God, the progeny of human fear, is anti-science

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 115 discussions (610 posts)

0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
Chasuk,

http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Murders-St … 0312934106
reply report
83
Philanthropy2012posted 13 years ago
What a ridiculous forum.
Flawed from the very start.

@AKA Winston, have you never heard of a liberalist Christian?

hahaha, I imagine you have trouble with Idioms too?

"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" does not mean that the person actually believes they could consume a horse...

Dear (non-existing) Lord! People baffle me.
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
We you come late to the party you can miss some of the early conversation.

"I distictly chose these three elements of Christianity because they are the crux of the religion - for those super-moderates and liberal christians who are only going to church for the social aspects, this message does not apply."
reply report
1. 61
  Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  AKA,
  
  I don't go to a church. I haven't been inside a church for many years. I know sometimes people let us down, hurt our feelings. This is why I don't want to be involved or with the *gossip* and *judging* that goes on inside a building that is suppose to be there for a collection of those who want to seek and find something better for their lives.
  reply report
72
rasta1posted 13 years ago
Mr AKA Winston, good day.

1. Where did you think human beings come from?
2. Christ was not reanimated, Christ was resurrected
3. Our spirituality controls biological function

When you tell me where you think human beings came from, then I will be able to explain.
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
rasta 1,

#1. Human beings evolved from a branch of hominids.
#2. Have another cognac. Flesh must be reanimated to be resurrected.
#3. Show me an objective validation of your claim - have your god regrow an amputee's limb and then we can talk.

Thanks for playing can I or can I not think rationally.
reply report
83
Philanthropy2012posted 13 years ago
Are you not allow to change the content of a forum? If not, are you allowed to take it down and re-post a correct version of it?

After all, liberalist Christians are much better for science than non religious criminals.
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
Philanthropy2012,

A large majority of Christians accept the Nicene Creed, which, in part, reads: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, ....who....came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified....He ....was buried, and the third day he rose again....ascended into heaven....And he shall come again with glory.... "

If you don't not accept the Nicene Creed as valid, then I submit you are only a social Christian and not a believer. In that case, this forum post does not apply to you as it does not address "social christians".

If you don't like the forum, you are free to start your own topic thread.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why would someone have to accept the Nicene Creed to be a real Christian? The early history of christianity after Christ's death was very different from the bible... the church went from controlled by politicians, to controlling politicians, and back and forth several times.
  
  Also, which version of the creed does a Christian supposedly have to accept?
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Two points:
  
  1. It is the responsibility of anyone engaging an argument to be familiar with its premise, especially when that premise is explicit.
  2. AKA Winston's premise was explicit.
  
  I agree that one doesn't have to accept the Nicene Creed to be a real Christian, but it is dishonest to retreat to that defense now.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There was nothing about this premise in the OP, and the entire thread isn't exclusive to Christianity in the first place, so it hardly makes a fast rule on what is fair game for the thread.
  
  Also to say to 'retreat' is dishonest... where is the lie? Where is the dishonesty?
  
  I simply asked Winston to clarify why he makes that comment.
  reply report
2. 58
  MelissaBarrettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just for clarification's sake, you don't believe that someone can believe in Christ without believing in the supernatural portions of the bible? That if they don't believe in a virgin birth, that they are going to church just for socialization?
  
  That's not universally true.
  
  You realize that when you make statements like that you set yourself up so that you either have to 1. Tell the person that says they don't believe that way that they are lying or 2. Backpedal.... The third option (admitting you are wrong) might be a little distasteful to you.
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  a "social" christian isn't in it for socialization, but for the betterment of society. though they don't believe in the supernatural, they believe christ's teachings are a good way to live.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(After all, liberalist Christians are much better for science than non religious criminals.)

Philanthropy2012,

It is obvious that you have not looked at U.S. prison population densities by belief or you would not make such a claim.
reply report
1. 83
  Philanthropy2012posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  First of all,
  The U.S is one country. It's population comprises a mere 3/70 of the world population. What happens in America would not be a strong basis for the world, which you have brought into this So just like this forum, your argument here is flawed from the start.
  
  Second of all, I will bet that whatever statistics you are using do not specify what type of Christianity. Please refer me to any statistics that tell you that the chance of a Liberalist Christian becoming a criminal is higher than a non religious person Otherwise you are not addressing my point, in which I specifically stated "Liberalist" Christians.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Philanthropy
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  what is a liberalist christian. i've heard of liberal christians, but not liberalist ones.
  reply report
  83
  Philanthropy2012posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Liberalist:
  A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
  Liberalist Christian, a person that fits the above definition and is also a christian.
  reply report
0
Chasukposted 13 years ago
There was nothing about the premise in the OP? You're kidding, right?
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Weren't you referring to having to accept the Nicene creed to be a true Christian?
  
  There is nothing about that in the OP.
  
  If you were referring to something else I was confused because of the post you quoted.
  reply report
0
Chasukposted 13 years ago
From the OP:

"The Christian faith teaches that, A) virgin birth is possible, B) human tissue dead for 3 days can be reanimated, and C) that a resurrected being can disappear into the clouds, live there for eons, then return to earth as a king and ruler."

That's an integral part of the Nicene Creed, reiterated.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  1 - There was nothing excluding other religions from participating. The opening premise is 'God is anti-science'. The opening of the post is superstition vs. science, with reference to a witch. Only then does the OP switch to Christianity. One can easily take that as an example of religious belief in apparent contradiction with science.
  
  2 - Nothing stated 'if you are Christian but don't believe exactly this you can't participate', or anything along those lines. Nothing makes it explicitly 'Nicene-creed believing Christians vs. 'social' Christians'.
  
  3 - I happen to believe in A, B, and C, although with slight alterations than what can be considered 'standard' thought.
  
  4 - All of those premises stem from the bible originally. There is no need to believe in a creed that iterates what is already taught in the bible.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  AKA Winston didn't provide a logician's formal rubric, he provided an opening paragraph. That paragraph explicitly defined his premises in terms of Christian belief. He specified, by example, the scope of his assertion. Those examples reiterate -- unambiguously -- core components of current versions of the Nicene Creed.
  
  The relevance of the Nicene Creed to this discussion is that it codifies the belefs of many Christians. AKA Winston is claiming that the beliefs of these Christians are ridiculous.
  
  You are either engaging AKA Winston's explicit premises, or you are not. If you are, then kindly proceed without further equivocation.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Seriously Chasuk, sometimes you bring out good discussion, and sometimes it's things like this.
  
  Winston didn't start with Christianity. He started with God, moved to science and supernatural(witches and plangue), then moved to ideas of Christianity. Since his premise wasn't exclusive only 3 examples of Christian belief, it is fair to assume that other beliefs that fit the topic, or variants of Christian belief, are fair game.
  
  Forums are public, meant to be a place to share ideas. If I state how science any my view of those three topics are in line with each other, that is certainly within the scope of the discussion.
  
  I could just as easily tell you to quit trying to play forum cop...
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @emrldphx: You write, "Winston didn't start with Christianity."
  
  I concede that Winston began with a too-generalized hook (in both his title and opening sentences), but I disagree with your overall interpretation.
  
  His focus segued to Christianity with this sentence:
  
  "Can Christians at least admit how ridiculous their beliefs are?"
  
  He addressed Christians directly, and then proceeded to identify a specific subgroup, the majority.
  
  I am either suffering from a lack of comprehension skills, or you are. Unsurprisingly, I favor the latter theory.
  reply report
  78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You may wish to re read the OP.
  Every point that Winston calls upon are unique to the Christian faith.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think you intended to direct this at emrldphx. You and I are in agreement.
  reply report
  83
  Philanthropy2012posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @Aka-DJ, you too have not heard of Christian liberalists?
  You cannot make such bold statements, they are weightless
  And @Chasuk, the original paragraph pays no heed to the concept of majority, thus, as I rightly said, the forum was flawed from the very beginning.
  What follows later in the comments has no weight against what I said about the beginning of the forum.
  
  Please refer me to where a majority is mentioned in the OP?
  "What you believe is absurd" "Can Christians at least admit how ridiculous their beliefs are" "these beliefs shape your actions" Certainly makes no mention, perhaps you would like to reveal to me the secret words that make you think that the premise was clear from the start?
  
  Sarcastically yours,
  
  Philanthropy.
  reply report
  78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  From the OP
  "Can Christians at least admit how ridiculous their beliefs are? The Christian faith teaches that, A) virgin birth is possible, B) human tissue dead for 3 days can be reanimated, and C) that a resurrected being can disappear into the clouds, live there for eons, then return to earth as a king and ruler."
  
  Is that what you asked for?
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @Philanthropy2012: You are right. The original paragraph doesn't clearly state the premise. However, the original post did.
  
  I explain that here:
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/84540?p … ost1853693
  
  The "majority" that I refer to pertains to the majority of Christians who adhere to the beliefs that Winston delineates. There were no secret words, just a premise plainly presented to anyone who was actually paying attention to the words they read.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Chasuk, he said "The Christian faith teaches that"... nothing about a majority. I simply took his 3 examples of what THE christian faith teaches as his own interpretation of those 3 events, which may or may not be based on the Nicene creed. I believe a slightly different interpretation of those three events, but I don't necessarily believe in the Nicene Creed. I especially don't believe in the creed of 381.
  
  There is nothing about the Nicene Creed in the OP. Those beliefs originate with the bible. In other words, they are more fundamental to the bible than the Nicene Creed.
  
  If Winston had clarified, or said something other than 'The Christian faith teaches that', then I would allow that he was talking about only Christians and only those who believe in the NC.
  
  So why don't you just drop it.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't I just drop it? You realize that it takes two or more people to have a disagreement, right?
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But it only takes one to start one up...
  
  I asked an honest question of Winston, forgetting that he has decided I'm nothing more than a troll and won't answer me.
  
  You're the one trying to play forum cop.
  
  In case I haven't made it clear, there is more to the Nicene Creed than those 3 topics... to say you have to believe the Nicene Creed to believe those 3 topics is ridiculous.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If I am playing a forum cop by respectfully disagreeing with a fellow participant, then we are both playing forum cops.
  
  I know what the Nicene Creed entails; I know that its scope is much larger than what we have discussed here. Further, I have never said, nor implied, that one has to accept the entire Nicene Creed in order to accept a part of it.
  
  I understand that we disagree, and I don't expect that we will reconcile our beliefs. As you suggest, we should probably just "drop it.." I'm sure we will discover other topics to fruitfully discuss, on other forums.
  
  Do you agree to disagree?
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I asked Winston a clarifying question. You came in and called me dishonest. The two are not the same.
  
  No, you just said that one has to in order to post here.
  
  Sure
  reply report
72
rasta1posted 13 years ago
1. Humans did not evolve from apes or monkeys. there is no archaeological or genetic evidence to prove this. this is a theory
2. Resurrection is spiritual not physical.
3. The spiritual controls the biological.

If you can answer this one question with scientific proof, you win the game.

WHERE DID LIFE COME FROM?

Thanks for playing
reply report
1. 0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Rasta1,
  
  1. Evolutionary biologists do not claim that humans evolved from apes or monkeys.
  2. If you believe that resurrection is spiritual and not physical, then AKA Winston's argument was not directed at you.
  3. What do you mean by, "The spiritual controls the biological?"
  
  You ask, "WHERE DID LIFE COME FROM?"
  
  I don't know, but there aren't an infinite number of possibilities. Either 1) Life has always existed, 2) Life arose, or 3) Life was created.
  
  To answer "Life was created," logically leads to the question, "Where did the Creator come from?"
  
  There aren't an infinite number of possibilities. Either 1) He/She/It has always existed, 2) He/She/It arose, or 3) He/She/It was created.
  
  The answer " He/She/It has always existed" is exactly as logical as the answer " Life has always existed." The answer "He/She/It arose" is exactly as logical as the answer " Life arose." The answer "He/She/It was created" is exactly as logical as the answer "Life was created."
  
  I personally don't find infinite regression a satisfying answer, so I choose 1) Life has always existed, or 2) Life arose.
  
  Hopefully, one day, science will help me decide which answer is most likely correct.
  reply report
  72
  rasta1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Where did life come from ? has always been the question that could not be answered without some reference to the infinite, which is what we refer to as God or the universe.
  
  The human body is made up of electrical energy. Different atoms, vibrating at different frequencies. When the biological body is broken down into energy, this becomes the spiritual you. E=MC/\2. Also based on the principle that energy can neither be destroyed or created. Let E become the spiritual you and M become the flesh. There is left the constant C/\2. Therefore the flesh is just merely a supporting function of the spiritual you.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @rasta1: You write, "When the biological body is broken down into energy, this becomes the spiritual you."
  
  Respectfully, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that assertion.
  reply report
  72
  rasta1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  if you do not believe life is energy, that's okay.
  reply report
0
PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago
I may be at the wrong place - then please ignore this - but I have found two types of gods; one in the skies, another just at my floor sleeping right now.

irrelevant answer? -ignore...
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
Let's get this straight as I wrote it. The title is generalized - god is anti-science - it is a hook, only. I then went on to explain how I meant this - that knowledge over time has been the antithesis to unsubstantiated beliefs. I then went further to show how a specific belief (fundamental Christianity) was an example.

These are public forums - enter or leave the discussion at your whim. There are no debate rules that apply. If you don't like the OP, you are free to write your own.

If you do not believe in the Nicene Creek, the latter part of the OP does not pertain to you. For those that it does pertain to, they know who they are.

aka-dj,
(To dismiss any, or all the miraculous events at the core of the Christian faith, and rely on science alone leaves you with just as big a dilemma)

This is an absurd statement as Islam and Buddhaism both reject core Christian beliefs and have no dilemma. If you want to make this argument simply a theistic one, it is stronger.

But, please, we don't need sprit filled pregnant virgins, Frankenstein resurrections, and magical disappearing flying rabbis to has nothing to do with the argument.
reply report
1. 78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's not any more absurd than the ONLY explanation you have for abiogenesis is a"miraculous" one.
  
  How come you left that out in your rebuttal?
  reply report
0
PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago
I heard of two things, long time ago - one called Evidence, another named Reason.
reply report
1. 78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We all have both.
  It's called perspective and interpretation of the above.
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  crystal-clear...
  reply report
83
Philanthropy2012posted 13 years ago
You're right no debate rules apply, including making true statements which you have not, you may be trying to cover it up now but the fact remains that you were flawed from the start. "Christians" refers to all Christians, not the majority of them Words have meanings.

@ Chasuk, yes, I am right.
And that link didn't explain jack.
"Can Christians at least admit how ridiculous their beliefs are?" Doesn't imply the majority of Christians but every single last one of them. Do you dispute this?

"I am either suffering from a lack of comprehension skills" that however, I agree with entirely.
reply report
83
Philanthropy2012posted 13 years ago
You're right no debate rules apply, including making true statements which you have not, you may be trying to cover it up now but the fact remains that you were flawed from the start. "Christians" refers to all Christians, not the majority of them Words have meanings.

@ Chasuk, yes, I am right.
And that link didn't explain jack.
"Can Christians at least admit how ridiculous their beliefs are?" Doesn't imply the majority of Christians but every single last one of them. Do you dispute this?

"I am either suffering from a lack of comprehension skills" that however, I agree with entirely.
reply report
1. 0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You aren't stupid, Philanthropy2012. I've read several of your hubs just to make sure.
  
  This presents me with a problem.
  
  If you were a simpleton, dealing with you would be easy. I would politely demur, and then say something gently dismissive. My only predicament would be doing both of those things without condescension.
  
  Fortunately, you have set the standards of civility quite low, and I know that you are an unsophisticated troll, not a dolt. This means that I can forgive myself for the lack of gentility in my response.
  
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
aka-dj,

It is quite amazing the conclusions some people leap to - you have pegged me as accepting science as the ultimate answer to all questions. That is simply not accurate.

Concerning the question both you and Rasta pose, my answer is that I do not know how life started - but neither do you or Rasta. I claim ignorance,whereas you claim knowledge that cannot be know, which is an absurd claim.
reply report
1. 78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The admission that you don't know is fair enough.
  
  If you want to leave the question open, that's fine too.
  
  But, since you DON'T have an alternative explanation, you are in no (authoritative) position to ridicule my (or anyone else"s) explanations.
  
  If you don't lean fully on science to answer your life's issues, you still offer nothing alternate.
  Just ridiculing something you don't like, or agree with is foolish.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
:Philanthropy2012,

Just go start your own thread and then you can play with yourself, which appears to be your entire goal anyway.
reply report
83
Philanthropy2012posted 13 years ago
@Chasuk Hahaha who are you calling a troll? I have given useful information that otherwise has not been proven wrong, your only argument against me and Emri is "Why don't I just drop it? You realize that it takes two or more people to have a disagreement, right?" A troll is one who does not listen to reason, and this refusing to debate on no grounds is doing precisely that.

To sum up, refusing to argue and state your opinion relentlessly is troll behaviour . Giving evidence to a point that cannot be dismissed is civilised.

@Winston
All I wanted to do was help Mr. Winston, I wasn't going to read all 378 posts to check if you corrected yourself. After all, one could only assume that a person would have corrected his own mistake if he realised he made it...

Since you've realised it, and have done nothing about it, I can only denounce this forum as a troll rant.
Chasuk, being your right hand troll in an argument you won't bother facing...

Etiquette boys, etiquette.
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(But, since you DON'T have an alternative explanation, you are in no (authoritative) position to ridicule my (or anyone else"s) explanations)

aka-dj,

At no point have I stated an authoratiative position - I'm just another human on this planet. But it is within the reasoning ability of most humans not brain-damaged to understand that to claim knowledge that is impossible to actually know is an absurd claim.

You don't have to be an authority to call Son of Sam's claim absurd that the neighbor's dog gave him orders. Yet society allows the religious to get away with virtually the same type of unsubstantiated miraculous claims simply because they are wrapped in the guise of religious belief.

Without religion, the idea of a ghost knocking up a virgin Jew, Frankenstein reanimating, and a Superman disappearing into the sky would all be considered fantasy or fiction - invoking religious beliefs does not make the same ideas any less absurd.
reply report
78
aka-djposted 13 years ago
Everything you say it SPOT ON.
I don't disagree with you one bit, except for one crucial thing.

You start from a position of, THERE IS NO GOD. (PERIOD).
So, you speak accordingly. I understand that.

HOWEVER, suppose for a moment (if you can) that there IS an ALL POWERFUL, WISE, LOVING GOD, Who can do ALL of this, and more. then it becomes perfectly "logical & feasible" for these miracles to occur.

You don't have to believe it, (as you obviously don't), but you ARE acting as authoritative when you ridicule this position.
reply report
1. 79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  if god were all-powerful and loving, there would be no child killed by its abusive parents.
  reply report
  78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's based entirely on your (wishful) image of who God is, and what He's like.
  
  The world you base this on doesn't exist.
  Besides, there are a myriad of deviant behaviour amongst humans that could be cited.
  We don't live in a perfect world (yet), but (this) God, has a plan. All will be made right in due course.
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i'm not the only one who has a wishful image. at least i don't believe in mine.
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  On the contrary, the world is full of wishful believers who will tell us all about God and what He's like.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, this assumes that you know better that God would(if he existed for the sake of argument).
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  just saying that the stuff that you read in the news fits better with the idea of an indifferent universe than with the idea of a supposedly loving god who is so mysterious (read preposterous) that he lets horrible, unfair things happen to those he supposedly loves.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you've just never heard of a 'version' of God that does make sense.
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  do you have a version that makes sense? can you explain it?
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry for the intervention - but there is one. If you are interested, I will explain.
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  give it a shot.
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I must tell you, that it's not, still, a science. I do not say things I am not completely sure about. But this philosophy, developed by a Hindu scholar, when he was only at his twenties, gives a strong intuition that it is correct.
  
  -It's only awaiting the touch of an evidence.
  
  Still interested...?
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just a couple of ideas... He is wiser than us and understands the reasoning. He has to give people the chance to do right or wrong. Everybody gets from life certain lessons they couldn't learn any other way. Developing faith requires an environment where there is reason for doubt.
  
  There could be any number of explanations... simply dismissing God entirely closes off the opportunity to possibly see a new point of view.
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "... simply dismissing God entirely closes off the opportunity to possibly see a new point of view." -Brilliant spark of thought emrldphx .
  
  I am fortunate to have met a thinker like you, on this platform, wisely called 'hubpages forums'
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Phenom... I hope I never become so arrogant that I think I have *it* all figured out.
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Love those stars...
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  there could be any number of OLD, unlikely expalnations. i see no new POV here.
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When did you see the POV?
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, if you don't like the explanations, that's fine. Like I said, there could be any number. Personally, I think we're all here to learn. We couldn't everything we need to without adversity.
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The last line was Shakespearean
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  and exactly what does the child killed by his abusive parents learn?
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That his parents learnt nothing...
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  and that lesson was worth dying over?
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So - you have laws and electric-chairs
  report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  that doesn't answer the question.
  report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why? ...I heard one thing called Equilibrium; it was not like Weighing scales
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  First, the child gets a physical body, to learn what physical sensations are. Secondly, the child learns what it needs to learn about choice, accountability, and forgiveness.
  
  I also didn't mention that I believe everyone needs a physical body to participate in the resurrection. Some of God's children might have been so valiant before hand that they only needed a body and not the life's lessons.
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  what does it mean to have been so valiant beforehand?
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It means, to be closer to perfection. As spiritual children of God before coming to the earth, some of us were closer than others... those who were the brightest stars didn't need to learn as much from mortal life as the rest of us.
  report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  so a nearly perfect soul is sent to earth to be tortured and killed by its parents so it can live happily ever after? why not just skip the ugly earth part?
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A - the need for a human body
  B - for the parents to have a chance to sin
  C - for the ripple effect throughout the community, it becomes an experience for many people to be affected by.
  
  like I've said before, there could be many, many reasons... I'm always looking for new viewpoints.
  report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It means that emrldphx is either a Mormon or Mormon sympathetic, and he is regurgitating Mormon doctrine.
  
  @Jerami and emrldphx: I was answering cathylynn99's question, nothing more, nothing less. Our friend emrldphx was regurgitating LDS doctrine.
  
  As emrldphx knows, I like Mormons. It was their unique theology concerning God and the preexistence that attracted me to them in the first place (I am an ex-member).
  
  I take in, digest, and re-synthesize knowledge. A bird regurgitates what she has taken in to feed new life. Most of us do. It isn't a bad thing.
  report
  60
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You might be right? but ? .... are suposed to jump to conclusions like that? And if he is? what does that mean?
  
  From what I have read that he said? He seems to have his head balansed pretty well. But who an I to question anyones sanity; other than My Own? sanity??? It is for me to judge me and me alone!
  
  Good night Yawl.
  
  Edit Any time you think that I am done; Lord, I'm ready to get outa here! but? I ain't ready till you think that I am!
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  People have preconceptions and bias against any group of people. It is easier for Chasuk to label me as a Mormon(which I'm not) and think he has me figured out/discredit my point of view.
  
  Good head on your shoulders there Sleep well.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, some of the truth I cherish comes from LDS scripture, just as some comes from OT, NT, Quran, and other religious texts from all over the world and all parts of history.
  
  I'm not regurgitating doctrine Chasuk. Please, try to show more respect for people.
  report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  not giving up on you, just must go to bed. must work tomorrow.
  report
2. 0
  AKA Winstonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  (HOWEVER, suppose for a moment (if you can) that there IS an ALL POWERFUL, WISE, LOVING GOD, Who can do ALL of this, and more. then it becomes perfectly "logical & feasible" for these miracles to occur)
  
  aka-dj,
  
  You are speaking of a system of logic, not about reality. The validity of the conclusions of a logic system depend on the axiomatic basis of the system. If you start with the assumption that Santa Claus is real, then a man who owns flying reindeer and can circumnavigate the world in a single night while stopping to deliever presents to everyone is logical within that argument.
  
  The problem is that the originating premise is unwarranted. We cannot say Santa Claus is real, only that Santa Claus may be real. Alvin Plantinga knew this and thus began his argument for god "It is possible..." Unfortunately, once the premise is contingent, the conclusion must be contingent, so that all that Plantinga proved was the if a god is possible, then a god is possible.
  
  Without a concrete statement, i.e., there is a god, the claims of what a "what if" type god, i.e., the possible god, has done are no longer validated by the logic. In other words, it is all "what if" and no different than the claims about Santa Claus.
  
  It would be like starting an argument with "it is possible at one point in time flying horses were real" and then showing logically how this could have been the case, but following that conclusion with claims that this one particular flying horse won the 1939 Kentucky Derby. Well, at the point an objective claim is made about this "only possible" horse having interacted with reality, different rules apply to validate those claims.
  
  You can no longer say it could have happened because my flying horse was shown to be possible - instead, one looks at the historical record and uses human knowledge about biology and zoology to make a reasonable inference that the claim is false.
  
  It is the same with these Christian claims, as well as Muslim claims: seeing how the best one can do in a logical argument is show that god may be possible, any claim about reality cannot be judged against the axioms of the logic but against history, biology, zoology, and chemistry.
  
  Our knowledge finds these religious claims wanting in terms of evidence or reasoning.
  reply report
  78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Very longwinded response, that actually derails the argument somewhat.
  
  I started my response to your OP.
  
  I have shown you how,and why the Christian faith is not ridiculous, as you accused it to be.
  
  To recap, and sum it all up for you.
  
  Science cannot find PROOF of God, nor can any Christian give you PROOF.
  No science can give you proof that a child will be successful in life, as an example. Some things in life do not lend themselves to scientific verification and proving anything. "Can you offer proof that your wife loves you?" (if you have one).
  
  You start with the assumption that there is no God, and therefore anything (remotely) miraculous, or unexplainable scientifically is therefore "ridiculous"? To this I said I agree. (Without God it is as you say)
  
  BUT, and the the clincher is here, "IF", there is a God, then I went on to LOGICALLY explain that the miraculous IS indeed possible, in fact common place. The virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, walking on water, etc, all fit the profile.
  The Bible gives us EVIDENCE to support the case for (what if) God's existence. Do you believe? NO Do I believe, YES!
  
  This is where we part company (theologically, so to speak). Since I can't prove to you, I must be
  "ignorant, deluded, childish, uneducated, believing in fairy tales, etc"
  
  The real issue is not PROOF, but common sense, logic and perspective on EVIDENCE.
  
  To date, you (nor anyone else) has come up with ANY evidence that cannot be explained more than one way.
  Creation/evolution being the biggest one here, on Hubpages, but not limited to that. However, that's not the topic here, so I will stop there.
  
  Anyway, I appreciate that you do understand the "what if" scenario, though you dismiss it out of hand. You can now stop trying to twist things to another thread, like flying horses, or whatever else you dream up.
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Can God offer the same proofs? (See high divorce and crime rates) LOL!
  
  LOL! Yes, we observe virgin births, resurrections and water walkers all the time, quite common place and logical.
  
  The LOTR trilogy gives us EVIDENCE to support the cases for Orcs existence. Do you believe?
  
  Yet, when we use common sense, logic and perspective on virgin births, resurrections and water walkers, we find they actually do not occur.
  
  reply report
  78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My only response to this is
  NO RESPONSE at all!
  
  Just so you know!!
  reply report
  76
  Chris Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "You are speaking of a system of logic, not about reality. The validity of the conclusions of a logic system depend on the axiomatic basis of the system."
  
  Ah, so very true. Which simply reinforces that the reason you have not attempted to answer my question is because the system of logic you are comfortable with, the axiomatic statement "there is no god", is easy for you and requires no effort. You can spend hour upon hour playing brain games and semantic games (such as informing someone what they are saying really means when they know perfectly well what they meant and were not at all unclear about it.) But you won't spend one minute actually thinking about why someone really believes something different. Actually, you probably have thought about it, but I doubt that the answers you've come up with are truly your own, or even the results of any real thinking or research. In all likelihood they are the product of others who sound good to someone who has already made up their mind.
  
  Before you say it, yes, there are plenty of people on my side who do the same thing. That makes neither your side nor mine even a little less guilty.
  
  And how do I know all this?
  
  I come from a long line of pedantic free-thinkers, hard-nosed rationalists and all around know-it-alls. Frankly, having read you, I would find it easy to believe that you and I are related somewhere in the not-too-distant past.
  
  But, I do agree with you on one other point, being: "
  The real issue is not PROOF, but common sense, logic and perspective on EVIDENCE." It's just that common sense, logic and perspective all change when you encounter the living God.
  reply report
83
Philanthropy2012posted 13 years ago
Yes Aka-Dj, but the problem a lot of people have is believing in an illogical fallacy. Believing in nothing seems far more palatable to them because at least not knowing doesn't include incomprehensible feats of breaking logic.

Also, the reason I say illogical fallacy is that "all powerful, wise and loving" cannot logically co-exist. Every action of such an entity may, as you say, be logical on the premise that this illogical fallacy exists in the first place.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would love to see an argument showing how 'all powerful, wise, and loving' can't coexist.
  reply report
  60
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I dont see why they cant coexist as long as human beings and fish can coexist peacefully.
  reply report
  83
  Philanthropy2012posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @Emri
  
  I've written a hub on it entitled "God Is A Sadist"
  reply report
2. 76
  Chris Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I, too, would like to see your logic as to how "all powerful, wise and loving" cannot coexist.
  
  Also, I fankly don't comprehend how God is an "illogical fallacy" that includes "incomprehensible feats of breaking logic." As opposed to what? Believing that nothing truly created everything?
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(HOWEVER, suppose for a moment (if you can) that there IS an ALL POWERFUL, WISE, LOVING GOD, Who can do ALL of this, and more. then it becomes perfectly "logical & feasible" for these miracles to occur.)

aka-dj,

I have never said it is illogical to believe there may be a god. Alvin Plantinga created just such an argument - the only problem with his argument is he tried to substitute model properties to make his conclusion sound like something it was not.

Plantinga's argument logically showed that if there is a god, then there may be a god. I do not dispute this claim.

What I dispute is going from a conclusion of a deductive logic, which has absolutely no brearing on what occurs in reality, to a belief that there really is a god and his human son can fly, reanimate after death, and god's spirit can cause virgins to get pregnant.

These are clearly silly notions and have nothing to do with the logical conclusion that there may be a god.

You are wrong about me, though. I did not approach my stance from non-belief; I went from belief to non-belief based on understanding that belief in the absurd is juvenile.
reply report
1. 79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i was a born-again christian from age 8 until logic broke through in my 20's.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
aka-dj,

By the way, although the deduction can show that there may be a god, induction shows that such a possibility to be so remote as to be not worth consideration.
reply report
1. 76
  Chris Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Induce that one for me.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
Chasuk,

I would be interested in seeing hubs based on your research - perhaps broken down into categories like demons/sprits, etc, then faith-healing, etc., and so on. Any plans?

Btw, a troll has no purpose other than to create diversions and conflict. I noticed that you repeatedly asked some posting here to stay on topic yet the result is even more diverse commentary regarding another tangent introduced only to stir emotional commentary.

In a sense I can understand why so many religious theists play this game. After all, other than the "what if" argument, they are out of ammunition once they fire that bullet and have nothing left to do but repeat the same claims ad infinitum or alter course and try to distract.
reply report
1. 76
  Chris Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Winnie,
  
  "After all, other than the "what if" argument, they are out of ammunition once they fire that bullet and have nothing left to do but repeat the same claims ad infinitum or alter course and try to distract."
  
  There's one thing I really need to ask and I would love it if I ever really got an answer:
  Why do so many people hear from God?
  
  Of course (and I don't really mean any disrespect by this) what I expect you to say is something along the lines of "mass delusions" or "superstitious upbringings" which doesn't describe my case either way. But I would still like to know.
  reply report
  61
  Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @ Chris,
  
  Could you explain about what you mean about *people hear from God*? Do you mean literally? or superfically? I have never heard *God's voice* in the context of if you and I were in a room talking. I have felt moved by some force to act or react.
  reply report
  76
  Chris Nealposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My own experience is pretty much like yours. Although there have been numerous things that our family has prayed for that have come through, eventually even someone as thick as I will get it. My wife usually is the same but on at least two distinct occasions she has heard an actual voice.
  reply report
83
Philanthropy2012posted 13 years ago
The human gene for altruism.
reply report
1. 61
  Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @ Philanthropy,
  
  I was just wondering if you are referring to me for the *altruism* label? I looked it up to see what the heck it meant. And the definition is.
  
  "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).". I wanted to share this quote by one of the people I consider to be a great leader.
  
  "There is a power in love that our world has not discovered yet. Jesus discovered it centuries ago. Mahatma Gandhi of India discovered it a few years ago, but most men and most women never discover it. For they believe in hitting for hitting; they believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; they believe in hating for hating; but Jesus comes to us and says, "This isn’t the way." And this morning, I think of the fact that our world is in transition now. Our whole world is facing a revolution."
  Martin Luther King, Jr.
  
  I have many a *label* placed on me over my years. If this is the *label* you wish to give me. I thank you and gladly receive it! Spirit hugs!
  reply report
61
Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years ago
@ Phenom Writer,

What a great question! Okay, for me it is a personal God. It is believing in this unknown entity that when I have had the most difficult times in my life. ie: the loss of a child, physical/emotional abuse inflicted by another human. or whatever else that a person is faced with, I will evoke the name of Yeshua. I instantly feel comforted and peaceful. When I use to be bitter, spiteful, hateful and angry. My life seemed to get worse. When I show love, compassion, empathy. I find great people like you to share it with. I guess *God*, Yeshua, could be considered a *supreme being*. I don't know why I *love* others. Where the feeling or emotion to *love*, be concerned* about someone comes from. I do know, that I have what I call *faith*. That when I open my eyes today, I have a choice. I as well know that I may not see tomorrow. There is breath in my body. 39 years ago, a doctor gave me my first spanking. I inhaled and I can breathe. When I hated everyone and everything, I felt very alone. When a young lady befriended me in high school, she was my only friend. She told me about this *God*, and how if I trusted that he was, he is, and will ever be, I will find good things happening to me in my life. I had an abusive relationship with a man who had a twisted view about life. The *evilness* about him made something inside me shake with fear. I walked out on *God* when my sister passed away. soon after my life became a living *hell*. It has only been the past three years of faithfully and unwavering walk with *God*, *Yeshua*, that I have found my voice. I have been given a wonderful man to love me and comfort me through the days when I still hurt over my loss(es) in life. He doesn't hit me, hurt me, or is cruel to me. I am a new published Author. I have a home, I am healthy! I just took a long trip. I got lost, I was scared. I cried out and I was comforted and somehow was able to know which direction to take the car that finally allowed me to return to the safety of my home. I hope this helps. No need to apologize! I am not sure if I *believe* everything that man claims to know about the scriptures. I do know that in Matthew 7:7 it says "Ask, and it will be given to you, *seek and you shall find*, Knock and the door will be opened. I think because you ask these questions, you are seeking. This is a good thing. No need to apologize! It is a pleasure to meet you! I would like to thank you for asking these questions and you have helped me to remember that *God* is always with me. ) hugs! If you need anything else, I am here!
reply report
1. 0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My Conversations with Yeshua - I just read that. What can I say? 'What can I say?' ...I am speechless.
  
  I have a belief - perhaps the only belief that I ever have - which is, that bad things do not happen to good people, and even when they happen, do not last. Truth cuts every illusion...
  
  Will ask more questions - not here right now. I thought I were the only one who heard the call of something
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  bad things don't happen to good people? what about job?
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...did you read to the last?
  reply report
  78
  kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So the starving infants in famine ravished african countries simply are not good people?
  Well I suppose since they have not had the chance to do anything good or bad with their lives your statement could be called true, somehow it doesn't settle well with me tho
  
  Far as I am concerned, they haven't done anything bad/wrong and are as such good people, even if only because they haven't had the chance to choose to do anything wrong yet.
  reply report
  61
  Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  kirstenblog,
  
  you are really off base here. Of course innocent people/children have good in them. I don't know where your comment came from, but wow! If I had the money and the means to do so , I would never let a soul go hungary, cold or hurt and broken. We are *all* born with sin. Children at the time of the understanding of right and wrong, thats when they are held accountable like the rest of us for their actions. breathe! my goodness. I can feel your anger through the computer screen! good grief! You are right they are *good people*. I was just trying to express that when people are mean I have to remember there is some good...somewhere..inside them is all. okay? A spirit hug for you, if you need it! smile! you will get frown lines
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So the starving infants in famine ravished african countries simply are not good people?
  
  -Did they ever search the Truth of their condition? They are infants? What about their parents? What about themselves when they grew older?
  reply report
  61
  Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  dear friend Phenom, my mother raised me since I was a little girl this very bit of advice or *theory* if you will. "In the *Best* of us there is a little *bad*. And in the *Worst* of us there is *GOOD*! I will be paitently waiting.
  hugs! I am glad it spoke to you. This makes me smile!
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
Chris Neal,

I think it is mainly self-delusion, not mass delusion. There is no doubt that many people have had emotional experiences when in prayer, etc., but similar occurences have been reported with simply using yoga or other types of self-reflective behavior.

The point is we assign the understanding - it is subjective belief that the underlying cause is god when it could very well be as Scrooge so aptly hypothesized, a unidigested piece of meat.
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(Where does the good that is inside you, come from?)

What, exactly, is "good" and how could it get inside me. Is it a blueberry muffin?

If you are talking about actions we take, then we have the results of actions passed along through generations with the knowledge that positive actions yield positive consequences, while negative actions yield negative consequences.

There is nothing magical about morality - it is a human concept.
reply report
1. 0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I respect your thoughts AKA Winston, for they are scientific, and for being scientific, they must not be humble.
  
  You say - What, exactly, is "good" and how could it get inside me. Is it a blueberry muffin?
  
  Is it that you are asking explanations, or are you denying the concept? Many people avoid subtle points they can not answer. And you, being an admirer of science, will not behave that way I guess.
  
  Lastly- There is something called a Belief in Religion; there is another thing, called Belief in Science.
  
  I guess you are immune to both...
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(No other animal on this planet behaves in such a way)

Roger Crigger,

Your claim is BS. Many animals show apparent kindness and concern for their own species. It is only humans who apply an anthropomorphic motive to actions that make them seem more than animalistic.

.
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(The *spirit* of Christ was lifted up into heaven. Not his body, per se)

Jo_,

Firstly, where did the physical remains go? Remember, the claim is the tomb was empty, meaning the physical remains were removed or got up and left on their own.

Secondly, you claim dualism (spirit and body separate) without any basis for the claim. Show me a single objective bit of evidence of the reality of "spirit", please, before you toss the word around as a legitimate reason.

I am not saying Christians are crazy or bad people. All I am saying is that the basic tenets of Christianity are silly to accept as they are not only ridiculous on face value but impossible to objectively test.
reply report
61
Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years ago
If you weigh a body just before death and then weigh it after death, there is a Snopes.com confirmed that it is true that Dr Duncan MacDougall conducted an experiment in 1907 wherein he reported that there was a consistent drop in weight when a person “dies”, the instance of last breath. This is the soul that leaves the “dead” body. The average weight of the soul is ¾ oz or 21 grams. However, there was no drop in the weight for dogs when it “dies”. Does this show that dogs do not have soul? Most likely because they cannot distinguish good from evil.
reply report
1. 61
  Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  does this answer your question?
  reply report
2. 0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You believe that the soul has mass, then?
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
Chasuk,

This person apparently believes that ghosts can impregnate virgins via actions of the will, that human tissue dead for three days can reanimate and convert to spirit which then flies into the clouds to reside for over 2000 years, unchanged, and will return one day.

And you have to ask about belief in the claims of positive results from a single, grossly flawed experiment in 1907?
reply report
1. 61
  Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  AKA,
  
  Okay, I am human and I am tired. If you choose to believe there is no God. then you go right ahead. I guess, this is your destiny. It is a shame because I think it would be so nice to get to know you better and you will never feel what it is like to feel the the wonderful feeling you have when you *believe* in something that doesn't harm you, forgives you and accepts you for being so blind. I have nothing more to say. I will keep praying for your soul. And I wish you a good night!
  reply report
58
MelissaBarrettposted 13 years ago
*Shrugs*

There are some studies that suggest that electronic information has mass, so why not accumulated knowledge a life?
reply report
58
MelissaBarrettposted 13 years ago
I'm certainly not a physicist here, but in thinking about it... wouldn't our knowledge and memories (the essence of who we are) kinda have to have mass? The brain functions by electrical impulse. Because of the energy/mass relationship, wouldn't it be logical that, at the time of termination of brain function, that the electrons involved in the electric impulses would be diffused? There would have to be some weight lost there. Unless the brain contains far more information then we imagined it wouldn't be close to 21 grams, but it could be argued that our "soul" does indeed have mass.

Of course, like I said, physics isn't my strong suit.
reply report
1. 0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  MelissaBarrett,
  
  Do you believe in a soul?
  
  If you do, do you believe that it is just electric impulses that diffuse after death?
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's a tricky question and honestly one I haven't put a whole lot of thought into...
  
  I guess I believe that each individual possesses something that is more than the sum of their body and mind. I don't know what happens to that "uniqueness" after death. If it does exist as electrical impulses that diffuse, I guess I am okay with that. If there is an afterlife, I guess I am okay with that too. If it simply ceases to exist, I'm cool with that too.
  
  I don't discount all evidence of the things that would indicate a soul (i.e. ghosts, out of body experiences, past life regressions etc.) but I also haven't found anything that definitely makes me believe.
  
  My personal hope, and the way I have chosen to interpret near death experience stories, is that we slip into our favorite dream and just keep dreaming it.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've put a lot of thought into it, but never arrived at a satisfactory answer. For me, that means that I haven't teased out an an answer which I believe is any better than wishful-thing (albeit wishful-thinking informed by many educated guesses).
  
  That would be okay, if I didn't believe that the question had a single, objective answer. I don't know that I or anyone else will ever discover that answer, but I am haunted by the belief that it exists.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
Mass is a poor term because we utilize kg for expression, but mass doesn't represent weight but an imagined amount of force necessary to overcome the inertia of a resting object - to start a dynamic activity.

Concepts - ideas - cannot have mass. The atoms that make up the neurons of the brain can have mass, the phosphorus particles transported down the electron transport chain can be said to have mass, but the concept of "thought" is an action and not an individual "thing".

Only "things' can be objects and be thought to be static, meaning an "oomph" is needed to create dynamic action in them - and that description of how much "oomph" is needed is the "mass" of that object.

Objects can be thought to have mass; abstractions (concepts) - love, morality, souls - cannot.
The only way for the soul to have mass would be if it were a part of the brain, an object, but then if it were it would not disappear at death but would deteriorate over time like the rest of the brain tissue.

Again, "what if" games may be popular in the dorm, but they don't translate well to reality.
reply report
1. 58
  MelissaBarrettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "What if" games are what science is about Winston. They are called hypothesis.
  
  Concepts are thoughts. Thoughts are electrical impulses within the brain. Electrical impulses require electrons-which have mass.
  
  To argue that the mass of electrons would deteriorate over time doesn't seem logical. Electricity doesn't deteriorate, it dissipates. Pretty much instantly. (or at around twice the speed of light if I remember right)
  
  BTW, I never lived in a dorm. I don't remember even visiting one.
  reply report
  79
  cathylynn99posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  acccording to einstein, it is impossible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light. as you said, your physics is rusty.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, you are right about Einsteins theory. Like I said, I'm a bit rusty.
  reply report
  0
  AKA Winstonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ("What if" games are what science is about Winston. They are called hypothesis.)
  
  Melissa,
  
  Yes, in a sense this is accurate but not in the sense of "anything is possible". A hypothesis is an assumption of the natural mechanism that would be necessary to explain a consummated event.
  
  .
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
Jo_Goldsmith
(you will never feel what it is like to feel the the wonderful feeling you have when you *believe* in something that doesn't harm you, forgives you and accepts you for being so blind)

You're wrong, Jo - I have a dog.

Seriously, I don't need such a being because I figured out (finally) that I can forgive myself for all those human flaws and accept myself warts and all. You can do this, too. You don't need a mythical being to be O.K. just as you are, flaws and all. None of us do.
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(Concepts are thoughts. Thoughts are electrical impulses within the brain. Electrical impulses require electrons-which have mass.)

Melissa,

You said exactly what I said. Objects can be said to have mass - thoughts (concepts) are actions.
But then you went off half-baked - how can an action have mass? Action implies a dynamic state has been reached and inertia overcome.

The easiest way to think of this is use of a binary approach, objects/concepts. Objects have shape and can be thought to occupy a location (for however short a period). Concepts have no shape.

"Thought" has no shape and thus cannot be an object and cannot in and of itself be thought to have mass - only the components that make up the action of thinking, the objects, can be thought to have mass.
reply report
1. 58
  MelissaBarrettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actions don't require energy? Because if a thought is an action it requires energy. Energy requires mass.
  
  Furthermore, "thoughts" are measurable. Measurable turns something from abstract into concrete.
  
  Thirdly, thoughts do occupy a space, even briefly, along the neural networks of the brain. If it occupies a space, then it has form... even if that form is imposed by that space.
  
  Finally, if something has tangible components, doesn't that -by necessity- make it also tangible as well?
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Energy and mass are equivalent and can be converted from one to the other, hence it doesn't make sense that one requires the other.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(It is a shame because I think it would be so nice to get to know you better and you will never feel what it is like to feel the the wonderful feeling you have when you *believe* in something that doesn't harm you, forgives you and accepts you for being so blind.)

To whom it may concern,

I have to come back to this thought of Jo's as it so perfectly encompasses all that I have learned over the past many, many years of self-searching. It could take a book to explain it all, and I am not sure even then I could do it.

First, it is the ego-limiting nature of the fundamental evangelical Christian that is so detrimental to a fully healthy and functioning human entity - it is the constant nagging of self imperfection compared to an imaginary perfection that is the cause of this dissonance within self. More than any other group of people I know, Christians of the fundamental type are perfectionists and are not aware of it.

The above quote talks (indirectly) about some inate "need" for forgiveness....but of what? The implication is there is relief created by the application of non-judgmental loving forgiveness and acceptance - but the very relief implies a pre-existing tension. From where does this tension stem? The tension can only be self-caused, because of thoughts of being less than perfect in the eyes of an imagined god. It is the belief in sin and godly perfection that is the cause of the tension.

They will howl and scream and deny, but the fundamental evangelical Christian has much in common with the alcoholic: they are not comfortable in their own skins.

The entire stress of life can be lifted by the simple but profound expedient of accepting oneself as human, quite a flawed being, and not only capable but contiually displaying those flaws to the world and to self. And by abandoning the silly concepts of absurd beliefs in perfect invisible all-powerful beings.

Once the cause of the stress is eliminated, the self-accepting human can emerge.

The howling may begin.
reply report
1. 78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You contradict yourself totally!
  
  How can you possibly deny the perfection representative of God, (and His Holiness) and then talk about humans being flawed?
  Flawed as compared to WHAT standard?
  Eg.
  I't like saying "you are short". Compared to what height?
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Flawed as compared to the standards set by believers and their holy books, of course. Isn't that obvious?
  reply report
  78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your comment is irrelevant.
  
  I suggest you read the dialog between Winston & I before you butt in.
  reply report
0
PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago
"People like you and I, though mortal of course like everyone else, do not grow old no matter how long we live... [We] never cease to stand like curious children before the great mystery into which we were born." - Albert Einstein in a letter to Otto Juliusburger;

...well, of course, we have some scientific dogs in every age...unlike this man named Albert Einstein
reply report
0
PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(And you, being an admirer of science)

PhenomWriter,

It seems everyone jumps to this same untrue conclusion. I am not a particular admirer of science. If anything, I would simply say I chose after a lengthy process to live in the Age of Enlightenment and discard Dark Ages beliefs - meaning I chose reason over superstition.

From what I can tell, this certainly is not consistent with being pro-science unless you believe the science and reason are synonymous.
reply report
1. 0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, Evidence is a reason itself.
  
  I think, (I may be incorrect), that you are trying here to debunk the religious fanatics. That's good - people who can fly planes and hit a building - because a priest told them to do so - or something alike - must be debunked.
  
  But that process should not make you a Scientific fanatic - in the end - who does not want to listen to ideas just because he believes that they can not ever happen.
  
  ...Otherwise, you and I are not too far away as thinkers.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
"People like you and I, though mortal of course like everyone else, do not grow old no matter how long we live... [We] never cease to stand like curious children before the great mystery into which we were born." - Albert Einstein in a letter to Otto Juliusburger;

"When I became a man, I put away childish things." - Peter
reply report
1. 0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "My heart leaps up when I behold
  A rainbow in the sky:
  So was it when my life began;
  So is it now I am a man;
  So be it when I shall grow old,
  Or let me die!
  The Child is father of the Man;"
  
  -William Wordsworth
  reply report
  0
  PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I hope you have wisdom enough to understand the last sentence...
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(I don't discount all evidence of the things that would indicate a soul (i.e. ghosts, out of body experiences, past life regressions etc.) but I also haven't found anything that definitely makes me believe)

Melissa,

I just now realized that I have a basis for rejection and my personal basis is the attraction of con men. If an area of claim attracts con men passing themselves as genuine, I make the assumption that there is no real basis for the initial claims. In other words, if it can be faked well enough to deceive, then it is unlikely to be real. I then back this assumption by looking at empirical data and objective testing conclusions.

This leads me to reject out-of-hand faith healing and prayer-healing as possible. Faith healing attracts con men, the only positive claims come in subjective subsets of data, and each time it has been subjected to objective testing it has failed.

Why should anyone bother to believe it possible?
reply report
1. 58
  MelissaBarrettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's not necessarily true, just because something can be faked doesn't mean it is always faked. If so there would be no natural blonds on the planet.
  
  Empirical evidence is great and so is "rational proof". But it isn't all there is to life. I doubt you use empirical evidence in every decision you ever make. I doubt that Christians use God in every decision they make.
  
  (this is to chasuk as well) The question of whether there is a soul or not simply doesn't affect my life that much. The question of a virgin birth doesn't affect my life at all. (except on these forums)
  
  With that said, I have lots of beliefs that are simply "just cause". I won't walk under a ladder, "just cause". I suppose that means somewhere in my mind I really do believe it's bad luck. That completely illogical belief doesn't affect my ability to make other logical, rational decisions in other aspects of my life. It doesn't mean that I am any less intelligent. It just means I have a single odd belief.
  
  Human beings weren't made to be purely logical or purely emotional, those that are either are quickly rushed away to mental institutions. To me, pointing out that a single belief or set of beliefs of an individual is illogical is kinda pointless. If it wasn't one thing it would be another.
  
  With that said, I do have strong opinions, and like you, I like to argue them. I would be a hypocrite if I ever said that I hadn't judged a whole group of people based on their viewpoints on one issue. I usually regret it latter.
  
  Are people with <insert belief here> more susceptible to con men that would abuse that belief? Absolutely. But those con men could be peddling anything from herbs that don't work to pyramid schemes.
  
  I guess people bother to believe for the same reason I choose to believe in <insert belief here>... because it makes us happy, or at least content. I'm not sure there is a big problem with that.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
"And just as the Blue Man was offered up unto He Who Walks Behind the Rows, so shall be the unbelievers!" - Isaac
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(That's not necessarily true, just because something can be faked doesn't mean it is always faked)

Melissa,

This is one of the problems I have corresponding in forums - people attack strawmen. I never said anything about truth of my position or exlusivity.

All I said was my personal bias was toward beliefs that were used as cons. I know of know blonde con, although there are fake blondes. There is a substantial difference between hair dye and conning granny out of her life savings by telling her you can communicate with dead uncle Earl.
reply report
1. 58
  MelissaBarrettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I think in terms of "A exists so why not B" It's linear vs. circular thinking. You seem to be a linear thinker so communication with a circular thinker is going to be stressed.
  
  I'll try to be more in point.
  
  The belief in a "spirit" can be preyed upon by a con man. Just because it CAN be, doesn't mean it always is. In addition, just because the presence of spirit CAN be faked doesn't mean that it is ALWAYS faked. I am guilty of "straw man", yet you are guilty of "poisoning the well".
  
  Discrediting the provider of information doesn't necessarily discredit the information. In addition, discrediting one piece of evidence doesn't discredit all pieces of evidence. No, the presence of a spirit cannot be proven with empirical evidence. But (and I hate using this one, but it is true) it is impossible to prove that it doesn't exist.
  
  Failing proof in either direction, belief in the existence of a spirit in either way is purely an opinion.
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Possibly, but we can ask questions and compare the answers to our given knowledge of the world around us to see if they're valid or not.
  
  If not valid, then we can continue the process until the claim is shown not to be in agreement with the laws of our universe.
  
  At that point, the claim is shelved as irrelevant until such evidence to the contrary is presented.
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's an interesting point...
  
  What knowledge is currently available to which we can compare the theory that a spirit exists?
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If we look at the claims of spirits as to what people have already provided as descriptions or events, we can and should at the very least be able to provide some explanations for the following theories, as a start. If explanations are not available and the properties of spirits cannot be identified from these theories, then the concept of spirits will remain just a belief.
  
  Conservation of Energy
  Conservation of Momentum
  Laws of Thermodynamics
  Entropy
  Standard Model
  Photoelectric Effect
  Helmholtz Ratio
  Coulombs Law
  Gauss's Law
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
aka-dj,

Flawed against the imagined concept of perfection.
reply report
1. 78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That also is an irrational illogical statement.
  
  I thought you don't do IMAGINED anything.
  
  Besides, who originally imagined that concept, anyway? You?
  Hardly.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(The belief in a "spirit" can be preyed upon by a con man. Just because it CAN be, doesn't mean it always is.)

No, but I take it as strong evidence that the presence of a con man means there is not legitimate expertise in the field. I have yet to hear of a psychic orthodontist who straightens teeth with mental powers or of a spiritual dentist performing root canals wtih prayer and fasting.

Notice how objective data - straight teeth, crowns and root canals - have a negative affect on the presence of con? Could there be a lesson there?
reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
(What a line of Bull this is. Almighty God is Pure Love.)

Dave Matthews,

This is the first time I can agree with you. It is indeed total bull to claim knowledge of the unknowable, so for any human to claim to know what god is can be nothing but unadulterared crap.

Thanks for pointing that out.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Winston, you have no way to know what others have experienced. For all you know, there could be millions of people who have actually seen God.
  
  What is 'total bull' is when somebody tries to project their personal ideas into reality. The thought 'I have no reason to believe in God, therefore he doesn't exist' is arrogant.
  reply report
0
AKA Winstonposted 13 years ago
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum....with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response....
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Right... it is definitely inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic to show the hypocrisy in somebody saying both 'it is bull to claim knowledge of the unknowable', while at the same time claiming to know that there is no such thing as God.
  reply report
2. 60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately Winston, I'm not a troll.
  
  Just because you agree with your buddies that changing the definitions of words to suit their arguments and I don't, doesn't make me a troll.
  
  At least I don't resort to demeaning people, laughing at people, or outright calling names.
  reply report
3. 78
  fatfistposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Additionally, Winston....a troll is someone who is clueless of his contradictory arguments, but perpetually bellyaches when his contradictions are explained to him....and regardless of that, he continues to post the same contradictions over and over so they can become "fact/truth/proof".
  
  But more than that....and here is the kicker....a troll is someone who claims he can EXPLAIN his contradictions, but runs away when a $5000 challenge is offered for his alleged "explanation".
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't even start that here Fatfist. I created a public thread for us to discuss in, and invited you to it. Somewhere where you wouldn't be able to just delete any comments that you couldn't work with.
  
  You still haven't answered my question by the way.
  reply report
  58
  ScienceOfLifeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nah, you just constantly evade definitions, then say something contradictory or nonsensical or circular, then run away again when someone asks you to explain your gibberish!
  
  You never answered Fattie's humle request for BASIC DEFINITIONS. You have to do that before demanding others answer your pointless questions. Definitions come first!
  reply report
  78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I see!
  2 posts, 0 hubs, 0 fans, no profile and been "around" for 6 months.
  
  Hmmmm.
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Seems those with the least ability to form arguments are the ones who focus on the individuals latest statistics for credibility as opposed to what they actually have to say.
  
  Hmmm.
  reply report
  78
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Arguments?
  
  As if you have the "market" cornered on that subject.
  
  Another pointless comment, BTW.
  reply report
  50
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  60
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  anyone can form an argument.
  
  Anyone can reply to any argument.
  answering it appropriately (in whos opinion)is yet another matter.
  And the value of that answer is subjective to the individual. SSOooo
  
  I guess we can make up any king of excuse for doing anything that we want to do, which doesn't change anything. Except that we FEEL validated.
  
  OH my gosh, Is it all about vanity?
  
  JUST fooling with YA. Just thought I'd leave with something wacky to say.
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not really. Forming an argument has requirements that some do not know about or refuse to take notice.
  reply report
  0
  AKA Winstonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Once again we hit the definition wall - I bet Jerami was thinking of the common usage of "argument" as "disagreement" wherein you were using the more proper logical argument interpretation.
  
  Again, regardless of what some may unthinkingly assert, precise definitions are mandatory to understanding.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I did provide all the definitions. Fatfist doesn't understand English, doesn't understand the difference between a verb and and adjective. You say I run away, but Fatfist simply won't approve my comments. If you are such a fan of Fatfist, why don't you invite him to try and argue his side in a public forum instead of on his hub where he censors comments.
  
  He even went as far as to claim my 'silence' as evidence that I have no arguments, even though he has deleted some 20 comments of mine.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just so you know how poor Fatfist's grasp of English is, I"ll refer you to something he said.
  
  He said 'exist' is an adjective. I explained that adjectives describe nouns. The blue car. Verbs describe action or state. The car runs. In this instance, the verb 'run' has an 's' added to the end to put it in the 3rd person present.
  
  I explained that 'exist' isn't an adjective, because you wouldn't say 'The exist car'. He responded with
  
  "That's because you don't understand grammar. The car exists!"
  
  Using the word as the 3rd person present tense of the verb 'exist'.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

God, the progeny of human fear, is anti-science

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

God, the progeny of human fear, is anti-science

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies