Reasons to Believe
"Science already shows the possibility and probability of gods existing to literally be impossible"
This is either an argument from incredulity or it's an argument from ignorance, depending on how aware you are of the error of your statement. Here you're basically saying that half the world's population continues to believe in something that's been all but proven false. Which falls right in line with your belief that believers are inherently unable to understand or grasp a scientific perspective, which stems from an inherent disrespect for believers in general.This too is either an argument from incredulity or from ignorance. Way back before we knew as much as we know now the bible made it clear that God, being the creator of the universe, exists before/outside/apart from this universe. Long before we knew the universe as it is now had a beginning and hasn't just existed as is infinitely. Therefore, no physical laws of nature would be violated as God would not be subject to the laws of His own creation. He exists outside of them. Just as the bible made clear thousands of years ago that time and space from God's perspective is different than ours, long before we could even grasp that concept. As we understand it now, that makes way more sense than it did back when it was written.
This again boils down to your simplistic imagining of what God must be if He were to exist. You're looking for 'magic' when the natural world is His creation and therefore everything happens 'naturally'. You see no confirmation because you see no 'magic'. Like looking for an individual based on a drawing of a stick figure. I don't see that guy either. This goes back to that 'constant' thing. Time and space only exist here. There's only a span of space/time between past/present/here/there in this universe. Therefore, God does not change and is not subject to the laws of this universe. Which means He's also beyond our ability to detect Him. The bible also made the distinction long ago between physical and spiritual. Like it or not, there's reason why the case isn't closed and there continues to be believers in every walk of life, including scientists and scholars. God as described thousands of years ago still does not conflict or contradict anything we now know. If anything, the more we learn the more it appears to be exactly as described millennia ago.And this is special pleading. Everything conforms to the natural laws of the universe - except for the thing that you're claiming created it. He gets a free pass from natural laws because he's obviously outside of nature. And once again, if everything began to exist, then what created god? If the answer is "god always existed" it's again special pleading.
Not at all. It's a logical assessment based on the information we have. Like you said, 'everything conforms to the natural laws of the universe'. You and I were born of that same singularity that birthed the earth, the sun, all the heavens, and every living thing. And you're right, in this universe, everything from that big bang forward, has both a beginning and an end. That's what the big bang teaches us. But it also teaches us something else significant.... something existed before. We can guess, but we don't know what. But there was something before this universe ever existed. Time, along with both the beginnings and endings of this universe that you and I are a part of, didn't apply. Time didn't exist. Time as we know it came into being with everything else. So, what is a 'beginning' without time? You have to understand, past, future, here, there, beginning, end, these are all certainties to us because we are a product of this universe. And because of that we can't hardly even imagine anything as not having a beginning or being governed by time. Whatever came before that big bang, before the beginning of time and space and matter, isn't subject to the same reality you and I know.
And how do you know that any of that is actually true? Its a guess. Not a hypothesis, and certainly not a fact.
No, it's not a guess. Like I said, it's a logical assessment based on the information we have. The math doesn't lie. It's all been worked out. Time is a construct of this universe. This universe, having a beginning, means it hasn't always existed like this. But it didn't come from nothing either. It began with a singularity that came from somewhere. Another universe previous to this one? That's a guess. But what is certain is that something came before this universe we know now. And that 'something' came before time and space and beginnings and endings as we know it now. This is not a guess.
so no other universes out there had a concept of time before ours experienced its big bang? How do you know that with absolute certainty, exactly? Have you been traveling in your time machine again?
Look, I'm not speculating wildly here. We don't even know if there are or ever have been other universes. All I'm talking about is what we know via cosmological physics. Time and space are constructs of this universe, the only universe we can ever observe. We know this universe isn't infinite and that it began about 13.7 billion years ago. With the big bang and subsequent expansion came both time and space. So, we know this universe hasn't always existed as it does today, we know it started with a singularity that came from somewhere, and we know that time and space as we experience it didn't exist until this universe existed. What came before we can only speculate. But whatever it was, it came before time and space and beginnings and endings, and the only reason those things seem absolute to you and I is because we have only ever existed here. Knowing what we know now, we know they are not actually absolute. They only exist within this universe.
so time and/or space do not exist in any other universes?
I don't know. Nobody knows. There's no way of knowing. I'm just applying what we do know about this one universe and making a logical assessment. That is all.
If you don't know, and no one else knows either, then you cannot possibly say that time/space were a construct of this universe as a result of the big bang.
I'm not just making this up or referring to some obscure, little known information. Here, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's an excerpt from an Astronomer fielding questions who was asked this specifically ....
" Did space exist prior to the big bang?
Most scientists would answer “No” to this question. The Big Bang marks the beginning of space and time as we know them, so there was no space before the Big Bang. I say “most scientists” rather than “all scientists” because the Big Bang itself is not completely understood, so it's possible that our understanding of this event will improve over time."
http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aa … e_big_bangGive me a break. No one anywhere has any real idea of what existed before the "Big Bang" or if the "Big Bang" actually took place. Start with that in mind to keep it reality based.
Really, what about your youtube video you've been holding up as the truth? That guy says he knows and you swallowed it.
The Planck space probe has given evidence that the universe is 13.81 billion years old and has bolstered the theory of inflation, which says the universe burst from subatomic size to it's non-observable expanse in a fraction of a second. In other words the matter didn't come from nowhere, it was contained, no magic required.
It's my understanding that this inflation theory required multiple universes, I'll admit I don't yet understand why, but I believe it has something to do with the math.
I don't understand how we go from that to it was made by God. We always knew the universe had a being because everything we know has a beginning and an ending. With all this you still claim God has no being or ending and made everything for us, used to reveal himself, but no longer does? I could be wrong, but you seem to be indicating that because the universe had a beginning it must have been made by a God, which would still leave us with what made God?That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that because of this or that 'it must have been God'. I'm simply illustrating that if God does in fact exist as described this is where/how He'd fit into what we know. This has more to do with why God would be unaffected by the laws of this universe and why He is undetectable based on modern knowledge and how He's described in the bible. Everything we know about time and space and beginnings and endings are products of this one observable universe we occupy. Before the 1920's when big bang was first postulated the common assumption amongst the scientific community was that the universe was infinite. Now, knowing the universe isn't infinite, but did in fact begin, and knowing that spacetime is a construct of it, that tells us that something came before and that whatever it was it existed outside spacetime as we know it. Within this universe, within this dimension of time, everything has a beginning and an end. The whole thought process that leads you and others to the conclusion that God must have had a beginning, or must have been made, is based on concepts that are only specific to this one universe. Outside of this, there's no telling.
Then why are you telling us God did it?
You're also assuming there was something before this universe. That's an assumption based on your knowledge of time. Before is a term used to describe the passage of time.Where did I say that?
Yes, you're right. Even our language is heavily based on our concept of time and words often fail to properly convey the concept. I know saying 'before the big bang' is technically inaccurate because there was not such thing as 'before' when time didn't exist. Even my use of the word 'when' in the previous sentence isn't accurate. I've yet to find an elegant way to state this without including words that allude to a sense of time. I only say it that way to keep it simple and to try to avoid long-winded responses where possible.So you're not saying God created the universe?
Fair enough.Like I said before, I'm merely describing where and how God fits into the equation given what we know via physics and cosmology and how He's described in the bible. And based on everything we've learned in recent decades, God as described makes a lot more sense now than ever before.
He created the universe, which means He exists outside/apart from it, and is therefore not subject to its laws ....
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
Time from God's perspective is different (see relativity) than ours ....
Psalms 90:4 - A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:8 - But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
And God is omnipresent ....
Psalms 139:7-12 - Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.
When you combine our modern understanding of the universe, spacetime, and even light, that first verse makes those other lines accurate. This exhibits a concept of God that was well beyond the understanding of the people of that age.Sorry, but physics and cosmology say nothing or support your god in any way. It is entirely dishonest to make such claims.
Not to anyone who can think.
Notice that the part in which you said, "is therefore not subject to its laws .... " does NOT appear in the bible? That is your own personal opinion, and yet yo accuse me of not understanding what's written there. Hilarious.
Perhaps, to someone who doesn't understand the universe, spacetime and how light works, but not to those who do.Again, I'm sorry you don't understand. As for God not being subject to the laws of the universe, that's not my opinion, that's simple reasoning. How could God be subject to the laws of a universe He Himself created? This is a really simple concept, ATM. One I know you're capable of grasping if you weren't so hindered by your own self-imposed tunnel vision. That would be like you writing a program, then being subject to the parameters of the program that you yourself created once the program is running. How does that work exactly? You're not a variable within that program, you're the programmer.
You've yet to illustrate that you do understand, so I'm not sure why you think you can speak of 'those who do'. I know you think you do, but your statements say otherwise. You even claimed to know better than a physicist at one point when what he said didn't agree with what you said. And true to form, you then decide instead to diminish the statements of this physicist based on the fact it's on 'youtube' rather than being based on actual substance. For some reason you seem to think your grasp is infallible despite experts who's statements completely contradict yours. And that includes the one article, the one bit of actual substance, you've provided so far in an attempt to back up what you're saying. It contradicted what you said too. At what point do you decide it's finally time to self-assess?
By definition, there is only one "uni"verse. And, there is only one song . . . the "uni" verse.
- Beth37posted 12 years ago
0"ATM actually has a lot of respect for peopl.. It's the beliefs that he doesn't agree with. He can come along pretty strongly when giving his opinion, But that's just him."
Deepes, I disagree completely. I have found him to be personally insulting over and over again. Maybe you have had a different experience with him, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the way he treats others. And just b/c it is someone's personality, it doesn't make it ok. It's my opinion that you shouldn't gloss over the truth in order to show them that you are like Jesus... Jesus called a sinner a sinner whether they were a king, a serf or a pharisee."Jesus called a sinner a sinner whether they were a king, a surf or a pharisee."
I just hate it when an undulating body of water commits heinous crimes against God! (You were probably talking about "serfs".)you should wait until ppl cant edit b4 you shame them.
Never! I strike like lightning!
GREASED lightning!Yes, but now you're inaccurate... I don't even know what you're referring to.
The proof is in the pudding! You can taste it!
Yeah, but it's not cause I edited... which is why I said that you should wait till the pudding's set. Of course now you've gotten me to admit to it... unless I edit this, then you're in deep yogurt.
No, Beth, My experience has been the same as any one else's with ATM. The only difference between myself and others is that in being able to separate myself from my beliefs, I am able to differentiate what's personal from what is against my beliefs. I also have an abundance of patience which allows me to ignore whatever tone may be coming from his responses and siply focus on the response without bringing myself to calling him hateful, ignorant, a bully, a troll, or making any other remark what will give him fuel to continue to attack. Especially since Jesus says turn the other cheek. He gets most people because they allow themselves to be upset at a man in front of a keyboard typing whatever he wants to type. I don't excuse his behavior.. I IGNORE a lot of it. There is a difference.
Which is great... ignoring, turning the other cheek, but saying he doesn't make personal attacks is untrue. Anyhoo... glad we had this talk.
I disagree, We are debating from differring perspectives. It's a matter of perception. He doesn't make personal attacks based on my perception of him because I don't take it personally. My definition is of course different than yours. What I stated is an opinion (which is true from my perspective only). You may take a different view of it, but that's your perspective. And I also wonder how many of his replies that have been personal were tossed out after he was attacked personally (from his perspective).
It's all perspective.Nice try, but they are emotionally attached to their beliefs. Their Super-ego won't let them even glance critically at their beliefs.
That would be ego, or the id, depending on the form of emotional attachment. The super ego supersedes emotion, Psych 101. Why just blather away?
Nope, the super ego is what strides for perfection and what to look righteous and perfect. The ego is balancing the super ego and the id and in some cases it's a slave to the super ego. Tricking the ego to think that the super egos want are directions from God. Psych 101.
It's what I think of all believers. I believe God only exists in your minds and the fact that God is different for all is evidence to your God being created in your minds for your needs. No disrespect intended. I have been here trying to figure what makes people believe and the very wise jonny gave me my first clue. Some evangelists claim to have conversations with God in the minds, they are told the internal dialogue going on in their head between the Super-ego and the Ego is a conversation with God when clearly we all have this dialogue and it's a normal brain function. If you do a little research on the Super-ego you'll see it's description to be exactly that of what one would expect to be coming from God. The ID asking for instant gratification from the ego and the ego deciding when and where that is appropriate. The Super-ego asking to conform to society in a righteous manner and the ego deciding when and where he will give into the will of the Super-ego. What if the subconscious part of the Super-ego tells the ego he has to listen to the super-ego because of God.
"What if the subconscious part of the Super-ego tells the ego he has to listen to the super-ego because of God."
And what if God is real?Then I'm wrong and expect to take part in the afterlife because God made me as I am.
Which of the thousands of proposed gods? This sounds like pascals wager to me
You didn't even acknowledge the fact that I spent a lot of time trying to answer your questions concerning the reality that ATM does in fact personally attack ppl and that he *was indeed banned for doing that very thing.
This sounds like avoidance to me. But... whatev.I'm sorry, I'm at work, and I wasn't able to go back to the point where I left off and missed your post. Not sure what that has to do with what I just said or the price of tea in China, but whatever.
Only that if you tell someone they are mistaken in their assessment of a situation that they have taken personally, and they go to certain lengths to address your statement, then you move on without acknowledging it, it's slightly annoying. But now you've explained so there I go.
Well, How do we know that the thousands of proposed "gods" aren't simply individual (or group interpretations of the same God?? Just pushing thought here... as usual..LOL
Or perhaps Freud didn't want to believe in God so he cast that role on the super-ego.
I definitely learned something today.You may be jumping the gun there, Chris. (First of all, this whole Super-ego, Ego, Id idea isn't agreed upon across the board, but from observation, I think there's some truth to it. It certainly makes it easier to describe otherwise difficult to articulate ideas.) The idea is that everyone's personalities are made up of the Id, Ego, and Super-ego. The Id we have from birth, and the Super-ego is last to develop which we get from what from what our parents/society/religions teach us.
Ergo, the supposed super-ego lies in Christians along with all other theists, deists, non-theists/atheists the same. One has great "Ego strength," or is working more out of the Ego, when one is healthily controlling the Super-ego and the Id, and is thus healthily in touch with reality. Religious/overly-spiritual/rigidly ethical(even if secular) people often operate more out of the Super-ego than the average non-religious/non-spiritual/non-rigidly ethical person. Often people who live too much by the Super-ego struggle with a duality in personality and typically have an unhealthy connection with the Id (they don't give in to the Id enough, and may "Id-binge" if I can make up terms). They tend to be unyielding. Those who live too much by the Id can end up destroying themselves and tend to have an unhealthy connection with the Super-ego (they may completely ignore it, even when it's helpful, beat themselves up about it (or not) and continue to do it). People from both extremes tend to be imbalanced somehow. Anybody can be anywhere on the spectrum. When I was a Christian, I lived too much by the Super-ego, and had an unhealthy connection to the Id and had an addictive personality. (I think I was in this state before I was a Christian, and it was exacerbated when I became one.)i suppose that this supper ego knows what is best for that person that it is responding to???
If it knows what is best for that individual, is what is best for "That" individual any different than it would be for any other individual? Again, I would suppose that these differences are only different in relationship to the unique situations which the individual has found themselves in.
i would also think that we "Could" call the holy spirit OR God Head our supper ego.
You say tomato I say TOmAto. Which came first the chicken or the egg??? Oh Heck lets just call the egg A Chicken.You are right, perhaps we could call this super-ego the holy spirit or God. That is precisely what some have done. But if one thinks that the super-ego is God then they are delusional.
Can you be sure that YOUR super ego and my super ego are not one and the same?
The superego of people will be mostly similar, but have variations based on region and the nature of the ruling religion of the land. It will be different for those in Japan than those here in the USA. It will be different for those in India than it is for the aborigines in Australia.
Extremely well said. A good balance is certainly needed. A strong ego can make both the Super-ego and the ID happy. Those with a dominant Super-ego eventually give into the ID just like those televangelists getting caught with prostitutes when they have a wife at home. When the ID is dominant you have an even bigger problem. These people make up the a good portion of jails I would expect.
Thank you, that was definitely the best explanation I've ever received, and certainly the only one here. I appreciate it, and it gives me a bit to chew on.
The differences in beliefs between believers just means we're talking about something based in the mind, therefore unobservable/unquantifiable, therefore subjective. Anything that deals with what's going on within the mind you will see the same kind of disharmony because it's inherently subjective. This is also true in psychology and psychiatry. Wildly different belief systems, with some subscribing to Freudian approaches and others not, for example. Or in discussions about free will versus determinism that go on perpetually with no end. This is why science is important. Science can establish what is objectively true without any of the muddiness of subjective interpretation. The problem with what's going on within the mind is that it is not physical, and therefore cannot be given the same objective clarity through the physical sciences. It's all subjective. Much like these discussions. We're beyond objectively confirmed stuff, and are wrestling perpetually about the stuff that cannot be objectively, empirically determined.
I can't speak for anyone beyond myself, but I've never thought of a voice in my head to be the voice of God. Experiences that I associate with God more have to do with the outside world around me. Events and situations that are outside of my control. Like that drafting table that showed up on my doorstep not long after I prayer that had to do with something that drafting table was a direct representation of. Or the time I decided to make a u-turn and go to an after work function I had already decided I wasn't going to because I had less than $3 to my name, where I met my wife for the first time. Just weeks before I had prayed about that too, and to this day don't know why I turned around. I could only afford one beer and wasn't really interested in hanging out with the people who were going. She was a guest of one of my coworkers. Or other times in my life when I had gotten myself into a pretty serious jam, usually financially, only to find myself on the other side of it through no deliberate action of my own. It was just the way events played out. That kind of thing. it's like the external world all of the sudden works in harmony with you. To give you a silly analogy to try to convey what I'm talking about, it's like driving down a road and seeing all the lights turn green in front of you as you go. It's how I've lived my whole life. By the seat of my proverbial pants, just on faith that the ground would be beneath each step I took. There's really no reason I should still be alive and doing as well as I'm doing today. It was certainly not a conscious, deliberate plan of action on my part.You don't need what others need. Some are taught that that voice is God and some think God is all love and some think God is all about punishment and hell. It seems to me that those who think God is all about love need to feel loved. I think the mind is giving one what it needs.
Yeah, that may be true for some of them, but for others it still never hurts to give them another, non challenging perspective
I've never seen him attack anyone personally. I've seen him viciously attack and/or criticize someone's personal BELIEFS, but not the person behind them. Beliefs SHOULD be criticized and called into question. They don't get a free pass from critical thinking or criticism just because they're religious. I've seen dozens of believers fly off of the handle and have a fit just because someone questioned their religion - but they turn right around and criticize another person's beliefs when they believe in a different religion/god/philosophy/sexual orientation etc.
I may not agree with all of ATM's statements or methods, but I have no right to tell him to stop. Free speech gives him the right to express himself, just like it gives you the right to disagree. Personal attacks, however, are against the TOS of the hubpages forum, and if he were guilty of personal attacks, he would have been banned long ago. He hasn't been.Haha, yes he has been. When I first came here a few months ago, someone kept pressuring me to talk about my beliefs. ATM came after me fast and furious. I didn't even know what hit me. All of a sudden the next morning I had several hate comments on my hubs which I didn't publish, even email. He said I had had him banned and he was furious. I didn't even know how to have someone banned. Im sure the staff here could verify my story, as every time I've brought it up, ATM says Im lying. Here is his direct quote from yesterday. "More lies. How very sad you feel compelled to do such things."
Here is one example from a typical insulting comment by ATM. This was yesterday.
I stated that Proverbs 31 was a goal many Christian women strive for. Here was his response.
"Women are not like that, anymore. Some have brains and can think for themselves."
If you think he didn't just insult me and women like me and call us brainless, you're fooling yourself.
Here I am quoting the person above me and he pretends this is my quote.
"Beth37 quotes jonnycomelately:
I am something of a misogynist. Mainly because I don't have the patience to put up with your funny logic sometimes. Also because I don't have the skills to communicate with you."
Here is his response as if it was my quote.
"Yes, logic and skills appear not to be part of your intellect." But you say he doesn't make personal attacks?
Here I was talking to someone else and he responds to it as if I was talking to him.
Beth addressing jonnycomelately: "LOL... so you hate us b/c of your own failings."
ATM responding: "No need to make up more lies about me. Where did I say I hated you or anyone else?"
Beth joking with jonnycomelately: "No, I don't think that's too honest. I think it's time someone said it out loud. smile"
ATM responding: "You create a lie and you want to say it out loud? That's very odd."
He responds with "we" very often, trying to intimidate the person whose view he opposes. "We have considered your view and we find it lacking." type thing. He does this constantly.
He states his opinions as facts as if he's judge and jury to silence others.
He is combative, harsh, unkind, and unyielding. Radman on the other hand is able to allow the discussion of a matter b/c he understands human rights. ATM is a bully and a troll.
(http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/110234)see that's the thing - I don't see any of those as personal attacks. They certainly come nowhere NEAR some of the things that have been said to me because of my atheism and the fact that I'm gay in my last six months on hubpages by "good christians".
If you're going to share your personal beliefs, you have to expect to receive criticisms for them. Criticizing or attacking a belief is not a personal attack. It's attacking a belief. The problem is that a lot of people are simply unwilling (or unable) to separate their beliefs from who THEY are, so they see any argument, criticism or critique as an attack, when no one else may see it that way. I have no doubt that you are able to criticize the religious beliefs of others. You feel that you're doing it in a respectful manner, and you may not approach things the way that ATM does, but to the person you're speaking with, you may be doing the exact same thing. It's all perception, sensitivity levels and how thick your skin is.
I don't agree with all of ATM's methods or assertions, but he has every right to make them. It's not my job to reign him in or ask him to alter his behavior - even when we disagree.Not that you read the hate mail I got from him, but yeah... Im pretty much thru defending my right to defend myself there... back to the atom.
Right. Save it for the tourists, Jack.
Put up those personal attacks or apologize.
Sorry, but you did no such thing. There aren't any personal insults listed there.
You were banned two months ago and it was directly after you addressed me although maybe you were banned for a different thread... I don't know. If you protest this is untrue, I would ask that someone from HP's would verify this. You also sent hate mail to my hubs and email. Although I deleted them, I am sure someone from HP's could verify the fact that you sent me those hate mails to my hubs. Were you writing my hubs and email to make statements about my beliefs or is it more likely that you were indeed sending hate mail? You have said that I lied about this many times now. I do believe you should be held accountable for the way you speak to others here.
Yes, so you pound on the report button because you believe I'm insulting you and others when I'm doing nothing more than attacking beliefs. It is your problem that you can't separate your beliefs from yourself, like so many here are trying to explain to you.
But again, you're only here to push your beliefs onto others.I have never reported anyone on HP's ever. If you call me a liar, then that is just the norm. Anyone who believes anything different than you profess is called a liar. Once again, if anyone who works for HPs can verify that I have never reported anyone here, I would appreciate it.
However, that's not the point. I highly doubt they just block ppl without reason... a person could run around reporting everyone willy nilly. If that worked, HPs would have to ban ppl all day. In addition, even if I had reported you, the fact that you came after me the way you did is just indicative of your abusive personality.
I don't mind ppl disagreeing with me. It's a human right. I just think you could find ways to disagree with others without disrespecting them personally.Respect is earned, not doled out worthlessly like Christian love.
Then, you should be able to show us all where I insulted you personally. If you can't you need to apologize for lying.
Settle down and have some peace. This is a fresh day. Enjoy it! Find common ground with your brothers and sisters.
Keep in mind, ATM, that one person's definition of an insult is different from another's. With this in mind, whatever she sends you may be a valid insult to her
Thank you for acknowledging that Deepes.
Take the F word... To one person, it could be a verbal attack. To another, it could be a sexual assault and to another it could be a turn on. Not only does the *way the word is used matter, but the way it is *received depends on the receiver. That's why maybe it's better to be cautious when trying to disprove someone's faith. To me, wanting to disprove someone's faith is an odd pass time anyway.Wanting to disprove someone's faith is not necessarily odd. I look at it as the flip side of a coin. On the one side, believers actually believe that they are tryiing to help nonbelievers or different believers come to an awareness and acceptance of the existence of God as the creater of everything. The issue with this is that without being able to provide specific proof that is satisfactory to a nonbeliever it is very difficult to do. This causes some believers to resort to slinging insults about how nonbelievers are ignorant, intolerant, Hellbound heathens (yes i have actually seen this on HP and heard this verbally). On the other side of the coin, nonbelievers believe they are trying to help believers unplug from the tunnelvision and indoctrination of a belief in something that cannot be proven and to live in the "real" world where science, technology, logic, and reason rule. Atheists view belief in God as illogical and irrational. It is illogical because believers blindly follow something that there is no proof of the existence for, especially since science and technology can answer a lot of questions more reasonably. They view beliefs as irrational because of how people hold to their beliefs to the point where they become combative. This becomes extra irrational when the very belief that is held is a belief that also teaches tolerance, love and self control..
So are you also aware that considering how they view believers as being irrational that for us to act in accordance with that irrationality it basically reinforces that opinion in their minds and that further lowers their opinion of believers? I've gained a measure of respect from Rad, JM, ATM, and other atheists on HP because I do not take myself to the level to where I stop expressing myself rationally and logically (by my definition if not theirs). They still disagree with my beliefs, but they aren't as dismissive with their replies (well except ATM, but he's just blunt.. I respect bluntness). I'm not telling you how you should handle yourself on the forums, but I would advise that it takes very thick skin to participate with some of the people here (even myself when I disagree with you...LOl)
I will tell you this. I am glad you have earned a measure of respect from them for your thick skin. You have not necessarily gained mine. The fact that *that doesn't matter to you is not impressive to me. The kind of man that impresses me is a man who sees another man being verbally abusive to another human and says it's wrong. Pandering to ATM's personality, thinking that it is winning you some kind of points is something I cannot agree with.
I have been *you* to be honest. I am at a different place in my life right now and I do speak directly. I no longer represent myself as a perfect example of Christ... I am honest and real about the fact that I am a sinner saved by grace. Do I love them any less than you do? No. I would that they could come to know that their eternity rests in the hands of God. Do I hold grown men responsible for the way they treat others? I do. I have not been abusive or unkind, but I have endured insult from ATM as well as the undertones of disrespect I have received from you, which are now spoken clearly and I thank you for finally being straight forward at least. Please read back and tell me if I have done anything other than hold ATM accountable for the way he speaks to others.
What you need to learn my friend, is that a lost soul may come to know God through a person like you who believes a gentle spirit is the way to profess his love of Christ. Another soul might come to believe b/c someone who's been dragged thru more sh*t than a person can handle, and lives to profess that Jesus never left her side... may also have an effect on someone who needs Him. Although we are both called to be His hands and feet, we are not called to be carbon copies of one another... otherwise, He really wouldn't need more than one of us on a forum like this. I encourage you to trust that God is in control of all thingsBeth is not here to discuss anything, she is only here to push her faith, and anyone who disagrees or criticizes that faith is insulting her.
I think Beth really is trying to discuss her faith rather than pushing it. I don't see anything wrong with some of her statements regarding her faith. And I definitely don't see where her responses are pushy.
Beth, don't pay ATM any mind. I've long since labeled him a troll, so I don't usually interact with him. On rare occasions I have agreed with him, as we have a similar lack of belief, but in general, I thinks he's on here to satiate some deep sense of pleasure he gets from bullying people who he deems as being irrational. He thinks he's doing people a favor by being "brutally honest," but I wouldn't let him get to you, nor would I take him seriously. ATM is the atheist version of the most obnoxious religious person you can think of, except, I think he's doing it for the kicks. It's not even worth the time it takes for you to argue with him, I promise.
I agree with you 100%. I believe he is a troll and not someone who honestly wants to discuss a subject. The simple fact that he doesn't have one hub posted nor is he following anyone says he comes here for one thing. From my experience with trolls, he is off visiting other forums when he is not here, for the reason you stated, he gets his kicks off it. I see a clear difference between him and the other Atheists on this forum. I've told him many times that I refuse to debate with him because he doesn't actually debate a subject, he just sits in the gutter and flings mud at ppl, calling them liars when they disagree with him. At some point I had to stop and say "enough"... and I can't tell you how glad I am that someone else sees thru his tactics. I wasn't enjoying being the bad guy.
Liars for Jesus. How sad folks like you have to do nothing but lie all the time. No, you are not a liar because others disagree with you, it is because you openly lie, just like you're doing now.
+1 I learned that a long time ago and rarely take the bait.
And, how does saying stuff like that not make you a troll or obnoxious?
Dude, are you seriously going to go back and respond to every comment you dont like... If that's the case, it's going to be all ATM all morning on this thread.
Why can you never stick to the subject matter and constantly have to follow me around lying about stuff all the time? Have you got some problem?
If we thought you being abused we'd step in, but I just look at the first page of the forum you provided a link to and I saw no insult from him, but saw two in a row from you. Now, it's possible you were quick because of past arguments, but from the link I see him talking about your beliefs and you swearing at him.
Yes, I do feel immediately on the defense when he appears, because of past experience with him and current comments as well. (I looked back and didn't see anywhere where I swore at him. Could you quote me please?)
Anyway, maybe you're all right. I'm sure it's just me. He seems like a great guy and I on the other hand am the one who is being abusive... ok then I will give him all the space he wants to continue saying Christ is fake and everyone who believes in Him is either lying or ignorant.Why not? I get told I'm stupid and going to hell for not believing all the time.
I would openly admonish anyone who said that to you. I think you can honestly say I never have.
And I get told I'm going to Hell because my belief in God is different than others.
I don't think you are being abusive.. Most believers (me included) get a little apprehensive when his name comes up. I don't think he means any harm (in his mind). He just doesn't believe totally in sugarcoating anything
I don't expect that to be impressive to anyone. If your choices in life do not affect me directly, then why should it matter? It is not my affair.
Have I or have I not stated that I disagree with his approach at times. I even reminded him that just because he doesn't see something as an attack from his perspective doesn't mean that it isn't an attack from your perspective. Which is true.. I personally respect the fact that he is blunt with me because I am blunt as well, but I also try ti use tact when tact is needed. Be no means do I approve of ATM's approach with others especially when they are showing him that they are getting offended.
Please don't get anything wrong.. I am not pandering to anyone here. I am not here to earn "points" with anyone, much less ATM. There is a lot that we disagree on in general. Now because I've expressed respect for him and others here on HP does not mean that I am pandering to them at all. I did reply to one of his posts in defense of you and how you felt that he was attacking you. Does that mean I am pandering to you as well?
How could you possibly know that you have been "me" when you don't even know me? You have no idea of my story nor of my struggles.. Please do not express that you have been what you do not know.
I most definitely respect the honesty in this statement. If more believers can admit this, believers will have an easier way to go.
As do I, but I only give the information then move on. I do not stand flatfooted and beat people over the head with it. And I do not condemn nor judge them either (not saying that you do.. was speaking in general)
I didn't think I was being disrespectful in my responses to you. I thought I was simply attempting to provide some insight into some of the hubbers here.. If you feel like I disrespected you in any way, shape or form, I humbly and sincerely apologize. I really do. It is never my intent to be disrespectful of anyone here. We are all here to share and exchange ideas. I truly do not mean to offend anyone.I really don't
I have seen more recently where you have attempted to hold him accountable for his actions.. But to be fair, Back on page 61, Chris Neal made an accusation that ATM just likes to fight and you agreed stating that that claim cannot be irrefuted. That (in my opinion) could be seen as an attack because you are making an accusation that may not be correct.
This I am aware of. Again, You do not know my total life story so even though I try to maintain a gently spirit and let God's love for all reflect in my actions towards othere, I also have a testimony of my own that can also lead people to Christ (if they choose it). If they don't, then I cannot drag them to believing. In this, I follow Christ's example in his rejection at nazareth. He helped whoever believed and accepted his help. He could have proven himself to whoever didn't believe in him, but instead he moved on from those who mocked and ridiculed him. I speak to whoever in interested in listening to me. Once I give them the information I allow them to make up their own mind as what they believe. I keep it moving1) I didn't mean I knew your story. I meant I used to take the same approach you do.
2) Again, speak and move on... speak and stand flat-footed. Take what ever approach you feel lead to take. I do not presume to know what Christ is leading you to do or say. I would hope you would offer the same.I take different approaches depending on the situation. Because I take a conceding approach one day doesn't mean the next I won't stand flat footed another day. Thankfully, I don't have to stand flat footed as often as I used to.
I offer to others to move however God sees fit for them to move, But I also try to offer a little insight into some situations from a different perspective. I do not mean to be insulting at all when I offer my insight. I just try to help others see things from a different perspective, Just like I would want others to do for me (hence my apology for unintentionally disrespecting and insulting you)Sorry, as I tried to explain, I have had a different perspective... and I am at a different place in my life right now. I should be humble and say thank you as I would have at one time, but mostly I felt you were offering passive-aggressive rebukes which kinda irritated me and I so let you know that. Im pretty sure if I hadn't been constantly insulted by ATM I would have felt less picked on. Im sure we've both been enlightened by hearing from the other. Maybe we can move on.
Why do you keep lying about that? Why can't you be honest?
<sigh> Im going to pee now. Of course you will say Im lying.
There you go with the provocative, again.
ATM, Remember that your idea of insult is different from others.
You don't understand Deepes.... he doesn't care. lol
He is a troll. He is not here to discuss the subject, he gets off on fighting.
He constantly lies and calls everyone a liar for simply sharing their beliefs.
Do you think he cares if he offends people personally? I guarantee you he doesn't.
As a matter of fact, that is his goal.You see Deepes, these are personal insults, calling others names, following people around whining and complaining rather than sticking to the subject matter, and in many cases, lie about it.
My point exactly.. You see those as a personal insult to you.. To Beth, it is an accurate assessment of you based on her experiences with you..
It seems few here actually understand the concept of personal insults. They are personal, hence the name. Mocking and ridiculing someones god or beliefs is not personal. Try to understand that, folks.
Here is where I slightly disagree. He does discuss the topics at hand... in the middle of ridiculing beliefs.. There have been times where he has answered specific questions that he deems worth his time in answering
No, it is not my idea, it is the common understanding of what is a personal insult and what is not. Much like everything else, believers are wrong about that.
You just lump us all together eh?
So even though he has clearly tried to say that he doesn't take your insults personally and I do, he and I think the same?
And quite frankly, you are the one who follows. I only post on the threads I am interested in. I am only stalking Mark Ewbie. lolNo, there are a couple of believers here who are honest, you just don't happen to be one of them.
No, you are obviously wrong about others insulting you, no one is doing anything of the sort. That is a personal problem you'll need to work out yourself.
No one is stalking you, they are merely pointing out all the flaws, fallacies and nonsense you write here.Who is "they"? You always have some mysterious group backing you up.
You say you don't insult me, but you say I am dishonest and a liar over and over again, yet I haven't said *anything dishonest here. As a matter of fact, I am kind of known for being too honest for my own good. Maybe that is a flaw, but it doesn't make me a liar.No one is backing me up, I am talking about all the others here who are criticizing your beliefs and showing them to be nonsense.
No, you're not being honest here. If you were, we would acknowledge it just like we acknowledge the few believers here who are honest.So, you and your allies are on a mission to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. What a pathetic waste of time . . . an insidious agenda of hate.
It really is interesting how the believers mind works to come to conclusions, or doesn't work...
I don't know if you realize this, but although the numerous others in your massive group have not called me a liar, only you have. I am actually kind of fond of Radman and I find JM very interesting. Neither are trolls.
But, they are all pointing out your lies, nonetheless.
I'm curious. Determining when and if someone is lying is a difficult thing to do. it's a big part of our legal system. We sometimes employ tests that monitor an individual in an attempt to establish whether or not someone is lying. Or some try to use tell-tale body language. Most times it's a case of comparing versions of a story with known facts to try to figure it out, though in those cases a lot of times it's still difficult to determine whether or not it's a deliberate lie or not.
So, what exactly do you use? If you deem every statement a lie that contradicts with the 'facts' as you have established them in your mind, and we've already here in this forum established some glaring errors in your 'fact' sheet, then isn't it dishonest to not acknowledge those errors and reassess that 'fact' sheet? Should you still be employing this method given those glaring errors?
You speak with such certainty regarding when you determine someone is lying, who's a liar and who isn't, which could be incredibly useful given what a struggle and drain it is on resources in our legal system, so if your methods prove to be as full proof as your certainty suggests you should share. So, can you maybe explain that process? Given your insistence that facts and evidence reign supreme, I fully expect your process for determining liars to be something way more involved than just being you spouting an opinion as if it's fact. You wouldn't do that would you?If only. No, oddly enough, this is how I choose to spend significant chunks of my free time. I'm just a wordy guy, what can I say? I can't always be so succinct and to the point as others.
I dont know if you're a man or a woman, but I think I love you.
How common is the understanding, really? certain things one can view as personal insults but another can see as the truth based on their definition
One should actually read and understand the common definition before commenting.
The issue is that people read and hold to the common definition to the exclusion of the others. Because only one definition is used "commonly" some things get lost in translation contextually. for instance, If I understood you correctly, Your idea of a personal attack (which I agree is the common definition and most widely used) is one that involves name calling and deals directly with speaking to the person itself, But another definition of a personal attack is also to attack anything related to that person. It does not have to involve specific name calling, but a ridicule of beliefs, family members, ideals.. etc. I have seen people attack you personally based on all definitions of the concept of personal attacks. The difference is in which particular context of personal attack you focus on. You appear to focus on the concept that as long as you aren't directly name calling, then you aren't personally attacking someone. But for others (Including me if you talk about specific things related to me) attacking anything connected to them is a personal attack too
Ignorance of the law is not a defence. At least it's not in my country.
I'm not using ignorance of the law as a defense. I'm actually referring to the fact that it is the "common" usage of some words to the exclusion of others that causes things to get lost in translation which can lead to insults that may or may not have been thrown. In the case of Beth and ATM, Beth felt that ATM was insulting her by one of the less commonly used contexts of the concept of what a personal attack whereas ATM, myself, you, and JM all looked at it from the more commonly used context and said that we may not always approve of his delivery we didn't necessarily see a personal attack. So even your comment of ignorance of the law not being an excuse, then ATM would owe Beth an apology for personally insulting her by her definition and likewise Beth would owe ATM an apology for personally insulting him by his definition
Sorry, but it is quite dishonest for Beth to make up her own definitions to already well defined words to suit her agenda. It doesn't work that way.
As Defined by dictionary.com:
Personal- referring or directed to a particular person in a disparaging or offensive sense or manner, usually involving character, behavior, appearance, etc.: personal remarks
Attack- to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly:
Merriam webster.com
Personal- relating to an individual or an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs often in an offensive manner <a personal insult>
Attack- to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
Based on these definitions, You both have attacked each other personally. The fact that others ignore the tone of your remarks do not change the fact that you have made them. It would be equally dishonest of you to deny making any personal attacks against Beth..
Should I pull more definitions from other dictionaries?Oh I'm sorry, Maybe it was a different ATM that has repeatedly called some believers "liars for jesus"
If this was a different person named A Troubled Man please accept my apology.. If this is you, then based on the definitions I posted as well as your own assessment of name-calling being a personal attack.. Then the shoe fits in this scenario. .. Sorry..
I understand that you don't feel that it is a personal attack (and I certainly don't take offense to it because I've come to understand you.. somewhat), but based on the definitions this would count as a personal attack to others.. I'm just sayingI'm sure I can go back through the forums and find plenty of other examples that would fit the definitions I listed. That one was right off the top of my head. I'm sure Chris and a few others here could find a few as well..
But for me, I'm not going to bother doing it for the sole purpose that as I stated, I don't have a problem with you. I may not always agree with your approach but you are very blunt and straight up. I respect that. I was simply showing you an example of how your responses can be viewed as a personal attack based off the dictionary definition of the termHa ha ha! I had some t-shirts printed up for a men's group at a church I used to attend . . . "Jerks for Jesus". I put the first one on myself!
I love you ATM! You have perseverance and a good sense of humor.
We can look at your example, "liars for Jesus" to see this is a description of those who willingly lie in order to defend their beliefs in Jesus.
So, what are we looking at? We are looking at the words they are writing here and we are commenting on those words, that the words are lies, that those words are in stark contrast to facts and evidence, such as the denials we see regarding evolution.
If I said to you, for example, that you were ugly and stupid, that would be a personal insult.
But, if I said that what you wrote here was a lie, that is not a personal insult because I'm focusing directly on the words and not on the person. Obviously then, "liars for Jesus" would represent those folks who deliberately and willingly write lies here in order to defend their beliefs in Jesus.
We have 'liars for Allah' here, too, on occasion.But you are still calling someone a liar.. so no difference
Calling someone a liar means you are calling out their lies. That is not the same thing at all as calling someone ugly and stupid. Those folks are willingly and deliberately lying.
You'll notice that I never openly called someone a liar, either. Certainly, I said that what they wrote was either dishonest or a lie.
Yea, and those liars for Allah always ask where I live.
But if my intelligence level and IQ were tested and found to be low, you may actually may not be insulting me.
But, there's a difference between having low intelligence and willfully and deliberately lying.
So you acknowledge that your opinions and observations about life based on your experiences could possibly be a lie as well?
If I can validate observations myself, why would I expect them to be lies?
For example, my experience with flapping my arms has yet to counter the effects of gravity. Can I conclude gravity is not a lie?What about other personal experiences. Naturally you can prove some things scientifically, but one thing you cannot prove is an opinion. So an opinion may or may not be a lie based on the person going through the experience..
So to deliberately call someone a liar that is simply expressing an opinion is equally as dishonest..
A lie is a lie when proof of the truth is readily available
But an opinion is not totally a lie when it is something that is specifically unprovable.. There are examples that can be given that can only reinforce an opinion. The information and examples that I gave doesn't automatically make someone else's opinion of you true or false. they are simply examples provided that can reinforce an opinion.That's fine. I see no problem with that.
What about other personal experiences?Since you see no problem with that, to outright accuse someone of lying when they are expressing an opinion (which you have done) is an attack and an unfair assessment. Take Chris, for example. He has provided his opinion of belief in God based on a personal experience that he has that reinforces that opinion, but you have called him a liar, delusional, and some other things. His experience only reinforces his opinion and therefore for him is not a lie. It is an honest opinion based on his experience.
Chris has willfully and deliberately claimed that he converses with God. It is not his opinion, it is his reality.
It's the reality for 51% of Americans. More when troubled times hit.
No, it is not a reality, it is a fantasy. They are only talking with themselves.
Right. A person's reality is built from their perception, opinion, and understanding of the world around them. You have your own reality. As does Rad, me, JM, heck, any hubber here and people around the world. Although there are those who claim their reality is the correct (or should be correct) for everyone, the truth is that their reality is only works best for that individual. Yes I am aware that Christians outright try to force others to accepting their reality, but they are not the only ones that seek to convince others to accept their version of reality..
Reality does not come about from one's perception, reality over-rides that perception, and reality has never shown gods to exist and in fact prohibits them, by the very laws that govern reality.
Chris knows he isn't conversing with any gods, but he'll willfully and deliberately make that claim here, notwithstanding.
No, we all share the exact same reality, the one in which gods have never been shown to exist.We do share an objective reality. But based on the objectivity of reality, we formulate our own realities based on our own interpretation of that objectivity. For instance, You say reality shows that no Gods have been proven to exist. So based on your perception of that reality plus looking at what has been recorded and reviewed with the advancements today, you have further cemented your own reality that God does not exist. On the flip side, for some believers, the proof is in the creation itself and (for some) what we have come to understand is more of man filling in the blanks for God's creation.
One major advantage that science and technology has over religion is that during the time of the bible, there weren't the advancements that we have today to test the theories they had back then.. Of course this could lead to the conclusion that the truth could have been uncovered years ago one way or the other, which could change how things are today.Those are called, fantasies.
But, we know that is merely an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.
Observation. Every time I look back at the supposed insults I find he was the one being insulted. Even Beth admitted she starts it at first sight of him.
The bottom line is that believers get very upset when we criticize, mock or ridicule their gods and beliefs, they take it personally and no amount of logic or rationale explanation will probably change that.
But if a believer mocks your lack of belief, they are attacking you?
Of course, they aren't attacking me, they are attacking my lack of belief. Huge difference.
But there are some I've seen that have spoken about your lack of belief and you have accused them of attacking you personally. Hell, I've done it in our earlier conversations before I learned more about you and you accused me of the same thing..
of course not. And I honestly don't expect you to because there are so many hubs and threads you have commented on and so many times that the subject changes..
It is very unlikely that I would accuse someone of attacking my non-beliefs in religion as personal. That makes no sense.
I would if I thought it was so important to prove you wrong that I would be willing to dig back through hundreds of pages of forum pages to go back to when I first started and if I wanted to go through the hundreds of forums and questions. But alas, my doing so will not make a big difference in the world overall and would only continue a pointless discussion which would only prove to reinforce opinions.
Then, point them out in the future. I will most definitely acknowledge them.
So, ATM's assessment and opinion of others is not an insult, but a description, but someone else's assessment and opinion of ATM is not a description, but an insult... Got it
Are you saying that we can't criticize others opinions? We should take there word that they are telling the truth. Would you prefer him to say "that statement was not the truth and you know it"? I prefer to dance around the words a bit myself, but ATM is a sock puppet and likes to cause mayhem. He has no hubs at all so we can make the assumption that he is someone else among us.
No I'm not saying that at all. But it is unfair of you to accuse someone of attacking you if they are criticizing your opinion when you do the same to others. As I've stated before though, I don't take any of this stuff personally (anymore).. I was just presenting a case for others that may feel attacked while ATM denies any attacks. I pulled definitions and attempted to explain how his words could be taken as an attack by others.
First you said I swore at him, now you say I "start it" with him. I never swore at him, and for some reason you don't seem to notice *he starts it with every one. What I believe I said was that I feel defensive when I see him... maybe that's b/c he has made himself the offense.
Beth you provided a link showing how abusive he was. He was explaining to you what submission means when you said
"You're wrong as usual... also, you're a...
Never mind, I don't want to be banned from HP's b/c of you.
Don't you have ppl in real life to spew your hateful, ignorant views on?"
ATM said "So, because I don't agree with your ridiculous religious beliefs, you need to toss out personal insults? Terrible behavior.
If I'm wrong, you need to show that. Of course, you can't."
Your response:
[i]"You on the other hand have a closed mind and a dark heart. Your name fits you aptly. I'm through listening to your garbage. You have no respect for anyone and you're full of hate. Deal with the truth."[/i}
So in this particular discussion he call your BELIEFS ridiculous and you call him a... a closed mind and a dark heart. You then them him he a troubled man and tell him he/she has no respect for anyone and he's full of HATE.
I have not doubt you're a great, kind gentle person, but in the example you gave he said nothing about your charter, while you said plenty about his.
Your smarter than me, mostly likely taller and better looking and from what you've told me skinnier than my dyslexic short bald 20lbs overweight self, but I'm right and your wrong.
- Beth37posted 12 years ago0
"This is a man on a mission
The problem I have is that he chooses not to use it and share it in a constructive, useful way.
He's divisive and intolerant.
instead chooses to be combative and disrespectful of the views of others
It's not a God thing or a Catholic or Baptist or Jewish or Muslim thing, it is a human thing."
Couldn't agree more. I came into this WAY late and there is so much to read in this discussion that it would take me probably forever and a couple of days to go through it all. With that being said, I would like to add my few cents;
I am not going to try and claim to be smart enough, or knowledgeable enough in scripture to get a non believer to believe as I believe. Instead, I will simply let my walk be my talk. I will live my life the way I feel that I should and hope that my behavior will positive influence someone.
Now, that does not mean that I am to be considered a "model" Christian. Far from it. If you want to model on how to be a Christian from me, you're screwed. I am a Christian in the most basic definition; I believe in God and that he sent his son Jesus Christ to die for my sins.
After that, I am at a loss about SO much! Why do things happen the way they happen? Does God take a major, active role in my life, or does he watch and act as a muse to get me into the direction he wants me to go? If my actions are what cause him to take such an active role in my life, why bother giving me free will? No, I simply look at it like this; I believe (s)He is there, and are the One true God. I believe the Earth is much older than we believe it to be. I believe that the "7 days" it took to create the world is not "Days" as we know them to be. Honestly, an all powerful, immortal being will not hold the same concept of time as we do. No one can tell me differently.
My only issue with some atheists (I said some, not all) is that there is this cruel disdain for anyone that doesn't believe as they do. Isn't that conducting in the same manner of the judgmental Christians?
Now those Christians aren't getting a free pass. I hate Christians that like to shake that finger like its dipped in gold and judge people. Unless you are God or Christ, NO ONE has the right to judge ANYONE. You believe what you believe, and I will believe what I believe. I will co exist with you because we all have great ideas and we all have a place. I will hate no person due to religious belief or idea. If I am going to have anger towards someone, its going to be personal. You have wronged me in some way.
I hope I wasn't offensive.I think this is a very reasonable and honest statement.
Well, you did contradict yourself, there. And, you said atheists have cruel disdain, yet it is your religion that has shown itself over the centuries to be cruel and disdainful towards others who don't share your beliefs.
Do atheists threaten people with Hell if they don't accept atheism? Christianity does.I'm sorry, did you purposefully miss where I almost made comments with my issues of Christians as well so that you can make a point of what I said about atheists? I also did not make a blanket statement by saying 'all' I said some. I have not purposefully threatened anyone with Hell for not believing as I do. I am not speaking as a representative of ANYTHING, I am speaking as just myself.
That one guy on youtube is a physicist who was explaining the 'boundaries of the knowable' based on modern understanding and logic. What he's talking about is the general consensus. I asked you before to provide an example of a physicist who claims differently, who supports what you said, and in attempting to do so you referred me to an article that even further supported the same thing I'd been saying the whole time. I'm not even sure why you're arguing this. I get the impression you understand well enough, so why you're not getting this is a bit baffling to me.
I'm only referring to how the bible describes God. All that other stuff about me seeing or talking to God is your own interjections and are a pointless waste of time.
I know. Which is why your whole concept of God renders you incapable of understanding.That is not true, it is not a general consensus. Stop lying.
I am fully aware of how the bible describes God, and your descriptions go well beyond the bible.
If you can't even acknowledge the simplest of things, then we have no grounds for discussion. Just throwing accusations around is a waste of everybody's time. If you want to call me a liar, back it up with substance. You know, facts, evidence. Those things you claim to hold in high regard, yet never seem to use.
As for God, your previous comments make it clear that you are not at all aware of how the bible describes God. For example, your statement earlier ... "however the probability of a creator is so infinitesimally small based on what we know and the fact that so many physical laws of nature need to be violated or scrapped entirely based on that probability" ... makes that clear. The very first line of the bible addresses this. If you don't get that then you don't get physics.The grounds are based on honesty, which you have yet to show.
That has got to be one of the silliest things you've said thus far.Maybe you really don't get it. Maybe I've been giving you too much credit. My mistake.
To be fair, not everyone believes as you do pertaining to God and the fact is everything we know of has a beginning and an ending except for the God as described in the bible. Now I understand how you make that work (outside space-time), but you have no evidence for that and even the bible says he is with us or once walked with humans which is in our space-time. So to be fair you description is not common knowledge at all. We have no facts or even a consensus regarding God. The mormons think that if they do certain things here on earth they will become a God (just as God) in heaven. Sounds like wishful thinking to me, but so does the entire concept of heaven (to me). There is no reason to think what the mormons think is any different in it's nature then what you think. They believe just as you believe as do the Muslims and the creationist and the IDers. Imagine you having a conversation with a Mormon and this person tells he will be as God is in the after life. Would you say, nonsense?
I get what you're saying, but I'm afraid you're misunderstanding me. I'm not interjecting my beliefs here. I'm simply combining our knowledge of the physical universe with how the God of the bible is described to show how it all fits together. That is all. You're right, there are portions of the bible that describe God as anthropomorphic and walking among us. But when it's specifically addressed, like in Psalms 139, it explains that He physically sits on His thrown in heaven, and when He's 'here', when specified, it says it's His 'spirit'. I know it can be a difficult concept to grasp, but how God's described is consistent throughout, and is consistent with our modern grasp of the physical world. More so than ever before.
But you most certainly are interjecting your beliefs here. The moment you talk about God your interjecting your personal beliefs. It's your belief that the God of the bible exists, it's not mine. So to ATM it's all nonsense (I don't mean to put words in his mouth). The IDers are equally convinced they are right. Dinosaurs walking the earth with humans a few hundred years ago in complete nonsense right? What I'm trying to say is don't take it personal. When we or anyone says your beliefs are nonsense, it's just their opinion of your beliefs. I have respect for you, but I think your belief in God is nonsense. That's not an attack to you personally.
I get that. But what you don't seem to get is that your assertion that it's nonsense is just as unfounded as my assertions of God. So your insistence that I'm interjecting my beliefs is just as stifling to the discussion as if I were to dismiss science by just saying 'God did it'. Do you see what I mean? God still works by our modern view. In fact, if allowed to discuss and look at it, He fits how we understand things now better than when it was written. So why not look in that light? Especially in a forum called 'reasons to believe'. As soon as anyone tries to put a stop to the discussion because they view this or that as 'nonsense', when that view has not been objectively proven to be nonsense, then that means you're trying to put limitations on the discussion based on mere opinion.
I understand and agree it's open for discussion, that's why we are here. I understand you feel and believe there is still room for God. You may be right or I may be right. But your assertion to many is no different than that of the Mormons to many, so you will get the odd "nonsense". When I read ATM's posts I don't see aggression at all, I see honesty without the sugar coating.
If you can concede that the universe could be here without God (understanding the physics) why not just remove the God from the equation?This is the discussion I've been trying to have. This is what led us to the natural laws and how exact they are and how they have to be the values they are for us to be here. Without God you have to consider a whole host of options, which there are scores of experts out there much smarter than I am doing just that. So what do I hope to contribute on that front? I instead am simply trying to help people who don't believe in God understand how those of us who do, and who simultaneously hold a healthy respect for science, see it. I want non-believers to understand that belief in God does not automatically equate to trashing science. There are some believers who do, but they don't speak for all of us. There are scholars and physicists and biologists who also believe in God. Discussions in these forums have made it clear that the average non-believer does not get how one can believe in God and respect science. I'm simply trying to help you understand.
Everyone can and does acknowledge that their are people in the sciences that believe in God. I understand everything you say, but I don't always agree. For example, Beth thinks wives should submit to the will and authority of the husbands, while I understand I don't agree. Mine would blacken my eye if I made that request and if she did submit to my authority she would be miserable and I don't want her my eyes blackened or her miserable.
Remember, the fish in the pond would think that particular pond was made just for them.lol I doubt Im that different than your wife, but I understand why you would think so.
HAHA... you and me both, brother. I love my wife to death, but she is a force of nature that cannot be contained by no mortal man. Even attempting to do so would either destroy me or destroy her spirit. I like her all wild just as she is.
I have an answer to this question.. Well two actually... Even if we can agree that we can get along without God st this point it still would not specifically negate the existence of God. It would only redirect that focus from God to what actually should get the focus. This is actually an idea that I have gathered from what I've read and understood of the bible..
Now of course, indoctrination would dictate that some people would refuse to even want to remove God from the equation.. For some believers God is the equationWell, it's not that we can get along without God, it's more directly that if someone can understand how the universe can be here without God making the universe then why not delete God from Creation? For example if we can understand a car be manufactured without people, why employ people?
because at some point people need to be employed in case the machines go down. The machines also must be programmed to do the work of the person it is replacing before the manufacturer can walk away..
What I'm saying is if you had the machines to do the labour, why have expensive fallible people doing the labour? The work gets done cheaper and better. It's not the best example, but if we understand that the universe can happen without God, why include God?
Because even though there is the programming that allows for independent actions, the manufacturer is still thew name on the model being built.. For instance, You don't credit the machine that installs the steering wheel on a car. It is only part of a whole collective. The manufacturer of that car has the name recognition. That's why we have a Ford taurus, not a Ford batteryinstaller1582630 (or whatever the machine that buillt it is called). Make sense? This isn't the best analogy in general, but since you mentioned it we're going to run with it...LOL
Which still assumes a creation, the universe can occur without any act from any god so why would be add his existence in, in my opinion God was a creation of mankind to explain what we did not understand, but the questions he answered we now have real answers for making his inclusion in this universe and unfounded assumption not rooted in a rational thought process.
Hey.. I didn't use the analogy.. Rad did...LOL.. But you make great points. THere are now things that we can point to, But, that still doesn't erase the possibility of there being a creator.
No it doesn't but it reinforces that point, we can explain the universe without a creator so why would we assume there was one, I understand keeping an open mind about it but not jumping to the assumption.
But all the people are no longer being employed and the car still gets built. If you can understand the universe being here without God, you can cut God out and have a simpler more efficient explanation.
true, the car still gets built, but the manufacturer still gets the credit whether he is involved directly or not.
I applaud what your attempting to do here as well as how it seems to make sense to you, however, I'm not sure if it is word choice, or the total concept itself, but it is missing the mark, especially without evidence to back it up or without it being able to be tested. The issue is not that it makes you wrong or dishonest, just that until your combination is able to be tested and proven, it must remain as it is which is an opinion.
I appreciate that Deepes, and I understand and agree with what you're saying. The thing is, I do have evidence. I can show you in detail where the events of early Genesis actually happened in history and how the impact of the events described can still be seen today. You may not have been involved in the discussion long enough to know about all of that, but Rad Man, ATM, and JMcFarland have all heard about it ad nauseum. I've tried that approach too. Doesn't matter. Out of everyone here, Rad Man's the only one who's ever really tried to poke at it. ATM can't be bothered, and JMcFarland would rather I first have it reviewed by someone reputable before she invests any more time in it. Meanwhile, the same old dead horse continues to get beat.
That its not even remotely true, and you KNOW it.
I'm sorry if I have misrepresented you. Is that not what you said? You told me that initially you had discussed it with some acquaintances who you considered knowledgeable and reputable, but did not feel right speaking for them. You then told me you have a full time job and don't have adequate time to focus on it, and that I should submit it to be peer-reviewed as you would then at that time give it another look. Am I wrong? I'm really trying to speak honestly about it, so if I misspoke, it was not deliberate.
In this forum, you would be correct. This is not the only forum that we discussed this topic in, however, and we spoke a little more at length there (this was months ago, and I can't remember where) until I got frustrated because we were just going around in circles and every time I told you that I disagreed with you and why, you told me that I just didn't understand and reiterated the same point (that I understood the first time) all over again.
I remember what you're referring to, vaguely. We've had a few back and forths. The whole thing about the facebook post and life having no point was one, but didn't delve into this. Then there's the one about how atheism requires belief that existence is possible as is without a God, which you staunchly disagreed with, but wasn't on this topic. The only one I can think of is when we got in this back and forth about slavery in that specific age. But we never got into the facts of the case, we just kept arguing about that particular age of history and whether or not God condoned slavery (your view) or God was simply working within the confines of a dynamic already established by people of their own free will (my view).
The actual facts of the case have to do with the timeline given in Genesis matching up with the Ubaid culture (pre-flood Genesis), the Uruk culture (post-flood Genesis), the flood that ended the Ubaid culture in the Sumerian city of Ur (part of the Ubaid culture), the city that both Genesis and the Sumerians say was built not long after the flood, that really was (Uruk), and the 5.9 kiloyear event and how it associates with how Babel's described. Then you've got the behavioral changes that originated here and spread throughout the world since and how those changes directly tie to how Genesis describes Adam and Eve after eating the forbidden fruit. These are things we have never gotten into. Usually what happens, and not just with you, is we end up getting stuck on something that isn't so much fact-based, but more on an existential basis. Most times the conversation can never be kept on course long enough to really get into it.
I tried to dig through our activity history to refresh my memory, but couldn't find that specific discussion that went all into the slavery thing. I believe that's the one you're referring to.
I did read your post earlier in the forum. As interesting as it was to me, I wasn't completely able to follow it.. especially since I apparently missed the evidence in the statement itself. Even if you can match the dates in history to coincide with events in the bible, there is no specific linking evidence that binds the two together. I think JM wanting you to submit it isn't unreasonable. JM actually is interested to see if it can pass the peer review process scientifically. You may be on the verge of a major breakthrough that can actually provide more answers.. Why not submit it? ATM is ATM. You can only take that as you see fit to take it.
There's enough to tie the two together. One marker that can be used is the specifically named Sumerian city of Uruk, which both Genesis and the Sumerians say was built not long after the flood, which has been found and dated to have been established around the 4000 to 3800 BC timeframe. But the bigger overall picture reveals the real link ...
- Genesis is set in Mesopotamia (between the Tigris and Euphrates)
- Ubaid culture existed in that same region
- According to Genesis, roughly 1500 years passed between Cain's banishment and the flood
- The Ubaid culture lasted roughly 1500 years and came to an 'abrupt end'
- Genesis says Cain built a city during this time
- The first human city-state, Eridu, was built during the Ubaid period around 5300 BC
- The inventions attributed to Cain's descendants in Gen4 actually did first appear in this same time and region
- There was evidence of a flood that literally ended the Ubaid culture in the region of Ur about 4000 BC
- A climatological event known as the 5.9 kiloyear event really did scatter the people of that region about 3900 BC, which ties right in with the timeline.
- The oldest known tower is located in Eridu.
- By the time Abraham shows up roughly 1800 years after Adam, both Sumer and Egypt were in full effect, which also lines up with this timeline.
Then there's the transition from 'matrist' to 'patrist' cultures that started there and spread across the world over the centuries to follow. The main detectors of whether a culture is 'matrist' or 'patrist' being behaviors, and the behavioral differences being much like what's described as what happened to Adam/Eve after eating the fruit.
Just there you have a handful of events backed up by the archaeological record that fall right in line with events depicted in the bible, in the same place as the bible is set, and matching up on a timeline point by point over the course of 1500+ years. And that's without getting into the correlation between how the Sumerians described what was going on at that time and what Genesis says.
There's plenty to tie the two together.
The quickest way a religious person turns atheist is by actually learning about their religions with an open mind.
The quickest way an Atheist turns into a believer is to seek God. When we seek Him, He reveals Himself.
How does he reveal himself? A miracle or something to that effect? I understand why people have faith, I really do... I grew up in a very religous family. The thing is, god can co-exist with science if you CHOOSE to let it.
If you were to truly read how most religons started and what the belief is based on, you might be a bit more skeptical, but putting that aside, I still get it, why not? How else did all of this magical stuff happen to where we live?
There are many answers and also many questions, this is why no one person can explain it, WE DON'T KNOW! But science has kept uncovering so many things that over time, even die hard religous believers have to question, is ONE faith right? How is it possible that only ONE faith is correct? Each faith has it's own set of beliefs so now what?Interesting thought. How do you propose that God is able to coexist with science?
How much have you studied Eastern religions/schools of thought? You'll find that many of their principles/ideas/philosophies line up quite well with the sciences/behavioral sciences (much more fluidly than the major Western religions).
An inner, slightly mystical part of me thinks that the Universe is Divine in an impersonal way, but that's as much as I'll give in to an idea I cannot prove. I only call fact that which is fact, and this certainly isn't fact, but it is a personal idea that I like to entertain every now and again.There is no conflict. Science observes what God did and tries to figure it out.
except there's no evidence that god, in fact, did it - just assertions.
I don't know. Just because I don't know, however, does not mean that "goddun it"
Not knowing something is not an excuse to posit a god in the unknown. Greek mythology did that. roman mythology did it. Hundreds of pagan beliefs did it. Everything that was unknown or undetermined became a god. God is not synonymous with "everything we don't know quite yet".Deleted
I see you are still kickin'... and with a 7 rating too... not bad.
My point was, if you say that lack of evidence clearly proves the lack of a Creator... then with all the scientific proof that is claimed as absolute evidence, surely you can tell me where the atom came from.
that's not at all what I said. Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. there is no proof that the atom only exists because of a god - and even LESS invisible evidence that points to a specific god. I don't know where the atom came from, but I have no need to make up stories that I WANT to be true in order to compensate for my own ignorance. I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be. Ask one of them.
So if you had an explanation, should I assume that you had made up a story with an additional motive of *wanting it to be true? Or should I assume you had come to a conclusion based on a theory I had not?
there is a very big difference between a theory, a hypothesis and a fact.
Face it, brother, you are confused.You may have gone to school and done missionary work, or even preached the Gospel, but you have never been to Calvary. Don't tell me its not real. You know better.
JMcFarlan is a sister? My apologies. That happened to me just the other day when I commented about what a cute little girl the baby was.
It's an easy mistake online. However, do not ask a woman if she's pregnant in real life if you're not 100% sure. That one never ends well.
Don't you dare to presume what my experiences were when I was in the faith, and don't you dare tell me what I do or don't know. You know nothing about me. I know that, apart from the gospels, there is little evidence to show that jesus christ ever existed. I know that the early church was notorious for destroying records and forging them to make their case. I know that for centuries the church thrived on the ignorance of the common people and dictated laws that furthered their own purposes - not the purposes of god. I know that there are more errors in the new testament documents than there are WORDS in the new testament. I know that christianity quote mined the old testament in a desperate bid for "fulfilled prophecies" but that the jews have a completely DIFFERENT set of prophecies pertaining to their own Messiah. I know a lot of things - but you'd rather not ask me what i know and focus instead on making blind accusations, assumptions and ridiculous judgments about a complete stranger. Does that make you feel better?
I understand why you would be offended by that. I hope you don't feel Im being unkind, I am just trying to rise to the challenge you've set.
You weren't the one that made the statement, or the person that I responded to with that comment.
I understand what you're doing, but you can't get from 'where did atoms come from" to god - let alone a specific god - without jumping through massive gaps.I did not seek out the answer to that question before I came to know God... it went the other way around. Much simpler.
so you started with the presumption that a god existed, and then went backwards and assumed that atoms existed solely because of his influence.
Isn't that backwards? Why would you believe in something before you had proof that it was true?
let's put this in another way.
If i put for the hypothesis that invisible leprechauns are stealing my laundry, and then look for evidence that supports it, anything I find will likely strengthen my hypothesis because i want to believe it. That's not how science or knowledge works. Science works by putting forth a hypothesis - and then trying to disprove it. It doesn't start with what you WANT to be true and then look for ways to prove itself right. That's backwards.Invisible leprechauns... man that's a scary thought. Thanks for that.
Well here's the thing JM, you don't believe in God, you say, and you have no theory whatsoever of how the atom came into existence, yet you expect that at the age of 3, when I talked to God and was forming a relationship with Him, I was going to come up with a theory for the atom?again, I'm not a scientist. When it comes to my favorite topics, the atom is not among them. I'm not really as interested in what CAUSED the origins of life, but until someone can prove definitively that a) a creator was necessary to "create" life and b) that creator was not only a creator but a SPECIFIC creator that turned into your own version of god, it's not something that really interests me.\
Aside from that, I don't make theories about things that I'm ignorant about. that's not my place and I'm not qualified to theorize about where atoms come from when I'm neither a particle physicist or a microbiologist.
The topic of this forum is "reasons to believe". I get what you're trying to do with the atom - but it's irrelevant. You just admitted that the atom and what may or may not have caused it is NOT what caused you to believe in a god. That's not the reason that you believe.Absolutely the atom is not the reason I believe, but it is the most basic unit of "everything". (If you don't want to look even deeper and see what they have now found inside the atom.) If I didn't have an answer for *that, I would definitely want to know that. It would be one of my first questions if I didn't believe in God. "Where the hell did the atom come from?" is what I would be thinking.
I'm not insecure about things that I don't know - and i don't need to make up reasons to explain them. If I had the time to go back to college to study particle physics and biology, I would do it in a heartbeat - but in the meantime, I don't just throw my hands up in the air and say "I don't know something, so therefore god"
But how funny that *you are actually the one who keeps jumping. Do you not see that you are left with blanks that you have no answers for, yet you think I am the one who is living a fantasy. See, Im not doing it backwards... I already believe in God, I can't change that to help you understand. I have written some of my experiences with God in my hubs... they are too many to try and relate here. If you truly are interested, you could read them.
I'm not jumping at all. I'm saying that if I don't know something, I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know it. I don't make up an answer that sounds good that I want to be true and then claim that it is absolute proof - without any evidence for it whatsoever.
But to you, you imagine that I have "made up" an answer for the things I don't know. What I am telling you is I have had a relationship with God from the time I was speaking. You would call me a liar or delusional I suppose, but it's nothing but fact for me. I never had to jump to a belief in my life. The answers were always in the Bible. I can't apologize for that any more than you can apologize for coming from the family you came from. It's simply your history.
so you were taught from the time before you could speak that a god was real - and not just a god but the christian version of god. That's indoctrination. you did not come to that belief - you were taught it. Just like a Muslim child is taught that Allah is real. Just like a hindu child is taught that the hindu gods are real. Just like the greek and roman children were taught about Zeus and Posiden. You were raised and taught to have that specific belief - and if you were born elsewhere, you'd probably have a different belief in a different god because of how you were raised.
Were you taught as I was taught JM or did you come to your belief in God later in life?
I was taught as you were taught and never questioned it - until I realized where the bible came from, how it came into being, the historical evidence (or the lack thereof) for the stories depicted in it and the fact that nothing in christianity is unique from hundreds if not thousands of other religions that predated it. Add to the fact that certain claims the bible makes are blatantly untrue in the face of scientific understanding and reality and the horrible nature of the god depicted in it as well as its blatant immorality - and I couldn't believe in it any more. It became completely ridiculous to me to put all of my "faith" not proof in a story - when every other religion in the world makes the same claim, has just as much proof for it and not even all christians can agree and I can't accept it. I learned to think critically and examine the claims on their own standing.
Yes, thinking critically is good. Much like many religions seem to have a similar story, you share the same story that most all of my Atheist friends have.
Are you able to point out the flaws in all of the other religions and make determinations as to why they can't be true? Are you able to critically examine the stories of personal experience that muslims or jews or hindus have? Have you ever turned that ability on your own religion?
Each and every religion? Right now? Probably not to your satisfaction, I would imagine. I have however studied quite a few religions and they have come up short. I do think critically and apply that to my own faith, however... once again... my faith would not satisfy you, I would imagine... but then you are most likely not interested in what satisfies me or you might actually read some of my hubs. See, it is my assertion that you are not truly interested in what conclusions I have come to, or how I have arrived at them, you are only driven to prove what I believe false. Do you wonder why you are motivated to do so? What drives you?
I have.. It was actually easy and fun to do.. That's why I am able to say that I could be wrong in my belief, especially the only thing I can offer to you is not sufficient enough to qualify as proof. But I already explained some of my belief system
Of course not.. You believe in your invisible purple dragon, remmeber??
(**Note to Beth- this is an inside joke, not an absolute)I see. I would hate to think she was dealing with both invisible purple dragons *and leprechauns...
my invisible purple dragon poops leprechauns. It must be a miracle.
Don't count fluffy out.. fluffy can do wonderous things
Let me ask you this JM, why does sex feel so good?
I mean... sure sex helps us to continue the human race right?
But if there is no creator... isn't it strange that the one thing we have to do to keep mankind alive, feels awesome? I mean, if there is a creator, it makes sense. We would need a motive... we would need incentive to do what, without the orgasm, is essentially exercise right? But without a creator, how did sex just happen to come with its own incentive? Are we all just incredibly lucky?lol sex only feels good for a very small minority of the mammal population. for a lot of animals its incredibly painful and unpleasant. Does that mean that your god wants that species to die out?
I will ask Him when I see Him, however it's odd that anyone would know how sex feels for each species. I would imagine that if man were to have sex with specific animals, it would be very painful. How they came to that conclusion would be an interesting hub for sure.
Have you ever seen a nature program? Male cats (both large and small) bite the necks of the female to keep them in place - and the male sex organ has barbs that allow it to stay in place until sperm is ejaculated. That's why female lions growl and roar when they're mating. It's not a pleasant experience. There are only a handful of species on the planet (among which are humans and dolphins) that have sex for pleasure.
That sounds more like rape. Ive never liked cats... I didn't think I could dislike them more. I was wrong.
but that's proof for god, right? Because sex feels so good, and it's necessary for procreation?
Except that it doesn't - for more than a handful of species on an entire planet.I don't know why the male cat has barbs on his penis. lol... I spose if you have ever met a cat, that is what it would take to get it to bend to your will.
Yes, I still profess that it would be (in a word) miraculous if sex felt good and there were no creator.Hello Julie. You have hit on something that fascinates me. If there is not intelligence behind creation, where did the order and instructions come from? Case in point...all these creatures who have sex even though it is unpleasant. They have no savings accounts, 401ks, life insurance...yet they must have either a programmed need to reproduce and endure pain to do so, or they have a concern for the future of their offspring and species. Either way, where did that come from? Why do they care? If you go back to presumed earlier life forms with minimal or even no perceivable intelligence, they too needed a way and reason to procreate. If that is designed or programmed, where does it come from? It smacks of concern for the future...one they were not aware of and could not comprehend. What intelligence drove that? When I have brought this up with others they say "Nature", but in so doing they give intelligent, contemplative abilities to this thing called nature, as well as empowering it to affect and direct evolution, thereby basically making it a god.
all life from the lowliest virus to human beings has the need and desire to reproduce. otherwise the species would die out. It doesn't mean some kind of higher power inclined them to do it - it's just what they do.
Just to point this out, viruses aren't life-forms. They're just protein. Evil zombie protein that feasts on your delicious amino acids.
They have a need and it's just what they do? Why? If they are not even cognoscente of the future, why would they care? How does this need, and method even begin? Wouldn't the first living thing be lucky to survive? It can't worry about sex, it has to find something nearby that evolved at the same time out of millions of years to eat. Even if it did want sex, now it must find something that also evolved at the same time to have sex with. In the event you say it reproduced by itself, the question still is why? Why does it want to waste energy it needs to survive to reproduce? How does it benefit from this initially, and if it has long term interests were does that come from? How can anyone deny a plan behind it all? And this is all skipping past everything that must be necessary to even get to this point where we have an organism to reproduce, let alone how it came to be alive. All this "it just is" seems like a much bigger reach and assumption than determining an intelligence had to be behind it all. In fact, that to me and many, many others, seems obvious. So to us, we have simply taken what seems obvious and called Him God. Getting to know who that is, and "which" God is not the point at this particular juncture, first one has to realize there must be an intelligence behind it all...a God. Logic dictates there must be one. So where did He come from? Ah, now it is my turn to say, "it just is," but at least we now have a source of the reason, rational and design we see all around us, which makes sense. Science has no better hypothesis or theory.
Why does a salt crystal grow? Should it break in half (falling rock, maybe) why do both halves grow? Why should there be two, both using resources to grow, when there is really only one.
Again...SETI looks for organized pings from space so they can claim intelligent life has been found in the universe...but then says DNA required no intelligence. Seriously? Just think about that for a minute and tell me if you can say yes that pings from space mean intelligence but DNA required none, with a straight face.
Is it your claim that any life on other planets need to be DNA based? If so, what is your evidence? Because it is on one planet?
Not sure how you got there. I am just concerning myself with this planet. SETI, on the other hand, is looking for proof of life from outer space. All I was saying is how ridiculous it is to be willing to assign intelligence as the cause of a pattern of signals or sounds from space, yet dismiss DNA, which is still complex beyond anything we have done or can comprehend, as not requiring intelligence for it's design. It is like realizing that your full name spelled out in your driveway with rocks was put there by intelligence, but your car happened by chance...(only that on steroids).
Gotcha - sorry, wrong interpretation.
Be careful there - we do understand DNA. We have not completely mapped what each molecule does for each string, but that's a mechanical consideration requiring nothing but time to solve.
Nor can you truly say that we haven't created it: I did see one report where a bacteria (I think) DNA was removed from the body, killed, cut into parts and rebuilt from chemicals on the shelf. Whereupon it came to "life" and reproduced. Getting pretty darned close to making one ourselves.
Comparing a car to a living organism is a false analogy, one based on the mistaken assumption that evolution happens totally by chance. It doesn't. There are extremely strong forces enforcing the "rules" by which nature evolves.What is the name of the author of your "rules" and source of your "forces". That is at least one of your gods. Sorry about the mechanical analogy, (didn't expect to be called on it), so if it makes you feel better replace car with dog.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
How can an author that does not exist have a name? Or are you asking for a made up name for a fictional character like Sherlock Holmes?
I suppose the source of the forces of evolution could be considered to be all of the ever changing environment of the organism. A cop out, to be sure, as that would include every bit of energy or matter in the universe as well as all the laws that it works in, but in general and most of the time only local items really matter very much.
I only mentioned SETI for the clear hypocrisy I have described a couple of times now. Scientist thinking pings from space mean intelligence but the complexity of creation does not.
There are indeed patterns in most "pings" received from space. So you work hard to eliminate those that can happen from unintelligent sources such as a star.
It would be difficult, for instance, to imagine an instance where a star would produce pings that correspond with the digits of pi to several significant decimals.http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … ent_design
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … complexity
dogmadebate.com - tab to evolution
http://www.spreaker.com/user/smalleyand … _explained
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
By the way - directed specifically to Headly - if you want to get the opinion of an anthropologist/biologist, feel free to contact her directly - she's open to emails. In fact, you could email anyone at dogmadebate, but you could specifically reach out to Rachel. She's a very nice, very smart girl who actually works in one of the fields you're examining: Rachel Brown: rachel@dogmadebate.com
I have not studied or researched rock crystals, but if I did I am sure as with all the rest of creation, I would be in awe of the design.
The beauty of a crystal can be wonderful. It is, however, simply because of the geometry of molecular bonds, noting more. No god needed - just the big bang, where all the forces of nature came into being.
Before you now claim that god had to design it to be that way, consider that the angle of the bond in a salt crystal would be different with different laws, but could still be there and perhaps even more beautiful.Can't you hear yourself? Laws that guide the complexity of all we know didn't require intelligence? Just an imagined explosion would do to bring about this delicate existence. We claim nature is delicate and we must care for it, yet who struck this careful balance? Chance? Geometry and molecular bonds...are not designed? How petty and foolish are we and our accomplishments when such grander things can be the product of chance? Perhaps your god then, responsible for orchestrating all the forces of nature, is the big bang, or nature itself. Something has to get credit for the planning and implementation.
No, we don't claim that nature is delicate, you do. This poor planet has seen violence unbelievable to us, from climate changes covering the globe in ice to volcanoes causing nuclear winter to a single asteroid that wiped out nearly all life.
Yet it survives. Changed, to be sure, but it survives and so did life. Just as difference in natural laws would produce a different universe. We have what we have because of the laws, not the other way around. It is anthropomorphic in the extreme to think that the laws of nature were "designed" just to produce the earth as it is today and the puny human species residing there.So the laws have no author? By the way, I don't think nature is delicate. Sorry for the assumption you did. Usually works with the environmentalists, but that isn't you. So I say, in the beginning "God" and you say in the beginning "Laws". Or "big bang" creating "laws." To me, if these laws are responsible for the existence we see, it sounds like they are your gods. Either way, something has and is directing all this. It seems amazing to me that you think anything putting on this big of show, has no intelligence. Just a series of intricate, happy accidents, (millions if not billions of them), most if not all interdependent. IMHO, that requires much more faith than believing there is a creator. I just can't accept those odds.
Berean - do you think that a Latin speaking father and a Latin speaking mother in a Latin speaking country gave birth to an out of the womb Spanish speaking child one day, out of nowhere, randomly by "chance"? who would that child speak to? How would they communicate or survive? That's what you're claiming that evolution does, and it simply doesn't work that way.
All it takes are the laws (incompletely understood or known) and lots of energy.
The biggest problem I see is that you are looking at the "chance" of producing humanity. It's like walking onto a Virginia beach, picking up one grain of sand out of the countless trillions there and marveling at it's beauty and that it was right there instead of a beach in Japan. Deciding that it had to be god that put it there because it's there and the chance of wave and wind action washing it up there, after being deposited on the earth as silicon by a passing asteroid, after coming into existence from the heart of a star is small indeed.
In the grand scheme of the universe the lump of carbon named bBerean is far less significant (far less) than that grain of sand on the beach. You (and I! ) will disagree with that statement, but it's true nonetheless.It is easier to believe in a second universe and all the chance it took to create that one with it's own intelligent creature that then created this one than to believe in just one?
I don't quite follow that line of reasoning...
I'm sorry, but this entire post just screams ignorance at what evolution actually says and how it actually works.
Always your way out Julie. At least your consistent. You've answered none of my questions.
that's not my way out. I'm sorry that it seems that way - I really really am - but I've tried to discuss evolution with you, and all you say is "random chance doesn't explain ...." insert excuse here. Evolution is not necessarily random. I've tried to point you to sources. I've tried to give you research. I've tried to share podcasts with you that actually explain the process of evolution in incredible detail from an ACTUAL anthropologist/biologist. You're not interested. Until you've studied evolution, you can't just say "this thing evolved and something else magically evolved at the same time so the two things could breed - it can't be random, it must be god" just doesn't work. You don't WANT to examine evolution, and you don't want to look at any of the sources that I give you. You just want to continue your assertions about evolution without knowing anything about it. I get it, I really do. It's uncomfortable. That doesn't make it untrue. Evolution has been observed. It has been studied. It has been tested and retested and examined. It's been recreated in a lab. Evolution happens. Speciation happens. I'm sorry, I really do like you and i'm not trying to be rude, but it's a fact.
I have looked, you won't believe me because I don't agree with you. None of your sources have any answers for the questions I posed several pages ago about animation, sentience, etc. So yes, it does appear to be your way out. What you call "evolution" is just further testimony to the incredible design. Contrary to what the first book's title says, they have no idea on the actual "origin" of the species, and certainly not of life itself.
the questions you're asking are for specialists in the actual field, and I'm more than willing to admit that I'm not one. I've read tons on it, I've talked to scientists, I've seen the testing and I've heard the evidence. I don't care if you agree with it or not, but the information is out there. It's even on the talkorigins site I gave you last time, you just didn't look far enough for it.
I will look again, but already have and still have never seen any explanation for the origin of life, animation's beginning or the beginning of sentience. Nor have I seen any explanation of the obvious orchestration of all that we see. As I mentioned, I have to bow out for a bit, but will look at the links again to see if there is anything new from the last time.
Also strange that you claim to be an expert on the Bible and that you've done far less study on the thing you say you place your "faith" in. As I said, if I didn't have faith in God, I would want to know all I could about what I did claim to believe.
I never claimed to be an expert in anything, and I don't put any faith in science or evolution. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. I am studying it, but I don't know everything, nor do I claim to.
You seem to be saying you are somewhat of an expert here.
"I have a degree in biblical literature and theology. I don't know how much more you want me to study. i still read the bible daily (because its fascinating to study the psychology of religion, not because I think its true) in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. I can pull verses out of a hat just as well as any christian apologist."
However, you have made statements concerning what you think the Bible is stating that I would straight up disagree with as (I believe) would berean, which, if you do know your Bible... a Berean is a person who studies God's word avidly.Having a degree doesn't make you an expert. I can quote the bible. I can explain it. I can have a discussion about the foundation of the Canon. So what? You may not like what I pull out of it, but it's still in there. Doesn't make you right and me wrong just because you have a belief in it. You're the one that called me an expert, not me. Don't make this a straw man argument that has nothing to do with the actual conversation at hand.
That's a strange statement considering half of the ppl posting here don't believe in evolution.
Researching it, understanding it and being able to explain it correctly has nothing to do with believing in it.
So you're saying you believe in evolutionary theory without studying, researching or being able to fully understand it?
I have done some surface study. I've talked with biologists and spent time in the lab. I've read the papers, I've seen the documentation and the journals. I don't "believe" in evolutionary theory. It is the best answer we have for the continuation and change of present life and you can call it a theory all you want (while completely ignoring the scientific definition of the word) but it's a fact. Do you believe in gravity without studying it, researching it and knowing its inner workings?
That is the point entirely, they are ignorant of evolution.
Flip the coin. You are ignorant of God. You're just throwing mud again. Pointless.
Yes, I understand that when we face believers with reality, they complain we're throwing mud and then make the most ridiculous responses they can come up with, like we are ignorant of God. Hilarious.
That would be a personal insult. Funny, how others are not saying those things about you, yet you complain they are and then in the next post, turn around and hurl personal insults.
Terrible behavior, totally dishonest.hahaha... that's nuts.
Please note: I did not say *you were nuts, only what you are professing.
See how much I am learning from you?Wow, so insulting others is just a big joke for you.
lol Everything is a joke for me. That's my personality. And when Im being bullied the first thing I would do was go straight for the humor in the situation. I remember in the 8th gd. a girl said she was gonna beat me up in the parking lot after school. I began making jokes. I couldn't help it, it was natural. Everyone ended up laughing and the situation was diffused. (Now tell me to stay on topic.)
God to me isn't a joke. I take Him very seriously, however you don't really want to talk about God, you want to insult those who follow Him. So yes, I will most likely continue to make fun of the crazy things you say... cause you say a lot of them.No one is bullying you.
Your God IS a joke. That's the point. It has nothing to do with you, personally, so don't take it personally.
That is a lie. YOU are the one tossing out personal insults.Anyone who says that this is not personally insulting is either an idiot, or a liar. Of course, you know it is insulting. If you uttered this statement to a fellow employee, within earshot of a witness in an American business, you would be forced to use your "employee assistance program" benefits to cover your mandatory sensitivity training to avoid an immediate discharge.
No, it isn't, and if you had done your homework prior to posting that comment, you'd understand that.
And, how exactly is it a personal insult when it is not directed at anyone? Please explain.
Sorry, but if you actually read about religion in the workplace, the First Amendment and the severity of abuse required to employ them, you would understand it all has nothing to do with that statement. Nice try, though.Nice try to deflect the truth about existing law . . . it is hate speech as well.
The smiley face has no juice.You never explained how that is a personal insult and now you have added another fallacious claim of "hate speech"
Are you being hated if I call your god a joke? How does that work, exactly? Please explain.
No, he's correct. You could no more mock the gay lifestyle, or comment on a woman's breasts than you could mock a Christians beliefs or any other religion. You would be fired. However you mock everything about our belief here b/c you feel safe behind your fake id.
No, he is wrong, you might get fired for the reason that religion in the workplace provide for us, and the severity of abuse. Please try to do your homework before commenting.
If someone simply said to someone else, that their god was a joke, they most likely would not get fired, reprimanded, perhaps.
Religious beliefs deserve to be mocked and ridiculed, especially when they are held up as some kind of reality we all share, in stark contradiction to reality." Please try to do your homework before commenting."
Ditto.Pretty sure he's saying you should do your own homework.
Is that some kind of joke? I'm one of the few here who actually do.
hahahaha... again, time to self-assess. It's apparently been a while and in its absence you've managed to pretty significantly delude yourself.
That should be pretty clear, given the direct quote that I highlighted. You clearly have some homework to do given the flaws in your understanding that we established earlier, yet you seem disinterested in addressing. That's your own choice and you're allowed, but it becomes a problem when you continue to use that flawed understanding, yet demand others do their homework. I'm suggesting you do less commenting and more reading.
Hilairious, so you considering rounding up a youtube video as homework, but when I offer a peer-reviewed journal, you say it's flawed understanding.
That peer-reviewed journal you referred me to said the exact same thing, only in much more detail. I'm sorry if your flawed understanding renders you incapable of realizing that. And that guy on youtube you have no problem dismissing is an esteemed physicist who played an active role in some of our most recent breakthroughs in quantum physics at CERN. The video of him I used to support what I was saying being on youtube is irrelevant.
It didn't say the same thing at all (if were talking about the same one) It was written by a Christian who made the conclusion that the universe was not fine turned for us as you keep insisting.
I've never insisted the universe was fine tuned. The discussion ATM and I were having had to do with the natural laws. He said that if the values of the natural laws were different, there could still be galaxies and planets and life, they'd just be different. So I found a youtube video where a physicist explained how that would not be the case, stating the chance of planets with life existing would be "practically zero", to back up what I was saying. The article he then referred me to hypothesized how just changing the cosmological constant, leaving all other constants of the natural laws the same, how much of an impact it would have. Going one way would significantly reduce the ratio of matter that condensed into galaxies and life, and the other way would greatly increase the impact of gravity which would greatly reduce the chance of life. And that's with all other constants the same, only changing that one value, assuming that value could change independently of the others.
Yeah... Ill do more homework before I respond to:
"You're a liar, you're God is a joke, I'm not mocking you. How dare you take it personally, you big liar."Could you give an example to clarify this muddy statement? Better yet, rephrase it until it makes sense.
You can't tell someone their God is a delusion, but you can tell them they will burn in hell unless they change?
The Bible does teach that denying God has consequences. If a person summoned up the courage to say those awful words to you, I can only hope that they cared for you enough to share that.
Hear me out. If you knew a plane was going to crash and had parachutes for everyone on the plane, wouldn't it be a little Hitleresque not to offer one to everyone?
If you *truly believe in Heaven and Hell, you would be *vile not to tell ppl what you believe.
That being said... I'm sorry if you were hurt when someone said that to you. Truly I am.The point is they don't care about the other person's welfare, they only care about their own selfish needs of obeying their gods commands when they "share" it.
You are talking apples and oranges. There is no plane crash about to happen and you aren't handing out parachutes. You would be telling us we are going to hell if we don't accept your god. Huge difference.
Since, that is something that YOU "truly believe" then it is something you should keep to yourself.
But, you just attempted to make an argument in favor of sharing that?Why do you continue to focus on me personally? Isn't that exactly what you've been complaining about?
Oh, Im sorry, I thought you were talking to me.
I must have been confused by the way you highlight each of my sentences and tell me why I know nothing... but because I am a misinformed liar, I spose you are right.Exactly, we are pointing out your misinformed claims. It is the denying, rejecting and ignoring of the facts that inform, which are the issue. A few other believers here do not deny, reject or ignore facts, they accept them because they are facts, and that's why they're respected, because they are honest.
So, you don't want to hear about honesty and respect. I'm not at all surprised.
You have presented no facts to refute anyone's faith, only intolerant, myopic bigotry.
Should I use smaller words? Dumb it down? What?
If you knew a person was delusional wouldn't it be a little Hitleresque not to offer help. See, you think it's okay to threaten someone with eternal fire, but not okay to tell someone they are delusional?
I spose delusional isn't so awful. However, if the delusion proves to be false, what have I lost?
If there is a Hell, have I not gained by learning how to avoid it?
I haven't threatened you with Hell. You brought up the subject... you have several times. I was simply trying to tell you that maybe the person who mentioned it to you actually cared about you.And maybe the person trying rid you of a delusion actually cares?
And no the person telling people they are going to hell only cares for themselves and their ranking in heaven.
If you tell someone to do as you say or you will burn them, that a threat and a bully. I know you're not saying that, but you're back up the ones that do. Kind of the same thing.Which is pretty false really, if there is a hell it's almost certainly the hell of one of the hundreds of other faiths that have one and you are likely to end up in it for being an infidel. On the other hand many of those faiths do not condemn not believers.
I don't personally condemn non believers. The biblical teaching is that rejecting God condemns one to an eternal separation from Him.
Rejecting God? I don't reject what I can't see.
But what if the muslim or the mormons are right and you've reject their version of God?Ive studied Mormonism in depth. And though I know some of the Muslim teachings, I know less about them. I have not studied every religion, but I have read and experienced enough of God to believe I am on the right track. I do believe however that *all of us will be surprised when we stand before God when we finally understand all truth.
The Muslims and Jews are equally sure they are right as are the Mormons. Which book to chose?
They all can't be right can they? They all conflict with each other. They all say they are the last book, no need to look further. Well at least the bible and the Quran say that. If the bible is correct the other two are lies. If the Quran is correct then Christians can toss out their bible. The book of Mormon can't be right if the bible is right.
Actually the book of Morman, the Jews and Muslims all preach the same God... the God of the old testament. However, there are differences and I have read and heard many teachings that point me to Christ and away from these specific religions.
They are not the same God at all. The Jewish and Muslim God is not a Trinity. They don't think Jesus is God and have different thoughts about the holy spirit. The Muslims think Jesus was only a prophet, they also think the earth is egg shaped, but that's another matter.
I said they all preach the God of the old testament, however, yes, they split when it comes to Jesus.
He is the cornerstone that builders would reject.Christians and Muslims do not worship the God of the OT. If they did they'd be Jewish.
I don't know what to tell you Radman. They do. my email address is graftedjew b/c I am grafted into the vine which was God's chosen ppl, the Jews.
You see the Jews reject Jesus as the saviour as do the Muslims. Each have a different version of what God is. That's why they fight.
Yes, I am aware. We basically believe in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, but interestingly enough, it is when we get to Jesus that we cannot agree. Even with Mormons, who claim Jesus, end up believing that it is by their own works that they are saved and not thru the work of Jesus on the cross. All the prophesy about Jesus was true. It is on Him that the religions split. He is amazing.
He is amazing, but failed to convince his own people he was God. Those standing directly next to him (eye witnesses) didn't believe him, but you do. All the books are not telling the truth. At least three are lies and fabrications, if most are lies all could be lies.
Books of the Bible or the books that speak on God outside of the Bible?
Not all of His ppl rejected Him. "A prophet is not accepted in his own town."
The ppl who walked with him and saw him perform miracles had no doubts.
I believe on faith, the way you were not there to see Lincoln get shot, but you believe those who reported it from long ago.But what if Lincoln's death was not reported until 100 years after his death. What if nothing was ever reported about Lincoln until 100 years after his death. Would you trust it's accuracy? Would you trust it's accuracy if you were given four different accounts of his life 100 years after his death.
