It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which is faith-based. How does it happen?
When they lose their mental balance, when they become like you, they'll be Christians!
I know, but she herself said she is undergoing treatment(even ECT) for mental illness.
Truth is, for someone who has an alleged high IQ, Jomine sure is ignorant. A quick google check on depression will show even the most simple person that depression doesn't mean psychosis. When people hear "mental illness", they assume someone is in a strait jacket. It's kind of like those people in the Middle Ages who believed people with epilepsy were possessed by demons, confined to their own ignorance. Unfortunately, ignorance causes a lot of harm.
I'm all about not giving reaction. Don't feed into this (in general). None of us are defined by others. Remember this. ((hugs))
Truth is I don't have to google, I've standard psychiatry textbooks.
Depression can cause delusion. Since you like to "google", google Depressive Psychosis and its treatment.
But in your case, I don't even have to know you have depression, your posts show you have delusion.
I swear this guy Jomine is obsessed with me. He can't leave me alone!
There is major depression and there is psychotic major depression. They are not one and the same.
I don't have to toss and turn at night wondering if I'm psychotic. I'm sure my psychiatrist would have told me or my family by now if I suffer from psychosis.
People like Jomine would love to see me as psychotic. It means they can feel secure in the belief that whatever I say is nonsense.
I don't leave you alone because I don't leave Nonsense alone, nothing personal. Others just post foolish arguments but you fill the forums with your paranoia.
Regarding your psychiatrist, either he is too lazy to elicit your paranoid Delusions or he knows it but didn't tell you for fear of aggravating your condition or he might be a really wise guy who knew there is no point in treating, for the disease is incurable.
Do mentally-balanced people go out of their way to attack someone simply because that someone posed a question that they do not like?
Are you attacking athiests or religious people with this comment? It can be hard to tell sometimes.
Hey Dallas, the question is intended for jomine, in regards to his response to Claire's original post.
I suspect the former. Jomine was attacking -- insulting? -- Christians, and Hale was attacking(?) Jomine's attack. However, it is possible that Hale was just asking a rhetorical question.
I meant no disrespect to anyone's personal beliefs. I meant to point out jomine's hypocrisy in his cowardly personal attack on Claire.
It is COWARDLY to respond to a completely neutral question with a smug comment aimed to attack the person who asked the question. It is an even greater act of COWARDICE to justify your attack with the fact that the person you are attacking has addressed the issue in which you are attacking.
It is HYPOCRITICAL to act the way you have and then imply that SOMEONE ELSE is the mentally-unstable one.
"Cowardice is the perceived failure to demonstrate sufficient mental robustness and courage in the face of a challenge." So I just faced the question and answered that it need "unsound mind" to convert to religious.
I'm not implying I'm stating that she is ill.
Your challenge was to refrain from attacking someone whom you deem ill. You didn't refrain, therefore you have failed to demonstrate sufficient mental robustness and courage in the face of a challenge.
That is not a challenge at all. Ignoring the argument as a counter is good only in face to face arguing, not in forums like this. When the arguments are posted by people not worth responding to or the arguments are not worth countering, "argumentum ad hominem" is to be used, that is 'the logic' and I and use that logic selectively.
Wait... you believe that "argumentum ad hominem" is acceptable on forums?
If that's what you are saying, then I strongly disagree. If I excuse my own logical fallacies, then I have to accept them in others, and that is something which I will never be prepared to do.
If logical fallacies are acceptable on forums, then all forum arguments are rendered pointless before they begin.
I agree entirely although I have to admit, I sometimes get so frustrated with the idiocy that is put forward to me that I often reply with some form of ad hominem.
Usually the ad hominem is aimed at the content and not the person which leads me to this question;
If an argument or claim is blatantly absurd and ridiculous, is it an ad hominem to call it so?
Didn't you read what I wrote? It depends on the person making the argument and the argument. Then it means that the argument is not good enough to be responded to. It is fallacy when used against a sound argument.
I read, but I apparently didn't comprehend.
The challenge comes in discerning what is right from what is wrong. You could've stopped yourself from making such a ridiculous response to the original post, regardless of how you feel about the poster. The post wasn't directed at you. It wasn't an argument. Yet you felt it necessary to belittle her.
I'll not miss a chance to make fun of her. If she was a person who makes valid arguments or if she was at least normal, I would've accepted your criticism. She is a person who is capable of making arguments that can appear sound, and continue spreading paranoia, hence not to be entertained.
Though it is a logical fallacy, I've to admit that most level headed persons has at some time pointed out to her that she is having paranoia and delusion.
PS. You Should've added, "in my opinion"! For every forum is argumentative, if you are not blindly accepting and every forum is open to all and this forum in particular is the "atheism and agnosticism" forum.
I do appreciate you sticking up for me, thank you. Unfortunately, Jomine cannot be reasoned with when it comes to me. He hates what I have to say and so tries to undermine it by calling me psychotic. It's the easy way out.
Someone with common sense knows that paranoia is fed by others. If no one responded to the paranoid or delusional or mentally ill person, they will be forced to remain quiet. So those like Jomine are "enablers", exacerbating my so-called problem.
Civility has no penalty and no cost, which is why I'm uncertain why more people don't practice it.
Some of the respondents here -- some of the respondents on virtually every forum on the Internet -- apparently have no idea how poorly they represent themselves. Many do have an idea, but they don't care. They further don't care that every time they open their mouth, or every time they click "submit," they are, deliberately or not, acting as a spokesperson for their own demographic. Maybe some of them are double agents, striving to make their actual opponents look bad.
I'm not going to name names, but you know who are are.
Do you understand the words or are you just using it to look intelligent?
It is just a fact. No atheist 'convert' to be a 'religious person' by thinking. They do it out of fear or 'experience'(Hope and fear), which means they were never atheists but just god haters or just "believers"(who favor argument from authority).
Claire is special case, is a patient, who'll never get any sympathy from me.
PS. Doesn't mean I agree with atheists, nor disagree with the question. If the question was asked by any normal person, I would have answered 'normally', the above would be my answer.
@claire it would be harder to make any rationlist thinker believe in myths...i dont think any thinking christians believes bible literally...he/she might be believing in essence but not word by word...
But this still does not answer my question. Why suddenly believe the Holy Spirit exists?
@claire didnt get u....who believes in holy spirit other than die hard fans of religion?
But how do atheists go from atheism to die-hard religion fans?
@claire ok now i get it...how do i know?...atheist is not name of individual...it is like why christians are leaving Christianity in europe?...now christian too is not name of one individual...guess every one would have their own reason for leaving or taking anything...
In other words, you don't know the answer to my question.
@claire yes i dont...any answer which i give u would be mere speculation...
An athiest that turns to religion is pretty rare. My guess as of why that would happen, is the atheist suddenly becomes a mentally lazy individual who suddenly can't think of themself.
For me it was I guess growing up and realising one day that I was not convinced that there was nothing after death. I would have been about 35 then I guess.
Proving there is nothing is harder than disbelieving because nobody has presented 'evidence' that there is something.
The next logical step was to start trying to prove that there was nothing after death to my own satisfaction, to at least solve that doubt.
That involved studying what religions stated about the matter, which led to some 'spiritual' experiences, which caused me to think that even if there was nothing after death, there was definitely something unseen but proactive that existed around me, and mainly it was friendly and made me feel good.
This also started a period of involvement with paganism and witchcraft, rune stones and tarot cards, and getting deeper and deeper into dark areas, and loving every minute of it, until I realised I was attracting pretty heavy dark forces to me.
I think my 40th birthday was the turning point, it's when I realised that my life was NOT what I had wanted or planned, it was what had happened to me, whilst making other plans (to paraphrase Lennon).
Finding faith was not a conversion, it ended up being a defection to escape the forces that I had invoked and were 'influencing' me.
Crossing over was a battle, as the former spiritual forces I had engaged attempted to dissuade me, and then tried to get me to kill myself.
One day, alone in my house as my wife had taken the baby to a friends as she was scared of what was happening, the big battle took place between our enemy and Christ.
I declared that whoever won was my owner for life, and as both told me they were the stronger force, I was in the position of knowing that no matter what, I no longer owned my soul. The only question was which spiritual entity would possess my rights and who I would serve.
Christ definitively won the fight, and I have served Him since, hence I was a defector, not a convert, and came from atheism for the simple reason that I could not 100% disbelieve what I disbelieved, and I suspected that what existed may be something that I needed to consider.
Truth be known I suspect that most atheists are in the same condition, which is why they protest so much against any believers message or scriptural correction.
They also suspect that what they disbelieve is not totally unbelievable, which causes them to shout ever louder in the hope that we may stop reminding them of their doubts and fears.
Why else would someone who denies God exists be afraid of a Hell they also deny exists?
@agua got that...though i dont believe in god but i get ur point and your share did put your point across very well...
Thanks, I understand that, after all I was in total disbelief until I was 35 years old, then spent 7 years going through spiritual things, before coming to faith at 42 years of age, so I never expect that anyone can truly say they are 100% secure in their beliefs and will never revise them.
However after nearly 20 years in faith, I am still challenging my faith daily (and that is possibly what 'pick up your cross daily' refers to.) and proving it more and more.
Would I now stop being a believer?
I seriously doubt it, I find more evidence for faith as I live this life, and see more intervention of God as I trust Him more, but then that is me, we are all different.
I don't think God expects us to accept what is said in the scriptures, if He had, He would have made it impossible to NOT believe, I think it is like all examinations; designed to test whether you have truly studied the subject and understood the questions correctly, and having done that answered the test questions (how you live) accurately.
I was always hopeless at examinations!
Thanks for your story! I don't think there is any atheist out there that would reject Jesus after seeing His power of evil like you did.
Here's a testimony of a former atheist who had a NDE and converted to Christianity after the ordeal was over.
It is logical to think it is not probable that there is nothing after death. Scientists now know consciousness is separate from the body. It is not in responsible to brain waves but vice versa.
Atheists can deny this all they are like but they are on these forums because they want to be convinced God doesn't exist because the idea of hell does scare them. By belittling Christians, they believe it makes them more right.
Maybe you should be adding links to the authority scientific papers produced that prove this instead of YT videos?
Odd this proof of life after death you have was not widely reported.
That is logical thinking? Gosh - I got it all mixed up. I am not scared of hell. Trust me - if you are correct in what comes after death - I welcome it.
No wonder your religion causes so many fights.
No nde experiences?
Why, there are hundreds of thousands of testimonies of out of body experiences and visions of things that are not of this world.
Liars for Satan. (TM)
Anyone can misinterpret a dream, especially Christians when they have dreams related to their beliefs, people can tell stories, lie, hallucinate.... this is why evidence is so important... take the chupacabra, how many people have claimed to see this creature? how old do you think this story is? some people claim it's been around for centuries.... however, the very first mention of this creature was in 1995 in Puerto Rico, after this incident and mention by a comedian who coined the term, many people cliamed sightings all over the World, especially in Latin America where the story originated. However, the woman who first reported the sighting described a creature resembling one from a movie, one that she had seen just hours earlier.... the Movie? Species.
Now, if this lady reports this fictional creature as real even though it was purely from her imagination based on a movie she just viewed and many people after words claimed to have seen the same things and even start claiming animals that they have never seen before as being this creature, how credible is eye witness testimony of any kind?
New approach mabye?
Chasing your tail here.
Denial - Discredit - Denial - Discredit - Denial - Discredit - Denial......
"Scientists now know..." Uh, which scientists? The ones I work with say nothing of the sort. Where consciousness resides in the brain is widely understood.The phenomena reported by those who experience NDE's are fairly well understood, but even still, how would one know that one was having a "religious" experience and not a hallucination? Where are the YT videos of people who were raised Hindu, with no exposure to Christianity who had NDE's, saw Jesus and converted? These experiences always follow what people have been brought up to believe.
While it is true that it hasn't been scientifically proven consciousness is separate from the brain, there is evidence, though. It cannot be explained why people born blind can see in NDEs.
"While it is true that it hasn't been scientifically proven consciousness is separate from the brain, there is evidence, though."
Consciousness has scientifically been proven to not be separate from the brain actually, if you damage the brain you damage a persons consciousness, or other such functions of his entire mental and mechanical abilities.
If you damage a car, you hinder the persons ability to drive it. Doesn't mean the person is damaged....
How much obvious do I need to point out?
There is no evidence that the brain is not the driver, or that there is a spiritual presence to this body, the body is the driver. How stupid are you that you can't prove this soul if it exists as being a separate part of the body.... you can't prove that something is then you might as well believe any silly notions that get told to you, like fairies and such.... obvious? Prove the soul, that would make it obvious.... what if the car is damaged? What if the driver is damaged? Or is the Driver indestructible???
Sounds like you are in some sort of lame fantasy world.... I'm done with your inane stupid unprovable ideas that you think are so obvious.
"... just like it's ridiculous to wash your hands in a childbirth ward, silly notion, no evidence that it does anything, this damn fella, calls himself a doctor and want to change the whole medical professions scientific knowledge because he BELIEVES that washing hands would save lives.... shouldn't be allowed to practice, unscientific fool"
Yes I can hear your counterparts shouting this just as loudly, and just as ignorantly, because THEY were ignorant of bacteria (which therefore obviously could not exist, as THEY could not prove it evidentially)
Yeah, good case, you ONLY believe in what has (to date) been measured by scientists, anybody else who actually has experiences of things you cannot see must be wrong.
PS. Yes the driver is indestructible, all that remains to be determined is which 'vehicle' they drive after they trash the one God gave them.
"... just like it's ridiculous to wash your hands in a childbirth ward, silly notion, no evidence that it does anything, this damn fella, calls himself a doctor and want to change the whole medical professions scientific knowledge because he BELIEVES that washing hands would save lives.... shouldn't be allowed to practice, unscientific fool"
Yes I can hear your counterparts shouting this just as loudly, and just as ignorantly, because THEY were ignorant of bacteria (which therefore obviously could not exist, as THEY could not prove it evidentially)
Yeah, good case, you ONLY believe in what has (to date) been measured by scientists, anybody else who actually has experiences of things you cannot see must be wrong.
PS. Yes the driver is indestructible, all that remains to be determined is which 'vehicle' they drive after they trash the one God gave them.
I guess that's your equivalent of no answer huh?
Should be simple for a scientist and psychologist to answer what the difference is in the thinking of then to now.... but maybe not?
Are you seriously arguing that, because -- one day -- we might discover that the brain is not the driver, we should take it into consideration, now? Really? Do you understand how complicated life would become if we operated on that principle?
One day, we might discover that Odin is really the master of the universe, and not Yahweh, so we ought to worship Odin, now. One day, we might discover that Odin, Zeus, Shiva, and Quetzalcoatl are parts of a Holy Tetralogy, so we ought to worship all of them, now. One day, we might discover that intentional blindness awakens a higher consciousness, so we ought to blind ourselves, now.
Whoops, seems this particular example riles you guys up.
YES, I am suggesting that IF you guys are ONLY prepared to base your belief systems on EVIDENCE you can see and measure, then you are just as primitive in your thinking as those doctors were who drove Ignaz Semmelweis out of his profession and eventually his mind by their blind insistence that his concept was not proven scientifically, and therefore was JUST A BELIEF which they ignored.
That scientific stance meant that 25% of women who delivered babies in hospital DIED from their ignorance and scepticism for another 20 years before his 'belief' became scientifically recognised.
Are you stating that you are NOT prepared to accept that there are some things which ARE truth which science has not recognised yet, or is incapable of conducting tests that prove it to their cloistered minds, because if that is your stance then THANK GOD that you were born AFTER scientists discovered bacteria and validated what Ignaz Semmelweis believed, and put into practise, thereby reducing the mortality rate on his wards from 10-35% of patients treated to just 1%.
And the sickening thing is, that despite there being that proof that his 'belief' worked, they still refused to accept it because it was 'not scientifically proven'
The scientists of today are just as in the dark about things as they were then.
"Are you seriously arguing that, because -- one day -- we might discover that the brain is not the driver, we should take it into consideration, now?"
Are you seriously arguing that, because -- one day -- we might discover that bacteria is the cause of 25% of women dying in childbirth, we should take hand washing into consideration, now?
You can (I hope) see the problem....
That was a time when doctors were trying to cure people with bloodletting, a practice that had been underway for over 2000 years. And, it was Semmelweis who used EVIDENCE, that which he could see and measure to prove his point. Contradict much?
Only if you're prepared to show us exactly what things ARE true which science has not recognized.
Then, dear sir, please enlighten the scientists of today with your ultimate knowledge, I'm sure they'd appreciate your wisdom.
Actually you contradict the EVIDENCE completely, Semmelweis provided his evidence, the doctors and scientist of the day REJECTED his findings because there was no EVIDENCE apart form what he believed to be true which they could accept.
His case was validated after his death, when science managed to catch up with bacteria, which previously they had no knowledge of and denied could exist, rather like you ostriches are currently doing, they buried their heads in the sand, and in doing so killed countless women that did not need to die, by their blind refusal to explore what they could not see and measure.
WE have been telling you that for ages, you just refuse to listen or take the blinkers off yourselves, chanting your new mantra "Show me empirical evidence" - well rather like bacteria, you will just have to wait until one day you experience the undeniable evidence for yourself, which is a shame, because you may find that like bacteria and the ignorance of science at that time (which continues today) you are too late to do anything about what you have discovered, and countless folk who need not have perished will also be lost, because YOU will not listen to anything that does not fit into your blinkered world view, and they listened to you.
Actually it is up to the scientist to explore unknown territory, and if they would just start, maybe they would find out that which is currently hidden to them.
Bacteria was unknown until someone invented a microscope that could see it, which is why they refused to listen to Semmelweis.
When someone invents a device that will see and can measure what billions of people already experience and know to be true, they can catch up, until then, they will remain in the dark, just like they did when Semmelweis told them to wash their hands.
Can you believe that, they were so ignorant that they refused to wash their hands even when his ward statistics put theirs to shame?
That is true ignorance of the truth, and you guys still proudly bleat about it today.
Wow, one contradiction to the next. Hilarious.
So you have a microscope which allows you to see god? I knew there was something I was doing wrong! Who makes it? Mattel?
No Randy, I am asking our esteemed scientists to discover the device that will allow them to see God, of course I know they will not do that, because if they did, those research grants would dry up, and they would need to rewrite what they know again.
Fact is nobody needs any device to meet with God, they just need to stop being in rebellion and denial.
It's great to finally find someone who knows the exact reasons why scientists all over the world try so hard to disprove your god's existence. I've often wondered how so very many educated men from all parts of the world have manged to keep quiet on the obvious conspiracy to intentionally try and prove there is no god.
I also wondered if they are INTENTIONALLY trying to do this, then why? What is their motive? Wouldn't they have to believe there was a god to intentionally try and deny him? Why would they do this knowing they would burn in hell for it?
Thank goodness I finally found someone who can explain this where everyone will understand it. Thanks ahead of time because I know you will be more than happy to reveal the answers concerning your allegations of this indeed being the case.
That's a big IF.
I don't base my belief system _only_ on evidence that can be seen and measured, nor does anyone.
I believe that my wife and children love me -- I would go so far to say that I KNOW that they love me -- and I have no empirical evidence to support that belief.
I have no empirical evidence that New Delhi, India, exists. Sure, I've seen it in photos, and in films. I've read about it, and I've talked to people who claimed to have been there. Does that mean that it actually exists? Of course not. Do I believe that it exists? Yes, I do.
I believe that it exists because the existence of a city named New Delhi isn't an extraordinary claim. I know that cities exist; I've lived in them and visited them. I know that other countries exist, for the same reasons. Is it possible that I'm being duped? Yes. Do I consider it likely, using my powers of inductive reasoning? No.
I believe that nuclear power plants produce electricity through a process known as nuclear fission, and I believe this without empirical evidence. I've seen what are claimed to be nuclear power plants in the distance, but I've never visited one, nor do I know anyone who has. Further, I have virtually no understanding of physics, so I can't rationally justify my belief that nuclear fission is not an elaborate ruse.
I believe that nuclear fission exists because I was born in an era in which technological marvels were commonplace. Of course, maybe technological miracles are really squadrons of Satanists harnessing occult power. Maybe all scientists are secret Satanists. Is it possible that they are? Yes. Do I believe that they are? No.
To persuade me of the extraordinary claim that all scientists are secret Satanists would require extraordinary evidence.
Suppose, for a moment, that I believed in the existence of Yahweh, that I didn't consider the claim of his creation of the universe and of humankind as requiring extraordinary evidence.
What about the other claims about him?
Yahweh is concerned about the foreskins of the "Chosen People." Yahweh incarnated himself -- in the form of his own son -- to save humankind from the sins that, in his omniscience, he knew that we would commit. He is blameless for any evil in the world, yet solely responsible for all that is good. He will one day eternally punish some of us for disbelieving in him, when he knew, in his omniscience, that we wouldn't.
Such a peculiar and ornery god seems no less a fiction than Scrooge or the Grinch. You wouldn't believe in the existence of Scrooge or the Grinch without extraordinary evidence, nor should you believe in the existence of Yahweh without extraordinary evidence.
That's a lot of words to say nothing, which is not your normal response, normally you are short and concise, which leads me to suspect that you are digging around this aspect, so be it.
I've (literally) been to New Delhi, believe me it exists, but by your reckoning, as you have not been there, you must doubt me. So be it.
That sort of closed minded attitude is what I cannot accept as being a valid way to lead ones life.
If I doubted that New Delhi existed, and that doubt had the possibility to affect my eternal existence, I would at least visit there and check for myself.
You have been (metaphorically) to New Delhi, and stated it existed from experience, now, you state that in fact maybe then you just thought New Delhi existed, but now you are back home, you doubt it's existence.
That is weird.
From your comments I can see that you never had a very good teaching about Christ and God, and the relationship of the OT to the NT.
Circumcision was the ritual setting apart of Gods people, it literally made them different to the rest. In the NT we were not required to 'brisk' the penis, we were (and are) required to be set apart spiritually and in lifestyle from the world, as you know the word church actually means 'set apart'.
God never states that He is "blameless for any evil in the world" indeed, God allows evil to exist, because to do otherwise would be to deny us free choice. We (humanity) allowed evil into the world, God gave us a perfect world, we polluted it, and do so to this day, from our desire to obtain knowledge, to obtain knowledge that does not do us good.
Christ came to deal with the problem that the law could not deal with, humanity showed itself to be incapable of NOT doing evil, if Christ had not defeated evil on the cross, nobody (or very few anyhow) could have found peace with God for eternity, yes God knew it would happen, just like I know what the end of any video I watch twidce will be, but He would not intervene by way of denying us our choice, good or eb\vil, this day (and every day) you shall choose.
As for me and my house, we will choose the Lord.
You make you choice daily also, by action or default.
You have been buying the atheist crap they dish out, and believing it.
It's YOUR choice whether you want to accept what God has FREELY given, and you did once.
Do these words ring any bells, I hope they do, I hope they ring alarm bells!
2 Thessalonians 2 1
BUT RELATIVE to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and our gathering together to [meet] Him, we beg you, brethren,
Not to allow your minds to be quickly unsettled or disturbed or kept excited or alarmed, whether it be by some [pretended] revelation of [the] Spirit or by word or by letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here.
Let no one deceive or beguile you in any way, for that day will not come except the apostasy comes first [unless the predicted great falling away of those who have professed to be Christians has come], and the man of lawlessness (sin) is revealed, who is the son of doom (of perdition), who opposes and exalts himself so proudly and insolently against and over all that is called God or that is worshiped, [even to his actually] taking his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming that he himself is God.
Do you not recollect that when I was still with you, I told you these things?
And now you know what is restraining him [from being revealed at this time]; it is so that he may be manifested (revealed) in his own [appointed] time.
For the mystery of lawlessness (that hidden principle of rebellion against constituted authority) is already at work in the world, [but it is] restrained only until [c]he who restrains is taken out of the way.
And then the lawless one (the antichrist) will be revealed and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring him to an end by His appearing at His coming.
The coming [of the lawless one, the antichrist] is through the activity and working of Satan and will be attended by great power and with all sorts of [pretended] miracles and signs and delusive marvels--[all of them] lying wonders--
And by unlimited seduction to evil and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing (going to perdition) because they did not welcome the Truth but refused to love it that they might be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a misleading influence, a working of error and a strong delusion to make them believe what is false....
Do not be deceived by lying spirits who seek to destroy you, unless you truly do NOT believe ONE iota of what you once knew to be truth, and in which case, why are you complaining that God makes this declaration?
It may be that you will be 'eternally punished' for your rebellion against God, I am not the judge of that, but if you are, then it will be YOUR choice, having heard the good news and supped at the Lords table, then rejected what you once knew.
Do not think that God, Christ or any believer will gain pleasure from that, it will give sorrow to all who know that you perish, but in the end it is YOUR choice who you believe, or disbelieve.
God is responsible for creating evil and tempting God's creations away from God. So God blames man for falling prey to God's temptations to not believe in God. Thus, God damns his creations to an eternal hell for being tempted by--guess who?--God! Okay, it all makes sense now!
It's more circular logic. Don't fry your brain by trying to follow it. It'll never make sense.
Oh it would make perfect sense IF you would allow you mind to listen to God rather than the clutter that atheism throws at you.
You words have power, what you say will be done, so I guess "It'll never make sense" to you until you stop the ego and lose the self, and listen to God.
To start with, I'm not an atheist. Never have been, and never will be. Therefore I have no clutter from atheism being thrown at me. You just happen to assume that everyone who is not Christian is atheist. I remember a few years ago Christians believed anyone not Christian was a Satanist. You guys have relabeled the target but are doing the same thing, I wonder why?
I know my words have power, that's why I use them. As for losing the ego and myself, well I'm not trying to go insane so losing myself will never happen. As for Ego, I didn't walk in with the ego, Christians did that.
As for listening to God, why should I listen to him when Christians won't?
Thanks! Is that what happened to these guys I'm arguing with? Whew! That was close! Thanks again!
I'm glad that you appreciate the time and effort that I spent trying to answer you honestly and completely. Thanks.
I stated quite plainly that I believed that New Delhi exists, and I explained why I believed it (which was actually integral to the illustration that you failed to understand).
If you believe that acknowledging the imperfections of our senses is closed-mindedness, then you don't get open-mindedness
First, New Delhi was not analogous to my eternal existence. Second, If you had paid attention to any of my myriad posts before this one, you would know that I have spent a great deal of time "visiting there."
I don't believe one iota of what I once believed was true. However, I made no complaints. I was, in fact, in my own, apparently loquacious way, answering your question.
I like how you accept unproven science as true when it fits into your belief system and reject it when it doesn't. That is some truly impressive compartmentalization.
Unfortunately many people do that to one degree or another.
Well, atheists assume God doesn't exist even though science hasn't disproved Him. I can't accept that all anecdotes from people who have had NDEs are false. If scientists and doctors seriously consider consciousness being separate from the brain then I think it is worth believing in. If I didn't know God then I would be on the fence on this issue.
Funny, I was hit by a car, woke up in a hospital, was told that my heart stopped several times and they almost gave up.
Well, it wasn't funny at the time, but the expectations for me turning to God were, for me at least, totally hilarious.
Wonder how many other things you haven't experienced others have.
Yeah I wonder what thing a schizophrenic experiences that I will never experience... Hmmm, moving on.
The thing is people can experience all sorts of things, much of which don't interest me. If something interests me then I go out of my way to try and experience them. However I am also not delusional, I studied many claims in my life to find out if there were any truths to them. From Psychic abilities to telekinetic powers to UFOs, Ghosts, etc.... There was always some way I could convincingly recreate these with everyday science or show that it was a misunderstanding or hoax.
Sorry to tell you, people lie, and I am not one to tell the lie to because I can always tell when someone is lying.
Actually that isn't the case, but you can continue to believe that if you like.
If the atheist is gullible and just hasnt heard of any gods, then just tell them what to believe. In my experience, if you use god to explain something to them that they dont understand (usually emotions) then they will bite. If they are not gullible like me and want to see verifiable evidence, then you will have to verifiably demonstrate that your god exists.
Actually, dogmatic Atheists and dogmatic Christians aren't all that different. Just take Big Bang theory, "God doesn't exist," and whatever else that they believe without much understanding in the matter, and replace it with Creation and God, and BOOM. Atheist->Christian. Like magic.
On a serious note, Atheists who reason in the same manner as the devoutly religious in general tend to be more apt to lean towards a religion if it strikes a certain chord in them. Especially people who are only Atheists because everyone else around them is, too. Far too many people are uneducated about religion, the psychology behind many of them, etc. Because of that, when they find out something they believed about a religion to be wrong, and are introduced to ideas that they've never really encountered before, they are filled with curiosity, and often more open to the "nicer" side of religion. People with extremist (either this or that, no in between) tendencies are also more likely to convert. I know many Christians, and was that way myself who have a black and white, no gray area attitude.
(You know what happens when a girl grows up in a town with a bunch of men who all act, look, dress the same, and she feels trapped, but then this foreigner comes out of nowhere who is completely different, he stirs up an interest and curiosity in her, and they "fall in love." She thinks the man is super special, and becomes blind to the fact that when she experience more of the world, there are in fact other guys similar to him, and that he isn't all that special, but they're "in love," and she's convinced that he's one of a kind and the one for her, and there's no other guy like him, and even if he has some REALLY bad tendencies, including telling her that she's nothing without him, but she'll stick up for him no matter what, because she sees him with rose-colored glasses and believes she has no other options.)
It is highly unlikely that a more level headed, educated (near objectively about religions in general and the psychological aspect of it) Atheist would so easily be converted to an idea that really works outside of his or her realm of thinking. Not saying that it's a "higher" level of thinking, per se, just a very, very different one.
(In my example, a girl, who, though she grew up with a bunch of bland men, would see the new comer and not think him to be anything special, having learned already about how guys like him exist, and while indeed they are different, different doesn't equal special, and would thusly not be whisked aware by his "something new"-ish charm.)
I'm not saying this is always the case, for those of you who'll want to throw a tantrum. Just usually.
Also notice when I speak of one being uneducated, I mostly mean, which is why I said, not being educated properly about the religion, it's real beliefs, and the psychological aspects, not that the people themselves aren't intelligent in other fields. ALthough, this is also a factor, but there are intelligent Atheists who have converted to Christianity, so understand that is not what I'm saying.
You are dead right about this!
Excellent answer. I think many people convert to Christianity because of the idea of heaven and rewards. I wonder how many would still be Christian if you had to tell them life is really hard as a Christian because of the onslaught of the devil.
I don't think I've ever come across an atheist who was born one Mostly they do not feel the need to continuously slam religion. I think many atheists block any chance of conversion by a mental block in their heads. They have been disillusioned by Christianity and have no desire to go back and so they will filter out the positive and concentrate on the negative and spread that around hoping others will abandon their faith, too.
I don't think that's true at all. For me as an atheist my reason for becoming one is purely the need to believe in reality vs fantasy. People can believe what they want doesn't make them good or bad, anyone of any belief can be really evil. For myself, I would rather believe what is true and real and I am happy with my belief. I am not scared for empty religious threats of damnation and not tempted by empty religious promises of "salvation".
With all that I am aware of I can't believe anyone would feel the need to believe in such fantasies.
Why does there have to be any "understanding in the matter?" Do I have to have special knowledge of fairies to assert that they don't exist? Atheism is to religion as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
The few atheist-to-Christian converts who I've known were atheists for emotional rather than intellectual reasons, so the conversion was easy.
Interestingly enough, the most "rational" and die-hard atheist Richard Dawkins is now an agnostic. He cannot be sure a God doesn't exist. In fact, he thinks we might be genetically engineered by aliens.
Of course, Dawkins is an agnostic. Most atheists are, in precisely the same way that Dawkin's defines it in "The God Delusion: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
Dawkins entertains the possibility that we were genetically engineered by aliens. So what? He also entertains the possibility of fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Come on, now. He only recently admitted to their being a possibility God exists. He was always known as an atheist. What we was trying to say that he is open-minded to the possibility that God exists like he entertains the idea that fairies exist at the bottom of the garden. He was being sarcastic.
A woman once asked him, "Has it ever occurred to you that you may be wrong?" He responded, "Oh, yes, but I teapot could also be orbiting the earth."
This is what he wrote in, "The God Delusion":
Dawkins in the “God Delusion” is fond of quoting fellow atheist Bertrand Russell’s story of the celestial teapot. Here is Dawkins telling the story, “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving around the sun in a elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by out most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on and say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it. I should rightly be thought of talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006) p. 52
Unlike believers who are steadfast in their absolute beliefs, Dawkins entertains a whole lot of ideas and offers anyone with a claim to explain themselves and provide the evidence for their explanations. It's called having an open mind.
Or, if you prefer, the scientific method.
I think Dawkins would be chuffed if he knew you stood up for him! I entertain a lot of ideas. You could say those who are close-minded are those who say God is imaginary. You're not really open-minded when it comes to Jesus being the son of God.
Are you open minded to the possibility, Claire, that Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, and all of those gods exist(ed)? What about the Norse Gods? The Hindu Brahman(all of the other deities are manifestations of Brahman, quite similarly to the Christian idea of Trinity and thus hinduism is falsely called a polytheistic religion)? If no, why? Your answer may surely sound much like why many people in these forums don't believe in Jesus and the like... Though it may be "different" to you.
To compare those gods with Jesus is erroneous. There are extra-biblical sources that attest to Jesus' existence. If people thought the gods you mentioned above existed, I'd be interested to hear their case. I have also never come across someone who claims they have a relationship with Zeus, for example.
14 percent of the human population believes in Brahman
Hinduism is also thousands of years older than christianity
Interesting how your jesus is so similar to krishna, mithras, osiris and so on....
Your claim isn't impressive. I could say my garden gnome is like Jesus but if I don't say how then how can I take the claim seriously?
You can start by reading joseph campbell
I am typing from my phone and dont want my fingers to fall off
Sorry, that is not how a debate works. You put forward your argument and I provide a refutation. It's like me saying that Jesus exists, go read the Bible.
So come back to me when you are at a computer.
Mithras- dec 25 birthday, 12 disciples, eucharist, baptism
Much much more. Maybe ill make a thread on it tomorrow
No, I'm not standing up for him but instead making a point that although he entertains a lot of ideas, he doesn't accept the ones that have no evidence.
Ridiculous. There is no evidence for God or Jesus.
What else can a rebel say?
The guy who shot 77 people (Anders Breivik) told the court that he did not recognise their authority to try him.
OK that's his opinion, and he is entitled to hold it, but no matter what he thinks, he is on trial for his crimes, and that's a fact that cannot be disputed.
Not recognising authority changes not a thing.
But you have no authority. Your Super Being does not exist.
See how that is not the same thing at all?
Can you prove it's impossible that God doesn't exist? Truth be told, I can't prove a unicorn doesn't exist so I'm sure you can't prove God doesn't exist!!
Best I can do is "infinitely improbable."
So Unicorns exist?
So Unicorns exist?
Infinitely improbable?? What makes you say that? So I suppose you know the ends and outs of other dimensions? You've investigated all parallel universes and visited every planet? Wow...
I didn't say unicorns existed. I'm just telling you I can't prove they don't exist.
So the fact that you can't prove Unicorns don't exist doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they exist.
You can't prove I don't know the ends and outs of other dimensions? You cannot prove I haven't investigated all parallel universes and visited every planet.
Not that I need to do that to say that your god is infinitely improbable.
No, it doesn't have any bearing whether they exist. The point is I can't say they don't exist like you can't say God doesn't exist. Well, do you know the ends and out of other dimensions?
It is infinitely IMPOSSIBLE to be omniscient to know as truth that God doesn't exist. Have you considered the fact that you think it is infinitely improbable that God doesn't exist because you don't know how to interpret evidence? We have finite minds and will never be able to fully understand God. We can understand the nature because of His son and can have a relationship with Him but He will always remain a mystery.
Infinitely IMPOSSIBLE? Is that bigger than just IMPOSSIBLE?
Have you considered the fact that you may be deranged and incapable of understanding basic English and simple probabilities?
I don't know how to interpret evidence, but you do and it is majik? That sort of sounds deranged. Step back and look at what you just said to me and consider it dispassionately.
Sorry - I fully understand the concept of god. Clearly - you do not. Just because your mind is incapable of grasping this concept - we are not all as limited as you are.
What I think has no bearing. Your god is infinitely improbable regardless of what I think.
I never said I know the ends and out of other dimensions. I said you cannot prove I don't. As this seems to be an important criteria for you to believe something.
Of course it is. I was just replacing your "Infinitely improbable" to "infinitely impossible". For emphasis. :-D
Yes, I do. Those who have accepted Jesus know how to interpret evidence because they want it to have it revealed to them. You don't so you remain ignorant.
Oh, what's the concept of God, then?
I never said you didn't either. It's just that you sound so sure of yourself that I thought you must be omniscient and was just being humble when you claimed that God is infinitely improbable.
And chill out! Why do people get so worked up?!
I am not worked up. I am waiting for you to prove your god exists.
You made the claim He doesn't exist. Now prove why God is an infinite improbability. What made you come to this conclusion?
No - I made the claim it was infinitely improbable.
You wouldn't understand. Your mind is too finite to grasp this concept.
Any time you want to prove your god exists - I am ready, willing and able.
I said you would not be able to understand. Call me prophetic if you will, but my prophecies keep coming true. Over and over. Like Majik.
I just did. You did not get it. Once again my prophecies come true. I am the won.
I am now fully convinced that God is infinitely improbable because of your stellar argument.
All you needed was faith after all. Think of me as a mirror. Then you will understand somewhat.
And I do know your bank balance.
Just have faith. All you need to know is that I know it. That is how it works - right?
Atheists assume that all Christians believe in God without proof. They have faith in His existence but aren't sure. That's not how it works. I have faith in God KNOWING He exists. He has proven it to me. You haven't proven your godhood so I'm not convinced. Sorry. I'm not going to indulge in this small talk anymore because I have other things to do.
Christians assume that all atheists believe that all Christians believe in God without proof. This is inaccurate.
Many atheists -- myself included -- are former Christians. We, at one time, KNEW that God existed, because (we believed) he had revealed himself to us.
Now, as an atheist, I believe that my previous certainty was delusional. Unsurprisingly, I believe that your certainty -- your KNOWING -- is delusional, too.
As Mandy Rice Davies said "Well you would wouldn't you" because you really have no choice but to deny that which you once knew to be true.
However I presume that if you conceded that in your opinion you were deluded once, you can see that you may be deceived now as well?
After all, your memory will confirm that we are warned that in these last days, God will allow deception that will deceive even the elect, if that were possible.
You may be proving it is possible, and then again you may change your mind again and come back to Christ, in which case you would be on the brighter side of the warning given.
As could you be deluded. As could we all be.
The difference between an agnostic and the atheist/theist is....the agnostic is honest. The agnostic has set aside the ego attached to the delusional need of cosmic certainty.
You are correct, both the atheist and the theist have decided on what they hold to be truth, and are staking their eternal existence upon their decision being correct.
The agnostic sits on the fence prevaricating which way to leap.
That is not necessarily a bad thing to do, it shows that the agnostic truly does not know, but has not closed their mind to either possibility.
However in death we are required to make the leap one way or the other, as I cannot find any place in scripture that allows for 'double mindedness'.
I rephrase that to, "you really have no choice but to deny that which you once [believed] to be true," as I consider it less arrogant.
My answer: "Of course I have no choice, unless it is possible to believe and disbelieve the same thing at the same time."
I happily concede that I may be deluded now, and not then. Acknowledging this, it is perfectly possible -- though unlikely (as I believe now) -- that I will one day "come back to Christ."
So when you were a believer, were you not sure, at least at the point where you accepted Christ as your Saviour and guarantee of salvation?
If you came to faith, then you made a declaration, based upon John 3:16-18 in effect:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
So at that point, you should agree that you WERE sure that it was the truth, or were you crossing your fingers as you made the sinners prayer?
Of course I was SURE when I was a Christian. No crossing of fingers.
Certainty guarantees nothing. I have Mormon friends who are SURE that Joseph Smith dug up golden plates. Muslim martyrs are SURE when they sacrifice themselves for Allah. The world is full of misplaced certainty.
So - you don't have faith in that case.
Oddly - you have just proven that your god does not exist. Thanks.
You aren't making sense. Did I not say I had faith? A child has faith in his father that he has his best interests at heart but he doesn't doubt his existence.
I'll take your word for it 'o omniscient one.
SO - this was an imaginary father that the child knew? Got me confused? You have no faith - that is your problem.
By the way - what trick did your god to to prove to you he is real?
I've never doubted God's existence as a child. I just knew. I didn't believe the Noah story but I always knew God was real. It helps that I was born into a spiritual family. My ancestors were missionaries. The irony of what proves God's existence is the existence of the devil. You have to know the one to know the other. My family has performed exorcisms. My grandfather had to exorcise a girl that was hexed. Family played with ouija boards which scared the hell out of them.
I was twelve when I played a Satanic computer game and unleashed something. I came crying to my mother because of visions I saw when I woke up one night. She came to sleep in my bed. When the lights went out, I saw she was shape-shifting. Of course she really wasn't but that is what I was seeing. We had to pray for about three hours.
I had night terrors from the age of 18 until it intensified in 2006. That is when I realized the extent of evil. I was delivered from that but not before me seriously questioning my faith.
God doesn't talk to one in magic words in the sky. You could pray for His will to be done with regards to a certain issue and it will be answered only perceived by those fine-tuned to realize it. My family has suffered financial difficulties but we have never wanted. We always have enough. One of the most magnificent things of God's glory is His concern for others. Sometimes when I write on these forums some issues will come up that will arise in church the next Sunday. I get the answers to questions I did not quite know how to answer previously. This is how God speaks to you.
Seek and you truly will find. I can testify to this.
Yes - you are scared - I know.
What does that have to do with what we were discussing?
Hexing and exorcisms? No wonder you are the way you are. So what if your ancestors went around murdering native Americans for not believing in Jesus? What does that have to do with anything?
What trick did god perform to show he was real?
No, Jesus casts out all fear.
What are you talking about my ancestors murdering native Americans? They were South African. I'm South African and not American.
You asked what "trick" God performed for me. I was telling you what "trick" God did for me. Replace "trick" with "sign" and you will get what I mean.
OK - so they murdered Africans instead?
So - when my god does it it's a trick - when your god does it it's a sign? K then.
This is because you lack faith. If you had faith - you wouldn't need tricks or signs or proof.
What you have inadvertently done is dis-proven your god. Without faith - god does not exist. As you have proof - this denies faith - therefore your god does not exist.
So all this stuff about aliens having sex with humans and casting out evil spirits is nonsense. Sorry. You must be very angry now.
Where the hell do you get this tripe from? Who are you to say my family is guilty of murder? They never forced anyone to convert to Christianity. I'll just ask you if you enjoy eating babies. I have as much proof of that as you have proof my family are murderers.
Sometimes in life we have problems and pray and God doesn't seem to answer. We then have to have faith that God knows best. It never goes unanswered, however. It is a delayed response for the right time. We then see in retrospect how God answered our prayers. I never ask God for a specific sign. I just have faith He will.
About aliens having sex is nonsense and I must be angry about it, etc. I think you are smoking pot or something. This is just plain ridiculous.
So - you don't have proof that your god exists in that case?
Yes - Missionaries did kill and murder and forcibly convert - but I feel certain your family were different. You know - given how level headed and feet-on-the-ground you are.
Odd you call me ridiculous when I am simply stating proven facts.
I love how you say it is infinitely impossible for him to be omniscient and yet you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent deity, you are correct omniscience is impossible.
Yes, but Mark isn't exactly a deity. Not that I know of. He could be a god in the form of a human.
Okay, do you know what happened a 100 years ago on 18th April, 2012? What is the balance of my bank account? If you are a god, you are omniscient and thus you know the answers.
How does this prove it exactly? Can I use this to prove you do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ and there is no god?
What if he knows the answer to these things, but expects you accept that he does, on faith?
After all, it is sort of presumptuous of you to ask God to prove himself.
Yes, I'm joking, but I'm also trying to make a point: that's exactly the type of excuse that you might use.
Well, Jesus proved He was the son of God on earth. I did not accept God in my life without proof. I wouldn't worship a deity without proof. If Mark cannot provide the evidence then I will assume he is not. Anyway, he claimed to know my bank balance so he is obliged to answer it.
So - can you ask Jesus what my bank balance is?
As this is now the criteria for proving/disproving stuff. If you cannot answer within 3 minutes, I will use that as proof that your god is not a god after all.
Okay, I'll take the bait. What's it got to do with me what your bank balance is? What kind of God would think it's cute to prove Himself by telling me to tell you what your bank balance is?
He doesn't perform tricks and I wouldn't respect Him if He did.
You would think having a relationship with jesus would be a bit one sided. How has that been working for you?
See Claire, another rebel with a complex!
Pointing out your hypocrisy and reminding you that you are speaking for something that does not exist is rebellion?
Dear me - what a high opinion you have of yourself.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
Pouring out the same old glib tripe again I see, you really need a new copywriter, your lines are as stale as week old bread, and as mouldering also.
You are in rebellion against God, it matters not one jot or tittle what you think or say, your problem is not with me, it is with God.
Pouring scorn, mockery, abuse, and your pseudo intellectualism, count as nothing, you will answer to God alone.
I am not in rebellion against your fantasy being.
You keep positing nonsense - I keep telling you it is nonsense. See how that works?
Your empty threats do not bother me. Does it give you a thrill to say that I will answer to god? Do you get a kick out of telling that to small children? Do they come to you for comfort after you scare them with this threat?
Odd you need to keep repeating it over and over and over and over. Am I speaking to you - or to god now? I get the two mixed up.
And there is nothing pseudo about my intellect.
Ah the Christians favorite threat and tantrum, scared the **** out of me as a child being told I would burn in hell every time I did something wrong, now being told that you will be judged is the obvious mark that you have an enraged frustrated little christian on your hands with no convincing arguments and just empty ludicrous threats, it always reminds me of Calvin and Hobbes (my favorite comic), where Calvin will plot with his pet tiger (actually just a stuffed toy) about how they will maul the school bully after being taunted by him, this will work out just about as much as that does
Yup - scared the **** out of me as a child as well. In fact - this one says almost exactly the same things I was told when I was little. I didn't quite understand the satisfaction people like this get from such behavior, but as I got older I began to understand. Now I understand completely.
Love Calvin and Hobbes.
It is not the truth. I am certain of the satisfaction I see you deriving though.
Do you tell this to small children? Do they come to you for comfort once you have convinced them an Invisible Super Being will punish them for not believing what you tell them?
Odd. You have not answered these questions. That is why I repeated them. Would you care to answer?
I'll answer, My Brother Auquasilver as well as I don't confuse the topic Of Christ with "religion" or (his word, that I find brilliant) "Churchianity". There exists so many people who confuse the false teachings of a religion that takes place in a church building, then sadly they think "God" sits in their so called "Holy Place" playing solitaire, waiting for them to come back on the next day, be it Sat. or Sunday when they come back God wakes from his boredom and takes over blessing all the finely dressed people singing songs, waving their arms skyward and yelling "Amen" at a sermon from another man, who believes that his words are "Holy", the only truth as he sees it. Under a hierarchy of man designated positions. Let us pick on the Catholics, an easy target of elevating mere men to positions that are better than any other human, I mean get real, dressing a man up like a clown and calling him the Superman Pope who rides the streets standing in the "Pope-mobile" a bullet proof cage. He lacks the faith of protection, setting an example for you that deny any connection as he waves his arms "Spectacles, Testicles, Wallet and watch" LMAO (Clint Eastwood, Grand Torino, quote)
Your statement of scaring children by telling them they will "burn forever in hell" is again a sad work of religion, I'll drop the Catholics here as I'm really not knowledgeable on their childrens program they call "catechism" another religion tool they have that I heard my childhood friends saying they had to do studies to "fit in" with the group, and I have to mention their practice of child molestation, they seem to prefer the little boys.
My grand father a fire and brimstone preacher in a church that says you gotta speak in tongues or else you didn't really get the gift of the "Holy Spirit" so in the 50s a herd of folks like blabbering idiots drowning out the preacher and they seemed to be in the front row ever Sunday. Women rolling in the floor pulling their dresses up over their heads showing all, while blabbering where no one could understand.
Now past the churchianity that Auquasilver and I agree, I'm not sure of his opinions of the other things I have typed.
So given those things, I can see why you might take the stance of non believers. I was a drug kid, I literally was drug into Baptist and southern Baptist churches, both on the same street on opposite ends of a 1/4 mile block. My father rejected his fathers teachings of religion. He also changed from one end of the block to the other end, many times, over religion politics.
I rebelled, those hour long sessions of boredom when I could be doing something else got the best of me. I won the battle by finding the hard wooden pews were like piano sound boards. They called for silence before a person was asked to pray. I leaned over and farted and in the hollow walls it was a loud laughter provoking deed. That I found so funny I'd hold a blast for that time every Sunday I could muster a loud one.
One Sunday Dad found it was me, he jerked me up and out the doors and took a belt to me in the front church yard and forbade me from showing up to embarrass him ever again.
I found great release from hypocritical people who raced to get a case of beer and smokes before going home to listen to ball games or if they had a TV watch the game.
Nothing has changed in churches in 5 decades best I can tell. I found reading the Bible was knowledge that I pray for understanding of that knowledge as one is worthless with out the other and it is a lifelong journey to gain understanding, Like you I changed my mind, only rejecting churchianity. Probably a theist that was in hibernation.
To the author of this hub in answer to the question was a slow awakening over time and is still working with me. I found at 17, turning 18 in Vietnam fighting NVA on the Mekong Delta that as we were "ratfu*king" ( term for stripping the money or other valuable off the dead bodies) I opened a water buffalo leather pouch that contained family photos of a young kids people waiting for him to come home he was a human, like me fighting for what?
As I helped bag and tag my new friends to be loaded and shipped home unlike the NVA that would come at night and collect their dead friends, I began wondering "Is this all there is" we, the soldiers were at war America was at the mall. Never found an atheist that didn't call out, "Jesus Christ!" when it began raining mortar rounds and out of trees, behind trees in low light of a triple canopy jungle, bullets slapping trees all around me, I as the others would invoke the son of mans name as I started killing while the radioman called for artillery and jets to bomb the red smoke grenade marked area. In the midst of the smell of guts and screaming men, I returned to prayer that napalm would come and end the smell and silence the screaming kids most 17 to 25 years old. Ten years passed and I took my Honorable Discharge with my lower left leg amputated as a pilot in a medical "dust off" helicopter flying into the face of fire to collect stretchers or ponchos used to move wounded and dead to the ship for treatment or packaging for shipment. I started on the ground eye to eye and developed a cast iron heart and found killing them from the air a lot easier. Like many Huey pilots, getting shot in the legs was common and any returned to flight after a meat shot. I don't know if it was a chunk of helicopter or a mortar round that took off my ankle bones and passed through killing the left seat pilot. My crew chief applied a tourniquet as we auto rotated toward the ground and out of nowhere the engine restarted and with the bleeding stopped I was able to get altitude and control and make it a longer story of the 45 minutes that followed.
I have no Idea and no explanation of 6 wounded one dead loaded and the pilot were the only loss of life. A "miracle"? or was it not in our time design?
I have drawn closer to God as I suffer PTSD to this day. I prayed to be relieved of the nightmares, and I no longer have dreams that I wake up to of any kind. The doctors say "get over it" and every morning when I put my leg on I'm forced to remember the haze of the flight.
I grew back to Faith, I read my Bible, I pray for understanding and my prayers no longer bounce off the ceiling the Holy Spirit is still gifting me and softening the hard heart of a trained killer to just a human who is being blessed with compassion for every living thing that has been created by our creator. If we were not created but a evolutionary growth, where are the halfway complete evolution species? Did it just end? If so why or how?
I normally don't get involved in these discussions, this one however was a decent request and civil remarks. I type slow so possibly 20 comments since I started 20 or 30 minutes back.
I politely ask, if you are true to your heart as an atheist, I expect that none of you would have a problem of printing a stern rebuke of the "Holy Spirit" casting his existence in a vile way, telling me and others just how firm you are in your stance that a Lycoming turbo prop engine to refire in a dead fall and the cyclic, and collective return at full lift seconds before impact while I was unstrapping to get my blood loss stopped and Captain Hastings was minus half of his head, I assure you he didn't wind it up.
That would make me more enlightened to your honesty of heart claiming to be atheist, it would seal the deal making me understand you are not just hiding behind your keyboards for the intention of just raising an altercation to make yourselves look smart and belittle me as a fool.
May the Blessings be,
I learned a bit more about you buddy, and love your heart, your new heart.
I agree with you on all those bits after Churchianity, no sweat!
I would direct you to these websites for further enlightenment about evolution:
In the meantime, I will say that ALL species are partway complete and it is a never ending process. Unless you are a shark apparently - that is as good as it gets Water-borne predator wise.
There is no doubt we evolved and were not created in our current form.
Not sure I understood this request, but if I got your meaning right - yes I am true to my heart and I genuinely think your beliefs are an evil abomination that have held us back as a species - yes.
No - I genuinely think your religion is evil, nonsensical and damaging to our society and has been for the last 2,000 years.
All I see here is dancing around my request that you directly attack the "Holy Spirit" not me or my beliefs, I feel that you are afraid to do so,
That said you are wise in the point of sin against the Holy Spitit, there may be hope for you after all,
May the Blessings be
What? I spit on the Holy Spirit in that case. Sorry - I misunderstood your intent. Did not realize you were another one that gets his jollies threatening in the name of an Invisible Super Being. Happy now? Will the Super Daddy burn me up bad?
Uhuh - "Bless" you too.
Sorry you feel that was a threat or getting my jollies, I was just curious as to how staunch you were with your belief that unseen equals does not exist,
Mark, I have answered your stupid questions before, but anyhow, to satisfy your ego, I will chase the stick one more time.
No, actually I rarely deal with small children, like I said before I believe children lower than puberty are unlikely to understand the gospel message, and would be immunised by the message against Christ.
I have seen this many times in churches where the resident scalp hunter preys on young children, intent on procuring a 'decision for Christ' when in truth they should be simply explaining the bible to them in simplistic terms, teaching then the basics of the bible stories from a moral viewpoint.
The child thinks they are saved by their 'sinners prayer' which they could not have fully understood, and later, when temptation comes knocking and they succumb, the enemy whispers in their ear about "Is that what Christ would do" and all the other inane lies that the enemy pours out in his attempts to denigrate Christ.
But I have no need to tell you what they are, you pour them out daily yourself, whispers that are the same old drivel.
Superstitious Catholics invented infant baptism, personally I would not allow any child of mine to be baptised until they were 18 years old, i.e. outside of my control and authority legally and of an age to make their own mind up.
My daughter is 10 years old, and not baptised because like most children, she would not be able at that age to make such a commitment
Like I said when you last droned this question out, post pubescent and of age to decide, is when folk can make the decision with authority.
Another inane question, you really must have a hopeless imagination to repeat yourself so often, I would guess that if you responded with wisdom rather than reacted with pride, you could have saved about 50% of the posts you make, thank God we are not conversing in writing, you would be a major environmental cause of disaster wasting trees.
Obviously the answer is also NO, but as you seem incapable of remembering I have told you before, I don't tell folk God will punish them for not believing what I tell them, I inform them about what God states, just in case they missed the points when they read the bible.
OK you reject what God states, which is why I tell you that you are in rebellion against God.
Which is why you will face Him in judgement, I cannot say whether you will be punished or not, how you end up is your and His decision, you are making yours now, only God knows what His decision will be.
You really do have a fixation about this don't you, and I think you almost believe that if you keep dribbling the same old rubbish out, you will change things.
How sad that is.
Probably right that I won't change things. It is worth a try though. The message of the Gospels is that you will burn if you don't grovel to an Invisible Super Being?
I do think it is awesome that you don't tell children about the god thing and his eternal punishment. Sadly - I don't believe you.
As I said before - these are open pages on hubpages and you have written multiple times that you better get with the believing train or you will be punished in the end times that are nearly here. This is available for children to read.
I don't reject anything that god states. I reject what you state. You. See how it has nothing to do with anyone else but me and you.
God doesn't state anything God doesn't exist - it is you. You. I have a problem with what you state. You.
Am I speaking with god now or you? Are you speaking for god? Do you listen for god as well?
Mark, the only way we can resolve this is over a pint sometime when I pass through France, because I really am not your enemy, even if you believe you are mine.
Children are not supposed to be reading these forums, though I concede that they may sneak in and take a look, but that's OK, you are here to present your opinion and 'undo' any harm done!
Sorry you feel I am the problem, but like the recent advert for homosexuality said: 'Get over it' I am just as permanent here as you are, though now you admit this is a personal vendetta, I may just ignore you unless you bring out some fresh material.
I thank you anyway, because when you are here reviling me, my stats go up!
Maybe that is just folk seeing whether I am as bad as you make out, or maybe my responses get then\m curious, but either way you are good for my reader figures.
You keep on berating me that I am your enemy. You keep telling me that I am working for your enemy. You keep saying that. You.
If I am not a Christian - I am your enemy - this is what you tell everyone. Make your mind up. You have called me on many occasions, a "Satan Whisperer."
I wholly reject the idea of the Christian god, majikal baby jesus and the need for salvation. It is utter nonsense.
Does this make me your enemy or not?
How to explain that?
Let's try... YOU are not my enemy, what you say makes you an enemy of God, but I don't have any 'enemy' feelings about you, I don't know you personally, and despite the fact that we have tussled for two years now, I only know your forum personality, and likewise you only know mine.
You are the avowed enemy of religion, I happen to follow a religion, therefore you attack me, even stalk me I may say, and try to score points on every occasion.
I rise to your bait because it's fun, and you need a foil to play against, and also because I would also hate any young one, in age or in faith, to be damaged by YOUR rhetoric and rants against God.
But (as far as I know) you mean me no harm, and are not a threat to me, or what I believe, you are just a guy who by circumstance has proved to be a useful tool to the REAL enemy, that enemy you refuse to acknowledge exists, the one who WILL do us harm if he can.
And you are a Satan Whisperer (thanks for the plug, up go the stats again!) because whether you realise it or not, you do his job for him, for he is called 'the accuser of the brethren' and you must admit you fill that role perfectly.
That does not make you an enemy, at least not in the way you probably understand the word, it makes you a duped person who is being used.
I cannot ever see someone being used as an enemy, someone who was an active Satanist I could know would try to be an enemy to me personally, for they would also have spiritual powers to attack me with, and I have experienced those attacks when I have confronted and come up against Satanists.
But you are not (as far as I have seen) a Satanist, just an atheist who does not know how the enemy uses people.
Non believers are not enemies of Christians, or at least they should not be, though I grant you some less educated folk do see it as a war to be fought.
To be an enemy the non believer would need to represent some threat to the Christian, you do not represent a threat, a somewhat mild annoyance at times, an aggravation on occasion, but not a threat.
No, it makes you in need of salvation and revelation, both of which come form the Holy Spirit, and which perhaps one day you will have received.
For now it is 'utter nonsense' as it was for me for the first 42 years I walked the earth, folk come to faith at different times, my son was 19, I was 42, even some of the greatest men in Christ were as old or older when they crossed over.
You are I think a young man, by my standards, there is still ample time for your anger and hatred of religion to burn out and for you to review the situation.
Saul of Tarsus was a much harder case than you, he WAS an enemy of Christians, but he still came through in the end.
God has a way of getting the attention of those He wants to be part of things, when the time is right, He will reveal to you your servitude to the enemy, and open your heart to receive His Son.
Until then, I guess we tussle and amuse the audience.
I don't stalk you - I point out your hypocrisy and the ill will you cause.
In a nutshell - this tirade is why your religion causes so much ill will and conflict.
Pity you don't understand that.
You don't stalk me? you just happen to attack almost EVERY post I make, OK, you are just diligent in your obsession.
It's your opinion that it causes 'ill will and conflict' which you are entitled to hold, even if you are a minority of one, or at least confined to a small group of virulent atheists.
I understand your frustration completely, I just don't think it warrants taking a vow of silence to please you.
Then I will continue to point out the ill will and conflict you cause. I don't think you appreciate how condescending you sound. Seriously - go look at what you just wrote.
You think I am in league with the Devil? And I will soon start thinking the way you think when your Majikal Super Being tells me to?
I love how people lie and quote mine and take things completely out of context and that people are too lazy too confirm whether this silliness is true or not.
Not you specifically, the authors of the article. I have seen many interviews and usually when these guys talk of aliens or repentance it's usually some sort of joke or what if statement that they totally dismiss. Chris hitchens had cancer and he said the only way he would repent to any sort of god is if we're not in his right mind/ demented in some way, someone took that quote and wrote an article using part of what he said in that video to make it appear he had repented to god... You've got understand these men and the context for which they are speaking. I have not seen the original source for this material so I don't know where it came from but I can assure you it's a lie... And you believed it.
Well, you can watch it come out of his own mouth.
Oh yeah, Ben Stein, I trust that source, Ben Stein, king liar... Dawkins didn't say that intelligent design was possible he said you'd have to first of all prove that something was designed and then you'd have to shown who designed the designer.... he never admitted to the possibility of intelligent design.... Let's continue to take things out of context and twist words Clair and Ben!!!
That's also something I've said myself here many times, doesn't mean I was also admitting to this possibility!
Ben asks what is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to answer to some issue to genetics or evolution. Dawkins thinks that some civilization may have evolved from some Darwinian means somewhere in the galaxy. Just to add, evolution doesn’t prove there is no intelligent design. It just explains how we evolved over the aeons. He goes go to say they may have designed a form of life. We can consider the civilization as intelligent beings DESIGNING a form of life. That means we are the products of intelligent design. He says that is a possibility. He says that may be true if you find detail in molecular biology, a sort of signature of some sort of designer is there. He is just plain admitting there is all else he wouldn’t entertain the possibility. There either is a signature or there is not. No possibilities just facts. He says that designer could be of higher intelligence and that those intelligent designers had to have come from some explicable process. It couldn’t have just “jumped” into existence, he says. This is exactly what people for ID have been saying for yonks now.
I don’t know what there is not to understand about what he said. Having said this, I think the “outside commentary” is just plain tripe.
You are twisting his words! Nowhere in the video does Dawkins mention the word "prove". He keeps saying, "That's a possibility".
If you really want I can explain to you how the universe begun as theorized by some of the greatest scientists of our time, it is a little confusing and it is of course just a theory but it is a workable explanation for the beginning pre big bang, that combined with evolutionary discovery makes the religious creation process completely obsolete, no need for designers.
Hmmm, theorized, a little confusing, just a theory.... so not actually any more provable than God creating everything.
Yet you choose 'just a theory' as your best shot at avoiding God, OK, that makes perfects sense, to you at least.
I forget - are you a science denier as well or do you accept the *just a* theory of evolution?
I think science has some theories, just that, theories, which could be relevant as to how God chose to let the world develop, but do not constitute any threat to Gods Creation as they are just theories, and could not be proven to the evidential standards that you guys insist upon.
I do object that they are taught as fact, when they are unproven theories, especially as scientists are always finding out why they were wrong before, but REALLY think they are right now... until God reveals a small extra piece of the jigsaw they try to measure and explain as best they can.
What I mean is that the answer I can give you makes rational and scientific sense, unlike yours which is just throw up my hands and say a magic man in the sky did it, when I said confusing I meant to someone who has not studied quantum physics as I have, I can explain it to you if you like, though I doubt you are open minded enough for it to have any impact.
Nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang. Some even dispute the Big Bang even happened. I think DNA, as a BLUEPRINT of life, indicates a designer. Dawkins alludes to that being reasonable.
Dawkins does not do any such thing.
Why the need to lie? Is that what the majikal super being tells you to do?
I'd have to disagree with you there, Mark.
That video does not mean that at all, what he said was it was possible that some other society created DNA when asked if there was anyway that intelligent design could factor into biology, that does not mean he thinks it probable or that DNA indicates design but simply that it is possible.
Isn't that what Claire said? I"m confused... are we in disagreement? "Possibility," "reasonable," I suppose there are different strengths to those words, depending on the perspective of the reader. I personally have a very different view of life. My point is that Dawkins does indeed admit it is a possibility, which I conclude would mean it is reasonable otherwise he wouldn't believe it is a possibility. I could be wrong...
You're right. They are clutching at straws. If he thought it was IMPOSSIBLE, he wouldn't be say, "It's possible IF..."
You can see he wasn't ridiculing the possibilities he brought up.
Possible is a very very loose thing, under scientific theorizing anything is possible even God as a creator, or a massive flying spaghetti monster it is possible these exist and we have no absolute conclusive evidence they do not so it is possible they do but that does not make it reasonable or likely.
Was does signature in molecular biology mean? Why would that hint at ID?
He was suggesting there might be a signature in DNA but if there is it has not been found.
A distinctive pattern encoded in the DNA that had obviously not occurred naturally, perhaps pi repeated a dozen times, each time revealing just one more digit.
He might not have meant something that dramatic, but I can only speculate, as he wasn't specific.
Yes, this is the same video I posted earlier.
Did you watch the interview with him and Ben?
Please do not make me explain this to you like I did another who is also in denial.
Your statement is correct in the sense that we don't KNOW and in reality we can not be said to know anything, but there is a perfectly workable theory to explain what happened before the big bang, developed by Stephen Hawking and several other leading experts in the field.
Nothingness is just an absence of matter and that is what we had before the big bang, matter was completely intertwined with what we now call anti matter and because those two cancel each other out we had nothing therefore the creation of the universe was separating matter and anti matter or to put it as an analogy nothingness was like a flat piece of ground then something dug a hole in it and separated energy (matter) from anti matter the result is a hole and that hole is the universe in that all we did was separate two things and that actually created something and the universe is the same thing, so the question then is what was the shovel, what was the event that precipitated the separation of matter and anti matter, at this point matter and anti matter were joined completely as one but that is a very unstable situation almost anything is sufficient to separate those two from each other because they react violently to their being out of proportion, so all that would be required is the smallest amount of matter to precipitate that reaction (that reaction actually being the big bang) but as we all know matter cannot be created or destroyed, except that rule is no longer true at the quantum level, on the quantum level matter actually blinks into being from nowhere quite often and also just disappears, in our world now that is pretty much inconsequential, a tiny amount of matter being created does not affect it's environment but in this fragile balance that was in place before the big bang all that was required was that one quantum matter appearance to destroy the balance of matter and anti matter and create the cataclysmic event that separated matter and anti matter and sent matter concentrated hurtling away as planets and asteroids and moons etc. and anti matter concentrated into the space between those (literally space where it is found today).
I know that is a horrible explanation but there are better sources than I, Hawking released a series of documentaries on the theory I believe and his explanation is brilliant.
For myself I don't consider myself a Christian and I denounce religion, but I did go from being an atheist to believing in a creator. For me both my parents are atheists, and I raised with that background.
Eventually it came to the point that a study of science and evolutionary reasoning left a lot of unanswered questions. Of course a belief in creation also left a lot of unanswered questions. So I was leaning towards being an agnostic but I didn't like the idea of not committing. So I decided that for me it was a bigger leap of faith to accept evolutionary reasoning than to accept evidence of design.
A lot of people do this. Don't understand science? No problem - believe in god instead.
It is refreshing to see some one honest enough to admit this. Well done. Thumbs up and voted "honest."
Except that's not what he said, he clearly found evolutionary reasoning less believable than evidence of design... so why would you attempt to twist his words...
Why I wonder?......Oh yes, you need to be right all the time, don't you.
Hmmmm...thinking back over your 18,554 posts.... in 4 years, WOW that's nearly 13 posts per day, no wonder you need to keep them down to inane one liners that try to divert the topic you choose to pester.
Awww - A while ago you were attacking some one for not being active enough to be taken seriously. Now you are attacking me for the opposite.
No wonder your religion causes so much ill will and hatred. No morals - that is your problem.
I am right all the time. Sorry if that offends your god. Pity he cannot speak for himself and instead uses you to speak for him. Be a man for a change and speak for yourself.
Ok Mark, I think you are one of the wonders of Hubpages forums, and I truly do like you, despite the fact that I find you a regal pain in the rear end most of the time.
But you can do better than you do manage, and I appreciate you run sites as well and do your SEO etc, so time is short, but I would rather have one good detailed cutting to the bone response, that actually made me think,(and some of yours have) than a swift inane and mostly the same, quip, shot off as you do whatever else you do.
Do quality, over quantity would be my suggestion.
Sorry your god did not understand. As I know you do not speak for yourself and instead speak for this god - I have to say - I am not impressed.
Should I use shorter words? Would that help your god understand?
Hmm. I suppose you expect the almighty to come before you and prove himself at your request?
I'm not impressed either.
Expectation of belief requires courtesy of appearance.
Maybe you need to express the courtesy of asking for an 'appearance' the Holy Spirit is a gentleman and will respond when asked politely and with a genuine desire.
I never said I didn't understand. If anything my problem with the whole evolution/God issue is that the method of proof was very unscientific.
Generally the whole idea of any scientific experiment is to test the hypothesis before excepting it as proven fact. The problem with evolutionary reasoning is it starts with the premise that their is no designer. So your mind is made up before you even start the experiment.
I would just like to see science use the same process to analyze this question as they do everything else. Also don't be close minded if someone suggest even the remote possibility of something different. Do the experiment with a open mind, with full objectivity.
If after examining the evidence you come to the conclusion that their is no God, I have no problem with that. But their is no need to dismiss someone as being unintelligent just because they come to a different conclusion. I'm turned off by the attitude of devout atheists the same way that I'm turned off by religious fanatics. Both school of thoughts are potentially divisive.
To both groups, believe what you want, have intelligent discussions on forums, but respect the rights and views of others
Not sure where you got that idea, but the premise of evolutionary reasoning is simply natural selection and diversity of species and has nothing to do with making up ones mind beforehand.
I was expressing a common viewpoint that I've observed (and even had myself at one point). My father is a biology teacher and I certainty viewed that attitude in him.
For example natural selection and diversity as of itself doesn't necessary rule out design. But it does if you already have come to the conclusion that there is no designer beforehand.
Then, he is a terrible biology teacher.
No, lack of evidence for design rules out design. Natural selection and diversity of species explains the appearance of design.
My point is, that people in the scientific community are not even allowed to suggest even the remotest possibility that the evidence may point to a designer without being censured. To me that is close minded and unscientific.
*Goes on to explain why he doesn't understand.*
No - you never said you didn't understand, but what you said made it clear that you do not understand.
This is why belief in majik causes so much ill will.
The only thing that causes ill will is close minded individuals from both schools of thoughts.
No - the ill will comes from people who insist on claiming majik and accusing anyone who doesn't believe in majik as being close minded.
Such as yourself.
I already said I could care less what people believe. I have no problem with atheists. I can understand how someone could come to that conclusion. I'm not here to try to convince anyone of anything. My point is we shouldn't dismiss someone as unintelligent because they chose to believe something different than we do. It is the lack of tolerance from both sides that cause the ill will.
Odd - it is only people who believe in majik who insist on this.
You insist that the ill will comes only from one side, and religious fanatics tend to do the same.
But there is no ill will if everyone can respect everyone's personal views.
Odd - it is only people who hold ridiculous majikal beliefs who insist on this.
I refuse to respect nonsensical majikal beliefs. Sorry. Maybe if I held irrational beliefs based on nonsense myself I could insist you respect them - because you clearly do not respect my belief that beliefs in majik should be ridiculed and removed from society as soon as possible. Do you?
I don't respect the view that any school of thought should be ridiculed and removed (with the exception of bigotry & intolerance). That thinking is divisive.
Well - all I have to say is LOL
Because you madam are a hypocrite.
This is why your beliefs cause so much ill will.
First off I'm not a Madam, I am a man.
But where is the hypocrisy? I have the exact same issue with religious fanatics. I don't feel that atheists should be ridiculed or that their views should be removed either. So I don't see how respect for the view of others create ill will.
But respecting someones right to ridicule and want to remove views that conflict with their own, is to support their disrespectful conduct. Even the ridicule I'm okay with, but wanting to remove, borders on censorship, and you are just as bad as the religious fanatics who try to do the same. Me supporting disrespectful conduct would make me a hypocrite.
So - it was majik then? And I shopuld respect that majikal belief? UNless that majikal belief goes against what I believe, but - you are right and a hidden non person with no name or face shoudl be respekted innit?
WOW now I see it - no matter how disrespectful it is - I should respect it -unless it does not respect majik - in which case you are free to disrespect it and you are best - gotcha. LOL
Even if what they believe contradicts intelligence? How does that work?
And how, exactly, would one design an experiment to test evidence of deliberate design of living things by an unobservable entity?
Bear in mind that science is naturalistic by nature - if it can't be documented, measured, or observed in the real world, it cannot be cited as a cause and thus is in the realm of philosophy rather than science.
If, on the other hand, a measurable, physical entity could be shown manipulating gene mutations or influencing epigenetics, then this force would be a natural force by definition and could no longer be considered supernatural. So the Creationists lose again.
I wasn't suggesting an experiment to prove that there is a designer. I was merely suggesting that when the data in not conclusive, don't be quick to dismiss individuals that feel that design is a possibility.
The issue is not that the data is inconclusive. There IS no data.
No matter how you try to word it, the design argument is philosophical and thus inherently unscientific. In order for scientists to take design seriously as a legitimate force influencing evolutionary processes, this needs to be proven by hypothesis testing and experiment.
This is not to say that some scientists cannot hold a personal belief in design or theistic influence while studying the natural forces that shape life. Dr. Francis Collins, current NIH director and known for his work on the Human Genome Project, is outspoken in his views in favor of theistic evolution. Surveys have shown a small minority of scientists who hold similar views.
The problem I have with the design argument is that it's a manufactured controversy, made up by Creationists in order to insert religion into science textbooks. While I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, to believe in intelligent design is to support the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy via a pathetic argument from ignorance.
That I cannot respect.
I don't feel that religion should be introduced into science textbook either. But I'm also anti-religion, and I'm don't necessary consider myself 100% firm believer, I just lean towards the possibility of a designer.
But my point is more that scientists should be allowed that leeway, just like the small minority that you have mentioned. I don't feel that the minority should be dismissed as any less intelligent because they submit to a differing viewpoint.
Both evolution and creation does not answer all of the questions, and neither side can provide 100% conclusive evidence to support their claims.
I Respect that. Majik is the same as science. Why would I not respect that?
It takes OHhh so much blind faith to believe that if science hasn't discovered it by now; there is nothing about it to know!
sciense probably knows less than one % of the facts concerning the universe and all of the reality contained therein.
I agree with you that many things have been misconceptualized, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there.
majik then? coz rligin int discovered that much innit. 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% i sez
that int meen int int majik like wot ur god sed
Speaking of blind faith - I am really sorry you cannot understand science. And - yes - science has not yet explained everything. But - DAMN! it explains more that "GODDUNNIT" - and I understand why that burns. That means all your research into "prophecy" is garbage.
typical debat technique.
You imply that I am saying more than I am saying so you can rub my face in it.
You win the debate! ... and I will keep saying what I am saying.
Creationism has zero evidence, evolution has mountains of evidence in every facet of science, conclusive to the point of evolution being a fact.
So, what data have you found that is inconclusive? Please explain what you find about evolution that is wrong?
What evidence for design? I have yet to see anything that would make me think that anything in the universe that is naturally occurring was designed. Whenever someone doesn't understand something they always say "a god did it" without bothering to do the research to find out how it could have actually come about.
Hi Claire, the atheists that I know of that have converted to Christianity have shared their stories. Two that I know of, said it was because they looked honestly at all the facts, were willing to face their own biases for and against different things, and go where the evidence leaded them. Almost the same, with varying differences. It wasn't something concrete like writing in the sky, but rather looking at all things for themselves, honestly, and then asking themselves questions like, "What best explains this world we live in, history, humanity, and the human condition?" Also, "What explains all we know of in science, philosophy, etc."
Two? The rarity of even one atheist tossing away his reason and rationale is extreme. They obviously weren't atheists to begin with, no one simply tosses facts out the window they previously understood as facts. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Thanks for your comment. Those who truly seek will find. C.S. Lewis took the same approach looking at the facts of the case for Jesus and became convinced.
all jokes aside i have seen two people who were atheists become christians. one ended up commiting suicide a few years later and the other one is now a pastor who is under investigation for child abuse . the thing about both of them is that before they got all religious, they were both heavy prescription drug users.
Perhaps the one atheist who committed suicide had too high of expectations of Christianity; that it would be the answer to all his/her problems. The pastor may have converted to Christianity because child abuse is more easily undetected when it involves someone in such an esteemed position. Christianity was clearly used as a cover.
Nobody says that once you come to faith the enemy cannot attack you, after all it's stated that he prowls around seeking to destroy 'those he may' and obviously he could succeed with them, which I am sorry to hear.
The enemy hates losing his acolytes and will always try to regain them, or if that's not possible disable them from serving God.
Thankfully there are many success stories as well.
The enemy? Ha, you mean criminals who claim to be atheists (just because you deny or affirm something doesn't make you a member of that group) use Christianity to do all sorts of horrible things or steal money from other poor stupid believers. Like Pat Robertson, Robert Schuller, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, John Hagee, just to name a few. Or someone who is clinically depressed using whatever desperate ideas claim to help people but don't and then commit suicide when their desperate attempt is made with lack of understanding of that persons condition.... it more just proves how impotent Christianity and religion are.
aguasilver obviously thinks that anyone who does not believe the way he does is in league with the devil and no matter how much proof you give him that he is misguided and wrong on all things he will always claim to be right no matter what.... he says we are close minded and hard hearted? aguasilver, you are the very definition of this.
So here is what I will do, let's end this now, let's agree to disagree, you will never convince me that your fantasy is reality and no amount of proof/evidence I give to you for everything science related will ever change your mind because you are stuck in your fantasy world, till you die. So I will acknowledge you less, I will continue to answer legitimate questions seriously and I will continue to correct errors and lies in all your statements, but I could care less what you believe or disbelieve, because reality always wins, not you not me, but reality.
Then I am content that God will win, for He is simply a reality you currently cannot understand or measure, but you will one day know the truth, believe me, it will come to you when the time is right.
When you can't understand or measure or even find evidence for such a being you can't conclude such a being exists.
You can wishful think such a time between me and God will happen but I am content that my life is great without the need for such a fantasy. So all I can say is sorry you feel bad that I don't share in your fantasy, but I don't and won't... until your fantasy God feels your fantasy time is right.
I know that God is the only one that can cut to there hearts and reveal Himself to all unbelievers.
If I was seeking for God to intercede I would have to pray in Jesus name.
Prayer for the Lost
Here's an example: Father God I pray that you open there eyes,ears and prepare there heart for the ministry of Jesus Christ.
That you will send the perfect laborer to them to minister the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I would bind up the spirit of anti-christ, the spirit of the world,bitterness, and all works of the devil in Jesus name.
Also I would pray God forgive them of there sins in Jesus name- and the sins of there bloodline relatives. Pull them out of destruction before it is to late in Jesus name. I'd also loose the Holy Spirit and God's angels to surround them, along with pleading the blood of Jesus over there home,families and etc as God leads me to pray.All in Jesus name.Also if there is a picture of them I touch it while praying for them.
This is ONLY to help those that are seeking to pray for the lost
For an atheist to do that, it would probably be caused by a severe blow to the head causing brain damage.
Christianity and most religions prey upon emotional vulnerability. There's no purely rational reasons to believe the supernatural claims of religion but if they tell you you're a dirty sinner in need of salvation enough times it might start to break through. Let's say you've just lost your job or your wife has left you, perhaps it's caused by some serious flaw you have, a gambling addiction, an affair, etc, then you see some emotionally charged televangelist on TV who seems to be speaking directly to people like you, and then voila, you convert.
Most sudden conversions I've heard of are those who try to quit alcohol and drugs they find it difficult to do, then they turn to imaginary higher powers for help and when they finally do quit all credit goes to Jesus, Allah or whatever God they believed in.
...and your point is?
Sure, when folk realise that the life THEY have made for themselves is actually not working, they seek answers outside of their SELF and outside of what the WORLD taught them, and it may well be that some slick TV evangelist reaches through their EGO (which is temporarily shattered by the aforesaid events you depicted) and presents a picture that is appealing. So what?
I remember once berating Benny Hinn as he pranced around the stage in front of a huge crowd of people, I asked God why He allowed this man to sully His name with such antics...
"Could YOU reach these folk?" He asked.
And as I watched the crowd, I realised that these folk were just like the guy you mentioned above, leading hopeless worldly lives of affluence with no substance, and prepared to look at Benny Hinns show because he was looking just like them and was saying what they WANTED to hear, give me your money and God will bless you 100 fold.
HOW God gets our attention is less relevant that the fact that He DOES.
Like scripture states He goes after the one lost sheep more than worries about what the other 99 are doing in the field.
He uses many different ways to break through the world lies and deceptions that lure people away from Him and into their own private hells.
I thank God that He cares.
...again, so what?
You just made the case perfectly, quit while you are ahead!
People make a mess of their lives living as the world prescribes, then when their lives crash and burn they turn to God, and get healed, and give the credit to God.
I would think that is an obvious thing to do?
If you made a total financial mess of your life and went to your Father and he paid all your debts and put you back into a sound life with no further problems.
Wouldn't YOU give HIM the glory, praise and thanks?.
Methinks thou protesteth too much.
I was one of those folk who ignored God until my life hit the ground and shattered in pieces, and God did send Christ to pick me up and restore me to His Grace and Mercy, and that was 20 years ago, and He still carries me today, not because I still have those problems, but because I know His arms are stronger than mine, and for as long as I let Christ make the running in my life, I need have no concern for the world trying to destroy me again.
The point we all need to decide is WHAT do we believe?
I am 100% secure in my faith in God and Christ.
If I am wrong and the Muslims are correct, then I would burn in their hell, but I have no fear of that happening because I am 100% secure that Christ is the answer.
If you are 100% secure in your beliefs that knowledge is the answer, or whatever YOU believe, then that is great, and I am delighted that you found your beliefs and are secure in them.
But why are you bothering to chase people who have different beliefs from you?
It makes no sense, and will achieve nothing.
Those who are still less than 100% secure in their beliefs will continue vacillating around until they reach whatever belief answers ALL of their doubts, or they run out of time and die, when they will find out which beliefs were correct.
We daily stake our lives and deaths upon what we believe, you have made your decision, we all will find out the truth, so why all this verbiage trying to reconvert or de-convert folk who are not shifting?
I have tasted and seen that the Lord is good, and is sufficient in all things for me, if you have 100% belief in something else, congratulations, I am happy for you.
I think you completely missed the point.
No, that's not what he said at all. What he said is, religions take advantage of peoples emotional states and there own brow beating to try and force people to convert there ways. After enough brow beating (torture of a type for those who don't know that) people end up submitting instead of leading their own lives. They even quit thinking for themselves and fall in with the crowd.
As for the losing the wife and the job because of a gambling addiction and/or affair, remember that he didn't say that these things changed. Your just jumping to the conclusion that they did. In fact, these very issues tend to persist and not change, the difference? At least when they die they are expecting a paradise where it's not going to hurt them to do it!
It seems like for someone who has an IQ almost equal to Einsteins, you have absolutely no common sense what so ever. And you reading is well below sub-par.
Ahh! I finally understand! When I make a change in MY life, I'm not the one responsible for that change! I finally understand what your saying!
I mean really? You expect people to buy into that BS? You are a person, with a brain, and with your own free will. If you make a change in your life, all credit goes to you for making that change.
Yes, anyone that helps you along the way should get credit. But as has already been pointed out, over and over and over again, God doesn't interfere in anyone's life, ever. You have free will and what you do is up to you and he's not going to play a part in it. Therefore, when you make a change in your life, you get the credit, not some sadistic super being who has already promised not to interfere in your life.
As for lives and deaths and trying to convert and deconvert people, Christians are the one's who going around trying to preach to others and convince them to convert, or deconvert from their current believes and then convert the christian beliefs. Quit blaming others for the exact reason your here. If you want to stimulate thoughts thats fine. You have a bad habit of doing nothing but preaching and trying to convince (i.e convert) people to your way of thinking. Pull the beam from your own eye. You can clearly see it after all.
I will ignore most of your post, it is inconsequential.
The above I will answer.
We have free choice, rather than free will, free will is indicative that we can will a million dollars to appear and it will happen.
Choice is just that, we all choose to obey or rebel against authority.
The declaration of SELF is indicative as to why anyone rejects Christ as the authority over their life.
SELF - EGO - PRIDE
All killer faults in anyone.
The 'sadistic super being' you refer to also stated:
Jeremiah 33 2:3
Thus saith the LORD the maker thereof, the LORD that formed it, to establish it; the LORD is his name; Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.
The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
God takes more than a passing interest in our lives and guides those who chose to surrender their SELF to His WILL.
Not surprisingly anyone who is SELF orientated and wants to claim the glory for themselves will NOT be guided by God, He will continue to protect them to whatever degree possible from the enemy who seeks to destroy them, but the authorities those people give to the enemy are legal rights that God will not over rule UNLESS the person chooses to ask God to change their lives.
At which point the enemy loses his power and control.
But I am here to preach, never said I was not, and I actually don't care whether you dislike it or not, no reason why I should.
I 'preach' to the converted and anyone who is interested in reading my posts.
I don't force you to read what I write, HubPages is an open platform for discussion, when I see something that I am not interested in, I just track past it, you have the same option.
If you are here only to take part in a mass debating society, so well and good, but I view this place as a mission field, a place where believers can fellowship and encourage each other, and a place where the deception of the enemy can be opposed and exposed, and where Christ can be presented loud and clearly, which is presumably why the resident gaggle of atheists attack so vehemently and show their indecision about what they believe.
If you guys did not keep feeding me your lines, my life would be more difficult! so thanks for the attacks, they really help keep the focus on Christ.
It is a public forum and not a mission field, hence you're breaking the TOS by acting upon your views.
Read above what you just said about your views of this public forum. It is YOU who is attacking based on what YOU said.
TM, to a believer the whole of life is a mission field, my hubs are mostly Christian hubs written to answer questions about faith, or to expose deceptions of the world, they are mission statements, it's an expression... get over it.
I could care less about your ridiculous hubs, but this is public forum, not a mission field. Get over it.
Public Forum... yes, that's right PUBLIC, open to anyone, you push your beliefs and use it to make inane remarks, I push mine, that's why it's a public forum, if HubPages decide to make it members only, separate 'religion' from 'philosophy' and only want to allow religious debate, in the religious forum, that's fine by me, I will stay out of the philosophy forum with any Christian content, and never visit the atheists forums (do they exist?).
Ah yes, it's always inconsequential when your confronted with something you really don't understand.
Ahh, so we don't have free will? Which means my will is controlled by an outside force in which I have no freedom to do anything? I don't think you quite grasp what it means to have free will. Perhaps we need to clearly define it for you.
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.
“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.
Free Will is the ability to do what you want, and pursue your interests
The declaration of Self you say? Well, where is this superbeing who is controlling every act and thought of my being? Certainly when I'm just thinking and not making a choice he has to be there according to you. Yet and still, there is no evidence of that. There is no super being trying to supress my thoughts. I think perhaps your just wishing to be better than humans.
I do admit though that Ego and Pride are killer faults. But your god has a very big ego that you continue to stroke for him, and I bet he takes a lot of pride in that! Not to mention you stroking your own ego by trying to assert your self as an "authority" and your pride in speaking of your beliefs while you try to push them on other people.
Jeremiah 33 is a lie, I should know because I've already been down that path. He never answered and never showed me mighty things. After years of waiting, I said screw it and moved on.
As for Psalms quotes, well we really aren't talking about Songs so I don't see what relevance they hold. But if you really want to go down that route, neither one of this have any application as to whether or not he's a sadistic super being.
This quote from John is way out of the league on anything, unless your suggesting God is not a Supreme but is only a minor spirit. In which case I think you just proved that.
IF your god takes more than a passing interest in our lives, then why are you only able to find 4 quotes after 24 hrs of searching that even come close to saying so?
Glory? Who was talking about glory? Since you like to insert stuff, how about we just call it what it is, credit. I don't give your god credit for my actions, because I'm the one taking them, not him and not anyone else.
What enemy are you refferring to?
Well if your here to preach, then why are taking an affront when someone else seems to be doing the same? That's just pure pride in yourself.
You couldn't force me if you wanted to, and your completely self deluded if you think you could. I agree that Hubpages is an open platform for discussion. I do skip over many things. A great many things actually.
It's not indecision that atheists are attacking. Atheists are here attacking the fact that your not DISCUSSING anything. Instead your preaching and trying to stroke your own ego while you do it, Einstein. Of course, I don't expect you to understand this because apparently to you, a discussion and preaching are the same exact thing.
I'm sure they do help you keep stroking your god's ego. If you want to view those who are trying to discuss as attacking, so be it, that's your choice. If you quit preaching and started discussing though, I think you might see that they aren't attacks at all.
Am I 100% sure? Without a doubt.
I don't believe that any Atheist pretends to know anything for certainty. Historians develop new theories to explain the past. Nothing in the past changes, what happened, happened, just our understanding changes with new evidence. Despite relating more with Atheism I don't know anything for certain, I don't think we ever could. So if you are asking how to convert an Atheist to Christianity I would say don't bother. They have lost faith because of various reasons. You will never convince someone to change beliefs with debate, only through life experiences.
There are many people who say they know for a fact God doesn't exist but I obviously do not believe it nor you. I do not make it my life's mission to convert atheists. We are here to testify to the truth. It's called planting a seed. Then it is up to the non-believer whether he lets that seed grow. And you sure are right about only life experiences converting people.
Well you have certainly planted the seed that I am correct to reject your ridiculous religion.
No one says they know for a fact that your god does not exist. Best I can go with is "infinitely improbable and logically impossible."
That is typical though. Self professed Christians such as yourself are so dishonest, they put people off instead of converting them.
Well it's a start Mark, not that promising but at least a start, you were adamant He did not exist in the past...
I don't believe it exists. I cannot say for a fact it does not. Nor have I ever said that. I 100% spit on the idea of your Holy Spirit and 100% reject your hate-mongering garbage.
Still telling porkies huh? Do you burn for that or do you get to say the majik words after you are dead?
So - no room for error on your part? No possibility that you are wrong?
Mark, of course their is always the possibility that believers are wrong, it's possible that throughout recorded history some alien intelligence has been producing similar or even identical hallucinations in billions of people simultaneously and controlling our minds so that we all see the same things (although obviously some will interpret those things differently)and making us worship some created image of God that they have produced...
Just not very probable.
Mark: "Nor have I ever said that. I 100% spit on the idea of your Holy Spirit and 100% reject your hate-mongering garbage. "
Good, I seem to remember.... but we were both angry at the time!
Anyhow, good progress, if we can ever get to dismiss the alpha male machismo we both demonstrate, we could have some interesting chats.
At least you admit the possibility that you are wrong. Good for you - that is a start.
Now I think about it - that is actually a major step. Basically you just agreed that your god is not very probable.
Seeing as aliens have exactly the same probability as your god.
Good for you. The seed is planted. Maybe one day you will be able to think rationally. Who knows? Plenty of other religionists have deconverted before.
I am sure we could have some interesting chats. I doubt very much you would speak to me the way you tend to do online to my face.
The belief that their correct in their assumptions... One being the assumption of knowing. How do I know there is a God and how could I say I did?
It should not be an assumption but a revelation.
What the hell is a revelation other than a feeling (an assumption) that something "special" has been revealed so that you are now "convinced"?
Get me a break.
Reliance on sentience as a reality check is like relying on a mirage as a watering hole for a cattle drive - both lead to a lot of bull that isn't worth beans.
It's also possible that it's a universal consciousness type effect. Something you opt into in order to share the delusion of another. As energy goes on forever, without end, and thoughts are energy, it's perfectly possible.
Well the probability of the bible being true will only be proven to you when you die, so you need not worry for now.
I know it to be true, but like you, will only have it proven when I die.
Then both of us will have all the proof we need.
That's why it's called faith, we need to have and demonstrate our faith, if God had provided absolute proof, then you would have not needed to decide for yourself.
How strange that you talk of probabilities, yet become offended when others do.
Christian god = infinitely improbable.
Not offended Mark, why should I be?
Atheism = infinitely improbable.
Looks like a double edged sword that cuts both ways... correctly dividing spirit from flesh.
Sorry you don't understand. Not surprised though. That civil discussion is not looking good. No wonder you choose to live in a country where homosexuality is illegal.
Enlighten me, what did I not understand?
Both statements are equally valid.
God/no god = 50/50
Your god - infinitely improbable. LOL
Well I guess we just agree to differ, but that's OK, as you cannot prove what you say, and it makes no difference to me anyway.
How odd you keep mentioning probabilities, but when I offer you them you ignore them.
God/No god = 50/50
A particular god - infinity:1.
Telling odds actually. What a gamble you take with your life.
Thanks for your concern, but I am content with the decision I made, and prefer it to your odds...
Of course you do.
50/50 for me
infinity:1 for you
LOL - scary odds.
3.30 am again, off to bed, early start, no doubt we will see each other tomorrow.
Sleep well, I know I will.
But, it's not a decision one makes. You didn't decide to believe and I didn't decide not to. It's not like deciding to get ones hair cut. Do you think that someone is some small village somewhere that never heard of Christianity would decide to be christian? One can be christ like and not believe in God. One can believe in God and not be Christ like. It's not a choice if you were indoctrinated into the church at a young age.
You obviously have not read my profile!
"Do you think that someone is some small village somewhere that never heard of Christianity would decide to be Christian?"
If they have never heard of Christ, that is a whole different ballgame, but there are scriptures that cover that event, and fewer places like that each year as we reach more and more folk.
"One can be christ like and not believe in God. One can believe in God and not be Christ like."
Agreed, but being like someone is not what it is about, it's about deciding that Christ WAS who He said He was, and placing yourself under His authority, rather than the worlds.
One does NOT decide these things. It's not like deciding to wear a hat. Could you decide to become muslim and then do it? You either believe it or not. If I'm sceptical by nature thats the way I'm made and according to you God made me this way so why would he not respect my wanting proof?
"why would he not respect my wanting proof?"
Unfortunately the only proof you will get is available only in one of two ways:
1) By starting a relationship with God, who will then send His Holy Spirit to guide you to all truth (and you will have your proof).
2) Die, then you will know the truth.
I had a relationship with what I thought was God and the Holy Spirit didn't knock on my door?
As for death, you can't take consciousness with you as that is a function of the brain, so even if there is a God you will not have any memory of your time on earth.
But you will have proof and the truth.
When someone dies, that's what I say: "Now they know the universal truth"
If you had a relationship with what you thought was God and the Holy Spirit didn't knock on your door, I'm sorry to hear that, sometimes I guess the 'still small voice' of the Holy Spirit can be difficult to hear, sometimes we have been 'joined' by the wrong people, who themselves may not be Holy Spirit led.
Kind generous and loving maybe, but not always scriptural in their actions.
In reality nobody comes to Christ fully without the Holy Spirit, and yes, I know that will be saying a lot and ringing bells for some folk, but it's a fact, saying the words is great, but we need to then have the Holy Spirit, otherwise it is like having a car with no driver, or a computer without an operating system.
If you want to have the Holy Spirit, find some folk who ARE Holy Spirit filled and ask them to pray with you for the Holy Spirit, your initial membership will still be valid, though you may wish to renew it!
So if you die and never know it, how will you know? Dead, no consciousness, no realization of anything, this includes the lack of, or presence of, any gods.
I suppose you'll tell yourself, "boy was I wrong" even though you aren't aware of even being? Yeah, this makes about as much sense as anything else you tout as being true!
To quote an English comedienne: "Am I bothered" (Katherine Tate)
You ask that as a question? then say I speak nonsense?
Now, if you will, reverse the question.... for your own condition, and tell me who is making sense then.
What if you die and do know it?
I suppose you'll tell yourself, "boy was I wrong"
No I won't, because I'm not sure there aren't thousands of gods out there who do not have a lack of self esteem like yours apparently does. I simply cannot fathom why such a superior being would require adoration from things he made from dust.
This would be the equivalent of me getting angry at inanimate forms made of modeling clay because they don't jump around yelling "Hallelujah"!
Well Randy I am truly delighted that you are not sure there aren't thousands of gods out there, self esteemed or otherwise.
Now all you need to do is be sure that if there are thousands of gods out there, you decide to trust and have faith in the RIGHT one.
Christ is the ONLY entity in all of time who has stated that He ALONE was the ONLY way to God.
Guess He was just showing His low esteem...
I'm sorry, while I appreciate the sentiment, there is always another "what if."
The vlogger ZOMGitsCriss put it very well:
"If you truly wanted something -- and, no matter what that something was, you just REALLY desperately wanted it -- would you consider writing a letter to Santa? You know, to ask him to bring that to you as a gift for Christmas? And, I'm not kidding, I'm actually serious right now. I want you to think about it. Can you imagine yourself, writing down the words, and folding the paper, and putting it into an envelope, and writing down the delivery address -- right? -- to "Santa Claus," North Pole? And then mailing that. Would you ever, EVER do something like this? You know, in a moment of weakness, just in case? Because this is exactly how I personally feel about prayer."
OK, Chasuk, I can see that you think this guy was right on the button, but he states:
"Because this is exactly how I personally feel about prayer."
...and he is entitled to think that way, so what?
Billions of folk (at the very least) get comfort from praying, and I know of plenty of instances where prayer, intercessory prayer, not just a 'wish list', has changed circumstances and events.
For me spiritual intercession is a weapon against the worlds machinations and can be applied to achieve what no 'wish list' will ever do.
The question though, was how would he (or you) feel and what would you say IF you are wrong?
How does "boy was I wrong" sound to any agnostic or atheist, does that produce a warm and friendly feeling inside?
I warrant that if given the opportunity, a prayer may just cross their lips.
If it's not too late by then.
ZOMGitsCriss's point wasn't the efficacy -- or not -- of intercessory prayer.
She was explaining that atheists believe in God to exactly the same degree that they believe in Santa Claus. To atheists, the "what if" of God doesn't register as a logical concern, in the same way that the "what if" of Santa Claus (or the Tooth Fairy) doesn't register as a logical concern to Christians.
That's the point I was sharing.
And I can see that, however the question was what if they are wrong?
The big problem with atheism is that you can ONLY find out if you were right when you are dead, and if you were right, then you could never know anyway.
Whereas with Christ, you know whilst you are alive, and have it confirmed when you are dead, but even if you were wrong, you would never know anyway.
So I can't see where believers could possibly lose anything, and as they normally have great lives and gain an inner peace....
I understand that you guys need evidence and proof before you commit to anything, and there we reach a conundrum because you cannot get the proof until you demonstrate the faith, or die.
All any atheist can do is HOPE they are right, and dread that they may be not be, they have no possible PROOF, that one thing they demand, until it's too late to have been wrong.
Let's replace Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy with Odin and Zeus, then.
When I die, what if I discover that I should have worshiped Odin or Zeus instead of Yahweh?
To quote ZOMGitsCriss, "I'm not kidding, I'm actually serious right now. I want you to think about it."
Your answer is probably going to be, "But I KNOW that God exists, He reveals himself to me," or some variation of that.
That sort of evidence doesn't work for me, either of a consequence of life experience, or of hardwiring, or both.
Actually THAT is what you need to decide.
The default (procrastination) position is 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' which in this particular test results in a FAILED mark.
Like I have said the only way to get proof is by faith or dying, you have tried faith and rejected it, so I guess the options are limited.
One must completely clear one's mind and keep saying "I do believe in god, I do believe in god, I do..........!
Actually you must never clear your mind, allows all sort of nasties to creep in if you are in the wrong places.
No, one just needs to put aside pride, rebellion, ego and self for long enough for your spirit to hear from the Holy Spirit, and then respond accordingly.
I guess if someone is not prepared to do that, they revert to the default position.
I _can't_ make that sort of decision without evidence.
As I've said before, faith isn't an option.
But I guess you already understand that. :-)
If there is no consciousness after death, how is there any proof? Why should I assume such a proposition when the only other time I did not exist is a blank in my memory? Why should I follow the teachings of ancients who had less education and knowledge of the world when the only reason for doing so is the teachings of those same ancients?
Why spend my life chasing my tail when it is the only life I get?
And yet, while we are alive, we understand there are a great deal of gods purported to exist and are waiting for us in judgment. The big question then is which one do we choose? The only logical solution is to choose none of them.
You contradict yourself, if you know whilst you're alive, then the question of whether or not you're wrong when you die is irrelevant. Unfortunately, every other believer who believes in their particular god will say the same thing as you, hence you're in the same position as the atheist who must choose from a bevy of judgmental gods.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest prayers do anything, so we know you're just saying that.
I understand that you sincerely believe what you wrote. Have you considered the reason, though, that prayer always fails in objective test situations?
When prayer has been properly tested in a true double blind setting, it has never produced positive results. Neither god nor Jesus forbade clinical trials of healing promises. One would think that if prayer truly worked, it could be shown to work objectively and repeatedly.
From the quote, it seems as if someone missed where the topic is located.
All Forums » Religion and Philosophy » Atheism and Agnosticism »
Hubpages put the Atheist forums here, and from what I've seen, Christians have worked purposefully at making every conversation (at least that I've been a part of) under this particular heading. Perhaps if they were listed under the Christian section, it would make more sense to complain about such a thing.
I think I may have said this a thousand times, but the way Christians talk about the power of prayer you would expect to see very few christian in the cancer ward of a hospital. Cancer doesn't discriminate. All you get for being a Christian in a cancer ward is guilt along with your pain.
Has science proven that there is no consciousness after death?
Of course not! But they haven't proven there is either? Do you remember being conscious before you were born?
No, I most certainly do not remember any consciousness before I was born but that doesn't mean it is the same after death.
I don't believe this but you could argue that you existed in a previous life-time with consciousness and when you died all memories of that life-time were erased?
I didn't think so, Emile. But you don't know if it isn't the same after death either, does it? In fact, we know no more about our consciousness before death than we do afterwards. This is why all of the old myths in the world prove nothing about what happens after we die. I too can make a story about such if I so choose and no one can prove me wrong. Just like the old goat herders did.
Sure I could. One can argue many unbelievable things--as you do--but there is nothing to show it is fact and simply not wishful thinking. We call this religion.
It's not that the Holy Spirit doesn't knock on your door, it's just that you don't know how to open it or even know the door's there! Tell me about what you thought was your relationship with God.
I don't think you completely understand. You are still of the mindset that all could and should be like you. If your God had made us all, and he wanted all to worship him and to have a connection with the Holy Spirit he would have not made only some vulnerable to blind faith. You Claire are still trying to make everyone think like you.
Since when should you be vulnerable to blind faith? What sort of faith is it to force oneself to belief in God because they are afraid of hell and want to go to heaven? You cannot have a relationship with God just by having blind faith He exists. You have to realize He exists first to have a relationship with Him. If He sees a non-believer really looking, He will give Him opportunities to know Him. It can be done. Many atheists are testament to it. The key is to really want it. God has to know that you will reject earthly things that corrupt the soul and love Him and want only His will to be done. Any resistance and you block Him out. I have a faith in God that He has my best interest at heart. I don't always understand but understand more than I did. When something happens that I don't understand, I don't question it most of the time. It happens for a reason. It is natural to question, however. We are all human. As time goes by you see a pattern of how God works in your life and that encourages you to trust in Him more. It takes years to refine faith. It is like a marriage having constantly to work on it. You drift from your partner and there is a strong chance you will divorce.
Most Christians make out that Christianity is joyous all the time. They are at peace, etc, all the time. It is simply not true. The closer you get to God the more aware you of evil. The devil will always pursue you to try and put you off your faith. You need to plough ahead and ask God for guidance. The reward is the joy of God revealing His love to you and the deep-set peace. He takes the worry out of life.
Option 1 is way too difficult. It takes self-denial, persistence, discipline, faith, etc. People want instant results.
No - what it takes is fear. Desperate fear of reality and death and a total lack of self empowerment. When you speak for the Invisible Super Being - you got power and education without doing any work. No need to do actual research. No need to actually understand yourself.
At the heart of it - your beliefs stem from fear and laziness. Say the majik words, throw in a big chunk of denial and you are good to go.
This is why your beliefs cause so much ill will and fighting. You are being completely dishonest with yourselves, and this naturally bleeds over into being dishonest with others. The cognitive dissonance created makes you behave in such a way as denial of reality is so much a part of you - you lose yourself completely. Self denial is not the same as denial.
Still talking to the mental person, are we? Beating a dead horse again?
I have no fear of God. Should I have realized He was a bastard, evil bully, then I'd tell Him to go to hell. I'm not worshiping a jerk. I do plenty of research. I think everyone knows that.
You are assuming I'm dishonest. Has it never occurred to you that I may be right? I think everyone needs a good dose of the devil to make them take evil and God seriously. I did and that is why I concentrate on exposing evil.
I assumed nothing. Your comportment is obvious. No - it has not occurred to me that you may be right. You speak total nonsense. And you most certainly have not done any research.
You simply do not know yourself very well and - deny reality. Basically, I think this stems from mostly fear and a dash of laziness. Sorry you did not understand. Your fear is fear of reality and death. God is the placebo you take to remove that fear.
You have taken the easy peasy option of accepting majik instead of reality.
Goddinit is not researchable. I don't blame you - self assessment and acceptance of reality is hard. Much, much easier to do as you do.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
Why are you still engaging with the mental person? Answer that question!
I don't know what constitutes as no research. All I've read from you is scorn. There is no intellectual discussion or, at least, very minimal. I have done research into Satanism, New Age, look up religions I am not familiar with like Hinduism, argue the case for the existence of Jesus and have researched extra-biblical sources.
No, everybody doesn't know that. Besides, it depends on what you study and your ability to absorb such knowledge. Were you indoctrinated into your beliefs as a child, or did you fully examine all of the other religions before settling on the one you now vouch for?
No, I wasn't indoctrinated. I was taught about Jesus and the devil and obvious meant to Sunday school. I never believed or disbelieved in OT stories. Sunday school, as I recall, maybe concentrated on OT stories. Perhaps I only remember them only because the NT takes spiritual insight I didn't have at that age. I always knew that God and Satan existed. I never doubted it like. It wasn't a neutral stance like the OT. My mom left me to choose whatever path I wanted to go. She didn't make me read religious books. She introduced me to them but I think I know what indoctrination is. It's pounding the Bible onto a child and threatening them with hell.
I was free as a child and am now. Should I have found my religious stifling, I would have left because I have a rather defiant nature. For years I didn't want to go to church and everyone respecting that but now I go regularly because I want to. The peace I get is so overwhelming.
I find it terrible that people feel the need to indoctrinate their children fearing that if they don't they will stray and be in danger of hell fire. They do not know God because God knows everyone's circumstance. He knows why their can't believe. It isn't like believe or not or you are going to hell! To really accept or reject Jesus one has to know the full truth. I think all atheists reject Christianity, and not Jesus, because of disillusionment. One cannot reject Jesus unless insanely evil. God cannot be in the presence of sin and if someone won't repent when knowing full well what they have done and knowing the full truth, they remain with that sin. That sin automatically separates them from God. The irony is they send themselves to hell. Hell is the complete separation from God.
I know this because when I had my night terrors I felt so far away from God. I think night terrors is a tiny taste of hell.
So indoctrination affected you not at all? You changed faiths then, I suppose? It's good thing you had "night terrors" so you could find god then. I suppose if everyone were afflicted with these--whatever causes them--they would believe in your god also. Lucky you! So, was it god or Satan to which you attribute this affliction?
I have to say Claire your ignorance is showing. Do you even know what night terrors are? You say you haven't been indoctrinated, but to reject Jesus is insanely evil.
I think those are the words of someone who is complete misguided. Atheists don't reject Christianity, we simply don't see God. It's words like your that have gotten people killed.
This concept is lost on those who have been indoctrinated into a religious cult. Which one do you think? Baptist too? Their cult seems to have the best method of totally erasing any urge to be a free thinker. But she may be a Methodist instead because she uses correct spelling and grammar most of the time. Methodists are merely Baptists who can read?
Ha, I haven't (that I know of) met a Methodist, but I have had met many Baptists and they get them into the hell nonsense very young. I have had an meeting with a born again who came upon it later in life. He seemed mentally off balance and perhaps dangerous so I had to disassociate myself. Started buying guns and stuff. I wish there was away to make them see reality for just one moment. What a cruel way to travel though life. She actually called me (insanely evil). I would have preferred misguided.
That certainly disproves the omnipotence of god, then. Is your god omnipotent or not? If yes, then god can turn sin to righteousness or bear to be in the presence of sin. If not, god has limited powers.
Again, an all-powerful god could eliminate sin without making it the responsibility of his creation to repent - that god would not do so would mean it is the choice of god to make his creations responsible to meet impossible standards of behavior without sharing that knowledge fully and equally with all people. Some will burn due to ignorance.
Nice guy, that god your serve. Real peach of a fellow.
Well, yes, it does. The only way we could ever reconcile with God is through Jesus who had to take on that sin. In the glory of heaven there is no evil because evil cannot stand that light. Jesus taking on the nature of man could take on that sin as He wasn't in heaven when He descended into hell.
How can sin be eliminated without repentance? How can someone relishing his sin be in the presence of God? Let us take responsibility for our own lives instead of pointing the finger at God. We are meant to be in partnership with God. We have to allow His will to be done in our lives. And God never expects people to live by perfection. What would the point of Jesus be? He expects us to live with good in our hearts and to repent when we do wrong. I will never be perfect nor you. People have to want this knowledge. They must invite Him into their lives or else God is just controlling everybody. It's all about us. He looks upon compassionately on those who truly repent.
No one burns due to ignorance. Absolutely no one. Everybody will have full knowledge of the truth on Judgement Day. God doesn't say, "Oh, you weren't a Christian on earth, burn in hell!"
Don't you think those who relish in evil should be punished?
How is irrelevant to the question of omnipotence. The proper question is if it can be done, not how is it done. If it cannot be done, then god is not omnipotent. If it can be done, then god is making a choice that repentance is required. Why would repentence be required, though, for a being to act in exactly the nature his creator intended for him to act?
Does the scorpion say, gee, god, sorry for being a scorpion? No. So why should man repent for being less than perfect, i.e., human?
Evil is simply a concept of man that compares actions against an idealistic and artificial standard of morality. There is no evil - there is only what we vote as evil.
No, it cannot be done that God forgives without repentance. Why should He? Are you going to brush aside a child rapist pretending he did nothing? Where is the responsibility? There is where all the problems in life stem from. People don't want to talk responsibility for their own actions. In that case, God is not omnipotent. What makes you think God created people with corruption in their nature?
Child rape is not evil. It there were no laws making it a crime it wouldn't be evil. Got it.
Now I think it's time for me to show you what a Satanic agenda is that I've been talking about for a while. I came across a Rockefeller Foundation file. I will quote from it:
This report was produced by
The Rockefeller Foundation
and Global Business Network.
HACK ATTACK (page 34)
An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge. Devastating shocks like September 11, the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake had certainly primed the world for sudden disasters. But no one was prepared for a world in which large-scale catastrophes would occur with such breathtaking frequency. The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change.
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/up … 7cc719.pdf
Notice something strange in here? There are some disasters that haven't even happened. As far as I know, the Olympics haven't occurred. Now I have heard rumours that there would be a massive terrorist attack then but now this is concrete proof unless by some miracle it's thwarted. The Global Elite, Rockefellers included, are planning this terrorist attack. It cannot be blamed on Al Qaeda or Iran or something.
The reason I post this is not only to prove a Satanic agenda, which you can hardly call me paranoid about, but I need you to warn anyone you know that is planning to go to the Olympics. Get this information out there.
You can watch this video dripping with Illuminati symbolism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ny_8ZGj … plpp_video
This "Rockefeller Foundation file" indisputably exists, and you likely "came across" it the same way that most of your conspiratorially-minded peers did, by reading about it at inforwars.com, one of Alex Jones' websites.
The document is called "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development," and you can download it as a PDF here:
http://www.gbn.com/articles/pdfs/GBN&am … opment.pdf
Yes, it was produced jointly by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Business Network.
The Rockefeller Foundation is a philanthropic NGO that has funded both despicable and laudable things. For instance, it funded Nazi eugenic research. That's unambiguously despicable. However, it also funded the development of the yellow fever vaccine. That's unambiguously laudable.
The Global Business Network is a consulting firm which assists NGOs and governments with something called "scenario planning."
Scenario planning is described here:
If you read the article, you will discover that scenario planning is a sophisticated form of modeling which attempts to avoid disasters by preparing for them before they occur. It doesn't try to extrapolate future disasters, nor does it operate on the principle that any particular scenario is likely.
Planning for the future is usually considered a virtue, as in the fable of the ant and the grasshopper.
If an evil event such as this one ever happens, I suggest that we place partial blame on the conspiracy theorists who enable self-fulfilling prophecy.
"The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception come true. . . the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.(Yet we know that Millingville's bank was solvent, that it would have survived for many years had not the misleading rumor created the very conditions of its own fulfillment)."
That's the definition of "self-fulfilling prophecy" provided by sociologist Robert K. Merton, the man who coined the phrase.
Aren't you alarmed that, by trumpeting a future event as inevitable -- no matter how heinous or insane that event may be -- some deranged individual will be persuaded to make it happen?
And you think the Rockefellers funded the development of yellow fever vaccines out of the goodness of their hearts? They are blood-thirsty eugenicists but at the same they want to save lives by preventing yellow fever?
Let's take this example that illustrates eugenics:
In its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:
“(…) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”
The 1985 Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report underlined its ongoing dedication towards finding good use for the anti-fertility substance “gossypol”, or C30H30O8 – as the description reads.
Indeed, gossypol, a toxic polyphenol derived from the cotton plant, was identified early on in the Foundation’s research as an effective sterilant. The question was, how to implement or integrate the toxic substance into crops.
“Another long-term interest of the Foundation has been gossypol, a compound that has been shown to have an antifertility effect in men, By the end of 1985, the Foundation had made grants totaling approximately $1.6 million in an effort to support and stimulate scientific investigations on the safety and efficacy of gossypol.”
In the 1986 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the organization admits funding research into the use of fertility-reducing compounds in relation to food for “widespread use”:
“Male contraceptive studies are focused on gossypol, a natural substance extracted from the cotton plant, and identified by Chinese researchers as having an anti-fertility effect on men. Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive. The Foundation supported research on gossypol’s safety, reversibility and efficacy in seven different 1986 grants.”
Now they think poisoning our food is okay.
Face it, these elite want us to die not prevent deaths.
Emeritus Professor John Guillebaud, patron of the UK-based “Population Matters”, standing before a screen depicting among other things a machine-gun, a hospital bed, and a knife dripping with blood, as examples of “natural” population control as opposed to “artificial” methods such as contraception and family planning.
The professor also impressed upon his audience to hide the true nature of their efforts by never ever using the phrase “population control.”
Guillebaud gave the lecture on October 14 2010 in front of a group of scientists at Cambridge University’s Triple Helix Society. On the top of the screen of Guillebaud’s slide show we read the words: “guide to “population control” methods”, showing on the one hand a contraception pill, which is described as an artificial method of population control. On the right hand side we see the machine-gun, the knife, and the hospitable-bed as examples of “natural” methods of population control (from 1 minute onward).
“It either happens the gentle way, through family planning (…), or it happens the nasty ways (…) excessive heat, hurricanes, flooding and so on. To me that’s the ultimate inconvenient truth”, the professor stated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TPj9H0_ … r_embedded
“Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number. He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets. AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (…), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/do … 02118.html
Avoid disasters...right. I can picture the writer being very concerned about the plight of humanity.
Planning for the future is usually considered a virtue, as in the fable of the ant and the grasshopper.
Yes, some deranged individual is going to plant a nuclear bomb in the London Olympic stadium bypassing all security. He is also going to use HAARP technology to cause the Indonesia quake and cause mass famine in China.
The Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of a contraceptive vaccine? Why is this sinister?
As for Eric Pianka and ebola, here is what he has to say about the controversy:
"I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it... I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us... We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don't, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won't be much fun. Think about that."
As for gossypol, research into its use as a contraceptive was abandoned in 1998. It is still being investigated as an alternative to vasectomy, though not by integrating it into crops.
Guillebaud argues that humanity's future is bleak if we don't limit the earth's population _artificially_. He believes that if we don't do it _artificially_, then the earth will do it for us _naturally_, as a consequence of overpopulation.
Contraception is the _artificial_ method he advocates.
The natural consequence of overpopulation are war, famine, and disease, symbolically represented by the machine gun, the hospital bed, and the dripping knife. Guillebaudand wants to save us from this future -- or at least minimize its horror -- by a method as compassionate and simple as family planning.
First of all, you acknowledge David Rockefeller has being a horrendous eugenicist. So anti-fertility methods are not sinister?
1931 Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.
1956 U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.
Just added the above because of yellow fever.
1994 Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War .
Did he mention what else he said?
"After the human population collapses, there's going to be a lot fewer of us. Food's going to be diminished. Pollution's going to go down, which will be good. The bird flu's good, too."
Pianka continued, "The reason China was able to turn the corner and is gonna become the new super power in the world is because they got a police state and they can force people to stop reproducing.
"Instead of being cursed with our fertility, I would bless us with infertility," Pianka said. "I asked a reproductive physiologist years ago about this. I said, 'Could you design a molecule that you could administer once that would bind to the DNA to turn off reproduction and make people sterile?' And he said, yeah, theoretically. And I said, well, if you did that could you design an antidote that would unmask it just briefly for a few seconds? And he said, yeah, probably. So this is what we need. We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth [laughter] and make the antidote freely available to anybody who's willing to work for it.
"Immediately you'd get responsible parenthood," Pianka explained. "No more juvenile delinquents, unwanted kids. You have a kid, you had to work, and you had only a few seconds to do it in."
"AIDS is not an efficient killer, [Pianka] explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs."
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum … 289620/pg1
He had a bull called Lucifer. Wonderful.
The point is that they wanted it not if it was successful or not.
It's a lovely way to pretend to be compassionate but what does he really think?
What do you think he meant when he said this?
"Will you all undertake a little project today, for me, and that is never from the 14th of October onwards will you say those words up there (pointing towards the text on the slide: "population control"). You will never find me in any situation except in the context of this slide saying: population control. So will you for the rest of this meeting, and for the rest of your life, never put those two words together. They have been so damaging. They instantly make your hair up... think of India in the 1970s and of China at time present. Use any other way you would like to say, like my phrase "population matters". Please don't say "population control". So there's one thing you can all do."
I hope to God you are playing Devil's Advocate because I cannot believe you would defend these evil people in this way.
David Rockefeller was born two years after the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) was founded. Yes, he may have been involved in the funding of the 1968 anti-fertility vaccines. Was he involved in the funding of the Nazi eugenics program? I don't know; he was only 24 in 1939, which is the year the RF stopped funding it.
So, in 1939 -- seventy-three years ago -- the RF stopped funding a horrendous program. Most, if not all, of its 1939 trustees, officers, and committee members have since died. Yet you ignore all of the good that it has done, and judge it solely for its past.
As for John D. Rockefeller revealing the involuntary exposure of hundreds of thousands of military personnel to dangerous substances, yes, he did, during a Senate Hearing, speaking of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. This concerns me personally. I was in the military in 1991, spending a year away from my wife and my daughters in the deserts of Saudi Arabia. I don't think I was exposed to anything, but I can't help wonder. The Pentagon allowed these experiments, and Rockefeller criticized them for it. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller.
As for Pianka, he certainly sounds insane in the new context you provide. However, I will point out that Pianka's speech did generate a lot of criticism from his audience, who were primarily fellow biologists.
As for gossypol, the point it that it was abandoned as a contraceptive after researchers realized that it could never be made safe. I'm all for safe birth control, including contraceptive vaccines, vasectomies, and sterilization, for those who choose it.
You have absolutely no idea how the world works. People play double agent. They commit atrocities and then openly condemn evil. Obama called wars for the overturning of dictators "stupid wars" but then what does he do? He gets involved with the ousting of Gadhafi.
Here is a quote from David Rockefeller:
"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries.-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991"
Yes, a world ruled by the banks. Awesome.
What is the NWO with a one world government?
Reduce the World Population
The New World Order plans to decrease the world population down to 500 million people. That would be a decrease of over 80% of the current world population.
Mark everyone with an RFID chip
A goal of the New World Order is to mark everyone with an RFID chip where all their personal information will be stored through this device. In order to buy groceries, own a house and participate in society you will be required to have an RFID chip. This device will be implanted somewhere in the body, most likely the hand.
Keep people dumbed down
In order to maintain control over the population it is important for the New World Order to keep the general intelligence and creative abilities of people down very low. The world operates in a very school / employee type fashion and this is on purpose.
"The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work - with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown."
— Aldous Huxley; Brave New World Revisited, 1958
There will be no middle class, only rulers and servants. [...] The system will be on the basis of a welfare state [..] The U.S. Constitution will be abolished and become forbidden reading. [...] Marriage shall be outlawed and there shall be no family life as we know it. Children shall be removed from their parents at an early age and brought up as wards of the state; state property. [...] Women will be degraded through the continued process of "women's liberation" movements. Free sex shall be mandatory. [...] Self abortion shall be taught and practiced after two children are born to a woman. [...] Pornography shall be promoted and be compulsory reading in every school classroom and shown in theaters and cinemas, including homosexual and lesbian pornography. The use of "recreational" drugs shall no longer be subject to criminal penalties [...] Mind-control drugs will be expanded [...] the non-elite masses will be reduced to a level of behavior of beasts, with no will of their own [...] All wealth shall be aggregated in the hands of the elite members of the Committee of 300. Each individual shall be indoctrinated to understand that he or she is totally dependent upon the state for survival. [...] At least four billion "useless eaters" shall be eliminated by the year 2050 by means of limited wars and organized epidemics of fatal rapid-acting pandemics and starvation. [...] The United States will be flooded by people of an alien culture, who will eventually overwhelm the stock of the original Americans who built America [...] No national banks except the Bank of International Settlements and the World Bank shall be allowed to operate. [...] There shall be no cash or coinage in the hands of the non-elite. All transactions shall be carried out by means of a debit card [...] Attempts to trade "old" coins, that is to say, silver coins of previous and now defunct nations, shall be treated as a capital crime, subject to the death penalty. [...] Outlaws who fail to surrender to the police or military, after a declared period of time, shall have a family member selected at random to serve prison terms in their stead. [...] wars of attrition shall take place before the take-over of the One World Government, and shall be engineered on every continent where large groups of people with ethnic and religious differences reside. [...] Ethnic and religious differences shall be magnified and exacerbated; violent conflict as a means of "settling differences," shall be encouraged and fostered.
— Dr. John Coleman; The Committee of 300 (branch of the Club of Rome under the Illuminati)
1. To establish a One World Government/New World Order with a unified church and monetary system under their direction.
(United Nations wants a one world religion and Nick Rockefeller says the goal of the NWO is to microchip everyone).
2. To bring about the utter destruction of all national identity and national pride, which was a primary consideration if the concept of a One World Government was to work.
3. To engineer and bring about the destruction of religion, and more especially, the Christian Religion, with the one exception, their own creation, as mentioned above.
(Ousting of Christianity from schools.)
4. To establish the ability to control of each and every person through means of mind control and what Zbignew Brzezinski called techonotronics, which would create human-like robots and a system of terror which would make Felix Dzerzinhski's Red Terror look like children at play.
5. To bring about the end to all industrialization and the production of nuclear generated electric power in what they call "the post-industrial zero-growth society". Excepted are the computer- and service industries. US industries that remain will be exported to countries such as Mexico where abundant slave labor is available. As we saw in 1993, this has become a fact through the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA. Unemployables in the US, in the wake of industrial destruction, will either become opium-heroin and/or cocaine addicts, or become statistics in the elimination of the "excess population" process we know of today as Global 2000.
(Disaster in Japan has made people very anti-nuclear.)
6. To encourage, and eventually legalize the use of drugs and make pornography an "art-form", which will be widely accepted and, eventually, become quite commonplace.
(Promoting in the media).
7. To bring about depopulation of large cities according to the trial run carried out by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. It is interesting to note that Pol Pot's genocidal plans were drawn up in the US by one of the Club of Rome's research foundations, and overseen by Thomas Enders, a high-ranking State Department official. It is also interesting that the committee is currently seeking to reinstate the Pol Pot butchers in Cambodia.
8. To suppress all scientific development except for those deemed beneficial by the Illuminati. Especially targeted is nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Particularly hated are the fusion experiments currently being scorned and ridiculed by the Illuminati and its jackals of the press. Development of the fusion torch would blow the Illuminati's conception of "limited natural resources" right out of the window. A fusion torch, properly used, could create unlimited and as yet untapped natural resources, even from the most ordinary substances. Fusion torch uses are legion, and would benefit mankind in a manner which, as yet, is not even remotely comprehended by the public.
9. To cause by means of limited wars in the advanced countries, by means of starvation and diseases in the Third World countries, the death of three billion people by the year 2050, people they call "useless eaters". The Committee of 300 (Illuminati) commissioned Cyrus Vance to write a paper on this subject of how to bring about such genocide. The paper was produced under the title "Global 2000 Report" and was accepted and approved for action by former President James Earl Carter, and Edwin Muskie, then Secretary of States, for and on behalf of the US Government. Under the terms of the Global 2000 Report, the population of the US is to be reduced by 100 million by the year of 2050.
(Limited wars are everywhere and conflict in Sudan causing starvation.)
10. To weaken the moral fiber of the nation and to demoralize workers in the labor class by creating mass unemployment. As jobs dwindle due to the post industrial zero growth policies introduced by the Club of Rome, the report envisages demoralized and discouraged workers resorting to alcohol and drugs. The youth of the land will be encouraged by means of rock music and drugs to rebel against the status quo, thus undermining and eventually destroying the family unit. In this regard, the Committee commissioned Tavistock Institute to prepare a blueprint as to how this could be achieved. Tavistock directed Stanford Research to undertake the work under the direction of Professor Willis Harmon. This work later became known as the "Aquarian Conspiracy".
(Entertainment industry glamourizes immorality. Protests around the world because of mass unemployment.)
11. To keep people everywhere from deciding their own destinies by means of one created crisis after another and then "managing" such crises. This will confuse and demoralize the population to the extent where faced with too many choices, apathy on a massive scale will result. In the case of the US, an agency for Crisis Management is already in place. It is called the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), whose existence I first enclosed in 1980.
(FEMA acted as the police in Hurricane Katrina. Life will be made so unbearable that they will welcome the NWO with open arms which David Rockefeller said.)
12. To introduce new cults and continue to boost those already functioning which include rock music gangsters such as the Rolling Stones (a gangster group much favored by European Black Nobility), and all of the Tavistock-created rock groups which began with the Beatles.
(The utilization of Satanist entertainers to corrupt the masses.)
13. To continue to build up the cult of Christian Fundamentalism begun by the British East India Company's servant Darby, which will be misused to strengthen the Zionist State of Israel by identifying with the Jews through the myth of "God's chosen people", and by donating very substantial amounts of money to what they mistakenly believe is a religious cause in the furtherance of Christianity.
(America has a "Christian" nation is very pro Israel and fundamentalists automatically side with the Jews because the Bible says that they are the chosen people thus strengthening of the Zionists. )
14. To press for the spread of religious cults such as the Moslem Brotherhood, Moslem Fundamentalism, the Sikhs, and to carry out mind control experiments of the Jim Jones and "Son of Sam" type. It is worth noting that the late Khomeini was a creation of British Military Intelligence Div. 6, MI6. This detailed work spelled out the step-by-step process which the US Government implemented to put Khomeini in power.
(The Muslim Brotherhood is promoted and a creation of Britain. Al Qaeda is a creation of Pakistan and the US. Mind control experiments are done by the CIA.)
15. To export "religious liberation" ideas around the world so as to undermine all existing religions, but more especially the Christian religion. This began with the "Jesuit Liberation Theology", that brought an end to the Somoza Family rule in Nicaragua, and which today is destroying El Salvador, now 25 years into a "civil war". Costa Rica and Honduras are also embroiled in revolutionary activities, instigated by the Jesuits. One very active entity engaged in the so-called liberation theology, is the Communist-oriented Mary Knoll Mission. This accounts for the extensive media attention to the murder of four of Mary Knoll's so-called nuns in El Salvador a few years ago. The four nuns were Communist subversive agents and their activities were widely documented by the Government of El Salvador. The US press and the new media refused to give any space or coverage to the mass of documentation possessed by the Salvadorian Government, which proved what the Mary Knoll Mission nuns were doing in the country. Mary Knoll is in service in many countries, and placed a leading role in bringing Communism to Rhodesia, Moçambique, Angola and South Africa.
(Calls by the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu for a one world religion.)
16. To cause a total collapse of the world's economies and engender total political chaos.
17. To take control of all foreign and domestic policies of the US.
(Banksters own American anyway.)
18. To give the fullest support to supranational institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank of International Settlements, the World Court and, as far as possible, make local institutions less effective, by gradually phasing them out or bringing them under the mantle of the UN.
(Obama says he only needs to answer to the UN and not Congress.)
19. To penetrate and subvert all governments, and work from within them to destroy the sovereign integrity of the nations represented by them.
20. To organize a world-wide terrorist apparatus and to negotiate with terrorists whenever terrorist activities take place. It will be recalled that it was Bettino Craxi, who persuaded the Italian and US Governments to negotiate with the Red Brigades kidnapers of Prime Minister Moro and General Dozier. As an aside, Dozier was placed under strict orders not to talk what happened to him. Should he ever break that silence, he will no doubt be made "a horrible example of", in the manner in which Henry Kissinger dealt with Aldo Moro, Ali Bhutto and General Zia ul Haq.
(Arab Spring, LIFG was the rebel group recruited by the west to help overthrow the Gadhafi regime. LIFG is Al Qaeda.)
21. To take control of education in America with the intent and purpose of utterly and completely destroying it. By 1993, the full force effect of this policy is becoming apparent, and will be even more destructive as primary and secondary schools begin to teach "Outcome Based Education" (OBE).
(Education standards in US plummets. SA schooling standards degraded because of OBE and are totally ill-equipped for the real world.)
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/johncole … nati.shtml
This is far too much to respond to point-by-point, but I will respond the best that I can.
I long for the New World Order, Claire. RFID chips -- or some similar technology -- might be a good idea. Today, your government, or mine, sometimes make people disappear. THE RFID chips will make this marginally easier for them, but it will also make it easier to exonerate the wrongly accused, by confirming alibis.
"Charlie really WAS where he said he was," the jury will hear from the defense attorney, and the accused will praise the New World Order.
People are already dumb. Maybe this is because of the machinations of the New World Order, but it has already happened, and I don't see the situation reversing. However, I'm not worried, for reasons perfectly expressed by this quote from Men in Black:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
Unified church? I personally expect churches to eventually be attended only by the very old, but I was ecumenical even when I was a Christian.
The destruction of national identity and pride? As I wrote on Facebook today, "Patriotism is an unnecessary evil, as is its cousin, nationalism. I am proudly unpatriotic, and proudly un-American. I'm proudly un-Belgian and un_Swiss, too."
The ousting of Christianity from schools? Religion doesn't belong in schools.
Mind control technology? I hope not. Sentient, humanoid robots? I hope so.
Transhumanism? Maybe. This is one of those lifestyle choices that interest me about as much as tattoos and the current generation of body modifications. The next generation of body modifications is where transhumanism gets interesting. Retrofitted gustatory, olfactory, auditory, tactile, and visual enhancements? Uploaded languages? Yes, please.
The legalization of drugs? I have no interest in drugs personally, but their illegality is a curtailment of civil liberties.
Pornography is already commonplace.
Suppress all scientific development, except for that deemed beneficial by the Illuminati? That's not the way technological development works. It always takes a circuitous route, and the Illuminati would know this, if it exists. Without high technology, the Illuminati wouldn't be able to sustain its hegemony.
The entertainment industry glamorizes immorality? Whose definition of immorality are we using?
The utilization of Satanist entertainers? If Satan existed, I might be concerned.
To continue to build up the cult of Christian Fundamentalism? If this is true, then you are aiding and abetting the Illuminati right now. The Christian Right eat this stuff up.
We're still primates, are we not? We sit around just the same, masterbating and establishing dominance. We scream at the top of our lungs in much the same way and we live in communities, with alpha males and females. It seems to be a running theme in nature.
Then you deserve all the torment and enslavement they throw at you. You truly do deserve it. You don't seem to understand those who advocate the NWO are not interested in justice. They just want to enslave.
Nick Rockefeller said the ultimate goal was to microchip the entire world population and if they start rebelling, they will switch off their chip and won't be recognized as a citizen. It means no buying and selling. If they say you owe money and you really don't they will just switch off the chip as punishment for you demanding justice. Don't believe me?
"Charlie really WAS where he said he was," the jury will hear from the defense attorney, and the accused will praise the New World Order.
You are so right. People are dumb and those who aren't dumb are masters of denial.
No, no...there will be no such thing churches. There will be one church (one world religions) where every knee will bow to Lucifer under the New World Order.
So you will prefer to be a citizen of the one world government which opens the door to a one world dictator therefore no country can oppose it because there will be no different countries.
That's not the point. It's the motive behind it.
The point is to make people turn into robots whereby they cannot feel any emotions, including love. There mind has just been downloaded from a database.
You are either insane or just plain evil. You know how many lives illegal drugs have destroyed lives? You know how many more people would die if it was legalized? Would you like to see your kids die of an overdose?
It's not mandatory, though. Kids don't watch porno videos with their teachers in the classroom.
There are cures for diseases that have been suppressed for population control.
How about the glamourization of casual sex, violence, etc?
I am not a Christian Fundamentalist. They believe that the Jews are God's chosen people and I do not.
If I come across another sick message from you like I have now I will never address you again.
You do know that Nick Rockefeller is a distant cousin, right, with no insider knowledge?
And some are just deluded.
So the half billion survivors of the Illuminati's genocide all become Satanists? Will the worshipers be aware of who they are worshiping?
No. I prefer to be a citizen of a one-world government which functions similarly to the successful (existing) multi-state governments.
Illegal drugs destroy lives primarily because they are illegal.
I think that mandatory narcotization would probably be more efficient, and the distribution networks have already been established.
So the Illuminati wants their robotic citizens to watch porn? I don't think that robots have much interest in porn.
Really? If there are cures for diseaseS that have been suppressed for population control, then you probably know the names of those diseases. I'd also appreciate it if you shared how you came by this information.
Censorship is the job of totalitarian governments.
I didn't claim that you were. Read again.
That's your decision, of course.
Gadaffi was murdering his own people. Are you saying it is wrong to help those people?
Gadhafi was murdering his own people....proof please? None of those claims were substantiated. The Gadhafi regime was responding, like Assad, to terrorists trying to subvert his government. There is indisputable proof those terrorists were Al Qaeda. Don't believe me? Go read my Libya Hoax blog. Go see how the Al Qaeda flag waves proudly in Benghazi. Go read up on the Libyans being rounded up and tortured and killed by these rebels. Where is Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, etc, and the United Nations now calling for the end of those massacres? What about Bahrain? Why is the West not condemning the government for shooting the peaceful protestors?
Do you call NATO bombing Libya and killing thousands helping the Libyans? Are the people being helped by Al Qaeda tormenting them?
I don't know what you heard from American sources but in the UK there were daily news reports showing videos of military tanks opening fire on residential housing blocks.
That is just unacceptable and something needed to have been done to stop it. Many of the uprising were ex soldiers for gadaffis army that claimed they had defected because they did not agree with gadaffis orders to attack residential areas.
I'm not sure if you are aware that many of the news stories were faked. Western troops were on the ground long before the ousting of Gadhafi. Whose not to say there weren't these or even was from Libya?
Look at this:
US Defense Secretary Says No Evidence That Gaddafi Fired On His Own People
At the beginning of the Libyan uprising, in February 2011, news reports alleged that the Libyan air force was bombing protestors. This formed the basis of the claim that NATO needed to intervene to protect civilians, specifically by imposing a no-fly zone. However, in a press conference at the Pentagon on 1 March 2011, the US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, both said that there was no evidence to support these claims. Question: Do you see any evidence that he has actually fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?
Secretary Gates: We’ve seen the press reports but we have no confirmation of that.
Admiral Mullen: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.
http://vivalibya.wordpress.com/2012/03/ … wn-people/
And is this acceptable?
NATO bombardment of Sirte
Al Qaeda flag in Benghazi courthouse
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … house.html
Of course you just ignored the rest of my points. I cannot reason with people who won't see the truth.
I told you already I saw a video of a military tank firing on a residential building. I saw the aftermath of destroyed civilian buildings. I saw tank shells in peoples houses and I saw multiple interviews of civilians and also interviews of gadaffis ex soldiers who had defected.
I don't care what some people said in America. I care about what I have seen evidence for.
Maybe the taliban are there. How does that justify killing civilians?
Al Qaeda, not the Taliban. I am sure civilians have been killed in the cross-fire but let's ask the question: If Al Qaeda with guns posing as protestors come and tried to overthrow the Obama administration do you think the US military would stand up and do nothing or do you believe there would be civilian casualties?
Syria is exactly the same. It is the duty of the country to defend its country against armed insurrections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PabSq1Wv … re=related
So now we have rebels confessing to killing protestors to put the blame on the Assad regime.
If the rebels put down their arms chances the Assad regime would also.
You completely missed the point. Perhaps you should read it.
I hope to God you are right but I think it is more than likely it will happen.
"In May 2004, a BBC Panorama programme was broadcast featuring a mock exercise of a terrorist attack in London, with a bombing of three underground trains and a road vehicle. This was the very same scenario that was to take place during the 7/7 2005 London Bombings.
Spooks: Code 9 was a spy drama series broadcast by the BBC in August 2008 and set in 2012, in the aftermath of a nuclear attack at the London Olympics that had taken place during the opening ceremony.
There are a number of scenes in the drama in which the background contains the all-seeing eye symbol, as displayed on dollar notes, and commonly placed in the background on the logos of many corporations. It is thought to signal a coded message from the illuminati.
The all-seeing eye is similarly displayed on the homepage of Kudos, the production company behind Spooks: Code 9, and also depicted on Wenlock and Mandeville, the London 2012 official mascots.
The late August 2011 edition of the British political satire magazine Private Eye had a cover title with the words ‘Olympic Rehearsal’, accompanied by an image of the recent London riots containing a speech balloon with the words ‘This is the worst opening ceremony ever.’
Another card used in the Illuminati game has a picture of Big Ben being blown up and five men, each of them wearing different colours, red, blue, yellow, green and black - the same colours of the five Olympic rings. In the same way as the cards depicting the 9/11 attacks, could this card be a sign of a planned terrorist attack at the London Olympics?
In July 2005, soon after London had won the bid to host the Olympics, it was reported that the Olympic Park site where the Games were planned to take place is the site of a former nuclear reactor."
http://christopher-woodward.suite101.co … cs-a394498
Why should Rockefeller have chosen the figure 13000 to die at the Olympics?
This is what the number 13 (negative attributes) means in the occult:
The number 13 brings the test, the suffering and the death. It symbolizes the death to the matter or to oneself and the birth to the spirit: the passage on a higher level of existence.
Does this represent the birth of the New Age?
For the superstitious, this number brings the bad luck or the misfortune.
For the cabalist, the number 13 is the meaning of the Snake, the dragon, Satan and the murderer. But it is also for Christians the representative number of the Virgin Mary, she whose mission is to crush the head of Satan.
The thirteenth mystery of the Tarot does not have a name. It marks the uncertainty, the hesitation, the fickleness or again a transformation, the end of something (the death) and a renewal, a rupture, that is to say a very important change.
The thirteenth mystery of the Tarot does not have a name. It marks the uncertainty, the hesitation, the fickleness or again a transformation, the end of something (the death) and a renewal, a rupture, that is to say a very important change.
I've played the card game, Illuminati. It's fun. In no way is it intended to be taken seriously; the entire presentation is tongue-in-cheek.
It was inspired by a trilogy of novels that also parodied the Illuminati and other conspiracies. I think I played it for the first time twenty-five years ago.
From the game's webpage:
"The object of Illuminati is to take control of the world. The phone company is controlled by creatures from outer space. The Congressional Wives have taken over the Pentagon. And the Boy Sprouts are cashing in their secret Swiss Bank Account to smash the IRS!"
Yes, it sure must be fun seeing the twin towers being blown and Big Ben blowing up. Does it give you pleasure to realize those scenarios in the game have come true like the twin towers being destroyed and the Pentagon being hit?
Well, the Secret Service took it seriously. Enough to attempt to suppress its existence.
You'd be interested in this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ToMcjk … mp;list=WL
(Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right, and secondarily fundamentalist Christians concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist. Skeptics, such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet, have observed that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about a New World Order have now not only been embraced by many seekers of stigmatized knowledge but have seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. These political scientists are concerned that this mass hysteria could have what they judge to be devastating effects on American political life, ranging from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.) Wikipedia
I now see the connection between you fundamental christian views and you conspiracy issues. It's in you indoctrination.
The Church brands and kills 40 some scientists at their holy temple, and what's left of the group gets together and forms a group called the Illuminati. Now however, the Church realizes they didn't kill all those scientists so they get scared and start spreading any lies they can about the new group and what they are all about.
The Freemasons are spurned by the Church after building some of their most glorious buildings, including most of what is in Jerusalem. The Masons become popular though and in fear of a revolt they begin to slander them anyway they can to try and detract from their power.
NATO gets established, and the Church becomes scared that this group may succeed in governing the world where they failed to do so. Instant slander attacks about a NWO.
I think I'm seeing a pattern here....
The twin towers was first attacked by Bin Laden in 1996. When he failed to destroy them then, he sent a letter to the president and told him outright that he would attack them again and that he would attack other places as well. So because they didn't believe it's now some big Secret Society cover-up?
And I'm really expected to believe this?
Sorry, it was 1993. But, no, I'm not joking.
Osama bin Laden wasn't responsible.
Group Responsible: Islamic extremist groups which Salameh, Ajaj, Abuhalima, Ayyad, Ismoil and Yousef were all connected.
http://americanhistory.about.com/librar … orism8.htm
Anyhoo, it turns out that the FBI was responsible.
Honestly, I don't find Bin Laden responsible for either one. I hold the US Government responsible. The first one they just let happen, they didn't even try to stop the fire truck. The second one was more obvious when the building imploded instead of exploded. They said that jet fuel caught fire and weakened the structure, but that's bs because one part of the structure would've collapsed before the rest causing it to fall out into the streets and other buildings, which didn't happen. Everything I've heard however, blamed bin laden for both, though this is a different perspective....I still blame the US Government.
Illuminati is a card game, and in card games you don't see things blowing up. However, in other forms of entertainment, you do see things blowing up, usually in action films. If you hate action films, I'll understand. It isn't my favorite genre, either.
As for deriving satisfaction from "the twin towers being destroyed and the Pentagon being hit," of course not. Do you?
The coincidences weren't remarkable. If New York City were destroyed tomorrow, would it be a remarkable coincidence that it had been destroyed on film sixty-one times?
http://www.film.com/movies/cities-that- … F0V4W4LXiN
In films -- or games -- depicting the destruction of famous real estate, the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are pretty obvious targets.
The video you linked was factually incorrect. This is part of my life; I remember the events as they happened.
First, Illuminati came out in 1982. Steve Jackson Games wasn't planning to create its "newest game the Illuminati game" in 1990, as the video claims. Second, the raid wasn't inspired by Illuminati. The Secret Service let Steve Jackson Games believe that the raid was conducted over another game entirely, GURPS Cyberpunk, but that wasn't the reason, either. The reason was finally revealed in the affidavit. Third, the affidavit which allowed the Secret Service to conduct the raid was sealed, but the raid's existence wasn't.
Here is a copy of the affidavit:
Further, in 1993, Steve Jackson Games sued the Secret Service, and WON.
You say Steve Jackson was tongue in cheek. This is just pure ignorance. You have brains so figure out that these events in the game are really happening and its monstrously evil.
And you don't think those in the entertainment industry know the Illuminati's agenda?
http://www.film.com/movies/cities-that- … F0V4W4LXiN
In the twin tower card, the one tower tilted exactly the same way it did before it fell. The explosions were roughly the same floors hit. It also reads:
"Play this card at any time to give 10+ power resistance (your choice) to any violent group you control."
The US government controls Al Qaeda.
The Pentagon card:
"Straight violent government"
What does a violent government got to do with a terrorist attack on the Pentagon?
What makes you assume the Illuminati wasn't involved? I must admit, it is pretty incredible Jackson won. However, the Illuminati aren't all powerful at the moment. You are right about it being factually incorrect. The version "Illuminati: New World Order" card game come out in 1995. The original, as you say, come out in 1982.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover
It's true. It is too horrific that people choose to dismiss it.
No, I said that the card game by Steve Jackson Games, Illuminati, is tongue-in-cheek. I say that it is tongue-in-cheek because I've played it, not out of ignorance. However, I am ignorant of many things, as is all of humanity.
Right, and they filmically destroyed New York City sixty-one times just so you could make this point. How devious!
I know you meant the card game and it was not tongue-in cheek. I mean, do you really think he was clowning around when he made cards about the twin towers, Big Ben exploding, etc? Perhaps he was being tongue-in-cheek because he is a sick man gloating in the fact he has inside knowledge.
Those insiders love to brag through films, etc, that they have inside knowledge. It's called predictive programming.
Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The game, and the books which inspired it -- "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" -- are both satirical, which you would know if you acquainted yourself with either.
I am slightly familiar with the trilogy and do know that they were meant tongue in cheek.
Neither am I a big fan of global conspiracy theories, although they can make for interesting reading.
It would be an equally big mistake to dismiss that there truly are sinister things happening in this world.
Chuck Colson wrote that he didn't believe in conspiracy theories because his involvement in Watergate proved how difficult it is for large groups of people to keep deep secrets. Nevertheless, the constant surfacing of price-fixing schemes proves that people still try. And sometimes groups of people work together not by direct collusion but by seeing something that they think is a good thing (like population control) and start working towards the same goal.
Population control in itself is a good thing. Otherwise this world would be overpopulated, hence the need to "control" it. We can't feed everyone as it is, it seems. Anyway, it becomes a problem when the motives are questionable. Eugenics, seriously questionable and sinister motive. Survival of the human race as a whole (without racial/intellectual bias and the like), more understandable.
I disagree. Population control (the attempt to stop God from creating more people made in His image) is not a good thing.
We actually, in a purely physical sense, can feed everyone. It's politics that prevents it from happening.
There's a lot of space still available on the planet. It could certainly be better managed, but the world isn't overpopulated yet.
When politics gets out of the way and we actually _do_ feed everyone, then your contention becomes at least theoretically rational. Right now, in the world in which we live, millions of people are starving to death.
I don't dispute that. That doesn't change what I was trying to say in my reply. You can't change the terms of the debate and then still say it's fair.
You argued -- even if only implicitly, and whether it was your intention or not -- that superstitious belief somehow justified starving millions of people to death. It was this that I was refuting. I changed nothing. You changed the terms of the debate, by the ridiculousness of your contention.
I don't care how sincere your religious belief, when it would choose starvation over life, I am free to refute it without apology.
"Nope, can't allow birth control, because having babies is part of a special plan, even if that plan involves those babies starving to death."
I'm constantly amazed that I meet people who are actually more cynical than I am in these forums. Okay, let's roll up the sleeves here -
A) - My belief is not superstitious. Your saying that I'm arguing in favor of superstition is your belief. You're free to say so, but it's not true. I have met God and heard from Him. I wrote a Hub about those experiences. It's not superstition.
B) - You defined my terms by your own definitions. That's changing the terms. I didn't redefine your terms for you. So no, I did not change the terms, but nice try.
C) - Only in your definition do I choose starvation over life (reference point B.) I choose life over death, and I choose life over anti-life. If more people were truly Christian and truly practiced Christian values, there would be less starvation. Christian organizations work hard in these situations to try to right the wrongs. To say that because there is injustice in the world means we should prevent life from coming into it is, well, cynical.
Weird. As you are so dishonest and aggressive - is this what christian values are all about?
If so - how would there be less starvation?
I did find your earlier comment that population control was evil because it stopped god from making more mini-mes.
FACT: We live in a world in which people are starving to death. That's the world we live in, right now, whether or not it is possible to prevent, "in a purely physical sense."
FACT: You believe that, "the attempt to stop God from creating more people" is worse than those people starving to death.
I've read a few of your hubs between writing the above and beginning this sentence, in which I learned of your wife's condition. I still consider the foundations of your belief to be deepest superstition, but I now understand why you might hold those beliefs.
If I prayed, I would pray for your wife. You both have my good wishes.
No it is not superstition. If you actually saw and heard god, then it is hallucination(visual and auditory).
I saw and heard a lot of things back in 1969-70. I don't think any of them was god except maybe that 2 a.m. waitress in downtown Oklahoma City who had red fish lips and eyebrows shaped like opposing question marks.
Gee, I haven't heard that one in the last 15 minutes!
You have a good point. The Global Elite purposely cause starvation and cut jobs by creating false economic crisis.
Eugenics is hidden behind the veil of population control. The latter is a very good idea. People should limit their families but to purposely exterminate people to drop the population is evil. Pianka says the population should drop to 10% of what we have know.
Personally, I don't think that the human race would have a better chance of survival if 90% of everyone were to die.
Thanks for reinforcing my opinion of Christians.
Gotta love that innit?
I don't think many people realize that if Fukushima's reactor 4 collapses, eugenics won't be needed. It could lead to extinction.
I do actually worry about Fukushima, considering that I live in the same time zone.
I'm aware that it would be more than a little problematic, but I hadn't heard it could lead to actual extinction.
A certain professor Kunihiko Takeda says that no one will be living in Japan beyond 2015.
A US senator recently visited the site and his letter to U.S. Ambassador to Japan Ichiro Fujisaki, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and NRC’s Chairman Gregory Jaczko:
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2012/04/ … ion-event/
It's extremely serious. There have been 1 million Chernobyl-related deaths and that nuclear power plant only spewed radiation for 10 days. It's more than a year since the Fukushima power plants melted down.
Attacks on the Pentagon and twin towers satirical? Can you not see the deeper story? Why do you only look at the surface?
Sometimes, there is no "deeper story." In fact, usually, there is no "deeper story."
The game, and the books which inspired it -- "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" -- are both satirical, which you would know if you acquainted yourself with either.
I don't know precisely where you live, Pretoria, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Soweto, Port Elizabeth? I you live in, or near, one of those cities, walk into a comic book store, and ask if anyone is playing Illuminati. Or make a few inquiries on Craigslist. Go to the library, or to a used bookstore, and buy "The Illuminatus! Trilogy." Soon, you'll be entitled to your opinion. If you still don't believe that the game and the books are satirical, then we will talk.
Do I know what night terrors are? What a silly question that is! It's "bad dreams" occurring in the non-REM stage from stage 3 to stage 4. Scientist aren't sure why people have night terrors.
To reject Jesus KNOWING full well who He is is evil. I don't mean just knowing about Him like atheists do. I mean those who have felt His Holy Spirit and have a full realization of who is He and want He was done for us. Atheists don't know or else they wouldn't be atheists. Of course atheists reject Christianity. I reject Islam because I don't believe in Allah.
Do you find it hard to believe Muslims feel the exact same way about your cult? Just like you, they wonder why you won't see the truth in their religion. Just like you, they damn everyone else to a very bad ending.
Almost ALL religious cults feel the same way about the others. I think we need to have a god contest and settle this once and for all. You guys can all get into your perspective groups and pray for a miracle to prove the others wrong.
"Welcome everyone to the very first My God Is Better Than Your God playoff round. In this challenge, your god must move the assigned mountain--all of it, not merely the peak and put it........."
Now there is a reality show I would love to watch! Any TV producers on the forums?
I have never damned anyone to a bad ending. Don't be dishonest!
If you don't like what I say, just ignore me.
Most certainly! I'll expect the same from you, Claire. Are you any relation AEvans?
Claire, you must understand how hard it is to ignore you.
Actually, what you do is pretty much the same as what anyone does to support pseudoscience or woo woo. They get some ridiculous notion in their heads, come to a conclusion and then go out and find anything they can to loosely support their conclusions.
It isn't research, by definition, and it certainly isn't honest. Research is the attempt of find out in a "systematic and scientific" manner.
Actually, a universal consciousness effect is highly more probable than aliens or an all powerful super being
Because science has proven that the body is constantly expelling energy. There is enough energy pouring from the human body in any given state (including doing nothing) that you could easily power your house with it if it could be harnessed. A portion of the energy is thoughts. Every thought we have expels lots of energy. It's been estimated that the energy from a single thought can power New York city, just a single 5 second thought. With that in mind, at least some of the energy that's being expelled has to come from thoughts as energy continues in a constant movement until it's either used, or stopped. That energy has to go somewhere, which makes it highly plausible that the energy is going somewhere. It could easily be absorbed by those open to it, and then expelled again. All you would need is a point of focus, which the Bible perfectly provides.
So all that energy is returning to God, yes I can see that, we get assessed when we return to base camp and are either positive energy, whereupon we rejoin God, or negative energy, whereupon God isolates us where we can do no more harm.
Yep, that makes a whole lot of sense, and I had never thought that way before.
I will work that one up a bit and publish it.
You obviously don't do any research yourself and can only jump to one conclusion that fits your beliefs instead of actually studying facts. Sometimes I wonder if you even know what it is you imply with what you say.
..and sometimes I just provide glib answers that could be equally valid about what you think you know?
Educated in this stuff, I admit I am not, blame that on the UK educational system and the lottery of birthplace, but way back in the mid 1960's I was fathoming out all on my own that we may just be one big energy source, especially our thoughts, which do have power, though not just as you rationalists see it.
Later I identified that source as God, you guys cannot accept that mainly due to the ramifications it 'imposes' on your lives. i.e. rebellion.
Actually our 'energy' returning to be sorted, positive or negative, sounds a reasonable concept to me and a way of explaining what you 'intellectual and educated' folk cannot seem to see.
Since energy is neither positive or negative, it just is, really doesn't make any sense. All energy is the same, how you use it can determine if it's positive or negative. So your right, what us "intellectual and educated" folk can't seem to see that which is plainly absurd.
It's not about what I know. It's about understanding what your saying. Your implying that your God is nothing but energy, without a way to act upon the world at all, and without a consciousness of his own. Yet you state the exact opposite, which doesn't make any sense what so ever.
You should take time to actually study energy and the way it works before you jump to a conclusion because you think it fits your beliefs. It would prevent misunderstandings and being educated, especially with all the modern resources to educate oneself (the internet being one of them), there is no excuse for not understanding something before jumping to a conclusion on it.
No intellect? No education? Too lazy to do any work or research?
Get god. Easy.
Long odds - very long odds.
Your god = infinitely improbable.
My Mark you are up early and raring to go I see.
As you keep repeating yourself, I guess I can.
BETTER ODDS THAN YOURS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY NONE!
Sorry you don't understand. Odd considering you bought up the whole probability thing in the first place.
God/no god = 2:1
Your particular god = infinity:1
I know which one looks better to me.
Oh I see, and you are right I am not a gambling man, so odds are a stranger to me, but you seem to think that a 50/50% chance of being right or wrong, is better than a 100% chance of being wrong is.
If it's 50/50 and I am wrong, then I will have no knowledge of being wrong because there will be nothing after death.
Now how do you fare in that scenario?
Well, if you are right, then you will also know nothing after death, along with me, and we can be inert for eternity having simply passed this way once.
However, if you are wrong.... well you tell me Mark, "how do you feel" (great line from the Princess Bride)
Only 1.55 seconds long, worth the watch!
...and as the guy says at the end... "Be Honest"
Sorry you don't understand. It is not too late you know - you could go back to school.
Odd that you think that is what will happen to me if I don't believe in garbage.
Is that what you think happened to Ernest? And you still worship this psychopathic entity? You must fear it a great deal.
I am honest. I am not scared of your Big Bad God that will suck the life out of me when I am dead.
As you don't understand probabilities, you can take it from me that infinity:1 is long odds.
But still better than none.
If you win, you lose, so to speak.
Odd. You don't understand at all do you? Like I said - it is not too late. You could always go back to school. Assuming they have anything other than churches where you live.
You've never been to Malaysia then, or you would know that Muslim countries are not actually full of churches!
Never left school Mark, just left the indoctrination of the world system and moved into the Kingdom of God and kept learning.
I don't chase the sticks the world throws it's dogs anymore.
Edit: Actually, does ANYONE understand what Mark keeps repeating ad infinitum?
He states that the chances of God existing (in his opinion, not backed by any proof) are 1 to infinity, then thinks he is clever for taking odds that are even that God does exist and he has rejected eternity with Him for whatever happens to those who choose not to be with God for eternity, if the coin lands on the God side.
No - I have never been to Malaysia. I don't know a great deal about it either. Not sure I see Mosques as any different to churches though.
I pity you. I love to learn new things no matter how challenging they may be. I don't consider that indoctrination. If you were open to learning new things, you might be able to understand probabilities instead of simply cutting and pasting stuff you do not understand.
Accepting majik and warning us against something that you have absolutely zero idea about instead of actual knowledge? No thanks.
Here is how the probability thing works:
Chances of there being a god against not being a god - 2:1
Assuming there is a god, there is an infinite number of possible gods.
Therefore the chances of your god existing are infinity:1 against.
I'm an atheist, Mark, so I agree with you in many respects, but what you wrote above is simply not true.
First, the odds "of there being a god against not being a god" is _literally_ incalculable. Second, the assertion that "there [are] an infinite number of possible gods" -- assuming the possible existence of a god or gods -- also isn't true, unless you exclude the possibility of gods which (who?) are _the_ supernatural creator (singular) of the universe (everything that exists).
Sorry, but I've never heard that before, what is the "indoctrination of the world system"? The definition of indoctrination is to teach or accept doctrine without question, without and critical thinking whatsoever. One is told what to believe and they are to accept it.
So. how does that work with a "world system" and why would you not question or think about whatever that system is teaching?
Sorry, but when it comes to gods and gambling for your afterlife, you MUST take into account all the other gods throughout history that will also be waiting for you in judgment. Your odds diminish quickly. Even if there were 100 gods (there are much more than that) your odds become 99/1 that you're wrong.
If that were the case, we would be able to measure and test god just like we can measure and test other energy sources, especially if God were "one big energy source"
Sure, then you can put a big "+" sign on Gods head and a big "-" sign on Satans head, and then maybe run the appropriate cabling, connectors and circuitry between them. Don't forget the "ground" wire.
Who has estimated that the energy from a five-second thought could power New York City?
I forget who exactly stated it, but I can look it up for you and get back to you about it if you'd like. It may take a few days as I have many books to go through on it.
The claim might be true, or it might not, but it doesn't sound like a claim that could ever be empirically justified. I attended a few yoga workshops, and I think I heard similar claims there.
As far as I know -- and there are certainly more things that I don't know than things that I do -- we don't have devices capable of measuring "thought energy." Assuming that energy is emitted by the body at the levels you indicate, how could such devices distinguish between "thought energy" and the other energies that the body presumably emits?
Sorry, but I'm skeptical.
If that were true we'd have been powering up everything with poor people! This is America after all!
I would appreciate some more information on these scientific experiments that have measured this much energy coming from thoughts.
Perhaps you could add a few links to reputable scientific institutions?
I think I can answer that.
1. Mind is a consequence of the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
2. The brain is part of the universe.
3. Therefore, the universe is conscious.
This argument is both valid and sound, assuming the truth of its premises. However, the existence of an all-powerful superbeing seems to be logically impossible. Given a valid and sound argument versus a logical impossibly, the former obviously wins.
Since when does the supernatural have to follow logic?
You're right; the supernatural doesn't have to follow logic. However, I don't know that's it's possible to have a disagreement without using logic, unless it is of this form:
Person A: "You did!"
Person B: "I did not!"
Person A: "Did too!"
Person B: "Did not, did not, did not!"
Chasuk, you are too fixated on logic and that is why you set up a barrier between you and God.
Logic is useful for questions with yes/no answers, and inescapable in a genuine argument. However, I don't need logic to know how much I love my wife or my daughters, to enjoy walking my puppy, or to savor fresh-out-of-the-oven homemade bread.
Everything has its time. There are times to use logic, and times not.
I am reminded of some of my favorite verses of the Bible:
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
There are certain instances when you need it, lest you drink the Kool-aid...
Well you have certainly planted the seed that I am correct to reject your ridiculous religion.
No one says they know for a fact that your god does not exist. Best I can go with is "infinitely improbable and logically impossible."
That is typical though. Self professed Christians such as yourself are so dishonest, they put people off instead of converting them.
I've seen someone state it as a fact and others said it depended on what the definition of God was. Unbeknownst to you, Christians have planted a seed. You wouldn't bother addressing the same people over and over again who have this ridiculous religion knowing full well that you cannot change them. No one is going to want to beat a dead horse for very long.
Why do this?
Odd - you are the one here evangelizing and I am the one beating the dead horse?
No - you have not planted anything worthwhile. At best you are helping to convince bystanders that you are mentally ill.
LOL at such a high opinion you have of yourself. Unbeknownst to you - you are pushing people away from your religion.
Keep at it. Maybe one day we will have dropped such superstition completely from our society.
You seem to be here to bolster your own faith actually. As you keep claiming you have proof. Surely proof defeats faith in that case?
Unbeknownst to you - you are proving your god does not exist. Guess you don't know yourself very well at all.
Well, aren't you? What do you hope to achieve here? What are you achieving here? A person who truly believes someone is mentally ill will not bother to indulge in conversation with them. That really is beating a dead horse. If someone said they worship pink ponies, I would move on rather creeped out.
How so? What should I say to make Christianity is worthwhile? I do not have a high opinion of myself. You don't have to have special powers to know the Holy Spirit. It is not of my own merits.
Well, maybe you'd prefer Lucifer-worship. You won't have a choice under the New World Order.
I think I've given this analogy before to you. A child doesn't doubt the existence of his/her parents but has faith in them that they have their best interests at heart.
Okay, well, cheers. We don't have anything more to say to each other.
Guess not. Sorry you are incapable of understanding why your beliefs are damaging and detrimental to our society. Or why anyone would want them removed from our society. Perhaps if you understood yourself a little better?
You can give all the false analogies you care to. How funny that real people are the same as your majikal god.
How funny that all parents have the best interests of their child at heart. Guess you don't get out much either.
Keep thrashing the dead horse. Unbeknownst to you, I have planted a seed of reason - maybe it will come to fruition, although - in the words of Darth Vader, "the denial is strong in this one."
You are here to spread your delusion so that you won't feel abnormal.
Some atheists pretend to know, with absolute certainty, that God doesn't exist. When I became an atheist about 31 years ago, there were more of that type of atheist. I suppose that I was that type of atheist for about 15 minutes.
As for changing beliefs through debate, it happens rarely, but it does happen. Twenty-five ago, I talked a Baptist minister out of his faith, and I've been responsible for a few deconversions since then, the last as recently as 2011. However, it must be said that all of the deconverted were scrupulous followers of Shakespeare's maxim, "to thine own self be true," regardless of where it led.
The Baptist minister later decided that I was Satan -- the literal Satan -- and converted back. Let me add that it isn't my mission to deconvert anybody; I explain my beliefs, and respond to the inevitable objections with as much dispassion as I can. Whatever happens as a consequence of our dialogue is never planned.
I knew there was something wrong when he started talking about "where did out sense of right and wrong come from" it came from us being social animals. We aren't above tre animals in this sense. His supposed knowledge is in chemistry and he has a supposed degree in this field and has done supposed research into systic fibrosis... There is something fishy about him and the way he talks about faith not to mention his home origin... I'd say more but I like to debunk things... I am finding all sorts of funny business here. Having studied psychology and having written papers on how to spot people who are... Not being 100% honest... I'll just say this. I don't think he was an atheist who found his arguments flimsy.... That made me laugh.
Well, I suppose you can try and debunk this guy, or the next one. Or even the one after that, but, eventually a picture will start to emerge.
A bit like the near death experience research. You may debunk every one on it's own merits (or lack of), but then you are still left with questions about death, and what's "beyond the veil".
At the end of the day, NONE of these examples may convince you personally, but at least it makes you think, (I hope)!
Funny thing is these nde 'coincidences' just keep happening, and happening, and happening, and.. well you get the point.
It almost seems like. . . wait a minute...
Funny thing is they don't happen to everyone and the religious ones differ on what religion you were brought up as.... Isn't that funny? For instance, I know a guy who had an nde about Buddha... Hmmmm, or a Hindu about Kali... He said that was scary if you know who Kali is.
I guess they don't happen to everyone...
Most of them just DIE.
Wow, good to see how believers can make fun of death and such, that's another good reason not to be a believer, they all seem to be insensitive assholes.
I've already had a near death experience myself so I don't need to debunk any of them.
Sometimes you dream about things when you are totally unconscious and if it happens to be a religious dream when you almost die then you might just turn to religion without questioning it. Fortunately, my nde wasn't religious in the least.
Research I have done suggest that it is usually in relation to difficulties in ones life and often a strange experience (that though explainable) makes them adamant that god had spoken to them or something similar... i.e. light at the end of the tunnel.
It nearly never happens with proper atheists though, usually to agnostics or people who are simply un-religious. For the simply un-religious, sudden conversion to the more extreme forms of Chritianity and other religions usually comes at a turning point in the individuals life: i.e. they are homeless, or an alcoholic or drug abuser or are involved in prostitution etc... They use the communities and the strict rules these groups maintain to regulate their life; it can be positive for these people - however it is usually the community support they recieve and the promise of a fresh start (confession of sins etc) that is the real catalyst for the people I describe above - not god.
...and to a degree I support your theory, I have seen many people come to faith from adversity or due to bad life choices that Christ has dealt with for them, but only to a degree.
From experience of being around folk in rehab (not as a patient) we see many who get 'fixed up' (bad use of words, but you know what I mean) and get clean from their problems, and yes, the collective strength of the people praying with and for them does work to help get them straight.
But those who stay straight are the ones who truly find faith and trust in Christ, many fall by the wayside because they are still unprepared to totally surrender their will to His, and that is also covered in scripture:
King James Version (KJV)
And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
I have seen evidence of all those points, especially the last one, because those who come to Christ from personal adversity and fall 'into good ground' really do bear fruit, for there is no better counsellor than one who has been to hell already and come back.
In reality God will use whatever you give Him to get your attention, He is ever there watching our lives, and ready to step in when WE ask Him to do so.
Equally, I have seen many believers who were seriously damaged by the world (our enemy) in what I see as an attempt to kill them or stop them coming to faith.
The enemy can often 'see' who will be liable to be of use to God, and will seek to stop them fulfilling their God given role.
Sometimes the enemy uses drugs to try and stop them, sometimes sex, other times they will simply be made to feel so very intelligent, and often sheer wealth is used to disable a potential believer.
We live in a deceptive world, and anything that will stop a person from fulfilling their destiny will be used by the enemy to disrupt lives and change futures, when that future looks set to lead to God.
The enemy owns us UNTIL we reject his control over us and elect to serve God instead, only then does the enemy lose his grip on our lives.
A "proper" atheist had a NDE and converted to Christianity after experiencing hell. He said it is easy to be an atheist when your life is peachy. You have no need for God. Who inspires all good? The Holy Spirit and so the community would have responded to Him and helped the stricken.
Sometimes people don't have to be told. They suddenly have an epiphany.
I find all these stories condescending. Makes me wonder why I didn't dream of heaven or hell when I had my near death experience, boo hoo. Guess it was because I am secure in my belief and my hopes and fears aren't based on my culture or the fantasy of the religion my family true to bring me up in.
You had a near death experience? I think the atheists who get these NDEs are the ones God knows will convert because of it. It's like Paul. Even though he persecuted the Christians, God could see his potential.
This particular man who had the NDE in the example was a drunkard and womanizer and was yearning for peace. His NDE gave him that peace.
Sorry I find it a suspect story. I don't believe the man was an atheist. It's similar to that story you repeated earlier about another famous atheist and him believing in aliens. It just makes Christians look gullible, you'll believe anything another member of your group says that brings a positive image to your religion, even if it's a total provable lie.
I didn't say Dawkins believed in aliens. I said he said it is possible that aliens seeded the earth.
Take a look at the testimony of this atheist who had the NDE for yourself:
Testimony and reality are two different things, sorry to tell you people lie. Christians included.... probably more than most since they have more to lose according to their irrational fear of damnation.
Denial - Discredit - Denial - Discredit - Denial - Discredit - Denial - Discredit....
Airtight aint it?
I deny what has no evidence for it's existence, period. If you have evidence for ANYTHING you believe, I'm open to hearing about it.
Dawkins very publically entertains the aliens theory...
Just as he publicly entertains a whole lot of ideas and concepts, so what?
I just love how seriously they take "entertaining" an idea.
Just stating is all buddy.
Drama, drama, drama...
People need others. Most people I know, who have converted to religion, have suffered some trauma and they are emotionally fragile. Religion can afford them healing and helps them believe that there is a method behind the madness life can appear to be, at times.
Seems reasonable, after all if you finally find that running your own life has failed miserably, I guess allowing God to have a go seems like a good idea, and when life gets better, well most believers are sensible enough to know that if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
I would never wish to return to being who I was before I came to faith, and believe me the guy that I was had some fun, lots of fun actually, before I came to see that my life was actually empty of something.
Guess I found that God shaped hole was not being filled by all the stuff I was doing to have fun.
Good point. People who can't balance their own lives and do what is in their best interest emotionally do need help. Religion serves a purpose for those who lack the ability to understand the long and short term ramifications of bad choices.
Quite right. Religion is the crutches of the unsound mind. Or as Marx put it, religion is the opiate of masses.
What are the ramifications of bad choices long term?
You know, after death puts it's cards out on the table and asks if your hand is higher?
He usually doesn't ask, just starts raking in his chips off the river...
The ramifications of bad choices are not just long term, they are immediate... someone gets hurt either directly or indirectly even if it's not you, but like a butterfly effect everything effects everything else... you may not see it right away, hell, you might even be an insensitive ass clown and not care about anyone but yourself and what you believe, but you will be unknowingly burning bridges with people who could be friends....
Exactly Emile R - I am an atheist and KNOW there is no god, but can see the benefit that SOME religious communities can offer.
Wow, how do you know there is no god? I am intrigued.
Hang on a minute, he didnt say that he knows the christian god doesnt exist. He said he knows that NO god exists.
You cant disprove that by defining ONE god.
We can, just try defining any god.
Unless you equate god with universe there is no god, which is not religious(any) people mean by god.
Here god:The creator and ruler of the universe
and source of all moral authority; the Supreme
There is no creator
There is no absolute morality for a moral authority.
Supreme being so far is human.
How do you know nothing created this universe? How do you know that it is not possible to create a universe within this universe?
Maybe a scientist will discover that it is possible to create a universe within certain parameters. That scientist would qualify as god to the universe he created.
To claim knowledge of such a thing is ridiculous since it cannot be proven, or tested, or demonstrated
What we call universe is the matter and space all around us, including us.
Space is nothing, and nothing doesn't need creation.
God has to exist before he can create, so matter too exist always.
Besides nobody, not even god can make something from nothing.
So no creator, then what happen to god?
You speak of more knowledge than any scientist ever claimed to have, it must be great to KNOW all that you know, and be more certain than any scientist ever managed to be.
There are theories about something from nothing. Have you seen the lecture given by lawrence krauss? Very interesting.
If you're talking about abiogenesis it has been disproven. Also, this idea would give people even more reason to say that God doesn't need a Creator.
I do not use this argument myself, mind you. I'm simply stating that because many Atheists seem to believe that such an idea of God would have to have a cause, if the law of Causation is across the board.
LOL I'm not talking about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis doesnt say anything about something from nothing. In fact, it has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. That you brought it up is actually quite humourous.
I suggest you bother to research the topics to find out at they actually are before you claim them to be disproven.
I was mistaken. I equated what you said to something with life coming from something without life, but after reading it again, I realized that's not what you were referring to. My apologies... Simply a misunderstanding...
You may have made the post through misunderstanding, however, the point you raise is an irrefutable one.
Abiogenesis hypotheses ALL have irreconcilable problems, and to date, NOT ONE bit of evidence has been shown to answer this (HUGE) issue.
ALL atheists just ASSUME that life had to start somehow. ("We just don't know how, YET", is the parroted rote answer.)
This then makes their very foundation upon which their argument stands, as a matter of faith!
While it may not explain exactly how life could have started it is a damn sight closer to finding the answer than the ignorant bleeting of "god did it".
And for the record, MOST atheists are agnostic and do not claim knowledge about the origins of life or the universe so for those people, no faith is required.
It is a very small percentage of atheists who are gnostic and their claims get as much respect from me as would the claims of a theist.
I am an atheist, and I assure you that I make no such assumption.
I see neither one of you has given a definitive answer FOR abiogenesis.
Until such times an acceptable resolution is revealed, you MUST, by default ASSUME it DID indeed start (somehow).
Therefore, "god dunnit" as you so crudely put it, cannot be dismissed.
My accusation of a foundation based on faith stands.
Prove me wrong, please!
I can make the same stand based on the ancient astronaut theory, for which there is a big basis and plenty of proof when you look. Doesn't make it any more real than your faith basis. There is always something to contest something faith based. It's really not worth arguing over.
I make no such assumption. If God can have existed forever, then life can have existed forever. I consider the latter as likely as the former.
Not to mention the possibility that since matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the matter/energy that this universe is comprised of, has always existed.
People always claim that the big bang theory is proof that the universe had a beginning but they neglect the fact that the theory claims the universe expanded from a singularity.
It says nothing at all about the origin or wether or not the singularity had a beginning or was always there.
For thousands and thousands of years, humankind's best explanation for the existence of the universe has been -- to quote aka-dj -- "god dunnit." Many dogmatically insist that this will always be the best explanation. A few of us have recently begun working on an alternative.
Is our alternative in its final form? Of course not. Will it ever be in its final form? No, because every explanation in science is subject to change, even the "laws."
That only holds true for us (humans) who live within the "closed system". It assumes no such limitations on God having the ability to do either/both.
Your (little) mind, or mine for that matter, may not be able to process such a possibility, but God is way bigger than what we equate Him to be.
With God ALL things are possible. Have you NOT read that anywhere?
I never claimed knowledge on the topic. I claimed that abiogenesis is an attempt at explaining the origin of life. I have never claimed that there is no god at all. I simply dont have the knowledge to make such claims (like you think you do).
I can accept that there is a possibility that there may be a god, and I can also accept that it is more likely, given the facts that we do know, that abiogenesis is more probable an event compared to a woman being magicked in to existance from a mans rib.
In any case, the conversation was not about abiogenesis. Someone jumped in to my conversation and brought up abiogenesis when it had nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Then you jumped in as you always do attempting to jump on the bandwagon even though you got the wrong end of the stick, and requested proof of abiogenesis.
Maybe you should find someone who is claiming abiogenesis as a fact before you ask such questions because I did not make such a claim.
It's not an ATTEMPT, it's the real deal. Life started, period. HOW it did is what the issue is. Abiogenesis is just a name given to the event.
If you can accept the possibility, then why enter into ridiculing those who claim to hold that view?
I know. I saw the post.
No, I didn't jump in and change the subject!
I merely responded to the post where it was introduced.
It was YOU GUYS who pursued it form there. I was actually hoping to engage A Thousand Words on it, not hyjack the thread.
I dont ridicule those that accept the possibility that there may be a god. I ridicule those who make ridiculous unfounded assertions that they can not demonstrate to be true such as talking donkeys, noahs ark and the like.
I didn't claim that you tried to change the subject. But you did jump in and start requesting proof from me for something that I wasn't talking about directly after someone else mistakenly brought it up.
Abiogenesis theorizes a natural process in which biological life arises from inorganic matter. Abiogenesis ATTEMPTS to explain a naturally-occurring series of events in which life arises as a result. We call this series of events a process.
In other words, you are wrong on two counts. First, abiogenesis is an ATTEMPTED explanation. Second, abiogenesis cannot properly be described as an event, as the word EVENT describes only one stage of a process.
Perhaps I used the word too all inclusively. My intent was to describe the entire process required to explain "no-life >to > life" .
In any case, there is no "natural" explanation! On that I am not wrong.
Lightning struck a piece of mud and life began. There, an explanation. At least as good of explanation as claiming god did it. Lightning and mud are objective phenomenon - god is subjective.
And your assertion of this alternative is also faith based, therefore, subjective!
You must have watched Frankenstein as a child, to believe lightning "done it".
You misuse -- and perhaps misunderstand the meaning of -- the word "subjective."
All that "subjective" means is that the reality of a thing is dependent on individual perception. Are you claiming that neither lightning nor mud exist outside of your perception of them?
The real question isn't one of subjectivity or objectivity (at least not solely). The real question is, "Is the evidence transmissible?" In other words, is the evidence for your claim capable of being unambiguously transmitted or conveyed from one person to another?
Mud is indisputably corporeal. Lightning is indisputably visible, and the effects of a lightning strike are indisputably corporeal and tangible.
God -- being neither corporeal nor visible nor tangible -- relies on subjective experience to validate his existence. Evidence of his existence cannot be transmitted from one person to another except by faith.
To wit, AKA Winston's alternative is entirely objective, and yours is entirely subjective (irrespective of the truth or falsity or either claim).
So, what's your point/argument.
I agree with all you have said.
The only thing that I claimed was subjective, was that lightning and mud, combined gave rise to life. IMPOSSIBLE.
The important question concerning AKA Winston's lightning and mud is "Did it happen?"
You answer, "IMPOSSIBLE," and you may be right.
However, inescapably, Life either 1) arose, 2) has always existed, or 3)was created.
All three of those possibilities are supported by approximately the same amount of empirical evidence.
Hence, ALL 3 are FAITH based assumptions.
I choose 3) as my preferred explanation.
2) Unlikely (as something that ends has to have had a beginning)
1) Most unlikely (Too complex for accidental beginning)
Where you go amiss in your reasoning is that it is only faith-based if it is believed to represent a fact. All I did was to give a shorthand account of an idea from Richard Dawkins how life may have begun from the inanimate. I offered this in response to a claim that atheism cannot explain abiogenesis - but it can.
The difference between theism and atheism in this instance is that theism claims to know the cause of life, whereas atheism can only offer tentative explanation of what might have happened.
There is no claim of fact from the atheist, unlike the theist.
It's not open to debate!
If one is true (fact), the others are FALSE.
You can't reject Creation of life outright, because you have no evidence/proof of God's existence.
But you only have ONE fact concerning life. >In EVERY instance, life comes from NON-life!
Even you would ridicule men of old, who thought rotting meat gave rise to maggots, then flies, because you assert, from experience (logic and reason) that life can only come from life!
The belief in a supreme being, stems from the desire to define and understand the root of intelligence.
I just realised that "God" is not defined as creator of the universe.
I always thought it was.
God is the entity you will stand before some day.
That's an assertion of knowledge. You are guilty of hypocracy I believe.
No, Jomine asked for people to define of God, that is MY definition of God, based upon scripture, and is far less assertive of knowledge unknown to humanity than his assertions.
Billions of people hold this assertion to be true, whereas he made assertions that even the top scientists would blanch at making, and few would agree with in any case.
It seems to me that atheists do scientists a disfavour by making assertions that scientists would never make.
Starting a post with "No" is what all annoying trolls do. It is a bad habit that immediately annoys the recipient.
You claimed that someone will stand before god. That is an assertion of knowledge which you accused someone else of and that is why I accused you of hypocracy.