Philosophically? Absolutely. Unfortunately I'm not as good at pain avoidance as I'd like to be.
Oh yes. It is amazing that today these people are doing all they can to take us back to the Dark Ages. It is out of fear basically. They know their belief system has come under scrutiny and question and when they were theocracies? That was not allowed. As they lose more and more adherents and more and more power? They are going to do all they can in desperation to get that power back, even if it means destroying all of humanity to do so.
I did not see a comment where anyone stated what you are claiming.
Why would you assume that a sense relating to our mind, which is a function of our body and brain, and including all the matter and gravity existing in the Universe which is necessary for our body to exist and have shape, is so easy to understand? The mind is like most of space, a mystery. As I mentioned earlier, lots of creative people really question the origin of their creative ideas and often inexplicable stream of consciousness that they experience during the creative period. You understand how all that works? No scientist would say that, or really rule out anything.
Hey you combed your hair today. Good on you.
Absoluetly not. That was a wrong that had to be righted. Martin Luther King had God on his side & good people everywhere joined in the "peaceful" walks
So, based on this, what's your answer?
I think one difference in the metaphorical language of science versus religion is that science uses such borrowed metaphor to describe the inaccessible "reality" we operate out of (e.g. describing the underpinnings of our universe). Religion's metaphor deals with "other-worldly notions" that have yet to pass the smell test.
Again: read the question, you asked two different things. It's not that almost everybody is getting wrong, it's the question which is ill-phrased.
And the remarkable thing is how few of the neo-atheists ever think to ask - so why DO we have such an intense sense of morality? The OT, though it disturbs us, explains who we are as emotional beings, while Darwin entirely fails to do so.
No I don't, once I'm through the comments and have said my piece I just reply through my message box.
Waters called for verbal confrontation, not violence.
OK, thank you. So there is some wiggle room, but essentially a will is the result, or maybe more accurate, a function, of stored underlying components, which on their turn, have been gradually built and shaped during one's life, earlier on. Is this still in line with what you mean?
Jesus did not support any politics. His role was not political, though, you have to admit that his existence and then death caused a rift in the politics of the time. I mean, you do know that's what got him killed? They believed he was trying to amass a large group of people to overthrow Caesar.
No. When people say "sounds like" means that they are giving the benefit of the doubt. That it could be or it could not be. That is an assumption rather than a fact. I think we should use words by their exact meaning.
You can say all you want but science has never and will never prove a God nor will it disprove a God. Your OP was flawed. You said it and I reject it as even a small amount of logic. Anyone who knows anything about science would laugh you out of the room.