FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: momoney555 on July 28, 2012, 08:52:40 am
-
MANY SKEPTICS SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE RELIGIOUS ARE JUST WEAK PEOPLE WHO NEED A CRUTCH TO LEAN ON AND THEIR RELIGION IS JUST A FARCE. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN YOUR LIFE THAT GOD IS REAL? HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED A MIRACLE OR ENCOUNTERED AN ANGEL?
My Own Evidence:
Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer. The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about. Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home. Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to. The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being heard.
-
My Own Evidence:
Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer. The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about. Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home. Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to. The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being heard.
Hey Momoney,
I've had all of these things happen to me. The difference is that I don't believe in your god and I don't pray. I just work hard and keep focused. And not to mention why would this god really care about your specific monetary means, your car, your home, etc. when there's millions of praying people that are homeless, suffering, starving, dying, etc. in Africa each day? It would seem like you're worshipping a "trolling god" who plays favorites...
(http://i.imgur.com/9GFpH.jpg)
You may believe whatever you wish, but don't forget to give yourself a pat on the back for overcoming the odds. Because that's what it sounds like to us freethinkers. :)
-
MANY SKEPTICS SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE RELIGIOUS ARE JUST WEAK PEOPLE WHO NEED A CRUTCH TO LEAN ON AND THEIR RELIGION IS JUST A FARCE. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN YOUR LIFE THAT GOD IS REAL? HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED A MIRACLE OR ENCOUNTERED AN ANGEL?
False attributions of effects to supernatural 'causes' are not valid evidence.
My Own Evidence:
Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer. The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about. Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home. Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to. The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being heard.
Many athletes, (for example), have certain ritual behaviours which they engage in prior to/during their sport. The performance of these rituals has no affect on their performance other than to serve as a reassuring routine. There's no cause & effect magical relationship between "prayer" and any significant event falsely attributed to "prayer". A belief that there is does not make it so and such a belief constitutes an unsupported claim.
-
I don't pray but I've also received unexpected amounts of money at various times in my life, and also in the exact amounts that I needed, because I always used all the money for something. I would say that's sufficient "proof" that your god is sending me money without even being asked.
-
I don't pray but I've also received unexpected amounts of money at various times in my life, and also in the exact amounts that I needed, because I always used all the money for something. I would say that's sufficient "proof" that your god is sending me money without even being asked.
That's as much 'attributible evidence' as claiming "satan" sent funds without being asked would be.
:o
-
Well, to tell the truth, I can't really be sure what entity or spiritual diety might have sent me the funds, but it was always a miracle and spiritual giving when unexpected money arrived. Yesterday I found a shiny penny in the parking lot, undoubtedly somebody's god planted it there for me to find. Idiots....
-
Well, to tell the truth, I can't really be sure what entity or spiritual diety might have sent me the funds, but it was always a miracle and spritual giving when unexpected money arrived. Yesterday I found a shiny penny in the parking lot, undoubtedly somebody's god planted it there for me to find. Idiots....
"Evidence" has a specific meaning-parameters which do not include attributing effects randomly to causes. This bit of reason escapes those who randomly attribute effects to supernatural causes.
“You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.”
-– Carl Sagan
-
Does this mean you're contradicting me? So, explain how the penny ended up in the parking lot, how can you possibly explain that if it wasn't the act of some beneficent entity?
-
You know, it's getting close to the end of the month and I'm really just trying to get to my 30 posts again. Incidentally, Sagan was one of my favorite authors, I'm sure I read everything he ever wrote. He died too young, RIP.
-
Babble on and Babylon. Incidentally, I've been to Babylon, and Kish and Ur and some other ancient cities in Iraq. I took a trip down the Tishle (Tigris) and up the Elphat (Euphrates). I entered the Ishtar gate in Babylon and saw the blue ceramic tiles, but the most decorative and elaborate were missing. No problem with that, those tiles were on an imitation Ishtar gate, taken away by German archeologists and on display in a museum in Berlin, my home city at the time and where they still are today.
-
Does this mean you're contradicting me? So, explain how the penny ended up in the parking lot, how can you possibly explain that if it wasn't the act of some beneficent entity?
As you know, (given your previous posts), the burden of proof rests with those who would claim that the penny was left for you by some "benefi-cent entity", rather than on a skeptic who isn't required to 'prove' that "gonad-the-powerful sprite" didn't leave you a cent, (or sense).
-
Does this mean you're contradicting me? So, explain how the penny ended up in the parking lot, how can you possibly explain that if it wasn't the act of some beneficent entity?
Was it heads up or heads down?
-
Well, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that you understand that I'm making the same absolutely moronic assertions as many others have made. Some coincidence happens, Oh schitt, it's magic, don't understand stastistics, must have been some kind of god or magic force that made it happen. I just have trouble understanding how a people who consider themsevlve so advanced can be so gullible and stupid. I've lived in Europe about half of my life, almost exactly, and they can be pretty stupid too over there, but they're not nearly as gullible about religion as they are over on this side of the pond.
-
Does this mean you're contradicting me? So, explain how the penny ended up in the parking lot, how can you possibly explain that if it wasn't the act of some beneficent entity?
Was it heads up or heads down?
Well, thank you for asking, but I don't remember where the head was pointing, all I can tell you is that it was a shiny new penny. I've never found so many coins in the 12 years I was in Europe. They're not poor, but they're not too proud to bend over and pick up a penny. You're often poorer than they are, but you're too proud to pick up those cents. No problem, I have more than enough, but I never have a problem bending over to pick up one more cent.
-
Well, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that you understand that I'm making the same absolutely moronic assertions as many others have made. Some coincidence happens, Oh schitt, it's magic, don't understand stastistics, must have been some kind of god or magic force that made it happen.
Understood. Although many different peoples used to attribute weather phenomenon or agricultural ups & downs to random supernatural influences, its still somewhat prevalent among religious adherents today.
I just have trouble understanding how a people who consider themsevlve so advanced can be so gullible and stupid. I've lived in Europe about half of my life, almost exactly, and they can be pretty stupid too over there, but they're not nearly as gullible about religion as they are over on this side of the pond.
British Traditional Wicca. The runic magic of scandanavian countries and Germany. Drudism. Times change - at least in some societies; then we have the judeo-xtians and muslims who are a few thousand years behind the times.
-
Well, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that you understand that I'm making the same absolutely moronic assertions as many others have made. Some coincidence happens, Oh schitt, it's magic, don't understand stastistics, must have been some kind of god or magic force that made it happen. I just have trouble understanding how a people who consider themselves so advanced can be so gullible and stupid. I've lived in Europe about half of my life, almost exactly, and they can be pretty stupid too over there, but they're not nearly as gullible about religion as they are over on this side of the pond.
-
Well, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that you understand that I'm making the same absolutely moronic assertions as many others have made. Some coincidence happens, Oh schitt, it's magic, don't understand stastistics, must have been some kind of god or magic force that made it happen.
Understood. Although many different peoples used to attribute weather phenomenon or agricultural ups & downs to random supernatural influences, its still somewhat prevalent among religious adherents today.
I just have trouble understanding how a people who consider themsevlve so advanced can be so gullible and stupid. I've lived in Europe about half of my life, almost exactly, and they can be pretty stupid too over there, but they're not nearly as gullible about religion as they are over on this side of the pond.
British Traditional Wicca. The runic magic of scandanavian countries and Germany. Drudism. Times change - at least in some societies; then we have the judeo-xtians and muslims who are a few thousand years behind the times.
OK, muslims, let's not start on those, lots of fanatics there just like US christians, neither groups understand their annoying proselitization, and many of the muslims back it up with dramatic and explosive proselitization. Since I got back to the US, more than half the people I've met as friends have tried to convert me to some kind of religion, I feel like I just landed in the year 1200. Of course, in Europe we also had the Jehovah's witlesses, but it was easy to close the door on those bozos, almost nobody ran into them as "friends." Over here in the US they talk about "freedom of religion" more than any place else on the planet (and I've been to a lot of countries) and then every illiterate idiot around here who barely understands ancient and biblical history makes himself a biblical scholar and tries to convert you to his views.
This is the problem, Americans don't understand "freedom of religion." I don't follow your religion, so leave me alone with your religion, but, just like those fanatic muslims, they can't do that. I don't run around and tell people to stop believing in their Jesus and all the Disneyland fantasies surrounding their religion. You don't allow me my freedom of belief, like the Nazis and Communists, you have a higher truth and it's your imperative to convince me, or not convince me but to certainly convert me.
-
OK, muslims, let's not start on those, lots of fanatics there just like US christians, neither groups understand their annoying proselitization, and many of the muslims back it up with dramatic and explosive proselitization. Since I got back to the US, more than half the people I've met as friends have tried to convert me to some kind of religion, I feel like I just landed in the year 1200. Of course, in Europe we also had the Jehovah's witlesses, but it was easy to close the door on those bozos, almost nobody ran into them as "friends." Over here in the US they talk about "freedom of religion" more than any place else on the planet (and I've been to a lot of countries) and then every illiterate idiot around here who barely understands ancient and biblical history makes himself a biblical scholar and tries to convert you to his views.
This is the problem, Americans don't understand "freedom of religion." I don't follow your religion, so leave me alone with your religion, but, just like those fanatic muslims, they can't do that. I don't run around and tell people to stop believing in their Jesus and all the Disneyland fantasies surrounding their religion. You don't allow me my freedom of belief, like the Nazis and Communists, you have a higher truth and it's your imperative to convince me, or not convince me but to certainly convert me.
Another 'problem' with such religious proselytization is a certain inability of the part of religious adherents doing so to realize that opposition to it occurs 'after' the initial proselytiation occurs, (which means that opposition isn't proselytizing). Though xtian adherents have a long history of attempting to convert, (often by force), they're reduced to more illogical unreasoning approaches these days.
-
OK, muslims, let's not start on those, lots of fanatics there just like US christians, neither groups understand their annoying proselitization, and many of the muslims back it up with dramatic and explosive proselitization. Since I got back to the US, more than half the people I've met as friends have tried to convert me to some kind of religion, I feel like I just landed in the year 1200. Of course, in Europe we also had the Jehovah's witlesses, but it was easy to close the door on those bozos, almost nobody ran into them as "friends." Over here in the US they talk about "freedom of religion" more than any place else on the planet (and I've been to a lot of countries) and then every illiterate idiot around here who barely understands ancient and biblical history makes himself a biblical scholar and tries to convert you to his views.
This is the problem, Americans don't understand "freedom of religion." I don't follow your religion, so leave me alone with your religion, but, just like those fanatic muslims, they can't do that. I don't run around and tell people to stop believing in their Jesus and all the Disneyland fantasies surrounding their religion. You don't allow me my freedom of belief, like the Nazis and Communists, you have a higher truth and it's your imperative to convince me, or not convince me but to certainly convert me.
Another 'problem' with such religious proselytization is a certain inability of the part of religious adherents doing so to realize that opposition to it occurs 'after' the initial proselytiation occurs, (which means that opposition isn't proselytizing). Though xtian adherents have a long history of attempting to convert, (often by force), they're reduced to more illogical unreasoning approaches these days.
Wrong...
-
OK, muslims, let's not start on those, lots of fanatics there just like US christians, neither groups understand their annoying proselitization, and many of the muslims back it up with dramatic and explosive proselitization. Since I got back to the US, more than half the people I've met as friends have tried to convert me to some kind of religion, I feel like I just landed in the year 1200. Of course, in Europe we also had the Jehovah's witlesses, but it was easy to close the door on those bozos, almost nobody ran into them as "friends." Over here in the US they talk about "freedom of religion" more than any place else on the planet (and I've been to a lot of countries) and then every illiterate idiot around here who barely understands ancient and biblical history makes himself a biblical scholar and tries to convert you to his views.
This is the problem, Americans don't understand "freedom of religion." I don't follow your religion, so leave me alone with your religion, but, just like those fanatic muslims, they can't do that. I don't run around and tell people to stop believing in their Jesus and all the Disneyland fantasies surrounding their religion. You don't allow me my freedom of belief, like the Nazis and Communists, you have a higher truth and it's your imperative to convince me, or not convince me but to certainly convert me.
Another 'problem' with such religious proselytization is a certain inability of the part of religious adherents doing so to realize that opposition to it occurs 'after' the initial proselytiation occurs, (which means that opposition isn't proselytizing). Though xtian adherents have a long history of attempting to convert, (often by force), they're reduced to more illogical unreasoning approaches these days.
Wrong...
Your unsupported empty opinion is duly noted, (and disregarded as specious).
-
Wrong..... You say, perfect, you're helpng prove my point exactly, but I don't need to prove it to you because your posts show that you're already subjected to your own fantasies and delusions. Anyway, "wrong" a very eloquent and clearly explained retort to my post.
-
Wrong..... You say, perfect, you're helpng prove my point exactly, but I don't need to prove it to you because your posts show that you'realready subjected to your own fantasies and delusions. Anyway, "wrong" a very eloquent and clearly explained retort to my post.
That's fairly typical of the pseudo-rebuttals espoused by irrational xtians.
-
Wait a moment, my response wasn't to you, falcon, it was a response to that jcribb character. Check out the posts once again, I'm the guy on your side and now we're both going to hear another shotgun retort from that tunnel-head again.
-
Wait a moment, my response wasn't to you, falcon, it was a response to that jcribb character. Check out the posts once again, I'm the guy on your side and now we're both going to hear another shotgun retort from that tunnel-head again.
Although you did quote who you were responding to, I caught that from the context and know you weren't referring to me, (you and I actually agree, which annoys the fundies who won't admit that it does).
-
Well it sure doesn't take much to get the inmates riled up in protest, does it. Apparently they didn't bother to pay attention to the subject of this thread. They must have thought it said, "Another opportunity to display my blatant disdain for all things related to God. If anyone has a great testimony to share, I would enjoy hearing them. Of course any believer would know that my evidence goes much, much deeper than getting money, duh! Don't let the inmates scare you away. Put them on ignore, As I have. They need to hear the reality of a believers experience, whether they accept it or not. And by the way God does give to unbelievers also, but money is probably all you receive..
-
I think I'm a Christian with a strange outlook compared to most others. All I can say is this. There are a lot of physicists that think about and believe in dark matter, dark space, the Higgs-Boson, string theory, etc. Lots of ppl think they're full of it, etc. However, we find the Higgs-Boson and they're absolutely amazing for proving it. If God ever gets discovered with proof for the Atheists around the world, lots of ppl are going to freak out. You don't know it's impossible until it never happens. Never is a long time to wait. ;D Anywho, have a good day believers and freethinkers alike.
-
Well it sure doesn't take much to get the inmates riled up in protest, does it. Apparently they didn't bother to pay attention to the subject of this thread. They must have thought it said, "Another opportunity to display my blatant disdain for all things related to God. If anyone has a great testimony to share, I would enjoy hearing them. Of course any believer would know that my evidence goes much, much deeper than getting money, duh! Don't let the inmates scare you away. Put them on ignore, As I have. They need to hear the reality of a believers experience, whether they accept it or not. And by the way God does give to unbelievers also, but money is probably all you receive..
So the majority of us show how your evidence is not actual evidence by definition and is extremely ethnocentric and naive, and in return you put us on ignore. This fits into "ignorance is bliss" category I suppose. You must remember this is Debate and Discuss. If you didn't want people coming in debating and discussing, you shouldn't have posted your thread here. You're speaking like a child here so do us all a favor and grow up next time you press "Post".
If God ever gets discovered with proof for the Atheists around the world, lots of ppl are going to freak out. You don't know it's impossible until it never happens. Never is a long time to wait. Anywho, have a good day believers and freethinkers alike.
Thanks. And yeah, if any metaphysical entities are discovered in the future provided there are decent evidences of them, I'm all ears.
-
Falconer2 you are absolutely correct. I have mistakenly posted this subject on the wrong discussion board. So I am moving it.
-
Falconer2 you are absolutely correct. I have mistakenly posted this subject on the wrong discussion board. So I am moving it.
Moving it where? There is no 'fundie sanctimonious proclamations which lack evidence' forum.
-
Well it sure doesn't take much to get the inmates riled up in protest, does it.
Your attempted insult refers more to you fundies who talk about "evidence" as if it were unsupported hearsay, (it's not).
Apparently they didn't bother to pay attention to the subject of this thread. They must have thought it said, "Another opportunity to display my blatant disdain for all things related to God. If anyone has a great testimony to share, I would enjoy hearing them.
The subject title asks the question, "What Is Your Evidence", not 'what is your unsupported religious opinion?'. Again, "evidence" is something significantly more substantive than a faith-based belief.
Put them on ignore, As I have. They need to hear the reality of a believers experience ...
So, you post a thread which mislabels "evidence" as 'biased religious opinion based on faith without evidence'. Then you put respondants on "ignore" when they oppose your irrationally-prejudiced proselytization. Yep, you're a 'peach' alright.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
-- Gregory House
-
I'm not religious but I say that our thoughts are our own and as long as they don't hurt others why not believe what you want. If I believe I am as hot as a supermodel, or god exists or people who bullied me in the past are now getting some kind of justice through karma.. and it makes me feel better each day to think that. What is the problem. Even if I am wrong it might make me feel better to believe in something that isn't true. Kinda the same effect as a placebo sugar pill. If your placebo worked because you believe it worked would you keep taking it. of course. I say let people deal with life in the way they want to that makes them feel better.
-
Wrong..... You say, perfect, you're helpng prove my point exactly, but I don't need to prove it to you because your posts show that you're already subjected to your own fantasies and delusions. Anyway, "wrong" a very eloquent and clearly explained retort to my post.
The "wrong" was a response to falcon9's post. Sorry if you thought it was at you.
-
I'm not religious but I say that our thoughts are our own and as long as they don't hurt others why not believe what you want. If I believe I am as hot as a supermodel, or god exists or people who bullied me in the past are now getting some kind of justice through karma.. and it makes me feel better each day to think that. What is the problem.
As long as such self-delusional beliefs remain within your own skull, who would even know about them? The problems begin to arise when those self-delusions do leave the deluded one's skull and start 'infecting' others with such mind-blinding 'virii'. At that point, we start getting fundies killing others over religious beliefs, (the Crusades, the Inquistions, the witch-hunting pograms, etc.).
Even if I am wrong it might make me feel better to believe in something that isn't true. Kinda the same effect as a placebo sugar pill. If your placebo worked because you believe it worked would you keep taking it. of course. I say let people deal with life in the way they want to that makes them feel better.
Sure, as long as such nonsense stays in their own heads and doesn't infect others, (or, that such self-delusions don't cause the deluded one to
act upon their self-delusions to teh detriment of others), knock yourself out.
"Just because you believe in something does not mean that it is true."
-- Albert Einstein
-
Wrong..... You say, perfect, you're helpng prove my point exactly, but I don't need to prove it to you because your posts show that you're already subjected to your own fantasies and delusions. Anyway, "wrong" a very eloquent and clearly explained retort to my post.
The "wrong" was a response to falcon9's post. Sorry if you thought it was at you.
It remains an empty opinion since its unsupported by evidence, (and therefore, a non sequitur).
-
Wait a moment, my response wasn't to you, falcon, it was a response to that jcribb character. Check out the posts once again, I'm the guy on your side and now we're both going to hear another shotgun retort from that tunnel-head again.
Excuse me, alaric, in the first place, I wasn't responding to you - it was to falcon9. In the 2nd place, I have not even called you names, much less had much to say to you. You called me "that jcribb character," and "that tunnel-head." Where do you get off calling people names on here like that?
-
Wrong..... You say, perfect, you're helpng prove my point exactly, but I don't need to prove it to you because your posts show that you're already subjected to your own fantasies and delusions. Anyway, "wrong" a very eloquent and clearly explained retort to my post.
The "wrong" was a response to falcon9's post. Sorry if you thought it was at you.
It remains an empty opinion since its unsupported by evidence, (and therefore, a non sequitur).
I don't care that it is an empty opinion to you - I am used to your "non sequitur" comments. I was clarifying something to alaric.
-
Wrong..... You say, perfect, you're helpng prove my point exactly, but I don't need to prove it to you because your posts show that you're already subjected to your own fantasies and delusions. Anyway, "wrong" a very eloquent and clearly explained retort to my post.
The "wrong" was a response to falcon9's post. Sorry if you thought it was at you.
It remains an empty opinion since its unsupported by evidence, (and therefore, a non sequitur).
I don't care that it is an empty opinion to you - I am used to your "non sequitur" comments. I was clarifying something to alaric.
Your declaration is dubious since you 'cared' enough to reply, mentioning that you "don't care". Since 'alaric' doesn't quote who he's replying to, you assumed something and went off that assumption. Dubious assumptions epitomize the entire xtian belief system so, this was not a surprise.
-
Wrong..... You say, perfect, you're helpng prove my point exactly, but I don't need to prove it to you because your posts show that you're already subjected to your own fantasies and delusions. Anyway, "wrong" a very eloquent and clearly explained retort to my post.
The "wrong" was a response to falcon9's post. Sorry if you thought it was at you.
It remains an empty opinion since its unsupported by evidence, (and therefore, a non sequitur).
I don't care that it is an empty opinion to you - I am used to your "non sequitur" comments. I was clarifying something to alaric.
Your declaration is dubious since you 'cared' enough to reply, mentioning that you "don't care". Since 'alaric' doesn't quote who he's replying to, you assumed something and went off that assumption. Dubious assumptions epitomize the entire xtian belief system so, this was not a surprise.
*Sigh* Falcon9, please stop arguing over this. He thought I was saying "wrong' to him, and responded to me - I responded back that it wasn't towards him. He called me names and I responded to that. The "wrong" was directed toward your comments, in which, we continually go in the same circle with each other about, with our opposite views. You responded to me for "both of you" carrying on about the "wrong." Get over it. It's done - I am not wanting to argue this with you - right now, I just wanted alaric to know the "wrong" was not at him, and why he's calling names.
-
*Sigh* Falcon9, please stop arguing over this.
Your nonsense was posted in the debate & discuss subforum. If you don't want to debate or discuss it, either don't post about, don't presume to tell others how to reply in d&d or, stop being such a hypocrit. If you cannot manage to choose a reasonable option, stick with your unreasonable ones and ignore the replies.
-
*Sigh* Falcon9, please stop arguing over this.
Your nonsense was posted in the debate & discuss subforum. If you don't want to debate or discuss it, either don't post about, don't presume to tell others how to reply in d&d or, stop being such a hypocrit. If you cannot manage to choose a reasonable option, stick with your unreasonable ones and ignore the replies.
You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. I was off the debate topic, clarifying something to another poster; and to say something to the fact of his calling names. You are actually wanting to debate those 2 things? You just sound like you want to argue no matter what. Please don't tell me what to do, how to post, and calling me a hypocrite will not get you anywhere - I was clarifying something and you took off with it - that is nonsense to carry on about that particular thing. You inserted yourself in a post to someone else that was a clarification to that person about a comment made to you. Now, if you wish to debate that, that's one thing, but as for the other, arguing for the sake of arguing is not the brightest idea you are trying to achieve.
-
I have had a angel appear one night while I was in the church. It was amazing.
-
You inserted yourself in a post to someone else that was a clarification to that person about a comment made to you. Now, if you wish to debate that, that's one thing ...
How can I 'insert myself' into a post where you mentioned me by 'nym, (trolled me)? I have no desire to debate your trolling since you'd deny doing it despite direct evidence of it. Neither am I answering 'for' "alaric" since he is capable of doing so for himself. My response to your hypocrisy was to point it out in relation to your general hypocrisy regarding the context of this thread. You have no substantive evidence to support your speciously-claimed religious beliefs and that's pretty much the end of the debate you didn't participate in.
-
I have had a angel appear one night while I was in the church. It was amazing.
Yet the non-evidence for this is merely your religiously-biased claim alone?
-
Wait a moment, my response wasn't to you, falcon, it was a response to that jcribb character. Check out the posts once again, I'm the guy on your side and now we're both going to hear another shotgun retort from that tunnel-head again.
Excuse me, alaric, in the first place, I wasn't responding to you - it was to falcon9. In the 2nd place, I have not even called you names, much less had much to say to you. You called me "that jcribb character," and "that tunnel-head." Where do you get off calling people names on here like that?
I've noticed Alaric does this all the time.That's why I've correctly classified him as a "Hater".He cries salty tears over my "name-calling" of him on that,yet the reason why I call him a Hater is because he uses name calling and put-downs to Christians every chance he gets. ::)
-
Oh well, the Star Wars ranger, predictable that you would show up with your repetitive "hater" comment. It's not hatred, that's actually an insulting assumption you have about people who disagree with you, but the term is very appropriate in expressing your degree of religious fanaticism. In earlier centuries you would have burned people like me at the stake, do you wish you still had the power to do that?
-
You inserted yourself in a post to someone else that was a clarification to that person about a comment made to you. Now, if you wish to debate that, that's one thing ...
How can I 'insert myself' into a post where you mentioned me by 'nym, (trolled me)? I have no desire to debate your trolling since you'd deny doing it despite direct evidence of it. Neither am I answering 'for' "alaric" since he is capable of doing so for himself. My response to your hypocrisy was to point it out in relation to your general hypocrisy regarding the context of this thread. You have no substantive evidence to support your speciously-claimed religious beliefs and that's pretty much the end of the debate you didn't participate in.
You are getting nowhere except for going in circles. No one's trolling anyone. It's over and done with.
-
I have had a angel appear one night while I was in the church. It was amazing.
That sounds neat! What happened? (That is, if you don't mind sharing.) I can totally understand if you don't want to. :)
-
It's not over and done with until people like you stop trying to impose your beliefs on the rest of us. "Freedom of religion" doesn't fully exist in the US when people like you are repeatedly trying to convert me to your own personal religion. Keep your god to yourself and your own personal mythological delusions.
-
I don't have any particular evidence, but I can tell you I do feel guided in my life. It's difficult when life seems to have gotten a bit touch and there are numerous challenges to deal with, I always feel guided and have faith I'll get through. We all have pain thresholds. I appreciate your topic as it gave me an opportunity to share my thoughts on the subject :-[ and reinforce my faith that everything always turns out. -
-
I don't have any particular evidence, but I can tell you I do feel guided in my life. ... and reinforce my faith that everything always turns out. -
As "belief" and "faith" do not consitute evidence, this is merely an instance of randomly attributing a religious cause to some vague effect.
“You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.”
-– Carl Sagan
-
went through cancer in my 20s and transplant in my 40s - miracles happen all the time
-
Falconer2 you are absolutely correct. I have mistakenly posted this subject on the wrong discussion board. So I am moving it.
Cool. Thanks. Though it looks like this thread will stay alive here. Ah well!
I'm not religious but I say that our thoughts are our own and as long as they don't hurt others why not believe what you want. If I believe I am as hot as a supermodel, or god exists or people who bullied me in the past are now getting some kind of justice through karma.. and it makes me feel better each day to think that. What is the problem. Even if I am wrong it might make me feel better to believe in something that isn't true. Kinda the same effect as a placebo sugar pill. If your placebo worked because you believe it worked would you keep taking it. of course. I say let people deal with life in the way they want to that makes them feel better.
I have no problem with placebo effects if they're on an individual level. But when 1 person says it works when there's no viable evidence of it actually working, things can get extremely dangerous. Examples being homoeopathic medicine to faith healers. People who support and praise such things are a major problem with the world.
Oh well, the Star Wars ranger, predictable that you would show up with your repetitive "hater" comment. It's not hatred, that's actually an insulting assumption you have about people who disagree with you, but the term is very appropriate in expressing your degree of religious fanaticism. In earlier centuries you would have burned people like me at the stake, do you wish you still had the power to do that?
I think you should just learn to grab the popcorn and smile at his 8-yr-old antics.
-
It's not over and done with until people like you stop trying to impose your beliefs on the rest of us. "Freedom of religion" doesn't fully exist in the US when people like you are repeatedly trying to convert me to your own personal religion. Keep your god to yourself and your own personal mythological delusions.
I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. "Freedom of religion" does exist, just as "freedom of no religion" does. I'm not repeatedly trying to convert you - I don't even speak to you much. And since this is an open forum, I can share things, just as you can, whether it's of God or not God. You seem to enjoy "bossing" others and telling others what they should do and shouldn't do, yet you keep right on telling others to keep their "god" to themselves. You are pushing your anti-god agenda on others in here, and with an attitude of intolerance, and with calling names. I sure haven't called you any names through this, yet you have felt the need to do so to me. Very adult of you (not.) Also, Debate and Discuss, even says "Enter at your own risk." If you come in, not to debate, but to be mean and bossy to others instead, you aren't going to get very far with that.
-
It's not over and done with until people like you stop trying to impose your beliefs on the rest of us. "Freedom of religion" doesn't fully exist in the US when people like you are repeatedly trying to convert me to your own personal religion. Keep your god to yourself and your own personal mythological delusions.
I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. "Freedom of religion" does exist, just as "freedom of no religion" does. I'm not repeatedly trying to convert you - I don't even speak to you much. And since this is an open forum, I can share things, just as you can, whether it's of God or not God. You seem to enjoy "bossing" others and telling others what they should do and shouldn't do, yet you keep right on telling others to keep their "god" to themselves. You are pushing your anti-god agenda on others in here, and with an attitude of intolerance, and with calling names. I sure haven't called you any names through this, yet you have felt the need to do so to me. Very adult of you (not.) Also, Debate and Discuss, even says "Enter at your own risk." If you come in, not to debate, but to be mean and bossy to others instead, you aren't going to get very far with that.
It seems insane to me at the lengths that the anti-religious will pursue religions discussions and then complain about them containing religious topics. They claim discrimination if they can find any people discussing religion and they propose that the only way for them to not be discriminated against is to ban with force any religious topics or material. They would go to church and complain about it mentioning God. You hear certain ones on these forums always crying about a theocracy in America where there is no evidence of any such thing and yet when the positions of an Atheistic dictatorship and Atheistic Totalitarianism are displayed frequently they are silent.
-
It seems insane to me at the lengths that the anti-religious will pursue religions discussions and then complain about them containing religious topics.
You are not alone in your inability to comprehend that religious adherents such yourself are starting threads/posts about their religious beliefs which are replied to by either those who agree or disagree with those initial posts. This means that such initial religious proselytiation is being opposed, not that "anti-religious" posts are being initiating by others. Such 'complaints' about replies which oppose such proselytization are therefore post hoc attempts to censor opposition to religious blind faith.
They claim discrimination if they can find any people discussing religion and they propose that the only way for them to not be discriminated against is to ban with force any religious topics or material.
That's a false accusation, there is no evidence of any propositions to "ban with force any religious topics or material" on FC. You are a liar since there is no evidence to support your lie. In fact, what has been posted is that both religious adherents and those who oppose such specious propaganda are able to post such with FC guidelines & the TOS.
“Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”
-– Ambrose Bierce
-
It seems insane to me at the lengths that the anti-religious will pursue religions discussions and then complain about them containing religious topics.
You are not alone in your inability to comprehend that religious adherents such yourself are starting threads/posts about their religious beliefs which are replied to by either those who agree or disagree with those initial posts. This means that such initial religious proselytiation is being opposed, not that "anti-religious" posts are being initiating by others. Such 'complaints' about replies which oppose such proselytization are therefore post hoc attempts to censor opposition to religious blind faith.
Show me where I have started a thread about religions beliefs? To enter into a thread that is clearly religious in nature by its title and to then complain that you are offended by the subject contained within is not 'opposition' it is an active anti-religious pursuit.
You clearly display a dedication to pursue any topic regarding religion and to attempt to reply to every single post made. I would suspect that you have the highest post count within religious subjects compared to the totals of every single other individual together on this site. You are not displaying 'opposition', but instead a crusade to silence the voices of others through obfuscation and abusive behavior. You have even cried repeatedly about certain things being offensive to you and yet you continue with your blind hatred. The only person you might fool with this weak denial now is yourself as it is clearly obvious what is the case to the rest of us.
They claim discrimination if they can find any people discussing religion and they propose that the only way for them to not be discriminated against is to ban with force any religious topics or material.
That's a false accusation, there is no evidence of any propositions to "ban with force any religious topics or material" on FC. You are a liar since there is no evidence to support your lie. In fact, what has been posted is that both religious adherents and those who oppose such specious propaganda are able to post such with FC guidelines & the TOS.
“Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”
-– Ambrose Bierce
As is typical of you, your vision is blinded and limited in scope (this is most likely due to your hate filled beliefs). Your ability to comprehend is so juvenile that you cannot even distinguish obvious keyword separations in language. How is it that you are so weak in understanding as to assume my thread was about FC when I clearly give indication on my closing sentence that shows a deviation to topics of these forums? You are obviously oblivious to the events in the current media today and of the past few years. You are seemingly unaware of the proposed ban by radical liberal mayors and anti-Christian organizations on a business known as "Chik-fil-a" simply because their owner is a Christian and holds to Christian values.
-
Show me where I have started a thread about religions beliefs?
Acquire a reading comprehension ability; the posted reply didn't name any particular xtian proselytizer starting such threads/posts.
To enter into a thread that is clearly religious in nature by its title and to then complain that you are offended by the subject contained within is not 'opposition' it is an active anti-religious pursuit.
First, the 'offending' post, (xtian proselytizing), precedes posts opposing such propagandizing. That means opposition doesn't occur pre-emptively but, is a response to the initial proselytizing. Some xtians have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to perceive the accurate sequence of events in this regard.
You are not displaying 'opposition', but instead a crusade to silence the voices of others through obfuscation and abusive behavior.
False. I have not attempted to "silence" the xtian proselytizers by posting a dissenting viewpoint, (and in fact, have continually emphasized the 'freedom' of both the proselytizers and those opposing such to post). Conversely, the repeated attempts by xtian fundies to "silence" opposition to their INITIAL proselytizing is evident in numerous archived posts. If the fundie xtians were to stop proselytizing, what basis would others have to oppose it?
They claim discrimination if they can find any people discussing religion and they propose that the only way for them to not be discriminated against is to ban with force any religious topics or material.
That's a false accusation, there is no evidence of any propositions to "ban with force any religious topics or material" on FC. You are a liar since there is no evidence to support your lie. In fact, what has been posted is that both religious adherents and those who oppose such specious propaganda are able to post such with FC guidelines & the TOS.
“Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”
-– Ambrose Bierce
-
As is typical of you, your vision is blinded and limited in scope (this is most likely due to your hate filled beliefs). Your ability to comprehend is so juvenile that you cannot even distinguish obvious keyword separations in language. How is it that you are so weak in understanding ...
Your moronically-childish flaming has been stale for some time now. Perhaps your blind-faith has affected your severely-curtailed ability to discern context. The context of this thread's subject regarded evidence. It then shifted away from this by xtian fundies unable to provide evidence to support their specious claims. While you disingenuous fundies can shift the context in your weak efforts to obscure the continued lack of evidence for your religious claims, complaining when someone won't be diverted into your pecular contextual-shifts is petulently-idiotic.
... as to assume my thread was about FC when I clearly give indication on my closing sentence that shows a deviation to topics of these forums?
I don't give a fake supernatural entity's fart when you want to "deviate" from a context under discussion. I find your irrationality, attempts to twist logic into some self-deluded sophist crap of your own device and garden-variety trolling to be droll.
You are obviously oblivious to the events in the current media today and of the past few years. You are seemingly unaware of the proposed ban by radical liberal mayors and anti-Christian organizations on a business known as "Chik-fil-a" simply because their owner is a Christian and holds to Christian values.
No, I don't eat at Chik-fil-A however, I am aware of when someone, (you, in this instance), falsely characterizes the situation. The xtian fundie owner apparently has been using discriminatory hiring practices to screen-out non-xtians.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html
-
It's not over and done with until people like you stop trying to impose your beliefs on the rest of us. "Freedom of religion" doesn't fully exist in the US when people like you are repeatedly trying to convert me to your own personal religion. Keep your god to yourself and your own personal mythological delusions.
I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. "Freedom of religion" does exist, just as "freedom of no religion" does. I'm not repeatedly trying to convert you - I don't even speak to you much. And since this is an open forum, I can share things, just as you can, whether it's of God or not God. You seem to enjoy "bossing" others and telling others what they should do and shouldn't do, yet you keep right on telling others to keep their "god" to themselves. You are pushing your anti-god agenda on others in here, and with an attitude of intolerance, and with calling names. I sure haven't called you any names through this, yet you have felt the need to do so to me. Very adult of you (not.) Also, Debate and Discuss, even says "Enter at your own risk." If you come in, not to debate, but to be mean and bossy to others instead, you aren't going to get very far with that.
It seems insane to me at the lengths that the anti-religious will pursue religions discussions and then complain about them containing religious topics. They claim discrimination if they can find any people discussing religion and they propose that the only way for them to not be discriminated against is to ban with force any religious topics or material. They would go to church and complain about it mentioning God. You hear certain ones on these forums always crying about a theocracy in America where there is no evidence of any such thing and yet when the positions of an Atheistic dictatorship and Atheistic Totalitarianism are displayed frequently they are silent.
I see what you are saying. The blame is put on the Christians for "INITIALLY" starting a religious post. It's not against the forum rules to begin a religious post, especially for discussing, sharing, and within D&D, debating. What concerns me is the "blame" that is being placed on the Christians, which gives a couple the "RIGHT" to complain about even the "INITIAL" starting of the thread. That is a lame excuse when all see and know it is the under the carpet goal of trying to keep the Christians from exercising their freedom of religion, speech, and expression. I have no issues when challenges are made and discussion/debates take place, including points of reason, etc. The issue I have is when there are hateful remarks, disrespect, and total intolerance of whatever comments are being made. That is really pushing the boundary line of the Golden Rule of the forum. It affects the attitude and tone of the whole topic of the thread then, and this is very unfair.
-
The blame is put on the Christians for "INITIALLY" starting a religious post.
Not the "blame" per se but, the instigating responsibility is placed on the religious adherents responsible for such posts.
It's not against the forum rules to begin a religious post, especially for discussing, sharing, and within D&D, debating.
True and neither is it against forum posting rules/guidelines to debate, refute or oppose such initial religious proselytizing posts.
What concerns me is the "blame" that is being placed on the Christians, which gives a couple the "RIGHT" to complain about even the "INITIAL" starting of the thread.
Since you're the one characterizing the responsibility for instigating contentious religious propaganda with an inherently biased adjective, ("blame"), as a way to dodge that responsibility, that ought to concern others who hold the same specious religious beliefs.
That is a lame excuse when all see and know it is the under the carpet goal of trying to keep the Christians from exercising their freedom of religion, speech, and expression.
No one except for some xtian fundies is calling challenges/opposition/refutations to their unsupported religious claims "trying to keep the Christians from exercising their freedom of religion, speech, and expression". This strawman accusation is specious and blatantly false. Since another one of you has made such a claim, it is your responsibility to support such a claim with evidential facts ... unless, of course, you're dodging that responsibility too, (as usual).
I have no issues when challenges are made and discussion/debates take place, including points of reason, etc.
On the contrary, numerous message IDs showing the exact opposite of your assertions above could be produced as evidence disputing/disproving your assertions.
The issue I have is when there are hateful remarks, disrespect, and total intolerance of whatever comments are being made. That is really pushing the boundary line of the Golden Rule of the forum. It affects the attitude and tone of the whole topic of the thread then, and this is very unfair.
Since any valid objection using lines of reasoning, logical challenges which the xtian claimants have repeatedly failed to meet are someone considered to be "hateful remarks, disrespect, and total intolerance of whatever[religious proselytizing]comments are being made", your objection is specious. Apparently, you want to such opposition to consist of some vaguely politically-correct nice way of objecting to blind faith-based religious superstitions. Let's see ... are such beliefs blind faith-based? Yep, can't really sugar-coat that. Do such consist of religious superstitions, sans evidence? Yep, can't varnish that one over with political correctness either.
In point of fact, the archives hold numerous examples of a few xtian fundies attempting to censor opposition to their religious superstition posts by characterizing them as "hateful remarks, disrespect, and total intolerance of whatever[religious proselytizing]comments are being made" and in violation of the "Golden Rule" in a post hoc manner, (e.g., the censorship attempts on opposition are made after the initial Golden Rule-violating posts).
-
[CS Lewis non-reasoning]
Btw, the CS Lewis quote is a great example of sophist non-reasoning in that it attempts to use pseudo-reasoning methods to discredit actual reasoning methods. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Such illogical non-reasoning does not and cannot refute actual reasoning; especially when espoused by a heavy narcotics user, (Lewis).
-
My Own Evidence:
Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer. The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about. Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home. Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to. The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being heard.
This "evidence" is very vague and does not pinpoint any specific example in detail. Our brains are wired to find patterns and connections even when none exist at all. You are seeing the world through god-colored glasses, where everyday events (like receiving a check) seem more fortunate than they really are.
-
This "evidence" is very vague and does not pinpoint any specific example in detail. Our brains are wired to find patterns and connections even when none exist at all. You are seeing the world through god-colored glasses, where everyday events (like receiving a check) seem more fortunate than they really are.
What's this? Common sense!? STOP SUPRESSING MY BELIEFS! STOP YOUR WAR ON RELIGION! WE NEED TO STOP THE NON-BELIEVERS BEFORE WE HAVE AN ATHEIST TOTALITARIAN GOV'T!
-
My Own Evidence:
Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer. The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about. Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home. Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to. The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being heard.
This "evidence" is very vague and does not pinpoint any specific example in detail. Our brains are wired to find patterns and connections even when none exist at all. You are seeing the world through god-colored glasses, where everyday events (like receiving a check) seem more fortunate than they really are.
Such "evidence" isn't even evidence as it consists of fundamental attribution errors, (the inaccurate connection of effects with 'causes' which have no evidence of being 'causes' of those effects). This type of cognitive misattribution occurs most often in those who rely upon blind faith, rather than an ability to reason, (which in turn suggests that a diminished ability to reason accounts for a reliance upon religious faith instead).
-
Wow the question I have been waiting for, I in a rough time in my life saw an angel so beautiful, also so mad at me he paced two steps one way then two the other. He was made up it seemed of molecules of air like when it is hot outside and you see the molecules in the air moving, he was platinum in color and wore a gold breast plate he wore a black belt with a gold belt buckle, he had a sword hanging on the left side that had a gold handle his gown was also platinum in color, and his sandles were laced up his legs, I begged God to take me from this earth so I would never make those mistakes again, and all I heard was I'm showing you this son because I love you. At this point I realized satan, lucifer, and the devil were all the same and started out as an angel, Deceit means trickery, and an angel is trying to trick the whole world.
C.S. Wells wrote the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord!
-
Wow the question I have been waiting for, I in a rough time in my life saw an angel so beautiful, also so mad at me he paced two steps one way then two the other. He was made up it seemed of molecules of air like when it is hot outside and you see the molecules in the air moving, he was platinum in color and wore a gold breast plate he wore a black belt with a gold belt buckle, he had a sword hanging on the left side that had a gold handle his gown was also platinum in color, and his sandles were laced up his legs ...
Your dubious 'witness testimony' of an alleged supernatural encounter does not constitute evidence because it cannot be verified as accurate, (rather than some faith-based hallucination or, false 'testimony' submitted in order to proselytize your religious beliefs).
I begged God to take me from this earth so I would never make those mistakes again, and all I heard was I'm showing you this son because I love you. At this point I realized satan, lucifer, and the devil were all the same and started out as an angel, Deceit means trickery, and an angel is trying to trick the whole world.
C.S. Wells wrote the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord!
Your entire post is simply blatant religious proselytizing, (with aspects of severe self-delusion and other mental instabilities).
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses."
-- Arthur C. Clarke
-
Wow the question I have been waiting for, I in a rough time in my life saw an angel so beautiful, also so mad at me he paced two steps one way then two the other. He was made up it seemed of molecules of air like when it is hot outside and you see the molecules in the air moving, he was platinum in color and wore a gold breast plate he wore a black belt with a gold belt buckle, he had a sword hanging on the left side that had a gold handle his gown was also platinum in color, and his sandles were laced up his legs, I begged God to take me from this earth so I would never make those mistakes again, and all I heard was I'm showing you this son because I love you. At this point I realized satan, lucifer, and the devil were all the same and started out as an angel, Deceit means trickery, and an angel is trying to trick the whole world.
C.S. Wells wrote the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord!
Wow, wow indeed. "Platinum in color," as you say. I never knew there was such a color. Is that kind of like silver, maybe not quite so shiny? The sword should be hanging on the right side because your "satan" should be left-handed.
-
Wow the question I have been waiting for, I in a rough time in my life saw an angel so beautiful, also so mad at me he paced two steps one way then two the other. He was made up it seemed of molecules of air like when it is hot outside and you see the molecules in the air moving, he was platinum in color ... and his gown was also platinum in color ...
Wow, wow indeed. "Platinum in color," as you say. I never knew there was such a color. Is that kind of like silver, maybe not quite so shiny?
Doubtless the fundie can explain how his hallucination can be "made up of" "platinum"-colored air molecules? Unless he's referring to my non-angelic posting level on FC?
:o
-
Yeah, that's actually the best part, "molecules of air like when it's hot outside and you can see the molecules.." When was the last time you saw molecules? My vision must be deficient because I never saw a molecule in my entire life, they're much too small to see. I congratulate the poster for this charming and entertaining idiocy. But don't let anybody confuse your image of molecular angels with any scientific facts. It fits with my old saying, "the less you know, the more opinions you're allowed to have."
-
Yeah, that's actually the best part, "molecules of air like when it's hot outside and and you can see the molecules.." When was the last time you saw molecules? My vision must be deficient because I never saw a molecule in my entire life, they're much too small to see. I congratulate the poster for this charming and entertaining idiocy. But don't let anybody confuse your image of molecular angels with any scientific facts. It fits with my old saying, "the less you know, the more opinions you're allowed to have."
Apparently, atmospheric heat distortions aren't just mistakenly attributed to mirages anymore; they're being attributed to 'angelic U.F.O.s' too.
:o
-
How many angels do you suppose there are out there, one for every living human? Do the terrorists have angels watching over them, how does that work out? Considering all the christians that have died over the centuries, I must have at least 100 angels watching over me, the idea makes me a little uncomfortable, but then I know, the angels all mean well. What's the denomination of these angelic helpers, or are they nondenominational? I mean catholicism has been around for much longer than other christian denominations, many more recent religions would, perhaps, have a shortage of angels, while catholics might have a surplus. Assuming that I actually end up in heaven, is it going to become my job to float around here on this planet as an angel helping some moron who isn't yet dead, is that what they call eternal life in paradise?
-
How many angels do you suppose there are out there, one for every living human?
Going by actual evidence instead of unsupported belief; zero.
Do the terrorists have angels watching over them, how does that work out?
Don't they generally believe that they get 72 virgin, ("angels")?
Considering all the christians that have died over the centuries, I must have at least 100 angels watching over me, the idea makes me a little uncomfortable, but then I know, the angels all mean well. What's the denomination of these angelic helpers, or are they nondenominational? I mean catholicism has been around for much longer than other christian denominations, many more recent religions would, perhaps, have a shortage of angels, while catholics might have a surplus.
Considering that all the "pagan" religions which preceded the latter judeo-xtian cultural thefts of such concepts as "angels", (supernatural egregores), were inherently non-denominational egregore constructs, the judeo-xtian plagiarists could keep stealing "angels" from pagans.
Assuming that I actually end up in heaven, is it going to become my job to float around here on this planet helping some moron who isn't yet dead, is that what they call eternal life in paradise?
Obviously, the fundies haven't thought that out sufficiently.
:o
-
At my age, 59 1/2, I think 72 virgins would be a little too much, 60 I'm sure I could handle without any problem, but it might take me a week, maybe even a few days longer.
-
Wow there are some mean people in this world. Do I believe in a "god"? No, but I don't bash those that do... in fact I really hope that when I die a gentelmen named St. Peter meets me at some pearly gates and says "No". I will be relieved that my friends and familly didn't waste their lives on false hope. Again, I really do hope this happens.
-
Wow there are some mean people in this world. Do I believe in a "god"? No, but I don't bash those that do... in fact I really hope that when I die a gentelmen named St. Peter meets me at some pearly gates and says "No". I will be relieved that my friends and familly didn't waste their lives on false hope. Again, I really do hope this happens.
Thank you for that.
-
Wow there are some mean people in this world. Do I believe in a "god"? No, but I don't bash those that do... in fact I really hope that when I die a gentelmen named St. Peter meets me at some pearly gates and says "No". I will be relieved that my friends and familly didn't waste their lives on false hope. Again, I really do hope this happens.
And if they have wasted their time on false hope, what then? Just shrug off all of the religious deceits and faith-based oppression they commit in this life under the banner of such baseless blind faith?
“Recalling some of the most spectacular horrors of history -- the burning of heretics and witches at the stake, the wholesale massacre of "heathens," and other no less repulsive manifestations of xtian "civilization" in Europe and elsewhere - modern man is filled with pride in the "progress" accomplished, in one line at least, since the end of the dark ages of religious fanaticism.”
-- Savitri Devi
-
Wow there are some mean people in this world. Do I believe in a "god"? No, but I don't bash those that do... in fact I really hope that when I die a gentelmen named St. Peter meets me at some pearly gates and says "No". I will be relieved that my friends and familly didn't waste their lives on false hope. Again, I really do hope this happens.
Thank you for that.
You're welcome.
-
I agree mpedersen, there are some very mean people in this world. However, I think that the ones voicing their opposing opinions to the post I made initially, "What is your Evidence?", are people who obviously have no evidence in their lives and are very ticked off at those who do. It is sad that they don't realize that no matter how much bashing, name calling and belittling they do to whoever wants to post to this subject, they can't undo or eradicate someone's personal experience from their life. As Bob Dylan sang... You've got to serve somebody...It may be the devil....It may be the Lord...but you've got to serve somebody...", and it is pretty obvious whom they are serving. Anyone who has an experience to share, please share it under the topic "Have you Ever had a Faith Affirming Experience? on the regular "Off Topics" board, posted for discussion, not debate. Of course the negativity will follow you there but that is what the "ignore" button is for. Maybe a civilized discussion on the subject will be possible there.
I Peter 5:8 - KJV
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. ...
-
I agree mpedersen, there are some very mean people in this world. However, I think that the ones voicing their opposing opinions to the post I made initially, "What is your Evidence?", are people who obviously have no evidence in their lives and are very ticked off at those who do.
Actually we're (atleast I'm) not at all. We're just pointing out the arrogance and the basic fallacies the 'presenters of evidence' fail to see. There's nothing wrong with debating and discussing in a debate and discuss forum. I'm not sure why you don't understand this concept. :dontknow:
It is sad that they don't realize that no matter how much bashing, name calling and belittling they do to whoever wants to post to this subject,
Anything you may deem 'name calling' is actually calling it as it is. Unless one can refute the names or show how they don't apply? There's a major difference between, say, calling someone arrogant and calling someone a (insert swear here).
please share it under the topic "Have you Ever had a Faith Affirming Experience? on the regular "Off Topics" board, posted for discussion, not debate.
I tried searching for it but could find it to post a link here.
Of course the negativity will follow you there but that is what the "ignore" button is for. Maybe a civilized discussion on the subject will be possible there.
Yes. A civilized discussion where a thread titled "Say something stupid" is at the top.
-
I think that the ones voicing their opposing opinions to the post I made initially, "What is your Evidence?", are people who obviously have no evidence in their lives and are very ticked off at those who do.
No, what has been presented as "evidence" is not evidential; it's unsubstantiated attributions and hearsay which dodges the burden of proof obligation.
It is sad that they don't realize that no matter how much bashing, name calling and belittling they do to whoever wants to post to this subject, they can't undo or eradicate someone's personal experience from their life.
The only trouble with that is, someone misattributing "personal experience from their life" to a supernatural cause does not constitute valid evidence of their claims. Empty religious claims are intentionally deceptive. Being intentionally deceptive is counter to honor.
-
Lets just be honest. There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
-
Lets just be honest.
Your engaging in such a practice in lieu of the dishonest deceptions you have been using isn't expected anytime soon.
There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof.
No valid evidence has been presented by those making specious religious claims, (instead, unsubstantiated hearsay based upon "faith" and not evidence has been presented).
That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
None of the specious hearsay being substituted for "proof" is remotely evidentiary since such inherently biased hearsay does not constitute valid evidence, (it's mere empty opinion). The burden of proof remains with those religious adherents who made the religious claims in the first place. This responsibility cannot rationally be shifted onto the challengers of those specious religious claims to 'disprove' a negative assertion.
-
There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
Let me make a basic example as to what's going on here-
Let's say you think Poptarts cured your cold. Fine. No quarrels needed. But suddenly you start shouting and praising Poptarts saying it's the the cure for the common cold. People take interest in hearing how it did so. Suddenly more sick people are eating pop-tarts and other junkfood. It's obvious to anyone who reads the side of the box to know that eating a lot of poptarts is not healthy. Moreover it's quite obvious that Poptarts don't cure illnesses. We talk to you and tell you that your "evidences" of Poptarts curing your cold are not correct as there were many other factors at play- you had seen a doctor, you had taken a few random meds, you slept well and kept yourself in good spirits, you had plenty of chicken soup and water, etc. etc.
Suddenly you're getting mad at us and tell us we're wrong because you like the sweet taste of Poptarts and you just know they cured your cold. We ask you to show us how it did so with basic evidence, and you tell us we're being rude and devaluing your belief in the all-powerful Poptarts. So suddenly we're the bad guys for challenging your assertion that your empty belief is true?
So please- show us some evidence that your god is helping you (or poptarts can cure the common cold). If you can't, fine! Argument over. If you want to still believe, fine! No problem on this end. Just keep it to yourself so you don't sound like some arrogant self-righteous narcissistic zealot.
-
There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
Let me make a basic example as to what's going on here-
Let's say you think Poptarts cured your cold. Fine. No quarrels needed. But suddenly you start shouting and praising Poptarts saying it's the the cure for the common cold. People take interest in hearing how it did so. Suddenly more sick people are eating pop-tarts and other junkfood. It's obvious to anyone who reads the side of the box to know that eating a lot of poptarts is not healthy. Moreover it's quite obvious that Poptarts don't cure illnesses. We talk to you and tell you that your "evidences" of Poptarts curing your cold are not correct as there were many other factors at play- you had seen a doctor, you had taken a few random meds, you slept well and kept yourself in good spirits, you had plenty of chicken soup and water, etc. etc.
Suddenly you're getting mad at us and tell us we're wrong because you like the sweet taste of Poptarts and you just know they cured your cold. We ask you to show us how it did so with basic evidence, and you tell us we're being rude and devaluing your belief in the all-powerful Poptarts. So suddenly we're the bad guys for challenging your assertion that your empty belief is true?
Well-said. Such seems the consistant dodge of those who continually fail to provide actual evidence to support outrageous religious claims, (to attack the challengers, not the logic of the challenges themselves and avoid providing evidence which has any veracity).
-
:heart: Yes I do believe in God and no Im am of no religion. I beieve because we all just didnt show up on this earth so someone or something created us. :heart:
-
:heart: Yes I do believe in God and no Im am of no religion. I beieve because we all just didnt show up on this earth so someone or something created us. :heart:
Such 'reasoning' is faulty because it eschews actual reasoning; the conclusion does not logically follow from the false dichotomy inherent in the premise.
-
Lets just be honest. There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
Exactly. :thumbsup:
-
Lets just be honest. There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
Exactly. :thumbsup:
What?
How can rationality and reason be irrationally/illogically considered to be a "pointless ideology" of "horse manure" by a pointless religious ideologists who has the horse manure of 'faith' in such religious contentions? It's always humorous when irrational religious fundies try to misuse pseudo-reasoning to 'debunk' reasoning.
-
Well for me I studies my bible daily. It is my evidence and thats all I need. And for those that dont believe the true saints of God are being prapared by Him to replace satan and his demons in the ruling over this earth. For satan is now the "god of this age."(2 Corinthians 4:4).
-
Well for me I studies my bible daily. It is my evidence and thats all I need.
The "bible", (whichever variant being referred to), does not constitute evidence since it consists entirely unsupported hearsay based upon "faith". Neither hearsay nor faith constitute valid evidence, (because "faith", "belief" and "hearsay" are not support by evidence themselves). Such circular non-reasoning typifies blind religious faith.
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses."
-- Arthur C. Clarke
-
The evidence that the Bible played an important part in the United States is found all around. For example, we have such cities as Bethlehem, Pennsylvania;Smyrna, Georgia; and Moab, Utah. The McGuffey's Reader was used in many schools for nearly a century. The McGuffey's Reader contained moral and biblical references, alongside classical material. In Washington, DC religious references are found throughout the Capitol. The House Chamber contains the reference: "In God We Trust." In the *bleep* Corridor are the words: "America, God send His grace on Thee." As Madison wrote,'A right towardmen is a duty toward the Creator....'As Jefferson asked,'Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?' We can find quotes all over (facon9).
-
The evidence that the Bible played an important part in the United States is found all around.
We can find quotes all over (facon9).
You misunderstand the concept of "evidence"; the 'bible' isn't evidence of anything substantive since it consists of hearsay. The use of such hearsay by some U.S. citizens is not evidence of the veracity of 'biblical' contents.
"It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza."
--Penn Jillette
-
Lets just be honest. There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
You are exactly right, and I totally agree.
-
There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
Let me make a basic example as to what's going on here-
Let's say you think Poptarts cured your cold. Fine. No quarrels needed. But suddenly you start shouting and praising Poptarts saying it's the the cure for the common cold. People take interest in hearing how it did so. Suddenly more sick people are eating pop-tarts and other junkfood. It's obvious to anyone who reads the side of the box to know that eating a lot of poptarts is not healthy. Moreover it's quite obvious that Poptarts don't cure illnesses. We talk to you and tell you that your "evidences" of Poptarts curing your cold are not correct as there were many other factors at play- you had seen a doctor, you had taken a few random meds, you slept well and kept yourself in good spirits, you had plenty of chicken soup and water, etc. etc.
Suddenly you're getting mad at us and tell us we're wrong because you like the sweet taste of Poptarts and you just know they cured your cold. We ask you to show us how it did so with basic evidence, and you tell us we're being rude and devaluing your belief in the all-powerful Poptarts. So suddenly we're the bad guys for challenging your assertion that your empty belief is true?
So please- show us some evidence that your god is helping you (or poptarts can cure the common cold). If you can't, fine! Argument over. If you want to still believe, fine! No problem on this end. Just keep it to yourself so you don't sound like some arrogant self-righteous narcissistic zealot.
I'm sorry but that comparison is like trying to compare apples to oranges, as people say.
-
I'm sorry but that comparison is like trying to compare apples to oranges, as people say.
I fail to see your point since you provide no explanation. There's no proof that Poptarts cure colds, nor is there evidence your god speaks or works for you. My point was simply 'Believe what you wish, but if you speak up about them as truths, don't get angry at the skeptics if your belief holds no weight.'. It's a practical message.
-
Wow, you totally destroyed my belief in the magical, mystical properties and strengths of poptarts, what is there left for me to believe in now, I suddenly feel so alone and helpless?
-
Wow, you totally destroyed my belief in the magical, mystical properties and strengths of poptarts, what is there left for me to believe in now, I suddenly feel so alone and helpless?
The ones with the sprinkles are said to still be helpful against the sniffles though ...
-
Lets just be honest. There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
You are exactly right, and I totally agree.
I totally disagree.....I'd say that momoney555 is NOT exactly right exactly WRONG.
I see consistent requests for VALID proof or evidence, and the consistent failure to provide ANY.
What is it that you consider is "making sure no proof is ever presented"?? How exactly is the presentation of proof being thwarted?
And nothing that could be "remotely be perceived as proof" has been "disqualified" and/or "devalued", because nothing has ever been provided that COULD be perceived as proof (even remotely).
“He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom.”
--anonymous
-
:heart: Yes I do believe in God and no Im am of no religion. I beieve because we all just didnt show up on this earth so someone or something created us. :heart:
Such 'reasoning' is faulty because it eschews actual reasoning; the conclusion does not logically follow from the false dichotomy inherent in the premise.
Really, Im assuming then you figured out how we got here.....
-
:heart: Yes I do believe in God and no Im am of no religion. I beieve because we all just didnt show up on this earth so someone or something created us. :heart:
Such 'reasoning' is faulty because it eschews actual reasoning; the conclusion does not logically follow from the false dichotomy inherent in the premise.
Really, Im assuming then you figured out how we got here.....
So what you're saying is if I don't have an answer that means your answer is correct? So if we were asked what's 2 + 2 and I said "I don't know" and you said "seven", you're correct?
Also, you haven't answered your question with god, you've simply added another question on top of your initial one. You're saying we didn't all just show up on this earth (no one said that by the way so your premise is false) but somehow you believe your god can just show up? According to your beliefs god is more complex than us yet it's impossible for us to "just show up" but somehow a more complex being can "just show up"?
Do you seriously not see the flaws in your statements?
-
The evidence that the Bible played an important part in the United States is found all around.
Okay, I don't really see your point here. None of these examples prove that your god exists, or give any credit to your case when you consider there are quotes from all sorts of texts and pagan/Greek/Roman influences everywhere.
-
Don't let the inmates scare you away.
"Inmates"?! You are making people who write for a living cry everywhere with your nonsensical choice of name-calling.
They need to hear the reality of a believers experience, whether they accept it or not.
And here we have another ignorant believer who assumes all atheists were always atheists. ::)
And by the way God does give to unbelievers also, but money is probably all you receive..
That's a laughable suggestion. So your deity is concerned with our meaningless paper currency, is he? But if I'm lying bleeding on the side of the road, he'll tell me to F off?
-
I'm not religious but I say that our thoughts are our own and as long as they don't hurt others why not believe what you want.
Because incorrect beliefs are usually not benign. Just look at all of those people on shows like Obsessed. Even if they live alone without much contact with others, they are greatly harming themselves, which in turn, makes them less worthwhile people when it comes to contributing to society.
.. and it makes me feel better each day to think that. What is the problem.
Because in the vast majority of cases, people cannot keep their beliefs contained to these neat little areas. Delusional thoughts are not as innocent as you think. They have a way of infecting nearly every aspect of your day-to-day life, causing you to do crazy things or make choices you otherwise wouldn't have. Also, even if you don't do the really horrible acts that religion brings out in some people, you are still supporting an incorrect majority by buying into these lies. The last thing a bigoted, hateful person needs is a bunch of other sheep who also claim his god is real.
-
Lets just be honest. There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
Exactly. :thumbsup:
lol I agreed with this thinking we was talking about the Bible set, but I suppose not after reviewing previous posts in this thread. ;)
-
Lets just be honest. There is no proof for you nor are you looking for proof. That is not your mission. Your mission, and the mission of all those like you, is to make sure no proof is ever presented and to quickly disqualify and devalue anything that may remotely be perceived as proof because it could expose your pointless ideology for the horse manure that it is!
You are exactly right, and I totally agree.
I totally disagree.....I'd say that momoney555 is NOT exactly right.
I see consistent requests for VALID proof or evidence, and the consistent failure to provide ANY.
What is it that you consider is "making sure no proof is ever presented"?? How exactly is the presentation of proof being thwarted?
And nothing that could be "remotely be perceived as proof" has been "disqualified" and/or "devalued", because nothing has ever been provided that COULD be perceived as proof (even remotely).
“He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom.”
--anonymous
There are a lot of things that are unprovable but yet we all know them to be true. You cannot prove your love for another (or any emotion for another -- or even your view of another). You can only demonstrate your willingness to present the experience of these things as you sense them. You cannot prove them though. It is like a romantic interest that requests proof of the others love -- such a thing can never be done and all you can ever do is show your willingness to demonstrate your devotion or comply to the conditions of the deman. This topic is no different than had one started a thread of "What is your evidence of love?" or "What is your evidence of hate?" or other such things that we all know to be true but could never prove (even blood chemistry and brain imagery doesn't prove them).
-
Wow there are some mean people in this world. Do I believe in a "god"? No, but I don't bash those that do... in fact I really hope that when I die a gentelmen named St. Peter meets me at some pearly gates and says "No". I will be relieved that my friends and familly didn't waste their lives on false hope. Again, I really do hope this happens.
you rock and your quote was appreciated by many users on FC I am sure. Some of these people are mean huh, if there is infact a God which I believe I'm sure he's not happy with them.
-
I see consistent requests for VALID proof or evidence, and the consistent failure to provide ANY.
What is it that you consider is "making sure no proof is ever presented"?? How exactly is the presentation of proof being thwarted?
And nothing that could be "remotely be perceived as proof" has been "disqualified" and/or "devalued", because nothing has ever been provided that COULD be perceived as proof (even remotely).
“He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom.”
--anonymous
There are a lot of things that are unprovable but yet we all know them to be true. You cannot prove your love for another (or any emotion for another -- or even your view of another). You can only demonstrate your willingness to present the experience of these things as you sense them. You cannot prove them though.
So, instead of providing evidence, a tacit admission of making "unprovable" religious claims is made through an analogy? Indirectly demonstrating the existence of a human emotion, (or a "belief"), does not confer validity upon the subject of the emotion nor existence of an object of belief. Such concepts as "love", "hate", "disgust", "religious delusions", etc. are intangibles which can/may only influence tangibles indirectly. Even then, attributing aspects of 'influence' to those intangible concepts is a more subjective and subject to skepticism.
-
Some of these people are mean huh, if there is infact a God which I believe I'm sure he's not happy with them.
"God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it."
-- Carl Sagan
"You can safely say that you have made g-d in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people
you do."
-- Reverend Robert Cromey
-
I think that the ones voicing their opposing opinions to the post I made initially, "What is your Evidence?", are people who obviously have no evidence in their lives and are very ticked off at those who do.
No, what has been presented as "evidence" is not evidential; it's unsubstantiated attributions and hearsay which dodges the burden of proof obligation.
It is sad that they don't realize that no matter how much bashing, name calling and belittling they do to whoever wants to post to this subject, they can't undo or eradicate someone's personal experience from their life.
The only trouble with that is, someone misattributing "personal experience from their life" to a supernatural cause does not constitute valid evidence of their claims. Empty religious claims are intentionally deceptive. Being intentionally deceptive is counter to honor.
What is your Evidence. I have seen nothing in any of your replies or quotes that carries any evidence. no solid proof just a bunch of down grading comments, with absolutely no evidence what so ever so , whats your evidence, wheres your proof?????????????? :bs: :angel12: :'(
-
I'm not religious but I say that our thoughts are our own and as long as they don't hurt others why not believe what you want.
Because incorrect beliefs are usually not benign. Just look at all of those people on shows like Obsessed. Even if they live alone without much contact with others, they are greatly harming themselves, which in turn, makes them less worthwhile people when it comes to contributing to society.
... and it makes me feel better each day to think that. What is the problem.
Because in the vast majority of cases, people cannot keep their beliefs contained to these neat little areas. Delusional thoughts are not as innocent as you think. They have a way of infecting nearly every aspect of your day-to-day life, causing you to do crazy things or make choices you otherwise wouldn't have. Also, even if you don't do the really horrible acts that religion brings out in some people, you are still supporting an incorrect majority by buying into these lies. The last thing a bigoted, hateful person needs is a bunch of other sheep who also claim his god is real.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/r1artv.gif)
-
What is your Evidence.
The burden of proof, (providing supportive evidence), rests with those who initiate claims - like the religious adherents have done, sans evidence. On the other hand, challenging those claims doesn't constitute making counter-claims.
I have seen nothing in any of your replies or quotes that carries any evidence.
"Evidence" of what? Logic refutes illogic and constitutes a line of reasoning, (as opposed to illogical religious contentions which contain no rational lines of reasoning), illogic cannot refute logic.
-
Don't let the inmates scare you away.
I'm not religious but I say that our thoughts are our own and as long as they don't hurt others why not believe what you want.
Because incorrect beliefs are usually not benign. Just look at all of those people on shows like Obsessed. Even if they live alone without much contact with others, they are greatly harming themselves, which in turn, makes them less worthwhile people when it comes to contributing to society.
.. and it makes me feel better each day to think that. What is the problem.
Because in the vast majority of cases, people cannot keep their beliefs contained to these neat little areas. Delusional thoughts are not as innocent as you think. They have a way of infecting nearly every aspect of your day-to-day life, causing you to do crazy things or make choices you otherwise wouldn't have. Also, even if you don't do the really horrible acts that religion brings out in some people, you are still supporting an incorrect majority by buying into these lies. The last thing a bigoted, hateful person needs is a bunch of other sheep who also claim his god is real.
“A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith proves nothing.”
--Nietzsche
-
Wow, you totally destroyed my belief in the magical, mystical properties and strengths of poptarts, what is there left for me to believe in now, I suddenly feel so alone and helpless?
"It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza."
--Penn Jillette
Are you SURE there weren't ANY poptarts squeezed in there? I feel so bad now for alaric99x......
-
Wow, you totally destroyed my belief in the magical, mystical properties and strengths of poptarts, what is there left for me to believe in now, I suddenly feel so alone and helpless?
"It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza."
--Penn Jillette
Are you SURE there weren't ANY poptarts squeezed in there? I feel so bad now for alaric99x......
Maybe Teller would have amended Penn and said, 'It's accurate to say that the bible contains equal amounts of facts, evidence and poptarts'?
-
Wow, you totally destroyed my belief in the magical, mystical properties and strengths of poptarts, what is there left for me to believe in now, I suddenly feel so alone and helpless?
"It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza."
--Penn Jillette
Are you SURE there weren't ANY poptarts squeezed in there? I feel so bad now for alaric99x......
Maybe Teller would have amended Penn and said, 'It's accurate to say that the bible contains equal amounts of facts, evidence and poptarts'?
YES!!!! By jove, I think you've got it!!
(http://i.imgur.com/d7jOZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/G3N86.gif)
(Unless Teller wanted to have the poptarts AND also keep the pizza....?)
-
So many have viciously made fun of my seeing the angel I described at the beginning of these posts, But I do believe the topic is What is your evidence, not what is the Evidence, so it was asking what proved this to me, what is your proof? I needed no proof I had faith before this citing, although this citing has helped me to understand many things in this life. Has anyone on this cite been to Egypt, Jerusalem, the red sea, any of the places mentioned in the bible,Did Jesus not die, is there not proof of this in almost every country on earth. Do you deny that there is proof that Jesus died, And also that Jesus lived? Have you read the bible? Do you realize for all you people that needed proof there was proof, that still just wasn't enough for you. Did you realize there were stones placed during the old testament times that were left as proof for all to come. Do you deny that the Isrealites exist, do you deny that there were twelve tribes. Have you ever seen a real sling, like it talks about in the written documentation of David and Goliath, I have one in my room. I ask again where is your evidence, Do you deny the fact that there were 12 disciples, because world wide this is a known fact.... What about the proof that the seventh day is Saturday yet almost every church around goes to church on Sunday, the first day of the week, even the believers, blatantly dis- obeying the 4th commandment. where is your proof that this isn't going on even as we speak this day. Some day you will see my evidence I hope it is not too late by then. God the creator of all things do you think he owes you evidence, do you think if he gave it you would believe it any ways or would you say well that's not proof that's just hear say. Or I was only imagining that, so for those who commented on my seeing an angel maybe that is why he showed me and not you.
The proof is in the pudding, just try using water instead of milk and tell me how it comes out!!!!! :'( :crybaby2: :dontknow: :thumbsup: :heart: :peace: :star: :thumbsup: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:
-
Do you deny that there is proof that Jesus died, And also that Jesus lived?
No, a MAN named Jesus did live and die.....A MAN.
Denying the existence of supernatural beings, however....that would get a YES vote.
God the creator of all things do you think he owes you evidence.......
No but unless "he" (or anyone) provides evidence, then there's certainly no reason for belief.
.....do you think if he gave it you would believe it any ways or would you say well that's not proof that's just hear say.
If (that's IF) any ACTUAL proof or evidence was ever provided, it would be a different story.....but there hasn't ever been any proof - ACTUAL evidence or proof - so why should anyone believe in that which does not exist?
"The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike."
--Thomas Vernon
-
So many have viciously made fun of my seeing the angel I described at the beginning of these posts, But I do believe the topic is What is your evidence, not what is the Evidence, so it was asking what proved this to me, what is your proof?
Dubious 'witness' testimony does not constitute valid evidence; it's merely a religious claim sans evidence in this instance. Especially when such 'testimony' is challenged to provide substantive evidence and none is forthcoming, ("belief" is not substantive evidence, it's simply an empty religious opinion which is based upon "faith" ... "faith being that for which eschews evidence and which specifically lacks it).
I needed no proof I had faith before this citing, although this citing has helped me to understand many things in this life.
Precisely; which means that the dubious religious 'witness' non-evidentiary testimony was extraneous by your own admission and based upon "faith", (that which has no supportive evidence). No evidence means that the religious contention is an unsupported one.
Do you deny that there is proof that Jesus died, And also that Jesus lived?
Lots of people have lived and died. There is no evidence to support the biblical claim of any zombie "resurrection", which renders it a dubious contention.
Have you read the bible? Do you realize for all you people that needed proof there was proof ...
A collection of ancient religious claims which lack substantiating evidence does not constitute valid "proof" of those claims.
I ask again where is your evidence ...
Although the question is vague, (no subject is specified for evidentiary support), the implication appears to be a request for "evidence" to support a negative contention, (that something doesn't exist?). If not, the context can only be guessed at.
Some day you will see my evidence I hope it is not too late by then.
No actual evidence has been presented thusfar. Belief/faith, unsupported contentions are not evidentiary.
God the creator of all things do you think he owes you evidence, do you think if he gave it you would believe it any ways(?)
No, you believers are making such claims and the burden of proof, (providing supporting evidence), rests with such claimants. If your 'g-d' did exist, wouldn't such an entity be capable of providing incontrovertible evidence of existence? What is the actual, (not speculated), purpose of requiring 'faith"-sans-evidence?
...or would you say well that's not proof that's just hear say. Or I was only imagining that, so for those who commented on my seeing an angel maybe that is why he showed me and not you.
Your 'witness testimony' does consist of unsupported hearsay, not valid evidence. You aren't debating youyr contentions, you're making unsupported proselytizing religious declarations instead.
-
So many have viciously made fun of my seeing the angel I described at the beginning of these posts, But I do believe the topic is What is your evidence, not what is the Evidence, so it was asking what proved this to me, what is your proof?
Dubious 'witness' testimony does not constitute valid evidence; it's merely a religious claim sans evidence in this instance. Especially when such 'testimony' is challenged to provide substantive evidence and none is forthcoming, ("belief" is not substantive evidence, it's simply an empty religious opinion which is based upon "faith" ... "faith being that for which eschews evidence and which specifically lacks it).
I needed no proof I had faith before this citing, although this citing has helped me to understand many things in this life.
Incorrect I said before the citing I had faith, Seeing what i saw was Evidence enough to me even knowing all you criticizers were here, that I still replied truth no matter what your reply back to me wold be, to me that is evidence all to itself. Where is your proof there is no God, your evidence is not there, where is your evidence, show me, not a bunch of words smashed together trying to make yourself sound smart, where is your evidence.
Precisely; which means that the dubious religious 'witness' non-evidentiary testimony was extraneous by your own admission and based upon "faith", (that which has no supportive evidence). No evidence means that the religious contention is an unsupported one.
Do you deny that there is proof that Jesus died, And also that Jesus lived?
Lots of people have lived and died. There is no evidence to support the biblical claim of any zombie "resurrection", which renders it a dubious contention.
Have you read the bible? Do you realize for all you people that needed proof there was proof ...
A collection of ancient religious claims which lack substantiating evidence does not constitute valid "proof" of those claims.
I ask again where is your evidence ...
Although the question is vague, (no subject is specified for evidentiary support), the implication appears to be a request for "evidence" to support a negative contention, (that something doesn't exist?). If not, the context can only be guessed at.
Some day you will see my evidence I hope it is not too late by then.
No actual evidence has been presented thusfar. Belief/faith, unsupported contentions are not evidentiary.
God the creator of all things do you think he owes you evidence, do you think if he gave it you would believe it any ways(?)
No, you believers are making such claims and the burden of proof, (providing supporting evidence), rests with such claimants. If your 'g-d' did exist, wouldn't such an entity be capable of providing incontrovertible evidence of existence? What is the actual, (not speculated), purpose of requiring 'faith"-sans-evidence?
...or would you say well that's not proof that's just hear say. Or I was only imagining that, so for those who commented on my seeing an angel maybe that is why he showed me and not you.
Your 'witness testimony' does consist of unsupported hearsay, not valid evidence. You aren't debating youyr contentions, you're making unsupported proselytizing religious declarations instead.
-
I said before the citing I had faith, Seeing what i saw was Evidence enough to me even knowing all you criticizers were here, that I still replied truth no matter what your reply back to me wold be, to me that is evidence all to itself.
Once again, simply claiming that such was 'witnessed' does not constitute valid evidence; it is merely your unsupported faith-based contention.
Where is your proof there is no God, your evidence is not there, where is your evidence, show me, not a bunch of words smashed together trying to make yourself sound smart, where is your evidence.
Although some things can be shown not to exist, requesting evidence to support a negative contention, ('prove Santa, easter bunny, fairies, elves, invisible pink unicorns' don't exist is an insistence upon a logical fallacy ... prove that you're not an idiot, etc.), indicates a diminished understanding of logical reasoning and does not confer validity on a specious claim. Because there are nearly an infinite number of things which cannot be proven not to exist, it is more rational to require that those claiming the existence of something, (such as 'g-d'), support their claim with evidence.
-
So many have viciously made fun of my seeing the angel I described at the beginning of these posts, But I do believe the topic is What is your evidence, not what is the Evidence
I can fully appreciate and relate to your experience. Although I have never encountered an angel, I know others who have, my mother, to be exact, so I have heard recounts like yours before. Although you may have believed before,this was proof to you of the existence of God and there is nothing now that can convince you that God does not exist, after having a faith affirming experience like that, I know. For me the faith affirming experience in my life happened at the age of 14 at a church revival. Although I knew about God, I was a skeptic, but I was seeking the truth. I had seen this happen to others but wasnt sure if they were faking it or not, But when It happened to me, personally being touched by the Holy Spirit, it erased all doubt from my mind about the existence of God. I have never doubted since that day, that a powerful God does indeed exist. I cant offer my personal experience as proof to an unbeliever that God exists. It is impossible to prove to anyone that this even happened to me. This was MY PROOF. Faith affirming proof is different for each individual person and it comes from God. What affirms my faith will not necessarily affirm yours. Therefore, this discussion/debate has turned into a dog chasing his tail. The only way to get proof that will satisfy someone of the existence of God is for them to ask God for it. But since they dont believe in God I guess that wont happen. Believers can only give you their proof. This post was intended for those who have their own evidence to share it, not to prove anything to unbelievers. If they want proof that affirms God's existence, it will have to come from God.
-
Although I have never encountered an angel, I know others who have, my mother, to be exact, so I have heard recounts like yours before.
That is unsubstantiated hearsay and does not constitute evidentiary "proof" of the contended claim.
Although you may have believed before,this was proof to you of the existence of God and there is nothing now that can convince you that God does not exist, after having a faith affirming experience like that, I know.
That is merely an affirmation of holding a blind religious faith confirming a pre-existing unsupported belief which is implicitly being claimed as impervious to rationality.
But when It happened to me, personally being touched by the Holy Spirit, it erased all doubt from my mind about the existence of God. I have never doubted since that day, that a powerful God does indeed exist.
"Definition of TOUCHED {http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/touched}:
1: emotionally stirred (as with gratitude)
2: slightly unbalanced mentally"
I cant offer my personal experience as proof to an unbeliever that God exists. It is impossible to prove to anyone that this even happened to me.
That is correct; a vague, undefined and entirely subjective claimed "personal experience" of being "touched" does not constitute evidence supporting that claim, (for anyone - "believers" being predisposed in favor of religious bias however, are more likely to overlook the lack of evidence in order to be enabling of the same self-deception).
This was MY PROOF. Faith affirming proof is different for each individual person and it comes from God.
You continually misuse the word "proof", (and "evidence"). Neither "faith" nor "religious belief" constitute proof/evidence. Using faith to bolster belief is circular since neither provide a substantive evidentiary basis for the other.
The only way to get proof that will satisfy someone of the existence of God is for them to ask God for it. But since they dont believe in God I guess that wont happen. Believers can only give you their proof.
Since neither "belief" nor "faith" are evidential proof, none has been presented for discussion, (previous invalid submissions are logically disregarded).
This post was intended for those who have their own evidence to share it, not to prove anything to unbelievers.
This post was made in a publically-available FC forum, not in some private xtian propaganda site. That being the case, FC members who choose to reply can do so in the manner they choose, (within FC guidelines), and not at the insubstantive whimsy of the blind-faithers. All you've managed to do is confirm that your religious claims have no evidentiary basis since you cannot produce your hypothetical deital egregore to present substantive evidence, (relying instead on hearsay allegedly attributed randomly to the hypothetical egregore by the egregore's followers).
-
Sadly to say, there was another deadly shooting in America today. This time in Wisconsin at a Sikh Temple during their Sunday services. 7 people died (one of them was the shooter)many more were injured. Early accounts seem to indicate that it was a case of domestic terrorism motivated by religious intolerance. How tragic and sad.
-
Sadly to say, there was another deadly shooting in America today. This time in Wisconsin at a Sikh Temple during their Sunday services. 7 people died (one of them was the shooter)many more were injured. Early accounts seem to indicate that it was a case of domestic terrorism motivated by religious intolerance. How tragic and sad.
I hadn't heard that today. That is indeed tragic and sad. There's no reason for intolerance like that, to the point of domestic terrorism.
-
Sadly to say, there was another deadly shooting in America today. This time in Wisconsin at a Sikh Temple during their Sunday services. 7 people died (one of them was the shooter)many more were injured. Early accounts seem to indicate that it was a case of domestic terrorism motivated by religious intolerance. How tragic and sad.
I hadn't heard that today. That is indeed tragic and sad. There's no reason for intolerance like that, to the point of domestic terrorism.
If it was motivated by religious intolerance, that would be the intolerance of those following a particular set of religious beliefs for those following a different set of religious beliefs, (presumably xtian white supremacist/skinhead being intolerant of sikh's). Naturally, the hypocrisy of xtians means that some will 'disown' their fellow xtian, (white supremacists make an equal "claim" to being xtian that any other xtian can make).
-
I see consistent requests for VALID proof or evidence, and the consistent failure to provide ANY.
What is it that you consider is "making sure no proof is ever presented"?? How exactly is the presentation of proof being thwarted?
And nothing that could be "remotely be perceived as proof" has been "disqualified" and/or "devalued", because nothing has ever been provided that COULD be perceived as proof (even remotely).
“He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom.”
--anonymous
There are a lot of things that are unprovable but yet we all know them to be true. You cannot prove your love for another (or any emotion for another -- or even your view of another). You can only demonstrate your willingness to present the experience of these things as you sense them. You cannot prove them though.
So, instead of providing evidence, a tacit admission of making "unprovable" religious claims is made through an analogy? Indirectly demonstrating the existence of a human emotion, (or a "belief"), does not confer validity upon the subject of the emotion nor existence of an object of belief. Such concepts as "love", "hate", "disgust", "religious delusions", etc. are intangibles which can/may only influence tangibles indirectly. Even then, attributing aspects of 'influence' to those intangible concepts is a more subjective and subject to skepticism.
No, your limitations in understanding the information presented and your obsessiveness prejudice and bias have made you overlook the importance of what I have given. I will try a simpler approach with you since you wish to be regarded as a child. Ponder the wisdom revealed by considering lights interactions with the eye. How it can be invisible to the eye in one circumstance and then it is suddenly reflected or scattered and is quite visible. One merely has to look at the night sky to appreciate this. The realization of stars as their photons interact with the eye. The curiosity of the blackness between them, knowing quite well there are light photons within. The appearance of a partially illuminated crescent moon. A laser in a vacuum room bounced off a mirror and onto a wall. From the simple and every day to the less common and deliberate there are lessons here that are more telling than you could likely ever appreciate.
-
MANY SKEPTICS SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE RELIGIOUS ARE JUST WEAK PEOPLE WHO NEED A CRUTCH TO LEAN ON AND THEIR RELIGION IS JUST A FARCE. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN YOUR LIFE THAT GOD IS REAL? HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED A MIRACLE OR ENCOUNTERED AN ANGEL?
My Own Evidence:
Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer. The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about. Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home. Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to. The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being heard.
My evidence: I am not religious and never have been. However, I have died twice, both times for 7 minutes and 32 seconds. There is definitely a higher being-- I saw it and spoke to it. Have seen angels too. I know literally hundreds of people like me, including atheists, who have died and come back.This is what we have in common:
All of us saw something entirely different, and for those that have gone twice or more, each time was different.
None of us could really explain fully what we saw and learned, and we all agree trying to explain it to others is like explaining a rainbow to someone who is blind from birth.
All of us was given a choice to stay there or come back here-- no strings attached.
All of us have ended up spending our time here since in the service of others, in one way or another.
And all of us are HOMESICK. We get together and comfort each other, especially on those anniversaries--none of us regrets coming back, but all of us would give ANYTHING to go back, for just a moment. Just to feel the most amazing, intimate feeling anyone can imagine-- something far beyond love, beyond anything. Every experience here is flat, in a way. I took yesterday off and just cried :'( :crybaby2:
But I wouldn't have missed it for the world :thumbsup:
Religion and God are two entirely separate things. A higher power had a hand in making this universe. A tiny piece of that is in every living thing. Man tries to understand God, but because we are alive and human, we can't really. So man invented religion to try to build a bridge between what we see and know to be true in the physical world, and what we cannot understand in the meta-physical world.
-
MANY SKEPTICS SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE RELIGIOUS ARE JUST WEAK PEOPLE WHO NEED A CRUTCH TO LEAN ON AND THEIR RELIGION IS JUST A FARCE. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN YOUR LIFE THAT GOD IS REAL? HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED A MIRACLE OR ENCOUNTERED AN ANGEL?
My Own Evidence:
Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer. The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about. Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home. Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to. The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being heard.
My evidence: I am not religious and never have been. However, I have died twice, both times for 7 minutes and 32 seconds. There is definitely a higher being-- I saw it and spoke to it. Have seen angels too. I know literally hundreds of people like me, including atheists, who have died and come back.This is what we have in common:
All of us saw something entirely different, and for those that have gone twice or more, each time was different.
None of us could really explain fully what we saw and learned, and we all agree trying to explain it to others is like explaining a rainbow to someone who is blind from birth.
All of us was given a choice to stay there or come back here-- no strings attached.
All of us have ended up spending our time here since in the service of others, in one way or another.
And all of us are HOMESICK. We get together and comfort each other, especially on those anniversaries--none of us regrets coming back, but all of us would give ANYTHING to go back, for just a moment. Just to feel the most amazing, intimate feeling anyone can imagine-- something far beyond love, beyond anything. Every experience here is flat, in a way. I took yesterday off and just cried :'( :crybaby2:
But I wouldn't have missed it for the world :thumbsup:
Religion and God are two entirely separate things. A higher power had a hand in making this universe. A tiny piece of that is in every living thing. Man tries to understand God, but because we are alive and human, we can't really. So man invented religion to try to build a bridge between what we see and know to be true in the physical world, and what we cannot understand in the meta-physical world.
Thank you for sharing this! I like the way you showed the differences between religion and God. :)
-
Sadly to say, there was another deadly shooting in America today. This time in Wisconsin at a Sikh Temple during their Sunday services. 7 people died (one of them was the shooter)many more were injured. Early accounts seem to indicate that it was a case of domestic terrorism motivated by religious intolerance. How tragic and sad.
I hadn't heard that today. That is indeed tragic and sad. There's no reason for intolerance like that, to the point of domestic terrorism.
If it was motivated by religious intolerance, that would be the intolerance of those following a particular set of religious beliefs for those following a different set of religious beliefs, (presumably xtian white supremacist/skinhead being intolerant of sikh's). Naturally, the hypocrisy of xtians means that some will 'disown' their fellow xtian, (white supremacists make an equal "claim" to being xtian that any other xtian can make).
Christians, following God's ways, are not agreeable to what some other "Christians" may or may not do. Playing God by acting on domestic terrorism is outright wrong - I absolutely cannot see God "approving" say, your example of white supremacist/skinhead, for them to commit domestic terrorism. What they are doing, instead, appears to involve their "personal" feelings on the issue. God is the one who will judge whoever for whatever. Like I've mentioned many times, you cannot "box" ALL Christians into ONE box - that's impossible and wrong to do that.
-
No, your limitations in understanding the information ...
On the contrary, my understanding is not limited or restricted in any way by blind religious faith as yours is. Keep fabricating crap and falsely attributing it to me if wished, your own troll-chow will be fed to you to choke on, fundie.
-
No, your limitations in understanding the information ...
On the contrary, my understanding is not limited or restricted in any way by blind religious faith as yours is. Keep fabricating crap and falsely attributing it to me if wished, your own troll-chow will be fed to you to choke on, fundie.
Yeah, because we know that only 'blind religious faith' allows us to see light photons reflected off of a surface. It is amazing when I present things in a secular manner based upon science that you become even more obtuse than normal. I have never fabricated anything and falsely attributed it to you, but I have proven where you fabricated a statement and inserted it into my quote and tried to attribute it to me. You did this multiple times, in fact.
Are you trying to threaten me? Come on let me really have it and keep that weak stuff for your neighborhood kids or your dog or your girlfriend or wherever you are used to using it. We both know quite well where the results of such a confrontation would lead so don't pretend to act froggy with me.
-
:heart: Yes I do believe in God and no Im am of no religion. I beieve because we all just didnt show up on this earth so someone or something created us. :heart:
Such 'reasoning' is faulty because it eschews actual reasoning; the conclusion does not logically follow from the false dichotomy inherent in the premise.
Really, Im assuming then you figured out how we got here.....
So what you're saying is if I don't have an answer that means your answer is correct? So if we were asked what's 2 + 2 and I said "I don't know" and you said "seven", you're correct?
Also, you haven't answered your question with god, you've simply added another question on top of your initial one. You're saying we didn't all just show up on this earth (no one said that by the way so your premise is false) but somehow you believe your god can just show up? According to your beliefs god is more complex than us yet it's impossible for us to "just show up" but somehow a more complex being can "just show up"?
Do you seriously not see the flaws in your statements?
I said I believe in God...then went on to make a statement of why I do. There is no questions there but only the ???you think was in that staement. So actuially I think you cant answer the questions of have you figured out how we got here. Just show up is not a question its a statement. You know that saying Educated fool!!! Right now its making sense to me. lol :wave: :thumbsup:
-
No, your limitations in understanding the information ...
On the contrary, my understanding is not limited or restricted in any way by blind religious faith as yours is. Keep fabricating crap and falsely attributing it to me if wished, your own troll-chow will be fed to you to choke on, fundie.
Yeah, because we know that only 'blind religious faith' allows us to see light photons reflected off of a surface.
There you go insinuating things that never occurred again. "Faith" has less to do with 'sight' than secular explanations for the ability of retinas to sense photonic wave/particles and transmit chemical pulses to the brain. Whereas blind faith *sees* nothing but what it's been told to see, sans processing or evidence, (which is what makes both "faith" & blind).
I have never fabricated anything and falsely attributed it to you ...
I haven't yet decided what would be more efficient; listing your lies by thread and number or, just numbering the subtotal as you fabricate lies, (although your lying about not lying will count as a separate lie for each event).
Are you trying to threaten me? We both know quite well where the results of such a confrontation would lead so don't pretend to act froggy with me.
How does one actually "threaten" with a metaphorical analogy online? In previous such "confrontations", (wherein you simply post unsupported ad hominems and even lamer insults), you've declarfed victory without acheiving it. Nothing less is expected from you, In fact, all expectations have you have been lowered to more closely match your demonstrably low intelligence level. The data gleaned from noting your moronic and illogical responses may be of use later in the "dumbing-down" thread.
-
So actuially I think you cant answer the questions of have you figured out how we got here.
You're *here* because at least one of your parents had sex, (other variations are possible, such as being the first test-tube baby decanted however, let's assume you were not decanted in a lab and that each of your parents' presence is a result of their parents having had sex).
If one extends this process of reproduction backward in time, one's gynealogical 'tree' emerges, (at least to varying extents, depending upon records and honesty). There are no accurate records of "begettings" other than the unveriable hearsay of various 'bibles' once the accurate geneologies get murky.
-
No, your limitations in understanding the information ...
On the contrary, my understanding is not limited or restricted in any way by blind religious faith as yours is. Keep fabricating crap and falsely attributing it to me if wished, your own troll-chow will be fed to you to choke on, fundie.
Yeah, because we know that only 'blind religious faith' allows us to see light photons reflected off of a surface.
There you go insinuating things that never occurred again. "Faith" has less to do with 'sight' than secular explanations for the ability of retinas to sense photonic wave/particles and transmit chemical pulses to the brain. Whereas blind faith *sees* nothing but what it's been told to see, sans processing or evidence, (which is what makes both "faith" & blind).
Your dyslexia or lunacy is getting the better of you again. You were the one that brought up faith and used in to challenge my example on the properties of light regarding its detection by the eye. My claim was entirely secular and you could only reply in terms of religion -- all the while trying to belittle religion which is freaking hilariously indicative of your irrational prejudice and blind bias. I don't imagine that even with me telling you this you will realize your obvious blunder as you are so controlled by your own animosity that it deprives you of the most basics of observation.
I have never fabricated anything and falsely attributed it to you ...
I haven't yet decided what would be more efficient; listing your lies by thread and number or, just numbering the subtotal as you fabricate lies, (although your lying about not lying will count as a separate lie for each event).
They would be equivalent since there are none and thus no work for you to do. I on the other hand am quite capable of showing your lies again as I demonstrated in the past the last time you challenged the issue. If you care to think back you could not show one single lie of me where it was quite easy for me to prove yours -- and prove them in your own words which was all the more dramatic. If you have found your courage again and wish to give it another go, please do -- but be warned I will again prove your lies and you will once again have nothing to show for your efforts.
Are you trying to threaten me? We both know quite well where the results of such a confrontation would lead so don't pretend to act froggy with me.
How does one actually "threaten" with a metaphorical analogy online? In previous such "confrontations", (wherein you simply post unsupported ad hominems and even lamer insults), you've declarfed victory without acheiving it. Nothing less is expected from you, In fact, all expectations have you have been lowered to more closely match your demonstrably low intelligence level. The data gleaned from noting your moronic and illogical responses may be of use later in the "dumbing-down" thread.
Remember, you didn't even understand the definition of an ad hominem as I had to teach you that (as well as other words) quite a few times and if you are still accusing me of them it confirms that you still never learned the lesson. You use ad hominiem in virtually every single post you make and you don't recognize it and continue to accuse others of doing it as if that disqualifies them when it is actually you committing the fallacy. I don't deny making insults at you, though, as to their lameness, well that is subject to interpretation. I can tell when you feel the bite though and your attempts to mask your response gives away that which you would wish to conceal.
You see, the problem you have with me is that you can't buffalo me like you manage with some people here. I know way too much and am a pure thinker at my core. You don't possess the ability to look at a subject in depth nor can you quantify and qualify the variables and relevant derivations. I have left you obvious tripwires in plain sight and you clumsily stumble right into them and have yet to recognize a single one (seemingly, that is, as you may have noticed some but you never gave indication and your reactions were as would be predicted). Your responses and posts are directed by your strong emotional hate for Christianity (in particular) and my posts and responses are of the rational and resolute. That you recognize me as your better makes it all the more annoying to you and makes your posts to me all the more desperate and maniacal. (Note: Falconer02 I voiced my last paragraph in my head in the voice of Doctor Orpheus (if you know who that is) as I tried The Monarch and it didn't sound right).
-
Your dyslexia ...
... Has nothing to do with your abject stupidity, nor with my ability to reason, (something which escapes you even now).
If you care to think back you could not show one single lie of me ...
As previously stated, your lying about your prior lies constitute new lies. This means that you're either a compulsive or, pathological liar, (this would have to be determined by a mental health professional, should you choose to return to the asylum or, be involuntarily commited). Not only have a few of your more recent lies been numbered for handy reference, you keep adding new lies in different threads.
I know way too much and am a pure thinker at my core.
No, you don't. You merely possess a mistaken belief, (like your religious ones), that you "know" more than you do. Your thinking is neither "pure" nor clear, let alone logical. You're a self-agrandizing idiot who looks things up online and substitutes a pretence of knowledge for it's actuality. Those religious superstitions you cling to are neither rational nor, examples of a "pure thinker"; they exemplify a degree of self-delusion and cognitive dissonance common to religious adherents who are blinded by their faith.
-
My evidence: I am not religious and never have been. However, I have died twice, both times for 7 minutes and 32 seconds.
Let me stop you right there. BOTH times were for exactly seven minutes and 32 seconds?! That's ah-maz-ing. Amazingly unbelievable.
There is definitely a higher being-- I saw it and spoke to it. Have seen angels too.
You must be easily impressed. Woe to the average American's education! It's not just your lungs that require oxygen, your brain does, too. When your body is freaking out during a moment of crisis, your brain is deprived of oxygen, and as a result you can start "seeing things"...in the hallucination sense of the word. This is a FACT.
I know literally hundreds of people like me, including atheists, who have died and come back.
I am literally asking you to please stop misusing the word "literally". You literally know hundreds of people who have had near-death experiences?! I highly doubt that!
We get together and comfort each other, especially on those anniversaries--
Again, I highly doubt that. Sounds like you're going for dramatic effect here.
all of us would give ANYTHING to go back, for just a moment. Just to feel the most amazing, intimate feeling anyone can imagine--
Do you not realize the seriousness of what you are saying?? So you'd rather be dead because, for a few minutes before you will no longer exist, you get to go on a happy acid trip. People who do drugs would rather be on drugs, too.
-
My evidence: I am not religious and never have been. However, I have died twice, both times for 7 minutes and 32 seconds.
Let me stop you right there. BOTH times were for exactly seven minutes and 32 seconds?! That's ah-maz-ing. Amazingly unbelievable.
There is definitely a higher being-- I saw it and spoke to it. Have seen angels too.
You must be easily impressed. Woe to the average American's education! It's not just your lungs that require oxygen, your brain does, too. When your body is freaking out during a moment of crisis, your brain is deprived of oxygen, and as a result you can start "seeing things"...in the hallucination sense of the word. This is a FACT.
I know literally hundreds of people like me, including atheists, who have died and come back.
I am literally asking you to please stop misusing the word "literally". You literally know hundreds of people who have had near-death experiences?! I highly doubt that!
We get together and comfort each other, especially on those anniversaries--
Again, I highly doubt that. Sounds like you're going for dramatic effect here.
all of us would give ANYTHING to go back, for just a moment. Just to feel the most amazing, intimate feeling anyone can imagine--
Do you not realize the seriousness of what you are saying?? So you'd rather be dead because, for a few minutes before you will no longer exist, you get to go on a happy acid trip. People who do drugs would rather be on drugs, too.
Actually, I am not easily impressed. And yes, I have personally met over two hundred people who have died and come back. We tend to seek others who have shared the experience. My medical records clearly note my time of death and revival-- they have clocks in surgery, you know. And yes, on my last anniversary, I had a barbeque with forty people who live within a 3 hour drive-- I had a bunch of guests at the farm, complete with spouses and children.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. That it has no bearing on my experience, or the experiences of quite a few people I know is quite alright.
-
There is definitely a higher being-- I saw it and spoke to it. Have seen angels too.
You must be easily impressed. Woe to the average American's education! It's not just your lungs that require oxygen, your brain does, too. When your body is freaking out during a moment of crisis, your brain is deprived of oxygen, and as a result you can start "seeing things"...in the hallucination sense of the word. This is a FACT.
I know literally hundreds of people like me, including atheists, who have died and come back.
all of us would give ANYTHING to go back, for just a moment. Just to feel the most amazing, intimate feeling anyone can imagine--
Do you not realize the seriousness of what you are saying?? So you'd rather be dead because, for a few minutes before you will no longer exist, you get to go on a happy acid trip. People who do drugs would rather be on drugs, too.
Actually, I am not easily impressed. And yes, I have personally met over two hundred people who have died and come back. We tend to seek others who have shared the experience. My medical records clearly note my time of death and revival-- they have clocks in surgery, you know. And yes, on my last anniversary, I had a barbeque with forty people who live within a 3 hour drive-- I had a bunch of guests at the farm, complete with spouses and children.
Here's the thing though; aside from knowing others that have experienced various degrees of oxygen deprivation/clinical "death", you didn't actually address QoN's skepticism regarding hallucinatory effects of oxygen deprivation being attributed to a 'religious experience'.
-
Actually, I am not easily impressed. And yes, I have personally met over two hundred people who have died and come back. We tend to seek others who have shared the experience. My medical records clearly note my time of death and revival-- they have clocks in surgery, you know. And yes, on my last anniversary, I had a barbeque with forty people who live within a 3 hour drive-- I had a bunch of guests at the farm, complete with spouses and children.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. That it has no bearing on my experience, or the experiences of quite a few people I know is quite alright.
Usually when groups of this size meet, there's generally a name for them, a website, or an invitation. Do you recall what yours is called?
Not to downplay your experience, but I myself had an odd NDE when I was a kid which involved fireworks and Darth Vader. My aunt had an OBE in which she was floating around the room when she fell unconscious. Apparently they're triggered by too much CO2 in the bloodstream which triggers weird hallucinations while the brain is still active-- occasionally people have them while conscious too at high altitudes. If I recall my research, all people who have had religious NDE's believe in life after death. Every Hindu had never seen a biblical character during one, and vice versa, so that pretty much cancels out the whole "1 true religion" argument in these experiences. I personally believe they're just weird and happy hallucinations that calm the body during moments of trauma.
-
My evidence: I am not religious and never have been. However, I have died twice, both times for 7 minutes and 32 seconds.
Let me stop you right there. BOTH times were for exactly seven minutes and 32 seconds?! That's ah-maz-ing. Amazingly unbelievable.
There is definitely a higher being-- I saw it and spoke to it. Have seen angels too.
You must be easily impressed. Woe to the average American's education! It's not just your lungs that require oxygen, your brain does, too. When your body is freaking out during a moment of crisis, your brain is deprived of oxygen, and as a result you can start "seeing things"...in the hallucination sense of the word. This is a FACT.
I know literally hundreds of people like me, including atheists, who have died and come back.
I am literally asking you to please stop misusing the word "literally". You literally know hundreds of people who have had near-death experiences?! I highly doubt that!
We get together and comfort each other, especially on those anniversaries--
Again, I highly doubt that. Sounds like you're going for dramatic effect here.
all of us would give ANYTHING to go back, for just a moment. Just to feel the most amazing, intimate feeling anyone can imagine--
Do you not realize the seriousness of what you are saying?? So you'd rather be dead because, for a few minutes before you will no longer exist, you get to go on a happy acid trip. People who do drugs would rather be on drugs, too.
Actually, I am not easily impressed. And yes, I have personally met over two hundred people who have died and come back. We tend to seek others who have shared the experience. My medical records clearly note my time of death and revival-- they have clocks in surgery, you know. And yes, on my last anniversary, I had a barbeque with forty people who live within a 3 hour drive-- I had a bunch of guests at the farm, complete with spouses and children.
Here's the thing though; aside from knowing others that have experienced various degrees of oxygen deprivation/clinical "death", you didn't actually address QoN's skepticism regarding hallucinatory effects of oxygen deprivation being attributed to a 'religious experience'.
You are quite right, Falcon-- I didn't. I personally do not consider it a "religious" experience. I apologize for using inaccurate terms. Perhaps this will clarify:
I went elsewhere. I saw a being, and spoke to it. I saw several other beings of a different sort. My subjective impression of these different beings was that they were of a higher, or different perhaps is a better word, evolution than ourselves. Many of the people I know define the first being they meet as "God" not in the personal sense of savior, per se, but in the original definition of a "God"-- being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality --
I don't dispute that I, like everyone who dies, suffered from oxygen starvation-- of course I did. That is a medical fact. I also do not dispute that said oxygen deprivation causes hallucinations. It certainly does. What I have found interesting, and the reason I actively seek to speak with other who have experienced clinical death, is the commonality in the hallucinations. At the time of my first experience, I was nine years old. My upbringing and the cultural influences I had experienced did not provide a contextual reference that could logically explain my particular experience. My particular hallucination, if you prefer that word, was not in my world view. I assume that if you, personally, experienced a hallucination and saw something that you could not possibly imagine or explain, you would be curious, as well-- I believe, based on reading your posts, you would probably be quite curious. I can't imagine someone like you just dismissing the experience out of hand. That would, after all,be very closed minded.
A "miracle" by definition: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
for me, at nine, the event was definitely unusual-- in that it had never happened to anyone I knew, and outstanding, in that it stood out as unique from other experiences. by definition, therefore, at the time it was a "miracle".
Definition of angel: an attendant spirit or guardian the other beings I spoke to had arranged themselves around me. The subjective impression was one of being accompanied, observed or watched over, i.e. guarded, though not in a restrictive or negative manner.
I believe I have clarified the nature of my experience, somewhat.
-
Actually, I am not easily impressed. And yes, I have personally met over two hundred people who have died and come back. We tend to seek others who have shared the experience. My medical records clearly note my time of death and revival-- they have clocks in surgery, you know. And yes, on my last anniversary, I had a barbeque with forty people who live within a 3 hour drive-- I had a bunch of guests at the farm, complete with spouses and children.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. That it has no bearing on my experience, or the experiences of quite a few people I know is quite alright.
Usually when groups of this size meet, there's generally a name for them, a website, or an invitation. Do you recall what yours is called?
Not to downplay your experience, but I myself had an odd NDE when I was a kid which involved fireworks and Darth Vader. My aunt had an OBE in which she was floating around the room when she fell unconscious. Apparently they're triggered by too much CO2 in the bloodstream which triggers weird hallucinations while the brain is still active-- occasionally people have them while conscious too at high altitudes. If I recall my research, all people who have had religious NDE's believe in life after death. Every Hindu had never seen a biblical character during one, and vice versa, so that pretty much cancels out the whole "1 true religion" argument in these experiences. I personally believe they're just weird and happy hallucinations that calm the body during moments of trauma.
This replay is actually going to be slightly out of context, as I was replying to falcon when this came in-- While I am aware of groups that are formalized for people who die and come back, I have met everyone I know through personal contact, over a period of almost thirty years. I started back in the dino days, before the internet ;). If you read my reply to falcon, I was not as refined in my choice of words as I should have been, for which I apologize, freely. I do not consider my experience "religious" in nature, as I am not "religious". I merely said I had seen a Higher Being-- perhaps differently evolved, or of a higher evolution would be more precise-- and spoke to it. I also saw angels, not in the religious sense, but in the sense of attendants, or guardians, by definition-- thank you Merriam Webster LOL.
I generally avoid formalized groups, as I have noticed that the people who join them come from a commonly religious background-- and no offense to anyone religious, I get preached at enough, thank you ;). Just because a hallucination is medically induced, doesn't mean that an entirely odd experience should be discounted out of hand. It may have no practical application, and may be entirely subjective, but it still might be worthy of investigation from a personal viewpoint. I don't stomp around trying to convince people I saw "God"-- and I also don't stomp around trying to convince people I'm a nut ;). And I definitely don't stomp around trying to convince people there is no God, because they get very angry LOL. As you may notice, what should have been a relatively simple explanation is fast turning into a spirited debate, if you will pardon the pun :)
-
No, your limitations in understanding the information ...
On the contrary, my understanding is not limited or restricted in any way by blind religious faith as yours is. Keep fabricating crap and falsely attributing it to me if wished, your own troll-chow will be fed to you to choke on, fundie.
Yeah, because we know that only 'blind religious faith' allows us to see light photons reflected off of a surface. It is amazing when I present things in a secular manner based upon science that you become even more obtuse than normal. I have never fabricated anything and falsely attributed it to you, but I have proven where you fabricated a statement and inserted it into my quote and tried to attribute it to me. You did this multiple times, in fact.
Are you trying to threaten me? Come on let me really have it and keep that weak stuff for your neighborhood kids or your dog or your girlfriend or wherever you are used to using it. We both know quite well where the results of such a confrontation would lead so don't pretend to act froggy with me.
I have encountered this "threatening" type of attitude through a certain quote, from him, as well. This seems to happen when he's getting a tad on the angry side.
-
I personally do not consider it a "religious" experience. I apologize for using inaccurate terms. Perhaps this will clarify:
I went elsewhere. I saw a being, and spoke to it. I saw several other beings of a different sort. My subjective impression of these different beings was that they were of a higher, or different perhaps is a better word, evolution than ourselves. Many of the people I know define the first being they meet as "God" not in the personal sense of savior, per se, but in the original definition of a "God"-- being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality --
You're still attributing an entirely subjective experience, (which occurred only within your own skull, despite the attribution of the individual subjective experiences of others), to supernatural causes. There is no evidence supporting such attributions and much counter evidence of an hallucinatory experience stemming from oxygen deprivation in the brain.
I don't dispute that I, like everyone who dies, suffered from oxygen starvation-- of course I did. That is a medical fact. I also do not dispute that said oxygen deprivation causes hallucinations. It certainly does.
Then you do acknowledge the medical basis for skepticism concerning attribution of such effects to a supernatural cause. As to the foundational content of such hallucinations, there are other possibilities.
What I have found interesting, and the reason I actively seek to speak with other who have experienced clinical death, is the commonality in the hallucinations. At the time of my first experience, I was nine years old. My upbringing and the cultural influences I had experienced did not provide a contextual reference that could logically explain my particular experience. My particular hallucination, if you prefer that word, was not in my world view. I assume that if you, personally, experienced a hallucination and saw something that you could not possibly imagine or explain, you would be curious, as well-- I believe, based on reading your posts, you would probably be quite curious. I can't imagine someone like you just dismissing the experience out of hand. That would, after all,be very closed minded.
As with alleged U.F.O. abductees, there are commonalities in their "shared" experience, ("shared" being a misnomer in this instance and NDE instances because they actually consist of groups of individual experiences with apparent commonalities). So, let's look closer at what conscious and subconscious previous religious exposures a nine-year old could have had. There's television, contact with other kids who had been religiously-indoctrinated and the inability of brains most nine-year olds, (or 99 year olds), to process a hallucinatory experience in any rational manner. After all, the brain was starved for oxygen and synapses were firing/not firing sporatically triggering jumbled images, smells, tastes, sounds and "sights" - all of these internal fabrications, (were not as a result of external stimuli). Given that chaos, anything can be imagined - even retroactively interpreted, especially by 'sharing' the experience with others who are capable of retroactively reinterpreting their NDE as well. Once such 'sharing' occurs, you're going to get some generalized commonality of agreement, ("white lights", "authortive voices",
"dead relatives showing up", "alien probes" etc.).
A "miracle" by definition: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
for me, at nine, the event was definitely unusual-- in that it had never happened to anyone I knew, and outstanding, in that it stood out as unique from other experiences. by definition, therefore, at the time it was a "miracle".
A nine-year old's interpretation of events as 'miraculous' is dubious due to the general and relative inability to discern fact from fantasy at that age, (this is even carried into the misattributions of older people).
Definition of angel: an attendant spirit or guardian the other beings I spoke to had arranged themselves around me. The subjective impression was one of being accompanied, observed or watched over, i.e. guarded, though not in a restrictive or negative manner.
I believe I have clarified the nature of my experience, somewhat.
The internal experience remains entirely a claim lacking external evidence and therefore, cannot be equated which a factual event for which independent evidence, (not simular 'depositions' of other hallucinating during NDEs), does not exist. It then becomes a matter of "faith", (a belief for which there is no evidence).
Just to clarify, I had an NDE during a car accident in which the vehicle I occupied rolled-over. The paramedics who revived my after some firemen pulled me from the smashed vehicle indicated I was "out", (not just unconscious), for "awhile", (they probably timed it, I didn't ask). I experienced no 'religious epiphanies' nor aliens, angels or miracles.
-
I have encountered this "threatening" type of attitude through a certain quote, from him, as well. This seems to happen when he's getting a tad on the angry side.
No, you misinterpreted a quote from someone else as "threatening". This seems to stem from your inability to reason and a resorting to an irrational emotional response.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"
-- Gregory House
-
I personally do not consider it a "religious" experience. I apologize for using inaccurate terms. Perhaps this will clarify:
I went elsewhere. I saw a being, and spoke to it. I saw several other beings of a different sort. My subjective impression of these different beings was that they were of a higher, or different perhaps is a better word, evolution than ourselves. Many of the people I know define the first being they meet as "God" not in the personal sense of savior, per se, but in the original definition of a "God"-- being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality --
You're still attributing an entirely subjective experience, (which occurred only within your own skull, despite the attribution of the individual subjective experiences of others), to supernatural causes. There is no evidence supporting such attributions and much counter evidence of an hallucinatory experience stemming from oxygen deprivation in the brain.
I don't dispute that I, like everyone who dies, suffered from oxygen starvation-- of course I did. That is a medical fact. I also do not dispute that said oxygen deprivation causes hallucinations. It certainly does.
Then you do acknowledge the medical basis for skepticism concerning attribution of such effects to a supernatural cause. As to the foundational content of such hallucinations, there are other possibilities.
What I have found interesting, and the reason I actively seek to speak with other who have experienced clinical death, is the commonality in the hallucinations. At the time of my first experience, I was nine years old. My upbringing and the cultural influences I had experienced did not provide a contextual reference that could logically explain my particular experience. My particular hallucination, if you prefer that word, was not in my world view. I assume that if you, personally, experienced a hallucination and saw something that you could not possibly imagine or explain, you would be curious, as well-- I believe, based on reading your posts, you would probably be quite curious. I can't imagine someone like you just dismissing the experience out of hand. That would, after all,be very closed minded.
As with alleged U.F.O. abductees, there are commonalities in their "shared" experience, ("shared" being a misnomer in this instance and NDE instances because they actually consist of groups of individual experiences with apparent commonalities). So, let's look closer at what conscious and subconscious previous religious exposures a nine-year old could have had. There's television, contact with other kids who had been religiously-indoctrinated and the inability of brains most nine-year olds, (or 99 year olds), to process a hallucinatory experience in any rational manner. After all, the brain was starved for oxygen and synapses were firing/not firing sporatically triggering jumbled images, smells, tastes, sounds and "sights" - all of these internal fabrications, (were not as a result of external stimuli). Given that chaos, anything can be imagined - even retroactively interpreted, especially by 'sharing' the experience with others who are capable of retroactively reinterpreting their NDE as well. Once such 'sharing' occurs, you're going to get some generalized commonality of agreement, ("white lights", "authortive voices",
"dead relatives showing up", "alien probes" etc.).
A "miracle" by definition: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
for me, at nine, the event was definitely unusual-- in that it had never happened to anyone I knew, and outstanding, in that it stood out as unique from other experiences. by definition, therefore, at the time it was a "miracle".
A nine-year old's interpretation of events as 'miraculous' is dubious due to the general and relative inability to discern fact from fantasy at that age, (this is even carried into the misattributions of older people).
Definition of angel: an attendant spirit or guardian the other beings I spoke to had arranged themselves around me. The subjective impression was one of being accompanied, observed or watched over, i.e. guarded, though not in a restrictive or negative manner.
I believe I have clarified the nature of my experience, somewhat.
The internal experience remains entirely a claim lacking external evidence and therefore, cannot be equated which a factual event for which independent evidence, (not simular 'depositions' of other hallucinating during NDEs), does not exist. It then becomes a matter of "faith", (a belief for which there is no evidence).
Just to clarify, I had an NDE during a car accident in which the vehicle I occupied rolled-over. The paramedics who revived my after some firemen pulled me from the smashed vehicle indicated I was "out", (not just unconscious), for "awhile", (they probably timed it, I didn't ask). I experienced no 'religious epiphanies' nor aliens, angels or miracles.
:notworthy: I salute your irrefutable logic, falcon. My hallucinations and I shall retire from the *bleep* battlefield. As to the cultural influences-- we didn't have a tv. I was also home schooled, back when "socialization' was not considered essential to development, so I had few friends. I agree entirely that 9 year olds have little experience processing anything-- that does not change the fact, that at that age, such an event would seem miraculous by definition. I have met several other people who died, and were revived, and experienced nothing. These cases are actually the most fascinating, because one would assume that they didn't suffer the effects of oxygen deprivation, or if they did, it took a different form. Do you have an opinion on why this would be the case?
-
I personally do not consider it a "religious" experience. I apologize for using inaccurate terms. Perhaps this will clarify:
I went elsewhere. I saw a being, and spoke to it. I saw several other beings of a different sort. My subjective impression of these different beings was that they were of a higher, or different perhaps is a better word, evolution than ourselves. Many of the people I know define the first being they meet as "God" not in the personal sense of savior, per se, but in the original definition of a "God"-- being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality --
You're still attributing an entirely subjective experience, (which occurred only within your own skull, despite the attribution of the individual subjective experiences of others), to supernatural causes. There is no evidence supporting such attributions and much counter evidence of an hallucinatory experience stemming from oxygen deprivation in the brain.
I don't dispute that I, like everyone who dies, suffered from oxygen starvation-- of course I did. That is a medical fact. I also do not dispute that said oxygen deprivation causes hallucinations. It certainly does.
Then you do acknowledge the medical basis for skepticism concerning attribution of such effects to a supernatural cause. As to the foundational content of such hallucinations, there are other possibilities.
What I have found interesting, and the reason I actively seek to speak with other who have experienced clinical death, is the commonality in the hallucinations. At the time of my first experience, I was nine years old. My upbringing and the cultural influences I had experienced did not provide a contextual reference that could logically explain my particular experience. My particular hallucination, if you prefer that word, was not in my world view. I assume that if you, personally, experienced a hallucination and saw something that you could not possibly imagine or explain, you would be curious, as well-- I believe, based on reading your posts, you would probably be quite curious. I can't imagine someone like you just dismissing the experience out of hand. That would, after all,be very closed minded.
As with alleged U.F.O. abductees, there are commonalities in their "shared" experience, ("shared" being a misnomer in this instance and NDE instances because they actually consist of groups of individual experiences with apparent commonalities). So, let's look closer at what conscious and subconscious previous religious exposures a nine-year old could have had. There's television, contact with other kids who had been religiously-indoctrinated and the inability of brains most nine-year olds, (or 99 year olds), to process a hallucinatory experience in any rational manner. After all, the brain was starved for oxygen and synapses were firing/not firing sporatically triggering jumbled images, smells, tastes, sounds and "sights" - all of these internal fabrications, (were not as a result of external stimuli). Given that chaos, anything can be imagined - even retroactively interpreted, especially by 'sharing' the experience with others who are capable of retroactively reinterpreting their NDE as well. Once such 'sharing' occurs, you're going to get some generalized commonality of agreement, ("white lights", "authortive voices",
"dead relatives showing up", "alien probes" etc.).
A "miracle" by definition: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
for me, at nine, the event was definitely unusual-- in that it had never happened to anyone I knew, and outstanding, in that it stood out as unique from other experiences. by definition, therefore, at the time it was a "miracle".
A nine-year old's interpretation of events as 'miraculous' is dubious due to the general and relative inability to discern fact from fantasy at that age, (this is even carried into the misattributions of older people).
Definition of angel: an attendant spirit or guardian the other beings I spoke to had arranged themselves around me. The subjective impression was one of being accompanied, observed or watched over, i.e. guarded, though not in a restrictive or negative manner.
I believe I have clarified the nature of my experience, somewhat.
The internal experience remains entirely a claim lacking external evidence and therefore, cannot be equated which a factual event for which independent evidence, (not simular 'depositions' of other hallucinating during NDEs), does not exist. It then becomes a matter of "faith", (a belief for which there is no evidence).
Just to clarify, I had an NDE during a car accident in which the vehicle I occupied rolled-over. The paramedics who revived my after some firemen pulled me from the smashed vehicle indicated I was "out", (not just unconscious), for "awhile", (they probably timed it, I didn't ask). I experienced no 'religious epiphanies' nor aliens, angels or miracles.
:notworthy: I salute your irrefutable logic, falcon. My hallucinations and I shall retire from the *bleep* battlefield. As to the cultural influences-- we didn't have a tv. I was also home schooled, back when "socialization' was not considered essential to development, so I had few friends. I agree entirely that 9 year olds have little experience processing anything-- that does not change the fact, that at that age, such an event would seem miraculous by definition. I have met several other people who died, and were revived, and experienced nothing. These cases are actually the most fascinating, because one would assume that they didn't suffer the effects of oxygen deprivation, or if they did, it took a different form. Do you have an opinion on why this would be the case?
By the way-- the bleep was not a profane word, or an expletive-- perhaps the system would prefer sanguinary, or gory.
-
I have encountered this "threatening" type of attitude through a certain quote, from him, as well. This seems to happen when he's getting a tad on the angry side.
No, you misinterpreted a quote from someone else as "threatening". This seems to stem from your inability to reason and a resorting to an irrational emotional response.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"
-- Gregory House
It was the timing of the quote, the reason behind the quote, and the exhibiting of your usual mode of response when you start getting ticked. All I'm saying is that we need to be careful what we say or use, sometimes, because they can be perceived different ways. As you very well know, there are some crazy people on the internet. Words and quotes may be meant a certain way, but when things are contentious, sometimes they are not seen as a mere quote or wording, but what they are implying. You can stop with the cut down on the personal person remarks, too. No need for those.
-
As to the cultural influences-- we didn't have a tv. I was also home schooled, back when "socialization' was not considered essential to development, so I had few friends. I agree entirely that 9 year olds have little experience processing anything-- that does not change the fact, that at that age, such an event would seem miraculous by definition.
The possibilities suggested were not intended to be all-inclusive. For instance, children are influenced by contact with their parents, (even if there were no overt religious proselytizations detected by a nine-year old), or books - even if home-schooled. Many things seem "miraculous" to nine-year olds; such perceptions are not necessarily indicative of 'miracules'.
I have met several other people who died, and were revived, and experienced nothing. These cases are actually the most fascinating, because one would assume that they didn't suffer the effects of oxygen deprivation, or if they did, it took a different form. Do you have an opinion on why this would be the case?
Preconceived notions, (especially unconscious ones), can and do have an influence in that regard. Such preconceptions will vary from person to person, even with some 'socialized' commonalities. Having "few friends" is significantly different than having none, (or many). A few friends will have more depth of influence than many friends, (who will have many different perspectives and similarties to 'share', as opposed to smaller pool of friends).
Were I to speculate further, (as you're requesting), I'd say that some people tend to skepticism more than an unquestioning acceptance of a more "religious" explanation to account for such experiences.
-
It was the timing of the quote, the reason behind the quote, and the exhibiting of your usual mode of response when you start getting ticked.
Your conclusions are based upon perceptions, assumptions and preconceptions, (just like they are for most people). These aspects may not be accurate relections of a situation but, the only information currently available.
All I'm saying is that we need to be careful what we say or use, sometimes, because they can be perceived different ways. As you very well know, there are some crazy people on the internet. Words and quotes may be meant a certain way, but when things are contentious, sometimes they are not seen as a mere quote or wording, but what they are implying.
Even implications, insinuations, inferences based upon subjective aspects of perceptions, assumptions and preconceptions can & will vary. To that extent, I think we agree, (at least nominally).
-
As to the cultural influences-- we didn't have a tv. I was also home schooled, back when "socialization' was not considered essential to development, so I had few friends. I agree entirely that 9 year olds have little experience processing anything-- that does not change the fact, that at that age, such an event would seem miraculous by definition.
The possibilities suggested were not intended to be all-inclusive. For instance, children are influenced by contact with their parents, (even if there were no overt religious proselytizations detected by a nine-year old), or books - even if home-schooled. Many things seem "miraculous" to nine-year olds; such perceptions are not necessarily indicative of 'miracules'.
I have met several other people who died, and were revived, and experienced nothing. These cases are actually the most fascinating, because one would assume that they didn't suffer the effects of oxygen deprivation, or if they did, it took a different form. Do you have an opinion on why this would be the case?
Preconceived notions, (especially unconscious ones), can and do have an influence in that regard. Such preconceptions will vary from person to person, even with some 'socialized' commonalities. Having "few friends" is significantly different than having none, (or many). A few friends will have more depth of influence than many friends, (who will have many different perspectives and similarities to 'share', as opposed to smaller pool of friends).
Were I to speculate further, (as you're requesting), I'd say that some people tend to skepticism more than an unquestioning acceptance of a more "religious" explanation to account for such experiences.
I would agree with your speculation, entirely. If I may ask, do you consider yourself to be a skeptic, as defined by Pyrhho? Or are you a more modern rational skeptic, as defined by Shermer? You seen to incline more towards Shermer, if I have not misread my Skeptical Manifesto. Either way, your critical thinking skills are admirable.
-
If I may ask, do you consider yourself to be a skeptic, as defined by Pyrhho? Or are you a more modern rational skeptic, as defined by Shermer? You seen to incline more towards Shermer, if I have not misread my Skeptical Manifesto. Either way, your critical thinking skills are admirable.
Between the two, probably Shermer however, not in any formalized way nor exclusively. Discerning the differences between a subjective experience and an 'objective' one is more subtle than just defining those two terms.
-
While I am aware of groups that are formalized for people who die and come back, I have met everyone I know through personal contact, over a period of almost thirty years. I started back in the dino days, before the internet . If you read my reply to falcon, I was not as refined in my choice of words as I should have been, for which I apologize, freely. I do not consider my experience "religious" in nature, as I am not "religious". I merely said I had seen a Higher Being-- perhaps differently evolved, or of a higher evolution would be more precise-- and spoke to it. I also saw angels, not in the religious sense, but in the sense of attendants, or guardians, by definition-- thank you Merriam Webster LOL.
Haha yes I understand completely! I was just sharing my belief on the matter. Either way, they are extremely odd and life-altering experiences for most. I myself am open to the idea of there being metaphysical entities in the universe, but since there's a complete lack of evidence for them (aside from hallucinations it would seem...) I go for the humble opinion of "I don't know what's out there".
generally avoid formalized groups, as I have noticed that the people who join them come from a commonly religious background-- and no offense to anyone religious, I get preached at enough, thank you . Just because a hallucination is medically induced, doesn't mean that an entirely odd experience should be discounted out of hand. It may have no practical application, and may be entirely subjective, but it still might be worthy of investigation from a personal viewpoint. I don't stomp around trying to convince people I saw "God"-- and I also don't stomp around trying to convince people I'm a nut . And I definitely don't stomp around trying to convince people there is no God, because they get very angry LOL. As you may notice, what should have been a relatively simple explanation is fast turning into a spirited debate, if you will pardon the pun
Oh definitely. To each his own! If the experience improved your life, I have no quarrels with it and I am nothing but happy for you.
-
If I may ask, do you consider yourself to be a skeptic, as defined by Pyrhho? Or are you a more modern rational skeptic, as defined by Shermer? You seen to incline more towards Shermer, if I have not misread my Skeptical Manifesto. Either way, your critical thinking skills are admirable.
Between the two, probably Shermer however, not in any formalized way nor exclusively. Discerning the differences between a subjective experience and an 'objective' one is more subtle than just defining those two terms.
You sound like a mathematician, or a physicist-- :)
-
If I may ask, do you consider yourself to be a skeptic, as defined by Pyrhho? Or are you a more modern rational skeptic, as defined by Shermer? You seen to incline more towards Shermer, if I have not misread my Skeptical Manifesto. Either way, your critical thinking skills are admirable.
Between the two, probably Shermer however, not in any formalized way nor exclusively. Discerning the differences between a subjective experience and an 'objective' one is more subtle than just defining those two terms.
You sound like a mathematician, or a physicist-- :)
Mathematics was a necessary pre-req. for the physics courses taken however, I currently hold neither degrees, (studies having been interrupted by military service and never formally resumed). With the advent of the internet, (both the non-public precurser and the worldwide net available to the public now), I've been able to expand the depth of study and practice in certain areas to a degree which exceeds academic degrees.
The study and practice of "logic", (both formal and informal), has been an on-going one in my life, (ever since I'd inadvertantly discovered that logic pisses most people off - an unintentional side effect of watching Nimoy render his Spock character on Star Trek at an early age). My intentional goals are not to *bleep* people off, (amusing as that sometimes is to observe, in a study-of-human-nature way), but to encourage others to question their own assumptions as I have done. There are more of those reluctant to do so than not and I find that intriguing.
-
MANY SKEPTICS SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE RELIGIOUS ARE JUST WEAK PEOPLE WHO NEED A CRUTCH TO LEAN ON AND THEIR RELIGION IS JUST A FARCE. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN YOUR LIFE THAT GOD IS REAL? HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED A MIRACLE OR ENCOUNTERED AN ANGEL?
My Own Evidence:
Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer. The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about. Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home. Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to. The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being heard.
My evidence: I am not religious and never have been. However, I have died twice, both times for 7 minutes and 32 seconds. There is definitely a higher being-- I saw it and spoke to it. Have seen angels too. I know literally hundreds of people like me, including atheists, who have died and come back.This is what we have in common:
All of us saw something entirely different, and for those that have gone twice or more, each time was different.
None of us could really explain fully what we saw and learned, and we all agree trying to explain it to others is like explaining a rainbow to someone who is blind from birth.
All of us was given a choice to stay there or come back here-- no strings attached.
All of us have ended up spending our time here since in the service of others, in one way or another.
And all of us are HOMESICK. We get together and comfort each other, especially on those anniversaries--none of us regrets coming back, but all of us would give ANYTHING to go back, for just a moment. Just to feel the most amazing, intimate feeling anyone can imagine-- something far beyond love, beyond anything. Every experience here is flat, in a way. I took yesterday off and just cried :'( :crybaby2:
But I wouldn't have missed it for the world :thumbsup:
Religion and God are two entirely separate things. A higher power had a hand in making this universe. A tiny piece of that is in every living thing. Man tries to understand God, but because we are alive and human, we can't really. So man invented religion to try to build a bridge between what we see and know to be true in the physical world, and what we cannot understand in the meta-physical world.
That is amazing. After an experience like you have had, I'm sure there is nothing that could shake your belief in a higher power. However, your proof will not necessarily convince others. Anyone who has ever had a faith affirming experience never forgets it, because it is awesome. It transcends logic, it is unexplainable.
It is Very true that religion and God are two entirely separate things. Religion/christianity is not Gods idea, it is man's idea, about God so naturally it is flawed and not perfect, like everything man creates.
-
Your dyslexia ...
... Has nothing to do with your abject stupidity, nor with my ability to reason, (something which escapes you even now).
I am doing you a favor here by bringing this up by giving you a potential excuse as to why you could be so wrong in your post and not realize it. I made an entirely secular point and you countered with religious ad hominem. I pointed this out so that even someone as blind as you would be aware and you countered again with arguments involving faith. I pointed this out again and gave you the way out and spoke to you like you were a young child so that you might finally understand. Now you fully point out that it was not dyslexia that caused your confusion so that must mean it was 'lunacy' as I suggested as the alternative. Well, okay, if you would rather have failed in comprehension due to being a lunatic instead of being dyslexic then so be it, lunatic.
If you care to think back you could not show one single lie of me ...
As previously stated, your lying about your prior lies constitute new lies. This means that you're either a compulsive or, pathological liar, (this would have to be determined by a mental health professional, should you choose to return to the asylum or, be involuntarily commited). Not only have a few of your more recent lies been numbered for handy reference, you keep adding new lies in different threads.
I am undecided here. You lie so often that I doubt you numbered anything for handy reference. On the other hand, you are such a stalker that you might have actually recorded the locations of posts of mine for whatever base or perverted reason you have. Regardless, I am not a liar and have not lied and had you anything like you claim I am sure you would have presented it already instead of fabricating non existent and false suggestions. As I have done repeatedly before -- and always to my vindication -- I once again call you out!
I know way too much and am a pure thinker at my core.
No, you don't. You merely possess a mistaken belief, (like your religious ones), that you "know" more than you do. Your thinking is neither "pure" nor clear, let alone logical. You're a self-agrandizing idiot who looks things up online and substitutes a pretence of knowledge for it's actuality. Those religious superstitions you cling to are neither rational nor, examples of a "pure thinker"; they exemplify a degree of self-delusion and cognitive dissonance common to religious adherents who are blinded by their faith.
And what you reveal of yourself in the above post is most interesting. You give away quite a bit about yourself in your attacks, just as much as you do in your defenses. I warned you before to consider how your close guarded nature did nothing but to highlight your own vulnerabilities and naturally I assumed you would be wise enough to apply such awareness to your other actions as well. That you haven't is fairly apparent. My analytical nature is the bane of your dishonest, prejudicial, and nugatory rhetoric. I am not bragging about myself as you mistakenly assume. I am simply telling you that I am quite aware of what you already know to be true.
-
:dog: Sorry my friend but you can not pray for money. Go out and make it!!!! Havent you heard money doesnt grow on trees.
-
You lie so often that I doubt you numbered anything for handy reference.
I'm not lying about your penchant for lying and can produce your latest lies, numbered for your inconvenience. I'll do so at my convenience, fundie liar.
On the other hand, you are such a stalker that you might have actually recorded the locations of posts of mine for whatever base or perverted reason you have.
Replying to your specious loads of unsupported nonsense is not "stalking", unless you're engaging in another one of your moronic attempts to redefine words. That pattern of yours has been tedious for some time now, is it the best that can emerge from the dimness of your wit?
Regardless, I am not a liar and have not lied ...
Well, that's the most recent of your lies, (number four, counting the first two numbered ones and a third, not numbered because it was another false claim of your not lying, right after you overtly lied in lie#2).
... and had you anything like you claim I am sure you would have presented it already instead of fabricating non existent and false suggestions. As I have done repeatedly before -- and always to my vindication -- I once again call you out!
I don't dance to the tune of a mind-blinded fundie on the run from the authorities. As I stated, I'll present your numbered lies at my convience and your inconvenience.
And what you reveal of yourself in the above post is most interesting.
Anything you imagine was "revealed" would be more of your fabricated falsehoods than something extant. This is your pattern of deception; to construct strawmen to argue against because you cannot refute the actual rebuttals of your illogical, irrational, faith-based superstitious cow-pies.
My analytical nature is ...
... Non-existent bravado. You have demonstrated no such "nature", contrarily, you've demonstrated the opposite time and again.
I am not bragging about myself as you mistakenly assume.
Sure you're not, just like all the other false brags you've spewed weren't bragging.
I am simply telling you that I am quite aware of what you already know to be true.
I've been well-aware that you're dishonest, irrational and more recently, an abject idiot. What's not to love?
-
elandry (as well as others): You might be interested to know that I, too, have seen angels, god and even the freakin' Grim Reaper. Please refer to: http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=11958.msg147726#msg147726
An interesting thread in that some things never really change and the same debate rages on because the religious adherents are chasing their own tails in circular illogic.
-
You lie so often that I doubt you numbered anything for handy reference.
I'm not lying about your penchant for lying and can produce your latest lies, numbered for your inconvenience. I'll do so at my convenience, fundie liar.
On the other hand, you are such a stalker that you might have actually recorded the locations of posts of mine for whatever base or perverted reason you have.
Replying to your specious loads of unsupported nonsense is not "stalking", unless you're engaging in another one of your moronic attempts to redefine words. That pattern of yours has been tedious for some time now, is it the best that can emerge from the dimness of your wit?
Regardless, I am not a liar and have not lied ...
Well, that's the most recent of your lies, (number four, counting the first two numbered ones and a third, not numbered because it was another false claim of your not lying, right after you overtly lied in lie#2).
... and had you anything like you claim I am sure you would have presented it already instead of fabricating non existent and false suggestions. As I have done repeatedly before -- and always to my vindication -- I once again call you out!
I don't dance to the tune of a mind-blinded fundie on the run from the authorities. As I stated, I'll present your numbered lies at my convience and your inconvenience.
And what you reveal of yourself in the above post is most interesting.
Anything you imagine was "revealed" would be more of your fabricated falsehoods than something extant. This is your pattern of deception; to construct strawmen to argue against because you cannot refute the actual rebuttals of your illogical, irrational, faith-based superstitious cow-pies.
My analytical nature is ...
... Non-existent bravado. You have demonstrated no such "nature", contrarily, you've demonstrated the opposite time and again.
I am not bragging about myself as you mistakenly assume.
Sure you're not, just like all the other false brags you've spewed weren't bragging.
I am simply telling you that I am quite aware of what you already know to be true.
I've been well-aware that you're dishonest, irrational and more recently, an abject idiot. What's not to love?
What do you give us here in your reply? Let us see, denial, ad hominem attacks, dishonesty, deflection. You have put on your clown shoes again so you can continue to dip, duck, dodge, dive and dance. So once again, dance for us Clown Boy, dance!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Q1vKb.gif)
Falcon9
-
What do you give us here in your reply?
Quashing your diversionary b.s. was done off-handedly. It remains that you irrational xtian adherents of your superstitious religious belief system have continued to dodge the responsibility of substantiating your specious religious claims/empty declarations. Either you have no solid evidence to support your claims or, you are unable to do so, (especially without a circular blind faith reference to the the blind faith itself).
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Q1vKb.gif)
Falcon9
Ha ha.
-
What do you give us here in your reply?
Quashing your diversionary b.s. was done off-handedly. It remains that you irrational xtian adherents of your superstitious religious belief system have continued to dodge the responsibility of substantiating your specious religious claims/empty declarations. Either you have no solid evidence to support your claims or, you are unable to do so, (especially without a circular blind faith reference to the the blind faith itself).
More ad hominem from you (with as many times as I have explained the definition to you, have you not yet learned it?). Why must you so often use logical fallacies to try to form your arguments?
-
You know, it's getting close to the end of the month and I'm really just trying to get to my 30 posts again. Incidentally, Sagan was one of my favorite authors, I'm sure I read everything he ever wrote. He died too young, RIP.
The down side of the pay to post...
-
What do you give us here in your reply?
Quashing your diversionary b.s. was done off-handedly. It remains that you irrational xtian adherents of your superstitious religious belief system have continued to dodge the responsibility of substantiating your specious religious claims/empty declarations. Either you have no solid evidence to support your claims or, you are unable to do so, (especially without a circular blind faith reference to the the blind faith itself).
More ad hominem from you ...
While nothing in that response constitutes ad hom, (except to a definition-redefining faith-blinded fundie), merely following the "Golden Rule" to the same extent which you are seemed appropriate.
Why must you so often use logical fallacies to try to form your arguments?
Why must you keep fabricating, (lying overtly), nearly every time your fallacious arguments are refuted?
-
The Problem of Science and the Bible
The most frequently raised scientific issue is the question of evolution. Everyone who believes the Bible accepts the fact that God is the Creator of the universe. But while evangelicals agree on the who, they do not all agree on the how of creation. Many believe that this is a young earth and that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are 24-hour days. Others believe that these days are figurative, and that God directly intervened at various points in the long evolutionary process. The question here is not who is right, but how to deal with the issue of evolution when the non-Christian raises it as an objection to the existence of God or the reliability of the Genesis creation account. The most basic issue is nontheistic evolution versus creation by God, not the age of the earth.
The nontheistic evolutionary model assumes that nonliving systems generated life by means of time plus chance, and that microevolution (small changes) leads to macroevolution (large changes, as in the microbe-to-man theory). The philosophical problem with this model is that it makes the effects (complexity, life, intelligence, personality) greater than the causes (disorder, nonlife, random interactions and mutations, and impersonal events).
There are also scientific problems with nontheistic evolution. It offers no workable mechanism that will account for the first living cell, let alone the complexity of the human brain.
http://bible.org/seriespage/uniqueness-bible
-
The chemical production of a first living cell would have to follow this sequence:
(1) Random atoms must be formed into amino acids.
(2) These amino acids must link together to form chains (polypeptides).
(3) These chains must become long (hundreds of amino acids) and they must form in an ordered sequence, since there are 20 kinds of amino acids. This will produce a simple protein molecule.
(4) More complex proteins must be produced.
(5) Very long and highly ordered molecular chains known as DNA must be formed and maintained.
(6) An enormously complex chemical factory must be produced, complete with special protein formations, enzymes, DNA, RNA, ribosomes, a cell wall, etc. This single cell must be able to reproduce itself and carry on all the functions of life. Without a rational ordering agent, every step but the first would require nothing short of a statistical miracle, even under the most ideal circumstances.
Many people argue that, given enough time, even the most improbable events become probable. This sounds reasonable only until specific numbers are used. Consider George Bernard Shaw’s argument that if a million monkeys constantly typed on a million typewriters for a long enough time, one of them would eventually pound out a Shakespearean play. Assume a million monkeys typing 24 hours a day at 100 words a minute on typewriters with 40 keys. If each word of the play contained four letters, the first word would be typed by one of the monkeys in about 12 seconds. However, it would require about five days to get the first two words (eight letters) on one of the typewriters. How long would it take to get the first four words? About 100 billion years! No one could imagine the amount of time which would be required to produce the first scene.
http://bible.org/seriespage/uniqueness-bible
-
Beginning with the first step, many evolutionists assume a primordial earthly atmosphere with no oxygen so that amino acids could be formed. However, the very atmosphere that could produce them would immediately lead to their destruction (due to ultraviolet light penetrating this oxygen-free atmosphere) unless they were protected. Unfounded assumptions must be multiplied to overcome this problem.
On the next level, let us assume an ideal environment with a primordial soup full of amino acids and the proper catalysts, with just the right temperature and moisture. Some estimate that under these favorable conditions the chances of getting dipeptides (two amino acids bonded) would be about one in 100. But the chances of tripeptide formation would be about one in 10,000. To get a polypeptide of only ten amino acids, the probability would be one chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 quintillion). Yet the proteins in the simplest living things have chains of at least 400 amino acids on the average.
To make matters worse, all proteins are built of amino acids that are exclusively “left-handed” in their molecular orientation. Left-handed and right handed amino acids are mirror images of each other, and their chances of formation are about the same. Although both kinds can link with each other, the first living systems must have been built with left-handed components only. Some scientists have evoked natural selection here, but this only applies to systems that can already reproduce themselves. Without an intelligent ordering agent, we have only chance to explain this amazing phenomenon. For a chain of 400 left-handed amino acids, the odds would be roughly equivalent to tossing an ordinary coin and coming up with tails 400 times in a row. The chances for that would be approximately one in 10120 (a 1 followed by 120 zeroes). All this for one protein molecule, and hundreds of similar molecules would be needed in the first living system.
http://bible.org/seriespage/uniqueness-bible
-
None of this accounts for the fact that the 20 kinds of amino acids operate like letters in an alphabet, and they must link in a meaningful sequence to form a usable protein. A random sequence of amino acids would be utterly useless. DNA is far more complex than any of this, and it too is built out of a highly organized alphabet. The letters are molecules called nucleotides. A cell contains a chain of about three billion pairs of these nucleotides (each gene has about 1,200 nucleotide pairs). The order of these nucleotides or bases is crucial because every triplet of bases along this immense chain is a word. Each word stands for one of the 20 kinds of amino acids. Using these words the DNA can literally create any kind of protein that the cell needs.
The amount of time required to synthesize even one gene (a paragraph of these words) has been calculated by some scientists using absurdly generous assumptions. Using a variation on a well-known illustration, suppose a bird came once every billion years and removed ony one atom from a stone the size of the solar system. The amount of time required for the stone to be worn to nothing would be negligible compared to the time needed to create a useful gene by chance, even accounting for chemical affinities and an ideal environment. Shaw’s monkeys would long since have pounded out the words of Shakespeare!
But none of this can compare to the far greater complexity of a living cell. Even the simplest living system would require elaborately coded information, growth, reproduction, stability, adaptability, environmental response, and metabolism. Yet evolutionists demand spontaneous generation of life through chemical interaction because they think the only other option would be a miracle. In reality, a miracle cannot be avoided. The only question is whether life appeared out of the primordial soup or by the living God.
http://bible.org/seriespage/uniqueness-bible
-
In addition, none of the above considers the fact that every chemical reaction along the way from amino acids to life is reversible. This means that whenever a higher point of complexity is reached, it is unstable compared to its environment and may break down into its components. A polypeptide bond of four amino acids can easily break down into four separate amino acids.
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that all natural processes cause a net increase in entropy (disorder) and a net loss of useful energy. Any system left to itself will decay and degenerate. Free energy from the sun can cause slight increases in complexity, but the breakdown rate soon matches the buildup rate. The only way to build structures as complex as protein is to have an already existing machine that can translate raw energy into a more highly organized form. Solar energy may be plentiful, but it is useless for building complex systems unless such systems already exist. Life comes only from life, complexity only from complexity. Faith in an original spontaneous generation of life goes against all experience and evidence. It has been said that “teleology is a lady without whom no biologist can exist; yet he is ashamed to be seen with her in public.” Design requires a designer, and this is precisely what is lacking in nontheistic evolution. Of course, the subject of evolution entails other matters such as mutations and natural selection, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and fossil men. These are not trivial matters, but the most basic issue is that the impersonal mechanism of evolution will not by itself produce life or personality. Whether or not God superintended any kind of evolutionary process is an entirely different issue, and those who accept the Genesis creation account are divided on this matter. Scientists who acknowledge the authority of Scripture do not have a uniform view of the age of the earth, and they interpret the fossil evidence and the geological strata in different ways. On the other hand, the speculations of some nontheistic evolutionists sometimes stretch beyond the limits of the scientific method as they conceive scenarios that are clearly contrary to the biblical world view. Forgetting the tentative nature of science, they make confident assertions about the genesis of life and man. But even if a theory demonstrates how something might have happened, this is a far cry from proving that it really did happen this way.
http://bible.org/seriespage/uniqueness-bible
-
We must also remember that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but when it does touch on scientific matters, it has proven to be trustworthy. In the past, two problems have contributed to misunderstanding about the scientific validity of the Bible. The first is the erroneous scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible by the church. The most notable error is the teaching that the sun and planets revolve around the earth. Some writers delight in referring to the trial of Galileo for his “heretical” notion that the sun may be the center of the solar system, but the Bible cannot be blamed for this blunder. The second cause of misunderstanding is that the Bible uses phenomenological language. That is, it describes nature as it appears to the eye. Thus, it speaks of sunrises and sunsets (“Its rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end; and there is nothing hidden from its heat,” Ps. 19:6). But this does not teach that the sun rotates about the earth any more than today’s scientist means this when he uses the term “sunrise” and “sunset.” Others say that the Bible is in error because it says that pi is equal to 3 instead of 3.14. They base this on 1 Kings 7:23 where a laver ten cubits in diameter is given a circumference of 30 cubits. Comparing 7:23 with 7:26, however, it appears that the circumference was measured by using the inside diameter. The biblical phrase “the four corners of the earth” has been misunderstood to mean that the earth is flat with four literal corners. But Scripture uses this phrase figuratively, referring to all directions (Isa. 11:12; Ezek. 7:2; Rev. 7:1; 20:8).
When the Bible makes positive statements about the workings of nature, it is quite accurate, often running contrary to the erroneous concepts that were held in the time it was written. Job 36:27-29 gives an excellent description of the hydrologic cycle of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation. The statement about the earth in Job 26:7 was also far ahead of its time: “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.” Other biblical statements about astronomy, biology, and medicine (e.g., the quarantine and sanitary laws of Leviticus) are equally remarkable.
http://bible.org/seriespage/uniqueness-bible
-
We must also remember that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but when it does touch on scientific matters, it has proven to be trustworthy.
What, (non-xtian), evidence is there to support that claim?
In the past, two problems have contributed to misunderstanding about the scientific validity of the Bible. The first is the erroneous scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible by the church. The most notable error is the teaching that the sun and planets revolve around the earth. Some writers delight in referring to the trial of Galileo for his “heretical” notion that the sun may be the center of the solar system, but the Bible cannot be blamed for this blunder.
No, however followers of 'biblical teachings', (namely, the RCC), are directly to blame. That they based their "heresy" charges directly upon the religion which constantly uses the 'bible' to prop up such irrationalities as the planets revolving around the earth, the xtian religion is to blame in regards to Galileo.
The second cause of misunderstanding is that the Bible uses phenomenological language. That is, it describes nature as it appears to the eye.
This is merely another way of saying that the biblical writers were ignorant at 'best' and stupid, at minimum.
When the Bible makes positive statements about the workings of nature, it is quite accurate, often running contrary to the erroneous concepts that were held in the time it was written. Job 36:27-29 gives an excellent description of the hydrologic cycle of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation. The statement about the earth in Job 26:7 was also far ahead of its time: “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.” Other biblical statements about astronomy, biology, and medicine (e.g., the quarantine and sanitary laws of Leviticus) are equally remarkable.
http://bible.org/seriespage/uniqueness-bible
The examples given "stretch" credulity in that vague religious assertions regarding hydrologic, evaporative, precipitative functions are attributed to a supernatural egregore and not physics. The remaining vague claims about "astronomy, biology, and medicine", are unreferenced assertions.
Further, the reference source is "bible.org"; an inherently biased source.
-
http://bible.org/seriespage/uniqueness-bible
The source is tainted by religious bias and uses dubious biblical references, (verse-quoting), to bolster weaking reasoning.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Q1vKb.gif)
Falcon9
Too, Too Funny!
-
Unless you have more you are working on, I've noticed you don't really have much refuting to say. There's more truth to much of that than you would even care to admit to.
-
Unless you have more you are working on, I've noticed you don't really have much refuting to say. There's more truth to much of that than you would even care to admit to.
Why bother? You faith-blinded fundies would be unable to comprehend the technical refutations. Although I may choose to refute more later, just for the vicarious amusement of 'talking over your heads'.
:o
-
Unless you have more you are working on, I've noticed you don't really have much refuting to say. There's more truth to much of that than you would even care to admit to.
Why bother? You faith-blinded fundies would be unable to comprehend the technical refutations. Although I may choose to refute more later, just for the vicarious amusement of 'talking over your heads'.
:o
You think way too highly of yourself, especially in areas of which you think you know everything, when you really have no idea.
-
What do you give us here in your reply?
Quashing your diversionary b.s. was done off-handedly. It remains that you irrational xtian adherents of your superstitious religious belief system have continued to dodge the responsibility of substantiating your specious religious claims/empty declarations. Either you have no solid evidence to support your claims or, you are unable to do so, (especially without a circular blind faith reference to the the blind faith itself).
More ad hominem from you ...
While nothing in that response constitutes ad hom, (except to a definition-redefining faith-blinded fundie), merely following the "Golden Rule" to the same extent which you are seemed appropriate.
Why must you so often use logical fallacies to try to form your arguments?
Why must you keep fabricating, (lying overtly), nearly every time your fallacious arguments are refuted?
Do you want me to once again teach you what ad hominem is? I told you it is within the post where I indicated and it is within your reply above. That you cannot see it speaks to your ignorance of a description that you so often use. This makes you quite the fool.
-
The source is tainted by religious bias and uses dubious biblical references, (verse-quoting), to bolster weaking reasoning.
Unless you have more you are working on, I've noticed you don't really have much refuting to say. There's more truth to much of that than you would even care to admit to.
I'll take a quick shot at it. It points to prophecies being fulfilled which are not actual prophecies and are self-referential. When you work on a story (especially in fiction), it's important for authors to write a rough draft, then reread it and make more events connect for characters and their environments. Terms like exposition, poetry, and foreshadowing should come to mind. Authors do this all the time and it sometimes takes them decades to get all the nuts and bolts in place to create a good story. Considering the bible has been edited and rewritten many times throughout history, it's practical to conclude that this is the case (unless you can provide non-xtian sources saying otherwise). The odd thing is that even though it has been edited through centuries, it's still written pretty poorly considering the wordiness and the ignorance of obvious faults. The amount of assumptions the author of your article uses makes me scratch my head.
"Another favorite example of a biblical contradiction relates to Genesis 1 and 2. Some claim these are two contradictory creation accounts, but they can be harmonized when we notice two things: (1) Genesis 1 is a general survey of the six days of creation, and Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of the sixth day of creation"
Harmonized when you assume things. It's not written as a general survey of the six days-- it states that that's how they happened in that order and nothing more. When you start making up ideas of how to read things, you can make the bible (or any book) say anything you want! And that's generally how xtians get away with murder (both metaphorically and literally).
The prophecies are another jumbled mess-- the whole Tyre thing?
"But the mainland city was never rebuilt (26:14), and today it remains a bare rock upon which fishermen spread their nets to dry (26:5,14)."
Here's how Tyre looks today-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/pugbug/Tyre.jpg)
More information and pictures here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon
So obviously the biblical prophecy is not true and therefore this book is fallible (or outdated with its prophecies...). Unless I didn't read the scriptures the same way you read it and missed out on some important assumption?
This article is pretty long, so I'm just going to end it on the science part- the bible is not a science book regardless that the article says it's "trustworthy". This article tries to promote things that were proven fallible back in the 70's (2nd law of thermodynamics argument for instance). We've been over these xtian lies in the past in great detail, so it's either you couldn't remember the basics of them or you're simply ignoring the problems. I'll just say this- can you really trust a book as a scientific source when it talks about light being created before light sources being created, 50+ mile-high floods, a talking serpent, talking donkey, and people living for centuries at a time? To say yes is an admittance to having a completely delusional mind since it goes against the very definition of science. The whole article is just a gigantic blunder of oxymoron statements and cannot be trusted as reliable.
-
Do you want me ...
No, though you're too "impolite" to simply bugger-off so, occassionally I'll ignore your ad homs and sometimes I won't.
-
The source is tainted by religious bias and uses dubious biblical references, (verse-quoting), to bolster weaking reasoning.
Unless you have more you are working on, I've noticed you don't really have much refuting to say. There's more truth to much of that than you would even care to admit to.
I'll take a quick shot at it. It points to prophecies being fulfilled which are not actual prophecies and are self-referential. When you work on a story (especially in fiction), it's important for authors to write a rough draft, then reread it and make more events connect for characters and their environments. Terms like exposition, poetry, and foreshadowing should come to mind. Authors do this all the time and it sometimes takes them decades to get all the nuts and bolts in place to create a good story. Considering the bible has been edited and rewritten many times throughout history, it's practical to conclude that this is the case (unless you can provide non-xtian sources saying otherwise). The odd thing is that even though it has been edited through centuries, it's still written pretty poorly considering the wordiness and the ignorance of obvious faults. The amount of assumptions the author of your article uses makes me scratch my head.
"Another favorite example of a biblical contradiction relates to Genesis 1 and 2. Some claim these are two contradictory creation accounts, but they can be harmonized when we notice two things: (1) Genesis 1 is a general survey of the six days of creation, and Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of the sixth day of creation"
Harmonized when you assume things. It's not written as a general survey of the six days-- it states that that's how they happened in that order and nothing more. When you start making up ideas of how to read things, you can make the bible (or any book) say anything you want! And that's generally how xtians get away with murder (both metaphorically and literally).
The prophecies are another jumbled mess-- the whole Tyre thing?
"But the mainland city was never rebuilt (26:14), and today it remains a bare rock upon which fishermen spread their nets to dry (26:5,14)."
Here's how Tyre looks today-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/pugbug/Tyre.jpg)
More information and pictures here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon
So obviously the biblical prophecy is not true and therefore this book is fallible (or outdated with its prophecies...). Unless I didn't read the scriptures the same way you read it and missed out on some important assumption?
This article is pretty long, so I'm just going to end it on the science part- the bible is not a science book regardless that the article says it's "trustworthy". This article tries to promote things that were proven fallible back in the 70's (2nd law of thermodynamics argument for instance). We've been over these xtian lies in the past in great detail, so it's either you couldn't remember the basics of them or you're simply ignoring the problems. I'll just say this- can you really trust a book as a scientific source when it talks about light being created before light sources being created, 50+ mile-high floods, a talking serpent, talking donkey, and people living for centuries at a time? To say yes is an admittance to having a completely delusional mind since it goes against the very definition of science. The whole article is just a gigantic blunder of oxymoron statements and cannot be trusted as reliable.
Science and the Bible
The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible.[1]
Paleontology Statements Consistent With Paleontology
Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though. smile ) Click this sentence to see our Dinosaurs page if you would like more information in this subject area.
Astronomy Statements Consistent With Astronomy
The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.
Genesis 22:17
Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
Jeremiah 33:22
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”
Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 1021 stars—which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)
The Bible also says that each star is unique.
1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)
The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.
Jeremiah 31:35,36
Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
-
Statements Consistent With Meteorology
The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.
Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.[1] (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore our omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.)
Biology Statements Consistent With Biology
The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.
Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’
The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.[1]
The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.
Genesis 1:11,12
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.[1]
The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.
It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health.[1] The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.
Proverbs 12:4
An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.
Proverbs 14:30
A sound heart is life to the body,
But envy is rottenness to the bones.
Proverbs 15:30
The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
And a good report makes the bones healthy.
Proverbs 16:24
Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.
Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart does good, like medicine,
But a broken spirit dries the bones.
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
-
When you start making up ideas of how to read things, you can make the bible (or any book) say anything you want! And that's generally how xtians get away with murder (both metaphorically and literally).
"Science and the Bible
Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible."
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
The source is tainted by religious bias and uses dubious biblical references, (verse-quoting), to bolster weak non-reasoning. It is also a ducking behind the cover of an apologetic source in order to pretend to be "debating" when simply cut & pasting.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
-- Gregory House
-
Statements Consistent With Anthropology
We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.
Job 30:5,6
They were driven out from among men,
They shouted at them as at a thief.
They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
In caves of the earth and the rocks.
Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually.[1]
Hydrology Statements Consistent With Hydrology
The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.[3]
Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”
In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle—the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation.[1]
Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?
This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.[1]
The Bible describes the recirculation of water.
Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.
Isaiah 55:10
For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,
The Bible refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds.
Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.
Hydrothermal vents[4] are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC—more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science.
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Job 38:16
Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?
We discuss the “fountains of the great deep” further in our Creation Versus Evolution page.
Geology Statements Consistent With Geology
The Bible describes the Earth’s crust (along with a comment on astronomy).
Jeremiah 31:37
Thus says the LORD:
“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.”
Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth’s crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.[1]
The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.
Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.
The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.
This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)
We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
-
Statements Consistent With Physics
The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when Peter wrote the following verse).
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
The television is a practical (if not always worthwhile smile ) device that uses electromagnetic waves (which transmit its video signal). The Bible contains passages that describe something like television—something that allows everyone on earth see a single event. (Note: such passages typically refer to the end of time. It may not be long before all of us learn for sure whether the Bible is true or not.)
Matthew 24:30
Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Revelation 11:9-11
Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.
Things In The Bible That Science Can Not Explain
The purpose of this page is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.
In the last 100 years (and especially in the last ten) scientists discovered many proofs that confirm the Bible’s accuracy. Since these proofs support the accuracy of the text we can understand scientifically, it makes sense to trust the Bible’s text that we can not yet understand. (For example, how many people knew what hydrothermal vents were 30 years ago?) If you would like to see the proof we have for the accuracy of the Bible, click on the link below.
Click here to learn some facts that confirm the Bible's accuracy How Do You Know The Bible Is True?
References
[1] The DEFENDER’S Study Bible, Word Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1995).
[2] The Number of Stars
[3] The Hydrologic Cycle
[4] Submarine Volcanic Ecosystems (An article on hydrothermal vents.)
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
-
Ecclesiastes 1:6
Job 28:25
Leviticus 17:11
Genesis 1:11,12
Genesis 1:21
Genesis 1:25
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
Retroactive force-fitted reinterpretations of bliblical verses do not constitute valid evidence.
-
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
Retroactive force-fitted reinterpretations of bliblical verses do not constitute valid evidence.
-
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
Retroactive force-fitted reinterpretations of bliblical verses do not constitute valid evidence.
-
The Proof of Prophecy
One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God�s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.
One Type—The Messianic Prophecies
Of these prophecies, the most striking examples are the predictions about an �anointed one� (�Messiah� in Hebrew) who was to arrive in the future. About 4 BC, a miraculous event occurred—a boy named Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary. You can read His story in the book of Luke. Starting at age 30, Jesus fulfilled more and more of these prophecies written about the Messiah. His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible�s writers were inspired supernaturally—by God. To examine these prophecies yourself, click on the link below.
The Messianic Prophecies
A Second Type—Fulfilled Prophecy Dealing With Nations
There are many prophecies that can be proven through archaeology, especially prophecy dealing with entire nations. Typically, when God declared judgment on a nation, He would send a prophet to announce to the citizens why He was judging them and what He was going to do to them if they continued their evil behavior. On occasion, God would also tell the citizens how He would reward them if they started doing what was right. The book of Jonah records a case where the Assyrians stopped doing what was evil as a result of Jonah�s short prophecy. This is what God wanted, and God did not punish them as a result of their change of heart. However, most often the people would jeer at God�s prophet and continue their bad behavior—later becoming recipients of the exact punishment that God threatened.
Like other prophecy recorded in the Bible, these predictions support the supernatural inspiration of the Bible. The prophecies recorded in the Bible came true in such a detailed way that they could not have been predicted by chance. Further, archaeologists have evidence that these prophecies were written down many years before they were fulfilled, proving that they were not falsified documents claiming to be prophecies that came true. (The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls stopped the majority of that talk.) Although an entire web site could be filled with this information, we will provide one example—the foretelling of the destruction of Edom and its capital city of Petra.
Click here for an example of fulfilled prophecy dealing with nations
The Proof of Textual Evidence
Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the “library” of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier (third century BC) and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today�s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in).
Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. (That is, those differences that we do observe between these hand written documents are occasional changes in the spelling of names or isolated cases of missing or changed words. Still, since we have so many copies, it is obvious to anyone but the hardened skeptic can that they all represent the same text.)
Note: Those minor differences that do exist between the Old and New Testament manuscripts are interesting for academic reasons. They are the topic of a future �in depth� Clarifying Christianity page. (It is currently about 10,000 words long and still under construction—stay tuned.)
The Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ
Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this �sect.� None exists. Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the �book� we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus� miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as �fairy tales.�
The Proof of Historians
Secular history supports the Bible.
For example, in The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 the famous historian Flavius Josephus writes:
“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
In 115 AD, P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to Jesus (called �Christus,� which means �The Messiah�) in book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
-
When you start making up ideas of how to read things, you can make the bible (or any book) say anything you want! And that's generally how xtians get away with murder (both metaphorically and literally).
"Science and the Bible
Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible."
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
The source is tainted by religious bias and uses dubious biblical references, (verse-quoting), to bolster weak non-reasoning. It is also a ducking behind the cover of an apologetic source in order to pretend to be "debating" when simply cut & pasting.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
-- Gregory House
Even though I know Falconer02 does not agree with me on this topic, he still takes the time like he did in a previous post, to still discuss it, add to it, and then still give his reasons for still not agreeing it. Though there may be similar phrases he uses to Christians as you do, he is not being hateful, like you are. You automatically use your same old words of cut-off, over and over, with no opportunity of discussing or sharing our disagreements.
Debates in these kinds of forums do not follow the strict rules of debate learned in college, or even high school. Copying and pasting is not a no-no in here, and many times gives way more info than the poster can. Besides, you have been copying and pasting many of your "usual" responses and quotes that you come back with to others. So you really have no room to talk.
Finally, because of what I just wrote in the first paragraph, I wasn't answering you directly, since Falconer02 is the one who showed the more mature side of actually responding to what I "simply cut and pasted." So, essentially, I was responding to him.
-
"Like other prophecy recorded in the Bible, these predictions support the supernatural inspiration of the Bible."
www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
Retroactive force-fitted reinterpretations of bliblical verses do not constitute valid evidence. These do not, in fact, "support the supernatural inspiration of the bible", (in what would be a circular, self-referential way).
-
Even though I know Falconer02 does not agree with me on this topic, he still takes the time like he did in a previous post, to still discuss it, add to it, and then still give his reasons for still not agreeing it. Though there may be similar phrases he uses to Christians as you do, he is not being hateful, like you are.
I'd previously taken, (wasted), my time refuting your non-evidentiary, faith-based attempts to replace valid evidence with 'religious beliefs'. It soon became apparent that this did not induce you to "debate" but, merely to keep hucking-up force-fitted biblical quotes and blind-faith based empty assertions, (sans tangible evidence). While you are free to engage in such disingenious non-debating, (for instance, whining about discerning blind faith as being belief without evidence by calling such a conclusion "rude" and such without rebutting the premise).
You automatically use your same old words of cut-off, over and over, with no opportunity of discussing or sharing our disagreements.
You'd squandered previous opportunities to "debate" by repetitiously requoting specious "biblical verses" (un)supported by blind faith in lieu of rational/logical evidence. Since that became evident by your continued posts in that manner of dodging by invoking blind faith, it was deemed a waste of rationality to continuously refute such religious irrationality.
-
The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible.[1]
I did make the mistake of saying it's not a science book as the article says, but I've already proven that the bible is not scientifically accurate numerous times in the past. Your cut/paste techniques are pretty pointless since you've already displayed your ignorance by not doing your own unbiased research which proves that you're intellectually dishonest and cannot be trusted in these types of debates (that's not christian behavior...). Though it's a waste of time since your sources have already shown humongous holes, I will skim and clip a few to show that these sources are still wrong on several accounts-
Paleontology Statements Consistent With Paleontology
Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though. smile ) Click this sentence to see our Dinosaurs page if you would like more information in this subject area.
"Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are both mythological creatures that resemble modern-day animals. Don't you find it peculiar that only the creationists believe the bible interprets them as dinosaurs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan
Only a complete fool would say that Jurrasic dinosaurs lived alongside humans only a few thousand years ago.
The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.
So life goes from primordeal ooze, to grass, to cattle? :dontknow:
Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
Actually a simple search will show that most winds travel pretty randomly (ultimately they travel west to east), but that's just a blunt point. We'd have to take the Yamartino method into consideration to accurately get the technical data, which I doubt this ancient text talks about.
All in all, you've posted really poor sources full of deceit and lies which can easily be refuted with simple searches. The explanations are based merely on assumptions. Or, as Falcon9 puts it- Retroactive force-fitted reinterpretations of bliblical verses do not constitute valid evidence.
-
The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible.[1]
I did make the mistake of saying it's not a science book as the article says, but I've already proven that the bible is not scientifically accurate numerous times in the past. Your cut/paste techniques are pretty pointless since you've already displayed your ignorance by not doing your own unbiased research which proves that you're intellectually dishonest and cannot be trusted in these types of debates (that's not christian behavior...). Though it's a waste of time since your sources have already shown humongous holes, I will skim and clip a few to show that these sources are still wrong on several accounts-
Paleontology Statements Consistent With Paleontology
Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though. smile ) Click this sentence to see our Dinosaurs page if you would like more information in this subject area.
"Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are both mythological creatures that resemble modern-day animals. Don't you find it peculiar that only the creationists believe the bible interprets them as dinosaurs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan
Only a complete fool would say that Jurrasic dinosaurs lived alongside humans only a few thousand years ago.
The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.
So life goes from primordeal ooze, to grass, to cattle? :dontknow:
Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
Actually a simple search will show that most winds travel pretty randomly (ultimately they travel west to east), but that's just a blunt point. We'd have to take the Yamartino method into consideration to accurately get the technical data, which I doubt this ancient text talks about.
All in all, you've posted really poor sources full of deceit and lies which can easily be refuted with simple searches. The explanations are based merely on assumptions.
Or, as Falcon9 puts it- "Retroactive force-fitted reinterpretations of bliblical verses do not constitute valid evidence."
Now we all hold our breaths until rebuttals of your refutations are made, in the style of informal debate?
-
if god was real, then why would he let James Holmes terrorize all those people in Colorado. maybe he was watching American Idiol at the time and missed it...lol
-
if god was real, then why would he let James Holmes terrorize all those people in Colorado. maybe he was watching American Idiol at the time and missed it...lol
Free will is the reason why.
-
if god was real, then why would he let James Holmes terrorize all those people in Colorado. maybe he was watching American Idiol at the time and missed it...lol
Free will is the reason why.
"Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he is wicked.
If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and wicked."
-- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
-
if god was real, then why would he let James Holmes terrorize all those people in Colorado. maybe he was watching American Idiol at the time and missed it...lol
Free will is the reason why.
"Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he is wicked.
If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and wicked."
-- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
This is a false dichotomy and blatantly obvious as such in response to my statement. Is the reason you posted it to indicate that you do not understand the concept of free will or did you post it in ignorance of the meaning of free will?
-
Is the reason you posted it to indicate that you do not understand the concept of free will ... (?)
No, the reason I posted the Epicurean syllogism was to emphasize that xtian blind-faithers don't understand the concept of "free will" from a
non-coercive and non-deterministic perspective. If your hypothetical supernatural egregore threatens punishment for non-compliance with specious religious strictures and already 'knows' what happens, regardless of 'choices' made, then the concept of free will does not apply. If free will means free to choose without coercive threats or, predetermined 'destiny', then the Epicurean syllogism applies.
-
Is the reason you posted it to indicate that you do not understand the concept of free will ... (?)
No, the reason I posted the Epicurean syllogism was to emphasize that xtian blind-faithers don't understand the concept of "free will" from a
non-coercive and non-deterministic perspective. If your hypothetical supernatural egregore threatens punishment for non-compliance with specious religious strictures and already 'knows' what happens, regardless of 'choices' made, then the concept of free will does not apply. If free will means free to choose without coercive threats or, predetermined 'destiny', then the Epicurean syllogism applies.
You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said. You display an understanding of time from a linear time-bound view, but God is not time-bound and exists simultaneously across all instances of 'time' as you see it. God was in both the beginning of a man's earthly life and the end and at all points in between at the exact same simultaneous instance. What you would consider 'precognition' is simply an innate characteristic of being multidimensional in this way. One is free to choose regardless of any perceived 'threats' or not. Destiny is not predetermined either, and this is something you only assume because of your lack of understanding of the implications of such multidimensional physics. I am guessing you are like those that imagine God "looking into the future" to determine an outcome, but that is not the case as God exists simultaneously in what you consider "the future" and there is no need to look ahead to where one already is. It seems to me that you have put such effort into trying to find fault with the Bible and God that you forgot some of the lessons of the very physics you claim to have familiarity with.
-
You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -
You prefer weaseling-out of discussing the xtian 'religious' concept of "free-will" and go diverting off into tangential speculations regarding some hypothetical egregore's 'transcending' linear time. That's an unsupported religious belief, sans evidence and is summarily disregarded as specious.
- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said.
In turn, I assume you're a moron, (based upon your unfounded assumptions).
You display an understanding of time from a linear time-bound view, but God is not time-bound and exists simultaneously across all instances of 'time' as you see it. God was in both the beginning of a man's earthly life and the end and at all points in between at the exact same simultaneous instance.
And the evidence supporting this implicitly specious religious belief is ... wait, let me speculate too: the 'bible', (itself, an unsupported collection of specious faith-based beliefs, sans evidence).
One is free to choose regardless of any perceived 'threats' or not.
Sure, one is "free" to choose "eternal damnation" or, being absorbed by the xtian egregore, (become "one with" that hypothetical daemon). Some "choice".
Destiny is not predetermined either, and this is something you only assume because of your lack of understanding of the implications of such multidimensional physics.
I'm not only familiar with multi-dimensional physics, I'm as familiar with the unsupported contention that the hypothetical xtian egregore/daemon is hypothesized to be some sort of 'hyper-dimensional' enitity. There are several immediately obvious problems with this string of unfounded assumptions, (not the least of which being a string of unfounded assumptions). Unless you can produce evidence of the "multi-dimensional" existance of the xtian egregore which you proceed to base further assumptions upon, your entire premise is disregarded as specious.
-
You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -
You prefer weaseling-out of discussing the xtian 'religious' concept of "free-will" and go diverting off into tangential speculations regarding some hypothetical egregore's 'transcending' linear time. That's an unsupported religious belief, sans evidence and is summarily disregarded as specious.
- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said.
In turn, I assume you're a moron, (based upon your unfounded assumptions).
You display an understanding of time from a linear time-bound view, but God is not time-bound and exists simultaneously across all instances of 'time' as you see it. God was in both the beginning of a man's earthly life and the end and at all points in between at the exact same simultaneous instance.
And the evidence supporting this implicitly specious religious belief is ... wait, let me speculate too: the 'bible', (itself, an unsupported collection of specious faith-based beliefs, sans evidence).
One is free to choose regardless of any perceived 'threats' or not.
Sure, one is "free" to choose "eternal damnation" or, being absorbed by the xtian egregore, (become "one with" that hypothetical daemon). Some "choice".
Destiny is not predetermined either, and this is something you only assume because of your lack of understanding of the implications of such multidimensional physics.
I'm not only familiar with multi-dimensional physics, I'm as familiar with the unsupported contention that the hypothetical xtian egregore/daemon is hypothesized to be some sort of 'hyper-dimensional' enitity. There are several immediately obvious problems with this string of unfounded assumptions, (not the least of which being a string of unfounded assumptions). Unless you can produce evidence of the "multi-dimensional" existance of the xtian egregore which you proceed to base further assumptions upon, your entire premise is disregarded as specious.
I didn't weasel out of anything. I revealed the flaws of your argument and you even echoed the same flawed thinking right back at me. I cannot help it if you are not even wise enough to ask proper questions but I did try to guess what your flawed query was about. You then strike back at me with your typical ad homenim and baseless accusations. Realize, that I am aware you are deliberately trolling as you nobody could be as dense and irrational as you propose to be. The reason I reply at all is to reveal to other readers the falseness of your statements and to clean up your obfuscation.
Whatever problems you are having understanding the underlying physics (as you so indicate -- which is good to see you finally admit your inferiority in such analysis), I would be more than happy to try and clear up for you. It isn't any specialty of mine, but it isn't completely foreign either and the subject holds no intimidation over me. So tell me what about it confuses you and perhaps I will provide you the answers.
-
You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -
You prefer weaseling-out of discussing the xtian 'religious' concept of "free-will" and go diverting off into tangential speculations regarding some hypothetical egregore's 'transcending' linear time. That's an unsupported religious belief, sans evidence and is summarily disregarded as specious.
- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said.
In turn, I assume you're a moron, (based upon your unfounded assumptions).
-
You have a poor understanding of scripture in this matter and are not one who can surmise what is a threat or what is coercive -
You prefer weaseling-out of discussing the xtian 'religious' concept of "free-will" and go diverting off into tangential speculations regarding some hypothetical egregore's 'transcending' linear time. That's an unsupported religious belief, sans evidence and is summarily disregarded as specious.
- I am assuming you use certain translated texts sans any lexicons or concordance and that you don't investigate more closely as to what is said.
In turn, I assume you're a moron, (based upon your unfounded assumptions).
Is there a point to your post? Are you trying to ask me to help you understand these particular subjects -- is that it is this all your ego allows you to do in request? I have already educated you slightly on the properties of time and our distorted perception of it so you could read back on that material. I have also educated you on how an infinite observer outside of our universe would view its duration and how such sayings as "before the big bang" are meaningless since there is no before/after when time is removed from the equation. These topics are not all that complex and only can seem foreign and whilst I am no expert by any means I can help you to understand them.
-
Is there a point to your post?
Yes, and it is amusing that it eludes you by way of your faith-blindness.
Are you trying to ask me to help you understand these particular subjects ... ?
No such condescending "help" is required, (especially from a mind-blinded religious fundie), in those particular subjects. You could elaborate on how religious belief without evidence somehow does not constitute blind faith though.
-
Is there a point to your post?
Yes, and it is amusing that it eludes you by way of your faith-blindness.
Are you trying to ask me to help you understand these particular subjects ... ?
No such condescending "help" is required, (especially from a mind-blinded religious fundie), in those particular subjects. You could elaborate on how religious belief without evidence somehow does not constitute blind faith though.
More ad hominem from you, so what is the point with your fallacious attacks? If you cannot debate rationally you should pursue some other task to occupy your time, such as slapping yourself in the face or some similar task that you might be suited for.
If no help is required, why do you have such difficulty with them? I have already instructed you quite extensively on faith and I have broken it down to about as simple an explanation as I could. I went to particular steps to make the material easy to understand on some of my last attempts, and so if you still have difficulty grasping the subject then perhaps you can find some seven year old to read it and explain it to you. You may eventually discover that it is your "blind faith" that actually prevents you from understanding the material, but that would require more rationality than I think you are currently capable of.
-
More ad hominem from you, so what is the point with your fallacious attacks? If you cannot debate rationally ...
Doubtless it is apparent, (at least to those not mind-blinded by religious faith), that the ad homs are merely being exchanged while you continue to dodge any attempts to justify your religious blind faith in xtian superstitions. Is it fear, cognitive dissonance, simple stupidity or an penchant for ego-defense mechanisms which prevents you from facing your own irrationality in placing religious faith in that for which there is no substantive evidence?
-
More ad hominem from you, so what is the point with your fallacious attacks? If you cannot debate rationally ...
Doubtless it is apparent, (at least to those not mind-blinded by religious faith), that the ad homs are merely being exchanged while you continue to dodge any attempts to justify your religious blind faith in xtian superstitions. Is it fear, cognitive dissonance, simple stupidity or an penchant for ego-defense mechanisms which prevents you from facing your own irrationality in placing religious faith in that for which there is no substantive evidence?
Show me the ad hominem I have committed. While I have actually done some of this I can pretty much guarantee you that you cannot identify it because you still don't know what ad hominem is (don't concern yourself with posting a definition here either as what is required from you is an example of my usage of it since you above have declared it as "being exchanged"). I am not the one dodging, it is you doing this with your routine dip, duck, dodge, dive, and dance (yes clownboy you are dancing now again). You can pick whatever label you would apply to yourself and use that on me, I don't care one way or the other. I have substantive evidence for myself, but it is indeed true that I didn't begin with substantive evidence -- nor did I require it. Just because you don't trust your own capabilities to discern doesn't mean that we all are so limited and you cannot seem to reason this simple fact.
-
Some of these people are mean huh, if there is infact a God which I believe I'm sure he's not happy with them.
"God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it."
-- Carl Sagan
"You can safely say that you have made g-d in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people
you do."
-- Reverend Robert Cromey
It is funny without knowing anything about me that you throw these quotes at me that mean nothing to me and I don't hate you or any one that doesn't believe in God. In the bible it says some people couldn't handle knowing the truth so it would be held back from them for their own good. I hate nobody!!! If you got the impression I hated you I would like to know how and I am also sorry for you being misled!
--Joshua Shroyer ---me
-
Show me the ad hominem I have committed.
" ... if you still have difficulty grasping the subject then perhaps you can find some seven year old to read it and explain it to you. You may eventually discover that it is your "blind faith" that actually prevents you from understanding the material, but that would require more rationality than I think you are currently capable of." - msg ID# 585986
and
While I have actually done some of this I can pretty much guarantee you that you cannot identify it because you still don't know what ad hominem is ... {msg ID# 585030
Here's another from me: you're a lying xtian idiot.
-
It is funny without knowing anything about me that you throw these quotes at me that mean nothing to me and I don't hate you or any one that doesn't believe in God.
The only thing there is to go by/being referred to are your faith-blinded religious posts you've been proselytizing with here so far. Like your next remark:
In the bible it says ...
-
Show me the ad hominem I have committed.
" ... if you still have difficulty grasping the subject then perhaps you can find some seven year old to read it and explain it to you. You may eventually discover that it is your "blind faith" that actually prevents you from understanding the material, but that would require more rationality than I think you are currently capable of." - msg ID# 585986
and
While I have actually done some of this I can pretty much guarantee you that you cannot identify it because you still don't know what ad hominem is ... {msg ID# 585030
Here's another from me: you're a lying xtian idiot.
The first two are not ad hominem. The last one, on its on is not ad hominem, and if it were true that I was a liar and idiot then it would not be ad hominem even if used to discredit (and if I were not a liar and idiot it still isn't ad hominem in the presentation you have presented). So as I suspected, you don't know what ad hominem is and you use that word quite often (as well as your use of ad hominem).
-
The first two are not ad hominem.
A bland denial is no a refutation, though your attempting that even when evidence was presented, (consisting of your own words), means that you're either a compulsive or, pathological liar, (possibly in combination with a pervasive cognitive dissonance regarding your dishonesty).
-
I said before the citing I had faith, Seeing what i saw was Evidence enough to me even knowing all you criticizers were here, that I still replied truth no matter what your reply back to me wold be, to me that is evidence all to itself.
Once again, simply claiming that such was 'witnessed' does not constitute valid evidence; it is merely your unsupported faith-based contention.
Where is your proof there is no God, your evidence is not there, where is your evidence, show me, not a bunch of words smashed together trying to make yourself sound smart, where is your evidence.
Although some things can be shown not to exist, requesting evidence to support a negative contention, ('prove Santa, easter bunny, fairies, elves, invisible pink unicorns' don't exist is an insistence upon a logical fallacy ... prove that you're not an idiot, etc.), indicates a diminished understanding of logical reasoning and does not confer validity on a specious claim. Because there are nearly an infinite number of things which cannot be proven not to exist, it is more rational to require that those claiming the existence of something, (such as 'g-d'), support their claim with evidence.
So your argument is , that you have pages and pages of arguments on some thing you already know there is no evidence for per say, There is no proof there is and there is no proof there isn't, If this is what you are saying why do you keep quoting out of books but when the bible is brought up it isn't good enough proof. Your logic seems illogical to me, If you personally saw an Angel would that be evidence to you???????? But you're saying that would be hearsay to me, where is the logic, that is my evidence!!!! Do I expect you to believe me, no, Would it be evidence to you if I passed a lie detector test in front of you, probably not, My evidence is, all this is as it is and no one can explain it.
-
... you don't know what ad hominem is ...
Untrue, (which privides additional evidence that you're a liar).
"Definition of AD HOMINEM:
-marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"
You keep making specious remarks, (unsupported by evidence), which consist merely of your empty opinion and attempts to redefine terms, as if repeating unfounded falsehoods will somehow magically make them true. No wonder you're a xtian; it suits your disingenuous paradigm.
-
So your argument is , that you have pages and pages of arguments on some thing you already know there is no evidence for per say, There is no proof there is and there is no proof there isn't...
No, there are pages of refutations because fundies like you are unable to grasp the difference between making a religious claim and failing to provide evidence to support it, (you and other religious adherents), and 'proving something doesn't exist, (a logical fallacy regarding negative assertions).
-
The first two are not ad hominem.
A bland denial is no a refutation, though your attempting that even when evidence was presented, (consisting of your own words), means that you're either a compulsive or, pathological liar, (possibly in combination with a pervasive cognitive dissonance regarding your dishonesty).
You are the one that doesn't know what ad hominem is, not me. I am telling you that those were not ad hominem and I am well aware of what is and isn't such.
-
... you don't know what ad hominem is ...
Untrue, (which privides additional evidence that you're a liar).
"Definition of AD HOMINEM:
-marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"
You keep making specious remarks, (unsupported by evidence), which consist merely of your empty opinion and attempts to redefine terms, as if repeating unfounded falsehoods will somehow magically make them true. No wonder you're a xtian; it suits your disingenuous paradigm.
That is not an accurate definition of ad hominem. While it is true in part, it is incomplete. The attack must be of the form to discredit a persons argument based upon a quality of the person making the argument and not the argument itself. To simply insult the person or their character is not ad hominem, but if you said because of a quality they demonstrate or possess that therefore their argument must be wrong is (but there are cases where you can attack the persons character in order to refute their argument which would not qualify as ad hominem).
Surely when you looked at that definition you had to wonder why "rather than by an answer to the contentions made" was even included? You couldn't puzzle it out, though, could you?
-
You are ...
Your unfounded opinions hold no more interest than as further evidence of your mental deficiencies, rampant self-delusions and self-aggrandizing fantasies of adequacy. You remain unable to reconcile the lack of evidence for your blind religious faith with your specious pseudo-rationalizations.
-
That is not an accurate definition of ad hominem. While it is true in part, it is incomplete.
It's from meriam-webster.com; you don't get to redefine the meanings of words, (although you repeatedly attempt to do so in a further evidentiary example of the depths of your self-delusions).
-
That is not an accurate definition of ad hominem. While it is true in part, it is incomplete.
It's from meriam-webster.com; you don't get to redefine the meanings of words, (although you repeatedly attempt to do so in a further evidentiary example of the depths of your self-delusions).
I don't care where it is from. The definition as stated is vague and if causes one to understand it as you did then it is incorrect. Surely there are some that can follow through the meaning and realize the context it would be used in but this requires some familiarity with the subject. I haven't redefined anything, I clarified and stipulated and indicated the connection that was unenforced within the definition. If you think the definition I gave is a different end than the one you gave then I will sternly tell you that my definition is correct and yours is not. If you can comprehend the underlying relevance of usage you might conclude the two were the same, with the meriam-webster.com one being vague. Your blind faith in meriam-webster.com is your downfall in realizing this as it is not uncommon to find errors in dictionaries, encyclopedias, scientific journals and you should well realize this.
-
I don't care where it is from.
That's fine; I don't care how much you'd prefer to redefine terms which don't coincide with your faith-blinded narcissism, that sort of self-delusion on your part is best kept to yourself if you don't want it summarily-refuted every time.
-
I don't care where it is from.
That's fine; I don't care how much you'd prefer to redefine terms which don't coincide with your faith-blinded narcissism, that sort of self-delusion on your part is best kept to yourself if you don't want it summarily-refuted every time.
I am not redefining anything. I would have thought in your debate participation you would have learned what ad hominem is. I know in my persuasive writing courses we covered such topics. I haven't even altered the meaning of the definition you gave, I only clarified it. From your point of view you could strip the end part I indicated earlier off the definition and you would have the same result as you seem to think. You are either lacking in comprehension more than I had previously thought, or your ego prevents you from admitting I am right in this matter, or you are trying to troll in your typical fashion. Honestly I don't care and it is somewhat entertaining to see you accuse people of using ad hominem when they are not and you are -- so by all means continue with whatever understanding of it you wish and be more the fool for it.
-
I am not redefining anything.
Right, because there aren't numerous extant examples of your doing that already, (e.g., attempts to redefine atheism as a religious belief).
-
I am not redefining anything.
Right, because there aren't numerous extant examples of your doing that already, (e.g., attempts to redefine atheism as a religious belief).
And I stand by that claim too.
-
I am not redefining anything.
Right, because there aren't numerous extant examples of your doing that already, (e.g., attempts to redefine atheism as a religious belief).
And I stand by that claim too.
It doesn't matter whether or not you stand by your own false claims; your attempts to redefine atheism as a religion remain invalid.
-
I am not redefining anything.
Right, because there aren't numerous extant examples of your doing that already, (e.g., attempts to redefine atheism as a religious belief).
And I stand by that claim too.
It doesn't matter whether or not you stand by your own false claims; your attempts to redefine atheism as a religion remain invalid.
Actually they don't, nor is it my attempt to redefine anything. I provided sufficient and overwhelming evidence to back up my position (including the fact that early Christians were called 'atheists'). I find it difficult to imagine a way of thinking where one can have thoughts about the nature of the universe and our origins without "having thoughts about the nature of the universe and our origins". You seem to equivocate 'theism' with 'religion' which is the main error in your rationale.
-
... nor is it my attempt to redefine anything.
"A-theism" means not theism. Theism wasn't equated with religion, (since it's a subset, not the entire set). You keep wanting to equate atheism with a religion and to keep rehashing the refutations showing that it's not a religion. There are no atheistic religious tenets, supernatural entities nor faith-based requirements sans evidence.
-
I find it difficult to imagine a way of thinking where one can have thoughts about the nature of the universe and our origins without "having thoughts about the nature of the universe and our origins".
That's simply your admission of having a limited 'imagination'. It's entirely possible to have non-religious thoughts, (scientific or simply secular), about anything - including the general universe. Only a sanctimonious, self-righteous religious adherent would assume that thoughts about the nature of the universe are all "religious" ones. Such mis-generalizations are a hallmark of your narcissistic solipism.
-
It takes just as much faith to believe in atheism. To make the absolute statement “God does not exist” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything and of having been everywhere in the universe and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. Of course, no atheist would make these claims. However, that is essentially what they are claiming when they state that God absolutely does not exist. Atheists cannot prove that God does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. Since those places are beyond our capacity to observe, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist.
Atheism cannot be proven, and God’s existence must be accepted by faith. Obviously, Christians believe strongly that God exists, and admit that God’s existence is a matter of faith. At the same time, we reject the idea that belief in God is illogical. We believe that God’s existence can be clearly seen, keenly sensed, and proven to be philosophically and scientifically necessary. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4).
GotQuestions.org is one of my favorites for questions and answers.
-
"What is the New Atheism?"
Answer: The early 21st century has seen secularism and atheism promoted throughout the Western world with an ever-increasing vigor and militancy. This has led to the emergence of the “new atheists,” notable members of which include best-selling authors such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.
The contention of the new atheists is, obviously, that there is no God. Adherents to the philosophy of new atheism believe that blind, natural forces are responsible for all of reality which we perceive. The new atheists do not restrict themselves to a passive disbelief. Rather, they are actively engaged in admonishing others to follow suit, to declare their non-belief in God, and to take the necessary steps to rid the world of religious belief and practice. As outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion, “I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself.”
An ironic feature of the new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. The new atheists erroneously redefine "faith" as an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence." This misrepresentation of the nature of faith is absurd, for faith is not essentially a strong belief in something, but rather the ground of Christian faith is believing in someone—God. A.W. Tozer said, “Faith rests upon the character of God, not upon the demonstration of laboratory or logic.” When one has faith in the character of a person, e.g. a mother or an aircraft pilot, one no longer needs to be skeptical or require strong evidence in respect to any service that he or she renders.
When it comes to things, Christians correctly approach the subject looking for strong evidence, while accepting that some matters may be beyond our current understanding. Indeed, many faith-filled scientists have been at the cutting edge of the scientific enterprise and test the evidence using thorough methods and techniques. The new atheists believe that empirical science is the only path to understanding reality. However, this is erroneous, since the very concept of "scientism" (the view that science is the only way to gain knowledge) is not itself subject to any scientific experiment and ultimately distills to a faith. Faith, far from being an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence," is a decision to reckon as true something that is not visible. Scientism is a metaphysical concept. Thus, the new atheists require faith of some description, even if not in God. Scientism is self-refuting, and thus should not be believed. Scientism could be summed up as the belief that “empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything.” Of course, we might well then ask, “What was the scientific experiment that established that empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything?”
In contrast, theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent God. Biblical theism is based around a set of sensible concepts, one of which is that there is no such thing as an atheist. Clearly the atheists have faith of a sort, if only in their power to influence others to join their atheistic pursuits. But one wonders why, if they truly believe God does not exist, they spend their lives trying to disprove His existence. Does a man spend a lifetime trying to disprove the existence of unicorns or elves? Of course not, because he knows they don’t exist and wouldn’t bother. Even if he knows others believe in unicorns and elves, he doesn’t dedicate his life to trying to debate them out of that belief. Romans 1:19-20 declares plainly that all men do know God exists because God has clearly revealed that knowledge to them through the evidence of creation. Those that deny God are doing so out of the rebellion of a darkened heart (Romans 1:21). Rather than the intellectual the self-described atheist imagines himself to be, God has pronounced, “The fool says in his heart ‘there is no god’” (Psalm 14:1, 53:1).
GotQuestions.org
-
It takes just as much faith to believe in atheism.
No, atheism itself is not a 'belief'; it is disbelieving the unsupported claims of religious believers.
To make the absolute statement “God does not exist” is to make a claim ...
That would be a claim however, few, (or no), atheists have made such a claim here. Instead, they've repeatedly requested evidence to support the religious adherents' claim that 'g-d does exist', (otherwise, what would they be believing in?). No valid evidence has been forthcoming.
Atheists cannot prove that God does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. Since those places are beyond our capacity to observe, it cannot be proven that God does not exist.
Demands to 'prove' a negative assertion constitute a logical fallacy. There are innumerable things which cannot be proven to not exist and it is irrational to demand negative proofs when it Occam's Razor suggests that the one who makes a 'positive' assertion/claim provide proof to support their claim, (because evidence of one claim is less than non-evidence for a multitude of negative assertions).
God’s existence must be accepted by faith. Obviously, Christians believe strongly that God exists, and admit that God’s existence is a matter of faith. At the same time, we reject the idea that belief in God is illogical.
While irrational people are free to reject rational reasoning, (faith/belief= no evidence and therefore, is illogical), this does not convert the illogical into the logical.
We believe that God’s existence can be clearly seen, keenly sensed, and proven to be philosophically and scientifically necessary.
Unfounded attributions are not evidence supporting a specious religious claim, (especially since the claim was admitted to being based upon "faith/belief" and not upon validly-attributible evidence). Such illogical non-reasoning emphasizes why cutting & pasting from a tainted and biased xtian website indicates blind faith in nonsense.
-
MANY SKEPTICS SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE RELIGIOUS ARE JUST WEAK PEOPLE WHO NEED A CRUTCH TO LEAN ON AND THEIR RELIGION IS JUST A FARCE. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN YOUR LIFE THAT GOD IS REAL? HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED A MIRACLE OR ENCOUNTERED AN ANGEL?
My Own Evidence:
Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer. The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about. Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home. Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to. The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being heard.
-
"The new atheists erroneously redefine "faith" as an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence."
"New" atheists, huh? Well, the definition comes from dictionary sources and not "new" ones. It remains that "faith" is 'an irrational belief in the absence of evidence', no matter how much religious fundie websites don't like the established definition.
"This misrepresentation of the nature of faith is absurd, for faith is not essentially a strong belief in something, but rather the ground of Christian faith is believing in someone—-G-d."
GotQuestions.org
The only absurd "misrepresentation" is the biased xtian one herein which attempts to redefine a word within an entirely religious paradigm as not being something it is - blind, (no evidence), faith. A blind faith in the existence of a supernatural egregore for which there is no validly-attributible evidence is still blind.
-
Although I went to church as I child, I found the Lord as my savior and found him to be very real at the age of 21. I don't refer to my faith as a "religion" as religion is cold and legalistic. I believe that my faith is a personal relationship with my Lord, Jesus. I have been filled with the Holy Spirit and see visions, dream dreams, and hear his voice guiding me. I have seen miracles. I have witnessed answers to prayers in all areas. But all of these things are just gifts like a cherry on top a Sunday. The real meaning behind my faith is that my God loved me enough to send his only son to die and suffer on a cross, raise him from the dead 3 days later, and sit him at the right hand of God the father, so that he could petition for me and with his blood save me from my own sins and mistakes, and reserve me a place in heaven. This earth is only temporary and granted you can have a fabulous life here and I am so glad that you are blessed and do, but my God fills that empty spot inside me that only he can fill and makes me his bride so that someday I can live in heaven forever. I pray that you find this river of life and the peace that passeth all understanding because sadly whether you believe in him or not, some day your life will end and you determine your path from there. So as in the Indiana Jones movie -- "I hope you choose wisely"
-
This does not constitute "evidence", (re: thread title), but does constitute an religious opinion sans evidence.
Although I went to church as I child, I found the Lord as my savior and found him to be very real at the age of 21. I don't refer to my faith as a "religion" as religion is cold and legalistic. I believe that my faith is a personal relationship with my Lord, Jesus. I have been filled with the Holy Spirit and see visions, dream dreams, and hear his voice guiding me. I have seen miracles. I have witnessed answers to prayers in all areas. But all of these things are just gifts like a cherry on top a Sunday. The real meaning behind my faith is that my God loved me enough to send his only son to die and suffer on a cross, raise him from the dead 3 days later, and sit him at the right hand of God the father, so that he could petition for me and with his blood save me from my own sins and mistakes, and reserve me a place in heaven. This earth is only temporary and granted you can have a fabulous life here and I am so glad that you are blessed and do, but my God fills that empty spot inside me that only he can fill and makes me his bride so that someday I can live in heaven forever. I pray that you find this river of life and the peace that passeth all understanding because sadly whether you believe in him or not, some day your life will end and you determine your path from there. So as in the Indiana Jones movie -- "I hope you choose wisely"
-
"What is the New Atheism?"
Answer: The early 21st century has seen secularism and atheism promoted throughout the Western world with an ever-increasing vigor and militancy. This has led to the emergence of the “new atheists,” notable members of which include best-selling authors such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.
The contention of the new atheists is, obviously, that there is no God. Adherents to the philosophy of new atheism believe that blind, natural forces are responsible for all of reality which we perceive. The new atheists do not restrict themselves to a passive disbelief. Rather, they are actively engaged in admonishing others to follow suit, to declare their non-belief in God, and to take the necessary steps to rid the world of religious belief and practice. As outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion, “I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself.”
An ironic feature of the new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. The new atheists erroneously redefine "faith" as an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence." This misrepresentation of the nature of faith is absurd, for faith is not essentially a strong belief in something, but rather the ground of Christian faith is believing in someone—God. A.W. Tozer said, “Faith rests upon the character of God, not upon the demonstration of laboratory or logic.” When one has faith in the character of a person, e.g. a mother or an aircraft pilot, one no longer needs to be skeptical or require strong evidence in respect to any service that he or she renders.
When it comes to things, Christians correctly approach the subject looking for strong evidence, while accepting that some matters may be beyond our current understanding. Indeed, many faith-filled scientists have been at the cutting edge of the scientific enterprise and test the evidence using thorough methods and techniques. The new atheists believe that empirical science is the only path to understanding reality. However, this is erroneous, since the very concept of "scientism" (the view that science is the only way to gain knowledge) is not itself subject to any scientific experiment and ultimately distills to a faith. Faith, far from being an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence," is a decision to reckon as true something that is not visible. Scientism is a metaphysical concept. Thus, the new atheists require faith of some description, even if not in God. Scientism is self-refuting, and thus should not be believed. Scientism could be summed up as the belief that “empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything.” Of course, we might well then ask, “What was the scientific experiment that established that empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything?”
In contrast, theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent God. Biblical theism is based around a set of sensible concepts, one of which is that there is no such thing as an atheist. Clearly the atheists have faith of a sort, if only in their power to influence others to join their atheistic pursuits. But one wonders why, if they truly believe God does not exist, they spend their lives trying to disprove His existence. Does a man spend a lifetime trying to disprove the existence of unicorns or elves? Of course not, because he knows they don’t exist and wouldn’t bother. Even if he knows others believe in unicorns and elves, he doesn’t dedicate his life to trying to debate them out of that belief. Romans 1:19-20 declares plainly that all men do know God exists because God has clearly revealed that knowledge to them through the evidence of creation. Those that deny God are doing so out of the rebellion of a darkened heart (Romans 1:21). Rather than the intellectual the self-described atheist imagines himself to be, God has pronounced, “The fool says in his heart ‘there is no god’” (Psalm 14:1, 53:1).
GotQuestions.org
Good read, thanks for sharing.
-
"What is the New Atheism?"
Answer: The early 21st century has seen secularism and atheism promoted throughout the Western world with an ever-increasing vigor and militancy. This has led to the emergence of the “new atheists,” notable members of which include best-selling authors such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.
Again, what's up with the copy/pasting of all these deluded sources lately? And what's up with xtians making up and redefining terms?
"Join the New Atheism, maaan! It's radical!"
*puts on shades and jumps on skateboard while air guitaring*
The new atheists believe that empirical science is the only path to understanding reality. However, this is erroneous, since the very concept of "scientism" (the view that science is the only way to gain knowledge) is not itself subject to any scientific experiment and ultimately distills to a faith. Faith, far from being an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence," is a decision to reckon as true something that is not visible. Scientism is a metaphysical concept. Thus, the new atheists require faith of some description, even if not in God.
The only path? For an atheist to say this would make them arrogant. Science is just a more reliable source of getting realistic results, so it's the only known rational path. If, say, Shiva appeared tomorrow, atheists would simply throw their hands up and go "Ah! There seems to be a NEW rational path present!" since the metaphysical evidence has presented itself. Given articles like the one you posted here, the job of the believers is to show that there is an equal rational path with your beliefs. This has never been done due to the complete absense of the metaphysical claims or evidences of mythology-- if you had proof, your beliefs would not adhere to blind faith but to actual proof. I'm fully open to changing my POV, but considering the many attempts that haven't surpassed basic skepticism really just gets me bored waiting for any legitimacy.
When it comes to things, Christians correctly approach the subject looking for strong evidence, while accepting that some matters may be beyond our current understanding.
Major contradiction. Strong evidence does not equate to mythology since, in the vast majority of the cases, there is zero evidence. You posting biased articles that I have already proven numerous times are full of lies and ignorance drives this point home.
Clearly the atheists have faith of a sort, if only in their power to influence others to join their atheistic pursuits.
There's a huge difference between religious faith and hope with reasonable expectations. Atheists know that the purpose of these types of arguments isn't to persuade the other into joining their side, but just to present their side and educate people on information that they did not previously know about-- show contradictions and faults one may have never thought about or show problems and gaps in their sources of belief. Christopher Hitchens was absolutely amazing at doing this. If influencing healthy skepticism is bad, please inform me of how this is.
Rather than the intellectual the self-described atheist imagines himself to be, God has pronounced, “The fool says in his heart ‘there is no god’” (Psalm 14:1, 53:1).
Wow, the bible was right about something! A fool that would be! Atheists don't exclaim "There is no god and that's final!" as that's arrogance since we cannot disprove any mythology. This includes Santa too though-- we can't disprove this character or his mythology either. We're just highly skeptical of the claims and find that it's extremely easy to corner a believer in defined deities/santa in an argument given the lack of evidence. You'll always have the right to believe what you wish, but when you start mouthing off with arrogant behavior with no evidence to your claims, expect the skeptics to show your faults.
-
"What is the New Atheism?"
Answer: The early 21st century has seen secularism and atheism promoted throughout the Western world with an ever-increasing vigor and militancy. This has led to the emergence of the “new atheists,” notable members of which include best-selling authors such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.
Again, what's up with the copy/pasting of all these deluded sources lately? And what's up with xtians making up and redefining terms?
"Join the New Atheism, maaan! It's radical!"
*puts on shades and jumps on skateboard while air guitaring*
The new atheists believe that empirical science is the only path to understanding reality. However, this is erroneous, since the very concept of "scientism" (the view that science is the only way to gain knowledge) is not itself subject to any scientific experiment and ultimately distills to a faith. Faith, far from being an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence," is a decision to reckon as true something that is not visible. Scientism is a metaphysical concept. Thus, the new atheists require faith of some description, even if not in God.
The only path? For an atheist to say this would make them arrogant. Science is just a more reliable source of getting realistic results, so it's the only known rational path. If, say, Shiva appeared tomorrow, atheists would simply throw their hands up and go "Ah! There seems to be a NEW rational path present!" since the metaphysical evidence has presented itself. Given articles like the one you posted here, the job of the believers is to show that there is an equal rational path with your beliefs. This has never been done due to the complete absense of the metaphysical claims or evidences of mythology. I'm fully open to changing my POV, but considering the many attempts that haven't surpassed basic skepticism really just gets me bored waiting for any legitimacy.
When it comes to things, Christians correctly approach the subject looking for strong evidence, while accepting that some matters may be beyond our current understanding.
Major contradiction. Strong evidence does not equate to mythology since, in the vast majority of the cases, there is zero evidence. You posting biased articles that I have already proven numerous times are full of lies and ignorance drives this point home.
Clearly the atheists have faith of a sort, if only in their power to influence others to join their atheistic pursuits.
There's a huge difference between religious faith and hope with reasonable expectations. Atheists know that the purpose of these types of arguments isn't to persuade the other into joining their side, but just to present their side and educate people on information that they did not previously know about-- show contradictions and faults one may have never thought about or show problems and gaps in their sources of belief. Christopher Hitchens was absolutely amazing at doing this. If influencing healthy skepticism is bad, please inform me of how this is.
Rather than the intellectual the self-described atheist imagines himself to be, God has pronounced, “The fool says in his heart ‘there is no god’” (Psalm 14:1, 53:1).
Wow, the bible was right about something! A fool that would be! Atheists don't exclaim "There is no god and that's final!" as that's arrogance since we cannot disprove any mythology. This includes Santa too though-- we can't disprove this character or his mythology either. We're just highly skeptical of the claims and find that it's extremely easy to corner a believer in defined deities/santa in an argument given the lack of evidence. You'll always have the right to believe what you wish, but when you start mouthing off with arrogant behavior with no evidence to your claims, expect the skeptics to show your faults.
Excellent rebuttal, although it remains to be seen whether the challenges to the c&p will go unanswered or, dodged again.
-
It takes just as much faith to believe in atheism.
No, atheism itself is not a 'belief'; it is disbelieving the unsupported claims of religious believers.
To disbelieve something is to "not believe" something and implies to "believe something else". We either know or don't know; believe or don't believe. When we do not know, it does not require a decision and is the absence of information or understanding that would enable one to formulate an opinion. When we don't believe, though, it is a refusal or inability to accept and requires an active decision about the material being considered. Disbelief is not ambiguous, it is precise and unambiguous (it doesn't require knowing a substitute for that which is not believed, it is just a belief that that which is not believed is not real of true and ergo, something else is). You try to imply that disbelief is an ignorance or unawareness, but the human mind does not formulate decisions/opinions like that normally, and when it does the result is a state of shock where the brain is effectively confused and shut down and disoriented.
-
To disbelieve something is to "not believe" something and implies to "believe something else".
No, that does not logically follow from the premise. To disbelieve/not believe one specific thing does not imply that something else is believed or, that something else is disbelived.
We either know or don't know; believe or don't believe. When we do not know, it does not require a decision and is the absence of information or understanding that would enable one to formulate an opinion.
The 'reasoning' is faulty because it's incomplete. When one doesn't know, (has incomplete/unsufficient/inaccurate or no information), a decision is required to either proceed on the basis of incomplete/inaccurate/no information or, to attempt to obtain additional information which would contrubute to a more informed "opinion". If one decides to proceed on the basis of inaccurate or no reliable information, (blind faith, for instance), that decision forms the basis for an uniformed opinion.
When we don't believe, though, it is a refusal or inability to accept and requires an active decision about the material being considered. Disbelief is not ambiguous, it is precise and unambiguous (it doesn't require knowing a substitute for that which is not believed, it is just a belief that that which is not believed is not real of true and ergo, something else is).
That's at least partially correct, however incomplete. The "refusal" to belief in nonsense, (that which lacks any evidentiary basis or, has an ambiguous basis), to a rational decision. Accepting/believing in something which lacks an evidentiary basis requires an irrational decision to do so.
The distinction being conflated by your incomplete assertion is that the belief itself is distinguished from what is allegedly believed in. This may seem subtle for some, (like those unable/unwilling to distinguish between a "believer" and a conceptual belief), however they do have parallel aspects.
You try to imply that disbelief is an ignorance or unawareness ...
No such thing was implied or, could be rationally inferred from prior statements. This is due to your penchant for fabrication and has no evidentiary basis therefore, I do not believe you.
-
To disbelieve something is to "not believe" something and implies to "believe something else".
No, that does not logically follow from the premise. To disbelieve/not believe one specific thing does not imply that something else is believed or, that something else is disbelived.
It certainly does. This is how the mind works to formulate decisions. The only way one can disbelieve is if they believe something else, or know something else, or as I already mentioned they are in a state of shock or confusion. You cannot actively disbelieve something without have factoring criteria into that decision and such a decision would not be made within a vacuum. The only other disbelief is the implied state of 'wonder' where one witnessed something they cannot explain or comprehend and even though they saw it in such a way they cannot accept it -- this is the classic confusion. If one then proclaims the event didn't happen or didn't happen as it appeared and they cannot provide a reason why it is left to the implication of "because they believe it could not have happened that way".
We either know or don't know; believe or don't believe. When we do not know, it does not require a decision and is the absence of information or understanding that would enable one to formulate an opinion.
The 'reasoning' is faulty because it's incomplete. When one doesn't know, (has incomplete/unsufficient/inaccurate or no information), a decision is required to either proceed on the basis of incomplete/inaccurate/no information or, to attempt to obtain additional information which would contrubute to a more informed "opinion". If one decides to proceed on the basis of inaccurate or no reliable information, (blind faith, for instance), that decision forms the basis for an uniformed opinion.
The reasoning is sound. If one doesn't know, they are under no compulsion to proceed, although they may if they choose to. Deduction is a method of making logical decisions with missing data.
When we don't believe, though, it is a refusal or inability to accept and requires an active decision about the material being considered. Disbelief is not ambiguous, it is precise and unambiguous (it doesn't require knowing a substitute for that which is not believed, it is just a belief that that which is not believed is not real of true and ergo, something else is).
That's at least partially correct, however incomplete. The "refusal" to belief in nonsense, (that which lacks any evidentiary basis or, has an ambiguous basis), to a rational decision. Accepting/believing in something which lacks an evidentiary basis requires an irrational decision to do so.
The distinction being conflated by your incomplete assertion is that the belief itself is distinguished from what is allegedly believed in. This may seem subtle for some, (like those unable/unwilling to distinguish between a "believer" and a conceptual belief), however they do have parallel aspects.
When one describes something as 'nonsense', they are indicating a personal lack of capability to reason or understand the data at hand and it often implies an arrogant position of assuming that thus nobody else could and that the data has no relevance. I have seen many logic puzzle that initially appear as nonsense or incomplete until one realizes the relevance of what is presented and how the missing parts can be extracted from the few given. While it can mean 'corruption' in data, this relies upon recognizing how the valid data format would be comprised/formatted.
Refusing to accept something one doesn't understand is a personal thing. Most people will not commit or act to something without a reason, and often people have inquired of others the need to know more in order to carry out a task (and I am not implying the need to know more in order to know how to do what is set forth, but the need to know more in order to understand the reason to do the task). This is natural human behavior and the requirements vary from person to person and objective to objective.
You try to imply that disbelief is an ignorance or unawareness ...
No such thing was implied or, could be rationally inferred from prior statements. This is due to your penchant for fabrication and has no evidentiary basis therefore, I do not believe you.
You have repeatedly stated that your disbelief is not in itself a belief. It is not possible to simply 'disbelieve' something without any basis for that disbelief and considering a disbelief falls between knowing something to be true and knowing something to be false (it isn't between knowing and not knowing as disbelief is active and deliberate), it favors the side of knowing something to be false. To tend to know something to be false is to believe it to be false.
-
To disbelieve something is to "not believe" something and implies to "believe something else".
No, that does not logically follow from the premise. To disbelieve/not believe one specific thing does not imply that something else is believed or, that something else is disbelived.
It certainly does.
Because you say say, hardly. The assertion you made is irrational because it has no rational basis.
This is how the mind works to formulate decisions.
That may be how your alleged "mind" allegedly "works" however, others are quite able to disbelief contentions which lack supporting evidence without having to have an alternate "belief". If you are implying that requiring evidence is somehow a "belief" itself, I wouldn't put such illogic past you.
We either know or don't know; believe or don't believe. When we do not know, it does not require a decision and is the absence of information or understanding that would enable one to formulate an opinion.
The 'reasoning' is faulty because it's incomplete. When one doesn't know, (has incomplete/unsufficient/inaccurate or no information), a decision is required to either proceed on the basis of incomplete/inaccurate/no information or, to attempt to obtain additional information which would contrubute to a more informed "opinion". If one decides to proceed on the basis of inaccurate or no reliable information, (blind faith, for instance), that decision forms the basis for an uniformed opinion.
The reasoning is sound.
No, it isn't and its unsoundness was delineated above. Your bland assertion has no basis in reasoning.
When we don't believe, though, it is a refusal or inability to accept and requires an active decision about the material being considered. Disbelief is not ambiguous, it is precise and unambiguous (it doesn't require knowing a substitute for that which is not believed, it is just a belief that that which is not believed is not real of true and ergo, something else is).
That's at least partially correct, however incomplete. The "refusal" to belief in nonsense, (that which lacks any evidentiary basis or, has an ambiguous basis), to a rational decision. Accepting/believing in something which lacks an evidentiary basis requires an irrational decision to do so.
The distinction being conflated by your incomplete assertion is that the belief itself is distinguished from what is allegedly believed in. This may seem subtle for some, (like those unable/unwilling to distinguish between a "believer" and a conceptual belief), however they do have parallel aspects.
You have repeatedly stated that your disbelief is not in itself a belief.
That's because a "dis-belief" is inherently not belief.
It is not possible to simply 'disbelieve' something without any basis for that disbelief ...
Sure it is; the basis for disbelief, (in this instance), is the lack of evidence to support the initially-asserted belief.
... and considering a disbelief falls between knowing something to be true and knowing something to be false (it isn't between knowing and not knowing as disbelief is active and deliberate), it favors the side of knowing something to be false.
No, "belief" is an "active and deliberate" assertion that something is as 'believed'. Conversely, disbelief is a rejection of such assertions because they are not supported by evidence and "favors" skepticism of dubious claims.
To tend to know something to be false is to believe it to be false.
That's a false conflation; 'tending' toward skepticism is not equivalent to knowing or believing something to be false. A disbelief is not a belief, by definition, (as opposed to your continued attempts to redefine terms to suit your irrational agenda).
-
Who knows why you've got the money. Maybe your just lucky. I do believe in God but I feel he's forgotton about us.
-
what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.
-
what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.
I'll play the "devil's advocate" and that and provide the standard xtian response: 'it was due to free will', (which nevertheless looks suspiciously the same as 'no g-d to intervene'). Further, some xtians would insist that claiming that "there is NO G-D" would require evidence to support that negative contention, (either refuting every single false attribution to 'g-d' or, providing evidence that innumerable hypothesized things don't exist).
"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary."
-- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
-
what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.
I'll play the "devil's advocate" and that and provide the standard xtian response: 'it was due to free will', (which nevertheless looks suspiciously the same as 'no g-d to intervene'). Further, some xtians would insist that claiming that "there is NO G-D" would require evidence to support that negative contention, (either refuting every single false attribution to 'g-d' or, providing evidence that innumerable hypothesized things don't exist).
"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary."
-- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
.
man you know alot.so I guess that makes you a know-it-all and nobody like a know-it-all
-
man you know alot.so I guess that makes you a know-it-all and nobody like a know-it-all
Your non-reasoning is faulty; how did you jump to that conclusion from what was posted? Regardless of your specious reply, knowing someing, (whether a little or a lot), is not equivalent to knowing it all and therefore, is not the same as being a "know-it-all". That term is generally used by ignorant people who 'resent' others knowing more about any particular subject matter and remains an inaccurate, emotion-based petulance.
-
what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.
I'll tell you what God was doing:The same thing he's done for thousends of years-Let people have they're Free Will.Can you not grasp the concept of Free Will?Would you prefer that God micro-manage your life as well?
Period.End of discussion.
-
what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.
I'll tell you what God was doing:The same thing he's done for thousends of years-Let people have they're Free Will.
As if on cue, the xtian fundie reply was as 'predicted', Huffman, (that's not being a "know-it-all").
Period.End of discussion.
Such self-blindness is its own 'punishment'.
-
what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage.
"He was at home! Washing his tights!"
Let people have they're Free Will.Can you not grasp the concept of Free Will?Would you prefer that God micro-manage your life as well? Period.End of discussion.
You fail to recognize the obvious problems of an all-knowing god and the concept of freewill, therefore saying your piece and leaving is a blatant display of ignorance to the problems of your belief system.
...But disregard that for a moment- Explain to me the problem of having your god pop in quick and magically remove James's ammunition right before he started opening fire on the audience who were just trying to enjoy a great film on a nice day. Please refrain from the childish "God works in mysterious ways" statements please unless you want to further your village-idiot status.
-
Wow, There are many unexplainable events that happen daily and may questions "why"? It's called "faith" and the proof is the Bible.
-
It's called "faith" and the proof is the Bible.
Since the "bible" requires "faith" to be believed, (being a collection of religious opinions without evidence), that source does not constitute "proof".
The contention that it does relies upon a circularity; 'the bible requires no evidence/the bible says so/the bible is proof of itself/faith is belief sans evidence').
"The Bible as we have it contains elements that are scientifically incorrect or even morally repugnant. No amount of
'explaining away' can convince us that such passages are the product of Divine Wisdom."
-- Bernard J. Bamberger
-
what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.
I am by no means a know it all nor do I claim to know everything but I do know that GOD is a power and a spirit that usually only intervenes when called upon to do so (thus Free Will)How do you know that some of the people in that incident did not call upon God. You would have to talk to each person to find out whether God intervened in their life at that moment or not. However,God's spirit was not in that gunman, otherwise he would have not been motivated to randomly open fire on a group of people he didn't even know. God is not a superhero. He does not operate like Superman or Batman, flying in at the last moment to save the day. If people did not have free will and God determined their actions, then we could blame Him for all the horrible things that take place.
Ps 46:1-2 God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, Even though the earth be removed, And though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; NKJV
-
I am by no means a know it all nor do I claim to know everything but I do know that GOD is a power and a spirit ...
Claiming to "know" such a thing without substantive evidence make your claim an unfounded religious opinion, (one with no solid basis).
... that usually only intervenes when called upon to do so (thus Free Will)How do you know that some of the people in that incident did not call upon God. You would have to talk to each person to find out whether God intervened in their life at that moment or not.
That is an irrational assertion; some people in that incident did claim to desparately beg for supernatural intercession, ("pray"/"call upon"), and were answered with bullets. Any other claims attributing supernatural intercessions have no evidentiary basis and are biased hearsay.
However,God's spirit was not in that gunman, otherwise he would have not been motivated to randomly open fire on a group of people he didn't even know.
Such non-reasoning, (using the conclusion to support the premise and arguing 'backwards'), is sophist and illogical. Not only does such a premise negate the previous claim of "free will", (over-riding such with "g-d's spirit"), but implicitly makes a religious claim concerning a non-religously based incident. What's next, blaming the "devil" for the gunman's motivations?
God is not a superhero. He does not operate like Superman or Batman, flying in at the last moment to save the day.
Exactly, therefore requesting magical intercession from some supernatural egregore, (for which there is no evidence anyway), was a waste of time for those involved in that shooting incident and for any others since 'supernatural help' is not forthcoming. It's irrationality such as this which ought to serve as evidence that superstitious religious beliefs 'shoot themselves in their own foot'. Unfortunately, those engaged in it aren't in the best position to apply reasoning to their own illogical position of "faith".