Leave us alone.

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 114 discussions (693 posts)

68
aka-djposted 14 years ago
Having posted many times on matters pertaining to evolution and creation, many evolutionists can't help but rebut. In no uncertain terms at times. But just to play your game for a moment, and supposing you are right, I am simply a product of my "personal evolution". I have been shaped by my genes, and my society, through my generations (same as you). I have therefore got into a branch of evolutionary (sub)species that is classified "religious".
Does that make me (and others like me) vulnerable to other (sub)species, that are of the "atheistic evolutionary" branch? And if so, it demonstrates the "survival of the fittest" aspect of the theory, and one of us will survive and the other not (ultimatey). Or ar we yet another species targetted for extinction? Alternatively, just leave us alone! We can't help what evolution has made us.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Please read what I have written about evolution. Biological evolution has nothing to do with "personal evolution," or society, and religionism is not a sub-species that has been "targetted for extinction."
  
  Evolution didn't make you ignorant of biology - you did that yourself - free will?
  
  Tell you what though - you guys stop telling me there is an invisible magical super being in the sky with a set of rules. I will stop telling you it is rubbish. Deal?
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And then hubpages traffic would drop 50% ...
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was thinking of charging........
  reply report
  75
  AEvansposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I believe in that invisible magical super being, spaghetti monster, by the way Mark you forgot to add the Meatballs!!! Big {Hugs}
  reply report
  60
  dcmerkleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hey! That would have to be organic meatballs!
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Quick reality check for you: The "invisible magical super being in the sky with a set of rules" is this any different from "the law of gravity"? It's invisible and it operates according to specific rules.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Quick reality check for you.
  
  Yes - it is completely different. The Flying Spaghetti monster may be invisible, but you claim He is not the creator if the Universe.
  
  By your reasoning, anything that is invisible must exist, so why do you deny that FSM created the Universe?
  
  You are a selective atheist and therefore a hypocrite. As are all believers.
  
  And LOL - Once again - another one here with a user name that sounds very like "Money Changers" arguing for a god with a set of rules.
  
  Wonderful irony. Thank you.
  reply report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'll put my stamp on aka-dj's post concerning "Leave us alone".
  
  Mark you say "religionism is not a sub-species that has been "targetted for extinction." But some of your posts that claim you can't wait until religion is put out of existence sure rings of genocide. Is this a communist plot? You are coming to the Religion forums on your own accord so expect to continue to see posts about religion, God, the Bible and Jesus Christ. If you don't like it you know what you can do.
  reply report
  83
  quicksandposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Make Money Changers - I was quoting dj and have no intention of leaving you alone. You must admit having me here is more fun that arguing amongst yourselves as to who interpreted which bit of the fairy tale to mean what?
  
  Not sure why you think I am a communist other than to start a fight - which I see a lot from religionists. Do I take it then that I should start lumping all of you as the same and assume that you prefer forced sex with under-age boys simply because you are a catholic?
  reply report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't lump all atheists as communists although your belief system is so close to a communist it's uncanny.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, feel free to elaborate using quotes to show how my belief system is communist. If I was to describe my political leaning, I would have to call myself a moderate anarchist in that I think what we need is less government, but it is a necessary evil we cannot dispense with completely.
  reply report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark it's funny that you describe yourself as an anarchist. I just stumbled upon this Islamic web site (finally one that denounces terrorism) that states "Darwin legitimized violence by claiming that humans are, in essence, animals struggling for life." It quotes this from the Koran "Those who make mischief in the earth: theirs is the curse." Sounds like it's describing an anarchist to me. I found this web site in the top spot of 637,000 web sites for a Google search for "Communism and Darwinism".
  http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/ … alism.html
  
  So to the comparisons:
  
  1. Soviet Russia was the first country to legalize abortion in 1920.
  
  Any threads denouncing abortion Mark attacks like a growling Russian bear.
  
  2. From the above site "This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these 'isms.' Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at is 'dialectical materialist' attitude." Look under the sub-title "The Bloody Alliance: Darwinism and Communism".
  
  Mark seems fascinated by Darwin too.
  
  3. After the Communist Russian Revolution they first attacked organized religion in an attempt to stamp it out.
  
  Mark continually attacks any thread in here concerning organized religion. Meanwhile he is coming to these Religion forums on his own accord.
  
  4. Communist Russia killed over 65 million of their own Russian citizens, mostly Christians.
  
  In a few posts Mark has stated that he can't wait until organized religion goes out of existence.
  
  5. Soviet Russia had a group called the League of the Militant Godless that attacked religion in an organized way.
  
  Mark seems to be trying to gather his own flock of militant godless.
  reply report
  75
  Inspirepubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You have made an error of logic.
  
  You argument is structured thusly:
  
  Communists do X.
  Mark does X.
  Therefore, Mark is a Communist.
  
  This argument is logically flawed, but many people fail to see the flaw.
  
  Perhaps you will be better able to see it if I use some simpler terms, keeping the same structure.
  
  Birds whistle.
  Mark whistles.
  Therefore, Mark is a bird.
  
  Can you see the problem with the reasoning now?
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, please tell me what wind actually is.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Eat some re-heated rhubarb and you'll never ask that question again...
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Read your bible Sandra. All the facts you need are in there................
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, the Bible doesn't even tell me what wind actually is. I was asking you because I though you would have an answer.
  reply report
  68
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The FSM stirring the heavenly pot of noodles caused the hurricanes, which in turn generated all other winds. Quite simple, really.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, or the serpent passed gas.
  reply report
  68
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  After eating rhubarb! Or was that cabbage?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is funny. What is the point of the question about wind and the bible exactly, I don't get it. Should the bible explain the DepartmentMotorVehicles too? Or what about Pepsi and Coca-Cola and Microsoft?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is a reference to some one who believes that the wind moving leaf is proof that their particular god exists.
  
  We also like to have a little fun. Guess you don't go in for that sort of thing huh?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, ok, I didn't know you were jesting. I'm all for laughing, it's good for your health. : )
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sandra, nice to see you around. There aren't many answers in the Bible because it was put together by men who only put enough answers in it so they could be the ones they would ask. God forbid they go elsewhere for the answers to the questions that won't be answered. They would be told they would go to hell and fire and brimstone and that Satan would get them. Only if they actually did research they would find there ins't a Satan or a Devil in the hebrew Bible and the history and what was used in the Bible today are mostly fabrications. Now some will say that I am Satan's followrer because I went and did research and am still getting answers to my questions. The bible was put together by MAN and therefore Man was in control of everything--espeically woman. They took Lillith and crucified her because she would not listen to Adam. She was his Equal, but MAN did not like that. The Satan they believe just disregarded God and is after us is not that at all. Satan was told by God to worship Adam. Satan didn't want to do that becasue he was God's first Angel and he was not evil at all. He was God's adversary --for God not against God at all. He was in charge of judging man to keep man on tract with God.not to kill him or steal him or make him into ungodly things.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually in Matthew 4:10 the word satan is used. In the original Greek text it reads "satanas". I put your argument into standard form for you. And here's what it would look like if presented in a logical format.
  
  Major Premise: Man is unreliable
  Minor Premise: The bible was put together by man.
  Conclusion: Therefore, the bible is unreliable
  
  Now I will refute this argument by counterexample, observe....
  
  Major Premise: Man is unreliable
  Minor Premise: Man wrote your history books
  Conclusion: Therefore, your history books are unreliable
  
  Shall I keep going?
  
  Major Premise: Man is unreliable
  Minor Premise: Man wrote your prescriptions
  Conclusion: Therefore, your prescriptions are unreliable
  
  Ok, I think I made my point, but I will give you one more;
  
  Major Premise: Man is unreliable
  Minor Premise: Albert Einstein was a man
  Conclusion: The discoveries of Albert Einstein are unreliable
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, LG said, "in the Hebrew Bible". Matthew isn't in the Old Testament / Torah, is it now?
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure where she got her information, but it occurs 23 times in teh Old Testement.
  
  It is tyically pronounced saw-tawn'
  
  It is spelled Shin,Tav,Nun
  
  It's general meaning is "Aversary" or "One who withsands or opposes"
  
  It occurs as follows:
  
  Numbers 2 times
  1 Samuel 1 time
  2 Samuel 1 time
  1 Kings 4 1 time
  1 Chronicles 1 time
  Job 11 times
  Psalms 1 time
  Zechariah 2 times.
  
  As I said, I don't know where she got her information from and I've only taken one Hebrew class, but I'm sure this is correct.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well she did say bible. The Hebrew bible is the Tanakh. It depends on where you get the Tanakh from. Messianic Jews include the new Testament in the Tanakh. But that is typical of unbelievers. They always state these claims about the bible that are unwarranted. Whatever information comes their way that is against God they just eat it up without subjecting it to analysis. But then when we present information in favor of God then and only then do they require tons of evidence.
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't call Lady G an unbeliever, I'd say she is exploring her own path
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hahahaha, I am not what you think I am. I got it from a history channel program about Angels: Good or Evil. It was mentioned in that.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not quite sure where you're headed with that actually. I have my bible concordance in front of me, so for me this is a no-brainer.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Let me guess--KJV?
  report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He's proably using Strong's concordence. Alough Strong used the KJV for the "English" side of his original concordence, the mapping system is valid and is translation independent. It was one of the primary scholarly tools used for Young's Literal Translation (and all others).
  
  Basically it assigns a number to every word used in the origial texts (Hebrew and Greek) and maps it to the "current" translation.
  
  The word "Saw-tawn" ... is Strongs Number H7853. Which means it's the 7,853rd unique word (in Hebrew Alphabetical order) that James Strong found in the original Hebrew scritpures.
  
  The Strong's numbering system will reveal the intent of the translator for example, one translator may put the word "Satan" in his English version. Another may put "Adversary" and another may put "Opponent". Each word is valid within a particular context.
  
  By using the Stong's system, you can often infer the bias (often unintentional) of a partcular translation relative to the others.
  report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That may be the reason Jesus said not to go by books. Thanks my friend for looking that up!
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Correction. Jesus always quoted from the bible. But to be exact, for those who are looking for small irrelevant details Jesus quoted from the Torah and Nevurim.
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again? I'm not even going to bother answering you any more. Why don't you just go count beans somewhere. : ) Just in case you don't get the humor, that's what we call accountants, and since you're so focused on the mundane, you should just be an accountant, if you are already not one.
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What a long-winded way of admitting you were wrong, sweetie!
  
  Love you too......
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong about what exactly? Still with your one liners I see. : )
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Boy, you just don't know how to play nice and then again I would give you a label, but I don't do that and I don't call people names either. Condescending behavior really doesn't fit well on hubpages.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is typical behavior. I just finished telling someone that when insults are hurled MY way no one comes MY defense. But when I hurl them back, a whole baseball team comes after me. Hypocrites. No one said anything when I was being patronized. If those who attack me are so great, then let them fend for themselves. And if I am so insignificant, then come to my defense. And of course you will only take the negative from my alleged condescending behavior. There is enough meat in the statement I made to her to be a catalyst for her to strive for a higher ideal. That's the problem with people these days everyone wants to sugar-coat everything. My method works greatness. I've watched my methods work and grow on people to cause them to ride upon the high places of the earth. I know what I'm doing with my words, can you not see past appearances? I thought you were the "New Age" scholar. Or do you use appearances to mislead, knowing what really lies beneath but keeping it to yourself? Who do you think you're dealing with? I'm have been schooled in the laws of mentation, so you can save your manipulation for someone else. A label? The only label that matters is the one you accept. The number one principle that destroys the wiles of "labelers". Come again..... So despite all of that Jesus is Lord, why not just receive Him? What do people fear will happen? Do they think that they will just evaporate or something? Or are the caught up in the fallacy of ad hominem?
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Doesn't matter because the more you protest the more you will eventually be ignored. So what you accuse others of doing to you, you in turn did to me. How is that "Christian"?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I did what to you? Just because you say it doesn't make it so. I thought you knew that.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Aw - poor you.
  
  I haven't attacked you personally, although I have seen you attack just about everyone on this thread.
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not really, mate, just finding you wordy, tedious, but mildly amusing nonetheless.
  
  It amazes me how someone can use so many words to say so little....
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All fine and good only I said the orginal HEBREW text. Different language, different translation and definition.
  reply report
  81
  Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That one - The problem is, as any historian knows, is that history books are unreliable.
  
  Read a Greek history book; any mention of Greek atrocities against the Turkish populations is omitted. Likewise, a Turkish textbook omits any mention of atrocities against Greek civilians. Therefore, history books are unreliable.
  
  Working backwards through his own logic, that means man is unreliable. If man is unreliable, then the Bible must be.
  
  I need more Ouzo.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Simple. If you are not going believe the bible because man wrote it, than stick to that premise. You can't on one hand deny the credibility of the bible based on the premise that what man wrote is unreliable and then turn around and believe something else that man wrote. If man is unreliable, are you not a man? Therefore what you just typed is unreliable. Why is it that people get lost in examples? Do they do this on purpose or is it just attention deficit disorder? Or is it an indirect attempt to dissuade me from refuting by counterexample?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How about not believing the bible because it is political rubbish and doesn't make any sense?
  
  That is my reason
  
  And why I turned to the dark side of factual evidence.
  
  Or have you stopped being my Nemesis?............
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, no. I like what you said about the dark side of factual evidence. Because there is evidence that could lead in different directions. How about if you explain what about the bible is political rubbish and then follow up with an explanation about it not making sense?
  reply report
  81
  Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly - I treat all history as potentially unreliable. Same with the Bible - it is based upon history and has been translated many times, therefore I treat it as unreliable.
  
  It is not an either/or decision - that is a vast philosophical oversimplification.
  
  I evaluate information and arrive at a conclusion coloured by my own intellect and experience. Having the ability to interpret is part of every academic field, including theology. I do not 'blindly' follow science, but have yet to see anything to convince me that Biblical creation occurred. My mind is open.
  
  A bit of a red-herring really, because there is also room for God in my personal belief system. There is also room for evolution, by Darwinian based processes.
  
  The hate thing: "Marvel not if the world hate you. Know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love it's own, but because you are not of the world and I have chosen you out of it, therefore the world will hate you."
  
  I am part of the world but have no hate for you
  
  Sorry if I misunderstood your intention with that quote.
  reply report
  75
  Inspirepubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have never seen anyone claim that any history book, medical prescription, or even Albert Einstein was the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.
  
  Everything in science is always a working hypothesis until something better comes along.
  
  Only religions claim perfection and infallibility for their "words of God".
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You've drawn this absolute conclusion how? Or should one approach this view as an opinion and not absolutism? Yes.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No Jenny, no religion claims perfection and infallibility for "their" words of God.
  
  They claim perfection is God and all humans are fallible. and God is Truth, not "my" words of God are truth.
  
  But like a drug prescription, no one say this rx is the truth but they will say, try this rx because in truth, it worked for me.
  
  reply report
  66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And what of those who are in a different value system? Though you've taken the time to correct Jenny in her wording; where do your absolute viewpoints differ with hers.
  
  They don't.
  reply report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Stumped again eh Mark. Good one Sandra.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your IQ is showing Mike. I thought she was joking.
  reply report
  60
  Rose Ella Mortonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The wind is enternal no one know exactly where it start, or where it exactly end. There are many subject and question in this universe that man will never have the knowledge to answer or fully understand.
  reply report
2. 61
  MBP42posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Huh? Are you a Christian or an Evolutionist? You didn't make any sense.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The two don't have to be mutually exclusive
  reply report
  68
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That depends on ones view of creation. Either He created everything, or evolved everything. To me it is m/exclusive.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not true! He may have created everything and it evolved thrugh that thing you call FREE WILL, but it was still created in the beginning! Just as your thought is creted by you and then it evolves through change of an outside stimulus.
  reply report
  68
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What's not true? How does one know what's true. Is it a relative, based on time, or perspective? I do not dispute parts of evolution, but, its a small part only. So, evolution, creation, are diametrically opposed. They cannot be both true at the same time. Or is logic out the window on subjects like that?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is not that hard to understand dj.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So how do you know if you ave the trut about religion? How do you know that there is a True God? You can't see any of them and you can't see any of them in the process of evolving. See the same can be said about what you think too.
  Have you ever thought about something and planeed it and it didn't have the results to you were expecting? Isn't that the same thing?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That would be because God is unchanging and you cannot see evolution for what it is but you can identify it by what it produces. The same thing can be said about God, like the process of evolution itself is unchanging, so too is God unchanging but people evolve in Spirit just as life evolves physically.
  
  Everything can be true and false at the same time. Depends on they eyes of the beholder doesn't it?
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's even more complicated than that ... there are things that are true. There are things that are false.
  
  Then there is perception.
  
  Then there is communication of that perception.
  
  It's like the STNG Episode Darmok and Jesus' description of the Kingdom of Heaven
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But that is exactly what I am saying. It is more complicated but to spell it out in every post, I would write a bible sized book about it. lol
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  68
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You have obviously not been around to read my posts in the past. I suggest you have a look at my profile, read the post again, and all shall be revealed!
  reply report
3. 66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm curious about something. I went to the original post and reread it. Here it is.
  
  After 25+ pages and some 620+ replies, what is the consences? Does anybody agree on anything? Has anybody changed their minds? And. Was anything ultimately decided concerning this matter or not?
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why expect consensus? Religion is about 'knowing' you have the truth and everyone else is wrong!
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Paraglider but that's the reason a man of god knowledge is called master.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but in Scotland every boy is called Master until he's old enough to be called Mister
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When I was a kid - it was any public schoolboy. At some point (can't remember when) you became an esquire - then you became Mister.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Master- an enlightened one.
  reply report
  68
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you have faith as a child. Younger is better of than older(and so well educated).
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  One needs to become like a child again to enter heaven- absolutely no ego.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ........and questions everything. Children always ask WHY.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  correct -inquisitive
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We are on a Religion forum so the context is religious and you know it.Master means an enlightened one or Brahmin or knower of God , an awakened one.
  Master also means a Captain at sea etc etc but we are not going off in a different tangent.
  reply report
  82
  Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Come on, Paraglider, it doesn't have to be like that! That's only true of monotheistic religions. When there are many gods, you don't have to doubt the existence of someone else's god in order to believe in your own. Then the argument is merely: "My god is more powerful than your god, and my priest can turn more rods into snakes than yours!"
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Some new or old information to throw in here. When the switch to monotheistic God came about they didn't get rid of the old many gods, they made them into the Saints they have today.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I know I was gently prodding some of our more zealous brethern (or cistern).
  reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
Scientific research is conducted by using "hypothetical premises", and until they come up with hypothetical premises that better explain the phenomenon in question or until the "hypothesis" is disproved they stick with their "hypothesis". To look at the topic of God's existence from a scientific standpoint, is one's belief in God's existence so absurd of a "hypothetical premise"? Has this "hypothetical premise" been disproved? Or do "evolutionists" only refute hypothesis that they aren't comfortable with and accept the ones they like assuming that both had sufficient evidence to at least be considered?
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You're closer to describing scientific method than some people here. But you didn't mention that to count as scientific, the hypothesis has to be stated in a falsifiable form. gravity and evolution are so stated. God's existence is not.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I beg to differ. For one thing, the case for "gravity" is a "deductive argument" whereas "evolution" is an "inductive" argument. The conclusions of deductive arguments that are "valid" and have true "premises" are never wrong, false or "unsound" to be exact. No new evidence can change the conclusion of a deductively sound argument. By contrast, an inductive argument is only sound in appearance until new contradicting evidence surfaces. So with an inductive argument, there is always the possibility of a new verdict. And the hypothesis for God's existence IS falsifiable. I will give you a day to figure it out. If not, no worries, I will still share it with you anyway. I'm not afraid to share what I know. I don't "beg the question" like many Darwinist's always do. Reflect therefore......
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The fairy tale of a god is not falsifiable. Because there is no evidence or reasoning to falsify. You are starting from the premise that there is a god rather than working towards one.
  
  I have evidence that the stories in the bible were taken from other sources. And I can prove they were. Does this mean that you will accept that the bible is not the word of a god when I have proven this to you?
  
  And I beg the question for you to provide some measurable, falsifiable data. Anything really.
  reply report
  83
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately the loan consultant sounds like...............well...... a lone consultant! Give a day to figure it out? How about 20 seconds. Your arrogance is showing and frankly so is your ignorance. To bamboozle you have to actually know something first, not just run words past your lips that sound clever to you alone. .
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's hard to take "anything" seriously with quite so many "inverted" commas in the "reasoning", I find.
  reply report
  61
  Sterling Sageposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "I" don't know what you "mean." Is there something "distracting" about putting "too many words" in "quotes?" I think it's perfectly "clear."
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not true, even about gravity. Before Newton's contribution, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and others were simply measuring and describing the movement of stars and planets. Kepler demonstrated that a planet in an elliptical orbit sweeps out equal areas in equal time intervals. He was accurate, but empirical. He merely said - this is what happens. Newton demonstrated that this behaviour could be explained if there was an inverse square force GMm/r^2 acting radially between any two masses. (He also evaluated G, the universal gravitational constant). But this was not deductive. It was intuitive. It was also wrong and was superseded in time by Einstein's relativity which encompasses Newtonian mechanics without requiring gravitational attraction.
  reply report
  68
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was once rebutted for posting "religious" material in the "science" subject. I now have to sa, this one should be in the "science", and not the "religion" topic.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Fair enough, but LoanConsultant first came up with a spurious pseudo-scientific argument which I felt should not be allowed to stand unchallenged, in case anyone might be tempted to believe it!
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So are you here to prevent anyone from believing in God? If you are wrong, what does this mean for you? If I am wrong, what does it mean for me? Who is worse off, if wrong? Something to think about.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No. That's Mark's mission and he's doing a sterling job without my help! I don't care what people believe, having dispensed with belief in my own life (as far as possible). But I do care when people appear to be trying to mislead others by pseudo-scientific argument. Because that does a disservice to science.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I really don't like the term religious. It comes from a Latin term "religare" which means; to bind. I think a better rendering is "metaphysics". Meta; change Physics; nature. To change your nature....The realm of the spirit gave birth to nature. Science attempts to understand all of the ramifications, why's and wherefore's. Science is helpful and learning is good obviously. But with a little understanding of the laws of nature men begin exalting themselves against God. Instead of showing God appreciation for revealing the laws of nature to us through scientists we rebel against Him.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again, empirical is deductive, don't you know this? Regardless of who discovered gravity and who explained it, as it stands now, it is still deductive and empirical, unlike evolution. I will not put commas anymore for added emphasis because some get distracted by it. And at least you keep your rebuttals focused on the issues in question. Very much appreciated
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again you seem not to have understood me. I was saying that the contribution pre-Newton was empirical - mathematical description of observed data, without explanation. Newton's contribution was not empirical or deductive because it is impossible to deduce Gravity from the data. He postulated Gravity. That is intuitive. And he put it forward in a falsifiable way. and no-one could falsify it for about 250 years.
  
  Where I could agree with you is that evolution is in the area of proto-science, unlike classical physics. Such proto-sciences are subject to statistical analysis, which is not wholly deterministic. So, yes, there is more room for doubt, even though the analysis to date has been overwhelmingly in favour of Darwinian theory (within it's original field).
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This was my point from the very beginning of this discussion. Although it took you a while to recognize the validity of my argument at least someone here on this forum is being logical. There is one thing I have noticed that is quite common in these types of forums. Namely the highlighting of irrelevant details. Most people have short attention spans and their faculties of concentration are atrophied. Therefore I try to be as concise as possible. If I agree with someone 3 years later no one even remembers what it is that I'm agreeing with and the validity of the argument is downplayed. If we are truly seeking the truth, there should be no attempts however subtle to distract the minds of students. This is manipulative. I can manipulate too, if I wanted too. But I don't want to manipulate people into believing in God and the bible. I want them to discover the truth for themselves, that way if their faith is tested it will withstand the fire. I just present my case in a logical format and leave it up to them to decide. If I wanted, I could use various mind manipulative techniques, but that is witchcraft which is an abomination to God. Einstein's rendering of Gravity is excellent, if it may be stated as such. But notice how The Wright Bros. did not consult with him on formulating their airplane. Refrain from analysis paralysis. Yes, Newton's rendering was intuitive and many of Einstein's works were also intuitive as well as Edison and Ford. Therefore, intuition cannot be written off as a totally unreliable source of information. Intuition is right-brain oriented. Logic is left-brain oriented. For those of us whose intuitive faculties are still undeveloped we must rely on logic. Once they are both highly developed than you start touching your inner genius. Many Christians intuit God's existence. Their intuitive faculties are highly developed. They don't need proof, they just already know. But what about those of us who don't have this faculty of intuition developed? Well, that's where logic comes in. Logic is considered a science. Without the contribution of Logic to the sciences there would be no Scientific Method. Period. At it's root the scientific method is logic revised and tailored to conduct scientific experiments. Let us contrive a continuum for phenomena ranging from one extreme of concrete to the other extreme of abstract. The more concrete or base or dense in nature the phenomena being examined for research, the easier it is to use the scientific method to understand it. By contrast, the more abstract, subtle and superlative, the more difficult it is to examine via the scientific method. So now that we have our continuum ranging from abstract to concrete, let us formulate a rule. Let us examine where the phenomena in question would be placed on our continuum. The closer it would be to the concrete, the more likely results would be obtained using the scientific method. The more abstract the phenomena the less likely results would be achieved using the scientific method. And thus we would have to shed some of the addendum's placed on to the pure logical method by the scientific method and resort back to just pure logic. And of course logic is used by the apparatus called the mind. Therefore the mind is the apparatus whereby man discovers God. Even the crucible of self.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Going back to your reply to me, and cutting out your long preamble about how to conduct discussion in forum, you returned to the point as follows:
  
  Intuition, inspired guesswork if you like, can indeed be a source of knowledge. But only of raw, untested, personal knowledge. To be taken seriously by a discriminating audience interested in objective knowledge, a few more steps are required.
  1. Assuming your new-found knowledge is true, list as many logically inevitable consequences (predictions) as you can.
  2. Check them out to see if the predictions are true
  3. If any are not, then your knowledge is refuted
  4. If you genuinely can't refute your own theory, go public with it in a form that lets other people apply tests to attempt refutation
  
  Unless you do all of the above, your knowledge amounts to nothing more than a feeling.
  reply report
83
quicksandposted 14 years ago
All forums on religion and science are interesting indeed. I could actually spend days viewing the content, contradictions, and opinions of those who are experts, those with basic knowledge, and the reactions by those who are mild tempered and above!
reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
1) It's hard to take "anything" seriously with quite so many "inverted" commas in the "reasoning", I find."

Do you have A.D.D? Can't you stay focused on the subject matter? Be distracted then by commas, if you must.

2) Unfortunately the loan consultant sounds like...............well...... a lone consultant! Give a day to figure it out? How about 20 seconds. Your arrogance is showing and frankly so is your ignorance. To bamboozle you have to actually know something first, not just run words past your lips that sound clever to you alone. .

What is your argument exactly? For starters, if you want to debate, how about presenting a structured argument instead of just rambling on with your weak rhetoric? Why is it when I debate with the likes of you, they always resort to Ad Hominem? How about if you quit being a coward and address the argument and quit trying to distract seekers of truth from the issue at hand? If you want to be a comedian than be one. Don't be afraid, go pursue it as a career if you feel that you can.

3) The fairy tale of a god is not falsifiable. Because there is no evidence or reasoning to falsify. You are starting from the premise that there is a god rather than working towards one.

Well at least this rebuttal makes sense. Here is the answer; Evolution and Creation cannot both be true. When Evolution ceases to be a theory, than you WIN! But until then, keep your God Complexes to yourselves. If you are going to teach Evolution in schools why not give them both sides of the argument so that they can make an informed decision for themselves? I completely despise this biased approach.

4) I have evidence that the stories in the bible were taken from other sources. And I can prove they were. Does this mean that you will accept that the bible is not the word of a god when I have proven this to you?

I have evidence that you're evidence is false and was taken from arrogant & presumptuous sources. And I can prove that they were. Does that mean that you will repent of this blasphemy and confess that Jesus is Lord?

5) And I beg the question for you to provide some measurable, falsifiable data. Anything really.

I will. Keep an eye out for the hub. : )

6) Quick reality check for you.

Yes - it is completely different. The Flying Spaghetti monster may be invisible, but you claim He is not the creator if the Universe.

By your reasoning, anything that is invisible must exist, so why do you deny that FSM created the Universe?

You are a selective atheist and therefore a hypocrite. As are all believers.

And LOL - Once again - another one here with a user name that sounds very like "Money Changers" arguing for a god with a set of rules.

Wonderful irony. Thank you.

Ok, you should be ashamed of yourself. This argument is weak! Is this how you debate? Turning the words around to make it false and then refute the premise that you created? Please, take this rubbish somewhere else.

I expected some really meaningful dialogue here. Really. I guess I will go back to YouTube
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Let me get this straight -
  
  You have already decided that whatever evidence I was going to show you is a lie and produced by arrogant and presumptuous sources. Without even seeing it.
  
  You selectively believe one fairy tale (which was stolen from other previous fairy tales) over all the other fairy tales. Yet the argument that you are a selective atheist is weak.
  
  And you have proof of this fairy tale that you are going to put in a hub.
  
  And I should be ashamed of myself for not arguing to your intellectual standard.
  
  Tell me about your user name. I didn't think your boss liked money changers......
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually in the Torah it says, "YOU SHALL LEND TO MANY NATIONS AND YOU SHALL NOT BORROW." I'm simply being obedient
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - You are Jewish then? Good - I don't get nearly enough of them to make fun of. The lack of a silly hat in your avatar threw me off.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The Torah is the five books of Moses. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy. When anyone studies these books they are studying Torah.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I know what the torah is thank you.
  
  Now that we have dispensed with that, I am wondering what your purpose is here, or even why you are continuing this meaningless dialogue?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What is my purpose? Are you kidding? Don't post a question or make a statement and then when you get a response, ask why? Now all of sudden you wonder about purposes? I thought your belief was that we just "poofed" into existence with no purpose and no creator? And now you have the audacity to ask me about purpose. What's your purpose? Is it not to heckle Christians? I'm your nemesis. That's my purpose
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Awesome. I have been waiting for you. What took you so long? All the others dropped by the wayside after a few sallies.
  
  Now please say something of substance.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Lol! Ok, that's funny. Now you have me laughing! Why if a building structure was discovered on Mars, scientists would conclude that there is life in space? They would presume that a higher life form made the building structure. Is this any different from presuming that a life-form higher than our own made us? I have to leave now though. But I'm interested to see what your reply will be
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, this is a really weak argument. For several reasons.
  
  1. This is hypothetical.
  
  2. You are jumping to the conclusion that this is what scientists would conclude. For all you know, there could be evidence that what we consider a "building structure," grows naturally on Mars.
  
  3. Even a moron like me can see the difference between a made structure and a naturally grown one. Watch vs Flower. Not the same thing.
  
  You are just borrowing the watchmaker argument and ignoring the obvious flaws in it because you are blinded by your beliefs. You cannot conceive of any other way because you already believe in the watchmaker, therefore it must have been the watchmaker that you already believe in.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, this is a really weak argument. For several reasons as well Mark.
  
  1. This is hypothetical.
  
  2. You are jumping to the conclusion that this is what believer would conclude. For all you know, there could be evidence that what we consider a "building structure," grows naturally on Mars.
  
  3. Even a moron like me can see the difference between a made structure and a naturally grown one. Watch vs Flower. Not the same thing.
  
  You are just borrowing the watchmaker argument and ignoring the obvious flaws in it because you are blinded by your beliefs. You cannot conceive of any other way because you already believe in the watchmaker, therefore it must have been the watchmaker that you already believe in.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thus far when archeologists discover artifacts they never even come close to postulating that these various artifacts just evolved over time. I actually thought of the watchmaker theory way before I heard it from other sources. And because of Ad hominem it was written off as ridiculous. And of course, years later someone else says it and all the sheep follow. So I know that I was in the same train of thought as the scientist who presented this theory.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What are you talking about?
  
  The Watchmaker analogy was first used by William Paley in 1802.
  
  And it was not a scientific theory, it was a ridiculous attempt to add credence to the "I cannot conceive of anything other than a creator," argument.
  
  And thus far archaeologists haven't discovered obviously constructed buildings on mars - I thought we were being hypothetical.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And in regards to what I said about the archeologists. It's quite simple actually. In a hypothesis you gather all the known data, before formulating anything. So I was using the behavioral pattern of archeologists when they discover ancient artifacts as a premise to postulate that if scientists discovered anything similar on Mars that they would behave the same. This is hypothetical and valid.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  1. I am not really interested in what others did or did not do regarding your personal watchmaker analogy, and I don't care whether you feel personally slighted or not.
  
  That analogy is flawed and starts from the premise that there is a creator and I certainly do not accept it. It is merely another way of saying, "I am too ignorant to conceive of any other way other than there being a creator.
  
  Once you understand evolution, there is no room for the hand of a god being in the process. It is completely natural and very easy to see how complex organisms can evolve from simple ones.
  
  2. You are saying that Mars is exactly the same as Earth, and any conclusions come to will be exactly the same as on Earth. All I was doing was pointing out the obvious flaw that there may well be other "hypothetical" evidence come to light - bearing in mind that Mars is not Earth. And might be different.
  
  3. Big bang and evolution. You seem to be using the standard religionist argument (not your own either) that because the theory of evolution does not explain abiogenesis, it is invalid - in spite of the massive amount of evidence in it's favor.
  
  I do not accept this argument because it once again rests on the premise that the only thing you can conceive of is a creator.
  
  4. As for London girl poking fun at your ignorance of the English language - I am not so sure she needs or wants your forgiveness.
  
  OK -
  
  The watch is a complex mechanism. The watch was made by somebody. Therefore everything complex was made by somebody.
  
  Not really seeing any difference between this and the fireman conclusion. See how the first two statements may be true - but they in no way allow you to draw the conclusion.
  
  Please try harder.
  
  Try this instead.
  
  The watch is a complex machine. The watch was created by some one. This means nothing when applied to complex living organisms.
  
  Animals are complex living organisms. We have evidence to prove these organisms evolved over a period of millions of years. Therefore they were not created by some one. Therefore there is no creator. Therefore there is no god.
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now you are talking my language. But you still need more practice observe...
  
  Major Premise: We have evidence to prove that living organisms evolved over time to adapt to their environment.
  
  Conclusion: There is no God.
  
  The Major Premise does not support the conclusion.
  
  Ok, so living organisms evolved over time. Ok, big deal, so what! I agree! Did a dog evolve from a lion? Of course not. Did an elephant evolve from chihuahuah? Certainly not! So it is quite clear that the various species did not just all evolve from one single living organism spontaneously. Of course they all have their respective roots from which they evolved. Elephants have their roots, canine's have their roots, feline's have their roots so on and so forth. I can see that once life is present it will adapt to it's respective environment, but this still does not contradict creation. All life has a source. PERIOD. You can delude yourself all you want and rationalize if you want to. Did you know that Darwin was later converted to Christianity? I'm surprised that information is still available. Soon it will probably be destroyed just like all the other evidence that contradicts evolution. Did you know that it was recorded in a historical document that Jesus was raised from the dead? Outside of Christian sources! Bet you didn't learn that in history class.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now you are just being irrational. I have no idea what Darwin's political beliefs were - and I don't care.
  
  And you accuse me of making weak arguments.
  
  Proof that evolution occurs proves that life was not created as it is today. You accept that I take it?
  
  How am I deluding myself? Just because I do not jump to the erroneous and illogical conclusion that because life must have source. PERIOD. It must have creator
  
  Even though evolution - which you accept - proves that there could not have been a creator involved.
  
  And everyone knows that Jesus is a made up figure stolen from previous religion. Not an actual person.
  
  Dude - I was hoping for a better Nemesis........
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Done? Game over? No logical argument. Nothing. That is the best you can do?
  
  Some Nemesis.................
  report
  81
  Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I thought that 'history written by man' was unreliable or something....
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It all depends on your "interpretation" - obviously. If it agrees with what you already believe - it is fine.
  report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Mark, I have so much going on, behind on so many things ... even if I was around, more, I wouldn't have the energy to put into the resarch to give you a really good battle... I'll be more on my game, soon
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Looking forward to it. The Money Lender has failed completely. Very disappointing.
  
  Just when I was getting my hopes up.................
  report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just throwing this out there. To convert there must have been some kind of need (temptation) in the first place. They fulfill the need and then they tell you that you can't leave becasue Satan is going to get you and fill your mind will all kninds of nasty thing and put you on the guilt trip the rest of your life. How's that working for ya!
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry but none of what you said makes sense to me. However I will try to make sense of it still. Temptation is a desire of our lower nature. It is fulfilling the desires of your sensual mind or emotional mind to the harm of others. Everyone has experienced the negative effects of these desires. There are various systems out there that help people to cope with these desires. Desire in itself is not bad. I can desire to sleep. Is that a sin? Of course not. Yes, Satan tempts us. But he's not omnipresent. He uses demons and people. But it's all in the realm of thought. Sometimes we are tempted by our own thought habits. If I habitually think a certain way, similar currents of thought can just arise from the depths of my own subconscious mind without any outside catalysts. Whether or not there was a devil to tempt me I still want to remain in presence of The Lord.
  report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it doesn't make sense to you. There is no Satan!! Stop blaming your actions and thoughts on some invisible being and take responsibility for you own actions and thoughts.
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And so here we go again. Was I not clear when I said that we can be tempted by our own thought habits which originate from within our own mind. You have selective hearing, or should I say selective reading? If I make 10 statements of which 9 will refute all arguments opposing a particular view, you will point out the 10th statement and ignore the other 9 that totally destroyed your argument. Ok fine. I'm refuting the train of thought that you adapted as your own which existed before you were born. It is the same with my train of thought. Belief about God to be exact. Lest someone take that out of context as well. Many people including Christians identify with their beliefs so strongly they can't look at them objectively. I am open to my beliefs being cross examined, go ahead, I welcome it.
  report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sir, you are very arrogant and chauvanistic. I guess you were that way before your birth also.I have looked at them objectively. Exactly what is your point to being in this thread? What are you trying to accomplish? Be specific as possible without any arrogancy or pride and please don't be condescending.
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Lol! I'm here to answer questions about the Christian faith. For example, let's say I answer one of your questions. Then someone comes from the side with a remark, I will leave nothing unchallenged! I have had it with double standards. I have seen much arrogance and pride on this forum and you are calling me out? And arrogant in what manner? Is Donald Trump arrogant? I don't see anyone complaining about that. Or do you accept arrogance only from certain people? Do I have your permission to be arrogant? Is it ok with you? May I? But to clear it up and for the record, I'm just blunt. Some mistake this for arrogance but I'm not responsible for how someone interprets my actions. We can't go through life worried about how someone is going to interpret something. There was a Hub written by a lady who was tired of Christians calling her out for making statements like JESUS! or OH GOD! And she stated how this is a free country and that she can say what she wants. I read the comments and no one said anything about her being arrogant or feminist. I have zero tolerance for inconsistency and double-standards. I also have no tolerance for people trying to intimidate me into silence with their irrelevant details and commentary. So again, I am here for dialogue about religion, faith and God. If you don't want to see text that can appear arrogant on the surface than as the saying goes, "Don't start no stuff, and there will be no stuff. "
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I make fun of Donald Trump for being arrogant all the time.
  
  Nice with the zero tolerance thing though. You make irrational rants at me and then claim I am not making a logical argument. Some Nemesis. Now you are here to spread the christian hatred. Great. You have really let me down dude..........
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think you are getting the direction of my statements mixed up. Why does everyone identify hatred with rebuttals? I don't get it. Nothing I said even comes close to hatred. Unlike people who hate, if I criticize you, haven't you noticed that it was constructive. Did I not give you a quick lesson on logic? So you could structure your argument in such a way as to render it more forceful? Certainly that is not behavior typical amongst haters.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who said anything about hatred? You did. You made an irrational rant. Which was directed at me. You haven't criticized me either. Or at least that rant about Jesus being mentioned in a non-christian document was not one.
  
  Please get your act together - because I am getting more an more confused with every comment you make.
  
  Not a good Nemesis. Come on. You can do better than that. Can't you?............
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are distracted. We are now in left field. Which is why I'm strictly into presenting formal arguments. Premises and conclusions relating to faith, God, and the bible. That's it and nothing else. When people's emotions get involved it interferes with people's reasoning faculties.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Would it be OK if we threw a few facts in as well?
  
  Just for kicks and giggles?
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, now that is funny and you got me there. You are a comedian today. The reason for that statement was clarified again by Amy G's statement. Now if I went into a science forum speaking like that, I would be laughed to scorn. But here she can get away with it, because she's just attacking someone. But because I'm speaking for Christ, I can't just make claims based off pure emotion or else I would be accused of being an irrational Christian. Actually the bible does have some interesting facts for you. The book of Isaiah was written approximately 680 years before Christ yet it says, "It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth." ISAIAH 40:22
  Is that not a fact that the earth is circular? How many years later did science get a hold of that fact?
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am always a comedian. It is you religionists who are not allowed to have any fun.
  
  But, once again - you have lost me. I haven't partaken of any personal attacks and I don't see what an obscure reference to something that the church denied for many years as being in any way relevant to our previous discussion.
  
  Let's get back on track.
  
  You say that you accept evolution as happening. Is that correct?
  report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  In order.
  
  Yes.
  
  Look harder.
  
  No.
  
  No.
  
  No.
  
  No.
  
  Yeah, right.....
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I'm laughing. You got me there. Still somewhat of a one liner though, but I'll give you a pass on that one because you made me laugh. I guess I underestimated the power of laughter to persuade. You are a sweetheart
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was reading what you wrote and I just wanted to say that Christians on this forum are especially ridiculed, doesn't matter if you say something good, some out of stupidity, something to be nice, something out of the Bible, something in the Bible, something of your own opinion or even quote another persons opinion. That is just how it is. Welcome to HP Religion forum.
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I got that now. Ironically, the more scientific they are in their thinking the easier it is to debate with them. We have a basis to start from.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think, personally, that it is the old devil guise thing. Meaning, that when people have finally come to their senses about what is right or wrong etc... concerning Christianity and Islam that what is good was ruined before it began.
  report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  In my belief system, poofs, poofing etc is unlikely to create new human life....
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What creates new *human* life?
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I suspect your joke was too English
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's hard to know beforehand what is English-only (-:
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And by this one sentence, you demonstrate the fact that you do not understand evolution or how we came to be. Why do you feel the need to fight against a scientific theory you have never read?
  
  And if you are wondering about the jokes - In English English, "poof," is a slang term for homosexual.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, learn something new everyday. I didn't know that was that meaning. In the states it is Gay or Lesbian and probably some other horrific things to describe someone that isn't the same as the majority.
  Interesting!
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Do I have to spell out everything? Big-Bang Theory? Hello. That's what I mean by "poof". But understanding what that word means in her country now I know why she responded that way. Ok, I forgive her. Mark I don't know who your colleagues are in this site, but if any of them understand dialectics, they are doing you a disservice. And I'll explain. If someone is going to conduct a biopsy on someone, they better have an understanding of the procedure. Likewise if someone is going to debate or argue, then they need to have an understanding of dialectics or argumentation. I'm not even questioning the truth value of your propositions, it's the structuring of your arguments that's invalid. I will give you an example my friend;
  
  Jerry is a fireman. A fireman died yesterday. Therefore Jerry will die. Notice how the first two statements may very well be true but that they do not justify the conclusion. With the exception of "paraglider" this is how everyone's arguments on this forum has been formatted. Consequently, we've just been going in circles. You can agree that someones argument is valid and still not agree with their conclusion because the truth value of their propositions is what's in question. When someone does not admit the validity of my arguments then I know that they are just being unreasonable. Why debate with someone who is unreasonable? Not to say that what they are saying is false or true, but how can we make any advancements if there is no common ground or launching pad? If I can see this I don't know why no one else has pointed this out to you. Although our beliefs may differ I still want to see you prosper and do well. Learning to reason properly would better enable you to prove me wrong, if that is the case. So in essence you COULD say that I am helping you to defeat ME.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Are you kidding me? Please spare me your weak elementary commentary on words or phrases. You are like a cheerleader or a bench warmer; hahahah on the side lines putting in your little 2 sentences here and there but are unable to sustain the argument by yourself. Let me see YOU debate with numerous people who are all trying to convince YOU that YOU have no idea what YOU are talking about and let me see how YOU hold up. You seem to me like a follower. Learn to think for yourself. Very few people recognize their own individuality and are therefore acting out the roles that were given to them. Unfortunately this leads to many people not discovering their own innate greatness. When they do it's too late in their lives to really capitalize on it, if they discover it at all. Cast off the role that was handed to you by Lord knows who! And allow your true self to shine forth from behind the veil.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Boo!
  reply report
  75
  AEvansposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Loan Consultant: It isn't nice to make fun of anyone and their beliefs.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It was me that said that.
  
  He just told me I was providing meaningless dialogue, the sources I get my information from are arrogant and presumptuous and I make weak arguments.
  
  And as you know, I only make fun of belief systems that are.......... funny
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think you have me confused. The statement about Jews was made by Mark.
  reply report
2. 75
  AEvansposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As you know I hate arguing over Christianity but check out an article that I found on the web,
  http://www.ccwtoday.org/article_view.asp?article_id=166 it is very clear, however again I am certain that someone will argue the facts.
  However I am with Mark on this as everyone should be given a choice, how can we preach the word of God as adults and not stand by the word? Here is the underlying concern for so many non-believers , we as christians tend to push our religion, many do not live by the Bible and therefore become hypocrites. How can we lead them if we are not doing right ourselves? When do we know when to be silent and just pray? BDazzler, SirDent, Eddie and Barbie Perkins, we should all take a look and see how close they are to God and learn from them. They do not lash out at non-believers, they go to the good book and find answers, the speak the truths of themselves, and they pray for those in need. They are leaders of God and through them and many more on HubPages maybe some of us simply need to listen and come at things in a different direction.
  reply report
67
Make Moneyposted 14 years ago
Yeah we might as well laugh seeing you can't answer her question Mr IQ?
reply report
83
quicksandposted 14 years ago
Of course one has the right to believe or disbelieve in something of his or her choice to his or her hearts content and one has the claim to remain undisturbed by those with different ideas. However discussion between "unlike poles" is healthy and harmless ... and indeed most interesting. Provides fodder for the mind too!

Whose mind? Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

reply report
74
Lady Guinevereposted 14 years ago
Pride goeth before a fall! Oh and you can take that as you wish. Karma happens. Those who sit on high pedestals usually fall quite hard.
reply report
1. 59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure where you stand on any of these issues Lady G. Principles are like concrete pillars that are immovable. Align yourself with principles and you cannot be shaken. You say pride goes before a fall; and indeed it does. But you have pride and then you have confidence. There are 2 main demographics who accuse me of being prideful:
  
  DEMOGRAPHIC 1. Those who lack confidence and are insecure within themselves. And for whatever reason, they think that I too should be insecure about myself, the way they are. And when they see that I am not, they get upset and accuse me of being prideful.
  
  DEMOGRAPHIC 2. These are they who for reasons unknown, automatically and for no apparent reason, put themselves on a pedestal above me and make unwarranted, unsupported assumptions about where I am on the scale of being; and try to control me. When they cannot, instead of just giving up; they give it one last shot and try to use reverse psychology and accuse me of being prideful.
  
  So yes, pride does go before a fall. But I'll take my chances, because one can get up from a fall; but ignorance results in destruction; and there is no coming back from that one.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So proud, arrogant and condescending are OK now then? Because YOU KNOW
  
  And are just trying to educate the ignorant, therefore it is fine..........
  
  Come on Nemesis - you have really fallen down on the job, so to speak. Tell me about the circular earth again.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What in the world are you talkin about?! I'm still waiting for your response about the historian Josephus who documented the life of Jesus. Whom you claim did not exist. Did you think I forgot?
  reply report
  81
  Jewelsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Principles can be founded on nonsense too. So it's best they are movable.
  reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
And as far as people accusing me, that's nothing new. Jesus said 2000 years ago, "Marvel not if the world hate you. Know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love it's own, but because you are not of the world and I have chosen you out of it, therefore the world will hate you." So accusations, that's nothing to me. That's a given. The challenge is keeping the love of God in your heart and not giving in to the temptation of pleasing people rather than God. It is a little easier for me however, because right from the start there was a contingency of people against me for various reasons. So it's not big deal to me that there are people who disagree with me. So what, who cares. I gave up trying to please people long ago. And much liberty followed. For people who aren't used to opposition, yes, the Christian life can be somewhat challenging. Why would someone choose this unnecessary opposition unless there was a reality underlying it? Why not just follow the masses and be like everybody else?
reply report
1. 81
  Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  er.....but I don't hate you.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hahahahaha Surfi and Mark, he sure hasn't been here long enough to see what my history is around here.
  Love is NOT having strings attached. I doubt that he gets that.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now you are comparing yourself to Jesus?
  
  I don't hate you either - although you are rather asking for whatever comes your way
  
  As for following the christian sheep................
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark's Conclusion: TheLoanConsultant is comparing himself to Jesus." Although I will not refute this statement, please show me exactly from where you infer this?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
3. 81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't hate you. I just feel a mild sort of contempt.
  reply report
74
Lady Guinevereposted 14 years ago
" "Don't start no stuff, and there will be no stuff. ""

I believe you came here and started the "stuff" first. So are you talking to yourself here?
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is what I don't get about you LG. It's like the sweet Lady Guinevere that I so admirably subscribed to and talked to and read daily has turned into someone else.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All I can say to this is .....I am not perfect.
  Sorry to dissapoint you.
  I never promised you a rose garden....LOL
  
  EDITTED
  reply report
2. 59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well so far it's been 50% ad hominem and 50% topic related. Quit the ad hominem and there will be nothing for me to challenge and we can get back to our religious dialogue. Even though I prefer to use the term metaphysics.
  reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
Part of the problem is the way these posts are structured. It's very easy for someone to think that a statement was meant for them when it was meant for another statement that someone else made. I see people responding to statements that were not made to them and getting offended by them. Many of my statements were taken out of context. I thought people were here to ask questions and offer alternative views? Please let the next statement or question be relevant.
reply report
1. 81
  Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Fair enough - you are dealing with multiple topics. That is difficult.
  reply report
2. 60
  Eric Graudinsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's just those pesky athiest troublemakers stirring things up.
  
  Here's where to report them to the FBI
  http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0503/atheists.html
  
  A small extract:
  As a result of this inspirational, secret meeting, Landover Baptist has been called upon to draft legislation to address the problem of Atheist traitors living like cockroaches in our midst. But you can do your part, too. If you are reading this, you know of a practicing Atheist in your community, and would like to report him to your local police department, we'd like to tell you how simple it is
  
  And there's also 5 handy tips for spotting them!
  reply report
74
Lady Guinevereposted 14 years ago
I got to go. Heads up, I will be on and off here for the next few weeks. We are having work done on our house and will be moving and moving and sorting stuff as we go along. Fun! Fun! Fun! They aren't going to start until Wednesday morning and tomorrow I will be starting to move things.
reply report
1. 81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hope all goes well! Are you having to move out while the builders are there?
  reply report
2. 59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, don't be gone too long cause I still wanna fight! LOL! JK!
  reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
lol!
reply report
81
LondonGirlposted 14 years ago
You are lovely too <mwah>

This is much more fun!

PS - I do think Donald Trump is a Prize Twit (-:
reply report
1. 59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, it really stretches your emotional resiliency! Doesn't it? I guess it's good practice for the real world. : )
  reply report
0
Amy Gposted 14 years ago
Loan Consultant:

I'll say what I say, then I won't be back, because you're ridiculous. I was posting on another religion thread a bit ago, where you also were... On this thread, you are a completely different person. FYI - There are some superb medications available by prescription for multiple personality disorders. You should find one.

A few more bits of advice:

1) You are an arrogant jerk. Get over yourself.

2) Don't talk a big GOD GAME about yourself, and scream to the world about how pure and christian you are, then go and talk schmack about LG, or anyone, for that matter.

3) I'm not sure what makes you believe that you are the authority on religion, but I can tell you that you are not. Nobody is. Refer to #1, and get over yourself. You live in a cult compound, don't you? I KNEW IT!

Overall, you definitely cannot sway what you call "non-believers" by force-feeding them facts that you have regurgitated from some kind of previous teaching. Their opinions are no less right or wrong than yours. Suggestions are fine, healthy debate is great, but when you begin to insult a person's intelligence and belief system with your insistence on your own, you just look like a giant A-Hole.
reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
Well of course you will not come back. After that ridiculous blend of nonsense, I wouldn't either. You can't just step in at the end of the 12th round and then try to give your useless extremely irrelevant commentary and expect me to just let it go unchallenged now do you? Don't you see that London Girl and I are laughing about it? Unless you were there throughout the whole debate you would not understand the spirit behind anything I said. London Girl did not take anything out of context from the last comment I made to her because she knew that I was referring to not only her but to myself as well. But you see, you don't know me so just be quite and go sit down somewhere. Or perhaps bless us with your silence or with your knowledge. I'm open to both, it's your choice.
reply report
60
Eric Graudinsposted 14 years ago
Go Amy G!
I reckon you'll be able to chuck him in the back of your truck and haul him around after that little serve!
I'm becoming your fan!
Eric G.
reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
Ok, Mr. Mark Knowles I was occupied. Now what were you saying?

"I don't see what an obscure reference to something that the church denied for many years as being in any way relevant to our previous discussion. Let's get back on track."

Actually we are on track. I doesn't make a hill of beans what the church denied or denies! I'm talking about what the Word of God says. It stated the earth was circular long before science acknowledged it. You wanted facts right, well there's one for you. If every church member just suddenly vanished off the face of the earth, it does not change The Word of God.

Now in regards to the statement, "You say that you accept evolution as happening. Is that correct?" The theory of evolution takes some facts that I agree with but then starts reaching. So do I agree with evolution as a whole? NO. But do I agree with some if it's propositions? YES.
Listen, if evolution is SO SCIENTIFIC than how come it hasn't been proven yet? Many other scientific hypothesis have been proven, what's taking so long for this one, I've been waiting for a while already.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please name me one scientific theory that has been proven.
  
  And as for the earth being circular..............
  
  I would have thought the WORD OF GOD would have been a little more precise. Perhaps even have got it right? No?
  
  That is proof enough for me right there that your book was written by ignorant savages.
  
  I suspect that if I was ignorant of the TRUTH, and when I turned full circle, every direction I looked, and every direction I walked for a few days it was all flat, I too would come to the conclusion that the earth was a circle. And flat.
  reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
Mr. Paraglider, I perceive you are a scholar. So let us begin...

Here is your statement;

"Intuition, inspired guesswork if you like, can indeed be a source of knowledge. But only of raw, untested, personal knowledge. To be taken seriously by a discriminating audience interested in objective knowledge, a few more steps are required.
1. Assuming your new-found knowledge is true, list as many logically inevitable consequences (predictions) as you can.
2. Check them out to see if the predictions are true
3. If any are not, then your knowledge is refuted
4. If you genuinely can't refute your own theory, go public with it in a form that lets other people apply tests to attempt refutation

Unless you do all of the above, your knowledge amounts to nothing more than a feeling."

Basically what you just described is the scientific method in a nut shell. If you only knew my friend. This is what I use when I test the truth of a scripture in my life. Observe...

Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, and you shall receive the gift of The Holy Spirit, for the promise is to you and your children and all that are afar off. Even as many as The Lord our God shall call."........I assumed this new found knowledge at the time to be true......I read the history of this experience throughout the bible and observed that whoever called upon The Name of The Lord received The Holy Spirit......I assumed that if I repented and was baptized in Jesus name, I too would receive The Holy Spirit. And I did. If I did not then I wouldn't be sharing it with you....Furthermore I am going public with it. Now someone might say, "But your whole experience is subjective, how can it be verified?" That's a good question, and that's where God confirms His word to the person individually and reveals the secrets of one's heart. Do you not know that there are vibrations of energy that are too high a frequency for the tools of science to detect? But because it cannot be detected does it cease to exist? Did ultraviolet rays spring into existence suddenly when man detected it? Or did it already exist prior to? Is it so unfathomable that this could be the case with the Eternal Energy from which ALL things proceed, whom Christians refer to as God?
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you insist on patronising me with phrases like "If you only knew, my friend". Do you think I just happened to describe scientific method by accident? And later - "Do you not know that there are vibrations of energy that are too high a frequency for the tools of science to detect?" I'm a physicist, OK?
  
  You are the one here who apparently does not understand scientific method. You are the one apparently believing the aim of the method is to prove things true. It is quite the opposite. Your use of the word 'Energy' is so loose as to be almost new-ageist.
  
  You yourself suggest that someone might say your whole experience is subjective. Indeed they might. Nothing you have said by way of answer to your own imagined challenge is remotely objective. The ball's still in your court.
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Check.....
  
  Possibly even check mate (-:
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, If I'd felt like being rigorous, my answer would have been - No, I do not know there are frequencies higher than we can detect. I know there is a continuum up to the limit of what we can detect and I think it likely that it will extend beyond that limit. Theory suggests as much. But no-one knows, yet.
  
  But it was easier just to say I'm a physicist
  reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
MARK KNOWLES

"Please name me one scientific theory that has been proven. big_smile

And as for the earth being circular..............

I would have thought the WORD OF GOD would have been a little more precise. Perhaps even have got it right? No?

That is proof enough for me right there that your book was written by ignorant savages.

I suspect that if I was ignorant of the TRUTH, and when I turned full circle, every direction I looked, and every direction I walked for a few days it was all flat, I too would come to the conclusion that the earth was a circle. And flat. big_smile"

So basically what you're saying is that this fact is irrelevant to you, ok fine. Here's another fact for you. A recognized historian by the name of FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS documented Jesus Christ's life, miracles, trial, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection. 7 recorded aspects of who Jesus is.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now you are putting words into my mouth.
  
  I said it was wrong. Not irrelevant to me.
  
  And no scientific theory can ever be proven.
  reply report
  0
  jjrubioposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark- Don't you see you are talking to a brick wall with this guy. He is so into proving everyone wrong he is losing sight on the reality of what the Christian faith is based on: LOVE
  I respect your feelings as much as anyone else's.
  
  Jesus loved all and respected all whether they believed he was Christ or not. Just like we should respect all whether they believe in Christ, God or whatever religion. You have a right to what you believe and he wants to take that from you.
  I say, let all believe what they want to believe. In the end we all will be accountable for ourselves.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I know. He promised to be my Nemesis though, and I still hold out hope
  reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
Mark Knowles: "Now you are putting words into my mouth.

I said it was wrong. Not irrelevant to me.

And no scientific theory can ever be proven."

Now you are putting words in my mouth, where do you get this scientific theory nonsense from?

You still haven't responded to my statement about the historian's documentation of Jesus Christ?
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Let's deal with one "fact" at a time huh?
  
  1. The earth is not circular. Therefore I questioned the bible as being the WORD OF GOD, because it got that "fact" wrong.
  
  You then said, "So basically what you're saying is that this fact is irrelevant to you."
  
  And I said - "stop putting words in my mouth."
  
  Scientific theory nonsense?
  
  A scientific theory is a preposition that is accepted as true and has not yet been dis-proven. Not proven. Which is why I asked you to show me a theory that had been proven. Seeing as you were using the argument that if evolution was correct, it would have been proven - like all the other scientific theories that have been proven.
  
  Please try harder Nemesis.
  
  We can get to the other "fact" when we have dealt with the ones we were already discussing.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am coming in late here so fogive me if I step on toes or this has already been discussed. I am extrememly busy with people fixng our house and it will cintinue for the next few weeks.
  Now about the circluar Earth and Flat Earth and the Word of God ---getting it right? Galilleo had it right that the Earth was round and not flat and they were going to kill him for lying. Now why would they do that if he were tellig the truth--becasue they like to hide the truth.
  
  About myths, and this may be the wrong thread, but I will post it here anyway---the religions are beginning to think the Holocaust is a "myth". Again it is truth and many peole who have gone through that horrific experience can tell you that it was true...again why the coverup and what else is being covered up? Then all this stuff about the History channel is all for the "un-believers" Is that only for the religious documentaries or is it across the board? If they have other things are as true as they can get at this moment in time that they did the documentaries then it goes the same across the board and not just for some and not others. The argument that only the religious documentaries are for unbelievers is null.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I cannot believe that some people are saying the Holocaust was a myth, that just really pisses me off!!!
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well I can't believe that searching for truth (as Christ told us to do) is a reason to call someone an unbeliever.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well before the bell rings, how's your house thing coming along?
  
  Now let's take a look at your claim, "Well I can't believe that searching for truth (as Christ told us to do) is a reason to call someone an unbeliever."
  
  What is meant exactly by this term, "unbeliever"?
  
  And who's saying, "Thou shall not search for truth?" Jesus said, "If you continue in my Word then you are my disciples indeed and you shall KNOW the Truth and the Truth will make you free." John 8:31,32
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The house is coming along slow as usual with more money than we expected.
  
  They didn't just "Know" the truth until they were shown or experienced it in one way or another. If they had just "Known" the truth they wouldn't be here or had a life to live. Yes, the truth will set your free--not everyone has the same truth according to scripture. Each person will learn what they are to learn in ways only they can learn and all things are not in that Bible, so it states in that Bible.
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  More one random psychotic bishop.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Donald Trump came through the other day asking about you.
  reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
Mark Knowles: I see the structure of your arguments is improving since our first discussion. Your welcome. But still....I am your nemesis. To be exact I will rewind the statement in a more explicit form; "If EVOLUTION is so scientific in nature then why is it not a law?" If it get's upgraded to a Law, then... well I guess we will continue evolving into a higher form of creation than we already are. Why would the process stop suddenly? And if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? Why not conduct an experiment with a specific ape family perpetually and see how long it takes for them to become human? You say show me your God? I say show me the human who was once an ape! And I want to see the affidavit! and pictures!

That is funny what you said about walking around in circles though, I'll give you that one.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please don't patronize me in this fashion. If you are just looking for a fight, why not say so and I will oblige.
  
  Now - let's deal with your "fact" that the bible says the earth is circular.
  
  The earth is not circular.
  
  Therefore the bible is incorrect.
  
  Therefore the bible is not the word of god.
  
  And what makes you think evolution has stopped?
  reply report
59
TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years ago
PARAGLIDER:

"Why do you insist on patronising me with phrases like "If you only knew, my friend".

Surely you don't think I'm referring to PHYSICS, when I say "If you only knew." I'm referring to my experience with God!

"Do you think I just happened to describe scientific method by accident? And later - "Do you not know that there are vibrations of energy that are too high a frequency for the tools of science to detect?" I'm a physicist, OK?

Very well then. So why can't you assume that it's possible that God is a form of energy that cannot be detected by instruments of science? We can't even detect MIND much less God!

"You are the one here who apparently does not understand scientific method.You are the one apparently believing the aim of the method is to prove things true. It is quite the opposite."

Who said anything about proving it to be true? It's certainly a good place to begin. Scientific method is baby food to me, you science buffs swear it's so sacred. Although it IS simple I'm not downplaying it's effectiveness.

"Your use of the word 'Energy' is so loose as to be almost new-ageist."

If it's not energy tell me then, what is it? Dead matter?

You yourself suggest that someone might say your whole experience is subjective. Indeed they might. Nothing you have said by way of answer to your own imagined challenge is remotely objective. The ball's still in your court.

Contrariwise, the ball still is in your court. I asked you what your thoughts were in regards to the mind being the only vehicle whereby man discovers God, since there is no current scientific instrument that can register HIS energy force.
reply report
1. 60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Science doesnt not know whats in our oceans forget this cosmos-its so very limited. I like it a physicist in our midst telling us the limitations of the science- in fact I love- cheers.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mohit - As a scientist, I know better than to make exaggerated claims regarding my knowledge. It's a pity some religious types have not learned this humility.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are truthful you say you have no knowledge about God.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree there are people who are walking the spiritual path but behave like masters,they have along way to go ..
  reply report
  81
  Jewelsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Totally agree with you there Mohitmisra.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Change 'about' to 'of' and I'll happily agree with you. I have plenty knowledge on the subject but simply doubt its truth.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Unless you come across him yourself its is correct to doubt.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Better still, change it to 'from'. When that happens, I'll believe!
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No problems.Its a question of time.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm 56...
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No problem once again.God is beyond time.
  reply report
  57
  Andrew0208posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Very correct! God also has no future. He lives in eternity.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nice new avatar Andrew. What happened to the Mercedes gull wing?
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Born again?
  reply report
  57
  Andrew0208posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Born of the Spirit. I missed you in the forums. Welcome back.
  report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Andrew
  report
  57
  Andrew0208posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's still my very best moving Machine. It's cool. Thank you.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  You do know Jesus was brown right?...........
  report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The voice of reason. Refreshing....
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  paraglider probably isn't, though.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hopefully he doesn't wait until it's in his old age. For he could be of great use to the Kingdom of God.
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Do not doubt gods perfection
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Certainly not. But I would hate to see him wait so long to accept the truth. You know I heard many stories of people accepting the truth on their death bed. Which is good because, better late than never. But I don't know about you, but I want to experience God's best NOW. I don't want to just wait until the after life. How about you?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who is Tony? And why are you running from God? You want evidence? You have to know what you want and then you're more likely to find it. So tell me then, what evidence do you seek? You have controversies with God and you feel denied something and you want to make Him suffer because you know that He knows. Only YOU will understand that one. And I'm sure you'll deny everything I just said but could it be that if you seek Him He will give you what you felt denied these past 20 or 30 years? And that could be your EVIDENCE. Or did you forget and write it off as unattainable? What is it that you want? A family? What evidence do you require? Let us test the realm of the spirit. The trials have ended, the interview is over, what do you seek?
  reply report
  60
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He seeks revelation or enlightenment which is just fine-the proof
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed it is. That's how I got it. There is a manifestation too, which I also have experienced. But in most cases the revelation comes first and then the demonstrations follow
  reply report
88
Paragliderposted 14 years ago
Why should I assume that god is a form of energy since I have not yet seen any evidence that god exists? You are right that we can't detect Mind either. For me, 'mind' is a word we find useful to describe consciousness. Descartes said as much centuries ago. Similarly with the 'soul'. I don't believe the soul has any existence independent of the body. I'd say, in that, it is no different from Freud's ego, self, id, etc - it is just a useful (to some) way of describing an aspect of consciousness. The soul is an older concept than the ego of course, but just as much a human construct. To me, there is no difference between your claim that the mind discovers god and mine, that the mind imagines god. How could you tell the difference?
reply report
1. 59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If we were to assume that God existed, what would you consider evidence? What if we were to formulate a list of "evidences", what would be on our list?Would it not be creation itself? The very atoms? Cohesion, Chemical Affinity, Electro-Magnetism? As far as I'm concerned there is overwhelming evidence of God's existence and the Universe itself is full of clues; It's not God's fault if we ignore the evidence and formulate alternative, less logical, less mathematical and less probable views. And in reference to the mind. The ego and the soul both describe the same thing, "consciousness". I disagree about the soul and the ego which is consciousness being merely a human construct. Where I can agree is that these TERMS are human constructs. However the phenomenon these terms DESCRIBE operate and exist independantly of human recognition or description thereof. Why would you assume that God doesn't exist as opposed to assuming He does exist? Assuming that there was no evidence to support either position? It is more logical to begin with the assumption that God does exist and make all inquiries and assumptions from this single premise. When you do, although alot still goes unexplained, more things are able to be explained with God as part of the equation, as opposed to removing God entirely. And, while many have their personal reasons for assuming God's existence, and admittedly some would appear to be irrational, it doesn't take away from the logic inherent in the claim that there is a creator. And in regards to your question about the imagination: "How can we tell the difference?" That is an excellent question to which each individual must fend for themselves and do their own work. You cannot put God in a box that suits our finite prejudices and biases. Assuming God existed and that He was wise enough to create all that we see in the cosmos, wouldn't it make sense to conclude He created us with the ability to commune with Him; given we met Him halfway with the effort necessary to activate the abilities resident within each and every human soul?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  How is it logical to begin with a baseless assumption? Once you have made this assumption you are led to all sorts of irrational acts. Like killing each other over who knows what this god wants.
  
  I recommend the Oxford English dictionary for a good definition of the word "logic."
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Lol! Mr. Mark Know-Less, how are you? Did you miss me?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course I did. Your particular brand of logical thinking is always a welcome addition to the discussion.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I hear this argument all the time and it makes me just want to throw up! I'm so sick and tired of hearing this weak argument that if I never heard again I would think that I must be dreaming. Listen well son and listen good, if people want to kill they will kill, PERIOD. God has nothing to do with it! OK! So what are you saying? That if people didn't beleive in God there would be no killings? The problem is with people and not with the concept of God. People who commit atrocious acts invariably find ways to rationlize their behavior. God has nothing to do with it. Even your rebuttal is a rationalization. A rationalization to not believe in God. I understand peoples frustration with all the turmoil caused through religion. There are many things that lead to the harm and detriment of manking. Automobile accidents, airplane crashes, gun related deaths, etc., etc. Shall we destroy all automobiles because they have been know to be the cause of many deaths? Shall we no longer fly in airplanes because people have been know to die in them? Of course not! And the same principle applies to God and religion. Many corrupt people use religion as an avenue to gratify their vices of lust and greed. Many school teachers exploit young children. But this does not make what these teachers are teaching any less true. While their character may be in question what a teacher taught about math & science remains the same. Regardless of their conduct. If a Chemistry teacher goes out and robs a bank, does that change anything that the teacher taught in regards to Chemistry? Of course not. And so it is with The Word of God. Man corrupts the message. The message did not corrupt man.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Aw diddums. I see you have avoided my question though. And using the argument that people will kill anyway so therefore it is OK to kill in god's name is not exactly a strong argument. I hear that one all the time.
  
  Why don't you answer the question instead?
  
  I think it is perfectly rational to not believe in something there is no evidence for.
  
  Don't you?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I never said it's ok to kill in God's name. If people want to kill they will kill. PERIOD. God has nothing to do with it. Have you not taken the time to think that there are many good things that are done in God's name daily? My church donated 10k worth of medical supplies to a hospital in Siera Leon in the continent of Africa. In regards to evidence, the Universe is enough evidence for me; in the very atoms themselves; consciousness and our very own solar system, just to name a few.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL - How is this a logical argument? If you want to say that is what you believe then fine. But why are you trying to turn it into something it is not? Because it is illogical.
  
  So - if you are not prepared to own the bad things done in god's name - how can you justify owning the good things?
  
  If people want to help other people, they will help other people. PERIOD!
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed. And that's my whole point. There are bad things done in God's name and there are good things done in God's name. To judge the validity or soundness of someone's argument from their character rather than the argument itself is faulty reasoning. Fallacious reasoning. Ad Hominem. So when people argue that there is no God because those who claim to beleive in Him do evil things does not address the claim about God's existence in no shape, way or form. This is irrational and outrite illogical.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All right - so we agree that people who believe in god are no more or less likely to behave in good or bad ways and it makes absolutely no difference if some one believes in a god or not. They are no better or worse than anyone else and are no more likely to follow the teachings in their holy book than some one who does not believe.
  
  When some one claims that they believe in a god and this god has told them that they should behave in a certain way and they then proceed to behave in no better or worse way than a non believer - does this not cast doubt on their statement that there is a god?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Everytime I'm about to go to sleep you ask a very good question; will you stop, I need to go to sleep! lol. But yes, I do see your point about it casting doubt. But it still is not a good reason to question the concept of God, or any other teaching for that matter. If you teach sound real estate investing principles and I want to invest in real estate, it don't make a hill of beans what your conduct is, if what you teach works.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well there you go. What has been taught does not work, is impractical, illogical and has been the cause of many conflicts.
  
  I question the concept of god for many reasons. Not least of which is the behavior of those pushing the concept.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Peeople killing each other over"who knows what God wants" has nothing to do with God. Haven't you ever heard of immaturity? Or what about neurosis? One of the major problems lies in the fact that people or so ridiculously controlled by their emotions, biases, and prejudices that they fail to think critically through many things. People are constantly missing the main point and getting distracted by small petty & seemingly inconsistencies. People just need to get their head out of their ass and wake the hell up! Mant times what I disagree with is not peoples conclusions but rather how they arrived at those conclusions. I don't give a rat's ass how many people died in the name of religion. That has no bearing at all whatsoever on the truth value of Christian propositions. If you want to disagree,fine go right ahead but please find good reasons to do so and not fallacious ones. How about if people just go ahead and practice whatever religion they want but without doing harm to others. Herein lies the successful compromise. Anyone who kills in the name of religion is a false representative of what religion is about.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it does, and I do care. The simple, logical conclusion is that there is no truth value in the propositions if people are unwilling or unable to follow said propositions. Surely you can see that?
  
  I realize that, like many believers, you do not care how many are abused or killed whilst the perpetrators hide behind a god. And use the excuse that these are not "real" christians or whatever. But that excuse wears a little thin now. See the recent Irish report of abuse in Catholic institutions.
  reply report
59
Abhishek87posted 14 years ago
I was content with reading through the forum but this is something I need to ask.

Ummm, Do you think you would have a fight or debate or whatever if the scientific guys would "assume" things the believers said ???

Their whole argument is based on the fact that there has to be some sort of tangible proof, it need not be the complete proof but something.

Q : If I said it, would you Assume that God is NOT a form of energy ???
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'd have to say I'm not very sure what you're asking. But forget proof. Science deals in disproof. As I said to the Loaner, I see no reason to speculate on the nature of god before being convinced of the existence of god. Why would I?
  reply report
  59
  Abhishek87posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But then , what is disproof? Its only the absence of proof. one and the same thing.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely not! But I've explained this many times and would rather refer you to a hub I wrote on the subject: http://hubpages.com/hub/Freedom-from-Belief
  reply report
68
aka-djposted 14 years ago
Based on many of the posts, I might be inclined to interpret that the atheist/evolutionist/rationalist is the more highly evolved. You(all) collectively, in your own words state that by either inferring or outright saying, "god, (in whatever form or religious teaching) is outdated, obsolete or unneccesary." Is that about it?
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'd go with unnecessary. I don't think it was ever necessary, so would steer clear of outdated and obsolete.
  reply report
  68
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The trouble I have with that is that taking the whole human population into consideration, I would say it's the other way around. If you combine all the religions, and "spiritual" groups, they would have to be HUGELY larger than the "non". I don't have
  %ages, but I would be surprised if it were not so.
  You guys have a bigger job "evangelising" the world than we do. :
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm well aware of that. I don't try to win converts; I just state my position. Remember though that many of your world belief systems are mutually exclusive and can't all be right.
  
  Why didn't you join in on the generous game thread? Could you not think of anything good about anyone else's philosophy?
  reply report
  68
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree! I have chosen the one with the Risen Saviour. It answers more of my questions and needs better and more fully than any of the others.
  
  Where is that thread? BTW, I only get to spend an hour or two a day on the net, so here I am. PS Never mind, I found it. Thanks.
  reply report
88
Paragliderposted 14 years ago
For the record, the ancient Greeks, Pythagoras among them, had the Earth spherical. It was the early church that ironed it flat again
reply report
1. 78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Man! That must've been a huge freakin' iron!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, I wonder what He called it? LOL
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The bible
  reply report
  59
  Abhishek87posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That IS funny, however.......
  reply report
74
Lady Guinevereposted 14 years ago
Pictures of how the work on the house is coming along:
http://www.kodakgallery.com/ShareLandin … leid=en_US

Today is day 2 and I will be taking more pictures and then more until they finish that one deck. I will be writing a hub about it when it is all done.
reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 years ago
So Mark, let me get it straight, cause I got lost here - are you stating that the Earth is flat, circular, or not exactly circular?
reply report
1. 78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't that a circular argument?
  reply report
2. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No. The Money Lender stated that the bible said the earth was circular. And this was one of his proofs that the bible is the word of god.
  
  I pointed out that the earth is not circular. A circle being a two dimensional shape. i.e. - flat
  
  Therefore the bible was wrong.
  
  Then he changed the subject.
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, now I see what you meant
  I guess a few people on this thread misinterpreted your point
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Which was the whole point of changing the subject and going off on a bunch of tangents (sic). That is what you do when faced with a tricky question you do not wish to answer. It's the eleventh commandment.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  11th commandment, thou shall not speak. LOL
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL - Is that me or thee?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I dunno, your gonna have to ask God about that. lol
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you could ask it for me - seeing as you understand what it says?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, I already said I dunno, either way an answer from God wouldn't work ya anyhow.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it would.
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I thought the 11th was, "thou shalt not get found out"?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark I cant be here long, cause I have to go. But that argument is weak. I'll give you a few days to come up with a better rebuttal.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What?
  
  The fact that a circle is a two dimensional shape is a weak argument?
  
  ciao
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  NO! No one is talking about exactness of shapes and angles. I cannot believe you are holding on to that. And you are holding on to that for dear life aren't you? If I were to draw a circle on a piece of paper, certainly that is not the kind of exact, specific shape the bible is referring to. And you know that! You didn't seem like the kind of person who would settle for appearances, but maybe I was wrong. So never mind that fact then since you are stuck on appearances. Zilch, Done, Scratch, Over, forget it. So again, for the THIRD TIME, I'm still waiting on your commentary on the historian Josephus? Any day now, I'm waiting?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It was not proof that the bible is the word of God. I would be ashamed of myself to present such a weak argument. It was in response to your statement about the facts in the bible.
  reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 years ago
Oh, I am not arguing, I am just trying to understand Mark's position
reply report
1. 78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, sorry sometimes I forget ... it was a joke "a circular argument" is a term in formal debate or logic ... The classic is Jesus is real because the bible says so and the bible is true because it says Jesus is real.
  
  While that's internally consistent, it's not truly logical becase each assumes the other to be true. That's a "circular argument".
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not a oblate spheroidical argument then?
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the explanation
  reply report
2. 59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Never mind BDazzler. He doesn't even know himself what he believes. I think he believes in circles though, because where he is now, is where he began. His statements and his questions and his "apparent friendly gestures" are just to corner you, he is a child, just ignore him. I followed ALL of his comments, that's right ALL, and all of his time on here, he has yet to say something of substance. He tries to make people feel that way he himself feels. He needs to read Jewel's hub about depression, maybe it will help him. I prefer to see him strong rather than weak.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark believes that a circle is a two dimensional shape. Which proves to him that the bible was not written by anything other than ignorant men.
  
  If you had followed ALL my comments, you would have understood that. Is it too difficult a concept to grasp perhaps?
  
  Nice to see you resorting to ad hominem though. I thought that upset you?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Discipline works perfection
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again, for the FOURTH time, JOSEPHUS,JOSEPHUS,JOSEPHUS!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  NEVER HEARD OF HIM. TELL ME ABOUT THE CIRCLE AGAIN
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, ok I get it. Tell you what, when you tell me about Josephus, I'll tell you about the circle. CIAO
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So why is it you christians cannot answer a straight question?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Are you kidding me? You of all people should know that you can't answer a question about CIRLCLE'S straightly.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hence the tangent?
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But on a more serious note, I already answered it. Quite efficiently too. But I guess you will never tell me about Josephus which means that whatever facts I present to you, you will ignore. But that's fine, I did my part. My hands are clean. May you find your path. Good day Mark Know-more, I have to go to work.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry. Calling it a weak argument is not really answering the question. You bought up the fact that the bible says the earth is circular. The earth is not circular. therefore the bible is wrong.
  
  I would have thought a book written by your god could have managed to be a little more exact?
  
  Don't you?
  
  I told you I had never heard of Josephus. So how can I be more clear ?
  
  I have already found my path, thank you. But thanks for washing your hands of me.
  
  Some Nemesis....................
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So now you are saying the Bible says the Earth is flat, or are you saying that the Bible says the Earth is circular and wrong because you say the Earth is flat or because you believe the Bible says the Earth is flat?
  
  I would have thought that a person who expresses clear communication and understands better then everyone else who is your nemesis, to be a little more exact.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I'm sorry. What are you unable to understand about a circle being a two dimensional shape?
  
  If you like I can explain it in really simple terms as I guess you must have got your rudimentary education from the bible:
  
  Try drawing a circle on a piece of paper.
  
  Is it flat?
  
  Did the church think the earth was flat?
  
  Do you still think the earth is flat?
  
  And as you quoted me as saying - I did not say the earth is flat. I did not say the bible said the earth is flat. I never mentioned flat. I said the earth is not circular.
  
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  
  and there you go, again with not being clear about what you are saying. You said the earth is not circular. Or is this a typo?
  
  So are you saying earth as in dirt or soil etc.? or Earth as in the planet circular, round, in the shape of a circle?
  
  I actually think that "flat" is also a conundrum.
  
  You could apply the word flat to earth or Earth as in not deep or thick when compared to the Universe or to Earth to Earth itself, or you could say the earth of the Earth lays flat against the surface of the water (or however want to put it) or you could say the Earth lays flat against the Universe.
  
  Of course with only a one, two or three dimensional minds, you may not have thought about how the word earth appears in the Bible as Earth as capitalized to indicate Earth as the planet in Genesis and then earth to represent the land, dirt etc.
  
  So while the Earth is circular, as in the form of a circular or "round" or "spherical" object, I am not so sure that the Universe itself isn't flat. So I don't know how much depth perception there is in comparison.
  
  Or I could imagine walking across the Earth in a straight line. To me I am always walking straight. Whether I am going up or down, right or left it doesn't make any difference because the earth is flat and I walk on the flat earth but Earth is round, circular, spherical (all imperfect) so essentially, everything is flat but perception differ depending where your at and what exactly your talking about.
  
  The Earth is round when out in space looking at the Earth, but it could looks flat against space as if drawn on a canvas as well. The again I have never been off the Earth so I have to take the pictures word for it.
  
  But then again, one single piece of earth like a grain of sand looks flat when compared to something else giving it the illusion of being flat, but then a single grain is more circular then it is flat.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, the earth is brown. And green. Not round.
  
  Hey - you make it as complicated as you like. If you had taken the time to read the conversation you jumped in to, you would know what we were talking about. Too much trouble? Whatever makes you feel good. I just want you to be happy, and if this makes you happy, be my guest.
  
  Guess you christians just like the fight huh?
  report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mark you are saying that in the 'Leave us alone' thread. I can't believe your arrogance.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No Mark they like be heard just like you and you know what? I love you. I love you for who you are and the thoughts that you have and the desire you have to also be recognized for who you are and what you believe.
  
  I love you because you take the time to even talk to me. I love you because your human. You are a human with thoughts that are your own, you're a human who has the capacity to feel and to make mistakes.
  
  But unfortunately for you, I didn't learn it from you. The only thing I learned from you is that there really are people out there who say they care but could give two turds about the deeper part of the human.
  
  Because you really are all for yourself and shows in you a lot. Which is fine, I still love you anyways but you are wrong about your way being right because your way says it is ok to hurt people.
  
  Your way says that it is okay to prejudge everyone according to what they believe and not who they are.
  
  Your way says that weak minds should be left unconsoled because you're of strong mind because you don't need God and it makes you better than those who do. So I actually hate some things you do or imply or want but I don't hate you because you are human and I love people.
  
  I love atheist and Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddhist and rationalist and agnostics and gnostics etc... but I don't love hate. I don't think hate is funny. I don't think hate is acceptable.
  
  I think it is ok to feel it but it is not okay to act on it. Your a liar about what you say about understanding the Bible and your a liar about the things you say Christians and Muslims and all other religions are because you don't know them like you say you do, otherwise you wouldn't be a hater.
  
  And I think it is disgusting that you make yourself sound really impressive and you make yourself sound like you are of sound mind but yet you're a hater and haters aren't cool.
  
  And I am flattered you call me a Christian because I never, not even once said I was a Christian and you know why? Because I lovingly respect all their religions and beliefs but none of them are completely my own and wouldn't say I am and do a dishonor to their beliefs like some.
  
  But I will say that I do believe in the message of Jesus Christ. I do believe in God and I do believe there is a Holy Spirit... and you don't know what your talking about. Don't speak like a mediator as if you know because it is people like you that cause more strife between the good people on all sides of religions who really want to get along.
  
  People like you just want to see them keep fighting. And like you, I didn't mean all atheist or anything of the sort. I mean people who love hate.
  
  And if you hate me or dislike me or think I am stupid for hating hate or not loving hate, then you are more confused then you will ever know.
  
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sandra - you really should try to be more clear in your communication. Of course I think you are a christian. You said right here "both our religions." when talking about christianity and Islam.
  
  You see me as starting a fight. Why? When it was not me that started the discussion about the circle. And it is you who has been continuing a tirade against me. Why?
  
  Because I do not believe in your god (whichever one it is now) and I do not think you speak for god. And I do not think anyone can speak for a god. And I see the arguments between you believers. And I think much of this strife comes from blindly believing in a magical invisible super being, rather than thinking for yourselves.
  
  I don't want to make anyone fight. I am sick to death of listening to the ones who think their god told them they should stand up against "baby killing," and accuse me of being all sorts of things because I do not believe in their magical super being. I am sick to death of the ones whose "morals" come from a higher authority - god and the bible - when you can't even understand what your book says about the earth.
  
  Like the christians - you use the word "love" and then you tell me you feel sorry for me because I do not believe in your invisible super being. Then you call me a liar and accuse me of hurting people's feelings. And tell me I am all confused. You do not realize how condescending that is. And you do not care. Of course not - you are speaking for god. You do not even see how ironic it is. That is the problem. Try thinking for yourself instead of blindly attacking me because I think a belief in a god is ridiculous, self destructive and holds us back as a species.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No Mark I will point it out again. Your intentions, as you have made abundantly clear time and time again is to ridicule people who believe.
  
  You keep saying, don't shove your belief down your throat but I don't see any shoving going on.
  
  A belief in God doesn't hold us back as a species, that something that you have been brainwashed to believe or something you just like to believe.
  
  And I want to defend the right of people to talk about God just as I also defend the right for atheist to speak against God but the difference is your intentions and what you already said you come here to do.
  
  You chose your words, I didn't. They're here for everyone to read. I know this, you know this but yet you really can't see it because you are too heavily clouded by anger or something that all you want to do is fight with believers because you don't like it.
  
  All I asked of you was to stop picking on them because while some can take it, others cannot and you know it because you called them weak minded and for some reason you think it is okay to pick on weak minds.
  
  Your are wrong. I never said your are wrong for not believing. Believe anything you want. I said your wrong for intentionally hurting people.
  
  You are a liar and I don't have to prove it because you speak for yourself on the forums for everyone to read. Yet you don't get it.
  
  And like we already discussed, "irritated" doesn't mean "hate" and I said, " I " "sometimes" get irritated. I didn't say "they" irritate me. Because like I also said, I love Muslims too.
  
  Though in your mind, it simply doesn't matter because you believe them are fighting words and I believe that I have questions because I want us to get along and you don't want us to get along because you think you have it all figured out.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - You are putting words into my mouth again. Please give me an example of some one I pick on that cannot take it.
  
  Make Money - pushing the idea that condoms should not be used because they do not help in the prevention of AIDS?
  
  Allshookup - for pushing the idea that you should carry a gun and shoot people? Or keep her son away from a real education because she thinks evolution is an evil lie?
  
  Any of the ant-abortionists who believe their god is against allowing women to choose?
  
  The anti-gay marriage ones who think their god says marriage should be illegal for gays?
  
  The Muslims who say a woman should keep covered up because it tempts men to rape her?
  
  The preachers who stop by to leave links to drawings of "partial birth abortions" to try and get the law changed to suit their god-give higher morals?
  
  No. I will continue to ridicule these people, and if you are too blinded by your new-found belief in a magical, invisible super being to see that I only ever attack these sorts of people then that is your business.
  
  You think I am a liar. Fine. I don't care. I am happy with myself and I am comfortable with the ones I choose to ridicule.
  
  And if you are so uneducated that you are not aware of the strife caused by churches forcing their doctrine on the people - or are blind to the rising tensions between the Muslim and christian fundamentalists or the hindus and christians in India that is not my problem. I will continue to speak out against it.
  
  You are blinded by your ridiculous belief that everything is fine and a belief in god is all good.
  
  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 687075.ece
  http://www.christiantoday.com/article/c … /21249.htm
  http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html
  http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/581540.html
  http://blog.beliefnet.com//pontificatio … commu.html
  
  And none of those are old news like the crusades - this stuff still goes on - fueled by a belief in a magical, invisible super being. You can keep it.
  report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Josephus was a Jewish historian (not a Christian Jew) in the late first century. He was a roman colaborator and he wrote a history of the Jewish race for his Roman allies. His wirtings provide a great deal of historical background for the regions of Judea and Gallilee around the time of Christ.
  
  As to the use of the bible as science. Using ancient manuscripts as primary science is both bad science and bad theology.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. It wasn't me that did so.
  
  I will look Josephus up.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Lax slow imperfect.
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  59
  TheLoanConsultantposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Furthermore, did you not read my last statement?
  reply report
  78
  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hey LC, are you talking to me or about me?
  reply report
  81
  LondonGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  does he take sugar?
  reply report
52
madmacposted 14 years ago
It's been awhile but since this is a religious forum and if people have read any of my comments they know that I'm against religion of any type. I was a Catholic for most of my 50 years until " I saw the light" so to speak. I'm not against anyones beliefs but as I stated why do we need religion to get us through life. 2 days ago my 10 yr old nephew was staying here and he told me he was scared to death of the dark. I tried to explain to him that movies and such were only make believe and he said it wasn't movies but the Devil that scared him. I asked him why and he said that the Devil could take his soul if he was bad and I asked him where he heard this and he said church. I asked him why he thinks there's a Devil and he said that he believes in God so there has to be a Devil. So I asked him why he believes in God and his response everyone does. Apparently the Church teaches that if your not afraid of God then you can't believe in him. That's something to teach young kids, so I asked why would you believe in something that your afraid of that you don't have to believe in God and that if you go through life not hurting anyone and being the best person you can than if there is a God he will accept you into heaven. He asked me if I believe there is life after you die to which I said no. He asked me why and I asked does it make sense to live a life for whatever amount of years then die and walk around as a ghost? That the soul is the essance of who we are and the body is just the vessal that we use while were alive. What would be the point of living a life only to die and live another. He asked me what I think happens when we die to which I said you go into nothingness. He said that it scares him to think theres nothing after life [10 yrs old] I said why would it bother you. You'll be dead with no emotions of any type just try to live a good life and that will be your legacy when you leave here because no-one will care if you believe in God or not. This is what happens when a person believes in Religion of any type.
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why was he at church? I mean no disrespect of course and don't mean it to be an offensive question but I am curios.
  reply report
2. 67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good question Sandra. I'm sure his 10 yr old nephew's parents won't be too please with madmac's godless indoctrinating of their son.
  
  If you were a Catholic for 50 years like you say madmac then why would you have to guess what the Church teaches by saying "Apparently"? You can call me skeptical.
  reply report
  52
  madmacposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's ok Sandra Rinck I understand his sister took him and in response to your question Makemoney, the Church seems to change it's teaching like shirts. It once taught that Jesus was the son of God now it's their 1 in the same. In my time I don't recall ever hearing a priest say that or that we should be afraid of the father in order to believe in him. The Church teaches all kinds of trash to our children like about 25 years ago when the Bishop stated to my then 7 year old niece and others that if you don't accept the body of Christ you can't get into heaven. What about all the other religions out there that don't teach this are they all hell bound? No I don't consider myself an Atheist, I just choose after considerable research not to believe. I asked my brother recently why he believes in God and his response was because I do. He asked me why after all the years I believed so strongly do I not now believe and my response was that I actually took the time to read the Bible actually read it. He or others can't prove that God exists but I can prove to relative certainty that he doesn't simply by reading the Bible. As I said why is it that whenever the Apostles asked Jesus something he always answered in parable? When you ask a priest about this you always get " so you can figure it out for yourself or you can study the bible for a 1000 yrs and never understand or get the same meaning,or he works in mysterious ways etc" Jesus was sent to die for our sins and to teach us about God [or in this case himself] but what do we know other than he's Alpha and Omega nothing. I am in no way condeming those that choose to believe as apparently everyone needs something to believe in but why we can't believe in each other astounds me. It's easier to believe in a mythical being that no one it seems can positively proves exists than something flesh and bone it's simply mind knumbing. And in case your wondering why I come to this forum if I don't believe, it's because of the things some of you choose to say to justify why you believe. It seems to me that if YOU truly believe in your faith you shouldn't have to justify anything to anyone. That says to me that you don't really believe completely, your listening to others opinions as you may be having some dought of your faith it's for me curiously intriguing.
  reply report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are right madmac, we shouldn't have to justify anything to anyone.
  
  Why can't we just come to this Religion forum and talk about religion peacefully, without being attacked? We should be able to, don't you think? It's not one religious group attacking another religious group in here. It's those that don't follow a certain religion that are doing the attacking. And basically that is why this 'Leave us alone' thread was started.
  
  Madmac we can believe in each other. A person does not have to be of the same faith to believe in the goodness of that person.
  
  By your words I am still skeptical about you saying that you were once an RC though.
  
  You may be still searching and don't realize it yet madmac. That may be why you are drawn to the Religion forums.
  reply report
  81
  Jewelsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Interested in what you are skeptical about. Do you mean he never was a RC, or that he still might be? I was an RC too and I know I am not now, and I know many who have left the church because it did not fulfill them. The controversy didn't help either. But I didn't have a choice in the beginning, I went to catholic schools. When I was old enough to know the difference I chose differently.
  reply report
  52
  madmacposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Makemoney and your right even though I was raised a Catholic and yes made to go to church, I like the vast majority of Catholics just went through the motions. But I did very much believe in God to the point of saying the rosery 2/3 times a day and I really believed that when I spoke to him I could hear him speaking back. Weird I know but thats how strongly I believed, Yet one day I sat and actually read the stories in the book not like 95% who just skim and pick out the things that make what they were going through in life at that moment seem for the lack of a better word real. I started noticing contradictions in the scriptures that made me want to read more than I started really getting into the stories and a prime example is Job. Heres a man that had so much faith in God and vise versa that the God let the Devil do whatever he wanted to Job short of killing him. According to the book the Devil put upon Job unbelievable affliction including killing his wife and chilldren. Yet when he never gave up his faith the Lord rewarded him 10 fold. Was Job suppose to forget his loved ones? Yet this God knowing that Job wouldn't loose faith, let Job go through all of this. I ask you how many parents out there would let harm or suffering come to their kids or loved ones to prove a point? This is the almighty.... As I said, I can show many stories like this in the "good book" Now some would say that they are just that stories, if this were the case then what part of the book is real? You can't pick things out of the book that you think happened so the book is either all fiction or it isn't. What about all the lies it tells us for example, Jesus and God are suppose to be 1 and the same yet when Jesus was dying on the cross he looked up to heaven and said "father why has thou forsaken me' why would he say that if he were God? Or on the 6th day God created man yet we know for scientific fact that dinosaurs walked this earth and that more importantly Man walked among them. Where did Adam and Eve come in? You have to remember that God created them on the 6th day and they went on to have many children including Cain and Seth. Again if as the book says that these were the first humans on earth where did Neanderthal man come in, again a lie. I have many more but now you can understand I think why I stopped believing. Since the book isn't true and most religions are based on it where does that leave our beliefs? You can't say faith because faith is based on the book and it's teaching. I truly believe that most if not all believe in this book and religion because their scared there might not be anything after death. Why would they be scared as they would have no awareness of feelings after all they are dead. Why is everyone worried about what happens after they die? They should be worrying about the here and now. Mind boggling and as I said, I don't come back here because I have doughts, I come back to read some of the reasons given for beliefs and then theres the way some treat those that don't believe as they do. Thanks
  reply report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah some parts of the Old Testament are hard to understand. I don't claim to have all the answers, nobody does. Some people believe in God because they believe He has answered their prayers. Some people believe in God to hedge their bet in case life after death is actually true, which is a good reason in itself. Some people just need to believe in something. The question that always comes up is, what is this life all about? You know what I mean, our mere 60, 70 or 80 odd years on this planet is nothing when you consider the life of this planet (old or new earth theory). Then there are concerns for deceased love ones. These are some reasons why people ask the question, what is this life all about? And that brings people to belief systems. Some people will say that life is about leaving a legacy but when most of us are dead and gone only our loved ones will remember us until they are gone. A lot of people believe there has to be more to it than that. I'm sure you can respect their choice to believe, can't you madmac? Funny I've used the username mikemac quite a few times online. I should have with Hub Pages too cause I'm definitely not making any money.
  
  Mike
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mike you just gave a whole bunch of generalized statements. Now I ask of you--Why do YOU believe in God and how did you come to YOUR conclusions?
  reply report
  52
  madmacposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can understand that Makemoney and again I'm in no-way condeming or putting anyone down for their beliefs. You have given many reasons why they choose to believe but anyway you look at it people believe because their scared and I'm guessing that includes yourself. As far as legacy is concerned, many people in this world remember those that have left us for many reasons ie: for their humanity, their work with the sick, their many various accomplishments in life, books are written about some, statues are made of others it goes on and on. Not just their loved ones but many shall remember them for the legacy they leave behind good or bad. Man has been killing one another since the beginning of time it's their nature but I'll almost guarantee if you could look up the stats that 95 plus % were killed in the name of 1 religion or another. If there had never been any religion in this world what do you think it would be like today? It without dought couldn't be worse. Might I point out with reference to the church, if people had even bothered to read the book they would find out that Jesus said "Peter was his rock and upon this rock you shall build my church" and that they "apostles" shall build a movable tabernacle and what it would be made of. It also says several times in the book that "God will not enter man made temples" then says "where 2 or more gather in my name, there I will be" talk about a contradiction thats like putting stop and go on the same sign. Someone said that they believe because they have gotten an answer to their prayer, I used to think the same thing till I went over the answers I had recieved and they all can be explained at least the ones I remember. I realize that it is an impossibility, but if I had 1 wish that I believed would save humanity from distruction it would be to abolish all religions and peoples thought about it even if it was for 4/5 years just to see what would happen. There is 1 thing about the book I choose to live by and that is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" It's too bad everyone couldn't live by that rule as the world would be 1 heck of a better place thanks Makemoney
  reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 years ago
Welcome back Jenny, we badly missed you here
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Seconded
  reply report
83
quicksandposted 14 years ago
Phew!
reply report
83
quicksandposted 14 years ago
Sigh!

No offense meant.

I am off to Paraglider's forum.

Follow me my hearties!
reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 years ago
Uh-oh....
reply report
1. 66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm with Misha on this.
  
  Sandra, I thought your last post was well written, understandable and in line to your past conversations. It is good to see someone comfortable with themselves. I appreciate the calm, but firm stance of your position. It makes it easier for people to read and to understand the conversation. Much more productive than some of Mr. Knowles past publications. Sorry Mark, no offense intended. I appreciated Sandra's focus and approach.
  
  Sandra, I know this off topic but I wanted you to know that you have gained yourself a new fan.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  None taken
  reply report
  66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good, I'm glad. I certainly meant none.
  
  Mark, I'd like to know if what Sandra said and I quote, "I know this, you know this but yet you really can't see it because you are too heavily clouded by anger or something that all you want to do is fight with believers because you don't like it. " Has any merit worth mentioning? Understand completely if you do not want to address it.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Sure - I am angry that people will abuse their children and prevent them from having a decent education because their god tells them to. Sure I am angry that people try to get the law changed to prevent women from being able to choose an abortion because their god says so. Sure - I am angry that the catholic church actively protects it's priest who abuse children sexually. Sure, I am angry at the conflicts caused by religions in the past and now. Sure - I am angry when the government uses god to persuade young men to join the military and kill strangers.
  
  Aren't' you?
  
  But that doesn't mean I am "clouded" by it. Just that I have decided to speak out against it.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well? Or were you just wanting to stir the pot ?
  reply report
  66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your pot? Are you kiddin'? No way. Especially on a topic with religious content- hell NO! I maybe young, but I ate my veggies growing up. Get me?
  
  I can't say that I'm angry about that stuff. I grow tired of the on and on and on scripture quoting crap. Boring!
  reply report
  64
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Looks like you jumped to conclusions yet another time
  
  No need to apologize, no offense taken cause it obviously was not intended, like in all previous cases
  
  Yet I did not mean anything of what you wrote here. I think both Mark and Sandra understood my post as I intended it
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I understood perfectly.
  
  I thought I was pretty restrained?
  reply report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'll second that. Sandra is making a lot of sense these days.
  
  And Mark, I'll say no offense to you too. Seriously this time. We have a pile of problems on this little planet of ours but for you to blame everything on organized religion is just way off side. It's just not true Mark. If you are going to continually look for who's to blame then be consistent. If you are going to be consistent then you have no choice but to also blame atheist marxists governments for many many atrocities committed. They are far from innocent.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  MIke - If I come across anyone pushing the marxism you are talking about, I will be just as vociferous with them. Misha is right marxism/religionism whatever - just another BS excuse to dominate you.
  
  Odd that you buy into one particular brand don't you think?
  
  Oh yes - that's right - a magical invisible super being runs one of them.
  reply report
83
quicksandposted 14 years ago
Gosh! Foucalt was right! Pendulums do swing both ways ...
reply report
1. 0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  OMG! Somebody has read Foucault!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Loved it (the book) Although, it was his only decent one.
  
  There used to be one in the Natural History Museum in London. Every morning they started it swinging with a load of sand spread out on the floor. Awesome. I could watch it all day.
  reply report
  83
  quicksandposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah! Looks like it! Wonder who t'was!
  reply report
59
Abhishek87posted 14 years ago
A question in response to a question put in one of her (Sandra) previous posts here: Why don't you guys leave us alone ( specifically to Mark )

Why don't you look at Mark as someone who has lost his path and help him out. He's got questions, answer him and help him ? I mean, I m a Hindu, I hear that a lot in India here, people saying that they would like to help those who have lost the path (read atheist) and so on ....
reply report
59
Abhishek87posted 14 years ago
Adding to Mark's 'I am angry' post, I don't know if any one here knows about Shiv Sena. its a political party in India, which I and for that matter any sane person would hate more than anything :

The things they do in the name of Indian religion and culture is beyond contempt. Like they hit people on the Valentine's day coz its not 'indian" culture, I mean wtf ....
reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 years ago
I think you were Mark
reply report
1. 66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Misha I liked your phrasing uh-oh. I said I agree with you on that. Then I paragraphed down to begin what I wanted to say. Where did I say YOU had the SAME feelings, intentions or conclusions that I did?
  
  Whose jumping to conclusions again??? Did you say YOU were the 1 jumping? I concur.
  Misha dude get real. If I thought so highly of you I'd join your little club. But I don't and so the idea of you riding on my coat tails is out of the question. I spoke for myself. I speak for myself. Don't like people using your catchy phrases- don't write them. Never write down anything you don't want repeated English class 101.
  reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 years ago
RK,

Usually when people say at the start of their post that they agree to somebody, they then go on to expand on this or to stress points of difference. Absolutely unrelated continuation is somewhat - ummm - unusual. That's why I thought you made some conclusions of what I have said.

I suspect they don't teach such things in English class 101 nowadays, yet you better learn it to avoid further misunderstandings...
reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 years ago
Mike, you are as usual missing the point that communism is built on christian values

This is not to say that I blame all our troubles on christianity, this is to say that if the only other thing to blame is communism, then they are pretty much the same
reply report
1. 67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No Misha, this is just one of many web sites that say Darwinism was at the route of communism.
  http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/ … alism.html
  reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 years ago
LOL Mike, this is not my fight, I just wanted to make a point

In fact I can (but won't) argue that darwinism is built on Christian values too
reply report
1. 67
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No definitely not a fight Misha. The Russian communist revolution came about because of the totalitarian monarchical power of the Czar, who happened to be a Christian. The discontent was with the Czar not Christianity because the majority of Russians at the time were Christian. The communist system became totalitarian, resulting in greater oppression of the people it was designed to "serve." Don't you agree?
  
  Neo-nazis wrongfully claim the Russian communist revolution was started by Jews. So I found this wikipedia on Jewish Bolsheviks that quotes,
  
  So doesn't this also show that the Communist Party's routes were atheistic? Not only did the communists attempt to stamp out Jewish culture but all religious culture after the revolution. “Communism,” Rakovsky explains, “cannot be the victor if it will not have suppressed the still-living Christianity…”
  
  I don't know how you think Darwinism was built on Christian values when it is claimed that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed. This along with the story that Darwin renounced evolution before he died are both contested by Darwinists. Nevertheless if Darwin was not a Christian through his life then I don't know how Darwinism could have been built on Christian values?
  reply report
74
Lady Guinevereposted 14 years ago
Why does Christianity treat God and Jesus as possessions?
reply report
67
Make Moneyposted 14 years ago
Mark I'd just like you to know that myself as a Catholic am also angry that some Bishops in the past have shuffled priests that have abused children to different parishes. Catholics are as irate about this as anyone. Keep in mind these were Catholic children. A good example of this is how Boston demanded the removal of Bishop Law. This is no excuse but child abuse is not exclusive to the Catholic faith. It happens in all communities, religious or not but is not done in the name of any religion. Child abuse is deplorable. I am also angry at the conflicts caused in the name of religion, these people are twisting God's word. I am angry when the government uses God to persuade young men to join the military and kill strangers too, again twisting God's word.

Because I choose to LG. That free will thing again, you know. I have had some of my prayers answered. I am not just hedging my bet, I truly believe in everlasting life. I believe there is more to this life than what we see.

I don't believe it does. We do try to share, if you know what I mean.
reply report
1. 74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is kind of lame Mike. I mean you expect everyone else here to state the exact specifics of the way they believe and why (just so you can shoot the hell out of them and make them feel inferior to yourself). Just bcause I do??. Come on, don't you have any thoughts of your own or are they tied to that doctrine that I posted here. My how you just skipped over that, yet it is YOUR own doctrine. Besides what to jam down other's throats you are also taught how to look over your own religious doctrines.
  
  I don't understand your response to the above when I asked why Christianity treats God and Jesus as possessions. It certainly doesn't seem that way with religioun. Dobletalk there eh? You cannot keep God nor Jesus in your own box and then let others experience their goodness by a password only you now. They do not work that way.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You know I actually like Mikes thoughts, I really don't feel like he shoves anything down peoples throats. I suppose the difference or the vibe in feelings people get from a person who speaks passionately about what they believe some how comes off as them pushing their beliefs.
  
  At first I felt a little hesitant to understand him because of it but then I just started to listen and understand where he was coming from and see if I could find the same things in myself and then I did.
  
  I do actually come to the forums to learn from other people too, not just you LG, or Viralinspector (who has not been here a while now) and Country Women, and Mohit (who has successfully managed to overcome his welcoming committee lol- way to go Mo!) and Paraglider and Eng M. and Jeromeo and BDaz, who have really offered me a lot.
  
  And I say me because while I am reading, I am learning for myself. I don't always agree and for the most part, they are responsive to the disagreement and I learn and sometimes they blow my mind away with something I never would have thought of before and unfortunately LG, you use to be one of my favorites but lately all you have offered are things like "gag me with a spoon".
  
  I don't know what has gotten into you lately.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Apparnetly you have seen what he has trust down my throat. I also never expected to hear that you didn't only learn from me. I am not your teaher. Everyone is their own teacher. I really don't know what you are talking about. Yes I did say that and so what of it? He deleted his first post but I quoted what his original post.
  I posted my thoughts to Mike and he ---well you have to read it for yourself if you can't get it, I am sorry for that. I made Mike mad because I posted about the LOVE of God and the rest of the world. I really don't think you read his response.
  Fine I just won't say anything anymore and back out of these forums period.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well to be fair LG, he said some things to me as well except, I didn't presume that he hated me or that he really honestly felt that I was gonna go to hell. Actually, I felt the other way about it. That if I just give him a good listen about his intentions and the things he is saying and put all the other stuff behind me that I could just read it for what it is.
  
  Also, I called him Satan too, and other people have called me Satan as well lol. You are not the only one but I guess the difference is how you take it. It wasn't something I was going to hold inside me plus because I understand of the seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible, I well understood that he wasn't calling me, Sandy, Satan as if he really believed I was Satan himself. lol.
  reply report
  74
  Lady Guinevereposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I never called anyone any names and I never said that I hated anyone. I think you are getting someone else mixed up with Mike.
  reply report
59
Mark Knowlesposted 14 years ago
Mike - you are like a broken record. What do you not understand about the difference between a scientific theory with evidence and a political belief in an invisible super being?

I have no idea if Darwin was a christian or not. I have no interest in his political beliefs.

I guess that because you base your entire life on a faith based belief - you just can't envisage anyone doing any different?

And still you fight to defend the child abusers in the church. The church is above reproach huh? Why is that?
reply report
67
Make Moneyposted 14 years ago
To tell you the truth Mark the church is above reproach. It wasn't the church that did it. It was some priests and the Bishops that shuffled them around. If you want someone to blame and hate and go after then go after those priests and Bishops. You have my blessing.

Seriously. But don't forget the non-Catholics that do the same.

You call me a broken record Mark? You are the epitimy of a broken record. You never say anything different. I am starting to believe that you truly are a communist.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh - do they hide behind the irreproachable church also?
  reply report
67
Make Moneyposted 14 years ago
Nope, go after them Mark.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am doing. It is called the church.
  reply report
  66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Does it matter what church? I gather that you are an equal opportunist, but when you refer to Church- what Church or Churches?
  reply report
  75
  AEvansposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Here we go, What a beautiful Sunday it is Quite a Windy day and the weather is warm:D
  reply report
  66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why, whats wrong? Did I do something bad?
  reply report
  75
  AEvansposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't do anything bad, check out the thread it is quite interesting , fighting , fighting, fighting.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All the same to me. I am completely non-denominational. A backwoods wooden church in Arkansas that claims "humbleness;" the Roman church that raped entire continents to build their golden edifices; a Mosque in Birmingham that breeds suicide bombers - all the same as far as I am concerned.
  reply report
  66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Got it.
  Yeah, how about that Birmingham incident? Did you hear why that guy killed them people?
  reply report
67
Make Moneyposted 14 years ago
True commy belief Mark.

How about going after atheist commys that killed over 100 million in the 20th century?
reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 14 years ago
" Did you hear why that guy killed them people?"
Antidepressant drugs?
reply report
1. 66
  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Funny
  
  No I don't think it was antidepressants. [smile face]
  reply report
68
aka-djposted 14 years ago
I have been away again for a few days, and finally, it looks like we have been left alone.
At leaston this thread, and for now! Not neccessarily elsewhere though.
Oh well, one could only hope.
reply report
64
Mishaposted 14 years ago
Sandy, you are searching and changing, right? Nowadays you are not the one who you were a year ago, and talk and react differently. Other people do the same. All, including LG
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well I respectfully disagree I am exactly the same the only difference is that I decided to stand up for other people who believe in God and in doing so, the negativity turned my direction as well.
  
  I think that you like the submissive Sandy better lol because it was easier but submissive Sandy can and does think for herself and only stays submissive until a point.
  
  And when I do speak up, no one likes it, why? Because I do have a mind of my own? Because I do treasure other peoples beliefs in God as well? I am not ashamed and I wont stand down just because those who continually dish it out don't like it when it comes back on them.
  
  I am not gonna shut up just because I might lose the respect of those who really loved the submissive Sandy. That to me is oppression at it's finest.
  
  Anyways, Misha, I still love you so we cool.
  
  ps. although I am a little bit sad to some degree that I have.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

12 3 Next

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

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

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

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

Leave us alone.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Leave us alone.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies