Why God created atheists? Isn't it his invitation to self destruction?
God created man as his image. God looks like atheist so.....
to burn atheist in hell...how would god have fun unless there are people whom he can burn in hell?...
This isn't "fun" for God...he does not want to send his most prized posessions and creations to hell. If you choose to ignore him in life then you don't have a relationship with him and he no longer owns your soul- the devil does and he can do with it what he wishes. Aka burn
Yeah, that's right, blame eternal torment on the devil! By the way, who created the devil and tempted HIM? Duh!
Oh boy, another anonymous christian troll who is so saved but scared to use it's real name when vouching for its god. what else is new?
You see, you are already judging me. This is what many christian's do right at the very start of their stint on the religious forums. Isn't there something in your rule book about this?
I promise I'm not angry at all. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but people of your religion, cult, or whatever you call it, arrive on these forums quite frequently. Most begin as you have. They all are going to prove Jesus is real. So far, none have succeeded. Give your opinion, but state it as such.
Welcome to HubPages. Write a hub.
You are judging just as much though...I am only stating the obvious due to how rude that comment was. If you did not intend it to be rude then that's fine. Also, I am not trying to prove Jesus is real just trying to help anyone who doesn't have him in their life.
Btw I am not perfect by any means just stating my opinion and don't appreciate the lack of respect. Besides the fact I do not putmy name out on the Internet because I don't feel comfortable. Have a convo face to face with me and Ill proclaim... Again not trying to cause argument here at all just stating my opinion.
Yes but, doesn't Jesus watch over you? When you spread the good word aren't you supposed to do it proudly, without fear of being scorned or ridiculed?
"Doest thou walketh the walk, as well as talketh the talk?"
I'd rather not get raped. In today's society you just cannot do some things. Idc what you believe dude I was just stating my opinion/ trying to help u see the light...have a good one
A good reason to only preach behind the scenes. When you post with such anonymity you could be a rapist yourself and no one would be the wiser. Therefore, your words are merely empty rhetoric from an unidentifed person of no known reputation. Just sayin'.
It was Satan that tempted Christ, not the other way around. Lets not forget, Satan "was" an angel, but he fell from grace when his greed and lust for power took him over. Two 'desires' he has until this very day. He himself wanted to become the all powerful God...and when he could not, he made it his mission to torture the children of the one true God and "tempt" them into sinning against Christ ever since. Using greed, money, and any other low down tool available to him. Christ never tempted the evil one...The bible is quiet clear on this for those that choose to read and learn.
"Satan" and "Christ" and "Salvation" and "Forgiveness" are all metaphors for what goes on in your mind, kathy. As such, they are individual to yourself. You and I will never know their exact meaning to any other individual.
In other words, deal with your own stuff, yourself, and simply warm to others doing the same. This is where the "unconditional love" comes in.
I've read the bible. Funny enough, the story of "satan's fall" isn't in it. It's jewish mysticism. Nevermind the fact that the jews don't believe in a "devil" the same way that christians do. In the old testament, "satan" is not the enemy of god - he's the adversary. Adversary is NOT the same thing as an enemy. The jews also didn't believe in a hell - or a heaven. those were invented when jesus showed up.
If I remember correctly, it is God who makes the final decision on who goes to heaven or hell. It seems to me that if he truely wants to be believed in, he should show up and make himself known. Furthermore, his book (Bible) should be written by him and not a bunch of imperfect people.
If there is a god, I think there are some serious errors in his philosophies.
Tim, I fervently agree with you. If there is a god, and he is inherently wise to the point of being omniscient, you'd think he'd be a little bit smarter. What kind of intelligent being would create something BEFORE you created it's food? Who would rationally set up a system by which their "enemy" wins by default?
if the biblical model is true, then
1) god created human beings
2) god damned human beings
3) god created hell specifically for his enemy - you know the enemy that wanders into heaven on a whim and bets god about torturing and plaguing one of his most faithful subjects.
4) god damns human beings to the hell he created for satan.
To go to hell, all a human being has to do is NOT believe. It's the default position. No one is "born" christian. You have to be taught. In order to be "saved" you have to actively believe in this supreme being, worship him and follow his laws. The devil wins by default and if a human being maintains the default position, they are punished eternally for finite crimes. while many religions have a "hell", only the christian one is eternal for everyone who refuses to believe. That concept is immoral to an extreme. The bible says that god is merciful and he wants everyone to be saved, but he is unwilling or unable to simply prove that he exists. That doesn't seem very wise to me.
Thanks… I assume that in #3, you are referring to Job. If so, I have comments to make on that one someday. Perhaps a hub… I am not sure that I would want to be affiliated with a god whose allows all those terrible things to happen to his most faithful person, on a bet with his enemy.
If I was god, and created the devil, I believe I would just snuff him out and be done with it. We are supposed to make the choice to love god on our own. Yet, he makes it damn near impossible to do it. The Bible even says we are supposed to fear him. Furthermore, he is so self-centered that he will put us in hell if we do not believe his son is our messiah. How the hell (no pun intended) am I supposed to love that.
I guess we will find out for sure when the world ends in a few days…
The story of Job is horrific to say the least. How anyone can read the bible as literal truth and not find moral objections with god's "i dare you" approach to inflicting horrible suffering on someone he claims to LOVE only to prove a point is insane to me.
If I was a god and i knew everything - including what would happen BEFORE it happened, I wouldn't have created the devil at all. Nevermind the fact that the devil in the old testament is VASTLY different than the devil in the new - although god is vastly different too, and he supposedly doesn't change. The bottom line is that god needs the devil. Without him, his "creation" would have no need for him. The god of the bible is an egotistical, maniacle totalitarian mob-boss. It's like saying that a member of the mafia went to your business and said that they'd shoot you if you didn't pay them a certain sum of money every month, then accuse you of committing suicide if you choose not to comply. The god of the bible is not worthy of worship or adoration, and I dare say that if I find out after my death (or after the world ends in a couple weeks) that god is actually real, I would STILL refuse to worship him. heaven sounds rather dull, anyway and I'm not much of a singer.
Every good story needs a hero and an enemy. We are supposed to be given something to fight against. People rally together when they have a common enemy.
The bible was written with this intent.
If anything it is us who must rally against the tyranny, oppressive rule, and torture of God.
I would like to offer my alternate perspective here which I feel addresses this pretty well. It’s apparent that human behavior is a major theme throughout the bible, starting with Adam/Eve forward. Everything in existence, according to the creation account, animate or inanimate, behaves according to God’s will.
The way I see it, if the natural world is God’s creation and it’s behaving according to His will, then studying nature offers insight into how He works. The best analogy I can think of to compare how I see the whole behavior aspect of the bible is by comparing to how multi-celled organisms work. In this analogy God is like the body’s DNA, the authority as far as having the ‘knowledge’, or experience, to ‘know’ how everything in the body must behave to function properly. Existence, or the universe, is the body. We are like cells in that body. We only live a short time, unlike the DNA which has been honed through numerous generations.
Now, if everything in existence conforms to the one unchanging, consistent will of God, then it behaves as designed and does what it’s supposed to. Just as the natural world maintains a delicate balance. Adam was the first being able to behave contrary to God’s will. For the first time there was a second ‘will’ at work in existence. An alternate will that’s not consistent with God’s. A second source capable of creation. We, as free-willed (theological free will) beings are able to create actions and behaviors that are not ‘of God’ that are then part of existence as well.
In the DNA/cell analogy you can maybe see how this ability to behave outside of God’s will could be detrimental. Imagine each cell in your body could decide for itself how to behave. Not having the DNA’s ‘wisdom’ honed through numerous generations of how the body works best, it’s highly likely that cells able to behave contrary to what the DNA code dictates would be dangerous. They would be potentially cancerous. If cells began to live longer than they were meant to, or behave contrary to what they’re supposed to do, then they could potentially be cancerous, ultimately endangering the body as a whole. Like if all the cells in your hand decided they didn’t want to just be a normal hand anymore, but instead they wanted to be twice as large. They wouldn’t have the proper perspective and knowledge to know that being a hand twice the size as usual robs the body of resources needed elsewhere and throws off the balance needed to maintain proper functionality.
In my mind, God ultimately had 3 options: No existence, Existence with everyone/everything behaving exactly according to His will, or existence that includes beings with their own minds and their own individual wills. But, existence only really works right if those with the choice to do so choose to conform to the creator/authority. Rather than being the default state, now it’s a choice. You can have the choice, you can have your own mind and make your own decisions, but if you’re going to be a part of existence you have to choose to respect and conform to the authority. It’s not God being mean, it’s not pride or the need to be worshipped, it’s just simply necessary.
And then there is the UU belief that everyone is saved if they choose some spiritual path that leads them to love, and therefore to a connection with the divine. in that connection, we respect others' spiritual paths. If we unite in love, evil does not have a fighting chance to take over our world. All this bickering over specific religious tenets keeps us divided...and thus not united. :0(
God gave humans the gift of free will...for better or worse. That complicates our lives to some degree. We can make good or bad choices, and God is a patent parent who lovingly watches us learn as a result of the "consequences" of our choices. We can learn from each other, but if we try to coerce each other, we are not behaving in a way that encourages others to reach out for a relationship with God.....but God, and Jesus for Him, asked us to be healers for each other so that we will know Him better.
Giving humans free will was one of the most creative acts of God. That means He wills us to be ourselves, and enjoys weeing the different ways we can invent to make our lives and the lives of many others better, and how we can find ways to be kind to one another...to beat odds...like David stoning Goliath. If we unite, we can be the stones that knock out all of the goliaths in this world...but we have to rise above petty differences and work together...and respect each other's spirituality...that part of us that inspires us to do/be good, no mater what our which form of the divine we have a relationship with.
God did not give us free will in order to coerce us into a certain set of beliefs. He created us as individuals, with our own minds to reason out what we believe in. We do also have the propensity for faith...and that is divine, and that often leads people to endure lots of torment for the sake of doing what is right, and protecting others.
Please forgive the typos, it is harder to see the smaller print in the composing boxes than it is to see the finished product, so i missed a few of the "misspellings" and "miswordings" in my message.
As an atheist i tend to think if I died and were to stand before God.. would he say.
"You used the intelligence, and the gifts that I gave you. You meant well and you helped those around you. Thank you for trying to leave the world in a better place than where it started"
Or would he say.
"you did not give enough money to the church, You did recruit enough believers into my church, you did not hate and despise those who you were told to hate and despise and you let the world wither into immorality and sin. You should have stopped the gays and lesbians from marrying, you should have stopped anyone trying to get an abortion and you should have made it illegal for anyone to get one."
Personally, the second one is petty. Its not about money, is not about converting others, its not about hating gays, and its not about dictating the lives of others. This is why I am an atheist, because no god is so petty, no god would involve himself so deeply in the politics of humans.
I have no capacity at all for faith, which is why i could not believe in god if I wanted to.
I find that to be a very weak analogy frankly.
Mutation in cells also leads to evolution, in this case social evolution which is desperately needed.
These rules and laws you state we should abide by, these are morals which are determined through society's evolution. Not killing isn't wrong because "God said so" its wrong because it removes a member of society who could otherwise contribute to the whole.
Nature itself is self balancing. A lame or in your analogy "imbalanced" body would die or adapt. Welcome back to evolution.
Your analogy also seems contradictory to the existence of free will. DNA is a very specific thing. It replicates itself perfectly (or tries) and is predictable (we know the four chemicals that make up the main part of the DNA)
If we all adhered to this "DNA" There would be no free will just as the cells in my fingernail have no will or the cuticles in my scalp. But then again, religion has been used often as a tool for control.
Another point along this same argument is cells are unthinking and do not have morals. Therefor when killing a cancerous cell there is no remorse or reason to not do it. It is just a biological function.
Would you say its alright for the body to kill cancer, or fight cancer as it would in your analogy. Through murder, or perhaps, genocide? I dont even know how many crusades there were against the pagans and non christians but because they are doing gods will, cleansing the cancer from the "DNA" it is okay what they did through your analogy and reasoning.
Lastly, Bodies naturally contain backteria. You and I both have more bacteria and foreign cells in our body that we have of our own. Its natural and our bodies continue to work and function fully. It is because of this foreign bacteria and cells that we CAN function, it is necessary.
Exactly, "a lame or 'imbalanced' body would die or adapt". The analogy has to do with the perspective of a willful creature. The DNA is the blueprint for a successfully functioning body. In this way it is the authority as far as what cell behavior is beneficial to the body and serves the body's collective needs as one whole organism. Without the DNA the cell would have no way of knowing what behavior previous generations employed to survive. If cell behavior were to be 'decided' by each individual cell, with each cell only having the experience of a few days of life, and each deciding what to impart going forward to future generations of cells how to behave, and each subsequent generation having the choice of whether or not to follow the behaviors passed on, before long the body could be in serious danger. It's not so much about conforming to determined behavior, thus relinquishing free will. This analogy more has to do with conveying an understanding of just how dangerous and volatile the capability of freely choosing behavior can be in such a balanced environment without the wisdom of knowing/understanding the full extent of the impact of our actions.
For example, the crusades you mentioned. That's the equivalent of the cells in your body disagreeing about what the DNA says. Some decide they know better than others how those others should be behaving, then begin to take matters into their own hands and destroy other parts of the body they deem 'harmful'. Like you said about murder, they'd be removing members of their own 'society' not knowing the full extent of the effects of their actions.
Think about how a company works, or an army. It's a collective effort made up of numerous individuals, but there's a definite chain of command. There must be a consensus among all members of that company/army of who the authority is. Where the buck stops. Who has the final say. That doesn't mean individuals can't freely choose what they do, because individual creative input also contributes. But for the collective effort to be efficient and effective, you can't have a bunch of different but equal authorities. There must be a chain of command for a collective effort to truly work. A single authority, or an agreed upon mission statement, that all adhere to to realize the desired outcome as a collective whole.
I can't answer your question from a religious standpoint but in essence, Atheists choose to believe in no god for their own reasons whether it be the advancements in science that got them or by other means. Evidently your attempting to address fellow men and women with religion and well I figured i'd intervene anyway. If god existed why would he give us free will knowing we'd choose atheism and thus knowing he'd burn us in hell. In that sense he created atheism simply to send men and women to an eternity in hell why? well i believe that answer would fall under that stupid saying "it's all part of god's plan". As an atheist, I'll happily spend an eternity in hell if i'm proven wrong. Luckily there is very little chance i chose the wrong path.
Hello Fellow Atheist! Hell, our nervous system will no longer be working, so we won't feel the flames....hehe wanna go to hell with me in a hand-basket? I'll save ya a spot!
You are presuming that God created you to be an atheist, which is incorrect, God created you to be His child, obviously you, to date, have chosen to ignore His wishes to spend eternity with you and elected to spend eternity without God, this is your choice, not what you were created for, but what you chose to become: separated from God.
We cannot blame God for our own choices.
You are presuming that there is a God, which is incorrect.
What happens to the atheists agua? Is it something bad? Did something bad happen to Ernest? Will something bad happen to me?
As you speak for god. Of course - you might not know what god you speak for.
Just as likely.............................
Except that using true reason does not lead you to believe there is no God. When you consider ...
- there is only one known planet in all the universe that can even sustain life as we know it
- only one that retains a breathable, yet totally transparent, atmosphere achieved through a delicate balance of temperature/pressure, distance from the sun, size of the planet, living organisms, etc.
- only one planet that not only can sustain life but has the environment and resources to sustain the lives of billions of humans and however many billions/trillions of organisms that came before and still live today
- one planet that also happens to have a moon made of light colored rock that actually reflects the sun's light enough to provide light when the sun is not visible, while simultaneously serving other necessary purposes
- the incalculable odds of all the different interactions between totally unrelated entities to realize life as we know it (changes in the sun throughout earth's formation and how it aided changes in the earth's atmosphere, the moon's effects on the tides, mass extinction events that cleared the way for the next big wave of species, movement of all of the earth's land mass thousands of miles helping achieve both the atmosphere land life would need through the plant life forming on that land as well as finding a final position between the poles just in time for life to emerge that played a significant role in the internal clocks of every living organism, etc.)
- the conscious human mind emerging from the life that formed on this planet
- the delicate balance that allows us to still be here (stable climate, water cycle, fertile soil, living creatures perpetually refreshing the atmosphere, the circle of life in general, etc.)
- all matter as we know it beginning as a singularity smaller than the smallest part of an atom, exploding out and creating the universe as we know it through its interplay with already established natural laws leading to this planet and eventually us.
Justifying all of this to yourself as nothing more than cause and effect is the equivalent of believing you setting of a box of fireworks spawned conscious life for a brief nano-second that evolved and developed in just one of those burning sparks that actually became aware of itself and began arguing whether or not there was someone or something that set their existence into motion just before that spark fizzled out and disappeared forever.
This is not a reasonable explanation and I'm sorry to say God will not accept it as such...
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Humans nowadays have even less excuse. We've only figured out the universe actually does have a beginning, or at least a beginning point, in the past 90 years just like Genesis says. We've only known the universe came first just like Genesis says and that the earth isn't actually the center of the universe for about 400 years. We've only known all life evolved just as described in Genesis and in the same order in the past century or so. We've only known the oceans actually did come first like described in Genesis for a handful of decades. As I'm sure you know by now, I could go on and on.
Not defaulting to 'God-dun-it' as you like to put it is a necessity for science and is how we've learned as much as we have, which now gives us more insight into God's nature than what was ever before possible. A 'naturalist' or even 'materialist' mindset aides in scientific discovery a great deal.
However, making any sort of existential conclusions with absolute certainty through science alone is chosen ignorance. It leaves way too much relevant stuff out. We don't understand life, not physical beings but life itself. We don't understand the will that drives life. We don't understand death or what happens when we die, other than there's no escaping it. We barely understand the conscious human mind and still cannot detect it in any way scientifically.
Saying with certainty that God does not exist is the equivalent of a cop standing in front of a pile of bloody remains in the form of stuff we still have no idea about and saying 'there's nothing to see here'.
If you're making claims of absolute certainty before science or anything else adequately explains all of that still-as-of-yet-unexplained-but-very-much-relevant stuff based on science alone, then you're choosing to put your faith in science that we will ultimately understand all of that as well through its methods. It takes faith because it is highly unlikely that we will be realizing any sort of scientifically testable explanation in either or our lifetimes. Faith strong enough for you to dismiss the first 8/10's of reasoning/thinking humanity as ignorant Bronze Age people whose belief in God as invented elaborate stories to explain the unexplainable. Not to mention half of the current world's population.
The biggest lesson to be learned through our current level of scientific knowledge is that there's still a lot about life and this universe we have to learn. Determining there is no God because there is no evidence of God is not a conclusion you reach through reason because no one truly reasonable would exclude what can't be proven because the very mind they use to reason with can't be proven. One offers a totally reasonable explanation to ALL of existence while the other excludes half of it and requires the suspension of disbelief long enough to convince yourself that we're the product of a series of incalculable coincidences.
Sorry you didn't understand.
Allow me to explain in simple terms. The biggest lesson learned through scientific knowledge is that majik does not exist, but - by your own twisted logic, you are stating that YOU KNOW WITH CERTAINTY something, but say this is illogical?
Check these stats dude:
If a god exists (which I do not accept), but - IF a god could exist, there must be an infinite number of possible gods - right?
Therefore, the chance of it being YOUR GOD:
Lousy odds Mr Noggin. Maybe god burns believers for believing with no reason. If there is one. Infinity:1
No wonder your religion causes so many fights
As you should know very well by now I'm talking about just one God. Just one God described distinctly in one document that I can illustrate not only matches up with known science and history, but I can use that ONE God and that ONE document to give ONE explanation that explains all we know through science, all we know through history around the dawn of civilization, and everything about the conscious mind and life as well. One explanation that covers it all. Yours leaves out half of that.
The argument you're trying to use doesn't fly here.
And your arguments are completely meaningless regardless of what you can do with a book and matching it up with science. Why?
(a) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be understood.
(b) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be lived.
So you deem everything I'm saying 'meaningless' based on statements neither you nor anyone else in the world is qualified to make?
We don't understand what life even is. Here, let me give you an example...
Every living creature has a will to survive and procreate. We have absolutely no scientifically verifiable explanation for this will, yet it's just as vital to the evolution of life as the existence of gravity is to the formation of he universe.
An animal in danger will fight or flee just as certainly as an object dropped will fall to the ground. You can't simply die just because you really, really want to. You can't choose to stop breathing because your body will force you to. To take your own life you have to take action to physically kill the body, and the body will fight you.
We can't explain where this comes from but there's no denying that without it none of us would be here. Genesis directly describes God instilling this will into every living thing. Again that same 3000 year old document has an explanation that modern knowledge and understanding has yet to match.
And until we understand life and this will to live and death, no one is qualified to make the statements you're making here with such certainty.
Just because you say I'm not qualified doesn't actually make it so. But, then again, I don't require your acceptance nor do I require anything else from you. I deemed your continued spewing of long absurd posts irrelevant due to the fact of the two statement which I said.
Making foolish statements like this is no wonder why things haven't moved at a higher rate of speed. If it wasn't chosen ignorance(as I have written about), then this world wouldn't be as half as bad as it is.
Secondly, I am sure you will spew out some more nonsense which will not be worthy of a response. If you think life is no confusing and complex, then apparently you have two problems (a) your ego is in your way and (b) you're choosing to be ignorant about your own life and falsely perpetuating a lie some other idiot has told you, which shows you hold no moral values, as you are supposedly guided by the irrelevant book you claim to have studied and read and lined up with science.
Good for you. I hope you're truly proud of yourself. You show off the exact reason for the sad state of things in this world.
Then give me the explanation for the will that drives all life. Explain it to me. Help me understand. I've read on the topic for years and have not found an explanation. Perhaps I missed it. You seem to think we have life nailed down. Please share.
It is what it is. It's not fair. Life is like a box of chocolates. We are here for a good time, not a long time, so have a good time, the sun can't shine everyday. We come, we stay we go.
Yes, specifically the will engrained in every living thing to survive and procreate. The engine that drives evolution. Life is hard. Yet each and everyday every living thing makes willful actions that keep them alive and keep their species alive. Explain that. Where does that come from?
It is by definition, life. Life is where it comes from.
Okay, so if we're now able to make absolutely certain proclamations about life, as Cagsil did above, then you should be able to define life for me using scientifically gathered evidence. If so, please do. We don't just say gravity is gravity. We defined it and have since learned a lot by doing so. If we've done the same with life then I would very much like to know about that.
It is not possible to fully define life, but this is a good start culled from Wikipedia.
"Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means. A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information."
We understand life at least as well as we understand gravity. Or does gravity need goddunnit as well?
You're just explaining the physical form. What the body is capable of. And yes, the physical body can do all kinds of things to keep itself alive in various conditions and climates. But that still doesn't explain the actions taken by every living thing, including you and me, to survive and procreate that's so absolute that life exists today as we know it. Your body will try to fight to live even if you're trying to consciously and willfully take your own life. Just try to hold your breath. Eventually your body will force you to breathe. What is that? Where does that come from?
We can take what we know about gravity, it's definition and parameters, and actually build models of how matter interacts with it. If we've defined this will that drives life then we should be able to do the same and build models to determine outcomes that haven't happened yet. If we can't then life lacks definition.
Everything does not have that drive. Ants will drown themselves to construct a bridge. Bee's will sting and die to protect the hive. That worker bee will never procreate and will die to protect the hive. I know some people who don't want kids and I know some people who have committed suicide. So watch what you say when you say everything.
Simply put, evolution eliminates those humans without that drive by not selecting them for procreation and not passing on those genes. Evolution is a marvellous thing. It explains everything.
So in other words some living things take willful action so that the many can survive over the individual. Nothing new there. Still a will to survive and propagate the species.
As for suicide, I don't mean to hurt feelings, but suicide takes a willful, conscious action to kill the body which does not want to die. It will try to live through it. Will try to heal.
That survival instinct/will to live has to be there for evolution to even work. Nothing alive today would be here if any of the links in that chain all the way back to the beginning lacked this will. It must be there, like gravity. So you're saying this will is tied to DNA? It's a trait passed on genetically? Have we defined it in this way? Or is that an assumption?
You constantly change the argument.
When I show you not everything want to survive and procreate, you change it to the species want to survive.
When I show you people how kill themselves don't want to survive, you disconnect the body and mind as if they were not the same.
You however are correct in that nothing would be alive if something at sometime did not have that will. However out of thousands of mistakes it only take a few with this will to week out the ones that don't. Evolution is a marvellous thing. You don't need a God done it here because we already have an explanation. Keep you God done it for thing you don't understand.
But isn't he looking to prove (or for you to prove) that God did NOT do it?
Something caused that reactive instinct to develop, or did it just spontaneously come about?
How are we born knowing that we need to breath, after spending nine months suspended in fluid?
Evolution my friend. I explained it to the best of my ability with a limited amount of time. Perhaps instead of waiting for someone to say "I don't know" and jumping in the "God did it" you guys could look for the answers yourself. Religion and belief were not alway connected, but when they are the believer looses his past and future. Look for answers that don't include "God did it".
And that would be what I call stupidity in motion. There's no rhyme or reason to think a G/god did it to begin with.
Oh, are you now showing us that you're not educated in this area? I already stated how the instinct comes. If you want to, yes it was spontaneous, but also part of the process of being conscious/sentient individuals. Once a human organism has consciousness on any level the basic instinct is to survive.
WOW! Talk about a pathetic question.
I am not changing an argument. I'm having a discussion about something I don't agree with and why. To learn. To better understand. Other people know things I don't. Here's what I know and understand and why. If you have something that conflicts I want to know. If I'm wrong I want to know.
My idea of existence stays consistent up and down the board. An individual will to live or make willful decisions so that others in a colony can live are still willful decisions to survive. I didn't change anything. You simply addressed as part of your argument examples of living things that make willful choices to die. That goes towards a meta-will versus free will, which we've also discussed. Without those actions, for the self and for others, many things would not be here today.
I agree, evolution is a marvelous thing. And you agree that that will is essential to evolution. Unless you have proof then your assertion that it's genetically passed on is an assumption, and not something that can be used to make proclamations stated as fact. If we do not have an explanation beyond assumption then there's at least one component to life that's absolutely vital to it being what it is that we do not clearly understand.
Yes, I do have proof. But if you don't mind in an effort to be quick I'll need a little help from Wikipedia. Please don't confuse the consciousness with the mind. Conscious only means to be aware. When one is asleep they are unconscious. That being said:
Breathing is one of the few bodily functions which, within limits, can be controlled both consciously and unconsciously.
Conscious control of breathing is common in many forms of meditation, specifically forms of yoga for example pranayama unlike anapana which is only awareness of breath. In swimming, cardio fitness, speech or vocal training, one learns to discipline one's breathing, initially consciously but later sub-consciously, for purposes other than life support. Human speech is also dependent on conscious breath control. Also breathing control is used in Buteyko method.
Unconsciously, breathing is controlled by specialized centers in the brainstem, which automatically regulate the rate and depth of breathing depending on the body’s needs at any time. When carbon dioxide levels increase in the blood, it reacts with the water in blood, producing carbonic acid. Lactic acid produced by anaerobic respiration during exercise also lowers pH. The drop in the blood's pH stimulates chemoreceptors in the carotid and aortic bodies as well as those inside the respiratory center in the medulla oblongata. Chemoreceptors send more nerve impulses to the respiration centre in the medulla oblongata and pons in the brain. These, in turn send nerve impulses through the phrenic and thoracic nerves to the diaphragm.
Breathing is a product of the brain and the brain is a product of DNA so Breathing is a product of DNA.
Don't change the rules on me again. If you say you are in search for knowledge and here you are given knowledge, so don't dismiss it.
We are mixing up two different conversations here. I appreciate you supplying this information, but I know this stuff already. That's part of what I'm trying to get at in this discussion. Obviously, there is an engrained will that goes beyond our conscious mind that wants to live. A will that will override your conscious mind if it needs to to live. I'm asking where that comes from. We can't deny that is there. We can't deny it's a vital part of life and the evolution of life. And we cannot prove through any sort of verifiable/observable way where/how/when/why this came about.
That's my whole point here in this particular discussion. There are things about life we do not yet know or understand. So to make any sort of claim about life as absolute fact when there is still things we do not yet understand is premature. That's what I'm trying to get at.
You're referring to another discussion where we were discussing the differences between humans and animals. Everything you listed here we have in common with animals. The discussion is getting derailed by confusion over one word. Every vertebrate has consciousness of some sort. My dog is conscious. My dog has a will. My dog will fight to survive if he needs to. My dog will try to procreate, sometimes whether it's appropriate or not. This is not what we're discussing.
In that particular conversation we were talking about the difference between the humans that populated the planet and lived very much unchanged lifestyles for hundreds of thousands of years and those humans in Mesopotamia starting about 7000 years ago that completely changed forever how humans exist on this planet. That is a discussion that goes well beyond the conscious mind. Maybe I confused things by referring to the mind as 'consciousness'. You take that to mean nothing more than conscious. I mean the mind in general and maybe should have said so more clearly.
Okay, I'm aware that that was a different conversation. But I just showed you why we breath without thinking about it. Did you not get that. It's a function of the brain, which is a product of DNA. I and most do understand this. It's not a mystery.
On another note, dogs are not consciously aware as we are.
"It's a function of the brain"
"...which is a product of DNA."
But to go from that to making the leap that the will in and of itself is a product of DNA is inference. Can you tell me what DNA marker is associated with the will to live? Or are you assuming they must be intertwined? Because for life to be here that will had to be there from the very beginning. Before DNA even.
I understand your logic, but am trying to point out that you're still making an assumption here. The will to live appears to be just as absolute as the natural laws. Every living thing today represents an unbroken chain from now all the way back to the primordial soup. If it were genetic as you're suggesting then presumably something could be born without a will to live. A lack of a will to live could be a defect like any other genetic defect.
Exactly, a still born baby perhaps may have had a genetic defect that prevented it from breathing involuntarily.
I've showed you that breathing is both voluntary and involuntary and when involuntary gives us what you perceive as the will to live. This involuntary breathing is a product of the brain, and the brain is a product of our DNA. A error in the DNA could manifest it's self as not being able to breath involuntarily. I am not making any assumptions. There is nothing mysterious about breathing. For proof you need to look no further than a brain dead person that needs a ventilator to breath.
Right, it's the product of the brain, which is a product of DNA ... which is the product of what? What propelled life from the very beginning to actually live? To procreate? Single-celled organisms didn't just live, they made offspring, from the very beginning and still going after 3.5 billion years. Life just couldn't be stopped.
Throughout the tumultuous changes along the way life just kept coming. Life actually made the atmosphere that we generations later still breathe. Life was so driven that it continued to live/procreate throughout every condition thrown at it, including new conditions created by other life doing the same, so that we today still process the air made by other living things. Survive eating other living things. Even our waste continues the process as other forms of life evolved to live off of it.
"Live"(short 'i') had to be the default state of all things. Like gravity. Absolute. An unseen law that dictates life must live. Live and procreate, because both had to happen throughout each unbroken chain.
Is another unseen law, another natural law, out of the question? The physical world adheres to a host of unseen laws. Does that not sound more reasonable than pure chance through randomness?
OMG, how many times do I need to explain everything to you? You can fool the less smart with this but not anyone at or above average intelligence. As I said evolution weeded out the errors. And evolution selected the (what you call) will to survive. I think you do understand this, but you are looking for something else.
What you're overlooking is that without this there would be no evolution. I understand what you're saying. An infinite number of random mutations, something's gotta stick. So according to you one of the first things that had to incorporate into the DNA in any living, still existing, chain is a genetic program to willfully live and procreate? Because that's the only alternative.
Only the whatever percentage of first generation organisms that formed in the primordial pool that included this genetically programmed behavior right from the beginning would be the basis of every living thing today as every single link in the 3.5 million year chain must follow suit without fail at least through the age or procreation.
It had to have happened like that or the sheer randomness would mean killing the chain as without this will the biological matter would not do anything to sustain life from birth. A 'hungry' gene and a let's call it 'randy' gene would have to have been incorporated from generation one.
Do you not see what I'm getting at? Either way this will is absolute. The means in which you're describing how this came about is based on speculative conjecture formed around what we currently know. It's a theory. What I'm suggesting works right along with what we currently know as well. An alternate theory. Same evidence. Same outcome. There's nothing to say one is more likely than the other.
The fact is evolution would not have happened without this natural tendency. Willful action to feed a need that allows life to continue was paramount in evolution's success. Hunger. Sleep. Breathing. Peeing. Healing. Pheromones.
Or maybe it was a want to do what's pleasurable or pleasing. But then what makes pleasurable practices pleasurable? What is pleasure? Why did life evolve so that pleasure and survival became synonymous? The goal was to keep living and perpetuate life. But it wasn't an individual goal of each individual creature. Even given the timeline we're talking about here, the random mutation thing takes a larger leap in logic than simply acknowledging a natural law for what it is, whether you assign it's establishment to God or not.
I do see what you're getting at but what you're getting at is your agenda. You are ignoring facts because you want to believe in fantasy. Your belief is getting in the way, you ignore the past and the future because you want to justify a belief.
Whatever you feel my motives are is irrelevant. I'm not basing what I'm saying on the presupposition that there is a God. I'm making logical assertions based on observations. What facts exactly does my view conflict with that makes you think I'm ignoring them?
Or better yet, just explain to me the pleasure aspect using your view. Explain how activities that are beneficial to survival and procreation are each pleasurable as well. Explain what pleasure even is and how it was established as a feeling that is 'good' to an organism. And what level of consciousness must first be achieved so that behavior that feels good or causes pleasure is willfully pursued?
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, certain factors have to be in place for this to work that are being ignored here. Living had to be a motivator before the evolution of other motivations could even come about. What am I ignoring that offers a better explanation?
No, this is where you starting changing the discussion. If you can't see how pleasure or pain evolved and you seem like an intelligent person who know perfectly well how to use google then I'm done. I've showed you how we breath consciously and unconsciously and how it evolved and know you're talking about pleasure, which is much more simple to understand from a evolutionary process. Your just fishing for your agenda. God does not need to be involved in evolution.
This is the same discussion. Your explanation about breathing made it clear you missed the point I was making, so I tried another approach to get at what I'm trying to get at.
I'm simply trying to illustrate that without a driving force none of this works. Without a will to live life wouldn't be here. Could the universe have formed if gravity developed somewhere along the way? Organic matter without the propulsion of survival behind it would be static. Not 99.99% static with .01% randomly becoming active. It's all or it's nothing.
Just as gravity is always proportionate to mass, just as electricity will always go to ground, there must be a rule it follows. A default state. Everything in known existence adheres to rules. Why do we assume life is the one and only exception?
We see it in action at every level of life just as we can observe and then learn from the other physical laws. Why are we so resistant to simply acknowledge that life has absolute rules or laws as well? It all came from the same place. It's all part of the same existence, made of the same elements. Accepting or even acknowledging the possibility doesn't mean you have to accept God as well.
We still do not know how life began. We know the elements. We're figuring out how RNA may have first come about. At least partially. We have a rough idea. But we still don't know what sparked life into being initially. There are too many unknowns and unanswered questions here for anyone to be proclaiming with certainty that this is absolutely wrong and the other way is right. How do you know?
I didn't miss any points. I answered every question you had. I showed you where and when we got the will to survive and you say I'm missing the point and start taking about something different. You want to say we don't have all the answers, so God done it. We don't have all the answers, but the more we learn the more it points to not being divine intervention. A few hundred years ago you would be telling me the world is flat and everything in the sky revolves around the sun.
Actually, the more we learn the more we find out it's just as it was described in Genesis thousands of years ago. 90 years ago you would be telling me the universe is infinite and ever-present. We've only known for a handful of decades that oceans did actually come first, then land later.
According to Genesis ...
- Water Cycle
- Plant life on land
- Organisms on land
The more we learn the more we realize it's right. Most of this we've only learned in the past century or less. So, is it that God does exist? Is it coincidence? A time traveling Bronze Age fiction writer?
Besides, what would scientific proof of God look like exactly? Giant disembodied arms floating in space forming planets like balls of clay? Using what we've learned through the natural sciences, which only deal with physical matter, to determine whether or not God exists is like trying to do a tune-up on your car with a set of screwdrivers.
Actually I'll still tell you the universe is infinite. We can only see so far out and we don't know what's beyond what we can't see. And you are lying about Genesis. It's wrong and you know it. Do you think God made Dinosaurs and livestock at the same time? The moon and the sun were not described properly and that is just for starters. You are either lying to me or lying to yourself. I don't think I'm the first person to tell you this. Do you think God knows your lying?
Notice how you once again change the subject.
I continued on a thought you brought up. It was in direct response to your comment. Why do you keep saying I'm changing the subject? Conversations are dynamic things and they go all over the place. We're talking about existence, which includes everything, so the possibilities are endless.
And I'm not lying. I wrote a whole hub on the topic. Genesis is accurate. What you and everybody else miss is that verse two specifically says God's spirit was on the surface, setting the point of view from that point on. Genesis accurately describes the formation of the earth in the correct chronological order and manages to do so from a surface of the earth perspective.
The sun, for example, has always been counted as part of 'the heavens' by EVERYBODY. The sun, the moon, and the stars equal 'the heavens'. They were created day 1. Or do you think they were talking about the empty space in between? Because right after that, in verse 3, God says 'let there be light'. It doesn't say He 'created' light, just 'let there be ...'. If not from the sun then what light was He talking about? Light as a concept? Even bronze age humans understood the sun provided light.
The verse that confuses everyone is during the 'day 4' portion when it says God 'made' the sun/moon/stars. Obviously, based on the context of the rest of the chapter, they were already made. In day 4, they're addressed specifically. They were positioned in the sky to serve a specific purpose; to track days and years and to be used for signs and for seasons. This comes right between plant life on land and animal life on land.
There are two things that happened between plant life and animal life that would both make the sun/moon/stars visible from the surface AND would position them in the sky to serve the purpose specifically stated for anyone standing on land....
1) the emergence of plant life on land brought plants in direct contact with the air, making what they do naturally already quicker and more efficient. Before this the earth's atmosphere was translucent. You wouldn't be able to make out the sun or the moon and definitely not the stars. During this period is when the atmosphere changed from translucent to transparent.
2) between plant life on land and animals on land the entirety of the earth's land mass moved thousands of miles. 550 mya, around the time of the Cambrian explosion, most of earth's land mass was under the planet situated around the south pole. For anyone standing on the land days would last 6 months, the moon would be visible about half of each month, and the stars in the night sky would just pivot. By the time vertebrates first showed up on land about 350 mya, all the earth's continents had worked their way back up between the poles, which is a good thing or else our biological clocks would be jacked!
Perspective and context is important. Also, dinosaurs were day 5, livestsock day 6. The way you can tell is the creation of birds on day 5. It's always assumed day 5 was ocean life, but notice it says (again, from the surface) 'Come forth FROM the waters'. We know birds didn't stay in the water, so why would they be the only creatures 'brought forth from the waters' that didn't stay in the waters? Even now we make a distinction between reptiles/birds (sauropsids) and mammals (synapsids).
What would be the point of lying? To be right? I believe this stuff. I base my worldview on it. Why on earth would I lie? What would I have to gain by convincing you or anyone else by lying?
Ha ha ha ha.
1. God made heaven & earth.
2. God made light and darkness, called light Day and darkness Night and called them one day.
3. God made firmament and separated waters above and below the firmament? Called firmament heaven?
After an evening and a morning (referring to just one day)
4. God moved the water to allow land to form.
5. Vegetation, plants yielding seed and fruit trees. (That wouldn't work without bees)
one more day passes
6. Now on the third day God creates lights from the firmament of the heavens to separate from the day and night (already done that?)
7. God made two great lights? The greater lights for the day (Sun). The lesser light for the night (what light is that, the moon is a light? He made plants and fruit trees before the Sun?)
One more DAY (as defined by evening and morning)
8. fish, birds, sea monsters and every living creature
One more day
9. cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds. (Cattle?)
10. Man. When God said "Let us make..." What US was he talking about?
This the order? You can't change it because you want it to fit.
Way to funny. If you aren't lying you are delusional. Take a pick, are you lying or are you delusional?
You're right, that is funny. If you read every book the way you're reading this one then you'd get the same jumbled mess you have here. Many stories begin with first establishing the setting and point of view right from the start. Taking individual lines out of the context of the setting/perspective established would make just about any story just as confused.
I didn't change a word of it. I just respect the material. That's the difference.
I'm assuming you're familiar with how the oceans formed. You understand that all the water that makes up the planet's oceans began as water vapor trapped in the atmosphere before the surface cooled enough for it to condense. This was a long process. It was during this that the earth actually matched the setting specified in verse 2; darkness over the face of the deep. This gives us a starting point. Verse 1 simply says the heavens and the earth were created 'in the beginning'. From verse 2 on it becomes specific and starts off by establishing both the setting and the point of view.
This is simple reading comprehension. However, in the case of Genesis I understand you and everyone else have all these per-conceived ideas coloring everything you read. It's an adjustment to just read what it actually says without being influenced by that. Not to mention the natural tendency to apply our modern global understanding to what we read, imagining God up high in the heavens looking down on the globe of the earth from his birds-eye perspective. It happens. You have to be conscious of it and be sure to read it in the context the author intended. It makes way more sense.
Day 1, from just over the surface of the waters (verse 2 again) God says 'let there be light' (verse 3). The light of the sun first breaking through that dense opaque atmosphere after millions of years was a significant event in earth's history. Everything that came after needed sunlight.
Day 2 a firmament was established, separating the waters above from the waters below. 'Firmament' is how people in the bible described the dome of the sky. The verse about birds does the same. This is the sky. The atmosphere. This is also when earth's water cycle was established, which of course requires sunlight. This is also when the first blue-green algae showed up in the oceans, which of course began filling first the oceans, then the atmosphere, with oxygen. A process that required not only sunlight, but the oceans as well.
Day 3, land. This is still in the same order it actually happened. By the time the continents that still exist today began to form the atmosphere was roughly 10% oxygen. Still haven't made anything up and haven't changed the order of anything. Then plant life of land, which of course, also requires sunlight as well as a water cycle.
Day 4 is of course what throws everyone off. This is where reading comprehension comes into play. Understanding the intended audience also helps. Thinking the establishment of light and darkness on day 1 is somehow separate from the sun is simply a lack of attention to detail. When light first broke through the atmosphere during day 1, this was the first time in a very long time that light reached the surface through that dense opaque atmosphere formed by outgassing and extensive volcanic activity beyond abundant water vapor. Light and dark didn't happen before that. It was all dark. Once the atmosphere went from opaque to translucent you would have both light-darkness/day-night. But you wouldn't see the sun. Light would be the lit up dome of the sky because the atmosphere was not yet transparent.
Day 4 is when that happened. That and the continents moving from deep in the southern hemisphere to back between the poles across the equator. One gigantic coincidence that these two changes that actually realize what was described in Genesis actually happened between plant life and animals on land if there's no truth to any of this.
Then of course comes day 5 and life from the sea. I think you get the idea.
Also, the word translated as 'day' here (Yom) is also translated elsewhere as 'era', 'age', 'ago', 'year', 'season', 'ever', 'evermore', and often means a long period of time in the past. Even 'evening' and 'morning' are often used in Hebrew as the end/beginning of an age or era, not just the 24 hour period of a day. The same context is used in Psalms, for example.
That 'us' at the end has an interesting answer, but I don't want to go changing the subject on you again, so I'll resist. You can laugh it up all you want. Many have tried to pick this apart with the same dismissive demeanor going in, only to leave not quite so certain.
Nope - they all leave certain.
No wonder Jesus causes so many wars huh?
FSM dunnit. We all know this. The ancient texts say she created everything. In order.
Prove her wrong. Many will walk away changed. Seeds sown. Doubts cast etc etc......
No one blames you for hiding your identity. Totally understandable. I don't blame you. I expect the homos will come get you if you were honest about who you are.
This is simple comprehension. You do comprehend - right?
Sorry, I don't have time to go through every one of your delusions, but the text was very specific on one thing. Day and Night. There was an Evening and a morning and then... It described light and dark, morning and evening and that was specific. Get a grip.
I have a grip. One thing that assures a firm grip is context. Knowing what you're reading. Genesis 1 is a story passed down throughout numerous generations verbally until it was finally written down. It's believed by many to be a song which would greatly increase the chances of the text remaining consistent through the centuries.
In the English language today we use the word 'day' to mean a 24 hour period, the 12 hours of daylight, or an extended period or era of time, like 'back in the day'. The Hebrew word 'YOM' is used much the same way. This is a story told, or a song sung, about the ancient past. Whether those that heard it could even comprehend the expanse of time represented as a 'day/era/age' is doubtful.
Then, once God's will was realized, after the evening and the morning, came the beginning of the next 'day/era/age'. If you'll notice, it only covers light and dark that first time.
I know you think I'm delusional. You're not the first and certainly won't be the last. And I realize you're not just going to shift your whole worldview and accept what I'm saying. But the text speaks for itself better than I can. When you acknowledge the point of view and the starting point described in verse two, read against the geological/biological formation of this planet it's pretty hard to not see it. Especially once it's been pointed out.
At what point do you feel I was indecent, disrespectful, or dishonest? I'll give you delusional because how the hell would I know, being the delusional one, whether I am or not. If so, I would hope you'd want to help. I'm not opposed to being wrong. My faith isn't hinged on this. My faith is there either way. But I'm always appreciative of new or corrected knowledge. Nobody wants to be wrong, and I have nothing to gain by lying or being indecent.
An Evening and a morning. Day and night. Delusional. Yup.
Not a surprise. I find it delusional to overlook 13 specific details and 6 major eras listed in the correct order based on nothing more than an inability to get past the whole day thing. The geologic timescale even breaks up earth's history much the same way because each eon/era represents major developments along the way.....
Precambrian Time (4567 to 542 mya)
Day 1, Verses 2-5 - Late Hadean Eon (4567 to 3800 mya)
Day 2, Verses 6-8 - Archean Eon (3800 to 2500 mya)
Day 3, Verses 9-13 - Proterozoic Eon (2500 to 542 mya) - Cambrian Explosion - Early Phanerozoic Eon (542 mya to present)
Post-Cambrian Time (542 may to Present)
Day 4, Verses 14-19 - Paleozoic Era (542 to 251 mya)
Day 5, Verses 20-23 - Mesozoic Era (251 to 65.5 mya)
Day 6, Verses 24-31 - Cenozoic Era (65.5 mya to today)
Again, day-night/dark-light only covered on the first day when it actually applied. Because this actually was the beginning of the earth's day/night cycle on the surface since there was a surface. Before that, for millions of years, the atmosphere was way too dense to allow light to pass through. The appearance of blue-green algae mark the earliest known time that both the oceans and sunlight were present on the surface. And it's been that way everyday since.
Each section of Genesis 1 follows an obvious pattern, which lends to the idea of it being a song....
God says 'Let there be ...' > Then it happens > Then God looked and saw that it was 'good' > then the evening and the morning were the [2nd/3rd/4th] YOM (day/age/era).
Once everything He commanded was realized, and He deemed it 'good', after the evening and the morning came the next age.
Look, An Evening and a morning. Day and night. Delusional. Yup.
And that's how it usually goes. The more you try to debunk it the more you realize there's not much ground to stand on because it does very specifically list things that actually happened from the same consistent perspective in order. So, the conversation usually ends with the participant clinging to one specific thing that they feel justifies categorically dismissing the rest of it. Delusion.
You wouldn't believe how many discussions I've had in the comment sections of hubs on this very topic that I later find are deleted. There have even been a handful of hubs created by fired-up hubbers specifically for the purpose of picking this apart, only to later be deleted or edited to remove my involvement in the discussion or even any mention of me in the hub itself as the influence.
I find it interesting that so many who claim to hold education and facts in such high regard are so quick to dismiss an ancient text without first fully learning and understanding its origin/intent/context/language/etc to the best of their ability. All while these same individuals will not hesitate to declare others ignorant of facts or evidence in any given topic.
Here you are, showing an obvious lack of knowledge in a subject I've spent countless hours studying, unabashedly deeming yourself the intellectual authority and passing absolute judgement that I'm wrong and you're right about how this or that is interpreted. All based on your casual interpretation of the English translation of Hebrew, where I've studied numerous translations as well as the original Hebrew itself.
It's obvious this dismissal is more based on pre-conceived opinions formed not on the text itself so much as the people who believe in it and what they say it means. Anyone actually wanting to form an accurate opinion of anything would first be wise to inform themselves to the best of their ability on the subject at hand before declaring anything with certainty. This requires way more than simply reading over it casually with no foundational knowledge of what it is you're actually reading.
Your stuff gets deleted because it's nonsense. Fish, birds and then... cattle and then dinosaurs. It's amazing there is any cattle left. You are either delusional or a liar or both.
Right, hubs created for the sole purpose of exposing my claim as nothing more than ridiculous nonsense then get deleted like it never happened because it was nonsense? Think about that. The more ridiculous or nonsensical I am, the more I make their point. So then why delete it?
Please understand when I say 'reading comprehension' I'm not trying to be a turd, I'm trying to make a point. For example, right here you said "fish, birds and then...". Do you see what's wrong here?
Neither I, nor Genesis, ever mentioned fish at all. So, where do you think that came from? It wasn't me. It wasn't the material we're discussing. So that just leaves you.
Where do you think that comes from? That's my whole point. You can't see what I'm saying because you're mind's already made up about what it says, even though it doesn't actually say what you think it does. It's not like the Hebrews didn't have a word for fish. They did. And if they were talking about fish they would have said so. But they didn't. You did. Because you think you already know what it says. And no matter how many times I point it out, it doesn't matter. You just dismiss me as delusional. Well, I'm not the one seeing fish that aren't there. Get it?
Oh, did I say fish? I was just trying to shorten "Let the water teem with living creatures". I'm not sure WHAT I was THINKING. Do you want me to bring up the cattle again? They must have been easy picking for the T-Rex. I'm surprised any survived. I also enjoyed how vegetation on land including fruit trees was created before any living creatures. Try to stop spreading your deletions. It's embarrassing.
Sure, Rad Man, you can bring up whatever you like. Here you managed to illustrate perfectly the point I was trying to make before about discussing something you don't actually have a very thorough understanding of as if you do. Which makes things entertaining for me when you do so while simultaneously trying to make me look like the fool. The cardinal error you're committing here is taking a very literal interpretation of the clunky English translation of an ancient Hebrew text. Doing so can lead you down all kinds of false paths.
Let's start with your imaginary fish. Does the original Hebrew say fish? Does it even say what you quoted from whichever of the 25-30 English translations there are to choose from?
Nope. Actually, when specifically naming what creatures came from the sea it simply says ‘the monsters’ (e-thninm), ‘the great ones’ (e-gdlim), and 'every living thing that moves' (kl -nphsh e-chie e-rmshth). Then birds. Now this could certainly include fish and other sea life, but there's nothing to suggest that's all it's talking about. In fact, it's direct claim that birds originated in the sea is a pretty good indicator that that's definitely not all it was talking about.
The fossil record makes it clear that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs, specifically theropod dinosaurs. Paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the P-T mass extinction event 65.5 Ma ago. So, without dinosaurs, we'd have no birds.
Clearly, dinosaurs came well before cattle/livestock. Cattle/Beasts/Livestock's major era was much more recent when mammals dominated the land following the K-T extinction. In fact, animals in general are broken up the same way in Genesis as they're categorized by modern science. Hmm.
Fruit trees, like birds, were the end result. The goal. God commanded life to become this and that. He didn't pick up some mud and shape a fruit tree. He simply specified the desired result and life complied. Very similar in every way, except for that whole random happy coincidence thing you prefer. God set a goal. Life realized that goal. You prefer aimless happenstance, which is fine with me if it works for you.
Do you really think I can't read? It only works for you because you are forcing it to work. Anyone with an unbiased brain can see how you have warped the text to suite your needs.
"Clearly, dinosaurs came well before cattle/livestock." You think?
Order from the bible
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
1. All creatures in Water (includes fish)
the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.
4. wild animals.
I will not do this again. Don't pretend that because you have read it more times you understand it better. You clearly most see where the birds fit in here. The dinosaur connection makes no sense because there were no animals yet.
I'm not pretending anything. You're forming opinions based on interpretations translated by humans who also believe the earth was created in 6 days, Adam was the first human, the flood was global, etc. When you strip that away and read the original text for what it actually says, it matches up exactly with what we only just now understand.
I'm not pretending you can't read. I'm pointing out that if you treated this material with the same respect you do anything else you read and actually do comprehend, then you'd get much more out of it. Instead, you've already made up your mind that there's nothing to see here, mostly based on your biased views.
Genesis 1 lists 13 specific details in order, 6 major eras in order, not to mention specific commands given that actual history shows were followed to the letter. You can try to argue this point or that, but then you've still got the other 11 or 12 details and all 6 eras to contend with.
Then, Genesis 2-11 match up with events in known history, down to the number of centuries between each, that actually did have the same impact on humanity that Genesis describes and that led right up to the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia/Egypt/India. Experts already agree these events were the most likely catalyst to the birth of civilization. The only reason the tie to Genesis wasn't seen before is because we've always assumed Adam was the first human. Once you remove that, the rest falls right into place.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, it's clear there's something to this. I understand it's easier to just tell yourself I'm delusional. That must be it. Or that I'm just some pathological liar who spends countless hours tediously tying together science and the bible for whatever reason. Whatever you need to make up about me so that you don't have to even consider this could be right is fine with me.
Well from what I've read it specific about the days as well, even saying there was an evening and a morning and on this day God...
The language is specific.
The story is talking about the ancient past. Then translated into english by humans who assumed they knew what it was talking about. You have to look past that. Look at it logically. Understand it for what it is. What was the original intent? Who was the intended audience?
Yes, when God looked over His creation and deemed it 'good', this was a particular day. Then the following evening and morning mark the beginning of the next age or era that included that new creation. The age of the earth with a forming oxygenated atmosphere and a water cycle. We call it the Archaen eon. The age of the earth with land. We call it the Proterozoic eon. The age of the earth when mammals dominated the landscape. We call it the Cenozoic era nowadays.
Human interpretation is fallible. History according to science is the most accurate account of history we have because it is free of human influence. So I remove the fallible element to see if the parts that remain can coexist. In doing so I've found more than I ever dreamed of. Not only do they fit together perfectly, but doing so actually provides explanations for various mythological stories, the dawn of civilization, why there are so many similar flood myths all around the world, the difference between humans who began creating inventions and cities and such who live in direct opposition to the natural world and those who still exist in some regions today who are content with living a tribal lifestyle in total harmony with nature. Just to name a few.
One small alteration to the traditional view of Genesis and all of the sudden you have one simple explanation that manages to avoid conflicting with science, known history, or the rest of the bible while offering numerous explanations for all kinds of things. A highly unlikely outcome if this was totally off-base.
"On another note, dogs are not consciously aware as we are."
I agree with that. That's what I was trying to say. I'm trying to clear up the confusion over what I mean by human consciousness and how I'm speaking about more than just simply being 'conscious'.
The dog is a incredible animal. Humans took a wolf and breed them for specific purposes. They feel all the same emotions as we do and understand our language to a certain extent. They are the only animal that understand the human pointed finger besides one of the primates. What makes this amazing is that the wolf does not understand the human pointed finger and can't be trained to understand it. Which means we have altered the function of the dogs brain that understands our language through breeding.
I know what you mean. Dogs absolutely fascinate me. If you haven't seen it yet, there's a PBS special called 'the science of dogs'. It's believed dogs recognize pointing because they've co-habitated with humans for a very long time. Beyond that it appears they have facial recognition similar to humans.
If you smile in a mirror and cover each half of your face, you'll notice the face naturally shows more emotion/expression on the right side than it does the left. Humans naturally glance to the left while reading a face. Dogs are the only other species that do this as well. When they look at you, especially if you're scolding them or somehow showing emotion, you'll notice they glance to the left to read the right side of your face.
Beyond that, they also highlight a controlled test done in Syberia that breeds two different sets of wild wolves. Each set raised in the exact same conditions with the only exception being that one set is shown affection while the other set is not. The testosterone levels of the set shown affection dropped significantly in each generation. While all the dogs looked the same, grey coats, roughly the same size and weight, within just a couple of generations they began to get smaller and some would even be born with white patches of fur.
I've seen that special and it was fascinating. I've been trying to understand the dogs body language a little better. It's hard wired in there head to do certain things. I love the lets play signal and have you ever noticed that the dog protecting his house from walker by always bark, but the walkers by never ever bark back.
Are you sure about that? I know a lot of animal scientists claim that dogs don't have the emotional range that humans do, or the consciousness that we do, but I find it hard to believe that there is no self-awareness in dogs. I've known too many, and some were brutes and some were sweet and loving and some were smart and some not so much.
Dogs did not pass the mirror test. They are not self aware, but they certainly do feel all the same emotions as we do. Fear, love, jealousy, anger, Joy, Excitement, rage, humiliation. Did I miss any?
That's good to hear, you may yet start that relationship that needs a mite of humility before God.
Any advance on what to do with all those who refuse or are otherwise unable to spend eternity with God?
Did my solution not gel with you, and if not, what WOULD you do, after all, you would need to do SOMETHING, so do we agree in my solution or is there another option I'm missing?
I recognize you have the best of intentions trying to save me and all, however I also feel it's my responsibility to save you from a life of delusion. Okay, I thought I answered you question about what to do with all the souls that think this God is a needy narcissus and unless he explains himself we want no part of him if said God even exists.
Well, since these rogue souls have done no wrong besides making an opinion, I'd set them free. That's what we do in the great country I live in, I hope they do the same in yours. However a needy narcissistic God my also be vengeful because of his narcissism, and just might make them all burn for eternity.
I have to say once you define THIS God as needy and narcissistic all his behaviours make sense. Alway wanting praise, alway right and very vengeful.
Do you have any reasons for his behaviour besides "we little things can't possibly understand God"? Do you have evidence that this God is loving? Are there less Christian in the cancer wards?
You see the reason this makes no sense is because there is no God. The world makes much more sense when you stop believing in fairies. Did I save you from a life of delusion?
No, you confirmed my suspicions about how deceived the world has become by rejecting God.
Set them free where?
We don't know anything about said heaven or hell or whats in the middle. I do know it can't be a place as we know it and I do know that even if we do have souls they will have no memory of life on earth. Memory and consciousness are products of the brain and when the brain dies so do they.
I've shown you that the God you praise is needy and narcissistic and have asked for evidence that he is loving. You didn't respond to that? Just show me statistical evidence where christians are rewarded for all the praise?
I beg to differ, we are souls with a body, not bodies with souls, and it is presumptuous to say that we will have no knowledge of life on earth once dead, that would make Gods final decision on permanent location unfair to those who were consigned to separation and did not know why.
No I am assured that we will KNOW why God has allocated us the accommodation we deserve, and agree with His decision, albeit too late for some to change anything that could have been avoided if they were not so rebellious in life.
1 Corinthians 3:12-14
Amplified Bible (AMP)
But if anyone builds upon the Foundation, whether it be with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, the work of each [one] will become [plainly, openly] known (shown for what it is); for the day [of Christ] will disclose and declare it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test and critically appraise the character and worth of the work each person has done.
If the work which any person has built on this Foundation [any product of his efforts whatever] survives [this test], he will get his reward.
That alone tells us that if we stand before God, our life will be reviewed and our deeds good and bad considered, and we will be aware of what is happening, standing before all of eternity with total transparency about your life up to death.
Everything we have done will be visible to all present, the whole of eternity.
Everything that has not been repented and forgiven that is.
For God tells us also:
“Therefore, [there is] now no condemnation (no adjudging guilty of wrong) for those who are in Christ Jesus, who live [and] walk not after the dictates of the flesh, but after the dictates of the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life [which is] in Christ Jesus [the law of our new being] has freed me from the law of sin and of death.” Romans 8:1-2 AMP
You have shown me nothing of the kind, all you have demonstrated is that you deny God with scant information to base you assumptions on.
Again you misunderstand the whole way God works, and try to pin the 'trial' of God you are attempting to construct, upon world system evidence.
Statistics! what bull...."christians are rewarded for all the praise"
How confused you are, believers don't praise God out of obligation or fear, or expectation of a 'reward' those are worldly factors.
Believers worship God because He has shown them Grace and Mercy and Blessings, not just material blessings but also the freedom and inner peace that the world cannot understand.
Incidentally, I am not trying to save you in any way, only YOU could choose to do that, and clearly you have no intent at this time.
I am just trying to see whether you could actually work out what to do with these folk.
Obviously you cannot, unfortunately the God you dismiss does have to answer that problem, and you don't seem to like the only inclusive argument:
Separation with all those who refuse God or are otherwise unworthy to be with God for eternity.
It has nothing to do with narcissistic tendencies or vengeance, it's a practicality that must be resolved to all parties agreement.
Some folk deny God, some folk do things which God can forgive, if asked, but cannot condone, if they refuse the Grace of Gods repentance and Christ's payment of their debts.
Both those categories need eternal accommodation and have demonstrated their refusal to acknowledge God, they therefore MUST be accommodated separated from God, permanently.
Of course you don't really need to consider this until you are dying, but the prudent man would take it into consideration before that point.
I didn't even read everything you wrote because I told you about 3 times what to do with these people and you keep saying I have no answer. Set them free just like they do to the innocent people in the great country I live in. DID YOU NOT READ THAT?
Yes I did read that, I did you the courtesy of reading ALL of your post, the same would be appreciated.
But you say set them free, but neglected to say WHERE they should be set free, they are now dead, they for whatever reason cannot be with God for eternity, they cannot return to life, they are eternal beings.
Where the hell do you set them free?
And I did just answer your post, and you do not get to determine what evidence must be presented for your consent.
I did read all your posts. Set them free is a valid answer and much better then the burning room as they have committed no crime. If you feel they need to be in a room then put them in a room that isn't painful. I'm not sure how a soul could feel pain for that matter.
The problem is the bible was written before we had an understanding of the human mind. A few thousand years ago they didn't know where thought came from. The fact that the bible didn't have that information should be another white flag for you but it not. We now know that all thought is a product of the brain, both conscious and unconscious. Consciousness can be turned off by a blow to the head or Doctors durning surgery or sleep. Product of the brain. They didn't know that a few thousand years ago and that is further proof that the bible was written by people because a God would have know that. I hate to be that barer of bad news but, you remember nothing of before you were born and nothing in the first year or so of life because you were not yet self aware, so you'll not be aware when you brain dies.
My suggestion makes no reference to creating a painful eternity for them, just a place of segregation, where they and all those unworthy for whatever reason to be with God would be kept for eternity separated from that which they hate or deny.
Now that place would be just whatever they made it, like the Eagles sang, "This could be heaven or this could be hell" and one need to consider what it MAY be like when God is no longer present in any form to intervene on behalf of the occupants.
Effectively a self imposed prison with no guards, only inmates who had either chosen to be there, or were considered unworthy by their temporal unforgiven actions; murderers, rapists, despots, and those who considered their self will more important than anything else, or anybody else.
Would rational and logical thinking prevail? or would those who were strongest exercise control over those who were weak?
Amplified Bible (AMP)
They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving [b]thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]. On that day when, as my Gospel proclaims, God by Jesus Christ will judge men in regard to the things which they conceal (their hidden thoughts).
God knows all our 'thoughts' and can obviously access them if He so desires.
Are you sure about that?
Science, advanced as scientists like to think they are, is still in it's infancy, and constantly needs to be rewritten as new things are shown to negate previously held truths.
Quote: FIELDS, R. Douglas, The Other Brain, Simon & Schuster, December 2009, 384 p.
We still know very little about glia—even the basics such as how many kinds of glial cells there are and what they look like in detail. Their discovery, however, broadens our appreciation of the complexity of the brain. The brain, with its 100 billion neurons and an average of 10,000 synapses per neuron, has more potential connections than the atoms of our galaxy!
We don’t know yet if diet, exercise, supplements and other factors affect glial cells. However, the implications for health and illness—seizures, infections, cancer, addictions, mental illness and diseases such as Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis may be far-reaching and profound.
As Fields says near the end of his book, “Here are cells that can build the brain of a fetus, direct the connection of its growing axons to wire up the nervous system, repair it after it is injured, sense impulses crackling through axons and hear synapses speaking, control the signals neurons use to communicate with one another at synapses, provide the energy source and substrates for neurotransmitters to neurons, couple large areas of synapses and neurons into functional groups, integrate and propagate the information they receive from neurons through their own private network, release neurotoxic or neuroprotective factors, plug and unplug synapses, move themselves in and out of the synaptic cleft, give birth to new neurons, communicate with the vascular and immune systems, insulate the neuronal lines of communication, and control the speed of impulse traffic through them. And some people ask, ‘Could these cells have anything to do with higher brain function?’ How could they possibly not?”
What is apparent, to any reasonable thinker, is that we really do not fully understand how many levels of consciousness there may be, and what moves someone into higher or lower levels of consciousness, meditation has been cited as gaining a deeper consciousness, but we really have no idea what God has hidden from us in order that we can complete this life.
The Eden account suggests that there were serious concerns that if humanity were allowed unlimited access to information concerning how God ran things in His creation, we would be damaged and deceived into believing that we had greater ability than we have.
No, I think the jury is still out on where consciousness stems from, you say the brain, others say the mind (could that be the soul? as yet non determined by science)
Thank you, but much as you may hope that all consciousness is eliminated on death, I fear you are wrong.
We are not conscious when we are asleep, yet our minds still conjure up images and thoughts in dreams, and it would be more reasonable to think that when our body sleeps, or true consciousness is freed for a while, to be restored from the 'mother lode' so to speak.
Development of Consciousness
Are babies more conscious than adults? Psychologist Alison Gopnik suggests babies are more conscious, but less focused, than adults. Do babies lack ‘top-down’ attentional mechanisms? Psychologist Phil Zelazo discusses how consciousness correlates with embryonic, childhood and adolescent development. Sarah Akhter will present beeper studies of the first-person perspective on development of consciousness during adolescence.
We cannot remember early life for good reasons, for we are making the transition from spiritual change to physical life, and as our spirits fade into the background, only to be reawakened at puberty normally, we lose our spiritual abilities and we get fully conscious of the physical form we accommodate.
Anyhow, you have your theories and I have mine and as we see from totally different perspectives, we can never find common ground, so let's just leave it alone and get back on with living this wonderful life God has given us to learn by.
You need to read a little psychology. Psychologist know exactly what part of the brain hold consciousness. When we sleep, our dream are from our unconscious mind. That's why we study dreams to help the mind. I recommend the book Gray Psychology to start.
I've answered you question repeatedly and you never answer mine. Do you have any statistical evidence that your God is loving?
Thanks Chris, guys like HeadlyvonNoggin could and should learn from you. You seem decent and respectful and I don't think you lie. You have my respect. Not that that counts for much, but you got it.
Instinct of survival is what drives our will.
It's done on a subconsciousness level so that the conscious mind can discern the world around them.
I can only assume you're now going to ask "where" does this instinct come from? And, that would be from self. To think it comes from anywhere else is absurd.
Just like all other animals, the instinct for our own individual survival is embedded within through the reproductive system. The combination of DNA from each person who has contributed to the creation of a new human organism brings about a new consciousness. If there were no consciousness(conscious mind or subconsciousness) then one would not be alive to begin with.
Having consciousness(both- conscious mind and subconscious) is what makes sentient beings.
But that same will has been part of life from the start. Are you saying algae is conscious?
If it's alive or is a life-form, it's conscious on some level. It might be identical to human consciousness or not.
How many life forms would you say actually have self awareness that humans have? Or do you think their consciousness level is higher than humans? Or do you think their consciousness level is lower than humans?
I don't know. You're the one saying we know enough to make proclamations with absolute certainty. You should be telling me.
The fact that you're now playing dumb is a prime example of your honesty.
I once wrote an article called Is Life Confusing. It is a pure demonstration through words showing how life isn't so confusing.
The fact that you asked me about the consciousness of a life form, isn't about learning something new. You're already too far gone for learning something new because you've already made up your mind, that your egotistical, skewed perception of reality must coincide with the book you believe true.
You have absolutely no control over your own ego, which is part of the problem in your communications with others. I wrote an article that addresses the problem.
As I already told you-
(a) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be understood.
(b) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be lived.
My article on Life being confusing, makes life understood.
And living life? There are plenty of people who have lived and died without having any need for any knowledge of a G/god. Their own understanding of their own life did NOT warrant retaining what was learned from humankind about the supposed G/god(s) of humankind.
I grew up in a Catholic home. My family was Catholic, both mother and father. I've read the precious bible several times, investigated it and debunked it as mysticism tripe.
Only in your mind John.
The problem is most people of the religious order don't keep it there.
Right, and your body lives without you knowing how it works. Your body could breathe before you knew why you should. Beyond your control. Your body would hold your breath if submerged in water as an infant without your knowing it or choosing to do so. You can consciously/willfully decide you don't need sleep. Your body will override you. You're right, life doesn't require conscious knowledge of God to live. But until you fully understand life then you cannot say what is or isn't required to understand it.
I'm not playing dumb. You're claiming to know something I didn't think could be known. So I'm asking you to explain. To share with me so then I can know as well. I am always willing to learn and always happy to be wrong because being wrong means learning something I didn't know before. You're saying I'm wrong by stating it as fact. I'm intrigued, but I'm going to need more than your word.
It's based on consciousness. Consciousness works without you realizing it, most of the time. The subconsciousness works effortlessly. Just like it's on automation because it is what absorbs everything, and I mean everything.
Untrue. It was controlled by the subconscious.
Again, basic instinct for survival which is embedded into human consciousness.
Yes you can.
I understand it just fine.
Okay, now you're lying to me? Again, showing your dishonest path in life.
You had this specific conversation with Rad Man and I read your conversation with him. I am not agreeing with Rad Man, but as for you playing dumb with me now about consciousness, shows me you're not an honest person. That's a shame.
Really? Yet here you are claiming to have matched up the bible with science and have a rational and logical argument for the bible being truth. So, again, you must be lying then when you stated your original argument or you're now lying now? Sorry, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, you know.
Hmmm...what to make of this statement? Truth or Lie? Your previous actions on these forums would make that statement a Lie.
I don't doubt you would need more than my word. I am of the understanding that Wisdom need only be spoken to be revealed. It's ego which hides truth.
And it's ego that makes proclamations of absolute certainty where there is none. I am not being dishonest with you. Maybe instead of saying 'I don't know' I should have said 'You would never accept my explanation'. What I was getting at is the original issue. You called what I said 'meaningless' based on your proclamations. So I asked for the proof that backs that up. Something beyond you saying so.
Actually, the absolute certainty I have is about LIVING life. You cannot dispute it. To live life is to understand YOUR OWN life. Not ALL of life. Understand yourself, and when it's done honestly, then you're able to discern the world around you. You are capable of doing this because of the consciousness within you.
You cannot dispute this and any attempt to show it's my ego in place is foolish. But nice try though.
Actually, you are. I know you are because I know you're not being honest with yourself. Therefore, your dishonesty has translated into your actions. It is what it is.
Another proclamation of something you 'know', in this case being what's going on inside my mind. Only an ego can make that leap. Usually a projection.
I too live life and have reached an understanding of life through my own experience, verified to the best of my ability through information available to me. Nothing I believe or state here was taken at the word of others or accepted without some sort of arrival at that conclusion through my own research and contemplation.
But humanity works best when it collaborates. So I discuss with others that have lived life also and who have reached different conclusions than myself. I discuss the bits that don't jive with my view so that I may figure out if what they're saying lacks proof or solid reasoning or if I am misinformed or ignorant of certain facts pertaining to the discussion.
So far you've been unable to back up what you originally stated with anything other than your own determination. But this recent proclamation as 'fact' statements that cannot be known by you gives me reason to believe this is not the only leap you've taken without substance.
Usually, it might be projection for someone who is unable to see past ego to truth. But, I don't have that problem.
You see, that's part of the problem. You use "beliefs". I use truth. Beliefs are one deceiving themselves something is true, in the hopes that they are right. Prime example: I believe the Boston Red Sox will win the World Series this year. I held this same belief last year. When they didn't even make the playoffs, then I discarded the belief until the start of the next season.
Beliefs are never to be solidified because LIFE itself is ever changing.
It works best when both egos of the individual are jointing working toward a goal. Otherwise, collaboration rarely works well.
If true, then good for you. But, so far up to this point, your actions speak differently. You seem to have changed your original tone, which is a start.
Actually my hubs back up everything I've said. What's your excuse?
"Usually, it might be projection for someone who is unable to see past ego to truth. But, I don't have that problem."
"You see, that's part of the problem. You use "beliefs". I use truth."
Beliefs are anything taken as fact without evidence to prove those facts. Until everything is known everyone will take something on belief. For example, you believe there is no God. This cannot be proven so it is therefore a belief on your part.
"If true, then good for you. But, so far up to this point, your actions speak differently. You seem to have changed your original tone, which is a start."
How exactly? You have called me a liar. You have said I'm delusional by saying you 'know' I'm lying to myself. I'm still simply trying to get at the information that makes your original claim valid, which I still don't have. Apparently, the hubs YOU wrote back up what YOU say.
"Actually my hubs back up everything I've said. What's your excuse?"
I have hubs too that back up everything I say by siting references. I can illustrate one consistent explanation that manages to not conflict with the bible, known history, or science, all while offering explanations to questions across the board, including everything we've discussed here. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything I say. I encourage verifying for yourself. I encourage corrections. I make no excuses, I am never intentionally dishonest or misleading, I don't say anything I can't back up with reasoning, and supply references to anything I do say when asked.
So, we're back to where we started.
You start off with the illogical and irrationality of the bible and then apply human interpretation which has a skewed perception because the individual person who is doing the interpretation doesn't understand their own life, as your basis for your complete and thorough account(references) of the bible and science.
Good luck with that.
"the illogical and irrationality of the bible"
Says Cagsil. Do you see what I mean? Somehow you keep projecting yourself as the intellectual authority here that feels no obligation to back up anything you say.
"then apply human interpretation which has a skewed perception because the individual person who is doing the interpretation doesn't understand their own life"
You do get that that's exactly how those two statements you used to deem what I said 'meaningless' sound to me, don't you?
Let me ask you something...are you usually this dense? Or do you act this way normally?
I am merely showing you how logic and reason, which seems to escape you, works.
I mean, any idiot can see that the bible is illogical and irrational by comparing it to all available known knowledge. Which is something you claim to have done? So, again, what's your excuse?
No excuses necessary. Maybe you could read those hubs before dismissing them. Again I give you more than my word for it. The only reason most don't see it is because we've always assumed Adam was the first human because that's how it was interpreted a long time ago. Remove that one mistake and it all lines up rather effortlessly. I can show how it lines up not just in the right order, but with the same number of centuries in between each, with known events in history that had the same impact as what's described. Events that lead right up to the dawn of civilization. Events that most experts agree were the catalysts that set civilization in motion. The only thing missing is seeing how it correlates with Genesis.
Many have tried to pick it apart in all kinds of ways. And often I'll just encounter people who instead attack me and my credibility by calling me dense, or a liar, or delusional, etc.
I can definitely see why you're so quick to rely on "psychology."
It's funny that you say "it's ego that makes proclamations of absolute certainty where there is none" Watch this. Is there a God?
I've this conversation with him before. It goes nowhere because he doesn't understand consciousness. When you define it for him and prove humans are not alone with consciousness he changes the argument to be about something else. Don't go down this path long.
Yeah, I've read your argument with him.
There are a lot of people who don't understand it.
This path is his problem. What he does with what I say is completely up to him. Changing the subject- It's the only line of defense for the religious folk.
You don't remember the list of other animals that are self aware?
I thought we got passed that. You're equating self-awareness to consciousness. I was talking about what differentiates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. You do acknowledge there are significant differences don't you? I believe I suggested we use 'mind' instead of 'consciousness' as it was causing confusion. Saying, or suggesting, our conscious human experience is nothing beyond self-awareness is an oversimplification to say the least.
Yes it does, sorry. LOL
I have already proven to you - using ancient texts - that the Dolphins are more intelligent than us and the FSM created the Universe.
Ancient. Known Science. Historical Documents. Evidence.
The whole bit.
there is only one known planet in all the universe that can even sustain life as we know it
False, there is evidence of life on other planets, including Mars.
only one that retains a breathable, yet totally transparent, atmosphere achieved through a delicate balance of temperature/pressure, distance from the sun, size of the planet, living organisms, etc.
- only one planet that not only can sustain life but has the environment and resources to sustain the lives of billions of humans and however many billions/trillions of organisms that came before and still live today We do know that Earth can do this, we don't yet know about ALL the other planets yet.
the incalculable odds of all the different interactions between totally unrelated entities to realize life as we know it (changes in the sun throughout earth's formation and how it aided changes in the earth's atmosphere, the moon's effects on the tides, mass extinction events that cleared the way for the next big wave of species, movement of all of the earth's land mass thousands of miles helping achieve both the atmosphere land life would need through the plant life forming on that land as well as finding a final position between the poles just in time for life to emerge that played a significant role in the internal clocks of every living organism, etc.) This is how living organisms work… This isn’t any kind of proof.
the delicate balance that allows us to still be here (stable climate, water cycle, fertile soil, living creatures perpetually refreshing the atmosphere, the circle of life in general, etc.) Delicate balance is probably correct, but are you not considering earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados and floods that can all be very deadly? We don't always have a stable climate and it is possible to kill off a species or for a species to die out naturally.
I think you are confusing “there must be a god because of all this stuff,” to mere biology, physics and coincidence.
'Evidence of life' and 'ability to sustain life' are two totally different things.
As for other planets I should have continued to say 'known planet' to be clear.
The only example of sustainable life we have is this planet. And we know that the only reason life exists as it is today is partially because of the things I mentioned specifically. We have no way of knowing if life would have existed without the changes in the atmosphere aided by the sun, but we see no other example with similar atmospheres elsewhere. We only know of one way life works, and even that way would not have worked if any number of things had been even slightly different.
We have a very stable climate. Yes there are things that are deadly. Death is in itself a vital part of life. Without death life wouldn't be possible. A stable climate allows for long, sustained life, like we've had here. Significant changes have happened in the climate, like the aridification events that transformed the Sahara from lush green lands to desert in a relatively short amount of time, but I don't think I need to explain that a slight change in the mean global temperature, a slight change in our orbit of the sun, in the tilt in the earth's axis, or any number of other things, could easily obliterate all life.
I am not reaching the conclusion 'there must be a God' here. I am pointing out why a causal only existence takes a very large leap in logic as well. I take the next step by illustrating there is a God, and specifically the God of the bible, through illustrating how Genesis describes things that no human before this age could have possibly known.
We don't know everything, therefore they has to be a god? We haven't search the entire cosmos to see if there are any other habitable plants to so there has to be a god? We haven't searched all the planets in the cosmos with a time machine to see if there ever or will be a life on any other planet - so there has to be a god? Genesis presents laugh out loud explanations of how the world was created.
That's not what I'm saying here. I'm pointing out the extremely high improbability of existence becoming what it is today through natural/causal happenstance only, and that believing this to be the case is not the rational/reasonable/common sense conclusion it's often made out to be. It takes just as much faith in unprovable assumptions and takes just as big of a leap in logic to accept, if not bigger.
The conscious human mind is a powerful, dynamic thing capable of inventing and creating things that never existed before, yet is completely undetectable scientifically. So we know for certain there's at least one thing that exists that cannot be detected in any sort of observable/testable/quantifiable way. In fact the only reason we know it's there is because we each experience life through it. Does it not stand to reason it's not the only thing in existence just as capable of invention and creation, yet just as undetectable?
Which is the more likely answer? That existence is the product of nothing more than a series of countless natural/causal-only events that eventually led to the evolution of humanity and the rise of a self-aware/conscious/reasoning mind made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe that somehow became aware of itself? Or that existence came about as it is because it was guided by a conscious/reasoning mind not unlike the human mind we experience life through?
Okay, up until now I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but no more. You are lying. I've showed you many times that the conscious human mind is an outstanding product of evolution, but consciousness is not unique to humans and consciousness can be measured and even shut off. We know what part of the brain controls consciousness by the work done on split brained patience. I've explained why the human mind evolved and why we are so successful. Everything about the human mind is measurable and I find you deceitful by lying about what we know about the human mind to other that may not know better.
It is far more reasonable to think that humans evolved with the capacity to learn from each other than "God done it".
You should know better because after our previous discussions you should have done your home work, so because you can no longer be call ignorant, you must be deceitful.
You're claiming we know more here than the top neuroscientists in the world. Just because someone can be sedated doesn't mean we now understand consciousness. And we've discussed and I thought reached an agreement on the fact that animals are conscious but are in no way as aware of self and others and death and all of that as humans.
And no, consciousness cannot be measured. If consciousness was as detectable and measurable as you claim then the world would be a much different place. We can't see what someone is thinking. What makes these forums what they are is because we cannot see into or know each others minds.
And it's been established that there is no specific region in the brain where the conscious mind exists. The brain is a mechanism of multiple parts that work together. We can track oxygenated blood flow and watch what happens in accordance to various stimuli, but there is no one region that does all the work itself.
I have done the research. I have read on the topic because it's of the utmost of interest to me. And because I have a particular view I'm always looking for whether or not any new information confirms or contradicts my view, so I'm focused on that specifically.
If you can provide me with references that contradict what I'm saying then I will be more than happy to read them.
I sometimes wish the conscious mind could be seen so that in cases like this you could look in my mind and see there is no malice behind what I say and I am not lying to you or anyone else. Lying would be completely pointless as I would have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so.
How many times have I explained to you what conscious means? Remember "aware". Only a handful of animals have it and that is not what makes us unique or even smart. Read (Gray Psychology). Consciousness resided in our left hemisphere. The Human mind, now that's a different topic. But you keep all it consciousness. Why are you lying? Mark is correct.
And how many times have I said that when I say 'human consciousness' I'm talking about the human mind? I guess I'll just have to drop that term completely because it only causes confusion. If you swap out one term for the other and consider everything I've said up to this point then it should be obvious what I'm talking about. The fact that you say "The Human mind, now that's a different topic" tells me you know exactly what I'm talking about. That's not a different topic. That's this topic. That's what I'm talking about.
Why would I lie? To appear to be right? Purposefully lying just to be right would mean actually knowing I'm wrong. So, what would be the point?
I know you have no understanding of psychology because you continue to use incorrect terminology, even after I've told you many many times that it's confusing and incorrect. Stop making false claims about the human brain until you've done your homework. The human mind is well mapped out and a simple google search would illustrate that. Read the material I've described before making ridicules claims.
I've had this conversation countless times and you're the first person I've encountered that has such an issue with my terminology. True, I'm not a psychologist, and I wouldn't doubt I use the wrong terminology from time to time, but that doesn't mean I don't understand psychology.
The whole reason Psychology falls under the umbrella of the social sciences, and not the natural sciences, is because it's the study of an entity that does not exist in any physical/material/tangible way. The mind cannot be studied objectively because it requires relating to our own human mind to grasp it.
You yourself acknowledge the human mind is a whole other thing entirely. A simple google search confirms this. For example, here's one I just did ....
"The brain is our most complex but least understood organ. We can name its parts but our knowledge of what each part does, or how, is rudimentary."
http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big … 90050.html
Nothing I've claimed contradicts anything we currently know. Again, I stay on top of this subject as best as I can and while I have not read Peter Gray's psychology book cover to cover, many of the things I have read often make reference to it. That doesn't mean there's not some new information out there I'm unaware of. But if there is then it's new information that changed what the leading experts were saying not that long ago.
Read the book. Just because you have no understanding does not mean everyone does. The brain is a complex organ, but so is the liver. Stop the lies.
I have plenty of understanding. At least enough to know you're overstating how much we know. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe somebody qualified enough to know what he's talking about...
"According to neurobiologist William Calvin, the human mind (in all likelihood, the seat of consciousness), located in the brain, is so complex that we have only just begun to understand bits and pieces of it."
The physical brain is a mechanism. We know it's made up of multiple lobes that each perform particular functions. Through our ability to detect electrochemical impulses(EEG), oxygenated blood flow(PET), magnetic signatures, water molecule movement, and x-ray absorption(CT) it appears that the frontal lobes are associated with speech, abstract thought, emotion, movement, learning, etc, sensory information like touch and pain are handled by the parietal lobes, vision by the occipital lobes, and hearing and memory by the temporal lobes.
Specific functions are handled by different parts of the brain, yet are seamlessly integrated into one cohesive experience. Our self-aware conscious experience is a product of numerous components that make up an intangible, undetectable, unobservable, metaphysical whole.
If we ourselves did not experience life through our own internal experience then we would have absolutely no chance of ever really comprehending the reality created by these physical processes happening in the brain. No way of ever conveying to someone/thing that did not have their own conscious existence what our conscious experience is like. It can't be proven to exist through any scientific means. Physically it's nothing more than neuro-impulses, oxygenated blood flow, and chemical/hormonal activity. The only reason we have even the limited understanding we do is because we each already experience our own minds for ourselves, so we already have an idea of what we're looking for.
If there was anything else even remotely like our conscious mind anywhere in existence, how would we ever know?
Peter Gray - psycholgist
Split-Brain Insight into Consciousness:
The Left-Hemisphere Interpreter
One of the most fascinating findings from studies of split-brain patients is that they rarely express surprise or confusion concerning the seemingly contradictory actions that their two hemispheres generate. When asked to explain some behaviour triggered by the right hemisphere, the person (speaking from the left hemisphere) usually generates quickly and confidently a seemingly logical (but often false) explanation.
For instance, in one experiment a split-brain patient was presented simultaneously with a picture of a chicken claw to the left hemisphere and a picture of a snow scene to the right hemisphere (Gazzaniga, 2000). Then he was shown (in a way that could be seen by both hemispheres) a set of pictured objects and was asked to point with both hands to the one most closely related to what he had seen on the screen. He immediately pointed with his right hand to the chicken (clearly related to the chicken claw) and with his left hand to the snow shovel (clearly related to the snow scene). When asked why he was pointing to these two objects, his left, speaking hemisphere responded, “Oh, that’s simple. The chicken claw goes
with chicken, and you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed.” He seemed completely satisfied by this explanation. In other experiments, Gazzaniga and his colleagues found that they could induce states of annoyance or of pleasure in split brain patients by flashing annoying or pleasant scenes to their right hemispheres. When asked to explain their feelings, the patients always came up with plausible (but clearly false) answers. For example, they might comment on some aspect of the experimental equipment—or of the experimenter’s behavior—that was either annoying them or pleasing them.
Such observations have led Gazzaniga (2000) to posit that one of the natural functions of the left hemisphere is to interpret, or try to make logical sense of, everything that the person does. You might think of this left-hemisphere interpreter as analogous to the public relations department of a government. Its role is to tell stories, both to
the self and to others, designed to make sense of the seemingly contradictory and irrational things that the person does. The idea of such an interpreter in the human brain or mind is by no means new. It was the centerpiece of a theory of consciousness proposed by Sigmund Freud (1912/1932) nearly 100 years ago (discussed in Chapter 15). According to Freud, we do things because unconscious decision-making processes in our mind make us do them. But one part of our mind observes what we do and tells a running story about it; that story constitutes our conscious understanding of our actions and the reasons for them. The split-brain studies indicate that the neural mechanism for generating such stories is located in the left hemisphere and is intimately connected with the brain areas that generate speech.
All this being said please click on the video below. It'll make you smile. It will, you'll see.
You know, it's interesting that you bring this up because this topic is something I've read about specifically as it's of particular interest to me personally. The reason for this is because when I was in high school I was pulled from class one day by a guidance counselor following a series of tests they had us take. She explained to me that my test results showed that I use both sides of my brain equally and that it's a fairly rare trait. So studies like these peak my interest for obvious reasons.
For as long as I can remember I've had this kind of algorithm perpetually running in the back of my mind trying to reconcile my faith in God and my fascination with science and life in general. My faith in God has been ever-present and so has my need to ingest anything and everything science related in an attempt to better understand life. I never doubted God for reasons I won't go into, but I just could not accept explanations given by family or those in the church I grew up in when the two worlds seemed to contradict. To me human interpretation was always the fallible element.
What's most interesting is the fact that the theory I'm detailing here actually came first, long before the numerous ties to actual history I found later. For the longest time this was just an internal viewpoint I never shared with anyone and never really felt compelled to verify. It's just the way I made sense of things for myself. While I had always been familiar with the stories of early Genesis, I had never read it looking to actually confirm my view. When I began to do so, it became painfully obvious that Genesis was actually set in a populated world. There's all these little clues I had just glazed over countless times before that make it clear. I, like many others, just couldn't see it before.
My first thought was that I was delusional. I had to just be seeing things I wanted to see because someone else surely would have seen this by now if it was so obvious to me. That's when I decided to turn to the evidence to see if the known facts of our collective knowledge at all matched up with this internal worldview I had constructed. What I found blew me away. And continues to do so.
I know you and many others think I'm lying to myself to justify my beliefs. Twisting things around to make them work with my worldview. This is how I know that's not the case. There are plenty of things I was not aware of when I first formed this theory that have now convinced me I'm on the right track.
Basically, I think what you described here is pretty much how this first came about. I basically held two views that I always felt were not as mutually exclusive as the outside world insisted working in perfect harmony in my mind because both views in my mind were equal and both were true. This allowed me to find cohesion between the two that I've since found matches up well with numerous known facts and, if true, also helps clear up a lot of things we still don't understand. Now, roughly two years or so later, after countless discussions with very knowledgeable people from varying perspectives throwing every possible argument you can imagine at it, I've found this theory continues to address every argument while remaining consistent through a barrage of different attempts to prove it ridiculous.
Well that does explain your need to mould the bible and science, but it doesn't make it correct, it's just the goings on in your head.
It's certainly interesting, and the brain is truly a fascinating organ. But one question remains unanswered, why do so many PR departments spin the same story? I mean, without even talking to each other?
This borrowed computer in the nursing home won't support IE7 any more, so I can't watch the video.
Okay, but why does the fact that we don't know everything preclude that there is a God?
Those who experienced NDE (Near-death-experience) or OBE (Out of body experience) tells that they don't need air and they can pass through the concrete walls. Also there are many planets around the earth as well as away from earth which are of millions of light years away. Scientists discovered it. These facts help us to conclude that in heaven or hell there is no need of air or things like that. So I disagree with your first point that air is must for the existence for life. Our souls can live without air. There is another spear of life where there is no need of air. God exists. God judges those who does evil. God loves those who obey Him. And God is ready to save you through Jesus.
The choice is yours.
Spoken like a true christian! But we DO know what happens to the body when we die! It decays, either by the action of combustion/metabolism within the bodies of other life forms, or by combustion in the flames. Either way, the physical body ceases to exist, period.
We DO know that the consciousness ceases. I DO know what it feels like to be UN conscious - it feels like NOTHING!
The only thing which exists after the death of your body and your loss of consciousness, is a memory (an infinite, unmeasurable sensation) in person or persons who have known your body or your personality.
Any understanding above or beyond this comes from your DESIRE for something more. Hence your BELIEF.
Well spoken. That's pretty much my perspective. We do however live on in our children, but without consciousness of course.
I suggest you to do some research about Near death experience and Out of Body experience. They can see the body lying in the bed or wherever it is and the soul which you call awareness is away from the body. Soul exists and go to where it come from.
I understand that neuro-science has shown the phenomena associated with near-death and out-of-the-body situations are caused by reduced oxygen conditions within the brain, particularly in the Mid-Brain and Primitive areas of the Brain.
Some would prefer to see these as some kind of esoteric, after-life proof. That suits their psychological needs. Fair enough. However, we should give credence to the careful study and research which has brought about such understanding, whether you want to believe it or not.
What degree of "proof" would satisfy you? Is your mind open to other possibilities? Or is it closed? Do you prefer to centre on belief or reasonably scientific proof. Your choice.
So sluts and atheists get into heaven?
You'd think standing before the gates one would say "I guess I was wrong, but I can now SEE". I think I would. I just need evidence. Of course I might just think I was dreaming. I might think my brain is suffering from a lack of oxygen. But all I see is a bunch of people telling I'll burn in hell if I don't do as they do.
Actually most of the believers you meet here do not say that, and the main protagonists about hell seem to be atheists, which I have never understood!
From the time when I was not a believer, I know the whole hell thing did not bother me, why should it have?
Really did LOL
Ta gate should be seen opeing in that PIC.
@aguasilver The cartoon depicts that there is a God and a heaven that beyond a shadow of a doubt exists however this evidence is not there in reality. Atheists claim there is a lack of sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in God.(or any deity, who knows which one is the legitimate one as so many religions claim there's is the only one)
When someone posted a cartoon of unbelievers partying after the rapture, I pointed out that if there really is going to be a rapture, then things won't look like that (according to the Bible).
I was accused of being humorless.
Now aguasilver posts this cartoon and you post an equally humorless assertion that it's wrong.
Now THAT's comedy!
Why was God manning the gate, was St. Peter on a break?
Meh. cartoons such as these are up for interpretations though I believe aguasilver's was pretty cut and dry here.
So was the other one.
I suppose humorless is in the eye of the beholder...
Spock: "Humorlessness is transitory, Captain."
Kirk: "No. Humorlessness, survives."
Queue ending theme.
God does exist. It's not as obvious to some as to others.
You're pretty familiar, I think, with why I think that.
is being cremated sort of a warm up for hell cause that's the way i'm going. seriously though, if things like hell and heaven were never mentioned, i'm pretty sure believers would be few and very far between. it would be like telling someone to get an education but you aren't getting a job when you're done.
Not really, I never came to faith to save myself from hell, indeed as a non believer I had never bothered about hell, (why should I have) which was a subject that only entered the conversation when the pastor that took my surrender said "Doesn't it feel good to know you have eternal life and are not going to hell" and I distinctly remember replying "I don't care about what happens when I die, I just want the demons off my back in this life".
I was obviously still in a nihilistic mode at that point.
My opinion has not changed in the last 20 years, after I came to faith hell was no threat, before I came to faith hell was no threat, as I did not believe in it.
I am pleased to be able to report that the demons did get off my back.
Might it be possible then that they were mentioned because God does exist and so do they?
It is more than a little odd to say a being that supposedly created everything is not responsible for any of the bad that happened!
Atheists and Agnostics do not believe because they have never experienced anything that makes them believe. As an agnostic myself I think this quote sums up my views..."Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." — Marcus Aurelius
1) Supposing a God exists and created everyone I don't think he created people with specific opinions built in, especially ideas about a concept that people can't understand at birth. The idea being that if God created people that doesn't mean he created them with preset opinions regarding his existence.
2) Supposing a God exists and did create everyone how in the hell are atheists going to destroy an all powerful deity. The best they could do is get everyone on the planet to stop believing. This would certainly mess up God's plan to get people into Heaven (supposing that that is part of this God's plan) but it wouldn't destroy the God.
I can see the point you are trying to make however I think there are many ways that theists could get around it (like the above). The Free Will defense is commonly used against the Problem of Evil, it fails miserably in that regard but I think it would actually WORK to counter your statement. The old "God didn't want robots" argument strikes again.
Now God himself would have to BE an atheist, obviously he can't believe that he himself was created by something or else he'd fall victim to the same infinite regression all First Cause arguments inevitably do.
but god plan is hell....people going to heaven v/s people going to hell is non competition....according to most christian if u dont accept god , you are headed to hell...according to muslims if u dont believe in allah and his final messenger muhammad you are going to hell...similarly other version...no if we see world population 66% dont accept jesus ...that makes 4.4 billion going to hell...so gods plan was hell not heaven...
It allows believers to feel superior and righteous when they evangelize their religion. If everyone was a believer in the same God, there would be no need to evangelize.
God created human beings.
The rest they developed for themselves?
In the end, all will glorify Him, anyway. (Atheists included).
(EVERY KNEE shall bow, and declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the GLORY of God)
Not on my part!
I am not the originator of the statement.
But, I see how it could seem arrogant to someone that refuses to listen to God's word(s).
How DARE He say something like that?!!!
Since none has seen or heard god, who made you the spokes person of god and why you are shouting at people who do not listen to you and branding them as arrogant? It's you who claim to know the mind of "god", the arrogant.
You accuse me of arrogace here
Then, you have the nerve to blame me for calling you arrogant.
You need to get a grip.
If I have to bow to a God, I'll go ahead and burn. Thanks anyway. I've had enough of abusive power-trippers in my life without choosing to worship one.
why is he going to beat me on the head till i drop to my knees because i wouldn't bow any other way.
Wow, you truly believe that the rebellion is so strong in you that when presented with the Glory of God right there in front of you, you would still refuse to recognise who He is?
That's like saying that a father, holding his new born baby for the first time would feel no awe and wonder, no love springing from a hardened heart, and no feelings of joy, from the baby in his arms.
I know it was seeing my first child being born, and having him in my arms, that made me start to falter in my resistance to God.
Standing before God will be (literally) AWESOME, and all doubts and fears will melt away (because the enemy will not be there to whisper lies into your mind)and the ONLY reaction (at least for me) would be to fall on my knees and praise Him.
Yes it will be awesome, but for many, the true fear will be just beginning.
Ah - true Christianity right there. Fear......
No wonder your religion causes so many fights.
Well, Mark, it wouldn't cause so many if you weren't so eager to join in.
It does take two to tango!
I see. So what you are saying is that you should be allowed to spread the fear and hate without anyone interfering and it is the interfering that is the problem.
Gotcha. Never your fault is it?
This is why your rreligion causes so many fights.
No, Mark. What I was saying is that no matter what I actually say, you will come along and turn it into whatever it is you want me to have said. That way, I get to be right because you invariably stick something ridiculous like that on my words, and you get to be right because you can define whatever I say however you want.
Like I said, it's a strange relationship but as long as it's working for you...
Please stop lying about me. You clearly stated that the fear would really hit us nonbelievers when standing before god to be judged.
You are the one saying ridiculous things like people coming back from the dead (again) to instill fear in us.
I just call you on it.
This is why your religion cause so many wars, and I will continue to call you on it.
At least that's what is says in the book of Revelation.
I guess, it's all because of their previous Karmas....
God did not, and never has, created atheists, nor has He ever created people of any other persuasion.
The only thing that God has done is create human beings, and after each one of those human beings steps into this realm, they are on their own -- or else it could be said that each human being is born with the freedom to be just about anything that he/she wants to be.
Awh, but you forget. If he was one of those ENTITIES, then he could magically transform an Atheist like me into a Christian. Oh, thats right, hes not here,,,,,lol
Yes He is!
If He magically made everyone what you think He should if He existed, that would be proof He's not who He is!
If you couldn't choose whether to love God, then you could never really love Him. If you can't choose to dislike Him, then you can't really hate Him.
God didn't "create" atheist. He created us, and gave us freewill, and some of us chose to be atheist. That is not to say people are "bad" if they chose to be an atheist. I have known, do know, and will know many, who were good people. It is up to God to judge, and I would be wrong to do that in His stead.
religious nuts created atheists and the irony is they created god too. isn't that strange.
Welcome to my life...........religious people trying to tear you down..good thing I'm so resilient...
I'm surprised you ALL you folks on both sides of the argument missed the Bible's answer to your question; especially the atheists who for some reason have a better handle on Scripture than a lot of Christians!! Proverbs 16:4 says, "The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of evil." And then in Romans 9:22-24, "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." If any of you non-Born Agains want to come over to the other side, gimme a yell and we can talk!! Enjoy your day, whatever side you're on!!
No. Lack of belief in anything does not define it out of existence.
God couldn't have created Atheists...why? because he doesn't exist! jeez people can't you take a hint?!
Just writing a hub to reply to your question!
Thanks for taking the time to write me.
Yeah, the hint is that He gave us free will and some people use it to not believe in Him! Don't think the hint could be much clearer!
Why would he care if we believe in him or not? Good people are good people. Is the God you believe in needy?
No, God is not 'needy' He just wants folk to choose and demonstrate that they want to spend eternity with Him.
From Gods perspective nobody is a 'good person' and I seriously doubt anyone could make that claim to God with truth in their heart.
Personally if I were to be even considering spending just one year working or travelling with someone, I would want to know that they actually wanted to be with me, and be sure I wanted to be with them.
I see no reason why God should be expected to accept someone who has clearly demonstrated that they neither believe in Him, or want to get to know Him, and mocked Him.
Can you tell me why He should?
That then leaves the problem of what to do with those who are unable to be with God for eternity.
What would YOU do?
What a petty god. LOLOL
Do you get off speaking for god? Personal power perhaps? Bet that works really well where you live. Not so much in the educated world huh?
Oh, I see you are just kissing up. You think he won't notice that you're just a kiss up. Well, I'll reserve my judgement until I meet him. It's the human way. But from what I can see he may be needy.
I have to say the later part of your post was infantile. You asked what would I do to the left over people who are not kiss ups. REALY? You can't think of anything better than letting them burn in hell (must be painful) for eternity. THAT makes sense to you. Well I say set them free. They can't hurt anyone being just spirits and that's just of the top of my head. But you just keep sucking up to the bully who say love me and tell you love me or I'll burn you. Use your God given brain. Oh did I say that?
Not sure where you saw me 'kissing up' to God, you are correct, God does know our 'hearts' and can see our motivations, so kissing up would be a waste of time, I suspect that is the reason so many dare not face God in this life, they know what's in their hearts and are fearful of it being exposed.
Did I quote hell?
No, I asked you a question, which you should be able to answer, as you consider God to be your equal, or maybe yourself to be the equal of God?
Just answer the question: What would you do?
And remember I did not mention hell, you did.
OH, I see, was that your answer, just "set them free. They can't hurt anyone being just spirits".
Ever heard of demonic spirits, those spirits that are under the dominion of the enemy, Lucifer, Satan, whatever one calls him, I prefer 'the enemy'.
If God just 'sets them free' then those spirits would just be more demons under the enemies control who were tasked with troubling humanity and trying to bring about the destruction of all they encountered.
In order to be 'set free' they would have needed to be unworthy of spending eternity with God, i.e. they would already be 'not good' - no I think that is too simple a solution and one that would create more problems for all.
Yes you did just say that, and I appreciate it.
Once again you bring up burning (presumably in hell) which (again) I have not mentioned.
Why would anybody who did not accept that God exists be concerned about that?
When I was a non believer, I never worried about hell, why would I, I knew (then) that God was not real.
When I realised that God was real, and came to faith, again I never worried about hell, because I was not liable to end up there, (if it exists as the Catholic Church defined and wrote about it) so why would hell be a problem?
It seems atheists think God created this hell place to punish those who will reject His love, when in fact it has no bearing on the issue.
If God is God, and therefore accountable (to Himself) for all the people ever created, then as eternal beings He needs to provide an accommodation for all of them.
Some choose to spend eternity with Him, and He makes it really easy to do that.
Others choose NOT to spend eternity with Him, and, being God, He needs to make provision for them as well, they are His creation, they are His responsibility.
My question was, where would you put them?
My thoughts are that God must create a place where all who choose to not be with Him, and all who by their non repented actions are unworthy to be with Him, can be kept for eternity without His further intervention in their lives.
By 'intervention' I refer to the protection that the presence of the Holy Spirit affords mankind on earth, from the worse ravages of the enemy.
In my opinion, that place, disregarding lakes of fire and never ending torment, would not be somewhere I would like to be.
Any place where God is not present is hell, in effect, but it would be a hell that the residents created for themselves, God would only be providing the confined area for them to reside in.
What else could He do, when they have proven that they are not wishing anything to do with God in this life, and thereby rejecting eternity with Him?
I know a lot of people call Him that. If you judge Him by purely human standards, then He seems to come across that way.
God created us to love Him, that's why He cares whether we believe in Him or not.
What a petty, needy little weeny of a god. Sad, as a matter of fact. I pity Him.
So would sub humans understand Yahweh best?
It is easier to kill a human being, thinking he is sub human, if some leader pointed them out as sub human/demons
Our consciousnesses dose not want to kill real human being, So Politician in RELIGIOUS clothing are selling us the concept that the other side are evil doers or sub human demons. In order we can give our devolution to offensives war budget and take their demon resources as punishment
So many Silly people fall for it almost everytime, when will we grow up
When all of us stop thinking that anyone different from us is the opposition, and start acting in unity against our common enemy, currently represented by the 1% who run things.
If the 99% did that, it would end, however we still buy the propaganda that sets Democrat against Republican, Atheist against Religious, and Rich against Poor.
The 1% are not rich, they are super, super rich, the rich are just as much pawns as the poor.
Remember, I love American anyways because we are all equal.
1. There will never be one world Religion so love thy ugly spouse atheist or honest to a fault people like me,
2. Being against anything just joins the problem, like being against10,000 other god and non believers is unhealthy and solves nothing
3. Over fruitfulness over populates the earth with religious babies, then down gays for their service to mankind is just not ethical or wise.
4. Take responsibility for predominate religious countries causing almost all the recent wars and causing most rich to tool religious to go to war. Sad when you consider all the energy we need is under our own feet, not the the brown people's land.)
5. A non Christian will not be US elected in my life time. Fundamentalists and their "values" issues, many in the lower 99 percent could not have been convinced to vote against their economic self-interest the led by evangelical and Roman Catholic alike declare the US government agents of evil because "the government" has allowed legal abortion, gay rights, etc. which would declare the government is the problem," not the solution
So unregulated corporations, banks and Wall Street are always right and represent "freedom" while government is always wrong and represents "tyranny."
We need Government naturally like a tree needs the fungus to protect us. We don't need the so called tree of knowledge (religion tree) always fighting with her own branches and other trees
Worked in the US against Japan. Made the Japanese look sub hunan and then dropped a couple of atomic bombs. There is even a name for it. Propaganda.
I understand your point and it's a valid one.
God created us all in his image. God created us ALL in his image. So no, there are no "sub-humans." But humans of all persuasions (religious, ethnic, political, and yes, orientation) have a tendency to see other groups (especially ones they disagree with) as "less than." It's a sad reality but a very real one nonetheless. Jesus point out that we should not be like that.
I have to say Chris I'm having a hard time following your logic.
We are constantly told God created us in his image, but when we question his needy motives I'm told "If you judge Him by purely human standards, then He seems to come across that way."
Is there another way of judging him? I don't think the logic "we can't understand the motives of a God" holds up if we were made in him image.
I just doesn't make sense.
He created us to love him, but he seems narcissistic and cruel (the whole hell thing).
He is all powerful and alone, except for angels and the devil, that in all his power he can't control.
He created all this for us, even the Filarial Worm? Just to cause pain?
A lot of people do. Almost all the people I regularly talk to in these forums have trouble with it.
Well, "made in His image" is not the same as "created as His equal." It's like an artist (and God is an artist!) who paints a self-portrait. The picture looks like them, depending on how talented they are it might look exactly like them. But it doesn't have every single quality that the artist has. And if you judge the artist as an entire human being based on the portrait, there are so many things you just never know.
If He were needy, narcissistic and cruel, he'd either just have created robots incapable of anything other than blind worship, or he would constantly be opening the ground under people's feet, like some Louis XIV writ large. He wouldn't have given us the ability to choose whether to love Him or not.
And it's a mistake to think He "can't control" the angels or the devil. The angels only do what He tells them to in the first place, and as Martin Luther said, "The devil is God's devil." What that means is that although the devil is evil and trying to do bad things, he cannot wreck the planet, which he would do if God allowed it.
You keep going back to the Filarial Worm. I don't know. There are things I don't know and may never know. But I trust that God had a reason for creating it.
Sorry, but the question ask can not be true question. Being that man created the concept of god and atheism and any other religion. We can't speak for God. I'm sure god (divine) is nothing we ever imagined.
Cruelkindness (Subliminally Thoughtless)
God could be an atheist. Omnipresent is worth pondering over.
God never created atheists. Atheism comes from the imagination of man born in a convincing world of sin, temptation, lust and ego. It is natural to align to the ways of this world and so end up being a product of this world which creates unbelief toward God. Some people can see through the veil of this world and humble themselves, those that cannot humble themselves and yet feel obliged to answer the question of 'Does God exist' frequently call themselves atheist, but as to God creating atheists this is incorrect, as we notice in all people everywhere and in all forms of God-like servitude - the need to encounter a divine presence lay within all of mankind, although some earnestly refute this ideology. I believe atheism is a choice not a dna situation.
Excellent, Brother, thank you, well put, so let me re-phrase it for you:
Man created christians. Christism comes from the imagination of man in a convincing world of fear, bullying and control. It is natural to align to the ways of this world and so end up being one of those who control the world by encouraging a belief in a god.. Some people can see through the veil of lies and lift themselves out of the mindless mess, those who cannot lift themselves up and feel trapped into depending on the fictitious god, call them selves Christian and become servile to the continuing constructs of the human mind. We notice that some people really get a strong and helpful courage from their belief in God, it's an inherent need which they have and it's like a divine presence within, it's so strong. This to be respected and not ridiculed. I say christianity and all forms of regulated religion are a choice, not a DNA situation.
What is there to be said about things that are not easy? Is it not human nature to desire an easy life, a good life, a life of pleasure, happiness and clarity of conscience? But when things get difficult what can be said then? Shall one say, "This is my lot and i shall abide therein?" Does not a person try exceedingly hard to lessen their own pain? Of course they do and often along these painful paths constructs of the human mind seek to untrap themselves even to the point of denying what got them into that situation in the first place, the blame game for example, hence, the source becomes fictitious and self justifications take over. Indeed, all things are choice but the choosing does not absolve in any way the facts of the matter. DNA chooses our looks, experience molds our hearts and the mind seeks out solutions to all situations. In short that which is not fiction cannot be made fiction because one chooses to consider it as such. To adopt such a belief (construct of the human mind) is vanity which serves the self and the self while serving the self is not humbled to anything outside the self.
God is humbling but certainly not fictitious.
Hence, one of the problems associated with religions and the adoption of such belief systems. If someones path, as you say, is painful, religions can be a perfect escape to a fantasy world where the self is served.
and this is the scenario with the human mind. What do we believe? is there really a God or is it just the power of ones own mind to persuade. If this God world were just fantasy, i am sure that much like all other fantasies the mask would have been taken off and the sham revealed, however, this God fantasy world as you put it is surviving the test of time, scrutiny of various millions and millions of people and the experiences of those who are in it.
In secular application, if it helps people then why try to injure it?
As to self being served, i am sure, that this is completely your own preferred observation probably obtained by reading a few snippets about religion in the newspapers and not by hanging around christian friends who abstain from their selfs, because what makes christianity so very difficult is that it demands self be put on the shelf and those that cannot do this fall away. And since self is to be put aside it doesn't sound like a fantasy world that offers escape but rather imprisonment, unless there were a greater goal or object of gratification, which would be, knowing God himself. Once people get into that relationship with God strangely they are the last ones to call it fantasy. Those who fall away have a myriad of excuses that serve their self.
First of all, that is a fallacy of ad populum. Secondly, there are far too many religions with various gods, various messages and various beliefs in which most contradict one another. Thirdly, religions change over the years, hence don't stand the test of time and lastly, you yourself denounce other religions as false with your attempted revealings of them as being a sham; Catholicism, for example.
I am not refering to fallacy ad populum. I am merely stating fact. There are a lot of people involved with God over a very long time period. If we look at the time of jesus, the pharisees led the largest group of people, afterward roman catholicism herds huge numbers, but neither of these were correct. Numbers do not sway, my point was lesser than that and in context it supports what my point was. If God were so much a scam it would have vanished long ago.
Yes there are lots of religions with lots of beliefs and it has always been this way from the beginning and onward. Christianity is different. Jesus is different. True christianity is not a works based religion, it is a relationship and that makes it different from every other religion on the planet. Its not impossible to find God if one shops around. The bible is a very convincing book for those whose hearts are not hardened.
Christianity has withstood the test of time even though truths are revealed layer by layer and slow to seep into society.
So scientific data has not stood the test of time either because it changes, it has theories, hoaxes, etc. You cannot say there is no standing the test of time because of change. Many people with deeper truths, like jesus for example, don't get very far with the world system but that doesn't mean there have never been true followers of God.
Lucky you are to have people who speak against falsities. Shall i tell you that karma is just a revamping of the "reap what you sow" principle. There are many mimicries in the world. Those who are revolutionists cannot help but warn the masses. Don't complain when something you don't believe in gets explained in a believable way, it may incur change.
I have always found you to be overly critical and i would rather not waste my time trying to turn sour juice into wine. Good luck in your future atm.
"A lot of people involved with God over a very long time period" does not automatically make it fact, Brother. It's possible for a lot of people to be equally deceived over a long period.
An analogy is of one person on a parade ground apparently marching out of step with the band. You might think he was the only one in the wrong. However, the entire parade ground, apart from him, might be marching out of step with the music. A sort of "counterpoint contradiction."
So the whole argument comes back to what you want to believe: Personal choice, but a belief can never be proven one way or the other no matter how you argue the point, because a BELIEF cannot take the place of a provable FACT. Once the fact is established beyond all doubt, the belief becomes obsolete.
...I humbly submit!
I humbly submit
Mark 3:1 And Jesus entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
Mark 3:2 And the congregation watched Jesus, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. (Talmud: Shabbat 108:2)
Mark 3:3 And Jesus saith unto the man which had the withered hand, "Come here."
Mark 3:4 Then Jesus says to the congregation, "Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?" and no one responded.
Mark 3:5 And when Jesus looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, Jesus said to the man, "Stretch forth your hand." And the man stretched forth his hand: and his hand was restored whole.
Sorry, but there were a lot of people involved with "gods" over a long period of time, many gods, all of which eventually vanished.
Sorry, there is little difference in Christianity as there is in any other religion. Labeling it a "relationship" doesn't change that fact.
So far, no gods have ever revealed themselves, yours included.
It isn't convincing to those who use their brains. Hearts only pump blood.
And yet, science has brought you everything you have today while religion has brought nothing but conflict. If not for science, you'd still be living in a cave, no computer, no internet connection, nothing. Is your computer and internet a hoax? Muslims and Jews also enjoy the benefits of science yet they don't follow your god. Which is the real hoax?
You have only your irrational beliefs and denials of the world around you. The only wine you can turn is in your imagination.
See what i mean?
Thanks for proving my point
over and out
So hey people I'im back, sort of; summers over. 2 trips to Ontario because of mom dying. She's in hospital with lung cancer and severe stage alzheimers. Dad's handling it there. Should be some hubs on the way.
No, I don't see what you mean and no, I didn't prove your point.
It's obvious though, that you are incapable of arguing the points I made and incapable of answering the questions I raised, which shows that you know they are true.
Sorry to hear about Mom. Will keep you all in prayer, brother. I know those things can be tough to get through.
Brother I will keep your family in prayer. Three years ago, at this time, my mother was dying. She was very advanced Alzheimers, necrotic tissue all over legs, and I felt totally helpless. I knew it was in God's hands but it hurt me to see her suffering.
Sorry, but there were a lot of people involved with "gods" over a long period of time, many gods, all of which eventually vanished.
You mean a lot of people involved with false gods whom have vanished. Recall that hebrewism is the only monotheistic belief, another difference between Christianity and the rest of the world. Of course false gods vanish lol. Is that really a point? A lot of things vanish over time. Vanishing has nothing to do with correctness. And btw God hasn't vanished.
Sorry, there is little difference in Christianity as there is in any other religion. Labeling it a "relationship" doesn't change that fact.
Another area where you are wrong you just mentioned. There is no fact in what you have just said because you are wrong. Rereading your post before thumping on the enter key would have maybe revealed this to you, but of course you would have to think about it a bit instead of knee jerk reacting to everything out of anger, using insolence as your cover lol.
So far, no gods have ever revealed themselves, yours included.
Is this just a blanket statement or am i supposed to add in extra words to fill the gaps. God hasn't revealed himself to you. mine included would have been a better sentence. Too other christians, in this forum and elsewhere around the globe, God has revealed himself. Perhaps there is a pattern here... eyes to see, etc.
It isn't convincing to those who use their brains. Hearts only pump blood.
This has to be a personal statement how can you speak for all the hearts on earth
And yet, science has brought you everything you have today while religion has brought nothing but conflict. If not for science, you'd still be living in a cave, no computer, no internet connection, nothing. Is your computer and internet a hoax? Muslims and Jews also enjoy the benefits of science yet they don't follow your god. Which is the real hoax?
So you are saying that because science brought us technology there is no God. Where's your coveted double laughie when i need it.
This whole post is why I over and outed you lol.
Your god will vanish to the shelf of myths just like the hundreds of other gods long past. It is inevitable as history repeats itself.
And yet, Christianity like any other religion is just a religion. Denying that is dishonest.
The pattern is one of indoctrination and dishonesty. Anyone who says God has revealed himself to them cannot be trusted.
Yes, I understand you lack an education. It's stunning that it goes all the way back to high school, though, where such things as hearts are understood to pump blood.
That conclusion does not follow. What follows is that science has brought your everything whereas gods have only provided you with dishonesty and lies to propagate.
I can see why, you have failed miserably to answer any questions with facts.
God didnt create the human atheist, it is the self desicion of person to be atheist or others. god creates human as sinless. the man does himself sinner.
Did God create atheists? Or did God create humans as intellectual and independent beings? Isn't it part of a human's "in God's image" nature to decide what he will or will not do or believe? Isn't free will an essential part of God's creation of humans?
A better question might be - why are there both atheists and believers if evolution is the sole means where by a species develops? What evolutionary purpose is served by a trait and its absolute opposite both existing in the same species?
There are strong evolutionary advantages to believing something without evidence. Or rather - there used to be. That is rarely the case nowadays - hence the clash as we move towards a more civilized society.
The powers-that-be have taken advantage of this trait, but we are rebelling now. It mght take a few hundred years, but there is a shift towards the reverse.
Mark, you will be aware that I agree with a lot of what you say, so here now is a slightly different take on what you have just written.
Granted in such countries as the United States, where it's seen as a more "progressive" and "scientific" country (both these terms deserve a lot more debate, and I'm not sure they are the best to use in these circumstances), you might expect more rational argument and acceptance to become the norm. Religion might be much less needed, but of course it's still there.... the human psyche does not change that quickly.
In other countries, superstition, belief systems, religion as part of a culture are still very much ingrained in their societies. I doubt whether any amount of "rational debate" would make much difference in the short term; probably not much over 3 or 4 generations hence, if that.
Can we be willing to allow that, without pushing the atheist point of view, which I am much drawn to ?
There's also the distinct possibility that some are a bit too hasty in our new-found knowledge to dismiss a mindset that has been such an intricate part of the human experience in our quest to better understand ourselves. There's an eager willingness to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, based more on the negative impact that came primarily from the human misuse of an ideal versus the foundational concepts of the ideal itself.
I equate the whole of humanity's mental development with the stages of an individual life. This, to me, seems to be that teenage rebellion phase, when we begin to form our own ideas and understandings and seek to further our independence from parent figures and the limits they impose on us by challenging the established status quo defiantly. Ultimately I think the ebb and flow of life will prevail and we'll see a shift back, much like what's experienced in adulthood, when you begin to better understand those established concepts of the past and merge them with your own to find something that even more resembles the actual truth.
The baby is rotting from cancer and causes nothing but trouble. I have found the truth. You denying it and clinging to your irrational belief in a majiakal afterlife will not change that. Sorry. One day you may achieve full understanding and you will see that your childish needs are just that - childish.
I don't think so - no. Look at the USA for your answer. Same goes for other struggles to progress in the past. You think women would be voting without those who stood up and said, "enough is enough," and chained themselves to railings? You think segregation would have gone away by majick without those who pushed to get rid of it?
I don't think so. In the UK we have had to fight to remove much religious nonsense from every day life. No fight - it would still be there. It is so ingrained it needs to be removed by argument.
Not sure what you meant to say though - I personally see a big clash coming. We have societies where superstition is the norm, yet they have access to Twitter? Recipe for disaster.....
Certainly I see religiosity, i.e. the tendency to look for "spiritual" salvation from the every-day problems of life, as being counter-productive.
For example, an acute shortage of food which is causing starvation in the community would call for better planning, more eco-sustainable farming practices and good, plain, hard work by the population at large, rather than kneeling in prayer. To counter the possibility of another earthquake or hurricane or drought, you would plan to build secure storage and lay by surpluses in the better years. Praying to a god, waiting for a miracle, will only be palliative and promote carelessness.
Yet, in the light of reality, a population that is suffering starvation is likely to lack the physical and mental energy to lift themselves out of that hunger mode. There is the possibility that a religious motive may lead another group of people into helping the starving population.
Now, is that religious motivation going to help the starving population in the long term? Or is it going to result in a continual, downward spiral?
Will that population be responsive to the practical solutions, or will its mentality be stuck in the spiritual mindset?
I don't know. Eventually - I hope - we will get out of this "spiritual mindset," and most of the religious "helpers," tend to have an ulterior motive.
What is interesting to me is the opposite is happening in the USA - you have a population that is largely over-fed clinging to the same religioisity as the starving, which tends to turn into hubristic self righteousness. As we see from Mr Noggin et al. He somehow thinks he has a deeper understanding and - eventually - we will raise ourselves up to his level.
This is why their religion causes so many fights.
I agree with your assessment of religion in general in the US, specifically Christianity. That's my family. That's the church I grew up in. I know it well. And I want to shake these people and wake them up too. I've tried myself. I don't want the 'clash' you say you feel is coming. The same one I feel coming. But, unfortunately, it usually takes something big to shake people up and force them to re-access. Humans are creatures of habit. It's this coming clash that's a big motivator behind what I do.
Obviously, based on your including me in your assessment of US religiosity, you aren't quite getting my message yet. I know your position well. Though I'm sure you'll object, I am a very logical and science-minded individual, and always have been. This universe and everything in it fascinates me to know end. I have always devoured every bit of scientific knowledge I could get my hands on and still do. I grew up in church, but my church had very little to do with my faith. My faith in God has always been my own thing. Where everyone around me, it seemed, saw science and God as mutually exclusive, I have always only seen cohesion.
Here you describe me as having "hubristic self righteousness", and that I think myself and my understanding as being above you. While I can certainly understand how you could take what I'm saying that way, I have to ask, how do you see what you're doing as different? Is that not exactly how you see yourself? As being above believers and their archaic religious beliefs? As having a heightened or enlightened understanding that the rest of mankind will hopefully one day achieve as well so the world can maybe then be a better place?
How are you so certain that you're the one that's right, and that I'm not only wrong but arrogant as well? I get your perspective. You see humanity's belief in higher powers as a crutch that helped us along until we could achieve greater understanding, but that it's now more of a hindrance to progress. I get that. I see that too. But you seem far too eager to reduce our descendants, their efforts to better understand, and their instincts and intuition, down to irrelevant and ignorant drivel that we no longer have any use for.
In my mind you're not heeding the lessons from the past and seem determined to make the same mistakes. To think you've found the real 'truth' and condemn others' views as barbaric and out-dated. To break humanity of its hold on the past and move forward to a better, more enlightened existence. To fight the good fight. Sound familiar? What do you think it would really take to make that happen? Inquisitions? Crusades? After all, humans are stubborn.
If you're going to put yourself in that position, make yourself a warrior for 'truth', then you might want to ensure you really have it. The whole truth. There can be only one. To me, your strictly material-based view lacks some pretty significant explanations. The passionate drive that propels you to be here right now having these discussions, for instance. Where does that come from? In a material world of causation, survival, adaptation, evolution, where does that come from? That part of us that aspires, not just for survival, but to achieve a higher level of greatness. Or the beauty we hear in music that moves us and makes us weep? Or the meaning and purpose we assign to life in general?
What makes you so certain that we're now ready in our understanding and knowledge base to take the wheel of human development from here and steer it ourselves? We got here through over 541 million years of evolution with absolutely no help from us. 200 thousand years anatomically modern. We've only even been aware and actively pursuing understanding for 6000 years. Do you really think we now understand well enough to take over?
Take over from what exactly?
We have always been "in charge" ourselves. We have adapted and changed and evolved naturally - nothing to do with your religious nonsense. Your belief in majikal nonsense will not change that. Although - by your logic. We were doing just fine until your Invisible Super Being intervened - then we started to fight with each other.
So - your question is moot. We are not so important as you arrogantly imagine. We have been here - as you say - just a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
We will evolve as we always have done. We will either survive and adapt and change as needed. Or we will go extinct - as happened to our predecessors. Either way I doubt we will be here for long.
I sometimes wonder if you have bothered to even try to understand how evolution works and where we are on the "Grand Scale"? Example:
Dinosaurs "ruled," the earth in the form we understand them to have done for 130,000,000 years.
Humans have "ruled," for 200,000 years and only started messing with nature the last 10,000 or so.
We shall see. Personally I don't hold out a lot of hope for us. Especially all the time we cling to the ridiculous beliefs some hold. My money is on the cockroaches next time out. Those things take a lickin'.
Yes, I understand our reign at the top of the food chain on this planet is miniscule in comparison to dinosaurs, but don't be so quick to sell us short. In less than 6,000 years we've managed to completely change the landscape of this planet unlike any other creature in over 500 million years. We've completely populated the planet unlike any other species, including other species of hominids who also existed way longer than we have. And, unlike any other species, we're also capable of completely wiping ourselves off the face of the planet. Not to mention we're the only ones aware of our own eventual demise and the only ones concerned with where we come from, why we're here, how the universe works, etc. We're incredibly unique.
Given your rather bleak perspective that we won't be here for long, why bother doing what you do? What does it matter if most of the world still believes in a higher power and an afterlife? Do you really think that your cause to bring people around to your way of thinking is the best approach? Do you think that convincing everyone the world over that there's actually nothing after death and that mankind in general will most likely not last long anyway would make the world a better place?
Rather bleak? Sorry if realistic upsets you. Do you honestly think that we are here for eternity? What is your prognosis? The dinos managed 130 million years. I guess we will be lucky to manage 10% of that. Sounds like you are not actually saying anything - just defending your irrational belief in majikal angels mating with natural humans to produce immortals who are all dead....... Conveniently.
Mind you - it has got to be better than preying for Jebus to come back and force the unbelievers to their knees I would say. When is he coming back again?
Why bother? Because of all the conflict, ignorance and hatred you spread.
Yes - I think persuading people that there is no majikal super being could actually convince them to fully live their life without the sort of conflict, ignorance and hatred that religion spreads.
Who knows - we might even look at ways of extending our life here instead of thinking the Invisible Super Being will take care of things.
Your short sighted view of things is somewhat shocking. When you consider the massive climatic and plate tectonic changes that have gone on in the past that make our puny changes rather silly. One decent Volcanic eruption and all our changes will vanish. It is not just creatures that affect the planet.
I tried to put things in perspective for you by reminding you of just how long the dinosaurs ruled - and all you can do is worry about majik. I suppose that is the reason for it huh?
Read a good book recently - Bill Bryson -
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nea … 076790818X
You might want to try it. It may help you get a little perspective instead of this arrogant religious belief that we are "special."
Actually we finished populating the entire planet about 15,000 to 16,000 years ago, but we haven't started to really screw things up until that few hundred years. Your 6000 year mark is completely irrelevant.
He is trying to back up his "theory," that a majikal Super Being created a different version of humans.
By Majick. Logically, Scientifically Deduced Majick like the Bible Sez.
But - still Majick.
Yup, I know, that's why I had to show that his 6000 years ago is completely meaningless. Did you know according to him the bible is correct and the moon is actually a light intended by God to light up the night for us to see, but for some reason where I am right now there is no light in the sky besides stars which according the bible are just lights in the vault and that vault keeps the waters from the heavens from getting to us here on earth. So confusing, I'm not sure how he holds it all together.
He must have missed this I posted:
And these guys have a fantastic interactive video showing how significant we really are:
I remember that post. I also remember someone posting that they don't get it. You can beat them over the head with it and they won't get it. I'm not sure why we bother.
Because if nobody bothers, we go back to burning witches and abortionists.
Right! Thanks for that. Momentary lose in critical thinking. I put the blame solely on the indoctrination of the young. If they haven't had the seed of doubt given to them before their brains are fully developed then it's just to late. But if we can get them to think critically before then they are golden. I've seen this happen recently with my own kids. Looking from the outside in one gets to see the absurdity.
Wouldn't they love to do that in the Deep South?
I'm not sure what the point's supposed to be. Favorite equals middle? Favorite equals only, or prominent mass? This, to me, just suggests you're trying to fit the concept of God into a very narrow, spatial, human perspective. You see God as a human invention, and are therefore trying to understand from that perspective out. You're talking about physical matter from the context of a spatial dimension. God is clearly described as the creator of that and therefore beyond that. To quote Yoda, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
Besides, a lot of the bible verses included aren't used in the right context. For example, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" from Psalms clearly doesn't just refer to Israel. If anything, that map should look more like this...
Though I have good reason to believe that every predominant religion of the world shares the same origin and that God isn't nearly as 'inclusive/exclusive' as this map and traditional religion suggests, this would be a more accurate visual interpretation of that particular verse than what was used.
The other one that refers to 1 Corinthians for its biblical 'sun' reference is definitely reaching. But I get it, they wanted to keep a particular pattern of pic, 'favorite' pointer, bible verse. It's witty, but not entirely accurate.
What that series of pics does illustrate well is the improbability of this place existing. From my perspective, God doesn't actively mold existence. He set the laws as they are and simply injected matter into the environment. Matter adhering to the laws of physics as He set them shaped the universe, created our sun, and created this planet. This planet, along with its moon, situated as they are, made up of the elements that they are, allowed for the presence of life. It couldn't exist as it is in the middle of a galaxy, or as the only galaxy. The entirety of the universe has to be just as it is for this planet to be here just as it is. Then He created life by imbuing it with the will that drives it to procreate and evolve and survive. Again, not physically molding, but through the laws of the environment.
This universe has the exact right balance that allows us to be here. Unless it just happens to be the one and only of an infinite number of universes in which the exact right set of conditions exist, it's hard to argue that it wasn't designed for a purpose. Like Physicist Freeman Dyson once said, "The Universe knew we were coming."
"The universe appears to have bent over backwards to accommodate life." - Professor Russell Stannard, high-energy particle physicist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9XTNt-c … playnext=3
My sense of awe comes from my knowledge of biology. Realising how delicate and finely balanced all the biological processes are within the anatomy and physiology of any living organism you like to mention.
For example, our brain: the exact pressure and tension of oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, salts, proteins, etc. across the coverings of the brain. Even a very slight change in osmotic pressure (I believe that is the right expression) can prevent the brain working, instantly.
Another example: If you have ever carefully taken the shell off a chicken's egg, and seen the delicate membrane just inside the shell. That membrane represents the lungs of the chick which will be growing within the egg. Just the right pressure of oxygen and carbon dioxide, allowing for the thickness of membrane and the shell itself, means the chick will be able to breathe.
Don't you consider these two examples fascinating and awesome? How did it all come about? All of the biological process, of all and every organism that exists, is just as wonderful, just as delicate and specific.
I cannot conceive of them being brought about without the instigation of a designer and some kind of force/energy pattern which we finite images can never fully appreciate or understand.
Having said it before, I cannot in anyway countenance a judgmental god; that is a construct of the human mind. And most certainly not a spiritual being that wrote a thick book for humans to argue over. Yet some kind of metaphysical designer, creator I can and do accept. That designer obviously works through the infinite reaches beyond the atomic level and the cosmic level. I still cannot call such an entity "god." That is too constricted and contrived to suit "believers."
I rest my case.
I agree. The biological world fascinates me to no end as well. Watching that Discovery/BBC special Planet Earth, it struck me how no matter how adverse and brutal the conditions, life exists in some form in practically every environment on this planet. And everywhere living organisms exist, there also seems to be another organism that serves as a natural predator to the first. Life's ability to continue to exist in every imaginable environment in every imaginable way amazes me.
See, God being the ultimate judge does make sense to me. Not so much in the way that we generally think of 'judgement', but more in the way white blood cells attack things that are harmful to the body. It's simply His nature. And it's the exactness of the universe and the delicate balance of life in contrast to the messy chaos that is the human mind and human nature that make it make sense to me. In nearly every way, the modern human mind and human behavior are an anomaly in the natural world. They don't make sense. Yet the human mind is ultimately the product of the natural world.
This goes along with what I've been trying to point out here. It's around 4000 BC that humans began to act very differently. In the story of Adam and Eve, Eve takes the fruit because of what she would gain. A delicious fruit for one, and knowledge of good and evil. It then says she and Adam immediately became acutely self-aware when it says "and the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked".
Nearly all the ancient mythologies of the world have a common theme in the idea of a 'golden age' in human history before humans became possessive and violent. In China, there are legends that speak of a Golden Age before constant warfare and social oppression. In Greek/Roman mythology they speak of a golden race of mortal men who lived with hearts free from sorrow and remote from toil or grief, and all good things were theirs. Some myths specifically point to the human love of possessions as being one of the negative effects that came after that Golden Age. Like how it's described by the Roman poet Ovid ....
"There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines."
This all goes to why I think there's more to the Genesis story than many give it credit for. Early humans, and even those tribal cultures still in existence today, that's how they are. Like how humans of the Golden Age are described. They're not hung up on possessions and they don't designate levels of importance within the tribe. All are equal. And this doesn't change when resources get scarce. They're simply content. More content than you or I will ever be. They're not concerned with controlling the environment. They're not concerned with what lies beyond the stars. They simply believe the world is alive with spirits, and doesn't 'belong' to anybody.
It's the humans of those first civilizations that changed things. They were very discontent. They conquered lands for their own, enslaving or killing the inhabitants, they designated importance to some over others and created the first of human class stratification, they treated women as inferior. This change was quick and localized. In Genesis, after the flood, the descendants of Noah were said to have been dispersed in all directions across the earth at Babel. And that's how the archeological evidence shows these changes came about. They came, not from those already settled communities along river banks in Mesopotamia and Europe, they came from Semetic and Indo-European speaking Nomadic tribes who came from the land that was quickly becoming the Sahara desert. When these cultures arrived, that's when the first human civilizations first began to form. And they formed in multiple places independently and very quickly. Each with unique languages, each developing their own form of writing, and each incredibly capable in technology and craftsmanship.
Basically, I say all of that to say this. This behavior that makes modern humans who they are, these behaviors that differentiate us from tribal humans, they're very self-serving. This is the age when humans became selfish. They adapted a much more acute sense of "I". Like Eve realizing she was naked. Now, rather than all of existence, all life, all the universe, only consisting of what was created by the One Creator, only behaving according to the one will, now there are things in existence created by the many. Created by humans. Humans each with their own independent will, capable of behavior unlike anything else in nature. This independent will, this 'knowledge of good and evil', it makes us capable of incredible things. We create amazing structures, civilizations, we put men on the moon, we landed a rover on Mars, we've developed incredible ways to communicate and work together to achieve great collaborative efforts. But we're also extremely destructive. A destructive tendency that always boils down to selfishness and self-serving needs. A sense of 'us' and 'them'. We force our will onto others, we take land, enslave inhabitants to do our labor, push out our boundary lines and claim all the land we can as our own.
If the human mind and everything that is human nature are products of the same Creator as this existence is, then this capability is something that must adhere to that one creator/source/authority. Like cells adhering to DNA code. The DNA code holds the key to success in a living organism. Everything must behave in a particular way for the body as a whole to work. For trillions of cells to work together in total harmony. But, being that it is a free independent will, this adherence to the one authority must be willfully chosen.
What if each cell in your body was capable of deciding for itself how to behave? Whether or not to adhere to what DNA dictates? What if all the cells in your left hand decided for themselves that they don't want to just be the same old hand anymore? They want to be twice as big and they want to be purple. What those individual cells don't realize, considering they only live for a very short amount of time and don't have the generations of experience that DNA has 'learned' from, they don't realize how they're choice of behavior, selfishly, is robbing the rest of the body of resources it needs, endangering the body as a whole. That's how I see us. Capable of incredible things, but lacking the knowledge that God has of existence and the far-reaching affects each and everyone one of our actions have on this existence.
I know that's a silly analogy, but I hope it gets the idea across. That's how I view our capability, this free will. I see us as incredibly capable of amazing things, but also incredibly dangerous and inherently destructive. In the cells in a body analogy, this gives us a high tendency to be cancerous. To no longer adhere to DNA and behave as 'the body' needs to for all to live harmoniously. For eternal life to be possible. In that way, God would have to be a judge. Just as it's described in the harvest analogy by Jesus. Though weeds grow up in your harvest, simply plucking them up before harvest risks damaging and uprooting the good plants. So, at harvest time, some will be bundled up and put in the fire. It sounds harsh, but that's how it makes sense to me. This is what's necessary for beings of their own individual wills to exist. Without that, what's the point of the rest of it? To just live, struggle, die?
And you said you were all logical n scientific n stuff.
"There must be a god becoz it make no sense unless".............
Don't know why you need 4,000 words to say that.
Oh! Mark! I value your input here, but boy! you do have a small mind!
Aww - I have been speaking to Mr Noggin for a long, long time Atleast he has stoppped saying "prove I am wrong," at the end of all his pronouncements.
Not sure why rejecting majik is being "small minded," but - I am glad you embrace it. Are you a believer now?
Please, read my posts and form your own opinion of me. I cannot make that judgment. HeadlyvonNoggin is obviously a very deep and conscientious thinker. Even though I don't need to agree with everything or anything he says, I thoroughly respect his views and ideas.
In fact those views and ideas are like a breath of fresh air here, IMHO.
Not silly in the slightest! Thank you. I hope many others in this Hub take the time to read right through your post, before making any comment.
Biologists are fascinated by the world, too, but they don't get their information from tv.
God existing doesn't make sense at all, let alone jumping beyond that conclusion to one that would apply characteristics to such a fantasy.
And yet, nature abhors gods.
That is an argument from incredulity.
It does make sense if one understands evolution.
Which humans, exactly? The Chinese? Native Indians? Eskimos?
That doesn't give Genesis any credit whatsoever or provides any explanation as to how they are even relative to those civilizations.
LOL. How you managed to come to that conclusion is as baffling as it is fallacious.
Hilarious gibberish. Giant purple hands = God.
It is just gibberish and makes no sense at all.
Personal misinformed opinions based on indoctrinated beliefs. That is basically what you've provided here and nothing more.
" And it's the exactness of the universe and the delicate balance of life in contrast to the messy chaos that is the human mind and human nature that make it make sense to me."
ATM: "That is an argument from incredulity."
This is Headly's opinion. He is entitled to it. I don't feel that he is trying to convert anyone right now, but I might be mistaken.
A reasonable discussion surely does not disallow an opinion? All along I have tried to support good discussion, but when you throw out ridicule or rotten eggs or tomatoes at a person for their well-thought out opinion, it becomes nothing less than a bad argument, and a disrespectful one at that.
ATM, can't you at least honour this?
Don't you think it is reasonable to criticize some one who claims to be using logic and scientific reason, when in fact that are using the standard religious argument that "it must be that way because they cannot see how it could not be"?
I agree it is Noggin's opinion. But he is not saying it is his opinion. He is presenting it as "evidence.
Don't confuse matters, Mark. We are talking about multiple things here. The evidence I'm talking about is in relation to where I place the events of early Genesis in actual history. Other things discussed here are my views based on that perspective, but not something I'm 'presenting as evidence'.
Ah - once again we are misusing the term, "evidence."
Sorry - you saying it must have been majick because you can "interpret" the bible to have said something other than what was actually written does not constitute "evidence."
Odd you cannot grasp this. I wonder why?
Good luck with the reading matte Does he agree with your assessment that it is not possible that we naturally developed and there must have been a goddunit?
Forgive me for being frivolous here, but that diagram looks very much like an Alien Alimentary tract to me.
The human specie is not your run-of-the-mill earthly entity because it has evolved with the axo-dendritic connections that allowed him to have the temerity , the audacity and the perspicacity to look beyond himself.....something that you as an atheist woul say your fellow humans are not entitled to and are incapable of.
My step father was like you. Lots of big words that say nothing. Even had to look up a few. But yes humans are different then any other animal, but then again all animals have their own strengths. Are we the only animal that is self aware? No. Why did our brains evolve the way it did? Most likely because it takes a big brain to throw a spear or a rock with accuracy and when someone was born that can throw better they ate better and propagated more until eventually some of us can use big words in an attempt to communicate thoughts.
The question then remains can this big brain communicate with God? The answer is of course no. You can however communicate with an imaginary friend in your head. That is one of the by products of all those axodendritic connections. We are smart enough to be self aware and that leads us to understand what our final demise will be, and that is too scary for some so we invented an afterlife for those to afraid of death.
You seem to be having a problem with your English usage.
None of these apply to you. I think the words your seek are "self righteous," "arrogant," and "hubristic."
Love what a high opinion you have of yourself. Perspicacity huh? My pet goldfish has a better understanding than you do.
We hear that often from believers who have yet to convince us of their so-called 'scientific knowledge' as they only tend to obsess about philosophical questions that science does not answer, but instead explains how it all works, despite the believers motives to drive their belief system into the mix.
The attempt to present reality to the faith-based believer is often misunderstood as enlightened understanding, it's simply reality.
Those descendents you refer only offer ignorant drivel. What else are we to do with it?
Again, your philosophical questions can be answered using "material based" explanations in regards to how it all works. Assigning a meaning or purpose to life is something we do as individuals, not something an imaginary god has decided for us.
See, that's the problem. You're under the illusion that 'scientific knowledge' "explains how it ALL works". It doesn't. Science is the study of matter and energy. We understand inanimate matter to an incredible degree. To the degree that we can actually reconstruct how the universe came to be and trace it all back to the point in time and space when it began. But we can't see beyond that. We can't see what 'caused' it. That's part of 'all'.
And in the case of animate matter, biological life, we understand even less. We don't understand 'life' in an of itself to the same degree that we understand inanimate matter. We can't reconstruct in the same way by simply understanding conditions of the environment. We haven't defined 'life's laws' to the same degree as physical laws. We don't know how it started and we don't understand it well enough to know how it evolved the way it did. We can only guess. Random mutation? Natural selection? Sure, they're logical theories, but they're really just guesses.
Then you have the mind. Us. The "I" in your head. "Scientific knowledge" does not even begin to "explain how it all works".
It's only PART of reality. See, life and the mind are also part of reality, yet undetectable by the scientific standards you swear by as you're making your case that you're talking about ALL of reality and "how it all works". Purely based on the study of physical matter you're speaking of having a 'deeper' understanding of existence and are speaking of 'what is and what isn't' true about this universe beyond anything based in factual evidence as if you know better than anyone else. Yet, science can't answer three really big, really relevant questions about existence; What 'caused' the universe to begin? What 'caused' life to begin? What is the non-physical mind?
You're right, we can make guesses at explanations using 'material based' observations all day. Doesn't mean it's right. It's speculation. And until we can answer the bigger questions [see above], especially since these 'philosophical questions' fall squarely in the realm of the still not understood human mind and 'life', it always will be speculation. Like the endless speculation about how the universe formed the way it did before we achieved a deeper understanding of the laws of physics. Interesting stuff, but not nearly as incredible as the truth.
No, the real problem is when believers must resort to their magical gods to answer questions about science when science hasn't readily provided them with answers. Another problem is when believers make assumptions about what "caused" it when science already understands it came about on it's own. It is merely wishful thinking on the part of the believer who really wants to believe their particular god was the cause.
Correction, you most certainly don't understand it.
Hence, you are compelled to resort to invoking your god to answer those questions that are not readily available for you.
Yes, you have little of science and must invoke your god to answer questions that are not readily available to you. Science understands the universe and life came about on it's own and that the mind is a physical attribute of the brain.
Sorry, but science doesn't just make guesses.
Yes, it is speculation to those such as yourself who have no understanding and really want to invoke magical sky daddies.
Yes, you are speaking for yourself and not for others who do understand the laws of physics and don't invoke magical gods as their "truth".
Was it god who created atheists or is it more a case of atheists create there own frame of mind which says there is no god. But it was god who created the atheists body and not there mind.
God didn't create atheists
Atheists created themselves
A better question is who created God?
God creating atheists is a self-destructive act? The question assumes that atheists would become so powerful and so inummerable that God would be overwhelmed by their sheer arrogance and hubris. Now that assumption is truly laughable to say the least.
And you wonder why your religion causes so many fight.
And yet, we live in secular societies, not religious ones. Children are not taught to believe in God in schools, they are taught evolution. The more often believers talk about God, the more God gets pushed back into obscurity.
Where is your God's power?
Assuming God exists. God didn't create atheists. He created human beings with free will. He created entities with the ability to expand infinitely in any direction. He created a community of minds that could tackle any question, any situation, anything. He created a blank slate that could be filled with truth or lie.
Assuming God doesn't exist. The question is meaningless, let's go to the bar down the street.
When you find out, let me know. I have a bone to pick with her.
My suggestion is that we are never going to totally illuminate religious belief, nor the human need for it. What I am saying here goes against my disdain for non-sense religious belief in the face of good common sense. However, I suggest a mediating way to improve the debate.... which is not going to resolve in a 1000 years!
If those who are stuck in the realm of religion are willing, just a little, to relax towards more scientific discovery and findings; and those who are strongly anti-religion for whatever reason are willing to just let religious people have a bit more freedom to believe.....Then each side might be open to new insights, without having to change their fundamental beliefs.
Those who are already open minded enough to say, occasionally or frequently, that "I don't know the answer," are going to listen and applaud some common sense in this hub.
There might be an ensuing debate, instead of an adversarial rant.
Just a suggestion.......!
As far as I know, no atheist inflict atheism onto the religious. We don't knock on door and we don't care what they do with their Sunday mornings. The religious knock on doors and even vote religiously on politics. A secular society is what is needed, but the very religious can't even agree on that, some want the lords prayer in a public school.
Oh? So what precisely are you trying to do in this hub, Rad Man? Enlighten us?
You are certainly tending to ridicule anything with a belief side to the argument.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, except one may be a bit tougher than the other!
God gives us all free will. You either follow him or you don't. God does not create destruction, man does. God may allow it but only because of the choices man has made. I don't understand why so many things, situations or people go "bad" but I know, personally, not to point the finger at God. You want to be an Aetheist, that is your choice not Gods.
Perhaps God made Atheists to challenge his followers. A sort of Job built into the system to try an individuals faith throughout their lifetime. Also, if God didn't give us free-will to choose to follow him on our own accord, there wouldn't be much meaning to having faith. Not to mention you can just throw the whole "all-loving" theory out the door.
@WR nope ...god created hell for his fun , now needs some people to fill in...how would merciful loving god have fun without people burning in eternal hell just for reason that god chosed to remain invisible...wrote endless books , has 400 versions...
for god so loved the world... etc.. gave his own son... etc... should not perish
Strongs greek #622 perish destroy, destroy fully.
Hell, except for when gehenna is used inspite of strongs catholic connontations, means grave or tomb.
In short, a God who loves would not punish for eternity but would in His specific situation of infinity, everlasting life; destroy fully all those not able to attain to everlasting life. Its a case of all or nothing.
To say that God created hell is incorrect, the catholics 'created' or defined hell to be an abode for the dead. God said 'all must die', and therefore will be buried in a grave and that he would raise up the ones faithful unto everlasting life at the time appointed: the rest will be utterly destroyed. Atheists get what they want, which is nothingness and Gods people get what they want. Gods idea of fun is to rejoice over souls that are saved, while He hurts about everything else gone wrong in the world.
I don't believe that "God" is responsible for the actions or the personalities of humans, or even other animals for that matter. It makes since to me that we are a small part (a very small part) of something infinite and that we are who we are because we are in charge of ourselves. We are influenced by our environment and choose to be who we are and believe what we want. If we have the opportunity to have another life then maybe we carry what we have learned over to the next one. The thought that we have this controlling being who decides our fate and allows terrible things to happen as part of "his" big plan seems quite archaic and it is time we as humans work on moving past the religion part and see the much much much bigger picture. Talk to a person who has experienced something spiritual like a near death experience. Better yet, read the many stories of Atheists who have had near death experiences--now that's insightful...
You post is good up to the part about another life of which the bible, for unknown reasons except maybe truthfulness, teaches that there is no other life after this one except in and by even because of Him. So hinge a futurity on a maybe if you insist.
God controls our fates when it lines up to coincide with His fate. Albeit fate is noun and not a verb meaning that fate is mans constructed excuse for the workings of God, in which workings, trials, tribulations and indeed terrible things happening do have a hand in bringing people closer to God and if not closer usually, it brings people to a position of thinking about God, for without sickness and poverty, etc few people would ever consider God if ever, would they seek Him out. God hovering over a planet and correcting all bad things is a scenario much like other fiction it just would not work, because without choosing and love, albeit relationship, those on the planet would be nothing less than a prison with God being a prison keeper.
NDE are discredited by atheists, spiritualists and ordinary people as to not be enlightening. In fact, majorly the consensus is that neurotransmitters are firing rapidly trying to keep the body functioning and other biological functions are on high alert mode and what occurs is just biological basics and have no keen insights into any world or plane of existence at all.
What bigger picture you refer to is beyond me unless it is in God. That is the only bigger picture i know of, indeed all else pales in comparison.
Elijah was said to have come back in the form of John the baptist. That would indicate that Elijah had another life.
Are there any other examples of people coming back in the bible?
We cannot take one verse and make doctrine out of it. All truths are backed up by supporting verses in other places of the bible.
David said of his own son:
2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
More specifically Luke said:
Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the SPIRIT and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Apparently and, pardon my assureity, john was not elijah but was of the spirit and power and of elijah. The reason the pharisees and people believed that elijah had come back as john was because of this similar verse:
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Malachi 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
Common consensus about John was that he was a prophet.
Matthew 21:26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
John said he was not elijah
John 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
John 1:20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Reincarnation is not supported biblically.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
And Jesus said:
Matthew 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
There are no second chances
Yes and malachis prophecy needed to be fulfilled in order for Jesus not to be viewed as a false prophet. Perhaps there are no supporting verses because this is the only prophecy that was of any importance.
Jesus himself pointed to John the baptist.
There is no other way in my mind for reincarnation to occur other than spiritually. Assuming that reincarnation is possible.
What seems a totally incongruous idea... that this physical body can or even needs to reincarnate.
When you consider the intricate and complex nature of the chemistry (itself a physical process as we understand it) of living organisms, there is absolutely no way it could "re-incarnate" in its current form.
Even the tiniest ant is deeply intricate in both its anatomy and its physiology. There is a tiny brain there making choices all of the time it's alive. The microscopic legs are oscillating at millions of times a minute, propelling the ant at many times its own length per second. Can't you grasp the wonder of this, without needing to know the exact nature of the energy source which activates it?
You, I, a horse, an ant, a tree, a mollusc, do not need to re-incarnate. The biological process of recycling fills the gaps that we leave when we die. There is no need to hang onto the idea that our loved one will be seen and heard and experienced again. Let him or her go. That body is gone, forever. A new one, a new construction of matter will take his or her place.
This perceived need for continuum and permanency is at the root of religious belief. Yet it's totally false. It's constructed and maintained by minds like yours, Brother. You get a sense of importance when you preach this stuff to us. It has no more substance than that.
All your goodness, all your kindness, all your compassion, direct it at those living around you right now, but don't cloud the issue with this nonsense about a "god" directing the scripting of book. That task was taken by the hands of living human beings and the "god" was designed by humans to give the book authority.
I.e., the power to influence others for your own purpose of justification.
This perceived need for continuum and permanence is indeed apparent not only in religion but in non religious as well. This need is anchored in 'self' preservation mechanisms of the mind.
interesting materialistic view johnny, but hardly pertinent when it comes to those things which pertain to God. As to the book, well I am convinced otherwise because it is an amazing book. I think your opinion shows me what people can convince themselves of when they have to. Remember there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. It doesn't matter whether one is gay or hetero, its if we choose to practice it that matters. The problem i have with people who disbelieve the bible is that they then need to disbelieve all that God is. Lets face it, its a book about God.. In the beginning.. God created etc. So if the book is false then God must be a liar - there's some logic for ya. Further i cannot imagine that anyone or group of people would make up such stringent rules with the sacrifices and the holy days etc and all that the hebrew people had to do and then to find more meaning behind those types and shadows.. Most commonly i find people who disbelieve the bible do so in self defense not because logic or rational or good judgment prompt them, but thankyou for responding anyway.
Now you are showing your true colours Brother. What precisely do you mean by "choose to practise it?"
Authors more capable than myself in these matters have written about the misconceptions appertaining to sexual matters in the bible.
You will only see what you want to see, according to your own bias. I am willing to listen to honest interpretations which try to exclude such bias although I, of course, have my own biases.
Although I have openly declared that my only sexual interest has ever been homosexual, throughout my life, you do not and cannot know what I do in the way of practice because it's not the business of anyone else.
You will only judge me if you consider yourself in any way superior to me. The "god" which you think makes judgment is fictitious.
Yes, my response to your earlier post was materialistic, because I discount any response which might include the existence of a judgmental "god."
For me, it is my continual interaction with my fellow humans which is paramount, whilst I have time, because at the end of my "time" there will cease to be any more opportunity.
You continue to believe what you like, but count me out of it.
Finally, you speak of considering "God" to be a liar. No! Humans do that. A figment of the imagination IS the lie.
By way of a post-script, since I can still edit this post, I will say this. Those people, of whatever sexual orientation, who are totally comfortable with themselves and their desires, with those desires sitting comfortably within their every-day lives, are normally uncritical of me. They don't worry about any "difference" between us. It's all part-and-parcel of life.
Yet those who have been unwilling to face and come to terms with their sexuality, again of whatever orientation, are the ones who feel most adversarial towards me and other homosexual people. Very often this is at the point where they invoke support from, for example, from the scriptures or other texts, just so they can say "You are wrong! You are deviant. You are sinning."
Really the person they are speaking to is themselves. You see this happening most in so-called churches, where the minister, often speaking out from the pulpit and admonishing their parishioners for their deviance, is ultimately found out to be a liar and an abuser in one form or another.
The problem comes from their inner, personal dishonesty. The solution to their "problems" lies in that direction. If there is a "sin" separating you from that "god," the inner honesty will find "him" for you.
Until you have sorted that out, don't worry about what others are doing. Their solutions are in their hands (or hearts if you like).
Point fingers everywhere else, do what you have to. It doesn't matter what you think your sexual orientation is, even if you buy into genetics as the sourced, its all just excuses. When i said practicing i meant practicing. I'm a hetero but that doesn't matter because i choose not to practice it. There's a mate for me, somewhere, until then my sexuality doesn't even enter into the picture. Sexuality is flesh and when a person has enough spirit the lusts of the flesh fall away and sexual orientation becomes a moot point. My bet is the spirit of God points people toward hetero and the spirit, of course overrides peoples choices given enough time and if they are willing to be patient. I don't see why you let the flesh clutter your spirituality. God sorts all things out eventually. I don't see why you let preachers and legalists deride you of the ultimate route which is training by the spirit of God not the finger pointing of others. Its a personal walk with Christ and no one really has any permission to meddle with what He is doing in you. As with everyone, mistakes are made, sin happens but we are admonished to get up and try again, leaning on God for strength etc etc.
I don't try to judge.. certainly not with a condemnation or a penalty attached but i do have to do a certain amount of assessment which is fine, "by their fruits ye shall know them". I only try to help.
Sorry to be so persistent, Brother, but this sounds very much like a sexual hang-up to me.
Quite likely that you and I will always differ, Brother.
I can respect your choices of belief here, as long as it's stated as own your. I do not accept it when such moralising is put up as being right for everyone.
Hang-ups are so common in christians because, in my understanding, they have been unable to see life in its integrated entirety. Certain parts are cut out and declared naughty, and not of God, but of the Devil. Lots of superstition. Fears are built up. Dogma then builds up to counter the fears and provide a means of controlling the masses.
Certainly, I accept that certain instinctive yearnings are extremely strong and need to be controlled to a degree in order for us to live successfully as a community. I include here the hunger, protective and reproductive instincts which we all have to a greater or lesser degree. Given totally free reign each can easily break up the community.
However, this need to control has been taken up, across the centuries, by people who want to control us..... our minds in particular..... for their own ulterior motives. Inherent superstitions present those people with a very convenient tool, hence the "Religiosity Effect."
Its not a Need to reincarnate. Its a fact, even a byproduct!. God lives forever, he wants people to live with him to forever, but he only wants close friends naturally, as you or i would - no strangers sleepin on the couch forever. And the reincarnation is done in a spiritual body, not a flesh and blood body. The personality of the individual is resident in the mind of God, God, whom is everywhere.
well it isn't But if one doesn't let the bible teach then...
So Jesus did not fulfil the prophecy if Elijah did not do what he was meant to do?
Elijah was never meant to do anything. Elijah was dead and buried. When the bible talks like this, the lifestyle is what is called to scrutiny not some resurfaced spirit of a dead person, nor reincarnation or resurrected form. John the baptist and elijah had ridiculously close lifestyles. If the bible said, "i will send you moses who will teach you another path". Moses himself isn't going to come back, all the hebrews knew the resurrection was always future. The bible terms it this way in hyperbolic tense.
Because God created us with free will. The ability to choose. There is nothing wrong with that.
@outwest free will to choose between logic and faith?...without using logical side of brain how do u think our species would have survived...without our ability to seek proof , expand how to u think we would have been what we are today?....faith alone would have kept us in dark ages ...
(Because God created us with free will. The ability to choose. There is nothing wrong with that)
Rated one of the great theist posts of all time - a human judging the morality of god's actions.
And where is the absolute moral standards against which to make this judgement? I don't seem to remember any 11th commandment of "Thou shalt have free will".
Just as the fact that there is no 12th commandment to: "Keep thou no slaves" shows that 19th century humans had higher moral standards than the Jewish god who, according to myth, drowned thousands of Egyptians by closing the parted Red Sea for attempting to coral their own escaping slaves.
Does this make the exodus from Egypt the basis for Christian hypocrisy?
In essence, this is what your god actually said to the world: Jews, you can keep slaves - it says so in the bible. The rest of you guys, F#ck off.
But, that is morally right because it is free will....baptist.....church......belief?
this god created free will thing is absurd. it would be hard not to say that considering humans do as they please. free will is a joke as an arguement.
To all the non believers: I think you wouldn't be wasting your time here on this thread if you didn't believe in some kind of higher power.
Yes, believers must believe we are all irrational and are unable to think for ourselves. How better to justify their own irrational beliefs.
(To all the non believers: I think you wouldn't be wasting your time here on this thread if you didn't believe in some kind of higher power)
So your claim, then, is that psychiatrists and psychologists must actually believe the patients' Napoleanic claims when they attempt to relieve the patient of the delusion?
Curious. Why not just ask to meet Josephine?
This thread is in the atheist category, why are you here?
precisely the area of hypocrisy. So what kind of car do you dislike? lets say you dislike mazdas, so, are you there? on mazda forums telling those people what is wrong with their mazdas (on a daily basis)? No. But we find you constantly here telling us what is wrong with our beliefs.
Therefore i and others purport to you there is more to being here than meets the typed text.
Don't get me wrong, when sensible conversation with reasonable argument occurs i enjoy the banter. But honestly i have read more intelligent discussion in other forums, please do more research lol.
Man created god and religion. Some free thinking people didn't buy into the religion/god stuff.
You and I are almost on the same track.
However, different from the way you see things, I believe that God created "man" and "man" created religion.
I tend to agree with feenix. I think God created atheists so he'd have something to do. Eternity is extremely boring!
Actually, atheists are God's court jesters.
They keep Him laughing with all of their talk that He does not exist.
So the creator of all time and space... with infinity at his disposal... must create logical rational individuals (who are unlikely to believe anything with out empirical evidence) so that he can laugh at them?
That's almost as twisted as the "bow down before me" thing.
Melissa, where were you when God was handing out senses of humor?
Please be cool.
I don't think God created atheists for amusement. I think atheism is a natural product of a rational mind rebelling against previous establishments they don't agree with or have been oppressed by. I think organized religion has done the most to create atheism. I am a christian, but can certainly understand how someone could feel this way. I don't think asking questions is wrong and I don't think God minds them. It's Christians who try to address topics they do not understand yet philosophically reject that make it hard for someone who is in an honest search for answers to accept.
Then, why would you want to be there?
Here's where fee and I tend to part ways slightly...I think he is laughing at the christians. Trouble is, they also bring him extreme sadness, as we all do. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
This is a real tough crowd.
I will never try to do my stand-up comedy routine in this place again.
It's keyboard komedy, fee. Sit down, relax...have a cappuchino.
Believers choose to believe in the existence of God, even though the existence of God can not be proven.
Non-Believers choose not to believe in the existence of God, even though the non-existence of God can not be proven.
Therefore both Believer and Non-Believer are basing their decision on something called FAITH.
So, tell me again why we are arguing, Faith can not be argued it is completely irrational and has no basis in any kind of fact that can be argued. It simply is what it is Faith.
Nonsense. Non-believers are not choosing to not believe in the existence of God, they are simply not accepting the ridiculous claims of believers, whether those believers are Christians, Muslims or any other cult.
That isn't faith, it's reason, logic and understanding. Huge difference.
(Therefore both Believer and Non-Believer are basing their decision on something called FAITH.)
In the sense of evidentiary support you are right, as evidence and proof are subjectively interpreted. An open and shut guilty verdict to one jury results in a non guilty verdict with another jury. One has faith in the evidence presented or faith in the lack of evidence presented.
However, we do not have to rely simply on evidence and proof. Fortunately, we have reasoning abilities that can help modify or even expand our limited sentient experiences.
We may not be able to "prove" there is no god, but it is certainly possible to reason out the impossibility of a god, at least an immaterial creator god. We start with a reasonable notion - supported by all of mankind's history - that something cannot be constructed out of nothing.
If this initial starting point is valid, it then follows that matter must be eternal. If matter is eternal, there was no creator god.
"it's reason, logic and understanding".
It is none of these things, in this instance non-belief is essentially belief, because the existence of the entity in question can not be proven nor can it not be proven. Believers can not touch, taste, smell, feel or hear God, and the Non-Believer can not disprove his existence in the same manner.
If you were to say "I don't know if God exists or not, either way can't be proven" now that that would be a statement using "reason, logic and understanding". Just to simply not believe takes FAITH.
Pure nonsense. You create your own false premises and expect to build an argument with logical fallacies. It has nothing to do with believing or faith.
Non-believers could care less about disproving the existence of any gods, whether the gods are Jesus, Allah or Zeus. They know well enough that proving a negative is pointless, which is why they focus on finding "reason, logic and understanding" in the claims of believers, instead.
Do you understand?
God created atheists because the christians had no one to annoy.
You're just being a jerk. God wouldn't tell you that He doesn't exist because if He didn't exist how and why would he speak with you?
atheists choose their own path. God allowed them to walk freely because He wants the time to come that these people will choose Him. Sadly, there's many of them
It is not sad that there are so many atheist. I am an atheist, but have no desire to "preach" to you about my beliefs. I think that is the main issue that some atheist have with the various religious types. Do you think that shouting about your faith makes you a more agreeable person? While I cannot say that I am an educated theist, I can say that I have spent time studying various religions before I made my decision about atheism and I have yet to find overwhelming facts about how atheism destroys lives, unlike organized religion. If you are too afraid to face the world without your invisible father figure in the sky, that is entirely up to you, but do not try to find fault in a person of non belief because you are trying to convince yourself that your path is true.
It's not about fear from lack of faith. God has spoken to me (I wrote a Hub about it, and no that's not self-promotion, it's that if you were to ask "like how?" or say "you need physchological help" then my answer is already in that.)
If you know that God is there, then it becomes a different story altogether. He is not the "invisible super-daddy," far from it. That's also the reason why God creating atheists doesn't doom Him to destruction. Douglas Adams was funny but He didn't know his Bible.
"Why God Created Atheists?"
When atheists die, God uses them for management positions; theists as the follower worker bees.
Oh I so hope that could be true, I really enjoy not having to be part of the management, and look forward to seeing them try to manage the Kingdom without any job experience here on earth, should be great fun.
Of course, being rational and intelligent folk, the atheist management will know that in effect being a manager is a responsibility and that they are there to ensure that the 'workforce' are happy, and even more ironically, serve God and ensure His will is done.
Fortunately they will find that simpler than they think, as we believers will be where we wanted to be all along, enjoying Gods labours, walking in the garden with Him, exploring why He did as He has done and generally fellowshipping and worshipping with each other and God.
They on the other hand will be feeling infinitely silly for having denied His existence and constantly busy managing things elsewhere in the Kingdom, whilst we enjoy eternity.
Yep, I look forward to it.
God created all of us, there's one thing we need to point out: He gave us free will. Those who abdicated of that - angels - are with them. Some people grow in religion environments, so there's more probability to believe in God, others just don't and examples of nowadays society can be a factor to their disbeliefs.
Whether you like it or not, it is not God that created atheist. It is atheist that created no God. They close their mind and refuse to believe in God. I don't want to complicate things, there are only two divisions in man, it is believers and unbelievers of God.
Atheists create themselves. Some become Athetists out of anger; like a child shouting "I hate you!" at the mother. Others do it for attention, like Christopher Hitchens. To put it scientifically, it doesn't matter if you believe in Gravity or not.
That's very scientific. You have convinced me. Now i can stop searching for the truth.
No chance we gave it a lot of thought and investigation, and after due consideration decided the idea of a god existing was false?
Investigation is not how one discovers God. Thats like asking the question did you buy your bible before you were christian? or did you buy one after you were christian? chances are the latter.
To investigate christianity without a bible is to investigate the holocaust without including the jews and yes there were many good men in hitlers army.
Coming to God as shown in the bible is not a head matter it is a heart matter. Leaving God is the same thing, the head just matters more than the hearts opinion. So you see, quickly in an over view, investigating is not the solid footing one comes to Christ upon. Its a matter of heart. Then comes the investigating and that is done with bible not an almanac.
Great...Rad Man. Better hike your pant legs up! The B.S. is going to get deep. I'm outta here.
God created atheists to give judgemental christians something to keep 'em busy. Idle hands are the devil's workshop, you know!
God didn't create Atheists. He created people with a free will to chose. Atheists become atheists out of ignorance to God's Word.
Which one out of the 10.000 religions carries God's word and free will?
Which languages, which denomination, which place and dates etc etc,
Wait a minute... someone along these lines is a liar.
Just one group is truth and the other 10,000 religious groups are liars?
Only one Religion is right, all other Religions are wrong?
And the winner is the phelps family church!
The most hated American family, or should I say Adam's family
Haha god said they would be persecuted. Maybe they are more true christians than all the non persecuted ones.
The real question is why does man feel the need to create gods. We’re all born atheists. Religion has to be taught because it goes against human reasoning. At some point every child wakes up to the fact that Santa, the boogie, God are all make believe. It's only through repetition and other brainwashing techniques does one because a true believer. The only true believers are mentally ill. The rest are constantly wrestling with doubt, this is why they so desperately want others to believe. If other's believe than it means they are not crazy.
Well thought out. Once someone says "I believe..." they lose their past and future and they stop thinking and start defending.
...and you write this rubbish with a name and an avatar such as you have, and expect anyone to actually think you could have a valid opinion?
No wonder the forums contain such inane posts and stupidities, they are populated by morons in the main.
You might want to read it again. He's got something there.
OK lets dissect this trash.
We don't, least ways I did not, I just kinda noticed He was here and wondered what He wanted with me in terms of a relationship.
Evidence please, the sort that can be held up to normal rational and logical standards demanded by secular folk.
Maybe a double blind test to see if babies first word are "I hate God" or 'Abba".
Children may be born unaffiliated, that is apparently not the same thing, a smug atheist is trying to tell me that it required years of anguish before she could decide God did not exist, so my lack of religious affiliation at birth, followed by my dismissal of the whole religious concept at age 8 does not qualify me to have been an atheist, apparently I did not angst enough.
Of course I didn't, I looked at what Churchianity had to offer and said bulls**t, it was only when I was approached by God (over 30 years later) and realised the truth, that I switched teams
More bulls**t, in fact completely the reverse, it takes indoctrination to stop a child communicating with God, as evidenced by the number of children 'won over' by their older siblings who are in rebellion against everything anyway.
Sure there are stacks of loopy parents around that drag their kids to church with them and make them sit quietly and mime the words, but folk who know God don't do that, they let their kids play whilst they worship or minister and show their kids Gods love, the rest is easy IF those kids are not deceived by some evangelical atheist.
My kids never had any Santa fiction provided in the first place, I simply told them the truth from day one, all the presents came from us, but God provided the provisioning to make sure we had something to give them, and that in any case Christmas was a pagan festival, kidnapped by the RCC, and we should celebrate Christ DAILY not on one day a week, month or year.
I take it the illiterate fool mean 'become a true believer" and he was again spouting nonsense, becoming a 'true believer' does not require brainwashing, unless you count the time spent washing all the lies that the enemy has placed in your head via the school system and media liars, what it does take is serious study with a number of bibles and books, reading what the church fathers have said previously and assessing how that fits in with your beliefs, discussion with mentors to examine the bible, a whole lot of hard work actually. It took me 3 years before I knew the book and understood what was written, and another 17 years carrying on gaining insight and discernment from Christ.
Such a crass statement that if hardly deserves answering at all.
OK, lets set out the formula again:
Belief + Faith = Understanding and deciding to come under Christ's authority rather than the enemies authority.
The path from unbelief to true belief takes time and questioning, so doubt is natural and healthy, that's what proves that this guy has no knowledge of Christ.
Believers want others to look at what they have found, nobody can 'save' a non believer, ONLY the non believer can come to faith.
This guy is a joke.
Why not tell us what you really think?
Why do you ask for evidence, when you don't supply any of your own?
Do you really think you would have your current belief if you were born on an isolated tropical island with no connection to the rest of the world? If you had never heard of Jesus would you be talking about him?
I think he struck a nerve and that's why your post seems angry.
We are all born non believers.
Maybe a double blind test to see if babies first word are "I hate God" or 'Abba".
I realize you are just trying to prove a point, but honestly – hate god? Atheists merely don't acknowledge the existence of god, which is not hate. Just because someone doesn't believe something to be true does not mean they automatically hate it. You appear to be a very angry person...
Children may be born unaffiliated, that is apparently not the same thing, a smug atheist is trying to tell me that it required years of anguish before she could decide God did not exist, so my lack of religious affiliation at birth, followed by my dismissal of the whole religious concept at age 8 does not qualify me to have been an atheist, apparently I did not angst enough.
Why is angst a correlation to atheism? I’ve never felt any sort of angst. I was born without the idea of god, had it instilled into me after I was old enough to understand, and rejected it after learning about it for quite a while. It just never felt correct and took a lot of soul searching to realize I was an atheist. Again, you seem to be getting increasingly hostile. It is this post that makes it seem like you are the one who has a lot of angst…
Stories of Santa are harmless fun and when the child realizes the truth, the parents don't then turn to brainwashing techniques to continue the lie.
The same child born in a different place would have a different religion instilled in them, yet by accident of birth somehow they receive the "one" true religion.
I thought peanutroaster was interesting in part
To a good degrees babies are born Atheist because they are born with only two fears. Fear of loud sounds and falling, AND every other fear is learn like the fear of God in Religion
The main evil I can understand is the lack of or the absence of reason and through repetition and brainwashing techniques does not make only Religion and the other 10 religions liars. I would not go as far as true believer are mentally ill, I would say that to people who murder are a mental illness condition.
If I have doubt about anything, my focus will expose the problem for what it is. The bible has too many problems to bring me true peace and true happiness when there are many greater solution and other ways to God,
For example- every one is god. See no fighting and equal respect. No! my God is better then your God and why fight the 90% who think there is a God. Sorry Atheist and the Religiously impaired. The fighting endlessly in an ugly marriage,is not what I wound wish upon anybody
I agree, I mostly thought peanutoaster was funny and I enjoyed the reaction he got. I also don't think religious people are impaired, but I do have to say the deeply religious may have something going on. Claire come to mind.
Ok maybe not mentally ill. How about mentally deficient? Any one who turns off the reasoning part of their brain has to be considered handicapped. Presented with daily doses of information/data that refutes the bible stories of say Noah, Adam and Eve etc and being able to ignore it - is delusional behavior.
That of course is only your personal opinion, it could be counter argued that anybody who deliberately chooses to rely totally upon physical senses and precludes spiritual awareness is living in a confined world which is not comparative with the reality of a world where temporal and spiritual are intertwined and correlate to each other.
But I would not insult their mentality or mental state, just feel sad that they were blinkered by world knowledge and therefore spiritually dead.
But you had to throw in what you thought was an insult anyway?
Yeah, it's funny that one mans' observations about someone can be another's insult.
Guess it's a two way street, or double edged sword, or goose for the gander.....
Hey Agua - still sticking it to them and causing ill will and conflict like your master wants huh?
Well done you Satan Whisperer you
Using the 5 physical senses is just as important as spiritual awareness within real living and in the reality of a world is not base on anyone over ego groups claiming to own all spirituality. In fact Christian is only one of many ancient spirituality not up to date to mankind's advancement in living in the present modern man lifestyle
But I would not insult their mentality or mental state, just feel sad that they were blinkered by world knowledge and therefore spiritually dead.
I agree that the divisiveness of organized religion is a problem. It's human nature. Personally, being a Christian doesn't mean going to church or hating or judging anyone's actions or lifestyle in any capacity. And it certainly should not involve forcing their views on others.
To me life is God creating existence simply because He can. Rather than creating an existence where every living thing conforms to His will exactly without fail, He chose to create an existence where we each could have our own minds and our own wills. He wants us to have that.
The only problem is that having a free will totally apart from God's makes us a potential cancer that is just as capable of destruction as it is creativity. Especially since we are incapable of grasping the full weight of our actions. That is something that must first be learned.
Imagine if each cell in your body had it's own conscious/reasoning mind and was able to trouble-shoot and problem solve. Imagine how capable our bodies would be of fighting disease or infection or adaptation to extreme conditions or whatever else. The only problem with that scenario is that cells only live a short time and wouldn't have the wisdom to make truly educated decisions.
They would still have to acknowledge the DNA code as the authority as far as how to behave so as to not endanger the rest of the organism. The DNA has existed for many generations and knows better than the individual cells what is okay and what might endanger survival.
This is why I think belief in Jesus alone is enough. Because belief in Jesus means you acknowledge there is an authority that knows better than you what's best for existence. There's no way we can just be given the knowledge and wisdom it would take to truly wield something as powerful as free will. Wisdom has to be learned. Life is beings with free will gaining the wisdom we need to wield it responsibly.
I don't think God's nearly as divisive or strict as organized religion often makes Him out to be. That's more a means to control the masses, remain in power, or drum up business.
Positing nonsense and insisting people disprove or accept it is divisive. You are divisive. It is no good blaming it ion god or religion - it is you guys.
You. Accept responsibility for your actions and words for a change.
I take total responsibility that my actions, no matter my intentions, are often wrong and can often do more harm than good. I present my case because I see it as a resolution to a very divisive topic that holds us back. I see a resolution where all the issues non-believers have with God are resolved and also allows those that do believe in Him to embrace science and modern knowledge.
Yet I still manage to divide or anger, no matter how hard I try not to. And I take full responsibility for that. I am human afterall.
Well - accept that your religious drivel is divisive then, and stop blaming god. I don't have an issue with god - god does not exist. I have an issue with you and your divisive beliefs. LOL that you are embracing science. Very funny.
See, how divisive could I really be when you get so much entertainment from it? I simply point out what doesn't make logical sense on either side of the fence. I debate believers just as much as I debate non-believers. But it's not to divide and it's not to convert non-believers. It's to encourage thought. It's to help people understand and acknowledge that the ultimate truth will not be that half the world is completely right and the other half completely wrong. As is usually the case, both sides are mostly right and the truth is lying right there in the middle.
I have an answer that marries science and God seamlessly and provides a reason for life in general that has nothing to do with hating gays or judging lifestyles different than my own. An answer that gives every single life purpose no matter how short or tragic or destructive and that simultaneously offers explanations for some of the biggest mysteries in human history.
I know you think I'm being combative. Sometimes I do allow myself to get frustrated here and there. But ultimately I think you'll find that 95% of the time I'm consistent in my tone and purpose.
You are consistent. But you lie. You say you want to learn, but that's a lie because you won't except any knowledge and you keep spouting the same nonsense even after you are given information.
It's not that I won't accept knowledge. The whole reason I have these discussions is because I learn more through discussing these things with educated, well-read people who absolutely disagree with me than I do on my own. I accept most of what you've stated, but the specifics that pertain to what we're talking about I know to contradict what I've read. Again, if you can provide credible references that back up what you're saying then I will be most appreciative as I'm all about learning something new. But I'm not simply going to take your word for it when what you're saying contradicts what experts say on the topic. It's not personal and I'm not dismissing you. I respect your view and your right to have it, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into the discussion in general.
Yes indeed. You are consistently divisive and untruthful.
This is why your religion disgusts me so. I totally understand why you need to hide your identity though. I would be scared if I were you also.
I'm divisive by saying both sides are mostly right? By saying I agree with 95% of what you're saying? According to you half the world's population is completely wrong and not worth listening to whatsoever. So, which one of us is more divisive? You've made it clear to me how you feel about me and that has everything to do with your opinion of my beliefs.
I respect your view and why you believe what you believe. I simply point out what doesn't make sense to me about it. In doing so you have the opportunity to explain to me why it does make sense to you. Who else should I discuss your view with than somebody who holds that view? I agree with most of it and plead with believers to accept science and stop being so dismissive of everything the best mind's humanity has to offer has taught us. My whole drive is to find reconciliation on this topic. To get evolution taught in schools like it should be. To encourage people to look at all of the information available and make an informed decision for themselves.
You keep bringing up this hiding my identity thing. I'm not sure you've noticed, but you're about 1 out of 50 in the using your name/pic category. Most of the people you're siding with here do the same thing, yet you reserve these comments for me.
Besides, how do I know that's really you. How do I know you didn't just go find a pic of some dashing, handsome, sophisticated looking fellow and attach it to your profile?
I've had conversations with someone who I won't name in this forum who is most like a nice person, but may be delusional. The moment someone says "I believe..." they stop thinking and learning and start defending.
Ooh, good one!
I can think of a couple of atheists who would definitely qualify then, because they seem to accept that the fact that they are atheists automatically means they have higher reasoning, and no matter how hard they try to prove otherwise, it doesn't matter!
I agree they/we shouldn't talk down to anyone. But, you do understand why right? I'm not attempting to insult anyone here at all, but you and other are trying to convince us that fairy tales are true. It's like someone trying to convince you that Peter Pan actually exists. No disrespect intended.
You weren't one of the people I was referring to. I actually talk to some pretty ardent atheists, and I think we understand each other and there have been a few points of friction, but I was thinking of two specific posters who use a fairly circular logic and a small set of pat responses as a means of denigrating and belittling anyone they don't agree with. One of them I'm convinced just like to pick fights. But I wasn't referring to you.
And maybe I should stop asking my family for OED's for Christmas...
I think I know who you are referring to. I also don't like the mocking and think it could alway be said better. I have recently been attacked by a few who call themselves Christians, but threaten to hurt physically. He even threaten physical harm to a lady who was defending (and that's not even the correct word) me. He and his buddy were banned from the forums and he has been tracking and baiting me to comment on his hub. I guess I had forgotten that the fanatical Christians are the same as the fanatical muslims. I always say I've never meet a muslim I didn't like, but I've meet some Christians I didn't like, but then again it's perhaps because I've never meet a fanatical muslim.
Thanks for the kind words. I hope you and your family are well.
Okay, but does that mean also that the fear of religion is learned?
Not that I expect to shock anybody with this statement, but the Bible rewards people who look deeper into it. Often, so many things that seem to make no sense or contradict other parts of the Bible actually do make sense.
It's true, I wish there was no fighting. But if there is an absolute truth (which I know many people don't want to believe) then it is necessary to point it out. It's just possible to do it without ticking people off (at least most people.)
It was once said that the truth is relative, unfortunately that's true when it comes to any RELIGION. There's is no absolute one truth with religion, many people believe in many different higher powers, the best thing to do is accept what you think is true, and let others believe what they are going to.
I've used this example before, but...
What if you believe that a flood is coming that will wipe out your whole town, but no one else wants to believe it? If your town is at the bottom of a valley, and you regularly go up the mountain and see that there was a heavy snow fall one year that no one else could see from the valley, and you could see that the town was going to be removed from the map? But when you go down to warn people, they insist that the snow wasn't that heavy, and anyway there hasn't been any trouble for 100 years so why would there be any now? Should you then live and let live?
For decades, Louisiana Congresspeople said the levies needed to be shored up in New Orleans. I heard about it on NPR a good five years before Hurricane Katrina. But almost every other Congressperson from other states just said it was pork barrell spending.
God does exist, Jesus does exist, and hell does exist. I do accept that not everyone will believe like I do. And I may spend years telling people about it and not have one single person ever become a believer. But one day I will stand before my God and He will ask me why I didn't tell people. What will I say then? And what will I say when they look at me and ask why I didn't tell them?
Really? That's interesting. I'd love to see the studies where 3000 infants were interviewed and it was conclusively proven they were 100% convinced that there is no God.
The point where many people "wake up" to the 'fact' that God doesn't exist so often comes when they are taken out of religious households and put in situations (often college) where very strongly anti-religious people become peer and authority figures. In other words, they are taken from one extreme (and often, these cases are not so extreme) and put in the other (there are many anecdotal stories where college professors anounce that all students WILL be atheists by the end of the course and award grades accordingly.) These people actually never "wake up," as if they had been led by the nose in some lotus-eater dream, they go from one direction of pressure to the other. And even then, it's often disingenuous to state that they were repressed in their religious atmosphere. Many of these people come from households where the only "Christian" demand ever really placed on them is that they attend youth group once a week. The rest of the week they are indistinguishable from non-Christians.
Its amazing to me how God is compared with santa claus and the boogie man, shall we also lump in vampires and werewolves. Just because there are obvious fairy tales that are man made we cannot and must not assume that all things are man made fairy tales. We certainly do not wonder what frodo must have been like and want to meet him.
My point is that we have a book written by God, through a lot of different people from different walks of life and the book is consistent. We have events yet to occur in the authors time and another writes about those events happening years later. We also have a book made by God that is not meant to be read from cover to cover. In Gods book we are not supposed to start at genesis 1:1 and read through to revelation 22:21 and in this light is a marvellous thing that Gods book should also be so uniquely different than any book written by man. Fairy tale... bah humbugh.
I agree with your conclusion up to a point. I don't think it's accurate to say that everything about the human mind is measurable because, to my knowledge, we have not been able to "measure" even a fraction of everything there is to learn about the brain. Until we have learned everything there is to learn about the brain, saying that everything the brain has to offer is measurable is theory. Stones and glass houses.
um.....havent you ever heard of EEG's, MRI's, CT scans and other forms of brain scans as well as brain surgeries? We have measured SOOOO much of the brain, open up a science textbook if you don't believe me. Go research it yourself, don't post it like it's fact until you can actually back up your claims
Of course I have. But can you in all honesty say that the human race has been able to map, measure, and explain everything there is to be learned about the brain? I think you'll agree with me that anyone at all educated in psychology, neuroscience, and anthropology would say that there is much more to learn about the brain. It only follows, logically, that we cannot say it is possible to understand what we do not yet know exists.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/un … -mysteries
This is from 2007 but I think it illustrates my point. We cannot make blanket statements without all the data. You cannot make the blanket statement that we can understand and measure everything about the brain, when we clearly have not proven that to be true.
I see, but we have explained much. No god was needed to explain something..saying "god did it" diminishes its worth and is an insult to mother nature when someone says that about the ocean or some forest...it's uneducated and pathetic
I hardly think that attributing the beauty of the world to a higher being is uneducated and pathetic. If so the majority of human history has been pathetic, and that is a statement I personally am unwilling to make. I think what is more pathetic is someone who makes it their goal to devalue other belief systems and cultures. If we want respect for our culture, we ought to extend that same respect to others.
oh! I see........the truly pathetic person is the one who goes out of their way to antagonize another person who is merely telling the truth. It IS pathetic, and rather elementary-school-like to attribute that the world's own natural beauty is the stuff created by a made-up, holy being who isn't proven one bit. I live in America, darlin'. Our culture is not one of Atheism...although it does contain several Atheistic values; such as morality and acceptance. I must coexist with such cultures even though it's one full of redundant ethics and values. How dare you tell me to respect a culture (or cultures) that are intolerant, hypocritical and openly hostile to my own belief system? I do believe that many Christians must needs follow the advice and teachings of Christ before they dare accuse me of INTOLARENCE and heathenism traditions...don't you agree madam?
Yes and no... depends on what IS the truth?
You are entitled to propagate what you believe, so is anyone else, if I find it offensive, I don't read it, it's a good option to utilise.
Your belief, and you are welcome to it.
Fortunately most of the world think differently.
2 Corinthians 10:5
[Inasmuch as we] refute arguments and theories and reasonings and every proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God; and we lead every thought and purpose away captive into the obedience of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One),
And this good news of the kingdom (the Gospel) will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then will come the end.
Sorry, it's the job description!
atheistchick - no actually i don't agree with you. obviously there are going to be people in the world with whom you disagree and who's values or belief systems contradict your own. that does not entitle you to be rude or disrespectful. I live in America as well, and it is clear to me that you belong to the generation that believes itself entitled yet refuses to give the same respect and rights to others. Do not ask from others what you yourself are incapable of. If you cannot respect me, how can I respect you? It's a two way street and someone has to start. Be the change you wish see in the world, not the anger.
Weird. So you only respect people if they respect your ridiculous, mind damaging beliefs?
How does that work exactly?
I explained it poorly, let me try again. I'm simply pointing out that it's hypocritical to ask others to respect you when you have no respect for them. I myself and respectful of all life. As an anthropologist, not only am I respectful of all cultures and belief systems, I understand the cultures can only truly be understood within the context of their belief systems. It's called cultural relativism. It also requires the true academic mind to not judge a culture based on their own acculturation.
And as I have not outlined any of my own beliefs, I don't see how you can possibly judge them.
Sorry - I got the impression you believed in an Invisible Super Being. My mistake. If you do not - I retract the ridiculous, mind damaging comment.
But your argument doesn't make any sense. As an anthropologist, you are respectful of all cultures, but - only if they respect yours?
How does that work? Seems to me that you are simply demanding respect for your own beliefs, regardless of whether they deserve respect or not.
Do you respect Nazism? Cannibalism? The practice of stoning women to death for adultery?
That is not actually what I said. I personally am respectful of all cultures regardless of whether they have respect for me. I do not, however, demand that all cultures respect my own. I don't need the respect of other cultures as my role is only to observe. I do however consider people who demand respect without giving it to be hypocrites, though I don't expect or ask them to change.
And yes I respect cultures who's histories include the three practices you mentioned. How could I not? My own cultures past includes slavery, witch hunts, the McCarthy Red Scare, segregation, and a hundred other unpleasant and often severely damaging practices. And were you to actually research cultures that contain cannibalism as a common cultural practice, you would come to realize that a lot of cannibalistic practices are done out of respect for the dead. I may not personally agree with these cultures, but that does not mean I will in anyway be disrespectful, snarky, or cruel to them. What others believe does not change or threaten my own personal beliefs, though I am open to the opportunities that learning about other cultures presents.
Please don't speak to me in that condescending tone. There are not very many cultures left where cannibalism is a common practice - given the inherent health risks involved.
I don't care whether you respect me or not, but I refuse to respect your beliefs if they are irrational nonsense. Why should I?
Glad you think that people who think women who wear short skirts should be raped do not threaten you. That is awesome.
I'm not sure why you think I'm being condescending. I'm trying to be respectful towards you, and if that comes across as condescending I apologize. I didn't say that the action of rape is not threatening to me, and I'm not sure how you could get to that point? It seems to me that you are more interested in fighting than actually having an intelligent debate. Which is a shame because I'm sure I could learn a lot from you.
Then give me a good reason to respect you. You were the one complaining that you were not getting respect and refusing to respect some one else because they did not respect your beliefs.
Let's start again shall we?
Do you hold religious beliefs that involve an Invisible Super Being creating us?
And I'm sure that you would agree that the health risks of cannibalism aren't known to all third world inhabitants who are generally the ones participating in such cultures.
Perhaps you ought to use that tool yourself? I had no intention of directly quoting you. If I had I, then I would have. This will be my last comment because it is now very clear to me that you are in this forum to impose your own opinion and devalue the opinions of others not, as would befit an academic like myself, to learn and expand your knowledge. I have already wasted so much time on a conversation in which both participants are not pursuing the same goal. My goals in all my conversations are to listen, understand, and think. You seem to care more about shouting your opinions as loudly and rudely as possible so that those who disagree with you must pretend to agree to keep you quiet. Not the most effective or productive choice, but you are certainly entitled to it, and I respect your right to be exactly as you are.
telling a true Atheist to respect religion is just as bad as asking a person of color to respect the KKK. I'm just a simple person who realized the truth about life and hereafter, those who do not believe in the truth are deluded themselves.. and Mark Knowles, thank gawd you are here to back me up! Thanks
Mother nature... is alive and well and just how is she doing that? lol
Odd how easy it is to believe in mother nature and all her attributes (which are what exactly) and discard a creator greater than nature.
God didn't created them to not believe., It's their choice which is same as believers to believe.
Most people on earth are just as happy without knowing who Yahweh is. Because they are not Aware of him in the first place, in which do not fear Yahweh. Unless a few Christian predominate countries do their best at offences threatening or physical take action of war towards them
All for power folks
2 Corinthians 10:5
[Inasmuch as we] refute arguments and theories and reasonings and every proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God; and we lead every thought and purpose away captive into the obedience of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One),
And this good news of the kingdom (the Gospel) will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then will come the end.
Sorry, it's the job description!
Dear me. Blaming the ill will and hate you spread on the bible huh?
No morals - that is your problem.
That's what I do when I'm presented with a moral dilemma. I grab my Hitchhikers Guide and see what it says. I could think for myself, but my guide tells me that I should consult it first and follow it to the letter, or the new highway will be coming through.
2 Black Lab 10:5
"Thou wilt take thy 44-caliber handgun and thou shall shootest thy neighbors whom I hate for their lustful behavior, acted upon while seated in parked cars"
Sorry, it's the job description! - Son of Sam
Can you choose to believe in anything you want? Santa? Leprechauns?
Maybe it is a choice for you (and I can't see how) but it most certainly is not a matter of choice what I believe.
It's not that you can't, but you choose not to.
You make a choice every time you create any belief, regardless of what that belief is.
As I said, everything begins with choice.
That is not at all true.
I wanted to believe in Santa when I was 5 so why couldn't I? It was because I KNEW different. It had nothing to do with choice.
You can't choose to believe horses don't exist if you are sitting on one.
So JWAH, let me follow. You can't/don't believe in Santa because you KNOW he's not real - which logically can only be because you've never seen him? (Can't prove a negative and all that..)
So, for all you *personally* know, Santa MAY exist. His absence in a physical sense (in terms of your own personal experience), surely does nothing to prove his existence, or non-existence. That's what we're to believe in your argument for your belief in God, who you do *know* is real.
But you can't really have it that easy, because God's absence in a physical sense, or the absence of his son, (who may or may not have ever lived, unless you're happy to believe whatever you read. Hang on, sorry, there's that Santa problem again, he's in contemporary literature; refreshed every Christmas..and yet you KNOW he's not real..) in no way diminishes your certainty that he/they are 'among us' - even if only spiritually.
By your logic, we're faced with two clear choices. Or dictums, since you don't believe in choice:
1: Both Santa and God are real.
2: No Santa, = no God.
That's the reality of your argument.
Do I hear sleighbells ringing?
Wow, you completely missed his point. He never said he doesn't believe in God because he doesn't believe in Santa. He was merely trying to show you that belief is not a choice. I can't awake one morning and choose to believe in God or Santa. Can you?
Read the original statement again. Read my answer - again. The answer and the stement are directly connected. The conclusion re the two CHOICES regarding santa and god is based on the logic put forward.
If that's too much for you, don't be rushing in to tell me. Stop and think. The whole idea that belief is NOT a choice, frankly, beggars belief. Have you no belief in free will?
You simply don't or are unable to understand. It's not a choice. you either believe or you do not. One does not choose, i'll believe or I won't. A choice is, I'll wear red instead of yellow.
Rad Man, there's clearly no point in attempting to maintain a dialogue with you. The lack of comprehension (let alone understanding) remains with you, as attested by this 'response' of yours. Pure silliness.
Although Rad Man and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum vis-a-vis the existence of God, I do understand about belief not being a choice. I wasn't a Christian, now I am because God reached out to me, so since He has proved Himself real I don't consider belief in Him to be much of a choice.
That having been said, I do believe in free will. But sometimes you don't get to exercise it quite as strongly as you might think.
Chris Neal, that's *you*. Not me. Your inability/unwillingness to exercise free will and choice is no basis for denying the fact that I *do* have that ability. And have made that choice.
With respect, it amuses me that people like yourself, having 'discovered', or in your case 'been discovered by' God automatically assume that gives you some superior quality that eclipses the life experiences of others. eg, re free will, and "sometimes you don't get to exercise it quite as strongly as you might think.". I've had many opportunities, difficult ones, during my life when the idea of embracing a higher power to help ease my load has been suggested by other people. But I don't believe in God, and have in fact got the courage (not intended to be a reflection on your beliefs) to not pretend to, no matter how dire the situation. That's my choice.
Okay, glad I could amuse you.
You are almost completely wrong, but as long as you're laughing...
You know, I'm feeling very discouraged by the lack of civil discourse and the unwillingness to not assume knowledge about other people displayed in these forums. But since my mantra is that I will talk to anyone who will talk to me, even if we disagree, I will try this with you.
Before making assumptions about my position on free will, please at least actually read my stuff. You're off base.
Your reaction to me seems to assume a knowledge of me that I don't assume about you, myself, or anyone else. Nor did you give a correct, unbiased analysis of my statement. If not being a Christian works for you, more power to you because you will need it. I have a great deal of trouble seeing how, in the modern, increasingly un-Christian world, it takes any great courage to not be Christian, let alone state it to other people. I had a much easier time in my teens and twenties before I became a Christian than I've had since then. But if that's how you see it, okay. But if you really see yourself as a clear-minded individual, then do us both the favor of finding out what I actually believe and think and say before passing judgement. Thank you.
Now we degenerate into the old standby: You're going to burn in hell if you're not a christian. The rest of your 'discourse' serves only to get to this point. Why bother? Just post a banner somewhere, with "I'm right. You're wrong". That would at least show your true colours. And spare me the superior patronising, "my mantra is that I will talk to anyone who will talk to me'. that's BS - all you really want is a listener, not someone prepared to actually debate. Count me out.
Scientology is considered an atheistic philosophy. They don't seem terribly bright, and they have some pretty outlandish ideas. Just because someone doesn't believe in an almighty god, doesn't mean they are totally...sane. Besides, there is no such thing as Totally Sane. It is like the term "NORMAL"
I would like to hear more on the argument two lines of inflammatory statements is hardly a justification for your position.
If there is a God, would he even be able to be destroyed by atheists?
He is the creator of of all things, He cannot be destroyed..thats just my opinion.
I agree with you. A creator God couldn't be destroyed by anything. Maybe its one of the things people don't like about the idea of there being a God... it means they aren't the final word on their own life. Even without a God however, they are not the final "word" on really anything in their lives. I mean like being born, and when and how they die, and what happens inbetween that is out of their control.
He cant be the creator ALL things because that would make him the creator of himself.
Who is to say he isn't just some being in another universe who created our universe within his own, just like if a scientist were to create a universe inside this one. That scientist would be the god of that universe but he could be destroyed.
I see no logical reason to deduce that the creator of a universe of which we know nothing about cannot be destroyed.
God would be an uncreated creator. Its more logical than going back infinitely to say there always had to be something to create the next thing, when we know by science this universe indeed have a beginning.
If you've known Him and you believe the Bible, then you accept He is uncreated, from "everlasting to everlasting."
Hard to believe, impossible to understand, but true nonetheless.
God created humans to have free will. God does not control who believes in him and can never force people too. If God could do away with other religions and atheists than humans would not have true free will. A world that is 100% controlled by God would make us like robots. He made us have free will, thus other religions and atheists should be expected.
That is an interesting assertion. Of course if you have no evidence to backup yor claim then I have no reason to believe that it isn't just your imagination speaking.
have evidence...and maybe we'll believe you..
The opposite of that assertion is that God created us as slaves of predestination and we truly don't have free will. Which would validate the claims that people who don't believe will never believe and that their assertion that God is cruel is also something they can't help.
I'm guessing that's not quite what you meant...
Many non-believers assume that God should/must be a “puppeteer” who has the power to create only good people. That is true in the sense that God has the capability to create only good. But how many puppeteers would say they are fulfilled buy the personal relationships they have with their puppets?
God did not create atheists. He created humans with the free will to believe as they choose. Think of it this way. Do you want others to like/love you because you gave them a magic pill (Love Potion No. 9 for those old enough to remember the 1960’s song)? If you are interpersonally dysfunctional and really desperate for a relationship with another human, this may sound like a good option. For the rest of us, we want others to like/love us because that is what they feel/believe.
Did you just say God has the capability of creating only good? Would you then explain the Filarial Worm? Or the Black Death? Or Polio? Or smallpox? Or the hookworm? or the Ascaris? Or the Tapeworm? Or the Wuchereria bancrofti (Filarial Worm)? How about Cancer? How about child Cancer?
If god only creates good..........he created everything that causes pain and suffering? Some believers may say that he gave us free choice, that we choose all of these things (god didn't create murder, they say. murderers CHOOSE to kill) ok, so we as humanbeings chose to create cancer, the Black Plague, diseases that cripple the body?....that makes no sense that we chose these illnesses to exist. I CHOSE to have a brain tumor that effected my life and potentionally ruined my old one. I'm a new person, but I'm not like every "whole" person in the world. I had to start a newlife. Was basically forced to. Was that God's plan to ruin my life and force me to be someone else? If god made me an Atheist then moarlity is not something we Atheists have. 'Cause I'm totally going to shoot someone (TOTAL SARCASM) because there's no god....... why should I care?....(again, joking) once u can answer that, I might have some respect for you
Wow, hold on there atheistchick. You just agreed with what I said and then said you have no respect for me until I answer a question. But I see at least four question marks? I'll take a shot at the last one.
Why should an atheist care?
That is a great question. Why not rob a bank or shoot someone? The thing is atheist have a better chance of being moral then believers of any faith do because believers if being good are doing so to please God and get a good place in heaven. That is not the right reason because eventually they slip just a little at first and then sometimes a lot. Look at the televangelists and the way to many priest that slip up. Knowing your actions affect other and causes pain is the real reason for being moral. Some Christians dislike gays because the bible tells them it's not moral. The action of denying gays right is hurtful and immoral but the Christians can't see it because they are using the bibles morality and not there own morals.
If I read you correctly, you're saying that the internal morals of the atheist are actually more moral than the written code of the Bible. Based on what? I'm not claiming that Christians are intrinsically more moral than atheists. There are plenty of atheists who are nicer than many Christians, and more likely to do "good." There are also many atheists who are nasty people and live only for themselves.
So I'm asking if I'm understanding you correctly, that there is an internal moral code that people just have? I seem to detect that thought in some posts from atheists and agnostics, and really I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly.
Based on the fact that we have technology and the world is that much smaller. Moral codes are personal thing, based on individual interpretations...
What I'm asking is if there's some kind of moral standard that people "just know". I don't believe there is, that people learn their morality from somewhere external to themselves. What I have read from some other people seems to say that I'm wrong, there is a moral standard that people "just know."
Technological advances actually argue more in my favor, because the morals (or lack of) of those who control the media get transmitted to larger and larger numbers of people, who start living out what they see in the media.
Well Chris, I maintain we get our moral code from within and from our surroundings, parents, culture, school, laws, peers... Most of us don't have to be taught not to kill or harm. Many Christians can justify killing. I personally know people who have never stepped into a church, but are every bit as moral if not more moral then the next person. The bible (OT) is littered with things that most of us would think are completely immoral. Take for example the differences between Canadian and US culture, two countries with similar backgrounds and with predominately Christian faith, yet completely different views on heath care and charity. If we both got our moral codes from the bible that would manifest itself into identical countries would it not? I maintain there are some people that do the right thing for the wrong reason. The fear of God is the wrong reason as is the fear of the law because that leaves one with the pursuit of getting away with things. I can list many many example, but I just start with televangelists and priest how mess with children.
You've opened up an entirely different conversation here. If you're really afraid of God (and most people are not) then you know that you don't ever get away with anything, because He's everywhere and knows everything. And I've said before and say again that there are plenty of atheists who are nicer than many Christians. The reason for reading the Bible is to know more about God.
It's not just Christians who justify killing, and in fact many Christians justify just the opposite based on their Christian faith. Personally, I don't know if I could kill a man, except maybe if he were directly threatening my wife or children.
As for the OT being "littered with things that most of us would consider immoral," that's true, but I don't think that's a deep enough analysis of the situation. As you already know!