FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: queenofnines on September 16, 2010, 06:14:23 am
-
Not the nicest title fo' sure, but there was some good convo going.
Continued:
Did you all know that SCIENTISTS have proved that there is a section of the brain that is not available for use to anyone who does not believe in God. It is only used when God is showing an individual an awesome secret. Many scientists have become Christians when they had planned to devote their entire lives to prove there was no God. In trying to prove this, they found out instead that there is a God. Amen!
I hate when believers try to claim science for their side. They seem to always end up epically failing!
Okay, #1: that is ridiculous to say "there is a whole section of brain not available to use for non-believers". The part of the brain you are referring to is due to EVOLUTION and while atheists might use it LESS, this is certainly not something for your side to brag about because that area is where primitive irrationality stems from.
#2 Having an area in your brain that is susceptible to heavenly hallucinations only proves evolution, because when you die, so does your brain. If "the god experience" was actually LEGIT, it would NOT be an integral part of your brain, because your personality can be completely changed if you get a head injury, making you NOT believe in god, or believe in a *different* god.
#3 92+% of the National Academy of Scientists don't believe in god. That's not just a majority -- it's an overwhelming majority. So what are you talkin' about?
The God Helmet: This Helmet Made Me Believe!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnRd49L7X3s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnRd49L7X3s)
-
It takes more faith to not believe God exist!
I know what you're trying to say ("Look at the pretty, complex world! I don't understand how this could have come about on its own!"), but your cliche statement is incorrect at the most basic level.
What is the proper definition of atheism?
A = "without" Theism = "belief in god(s)"
What is the proper definition of faith?
Faith = Belief without good evidence, or belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
So how can I have "faith" (belief) in a lack of belief (atheism)? Also, most peoples' reasons for atheism ARE based on logical proofs and material evidence - a.k.a. the exact opposite of faith.
It certainly takes more faith to believe in a god of talking snakes, cursed fruit, global floods, man-eating fish, virgin births, talking donkeys, etc. etc.!! Remember, faith is belief without good evidence...and you certainly don't have good evidence for any of this!
-
"Altar of science" ;D . Love it!
Hehe...yeah, I was like, Why are they using a religious term (altar) as a dirty word? Are they not themselves a believer of religion?
I'd also suggest they get off their computer that's accessing the Internet, lest they bow to the "altar of science"!!! ;)
-
I guess this thread will keep going, eh, queen? :D
I also want to address the ridiculous corner on part of the brain believers supposedly have that ljNana spoke of. This is a partial copy of my own post about it from a thread long ago (in a faraway part of the galaxy.... ;D). Sorry, long night at work. Anyway, here it is:
It's usually called the "God Spot" or "God Module" and is in the frontal lobes of the cortex and is also, to some extent, in deeper areas of the brain. This has been studied for at least 20 years now. There was also a fairly recent experiment/study conducted by a large panel of scientists in which they stimulated the temporal lobes (God Spot) with a rotating magnetic field. The result? It was found they could artificially create the experience of religious feelings in 80% of volunteers.
Our brains have evolved to improve our chances of survival and much of that is sensitivity to believing almost anything if there is a basis for doing so. Whether you are religous or atheist, we all use the same area of our brains to process/solve 'moral' dilemnas. If you believe in God, or any other religious icon, you will base your thoughts and actions by those beliefs. If you are atheist or agnostic, you will base it on the 'moral compass' you have acquired through experiences and conditioning.
Hmm, I don't think this is 'proof' of God, sorry.
-
Well, Atleast she didn't delete it!! Lol! ;D
-
Well, Atleast she didn't delete it!! Lol! ;D
Very true, but probably because that option was taken away by admin recently. ;) Otherwise it would most likely be floating out in cyberspace.
-
Well, Atleast she didn't delete it!! Lol! ;D
Very true, but probably because that option was taken away by admin recently. ;) Otherwise it would most likely be floating out in cyberspace.
Oh, I didn't know that option was taken away! Thats good, because a LOT of people were losing out on that whole ordeal. Awesome :thumbsup:
*Sorry to take this off topic!!* ;)
-
Maybe because it's rude, childish, and creates a bunch of unneccessary drama?
-
Just because I love And believe in God doesn't me a retard, but it sure does make you sound like the retard here.
-
Maybe because it's rude, childish, and creates a bunch of unneccessary drama?
Actually, it's because now that marieelissa can't delete ENTIRE threads that she's started, she's chosen to lock them just a day or two after she's started them. Buyer beware!
-
Hopefully she realized how ignorant her title was and decided to lock it. But I know thats just the part of me wishing she would think before typing.
-
Hopefully she realized how ignorant her title was and decided to lock it.
Don't count on it. Several other recent threads of hers have been locked as well.
-
You were saying that there was no evidence that anything the bible exists- well there is no evidence that there is wind either- you can't see it but, you know it is there, and you feel it- we all use faith all the time in every day life- you put your faith in something you can't see, and is not seen by the senses- think about it.
-
It was locked about 5 min after I posted on it so apparently she didn't want to hear the truth? Locking threads wont change peoples minds when it comes to their own beliefs Marie that's just proving what people are saying about you being childish. I can't honestly say I am sad that I cant respond to her nonsense though.
-
There she,(marieelissa) goes again.... oh geez........
-
You were saying that there was no evidence that anything the bible exists-
Hmm? Can't understand the structure of this sentence - sorry.
well there is no evidence that there is wind either-
Uh, please read what you wrote again. Of course there is evidence for wind! Ever have a bad hair day? Ever see the leaves blow down the street? Ever use a fan?
we all use faith all the time in every day life-
Erm, I'm sure you're referring to examples of "faith" that aren't really faith at all -- like the sun coming up. We have recorded evidence of it happening everyday since the beginning of time; that's as close to guaranteed proof that you're going to get that the sun will, indeed, rise tomorrow. So you don't need "faith" on such matters, because faith is belief without evidence, and you HAVE evidence for the sun coming up every morning. A lightswitch is another silly, incorrect example of "faith" that people like to use.
you put your faith in something you can't see, and is not seen by the senses- think about it.
Of course wind is seen by the senses!! You SEE it blow trees; you HEAR it during a storm; you can FEEL goosebumps from cold air getting on you.
God, on the other hand, is all in your head. ;)
-
Don't worry tammyrwa, people who believe in evolutionary origins of life and origins of the cosmos, have faith and don't want to admit it.
because faith is belief without evidence
because they have faith that the universe had a natural cause even though there is no evidence for it and they also believe that evolution can explain the origin of life even though there is no evidence and evolutionists themselves can't agree on any theory. They have faith that there is a natural cause, we have faith it was supernatural.
They don't want to call it faith but as queen put it....it's belief without evidence and that is exactly what they have. ;D
-
Oh and now apparently marie is going to lock all her threads randomly. Even though this doesn't affect our number of posts, it is still annoying. Oh well, at least we can still quote from the threads and start another one. (sigh)
Someone has a tendency for temper tantrums don't they lol. ::)
-
people who believe in evolutionary origins of life and origins of the cosmos, have faith and don't want to admit it.
I quote Liljp from an older thread--
Everything in life is a belief at the end of the day. However, it's absolutely necessary to distinguish between a belief and faith-based belief.
I believe the chair I'm sitting in right now won't break under my weight. I believe this based on my experiences with chairs, my knowledge of how and why they're built, and based on how much weight/force it would reasonably take to break a sturdy chair.
As true as my view may be, it is still definitely a belief -- there's no way in the world I can guarantee, beyond all doubts, that this chair will not break in the next five minutes.
But take note that this belief is not faith-based. It is not a belief without reason or evidence. It is not an extraordinary belief (defined god). It is clearly based on reasoning and leads to a rational conclusion.
To me, there is a very clear line separating belief from faith.
(I will also add that our beliefs are changeable with any new evidence whereas believers have obviously been locked since day one)
-
I believe the chair I'm sitting in right now won't break under my weight.
Believing your chair won't break is a belief based on evidence.
Believing the cosmos had a natural cause despite lack of evidence is faith based belief.
Unless you want to change queen's definition of faith...belief without evidence, then you are stuck with having faith in things based on having no alternative explanation you are willing to accept.
You believing your chair won't break would not be faith based because of previous times you sat on it and it didn't. This is repeated experimentation that gives a reason for that belief to be valid. However, to believe that scientists hypotheses for natural causes to origins is to believe without any evidence, due to inadequate experimental evidence to justify those claims.
-
they have faith that the universe had a natural cause even though there is no evidence for it
There's evidence for the Big Bang, and that's natural. True we do not yet know what prompted the Big Bang, but being able to see back in time some 13 billion years is pretty impressive in my book.
they also believe that evolution can explain the origin of life even though there is no evidence and evolutionists themselves can't agree on any theory.
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life! It only explains what happened after life got started. So you're starting with a false premise... Also, evolution is an established fact. It did happen - it does happen...this is not up for debate. The specifics of HOW it happened (a.k.a. scientific "theory") is what still needs some working out.
Unless you want to change queen's definition of faith...belief without evidence
Hey now, I didn't make that definition up to make fun of anyone! It is the actual definition of faith in the English language. ;)
Although I do like Mark Twain's alternative: "Faith is believing in things you know ain't so." (He was an atheist). ;D
-
There's evidence for the Big Bang, and that's natural. True we do not yet know what prompted the Big Bang, but being able to see back in time some 13 billion years is pretty impressive in my book.
Yes, the big bang is a natural phenomenon but we are talking about the cause. Despite lack of observational evidence you believe that cause was natural. That's faith by definition ;D Yes science has accomplished many incredible things....and all because people's minds were created in God's image :P
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life! It only explains what happened after life got started. So you're starting with a false premise... Also, evolution is an established fact. It did happen - it does happen...this is not up for debate. The specifics of HOW it happened (a.k.a. scientific "theory") is what still needs some working out.
Evolution is fact, when you define it as change within a species. Evolution happened and happens on a micro level. What is not established fact is the extrapolation of evolution to the macro level. Evolution can explain finch beak variation, it does not explain how finches got here in the first place, or how it is that natural selection acting on random mutations can explain the diversification of species. Despite lack of observational evidence for the Darwinian evolution theory of origins , you believe it was caused by natural processes. Darwinist theories of origins are the only alternative to belief in intelligent design. So once again, belief without evidence....
Hey now, I didn't make that definition up to make fun of anyone! It is the actual definition of faith in the English language.
Yes, I apologize if I made it sound like you made that definition up. :)
-
If you boycotted me like you tried to get everyone to join in and do, would this be an issue?
How are you being boycotted?
-
Despite lack of observational evidence you believe that cause was natural. That's faith by definition
Have I ever stated this though? I've only talked about the big bang happening. Everything before is up for speculation (yes-- including a metaphysical entity); I can say many things and not put faith in any of them. Faith seems to be too much the product of emotion anyway.
Yes science has accomplished many incredible things....and all because people's minds were created in God's image
Science has accomplished many incredible things because people are able to question things. May I remind you of how things tend to work in this world-
http://www.jamesrb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png
Despite lack of observational evidence for the Darwinian evolution theory of origins , you believe it was caused by natural processes. Darwinist theories of origins are the only alternative to belief in intelligent design. So once again, belief without evidence....
Sounds like this came out of Kirk Camerons mouth. Macroevolution is observable. Fossil records and atavisms. You need to do a little more research before saying something like this.
Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution". - wiki entry of macroevolution
I'd go further into it but I need to get outta here-- Queen, Jordan, liljp, etc. can have a field day with this one comment alone.
-
Falconer, if you believe the cause was natural...no matter what you want to speculate that natural cause was....you have faith that it was natural because there is no evidence to support that the cause was natural.
-
We know how it happened-- that was natural. But to define what happened before that is currently impossible. I never said whatever came before it was natural (unless I'm mistaken?). It could have been Xenu, Zues, or a Harrison Ford for all I know. I don't know nor do I put "faith" in any crazy defined idea since, from what I know, there is no evidence. Like the poster says-- faith leaves no room for other ideas. I leave room.
-
No, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
It may have been a conversation with queen where she said there was no reason to believe the cause was anything but natural.
Sorry :)
-
Aye! No prob. Btw I edited my last post a bit...I forget what was there previously.
-
I wonder what you're leaving room for though? Since you say the supernatural is impossible?
Is there a third option to add to natural or supernatural? Because if you're leaving room, I would assume you are leaving room there for a supernatural cause, whether you claim to believe in that specific explanation or not, if you're leaving room for that possibility then, are you conceding then that it isn't impossible?
-
Going with agnostic belief, I cannot really state anything on the subject beyond the realms of our natural universe. But I am saying the supernatural --especially the defined supernatural-- is impossible in this universe. Beyond those horizons, nobody can assert anything. I don't know and neither does anyone here. Embrace the mystery :)
-
Well I think you know where I am going with this. You can't say the supernatural is impossible in this universe if you are leaving open the idea that this universe has supernatural origins. And if you assert that the supernatural is impossible then you are back to belief in natural causes despite lack of evidence.
Understand I'm not talking about anything defined. I'm simply talking supernatural vs. natural causes for the origin of the universe. If you are leaving the interpretation of those causes open, then you are conceding that the supernatural is a possible reality.
-
wow, im late on this topic... looks like some good convo in here... :wave:
-
Oh yeah totally. I'm not leaving it out of the explanation. Strong Agnosticism states that the metaphysical is a possibility, but there is no proof, it's unverified, it's not defined etc. Nobody can really assert it as a stance because of this. That's what I'm trying to say.
Edit: There are several different types of agnostic beliefs and they all sort of mix into eachother in one way or another-- in some ways I'm just a plain agnosticist, others I'm a strong ag, ag atheist, etc. It ultimately depends what's on the plate and what needs to be described.
-
Ok falconer...I'm gonna remember you said that lol ;)
Love ya! :heart:
-
Okay then. Just remember in no way can this be used with ID or an argument for the existence of a deity. I don't know what either of us can gain or lose from it.
-
You crack me up dude!
-
lawlolawlol why? I remember I was in a debate last year with something similar and very few people actually understood it. They kept mixing the metaphysical with the defined and not the unknown like I emphasized. The metaphysical does not ultimately pertain to a god figure; it's just a word to explain an abstract concept we can't put words to. A deity or deities could fit into this though. Just as it would another imaginary concept. Try not to bind it with reality like the others did. It gave me a headache.
-
From your perspective I understand what you are saying. And from an agnostic platform, you are right; the metaphysical doesn't necessarily mean a god or gods.
From my perspective the cause of the universe is supernatural and it's a very defined deity. But you knew that ;)
Anyways, you crack me up cuz you're funny and I have a sense of humor lol. Either that or I'm just really tired and laughing for no reason :dontknow:
-
Yeah I'm super tired here too. Blaughrhrghgg
-
(http://i52.tinypic.com/sdcr9v.png)
Ok...back on topic lol
-
We know how it happened-- that was natural. But to define what happened before that is currently impossible. I never said whatever came before it was natural (unless I'm mistaken?). It could have been Xenu, Zues, or a Harrison Ford for all I know. I don't know nor do I put "faith" in any crazy defined idea since, from what I know, there is no evidence. Like the poster says-- faith leaves no room for other ideas. I leave room.
I completely concur with this. :D
-
Understand I'm not talking about anything defined. I'm simply talking supernatural vs. natural causes for the origin of the universe.
But...let's be honest here. Trying to get people to believe in "god in general" for the creation of the universe is just the gateway god to trying to get people to believe in Yahweh. Y'all do it with "intelligent design", too!
Not fooling me...I am a gnostic (strong) atheist when it comes to Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, and whatever other personal gods man currently subscribes to.
-
Understand I'm not talking about anything defined. I'm simply talking supernatural vs. natural causes for the origin of the universe.
But...let's be honest here. Trying to get people to believe in "god in general" for the creation of the universe is just the gateway god to trying to get people to believe in Yahweh. Y'all do it with "intelligent design", too!
Not fooling me...I am a gnostic (strong) atheist when it comes to Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, and whatever other personal gods man currently subscribes to.
Well, in this particular discussion with falconer I wasn't trying to get him to believe in god in general. He has made statements that I took to believe he thought the supernatural was impossible. I needed to question him down so I could understand what it is exactly his thoughts were.
As you can see, I already responded to him in a way that was pointless, since I assumed a belief he didn't have.
You, on the other hand haven't answered the question. If you believe without evidence, a natural cause to the universe....you have faith?? :)
-
If you believe without evidence, a natural cause to the universe....you have faith?? :)
I think you're trying to corner me with this question and make me look bad... Yes, it is technically true that there is no evidence yet for what caused this universe; the difference between an atheist and a theist, however, is that theists absolutely assert a belief in a supernatural cause, whereas an atheist's stance is:
"I don't know. It's highly likely that it was natural based on the fact that everything that's followed has been natural, and the supernatural cannot exist within the natural...but it *could* have been aliens, or some indifferent higher power that got things started - we just don't have much data to work with yet."
In any event, even if there *was* a god-being who got this universe started, he/she/it is most certainly NOT the Christian god. He/she/it would also NOT be perfect (because the god would not have had to create anything, being perfectly complete). He/she/it would also NOT be all-good (due to there being just the slightest degree of suffering).
So a god thing that created this universe and then forgot about us...that is the main thing atheists/agnostics can't 100% disprove. But does such a notion of reality really sound reasonable? No, no it doesn't. This indifferent god hasn't specified any "rules" or requirements like the made-up personal gods have, so why should I care even IF such a being existed?
-
I think you're trying to corner me with this question and make me look bad.
I'm really not trying to make you look you bad. You continue to make comments about people having faith and how believing in something without evidence is bad, I'm just pointing out that (from what I am reading and understand) you also have belief in things without evidence.
And you're putting words in my mouth here. I'm talking about the concept of faith....I didn't say anything about believing in any god. However, any explanation that is open to a supernatural cause would have to be a supernatural being. Call that being god or not, the idea is that you HAVE said everything is physical. You HAVE said, there is no reason to believe the universe had anything but a natural cause. If you believe the universe had a natural cause *aliens* or whatever other explanation. You still believe it was caused naturally, without having evidence.
so why should I care even IF such a being existed
Isn't using such a word as (IF) more agnostic than atheist?
In any case, I'm not talking about god here. I'm talking about believing that nature is all there is despite lack of evidence for natural causes to the universe origins.
-
How many of you believe in accidential happenings? How many people would like to think that they're just a mistake? Or maybe forget all that I've just said. Just look outside your window right now. Yeah, just take your eyes off your computer and look outside the window right now. Take a moment............Do you think the world, beautiful nature, the seas, the mountains, the sky, the galaxies, the planets, OH, so you think all of these are accendential happenings. Just like evolutionists say it, an extremely huge explosion happened and the world existed and continued to evolve. Or if would you take the time to think, yes think. You might realize that this could only be the masterpiece of a Creator. Read the first book of the Bible, even if you don't believe that the Bilble is true. Read about creation. Then take all you know about evolution and compare them both. Creation: God created two of every kind of animal, bird, etc... and then he created a man and a woman so that the two genders of all he created could mate and produce ones of their kinds. Evolution: some explosion happened. Everything started to evolve since then. Man, too, evolved from day one until he became the normal form of a man over a period of time. MY QUESTION::: Why has evolution stopped??? Why has the world and man stopped evolving???? And the way we know it today, based on creation, a man and a woman gives birth to a child, just like all other animals give birth to their own kind. What do you think about that????? Would you consider me a retard if I believe in God??? Or should I consider you a retard for believing that there is no God???
-
I'm just pointing out that (from what I am reading and understand) you also have belief in things without evidence.
Technically yes...but there's a scale to these things. Having belief without solid evidence that there was a natural cause for the Big Bang vs. belief without solid evidence that a magical sky parent did it (no offense) -- one of these carries more weight in terms of credibility.
I still think it should be a rule that one should not believe in things without evidence and/or in the face of bad evidence as much as possible. And bad evidence is all we have when it comes to believing in a personal, supernatural deity.
Isn't using such a word as (IF) more agnostic than atheist?
Like Falconer said...there's different terms when it comes to the various positions. I am a gnostic-atheist when it comes to the Abrahamic gods (I know they are non-existent due to their descriptions and based on logical proofs). I am an agnostic-atheist when it comes to undefined gods within the entire universe (that is, I can't "know" they don't exist, but I don't believe they do).
A person is either a theist or atheist when it comes to BELIEF. Agnosticism isn't a position of belief. Good video on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIKeC9k2-Jg
-
Technically yes...but there's a scale to these things. Having belief without solid evidence that there was a natural cause for the Big Bang vs. belief without solid evidence that a magical sky parent did it (no offense) -- one of these carries more weight in terms of credibility.
So, you're saying you have faith that it was naturally caused, but that's not the same kind of faith that theists have for a supernatural cause because (in your opinion) your premise for faith is more credible??
Edit: Thank you for the clarification
Like Falconer said...there's different terms when it comes to the various positions.
:)
-
How many of you believe in accidential happenings? How many people would like to think that they're just a mistake? Or maybe forget all that I've just said. Just look outside your window right now. Yeah, just take your eyes off your computer and look outside the window right now. Take a moment............Do you think the world, beautiful nature, the seas, the mountains, the sky, the galaxies, the planets, OH, so you think all of these are accendential happenings. Just like evolutionists say it, an extremely huge explosion happened and the world existed and continued to evolve. Or if would you take the time to think, yes think. You might realize that this could only be the masterpiece of a Creator. Read the first book of the Bible, even if you don't believe that the Bilble is true. Read about creation. Then take all you know about evolution and compare them both. Creation: God created two of every kind of animal, bird, etc... and then he created a man and a woman so that the two genders of all he created could mate and produce ones of their kinds. Evolution: some explosion happened. Everything started to evolve since then. Man, too, evolved from day one until he became the normal form of a man over a period of time. MY QUESTION::: Why has evolution stopped??? Why has the world and man stopped evolving???? And the way we know it today, based on creation, a man and a woman gives birth to a child, just like all other animals give birth to their own kind. What do you think about that????? Would you consider me a retard if I believe in God??? Or should I consider you a retard for believing that there is no God???
I absolutely agree with you. :thumbsup:
-
Quote from queenofnines:
"So a god thing that created this universe and then forgot about us...that is the main thing atheists/agnostics can't 100% disprove. But does such a notion of reality really sound reasonable? No, no it doesn't. This indifferent god hasn't specified any "rules" or requirements like the made-up personal gods have, so why should I care even IF such a being existed?"
I would like to address this particular remark. I really wish you would add that this is "your opinion" that there are "made-up personal gods." You see, that's where I get :BangHead: when you address your opinion as fact. I totally understand where you are coming from with what you believe but I don't call it your "made-up personal science 'no god'". So I would like the same respect in return as I worhip the Lord. Please stop calling my Lord "made-up." At least until you can actually show me (in eternity) that He is not real. I may be doing the same for you in eternity one day, by showing you He is real.
-
How many of you believe in accidential happenings?
I do in the colloquial sense.
How many people would like to think that they're just a mistake?
I am the consequence from the exact time and conditions that two people chose to have sex...that isn't a mistake - that's biology.
Do you think the world, beautiful nature, the seas, the mountains, the sky, the galaxies, the planets, OH, so you think all of these are accendential happenings.
The conditions of the universe made it so. Why do you think that's an "accident", just because a magical sky daddy wasn't behind it?
I would also counter your description of beauty with all the ugliness and cruelty in the world. Your god would be the one ultimately responsible for all of that, remember.
Just like evolutionists say it, an extremely huge explosion happened
Stop right there. Who told you biologists study the universe? That would astronomers, thanks.
Or if would you take the time to think, yes think.
Don't you mean not think? Downsize your thinking, at least. You want people to reduce the awesomeness of the cosmos to some petty, bored, human-like deity...and not just any deity, the *specific deity* that you were born and brainwashed into believing. Let's just ignore the fact that it would be a *different specific deity* had you been born elsewhere...
You might realize that this could only be the masterpiece of a Creator.
Actually, evolution explains the diversity of life. But you've already demonstrated you don't know and aren't interested in knowing a thing about it.
Creation: God created two of every kind of animal, bird, etc... and then he created a man and a woman so that the two genders of all he created could mate and produce ones of their kinds.
Two of every kind is not enough genetic diversity. You're also forgetting that the Bible wants you to believe that man came from DIRT and that woman came from a RIB...and that they used INCEST to populate the earth, which means a lot of their offspring would have had to have been literally retards. So I guess marie's offensive title for this post is true in a way...
Evolution: some explosion happened.
Ignorance alert! There are no "explosions" in evolution. You're missing two crucial steps before we even get to evolution: the Big Bang and abiogenesis. They are NOT the same thing.
Why has evolution stopped???
It hasn't. *sigh* Ever hear of drug-resistant bacteria? Ever get an immunization? Also, evolution requires much more time than you're giving it.
the way we know it today, based on creation, a man and a woman gives birth to a child, just like all other animals give birth to their own kind. What do you think about that?????
What's with the five question marks? Are you trying to sound smart or authoritative?
Evolution involves slight changes over many generations. A monkey is not going to just give birth to a human; please do yourself a favor and just admit you'd rather believe in what's easier and feels warm and fuzzy (sky god) than failing epically to make any claim of scientific knowledge.
-
I really wish you would add that this is "your opinion" that there are "made-up personal gods."
I'll throw this right back at you with a question: do you not think all of the ancient gods of the Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks were made up? What about today's competition, Allah and Vishnu? Are they made up? If you DO think all of these gods are made up, why? Have you substantially proven that your god of choice (Christian god) can beat out Zeus, Ra, Thor, or the thousands of others?
Btw, if you only believe in one specific god you are an atheist to all of the other gods. ;) I hope you picked the right one, as so many of them say: "No other gods before me! And I'll burn you in hell if you don't believe in me!"
So I would like the same respect in return as I worhip the Lord.
I respect your right to believe whatever you wish; I don't, however, respect the beliefs. So many bad things have and do happen because of those beliefs, not to mention it holds humanity back. It is WHY the non-believers speak out...
I also don't understand why you care if I claim your god is not real. If you have sincerely convinced yourself, what does it matter what I say? Psychology would say that for some people, having others demonstrate where their beliefs are false or flawed threatens them because it is deeply important to that person that they have an afterlife, a paternal figure watching over them, etc. and they don't want to get a whole lot of people admitting that all of this wishful thinking is simply not possible.
-
Creation: God created two of every kind of animal, bird, etc... and then he created a man and a woman so that the two genders of all he created could mate and produce ones of their kinds.
I actualy believe in creation. but i hope god didn't ONLY make two humans in the beginning, that would make EVERYONE a product of incest...
-
You want people to reduce the awesomeness of the cosmos to some petty, bored, human-like deity
Funny how you use the word "reduce" here..when in fact your statements for ultimate reality put you in a category of materialist reductionism.
Materialism is the simplest (or most simplistic) explanation of reality: the belief that all that exists is the physical; there are no higher realities; no psychic or spiritual truths independent of the physical world. Materialism itself is a meme, a specific, culturally determined way of thinking about reality.
A slightly longer definition: Philosophical materialism (physicalism) is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material. Regarding the "big questions", the sceptical or Materialistic explanation of the universe is that everything is matter and energy, and there is nothing else. Spiritual substance is a delusion. Consciousness is explained simply as an emergent phenomenon of the physical brain. There can therefore be no such things as the "supernatural ", paranormal phenomena, post-mortem existence, or occult phenomena. These are either delusions or reducible to physical forces. Materialists are not necessarily atheists (as it is possible to identify God with the material universe, as in Pantheism). However, Atheism is often a corollary of Materialism, especially in the sense of a denial of a supernatural personal God or any sort of higher creative power. Materialists do not deny the reality of such things as love or justice, beauty or goodness.
Reductionist materialism, or identity theorists, claim that the mind is identical to the brain in all respects
http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/materialism.htm
Ever hear of drug-resistant bacteria? Ever get an immunization?
And, this is the same type of evolution that brings you to...
Actually, evolution explains the diversity of life
Evolution explains the variety within a species, not the variety of different species we see today. Not seeing how drug-resistant bacteria explains how we have bacteria in the first place??
For samxavior198
Evolution still happens, evolution is change over time. It is responsible for cyclical variations within a species. But you are correct in that it can't explain how all species came from one common ancestor. There is no good evidence to support that and plenty of evidence against it.
And I'll burn you in hell if you don't believe in me
There's that hell obsession again lol
-
I really wish you would add that this is "your opinion" that there are "made-up personal gods."
I'll throw this right back at you with a question: do you not think all of the ancient gods of the Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks were made up? What about today's competition, Allah and Vishnu? Are they made up? If you DO think all of these gods are made up, why? Have you substantially proven that your god of choice (Christian god) can beat out Zeus, Ra, Thor, or the thousands of others?
Btw, if you only believe in one specific god you are an atheist to all of the other gods. ;) I hope you picked the right one, as so many of them say: "No other gods before me! And I'll burn you in hell if you don't believe in me!"
I do not know personally if all the other gods were made up or not. I do know, however, that Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself on the Cross to save us from our sin - which shows how much He loved and loves us that come to Him. Also, to accept Jesus out of fear of hell is wrong and I do not agree on that aspect. Jesus loves everyone and only wants them to come to Him out of love, repentance of their sin, and reverence for their Savior. I do not know of any of those other gods who sacrificed themselves out of love for their followers. So, therefore, I do not believe in those gods. You are absolutely right: my God did say there are no other gods before Him. That is true and that is why I believe in Him, not the others. Another thing is His Word. I won't go back there right now, I would just be going back around in a circle.... ;)
-
Materialism is the simplest (or most simplistic) explanation of reality: the belief that all that exists is the physical; there are no higher realities; no psychic or spiritual truths independent of the physical world.
I agree. But just because it's the simplest explanation does not mean the wonders of the universe are any less awesome without a god. It's like just because you know how the magic trick works, can you not still enjoy it?
Materialism itself is a meme, a specific, culturally determined way of thinking about reality.
EVERYTHING is a meme. It's just some memes have more going for them than others. Memes can be good (like the germ theory of disease) or memes can be bad (we are all worthless sinners; now repent, and you can go to heaven!). P.S. Richard Dawkins coined the word meme. ;)
Spiritual substance is a delusion. Consciousness is explained simply as an emergent phenomenon of the physical brain. There can therefore be no such things as the "supernatural ", paranormal phenomena, post-mortem existence, or occult phenomena. These are either delusions or reducible to physical forces.
Agree. Emphasis on the last sentence in particular.
Atheism is often a corollary of Materialism, especially in the sense of a denial of a supernatural personal God or any sort of higher creative power.
Denial? Woah there. There actually needs to be tangible proof of something existing in order for me to "deny" it.
Materialists do not deny the reality of such things as love or justice, beauty or goodness.
But remember folks, those are just memes, too. ;)
There's that hell obsession again lol
Ha! Okay, think I'm obsessed, but I was really just trying to make a point on how it's a disturbing aspect of many religions.
-
I agree. But just because it's the simplest explanation does not mean the wonders of the universe are any less awesome without a god
I know you agree! ;) And the idea of what is awesome is subjective to the individual.
Richard Dawkins coined the word meme.
I know :)
Denial? Woah there. There actually needs to be tangible proof of something existing in order for me to "deny" it.
LOL. Yeah okay.
-
I do not know personally if all the other gods were made up or not.
So you think it's possible for there to be multiple (albeit contradictory) gods, or are you just saying this to be politically correct?
I do know, however, that Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself on the Cross to save us from our sin
You "know"? Hey now, weren't you the one telling me not to state opinion as fact? Not to be harsh, but you don't know...you're putting your faith in stories crafted by our superstitious ancestors that were very similar to other gods of the time and have been botched and butchered throughout history.
which shows how much He loved and loves us that come to Him.
Why did he have to murder himself to himself as some sort of loophole to rules he himself created? Couldn't he have just forgiven? Or better yet, not cursed all of humanity for something 2 people did?
Jesus loves everyone and only wants them to come to Him out of love, repentance of their sin, and reverence for their Savior.
But if you don't...you'll burn in hell. Sorry, I just had to mention it. It is what you think is the "truth" after all, right?
I do not know of any of those other gods who sacrificed themselves out of love for their followers.
I can list at least 35:
Chrishna of Hindostan.
Budha Sakia of India.
Salivahana of Bermuda.
Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.
Odin of the Scaudinavians.
Crite of Chaldea.
Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.
Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phenicia.
Indra of Thibet.
Bali of Afghanistan.
Jao of Nepaul.
Wittoba of the Bilingonese.
Thammuz of Syria.
Atys of Phrygia.
Xaniolxis of Thrace.
Zoar of the Bonzes.
Adad of Assyria.
Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam.
Alcides of Thebes.
Mikado of the Sintoos.
Beddru of Japan.
Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids.
Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls.
Cadmus of Greece.
Hil and Feta of the Mandaites.
Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico.
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls.
Ischy of the Island of Formosa.
Divine Teacher of Plato.
Holy One of Xaca.
Fohi and Tien of China.
Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece.
IxiOn and Quirinus of Rome.
Prometheus of Caucasus.
Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap1.html
;) ;D :angel12:
-
You're also forgetting that the Bible wants you to believe that man came from DIRT and that woman came from a RIB...and that they used INCEST to populate the earth
Yes, how is this worse than you believing we came from soup and we all evolved from a common ancestor?
-
Yes, how is this worse than you believing we came from soup and we all evolved from a common ancestor?
Natural speculation with some evidences vs. supernatural mythology with closed reasonings. Going wayyy back to that poster I posted, science allows for pointing out mistakes. "We were wrong. This is the new evidence that says we are wrong." and then they move forward trying to perfect whatever is in the light. There's a bit of humility in it knowing that you're just trying to find the right answer. Most of the time religion cannot do this as it breaks the foundation of beliefs. Heck, it took the Vatican 400 years to acknowledge and apologize for making a mistake with prosecuting Galileo! Much like coding programs, if you take away or find holes in the original holy concept, everything following it will be questionable or corrupt. This leads to loss of faith towards the idea. And many people have told me personally that this is why they can't break away from their religious mindset. People don't want to give up the idea.
I always assume it's due to an emotional attachment from this point which I have no problem accepting (because the majority I know have had bad things happen to them in the past). Hey, if it helps and comforts the person, cool. But I believe they should keep such questionable faith-based beliefs to themselves instead of preaching to everyone (including skeptics) and getting unnecessarily aggrevated over them rationalizing and disproving.
-
Using the beliefs from the bible to try and point out how someone believes something that is nonsense, that's ridiculous coming from someone who believes that we are here because of some chemical reaction in some primordial soup WITH NO EVIDENCE (here we are at that again). Also, the first living organism had to replicate itself somehow. Even if you want to say that RNA replicated itself, at some point you will have a handful of creatures who are reproducing through incest. The belief we all come from a common ancestor is incestuous, the belief we came from soup is no better supported through evidence from science than the bible account of creation!
-
How come everyone ignores this? I guess they can't argue with it....
In the Bible we are Dust...and scientifically we did come from dust.
I say that is pretty good for some desert people :P
:thumbsup:
-
In the Bible we are Dust...and scientifically we did come from dust. I say that is pretty good for some desert people
Yeah. And women came from a rib! That's pretty good for some desert people too!!! GO JAYZUZ!1!11!!1!
Using the beliefs from the bible to try and point out how someone believes something that is nonsense, that's ridiculous coming from someone who believes that we are here because of some chemical reaction in some primordial soup WITH NO EVIDENCE (here we are at that again).
Those reactions have successfully been demonstrated in experiments though and therefore there is enough viable evidence to hold it together as a sustained theory. Basic life grew naturally in these experiments. But, of course, the model has holes. For instance we don't have a timescale of 4 billion years to work with, so we don't know how some peices of the puzzle work. Could this be proven false? Sure. But until all the natural evidence is for certain, we can't dismiss it. That's science for ya.
the belief we came from soup is no better supported through evidence from science than the bible account of creation!
Soooo you're taking a proven myth involving dust-man and rib-woman and putting it on the same mantel as natural? Let's do an experiment- Take some dirt and dust, mix it with a human rib, and get back to me with your results. Remember that you have 1 day to prove this proposition-- no beating around the bush with christian "1 day for god = 1 billion years for us" stuff. If you-know-what happens, you've got my undying support for your creationist theory. Involve the supernatural, mythical, delusional, etc. and you automatically have shown there's a massive difference as far as evidence goes.
-
Soooo you're taking a proven myth involving dust-man and rib-woman and putting it on the same mantel as natural? Let's do an experiment- Take some dirt and dust, mix it with a human rib, and get back to me with your results. Remember that you have 1 day to prove this proposition-- no beating around the bush with christian "1 day for god = 1 billion years for us" stuff. If you-know-what happens, you've got my undying support for your creationist theory.
Heh, I love this! All they are left to say is, "Well no, I could not make a human out of dirt and/or ribs, because I'm not the magician in this story - god is."
And Sherna -- organisms were much simpler back then, so they didn't have the problem of incest like humans do. Also, life beginning to form happened over a much wider area than just 2 people bumpin' uglies in the neighborhood garden. ;D
-
Yes, Queenie, a head injury does change one's personality. I used to be a really nice person until a woman talking on a cell phone while driving an SUV T-boned my husband and I while we were riding our Harley. My head SMACKED the top of her hood and now I'm a real *bleep* but I STILL BELIEVE IN GOD!!! That will NEVER change, because of GOD OUR FATHER I and my husband are still alive! And as always I will say a prayer for all non-believers. Amen.
-
Yes, Queenie
I am, again, perplexed as to why people use my screenname in this way. It's so juvenile.
I used to be a really nice person...now I'm a real *bleep* but I STILL BELIEVE IN GOD!!!
Heh - I found this amusing. ;D
That will NEVER change, because of GOD OUR FATHER I and my husband are still alive!
Did I say a head injury *guarantees* a change of belief in god? No, no I didn't. But let me use the example of my grandmother: she's been dead basically for almost 10 years now, even though physically, she's still alive. This is because of Alzheimer's. Your "loving" god has allowed her brain to be eaten away to the point that she can't even walk OR talk now. She's been suffering for 10 freaking years and she's still not dead yet. It makes me very sad to see her in pictures -- she looks completely lifeless. It also makes me sad that my still-functional grandfather has had to see his wife of 50+ years go through this and care for her.
She believed in god...when she could remember what the concept of god was, of course. Now she's just a zombie, and you want to brag about how "god" saved you and your man? Please. It's not god, it's just life. Sometimes you get lucky (as in your case), and sometimes you have to suffer (as in my grandma and many others' case).
And as always I will say a prayer for all non-believers.
No thanks.
-
And last but not least we are dust...I don't care if you want to get all dumb up in here but we are dust...acknowledge it....the bible says he created us from dust and science will point out specifics and tell you we are star Dust...but we are dust.
Quit saying God made us from Dirt...because that is retarded...he made us from dust....as soon as you admit it is truth both in religion and science we can address other parts of the bible.
You people can't even get past the 7 days of creation in Genesis. ::)
Ah, another reference to 'retarded', how nice of you. Yeah, WE really shouldn't "get all dumb up in here', that would insult your vast intelligence of the bible and creation. "We can address other parts of the bible"? Would that be the "very small part" YOU admitted in the last day or 2 that you have read? Such an erudite post coming from you, amazing.
-
When it comes down to it isnt dust dirt?
-
Keep trying but I can guarantee you, no one can breath life into anything.
CPR? Lawl. This is the problem with the argument though. You need to reread most of this thread in order to understand it. But I doubt that's gonna happen so I don't know why I, or anyone else, is responding to someone who will never understand anything above elementary school intelligence.
Quit saying God made us from Dirt...because that is retarded...he made us from dust....as soon as you admit it is truth both in religion and science we can address other parts of the bible
...and a rib.
-
Did I say a head injury *guarantees* a change of belief in god? No, no I didn't. But let me use the example of my grandmother: she's been dead basically for almost 10 years now, even though physically, she's still alive. This is because of Alzheimer's. Your "loving" god has allowed her brain to be eaten away to the point that she can't even walk OR talk now. She's been suffering for 10 freaking years and she's still not dead yet. It makes me very sad to see her in pictures -- she looks completely lifeless. It also makes me sad that my still-functional grandfather has had to see his wife of 50+ years go through this and care for her.
She believed in god...when she could remember what the concept of god was, of course. Now she's just a zombie, and you want to brag about how "god" saved you and your man? Please. It's not god, it's just life. Sometimes you get lucky (as in your case), and sometimes you have to suffer (as in my grandma and many others' case).
Because it is a brain....the spirit is different. Her spirit knows who God is and never forgot. Life isn't suppost to be easy...what would the point be? The sweet isn't as sweet without the sour.
I heard going to jail will get you religion REAL QUICK!!! LOL!!!! :bootyshake:
-
I would show you proof that you are wrong and make no sense (as usual), but I don't feel the need to do a search. You aren't worth my time, troll. Why the hell am I writing this even?
-
YOU CAN'T CREATE NEW LIFE.
WRONG. Scientists have been able to create it in the lab.
-
to marie's comment umm hun scientists clone things in a lab..Babies are created to be implanted..So really you need to read before you speak..And man you flip flop on religion so much you make my damn head spin..And sorry but you could have picked a better word then retarded that shows your intelligence is fairly low..And lock the topic before I can post man you ruined my day LMAO..
Thanks queens for reopening topic..
Now why is it always a atheist thing when someone may not believe?? Cannot not just be hmm logical thinking or umm searching??
-
LMAO SHERYL thats funny thanks I needed a laugh LOL
-
Now why is it always a atheist thing when someone may not believe?? Cannot not just be hmm logical thinking or umm searching??
Very good question there, ButterflyWings, and I don't know. It just seems easier to compartmentalize any of us who question, whether we say we ARE atheist or agnostic or don't say it. We also get portrayed as if we don't each have different ways of interpreting or looking at things and I don't agree with that. I don't agree with it because while all Christians believe in the bible, I don't try to lump all sects of christianity into one, they are all different. And I don't lump all believers into christianity, because many are are of different faiths altogether. I'll use amyrouse as an example - she happens to be of the Jewish faith, but anyone who doesn't know that and reads some of her posts automatically labels her as christian. It's akin to saying all scientists are biologists.
-
anyone else think it's kinda ironic that the op locked the topic over there and then came here to post on this one? I think that kind of behavior has re-defined the word "retard".
Heh, well, she butts in on pretty much every discussion...this is nothing new. ;)
-
Really how? By Cloning? That is not NEW!
No, not by cloning. So far, scientists have been able to create very early stages of life by combining amino acids.
-
Do you have any sources for your claim?
It was in a video I watched with Richard Dawkins.
-
marieelissa, I am asking this seriously. Would ya please stop with all the STFU? It is totally unnecessary, no matter how ticked off you are. I would expect that from some punk who was 15, not a woman who is 28.
-
Now why is it always a atheist thing when someone may not believe?? Cannot not just be hmm logical thinking or umm searching??
Very good question there, ButterflyWings, and I don't know. It just seems easier to compartmentalize any of us who question, whether we say we ARE atheist or agnostic or don't say it. We also get portrayed as if we don't each have different ways of interpreting or looking at things and I don't agree with that. I don't agree with it because while all Christians believe in the bible, I don't try to lump all sects of christianity into one, they are all different. And I don't lump all believers into christianity, because many are are of different faiths altogether. I'll use amyrouse as an example - she happens to be of the Jewish faith, but anyone who doesn't know that and reads some of her posts automatically labels her as christian. It's akin to saying all scientists are biologists.
Haha...I've been labeled as atheist on here, too. I also had someone say that since I was Jewish I was anti-Christian. I don't think I come across as anti-anybody, really... :dontknow: LOL
-
Now why is it always a atheist thing when someone may not believe?? Cannot not just be hmm logical thinking or umm searching??
Very good question there, ButterflyWings, and I don't know. It just seems easier to compartmentalize any of us who question, whether we say we ARE atheist or agnostic or don't say it. We also get portrayed as if we don't each have different ways of interpreting or looking at things and I don't agree with that. I don't agree with it because while all Christians believe in the bible, I don't try to lump all sects of christianity into one, they are all different. And I don't lump all believers into christianity, because many are are of different faiths altogether. I'll use amyrouse as an example - she happens to be of the Jewish faith, but anyone who doesn't know that and reads some of her posts automatically labels her as christian. It's akin to saying all scientists are biologists.
Good point, jordandog and amy.
-
Using the beliefs from the bible to try and point out how someone believes something that is nonsense, that's ridiculous coming from someone who believes that we are here because of some chemical reaction in some primordial soup WITH NO EVIDENCE (here we are at that again).
Those reactions have successfully been demonstrated in experiments though and therefore there is enough viable evidence to hold it together as a sustained theory. Basic life grew naturally in these experiments. But, of course, the model has holes. For instance we don't have a timescale of 4 billion years to work with, so we don't know how some peices of the puzzle work. Could this be proven false? Sure. But until all the natural evidence is for certain, we can't dismiss it. That's science for ya.[/quote]
Funny how those experiments were guided by human intelligence, and even then no experiment has been good enough to be termed as evidence. All those experiments have done is strengthen the ID platform! You might consider the evidence viable but even scientists don't deem it viable enough to hold any weight. The materialist scientists don't infer ID in the absence of evidence but they are smart enough not to assert the horrible evidence they do have to solidify their theory.
the belief we came from soup is no better supported through evidence from science than the bible account of creation!
Soooo you're taking a proven myth involving dust-man and rib-woman and putting it on the same mantel as natural? Let's do an experiment- Take some dirt and dust, mix it with a human rib, and get back to me with your results. Remember that you have 1 day to prove this proposition-- no beating around the bush with christian "1 day for god = 1 billion years for us" stuff. If you-know-what happens, you've got my undying support for your creationist theory. Involve the supernatural, mythical, delusional, etc. and you automatically have shown there's a massive difference as far as evidence goes.
[/quote]
I'm not putting in the same mantel as natural. Creation was a supernatural event, but the theory of chemical evolution has no evidence so it's ridiculous to try and insinuate somebody else is wrong to believe something when the only alternative has as much evidence as the former.
Do you see what you're doing? You are asserting a theory that has no evidence (with experiments guided by intelligence to get a desired result) and calling someone, who believes that intelligence created life, delusional.
And you can no longer equate the supernatural with delusional. I don't care what context someone is using supernatural, if you leave open the option for supernatural cosmic origins, you can't decide where and when the supernatural is possible. HA! You can say it isn't God, but if you want to lump people into a category of delusion for believing in the supernatural then you put yourself in that category since you don't deny the possibility.
-
Funny how those experiments were guided by human intelligence,
As opposed to...? Please, share with me your deity. I would like to chat with him and ask him. Oh wait, he's invisible, untestable, etc. and can only be heard through faith. What a major cop-out when it comes to arguing for...anything. "I have no evidence at all for the concept but it's still 100% true."
and even then no experiment has been good enough to be termed as evidence. All those experiments have done is strengthen the ID platform. The materialist scientists don't infer ID in the absence of evidence but they are smart enough not to assert the horrible evidence they do have to solidify their theory.
It gives the theory plausibility-- it is evidence by definition! You're conveniently jumping over scientific method here. "Even scientists are still skeptical of the idea! It has holes! Therefore ID is more supported!" It's not. Again, no proof = cannot argue for such a claim. If you have nothing and bring nothing to the table, nobody is going to eat your nothing despite how well you say it tastes. And then when you go around arguing over the "materialist/real" food on the table? This is why ID is labelled psuedoscience.
I'm not putting in the same mantel as natural. Creation was a supernatural event, but the theory of chemical evolution has no evidence
Again, there is evidence. It's just not irrefutable due to the reasons given earlier. Creation was not a supernatural event unless you can put proof on the table for it. Without it, your argument is empty. I can replace ID with any wacko supernatural concept and it would hold the same grounds as ID. Speculation is not proof.
Do you see what you're doing? You are asserting a theory that has no evidence (with experiments guided by intelligence to get a desired result) and calling someone, who believes that intelligence created life, delusional.
AGAIN- It has evidence. And you can see the results. But it's not fool-proof because of the reasons I have already stated. It has problems, but that does not immediatly kill it. Edison didn't find the correct filament after a few tries. Does that mean he should have just thrown the whole lightbulb concept in the garbage? I don't understand why it's so hard to understand this! And yes, I'm sorry but guarding Christian beliefs this close without saying there are massive problems is very delusional and or/irrational.
if you leave open the option for supernatural cosmic origins, you can't decide where and when the supernatural is possible. HA! You can say it isn't God, but if you want to lump people into a category of delusion for believing in the supernatural then you put yourself in that category since you don't deny the possibility.
Epic fail award! Lol c'mon...you've done exactly what I said not to do. It's exactly what everyone else did that couldn't grasp the concept. There's a difference between speculation and belief. Speculation allows for anything without grasping to it-- this is what I do. Remember I said a Zues, a lego man, or harrison ford could be behind it all? Speculation-- it's just as correct as thinking Yahweh did it. Belief puts confidence in the idea of something. I don't believe that these things are actually out there because, again, there is no proof for it. If I put my belief in a legoman designing all of this, I'd be delusional (or highly irrational if you wish) for thinking so. And considering you believe in an imperfect and angry jealous deity, a phony man-made story of mankinds creation, and other absolutely crazy mythology...you see where I'm going? Besides! We all know Cthulhu is the real designer *folds arms*
-
As opposed to...?
There is nothing else in this world that "appears" to be designed that wasn't actually designed. It is not delusional to think that a creative intelligence designed the universe and life in it.
It gives the theory plausibility
What experiment do you know of that gave chemical evolution plausibility because one that I know of didn't do anything but make me laugh.
The Miller Experiment:
Was conducted in an environment that did not correctly represent the atmospheric conditions of the primitive earth. If the experiment were to be conducted under correct atmospheric conditions you would not get amino acids (necessary for life to exist) but you would still get organic molecules. What are these promising organic molecules?? Formaldehyde and Cyanide. It's true that formaldehyde and cyanide can be turned into biological molecules....but it's a joke to think that they could give you the right substrate for the origin of life.....because what it produces is embalming fluid. (taken from the case for a creator thread)
Again, there is evidence. It's just not irrefutable due to the reasons given earlier. Creation was not a supernatural event unless you can put proof on the table for it
Where is the proof on the table for chemical evolution? Where is the proof on the table for any mechanism of evolution to create information? Where is the proof on the table for this naturalistic explanation of life to be considered evidence?
AGAIN- It has evidence. And you can see the results
There are two possibilities for the existence of life
1. Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems
If you deny the existence of a Creator, scientific studies demonstrate that you must believe each of the following things about the origin of life:
Scientific Fact
Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).
Solution
reject the second law of thermodynamics
Scientific Fact
Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication
Solution
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"
Scientific Fact
Pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions and only purine (adenine and guanine) nucleosides are found in carbonaceous meteorites (i.e primidine nucleosides don't form in outer space either)
Solution
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"
Scientific Fact
Even if a method for formation of primidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication.
Solution
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"
This is only a small portion of the evidence AGAINST chemical, spontaneous explanations of origins!
For the rest of the list and about 100 other pages authored by scientists visit http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html
Speculation allows for anything without grasping to it
So you think you have the right to say someone is delusional for grasping an idea YOU think is impossible, even though you admit that ANYTHING is possible and you are open to it?? Just because you have not "grasped" any particular idea, you are given higher intelligent status to those who have grasped an idea? That is arrogant and preposterous in light of the BAD evidence for the alternative! Don't "grasp" an idea to assert is as truth, that's your choice but don't walk around telling people that what they HAVE grasped as truth is delusional! You can't have an opinion about what is delusional when you don't believe ANYTHING.
-
It is not delusional to think that a creative intelligence designed the universe and life in it.
Speculatively, no. It's not delusional. Even to say the supernatural (just higher undefined nature-- no god or anything) is just as well. But believing what Christians do is ridiculously irrational.
What experiment do you know of that gave chemical evolution plausibility because one that I know of didn't do anything but make me laugh.
Maybe you should look at your own beliefs before laughing at people who are trying to grasp the universe with an open and skeptical mind.
The Miller Experiment:
I smell Answers in Genesis all over this...but it's the God and Science website!? It sounds like you're going to need some better scientific sources. Anyway, isolated systems have problems with the 2nd law because they are closed systems. Blocks in a natural system will have a decrease of entropy. It only applies to closed systems. Open systems can exchange energy and increase order. All organisms (past and present) run the risk of death. But they manage to avoid this by taking in energy from the world- eating, drinking, grouping, etc. When you put someone in a vault with none of these, of course they'll die in time. But you'll still collect some viable data. This breaks apart your whole fact/solution tower from the first one. That, and I'm too tired to go on refutting something from a creationist website.
http://entropysite.oxy.edu/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lABiuUt-OT4
So you think you have the right to say someone is delusional for grasping an idea YOU think is impossible, even though you admit that ANYTHING is possible and you are open to it??
Just because you have not "grasped" any particular idea, you are given higher intelligent status to those who have grasped an idea?
That's just what the purple gnome in my car told me to say though. He also told me to tell you that Yahweh says hi. lol okay okay I admit it. that was uncalled for! The major problem here isn't judging what's possible and impossible. It's presenting the truth of the matter with evidence. For instance let's say we're both cavemen. We see lightening strike a tree and it creates fire. I would say "perhaps there were natural causes to this. The lightening, which looks very hot, ignited the tree and caused it to burn. I could be wrong though-- I'm only a caveman and have very little to work with here to prove my point!" and you would go "And there's you problem! Where'd the lightening come from? Because of that, it's completely 100% obvious that god struck that tree for us!" and then I go "wut". Of course this is a recurring theme throughout history.
You can't have an opinion about what is delusional when you don't believe ANYTHING
http://allotetraploid.se/wp-content/2007/08/christianity.JPG
Don't "grasp" an idea to assert is as truth, that's your choice but don't walk around telling people that what they HAVE grasped as truth is delusional!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_I2uQkGxIykM/SlndlswrCoI/AAAAAAAAFfE/1fJnSLISVGk/s400/agnosticism-explanation+mcs.jpg
(btw I don't think you're retarded in the least. I do think you're entrenched in the creationist mindset wayyy too deep though. I'm just trying to get this very basic point of differences across)
-
But believing what Christians do is ridiculously irrational.
You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not necessarily truth. So stop asserting is as though it is fact.
Maybe you should look at your own beliefs before laughing at people who are trying to grasp the universe with an open and skeptical mind.
Really? Me? Stop laughing at people?? For one thing, I laughed at the idea that an experiment, guided by intelligence by the way, was so publicized and even put in text books; when it was so clearly NOT good evidence! Thankfully, there were some who were not willing to turn a blind eye to the crap that was being asserted as truth and the crap was taken off the table as any type of worthwhile evidence for the proposed theory.
How about YOU stop laughing at people for having faith in something you just so happened to find irrational.
I smell Answers in Genesis all over this...but it's the God and Science website!? It sounds like you're going to need some better scientific sources
:confused1: Are you freaking kidding me?? Talk about closed minded! You automatically disregard my source because the author believes in God! Who cares that he is a legitimate scientist? Who cares about anything he has to say about science, he believes in God therefore he is not a good source for scientific information! ::)
Un-fricken-believable! :angry7:
I'll remember that too.
That, and I'm too tired to go on refutting something from a creationist website.
Well that's good because you are not doing a very good job.
Anyway, isolated systems have problems with the 2nd law because they are closed systems.
This argument has nothing to do with the closed/open system question. The second law of thermodynamics states that heat flows from hot bodies to cold bodies. This law also affects the formation of enantiomers (Either of a pair of optical compounds whose molecular structures have a mirror-image relationship to each other) in chemical reactions capable of producing stereoisomers (One enantiomer (left or right-handed form) of an optically active compound). Since the formation of both left- and right-handed enantiomers requires the exact same amount of energy, both enantiomers are produced in identical amounts. Any deviation from this result is highly unlikely (much less likely than the scenario of starting your car on a hot California day and having freeze over while running).
Some researchers have cited the possibility of differential synthesis of one enantiomer over another in the presence of circularly polarized light. There are a couple problems with this theory. First, there is no source of this kind of light in the vicinity of our solar system. Second, the demonstration of circularly polarized light was found only in the infrared region of the spectrum. Light must be of much more energetic wavelengths (ultraviolet). Third, if stereoisomers were formed, the energy of the light would break them down within a short period of time.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html#n02
-
I'm just gonna answer these as quick as I can because I'm super tired.
You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not necessarily truth. So stop asserting is as though it is fact.
In the past we've given you plenty of facts of why they're false. It is not an opinion. You've constantly demonstrated that you're armed to the teeth with technical work-arounds though.
I laughed at the idea that an experiment, guided by intelligence by the way, was so publicized and even put in text books; when it was so clearly NOT good evidence!
There's major reasons as to why it's in text books and ID is not. If you think ID is a better approach for text books and yet you cannot claim to know the designer(s) characteristics, nature, location, origin, goals, the means used, etc. you have nothing. And if you start defining it using your beliefs, you're pushing religious doctrine and that's not science. It's mythology. Non-progressive. Either way the argument for ID being science is screwed unless you're willing to shed your beliefs and admit it's a complete mystery. And, not to get too personal, but I don't think you could do that due to the emotional attachment you obviously have to creationist ideas.
Talk about closed minded! You automatically disregard my source because the author believes in God!
Well sure it's got some good information! But seeing all these die-hard christian ideas on the left leaves me to believe that the author can easily taint their findings or leave important things out just as all creationist sites do. I disregard it because it's called "God and science". Might as well call it "How to argue the irrational ideas of religion with reality". It's hard to accept someone being rational when the person believes highly irrational defined deities, myths, etc.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html http://www.godandscience.org/love/outrageous.html http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.html
Well that's good because you are not doing a very good job.
I'll get back to you on this. Too tired to go on.
-
In the past we've given you plenty of facts of why they're false
Nobody has given me any facts. All anyone has tried to do is give me misinterpretation of scripture, to which I have responded. If you choose to believe your garbled version of scripture to support a stance of unbelief in God, that's your choice but it doesn't make you're version of the bible correct. Therefore it is your opinion.
You can't tell me the universe wasn't caused by the supernatural, or you're inferring it had a natural cause without evidence...therefore implying you have faith by definition. You can't tell me it wasn't God, for a fact, because nothing has proved or disproved the existence of God 100%. You are not asserting fact to say Christianity is irrational, you are asserting an opinion.
There's major reasons as to why it's in text books and ID is not. If you think ID is a better approach for text books and yet you cannot claim to know the designer(s) characteristics, nature, location, origin, goals, the means used, etc. you have nothing. And if you start defining it using your beliefs, you're pushing religious doctrine and that's not science. It's mythology. Non-progressive. Either way the argument for ID being science is screwed unless you're willing to shed your beliefs and admit it's a complete mystery
Why would ID need to define the designer? I don't need to know WHO made my coffee pot to know it was designed. That's absurd and it's not science.
How about you focus on the fact that I asked you a direct question, where is the proof on the table for chemical evolution? Where is the proof on the table for any mechanism of evolution to create information? You know how many times I have asked that question? Queen says, I'm not a scientist, and you flat out ignore it. You know why? Because there isn't proof and there isn't any evidence. So don't talk about how ID needs to have proof on the table to be considered legitimate, when the alternative doesn't have proof on the table!
You continued to repeat "There is evidence". What is that evidence?
I disregard it because it's called "God and science"
Closed minded.
-
In the past we've given you plenty of facts of why they're false
Nobody has given me any facts. All anyone has tried to do is give me misinterpretation of scripture, to which I have responded. If you choose to believe your garbled version of scripture to support a stance of unbelief in God, that's your choice but it doesn't make you're version of the bible correct. Therefore it is your opinion.
You can't tell me the universe wasn't caused by the supernatural, or you're inferring it had a natural cause without evidence...therefore implying you have faith by definition. You can't tell me it wasn't God, for a fact, because nothing has proved or disproved the existence of God 100%. You are not asserting fact to say Christianity is irrational, you are asserting an opinion.
There's major reasons as to why it's in text books and ID is not. If you think ID is a better approach for text books and yet you cannot claim to know the designer(s) characteristics, nature, location, origin, goals, the means used, etc. you have nothing. And if you start defining it using your beliefs, you're pushing religious doctrine and that's not science. It's mythology. Non-progressive. Either way the argument for ID being science is screwed unless you're willing to shed your beliefs and admit it's a complete mystery
Why would ID need to define the designer? I don't need to know WHO made my coffee pot to know it was designed. That's absurd and it's not science.
How about you focus on the fact that I asked you a direct question, where is the proof on the table for chemical evolution? Where is the proof on the table for any mechanism of evolution to create information? You know how many times I have asked that question? Queen says, I'm not a scientist, and you flat out ignore it. You know why? Because there isn't proof and there isn't any evidence. So don't talk about how ID needs to have proof on the table to be considered legitimate, when the alternative doesn't have proof on the table!
You continued to repeat "There is evidence". What is that evidence?
I disregard it because it's called "God and science"
Closed minded.
Hang in there, you are doing great! :thumbsup:
-
Hang in there, you are doing great!
Thanks jcribb. I needed that :) :heart:
-
All those experiments have done is strengthen the ID platform! You might consider the evidence viable but even scientists don't deem it viable enough to hold any weight.
::) You really want to hold tight to this illusion that things were "designed". What about a baby's soft spot? That doesn't seem very intelligent to put there.
What about the hell mothers-to-be have to go through during pregnancy? For something that is supposed to be "natural" and 'beautiful", it sure has some horrendous side effects.
What about the fact that many babies can't even FIT through their mama's pelvic bone?
What about the skeletal system in general -- it's "designed" for bad backs and knees and crushed foot arches.
Why are our eyes backwards, with a blind spot, and we wouldn't be able to see at all if it didn't get interpreted from the brain?
Why do we have systems in the body that do a long, twisted loop instead of a direct route? http://irreligulous.blogspot.com/2010/08/unintelligent-design-laryngeal-nerve-of.html (http://irreligulous.blogspot.com/2010/08/unintelligent-design-laryngeal-nerve-of.html)
Why do men have nipples? Why are some people born with extra nipples/heads/limbs/tails? Why do we have tail bones?
Why do we have wisdom teeth?
Why are we "designed" to have to sleep for a full 1/3 of our lives??
etc., etc.
Creation was a supernatural event, but the theory of chemical evolution has no evidence so it's ridiculous to try and insinuate somebody else is wrong to believe something when the only alternative has as much evidence as the former.
Your evidence is an ancient, pre-scientific book written by superstitious goat herders who didn't know anything + this illusion of "design". Our evidence is the most brilliant minds throughout time observing, studying, researching, analyzing, and comparing TANGIBLE proofs.
-
All those experiments have done is strengthen the ID platform! You might consider the evidence viable but even scientists don't deem it viable enough to hold any weight.
::) You really want to hold tight to this illusion that things were "designed". What about a baby's soft spot? That doesn't seem very intelligent to put there.
What about the hell mothers-to-be have to go through during pregnancy? For something that is supposed to be "natural" and 'beautiful", it sure has some horrendous side effects.
What about the fact that many babies can't even FIT through their mama's pelvic bone?
What about the skeletal system in general -- it's "designed" for bad backs and knees and crushed foot arches.
Why are our eyes backwards, with a blind spot, and we wouldn't be able to see at all if it didn't get interpreted from the brain?
Why do we have systems in the body that do a long, twisted loop instead of a direct route? http://irreligulous.blogspot.com/2010/08/unintelligent-design-laryngeal-nerve-of.html (http://irreligulous.blogspot.com/2010/08/unintelligent-design-laryngeal-nerve-of.html)
Why do men have nipples? Why are some people born with extra nipples/heads/limbs/tails? Why do we have tail bones?
Why do we have wisdom teeth?
Why are we "designed" to have to sleep for a full 1/3 of our lives??
etc., etc.
I can see the reasons behind many of the things you list here. A baby's soft spot...very specific need for it to be there...
And, although it is true that babies can't fit through mama's pelvic bone...but that is the reason why labor is so difficult...mama's pelvic bone shifts so that the baby can be delivered safely...just like baby's skull plates. And, given time, they go back to normal. Otherwise, if mama was 100% ready all the time for baby to come, then menses would flow out over the course of a few minutes and we'd have a rather large amount of big-a**ed women roaming the globe.
Speaking of babies...that would be part of the reason why men have nipples and many people are born with extra extremities...if you want to believe that g-d made the design, then I can buy that...but g-d is no longer guiding that design. Forrest Gump put it very plainly after running through a pile of dog doo...it happens.
And...I don't know about you...but sleep is effin awesome...one of my favorite parts of the day. Took advantage of my pregnancy to sleep as much as humanly possible. :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry...just had to jump in here, if, for nothing else, to get my sleep comment in. :wave:
-
There is nothing else in this world that "appears" to be designed that wasn't actually designed. It is not delusional to think that a creative intelligence designed the universe and life in it.
See the attached pic for something that appears NOT to be designed, but you claim was. Source: http://truth-saves.com/Unintelligent_Design.php
Videos to watch
Evolution - The 'Best' Counter Arguments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FauGMaKTCRs
Top Ten Creationist Arguments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8
Top Ten Creationist Arguments-Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZFsXfCy6s
-
[A baby's soft spot...very specific need for it to be there...
There may be a reason from a biological perspective for sure, but god can do anything, can't he? Seems pretty stupid to put a self-destruct button on their heads.
And, although it is true that babies can't fit through mama's pelvic bone...but that is the reason why labor is so difficult...mama's pelvic bone shifts so that the baby can be delivered safely...just like baby's skull plates. And, given time, they go back to normal.
You're forgetting that some babies are simply too big to come out of mama, or there are other complications...and before modern medical science (C-section, etc.), those women DIED. Makes ya scratch your head if we're supposed to be fruitful and multiply.
Speaking of babies...that would be part of the reason why men have nipples and many people are born with extra extremities...
Huh? Men can't breast feed. Men's nipples are due to genetics; we all start off female/neutral sex in the womb.
And...I don't know about you...but sleep is effin awesome...
I like sleep, but it's an incredible waste of time if we're supposed to be "intelligently designed". If you live until 80, you will have slept 27 years of it!! C'mon, that's not productive. You'd think god would have us just sleep a little bit to rest and then use the rest of the time to be spiritual warriors.
-
Our evidence is the most brilliant minds throughout time observing, studying, researching, analyzing, and comparing TANGIBLE proofs.
Your evidence is people doing research? ???
People doing research produce evidence. Where is it?
What about a baby's soft spot? That doesn't seem very intelligent to put there
brains grow rapidly and the soft spots accommodate this growth easily. If all the skull bones were fused together at birth then there would be no room for brain growth. So, the soft spots make this growth possible.
www.thelaboroflove.com
What about the hell mothers-to-be have to go through during pregnancy?
If you think about what pain is, the true necessity of pain to a human body, it is a signal to the owner of that body. An indication something needs to be done. If you put your hand too close to the stove, you will feel a painful burn telling you to move your hand.
Labor pain operates on the same principle. Certain pains can tell you to move, let you know what to do or inform you of progress in the labor. In childbirth, pain that signals you to do something is sometimes called positive pain.
Even without a specific message you can understand, many times the discomfort of childbirth leads a woman to do things that are beneficial to her baby being born. Frequent position changes, keeping the bladder empty, swaying the hips, walking and leaning forward are all common among laboring mothers and can help the baby get into a good position.
www.birthingnaturally.net
it's "designed" for bad backs and knees and crushed foot arches.
It isn't designed for that. Does everyone suffer these things? No. If that is what it is designed to do, then anyone who doesn't have these issues are the badly designed ones.
Bad design=no design
This argument assumes an infallible knowledge of the design process.
And isn't it funny that my direct question was about origins and instead of answering that question you jump to pounding the same old rhetoric about "bad design" and tell me your evidence is people doing research ::)
That’s right, let’s not get hung up on such trivialities as the origin of life. Wisdom teeth and back pain — that’s the slam dunk evidence for evolution!
-
Quote from: amyrouse on Today at 01:29:19 pm
[A baby's soft spot...very specific need for it to be there...]
Quote from: queenofnines:
There may be a reason from a biological perspective for sure, but god can do anything, can't he? Seems pretty stupid to put a self-destruct button on their heads.
:cat: "Fontanelles are soft spots on a baby's head which, during birth, enable the bony plates of the skull to flex, allowing the child's head to pass through the birth canal. The ossification of the bones of the skull cause the fontanelles to close over by a child's second birthday. The closures eventually form the sutures of the neurocranium." (courtesy of Fontanelle, from Wikipedia)
-
Nobody has given me any facts. All anyone has tried to do is give me misinterpretation of scripture, to which I have responded.
Fact- people do not have the ability to heal other peoples ailments supernaturally just by touching them. Nobody can demonstrate this happens.
Fact- The supernatural within our society has always been faked and yet so many gullible people believe the magical prophets with the stories of omnipotent beings with obvious imperfections (I refer to a lot of religions here. Not just christianity). When you run into the realms of mythology/fiction/fantasy and make the healer character have super powers, of course that's capable of happening. The problem here is that christians regard it as fact despite it being from unreliable and rewritten sources. They believe many stories of fiction. There is your fact.
If you choose to believe your garbled version of scripture
I never really quote scripture for ya. Atleast I don't recall.
You can't tell me the universe wasn't caused by the supernatural, or you're inferring it had a natural cause without evidence...therefore implying you have faith by definition. You can't tell me it wasn't God, for a fact, because nothing has proved or disproved the existence of God 100%. You are not asserting fact to say Christianity is irrational, you are asserting an opinion.
Like I've stated many times- neither of us know. And to say you do --and that you know what this deity wants-- is completely absurd because you imply and push for something ridiculously irrational (Yahweh is just as acceptable an answer as Harrison Ford, Cthulhu, Xenu, Zues, etc. but you do not acknowledge this). And again, the supernatural does not always mean a god character. Right now if I were to say without a doubt that it had a 100% natural cause like you claim I do, it'd be because people have always mistaken the natural for the supernatural throughout mankinds history. I refer to my caveman example.
Why would ID need to define the designer? I don't need to know WHO made my coffee pot to know it was designed. That's absurd and it's not science.
Well you're right there. ID has difficulty uncoupling itself from defined beliefs because it states the nature of the maker is unknown. But if you can't define or hypothesize anything having to do with the claim or have any legitimate evidence, you don't have anything to do with the scientific field. You just have random philosophies. And considering your christian beliefs, saying you believe in ID is a flawed statement because you believe in a defined deity. And a coffee pot as an example for the entire universe? What an brilliant example! ::) What's next? Watchmaker analogy?
You continued to repeat "There is evidence". What is that evidence?
Let me first say that the word "proof" around this forum tends to be thrown around a lot. And I am also not a scientist. I do not have irrefutable proof of the concept as I have stated a few times, but I do have some supportive evidence of some theories. Since I'm in a rush to go eat dinner here, let's use the thermodynamic origin idea- we have meteorites like the Murchison and scientists theorize that when the earth was forming it was bombarded by many of these types of meteors (containing aromatic hydrocarbons--http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Orion_Nebula_Gives_Clues_To_Origin_Of_Life_On_Earth_999.html ). Considering the problem with the polarized light as you pulled from G+S, yes. Not having this light within our own solar system poses a problem. But that does not mean it does not exist elsewhere in this universe-- such light can be from far off stars or nebulae. So yes- ultimately it is flawed because we have two obstacles- the not-in-the-neighborhood light problem and the time-scale problem of not being able to observe it for such humongous periods. But considering that these things actually exist, this is not nearly as bad a stretch as a defined deity like Yahweh. Again I refer you to the caveman example.
Closed minded
Granted I was super tired, maybe you should read the sentences after that line? Let me make a better example for ya though-- god is to science as what astrology is to astronomy. The difference is that science can make testable, falsifiable predictions about the origins of life. Creationists will never be able to do that.
And...I don't know about you...but sleep is effin awesome...one of my favorite parts of the day. Took advantage of my pregnancy to sleep as much as humanly possible
lolololololol
-
Why is everyone lecturing me about a baby's soft spot? lol I know it serves a purpose, but again we're back to: so having a self-destruct button on their heads is the BEST god could do?
If you think about what pain is, the true necessity of pain to a human body, it is a signal to the owner of that body. An indication something needs to be done...Labor pain operates on the same principle.
I wasn't referring to childbirth itself, although I imagine that's no picnic as well. It's the pregnancy PROCESS that's ironic. Sorry if this offends all the moms on here, but the kid is basically a parasite that feeds off the body and produces side effects that make the woman sick (laundry list of effects: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm).
Bad design=no design
This argument assumes an infallible knowledge of the design process.
Bad design=evidence that the design wasn't "intelligent"
Unless you want to try to claim god's a bad designer? Nah, I know what you're going to say...it's that stinkin' "sin" that's got people's bodies down.
That’s right, let’s not get hung up on such trivialities as the origin of life. Wisdom teeth and back pain — that’s the slam dunk evidence for evolution!
No, but the human eye, man's vas deferens, and our DNA are (to name a few).
Falconer and I have already explained the best we could what the current knowledge on origins are. Obviously any lay person on here is only going to give you a fraction of the available info, so if you're really interested in learning what's out there, you can certainly spend time reading accredited journals or books (read: NOT creationist sites).
I think you are just trying to corner us by asking the unanswerable questions ("how did evolution create info", etc.). Are you REALLY interested in what science has to say? No, I don't think so. I think you are just trying to distract from the issue of how illogical Biblegod is by putting subject matter on the table that no one on here is qualified to answer.
-
Why is everyone lecturing me about a baby's soft spot? lol I know it serves a purpose, but again we're back to: so having a self-destruct button on their heads is the BEST god could do?
LOL...sorry, started a trend there.
If you think about what pain is, the true necessity of pain to a human body, it is a signal to the owner of that body. An indication something needs to be done...Labor pain operates on the same principle.
I wasn't referring to childbirth itself, although I imagine that's no picnic as well. It's the pregnancy PROCESS that's ironic. Sorry if this offends all the moms on here, but the kid is basically a parasite that feeds off the body and produces side effects that make the woman sick (laundry list of effects: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm).
I tend to agree with you there. That is something that I quoted quite often while lobbying for reproductive rights...but that is another topic.
Bad design=no design
This argument assumes an infallible knowledge of the design process.
Bad design=evidence that the design wasn't "intelligent"
Unless you want to try to claim god's a bad designer? Nah, I know what you're going to say...it's that stinkin' "sin" that's got people's bodies down.
I'll claim that g-d may have come up with the original design and then stepped back and said "so be it." I honestly don't see g-d being an active participant in today's world...there is just too much that is effed up...and the assertion on the other "retard" thread that instinct is g-d's -way-of-warning-you-and-ignoring-it-makes-the-outcome-your-fault is a bunch of :bs:.
Sin, like the devil, is a cop-out, IMO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlWgF8dqneg
-
Why would ID need to define the designer? I don't need to know WHO made my coffee pot to know it was designed. That's absurd and it's not science.
All coffee pots come with a brand stamped to them, so you could call the company and find out an approximation of who the designer was. ;) It should also say MADE IN CHINA or something. Don't see that on a rock!!
Speaking of rocks, since you said you could "tell" what is designed: if you compare a man-made rubber ball with a nature-made rock, the ball is actually much simpler despite being designed by an intelligence.
-
Like I've stated many times- neither of us know. And to say you do
I have faith. When I say "I know" I am asserting faith based on evidence of an intelligent creator. I don't deny having faith, I don't deny that there are unknowable things within the universe.
But if you can't define or hypothesize anything having to do with the claim or have any legitimate evidence, you don't have anything to do with the scientific field.
At its best, science is an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) and progressive search for the truth about our world based on reasoned analysis of empirical observations. The very antithesis of an unfettered search for truth occurs when scientists don intellectual blinkers and assert dogmatically that all conclusions must conform to “materialist” philosophy. Such an approach prevents the facts from speaking for themselves. The search for truth can only suffer when it is artificially constrained by those who would impose materialist orthodoxy by authoritarian fiat before the investigation has even begun. This approach obviously begs the question, but, sadly, it is all too common among those who would cloak their metaphysical prejudices with the authority of institutional science or the law. http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#notsci
such light can be from far off stars or nebulae.
Speculation, not evidence.
Let's give some more examples of what you would have to believe in denying a creator.
Neither RNA or DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory and RNA replicase could exist and code for it's own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously. In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 base pairs at most, so it couldn't even replicate itself.
So, I guess in order to continue to deny a creator you're going to have to apply a "science of the gaps" here.
Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes. So, "science of the gaps"
Nucleosides and amino acieds cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to be present on the earth for at least 4 billion years although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago.
So here, to maintain there was no creator, you will have to discard geological and chemistry data.
That natural explanation for origins becomes less reasonable with advancing scientific research. To maintain that a creative intelligence had nothing to do with it, well....it takes a great deal of non-reason
And a coffee pot as an example for the entire universe?
Do you think I'm an idiot? I do not need to look at the manufacturing company and brand name of my coffee pot, or need to observe the imprint of MADE IN CHINA, to know that it is designed by intelligence. I didn't pick up that coffee pot thinking that somehow molecules had ordered themselves together over eons of time to somehow produce what is now known as a coffee pot. Then ALL OF A SUDDEN I see Hamilton Beach on the back! Oh darn, I guess it wasn't made from random mutation acting on natural selection! :o
But I guess you need that? You need to know who made your appliances and electronics, in order to know that an intelligent being designed it? Furthermore, who invented it? Who ultimately invented and came up with whole idea of a coffee pot?! I must know this in order to know for SURE that my coffee pot is not a random product of mindless natural processes. LOLOLOLOL
I'm sure you yourself are not an idiot and can comprehend a simple comparison to the reason for not needing to define a designer to know design when you see it. Cheap tactic to try and undermine my position.
Creationists will never be able to do that.
You are confusing two different areas here. ID can do that. Are there creationists within ID study? Yes, but their own personal belief of who the designer is, is not part of the science they are conducting and asserting as theory. That is the realm of theology. Determining whether or not biological systems were intelligently designed is a legitimate scientific question.
-
so having a self-destruct button on their heads is the BEST god could do?
Where did God say that he created a perfect world with perfect creatures? The design of the encompassing details of childbirth is absolutely perfect and ideal to serve it's purpose. It's funny how you think you know exactly what God needs to do to perfect everything.
so if you're really interested in learning what's out there, you can certainly spend time reading accredited journals or books (read: NOT creationist sites).
LOLOLOL That's rich! Of course, this just echoes Falconers earlier statement. If I want "real" information....I shouldn't read creationist information. Yes, because you and others of your ilk have the authority on what is legitimate science! Please, get off your intelligent high horse before you get a nose bleed! ::)
And let me point out that you continue to insinuate that I use websites for all my information, and you have also insinuated that I "try to look intelligent". Does using information off of websites make me unintelligent? Well, if so I guess the rest you are idiots and we all are in the same club. Also, if you paid any attention to what I said previously, I DO know how to purchase, and read books. And the one I'm currently reading is by an agnostic so I guess when he says you're wrong I should not give any credence to him either??
the ball is actually much simpler despite being designed by an intelligence.
Oh, so I guess you are in agreement that inferring intelligent design is applying Occam's Razor? Great!
I think you are just trying to distract from the issue of how illogical Biblegod is by putting subject matter on the table that no one on here is qualified to answer.
How did you become knowledgeable about any other scientific subject? You are not a scientist as you say, yet you make scientific claims in your posts. How do you come across that information?
After you read this, use your mouse, use your legs, use your brain and whatever other method you use to obtain information and go find the answer to my question. Whatever information you come across to give viable and legitimate evidence for information creation by evolutionary mechanisms, you will certainly be qualified to copy and paste here in FC :thumbsup:
-
Quote from queenofnines:
Why is everyone lecturing me about a baby's soft spot? lol I know it serves a purpose, but again we're back to: so having a self-destruct button on their heads is the BEST god could do?
What about a baby's soft spot? That doesn't seem very intelligent to put there.
Because you brought it up by asking about it! It does seem intelligent to be put there, after all!!I don't question God's motive - obviously that was the best He could do for the reasons listed - [ "Fontanelles are soft spots on a baby's head which, during birth, enable the bony plates of the skull to flex, allowing the child's head to pass through the birth canal. The ossification of the bones of the skull cause the fontanelles to close over by a child's second birthday. The closures eventually form the sutures of the neurocranium." (courtesy of Fontanelle, from Wikipedia)]
-
So, I guess in order to continue to deny a creator you're going to have to apply a "science of the gaps" here.
Yes, science has gaps. And it wears that badge with honor. RELIGION is the one that claims to have all the answers, even though when you compare the two, science is a lot more advanced and useful despite being somewhat incomplete. You really want to settle on creation myths just because you're uncomfortable about the answers (or lack of answers) to life's tough questions?
Do you think I'm an idiot? I do not need to look at the manufacturing company and brand name of my coffee pot, or need to observe the imprint of MADE IN CHINA, to know that it is designed by intelligence.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only reason you "know" it was designed by an intelligence is because you have EXPERIENCE with what man-made design looks like (it's something you've learned). Just like you can automatically "know" whether a person is male or female (well, most of the time) because you have EXPERIENCE with what the visual and other cues are.
But I guess you need that? You need to know who made your appliances and electronics, in order to know that an intelligent being designed it? Furthermore, who invented it? Who ultimately invented and came up with whole idea of a coffee pot?! I must know this in order to know for SURE that my coffee pot is not a random product of mindless natural processes. LOLOLOLOL
Heh, what's with the stream of lulz? Are you subconsciously copying Falconer's tactic because you feel threatened? Anywho, back on topic...
Yes *I* need to know who made my appliances and electronics some of the time, for these reasons: safety, if it's a brand of good quality/value, if it's something I'll enjoy. People do not buy nameless items as a rule, so some elusive higher power opening shop and trying to sell us his "designs" doesn't fly. It's all about the brand, baby - you want to know what you're getting and if it will work!
Determining whether or not biological systems were intelligently designed is a legitimate scientific question.
Don't kid yourselves. You're not leaving the intelligence open to being aliens or invisible pink unicorns... Yahweh only, folks. It it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's CREATIONISM.
-
Where did God say that he created a perfect world with perfect creatures?
Yay, logical fallacies! Something I am more qualified to answer.
If god = perfect and perfect = complete, then god wouldn't have needed to create us in the first place.
If god = perfect and perfect = without flaws, then god COULDN'T have created anything imperfect or that would quickly turn imperfect. This obviously isn't the case...
If god = all-good and all-good = ALL good, then suffering could not exist EVER for any reason.
If god = all-knowing and all-knowing = ALL knowing, then prayer is useless and free will is a myth. Your life is already determined, and you are just a puppet playing out your destiny.
It's funny how you think you know exactly what God needs to do to perfect everything.
Do you not think that childbirth would look this way without god? Nature doesn't care if the woman is in pain, only if the genes get passed on. The gruesomeness of childbirth definitely points to it being godless. If babies were from god, I would expect the stork to deliver them or something else magical and non-invasive. ;) Your god sure likes to do things in the exact same way they'd be done without him...
If I want "real" information....I shouldn't read creationist information. Yes, because you and others of your ilk have the authority on what is legitimate science!
Yes, creationist information has an agenda and fantastical bias. Real science represents reality, whether you think there's a "materialist conspiracy" or not. Or do you think any bonehead with an air of authority is qualified to represent science? There are rules for these things, and religious people often don't follow the rules.
Does using information off of websites make me unintelligent?
Not necessarily, it's how heavily you rely on it and from only a few biased sources that's troublesome. You need to be looking at the opposition to be well-rounded in any field. The opposition will tell you, "Here are the claims that believers try to make, here's why they're wrong, here are the things they say are wrong about this side, here's why they're flawed"...and then use your best judgment and be intellectually honest about which side you think is speaking the truth more, even if the side you don't want to be right (no Christian god) is.
That's the problem, though...most people never make it over to the opposition and even if they do, one of man's top flaws is that he absolutely stinks at being objective and critical of himself. He lets his FEELINGS get the better of him rather than questioning his motives and being REASONABLE and HONEST with himself.
You are not a scientist as you say, yet you make scientific claims in your posts. How do you come across that information?
I know the basics of the basics. Bits and pieces from science classes, books, and videos. It's not something I've studied heavily because like I've said many times before, the Christian god can be disproven by logic alone, and logic is the most powerful weapon because it's a lot more accessible than the workings of science for most people.
-
I think you are just trying to corner us by asking the unanswerable questions ("how did evolution create info", etc.). Are you REALLY interested in what science has to say? No, I don't think so. I think you are just trying to distract from the issue of how illogical Biblegod is by putting subject matter on the table that no one on here is qualified to answer.
This thread has become a perfect example of my 'circular argument' comment awhile back. There is really NO way either side is going to concretely, without any doubt whatsoever, present an infallible and/or inarguable answer. It makes interesting reading and much can be learned in all of these discussions, but I don't see an "AhHa!" breakthrough moment as a possibility. queen is right, science DOES have huge gaps, science is always changing, and it will continue to change because life is always changing. The one area of science that will not change is the observations themselves. There is no person truly able to say Genesis actually took place. There is no person truly able to say they did, in fact, OBSERVE it so no one is "qualified to answer" as queen wrote above.
Just because someone can read and then post scientific theories on here (applies to BOTH sides of the debate ie atheist/agnostic and believers), does NOT imply an understanding of them. I have seen some glaring errors in how the dots have been connected when some get into science (NOT reffering to queen or sherna's posts when saying that), but there is no way I have any desire to jump in the fray and try to explain errors - it's just not that important/relative to what is brought out in points by both sides (you get close enough for here), would probably interest absolutely no one, and I have to spend too many hours at work using my brain on this alone. I DO have a solid background in science and a solid understanding of how the human body employs the complexity it was given - 9+ years of school and huge amounts of $$ better have taught me a whole lot. Trust me, if I didn't, I would quickly lose my license as a Nurse Practioner along with my Board Certification in 3 areas of medicine. I am NOT trying to sound like a smart a** here, but would you honestly want me diagnosing, treating, and writing prescriptions for you or your loved ones if I had NO idea how we work?
I have never made a statement on here as to when or why I started to question my own religion, beliefs, and if there really was a God responsible for creating life in the form of the amazingly complex machine we call the human body. Well, somewhere along the line while learning what I had to in order to do what I had always wanted, my religion and beliefs became glaringly and astoundingly inadequate. I could no longer suppress the unanswered questions I had posed in my entire time as a solid and devoted believer. I'm sure many would say, "Well, then you were NOT a 'real believer' all along." That is just NOT true. The more I learned, the more apparent it became to me that there was a reason no one could ever answer my constant questions about the bible - they did not have a clue other than to say, "That is how it is written and that is the word of god and you just need to trust in that." How many times have I seen that same answer come up on here?
I can't sit here and say what I have heard other atheists/agnostics voice "I lost a child, I got raped, I lost my spouse,.... and that is the exact moment that god and the Bible went out the window." Like I said, I had questions, (that really did NOT go over well in Sunday School ;)) from the time I was 6 years old, but they never were given any credence or they were glossed over. Maybe I was a 'Creation Story' cynic at birth and just didn't know it? Kidding there. I do know I reached a point where I could no longer say, "Yes, I believe without a doubt that there is a god and he created all I see, touch, hear, smell, taste, and feel." That does not make me any less worthy or moral or compassionate or anything else than all who do believe. I have mentioned that I have seen plenty of things happen with patients that cannot be explained and probably never will. It is at those times I actually say, either to myself or out loud, "That was a miracle." The difference now, as opposed to when I fully believed, is that I am once again amazed by the sheer will of the human body and mind to survive. Not by a supernatural act of a divine agent.
(Sorry for the 'novel'.)
-
It is always good to post positive things to say or question. Who cares what a person believes in. There is one faith, one God and one way!! All this other stuff I careless. To each is own.
-
There is really NO way either side is going to concretely, without any doubt whatsoever, present an infallible and/or inarguable answer
You are 100% correct jordan! My issue and point in continuing this fruitless discussion is to point out that nonbelievers have to either say they have faith that everything is natural (since there is no evidence that that is the case) or they have to say they don't know. In which case it is outrageous to criticize and belittle someone else for the FAITH they have that it ISN'T all natural. Just like you said, there are things that are unexplainable in your field of study, doctors, scientists, they don't have an answer, but for the people who say "if science can't observe and test it, it isn't real." WHAT? That's ridiculous!
I get very frustrated when, over and over, Christians are denigrated, insulted, and made to feel inferior because of what they believe, when the issuers of the insults DON'T have all the answers. How juvenile is it to sit there and insist someone has the wrong answer, but when asked what the right answer is..."Well I don't know, I'm not qualified to answer that." Then you sure as hell are not qualified to insult someone else for the answer they believe to true!!
And I am addressing this post to you jordan, but I am not referring to you. You have been one that has shown respect and class when it comes to these arguments. I know you disagree with me and when I have made a glaring mistake, you have tactfully pointed it out. You have never insulted me, you have never insinuated that I'm "trying to look intelligent", and you have never come into a forum blasting every post a believer makes and laughing at them as though they are thoughtless dolts with no brains!
This attitude is highly intolerant and is hypocritical coming from people who "evangelize" the message of intolerant Christians!
-
Jordan, I think I understand you. The fact of the matter is that it is only when you are faced with the ultimate challenge, ie, diagnosis of cancer or other life-threatening illness/event, that you can truly face within you all these questions. Arguments become jokes when your life is at stake. I don't expect anyone to understand this. I just keep putting one foot in front of the other.
-
Why? Why does nature care if genes pass on? What is the point? We die and that's it...nature is a retard.
This statement is retarded (no offense, marie). There is no "why", and there is no point. Nature is just doing the only thing it can do; it doesn't have some "grand plan".
This is the hard truth that religion tries to distract from, folks: you're born and then you die. You get 70-80 years (if you're lucky), and that's it. Pass on your genes if you like so others can get 70-80 years, too.
Now you can either be depressed about this, or embrace the beauty of life and be grateful you ever lived at all. Try to leave a mark for future generations and such and improve the human condition.
-
If god = perfect and perfect = complete, then god wouldn't have needed to create us in the first place.
If god = perfect and perfect = without flaws, then god COULDN'T have created anything imperfect or that would quickly turn imperfect. This obviously isn't the case...
If god = all-good and all-good = ALL good, then suffering could not exist EVER for any reason.
If god = all-knowing and all-knowing = ALL knowing, then prayer is useless and free will is a myth. Your life is already determined, and you are just a puppet playing out your destiny.
He didn't need to create us, He wanted to.
Why could He not create anything imperfect? To steal you're favorite phrase "He's God, can't He do ANYTHING?"
God is all good and therefore He can never be evil for any reason. We are not all good and therefore we can be evil.
And as for the all knowing thing, we went over this extensively and all you did was contradict yourself, so I'm doing with that argument.
The gruesomeness of childbirth definitely points to it being godless
I'm not even sure how to respond to this. I know many many people who would disagree that it is gruesome. The creation of life completely embodies who God is. So this statement really makes no sense.
Your god sure likes to do things in the exact same way they'd be done without him...
This statement is illogical. God either exists or doesn't. If He doesn't exist, you can't say "Well if God existed this is how He would do it." If God does exist, then there is no wondering how it would happen without Him, nothing would exist without Him. :confused1: My head hurts just trying to comprehend how you think this makes any sense.
it's how heavily you rely on it and from only a few biased sources that's troublesome
How are going to assume what all sources I have used? I do ref one site in particular, but it just so happens to have a very large database of various information, unlike others that deal with only a few subjects. Also I have several books, some of which are authored by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Stop assuming things about me, and especially when I have already stated that my sources do not just come from websites and creationists. As a matter of fact you posted in my thread about the book I am reading now that is written by a non creationist! Or do you just ignore that information so you can continue to try and make me look stupid?
religious people often don't follow the rules.
::)
the Christian god can be disproven by logic alone
Atheists will use logic to try and disprove God's existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.
1. The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God, who is Himself absolute.
2. But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God.
1. So, we ask, "How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy, and motion?"
2. In other words, "How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?"
http://carm.org/christian-worldview-atheist-worldview-and-logic
Heh, what's with the stream of lulz? Are you subconsciously copying Falconer's tactic because you feel threatened?
This is really getting ridiculous....your continuous assumptions about me. I frequently use "LOLOLOLOL" when I find something particularly amusing. And you don't have to take my word for it, I have used it several times in this forum And no, I didn't feel threatened. :wave:
-
I can't sit here and say what I have heard other atheists/agnostics voice "I lost a child, I got raped, I lost my spouse,.... and that is the exact moment that god and the Bible went out the window."
Apparently such events happening cause some people to become Christians (out of desperation, I guess)...although in my opinion, such atrocities are pretty clear signs that god is not there.
The difference now, as opposed to when I fully believed, is that I am once again amazed by the sheer will of the human body and mind to survive. Not by a supernatural act of a divine agent.
I'm always amazed by how much we can abuse our bodies and still be alive. Being extremely over- or underweight, drinking alcohol, eating only processed food, etc. Obviously there are consequences eventually. ;)
-
My issue and point in continuing this fruitless discussion
It's fruitless is you think you'll be able to convince the atheists/agnostics on here. We have a better chance of convincing you, although it's still not very likely. :sad1: People hate to change. :angry7:
"if science can't observe and test it, it isn't real." WHAT? That's ridiculous!
That's not a certainty. Plenty of things exist that we have no concept of yet (just think back to when you were a kid and compare all of the technology now). However, Christianity has had over 2,000 years to produce just ONE shred of legitimate evidence to its favor and has failed every time. While its possible there are invisible leprechauns/unicorns/gods who control the world, there's no good reason to believe there are. You can only play the mushy, amorphous, intangible god card for so long.
How juvenile is it to sit there and insist someone has the wrong answer, but when asked what the right answer is..."Well I don't know, I'm not qualified to answer that." Then you sure as hell are not qualified to insult someone else for the answer they believe to true!!
I thought the question was, "Does the Christian god exist?" NOT "What are the ultimate origins for the universe and how everything works?" You act like they are one-in-the-same, when they are not. We don't have to know 110% of all there is to know to be able to comprehend that the god of the Bible is just another myth.
As for you taking insult to the things skeptics say, you have to understand where the offense is coming from. Are you aware of even a fraction of the horrible things done in the name of Islam? (beheadings, stoning, genital mutilation, death to rape victims) They actually follow their holy book in that religion, and their god is based on the same god YOU worship. Now do you just sit back and tolerate this? Don't want to step on their precious faith, you say? HELL NO!! Religion causes horrible problems and may be the end to all of us if we can't grow out of these primitive, barbaric, childish, fantasy, unfounded ideas. THAT'S why I speak up, because I CARE what my fellow man thinks about what governs the universe because it has the potential to directly affect us all for the worse.
-
I need to go catch some zzzz's, there are some things I want to reply to/mention, so I will see you all later on - as usual. :wave:
-
Religion causes horrible problems and may be the end to all of us if we can't grow out of these primitive, barbaric, childish, fantasy, unfounded ideas
Getting rid of religion to get rid of it's abuse is like getting rid of money to get rid of greed. John Lennox
-
Religion causes horrible problems and may be the end to all of us if we can't grow out of these primitive, barbaric, childish, fantasy, unfounded ideas
Getting rid of religion to get rid of it's abuse is like getting rid of money to get rid of greed. John Lennox
To set the record straight, qon, our God is NOT based on the god of Islam. And because of what they do within their religion, with the intent on taking over the world with their religion, that's the ONLY reason I agree with your comment above - THEIR religion is put out deceptively to innocents that it is "God", but it is not OUR God, and they will pull anyone in that does not have their eyes opened. Otherwise, Christians that are of God the Father, do NOT need to grow out of your opinionated ideas. Oh, and by the way, I don't consider this a "fruitless" conversation when people are standing up for what they believe in, have faith and trust in, as in God. It seems as if it's fruitless only when it applies to Christians and what they are trying to say. I agree with you, though, that we should not allow the likes of Islam taking over and causing all the problems you listed that they do in the name of "allah." I do feel strongly against about what they are trying to do. I read just this week that Islam is now the 3rd major religion here in America (2nd in France, etc.) They are steadily achieving their goals and I am concerned.
-
That just goes to show you that she really had no "real" debate- when people find out they have no real debate, they cut out. As Christians, i'm glad we stood together against a person like that , who has a right to her own opinion, and results to name calling when they can't win an argument. Even if you are not a christian, it is not ok to insult someone just because they don't agree with you- I respect everyone's opininon, even if I don't agree with it, but don't stoop to name calling- you don't want someone to do it to you.
-
9+ years of school and huge amounts of $$ better have taught me a whole lot. Trust me, if I didn't, I would quickly lose my license as a Nurse Practioner along with my Board Certification in 3 areas of medicine.
Now I know! You have just opened the flood gates. In the future I will bombard you with random medical questions. Beware! Beware!
Yes, science has gaps. And it wears that badge with honor. RELIGION is the one that claims to have all the answers, even though when you compare the two, science is a lot more advanced and useful despite being somewhat incomplete. You really want to settle on creation myths just because you're uncomfortable about the answers (or lack of answers) to life's tough questions?
This is my philosophical concern within this whole thing.
Jcribbs post
Could I play the "Christianities Long History" card here? And arguably that both are actually looking forward* to the end of the world? Also that political officials still use their god as a verbal weapon to try to justify actions? Catholic priests hiding and allowing for immoral acts on innocent children? Ted Haggards hypocrisy and then blaming it on the devil so it's not really his fault? The list goes on. One may be more extreme, but the problems Queen listed remain in Christianity as well.
That just goes to show you that she really had no "real" debate- when people find out they have no real debate, they cut out
Did I miss something? Who are you referring to?
-
Religion causes horrible problems and may be the end to all of us if we can't grow out of these primitive, barbaric, childish, fantasy, unfounded ideas
Getting rid of religion to get rid of it's abuse is like getting rid of money to get rid of greed. John Lennox
Lessening religion's impact won't cure the world of all its ills, but it will certainly improve things. What I meant is that when you have people living in a fantasy world and couple that with destructive nuclear technology, we could all be wiped out. Will the fairy tales be worth it then?
-
To set the record straight, qon, our God is NOT based on the god of Islam.
Yes he is. All three of the "desert dogmas" (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are Abrahamic religions. Learn something new everyday, eh?
Want to see some of the scary similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible? http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html#creation (http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html#creation) (start reading at Creation and go through the 10 Commandments, basic concepts, similar practices, and moral codes)
Tell me what you think of the side-by-side comparisons and then try to tell me again that one of you worships the right god and the other the wrong god. ;)
-
To set the record straight, qon, our God is NOT based on the god of Islam.
Yes he is. All three of the "desert dogmas" (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are Abrahamic religions. Learn something new everyday, eh?
Want to see some of the scary similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible? http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html#creation (http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html#creation) (start reading at Creation and go through the 10 Commandments, basic concepts, similar practices, and moral codes)
Tell me what you think of the side-by-side comparisons and then try to tell me again that one of you worships the right god and the other the wrong god. ;)
*Desert dogma - A derogatory term given to the belief systems of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; because these three religions originated in the desert region of the Middle East and are known and criticized for their dogmatic ideologies; term was popularized by a well-known British atheist on YouTube named Pat Condell (Courtesy of "Urban Dictionary")
Three of the world's major religions -- the monotheist traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- were all born in the Middle East and are all inextricably linked to one another. Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition, and Islam developed from both Christianity and Judaism.
Because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all recognize Abraham as their first prophet, they are also called the Abrahamic religions.
(Courtesy of "Global Connections")
I will continue in the next post.
-
Post #2, continued:
Judaism's views of Christianity and Islam
Jews do not believe in the prophets after the Jewish prophets, including Jesus and Muhammad. Therefore, they do not subscribe to the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, nor do they believe in the teachings of Islam.
Christianity's views of Judaism and Islam
Although Christianity developed out of Judaic texts, Christians do not follow Jewish law. Instead, they believe that the ritualistic Jewish law was abrogated in favor of a universal gospel for all of humanity and the Christian teaching, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Christianity has also had a problematic relationship with Islam. Christians do not accept Muhammad as a prophet. While many Christians in the Middle East converted to Islam during and after the seventh century, the Church hierarchy in Rome and Constantinople considered Islam to be both a political and theological threat. The Crusades were an unsuccessful attempt to reverse the Islamic conquest of the eastern Mediterranean and the holy places of all three monotheistic religions.
Islam's views of Judaism and Christianity
Islam sees Judaism and Christianity as earlier versions of Islam, revelations given within the same tradition by Allah but misunderstood over time by their followers. Muslims see Islam as the final, complete, and correct revelation in the monotheistic tradition of the three faiths.
The Islamic tradition recognizes many of the Jewish and Christian prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (although he is not considered to be the son of God). Many non-Muslims mistakenly believe that Muhammad is the equivalent of Jesus in the Islamic tradition; in fact, it is the Quran that stands in the same central position in Islam as Jesus does in Christianity. Muhammad himself is not divine, but a prophet chosen by God to deliver his message and an example of piety to emulate.
(Courtesy of "Global Connections")
****** I say, once again, that as a Christian, OUR God is NOT based on Islam; Islam is developed from Christianity and Judaism.
-
Lessening religion's impact won't cure the world of all its ills, but it will certainly improve things. What I meant is that when you have people living in a fantasy world and couple that with destructive nuclear technology, we could all be wiped out. Will the fairy tales be worth it then?
I think believing the fantasy that there is no God is much more harmful to society.
You like to bring up examples such as the Inquisition and the Crusades. Many other Christians were brought before the Inquisition because they were teaching from the Bible instead of from "officially sanctioned" Roman Catholic Church materials. In addition, the Crusades resulted in "holy" wars between "Christians," Jews, and Moslems. In more modern times, wars have been fought between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. However, common to all this violence was an underlying struggle for power. Today, some people kill abortionists in the name of God. Are these people unwilling pawns of religion or using religion to justify their own evil agendas?http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html
You like to talk about how Hitler was Catholic. Have you read about Hitler's spiritual journey? Have you read anything about Hitler's dabbling in the occult? Are you aware that Hitler persoanlly presented the writings of Nietzche to Stalin and Mussolini? Are you ignoring the fact that others who were not Jewish were also slaughtered by Hitler? Did you read *bleep* mastermind Adolf Eichmann's last words that refused repentance and denied belief in God? Do you know how many Russians were killed by the *bleep* machine? Do you recall Hitler's words inscribed over one of the gas ovens in Auschwits, "I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel"? Do you know that Hitler's point was that the destruction of the weak is a good thing for the survival of the strong and that "nature intended it that way", as is taught by atheistic evolution's tenet of natural selection--"the survival of the fittest". None of these signs of the Holocaust point back to Christianity.
How conveniently the atheist plays word games. When it is Stalin or Pol Pot who does the slaughtering, it is because they are deranged or irrational; their atheism had nothing to do their actions.
Vox Day, in The Irrational Atheist, lists 22 atheistic regimes that committed 153,368,610 murders in the 20th century alone:
Murders by Atheists (20th Century)
Country Dates Murders
Afghanistan 1978–1992 1,750,000
Albania 1944–1985 100,000
Angola 1975–2002 125,000
Bulgaria 1944–1989 222,000
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
Cuba 1959–1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948–1968 65,000
Ethiopia 1974–1991 1,343,610
France 1793–1794 40,000
Greece 1946–1949 20,000
Hungary 1948–1989 27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973–1991 2,627,000
Laos 1975–2007 93,000
Mongolia 1926–2007 100,000
Mozambique 1975–1990 118,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,607,000
Romania 1948–1987 438,000
Spain (Republic) 1936–1939 102,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
Vietnam 1945–2007 1,670,000
Yugoslavia 1944–1980 1,072,000
Yes, "Christians" have committed atrocities against other religious and non-religious people. However, atheists have committed far more atrocities than all religious groups combined (see more statistics on the web page). Even so, the key factor in these atrocities has been totalitarian power, rather than religion, which has resulted in these hundreds of millions of murders. The Bible says that people are evil, but that they can become transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit to live lives of love, joy and peace.
You can't judge a philosophy by it's abuse. The decisions and actions of each individual are determined by what is important to that individual. The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violations of or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief.
-
I say, once again, that as a Christian, OUR God is NOT based on Islam; Islam is developed from Christianity and Judaism
I agree jcribb. And in doing studies of Islam and it's origins, I learned that Allah was actually one of several gods who actually had a female consort named Allat. Ironically Allat was regarded as the most powerful and Allah was a nearly disregarded and forgotten god. Muhammad wished to make conversion to his "religion" easier and in the original writings in the Koran, he wrote verses talking about al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. These became known as "the satanic verses".
Surah 53 reads
Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza
And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20)
Then, originally, the verses (known today as the satanic verses) followed:
These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries)
Whose intercession is to be hoped for.
But Muhammad soon retracted the reconciliation—how soon is not clear. For the account continues that Jibril (Gabriel), the angel of revelation, informed Muhammad that Satan had used Muhammad's desire for reconciliation with the pagan leaders to insert into the revelation of God the verses about the interceding cranes, otherwise called "the satanic verses". http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/satanicverses.htm
Allah is a pagan god whose roots can be traced to pagan gods talked about in the bible. His name changed over time (but still retains the root name from his ancestors). Muhammad get much his material from the bible and thus the parallels however, the god they worship is not the God of the bible.
-
I think believing the fantasy that there is no God is much more harmful to society.
You can't have a fantasy if there's nothing fantastical within the reasoning.
You like to talk about how Hitler was Catholic. Have you read about Hitler's spiritual journey?
If I recall, that was just a rebuttal to your Kirk Cameron reasonings for tying Darwin to Hitler which ultimately made no sense. Both had other presentations of thought.
"I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel"
Ah yes. No doubt an obvious atheist code of conduct! They're all secretly out to make us terminators!
Murders by Atheists (20th Century)
Yes, "Christians" have committed atrocities against other religious and non-religious people. However, atheists have committed far more atrocities than all religious groups combined (see more statistics on the web page).
Christian is acting in violations of or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief.
This is like saying "Murders by people who like bread". People don't kill over atheism like they do religion-- you put it on the same node as a religion here. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist in the name of atheism is like being killed by a fat person in the name of fatties. I've been in this argument with that Rwdeese guy and I recall we both agreed most wars in the 20th century were caused by other big agendas by absolutely insane assholes with power rather than just free-thought or religious beliefs. The problem you're capitalizing upon is accountability. You're acting as if the person who does not have a god believes they are not accountable for anything which is is a completely naive and bogus statement. Those who are sane and have standards believe they are accountable for their actions. Especially when you live in a society that promotes such conduct with freedom; atheists don't need imaginary browny points going towards an eternal reward for good behavior.
-
If I recall, that was just a rebuttal to your Kirk Cameron reasonings for tying Darwin to Hitler which ultimately made no sense
Descent of Man By Charles Darwin
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).
A few paragraphs further reads:
Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes.
Thomas Huxley, a close friend of Darwin and a fierce advocate of evolution writes:
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, p. 20).
Hitler frequently appealed to Darwinian logic. Here are a few examples from one chapter of Mein Kampf:
. . . the most patent principles of Nature’s rule. . .
. . . it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level . . .
. . . the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . .
Enough said.
Those who are sane and have standards believe they are accountable for their actions.
And you did just what I said atheists do, they play word games. They like to blame insane and irrational acts of people who do evil things in the name of religion, on the religion. But bring up people who committed atrocities who were atheists, and it has nothing to do with their worldview, they are just insane.
-
I say, once again, that as a Christian, OUR God is NOT based on Islam; Islam is developed from Christianity and Judaism
I agree jcribb. And in doing studies of Islam and it's origins, I learned that Allah was actually one of several gods who actually had a female consort named Allat. Ironically Allat was regarded as the most powerful and Allah was a nearly disregarded and forgotten god. Muhammad wished to make conversion to his "religion" easier and in the original writings in the Koran, he wrote verses talking about al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. These became known as "the satanic verses".
Surah 53 reads
Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza
And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20)
Then, originally, the verses (known today as the satanic verses) followed:
These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries)
Whose intercession is to be hoped for.
But Muhammad soon retracted the reconciliation—how soon is not clear. For the account continues that Jibril (Gabriel), the angel of revelation, informed Muhammad that Satan had used Muhammad's desire for reconciliation with the pagan leaders to insert into the revelation of God the verses about the interceding cranes, otherwise called "the satanic verses". http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/satanicverses.htm
Allah is a pagan god whose roots can be traced to pagan gods talked about in the bible. His name changed over time (but still retains the root name from his ancestors). Muhammad get much his material from the bible and thus the parallels however, the god they worship is not the God of the bible.
Thank you, Sherna!!!!
-
atheists have committed far more atrocities than all religious groups combined
That's impossible from statistics alone. Only a very small percentage of people are even comfortable labeling themselves an "atheist", and the non-religious in general have maxed out at only 20% of the world's population so far.
Like Falconer said, though: "People don't kill over atheism like they do religion-- you put it on the same node as a religion here. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for."
Those who have killed and not happened to have been associated with a religion probably weren't very much associated with atheism, either. Their evil came from within, just like a Christian's can come from within, but you're forgetting an entirely separate branch of evil which is bad things done specifically in the name of god that could not be justified without a belief in said god.
-
As for Darwin being a racist with flaws in his theory, yes, that's very possible. But remember the time he lived and you'll realize such a stance wasn't uncommon; also, there are going to be flaws in his theory from back then because the fossil record was incomplete and DNA hadn't even been discovered.
Such events do not discount the fact of evolution one bit. Scientists that have followed Darwin have simply picked up where he left off and improved things, further strengthening the solid evidence for common ancestry.
-
People don't kill over atheism like they do religion
People don't kill over religion either, common to all this violence was an underlying struggle for power.
The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violations of or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief.
People who don't believe in a moral law giver have no moral framework with which to model themselves. Atheism doesn't believe in a moral law giver, therefore each person models their morals after what is important to them as an individual. There are certain things mans law will hold them accountable for, but who were these horrible dictators who embraced the idea of "no god" accountable to?? Hitler got off scott free. There was no accountability. He killed himself, and according to you, that's it. There is no justice for the people he slaughtered according to atheism.
As for Islam, the Koran promotes Jihad and there are several verses which talk about rewards for fighting in "Allah's way" (Jihad). My dad (born in Iran) grew up hearing chant mantras about hate for Jews and America. Christian children do not grow up chanting about hate towards any other types of people. If you don't see a difference between Islam and the Judeo-Christian bequest, I dare you to go to Saudi Arabia or Iran (or any Islamic country) and deliver the message of religious delusion and hate speech towards God, there. If you want evidence for the difference between the two systems, go and test it out. Islam is a religion of power, the Christian faith is one of communion and relationship with the One who made us.
As for Darwin being a racist with flaws in his theory, yes, that's very possible. But remember the time he lived and you'll realize such a stance wasn't uncommon; also, there are going to be flaws in his theory from back then because the fossil record was incomplete and DNA hadn't even been discovered
This doesn't change the fact that a control hungry maniac like Hitler, took Darwin's racism and comments about obliterating inferior races of peoples and ran with it.
And I didn't even bring up flaws in his theory. My point was in defending linking Hitler to Darwin and pointing out that just because he was born into Catholicism doesn't mean that his actions were driven by religious faith. In the end, he embraced the idea of no god and embraced the idea that he needed to eradicate inferior races of people. In this case he killed "in the name of Darwin" when you get to the base of his thinking. Is Darwin responsible for Hitler's actions? No, Hitler is responsible for himself.
Point: Getting rid of religion to get rid of it's abuse is like getting rid of money to get rid of greed. Religion (with possibly the exception of Islam which teaches to eradicate infidels in holy war) is not the problem. People are the problem. If there were no religion and no one believed in God, I can't imagine the havoc that would be wrought among power hungry individuals and the unfortunate people whom they wish to control or eliminate.
further strengthening the solid evidence for common ancestry
Hmmm, sorry but the Cambrian explosion actually made a very bad case for common ancestry. Gould tried to make an explanatory theory called "punctuated equilibrium". Well this contradicts Dawkin's "blind watch maker" theory. Quite frankly, if evolution from a universal common ancestor is true, Dawkin's would have a spankin good theory. However, his theory does not account for the massive amount of complex organisms that appear suddenly in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium does not explain common ancestry and the blind watchmaker cannot explain the fossil record. So, there is no solid evidence for common ancestry.
-
People who don't believe in a moral law giver have no moral framework with which to model themselves. Atheism doesn't believe in a moral law giver, therefore each person models their morals after what is important to them as an individual.
Since when does morality come ONLY from the belief in a moral law giver or a book of moral laws ie the Bible, referenced for the sake of this debate - it could be any religious based book. Are you saying or implying that every single person who calls himself a christian is completely literate as to what is even in the Bible? This goes back to the "every person sitting in church on a Sunday is there to seek/glorify god" - you even agreed with me in that thinking being flawed. I can only speak for myself, but I get my morals and a framework in which to put them from myself and from society. Yes, I DO go by what is important to me as an individual, but is it any different then what you go by because you HAVE/lay claim to the belief in the [supreme] moral law giver, god, Allah, Jesus, etc., depending on what one follows as their faith? I don't have a desire to be killed, so I don't kill others. I don't want someone stealing from me, so I don't steal from others.
There are many people, like Hitler, who have a desire for POWER over anything else. Power over a woman to rape her, power because they have a gun and want the money that is in a store, power over a child who is smaller and weaker so they can wield force and beat that child. There are a thousand ways the desire for power can manifest itself and it does regardless of whether or not they have any morals or moral framework from the same giver of them that you or anyone else has.
-
your not retarted if you believe in god
-
When you assert that there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such a thing as good.
When you say there is such a thing as good, you must assume there is a moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. There must be some standard by which to determine what is good and what is evil.
When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver, the source of the moral law
The person who moralizes assumes intrinsic worth in them self and transfers intrinsic worth to the life of another, and thus they consider that life worthy of protection. Transcending value must come from a person of transcending worth. But in a world in which matter alone exists (atheistic world) there can be no intrinsic worth.
To believe that there is no ultimate moral order, one must assume knowledge of what a moral order would look like if there were one. But why should one person's opinion of what the moral order should look like be any more authentic than anyone else's? In the case of Hitler, who has the authority to say he is wrong for killing innocents? Because you say so? Because society says so? Well, if that's the case then morality is up for a vote and can be changed at any time, and even more disturbing can be changed by whoever happens to have power to control masses of people! Therefore there is no moral framework by which a person can moralize and it's very easy for someone who is power hungry like Hitler to decide morality for himself.
But, since you do the same, even if you would never do what Hitler did; what makes you right and him wrong?
"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.
From one of my posts from Hell is unattended stove.
This is an atheist implying that Hitler simply decided his morality was superior and he simply chose not to recognize the conventional morality. Which, as a person free to make his own, he was in perfect right to do so.
The End of Reason: Ravi Zacharias.
-
im so confused now
-
im so confused now
There is a big debate going on in here, you'll have to read it all before you understand any of it hun.
-
In addition to what I said about atheists/myself taking my morals and moral framework from society, haven't christians/believers themselves changed that moral framework they were given because of influence from the society they live in? According to the moral framework in the Bible, was it NOT morally acceptable to stone or kill a woman who was a prostitute, cut off the hand of a thief, all the other things that are no longer acceptable in today's world for the most part? I say "most part" because I know that those very behaviours ARE still acceptable in parts of the world. We all know society does NOT say it is justifiable or okay to stone or kill prostitutes and that very society includes atheists and agnostics. I don't think any christian or believer can say they DO NOT model parts of their morality outside the parameters given by a 'moral law maker'.
I hope what I have said makes some sense. I'm tired, need once again to get some sleep, but I know what I am attempting to get across here..... :P
-
ok so i feel that no one is retarded
-
People don't kill over religion either
Now that is just a bold-faced lie. Did you not read where I agreed with you that some people will do bad things religion or not, but "you're forgetting an entirely separate branch of evil which is bad things done specifically in the name of god that could not be justified without a belief in said god"? I swear, y'all just gloss right over the good points non-Christians make.
People who don't believe in a moral law giver have no moral framework with which to model themselves.
I'd like to invest stock in thinking caps and pass them out...my moral framework is exactly the same as yours.
Do you follow U.S. laws when it comes to driving, going to school, paying your taxes, and other basic things? Cool, I do too.
Would you rather not get killed, and realize that society would fall apart if we all killed each other? Cool, I do too!
Do you realize that stealing undermines the business system, raising prices for everyone? Hey, I'm with you there, too!
Do you ignore the Bible when it says stone unruly children, kill a woman who's not a virgin on her wedding night, kill homosexuals, kill witches, kill adulterers, kill those who worship another/no god, kill those who curse their parents, and kill those who work on the Sabbath? Hey, me too! ;)
Atheism doesn't believe in a moral law giver, therefore each person models their morals after what is important to them as an individual.
Uh, no, everyone does. But that is really only for the little stuff, like if one person thinks it's wrong to use profanity ever and the next doesn't care. There are common morals that most SANE humans share, to include don't murder or rape (both of which are commanded in the Bible, btw). Y'all must not think very highly of humanity if you think we need a magical sky father telling us that killing and raping innocents is wrong.
Hitler got off scott free. There was no accountability. He killed himself, and according to you, that's it. There is no justice for the people he slaughtered according to atheism.
And your idea of "justice" is having Hitler be in agony for all eternity? Please. That's not justice. That's just sick.
I know it sucks and is horrible that some people get away with unthinkable crimes, but try to keep those feelings grounded and face reality. Wishing bad people to an invisible bad place won't do an ounce of good. All we can do is try to learn from these atrocities and prevent them in the future. You are, again, asking the wrong thing to demand "justice" where none is possible (other than the fact that Hitler is dead and can no longer do harm...is that not good enough??). The universe doesn't owe us ANYTHING, it just is.
Christian children do not grow up chanting about hate towards any other types of people.
Some of them most certainly do. And the rest get indoctrinated and brainwashed of a different color.
This doesn't change the fact that a control hungry maniac like Hitler, took Darwin's racism and comments about obliterating inferior races of peoples and ran with it.
And teen's have killed themselves to Blink-182's "Adam's Song".
If there were no religion and no one believed in God, I can't imagine the havoc that would be wrought among power hungry individuals and the unfortunate people whom they wish to control or eliminate.
I'm sure that would happen to some degree, but do you seriously think eliminating religion would not help anything?
Hmmm, sorry but the Cambrian explosion actually made a very bad case for common ancestry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1-Iqt02Asg
-
"
you're forgetting an entirely separate branch of evil which is bad things done specifically in the name of god that could not be justified without a belief in said god"?
It still isn't justified with a belief in God. If the person is a Christian and slaughtering in the name of God, they are violating the tenets of their faith. So it has nothing to do with the religion itself, it is about the person doing things in the name of a religion that clearly says they are wrong.
murder or rape (both of which are commanded in the Bible
Either you have some type of memory disorder or you have conveniently forgotten where I showed you that the bible does not command rape and murder ::)
If matter is all there is, there is no moral law. Bottom line. Your actions have nothing to do with ultimate morality and conditioned with society.
Here is a brief exchange between you and I from another thread.
Me
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?
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.
If you came from mindless matter, anything you do is because you were determined to do. Hitler was determined to do what he did and therefore no one has a right to admonish him for it. Even the actions of people who you would like to use as examples for your mission of eradicating religion, were determined to be and act the way they did.
Some of them most certainly do
Examples?
And teen's have killed themselves to Blink-182's "Adam's Song".
Either you are completely missing my point or you refuse to just admit you were wrong in trying to blame Catholicism for Hitler's actions. The POINT is that Hitler WAS influenced by the writings of Darwin.
do you seriously think eliminating religion would not help anything
Yep.
-
In addition to what I said about atheists/myself taking my morals and moral framework from society, haven't christians/believers themselves changed that moral framework they were given because of influence from the society they live in? According to the moral framework in the Bible, was it NOT morally acceptable to stone or kill a woman who was a prostitute, cut off the hand of a thief, all the other things that are no longer acceptable in today's world for the most part? I say "most part" because I know that those very behaviours ARE still acceptable in parts of the world. We all know society does NOT say it is justifiable or okay to stone or kill prostitutes and that very society includes atheists and agnostics. I don't think any christian or believer can say they DO NOT model parts of their morality outside the parameters given by a 'moral law maker'.
I hope what I have said makes some sense. I'm tired, need once again to get some sleep, but I know what I am attempting to get across here..... :P
Unfortunately Christians have become insensitive to issues as they become acceptable to society. As for stonings and what not in the bible, that is the equivalent to getting the death penalty today. That is how they carried out the law, and the laws were MUCH stricter in those times. The crime to population ratio was also incredibly lower! God's people were given very strict laws in which to set them apart from other nations. When Jesus came to fulfill that law, the necessity for those laws became moot.
So, as for comparing laws from the bible, well the moral laws that Christians SHOULD abide by are still framed by the law giver but under a new covenant. Laws that still set us apart from the world. Does every Christian do it? No. That's what sin is! However, they can't make an excuse for their immorality because EVEN if society says something is okay, by God's morals (which are very strict) we as Christians violate our beliefs when we deny that law and act on our own guide of what is right and wrong.
A person calling themselves Christian and advocating gay marriage, abortion, etc...they are violating Christian belief. That doesn't eliminate the law giver, it just means that Christian is violating the law. A non-Christian does not have this framework and therefore (to them) are not violating anything. They are free to form their own values. And in some, this freedom is abused as an excuse to do what they will.
My point is that, forming your own morals and values seems great and liberating until someone abuses it and because there is no ultimate morality they technically are not in the wrong. Your morals are no better than the neighbors who chooses to torture neighborhood cats with pellet guns. Oh, wait...society says it's wrong? Who cares, with morality, majority doesn't matter. My vote alone counts, and as long as I can get away with it, it isn't wrong.
If God says it's wrong, then there is something by which to measure good and evil. No one has an excuse if there is an objective morality. There can't be an objective morality without the existence of a moral God.
A Christian modeling even a portion their morals outside of God's moral framework are violating their Christian beliefs.
-
It still isn't justified with a belief in God. If the person is a Christian and slaughtering in the name of God, they are violating the tenets of their faith. So it has nothing to do with the religion itself, it is about the person doing things in the name of a religion that clearly says they are wrong.
Well god both commands people to murder but also says "thou shalt not kill", so can you blame people for being confused?
Just because you follow a peaceful, lovey version of Christianity (due to secular morality, I might add) doesn't mean person X's Christianity that follows the Bible literally is less valid. You're both equally invalid.
Either you have some type of memory disorder or you have conveniently forgotten where I showed you that the bible does not command rape and murder
People can read the Bible for themselves and then decide if they want to read it plainly, or jump though hoops justifying all of the atrocities away with excuses of "historical/scriptural context" like you do.
If god said/did something and it's bad, it's bad period. No excuses allowed.
If matter is all there is, there is no moral law. Bottom line. Your actions have nothing to do with ultimate morality and conditioned with society.
Yes, there is no "ultimate moral law". You act like you've just said checkmate with this, when you haven't. There is no ultimate moral law with god either because if god decided murder was okay, it would be okay because god says so, not because murder is "ultimately" bad or good. And now you want to claim that god would never say murder is good, "god doesn't change", when he clearly does over and over again in the Bible. Also, god would trump the laws because he makes the laws, so if god says go kill your kids, you would have to do it. What do you think about that?
Morality evolves because we don't always get it right. While raping might not be "bad" in some universal sense, it's bad for practical reasons, and that's reason enough not to do it. I don't need some outside force's stamp of denial to know certain behaviors aren't ideal. It comes down to cause and effect, and that's science.
If you came from mindless matter, anything you do is because you were determined to do.
Determinism isn't proven, so stop acting like it is. No one lives like determinism is true. There is a difference between the inanimate (rocks) and the animate (you), and that difference is the ability to predict our own futures and play out events before they happen.
just admit you were wrong in trying to blame Catholicism for Hitler's actions.
I didn't 100% blame Catholicism, although he did say he was doing "god's work". And extinguishing the JEWS? Come on, now...surely you see the connection. The only reason I ever mention Hitler is because people like to accuse him of having being an atheist, when he wasn't.
-
A person calling themselves Christian and advocating gay marriage, abortion, etc...they are violating Christian belief...A non-Christian does not have this framework and therefore (to them) are not violating anything.
It's not violating anything because there's nothing to violate. There is no rational reason to prohibit gays from marrying...it's really quite horrible for you guys to wage so much hate against something that represents LOVE. And I really don't know why you don't get on the atheist/agnostic boat, too, and say WE aren't allowed to marry...we're desecrating the "sanctity" of marriage too, aren't we?
I know why you guys don't speak out against atheist marriage...it's because you know you'd look friggin' NUTS if you did. But gays? They stick penises in butts and that's gross, so *now* we actually have something here. ::)
with morality, majority doesn't matter.
Yes it does. You can do naughty things all you like, but if you're infringing on the rights of another, you're going to get locked up. This state of things maximizes health, happiness, and harmony for the most people.
If God says it's wrong, then there is something by which to measure good and evil.
Yeah, but have you ever asked yourself WHY the things he says are wrong are "wrong"? Sex outside of marriage, for instance: completely bogus. There's no good reason to harp on and on about that. Safe sex, committed partner? Yes. Owning a piece of paper that says you're wed? No.
-
You know, I've written this before, and I will write it again. The Old Testament of the Bible changed after Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected the 3rd day (Easter.) Jesus was our sacrifice and is now our mediator between Him and God, the Father. In the Old Testament, sacrifices were given (such as animals.) When Abraham was told to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, Abraham did not want to do that but trusted God had a reason and would take care of him and Isaac. God already knew He would NOT allow it to happen, but it showed the depth and loyalty of Abraham to God. God then provided the lamb himself, in the bushes. Sounds strange to me, I will admit, but that's the way it was. We are not commanded to do that today, from the New Testament, since Jesus IS our sacrifice and our way to eternal life with God. I know you don't believe this, but that's okay. I'm telling it anyway. We can debate all day on this, if we need to - I will just keep delving deeper to shed light on this.
-
People can read the Bible for themselves and then decide if they want to read it plainly, or jump though hoops justifying all of the atrocities away with excuses of "historical/scriptural context" like you do.
If god said/did something and it's bad, it's bad period. No excuses allowed.
And you jump through hoops denying any legitimate explanations, to justify your "God is evil" message. God never did anything bad. No excuses needed.
There is no ultimate moral law with god either because if god decided murder was okay, it would be okay because god says so,
God wouldn't decide murder is okay. And you need to understand the murder we are talking about, killing without cause. Murder is not the same as killing. There is accidental murder, which the commandment "Thou shall not kill" doesn't apply to. There is killing in war which is inevitable and necessary in defending a just cause, this is not what the commandment refers to. Murdering someone is evil, God is incapable of evil and therefore cannot commit nor would condone or command it.
While raping might not be "bad" in some universal sense, it's bad for practical reasons
So what about the person who disagrees with you? The rapist who thinks, there is no moral standard but his own and he is not wrong? The law may hold him responsible but that still doesn't make it personally defined as wrong. He made his own morals and values and exerting power in the form of rape just so happened to make him happy. With no objective moral law, he is not wrong, no matter how many people would disagree with it, they are only disagreeing from their own personal morals, which are no better since there is no ultimate moral law with which to define right and wrong.
Determinism isn't proven, so stop acting like it is.
LOL, I'm not acting like it is! I don't believe everything is physical and came from matter! You do! You can try to defend a non-determinist position but you only contradict yourself in terms of your own worldview! And the reason determinism ISN'T proven is BECAUSE the mind ISN'T physical. If you believe the mind is physical you only contradict your own belief in denying determinism. You can't have it both ways.
although he did say he was doing "god's work". And extinguishing the JEWS?
Well it wasn't the Christian God. Here are a few quotes, funny....the atheists and agnostics here echo Hitler's hateful and intolerant words. :confused1:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
-
I know why you guys don't speak out against atheist marriage...it's because you know you'd look friggin' NUTS if you did.
This is a nonsense comparison, one has nothing to do with the other. ???
Yes it does. You can do naughty things all you like, but if you're infringing on the rights of another, you're going to get locked up
There are laws which man has created to keep social order. However, how many people suffer abuse and the abuser is never caught. They don't get locked up. They made their own code of morality and essentially are perfectly justified to play out their own lusts on whatever hapless victim comes their way.
You tried to use the example...what if God said murder was ok? Well since morality is up for a majority vote, what if government and law makers said it was ok? As a matter of fact, they already have said it was okay, in the form of abortion. The majority (in power) redefined the boundaries of what is considered murder and said abortion is okay. :sad1:
Sex outside of marriage, for instance: completely bogus.
According to your personally fashioned set of morals and values. Not mine, because I hold myself accountable to a moral law giver who said it's not okay, He has his reasons (to which I am not going to waste my time here explaining and Annella actually did explain on another thread) and I trust my Creator wants what is best for me. This is what sets Christians apart from the world, or what should, if they truly value the righteousness God has called them to.
And also, the act of sex is what constituted marriage in the bible, there was no ceremony and a piece of paper. In which case, according to God, you are married by the act of sex. Any sexual act with a person outside of that first sexual act is considered adultery. So what you are defining as sex outside of marriage is not the same as God's definition.
-
:D :D
It takes more faith to not believe God exist!
I know what you're trying to say ("Look at the pretty, complex world! I don't understand how this could have come about on its own!"), but your cliche statement is incorrect at the most basic level.
What is the proper definition of atheism?
A = "without" Theism = "belief in god(s)"
What is the proper definition of faith?
Faith = Belief without good evidence, or belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
So how can I have "faith" (belief) in a lack of belief (atheism)? Also, most peoples' reasons for atheism ARE based on logical proofs and material evidence - a.k.a. the exact opposite of faith.
It certainly takes more faith to believe in a god of talking snakes, cursed fruit, global floods, man-eating fish, virgin births, talking donkeys, etc. etc.!! Remember, faith is belief without good evidence...and you certainly don't have good evidence for any of this!
-
Not the nicest title fo' sure, but there was some good convo going.
Continued:
Did you all know that SCIENTISTS have proved that there is a section of the brain that is not available for use to anyone who does not believe in God. It is only used when God is showing an individual an awesome secret. Many scientists have become Christians when they had planned to devote their entire lives to prove there was no God. In trying to prove this, they found out instead that there is a God. Amen!
I hate when believers try to claim science for their side. They seem to always end up epically failing!
Okay, #1: that is ridiculous to say "there is a whole section of brain not available to use for non-believers". The part of the brain you are referring to is due to EVOLUTION and while atheists might use it LESS, this is certainly not something for your side to brag about because that area is where primitive irrationality stems from.
#2 Having an area in your brain that is susceptible to heavenly hallucinations only proves evolution, because when you die, so does your brain. If "the god experience" was actually LEGIT, it would NOT be an integral part of your brain, because your personality can be completely changed if you get a head injury, making you NOT believe in god, or believe in a *different* god.
#3 92+% of the National Academy of Scientists don't believe in god. That's not just a majority -- it's an overwhelming majority. So what are you talkin' about?
The God Helmet: This Helmet Made Me Believe!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnRd49L7X3s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnRd49L7X3s)
-
God is incapable of evil and therefore cannot commit nor would condone or command it.
And you jump through hoops denying any legitimate explanations, to justify your "God is evil" message. God never did anything bad. No excuses needed.
Except being ominpotent and omniscient and still creating (or being the catalyst for) the aspect of evil. Ultimately your god knows past, present, and future and he allows for this aspect to thrive as it will only prove his point and allow him victory. Thus he has a stacked deck and everyone around the table is dealing with a cheater under the guise* of him being a nice and honest guy. Unless you're going to introduce some crazy time paradox or go for some cop-out "we're mere humans and don't get it" argument, it's obvious his granting of free will is a clever lie. Can you explain to me through an understandable philosophy of how your god is not a cheater? That in itself is pretty evil. I'd really be interested in hearing your reasoning.
There are laws which man has created to keep social order. However, how many people suffer abuse and the abuser is never caught. They don't get locked up. They made their own code of morality and essentially are perfectly justified to play out their own lusts on whatever hapless victim comes their way.
So let's put tribal curses on them all. That'll make us feel all better. This hell idea seems pretty good, but I think voodoo is as well.
Well since morality is up for a majority vote, what if government and law makers said it was ok?
It has always been like this in societies though. Always. That's basically why there are differences within societies around the world. I think a better question would be why would any rational lawmakers in a decent country bluntly allow for all murder? What would provoke such a new moral? Zombies? This is a case-by-case situation and why there are different types of murder labels.
in the form of abortion
since there is no ultimate moral law with which to define right and wrong
Totally agree. The moral sense is such a burden when complexities arise.
-
Except being ominpotent and omniscient and still creating (or being the catalyst for) the aspect of evil. Ultimately your god knows past, present, and future and he allows for this aspect to thrive as it will only prove his point and allow him victory. Thus he has a stacked deck and everyone around the table is dealing with a cheater under the guise* of him being a nice and honest guy. Unless you're going to introduce some crazy time paradox or go for some cop-out "we're mere humans and don't get it" argument, it's obvious his granting of free will is a clever lie. Can you explain to me through an understandable philosophy of how your god is not a cheater? That in itself is pretty evil. I'd really be interested in hearing your reasoning.
I really don't think you are interested in hearing my reasoning. Everything I say you determine is delusional, sooooooo unless your interest is having another reason to laugh at my delusion, then I'm not buying that. Besides the fact that you have already read my posts saying that God did not create evil. Evil is akin to darkness...darkness is not a created thing, it is the absence of light, the same with coldness, there is technically no such thing...cold is the absence of heat. Heat can be measured by thermal units because heat has energy, cold isn't the opposite of heat it is the absence of it.
And people who want to get out of the discomfort of the universe having had a beginning and a cause, have no problem going into realms of "craziness" in hypothesizing infinite universes and what not. So, since you already know that I believe that God exists outside of time, and outside of the restrictions of physical law (which he would have to be in order to create it) why would you find my reasoning interesting? Please don't patronize me with insincere "bait". You consider me delusional, well when it comes to my "God delusion" I am not ashamed of it. And no amount of opposing material that I have had the pleasure of reading has sounded very rational to me, so it's not likely that anything you or anyone else says who are not scientific experts are going to convince me that I'm wrong.
So let's put tribal curses on them all. That'll make us feel all better. This hell idea seems pretty good, but I think voodoo is as well.
Well this really has nothing to do with anything I said. Unless you are becoming obsessed with hell like queen is. :confused1:
-
Evil is akin to darkness...darkness is not a created thing, it is the absence of light,
But god created everything which would include the ( or the concept of the) absense of something, so...?
why would you find my reasoning interesting?
I have had the pleasure of reading has sounded very rational to me, so it's not likely that anything you or anyone else says who are not scientific experts are going to convince me that I'm wrong.
This isn't a science question though. It's philosophical! I'm trying to understand the mindset of someone who admits they don't understand a metaphysical beings purpose due to the limitations of nature but then says they understand at the same time. I may be shooting all over the place here, but if he's so well-defined with human qualities and yet he's so mysterious as to his ultimate agenda, why do you put blind faith in a mysterious but well-defined cheating deity? I mean if he were real and he was not cheating, there should be some natural reasons or supernatural explanations showing so to cover his tracks. Given my example of having a stacked deck, how would you explain he is not cheating without the use of the blind faith card? I hope I'm wording this right :P
Well this really has nothing to do with anything I said. Unless you are becoming obsessed with hell like queen is.
Hahah nah. I only say this is because hell just seems to be the viable option for the religious at getting back at someone that gets away with something deemed evil. Curse them all!
-
But god created everything which would include the ( or the concept of the) absense of something, so...?
How do you create the absence of something? I mean darkness is the inevitable result of no light. It's not created....I'm not understanding your logic here, so I don't know how to answer that.
I'm trying to understand the mindset of someone who admits they don't understand a metaphysical beings purpose due to the limitations of nature but then says they understand at the same time
There are certain things that are easy to understand, there are certain things I only partially understand, and there are things that will always be outside of my ability to understand. Every Christian is in the same boat but at different levels of understanding within the two available areas that our human logic allows us to understand God.
And your wording is very amusing. I don't have blind faith in a cheating deity. I don't have blind faith in my sovereign Creator.
Blind faith is when you have been given no rational or tangible reason to trust somebody or trust in something, and yet you do anyway. You simply decide to trust, even though you've seen no evidence to lead you to that decision.
That statement does not represent my faith in God. I have enough evidence to reasonably apply faith towards the aspects of God that I don't know.
hell just seems to be the viable option for the religious at getting back at someone that gets away with something deemed evil
Well, I really don't want to get into another hell argument but I will reiterate here that hell is not for bad (evil) people. Everyone is bad according to God's high standards, if that's where bad people (sinners) go, we all go and God will be utterly alone in heaven. No, hell is for people who don't want Him. (I only say this to remind you of my own position on the purpose of hell, not to get off topic with another argument)
-
How do you create the absence of something? I mean darkness is the inevitable result of no light. It's not created....I'm not understanding your logic here, so I don't know how to answer that.
I dunno either! Ask your god! lol My point here is that your god created everything including our concept/definition of nothing. Rationally 'nothing' makes no sense since we cannot grasp it. But seeing how we're dealing with the supernatural, it can make sense since it allows for such things. Do you use the same method in justifying him in reality and say he's not playing with a stacked deck?
Rationally Yahweh (given his traits) is cheating -> using the 'mysterious metaphysical' concept he is not -> therefore he is not cheating due to the placement of irrationality -> The irrational justifies Yahweh
Every Christian is in the same boat but at different levels of understanding within the two available areas that our human logic allows us to understand God.
So your god limited us to understand things. Especially something vital like understanding the nature (or, if you will, 'super nature') of his existence. Why? I would think that's extremely vital information for someone to follow him. If I believed this, I would presume doing this was a fail-safe on his creations. But just relying on faith it seems like someone would rather not think about it and just accept it.
That statement does not represent my faith in God. I have enough evidence to reasonably apply faith towards the aspects of God that I don't know.
Evidence? Let me grab my PKE meter! If I recall your story, does this just fall on emotional struggles you had in your life? I'm just really curious what this means when you use the word 'evidence'.
I only say this to remind you of my own position on the purpose of hell, not to get off topic with another argument
Okay I'll try to remember. Don't quote me on that though. I have the memory of a goldfish.
-
Rationally Yahweh (given his traits) is cheating -> using the 'mysterious metaphysical' concept he is not -> therefore he is not cheating due to the placement of irrationality -> The irrational justifies Yahweh
This statement is only true to someone who thinks the supernatural is irrational. I don't obviously.
So your god limited us to understand things
Yes. To know God in His totality, would be to exist at His level. God has given us abilities "being created in His image" to reason and introspect, to philosophize and theorize about our world and when we do this we come to know certain things about His nature but we are still limited because we are not supernatural beings ourselves.
I'm just really curious what this means when you use the word 'evidence'.
Wow you really do have a bad memory. The majority of my posts deal with the evidence I believe justifies my belief. And we already know, despite your ability to answer vital questions about biological origins, you disagree with my position.
You wanted to know my reasoning? You have it. If you don't understand me by now..... :dontknow: I don't know what else to tell you. I have repeated myself so many times, I am annoying myself! Conversations circle around in mind numbing frustration until I'm ready to throw my keyboard at people's avatars! :P
-
This statement is only true to someone who thinks the supernatural is irrational. I don't obviously.
So allowing for things you don't understand makes you understand with no doubt attached?
His nature but we are still limited because we are not supernatural beings ourselves.
That's the problem-- this was the question pretty much. If you create beings, give them free will, and then say they should play your game or there will be consequences, you'd better have a good detailed presentation as to where you came from, why you made them, etc. etc. A caring deity would explain in detail whereas an evil deity would shroud the explanation in mystery and then judge when they see fit.
I have repeated myself so many times, I am annoying myself!
Nonono... I'll state again that I'm off of the science subject. I recall you having an emotional story that led you to christianity. Unless it was someone else, that is what I was referring to.
-
So allowing for things you don't understand makes you understand with no doubt attached?
Allowing things I don't understand doesn't make me understand. Understanding the things within my human ability to understand them, gives me enough confidence and faith to know the truth without knowing everything.
That's the problem-- this was the question pretty much. If you create beings, give them free will, and then demand they play your game or there will be consequences, you'd better have a good detailed presentation as to where you came from, why you made them, what the purpose of this entire 'project' is, etc. etc. A caring person would explain whereas an evil person would shroud the explanation in mystery and then judge when they see fit
The bible has 1,189 chapters 31,173 verses and 807,361 words. I would say that's pretty detailed.
I'll state again that I'm off of the science subject. I recall you having an emotional story that led you to christianity. Unless it was someone else, that is what I was referring to
Well, considering that a large portion of my evidence is based on natural things, I am talking about science. And I think that what I have given in my reasons, regarding scientific evidence, is legitimate enough to satisfy the point of your question.
I grew up a Christian, I had doubts a long the way but was never NOT a Christian. I have many personal stories that help validate my faith. But my personal experiences are not up for debate so I will not post them here.
-
Understanding the things within my human ability to understand them, gives me enough confidence and faith to know the truth without knowing everything.
Coming from you I can totally understand this. But like Queen and I have been stating- putting a 100% truth label on something in the realms of the unknown just because there are gaps in anothers concept is faulty reasoning. Especially when your idea runs perfectly in the realms of mythology. But if it's too personal, I won't argue this point anymore.
The bible has 1,189 chapters 31,173 verses and 807,361 words. I would say that's pretty detailed.
Does it produce some much-needed answers to these questions? Or is it just about some vague loving deity thing?
But my personal experiences are not up for debate so I will not post them here.
Got it.
-
Does it produce some much-needed answers to these questions? Or is it just about some vague loving deity thing?
It answers the questions that are important to having a relationship with God and understanding His nature.
-
Queen of nines says there is no ultimate moral law- yes, there is one in every religion- the moral laws were created obviously to help people from doing harm to their fellow human beings because it is just the right thing to do. Of couse everyone doesn't keep them, but they are there anyway. God crated adam and eve to be fruitful and multiply- that is why they were created to seve God and replenish the earth- two men ca't have a baby, two women can't have a baby- it's as simple as that- that's the way God made -it- it is that way in every species of human and animal, with few exceptions- no one can get around that, no matter how you try to justify gay marriage.
-
Tolerance is a beautiful thing...When you love and accept all for all reasons you are free..No god can tell me different..No god saved my friend from a nutcase religious freak who took him..Let me guess he was a sinner so he deserved it??I have heard that filth before..Exact reasons why god is hard for me to except to many contradictions and unexplained actions
-
Butterflywings, there are extremes in every factor of society- why are you name calling?- religious nutcase- really?- you still don't understand that the goal of Christianity is to spread the good news of Jesus- who loves me, and loves you, whether you ever accept him or not, he died for you too. We as Christians are not here to convert anyone, no one can be converted without a heart change, no matter how hard you try. To try to convince someone that is a better way of living is not wrong- you may say, there is nothing wrong with me, i'm ok- fine, then reject the message, not the messenger, who is only doing what the word they live by says. I will say it again- what are people afraid of?- perhaps that they know in their hearts that the Christian person is right, and they get mad because of it?- what is the harm in trying it?- what have you got to lose?- if you are wrong, you have done nothing but been made the better, but if you are wrong, what if the Christian person is right- are you prepared to take that chance?- think about it.
-
if you are wrong, you have done nothing but been made the better
Oh please. So you're saying Christians are "better people" than non-Christians? I can list hundreds of Christians that I'm better than...like Biblegod himself.
but if you are wrong, what if the Christian person is right- are you prepared to take that chance?- think about it.
Are you prepared to take the chance that YOU picked the right god out of thousands?
-
if you are wrong, you have done nothing but been made the better
Oh please. So you're saying Christians are "better people" than non-Christians? I can list hundreds of Christians that I'm better than...like Biblegod himself.
but if you are wrong, what if the Christian person is right- are you prepared to take that chance?- think about it.
Are you prepared to take the chance that YOU picked the right god out of thousands?
That's not what she's saying at all, qon, please quit twisting her words.
Are you prepared to take the chance that YOU have not picked any god and pay for it later in regret? Apparently you are as you've bashed us and reminded us many times about it, and because we are prepared to take and have taken the opportunity given to us to accept God's free gift of salvation. Just can't stand it, can you...
-
First of all, where am I saying that Christians are better than non Christians?- show me where I said that- or even implied that- I said, in part that I am confident that I have made the better choice-can you say that?- what is the harm in believing in a God who loves you- I can't see the harm- you have nothing to lose- so why not believe?- everyone beileves in something that is greater than themselves. There is no need for anger or hostility- it is and always your your choice where you will spend your final destination- and you will spend it somewhere- but unfortunately, you have already judged Christianity based on faulty premises, without finding out what the real deal is- if you find out what the real deal is, and stop being prejudiced, you might find that you can accept it.
-
but unfortunately, you have already judged Christianity based on faulty premises, without finding out what the real deal is
tammyrwa, Since you are fairly new to the D&D section, I just wanted to address the above portion of your post. Quite a few of us, who are now agnostic or atheist, are what you might call 'used to be Christians and/or believers'. We have lived the real deal meaning a religious life with a firm belief in god. For whatever reason(s), we have chosen to move away from that and are now on the other side of it so to speak. I just wanted to make that point known to you because it's not correct if you're thinking or assuming we have always felt and viewed religion and god as we do now. That's it - good to see a new face here. :)
-
Butterflywings, there are extremes in every factor of society- why are you name calling?- religious nutcase- really?- you still don't understand that the goal of Christianity is to spread the good news of Jesus- who loves me, and loves you, whether you ever accept him or not, he died for you too. We as Christians are not here to convert anyone, no one can be converted without a heart change, no matter how hard you try. To try to convince someone that is a better way of living is not wrong- you may say, there is nothing wrong with me, i'm ok- fine, then reject the message, not the messenger, who is only doing what the word they live by says. I will say it again- what are people afraid of?- perhaps that they know in their hearts that the Christian person is right, and they get mad because of it?- what is the harm in trying it?- what have you got to lose?- if you are wrong, you have done nothing but been made the better, but if you are wrong, what if the Christian person is right- are you prepared to take that chance?- think about it.
Sorry was busy ...First he ws a nutcase and was doing gods work getting rid of a demon sinner his words in court not mine..Two he was a preacher of a small church and very radical so I will call this disgusting human what I please he took a human's life over a believe in religion..I have no fears of the after life only excitement of what is the truth..Right I have had christians take money from family members for their church knowing these family members have none..I am prepared for whatever comes because right or wrong I have freedom of choice and I chose to see what comes..