-
Website
http://exchristian.net/ -
Original page
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/02/logical-proof-that-god-doesnt-exist.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Mary did you know...- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- False Humility- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- Dear Christians: This is revolting -- utterly revolting- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- It Felt So Good To Be Right- Testimonies of Ex-Christians
- Mythology is Mythology. Pass the Eggnog.- ExChristian.Net - Articles
Your "universe designed so perfectly for our existence" comment reminds me of the story of the puddle who said, "Wow! this hole in the ground fits me just perfectly, every single contour is perfect and the depth is exactly what I needed! Someone must have made this hole just for me!" Or, the guy who won the lottery who said, "Holy cow! The odds against me winning the lottery were at least ten million to one; there's no way somebody just picked the exact right numbers out of the hopper for me to win. Somebody must have rigged it for me!" Could it be we evolved to fit the universe, instead of the universe was made for us, do you think? Well I do.
-WizenedSage
What about all the life forms who will never exist because our universe is unsuitable for them? Who speaks for them?
Jesus actually existed?
In "Gone with the Wind" Scarlett O'Hara goes to Atlanta. Since Atlanta
exists, that means Scarlett was a real person?
In Cervantes' classic "Don Quixote" we read of the misadventures of the
Don and Sancho Panza in Spain. Since Spain is an actual country, then
Don Quixote and Sancho were not ficitious, but real people?
In Herman Wouk's "The Caine Mutiny" it is mentioned Captain Queeg
lives in Arizona. So Queeg really existed, because there is an Arizona?
Oh, and does anyone know about the studies that show Nazareth didn't
exist during the time Jesus was supposedly on Earth?
B.I.G. thinks he is going to stay here until he leads someone to God.
(Where most of us were led at one time or another). B.I.G., are you
aware of the definition of insanity? Its doing the same thing over
and over again (constantly posting here) even though you keep
getting the same result. In this case, derision and scorn.
P.S.-I do agree with you that Martin Luther King was a great man. And just
about everyone in my fundie family at the time called him a godless
Communist.
Unfortunately, the politicians, priests, liars and fraudsters (is that tautologous) did not know that or were to engrossed in writing the fraud that came to be known as the new testament, to remember the fact.
Go to:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
or
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalthree
for more information.
I bet you won't go there, though, as the truth and you are not even on nodding terms, are you, and you would not like to spoil your comfortable little world now, would you?
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
or
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalthree"
Ahem. "Go to these empirically-unfounded sites which are clearly not academic."
That is like me saying, "Go to http://www.godisforus.com/information/worldview... for evidence that the world was created by God."
The standard is a book with words for truth; awesome, here's a book:
http://the-office.com/bedtime-story/classics-al...
BiG - "The oldest book around."
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamia...
Well, not really, but with such a small sphere of reality, I can see how you made that assumption.
Oh, ye of little faith....
"No offense, but how can you say there is no God without trying to read what is His Word?"
What makes you think people here haven't read it? I'm an and always have been an atheist, yet I've read it cover-to-cover 3 times, plus parts of the NT a few more times.... I'm willing to bet there are many christians who haven't read their holy book as much as I have!
"I believe that if you read the Bible all the way, not stopping and saying "these are lies!" and still say I don't believe in God, then I will say you are knowledgeable enough to disregard God in your opinion because you know what God says."
Ok - then we can end our discussion here: say I'm knowledgeable enough about god to disregard him and let's call it a day.
Peter (<--- sinner trying to wriggle out of BING's attempt to convert him)
Peter.
Please demonstrate where the authorship of any of the books of the buybull contain a referencing system to demonstrate their academic worth.
I do not have to supply the evidence as I am not the one making the outlandish and exceptional claims. You and your fellow-travellers are making the claim that belief in a mythical interfering deity and his family should be tolerated and accepted, as should its adherents.
You provide the peer-reviewed evidence for those claims and I will apologize for directing you to such low level research results. Until then I am not convinced that being a kettle entitles you to call me a pot of a certain colour.
David
You provide the peer-reviewed evidence for those claims and I will apologize for directing you to such low level research results.
You know it's debatable that these sites are not academic or empirical. I contend that the information presented is tenable none the less.
Hmmmmmmm, doesn't shakemeno remind anyone of one of our other posters (rasputinslovechild) who used to play devil's advocate but one day mysteriously vanished?
--S.
I got the same vibe myself. The intent wasn't to offer anything, the main focus was to play 'stump-da-chump', except in order to play the game, one would expect the questioner or antagonist to have a few correct answers to build 'some' credibility ;-)
The other goal was to show similarity of intolerance, and quite frankly, there is no atheist doctrine to guide us to be intolerant, if I want to be intolerant that is a personal decision, not the logical conclusion to some atheist manifesto :-)
Also, Shake was alas, an ID advocate, which means while they feel some compulsion to revolt against organized religions, etc., the basis for their belief system is sitting squarely on the foundation of 'Faith', which they philosophically share with 'all' other faithful believers throughout history.
So, nothing new, just an attempt to psychologically 'deflect', and hope to 'protect da' faith' in the smoke-screen :-) Peace
-- BelieveINGod, I assume that you're referring to my first questions, but in your responses, I don't think you've answered them at all. You did show that my hypothetical theory for God's unprovability is backed up in the Bible, but, however, that was not what I was looking for.
I think it best to stay away from arguments that exist in the Bible, just as I think it best to stay away from those in the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita.
What I asked was this, loosely:
What are your opinions on why a belief in a higher power exists in the first place?
Is it:
1. Embedded in the human consciousness
2. A learned trait
3. Something which early humans derived as a way to explain that which they didn't have science to explain
4. Something that most humans inherently have an instinctual inclination to do
...and if so, why?
Obviously, there exists no objective evidence for any of these, or at least not enough of it to stop this argument from arising continually.
Take up the gauntlet, BelieveINGod, if you will allow the theatrics.
<<< My belief is this: There is no logical explanation for how everything in the universe works so perfectly with one another to support life on one and only one planet >>>
This is patently false. For starters, the universe does not work perfectly. Take a look at the Hubble Telescope website and look at the images. You can see images of entire galaxies slamming into one another. There is also no reason to believe intelligent life exists only on earth. That is myopic. The Bible also never suggests life only exists on earth. The fact that life does exists on earth is not proof there is a "creator". It is only evidence that we do exist.
As an FYI, I think you have it backwards. Life exists. Somebody wrote the Book of Genesis in an attempt to explain why we are here. The author of Genesis does not state that God dicated the book to him/her. The author of Genesis did not even bother to state his/her own name. Nobody knows who wrote that book or when it was written. Tradition claims Moses wrote the 1st five books of the Bible. If so, it is amazing how Moses wrote about his own death and afterwards if in fact he did write those books. Must be another miracle...
Hey, Nostradamus or soothsayer, I'll send you a love offering, what is your physical address again? I'll use the love standard per the bible, think - child sacrifice (Jesus, Isaac, etc.) :-)
Exodus 20:4-5 - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God”.
Actually, your God concept is also psychologically insecure and 'jealous'.
1 Kings 22:23 - "Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
Ezekiel 14:9 - "And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
Actually, your God concept is also a deceptive and manipulative liar.
Micah 1:12 - "But evil came down from the LORD unto the gate of Jerusalem."
Actually, your God concept is also 'evil'.
Ezekiel 7:4, 9 - "And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity."
Actually, your God concept lacks mercy and compassion.
1 Samuel 15:2-3 - "Now go an smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
Actually, your God concept is just plain cruel.
Mark 15:34: - "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Actually, your God concept, abandoned his son & allowed him to be tortured slowly until death - the epitome of a ruthless dead-beat-dad.
BiG, the fact that you have 'faith' discredits you as a critical thinker, therefore, I'll not ask you to read the bible with an open mind. As for the rest of us, we can read about your God concept's character and know it unworthy of emulation, in a civil society.
SHAKE: "If I come across those doubting their faith or entering a faith, and I want to encourage them to think more deeply and critically about it..."
BIG " Let people know they are misinformed. Provide facts... And never get mad at them for not knowing."
I don't know and I don't care. I just bid them both adieu!
BP
Seriously, I was suspicious of Shake from the start. He and BIG seemed to end up in cahoots, though I don't believe they began that way, but Shake seemed just TOO reasonable.
Whatever.
Now, there have been some howlers committed by xians on this site when in pursuit of converts, but this one has to be the best.
BIG,
The end times have not actually come to pass yet. How are you then able to state that the book of Revelations[sic] accurately predicts them.
What is particularly telling is that you have the gall (stupidity and pig ognorance are such harsh words) to state this just after declaring (as a PhD physicist, no doubt) that scientists have no proof of their theory of The Big Bang.
As unsupported assertions go, this one not only went, but took the biscuit with it.
Let me indulge in a little prophecy here: I believe it will come to pass that believeInGod will soon achieve his fifteen minutes of fame on FundiesSayTheDarnedest Things.
Peace,
David
The funny thing is I agree with most that you say. I too know that god(s) can't be proved or disproved *with the information we have at the present*. (if god(s) exist they could make themselves known to remove any doubt; this might happen in the future, but I think it's unlikely; not impossible though)
"No proof can be offered of God's nonexistence (especially since he does not conform to logic), so therefore you are making a claim based off scattered shreds of clues (like Christians) and piecing them together to form a conclusion that you hold to be irrefutable (like Christians).
"I would argue that the only honest route to take if you are nonreligious is to be an agnostic. Why? Simply because you are holding fast to what appears to be true, and can humbly admit that you may very well be wrong. You have not been shown evidence of God's existence, and you prefer to act and live like He does not exist, and that is respectable and as informed as you will ever be."
I fully agree with the above, yet I don't think 'agnostic' conveys the meaning properly. I call myself an atheist, but have in the back of my mind that *if* god(s) exist and make that known to us, I will reconsider. I have been wrong before, after all. (there was that time in '83, and once in '94. Oops, nearly forgot, I made a mistaken in '95 too. ;-) )
We could replace 'god' in the above by the Easterbunny; we can not disprove the existence of the Easterbunny (with the information we have at the moment). Does that make you an agnosticist with regards to the existence of the Easterbunny? Or are you really so convinced of its non-existence that you would call yourself an a-theist in that respect? I.e. convinced of the non-existence, until further, credible and reliable evidence of the contrary shows up? I consider myself like that. And so do scientists.
The important thing I feel like adding to your remarks though is that the term 'atheist' is a strange one; we are defined by something we are not. It should be the other way around, where non-belief is the default and religious people are defined as theists. That would make sense.
Not only am I an a-theist, I'm also an a-SantaClausist, an a-toothfairyist, an a-Easterunnyist, etc; you see what I'm trying to say? By defining ourselves as a negative, we can define ourselves also as a many other things we are not. It would be easier to call ourselves those things we are - christians would be theists, we would be 'nothing'.
Another aspect of a-theism is that not only are we reasonably sure (99.999% in my case) that god(s) do not exist; if they would exist, it does not automatically follow that it should be worshipped; a-gnosticism means to me also (but this may be personal, and not an objective part of its definition) that *if* god(s) turn out to be real, they should also be worshipped. To me, agnosticism conveys more doubt about the matter of god(s) than atheists have. This is more my feeling than something objective though, I think.
And that brings us to the core of the problem: we either believe in the existence of god(s), in which case we are theists, or we don't, in which case we could be called 'atheists' (though it's silly to define ourselves by something we are not). There is no middle-ground: you either believe or you don't. Just as there's no way one can be a little bit pregnant.
You call yourself an agnostic, i.e. you are open to the possibility that god(s) exist. I hold that atheists are *also* open to that option, but ONLY after credible evidence turns up. So, I consider you to be firmly in the non-theist camp as you certainly don't believe in god(s). That, to me, means you end up in the 'default' group of atheists.
At least, that's how I see things.
I think it's more a matter of words and definitions though, because as I read your post I find myself mostly agreeing with it; you call yourself an agnosticist who is open to the (remote) possibility that gods exist; I call myself an atheist (argh... hate that term) who, once credible, reliable evidence turns up in the future will, without regret, admit he was wrong and that god(s) exist. Now, whether they should be worshipped in that case is an entirely different matter. To me, that does not follow automatically.
I don't capitalize the word 'god', just as I don't capitalize the word 'table' or 'chair'. Respect has nothing to do with it: I'm not disrespecting joiners or carpenters by not capitalizing the words 'table' or 'chair', so how could a religious person be offended by not capitalizing the name of a generic concept such as 'god'? And, should we capitalize 'Gods' too, out of fear of offending the polytheists?
I *do* capitalize names for gods, just as I do for people's names: 'Zeus' or 'Jupiter', or 'Jahweh'. But such generic concepts as 'god' are not names, even though christians try to appropriate the term 'god' to mean by default 'Jahweh' and thus 'God'. I refuse to give in to this creeping shifting of the meaning of the word 'god'. It does *not* by default mean the christian god also known as Jahweh.
Also, in Dutch, it's correct spelling not to capitalize words as christian, hindu, muslim or french (people) or americans. That's why I often do the same in English, though it's technically a mistake. I try to stay alert to it though, but often the non-capitalization slips through in my writing. I refuse, however, to capitalize 'christian' or 'muslim' in English, though I know it's the formally correct spelling and that the rationale youse have is to show respect. I disagree with that - a capital letter doesn't automatically show respect.
Peter.
This should be "we can not disprove the existence of the Easterbunny." (period). One can never prove a negative. Did too much editing and too little proofreading to my above reply. Hey, I never claimed to be perfect!
;-)
Peter.
I'll talk about where I remember us disagreeing, because by and large, I believe you are correct. Especially with many of your analogies.
Addressing first the capitalization of God's name: I do know, like you said, that in many cultures it is unheard of to offer tribute to a deity(s) by suddenly hitting the Shift button while typing their name(s). In fact, it is only in a handful of Indo-European languages that capital letters exist in the first place.
But I think that we need to be mindful to our particular place and time. Christians demand respect just like any other group of people -- not respect out of fear that they will, say, attack you, though there are some that will -- and I believe we should observe their traditions. Especially when we are talking about something that is, quite honestly, their domain. I am not a patent observer of Hindu, but I know better than to call their god Goldish-Blue-Chick instead of Krishna. God, or rather the Christian god, has never really had a proper name (you can't really count Yahweh anymore) since Aramaic stopped being the vessel language of Christianity, and I think the universal term of "God" became that proper name over time. So, when referring to any old deity, "god" is correct, but when referring to one with a Jeudo-Christianic identity, "God" had become the status quo.
Something I like to remember: I do not believe that the Confederacy during the Civil War was represented entirely by slavery. It raised some valid questions as to how we should interpret the Constitution -- in what areas should the state have more power than the U.S. Government. But I still realize that it would not be interpreted the right way if I was to start donning a Confederate Flag. It is simply not appropriate for our time and place.
Now, with regards to the agnostic-atheist terminology, I will have to concede that we probably will not find ourselves agreeing completely. It is probably (and, once again, scarily like religion in this regard) that our title for ourselves is very much crafted by the individual beliefs we have. For instance, my agnosticism is not measured by how sure I am that a higher power does not exist:
"Another aspect of a-theism is that not only are we reasonably sure (99.999% in my case) that god(s) do not exist; if they would exist, it does not automatically follow that it should be worshipped; a-gnosticism means to me also (but this may be personal, and not an objective part of its definition) that *if* god(s) turn out to be real, they should also be worshipped. To me, agnosticism conveys more doubt about the matter of god(s) than atheists have. This is more my feeling than something objective though, I think."
I recognize that my belief or non-belief does not effect something's existence in any way. I simply see no evidence of God's existence -- evidence that can be measured by science -- but I realize that, were the Christian god, say, to have the powers and intentions we are led to believe He does, He would not have any need to make Himself visible or measurable to us. Because, if Christianity is right, then God Himself measures our dedication to Him objectively, based upon whether or not we can believe in Him and His laws without actually having proof that he is there.
Sounds like a funny way to look at God, and it is really begging to be called a scam. But is it the world's biggest scam, or just a very wise higher power? Either one is unknowable.
Now, and this brings us back to the Easter Bunny (which I'm glad you brought up) or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No, we should not simply believe in these because we can't disprove their existence. But to rest your case after that would be a little hasty. Because, above all the crazy religious people and the sane religious people, we can observe objectively a very potent phenomenon that has gripped humanity since (likely) our very first days: the belief that something or someone is the author of all that we see. Now, is this to be dispelled simply because it can be somewhat tidily explained away -- that humans believed in a god so that they didn't have to be responsible for their actions, and to explain things which they could not at the time?
I would argue that this is not enough. As it cannot be proven, we should always be observing this phenomenon, because it is truly the greatest one to ever torment mankind. And I mean "torment" in both the best and the worst way possible.
So this is why I am an agnostic, because I see your pregnancy analogy
--"There is no middle-ground: you either believe or you don't. Just as there's no way one can be a little bit pregnant.")--
and I agree, recognizing that it takes blind faith to be on either end of the spectrum.
And that is a faith that I honestly do not have.
If someone presents believable, objective evidence for some sort of intelligent higher power, I'll gladly listen and evaluate that evidence. But, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
But, you see, evidence like that will never come, or rather, can never come.
Anyone who tries to parlor off "evidence" that God exists is greatly misunderstanding every tenet of their faith, as well as the very nature of logic.
We should all, I believe, lose the idea that evidence one way or the other might somehow settle this debate. It give us the wrong expectations, and makes the argument much more emotional and petty than it should be.
Now Thackerie, I recognize that your definition of atheist is very close to my definition of agnostic, but you must keep in mind that atheism is about as homogeneous a creed as religion is -- in other words, not at all. A great many atheists DO profess to be able to prove the nonexistence of a higher power.
I think that once people recognize that this is a matter of personal taste and conviction and nothing more, it will cease to be the inane ad hominem argument that makes up most of this thread.
I have added absolutely nothing to the debate, and I know this. I do not want to change people's minds about their creed, I just want them to reconsider the way they discuss it.
Why not? Just because no credible evidence has shown up in the past doesn't mean it can't show up in the future. I consider the likelihood of it happening to be small, but certainly it's not an impossibility. If a god exists he could choose to make that known to us. That would remove all doubt by providing objective evidence.
"We should all, I believe, lose the idea that evidence one way or the other might somehow settle this debate."
Theoretically, the existence of a god could be proven (if it exists, and if it makes itself known by providing evidence of this); however, we can never proof that a god does not exist. This is a logical impossibility.
Peter.
"We should all, I believe, lose the idea that evidence one way or the other might somehow settle this debate."
(see my reply above), so this debate could theoretically be settled in one way (in favour of theism, if god provides objective evidence), but it could never settle in 'our' (the atheists') favour. That last thing is an impossibility, because you can't prove a negative. Just as I can't disprove the existence of the ToothFairy, I can't ever disprove the existence of god/Jahweh.
However, I consider its existence to be so unlikely as to approach to absolute certainty. Asymptotically speaking.... ;-)
So, to conclude: this debate could be settled one way, but never the other way.
Peter.
The same thing with the Grishnipping Karlap.
I just made it up, but the odds of us finding that it exists definitely exceed the odds of us proving that doesn't.
And I hope we do find it, because someone like Tom Cruise would probably name his child after it.
No. Remember "I don't know how or why something happened" does not equal "GODDIDIT."
Here's a miracle for you: US.
Miracle? NO.
If it wasn't for a string of 'accidents' that happened to shape the world the way it is, life would not exist.
Accidents? NO
How can you prove that god did not influence these things?
I don't have to. You came here spewing, so you prove your point or move on. Again, remember "I don't know how or why something happened" does not equal "GODDIDIT."
If you're really interested in some objective information check out talkorigins.org.
I would also advise you to read at least 30 testimonials, the site disclaimer, and the purpose of this website as shown on the homepage before replying. If you do choose to come back here, please bring us something unique and original that will REALLY convince us. We've been waiting so long for that one special person with those special words that will wrench us from our reality-based lives BACK to delusional beliefs. Are you that Special One?
I've been a Christian for over 20 years. I realized that the crime, alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce, suicide, and dirt factor rates of Christians are equal or sometimes greater than that of the non-Christian population.
I knew a faithful Christian couple in their early 20s alomst ready to marry. One day, the man got a gun, shot his girlfriend, then shot himself dead for no apparent reason.
I knew pastors who had to resign and even wre arrested for embezzlement, adultery, assult, and pornography charges.
I knew a 26 year old devout Christian woman who had cancer. Every week, the church prayed for healing, but the cancer continued its normal course. After one year, she died and the prayer had absolutely no effect.
Anonymous, my point is that this shit will happen anyway in the world. Whether you pray to your god Yahweh/Jehovah, or to Allah, Buddha, or to the tree or sun god, or to the stars in the night (which is where every religion evolved - astrology), the crime, murder, suicide, injustices, disease, etc... will continue.
Face the facts - there is no God.
One of my favorite lines I have read as of late had to do with medical miracles. It stated that anything that we call a medical miracle is simply a highly unlikely, but statistically possible outcome. If a patient has a one in 10,000 chance of survival, one in 10,000 will beat the odds plain and simple just as one in 10,000 will die from a virtually mortality free proceedure such a a tonsilectomy. It works both ways.
As I say, I do not think christians really believe half of what they spout off about from the pulpits.
"Prayer makes one feel like they have done something, when in all reality, they have done nothing."
Prayer works because people believe it works. In reality, the things prayed for have a 50-50 chance of being answered. But when someone believes if they pray for, say, a new job and they have to stay at the old job instead, they believe their prayers were answered nonetheless.
I don't believe in prayer and also don't believe any prayers have ever been answered anywhere in the world. Show me some proof and I will change my mind. Of course, I have been saying this for years now and haven't seen anything to change my mind. I don't expect anything to change because their would have to be a god to answer prayers and there are no gods. Only believers. That people can't see this is unbelievable to me.
Suppose your daughter is out driving through Indianapolis; she returns safely; thank god.
She narrowly misses an accident; thank god.
She is involved in a fender-bender; thank god it wasn't worse.
She totals the car; thank god for sparing her life.
She is injured slightly; thank god she is okay.
She is crippled for life; thank god she is alive.
She is dead; praise god, who giveth and taketh away.
We all know how this works. If everything that happens is the will of god, then how is god ever verifiable?
Is there a name for this fallacy.
And Sailorfraud, you're throwing out numbers here without any references. I'm assuming you made these numbers up to prove a point, but it doesn't work that way. And actually, it's been shown that prayer does help when attempting to overcome diseases. The mechanism by which it works isn't totally clear, but it's most likely psychological. Our mental health is closely tied to our physical health (afterall, our mind is part of our physical bodies).
But is prayer to the Hindu gods any more effective than prayer to Yahweh or Allah? Doubtful, since I don't believe these gods exist and it's the state of mind that makes healing "miracles" occur.
its like a man with OCD who thinks turning the light switch on & off 3 times before entering a room will stop bad things happening to him. It help him through life, you would proberly call him crazy.
Hence none believers in religion think believers crazy.
I'm not certain it falls precisely into this category, but it's remarkably similar to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy: "God answers all prayers of pure faith, if God didn't answer it, it wasn't a prayer of pure faith."
And actually, it's been shown that prayer does help when attempting to overcome diseases. The mechanism by which it works isn't totally clear, but it's most likely psychological. Our mental health is closely tied to our physical health (afterall, our mind is part of our physical bodies).
You better clarify these studies. As in a true double blind experiment, those being prayed for would have no idea anyone is praying for them, and those praying have no idea who they are praying for.
This is to eliminate the placebo effect and any other inadvertent bias by the patient, doctor, and researchers.
When you speak of the placebo effect, then either the patients are actively engaged in prayer or they know they are being prayed for.
I believe it has been shown in studies that known prayer may be about as effective as the patient performing meditation or other mental exercises.
As mentioned by a few here already--the only capacity prayer might work in is as a placebo. Similar to how a sugar pill might "work" as a "cure-all" for some people, provided they don't know it's sugar. Enlighten the subject that this "miraculous" drug they've been taking all along isn't valid, and... dInG dOnG!..no more "miracles".
'Funny how that works.
I am the author of this post. No video, multimedia, expensive props, or crap to confuse or deceive. The message is so simple, but as George Orwell once stated, "To see in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle".
That's my point, whether you pray to Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, etc... for healing, the reality is that you will receive the same results and outcome as praying to a rock, tree, or a dead God like Zeus.
"And actually, it's been shown that prayer does help when attempting to overcome diseases. The mechanism by which it works isn't totally clear, but it's most likely psychological. Our mental health is closely tied to our physical health (afterall, our mind is part of our physical bodies). "
I remember reading that Yoga has proven to help heal people because it puts people's mind at ease and connnects a calm healthy mental state to your physical state.
I think the calm prayers may benefit with their health, but on the other hand, the angry shouting religious fanatics easily face degraded health and more problems. It really has more to to with putting your mental state in good health - which again proves there is no god.
they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well
Christians who are faithful to the words of Christ should try putting his words to the test; but I have to add a caveat: I am not to be held responsible for any adverse outcome from drinking deadly poison. But they can try praying for the sick in hospitals and then evaluate the outcome. One thing is for sure: we would not require hospitals, doctors, nurses, medicines etc if prayer really works.
The placebo effect has repeatedly shown that when people put their faith in sugar pills often they receive healing.
I believe that the fact that the object of the our faith is irrelevant proves that, at least when it comes to physical healing, our brain is obedient and does what we tell it to do.
What if someone at a horribly low point in their life who's only hope is faith in God reads this?
Do you really want to take that away from them?
I have experienced the power of prayer and I can safely assure you that it was no "placebo" affect and I'm the biggest skeptic of them all.
And I have known of people who were healed of terminal and incurable diseases through prayer. What do you say to that?
Perhaps the reason why God doesn't answer your prayers is that your prayers are nothing more than 2 minute rants demanding God come and fix it up.
You have to first of all get over yourself if you want god to do anything for you and secondly you have to believe and be PATIENT.
The same thing I say to every Christian who says that: show me the evidence.
Surely with God miraculously healing so many people, there should be little need for doctors or hospitals anymore. I mean, if prayer is such a wonderfully powerful thing, I would think that two or three Christians could get together, agree that just one local hospital should be emptied by healing all those within, and then just pray that it happen!
If two or three thousand Christians get together and agree on praying that everyone is just one small town hospital is miraculously healed, what do you think will happen?
I dare any church, anywhere, at any time, to try and pray a hospital empty. Even if it were only to last ONE DAY, I'd sit up and take notice.
Jesus said his disciples would do greater things than even he did. Yet the hospitals remain brimming with business.
Nothing fails like prayer.
You bible believing, born again, praying fools, got George Bush elected president so he could start a war with Muslims, and show his daddy how it ought to be done.
OK, now we have 30 or 40 thousand young kids trying to survive with severe brain injures, and missing limbs, and it ain't over yet.
I have a suggestion for you, since you have the praying thing down pat. Before you and your prayer group start on emptying out the regular hospitals of the injured and diseased, as the webmaster suggested, why don't you start at the V/A hospitals, specifically the brain injury and amputee wards. It would be like "payback" for your part in causing their predicament in the first place.
Go around to all of your friends and ask them if they voted Republican, and if they say yes, recruit them into your prayer army.
When you get all of the young men and women put back together, you can get God to help America find a solution to another of George's favorite boondoggles.
How can we as a country afford to give free health care, and generally look after 30,000,000 illegal aliens, when they are sending most of the money they make here back to their countries of origin, and contribute nothing to our society?
Dan (Anonymous, there is sooooo much to pray for)
I have encountered your kind. Your approach is that we are childish and petulant and we will not allow god to have his way. We are spoiled children, demanding and peevish.
Alright anonymous, I am going to hand this back to you, and see how you like it.
You are a sorry weakling and a sorry coward. How many years have you spent grovelling on your knees before your sorry jew god, which your sorry xristian religion has kept mummified all these centuries? Hmmmm? How many years? How many years have you spent in your pathetic prayers, and making excuses when no answer came?
I'll tell you something, asshole.......the people you are speaking to simply had the guts to get off their knees. They grew up. Why don't you try it?
And what the fucking hell do you mean by "2 minute rants"? Do you think we are here because we threw a tantrum for 2 minutes and the jew wouldn't wipe our asses? Listen, you adolescent piece of shit, some of us have been xristians since before you were old enough to jerk off, or before you knew you had a dick, or before you knew what to do with it. Look, shit, we just grew up. Now pull your pants up and get out of here.
Reference the first 3 lines of your post, do I want to take away someone's faith during a low point in their lives. Yes, I would, without a moment's hesitation. They would have to take adult responsibility for the first time; they would have to grow up, instead of whimpering to the jewzoo.
It would not be a problem if all you jew babies would just stay in your collective nuthouse, but you keep coming out to vote. Voting is a kind of prayer to you. You cannot take responsibility like a citizen, you have to vote for jewzoo. Go back to your nuthouse.
With all due respect, this misses the point. No one is denying that prayer "might" work as a placebo. The point is, that IF prayer works in such a way, it's solely because of the power of suggestion....not because of some external "source" influencing the outcome..i.e.."God". Obviously, the whole premise of "prayer" is that it's a direct line of communication to whichever "God" the subject subscribes to.
The placebo effect has repeatedly shown that when people put their faith in sugar pills often they receive healing.
Again, this misrepresents the placebo effect. If a sugar pill "heals" someone, it's because the patient didn't know they were taking sugar pills. That's the whole point....to essentially "fool" the patient into "believing" it works. Furthermore, I highly doubt that anyone would pay 8, 9, 10 dollars per "pill" while knowing it's only "sugar", when they could just buy their own sugar much cheaper at the local grocery store....or hell, steal it from Denny's(but Christians wouldn't do that, right?) lol.
I believe that the fact that the object of the our faith is irrelevant proves that, at least when it comes to physical healing, our brain is obedient and does what we tell it to do.
A positive mental outlook helps, true...but if "our brains" always did what we "tell" them to do, physical ailments and disease would've been obsolete long ago.
She knows I am an atheist, but tells me often that God has given her more time with her dog, as if God just says, "Fuck those starving little bastards in Africa, I Just happen to be a God who loves Golden Retrievers more than kids."
Since nobody here is "God," we are likely to say things that are half-truths. I posted something I believe, not claiming that it is absolute truth.
That's how I see your post, too. Your views, your ideas, not absolute truth.
I'd like to make a comment on something you said,
"A positive mental outlook helps, true...but if "our brains" always did what we "tell" them to do, physical ailments and disease would've been obsolete long ago."
I disagree. It is very difficult to change one's mind to a positive outlook when you have been raised to be negative.
I have no idea what would happen if everyone were positive and believed in themselves. But getting everybody to feel that way is the real challenge--since most people are quite negative.
The placebo effect has repeatedly shown that when people put their faith in sugar pills often they receive healing.
Again, the whole point I'm trying to make is that the patient doesn't know that it's sugar they been "putting their faith in". They've been led to believe that what they've been taking is a "cure-all" drug, hence, that's why it "works". I'm not denying that placebos help people, nor am I saying that the mind isn't a powerful thing, nor am I saying that I'm omniscient, etc.
Peace.
I've read it somewhere that god is the ultimate consumer good --- when it fails, the customers blame themselves.
I think that god (and prayers, just so you know I haven't forgotten the topic of the thread) is the ultimate divide-by-zero error. It appears to be infinite when what it is is nonexistant.
Also (to quixotically respond to the anonymous Xtian...), most of us are not interested in taking the hope away from someone who's in desperate straits, whose sanity is temporarily just hanging by a thread, praying frantically for the god to take the heat off them for a while so they can get through the night. It's to try and get the rank-and-file religionist to knock it off with their day to day, room-temperature routine "praying", and to get onto the reality principle instead.
They'd be better off if instead of making like Aladdin, rubbing away at the magic lantern and making wishes to the invisible genie, they'd spend the time rubbing their weenies and wishing for an orgasm.
Maybe that wasn't very Christian of me. I should have said that they should rub someone _else's_ weenie and hope that the _other_ person has an orgasm. Very selfish of me...
One of the greatest philiospphical questons about God is, "If God is so good and all-powerful, why does evil and injustice exist in the world?"
Atheist answer: "Because there is no God". (How simple and straightforward can you get?!)
Christian answer: "Because blah, blah, blah, blah - (continues with endless logical fallacies, half-turths, bizzare speculaion). Blah, blah, blah, (after endless chatter, still cannot answer the question, and ultimately gives that faith crap as sign of defeat which they arrogantly cannot admit).
If after 2000 years and no answers to these "tough" questions like unanswered prayers or the validity of Jesus/God, and no evidence an answer will be provided, that is proof there is no God.
Imagine how happy you would be if you were walking one day. and saw a 20 dollar note on the ground. happy wouldnt you.
Would you suffer a blow to the head for $20? some wud say yes some wud say no-some would say yes and wud pass out and let the $20 pass away.
But say that you had to suffer a blow to the head every day-it was your lifestyle. How much more happier would you be if you recieved a $20 note now?
What wud demonstrate more love:
some giving someone $20 to a rich person?
or someone giving a poor person $20
You see everyone EVERYONE who is FILLED WITH GODS SPIRIT will suffer. everyone on this Earth will expeience suffering.
For someone who is being burned at the stake because of their belief in God-so many people around can see the love they have for God. They see the pain they are undergoing and are touched.
But someone may be burned at the stake for stealing. No real people will look at that person with admiration.No one will feel like that person is will powered but is rather receiving a punishment.
How much more fulfilled could someones life be when they kno they are living for a greater cause. to leave this world of pain and suffering and head for their fathers arms who has been calling them the whole time.
Reasons for suffering and pain-Atheist-There is no God.
Reasons for suffering and pain-Christian-It is our choice to undergo what we are undergoing. That one day we may see how much God wants us back.
How much more fulfilled is the life of one of God's kids? Where would suffering go if we all made that decision..
read over your comments and your attitude - God loves us - nothing can stop it. And he is asking you very guys to show it to other people.
Reasons for suffering and pain-Atheist-There is no God.
It's obvious from that one comment that you are rather inexperienced in your encounters with non-believers.
A lack of gods is not a "reason for suffering and pain." In my opinion, there simply is no "reason".
Stuff happens. People clash with other people over important things, stupid things, and sometimes just because they feel like having an argument or fistfight.
Stuff happens. You turn around too fast and knock your coffee off the desk. Someone else gets your parking spot. The clerk at the store counts out your change wrong.
Stuff happens. Your family genes carry a defective allele that increases your odds of catching an incurable disease.
Witness, you have it backwards. When stuff happens, it happens. And, from what I've seen in my life so far, there are no miraculous interventions that stop it from happening.
Random outbreaks of suffering and pain are not caused by a lack of gods. However, they do indicate to me that waiting and praying for divine assistance is generally a waste of valuable time.
I wish i could get to know you ;)
smart noggin :)
I guess in a way i just explained my self wrong-personally i must confess that im not like other christians. so I guess me being a seventh day adventist. I see as God as someone who i can talk to-a best friend. Not an almighty deliver that is to blame for all the stuff happening around on this planet. Thats sins fault. and God is not here to take sin away-but to take OUR sins away.
may i ask- If God doesn't exist how did the world become like it is today? im not being rude or challenging im just wondering..
btw: when i said Atheists reasons for suffering I was kinda using the text style of someone else up that page-thats all.
please dont close off your mind...keep it open. Dont treat it like you lose if your wrong.
but m8..if stuff happens how does that show God isn't real?
You know, I have no problems at all with that kind of belief.
"May i ask - If God doesn't exist how did the world become like it is today?"
Well, quite frankly... We don't know yet. There are a lot of theories as to the hows and whys of it all, but no definitive answers.
I'm just not prepared to accept pre-packaged explanations from religious books of any faith. It runs contrary to my upbringing in a family full of scientists. I would rather keep wondering than accept the first convenient or comforting answer.
"If stuff happens how does that show God isn't real?"
Well, it doesn't. Doesn't prove; doesn't disprove. But personally I think that any gods out there are just as subject to the law of cause and effect as the rest of us.
Maybe you should check out the story of creation. I mean like their is no other place that we got this 7-day week from. WE get our months from the moon, our years from the son but no one knows where the 7 day week came from. You get what I'm saying. Maybe you should look into the bible, not as a christian but as an investigator not a wonder - wondering doesn't accomplish much.
One way the bible shows convincing knowledge of God is the predictions it makes. Prediction 2000 years prior.
If you search for answers and you have shut out the bible I suggest you re-direct your thinking. You come from a scientific background right? If you actually have a look at some stuff you'll see how scientifically the Bible is. How recently have we been doing open body surgery? Not too long, yet it is one of the first thing mentioned in the Bible.
I hope you do find your answers what ever they may be.
"...I mean like their is no other place that we got this 7-day week from. WE get our months from the moon, our years from the son but no one knows where the 7 day week came from..."
You're kidding, right? Is this really the calibre of the arguments you bring to this matter? The mysterious origins of the 7-day week?
Here's a question for you: Does the Moon go around the Earth twelve times per year? Let's do the math. The lunar period is 28 days. How many times does 28 go into 365? Twelve? Bit more like thirteen, isn't it?
A person might be tempted to speculate that the seven days of the week maybe appealed to the ancients; maybe they found it convenient to assign a time period to each of the four phases of the Moon. (New Moon, Full Moon, and the phases where the left and the right sides are in the Sun's light.) You'd hafta ask them, though... Maybe someone wrote it down somewhere. Don't know, don't care; where it didn't come from is some non-existent Yahweh character.
Can you please explain how it "contradicts natural selection". I'd like to hear some details before I reply more fully.
By the way, have you ever heard of the Vendian period? Don't forget to mention that in your explanation of how the Cambrian explosion contradicts natural selection.
Looking forward to your explanation.
How I explain how a series of different life forms came about is because they were created. I am not a believer in Natural Selection. But I am a believer in micro evolution. (for example how we get black people and white and all the people in between).
Strong evidence to support creation is the giraffe.
The Giraffe.
A giraffe has a heart 2 feet long. It uses this large heart to pump blood all the way to its brain, up its long neck and against gravity.That is a strong heart. When a giraffe drinks it lowers its neck towards the water and valves in its arteries slow the blood flow, hence stopping the giraffes brain exploding from exceeding blood pressure. Now how could a mechinism like this evolve. Could say, an animal that evolved into a giraffe go to drink the water and kill itself from blood pressure to the brain simply say to itself i need to evolve some valves in my arteries to stop that happening again? no It would be dead. Such a creative mechanism that the giraffe shows keeps pointing to a creator.
cheers
By applying the same logic your using to try and validate your belief in a "creator", such as using the unique cardiovascular system present in giraffes as supporting evidence for intelligent design, wouldn't you agree this could actually be interpreted as a glaring example of a designers flaw rather than a creator's intended useful mechanism?
This alleged creator makes a giraffe with a long neck to eat out of trees, but then nearly makes it almost physically impossible to bend over and take a drink of water?
Is your creator intelligent or not?
Why not make the giraffe with a shorter neck so they could eat vegetation off the ground. That would have been a more suitable design for enabling them to survive, without the need of a specialized system to compensate for the flaws found within their designer biological functions.
Your last post did not contain one bit of fact to support your opposition to the processes of natural selection.
What factual evidence do you have to support your faith in the creator hypothesis?
If anything, it is a fine example of evolution at work because natural selection provided the basis for developing a specialized organ due to a once present ecological niche.
Modifications to the giraffe's structure have evolved, particularly to the circulatory system. A giraffe's heart, which can weigh up to 10 kg (24 lb) and about 2 feet long, has to generate around double the normal blood pressure for an average large mammal in order to maintain blood flow to the brain against gravity. In the upper neck, a complex pressure-regulation system called the rete mirabile prevents excess blood flow to the brain when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Conversely, the blood vessels in the lower legs are under great pressure (because of the weight of fluid pressing down on them). In other animals such pressure would force the blood out through the capillary walls; giraffes, however, have a very tight sheath of thick skin over their lower limbs which maintain high extravascular pressure in exactly the same way as a pilot's g-suit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe
So, how do you suppose this alleged "creator" went about making any living thing, much less the entirety of a universe or possibly a meta-universe?
Maybe it used magic cosmic play dough and a big wand perhaps? Or was it simply grand thoughts of invention that suddenly appear out of thin air? Is there also room in your rationalization for the hypothesis of there being many creators?
The giraffe is a bit of a mystery. It is one animal for which there are no clear transitional fossils. There are a few candidates, but other than a few unproven hypotheses (adaptation and sexual selection being two), we do not know for certain how the giraffe evolved. Having said that, I think you overestimate its impact, and mischaracterize a mystery as evidence.
First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As it applies here, it simply means that what we don't know isn't evidence for alternative origins. History is replete with examples of things we didn't know, but later were able to explain due to new discoveries. Thus, we need to be careful that we don't "fill in the blanks" with blind assertions.
Second, mysteries are not evidence. That is, if you want to prove special creation, you have to do much more than simply point to gaps in our knowledge (i.e., mysteries). Science does not operate by mere assertions, so explaining these mysteries by saying "God did it" are woefully inadequate. Furthermore, they require much more explanation than you might think. More even than evolution. Not only does the creationist need to demonstrate the mechanism(s) of special creation, but also the methods of the creator, which necessarily calls for a detailed theory explaining that creator, the workings of miracles, and so on.
Third, the creationist has to overcome objections like those offered by Melissa. Is your creator intelligent or not? Like nearly everything else on the planet, the giraffe shows signs of less-than-ideal engineering. Explaining this by saying we live in a fallen world doesn't work by the way, because then you have to explain how alleged human sin applies to animals.
Finally, if the giraffe is the best creationists have, then the deck is still stacked against you. The mountain of evidence supporting evolution in thousands of other species great and small lends its support to the idea of giraffe evolution as well.
So, hanging your hat on creationism on the basis that not all things have been explained is not exactly the best strategy.
"A spermatozoon or spermatozoan (pl. spermatozoa), from the ancient Greek (seed) and (living being) and more commonly known as a sperm cell, is the haploid cell that is the male gamete. It joins an ovum to form a zygote. A zygote is a single cell, with a complete set of chromosomes, that normally develops into an embryo."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatozoon
A zygote is a "single cell". Question... the slightest altering of its code, can have drastic changes on the macro end-state being... the adult homo sapien.
Stephen, please explain why it is incomprehensible to understand that small changes, make up larger changes... do you believe we live in a disconnected universe, where the micro and macro are somehow totally residing, with a discrete "demarcation" point...
"...Could say, an animal that evolved into a giraffe go to drink the water and kill itself from blood pressure to the brain simply say to itself i need to evolve some valves in my arteries to stop that happening again? no It would be dead..."
And good riddance to it, too. It leaves all that much more of the tastiest treetop foliage for the hardier giraffe (and its progeny!) two trees over. The one whose head doesn't blow up, but who just gets a bit woozy and has the sense not to try & remedy its vertigo with another drink of water right after.
Melissa gave the specifics on how giraffe blood-delivery systems work in any given (non-dead) giraffe. I'm thinking that if a god designed the giraffe blood delivery system, it didn't know much about hydraulics. Most human engineers would probably have solved the "head" pressure problem by installing an auxilliary pump part way along to the brain, but maybe god skipped that class.
Anyhow, that's not really how evolution works. Rather than suddenly gambling on having some great long neck, in a make-or-break bid to get at the high leaves without its head blowing up every time it wants to wet its whistle, there were no doubt some contenders for longest-necked-near-giraffes, and the winners got to eat well and not-die, and the runners-up got to starve and not procreate their mediocre-neck genes along to the next generation.
There oughta be a sort of Evolution Catechism, just so students don't lose track of the small handful of self-evident elements that make up the elegant workings of natural selection. You wouldn't think there are enough moving parts in it for people to get it wrong, but evidently there are.
Better yet you have the good fortune of witnessing how natural selection is on the precipice of eliminating humans from the gene pool, who have poorly defined processes of critical thought. (defective thinkers)
Two very large segments of the human race are busy arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction, and have little or no defense against the possibility of using them against each other, thus eliminating a huge numbers of their own kind.
There is the group of around 2 billion people, who are captive to a religious meme or cult, called Islam, and another group of similar characteristics called Christians.
Now for all practical reasons any real differences between these two groups are only slight cultural variances.
The reason these two groups of otherwise normal happy, functioning people are about to eliminate themselves from the human gene pool is because they both are being controlled by a different mythological belief systems, the one thinks there is a bearded old man up in the sky called Allah who controls their lives, and the other believes their lives are being controlled by a similar entity called God.
When the two different cultures were forming, or creating, these two mythologies they incorporated into them a very strict inclusive, exclusive clauses that favored their respective cultures, and tell the members of the one cult to hate and kill the members of the other cult.
There is a third group of humans though, who have overcome the proclivity for fantasy, magical, thinking, who go by many names but have in common, that they are not controlled by imaginary beings up in the sky, but by realistic logical thought.
We of little faith (Ex-Christians, and ex-Muslims) are desperately working as hard as we can to make the two large cults realize that what each is ready to die for, and in the process kill many innocents, is just a silly cultural belief that one God is better than the other God.
If these two cults do decide to try to get to heaven by killing each other in enough numbers the resulting fallout my very well open up the possibility of any survivors rethinking the idea that there is an invisible being up in the sky telling them to kill their neighbors.
Thus, natural selection at work, and, Steven, YOU WERE THERE!
Dan
Adaptation leads to evolutionary change. This can happen fairly quickly with single cell organisms via asexual and sexual reproduction. It how ever is NOT efficient in multicellular organisms except through sexual reproduction. If there were no need for humans to evolve, then we should all be able to reproduce asexually and no need for seperate male and female species!
What is purpose of mixing DNA from seperate male and female species except to adapt to a changing environment and produce evolutionary changes!
-------
"...please explain why it is incomprehensible to understand that small changes, make up larger changes..."
According to the "scientific method", shouldn't conclusions be drawn from the testable, repeatable, and OBSERVABLE?
Small change ("microevolution - moths-to-moths, finches-to-finches, bacteria-to-bacteria adaptation) has been observed, in a MUCH shorter time than millions of years BTW (so, WHERE THE F*** IS ALL THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EVIDENCE?!!). However, the end results always remaining within the classificaion of their Biblical "kind".
Coupling microevolution with a little conjecture and a whole lot of speculation into questionable, borderline meritless "evidence", we are expected to believe that larger changes ("macroevolution" - molecules-to-man") have occurred, despite having NEVER been observed (let alone tested or repeated).
In summary... because some of us think a little more critically than that.
"...do you believe we live in a disconnected universe, where the micro and macro are somehow totally residing, with a discrete 'demarcation' point..."
Evolutionists/naturalists would like the "demarcation point" to be as blurred as possible, wouldn't they? I accuse you of the very tactics as stated above. Case and point.
* Why IS it that most (by an OUTLANDISH margin) visual "evidence" comes in the form of sketches, rather than photographs? I can only assume is that it's easier to convince unanalytical minds with fabricated, complete skeletons than with a photo of a few, actual bones. Illusion after illusion after illusion....
--------
"Surely with God miraculously healing so many people, there should be little need for doctors or hospitals anymore."
Said physicians may be answered prayers in and of themselves, many times over.
---------
"I dare any church, anywhere, at any time, to try and pray a hospital empty. Even if it were only to last ONE DAY, I'd sit up and take notice."
Well, well, well. Look who's making demands of God.
"Jesus said his disciples would do greater things than even he did..."
Limiting the word "things" to mean healing, with no other possibilities? Can you say "fallacy of the excluded middle"?
"...Yet the hospitals remain brimming with business."
Whoops! I forgot... no one is supposed to die.
------
"Nothing fails like prayer."
Except an atheist's fragile intellect.
Not always. You have a mom and dad, prove it. I mean, you don't recall the second you were born right. Explain why a scientist has to pull out transitional fossil records, when you can't even vouch for your own birth, by first hand experience.
If you want to discuss how you will objectively prove you were born from a female human, and why you couldn't have possible been born by a surrogate baboon mother, I'd like to hear your "hypothesis", since you neither observed, tested, and obviously will never be able to repeat your birth process, thanks.
Razorwire: "Small change ("microevolution - moths-to-moths, finches-to-finches, bacteria-to-bacteria adaptation) has been observed, in a MUCH shorter time than millions of years BTW (so, WHERE THE F*** IS ALL THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EVIDENCE?!!)."
It's in the zoo, next to your baby crib, unless you have a better hypothesis.
one last point is dont look at everythin in the natural sense cuz if do ull nvr see God makin sense to u. ive seen God change pple's lives and it has amazed me and i will do all i can do bring bak the love that this country is missin and the blessings tht God has stopped doin since this country has abandoned Him. i want pple to live a good life thru Christ and not have 2 live in bondage 4 the rest of ur life cuz God takes all ur pain and He comforts wen u r sad and calms wen u r mad yet He also rejoices wen u have real genuine joy and i hope pple don believe in the religious God but believe in the one God who loves u more than any1 and wants to help u. good bye now if u have anythin 2 say u can contact me at trckmn58@yahoo.com peace out
trckmn58: "...God wantz to know ur heart..."
Ah, so your god is not all-knowing after all! Didn't think so.
...if u do submit 2 God, He will give u a love for pple that doesn come from u...
Prove that this love doesn't come from me. (And, while you're at it, prove that your god exists outside your own imagination.)
...He LOVED U WIT ALL OF HIS HEART...
Except for the billions of people who are headed for Hell, that is. And all the ones who died in the flood. And the Amakalite babies, too.
God doesn just accept any prayer He accepts one thts true, and one that He knows is for doing His will.
So none of our own prayers get answered at all, just the things that your god wants? Well, if that's the case, you can kiss the Free Will Defense to the Problem of Evil goodbye.
o ya and another thing if u don believe in God how bout look and see how stable our environment is...
(falls on the floor laughing her Goddessly ass off) Ah. This is obviously some strange new definition of "stable" that I wasn't previously aware of. Where I live, we are now frequently getting tornado warnings on the local weather broadcasts. The winter low average temperature is higher than I've ever seen it. And I shudder to think about what's going to happen in coastal areas of the southern U.S. this summer. (If you live there, please move to high ground well inland and further north if you can afford to do so.)
...there is so much good in pple...
Okay, we do agree on that much. By all means, continue to strive to be a good person and make your community a better place.
But please don't come here and preach at us. We've read the Bible. We know all about your religion. We've chosen a different path than you; please accept that.
I hope you are 12 years old, or thereabouts. If not, I'm embarrassed for you.
I suggest you learn how to properly express yourself in English before posting again.
If you are a spoofer, as Boom suggests, please knock it off.
we can discuss the matter of if God is real or not but no matter how hard i try i will not be able to change your opinions because it is not in my power
and another thing what is the spending your whole life disproving what other believe to be true instead of just loving for them for who they are
i wish everyone could go to heaven but unfortunately people choose their own ways and sadly end up going to Hell.
i wish that a lot of things would change in this country politics, family, government, crime, corruption and on and on but yet i feel that rather than voicing my opinion about God and wasting my time arguing i would rather live for God and do His will through my life
it is nice to see what everyone has to say and i respect people’s opinions on not believing in God
yet if you can just look around and see past the unstability and see past all the bad things and see things for what they really are it is a lot easier to appreciate life. you have heard me say enough times but i dont think you grasp how much God loves you because even it is beyond words and by me dummin it down doesn help
so say what you want to say but i will still believe God is real because look at all the strange occurences look at how well things worked together and i see what God has done through people
im tired of religion itself it makes me sick of how divided and broken and all the hatred and bitterness and i wonder when it will come to an end. For the last time God didn intend or create religion but just to turn away from our wicked ways and accept His son who died for all of us. im sorry if that is too much for you but hey it happened and no one can disprove that because no one has found Jesus’s bones
It seems you are terribly confused. We don't believe your god exists. Did you somehow fail to pick up on that? It does not appear that you get it, for why else would be still be trying to assure us that your make-believe deity has feelings of any sort? Let me ask you this. Do you know that Zeus will protect you? Does that statement make much sense to you? Probably not, and for the same reason that your statements make absolutely no sense to us. If there's no reason to believe that some entity even exists, is there much point talking about what other attributes it has?
but MOSTLY because:
1) YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE for any "God", let alone "Jesus".
2) you couldn't form a meaningful grammatically correct paragraph to save your life.
3) you are attempting to parrot the same ol' tired and useless arguments that we've heard a gazillion times before.
4) reeding ur teanaged "code" makes me want 2 vomit.
5) because you are a shining example of what religion does to an already not-so-bright person.
That's the short list, BTW. Furthermore, I ask you: Is it merely your "opinion" that Allah doesn't exist? How about Thor? How about Poseiden? How about Toth? I'll bet you'll say that you "know" they don't exist, right? Well, news flash: With every bit as much confidence as you KNOW that those gods don't exist, I know that your Jebus doesn't exist. Live with it.
Teenager for Christ: im tired of religion itself it makes me sick of how divided and broken and all the hatred and bitterness and i wonder when it will come to an end.
As long as there are people like you--people who can't figure out that they're part of the problem?....sadly, it'll never end.
Teenager for Christ: For the last time God didn intend or create reli......[blah, blah, blah]
For the last time--reread points 1-5, above...paying careful attention to "1" and "3". Thanks.
Teenager for Christ: im sorry if that is too much for you but hey it happened and no one can disprove that because no one has found Jesus’s bones
Right, for the same reason no one has found Santa Claus' bones.
Just thought you'd like to know.
In my opinion, proving that there is no God or gods is more than just speculating on one topic such as prayer. However the comments on Christians are quite true.
What is so confusing to me is why christians feel like their salvation is like fire insurance. It is like people accept Jesus only for the fact so that they don't receive as they say "eternal punishment". What change is that going to make in their lives if they don't really want to change.
Nevertheless, I feel it is time to bring a new topic to the table. A large percentage of people believe in God but a very small percent actually live the walk. Now there is something that is wrong with that picture. I read a book recently talking about how the majority of Americans buy into the whole idea of good people go to heaven. The author stated that actually forgiven people go to heaven. Any responses to that notion.
Please cease posting here. Your posts are annoying.
Thanks.
Nature...
(falls off Her chair laughing even harder, then drags Herself off the floor and slugs down a mug of chocolate liqueur, brandy and milk)
Ahh, I really do enjoy being a supporting member of Ex-C. Thanks again for creating this site, Webmaster Dave.
Aaaanyway.
No, trckmn, I don't believe you when you say that you're interested in what lil' old Me has to say. You're an immature and incredibly naïve headhunter for a belief system that has done far more harm than good on this planet.
And all you've done is bleat a few things about your subjective experience of the god that you happen to believe in.
I agree with my colleagues: You have added nothing of substance to our discussions. Go away. Now. Or, by Oðinn, I shall roast your pathetic little apologetics on a spit.
If there is someone on the other end of the Godphone, it is choosing to ignore us. It's rather hard to develop a relationship with something that doesn't even want to talk to us.
Our disbelief has nothing to do with churches.
And everything to do with asking and not receiving.
If you can't get it through your head that many of us did try with all our hearts, then I predict that you won't see your own disbelief until you, too, are weeping in your bed at three in the morning.
When that day comes, we'll be there for you. Until then, go away.
my 2nd-to-the-last questin is wen have u ever been in the presents of a schol teecher? my last questin aint a questin, but a statemint---BEAT IT!!!
This is EX-CHRISTIAN.NET. Most of the people here left Christianity because your god didn't answer when they knocked at the door.
We are here to recover from the pain that your religion has caused us, and to express our anger at self-righteous, ignorant little bastards like you who refuse to leave us the fuck alone.
It is my profound hope that one day you grow up enough to challenge your beliefs, and that you lose all faith in Christianity. Because only then will you understand why we are here on this site and why we are so hostile to your message.
And only then will you be capable of seeing the true beauty of the real world.
Please stop posting here.
Thanks.
Who hasn't?....is that what you meant? Well, apparently, "u" haven't. Honestly, how on earth do you expect to be taken seriously, with the grammatical skills of a 2nd grader? Hell, for all we know, you ARE a second grader--one who's havin' fun on their mommy's PC.
Vapid, boisterous, stooge continues: and if u wuld just give God a chance u would see how much of nothing we humans are and how loving yet big God is.
No, actually, I see how much of a "Nothing" this alleged "God" is. I listen?..I hear "Nothing"; I look?...I see "Nothing". "God" = "Nothing"...'only a construct in your mind.
Vapid, boisterous, stooge threatened: if u dont want to change then im sorry u chose where you will go.
No one's "going" anywhere, little boy. When you and I are pronounced "dead", our brains no longer function, our thoughts cease, and we simply die. It's as simple as that. But the good news is that you'll be cured of that nasty little mind-virus of yours. RIP.
Vapid, boisterous, stooge asked: And why havent you answered my question? Are you limiting God to our dimension?
Are you "limiting" Sponge-Bob to "our dimension"?? I hope not, because he and Patrick want you to move in to their pineapple under the sea.
Now run along. Shoo!
Think about it for a second.
Now, looking at your recent comments has got me thinking. I detest feeling all this bitterness and sadness that is stored up in the very depths of my core. I would like to do away with all this mess but nothing works. Drugs just help me run away from the way I feel. Alcohol makes me a total wreck. I am a person filled with misery and I want it to be taken away.
If your so-called God really loves me, then please tell him that I need help and I'll give him a week to prove himself to me.
"He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him." John 14:21
"He who has found his own life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it." Matthew 10:39
"These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full."
John 15: 11
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8
Satan said to Him, "If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'He will give his angels charge concerning you'; and 'on their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Matthew 4:6-7
"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah. Deuteronomy 6:16
Your questions, trckmn? Or the questions of your preacher friend that you're cutting and pasting to save your sorry little ass? You aren't fooling me for a moment: It's been quite obvious for some time that you have someone reading our posts over your shoulder and typing out more lucid (but still completely bullshit) responses. If he wants to talk to us he would do well to set up his own account rather than piggybacking on yours.
Every single person in this world has gifts...
They are not gifts. They are natural abilities. They came from a natural source, not a supernatural one. They are ours. Period.
"How can you say God's not real when you have not been in His presence?"
(falls on floor laughing yet again) Uh... I'll take "Beings for which there is no credible evidence" for $200, Alex.
Your god does not exist, trckmn. At least, not in the Christian sense of the word. I stake all that I am and all that I shall ever be on the theory that the god of the Bible never existed, never will exist, and should not under any circumstances be brought into existence.
There may indeed be gods. But yours is not among them. If your god did exist as described in the Bible, I would have destroyed it long ago as it poses a deadly threat to humanity.
Oh, what the heck. *poof* The big scary god-thing is gone, trckmn. You can stop being scared of hell any time you're ready.
Normally we would dismiss everything you say about God and Jesus, because you use the very literature that is the source of your assertions, as the proof of those assertions, and that is called circular reasoning, and not valid or acceptable.
But as that has more than likely been pointed out to you many times before this, and you just keep on doing it, we will assume that you have a very low I. Q, and are not capable of comprehending the proposition that you cannot prove what you are saying, by quoting the author.
It's probably too late for you to do much about you "Autism" now, because it is evident from your writing that you are in your teens, but, who knows.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and with enough effort you just may be able to claw your way out of your religious cult and free your mind and soul from the meme called Christianity.
You will find others here on Ex-Christian who have been damaged to the extent that you have, and made their way out, so maybe you will also.
Here's hoping, because the world today can use all of the clear thinkers it can get.
Dan
Who made religion? Mankind! Yes, we agree 100%. That's a good place to start. Now you ask, in effect, whether we can separate god from religion. The obvious answer to this is "yes" for a number of reasons. First, there are many Deists here who reject Christianity yet accept the notion of a creator. There you go. Second, there are folks like me who both reject Christianity and also find the notion of a creator to be completely unfounded. Those are two different issues in my mind. Christianity, being one of myriad religions, clearly does not "own" the concept of god. Even if all religions that ever existed were wrong in their assertions, it would not mean that a "god" of some sort did not exist. I think we can agree on that.
But, here is the question, trckmn58. If you claim that there is a god, on what do you base that? What is your evidence? What is your reasoning? That's all that matters in this discussion. I've been willing to entertain any and all such claims, and to listen to and analyze all such arguments for my entire life. However, thus far I have not encountered one single argument that stands up to scrutiny--i.e. that does not commit one or more logical fallacies or distort the facts. Hence, I find none of them to be credible, and therefore find no more reason to believe in invisible conscious entities than I do in ESP or psychokinesis or alien abductions or Nessy or Sasquatch or leprechauns or... you get the picture.
The ball is in your court. What evidence have you got to offer? Can you be the first to offer some cogent reasoning in support of a supernatural realm, or for an invisible conscious being of some sort?
Okay, perfect. Thank you. Then I suppose we can all just start ignoring your posts...and you'll still classify that as "two-way communication", right?
Trckmn: I mean come on if you really want something from God then why don't you just obey Him? Or is that too much to ask?
Trckmn, while your writing skills seemed to have magically improved, I'm sad to say, I still think you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Let's see. Okay, assuming you're a male---when you need to void your bladder in a public place, I wonder, do you go approach all the "males" in bathroom that says "MEN", and confront them about their gender? Seriously, I wonder if you might not, because the "door" on this website clearly says "EX-christian", yet, you keep referencing the Christian biblegod, "Christ", as if we still hold belief in said biblegod. Just to be clear, we do not, so statements like, "...if you really want something from God[Jesus] then why don't you just obey Him? Or is that too much to ask?", are very silly.
See for yourself: Trckmn, if you really want something from Santa, then why don't you just obey him, and be a good little boy? Or is that too much to ask?
See? It's silly, isn't it?
Right, because "Santa" doesn't exist, especially as described by his most common physics-defying characteristics...i.e..flying sleigh, flying reindeer, etc., etc. This issue isn't really one of did there ever really exist a delusional fat man who liked to parade around in a red bathrobe and black shiny boots, and who went by the name "St Nicholas". There very well might have been such a person, maybe even more than one.
The point is, if an adult were going around INSISTING that Santa Claus existed, sure, other adults would likely tell that person that he/she is a delusional psycho, but more importantly, the evidence that they would likely require in order to be CONVINCED, would be based on those attributes that DEFY REASON; that are NON-sensical; and that CONTRADICT REALITY....::cough::
I think that analogy is pretty clear, although, I'm NOT taking any chances on being misunderstood.
So---WHERE is your objective evidence that the Christian biblegod, aka "Jesus", exists in reality as the omniscient, omnipotent, ALL-loving, creator-god you say he he is?
Waiting.
Hu? Where did you come up with that? I don't think there is a god, yet there are obviously we do not yet have explanations for everything. So, it seems to me that reality contradics you.
trckmn58: "In fact, God bends the rules of physics to do His will."
And you make that assertion based on what?
trckmn58: "Also there had to be something or someone as you say to have made everything before even time and space began."
Oh? Why is that?
trckmn58: "A lot of people believe in evolution. But where did that single organism that started it all come from?"
First, believing "in" something has a different connotation than believing "that" something is a likely explanation. The former is usually linked to some kind of "faith" (which is comically out of place in science), while the latter is a statement about the strength of evidence (which is what science is all about). Evolution fits the available data spectacularly well, and it makes thousands of detailed predictions (e.g. concerning junk DNA and why humans have only 23 chromosome pairs instead of 24). As for the origin of the first living cell, that is a tremendously interesting question, but it does not fall under the rubric of evolution. Evolution is only concerned with the transformation of life, not the origin of life. For example, even if you were to posit that the first living cell came about by divine intervention, evolution would still make perfect sense in that it explains how life subsequently changed.
trckmn58: "Also us [we!] humans are alike to all creatures of this world. We have what they call Hox genes which are responsible for the body plans of each and every organism. Every single creature has the same body plans as us."
Yes! Good for you that you know what a Hox gene is. It's important to understand that some genes exert high-level control of development. That's a crucial aspect of evolution. Without such high-level controls, it would be much harder to explain large-scale morphological changes over relatively brief periods (on the order of hundreds of thousands of years). The physiological differences between humans and chimps, for example, are likely due (largely) to a small number of genes that regulate development (e.g. shape of the skull, presence of fur, length of limbs, etc.). Now, how are Hox genes helpful to your side of the argument?
What you said about all life on Earth sharing so much at the genetic level is one of the biggest clues to our common origin. If a "designer" had made each creature independently, why would she have inserted so much junk DNA, and pseudo-genes that were useful in prior species but not the current one (e.g. olfactory receptors in marine mammals)? Why would the same proteins show up time and again, with only slight variations? Why would there be homologies between vastly different structures (e.g. wings, hands, flippers, fins) in different species? Why would creatures have so many vestigial structures (e.g. goose flesh in humans, fetal limbs in whales, and fetal teeth in some birds)? Why would some structures so poorly match their present uses (e.g. the human back and knees, human sweat glands)?
trckmn58: "Also, how can science explain the fact of how the Earth was created in such a way to support life while other planets weren't?"
You phrase that question incorrectly, as you have no idea whether the Earth was "created" with any prior intent. If you ask, why is it that the Earth can support life, I answer that we would not be here if it did not. Life evolved here (and possibly elsewhere) to fit the environment, not the other way around. Analogously, jungles exist where there is ample rain; the rain was not put there so as to create the jungle (so far as we know).
trckmn58: "I'll leave it to just this and let the rest of you speculate."
Do you think these are somehow tricky questions or deep insights? They are not. Do you plan on supplying any evidence for this invisible deity you believe in? So far I haven't seen anything approaching evidence or even a fully-articulated argument from you. Even if you managed to ask really deep question that have no hint of an answer yet (which you have not), it still would not mean that YOU possess the answers. Do you see that? Unless you have some evidence that YOUR proposed solution is the correct one, it is YOU who is merely speculating.
A lot of people believe in creation. But where did that "creator" that started it all come from?
Trckmn, maybe you and Neo-fundy can put your heads together and address/resolve the blatant circular reasoning you have in your "creator" hypothesis.
Now addressing the issue of people crying out to God and not getting anything. Living for God is a day to day basis and when you were a Christian if you couldn't say why believe in God and how to lead people to Christ then there is a problem. Also, when you say you gave your whole life to Christ did you really? Or were you still holding back? Are you looking just past ourselves or are we still worried about our needs being met before helping someone else? Honestly, there isn't anything really bad about going to church except when it becomes a mindset and then we become numb to all the things preached in a sermon. Where did people get this idea that we are doing injustice if the fact that Christianity is the only true religion on this earth? Historians have proved the Bible to be the most accurate document in all of history and the amazing thing is that it still relates to today's society. It says in the Bible that men will only go to places where they want to hear what they want to hear. And it is so true today in our world. People just plug into something that suits them and go with it. One last point is that even though a lot of people see Christianity as a religion I see it as something bigger than that. The challenging part about following Jesus Christ is that there is no "once saved always saved" and the fact that on a daily basis you have to choose who you are going to follow. Jesus Christ or your own path? Even though our own path sounds a lot better, I would rather take Jesus Christ knowing that if I do, my reward waits for me in heaven.
Some times things go your way, and sometimes they don't. You don't need a god to make that statement.
trckmn58 said "Are you looking just past ourselves or are we still worried about our needs being met before helping someone else?"
Are you actually asking, or is that a statement disguised as a question? Sounds like you are willing to make any excuse for your no-show god.
trckmn58 said "o yeah this is one is for Jim I have found out that recently that a scientist revealed that God exists through quantum physics."
Good grief... where did you hear that one? That's complete rubbish. Do you know the first thing about quantum mechanics? I'll bet you heard some rumor from some scientifically illiterate evangelist, and now you're just uncritically passing it on, right? Right.
trckman58: "And i base what i say on the Bible because that is really a source that is actually reliable..."
All I can say is that you are excruciatingly naive. You state that the Bible is "reliable" and cite some (unnamed) source of ho-hum archeological evidence. Do you realize what a chasm exists between verifying a few historical events and people, and verifying ANY of the supernatural claims in the Bible. Do you realize that there is NO corroboration for ANY of the supernatural claims? Do you realize that all works of historical fiction contain SOME actual facts?
How are you doing on that evidence for your invisible conscious being. Are you going to supply some, or are you simply ignore all those requests? (My money is on the later.)
As for his sophomoric English trckman58 said "...I just wanted to make sure where you guys were on this topic and see if this was really a serious issue or just a joke."
Oh, right, that makes a lot of sense. Sure, write like a moron to see if people here are serious. Good thinking there, pal.
Get lost, both of you.
What historians would those be? What are their names, and what are their published works?
Thanks.
- why did 1st century Christians die for their beliefs in the 1st century? These are the actual witnesses to the Gospel claims. People don't die for a lie. They'll die for unverifiable beliefs but that isn't the case for these 1st Christians.
- why do the Gospel writers make such tremendous efforts to be true to geography, "characters", event time lines yet they collectively agree to make up lies about miracles? Especially when everything they wrote asks people to eliminate the hypocrisy or duality from their lives?
Why would the same proteins show up time and again, with only slight variations? Why would there be homologies between vastly different structures (e.g. wings, hands, flippers, fins) in different species?
- why does my Toyota have 4 wheels and nearly all vehicles on the road also have that same design?
- why are there so many irreducibly complex biological systems?
Everyone in Jerusalem died when Titus sacked it in 70 CE. ref
Three years later, more died at Masada. Does people dying for something prove that donkeys really talk? People most certainly do die for lies all the time. How many Mormons died in the 1800s? Does that mean Joseph Smith really did have an encounter with an angel from God?
"- why do the Gospel writers make such tremendous efforts to be true to geography, "characters", event time lines yet they collectively agree to make up lies about miracles?"
The Gospel writers of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and added to it as they saw fit. John plainly states it was written for one reason: to convert people. It never claims to be historically accurate.
Why would Joseph Smith make up the Book of Mormon when it was clear he was trying to lead people into a more moral way of life?
Show me that 1st century Christian died for "their beliefs", and show me what those "beliefs" were. All of this also comes exclusively from the mouths of evangelists. There is no corroboration of this from independent sources (e.g. outside the Bible).
Yogi "These are the actual witnesses to the Gospel claims."
What you have is stories of witnesses, not reports by witnesses; moreover, these are stories from evangelists. If I said that 500 people witnessed a spaceship land in my back yard, does that lend the credibility of 500 eye witnesses to my story? If you think it does, you had better think that one over a little bit.
Yogi: "People don't die for a lie."
You got the Christian talking point wrong. It's supposed to be "people don't die for what they know to be a lie." But either way, it doesn't help your point. The former is clearly wrong (consider the 9/11 terrorists), while the latter is trivially so, as it has nothing to do with whether what they believe is actually true or not.
Yogi: "They'll die for unverifiable beliefs but that isn't the case for these 1st Christians."
Oh? And what is that assertion based on? Wait, I know... more stories from Christian evangelists (e.g. the anonymous Gospel writers).
Yogi: "why do the Gospel writers make such tremendous efforts to be true to geography, 'characters', event time lines yet they collectively agree to make up lies about miracles?"
First, why do you suppose it was a "tremendous effort". People tend to include information that they know (or believe) in stories that they write. If they lived in the 1st or 2nd century, chances are they knew of many people/places/things in the 1st and 2nd century. Right? Second, there are countless examples of people embellishing their stories with miraculous events: every religion has these examples. Every saint had hagiographic tracts written about them with all manner of ridiculous events attributed to them. So, to answer your question as to why people would do such a thing, that's simple: Humans are story tellers; it's in our nature to embellish.
Yogi: "why does my Toyota have 4 wheels and nearly all vehicles on the road also have that same design?"
We can all agree that automobiles were designed by many many humans, and these humans shared ideas (not to mention physical infrastructures, such as factories). But there are many ways in which your automobile analogy does not serve you well. Components are built from materials that make the most sense, not by re-fashioning old components that are no longer useful. For example, rearview mirrors were not formed by gradually re-working the center strut in the windshield. Moreover, the components found in new contrivances (e.g. the CD player) did not play a different role in previous cars (e.g. the 8-track tape player, or the windshield wipers). Finally, there are no "junk" components in automobiles: i.e. components that served purposes in older models, but are now useless (e.g. a buggy whip holder). All of these features are found in abundance in living organisms, and point to an entirely different process than independent design.
Yogi: "why are there so many irreducibly complex biological systems?"
I assume you are referring to Behe's examples such as the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade. Right? First, those are not irreducibly complex, even according to the most lax definition that can be given to that term. Second, "irreducibly complex" systems (in the sense that every component is necessary for its current function) pose absolutely no difficulty for the theory of evolution. They do not even hint at a designer, much less provide compelling evidence for one. We've discussed Behe's pseudo-science in great detail here many many times. It's been soundly refuted by mainstream science; there is nothing at all in Behe's work that points to a "designer". All it points to is a researcher who is too lazy to look for scientific answers.
I waited as long as I could. Longer than I sould.
Long enough.
Too long.
Let me just say this, we are separated from God by sin and most of you know that. So if sin has separated us from God is that why we don't recognize. Most of you would agree that a stealing, lying and cheating is wrong. If there is no God then all of that is justifiable one or the other. In other words, giving an excuse to those type of actions. The Ten Commandments for example says not to do all these things and they weren't giant paragraphs or anything but just simple statements. I am holding back on my proof because first of all if I do what difference will it make won't you still be the same old way you were? Here we are talking about proof of why God doesn't exist and yet we have gone into so much thought and studies that don't you think we have missed the little significant point? Are we just too intelligent for our own good? If God wasn't real wouldn't we be in control of everything that we wanted to be? Some weeks ago, my pastor wanted to publish an ad in a daily newspaper and was wondering how God would provide the money to do so. Later on in the day a man comes by who has no affiliation with the church whatsoever and gives my pastor the exact amount of money that he needed for the ad. What do you want me to do have my pastor give his account just to show you I'm not lying. We are discussing here ideas while people are dying everyday and what are we going to do about it? Just pay some money so we can feel satisfied and go on with our merry lives? Since you guys gave me your proof on why God doesn't exist and I said "No" if I give you proof what would it stop from you guys saying "No"? I know it seems like I'm avoiding some of your other questions but you guys did the same.
By most definitions of "knowledge", a prerequisite is "belief". Since we don't believe in your invisible deity, it's quite silly to assert that we "know" any facts about her. While it's true that we know what it is that you (and most Christians) assert, we do know ourselves "know" these things as we do not "believe" them. Got it?
trckmn58: "I am holding back on my proof..."
Oh, I see. You have "proof" but you just don't feel like sharing it at the moment. Right...
trckmn58: "Here we are talking about proof of why God doesn't exist..."
There is NO proof that "god" (in a general sense) does not exist! Why is almost every Christian visitor here so absolutely unable to grasp this trivial concept. What is missing, trckmn58, if you can possibly wrap you mind around this concept, is EVIDENCE THAT SHE DOES EXIST. Can you pause for a moment and re-read that last sentence several times until it seeps in? Thanks a bunch.
trckmn58: "If God wasn't real..."
Here we go with more sophomoric assertions about what the world would be like if there were no god. All such arguments are doomed from the start because, here we are, living in a real world, and apparently without the help of any invisible deities. Therefore, whatever fanciful world that you postulate would exist if your god did not exist, is just that: pure fantasy. Not only have you made up a supernatural world for yourself, populating it will all manner of fantastic beings with sup-duper fantastic abilities, you've also made up an alternative "real" world. You've got no basis for any of this nonsense.
Still waiting for some credible evidence for invisible conscious beings...
trckmn58: "Since you guys gave me your proof on why God doesn't exist..."
STOP RIGHT THERE! Please point to that supposed "proof" that was provided. If you cannot understand the difference between LACK OF EVIDENCE (which is precisely what you have) and PROOF OF NONEXISTENCE (which nobody has), then all discussion with you is pointless. Come on back when you can get past that.
"Stronger now what is long enough for you?"
Long enough is long enough. A minute or a decade, or even longer. It matters not which one.
"Could it be possible that God did something very subtle and small that you didn't realize it? Were you expecting something big from God? "
No.
If God didn't love us, then why are we living in a free country? Yes, we fought wars and had several movements, but why did God put His hand on this country in the first place? Was our society always this chaotic and corrupted? The very politicians that we vote for turn our backs on us and will say anything they want to say to get our vote again. Does that sound like someone who really cares for people and is willing to do things that benefit life without the media chasing them? If you guys value life, then how come you can't value God, the ONE WHO GAVE US LIFE? Is it too hard to believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ? When they found Jesus' tomb is that not enough proof to you or do they have to find DNA?
If there is no Hell as some people said then that means there is no Satan and therefore no sin. But wait, we still have murders, rapes, robberies, molestations and even more. Is it so much of a norm in our society that we have become desensitized to it? Innocent children are exposed to so many things and no one seems to care. I have to witness everyday the mistreatment that my own people face but no one hears their cries. Babies dying at the hands of doctors but people act like nothing is happening. CAN YOU NOT SEE SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH AMERICA?
Stronger now, if you weren't expecting something big from God then what was it? Joy? Peace?
You said, "People on here have stated that the reason they feel there is no God is because He didn't do anything for them."
That's not the reason I left Christianity. And I'll warrant that's not the primary reason most of the posters on this site left Christianity. Perhaps you should read a few more of the hundreds of testimonials and articles on this site. You have a fairly inaccurate view of things here.
"If God didn't love us, then why are we living in a free country?"
So you are saying that God doesn't love some people? I thought your god loved everyone? Which is it?
"Value God, the ONE WHO GAVE US LIFE?"
I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it, but did you already provide evidence that your god actually exists? I know a Muslim that insists that his god exists too. I wonder which of you are correct? Actually, I think you are both mistaken.
"Is it too hard to believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ? When they found Jesus' tomb is that not enough proof to you or do they have to find DNA?"
Your god fucked a human virgin? Gross! Now the tomb thing, that interests me! Where is that tomb again?
"If there is no Hell as some people said then that means there is no Satan and therefore no sin. But wait, we still have murders, rapes, robberies, molestations and even more."
If? If? Excuse me, do you have any evidence that a hell or a Satan exists? I'd love to examine that evidence.
About sin: Are the things you mentioned wrong because they are wrong? Or are those actions only wrong because your god says so? I mean, if your god said any of those actions were good, would they then become good? The Bible says that sin is the transgression of the Law of God. So if god made a law that said kill homosexuals and witches, then wouldn't disobeying that LAW be a sin? And wouldn't the murder of homosexuals and witches be good?
Think about it. If murder, rape, etc. are wrong whether or not a god says they are wrong, then what's the point of a god? And FYI, your god did command the killing of homosexuals and witches and those who worship other gods and whole villages of men, women, children and their livestock. In fact, he killed the entire planet one time, except for Noah and his brood. So, I guess none of those actions are "sin" if god commands them done.
No matter how you look at "sin," I've never murdered, raped, robbed, molested or done anything remotely resembling any of that. (Have you?) I just don't believe in your god, or any god. Why would I have to go to hell for that? I thought your god loved people. Is having the wrong opinion about HIS existence a sin? Why is it a sin?
"CAN YOU NOT SEE SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH AMERICA?"
Christianity ruled all of Europe for 1,000 years. We call that period of history "The Dark Ages." It was the most backward, cruel, diseased, ignorant, superstitious, and evil time in Western history. Compared to that time (again, the time RULED BY CHRISTIANITY), we are living in heaven.
When you have something, you let me know. Okay?
trckmn58: "...Are you saying that you don't need God because obviously all the voids deep inside of you have been filled?"
Where's your evidence, trckmn? Don't project ridiculous brain states on me--you have no clue, and it is irrelevant to the discussion anyway.
trckmn58: "Am I wrong because it doesn't exactly fit with your opinions?"
I don't share your beliefs because you have nothing to support them. Where is your evidence?
trckmn58: "...what more should God give us that we already don't have?"
Some credible evidence of her existence.
trckmn58: "If there is no proof as you say that God is not real so then what is hard to believe that He is."
There is no proof that unicorns do not romp on a galaxy 100 million light years away. Do you therefore believe that they do? There is no proof that a china teapot is not orbiting Pluto. Do you therefore believe that one does? There is not proof that Zeus does not exist. Do you therefore believe that he does? There is not proof that the core of Saturn is not made of chocolate. Do you therefore believe that it is? There is no proof that invisible leprechauns do not live under my front porch. Do you therefore believe that they do?
Feel free to believe any or all of the above. Your god is in precisely the same ontological category. Honestly, I can't think of a dumber reason to believe something.
trckmn58: "If you lost everything that was dear to you, how would you move on with life?"
What has that got to do with the existence of god? Where is your evidence?
trckmn58: "If God didn't love us..."
However that question ends, it's specious. Show me that your god exists first, then we can discuss her emotional states.
trckmn58: "...why did God..."
However that question ends, it's specious. Show me that your god exists first, then we can discuss her motives.
trckmn58: "If you guys value life, then how come you can't value God..."
I'd guess it's the same reason you don't value Mithra, Attis, Zeus, or Osiris. There's no reason to suppose she exists.
trckmn58: "...the ONE WHO GAVE US LIFE?"
That's a ridiculous assertion. You haven't even shown that she exists.
trckmn58: "Is it too hard to believe that Mary was a virgin..."
Mary is a character in a gospel story penned by anonymous evangelists. Show me some credible historical evidence for her existence, please. Until then, I'll assume that the laws of biology have remained intact.
trckmn58: "CAN YOU NOT SEE SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH AMERICA?"
Can you not see that you will talk about ANYTHING except how you know that your god exists?
Okay, I'm done with this. Trckmn, you are a typical believer. You believe because you believe--end of story. Have fun with your fantasy world. Bye now.
It was something your god could have, would have, and should have done if he actually existed.
Did they (Mormons) all die claiming to have witnessed the resurrected Christ, like 1st Christians? Did they die for their beliefs, which they themselves witnessed, like hundreds if not thousands of 1st Christians? I'll tell you, they did not. Again, people will die for their beliefs, they do it all the time but you will not get thousands of people agreeing to die for something that they themselves witnessed. Thousands of 1st Christians would have witnessed Jesus' 3 year ministry. When it came time for them believe or dis-believe, no human would go down as a martyr for everything that their new "cult" claimed, if they knew that it never happened. But....they did choose to believe, thousands of them chose to believe because they were 1st hand witnesses to miracle after miracle.
On the other hand, what confuses most people, is that people will most definitely die for their beliefs, without any corroboration. You can certainly argue that most of todays Christians and Muslims, if they die for their faith, it's without any verifyable evidence for their faith.
About the closest thing you'll find with verifiable evidence in the way of modern day miracles would be what happened in Fatima in 1917. With little research you can get official newspaper references of the miracle of the sun, which was witnessed by nearly 100,000 people.
You got the Christian talking point wrong. It's supposed to be "people don't die for what they know to be a lie." But either way, it doesn't help your point. The former is clearly wrong (consider the 9/11 terrorists), while the latter is trivially so, as it has nothing to do with whether what they believe is actually true or not.
Your point about the 9/11 terrorists carries no weight against the point made that, as you say it "people don't die for what they know to be a lie.". The faith of these Muslims is completely based on faith, with no verifyable evidence, unlike the 1st Christians.
I assume you are referring to Behe's examples such as the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade. Right? First, those are not irreducibly complex, even according to the most lax definition that can be given to that term.
Sorry, but I completely disagree. No one and I mean not one single human being has ever come close to explaining how some of these complex biological system came to exist. After examining some of them, in my opinion and many scientists, nor will they ever, they are simply too complex.
Indeed I agree with trckmn58 when he asks "CAN YOU NOT SEE SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH AMERICA?".
Stronger Now, you know you shouldn't be putting your God to the test! Change your heart, give God a reason to trust you, then watch him work.
You miss the forest for the trees. Why is it that you think 1st century Christians had verifiable evidence? Because that's what the gospel story-tellers and late epistle writers say. Hence, your assertion that there was verifiable evidence is an article of faith. If you disagree, then I have a challenge for you. Pick some element of the Jesus story--ANY element at all, such as his birth, ministry, death, resurrection, etc.--and show me some verifiable historical evidence for it. I'll wager that anything you come up with will rest on a foundation of anonymous writings, late interpolation, hearsay, and midrash.
Yogi said "After examining some of them [complex biological systems], in my opinion and many scientists, nor will they ever, they are simply too complex."
What does "too complex" mean? Let me translate that for you. It means *you* have no idea how natural selection could have produced them. Right? If you disagree, then please define what you mean by "too complex" and explain how it is that mere "complexity" is an obstacle to evolution. Simply expressing your indignation at the idea does not count for anything. And who are these unnamed "scientists" you refer to. Name them, and let's examine some of their work. Okay? No competent scientist that I know or know of would make such a dogmatic assertion. I'll bet you are referring to the creationist crowd. Right? (Or maybe you have Fred Hoyle in mind?) Let's hear some names.
Yogi: "Indeed I agree with trckmn58 when he asks 'CAN YOU NOT SEE SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH AMERICA?'."
Not that this is relevant, but I'll humor you. Yes, of course there are lots of things wrong with America. For one thing, science education in this country is suffering under the influence of Christian fundamentalists. It's shocking how ignorant the average American is with regard to basic biology compared to other industrialized nations. I'm sure that's not what you had in mind, however.
That is correct. That is indeed what I think. People who value the message they are trying to communicate would not, in my opinion, put on the façade of an immature and illiterate instant-messenging teenager.
trckmn's cut-'n'-paste buddy: "Let me just say this, we are separated from God by sin and most of you know that."
Correction: Most of us know that "sin and separation from God" is part of the Christian message. Some of us no longer believe that message. Others, such as myself, never believed it. I contend that it is impossible to injure an omnipotent god, even with the most heinous "sin" you can dream up. Nor can one become separate from an omnipresent god.
"Most of you would agree that stealing, lying and cheating is wrong. If there is no God then all of that is justifiable one or the other."
False. Because the societies of this world tend to beat the everloving crap out of people who take such liberties. As a result, we are socialized to believe that stealing, lying and cheating are unacceptable. Morality is just common sense, and no gods are required.
"I am holding back on my proof because first of all if I do what difference will it make won't you still be the same old way you were?"
You have no proof, because apologetics and partisan, unreviewed archeology and holy books are fucking useless as evidence. We've already dissected and discarded the usual suspects, including but not limited to Josephus, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and more C.S. Lewis than you can shake a stick at (if that's your idea of a good time).
"Are we just too intelligent for our own good?"
No. We are more intelligent than we were 5,000 years ago but we still have a long way to go. In my opinion, there is no such thing as "too intelligent." That's a common tactic used by preachers to attempt to devalue critical thinking.
"What do you want me to do have my pastor give his account just to show you I'm not lying."
Perhaps it did happen. Even if it did, where is the god? Perhaps your pastor has supernatural powers of money attraction. Perhaps he asked for that particular amount because he has precognition. Perhaps Lakshmi smiled upon him. There are many possible god concepts, and many possible explanations of trivial "miracles",
Have your god heal a few amputees, and we might begin to take you seriously.
"We are discussing here ideas while people are dying everyday and what are we going to do about it?"
Um... This is a discussion board. We're here to, well, discuss things. If you honestly feel that discussing ideas is beneath you, close your Blogger account forthwith and go out and volunteer at your local food bank.
"I know it seems like I'm avoiding some of your other questions but you guys did the same."
First of all, the line above is the tu quoque logical fallacy.
As for those questions... Hmm... (scans thead for an example) You mean, like *these* gems?
"How long will you be waiting for such proof then? Is the way you are living your life with no regrets? Are you saying that you don't need God because obviously all the voids deep inside of you have been filled? Am I wrong because it doesn't exactly fit with your opinions?"
Here are my answers.
- Not waiting for proof and not really expecting any to show up any time soon. I have better things to do than hang around waiting for GODot.
- My life is just fine, thank you. I am thriving and learning and have no particular regrets. And, even if I had regrets, I wouldn't look to Christianity to solve them... I have much more effective methods.
- No, I don't need your god because I can successfully deal with my own "voids" when they occur.
(Oh, and "voids" are not bad, either. They are spectacularly useful places to be, if you can tolerate the accompanying physical sensations of emptiness and fear and loneliness. Yes, I've been there. More than once, in fact.)
- No, you are not "wrong". But neither are you "right". Comparing one person's internal world to that of another person is not particularly useful to either party. Our opinions are subjectively true for us but probably not for you, and yours are subjectively true for you but not for us. To cross that gap you must, repeat, *must* provide physical evidence rather than opinions and superstitions.
What 1st Christians claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Christ? Paul's writings are the earliest writings and they date from about 50 CE. He says he saw the risen Christ, but his descriptions are of visions.
The other Biblical accounts were written a couple decades or so later, after Jerusalem was destroyed, and by anonymous authors. So, which of the first believers that actually met this Jesus character, saw him die and rise again, died for that belief?
And if you are thinking of the disciples, no one knows what happened to any of them. All we have is rumors and traditions that were written down and passed around over 100 years after they were dead.
"About the closest thing you'll find with verifiable evidence in the way of modern day miracles would be what happened in Fatima in 1917."
Yes, mass hallucinations and hysteria among ignorant peasants is very close to the kind of evidence you are supposing actually exists regarding the Jesus character. Well put.
Have a nice day, Marc.
"And FYI, your god did command the killing of homosexuals and witches and those who worship other gods and whole villages of men, women, children and their livestock."
Is this said in the bible? Or did a christian give an account that they heard from God?
"Christianity ruled all of Europe for 1,000 years. We call that period of history "The Dark Ages." It was the most backward, cruel, diseased, ignorant, superstitious, and evil time in Western history. Compared to that time (again, the time RULED BY CHRISTIANITY), we are living in heaven."
Once again did God confirm this or did the Christians take matter into their own hands? That's why there is so many different denominations in Christianity because people have taken parts of the Bible that they liked and they formed some beliefs around that.
Stronger now, so if God did meet all your needs would you then believe in Him because then you would be satisfied that He is real? Stronger now, how often do you hang out with people you do not know? How often do you hang out with the lowest of the lowest? Isn't it our duty to serve others?
"My life is just fine, thank you. I am thriving and learning and have no particular regrets. And, even if I had regrets, I wouldn't look to Christianity to solve them... I have much more effective methods."
So when you have pain do you just not deal with it or do you try to separate yourself from it? How are we made in such a way that no one can ever replace us? Why should you have to look at religion to answer your questions if mankind created and we are flawed? Have we bound God to religion because that's just how it makes sense?
Every one has gifts and passions. Why did we get them? Just for ourselves? Is that our purpose in life?
Has anyone found Jesus' bones? They have Mohammed's bones and others as well but where in the mix did they find Jesus'. A lot of us know that the Bible claimed that Jesus died and on the third day He rose. Find me "proof" that they have discovered Jesus' bones.
I am leaving this blog for now but I will be back. And when I do return, I should have some proof.
This is exactly the opposite of what Jesus accomplished when He was on this earth. He loved everyone including those that our society seems to pass by everyday. If Jesus was here today, would you find Him on this website?
Statistics say that only 4% of Christians actually walk the talk and that percentage is decreasing. Do you understand how sad that is boys? Do ya? You two are better than this and you know it.
I have been a missionary for 40 years now, and I never regretted it for a moment. Bringing people to salvation is an amazing experience. But how are you two going to show Jesus on here in the comfort of your own homes? I reckon that you two involve yourselves in something that will stretch your faith beyond what view of your faith and see what God can do through you. Stop saying all these things and you don't even fully understand what you're saying. You have done enough damage by being ignorant and stubborn and it's time to prove to the world who you really are in Christ.
If you cannot be consistent with your walk with Christ wherever you go, then how am I to be convinced that you grasp who Jesus really is as your Lord and Savior? STEP OUT OF YOUR COMFORT ZONES AND WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!
Excuse me gentlemen, but I have souls to save. I want you two to really search deep inside of yourselves and make your decision if you are going to be a sold-out Christian for Jesus or just a religious knucklehead thinking that God confirmed your actions.
"Stronger now, so if God did meet all your needs would you then believe in Him because then you would be satisfied that He is real?"
I believed that he would meet all my needs until he didn't. It would take something special for me to believe that he is real now that I see he is imaginary. A burning bush that talked or, perhaps, a corpse rising from its coffin after a true christian asked it to. I would say a talking ass would do it but, well, that seems to be happening in this thread.
"Stronger now, how often do you hang out with people you do not know?"
Almost never. Were you trying to make a point?
"How often do you hang out with the lowest of the lowest?"
Every day. You know very little about me or what it's like to be me, so don't pretend you do.
" Isn't it our duty to serve others? "
Sometimes one can serve others by not being a bother to them. I don't expect you to know anything about that.
Right. But "love" tortures those who don't love back? That's not love.
Is this said in the bible?
Yes. I strongly suggest you read the entire Bible at least once. Your stupid question belies a striking ignorance of your holy book.
"Once again did God confirm this or did the Christians take matter into their own hands?"
You mean the way you are taking matters into your own hands now? Do you really think YOU, living nearly 2,000 years from the institution of your religion that YOU really have a clue? Arrogance is thy name, so-called "True Christian™."
I actually agree with this part of your post. I've had a number of discussions with Christians at this site (and elsewhere) that have been civil and interesting. But with these two, I can't imagine it happening.
SoldOutChristian: "Excuse me gentlemen, but I have souls to save...."
You apparently believe that there are people who could go to Hell for eternity if not for others (such as yourself) who step in and "save" them. Is that correct? So, in a sense, the "salvation" of some people depends not exclusively on them, or their god, but on the actions of third parties. Have I misinterpreted you?
SoldOutChristian added "I want you two to really search deep inside of yourselves..."
I'm not looking to pick a fight with you (at least not based on anything you've said thus far), but I'm curious. Would you also advocate taking an honest look at what other people have to say as well? For example, would you encourage or discourage people like Yogi and trckmn58 to read and attempt to actually understand what scholars who are critical of Christianity have to say? Have you read any scholarly works that are critical of your own beliefs? If so, can you name some of the things you've read. If not, why not?
you have the audacity to:
- state that your disappointed in us (highly judgmental comment with an elitist tone)
- claim that you know God's will better that those that are willing speak up about the truth
- assume that the only place being evangelized is this web site
- claim that what we are saying is incorrect when it is entirely based on Christian truths
- claim that talking to people about the truth causes "damage" because we are ignorant and stubborn
- tell people that accept the truth and endeavor to live it day-in day-out that they need to "step out of their comfort zone"
- believe that the only reason anyone would post here is for the "permanent" atheists that support the web site? Who else do you think might be coming to this site? Let me give you a hint, how about the son you "claimed" reported this site to you.
Sadly, there is nothing Christian about your post and you know it. Why? Because you're a non-believer that is attempting to persuade true Christians from revealing the truth about God. Nobody that truly believes in Christ would ever speak in such a way. If, by some chance, I'm mistaken and you truly believe that you are Christian, then it is I that is disappointed in you and I will pray our God to rebuke you for attempting to dissuade discussions about the truth.
By the way, Yogi, you do realize that calling something a "truth" does not in itself make it true? Right? Just checking. (It's not at all clear from your rhetoric that you understand this.)
trckmn58: "Once agaιn did God confirm this or did the Christians take matter into their own hands?"
Does it matter? It's obvious that your god did nothing to stop it from happening. It happened to my family (Norway and Iceland) and to my partner's family (Saxony). Either your god allowed the massacres and torture and forced conversions, or your god never existed.
And you, by deliberately assuming the label "Christian", have inherited that debt that Christianity owes the people it subjugated. (That goes for the rest of you lurking evangelists, too, by the way. You are all on the hook for weregild, without exception.)
"So when you have pain do you just not deal with it or do you try to separate yourself from it?"
I deal with the pain directly at the first possible opportunity. No separation. No avoidance. Diving straight into the pain and feeling it until I resolve it.
Every one has gifts and passions. Why did we get them? Just for ourselves? Is that our purpose in life?
Yup. Meaning and purpose exists only in our own actions, and we are under no obligation to share our meaning with others. Deal with it.
"Has anyone found Jesus' bones?"
How would one even begin to identify "the bones of Jesus"? I suppose we could run DNA tests if we had samples from his descendants, but first we would have to identify those people. And families were large back then, and the bones could just as easily belong to his brother or cousin or great-grandfather.
And yes, I think that if Jesus existed he did have a body and he did die and he did not come back to life.
"Do you think this was God's will when you came on here, preaching to people that have already heard enough religion that they almost pass out when they hear it again and again and again."
"I have been a missionary for 40 years now, and I never regretted it for a moment."
"You have done enough damage by being ignorant and stubborn and it's time to prove to the world who you really are in Christ."
Dan responds:
Since you want to be the wise old man of the Jesus camp, and came here to straighten them out, and tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves for talking about religion to us Non Christians, why do you proceed to start preaching religion to us?
And talking about doing damage to people, how about all the damage you have done over the last 40 years, by instilling fear into innocent people (and children) by telling them that they must become stupid like you, and join your cult, and believe your nonsensical Bible gibberish or they are going to fry in hell forever, not to mention the Satan crap?
DON'T YOU KNOW, THAT TO TEACH THAT SHIT TO CHILDREN IS CHILD ABUSE?
Dan (71 year old agnostic)
If I didn't yet make it clear enough, let me help you a little more.
SoldOutChristian said:
"If you cannot be consistent with your walk with Christ wherever you go, then how am I to be convinced that you grasp who Jesus really is as your Lord and Savior?"
Nobody that believes in Christ would refer to other Christians with the word "your" in this sentence. They would have the natural inclination to use "our" because he's the Lord and Savior of all those that truly believe and love him.
As well, very few true Christians would utter the words "I have souls to save". This is a most arrogant statement that shouldn't be stated with someone that lives with the Holy Spirit as his guide. It is God that saves souls, not us. He let's us work in his vineyard but, ultimately, whether or not a branch bears fruit is entirely up to him, not us.
To answer the person about their concern with my using the word "truth", the answer is, yes, it is true for all believers. For us, the truth is true....it's not a half truth, it's completely true. I'm sure you've heard by now that nobody can know the truth unless God let's them know the truth. And God won't let anyone know the truth unless they turn their will towards him. The logical deduction from this is that many people today don't know the truth because they don't want to know it. Plain and simple.
It's quite possible that SoldOutChristian is not actually a professing Christian, but an impostor, as you suggest. It matters very little to me. Let them speak up if they wish, and we'll attempt to discern where they stand based on what they say. Fair enough? Either way, SOC's criticism is legitimate, in my opinion; many visiting Christians at this site pretend that they know things they do not. It becomes abundantly clear that most of them simply repeat things they've heard and uncritically accepted, which is a poor substitute for "knowledge".
Yogi: "To answer the person [that would be me, JA] about their concern with my using the word 'truth', the answer is, yes, it is true for all believers."
What question are you answering "yes" to? I asked whether you realized that calling something a "true" does not in itself make it true. What does "it is true for all believers" mean in that context? What is the "it" you are referring to?
Yogi continues "For us, the truth is true....it's not a half truth, it's completely true...."
Rather like "white" meaning "white", not "purple", not "yellow", not shades of "gray". Right? Okay, I'm with you at the level of word meaning. Let's move on...
"I'm sure you've heard by now that nobody can know the truth unless God let's them know the truth."
Sure, I've heard that from believers hundreds (if not thousands) of times. Check. Let's move on...
"And God won't let anyone know the truth unless they turn their will towards him."
Yes, I've heard that one too. Probably as many times. Got it. Let's move on....
"The logical deduction from this is that many people today don't know the truth because they don't want to know it. Plain and simple."
Hold it. Let's summarize before we deduce:
1) "True" means "true"; not "false", not "maybe", but "true". Check.
2) Christians say that all "truth" comes from god. Check--many Christians do indeed assert that.
3) Christians say that belief in god (i.e. "turning one's will toward god") is a prerequisite for god to reveal what is "true". Check--many Christians do indeed assert that.
Okay, let's get back to your "logical deduction". You said
"The logical deduction from this is that many people today don't know the truth because they don't want to know it. Plain and simple."
Ooopsie. We have a small problem here. Let me isolate it for you so that maybe you can fill in the missing bits. Okay? Your premises, which I've agreed to above, concern word meanings and what Christians assert. I saw nothing very controversial in those premises (aside from the fact that not all Christians will agree, but inserting the word "many" fixes that.) However, your conclusion speaks to what people actually "know" and why. Do you see what happened here? You start with simple facts about what Christians assert, but then take the liberty of assuming those assertions are indeed true. To put it plainly, how do you know that
1) All truth comes from god, and
2) this god only reveals what is true to those who believe in her.
It seems that those two "facts" are the crux of your argument, right? I might add that there is an even more basic one that you did not address: whether your god actually exists. May you wish to start there.
I'll reiterate my simple question from before, as it seems you went off on a tangent and neglected to address it. You agree that simply calling something "true" does no in itself make it true, right? I think that's a very easy question, and you needn't appeal to any theology to give a succinct answer to it.
I've heard pastors scream at congregations all across the planet "Is Jesus YOUR Lord and Savior?"
Finger pointing is quite common in Christian conversation. I mean, look at what you just did!
Yes, of course, calling something "true" does not in itself make it true. What you fail to see is that we are believers. We believe the written testimony of these men in the new testament. Because we believe, we conclude that it is true. You see, we, believers, agree with the judgement that the new testament reveals about each of us. We agree that we are selfish people that cannot ever be truly and perfectly good. We accept this statement and from this conclusion, we thankfully accept the gift Christ offers through faith.
Is it in fact true? That's a topic that has been covered by thousands of apologetics. If a non-believer reads every single one of them, there is still no guaranty that he'll believe any of it. Why, because it starts inside a person's heart. No amount of reading will bring anyone to the truth, not even reading the bible will guaranty a person will believe. You people are probably proof of that point, a cursory look at posts from this site reveals people that appear to have read the bible.
So, based on my beliefs, yes, I still conclude the the following statement is true:
"The logical deduction from this is that many people today don't know the truth because they don't want to know it. Plain and simple."
We can't blame God for it, can we? My beliefs inform me that he's always willing to respond to a repentant heart. So, why are so few people repenting? It must be because they don't want to accept the truth as it's being revealed. They want to make their own rules and that, is simply choosing to ignore the truth. In other words, they don't want to know it. They want to make their own truth or choose one that is more fitting to their lifestyle.
"Finger pointing is quite common in Christian conversation. I mean, look at what you just did!"
You call it finger pointing to help someone see that they are trying to dissuade discussions about the truth, a truth that they "apparently" believe in? No, this is called pointing out a fraud and I'm quite certain that you can see the difference.
It's patently clear to me and everyone else here that you believe in Christianity, so what you must be asserting is that I fail to appreciate the implications of your belief. However, that too is incorrect. I have a fairly good idea of how you "reason" as a believer, having discussed and debated theology with so many Christians. Everyone is different--granted--but there are some typical thought patterns that show up repeatedly in believers.
Yogi: "We believe the written testimony of these men in the new testament. Because we believe, we conclude that it is true."
That's as clear a statement as I could have hoped for. As a "non-believer" I base my beliefs (to the extent possible) on what I deem to be true or likely, not the other way around. So there you have a very fundamental difference between us. I can provide substantial justification for my choice; I'm wondering how you justify yours. That is, why do you think it's a good idea to believe first, and then to decide what is true based on belief?
Yogi: "Is it in fact true? That's a topic that has been covered by thousands of apologetics. If a non-believer reads every single one of them, there is still no guaranty that he'll believe any of it. Why, because it starts inside a person's heart."
Can you think of another possible explanation? Here, let me offer you one. We are not convinced by the apologists because their arguments are weak at best (actually, the vast majority are outright fallacies). If you disagree (and you must), let's hear what you think are the best arguments. I guarantee we've heard them all before, however, so don't expect anybody here to be impressed by them; I simply ask out of curiosity.
Yogi: "No amount of reading will bring anyone to the truth,..."
It depends entirely on what you read, and what you do with the information. Wouldn't you agree?
Yogi: "...not even reading the bible will guaranty a person will believe. You people are probably proof of that point, a cursory look at posts from this site reveals people that appear to have read the bible."
Absolutely so! In fact, you will find dozens of testimonies here from apostates who only began to seriously question their faith upon a careful reading of the Bible--ALL of it. I'm actually shocked by how many professing Christians have never read it. Let's agree on this: If you profess to be a Christian, you ought to at least read the entire Bible for yourself! Yes?
Yogi: "We can't blame God for it, can we?"
Please don't speak for me or anybody else here. I/we don't believe in you god, so I/we wouldn't think of blaming her for anything (except, perhaps, metaphorically). Does that make sense to you?
Yogi: "My beliefs inform me..."
I honestly don't see how "beliefs" can "inform". They certainly *influence*, but inform? Only if they happen to be true beliefs, which you do not seem to be interested in establishing, given that you think "truth" is subservient to "belief".
Yogi: "So, why are so few people repenting? It must be because they don't want to accept the truth as it's being revealed...."
Again, allow me to offer you an alternative explanation. We are not "repenting" because we simply do not believe in your religion. We think it's a man-made fantasy, precisely like myriad other religions. Once again, Yogi, simply putting the label "truth" on something does not make it true. I find it odd that you incessantly plaster that label on your statements. Unless you have something substantive to support your beliefs, that's all they are; beliefs. Labels do not fool anyone.
Yogi: "They want to make their own rules and that, is simply choosing to ignore the truth."
Hardly. That's a simple-minded "just-so" story based on nothing at all; and there's that empty label again ("truth") that you think you are entitled to apply simply because you believe.
Yogi: "You call it finger pointing to help someone see that they are trying to dissuade discussions about the truth,..."
That comment came from the WebMaster, not me. But once again, you are calling something "truth" when it is nothing more than *belief*--you admitted this yourself. You think something is TRUE because you BELIEVE. That's quite backwards to us.
Yogi: "...a truth that they 'apparently' believe in? No, this is called pointing out a fraud and I'm quite certain that you can see the difference."
Sorry, but you lost me. Who is engaging in fraud? None of the regulars here believe in your god, and we are quite up-front about that, are we not? Are you suggesting that we secretly share your beliefs? I can't be sure. I will not attempt to respond until you clarify.
By the way, here's a question for you. How would you ever come to the realization that Christianity is a man-made cult if that were indeed the case? How would you find your way out if you place belief above all else? Can you entertain that hypothetical and give me a straight answer?
"Your post is full of presumptions..."
"This is a most arrogant statement..."
"There is nothing Christian about your post... Nobody that truly believes in Christ would ever speak in such a way. If ... you are Christian, then it is I that is disappointed in you and I will pray our God to rebuke you."
But this is entirely off topic and irrelevant. Point away.
The fact that you prefer mystical magical explanations for some things and we prefer rational explanations for the same, doesn't make either of us a better person.
Your way of thinking, very likely, can make you much more acceptable in our larger society, because of the fact that there are more of you, than us.
What it will do for sure though, is retard your thinking mechanisms for as long as you have faith and belief in an invisible, magical deity, and the ridiculous collection of odd, written, and oral, mumbo jumbo that supports it.
You will go through life making decisions based on this belief. Convoluted decisions based on what you have been told, is the desire of your imaginary God.
Some of the things that you may do as a result of having faith in imaginary beings are: You may drown your children to keep the devil from getting them
You may kill someone who professes to believe in a different magical being than the one that you believe in.
You may drink poisoned Kool Aid, because have been told that you must, by your spiritual leader.
You may spend your whole lifetime trying, and failing to justify your beliefs to your logical rational self.
The only thing that will happen to us is that we will live and die not knowing for sure what is in store for us, if anything after we die.
We will be accepted by a much smaller community of people, as the "avant guard" in revolutionary thought, always has.
Other that that, we will get better and better at thinking for ourselves, and knowing what is real and what isn't.
Dan (71 year old agnostic)
By the way, here's a question for you. How would you ever come to the realization that Christianity is a man-made cult if that were indeed the case?
Not possible, because I know in my heart that it is true. There is plenty of proof and you've likely heard it all. As I said, nobody can hear the truth unless they change their heart. I don't see how anything could ever bring me to completely deny God's existence. Even if my entire world crumbled around me, I hope that my faith would be sustained.
I call this finger pointing:
"Your post is full of presumptions..."
"This is a most arrogant statement..."
"There is nothing Christian about your post... Nobody that truly believes in Christ would ever speak in such a way. If ... you are Christian, then it is I that is disappointed in you and I will pray our God to rebuke you."
And I would point my finger again. There is nothing wrong with using our gifts of reason and the moral truths imprinted on our hearts. People believe that judging is wrong but what is actually wrong, is to judge with arrogance. To judge without ever acknowledging our own shortcomings. We have the ability to perceive immoral behavior and it isn't wrong to rebuke someone when we see it, all the while being respectful of their state in life. What is wrong is to judge anyone to the point of condemnation. Obviously, nobody can ever completely know someone else's life experiences and make a proper objective analysis of their state in the eyes of God. Only God knows man's heart and we should never make any conclusion about a person's salvation. But, we can most certainly observe behaviors and judge them as being moral or immoral.
So yes, WebMaster, I am pointing out problems with SoldOutChristian's post. If you know Christian beliefs, than you can see that my reasons for rebuking him are based on the acepted beliefs of all Christians.
Yogi replied "Not possible, because I know in my heart that it is true."
You did not answer the question, Yogi. The question contained a hypothetical situation, which you ignored. In fact, that's precisely why I asked the question--to see if you are capable of entertaining a hypothetical situation that you find objectionable. It would appear (based on your reply) that you cannot.
So, it seems you would be (and in fact, are) trapped in the cult indefinitely because you lack the vital tools of escape: the freedom to entertain alternatives. Aren't you even going to pose a similar question for me? Aren't you the least bit curious? (Probably not.)
Yogi: "There is plenty of proof and you've likely heard it all."
There are plenty of arguments, yes, and I probably have seen the vast majority of them, another yes. None that I have ever seen, however, even rise to the level of credible evidence, let alone "proof". (There's another label that you use somewhat indiscriminately--"proof".)
Yogi: "As I said, nobody can hear the truth unless they change their heart."
That's your mantra--it's one of the keystones in the brick silo you've built around yourself. Your reference to "heart" here is an emotional ploy that allows you to ignore or at least downplay "reason". What you are saying is, in effect, that unless we feel the same emotional attraction to Christianity that you do, and are willing to allow it to override reason, then we will remain free of the cult. And that is absolutely so. However, that fact looks very different depending on which side of the silo you're on. You see it as safeguarding "truth"; we see it as engendering delusion.
Yogi: "I don't see how anything could ever bring me to completely deny God's existence...."
Oh, I think that's much too stark an outcome to discuss with you. Let's look at something much more mundane. Can you even allow yourself to ask why you believe what you believe? Can you allow yourself to entertain possible worlds that are different from the one you build for yourself? I suspect not. If that is so, your statement above follows as a trivial corollary.
Now, you wrote this: "We have the ability to perceive immoral behavior and it isn't wrong to rebuke someone when we see it."
Setting aside whether it is right or wrong to rebuke other people, what immoral behavior have you "perceived" having been committed by any of the people who are posting observations and opinions on this site? Hmmm?
Your knowledge of pathology is pathetic, and your grasp of ethics appears to be somewhere down in the .000001 range, too. (I mean, really! Who sold you that crap about "the Fall"? Demand double your money back, STAT.)
Lose that imaginary loser of a god, and stand up for yourself as a human being.
Naah, there's "evil" and "disease" in the Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer, too.
Chuck: We chose to turn away from God when given the choice to follow Him.
"WE"? We, WHO?...what, y'got a turd in your pocket? And whAT "God"?....how can anyone "turn away" from something that they cannot see?...from something that is intangible? Listening.
Chuck: Now disease and evil are a part of life and if God fixed every horrible situation, how is that different than the Garden of Eden...?
I've got news for you---"disease" and "evil" existed long before biblical times. And if you are a grown adult who believes that "disease" is the result of "evil"; and "evil" was the result of two Caucasian humanoid prototypes, a talking snake, and some fruit?.... then contratulations----you are INSANE. 'Get help.
Chuck: We can't have Eden until Jesus comes back.
Right, right, "Jesus" has been "coming back" for two THOUSAND years, now. When donkeys fly.
(of course, that might not be too far off, since donkeys can already "talk")
Chuck: That should make us even more grateful for the .000001 percent of prayers that He answers, though I believe it is a much higher number than that.
I think the "1" is a typo'.
"That should make us even more grateful for the .000001 percent of prayers that He answers, though I believe it is a much higher number than that"
---
Hey Charlie,
So you say god answers only One/One-millionth of One percent of prayers.
So if I'm doing the math right here, that results in 300 answered prayers for the USA population of 300 Million people
(assuming all 300 million prayed ONE prayer or some equal combination thereof)
Now we have already learned from xtians that all answered prayers come in 3 forms....YES, NO and MAYBE.
To play fair, let's divide that up evenly into thirds.
So 100 folks get a flat out NO (versus a non-answered prayer, which really is the same strange result)
Another 100 folks get a MAYBE, which means at least a delayed YES answer, which of course a YES delayed answer might mean tomorrow or not until the day you die.
Then again, the delayed answer might come back as a NO.
That leaves 100 folks of 300 Million, who get a YES 'immediate' answer from your god.
Out of those 100 folks, how many asked for the stain to come off their shirt while doing laundry?
How many prayed for rainfall to water their gardens or their spouse not to be late for dinner.
I would say at least half the praying done to god is for non-miracle type things that might happen regardless.
So now we are down to 50 folks of the 300 Million, who got a YES answer from god, for more than some mundane wish.
That leaves about 50 who asked to be cured of cancer, or prayed to get some needed heavy amount of cash (but still a pitiful ZERO amount who asked to have an arm or leg restored that was blown off or surgically amputated).
Therefore, saying one prayer to god gives odds of about 50 in 300 Million to get a YES answer for anything serious in nature that is needed from god.
Well gosh, I guess if I want something very important, I'd have to pray to your god a few million times to have decent odds of getting his help.
I better get started right away. Time is a-wasting here.
I guess this also explains why we see NO effect for prayer, as it's as hidden as your god likes to be and just about as useless, according to this math.
Have you informed all those famous TV xtian healers that the success rate is THIS dismal?
Heck, you might as well count on winning the mega-milions lotto game, as to count on winning a YES from this god of yours.
For all intents and purposes, god answers zero prayers for you xtians, just like he answers zero prayers for the rest of us.
Funny how having such a powerful god around doesn't do humanity much good huh.
But now we know WHY, don't we Charlie.
If the number is much higher, as you later suggest here, would you mean 10% higher by this 'much' word, or a far larger number and if it's a much larger number, can you show us the studies done to prove this larger number Charlie, hmmm
So tell me Charlie, why does your bible make us believe god would answer far more prayers than you would have us believe?
Did god change the rules and only told you about this change?
If he only gives YES answers to such a tiny few, and it seems that never includes his human xtian leaders, then why would he bother to answer any at all.
Is he perhaps too busy fighting the devil off, or just got lazy in his old age?
You tell us, know-it-all Charlie.
ATF (who is forever grateful for those measly 50 YES answers this busy god can muster up in his old age)
Clarification: When I said God only answers .000001 percent of prayers, I was indirectly quoting the originator of this discussion who says that there is a "99.9999% failure rate for prayer". I, personally, do not believe the success rate is so low. That's why I said: "though I believe it is a much higher number than that."
I can't prove to you the extent to which God answers prayer. I can say that He has told me "Yes" before. My grandfather had cancer and was given two months to live, but when he went back to the doctor a week later, there was no cancer in his body - no evidence that it had been there. I had prayed for him to be healed, and so had a great many other people. I know God hears us, but He can see everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, unlike us, who can only see the universe from our tiny perspectives. Sometimes prayer is answered with a "no" and there might just be a good reason for it, though you may never know what that reason is.
I can answer your prayers the same way your current god does. Try it and see. I also have the extra advantage of actually existing.
So why not worship me and give me 10% of your earnings?
Now, how about you show us the evidence that it was indeed cancer your grandfather had and not a mistake by the doctors/hospital staff. Direct us to the medical reports and subsequent investigation into this "miracle".
Doctors make mistake diagnosis. So how do you "know" your god did this "miracle"? How do you "know" it wasn't Odin, Ra, or any of the other deities that had pity on your grandfather?
Did you just assume that it was the biblegod? Why? Why couldn't it have been another god or just a medical error that was corrected, thus making you and your grandfather think it was a miraculous event so he would be less likely to sue?
Look at me I'm a lil nobody that searches for the lil things in someones speech and hounds them down for it. So you finally realise that the Christian thing aint so real and so you start speaking rudely and inconsiderately to people? Charming. And don't you go paying out the christians as if you know the bible better than them, cos majority of you don't. Easy to see that. And mr. Webmaster, you told someone to read the bible at least once all the way through. To that I must ask, Have you ever been to church? Yes I hear? Good. Did you go on a sunday? Yes I hear again...PERFECT EXAMPLE THAT YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BIBLE ALL THE WAY THROUGH AT LEAST ONCE. How old are you guys? 15?
You should all stop talking like your the superior.
We have no obligation and no desire whatsoever to be nice to you. "Rude and inconsiderate" is what we do around here, and with good reason: This is a place for us to rant and commiserate about bad experiences with Christianity. You are now just another one of those bad experiences.
And WTF are you trying to prove with that "Sunday" nonsense? Yes, the Sabbath is Saturday. Some Christian congregations do indeed meet on Saturdays. Most do not. It baffles me how you can draw the conclusion "He went to church on a Sunday; therefore, he never read the Bible."
As far as your statement goes, I think there is a lot that you are leaving out. James 1:8 of the Christian Bible says, "If you don't ask with faith, don't expect the Lord to give you an answer." This makes sense in the dying person scenario. If someone truly has faith, he/she will not pray to God only because he/she wants something but rather he/she would praise His name for giving him/her the gift of life and love. If someone only prays to get what they want, what kind of faith is that? That is not praying out of faith, that is prayer fro you. You want what you want and have no desire to follow what God has planned. Someone who asks with faith realizes who God is and that they may not get a yes about the prayer because He knows what is best for the Earth (Kind of how a mother knows what's best for her little boy. Even if the little boy thinks it is dumb and wants to eat chocolate for dinner, the mother knows that a healthy boy can't eat chocolate for dinner and grow properly. The boy can make the argument of "I don't feel any different when I eat chocolate for dinner than when I eat vegetables, so I should be eating chocolate," but if he did eat the chocolate for dinner, his health would deteriorate very quickly and end in numerous health problems.)
This argument can go on forever if we let it, as long as people see what is right many will always choose what is wrong. A great philosopher named Anselm wrote: "It is impossible to make any argument for or against God without understanding and having faith."
- It is my prayer that what I wrote is only an instrument of what God wants his creation to hear and that somehow it has an impact in someones life.-
"In response to this article, how do you know what God has to say about prayer? You may have talked to a few ill-informed "Christians" who may not know what God has to say about prayer. One way or another, I suggest you read the bible. If you are going to defame something, you better understand what it exactly says. Who knows, maybe you might have a change of heart"
---
Anonymous (who's knows how to write, but NOT how to pick a name),
Once again we have some anonymous person chiming in here, making an assumption that we haven't read their precious babble-book.
Oh gosh yes, if only all of us had read your god book, then for sure we'd all see things YOUR way, right anonymous?
Most of us know your bible better than you do, I dare say!!
As far as knowing "exactly" what your bible says, it's just NOT possible for any person or organization to know 'exactly' what this bible book really says, no matter how many times one were to read it.
If it was merely as simple as reading your book, then everyone would get the same messages from it, but instead we have thousands of xtian factions because they disagree as to what it really says.
Your god did a piss-poor job of writing his manual to his beloved humans!!!
So yes, we did have a "change of heart", as we saw behind the curtain and found out the god-wizard was nothing more than a human(s) with an urban legend to spread around.
Come back anonymous, when you can provide some proof that YOU discovered the exact meaning of your bible words and I'll get you on a nationwide TV program to spread your great understanding to everyone.
In fact, you can pray to your god for that proof, because after all, YOU surely have a direct connection to your god, via your great faith, right?
ATF ( who is waiting for the line...Thou shall not tempt thy lord thy god, to come next)
Hey, wait a just a cotton-pickin' minute...you just said "no human lives forever". So, unless you become something other than human when you expire, that would rule out "life eternal". 'Care to explain?
Ted continues......or eventually die and realize that this Heaven and Hell thing is true and now my feet are hot!
Um, how will you "realize" anything when you're DEAD? And if you figure that much out, how about if you "realize" that you bet all your cards on the wrong "God"? Then what?
Ted...My last point is that the gift of eternal salvation is free...no strings attached.
Liar. You must accept the "gift". There's your "string".
Ted...Just my two cents on how I came to believe.
Yes, "Pascal's Wager"..i.e...believe out of fear and intimidation. Good grief...what an utterly poor reason to believe something. It's logically worth about one "cent", so you're evidently price gouging.
1. This article, at its very best, proves not that God doesn't exist, but that prayer doesn't work in the way many people believe it does.
2. This is not a logically structured argument. It is merely observational.
you can sit here, posting all this dumb shit about not beliving in christ. & how none of what christians belive is true, but i will tell you one thing right now..
you can say what you need to say. think what you need to think. tell yourself he isnt true.. make your self belive something.. just to make yourself feel better.. but there is a god. there is something bigger out there. something watching over me every night. there is something that i pray to everynight.
proof? you want some.
how about you take about an hour of your time.. to sit down, & pray to him. give yourself to him.
& ask him for a SIGN. a sign to show that he is real. give it a couple days.. months.. however long it needs to. but i will tell you one thing right now, that sign is gonna come up. when you least expect it.
when i was young, i used to sit down everynight & pray to god.
tell him everything that i have done. talk to him, like he is my bestfriend.. & one night, i just prayed for hours.
praying about stuff normal 13 year olds wouldnt.
& this light appeared infront of me. i cant descirbe it.. i dont know what it was a first. but it had a face. & it had a smile. & the softest blue eyes. it reached out & touched my hand.
chill's came up my body.
& i felt protected. i felt amazed.
i was shocked.
& do you wanna know what i call that? i call it an angel.
from heaven. sent from god.
god talks to me.. he helps me.
every single day of my life.
& im not asking you to belive what im saying. & im not asking you to give yourself to god. but i am asking you to remember my words.
because they are true.
& one day, your gona stand before god. & he is gonna tell you what im telling you. so remember what im saying.
do you want to spend forever in hell? please, please just listen to me. here me out. i wouldnt be taking up all my time writting this if it wasnt true;
if there wasnt a god.
because there is.
just please.
pray.
ask him for forgivness.
JUST TRY IT. & if it doesnt work, & he doesnt answer your prayers..
then STOP. but im telling you you wont regret this. not now. not never.
not when your in heaven, thanking me.. because im the girl who saved you.
Prove it. We are totally unconvinced by your subjective and unverifiable 'angel' testimony, probably triggered by hours and hours of self-hypnosis "prayer" and heavily biased by beliefs that were already brainwashed into you by the adults in your life:
"when i was young, i used to sit down everynight & pray to god."
See, what did I tell you? You were praying because someone had previously told you about this alleged god.
"...but i am asking you to remember my words... because they are true.... & one day, your gona stand before god."
Again, more evidence that you were fucking brainwashed, psychologically abused into belief by tales of heaven and hell.
Yes, I am calling your parents and other religious teachers abusers. What they have done to your mind is truly shameful.
"do you want to spend forever in hell?"
Well, I don't think that "Hell" exists; but I would much sooner go there than worship a god that would create such a place as Hell. Because any being that would deliberately create such a place is not to be trusted. Period.
"i wouldnt be taking up all my time writting this if it wasnt true..."
I have no doubt that you think that it's true, but I see no evidence that it actually is true.
I also think that you are naïve and extremely uncritical in your beliefs. You may be getting some comfort from what you believe, but in My opinion those benefits are coming entirely from your own imagination and unconscious mind.
"ask him for forgivness."
No fucking way. I do not negotiate with invisible, intangible supernatural terrorists. Any god that would require people to beg for 'forgiveness' is an egotistical, controlling bastard completely unworthy of My respect.
And, once again, this obsession with 'forgiveness' indicates that Christian mythology was drummed into your head by childhood indoctrination.
you can sit here, posting all this dumb shit about not beliving in christ.
----
jllnmcdwll,
Besides the fact that your writing style is still that of a 13 year old child, since when does a "true xtian" ever use the words "shit" and "christ" in the same 'sentence'?
The only thing "dumb" here I see, is your own inability to face reality.
>you can say what you need to say. think what you need to think. tell yourself he isnt true.. make your self belive something.. just to make yourself feel better.
Actually, the huge lack of evidence for your god/jesus, is what pretty much did all the convincing for us. I most certainly did not 'make' myself disbelieve in your god.
Myths are funny that way, as they pretty much speak for themselves, if you take just a little bit of time to actually look at them with open eye's.
> but there is a god. there is something bigger out there.
Yes, bigger. It's called the UNIVERSE and it contains no god(s) that are holding the hands of any humans.
>something watching over me every night. there is something that i pray to everynight.
Do you also still have monsters under your bed as well?
Perhaps you should call Ghostbusters, to have that infestation that watches you when you sleep, removed from your bedroom?
(or maybe the police, if it's made from flesh and blood)
>proof? you want some.
Yes please.
We have yet to see ANY proof of your god and we've waited an awful long time for some enlightened xtian to bring some to us.
>how about you take about an hour of your time.. to sit down, & pray to him. give yourself to him.
& ask him for a SIGN. a sign to show that he is real.
Been there, got that T-shirt, but still no god answered.
Perhaps I was wearing the wrong T-shirt at the time?
(maybe I needed a glow-in-the-dark T-shirt instead)
>when i was young, i used to sit down everynight & pray to god.
Yeah, I did the same stupid thing when I was young.
>tell him everything that i have done. talk to him,
How can you decipher the difference between your talking to god and talking to your stuffed animals?
Maybe your stuffed animals are also really like mini-gods?
>like he is my bestfriend.. & one night, i just prayed for hours.
praying about stuff normal 13 year olds wouldnt.
I see your problem now.
Spending hours praying to some mythical invisible being and wishing hard for it to answer back, would make a lot of people teeter on the brink of temporary insanity.
> this light appeared infront of me. i cant descirbe it.. i dont know what it was a first. but it had a face. & it had a smile. & the softest blue eyes. it reached out & touched my hand.
So this so called being, that was made of photons, had the ability to TOUCH your hand?
Do you perhaps have this over-fondness for blue eyes?
You didn't by chance, have any stuffed pals in your bedroom, that had a smiling face and soft blue eye's, or something close to that description, that your mind could see in the way your describe?
>chill's came up my body. & i felt protected. i felt amazed.
i was shocked.
Shocked you say?
Maybe the stuffed pet developed a short circuit.
I guess you're also saying that angels love to give children the 'chills'?
Who knew!!
>god talks to me.. he helps me. every single day of my life.
Do us a favor and set up a video recorder tomorrow, when the witching hour arrives where you hear (or see) god or an angel talking to you. Please record any sights or sounds from these un-natural creatures.
We'd love to see this revealing video on youtube.com.
& im not asking you to belive what im saying. & im not asking you to give yourself to god.
Whew, for a moment I thought you were going to ask us to believe and convert.
I was getting *chills* up my spine just thinking you would.
> but i am asking you to remember my words.
Okay, Deal,
I'll remember them until I hit the post button, ok
>because they are true.
Now where have I heard those words before.
Oh, from every person making some supernatural claim, that's where.
>& one day, your gona stand before god.
Wait a second, are you saying that this god can't afford chairs for us to sit in and we have to stand the whole time. Sounds way too much like church services to this tooth fairy.
I'll pass, but thanks anyway.
>do you want to spend forever in hell?
That depends on if the devil provides marshmallows or not?
>please, please just listen to me.
Are you begging me now.
Does your god beg as well, maybe like a hungry puppy, that gives you that puppy-dog look for some food?
This 'begging' of yours has other interesting 'potentials', but well, ohhhh never mind [g]
> here me out.
Do you mean 'here' me out, or hear me out?
I'm not sure I know how to accommodate the former.
> i wouldnt be taking up all my time writting this if it wasnt true; if there wasnt a god.
I have this really cool looking golden bridge for sale and I wouldn't be taking the time to answer your post, if it wasn't a legit business deal.
So what do you bid for my cool bridge, hmmm
>ask him for forgivness.
Wait, I have to ask this god for "forgivness"?
Did I do something wrong, that needs some invisible sky daddy to forgive me for doing?
I think..... NOT.
Perhaps you should worry about your 'sins' and not be concerned if others have sinned against your precious god.
>JUST TRY IT. & if it doesnt work, & he doesnt answer your prayers..
then STOP.
Hey, that's exactly what I did do.
Prayed, and then STOPPED when it had no results and wasted far too much of my time.
> but im telling you you wont regret this.
Too late, I already very much regret trying to appease your dumb god myth.
>not when your in heaven, thanking me.. because im the girl who saved you.
You don't by chance have a star map of where this heaven might be at, do you?
I was thinking of maybe taking my summer vacation there this year.
I hear it's a HELL of a trip, but their party hour is overflowing with SPIRITS.
ATF (Who always wondered what a writing style would look like, if one stopped going to school at age 13....and now I have that answer)
Religion on a whole is shit
total rubbish
If you believe in a god you should believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunnies
They all fall under the same category :
A figment of one's imagination
A.K.A.
A TOTAL SHIT HOLE
Looking forward to all your opinions :)
Vince
Hmmmm.... you seem to have some issues with science. Please tell us this isn't your belief about the "theory" of gravity? It's an excerpt regarding the christian viewpoint that gravity is just another "theory" and does not exist.
"Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is."
The full quote and some interesting comments can be found here:
http://fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=21411
I can't help but wonder what Jerry Falwell thought about this particular "theory".
I say prove to me their isn't a God.
Hmmmmmm, that’s a tough one. Show me how it’s done by proving Zeus, Poseidon, Krishna, Allah and Thor don’t exist, and I’ll use your method.
BTW it's "there" not "their"
--S.
...if i'm wrong, i've lived (in my opinion) a happy life where I haven't done anything too unmoral...blah, blah, blah, If your wrong though and their is a God, your screwed in which their is a hell and you burn their for eternity.
Isn't it amazingly, curious, Muslims think the same, exact, way you think. They say Allah and believing in Islam is the only way to paradise and if you don't practice the religion of Islam, abide by their doctrines and believe in the one, true, god, Allah, you will go to hell.
What if you're wrong?
--S.
There is a prophecy in the Old Testament which tells us when Israel would become a nation again after being scattered throughout the world. The prophecy is a simple math problem (Part one written by Moses, Part two by Ezekiel). When the simple "7th" grade math problem is worked out, our answer is May 14th, 1948.
In Leviticus chapter 25, God told His people to plant crops 6 years, let the land rest 1 year, a sabbath for the land.
In Leviticus chapter 26, God promises blessings for obedience, but He also warns them for disobedience. When you get to the 18th verse, He said He would punish them 7 more times if they do not hearken unto Him. Let me explain this part.
If a judge gives John Doe 4 years in jail, but allows him to come out on probation after 2 years because he hearkened unto the judge's word. John's time would be fulfilled in 2 years. But if he did not hearken unto the judge's word, when the first 2 years are complete, he would not be granted probation. The judge would take the remaining 2 years & multiply that by 7. Now John has 14 years left to finish his sentence.
When the nation of Israel had a chance to hearken unto God, they didn't. He took the remainder of the sentence & multiplied it by 7.
In 606 BC, the nation of Babylon was appointed by God to conquer and overthrow the Israelites. This is where their sentence begins. They would be in bondage for 70 years before their probationary time would begin. (II Chronicles 36:21, Daniel 9:2, Jeremiah 29:10)
They did not let the land rest every 7th year for a total of 490 years. A total of 70 Sabbaths for the land to rest. (Lev 25:1-4)
The total length of time was revealed to Ezekiel in the 4th chapter, verses 4-6. He was instructed to lie on his left side 390 days for the house of Israel then on his right side 40 days for the house of Judah. The end of verse 6 tells us that one day equals one year.......
390 + 40 = 430 days
one day = one year
430 total years of bondage to Gentile nations (Jail Sentence).
We begin our calculations in the year 606 BC
606 BC - 70 = 536 BC.. In 536 BC their probationary period would begin and would end in the year 176 BC if they would have hearkened unto the Lord. Only 4% to 7% did (Ezra lists the families who hearkened unto the Lord & went home, the rest stayed in Babylon). They did not hearken unto God, and in 536 BC, God multiplied the remainder by 7.
430 - 70 = 360 yrs 360yrs x 7 = 2,520 yrs
Now the nation of Israel would have to wait another 2,520 yrs before they be free...one problem, we have to convert from Biblical yrs to calendar years.
The calendar God uses only has 360 days to a year (Lunar years, from new moon to new moon). The calendar we use today has 365 days, 1 extra day every 4 years, Leap year (this is commonly known as the Julian calendar).
THE CONVERSION :
2,520 yrs X 360 days = 907,200 days
Now divide 907,200 days by 365.25 yrs
Total calendar yrs = 2,483.77
2,483.77 - 536 BC = 1947.77
Note: The years 1 BC - 1 AD were counted as 1 year instead of 2 yrs, therefore; we need to add 1 year to our calculations.
1947.77 + 1 = 1948.77
The Jewish New Year is Rosh Hashanna and falls in September or early October (it depends on the moon).
.77 months brings you to May of 1948
Israel became a nation on the 14th day of May in 1948.
Their sentence was complete, and according to their "Prophets" of the Old Testament, will never be plucked out of their land. Israel is here to stay!!!!!
Jeremiah 24:1-7.... the two baskets of figs represent the two nations, Israel and Judah
Ezekiel 37:15-28... verse 22 informs us that there will be one nation, no longer split into two kingdoms...
Hosea 3:4-5.......... the word latter means the hinder most end of time, in Hebrew
Amos 9:14-15.......God promises His people that He will never pull them out of their land again...
Zechariah 12:6-8....a strong military
If this can't be disproven God must exists, can it be disproven?
Wow this is the best you can come up with? The equation does not prove anything unless the verses are meant to be used in this way. Or that numerology is a biblically sanctioned method of understanding the Bible.
Furthermore the entire numerological argument for a really important prophecy hinges entirely on a single passage on crop rotation - excellent! Can someone say Cherry picker?
And it also relies on the assertion that the passage on crop rotation is somehow justification for a divine probation period. Nothing in Leviticus 25 to show that my friend - its pretty specific that its about livestock and crops, property rights and interest repayments. You might want to read it again.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0325.htm
You also have to get around the problem that Book of Daniels and book of Jeremiah state that the first deportations occurred in the reigns of different Kings of Judah. The earlier deportation is only of ruling members and their families and not the people of Judah themselves. Both books claim that it occurred at different times (different reigning Kings) - the real big exile does not occur close to the date you stated and the end of the Kingdom of Judah is dated at 586BCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehoiachin
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3401.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehoiakim
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1152.htm#28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_Captivi...
If you cant start at 606 - you cant get to 1947.77 despite all your efforts.
Better luck next time - i suggest finding new passages that will give you differentials or geometric progressions.
From: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/leaving_the_fold/...
"The figure of speech 'fig tree' has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the 'fig tree' put forth its first leaves.
Jesus said that this would indicate that He was 'at the door,' ready to return. Then Jesus said, 'Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place' (Matt 24.34) What generation?
Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs-chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948 [i.e., before 1988], all these things [including, according to Lindsey, the Temple being rebuilt, people fleeing to the mountains to escape the world's final battles, and Christ's return) could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so."
Well, it ain't so. What is so, is that Lindsey must now admit that a "life" of conservative/inerrantist "Bible study" can lead to erroneous "beliefs"!
ATF (Who once upon a time was sure Hal Lindsey was right)
It's all so silly when you honestly think about it. What a scam though. I bought all his books and so did hundreds of thousands of others. I wonder if he's Christian enough to offer a refund?
The onus is upon you to provide empirical, physical proof that an actual "god" exists. Until you do that, we have no reason to take you seriously.
Quite frankly, I think that this so-called "prophesy" is bogus. And this is why:
- It is totally within the power of humans to deliberately set up a nation on a date they consider auspicious; therefore, the origins of Israel are, at best, a self-fulfilling prophesy engineered by humans.
- The phrase 'Two baskets of figs' can mean fucking well anything you want it to, as long as 'two' is a part of the formula. It could be two nations, two *ahem* ladies of the evening, the two moons of Mars, or even... Dare I say this? ...two baskets of figs.
And we simply don't *care* what the Bible has to say, J, or how you choose to interpret it. Go poop scripture somewhere else.
If you only knew how upside down your thinking truly is <sigh>
ATF (Who loves smart-aleck comments thou)
...but He will always love you, He doesn't want you separated from him, but He will not violate your will...God wants you as you are
How are you privy to what god wants? How do you know this?
--S.
jon's proof:..........
You ultimately cannot disprove a belief accepted on "faith", thus, it is illogical to put forth such a burden. You cannot "disprove" that the Arch Angel Gabriel dictated the entire Qu'ran to Muhammad as he sat in a cave in the Middle-East; you cannot "disprove" that my neice has conversations with her stuffed giraffe; you cannot "disprove" that invisible gremilins swipe people's sunglasses and car keys. You cannot "disprove" any of these things, so I ask----is that a good reason to entertain them as plausible? If you are intellectually honest, you know the answer.
Jon(logical fallacy # 2): you may never believe God, you can curse him, fight him, and lead others away from him, but He will always love you...
"God" is an unproven hypothesis. Thus, to make statements about what "God" does and doesn't do, or what "God" will and won't do, is to commit an existential fallacy. Here's another example: Count Chocula gets really jealous when people purchase Frankenberry breakfast cereal!!!
Jon(logical fallacy # 3): He doesn't want you separated from him, but He will not violate your will.
If "God" knows the future, then at worst, we have no "free will" at all, and at best, that "free will" is an illusion.(I'm currently trying to drill this into some Xian's heads on another blog, BTW) The concepts "omniscience" and "free will" are mutually exclusive.
Jon continues...What do you want, and I'm not talking about religion, do you want the love, security, and purpose only God can give you or not? Whatever you chose it will be evident by your next comment.
Taking it from the first question---I want a lot of things, one thing is to abolish legendary thinking from the face of planet earth. Secondly, I get all the "love", "security", and "purpose" I need without belief in celestial dictator, thanks.
Jon: You always have an excuse to disbelieve God, but there's comes a point in time where it is so much more reasonable to believe God
How about if I become a Muslim by the end of the week? Will that make you happy? It won't, will it?...no, because when you use the generic term "God", you mean a specific "God". Thus, your beef isn't with people who don't believe in "God"; it's with people who are not "Christian".
Previously, Jon said: Hey check this out, what do you think? Some guy typed this:[insert mile long apologetic that seeks to confirm "Prophecy"]
The Bible also "predicts" that there will be backsliders, skeptics, Atheists, etc., and thus, if you insist that "God" knows the future, then we(Atheists, non-Christians, etc) are actually NECESSARY in fufilling biblical "Prophecy"!!! Imagine that!?!?!.......necessary.
So quit griping and fretting because you've encountered Atheists---biblegod NEEDS US for "His Plan", otherwise, "His" prophecy would be unfulfilled..i.e..failed!
= )
In reason, Boom'
“…the only reason I write is to defend the faith…”
Be honest Jon. You HAVE to do it for yourself.
It seems to me that, for ‘believers’, the doubt of non-believers opens the real possibility that their huge decision to trust in a completely unsubstantiated and supernatural love-and-afterlife insurance policy may be bogus.
They have to suppress the sickening realisation that they’ve quite willingly/ wittingly(?) allowed themselves to be had. To be fooled. So wasteful.
“…but you haven't disproven it….”
And you, my dear, like everybody who has ever insisted on the irrefutable factuality of the supernatural, haven’t been able to prove it. You’re simply demanding, or whining, that we believe YOU.
“…you may never believe God, you can curse him, fight him, and lead others away from him, but He will always love you,…”
All this, as he (or, as is often asserted by believers, I), consigns me to his great flaming pond to writhe in conscious agony for all eternity for the gross insult of disbelief. Thanks a million. Toujour lamour!
“What do you want, and I'm not talking about religion, do you want the love, security, and purpose only God can give you or not?”
I find, as I get older, that it’s somewhat childish and petulant to ‘want’.
In fact, I feel deeply privileged to receive the reciprocal love and respect of actual living creatures.
I don’t believe that making up and insisting on the actuality of such attentions is worthy or sane.
“God wants you as you are…”
That’d be as he/ she/ it made me.
So, if I’m acceptable anyway, what’s the problem with disbelief?
“…please don't leave any smart-aleck comments…”
Oh, why not? Look at what you’ve left..
Your lame earnestness is totally inappropriate.
Especially on this clearly titled site and to these belief-experienced posters.
In fact, it comes across as foolish or shameless sarcasm.
I've also wondered why so many religions have developed all over the world. Is it because its an excelent system for controlling people, that some ingenious person created? I know that religion has helped many monarchs stay in control in the past, such as Russia's king, and maybe in the past, religions had done the same with another king who knows.
In the idea that who created the universe, it seems humans have the tendency to believe that everything comes from something. Thus they ask who created the universe... who created God? As far as I believe without much knowledge, the universe goes on forever and it was here forever. Our planet is so miniscule in the universe, and there are so many more soalr systems out there. It is quite believable that at least one of these miniscule solar systems can support life, and thus I believe our planet was the lucky one. There didnt have to be a god that put everything here, cause if he did, he had to put all the other solar systems out there too, and that would of been much more harder and much more of an important job than just one single planet. The bible if u ask me, is the most intriguing thing about the whole religion.
uhhh god could exist also, i mean why are animals so symetrical, is it because of the way dna forms creatures? and mutations are not so hard to come by, i mean i got bent pinkies which im pretty sure is a mutation that i developed without inheriting. So darwin's theory is qplausible to me in every way. In the case of giraffes, thats a good exmample of both religion and science.
sigh i dont even feel like posting o well.
"sorry, sorry, sorry god if i offended you amen"
lol
and i dont kno wat im talking about and i needa sleep cyaz
go ahead and bash the shit out of wat i said, its funny and interesting.
That's so wonderful that the Almighty loved your father so much to send a snow storm to delay his passage through the Alps so he wouldn't die on the Titanic.
Now, I ask you: Why didn't God help any of the people who did drown? Better yet, why didn't he simply keep the Titanic from sinking altogether?
Logic and Christianity never mix.
You've gOT to be kidding me. So, we are to believe that "God" worked a "Miracle" by answering "no" to one individual's "prayer", thus, saving them from drowning. Okay, well, you might want to consider this: Likewise, "God" evidentally answered "no" to the hundreds of people swimming around in lethally fridged water---people who KNEW they were just seconds away from freezing to death. Or wait....maybe all the Titanic victims were Muslims. Yeah, that must be it.
Is Pangloss your tutor? LOL!!!
Explain in detail. I'm sure it's a doozy....LOL!!!
Didn't you know that Pearl Harbor was orchestrated by Yahweh, so my Dad would meet my Mom during WWII, and whom would later create.....ATF?
ATF (Who sees nothing wrong with that 'solid' reasoning <g>)
In other words....
If Pear Harbor was not attacked
then Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been bombed by nuclear weapons
which would not have led to the Cold War
Which would not have led to the partition of East and West Germany
Which would not have led to the need by the States to provide West germany with financial assistance
Which would not have made BMW a world automobile brand
Absurdity
ATF (Who wonders why god let all those Jews die in the first place, johnny boy?)
You wrote:
"God didn't answer that prayer and he ended up missing the boat. Had his prayer been answered, the Titanic would have sunk with one more person."
This tripe comes under the same heading as the infinitely more entertaining line about how the profoundly obese shouldn't flush the lav while they're still on it as they'll be trapped there because of the air-lock vaccuum thingy created by their total filling of the porcelain hole with their overly generous thighs and bum. (Crisis plan A: Rock gently to break seal.)
The heading is 'URBAN MYTH'!
Now listen, if all the great grandparents who were DIVINELY DEFLECTED from their rail connections to the, (enter name of a glamorously notorious doomed transportation mode), and a ghastly end were laid bald pate or sun-faded bonnet to hobnailed boot you'd have more metreage than you'd get doing the same thing with all the 'verified' shards, splinters and fragments of the 'True Cross' that have been peddled to gullible suckers since the whole Golgotha Franchise scam began. And there are a FOREST of them.
Honestly 'johnny5', I have read and been told that GLORIOUS STORY so many times!
Think again! Fizz it up!
And only post again when your brain grows back.
Oy!!
Had this man's great-grandfather been in, say, the French Riveria and a massive
snowstorm kept him from getting to the Titanic I'd say it might be a miracle.
On that day, plenty of people in the Alps region would have been delayed getting
to where they were going, even if their destination wasn't going to end in
tragedy.
Well here's a new one folks. A new god that is.
His name is "gor", which I assume would be a close relative to Thor; but maybe without the large hammer?
In any case James, your mind if playing tricks on you with this answered prayer you speak about.
Try praying to a milk carton with those same typical prayers and write them down in a notebook. Now keep track of which one's get answered in 24 hours and which do not.
Now see if praying to "gor" results in a higher count of prayers being answered.
I bet you see almost zero difference between these two tests.
The reason is simple James. If one ask any god (or any object) for a 'thing' to happen, a certain quantity will occur and a quantity will not. Just the throw of the dice is all.
What you are presently doing is assuming your positive results from praying, are because your god intervened in your life to provide you with what you prayed for.
Now if praying actually works for you James, then doesn't this lead to an obvious question, as to why god ignores the plight of helpless children; of the xtian faith or not?
Moreso, why are YOU so special James, that god answers you in 24 hours and ignores other xtians, who's needs greatly outweigh yours?
Think about why god didn't save your father, for surely god knew your father was important in your life, yet he let him die anyway....WHY?
Oh, and don't hand me that garbage that god works in mysterious ways, because that is plainly just a xtian excuse for the things you can't explain about your god being silent at times.
ATF (Who sees no reason to abandon logical thinking, for wishful thinking)
Rejecting the science of evolution doesn't make religious explanations true.
Your conclusion that we could not exist without the direct creative force of an intelligent entity is loaded with self-contradiction. If our existence is evidence of an intelligent creator, then what is the existence of your intelligent creator evidence of? In other words, if humans prove that god exists, then wouldn't your god prove that previous gods must exist?
It's like this, Amanda, as soon as you imagine that a god is capable of being self-existent without needing a creator of its own, you open the door to possibility of self-existence! What makes more sense to you, that all of nature is the result of natural causes, or that all of nature is the result of supernatural causes.
If you think nature is the result of supernatural causes, then there is no possibility of ever discovering anything about nature. We can only explore nature with the assumption that it is natural. Since human beings are natural, human beings cannot ever explore the supernatural. We aren't supernatural. While creationism feels like an answer to hard questions, in reality it is a roadblock to ever bothering to seek out the answers to hard questions. "God did it" feels like an answer, but actually fails to answer anything about anything. "God did it" doesn't even begin to explain how the universe came into being or where life began. You might as well say that some great ancient wizard from an alternate universe magically poofed everything into existence yesterday. When supernatural magic becomes the basis for your interpretation of reality, then imagination becomes reality.
In a letter to Eric Gutkind in 1954 Einstein said: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
Einstein was NOT a christian.
Amanda is a liar.
She only does her research from biased apologist lit-tur-ture.
Try reading the Bible from cover to cover - it will speed up your deconversion. You dont need science to be convinced the Bible is silly as Einstein said.
But you may want to read up on some science to figure out the reason why Amanda's comments on natural selection come from the same biased "research" sources.
Amanda,
Of course it's a struggle, for if the atheist/theist choice were blatantly obvious and required no thinking, everyone would just agree with each other on this issue.
I sure hope you didn't expect this to be easy?
A: However, in both sides of my research, I have concluded that it is more logical that God does exist.
Really, "Logical", you say?
Then why are the majority of the religious on this planet, using their own feelings, instead of logic to make this choice?
A: There is no way that this universe could have happened by chance, the odds are just way to low, Eienstein himself said so.
Lying for jesus is probably a sin, so be careful what you claim on his behalf.
A: He went from being a Jew to an Atheist then to a Christian because of all of the scientific proof.
Besides the evidence that Monkey's already provided you, I would like to know just what "scientific evidence" Eienstein discovered about the laws of nature, that made him think YOUR god had been responsible for it?
I'm betting you have nothing to show in this regard?
A: I concluded that without the creation of an intellegent design there is no chance we would be here.
Would you mind posting your research paper that addresses how you formed this unsupported conclusion?
I'm just dying to read it !!
A: We (all of creation) are just too complex to happen by chance.
Such an irrational statement is clearly a product of someone who is not very educated and who is also quite short-sighted in their ability to understand anything beyond the simple.
A: To be honest, evolution has never made much sense....[followed by statements that misrepresent the TOE]
Amanda, instead of learning science from apologetic xtian sources, you might want to visit your local library and actually read some book on how evolution works.
In the meanwhile, I highly suggest you get some education on this topic from this very qualified website.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evoluti...
Also, watch the video and read this page on our website as well:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/06/evol...
Please keep an open mind and absorb the evidence that is presented.
ATF (Who thinks Amanda is cherry-picking her evidence, to support her desires and feelings)
Look, I have had a real struggle in trying to find out if God is real or not so I have been pretty accepting to both sides, Atheism and Christianity. However, in both sides of my research, I have concluded that it is more logical that God does exist...blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Judging by your stellar research and superior intellect -- concluding Einstein was a christian -- coupled with your astute understanding of evolutionary biology, one can, only, conclude you are a complete douche-nozzle.
--S.
I'm sorry to report to you that Albert Einstein was not a christian and never claimed to be one.
Angela
Christians have been claiming for years that Einstein was a theist, but I've never before heard one claim that he was a Christian! A quick search online will reveal it to be untrue. Now, you need to ask yourself - if your pastor (or whoever) was wrong about that - might they not also be wrong about everything else?
And, even if it were true - I fail to see how rejecting existence "by chance" leads one straight to Christianity.
Cipher,
I think I've seen the formula for this illogic, in an old math class I took.
Existence by Chance=A
Creation by god=Z
A=1+ [A Xtian miracle occurs here] =Z = 0 / 0=Does not compute
There you go, mathematical proof that Amanda is wrong.
ATF (Who knows that god is also "Nothing", and can't be divided into himself)
Atheists: You argue that there is no God. I ask you this: If there is no God, where did the beginning of everything come from? Where did the very light that is around you now begin? How did everything that "is", everything that was and shall "be" arrive here?. How did what simply "is" come from? The intricately woven web of time and events didn't appear from nowhere. It continues, but with what force behind it? It just "Happens?"
Okay, the typical Atheist response to this is: "We must accept that there are things we don't understand about the creation of existance, but this does not prove the existance of some almighty God guy who sits in Heaven."
My answer to this is simple: By your laws of "Logic" not mere "faith" to guide your belief, then surely you will know and understand that, as a fundemental law of physics nothing can come from nothing. There must be a force to create a corresponding event. Something can't spring into what we call existance from nothing. By denying that there was a force that started it all, you are denying not only your "logical" laws of physics, but you are also telling me everything just popped into existance and everything just happened because it happened. Right.
As your "logical boss" once said:
Science without Religion is lame.
Religion without Science is blind. Einstein
and
"There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle. Einstein
You cannot deny that there was and is a greater force behind the beginning of everything that "is". Undeniably, even Atheists accept this, it must have come from somewhere. You cannot create a tower without bricks.
ANOTHER typical Aethist argument: "If God exists, why is there suffering, rape, pain, hardship and war?"
I am not going to try and spring the "free-will" argument on you, here, for I doubt that one myself. Instead, I want you to imagine this.
"There is no pain, no suffering. Everything is an ideal world for you. You are happy in everything you do, as is everyone else."
Let me ask you this: If you were CONSTANTLY happy with no sense of unhappiness or being miserable, how would you be able to "define" what happiness and being content is? The experience would not be pleasureable. You would not be able to differentiate it from being miserable; instead you would assume it was a miserable existance because you might feel that what you were feeling was unhappiness - you would have nothing to compare it to. (You might need a couple of minutes to understand this)
An Aethist response to this might be: "We're not asking to be happy. We're just asking not to be "UNHAPPY". Right. Then you would not be able to DIFFERENTIATE the two. Therefore you would not be "happy"; you would just sort of "be". Suffering creates compassion and helps us to appreciate the light in the world. It makes us stronger and more resolute as a people.
I am bored of typing to people who are clearly narrow minded now, but I will leave you with more quotes from your logical "boss"
The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly; this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man." Einstein
"I am not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they were written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, seems to me is the altitude of even the most intelligent human towards God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand those laws."
I am not asking you to believe God is some bloke who lives in heaven and came down to
It doesn't occur to you that we've heard the same arguments literally hundreds of times, yet you come here, with your dramatic "Listen to these words, people" - and we're arrogant?
Listen to these words, people. Believe them if you wish, scorn them if you have the arrogance not at least ponder over what I am about to say.
Get it through your fat head and thick skull -- atheists make no claim of certainty that there is NO god.
There may very well be a ultimate reality or deity, but atheists posit that we do not see any objective evidence for a god. get it? understand comprende?
Atheists: You argue that there is no God.
No we argue against specific definitions of god. Again we make no statement of certainty that there is no god. We see no objective evidence of a supreme entity -- got it yet?
I ask you this: If there is no God, where did the beginning of everything come from? Where did the very light that is around you now begin? How did everything that "is", everything that was and shall "be" arrive here?. How did what simply "is" come from? The intricately woven web of time and events didn't appear from nowhere. It continues, but with what force behind it? It just "Happens?"
Non-sequitur.
Theists do not have an answer to the question and answer "god did it"
The answer could be it all happened naturally, but I do not claim this as a certainty.
If you were honest you would answer you don't know either, because you do not possess any special knowledge that we wouldn't know.
You can not substantiate that lazy assertion and you have no objective evidence that a creator god weiled his awesomeness to create everything.
Bottom line, there is a mystery, atheists choose not to rationalize without evidence that an ultimate being "did it".
My answer to this is simple: By your laws of "Logic" not mere "faith" to guide your belief, then surely you will know and understand that, as a fundemental law of physics nothing can come from nothing. There must be a force to create a corresponding event. Something can't spring into what we call existance from nothing. By denying that there was a force that started it all, you are denying not only your "logical" laws of physics, but you are also telling me everything just popped into existance and everything just happened because it happened. Right
Using your loopy logic -- "nothing came from nothing" -- where did your sky-genie come from?
If your answer is he always existed then your whole argument is rendered obsolete. Understand, hot shot?
"There is no pain, no suffering. Everything is an ideal world for you. You are happy in everything you do, as is everyone else."
Looooook into my eyyyyes you willlllllllll believe. WTF?
Let me ask you this: If you were CONSTANTLY happy with no sense of unhappiness or being miserable, how would you be able to "define" what happiness and being content is? The experience would not be pleasureable. You would not be able to differentiate it from being miserable; instead you would assume it was a miserable existance because you might feel that what you were feeling was unhappiness - you would have nothing to compare it to. (You might need a couple of minutes to understand this)
The question is why does your magical sky-boss continues to create souls, sending them to a planet where he know they will suffer in vile, unthinkable ways? Please provide a thorough answer.
Additionally, using an analogy, I do not have to have a big vat of poison, at the end of a cafeteria line, to know there are many different tantalizing dishes, one more delicious then the other.
Such arguments, for the necessity of suffering to make goodness more meaningful or apparent, are trite and shallow and crumble before the idea of an omnipotent God; for certainly a God -- THE CREATOR OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE -- could produce a creation in which there were an infinite number of wonderfully, enjoyable, possibilities at every level, all of them good and all of them extremely and exponentially, pleasurable and satisfying, all the while achieving his goals, without the existence of prolonged, egregious, unimaginable suffering.
I am bored of typing to people who are clearly narrow minded now, but I will leave you with more quotes from your logical "boss"
I'm bored from hearing from dumb-ass theist vomiting up the same rationalized arguments without ever showing me one shred of objective evidence for their magical sky-daddy.
I'll let others skewer you on using Einstein as a prop in your religious delusional rant.
--S.
Here is the addendum to what he says,
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I DO NOT believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
THE ACTUAL QUOTE
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; IN THIS SENSE, AND IN THIS SENSE ALONE I am a deeply religious man."
Read carefully - he is still speaking of what must manifest through science made known to reason.
Now when he talks about science and religion being together, the troll (...._ conveniently forgets to mention that Einstein had 3 versions of RELIEGION. 2 of which he was antagonsitic too. These 2 versions were based on the existence of a DEITY of SUPENATURAL ASPECT.
In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religion. The first is motivated by fear and poor understanding of causality, and hence invents supernatural beings. The second is social and moral, motivated by desire for love and support. Einstein noted that BOTH have an ANTHROPOMORPHIC CONCEPT OF GOD.
The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, is motivated by a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels ... the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw SCIENCE AS AN ANTAGONIST of the first two styles of religion, but as a partner of the third style.
This is what he meanty when he said science and religion actually have no conflict - he wasnt referring to your christian version of reliegion - a THEISTIC VERSION OF THE UNIVERSE IS ANTAGONISTIC TO SCIENCE.
EINSTEIN's FINAL WORD BEFORE HE DIED
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty CHILDISH."
THEREFORE the troll (,,,,) makes the mistake by equating Einstein position to that of a theist. If anything - he is closer to a mysticism or a Buddhist- awe at the universe without the silly need for the existence of supernatural entities.
take care to really understand his position andnot misrepresent it.
So then praying isn't much different than just plain ole' "talking to oneself", right?
Perhaps then, they should re-label "prayer" into something more like, "thinking out loud" about one's problems etc..
ATF (Who just prayed his post here, out loud, and feels a whole lot better now, but no closer to god for some strange reason)
Theist, ' barely into your second paragraph, and you barf up misinformation, showing that you have zero f%cking clue what your opponent's position even is, while you pretend to "dismantle" it. F%cking hilarious; good stuff.
Let's review(for the what seems like the trillionth time): Atheism is the NON-BELIEF in gods/"God". It is not an assertion that "there is no God". Stick it in your memory-banks and hit "save".
Moving on, "..." wants to know.........
If there is no God, where did the beginning of everything come from?
I don't know, and neither do you, nor does any other human being. The end.
Next......
"..." : Okay, the typical Atheist response to this is: "We must accept that there are things we don't understand about the creation of existance(sic) but this does not prove the existance of some almighty God guy who sits in Heaven."
Oh, look, who would've guessed?.....more misinformation, particularly, projecting your own myopic interpretation on the subject of epistemology.
Um, who says "existence" was "created"? Let me guess......you do, right? ' Got any evidence for that implication? Here, let me try your tactic and answer the question for you---NO, you don't have a shred of evidence, other than your "Holy" handbook, your "intuition", and your penny-a-dozen apologetics.
"..." : Let me ask you this: If you were CONSTANTLY happy with no sense of unhappiness or being miserable, how would you be able to "define" what happiness and being content is?
That sounds like a better question for those who believe in "Heaven". Notwithstanding, when/if an Atheist brings up the problem of "evil", they are not asking for, nor are they seeking to live in, a world of perpetual, unadulterated bliss Why?...because they understand and accept(key word) the reality of life, and by its very nature, it sometimes deals out a sh*tty hand. Human beings sometimes make extremely poor decisions because they are human--not because of "sin", "devils", "evil spirits", and hobgoblins.
More scrambled-brain logic.
--S.
But I suppose that taking away someone from Earth and placing them in their own mansion in heaven with himself and Jebus is worth the suffering that others have to go through down on Earth.
Yeah, wonderful.
That might depend on what type of mansion they deserve.... How about RaptureReady's "Pew Warmer Mansion" -- an outhouse!
http://www.raptureready.com/photo/mansions/mans...
ROTFLMAO
You make it sound as though God will allow any prayer to get through.
Funny -- Mt.7:8 and Luke 11:9-10 say something different.
Mt.7:8 and Luke 11:9-10 -- Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
~Additionally~
Matthew 7:9-11 -- Would any of you give your hungry child a stone, if the child asked for some bread? Would you give your child a snake if the child asked for a fish? As bad as you are, you still know how to give good gifts to your children. But your heavenly Father is even more ready to give good things to people who ask.
Matthew 18:19 -- Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them
John chapter 14:14 -- Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Hmmmmmmmm, it would seem the bible contradicts your asinine assertions -- go figure?
--S.
I am absolutely speechless.
excellent post sconnor. I love it when scripture is used to refute these traveling salesman.
daytripper
Almost anything a christian theist says is usually based on some flimsy doctrine or something they read from a devotional and has no reference in reality.
When a christian makes a claim, I like to find out if it is contradicted by scripture, which, 9 times out of 10, it is.
It's continual evidence, that christianity is a human construct, where they can just make stuff up or interpret scripture like play-doh, to suit their own needs and agendas.
--S.
Isn't it funny the bible produces as many atheists as it does christians, (maybe more)
daytripper
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!! Omg, this is hilarious. You make it sound as though God will allow any prayer to get through.[bold added]
What do you mean when you speak of prayers that may, or may not, "get through"? Are you suggesting that only certain "prayers" will "get through", as in, this "God" that you pretend exists will only hear a percentage of the "prayers" uttered to him? If so, this contradicts the supposed "Word of God", because it clearly says that "God" hears ALL prayers. Not-to-mention, "God" is presumably "Omnipresent", thus, there is no logical reason for one single Divine begging ritual...i.e..for one single "prayer", to not "get through" to him.
Continues....If God allowed every person who's family prayed so that they would no longer be terminally ill to become better, then no one would die and go to heaven...or hell, depending on however God sees it fit.[again, bold added]
Good grief, you can't be serious. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that if the God you pretend to worship were to actually answer every prayer-request to heal the terminally ill with a "yes", that no one would die? LMAO! Good one. Um, 'sorry dear, but all living organisms die, including us, whether a "God" heals disease, or not.
Continues....This argument is moot. No where in the Bible does it say God will always answer your prayer [with] a yes. He has the ability to say no, too.
Yes, and interestingly, you get the same results "praying" to a roll of f%cking toilet paper. That is, "lucky" and "unlucky" things happen to every human being at about the same statistical rate. Christians simply attribute the "lucky" as a "yes" from their Divine Sky-Genie, while attributing the "unlucky", or the "no" answers, to "Sin", or to the "God is Sovereign and has a Higher Plan" soundbite.
Yes, uh huh...."God" has a "Higher Plan" for 14 floors of children dying of childhood Leukemia. Yeah, sure. Moron.
What you just wrote here -- this insane babbling -- would have been more coherent, if you just, put your index finger, between your upper and lower lip and made quick up and down motions -- BbbBBbbBBbbBBBbBBBbbbbbbBbBbbb!
Time for a nice tea and your sleepy-time medicine and back to the padded room for you.
--S.
Your writing is real 0
hmmmmm.... I'm debating....was it a Freudian slip? Naw, in this case, it was just a typo. He obviously meant "god poop" to accompany that god toilet paper he also mentioned. LOL
Sure wish all the silly god-beliefs throughout the world would go "poof"
OK. Let’s do frivolous.
Do you use the word ‘poof’ in America other than to describe sudden appearances and disappearances?
Jevjohn has sweetly applied the pejorative and threatening Anglo-Australian term for ‘queer’, ‘nance’, fairy’, ‘sis’, etc., to the great hairy Sensitive-Omnipotence-In-The-Sky.
The well-known gay-basher.
Anyway.
Keep looking over your shoulder Jevjohn
Talk about “…from the mouths of boobs…”
(I have read that all the pagan ‘he-gods’ were carefree enjoyers of everything!
Greedy cum insatiable really.
No neurotic hang-ups there.
Just petulant tantrums and loopy shape-changing to get their carnal way.)
Haha.
I'm not, no gods needed here.
3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
Alot of times when people pray they dont quite understand the right way to do it, the best way to pray for someone is to lay hands on them, the bible clearly states to do this and annointe them with oil, if you dont believe that God exsists thats okay BUT you will find that the decision you make will have dire effects, if you pray with you whole heart and ask God for proof/sign that God exsists and show you what he wants you to do, and pray not to test God (the bible says not to test God) but to SEEK HIM WITH ALL YOUR HEART you will find him, the bible says seek me and you will find me, so SEEK GOD, it will change your life, you may think im crazy, but look at the U.S. (where i live) we were founded on Christian Ideals and Godly persepctives in our constitution and declearation of indeprendence, alot of famous scientists such as Issac Newton believed god exsists, Benjamin Franklin, if you check out the video/documentery "The Finger of God" you can see true miracles that have happened because of prayer, check it out, i think you can watch it for free online, but im not sure, if you have doubts about God, check out that video, and it will change, also feel free to email me questions at biblequestiondude@gmail.com or check out my blog at www.biblequestiondude.wordpress.com
God bless
Make the right choice
James 4:3 (New International Version)
3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on
you may think im crazy...
Yes -- deluded, cuckoo, crazy and morbidly ignorant.
...but look at the U.S. (where i live) we were founded on Christian Ideals and Godly persepctives in our constitution and declearation of indeprendence...
WRONG.
This country was founded on it's people. You have a romanticized distorted and delusional view of history. We are a democracy, not a theocracy. The laws of this nation and the Constitution forbids a government endorsement of religion and forbids having public sponsored programs, favoring one religion over another, which, otherwise would send a message to all the other faiths or non-faiths and belief systems that they are not welcome. Also, you need to be reminded; the Constitution exists to protect the rights of the few, or even one, against the tyranny of the majority, which includes the Christian majority.
Furthermore, this is what article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli states:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
famous scientists such as Issac Newton believed god exsists, Benjamin Franklin...
Whoop-D-doo. Logical fallacy, doesn't prove a thing -- other scientist don't believe god exists.
the bible says seek me and you will find me, so SEEK GOD, it will change your life...
Funny the bible also says:
Proverbs 1:28 Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early but shall not find me.
Lamentations 3:8 Also when I cry and shout, he shutteth out my prayer.
Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
John 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
John 6:43 No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me makes them want to come.
Please provide objective evidence for your god's existence. If you can't, bugger off.
--S.
So...in order to get to the Father, we have to go through the Son...but in order to get to the Son, the Father has to make us want to. Wow...that's just...absurd.
God is an idiot. (Someday, I'm going to write a book with that title...)
So god only listens when arcane rituals are adhered to? An all-knowing, all-powerful god can't just know a person's needs and grant benefits? That is the most pathetic excuse for gods lack-of-action that I have ever heard.
Why are prayers unanswered?
Because you did not mark the correct box on the forms, or get felt-up by an appointed, oily prayer clerk.
Teach me how to pray correctly for that sweet tropical island I've always wanted to own.
FYI: Your website's "barber" example is one heck of a logical fallacy
ATF (Who thinks xtian apologetics have more twist and turns than a super Roller-Coaster)
You know the key to getting prayers answered, so I suggest you spend all your free time at your local hospital praying for sick people laying hands on them and anointing them with oil. Unlike the rest of us here your motives are pure and you know "the right way to do it". You should be able to clear out entire hospital floors with this little secret of yours, so go get busy.....
I completely concur with daytripper.
bibleQdude,
Since you know how to pray the correct way -- why don't you take a miracle-workin' prayer group on the road if you believe in prayer, so much. The first place you could go and pray is your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, where the horrors of children suffering in unimaginable ways could use your so-called help. And after you stroll down the chamber of horrors where anything from preemies to adolescents, suffering in mind boggling, egregious pain, hooked to every machine available, that looks more like medieval torture devices rather then medical technology -- after you pray over each and every child in this gauntlet of pain and suffering, why don't you go next door to the Pediatric Burn Unit, where some children are suffering from 4th and 5th degree burns over their entire body -- hellish burns down to the bone. Go there and pray for them, that they will miraculously heal and be good as new. And after you miraculously heal all those children with prayer (because you know how to do it), you can take your miracle prayer party and heal all the children in all the PICUs and PICU Burn Units, across the nation. What are you waiting for? God is waiting to heal children, but for some reason your demented, dumb-ass god is waiting for you to beg, telepathically, for his help, in the form of a prayer.
--S.
Right On!!
I'm sure NONE of the parents or loved ones of any of those people you mentioned EVER prayed with the right motive.....I'm sure they just wanted to "spend what they get on selfish pleasures"
bibleqdude is an arrogant bastard.
But, really, biblequestiondude, don't you really think that there are thousands upon thousands of people out there who have asked the bible god for some sign of his presence with correct motives but never got an answer?
Do you really want to question the integrity of millions of people?
You can't be that arrogant, can you?
Instead of critiquing the minutia of people's prayer styles and nit-picking at their methodology, why not be honest with yourself?
I think you just can't handle the fact that there are myriads of people out there that have done all the bible requires to receive the bible god's precious promises but not gotten anywhere or anything for it, not even the assurance of God's presence.
When are you going to deal with that harsh little reality?
I am "praying" that another Jim Jones will come along and lead these stupid, sheep off to a foreign country and give them some kool-aid!
Did all of these morons get educated in christian, home schools? I can hardly make out what they are trying to say?!! WTF?
Buffettphan- You crack me up. Who knows, maybe he meant POOP. In that case I must agree with him. The whole thing is a 'crock of Sh*t'!
XpastorDan
You should be the Bible Question Dude. You obviously know the Bible better than this moron.
This jerk-off, once again proves, the Solipsism and Arrogance of christians. He really believes he has all of the answers!?
Are you going to check out his site? That should be a real kick in the head.
XpastorDan
Just been to his site. It seems to have been in operation for about 3 weeks, max.
The whole content takes about 3 minutes to read and consists of the standard xian apologetics.
This guy seems to be under two delusions - the second being that he is capable of saying/writing anything worthwhile.
Peace,
David
The result was 59% of patients who knew that they were being prayed for suffered complications, compared with 51% of those who were uncertain whether they were being prayed for or not; and 18% in the uninformed prayer group suffered major complications such as heart attack or stroke, compared with 13% in the group that received no prayers.
(NOTE: Dr. Benson was a long time advocate of prayers to help patients and conductedt he study to overcome flawed methodologies from previous studies:)
Randolph C. Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” Southern Medical Journal 81 (1998): 826–829.
The two best studies on the methodological problems with prayer and healing include the following:
Richard Sloan, E. Bagiella, and T. Powell. 1999. “Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine,” The Lancet. Feb. 20, Vol. 353: 664–667; and,
John T. Chibnall, Joseph M. Jeral, Michael Cerullo. 2001. “Experiments on Distant Intercessory Prayer.” Archives of Internal Medicine, Nov. 26, Vol. 161: 2529–2536. www.archinternmed.com
As it turns out prayer does not work under any circumstances. What I have noticed however is that Christians tend to cover every bases of possibility within a given situation when praying and attributes the outcome as an answer to their prayer. In other words they are not being objective within their analysis of whether or not prayer work.
In other words, he's asserting that the word of Paul trumps the word of Jesus. "For Biblegod so loved to confuse the world that he knocked out a guy on the road to Damasc..." Nah, that'll never sell.
Jesus said ask in his name and he will do it. John 14:14. Well if that is not the biggest lie in the Bible. To know is to experience. I know for one that God does NOT answer prayers. It is the most insane and humiliating feeling to believe that God, Jesus, Holy Spirit "cares" and "loves" you. My response (and shared by many" then why does injustice and suffering prevail with prayer. There is no God. Great post
It's actually the second biggest lie in the bible, following closely on the heels of:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1.
Peace,
David
Oddly enough, this great discovery failed to make even publication in the supermarket tabloids, but we should take Mark's word for it guys.
ATF (Who is packing right now to go see this great discovery)
Did you see this real Noah's Ark at the real Creation Museum? Do tell.
one thing I know is that the noahs ark is real, I have seen it myself
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
Holy sh*t, that's the funniest thing -- what a sick, gullible, delusional, pathetic, little christian drone.
~My sides ache, as I wipe away tears of laughter~
--S.
You must have straw in your head to blurt the following garbled confoundment!
"If God does Exist than Im pretty sure he isnt a Liar and if he sais that we cannot comprehend his ways then best believe that we are going to question alot..."
It's the only way you could:
A. take yourself seriously
B. expect us to 'listen up'
It's just easier than fixing the hole in the bucket, isn't it?
Try the straw.
Okay, that was a good five-minute session of Chucklerobics. Now, to business.
Perhaps Mark saw a modern-day replica of the Ark, built according to the Biblical plans with a cubits-to-inches converter and a sh*tload of gopherwood, whatever the heck that is.
Let us know the splash date for this alleged Magic BibleBoat, will you, Mark? If it doesn't sink to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico in the first half-hour, we'd better have a fleet of rescue craft on hand to save at least some of the 1.2 million pairs of animals on board.
God is not a magical genie and he doesn't answer prayers because he doesn't exist.
--S.
Your association with the putative saviour of the world has not taught you anything about love for your fellow man, has it?
Peace,
David
p.s. Please learn the difference between "your" and "you're" and use them appropriately.
You didn't need to add "(Christian one)" after your name. It was obvious by all the love and kindness oozing from your post.
Thanks for reminding us all once again of the foolishness we left behind.
Still, at least we can snigger up our sleeves now, knowing we are not wasting our time preparing for something that will never happen.
It really is very, very sad to see so many lives wasted when there is so much of value that could have been done.
Morons and cretinists - what a senseless waste of human life - it gives me a headache, just thinking down to their level.
ass hole. ill be laughing at you when your the one burning in hell
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha!
Another fuck-tard christian, wallowing in morbid ignorance and massive delusion -- cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!
I ponder, what's more pathetically horrendous, a god who will torture you, just because you don't believe, in him or the ignorant christian drone, who believes and condones god's actions? What is truly pathetic and sick, is the delusional christian douche-bag, who threatens you with hellfire, but is too dense to realize how insanely childish, arrogant and ridiculous they sound.
The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' -- Robert G. Ingersoll
--S.
Wouldn't that be enough evidence to show that god does exist?
If god didn't 'answer' your prayer, maybe that's not a reason not to believe in him, but a reason to think that maybe he had his reasons for not doing what you asked him.
If everyone in the world was saved by god from some terminal illness, then there would be no reason not to believe in him.
He let every living thing have the freedom to think and feel what they like, no matter what it was, so if he did this it would force people to believe in him, and that is not what he wants.
If you want to look at it the way you do, do not try to disprove god, but look at what proves that he exists. Here's a miracle for you: US. If it wasn't for a string of 'accidents' that happened to shape the world the way it is, life would not exist. How can you prove that god did not influence these things?
The same applies to prayers to rocks.
The only chance you have of prayer being answered is to pray to parents, and don't expect to have too high a success rate.
Out on remand again, I see.
Your supervising nurse will not like this outburst.
Play fair and apologize now.
The onus of proof is upon you, as you make the extraordinary claim that, despite all evidence suggesting the contrary, there is a god.
Peace (and regular medication),
David
Are you fucking KIDDING me? How on earth do you type a question like that, see it on the page, and not be embarrassed to hit "Post"?
I always love when they use this so called 'argument'.
Anon,
The conditions that exists that allow life to exist, weren't created to support that life.
It's only you god-did-it people that think backwards this way.
Think about why you don't live on Jupiter or Uranus, but rather here on Earth.
We are here because the conditions just turned out right in this tiny part of the universe for life to spring up and evolve.
If you have an tropical fish aquarium in your home, then algae grows in it when the conditions just happen to be correct.
Algae on the other hand, does not grow in your brain, or at least we assume it doesn't.
ATF (Who wonders why folks like Anon just assume god exists, with zero evidence of such?)
He's anonymous.
How do we know he exists?
He could merely be the adumbration of an evil hypothesis on the verge of becoming holy writ!
Or, maybe, just a cretinist.
ATF
How can you prove that god did not influence these things?
Not my job. You are the one making the extraordinary claim -- "god created everything." You must deliver verifiable, objective, evidence, otherwise you are just saying things, you can not substantiate.
Besides pulling this information out of your ass, how would you go about providing objective evidence, that there is a god, magically wishing, everything into existence?
Considering the natural universe, I would hypothesize that there is a very good possibility, that the building blocks of life -- in some form or another -- have always existed and after eons of time, eventually, coalesced, into the reality, we now know.
Now, even, if you could prove a creator god existed, you would still be obligated to bridge an enormous, chasm, to prove, that god was the one and only, personal, christian god.
Got any objective evidence, that a personal christian god exists?
--S.
Look up "Why won't god heal amputees?" and "Pray to the Milk Jug" It's a real crack up! I think they are on U-Tube and on Richard Dawkins' site.
Old Tom Morris
all? If your prayer is answered, it would be the result of randomness, or more
bluntly, just plain dumb luck. All this would show is the probability that such a
being does not exist, or is about as effective as the other roughly five-thousand
gods invented by the human race.
And yes, it would be wonderful if everyone with a terminal illness could be
cured by prayer. Yet thousands pray each year to live, and many of them still
die. According to your reasoning, this god will let these people suffer and die,
all to prove a point! There is a good reason people here will tell you nothing
fails like prayer.
And how does the existence of "us" prove there is a god? I'm no expert when
it comes to evolution, but when it comes to that topic I'd rather admit there are
things I've yet to learn, rather than the cop-out "I don't understand everything
about this...so it must prove there is a god!" Totally illogical reasoning.
First of all your number of 1 in a million is completely unfounded (you just made it up out of nowhere)and real polls/research done by groups have shown that prayer does work more than it doesn't...debunked first point
Ok moron...time to debunk your other point
Just because God doesn't feel like answering your prayer...(which your aren't real anyways) doesn't prove that he doesn't exist
Just because a little girl wants a candy and the parent doesn't give it to her....doesn't prove the parents don't exist
why would god permit someone to get a disease like cancer then just heal them whenever anyone prayed for them?
there you go...all of your points are debunked because you are a moron...and you lack all understanding of fundamental princples of what the Bible says....
How come everytime i come across a moron athiest i am able to debunk them in 2 seconds?
God Bless and I'll pray for you
Bye.
Let him stay a little longer. He deserves the Sconnor, Boomslang, ATF, BB, Astreja experience.
Stay and play a little longer, moron please don't run;
Shout your 'proofs' a little louder, moron please don't run;
The light will break and it will take this fool away from me;
Stick around for some fun - I beg you, moron please don't run.
With apologies to Roger Whittaker.
Just one word for you, Bryan - amputees.
Actually, "1 in a million" is probably an exaggeration.
The answered prayer rate is actually 'zero in a million', or 0.0%.
>and real polls/research done by groups have shown that prayer does work more than it doesn't...debunked first point
Any unbiased secular study has shown that prayer does NOT work, and in one large current study, it actually showed that those being prayed for, fared worse than those who weren't.
Explain that one to me, 'oh wise one'
>Just because God doesn't feel like answering your prayer...(which your aren't real anyways) doesn't prove that he doesn't exist
Hey, whether god answered 'my' prayers or not is irrelevant.
I want proof that he answers the prayers of xtians.
Perhaps you can cite some legit unbiased studies that show prayer works?
(yeah right)
>Just because a little girl wants a candy and the parent doesn't give it to her....doesn't prove the parents don't exist
True, but many times the parents do give the little girl what she wants/needs, in contrast to your god who never gives anyone, anything.
>why would god permit someone to get a disease like cancer then just heal them whenever anyone prayed for them?
Again, citations please !!
>there you go...all of your points are debunked
Sorry, but you haven't debunked a single thing, so keep on trying.
>and you lack all understanding of fundamental princples of what the Bible says....
I'm fairly sure that most members here could run circles around your knowledge of that fable book.
>How come everytime i come across a moron athiest i am able to debunk them in 2 seconds?
Because your insanity scares the crap out of them and so they run for the hills, leaving you to think you actually debunked their sane arguments?
>God Bless and I'll pray for you
May reason bless your one brain cell, and I'll pray that you find another brain cell in the near future.
ATF (Who has to laugh at these amateur apologist, who think their arguments hold any water with us)
Why would the vindictive, inefficient, not-very-good-at-it creator
a) create cancer in the first place?
b) permit someone to get it?
Known some dodgy characters in my life, but none who match your god for stupidity and fraud. His diary for creation must read something like this:
1: Create world, without sin.
2. Create people, without sin.
3. Notice that some of the world I created is crap (e.g. cancer, tornadoes, etc.)
4. Don't tell the people.
5. Set the people a task I know (cos I know everything) that they will fail.
6. Tell them that the crap in creation (e.g. cancer, tornadoes, etc.) is their fault cos they failed the test.
7. Go back to what I was doing on the 7th day - sod all - RESULT!!
Bryan, your god is a shit. Now, write that out 7 x 70 times, until you get the truth of it into that empty space where normal people store a brain.
Peace,
David
Janet, I'm a tad bit confused about the "who's" you're referring to here.
1. "who" question number one:
WHICH 'god' are you referring to?
I mean, there are so many gods to pick from, not to mention with just the bible god alone, each xtian turns this god into whatever they need him to be.
i.e. god de jour
2. "who" question number two:
If you're referring to Bryan as to the 'who' that is making sense, then I sure have pity for your comatose like brain.
Obviously, if you're taking the xtian god side here, then you've been infected by the god-virus and need immediate medical attention.
Please seek such, ASAP
ATF (Who thinks a god belief makes as much 'cents' as paying for a new car with nothing but pennies)
Two things come to mind:
1. There is a war between country A and B. Soldiers of A pray to God for victory. Soldiers of B also pray to God for victory. But it is ALWAYS been that the country that has a better way of killing the other wins in the end. (no probabilities here..this is 100% fact)
2. Why will God care about my prayers, my life and how strong of a believer I am when he did absolutely NOTHING about the the way Hitler was treating the 6 million or so innocent Jews (men, women and children)? Or whats happening now to innocent civilians (men, women and children) in Darfur?
I wonder...
Nobody is trying to disprove god's existence. There is insufficient evidence to justify belief in god.
As others have said here before, for a god who desperately wants us to believe in him, he expends an awful lot of energy making himself invisible.
Peace,
David
Those of you who ask why a loving God would allow cancer and famine and national disastors have obviously not done their research into the christian faith and the Bible.
Just because you don't understand how a car works, doesn't mean it can't run. Just because your mind cannot comprehend God and His plan does not mean He doesn't exist.
And just because God doesn't heal your illness it doesn't mean He didn't answer your prayers, it just wasn't the answer you wanted.
It says in the Bible, that God helps those who help themselves.
Anyone who argues against the idea of a higher power is obviously not well reasearched and I encourage you to take a look at facts and Christianity from a scientific view and see what may find.
Really? Please cite the quotation and where you found it. I suspect you have only heard these "quotes" from some pulpit and have no idea if any of them were actually said or if so in what context.
Further, regardless of what anyone is quoted as "saying," there is no evidence that any god exists. If you have any evidence that a god exists, and further evidence that this supposed god is YOUR GOD, please be so kind as to present your evidence so we can all examine it. Fair enough?
Is that your learned professional scientific opinion Janet?
Just how does one come to this self-assured conclusion, without using the awe-factor that obviously has you deeply in it's grasp?
>>Darwin himself said if there was ever evidence that the cell which is supposed to be the basis of evolution, was proven a complicated cell that it would disprove his entire theory. New technology shows us that it was indeed a complex cell.
You do realize that Darwin lived a long time ago and was not some globally appointed spokesman for whether any gods existed or not, right?
Frankly, it no longer matters what Darwin said or didn't say, as science as progressed light-years beyond what Darwin could have known.
If anything, the TOE has been shown to be quite factual and only you fundies have the gall to question it's validity.
While the cell is indeed complex, it didn't start out that way, but EVOLVED into it's present complex form.
Try reading some science books before you open your ignorant pie hole.
>>Another statement Darwin was heard saying (as reported by his best friend's nephew, author of Brave New World.) that he hoped there was no God, because he wanted to have sexual liscense to do whatever he wished.
I doubt this is true, but even if it is, what does Darwin's statement have to do with whether your god is real or not, hmm?
If god is real, then it's up to YOU to prove it to us, not Darwin or any other dead human from history.
>>Those of you who ask why a loving God would allow cancer and famine and national disastors have obviously not done their research into the christian faith and the Bible.
Yes, none of us here have ever picked up a bible to read it, so please educate us on this fairy tale book before it's too late.
>>Just because you don't understand how a car works, doesn't mean it can't run. Just because your mind cannot comprehend God and His plan does not mean He doesn't exist.
The odd thing is, I do know exactly how a car works....Can you make the same claim Janet?
We can't comprehend your god, because it's all in YOUR head and in general, you xtians make god in an image, such that god would be impossible to exists.
Can god be all-powerful and all-knowing Janet?
Think about this before you give a quick answer, okay.
>>And just because God doesn't heal your illness it doesn't mean He didn't answer your prayers, it just wasn't the answer you wanted.
Right, god answers all prayers with yes, no, and later, just like my pet rock.
>>It says in the Bible, that God helps those who help themselves.
Does that apply to the bank robber who helps himself to cash?
Just curious is all.
>>Anyone who argues against the idea of a higher power is obviously not well reasearched and I encourage you to take a look at facts and Christianity from a scientific view and see what may find.
Oh, I did PLENTY of research, unlike yourself, who mostly likely got her research from the pulpit and never cracked opened a science book in her life.
It is you who are the ignorant one here, Janet.
You just are so stuck in your tiny god-bubble, that you can't see reality.
ATF (Who thinks these fundies need to stop trying to discredit Darwin and start showing evidence for their silly god instead)
You are a fraud and a charlatan. You have never read the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it say that god helps those who help themselves. It is actually the last line of one of Aesop's fables.
If I am wrong, I would be grateful for you to provide me with the chapter and the verse, so that I can revise my knowledge.
I am afraid that the standard of evidence that you are happy to accept in respect of Darwin and his attitudes is about the same standard you apply to evaluating your own beliefs. Apparently, hearsay is sufficient - "(as reported by his best friend's nephew, author of Brave New World.)
We do not ask why a loving god would allow cancer and famine, etc. We know that a loving god would not allow such things - the difference is subtle, but please grasp it. I am a mere mortal who would not inflict these things upon those whom I love, especially not my own children. I expect a higher standard of behaviour from a god who claims to love his children. That his behaviour (should he exist) is not loving, then the god you proclaim does not and cannot exist.
The logic is as plain as the nose on your face - unless you are severely hypermetropic.
Peace,
David
The Existence = The Being… Thus, no hierarchy of Beings required.
Janet: “Darwin himself said if there was ever evidence that the cell which is supposed to be the basis of evolution, was proven a complicated cell that it would disprove his entire theory.”
As the WM stated; cite it, I personally think you are a liar – prove me wrong.
Janet: “New technology shows us that it was indeed a complex cell.”
Really, complex compared to “what”?
Janet: “Another statement Darwin was heard saying (as reported by his best friend's nephew, author of Brave New World.) that he hoped there was no God, because he wanted to have sexual liscense to do whatever he wished.”
Hearsay.
Janet: “It sounds as if Darwin isn't so sure himself, and the last statement shows he was in part believing what he wanted to believe.”
Propaganda.
Janet: “Those of you who ask why a loving God would allow cancer and famine and national disastors have obviously not done their research into the christian faith and the Bible.”
A person who believes based on “Faith”, does not need a reason to believe nor do research.
Janet: “Just because you don't understand how a car works, doesn't mean it can't run.”
I can reverse engineer a car, and “know” how it can run, because I “start” from an “empirical” fact in order to comprehend what it is I am witnessing.
Janet: “Just because your mind cannot comprehend God and His plan does not mean He doesn't exist.”
Yes, that is exactly what that means. I don’t play the agnostic game; suggesting your proposition to be “valid” for analytic inspection, until shown to be invalid/justified...
As a “metaphysical skeptic”... I deem “all” metaphysical claims to be initially “invalid”, until “all” words and terms are defined and justified… such that proper analytic inspection can ensue – and then be empirically linked to concrete referents.
Let me make this simpler for you… The “word” God is applied to some referent in reality; that is how language works… words have meaning, only because they “refer” to some “thing”.
If you do not have “some thing” to “refer” to, in order to tag it with the word “God”… then quite simply… the Universal word God is rhetoric “lacking” a Universal Empirical Existence.
Further, if Janet’s Universal God did in fact Exist; then, by factual decree… Everyone on this planet and throughout this Universe would be subjected to this Universal Truth, and would “All” have equal opportunity to access such evidence.
So, Janet demands the Existence of a Universal God Truth… and then decrees that we can not “know” of such a Universal Truth… which is entirely inane and confounded.
If there is ever to be found a Universal Truth that is deemed to warrant the word God… it will not be a Truth that was “Known”… “a priori”… it will be something newly “found”, that was previously “unknown” to “Exist”.
I do not go as far as the agnostic, declaring that humanity is not currently, or may never be capable of advancing a first principle and/or Universal Truth… because… in order to make such a declaration suggests a Universal Truth of sorts.
Janet… I don’t make Universal Truth statements, nor do I make “anti-Universal Truth” statements… I objectively “reject” propositional claims – based on the lack of logical coherence, and empirical evidence.
If you “ever” do experience some thing you believe warrants the God label Janet – then, by all means, present your case then… but until then… the God you currently propose – does not Exist, except as incoherent mental rhetoric in your mind.
Janet: “And just because God doesn't heal your illness it doesn't mean He didn't answer your prayers, it just wasn't the answer you wanted.”
No God, no relational Consequence.
Janet: “It says in the Bible, that God helps those who help themselves.”
Thus, a person who helps themselves becomes God-like. Unfortunately, Janet… christian heretics and RCC members seem to help themselves quite often, but against a morality fit for a civilized society. Interesting, they are still deemed God-like in any-case by contemporary christian standards.
Janet: “Anyone who argues against the idea of a higher power is obviously not well reasearched and I encourage you to take a look at facts and Christianity from a scientific view and see what may find.”
Janet, it is precisely the research that demonstrated the falsity of Christianity… it is therefore, obvious… you have not done your research… so, do your self a favor, and heed your own words if you actually believe them to hold any value.
"Help yourself" by looking here -
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-help-themselves...
Or are you quoting the famous Hezekiah 6:1 at me?
;-)
I hear this "God helps those..." crap so often from believers (for whom I am sure the term ignoramus was coined) that sometimes, just sometimes, I feel I have to kick back and let them prove their ignorance by demonstration.
;o))
8-)
;o))
Wrong. The authors of your precious buybull say god says this about those who help themselves....
Jer 17:5 (NIV) This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD."
Prov 28:26 (NIV) He who trusts in himself is a fool...
"God helps those who help themselves" is probably the most often quoted phrase that is not found in the Bible. This is actually a quote from Ben Franklin and it appeared in Poor Richard's Almanac in 1757. In fact the Bible teaches the opposite. God helps the helpless! Isaiah 25:4 declares, "For You have been a defense for the helpless, a defense for the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat..." Romans 5:6 tells us, "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly."
More here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-help-themselves...
Edit: Oops! I now see that glebealyth referenced the same website three hours ahead of me.
Oh well. I may be slow but at least we're all agreed that Janet doesn't know what she's talking about.
Janet is a xtian
ergo....
Janet doesn't know what she's talking about.
Certainly, the evidence seems sure...
Janet is a whack-A-loon of epic proportions.
Typical creationist assh*le -- attack Darwin as if there wasn't mountains of scientific evidence from several differing scientific fields amassed in the 127 years after his death.
Unbelievable -- how much bullsh*t and misrepresentations can be vomited up in one paragraph?
Janet you are a deer-in-the-headlight christian drone, who is drowning in her own deluded pool of ignorance.
Janet will be too embarrassed to rear her ugly head here again.
--S.
Oh, really?
The probability of our current existence is 1.0. We're here; live with it.
You, however, have the burden of proof regarding this alleged "higher being". There is no, repeat, no evidence for the existence of your invisible friend. Produce the evidence, or retract your claim.
"Those of you who ask why a loving God would allow cancer and famine and national disastors have obviously not done their research into the christian faith and the Bible."
Janet, what part of Ex-Christian is too complex for your religion-addled brain to grok? We've read the Bible and participated in Christianity, and found it to be a pile of steaming camel excrement.
"Just because your mind cannot comprehend God and His plan does not mean He doesn't exist."
Just because your mind cannot comprehend Tiamat, Oðinn, Lakshmi, Amaterasu Omikami, Juno, and Diancecht, and Their various plans, doesn't mean that They don't exist. If you're going to believe in a god just because you see no way of disproving its existence, may I suggest that you convert to ecumenical polytheism. It's a lot more fun than your sick little death-cult. (You also get All the Holidays There Are, too. :-D )
"It says in the Bible, that God helps those who help themselves."
And you expect us to take you seriously as a Bible scholar, Janet? Bwahahaha! That quotation is from Poor Richard's Almanac, written in 1757 by Benjamin Franklin.
Your religion teaches the exact opposite -- That humanity is born evil and is helpless to rescue itself.
In other words, Christianity is the enemy of humanity and has nothing of importance or value to give to us.
May your faith fall apart like a house of cards in a hurricane.
Accepting that Paul actually wrote all those epistles and that we actually have the words of JC's apostles and brothers in the New Testament (which i don't), this is still no basis for saying this is a religion based on some guy named Jesus. Paul himself admitted that he was a liar and poseur who never actually met the guy, and what's more, he didn't place any value on what those who supposedly did meet him had to say. All his info came from his visions. The apostles are described as backsliders who never understood his message and his brothers thought he was crazy. JC himself never wrote anything. Does this really make a good foundation for faith?
It's all at the level of "Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?", you are damned whatever answer you give and therefore in need of salvation. Now you are ripe for picking by whichever snake oil salesman gets to you first.
I have enjoyed your posts so far, and they seem quite logical and coherent, but i have to admit i'm still puzzled over your last one. I know you're not a Xtian, so why did you say "best foundation for faith imaginable-it is utterly impossible of refutation"? To me, it's very easy to refute.
Maybe you didn't understand what i was trying to say. What i meant was that even accepting that the authors of the NT were who they said they were, none of them were good witnesses for a variety of reasons described in the writings themselves. Maybe it's because i was never really a Xtian that keeps me from understanding. Can you enlighten me?
Your comment about "the level of 'Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?‘“ is even more confusing. (Yes, i stopped long ago.) But i guess the crux of your meaning is that if you'll buy this, you'll buy anything. Given the inherent unreliability of such a foundation, that does make sense to me. My view is that most Xtians never really think about the very foundation of Xtianity, though i'm sure most preachers are well aware of, which means they don't even know that their "house is built on sand."
e.g. If I claim, "I see dead people" (line from the movie Sixth Sense), but I add qualifiers where these dead people have no affect on reality, that they can't talk to anyone but me, can't show themselves to anyone but me, can't move objects around, or prove their existence in any manner other than to appear to my eyes, then how can one disprove these figments of my imagination.
(talk about your run-on sentence)
Of course with the bible god claim, this god is claimed to have a direct affect on our reality, but as always, no xtian yet has proved that to be the case.
ATF (Who only "sees dead people", at funerals)
I'm sorry to have been so obscure. What I was trying to say was that the NT writers (precursor to the Vatican) and all evangelists use methods which are akin to the wife-beating question in that what they claim is more often than not incapable of being refuted in both presentation and documentation. We still have not yet found a wasy to disprove a negative.
David
Agreed, dead/non-existent men tell no tales; they just don't seem capable of refuting anything stated on their behalf.
Also, anything can be argued to be true, using presuppositions... especially, if the Presuppositional witness is one's alter ego ;-)
Peace
Thanks for the clarification. But from your answers i think i'm still not getting my point across, maybe because i was trying to compress a whole essay into just a few paragraphs. I was aiming for a whole different level. To remedy this i am now writing that essay, aimed more at fence-sitters and semi-Xtians rather than people who were exploited or trapped by Xtianity.
Although this group can't be directly blamed for the harm and fear experienced by many on this site, they indirectly contribute by lending an air of normality and respectability to an institution that does not deserve it. At least in Indiana where i grew up, the overwhelming majority of church goers were in this group.
You originally said, "JC himself never wrote anything. Does this really make a good foundation for faith?"
What I was trying to say is that, from the point of view of the clergy and evangelists (snake oil salesmen) who use this message to ensure they are fed regularly, such a situation is ideal. As we do not know what JC said, thought or believed - or even if he lived - the salesmen can make up whatever they like and, as long as they and their followers are convincing, the religion (faith) will survive and continue to provide a living for the leaders.
Hence, it is an ideal basis for a religion/faith as it is impossible of refutation.
I hope that is a little clearer,
David ;o)))
p.s. Sometimes the brain gets a little ahead of the mouth and the fingers and obscurity results. My apologies.
Amazing... and frankly humorous how eventually all the theists shut their mouth with nothing more to say.
If you haven't read "all this stuff on this website", then guess what?...you are not qualified to make such an assertion, and quite an asinine assertion, I might add.
Here is just one example of something that is not "false": I used to believe the Christian philosophy was true. I changed my mind---I now believe it is false. I believe it is false, because I don't see any objective evidence for invisible, conscious, creator-beings, nor their invisible offspring. I used to accept their existence on "faith", because that's what mommy, daddy, grammy, and the local church-folk insisted I must do. But now that I've become an adult who thinks for himself, intellectual honesty now trumps "faith". Here's the clincher----it is NOT merely my opinion when I say that I don't see credible evidence for Christianity's "Truth", hence, when I say that I don't see such evidence, neither you, nor any other bible-believing "Christian", can come marching in here and say that my position on the matter is "false". Thus, you, numbskull, have no business coming here and making such ignorant, blanketed statements. ' K?
LOL! I hope you hire a good team of proofreaders before you attempt to get it printed. Don't worry about the cost; the monetary award that comes along with the Nobel Prize should cover the expense, and if you do manage to prove the existence of a god, any god — a feat never accomplished throughout all of human history — you'll be sure to get it.
Do be sure to let us know when that paper is ready. We here enjoy a good laugh.
BTW, why are so many of the fundigelicals who post here unable to spell common words and use punctuation correctly?
And why do functionally illiterate people think they have anything to say that would convince us of their Truth™?
When you return to your remedial reading/writing class, you can report that we all understood what you were saying, despite the unusual orthography, grammar and punctuation.
Tell your teacher that we have offered to proofread your paper, when you have finished it. We will also correct any factual and logical errors for you.
We will do this free of charge as you should not be burdened with any more than xian homeschooling has already put upon you. You never know, after we have helped you produce your paper and you have managed to read it, you may have learned enough to escape the delusion and get a real job, where you can use your awesome intellect. I hear the car wash is recruiting.
Peace,
David
You announced that:
“All this stuff on this website is false!”
Ha! Secular prosthetics!
“You dont even need faith to believe in God.”
Just fear and money.
“Im writing a paper right now proving his existence…”
You provocative, clued-up little minx! Did you have to swallow to earn that exclusive?
“It can be proven through scientific evidence.”
Then why hasn’t it?
“…and Ill bet any REAL christian couldprove them wrong, without even having to use faith.”
So there!!
“One more thing, none of you who believe this stuff are ex-christians, because you never were.”
Anyway!!!
Geez, you are one hissy missy.
Now poke your bulging eyes back into your head and get to work on that ‘paper’.
U either build your own tower or dig your own grave.
Think ,Work Hard and make your life happy.
Dont hurt anyone help people as much as you can and that will bring you true happiness.
Now tell me do u need god to do all this
Look at the complexity of the human eye. What are the odds of that just happening. The eye receives it and flips it in the retina and translates it so the brain can understand it. It is not a design flaw more like a beautiful creation. I believe that we did evolve from something else. Men and women get together mix genes and hopefully a better offspring comes maybe it takes a while, but obvious differences occur after millions of years.
Second, the Bible was written by man, so technically it could be flawed. We have just as good records of that (no proven author just understood as Jesus' followers) However we base history books off papers that were written (some newer like WWII or some older like Alexander the Great's time) We don't know what happened. We as humans today if they're under 60 cannot prove PHYSICALLY to anyone Hitler existed. One could say many people died because of him show pictures of him whatever they wanted another person could still say no he didn't exist. There's no proof he killed millions of Jews, how do you know that's Hitler in the picture. Some people NEED physical evidence. As people get older they need more physical evidence and I understand that. History books could be just as flawed as the Bible is as you guys say it is. No one knows.
If people followed religion to what it is supposed to be there never should be any killings anyway in the Middle East. Religion really never says kill the non believers, kill for land, kill anyone. Jesus said (believe it or not it's a good saying) Those without sin should cast the stone of judgement. So no one on Earth has the right to judge or say anyone is wrong, not in the since of law, but beliefs.
I understand not all of you guys have received answers to you guy's prayers. I understand saying well he could grant it instantly later or never is ridiculous because that fills all of the options. Like a multiple choice test A B C and choosing all three it's incorrect and makes no sense. However, what I will say is God believe in him or not doesn't think like a human. He can think of you or your great great great grand children. Some times he makes choices for you, like a raise, or something else for down the line that you can't see. Maybe you don't see your mother dying as a positive for anyone or your boyfriend leaving you as a positive, but maybe when she died her fight left a lasting mark on a nurse there or died because it would affect you to make you a better/stronger willed person. Your boyfriend could have left you, but obviously he would have been unhappy staying with you in the first place. People died of cancer I know that too, but that one success story gives people hope and hope actually helps believe it or not. It could also be a doctor who figured out that 1/9999999 chance figure out how to make it 1/10 chances. We pray not to be miraculously healed, but to find another to help us heal. Sometimes as humans we ask for the wrong thing so people ask for a miracle when all they need is a doctor.
Also people starving in Africa. How did that happen? Look at the dictators there. Look at the forced European believes there. TONS of things happened there and I totally get that's why. You might say they forced Christianity so why didn't it work? That's because there's a difference between forced religion and believing in it. Christianity is not about forcing your religion on countries let alone taking them over. So what the Europeans did was wrong. Now their evil leaders take all of their food and money and use it on themselves when their country is dying. The United States and other countries are helping, but if the leaders just get the money it won't make a difference. God can't have things perfect sadly because it's the choice of free will one human at least will always screw it up. That one guy will force his opinions when he shouldn't and conflict will happen. God will ALWAYS love everyone equally. Just because bad things happen doesn't mean he's dissappointed. Just like a parent he won't hate his kid for smoking pot or something like that. Sometimes things happen people become corrupt or disturbed, don't see the error of their ways (because no one could show them the right way whatever that maybe), so they go to Hell. Everyone has a chance to go to Heaven though. Even those who never get the chance the Bible says they go anyway because they never received they never got the oppurtunity to learn.
So maybe praying doesn't help 1/10000000 times if at all hope is still there. God will do what he knows is best. Other than those things I have no proof that God exists. If you're not moved I'll completely understand and be happy for your choices because you have free will. You can do whatever you want and you should exercise that I agree. Just one thing maybe people's final hope is a God ,existing or not, that hope could keep them fighting for one day longer. I understand this website is for people who want to critsize God because he wasn't there so I'll let you guys be I just wanted to tell you guys what I think see what you guys say and move on. I'm sure some of you guys might attack me and tell me where I'm flawed or illogical and move on, but God is my hope this world is so perfect besides humanic flaws which is obviously our faults, for taking religion too far or being selfish or whatever, but other than that look outside that it's far beyond just a big bang because I can put the ingredants for making a cake, whatever God made the universe out of, into an oven, but if I never turn it on, God's ability, those ingredants won't become a cake no matter how many times I try. One more thing if you guys ask, if God made humans, who made God? Maybe someone else made God or he was there all along and waited for a while until he made this thing we live it, the universe space etc. However I know this is a website for ex christians so I'll leave you guys at that.
yawn.......
So why bother posting? I like the way facts and opinions are interchangeably used. Christian apologists confuse facts and opinoins all teh time so they think its "gentlemanly" of them to extend the same flexibility to us. Sorry - I prefer facts.
1.) "Look at the complexity of the human eye. What are the odds of that just happening. "
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
2.) "Some people NEED physical evidence. As people get older they need more physical evidence and I understand that. History books could be just as flawed as the Bible is as you guys say it is. No one knows."
compare and contrast
I.) Bible claims Jesus existed and is the son of God
(evidence: no contemporary historian or chronicler mentions Jesus or his miracles, Bible is written a generation after his death, earlist commentary on him was by someone who admitted he never knew Jesus when he was alive)
II.) Hitler is claimed to have existed
(evidence: living eyewitnesses, photographic and film record, physical remains in Soviet hands for several decades after his death, we have his own handwritten correspondence etc...etc...)
III.) Alexander the Great is claimed to have existed
(evidence: 5 contemporary sources on Alexander the Great's life written by people who knew him, coins bearing his image, other cultures independently verified that there was a conquerer of that name from Jerusalem to India.)
What we see is that the claim that Hitler existed or Alexander the Great existed are not as extraordinary as that of Jesus being the Son of God. Yet – given that the claims are not as extraordinary – we have magnitudes more evidence and information from verifiable independent sources than what we have on Jesus Christ even if he was a normal man.
WHATS EVEN WORSE.....
History Books need to coincide with the evidence we have gathered. The Bible actually CONTRADICTS archaeological and historical evidence that we have. (eg. It's claim that Babylon could be crossed in a week – archaeological evidence shows that it can be crossed in half and hour. Or that the Israelites had a mass exodus from Egypt for 40 years – the desert can be crossed in 10 days and no evidence whatsoever of mass movement existing at that time has been found. Bible claims Sandrehin that judged Jesus convened in single night - that contradicts Jewish practices in that period - it would have taken 3 days and never at night. Biblical genealogies contradict each other etc....)
So its obvious that even the most basic history book still conforms to a methodology designed to keep in line with the evidence at hand. Not so with the Bible.
Any equation of the Bible to Historical works fail in that historical works have to remain cognizant of the increasing availabilityof histoircal and archaeological data gathered.
3.) "Religion really never says kill the non believers, kill for land, kill anyone."
Contradicted by Bible
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
(Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)
OBVIOUSLY SOMEONE DOES NOT READ THE BIBLE
5.) "I understand not all of you guys have received answers to you guy's prayers. .....However, what I will say is God believe in him or not doesn't think like a human. He can think of you or your great great great grand children. Some times he makes choices for you, like a raise, or something else for down the line that you can't see."
WHY DOESN'T GOD HEAL AMPUTEES?
Does he have a grudge against them? When it comes to a verifiable, falsifiable test, prayer completely fails - its just wishful circular thinking
Try praying to
a.) vishnu
b.) homer simpson
c.) your favourite coffee mug
Trust me - you will get the same results with Bible God everytime.
Ever wonder why the results are the same?? That the Bible God is just as powerful as a chair when you pray to it?
Btw - you get a raise because you work for it.
Try getting a raise by not going to work at all. (thats a falsifiable test for prayer for yourself personally)
Your grandmother dies becuase we all die.
Try praying to stay alive forever (at least thats a falsifiable test for yourself personally)
if surviving a disease is a sign that God answers prayer.
Stab yourself in the heart and then without any human medical assistance pray for God to grant you a miraculous survival
At least thats a falsifiable test for prayer.
Prayer is just rationalising naturally occuring events, Whenever the supernatural is put to the test - it come sup woefully short on evidence.
Coincidence and lucky breaks become divine interventions when you decied to jettison reality.
6.) "but God is my hope this world is so perfect besides humanic flaws which is obviously our faults,"
Ahhh....yes its so perfect we get earthquakes, tsunamis, flu pandemics and congenital dieseases and birth defects.
Didn't God create humans - given that he was the perfect designer - wouldn't humanistic flaws be due to his design.
If God created the world and man - it would be INCOMPETENT DESIGN
LOL!
7.) "but other than that look outside that it's far beyond just a big bang because I can put the ingredants for making a cake, whatever God made the universe out of, into an oven, but if I never turn it on, God's ability, those ingredants won't become a cake no matter how many times I try."
Huh?
Extremely incoherent - obviously confused over what the Big Bang actually means - it is about the inflationary expansion of space-time and not the origins of the universe. Try readings omehting else other than your apologetic books - I recommend a book on science
Positing something beyond the evidence we ahve at hand is speculative.
God of the gap argument can be easily used to justify the existence of a creator whose characteristics are like that of the
i) Power Puff girls
ii) Indiana Jones
iii) Monkey God
iv) Harry Potter
I just don't get the oven thing. Apologist is confusing metaphor with a logical argument.
8.) "if you guys ask, if God made humans, who made God? Maybe someone else made God or he was there all along and waited for a while until he made this thing we live it, the universe space etc."
If you answered someone else made God - then you contradict teh Bible
If you answered God always existed, then why not the universe always existed in one form of another
Ultimately the whole argument collapses because there ie never any logical reason to keep on extrapolating an infinite chain of creators - God ultimately is just an arbitary place where that vicious circle is cut.
More importantly it demonstrates tyhat even James (the xtian apologist) notes the weakness in this argument
9.) "However I know this is a website for ex christians so I'll leave you guys at that."
So why bother posting in the first place?
Why should you be excused for something when you went ahead and did it anyway.
10.) "I'm sure some of you guys might attack me and tell me where I'm flawed or illogical and move on"
"I understand this website is for people who want to critsize God because he wasn't there so I'll let you guys be I just wanted to tell you guys what I think see what you guys say and move on."
in xtian thought translated as:
Oh Hallelujah! Someone has replied to my long-winded sophomoric apologetic tract. Attack me - my enemies! Don;t you know you satisfy my masochistic need to suffer for my imaginary God? haha you dumb exchristians - your attacks only serve to give me pleasure. Nothing that you ex-christians write can shake me from my oh so holy apprehension of my version of a denominational version of a Christian version of God. I am impervious to logic and reason since they are redundant as I already FEEL I know the truth.
Hallelujah!! I feel a spiritual hard on."
Once again - why bother posting here?
Obviously it's ok for a Xtian to state ones position and not listen to the responses of others or investigate beyond the apologetics he obviously picked up in church. This explains why James does not seem to read history, science and even his own precious BIBLE.
This demonstrates what Christian behavior is really like:
One-sided, arbitrary, self-validating preaching.
Which is exactly why it makes me laugh when xtians on both sides of a war, have prayed to god for their side to win etc..
e.g. WWII
In general, if the muslim/xtian god were real, prayer of any caliber would be useless to influence this god.
This argument is irrelevent like most atheist arguments are
That's quite a powerful statement you make here michael.
I have to assume that you feel that all atheists are also wrong about god's existence?
If that's the case then you owe us an explanation as to why our arguments are 'irrelevant'.
More so, where is the evidence that any personal god exist, other than inside the brains of the deluded who only can FEEL their god's presence and nothing else.
ATF (Who has to laugh when a god believer makes such a general accusation, but offers nothing to back it up with)
Gods has his will regardless if your muslim or christian they both agree god has his will hence the Lords prayer your Will be done on earthh as it is in heaven. This argument is irrelevent like most atheist arguments are.
Uh -- NO -- your argument is completely in error and ONLY comes from your deluded preconceived notions that are based solely on assumption and bad judgment. Not only is your argument irrelevant it is WRONG and an indicator of your massive ignorance.
You are just another deluded christian (in a long line of deluded christians) vomiting up his own idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture to supposedly support his polluted arguments.
You have NO idea what the Lord's prayer actually means, do you? -- or you do and you ignore it to make it mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your own myopic agenda.
This is the first part of the lord's Prayer, which was extruded from the gospel of Matthew and Luke:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
This specifically expresses that god's domain of heaven will come to the earth -- that's it; NOTHING more.
Furthermore:
You have to put aside all your misconstrued christian teachings, indoctrinations, preconceived notions and propaganda, and actually read the bible for yourself. Jesus' agenda was not to get people to heaven, it was to renew the earth and bring god's kingdom to it.
If you were paying a little closer attention, at mass, you would realize you pray about this every Sunday. You should have suspected all along that the coming of god's domain, rather then saving souls for heaven was Jesus' main agenda, as in the first petition, of the lords prayer, it says, "Thy Kingdom come". Then the second petition reiterates and bolsters the first petition by saying, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
In fact, the bible believes the only people in heaven -- besides god -- were the people who ascended to heaven in their physical bodies, like Enoch, Elijah and Jesus. This is the only, possible way an ancient Jew would know, how a person would get to heaven -- as a miraculous event, where the whole person floated or is whisked away, up into the sky.
Luke 22:18 -- Jesus says, "... I certainly won't drink any of the fruit of thy vine from now until god's domain is established!"
John 3:13 -- And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he who hath descended out of heaven, even the son of man, who is in heaven.
Heaven was not an eternal destination for regular folk like you and I -- that's what Jesus thought, anyway.
So you got another dilemma, Is the Bible the word of god? If it is, then how are you so sure about an eternal resting place, up in heaven, at the foot of your lord and king, when the Bible contradicts it so plainly? You got nothing more than delusional bullsh*t.
Care to refute my supposed irrelevant arguments? I defy you to argue against ANY of the atheist arguments you find irrelevant -- come on -- brainiac-- put your money where your mouth is; let's bang heads.
Or will you do what other deluded christians have done in the past -- bail like chicken-sh*t cowards?
--S.
Yes, surely god has regrown blown off limbs on xtian soldiers by now, yes?
What if I were to pluck out your eyeballs, would yours prayers to this god, make your god regrow you new ones for you?
Not to get too gross here, but what if your "male member" or testicles were accidently severed off. Has your god been known to restore those most important organs as well?
ATF (Who wonders why god only cures the hidden-from-sight diseases and afflictions and never anything apparent to the casual observer?)
G-d or no G-d to is a leap of faith. That is what I got told at Obama HQ when I questioned his background and policies. “Well you just have to have faith I guess” is what some 40 year old volunteer told me?
Strange how only the religious make that claim.
I don't think having 'faith' in a human is anything like having 'faith' in something supernatural, do you Dave?
ATF
Personally, I have trust - not "faith" - in reason, logic, and the scientific method. It has a proven, confirmable track-record.
G-d or no G-d to is a leap of faith.
Fine; so then...
- The Great P-mpkin, or no Great P-mpkin, is a leap of faith.
- B-gfoot, or no B-gfoot, is a leap of faith.
- Os-ris, or no Os-ris, is a leap of faith......and on and on.
In other words, anything that cannot be disproven, in an absolute sense, requires "a leap of faith" in order to dismiss its existence. Yes, possibility = plausability. Yeah, sure, pal.
PS: gOd, gOd, gOd, gOd, gOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOd
People define words… words don’t create reality, they reference it.
I don’t need faith to assign words to existents, I need senses & intelligence.
People rejecting their senses & intelligence, to make belief statements require faith.
Dave: "G-d or no G-d to is a leap of faith."
What a perfect illustration of a faithful statement.
D8
What the heck is a "spiritual trial"?
ATF
We get other True Christians(tm) in here all the time telling us no one deserves to go to heaven. I really do wish you True Christians(tm) would get your story straight before you come here blathering your idiocy.
Can you not see the logical fallacy with your statement here?
ATF
P.S.: For the medical probability stuff, God will answer to your prayer only if you believe for real, and if that is in his will.
Additionally, if this is indeed a factual event, you might want to contact James Randi and collect the million dollar award*. You'll be the first and only one to collect the big bucks.
*I read the expiration date for this offer is coming up soon. Too bad if you're too late. Ask god for the money instead. See what happens.
BP
I'm sorry, but I can barely see the keys to type a reply...I'm laughing so hard I'm crying.
IF you believe. IF it is god's will. Did you cover all the bases, Mat?
This has GOT to be fake. ROTFLMAO
Anybody have a kleenex?
BP
Oh ye of little faith, Mat. You are not a true Christian.
If they did, show us the evidence of these healings.
You don't by chance know of a miracle, where a leg or arm re-grew, do you?
ATF
Oops, there it goes again.
And all athiests...
I see the same arguments on both sides. They are convincing in their own way.
First of all, God didn't make suffering. Mankind did.
Now Prayer in the bible is mostly for spiritual things. If you pray for forgiveness than you will receive it. ( as a christian). If you pray to have superpowers. That would take a miracle. no.
And about creation and evolution. God Created the world as he saw fit.
All was already evolved. Mountains were made old.
Why do i believe this?
Because the Bible says.
Why do i believe the bible?
Because of the many many scientific proofs inside
The Bible says the earth is round. Thousands of years before that was discovered.
The bible explains the rivers and streams and their cycles into the ocean.
About the blood and how we would die without it.
Tooooonnnnns more. Want more? ill type them. and give verses
They have scrolls from original bibles.
all in them.
But finally put aside all prior beliefs and arguments and notions.
If there is no God, then why do you LOVE
emotion. Only humans can love and show so much emotion.
Sure a mama bear loves a baby bear. But im talking about LOVE loving your wife or husband. Love cannot evolve over billions of years.
If ive said anything anyone doesn't agree with or i wasn't clear on or you think im an idiot for saying. please say so in a calm way so i can respond better and with more evidence. This was just off the top of my head. I
I want to know what people think!
This was just off the top of my head. I I want to know what people think!
I think/know you are a morbidly gullible ignoramus. I also know you didn't get this information off the top of your head. I suspect you got it from some lame christian apologetic site like the Way of the Master and then pawned it off as your own to pretend you are intelligent.
First of all, God didn't make suffering. Mankind did.
Oh so then fallible humans are also creator gods? Humans are the ones who created germs, viruses, and bacteria that has caused mass plagues throughout history that left so much suffering in its wake?
It was fallible humans who created natural disasters like tornadoes, hurricanes, mudslides, floods, etc. that has caused so much devastation and suffering?
Explain to me how mankind created leukemia? Explain to me how humans caused my ten year old son to suffer egregiously for months while his blood poisoned him, which resulted in a massive heart attack that killed him?
You are just an ignorant deluded christian -- in a long line of ignorant deluded christians -- who have limited intellectual resources that offer up pathetic unsubstantiated superstitious myths, feebly trying to explain suffering in the world.
Why do i believe this?
Because the Bible says.
Oh in that case, if/when you have children and they are insubordinate or when they got upset and say mean things to you, like every normal child has done, to their parents, at one time or another -- did/do you take them outside and bludgeon them to death with rocks, watching them suffer and die a slow, painful death -- pummeled into a bloody pulp -- because the bible says?
Deut. 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
Exodus 21:17 -- He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
This is what your Holy Book of morality commands you to do and this is what you perpetuate and condone.
Because of the many many scientific proofs inside
The Bible says the earth is round. Thousands of years before that was discovered.
WRONG -- nowhere in the bible does it say the earth is a sphere. It says the earth is a circle. The reason people back then thought it was a flat circle is because when they climbed the highest peak and surveyed the land by spinning around it was perceived as a circle. Your strained conclusion that a circle is a sphere is like saying a square is a cube.
The bible explains the rivers and streams and their cycles into the ocean.
WRONG -- The author of Psalm 8:8 was only talking about how man ruled over the animals of the land and all the ocean creatures that passes along the paths of the sea -- NO OCEAN CURRENTS.
About the blood and how we would die without it.
DER? NO KIDDING. Nothing profound here. When a barbaric culture uses weapons like daggers and swords to kill people it isn't difficult to ascertain that when your blood flows out of your body, you become pasty and sallow, you go unconscious and then die.
But finally put aside all prior beliefs and arguments and notions.
If there is no God, then why do you LOVE
emotion. Only humans can love and show so much emotion.
Bawhahahahaha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
This doesn't prove that your personal christian god exists.
I can use your same impotent argument and asinine logic to posit Allah exists.
Humans love one another therefore Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, Odin, and the greek goddess of love Aphrodite, exist.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” -- Mark Twain
--S.
Why would a god be required to tell people that rivers flow into the ocean? Couldn't people have just observed that?
Similarly, why would supernatural knowledge be required to know that people die when they lose a large quantity of blood? That's simply an observable fact.
How is mankind responsible for all suffering? Did people create all the deadly bacteria and viruses and genetic faults that cause disease? Did we create natural disasters such as tornadoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes?
What are these "original" scrolls you mentioned? Have you actually read them?
Why do you think animals can't love? (I feel really sorry for you if you've never had a pet that obviously loved you.) What about animals that mate for life; is that love?
No, I won't call you an idiot, but I will say this (very calmly): I do think you are woefully ignorant and gullible enough to have been hoodwinked by the fairy tales christianity perpetrates to hoodwink the ignorant and gullible.
Now Prayer in the bible is mostly for spiritual things. If you pray for forgiveness than you will receive it. ( as a christian). If you pray to have superpowers. That would take a miracle. no.
Then why aren't you out there doing what the bible says you can do? You are able to heal the sick. Isn't it morbidly negligent to withhold the healing power your bible says you possess. What are you waiting for -- get your ass down to your local pediatric intensive care unit where children are egregiously suffering and dying from aggressive childhood diseases, inoperable brain tumors, hideous burns, etc.
Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall...drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Proverbs 16:3 Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.
The bible is clear -- believers can get what they want. I guess you just want to let little children suffer in egregious, unimaginable agony.
Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. (Can't you ask Jesus to let you heal all the terminally ill and suffering children?)
Matthew 17:20 I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. (NOTHING is impossible. See you don't even have to be full of the spirit -- you have at least enough faith that equals a minuscule mustard seed --right?).
Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Come on! At least start at your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and ease ALL those innocent children from their massive suffering -- HEAL THEM!)
Matthew 18:19 Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. (I'm sure you have plenty of deluded christian friends and relatives who believe the way you do -- you just need one more. Think of ALL the babies and children you can heal from their vile suffering).
Matthew 21:21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. (You believe -- right, Rainekaine? There are countless children in your area who are suffering in horrible reprehensible ways -- all you have to do is lay your hands on them -- you know if you are a believer (mustard seed of faith) and you believe ALL this bullshit in the bible).
John 14:12-14 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
ANYTHING, Rainekaine? How about healing a new-born who has an inoperable brain tumor or a horribly deformed baby or a child who has terminal cancer, or a child who just had ALL of his arms and legs amputated? Either you CAN (like Jesus says) heal suffering, sick children or you are an uncompassionate, obscenely apathetic, morbidly negligent monster who is withholding the healing power Jesus gave to you.
Fucking, hallelujah! Why don't you take your prayer groups on the road if you believe in what your bible says. The first place you, and merry band of prayer warriors could go and pray is your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, where the horrors of children suffering in unimaginable ways could alleviate their suffering and heal them. And after you stroll down the chamber of horrors where anything from preemies to adolescents, suffering in mind boggling, egregious pain, hooked to every machine available, that looks more like medieval torture devices rather then medical technology -- after you pray over every child in this gauntlet of pain and suffering, why don't you go next door to the Pediatric Burn Unit, where some children are suffering from 4th and 5th degree burns over their entire body -- hellish burns down to the bone. Go there and pray for them, that they will miraculously heal and be good as new. And after you miraculously heal all those children with prayer -- like your bible says -- you can take your miracle prayer party and heal all the children in all the PICUs and PICU Burn Units, across the nation. What are you waiting for? God is waiting for you to pray over children, so you can end their suffering but for some reason your demented, sadistic god is waiting for you to beg for his help in the form of a prayer.
--S.
Let's say you're correct, where did Mankind come from? Oh, burn.
If you studied REAL science you'd know animals have been killing each other for nearly a billion years.
-- Now Prayer in the bible is mostly for spiritual things. If you pray for forgiveness than you will receive it. ( as a christian). If you pray to have superpowers. That would take a miracle. no.
Guess what, you're wrong again. The bible says "whatsoever you pray for My name, you have received it". No conditions, not one. There is nothing in the bible to prevent for praying for a sporty new Jaguar. If someone showed up at my door with a title to one in my name, that WOULD be a miracle. Hahahahaha.
-- And about creation and evolution. God Created the world as he saw fit. All was already evolved. Mountains were made old.
(Tries not to bust out laughing) When different scientists use different techniques and show that rocks are old (as in millions or billions of years), you kinda get the idea that they really ARE old. Unless it's a global conspiracy of scientists to suppress the truth of Genesis as a factual account. That must mean that Satan is deluding this high IQ people, and they must be Satan worshipers.
Really, you should watch "Why people laugh at creationists" on YouTube.
-- Why do i believe the bible? Because of the many many scientific proofs inside.
If "having scientific proofs inside" is a requirement for belief, I think you should first start with your biology textbook, then chemistry, then physics, then mathematics. Learn geology and astronomy. Pick up a copy of Scientific American. Watch Nova or Animal Planet. There are lots more scientific proofs in these sources than there are in the Bible.
More great scientifc proofs from the Bible:
The world sits on pillars:
"The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them." 1 Sam 2:8
The sun revolves around the earth:
"As the sun ... goeth forth in his might." Judges 5:31
God can turn dust of the earth (silicon and aluminum oxides) into Man (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus) by breathing on it:
"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 soul." Genesis 2:7
And you wonder why we won't let you teach creationism or ID in our schools.
If you insist "the bible", itself, is "proof" for Christianty, then why not accept the Qu'ran for "proof" of Islam? Why not accept the Book of Mormon for "proof" of Mormonism? Why not accept Dianetics for "proof" of Scientology? And BTW, you evidentally don't know the contents of your own Bible, because Jesus makes clear that his followers will be able to emmulate him:
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." (John 41:12)
And all athiests...
Learning how to spell your opponent's name would be wise.
First of all, God didn't make suffering. Mankind did.
First of all, your biblegod presumably created everything, including, yes, "evil", and our suffering is supposedly because of two human prototype's decision to make the "evil" choice of eating a piece of fruit that was suppseldy "forbidden". Please notice that two people don't constitute "humankind". Furthermore, holding the latter responsible for the trespass of the former, and punishing the latter for the trespass of former, is a direct and blatant violation of our "free will", and it also shows that you and your biblegod harbor an extremely perverted concept of "Justice".
The Bible says the earth is round. Thousands of years before that was discovered.
To my understanding, the bible uses the word "circle", which does not mean "spherical". Moreover, as far as what "The Bible says", it also says that a "firmament" holds up the sky, when thousands of years later scientists have discovered that this is not so--there is nothing holding up the sky.
In other words, even if we give benefit of the doubt and grant that "The Bible" contatined the foreknowledge of the earth's shape, why is it wrong on so many other supposed "scientific" facts? Does smearing bird's blood on a sick person heal them? No, it does not. Do rabbits chew their cud? No, they do not. According to the Bible, the moon produces its own light and the earth does not move. Is this true? No, it is not. Do snakes eat dust? No, they do not. And on, and on.
Do you really mean that all of those Old Testament (you know - the Jewish Bible) prophecies that jesus fulfilled were not sufficient?
Make up your mind. Wither he fulfilled them and the apostles could point out the chapters and verses, or he didn't. You can't have it both ways, can you?
Of course you can, you're a fungigental, I forgot. You can have it any way you want - just ask a hooker who knows a televangelist!
I disagree. My cats show an amazing range of emotions, including compassionate concern for sick or tired people; jealousy; frustration; and yes, love. Their brains are made of the same stuff as ours, so I'm not in the least bit surprised by this.
"The Bible says the earth is round. Thousands of years before that was discovered."
Well, that's rather unfortunate for the Bible, because the earth is spherical, not round. (Earth as a flat disk is a concept borrowed from pre-Biblical cultures, by the way.)
The more accurate concept of a spherical earth is at least 500 years older than the New Testament, and may even be older than some of the books in the Old Testament. The Indian astronomer Aryabhata not only described Earth as a sphere, but estimated its diameter to within 62 kilometres. Other individuals who got it essentially right include Eratosthenes, Pythagoras, Seleucus, Plato, and Aristotle.
"The bible explains the rivers and streams and their cycles into the ocean. About the blood and how we would die without it. "
One doesn't need access to a god to figure out things like this. A soldier on a battlefield, or the operator of a river barge, are just as qualified to provide such information.
And Jesus Is talking about The apostles. He gives them powers. Now The apostles also had the ability to spread power. But that is where it stopped. Those they spread the gifts to could not spread it. In 1 Cor 13 it talks about all these gifts and how they will cease when that which is perfect has come. The bible/word of God is talked about as perfection. Its not talking about Jesus because Jesus is not a thing. It says that which is, not he who is. When the apostles died. So did the spiritual gifts.
And about the blood. Do some research. People died from bleeding themselves out a lot.
And when i say mankind was the reason for suffering. Its Because man chose to sin. And choose mortality. Sin and Satan are The real cause, but man allowed it to happen.
And no. Animals have instinct that makes them mate. They do not love one another as humans do. Instinct.
And i didn't say it was proof of a christian God. Im saying its proof of a higher being.
A big explosion might suddenly create life. But thoughts, dreams, emotion. Not possible in my opinion. And im not gullible. I have studied many points of view. And you all make good arguments.
You have to have an open mind and heart. But you sealed your hearts and minds a while ago it sounds like. Im not going to ask you to disprove God either because I've seen all the arguments and they are ridiculous.
And Jesus is saying spiritual things. How many people did he save spiritually? And when you ask things in his name like forgiveness and for guidance you will receive it. Even if it seems like moving a mountain.
And if those children died then its best they die innocent. They will be in a much better place than this world.
I myself haven't prayed for them but you make a good point.
I will. And God hears the prayers of the righteous, and im afraid there aren't many left. Plus that involves miracles to heal them. Prayer doesn't make miracles. Providence is when God alters the world without changing its laws. You cant heal kids with brain cancer. But if I prayed to ease their suffering. That would be logical.
I was just typing off the top of my head again. Im sorry if it wasn't clear. If i sound ignorant or stupid please let me know so I can respond with better words and more evidence to support my position.
Oh -- silly deluded whack-job christians using made up stories -- nothing but myths -- to explain suffering in the world.
Let's explore the many inconsistencies is the A&E myth to shed light on why it's so patently ridiculous.
It is not at all, clear, that suffering was caused by the fall and by satan. You seemed to have made assumptions based on recollection and declarations that do not come from the CONTEXT of the story of Adam and Eve. I suspect you are getting your information from a slew of varying people. The ideas and notions you present come from christian doctrine or perhaps from the reading of apologetics. The one thing I am sure of, you are not coming up with your own ideas, from the actual context of the story. My accusation comes, specifically, from your understanding of Genesis with respects to the Adam and Eve story. You have added layers of interpretation to the text and you don't take into consideration the original authors intention, which suggests you have not read it in awhile, for yourself.
I suggest you take a closer look at the context of Genesis 2-3
1. There you will find no mention of sin, let alone original sin or the first sin.
2. The serpent is never referred to as satan.
3. Satan plays no part in the garden, nor in Genesis, nor in the Pentateuch.
4. There is however a snake that god created, albeit it a talking snake, that was created as a "sneaky" snake. Depending on your translation the snake could be, sneaky or devious, but the actual Hebrew word, "aruwm", means "mentally acute", "shrewd", or "sharp-witted" -- not deceptive.
5. Nowhere in Genesis does it say the snake tempted anyone.
6. In fact, in the details of the story, the snake is not deceptive he is acutely perceptive.
7. With this perception, he tells it like it is -- the truth.
8. He tells Eve, she will not die the day she eats of the fruit and that she will gain a moral knowledge. Low and behold she didn't die and now she knows right from wrong -- What a wise and truthful, talking, snake.
9. God lied and said, the day you eat of the tree of knowledge you will surely die. The snake said no you won't.
10. Nowhere does god tell Adam and Eve, what will happen to them, nor that by disobeying him, evil and suffering would take a foothold on our planet, causing humanity to suffer in cruel and inhumane ways, which he imposed, after they partook of the fruit. Nor does it convey a utopia, where suffering was non-existent.
11. God does not tell them it was unacceptable -- he does not tell them why they can not eat from the tree of knowledge, he just tells them not to, but then lies and says they will surely die the day they eat of it.
12. I know what you are thinking, so I'll head you off at the pass. To save god's reputation of not being a deceiver, you will surely say, What god really meant, was they would lose their immortality. Nowhere, in the context of the story, is it ever implied, that god bestowed immortality on Adam and Eve nor that immortality would be their destiny. For you to imply such a thing, you would be embellishing the context of the story and assigning layers of interpretation. So, god, after attempting to keep his children from gaining knowledge of good and evil, now wants to keep immortality for himself and whoever he is referring to, with, "us", as the last step of protecting his divinity from Adam and Eve, and humanity. So now he posts a scary guard with a flaming sword, in front of the tree of immortality, which shows a god with NO foreknowledge, because he could have posted the same guard in front of the Tree of Knowledge and supposedly, could have averted the catastrophic effects, to begin with.
13. Whatever you call it, "punishment" or "discipline" the consequences -- for A&E minor infraction -- were neither compassionate, loving, fair, nor anything resembling constructive instruction. In fact god's action were more akin to an abusive, raging, father, who went nuts, punishing everything around him, including the snake and all snakes after that; he bestowed hatred between Adam and Eve and all their decedents, He multiplied the pain of birth, thus securing the plight for all women, and then, in a fit of misogyny and sexism, he further cursed Eve that, "although, I make you hate your husband and childbirth will be excruciating, you will lust for him and he will rule over you". And then, god, with all divine obtuseness, curses the ground, so that Adam and all males would suffer, with endless hard labor, just to eat. And if that weren't enough god allowed evil and suffering to take a foothold on the planet.
14. Also, why would an omniscient god punish ALL snakes for what you believe satan perpetrated? Isn't that like punishing ALL cops, because a psycho disguised as a cop killed a bunch of people?
15. When delving into the story even further, one can understand that Adam and Eve were innocents, in the story and because they had not eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would not have known of good and evil; right from wrong. They didn't posses a moral conscience, at the moment they disobeyed god and to imply they sinned and because of their ignorant choice, they allowed evil and suffering to take a foothold on our planet, causing all human-kind to suffer, is stretching and manipulating the authors original intent of the story. Again, nowhere is "sin" mentioned in the story and to extrapolate what these two ancient, innocent, people -- who without the knowledge of good and evil -- could possibly understand, that what they were doing by disobeying god, was wrong, could actually be considered a sin. They couldn't think about the morality of what they were doing because they did NOT know the difference between good and evil. If they did NOT know the difference between good and evil how could they possibly know what they were doing was wrong?
It's like an innocent child, little Johnny, who, while looking at the dazzling Christmas package and with the insistence of his "cunning", older brother, can't restrain himself and opens it, even after his mom told him not to open it, after she had left the room. Now, the mom comes back and curses little Johnny and declares, he will encounter pain, every time he breathes and at school he will sweat and toil and schoolwork will be extremely difficult, for the rest of his life and not only that, lil' Johnny, just unleashed evil and from now on all his relatives will suffer, for what he did, they will suffer in unimaginable ways, children will be burned to death, children will suffer for years with incurable diseases, His relatives will suffer horrible disasters and will be maimed, There will be blindness and deafness, brain tumors and leukemia, rape, murder and mayhem. The only difference with this analogy, compared to the Adam and Eve story, is little Johnny already possessed the knowledge of right and wrong.
16. If sin and evil had not taken a foothold on humanity how did the evil snake (supposedly satan) exist?
17. What a just and merciful, all-loving god; only on closer inspection your god is a jealous megalomaniac, who unjustly punishes a naive couple, because they made an uneducated, unknowing, child-like choice, supposedly, allowing evil and suffering into this world, thereby, cursing the rest of God's earthly children to suffer horribly. And what is even more astonishing, you condone, these egregious actions and love god for it.
Deluded foolish myths -- this a case of ignorant, gullible christians layering mounds of interpretation on scripture as to embellish and stretch the meaning of the context of the A&E myth to make it fit their warped world-view.
--S.
I don't have time to waste writing a lengthy response to someone who seems to think dropping a load of christian jargon (aka biblical gobbedy-gook) is somehow evidence of anything other than the fact that christians believe irrational things merely because they've been so programmed. But, I would like to challenge you to think and the selection I've quoted above is as good a place as any to start.
What do you understand "instinct" to mean? (And, no, I do not want you to cut and paste the dictionary definition of the word.) What is instinct? How does it work? How do you determine that an action results from instinct rather than thought and/or emotion? How do YOU know better than some scientists who say that animals can feel love?
Do humans have instincts, too? If so, how do you know that choosing a mate, setting up family and social structures, etc. is not something humans do by instinct rather than through some kind of god-given mechanism?
It seems to me that "instinct" is an ill-defined and misunderstood word that people often use in regard to non-human animals to explain their actions in a way that distinguishes the so-called "lower lifeforms" from humans that supposedly have been endowed with another ill-defined thing they call a "soul." It doesn't really explain anything but it saves them from having to think deeper.
Only people jesus actually told he would save will be saved? THAT explains the 144,000 Elect.
Rainekaine, you are an ignorant, born-again numbskull. At the act of your creation, when you were called forward to be given a brain, you misheard and didn't go, as the idea of a drain in your head did not appeal to you. As a result, you have become a drain on the world's resources.
Please go and get an education before its too late.
WHAT!?!? "...its[sic] best if they die innocent. They will be in a much better place than this world."
You really mean to say that you are happy for your god to allow children to suffer just so that you can tell people they will be in a better place?
You are inhuman, in possession of neither common humanity, love nor compassion. Furthermore, the god you espouse and promote, by your reckoning in this matter, is even less loving and compassionate than you are.
If your jesus IS saying spiritual things then why in (insert mythical deity of your choice)'s name was he so bloody stupid as to not say so? Just think how much suffering he could have prevented by not letting us think we could take him at his word.
We conclude from the evidence you present that if you sound ignorant or stupid it is simply because you DO possess both of those attributes in spades.
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. You are being about a successful as the proverbial one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest and I suspect that you do not know any better words.
Peace,
David
After reading your comments here, I've come to a huge conclusion.
You say that you're "not gullible".
I on the other hand, say that you are very gullible, based on all the imaginary things you believe are part of our common reality.
BTW, what kind of expert are you, to say that some animals don't "love" each other as humans do?
See, you say that because you wish to believe that humans are special and that god gave only us the ability to 'love', but I say, you're WRONG, and so do many animal experts lately.
Get your nose out of that bible and start discovering reality.
Find the courage to face this life, without having to hold onto an invisible god's hand.
See, that imaginary construct of a god, only lives inside your own brain anyway, so nothing major will be lost when you realize this fact.
ATF (Who hopes that Rainekaine sees his bedroom ceiling as 'god', because that's all that hears him when he prays)
<<< Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, WHATEVER you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. >>>
If so, I pray that you will give us all your money and never visit this site again.
A big explosion might suddenly create life. But thoughts, dreams, emotion. Not possible in my opinion.
...an uneducated obscenely ignorant opinion that doesn't add up to shite.
And im not gullible. I have studied many points of view.
You are gullible and obscenely ignorant. You have NO clue about the science involved in evolution and how certain fields study thought and emotions and how they actually evolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_emoti...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious#Evolutio...
There is no getting around it there are mountains of evidence (REAL, CORROBORATED, TESTED, VERIFIABLE, OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) that have been amassed, in several, varying fields of science, including: zoology, botany, genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology, population genetics, biochemistry, comparative psychology, molecular genetics -- which ALL point to the inescapable scientific TRUTH: Throughout time, life, on this planet -- EVOLVED.
You have to have an open mind and heart. But you sealed your hearts and minds a while ago it sounds like.
Really? And do you have an open mind and heart about Allah and his final revelation of divine guidance and direction for mankind in the form of the qur'an?
No you say? I wonder what your rationale is? I would bet that the reasons why you reject Allah and the qur'an are the same reasons we reject your deluded beliefs.
And if those children died then its best they die innocent. They will be in a much better place than this world.
And yet your intelligent (sarcasm) creator god created them anyways -- knowing they would suffer egregiously for months or even years (some only knew suffering) only to die. Why did he create them in the first place?
I myself haven't prayed for them but you make a good point.
I will. And God hears the prayers of the righteous, and im afraid there aren't many left. Plus that involves miracles to heal them. Prayer doesn't make miracles. Providence is when God alters the world without changing its laws. You cant heal kids with brain cancer. But if I prayed to ease their suffering. That would be logical.
NOTHING you say is logical.
Now -- what I want you to do is go to your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and do what the bible says you can do.
Your "providence argument" is contradicted by scripture where it clearly states that you can pray about ANYTHING including healing and Jesus will do it.
John 14:12-14 I tell you the truth, ANYONE who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for ANYTHING in my name, and I will do it.
Jesus says that ANYONE who has faith in him can ask for ANYTHING and he will do it. You have faith in Jesus -- right?
Mark 16:15-18 Then Jesus told them: Go and preach the good news to everyone in the world. Anyone who believes me and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe me will be condemned. EVERYONE who believes me will be able to do wonderful things. By using my name they will force out demons, and they will speak new languages. They will handle snakes and will drink poison and not be hurt. They will also heal sick people by placing their hands on them.
Jesus explicitly says that EVERYONE that believes in him can heal the sick.
You believe in Jesus, right -- Rainekaine?
Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, WHATEVER you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
WHATEVER you ask.
Now I'm expecting you to go down to your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and PRAY over these children so you can alleviate their suffering and HEAL them. The bible is absolutely clear ANYONE and EVERYONE who has faith and believes in Jesus will get WHATEVER they ask for in prayer.
And this is not just for his immediate disciples -- it's for EVERYONE who has FAITH in him. Furthermore being a disciple of christ just means that you are a follower of christ.
You are a follower aren't you Rainekaine?
You know what the great commission is? Jesus instituted the Great Commission, commanding all present to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20a). Jesus has incorporated this practice into the very definition of being a disciple and experiencing discipleship. -- wikipedia
Well then, you are a disciple of christ.
It is your christian moral obligation as one of jesus' disciples to do what jesus commanded.
It would be a dereliction of that duty and a heinous injustice if you did NOT go and heal ALL those children.
Please keep us informed and updated of ALL the miraculous healings that you generated through prayer. You can regale us with ALL the happy stories and the astounding relief you bestowed upon the parents of the children you prayed for.
I'm sure this will make the national news -- what with ALL the children who grew back amputated legs or spontaneously regenerated new skin from their 5th degree burns, or the baby who was riddled with malignant tumors, with only days left to live, went into a miraculous remission -- the cancer just disappeared.
Or will you continue to offer up B.S. excuses and lame infantile rationalizations, why -- what I wrote above -- about praying and healing, isn't tenable; to protect your feeble beliefs.
Or will you finally come to your senses -- realize and admit that you can NOT actually end the suffering of these children by healing them with prayer, which is a devastating confirmation that what the bible and jesus told you about prayer and healing is bullshit?
--S.
I respectfully suggest to you that you would not recognize the concepts of thought and logic, were they to pool their resources and introduce themselves to you with a matched pair of Astreja's famous clue-by-fours.
It truly does appear that the cardiac ganglion of the homarus Americanus lobster is more bountifully blessed with its nine neurons than is your neocortex. I fear there really is no hope for you.
I suggest you consider the parable of the talents and, come the rapture, just what excuse you are going to use when the big guy asks you what you did with yours.
Which version of the Bible should we take in its entirety. Catholics, Othodox Christians, and mainline Protestants have different sets of books in their Bibles. Which set of books is the correct one? Also, how do you know your interpretation of scriptures is correct? Does the Holy Spirit guide you? Furthermore, when do you suppose the transition from needing miracles to having the Bible took place? Some could argue the Bible wasn't really available until after the printing press was invented, because ordinary people certainly couldn't afford a Bible back then (assuming they could even read).
I was just typing off the top of my head again. Im sorry if it wasn't clear. If i sound ignorant or stupid please let me know so I can respond with better words and more evidence to support my position.
You silly deluded fool -- what you presented to us is abundantly clear, which is the same bullshit "proofs" that have been offered to us a from other dumb-ass christians a thousand times before -- but it only amounts to bloated bullshit rationalizations, that you simply settle for, out of massive ignorance and morbid gullibility, that in NO way serves as OBJECTIVE evidence for the existence of your personal christian god. There are NO "proofs" you can offer up that we haven't disassembled and/or heard of before.
Do....you....under....stand?
You are just regurgitating the bullshit you gladly lapped up from supposed authorities without ever truly examining it yourself and then you blindly vomit it up here.
In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. -- Mark Twain
You got NOTHING to offer us except massive ignorance, morbid gullibility and crazy-ass delusions.
--S.
What do you mean, "more evidence"?[italics mine] You've presented no evidence previously. Thus far, you've put forth your interpretation..i.e..your spin, on the contents of "The Bible" as "evidence" for Christianity's Universal truth-claims. You've further attempted to show that the redactors of the Bible had a foreknowledge of certain scientific facts "two thousand years ago", but you ignore all the scriptural "facts" that CONTRADICT science as we know it today. Let me refresh your memory: Does the moon give off its own light? Bzzzzzt! NO, it does not. Is the earth geocentric? Bzzzzzt! NO, it is not. Does a rabbit chew its cud? Bzzzzzt! NO. And on, and on...misinformation abounds.
Then you try to reconcile "Original Sin" with the following:
And when i say mankind was the reason for suffering. Its Because man chose to sin. And choose mortality. Sin and Satan are The real cause, but man allowed it to happen.
'Sorry, but you haven't overcome the "free will" dilemma. For instance, you use the word "man" collectively, when supposedly, only two specific people employed their "free will" in that infamous "decision" in the alleged "Garden". Please explain how it is moral and "Just" to hold the entire human race responsible for the actions of one or two? 'Listening.
Continues.... Im not going to ask you to disprove God either..
That's refreshing, because it is not the nonbeliever's burden to "disprove" your biblegod. The burden of proving a deity, or any other claim in the affirmative, is in the lap of the one MAKING the claim. In other words, it's not your or my burden to "disprove" the Muslim who asserts that the Holy Qu'ran is the Perfect Word of the Creator of the Universe. The onus of proof is in their lap.
Well, these "miracles", otherwise known as "magic-tricks", were performed for the same reason they are today, to impress someone and get their attention.
Beyond that, these tricks were meant to infer that the person doing the "miracle", had some special connection with the supernatural.
There were no real miracles in those days, nor are there any today, of a type that would point to more than trickery and nature itself.
Please, get a clue!!!
ATF (Who doesn't think this xtian knows what logical thinking really means)
As for you, I can only feel pity.
Whenever two or three....etc.
Either your god does not exist OR he is a lying, manipulative snake oil salesman.
As for your bleating about the anthropocentric principle - the stabilty of the universe disigned[sic] so perfectly for our existence is enough to prove that there is a superior being - simply put, life has evolve to be suitable for the environment in which it evolved, the same way that watermelons come out cuboid if you grow them in a box.
As to the purpose of our creation, for most it seems to be to provide fuel for an everlasting fire to power the evil of which your god claims to have been the creator.
The best kind of prayer is the one we use to motivate ourselves off our arses to achieve something. The kind you speak of, directed at an unresponsive ceiling achieves nothing, if you discount the brownie (brown-nose) points you award yourself when you do it and feel good about yourself.
The reason why think god doesn't (nota bene) exist is that, despite the constant advertising, there is no evidence of either the product itself, or its effects. The advertising is not particularly convincing as it is ambiguous: "Come, be saved by our infinite, merciful, loving god who, by the way, will destroy you and everybody else if he 'repents of his creation'. " 'Repents of his creation' is priest-speak for 'decides he made a mistake in creating humankind'.
Yes, that is right. He decides he has made a mistake and so he drowns everybody and everything, even the innocent children and the animals. All because he made the mistake.
Now, you seriously expect us to want to be in the company of a being so unstable?
You are deluded in your wish. We would rather examine the substantial evidence that points to there being no god. At least if we turn out to be wrong,we will not have to spend time with this unspeakable, immoral thing you call a creator.
Peace,
David
Please be more specific---which "God" are you arguing in favor of here, and to whom are you speaking?
you atheists should really come up with better arguments..
I'm not sure if you are "RaineKaine", or perhaps his or her protégé, but you should be made aware that the best Atheist argument going is that Theists don't have one---they don't have any arguments FOR their respective deities. That's right, they have no evidence, sans, "revelation" and "personal experience"(anecdotal evidence) for their religious beliefs. Please note that such "evidence" could make *ANY* religious philosophy "True". Honestly, how will you disprove that "Allah" dictated the Perfect Word of the Creator of the Universe to Muhammad? The devout Muslim believes that he or she is just as correct as you do, on precisely the same types of flimsy, weak, unconvincing "evidence".
...the stabilty of the universe disigned so perfectly for our existence is enough to prove that there is a superior being.
My goodness, nothing like ass-uming your premise true in your argument..i.e..circular argument. BTW, are you aware that the universe is also home to millions of meteors, one of which could wipe out civilization as we know it, if it hit us? So much for a "perfectly" designed universe. 'Seems to be "designed" for chaos.
The best kind of prayer is the recognition of our creator, that we are made in his image..
Yes, made with the propensity to make poor choices, be jealous, be selfish, and to stroke our own egos, to name just a few characteristics. Yup, we're a chip off the ol' block, alright.
... if he["God"] made himself known to us in physical appearence as proof of his existence alone then we would only follow him because we would feel like we had to
Speak for yourself. I wouldn't "follow" the "God" described in the Christian handbook even if I was thoroughly convinced it existed. In other words, your "God must remain hidden!!!!" argument fails miserably.
But if we recognize his existence with our own intellect that he gave us, and follow our concience by living a good life and doing what we know is right....
FYI, it is possible to live "a good life" and do "what we know is right" without "Commandments", threats of "hell", or invisible beings watching us 24/7. In other words, we don't need an invisible-baby-sitter-in-the-sky to be moral beings.
<<< the stabilty of the universe disigned so perfectly for our existence is enough to prove that there is a superior being >>>
Take a look at the Hubble Telescope website and look at the photos. There are images of entire galaxies slamming into one another. Planets are being ripped apart. Stars are collapsing on themselves. There is massive destruction going on as we speak.
I think you have things backwards. There are billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are untold numbers of galaxies in the universe. The odds were overwhelming that life could exist somewhere, and it may very well exist in many places. The idea that the universe exists just so life on Earth can happen is absurd.
Expand your mind. Life is too short to live with blinders on.
so thats your reason why you think God dosent exist? you atheists should really come up with better arguments, the stabilty of the universe disigned so perfectly for our existence is enough to prove that there is a superior being.
WRONG -- speculative rationalization.
Just because we exist and have overcome the many unstable designs of our environment (freezing to death in the winter, or succumbing to heat exhaustion and heat stroke due to extreme hot climates, natural disaster etc.) does not provide objective evidence of a creator god.
Furthermore all the (subjective) perfect designs for our existence crumbles and withers away when you take into account just one child -- who at this very moment in time -- is languishing in pain, dying of some hideous, incurable disease -- suffering in unimaginable ways. Now consider ALL the children who have suffered from aggressive childhood leukemia, all childhood cancers and diseases, and horrible genetic, birth defects, deformities and gross mental disorders and tell me a creator god designed a perfect universe that has our welfare in mind -- waiting...
YOUR ARGUMENT states a god exists because you supposedly see evidences for a perfectly designed universe for our existence -- am I correct in my summation?
Can you comprehend this argument is an appeal to nature and it is only based on subjective reasoning?
But why stop there? There's a myriad of unintelligent designs by your grand designer in the sky.
Let's hold a mirror to the rest of nature that god perfectly designed for our existence -- shall we? What about those perfectly designed, hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, heat waves, volcanoes, lightening strikes, blizzards, mudslides, etc, that cause so much destruction, leaving monstrous injuries, misery and death in their wake.
What about the unintelligent design of the umbilical cord? God sure screwed up that design. If god could create the universe, why couldn't he design an umbilical cord that wouldn't wrap around a babies neck, depriving them from oxygen, causing thousands of babies a year to die or to suffer the rest of their life with egregious mental and physical challenges?
How about god's great design of putting the air hole right next to the food hole causing thousands to choke to death every year? What about the these perfect designs: viruses, bacterias, and germs, that have caused billions to suffer and die in mass plagues? These are shitty fucking designs. And you still think a creator god has us in mind?
Additionally -- 99% of all life has gone extinct. Look at the immense volume of the universe where life can't exist -- where you will die instantly -- instantly. Again, this is a god who has us in mind?
What about becoming extinct at any moment? Asteroids? Gamma rays? Ice Ages?
440 million years ago. End of the Ordovician period.
370 million years ago. Near the end of the Devonian period.
245 million years ago. End of Permian.
210 million years ago. End of Triassic.
65 million years ago. End of Cretaceous.
God's doing a pretty shitty job, if these are the perfect conditions for life and is proof of his existence.
So -- if you can come to a conclusion that a deity exists because there is an appearance of a perfect design that caters to our existence, then it is reasonable to conclude your argument fails, miserably when observable evidence is offered that is contrary to your premise, such as ALL the unintelligent, shitty, repulsive, ugly things in this cesspool of a world --right?
Can you see how my argument attacks your argument specifically?
Can you see your argument trying to prove the existence of a deity crumbles to the floor, in two very important ways? 1. Being you have NOT delivered (TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE, OBJECTIVE) evidence and 2. the observable world is also replete with evidence of ugly horrid, non-perfect designs, that is antithetical to the specifics of your argument -- please try to grasp this.
So what you have is a subjective rationalized opinion contradicted by observable evidence that dismantles your argument specifically -- comprende?
Now what you have to understand is: we are NOT making a definite assertion that a creator god doesn't exist. We have just concluded there is NO objective evidence for his existence.
There very well could be a creator a god (an ultimate reality, if you will) but so far you have NOT offered any objective evidence that supports your assertion -- aside from bloated rationalizations.
And even if you could demonstrate (with objective evidence) that a creator god existed, you would have to bridge a colossal chasm to demonstrate your creator god-concept was also the one and only christian triune personal god -- good luck with that.
It can be hard to believe that we have a creator who loves us, but he respects us enough to give us free will, to let us make our own choice wether or not to follow him, if he made himself known to us in physical appearence as proof of his existence alone then we would only follow him because we would feel like we had to, because he existed now for sure, not because we wanted to. But if we recognize his existence with our own intellect that he gave us, and follow our concience by living a good life and doing what we know is right, we show God that we have chosen to follow him, and if you stand by this decision and follow him, through all the hardships and not let them drag you down in doubt or despair, we will be in his presense, and will be fully and entirely the fullness of our creation, the best of ourselves.
There is no free will or choice, in the matter, when your god-concept holds a gun to your head and says believe in me or I'll torture you, in the flames, of hell for an eternity -- that's not a choice, that's an ULTIMATUM, from a sick, sadistic monster. Your god-concept is insanely insecure and morbidly petty, to send his earthly children to the flames of hell, simply, because they did not believe, in him (What's the matter -- were god's poor little feelings hurt?) or because they concluded there was no objective evidence for his existence. I don't know what's more pathetically horrendous, a god who will torture you just because you don't believe, in him or the ignorant christian drone, who believes and condones god's actions?
You do NOT know god's will or character.
You don't have any special information that we don't already possess.
You have simply fabricated an insanely and fantastic, massive delusion by idiosyncratically interpreting the superstitious, spurious words of scripture, and constructing a god-character by offering bloated rationalizations from the confines of your limited imagination.
--S.
But consider this...
you say that overcoming the dramatic and radical changes of our environment is not proof that God exists, and you are right there, but you over look the fact that at present our planet, nature wise is relitavely made perfect for our existence, we evolved yes, but not to the point where we have had the need to alter ourselves completey. (take the spider, who in the prime of the Earth's existence was one of the top predators, had to reduce in size in order to survive the drastic changes of the environment) God chose his greatest creation, mankind, to dwell on Earth at a time of stabilty.
"speculative rationalization"
You used this term to backfire on me and on all religion. But isn't science, which is the very basis of which you are staging this argument against mine all about that? Science is mostly made up of theories mixed with facts. They mix fact with speculative rationalization to make theories on phenomenas we don't understand and never will. You also brought to my attention the corrupt human body; why would a God who loves and respects us design us with potential flaws with which affects are witnessed everyday from birth defects to horrible deaths like suffucation? You like to quote scripture alot and use it to help you with your theories about how miserable our world and how uncaring our God is. As you may have read in scripture God's intention was for us to live in complete hapiness with him, and at the same time giving us free will, but the reason why God is hidden from us is because our parents Adam and Eve rebelled against Him and seperated us from his presence. You take the scripture you quote to us literally so you might as well take the story of Adam and Eve literally too. The reason we are seperated from Him and we remain hidden is because of one thing, which you probably here from all us crazy religious fanatics all the time, SIN, that which causes our bodies to decay, that which causes us to despair, and that which causes children to be born with defects. It's all a plague on humanity in consequence of sin.
Now I don't think that everything in scripture can be taken literally, it was written as a story so that the people of that time could understand and comprehend its meaning, perhaps the story of Adam and Eve and their sin against God is a metaphor of how mankind rebells against Him of which all of us are guilty for and time itself is only a limit or a barrier for us, and which dominates our reality.
Take these so called "theories" into mind and try and understand that there are other dimensions, like the various galaxies which you exclaimed, and there are things that remain unseen and still wait to be discovered. You probably share the popular belief that God is simply a creation of man. But even if thats true think of all the good religion has done for mankind. The view that atheists have on the world is we live and we die, and when we are dead were simply meat for the Earth. There would be no belief in the common good and people would despair, knowing that there is nothing more then then this so called miserable world. Religion therefore gives people something to grasp onto, a means of salvation, and what you do is attempt to crush that one hope people have.
Additionally -- 99% of all life has gone extinct. Look at the immense volume of
the universe where life can't exist -- where you will die instantly --
instantly. Again, this is a god who has us in mind?
What about becoming extinct at any moment? Asteroids? Gamma rays? Ice Ages?
440 million years ago. End of the Ordovician period.
370 million years ago. Near the end of the Devonian period.
245 million years ago. End of Permian.
210 million years ago. End of Triassic.
65 million years ago. End of Cretaceous.
We are still here arent we? Obviously our planet Earth is quite different from the vast chaotic galaxies of our universe, suitable for us to live in. You state the extinction of animals periodically, and I assume you use this to correspond with your belief that mankind will eventually be wiped out by some natural catastrophe within the next million years.
That may very well be, and is highly probable, but again look at whats different between man and all the other species of life that ever lived on this planet, there is without a doubt a superiority easily distinguished. You may believe in evolution from simian ancestors, but thats another issue that im not about to get into. He obviously cares enough about us to put us on Earth at a time of stabilty, and has there been an ice age lately?
"Can you see how my argument attacks your argument specifically?
Can you see your argument trying to prove the existence of a deity crumbles to
the floor, in two very important ways? 1. Being you have NOT delivered
(TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE, OBJECTIVE) evidence and 2. the observable
world is also replete with evidence of ugly horrid, non-perfect designs, that is
antithetical to the specifics of your argument -- please try to grasp this."
Perhaps I have not stated my argument in the best way.
TESTABLE
first of all you contradict yourself,
"There very well could be a creator a god (an ultimate reality, if you will) but
so far you have NOT offered any objective evidence that supports your assertion"
Honestly what are you getting at with all this? Are you tryin to convince me that a God doesn't exist, or are you sayin the there could be a God, but if there is He is completely and utterly uncaring? It is even in the nature of man to take pride in his creation and preserve it, take care of it, and defend it. So if you are saying that there possibly is a God, who created man in His image, gave us feelings, a concience, and intellect but then completely forgot about us, then "logically" and scientically you are wrong in every aspect and assumption.
The natural world we live in I state again to be the opposite of chaotic, as compared to the rest of the universe, and Earth in the time of its creation. But it appears that you are not so easily convinced. History and Tradition, both oral and written is proof of the existence of a deity, and mankind throughout all of time has recognized the presence of a higher power. You will probably go on to say that this is only ignorance, that this belief was only to substitute for the reason that certain aspects of life were proclaimed to be that of the supernatural, simply because they couldn't be grasped or understood, but how different are we now? We have technology and theories, and evidence, but none that prove that this higher power, or superior being doesn't exist. We are blinded by our pride and think we have it all figured out.
REPEATABLE
The testimony of His existence has been echoed throughout time, repeated over and over for thousands of years. Believed so strongly that men have died to uphold the faith, and to preserve its sacredness. To me this is not dying for ignorance, but it is divine inspiration that strengthened these people to firmly stand by their faith even when facing death, otherwise it would be madness, and you cannot say that the millions of christian martyrs were all mad. The fact that our universe is evident of a superior being is just one argument, (even though it is not enough to proove His existence it is enough to suggest it) we can find his inspiration inside of us if we only open our minds and not be seduced by doubt or the misleadings of our society.
VERIFIABLE
The testimony of His existence is right in front of you, the atoms that make up all matter, the flowers that blossom and the abundant atmosphere and sky. But if you want further testimony I again mention Oral and Written Tradition.
Oral tradition, passed on from generation to generation and which the Bible itself is written from, God has revealed himself to us time and time again, and has also made His convenant with us in the Old Testament through His inspired word, hence, Written Tradition. Is scripture all a hoax? Is it just a collection of senseless bullshit? I refer now to the New Testament, and yep, you guessed it, I am a Christian. The Catholic Church, the proof of God's covenant with man has survived through persecution and fire, and stands to this day. Would not such a false conspiracy, which only creation and existence would be for money be brought down in its deceit and corruption ? If history has taught us anything we know that anything evil from the core will devour itself, as it has in the past, but the church has stood strong for over 2 thousand years as has the testimony of the existence of a deity which has existed since the prime of mankind.
OBJECTIVE
I know that what I have stated above is not proof enough for you that there is an actual loving God, but consider this, if man can love then why wouldn't the creator also know and be familiar with the concept of love? As every father cares for his son so does God care for us. Life is not made perfect for us in order to fulfill our every need and desire, but the place where we choose to follow Him, or go by our own path, and this world is ours to govern. As a son that defies his father is punished for his own benefit, so is mankind punished for the terrible things we do to eachother by the consequence of sin. We do not recognize ourselves as brothers not only of the same species, but brothers who share the same caring father, the creator of all things. We reject Him and therefore suffer the mortal consequences.
" the world is also replete with evidence of ugly horrid, non-perfect designs, that is
antithetical to the specifics of your argument -- please try to grasp this."
How right you are, but just as the world is full of evil there is good. You know this as a fact, the air you breathe is good, as is the human concience and will that He gave us, but when it is distorted and twisted by evil will and sin, ( the perversion of our originally good nature) the concience is killed and a person can become wholly evil, corrupting the world. But you are wrong when you say nature is ugly, horrid, and filled with non-perfect designs, and although there are flaws in the system we live in it is sufficient enough for mankind to achieve peace, prosperity, and happiness, but people like you rather direct your anger towards God and not the ones responsible for the current state of our species, Mankind itself. God, who not only provides guidance and salvation in all things gives us the option, I repeat, to choose between His way or ours.
There is no free will or choice, in the matter, when your god-concept holds a
gun to your head and says believe in me or I'll torture you, in the flames, of
hell for an eternity -- that's not a choice, that's an ULTIMATUM, from a sick,
sadistic monster. Your god-concept is insanely insecure and morbidly petty, to
send his earthly children to the flames of hell, simply, because they did not
believe, in him (What's the matter -- were god's poor little feelings hurt?) or
because they concluded there was no objective evidence for his existence. I
don't know what's more pathetically horrendous, a god who will torture you just
because you don't believe, in him or the ignorant christian drone, who believes
and condones god's actions?
You, being like many other haters of our beliefs are blinded by this naive idea.
Society and the media love to show the Christian Catholic beliefs to be of this nature: Follow me or burn forever in the fires of hell, and you and many others are drawn in and fooled by this gross portrayal of the Church, simply because we proclaim the truth about how evil society is, and tell them what they don't want to hear in the means of reform.
Although you are ignorant of this matter, we as christians, (although there is protestant denominations who have gone over board with the afterlife matter) believe that means to obtain salvation is not believing in God neccesarily, being baptized, or going to church. No, it is a much wider horizon. You can choose to follow the evil part of human nature, willingly knowing it, rejecting to live a good and honest life and choosing not to follow your concience, which enables us to know right from wrong. Or you can be what all of us were ment to be, following the common good of society and not resorting to crime, murder, rape, war, and hate. Living amongst eachother as brothers and recognizing we are here for a reason, and our potenial has no limit. It can be hard following these standards especially being born into a cruel world as this. But remember it is mankind that put us in this state, and we who continue to destroy eachother, physically and emotionally.
People from every religious sect or even if theyre atheists can achieve salvation if they are good people, live decent lives, and in truth they are following their concience and intellect, in the process choosing the way of God and not the way of sin.
Like I said before not everything in the Bible can be taken literally, Hell is the spiritual state where we are seperated from God forever, by our own choosing. The fires of Hell represent the despair we experience when knowing we will never be in His presence. See the fairness in this, I stated before He respects us enough to either choose Him or not, and loves us enough to tell us the consequence of knowingly choosing to engage in sinful acts in our lifetime and ultimately choosing Hell. Our actions in this world determine our afterlife, not so much as our beliefs, our ACTIONS.
I hope you find this to be a better argument and I hope you will reply, im interested in your opinion.
I would very much like to see corroboration of this assertion in a reputable source such as the New England Journal of Medicine, please.
"You probably share the popular belief that God is simply a creation of man. But even if thats true think of all the good religion has done for mankind."
Religion is superfluous to the process of doing good, and frequently imposes its own ideas of "good" on unwilling recipients.
"The view that atheists have on the world is we live and we die, and when we are dead were simply meat for the Earth. There would be no belief in the common good..."
False. What you have described is nihilism. Not all atheists are nihilists. I, Myself, self-describe as a humanist and do, indeed, believe in the common good.
"History and Tradition, both oral and written is proof of the existence of a deity..."
Unfortunately, no. History and tradition are evidence of belief in a deity, not evidence of the deity itself.
Excellent point.
The idea that the entire universe was crafted just so life could exist on Earth seems absurd. It is possible that life exists in many other places. The idea that the universe is also highly structured and organized is absurd. You can go the the Hubble Telescope website and see images of entire galaxies colliding into one another. If intelligent life exists in those galaxies, they probably have a different opinion about things...
Dogma is bad stuff when people close their minds and embrace it without applying critical reasoning.
Bern Williams - "Unsolicited advice is the junk mail of life"
Follow me here:
We all (hopefully) know by now that religion needs no logic. Any religious leader or follower who claims that he can "prove" God's existence -- by evidence of nature or by being saved or by simply feeling really damn good in church -- is not offering proof. They are simply offering evidence (and weak evidence at that).
The fact is, God's existence cannot be proved or disproved. I say here and now that nature is oh-so-wonderful that it must have been created by a higher intelligence; you answer that my feelings of wonder are simply chemical, evolutionary reactions that are in response to what we humans have come to describe as "beauty." I say that the the universe has all but been proven to have been created by some cataclysmic "Big Bang"; you reply that maybe the Big Bang was God's instrument of creation.
You see, it is quite useless to argue God's existence based off of logic. If God does exist however, it would make sense that He is not subject to the laws of logic, as he would be its author. So, no matter what argument either side makes, it quite simply comes down to matters of individual belief. Facts can only take us so far in this.
Now, this does not mean that arguing about this is futile. There is much error on either side, obviously. I must apologize to many fundamentalist Christians here, but it is no longer plausible for you to keep holding on to the idea that the world is 6000 years old, and that humans do not share some common ancestry with apes. Assuming your God exists, scientists have used the tools in the physical world He has given them (namely carbon dating) to show that the Genesis account is not entirely literal. If you believe that God put dinosaur skeletons on earth to test people's faith, well, I think you need to go home and think about that for a while. If that was the case, then the deceitful God you are describing does not flush with the loving God you worship.
Atheists out there, beware of falling into the same pitfalls of ignorance. Yes, there is much evidence out there that has shaken fundamentalist Christianity to its core, but that does not eradicate the possible existence of a God. It must be said here that your view is not consistent with your belief, atheists. You say that you choose to not believe in God (and I am glad that you are not sheep, following religion simply because others do) and you critique those religious among us for their absurd faith. But you have faith, my friends, and it is equally as unsteady. No proof can be offered of God's nonexistence (especially since he does not conform to logic), so therefore you are making a claim based off scattered shreds of clues (like Christians) and piecing them together to form a conclusion that you hold to be irrefutable (like Christians).
At the very least, recognize the weird similarity that you have with Christians, and be able to laugh at the irony. Come on: it is a strange, funny sort of symmetry, isn't it?
I would argue that the only honest route to take if you are nonreligious is to be an agnostic. Why? Simply because you are holding fast to what appears to be true, and can humbly admit that you may very well be wrong. You have not been shown evidence of God's existence, and you prefer to act and live like He does not exist, and that is respectable and as informed as you will ever be.
So let us not sling insults around when talking about this. Some of us are ignorant or have moments of ignorance, but we should all try to act like scholars and try to enlighten those gone astray from clear thinking. Let us not talk about hating the concept of God because of the "if-God-is-good-then-why-do-we-have-all-this-suffering" argument, or the "if-God-exists-then-why-doesn't-he-answer-my-prayers" argument -- they are rather childish and reflect only personal problems, and are about as good of proof as many Christian arguments for God's existence. (Incidentally, if you think God is evil, then this gives you pretty much every opportunity to get on His good side by being evil yourself. So, in other words, ummm....have some fun? No one upstairs apparently cares.)
So maybe this helps some people, maybe this irritates others. I just think that the most we all want out of life, whether God exists or not, is knowledge and goodness, and we kind of have a habit of defeating that purpose when we argue about His existence.
In case I have drawn any confused glances, I capitalize God's name here whenever I can because it is respectful to Christians. I discourage using then n-bomb because it is respectful to African-Americans. And so on.
Please, please let me know if you think I am in error about anything here.
Gladly.
I say here and now that nature is oh-so-wonderful that it must have been created by a higher intelligence; you answer that my feelings of wonder are simply chemical, evolutionary reactions that are in response to what we humans have come to describe as "beauty."
Nope -- I say:
WRONG -- speculative rationalization.
Beauty in nature does not provide objective evidence of a creator god.
Furthermore all the (subjective) beauty in nature, crumbles and withers away when you take into account just one child -- who at this very moment in time -- is languishing in pain, dying of some hideous, incurable disease -- suffering in unimaginable ways. Now consider ALL the children who have suffered from aggressive childhood leukemia, all childhood cancers and diseases, and horrible genetic, birth defects, deformities and gross mental disorders and tell me a creator god designed a universe that has our welfare in mind.
YOUR ARGUMENT states a god exists because you supposedly see beauty in nature and a perfectly designed universe for our existence -- am I correct in my summation?
Can you comprehend this argument is an appeal to nature and it is only based on subjective reasoning?
But why stop there? There's a myriad of unintelligent designs and ugly components to nature that was supposedly created by the grand designer in the sky.
Let's hold a mirror to the rest of nature that god perfectly designed for our existence -- shall we? What about those perfectly designed, hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, heat waves, volcanoes, lightening strikes, blizzards, mudslides, etc, that cause so much destruction, leaving monstrous injuries, misery and death in their wake. What about the unintelligent design of the umbilical cord? God sure screwed up that design. If god could create the universe, why couldn't he design an umbilical cord that wouldn't wrap around a babies neck, depriving them from oxygen, causing thousands of babies a year to die or to suffer the rest of their life with egregious mental and physical challenges?
How about god's great design of putting the air hole right next to the food hole causing thousands to choke to death every year? What about the these perfect designs: viruses, bacterias, and germs, that have caused billions to suffer and die in mass plagues? These are shitty fucking designs. And you still think a creator god has us in mind?
Additionally -- 99% of all life has gone extinct. Look at the immense volume of the universe where life can't exist -- where you will die instantly -- instantly. Nature?
What about becoming extinct at any moment? Asteroids? Gamma rays? Ice Ages?
440 million years ago. End of the Ordovician period.
370 million years ago. Near the end of the Devonian period.
245 million years ago. End of Permian.
210 million years ago. End of Triassic.
65 million years ago. End of Cretaceous.
God's doing a pretty shitty job, if these are the perfect conditions for life and nature is proof of his existence.
So -- if you can come to a conclusion that a deity exists because there is an appearance of natural beauty that caters to our existence, then it is reasonable to conclude your argument fails, miserably when observable evidence is offered that is contrary to your premise, such as ALL the unintelligent, shitty, repulsive, ugly things in this cesspool of a world --right?
Can you see how my argument attacks your argument specifically?
Can you see your argument trying to prove the existence of a deity crumbles to the floor, in two very important ways? 1. Being you have NOT delivered (TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE, OBJECTIVE) evidence and 2. the observable world is also replete with evidence of ugly horrid, non-perfect designs, that is antithetical to the specifics of your argument -- please try to grasp this.
So what you have is a subjective rationalized opinion contradicted by observable evidence that dismantles your argument specifically -- comprende?
Now what you have to understand is: we are NOT making a definite assertion that a god doesn't exist. We have just concluded there is NO objective evidence for his existence.
There very well could be a creator a god (an ultimate reality, if you will) but so far no one has offered any objective evidence that supports their god assertions -- aside from bloated rationalizations.
We can dismiss the idea of a god existing just as easy is it is for you to dismiss the idea that Zeus, Poseidon or invisible gremlins exists.
And even if someone could demonstrate (with objective evidence) that a creator god existed, they would have to bridge a colossal chasm to demonstrate their creator god-concept was also the one and only christian triune personal god -- I say, good luck with that.
--S.
I'll get to your faith statement later but I'm sure someone will skewer on that soon.
I'm a non-believer, but one who simply sees parallels in both atheism and Christianity.
I hate to dismiss your very lengthy response like this, but I think you got a little caught up on my words, and not my thought train. More than likely I didn't convey my meaning adequately.
In the sentence you cited of mine, and in the one that followed it, I was simply showing what I believe to be a duality in the nature of the higher power debate. It was represented by two imaginary conversations, and apparently poorly lol.
In the first sentence
-- "I say here and now that nature is oh-so-wonderful that it must have been created by a higher intelligence; you answer that my feelings of wonder are simply chemical, evolutionary reactions that are in response to what we humans have come to describe as 'beauty.'" --
I am taking the role of a Christian, making an argument for intelligent design, one that the "you" in the conversation rebuts.
In the second conversation
-- "I say that the the universe has all but been proven to have been created by some cataclysmic "Big Bang"; you reply that maybe the Big Bang was God's instrument of creation." --
I switch up the roles, so as not to sound partial, and I take the role of the skeptic, who is rebutted by a Christian.
I'm not really showing an opinion on any one of these points here, but rather trying to illustrate that at some point, both of them just keep trumping each other ad nauseum. There is no clinching answer.
The world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking has noted this dilemma, implying that no amount of evidence can possibly prove or disprove God's existence (see http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html).
Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist philosopher, also remarked on this unsolvable argument, albeit with frustration. He remarked that no matter what argument scientists make for Big Bang theory, Christians can always insert God in the design somehow, as their God doesn't obey physic's laws (I can't reference this here, as I saw it in a video interview with Dawkins).
As you can see, I was never actually making the nature-is-so-beautiful-a-great-bearded-super-dude-must-have-created-it argument, but just using it to make a point.
Incidentally, however, you are judging beauty (or, rather, the lack thereof) in the universe by your own standards, as is the Christian who does make the nature-is-so-beautiful-a-great-bearded-super-dude-must-have-created-it argument.
I apologize for being so confusing in my writing.
Incidentally, however, you are judging beauty (or, rather, the lack thereof) in the universe by your own standards, as is the Christian who does make the nature-is-so-beautiful-a-great-bearded-super-dude-must-have-created-it argument.
No -- I beg to differ, you are mistaken. While the theist appeals to nature to supposedly "prove" a creator god exists -- I'm NOT appealing to nature to prove a creator god dos NOT exist. I'm offering observational evidence that is antithetical to their argument, that dismantles it specifically. Can you see the difference?
Furthermore, my argument recognizes that beauty is subjective while the theist does not.
Additionally, there is a distinct difference in my view compared to the theist view: even if one child egregiously suffers from a hideous childhood disease and dies -- ALL the subjective beauty in the world can NOT account for that and smooth it over; All the great water falls, scenic vistas, fuzzy puppies and charity in the world -- throughout history -- can NOT compensate for just one child suffering.
Subjective beauty is an illusion where we turn a blind eye to the ALL the hideous events in the world, where we pretend everything is all right and beautiful, when it is NOT, where we put our head in the sand pretending everything is copacetic, as we eat at all-u-can-eat buffets, while six million children die a year from malnutrition before their first birthday.
My 10 year old son died from a massive heart attack related to leukemia. He suffered for months while his own blood poisoned him. I was told by an incompetent therapist -- when I said the world is a cesspool; children suffer in unimaginable ways and die every day -- he said, yeah but babies are born every day too. He was feebly trying to suggest that the birth of these children (the subjective beauty in the world) somehow compensated for ALL the suffering in the word; as if this should somehow eradicate the pain and suffering that my son went through or the torturous pain my family endures to this day. Or that it somehow dismisses the painful emotional scars that people have to live with for the rest of their lives.
I contend that there is nothing in this world -- that is good - that can make or justify the egregious suffering of a child. But in the reverse, I contend while children continue suffer around the world in unimaginable ways it should diminish our collective view that the world is beautiful but curiously enough it does not -- why ruin our oh so beautiful day with the realities of this shitty fucking existence? (sarcasm; if you didn't catch on)
--S.
I only just noticed you also capitalized 'He'. Firstly, why do you assume this god is male? That's sexist. Secondly, you assume there's only one god. You may very well be wrong and there could be many gods... so you should say 'they' (or 'They'?), for fear of offending the other god(s) and/or goddess(es).
As you see, this political-correctness out of fear to offend can be carried very far... till the point of utter silliness.
By capitalizing 'He' and 'God' you venture way to close to what christians are doing. As an agnostic or atheist I strongly feel we shouldn't as not only is it incorrect (as you're not sure about the gender and number of gods), it gives the christian view too much credit. More than it deserves.
BTW, I hold to the rule that no one has the right not to be offended.
(And no, that does not mean I go about calling everyone names and feel I have the right to do so.)
If someone's offended and says so to me, I'll take that at face value: yes, you are offended. End. I don't consider the fact that someone else is offended that I should've said or done something differently. At least, I don't *automatically* assume I should; sometimes I have really offended without knowing it, in which case I'm not above apologizing. We all make mistakes, after all (there was that case in '83.... ;-) )
Some people seem to think they have a right not to be offended. Usually those people and I don't get along very well.
Peter.
I'm pretty much wrong. There really is no good reason to refer to the Christian God as male.
Except maybe sometimes for brevity.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=p...
It's a good discourse as to how much reason we should associate with the whole god mystery. In other words, "This problem largely escapes our understanding -- so what should we do about it?"
Then my unbelief in theists claims are justified. So is my disrespect for christian beliefs in a "loving" god that will torture us for eternity.
"We should all, I believe, lose the idea that evidence one way or the other might somehow settle this debate. It give us the wrong expectations, and makes the argument much more emotional and petty than it should be."
I disagree. It is not a petty thing to instill harmeful memes into a childs brain based on unfounded and unevidenced beliefs, no matter how strongly held. Ideas can last a long time and without objective justification for belief in these ideas, a child can grow up to be crippled with guilt and fear for something that wasn't his fault.
The idea that positive evidence can settle this debate is valid.
Being unhappily situated in the Bible Belt, I can tell you that I see and hear of this a lot. Mothers will insist that their children follow Baptist memes and believe in a six-day creation, at penalty of being disowned from the family.
But I see just as much slavery to emotion among atheist friends. A friend of mine (an older man) became nonreligious and atheist when a priest refused to baptize his son in the Catholic Church. From that point on, my friend's family was atheist, and is now in its third generation of atheism. But where is the critical thought here? If there is such a thing as "cradle Christians," then his children and grandchildren are surely cradle atheists, passionately ridiculing those who do not share their beliefs, without any basis in individual, critical thought.
I think what you are attacking here, in its essence, is not religion but hive mentality. Truly, it is most visible in religion and politics and Nascar and things like that, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it solely belongs to just one of those things.
You split my words a bit the first time you cited me. My following statement builds upon the previous one, saying that it is inherently IN OPPOSITION to her religious tenets for a Christian to proclaim emphatically that she has proof that her God exists. The Christian God requires faith, and therefore does not present Shimself in an objective sense, the idea being that if objective proof was available, then people would have no choice but to believe in God, and there would be no sense of the personal betterment and self-discovery that God wants people to have.
It is not my right or anyone else's to critique you for not feeling respect for a God who thinks like this, if He exists -- that is your own personal choice -- but it does go far in explaining why science and religion fundamentally cannot overlap.
However, a continual use of the emotional argument -- exemplified by your sardonic criticism of a higher power's ability to love -- is counterproductive to arguing God's existence. The Bible God, of course, could be completely nothing like the God those starving desert nomads were trying to describe, so his nature is really a non-issue in an argument. It is more personal than anything, and, make no mistake, I am certainly pleased that you are opinionated in some way, rather than being indifferent. I wish more people were like that.
I think it fair to say, that to have an emotional foundation is human, and that no particular belief system, owns or monopolizes emotional behavior.
I’d like to offer a little insight on your post though. Per your example of an atheist family, who is now third generation atheist, after having a not-so-pleasant emotional experience with their religious leader.
We come into this life (unspoiled by domestication), without a belief in a god concept. It is only after we learn to ‘mimic’ and ‘gesture’ that we are ‘said’ to be identified as a member of the category ‘religion’, but this is a ‘cultural’ identification – not a cognitive one.
Let’s observe Mensa, to be part of that group is purely based on a cognitive ability or performance, such a group is identified by cognitive traits. This group may breed a culture, but its core foundation is a cognitive one.
The point, is that people enter into xtianity, do so purely based on emotive means, and ‘many’ times, to maintain a cultural identity that feeds their psychological needs. There is ‘no’ standard for being xtian, it is purely cultural and affectively founded – hence, the thousands of xtian denominations who all claim to be True.
While your atheist family example entered into the culture out of affective needs, they left out of the same back door. Psychologically speaking, we typically retrace our steps, and leave the way we came.
After the family left the way they came, they may now observe the house and look for doors or windows of ‘reason’ to re-enter, as more ‘selective’ adults with different psychological needs.
From my experience, those access points do not exist for the sub-cultural house of xtianity – to be xtian, is to be part of the ‘club’ and part of being in the ‘club’ requires cultural initiation and behaviors that are culturally supportive – it is the epitome of the good ol’ boy system.
We can look at your example from multiple perspectives; some may suggest that the family should never have been led into the house of xtianity to begin with; others may suggest that it is okay and even prestigious to bring children into the xtian culture house.
While I have no problem with experiencing a wide-array of cultures, etc., I think it deplorable to subject a psychologically unarmed child into ‘any’ sub-culture, that has a vested interest in employing a myriad of psychological weapons to maintain power.
The sub-culture of xtianity, feeds off of those in society who are affectively vulnerable. One either becomes vulnerable because they are domesticated to be vulnerable, or they find themselves in a vulnerable position by the circumstances of their life, e.g., they find no other means of meeting their psychological needs other than what is locally available.
I must be completely honest here, and say that you are clearly more versed in socio-psychology and its corresponding lingo than me.
"While your atheist family example entered into the culture out of affective needs, they left out of the same back door. Psychologically speaking, we typically retrace our steps, and leave the way we came."
"We come into this life (unspoiled by domestication), without a belief in a god concept. It is only after we learn to ‘mimic’ and ‘gesture’ that we are ‘said’ to be identified as a member of the category ‘religion’, but this is a ‘cultural’ identification – not a cognitive one."
You treat atheism here as if it's the ground zero -- from there on out everything expands. At least, that's how I interpret your "back-door" metaphor, that religion is something like an article of clothing that one might try on, but the natural state is the nakedness of atheism.
I hope I didn't completely butcher your thought with that bad analogy.
Moving on, you claim that this is evidenced by the fact that infants are born without any concept of a God. Now, I will digress for a second: I feel like I must use my previous argument, and state that there is no EMPIRICAL evidence of this claims. Absurd as what I just said sounds, indeed, it is the same harsh accusation many atheists would make of Christians. Now, you do seem to be right of course, but I couldn't help but point out what I feel is an inconsistency.
My initial point is that, yes, you would seem to right in this claim, but there are many who would claim that almost everything we become we in some way learn from our surroundings. That includes humanity's compendium of knowledge, social manners, and language. I do not think, then, that the "naked form" of our belief system is atheism. The form, rather, is simply the absence of intelligence on the subject, just as our "naked form" would also include an absence of intelligence of language. I would place atheism here as a rivaling ideology, as much of a sub-culture as Christianity.
The very forum we are speaking on represents the culture of atheism. The fact that there are those who unite and are willing to defend it suggests that there is a mutually agreed-upon set of values, attitudes, and goals between all members of the atheist community.
And while I believe "brainwashing" is too strong of a word -- it suggests a kind of willful, almost malevolent intention to gain psychological advantage over another -- I think we are all guilty of the same crime you indict Christianity for. By virtue of simply writing on this thread, I am altering the way people think about things, maybe small things, maybe much grander things, but I am nonetheless exercising control over others' information input.
Now, that vulnerable people are attracted to Christianity, of that I have no doubt. But don't you see that the father in my story was also vulnerable, in his own fashion, and simply found solace in an ideology competing with the one that offended him? I imagine that is the same sociological mechanism that was at work when followers of Saxon human-sacrifice religions saw the appeal of Christianity and it's love-thou-neighborish sort of feel (not that every conversion happened in that pleasant of a fashion, but we'll assume that there were people who actually did want to convert at one time or another).
I believe that it is a little superstitious to think of Christianity as some joint mind-control plot to maintain order, even despite the fact that a handful of megalomaniacs have used it as such before. You've never outright said this, but it is the implication that I got from reading your post.
"From my experience, those access points do not exist for the sub-cultural house of xtianity – to be xtian, is to be part of the ‘club’ and part of being in the ‘club’ requires cultural initiation and behaviors that are culturally supportive – it is the epitome of the good ol’ boy system."
Now this I completely agree with you upon. Organized religion, whether it started that way or not, certainly has grown to meet your description.
But it doesn't account for the phenomenon that is belief in a higher power. It is as unexplainable now as the concept of homosexuality -- is there a gene, or is it a learned trait? In other words, is it something embedded in humanity, or is it something which we learn? In other other words, it brings us back to the irritating nature vs. nurture debate.
Speaking of homosexuality, by the way, I just happened upon an American Apparel ad (basically soft-core porn, for those unfamiliar) and saw a pair of cotton panties that said "LEGALIZE GAY" on the ass.
I find that amazingly witty. Feel free to laugh at me.
I am not familiar with Mensa. Is that an experiment or a group of people or something else entirely?
No, in the most general sense, Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. I believe we are tabula rasa at the moment of conception. I believe as we develop nerves, etc., we become capable of stimuli-response. The more we develop, the more capable we are to process information we collect, but it is not the day we are conceived.
Shake – “Moving on, you claim that this is evidenced by the fact that infants are born without any concept of a God. Now, I will digress for a second: I feel like I must use my previous argument, and state that there is no EMPIRICAL evidence of this claims.”
Actually, if you are insinuating that there is no ‘evidence’ about at the moment of conception, infants ‘may possibly’ have some ‘god’ knowledge, then the burden of proof is on you.
I say this, because by neural structure alone, a first day embryo does not have the structures developed to process information, the more extraordinary claim is that they do, and yes, there is empirical evidence as to the development of an embryo.
Shake – “Absurd as what I just said sounds, indeed, it is the same harsh accusation many atheists would make of Christians.”
Well, if a non-believer makes an extraordinary claim, then they own the responsibility of providing evidence for their claim – they should reasonably be held to the same standard they are requiring of others IMHO.
Shake – “Now, you do seem to be right of course, but I couldn't help but point out what I feel is an inconsistency.”
Okay, got it.
Shake – “My initial point is that, yes, you would seem to right in this claim, but there are many who would claim that almost everything we become we in some way learn from our surroundings. That includes humanity's compendium of knowledge, social manners, and language. I do not think, then, that the "naked form" of our belief system is atheism. The form, rather, is simply the absence of intelligence on the subject, just as our "naked form" would also include an absence of intelligence of language. I would place atheism here as a rivaling ideology, as much of a sub-culture as Christianity.”
I disagree. Atheism in the most general sense is the default position, it is a “character trait”, and it is entirely ‘descriptive’; a description made by a secondary audience based on a ‘standard’ – the standard of a ‘cognitive state’.
Let’s use an analogy of sexual gender in humans. A geneticist will describe the sex of an infant by chromosomal factors. An infant has no choice in the matter, but the infant does hold ‘character traits’ in their DNA that give the geneticist the opportunity to ‘know’ the sex.
Are we going to actually argue that the geneticist has no right to make sexual gender claims?
If you go to a sociologist and ask them if the child is male or female, they will apply a different standard – social rolling, behavior, etc.
I describe infants as atheists, based on a biological standard, but as a human develops I may have to entertain the ‘standards’ promoted by a sociologist. That is not to say, that I am ‘wrong’ based on biological evidence, it means at some point the ‘context’ of the discussion may change based on the developing capacity of the human, henceforth - ‘additional’ or ‘expanded’ standards.
The lack of a ‘standard’ or the refusal to establish a ‘standard’ doesn’t make the case for a ‘god’ chip advocate, if one wants to declare all embryos have god on their mind, then they had better establish a ‘standard’ such that I can focus my mental faculty and make judgment. If such a person isn’t capable, then they are incompetent to speak on the matter.
As well, just because someone creates a ‘standard’ arbitrarily, doesn’t mean I will agree with the standard.
Shake – “The very forum we are speaking on represents the culture of atheism. The fact that there are those who unite and are willing to defend it suggests that there is a mutually agreed-upon set of values, attitudes, and goals between all members of the atheist community.”
Wrong, which standard are you applying?
While I would not argue, that this site does represent a sub-culture it is not an ‘organized’ sub-culture. As well, the sub-culture is representative of former xtians, not Atheists.
There is no mutually agreed-upon set of values, attitudes, and goals between all members of this former xtian community – now; I think you are just being silly :-)
If you want to know why in more depth, understand atheism lacks doctrine, etc., we have no ‘direction’ or ‘standard’ to focus on. If you want to better understand this concept, seek out management training, and/or do some research on the difference between a team and a group, it will do wonders for you.
Shake – “And while I believe "brainwashing" is too strong of a word -- it suggests a kind of willful, almost malevolent intention to gain psychological advantage over another -- I think we are all guilty of the same crime you indict Christianity for. By virtue of simply writing on this thread, I am altering the way people think about things, maybe small things, maybe much grander things, but I am nonetheless exercising control over others' information input.
Actually, domesticating an infant to a particular sub-culture, is ‘not’ the same as offering information to an individual who has the free-agency and capacity to reject or remove their self from the influence of on-line writing.
I take no ‘advantage’ with an infant, nor do I seek out those who are looking to be brainwashed. Xtianity gets such a wrap, because they expose infants to arbitrary ‘rituals’ that ‘lack standards’ and shirk responsibility for behaviors that are empirically proven to be psychologically traumatizing.
Xtians may not ‘understand’ their behavior in this manner, but then, a sub-culture that premises their belief system on standards-anarchy has no ‘reference’ by which to ever make such an observation of ‘child abuse’, etc.
I liken xtianity to a sub-culture bent on psychological repression and dysfunction, therefore, to take a phrase form their ol’ book of fairy tales – they know not what they do.
Shake – “Now, that vulnerable people are attracted to Christianity, of that I have no doubt. But don't you see that the father in my story was also vulnerable, in his own fashion, and simply found solace in an ideology competing with the one that offended him?”
Actually, in your story, you had a father who was affectively invested in a ‘faith’ based religion, it was obviously the ‘strongest’ link that individual had with the group, inside his mental housing group.
Once that link was severed, based on some offensive behavior, he had not reason to maintain allegiance to the ‘group’, and when I say ‘group’, I don’t mean ‘team’ ;-)
If this individual takes it upon their self to avenge some perceived wrong-doing, they are not doing this based on atheist doctrine, etc., they are doing so as an individual – who may just lack a belief in god, lack a baseball card collection, lack orange juice in the morning, lack infinitum.
In other words, the ‘driving’ force is not atheism, just like not collecting baseball cards is not a ‘driving’ force that causes someone to begin ‘collecting’ coins.
However, because this individual obviously feels hurt, they are going to do what ‘they believe’ to be most disruptive to their targets of ill-repute. And, unfortunately it their target ‘believes’ atheism to be some ‘threatening’ menace to their ‘cause’ – I can see how this ‘father’ may attempt to exploit that most ill-gotten and ignorant phobia.
Shake – “I believe that it is a little superstitious to think of Christianity as some joint mind-control plot to maintain order, even despite the fact that a handful of megalomaniacs have used it as such before. You've never outright said this, but it is the implication that I got from reading your post.”
Actually, since you implicitly ask, xtianity for the most part is a sub-culture, and within that sub-culture the only consistency is in the tradition to maintain the value of ‘faith’, or the value of refusing to embrace standards for belief – making all members easily susceptible to the power of persuasion IMHO.
The only counter-argument I can fathom, is that many modern xtians, do not necessarily listen to their religious leaders’ direction, but then, all I have to do is click on the TV and watch Benny Hinn, etc., and reconfirm how charismatic religious leaders can easily form a mob to action.
Shake – “But it doesn't account for the phenomenon that is belief in a higher power. It is as unexplainable now as the concept of homosexuality -- is there a gene, or is it a learned trait? In other words, is it something embedded in humanity, or is it something which we learn? In other other words, it brings us back to the irritating nature vs. nurture debate.
Well, I suppose we need a standard by which to measure a ‘higher power’, and I take it you don’t have one of those forthcoming? Perhaps we just start small, do you have a standard for a ‘lower power’?
Can I ask if you have a standard for the concept of homosexuality?
Shake – “Feel free to laugh at me.”
Hehehehehe
Shake – “I am not familiar with Mensa. Is that an experiment or a group of people or something else entirely?”
It's a category of people who scored in the top percentage nationally on a standardized test – it’s a group of people who are really good test takers (fast thinkers/intelligence).
Shake, I can’t tell whether you are sincere in your approach here, or if you are toying on the fringes of logical deduction ;-)
Let’s make the observation that ‘faith’ is belief in one’s ‘unknown’ or ‘The Unknown’. This can manifest as either a belief without evidence, or in contrast to current evidence.
I think it generous to limit xtianity to a soft type of ‘faith’, e.g., belief without evidence, while ignoring the much more corrosive type of ‘faith’, which is belief in ‘contrast’ to evidence.
The fact of the matter is, that xtianity is a sub-culture founded on the premise of ‘faith’, and ‘faith’ is just a word to describe a “universal” antithesis to “all” standards.
I merely bring this up, because you seem to suggest that in lacking ‘standards’, one may be more ‘free’ to explore their self for the purpose of betterment and/or self-discovery.
While this may notionally be true as far as being ‘free’ to explore infinite possibility (even the possibility of the thinker’s non-existence), such a person will never be capable of deriving comprehension or ‘meaning’ necessary to achieve a heightened sense of self (discovery/orientation and direction).
I was following this procession, looking through the eyes of a hypothetical sane Christian:
1. There is a God, and a Christian God at that.
2. He (She, whatever) has created the Earth for a specific purpose, namely to have worshippers who can learn to love him.
3. As He is all good, He wants these people He creates to have the choice of whether they want to love Him or not -- free will. This will also create a special kind of love in the end, because those who choose to follow Him will have earned it, rather than have been forced into it.
4. But, as neither free will nor faith can exist when there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and (I know this is a testy point for many posters on this thread, but we're day-dreaming here) an all-loving God clearly visible to all mankind, God decides to draw the curtains of logic and physics, so as to allow humanity to simply follow Him blindly, utilizing only their free will, faith, and let's say an instinctual sense of spirituality.
5. Present day. If humans are capable of finding evidence of God, it defeats God's initial intention. So therefore the laws of logic may bend in trying to explain God's existence, but it really doesn't matter because logic cannot provide an answer.
Now, obviously I am taking some liberties here. If all Christians thought like this, well, then we'd obviously have a lot more reasonable people to deal with.
What seems like the world's biggest scam here to many skeptical, left-brained individuals, conversely could seem like life's ultimate challenge to many emotive, right-brained people.
I'm not saying it all boils down to left- and right-brainedness, but you get the drift.
The typical sane xtian lacks any standard by which to explain or 'describe' a would be god concept. Xtians borrow from the tools like language (which is based on a standard) to express their non-restricted sense of a god concept (paradox of sorts).
I understand where you are trying to go, you see potential for the possibility of some sweet spot where the xtian religion, or faith based religions can gravitate that is less volatile.
I tend to think in terms of potential development into capacity and capability.
I often see the argument that 'anything' can be abused if held in the wrong hands; nuclear knowledge can provide us plentiful energy but also destructive weapons.
While I see no need to argue the point as there is truth, I do take a moment to pause and reflect on what the 'element' of faith provides.
Some may suggest that it provides a means of 'escape' akin to a psychological anesthetic of sorts, but then, with an anesthetized follower or congregation with a religious structure catalyst we have the generation of 'political fuel' for the whims of any religious leader – a mob at rest, and dressed in Sunday’s best.
I tend to think in terms of economics my self, if there is a way to achieve a similar effect psychologically without generating political fuel, then, I'm all for that solution - it's getting the good without the bad.
So, is there a way to move humans affectively to a position of psychological comfort without having to domesticate them to reject 'standards' and draw barriers in their mind?
Yes, it is actually quite easy, and a good parent educator leads a child or even adult to develop/adopt standards, support them by reason, and act upon them.
From my own childhood, I was brought to 'faith' based religion as a means to expose me and the family to a social scene, and it was a means for my parents to expose me to 'concepts' like morality, death, birth, etc., without having to 'explain' these highly emotional and fuzzily elusive notions in personal terms.
Looking back, my parents did with what they had, but in today's information age, to 'not' instruct a child based on some semblance of standards is 'evading' parental responsibility in my opinion.
Gov't schools now have to introduce sexual-education to children beginning in 4th grade in most states, because parents just can't find the wherewithal to place the needs of the child above their own personal discomfort - again, just my opinion.
Some of the traits you assign to the dream-xtian sub-culture are a mix between xtianity and deism.
Again, we are discussing a cross-section of ‘faith’ based belief systems, in the end, there is no established standard to justify belief, other than, I ‘want’ to believe, and I’m willing to reject any and all standards in my way to maintain that belief, even if those standards are helpful in providing for my own personal safety, etc.
While the ‘god concept’ of deism may be less damaging, as inherently one would assume that a deist has no need to attend a religious group, it is still a belief system founded entirely upon ‘faith’.
I found my self in deistic thought for a very short-stint, as I moved away from ‘faith’ based belief, or more appropriately, the affective domain as I sought more concrete understanding for my self, and my life.
It was not ‘personally’ useful for my developmental needs; however, I tend to believe that deism was a means to mollify religious zealots in a volatile time where heretics were burned at the stake, etc.
Fortunately, I am not being threatened by such atrocity as I do live in a democracy with a standard of law (lacking faith). I do believe I was moved early in life by peer-pressure to attend church, etc., but as I developed I began to understand that the only person I must answer to and maintain a sense of respect for – is the one in the mirror.
Even answers and respect require ‘standards’.
Regarding reasonable xtians and 'faith'; someone who holds 'faith' as their psychological position (devoid of a standard), is not limited to how and where they apply their 'faith'.
A xtian could lie all day long, and to you and me they would appear 'insane', but to them and perhaps their religious peers, they are entirely sane and justified for being participants in their own mental “mardi gras”.
I'm a proponent of a holistic sense of mental capacity, so while we may in fact have capacity from the left and right side of our brains, we also have the ability to focus our energy and tap either side.
Skeptics like many others, aren't held to using a particular portion of their mental faculty.
I think what you are suggesting, is that by being overly objective or set within a set of 'standards', we miss the human capacity to enjoy what you consider to be our 'creative' or 'imaginative' nature.
That's interesting, Canada as a culture, is highly tolerant of creative individuals, actually, it is seen as the mark of the sane for many.
That said, there are many areas in America, where it is not only faux pas to be unique or creatively different, it is dangerous to one's own health, because 'some' people are intolerant because they 'lack' basic standards of civility.
Did I mention, that without standards, we fall into anarchy as a human race ;-)
In terms of aesthetics and art, I'm an objectivist on the matter, art is a means of expressing the essence of one's thoughts & feelings.
It is 'not' some irrational behavior, like Dumas' works, or an artist who throws paint like a child on a piece of paper, that isn't artistic expression - that's noise (let's give it a pretty name like post-modernity/structuralism).
I see the connection you are making, between imagination and freedom of expression and the need to be 'free' of standards in order to facilitate such a capacity.
However, while one is 'freely' engaging in their highly-imaginative works, as I do quite often, they still 'require' a 'standard' to capture and communicate their expressions to others.
I suppose one could make the argument, that LSD is a good candidate to open the mind of the artist as well, but at what point do we begin to instill a standard to protect society from such an artist?
Perhaps, we just make LSD illegal to use, perhaps we can throw 'faith' in there as well.
Also, god can be proven by pure logic, as pure logic is nothing but a string of symbols following a particular protocol/algorithm. If you call a geometric function god, for instance, then god can be proven QED.
Interestingly, I think that pure logic is knowledge, but that this knowledge represents the lowest level of cognitive capacity in terms of the cognitive domain.
In order to move up the domain, one has to comprehend such knowledge, and apply it externally to other knowledge. Unfortunately, pure logic is internally consistent within its 'own' internal protocols; it is compartmentalized and un-synthesizable in to higher order meaning.
As an economics major, you likely had applied mathematics, which is different than pure mathematics/logic, which is a form of aesthetics in my opinion.
At the risk of a cliché, but in terms of offering an accommodation for creativity/imaginative thought and expression within a society built on standards, I believe the phrase "Think Responsibly" is apt.
This is a non sequitor. Whether a putative creator is good or not does not determine whether he/she/it facilitates a mechanism of choice in the created being. An evil creator may determine to install a choice mechanism for similar reasons.
You are behaving like a standard xian apologist here, hoping that we will not notice the sleight of hand employed to get us to accept the premiss that the postulated creator is "all good".
Please show a little more honesty.
Hehehe, ah, the college life, one can only wonder if you are seeking to bounce your personal thoughts off on this site for self-discovery or as part of a school project, etc.
Shake, if you want an A+ for a class, or if you are just looking to understand and better explain the distinction between faith-based religions and science in general, then here’s the bottom line.
Faith based religions, at their core have a premise that requires the abolition of ‘all’ standards. Around that core premise, different sub-cultural xtian leaders dress up their religious services, traditions, etc.
The difference between faith-based xtian sects is the dressing, i.e., rituals, expectations (tithes), religious leader direction, teachings, etc.
The major and perhaps only similarity between faith-based xtian sects or ‘all’ faith based religions for that matter, is the agreement to embrace a creed that requires the abolition of ‘all’ standards such that ‘everything’ becomes ‘possible’ – the unknown can be perceived as possible.
Science, by its sheer foundation, is nothing but the ‘establishment’ of ‘standards’, it is the epitome of developing and managing standards for; weight, texture, mass, volume, speed, hypothetical testing (scientific method), etc.
The ‘core’ of science is entirely ‘counter’ to the ‘core’ of religion.
What is most frustrating for some, is that while ‘faith-based’ religions have no problem advocating for a ‘standards-free’ belief system, they follow such a system up with demanding that some ‘truth’ they found, is ‘The Truth’, and ‘More Truthful’, than all the other faith-based religions.
It’s the, you can’t have your cake and eat it too scenario, if one wants to wrap themselves around the ‘standards-free’ faith-premise, then they need to be mature enough to recognize they have ‘zero grounds’ to distinguish between their ‘faith-based’ belief, and all ‘other’ faith-based beliefs.
Yes, the ‘faith’ that leads to ‘good tidings’ to a community, or the slaughter of 11Million people is equally ‘justified’, because of this implied agreement among ‘faith-based’ believers to engender ‘standards-anarchy and destruction’.
I’d be a liar if I didn’t suggest that there are just some standards I don’t agree with, like drinking ages for particular professions, or gender restrictions for job qualifications, etc., but then, I do at least realize ‘there is a standard’ that has the ‘potential’ to be recalibrated, based on ‘changing’ circumstances and needs of a community and even a nation.
Now, I do think that we can observe that there is surely a distinction between those who understand the necessity of a civilization to establish standards, because, well, that seems to encapsulate ‘everything’ in a civil society, i.e., ‘moral law’, ‘education’, ‘industry’, etc.
I think it is just too simplistic to focus on science and scientists as having some agenda, bent on the destruction of ‘faith’ and ‘religion, etc. Let’s expand that thought, and suggest that ‘anyone’ who understands the ‘need’ for ‘standards’ is in fact, a confederate to the cause that repels ‘standards-anarchy’.
Faith-based religions are built on the foundation of ‘faith’ as their ‘standard-resistance’ (antithesis to a standard), and with an ‘authoritative’ power base, without reason.
What we end up with is a belief system that promotes a dictator (authority) who is beyond challenge (no-standard for comparison or measure).
I do not know enough about this subject, and I wanted to enter into friendly discourse to try the teeth of my ideas, so to speak. If a scholarly arguing etiquette is too much to ask for, and as I don't feel I've prompted any ad hominem attack, I can simply find another forum in which to learn.
I do agree with you that science and religion are opposites, to nutshell what you were saying a good deal. That is why I think that they cannot be used to combat the other -- one deals with the unexplainable only, and the other concerns the explainable. This does not justify every step made by religion, but merely explains its existence and its reverse magnetism to science.
Also, you take great care in describing many of the limitations of organized religion, but what I am puzzled by is the very nature of the belief in a higher power. Organized religion can stay the hell away from me and my family.
I do not think science or scientists have an agenda, collectively. Nor do I think that religion or religious people have an agenda, collectively. I think one is a response to humans' need for objectivity, and the other a tribute to the idea of subjectivity, or that which cannot be measured.
Why is it, do you think, that the two conflict, even thought they're not very good at answering each others' questions? Why does science insist that faith must reply on science's terms, and faith insist that science must agree to argue on faith's terms?
It fascinates me how intelligent we are as a race, and how we are still plagued by this eternal debate. I mean, we can guide a missile around Saturn now, yet we cannot mediate or understand a simple debate between two human beings.
I guess I brought the whole college thing upon myself by my football comment. To clarify: my almer mater played today. No comment on the final score.
1 Why, O LORD, do you stand far off?
Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
2 In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak,
who are caught in the schemes he devises.
3 He boasts of the cravings of his heart;
he blesses the greedy and reviles the LORD.
4 In his pride the wicked does not seek him;
in all his thoughts there is no room for God.
5 His ways are always prosperous;
he is haughty and your laws are far from him;
he sneers at all his enemies.
6 He says to himself, "Nothing will shake me;
I'll always be happy and never have trouble."
7 His mouth is full of curses and lies and threats;
trouble and evil are under his tongue.
8 He lies in wait near the villages;
from ambush he murders the innocent,
watching in secret for his victims.
9 He lies in wait like a lion in cover;
he lies in wait to catch the helpless;
he catches the helpless and drags them off in his net.
10 His victims are crushed, they collapse;
they fall under his strength.
11 He says to himself, "God has forgotten;
he covers his face and never sees."
12 Arise, LORD! Lift up your hand, O God.
Do not forget the helpless.
13 Why does the wicked man revile God?
Why does he say to himself,
"He won't call me to account"?
14 But you, O God, do see trouble and grief;
you consider it to take it in hand.
The victim commits himself to you;
you are the helper of the fatherless.
15 Break the arm of the wicked and evil man;
call him to account for his wickedness
that would not be found out.
16 The LORD is King for ever and ever;
the nations will perish from his land.
17 You hear, O LORD, the desire of the afflicted;
you encourage them, and you listen to their cry,
18 defending the fatherless and the oppressed,
in order that man, who is of the earth, may terrify no more.
Please flag this for deletion, TOS violation.
Welcome, BeliefinGod! So, do you have an opinion yourself too?
Peter.
And there are some that merely look at the bottle and spit on the ground: such is the limit of their intellectual endowment.
Well, can you? Or can you only recite bible verses and the same-old, same-old empty apologetics we used to believe and have since rejected?
Unsubstantiated assertions won't cut it here. If you have any objective evidence to back up what you post (including the bible stuff you quoted above), let's see it. Otherwise, no one gives a crap about your opinions and you're only wasting your time and ours.
-- BelieveINGod, I assume that you're referring to my first questions, but in your responses, I don't think you've answered them at all. You did show that my hypothetical theory for God's unprovability is backed up in the Bible, but, however, that was not what I was looking for.
I think it best to stay away from arguments that exist in the Bible, just as I think it best to stay away from those in the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita.
What I asked was this, loosely:
What are your opinions on why a belief in a higher power exists in the first place?
Is it:
1. Embedded in the human consciousness
2. A learned trait
3. Something which early humans derived as a way to explain that which they didn't have science to explain
4. Something that most humans inherently have an instinctual inclination to do
...and if so, why?
Obviously, there exists no objective evidence for any of these, or at least not enough of it to stop this argument from arising continually.
Take up the gauntlet, BelieveINGod, if you will allow the theatrics.
The End
"how can scientists throw out the idea of God if they do not have proof of their own theory of The Big Bang? "
No proof in support of the Big Bang theory? Surely you jest? Google 'Redshift' and 'cosmic background radiation' ; or tune your spectrumanalyzer to 1421 MHz. Hint: I've actually measured this background radiation myself (in a team of radio amateurs) using a WW-2 radar parabolic antenna (model 'Würzburg Riese').
Even if there was no evidence in support of the Big Bang theory, it does not automatically follow god(s)/goddess(es) exist. Let alone your christian god.
"There are atifacts of Jesus on this Earth."
Which are they, and where are they? Can they be proven to have been without a reasonable doubt to have been used/owned by Jesus?
"There is the book of Revelations which predicts accurately the end of times."
Say again? 'predicts accurately' ?! Last I recall reading in there was that no one, but the father, knew the date and the time. And that only false prophets would try to make predictions of the date and time.
Secondly, how can you know whether it accurately predicts the end of times beforehand? Can't you judge this only *after* the fact? I'm puzzled. You can't say a weatherforecast was accurate until *after* the fact, where you have data to compare reality to the forecast.
"In Darwins theory of Survival of the Fittest: only the strongest traits will survive. "
Wrong again; Darwin's theory states that those who are *best adapted* to their environment have the best prospects of surviving. It doesn't even state they *will* survive.
"There are self proclaimed homosexuals."
Some are even proclaimed homosexuals by others. Usually they don't use the term 'homosexual' though, but some other, more offensive slang terms. Sometimes by people who claim to worship the very same god as you.
"This trait or brain function as scientists believe it is an imbalance of chemicals would not survive if Darwin was correct. "
Why not? Just because homosexuals can't replicate (amongst themselvse) doesn't mean new homosexuals can't come into existence. Have you ever heard of genes that mutate? (not that homosexuality is necessarily caused by genetic faults, mind you). According to your logic, a mother and father with black hair could also never have blonde children? Hint: google Gregor Mendel (he was a monk, not even one of them heretical scientists!), recessive and dominant genes. You may learn a thing or two.
"Homosexuals cannot reproduce and never have."
Yes they can and yes they have. Plenty of homosexual males are biological fathers, and plenty of homosexual women are biological mothers.
"So if over the so many years that they have knownly been on Earth, which is not identified because there used to be morality in this world, have not evolved to become asexual and self sufficient or even be able to reproduce as in male-male or female-female, how is it that they still exist?"
Sorry old chap, I can't follow what you're saying.
"there are demons and angels."
Oh?
"These people are being infected with the Devil's evil doings and it takes the will of God's people to pray for them and deliver them from the Devil's hold on them."
Show me one homosexual who has been 'cured' by god's people praying for him/her and I won't burst out in laughter.
You, sir or madam (whatever the case may be), are one weird cookie.
"The End"
Let's hope so. But I fear for it.
Peter (who wonders if it's something in the water they drink?)
Secondly-artifacts of Jesus: Jesus grew up in Nazareth which is still a city to this day, in the first century a Galilean boat was brought from under the waters that matched the description of the disciples of Jesus's boat, Capernaum where Jesus went into the synagogue and gave his speech of the bread of life still exists today and is an excavation site, the Jewish Temple Mont's foundations are exactly as said in the Bible, the Southern Steps in Jerusalem identified in the Bible, an inscription found that mentions Pilate and the actual bones of the Jewish High Preist (JESUS), I can go on but I will stop finding that sufficient for now
3. The end of times as in the events: persecution of Christians, world at war, a time of great "saviors" who say they can deliver you, a fall of great nations, in which all have happened and I will not go against that which has been right so far. I also later say: "There is a written timeline of these events in which the end is not specified" which you failed to mention, making your statement slander.
4. best adapted, will...i find these similar and you trying to disclose my statement with this little difference. Also, those who proclaim they worship God are people and make mistakes as everyone who do not. I do not proclaim to be better than any non-believer. I just understand the morality behind my decisions and ask God for forgiveness for anything immoral I do. I do not promote any harsh words towards homosexuals and God does not want persecution of them and instead an outreach to them. Many people do no understand this and that is their ignorance.
5. I understand genes as I took basic biology as did most everyone. I also understand that the gene has to be originally there. It does not matter from what generations it comes. That is logic.
6. You did not post my entire statement, again. "Homosexuals cannot reproduce and never have. So if over the so many years that they have knownly been on Earth, which is not identified because there used to be morality in this world, have not evolved to become asexual and self sufficient or even be able to reproduce as in male-male or female-female, how is it that they still exist?" Ok so you have to connect my texts. I say later, as in male-male or female-female. I never said they could not reproduce with the other sex.
7. What I am saying: There has been homosexuality on this Earth for longer than what is documented. The only thing different is that people had the moral identity that a God made Adam and Eve and gave them parts to reproduce together, but not alone. Ok the Darwin idea is as you say in your own words, "Darwin's theory states that those who are *best adapted* to their environment have the best prospects of surviving. It doesn't even state they *will* survive." So if a man or woman cannot survive without being able to reproduce because they are attracted to the same sex in which they cannot reproduce with. Why do they not then become asexual or in fact evolve into beings that can reproduce with the same sex? Would not that be a suggestion of Darwin?
8. yes- they are in fact the miracles or disasters of this world. The angels protect and the demons destroy. They are to you that call them ghosts, which is in fact related to the Spirit of the Holy Ghost. There is an ongoing battle here on Earth where angels protect people and the disasters such as 9/11 are by people infected by the ideas of demons to hurt/kill innocent people.
9. MLK JR- a Christian himself who prayed and believed in God made stands against racism and profanity of the thoughts that blacks were unequal to whites. His speeches and demonstrations led to equal opportunity for blacks in America. He did so with God. Laugh at that. I dare you.
10. I am a 20 year old man of God. I have my sins and I have repented. This does not mean I will not sin again, but instead insists that I know that I am God's child and will follow Him. I am not in any way worthy of the blessing of the Lord, but God gives me a second chance with prayer and the asking of forgiveness.
11. In my water: the thruth of God and the willingness to go onto a website against Him and represent His word.
It's called 'quoting'. I quote a part of your text I disagree with and then disect it and counter it with my own arguments. It's normal procedure in debate and scientific intercourse.
This may come as a bit of a shock to you... but science can't explain everything so far. What will come as even more of a shock to you: science doesn't even claim it does. Science admits that we don't know everything, that we may actually be wrong, that better theories may be developed in the future, which better explain reality. Scientific theories are only considered true until they're falsified. Scientists are *constantly* trying to falsify theories. It's their business. Yes, this may come as a shock - they even try to undermine their own theories - weird, isn't it?
'there is a flaw in their theory'. Well, so be it. Just shows more works needs to be done on the topic.
And so far no life on any other planet has been found. Fact indeed. I don't see how this is supposed to support your argument though.
"Secondly-artifacts of Jesus: Jesus grew up in Nazareth which is still a city to this day, in the first century a Galilean boat was brought from under the waters that matched the description of the disciples of Jesus's boat, Capernaum where Jesus went into the synagogue and gave his speech of the bread of life still exists today and is an excavation site, the Jewish Temple Mont's foundations are exactly as said in the Bible, the Southern Steps in Jerusalem identified in the Bible, an inscription found that mentions Pilate and the actual bones of the Jewish High Preist (JESUS), I can go on but I will stop finding that sufficient for now"
So, you're saying there is a boat that matches the description in the bible, that there are temples which match the description in the bible, etc. *How* exactly does this prove that a) Jesus existed b) was the son of god c) did resurrect d) etc.etc.
What you say proves nothing more than the mere fact that a boat was found that matches the description in the bible, that there is a temple that matches the description in the bible, etc.etc. You are making assumptions and drawing conclusions that are not warranted by the facts. That's a bit presumptuous, isn't it?
"3. The end of times as in the events: persecution of Christians, world at war, a time of great "saviors" who say they can deliver you, a fall of great nations, in which all have happened and I will not go against that which has been right so far. I also later say: "There is a written timeline of these events in which the end is not specified" which you failed to mention, making your statement slander."
Hold your horses, old chap. Calling someone a slanderer without reasonable cause can cause you to end up with a black eye. I'll ignore that part of your remark.
Has there been any time in the past 2000 years where christians were not persecuted, where the world was not at war, where there were not great saviours, where great nations have not fallen?
"4. best adapted, will...i find these similar and you trying to disclose my statement with this little difference. Also, those who proclaim they worship God are people and make mistakes as everyone who do not. I do not proclaim to be better than any non-believer. I just understand the morality behind my decisions and ask God for forgiveness for anything immoral I do. I do not promote any harsh words towards homosexuals and God does not want persecution of them and instead an outreach to them. Many people do no understand this and that is their ignorance."
The obsession christians have with homosexuality worries me. I consider it not only unhealthy but dangerous, despite your supposedly reassuring words here that you do not condemn them. I think you may be right in that you do not condemn them, but your god does the condemning for you....
"5. I understand genes as I took basic biology as did most everyone. I also understand that the gene has to be originally there. It does not matter from what generations it comes. That is logic."
New genes can and do develop. Old genes lose their function. 90+% of our genes serve no known purpose and are basically garbage genes or ballast.
"that is logic"
Sorry. Must be me... but I have a very difficult time understanding what you're trying to say.
"6. You did not post my entire statement, again. "Homosexuals cannot reproduce and never have. So if over the so many years that they have knownly been on Earth, which is not identified because there used to be morality in this world, have not evolved to become asexual and self sufficient or even be able to reproduce as in male-male or female-female, how is it that they still exist?" Ok so you have to connect my texts. I say later, as in male-male or female-female. I never said they could not reproduce with the other sex."
You never said in your previous comment anything about male-male or female-female, so do not accuse me of quoting out of context. Thank you very much.
You fail to address my argument that genes can and do modify. That heterosexual parents could end up with homosexual children, due to (for example) recessively inherited genes.
You claim to know about basic biology and genetics, yet your remarks strongly suggest you have no inkling of understanding of the topic.
"7. What I am saying: There has been homosexuality on this Earth for longer than what is documented. The only thing different is that people had the moral identity that a God made Adam and Eve and gave them parts to reproduce together, but not alone. Ok the Darwin idea is as you say in your own words, "Darwin's theory states that those who are *best adapted* to their environment have the best prospects of surviving. It doesn't even state they *will* survive." So if a man or woman cannot survive without being able to reproduce because they are attracted to the same sex in which they cannot reproduce with. Why do they not then become asexual or in fact evolve into beings that can reproduce with the same sex? Would not that be a suggestion of Darwin?"
Again, I don't quite follow you. Must be that my intellectual capabilities are failing me.
"8. yes- they are in fact the miracles or disasters of this world. The angels protect and the demons destroy. They are to you that call them ghosts, which is in fact related to the Spirit of the Holy Ghost. There is an ongoing battle here on Earth where angels protect people and the disasters such as 9/11 are by people infected by the ideas of demons to hurt/kill innocent people."
Uh-huh....
"9. MLK JR- a Christian himself who prayed and believed in God made stands against racism and profanity of the thoughts that blacks were unequal to whites. His speeches and demonstrations led to equal opportunity for blacks in America. He did so with God. Laugh at that. I dare you."
Say again? How does this relate to the discussion we were having? I don't recall Martin Luther King being discussed before here.
'laugh at that' - why would I want to?
'I dare you' - oh dear....
"10. I am a 20 year old man of God. I have my sins and I have repented. This does not mean I will not sin again, but instead insists that I know that I am God's child and will follow Him. I am not in any way worthy of the blessing of the Lord, but God gives me a second chance with prayer and the asking of forgiveness."
Good for you. I'm a 35 year old atheist. But what's the point?
"11. In my water: the thruth of God and the willingness to go onto a website against Him and represent His word."
In my water is only H2O with some NaCl, KCl, MgO, CaCO3 and other salts mixed in. That probably explains it.
Never mind. I suggest you try to restate your points, and this time try to make it coherent so that others can follow. I do my best to write in such a way that others can understand me, I'd appreciate it if you also made an effort to do so. At least if you want to continue our discussion. Because I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning, nor understand your logic.
If it makes you feel better, try imagining me as an utter idiot to whom you have to explain something. Try real hard. Make it simple. Make it to the point. Make it logical. Do it for the glory of god, so you can convert this sinner to the one and only true god.
Thanks.
Peter.
Peter.
"Homosexuals cannot reproduce and never have."
This is patently false, as I've shown before. I retract my previous apology that I misread you; I'll even go further and accuse your incoherent writing as the cause of it.
You mention nothing here about male-male or female-female reproduction; only later do you state, in a different context, asking why they don't evolve to m-m or f-f reproduction.
"[...]have not evolved to become asexual and self sufficient or even be able to reproduce as in male-male or female-female, how is it that they still exist? Answer: there are demons and angels."
And I'll go even further that there are other answers, apart from your 'demons and angels' theory. There are other possible explanations, such as (as I've mentioned before) recessively inherited genes, *or* the fact that homosexuals reproduce heterosexually. Never mind many other possible explanations, not the least of which is a matter of environment in which the person grows up.
Your 'demons and angels' is just one of the many possible theories. And not even a plausible one; we can demonstrate genes, so far I've seen no demonstration of any demons or angels. Or the Easterbunny.
Write accurately, coherently and state facts clearly, or be prepared to have others cut them to shreds.
Peter.
1. Science always changes. Therefore all science is inadequate to what its full potential is correct. This means that science of tomorrow replaces science of today. So if we as people continue to be wrong, why is it ever stated as fact? My Bible doesn't change. God is still God. Jesus is still Jesus, etc.
2. A book (The Bible) describes these places in direct location of where they are today. Very descriptively talk in many chapters and verses about these places. The script found talks about the same Pilate that is talked about in the Bible. These are facts. They are not stretches of truth or people wanting to believe that they are the same things. People dig these sites up and find them to be exact to the descriptions of the Bible.
3. I called your cut offs of my statements as slander because you provided half of them and went on that and not represent my whole idea in what I said. Anyways, it does not specify how long the persecutions, falling of great rulers and etc. will be. I told you they would happen the last days. We are in them and do not know how much longer it will be. Some thought it would be with Hitler. They were obviously wrong. Nobody can predict the last day, but we can identify the acts of the last days.
4. God made Adam and Eve in the Bible. There is no controversy to that. And when I say that I mean the people who believe in God. He made them to be together and reproduce and fill the lands of the Earth. Never did God intend people have interest for those of the same sex. It is His right to condemn them, it is also His right to give them the chance to repent and change their ways, which He does both.
5. Everything has purpose. Those genes you declare that are garbage have purpose. Your evidence is from the same science that you say has its falicies. Science is merely a collection of theories that people believe to be true. The reason scientists can't always have reason for everything is because as humans, we are not supposed to understand everything.
6. I did in fact state male-male, female-female in my first opinion. Read it again. I did not quote my own words wrong. That's kind of silly. And again, your evidence is from science, which is in no way proven correct because scientists ideas are always replaced with new.
7. I could not put this into easier words. I find it extremely easy to follow.
8. I guess I have to get you to the belief of God before I introduce this to you.
9. I misread your previous comment and had it in my mind you asked for an example of prayer working. So to answer the original statement of finding you one homosexual that has been saved by prayer read this:
http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/pages/john_h.html
10. My text was in response to "You, sir or madam (whatever the case may be), are one weird cookie." I wanted to clarify to you who I am.
11. Water was created by God and all of those salts were too. It (God's creation of water) also explains how the water of the Earth continues to recycle itself perfectly.
Your book never changes.
Pi still has the value of three;
Rabbits still chew the cud;
The appearance of an animal's offspring can be changed by ensuring that it is mated in front of a stick which has notches cut in it.
The rest of of your post so ably demonstrates your lack of erudition that it is to burdensome to answer until you can demonstrate some education.
You make it sound like a weakness, even though it's its strength.
Then you proceed to claim science is inadequate because it will never explain everything. You fail to see that science doesn't claim to be able to explain everything. In fact, it claims not everything is in fact explainable - even though your bible incorrectly claims it can.
" This means that science of tomorrow replaces science of today. So if we as people continue to be wrong, why is it ever stated as fact? "
You confuse 'a better explanation of reality replacing an older one' with being wrong. This is incorrect. For example, the theory of relativity didn't disprove Newton's classical mechanics - it expanded upon it. It was a better explanation of reality, but it doesn't mean that Newton's classical mechanics is wrong. In fact, it's what I use on a daily basis in my work, whereas years go by without me using Einstein's theories.
"My Bible doesn't change." You make that sound like its strength, while it is its weakness.
"2. A book (The Bible) describes these places in direct location of where they are today. Very descriptively talk in many chapters and verses about these places. The script found talks about the same Pilate that is talked about in the Bible. These are facts. They are not stretches of truth or people wanting to believe that they are the same things. People dig these sites up and find them to be exact to the descriptions of the Bible."
See the comment by Morningguy and Glebealyth below. They address this issue. I have nothing to add to that.
The facts you state proves exactly that - that a city, temple, boat etc. was found as was described in the bible. It does not warrant jumping to conclusions that are not supported by these simple facts.
"3. I called your cut offs of my statements as slander because you provided half of them and went on that and not represent my whole idea in what I said. Anyways, it does not specify how long the persecutions, falling of great rulers and etc. will be. I told you they would happen the last days. We are in them and do not know how much longer it will be. Some thought it would be with Hitler. They were obviously wrong. Nobody can predict the last day, but we can identify the acts of the last days."
In hindsight they were obviously wrong, except that in those days people like you were making exactly the same predictions - that the end was near.
"4. God made Adam and Eve in the Bible. There is no controversy to that. And when I say that I mean the people who believe in God."
I assume you are talking about the people who believe in the christian god.... Muslims and other monotheistic religions, never mind the polytheists, would disagree with you.
"He made them to be together and reproduce and fill the lands of the Earth. Never did God intend people have interest for those of the same sex. It is His right to condemn them, it is also His right to give them the chance to repent and change their ways, which He does both."
Where is the evidence for this? The mere statement of you, or your bible, of the above does not make it true.
"5. Everything has purpose. Those genes you declare that are garbage have purpose. Your evidence is from the same science that you say has its falicies."
You are very focused on the fallacies and errors or lack of explanations that science can make, yet somehow you completely disregard the benefits and advancements it has made for mankind. Not exactly fair, don't you think?
"Science is merely a collection of theories that people believe to be true."
A 'mere' collection of theories? You seem to have very little respect for the great marvels of science, one of which is the fact that we can communicate via this here internet. Or the fact that when you get ill you can go to a hospital and receive proper diagnosis and a cure by pharmaceutics. You *do* know what the bible says you should do when you get ill, don't you? (hint: go to the temple and get oil rubbed on you).
"The reason scientists can't always have reason for everything is because as humans, we are not supposed to understand everything."
Says who? And why not?
"6. I did in fact state male-male, female-female in my first opinion. Read it again. I did not quote my own words wrong. That's kind of silly. And again, your evidence is from science, which is in no way proven correct because scientists ideas are always replaced with new."
So you did, and I conceded that point to you already; see my earlier correction.
"7. I could not put this into easier words. I find it extremely easy to follow."
That must be because you are much cleverer than I. Can't you give it another try? For the glory of god? You know how much rejoicing there would be in heaven over one converted sinner.... C'mon - give it your best shot!
"8. I guess I have to get you to the belief of God before I introduce this to you."
Ok - I'll trust you on that one. One step at a time, I suppose.
"9. I misread your previous comment and had it in my mind you asked for an example of prayer working. So to answer the original statement of finding you one homosexual that has been saved by prayer read this:
http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/pages/john_h.h...
He obviously was never a *true* homosexual....
(just as those ex-christians here were never *true* christians).
"10. My text was in response to "You, sir or madam (whatever the case may be), are one weird cookie." I wanted to clarify to you who I am."
You have clarified very little, but state your age and gender and some platitudes from your holy book. Never mind, it's hardly relevant for this discussion, just makes properly addressing you easier.
"11. Water was created by God and all of those salts were too. It (God's creation of water) also explains how the water of the Earth continues to recycle itself perfectly."
Do you have objective evidence for this, as opposed to hearsay (bible, fellow christians, christian mythology)? That would be of great help in convincing this sinner of your point.
Peter.
"Homosexuals cannot reproduce and never have."
This is patently false, as I've shown before. I retract my previous apology that I misread you; I'll even go further and accuse your incoherent writing as the cause of it.
You mention nothing here about male-male or female-female reproduction; only later do you state, in a different context, asking why they don't evolve to m-m or f-f reproduction.
"[...]have not evolved to become asexual and self sufficient or even be able to reproduce as in male-male or female-female, how is it that they still exist? Answer: there are demons and angels."
And I'll go even further that there are other answers, apart from your 'demons and angels' theory. There are other possible explanations, such as (as I've mentioned before) recessively inherited genes, *or* the fact that homosexuals reproduce heterosexually. Never mind many other possible explanations, not the least of which is a matter of environment in which the person grows up.
Your 'demons and angels' is just one of the many possible theories. And not even a plausible one; we can demonstrate genes, so far I've seen no demonstration of any demons or angels. Or the Easterbunny.
Write accurately, coherently and state facts clearly, or be prepared to have others cut them to shreds.
Peter.
Science is standards based learning. One can either adopt such standards, or produce an alternative means for learning.
Now, I'm going to go on a hunch and state that xtians in general, do not feel the need to 'learn', because they already know it all. This is common in adolescence.
I know you have gone into hibernation, but I must pukk you up on point 7, or part of it.
"So if a man or woman cannot survive without being able to reproduce because they are attracted to the same sex in which they cannot reproduce with. Why do they not then become asexual or in fact evolve into beings that can reproduce with the same sex? Would not that be a suggestion of Darwin?"
Please read some texts beyond basic biology, as you do not understand evolution. Men and women do not evolve to meet circumstances or to circumvent sexual proclivities. Species evolve and they do so by the a process whereby the best adapted members of them breed more prolifically than those who are less well adapted.
It's Sunday morning, what are you doing here? Run off to church now and continue your brainwashing and delusion.
Typical judgemental, homophobic, MORON christian. Next comes the "Hell Awaits" monologue.
Fuc(ktard! Run along to church now and don't forget your tithe...the Creator of the Universe needs your money!
Bye, Bye
XPD (Ex-Pastro Dan)
So, enjoy our taunting for a few hours, then crawl back under your rock. We won't miss you. You'll soon be replaced by the next delusional christbot.
Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
--Galatians 6:9
I believe in this and will not stop my perseverance to admit one person on this site to God. If that is all I accomplish, it is more than worth it.
Got lectures starting tomorrow morning, so need my beauty sleep - you've seen the picture above this. ;o))
Enjoy the new chewtoy, guys. I expect to see in it ribbons by tomorrow.
BelieveINGod,
It must be said, in response to the ignorance you display, an the aura of smugness that you exude and which can be smelled even over the internet, that the bible was right, at least once - YOU ARE A SINNER!
The sin of pride runs right through you like the word Blackpool through a stick of seaside rock.
You are so proud of your faith that you treat us like ignorant little children, who do not understand what you are saying.
You are so proud of your knowledge (such as it is) that you refuse even to consider learning anything else.
We know your buybull better than you; we know xian history better than you; we know science better than you AND we are all better skilled at apologetics than you will ever be. Go away, read a book, use your brain but, for the sake of your mental safety, GO AWAY!
You are retarded and uneducated. Were you to subject yourself to your own understanding of evolution, I guarantee t hat you would be extinct in less than one generation, so unfit are you for survival in this world, or any other.
Peace and Love,
David
Do you feel any light-bulbs turning on for ya', I mean, are you a non-believer?
BiG - "I am here to represent the word of God."
Oh, I think you're doing quite well as a representative.
You have a great talent for hyperbole and, indeed a very patent smugness.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God- Matthew 5:9
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. - 1 John 4:16
As a Sons of God through the deed of peacemaking, my son may benefit. My daughters tell me they have no desire to become "mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Peace,
David
I take it, you learn more about your God from the disbelievers ;-)
I learn God's word from the Bible. I also learn about those who disbelieve in Him so that I better educate on how to teach them about God.
Let's see, your God concept manipulates people into delusional belief, such that they believe and speak lies.
And, if this behavior is good for your God concept, I can only assume it is something of a virtue for you.
So, I'll not attempt to disprove your God concept, on the contrary, it is something you venerate - I give you full credit as a xtian, and therefore, reject you as one who can't be trusted, e.g., fully willing to manipulate and lie to achieve a goal.
Yep. Just as I suspected. You're an ignorant, superstitious fundigelical who cannot provide anything of value to this forum. Get lost, loser.
LOL! So, sue me.
BTW, truth is a defense against a charge of slander, so I have no fear of being charged with slander if I call you an ignorant, superstitious nutcase who is not wanted here.
wrong.
BIGthere are demons and angels...
in your deluded sick mind.
BIG it takes the will of God's people to pray for them
Then do so elsewhere; not on this website (see the site disclaimer and purpose).
Please watch the video on The Story of Creation thread. You might learn something provided you still have any working brain cells.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2009/09/stor...
BP
Another day, another illiterate troll who can't/won't read/comprehend the purpose of this website.
What a stupid, snotty, asinine, arrogant question. Yes, of course you have the freedom to repeatedly show us your idiocy. But please, read the site disclaimer. While this is a public forum, it is a privately-owned and financed website with a clearly stated purpose. As BBB said above, you are in violation of the TOS. In addition, you are rude by violating our space. Why don't you and your ilk set up and pay for your own website to disseminate your views instead of mooching off this one.
Yum-yum...a new chewtoy. But for now, I prefer the barbecue I've got cooking. Bye.
BP
Well, I believe in free speech, per se, but there's a whole bunch of 'faith' based believers, who believe you need to put a sock in it ;-)
Is it possible you have some sexual desires, fantasies, or whatever that you are uncomfortable with?
Difference in style, I should add, as your beliefs are clearly dichotomous.
For all BelieveINGod's intolerance for homosexuality (something he clearly refuses to let his views compromise on), every assumed atheist who comments shows identical intolerance for his beliefs.
Now, if one was to stop caring about the rights and wrongs surrounding homosexuality and Christianity for just a second, the inconsistencies in both of your premises can be seen. Trying to sound as far away from gloaty as possible, I still see no one has adequately addressed my indictment many posts ago: that, ceteris parabus, both beliefs couldn't be farther from each other, but once the human emotional element is added, an atheist becomes just as biased and intolerant and faithful as that which he attacks.
Where is the balance and tolerance (or at least sense of humor)? Where is the healthy alternative that atheists (I imagine) would want to make to Christianity?
Since when is disagreement equal to intolerance? I thought that, like me, you were an economist. Surely you're familiar with scientific discussion, disagreement, theses, antithesis, etc.? The dialectical process? Does, to you, the fact that a Keynesian and Neo-classical, or Monetarian, economist disagree with eachother and debate, mean that they're intolerant?
"every assumed atheist who comments shows identical intolerance for his beliefs."
Believeingod made statements. I countered those statements. (So far, he hasn't re-countered them). How does this translate into intolerance for his beliefs?
I consider him to be an idiot though. Does that make me intolerant? Does the mere fact of having an opinion on someone's mental faculties (and stating this in public) make one intolerant?
My view is that it doesn't.
I tolerate Believeingod - so far I haven't resorted to cutting short his life because I disagree with him. I think he's an idiot, and misguided too. And I don't respect his ideas or views, as they don't deserve respect. But I'm tolerant, because I won't exterminate him because of his silly views.
"Where is the balance and tolerance (or at least sense of humor)?"
I thought I was very balanced, rational and not too judgemental (the last bit was the hardest part though). Mind you, I don't see anything wrong with being judgemental. Never understood why christians are so worried about judging others.
And I thought the 'it must be in the water' comment was humorous.
"Where is the healthy alternative that atheists (I imagine) would want to make to Christianity?"
Atheists do not have to offer an alternative to christianity.
Peter.
"Since when is disagreement equal to intolerance? I thought that, like me, you were an economist. Surely you're familiar with scientific discussion, disagreement, theses, antithesis, etc.? The dialectical process? Does, to you, the fact that a Keynesian and Neo-classical, or Monetarian, economist disagree with eachother and debate, mean that they're intolerant?"
Debate is not what I was condemning. I believe what I was condemning was the vitriol used in each atheist repliers' comments. This is counterproductive to educating or being educated, in any argument. I would accuse Christians of the same thing in their corresponding forums.
"I consider him to be an idiot though. Does that make me intolerant? Does the mere fact of having an opinion on someone's mental faculties (and stating this in public) make one intolerant?"
To the first question, no.
To the second, yes.
Idiocy is not quantifiable, and is highly subjective to the person doing the judgment. For instance, I was highly inclined to call Thackerie an idiot after he completely dodged my question below, and instead inserted his own opinion into the mix, something he ridiculed BelieveINGod for just a few minutes ago.
Idiocy, in this instance, is no different from BelieveINGod's opinion of homosexuals -- in other words, completely left up to the individual. And mocking anyone in public based off of personal convictions is generally considered to be intolerance in the workplace, and in most countries (see France and Spain's hate crime laws).
And with regards to your last point, shouldn't atheism offer a healthy alternative to religion? I would imagine that atheism got its wings from noticing inconsistencies and intolerance in the religious communities. Then, for atheism to have a purpose, it would stand to reason that it should be offering something better than religion, and, on a larger scale, the possibility of a better world.
Consider me an on-the-fence shopper for a second. Convince me that atheism can progress the world in all areas where religion is lacking.
Indeed. Well, idiocy is technically quantifiable, as is debility and imbecility, but that's nitpicking here. Would it make you feel better if I said: "it's my subjective opinion that Believeingod is an idiot"?
Because it's my opinion, and it is subjective. (at least, until I could psychologically test him and rank the test results on an objective scale; scales which do exist, btw.). And I do have freedom of expression, as long as I don't call for hate and violence against him.
"And mocking anyone in public based off of personal convictions is generally considered to be intolerance in the workplace, and in most countries (see France and Spain's hate crime laws)."
I'm not familiar with France and Spain's hate crime laws. Besides, they do not apply to me as a Dutchman. Mocking in public is nothing more than mocking in public. It's commonplace, at least over here. Both in editorial newspaper comments, stand-up comedy and in parliament. It's normal, it's routine, it's effective, it's humoruous. The things that would be considered hate crimes here would be to excite people to physically harass groups, such as homosexuals for example. To excite to violence. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words do not.
"for atheism to have a purpose, it would stand to reason that it should be offering something better than religion, and, on a larger scale, the possibility of a better world."
I think you are mixing up 'goal (or purpose)' and 'consequence'
Does atheism have a purpose? Not that I know of, at least. Atheism is basically 'nothing', just a lack of belief in gods.
However, I'm strongly convinced that a *consequence* of atheism (and science) will be a better world. However, it'll be an (unintended) consequence, not a goal of atheism.
Peter.
But, using your above definition of intolerance (a term, which I do adhere has been in flux for quite sometime), I think then that we must say that BelieveINGod's opinions of homosexuality do not count as intolerant (although, of course, this is not my personal conviction).
Idiocy may not be quantifiable - hough as apsychologist I could argue with that one - but it IS demonstrable and the ability to demonstrate idiocy IS one that BING has in spades.
He is ignorant, uneducated, and incapable of formulating either and argument or an answer to a question posed to him. the closest I can come to something else in the known universe that he resembles is one of those little dolls my daughter had as a child which, when turned over or laid down, made a noise which was almost distinguishable as human speech.
I realise that you and BING are, it appears, fellow-travellers and that you might consider him to be, in Lenin's words, a useful idiot, but we do not have to tolerate him here in our playground.
Peace,
David
Psychologists certainly do have wit in spades, that much is evident.
I do not place judgment on BING's character, only his words, and I do agree that they are usefully idiotic to my point.
Convince me that religion can progress the world in all areas where atheism (lack of belief) is lacking :-)
My talent for smugness and hyperbole were engrained some years ago as a proselytising xian. Though in most social situations I control them, they surface irresistibly when dealing with those who demonstrate ignorance and stupidity when claiming certitude.
Guilty as charged, but I claim extenuating and mitigating circumstances.
Peace,
David
No, of course it doesn't bother me personally. And why should it? I have no feelings for BelieveINGod, and no insight into his character to care for a second whether or not he is ridiculed.
But I do think that it is highly inconsistent with your proclaimed intelligence to not be able to address BelieveINGod like a decent person. You even sound almost defensive, which I'm sure is just me misreading your writing.
Every post up to now hasn't exactly been towards making a support group for recuperating ex-Christians, you must agree.
I was under the impression that it was a little more academic than that.
I take some issue with your claims.
I decided, after much effort, to take my questions elsewhere.
You see, after only having a couple of my points addressed satisfactorily, I must take my wares and move on. I was hoping to encounter some atheists and Christians with open minds, but after numerous posts by Thackerie, BelieveINGod, and glebealyth, my faith in this has successfully been shattered by Exchristian.net, exactly as the sites mission statement implies.
I have witnessed a good deal of logical fallacies here, the most egregious and common of which is clearly Ad Hominem. It disappoints me that people here cannot dispute an issue without attacking another's person. As I am now exiting the argument arena, I see no need to hold back my own inclination to do the same.
glebealyth, if your thumbnail is indeed representative of your age, (and you do look good for it, I might jealously add), you are much too old to be acting so...well, immature. You are public enemy number one for the Ad Hominem logical fallacy, which you ruthlessly abuse while accusing others of defying logic. As you are clearly in a different time zone from me, I do not think I have to worry about accidentally stumbling into your office if you choose to turn your psychologist status into a psychiatrist one. I wonder, also, if you were damaged somehow by Christianity at some point. Myself, I reject it and religion itself, but you seem so much more bothered by it than everyone else, like a Christian once murdered your dog to use as his Bible book cover.
BelieveINGod, you are not the only Christian fundamentalist to slip into this site, but you do represent everything that perturbs nonbelievers about Christianity. You yourself are not willing to exit the spiritual world of your Bible, to argue in a philosophical arena. You must also learn how to phrase your criticism of homosexuality better, because enemy of political correctness that I am, you sound very unchristian and intolerant. Of course homosexuals cannot reproduce in a closed system, we all know this. But they are not unique in this way, and we humans have not had to worry about ourselves surviving in a closed system for quite some millenia now. Reconsider before you accuse, and for your God's sake, please be able to support Him better and more intelligently than with a couple of poems and your biased opinion.
Peter, I appreciated talking with you. You certainly addressed my thought bubbles more completely than anyone else here. Though I think that we will remain in disagreement on a few items, you have caused me to think a little more on the nature of atheism and agnosticism.
To the rest of you:
My posts will soon be buried and unable to be viewed again, and this one might get some petty "good riddance"s before the thread sways back to daring Christians to pipe up only to abuse and humiliate them with the brunt force of your many members. I suppose it wouldn't invite many intelligent Intelligent Designers here, having each one of you make cookie-cutter arguments having something to do with logic and objectivity. You throw these buzzwords around like they are the deal-sealers that make Intelligent Design and God vanish in a flash, but you do not even humor my devil's advocate alternatives, which esteemed scientists (refer to my Stephen Hawking link) admit are outside the realm and reach of science.
As a side note, please learn how to use the English language before you try to argue science and physics and psychology (I'm looking at you about the latter, glebealyth). Conceivably, you would have learned grammar and punctuation long before these other subjects, so it confuses me (I must say mea culpa here as well, but I'm not in your league at all in this regard) why you continue to mutilate our beautiful tongue.
If I come across those doubting their faith or entering a faith, and I want to encourage them to think more deeply and critically about it, rest assured I will not direct them to this site. Glebealyth was right in calling it a "playground," which is exactly the term I would use to demonstrate your distance from academia.
Enjoy the monkey bars,
Shakemeno
I can understand if the discussion digressed into nothing but profane attacks and belligerent name-calling but any extraneous ad hominem attacks (in this informal arena; I might add) did NOT distract from the germane, logical and salient arguments offered.
I decided, after much effort, to take my questions elsewhere.
Good; and take your pseudo-intellectual arrogance and your persecuted scholar complex with you.
As I am now exiting the argument arena, I see no need to hold back my own inclination to do the same.
What a hypocritical douche. Asshole!
Anyone else contend that Shakemeno is vomiting whiny excuses as to why he is bailing -- because it was getting to hot for him to handle and that he was desperately out of his league?
I agree with glebealyth -- don't let the proverbial door hit you in your superiority complex (ass) on the way out.
--S.
I'm going out on a limb here, and calling liar liar pants on fire to this statement. It seems pretty obvious the only reason you came here was to eventually post your "I caint find no open minds" remark. Mission accomplished.
Sit back and enjoy the glow of your perceived superiority.
Ass.
Ya gotta wonder if these Christbots don't get tired of playin' mind games with, um, themselves...I'd be bored as heck arguing on a Christian site...must be very frustrating to live with acute cognitive dissonance...It's gotta be worse than a chigger rash...
It is our playground and do not let the gate bruise your tush on the way out.
Thank you for the encouragement to learn English. I was not aware you were qualified to judge that I was lacking in that area. Which part of academe, as it should be referred to, do you inhabit? You never said.
Despite your obvious paranoia, your posts will not be buried. We do not feel threatened by them. You arrived here, hiding behind a cloak of neutrality. The moment you were called out on it you run away. No surprise there, then.
Thank you for the various references.
Peace,
David
here to play both sides against the other for their personal amusement, then decided to leave once they grew tired of the
game. Perhaps you know a psychological term for someone
like this?
Keep up your posts, I always enjoy them!
Can't come up with a diagnosis - so little of substance was said. ;o)) Your assessment certainly rings true.
Thanks for the encouragement. I always learn a lot from your posts. I like being ignorant as it means I stand an outside chance of learning something new.
David
Well, if you come across someone willing to reject standards in order to facilitate belief, e.g., faith, then by all means encourage them to harbor their fantasies elsewhere ;-)
It is quite humorous that the words 'think critically' and 'faith' are being used together as if they are somehow complimentary and non-conflicting, but perhaps it is humor at its best.
“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.”
After: Ignore the ignorance of those who do not read God's word before they decide what they believe. A.K.A. those below
Go get baptized and believe you are re-born in God's eyes to a life dedicated to Him. You are free of past sins and are allowed to continue life on Earth as a Christian and believer of God the one true God.
Tell someone who believes in God that you accepted Him into your life. They will be extremelyhappy and welcome you into the Christian world. It is also asked by God to spread the Word. By telling someone you believe, it will let them know God's Word speaks loudly.
Follow God every day. Thank Him for your many blessnings. Do not fall away in times of struggle. God calls for times of tribulations that will test your faith and you must stay close to God or you will fall from Him. Never condemn or judge. Let people know they are misinformed. Provide facts.
Remember to love those who despise you. And never get mad at them for not knowing. Instead pursue them and try to draw them close to God.
BIG
of the people who post here. Check back through earlier subjects and
you will see that just about every person here prayed the sinner's prayer,
read the Bible from cover to cover (several times), and faithfully lived the
life of a Christian, only to discover over a period of time, it was nothing
but ancient delusions and myths created, like all religions, to explain
what those ancient societies did not understand or for the priest class
to control those around them (and take their money).
If you had a dime for every person here who once lived and believed
as you do now, you'd be richer than Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen put
together.
"Taking a break from this [...]"
C'mon man - surely you have more stamina than this? Doesn't your god grant you the wisdom and the strength ('the armour of god') to not only withstand us, but correct our errors?
Ah well - tomorrow's another day, with another chew toy, I s'pose. But they surely don't last long nowadays... :(
Peter (<-- very disappointed in BING)
Oh, don't be such a drama queen. No one "hates" you or your god. Both are irrelevant and one is imaginary. Neither is worth hating. Sorry to rain on your persecution fantasy.
Shake used the BiG caricature to throw under the bus, because quite frankly, Shake is an IDer, and has no love-loss for 'faithful' xtians who appear unintelligent.
What Shake misses, however, is that 'faith' does not require critical thinking/standards - the irony, is that Shake uncritically believes there are different calibers or 'types' of 'faith' and faithful believers - Shakes' denial is somewhat amusing to watch, it's like a leopard running around saying "spots are ugly, but I'm beautiful'.
So, here's one more post to bump you further up the chain Shake, hopefully no one gets curious ;-)
Nope. Only love is love.
"If you find my statements to be wrong, I encourage you to look into it yourself. Read the Bible and choose for yourself only then if you believe in God or not."
I do not believe. I find the Bible to be thoroughly unconvincing... It's a hodgepodge of warmed-over Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Egyptian and Greek mythology with a side order of fearmongering.
so how can u guys say that hes (jesus) the son of god
We don't. Didn't you see the name of this website, EXCHRISTIAN.NET? That means we don't believe jesus is the son of god.
If you think for a minute that we exchristians will exchange one flavor of abrahamic insanity for another, you are absolutely 100% bat$hit crazy. Go bother formermuslims.com instead of us. On second thought, don't harass them either. Just stay in your room, mentally masturbating. That won't hurt anyone, unlike your "peaceful" religion. Go Away. Stay Away.
BP