Is there a treatment for God addiction?. Excuse me for questionng everything. Never did get the illusion of blood or body of Jesus metaphor, it seem like vampire-ism or cannibalism. Never got these wars over imaginary friends or killing someone for working on Sunday. This karma runs over the dogma.
I've accepted that 85% of people believe or think in both the God or Evolution theories, for both, nobody can disprove. The closest thing to being Godlike is Imagination, for everything achieved, all was once imagined first. Like the Drug culture, Religious culture or even a Science culture. The pass history of Absolute power like Nazism or Communism resulted in limited thinking and corrupted cultures The true leaders are the consciousness of the people, not the Atheist or Religious group who claim will domination again, not so much the atheist now.
My theory or illusion is to worship loving all and the Sun, causing no harm nor dishonesty.The world will change it's-self, for Spiritual is a matter of the 99% unknowns. People are moving toward the middle grounds of the both extremes views of God. Each individual person can be his own king of their domain with ethical integrity rather than just belonging to one-lopsidedness group that results in an an over ego world. People are very social animal like wolves packs.There is no such thing as a lone wolf because a lone wolf dies without the pack. My theory is people will thrived better beyond survival theory by sharing cultures. Human's can go beyond all other animals because we have largest brain per body weight. Think for thy self, first and never be owned by a wolf in Super humans clothing or hard heads again.
Do you think for your self first and question everything?
A good thought question, yet I seek succinct. There in essence is a treatment for any addiction puritanically. Even an atheist view of form and format offered for rendering treatment for an addiction essentially will become a religious event. One only needs to read what the definition for religion is. One does not require God or a god for there to be religion. The cure or treatment for the addiction itself will be of both form and format religious to be successful. Thus, rendering to a higher power even if that higher power is simply will power.
For the question "Do you think for your self first and question everything?" Well, most of the time. However, many times I simply do as I am told to do and collect my payment for services rendered. Interesting enough that time of submissiveness to a higher power or authority may only be a nano-second in reality. The actions that follow are of course my thoughts guiding the course of accomplishing the task. Then again, are those thoughts original becomes the question. Are they of someone else placed in my neuro-network of synapses, neurons, electrical impulses,and etc. and recalled or 'are' they original? Some say the thoughts are not original and the circumstances and setting is, thus the event is original subsequently becoming an original experience.
yes there is, ignore God.there is a prophecy that two comets will collide and looks like there is a two suns and then will form a cross in the sky and the earth will shake and everyone age 7 and up will experience a mystical encounter with God and sins will be shown to us.try visit this on thewarningsecondcoming.com if this will not happen then there is no God.another prophecy also from thewarningsecondcoming.com that there will be powerful earthquakes in russia and china soon
Uh, both Russia and China have experienced earthquakes for millions of years. Can you tell us something new?
Comets colliding have probably happened before. Tell us something new.
Why is the age limit set at 7?
Seven is generally considered the age of reason in religious society.
Now that's new to me, although I'm aware that at least some religions allow young children to fully participate in their rituals and such.
It has to be common knowledge that at 7 years old a child is not capable of true reason - why does relgion say they are? Where does that idea come from?
Don't know actually. In the Catholic Church, for example, the first celebration of communion happens in 2nd grade.
I agree that children at that age aren't capable of mature adult reasoning. I didn't coin the phrase or set the age.
It's my understanding that the Greek Orthodox do Baptism, communion and confirmation all at the same time they Baptize.
The brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. I'll let you know when I get there.
Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics do also. The age has been lowered within just the last century and a half in the Roman Catholic Church. It used to be around 13. Prior to that, the sacraments of initiation were given all at once to adults. Constantine was actually not baptized until late in life.
Oh, I realize that. Just hoped you had some inside dope on the subject.
Not really. Wish I did. Here's a semi-official word on the subject.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ … first-comm
Which doesn't even address the question. Asked but not addressed. Maybe we're to assume the Pope is speaking ex-cathedra from God.
"Even once the age of seven is attained, children who do not possess the use of reason generally are not bound."
The quote, though, would seem to believe that the top hierarchy of the church believes a 7 year old child can use reason. An obvious fallacy anyone who has raised children can attest to.
Maybe, there is no need for mature adult reasoning.
The church I grew up in was always insisting the the faithful be as children. Little children to the father in heaven.
There is a reason for that...
Why yes!!! Little children trust ESPECIALLY parental figures. They blindly trust. They don't know where Mom and Dad are going; but they will get into the back seat. They allow Dad to drive to the unknown destination fully believing that he will arrive safely. if they ask "where we goin'?" And Dad says, "it's a surprise" they become eager. They anticipate good based upon Dad's word alone. They are definitely not suspicious...
Finding God has been The soul-quest of billions since the beginning of time. The motives have varied and the means ranged from tragic to comical, but such fervent religiosity surely proves that man is meant to be a God seeker.
Accepted, seeking God sets one on a path strewn with questions and choices that will challenge character, morals and endurance; as well as our most treasured beliefs. Equally perilous, it can lead in opposite direction to the accepted social or cultural norm.
Also, seeking God doesn't guarantee arriving at the same destination as others professing to do the same, and -the ultimate irony- many who started seeking God, ultimately find themselves stranded, at the end, in a place far removed from anything one might call godly.
It would seem, then, that there are risks associated with seeking this one we call God. But are they greater than the risk of not seeking him?
To be an addiction it needs to have destructive life effects for the individual (not in some general way in society but for that person), require escalating doses for the effects and/or have withdrawal symptoms. As such I think religion does not qualify as an addiction for most people.
People who are over runners can be an addiction, more of a positive addiction. Regardless it can cause a person to gog off their balance in life. Even an over working artist for 40 years, around the world, needs find a balances.
A Christian person can be adapted into repeated behavioral addiction or dependence from childhood. To a point of not having control over what they are doing, taking or using or they may reach the point at which it is harmful. I think Religion today, has caused more harm than good. At least for myself I found self-reliance or thinking for yourself healthier. Over obedience of any group without hard questions could lead to great repeating mental illness of limited brain barrier. There is also psychological dependency like from gambling, sex, internet, work, exercise, etc. altering the chemical balance of the brain. Why can’t Religious addiction lead to fear, over judgment, jealousy, guilt, shame, hopelessness, despair, failure, rejection, anxiety and/or humiliation? I’ve avoided a great deal of those feelings by just being aware of them in the many religious groups.
Good call, Castlepaloma. Interesting and deep search you have started here.
If I rephrase that just a tiny bit:
Why can’t Fear addiction lead to religion, over judgment, jealousy, guilt, shame, hopelessness, despair, failure, rejection, anxiety and/or humiliation?
See the difference? I would say it can and it does.
Hey castle. Welcome back.
Prove there is no God and we can label it addiction.
A theoretical being, that no one can see or touch or describe in a form that every one can understand and agree upon.
Then ask us to prove that entity does not exist.
As logical as you and me standing before a mirror. We can each see the other's image in the mirror, as well as our own.
Then one of the images in the mirror turns to the other and says, "Can you prove which one of us is real?"
The two gods who started it all smile to each other and say: "We are not really here, so who cares anyway?"
Here for short time, not a long time, yet did miss a few of you guys, nice to see yeah.
Quote- Prove there is no God and we can label it addiction.
Was covering that quote with this statement.
I've accepted that 85% of people believe or think in both the God or Evolution theories, for both, nobody can disprove. The closest thing to being Godlike is Imagination, for everything achieved, all was once imagined first.
Can mainly go by the overwhelming experiences with Christian which John notice. It's the fear addiction lead to religion, over judgment, jealousy, guilt, shame, hopelessness, despair, failure, rejection, anxiety and/or humiliation?
For example christian quote often- Fear God.
Christian unwritten translation -Fear God means Respect God. Ignoring the dictionaries and the wrong Bible translators who claim every word is universal truth.
Fear is the opposite of Love In which fear is dictating the world greater than Love. Or is it a mental illness reading problem , even my reading and writing skills are not that bad
Christian quote- Love thy Enemies all the time, I don't have any enemies , would I need to require enemies in order to join their group. No wonder they have overwhelming negative baggage feeling they will carry for eternity. Only IF each of them wins the right lottery ticket to their own idea of heaven. Plus only IF of all the other millions of Gods are completely wrong of their spiritual quests. Only IF Yahweh enemies God's or disbeliever of the 99% unknown, guessed wrong also.
A Hell of a-lot of big IF's and big Could be's to send 10's of billion of people throughout history to Hell for, why? because God loves them. Besides the Atheist have better world Religious knowledge than the religious groups do. What an ugly marriage that is, even the US made a law that Atheist is a legal Religion. It's a MAD MAD World, I tell you.
It is good to be willingly addicted to God. When you are addicted to God you will not have any other addictions! Only God, in the realm of peace, love, contentment and heaven within, can satisfy the human spirit. That is where you will find God. Within. Most other addictions come from without. They are bad for that reason.
Obviously this can't be true. Whether someone is 'addicted to God' or not would not preclude them from having other forms of addiction. I've seen it firsthand within a group of people who were so 'addicted' to their form of God, that they refused to acknowledge their other physical addictions. I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that willingly 'addicted' to God humans don't have other forms of addiction.
No offense, but have you looked at the possibility that this forum might be addressing attitudes exactly like this.....that may indicate when one goes from casual use to....addiction? You used the word "GOD" in almost every sentence in your comment.
Spoken with an addiction of the 'mind'...extremely off putting, boring, self righteous and sad. Your mind is shut, put away and grows no more. I'm glad your kind of addiction is not contagious...
I can't answer most of your questions, but I've noticed religion pulls many types. The average, run of the mill, Christian simply is one because they see it as an inherited state. They go to church because that's what people do. They participate because it is a social thing.
Then you have those with a need. Those who were lonely. Those who couldn't forgive themselves for a wrong done. Those who desperately want to feel love. The radical religions feed on these. They search them out and bring then into their folds.
People can, and will, be sheep. If it weren't religion grabbing them and leading them, it would be something else. I see no harm in the vast majority of Western religion. Perhaps, because we live in a free society and no religion, be it theism, polytheism or atheism, has the power to force me to believe; or to pretend that I do.
Addiction seems a harsh term for some reason. The RELATIONSHIP to God is a way of life for those who believe in Him. I am not sure you mentioned the Atheist's addiction to God, but that relation could very well be more so called addiction.
The way of life that requires faith in Jesus as the son of God/sacrifice is a daily walk. When God controls your thought pattern, you are mindful of "right" with every other thought.
The thoughts mortals think are many. When the spirit watches over your thought life, you become safer. More secure. Your thought often determines your action. Good thoughts, much more often than not, good actions.
Is there treatment for God "addiction"? Seems to me that the only answer for that question would be to give in to the "constant yearning" for more of him and simply say, yes...
these are operative words.
I am excluded.... "Thank God!" lol
Right. You can't fool the spirit of God. He knows who's pretending. That doesn't fly either. You believe or you don't. But if you don't; it is not because you don't have enough information. It is however because you deny or disbelieve what has been presented.
"It is however because you deny or disbelieve what has been presented."
You have at least come to understand me, Cgenaea. Thanks. I don't accept your beliefs at all, although I do warm to you as a searching, trying-to-do the right thing and be the right person as you see it.
Thanks. But I have understood you from the very beginning of our times together. Glad you're toasty
The treatment for addictions is belief in a higher power, as everyone knows from AA and other similar programs.
Yes, I fully understand that many AA members find this "belief" in a Higher Power to be invaluable. It can be the basis of successful recovery and sustained life-change.
However, it does not, and cannot "prove" the existence of the "god" which so many religious people choose to "believe in." I am not trying to deter anyone from believing whatever they wish, and I respect them for their choice.
I see the best treatment for "god addiction" as a return to clear, unambiguous facing of reality. Take the head out of the sand, and face the world as it presents...the physical world, the one you and I can see, hear, taste, smell and touch.
Then get to know that friend who is closer to yourself than any one else in the world. Look in the mirror and say, "Hullo."
That Higher Power is in there, not out somewhere in the blue sky
That is just silly. AA has some success, but it also has a lot of failures. It's success rate is coupled with professional help, not a belief in a higher power. Other programs are more successful than AA because they rely entirely on professional help. AA is actually based on confrontation, with up to 40% dropping out in the first year as a result.
Not when that addiction is.......>>>>"the higher power"
What does one do then, Kathryn?
...enjoy it. it is the essence of the joy of life. nothing else satisfies. But of course, addiction is not a good word.
Put Love in place of addiction.
So you want to now change the premise of the forum completely then...instead of being about addiction, you want to make it about LOVE? OK. So now that the crack user is "in LOVE" with crack, that makes it much better....? I probably misunderstood, didn't I? Sorry. Thank you
you don't think love and addiction are similar?? They're both based on craving.
However, one is willful
and one is compulsive.
So, I would agree: Using the word "love" is quite a stretch. I don't think anyone can be "addicted" to God! I really don't. (...therefore no treatment needed and the whole premise questionable.)
What is an example of such a thing as being addicted to God? But Castle P. has corrected himself and is now discussing addiction to religion, instead. So please, never mind my posts.
God is indeed found within... right within us. To not be in touch with ourselves is the reason for addictions. To get in touch with our inner lives is to get in touch with that which perceives the peace, and calm of God.
Watched The God Delusion movie, a better name for it, would be the Religion Delusion. Millions of Gods can't be all wrong, yet It's like different blind men groups, trying to describe an elephant. Change my Big question to – Is there a treatment for Religion? Everyone is God to me.
1. Many Middle Eastern countries have a constitutional enforce for all to be Muslim. One can be killed converting to another Religion or for being gay. They might be Religious addicted
2.Got nothing against Christian yet many do have something against me. Lost a few Christian girlfriends, jobs and large contracts because I would not convert to Christian
They just might be addicted to Religion.
3. USA has more Christians than any country and non-believers cannot be election. They hypocritical to acting like Sodom and Gomorrah They just may be a Christian addicted nation
I gotta a million of them
A non Christian can't get elected?Are you serious? There might be discrimination against atheists, but the loud mouths among atheists help drive that. Sorry, unfortunately in American politics those with a nose stuck in the air rub the general populace the wrong way and don't get elected.
Look at that. Discrimination against Atheists? Blame that on the loud mouths amongst you?
Imagine making a statement about discrimination like that against any other group?
Discrimination against blacks, blame the ….. for that.
Discrimination against muslims, blame the ….. for that.
Discrimination against women in the work force, blame the …. for that.
Loud mouths? Really? The worded they've done is write a book and get an interview regarding the book.
Notice that Emile once again is compelled to fabricate false premises in order to form an opinion.
Those who don't wish to share irrational beliefs are the ones at fault for being discriminated against, they cause the discrimination by not believing. Hilarious.
See it that way if you will ATM. However, I wouldn't vote for anyone who makes a point of pushing their beliefs within the political arena. And, I don't vote for minorities who identify themselves as a minority, first. We are all mutts, with individual philosophies. Our religion, ethnicity and anything else that makes us different is not the main point. Our similarities are. If someone presents themselves on issues that are relevant, in a manner that is respectful and courteous....without yakking about their personal minority group; I'll vote for them if I agree with them. Arrogant, obnoxious aholes (or those associated with such groups) never get my vote.
Well said, and something I could certainly agree with.
By the way, did you know that congress opens it's sessions with all business stopping and someone making a speech, ostensibly to their invisible friend and asking them to help them out? Wonder why they allow such childish displays in the halls of Congress?
(I trust you see the irony in "However, I wouldn't vote for anyone who makes a point of pushing their beliefs within the political arena." - someone votes for those that absolutely push their beliefs...)
what if that "invisible friend" was just the *spirit of goodness* and everything honest, noble and worthwhile?
What about that spirit, wilderness? If we want a life with out the negative effects of greed, cronyism and power, etc, etc.. we need to invoke that spirit which does exist within each of us. Them especially!
Do you really believe that they are praying to a "spirit of goodness"? Or are they using their time in the spotlight to promote their version of religion?
I know which I believe is happening...
of course. I am such an idealist. One could hope though…( thinking about what is going on…)
Am I nuts?
I pray that all nations on earth will have their gross national product be -Happiness.......praying...............................praying..........................................................Just got an answers....... Greed is a gross national product.
Going back to being my natural self.
I think the Canadians still say God save the Queen. I don't think they particularly mean it.
We stopped singing God save the Queen OR talking about her many decades. About the time we got our Canadian Constitution without the Word of God in it.
you don't think love and addiction is similar?? They are both based on craving. How are they so different?
Anyone can switch to an other God among the millions Gods out there. Yahweh has too many conditions for love that most of us can not follow
You cannot get enough Love, Love is when two people or thing make you stronger than if you were apart, with little acts of kindness Yahweh is not kind to the other millions of God and the punishment of hell is worst than the crime or sin.
So, you don't have a royal anthem, played with the national anthem?
Not to belabor the point...Canada still eludes to the Queen in many ways. The 'royal' arms of the chair in parliament. One office represents the sovereign. These are simply two examples from many. Yes, it is lip service. Yes, Canada is an independent nation. Yet, royalty was defended as God given. One must follow the monarch because it was God's will they ruled.
I would much rather have a custom of paying homage to God than to a human who does not deserve a title of 'royal'. Who has no more 'god given rights' than the next person.
Call me American. We simply aren't like some other nations.
....yet neither better nor worse?
I was raised in Britain. The Queen is Queen of Great Britain, so my queen since I am British. Since The Queen is also Queen of Australia (Britain is not interposed here), she is my queen as an Australian.
Down through hundreds of years of history, the Monarch has played a big part in the psyche of the countries. A focus for loyalty, pursuit of excellence. Her Majesty returns that loyalty be devoting herself to being a worthy focus. Good monarchs, bad ones, mediocre ones. Successes, failures, achievements, carnage, uplifting inspirations, all manner of circumstances have been met, dealt with and passed by.
Currently the Monarch is in office by virtue of the wishes of the people.... Parliament being the supreme decider. There are checks and balances in place to ensure a stable government and executive. Protocols are in place to maintain that stability. If it is threatened, new laws and protocols will be devised to meet the needs. To cap it all, the Monarch is above politics.
Not a perfect arrangement, but certainly it takes a lot of beating. And there are many Americans who would LOVE to have what Britain has got. So please don't knock it, Emile.
I'm not knocking it, simply pointing out traditions within countries are different. That said; an American who wants to put someone on a pedestal simply because of their birth pays no attention to history.
I don't begrudge anyone their traditions. I do roll an eye at those who don't return the courtesy.
As I recall, the changing of the guard at the tomb of the unknown soldier in Arlington Cemetery was once done in a hurricane. It is tightly tied to the tradition of a 21 gun salute.
Yes, traditions are important to those that observe them and in general need respected by everyone.
No worse than putting him or her on a pedestal for claiming to speak for god; or having Hollywood-style glamour; or having the gift of the gab as a TV Presenter; or being a Baseball star; etc. The U.S.of A has it's fair share of these, don't you think?
Where else do the make a star out of someone because they gave oral to the president? Or call the presidents wife the first lady?
Oh yes, and no. We do certainly idolize people. Momentarily. For accomplishes we admire. But, they aren't given special status, for life, and monetary compensation because of some presumed birth right. Call me crazy. I like that.
Democracy - government by the people for the people.
Plutocracy - when you have enough money behind you to get a big enough crowd behind you to get into office.
Monarchy, a system of government where the Head of State is above politics and serves the needs of the people fairly and impartially. And in which there are well-established procedures to carry the Nation through trials and triumphs.
Whatever works for any of us is good. Yes? I wouldn't bow to a title. But, that's me. I find royalty ridiculous. I don't expect anyone else to.
Is that word "ridiclous" the point at which the mind stops and says, "there is nothing else worth considering?"
Not really. I suppose new information could present itself for consideration. I doubt I'd ever be an advocate of any monarchy, but stranger things have happened.
Back to the original point of my comment. Everyone has different traditions. America was founded on the premise that no one is above another by birthright. I wholeheartedly agree with this premise and find it strange those whose traditions defer to a human begrudge the fact that another tradition defers to God. Neither entity can be used as responsible for our subsequent actions anymore. Why defend one and raise an eyebrow at the other?
This was the whole point. I honestly don't care what your nation, or any individual within it, does to keep in line with their unique traditions. Why this international complaint about ours? Especially since a quick look shows that Canada, Britain and Australia all have prayers within their parliaments also. So, the tradition isn't uniquely American. Is it simply America anyone has a problem with, then?
We have a saying, "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
Regardless of what political/administrative system is in place, it can usually be better to look at what one has in place, see what really does work and what doesn't. Then fix the bits which need fixing, and continue with what does work well. It is so easy for us (and I don't exclude myself) to look away to what others are doing, criticize and/or blame them, and ignore the situation on the "home front."
There is a huge amount of history and experience within your country which has been so successful and continues to do so. It could be a great benefit to listen to feedback from others, outside the country, and see where that feedback points to for improvement.
It's equally good for people within Britain to do the same. We all have our assets and liabilities. Yet for those of us who are successful in any particular field, it's very difficult to take the wider view. I would say the same for anyone who is really stuck in the mold of any particular religion. A narrow, blinkered vision is often not conducive to advancement and cooperative living.
I don't particularly agree that petty complaints should warrant serious attention, when those complaints are leveled simply because of different beliefs. Neither do i think i have the right to second guess how other adults choose to conduct their affairs, as long as that particular conduct does not adversely affect my pursuit of happiness. I honestly don't care procedures and traditions within your government, or any other and i find complaining about something done here without first correcting the perceived problem there as not only hypocritical, but lazy. If it bothers someone, correct in your own country. If one lacks the will to put forth the effort to change it there, why complain about it here? And then attempt to complain because similar behavior patterns are directed back?
Narrow, blinkered behavior is not limited to religion, yet this behavior from any affects all. It would be helpful if we didn't assume we weren't narrow minded simply because we think differently. That doesn't always follow.
Hypocritical, you were just complaining about Canada, Britain and Australia.
Not in the least. I was first pointing out we all have our traditions and then that all of yours, like ours, have some type of prayer. I think it was Wilderness complaining that they prayed in Congress. Johnny appeared to be supportive of that complaint. All i was doing bygoing on about the monarchy was simply pointing out how inappropriate it was for someone from one country to complain about traditions of another. You do agree that me whining about the queen was inappropriate? Yes?
No, I agree that you and I should be whining about the queen and her family. None of my taxes support her. But it's much like hollywoods rich actors and there rich children who somehow get parts and fame in movies.
But, can we complain about what happens in other countries? Both America and Canada are heavily involved in middle eastern politics and wars. A young girl was recently shot in the head because she voiced her opinion that girls should be educated. Are we allowed to have an opinion and complain about basic human rights?
Hard question that I'm not sure what the answer is. We are, indeed, lucky to live where we live. Freedom is an incredible privilege. But, if everyone wanted our life, wouldn't their societies have eventually evolved to such? I think sometimes we simply assume what we believe to be good and right is.Without question. But, if the collective of society within another culture believes behavior patterns we find to be heinous are good and right...what do we do?
ATM has already pointed out the harm Christianity did in the name of what they believed to be good. Do we heedlessly follow in their footsteps? Because that is what we are doing.
When religion interferes with ethics and morality as it does when the Taliban gains power we intervene.
Do we watch our neighbour beat his wife and children and assume it's not our place to step in?
You make it sound so black and white and I guess for many people, it is. At least until it is another culture requiring that WE follow THEIR customs. Whereupon it's still black and white, but to retain what is there instead of changing it.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Maybe it's just that the people with the biggest stick has the best morals?
Emile is absolutely right - there is a whole world of both right and wrong, good and evil, in the whole human rights concept.
I'm glad you answered that. I tried to compose a response several times but there was too much room for misunderstanding and me appearing callous to human suffering.
You pegged the problem perfectly.
*shrug* Half the posters in these forums think I'm a denizen of Hell because I refuse to look at an issue and make a snap decision based on what I alone think is right and wrong as if I have the final word in ethics.
In actuality I find almost every ethical question to be gray, not black OR white.
I just find this interesting. No point being made.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malala-you … -1.2421595
In general I find it not only unethical but stupid to ban books. Whether Mein Kampf, Two Gentlemen of Verona or Playboy, people have a right to read and learn from them.
But even that becomes gray; should we allow public dissemination, including to the insane, of detained instructions to create bombs? Nukes?
I agree. On the shades of grey. Not on the hell thing.
Why, thank you. But do be careful, others will disagree rather vehemently; I would hate for you to be become tainted with the same brush.
Well, some believe i should be tarred and feathered, so painted doesn't sound so bad.
I didn't want to make it look back or white. But we do know what basic human rights are and when they are being taken away because of a religious belief we can recognize it. Pakistan is upset with American for killing the Taliban leader when they were attempting to find peace.
Religious beliefs did not take away anything. Not even God did; such things a woman having the right to be educated, own property or choose a husband were all things women never DID have.
You may, in your Godlessness, try to institute such rights but you will be unable to override God's decisions - you have neither the right nor the power to change His orders. Such things are NOT human rights, never were human rights, and will not become human rights just because you lie and say they are. God, and only God, gives rights and determines morality. Not you.
There. Does that point out the grey? All you can do is say that your morality is better than theirs and therefore their country and peoples should all follow your concepts. Which is exactly what they say as well.
Well I don't know about that, I'm no philosophy major but, I can tell you that it's rather easy to figure out when someone is being treated in an unfair manner because of sex, religion or sexual orientation. Both of our countries have a history of noticing and not tolerating said treatment. That being said, when in Russia do as the Russians do.
I don't support the family hangers-on around the monarch. They tend to be parasitic in most cases, but some do earn their "keep" in very worthy ways. This is probably true of those who hang around, and onto, the President of the United States. They love to be in the picture, soaking up the public exposure, to feed their own egos.
The Queen, whom I know little about except what I read in the newspapers, see on TV, etc. (because that is the only way any of us get to know her,) seems to have had her role as Head Of State at the forefront of her life, with great commitment. Those Affairs of State are what only she can do, no one else can take on that duty. The Hollywood stuff is all to do with the Press and public opinion, nothing to do with the Affairs of State and quite un-necessary. Similarly I presume with your President's role, except that he is politically orientated whereas the Queen is not.
The Final Signature, enacting the will of parliament, is the vital role of the monarch or the president. The act is on behalf of everyone in the country, not just one side of politics, or one religious group, or one sports devotee. There is room in each country for every person, of whatever persuasion, when the "pyramid" is well built, with good foundations and upheld by good understanding.
Sorry, I am going on a bit. I know this is speaking of the ideal and is rarely held in the real situation..... far from perfect.
Finally, since this discussion is in the religious debating area, if the Monarch or the President has a religious leaning, and that keeps him/her focused on the honorable path in life, that surely cannot be a bad thing, regardless of what I personally believe. If it steps into my life and treats me cruelly, unfairly, then that is a different matter. I would most likely fight against it.
What incredible, unbelievable, remarkable ignorance. Although not surprising coming from you.
I guess since America also allied with England during WW2, American also defended royalty as God given?
Show me a Canadian who thinks the Royald have a God given right to govern?
That's fine, Emile, but what group has ever come out in the political arena as atheists? And, what group of atheists in politics are arrogant, obnoxious, aholes? Can you name any?
It is true that there are Christians who merely go to church for the mere sake of saving face, or socializing. Then there are those who pretend or who put on a show for self-gain. These type cannot possibly be called Christians or even want-a-be’s; as their motives are insincere. Then there are those who search God out, because they are thirsty for knowledge, understanding of self-worth, and has respect for authority. Most people are thirsty for knowledge and need to belong to something of great honor; which in turn, blesses you with an understanding of how ‘things’ work. Reading and studying the bible, the oldest history book in the world, and following His lead is no different. We are given a free will to love and follow the Lord, and not coerced or demanded to do so. However, like any other authority figure, he demands respect and adherence to his word; hence, blessings come to those who serve him.
Once a person learns and begins to understand how God works in your life, it becomes a habit, like an obsessions, or like an addiction to learn and understand more. The more you learn, the more information you crave, and your infatuation grows.
"Then there are those who search God out, because they are thirsty for knowledge, understanding of self-worth, and has respect for authority. Most people are thirsty for knowledge and need to belong to something of great honor; which in turn, blesses you with an understanding of how ‘things’ work."
No one searches for God because they are thirsty for knowledge. Indeed, few are "thirsty" enough to put major effort into the search for knowledge, although people are curious, and very few of that small number will look for a myth as a way to learn. Instead, the curious latch onto the easiest answer to understand (goddunnit) and let it go at that.
Understanding how religion (religion, not a god) works in your life will indeed cause the following to become a habit or obsession. Most religions are careful to separate people, to make their source of income feel a part of the group and different than other people. It helps a lot to keep the coppers coming into the collection plate if you do that, and religious leaders are no dummies.
And there is prayer for those who are lost and cannot find their way. As there is only separation because man chooses to separate.
Unfortunately, prayer has never been shown to have ever worked, while there are millions of instances clearly showing where it did NOT work.
Man "chooses" not to believe a fairy tale as true? False, as no one in their right mind can "choose" to believe something based solely on their desire it be true.
All of this is only true if there is, in reality, a "god" that is separate from us humans, who knows and cares,what each of us is doing with our life, every minute of the day.
And, of course, there is no such entity. That "god" is made up in your own mind to suit your own needs and build your own defenses, Susann.
You display the same mistake that many christian-leaning people make, i.e., assuming that to be "christian" is to make you a better person. Yet the basic premise of christianity was that you had someone who would "save" you from your wrong-doing and then open some kind of precious gateway for you to get into a "heaven." All of this presumes there is some kind of conscious existence for each of us after the passing of this physical life.
And of course there is no such entity! It's only make-believe.
I don't deny that belief in some kind of "higher self" is a very effective aid to rising above our worldly problems of self and society at large. No problem with that, and I deeply respect any person's path who is making a great effort to improve his/her "lot in life." But there my respect ends.
When you foster the emotion of fear, use and abuse a person's down-and-out situation to promote a collective belief in a god that is sitting in judgment, then I firmly reject that for myself. Period. Anyone who wishes to see different, like presumably you do, Susann, that is your right, your choice, your business..... but not for me.
The best that can be said to those who do not believe in God, or care to acknowledge his existence is his/her choice. The fact that the rapture will also transpire, no one gets a vote on that. It is apparent there has been little research into all of the facts of God, and therefore for this writer, the discussion is closed.
How do you "acknowledge the existence" of something that does not existence? Sure we can speak the words, but God knows that we are acknowledging nothing, Just spouting nonsense.
Do you somehow shut off your brain? But when I do that I go comatose, unable to speak or hear.
Research? Into the "facts" of God? What "facts"? There has never ever been one supportable "fact" about god known, just an imagined reality where a myth comes to life. Another Peter Pan story.
If I were you, I would be cautious about automatically assuming that atheists have done "little research" on the subject, especially when some of us have spent most of our adult lives in college and elsewhere researching the matter and following the evidence - or lack thereof, as the case may be.
In multiple studies, atheists have by and large scored higher in biblical knowledge and trivia than self professed Christians have
Castle, good to hear from you again, hope your well.
I've also lost contracts. And I didn't even say I was an Atheist. I was in a meeting with a guy from the United church who like the work I did for them through a printer, so during the meeting he asked me what my faith was. I knew I couldn't say atheism so I simple told him I was raised a Catholic (not a lie). Hi put his stuff back in his bag and left.
Despite of Emile says, right now no Atheist can get elected for President in America. Obama had to find a new place of worship because the press didn't like the one he chose.
It is my opinion that a nonbeliever could indeed be elected to public office here. I think it would be easy, actually, if he/she simply did not make their religion or lack thereof an issue-or if he/she, when asked, simply responded by saying that their belief or lack of belief was a personal matter.
Name one non believer in high office in the USA?
I am not privy to the religious/non religious beliefs of most elected officials in my country. I also did not say or imply that there are currently atheists in office. I said I believed that a nonbeliever could be elected. No need to make demands.
People change from drugs pleasure turns to more pain. With the Christian AA or drug program, people change from getting high on drugs to getting high on the Lord. I know that crazed glassy eyed and drunken look.
Sex on the beach!!! by Sun or Bonfire is as high as I want to go. Many Christians like doing sex, yet many have a great problem with it. You would think Christians would have more problems about the natural environment or wars.
The problem always has been and always will be that God reveals Himself to some and not others. For the ones He does reveal Himself too, everything (more or less) seems to point to God. For those who haven't had the revelation, nothing but nothing seems to really add up to the possible presence.
St. Thomas Aquinas - “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
And the rich irony is that so often non-believers who dispute the existence of God are just as or sometimes more guilty of the things they accuse believers of. As I've said often, both sides are guilty.
That is of course, one of the lamest excuses believers offer, attempting to tell us they are "special" amongst the rest of us, somehow selected by God to reveal Himself to them and not others. This type of reasoning is at best childish and elementary, something to be laughed at, especially coming from an adult.
Sorry, but non-believers don't use such ridiculous explanations.
Chris, could you explain why God would do something this silly?
Some people just know that the sky is not falling, and others are like Chicken Little.
We are not, in the least, guilty of the egregious fallacies and willful ignorance of delusional believers, and to state such nonsense shows extreme dishonesty...and downright desperation. Just like many alcoholics who have accused me of being a drunk, when I suggested they get treatment, religious addiction employs the same slanderous tactics, because all addictions require dishonesty, evasiveness, and blame shifting.
Now that you've explained it so clearly to me, I've seen that you're right. The only possible way to look at reality is the way you do and anyone who doesn't is psychotic. What a fool I've been. I can't thank you enough.
Chris just got enlightened, is jumping off the ship of fools rather than jumping off into the pits of hell or aiming to win the lottery ticket into heaven.
Chris and neal down and repeat after me
I think for myself first, before living in a mushroom and stop eating what they feed me. Question everything important that goes into my mind, blood and body from now on.
I will stop being Religiously addictive, God fearing person, for fear is not love nor Godlike.
I will slow down on being over judgment, over obedience jealousy and always complaining. For nobody likes a complainer
All quilt, shame, hopelessness, despair, failure, rejection, anxiety and/or humiliation are in very small degrees or non existence.
Happy for you Chris, Live and let live, forever
I was already thinking for myself, which is why after my initial insight, I have kept on believing in God. I'm really not a very religious person.
Ironically, it would be because I was following someone else instead of thinking for myself if I were to stop believing at this point.
(As I was typing the word 'point' above I accidentally left off the 't' and spellcheck automatically changed it to 'loin.' Now that would have been an interesting sentence...)
"Holy smoke" is more commonly associated with the Robinian sect of Batmanites.
It's not that I'm right, it's the fact that you refuse to stop looking at the world through the eyes of primitive, ignorant, long dead ignoramuses.
Go ahead and create a straw man fallacy...and slander. I don't expect much integrity from those who would rather reject REALITY and support the doctrines of a perceived nonsensical authority that doesn't exist.
It must be traumatic to lack the courage to think for one's self. Believing what someone else told you to believe, no matter how insulting to your own intellect. Why? Just because you put them above your own intellect and common sense...because of fear. Seems simply disgraceful to me.
Actually you are allowing yourself to be the victim of a con. In order for a con to work, there must be a victim. You are a willing and enthusiastic victim.
Weak people need Gods. They can't stop relying on something outside of themselves. Being too afraid to believe in themselves, any old silly God will do.
Would you say the closest thing to being Godlike is our Imagination? Because everything achieved, all was once imagined first. Even the Religious cultures with their greatest BS stories ever told. By ancient sheep and goat herders around the camp fires, much like Hollywood today.
Nobody can disprove God, nor has anyone ever seem the face of God because they would be dead.If we use a Godlike imagination, can it be a positive thing? Once anyone harms or acts dishonest to another person or nature, we can say it's Un-Godlike or a Religion addiction..
For the sake of not fighting forever with the 85% Religious. Can we imagine you, me and everyone is a God, in order for the world to get along better, and live and let live.
Can we live a lie, knowing it is a lie? Can we live in our imagination, knowing it is not real?
Some are quite happy to do so, but others find it, literally, impossible to maintain the fiction, even to themselves.
I guess the term "sub conscience" would come to mind. I believe that there is something going on below the conscious level. And new ideas, hunches, daydreams and intuitions come from the unconscious to the conscious mind through the medium of the imagination.
I really don't see where the word God factors in, as it is a term with religious connotations, and science has no use for such non factors.
I believe we are human beings, and that there are no such things as Gods.
I would say yes, yes to that. Then we would each and everyone of us be taking our personal responsibilities instead of passing the blame and the control to a factitious make believe. IMHO
(Factitious was a spelling mistake, but I think the word fits in this case.)
Satan gets most of the blame, for those hot night clubs of freedom.
We are generally coming closer to solutions between Evolutuionist and the Religious conflicts. We are moving toward a middlegrounds spiritual age of a closer truth.
A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality. I perfer the stories with the afterlife in it, can't disprove it, can't disprove higher energy or a God, who say dreams are not real. It's not a lie, if you can't disprove it. We can only look at the results or examples of what ever works for each one of us.
It is absolutely a lie to present an opinion or imaginative thought as truth or knowledge. Even if it turns out to be true, it's still a lie to call an opinion anything but what it is..
It takes a religion to claim absolutely truth, if your just exploring the 99% unknown spritual truths, what is the harm or what is dishonest about that?
And yet people who have no religion at all or who are not arguing from a religious perspective still do that very thing you decry, and sometimes with more vehemence than any religious argument.
Are you claiming it's valid for you to state your opinion as truth because others do it? Does their wrong make your right?
I'm stating that people who decry religious people committing a specific action are often guilty of the very action they decry, even if the frame of reference is not quite the same.
Two wrongs most certainly do not make a right.
But three rights can make a left.
So what? That doesn't change the fact that it's dishonest to present that opinion as truth. You can't say that it's honest because others do it.
I DIDN'T SAY THAT!
Sorry to yell but I really, really want you to understand that.
But it most certainly was your argument and defence when wilderness stated that an opinion is not a truth.
Instead of admitting that your opinion is simply your opinion you brought up that others do it as well.
But it certainly is possible that I'm misunderstanding. Happens.
Wilderness was stating an opinion as a fact while decrying that other people state opinion as fact. That is what I was commenting upon. If you insist on turning that into an inquisition on me, that is you, not the facts on the ground.
I want to have a conversation but nobody likes getting grilled. If any and every opportunity to talk becomes an instance of attempting to "force me to tell the truth" (and keep in mind that this is the truth according to you) then it's no longer a conversation. And if you don't think it's true, then try putting yourself in my shoes.
Let me be clear, I don't get upset by people just telling me I'm wrong. You've been doing it for a long time and I like you quite a lot. But lately something has changed and you seem bound and determined, almost at all costs (it seems) to get me to say what you want me to say.
But, we are talking about people who commit atrocities in the name of their god, not in the name of no reason at all.
I understood clearly that the point being made was simply: Not only do "Christians" state their belief in God as factual; Atheists state their opinion that there is no God as factual with a bit more umph. get it??? I know that the argument changes to there is no "proof" for the existence of God based upon the bent of the argument sought to be won; but still with a bit more ferocity (terms like imbecile, fool-heart, insane in the membrane, and simpleton are utilized to the nth degree) getitrite is just about as "factual" with his opinions as one can get. Yes??? Not that I'm picking, he was a great example. He makes NO bones about deeming our God as preposterous. And his opinions are umph-ier than most.
Those terms are not meant as an insult to you. They are used to show what kind of person would believe something like that....outside of the religious world. I believe that you are more intelligent than that. Only through indoctrination, you have trained your mind to accept willful ignorance, when it comes to religion. I'm quite sure you don't utilize this same willful ignorance in other aspects of your life. Don't blame me for pointing this out.
Just can't stand brutal honesty, huh? That's the problem with people who bear false witness. They don't want to admit that they have committed perjury, so they concoct any scheme that they can to support the perjury....including committing more perjury.
So I guess your opinions don't have to be pasted. You go back-to-back. I witness God regularly. There is no opinion that changes that fact. You may opine til the cows (eieio) lol, come home.
I do use the little bit of knowledge I do have to the best of my ability. All else I know comes and goes... lol
But THIS ONE THING, I DO KNOW...
"I witness God regularly."
Confusion; does that mean that you experience God or that you talk about God?
Because while the second is indisputable, the first is absolutely opinion and not fact. It is a good reason why the believer and non-believer have such trouble communicating and why the believer so often feels put down or offended. They simply do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. Subjective feelings and emotions are considered to produce factual conclusions, but life just doesn't work that way.
Oh yeah, each post you make to the Christian is full of opinion. Your opinions are stated as fact. My statement that I witness God daily is not opinion. I speak about what I have seen with my eyes and believe with all my heart. Your opinion that my experience is opinion is less relevant to me. You haven't realized that your mind is different from your heart and brain. Your brain does not KNOW love. It reacts to the love we have, but it is only flesh and blood.
Not a soul on earth will believe you saw God with your own eyes. Your "fact" here is unaccepted by anyone at all.
Many will believe that you believe in God will all your heart ( I do, for instance); few will think that your belief indicates a god beyond one from your imagination. They recognize that the belief does not indicate truth or fact, now matter how much you think it does. Even if you think so "with all your heart" it still isn't fact.
You don't understand that simple idea (or more likely just don't want it to be true) and so deny it. OK, that's fine for you, but doesn't change the world at all. Your opinions are STILL opinions, not facts.
As such, your opinions are not facts. (See how that works???) I did not state that I see God with my own eyes (see how written words may be MISinterpreted???) I have seen his words. I have seen them in action. I do know that if you expect to not see God, you won't. It is not my opinion that I have seen the word of God prove true. That is a fact. Your opinion that it was only fairy dust is JUST opinion. I know that you cannot fathom that; the bible promises that you will not. Until...
Sorry, but the words you have seen were written be men, not God.
So, you've never read the Bible? The Bible proves it.
The bible proves a lot of things, including the fact that the words are God-inspired. Thanks for pointing that out.
Your reasoning that the bible proves the words printed therein are God-inspired? Beyond, of course, that it is something you would like to believe?
No, it doesn't. It does not prove the existence of gods any more than Aesop's Fables proves the existence of talking animals or The Lord of the Rings proving the existence of Elves and Orcs.
We know for a fact it was written by men, what's in question is were the writers given direction by a God. Can you prove Mohammad was not given direction by God when he was putting the Quran together?
The bible is my proof for all spiritual things.
That's like saying The deathly Hallows is evidence of the existence of wizards.
You may have to more specific. Which parts?
Thanks again for your opinions. Thebbible in its entirety is a network of answers to all spiritual things. I do not know the Quran. I know the bible. You must be a bit more specific.
A rather fruitless discussion. You will continue to insist that subjective feelings are factual, I will continue to insist they are not. And we will never agree.
That's kind of the point, and a point you support - we will not agree because we have very different definitions of truth, reality, fact and proof. As far as I am concerned none of your feelings produce anything than can be claimed to be fact, and you will not change that definition. You can claim it is only an opinion, and that's alright, but when we have differing definitions for words communication becomes a little difficult. Which is what I said.
Much of my life lives outside the box, I'm not allowed to look at the face of God (Yahweh) or I will die. I can look onto the face of my woman (ultimate love) and into her eyes (window of her soul)
That is closer to the fact
Don't you mean window of her brain? ?? Must be horrifying. Those meaty chambers must be hell to look at in the morning. Lol
Sorry to disillusion you but the brain is mostly water, not meat.... at least in my case, hence the wet ideas sometimes!
Man, the brain is flesh. And it LOOKS like meat. So visually, I am correct.
No it's not. Without your brain you will feel no emotions and have no thoughts.
Without your MIND you will think no thoughts and have no emotions. Your brain is a receiver. It processes what is put into it.
No learning without the mind. No contemplation. No sway. The mind decides what the brain will do with the input. No one may tell me that I qm wrong about that. If they try, they are giving their own opinion. See???
Alright, show me a functioning mind without a brain.
It is called spirit. You can't see it. But you will.
I can see spirits. Wait, do Jim Beam and Jack Daniels count?
A man after my own spirit, Deepes. Clearly, we are men of the same spirits.
So they count? Yippee! So there! Spirits DO exist.
The last time I meet with my biddies at the local watering hole I discovered that tequila is in fact an evil spirit.
That is not true, spirits have never been shown to exist.
My opinion is that you are wrong; the mind is the tissue of the brain.
My reasoning is that Mirriam-Webster (acceptable authority of definitions) says that "mind" is ": the part of a person that thinks, reasons, feels, and remembers". We know the memory is the pattern of interconnections of neurons, which means that memory is within the tissues of the brain and therefore "mind" is "brain". Fact then, not opinion, given that Mirriam Webster definition is accepted.
1 a : the portion of the vertebrate central nervous system enclosed in the skull and continuous with the spinal cord through the foramen magnum that is composed of neurons and supporting and nutritive structures (as glia) and that integrates sensory information from inside and outside the body in controlling autonomic function (as heartbeat and respiration), in coordinating and directing correlated motor responses, and in the process of learning — compare forebrain.
Webster's definition for brain. You see that? Receptor.
No, I do not see the word "Receptor" in that definition. Is it written in invisible ink? LOL.
Well, I see no reason to continue this ridiculous conversation. Obviously, Cgenaea is just trolling.
Actually she has proven the point....categorically....that religion is an addiction, and, like other addictions(Amy Winehouse, Whitney Houston)there are extreme levels. This level is extremely rigid and is likely untreatable. It's always sad to see a person struggling with such a destructive addiction.
I saw nothing about any receptor either. Rather pathetic.
That term (receptor) is nowhere in the definition.
What IS in it, though is that it "integrates sensory information from inside and..." and "...and in the process of learning...". Both a part of either thinking, learning or contemplating and both far beyond merely "receptor or receiving". Meaning once more that "brain" means "mind"
Your turn again. This time, perhaps an analysis beyond a mere quote of definition?
Ok, here we go, look fast; you might miss something.
When you compare "her" definitions of mind and brain, the difference is clear. One picks up info; one gives. Can you tell which is which??? I will give you a scrolling break here... GO!
Can you have a mind if there is no brain present? Explain.
Can you have a brain with no mind present? Explain.
And this is for anyone to answer...
There is no brain matter in the spirit world. Only minds. Yes there is mind without brain.
So there are spirits and minds in the "spirit" world...Interesting theory...
And how is this proven?
I do not agree...
My reason for not agreeing:
Cognitive science, the study of the brain, lets us know exactly what consciousness is and its source. Everything that makes us who we are including our consciousness, personality, memory, and thoughts are 100% based on and dependent on the physical structure of our brain. All of which can be manipulated, altered, or erased by physical changes to the physical structure of the brain. This leaves no room for the concept of supernatural breath, aka souls/spirits.
Intelligence is our ability to understand, interact with, and learn from/about one's environment. It embraces many different types of skills, such as physical dexterity, verbal fluency, concrete and abstract reasoning, sensory discrimination, emotional sensitivity, numeracy, and also the ability to function well in society. The location of each section of the brain responsible for intelligence has been mapped out and documented.
A split-brain patient is one who has had their corpus callosum cut preventing communication and interaction with our two hemisphere. Such a process is done to cure violent cases of epilepsy. When a split-brain patient stares at the center of a screen visual information projected on the left side goes to the patient's RH and vice versa. When the patient is asked what he saw on the left he is unable to verbally say what he saw but he can draw the answer. When asked what he saw on the right side he can only verbally say what he saw.
Failure to inhibit unwanted responses show up in environmentally driven behavior. Individuals with frontal lobe damage often react in stereotyped ways to objects they encounter, however socially inappropriate the setting. Seeing a toothbrush, they may pick it up and use it, even though it belongs to someone else and they are not in a bathroom. Entering someone's home, they may overtly inspect the pictures on the walls, commenting upon them and pricing them as though in a gallery. When the inappropriateness of their behavior is pointed out, they may become confused or confabulate fantastic explanations of their actions. (umm...)
Our memory is the re-creation of past experiences by the synchronous firing of neurons that were involved in the original experience. The subsequent combined firing of the neurons reconstructs the original experience, producing a "recollection" of it. The act of recollecting makes the neurons involved even more likely to fire again in the future, so repeatedly reconstructing an event makes it increasingly easy to recall. Our Hippocampus is responsible for storing these memories. If it is damaged or removed we can no longer create/retain new memories.
Emotions may seem to be conscious feelings but they are in fact "inner motions" - physiological responses to stimuli - which push us away from danger and toward reward. Emotions are actually generated constantly but much of the time we are completely unaware of them. They are generated in the limbic system which initially evolved very early in mammalian history for evaluating smells. Each emotion results in the release of hormones that produce physical reactions such as increased heart rate and muscle contraction.
Our brains are constantly trying to make sense of the world in order to guide our actions. One way of doing this is by creating explanatory stories or ideas into which we fit our experiences. Such frameworks are often useful even when they are not correct. Spiritual transcendence shares some features with other "weird" experiences, such as out-of-body experiences, auras, and sensing the presence of spirits or ghosts. These are associated with flurries of unusually high activity in the temporal lobes.
The various stages of the human brain's evolution can be seen in different organisms that are still alive today. As our brain evolved its functionality and capabilities increased. When the limbic system evolved above the R-complex of the brain we gained the ability to process emotional states. When our cerebral cortex evolved we gained the ability to process complex thoughts. The animals alive today whose ancestors did not evolve these sections of the brain do not possess the abilities and functionalities associated with them.
Again, the brain is a huge computer that receives and processes information. That is why our brains "respond" to those images on the screen. Each part of the brain is responsible for PROCESSING different pieces of info. When you remove one part of the brain, that particular process is carried out elsewhere or totally done away with.
We may argue this thing for a millennia, brain and mind are different and they serve different functions. Just ask Webster like we just did.
Ok. look up processing....and then look at want you have written...without a brain there is no mind. Period... You have even proven this by what you have stated here Brain and mind are different...You can have a brain without a mind...But you cannot have a mind without the brain...It is not possible...You have heard about brain dead persons I assume??
Seriously I think you like to argue to just argue...This is one point in which you are not correct period...And it isn't even about religion...This is science and proven science at that.
Ha-ha!!! You just agreed that the brain and mind are different!!!! Did you SEE that???
I never said they were the same...I said you need a brain to have a mind, as it is the brain which allows for the mind. You are confusing me with other posters again...I also said the mind cannot exist without a brain.
Please excuse my interruption, but all that stuff we know about how the brain works came from sound scientific study - patience, intelligence, disciplined work of many minds. The was some spirit involved: drinking it at all hours of the night probably, but there was spirit god around to do the hard work.
I said that you CANNOT have brain activity without the mind. The mind is the core of you. The brain is just matter that don't matter without spirit.
It is then the supernatural mind, operating from within the spirit world, that reaches into our world and physically moves the chemicals around within the brain tissue? That opens little gates or something and releases the electrons to move along the nerves?
The mind passes the info. The brain receives it and passes it along. Weren't you listening to me and Webster earlier???
The mind passes the info, the brain receives it and passes it along.
So the brain got the info, gave it to the mind who gave it right back? Or did the mind reach out from the spirit world and intercept the electron flow along the optic nerve and then pass the info to the brain to interpret? If so, who did the brain give it to? The Pancreas?
Well I'm sure the pancreas is taken care of automatically by the brain. The mind is more fluid. No not nerve fluid; but spirit fluid. See, the mind may decide. It may come up with whatever truth or falsehood it so desires. The brain has specific functions. The mind may play qs much or little as it wants. There is no limit to how many? Things the mind can do.
*in great despair* Are you a professional politician? Because I've never ever seen anyone else that could spout so many words without any meaning whatsoever. I've never seen anyone else that could make up so many tall tales ("spirit fluid" indeed!) so fast. And I've certainly never seen anyone else so entrenched in their imagined reality - so positive that their made up stores are real. Even little kids, speaking out loud and at length to their imaginary fried, can't hold a candle to you.
I am only convinced of my position. I have many years in; and will not give it up as my truth because you have issues focusing in.
If I were "making up" the things I say, we would have much more fun. I can be quite the conversationalist. I have experience with what I say. So what, you may not fathom. I am not telling YOUR story.
Mind you don't trip over the brain! Your leg couldn't stand it!
So have your "findings" been peer reviewed? Can independent studies be conducted to see if your conclusions are consistent? Just what do you have to back up these bold and ground breaking findings? Do you have ANYTHING at all to back up these claims? PLEASE.....let's see it!
If, on the other hand, you have no evidence, then you should understand that you have lost all credibility, and can no longer be taken seriously. That's the way the adult world works.
Listen... people took my credibility forums ago!!! yet... here I stand (sit really) still singing the same song whilst hearing yet another repetitive song in x-flat harmony.
Yes! Peer reviewed, yes independent studies may be conducted, I got Jeeeesus to back up my claim, not groundbreaking, (well yes it is kinda) it started at the beginning, Genesis thu revelations backs it up. Oh! You say you don't believe me?
Ok. So are you now saying that I should be deChristianated? No thanks.
Sorry but it seems that you have no real understanding of accountability. Why do you go into these whimsical, baseless rants, while evading all requests for validation? Why do you avoid the obvious...that your claims need to be validated? Why, as an adult, do you insist on asserting that MAGIC is the answer to the question? I have every right not to believe you, as you have not held yourself accountable as I would expect from a lucid adult. ONE CANNOT, AS AN ADULT, DECLARE MAGIC AS THE ANSWER TO HER GROUND BREAKING FINDINGS, WHEN SHE IS ASKED TO PROVIDE VERACITY OF HER CLAIM. Doing so might suggest a serious disconnect from reality, as it makes no sense in the GROWNUP world.
If you can at some point understand this, you will see that it is regressive, and egregiously irresponsible to keep saying that Jesus is, SOMEHOW MAGICALLY, the answer to each and every question. Would you not agree that this just seems downright deceptive, evasive and childish.....and insulting to the intellect of the people who, genuinely, ask you for proof.
Good morning, Sir. To answer any of your questions concerning spirit, I must use spirit. There aren't many "lucid" responses able to accurately explain. only spirit may try spirit. That is biblical. And you prove, every day, the veracity of that statement. You are OBVIOUSLY no dummy. So it is not lack of intelligence that bars your understanding. It is lack of holy spirit. Your spirit is of a different nature. Not naturally, but by choice. We may even decide to believe, as long as you live. It is up to you.
Substitute the word "dragons" for "spirit" and that is about as much sense as your statement makes.
Again, you cannot plead magic as the solution and explanation of something you have asserted as truth. You must ACTUALLY explain your findings based upon objective evidence. To do otherwise is patently immature or dishonest....or could even be considered psychotic.
Ah...but can YOU prove the veracity of your assertions? That was the original question. Take responsibility. Stop hiding behind this imaginary confounded nonsensical belief.
Again, you can't present magic as the answer to an inquiry about your knowledge of the brain/mind, and their relationship. You asserted, with authority, that you know how the brain and mind work in conjunction. Please supply a better answer than magic. That's extremely insulting and downright disrespectful to an intelligent adult. SHOW US YOUR WORK...you know...painstaking experimentations, peer review, etc
What spirit? Have you also discovered that such a thing exists. Good! Then we need to see your work on that too. Peer review, and Nobel Prize...
I actually choose to be a grown up, and put my childhood behind me. My decision is based upon reality and my ability to face it no matter what it brings...of course some are too weak to negotiate life on those terms and opt for a delusional belief that some magic Father in the sky just loves them to pieces.
My findings are all biblical and spiritual. There is nothing within you but flesh and blood. That's like trying to teach line dancing to a squirrel, Sir. Your reality is parallel to mine and never the twain shall meet. Sorry. No "fairy dust" for you . You're just gonna have to wonder about it. Until...
And that, my friend, is the very root of your problem. Your findings are the folly of myths. Biblical? Spiritual?....how absurd.
And you? Am I to believe that you are magical? You one of them super folk?
That's because your "REALITY" has nothing to do with reality.
I don't have to wonder about anything. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with an actual God, but have everything to do with mental and emotional distortions. Your religion is completely unimpressive, as the average unindoctrinated 6 year old would laugh at an adult spouting such absurdities.
Sorry, but as an Alzheimer's looses brain cells they also loose there mind and become completely different people.
It's really kind of funny. I liken it to having an argument with someone trying to tell you the sun orbits the earth. I would be laughable if I didn't think you may be serious.
When you come back with evidence that a spirit exists rather than just your belief, I'll pay attention.
Laughable is somewhat opinionated. I have many ideas on Alzheimer's disease. Yes, the brain no longer processes that input so well. The mind/spirit are there. They try to change their own soiled diapers. But they mess up. They KNOW they need changing, they just forget how. What makes them to know they need changing? I say, the spirit/mind. You wanna argue that???
Sure, the skin picks up and senses a mess and sends the message to the brain. The brain tries to fix the problem. Eventually they no longer care if they are wet. No soul required. Do you realize a brain injury can change the personality of the victim?
Why yes! Just a few years ago, like 20, I was in a car accident. With head trauma, my brain recessed. I was about 12 years younger mentally. About a week later, I was back! The doctor said that there was only a 50/50 chance; but I got a praying momma
The brain lets one know of the issue. The MIND tries to fix it.
I do sense the sarcasm but thanks anyway.
I remember quite a bit of the regression. So my brain did store it. Score 1 for you!!!
When things are imaginary, you can define them in any way you want to. Fascinating!
Yep. Anything you want.
Yep. And while you're at it, you can state that the mind is purple. What difference does your assertions make if you just pull them from your imagination? Disturbing!
Is the spirit world the world in which you reside?
That is just plain silly. The mind is the brain, they are one and the same. The heart pumps blood.
Gimme a min. This is gonna take some time. Your opinions are very often stated as factual. I saw a few, but I don't have time right now for the cut and paste job that this response requires. I'll be back... (think Ah-nold S. )
I can't argue with you there.
Your honestly is brutal.
It is what it is. I cannot change it to suit me; nor can you.
Sure you can. You could put some thought/critical thinking into your perspective.
Are you sure? I don't think I could convince myself that there is a spirit world out there no matter how badly I want it. Thought/critical thinking will prevent such conviction every time, just as for some, desire will prevent acceptance of a conclusion resulting from critical thinking unless it also satisfies that desire.
Critical thinking is one of my gifts. I cannot pretend that spirit does not exist. I have put two and two together and I got 4!!!
Dunno - you took one person and turned it into a whole raft of critters. The "you" became you, the spirit "you", a god, a father and a holy ghost, a devil, millions of demons and a like number of angels.
Not sure I would call that "critical" thinking. "Imaginative" maybe, but probably not "critical".
Fun-ny! You are not being truthful. Funny yes, but not truthful. The God of Abraham is alive and running things on a major scale. I am currently far from trying to convince you while at the same time speaking the truth as I know it.
Change that "know" to "believe" and I might even agree. As it is all the statement does is profess ignorance and imagination.
So it is. The other option was a flat out lie; that you are well aware that you "know" nothing of the sort but lie about it.
I choose not to believe that, leaving the opinion that you are ignorant of the difference between knowledge and opinion. And if I'm wrong, I do not wish to know about it; leave me with the illusion that you simply do not comprehend the difference.
The bible promises a time when people PREFER the lie. Now, they must figure out which that is. God is with me. I cannot make you believe me. So to you it is a lie. The bible promises that YOU would see it no other way. It is MY fact; if my fact alone. You CANNOT say different. Then, you are placing YOUR opinion above what I call truth based on MY own research. Now, if you like; call me a liar. The bible pr (I bet you can finish this sentence.
Of course people often prefer the lie - we've known that for millenia and it didn't take the bible to point it out.
We want to be told we're loved true or not. That we're good looking, true or not. And that there is a Great Father Figure In The Sky that watches over us, true or not.
Suggest that you might take some course in advertising, or perhaps political speech making. Learn a little about just how true such things are, how and why the PR is twisted to get people to believe. Then read the bible again...
Ah... so you believe the other report. Ok. Again, I am not speaking about q thing in which I have no personal experience. The fact that you consider me a liar will be of no recourse to me.
We want to believe that God is an imaginary figment, true or not. Yes, a millennia or more.
I'm up to my eyeballs in courses; please NO MORE!
Critical thinking got me to where I am today. I was once a Christian and now I'm not.
Thank you, Sir.
Even with a bit of damage to my brain, I remember. I don't suffer effects either. Im the same me. I graduated from high school the day after being released from the hosp. And 3months after my 17th birthday. I missed the last 3weeksof high school and prom.
And college was no real problem. I made the Dean's list.
Religion and its practices have consistently been one of women's fiercest enemies... The fact that many women do not realize this shows how thorough the brainwashing and intimidation have been.
Thought I would share this tidbit
In my opinion, men are the "fiercest" enemy. Thank you for the other guy's opinion though. It really sheds light on the lies told to deter one from truth (LOL). They will say anything...
1. I wasn't talking to you...It was a general post for everyone.
2. Do you even know who Arnold Toynbee even is?
3. Your comment proved his point.
He was one of those not real Christians.
"Historian Larry Hise notes in his book Pro-Slavery that MINISTERS 'wrote almost half of all DEFENSES of slavery published in America.' He listed 275 men of the cloth who used the Bible to prove that white people were entitled to own black people as work animals."
Yep! Misinterpretation runs rampant even today!!!
How completely ridiculous to present the No True Scotsman fallacy whenever you don't want to face facts. The truth is as a woman and an African descendent, it is a fact that this religion has done nothing but abuse. Instead of dealing with the cognitive dissonance that this produces, believers simply make up stuff. Trading dignity for fear. SMH!
Misinterpretation is misinterpretation. I guess someone should tell the Scottsman.
And, of course, you are one of the few who knows exactly what God meant when He wrote the Bible.
I am in the company of greatness!
Just look at all those Klansmen, Crusaders, Witch Burners, Heaven's Gaters, Branch Davidians, etc. They all got it wrong, but Cgenaea....she got it rite. Thank you, Jesus. I'm just figuring out the magnitude of your special powers. If all that you state is true, then you appear to be one of the most phenomenal people who has ever lived, if not the MOST phenomenal.
But he's not a true Scotsman. No one needs to tell him. He is to be disowned and dismissed, because to own him makes other Scotsmen look different from the way some define themselves. Sounds very familiar, doesn't it?
2. I haven't the foggiest but I think I know why.
3. Opinions... everybody's got one.
Some Quotes on the Bible...
Who actually wrote [the Pentateuch or "five books of Moses"] remains unknown, though the theories are endless. Scholars attribute the first two to a pair of unknown authors they refer to as "J" because he calls his god "Yahweh," originally a pagan Canaanite deity, and "E" who calls his god "Elohim." These writers, writing in the 8th to 10th century B.C.E., were writing four to five centuries after the events they were describing. They clearly revised some of the doctrine, removing the lesser gods from the Hebrew pantheon, and establishing rituals that set the Hebrews apart from their neighbors
These writers are describing events which allegedly occurred about 1200 B.C.E. I say allegedly, because there is considerable doubt that the events described in Exodus ever took place at all. Myth making looms large in religions of this time and region, and was often used as a device to make a point, without regard to historical accuracy
The fact is that with all that is known of Egyptian history from this time (since scholars can now read the records the ancient Egyptians with the ease of a modern newspaper), and the fact that the history of Egypt in this period is well documented, there is no evidence from the records of Egypt itself that the events of Exodus ever occurred, either archaeologically or documentarily. The reality is that if a series of plagues had been visited upon Egypt, thousands of slaves escaped in a mass runaway, and the army of the Pharaoh were swallowed up by the Red Sea, such events would doubless have made it into the Egyptian secular record. But the reality is that there isn't a single word describing any such events.
In fact, we have no record of the Hebrews from Egyptian sources at all, until two centuries later, about 1000 BCE, where they first appear being mentioned in passing as a neighboring culture. Not a word about those escaped slaves over there in Palestine
We can now say with considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of anyone's past.... The Bible's "Israel" is a literary fiction... Not only have Adam and Eve and the flood story passed over to mythology, but we can no longer talk about a time of the patriarchs. There never was a "United Monarchy" in history and it is meaningless to speak of pre-exilic prophets and their writings... The Bible deals with the origin traditions of a people who never existed as such
-Thomas L. Thompson
If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow the teachings of the New, he would be insane
There would be no need for the women's movement if the church and Bible hadn't abused them
-Father Leo Booth
Good information for your side. Now, when I want information, I go to the source of creation. He vividly explains how well the argument against him would be crafted. Crazy is what some called Jesus. Who am I to be offended? Now give me some quotes that agree with me. I know they exist...
I am just posting information...
Feel free to post something that supports your "Side".
That is what I do. But since you are so big on quotation, I figured that you could quote one of those learned and degreed persons who speak the way I do.
There are no "learned and degreed persons" who speaks as you do...At least not that I have found yet...I will continue to look though...
You don't listen to the poster...so I figured I would post some quotes and let you argue with those...
Ok... A few Quotes on Jesus for you...
I can't find anything that actually agrees with you...Not even on the Fuddy Christian sites...You might have to find some quotes on your own......
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb in a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams
The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.
Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him.
Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
-C. Dennis McKinsey
Also, as I understand it, there was/is no place called Nazareth.
Where are the census records that you requested to back that up? I mean, I KNOW you know what you're talking about. But I need proof. None of that writing from "goat herders" who were obviously stricken with vivid imagination. But "real" proof and validation that Nazareth was imaginary at the time of Jesus.
The OT never mentions this town.
St. Paul never mentions this town (although he speaks alot of Christ)
The Talmud (Jewish history and teachings) has no mention of this town.
The earliest this town is mentioned outside of the bible is in the early 4th century..It is not mentioned by any ancient historian or geographer. Not even Josephus mentions this town and he was a Jewish historian during the 1st century.
Modern archeology confirms that the earliest this town may have began to exist would have been the middle/late 3rd century
Amazing to hear you wanting proof of something you don't want to believe!
This must surely be a first?
And hereafter, when [Christians] laugh at the Jewish superstition of a scape-goat, let them bear in mind that more sensible and intelligent people may laugh in turn at their superstitious doctrine of a scape-God....The blood of a God must atone for the sins of the whole human family ...Somebody must pay the penalty in blood, somebody must be slaughtered for every little foible or peccadillo or moral blunder into which erring man may chance to stumble while upon the pilgrimage of life, while journeying through the wilderness of time, even if a God has to be dragged down from his throne in heaven, and murdered to accomplish it. Nothing less will mitigate the divine wrath.... Whose soul - possessing the slightest moral sensibility - does not inwardly and instinctively revolt at such a doctrine?
I've been saying the same for quite some time, I just never say it that well.
Tell them not to fear. God stayed on the throne. Jesus his offspring handled the sacrifice part. It was the way of God. Sorry it may revolt some souls. God is the reighner. All that REALLY matters is what revolts him. This has been since the beginning. How old is Kearsey???
Kersey Graves (November 21, 1813 – September 4, 1883)
Too young. How the hell can he convince you of anything that happened before his granddaddy's granddaddy was born? He tested??? Oh! Well you got me! Not...
To young? He was 70 when he passed...
He must be at least as old as my bible to conflict effectively. He knows even less than the "goat herders"
Ok... So when you do a little study on the text that is the bible itself...I will consider taking this comment somewhat seriously...
From everything I have seen you post...You know nothing of the bible itself...To include when it was written or how old it actually is...
But, it does not matter. Those facts are confounding. We cannot know beyond the beginning of our lives without Faith. You don't believe Jesus. You believe someone/something else. I do not have a problem with that. You must place your faith as you see fit.
You have no idea what I believe...As I have never stated what I believe.
I know my life without faith... One might need faith for what happens after this life.
Proclaim your faith in Harry Potter, there is no longer a need to hide your faith, the one who is not to be named is gone.
And you don't believe all that, DS? You amaze me!
[Regarding the] Christian Myth, they know it is myth. In private discussions with theologians, they shocked me by admitting they know it is all a myth. One Jesuit told me, "Those stories are for the unthinking lay public." This changes the problem from one of ignorance to one of lies and deceit.
The Jesuits are teaching lies!?!?!? Ya don't say...
You do know that Jesuits are Christian correct? Biblical Scholars and Theologians...You know Christians who actually study the bible...
Well so where are you getting the lie part from? The bible is true. If they teach that they are correct. But one of them said that they know it is false? And they STILL teach it? Wow! You are my hero!!! No chance of me becoming Jesuit now...
This is true...Of sorts...
Jesuit is the Society of Jesus...All Christian MALES though...
You are lacking some important parts to be included in this group...
Lacking in the Education department aside...
So it is safe to say that Atheists have tried to reason out the kingdom of God to the point that FAITH is no longer possible?
No, but it is safe to say that most atheist have tried to reason. I didn't purposely reason out anything, as I would rather there be a loving God looking after the universe. But what I'd rather is irrelevant.
The bible tells us to lean NOT unto our own understanding. We may only understand so much. Finite minds need only pick the thing in which to have faith. But if it aint God, it's gonna be some OTHER perfectly thought out thing complete with many forms of "evidence" that one does NOT fully understand.
If not your own brain, then whose? The one that is holding the collection plate, want more coins?
'Cause it sure ain't gonna be the big guy in the sky - he hasn't said a word for over 2,000 years. People say it a lot, but they're either lying or taking their own thoughts as coming from a god.
Are we to assume that someone else needs to carry us around by the hand for all our lives. And how are we sure whose understanding we are to slavishly adopt? Your pastor? My pastor? They both read the bible, but they may have different "understanding"
Nonsense. There are things that can be known without using blind faith.
Why do you HATE reality so much? Let's see your God build a 747 jetliner. Then let me see you get on it and fly through the sky just as a Boeing would. Reality is not a "form" of evidence. Reality is what evidence corroborates. What you have is, in no way, comparable....just ancient childish nonsense.
Of course that's what the bible says. Don't think for yourself, line up with the rest of the sheep for slaughter. Drink the cool aid. Get in line. I have an idea, think for yourself, don't line up with the rest of the sheep. Don't drink the cool aid. Don't get in line.
You (or Harry Potter) are the master of your universe. Have it however you (or Harry Potter) like.
Note to self: no kool-aid for Rad Man, not even the really tasty flavors.
Sure it does. It asks you to have blind faith and to behave in a particular manner. Those who drank the cool-aid had blind faith otherwise they would have thought about it and said you first.
Most anything you believe about life and the world asks for "blind" Faith. You have not tested anyone's theory. You cannot. Unless of course you are smart like the other guy. You believe what they say because they told you there was a really intricate test with accuracy up the wazoo that you yourself could never duplicate. See??? Blind faith.
I guess that is why so MANY atheists do not reveal what is is they DO believe in.
I would guess the reason is: there are results. For example, I KNOW that cars can transport people...and that they have an internal combustion engine, because I see the results, and could actually be taught how to duplicate it. But NO results from God....none! That's BLIND FAITH.
...Then we tested your theory, as it doesn't take that much intelligence to test such a "Theory"
You forget that some of us are former Christians. At one time we had blind faith. And we made a contract with the Lord that we would alter our lives to go by his rules.....go to church...pay tithes. In return God explicitly states what we would get. We kept our end of the contract. God was 100% negligent on the contract. The only sensible thing would be to void such a worthless contract, or continue getting played. I'm quite sure an unindoctrinated 8 year old could discern that.
I'm gonna go with Science.
What kind of proof do you need from God. What would make you believe?
Uh, I mean something you have never experienced before.
That would not be the proof of the existence of a God. To think so would be shallow and foolish.
When you speak about "God" you repeat, time and time again, your theory. There is no such thing as "god" except in your mind, your understanding. So it is pointless you asking theoretical questions about a theoretical god.
Live in your own reality if you like, but why try to drag others into that?
We tell you what we believe or don't believe every day. You just simple don't believe us.
Correction: I hear all day what you DON'T believe. However the do believe is yet mysterious.
I believe my Dad is a great man.
I believe my wife is a great person.
I believe one of my kids likes to lie.
Uh...discovery??? You aint gonna show YOUR blind faith because it is more than likely even more far-fetched than Lord Harry Potter.
come on pleeeeeeezzzz... I won't tell. But I WILL pick you apart as you have insisted God be done.
You do understand that while believers make up stuff they'd like to believe, that it is an anathema to most non-believers. That they make a conscious effort NOT to have "beliefs" without a solid basis? While it may be a way of life for the believer, it is not for the non-believer and you simply won't find much to crow about there. Certainly nothing of any importance; running your life on belief rather that truth just isn't an option.
Let me make it easy for you. Your STALLING speaks volumes.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Whatchu say???
I say "Evidence, please"?
Should you present evidence, verifiable by either myself or others, then I shall consider it knowledge.
Should you present no evidence, or should you present personal opinion or subjective experiences as evidence I shall treat your statement as a belief. Inherent in that is a lack of belief in the truth of the statement.
The evidence is in the bible. If you don't believe that, your blind decision process starts there.
You know better; the words and stories in the bible are not verifiable by anyone. Plus, many of them are now known to be false, making the book an even less reliable source of information.
I understand your "blind belief" begins there, but to those looking for reality and truth, the bible just doesn't cut it. Far too much of what is written there must be warped and/or changed beyond recognition to ever consider the entirety to be true. Based on truth, probably, but not true overall.
Opinions...we all got 'em. You believe the stories are false. That ends the discussion on what you DO believe...right???
I did not say the stories of the bible are false, only that some are known to be so and because of that the entire tome needs extra scrutiny before deciding that any part is true. Just as if an inveterate liar told you something; it will be taken with a grain of salt until you have verified it independently.
Are you continuing to insist that because there is no belief that there is a belief? That "I don't know" is an invalid answer to what happened billions of years ago?
Valid? Why yes!!! You decided with the help of the bible busters that some of the stories are false (or parabolic; but I digress) and that if THAT is true, we must comb through and find the other discrepancies so as to not be "fooled" by the bible junks. So, find them. They're there just for you.
Why would I need to find them? The bible has demonstrated that it is false; there is no reason to believe that the tales of things impossible in our universe ever happened. Not without other verification; as I have never seen the tiniest bit of that for miracles, they would seem to be as false as the known lies.
True, I could spend a lifetime searching for something that doesn't exist, or I could just assume it exists because I want it to, but neither seems particularly productive. It would seem to me that YOU would be better off looking for evidence of these things; if you're going to base your life on them, it seems best that you know them to be true.
Verification for miracles? I cannot verify a miracle. I cannot verify for you. That is a personal process.
Jesus' state ID was found in a tomb with thousands of years of dust and oxidation and stuff; and his bloody thorn hat was found underneath the stone that rolled away. I tested!!! Do you believe me now??? LOL
No "proof" will satisfy the skeptic heart. I-I-I mean brain!!!
No, verification of truth is NOT a "personal process". It is, in fact, a very public process, with anyone caring to, testing and all agreeing that it is true.
No, I do not believe you tested; you lie as much as the bible does. You did not test a crown for DNA that you can't match anyway, and you did not find state ID you verified to be carried by Jesus. You just claim you did, just as you claim God spoke to you. And this time I do believe (that you lie) as you have made a claim but refuse to present the evidence to anyone else. Evidence you claim you have, but I believe would have disintegrated in 2000 years (crown of thorns).
So what if one believes the Bible, then after many years sees that it is full of deception, and even if they tried to continue to believe, they just can't bring themselves to continue? Can you tell me how that would be based upon a BLIND decision process?
There is absolutely NO evidence in the bible. Except that someone, somewhere back in history, wrote down, laboriously, a lot of text.
Ha, funny things is way back with that was written those goat herders thought the Earth was the centre of everything and those stars were not like our sun. They also thought that heaven was up there amongst those lights. They even thought those lights could fall down on earth.
I don't know for sure, but I think they were wrong.
I don't understand what you want me to admit to. Give me an example.
I told you what I believe, how the universe began, I have no idea. I know and understand what some people think, I certainly don't go around pretending I know for certainty what started the universe.
It was just Harry Potter. You are thinking of the Dark Lord Voldemort maybe. Now HE is real... You just got have faith that He is!
Those who rejected the Bible out of hand and assumed that there was a natural explanation for every single thing also had blind faith.
That's an argument you can't win if you really, really want to follow it to its logical conclusion.
reject it out of hand, Chris? Like just decided one morning on a whim that it was all crap? Come on, now. That's really not fair - or accurate, I might add.
I thought out of hand meant rejected automatically. However, it is the examination/scrutiny of scripture that confounds.
Skepticism mars biblical study. It's like the expectation of flaw highlights discrepancies in understanding context. The Lord said kill and rape is just one of those flaws in understanding. He meant for the people to br deterred from wrong to fellows. Not be "cool" with murder and rape.
I don't know. Some of the people on here sure give the impression that they just decided it wasn't true, almost as if they woke up one morning and...
Not all, not you. But some.
Right, you blindly believe something you were told so everyone blindly believes stuff they are told? Sorry Chris but I don't go around professing that I know for certainty that sub-atomic particles are real.
The point is...whatever you accept is accepted on blind faith. If not God; something else.
It's comical how it so often comes down to this: the believer, finally understanding there is no evidence for his/her belief and thus no knowledge, declares that no one anywhere knows anything and everyone has only faith. If they can't have knowledge, neither can anyone else.
Never works, of course, but it seems to keep the faithful happy to degrade everyone else. It also pretty effectively turns off the dialog as all they have to do to maintain the fiction is declare that because a specific individual did not do the experimentation that no one has knowledge. As we can't all be scientists, learning about the world around us, it means the earth is flat and the sun goes around it.
The ability of the human mind to rationalize is astounding.
Let's see your rationalization skills. In this comment, you FORGOT the DO believe.
See, you believe what "they" told you. You do NOT believe the bible. However, even your nonbelief is taken in heaps of BLIND faith. You cannot know for sure that I am lying when I say I have experienced God for myself. You believe that other message. Are you NOW gonna tell what that is??? Hehehehee...
We also cannot know if you're telling the truth, and considering many of us have never experienced God, it is likely you haven't either and are only guessing you have.
Pretty much as I said, just repeated again.
Yeah, I don't believe you spoke to God, and use past experience and explanations from hundreds of others as a basis for that opinion - that lack of belief. Lack of belief, because at the same time I DO recognize that you might have truth, just assign a very low probability to it.
And that is something a believer won't do; they typically assign either a 100% probability to God or at minimum one high enough to justify living their life around the belief. Either way, it's enough to cross the threshold from opinion to belief, where it is then mentally converted to "knowledge" by the believer.
Not sure what "See, you believe what "they" told you. You do NOT believe the bible." refers to - are you trying to say that not having a belief is the same as believing?
Why yes! Im glad you pointed that out. Not believing is the very same as chucking what has been presented to you out the window!!! a choice that what you have heard cannot be true. A no decision points to sway... you sway in oopposition to. You have no solid idea, but you DO have a preference. We all do. You don't have to put your head on the chopper. I understand. It is brutal being called a silly little sheep. well, no it isn't.
You may well have "experienced god for yourself." But that is your own, personal, "believing" mind that accepts it, for your self.
Anyone else who decides to accept everything you say about your experience as valid does so because they also wish to believe it.
This still does not, and never can, make your experience, and your interpretation of it, valid for everyone else.
What makes it valid for you is your need. Period. No more validity than that. Period.
Well the need for evidence causes one to not believe words written on paper. Wait... how did you get the information on your debunking tests??? ...took notes at the big testing event to which I know you must have been invited.
Anyone can write words on paper. The ability to write them does not, however, make them true.
Indeed! Even rationalizing the irrational!
That's downright absurd. Apparently you don't know the difference between accepting something based upon RESULTS...and the willful ignorance of believing in a 2000 year old fictitious book, lying about a God that has NEVER been seen. Why does your beliefs cause you to stoop to such desperation? Superstitious childish beliefs are not on par with REALITY, and you should be ashamed for trying to tame the cognitive dissonance, caused by your beliefs, by posting such unrealistic, dishonest nonsense.
Ha-ha!!! What you DO believe is STILL missing! Did you see that??? Absurd...
You aint never seen one of those tests performed and you have NO IDEA what the "RESULTS" were. but since your skepticism is intact, your understanding is confounded. You believe them because they stroke your skeptic muscle. Say it with me; con-foun-ded. Oh! And BLIND too.
I have seen many scientific tests performed, and I have conducted some myself. If you have ever baked a cake, you performed a scientific experiment. Were you confounded by the results, or did you consider the experiment a corroboration of the laws of nature?
I don't have to BELIEVE them when I can conduct the same experiments myself, and discern if their findings are valid....that's the reason for exhaustive peer review. You just assume that everyone is of below average intellect. Why is that?
Well intelligence is not in question. We are speaking God vs belief in God is absurd. Not cake baking or tornado making. please tell me this registers. I KNOW you are the master blaster swell-brain pastor. Lol
and yes, cake baking experiments confound me to smithereens.
It is becoming quite apparent that you don't really know what your premise is, as you have backed yourself into a corner....trying DESPERATELY to make sense of foolishness. Since YOU brought up scientific tests, and tried to tie them to blind faith....everything that I stated is relevant to your comments. Just because you have no counter, there is no need to dismiss pertinence. What would be shocking would be if you actually said something that made sense....and stayed the course with a lucid follow-up.
Then maybe cake baking is only for Gods. Or maybe you are just terrible at science. Maybe that's why you have a propensity to believe, since you can't understand science. Those of us who understand science are not con-foun-ded.
Oh, but the bible says that you are. And will remain that way until...
Maybe my grandma was a god...
You think my words contain ignorance? Boy, didn't see THAT coming. Scientific tests DO confound me. But not God. He made the reason for scientific study. And they will be scrambling until... 99.9% certainty is NOT 100%. God has secrets known to no one.
And I am suppose to believe what a silly ancient book says? That's the crux of your problem right there. Please don't imply that your silly holy book holds any REAL authority.
Your Bible is pure garbage...period....
That's because you created your God(based upon a silly holy book)in your head. Of course you are going to understand Him. It's the core of the delusion. Of course this is just the result of brain washing. You really understand nothing of the sort. You just made God up.
Of course He did. Your God is just everything. And just think...He just lovesssssss YOU. What a smug feeling that must be.
Thank you Jesus!!!
....But you know that He has secrets, even though they are known to no one. Just how do YOU know that?
Oh! Getitrite, they are not superstitious! They are christians!
By the way... I love reality. It's you thinking you can KNOW everything about everything because someone told you about their evidence.
Now which "fallacy" is that? Strawman; Scotsman; Batman; or absent man?
I would like to share something from the book of "THE VISIONS OF SADHU SUNDAR SINGH" an Indian Saint. Hope this will clarify the reason for the addiction of God in human being.
WHAT HAPPENS AT DEATH?
One day when I was praying alone, I suddenly found myself surrounded by a great concourse of spirit beings, or I might say that as soon as my spiritual eyes were opened I found myself bowed in the presence of a considerable company of Saints and angels. At first, I was somewhat abashed, when I saw their bright and glorious state and compared with them my own inferior quality. But I was at once put at ease by their real sympathy and love-inspired friendliness. I had already had the experience of the peace of the Presence of Alaha in my life, but the fellowship of these Saints added a new and wonderful joy to me. As we conversed together, I received from them answers to my questions relating to my difficulties about many problems that puzzled me. My first inquiry was about what happens at the time of dying and about the state of the soul after death. I said, "We know what happens to us between childhood and old age, but we know nothing of what happens at the time of death or beyond the gates of death. Correct information about it can be known only by those on the other side of death, after they have entered the spiritual world. Can you, give us any information about this?"
To this one of the Saints answered! "Death is like sleep. There is no pain in the passing over, except in the case of a few bodily diseases and mental conditions. As an exhausted man is overcome by deep sleep, so comes the sleep of death to man. Death comes so suddenly to many, that it is only with great difficulty that they realise that they have left the material world, and entered this world of spirits. Bewildered by the many new things that they see around them, they imagine that they are visiting some country or city of the physical world, which they have not seen before. It is only when they have been more fully instructed, and realise that their spiritual body is different from their former material body, that they allow that they have, in fact, been transferred from the material world to the realm of spirits."
Another of the Saints who was present gave this further answer to my question, "Usually," he said, "at the time of death the body loses its power of feeling. It has no pain, but is simply overcome by a sense of drowsiness. Sometimes in cases of great weakness, or after accident, the spirit departs while the body is still unconscious. Then the spirits of those who have lived without thought of, or preparation for, entering the spiritual world, being thus suddenly transferred into the world of spirits, are extremely bewildered, and in a state of great distress at their fate, so, for a considerable period, they have to remain in the lower and darker planes of the intermediate state. The spirits of these lower spheres often greatly harass people in the world. But the only ones that they can injure are those who are like in mind to themselves, who of their own free will open their hearts to entertain them. These evil spirits, allying themselves with other evil spirits, would do immense harm in
the world were it not that Alaha has appointed innumerable angels everywhere for the protection of His people, and of His creation, so that His people are always safe in His keeping."
"Evil spirits can injure only those in the world who are like in nature to themselves, and then they can do it only to a limited extent. They can, indeed, trouble the righteous, but not without Alaha's permission. Alaha sometimes does give to the evil one and his angels permission to tempt and persecute His people, that they may emerge from the trial stronger and better, as when He allowed the evil one to persecute His servant Job. But from such a trial there is gain rather than loss to the believer."
Another of the Saints standing by added in reply to my question, "Many whose lives have not been yielded to Alaha, when about to die, seem to become unconscious; but what actually happens is that when they see the hideous and devilish faces of the evil spirits that have come about them, they become speechless and paralysed by fear. On the other hand the dying of a believer is frequently the very opposite of this. He is extremely happy for he sees angels and saintly spirits coming to welcome him. Then too, his loved ones, who have died before, are permitted to attend his deathbed, and to conduct his soul to the spiritual world. On entering the world of spirits he at once feels at home for not only are his friends about him, but, while in the world he had long been preparing himself for that Home by his trust in Alaha and fellowship with Him."
After that a fourth Saint said, "To conduct the souls of men from the world is the work of angels. Usually Mshikha reveals Himself in the spiritual world to each one in degrees of glory differing in intensity according to the state of each soul's spiritual development. But in some cases, He Himself comes to a deathbed to welcome His servant and in love dries his tears, and leads him into Paradise. As a child born into the world finds everything provided for its wants, so does the soul, on entering the spiritual world find all its wants supplied."
THE VISIONS OF SADHU SUNDAR SINGH - THE WORLD OF SPIRITS
Once in the course of conversation, the Saints gave me this information. "After death the soul of every human being will enter the world of spirits, and every one, according to the stage of his spiritual growth, will dwell with spirits like in mind and in nature to himself, either in the darkness or in the light of glory. We are assured that no one in the physical body has entered into the spiritual world, except Mshikha and a few Saints, whose bodies were transformed into glorious bodies, yet to some it has been granted, that, while still dwelling in the world, they can see the world of spirits, and heaven itself, as in 2 Corinthians 12:2, though they themselves cannot tell whether they enter Paradise in the body or in the spirit."
After this conversation, these Saints conducted me around and showed me many wonderful things and places. I saw that from all sides thousands upon thousands of souls were constantly arriving in the world of spirits, and that all were attended by angels. The souls of the good had with them only angels and good spirits, who had conducted them from their deathbeds. Evil spirits were not allowed to come near to them, but stood far off and watched. I saw also that there were no good spirits with the souls of the really wicked, but about them were evil spirits, who had come with them from their death-beds, while angels, too, stood by and prevented the evil spirits from giving free play to the spite of their malicious natures in harassing them. The evil spirits almost immediately led these souls away towards the darkness, for when in the flesh, they had consistently allowed evil spirits to influence them for evil, and had willingly permitted themselves to be enticed to all kinds of wickedness.
For the angels in no way interfere with the free will of any soul. I saw there, also, many souls who had lately come into the world of spirits, who were attended by both good and evil spirits, as well as by angels. But before long, the radical difference of their lives began to assert itself, and they separated themselves - the good in character towards the good, and the evil towards the evil.
Will somebody fill me in? Atop my preference for alone time is my inability/aversion to focus for long periods
No. You are to believe whatever your mind (and the probabilities of others) desires. THAT'S the crux.
Wait one cotton-pickn minute! The bible is not made up in my head
Believe as YOU see fit.
The bible tells us about the secret secrets. That's how I know. I believe the bible. By the way...who brainwashed you? Your output seems a bit delusional. You think high of your highness.
Of course the bible is made up in your head. At least the interpretation you choose to believe is: where else would it come from? Or did you swallow the priests story whole?
Swallowed Jesus' story. Whose story do you swallow???
Certainly not the one that gives a subjective opinion that Jesus spoke to them personally...and that can produce no video or audio recording of the event.
People believe in ghosts that cannot be seen; and know there is wind, but can only be felt, and see only the results. But when it comes to God, you have to be able to see it on video or hear it on audio to have proof? Technology has spoiled the average individuals! Someone speaks of what they went through as a child, and you believe their story without seeing proof that it actually happened. A business owner tells you when you are hired as an employee that ‘this’ is policy and you must adhere to it, and you take it at face value; but have never been shown that policy even exists; hence it 'could have been made up'. People who are born blind has never seen light, but from what others tell them, they believe that light exists. People who are born without hearing has never heard another speak, but understands there is sound to the moving lips. The list of ‘having faith’ is endless, but people choose not to believe in God because they cannot see or hear him. There is no video or audio to assure us that God is with us, it is the belief, trust and faith that he exists. There have been numerous prophesies in the bible that has come to pass and can be proven, yet people believe in science that CAN be disproved in NUMEROUS areas. People believe in the rapture, because the bible speaks of it in several scriptures of the last days, but people laugh and scoff. When it does come to pass, then, and only then, will people see the true results that God truly exists. Then is when it will be too late, because there is not a one of us that gets a vote on that one.
There have been no prophesies in the Bible that have come to pass. And just because some scientific theories have been adjusted or disproved doesn't mean we are to regard science in the same way as we do superstitious delusional nonsense. Oh...and thanks for the threat. That goes a long way with paranoid fearful people, but to free thinking people, we find this just downright silly and laughable. Just seems desperate.
You are making statements that you obviously know NOTHING about, have done NO research, and making untrue statements. Not worth answering again. sorry you are lost. I delete any further information, as all you want to do is argue. Good by
No...that would be you. I know exactly what I'm talking about.
In other words, you asserted some delusional indoctrinated nonsense, then you realized that you are not prepared to prove any of it. Then you get extremely angry. Typical Christian behavior.
"But when it comes to God, you have to be able to see it on video or hear it on audio to have proof? "
I think you answered your own question when you said "...it is the belief, trust and faith that he exists." You should ask people that require proof to accept anything less, including your own belief or faith. And without that faith and belief, no there are no prophesies that have been proven to have happened.
Yes, just like I know the atmosphere exists, what it is comprised of and how it moves to cause the wind.
Not necessarily, the person could be lying.
You can question the employer, you have every right to do so. You might not keep your job very long, though.
The vast majority of people are not blind and know light exists, so your example is pointless.
Another pointless example.
Your examples are not the same thing as believing in God, apples and oranges.
The same could be said about anything, Santa Claus, The Wolf-man and The Mummy.
That is not true.
We will continue to laugh and scoff at those who believe in the rapture. No problem.
No "proof" will satisfy the skeptic. No "proof"; they could tell you that they found the body of Jesus still intact and tested back to death and you would say, I told you so genaea...
There is truth in that: there are a great number of believers that disbelieve evolution can happen because they don't want it to. Evidence is ignored, disparaged and ridiculed; anything but examined for truth. Common in the faithful, where "truth" must conform to the desired conclusion or is discarded.
Yes, "they" could claim they found the body and tested it back to death, just as "they" claim they hear God speaking. And the response will be "let me see and test, too". Or at least let the experts I trust take a look at your claim.
That's how it works, you see; truth comes from honest people looking for truth, not charlatans looking for a full collection plate OR a misguided soul wanting their god so badly that subjective beliefs becomes truth in their mind.
If they found the body or bones of Jesus still in tact, and his identity could be somehow verified, it would be evidence that he did not rise from the dead, therefore demonstrating the Christian claim that he did was false.
Do you know the difference between a claim and evidence? You claim that the Bible is evidence because it says "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" that's not evidence. It's a claim.
For example, you claim that you're in college. The fact that you say it does not make it true. Transcripts, grades and a degree are evidence that support that claim. You have to know this, especially since obtaining a degree in any subject requires at least one science class.
You just claimed to have discovered and tested the crown of thorns. Since I think that is highly unlikely because you have no concept of evidence, claims or the scientific method, it is evidence that you lied, something that you have previously vehemently denied. As a result, it's likely that no one will take you sourly, since you just demonstrated the will and ability to flat out lie to attempt to make a point. I would encourage the others to ignore further posts from you, and I am likely to do for those proven to be dishonest.
No one reading my post cosidered it to be factual. Everyone knows that I have no idea what it takes to do science. Now you took it the way you did for a purpose. You proved my point. People believe what they want based upon their already formed opinion.
All you have to do to prove that the Bible is true is to know your history and then look and see for yourself that the Bible predicted in the book of Daniel the fall of Babylon to the Persians then their fall to the Greeks (Alex. The Great), then Rome. These empires were predicted in writing many years before they occurred. This is just one example. It also predicted Israel becoming a nation in a day in 1948. This is Gods way of letting you know His word is reliable.
Yeah, see that's a problem. Prophecies have to fit certain criteria before they can be examined for validity. The ones in the Bible really don't. They are not specific, they do not apply only to one single, possible event, and many are self fulfilling. It's also easy to claim fulfilled prophecy when the fulfillment occurred aaftewards by people who knew about the original prophecy.
If I tell you tonight that I'm going to have Mexican food for dinner tomorrow, and then I go to a Mexican restaurant and order Mexican food, I have not just fulfilleda prophecy, even though I told you that it would happen ahead of time. Furthermore, we know of several biblical prophecies that were flat out wrong when they were specific. That's the danger with specific prophecy.
Only a being outside of the constraints of our time and space dimension could do that. Science also has proved that such a place let's call it exists over and over mathematically it works and has baffled scientist ever since. I suggest that people dont get so angry at the thought of the possibility of an omnipresent God. Search it out for yourself. Look at the human genome.What a complex amazing motorized computer program it is. It is so complex thatbillions more years of "evolutionary" time as they like to say could go by and never get close to things coming ttogether to create something so complex as the human genome. I mean the pure wonder that are the heavens the solar system, the universe all are perfectly hung together according to laws all of which can be broken down to make perfect mathematical sense. It was all purpously done. It is harder to disprove God exists than it is to realize something out there way smarter and grander than us exists.
Seriously? 23 min ago you joined? Pic and all?
Argument from ignorance/incredulity and special pleading
You start, Brian, from the premise of being christian. You therefore will twist and shape every other consideration of God, any idea about a life after death, etc. You posts here therefore cannot be un-biased.
Well the picture just came up because I signed in with Facebook. What's wrong with just joining?
It always confounds me how someone joins a site like this and makes their way to the forum b4 they've written anything... sorry... y'all go ahead.
I just looked you up, you're for real. Why would you join straight from FB? Was there a post or something there you saw?
Actually, you guys are having a big time discussion... just ignore me. Im curious, but Ill ask you later.
The prophecies in Daniel for instance are extremely precise. The book of Daniel was translated into Greek around 300 BC and specifically named these empires to come by name before they occurred. Look for yourself. This is just one instance their are many extremely specific prophecies that have cone true. Many atheists history buffs have set out to disprove the bible. Most of them became Christians before they were done.
And the prophecies about Jesus the funny thing there is that the people u are talking about who were the holders of all this prophecy absolutely did not want them to come true concerning Jesus they crucified him denying he was the Messiah but what's crazy is they crucified him on the exact day
that the Bibl
Predicted they would 483 years in advance. They certainly were not wanting this prophecy to come to they unknowingly fulfilled it. Thats what is so amazing.
Yeah. . Were the new testament writers aware of these prophecies? Yes. Was the new testament written after the old? Yep. Self fulfillment or contrived fulfillment? Absolutely.
Www.atheismresource.com/2010/the-twelve … -scripture
I just want everyone to have an open mind and examine for themselves if these things are true. It is all very hard to wrap ones mind around. I know some Christians can be very annoying many not knowing hardly a thing about what they claim to believe in. But dontlet being turned off by ppeople and theirattitudes search these things out for urselfitself
What prophecies have turned out to be wrong that you know of I have looked into these things for a long time and not seen one. No scholar has ever disproved not even one Biblical prophecy.
Then you're not looking very hard at biblical scholarship. If you have to use apologetic spin doctoring to make a failed prophecy valid, it's dishonest, and I've heard it all before. Studying to obtain a biblical degree in college (a Christian college, incidentally ) is in large part the reason I'm now an atheist. I had an open mind and multiple years of experience. Look them up. They're hardly difficult to find.
No its fine I was just flipping through the internet came across this convo. I have no intention of stirring up strife I'm just speaking of things I have discovered I will never get argumentative or angry everyone has the right to their opinion
JM I understand if all this kind of stuff were easy to know and understand this debate we are having just like others have had for thousands of years would not continue to exist
If what you were saying was demonstrably true or ready to prove, this debate wouldn't exist either. But it's not either one of those things.
Please do not assume, however, that the people you are speaking to have not spent years researching this stuff.
For me personally what got me looking for God was the splendor of looking up at the stars out hunting w dad when I was a kid. We shoot things a lot here in Louisiana. And when I got into college and started learning about DNA and the complexity of the human body. DNA is absolutely a motorized powered computer program so complex we cannot come close to replicating it. For me it was as simple as that all programs and machines have to be drawn up and planned and then put together. What other source created the complex universe we live in and the amazing human body but God. I just cannot even imagine all of it happening by chance. I just dont see it
You do understand, don't you, that what you just said again is the argument from ignorance and the argument from incredulity, both of which are logical fallacies?
Have you studied Evolution in depth? I somehow don't think so, if you claim that it teaches that all of this happened by chance.
All that aside, however, neither the topic of prophecy IR evolution are the topics of this forum thread.
Wow Brian, you seem quite learned on this site to have "just stumbled" you even got the lingo down. good to have you... welcome!
do you understand that the argument from ignorance is NOT a personal attack, it's a logical fallacy?
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
You can repeat what other people post all that you want, but you're still focusing on the person, attempting to level accusations. Saying that someone is using the argument from ignorance is NOT the same as saying that someone is stupid, regardless of how many times you repeat yourself, sorry.
So since we don't understand something, the logical" thing is to assert, with certainty, that Goddunnit! Sorry, but that's as absurd as Chicken Little's behavior.
A not unusual response when one begins to understand just how big and wonderful the universe is.
"I don't get it, I don't understand and don't think I ever can. Because I am ignorant of the innermost workings of the universe I will assign a God that did it all".
If you are happy using your personal ignorance as a reason to construct a God that did it all, more power to you. You should not expect others to follow that path, however.
Evolution according to Darwin himself was disproved when..let me find his quote
Lol. .. Don't strain yourself, and don't bother. I've heard that quote mined blurb before.
Again, this is not a discussion about evolution. Do some research. Take a college class on it. The apologist spin on evolution is all quote mined, false claims. All of the information is out there, and there are threads here on evolution. Perhaps you should go there.
I'm looking for his quote he said if this proves to be true then my theory does not work in essence. My main problem with Darwin the the fossil record. We just do not have but what like three skeletons that are supposed to show our evolution. Their should be tons of them showing the gap. Why haven't we found the. Darwin's fenches did not evolve they simply developed genetically helpful size to their beaks but then reverted back when they stopped breeding certain pairs. So they didn't evolve.
Can't find the one I'm looking for but Darwin himself was so amazed at the human eye he said "to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to diff. Distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems , I freely cobfess , absurd in the highest possible degree." Now that was Darwin amazed by the eye. Think if he'd known about how complex DNA is
He also said " if numerous species belonging to the same families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory" if he had known about the Cambrian Explosion in his day he would have scrapped his theory. And it still is a theory that has not been proven but I digress as as u said this is not the thread topic.
You know, don't you, that a Christian site "Answers in genesis" has a list of arguments that Christians shouldn't use. . And "evolution is just a theory" is on it. Seriously.
How can you claim to be able to discuss evolution when you don't seem to know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in scientific terms? Look up the criteria by which a hypothesis graduates to a theory, and look up the scientific definition for the word theory before you start a thread about evolution. Otherwise you're going to lose credibility and get ripped apart before you even begin.
Not meant to be condescending at all, it's relatively simple to look up a definition. I do it all the time if I'm afraid of using a word incorrectly.
If he were to start an evolution thread and start off by saying "it's an unproven theory" he would get ripped apart by atheists and Christians that know what theory means scientifically. I've seen it happen before. He's new.
I'd appreciate if you'd stop making personal comments and or assumptions about my posts. I am not interested in discussing anything personal with you, and I really don't feel like bickering over what you think my intentions were vs. What they actually were. Kthanks.
A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory. I understand this fully it does not invalidate my posts in any conceivable manner
Again my purpose is not to anger anyone. I simply am saying that the fossil record miserably fails to provide support for the theory of evolution. It is not bias when I say that the Bible predicted the fall of the Babylonian empire to the Persians then to the Greeks and finally the Romans hundereds of years in advance. This is well known in academia. We have the scrolls andiI find that amazing.
And again, this is not about evolution or supposed prophecies.
So you will take the time to prove him wrong, but not allow him to defend? Why is you like this? The guy's just sharing some debate. He's very respectful and polite... ugh... never mind.
If memory is on my side, on another thread you stated that we (an all inclusive term that generally involves the person using the word, inthis case you) should focus on the topic of discussion and not on the actions of other posters. JM has remained on the topic of discussion. If you are going to make rules please abide by the rules that you would have others follow. You have been making personal statements. Please focus on the topic of discussion, which is evolution
But you aren't. You are focusing on JM. He and JM are discussing evolution and have not made any personal comments or attacks toward one another. The only one attacking in this situation is you
My interpretation is probably off. I see one person sharing his beliefs and another person condescending, but maybe I'm off. It seems like it's acceptable for some to take any tactic they choose uncontested. I contest. Im sorry. If he was being a jerk, I can understand the tone he is receiving, but he's been very respectful. I have nothing else to add, once again, I bow to y'alls will...
JM was not being condescending at all. Once again you are focusing on what you are choosing to think. I'm not sure if its because you have a preconceived notion that just because she treats you a certain way (which is based on your past behavior as much as her sparkling personality) that she does the same thing to everyone. This is not the case. It was a respectful conversation both ways. That you want to see an attack in everything that JM, Rad, and other atheists post is more of a reflection on your choice of what you wish to see of atheist behavior than what their behavior actually is. I will admit that some of their comments do go into left field at times, but nowhere near as often as you accuse them of
And it's not about bowing to anyone's will. YOU stated that we need to stay on topic of the forums and not discuss behavior. Now YOU (who made the statement and request) are on a different thread breaking the guideline that YOUsset. I am merely reminding you of your own words. How can you sit there and make requests of anyone that you are not willing to follow yourself?
I apologize though. I have made my initial point and now this is going further. I'm done. Just don't expect anyone to do something that you aren't willing to do yourself.
The topic of discussion is treatment for God addiction, according to the title is this thread - a point that I've tried to make multiple times, but Brian and Beth seem hell bent on hijaking the thread and discussing evolution and Bible prophecy without creating a proper thread for it.
Is it even remotely possible for you to stick to the actual topic and not making personal remarks or insults? I've asked you to stop commenting about me without staying on topic.
Im not making personal attacks. Not talking about your personal life, I never have. Im just saying, he's trying to have a polite debate.
And it was polite. The only rude one was you in this case
"Why is you like this" is not a personal remark? He's trying to have a debate about biblical prophecies, which didn't work, then switched to logical fallacies and evolution, neither of which are the subject of this thread but I'm more than willing to have the discussion in a thread created for that purpose. Hijaking an unrelated thread is rude.
I therefore due to Darwin's own words and the fact that the theory of evolution is tied to the assumption that such a complex systemsuch as the eye, DNA came to be by chance. If such things were not designed then the only alternative is that they happened by chance. I just cannot see how such amazing fascitating things such as these just came from the abyss by chance. Just as a computer program is written so is the information that makes it all run e.g. DNA. It was designed by somebody. Disputing that is mere folly.
Darwin laid the groundwork for evolution. He lived over 100 years ago, before we could examine and test dna, before major scientific advances, and before the majority of the fossil record was discovered. Of course there were things that he didn't know, but that didn't mean he was wrong. It meant that we still hada long way to go. Picking a few quotes out of context from an unnamed source doesn't prove your case, I'm sorry.
You are again using the argument from ignorance, and I implore you to investigate logical fallacies before you try to enter into the realm of debate. "This appears too complex and amazing to happen by chance. I don't know any other way that it could have happened, therefore God must have done it" is the argument from ignorance. Just because you do not know how it happened and you cannot explain it does not mean that there's no explanation other than God.
Go to talkorigins.org and look up their faq page. They discuss Darwin and the fossil record in depth.
All that said, even if evolution were demonstrated false tomorrow, it doesn't mean that the only alternative is god. Disproving evolution, were it possible, would not consequently prove the Bible true.
You don't understand (you are ignorant of the exact methodology) and therefore goddunnit. A common explanation, but it has yet to produce much in the way of truth.
by Brittany Williams2 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by Claire Evans4 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which...
by pisean2823115 years ago
Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of...
by Mark Knowles6 years ago
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence....
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
For an atheist, what is his/her state of happiness based on? Do atheists have more free will? Do they have more love in their hearts? Do they have more hope in their ability to survive? Are they more sociable and...
by pisean2823115 years ago
Ok..being atheist , you dont believe in any intelligent supreme being ...my question is, you began atheist because of your observiation , experience and what role has religion played in making you atheist?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.