Infanticide

[Age]

That has never been in doubt. In fact, the scientific method was invented by a Christian. Science, as a discipline, would never have existed without the prior faith in a law-like universe, and the basis for that was faith in a rational, law-giver God.

What a whopper!

First, the idea that scientific, "laws," are some kind of rules or mandates imposed on reality which it is required to obey is complete mystic nonsense taught by religion. Scientific, "laws," are the principles by which the nature of physical entities are understood and the description of how those entities behave determined by their own nature. Nothing makes them behave the way the do, they behave they way they do because they are what they are. There are no Mexwell's demons, no law giving spirits or beings dictating how reality must behave. That is pure mystic nonsense,

Second, there is no such thing as, "the scientific method." There is no one way any science must be done, because every aspect of science deals with different aspects of the physical world and it is the nature of what is being studied that determines what method will successfully discover the nature of that being studied. The methods of discovery in the fields mechanics, dynamics, electronics, chemistry, and biology, beyond the fact there must be actual observable evidence and nothing can be just assumed, the methods used will be totally different.

The so-called, "Christian," credited with the so-called, "scientific method," is usually Francis Bacon, (though Rene Descartes is also sometimes credited with formulating the, "scientific method") and the method referred to is called, "induction," which is not a form of reason or scientific investigation at all, only a tool that can be used as part of a scientific investigation. It is nothing more than observing that some kinds of phenomena are frequently observed repeating (the sun comes up every dry) or in close conjunction (water turns to ice whenever it is very cold), suggesting there is a reason for the repeated events or some relationship between the two phenomena. In the entire history of science no scientific principle or fact has been discovered or established by means of induction. As for bacon, there is not a single scientific fact or discovery attributed to him.

Science was being done successfully long before Bacon was born. Bacon's book was not published until 1620 and some of the most profound scientific discoveries in history were made before or contemporaneously with Bacon before anyone ever heard of his so-called scientific method.

Christians will say just anything to put over their absurd views.

ANY one who ASSUMES or BELIEVES some 'thing' is true will 'TRY TO' say just about ANY 'thing' to substantiate that 'view'.

[attofishpi]

Yes, I suppose there is that. Perhaps we should refer to him as the pork belly of science suitable for a good roasting. I'll start with one of his Christian virtues, arranging to have a political opponent, and his wife, executed. Christians refer to that kind of thing as justice. Their God just loves people who do things like that which is why David, who arranged to have his best friend killed so he could take his wife is called "a man after God's own heart."

Whose David?

Glad you asked.

David was the second king of united Israel described in I Samual and I Chronicles in the Old Testament. When the kingdom was taken form Saul (the first king) and given to David, Samuel said, "But now your kingdom will not endure; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people, because you have not kept the Lord’s command.” [I Samuel 13:14] Paul repeats the description [Acts 13:22] “After removing Saul, he [God] made David their king. He testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.‘”

Here are some of the things David, doing everything God wanted him to do, did:

1.He had multiple wives and children by them all, including Ahinoam;, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and of course Bathsheba, whose husband he had killed.

2. He was a muderer from the beginning of his career, beginning with killing the Philistine champion, Goliath going on to become a warrior king.

3. He waged continuous invasive war and aggression against the Geshurites, Girzites, Amalekites, Jerahmeelites, Kenites, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Philistines and exercised what is today called ethnic cleansing and extreme ethnic prejudice against anyone not of the Abraham/Isaac/Jacob (Israel) bloodline.

Oh! That David!! Loved the Goliath story at school.

Those are the highlights. That's the kind of man the God of Christians regards as one after His own heart. Do you wonder why Christians are universally war mongers and racists? They learned it from their God.

Christians can only claim to be Christian by adhering to 10 commandments, and living by the tenets that Christ taught.

Non-believers clearly have used the masses of followers over the years to their benefit.. woops, is it ok for me to pile all atheists into the same statement:- universal war mongers and racists?

Evangelists are the worst kind in general though, preaching bigotry etc..

If the above was truly driven by the will of God, I'm certain there would have been karmic reasoning behind it at the time. From experience, the wrath of God is truly something one wouIdn't want to reckon with.

[Age]

That has never been in doubt. In fact, the scientific method was invented by a Christian. Science, as a discipline, would never have existed without the prior faith in a law-like universe, and the basis for that was faith in a rational, law-giver God.

What a whopper!

You don't know? Go and look up "Francis Bacon" -- the scientist, not the painter of the same name. You'll find that even secular sources say it was he, a Christian" who invented the scientific method.

Is it POSSIBLE that that one found a way to describe a 'method', which had ALREADY been used? Or, to you, did that one IRREFUTABLY 'invent' THE 'scientific method'?

See, for example, just describing how the brain works is NOT 'inventing' THE 'way the brain works', just like 'coming across' a parcel of land, with inhabitants already there, but STILL saying, "I/we 'discovered this land", does NOT mean that 'they' ACTUALLY 'discovered' 'that land'.

Also, just because that one human being may be known for 'inventing' some so-called "scientific method" that 'science', as a discipline would NEVER have come to exist later on. Nor, that 'science', as a discipline would NEVER come exist WITHOUT a prior faith in a law-like Universe, as to have 'faith', without PROOF ACTUALLY goes completely AGAINST what 'science' is MEANT to be about.

And, as for saying, "the basis for a law-like Universe was faith in a rational, law-giver God", is just MORE PROOF of how people with BELIEFS will say just about ANY 'thing' in the HOPE that what they say will back up and support their currently HELD ONTO BELIEF.

By the way, was the use of your 'rational' word here, in relation to some so-called "law-giver God" just ANOTHER ATTEMPT at 'TRYING TO' support your BELIEF in some 'thing', which is supposedly OUTSIDE of this One, infinite AND eternal, Universe, and which gave 'rise' to and CREATED 'this Universe'?

If yes, then it is NOT working.

That's not even questionable, historically. As for the rest, it's known formally as Whitehead's Hypothesis. As one commenter puts it, For him [i.e. A.N. Whitehead] God is primarily the principle, i.e., source, of "limitation," and thereby God is the "principle of concretion." God as this principle, in Whitehead’s words, "constitutes the metaphysical stability whereby the actual process exemplifies general principles of metaphysics, and attains the end proper to specific types of emergent order" (PR 54/64). And, as he has alternatively put it, God is that "in the world, in virtue of which there is physical ‘law’" (PR 402/ 434).

Which is just summarized as; 'The word 'God' just means and refers to the Universe, Itself. Full stop.

Second, there is no such thing as, "the scientific method."

Now, that's pretty funny.

There is no one way any science must be done,

Yeah, actually there is.

The discipline and sequence of hypothesis-test-observations-conclusions is what makes science real science, and not guessing or superstitition. And it doesn't matter what field you refer to in this: the method must be used, or it's not, by definition "science."

Did 'you', "immanueal can", arrive at 'your' CONCLUSION that 'God' a a male gendered 'thing' that created the WHOLE Universe through 'science' or through 'guessing'?

Your Honest answer, like ALWAYS, would be MUCH APPRECIATED.

the methods used will be totally different.

I can see you don't even know what "scientific method" means, when you say this. Yes, chemistry uses one kind of test, and physics another, and so on. But all of these tests have to follow the epistemological procedure known as "the scientific method," or they are simply not scientific, not part of the discipline of science, and not its product -- even when they may sometimes turn out, by accident, to be "right" in some way.

I wonder how many people here who talk about 'the scientific method' would like to EXPLAIN to the rest of 'us' what 'the scientific method' REALLY IS and what 'it' ENTAILS, EXACTLY?

That number will be SHOWN by the number of people that ACTUALLY DO 'this'.

Science was being done successfully long before Bacon was born.

Actually, it wasn't. There were technologies and inventions of various kinds, traditions, and so forth. But there was no distinct methodology to make "science" distinct from these things. The field lacked it's core epistemological "rules".

If you understand what the field of "science" actually means, you know that.

And you write this like you KNOW, WITHOUT DOUBT, what ' the field of "science" ' ACTUALLY MEANS and IS.

So, would 'you', "immanuel can", like to EXPLAIN to the rest of 'us' what ' the field of "science" ' ACTUALLY IS or MEANS?

if no, then WHY NOT?

[Nick_A]

Age
Simone Weil has become known as the Patron Saint of the Outsiders. This means that there are a great many who have felt the depth an purpose of Christianity but doesn't find it in the corruptions of the church. These people know they are sick and starved for meaning. They need what the church as a whole doesn't offer. It isn't that they leave the church but that the church has left them. You may say that the person interested in Christianity must believe. But in realty the Christian must understand. But since we don't know what understanding means or what respect for life means, belief in idolatry means nothing.

But 'we' do KNOW what 'understanding' and what 'respect for life' MEANS.

It is ONLY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, who did NOT know what these two 'things' REALLY ARE.

You just cannot admit that you don't know what respect for life is, don't know how to approach the question, and cannot understand it enough to live in accordance with understanding. If there are any in the church who do understand it, they offer no help to those who need it.

It doesn't strike you absurd that we live in an absurd world having lost any conception of what respect for life means so have adopted man made interpretations all leading to hostilities including wars, life based upon ignorance continues.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Do you wonder why Christians are universally war mongers and racists? They learned it from their God.

I think they are just simpletons. Love war, love guns, love the death penalthy--in other words, 'pro life' Poor pathetic creatures don't even notice the contradictions.

[attofishpi]

Do you wonder why Christians are universally war mongers and racists? They learned it from their God.

I think they are just simpletons. Love war, love guns, love the death penalthy--in other words, 'pro life' Poor pathetic creatures don't even notice the contradictions.

See this is what pisses me off. USAdian Evangelists - their bigotry and hypocrisy has done more harm to the character of Christ and all his efforts than anyone. I shudder sometimes when I admit to people I identify as a Christian.
An old friend recently laughed when I said I was a Christian - he actually thought I was joking since he knew me so well, then I had to explain my form of Christianity, while knocking back beers with a 'gay' friend.
(btw I ain't simple)

[Immanuel Can]

Do you wonder why Christians are universally war mongers and racists? They learned it from their God.

Fact: they aren't.

The total of history's war dead caused by conflicts even possible to construe as "religious" is about 7%. Half of those were accounted for by one religion, Islam, with its bloody crusades and repressions spanning from the 6th century to the present day. That means they've had about 14 centuries to amass those figures...and they're still only 3.5% of the world's war dead.

The other 3.5% of war dead comprises all other religions combined: Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, polytheism, etc., etc. etc.

So if you find a war Christians actually caused, it will account for some tiny fraction of the war dead in history; and I doubt you can find that. In any case, it's by no possible reckoning, "war mongering."

In contrast, the most homicidal creed in history, statistically, and by orders of magnitude, is Atheism...and particularly, Socialism in its various forms. Historically, there is a better than 50% chance that the leader of any Atheist regime will kill at least 200,000 of his own people. The rest, perhaps a few fewer, and some more.

Those are the facts. You can deal with them or not.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Do you wonder why Christians are universally war mongers and racists? They learned it from their God.

Fact: they aren't.

The total of history's war dead caused by conflicts even possible to construe as "religious" is about 7%. Half of those were accounted for by one religion, Islam, with its bloody crusades and repressions spanning from the 6th century to the present day. That means they've had about 14 centuries to amass those figures...and they're still only 3.5% of the world's war dead.

The other 3.5% of war dead comprises all other religions combined: Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, polytheism, etc., etc. etc.

So if you find a war Christians actually caused, it will account for some tiny fraction of the war dead in history; and I doubt you can find that. In any case, it's by no possible reckoning, "war mongering."

In contrast, the most homicidal creed in history, statistically, and by orders of magnitude, is Atheism...and particularly, Socialism in its various forms. Historically, there is a better than 50% chance that the leader of any Atheist regime will kill at least 200,000 of his own people. The rest, perhaps a few fewer, and some more.

Those are the facts. You can deal with them or not.

That old continuously regurgitated chestnut. You are talking about totalitarian dictatorships. If you still can't tell the difference between them and the ordinary 'joe blow' on the street then nothing's going to chage that after all this time. You still don't know what 'socialism' is. You've only managed to reinforce the point that kristians are simpletons.

[attofishpi]

Do you wonder why Christians are universally war mongers and racists? They learned it from their God.

Fact: they aren't.

The total of history's war dead caused by conflicts even possible to construe as "religious" is about 7%. Half of those were accounted for by one religion, Islam, with its bloody crusades and repressions spanning from the 6th century to the present day. That means they've had about 14 centuries to amass those figures...and they're still only 3.5% of the world's war dead.

The other 3.5% of war dead comprises all other religions combined: Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, polytheism, etc., etc. etc.

So if you find a war Christians actually caused, it will account for some tiny fraction of the war dead in history; and I doubt you can find that. In any case, it's by no possible reckoning, "war mongering."

In contrast, the most homicidal creed in history, statistically, and by orders of magnitude, is Atheism...and particularly, Socialism in its various forms. Historically, there is a better than 50% chance that the leader of any Atheist regime will kill at least 200,000 of his own people. The rest, perhaps a few fewer, and some more.

Those are the facts. You can deal with them or not.

That old continuously regurgitated chestnut. You are talking about totalitarian dictatorships. If you still can't tell the difference between them and the ordinary 'joe blow' on the street then nothing's going to chage that after all this time. You still don't know what 'socialism' is. You've only managed to reinforce the point that kristians are simpletons.

Well, you're just a big poopy head.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you wonder why Christians are universally war mongers and racists? They learned it from their God.

Fact: they aren't.

The total of history's war dead caused by conflicts even possible to construe as "religious" is about 7%. Half of those were accounted for by one religion, Islam, with its bloody crusades and repressions spanning from the 6th century to the present day. That means they've had about 14 centuries to amass those figures...and they're still only 3.5% of the world's war dead.

The other 3.5% of war dead comprises all other religions combined: Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, polytheism, etc., etc. etc.

So if you find a war Christians actually caused, it will account for some tiny fraction of the war dead in history; and I doubt you can find that. In any case, it's by no possible reckoning, "war mongering."

In contrast, the most homicidal creed in history, statistically, and by orders of magnitude, is Atheism...and particularly, Socialism in its various forms. Historically, there is a better than 50% chance that the leader of any Atheist regime will kill at least 200,000 of his own people. The rest, perhaps a few fewer, and some more.

Those are the facts. You can deal with them or not.

That old continuously regurgitated chestnut.

Still true. Always will be.

Facts are like that.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, you're just a big poopy head.

A few facts certainly do "poop the party."

[Nick_A]

"Christendom has done away with Christianity, without being quite aware of it. The consequence is that, if anything is to be done, one must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom." Kierkegaard

It is always this way. It is so easy to fall into elementary bigotry and accuse all people of a particular classification as being the same. Man made Christendom is one thing while the perennial essence of Christianity is not the same and devolved over time into secular Christendom. Yet people attack Christendom all the time calling it Christianity. Try calling all women the same and see how far you get. But again, we don't know what a woman is or what respect for life is so it is really just par for the course.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Well, you're just a big poopy head.

A few facts certainly do "poop the party."

And of course you totally ignored the facts.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Fact: they aren't.

The total of history's war dead caused by conflicts even possible to construe as "religious" is about 7%. Half of those were accounted for by one religion, Islam, with its bloody crusades and repressions spanning from the 6th century to the present day. That means they've had about 14 centuries to amass those figures...and they're still only 3.5% of the world's war dead.

The other 3.5% of war dead comprises all other religions combined: Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, polytheism, etc., etc. etc.

So if you find a war Christians actually caused, it will account for some tiny fraction of the war dead in history; and I doubt you can find that. In any case, it's by no possible reckoning, "war mongering."

In contrast, the most homicidal creed in history, statistically, and by orders of magnitude, is Atheism...and particularly, Socialism in its various forms. Historically, there is a better than 50% chance that the leader of any Atheist regime will kill at least 200,000 of his own people. The rest, perhaps a few fewer, and some more.

Those are the facts. You can deal with them or not.

That old continuously regurgitated chestnut. You are talking about totalitarian dictatorships. If you still can't tell the difference between them and the ordinary 'joe blow' on the street then nothing's going to chage that after all this time. You still don't know what 'socialism' is. You've only managed to reinforce the point that kristians are simpletons.

Well, you're just a big poopy head.

So you've gone to the dark side. Have fun with those perverts.

[attofishpi]

So you've gone to the dark side. Have fun with those perverts.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's March and I move to my own beat, as u well know.