don't care if you don't care what I call it.Why even mention that?
2. I never told you my definition.
3. It is also about theists. Someone mentioned it and you've been running with it. If you don't think it's relevant, quit talking about it, I didn't bring it up.

@Frank_n_Furter 1. OK? I don't care if you don't care what I call it.Why even mention that? 2. I never told you my definition. 3...

1. The on to first bring up trolling was. If you were to read the comments I did not mention trolling until you mentioned trolling and I responded.
2. Your definition was not needed you are assuming that I am trolling. 3. How are you going to say 3 when you have 1 there is no sense. You said you don't care but you mention your trolling statement as a "thesis"

@Myvi 1. The on to first bring up trolling was. If you were to read the comments I did not mention trolling until you...

Yes, I called you a troll. Why does it matter that you don't care what it's called?

My definition is needed for you to know that it is a simpleton definition.

Wut. Lol, so you're trolling, and it was fun to argue with your fallacies and illogical logic, but now you've started being non-nonsensical, so I think I'm done if your next one is at all like this one. For the record though, lists don't have a thesis, but if they did, your comment used trolling as a thesis first, and I replied to your arguments in the order they were presented.

@Myvi You guys have to be the worst atheists I've ever "argued" with. There is no facts all you post is mindless...

You are really pompous and condescending ya know, cash in your reality check, you are your only Agree. You're too hubristic to accept that the truth is, scientists find out things they feel they need to know, and Christians do the same. Christian scientists do the same. You said "The scientists who have accepted the truth aren't prideful. The ones who haven't accepted the truth because of their achievements are." So who are the scientists in your post? Are Christian scientists not scientists? What about former Christians? They found the truth. Can they lose the truth? What the alligator rectum are you saying about scientists and what are you saying about Christians?

ALSO *There ARE no facts; all you post ARE mindless statements. There is no challenge , but I love the attempt.

ALSO I'm not an athiest, I'm an agnostic with very close Christian ties so I consider myself that as well.

ALSO BAM! THAT WAS FUN! pce smilie

Skr3wBalls avatar Skr3wBall Disagree +5Reply
@Skr3wBall You are really pompous and condescending ya know, cash in your reality check, you are your only Agree. You're too...

1. "You guys have to be the worst atheists I've ever "argued" with. There ARE no facts all of YOUR posts ARE mindless statements. There is no challenge
but I love the attempt." Is that better?
2. Presuming the other two were atheist I blatantly disregarded you like three of four hours ago.
3. This is an online social network to post opinions I don't need people who don't have college degrees to agree with my post. I don't need to know whether you are Agnostic, Christian or Atheist this is a social network not Bible school .
4. Lastly I'm not going to explain my post I shouldn't have to. If you don't understand it then I am wasting my energy, once again we are not in bible school.

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -2Reply
@Myvi 1. "You guys have to be the worst atheists I've ever "argued" with. There ARE no facts all of YOUR posts ARE...

1. Start backing up your statements with facts. For the record, "when your website is creditable and your reasons are FACTS such as Richard Dawkins," your opinion matching up with another opinion does not make it fact.

3. Having a college degree makes a subjective opinion any more credible?

4. This is an opinion site. You've said it yourself. If you're not going to explain your opinion, then quit saying that.

@Frank_n_Furter 1. Start backing up your statements with facts. For the record, "when your website is creditable and your reasons...

1. Richard Dawkins stated facts in his debate.
2. Wikipedia is not creditable.
3. They are both facts.
4. I was referring to the site as an opinion social network because he said that no one agreed with my post like it mattered.
5. Why should I explain my opinion when he does not understand my judgment?

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -4Reply
@Myvi 1. Richard Dawkins stated facts in his debate. 2. Wikipedia is not creditable. 3. They are both facts. 4. I was...

1. You, however, are not,
2. We're not trying to teach you nuclear physics, Wiki will do just fine. Richard Dawkins isn't a credible source either as he is only one man, being credible requires peer review.
4 and 5 together. You've said it again. It's an opinion social network, that's half the reason you should explain. The second half is "explain my opinion when he does not understand my judgment?" why the hell would you explain to someone who already does understand? The fact that he doesn't is why you should explain.

@Myvi I'm not getting anywhere with you..

1.Because it is a waste of my time, in not on here to be a teacher.
2. 4 and 5 don't go together 4 was about social networking 5 was about explaining my post.
3. Wiki itself state that it is written by volunteer writers and explains how things are rewritten and published because it is not crediatble. Some school systems don't even allow student to use the website because not everything on there is true.
4. Richard Dawkins is a scientist, he writes books and proposals about humanities, theologies and more. Dawkins gets more than a petty review by his peers. The man gets wall street journal to publish his findings because they are FACTS. Therefore you know nothing of what you speak of.
5. Dude: I destroyed you...

Myvis avatar Myvi Agree -2Reply
@Myvi 1.Because it is a waste of my time, in not on here to be a teacher. 2. 4 and 5 don't go together 4 was about social...

1. Because being on amirite isn't a waste of time. You're doing just that right now- wasting your time explaining. If you don't want to do it cuz it's a waste, stop.
2. I was combing my reply because they were related and I didn't feel like making it longer than it needed to be
3. Do you seriously think you need a scholarly article on the Golden rule to understand it and that any thing less isn't worthy of taking into consideration? Again, it's not teaching you nuclear physics, you'll be fine.
4. Again, you are not Richard Dawkins. Plus he is a scientist, not a theologian, he is not credible to talk about that. "This guy knows some things, therefore you don't." Yep. That's how knowledge works.
5. Nope.

@Frank_n_Furter 1. Because being on amirite isn't a waste of time. You're doing just that right now- wasting your time explaining...

1 I'm explains my judgement not my post.
2. 2 and 3 you just don't want to admit that I amrite.
3. He is a scientist that majored in other areas at Cambridge he is creditable when he presents facts which you don't going back to Wikipedia which is not creditable.
5. In a debate/argument when the one begins to repeat themselves they have lost. I did destroy you...

@Myvi 1 I'm explains my judgement not my post. 2. 2 and 3 you just don't want to admit that I amrite. 3. He is a...

1 Never said you were explaining the post. I said you were wasting your time explaining. If you're already wasting your time explaining one thing, then using time wasting is not an excuse to not explain another. It's avoiding explaining.
2 Yep. Combining my reply means I know you're right. So does what I have to say about wiki and the Golden rule, even though you don't see why people are talking about it because the post is about scientists.
3 You repeat the same argument, I will counter with the same one.

@Frank_n_Furter 1 Never said you were explaining the post. I said you were wasting your time explaining. If you're already wasting...

1. Yet when this started you asked me to explain my post to the young man.
2. Good fight in going to sleep now. Like I was wasting my time with the man I am also wasting it with you who is relying on assumptions and contradicting your statement which you have done twice by the way. It has been well.
3. I did destroy you and you are to prideful to admit it.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1933840

1. Is there a problem using Dawkins name? I praised him.
2. Exactly my point his sites are creditable facts.
3.I made the post to get a reaction and you guys reacted to it.biggrin smilie

This user has deactivated their account.
@1933845

1. That does not say that his facts are not creditable. I know who Richard Dawkins is I have seen and been to many of his debates.
2. That is what I wanted.

@Myvi 1. "You guys have to be the worst atheists I've ever "argued" with. There ARE no facts all of YOUR posts ARE...

1. No it's not, there is a comma after challenge and a semi-colon after facts.
2. You shouldn't've done that since your post is still mondo bogus.
3. What does a college degree have to do with anything? You have one agree and I don't know that guys education standpoint. And you said atheists when I'm not an atheist, so I corrected you. You don't need to know it, but I don't need to know any of your opinions do I?
4. Why would you make a post and not care if anyone understands? Just don't post if you don't care.
5. Stop acting high and mighty.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1933804

Do you skype? I would also love to continue this! That would be so much better! biggrin smilie

This user has deactivated their account.
@1933837

Where are you from?

This user has deactivated their account.
@1933842

Whoa: Awesome and do you live there now or in the States?

This user has deactivated their account.
@1933847

Well that's nice.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.