FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: queenofnines on August 20, 2010, 10:05:43 am
-
Hell is an Unattended Stove?
by Astreja
You've probably heard various Christians make the following statement, or a variation on it:
"God doesn't send us to Hell; we send ourselves there."
Let's take a close look at the above assertion.
First of all, there's an implicit assumption that an individual will have an actual choice to go to either the Nice Place or the Not-So-Nice place, somehow overriding the Divine Will of the omnipotent and omniscient Biblegod. This flies in the face of at least one variant of Christianity, Calvinism, which asserts that Biblegod has already picked out the "saved" and discarded everyone else.
Secondly, it is also assumed that Biblegod will not only know about this person's "choice" but knew about it in advance, and permits it to happen anyway. The usual excuse given for this is that Biblegod does not want to impose upon our free will.
Does anyone else see the problem with this?
I present the analogy of the Parent and the Unattended Stove. A small child toddles into the kitchen. In that kitchen is a stove with all the burners turned to 'High', and a ladder conveniently located right next to the stove. The child climbs the ladder, and falls off it onto the blazing stove.
Oh, and did I mention that the Parent is standing just footsteps away, washing dishes in the sink?
At this point, what Christian apologists would have us believe is that this is somehow all the fault of the child -- Who is now on fire and screaming in agony. To you, ladies and gentlemen, I just have this to say:
What kind of parent would go to the stove, turn all the burners on, put a ladder beside the stove, watch their own child climb that ladder, allow the child to fall onto the stove, and then just stand there for eternity and let the child scream?
The "free will" argument is a red herring, and a convenient excuse for not confronting the immorality of Biblegod. Any parent worthy of the name would rescue the child at the first possible opportunity, without even considering the child's "free will." Better yet, a conscientious parent would childproof the kitchen to prevent such catastrophes from happening in the first place -- And again, "free will" has nothing to do with it. It's just good parenting.
You do not do your god honour with this kind of argument, by the way. It makes your invisible friend look like a maniac, and it makes you look like a thoughtless dolt.
Please give serious consideration to the above, and stop making excuses for the inexcusable.
http://new.exchristian.net/2010/05/hell-is-unattended-stove.html
-
Love the analogy. Plain and simple to understand - and it fits. I am curious to see if and how this will be deconstructed, because I don't truthfully see how it can be.
-
By Rich Deem
Christianity claims that God knows everything. The theological term is "omniscience." There are some implications of this doctrine that non-believers find troubling or even unacceptable to the concept of a loving God. If God knows everything, then He knows that some people whom He creates will end up in hell. Why would God create people who are destined for hell? It turns out that there are many unstated assumptions in this question, which are not valid for Christianity. A related question, "Why wouldn't God just create everyone to enjoy the glory of heaven?" will also be answered.
Destined for hell ≠ Predestined for hell
The first, and most prevalent, incorrect assumption is that a person who is destined for hell has been predestined for hell by God. This is false. People choose to go to hell rather than submit their lives to God. You have absolute free will within the confines of your personal ability. You can prove this to yourself. Determine two possible courses of action. They don't have to be big decisions, just any two possible actions. Assign each action to either "heads" or "tails." Flip the coin and do what whatever course chance decided. You can do this as many times as needed to determine that you do, indeed, have free will. Occasionally, do the opposite of what the coins tell you. Has God prevented you from doing anything? No!
God alone created you
The second incorrect assumption is that God alone has created you. You are the product of choices made by your parents. Therefore, God has not predestined you to be born at all. How can you blame Him for creating you to send you to hell?
This is not to say that God is not involved at all in the creation of life. The Bible says that once a new human life is made God creates a spirit within the fetus1 and knows us at that point, even calling some to serve Him from the womb.2
People destined for hell have no earthly purpose
The third incorrect assumption is that a person destined for hell has no purpose in this life. This is also false. All people living have a purpose. Some people destined for hell will save other's lives, either intentionally or unintentionally. Others destined for hell will be helped, encouraged, and witnessed to by others who are destined for heaven. Those who follow God's plan are provided opportunities to help others in their spiritual path. If all people were on the same spiritual path, there would be nobody for God's people to help. God says that all are without excuse, so He provides witnesses of his plan to give them a chance to change their minds.
Rewards and punishment
Another possible assumption is that the only purpose of this life is to choose to follow God or reject Him. This is also false. This life is used as a measure of reward and punishment. All who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will go to heaven, but the amount of reward in heaven will be directly related to how closely each one followed God's will in his life. Likewise, all those who reject Jesus Christ will go to hell and will be punished to the degree of how much evil they committed in their life. This is why God allows people to make their own choices.
Why wouldn't God just create everyone to enjoy the glory of heaven?
Skeptics might claim that God, in knowing all the choices a person would make, would not need to create all the people who would end up in hell. This question also has some underlying assumptions. The assumption is that since God knows all the answers, He would have no need of "running the experiment."
Just put the good people directly into heaven?
The assumption that God could just put the good people directly into heaven seems to be valid for God, but has some problems when applied to humans. For some reason, skeptics leave themselves out of the equation. They want God to run the thought experiment and put those souls who would make the right choice (believe in Jesus Christ) directly into heaven and not even create those who would reject Him. The problem is that God would then be liable to the accusation of rewarding some people more than others, since reward is proportional to good deeds done in life. Since there was no real life, how could God hand out rewards? Should He tell people what they would have done and let them be content with that? How would those souls know anything about life, goodness, and doing the right thing if they had never lived before? God could be considered to be unjust, since His actions would not be based upon choices made by real characters. Would God just put those fake memories into their heads? If He did so, God would be creating deceptions, which contradicts His perfect character.
When people think deeply about their "perfect" plan about what God "should have done," they realize that there are logical problems. What most people would create, as god, would be robots, since they would have no choice at all. Ever try loving your computer? It is not a very satisfying relationship. So it would be with the robots that skeptics would send directly into heaven.
The "problems" about the loving God of Christianity posed by the skeptics rests on invalid assumptions. Based on an invalid understanding of God's foreknowledge, they seek to avoid the consequences of their free will choice by offering a "solution" that violates the perfect character of God. Therefore, the "solution" would not be a valid solution for the God of Christianity.
-
Sherna, that article you posted is another one of the ones I read from your favorite site. You're free to post it, of course, but it makes me wonder if you really understand the argument against hell at all.
The first, and most prevalent, incorrect assumption is that a person who is destined for hell has been predestined for hell by God. This is false. People choose to go to hell rather than submit their lives to God.
Pre-destined in the sense that because god is all-knowing, we are living in a DETERMINISTIC universe without free will. There CANNOT be free will if god is omniscient -- it's logically impossible. So either god isn't omniscient, there is no god, or we're all just puppets.
Believers like to slime around this by saying, "Well, god knows the outcomes of each of the options, but YOU choose which option to take." :bs: That is not the definition of ALL-knowing, sorry!
You are the product of choices made by your parents. Therefore, God has not predestined you to be born at all. How can you blame Him for creating you to send you to hell?
??? ??? I am VERY surprised the author chose to make this "point", because do you know what it means? A person's "soul" is not special -- it's just a random sperm out of millions fusing with your mom's Egg of the Month. Had your mom and dad chose not to have sex at the EXACT MOMENT that they did, "you" would not be here!! Are you sure you want to stand behind this one, Christians?
The third incorrect assumption is that a person destined for hell has no purpose in this life.
Um, you just said no one was pre-destined for hell! Contradiction city!
Some people destined for hell will save other's lives, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Who cares what a hell-bound person does in this life?? They're still going to burn in agony, for ever and ever!
This life is used as a measure of reward and punishment.
Sounds like a very man-made concept. Life can be hard enough, why make it harder needlessly worrying about burning infinitely for finite crimes?
Since there was no real life, how could God hand out rewards? Should He tell people what they would have done and let them be content with that? How would those souls know anything about life, goodness, and doing the right thing if they had never lived before?
It seems to work okay for the angels, yes? This point is called "making stuff up to explain the state of the world".
Would God just put those fake memories into their heads?
Well, we're going to have some issues in heaven regardless when it comes to forgetting about the friends/family burning in hell, becoming bored, accidentally thinking something bad (we still have free will in heaven, right?), etc.
Ever try loving your computer? It is not a very satisfying relationship.
Sure it is! I have news for you -- our brains are nothing but computers. And computers that we build will be smarter than us in a few years.
-
Your entire reply shows that you don't understand. (sigh) But I mainly posted the information for other people who read your post, so they could get both sides. I'm not in it for the argument. But I do find it amusing that you think you can have a satisfying relationship with a computer.
My brain is a computer, but my brain is not me. You can't open up my brain and know who I am. I have a mind, and it is separate from my brain. My computer does not appreciate beauty, it cannot get angry, it can't feel, it doesn't have a mind.
But if you have a loving relationship with your computer, more power to you! :thumbsup:
-
Well guess what....you can stomp your feet and curse at God all you want....you're going to hell because the bible told me so! Unless you change and repent and find God, you will go.
You will have to answer to him.
If you don't believe in it...then hush, it is freedom of religion, GET OVER IT ALREADY!
So I have to think that you disagree with the person trying to help you, namely Annella, because she said today in another topic "I never tell anyone they're going to hell."
Enjoy that immense power you think you have, it's apparently greater than god's. ::)
-
I always got a kick out of this argument. I recall having this with that teflon guy and he just kept doing the ol' red herring left and right. It was pretty funny.
Pre-destined in the sense that because god is all-knowing, we are living in a DETERMINISTIC universe without free will. There CANNOT be free will if god is omniscient -- it's logically impossible. So either god isn't omniscient, there is no god, or we're all just puppets.
Gold. I don't see how any religious mindset could argue against this and make any sound conclusions.
But I do find it amusing that you think you can have a satisfying relationship with a computer.
Someone hasn't played Left 4 Dead! lol
-
But I do find it amusing that you think you can have a satisfying relationship with a computer.
The Internet is awesome! So is PC gaming. Computers are one of man's greatest accomplishments...
My brain is a computer, but my brain is not me.
Your brain is ENTIRELY you! That's why people who suffer from head trauma become completely different people.
You can't open up my brain and know who I am.
On the contrary, doctors can tell MANY things about you from looking at your brain.
I have a mind, and it is separate from my brain.
??? Uh...no it's not. The mind is a by-product of the chemical processes of the brain! It resides entirely within your brain, and is therefore completely physical.
My computer does not appreciate beauty, it cannot get angry, it can't feel, it doesn't have a mind.
Given the exponential rate of the growth in technology, within a few years, there most certainly WILL be computers that are indistinguishable from human brains. We will have robots that think they're alive and special and can feel; when that happens, how will they be any different from us?
Talk to the computer at http://www.cleverbot.com/ and you will see how far artificial intelligence has come already. It's quite fun!
-
Your brain is ENTIRELY you! That's why people who suffer from head trauma become completely different people.
Computers have artificial intelligence not intelligence. And there's a huge difference. There's no 'what it's like to be a computer.' A computer has no 'insides,' no awareness, no first-person point of view, no insights into problems. A computer doesn't think, 'You know what? I now see what this multiplications problem is really like.' A computer can engage in behavior if it's wired properly, but you've got to remember that consciousness is not the same as behavior. Consciousness is being alive; it's what causes behavior in really conscious beings. But what causes behavior in a computer is electric circuitry. Case for a Creator
A computer will NEVER have an individual thought process that provides an opinion based on feelings about what is beautiful, sad, ugly. A computer will never cry for no reason because of an overflow of emotion, a computer is programmed to act a certain way. It will never, no matter how technologically advanced it may be, ever be able to experience human emotions the way human's experience them.
Your materialistic view is founded on a naturalistic philosophy, not scientific fact.
Also, if you believe human consciousness is just something that happens as a natural byproduct of your brain's complexity....how do you explain it's evolution? Are you saying that prior to this level of complexity, matter contained the potential for "mind" to emerge?
And if mind emerged from matter without the direction of a superior intelligence, why should you trust anything from your mind as being rational or true, especially in the area of theoretical thinking? An analogy would be...if you had a computer that was programmed by random forces or by non-rational laws without a mind being behind it. Would you trust a printout from that machine? I wouldn't.
-
The first, and most prevalent, incorrect assumption is that a person who is destined for hell has been predestined for hell by God. This is false. People choose to go to hell rather than submit their lives to God.
Pre-destined in the sense that because god is all-knowing, we are living in a DETERMINISTIC universe without free will. There CANNOT be free will if god is omniscient -- it's logically impossible. So either god isn't omniscient, there is no god, or we're all just puppets.
True, God is all-knowing, but we aren't. No one knows who is going to hell or heaven until they each personally make that choice. This does not mean God has pre-destined you to go to heaven or hell. Everyone has free will of choice - it is their personal decision. It just means that God already knows who will and who won't (He knows what choice each person will make.) Since we don't know who will and who won't, we work for God to try and encourage people to make their choice (hopefully, the eternal life in heaven.)
-
True, God is all-knowing, but we aren't. No one knows who is going to hell or heaven until they each personally make that choice. This does not mean God has pre-destined you to go to heaven or hell.Everyone has free will of choice - it is their personal decision. It just means that God already knows who will and who won't (He knows what choice each person will make.) Since we don't know who will and who won't, we work for God to try and encourage people to make their choice (hopefully, the eternal life in heaven.)[/
This is predestination though. You're going back and forth in this paragraph. "God knows your destiny, but he has not predestined you!" If your god knows, your god has already predestined you. You misunderstand that this choice you refer to is an illusion when you introduce your god into the mix. Thus the first-post argument still stands.
-
Also, if you believe human consciousness is just something that happens as a natural byproduct of your brain's complexity....how do you explain it's evolution?
It was beneficial to the species. It's a natural consequence of simple things becoming more and more complex and bad replicators dying off.
Are you saying that prior to this level of complexity, matter contained the potential for "mind" to emerge?
Clearly it had the potential, because here we are. Just because our species is tops in intelligence is really not something to be surprised about. Should we fret over why the cheetah is the fastest, or why giraffes have the longest neck? We're smart because it was beneficial to our species to be smart. That is all.
Good video on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYybiwLRgfI
And if mind emerged from matter without the direction of a superior intelligence, why should you trust anything from your mind as being rational or true, especially in the area of theoretical thinking? An analogy would be...if you had a computer that was programmed by random forces or by non-rational laws without a mind being behind it. Would you trust a printout from that machine? I wouldn't.
And why does god's intelligence not require an explanation? It's the magical trump card.
Natural selection isn't random...what isn't beneficial for the species dies out. ALL animals have some degree of consciousness.
As for trusting our brains, we might be living in the freaking Matrix. But it's not very helpful to put all of our eggs in that basket; the senses for an average person are reliable enough to have a working picture of reality. We can confirm and observe things together.
It just means that God already knows who will and who won't (He knows what choice each person will make.)
It's already settled, then! Each of our destinies are written in stone, and none of us can do anything to change it!!
-
True, God is all-knowing, but we aren't. No one knows who is going to hell or heaven until they each personally make that choice. This does not mean God has pre-destined you to go to heaven or hell.Everyone has free will of choice - it is their personal decision. It just means that God already knows who will and who won't (He knows what choice each person will make.) Since we don't know who will and who won't, we work for God to try and encourage people to make their choice (hopefully, the eternal life in heaven.)[/
This is predestination though. You're going back and forth in this paragraph. "God knows your destiny, but he has not predestined you!" If your god knows, your god has already predestined you. You misunderstand that this choice you refer to is an illusion when you introduce your god into the mix. Thus the first-post argument still stands.
No, I'm not going back and forth on this. It is true God knows your decision you will make (for or against Him) but He has not pre-destined you. He wants all to accept Him. But, because He is all-knowing, He knows who will and who won't accept Him. We, however, don't know the individuals' choices, so we are to do what He asks us to do for Him: "..go into the highway and hedges"; try to introduce others to Him. That is how people come to be introduced to Him and make their own choice.
-
because He is all-knowing, He knows who will and who won't accept Him.
Why do people bother to pray then? If god is omniscient, our lives are already determined -- there is only an illusion of free will. We can't change god's mind or the course of determined events (our lives), because to do so would invalidate god's omniscience!
-
Quote:
It just means that God already knows who will and who won't (He knows what choice each person will make.)[/quote]
It's already settled, then! Each of our destinies are written in stone, and none of us can do anything to change it!!
No, not at all. Again, you, as an individual, have a free will choice. It is not set in stone. God just knows what you will do, because He is all-knowing. Ex.: I thought my dad would be one of the ones who would never accept Him. But, God knew that eventually, with the encouragement and prayers of many, that my dad would accept Him. None of us knew - we just kept trying. There are others, unfortunately, who, even with all the prayers and talks, will not accept Him. We are just to try. It is that person who won't accept Him, who has made his/her own choice. And when in Hell, all of those talks or friends/family who tried to get them to accept God, will be on that person's mind always playing like a tape. What regret and shame that would be.
-
because He is all-knowing, He knows who will and who won't accept Him.
Why do people bother to pray then? If god is omniscient, our lives are already determined -- there is only an illusion of free will. We can't change god's mind or the course of determined events (our lives), because to do so would invalidate god's omniscience!
Because we are the ones who are to try and introduce others to God. How else would they know, unless given the opportunity? That's one reason why there are missionaries across the nation and world - to introduce them to God so those that will, given the opportunity, accept Him or not.
-
It was beneficial to the species. It's a natural consequence of simple things becoming more and more complex and bad replicators dying off.
That doesn't answer the question. If I had asked, WHY did human consciousness come into being...well even then your answer is an over generalization that doesn't really explain anything at all. But my question was HOW. How does evolution theory explain the appearance of consciousness in human beings. I'm not even talking about animal consciousness although that is interesting in itself but I'm speaking of a human beings ability to reason, rationalize, and have an opinion about things based on their reasoning. If evolution is "change over time" How does natural selection bring consciousness into being....seeing as how natural selection has to have something to choose from? Consciousness has nothing to do with a mutating gene...so where did it come from? Matter you say...........Matter had the potential to create the "mind".....
Clearly it had the potential, because here we are.
Oh, I'm so glad you said that. You are now no longer treating matter as atheists and naturalists treat matter, you are attributing spooky, soulish, or mental potentials to matter. This is panpsychism--the view that matter is not just inert physical stuff, but that it also contains proto-mental states. You have abandoned a strict scientific view of matter and adopted a view closer to theism than to atheism. You are saying that the world began not just with matter, but with stuff that's mental and physical at the same time.
Now here's a problem for you......if a finite mind can emerge when matter reaches a certain level of complexity, why couldn't a far greater mind--God--emerge when millions of brain states reach a greater level of consciousness? You can't just stop the process at yourself. Now granted, this isn't the "god" of Christianity I am implying here, but it does present a problem with the atheistic view.
Also, to point out another problem with your "I am my brain" philosophy. If your mind were just a function of the brain, there would be no unified self. Remember, brain function is spread through out the brain, so if you cut the brain in half, then some of that function is lost. Now you have half a person? Nobody believes that. There was a girl who lost 53% of her brain...was she 47% of a person? No, we know she's a unified self, because we know her consciousness and soul are separate entities from her brain.
Further more if consciousness is just a function of the brain, then as you said, I am my brain, and my brain functions according to the laws of chemistry and physics. The mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire. Fire causes smoke, but smoke doesn't cause anything. It's just a byproduct. Now you are locked in determinism.....the idea that every prior action affects human actions and choices. This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. In its most ardent form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will.
Well, if that's the case then I don't need to believe anything you say because it isn't necessarily the truth. You only believe what you believe because of the chemicals in your brain reacting in a certain way. :-/
Information gathered from Case for a Creator and godandscience.com
-
because He is all-knowing, He knows who will and who won't accept Him.
Why do people bother to pray then? If god is omniscient, our lives are already determined -- there is only an illusion of free will. We can't change god's mind or the course of determined events (our lives), because to do so would invalidate god's omniscience!
If you believed the Bible I could give you PROOF that prayer changed determined instances in the Bible. Why God even turned back the SUN for an answer to a prayer. Added 15 years to another man's life when God said he was going to die. He prayed for more time and God gave it to him.
I could tell you these things and even show them to you in the Bible, but because you don't believe in the Bible, the point is moot.
-
No, not at all. Again, you, as an individual, have a free will choice. It is not set in stone. God just knows what you will do, because He is all-knowing.
If your god in ominiscient, all-powerful, perfect, etc. like your holy texts say, then he has predetermined everything for you. He knows what is going to happen. Again, you only have the illusion of free will. Everything is set in stone for you, but you do not know it. You can play the naive card, but that has very little grasp on the foundation of the original post.
I thought my dad would be one of the ones who would never accept Him. But, God knew that eventually, with the encouragement and prayers of many, that my dad would accept Him. None of us knew - we just kept trying. There are others, unfortunately, who, even with all the prayers and talks, will not accept Him. We are just to try. It is that person who won't accept Him, who has made his/her own choice.
Again, you use choice very naively here. If your god knows what you're going to do and just stands by without doing anything and instead relies on imperfect beings to do his job, your god is a terribly lazy, imperfect, and evil entity considering he just watches people screw up and are then scarred for eternity.
And when in Hell, all of those talks or friends/family who tried to get them to accept God, will be on that person's mind always playing like a tape. What regret and shame that would be
Your people doom anyone who does not believe the same as you? Such tribal beliefs...you might as well just put a curse on anyone with a different outlook. What an offensive belief system.
-
If you believed the Bible I could give you PROOF that prayer changed determined instances in the Bible.
I could tell you these things and even show them to you in the Bible, but because you don't believe in the Bible, the point is moot.
"If you believed Mein Kampf, I could show you PROOF that Adolf Hitler really is the best thing for Germany!"
Sorry to bust in Godwin's Law, but do understand that skepticism is a very important trait while trying to find proof. If your one source is simply the basis of your belief and nothing else, this will not hold up anywhere except with the mindless minions.
-
If you believed the Bible I could give you PROOF that prayer changed determined instances in the Bible.
I could tell you these things and even show them to you in the Bible, but because you don't believe in the Bible, the point is moot.
"If you believed Mein Kampf, I could show you PROOF that Adolf Hitler really is the best thing for Germany!"
Sorry to bust in Godwin's Law, but do understand that skepticism is a very important trait while trying to find proof. If your one source is simply the basis of your belief and nothing else, this will not hold up anywhere except with the mindless minions.
Oh please......do you read my posts at all? How insulting to insinuate this is the only source I have for my belief. I was merely answering qon on the absurdity of prayer, and her claim it can't change anything.
Sometimes falconer02 you amaze me. You are so rude because I don't enter in your cat and mouse games, then your rude when I do......I can't win......geez
Does your avatar run anywhere, or can I hope it might lead to the edge of a cliff?
-
Marieelissa, can you meet me on Facebook.
-
Oh please......do you read my posts at all? How insulting to insinuate this is the only source I have for my belief. I was merely answering qon on the absurdity of prayer, and her claim it can't change anything.
I must have missed them in the past. Do they all stem to the bible though?
edit: I did a quick glance through a few pages of your post history. They all seem to be biblical.
And prayer is absurd to put it on a higher level than just, say, crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. It's a technical argument probably meant for another thread.
Sometimes falconer02 you amaze me. You are so rude because I don't enter in your cat and mouse games, then your rude when I do......I can't win......geez
You rarely enter the argument; you only post to those who have the same beliefs as you or you try to convert them on the spot.
Does your avatar run anywhere, or can I hope it might lead to the edge of a cliff?
I lllllooooovvvveeee christian-extremist behavior ;D
-
Oh please......do you read my posts at all? How insulting to insinuate this is the only source I have for my belief. I was merely answering qon on the absurdity of prayer, and her claim it can't change anything.
I must have missed them in the past. Do they all stem to the bible though?
edit: I did a quick glance through a few pages of your post history. They all seem to be biblical.
Sometimes falconer02 you amaze me. You are so rude because I don't enter in your cat and mouse games, then your rude when I do......I can't win......geez
You rarely enter the argument; you only post to those who have the same beliefs as you or you try to convert them on the spot.
Does your avatar run anywhere, or can I hope it might lead to the edge of a cliff?
I lllllooooovvvveeee christian-extremist behavior ;D
Okay, I have to apologize to the Avatar comment.
Why oh why should I post anything to anyone who does not believe the Word of God? It's beating the air. It's the one thing I don't do. As far as trying to convert anyone, if I only post to people with the same beliefs (as you say), how can I convert someone who is already converted.....lol
I do put the information out there, and people can make up their own minds. If people ask me a question about the Bible, they deserve an honest "researched" answer. People do ask me questions. I believe in God, I believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, I believe I will be judged by that Word one day.......but, the reason I serve God is because I LOVE Him. I choose to serve Him. I have found Him to be True and Faithful, and His Word True and Faithful. I have a personal relationship with the lover of my soul....and my Creator. My faith has stood the test of time over the last 42 years and I've found God's Word to be Truth.
I will do everything that is possible to help people find their way to a God that loves them. If that doesn't meet with your approval......well it's a good thing I don't need it. Nobody is being forced to live for God. I've said this a many times. You choose which way you want to go. I choose mine.
-
Okay, I have to apologize to the Avatar comment.
Pfffft! No need. It's all gravy!
Why oh why should I post anything to anyone who does not believe the Word of God? It's beating the air. It's the one thing I don't do. As far as trying to convert anyone, if I only post to people with the same beliefs (as you say), how can I convert someone who is already converted.....lol
Maybe you would learn something about your own beliefs from an outside-of-the-box source if they argue back with a contradiction of philosophies. This is what happened to me after all; I realized there was more out there than just christianity after arguing with friends of different ideas. And when I looked back after doing research over a number of years, I saw very little uniqueness aside from popularity and historic bullying with christianity. And as far as converting, you only post to the believers and to the non-believers that are questioning it-- there were 2 separate groups. I worded it badly though.
I do put the information out there, and people can make up their own minds. If people ask me a question about the Bible, they deserve an honest "researched" answer. People do ask me questions. I believe in God, I believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, I believe I will be judged by that Word one day.......but, the reason I serve God is because I LOVE Him. I choose to serve Him. I have found Him to be True and Faithful, and His Word True and Faithful. I have a personal relationship with the lover of my soul....and my Creator. My faith has stood the test of time over the last 42 years and I've found God's Word to be Truth.
Okay, I really hate to sound offensive, but if it is possible, try seeing this paragraph from an aerial, unbiased, and unbound POV. Try replacing the word "god" with another god you do not believe in and your holy text with that gods holy text. Try to see it from a perspective that is not your own. And then reread it. Does it sound foreign? Proposterous? Creepy? Hey, that's someone elses belief system out there. You act as if you have a strong loving and personal relationship with something you cannot prove to exist. I hate to attack your credibility, but this is my major concern for society in general-- putting blind faith in personalized gods without irrefutable proof of the super-natural.
I will do everything that is possible to help people find their way to a God that loves them. If that doesn't meet with your approval......well it's a good thing I don't need it. Nobody is being forced to live for God.
Sure they are. By guilt-tripping them. It's a rude black-or-white tactic with christianity. I do like how you say "A god" rather than "THE god". It sounds more caring to an individual questioning their beliefs to have more than 1 opportunity.
-
I will do everything that is possible to help people find their way to a God that loves them. If that doesn't meet with your approval......well it's a good thing I don't need it. Nobody is being forced to live for God.
Sure they are. By guilt-tripping them. It's a rude black-or-white tactic with christianity. I do like how you say "A god" rather than "THE god". It sounds more caring to an individual questioning their beliefs to have more than 1 opportunity.
The thing is, when it comes to someone and their religion, they see it as only one opportunity. Many people believe theirs is the only true path to salvation (if they believe in g-d and salvation; I don't believe religion is necessary to salvation, personally.). I'm sure you believe the same...that this is the only life we are given, and that those who are questioning need to understand this and live their one life to the fullest. I don't see Annella trying to strike down those that believe differently; in fact, I see her answering questions to the best of her ability for those who have questions of her. She isn't trying to convert anyone who feels strongly in their beliefs. On the contrary, she's made herself available to those who seek her...and I see that as a good example...nothing like the Christianity of which you speak. :peace:
-
That's one reason why there are missionaries across the nation and world - to introduce them to God so those that will, given the opportunity, accept Him or not.
I thought your camp says that if a person never hears of Jesus Christ, they won't automatically go to hell. Why do missionaries risk putting people in hell then??
It's a valid question. Imagine I live in some remote village, and if nobody ever came to preach the gospel, I would go to heaven because I was a decent person who lived a good life. But let's say a missionary comes to that same village and I do hear the Word, but of no fault of my own I simply can't believe it because I wasn't raised to blindly buy into such silly concepts, your missionary is now responsible for sending an otherwise heaven-bound me to hell!
-
Does your avatar run anywhere, or can I hope it might lead to the edge of a cliff?
Oooh...ha ha ha! I beat Falconer laughed his *bleep* off when he read this!!
Leave Mega Man out of this!!! He's after your time, he never did anything to you!
But to answer your question, yes Mega Man is prone to falling off cliffs - that game is hard!
-
The thing is, when it comes to someone and their religion, they see it as only one opportunity. Many people believe theirs is the only true path to salvation (if they believe in g-d and salvation; I don't believe religion is necessary to salvation, personally.). I'm sure you believe the same...that this is the only life we are given, and that those who are questioning need to understand this and live their one life to the fullest.
Well I understand what you're getting at. I'm not saying my way is the best/only way though. Though miniscule, my belief leaves room for every religion. All that it asks for is proof of any of them if you want to have any decent basis for someone to believe-- this is why I usually end up arguing when people explain their ways and say it is undeniable evidence that they're right. When people think they're right and they parade it around as so, I'm just the skeptic of those claims.
I don't see Annella trying to strike down those that believe differently; in fact, I see her answering questions to the best of her ability for those who have questions of her. She isn't trying to convert anyone who feels strongly in their beliefs. On the contrary, she's made herself available to those who seek her...and I see that as a good example...nothing like the Christianity of which you speak.
I'll play the eye of the beholder card. I suppose it depends how you read it. Like her last post directed at Queen.
But to answer your question, yes Mega Man is prone to falling off cliffs - that game is hard!
Very. And that's why I love 'em!
-
my question was HOW.
I thought my "generalization" answered the how, but you think it only answered the WHY? I don't think what I said very much answered the why at all, actually. This is because the universe cannot give the average person a "why" that will satisfy them. It is asking the wrong question to ask why.
The universe has no goal or purpose; there is no "why" when we get down to the base-level of things. That's just how they are. You think this way about your god, so is what I'm explaining here really that much of a leap?
How does evolution theory explain the appearance of consciousness in human beings.
"Consciousness can be viewed from the standpoints of evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology approach as an adaptation because it is a trait that increases fitness...
The proximate causes for consciousness, i.e. how consciousness evolved in animals, is a subject considered by Sir John C. Eccles in his paper 'Evolution of consciousness.' He argues that special anatomical and physical properties of the mammalian cerebral cortex gave rise to consciousness. Budiansky, by contrast, limits consciousness to humans, proposing that human consciousness may have evolved as an adaptation to anticipate and counter social strategems of other humans, predators, and prey. Alternatively, it has been argued that the recursive circuitry underwriting consciousness is much more primitive, having evolved initially in premammalian species because it improves the capacity for interaction with both social and natural environments by providing an energy-saving 'neutral' gear in an otherwise energy-expensive motor output machine." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Evolutionary_psychology
Matter you say...........Matter had the potential to create the "mind".....
Yes.
You are now no longer treating matter as atheists and naturalists treat matter, you are attributing spooky, soulish, or mental potentials to matter.
What I meant was, when we think about things that seem improbable, it's kind of silly to get THAT hung up on how unlikely something may seem, if it is indeed the reality we are witnessing. You and I being alive (in our current states), for example. It's highly improbable that one particular sperm fused with one particular egg at one particular time under one particular set of circumstances.
You are saying that the world began not just with matter, but with stuff that's mental and physical at the same time.
The mind IS physical.
There was a girl who lost 53% of her brain...was she 47% of a person? No, we know she's a unified self, because we know her consciousness and soul are separate entities from her brain.
Consciousness most certainly isn't! How could a doctor ever put a person under, then, if consciousness is separate from the brain? They also do brain scans that show lighted areas as a person thinks different things.
As for the half-brain girl, as long as she didn't lose the parts of her brain where memory and personality are stored, sure, she's a full "person" in the colloquial sense. You know the brain is divided into separate regions for different things, right?
Now you are locked in determinism.....the idea that every prior action affects human actions and choices. This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. In its most ardent form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will.
Wow, I'm surprised you would bring this one up (unless you just got it off your website). Most people have no clue what determinism is.
For the record, my husband is a hard determinist - exactly what you state. And I can see how determinism might be true, given that everything is physical. I'm on the fence about this one, because there really seems like there is something "more" than our whole futures - down to our very thoughts - being already determined. This isn't proof for god, it's proof for either 1) I am just naive and don't want to accept determinism or 2) some amount of choice exists within the confines of the physical (not TOTAL choice, of course, because I do believe genes/environment play a large role).
-
I added a comic just for you, Queen.
-
I added a comic just for you, Queen.
Heh, nice! :)
-
when we think about things that seem improbable, it's kind of silly to get THAT hung up on how unlikely something may seem, if it is indeed the reality we are witnessing. You and I being alive (in our current states), for example.
You said before, God is improbable. Take this statement apply it to your own logic. Especially when evolutionary science can give no empirical fact for prebiological beginnings. Any theories thrown out there are speculation. Yet, you easily believe it because God is so improbable, only evolution makes sense.
They also do brain scans that show lighted areas as a person thinks different things.
I want you to THINK about what you're saying. When researchers do tests on electrical patterns in the brain....and correlate that with what a person is thinking. They ASK the subject to think about a certain thing, or, they ASK what the subject is thinking. They then develop a foundation for the patterns shown. Without knowing what the person is thinking, they can make NO conclusions. Therefore the mind IS NOT physical. You can't, see, hear, smell, touch, or taste the mind. You cannot use ANY of your senses to observe the mind. That defies the definition of physical.
1) I am just naive and don't want to accept determinism or 2) some amount of choice exists within the confines of the physical (not TOTAL choice, of course, because I do believe genes/environment play a large role).
I mentioned determinism because it is relevant to dualism. If your conscious mind is nothing but a result of the complexity of the brain, then it is completely bound by the laws of physics. Therefore, everything you do and everything you are was determined by your genetic makeup.
You favorite atheist Dawkins brought this is up in The Selfish Gene. "We are survival machines....programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." He does try to amend what he is implying with such a statement by adding that we should rebel against our genes in situations that are immoral. But then how is this beneficial to the selfish gene....by natural selection anyone who is able to defy the selfish gene would be "killed off" by evolution because that would contradict the genes survival!
Steven Pinker wrote in an article, basically implying that a woman who kills her baby on the day of its birth or in the first few days, is only a product of hard wiring from her ancestor who routinely did this sort of thing as a means of survival! He tried to say it's an immoral act to kill infants, but in what sense can any conduct be immoral if it is a product of a genetic imperative? Well, after he faced a great amount of harsh criticism, Pinker then wrote in his book, that moral reasoning requires that we assume the existence of things which science tells us are unreal "Ethical theory requires idealizations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused, and its conclusions can be sound and useful even though the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events...A human being is simultaneously a machine and a sentient free agent, depending on the purpose of the discussion."
This seems self-contradictory but it may be worse than that, Pinker may mean that morality is founded on a "noble lie" that the intellectual priesthood tells to the common people. Of course the priests themselves know the lie for what it is and do not recognize it as a limit on their own thinking or conduct, but they conceal their nihilism by pretending to believe in conventional morality.
And if your opinion on this subject is due to your mind subjecting to the laws of physics, and your actions based on an evolutionary force to preserve your genes, then anything you say cannot be trusted. After all you are not a "free thinker" in that nothing about you is free when you are bound by determinism.
-
If your god in ominiscient, all-powerful, perfect, etc. like your holy texts say, then he has predetermined everything for you. He knows what is going to happen. Again, you only have the illusion of free will. Everything is set in stone for you, but you do not know it. You can play the naive card, but that has very little grasp on the foundation of the original post.
It is you who are naive. You have a hard time grasping the concept of personal, free will choice. Your life is set in stone depending on what is in your heart and how you make your choices. Like Annella, I could also help expand on this with the Bible (God's Word) but you would not believe it anyway. God is not going to beat you on the head because you do or will not accept Him. He is disappointed, of course, but once again, YOU make your OWN choice - HE is NOT going to make it for you.
-
That's one reason why there are missionaries across the nation and world - to introduce them to God so those that will, given the opportunity, accept Him or not.
I thought your camp says that if a person never hears of Jesus Christ, they won't automatically go to hell. Why do missionaries risk putting people in hell then??
It's a valid question. Imagine I live in some remote village, and if nobody ever came to preach the gospel, I would go to heaven because I was a decent person who lived a good life. But let's say a missionary comes to that same village and I do hear the Word, but of no fault of my own I simply can't believe it because I wasn't raised to blindly buy into such silly concepts, your missionary is now responsible for sending an otherwise heaven-bound me to hell!
It is NOT the missionary who would be at fault. They did what they had to do - the person receiving the info has his/her own choice to make. After the rapture (in the future), those ones who never heard God's Word, will still have an opportunity to accept Him or not.
-
First of all, I want to lighten the mood by saying thank you for challenging me, Sherna. I still like you and everything, don't forget that! :)
You said before, God is improbable.
A personal, defined god is improbable, like the god of the Bible. There are many reasons for this. As for god(s) in general? That kind of god is more probable than a personal god, but there still hasn't been any good evidence that's demonstrated the reality we observe had anything more than natural causes.
They then develop a foundation for the patterns shown. Without knowing what the person is thinking, they can make NO conclusions. Therefore the mind IS NOT physical. You can't, see, hear, smell, touch, or taste the mind. You cannot use ANY of your senses to observe the mind. That defies the definition of physical.
I can compare this to us wanting to look at a computer's processing without yet having a monitor invented. While it's true we do not yet have the technology to read people's minds, it's definitely coming, and will be very beneficial when it does (it will help solve crime and whatnot). Right now we can "read people's minds" in a rudimentary manner; just because we don't fully understand how it all works YET does not make it non-physical.
Think about where people thought sound came from before we knew about sound waves. Would it have been right to pass this phenomena off as magic simply because we didn't yet understand it? Of course not.
Once again, the most clear evidence that the mind IS physical can be seen in the example of my grandmother, who has Alzheimer's. The parts that were "her" (personality, memories) were eaten away by her brain years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57w0YDRYgZU
If your conscious mind is nothing but a result of the complexity of the brain, then it is completely bound by the laws of physics. Therefore, everything you do and everything you are was determined by your genetic makeup.
Yep, this is possible. And if it IS the case, at least we can "enjoy the ride".
we should rebel against our genes in situations that are immoral. But then how is this beneficial to the selfish gene....by natural selection anyone who is able to defy the selfish gene would be "killed off" by evolution because that would contradict the genes survival!
No, we would NOT get killed off by acting in a civilized manner. Quite the opposite, actually. When we work together as a society, the GROUP'S rate of survival goes up, more so than if it was "every man for himself". It's quite easy to have kids in a harmonious society, which is the main way of passing on your genes...
He tried to say it's an immoral act to kill infants, but in what sense can any conduct be immoral if it is a product of a genetic imperative?
Just because you may have been raised a certain way does not automatically guarantee you HAVE to make certain choices. And yes, killing the infant would still be wrong from a human's perspective, regardless if the mother "knew any better". If I were to create a computer program to perform a certain function and it malfunctions, I have the right to remove that program from my computer, even though the computer isn't doing something "wrong" in a universal sense, it's not conducive to what is desirable, so it needs to be taken care of.
Pinker may mean that morality is founded on a "noble lie" that the intellectual priesthood tells to the common people.
Yes, this may very well be the case.
After all you are not a "free thinker" in that nothing about you is free when you are bound by determinism.
This cannot currently be proven; therefore, I go by what reality appears to be (some amount of choice for the average individual) before I conclude it is all an illusion.
-
I've read so many posts back and forth from QON, Falconer02, and others about their atheist beliefs. That would be great if you wouldn't get so nasty about it, or revert to intimidation tactics, name calling, etc. (Christians "slime around"?)......please
Shernajwine has given intelligent, informative, information, and you don't "hear" that she's actually trying to show you another side of the argument of which she sees BOTH sides! She explained the existence of a Creator to you far superior than anyone I've ever heard explain it, and from a SCIENTIFIC stance too! You claim we don't "think" outside the box. She certainly has. If she lived anywhere near me, I'd put her on my staff so fast, it'd be a blur.
BUT......your still asking proof of the existence of God. I guess what I'm posting here is what is the atheists main objective? You accuse us of trying to assimilate people into Christianity. What are your objectives? What is your motivation to talk to people about the belief in atheism? Are you not trying to convert, or assimilate?
-
That kind of god is more probable than a personal god, but there still hasn't been any good evidence that's demonstrated the reality we observe had anything more than natural causes.
There is no good evidence to suggest that God isn't the cause. The only thing evolutionists can go on is the observation of evolution on a micro level. They jump from empirical science to philosophy when they begin to suggest that finch beak variation and insect pesticide immunity explains how finches and insects came to exist in the first place. If indeed the reality we are witnessing is that we exist, with an extraordinary capability to reason, and introspect, and science has no GOOD explanation for it....(in your words) isn't it silly to get so hung up on how unlikely it may seem and accept that a Creator was the cause? Furthermore, go back to the universes beginnings....once again, science can only know the universes history at the point of the big bang. They now admit, the universe had a beginning, whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause? What is that cause? Science cannot answer that. The God that seems so improbable can.
just because we don't fully understand how it all works YET does not make it non-physical.
Coming to understand the mind doesn't change the definition of physical. However, if you can find a credible scientist that says human consciousness is a physicality, and not just the result of the physical brain, I will concede to being wrong.
If your conscious mind is nothing but a result of the complexity of the brain, then it is completely bound by the laws of physics. Therefore, everything you do and everything you are was determined by your genetic makeup.
Yep, this is possible. And if it IS the case, at least we can "enjoy the ride".
I seem to recall you stating in another thread about "prejudice against fat people" that genetics plays only a small part if any in a persons weight. You basically said that they make a choice to be the way they are because they don't have to stay that way.
And by what you're stating, that you ARE your brain....then there is no "this is possible". It would be, this is the reality. So which is it? Are you a robot with no free will or not?
No, we would NOT get killed off by acting in a civilized manner.
Then the selfish gene doesn't exist and Dawkins is full of it. He claims we are robot machines programmed to preserve the selfish gene. The logic implies that it may be only natural for robot vehicles to murder, rob, rape or enslave other robots to satisfy their genetic masters. Darwin himself predicted in The Descent of Man that the most highly developed humans would soon exterminate the other races because that is how natural selection works.
Dawkins tries to get around the moral implications (as I stated before) by saying "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to."
This is both scientifically absurd and morally naive. How could natural selection favor the development of a capacity to thwart the interests of the ruling genes?
And even more to the point.....the ability to thwart the ruling genes would imply free will, which determinism extinguishes! You either believe you have free will and therefore your mind is not controlled alone by the physical brain, or you believe that everything is subject to naturalistic explanations and subject completely to physical laws giving you NO FREE WILL. If you have NO FREE WILL, then any acts of societal immorality aren't your fault, and therefore permissible in a sense because you had NO CHOICE. Does this sound reasonable to you?
Just because you may have been raised a certain way does not automatically guarantee you HAVE to make certain choices.
Then determinism is FALSE. Determinism says your choices are not really choices at all but determined on your genes!
Remember, determinism is the idea that every prior action affects human actions and choices. This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. By extension, all moral behaviors and choices are subservient to chemical reactions of the functioning brain.
I go by what reality appears to be (some amount of choice for the average individual) before I conclude it is all an illusion.
Hmmm sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me.
I still like you too :heart:
Edit: Information collected from The Wedge of Truth by Phillip E. Johnson, Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel, and godandscience.org
-
If she lived anywhere near me, I'd put her on my staff so fast, it'd be a blur
Aww, thank you Annella, I'm flatterd. ;D
-
If she lived anywhere near me, I'd put her on my staff so fast, it'd be a blur
Aww, thank you Annella, I'm flatterd. ;D
Truth!
-
It is you who are naive. You have a hard time grasping the concept of personal, free will choice. Your life is set in stone depending on what is in your heart and how you make your choices. Like Annella, I could also help expand on this with the Bible (God's Word) but you would not believe it anyway. God is not going to beat you on the head because you do or will not accept Him. He is disappointed, of course, but once again, YOU make your OWN choice - HE is NOT going to make it for you.
I think you can't grasp the very essence of the original argument. If your god is all-knowing (he knows the entire timelime already --past, present, and future-- the absence of choice for us in the big picture of things), he knows what everyone will choose to do. Knowing your creations are going to fail (climb up the ladder), suffer for eternity (fall onto the stove), and allowing it to happen is both lazy and evil. Any loving individual would turn off the stove or remove that needless pathway completely so the child would not climb and fall onto it.
I've read so many posts back and forth from QON, Falconer02, and others about their atheist beliefs. That would be great if you wouldn't get so nasty about it, or revert to intimidation tactics, name calling, etc. (Christians "slime around"?)......please
I'm not an atheist, though my beliefs run somewhat parallel so that's why I constantly find myself arguing for them. And, as nasty as it sounds, some christians do slime around. Tod Bentley? Yikesssssss! lol
BUT......your still asking proof of the existence of God. I guess what I'm posting here is what is the atheists main objective. You accuse us of trying to assimilate people into Christianity. What are your objectives? What is your motivation to talk to people about the belief in atheism? Are you not trying to convert, or assimilate?
If I may speak for their side in full as it is the same motive as mine, it is not to convert. James Randi is a perfect example of what the "main objective" is- the aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today. Why do we do this? Because this thought process extends greater than just religion- it dives into politics, philosophies, lifestyles, etc. It's just to insert free-thought where there needs to be.
-
They now admit, the universe had a beginning, whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause? What is that cause? Science cannot answer that. The God that seems so improbable can.
Our current universe had a beginning and therefore had a cause, but the jury's still out on exactly what it was. I've seen a chart before that listed various things that emerged after the Big Bang (i.e. electromagnetism), and they all had "natural cause" tied to them. Like my "reading minds" technology, just because we don't have a way to understand the origin of the Big Bang today doesn't mean we'll never know! Give science some credit - it's come a long way!
As for god solving the origins dilemma...not really. You are just asserting that god always existed without tangible evidence. Non-theists can do the same thing with universes.
if you can find a credible scientist that says human consciousness is a physicality, and not just the result of the physical brain, I will concede to being wrong.
I thought you said the mind doesn't reside within the brain?
I seem to recall you stating in another thread about "prejudice against fat people" that genetics plays only a small part if any in a persons weight. You basically said that they make a choice to be the way they are because they don't have to stay that way.
And by what you're stating, that you ARE your brain....then there is no "this is possible". It would be, this is the reality. So which is it? Are you a robot with no free will or not?
I don't know. It's a good point, I'll give you that. :thumbsup: Like I said, I'm on the fence about whether determinism is true...my hubby's argument for it is that the cause-and-effect chain is so complex it's too difficult for any of us to understand; therefore, it really seems as if we have "free will" when we don't. The main point I argue is that determinism completely devalues the human experience; I think most people would find it a fate worse than no afterlife for their entire life to already be set in stone from the moment of the Big Bang!! This argument is primarily emotional, of course, which may make it not true.
This is both scientifically absurd and morally naive. How could natural selection favor the development of a capacity to thwart the interests of the ruling genes?
I've wondered that about birth control, lol! ;) The argument is that once our brains get big enough, we can use it to our advantage and hijack some of our genes.
the ability to thwart the ruling genes would imply free will, which determinism extinguishes!
Yep, I see your point. Although hubby would argue that hijacking said genes was ALSO determined. lol
If you have NO FREE WILL, then any acts of societal immorality aren't your fault, and therefore permissible in a sense because you had NO CHOICE. Does this sound reasonable to you?
Nope, it doesn't sound reasonable from my limited perspective. It definitely would not be in our best interest to go spreading that message - even if it is ultimately true.
Then determinism is FALSE. Determinism says your choices are not really choices at all but determined on your genes!
That's my other main argument against determinism. But I could be wrong. I've asked my hubby, "So I was determined to not be raised religiously, find Christianity, and then become an atheist again?" Him: "Yup." Me: "That makes no sense."
This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. By extension, all moral behaviors and choices are subservient to chemical reactions of the functioning brain.
First video I ever watched on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LvI0-Sykkk
Hmmm sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me.
It very well might be. Now isn't that intellectually honest of me to say? lol ;)
-
Hmmm sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me.
It very well might be. Now isn't that intellectually honest of me to say? lol ;)
[/quote]
Color me surprised.....pleasantly :D
-
I thought you said the mind doesn't reside within the brain?
I did. That's my point. I don't imagine you will find a credible scientist...even a materialistic one that will assert any definitive statement that the mind is purely physical.
As for god solving the origins dilemma...not really. You are just asserting that god always existed without tangible evidence. Non-theists can do the same thing with universes.
You are right, and they certainly try....but here is where you come to an illogical argument. Atheists refuse belief in God, demanding irrefutable proof. They say God exists outside of the natural therefore he cannot exist. You say God exists outside of the natural because theism says God is eternal and created the laws of time and physics we are now subject to...He is defined as Supernatural.
YET, once it was irrefutable that the universe had a beginning....NOW, to get around God once again, they develop this idea of a multi verse and some kind of mother universe which churns out other universes?? Where did the original universe come from? If something had a beginning and therefore had to have a cause....you are eventually going to get to SOMETHING that is eternal and therefore NOT NATURAL by definition. You are going into serious rank speculation here with the multi universe idea. This is NOT scientific fact and it contradicts the very idea that God's eternal nature is so unbelievable. And it's very convenient to make such a theory that is completely unprovable. My point is.......you said it was silly to get so hung up on the improbable and accept the reality of what we see....I accept that God's eternal and invisible nature goes beyond human understanding but His existence is evident in humanity and creation.
Now isn't that intellectually honest of me to say? lol
Yes, but maybe your genes made you say it so I would shut up! ;)
-
It is you who are naive. You have a hard time grasping the concept of personal, free will choice. Your life is set in stone depending on what is in your heart and how you make your choices. Like Annella, I could also help expand on this with the Bible (God's Word) but you would not believe it anyway. God is not going to beat you on the head because you do or will not accept Him. He is disappointed, of course, but once again, YOU make your OWN choice - HE is NOT going to make it for you.
I think you can't grasp the very essence of the original argument. If your god is all-knowing (he knows the entire timelime already --past, present, and future-- the absence of choice for us in the big picture of things), he knows what everyone will choose to do. Knowing your creations are going to fail (climb up the ladder), suffer for eternity (fall onto the stove), and allowing it to happen is both lazy and evil. Any loving individual would turn off the stove or remove that needless pathway completely so the child would not climb and fall onto it.
I admit I don't understand why He allows it to happen. I just know that He is the Creator and has reasons for it that ultimately at the end we will all know. So, until then, my aim is to introduce Him to others, and let them make their own free-will choice about their own eternity.
-
I've read so many posts back and forth from QON, Falconer02, and others about their atheist beliefs. That would be great if you wouldn't get so nasty about it, or revert to intimidation tactics, name calling, etc. (Christians "slime around"?)......please
I'm not an atheist, though my beliefs run somewhat parallel so that's why I constantly find myself arguing for them. And, as nasty as it sounds, some christians do slime around. Tod Bentley? Yikesssssss! lol
Excuse me for putting a label on you....Atheist
There you go again "lumping" ALL Christians in your hard wired stereotype you "perceive" them to be. Doesn't sound like free thinking at all. There are exceptions. How about the concept of a pure original application to begin with. Not all Godly movements sprung up from a mother collective.
BUT......your still asking proof of the existence of God. I guess what I'm posting here is what is the atheists main objective. You accuse us of trying to assimilate people into Christianity. What are your objectives? What is your motivation to talk to people about the belief in atheism? Are you not trying to convert, or assimilate?
If I may speak for their side in full as it is the same motive as mine, it is not to convert. James Randi is a perfect example of what the "main objective" is- the aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today. Why do we do this? Because this thought process extends greater than just religion- it dives into politics, philosophies, lifestyles, etc. It's just to insert free-thought where there needs to be.
Oh, so inserting free-thought into the masses about paranormal and supernatural ideas is okay, but say someone like me inserting hope to someone ready to slit their wrists is "forcing" them to assimilate? Your statement is hypocritical in origin. Your actually smoothing over the concept of mind control, and relying on the already "biased' media to help with the process? I can relate instances I've witnessed that can blow paranormal and supernatural off the chart, and it has to do with what's happening today with applying concepts from an "old fashioned" Book and it's truths.
Politics, philosophies, and lifestyles, can be considered religions in themselves. They have their devotees and followers. QON indicated that we (Christians) hold back society moving forward. Wow, what a power we've become to be reckoned with. Move forward to what? Mind control, brain washing? The very thing your accusing us of doing, your trying to implement yourselves. Surely you can see the parallel here.
-
It is you who are naive. You have a hard time grasping the concept of personal, free will choice. Your life is set in stone depending on what is in your heart and how you make your choices. Like Annella, I could also help expand on this with the Bible (God's Word) but you would not believe it anyway. God is not going to beat you on the head because you do or will not accept Him. He is disappointed, of course, but once again, YOU make your OWN choice - HE is NOT going to make it for you.
I think you can't grasp the very essence of the original argument. If your god is all-knowing (he knows the entire timelime already --past, present, and future-- the absence of choice for us in the big picture of things), he knows what everyone will choose to do. Knowing your creations are going to fail (climb up the ladder), suffer for eternity (fall onto the stove), and allowing it to happen is both lazy and evil. Any loving individual would turn off the stove or remove that needless pathway completely so the child would not climb and fall onto it.
I admit I don't understand why He allows it to happen. I just know that He is the Creator and has reasons for it that ultimately at the end we will all know. So, until then, my aim is to introduce Him to others, and let them make their own free-will choice about their own eternity.
You go girlfriend! Sometimes we don't know why something is allowed to happen or happens. We can "glimpse" the big picture though (see through a glass darkly), and no way are we "hoodwinked" into the falsehood that this is all there is. All the intricate details of existence for nothing....um, yeah, we're the ones delusional.
-
Posted by: Annella: You go girlfriend! Sometimes we don't know why something is allowed to happen or happens. We can "glimpse" the big picture though, and no way are we "hoodwinked" into the falsehood that this is all there is. All the intricate details of existence for nothing....um, yeah, we're the ones delusional.
:cat:
Thanks, Annella! It's true we don't understand a lot of His ways, but I do know He has a most loving side as well as a jealous side. Hopefully, one day, things will become clear for us. I stand by my decision of my choice for God, and will defend Him as much as I am able! :star:
-
Excuse me for putting a label on you....Atheist
Hmm? You made a mistake on the label. I don't care!
There you go again "lumping" ALL Christians in your hard wired stereotype you "perceive" them to be. Doesn't sound like free thinking at all. There are exceptions. How about the concept of a pure original application to begin with. Not all Godly movements sprung up from a mother collective.
The quote you took from me on this was a joke. Not all christians are "slimy", but the ones nowadays like Tom Bentley...wow. I don't understand how anyone could follow a man like that. But if you're referring about the origin of christianity and the evolution of it, yeah. Plenty of gaps and slime in there.
Oh, so inserting free-thought into the masses about paranormal and supernatural ideas is okay, but say someone like me inserting hope to someone ready to slit their wrists is "forcing" them to assimilate? Your statement is hypocritical in origin. Your actually smoothing over the concept of mind control, and relying on the already "biased' media to help with the process?
Yes unfortunately it is forcing the individual to assimilate. You're ultimately introducing a fantasy to someone who is already experiencing traumatic things. You take advantage of a troubled mind so they favor your belief system. I understand your intentions are good, but ultimately you would be assimilating them with blind faith if you add/bait your religious beliefs on their troubles. There are several different routes to take on a situation like that. Your beliefs aren't the only one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsSdLD_YodQ :)
I can relate instances I've witnessed that can blow paranormal and supernatural off the chart, and it has to do with what's happening today with applying concepts from an "old fashioned" Book and it's truths.
I doubt your supernatual occurences completely.
Politics, philosophies, and lifestyles, can be considered religions in themselves. They have their devotees and followers. QON indicated that we (Christians) hold back society moving forward. Wow, what a power we've become to be reckoned with. Move forward to what? Mind control, brain washing? The very thing your accusing us of doing, your trying to implement yourselves. Surely you can see the parallel here.
Move forward to what? Reality. Getting rid of superstitions and delusions of the past that already have most of this country under an old-timey brain washing. To say the introduction of freethought/rationality/logic is a way of implementing mind-control is just ridiculous.
Edit: Queen made a comment on your post a little further below
-
I admit I don't understand why He allows it to happen. I just know that He is the Creator and has reasons for it that ultimately at the end we will all know. So, until then, my aim is to introduce Him to others, and let them make their own free-will choice about their own eternity.
So you don't understand your god (even though you've personalized him with human traits) and just accept the mission parameters?
All the intricate details of existence for nothing....um, yeah, we're the ones delusional.
What are you talking about? This is nihilism. Not atheism. And if you think nihilists are delusional, I highly suggest you look at some of those myths you believe in that holy book of yours.
-
You choose the Devil or God...it is that simple! You choose to be a child of God's or the Devil's. God knows, yes, but you don't and since you don't know, you have your own choices to make...that is your free will...
I don't think its either one or the other for them. By not choosing g-d, they are not de facto choosing the devil. Many who do not choose g-d lead moral lives...they just don't use the Bible as their moral compass.
I don't think God makes people other than Adam & Eve but what he does is gives all those being born a chance through his son to have everlasting life. He gives you a soul.
God will not force you to worship him, yes there is a consequence.
Just like a cop can't force you to obey the laws but there is a consequence if you don't.
There is a good reply. I like seeing this from you, Marie. I hope to see more of the same from you. :thumbsup:
-
I don't imagine you will find a credible scientist...even a materialistic one that will assert any definitive statement that the mind is purely physical.
Where I stand is that it seems like we have some amount of free will, but I don't think the explanation for this is the god of the talking snake and cursed fruit. I don't see what physical law directly dictates a simple choice; also, even if we had a supercomputer that could predict our future behavior, having access to the results of the printout would give us some amount of power to change what happens (unless the supercomputer included that, too, which seems far-fetched).
As for WHY physical beings can be conscious/aware and make some level of choices...I guess I assume there are some mechanics behind it that we don't yet understand that allow for that. I don't think it's fair to be on lockdown with a theory like determinism quite yet; how do we know some degree of free will can't exist without god? The universe is full of strange and wondrous things...just because there is a strict equation for gravity and the speed of light doesn't necessarily mean there is a strict equation for human thinking and behavior.
That's just my two cents on it. Like Christians, I bring "personal life experience" into my argument for my beliefs (why I think we have some free will). The difference between my label of personal experience and a believer's, however, is mine is based on the observation of reality and lessons learned, whereas a god person's personal experience is usually based on spooky, superstitious coincidences. Whether this "personal life experience" is ultimately a delusion or not, though, has yet to be proven. ;)
They say God exists outside of the natural therefore he cannot exist.
And theists have to believe in some kind of dualism for god to be true. This being that the supernatural can co-exist with the natural, a state which also seems like it would break the laws of physics - just like your free will vs. determinism argument. What do you think?
they develop this idea of a multi verse and some kind of mother universe which churns out other universes?? Where did the original universe come from? If something had a beginning and therefore had to have a cause....you are eventually going to get to SOMETHING that is eternal and therefore NOT NATURAL by definition. You are going into serious rank speculation here with the multi universe idea. This is NOT scientific fact and it contradicts the very idea that God's eternal nature is so unbelievable. And it's very convenient to make such a theory that is completely unprovable.
I can be at peace with not having all of the answers for ultimate origins and whatnot. I think it's unrealistic to expect that these sort of discoveries won't take a great deal of time, if we ever find the final answer at all. Multi-universes are just speculation, not theory or fact. Speculation is all scientists can go off of right now pre-Big Bang.
As for the universe being eternal or not eternal, whatever the ultimate reality is, it doesn't necessarily mean a god had anything to do with it. We have to look at where the evidence points and never just "settle" on this magical concept of an Ultimate Intelligence. God's intelligence would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe, and yet you're okay without having a solid explanation for that?
Yes, but maybe your genes made you say it so I would shut up! ;)
I agree, it seems ridiculous to just say, "My genes made me do it!" for everything. Got in a fight with your spouse? Sorry, it was pre-destined! ;)
-
someone like me inserting hope to someone ready to slit their wrists is "forcing" them to assimilate?
Believer, to person who would have committed suicide: "Wow, don't you know you would have gone straight to hell and suffered forever by ending your own life? Aren't you glad I 'saved' you from that?? Now all you have to do is sacrifice your only life to pleasing and worshiping this invisible zombie, Jesus; deny yourself natural pleasures and rights, try not to sin, devote at least 1/10th of your income and 48 days out of the year to your local church...and even given all this, you might STILL not pass the test and end up in hell rather than the good place - neither of which can be proven, you just got to have this thing called 'faith'. Good luck!"
That's "hope"?!
Move forward to what?
Civil rights for all, scientific advancements not being held back, more people available to actually CONTRIBUTE to the world rather than just preaching lies or popping out babies, less atrocities in the name of religion (hate crimes, 9/11)...and so on and so forth.
-
And theists have to believe in some kind of dualism for god to be true. This being that the supernatural can co-exist with the natural, a state which also seems like it would break the laws of physics - just like your free will vs. determinism argument. What do you think?
Well, essentially it comes down to believing dualism or determinism. Either your conscious is separate from your brain, or it is merely a byproduct of your brain and therefore you are locked into determinism. I'm not sure how you can even claim atheism and effectively deny determinism, since atheism leaves only room for natural explanation, you are only left with determinism in explaining the mind/brain issue. Your denial of dualism puts you into a deterministic belief whether you like it or not.
As for the universe being eternal or not eternal, whatever the ultimate reality is, it doesn't necessarily mean a god had anything to do with it. We have to look at where the evidence points and never just "settle" on this magical concept of an Ultimate Intelligence. God's intelligence would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe, and yet you're okay without having a solid explanation for that?
The multi universe theory supposes that there are many universes, and that one super universe created all the other universes (this theory also serves the purpose to de-miracle-ize the extreme unlikely hood of life in our universe) but the theory still has to say that the super universe is eternal. Being eternal defies physical law and therefore by definition is a supernatural concept. You said you CAN'T believe in God....well let's put aside the Christian God and assume any sort of eternal creator here.....you CAN'T believe? Well, apparently you find it intellectually acceptable to believe in an eternal universe that has no proof and no hope of being proven. There are things that science cannot explain...(such as the "why"). Science has only the ability to explain the natural.....there are things in the past that, due to limitations, people attributed to the supernatural...and of course later science was able to give a natural explanation. That doesn't mean that the supernatural doesn't exist, it just means it is outside the ability of scientific method to explain it (just like the "why").
However, materialists are willing to accept the concept of a super universe..super universe=supernatural universe. So it's not that one CAN'T believe in a god (based on his unexplainability) it's that one WON'T.
I don't find it very difficult at all to accept that God is infinitely more complex than the universe, and I don't need a solid explanation (from science) I have a solid explanation about God's character and eternal and invisible nature from the bible. My personal experience with God, combined with sufficient evidence from science gives me unwavering faith in God. If God was completely within the realm of explanation, it wouldn't require ANY faith to believe in Him. One can have faith in God that is based on sound reasoning and logic from the natural things in this world. That is my belief.
If you believe in an eternal universe, you are placing belief in something that is unprovable, unobservable, and untestable......just like God. That requires faith. Accepting that science can't explain everything, doesn't mean you are settling for magic. Science should never cease trying to explain our world and how it operates, but you can't say that whatever science can't explain by natural processes is "magic". After all the super universe is not and would never be explained by a natural process, since it would have to exist outside of the laws of the universes it produced...it would have to be infinitely more complex than the universes it produced.
But maybe you could say, I believe in a "magical" God and you believe in a "magical" universe ( The universe is full of strange and wondrous things)? I guess if you like the term magic...then it's just a difference of opinion of where the magic comes from??
You are willing to accept an idea that is unexplainable and un-falsifiable, and revere the universe for its "strange and wonderful" characteristics. But to believe in an unexplainable strange and wonderful God...no that would be intellectual suicide!
-
I admit I don't understand why He allows it to happen. I just know that He is the Creator and has reasons for it that ultimately at the end we will all know. So, until then, my aim is to introduce Him to others, and let them make their own free-will choice about their own eternity.
So you don't understand your god (even though you've personalized him with human traits) and just accept the mission parameters?
If I were to truly understand my God, then I would be as all-knowing as Him. Obviously, we are not all-knowing and that's why we Christians have faith (trust in what you cannot see.) I continue my stance no matter what you debate me with. While I'm at it, nobody knows everything about everything, especially the unknown ahead. If you have faith in any god, yourself, do you truly know that god inside and out? No, because then you would be absolutely perfect, and all-knowing.
-
Is it me or has Maire changed her opinion a lot in this post..
I was enjoying the replies and what this topic was about..
Then I felt like I was going crazy with how back and forth Marie was..
What is your belief?? Are you lost?? Or what??
Now that I feel a little less sane...
Here is a few question's for Christians I really wanna know...
Why is questioning God wrong??
Why is people who think and live outside the box and question religion headed for Hell or being coaxed by devil??
Why not saying any of you are but why are Christians so pushy and closed minded and judgmental??
Why do so many preachers and televangelists use scare tactics and end up crooks??
Last question...Why try to save what you deem as people who you think are wrong why live life your way and let them find their own way??
-
If I were to truly understand my God, then I would be as all-knowing as Him. Obviously, we are not all-knowing and that's why we Christians have faith (trust in what you cannot see.) While I'm at it, nobody knows everything about everything, especially the unknown ahead. If you have faith in any god, yourself, do you truly know that god inside and out? No, because then you would be absolutely perfect, and all-knowing.
But, with the criteria given, your god points to being imperfect. Mainly for having such primitive human emotions and poor decision making skills. To just lie on the foundation of "god is mysterious so we don't know why he does stuff" seems so careless and ignorant of reality. Blind faith is only looked at as a piety within religion, but overall is a very dangerous ideal to carry since it has you trust in something you cannot see. I'm sure you've heard of the good ol' Nigerian scam artists that send those emails out saying things around the lines of "This guy that you've never heard of had a tie to your bloodline. He died and within his will he left you 2 million dollars. Please give us your information so we can send it to you." You've never seen these people, you've never heard of this apparent family member, and you have no proof that this money exists. If you had never heard of this scam, it would take blind faith to give them your information.
I continue my stance no matter what you debate me with.
Hey, food for thought.
Then I felt like I was going crazy with how back and forth Marie was..
She's crazy and does this in practically every thread. It is best you ignore those posts-- it's much easier to stay within the topic at hand.
Here is a few question's for Christians I really wanna know...
I'm sure you know the answers to most of these already.
Why try to save what you deem as people who you think are wrong why live life your way and let them find their own way??
This one I have trouble with too.
-
Your denial of dualism puts you into a deterministic belief whether you like it or not.
And that may be so. In any event, we all live our lives like determinism isn't true, which is interesting. Given the choice between determinism and some evil guy with a pitchfork running around wreaking havoc, determinism seems a lot more plausible.
Being eternal defies physical law and therefore by definition is a supernatural concept.
Says who? This isn't fact...
That doesn't mean that the supernatural doesn't exist, it just means it is outside the ability of scientific method to explain it
How convenient. How can you be sure that there is supernatural going on in your life, then? A scientist can't detect it, but you can?
super universe=supernatural universe. So it's not that one CAN'T believe in a god (based on his unexplainability) it's that one WON'T.
Labeling an eternal universe "not natural" is a false assertion. Again, the god you are arguing for is one that's obviously made up...I can't and won't believe in fantasy just to satisfy any fears about life's "purpose".
If God was completely within the realm of explanation, it wouldn't require ANY faith to believe in Him.
That's a pretty poor excuse, given that god created a world that appears to disprove him at every turn (invisibility, dinosaurs, evolution, the problem of evil, The Big Bang, logic). Just how much faith does he expect me to have??
If you believe in an eternal universe, you are placing belief in something that is unprovable, unobservable, and untestable......just like God. That requires faith.
Whoever said with 100% certainty that they're going to blow themselves up, circumcise their daughter, stone people to death, go on Crusades, or fly planes into buildings over the belief in a cyclic universe? NO ONE. Scientists don't know, but they're working on it. Religion, on the other hand, goes off the deep end in thinking IT HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. The Big Bang has positive evidence in its favor while a personal creator god has negative evidence for it. Neither scenario is a certainty.
-
If I were to truly understand my God, then I would be as all-knowing as Him. Obviously, we are not all-knowing and that's why we Christians have faith (trust in what you cannot see.) While I'm at it, nobody knows everything about everything, especially the unknown ahead. If you have faith in any god, yourself, do you truly know that god inside and out? No, because then you would be absolutely perfect, and all-knowing.
But, with the criteria given, your god points to being imperfect. Mainly for having such primitive human emotions and poor decision making skills. To just lie on the foundation of "god is mysterious so we don't know why he does stuff" seems so careless and ignorant of reality. Blind faith is only looked at as a piety within religion, but overall is a very dangerous ideal to carry since it has you trust in something you cannot see. I'm sure you've heard of the good ol' Nigerian scam artists that send those emails out saying things around the lines of "This guy that you've never heard of had a tie to your bloodline. He died and within his will he left you 2 million dollars. Please give us your information so we can send it to you." You've never seen these people, you've never heard of this apparent family member, and you have no proof that this money exists. If you had never heard of this scam, it would take blind faith to give them your information.
Quote:
"[“But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means” (1 Corinthians 2:14).]" continued in next post.
-
continued in response to Falconer:
"[Predestination is defined as the act of predestinating, which is an action of God -- who is eternal and foreordains what comes to pass on earth. This idea is repugnant to some. The idea that an entity has the right to ordain what happens on earth is something that man in his natural state has rebelled against from the dawn of time. However, the Old Testament starts with, "In the beginning, God. . ." This is an unambiguous statement. God existed before, continues to exist and will always exist (Revelation 1:4). God has the sovereign right of creation over the earth and man and He makes no apologies for saying, "Thus saith the LORD!" This statement does not require man's understanding or acceptance to be true.]"
"[Predestination is the decree of God by which certain souls are foreordained to salvation -- called the elect. Again, this is a concept that many see as somehow unfair. However, all of the attributes of God allow Him to know history in advance. Therefore, it can be said that we are "preordained" or elected by pre-knowledge because time has no rule over God. But, didn't God give man volition (exercising one’s own will)? The answer to that is yes, however, since God is all knowing He already knows the outcome of the choices men will make and He uses those choices to bring about His purpose.]"
"[God has made salvation possible for anyone who wants it. He already knows who will accept His plan of salvation. This does not negate man's choice; rather it is confirmation of God's grace that some do choose salvation. Predestination means to mark out or determine before hand. Predestination may raise some intellectual problems, but that is because man tries to wrap his finite mind around an infinite God. However, those who accept the gift of salvation become the “elect” of God.]"
These are things I've tried saying in my own words. This quote helps to back up what I'm trying to say. Credit is given to "All About God."
-
But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means” (1 Corinthians 2:14).]"
But people who aren't scientologists can't understand the truths from Xenu's spirit! It all sounds foolish to THEM because only those who are level-4 scientologists can understand what Xenu is trying to do!
Both of these are cop-out advertisements of belief systems.
continued in response to Falconer:
Everything below this has already been discussed between Queen and Sherna so I really don't want it to spiral around again.
Predestination may raise some intellectual problems, but that is because man tries to wrap his finite mind around an infinite God. However, those who accept the gift of salvation become the “elect” of God
So don't think for yourself. Just be a drone to get a reward that has no proof of existing. How is this not another cop-out advertisement?
-
Given the choice between determinism and some evil guy with a pitchfork running around wreaking havoc, determinism seems a lot more plausible.
It's not a contest between determinism and the devil. It's conceding whether the mind is separate from the brain or just a byproduct. But I guess you're saying that it's either (my genes made me do it, or the devil made me do it?) In either case you are implying the absence of free will and then it's just a matter of what you are willing to accept as being in control. I don't believe in determinism and I don't think the devil can make me do anything I don't want to do. I am free to make my own choices.
Says who? This isn't fact...
So you're saying that something could exist within our natural physical laws and time and be eternal? Being eternal means being immortal, universe or God....is immortality a naturalistic concept? No it isn't.
How convenient. How can you be sure that there is supernatural going on in your life, then? A scientist can't detect it, but you can?
Scientists could detect it, they just wouldn't be able to use natural processes to explain it. This is where the materialistic philosophy is infecting the field of science.
When the metaphysicians of science concede that science has its limitations, they usually mean that reality and NOT science is what is limited. Because science has to be able to explain everything, reality has to be limited to those things that science can explain. Because science understands only material causes, whatever cannot be reduced to material causes has to be ignored, whether it be complex specified aperiodic genetic information, or irreducibly complex organs, or consciousness itself.
Well, I'm sorry but I think it's pretty pathetic that when the evidence points towards a Creator materialists use the very science that gave the evidence, to say that unless it is falsifiable it can't be reality. WELL A SUPER UNIVERSE IS NOT FALSIFIABLE!
AND IT GETS BETTER..... The design position IS falsifiable, since advocates of naturalism could discover a natural process capable of creating the necessary information if such a process exists. If Neo-Darwinism were true as a general theory of biological creation, it would falsify the claim that some additional information-creating mechanism is necessary. (There is NO evidence that evolution can create information) The "design is religion, not science" position is not falsifiable because it decides the disputed question by the manipulation of words rather than by empirical investigation. Hence, by the standard of falsifiability the intelligent design hypothesis is scientific, and the refusal to consider it on its merits is unscientific.
Labeling an eternal universe "not natural" is a false assertion. Again, the god you are arguing for is one that's obviously made up...I can't and won't believe in fantasy just to satisfy any fears about life's "purpose".
By what I have stated and probably it was already information you were aware of....the multi verse theory is null...because it is can't be proven. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe. SO, what are you left with? A finite cosmos that HAD A BEGINNING. Now, remember whatever began to exist must have a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause.
As an atheist you are governed by two main principles: 1) all your beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, you state that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, you believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.
So, refuse to believe in God, call Him a fantasy....but you are going around here trying to tell people how intellectually dishonest they are when they stoop to believing in a sky daddy. But you don't even know what you believe and science can't give you an answer. So you contradict yourself by saying you are on the fence about determinism but make statements about "I am my brain". You make assertive statements about the mind being physical but then say you don't know, when I ask if you are a robot with no free will.
It sounds like you're confused.
I'm not.
Italics are quotes taken from The Wedge of Truth and godandscience.org
-
"[“But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means” (1 Corinthians 2:14).]"
Yes we can, because most of us are ex-religious. Why do y'all keep forgetting this??
This does not negate man's choice; rather it is confirmation of God's grace that some do choose salvation.
Predestination means to mark out or determine before hand.
Uh, read these two sentences separately and try to see the logical fallacy here.
Either way you slice it, if you are on Team God, your whole life IS already determined (you just can't know it). If you are on Team Science, your whole life MAY be already determined (if you believe in strict physical laws with no other explanation). Determinism is claimed in both cases, and yet we have this undeniable feeling of some will in either. What a conundrum.
-
It's not a contest between determinism and the devil.
That's actually not what I meant, but I can see where you might have thought that. I meant in a choice between determinism and the fantastical fairy tales of religion, determinism grants way more respect.
But I guess you're saying that it's either (my genes made me do it, or the devil made me do it?)
Again, I picked the wrong example of a bonkers aspect of Christianity. But what you state is definitely how many would describe it. In my opinion, it's either my genes made me do it, or there's some other explanation that doesn't rely on recycled primitive myths.
I don't believe in determinism and I don't think the devil can make me do anything I don't want to do. I am free to make my own choices.
But god already knows your entire future; you are merely going through the motions of a book that's already been written. HOW IS THAT FREE?
So you're saying that something could exist within our natural physical laws and time and be eternal? Being eternal means being immortal, universe or God....is immortality a naturalistic concept? No it isn't.
I'm not a scientist or physicist, but from what I've gathered, yes it's possible for the potential for universes to have always existed (we don't know). You're forgetting that universes are born, change form, and die, only to be recycled again. Physical laws are not necessarily always the same in each new form of a universe. And time is a man-made concept. As for mortality, the universe isn't "alive" in the way we are, so I don't think this is a valid argument.
Well, I'm sorry but I think it's pretty pathetic that when the evidence points towards a Creator materialists use the very science that gave the evidence, to say that unless it is falsifiable it can't be reality.
Something theists like to do is swap out their personal god for a general one. The scientific evidence points AWAY from Biblegod, and this is who you are arguing for, is it not?? Some examples of how the evidence points away from Biblegod include: the age of the earth, evolution, dinosaurs, no geological record of a global flood, DNA that traces all species back to common animal ancestors.
the multi verse theory is null...because it is can't be proven.
God is null...because he can't be proven. ;) Do you see the problem with saying something like that? An idea isn't null until new facts and concepts have replaced it (obviously there are some extreme examples where this statement doesn't apply).
The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.
The future of science is never "bleak"! Theists are content to stop trying, to stop exploring...because they already know the answer: "God did it!" That type of poor thinking is why religion holds us back and gets us NOWHERE.
Now, remember whatever began to exist must have a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause.
Sounds like a broken record. Of course our current universe had a cause!!
So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, you believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.
We've already been over this in another thread...such a statement drives home how much theists HATE not knowing. It makes you guys so uncomfortable, and the phrasing reminds me of childish taunts. "Stupid scientists! You guys don't KNOW how the Big Bang started, therefore, you're wrong! Neener, neener, neener!" Everything that followed the Big Bang had a natural cause, so it's incredibly likely that it, too, had one. Nonetheless, it takes HUMILITY to realize one's tiny place in the universe and to not claim things we cannot currently know. It takes willful self-delusion to rely on ancient, pre-scientific myths and say you have the ultimate answer.
But you don't even know what you believe and science can't give you an answer. So you contradict yourself by saying you are on the fence about determinism but make statements about "I am my brain". You make assertive statements about the mind being physical but then say you don't know, when I ask if you are a robot with no free will. It sounds like you're confused.
And it sounds like you have incredibly high expectations for everyone who is outside of your club. Again, there is nothing wrong with saying "I'm not sure", or "I'm leaning towards this, but I'm not going to put all of my eggs in that basket until the EVIDENCE is in." That's how science goes about things and intellectually honest, objective people too.
-
But god already knows your entire future; you are merely going through the motions of a book that's already been written. HOW IS THAT FREE?
Knowing is not causing. I make the choice, God knew I would make it.
The scientific evidence points AWAY from Biblegod, and this is who you are arguing for, is it not?? Some examples of how the evidence points away from Biblegod include: the age of the earth, evolution, dinosaurs, no geological record of a global flood, DNA that traces all species back to common animal ancestors.
1.Age of the earth-completely consistent with Genesis. I have said this before and you and falconer dismiss it saying "that's not what other christians say". Well, now your just ignoring relevant information so you can continue to argue your point. You may have read this information already? http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html
2.Evolution-The text book typically defines as evolution as "change over time" or "change in gene frequency" this is irrefutable observed scientific fact. To falsify Intelligent Design evolution has to be irrefutably proven to have the ability to create information. The genome of a bacterium, which can be described as a miniature chemical factory of astounding complexity, contains an enormous amount of information. Dawkins himself likes to say that the bacterial cell contains more information that the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Our bodies contain a vast number of these cells working together in marvelous harmony. If evolution produced these wonderful things, then evolution must be very productive at creating information.
When evolution is defined as "change", the scientists at least have some observed examples to cite. When evolution is defined as "information creation" they have nothing but speculation. Information creating evolution is not empirical science at all because it has never been observed either in the wild or in the laboratory.
So, evolution does not disprove "biblegod" in that it has not disproven Intelligent Design and "biblegod" is a very legitimate candidate for the Designer.
3.Dinosaurs. Well when you look at old earth creation theory you see that dinosaurs existed and became extinct before the creation of man.
4. Proof of global flood. I think we went over this in another thread. There is reliable biblical interpretation that suggests the flood was local.
(I would like to amend here that in that particular thread I suggested that baby dinosaurs could have represented the species on the ark...at the time I was still fuzzy about earth age theory)
5.DNA similarity_ Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
God is null...because he can't be proven
I don't believe that....if I were a materialist then of course I would...my point is the contradiction they make when they use an idea like a multi verse to get around the "fine tuning" and universe cause issues. A concept that is untestable, is sufficient for them as long as it continues to deny that God could exist.
Theists are content to stop trying, to stop exploring...because they already know the answer: "God did it!"
That's not true in the least! I personally know theists, Christians, that are very passionate about science and exploring things and learning new things. We just aren't so narrow minded to say that God isn't a relevant explanation for things science CAN'T explain! And materialist philosophy stifles curiosity in much the same way, since, wherever evolution completely fails to explain something.....the continue to believe a FALSE theory by saying "evolution did it". That leaves no room for any more ideas because evolution has already failed at explaining it, so you have met a dead end. You're not believing evolution because it has all the answers, you're believing in it despite the answer it points to.
"Stupid scientists! You guys don't KNOW how the Big Bang started, therefore, you're wrong!
Who is saying the Big Bang is wrong?
Again, there is nothing wrong with saying "I'm not sure"
You are right about that. But here is what materialist scientists are doing. They have a puzzle that is incomplete, they have several pieces in front of them that look like they will fit; but the picture it would make is unsatisfactory to them...so they look at the other pieces in front of them and say "well...if we could make these pieces fit the picture would be exactly what we want"....the pieces clearly DON'T fit, but they are the only pieces they are willing to use and so they sit back say...."how do we get these pieces to fit, that is the scientific question to focus on." That is not honest, that is certainly not objective.
-
Yes we can, because most of us are ex-religious. Why do y'all keep forgetting this??
Because if you can turn away from God...then you were never really religious...you never really had a personal close relationship...say what you want, but you were always in the dark.
Marie, I really like what you said here! Qon, if you are really ex-religious, then that means that you accepted Christ as your Saviour, and then rebelled against Him. Is this what I am understanding? If so, then like Marie asked (in so many words), did you really experience salvation of the Lord? It just doesn't quite match up here.
-
God or the Devil, this has been the time tested question of who is more powerful. The way that I always explain to my friends is that God was first and created all the Angels, that includes the fallen Angel known as the Devil, so......therefore God is all powerful. But, God did give the Devil some power b/c you can't have black without white, light without dark, cold without hot. There always has to be an opposite. In the end though, God is just testing all of us and checking to see what each of us is capable of and what we choose on a day to day basis. There are many forks in the road, which path we choose is totally up to us. God gave us knowledge to know the difference between each choice we make. Now don't start thinking that I'm all Holyier than thow, heck, I don't even attend church unless absolutely called for. But this is how I have come to practice what I believe in. You don't have to go to church to believe in God or Satan for that matter. You don't even have to think about God on a daily basis if you don't want to either. He gave us the freedom to do this, otherwise life would not be interesting and I think that he knew that from the very beginning.
-
You don't even have to think about God on a daily basis if you don't want to either.
Ahhh, I believe around these parts and it's people (meaning the Forums) that qualifies you as one of the "Lukewarm Christians".
I see this is your first post here, welcome to the Land of Diverse Opinions! ;)
-
If I may pry into your argument, Sherna and Queen--
..my point is the contradiction they make when they use an idea like a multi verse to get around the "fine tuning" and universe cause issues. A concept that is untestable, is sufficient for them as long as it continues to deny that God could exist.
I'm...kind of with you on this. The problem is the belief in your defined god rather than just a generally unknown metaphysical deity. Remember my "Man in Guam" example I made a while back in another thread? Your god is too well defined with character traits, emotion, physical aspects, agendas, etc. whereas something like the multi-verse is just a scientific idea open to skepticism and doubt. If it's capable of being proven wrong, hey! Throw whatever faults are in it into the junk pile and let's keep on moving forward. People seem to have a heart attack at the idea of doing that with an mythological/defined god.
Who is saying the Big Bang is wrong?
You? No. You know your stuff pretty well. My neighbor? The young-earth creationist that believes T-rex lived with humans 6,000 years ago? Those people.
We've already been over this in another thread...such a statement drives home how much theists HATE not knowing. It makes you guys so uncomfortable. Everything that followed the Big Bang had a natural cause, so it's incredibly likely that it, too, had one. Nonetheless, it takes HUMILITY to realize one's tiny place in the universe and to not claim things we cannot currently know. It takes willful self-delusion to rely on ancient, pre-scientific myths and say you have the ultimate answer.
I'm Falconer and I approve this message.
That's not true in the least! I personally know theists, Christians, that are very passionate about science and exploring things and learning new things
I'm sure the view is different depending on whatever person or sect of christianity we're talking about. For instance Jcribb pretty much did this above.
-
Throw whatever faults are in it into the junk pile and let's keep on moving forward
I agree. I have a problem when ideas that are not junk are thrown in a pile because it doesn't fit the naturalistic philosophy agenda! As I stated earlier, Intelligent Design is a legitimate theory in that is falsifiable. It's falsifiable because Neo-Darwinism could prove it bunk if they had definitive and irrefutable proof that evolution creates information. They currently don't. It's not unbiased science any longer when this happens. The have a preformed idea of what the information needs to fit into, anything that is going to re-form it...no, not to be considered....instead let's MAKE the information we will consider fit the form! Queen said, science has come along way...it sure has. But now, at least where origins is concerned, it is at a screeching halt because no matter how hard they try, materialism isn't fitting the form quite the way they want it to. They are holding on to the junk, hoping they can figure out how to de-junkify it.
such a statement drives home how much theists HATE not knowing
I think more likely it drives home how much of a contradiction atheism really is.
-
I have said this before and you and falconer dismiss it saying "that's not what other christians say". Well, now your just ignoring relevant information so you can continue to argue your point. You may have read this information already?
Yes I have and what I see on that site is a whole lotta justification. People 2,000 years ago had no concept of the Big Bang or billions of years, so why wouldn't a "day" mean a day when they wrote it?? Don't you find it fishy that this "Old Earth Creation" was only thought up AFTER the scientific evidence was in that deemed the Biblical notion of a 6,000-year-old Earth absurd? I do!
To falsify Intelligent Design evolution has to be irrefutably proven to have the ability to create information.
I believe abiogenesis deals with this, NOT evolution. So evolution still stands.
So, evolution does not disprove "biblegod" in that it has not disproven Intelligent Design and "biblegod" is a very legitimate candidate for the Designer.
Consider this: wouldn't you expect living things to look like survival machines if there wasn't a god? The universe doesn't run off of magic, you know! I've made this point before: god would have a stronger case if our bodies didn't act like big, natural computers. Because he's god -- he doesn't need all of these organs and systems for us to be alive, but life without a god DOES. Dun dun dun!
Well when you look at old earth creation theory you see that dinosaurs existed and became extinct before the creation of man.
And what was the purpose of that??
There is reliable biblical interpretation that suggests the flood was local.
There probably was a local flood, which is why we have so many myths about it across cultures. ;)
5.DNA similarity_ Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation).
Wow. This is denial if I ever saw it!
A concept that is untestable, is sufficient for them as long as it continues to deny that God could exist.
Psst...scientists are not part of some conspiracy to keep disproving god. I promise.
They have a puzzle that is incomplete, they have several pieces in front of them that look like they will fit; but the picture it would make is unsatisfactory to them...so they look at the other pieces in front of them and say "well...if we could make these pieces fit the picture would be exactly what we want"....the pieces clearly DON'T fit, but they are the only pieces they are willing to use and so they sit back say...."how do we get these pieces to fit, that is the scientific question to focus on." That is not honest, that is certainly not objective.
This comment reminded me of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RyUa3OubY ;)
-
Qon, if you are really ex-religious, then that means that you accepted Christ as your Saviour, and then rebelled against Him. Is this what I am understanding? If so, then like Marie asked (in so many words), did you really experience salvation of the Lord? It just doesn't quite match up here.
*sigh* Yes I really experienced "the salvation of the Lord"; I was baptized at the age of reason (my own choice), and went to Bible studies, groups, and clubs. I sigh because it's a pretty offensive thing that Christians like to accuse ex-Christians of. *Deep breath* Putting myself into your shoes, though, I can remember/relate to you saying such a thing. I used to carry around the same falsehood myself as a Christian, backed with: "Atheists just don't understand the Spirit!" (as you mentioned earlier). Yes, that was me!
The vast majority who leave the fold are not "rebelling" (obviously there are some, like teenagers who were raised fundamentally). For me it was due to an increase in knowledge, pure and simple.
People seem to have a heart attack at the idea of doing that with an mythological/defined god.
:thumbsup: Indeed they do!
The young-earth creationist that believes T-rex lived with humans 6,000 years ago? Those people.
Think you'll enjoy this vid, Falc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8iPJwztys :wave:
-
Don't you find it fishy that this "Old Earth Creation" was only thought up AFTER the scientific evidnence was in that deemed the Biblical notion of a 6,000-year-old Earth absurd?
No, I think it's religion being flexible and intellectually honest enough to say, "Hey guys, we need to go back and look at our interpretation of the bible, and see where we got it wrong." If you read the information on how the word is interpreted than you see that the Hebrew word was used in the same context elsewhere in the bible in reference to "a period of time" not a 24 hour day. That's not justification it's just plain fact. So basically what you're saying is "How dare you go back and research the bible to make sure you understand it properly!"
I believe abiogenesis deals with this, NOT evolution. So evolution still stands.
Well, now you are just playing with words. Evolution as defined by "change over time" yes it absolutely does. But Darwinian evolution on origins as described in chemical theory does not stand.
Because he's god -- he doesn't need all of these organs and systems for us to be alive, but life without a god DOES.
There is no life without God. Prove that evolution has the ability to create the information necessary for living cells to function and then come back and make that statement again.
And what was the purpose of that??
I can't say I know the mind of God. I do believe that God enjoys His creation and He can create in whatever order He likes. He's God!
This is denial if I ever saw it!
Good comeback. Here is something written by a non-creationist about this subject.
Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.
Furthermore, Denton argues, the classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact highly conjectural if not downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which an even remotely plausible fossil genealogy can be propounded out of the 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. He takes the horse as an example and points out that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable whether the series, even if true, proves much at all. And even the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science. Robert Locke
Psst...scientists are not part of some conspiracy to keep disproving god. I promise.
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin
In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."
Erasmus Darwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species," in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215.
"Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion."
Peck, M. Scott [psychiatrist and Medical Director of New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic, Connecticut, USA], "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth," [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p.238.
-
Here is something written by a non-creationist about this subject.
Woe to the day you found that "godandscience" website (your Robert Locke is also on there, I know). It appears you've made it your go-to source and final authority on "answers" to the tough questions. Because it agrees with your desired position (Christian god) and appears detailed and educated, you're absorbing everything it says like a sponge. :crybaby2: As a former Christian myself, all I'm trying to do is warn you that you're being scammed so as to save one more person from frittering their only life away...but you won't listen because you think I'm "lost" and you're shackled down by the mindset a god-belief requires.
we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith.
Cherry-picking a few quotes doesn't speak for scientists on the whole. Just look at your life today compared to what it would have been 200 years ago and you'll see science's "intentions".
Good articles I found today on determinism/"free will" without god (these echo my position):
http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/determinism-a-surrogate?xg_source=activity (also read the comments for more detail from the author)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/freewillanintelligentchoice/forum/topics/free-will-explained
-
Here is something written by a non-creationist about this subject.
Woe to the day you found that "godandscience" website (your Robert Locke is also on there, I know). It appears you've made it your go-to source and final authority on "answers" to the tough questions. Because it agrees with your desired position (Christian god) and appears detailed and educated, you're absorbing everything it says like a sponge. :crybaby2: As a former Christian myself, all I'm trying to do is warn you that you're being scammed so as to save one more person from frittering their only life away...but you won't listen because you think I'm "lost" and you're shackled down by the mindset a god-belief requires.
we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith.
Cherry-picking a few quotes doesn't speak for scientists on the whole. Just look at your life today compared to what it would have been 200 years ago and you'll see science's "intentions".
Good articles I found today on determinism/"free will" without god (these echo my position):
http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/determinism-a-surrogate?xg_source=activity (also read the comments for more detail from the author)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/freewillanintelligentchoice/forum/topics/free-will-explained
Wait a minute qon, don't you have sources you go to to lend "credence" to your points of atheism? Why can't Sherna, as Christian, have her points of research materials also? I disagree that Sherna has ONLY used that particular website to debate with you. She's taken various books, sites, published works, etc. to establish a sound theory for debate against your various postings.
Or maybe it's because she CAN verbally "spar" on a intelligent level on these subject that have you on the defensive. She's not some brain dead protester pushing an empty agenda. It's not fair to "slight" her research as petty and non essential. So she goes to a website to get "some" information....so what? That's not the ONLY place she goes, and it shows. Somehow you feel it's necessary to insinuate she's "parroting" this website.
That's insulting her savvy research/study, which just isn't fair compared to her postings as a whole.
-
Wait a minute qon, don't you have sources you go to to lend "credence" to your points of atheism?
I mainly post in my own words, in case you haven't noticed. Occasionally I link to a relevant video or website, and yes, some of them are by atheists, but not ALL.
Or maybe it's because she CAN verbally "spar" on a intelligent level on these subject that have you on the defensive.
I've found that most of what I'm "sparring" with is written by somebody else lately (mainly that godandscience website), with Sherna's thoughts sprinkled in very lightly. So yes, I'm a bit bothered when I see someone copy-pasting an authority figure's take on a topic in place of the actual poster's own thoughts. It's not quite a fair or productive argument when I'm not even arguing with YOU!
It's not fair to "slight" her research as petty and non essential.
It's not non-essential; I've pointed out that I think one particular website she uses is very slick (not in a good way) and convincing to a non-critical reader.
I appreciate the time and effort she's put into challenging me; however, part of me feels she is glossing over the logical problems of the Christian god and relying too heavily on other Christians' words in place of her own thoughts.
-
I mainly post in my own words, in case you haven't noticed. Occasionally I link to a relevant video or website, and yes, some of them are by atheists, but not ALL.
Ditto for her. She doesn't get all her info. just from Christian websites.
I've found that most of what I'm "sparring" with is written by somebody else lately (mainly that godandscience website), with Sherna's thoughts sprinkled in very lightly. So yes, I'm a bit bothered when I see someone copy-pasting an authority figure's take on a topic in place of the actual poster's own thoughts. It's not quite a fair or productive argument when I'm not even arguing with YOU!
So what I'm hearing is you don't like her posting some of her thoughts she found "verbatim", so she can get the full essence over, of what your debating? Foul!! You have posted plenty from other sources.
No your not arguing with me, but your friends jump in anytime they want on your posts, or when your in debate with someone else. I'm not allowed to "help" my friend out a little bit? Kind of double standard, don't ya think? To coin your words on another thread...."Come on, it's just a forum".
It's not non-essential; I've pointed out that I think one particular website she uses is very slick (not in a good way) and convincing to a non-critical reader.
I appreciate the time and effort she's put into challenging me; however, part of me feels she is glossing over the logical problems of the Christian god and relying too heavily on other Christians' words in place of her own thoughts.
If you don't think it's non-essential, then what's your beef? Or did she get to a level that your not prepared to debate? What may look "slick" from your point of view, may be concise and informative to her. She certainly is not "critical" in her views on any level, nor would she pick up such anywhere. It is information afterall, subject and open to debate and interpretation is it not?
she "glosses over" nothing. She does her research. I get it though......you don't like WHERE she's getting her info. Kind of like we all have to use what's acceptable and must pass your muster in order to be verifiable or satisfactory in your opinion? ::)
-
I'm not allowed to "help" my friend out a little bit? Kind of double standard, don't ya think? To coin your words on another thread...."Come on, it's just a forum".
Damn Internet...when I said, "It's not quite a fair or productive argument when I'm not even arguing with YOU!" I meant the actual poster's thoughts in lieu of something written from a site. Not "you" as in Annella.
Of course you can defend her...although I like her and everything, so I don't know why you're tsk, tsking so harshly.
Or did she get to a level that your not prepared to debate?...Kind of like we all have to use what's acceptable and must pass your muster in order to be verifiable or satisfactory in your opinion? ::)
Comments like this only reflect badly on your character. 1) because they're not true and 2) because they're not very "Christian-like"
-
Firstly, thank you Annella for sticking up for me :)
Woe to the day you found that "godandscience" website (your Robert Locke is also on there, I know). It appears you've made it your go-to source and final authority on "answers" to the tough questions.
LOL. Your discomfort with that website only serves to confirm its legitimacy to me. And yes it is a site that is one of the most comprehensive on the "tough questions" but I do look at other sources for differing approaches and ideas.
Cherry-picking a few quotes doesn't speak for scientists on the whole.
No, especially considering the several thousands of Christian scientists there are. However, the Christian scientists are recognizing within their respective fields the a priori adherent to materialism that Lewontin spoke of. Besides the fact that Lewontin was an evolutionist! An evolutionist said science had a priority to adhere to materialism and he wasn't the only evolutionist to say such things! I didn't have to really do much cherry picking as the amount of articles, essays, and books by the evolutionists themselves give me plenty of material!
As a former Christian myself, all I'm trying to do is warn you that you're being scammed so as to save one more person from frittering their only life away...but you won't listen because you think I'm "lost" and you're shackled down by the mindset a god-belief requires.
Your Christian experience is not necessarily mine. I have told you before that loving and serving God, loving and serving His people have made me extremely happy. My faith fulfills me in a way that nothing else can. I don't just believe a god exists. I am in love with my Creator.
I do listen to you, if I hadn't have listened to you I wouldn't be discovering God in the whole new way I have come to see Him! It's just that the questions you posed, led me to stronger faith in God....not atheism. Far from being shackled, I am free! I don't need nor desire the salvation of atheism. But thanks for trying. :thumbsup:
-
I've found that most of what I'm "sparring" with is written by somebody else lately (mainly that godandscience website), with Sherna's thoughts sprinkled in very lightly. So yes, I'm a bit bothered when I see someone copy-pasting an authority figure's take on a topic in place of the actual poster's own thoughts
Don't spar then! First, I get called out for copying and pasting without referencing the source. So, I try to make sure I always reference now. THEN, I get called out for copying and pasting in the first place? Liljp actually said if I was going to copy and paste he wasn't going to bother responding LOL. I really don't see what the problem is. I happen to think that if the author of the information has made their point within a reasonable amount of words, why do I need to try to sit here and reword it just so it isn't their exact words?? If what they are saying completely represents my thoughts because I happen to agree with what they said, what difference does it make whether I copy and paste it? My entire posts do not consist of copy/pasted material! Well accept for my first post in this thread.
This is a ridiculous argument that is just an excuse to dismiss the information.
-
I'm not allowed to "help" my friend out a little bit? Kind of double standard, don't ya think? To coin your words on another thread...."Come on, it's just a forum".
Damn Internet...when I said, "It's not quite a fair or productive argument when I'm not even arguing with YOU!" I meant the actual poster's thoughts in lieu of something written from a site. Not "you" as in Annella.
Of course you can defend her...although I like her and everything, so I don't know why you're tsk, tsking so harshly.
Or did she get to a level that your not prepared to debate?...Kind of like we all have to use what's acceptable and must pass your muster in order to be verifiable or satisfactory in your opinion? ::)
Comments like this only reflect badly on your character. 1) because they're not true and 2) because they're not very "Christian-like"
The statement was fact......nothing else. Every time you don't like something that may hit a bit home, you always try to turn it around as bad Christian-like character or bad Christian behavior. I will not let my Brothers and Sisters in the Lord be accused of something that's not true.
Don't mistake Christians as doormats. We do love everybody, some we have to really try to love, but we still do.
-
Hey Annella,
I don't know if you saw a thread I posted earlier today (I put it on facebook too) but I thought you might really like this video I made.
http://smilebox.com/playBlog/4d5467324d6a4d7a4d54513d0d0a&blogview=true
(Sorry, this is off topic)
-
Liljp actually said if I was going to copy and paste he wasn't going to bother responding LOL.
If what they are saying completely represents my thoughts because I happen to agree with what they said, what difference does it make whether I copy and paste it?
They ultimately are not your own words. It's fine to quote small excerpts here and there and post the source, but if you're just throwing paragraph after paragraph from a biased site designed to make all the evidence point to your personal deity, it does damage your credibility because the readers take notice of the man behind the curtain. Out of provoking thought and making yourself look intelligent (I'm not saying you aren't-- I'm just showing writing tactics you should avoid), we should try to formulate the examples in our own words-- either to simplify the original source or to put more personal meaning into them. Large copy/pasting is left for the hungover jocks who wait till 3 am to start their research papers.
Think you'll enjoy this vid, Falc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8iPJwztys
LOL Fav'd. Never forget. The cake is a lie.
It's just that the questions you posed, led me to stronger faith in God....not atheism. Far from being shackled, I am free! I don't need nor desire the salvation of atheism. But thanks for trying.
"I am free of being free" is slave talk for "I like my master". Hey, whatever.
-
Hey Annella,
I don't know if you saw a thread I posted earlier today (I put it on facebook too) but I thought you might really like this video I made.
http://smilebox.com/playBlog/4d5467324d6a4d7a4d54513d0d0a&blogview=true
(Sorry, this is off topic)
Beautiful! Did you make this? The singer sounds familiar. I'll go to FB to see if you have the singer's name.....made me cry. Doesn't matter....I'm done here.
-
Your discomfort with that website only serves to confirm its legitimacy to me.
Okay then. But that's not very logical of you to think.
Again, my discomfort comes from how heavily I've seen you rely on it, not the website itself.
It's just that the questions you posed, led me to stronger faith in God....not atheism.
Yep. And that's the risk non-theists take by asking the hard questions: a believer is either going to go harder into their faith, or take a step back and start to realize some things about it later. Happens every time.
If the resources/people didn't exist that bring up the good points against god, it would be a lot harder for many to leave the flock on their own. This is because it doesn't come naturally to consider all of the deep problems with religion on one's own, especially when you've had it reinforced over and over again and the religion itself claims lucrative rewards.
I don't need nor desire the salvation of atheism. But thanks for trying.
The "salvation" of atheism? Say what? lol Evolution and atheism aren't religions, but I've seen believers mistake them for being one time and again.
-
a believer is either going to go harder into their faith, or take a step back and start to realize some things about it later
I went "harder" into my faith, not in spite of the information and questions you posed, but because I made an effort to search out answers to the questions. I just wasn't going to be stupid enough to only go and search atheist answers to atheist questions.
Evolution and atheism aren't religions, but I've seen believers mistake them for being one time and again.
What else is it you are trying to do when you post "I'm trying to do is warn you that you're being scammed so as to save one more person from frittering their only life away"...are you not trying to "save" me from Christianity? Isn't that what the word salvation indicates...to save??
But keep lying to yourself, it seems to make you happy.
"I am free of being free" is slave talk for "I like my master". Hey, whatever.
Everyone is a slave to something, you are either a slave to sin and free from the control of righteousness. Or you are set free from sin and become a slave to God, but the benefit leads to holiness and the result is eternal life. What better of a master to serve than one who loves me unconditionally, and has set me free from a life of sin, guilt and shame! I'm not "free of being free" I'm free from the slavery of sin!
-
I just wasn't going to be stupid enough to only go and search atheist answers to atheist questions.
Something I think you need to be careful with is labeling things "atheist this" and "atheist that". Atheism is just the conclusion one reaches after studying a lot of information and coming to some self-realizations. Just because some of the people I've learned from may technically be atheist, it doesn't change the quality or truth of what they're saying. Unlike Christianity, atheism has no dogma. We are merely trying to get you to live in reality.
But keep lying to yourself, it seems to make you happy.
Pulling out the claws, are we? Of course I'd like it if I can get some people to abandon fantasy and replace it with reason. However, these are not my immediate expectations. It could be years before what I've said affects you...or you could never be affected at all. But I have to still try, because I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible and would like to live in a world with people who also hold that stance.
-
We are merely trying to get you to live in reality.
Atheism is not reality it is a lie. Atheism is a religion.
Pulling out the claws, are we? Of course I'd like it if I can get some people to abandon fantasy and replace it with reason. However, these are not my immediate expectations. It could be years before what I've said affects you...or you could never be affected at all. But I have to still try, because I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible and would like to live in a world with people who also hold that stance.
I apologize if I am getting a little harsh. I'm just stating the reality. You are lying to yourself, you don't think so, of course not. You believe the nonsense you go on and on about. You haven't defended any legitimate points I have brought up....such as what evolutionary mechanism creates information?? Just one example that you nor any scientist on any level can do anything but speculate about. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a religion, atheism is a religion, and you can deny the truth of that statement all you want. Nothing you have said has done anything but prove that it's a religion, so keep on talking and keep on proving me right.
The last part of your statement is exactly what Christians are trying to do, so how about all the atheists/skeptics STOP telling Christians to live and let live and accept other peoples faith; when you and others are trying to "spread the message of reality". A non-reality that says, there is no purpose in life, your ancestor is bacteria, you are not special in any sense other than that evolution favored certain mutant genes to get you here, and also you should try to have morals even though you're determined to be immoral.
The Christians "spreading the good news of the gospel", says you DO have a purpose, you are entirely and uniquely special as an individual, you are wonderfully made and you have a Creator who loves you and hears your prayers. You can have a life of peace amongst chaos, a life of joy among sadness, and freedom from condemnation.
Sorry but your lie isn't very appealing next to the truth of Jesus Christ and him crucified.
-
Atheism is not reality it is a lie. Atheism is a religion.
When I see you say stuff like this, it shows what a hold religion has over you. It's fine for you to think it's "a lie", but at least get it right when it comes the religion part. Atheism is NOT a religion and anyone who taunts otherwise just shows their complete lack of understanding about it and their inability to think beyond cliched, incorrect catchphrases. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I92vQ0Nj4LA
You haven't defended any legitimate points I have brought up....
Of course I have. But - being a former Christian myself - what a non-believer says doesn't matter to you right now, regardless of how sound it is. I've been there, too.
such as what evolutionary mechanism creates information??
I will never work anywhere close to the field of science, so why do you expect me to be qualified to give you a satisfying answer? Again, your god can be disproven just fine using logic alone. So quiz me on that.
A non-reality that says, there is no purpose in life
"There's no purpose to life, but there IS purpose to a life." Everyone is free to make their own purpose for the one life they have. And that's a hell of a lot more satisfying then labeling this life a test or "the doormat where you wipe your feet before starting your REAL life in the eternity".
your ancestor is bacteria
Why is that so insulting to you? Our rich lineage is so much more awe-inspiring and amazing than a god saying, "Poof, there it is!"
you are not special in any sense other than that evolution favored certain mutant genes to get you here
It's okay to think you're special in regards to your local environment (for example: my husband thinks I'm special, or I'm especially better at this certain thing than other people I've met). Just don't let it go to your head; it's all too easy to forget we are just a blue speck in an ordinary galaxy amongst BILLIONS of others.
you should try to have morals even though you're determined to be immoral.
Actually, it's because of evolution that we have morals. Did you read my articles on compatibilism?
The Christians "spreading the good news of the gospel", says you DO have a purpose, you are entirely and uniquely special as an individual, you are wonderfully made and you have a Creator who loves you and hears your prayers. You can have a life of peace amongst chaos, a life of joy among sadness, and freedom from condemnation.
Uh, you're forgetting the most crucial piece of this wishful thinking! Disneyland after we die, of course! (the religion business would FAIL without it) And Hansel & Gretel's oven for horrible atheists such as myself!
Sorry but your lie isn't very appealing next to the truth of Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Don't you mean actually being dead when you're dead isn't as appealing as the idea of heaven? ;) I'm sure you wouldn't miss Jesus murdering himself to himself to appease rules he himself made if he had happened to do it differently.
-
Atheism is not reality it is a lie. Atheism is a religion.
"Sherna has a hobby of stamp collecting. Queen does not. Therefore Queen has a hobby of not collecting stamps".
Atheism a religion? It's really not. No offense towards you, but this runs near parallel to saying something like "I know what evolution is all about-- that we came from monkeys." Atheism is the absence of believing in a supreme being and following old rituals and holding precise conducts of thought.
This is just a quick explanation of something I hear a lot of coming from people talking about atheism-- just a quick fyi. Please continue your debate though. I'll shutup now...
-
There isn't anything else to debate on this particular thread (for me anyway). I feel good about the points I brought out and if I made anyone stop even more a moment and think about what we discussed, then I am happy with that. There is no debate that will get anywhere discussing what atheism is, or isn't.
So hopefully Queen and I entertained some people and gave people food for thought. :wave:
-
Sorry but your lie isn't very appealing next to the truth of Jesus Christ and him crucified.
I believe your "God" and my Creator, are one and the same but your Jesus, next to "my" truth, is far from appealing as well.
Just something to think about. Someone......has been mis-informed some where down the line.
For some reason, in my form of Spirituality, threats and mental abuse are not necessary to keep us in line. Not implying anything, just saying;0)
-
threats and mental abuse are not necessary to keep us in line
I don't feel threatened by God nor do I feel mentally abused. I don't believe I am going to hell, I don't fear death, I don't fear the wrath of God. I feel only His unconditional and all enveloping love for me, through the passionate act of Christ on the cross.
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
-
threats and mental abuse are not necessary to keep us in line
I don't feel threatened by God nor do I feel mentally abused. I don't believe I am going to hell, I don't fear death, I don't fear the wrath of God. I feel only His unconditional and all enveloping love for me, through the passionate act of Christ on the cross.
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
And you have never met anyone who was completely frantic because they had questions and believed the lie that they were damned for having them, right?
-
Of course I have, but that fear was coming from a lie they believed by the devil. I used to have that fear, that fear didn't come from God, it came from confusion about how God sees me. I am not going to lie and say that there aren't entire church organizations that use the pulpit to instill the fear of hell into people. I have been to those churches, but those preachers will answer for the harm they are doing. Just because a man claims to be speaking the Word of God doesn't mean that he is. Hell is real, and people will go there, that's a fact but that's not the message of the gospel.
If people understood how much God loved them, they would in turn want to love other people. There would be no fear of hell because if people followed the greatest commandment, to love God with all the heart soul and strength, that is all there is to do. Loving God promotes loving each other, when you love each other....there is no "killing in the name of religion" there is no crusades. There is only a desire to love God, love others and love serving.
I know I'm probably over using the word love, but that is the most important message a Christian can spread. More importantly it is the most important way a Christian should act.
-
Of course I have, but that fear was coming from a lie they believed by the devil. I used to have that fear, that fear didn't come from God, it came from confusion about how God sees me. I am not going to lie and say that there aren't entire church organizations that use the pulpit to instill the fear of hell into people. I have been to those churches, but those preachers will answer for the harm they are doing. Just because a man claims to be speaking the Word of God doesn't mean that he is. Hell is real, and people will go there, that's a fact but that's not the message of the gospel.
If people understood how much God loved them, they would in turn want to love other people. There would be no fear of hell because if people followed the greatest commandment, to love God with all the heart soul and strength, that is all there is to do. Loving God promotes loving each other, when you love each other....there is no "killing in the name of religion" there is no crusades. There is only a desire to love God, love others and love serving.
I know I'm probably over using the word love, but that is the most important message a Christian can spread. More importantly it is the most important way a Christian should act.
OHHHHH....see I knew you were a different kind of Christian :0) every other Christian that I have talked to you says that the bible says if you don't believe in jesus and accept him as your saviour, you go to hell,PERIOD. So, it was the devil that said that, eh? I see........
-
"Atheism is not reality it is a lie. Atheism is a religion."
WHAT??????
Everyone is in fact born an atheist because everyone is born lacking beliefs in the existence of any gods. As a state or condition, rather than a belief system or ideology, atheism doesnt need to be "invented" or be "come up with" any more than being apolitical needs to be invented. It's simply the state that some people happen to be in, though for many religious believers it seems important to portray atheism as MUCH MORE.
-
To the original poster - have you studied Calvinism? Its origins and its originators? And what makes you think the Calvinists are correct? I have noticed in my 68 years that most people who advance theories as yours have not studied and do not know what they are talking about. The theories are an excuse to convince themselves there is no God. And most people who do this are trying to combat the teachings of hard-line preachers and evangelists who don't know what they are talking about either, but who are mostly in the field of religion for the money. Those people have done more to hurt the people who they say they are trying to help. If you get down to studying the Bible, you will find it is really simple and you don't have to believe outrageous theories.
-
UHH OHH here we go again........if ya need me I'll be under my desk.
-
if you don't believe in jesus and accept him as your saviour, you go to hell,PERIOD.
Every man will be judged according to what he knows, and is capable of understanding. The mental abuse is when someone is told if they are bad they go to hell. Well, it's not possible for anyone to be good by a standard of perfection (God) and then a person begins to see God as some Big Judge with a strap just waiting for you to get out of line. That's not how it is. That's not MY Christianity, that IS Christianity. There are just people in the past and present who misrepresent what the Word of God actually says.
So, it was the devil that said that, eh? I see........
I hope I am mistaken when I hear sarcasm in these words.
-
if you don't believe in jesus and accept him as your saviour, you go to hell,PERIOD.
Every man will be judged according to what he knows, and is capable of understanding. The mental abuse is when someone is told if they are bad they go to hell. Well, it's not possible for anyone to be good by a standard of perfection (God) and then a person begins to see God as some Big Judge with a strap just waiting for you to get out of line. That's not how it is. That's not MY Christianity, that IS Christianity. There are just people in the past and present who misrepresent what the Word of God actually says.
So, it was the devil that said that, eh? I see........
I hope I am mistaken when I hear sarcasm in these words.
So you agree that in most Christian institutions there is mental abuse happening?
And no Ma'am,you are not mistaking.
-
"Atheism is not reality it is a lie. Atheism is a religion."
WHAT??????
Everyone is in fact born an atheist because everyone is born lacking beliefs in the existence of any gods. As a state or condition, rather than a belief system or ideology, atheism doesnt need to be "invented" or be "come up with" any more than being apolitical needs to be invented. It's simply the state that some people happen to be in, though for many religious believers it seems important to portray atheism as MUCH MORE.
I disagree that everyone is born an atheist. "Atheism takes the position that it is rational to believe that gods don't exist, based on logic and lack of evidence. Agnosticism, on the other hand, states that the lack of knowledge cannot inform the belief at all.": by Rational/Wiki. I had to question that misconception. Now, on the other hand, babies born wouldn't be any of these because they know nothing other than the comforts they need at the time. Until they reach an age of understanding, they shouldn't be labled. Only then, can they delve into knowledge and believe in what/who ever they choose to believe in, whether theism, atheism, etc.
-
Well, I'm sorry walks but I don't want to continue the conversation if you're going to be sarcastic. I'm not a doormat and I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to goad me into a conversation just so you can wipe your feet on me with snide, sarcastic and back handed comments.
-
"Atheism is not reality it is a lie. Atheism is a religion."
WHAT??????
Everyone is in fact born an atheist because everyone is born lacking beliefs in the existence of any gods. As a state or condition, rather than a belief system or ideology, atheism doesnt need to be "invented" or be "come up with" any more than being apolitical needs to be invented. It's simply the state that some people happen to be in, though for many religious believers it seems important to portray atheism as MUCH MORE.
I disagree that everyone is born an atheist. "Atheism takes the position that it is rational to believe that gods don't exist, based on logic and lack of evidence. Agnosticism, on the other hand, states that the lack of knowledge cannot inform the belief at all.": by Rational/Wiki. I had to question that misconception. Now, on the other hand, babies born wouldn't be any of these because they know nothing other than the comforts they need at the time. Until they reach an age of understanding, they shouldn't be labled. Only then, can they delve into knowledge and believe in what/who ever they choose to believe in, whether theism, atheism, etc.
NO one should be labled,, but yes we are ALL born not knowing!!!!!
-
Well, I'm sorry walks but I don't want to continue the conversation if you're going to be sarcastic. I'm not a doormat and I'm not going to allow you or anyone else to goad me into a conversation just so you can wipe your feet on me with snide, sarcastic and back handed comments.
That is your right,however I think you misinterpreted my intention just a bit. Have a wonderful evening Mrs. Shernajwine.
-
I may be a little defensive and I apologize. If I misread your intentions I also apologize.
I don't agree there is mental abuse in most Christian institutions. I believe there are imperfect people who have a misguided notion on how to witness. They may have good intentions with their fiery hell message but they are still going to be held accountable for damage they do when they preach that kind of message. I don't believe MOST churches are as preoccupied with hell as they used to be. I believe that most Christians understand the message of God's love as being important but, being imperfect they fail to be loving towards people at times, and in frustration in trying to witness to someone they may resort to the old, you're going to hell routine. And honestly, as many Christians are in this forum I have only seen one person go on and on about people going to hell....and this one person said she isn't a Christian.
-
I may be a little defensive and I apologize. If I misread your intentions I also apologize.
I don't agree there is mental abuse in most Christian institutions. I believe there are imperfect people who have a misguided notion on how to witness. They may have good intentions with their fiery hell message but they are still going to be held accountable for damage they do when they preach that kind of message. I don't believe MOST churches are as preoccupied with hell as they used to be. I believe that most Christians understand the message of God's love as being important but, being imperfect they fail to be loving towards people at times, and in frustration in trying to witness to someone they may resort to the old, you're going to hell routine. And honestly, as many Christians are in this forum I have only seen one person go on and on about people going to hell....and this one person said she isn't a Christian.
AWWW, you don't have to apologize to me. Not that anyone would notice but I get a bit passionate at times myself. ;0)
I appreciate your replies very much.
-
I believe in God with all thine heart... :heart:
Hmm, the word "thine" means "your", so whose heart are YOU using? It's best to use things correctly and in context or not at all.
-
I feel only His unconditional and all enveloping love for me, through the passionate act of Christ on the cross.
Do y'all ever realize the #1 symbol of Christianity is an ancient torture device? Or that plenty of people suffered way worse and for longer than Jesus in the name of Christianity via other torture methods? That it wasn't really a "sacrifice", because Jesus knew he would go back to being god in a mere 3 days? Or that y'all are continually violating the second commandment by putting those ancient torture symbols everywhere?
but that fear was coming from a lie they believed by the devil.
The devil, god, yourself...geez, with at least 3 people "speaking" to you at all times, how do you distinguish?? Spoiler: they're all you.
Hell is real, and people will go there, that's a fact
A fact, you say? Please stop misusing the word '"fact". Hell is no more of a fact than god is -- it's a belief.
One of the top things against your god is that he is not a fact; we're just supposed to "believe" in him. Which I always found odd... If there really was a god, it would be fact like any other known in the world. God would speak audibly to the whole world daily; a person could still choose not to follow him, but there wouldn't be a question in regards to evidence of him actually existing.
Why isn't this the case? Because it's a lot more fun for god to create a world that's just a test and that scientifically and logically looks like he's not there, then watch his puppets scramble to convince the other ants that there is a god, despite an overwhelming case against him. We've just got to have "faith", yo!
...Or, there simply is no god.
-
To the original poster - have you studied Calvinism? Its origins and its originators? And what makes you think the Calvinists are correct?
1) I did not write what you read; its source is clearly listed if you want to ask the actual author
2) This article has nothing to do with Calvinism; it is what the hell concept says if you actually think about it
The theories are an excuse to convince themselves there is no God.
Incorrect cliche # 989,675,437...can we atheists speak for ourselves, please? I have no purpose in trying to convince myself there's no god. The way of the world does a fine job of that on its own; I am convinced by consequence, not of my own volition.
If you get down to studying the Bible, you will find it is really simple and you don't have to believe outrageous theories.
Heh...if it is really that simple, then why are there hundreds of different translations? And a talking, walking snake; cursed fruit, virgin birth, giant man-swallowing fish, talking donkey, unicorns, homicidal flood, walking on water, etc. sound pretty outrageous to me!
P.S. If you want to keep the highest number of followers intact, I would suggest that you DON'T encourage people to read their Bibles. It's one of the things that made me (and many others) a godless heathen.
-
Agnosticism, on the other hand, states that the lack of knowledge cannot inform the belief at all.
"At all"?? I think this is an outdated stereotype. Most agnostics are atheists too, at least when it comes to defined gods.
-
Agnosticism, on the other hand, states that the lack of knowledge cannot inform the belief at all.
"At all"?? I think this is an outdated stereotype. Most agnostics are atheists too, at least when it comes to defined gods.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Babies know no gods, no knowledge of anything spiritual/non-spiritual, other than their needs. So because of that, they can make no choice of belief or disbelief. I didn't mean that agnostics were or were not atheists, either, merely showing a slight difference between the two as related to babies (as in that particular post about babies.)
-
Okay I am risking sounding like a tart But oh well this really needs to come out of my head..
Babies are created by god as some religious people believe or they are gods children...So why would a baby have no knowledge of god and wait for man or woman to bring it to light??Sounds fishy to me..God depends on the parents to introduce him he risks the possibility of losing his creation.. They are born innocent yet this all knowing entity throws them to the wolves to possibly be saved and follow him or do the wrong and end up in so called Hell?? I really can't say this seems right from all powerful being..If there is a god then no children would ever suffer because they are innocent why create to destroy or harm..Or are we a sick game to this so called god people speak off??
-
Okay I am risking sounding like a tart But oh well this really needs to come out of my head..
Babies are created by god as some religious people believe or they are gods children...So why would a baby have no knowledge of god and wait for man or woman to bring it to light??Sounds fishy to me..God depends on the parents to introduce him he risks the possibility of losing his creation.. They are born innocent yet this all knowing entity throws them to the wolves to possibly be saved and follow him or do the wrong and end up in so called Hell?? I really can't say this seems right from all powerful being..If there is a god then no children would ever suffer because they are innocent why create to destroy or harm..Or are we a sick game to this so called god people speak off??
god doesn't create babies...he gives them souls.
K then why risk a babies soul?? seems like a sick twisted thing to do don't ya think?? Why give sick people babies??Why have babies born only to suffer?? Seems pretty sick and twisted..
-
My own actions?? What gives you the right to assume I am a bad parent?? so you are saying god just lets babies suffer cause its the parents fault??Then why let the damned and evil so called parents have babies?? Hmmm and please do not ever question me as a parent..That is rude and just mean..I would never!
-
My own actions?? What gives you the right to assume I am a bad parent?? so you are saying god just lets babies suffer cause its the parents fault??Then why let the damned and evil so called parents have babies?? Hmmm and please do not ever question me as a parent..That is rude and just mean..I would never!
Huh? Girl...I wasn't talking about you as a parent...I was talking about taking responsibility for your own actions as in people in general...everyone knows or should know all the risks involved with having children...why blame God?
When you have a child, it is like playing with fire, you just never know what the baby will come out to be or look like or what problems they will have. It is such a risk, I swear that is why some people don't want children.
Then you don't say take responsibility for my actions that points at me and how I raise my kids..Risk in having children because two parents want to raise a beautiful family they take a risk ..God created us from what religion says we are his children we are suppose to praise him and follow his word..Then why put this kind of risk as you say into play just to watch from his pedestal and laugh at the poor babies suffering..That seems unfair that a good loving parent as to suffer cause they risked wanting to love their creation..
-
Childish let someone who has a real opinion and is not here to fight answer please you are working my nerves my dear and really..It is a valid question maybe there is someone here that has a real answer..
-
So why would a baby have no knowledge of god and wait for man or woman to bring it to light??Sounds fishy to me..God depends on the parents to introduce him he risks the possibility of losing his creation.. They are born innocent yet this all knowing entity throws them to the wolves to possibly be saved and follow him or do the wrong and end up in so called Hell??
:thumbsup: You're a smart cookie!
As a kid who wasn't raised religiously, when I first started to take notice of the god stuff I thought it was bat-*bleep*. As will most any kid who hasn't had the religion garbage crammed into their brain! ;)
-
Thank you Queens... ;D :heart: :peace:
-
I believe in God with all thine heart... :heart:
Hmm, the word "thine" means "your", so whose heart are YOU using? It's best to use things correctly and in context or not at all.
Used to indicate the one or ones belonging to thee.
that which belongs to thee: Thine is the power and the glory.
Okay, this may sound petty and small, but this one is driving me crazy and I am NOT doing this to 'pick on you' or 'be mean'. I am attempting to help you in using language correctly here. I may not be christian anymore, but I can still point out incorrect usage of scripture or parts of it.
"I believe in God with all thine heart." Here is the phrase:
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5)
When you break it down it means:
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight/interpretation."
When you said "Thine is the power and the glory" to try and make your point, that actually means "YOURS is the power and the glory. "Yours" is the Lord's/God's, not marieelissa's or anyone else's. You can't use someone else's heart to do anything, so you can't use THINE/YOUR'S to trust. Does THAT make sense?
-
Childish let someone who has a real opinion and is not here to fight answer please you are working my nerves my dear and really..It is a valid question maybe there is someone here that has a real answer..
What is a couple little typed sentences gonna do?
Words have power my dear and sorry I like peoples opinions if I agree or not.. If it makes me angry or not..Information is a great tool when being used properly..spewing is pointless but needed at times but you my dear go bonkers with it..
-
Ok, I'm going to totally bypass the religion (and/or arguments for and against) issue for a moment. Despite whatever defect(s) (mental, physical, or otherwise) a child may or may not have, I do not think that a (good, loving) parent would ever think "I wish my kid would have never been born." Children are not risks. They are miracles. ALL of them. Of course, everyone has an opinion on creation and all that. Butterfly, I can tell you love your son, and would do anything to help him and protect him. Like you, I enjoy hearing others' opinions as well. This is me putting my slice of the pie back on the platter.
-
Yeah but wait till other children come around and make their lives a living hell maybe to the point where they commit suicide.
WHAT?? Okay Where are you going with this??
And thank you to missijl I appreciate and agree with your post and love your slice of pie ;)
-
Yeah but children are products of their parents so if you teach them well and make them confident strong individuals then society is just a background fixture..and if they are raised right then their right place in society will be rewarding not harmful.
-
Words have power my dear and sorry I like peoples opinions if I agree or not.. If it makes me angry or not..Information is a great tool when being used properly..spewing is pointless but needed at times but you my dear go bonkers with it..
TROLL PATROL REPORTING FOR DUTY
Butterfly, don't waste your time arguing with her. She'll only frustrate you as she seems incapable of learning. I would suggest paying attention to what everyone else has to say besides her-- she just tends to break away from the topic and cause mischief. She always has.
As a kid who wasn't raised religiously, when I first started to take notice of the god stuff I thought it was bat-*bleep*. As will most any kid who hasn't had the religion garbage crammed into their brain!
Yeah! Too bad I wasn't so fortunate :( lol
-
Parents always love their children but society doesn't.
Have to disagree with that one. Parents do not always love their children. Often it is other people in society who step in and provide that much needed love, thankfully they do too!
-
Good point Jordan I know a few of these lovely parents lmao thanks to me their kids are safe at bus stop due to their lack of wanting to be parents..sad real sad
-
Parents always love their children but society doesn't.
Have to disagree with that one. Parents do not always love their children. Often it is other people in society who step in and provide that much needed love, thankfully they do too!
Agreed. People who put their kids up for adoption sometimes do it because they love their kid, and it's for their own good. Sometimes people put their kids up for adoption because they're too selfish to feel love. Anyway, think of the people who adopt kids. It works the same way. Some people adopt kids to get more money from the state. Some people adopt kids to provide lots of love to them.
-
My own actions?? What gives you the right to assume I am a bad parent?? so you are saying god just lets babies suffer cause its the parents fault??Then why let the damned and evil so called parents have babies?? Hmmm and please do not ever question me as a parent..That is rude and just mean..I would never!
Good for you!! NO ONE has the right to assume such an idiotic assumption on a forum!! I do not know you but from your past posts you are a very concerned parent which truly means you are a great parent.
-
My own actions?? What gives you the right to assume I am a bad parent?? so you are saying god just lets babies suffer cause its the parents fault??Then why let the damned and evil so called parents have babies?? Hmmm and please do not ever question me as a parent..That is rude and just mean..I would never!
Good for you!! NO ONE has the right to assume such an idiotic assumption on a forum!! I do not know you but from your past posts you are a very concerned parent which truly means you are a great parent.
Thank you Amy..I should have ignored her she likes to poke me till I get mad..
-
Here is another perplexing question..Why are people who believe in God called followers or worshiper?? I mean it makes it sound like brainwashing dont ya think??I understand believers is one also but I believe in fairies this week so we all are believers in something lmao sorry I am in a mood LMAO :peace:
-
@wiggles her pointed tail at you laughs* sorry I choose my brain not imaginary friends and demons thank you :peace: :heart: :bootyshake:
-
Umm sorry I speak for me no one else did I say god nope I said I choose to not believe a imaginary friend or demon can make me talk think or act a certain way only i control that.. Please stop reading into whats not there thank you good day!!
-
I understand believers is one also but I believe in fairies this week so we all are believers in something lmao sorry I am in a mood LMAO :peace:
Yep! That is the very first thing I found weird about religion...you have to "believe" in god? So you're saying he's not fact? What?? lol
-
LMAO I know thats odd
-
Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Sadly, my kitchen often has an unattended stove....my unattended stove burned a hole through the bottom of my coffee pot last week when I accidentally turned on the back burner instead of the front (I had my coffeepot sitting on the stove top due to lack of countertop space), and then walked away to give the cat his treats figuring I would be coming right back to the stove in a few minutes to start dinner. Hell is definitely an unattended stove... :crybaby2: my poor coffeepot!!
very apt to your situation! sorry about that!
-
I understand believers is one also but I believe in fairies this week so we all are believers in something lmao sorry I am in a mood LMAO :peace:
Yep! That is the very first thing I found weird about religion...you have to "believe" in god? So you're saying he's not fact? What?? lol
Yet, you did accept Him even though you found it weird?
-
Yet, you did accept Him even though you found it weird?
Well that was when I was 11-13 when I realized the oddity of religion, not having it forced onto me growing up or anything. I was a self-proclaimed atheist by 13, although my only reason was because I couldn't see any evidence for god in my daily life (I didn't know all I do now). When I suffered a life-changing event at 16, it was a serious, unemotional decision to give god a try just in case the Christians were right (remember, I didn't really know anything about god other than he seemed like he wasn't there).
I had some hallucinations due to an illness that at the time, seemed like a powerful "testimony" for god because I didn't know any better (the science for why it was happening). I used that experience to encourage myself to go to church regularly, where I found "fun" services with charming messages and got swept away by the lies myself.
-
I saw this in YouTube comments a few days ago and thought it was clever:
"So Christians, does the Bible = Truth/Knowledge? Consider this
Bible = Truth/Knowledge
Apple = Truth/Knowledge
Therefore, Bible = Apple
Read the bible and accept it as truth = eat the apple and discover it's knowledge
Eat the apple and gain forever sin = Accept the bible and gain forever sin, since the apple represents truth and knowledge, which the Bible is, right Christians?
So, only Christians can sin because they're the only ones who "ate the apple", therefore only Christians can go to hell."
lol
-
Why was this topic brought back from the dead, over a month later?
Good question Marie.......
So, only Christians can sin because they're the only ones who "ate the apple", therefore only Christians can go to hell.
To qon: Keep saying that to yourself over and over like a mantra, and you might be able to convince
yourself. :thumbsup:
-
Hell is an Unattended Stove?
by Astreja
You've probably heard various Christians make the following statement, or a variation on it:
"God doesn't send us to Hell; we send ourselves there."
Let's take a close look at the above assertion.
First of all, there's an implicit assumption that an individual will have an actual choice to go to either the Nice Place or the Not-So-Nice place, somehow overriding the Divine Will of the omnipotent and omniscient Biblegod. This flies in the face of at least one variant of Christianity, Calvinism, which asserts that Biblegod has already picked out the "saved" and discarded everyone else.
Secondly, it is also assumed that Biblegod will not only know about this person's "choice" but knew about it in advance, and permits it to happen anyway. The usual excuse given for this is that Biblegod does not want to impose upon our free will.
Does anyone else see the problem with this?
I present the analogy of the Parent and the Unattended Stove. A small child toddles into the kitchen. In that kitchen is a stove with all the burners turned to 'High', and a ladder conveniently located right next to the stove. The child climbs the ladder, and falls off it onto the blazing stove.
Oh, and did I mention that the Parent is standing just footsteps away, washing dishes in the sink?
At this point, what Christian apologists would have us believe is that this is somehow all the fault of the child -- Who is now on fire and screaming in agony. To you, ladies and gentlemen, I just have this to say:
What kind of parent would go to the stove, turn all the burners on, put a ladder beside the stove, watch their own child climb that ladder, allow the child to fall onto the stove, and then just stand there for eternity and let the child scream?
The "free will" argument is a red herring, and a convenient excuse for not confronting the immorality of Biblegod. Any parent worthy of the name would rescue the child at the first possible opportunity, without even considering the child's "free will." Better yet, a conscientious parent would childproof the kitchen to prevent such catastrophes from happening in the first place -- And again, "free will" has nothing to do with it. It's just good parenting.
You do not do your god honour with this kind of argument, by the way. It makes your invisible friend look like a maniac, and it makes you look like a thoughtless dolt.
Please give serious consideration to the above, and stop making excuses for the inexcusable.
http://new.exchristian.net/2010/05/hell-is-unattended-stove.html
I love this :thumbsup:
-
I always got a kick out of this argument. I recall having this with that teflon guy and he just kept doing the ol' red herring left and right. It was pretty funny.
Pre-destined in the sense that because god is all-knowing, we are living in a DETERMINISTIC universe without free will. There CANNOT be free will if god is omniscient -- it's logically impossible. So either god isn't omniscient, there is no god, or we're all just puppets.
Gold. I don't see how any religious mindset could argue against this and make any sound conclusions.
But I do find it amusing that you think you can have a satisfying relationship with a computer.
Someone hasn't played Left 4 Dead! lol
I'll try not to run this time, no promises though, seriously what's a red-herring?
-
A 'red-herring' is something meaningless to an argument/debate and just thrown in to distract attention from the main issue. ;)
-
A 'red-herring' is something meaningless to an argument/debate and just thrown in to distract attention from the main issue. ;)
I don't try to change the subject!!!! I actually don't like most christians because they run away from subjects and throw in the you don't have the holy spirit or it's a mystery line due to the trinity -_.
-
Why was this topic brought back from the dead, over a month later? :P
Well I, for one, am quite glad this topic was "brought back from the dead". Otherwise I would have missed a wonderfully debated topic. It was a joy to read the well-worded posts from QoN and Sherna!
-
I don't try to change the subject!!!! I actually don't like most christians because they run away from subjects and throw in the you don't have the holy spirit or it's a mystery line due to the trinity -_.
If I recall, you have a history skewing the general idea of the subject constantly. And many of the christians here don't run.
-
Why was this topic brought back from the dead, over a month later? :P
Because I actually had something relevant to put in here, unlike you, who purposefully "stirs the pot" on all your dead threads at random.
-
Well I, for one, am quite glad this topic was "brought back from the dead". Otherwise I would have missed a wonderfully debated topic. It was a joy to read the well-worded posts from QoN and Sherna!
Aww, thanks! ;D
-
I don't try to change the subject!!!! I actually don't like most christians because they run away from subjects and throw in the you don't have the holy spirit or it's a mystery line due to the trinity -_.
If I recall, you have a history skewing the general idea of the subject constantly. And many of the christians here don't run.
Thank you Falconer.....gotta run now, as I'm expected in BC Canada tomorrow morning. ;)
It just lined up so nicely, I couldn't resist...lol
-
Have fun, giiiiiirrrlll! :wave:
-
Why was this topic brought back from the dead, over a month later? :P
Well I, for one, am quite glad this topic was "brought back from the dead". Otherwise I would have missed a wonderfully debated topic. It was a joy to read the well-worded posts from QoN and Sherna!
Yes, I think queen and I have probably entertained lots of people with our crazy debates LOL. Love ya queen! :heart:
-
I don't try to change the subject!!!! I actually don't like most christians because they run away from subjects and throw in the you don't have the holy spirit or it's a mystery line due to the trinity -_.
If I recall, you have a history skewing the general idea of the subject constantly. And many of the christians here don't run.
Thank you, Falconer!!! ; :)
-
I don't try to change the subject!!!! I actually don't like most christians because they run away from subjects and throw in the you don't have the holy spirit or it's a mystery line due to the trinity -_.
If I recall, you have a history skewing the general idea of the subject constantly. And many of the christians here don't run.
I personally don't see how my examples are off the subject. As for FC christians meh, they may be an exception, I did say most and not all though
-
I don't try to change the subject!!!! I actually don't like most christians because they run away from subjects and throw in the you don't have the holy spirit or it's a mystery line due to the trinity -_.
If I recall, you have a history skewing the general idea of the subject constantly. And many of the christians here don't run.
I personally don't see how my examples are off the subject. As for FC christians meh, they may be an exception, I did say most and not all though
Hello, teflonfanatic! Glad to see someone else join our "spirited" and "sparked" debates!
-
I saw this in YouTube comments a few days ago and thought it was clever:
"So Christians, does the Bible = Truth/Knowledge? Consider this
Bible = Truth/Knowledge
Apple = Truth/Knowledge
Therefore, Bible = Apple
Read the bible and accept it as truth = eat the apple and discover it's knowledge
Eat the apple and gain forever sin = Accept the bible and gain forever sin, since the apple represents truth and knowledge, which the Bible is, right Christians?
So, only Christians can sin because they're the only ones who "ate the apple", therefore only Christians can go to hell."
lol
:wave: :wave: There is NOTHING mentioned anywhere in the BIBLE about any apple, PERIOD......So whoever put that on you tube is just PLAIN IGNORANT..
-
I saw this in YouTube comments a few days ago and thought it was clever:
"So Christians, does the Bible = Truth/Knowledge? Consider this
Bible = Truth/Knowledge
Apple = Truth/Knowledge
Therefore, Bible = Apple
Read the bible and accept it as truth = eat the apple and discover it's knowledge
Eat the apple and gain forever sin = Accept the bible and gain forever sin, since the apple represents truth and knowledge, which the Bible is, right Christians?
So, only Christians can sin because they're the only ones who "ate the apple", therefore only Christians can go to hell."
lol
:wave: :wave: There is NOTHING mentioned anywhere in the BIBLE about any apple, PERIOD......So whoever put that on you tube is just PLAIN IGNORANT..
Your absolutely correct. The forbidden fruit was just that.....forbidden fruit. Did not say it was an Apple.
-
Your absolutely correct. The forbidden fruit was just that.....forbidden fruit. Did not say it was an Apple.
No need to jump on the semantics. I'm aware of this as well, but for the purpose of the joke, most people assume it's an apple.