Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Spacecraft repair droids could extend lives of satellitesMock Mars rover takes test drive in the desertAncient 'Loch Ness monster' suffered from arthritis in jawBill criminalizing viewing child porn online OK'd by NY SenateGM plans to stop advertising on FacebookOldest evidence of insect pollination foundUFO video causes a stir in MexicoRussian satellite takes a striking image of EarthSmokey Bear along for the ride to space station The angry sun: How they predict space weather
Leave a Comment:
Blind faith is not a substitute for critical thinking.
So true! The delusions of this man have ruined the lives of many who believed in him. He should have to repay all those who took him at his word and lost everything. Maybe if he was held accountable for his words in this way he would shut the hell up!
The poor deluded people who believed this phoney must have been illiterate. Doesn't take much reading to understand that no one knows when the end will be. This planet will end when the sun swallows it. Maybe.
He is no different than the snake oil salesmen that make up the side show of the republican candidates.
Wow, AndyBlue, I bet you're gifted enough to display your hatred of Republicans in any news story!
Yeah Andy you jumped the gun. Republicans always wait until the 14th posting before blaming Obama for everything including what Bush did!
No Amy, just my hatred for snake oil salesmen.
What is it they say? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice I must be a tea party protester.
Oh the horror of facing a new day. Actually I'm being sarcastic.
In about 1.5 billion years from now, the star we call our sun will begin to burn more helium than hydrogen. That will mean the end of the world for the human species. And when the Sun expands and either engulfs, or fries Earth, it will be the end of the world.
But don't worry, that is a long way off. Unless of course we impact with an asteroid the size of Texas before hand ;)
Only those who genuinely feel threatened about Christianity would make (negative) comments about it...simple psychology.
If this were an article on ancient Egyptian gods, you folks wouldn't have bothered. '...Oooh, those scary Christians are at it again!..." Go back to your meaningless lives getting richer and fatter...it's the only comfortable existance you're going to have...
Why? Because personal accountability means nothing now adays? People need to start idiot proofing themselves. It's their own fault if they believed in this garbage and now they hopefully learned their lesson.
Also, freedom of speech is the right of every American. He can preach what he wants, it's his choice. But it is up to the rest of us to apply common sense to what is heard.
On the religious side of things: We assume there is a God. We assume he is almighty and omnipotent. Do you really think an intelligent being such as that would write down or give hints in a book as to when the world will end? Do you think they would cause that kind of unrest? I highly doubt it.
Scientifically speaking: Humans will be the only species responsible for this world ending. Either by blowing ourselves up in WW3 or ruining the planet's resources and defenses against the sun to the point we couldn't survive any longer.
No Csphilli, YOU assume there is a god. Many of us assume there is not because as science unravels life's mysteries, god too, is unraveled.
Freedom of Speech is for you or I stating our opinion in the public square free of government censorship; it doesn't mean you can just spout off any nonsense without any repercussions (insert Hank jr).
Here's my plan for all US churches: They are tax exempt only to the median AGI of the community in which they are setup. Everything past that median should be taxed at full corporate rates unless it is spent on feeding the homeless or other "charity" activities. This probably wouldn't affect this dude so much but more toward the mega-churches.
And why not? When you have Camping's nutty followers, a scary amount of them, that actually could be your neighbors, that could be voters, that could influence how YOU live your life. Then you have people like Perry, Bachmann, Cain, and Palin - dominionists to the last - pandering for a Theocracy although they would deny it as they build the National Church of the United States on top of the Capitol building if they had the chance. You have Young Earth Creationists, just as brain-dead as Camping's followers, advocating that we teach their religion in science classes and seeking to undermine actual real scientific education - having children and teaching their kids in homeschool the same brainwashed nonsense that they believe.
F' yeah it's scary.
Accountability goes both ways, the deceiver and the deceived. It's that mentality that gets us the predatory lending scams that tanked this country in the first place. Dishonest, exploitative, manipulative, LIARS are also accountable for their actions.
Coastal, as science reveals more about the complexity of life, it actually upholds the concept of an intelligent creator. Darwin's theory emerged at a time when people believed that rats spontaneously appeared in boxes and maggots spontaneously appeared on dead animals. Once science shed some light on the matter, they found out there was quite a bit more method to the madness. In a universe that lends itself to entropy, complex organization does not spontaneously arise. But I digress...
If the tax code you suggest were implemented, the Christian organization I am part of would be totally OK. Everyone is a volunteer and the monthly intake for a congregation of 120 or so is about $1000 which covers the electric bill, gas bill, insurance, and some routine maintenance. The church up the street with a paid, full-time minister making $60k a year with free housing and nice Cadillac - yeah, they might have a problem with it.
Don't start that old Third Law of Thermodynamics line of creationist nonsense. It only applies to a closed system. It only applies to a close system. IT ONLY APPLIES TO A CLOSED SYSTEM.
This has long been debunked... for... decades now. There is even a section in the Wikipedia article about this common line of misinformation. Yet somehow the deliberately misleading lie keeps appearing as an argument for creationism.
I apologize if this is the first time you've heard that 'entropy' debunk. I apologize that someone fed you that line and you bought it. But if you have heard it, I revoke my apology, and will ask for a bit of intellectual honesty in the future from a Christian.
Actually... no. Not really. Darwin was early 19th Century - the beliefs you refer to like spontaneous rats comes from Greek philosophers and naturalists. There was a lot of groundwork laid before Charles Darwin, and a fair amount understanding about the natural world at that time.
I'd argue the merits of this debate, although I am not against the concept of a God-creator entirely. Yet, please, if you do insist on arguing it - again I would request intellectual honesty and refraining from certain long-debunked creationist misinformation and propaganda.
Youtube is an excellent source if you'd like to see a whole list of these common lies put out by various YEC organizations, so you will not make the mistake in the future.
.
You may believe that, Logres, but I think it has more to do with the fact that ancient Egyptian gods do not hold sway over people's lives the way that Christianity does today. The fact that this nut keeps making doomsday predictions and keeps being wrong, yet still has followers willing to give him their retirement and children's college money to support his foolishness is a bit sad. Only the faithful could show such blind allegiance in the face of evidence to the contrary.
I don't see Camping as a snake oil salesman. Could be wrong; don't know the guy. But the impression I have is of someone who actually believed the stuff he was saying. Snake oil salesmen know they are selling crap. There's a difference.
The bottom line for me is how many malls does he own? That seems to be the litmus test for whether religious solicitations are well intended or not. Own a mall? You're fleecing the flock. As far as I know this guy doesn't have a lot of personal wealth - again, could be wrong and don't care enough to even bother clicking my way through Google on that question.
"he answered the door of his home in Alameda, wearing a bathrobe and leaning on a walker."
No big gathering today? No celebration going on? Just hanging out in his bathrobe?? It would appear that he also knows he's full of @!$%#.
How sad to realize that your life's work has been meaningless and you've led others to throw their own away as well.
@Logres
That is exactly right. Some people in the US do genuinely feel threatened by christianity. Unlike a belief in Zeus or Apollo, no one is lobbying congress to stop beauty pageants because Hera may become jealous, or building oracles in courthouses, or lining up processions of animals and people in the street to be sacrificed. Nor are they working to have children indoctrinated in the belief of hercules and rituals to Athena for wisdom and guidance.
Christianity is a bronze age concept dreamed up by desert dwelling, sheep herding warlords in an attempt to put explanation to things they had no clue about. Death, Sickness, Drought, Famine, Sun & Stars, none of this was understood by them. There is no difference between christianity and greek/roman mythos, both have the same substantiation and substance, only consideration is that people still believe one of them and indoctrinate to use the same argumentum ad populum.
You did get one thing right, with one small correction:
Then you go on to suggest that people that don't prescribe to your particular world view will have no meaning in their life. That is utter nonsense and these threats ring hollow to someone that has escaped the indoctrination to believe them or are indoctrinated with a separate set of beliefs. It's like threatening someone that the leprechauns are going to get them.
As if you became an atheist tomorrow, your life would suddenly become meaningless? I feel sorry for you if all you have is an imaginary friend, sincerely I do.
@ TheJackel:
Don't worry, Bruce Willis will save us!
"And The Beat Goes On ........"
Darn those math errors. If only we were more educated those errors wouldn't occur. Oh wait...we're cutting back on education spending.
I guess we'll just have to wait for someone else with better math skills to calculate our demise.
You are all welcome to believe or not believe in God, but you crack my a** up when you try to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God. Einstein believed. Do you want to try to throw the scientific method at a guy like him? I suspect in a battle of wits, you might be unarmed.
This is a perfect example of a Strawman Argument - in case you were curious what one was.
I don't see anybody here making that argument. Have fun arguing with your strawman though, hopefully you can win that one.
Woops again.
NO NO!! SOMETHING DID HAPPEN!!! I don't know what it was, but the Earth must have tilted on it's axis or something!!!!!! One of my twenty-something kids called "just to check in" and didn't need money or anything! I'm telling ya, something strange is going on!! Someone call a news crew!
Please don't blame this millionaire nut job's lunacy on Christianity. Christianity has nothing to do with what this guy preaches. He's selling something alright, but it isn't God.
Huh? What? The world is suppose to have ended?
Shazbot! I'm always last to know!
riiiiiiight... because You Tube and Wikipedia are such authoritative references...
JmB66 maybe he meant the end of the world as parents know it. Mine called and remembered my birthday without being prompted.
Just out of curiosity,I wonder if this nutjob even bothered to file his taxes last year. With the world ending numerous times this year,he really shouldn't bother IMO.
This guy is far from being whay I call a christian. Anyone who is knowledged in the Bible would know this guy as a false Prophet. The bible speaks many times of them, and this guy is an example. It says clearly that no man will know the return, jesus will come like a theif in the night. It will be sudden and with out knwing before hand. There are certain signs to look for , for end times, but an end time could be any length of time from a few years, or thousands of years.
This guy gives Christianity a very bad name. I wouldnt associate him with it at all. I feel sorry for the people who follow and believe him. Kind of reminds me of Gabriel of Sedona who believed he was some type of alien, Star seed, and he has his own community where people give their entire life savings to him, and they live out there in his community. He believes everyone will have their own planet, and wife to have this celestial sex for all eternity.. really weird stuff. But people get so desperate they will believe his non sense.
http://www.nhne.com/misc/gabriel_dateline.html
Camping reminds me of the guy in Poltergeist 2 Reverend Kane
That's called the "No True Scotsman"
An old Scotsman in an old Scottish town is reading a newspaper - and sees an article about a British man who robbed a little old lady.
He says, "No Scotsman would do such a thing."
He moves onto the next article and is shocked to find that his neighbor was arrested for molesting a donkey and then beating up an old woman.
He says, "No TRUE Scotsman would do such a thing."
Pray to the pink pig flying around.
You must just be intimidated by the pink pig to doubt me.
You can not disprove the pink flying pig doesnt exists so I am right and you are wrong
Pray to the flying pink pig.
The pink pig tells me that YOU are a sinner too and that I should shun you.
whats your point
I almost can't help but giggle here. Consciousness is far more complex than most life on Earth.. News flash, consciousness can't exist without cause either. Using a complexity argument is quite silly... Your argument is like saying snowflakes are impossible to form without being hand crafted.. Such nonsense is amazing. Sorry, but consciousness is an emergent property from exactly the same processes you think are impossible to form the complexity of life. They come from the same complex adaptive system with feedback.. To demonstrate this:
A rock requires far less to support it's existence than some conscious entity to exist. Now tell me why a Rock isn't conscious. Can anyone here tell me why this dot ----> . <---- isn't a conscious entity?
People that use the complexity argument simply don't think before they post it. It's a self-collapsing argument.
Pat:
You know, Susan, theh uhthere are so many great missionaries doing work, out there in in inin parts of Africa, and and uh we're trying to get Bibles to people all over the world. And what we need, is the help of everyone out there so that we can continue these, these projects. Now, listen to this, Susan. Wha-one of our missionaries in North Africa has made an amazing discovery. U-u-uh a new planet, in the in the galaxy Alpha Seti VI, that has intelligent life on it.
Susan:
Amazing.
Pat:
Yeah. We're not sure what these hyper-intelligent beings look like, but one thing is for sure: they've never heard of Jesus Christ.
Susan:
What can we do at the 600 Club to help those poor aliens?
Pat:
Well, what we need, Susan, is we need money to build an interstallar cruiser. Now, this space ship will be able to travel through a wormhole and deliver the message and guh-glory of Jesus Christ to those godless aliens. S-send your money now. Amen.
davinci, he's just showing the world what mentality level he's achieved, so let's just let him have his moment.
Whoops, another of those pesky little 'mathematical errors'.
Perhaps a remedial math class is in order.
Ghost....awesome comment. Responses like yours seem to only come from free-thinking people that are not tied down to the constraints of their so-called religions. I myself am quite concerned about the effects and the stranglehold that organized religion has on this country. It tends to keep science at bay while allowing the ignorant an excuse to treat groups of people poorly. A pie-in-the-sky diety holds down the opportunity for the rest of us to learn the really important things in life, like where did we come from, what are we doing here, where can we go from here, is there other life in the universe. It is quite sad if you really think about it.
JmB.. now that was funny!!!!! I didn't realize kids ever called without wanting something... true miracle there must be a god :)
Dammit ! - There goes my free "Rapture Mansion"
...on second thought...the people in those mansions were never going to be raptured anyway.
"It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle...than for a wall street banker to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Just remember when a man says something is going to happen that Jesus says God is the only one who know the time then you know to ignore it.
When the rapture does come this guy will be as surprised as you will be.
Hey, I'm still here (patting myself in disbelief) I didn't get raptured or anything.
Saaaay...does this mean I've been left behind?
Naaah, Camping is still here, stomping around in his bathrobe and chuckling at reporters as he slams his door in their faces.
Uh-oh, maybe Camping has been LEFT BEHIND too!
Better check the 700 Club and see if those guys are on the air!
While GOD just "PUNKED!!" Camping again, just like when GOD, "PUNKS!!" Pat Robertson every year when he makes those predictions that NEVER happen, so Camping shouldn't feel all that bad. Pat Robertson is still stealing money from innocent naive christian people, and he doesn't feel he is doing anything wrong. Another thing, a christian on this thread board wrote that we are scare of the christians, that is why we are on this thread board making light of their retaredness. NO!!! WE ARE NOT SCARED OF YOU FOOLS, WHEN YOU COME OUT IN PUBLIC PUSHING YOUR LIES ON FEEBLE MINDED PEOPLE, IT PISSES US OFF. YOU ARE LIARS AND THIEVES, AND THE WORLD NEEDS TO BE WARNED ABOUT YOU. RELIGIONS ARE A DETRIMENT TO THE HUMAN RACE. AND DANGEROUS. To many innocent LIVES have been destroyed because of your MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL SICKNESS.
Y2K rations...check..bible...check...new math...check...nitwits willing to believe anything...check...ok, i know i forgot something...dangit...i always forget something. OOOOOOOOOOHHHHH actual faith based on teachings and prophecies...man i knew it had to be something.
Look if God says no one will know the day or hour, if the angels in heaven have no clue then why the heck do we have to deal with this crap? If the Dome of the Rock disappears and a new hebrew temple is built and we end up with a one world goverment and religion, then i might get a little nervous. Until then, STFU!!!
@ Shuklack
The universe is not a closed system? Gosh, I must be behind on my Wikipedia reading.
@ Ghost
No. Whether you believe the documents of the New Testament are accurate or not, they're not even in the same genre as Greek mythology. They're written as historical accounts of contemporaries personally known by the authors. If you want to discredit them in the minds of thinking people, calling them something they're not won't do it; you're going to have engage with historical scholarship on a meaningful level. If that interests you, I suggest you start by finding out when the Bronze age ended in the Mediterranean world. Perhaps Shuklack can refer you to the appropriate Wikipedia page.
Also, I'm sure who you think was involved in the early days of Christianity, but they were more along the lines of fish-catching, tent-making peasants. That correction might help make your propaganda a little more believable for anyone who has read any of the Gospels.
Lol. You just made it apparent that you actually have no idea to even what you are referring. Your 'entropy' example is from thermodynamics, and in thermodynamics there are different kinds of 'systems'....
What you are unwittingly citing is the third law of thermodynamics in regard to entropy in a closed system - you are then erroneously applying that to the Universe, which - is not - in thermodynamics - a closed system.
"In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work), but not matter, with its surroundings. In contrast, an isolated system cannot exchange any of heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while an open system can exchange all of heat, work and matter." (it's an open system)
The equivalent of what you are doing would be as if I cited the Theory of Evolution as to why there is erosion on a mountain top. Sure, they both involve gradual change - but it is obviously not applicable.
Shuklack, great posts! Didn't you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics when discussing the localized loss of entropy in living systems accounted for by the greater gain in entropy to the surroundings? I believe the 3rd law has to do with perfect crystals at absolute zero having no entropy.
Anyway, you are clearly a clever debater.
if your talking about entropy, I think thats the 2nd law, not the 3rd
Less religion, more math and the world would be a better place.
You might be right, it's been years since I've messed with any of that stuff - mainly going off of memory
Not my example, but I'm still curious as to how being an "isolated" versus a "closed" system changes things in your conception.
The 2nd Law of thermodynamics states that the amount of usable energy in a closed system (that is, no additional energy added from the outside) decreases. The issue is a decrease in usable energy, so, unless you believe that energy is being added to the universe from the outside, the 2nd Law applies to the universe as a whole.
Ain't that the truth! It's not Christianity that scares me -- people are free to believe what they want -- it's people like the aforementioned who want to make the U.S. a Christian state, much like the Islamic states they loathe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the founding principles of the U.S. to have freedom of religion? These people talk out of both sides of their mouths (no revelation there!), saying on one hand they believe in the Constitution and on the other completely ignoring the First Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1) which states in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". Those are the first ten words of it! So which is it?
As for Harold Camping and his senile ranting...time to stop giving him press. Enough is enough...unless you put him in the Comedy section where he belongs...
Actually Preacher Camping is 100% correct, his timing is just a bit off. THE WORLD IS GOING TO END SOON!...His world that is! That old fart can't have too many good days left in him. And then when he passes away and finds out his make believe god doesn't exist anymore than any other religion's make believe god, he's going to soil himself (not actually, he'll be dead)
Thankfully, in science, we are not relegated to having our own conception of physical laws.
You are getting into some pretty deep metaphysical debates here. But let me state my little tiny brained concepts and questions on this point:
The universe is still expanding, so could it be considered closed?
Some have theorized a multiverse, or an infinite universe - would that make it open? In mathematical concepts - like thermodynamics, the models only work insofar that we are dealing with finite figures...
There are still things like black holes and other phenomena we don't understand - so without understanding such it is impossible to definitely say whether or not it is a closed/open system.
Currently, our understanding of the universe is insufficient to definitely make that determination... I must admit. BUT BUT BUT - if God does exist, and God is infinite, and God influences the Universe in any way - then it would have to be an open system - wouldn't it?
Benjamin: Paul spoke a lot about Jesus Christ, but never personally met him :)
It's actually irrelevant whether the universe has usable energy, or order, introduced from the outside, perhaps for the scope of the origin of life argument. The absurdity of universe existing at all is another debate.
Living systems consume order/usable energy from their surroundings (open system, such as eating food and breathing) to introduce order on a smaller scale within their bodies. If any living system were to become a closed system, operationally it means not breathing or eating, etc. So life, a very localized decrease in entropy (increase in order) relies on a larger, by comparison, increase in entropy (decrease in order) in the surroundings (open system).
Please correct me if I'm wrong, or oversimplifying things. This may instigate vitriol...
Pompous dumbasses like Camping give religion a bad name. Not as bad as other religious freaks, like the suicide bombers, but bad enough. Only in America there are people dumb enough to fall for these 'evangelists', time and time again.
Also, I think the 1st law of thermodynamics prohibits the introduction or elimination of energy into the universe, but there are probably some caveats there, especially as we are continually redefining matter and energy in physical theory.
Camping didn't you get the message? He called and said he'd be late! This is nothing but hogwash and I am a Christian.
Whats the point really? If you are a believer your going to heaven and that's that. If your a non believer, just because this guy is saying something is going to happen its not going to make people just drop everything and become reborn. If anything stuff like this turns people off and away from Christianity. So really its kind of laughable and very snake oil salesman. Stop it already.
And once again I am left to wonder if at the stroke of midnight these end-of-the-world people are disappointed to find they are alive - and so is everyone else.
This mental condition requires it's own name so I dub thee "Mock-Suicide by Proxy". Maybe they should try an antidepressant.
Actually, Paul DID meet Jesus, on the road to Damascus.
I spent 20 years as an atheist. I laughed in the faces, literally, of those that preached Jesus to me. However, I began to notice that my life seemed to be getting more and more empty. I wondered where the joy I experienced in my youth had gone. I had everything I wanted, was successful in most of my endeavors and yet, the emptiness grew within. That same emptiness impelled me to start searching. Shortly thereafter, I started praying and I was suddenly enveloped with love, from God. My life was transformed! I am a believer, I have experienced miracles and healings. My heart is filled with love, peace and joy! May all you doubters be blessed with that same Love!
What does Harold Camping expect? Everyone will be here one second and the next we're
@Shuklack:
I don't see how the expansion of the universe would make it open. I'm afraid the multiverse theories don't help either, because multiverses by definition are causally disconnected from each other (otherwise they would be part of the same universe). In regard to black holes, are you suggesting that blackholes are portals by which energy is being introduced to the universe from an outside source? That seems incredible to me, but it's the only way I can see that they would influence the question.
Exactly. God is just the sort of non-physical outside source we would have to posit in order to say that the universe is an open system. Any physical or natural sources would simply be included in what we mean by "the universe" (the whole of the natural world).
Therefore, it is not a lack of understanding of the universe which makes the question indeterminate; it is entirely a question of whether or not we believe in such a supernatural entity.
If you do not believe in one, then the universe must be a closed system, because it includes everything that exists; hence, no outside energy source is possible.
@Jim
I don't believe I said that Paul met Jesus; he isn't the only author in the New Testament, and he didn't write any of the histories. That aside, Paul says that he did, in fact, meet Jesus on the road to Damascus. If you think Paul is lying because miracles like that are impossible then I can't change your mind, but if that's your approach then don't pretend to be evaluating the historical evidence objectively.
And I met the ghost of Elvis on the road to Las Vegas. Does that mean now I can write, with authority, how he feels about the OWS movement?
Why? I'm sorry, but I fail to see how disbelief would indicate that there must be no possibility of an 'outside' energy source. Only future knowledge and understanding may answer those questions (for real) - using God to fill the Gaps is a cop-out.
Also, you cannot argue from semantics about what the concept of 'universe' means - then slap it in a box and label it closed. Frankly, there is nowhere near enough understanding of our universe to do that with any sort of legitimacy or finality.
That's a pretty big assumption about something which currently only exists in theoretical physics. Again, our knowledge is not substantial to determine what, if any, sort of impact each verse has on one another.
Which is why I added a question mark - an expansion wouldn't really make it closed either. A closed system must be finite, one can't apply finite metrics onto an expanding universe that we know so little about.
And to expand further on the God - infinite concept. You are the one that argues that the unisverse is a closed system (as it applies to our current understanding of thermodynamics) - thus proving God as creator. This isn't logical.
If the universe is a closed system, then God must only exist within the universe. Because if he existed outside the universe, that would make it an open system, thus disproving your point.
If God is infinite, and exists within the universe, then the universe must be infinite - thus making it unqualified as a closed system. A closed system cannot be infinite.
The only possible way it would work - in this hypothetical God scenario - is if God existed outside the universe, and never had any sort of role in the universe whatsoever (except for initial creation of it all).... then the universe could remain finite (and closed). Soon as you inject God into the universe though, it becomes either infinite and/or open.
At least we know for sure that Elvis was real. And people did not kill others in his name.
"Jesus said you won't know the day or the hour.."
Correction, a BOOK said "Jesus said you won't know the day or the hour.."
For once I am going to make a quick statement because as a former practicing Catholic who realized that we really are supposed to think for ourselves I keep thinking about this; imagine the world 300 years from now, archeologists come across a home with all sorts of writings, The National Enquirer, Star Magazine, The Weekly World News or any one of Murdock's publications. There is nothing designating what is fact and what is fiction.
In other words, don't preach to us and we won't criticize your beliefs. Science uses facts to make a determination, religion uses the interpretation of a book that is thousands of years old. This book is conveniently worded so absolutely nothing can be proven. It is assumed it is written verbatim, nothing changed EVER. It is assumed it was written by intelligent people who only had first names. The main character only has one name.
Instead of believing in invisible deities try believing in human beings. You know, the beings that you are actually in contact with throughout your day to day lives. Obsessing about rainbows and sunshine that can not be proven is a waste of your energy. It is equivalent to obsessing over Aesop's Fables.
Now that I am getting long winded, as usual, I will end this with this: with the complete turmoil around the globe why is it that God can't stop in to say hello, make the point that he does exist, there is only one, we are correct or incorrect in following the Bible etc...... Make us all believe instead of having us trust priests and pedophiles.
Better still, if we are truly supposed to worship this entity why don't we just do it directly from heaven and do away with the layover on earth?
See that, anyone can preach.
By "universe" I mean the entirety of the natural, physical world. That is very straightforward; not an issue of semantics. If you want to use "universe" to refer to some part of the natural world, then we need another word to refer to all of it. I use "universe" for that, as, I think, do most people. If you want me to use another word because I shouldn't put "universe" "in a box" (whatever that means), fine, but the reasoning still applies with full force.
And since it is reasoning, let's not have any of that "God-of-the-gaps" nonsense. Based on my understanding of thermodynamics and cosmology (certainly fallible) these are the conclusions that we are led to based on what we do know, not on what we don't know.
Well, no, it's not, actually. As I said, multiverses (I agree they are entirely theoretical) are causally disconnected by definition. If you want to talk about other 'verses' that stand in causal relation to each other (and how would they then be 'other?'), you need another word, because those who posit mulitverses have already given meaning to that term, theoretical though it may be.
I'm afraid I haven't been explicit enough in what I'm arguing. My contention is that the universe is a closed system when understood from a naturalistic, scientific perspective, as is used in the study of thermodynamics and cosmology.
However, I am a theist, so, no, I do not believe that the universe is a closed system. In fact, I do not even see how that is a philosophically or scientifically coherent concept. It seems to me like if you are going to accept the validity of our studies in thermodynamics and cosmology, you don't have any rational alternative to acknowledging the existence of God.
Shuklack, I have to say that I always find you in some of the most interesting... "discussions"...
Browns Backer, if your name didn't make me cringe at the thought of you being from Cleveland, I would think that you are my long lost twin! I thought I was reading one of my own posts for a minute!! heh heh Priceless... absolutely, priceless! :D
Benjamin, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, huh? Well, you know the basic law of energy, right? Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. You've heard of it, right? That would mean that the usable energy would change into a form of energy that could be used by another source and then outputted to add to the usable energy supply. Hmmm... I wonder if that is what all those pesky suns do.
You see, Ben, when it comes to nature, there is a balance to everything, and you are trying to apply a law to the universe. When in reality, our species has even stepped off the door mat in any real experience with the universe. Sure, we are doing a lot of looking and guessing, but that is all that it is. All our Laws of Nature work HERE. We have no clue if it works near Saturn or past Pluto. We assume a lot of things and because we can do it here and not have anything proven false... they are considered universal facts. Human arrogance at its best.
Multiverses... dimensions... again, how can you place facts on something that can not even be proven to exist... yet you are going to state that they are disconnected? How would anyone know? What instrument... besides a whiteboard and grease pen... is used to learn about this?
Damn, missed again!
Nice testimony . I was in the same boat as you. I was atheist, also agnostic, eventually I came around and took that soul search challenge to find out that emptiness and why i felt it. I believe that would be the calling. You feel drawn to God, as one of his chosen people. Anyone of these guys here can get that satisfaction in life , if they would turn their life to Christ. I pray that Jesus will soften their hearts and let them feel his love and sacrifices he made for us.
Question to both of you on this "turn around", were drugs involved in your past?
I notice a lot of ex junkies suddenly "find" jesus. Just asking, and not inferring anything.
"Blind faith is not a substitute for critical thinking."
Tell that to the liberals here....LOL
@Kinkomaster,
No, I'm afraid stars do not reverse entropy. You can stop wondering now.
I agree that the concept of multiverses is purely speculative and not based on evidence. This doesn't bother me because I doubt their existence. But let's be clear on something, when I say that multiverses are casually disconnected, I'm not claiming to know something about actually existing mutliverses; I'm just telling you what the cosmologists who talk about them mean when they use the word. If we don't clarify like this, then we get people trying to use the concept where it doesn't apply, as demonstrated above.
With regard to the laws of nature, you're right that on a naturalistic view of the universe we can't expect these laws to work in places where we have tested them. In fact, we can't even expect them to work anywhere, or explain why they exist (Hume made this pretty clear). This is, in fact, a serious problem if you're an atheist.
If you want to reject the inductive principle that grounds science, that's up to you, and it makes sense given your apparent worldview. But just so we're clear, you are rejecting theism not because you have rational grounds for doing so, but because you reject the scientific endeavor altogether.
To Shuklak -
The concept of an intelligent first cause is all that I am putting forward. At the same time, I do not think that most "Creationist" are on the right track either. As with many hotly debated polarizing topics where people tend to align themselves to one extreme or the other, the truth is usually somewhere in between. I do not agree with the average close-minded fundamentalist that insists that the earth is 6,000 years old. At the same time, I feel that many scientists and other members of academia have become just as close-mindedly entrenched in their own anti-God views, believing it to be scientific blasphemy to even hint at the possibility of a creator.
However, the question of whether there was an intelligent first cause is separate from the question of who or what that first cause was. Also, did they have a purpose, and if so, what was that purpose, and is the "first cause" still interested in fulfilling that purpose? These are the questions that you could find as many answers to as there are humans to ask.
Besides apathy, faith is the ONLY substitute for thinking. So anyone that believes in Faith is prohibited from believing in thinking. The two terms are antonyms, accept it and move on.
Hey, if you have a financial advisor who is managing your whole retirement and he says he has faith in it but no facts, are you ok with that?
@Brown Backer
Why do folks make statements such as this? Or?
What makes you thinks God hasn't stopped in? It seems with thoughts such as; God makes etc. your teaching left out self-will, free will.
@T in NJ,
A totally relevant question may be ; Are drugs involved in your present life?
@ rrobeson,
Who is arguing that we have faith and no facts?
And do you have an authoritative source for that definition of faith and thinking, or did you decide on your own that that is what faith is going to mean for everybody?
No. And I didn't suddenly find Jesus. Just sayin.
rrobeson... that is an easy one... NO! That is like some guy that is about to do surgery on me telling me... "Have faith, I slept at a Holiday Express last nite."
You seem pretty sure of yourself when you say that stars do not reverse entropy. You're telling me that you know how every star in the universe works, huh? There are NO exceptions? I'd ask if you were actually that arrogant to say that there are no exceptions, but you are a believer... and believers are nothing if not absolutists. Simple fact of the matter, there is nothing about space that makes me nervous. Why? Because we don't know crap about it. How much do you think we can actually learn by sitting in our own orbit or looking thru a "looking glass"? We assume so much about the universe, but I have a feeling that what we see as facts only apply in certain places, under certain conditions.
I know... I'm knocking the sciences. Nope... the sciences are just fine here on and around Earth. Anything that can be tested... measured... replicated... not a problem with it. Anything that I need to take with some faith... which includes theoretical physics and "sciences" of its ilk... is not trustworthy. Sure... you can say a black hole has all these aspects, can do these things and has certain traits, but until you can actually FIND one and do some measurements... it is only making assumptions and educated guesses.
I have very rational grounds for rejecting theism. I believe in MYSELF. I don't need to call to a parent figure that will never leave, because I am strong enuff to stand on my own. Those who follow a god are basically sitting at the feet of parents that will never leave them and supposedly always take care of them. The "parent" punishes you when you are bad and rewards you... well... never. The Rapture was supposed to be your reward, yet here you all are... STILL... You see, Ben, science is a good way to argue about your little crutch, but simple logic is all you really need. When it comes to an actual "discussion" about your religion, you have one source to pull from, and you guys wrote it. Doesn't really count in a debate... now does it?
Damon and Angel, 2 atheists who decided to pick the crutch back up, huh? You know what that tells me. You never understood the argument in the first place. It's alright... maybe someday you will actually open your eyes, instead of peeking out and then running back to the sheep. Oh, Damon... little FYI... there was only 1 sacrifice... not multiples. He died only once, and that is even in question.
The universe, closed or open as related to thermodynamics and the question of evolution, which is where y'all started, is beside the point. Evolution of life happened here on the Earth (as far as we know it, leaving out panspermia theories of alien sources), so the "system" one needs to consider is the Earth itself, which, thermodynamically speaking, isn't closed at all. It receives the input of kajillions and bazillions of joules of energy in the form of sunlight... every day.
Nice try on using science to refute science in favor of religion... fail.
Oh, my. So many minds will be changed here today. Everyone will change sides and then we will have to start over, I suppose.
Hey MikeyMike, I haven't seed you in ages. So much truth in that last sentence it hurts.
Just so you all are perfectly aware: The universe did indeed come to an end as foretold by Rev. Camper. Really, it did.
Dr. Who rebooted the universe a short while later. You might have noticed some mild stomach discomfort but that is normal.
Glad we're all back!
Simple logic is all I need, eh? I'll agree that we need logic; the difference between us is that I can justify using it and you can't. You see, I believe in a God who provides a ground for the laws of logic; because my first step is belief in Him, I can happily affirm the use of logic and apply it to the universe He made.
On the other hand, you begin with yourself, a contingent being in a contingent universe, and then you want to use abstract, universal laws of logic as though they actually exist. Sorry, but that doesn't follow. Your presuppositions can't even provide grounds for your own use of logic (I'd add science, too, but you've already jettisoned it).
You can psychoanalyze me if you want, but since you don't know me, I don't see what use your speculations are. I find that psychological generalizations usually tell us the most about the person making them. From yours, I take it that you see religion as teaching a system of punishments and rewards, but that's not Christianity, and I'm sorry if others have given that impression.
As far as entropy goes, yeah, I'm pretty sure that stars don't reverse it. Stars are not more than 100% efficient. Thermodynamics (unlike cosmology) is a field that is quite well understood and developed. I think you may not realize how radical is your idea that stars could reverse entropy. I suggest talking about that to an engineer or physicist who can explain the concept.
I'm not sure who you think wrote the Bible, but I assure you, I wasn't involved. Do you have an actual, logical argument as to why the word of God is not properly authoritative in debate? If so, I'd love to hear it. That is, after you demonstrate how your worldview can account for the laws of logic at all.
Don't expect me to be intellectually intimidated by your dismissal of the Bible. You just dismissed science as well, so I'm not too surprised. I have a feeling the laws of logic may be next in line.
Nope, I was never drawn into the drug scene. I smoked pot a few times and felt that the way it made me feel was too weird plus I got the munchies, big time, LOL!
My eyes were opened thats why i left the world view. Science can not explain the goo coming into existence, and then turing into goo to man. They have their best guesses, but thats all they have, is guesses and assumptions. I will stick with God and his word. It never changes, he remains the same yesterday , today and for ever. I enjoy my fellowship with Jesus when I pray to him, and that is a feeling unlike no other.
As for sacrifice, it wasnt suppose to have a "s" on it. If you want to be that critical go ahead. Im well aware of what Jesus has done for us.
I just hate a no-show Rapture.
Ummm. The Observable Universe is measured to be flat. It's a type of open system where maximum entropy can be reached via expansion. And regardless, if you know anything at all about capacity and volume, closed systems can only exist within open systems. Like your oven exists in the kitchen, or a blown bubble floating in the air... Why? Because the oven or the bubble can not be contained in a box with zero capacity or volume. In fact, this is exactly why the over all Universe (existence itself as a whole) is considered infinite. Thus for you to exist at all, there can be no boundaries to the physical system.
That would be incorrect and impossible. But to understand why, you can reference:
Information: The material physical Cause of causation
Yes, I agree Christopher, let's take religion out of the equation and put God in the equation instead. Man made religion scares people when God teaches and loves people. Religion wants people to do things that God never said to do. God says to "Love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul".
When people start calling on God instead of hearing the lies of people who claim to be "Christians" they will hear from God. When you hear from God it will be through reading the Holy Bible, it will be when America is healing from the sin it has confessed before God, Not some man on this earth.
Yes Damon, stay with God, He is the creator of all we see and all we cannot see.
"Do you have an actual, logical argument as to why the word of God is not properly authoritative in debate? If so, I'd love to hear it."
1. There is no evidence whatsoever to support any claim that a deity exists, much less a chrisitian god. None. Zero. Without evidence to support that claim, the notion of a deity can be disregarded as a credible authority. For that reason, your deity is no more credible than vishnu, allah, or the flying spaghetti monster and no one would expect to use any of those characters in a rational discussion, either.
2. The NT was written by men, none of whom was a witness to any of the alleged events contained within it. The gospels were written years, even decades after the death of the person whose life it is claimed to chronicle. Nothing in the NT can be corroborated by any contemporary documentation, either. In a literate world that was eager to document its history, a man who was walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, and raising the dead would have attracted the attention of the authorities, yet no mention of these alleged events occurs in anything that was written during the period in which they were supposed to have happened. A brief mention of activities attributed to jesus occurs in one version of Josephus' Testimonium Falavianum, but it is universally disregarded as an alteration of the original text by a later christian scribe. The NT, therefore, is no better than a book of fiction and it cannot be used as a credible source to support a claim of the divinity of jesus or the existence of a deity.
Consequently, using an imaginary deity or drawing upon the primitive myths of an ancient tribe of ignorant nomads is useless for the purposes of creating a rational or well reasoned argument.
Sailcat, there is evidence all around you. This world and all of the creation you can see did not come together; as Satan would like you to believe, from nothing more than a cosmic explosion. God created it all and then lovingly created man in His own image, a Trinity. You have Body, Soul and Spirit. Faith of believing in God without seeing Him is the greatest. I know He exists because He said so and He sent Jesus here to this earth; as is recorded many many times in scripture, to die for our sins and save us from a devil's hell.
All people have to do is sit down; read the Bible and realize that the Bible has NO errors. What was written in the Old Testiment was written in the New Tesitiment by men who were thousand of years apart, most never met each other in the new and/or the Old Testiment writings and yet they tell the same story without ever reading the other's manuscript. Bibles were not as you see them today, you couldn't go to the local store and purchase the latest book.
Jesus did attract the attention of the "authorities" which in the day were the "high priests". I believe they knew who Jesus was and yet Satan wanted to get rid of Jesus so badly that satan blinded the eyes of the high priests so that they would hate Jesus and choose to get rid of him because He challenged their every day rituals instead of believing Jesus for whom God said He is. The high priests called for Jesus crusifiction because they feared Him and wanted Him out of the way. Too many people were following Him and going away from them.
Mankind can say what they want about God's existance not being valid. You cannot tell me that you have not seen the beauty of your own skin and realized that from head to toe none of it is exactly the same. Only God could have created your skin to be different depending on what area of the body it is. It sure didn't crawl out of a scum pond and say oh, I want my face soft and my forehead not so soft. !!! That took the loving hand of the Creator.
Your religion claims GOD created time. But many Christians fail to ask themselves what times relation is to being existent. Christians will tell me GOD exists outside of time. I then ask, does GOD exists now? How about ever? And then you quickly learn the self-collapsing folly of that. Especially when a conscious state is temporally bound and requires the inertia of information to support even the most basic cognitive dynamics, or functions of observation and realization.
You also get the Omniscient deity that is omnipresent arguments.. Well, if I = all the information that give I an Identity..Wouldn't an omniscient deity infinitely know me in every infinitely knowable way to the point of literally being I, me, myself? ... And if this deity is Omnipresent, where do I exist?.
You see how self-collapsing these theist depictions of GOD are? You either end up with pure nonsense, or pure case of Pantheism being worshiped by a bunch of people that don't even know that their religion has evolved into Pantheism. So if you want to keep your individualism, such GOD concepts can not possibly exist.
If you see god's hand in the world around us it should be easy to point out his fingerprints on his creations. Unfortunately, you cannot. You believe in this nonsense only as a matter of faith, and faith is merely uncritical belief without evidence or proof. That is completely irrational.
Keep your imaginary friend to yourself.
Believe what you will, I choose God.
Me too debora. These guys are lost in their religion of naturalism. Some even obsessed with it so much that they no longer have the ability to use reason and logic anymore. Just like there are conspiracy people out there who conspire about the government, 9-11, things like that. These guys have made up their mind there is no way God can exist. Yet not one of them has shown me anything of value that shows 100 % with out a reasonable doubt goo coming into existence, and then developing complexity over time to become what we are today.. Then evolution just stops at human beings. They say were still evolving, but there is no evidence for that. We are still human, and im betting in the future we all will still be humans. Wish I could be here to say told ya so, but I will be praising Jesus face to face at that time, in a place that is so wonderful.
Sorry, but naturalism is an observation and not a religion. You seem to not grasp what a religion is. Atheists do not have a religion, and they do not worship nature. Atheists are not Pantheists.
I think we entirely use logic a reason in our debates. You however do not. Trying to spin this in attempt to circumvent logic and reason at a play for peoples ignorance is quite funny. As if making that statement would magically make you sound as if you use logic and reason in the form of honest discourse.
Ahh yes, lose a debate and revert to religious dogma and conspiracy theories to make yourself feel better, and make a poor dishonest attempt at demonizing those that challenge your appeals to ignorance. You must actually think you are clever.
Yeah, it's called lack of empirical evidence, and the use of deductive logic.. And you can't even seem to define what a GOD actually is. To put this into perspective for you, I can defy your argument simply with this:
Example:
Even you Christians beg for your GOD to exist, or be --->IN<--- existence. Sorry son, but anything that exists must follow the rules to existence. These rules can not be created or written. Hence, you can not design and create that which yourself is slave require in order to be existent. All things that are existent, are emergent properties of existence. Especially if you are a conscious entity! Consciousness is the most highly complex thing we know of, and we know it can't exist without cause.
Now again, please tell me why a Rock is not a Conscious being.. Or tell me why this dot ( . ) is not! If you can't grasp the complexity argument here, you failed this debate.
jackal I have no interest anymore in your obsession of your religion of atheism, your crazy and wild view of viewing God as narcissitic because you can grasp the nature of God, you have a sickening view, that is with out warrant. Your twisted lack of knowledge is truly worrisome. You can fool most on here waving your wand of illusions, but I seen your arguments as flawed, your sources flawed, your entire thinking flawed. He can seem impressive to most of you on here because he has all his ways of thinking so believable that most would fall for it. I will not debate with you at all, its pointless with someone like you.
When asked to give his best argument to give to someone who could give him a educated and logical debate he scoffs at the notion. So I leave with what AIG had to say about him, and this still applies jackal
Keep in mind, that according to the Jackal, you being a Christian are (a.) intellectually inferior (b.) even if you posses a degree you are pseudoscientific (c.) personally responsible for any atrocities that any "supposed" Christian has ever done-by implication and by extension (d.) anything that rebuts his position will be ad hominem attacked or dismissed as silly and "unscientific" (e.) any challenge to a secular scientifically-held position will be "proven" to be wrong by a scientific journal article (which will contain more "maybes, possibly's and potentially's" than you can count).
Life is an electromagnetic phenomenon. You seem to not comprehend what goo is... Snow flakes are also electromagnetic phenomenon. In fact everything is made of energy. You are an energy being made of atoms, and atoms made of energy... Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy =/= information or a Universal Set of all Sets. I can actually sum everything up with 3 simple properties:
Damon....? Shame on you... You're using a reductive fallacy in your argument when you say no one can show you how goo can come into existence and then slowly become us. You're trying to win an argument by oversimplifying things. Is that how your mind works? "Things are just too complicated to think about; therefore, God must have made it". If you use that line of reasoning, then the car you drive must have been made by God, because building a car from scratch is just too complicated for you and I.
Things are a little more complicated than your statement of Goo turning into Life. The statement you should be saying is: When does Chemistry become Biochemistry?
There is a moon that orbits Saturn called Titan. Titan has one of the thickest atmospheres of any moon and it consists of large amounts of nitrogen along with methane and other hydrocarbons. The atmosphere is thick, and it is also very cold there. Lakes of liquid methane adorn the surface of Titan. It has been suggested that the current atmosphere of Titan is very much like prehistoric Earth's atmosphere (we know this because we can crack open a rock that is 3 billion years old and detect the gases that were captured inside it when it formed).
When the Voyager spacecraft visited Saturn we got a good idea about the composition of Titan's atmosphere, the temperature, pressure, and energy the system was absorbing (radiation from the sun, radiation from nearby Saturn, it's own internal weather system [lightning, etc..], etc...). So some experiments were set up in the labs back at Earth.
These experiments were set up to determine: How do two simple molecules (nitrogen and methane) create a very complex chemistry? Does chemistry become biochemistry?
Something interesting happens when you create the exact conditions of Titan's atmosphere, and start to inject a little energy into this nitrogen/methane soup:
Titan's atmosphere is somewhat orange. The closest analogy for this coloration and haze is smog. Titan is smoggy because the interaction of nitrogen and methane over time has created molecules called tholins (from the Greek word, muddy). In the lab, hydrolysis of these Titan aerosol analogs gives rise to the formation of amino acids, the precursors of life.
That's right. Proof. Chemistry, when under the right conditions, can lead to Bio Chemistry. Proven. In the lab. With geological evidence pointed billions of years into our past that Earth's own atmosphere was very similar to Titan's atmosphere.
Goo into the building blocks of Life Damon. Just as you requested.
You're welcome.
You may as well call everything a religion lol.. Stamp collecting must be a religion too! Eating Ice cream must be a religion!..Oh wait!.. And on Narcissism:
This is what you call NPD.. It's by definition Narcissism:
To which includes:
And then we get this:
Compared to some Volcano deity you worship that commits Infanticide because it's "Sorry"? Yeah, if your righteous, world abortion is ok! This gives me a picture of some Mother or Father drowning their children in the bathtub while crying out how sorry they are for creating them! So according to your religion, it's ok to kill your children if you are "sorry" for creating them. As if blaming the beasts of your creation makes any more sense than a Corporation blaming poorly designed propane tanks for blowing up and killing people. Especially when knowing the design flaws would cause such events. You religious people are like those who blame the tanks and not the CEO of the company.. Blaming a bomb you make for blowing up in your face is just as nonsensical.
This is more useless and desperate religious dogma. Using this on me is amusing to say the least.
Tell me the flaw in information theory.. Better yet, try responding while not having to adhere to it's tenants / premises. You will quickly learn the folly of your statement here.
Oh really? :
Hence, information theory owns your entire ideology son! Your every thought, argument, belief, fallacy, and display of dogmatic ignorance. Have fun proving how "flawed" information theory is lol ;)
And yet here you are trying to. But really the point of that statement of yours is more due to the fact that you lost this debate before you even began. It's pointless because it's quite a futile effort since you will have to contradict yourself and self-collapse your arguments throughout the entire debate to even try to debate me!.
I never made any such claim about Christians being inferior. In fact, unlike your Jesus, I have never claimed anyone to be a lesser person than I am regardless of the differences in our beliefs. I apply practical tolerance to which doesn't mean I need hold your hand and make magical concessions to your religious ideology. Practical tolerance does not mean I can not reject your logic, beliefs, or challenge them intellectually. Practical tolerance simply means I need not seek to ban your religion, keep you from practicing it withing the limits of common secular law that everyone including atheists have to abide by. Practical tolerance means I don't try to kill or kick you in the balls either. And information theory does not involve "maybe's" or possible's in regards to it's premises ;). Nor does it contain baseless blind faith assertions with fake attempts and professing "a truth". Your religion sir has nothing to validate or substantiate "Truth". Your beliefs are based on "Faith" err.. Hope for a reason.
And I can see you don't like a secular system. No surprise that you will suggest that we all live under a Christian religious theocracy.. You don't know much about freedom or how a secular system fits into that do you?
So a little hint, anything that demands you to worship and love it or face damnation is by definition a Narcissistic ego Maniac. It's not even anything I can consider respectable in any moral context. And for it to tell me to love it more than myself, or my family? Pfft! Keep dreaming!.. I don't care what entity comes up to my face demanding such bs, that will never happen! I don't care who you think you are. Respect, and love is earned, and not demanded! To be more specific, anything that claims to be a GOD is narcissistic. It's equal to hero worship.
lol jackal your like a broken record. you can copy and paste all that mess as much as you want.
Keep in mind, that according to the Jackal, you being a Christian are (a.) intellectually inferior (b.) even if you posses a degree you are pseudoscientific (c.) personally responsible for any atrocities that any "supposed" Christian has ever done-by implication and by extension (d.) anything that rebuts his position will be ad hominem attacked or dismissed as silly and "unscientific" (e.) any challenge to a secular scientifically-held position will be "proven" to be wrong by a scientific journal article (which will contain more "maybes, possibly's and potentially's" than you can count).
(taken from southernrebel from another thread. He made some great points )
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission
"The very success of the Darwinian model at a micro-evolutionary level . . only serves to highlight its failure at a macroevolutionary level." Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge." Albert Fleishman, zoologist
"The darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Albert Fleishman
"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake." Louis Agassiz, Harvard professor
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind , the theory does not stand up at all." H. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution
"Untimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century". Micheal Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" Bounoure Le Monde, Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France
he text books always say that the fossil record prove evolution. This is not so. Darwin himself recognized that there should be vast numbers of transitional forms. But they are not there. It shows distinct, functional creature with no clear transitional forms.
Stephen Jay Gould, famous paleonologist and evolutionist was honest enough to admit the problem of the fossil record:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleonotology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. . .in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. . .All paleonotologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major transitions in organic designs, indeed our inability, even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
No, the fossil record offers no evidence for evolution.
All the genetic evidence shows is that many creatures share similar design. Depending on your point of view, you could assume this is because they have a common ancestor or that the Creator uses a similar design.
Human embryos (nor any mammals) don't have gills. They have ridges that look a little like gills.
Horse stripes and hen's teeth only prove they have the genes to produce these and their ancestors probably posess them at some time. It in no way proves they evolved from some other species.
Yes we have witness microevolution and no one I know of disputes this. But change from one species to another as never been witnessed. Just because there is some change in species in no way shows that they change to other species.
Gould: "We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
David B. Kitts, School of Geology and Geophysics, U. of Oklahoma: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them"
Ronald R. West, Ph. D. Paleontolgy professor: "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would. . .Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. . . We now have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
Damon... You're using another fallacious argument to make your case. In this case you're using the Argument of the General Rule where you argue that "look at all these scientists who claim Evolution is fake; therefore, it is fake". However, when we look at this entry from Wikipedia, we learn just how many scientists actually DO think Evolution is a phony science:
Scientific support
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]
As we can see. Most scientists actually do believe in the theories and principals of evolution. Your quoted statements, therefore, are just so much meaningless noise in the overall discussion. As an analogy, let me suggest the following:
Religion is bad because people like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and others force their members to have sex with them and then force them to commit suicide.
You might say, "Anjisan, you can't judge religion by a few bad seeds". Right. Just as you can't judge the correctness or incorrectness of Evolution because a couple of jugheads who want to make a name for themselves in the scientific community by bucking accepted, tested, and accredited theories.
...again...
You're welcome.
The Judeo-Christian religions are morphological evolutions of older systems of belief. That is why christianity, for example, shouldn't even qualify as a mono-theism. You have a spiritual heirarchy with the chief divine source with lesser slaves in lower tiers. The religion is a form of thought enslavement by saying that you have a part that is entirely free of this reality while concurrently being tied to everything about you that is real (the "soul" idea which is immensely contradictory; just like the gospels that were accepted into the New Testament, as well as the 50 or so that were rejected at the time of its creation). This 'soul' must permanently submit to the chief divine entity in exchange for avoidance of the consequences. Not only does this reflect false morality (you are doing something only because of the end result you recieve; i.e. reward vs. punishment as opposed to right vs. wrong), but it also shows the archaic practices that underlie human socialogical practices.
Let me put this in another way. The first human societies had pretty much the same practices of law. order, marital union, child-rearing, punishment, employment, etc. that we have today. If you simplify the aspects of modern day life to their most streamlined patterns of thought, action, and purpose- you'll see what I mean. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Christianity was likely formed as a political resistance to the Roman Empire. This explains why many aspects of mediterranean society which were tied with the Greco-Roman people were deemed offensive, while other practices (such as slavery, racism, sexism, and warfare) were not. The Christian gospels are not unique to the religion either. Christianity did not invent killing=bad, except when... We have seen the same general teachings and stories from the Nile to the South China Sea (as much as a millenia or more). Each of these had their own time tables which only work within the framework of the religion. Example: true christians cannot accept that the Earth is billions of years old b/c this would disprove part of something that is already full of mistakes. Nevermind that they only complain about the science that contradicts their teachings when the same disciplines have given them modern printing presses, computers, telecommunications and artificial lighting.
There is a comment up higher on this page that mentions Einstein believing in a god. Albert Einstein was indeed Jewish (not christian). Eistein also believed that the Universe was infinite. Nevermind the fact that his own equations clearly spelled out a finite expanding universe. He openly admitted that he was in love with the romantic notion of an infinite universe and spent much of the remainder of his life attempting to rework his equations to make his hopes come true. He died without achieving that desire. You can be extremely intelligent and still be ignorant due to the fact that the root word of ignorance is ignore. Look at the media. The people that work the camera, as long as they are getting paid, are probably willfully ignoring the fact that they work for a political entity that is deconstructing America. This doesn't mean that the camerman is a dumbass, just blind in a specific, limited scope. Ignorance is bliss due to the belief that what you don't know can't hurt you.
To the posters that claimed that their emptiness was resolved when they joined a religion, well- glad to hear that you are no longer in a bad spot. I will not tell you leave the religion as that is your choice and yours alone. However, I believe that organized religion is nothing more than the pursuit of attachment of worth. It operates like a nightlight for your thoughts and feelings. This same behavior occurs with material possessions. Same thought process, different medium of expression. Christianity is far from something good or pure. It contains a lot of horrible things as at its very core it is about submitting to a tyrannical, egotistical force that will either have you in permanent slavery or permanent torture. Not something I would want to promote on 'Family Radio.' There is so much else that could be said about the truth behind these institutions, but I don't feel like writing a book on an internet forum.
The Bible, and many other books from various religions, say that no man knows the day or the hour.
Maybe this guy never read that part of the book he preaches from.
Or he is simply a mummified old con man who is defrauding millions of dollars from the life savings of thousands of deluded and willfully ignorant cultists. The contents of his fictional holy book are, therefore, irrelevant to his goals.
Anjisan , I am well aware of majority look at evolution, but that doesnt always mean its acceptable. Does the poll ever take into consideration how many say this because if they had any other view they would be outcasted by the scientific community ? Im putting that out there, whether its true or not, it is something to consider. Also if evolution were so correct, then there should be no debate about it. If it was something that was 100% verifiable then there would be no doubts and case closed. But we do have argument and fallacy of goo to man evolution. It does have problems, it is just theory.
I will always find it arrogant of man trying to figure something out over billions of years. Have any of you idea how much different the universe , our planet atmosphere, geography ect ect could be different in thousands of years, then think of it in hundreds of thousands, now think of millions of years, then go into billions of years. I would be more likely to believe some evolutionists if they stayed with evidence they can back up with time in hundreds of thousands, but it is impossible to make any assumption of how anything would be millions yet alone billions of years ago. It is arrogant science, based off of untestable unverifiable evidence. So please spare me the know it all knowledge of billions of years. It is a perversion of the mind of science to make gross assumptions.
Personally, I think it is the height of arrogance for mankind to believe this vast universe with its billions of galaxies, each of which contain tens of billions of stars, was fabricated solely for the purpose of staging our sad little tragicomedy. To insist a god exists who is obsessed with our lives and who craves our souls put all of this together for our benefit is hubris...and willful self deceit...at its most preposterous extreme.
DamonWV, there is next to nothing in the scientific community that is 100% verifiable with no doubts from anybody. This did not stop us from flying planes or watching television, however. Evolution is always brought up by people that don't understand it in order to debate science at large. This astounds me b/c why would you disprove something that is in your face at all times? Now, I know that religious people like to bring up how their "proof" is also always around us, but there is a big difference between twisting the key in your car and my book says that you should love one of its characters more than your own child.
Evolution can be seen with micro-organisms ranging from viruses (not technically living) to multi-celled bacteriums and other complex biologicals. They adapt to changing stimuli. This has been done in who knows how many lab tests. Why do you think we have super-bugs? Evolution is adaptation on a long time-scale. Adaptation is a reference to a specific response to a specific stimuli. Evolution is in regards to the culmination of adaptations that cause individual specimens to be genetically dissimilar enough that they cannot successfully mate despite having common genetic origins. Another way of saying that is where we get species from. This was explained to me at length and in great detail by my biology professor in college (I wish I could find my notes on the subject). You could actually see the very minute changes occur over time in the increasing complexity of various body plans. These changes occured over geological time.
You contradicted yourself several times. These specimens and samples line up fine with fossils taken throughout geological time. Evolution works in a way we don't fully understand. You don't throw out something that is reasonably sound b/c you don't understand a certain aspect. Theories are fluid- being continually refined. Gravity is a theory! All of the scientific disciplines are composed of theories! All laws are theories. There was earlier discussion over Thermodynamics. Well, guess what? Those are theories too! Everytime someone says "oh, evolution can't be trusted since it's only a theory" is automatically admitting that they don't understand the scientific process or its terminology. Gravity is disputed. Thermodynamics is disputed (not often but there are detractors). The strong and weak nuclear forces are disputed. The Theory of Relativity is disputed. You say that you don't like the theory because of its timetable- do you not like relativity b/c of its high speed? You cannot fathom that either, but do you think light will stop taking 8 minutes to get to us from Sol? I can't understand how christians will talk about how it is impossible to know their diety because it is unfathomable, and yet they will argue the same thing that keeps their houses lit and warm at night doesn't make any sense b/c they can't fathom how the theories work. It's like arguing with someone about fossil fuels. Oil is decomposed organic matter over tens of millions of years, but then that is a lot of time not accounted for in the bible. They used oil bubbling up from the ground too- they just didn't know what it was.
Evolution is a theory that is essentially proven. As proven as a theory can be considering how long it takes to see results on the macro level. You stated correctly that there is a lack of transitory fossils in the fossil record. Have you actually contemplated this? Do you actually believe we have a fossil of every living thing that has ever lived? Do you believe we have an example of every family tree with specimens close enough to account for every century of geological time? You believe in Noah's Ark (which is ridiculously impossible) and yet you can't wrap your head around evolution? Sir, you are in no place to judge others as being of a mental perversion. It is my belief that you actually have extremely limited knowledge of evolution. Try using your computer (brought to you by science, not Yahweh) to learn more.
Damon... You have an uncanny ability of of focusing on a single point I make, while ignoring points 2 - 10... 11... or whatever.
You also continue to make the foolish mistake of arguing knowledge against faith. Faith by its very definition suggests you are basing your beliefs on "Hope" rather than "Knowledge" (or hypothesis, theory, or evidence of any kind).
So go ahead, Damon... Try to besmirch science. Tell us how arrogant we are in trying to figure out the Universe works with our mathematics, telescopes, physics, chemistry, biological theories, test equipment, and so on... Keep saying, "All the answers are in the Bible". That's really good. Is your hole in the sand deep enough? Does your head fit in it? Let me know if you need any help shoveling in the sand after you stick your head in it.
Where does arrogance lie? With the guys always pushing the envelope in trying to figure out how things work, or with the people who say, "STOP", we got it all figured out, just read the Bible?
SailCat is right. It is arrogant and foolish to slow down the evolution of humanity and society by attempting to claim you have any answers, or by trying to claim you even have a single answer to anything.
Faith vs. Knowledge? Faith loses every time.
Edit to my first post: where I said for a millenia or more when discussing the origins of those teachings, I neglected to include "before christianity began."
It doesnt matter any more anjisan, because no matter what answer is given, you reject it. Also if i were to give you specific answers to your questions and the answers were sound, you would just find more questions to ask. It is always a non stop with you all. So as the bible says to not cast your pearls before the swine, I have no desire to waste my time with people who have turned their backs to any other explanation if it doesnt coincide with your views.
a matter of fact,
Your evidence for the bacteria doesnt show evolution as in goo to man.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/01/31/observation-evolution-bacteria
Again, we have an equivocation of terms. Adaptation is the result of the processes of mutation and natural selection leading to a loss of genetic information—but an organism more suited for a particular environment. Evolution requires the gain of genetic information to go from molecules-to-man. Adaptation and evolution are not the same thing. Bacteria are not evolving
So the bacteria are still bacteria.. You guys have such dreams of evolution being true like we guys have of God creating the world. You have your belief , we have ours. We both use science to prove our points. Where has it gotten us ? No where.
Pity neither you or I will be around 10,000 years from now (I know I won't, you on the other hand... I'm sure you'll be sipping a pina colada in Heaven's equivalent of Waikiki Beach).
You know... Back when we were discussing how the discovery of alien life would affect your belief in God, I'm not entirely sure what your answer was to my one question...
Suppose we meet (10,000 years from now) an alien culture just as advanced or more advanced than ours, and we ask them to discuss God with us. What would you say when the Alien says, "What God?".
Or...
What would you say when the Alien says, "Our God is a universe traveling entity who's fecal material seeds life onto planets"? You'd probably say, B.S., and try to evangelize those poor misguided aliens. Now, another 1,000 years go by, and we find another alien culture. One just as advanced as our, if not more so. And they corroborate the first Alien culture's story about the space traveling life pooping God. What then?
I already know the answer. God is God as defined in the Bible, and we were created in his image, and he prizes us above all other life, and has a special place for us to go when we die.
Here's why I reject most of your answers. You don't think. You don't reason anything out. I suspect you don't like it. You've decided that thinking about things such as mortality, death, end of life, end of existence, end of self, and end of consciousness is unsettling, and it's best to defer ALL of that to the Bible, and the hope it provides you.
Perhaps, the only thing I want from you is your admission that your belief system is entirely wrapped up on one single emotion: Fear.
By the way. We don't have "dreams" of evolution being true. What does that even mean. A fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. It's just knowledge. It's a series of hypothesis, supported by theories, and proven through experimentation and observation. Science doesn't have dreams, it just has an undying thirst for more knowledge. Now... Dreams of a world created by a mystical, magical man who loves us beyond anything else in the universe, and will allow us to live forever in paradise... NOW that sounds like a dream, my friend.
A nice one, but a delusional one.
DamonWV, I appreciate your effort and the time isn't wasted. Everything posted by the opposition has merit to some degree. Reading what non-believers post as the truth when referencing the Bible brings attention on how little they know on what is quoted. Science is a requirement in school and many people who believe in God are scientists. I don't see hoards of Christians flocking to a site to ridicule science when they announce a truth/fact that's been followed for years is announced as incorrect.
It's easy to see why many attack Camping because it's a sad case for all who are affected. It's sad that anyone would follow him. It's even more sad that Christians are not willing to follow what the Bible asks but being human is part of the equation. I think the saddest issue here are people who were poisoned by religion and come here to spew their hate.
It's seems the height of irony when a non-believer opens their post with a biblical quote to support their argument. It's easy to prove what many people (Christians) believe or how they interpret the Bible as false. What they can't do is prove the Bible is false. It's easy to say; I don't believe. To say the Bible is false and prove it is a different matter. I don't think anyone who's been bantering has that going for them.
Being force fed religious ideology gets the same results as being fed liver and onions; Some like it and some don't.
How our world, earth and our universe came to be is expressed in theory, only theory. There are few scientist today who will fall on the single cell sword of evolution. There are plenty here who will repeat the theory simply because they have nothing at risk. They are told to do so. If I pick up a science textbook four decades old, lets say at the graduate level of a four year college, how accurate would it be?
However we see the Rev. Camping I ask you to remember Rush Limbaugh earns $38 million annually and I've heard it's intelligent folks who pay him so intelligent folks will listen.
" There are few scientist today who will fall on the single cell sword of evolution."
Citation needed.
anjisan , I dont have to speculate about alien beings. There is no evidence for them, no evidence their out there. Thats just as much as a dream as when i see people saying flying spaghetti monster for God.
Well said point anjisan, but the problem is, there is no experimentation and observation. Do you know any one who has been living for 3000 years ? 10000, 100000 ? Millions, billions ? How can you sit there with a straight face and tell me science knows , with out a doubt what exactly was going on billions of years ago. How could anyone possibly conceive the notion of how much of what was around and how time can affect any such calculations or dating methods. You dont have data to compare back then to data now. Just assumptions. Thats it.. assumptions.
Yes I understand we go by what we see today.. rates of decay, all present gases, or any forces that can be measured and observed to see variance. That I can see eye to with, but for any scientist to come to conclusions about how anything existed so long ago, or how anything can be dated, or how anything can be observed is poor science.
You want to show me science, show me what we can observe and do in there here and now, dont sit there and try to tell me you or any scientist can know what has gone on for billions of years. It is also a blind faith you all have.
Anjisan63,
For the sake of argument I'll say I'm not the the smartest person to jog around the block. You do have a source proving your single cell evolution theory? Before the single cell you have what? Before nothing existed you have what? What was before the big-bang? Science has a habit of placing something in the cylinder before setting of the explosion to prove theory, what was it?
I think DamonWV's fear at whatever level you think it may exist pales in comparison to the hate you exhibit. To turn away from what you were taught as a child and and become hateful is one issue, to turn it against those who believe is a bit over the top.
I propose you take the smartest alien you can find and I will arrange a room for the two of you void of all with the exception of earths atmosphere. After a week, no lets give you a month, then you can step out and we will step in to see what you have.
DamonWV- I like the fact that you are using creative and somewhat scientific methodology in your responses. However I wish to point something out. A person that looks for a scientific answer interprets a group of data points to best reference a possible explanation. When applied to a religious question, this mentality results in agnosticism. When an individual is assured of an answer regardless of the data- that is an insurmountable bias. It doesn't matter what information is presented as you are already convinced of what the 'answer' should be. You continue to use sources that are biblical in nature. Let me ask you this: what if that link you posted had made the suggestion that the bible is wrong? My money is on the idea that you would reject it with little consideration (I won't say no consideration due to the appearance that you are thinking about your responses- even if they are not accurate).
You say adaptation results in a loss of genetic information. I hate to tell you but that isn't always the case. Have you ever heard of dominant and recessive genes? How about dormant genes? There is a myriad of ways to approach this but I'm going to give two examples. First: observe the development stages of a human fetus and compare with other organisms. I won't go into detail but I can surmise that you already know what I'm referencing (which is everything from the tadpole shape to the tail that eventually disappears). Second: I remember watching a tv show on Discovery Channel some time ago that was discussing the possibilty of cloning a dinosaur a la Jurassic Park. What the experts had determined was that the possibility of finding usable DNA from so many eons ago what be statistically impossible. However, one researcher (I don't remember where) decided to 'create' a dinosaur out of a living relative. Modern day scientists believe that birds (which first appeared approx. 70-75 million years ago, last I read) are the closest relatives to dinosaurs. This researcher found that by turning on and off specific genes, he managed to turn an embryonic chicken in a chickensaurus (my name- not his). Now, admittedly I cannot tell you if this was indeed a creation of a new species, a reversal back to an extinct one (not likely), or simply a chicken with deep superficial changes (scales, talons, long tail, different body structure). I know you won't believe in evolution no matter what, but I posted this so that others are aware of the exciting discoveries we are making every day to understand our reality.
Now, to address your reference as to the gain/loss of genetic information, I did a really quick google search and have copied and pasted a response from someone that sounds far more knowledgeable about the subject than you or I. I llok forward to your response:
by secretsa...
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The concept of loss or gain of information is a red herring. It is an effective one because it uses the typical Creationist tactic of asking a question in *deceptively* "simple" terms, that invokes a complex answer.
Notice how you correctly try to narrow this question by saying "I'm talking specifically about loss and gain, not change" This makes the question easy. A simple duplication error (accidental duplication of a section of DNA) is trivially such an "increased size in the genome."
However, the Creationist will then switch the question and say "No, you've just duplicated existing information, I'm talking about *NEW* information."
To this I would respond with a different kind of mutation called the point mutation ... a 'letter' of DNA gets accidentally copied by a different letter. Other examples are frame-shift mutations, translocations, transpositions, etc.
To which the Creationist will again switch the question. "No. That's a change of information, but the genome is still exactly the same size."
To this I will respond that mutations can happen in tandem. A duplication error can duplicate a gene (creating a redundant copy), and then, *perhaps many many generations later*, a point mutation (or frameshift, or transposition, or other mutation) will change the properties of one of those two genes (creating a new allele).
And to this the Creationist will change the target again ... "No. What I really mean is an increase in the size of the genome, with new information, that is *beneficial* to the organism." (No explanation of why "benefit" is a requisite property of "information" ... but hey, it's their game, so we are forced to play by their rules ... even if their only response is simply to keep changing the rules and moving the goal posts!)
And to this I will give an example of the genes that code for two (out of the three) proteins ... called photoreceptors ... that gives us our three-color vision. Most mammals have only two photoreceptors ... but humans, apes, and all old-world monkeys (the monkeys of Asia and Africa) have three, all coded by the same genes, in the same locations on the same chromosomes. Furthermore, two of our photoreceptors are clearly the result of a gene duplication (which created a redundant copy of the same protein), followed by a point mutation (which changed the properties of of one of those proteins, so that it responds to different frequencies of light).
So that is an example of an increase in the size of the genome (a duplication), and new information (a different photoreceptor), that is beneficial (takes us from two-color vision to three-color).
But notice how difficult this task is. It *sounds* like a simple question. But in answering it we have to wrestle down vague terminology like "loss or gain in information", which is what allows them to constantly change the goal posts. And second, the result has to take us into complex biochemistry, and letter-for-letter comparisons of nucleotide sequences, and allele locators on chromosomes, etc. And the non-scientist layman tunes out ... especially if they already have a built-in *hostility* towards science and their "big words" like photoreceptor, or gene locators.
Simple question, complex answer. That is the Creationist tactic.
It is a tactic that *counts* on laymen getting confused. Ask deceptively "simple" questions ("explain the irreducibly complex flagellum motor") that first require disamb
Well they have the casimir effect , but the issue is still coming into being, or the appearance of something coming into being.. But the question still is made, if something is appearing to come into and out of existence, did that something already exist to begin with ? or did it not. Once again you can speculate, but no one was there to witness it first hand. You can only assume from what you see now.
This is your best response? Science hasn't been able to move past theory of relativity or quantum physics and you know someone willing to give their life for the single cell evolution theory.
Even if science combines theory of relativity and quantum physics they still use what's existing in the universe today to prove (attempt) the point.
The point is you are making baseless statements that you cannot support with facts. I think my response was all your ravings deserved.
It must have gotten cut off due to some limit. Here is the whole post.
by secretsa...
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The concept of loss or gain of information is a red herring. It is an effective one because it uses the typical Creationist tactic of asking a question in *deceptively* "simple" terms, that invokes a complex answer.
Notice how you correctly try to narrow this question by saying "I'm talking specifically about loss and gain, not change" This makes the question easy. A simple duplication error (accidental duplication of a section of DNA) is trivially such an "increased size in the genome."
However, the Creationist will then switch the question and say "No, you've just duplicated existing information, I'm talking about *NEW* information."
To this I would respond with a different kind of mutation called the point mutation ... a 'letter' of DNA gets accidentally copied by a different letter. Other examples are frame-shift mutations, translocations, transpositions, etc.
To which the Creationist will again switch the question. "No. That's a change of information, but the genome is still exactly the same size."
To this I will respond that mutations can happen in tandem. A duplication error can duplicate a gene (creating a redundant copy), and then, *perhaps many many generations later*, a point mutation (or frameshift, or transposition, or other mutation) will change the properties of one of those two genes (creating a new allele).
And to this the Creationist will change the target again ... "No. What I really mean is an increase in the size of the genome, with new information, that is *beneficial* to the organism." (No explanation of why "benefit" is a requisite property of "information" ... but hey, it's their game, so we are forced to play by their rules ... even if their only response is simply to keep changing the rules and moving the goal posts!)
And to this I will give an example of the genes that code for two (out of the three) proteins ... called photoreceptors ... that gives us our three-color vision. Most mammals have only two photoreceptors ... but humans, apes, and all old-world monkeys (the monkeys of Asia and Africa) have three, all coded by the same genes, in the same locations on the same chromosomes. Furthermore, two of our photoreceptors are clearly the result of a gene duplication (which created a redundant copy of the same protein), followed by a point mutation (which changed the properties of of one of those proteins, so that it responds to different frequencies of light).
So that is an example of an increase in the size of the genome (a duplication), and new information (a different photoreceptor), that is beneficial (takes us from two-color vision to three-color).
But notice how difficult this task is. It *sounds* like a simple question. But in answering it we have to wrestle down vague terminology like "loss or gain in information", which is what allows them to constantly change the goal posts. And second, the result has to take us into complex biochemistry, and letter-for-letter comparisons of nucleotide sequences, and allele locators on chromosomes, etc. And the non-scientist layman tunes out ... especially if they already have a built-in *hostility* towards science and their "big words" like photoreceptor, or gene locators.
Simple question, complex answer. That is the Creationist tactic.
It is a tactic that *counts* on laymen getting confused. Ask deceptively "simple" questions ("explain the irreducibly complex flagellum motor") that first require disambiguating their terminology ("irreducible" in terms of structure or function? how to we define "complexity"? Does the word "motor" mistake the metaphor for the structure itself?) and finally a complex scientific answer ("the components of the flagellum are protein molecules that have other functions, like ion transport across the cell membrane, ... "). The key is to keep repeating the *QUESTIONS*. It doesn't matter how much the scientists are able to *ANSWER* the questions ... nobody can understand what those guys are saying anyway. Just repeat the QUESTIONS, over and over and over, as if the scientists are completely mute, speechless, stumped ... which they most certainly are NOT.
This is precisely why the Creationists are trying so hard to get Intelligent Design "debates" into 10th- grade Biology classrooms. It doesn't matter how little support ID has in the scientific community ... let's let the kids "make up their own minds." Why? Because these arguments about "no new information" or "irreducible complexity" may have zero persuasive power with a scientist who understands biochemistry, information theory, or complexity theory. But on a 10th grader at the very moment they're struggling to memorize their Krebs cycle ... these *QUESTIONS* are *really* effective. It doesn't matter if the kid is unable to understand the *ANSWER* ... that's the entire point! If the kid comes away completely *confused* that's a big win for the Creationist! The goal is not to educate the kid about the basics of Biology (which absolutely does include evolution as one of the central pillars of modern Biology). The goal is to make any discussion of evolution sound terribly complex, and controversial ... and evolution is neither.
(P.S. sorry for the length of this answer ... it is a good question!)
Source(s):
"Trichromatic Color Vision in Primates"
Here is the TalkOrigins excellent response to the
"no increase in information" argument:
Gee, I like how you're asking us for these answers and when we supply them, you respond with: "well yeah, but you still can't tell me about this..." Please re-read what I said about an insurmountable bias. You should also read up on other kinds of bias such as the Confirmation Bias, and the Belief Perseverance Phenomenon. All of which are attributable here. You will not give up your belief system under any circumstance. As long as you do not hurt anyone, this is fine by me. It is not okay, however, to attempt to bring down others b/c you feel that your religion must be right. Scientific breakthroughs gave you the keyboard right in front of you. You have never seen, nor felt, nor heard, nor realized anything in any religious text or ritual that could not have been experienced in a completely secular manner. Of this, I'm certain. You are using science incorrectly. You are asking questions, which is good. But you will not consider any answers that you don't like. That does not expand your knowledge base. You do not grow as a person, nor does it in any way affirm your beliefs. Want it all you want. Respectfully speaking- I think your wasting your time. Regardless, it was nice debating with you and I hope you have a good night.
Oh okay. The best you have is no answer. I can believe in God as a matter of faith and when science has all the answers I may be swayed. I isn't likely in my lifetime. There are many things in our universe science hasn't answered such as the single evolution theory. It's still theory.
You call it baseless as if you can support your response. It seems as if you know many scientists who would die for the theory you seem to support. Do you? It's a rhetorical comment within the context ot the argument so can you prove it wrong?
I guess im the foolish one. Even if I didnt have the truth of the bible, or the fallacy of goo to man, I still would take careful consideration of my future. If there is nothing after death, then I have nothing to lose. Just void and dead regardless if I believed in God or not, but if I am right, call me a fool to chose the wisest wager , and thats to believe in God . So if I die and there is God, then I will be staying some place with God, not eternally separated. Kind of like Pascals gamble. :D Its a shame that people cant see eye to eye.. Just not on this topic which seems to come up regardless of the topic, but everything in life. There are always people who will disagree and debate about anything.
First, if you consider the fact that your comments were baseless and probably false were deserving of a more detailed response, you are wrong.
Second, faith is uncritical belief without evidence or proof to support it, and it answers no questions at all. Science has answered far more questions than your primitive mythology possibly could. You enjoy the benefits of scientific discoveries has conferred upon you every minute of every day from medicines and computers to the fabrics you wear, yet you are wiling turn off the switch of rational thought the second science interferes with with your benighted religious teachings. It is impossible to persuade the deliberately ignorant and your ravings are proof that facts cannot displace in your mind the primitive myths of an ancient tribe of lice-ridden nomads therefore arguing with you is a waste of time. Other people who may be interested in the subject will read your asinine posts, however, and they will be embarrassed of and for you, so this exchange has not been completely in vain.
Third, your grasp of the word rhetorical seems a bit weak and you might want to look it up before you use it again.
To sum up, your lies deserve no further answer, and your whiny ravings say more about you than they do about the topic being discussed.
You seem to think Christians are shunning science. I think Science is great and am glad that God gave man the unique intelligence to do and accomplish so much. Faith in God doesnt require a science. It isnt the science that fails, its mans assumptions that make so much of it nonsense. All i hear is observable, testable, provable.. but yet I am not seeing any of that. Observable ? How can you observe what was going on billions of years ago ?Know what was around ? You cant. testable ? How can you test what you cant create ? If you create it, then you support Intelligent Design, because it was man who created it to test it. It just didnt pop into existence to be tested. Provable ? How can you prove what isnt really there ? trying to prove evolution step by step process from billions of years ago, step by step from coming into being, goo to man could never be proved, because no one was there to witness it.
I think christians are very selective about which science they choose to accept and which they conveniently choose to reject. Geology, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, nuclear physics, medicine, and other scientific disciplines are all well and fine as long as they know their place. When they converge to support inconvenient facts and the theories that describe the mechanisms by which they operate, it becomes too convenient for the faithful to declare they are wrong without knowing why. If you want to chase the evolutionist back to the primeval tidepool in which the first self-replicating strand of protein was born because you want to believe your deity had a hand in it, all I am asking is that you show proof. Science can tie all life together because the DNA of all living things share basic fundamental properties, but it hasn't found the primeval tidepool where it all started...yet. Religions only offer platitudes and a set of unsubstantiated myths to support its position. I will go with science because it is moving forward in its quest for truth while religion is stagnating in a set of superstitious, violent, and benighted late bronze-age fairy tales.
See... That's why we're not communicating... You just said (again) that "goo to man could never be proved". Disregarding the data I gave you on the atmosphere of Titan, the experiments they did in the replication of that atmosphere, and the results they achieved when they energized that atmosphere and achieved tholins and simple amino acids (chemistry to biochemistry).
Even when it's laid before you in an actual experiment that proved that the building blocks of life could easily be formed from a prehistoric atmospheric chemistry, you completely ignore the data.
Not all science. I'm sure you like your IPod very much, and you're probably a big fan of TV. ...But when it comes to Science with results that may contradict your faith?
Oh yeah.
Christians will shun science today and in the future just as they did back in Galileo's time. Thus you will easily abandon knowledge for faith, when that knowledge challenges your faith.
...By the way Damon... When I look at the light from a galaxy 100 million light years from Earth, I am looking at that galaxy as it existed 100 Million years ago (the amount of time the light I'm viewing took to reach us here on Earth). When we dig into the ground, through layers upon layers of sediment and deposits, I'm peering through the geological record of millions upon millions of years. Just because I'm not immortal, doesn't mean that we don't have ways into seeing into the past.
Don't you know that? If that's why you believe, why even follow the Bible? You weren't around when it was written. How can you know whoever wrote it knew what they were talking about? Why believe their knowledge? They weren't around when Adam and Eve were created. How would they know. Must be false. You agree right? We are, after all, using your reasoning.
This is entirely false.. Evolution does not require a gain of information. Evolution only require a change of information, and it does not matter if there is a gain or loss there of... Your ignorance is amazing! Your argument is also like trying say 26 letters can't create an entire library of literature. You also can not tell me whether or not the follow is a gain or loss of information, or function:
Now lets address this post:
Umm sorry, but they are.. You seem to have no concept of what evolution is. You post bs from a bible website on genesis answers? You have got to be kidding me. The bible has nothing in it in regards subject, nor does it discuss genetics and biochemistry. But let's destroy your entire argument:
Twitching lizards are an example of evolution. However, to better understand other aspects of evolution, you can read the following:
--
Here is the definition of Micro Evolution:
--
Here is the definition of Macro Evolution:
--
Here is the definition of speciation:
Example difference between micro and macro evolution:
And how about more specific papers on electromagnetism and life:
In short, you can't have a living organism without the electromagnetic force to which is one of the prime drivers to self-organizing molecules. And we can look into Organic compounds vs inorganic compounds:
Or:
--
I can even show you evolution in accordance to information theory. The following below is an example electromagnetic phenomenon:
I will give you examples of how information theory works in biology and evolution. This falls under Physical information theory and information theory that deals with any pattern of information that influences the transformation of other patterns into new patterns of information. Here information is not lost, it just simply changes value, function, purpose, state, or behavior. So All of which is below are examples of physical information theory. This includes Chaos theory in regards to "sefl-organization"
Enzymes and self-organizing collective dynamics:
RNA:
Further synthetic life links:
DNA Robots:
DNA robots that can reproduce themselves:
The Self-organized gene:
The human Genome in relation to apes. Its the fusion of a chromosome 2:
Observed instances of speciation:
Genotypic speciation of heterotrophic bacteria:
Introduction: to species and speciation in micro-organisms:
Everything in existence has pattern from a chaotic system with feed back with order that comes from a system of chaos. All this states is that a pattern can lead to the change of another pattern should said pattern influence and exert pressure on the other as noted below:
So lets look at a direct example:
We can also go here under my evolution thread concerning Prions to understand more of what material-physical information is or means, and how it's related to evolution:
We can prove physical information theory and evolution in non-living molecules as We can in living molecules. Prions are non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt to their environment. Jupiter, Fla discovered that these Prions can develop many different kinds of mutations that help prions develop defenses to withstand against threats. Even viruses that are considered non-living but active matter that can also evolve. However, viruses have a commonality with life known as DNA, and Prions do not. Prions consist of proteins that are composed of amino acids. The mutations are different folding arrangements of the protein molecules that achieve different material physical/informational characteristics much like that of DNA.. These folding arrangements play an evolutionary role in prions. This follows the same premise behind the driving force commonly found in cases of co-evolution and mutualism. Sorry creationists, but Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest isn't the only driving force behind evolution. The fact that non-life or non-living active matter evolves, also means that life evolves. Evolution is proven in by co-evolution, mutation, and simple observations of existing wild life. This shows the deeper communicative connection between living active matter, non-living active matter, and inactive matter.
Furthermore, we can get even deeper into information theory and evolution by linking plant and animal into one little critter known as the Green Sea Slug. Here we can observe an example of the deeper communicative process of evolution!. The Green Sea slug can actually steal photosynthesizing organelles and genes from algae. This little slug can produce it's own chlorophyll. Also, Elysia and its genetic kleptomania is yet another example of animals undergoing the sort of horizontal gene transfer that is so commonplace in bacteria to where we can see how the flow of information is a material physical process.
And here is a lot of things we learned from self-organizing organisms, Genes, DNA, and the processes we find in the evolution of life:
Alife, Evolutionary Systems and Simulations
---
We can also address:
A contribution from JackOL-1666973:
Support Evolution by Natural Selection (statements posted on respected websites):
http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=92
Evolution Theory in modern medicine:
There is literally a boat load of evolutionary science in medicine.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/evolution-in-medicine/
http://evmedreview.com/
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
We also have this:
To put this bluntly.. You got served!
Thanks for the backup. Won't matter though.
There's all kind of science backing up the realities of Global Warming, but that doesn't matter to the people who don't care.
Same with scientific reality. It doesn't matter to people who just don't care for reality.
Oh and here is some fun debunking Bible flood geology:
Here is some of the best debunking of the flood myth being paraded around by Creationists such as DamonWV:
Or you can head over to my own article here:
It's actually quite sad at how easy Creationists arguments are to debunk..
It's pretty sad that people have to repeatedly debunk your intentional ignorance.. But of course dogma is really the only argument you seem to have...
This actually makes me laugh considering micro and macro evolution are exactly the same thing lol... These people are why they make videos titled "Why do creationists Get laughed at". If fact, all your arguments sir have been addressed in those videos! You might want to Google them!
And I am still waiting for your reply sir on how information theory is flawed. You kind of changed the subject to play a Creationist talking points game.. Hence, you are avoiding the issue of why information theory collapses your entire position. Either you can engage in honest intellectual debate, or you can't. So far you have shown that you can't :/
We don't need to change their minds.. The purpose is to expose their dishonesty. They always make the mistake of believing that I am trying to convince them to rebuke their religion. Hence, if he is not the target audience, who is? ;) .. I have no problem repeating such material for educational purposes. All sorts of people, including those who do not have accounts on Newsvine, read these articles. So if a theist really wants to get owned in a debate, I say let them get owned in a debate. :/
"Same with scientific reality. It doesn't matter to people who just don't care for reality."
As I always say, you can't argue with the willfully ignorant.
Here are some more fun stuff:
Evolution has been observed. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - June 2008
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110705211022.htm
Some stuff Posted by Ripley:
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic597216.files/Sutera%201999%20Origin%20of%20Whales.pdf
evidence doesn't just come from fossils:
Ripley suggests paying special attention to the sections of the paper devoted to embryological stages and vestigial traits:
And the following, provided by JackOL, is the type of argument DamonWV uses:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/CreationistPerspective.html
And this makes the following statement so true:
I agree, but as said before, we can educate those that aren't ;)
I can also tackle the evolution of morality:
Understanding Moral Evolution: System of behavioral Adaptation
:)
You still haven't given a counter argument to anything I stated other than your pieced together BS. I'm not and never said I was a fanatical right-wing Camping follower. If you attack me because of my belief in God as a Christian then you are attacking anyone who believes in a power greater than humanity and it's you who's ignorant. I don't discount science as a whole and never stated I did. People come to laugh and make fun of Camping and people such as yourself come across as weak and insecure. It's obvious Anj63 hasn't recovered form his childhood force feeding and he's still POed.
Scientific reality, oh really? Answer my question regarding the 40 yr. old science book. You call that scientific reality. When it was printed students were instructed to believe every word as fact. I'm not discounting science, I asked you to provide evidence of what you state as fact. I can't prove to you God exists, it's faith, it's belief, it's mine. It isn't like any other here because every persons faith is theirs individually.
When you make comments such as this you continue to express your ignorance. A persons faith and emotional health has far greater value than you give credit but that's how ignorance works. A person's faith in God will keep them alive in a crisis situation much longer than if they pray for your scientific assistance. In a natural disaster you can bet your ignorant Sailcat a** they're not praying for you when trapped for days. Science says people are not suppose to live as long as they do without food or water, but they do. People who believe as you do probably die within the guidelines given by science because it's been proven to be true. People pray for Gods help and their faith keeps them alive longer. I can't explain it it's faith and the person praying can't explain it either.
I don't need to stoop to call your beliefs mystical or demeaning I simply asked you to prove your single cell evolution theory. You can only comeback with an attack. Science may prove your theory one day, maybe. I never asked you to lump me in with folks who believe the earth is 4K old and discount all science has to offer but it seems you did and that's how ignorance and intolerance works.
For your lack of proof you state........
Why must I prove God exists (a deity) in order for your evolutionary theory to be true? You make the statement of the first self-replicating strand of protein as if it actually existed. It exists in theory and only theory at best. It's not as if this belief gets you piece of mind because it's obvious by your comments you're not.
I don't support teaching creation in the classroom any more than I support teaching science theory at the level in which it's taught. Teach it at the level of theory because most of what was taught forty years ago was false. Much of it still is because it still falls under the umbrella of theory.Science is taught as fact and it isn't. What you're quoting are revisions of theory and you're not big enough to state how many revisions to date we are working with.
I have no need to chase you to the tidepool but if you say this is where your evidence is then I suggest you go there.
I rest my case.
If you worship power, you may as well worship existence itself. The highest thing on the totem pole is existence. However, we are not debating whether or not higher forms of conscious beings exist or not. In fact, we aren't even attacking this concept. Science will not tell you that there isn't higher intelligent / powerful beings than the human species. That is within plausibility. However, it's up to you if you want to sit there and worship such plausible beings as GOD. Our own Star is a power greater than our humanity, should we worship it as GOD? Also, there is a thing about power:
The highest level of power is powerless without the lowest level of power. Calling something a GOD because it can wield power is a bit silly, especially when such a being would be slave to require that power to have any power at all!.. Your argument is like asking if Ants should worship the human species because the human species can make nuclear bombs and destroy an entire island full of ants... Silly isn't it? Or should synthetic life consider us GOD?.. Umm no!
All my articles and posts do is address those who do. And they only address obvious logical fallacies and GOD concepts that are self-collapsing and impossible. But I often get that if the GOD isn't impossible, it's not a GOD by Christians. Especially Creationists and Orthodox Christians.
The intention is never to actually laugh or poke fun at your beliefs. The intention is, if you choose to engage me in a debate, to get you to engage in honest discourse. You must remember that when you engage in open forum discussions on this subject that you are opening up your beliefs, ideology, or religion to scrutiny, and opposition that will challenge those beliefs. You can not just start blaming the other side and tell them they are "attacking you". No, they are addressing the logic of your religion, or even the validity of it. And when you engage in dishonest discourse, do expect it to be brought forth and called out.
This is like asking me how much I knew when I was 2 years old vs what I know now. Much of what I learned when I was 2 isn't magically nullified in relations to what I know now... You do realize that you yourself is a prime example of how scientific theory works? When you are young, you have yet to discover who you are. Who you are is just theory, and even when you get older, you will continue to change and learn more about who you are. It will not nullify that fact you exist, or that you are a fact of reality. This is the same premise in dealing with theories in science.
Example:
Well, we know a lot about the world now.. Not everything of course. No being can know everything without actually literally being all that there is itself. You would have to resort to Pantheistic Solipsism. :/
I have a much better time following a self-correcting honest system than one that dishonestly assumes and asserts truth. Anyone that knows the scientific method understands this. I put my seat in the corner of publicly verifiable evidence. As in empirically supported arguments. Otherwise all you have are appeals to ignorance.
I gave you a boat load of such evidence. You can even look up twitching lizards in relation to fire ants. As for information theory..., well, your own posts will suffice as perfect evidence by direct example :)
Even if a higher being of intelligence existed, even one that perhaps can induce a big bang through physics, it would still be subject to opinion and title of opinion. Hence, you will not convince a Pantheist of this, or even an Atheist. Yes, you could choose to believe it to be a GOD.. It may even try to claim to be a GOD. But in reality, the concept is entirely moot. It's still a fact that either all things can be considered GOD(s), or that there are no such things as GOD(s). Sadly that is how it works out intellectually, logically, theologically, philosophically, and scientifically.
Hold on a second here.. You make this statement after making this statement:
I hate to break it to you, but I've been in those shoes making that same kind of argument. And since you choose to engage in an open forum to where your beliefs are subject to being challenged, you are in no position to be making this argument:
If your faith and emotional health solely rests with this, you shouldn't be engaging in open discussion on the subject if you don't want those to be challenged. It's your choice to come here and engage. I completely understand the value of your beliefs.. I use to share the same beliefs.
It more has to do with being confused as to why people do those things whilst knowing it's nonsensical.. It comes off as a sad joke because some people want to believe so much that it literally makes a fool out of them in the most embarrassing ways. It's far more sad than funny. But I consider those who feel victim to this as people who were quite brainwashed and manipulated. And I feel that it's immoral for people like camping to take advantage of people who are vulnerable to such manipulation. It pretty much falls under the article I wrote here:
Brainwashing Doctrines: Immorality's Movie
And what is really sad is when you have this as a result of Camping's little rapture:
A mother slitting her children's throats because she feared that the rapture was coming. This is a problem, and it's not just people losing their jobs and life savings!
It actually has no barring on evolution theory unless you are trying to make creationists arguments that target evolution theory. You will notice that these arguments are usually arise between Creationists and Atheists / Agnostics. Even sometimes between Creationists and other Christians and people of other religions.
You obvious don't understand the scientific method or what a scientific theory is. :/ Is information theory just a theory? Nope! It's a fact! But the further exploration into things like quantum computing make it a theory since it's still being studied... It's not necessarily always the theory that is important, it's always the observational facts that support the theory that are important.
Typos:
anjisan you talking about life on titan ?
I seen this article
Titan, one of Saturn’s most famous moons, has long been a target of speculation for the existence of life off Earth—speculation that continues to grow.
Researchers propose that the disappearance of hydrogen molecules on Titan’s surface may be evidence of methane-based life, i.e., based on methane rather than water. “We suggested hydrogen consumption because it’s the obvious gas for life to consume on Titan, similar to the way we consume oxygen on Earth, explained NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay. “If these signs do turn out to be a sign of life, it would be doubly exciting because it would represent a second form of life independent from water-based life on Earth.”
The NASA press release includes buried tidbits that indicate a more cautious perspective, however: “non-biological chemistry offers one possible explanation . . . methane-based life forms are only hypothetical [and s]cientists have not yet detected this form of life anywhere . . . [w]ater is frozen solid on Titan’s surface and much too cold to support life as we know it.” Thus, it seems like a humorous understatement when the release quotes Johns Hopkins University’s Darrell Strobel, who notes that the findings “do not definitively prove” (our emphasis) the existence of life on Titan.
More circumspect is NASA’s Mark Allen, who wisely said, “Scientific conservatism suggests that a biological explanation should be the last choice after all non-biological explanations are addressed. We have a lot of work to do to rule out possible non-biological explanations. It is more likely that a chemical process, without biology, can explain these results—for example, reactions involving mineral catalysts.”
Also when you said you see the light you see now in the universe its light from hundreds of millions of years ago. This never discredits the bible or gives it a problem iwht light issue.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/distant-starlight
Also I like to point out God made light. starting in genesis 1 verse 3
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Then farther down in genesis we see he made stars, sun , moon. So from a biblical point of view, not naturalistic, ( because he is not a natural being ) he can make the light be here.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
As for the Bacteria, its still bacteria, its changes , regardless of lateral mutation, loss, or any type of supposed gain, its still bacteria. Its not turning into a fish, or a human.
Back to life on titan.. Once again regardless of what tests are done, it is still basing it off of assumptions. If a scientist replicates a scenario by making, adding putting all the stuff together and then zapping it, they are showing nothing here other then something, some one, who made the chemicals, and put the process in motion. An intelligent being started it.
My faith isnt challenged by any of this anjisan. I know God created everything. I have no desire to believe in fallacy of molecules to man. Showing cells somewhere else on planets isnt showing me goo to man. Bacteria changing isnt showing me goo to man, scientists zapping gases to create ( ah they created ) life, isnt showing me goo to man.
My faith is with the true and loving God, yours is with a naturalistic point of view. I havent yet seen any issues arise the has been a nail in the coffin to get God out of the picture, all I see from everything I read is problems with your alls Goo to man ideas.
Its easy for you and jackal to come on here and try to show superior intellect, good job and posting all the links and science, but regardless of what is posted and linked somehow creation scientists can show the flaws in it.
Obviously your alls knowledge is vast, but I challenge you to give it a shot with people who have the vast knowledge to give rebuttal to what you have to say. There are people that could knock Jackals radical views down, but I doubt he would have debate with them. I asked him to give his best shot to AIG, or maybe christian research institute, or the institue for creation research.. many places that could give you all a better run for your money, but would you send them an email to challenge debate with them ? unlikely. Its much easier to come here and smash the little guys down.
Nothing accomplished here today nor will there ever be. I still have my faith, I keep on defending it, and showing fallacies of mans notion of Goo to man.
I for one could honestly care less if people are theists, that is their business. What I do have a problem with is theists trying to take ownership in science. I'm sorry but the bible or any holy book has 0 credibility when it comes to science. From my experience, theists will always shift the arguments, always keep the argument going no matter how much evidence is thrown at them. It really is a psychological phenomenon that I think needs to be studied in depth. The alternative to their beliefs is too much to bare, their entire world would come crashing down, this is why they have a built in defense mechanism which protects them from thinking unbiasedly. It just makes absolutely no sense to me how you theists keep arguing about something you know absolutely nothing about. It's a slap in the face to scientists who have dedicated their lives to the preservation and advancement of this world. Are you smarter than Stephen hawking? I think not. Yet because you read the bible all of a sudden you are an expert on evolutionary theory and how the world works. Yes, there are still things to be discovered about evolution and many scientific theories, that's the way science works, it is an ever lasting discovery it's not like everything is discovered in 1 day. I've read this entire thread and all the theist responses are purely defensive and highly unsupportive, but that is to be expected. Like I said, believe what you want, but I will say this, you WILL not teach theist beliefs in school. End. Of. Story.
when do theists try to claim that ? Show me where someone who believes in God is trying to control science. I do see scientists showing the flaws in each others work. Thats always out there though, and its done between scientists regardless of their beliefs.
Teaching theist beliefs in school ? God used to be a Big part of school in the old days before our times. Its all gone now, and even kids getting disciplined for doing their own self initiated prayer in school. Which kids are allowed to do, but they still get in trouble for doing it. We took God out of schools, prayer out, and now look at the schools today. Look at our kids today. They have no self motivation, no guidance, no sense of punishment for their bad actions. They do things with out thinking, this is a messed up society were living in now.
Most creationists dont have a problem with evolution being taught along side creation. I myself think its necessary to show both sides and their views. Let the kid make up their own mind. But evolutionists scoff at the notion to allow any other type of thinking other than their own. Sounds like control, believe in what I say , else you be an outcast. Perhaps your all frightened about the truth.. who knows.
I find it hilarious that someone continues to use a non-scientific source to "prove" their (non)scientific points. You post a link to a piece of religious text that suggests an explanation of genetics well over a millenia before cells were recorded to be discovered b/c it says "it was good." You then state that we are making assumptions and then describe your faith and essentially admit that it is elective and without any neccessary base. You yourself also address one of many logical errors in that faith is subjective and differs from person to person (like an opinion, as being distinct from fact). Note that that is a comparison, not equivocation- like a metaphor. You describe your own assumptions, which work for you just fine, and then use the label of assumption to refute anything that you believe is in conflict with an idea that you are absolutely, positively married to. True science is not married to anything b/c knowledge is fluid and dynamic. Like the universe.
DamonWV, you suggested 'research firms' that don't actually do anything but refute any scientific findings that conflict with their religion. It is essentially glorified opinion due to their methodology of seeking errors in any or all theories and, in the absence of errors, re-interpreting or misinterpreting the theories to prove their point without ever even giving the suggestion that the religion may be (is) inaccurate and incorrect. You continually state about science being "some" or "mostly" theory.... Science as a discipline is 100% THEORY. Science=Theory. Scientific Fact=Theory. Why do you think I keep bringing up modern day applications of theory? Refuting something due to your misunderstanding of a term used to catalog a reference of information for a particular gruop of data points does not in any way equate to you refuting information. It means that your own understanding of what you are arguing is based on flawed/slanted/biased views which warp anything before it is even considered.
Science does not seek to disprove divinity (my earlier mention of agnosticism). However, the concept of divinity itself is crudely created, ill-described and subject to a tremendous variance of interpretations. In other words, it is an opinion of an abstract idea. A philosophy. This could perhaps be better illustrated if any of us bothered to deconstruct and analyze the Old and New Testaments, the Talmud, the Qu'ran, etc. line by line using logic, rationale, morality, historical records, linguistics, and philosophy here with you on MSNBC's dime (it costs money to save this text on servers). I for one will not waste my time but there is plenty of literature on the subject. You can also try reading the holy books from cover to cover without any assistance from a guide and see how much of it survives your logical brain's resistance to it.
I wasn't going to post again in this thread but in your reference as to people surviving or dying in chaotic situations- psychology has ongoing research into this manner. You seem to think that it is only christians, or perhaps monotheists in general, that seem to 'miraculously' extend their lives each and every time they pray in a situation like this. Umm... sorry, but no. It has long been observed and recorded that it isn't any particular belief system that facilitates this, but rather having an optimistic vs. pessimistic outlook. Religion tends to facilitate optimism due to most people focusing on socialistic values of 'big brother' taking care of you. If you were to focus on religion's negatives- you would not have these effects. It has been experimented on for quite some time, yet I freely admit to anyone that we do not yet grasp the mechanics of how much physiological control our minds have on us. This phenomon has been observed with situations ranging from thought-implantation during hypnosis, alleged alien encounters/abductions, religious/spiritual/supernatural/divine interactions, and medical consultations.
I'm reminded of the classic example of giving a negative prognosis to two cancer patients. The first patient is a mistaken (swapped) prognosis of informing a man that he has but x amount of time to live. After some considerable time went by, the mistake was discovered and the man immediately told only to inexplicably die on the general predicted date of his demise. Modern Psychology has surmised that the man essentially "made his peace" and was ready to go. The second example was of a woman that likewise recieved a fatal prognosis. Projected to live another 6mo, the woman lived on for 3yrs. Again, Psychology currently concludes that this has to do with the woman being "not ready yet" and still having things needed to be done. This is completely independent of any type of religion due to religion and optimism being mutually exclusive. You can have one without having the other.
These are the types of arguments you have presented. Arguments that, taken at face value, appear to be on solid ground. However, as soon as one probes deeper, the argument no longer stands as presented. This is analgous to organized religion as a whole and why any truely critical thinking person, in my opinion, is agnostic when the subject relates to thesetypes of matters. I'm sorry to tell you but the bible, nor any other holy text, simply isn't true. Your unyielding dedication to this does not make it so. Like I said earlier, if you wish to continue, do so. Where I have a problem with it is when you attempt to impose it on others, even in the direct contradiction of counter-evidence. This is different from the growing understanding through science (which is a tool of learning) in that religion was in many ways the first science and is being continually displaced by it. Religion is science without the scientific method; science is never at any point, a religion.
PS. your quote of the NASA scientist that describes how all non-biological explanations should be exhausted before biological ones explored has merit, but I wonder if perhaps you misunderstood what was meant. Many scientists wish to use confirmation bias and belief perseverance to their own means. Mr. Allen, in recognizing this, cautioned restraint out of fear that being overly eager to find other life would trump more conservative and pragmatic investigations and lead to a major disappointment. The idea of silicon-based or methane-based, or pretty much any organism that is not DNA- and carbon-based is theoretical due to the fact that none have been observed due to none existing here on Earth (the only place we have thus far discovered life). You are correct in that instance but your implied assertion that this justifies anything in your religion is a logical stretch. A l o n g s t r e t c h .
Religion does not equal morality. That is false equivocation. Removing religion from schools does nothing to better or worsen the institution, the learning process, or the students. And religion, by the way, is still very much present in public schools. What you are referring to is that Christianity is no longer broadly sanctioned in schools. This differs from district to district and state to state. Your blaming diminishing school performance on 'lack of religion' is a hideously weak argument with no basis at all. You are also ignoring the (specific line in) Pledge of Allegiance, First Priority, moment of silence, team prayers at numerous schools across the country, etc. Please refrain from making stuff up. Please do not post up links to articles about something getting banned at a high school in Anywhere, USA. I assure you, there are still plenty of drug-taking, whoring around students with crosses around their necks. And no the two are not related, just illustrating the false logical conclusion you tried to present.
Teaching theism in the classroom is absurd to the utmost. Theism belongs in the church not the biology class, biology is a science, religion is not. If anything theism and religion studies should be taught in history and possibly philosophy, that's it. And besides how do you choose which religion gets taught? Does one trump the other? Kids not being motivated has nothing to do with a lack of religion in school. It has to do with parents and their social community. By the way, evolution is pretty much proven, you are pulling at strings, it is a sad thing to watch. I believe when you look at a piece of evidence the first thing you think is how can I disprove this rather than looking at it objectively. You will come up with any ridiculous argument even though it makes no sense, is poorly researched and is a desperate attempt to confirm your own beliefs to yourself. Faith and religion are a highly personal thing and needs to be kept that way. Leave children alone. If you want to teach your kids theism fine, it does not belong and never will be in the biology classroom, sorry. It has been attempted many times before and has been heavily defeated every time. You want to see how religion can mess you up look at Michele Bachman. The sniveling snake in the grass she is, she is a lying manipulative zealot that will do whatever it takes and say whatever it takes to get what she wants, all by using her "god" pull and that makes her a dangerous person.
No. I was merely explaining how the specific components and environment of Titan's atmosphere may lead to a change in the chemistry of those components from chemical to biochemical. I never indicated there was or wasn't life on Titan. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. That'll be for science to decide.
Again, we're not communicating...
I was addressing TIME not LIGHT. When the light from a galaxy 100 million light years from Earth reaches us, it has been on its journey to us for 100 million years! A timeline, just by itself, which tends to suggest that the Universe is far older than you suggest, which also suggests that God, if he exists, is a being who's age is in excess of 100 Million years (since we know the Universe is billions and billions of years old, then God must also be billions of years old).
I was also addressing your statement where you suggest mankind has no way of peering into the past, therefore, we have no idea what has happened thousands of years ago (much less millions or billions of years ago). Clearly, we do have the science and tools to look far into the past (astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc...). So, that's my point. TIME not LIGHT.
Really? I suppose your right when they argue the facts the same way you argue the facts:
Do all my "Reality-Based" friends agree with me? Isn't this how scientific questions usually have been answered in the past by those believers in God?
Copernicus theorized that the Earth orbited the Sun in 1513, and his theory was opposed by the churches for the next 300 years.
Galileo was imprisoned and forced to recant what he believed to be true by the church.
Giordano Bruno proposed that the Sun was a star, and there was a nearly infinite number of stars in the sky. He also theorized that other civilizations may live at one of these distant star systems. He was burned at the stake in 1600 by the church. (only 400 years ago - How's that for enlightened?)
Tommaso Campanella was tortured and imprisoned for most of his life for believing in the Copernican model of the solar system. (about 380 years ago).
(Note: The Copernican Theory remained on the Church's list of banned books until it was finally removed around 1835 [only 175 years ago]).
...To end... I really like this story about a priest who was asked a difficult question about the faithful and the unfaithful during the Crusades:
Arnaud Amalric was a Cistercian Monk during the Albigensian Crusade. The Albigensian Crusade took place in Southern France where the Catholic Church wanted to eradicate Catharism (an offshoot of Catholicism where God had a dual nature [evil God / good God], and there was some gnostic elements as well [belief in intuitive knowledge]).
As Arnaud led his forces against an Albigensian city, a soldier approached the Monk and inquired how to differentiate the Catholic city dwellers from the Cathartic city dwellers. Arnaud replied, "Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are His."
...The source of our favorite action movie quote: Kill them ALL and let God sort them out!
There is how creationists and the overly religious have won their arguments in the past. I guess I can understand Damon's over confidence in his side's ability to win any argument. It's easy when you kill the opposition.
NASA was looking into other possible self-replicating chemistry, or other life forms that could possibly be non-carbon based. However, non-carbon based life will be very limited considering the atoms wouldn't be as great to forming molecular structures and chains. Again you offer nothing spectacular in your arguments.
Posting scripture doesn't prove anything. Secondly, It's utterly nonsensical to suggest Light came after Earth, the plants, and animals. Especially when the Earth itself, without the sun, will emit light even though it's a black body radiating at about 300k. Less of course without the sun. Even the human body emits light. The Book of Genesis also does not tell you How or by what methods did your supposed deity fashion light.. He must have been blind, so where did he fin the light switch? And how do you create light vs dark when there is only one or the other in terms of thermodynamics and electromagnetism? ;) ..
Sorry, evolution does not state that bacteria will magically change into a human or fish.. However, it does state that it could evolve into more complex organisms should evolution select for it. And this of course would be time scales you know would be in the millions of years. So of course you are not going to witness bacteria changing into a fish kiddo. But a guarantee that you will never witness a walking fish magically appear on your desk either! However, let's educate you on Bacteria:
These evolved from bacteria.. But let's get a better picture:
Eubacteria and Archaebacteria: the oldest forms of life
Now let's go back to this argument:
Incorrect. It's not based on purely assumption like Your GOD THEORY that has zero empirical value or evidence... NASA's research has a lot to do with empirically supported data to which includes extremophiles, and even thermophiles. This also includes studies involving arsenic based life forms. I even wrote an article posted an article on possible self-replicating metals:
We can also look more into synthetic life:
Now I am usually nice about things, but this next comment is just a plain out lie:
You actually don't know, and telling us you do know while failing in the basics of biochemistry ect is not impressive or even a clever argument. Please prove how, and by what processes did your GOD create existence itself. How about time? How about light? Ahh, you need magic! And waving of the magic wand because it's easier than having to actually prove anything intellectually.
Umm you are made of atoms and molecules :/ That's as silly as saying that you don't believe in water to snowflakes, or 26 letters in the alphabet to entire libraries of literature, history, fiction, fantasy (pixie fairies / GODs) ect. It's not a very good argument to make. And so far all you have is an appeal to ignorance sir :/
This is more dogma that is useless to this debate. I don't waste my time sharing information on these forums so I can appear to be superior. I in fact take the time to post them to share and provide the information. I do it for educational purposes because there are people in this world that love to learn new things and actually explore their world.. What you are doing here is projecting your frustrations. Your argument would be like me telling someone who provides info on how to cook steak as being an elitist trying to be superior just because I didn't know how to cook steak. And please quote me where I have ever stated to be superior to anyone. If you can't come into this discussion with honest discourse sir, the exist is the little X in the upper right corner of your browser :/
You haven't lived in Texas have you?
This is because it's a door into indoctrinating other impressionable minds / children with religious dogma and pseudoscience constructed to specifically confuse and manipulate them. It's their means to indoctrinate science, and have access to children for a shot at their indoctrination into the religion.. Not sure if you understand how brainwashing works, but this is how it works.
Also, it's become quite apparent sir that you are avoiding the subjects. Especially this:
Tell me the flaw in information theory.. Better yet, try responding while not having to adhere to it's tenants / premises. You will quickly learn the folly of your statement here.
I am waiting for you to actually address that. And answer it with intellectually honest discourse. Because no matter what you want to say sir, this will always remains true:
The realization of this is that you can't create what yourself is slave to require in order to exist. And that consciousness is an emergent product. Since it is an emergent property, that alone proves evolution theory and Chaos theory, and systems theory.
Thanks for the laugh and yes so true.
I don't live and view life from a limited perspective or at least try not to do so.
Reading your comments and a few others it's easy to see the line drawn in the sand and I make attempts to avoid this. My indoctrination was extreme right and as you commented regarding who we are as children I knew at an early age what I was told was both morally wrong and logically incorrect.
My comments regarding my faith are wide open to scrutiny or criticism from whoever chooses. I view other comments in the same manner. If someone choose to call my faith fantasy then that's a choice. I view Anjisan63's comment regarding viewing light that's 100 million years old in a similar manner. It is possible God is older than this. There's nothing biblical stating otherwise and no one has proof this can be discounted. I've spent more time here than needed and my primary comments or focus are about science and religion and how it's promoted. I'm specifically referring to positions strong on theory especially evolution theory.
I have similar views when Christians wish to teach creation in the classroom while pointing the critical finger at Muslims or any other religion. It's logical since I was born into a family practicing Christian (hypocrisy) beliefs that my belief in God is a Christian God. The same holds true for earths population wherever a person is born. Faith isn't something that can be taught and I'm not one to embrace religious tenets especially based on values of being the only truth/fact with a base of human interpretation.
Religion and science have infinite values in many areas and I attempt/strive for tolerance in both. If I heat a piece of metal to 1,000 degrees everyone who touches it will fill pain (with few exceptions) in varying degrees and the same holds true for something that brings comfort. If a persons faith brings comfort who am I to judge.
I've learned that life is a test. It isn't necessary to accept all that comes my way and I only need to answer the questions pertaining to the material presented and I proceed know I gave them that which they asked. Everything has tolerances and life is easier if I strive to live within them. I'm an outside the box person and I resist theory presented as fact because the presenter knows best, or thinks they do.
Scientific reality: In regard to the German satellite crashing to earth, the article begins; Experts believe...
Translation: We don't have a F...in' clue.
Scientists Don't Know How Universe Works, Started
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Perhaps no realm of inquiry is as fraught with fantastic speculation as the origin of the universe. Theories of how it could have come about naturally have regularly been proposed and discarded as new evidence surfaces. Ongoing studies seem to have merely widened the gap in understanding how it began—or even how it currently works.
For example, astronomers have observed that the earth has hundreds of parameters fine-tuned for life. This "anthropic principle" most reasonably implies that a wise Creator deliberately created them for this purpose. In order to avoid this inference, so-called string theorists invoked the idea of a "multiverse." They speculated that an infinite number of universes exists, one of which contains the life-friendly earth.1 However, real science shows only this one universe.2
Some researchers have attempted to explain that life—the evolution of which would directly oppose the laws of nature—came about through various scenarios that would be right at home in the realm of science fiction. One researcher, in true comic book fashion, entertained the idea that heavy radiation bombardment on a distant planet jumpstarted life.3 But science clearly shows that radiation kills!
And life is not the only thing that researchers have a hard time explaining from a naturalistic perspective. Even fundamental aspects of the universe are very difficult to explain—such as why electrons don't collapse down into their atomic nuclei, and why or how electrons apparently inhabit discrete energy levels inside atoms. Thus, researchers use the phrase "quantum mechanics" in place of a realistic and transferrable explanation for these mysterious observations. University of Minnesota physics professor James Kakalios told Scientific American recently that quantum mechanics "has weird ideas and it can be confusing."4 But if it is so confusing that physicists can't explain it to non-physicists, then do they truly understand it themselves?
Gravity is also supposedly another fundamental property of the universe, but there is no consensus on why or how it works, or how it might relate to quantum physics. One researcher proposed the idea that gravity is not an independent force, but is an after-effect of the standard laws of thermodynamics.5 His ideas have not yet been worked into standard physics texts, and they may never get that far, which shows that considerable doubt and debate reign over the nature of even something as basic a force as gravity.
Adding to the mix of unexplained phenomena, a team of physicists announced on September 23, 2011, that neutrinos, which have mass, were observed moving faster than light, which has no mass while in transit.6 But models of the structure and age of the universe depend on the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light! Most cosmologies will have to be totally re-tooled if the speed of light is not a constant, but a variable.
And now, three astronomers have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for showing that the universe's expansion is accelerating—the cause of which is a total mystery.7 And like all the other mysteries, the proposed solution to this one has received a nifty name: "dark energy." Dark energy supposedly pulls galaxies apart, despite their gravitational attraction. However, "dark energy is the biggest mystery in science," according to Meg Urry, Director of the Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics.8
If naturalistic scientific models don't even accurately describe how basic features of the universe such as atoms, gravity, neutrinos, or light work in the present, why rely on similarly structured models that purport to explain the beginnings of the universe? Even in this age of scientific advancement, the best information about the distant past comes not from physics, but from the eyewitness accounts of those present in the beginning, as recorded in God's Word.
References
Sounds like the general attitude of this article is...: Things are so difficult to understand, why bother trying to figure things out, just trust in the word of God.
Pretty defeatist don't you think?
"We don't have a F...in' clue."
I think in your case you would be quite right, but it would be unfair to lump anyone else into your sad little subset of the population.
They don't know where it landed and it may take a week to discover where.
Always open with you inane, insecure weak one liners. Good goin' cat!
"Scientific reality: In regard to the German satellite crashing to earth, the article begins; Experts believe..."
Ballistic missiles are designed to enter the atmosphere in predictable trajectories so the launcher can aim it properly. It also makes predicting its landing site easy for the recipient. The landing point of ann irregularly shaped satellite that is tumbling through the atmosphere with pieces falling off and burning away is not nearly so easy to predict. Your comment illustrates quite nicely an example of someone being deliberately, willfully ignorant, because you are conveniently choosing to ignore the hugely complicated process of designing, builiding and launching the satellite as well as the complicated process of operating the satellite once it was successfully in orbit. None of that figures into your irrational prejudices against the wide and deep wealth of knowledge provided to us by science.
Cultists has a very selective and narrow view of the world that is colored strongly by their blind devotion to an imaginary being and its fictional holy book. Your comments, therefore, are demonstrably not worthy of serious consideration and this will be my final reply. Again, my efforts have not been in vain if anyone reads your blithering ravings and turns away, justifiably disgusted and ashamed of you, but you are a waste of time and I am not going to dither with someone who cannot or will not face facts.
Goodbye.
I believe his point is thats all most of these naturalistic world view scientists have in their writings. We believe, perhaps, it could be, maybe, its possible.. All assumptions. Nobody there to witness or know for sure, just assume the best and go from there. Not me, I want truth, not guesses. Especially with my future, my eternity on the line. I give praise to God for his love for us. I pray one day you may choose that too, before your last breath :D
Cat, Why would you choose to think for me when you can't or choose to not do so for yourself.
I know a little about missile's, propulsion and guidance systems. Maybe science decided against a re-entry system? Maybe they didn't really care? Comparing a satellite about the size of a mini van and a ballistic missile doesn't excuse science. All they had when the party was over was a WAG!
You pick a comment and make an inane response and then refer to your effort as dither? That's your issue not mine. I'm not preaching or promoting teaching creationism in the classroom. I was responding to the actions of science promoting evolution. How much of Darwin's studies was distorted by his view of God after his daughters death? Did he expect a miracle and then get pissed off at God because his daughter died? Sounds like half the posters here who have been force fed ideology.
My position on my faith and belief in God isn't intended to negate or weaken your theory on evolution. Your theory should stand on it's on but you are still in the theory stage. Faith isn't something I need to prove to you and it doesn't fit within the laws of nature which you believe. I believe in the laws also but it doesn't weaken my faith.
You use your theory to try and weaken my stance on my belief. Why do you need to do so? I've only stated my position on evolution and the only proof science has to date is fossils and theory. With a little help we can throw in your strip of beef jerky floating in the tidepool.
In this vast nothing that existed prior, science comes up with Big Bang. Yeah, according to Anj63 they duplicated it in the lab. Oh yeah, how? Science put the ingredients on the lab bench and walked out? It happened (Big Bang) without assistance? Or did they manipulate it? The problem with the theory is there is lack of agreement. Oh yeah, scientists do agree but across the board? No!
I work with the products of science everyday. I don't discount science and all I asked was, you prove your case.
Excuse the irony, but goddammit, does nobody read these posts before they respond? Now I have scientists replicating the Big Bang. Hey... If we were discussing the Hadron Collider, then maybe... So my314tin thinks I was claiming that scientist had replicated the Big Bang, and DamonWV thought I was claiming that scientists had created life.
Dang fellas... No wonder you like to have a religion do all your thinking, ya have trouble comprehending a sequential tale of how they created biochemicals that contained amino acids from the components of the atmosphere of the Saturn's moon Titan.
Why do we, men and women of science, knowledge and true belief need to weaken your beliefs? Because, over the centuries and millennia men of religion and faith have attacked knowledge and science at every step. Because men of faith and religion hide behind words like "faith", "peace", and "kindness" while they rape, pillage, and steal from their own flocks and from those who don't share their beliefs.
It's a war. You guys declared it against us long ago. What's interesting is this... As the former Gods fade into mythology, the men of science and their contributions to humanity remain: Aristotle, Socrates, Harkhebi, Euclid, Pythagoras, etc...
Very well said, Anjisan!
References
There are two definitions of Universe. One is the Observable, and the other is reference to the sum total of everything.. So I will kindly help understand the differences here:
Now Universe in terms of existense itself, is different:
Now as far as the multi-universe failing to explain away GOD is based on the argument of the Nothing GOD.. Hence a-physical, non-material GOD made of nothing existing in a place with no capacity to actually contain or support anything. Well, that is easily debunked here:
The ultimate problem is that you need to actually have the capacity to exist. And you can not exist in a magical place with zero capacity to support your existence. Hence there is no such thing as immaterial objects, places, substances, things, or entities made of nothing. Nothing / non-existence can not exist as an existing person, place, object, substance or thing. Thus the physical existence is deemed infinite. And here is why:
Abstract:
Thus for anything to be existent in existence, it must have the capacity to exist. Everything existent, including us, are like the brick!
Abstract 2:
Now this part I can easily address:
Information theory is only required to explain away such a GOD.. This to which you claimed to be flawed whilst not explaining how that is supposed to be flawed. You keep avoiding this.
Life will always depend on conditions to be plausible. However, this sounds like a poor attempt at the "ODDS" game, or how "Perfect" things must be to support life. This is however a nonsensical pleading argument. Just like the Goldilocks argument. Especially considering extremophiles, or that life could form on moons of larger planets outside the Goldilocks zone. Worse yet, this source you posted doesn't consider critters such as the Water bear:
So what is so interesting about this water bear?.. Well, let's take a look:
It is possible that such Extremophiles / thermophiles could survive in comets, or asteroids. As for time scales and the luck of the draw.. Existence had an infinite amount of time for this to occur, and equal as many plausible attempts. This is one of the big reasons why the odds game is pure folly. Especially giving the number of Galaxies and stars, or Possible other Universes such as our own. And yes we can infer to other Universes giving that we know our own exists.. If more than one star or Galaxies can exist, it's likely that more than one universe can exist to which could be either dimensionally separated or separated by distances beyond our possible means of observation. In either case, the odds game is not in favor of Creationists.
This is sheer and utter ignorance.. You can spend some time in here to read about Quantum Mechanics:
This to which include quantum LED's for your future Quantum HD TV's! :
Manufacturing method paves way for commercially viable quantum dot-based LEDs
And never mind how Quantum mechanics is paving the way for quantum computing to which includes advances in nano-technology and practical applications in medicine ect. This also includes understanding super conductors to improve things like energy efficiency and even solar panel technologies. We can even now have molecular assemblers where we can put things together 1 atom at a time:
Fun stuff!
Energy.. However, what they are referring to is what physical processes are responsible for gravity. Gravity is a mystery because their is a gray area between the quantum world and things on the large scales in terms of mass. There are a couple of theories on this, and those are currently being tested for.
Or:
Regardless of what you think, gravity is a physical phenomenon. It's a matter of physics.. And besides, GOD of the Gaps arguments are quite dishonest ;)
Unfortunately for you, this is proving to be wrong ;) .. You should really keep updated, and why such things are put up for peer review.
But let's move on:
This does nothing for your supposed argument :/ ..
Dark energy is also considered to be likely the energy of the vacuum. Yes, space isn't actually nothing!.. ;) :
I will just leave these here:
Abstract:
1)
2)
We can measure the fact that the vacuum has pressure:
The density value of the vacuum is that of empty space. Thus the vacuum In terms of mass density, its absolute value is less than 10-26 kilograms per cubic meter. In terms of energy density, this is about 10-9 joules per cubic meter. If you go by more recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the many other experiments, they converge on a positive cosmological constant, equal to roughly 7 × 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter. This corresponds to a positive energy density of about 6 × 10-10 joules per cubic meter.
Now the mystery of Dark energy is it's effects on our Cosmos, and is still largely being investigated. This to which includes how particles gain mass. We know dark energy is there as we can see it's effects. Some are suggesting that energy is always flowing. Hence space itself has inertia and it can be suggested that there is no such thing as zero inertia. Thus anything that appears to be still is never actually still.This includes any relative point in space.
Example:
If I place my glass on my desk and say it's not moving, would I be correct? Well, relative to me it appears to not move. However, our planet orbits our sun and rotates. Thus the glass can not be said to be not in motion or be said to not have any inertia. Thus the inertia of information / energy is it's relation to time from one instant to the next. Energy is thus never still, and always has inertia.
You sound like the Banana Man.. As if asserting truth will make the assertions of magically true. That is the ultimate case of assumption. Your Banana Man argument "Ray Comfort" argument is what we call "Pure assumption". This is far worse than empirically supported assumptions. And we all know how embarrassing pure assumptions can be from a position of ignorance..Just ask Ray Comfort about banana's :/
And such term usage in science is meant to keep things honest as possible and open to challenge and further knowledge and observations. And some scientific theories are not applicable to that argument at all. Such as information theory to which you ignore having to address like the black plague. :/ Or the theory the Earth is an Oblate sphere an not flat. Also, most of those terms are used on subjects still being researched, tested, and studied.
Example:
Well, it could be this way, or might be that way, or possibly this way.. This is the kind of debate you get in abiogenesis, or even in the Big Bang theory. We could end up with multiple ways in which said events were able to occur naturally. We may never know which it might be.. That's called good science and honest discourse.
Theists are the direct opposite of that and just claim everything they believe as magically true. As if that would magically make anything they say actually true... Such dishonesty can never be taken seriously in any rational or reasonable context. "Just Believe" is a total mind wipe that begs you to do not critical thinking what-so-ever. It's just easier to be intentionally ignorant that it is to actually try and figure things out. :/
Typos
Sorry, I type like crap :)
I would like DamonWV to please address information theory vs dancing around in Creationist talking points. I want him to tell me exactly how information theory is flawed. After all, this cuts straight to the heart of this debate... ;) Creationists like to cling to information as a major talking point, but it's quite interesting that they haven't really ever evaluated information theory before making such arguments. :/ No more avoiding this. So I will wait and see what happens here.
You still have intelligence putting all the right compounds together and then zapping it to make some type of life.. Wasnt this experiment done back in the 70's , 80's I forget that experiment that was. it was famous at the time, but has long since been forgotten.
Still once again you have ot assume what was around in the past, and still not explaining how it got there, and if what ever some appeared there, how much or how little of it was present and how it came to be to what we have today.
I couldnt agree more with this . I just read an article of people who lose their faith, its not so much because of the evolution / creation debate. It was about the church or churches they went to that planted the bad seeds . I was turned away from church for a while in my youth . I got sick of people trying to tell me Jesus is the way, or fire and brimstone. That did turn me off to religion. Not to mention all the more complex questions that some couldnt asnwer, like if God is so loving then why type questions.. Or why did god do this, or why does God do that. It took a while for me to understand that anything about the Bible can be answered . just finding the right ones, the right person who knows.
Most of these guys on here , all they see is negative, pick and choose and yank scripture out of context and try to make it mean something else. jackal is notorius for that.
Damon, you have to be one of the most ignorant, unintelligent man of faith I have ever come across. These guys are giving you facts and explanations and it is so obvious you are completely ignoring them, you are making absolutely NO sense. You don't listen, and on top of that you don't comprehend. I love how you said you want truth and not guesses, which essentially ALL that religion is, assumptions. You come to us saying "prove it" and when we do, you say everything is flawed, flawed in that you can't comprehend it be ause it doesn't fit within your religious views. Yet if we go to you and say prove god exists, you throw the most unsubstantiated philosophical crap at us like it holds any water whatsoever. And what shocks me most is the fact that you expect people to believe that crap, it's mind numbing. Oh and to address an earlier post of yours on pascals gamble, that may be ok for you, but people with integrity and self respect think differently. Sure I could try and trick myself into believing in god, but do I actually truly believe? No. I could also walk down the street in a plastic bubble so I never catch the flu, however I prefer to be reasonable and honest.
Maybe it's war for you and many others but not me. I have no need to war with you. I turned away from twisted religion and I still believe in science and the good it produces.
For someone exhibiting intelligence you can come across as pretty stupid in regard to evolution and big bang. To believe in what you present as truth/fact is as much folly as anyone claiming my faith in God to be. The difference between you and I is I have peace in my faith and you walk around pissed off.
If we go back 50K years and stop we can probably agree on what's available to us today although much of what is presented in this time period isn't something science can agree on or has agreed on for centuries especially in the evolution of humanity and how the earth was inhabited. If we contain our discussion to our universe we can probably agree on much discussed here also.
When you present comments on how you view light that's 100 million years old and attempt to present fact based on this, then your argument is folly because science isn't sure(isn't in agreement) today if the speed of light is as it has been stated. Where in this spectrum you present are you? Does the source of light still exist? How many more years of viewing do you have?
As I commented earlier my faith is mine personally and I make no attempt to compare nor convince you that you must have it. Within in the heaven and hell spectrum it's possible we as humans create our own. The clearest definition of hell I'm aware of is, the absence of God and if God is a word that's to strong for you then lets use peace. It seems based on your position "It's a war" you may be living your own hell today.....especially when you need to use God in an attempt to get your point across. You choose to use the height of power to express yourself.
Really anj, don't you have something with a bit more scientific strength. Maybe something like you may hear Robin say to Batman.
Your attempt to paint anyone believing in God as being against you is just plain silly. If we can use the argument many Christians chose a couple years ago in their stance on abortion and their belief in God vs science then I will give you my take on the issue.
EX: NFL quarterback Tim Tebow and his moms decision not to terminate the pregnancy.
Science says the he was really lucky because 90% of the cases result in death of mom and child. I'm sure a nut case somewhere will present the argument that the 90% failure rate was due to being a non-believer, lack of faith or maybe just not faithful enough. To use this as a promo for the anti-abortion crowd is a crime against humanity, science and God. If you believe in intelligent design then please use it.
If you see my comment as incongruent then all I ask is present your test results of your theory.
My314tin. You are honestly saying he is stupid when it comes to evolution and the universe......and you cant grasp the idea of the speed of light and basic universal principals. I love love love when religious people try to say that certain basic scientific principals are controversial amongst the science community, a complete and utter lie. you guys always make s$?t up as you see fit, you cite Christian sources and you claim scientists are on your side and the ones that aren't are just confused. So blind....so utterly blind and ignorant.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. WRONG!!! WRONG!!!!!
You got some real chutzpah, pal, I'll give you that. Here's how you should have worded your statement:
To believe in what you present as truth/fact as your science evolves, gather's new evidence and tests and retests its theories is as much folly as anyone claiming my faith in a God (that hasn't changed or presented himself since a bunch of 3,000 year old sheepherders believed in him) to be.
There. That's the truth that you forgot to include in your sentence's entirety. It's also the huge disparity that exists between what you believe (folly) and what I believe (evolving facts). I think one cool cat on this board called it correctly: Willful Ignorance.
I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. What's your point? Our exact measurement of the speed of light could be off as it bends around a gravity well? ...As it passes through a nebula? How many more years of viewing do I have? What are you angling at? Do you even know? Are you suggesting that because I won't be around to see the light that originated from a star 200 light years distant, then that light must not exist?
You guys are hilarious.
The beauty of science is one man makes a contribution to science. His efforts are checked and rechecked by his peers. Future generations of people come along and recheck his theories. Eventually, either his theories are thrown out as so much hokum (as most of religion should be), or his theories are validated and it becomes fact. A fact that is not set in stone; there's always the possibility of something new coming along that challenges previously held facts.
Does Religion have the same flexibility? No. It is what it is, and circular arguments are used if any member of any religious sect attempts to question their religious leaders.
What's not to get about that? You and DamonWV's and every other religious nut out there who says, "Science is just as uncertain as religion" have really got your heads firmly and squarely stuck up your behinds.
my314tin... Stop arguing Faith vs. Knowledge. Stop. Your perceived intelligence amongst the posters on this board is dropping faster than the 2008 stock market. My perception of you as a rational, reasonable person is quickly diminishing.
That's because I'm "gearing up" brother. Men of science, knowledge, and intelligence have sat idly by for far too long while we've let the lunatics run the asylum. I think over the next couple hundred years (if we can prevent the lunatics from deliberately lighting the asylum on fire), we're finally going to stamp out this cancer known as religion.
I think our civilization will eventually move into these three areas. When it does, the false promises, fraudulent hopes, and unfulfilled dreams of the snake oil salesman who promote themselves as religious leaders will be broken.
Until that day, I fight the darkness of unfounded beliefs in unproven Gods represented by corrupt religious organizations.
Personally, I think it's a pretty good fight, and one worthy of my anger and resolve.
I personally believe that god exists as an emotion, not an entity. We created him, just as we created superman and batman. He is real in the fact that he has an affect on your life, just as fictional books have an affect on people's lives. That does not make him an actual tangible entity. Even if there was a god he certainly wouldn't be any we have thought up so far.
FYI Science recently questioned the speed of light contrary to how it has been stated for years. Update! No it isn't a Christian source.
When Anj is looking at light that's stated as being a 100 million light years away, is the light still on/burning?
Based on your knowledge, anger and hatred, no doubt true. Could we get one more "goddammit" before you go.
Telling people their stupid because of Light ? There are many views how to look at it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n4/light-travel-time
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/velocity-of-lighthttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
Audio clip 1:50
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-083/speed-of-light-problem
http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap08.htm
So we can argue and debate about light until were blue in the face.
So you can call me ignorant, and unintelligent because I have a different view from you ? Does that really make me ignorant ? I think the way I do because of the science I read that shows the flaws in your atheistic naturalistic world view religion. I get my information from peopel who have science degrees, they are the ones who show the rebuttal and argument. They are the ones who show the problems with your alls views. Im not a scientist, but I do keep up with what they are saying. Im sorry if my disbelief in Goo to man macro evolution, or effect with out a cause seems irrational to you.
i can see why so many people have issues with christianity, because they were in a bad church, or they never got the right answers for their questions. Why does God do this or how does he do that. Or you get these Goofballs like harold camping who give it a bad name. Which the Bible talks about guys like this.. a False Prophet. As a Christian I am well aware of people like Camping. Its so easy for you all to label Christianity with a bad name. Crusades, witch trials, camping, priests molesting kids ( which plenty of people who are not priests also do it , but its such an easy label to bash religion when a priest does it ) . I spent some of my life as an atheist, and I felt something was wrong with it. I took the time to learn and read what all science had to say. When you say " its a fact " its not a fact. I havent seen any facts presented here from no one. What I have seen is Evidence. there has been so many mounds of evidence that has been shown in here, it is its own little religion of self beliefs going on, all the way from morality to his false views of God. But all these evidences has shown , nothing is fact. Its best guesses, assumptions, personal beliefs and views. People dont want to believe in God. They dont want to be held accountable for their actions, or have the absolute truth, or point of origin for morality. Jesus himself could appear before any of you , and im betting you all still would deny him. Look at Doubting thomas in the bible. this guy had seen Jesus in the flesh, hung out with him, and still didnt believe. It is worth noting that Jesus did not scold Thomas for his doubt. In fact, Jesus invited Thomas to touch his wounds and see for himself. This guy just had a hard time believing. So i dont blame any of you all for disbelief, so many thousand of years later. I doubted myself for a long time, but I was restless until I knew the truth.
I havent been brain washed, and I am far from being ignorant. Thats your personal view. I free think, and look at all possibilities , Creation just fills that void and answers all my questions. You want to keep your faith in goo to man, thats fine. I dont call you ignorant, or unintelligent because of that. I am not above anyone, I look to each person eye level. We have different views, lets keep it at that with out the name calling.
Well... If you really want to blow your mind let's take this hypothetical approach:
Just for the sake of argument, let's imagine the Earth is sitting dead center in the Universe. Right directly in the middle. Photons carrying the light from stars a billion light years away have been traveling for eons to reach us. When that light reaches us, we're just seeing the state of that star when it transmitted its light to us a billion years ago (the time it took for it to travel from its star to us). Suppose a year later that star went supernova. We're seeing light that 1,000,000,000 years old. A year later, we're seeing the light from a supernova that is only 999,999,999 years old (although we've just spent a year waiting for the light from the supernova to catch up to us, so now we're 1 year older, and the light from the supernova is one year older so it is now 1,000,000,000 years old.
Here's where the mind blowing part comes in. Maybe we're not in the middle of the Big Bang. Maybe we're at the end of time, and we're not in the middle of the Big Crunch (where all energy and matter collapses in on itself into a tiny, microscopic spec of nearly infinite energy and mass). If, as suggested by our hypothesis, we're right where God wanted us: Directly in the middle of the Universe, we'd continue to see the Universe as normal, unaware that non-existence (traveling at the speed of light from all directions - a collapsing sphere of non-existence) was squeezing the entire perimeter of the universe smaller and smaller... We'd have no idea that the universe was ceasing to exist until the very last sec....
Oh DamonWV...
All your web links are for sites like:
Pull something from the National Academy of Science, or from Los Alamos, or from Harvard, Yale, Stanford... Enough with the biased science that is FORCED into conforming with your belief system.
Yikes... You're being pretty disingenuous with your sources there.
Anjisan , No christian should be fearing death. I think people have the fear of no longer living. Death happens to everyone, there might be some fear on how one might die. I would fear burning to death, or drowning.. slowly dying from a wound, or illness. Personally I hope I get to pass away in my sleep surrounded by loved ones and not strangers at a hospital with noisy machines beeping in my ears.
I took my uncle with me today washington dc. I had a doctors appointment there today. On the way down, he was telling me about his late wife, my aunt. She died about 7-8 years ago. She suffered greatly from cardio pulmonary disease <sp> where her circulatory system slowly deteriorated over many many years. In her last moments, her labored breathing my uncle told me,her eyes were shut, she smiled and a tear came to the corner of her eye and I forget now what he said she said, ill have to ask him again, but it had something to do with her seeing jesus. She was very commited to her faith in Christ. Just as he told me about my great grandmother who also was strong in her faith, as she took her last breaths, she said to her son, my grandfather, Luther do you hear the horns and sounds ? My grandather said, no mom, what are you talking about ? And she passed away.
Ya ya I know science can make claims these were nothing more than some chemical being released or brain being deprieved of Oxygen ect ect .. Maybe.. or it could as easily been Jesus coming to take them home.
That is why I dont fear death or no longer living. because just like the catapillar into the butterfly, When i die, its going to be a transformation from this decaying body, into a heavenly body , to spend eternity with my Lord and Savior. That is something encouraging for us believers. :D I wont have no worries about this place anymore, the bible says every tear shall be wiped away. All bad things in life totally gone, and a new life of purity. Its going to be something else.
Why ? are they any less of a scientist ? Oh i see you want to change the terms of the debate for me to use only what sources you think are credible. So any ones you assume already arent, we should just toss them out. Sorry anjisan I cant do that. I dont tell you to use only certain points of information for your views. I dont try to limit your information, evidences for me. These guys are scientists, using the same evidence, same tools, but show different views.
Amen, Amen....well said DamonW.
One more thing, DamonWV...
ARE YOU FRIGGING KIDDING ME???
You're goddam right (there you go my314tin). He's a priest. A priest. I would expect a pervert with an IQ of 60 to do this. I would expect a person who's been abused and molested themselves to do this. I would expect a lowlife sociopathic scumbag to do this. But a priest?
Shouldn't we set the bar a little higher for a priest? A priest molesting a kid is 20 times worse than the scumbag retard lurking around a playground who does it. We can identify the scumbags, and there's no one to protect them when we do find them. They go to prison and that is that.
But a priest? He gets reassigned. His buddies in the church, his boss the Bishop, all their cronies get together and pressure the poor molested kid and his parents to keep their mouth shut ("don't want to bring shame to the church"). Oh man... A priest that molests is much, much worse than any standalone, individual molester.
For you to say...
...that just really shows me the true nature of your character: Protect religion at all cost. Use the "Well everybody does it" defense. Minimize the fact that PRIESTS (more than one) would even think about molesting kids (much less on the grand and widespread scale they have committed these crimes). Make it not a big deal.
Is that what religion and belief in God teaches. You DamonWV who have sermonized to me about how "Man is incapable of living morally without God". Is this how we live morally without God, by saying crimes committed by people who should garner the most trust of any people in society should be excused from scrutiny because, hey... After all... Everybody else is doing it.
Shame. You do not get a gold star next to your name today.
Uhhhhh not really damon, getting your science information from a Christian source makes it automatically biased. And stop talking about god as "the truth" as something we need to accept. It is the truth to you, certainly not everyone. The act that you look down on people who don't believe in god as people who need to be saved or are in need of Jesus' touch is arragont, ignorant and down right stupid. That is the #1 thing that bugs me about you religious folk, you insist that we need Jesus or that we are doomed without him. Such an arragont point of view. I don't care If you have a different point f view from me. What I care about is your encroachment on science, trying to cold it with your pseudo science. Do the world a favor and keep your religion out of science, it doesn't belong nor fit there. You can bend facts until you are blue in the face, the fact is they are still facts. Facts, something religion can never claim. Like I said, you are an emotional person who seems to think based on your emotions rather than rational comprehension. That's fine, but don't go claiming god is fact and science is flawed. You cannot and never will be able to prove god as fact, and yes science will never be able to prove he doesn't exist but we dont have to, he is unnecessary.
...and the answer to your question is: Yes. They are less of a scientist. Let's look at this winner of your first article:
In your first link, this article was written by Robert Newton.
On April 1, 2001 Robert posted his first article. This was the author's bio:
In the link you provide, Robert wrote that article on September 1, 2003 (2 and a half years later), and he dropped the "pen name"
Rather dishonest to not even use his actual name, don't you think. Dishonest also to drop the caveat about using a pen name. ...And when exactly is he going to get his doctorate. ...And why won't he tell us what accredited university he's going to.
Just from looking at Robert's credentials, I'm somewhat suspicious of your sources. Let's look at another...:
In his pamphlet, Dr. Lisle states:
Dr. Lisle has also addressed the starlight issue of star light being billions of years old. Here's his explanation:
Sorry DamonWV. This is one Scientist who clearly doesn't want to use science. When a scientist declares the bible as the only source, when he says science books are changing all the time to accommodate new information (so what good is that new information), and when they chuck out conventional science because they can't shoehorn the facts into what the Bible tells them; then they really are no longer scientists. They're simply mouthpieces for an agenda. The agenda for (AIG) Answers in Genesis.
Let's look at another prestigious scientist from your links:
In this graph you can see that when Setterfield's data is incorporated onto a standard speed of light graph, he is just all over the map. Sometimes his data points at accelerating values for the speed of light (which he never addresses), or its exactly at the speed of light (which he never addresses), or its slower than the speed of light (which he exclaims shows that he is right).
DamonWV... Is this the best your Scientist/Priests can do? Frankly, I feel like I'm Moses, and your the Pharaoh having your magicians turn a staff into a snake (remember Moses' [the Charlton Heston version] staff-snake ATE the Pharaoh's staff-snake).
Joanne-1404538?
Can I get an "Amen Amen" too?
Thanks.
I dont like to change peoples comments when i quote them, but i had to xxxxx out the word I dont like to see. Hes a priest , A priest ! No, he is a Human, a Human.. a person who is able to sin. What he did is very sick, very wrong but he is still a human, because he is a priest that does not make him special, it does not make him immune to the influence of sin and sickness. This could been the President of the united states, or one of our teachers at school, or one of our own family members. Should we hold them to such special standards just because they are in such position ? We should, but they are all human, all full of sin and capable of such atrocities. I dont take up for this priest at all. He deserves all that is coming to him.
I am not protecting anything anjisan, im not defending anyone. Please show me where I am defending him ? I dont need to defend the bible itself, because no where does it condone this type of action. Do you agree with that ? or would you have some crazy views and rip something out of context like so many people so do to make some twisted point of view. Would you even dare to consider using statistics of how many molested kids there have been by Priests vs. non priests ? I would bet everything I own in life, that the data would show priests are not the majority. For you to assume that is way out there thinking.
No it doesnt teach that. But what it does show is that no man is with out sin. Like I said , these people , priests who molest are nothing special. They are not immune to the perversions of the mind. How dare you imply I would condone such actions, or defend these people who defile kids. How dare you. You missed my point entirely. I am implying anyone can so such things, and they do regardless of age, creed, sex, religious back ground, social status, positions..
Yes it makes it even worse that a priest does such things, but like most people you all use this for an attack on what christianity is, but this is in no way, such thing. Show me where it condones such acts. Should I quote the many bible verses about what jesus says about kids ?
To put it bluntly , yes that is the truth. We are all doomed with out Christ as savior. Nothing arrogant about it at all from a biblical point of view. It used to seem arrogant to me when I was an atheist, but I dont see it that way now, because I accepted God and the Bible as truth.
I do no such thing. What you are seeing are scientists who have degrees from Colleges that any other Joe Smoe went to . You can call it pseudo science all you want, but that is not true at all. They use the same science as any other, but can come up with it fitting into a biblical point of view. God created everything, that would be our sciences we see today. Man found them, but God made them.
I never claimed science is flawed, I said scientists show flaws in other peoples science. This just doesnt apply to the creation vs evolution debates, this can be in any fields, diets, the body, how things work, in any field. World view scientists do at times have conflicting ideas with each other and come up with their own conclussions.. Does this make them pseudo scientists ? or do you just like to toss that out there when you like to label creation scientists as such.
You keep stating facts, but like I said, you nor anyone else on here has shown facts. You have shown evidence open to interpretation.
Your right, and no where have i said such thing as science can show God exists. I know what exists is a result of God though. If he were unnecessary, then we wouldnt be here having this debate.. we wouldnt exist :D
Oh, you're not protecting him. But you're minimizing. ...and you're still doing it...
In one word you tell all of us, "The Bible and my acceptance of Jesus into my heart makes me a better person". But when I say, "He's a priest" where I suggest here is a person who should be SO FULL OF THE LORD he should never, ever have an illicit thought towards a child. Ever.
You still come back and say, "He's a person. Susceptible to sin like all of us".
What's the point, huh? It's all BS. Here's a guy who took an oath to never sin. But sins anyway. Why? And in such a horrendous fashion? How can you minimize crimes against humanity like that. From a person who should be operating from a much higher moral code.
Here's my point. You're right. He's only human.
There was nothing divine about a priest to begin with. There was no divine influence on any of these guys. There was no divine intervention in their lives that drove them to the priesthood (unless it was a divine desire to get some pre-teen poontang). They were only human as you suggested. Their vows were just a sham. The book they followed was just a book of lies and fairy tales. There was nothing special about them except for the con they were perpetuating against people who wanted to believe in the ideas that some magical, mystical man in the sky loved them and cared for them.
In the end, it was just a grubby, dirty, filthy man who called himself a priest as he attacked, abused, and raped the helpless and innocent he was sworn to protect.
Just a man.
You're right.
Nothing special. Duly noted.
No anjisan, they are few of hundreds. I have many many websites full of creation scientists. There are many books written out there by scientists that go into greater detail then any of this stuff were linking and discussing. These are just the many we know of that are part of AIG, ICR, CRI, and many other websites.. there are many out there that are not part of these websites but still believe in creation and are scientists.
Until you realize that what you are defending is not based on fact but based on stories. Stories that were written a long time ago by primitive people who had absolutely no understanding of the world around them let alone the universe, you are just throwing out baseless statements. It is honestly nothing more than that. Your only argument is based in the supernatural, it does not apply to an argument of science and facts. I just cannot understand why you don't get that. It is so obvious and apparent. I love watching debates with Richard Dawkins vs religious folk or Christopher hitchens vs religious folk. It is an absolute massacre, in fact in some of those debates they poll the audience before and after the debate to see who has changed their minds on religion and it is always in favor of Dawkins and hitchens. Please go on YouTube and watch those debates, you will see how assanine it is to argue religion with science and even history.
Anjisan are you aware there are priests that are not even saved ? Seem ludicrous ? You bet. Priest is nothing more then a title. Like i said it could just as well be president, teacher, professor, neighbor, uncle, Brother labeled beside this guys name instead of priest.
back to priests not being saved. You can go through all the motions being a priest, meaning, you can learn and teach and preach the bible. But that doesnt mean you live by it. It doesnt mean you not capable of doing bad things.
There are people who can spend their entire life in church. Go every sunday and wednesday for 70 years of their life, and never knew Christ. It does happen.
You keep on thinking that being a priest puts him in some special bubble where he cant do wrong. He can, and he will. He is tempted by sin like anyone else. Nothing makes him special. I question the authenticity of his salvation.
Again, let's make it clear that when you say it is the truth you are stating that as you opinion and nothing else. You would do best y saying "it is my opinion that it is the truth". That would at least make you seem like less of an a$$ anyway. The problem is that we do not have a biblical point of view as we don't believe in the bible. What if I told you that when you die you are sucked into a black hole and doomed to suffer in agony. Would you think me to be a pretentious dick who thinks I know everything based on nothing? Most people would. Also, what's with your pope randomly deciding to say there is no limbo, that that isn't and hasn't been true? What the hell sparks a change like that, I mean do you ever question this nonsense?
I have seen the debates Led , escpecially with richard dawkins.. I seen him get chopped down a few levels by ben stein, and ben isnt even super qualified to give richard such a debate.
Ravi's Response to "Man Vs. God" Article in The Wall Street Journal
In response to the essays presented by Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong in "Man Vs. God" (Saturday, September 12), I would add that the combination of Dawkins and Armstrong as presenting two contrary views on the existence of God is in itself a "creative act." For one, God is a fairy tale and for the other "at least it's a nice fairy tale." One may as well have asked Bin Laden to write his thoughts on America and then ask Chavez for a counter perspective. Amazing. Even by today's media manipulations, that raises the benchmark.
Let me just respond with two thoughts. Dawkins says: "What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics." Let's grant him that for the moment. But the fact of physics is that however you section physical concrete reality, you end up with a state that does not explain its own existence. Moreover, since the universe does have a beginning and nothing physical can explain its own existence, is it that irrational a position to think that the first cause would have to be something non-physical?
More can be said, but for the sake of brevity may I ask one more question?
The position that both Armstrong and Dawkins would be compelled to concede is that moral categories do exist for us as persons. It is implicit in their writings. So I ask, if personhood is of value and if our personal questions on moral values are of value, then must we not also concede that the value-laden question about intrinsic value for humanity can only be meaningful if humanity is the creation of a person who is of infinite worth to bequeath that value to us as persons?
In other words, our assumptions about our worth and the worthiness of our questions of good and evil cannot be the offspring of Naturalism.
But these are the gaps atheists conveniently ignore. They value their Physics but devalue their Physicist. They are quick to blame a person for evil but are loathe to attribute goodness to the ultimate person.
That is, either our questions are rooted in personal worth or not. If they are, then God must exist. If they are not, then our questions are self-defeating.
That is why G.K. Chesterton said: When belief in God becomes difficult, the tendency is to turn away from him. But in heaven's name to what? Dawkins and Armstrong are brilliant examples of making something out of nothing but it shows they are borrowing from something that they deny exists.
A spiritual, moral first cause is a reasonable position much more than the questions that smuggle in such realities without admitting it.
Maybe that's why two brilliant minds, Anthony Flew and more recently A.N. Wilson, left the atheistic fold. They saw the hollow word-games that flew in the face of reality as we also intuitively know it.
Author: Ravi Zacharias
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=402772&sp=62141&event=62141SBF|608665|62141
quoted from that link
3: Even the staunchest critics, J.R. Mackie, Richard Dawkins, even they concluded that there is no rational way to talk of objective morality if God is outside the picture. So if they grant it, then those who criticize it are not listening to their own Gurus of logical thinking.
I was listening to Ravi one time on the radio and he does talk with richard. He feels it will only be a matter of time before richard concedes that there is a God. Will that happen ? who knows.. but anything is possible :D
You are the worst debater ever. Again you are quoting a ultra Christian source:
Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias (born 1946) is an Indian-born, Canadian-American evangelical Christian apologist.
You have got to be kidding me.....why don't a post an article from a nazi website about what they think about the Jews. Or how bout I get a quote from the KKK on their thoughts of minorities. Do you realize what I'm saying here, because I don't think you do. I don't think you understand that Christian sources are biased towards religion. How does this quote sit with you?
Or how about this one:
Those quotes are from Stephen hawking, a brilliant and probably most brilliant mind we have seen since Einstein. Those quotes were pulled from an article with the Washington post. Get it?
Richard Dawkins would NEVER concede that there is a god. If you think that then you really are blind. What the hell could you possibly base that on. He is one of the most popular atheists in the world......that is the friggin dumbest statement ever.
That's like me saying the pope will concede to atheism at some point.
Here's a bit more insight from the Q and A with the famed physicist:
You've said there is no reason to invoke God to light the blue touchpaper. Is our existence all down to luck?
Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.
So here we are. What should we do?
We should seek the greatest value of our action.
You had a health scare and spent time in hospital in 2009. What, if anything, do you fear about death?
I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.
In my desire to stay brief, let me just say: Wrong. It absolutely is, and it absolutely can be.
Good and Evil are merely the current perceptions of human civilization and what we currently decide to mark as "Good" and what we currently wish to mark as "Evil". There are universal constants of Evil that generally don't change, like:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." -- Thomas Jefferson
Go Thomas, Go Thomas, Go Thomas JEFFERSON!!!!
Beat that ya bunch of hacks!!!
...I'm sorry for that little outburst. What made me do that? After all...
Our nation was founded on a bastion of Judea Christian Values. Right?
Wrong. We were a secularist nation to begin with, and much better for it at that.
Exactly anjisan, if people actually studied history they would understand that. If anything our country was founded on free mason values which ARE NOT Christian values.
Spontaneous Creation
Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 336.
Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257.
I am well aware of who Richard hawkings is. Great mind I agree, even creationists give him that credit, but they still show Hawkings errors.
Rc Sproul a brilliant philospher and theologian
R.C. Sproul on Hawking, spontaneous generation, and the nature of man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIY3xUf9M4s
This is Lennox talking about Hawking along with Ravi.
Ravi Zacharias Answers Stephen Hawking - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wMyMmjPgLs&feature=related
Do we have to do this again ? Who are you , in your right sound and mind to determine what is Good and Evil ? On what basis can you conclude that such said things you listed are truly evil ? Evil is what ? What do you compare it to ? Good ? What is Good ? Good , evil, nothing more then your personal interpretation of what you feel is right and wrong. You know its not the information that I provide you that I think is your issue, its the Hatred you have for Christianity, the labels you are so fast to place on them because you dont understand anything about it. You just cant stop pointing out, priests molesting children, incest bible belt breeders, and me incapable of facing reality. Your hatred blinds you, and clouds your mind with irrational thought.
Wow, someone who doesnt know their own history. This is why we have these problems today. You all get caught up in so much mis information you all will believe anything that is spewed out there, just as long as it attacks Religion.
I wont sit here and lie and say that all of them were some devout bible thumping christians, but a good bit of them did believe in God, and had their inspiration from a True , absolute authority , and that be our Creator.
Here is one of the most Popular quotes
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/foundation-of-scripture
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/09/23/stealing-of-america
About our founding fathers also.
http://www.equip.org/articles/law-and-morality
http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm
To note, Jefferson was a Deist who respected Christ's teachings, but rejected His divinity, His miracles, and His resurrection. Thats a lot more then you guys I see on here. You all have no respect for the Bible.
http://www.faithofourfathers.net/
http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm
There are tons of them out there. To be fair, there are also many links that say Our founding fathers were not christians, or our land was not found on christian values ect ect . I read the other sides arguments. I see what they wrote, and quote to prove their points. So Both sides can make their point of view and make it believable. So when do you pick and choose who is right and who is wrong ? This is no different then the debate were having now about science. You always get 2 groups of people. Those who see something one way, and those who see it another way. I keep it plain and simple, I read what our founding fathers said. You cant change that. What they said is recorded, and then man can try to change and twist it all they want, but I am going to keep going back to saying, here.. look what they said..
"Until you realize that what you are defending is not based on fact..."
Christians view facts and evidence as enemies to be defeated and to accomplish this end they employ the primitive myths of an ancient tribe of ignorant pestiferous sheep shaggers. An intelligent twenty-first century person, when facing the the choice between the scientific evidence of more than half a dozen different disciplines or these benighted late bronze-age fairy tales, would not think twice about discarding the imaginary deity and his fictional holy book. Amazingly, we still see self-deluded christians floundering in an attempt to discredit facts and evidence in a vain effort to validate their cult and its nonsense. This says more about christians than it possibly could about anything else.
The bottom line is the universe will continue to operate on natural physical laws just has it has for the past 13.75 billion years...without a deity and with no need for one...while god will die with the last ignorant christian believing in him.
it has for the past 13.75 billion years.
Wow, its grown even older since i was a kid, In my 39 years of life, its increased so many times. You must be really old yourself since you been around 13.75 billion years to witness the beginning. Tell me.. since you know the exact date.. was it a early thursday morning, at 4 am, that the tiny cosmic egg blew into being ? Tell me all about it , I want to know what you saw. Im jealous :D
Ah... There we go. The crack in the facade. A chink in the armor.
Okay... Let's go.
Knowledge: The Universe is incredibly old. Maybe it's 13.75 billion years old. Maybe it's 12 billion years old. Science can easily adapt as newer techniques come along that measure the age of the Universe. I'm sure the estimated age has changed since you were a boy. Better scientific tools and measuring devices have been developed since you were a lad.
Faith: The Universe was created in 6 days by God. It's approximately 6,000 years old. This fact does not change. The Book of Genesis is written in stone, and that's a fact.
I think, if we found a person who didn't care about science and didn't care about religion and asked them to compare the beliefs found through knowledge and the beliefs found through faith; which belief would our neutral party accept?
What say everyone else?
Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWVi5grHdCA&feature=related
Ben stein with Dawkins, admitting to intelligent design ? hum... Dawkins talk about an intelligence out there creating , but he still states that even that intelligent designer came from some where..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
Better scientific tools and measuring devices have been developed since you were a lad.
Yup they have , too bad none of the measuring devices can be so accurate to date something that old, not to mention no one was there to collect the evidence of that time ( 15.75 billions years ago ) all the compounds, gases, ect ect that were present, and then test how time and changes over the 15.75 billions years can change the outcome of any such said tests because no one would really know how that much time can have what kind affects in such sensitive types of dating.
Sorry anjisan, the chink you heard was nothing more then the sword of fallacy bouncing off of the armor of truth.
"Wow, its grown even older since i was a kid, In my 39 years of life, its increased so many times."
As the sophistication of devices intended to peer to the furthest edge of the universe have improved over the decades, the exactitude of the measurements these devices have provided have improved accordingly. Still, whether the age of the universe is 12 billion or 13.75 billion years old (as measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), these measurements are many orders of magnitude more accurate than the preposterous 6000 year age your primitive mythology would want us to believe. Science is moving forward in its quest to acquire knowledge while your fetid cult is stagnating in a pool of ignorance.
Intelligence is only the ability to apply knowledge. And your argument is utterly nonsensical. Humans made synthetic life without needing to do the magical Frankenstein "Zapping" to which is hilarious.. But let's see, you continue to ignore information theory, and this is not a surprise:
Now you can take a moment to review your ABC's:
Now I have asked you several times to address information theory DamonWV, and you again avoid it.
The origins of anything is what something made of.. Your assumption that everything comes from an intelligent source is quite laughable DamonWV. Consciousness itself can not exist without cause! .. Consciousness can not represent a Universal set, or solve infinite regress... So I am going to ask you one more time DeamonWV this question:
I want you to explain that in terms of information theory the differences between a rock / dot and a conscious entity. What is required to support consciousness? Why is consciousness highly complex vs something as simple as a rock or primitive living organism? And when you are done there DamonWV, you can feel free to try and refute this:
Damon, you are like a drowning person flailing their hands in desperation, part of a dying breed of desperate people so scared to accept the truth. You know what the fastest growing group in the country is? Atheism/agnosticism! Look it up! Do you REALLY elieve the earth is 6000 years old??
I know something else that wasn't there... Your God! Yup. The current Judea Christian God wasn't invented until around 1500BC. You may want to consult with the Hindu Gods. They were invented about 500 years earlier than your God.
So no one, not even your God was around 13.75 Billion years ago. Uh oh... This looks like a job for Science. Best to leave all this "technical talk" to experts like scientists.
Ummm no! There is quite a bit of pseudoscience in there that attempts to spin the source material.
You are talking about a time period faster than you can blink an eye. And no, the inflation period did not involve going faster than C.. The speed of light travels at different velocities through different mediums. FTL comes in different terms you should familiarize yourself with before making such arguments. And of course your source misrepresents the material it sources for it's arguments. Your entire source is easily debunked with:
And:
And of course this:
Now let's address this:
Your first mistake is that inflation did not exceed C in terms of actual velocity. Secondly you really need to do some research before you post such things :
Of course I am not surprised that your sources rely on pure ignorance and the use of intentional misinformation! Mostly because people like you don't actually understand the science. At all! And they entirely rely on you knowing pretty much next to nothing on the subject.
Yes, they are still working on testing inflation theory / the Big Bang... However, this does not mean "GOD DONE IT".. Your dishonest use of the GOD of the Gaps is pathetic. Especially when you post things from a Creationist website that routinely produces pseudoscience articles that are nothing but dishonest appeals to ignorance.
But lets further understand this by direct evidence:
Hence, direct evidence is that we did measure the universe to be flat!:
Again, no room for "GOD DONE IT" there.. You will have to try and place Entity done it before the Big Bang as a plausible cause.. However, the observable universe or the Big Bang is not the problem here. It's when you address "THE UNIVERSE".. As in Existence itself... Science won't say that it's impossible to induce a big bang. However, big bangs could be as common as lightning out to sea via natural processes. And worst of all, consciousness can't exist without cause, or the exact same system that requires feedback either. You you are in a self-collapsing argument sir!
What processes create the emergent property of the conscious state?.. Well, consciousness is similar to your computer screen's displayed desktop image. There must first be unconscious processes. Hence information processing to which produces the displayed image on screen. This process must be continuous in order for the image to continue displaying. This same exact concept applies to the conscious state, or a state of awareness. In fact, it's required to even be capable of support the most primitive cognitive dynamics. Consciousness is highly more complex than your common computer, and will require a hell of a lot more cause to support it than what the common computer requires to just solve a simple math problem.. You can not exist as a conscious entity without a complex adaptive system with feedback. Without such systems and rules inherent in nature or existence itself, there can be no possible source cause to support the function of observation, perception, realization, or cognitive dynamics.
There is a reason why a rock isn't a conscious entity! There is a reason why this dot ---->.<---- is not a conscious entity..
You theists have things ass backwards in terms of complexity and cause and effect. Existence does not require a conscious being to exist. It's the other way around! Cause and effect, or your origins begin with existence itself and the rules of existence to which you and everyone else, or thing is bound to require in order to exist at all!.
LMAO!
LMAO ! And of course, here comes the appeal to ignorance:
Yes, you need people that are completely illiterate in science or the theory of relativity to bite on this load of crap! Hence, be prepared for Creationist pseudoscience appealing to the ignorant :/
Firstly, this is not how particle time dilation works. And sorry, you are going to need a higher velocity than a car can go to make any noticeable difference, or greater distance away from the center of gravity of this mass we call Earth. Whoever wrote that piece is either intellectually dishonest, or really has no conceptual clue as to what he/she is talking about. If you really want a real education concerning time, you can read this :
Abstract:
SCIENCE OF TIME:
Keeping in consistency with information theory to where energy =/= information, and the capacity of as noted in my other articles below, we can address time in a more scientific context:
So the instant of now is interesting to two different observers when one observer, or conscious entity, exists in a causality that may be slower or faster than another causality relative to that of their own in terms of particle dilation. Hence the particle dilation or the speed at which the neurons fire in my brain will also effect my time perception in relation to someone else who might have a particle dilation either faster or slower than that of my own. We can understand this by simply knowing that Energy and Mass are the same thing, that we are energy beings, and that where there is mass there is gravity to which effects time particle dilation. And this greatly depends on our own masses inertia in relation to that of another. And this is how we also know the conscious state has mass since it can be effected directly by particle dilation.
Example of Particle dilation:
Another way to look at this in more easier terms is by looking at it in terms of suspended animation. This is where the closer you get to the speed of light, the closer your particle dilation gets to a state of suspended animation. This same effect can happen in terms of cryogenics where particle dilation slows down to what we call rest mass:
So the colder you get the slow your particle dilation. Or for easy understanding, the less your atoms jiggle. So if you can freeze all your atoms at their rest mass, or in this case in a state of suspended animation without damaging your body tissues, organs ect from crystallization, you could effectively travel into the future just as you could if you could travel at the speed of light, or even at half the speed of light relative to our own current state of particle dilation. Thus if such a person woke up from a 100 year deep freeze , or slowed themselves down from the speed of light relative to that of our own mass momentum, they would find them selves in the future.
So when I see a website reference a car in the wrong context, I couldn't help but laugh. And yes, we see particle time dilation in satellites, and in particle collisions at CERN.
And then we get this argument:
Actually we can measure time and distance just by knowing the wattage of a light bulb.
[PDF]
Measuring Electricity
And we also measure the distance of our own sun and moon through the speed of light VIA RADAR:
Example:
What's worse is that your little websites graphic demonstration on the subject would violate Snell's Law. The laws of light refraction. In case you don't know, light is electromagnetic radiation. The waves and frequencies have a lot to do with out light travels through different mediums. This includes the vacuum. You can read this article here:
It's pretty sad that I can with one article debunk both Creationist pseudoscience and Flat Earther pseudoscience.
Please show us the scientific peer reviewed paper that shows their measurements of the speed of light.
For one. it proves what it's made of, it's temperature, and distance. What even funnier, it tells us when one has gone supernova. Your 6,000 year time table having supernovas occurring is quite hilarious. Stars must be burning out at amazing speeds! Oh wait! we observe them today! Oh that's right, your argument is that light travels instantly at infinite speed! If that isn't pure ignorance at it's finest, I don't know what is. In fact, your argument would suggest that our star should have died already. This of course would also take complete and utter ignorance of Nuclear physics as well :/
It's not a problem... the content in that audio is just as deluded as the rest of the content you've provided me.
Genesis doesn't address anything concerning such subjects either. No where in Genesis does it even talk about genetics, Cosmology, the speed of light, or any such subjects.
Far from it Led. you make an claim with nothing to back it up, so let me show you that its the opposite and here is the study done.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/02/christian-number-crunching
I myself cant put an exact year to date. I know humans have been been on the planet for 6000 to 8000 years. Wasnt much longer before that when God created everything.
http://crev.info/content/111024-objectivity_of_science_undermined
Awwww...Anjisan63.....sorry but no "Amen" for you.....but if you'd like, give me your address and I'll send you a dollar so you can buy a clue.......
Awwww...Anjisan63.....sorry but no "Amen" for you.....but if you'd like, give me your address and I'll send you a dollar so you can buy a clue.......
Two postings means I get TWO DOLLARS!!! Praise Jesus! I am truly blessed.
A clue, huh?
I'm already starting to get a clue: There's no reasonable discourse to be had with children who are scared of the dark, still believe in Santa Clause, and have the blinders of the Lord firmly in place around their eyes.
Thats a two edged sword Anjisan. Many people are afraid of the dark , kids and adults. As for Santa Claus, ever read about who he actually way, or how it started ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus
Yes we all know that Santa doesnt come to our houses, but we simulate the tradition of Santa , to give presents to one another.
As for Blinders of the lord, I can easily say blinders of the Atheistic naturalistic world view religion of assumptions. So I guess we all got blinders on.
This is amazing. Nothing to back it up huh, so you have pretty much ignored everything anjisan and jackel have thrown at you. You need to get the holy water out of your eyes and ears and stop being so stupid. 6000-8000 years old?!?!?!?!?!!?!!?!?!?! HOW DO YOU BACK THAT UP PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU BACK THAT UP WITH SCIENCE!?!?!?!?!?!?!? This is going to be wonderful. Let me make popcorn for this one.
Joanne, save your dollar and get a science book, you will need it.
Every time you quote a Christian source you are showing everyone that 1. You don't listen 2. You don't know how to debate 3. You show how utterly lost and ignorant you are. STO QUOTING CHRISTIAN SOURCES!!!!!!! Unfreakinbelievable, what don't you get about this......read this very closely and the read it again and the again and the again, if you quote a Christian source in matters of science you are toast, end.of.story.
...No really... I am getting a clue.
There's no reasonable discourse to be had with these people. It's absolutely flabbergasting. Their tenacious desire to hold onto their beliefs as they grasp at phantom straws to support their impossibly ludicrous belief system.
It's flabbergasting but still pretty fascinating to watch. It's like a mental illness. A derangement really. Something has happened in these people's lives that caused them to pursue an unconvincing theological train of thought, and it has now become a neurosis for many of these people.
I understand the folks who attend Church occasionally, and see it as a means to socialize and get to know their fellow neighbors. They kind of, sort of believe in God, but they don't really want to spend too much time thinking about God. When you stress them about their beliefs, a lot of time they'll wince in embarrassment over some of the more major contradictions. Those people I understand. It's a social thing.
I also understand folks like myself. People who may or may not have been religious at some point in their lives (me? less so than more so). People who have taken their religious education, compared it to their academic education and come out of the process with full knowledge about the impossibility of there being a big buddy in the sky holding the keys to paradise if only we'd drop to our knees and worship him.
...But the fanatically religious? Those folks who don't blink twice at gunning down a doctor who performs abortions because they want to save unborn baby's lives? Or the Muslim fanatic who straps 20 sticks of dynamite to his body and then runs onto a crowded school bus filled with Israeli children? ...Or the self proclaimed "Son of Jesus" who kills himself and his flock while facing down federal authorities in Waco, TX. Or the other dedicated religious man who leads his flock down to South American to establish a "Sinner Free" zone only to shoot himself in the head after making his flock of 900 drink cyanide laced Kool-aid.
The list is endless. Religion really is a disease. It's a disease of the mind, it saps people's will to be able to think for themselves. It attacks society, and divides resources and time that should be better spent elsewhere. It's a disease of society, as it pits one group against another group in endless fighting (Good Example: The Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Two Christian groups killing each other off). It's a disease of society, as it makes claims of helping the underprivileged and the poor, however, as a percentage of its income flowing in, it's really doing very little except for its own members (and many times not even that).
How about a lack of religion? Could that also be considered a disease? I've seen a few postings of people who claim that Atheism leads to more deaths than a belief in an imaginary God. Is this true? Let's look at two governments around roughly the same time (1930's - 1940's): The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union was a secular state with severe restrictions on religious expression. Nazi Germany was a Christian nation whose populace's observance of Christianity was not hindered. Joseph Stalin purged millions of people from the population in both the Communist party, the general population, and with ill-advised population shifts and poor economic policies. Millions died. Nazi Germany decided one segment of its population (Jews) was holding the rest of their society down, and began to discriminate and finally moved towards the "Final Solution" that massacred millions of Jews.
Frankly. I think people are going to kill people. Doesn't matter if you hold God in your heart, or believe in a godless universe. If you want someone dead, and have the will to do it, then someone is probably going to die.
So, yes... I believe that people tend to find reasons to kill other people. Perhaps you don't like the color of their skin. Maybe they don't belong to the right political party. Or maybe they don't believe in the same God that you believe in.
That's a big one, ya know. Not believing in the same God as the person preparing to kill you. It makes it easy for them to kill you. You're a heathen. Maybe you just need to send the godless heathen immediately to heaven so God can properly instruct them. We see a lot of this behavior. Different warring factions in Africa. The recent genocide in the Balkens.
So, I am absolutely convinced that nothing good can come of religion. It's a school of thought that's based on a lie (God Exists; God Loves You; Believe in God and You'll go to Heaven; etc...), and anyone will tell you this: Getting into any kind of a relationship built on a lie is pure stupidity.
And by the way I read that dumb article on the objectivity of science. More biased, unfactual horse sh$t trying to desperately scramble to FIT science into religion. It makes no sense, is based on nothing, and s absolutely laughable. Again, you people are pulling at strings here, trying desperately to know let yourself see actual facts. A good example would be the whole cigarette fiasco. Everyone knows cigarettes are bad, but there are a lot of people that smoke. What if the cigarette companies came out and said, hey, we've done studies and cigarettes are perfectly safe! So keep smoking, you have nothing to worry about! And smokers believe that drap because they truly want to, because they can keep on smoking. Sure it's not true, but what matters is smokers have a false sense of security that keeps them smoking, because they want so desperately to believe it is good for you, so they do.
Anjisan, 100% agree with you there. Religion is a disease/mental illness, I truly believe this. So does Sam Harris, a brilliant neuroscientist.
This is even worse than the other crap you have posted.
Firstly there are thousands of Christian sects. 2ndly using Christian deaths as an appeal to make your religion sound credible is rather a pathetic and dishonest attempt to win a debate. Sorry son, but dying Christians aren't going to make your religion magically true.
Again you are trying to use the number game to which is a logical fallacy. Worst yet, your numbers are completely wrong considering there is around 8 billion people on this planet and Christianity doesn't even represent 1/2 of the world populous. And all you are telling me is that there are X many Christians who believe in the Magic man in the sky. A good 60-90 percent likely don't even know where their religion came from, or what's actually in the Bible. and yet there are Christians who are not ignorant Creationists. Sorry, but pleading Authority, credibility, and appeals to emotion and ignorance arguments are not at all impressive.
Sorry Creationism is not applicable to science. This article pretty much just complains that science won't accept pure assumptions and assertions like "GOD DONE IT". And when science doesn't accept things that can not be empirically supported and demonstrated, like "GOD DONE IT", Theists are quick to cry out the magical "non-objectivity" of science, and then generalize science as being non-objective. It's the sudden "I'm being persecuted" and "I'm being discriminated against " argument because science won't accept my Carl Sagan Dragon pseudoscience / religion!.
Basically, Damon just wants science to have blind faith in his lord Jesus / GOD / ideology and just "believe" what his religion says. Ignore those facts, and observations, logic, reason, empirical evidence, or anything that deals with critical thinking skills!
And we still can't get him to address information theory ;)
So we have seen today, by empirical demonstration, the dishonest discourse of particular theists. :/ So I have one thing to say here to them:
Information theory owns you and your religion. It owns every willfully ignorant post you make, every choice you make, and even every imaginable fallacy you might like to dream up. It owns your Santa Clause, your supposed paper printed deity, your consciousness, or even any emotional response you might have to this fact. I know, truth is hard to accept, but it also owns your fears, and your constant state of denial :
Jackel, they are cherry pickers at best. People who lie to themselves on a daily basis, wallowing in their ignorance. Discussing with Damon has reaffirmed to me that creationists are liars and morons, two dangerous traits that are very much related.
Exactly jackel. Creationists don't believe anything unless it was written down 2000 years ago by sheep herders.
They are definitely liars.. But I have seen quite a few of them that figure out and realize what their religion taught them is a lie. So I can't generalize them here. Only the more extreme ones that can't accept that Creationisms has been debunked repeatedly. They will go on believing the speed of light is infinite even while ignoring the laws light refraction and how we actually know what the speed of light is.
Creationists are equal to Flat Earthers when it comes to willful ignorance and pseudoscience. They both even suggest science is a giant conspiracy ect.. They are not interested in facts ect. They are only interested in targeting and preying peoples weaknesses and ignorance for a shot at their indoctrination into their religious cult. "/
But I find it amusing that Damon refers to a website that claims to have answers in Genesis on issues that are never actually discussed in Genesis. Hence, you can not find me a peer reviewed paper of micro morphological micro-structures in biochemistry in Genesis. You will not find discussions on Nuclear fusion or even time particle dilation ect.
These people often take some vague scripture and trying to claim it talks about things like the speed of light lol. And then they go on discussing the speed of light in such a way that they actually proves themselves wrong! It's actually quite funny that their own arguments self-collapse.
So I really did find it amusing that I was easily able to debunk their beliefs about the speed of light with the same article I wrote to which debunks Flat Earthers belief that all light frequencies magically bend equally.. That is just epic as it's so bad that you literally can't believe the nonsense these people self-invent.
But yes, religion demands ignorance and human weaknesses because it literally survives on it.
Science does back it up led. This is just a start with these websites. Its full of articles and reviews from scientists. You wont accept any of it, so why do I bother posting it ? I did my part though. Im not going to spend endless hours debating anymore with you all .. There is a bible verse about casting pearls before swine
The saying comes from the Bible and refers to "Neither cast ye your pearls before swine," advice that Jesus gave to Peter. It means: Don't waste your advice, intelligence, good words (basically, anything you could provide of value) on those who are too naive or ignorant to appreciate it.
Now before any of you come back and say eww ew eww.. last feeble attempt with attacks calling us ignorant, I am stopping you in your place right now. I would not belittle anyone, or put them down. Nor am I calling you pigs, or calling you ignorant people. What this passage means, is dont waste your time with people who are ignorant to learn or to see it as another view. So in no way im I calling you any name, I am saying you lack the knowledge or are willingly not allowing yourself to see any other view, then your own.. that is what its implying by saying ignorant. If you take it as an name call, then I am sorry, but that is not the intention of the word, which is why I just made sure I defined it for you.
I have already debated with jackal in another thread, and I have him on ignore since then, because he views , to me, are very twisted on God alone was enough to make me no longer wish to hear him, but then I have shown some rebuttal to some of his views, and he just comes back with rebuttal. And then i can rebuttal his counter rebuttal and he could just come back to counter rebut that. So its a never, never ending debate. Honestly my time to me is important, because I am now wasting it here with people who choose their own faith of religion of a naturalistic world view. I cant turn you all away from that, it doesnt matter how good of information I would post, or say. The best answer could be given in the world from someone, but you still would reject it. As i said before, Jesus himself could show up in front of you and you still would reject or doubt him.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers
http://creationism.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://crev.info/
http://evidenceweb.net/
http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/subject.asp?Cat2=262
This isnt even a debate any longer. Its been lowered to ridicule, name calling, provoking and mocking a christian , creation scientific view. that right there if it were any type of formal debate would be grounds for it to end. But I stayed with you all. Bible makes it clear that those who believe in Christ will be mocked. So in essence you just increase my faith more here when i see how you all attack Christianity.
Even debate between Dawkins and ben stein, Lennox,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbBenCTTwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=related
Ben stein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related
Dawkins and John mackay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1TpNSodDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8vFdFB-9Nw
These debates they didnt cut each other down. They didnt mock they just had a debate. As I said Im done here, it ended just as the other thread, and it has been lowered to not even a debate anymore. I have more important things to do in life than to spend never ending hours trying to convince those who dont want to see any other view. No one wins, no one loses, its just a never ending debate. I cant convince you any more then you can convince me.
So if you have more questions, all i can say is go read at those websites, or look up the books from scientists who show the world from a biblical view. If you want to attack and mock, then you just get the Ignore button and I will move onto people who wish to listen on here.
Your telling me how to debate ? Your mockery and name calling, has been grounds for ending the debate long ago. Now you want to change the terms and rules of the debate to favor you, by not allowing my evidence in , and just have yours to show, and expect me to give rebuttal with no weapons ? No sir, this is not a one minded debate. You can not choose terms in a debate to make the other side exclude anything.
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
Whelp all you all can do is just mock and belittle, debate is over. Enjoy making fun, since thats such a great moral you all have.. to make fun of others. There is no cherry picking, I have shown the truth, I have explained, I have tried to reason, but your alls minds are so closed its amazing. Good luck with your faith and religion of naturalistic assumptions that change all the time. I will stick with God who i know created everything, science backs up creation, evolution cant explain anything, its a faith system, that you all have been blinded by. I am done here. .. Please support my point of view, showing your morals now, by making fun of me and increase my faith more because The bible says we will be mocked and ridiculed.
Damon, i am just absolutely stunned and flabbergasted by your ignorance and lack f respect for true knowledge and facts. You say you would never belittle or name call anyone however you are the one who truly believes all non Christians are going to urn n hell, you are a true hypocrite in every sense of the word. Your logic will never hold water, it will never be accepted and any attempt at pushing it through is setting back the progress of mankind. I grew up catholic in a catholic household. I know what it's like to be religious, to have religious family. Thank you for reaffirming my confidence in science and truth (not like I needed it). Talking with people like you is fascinating as it really gives insights into the disease patterns of the human brain, the shield or protection that is put up to protect oneself from uncomfortable knowledge. Conversations like this is why atheism/agnosticism is the fastest growing group n the country. One day, there will be no religion, and the world will truly be free of ths nonsense. God speed!
This entire paragraph proves to me that you are only trying to convince yourself rather than others.you have clear doubts and need reassurance from others. I believe you typed that paragraph to convince yourself. Truly sad.
I am not mocking or belittling. I am stating facts about your method of discourse... But it doesn't surprise me that you would attempt to play fake victim in an effort for another appeal to credibility. Sorry, but the sources you post are pretty much pleading and preying on ignorance. Here is a prime example:
Facts are not neutral. Facts don't care if they contradict your belief system. Your ignorance here is trying to suggest that facts ought to accept your religion on faith. WTF? So anything that proves your religion a logical fallacy are now deemed biased brute facts? Again wtf?.. But I can see the argument of all facts are interpreted as being used dishonestly in an attempt to make your religion sound like a fact of truth when it's not. Flat Earthers make this same argument, and it's no surprise you do to!
Sorry sir, but no matter how you try to spin this game into sheer ignorance, the Earth isn't going to magically become flat to support a Flat Earthers beliefs any more so than the speed of light becoming infinite in speed to support yours.
You want some facts about Psalm and your religion? Ok, here we go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euG-7q3Jg8c
If you read the bible, and Read it carefully, it's what you can consider a fire/volcano cult. Fire is regarded as divine, and that which holds the spirit of GOD. Yahweh was a War GOD, a volcano, or also known as the "Devouring fire". You can reference this:
MT Sinai is the mountain of GOD, a mountain to which contains Yahweh, the GOD of war. Yahweh is referred to as the "devouring fire", and the "God of the Armies". However we also have El Elyon and El Shaddai, These came before Yahweh, and El Elyon means "God Most High" while El Shaddai means "God of the Mountains", And "God Almighty". In that Era El Shaddai was dually used, and the Shin " ש " to which is the Hebrew alphabet letter for fire is also another name for GOD. This is where El Shaddai comes from, and it's relationship with the "God of the Mountains", and "God Almighty". Also The root word "shadad" (שדד) means "to overpower" or "to destroy". This would also give Shaddai the meaning of "destroyer" to which contains the Hebrew letter for fire. So in the Christian religion a fire/volcano GOD is clearly worshiped. But let's further examine why that is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_3Jp_MyONBcC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=God+is+the+eternal+flame&source=bl&ots=CuyX8lBrf_&sig=259u0YLorrueuBHmc7Y-ilpge_I&hl=en&ei=zVe6TbbUENK2tgfghbDPAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=God%20is%20the%20eternal%20flame&f=false
Wiki:
And how do we know that this is a mountain GOD / Volcano GOD? Well let's take a look!:
Shaddai:
Not defined as infinitely powerful. And is also a Mountain GOD. More specifically a Volcano/fire GOD.
As provided by all the Evidence below:
And you can relate that to something like:
Yahweh However means "God of the armies". The God that delivered the Israel people from Egypt. But this GOD is also a Fire / Volcano type of GOD, and This is found in Genesis 12 in regards to the story of Abraham. At this point Yahweh became the main god of worship for some time:
But after war and arriving in the promised land, the Hebrews began once again to worship Baal and Asherah as they began to prosper in peace. And since they no longer needed help in war, Yahweh simply just became just one of the other GODS.. The cult of Yahweh almost became extinct in around 597 - 538 BC after it was officially established as the GOD of Judah. This is the same time the Hebrews were exiled to Babylon when the Temple was destroyed. The GODs of this era were associated with territories of land, and after their defeat you get this:
Thus If it weren't for The Second Isaiah, the cult of Yahweh would have gone extinct, and Christianity today would look very different today, or not even exist at all. This is the point where Monotheism really begins to hold and take root. The cult of Yahweh is where Jesus and Moses come from. So in regards to the Second Isaiah, this is where you finally get actual monotheism :
So in understanding the above, we come to another key thing to note. All the different names for GOD is that they are all the same GOD. In Exodus 6:2-3 states that Yahweh, Elohim, El Elyon (GOD Most High), and El Shaddai are stated as being the same GOD even if they weren't historically..
This is stating that they are just different names for the same GOD... It's where monotheism solidifies, and parts away from it's polytheistic roots and smashes the all the supposed false Idols including Yahweh's wife Asherah, the god of fertility. This is also where women are seen weak and should obey the will of man. So what all this means is that Judaism and Christianity were born from a volcano/fire cult to which came from their polytheistic roots. These Yahwehists are those who worshiped Volcano / fire GOD as the most powerful of all GODs, and a symbol of mans Power. Volcanoes made the other GODS such as Baal and Asheren look weak. So they look to a GOD that shows them strength, and Power. And it's no wonder why they had worshiped one as a GOD of the armies. So let's look at this shall we?
Exudos:
Some will say the Bible doesn't mention the word "Volcano" but lets examine why that is with the Last Exudos quote (pay close attention to "Noise of the Tumpet" "Thunderins, and Lightnings"):
His description is that of a volcano..But they didn't have the word Volcano back then to use for a description.. And this is why:
And in these types of Vulcano/fire Cults, the thunderous noises, and lightnings coming from the mountains were considered the "Voice of GOD" as noted in the following link below.. And it's amazing how that directly relates to Moses's description of GOD, and how GOD speaks to him.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KnIYRi3upbEC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=term+vulcan+in+the+bible&source=bl&ots=b9Dnh1jA_i&sig=_QWkxSVSbzujBygm225sI-HE0To&hl=en&ei=sFauTcHeOMPcgQey8ImRDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=term%20vulcan%20in%20the%20bible&f=false
Se even though the term "Volcano" is not in the Bible, the term Mountain is good enough. Describing a volcano and calling it GOD is all I really require out of that. But let's continue on shall we?
Deuteronomy:
Psalm:
Other related scripture:
We can also look into the Psalter:
Supporting evidence from Quran:
--
Now lets reference hell in the Bible:
You can also Read this book here if it interests you:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0rA-9UPxCZMC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=theologians+and+the+Christian+volcano+cult&source=bl&ots=VYHJoj_LF3&sig=hYGszdI9oUxxb8gNVLogmxQ1sBE&hl=en&ei=SKWzTY_NPMfngQfE2cW4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
-----------
Let's take a closer look that the Deuteronomy:
* Deuteronomy 5:23
* Deuteronomy 12:2
How about some other sources:
Zechariah
Chapter 2
Corinthians
Chapter 3
Matthew
Chapter 3
It's clearly a Volcano/Fire religion/cult. And it's the same cult in which you have gotten your 10 commandments from.
This is a pretty damn good video of GOD is mostly described as in the bible:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/142851/abc-world-news-with-diane-sawyer-act-of-god-grounds-flights-across-the-globe
#9.1 - Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:21 PM EDT
TheJackel
Curious about disease, famine, pesty insects ect?.. Well, that all relates to Volcanic Activity and it's aftermath as well:
http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/earth_news/2006/05/elaine_meinel_s.html
http://scientopia.org/blogs/thisscientificlife/2006/05/30/seeing-red-the-lake-atop-a-vanuatu-volcano/
http://www.africanews.com/site/DRC_Volcanic_eruptions_lead_to_disease_outbreak/list_messages/29104
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/volcanoes/facts.asp
What does this have to do with this debate we been having ? Now your trying to turn the point of the debate to another debate. You are trying to now show , not your issue with science, but instead with your understanding , or should I say mis understanding of the Bible. In all honesty, I am truly convinced, that were not debating about science at all here. I am starting to see the issue begins with your alls mis-belief in the bible, or your lack of understanding it. Just like in the interview I linked above with ben stein and Richard dawkins. Ben has Richard start off from reading a clip from his own book the God delusion. Listen to the hatred and mis understanding richard starts out with towards God. His hatred toward God is showing right there and that clouds judgment and rational thinking. Just like you all on here. Its not the science, its your hatred toward a God that you cant, or wont take time to understand. Even in the interview with Richard Dawkins, Ben puts the pressure on about intelligent design, did you even listen to what richard said ?
Also on a side note, remember you said to stop posting from creation sites, or from creation scientists, even though I will not do that, I did how ever link posts, and quotes from Non Creation scientists either in this thread or another and guess what was thrown back in my face.. Something more less along the lines is just because they believe that doesnt make it right.. Ok so now I use non creationist,, and that is still not good enough.. What do you want ? huh ? You dont want answers, you just want to do what the bible says man does, and that is reject God.
Ill be back on my break to to finish up.
I really enjoy all these posts but try to remember that debating with a religious whack job (is there any other kind/) is like presenting hard facts to your dog.
He just wants to know when dinner's ready...
"But a priest" and the premise of all you posted is your belief in science, so you then have a doubt on science just because he's a priest. Up-thread you want to throw out DamonWV's sources because of bias and now you wish to throw out science because of your own.
It's really sad to see children so wounded and F*^ked up and in all their intelligence they point to others as weak while clinging with all their might to wounds that guarantee their right to remain a victim.
Science says; 2% of humanity, the population of the world, and you, based on your bias would like to exclude or segregate priests?
Nope. I don't have doubt about my science because he is a priest. I HAVE CONFIRMATION in my science precisely because he is a priest.
A priest, I would think, would be the most committed to a God (if a God existed) then any other lay person on this planet. A priest has spent his entire life studying to be a priest; reading and re-reading the Bible; praying to God; offering thanks to God; and in constant reflection upon the nature of God.
...But then, us poor deceptive atheists start hearing stories: Priests in Australia have molested children. Priests in the USA have done the same. In Latin America. In Europe. Story after story. Sure. One or two priests is a standard deviation. A blip on the radar so to speak. But for so many instances to be reported?
Committing a crime that, I would think, even God would have trouble forgiving them for. I think this speaks to a greater knowledge than what has been acknowledged to date: It's all bull@!$%#.
Deep down inside even the most pious of priests realize that this whole religion and God thing is just bull@!$%#. They commit the crimes because they know they'll be let off the hook. They know their Church will protect them. They enjoy the power they have and they abuse it just as much as Hitler abused the power he had in Germany when he became Chancellor in 1933.
It's all bull@!$%#.
As for you guys: my314tin and DamonWV. I think you guys know that too, but we're just playing these games online. Deep down inside, both of you fellas know this is just bull@!$%#. No one can be as foolish as you guys pretend to be when you reject so much science.
Deep down inside, you guys suspect it's all crap, but your attitudes are "all or nothing". You act as if this is some poker game, and as long as you keep bluffing, you think you can (by force of will) create an alternate reality where there really is a magical, mystical man in the sky who's keeping your space in Heaven warm for you, but only as long as you keep believing... Hell, DamonWV even admitted he was an Atheist for a while. This indicates that he was either once a rational man and stopped being so; or they simply upped his dosage of lithium, and he's now happily floating all the time in his magical wonderful world of make believe.
So, that's my point about the Priests. Guys dedicated to God... and putting their penis' on small children. Bull@!$%#. They're running a racket, they know it, the Pope knows it, and now I think most of the world is slowly starting to get it (Yay Internet). High Speed Communications and advances in Science will slowly strangle this make believe bull@!$%# eventually.
We can only hope.
The other thing that any person who attempts to mount a serious logical argument against religion has to remember, is that no matter how good or on point the scientific facts maybe, the Religous Nut is prevented from agreeing with any logical and/or intelligent argument for fear of BURNING IN HELL for all eternity...
His (Mr/Ms Religious Nuts) belief and reward system is after all still a Fear Based Theism....
While a Scientists mind can be and often is changed by overwhelming facts contradicting a formerly accepted theory.
Religous Whackos never have to worry about changing their minds, for them the debate (if you can call it that) is closed before it ever got started....
As I stated in a comment to Sailcat up-thread. Why do you wish to attempt to think for me when you have difficulty thinking for yourself.
No matter how many times I state it you continue to say I discount science. You make your Knowledge v Faith comment as if five hundred years ago science was correct and they have continued to build on the truth. The truth is it's the other way around. That doesn't mean I don't embrace the accomplishments of science.
This last post is full of bias based on what you have been taught or how you view the church. I will be the last person to support the crimes committed by the church. I still remember a story of one of the victims commenting on how his mom had slapped him across the face when he told her what a priest had done to him. It's unfortunate but most crimes are committed by people of power or people who think they have power over another person. Many times the crime is committed with a physical weapon and as heinous as the crime may be it's easier for people to heal from these wound versus the emotional wounds.
The hurt caused by a priest who molests is the same as that of a parent. Both are positions of power and the weapon is deeply emotional because one of their primary duties is to protect. In the example of the mom slapping her son the wound is twice as deep. In essence his mom molested him also.
Do you see what I mean...
for Religious Whack Jobs (RWJs or RNJs) the end game was written thousands of years ago. I don't want anyone to think that I'm just picking on Those Christian Crack Pots either.
All religions are basically the same, their minds will not let any facts change their belief system any attempt to change their minds will only result in extreme frustration.
They were told what to think by an imaginary benefactor or being thousands of years ago, any deviation from that belief system, in their minds would result in their eternal burning in a mythical place called HELL...
To all those who posted above it made for some really great reading. I have to admit though that I didn't read any of the posts from the RNJ's, mainly because I don't really care about their stupid Bible based come backs I've seen those all too many times before.
However you other contributors above who thought you were in a serious and intelligent debate came up with some very well thought out and intelligent comments.
Too bad that you didn't realize that it was never a debate at all...
Chuckie's baaaaaaack! To funny Chuckie, did you understand anything you read? Your day is coming up, just wait for six more then you can tell us all about it. Reel your line in and go home because your comments don't have enough depth to be considered trolling.
Someone's gotta do your thinking for you... It sure as hell ain't you...
...as proven by this point...
...and this is just the pot calling the kettle black now.
Chuck, you bring nothing to this debate, just blatant name calling. I dont even need to know what more you have to say. On ignore you go.
Critical thinking just isn't in my314tin's toolkit. He is completely unable to support any of the deranged fantasies he proposes and yet he somehow believes is capable of assailing facts using sheer ignorance and a hateful mythology. He is merely the public face of a failed cult.
Anjisan63 Your trouble with the priest thing, is that you keep on thinking the priest should be invincible. Let me make point here with president Clinton. He was our president, he was in a position that should set some sort of standard for us all to follow , someone to look up to. So he gets oral sex from monica. Now should I make any type of claim that he is invincible from doing what he did, just because hes president ? I do not.
As i said above in one of my posts, a priest is nothing more then a title earned from going through the motions of earning it from his studies. Being a priest does not make him invincible. What he did was sick, and he will pay for it. As i said before I highly wonder if he wa sa christian at all.. Just like the Crusades, were they christian ? If you know anything about the bible, you would know that God does not condone what the priest did, god does not condone what the Holy crusades did.
Also I dont knwo why you and Led, keep on saying I reject science. Where did I say that ? Where have I shown I reject science. I am eager for science when its done right. I wont say christian science is perfect, as I will say world view is not perfect either.
Yes i was one. It was what was taught to us in school. I dealt with it in highschool and into college. But there are people, even the worst skeptics that can change their view. Lee Stroebel is one who comes to mind. He wrote 3 books , case for faith, case for a creator, case for christ. This was his own " soul search " you might say that he undertook by going out and asking people from all fields of science, and philosophy. he made his choice, just as I have.
Ill be back on here in a bit on my next break. to continue.
AH HA... PROOF that the Scientists don't know what they're talking about... Oh wait... That's how theory and facts interact.
Very, very true. We could have gotten a time machine, gone back in time, dragged the actual person who was claiming to be Jesus, get him to admit to his fraud, AND they'd still be saying, "Nope. You're Wrong. This guy looks nothing like Jesus".
We could jump back into this time machine, take the religious nuts back to prehistory, and show them a world where dinosaurs lived before man, and they'd still say we were wrong. There's just no winning, when you argue with a person who makes stuff up along the way to support their arguments.
Denial comes in many forms Anj. Social science is a science correct? Maybe it's another science you choose to not subscribe to.
Cat, I understand how you see hateful mythology. Your inability or probably better stated as unwillingness to separate hate from your comments is evident. Your focus and anyone with a similar focus on spinning the anti-God point of view is no different than Camping and Co. I though you said Good Bye about three days ago. Dealing with that much surplus anger and bitterness isn't healthy.
Damon, Not for the little Catholic boy he isn't. The priest is about as close to talking to God as it gets.
I don't hate anyone. I am simply disgusted by your deliberate ignorance. Since you obviously lack the intellectual capacity to grasp simple concepts such as shame and integrity, I do not expect you to be embarrassed by your blithering ravings. You can rest assured, however, other people are reading your nonsense and they will be ashamed and embarrassed to see your dishonesty and self-deceit.
We know dino's lived before man. You don't have a time machine and if you did you could take Cat and pick up his beef jerky in the primeval tidepool, swing back by and pick up Jesus and come back so we could have a fireside chat. He could tell you how his dad placed the jerky so Cat could find it and then we'd sit around making smores.
When you start posting this %^&*^$$ you start to sound like Chuckie.
Cat, If you choose to feel then feel for yourself, especially if all you have are negative feelings.
Your lack of a rational argument is forcing you to expose yourself for you are, eh, little man?
You're missing my point. I KNOW the President is just a man. I KNOW he's gotten to his position through a lot of baby-kissing, hand-shaking, and ass-kissing. A President, a dictator, an emperor, or King getting a hummer at the office does not offend me. It's really quite expected. I agree with you. They are just men.
Your continued disagreement with me on this subject really only heightens the fact that I called BS on the whole shenanigans. See, I don't believe you when you say, "Priests are just men". You shouldn't believe yourself when you say, "Priests are just men".
I am not suggesting that they are invincible. I am not suggesting that they are heavenly angels who are masquerading as men. What I am suggesting is that they should be divinely inspired. You do understand the concept of divine inspiration don't you. They had a calling. Their spirit was infused with the goodness and beauty of the Lord and Jesus. You get that, don't you? Why would a man put himself through the trials and tribulations of becoming a priest if he wasn't committed to the Lord. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, as a duly appointed representative of the Lord and Jesus, why would this divine inspiration leave them (even for a second) open to could commit their crimes against school children.
"...But they're only men. Susceptible to sin." Then what's the point? What's the point DamonWV. If God's power is so weak, that he and Jesus can't keep their own priests penis' off the children's genitalia, what's the point of following this God? He's weak. If he exists at all. If he were real, and he materialized directly in front of me, I would probably kick his ass and WIN!
...And for so many of these priests to try and rob the "cookie jar" like they did. This is not as "rare" an incident as you make it sound. Want me to name the cities around the world where these incidents take place, again?
I was never talking invincibility. I was always talking belief. Belief in the Hell that they teach being visited upon them for what they did to the children when they eventually died. Or... What I really meant: The complete utter LACK OF BELIEF they obviously have for the religion they're preaching for.
I'm going to tell you this right now. If I absolutely believed in Heaven and Hell (as I'm sure every one of these priests would profess), then I would never touch a child for my own sexual gratification. If I did, I would spend the remainder of my life repenting for my transgression. Except, that's not what these priests did either...
The molestations that took place by these priests were not individual "one time" incidents. These were priests who abused children for decades. DECADES! This wasn't a slip in their Spiritual Armor against Satan. This was a full blown, dedicated effort to spend an entire life degrading and debasing children. Priests. Followers of God.
Let's face it... Bill Clinton got a hummer in the White House. I don't think he was getting one every day throughout his entire presidency. It was a once (or twice, or three times, or four, or...) kind of thing. But these Priests? A career of abusing children.
So... Let's make the distinction.
There is invincible: 100% of all priests throughout all time never committing a sin. Doubtful.
There are slip-ups: One priest committing sin his entire life. A group of priests occasionally committing sins. An absolutely corrupt sect.
...and there is absolute Bull@!$%#: Multiple priests, across the globe, committing ongoing decades-long abuse of countless children (the number of abused children can't even be counted, the numbers are too high, and their identities have been lost over the decades, and those that are still alive remain shamed and embarrassed to come forward).
Bull@!$%# Damon. Bull@!$%# on Religion. Bull@!$%# on God. There is no divine inspiration in the Catholic Church. Hell the current Pope is a former Nazi Youth member anyways. If there is no divine inspiration in the Catholic Church (the oldest branch of Christianity) then there is no divine inspiration in any of this spin-offs (if your source is corrupt, then so are you): Lutheranism, Protestants, Baptists, Mormons, etc...
If the God of Christianity is bull@!$%#, then this is the same God of Islam and Judaism; then, their religion is bull@!$%# as well. If the three similar religions of half the planet is bull@!$%#, then it's a safe bet to go ahead and call the rest (Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Scientology, etc...) bull@!$%# as well.
Therefore, EVERY THING you have said in defense of your religion is bull@!$%#. Every one of your posts.
Why?
Proof of no divine intervention. Proof of no spiritual guidance. Proof of the corruption of religion.
Those Priests.
Why am I calling bull@!$%# on you? Because you're making excuses for them ("Why... Anjisan... They're not INVINCIBLE. They're not SUPER PRIESTS... Everyone is capable of SIN".)
Bull@!$%#. A sin is a one time thing. It is not a determined effort to remain a corrupting influence for decades at a time. That's not a sin. That's a conspiracy.
Finally... The need to have religion provide morality to humanity. You stated this many times as a given. Want to ask me again what my stance is on this?
Am I angry! ("we see a lot of anger Anjisan, you should trust in God").
You bet I am. It's the same kind of anger I had when the story about Enron came out. A public company, entrusted with the money of thousands, deliberately engaged in defrauding, and ultimately destroying their employee's lives. The only difference is Religion's fraud has been ongoing for a far longer time, and it's reach has gone way beyond anything puny old Enron could pull off.
Its always tempting to point out all of the things that are critical to our lives today that have been brought about by science and technology, thinking that the RNJs will change their way of thinking and finally see the light... but that would be hoping for too much...
my314tin
Damon, Not for the little Catholic boy he isn't. The priest is about as close to talking to God as it gets.
For catholic faith. But I dont agree with catholic the catholic faith where people need to confess their sins to a priest and ask them for forgiveness. There needs to be no mediator between man and jesus. Only jesus can forgive sins, not a priest. Catholics do fall with in the pale of orthodoxy in christianity, but the confessing to priest is not something that the bible says to do. You confess to jesus.
And we also could go back in time to show they co existed, and creation science does shows the science for that.
On the flip side to that, just think if it were possible, and we did, and you seen jesus doing such miracles first hand, you still would disbeleive as they did. People seen Jesus do his miracles first hand, and they still doubted him. As i said earlier, I would bet if he ( jesus ) showed up in person in front of you and showed his wounds, and had you touch the hole in his side as he did with Doubting thomas, im betting you still would reject Jesus.
its not that God is weak, people are weak, there is much more to the world then God, there is the evil of Satan and his tempting nature. Were not protected from the evil attacks of satan. We ask for strength.
If people saw Jesus doing his miracles and they (people from 2,000 years ago) weren't all the impressed by what he was doing (or failing to do), then why in the hell would you even think we'd be impressed by his shabby parlor tricks?
By the way...
Nice head in the sand. The failing of priests to have spiritual intervention was a valid point. Nice focusing on my stupid idea of going back in a time machine. Again, another indicator that your involved in a sham, living a lie, and trying to distract the rest of us (those who aren't easily BS'd) into forgetting the key points.
Jackel, Sand, Led, Chuck...?
What do you make of this. Here we had a very impassioned statement about the utter and complete lack of divine intervention, and actually realized spirituality that we should expect from our spiritual advisors (priests); what do you guys make of our opponent dodging this discussion in order to discuss time travel back in time to verify Dinosaurs living alongside Humans?
I dodged nothing. And i went along with your time machine idea. You think its all sham, thats your opinion, but its not. You still dont get it, why would people not believe him, they were the same type of people you all on here are. Your full of disbelief, and you cant agree or even understand who Jesus was, or the God of the Bible.
Why do you have to get the other guys to put their input in ? You and I already know what their going to say. More ridicule, more mockery. Your the one who brought up time machine, I go along with you , then you turn that into something negative now. You guys are really out there. I am not going to bother discussing dinos with men. There is plenty of information listed on posted websites. If you dont believe it, then thats your problem, not mine.
I stated all my points and you all just keep hounding wanting more to be said. There is nothing more to say. Your alls issues is with God, not science. I have no issues with God or science. Both work together and compliment each other.
As i stated above , no matter what I say, or what source i give you all, christian, non christian, non creationist, creationist, atheist, non atheist, if it doesnt go along with your belief system of faith, then you reject it. So , there is nothing more I can do to convince you.
Dodge, weave, and duck... Dodge, weave, and duck.
...and no... You have not adequately answered my question about...
Who cares about the dumb time machine.
I am still waiting to hear about these priests who conducted decades long abuses, and why there wasn't any direct intervention by God to "dial them back in". If anyone has a direct line of communications with God it would be Popes, Bishops, Priests, Monks, Chaplains, and everyone else who purports to work for the "Big Guy in the Sky".
I think the truth of the matter is: There is no one they are reporting to. No one they are taking orders from. No one they are inspired by. No one that they've ever communicated with.
I think that's why the Priests could so easily commit the crimes they did, and why SO MANY of them did commit the crimes: The church has a draconian and foolish policy regarding celibacy, and it causes people with deviant sexual appetites to implode and breach the civil laws of society.
I am uninterested in your comments about them "being just men". They are not just men. They are suppose to be our spiritual conduits to God. They are suppose to be in touch with his word. Nowhere does his word say, "Go forth and molesteth thy children".
This is the spiritual failing we see everyday. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim & Tammy Baker, etc... All these people said they had a direct pipeline to the all mighty. However...
Since the all mighty doesn't exist, they just substituted their own wants and needs and called it "His will".
...Frankly, I find nothing special in your infallible faith in God. I see it all to often. I see it given away for free everyday. I see it used as a substitute for critical thinking. I see it as a cheap party favor that has no value.
Do I pity all the folks who sold everything they owed, gave it all to Jim Jones, only to have him and his security men force feed them Kool-Aid laced with cyanide? I do, but only for the sad loss of life. They so desperately wanted to be saved. Instead they wound up rotting under the tropical sun in Guyana.
Do I feel empathy for the men, women and children who burned to death in the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX. I do. I feel empathy for any human being who dies such an awful death. But I can only marvel at the stupidity that brought them there because some guy claimed to be the return of Jesus Christ (as he had sex with every woman in the compound damn near).
Will I feel empathy for you when you do something dumb in the name of a made up religion that has no basis in fact. Yes. Empathy for the waste. Probably a little anger over the reason. As always.
I am.
A human.
Proud to be just a human and nothing more.
Actually "celibate" is only a flaw in the theory process. There just a little slow in working through it. This issue you continue to refresh our memory on will be resolved when the correct interpretation is inserted which is "Celebrate." Remember how long it took the church to acknowledge Galileo.
Actually, we already won the debate a long time ago. It's just kicking a dead horse.
Information theory... Please try again. Starting off with a flat out lie just makes your position even more dishonest than it was before. It's like a never ending black pit of dishonest discourse coming from you :/
Actually I completely understand, and that is your problem. You are talking to someone who has been a Christian for 20 years... I know what's in the bible, and I actually know where the GOD in the Bible comes from. I also know what your Jesus is supposed to represent in the bible, as shown below:
The fire / volcano cult goes much deeper than just what Yahweh is, or El-shaddai is. It includes why Jesus was invented as the savior. After all, if you are going to prey on peoples fears, ignorance, and weaknesses to join the cult, you seen a carrot or means to save them selves to get them to submit their lives to the ideology. This is how brainwashing works in cults. So here is your Jesus:
Yeshua has the Hebrew aphabet symbol for "Fire" in it.. The Shin "ש ".. This has a lot to do with when Jesus states the following:
This is both used as a reference to fire, and as a savior from fire. Don't agree with it, or believe in it, ye is cast into the lake of fire (lava pit). And if ye believe, you are magically saved, as Jesus is your supposed guided light (fire). And of course we can also reference the following:
This also contains the Hebrew Shins "ש".. This is where Jesus is specifically used as the savior from the lake of fire!, or eternal damnation in referenced to fire.
Calling you out on your dishonesty while stating facts that debunk every argument you have made is not ridicule or mockery sir. :/ It's of course that you will keep playing the victim card when you have clearly lost a debate. I really don't care what you believe in, but if you choose to engage in such debates on what you believe in, don't expect everyone to just hug you and agree with you! Religions do not like decent of any kind, and will always play religiously dogmatic games, or attempt to play the victim.
Yes, there is a ton of false information on those websites. And yes it's your problem when you use them and get owned in a debate in regards to using them. Most of the crap on those sites is so obviously wrong that it's mind boggling at how much willful ignorance it must actually take to believe in what's posted. :/ .. But that's fine, you are not the target audience, and neither am I. And we both know that..
Actually it was you that kept bringing in different subjects and pseudoscience in order to deflect from having to deal with the one subject I have asked you to address, this being information theory. This being since the beginning of this debate. And you are still playing the game of shifting subjects and arguments whilst trying to avoid information theory like the plague. And we all know why that is.. So until you can man up and actually engage in honest discourse, your position will remain essentially worthless in this debate.
Obviously.. You are simply backed into the corner to where the only thing you have left is just saying "I believe". If you have left your debate there to begin with, I would have had more respect for you since you would just be stating an honest position regardless if true or false. I wouldn't even have addressed you at that point. Your mistake was engaging in a debate you were obviously going to lose, and lose to the point of just reverting back to "well, I just believe".
I don't have any issues with such concepts of GOD. I don't even hate the concept. My feelings are no different in reference to unicorns, elves, or magical wizards. :/ How do you feel about Harry Potter? Just curious..
"Remember how long it took the church to acknowledge Galileo."
Willful ignorance and self-deceit are difficult afflictions for cultists to overcome, aren't they?
What's even more interesting is that Orthodox Christianity is actually Pantheism.. It's actually quite different from other sects in Christianity. Hence, they don't actually rely on the bible or it's scripture. The mostly go by the Fount of Knowledge. This to which I easily debunked here:
Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing (such as ourselves). Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:
So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".
1) A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to be separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me?
2) If he is uncontained then what separates him from me?
3) If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?..
4) If he is omnipresent, where do I exist?
5) If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?
6) If he is Omniscient and knows infinitely everything to which is knowable, would he not know me in every infinitely knowable way to where he himself would literally be I, me, or who I am in every infinitely knowable way?
7) If he is immaterial, would he not be made of nothing? Thus how does nothing exist as a person, place, or thing? How does nothing as a substance be the property value of something? How does nothing contain and sustain informational value?
--------------------
"Pantheism":
The reason why we I bring up pantheism is that for a theist to suggest a deity is boundless, limitless, omniscient, and omnipresent would literally be identical to Pantheism.. Under these premises, you may as well consider the dust bunny on my desk as GOD, or anything for that matter. Orthodox Christianity is essentially Pantheism, or Christianity trying to indoctrinate Pantheism like it's done to many other religions. It does so in order to survive!
It literally contradict the trinity to the point where it basically says that GOD is the essences of everything rather than just the Holy Ghost, Jesus, and Itself. Thus I must be GOD right? My cat must be GOD too!.
Welcome to religious self-collapsing arguments / beliefs. And it's not even difficult to break them down and debunk them. :/
BTW, Ben Stein relies on the same appeals to ignorance arguments, or dishonest arguments as any other Creationist does. Mostly a GOD of the Gaps argument. Dawkin's of course isn't going to like having to deal with someone so rudely dishonest. And if you actually read the bible in relation to the book "the GOD delusion", Dawkins is spot on. In a debate with Ben Stein, I would only need use information theory to point out why Creationism is a logical fallacy in the religious context of the Christian GOD concept. You can feel free to have me debate him on live TV, I would love to do so. ;)
It's simple, this kind of time travel can't be done. The past doesn't actually exist because there only exists the instant of now. Anything going on or existent will be in accordance to the instant of now. The absolute present moment that progresses to the next. If there is an existent version of our past, it would be it's own divergent time line. Like a tree branch splitting away from it's trunk. And the problem with that is that chaos theory would mean that these time lines would evolve progressively in their own way and quickly cease to resemble what we would like to expect to be there.
So no, it's impossible to go back in time. But the mind tease of this is that with infinite time scales, such a pattern may repeat exactly as it did before. Hence, who knows if our existence isn't just a repeated pattern from some infinite time ago.. But it's interesting because it's also infinitely unlikely. ;)
So the information of the past is the evidence it leave behind to which survives to the present. Like fossils, and rock layers ect..
And we can easily debunk the Dinosaurs living with humans with a simple debunking of Biblical Flood geology:
Hey jackel, I hope you don't mind but I'm going to repost your previous comment as Damon has you on ignore, he tends to ignore people that are smarter than him......
Whelp all you all can do is just mock and belittle, debate is over.
I am not mocking or belittling. I am stating facts about your method of discourse... But it doesn't surprise me that you would attempt to play fake victim in an effort for another appeal to credibility. Sorry, but the sources you post are pretty much pleading and preying on ignorance. Here is a prime example:
"Facts" are neutral. However, there are no such things as "brute facts;" all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians' presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions—see Naturalism, Logic and Reality.
Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10); "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7). "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Facts are not neutral. Facts don't care if they contradict your belief system. Your ignorance here is trying to suggest that facts ought to accept your religion on faith. WTF? So anything that proves your religion a logical fallacy are now deemed biased brute facts? Again wtf?.. But I can see the argument of all facts are interpreted as being used dishonestly in an attempt to make your religion sound like a fact of truth when it's not. Flat Earthers make this same argument, and it's no surprise you do to!
Sorry sir, but no matter how you try to spin this game into sheer ignorance, the Earth isn't going to magically become flat to support a Flat Earthers beliefs any more so than the speed of light becoming infinite in speed to support yours.
You want some facts about Psalm and your religion? Ok, here we go:
If you read the bible, and Read it carefully, it's what you can consider a fire/volcano cult. Fire is regarded as divine, and that which holds the spirit of GOD. Yahweh was a War GOD, a volcano, or also known as the "Devouring fire". You can reference this:
MT Sinai is the mountain of GOD, a mountain to which contains Yahweh, the GOD of war. Yahweh is referred to as the "devouring fire", and the "God of the Armies". However we also have El Elyon and El Shaddai, These came before Yahweh, and El Elyon means "God Most High" while El Shaddai means "God of the Mountains", And "God Almighty". In that Era El Shaddai was dually used, and the Shin " ש " to which is the Hebrew alphabet letter for fire is also another name for GOD. This is where El Shaddai comes from, and it's relationship with the "God of the Mountains", and "God Almighty". Also The root word "shadad" (שדד) means "to overpower" or "to destroy". This would also give Shaddai the meaning of "destroyer" to which contains the Hebrew letter for fire. So in the Christian religion a fire/volcano GOD is clearly worshiped. But let's further examine why that is here:
#v=onepage&q=God%20is%20the%20eternal%20flame&f=false
Wiki:
Shin also stands for the word Shaddai, a name for God. Because of this, a kohen (priest) forms the letter Shin with his hands as he recites the Priestly Blessing. In the mid 1960s, actor Leonard Nimoy used a single-handed version of this gesture to create the Vulcan hand salute for his character, Mr. Spock, on Star Trek.[2]
The letter Shin is often inscribed on the case containing a mezuzah, a scroll of parchment with Biblical text written on it. The text contained in the mezuzah is the Shema Yisrael prayer, which calls the Israelites to love their God with all their heart, soul and strength. The mezuzah is situated upon all the doorframes in a home or establishment. Sometimes the whole word Shaddai will be written.
And how do we know that this is a mountain GOD / Volcano GOD? Well let's take a look!:
Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (The Hebrew word used here is "shaddai" [12])
Shaddai:
almighty, most powerful
Shaddai, the Almighty (of God)
b. God of the Mountains
c. Shaddai is a derivation of a Semitic stem that appears in the Akkadian shadû ("mountain") and shaddā`û or shaddû`a ("mountain-dweller")
Not defined as infinitely powerful. And is also a Mountain GOD. More specifically a Volcano/fire GOD.
God is seen as inhabiting a mythical holy mountain, a concept not unknown in ancient West Asian mythology (see El), and also evident in the Syriac Christian writings of Ephrem the Syrian, who places Eden on an inaccessible mountaintop.
"God of the mountains," referring to the Mesopotamian divine mountain.[1] The term was one of the patriarchal names for the tribal god of the Mesopotamians.[1] In Exodus 6:3, El Shaddai is identified explicitly with the God of Abraham and with YHWH.[1] The term appears chiefly in the Torah. This could also refer to the Israelite camp's stay at Mount Sinai where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments.
As provided by all the Evidence below:
Exodus 18:5
Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, together with Moses' sons and wife, came to him in the wilderness, where he was camped near the mountain of God.
Exodus 19:3
Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel:
Exodus 19:17
Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.
And you can relate that to something like:
14 Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses and he said, "What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and he will be glad to see you.
Yahweh However means "God of the armies". The God that delivered the Israel people from Egypt. But this GOD is also a Fire / Volcano type of GOD, and This is found in Genesis 12 in regards to the story of Abraham. At this point Yahweh became the main god of worship for some time:
Exudus 18:11 "Now I know that Yahweh is Greater than All other GODS"
But after war and arriving in the promised land, the Hebrews began once again to worship Baal and Asherah as they began to prosper in peace. And since they no longer needed help in war, Yahweh simply just became just one of the other GODS.. The cult of Yahweh almost became extinct in around 597 - 538 BC after it was officially established as the GOD of Judah. This is the same time the Hebrews were exiled to Babylon when the Temple was destroyed. The GODs of this era were associated with territories of land, and after their defeat you get this:
Psalm 137:4
How can we sing the song of Yahweh when in a foreign land?
Thus If it weren't for The Second Isaiah, the cult of Yahweh would have gone extinct, and Christianity today would look very different today, or not even exist at all. This is the point where Monotheism really begins to hold and take root. The cult of Yahweh is where Jesus and Moses come from. So in regards to the Second Isaiah, this is where you finally get actual monotheism :
* Isaiah 44:6 "I am the first and I am the last. Besides me, there is no GOD"
So in understanding the above, we come to another key thing to note. All the different names for GOD is that they are all the same GOD. In Exodus 6:2-3 states that Yahweh, Elohim, El Elyon (GOD Most High), and El Shaddai are stated as being the same GOD even if they weren't historically..
Exodus 6:2
2 God also said to Moses, "I am the LORD.
Exodus 6:3
3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty,[a] but by my name the LORD I did not make myself fully known to them.
Exodus 6:3 Hebrew El-Shaddai
Exodus 6:3 See note at 3:15.
This is stating that they are just different names for the same GOD... It's where monotheism solidifies, and parts away from it's polytheistic roots and smashes the all the supposed false Idols including Yahweh's wife Asherah, the god of fertility. This is also where women are seen weak and should obey the will of man. So what all this means is that Judaism and Christianity were born from a volcano/fire cult to which came from their polytheistic roots. These Yahwehists are those who worshiped Volcano / fire GOD as the most powerful of all GODs, and a symbol of mans Power. Volcanoes made the other GODS such as Baal and Asheren look weak. So they look to a GOD that shows them strength, and Power. And it's no wonder why they had worshiped one as a GOD of the armies. So let's look at this shall we?
Exudos:
* Exodus13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:
* Exodus 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
* 12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.
* 16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
* 18 And mount Sinai (the real MT Sinai and city of sodom likely existed in Jordan) was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
Some will say the Bible doesn't mention the word "Volcano" but lets examine why that is with the Last Exudos quote (pay close attention to "Noise of the Tumpet" "Thunderins, and Lightnings"):
* Exodus 20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
His description is that of a volcano..But they didn't have the word Volcano back then to use for a description.. And this is why:
'Volcano' comes from the roman god of blacksmiths and fire, Vulcan. When a volcano erupted in Roman times, the people explained it as Vulcan being angry, and hitting the anvil in his forgery (the volcano) with extra strength, sending up the sparks.
And in these types of Vulcano/fire Cults, the thunderous noises, and lightnings coming from the mountains were considered the "Voice of GOD" as noted in the following link below.. And it's amazing how that directly relates to Moses's description of GOD, and how GOD speaks to him.
#v=onepage&q=term%20vulcan%20in%20the%20bible&f=false
Se even though the term "Volcano" is not in the Bible, the term Mountain is good enough. Describing a volcano and calling it GOD is all I really require out of that. But let's continue on shall we?
Deuteronomy:
* Deuteronomy 4:11 And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
* Deuteronomy 12:2 Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree
* Deuteronomy 5:23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
Psalm:
* 6 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears.
* 7 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth.
* 8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.
* 13 The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.
* 14 Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them.
* Psalms 97:1-5: "The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. 2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. 3A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. 4 His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. 5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth."
Other related scripture:
* From Micah 1:4: "And the mountains shall be melted under him, and the valleys shall be cleft, as wax before the fire, as waters that are poured down a steep place."
* Judges 5:5 The mountains melted from before the LORD, even that Sinai from before the LORD God of Israel.
* Ezekiel 38:20 So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.
* Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
* Hosea 4:13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.
* Kings (19.8): There on the mountain, Yahweh passed by in wind, earthquake, and fire
We can also look into the Psalter:
God appears as a devouring fire, round about him a mighty tempest
Supporting evidence from Quran:
Quran 26:176-189
The dwellers of Al-Aiyka [near Madyan (Midian)] belied the Messengers.
When Shu'aib (Shuaib) said to them: "Will you not fear Allah (and obey Him)?
"I am a trustworthy Messenger to you.
"So fear Allah, keep your duty to Him, and obey me.
"No reward do I ask of you for it (my Message of Islamic Monotheism), my reward is only from the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).
"Give full measure, and cause no loss (to others).
"And weigh with the true and straight balance.
"And defraud not people by reducing their things, nor do evil, making corruption and mischief in the land.
"And fear Him Who created you and the generations of the men of old."
They said: "You are only one of those bewitched!
"You are but a human being like us and verily, we think that you are one of the liars!
"So cause a piece of the heaven to fall on us, if you are of the truthful!"
He said: "My Lord is the Best Knower of what you do."
But they belied him, so the torment of the day of shadow (a gloomy cloud) seized them, indeed that was the torment of a Great Day.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn 26:189
But they denied him, so they were seized by the chastisement of the day of the shade (al-zulla) — a cloud which gave them shade when they suffered a bout of extreme heat but which then rained down fire on them and they were incinerated. Assuredly it was the chastisement of a tremendous day.
--
Now lets reference hell in the Bible:
* Mark 9:48 "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched"
* Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"
* Revelation 14:11 "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night"
* Revelation 20:14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire"
* The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
* In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
* In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
* Revelation 20:15 "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire"
* Numbers 16:32-33: And THE EARTH OPENED HER MOUTH, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive INTO THE PIT, and the EARTH CLOSED UPON THEM
You can also Read this book here if it interests you:
#v=onepage&q&f=false
-----------
Let's take a closer look that the Deuteronomy:
* Deuteronomy 4:11:
New International Version (©1984)
You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while flames from the mountain shot into the sky. The mountain was shrouded in black clouds and deep darkness.
English Standard Version (©2001)
And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the very heart of the heavens: darkness, cloud and thick gloom.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
So you came and stood at the foot of the mountain, which was on fire with flames shooting into the sky. It was dark, cloudy, and gloomy.
King James Bible
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
American King James Version
And you came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the middle of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
American Standard Version
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
Bible in Basic English
And you came near, waiting at the foot of the mountain; and flames of fire went up from the mountain to the heart of heaven, with dark clouds, and all was black as night.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And you came to the foot of the mount, which burned even unto heaven: and there was darkness, and a cloud and obscurity in it.
Darby Bible Translation
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and obscurity.
English Revised Version
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
Webster's Bible Translation
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
World English Bible
You came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the heart of the sky, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
Young's Literal Translation
and ye draw near and stand under the mountain, and the mountain is burning with fire unto the heart of the heavens -- darkness, cloud, yea, thick darkness
* Deuteronomy 5:23
And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, for the mountain did burn with fire, that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
* Deuteronomy 12:2
Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
* 9 But take care and watch yourselves closely, so as neither to forget the things that your eyes have seen nor to let them slip from your mind all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children's children— 10 how you once stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, "Assemble the people for me, and I will let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me as long as they live on the earth, and may teach their children so"; 11 you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain while the mountain was blazing up to the very heavens, shrouded in dark clouds. 12 Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.
* 23 So be careful not to forget the covenant that the Lord your God made with you, and not to make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything that the Lord your God has forbidden you. 24 For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God.
Interesting reference to Egypt:
* 19 And when you look up to the heavens and see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, do not be led astray and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven. 20 But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to become a people of his very own possession, as you are now.
* 33 Has any people ever heard the voice of a god speaking out of a fire, as you have heard, and lived? 34 Or has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by terrifying displays of power, as the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? 35 To you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him. 36 From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, while you heard his words coming out of the fire.
How about some other sources:
Zechariah
Chapter 2
5 For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her.
Corinthians
Chapter 3
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Matthew
Chapter 3
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
It's clearly a Volcano/Fire religion/cult. And it's the same cult in which you have gotten your 10 commandments from.
This is a pretty damn good video of GOD is mostly described as in the bible:
#9.1 - Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:21 PM EDT
TheJackel
Curious about disease, famine, pesty insects ect?.. Well, that all relates to Volcanic Activity and it's aftermath as well:
1. (exodus 7:14–25˄) water turned to blood killing all fish and other water life. (Dam)
2. (exodus 8:1–8:15˄) frogs (Tsifardeah)
3. (exodus 8:16–19˄) lice (Kinim)
4. (exodus 8:20–30˄) flies (Arov)
5. (exodus 9:1–7˄) disease on livestock (Dever)
6. (exodus 9:8–12˄) unhealable boils (Shkhin)
7. (exodus 9:13–35˄) hail and thunder (Barad)
8. (exodus 10:1–20˄) locusts (Arbeh)
9. (exodus 10:21–29˄) darkness (Choshech)
10. (exodus 11˄,12˄) death of the first-born of all humans and animals who do not have marked doorposts. (Makat b'chorot)
3!
#1.234 - Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:58 AM EDT
Hey jackel, I hope you don't mind but I'm going to repost your previous comment as Damon has you on ignore, he tends to ignore people that are smarter than him......
Whelp all you all can do is just mock and belittle, debate is over.
I am not mocking or belittling. I am stating facts about your method of discourse... But it doesn't surprise me that you would attempt to play fake victim in an effort for another appeal to credibility. Sorry, but the sources you post are pretty much pleading and preying on ignorance. Here is a prime example:
"Facts" are neutral. However, there are no such things as "brute facts;" all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians' presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions—see Naturalism, Logic and Reality.
Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10); "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7). "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Facts are not neutral. Facts don't care if they contradict your belief system. Your ignorance here is trying to suggest that facts ought to accept your religion on faith. WTF? So anything that proves your religion a logical fallacy are now deemed biased brute facts? Again wtf?.. But I can see the argument of all facts are interpreted as being used dishonestly in an attempt to make your religion sound like a fact of truth when it's not. Flat Earthers make this same argument, and it's no surprise you do to!
Sorry sir, but no matter how you try to spin this game into sheer ignorance, the Earth isn't going to magically become flat to support a Flat Earthers beliefs any more so than the speed of light becoming infinite in speed to support yours.
You want some facts about Psalm and your religion? Ok, here we go:
If you read the bible, and Read it carefully, it's what you can consider a fire/volcano cult. Fire is regarded as divine, and that which holds the spirit of GOD. Yahweh was a War GOD, a volcano, or also known as the "Devouring fire". You can reference this:
MT Sinai is the mountain of GOD, a mountain to which contains Yahweh, the GOD of war. Yahweh is referred to as the "devouring fire", and the "God of the Armies". However we also have El Elyon and El Shaddai, These came before Yahweh, and El Elyon means "God Most High" while El Shaddai means "God of the Mountains", And "God Almighty". In that Era El Shaddai was dually used, and the Shin " ש " to which is the Hebrew alphabet letter for fire is also another name for GOD. This is where El Shaddai comes from, and it's relationship with the "God of the Mountains", and "God Almighty". Also The root word "shadad" (שדד) means "to overpower" or "to destroy". This would also give Shaddai the meaning of "destroyer" to which contains the Hebrew letter for fire. So in the Christian religion a fire/volcano GOD is clearly worshiped. But let's further examine why that is here:
#v=onepage&q=God%20is%20the%20eternal%20flame&f=false
Wiki:
Shin also stands for the word Shaddai, a name for God. Because of this, a kohen (priest) forms the letter Shin with his hands as he recites the Priestly Blessing. In the mid 1960s, actor Leonard Nimoy used a single-handed version of this gesture to create the Vulcan hand salute for his character, Mr. Spock, on Star Trek.[2]
The letter Shin is often inscribed on the case containing a mezuzah, a scroll of parchment with Biblical text written on it. The text contained in the mezuzah is the Shema Yisrael prayer, which calls the Israelites to love their God with all their heart, soul and strength. The mezuzah is situated upon all the doorframes in a home or establishment. Sometimes the whole word Shaddai will be written.
And how do we know that this is a mountain GOD / Volcano GOD? Well let's take a look!:
Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (The Hebrew word used here is "shaddai" [12])
Shaddai:
almighty, most powerful
Shaddai, the Almighty (of God)
b. God of the Mountains
c. Shaddai is a derivation of a Semitic stem that appears in the Akkadian shadû ("mountain") and shaddā`û or shaddû`a ("mountain-dweller")
Not defined as infinitely powerful. And is also a Mountain GOD. More specifically a Volcano/fire GOD.
God is seen as inhabiting a mythical holy mountain, a concept not unknown in ancient West Asian mythology (see El), and also evident in the Syriac Christian writings of Ephrem the Syrian, who places Eden on an inaccessible mountaintop.
"God of the mountains," referring to the Mesopotamian divine mountain.[1] The term was one of the patriarchal names for the tribal god of the Mesopotamians.[1] In Exodus 6:3, El Shaddai is identified explicitly with the God of Abraham and with YHWH.[1] The term appears chiefly in the Torah. This could also refer to the Israelite camp's stay at Mount Sinai where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments.
As provided by all the Evidence below:
Exodus 18:5
Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, together with Moses' sons and wife, came to him in the wilderness, where he was camped near the mountain of God.
Exodus 19:3
Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel:
Exodus 19:17
Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.
And you can relate that to something like:
14 Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses and he said, "What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and he will be glad to see you.
Yahweh However means "God of the armies". The God that delivered the Israel people from Egypt. But this GOD is also a Fire / Volcano type of GOD, and This is found in Genesis 12 in regards to the story of Abraham. At this point Yahweh became the main god of worship for some time:
Exudus 18:11 "Now I know that Yahweh is Greater than All other GODS"
But after war and arriving in the promised land, the Hebrews began once again to worship Baal and Asherah as they began to prosper in peace. And since they no longer needed help in war, Yahweh simply just became just one of the other GODS.. The cult of Yahweh almost became extinct in around 597 - 538 BC after it was officially established as the GOD of Judah. This is the same time the Hebrews were exiled to Babylon when the Temple was destroyed. The GODs of this era were associated with territories of land, and after their defeat you get this:
Psalm 137:4
How can we sing the song of Yahweh when in a foreign land?
Thus If it weren't for The Second Isaiah, the cult of Yahweh would have gone extinct, and Christianity today would look very different today, or not even exist at all. This is the point where Monotheism really begins to hold and take root. The cult of Yahweh is where Jesus and Moses come from. So in regards to the Second Isaiah, this is where you finally get actual monotheism :
* Isaiah 44:6 "I am the first and I am the last. Besides me, there is no GOD"
So in understanding the above, we come to another key thing to note. All the different names for GOD is that they are all the same GOD. In Exodus 6:2-3 states that Yahweh, Elohim, El Elyon (GOD Most High), and El Shaddai are stated as being the same GOD even if they weren't historically..
Exodus 6:2
2 God also said to Moses, "I am the LORD.
Exodus 6:3
3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty,[a] but by my name the LORD I did not make myself fully known to them.
Exodus 6:3 Hebrew El-Shaddai
Exodus 6:3 See note at 3:15.
This is stating that they are just different names for the same GOD... It's where monotheism solidifies, and parts away from it's polytheistic roots and smashes the all the supposed false Idols including Yahweh's wife Asherah, the god of fertility. This is also where women are seen weak and should obey the will of man. So what all this means is that Judaism and Christianity were born from a volcano/fire cult to which came from their polytheistic roots. These Yahwehists are those who worshiped Volcano / fire GOD as the most powerful of all GODs, and a symbol of mans Power. Volcanoes made the other GODS such as Baal and Asheren look weak. So they look to a GOD that shows them strength, and Power. And it's no wonder why they had worshiped one as a GOD of the armies. So let's look at this shall we?
Exudos:
* Exodus13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:
* Exodus 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
* 12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.
* 16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
* 18 And mount Sinai (the real MT Sinai and city of sodom likely existed in Jordan) was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
Some will say the Bible doesn't mention the word "Volcano" but lets examine why that is with the Last Exudos quote (pay close attention to "Noise of the Tumpet" "Thunderins, and Lightnings"):
* Exodus 20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
His description is that of a volcano..But they didn't have the word Volcano back then to use for a description.. And this is why:
'Volcano' comes from the roman god of blacksmiths and fire, Vulcan. When a volcano erupted in Roman times, the people explained it as Vulcan being angry, and hitting the anvil in his forgery (the volcano) with extra strength, sending up the sparks.
And in these types of Vulcano/fire Cults, the thunderous noises, and lightnings coming from the mountains were considered the "Voice of GOD" as noted in the following link below.. And it's amazing how that directly relates to Moses's description of GOD, and how GOD speaks to him.
#v=onepage&q=term%20vulcan%20in%20the%20bible&f=false
Se even though the term "Volcano" is not in the Bible, the term Mountain is good enough. Describing a volcano and calling it GOD is all I really require out of that. But let's continue on shall we?
Deuteronomy:
* Deuteronomy 4:11 And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
* Deuteronomy 12:2 Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree
* Deuteronomy 5:23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
Psalm:
* 6 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears.
* 7 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth.
* 8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.
* 13 The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.
* 14 Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them.
* Psalms 97:1-5: "The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. 2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. 3A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. 4 His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. 5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth."
Other related scripture:
* From Micah 1:4: "And the mountains shall be melted under him, and the valleys shall be cleft, as wax before the fire, as waters that are poured down a steep place."
* Judges 5:5 The mountains melted from before the LORD, even that Sinai from before the LORD God of Israel.
* Ezekiel 38:20 So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.
* Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
* Hosea 4:13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.
* Kings (19.8): There on the mountain, Yahweh passed by in wind, earthquake, and fire
We can also look into the Psalter:
God appears as a devouring fire, round about him a mighty tempest
Supporting evidence from Quran:
Quran 26:176-189
The dwellers of Al-Aiyka [near Madyan (Midian)] belied the Messengers.
When Shu'aib (Shuaib) said to them: "Will you not fear Allah (and obey Him)?
"I am a trustworthy Messenger to you.
"So fear Allah, keep your duty to Him, and obey me.
"No reward do I ask of you for it (my Message of Islamic Monotheism), my reward is only from the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).
"Give full measure, and cause no loss (to others).
"And weigh with the true and straight balance.
"And defraud not people by reducing their things, nor do evil, making corruption and mischief in the land.
"And fear Him Who created you and the generations of the men of old."
They said: "You are only one of those bewitched!
"You are but a human being like us and verily, we think that you are one of the liars!
"So cause a piece of the heaven to fall on us, if you are of the truthful!"
He said: "My Lord is the Best Knower of what you do."
But they belied him, so the torment of the day of shadow (a gloomy cloud) seized them, indeed that was the torment of a Great Day.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn 26:189
But they denied him, so they were seized by the chastisement of the day of the shade (al-zulla) — a cloud which gave them shade when they suffered a bout of extreme heat but which then rained down fire on them and they were incinerated. Assuredly it was the chastisement of a tremendous day.
--
Now lets reference hell in the Bible:
* Mark 9:48 "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched"
* Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"
* Revelation 14:11 "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night"
* Revelation 20:14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire"
* The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
* In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
* In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
* Revelation 20:15 "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire"
* Numbers 16:32-33: And THE EARTH OPENED HER MOUTH, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive INTO THE PIT, and the EARTH CLOSED UPON THEM
You can also Read this book here if it interests you:
#v=onepage&q&f=false
-----------
Let's take a closer look that the Deuteronomy:
* Deuteronomy 4:11:
New International Version (©1984)
You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while flames from the mountain shot into the sky. The mountain was shrouded in black clouds and deep darkness.
English Standard Version (©2001)
And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the very heart of the heavens: darkness, cloud and thick gloom.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
So you came and stood at the foot of the mountain, which was on fire with flames shooting into the sky. It was dark, cloudy, and gloomy.
King James Bible
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
American King James Version
And you came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the middle of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
American Standard Version
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
Bible in Basic English
And you came near, waiting at the foot of the mountain; and flames of fire went up from the mountain to the heart of heaven, with dark clouds, and all was black as night.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And you came to the foot of the mount, which burned even unto heaven: and there was darkness, and a cloud and obscurity in it.
Darby Bible Translation
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and obscurity.
English Revised Version
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
Webster's Bible Translation
And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
World English Bible
You came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the heart of the sky, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
Young's Literal Translation
and ye draw near and stand under the mountain, and the mountain is burning with fire unto the heart of the heavens -- darkness, cloud, yea, thick darkness
* Deuteronomy 5:23
And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, for the mountain did burn with fire, that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
* Deuteronomy 12:2
Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
* 9 But take care and watch yourselves closely, so as neither to forget the things that your eyes have seen nor to let them slip from your mind all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children's children— 10 how you once stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, "Assemble the people for me, and I will let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me as long as they live on the earth, and may teach their children so"; 11 you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain while the mountain was blazing up to the very heavens, shrouded in dark clouds. 12 Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.
* 23 So be careful not to forget the covenant that the Lord your God made with you, and not to make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything that the Lord your God has forbidden you. 24 For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God.
Interesting reference to Egypt:
* 19 And when you look up to the heavens and see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, do not be led astray and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven. 20 But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to become a people of his very own possession, as you are now.
* 33 Has any people ever heard the voice of a god speaking out of a fire, as you have heard, and lived? 34 Or has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by terrifying displays of power, as the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? 35 To you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him. 36 From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, while you heard his words coming out of the fire.
How about some other sources:
Zechariah
Chapter 2
5 For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her.
Corinthians
Chapter 3
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Matthew
Chapter 3
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
It's clearly a Volcano/Fire religion/cult. And it's the same cult in which you have gotten your 10 commandments from.
This is a pretty damn good video of GOD is mostly described as in the bible:
#9.1 - Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:21 PM EDT
TheJackel
Curious about disease, famine, pesty insects ect?.. Well, that all relates to Volcanic Activity and it's aftermath as well:
1. (exodus 7:14–25˄) water turned to blood killing all fish and other water life. (Dam)
2. (exodus 8:1–8:15˄) frogs (Tsifardeah)
3. (exodus 8:16–19˄) lice (Kinim)
4. (exodus 8:20–30˄) flies (Arov)
5. (exodus 9:1–7˄) disease on livestock (Dever)
6. (exodus 9:8–12˄) unhealable boils (Shkhin)
7. (exodus 9:13–35˄) hail and thunder (Barad)
8. (exodus 10:1–20˄) locusts (Arbeh)
9. (exodus 10:21–29˄) darkness (Choshech)
10. (exodus 11˄,12˄) death of the first-born of all humans and animals who do not have marked doorposts. (Makat b'chorot)
3!
#1.234 - Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:58 AM EDT
Damon, you are the king of mental gymnastics. The fact that you admitted to me that you won't stop posting Christian sources is evidence to that, just admit it, you are a cherry picker.
Debate with a neuroscientist
It's funny, because I know when you click that link you will just go into protection mode and only hear what you want to hear, I think that is fascinating and someone needs to closely study your brain.
Winner of the 2011 mental gymnastics award - Damon!
The root of this entire problem is how can you debate with someone on logic if they don't value logic? How can you debate with someone on science and reason if they don't value science and reason. Like someone posted earlier it's like arguing with your dog, they don't care they just want to know what's for dinner. Ignorance is bliss.
Some Creationists even believe in the Expanding Earth concept at an attempt to explain the Biblical flood. And yes, some people believe in the Expanding Earth to suggest that plate tectonics is a science conspiracy. Just like Flat Earthers like to suggest science is also a conspiracy. So we come to ask what do Creationism, Expanding Earthers, and Flat Earthers have in common?
And to demonstrate this we can see if you see a familiar pattern of preying on peoples ignorance:
Expanding Earth:
Creationist Expanding Earth:
Expanding Earth debunked by actual science and empirical evidence:
Plus, at the satellite-measured recession rate of the NA continent, the Atlantic gets a Real Big age. This is consistent with the mag stripes alongside the mid-Atlantic ridge.
http://platetectonics.pwnet.org/story_tectonics/theory/magnetic_striping.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/stripes.html
Also, The Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) technique, in combination with laser ranging techniques, have successfully measured the movement of the earth's plates relative to one another (Strahler, 1987, p.212). Since 1979, such measurements have continually been taken by NASA's Crustal Dynamics Project, which has removed any doubt that the continents are indeed "drifting." (Note: the continents don't "drift" by any efforts of their own, they just hitch a ride on the earth's mantle material as it moves away from oceanic ridges.)
*http://nasascience.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast06oct_1/
And:
Other references:
Or:
Hence, Creationists, Flat Earthers, Expanding Earthers are all pretty much the same. They behave the same and use the same dishonest appeals to ignorance to get people to just believe their nonsense.. It so damn pathetic that we have to debunk these people in the 20th century!. Seriously!
The mental masturbation here is incredible:
After everything I brought up (the concepts of divine inspiration/intervention, the idea that priests [more than anyone else] should have some communications with the Lord, etc...)...
This is the response I get:
This guy wants to talk about the misinterpretation of the word: Celibate.
Incredible.
People. I am talking about faith right now. Nothing more. The power of faith. How Priests, and every other Holy Roller, should have more faith than any other layman on these boards. More than DamonWV. More than my314tin. People who have invested their entire lives in the service of God.
I'm also not talking about the occasional "slip-up" we experience from time to time because we're only human. I'm not talking about that time you got really drunk at the bar, and woke up in the bed of someone who was not your wife. I'm not talking about that football game you were watching when your kid came in the room to ask a question and you swatted him on the ass because he got in front of the TV.
I'm talking about a decades long effort to abuse and molest children, and the ongoing efforts these priests took to try and cover their crimes. This goes way beyond the occasional "slip-ups" and minor sins people commit all the time because they're only human.
This is about faith. Faith in the Lord, faith in the beliefs you purport to hold dear. Faith that there is an afterlife, and there exists a Heaven and a Hell. Faith that Jesus was the son of God, and that he came to this Earth to save humanity.
That's what we're talking about.
This illusion of faith. Priests, Chaplains, Bishops, Popes, Ministers, etc... Throughout history we've seen failings in these people. Atrocities committed by these various people (even the Mormons aren't off the hook here with their Mountain Meadows Massacre).
My point was this: All those priests who molested children did not have faith in God. They cried it to the heavens when they were busted. They weeped about how they prayed to Jesus to stop them. When the sad emotions didn't get them anywhere, they were scurried away to some other church, or to another country, where they committed their crimes again. These people who should have had the CLOSEST RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND JESUS, apparently didn't. Not one or two priests. Here are the numbers:
My point is this: It's all bull@!$%#. Everyone knows that Faith is bull@!$%#. Look at how DamonWV and my314tin dance around the subject. Look at their disingenuous statements and the horrible, horrible logic they use. Even they know it's bull@!$%#, but they defend it nevertheless.
Sad.
You didnt have to repost what Jackal said, I already know what he says with out even having to look. He spews the same false nonsense. He has his own religious belief of what he thinks God of the bible is, he is so obsessed with it, it literally has become his own fanatic religion. He claims to been a christian, but I question if it was ever authentic. There are many people who go to church and say their chrsitian. Like jesus said in the one verse where they came to him and said lord didnt we heal in your name and cast out demons in your name, and jesus replied, depart from me, I never knew you. This is an example that people can go through the motion, think they are christians, but never really become authentically saved. There are some very bad churches out there, and I dont blame him for how he feels. He seems to have seen some pretty horrible stuff.
His obession with pantheism, his abc's his whole ideals is based on wrong information, or information he see's differently .
I know he is wrong about every thing. Like I said, when we look around and see our world, we can fit everything into a creation model. Whether it be the flood, which there was a world wide flood, there is over whelming support for this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n1/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood
If there was a flood and it killed everything what would happen to all the animals. They would be buried deep in rock layers all over the earth.. And what do we find all the time ? millions of fossils buried in rock layers all over the earth. Even fossils from animals way way on top of a mountain, that shouldnt ben up there, its not its environment, but if there was a global flood fossils would be spread every where .. You guys just dont want to see the truth. instead you want to point and bring up every reason why you hate religion.
Question: "What is pantheism?"
Answer: Pantheism is the view that God is everything and everyone and that everyone and everything is God. Pantheism is similar to polytheism (the belief in many gods), but goes beyond polytheism to teach that everything is God. A tree is God, a rock is God, an animal is God, the sky is God, the sun is God, you are God, etc. Pantheism is the supposition behind many cults and false religions (e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism to an extent, the various unity and unification cults, and “mother nature” worshippers).
Does the Bible teach pantheism? No, it does not. What many people confuse as pantheism is the doctrine of God's omnipresence. Psalm 139:7-8 declares, “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.” God's omnipresence means He is present everywhere. There is no place in the universe where God is not present. This is not the same thing as pantheism. God is everywhere, but He is not everything. Yes, God is “present” inside a tree and inside a person, but that does not make that tree or person God. Pantheism is not at all a biblical belief.
The clearest biblical arguments against pantheism are the countless commands against idolatry. The Bible forbids the worship of idols, angels, celestial objects, items in nature, etc. If pantheism were true, it would not be wrong to worship such an object, because that object would, in fact, be God. If pantheism were true, worshipping a rock or an animal would have just as much validity as worshipping God as an invisible and spiritual being. The Bible’s clear and consistent denunciation of idolatry is a conclusive argument against pantheism.
Jackals entire view of Pantheism is flawed, and that one one reason why he is on ignore. because he believes it so much with out a doubt, so obsessed with it, I could never have a rational conversation with him anymore. He thinks all this debating hes won, or its over. he hasnt won anything. No one wins this debate, no one ever will. Were not even debating on a level that some of these guys like dawkins, lennox, rc sproul hugh ross, ken ham, ect ect our debates are nothing like theirs. they have plenty more knowledge then anyone , myself, jackal,anjisan can provide. And when they debate, still no one wins or loses. So claiming a victory in the Debate here is just childish lol.
I gave you all plenty of links to places that can answer your questions, go there and read.. Better yet go to Answers in genesis, and you can email them your best argument and see what they have to say. jackal didnt want to do it. If any of you do go ahead. I emailed them about jackal myself, and this is what i got back. Jackal had did a rebuttal on Dr sarafarti , AIG showed the flaws in jackals view, and jackal comes back with his own view again.
Regarding the commnets of the Jackal, I should point out that we are familiar with him, and arguing against him is going to be an excercise in casting pearls before swine. He will not listen, will not really read your statements, and will rebut them authoritatively, with scientific articles that are in no way authoritative. He will harp or pick on one "supposed flaw" in a creationist argument, without ever offering any real rebuttal. As an example, let me use one of the abstracts he himself linked to when rebutting Dr. Safarti. He kept harping about lack of volcanism in the early earth. First of all Safarti is correct about this. There is no mention of volcanism in Scripture prior to the Flood (Gen. 7:11 would be the logical place to suggest the beginnings of volcanism). But the "evidence" the Jackal uses is the abstract below (among others), and look at how definitively this "proves" the existence of primordial volcanism.
Volcanic emissions and the early Earth atmosphere- Abstract
Despite uncertainties in our understanding of early Earth volcanism and atmospheric composition, thermodynamic modelling is able to offer estimates of the global production of reactive trace species (NO, OH, SO3, Cl, Br and I) from early Earth volcanism, and thereby to shed light on processes which may have been different in Earth’s early atmosphere. Model results show that thermal decomposition of magmatic H2O, CO2 and SO2 in high-T mixtures of magmatic and atmospheric gases (at T > 1400 °C) generate high levels of reactive trace gas species. Production of these reactive trace species is insensitive to atmospheric CO2 in mixtures where the atmospheric gas is the minor component and will hence continue during periods of low atmospheric CO2. Fluxes of NO, OH, Cl, Br and I from early Earth volcanism are predicted to exceed those from modern Earth volcanism as the higher temperature of early Earth emissions compensates for lower levels of O2 in the atmosphere, compared to the modern Earth. Under certain conditions, the volcanic NO flux from early Earth volcanism is found to be comparable to other sources of reactive N such as lightning NO and photochemical HCN. This is one possible source of fixed nitrogen which may alleviate any postulated Archean nitrogen crisis. Our thermodynamic model reveals that production of SO3 (a potential precursor for near-source volcanic sulphate and hence ‘primary’ volcanic aerosol) is likely to be significantly lower from early Earth volcanism. Uncertainty in the pathway to near-source sulphate in modern volcanism (i.e., the reaction of SO3 with water or direct emission) introduces a large uncertainty into the production rate of near-source volcanic sulphate on the early Earth.
Furthermore, remember that the Jackal has already made up his mind that the earth is 4.5 BY old, and that there was conclusively early earth volcanism (because an evolutionary geological model requires it). Even if all the chemistry in the rocks confirmed volcanism, what does that prove? The creationist could just as easily use that same evidence to point to increased volcanism during the Flood, interpreting the rock layers as being 4,300 years old. Ultimately the whole scheme is dependent upon radiometrically dated rocks, which are already assumed to be the ages they are dated to.
Keep in mind, that according to the Jackal, you being a Christian are (a.) intellectually inferior (b.) even if you posses a degree you are pseudoscientific (c.) personally responsible for any atrocities that any "supposed" Christian has ever done-by implication and by extension (d.) anything that rebuts his position will be ad hominem attacked or dismissed as silly and "unscientific" (e.) any challenge to a secular scientifically-held position will be "proven" to be wrong by a scientific journal article (which will contain more "maybes, possibly's and potentially's" than you can count).
Also his rather restricted quotes of the founding fathers (Jefferson and Franklin, the only two confirmed Deists in the whole lot) should be challenged by liberal use of quotes from all the other founders, as should his assertion that the "Creator" is just some pie in the sky force or determinism. I will include a link to a book which has several quotes from the founding fathers, as well as a 10% discount code, below.
If I woud suggest any articles that could be big helps in these types of discussions they would be:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/23/feedback-logic-fails-atheism-again
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/foundation-of-scripture
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/09/23/stealing-of-america
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/07/16/news-to-note-07162011 (see item #2)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Faith-of-our-Founding-Fathers,4318,224.aspx
Nothing that has been posted by jackal has been convincing, its all his speculation and assumptions, just as most of you on here. I said i was done a while back, and I should have kept it that way. I gave you the direction to the answers you seek, I showed you the places where you can go and learn that everything can indeed fit into the creation model with science. If you dont want to accept it, thats fine.
So where done here.
When you make massive assumptions and generalizations as religion does you can fit absolutely anything into it. You actually believe the world is only 6,000 years old, however you don't realize when making such a massive assumption that you have to back something like that up with proof and evidence which you cannot do. To do this, you first need to discredit carbon dating, which I have not seen one argument for. Here is a good debunked example:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
Now, this is the first step, if you cannot debunk carbon dating then you cannot move past this argument. All of the arguments that you have presented to us are absolutely nothing based on fact. Why are they not based on fact? Because there ARE no facts to base it on. When you try to defend a fairy tale you are assigned the task of defending what cannot be seen, heard or felt. And I'm speaking completely scientifically, I don't care that you had an out of the body experience or that you think bunnies look cute so that must mean there is a god. I mean hard evidence that proves what you are claiming. To claim such precise and calculated myths are real requires an equal amount of precise and calculated evidence to support them. You have shown nothing of this. You have shown opinions based on other opinions. You have pointed to scripture and books, you have referred to "Christian Scientists" (an oxy moron if I've ever heard one). You must understand that when you enter into a debate about science you must have science to debate. You cannot join a debate based on secondary sources, you must have primary sources, primary evidence. Again, I urge you to take the first step and discredit carbon dating as this is the first thing you will have to do to get past the 6000 year argument.
I also enjoy how you linked to a Christian book on what our founding fathers believed. This is great since I was a history major in college. WRONG WRONG WRONG!! Do you realize that many of the founding fathers had great doubts on religion, including the person who penned the declaration of independence, Thomas Jefferson. Have you ever read any historical books on any of the founding fathers? You are what we in the educational community call a Christian Revisionist.
If the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion, the Constitution would clearly say so--but it does not. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had.
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but as you will soon see, that's the language of Deism, not Christianity.
The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" (see the image on the right). This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. We'll never know; but by reading their own writings, it's clear that most of them were opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.
Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.
If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.
Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing Christians, would there ever have been a revolution at all?
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23
This passage refers to humans rebelling against god, a statement that establishes the precedence of unconditional subservience which is further illustrated, very explicitly, by the following two passages:
1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of govern
"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world." - John Adams
"But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true light, as no imposter himself, but a great reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a materialist; he takes the side of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." -- Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Short, April 13, 1820; Definition of a Materialist:
Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -in Poor Richard's Almanac, Benjamin Franklin
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." - Thomas Paine
Supreme Court Justice David Davis: "He [Lincoln] had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term-- he had faith in laws, principles, causes and effects."
Any other questions about our country and founding fathers?? Please, do try and debunk this.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45035196/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TqgjerLf-n4
Led
Many people assume that rocks are dated at “millions of years” based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) dating. But that’s not the case. The reason is simple. Carbon-14 can yield dates of only “thousands of years” before it all breaks down.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n4/carbon-dating
Even with radioisotopes, that can measure very very long periods of time there is still one major flaw with dating. The assumption of a constant state
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radioisotopes-earth
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study.
The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation.
A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to, and derived from, our experiences or observations.
Ok now my final point I will make on here. People try to use science and say billions of years as fact because we have these dating methods, or these fossils have been in the ground for X amount of time, and we know that because of the rate of decay, or their location in the earth layers.
Here is my main issue, there is no way , none what so ever that any scientist, creationist, or non creationist can show any 100% proof fact that the dating methods stay a constant over such a long period of time. No one, nobody was around billions of years ago, and it is inconceivable to know 100 % for sure how much time period coudl affect the rate of decay, because there are endless variables that can affect dating. The only thing science can do is go by what they see today, and measure the rates now, and ASSUME they were the same back then. How can you possibly imagine or even know what could be around for such an huge amount of time and say what was present or not, and how it affects anything, just not dating, but light, or anything. Its a poor basis for science to conclude They know for sure.. because its a fact.. that dont.
The IRS agent is auditing the synagogue and has made every attempt to find sales for profit. He tries to trick the Rabbi in every way.
Agent: What do you do with the prepuce from the circumcisions performed"
Rabbi: We save them.
Agent: Save them for what?
Rabbi: When we have enough we transform them into Anjis, Cats, Jacks and Zepps.
Angent: But..but...those are a**holes!
Rabbi: Yes we know and when we have enough of these we turn them into IRS agents.
It must be terrible being you, my314tin. No intellectual insights, no critical thinking skills, no sense of humor...
Damon, You clearly did not read the link that I posted that easily debunks what you posted. So I will try and post it in here so you do not have to do the terrible task of clicking a link:
The following material has been taken from a sheet entitled Several Faulty Assumptions Are Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods. Carbon 14 is used for this example:, which was put out by Dr. Hovind.
R1. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed. Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?
This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!
The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast. (The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.)
Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point. Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the
incoming water should just equal the water leaking out. That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth. The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out. To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter. Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.
It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument. (See Figure 1).
Figure 1
Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. Henry Morris chose not to mention that portion of the paper! Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that -- unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said.
Tree-ring dating (see Topic 27) gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.
Contrary to creationist Barnes' totally discredited claims, which I've covered in Topic 11, the earth's magnetic field (dipole moment) has, indeed, increased and decreased over time. Strahler presents a graph of the earth's dipole moment going back 9000 years.
Thus, at least within the last 9000 years, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and those fluctuations have induced fluctuations in the production of carbon-14 to a noticeable extent. Therefore, as already noted, Dr. Hovind's claim that carbon-14 has been slowly building up towards a 30,000 year equilibrium is worthless. You now have the technical reason for the failure of Morris' model.
It may interest the reader to know that within this 9000-year period, where the radiocarbon method can be checked by tree-ring data, objects older than 400 BC receive a carbon-14 date which makes them appear younger than they really are! An uncorrected carbon-14 date of 6000 years for an object would actually mean that the object was 6700 years old. Seven hundred years or so is about as far as the carbon-14 method strays from tree-ring dating on the average. Individual dates given on a 1973 correlation chart (Bailey, 1989, p.100) show that objects with true ages between 4200 BC and 5400 BC would receive a carbon-14 date making them appear 500-900 years too young. As it turns out, we have a check on the carbon-14 production which goes back even further than 8000 years:
Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.
Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago. (For a refutation of Barnes' argument see Topic 11.)
Therefore, atmospheric variation in C-14 production is not a serious problem for the carbon-14 method. The evidence refutes Dr. Hovind's claim that the C-14 content of our atmosphere is in the middle of a 30,000-year buildup. Thus, we can dismiss this young-earth argument.
R2. It is painfully obvious that Dr. Hovind knows next to nothing about carbon-14 dating! Changes in the sunspot cycle do have a noticeable, short-term effect on the rate of C-14 production inasmuch as sunspots are associated with solar flares, which produce magnetic storms on Earth, and the condition of the earth's magnetic field does affect the number of cosmic rays reaching the earth's upper atmosphere. (Carbon-14 is produced by energetic collisions between cosmic rays and molecules of nitrogen in the upper atmosphere.) Sunspots have absolutely nothing to do with the rate of C-14 decay, which defines the half-life of that radioactive element. Dr. Hovind has confused two completely different concepts.
Quantum mechanics, that stout pillar of modern physics, which has been verified in so many different ways that I couldn't begin to list them all even if I had them at hand, gives us no theoretical reason for believing that the C-14 rate of decay has changed or can be significantly affected by any reasonable process. We also have direct observation:
Since 8000 years is almost two half-lives for carbon-14, it's half-life being 5730 years (plus or minus 40 years), we have excellent observational evidence that the decay rate is constant. We also have laboratory studies which support the constancy of all the decay rates used in radiometric dating.
Believe it or not, a number of creationist attacks against radiometric decay rates are aimed at a kind of "decay" called internal conversion (IC), which has absolutely nothing to do with the radiometric dating methods (Dalrymple, 1984, p.88). Harold Slusher, a prominent member of the Institute for Creation Research, claimed that "Experiments have shown that the decay rates of cesium 133 and iron 57 vary, hence there may be similar variations in other radioactive decay rates." (Slusher, 1981, p.22, 49; from Brush)
Keep an eye on those creationists! They will switch tracks faster than you can say "tiddlywinks." One moment they're talking about the radioactive decay of the nuclides involved in geochronology, and, in the next moment, they're passing out examples of IC decay in stable isotopes. Morris (1974) claimed that free neutrons might change the decay rates. However, Henry Morris, that icon of creationism, only demonstrated that he knew no more about radiometric dating than does Dr. Hovind today. "...[Morris'] arguments show that he does not understand either neutron reactions or radioactive decay." (Dalrymple, 1984, pp.88-89). Free neutrons might change one element into another, but the decay rates all remain true to their elements.
Another attempt by Morris invokes neutrinos.
There was also an attempt by Slusher and Rybka to invoke neutrinos. Those mysterious neutrinos seem to be a hot topic!
Dalrymple goes on to debunk several other creationists attacks on the reliability of the radiometric decay rates used in geochronology. Judging from the above, it is easy to see that creationists are indulging in wild fishing expeditions. Compare their flighty arguments to the solid support provided by theoretical work, laboratory testing, and, for the shorter half-lives, actual observation, and add to that the statistical consistency of the dates obtained, including numerous cross-checks between different "clocks," and only one conclusion is left. The radiometric decay rates used in dating are totally reliable. They are one of the safest bets in all of science.
R3. With at least one notable exception on the books, plants and animals get their carbon-14 from the atmosphere. Plants take it in directly, and animals eat the plants. Thus, it gets passed up the food chain. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the carbon-14 in living plants and animals is in reasonable equilibrium with the atmospheric carbon-14. Some creationists, however, have claimed that certain plants can reject carbon-14 in favor of carbon-12. Because of the chemical similarity of carbon-14 and carbon-12, it is unlikely that such plants could deviate much from the ratio of C-14 to C-12 found in the atmosphere. Neither freak cases nor small deviations pose much of a problem for radiocarbon dating, which, after all, works well with a wide variety of plant and animal species. Hence, we only have to worry about the initial concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere. Topic R1 shows that the level of C-14 in the atmosphere has not varied appreciably over tens of thousands of years. Therefore, the initial C-14 content is known for any reasonable sample!
The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?
Different parts of the same sample may, indeed, yield different C-14/C-12 ratios. Partial contamin
Partial contamination, say of a block of wood, may affect its different parts to different degrees. Insect burrows, cracks, and partial decay may allow contamination later on to affect those portions of the sample unequally. However, there are laboratory techniques, often ingenious, for dealing with such problems. If the sample shows evidence of being hopelessly contaminated it is pitched.
Some samples, such as a section of a tree trunk, may well contain material of considerably different ages. The interior portion of a tree trunk could easily be several hundred years older than the outer portions. Once again, the C-14/C-12 ratios would reflect this difference in age.
In summing up this point, we do know within good limits what the initial C-14 was for any reasonable sample. A sample will not have different ratios of carbon unless it has been contaminated or reflects a genuine range of ages.
R4. In the case of carbon-14 dating, the daughter product is ordinary nitrogen and plays no role in the dating process. We are only interested in tallying the original C-14 still present in the sample, the surviving "parent" isotope. The C-14 that is incorporated in the carbon structure of cellulose and the other structural materials of living plants and animals is not going to do much migrating after burial. If structural carbon migrated easily there soon wouldn't be any cellulose, lignin, chitin (or other structural carbon compounds) left in the soil! A piece of wood, for example, would soon turn into a formless cloud of graphite or soot in the soil, with perhaps a little ash marking the original shape! Clearly, that is not something which normally happens. Residues or solutions which do migrate can usually be washed out of the structural matrix of the sample with various chemicals.
To put it another way, we might imagine a piece of buried wood as being something like a sponge. Any carbon-containing liquid originally possessed by that sponge might well leak over time and be replaced by something else. However, unless the sponge itself disintegrates, the carbon which holds its fibers together must stay put. Thus, by choosing a sample that is structurally intact, one may rule out any significant loss of C-14. If the liquid impurities in our sponge can be washed and squeezed out, or estimated in some way, then we may be able to date the sponge (structural component of our sample) itself and get a good date even if non-structural carbon-14 had been lost in a manner that would upset the isotope ratio.
A sample, of course, can be contaminated if organic material rich in fresh atmospheric C-14 soaks or diffuses into it. Such contamination may occur in the ground or during the processing of the sample in the laboratory. However, such contamination will make the sample appear younger than its true age. Consequently, with regards to carbon-14 dating, creationists are barking up the wrong tree on the contamination issue!
Laboratories, of course, do have techniques for identifying and correcting contamination. There are various methods of cleaning the material, and the activity of each rinse can be measured. Lab contamination and technique can be checked by running blanks. A careful choice of samples will often minimize contamination. Dating various portions of a sample is another kind of check that may be performed.
Often there are cross-checks. Samples from top to bottom of a peat bog gave reasonable time intervals (Science, vol.200, p.11). The calibrated C-14 method confirmed Egyptian records, and most of the Aegean dates which were cross-dated with Egyptian dates were confirmed (American Scientist, May-June 1982). The marvelous agreement with tree-ring data, after correction for variations in the earth's magnetic field, has already been mentioned.
Carbon-14 dating thus presents a deadly challenge to young-earth creationists. If an old date is reasonably accurate, they're out of business; if an old date is bad due to contamination, then they are still out of business because the true date is most likely older still. It hardly seems fair, but that's the way it is. With that in mind, let's look at a few carbon-14 dates.
Egyptian barley samples have been found which date to 17,000-18,300 years old (Science, April 7, 1978). On page 1346 the author explains some of the professional care which stands behind his use of the carbon-14 method.
A wooden walkway buried in a peat bog in England has been dated to about 4000 BC by the carbon-14 method (Scientific American, August 1990, p.30). Odd, that Noah's flood neither destroyed it nor deposited thick sediments on top of it! Jennifer Hillam of the University of Sheffield and Mike Baillie of Queen's University of Belfast and their colleagues were able to date the walkway by a second method, i.e., tree-ring dating. They found out that the walkway, known as the Sweet Track, was built from trees felled in the winter of 3807-3806 BC. Pretty close agreement, huh?
Stonehenge, as dated by carbon-14, was built over a period from 1900 BC to 1500 BC -- long before the Druids came to England. Astronomer Gerald Hawkins found, after careful computer calculations, that the arrangement of the stones at Stonehenge are aligned with key positions of the sun and moon as they were almost 4000 years ago. (Weber, 1982, p.29). Thus, we have another remarkable confirmation of the C-14 method.
When did the volcano that destroyed Thera (and probably the Minoan culture as well) explode? Radiocarbon dating of seeds and wood buried in the ash, done by scientists at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed to no later than 1600 BC. Being that this was one of the biggest volcanic eruptions in recorded history, it almost certainly caused worldwide cooling which would, in turn, affect tree growth. Sure enough, the growth rings among oaks buried in Ireland's bogs show the effect of unusual cooling from 1628-1618 BC. Nor was that just an effect of local weather conditions. The bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California show the same thing. A third estimate came from studies in Greenland. "In 1987 Danish geologists examining signs of volcanic acidity in the Greenland ice sheet concluded that the Thera volcano erupted in 1645 B.C., give or take 20 years." (Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 1991, p.48). Thus, we have a remarkable agreement between three different methods, all within two or three percentage points of each other!
Trees buried by the last advance of glacial ice at Two Creeks, Wisconsin were dated at 11,850 years. (Strahler, 1987, p.251). Between those trees, which are buried in Valders red till, and an earlier, deeper layer of till, the Woodfordian gray till, lay the remains of a forest bed! What is a forest, including developed soil and rooted stumps, doing between two advances of ice? That could be an interesting question for someone who believes in only one "ice age." In 1878 Baron Gerard de Geer, a Swedish geologist, made a careful study of the annual varves left in European glacial lakes. By careful counting and cross-checking he was able to determine that the oldest glacial lakes, which would have formed at the start of the retreat of the ice, were 12,000 years old. Thus, we have a rough check between varves in glacial lakes and radiocarbon dating.
Ancient cave art, at cueva de los caballos, near Castellon, Spain has been dated at about 6000 BC (The Times Atlas of World History [1978]).
On the wall of Gargas Cave in the French Pyrenees are the outlined hands of Ice Age artists which date to at least 12,000 years. Magnificent prehistoric cave art, comparable to that of the world-famous caves of Altamira, Spain and Lascaux, France, was recently discovered in southern France, in the Ardeche River canyon area (Los Angeles Times; Pasadena Star-News January 19, 1995). Its 300 paintings of such animals as bison, reindeer, rhinoceros, woolly rhinoceros, a panther, an owl, a hyena, bears, lions, horses, wild oxen, mammoths, wild goats and other animals is estimated to be between 19,000-22,000 years old. Sorry, no dinosaur drawings were reported! In Europe, cave art was at its height around 20,000 years ago. Some examples probably go back 30,000 years!
R5. This is similar to an argument put out by Harold Slusher (1981, p.45). Dr. Hovind adds the bizarre claim that something can't be measured accurately to seven decimal places. Such nonsense is answered by Dr. Dalrymple, an expert in radiometric dating, who noted that: "Modern counting instruments, available for more than two decades, are capable of counting the C-14 activity in a sample as old as 35,000 years in an ordinary laboratory, and as old as 50,000 years in laboratories constructed with special shielding against cosmic radiation. New techniques using accelerators and highly sensitive mass spectrometers, now in the experimental stage, have pushed these limits back to 70,000 or 80,000 years..." (Dalrymple, 1984, pp.86-87).
We can also explore this issue from first principles.
Given that the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years, one can calculate that 4 billion C-14 atoms will produce 1 decay per minute on the average. Converting the 4 billion atoms to grams (a nickel weighs 5 grams), we get 0.000000000000093 grams of carbon-14. Consequently, by tallying one click per minute on the Geiger counter, we can measure a whole lot further than 7 decimal places!
A 1-gram, fresh sample of carbon, containing the atmospheric concentration of one ten-billionth percent of carbon-14, will yield about 12 decays per minute. That figure follows directly from the mathematics and, as the atmospheric portion of carbon-14 given above is an approximation, is close enough to Dr. Hovind's present-day figure of 16 counts per minute per gram. Because of atomic bomb tests, the rate is slightly higher today, but the present rate would not apply to animals and plants which died before such tests. One book used a figure of about 13.5 decays per minute per gram for the pre-bomb rate. Consequently, a 64-gram sample of fresh carbon will still give about 7 clicks per minute after 40,000 years. Because of background radiation, that's about as far as one can normally go with this counting method. As noted above, Dr. Dalrymple would extend that to 50,000 years in special laboratories.
Once again, Dr. Hovind has relied on bad data. If you get your information from a creationist source, you'd better triple-check it! Errors get handed down in the creationist literature like the family jewels!
R6. It's not clear to me what Dr. Hovind is talking about. If he is referring to the carbon-14 decay curve then he has demonstrated, once again, his ignorance of radiometric dating.
The decay curve is mathematically determined by the fact that every atom of carbon-14 in a sample has the same chance of decaying during each second of time. That much is predicted by quantum mechanics, which is possibly the greatest of our modern, scientific revolutions.
Since we are dealing with millions of C-14 atoms in even the smallest samples, the amount of C-14 remaining with respect to time will be an excellent approximation of an exponential decay curve. Statistics assure us of that. Indeed, it would be absurd to speak of the half-life of a radioactive isotope if it did not have a good exponential decay curve!
Once we have a good approximation of the half-life for carbon-14, its decay curve can be constructed with complete confidence. We don't need Egyptian mummies or what have you at that point. At that point it's just a routine exercise in math. If you want additional assurance that we have the correct half-life, then look at the close correlation between C-14 dates and tree-ring dates (after correcting for variances in C-14 production caused by changes in the earth's magnetic field). The snug fit indicates that the half-life of C-14 is stable and accurately known. Therefore, so is its decay curve.
Today, the half-lives of those radioactive elements used in dating are known to a few percent by careful laboratory study. So, there's no problem in getting an accurate decay curve.
Nice one my314tin.
...and nice reference back to that stupid AnswersInGenesis website for dummies, DamonWV. ("But these are real scientists"). Maybe they have degrees. Maybe. But tell me where these real scientists conduct their classes, and on what campus? Can you open the College Catalog from any of the top 100 campuses in our country and point me to the science class called "Creationism101"?
Finally. Thank you for ignoring the Elephant in the China Store. I must have posted the "Phony Faith from Priest" scenario in 4 different ways, and each time neither one of you guys wanted to touch this subject.
...A little too close to home?
("...But they were human, all susceptible to sin...")... Yeah, yeah, yeah... Keep telling yourself that Damon. Many of these men were religious their entire lives. They started their lives as part of this institution. They were bred to live, breath, and commune with God and Jesus. Every single one of these guys, by their very action, have clearly demonstrated that their faith was nothing more than a fake-out they were committing against their faithful masses. If these guys could so easily disregard their faiths, then I'm betting 5-10 times their number knowingly accept that their faith is a sham and a con job against their congregations.
Faith is not absolute. Why is faith not absolute? Because there is no communications with God? Every night when you two get on your knees and pray to God, you are only talking to yourself. Maybe your inner voice answers, but that's not God. That's only your inner voice. Here is your failure in morality. Why religion can not be counted on, and should never be considered the source of morality: The inner voice lies.
The inner voice wants what it wants. The inner voice can convince you to do whatever you want, especially if it's something you want badly enough (like molesting children). It's not guided by God. Jesus isn't whispering in your ear. Satan's not there either. That's not the sound of Santa's reindeer upon your roof tops. The Easter bunny did not drop-trou and squatted out a candy easter egg for your delight. The lightning you see in the distance are not bolts of thunder thrown down from Olympus by an angry Zeus. Your inner voice can convince you of anything it wants. Your morality is not guided by your faith. It's guided by who you are as a person.
The distinction between Damon and my314tin, and the rest of us? We know our inner voices are just our own thoughts, and we use our conscious morality to control our actions. Damon and my314tin, just need to come up with a justification why their fictional God wants them to do something morally wrong to justify their actions. Just like those priests probably did when they decided to molest children.
Cudos to LedZepp94. A great compilation of data. You've told a compelling story about our recent prehistory.
For those interested in a great documentary about early human artists, may I suggest you go out and see, "Cave of Forgotten Dreams". I believe it will be out on DVD soon as well. It tells the story of THE oldest human drawings every found (from about 28-32,000 years ago). This is an in depth tour of the Chauvet Cave in Southern France, and a truly remarkable film.
No Cat it isn't terrible because I'm not obsessed like you and folks like you such as Rev. Camping. You two have similar traits, but are tugging on opposite ends of the rope.
Most of what you post isn't worth the time spent reading. I acknowledge science and I embrace most of what science has to offer. The benefits of science in our world are infinite. I accept this but you seem to come across as a one of the Koch brothers. You seem to not be satisfied until someone see's things as you do. If they do not volunteer you choose to use force. If that approach fails then you choose to destroy them. What begins as a portrayal of good turns to evil. Which brings us back to you and Rev. Camping.
No Anji,
Maybe Damon and I are not obsessed with priests as you are. Based on your insistence and anger you are either one of them or one of them put it in deep and broke it off.
Seek help!
I am not obsessed. I am only concerned with evidence and facts, two things you and your compatriots tend to ignore completely. The overwhelming weight of observable evidence is crushing your nonsensical arguments and it is more amusing than frustrating to watch the intricate dance hypocritical christians perform in order to avoid facing the truth. It is also entertaining to watch the dainty sidestep cultists like you perform as you pretend charlatans like Camping are not like you: that is to say, a "true" christian. So please, by all means carry on and expose your willful ignorance for the world to see. I will watch, unobsessed and highly amused.
Still, you don't have much of a sense of humor, do you? That is the first thing christians typically lose as they watch their religion and it's mythology dismembered in a public forum.
And well done, Led Zepp and Anjisan for doing such an admirable job of dissecting this corrupt, superstitious cult!
By the way fellas. I stopped throwing data at DamonWV and my314tin because they just don't care. They don't. Whatever data you have, they just brush it aside with their crappy, circular logic ("it's only a theory, therefore not fact, facts change all the time, therefore science is flawed, blah, blah, blah...") They accept their horribly inaccurate data as gospel. They cling so desperately to their beliefs. They've got both arms and both legs so tightly wrapped around the branch they're on, that there's no shaking the tree to get them loose.
So, I'm done throwing data their way. However... Emotions are another thing. I've been flinging my own emotional responses at them for the past couple of days, and I'm intrigued by their responses...
When we throw data at them, they try to discount the data; however, when I throw emotional judgments about the overall value and truth about the concept known as "Faith", they clam up incredibly tight. You fellas notice that? If they respond (or if any religious person responds) I often get the "Your obviously angry" reproach (shouldn't everyone be angry about child molestation). Or, I get the "You just didn't have the right religious instruction". (I guess molested altar boys didn't get the right instruction either - Ha). Or, I get a half-ass rebuttal about Priests being "only human" from Damon. During my last couple of posts I only heard crickets chirping from my314tin (except for his attempts to classify us all as the snipped off foreskin of infant penis' reformed into @!$%#s).
When it comes to data, they have their little dumb website with its wildly inaccurate science (Answers in Genesis just makes me feel dumber for having read some of those articles, ya know?), but it's enough for these guys to obviously feel armed to debate with actual science... (Fools that they are)
Intellectually, I don't think you guys are rattling them at all... From an emotional level though...? Maybe?
Frankly, I just wanted them to answer my question: Shouldn't a priest be closer to God, closer to God's word, and therefore, more in touch with what God wants from mankind? I also wanted them to account for the number of Priests who obviously went against the first concept (closeness to God).
I think we need to stop defending the science we know is good, and to start demanding that they defend the faith we know is bad.
Wow! NOW THAT'S a severe emotional response if I ever saw one... Amazing! (though he STILL is not addressing this obvious discongruity of the lack of faith amongst people who should be our most devoutly faithful citizens).
Now, we're getting somewhere...
(Let the Healing begin?)
To refine. There are few things that I want, and I think all non-believers want:
1. Keep religion away from science, while religion can interpret science how it wishes it should never ever influence it. This means keeping religion out of the science classroom. At most religion should be taught in history and possibly philosophy, THAT IS IT! Anything that is not based on the scientific method has no place in the science classroom, END OF STORY.
2. Keep religion out of government and politics. It is inherently dangerous and has far reaching implications of war and destruction based on perceived beliefs. Government should be run by people, not god. It is too easy to say God told me to do this so we will declare war.....This country preserves the freedoms of religion, true. That does not mean it is controlled by it, or controlled by one particular religion, that is value we need to preserve at all cost.
3. Do not preach damnation and hellfire to non-believers, we don't care.....at all. The only thing you are showing when you condemn people of non faith is that you know better than them and that they are subscribing to a certain agony if not converted. This is not good in many ways. First, do you realize how creepy it is for people to be so friendly and non chalant and at the same time honestly believe that we are going to spend an eternity in hell? Do you realize how inappropriate that is? Not many Christians do and it is deeply disturbing. Keep it to yourself, we don't care, saying we are going to live in a gingerbread house with a penguin and a whale for eternity holds just as much meaning to us.
4. Churches need to start paying taxes.
5. The pope needs to stop being an idiot. He needs to stop commenting on such things he knows nothing about which directly causes death.
If I missed anything, please add to the list.
I think you did very well Zepp! #4 probably isn't happening soon but the other 4 items would help the world greatly.
There's nothing biblical about giving 10% because it's a tax write-off.
Religion if one wishes to enroll in the class would be a class on religion or philosophy.
PS. Lining cathedral ceiling with gold doesn't help mankind but giving it to politicians raises many other ?????'s
Very nice posts led, they do go into great detail, and your right it may seem like creationists do certain things, that evolutionists point there finger and say , see there , see what they did how they change stuff around, and then there are articles just like your that show the same thing with creationists pointing out how evolutionists are guilty of doing the same things. It never ends, never.
Im with you Led, i want evidence and facts as well, at least we both seek that. Its just were different in what the evidence and facts conclude to. We see things different, and it will always be like that. I will believe and rely on what evidence I read about and see. My basis starts with God, and if any day that he can be disproved, and he doesnt exist, then I shudder at will become of me and what I will turn into .
Like I said above im done, I know you all posted a lot of stuff, but this all has become too time consuming in life, I have way too many more important things to do then to keep arguing and debating with people that are not seeing eye to eye, so I say Good bye again :D
Reasonable response my314tin, I appreciate that. And yes, lining the pockets of politicians is certainly detrimental to society.
Damon, I appreciate the calm demeanor in your post, however, I will say this again, the facts are there. The internet is filled with false facts and information, as is the bible. I urge you to separate what is true from what is false. Just because an article is written in scientific technical language does not make it automatically credible or even interesting. I can throw a bunch of periodic elements on a piece of paper and sprinkle it with false facts, and then shoe horn it into a theory that coincides with biblical beliefs. This is easy, however it does not make it valid, and it is detrimental as it is clearly confusing people like yourself. It is very important to have an open mind when reviewing scientific information. If you have a mindset of no matter what this information tells me, I will use mental gymnastics to ignore it or twist it into fitting with my religion. I just find it so awkward for example, when the pope said fairly recently that there actually is no Limbo, that there never was a Limbo and that the church was wrong. So this entire time people have been fearing Limbo, have been preached to about Limbo and have threatened others with Limbo and with the drop of a pin the pope reverses the entire theory, based on what???? And why would he admit that?? It only serves to weaken his position, very uncharacteristic of a religion that is so sure of itself and its beliefs.
Anji, I have no control over others or their faith including priests. Becoming or choosing to become a priest doesn't negate humanity. As much as you wish to use it in your argument it isn't appropriate. What you think a person should be and who they are has nothing to do with faith. I can't control it and neither can you. If I had a choice in the outcome of punishment for pedophiles or crimes of the church we would probably be on the same page but this isn't likely to happen for you or I.
We have similar thoughts on the churches role or lack thereof regarding Hitler. This isn't cause for me to turn my back on my faith or spiritual walk nor do I feel inclined to become an atheist. The behaviors of church leaders are the same s in many organizations especially in positions of power. Pick an organization of any size and show how abuse of power doesn't happen. Do I agree with you on what the actions of priests should be? YES, but you and I have no control. I think I have more control in regard to Christian behavior (preventing abuse) being on the inside than being outside. When I reference Christian I am speaking about New Testament teaching on treatment of other humans. There's no delineation on who, how when or where. There's plenty of misguided interpretation. If a person truly lives their life to the teachings life would be better for all. This would exclude all hellfire and damnation.
You make a good point, Anjisan, with respect to emotions and the cultists' tie to their vapid theology. Faith is akin to emotion in that it serves as a response mechanism in the face of a threat: I have heard many christians state "my faith sustains my belief" when they have been forced to face evidence that knocks the legs out from under their dark superstitions and their imaginary friends. Faith and emotion are all they have left when the real world disregards their empty theology, though, isn't it? It's apparent that Damon and the other character are running on fumes after making the umpteenth lap around the track of their circular logic because their vapid arguments are so thin and shaky.
To quote Damon's fractured sentence, "I have way too many more important things to do then (sic) to keep arguing and debating with people that are not seeing eye to eye..." In other words, the deliberately blind cultists are refusing to see the evidence placed in front of them and the enlightened skeptics bearing facts and truth refuse to accept the unsupportable lies offered in exchange by the unseeing faithful. That must be extremely frustrating for the cultists because falsehoods and fairy tales are all they have to hold onto. Thank god for blind faith because without it, christianity and all other abrahamic religions would collapse in on themselves.
Anj, I think you are to close to your indoctrination by the church. To answer your question specifically as I see and understand this; The Catholic Church takes biblical verses regarding a spiritual leader (priest) being a conduit to God and converts the priest into God. I don't agree with the teaching or ideology along with the harm caused to humanity.
Yes Cat, evidence and facts we may agree on but untested theory is neither. I have no need or desire to see eye to eye with you as Damon stated. If we all saw eye to eye it would be a very boring world. I don't think Damon intended it as such but in debating this is how it seems at times. Agreeing to disagree works along with compromise.
C'mon... You have faith, right? When you commune with your faith, and your belief in God - What exactly are you communing with?
For instance, I can go outside, turn my head to the sky, and say, "Oh Lord - Cleanse me. I am your humble servant. Show to me the path of righteousness. Teach me how to open my heart to you. Deliver me from evil"... I can try and pray and commune to this higher power right? What sort of feedback should I get.
Is there no feedback? There must be some sort of feedback, right?
In lieu of feedback (if no feedback exists), then what sustains the faith? Reading the Bible? If this forum here has shown anything, I think it has shown that the Bible is woefully inadequate when it comes to answers. So, leaning on the Bible is iffy. Prayers and worship are used to sustain the faith. What else? What else is used to feed the bottomless pool of people's faith? Hope maybe?
Where does Hope factor into all this? I hope you don't think I'm being sarcastic, I really am very curious about those things which supply the energy to Faith and Belief.
Zepp.
I really don't get hung up on the creation story or the birth of Jesus so if you think the miracles didn't happen that's really okay. I'm not implying I don't believe, I'm just not inclined to return to your door when you tell me you're not interested nor will I ignore your No Solicitors sign. Actually I do neither of these my point is there are many who do believe this is part of how they earn their salvation. So a spiritual gift is turned into something controlled by human behavior. Much of the misinformation is purely human and misinterpretation. The question lies in why the misinterpretation? The human desire for power and control is infinite.
You are more than welcome to enjoy the questionable benefits conferred by your religion as long as it does not interfere with our secular government, our libraries, our schools, or our children. When a religion...any religion...attempts to impose its dark theology into these areas, however, there is no room for compromise. If the choice is between believing in the ancient myths of benighted tribe of pestiferous nomads or in accepting scientific facts thinking people everywhere must respond emphatically and without any hesitation. We as a nation cannot afford to tolerate the intrusion of these ignorant, violent, and hateful myths or the cults that promote them into areas which they do not belong.
Ignorance has no benefit and self-deception is no virtue.
I think you and I can agree we probably can't change the priest, bishop, cardinal or pope (are these supposed to be capitalized)?
When someone commits a crime against you what do you do? If it happens to be that someone murders someone you love do you get to kill them to relieve your pain and grief? If you were allowed would it relieve the grief? What do you do if they are never apprehended? What do you do if they are apprehended and sentenced to death (and it actually happens)? This might be closure on one page of history but would you feel better, the crime avenged?
I didn't forget your question on communing with God?
Cat, Not saying I believe in your proffered comment #1.305 as to what I believe in but yes I agree with the premise of your statement and this has been my position from the beginning. I'm glad to see you finally catch up. Our thoughts can be so blinding at times.
Here we go again:
Someone doesn't comprehend the definitions of the words that are used. More specifically Omniscience, omnipresent, limitless, and boundless. That alone makes Orthodox Christianity Pantheism.
Really? is that why you can not make an argument without having to conform the ABC's? Do you even bother to listen to yourself self-collapse your own arguments? The sheer stupidity of that comment is just amazing :/ You are basically shooting for the "GOD is incomprehensible" argument. The ultimate appeal to ignorance.
LMAO.. Let's review this again:
Now when you tell me that you "know" I'm wrong, I can help but serious laugh at that. If you know I am wrong, you can feel free to point how exactly how the above ABC's are wrong. Because you are clearly showing us that you aren't smart enough to understand when you self-collapse your own arguments. It really takes some serious ignorance to tell me you know something while trying to make an argument against information theory.. Do us a favor, when you can prove just these below wrong, you can then be taken seriously:
If you can post a reply here without needing to abide by information theory, you will win a Nobel Prize!. And the following is the dumbest pile of crap you could have ever posted concerning the flood:
You really have to be scientifically illiterate to make that argument. Especially after I have posted on that subject specifically:
Or we can add this to that discussion to!:
Creationism is even worse than pseudoscience, its like a further retardation of that as well. And as equally as bad as this comment:
Omnipresent, Omnsicient, boundless, limitless, Container and sustainer of all things.. Ummm sir, this is saying the exact same thing lol!.. Please tell me you seriously aren't this dunce :(
Now this is just jaw dropping in terms of an inability to comprehend what you read, or what you are actually trying to address... Pantheism was never compared to the "BIBLE".. It's in reference to Orthodox Christianity and the Fount of Knowledge! For Pete's sake, take some time to actually read what you are responding to. But for giggles, you are thus agreeing with me that the Bible GOD is not :
Now what I did address in concerns to the bible was what the GOD in the Bible actually was. It's a volcano/fire GOD. It's what it's name actually means by definition! And is described exactly as such in the bible.
This is just sheer stupidity.. If you do not comprehend the definition of omnipresence, please don't post because you are now seriously embarrassing yourself. :/ Especially in conjunction with terms like "boundless, and limitless". Hence you can not make any argument here without collapsing all of those entirely!
Let's do this again.. Where do you exist again? I almost wounder when the bell will ring, or when the light-bulb will turn on.
Pantheism Alert! Now bow before my cat to whom is here by my side as your GOD!
To be everywhere, you have to be everything! Hello!...
Did you not learn anything about the brick? To be everywhere, you have to be every bit of existence itself! And saying your GOD isn't everything is also placing limits and boundaries on it! Worse yet, your religion claims said deity to being INFINITE! . And I didn't even go into the property of being "Uncontained" vs how that effects our individualism as separate beings... Sorry kiddo, but what you have here is Pantheism!
Incorrect. If everything is thus GOD, it would be GOD ordering himself not to commit idolatry lol. Your argument is like Solipsistic Pantheism. Perhaps you can call it monotheism with a really bad 7-8 billion multi-personality disorder, not counting anything else with a brain!.
But hey, let me clarify this with just omniscience alone:
Now we understand that words definition, we can revert back to information theory, or more specifically this one very important part of information theory:
This part of information theory is the essence of who you are as an individual. It includes your beliefs, thoughts, feelings, self-awareness, identity ect ect ect..This is part of why you are arguing for Sollipsistic Pantheism. And we can simply demonstrate why Omniscience would make GOD the entire sum total of existence itself in the best case scenario:
Pantheistic Solipsism from a Designers Perspective of an Omniscient being:
*(This as if you are the Omniscient Entity about to design and create something into existence. Such as a human being)
Omniscience would translate to I, the said entity being existence itself in the best case possible, or everything that is existent in every infinite way. Thus we can conclude such a concept of an Omniscient entity to be likely nothing more than a logical fallacy.. Especially if we want to retain our individualism :)
And do you want to know what the kicker is? A conscious being, a being you might want to argue has infinite knowledge, could never do, or create anything! It would thus be infinitely impossible to increase knowledge or create something new, or already not known in every infinite way. Thus you have this little problem to Creationism:
Welcome to self-collapsing religious beliefs 101 :/
Funny you mention that. Worship a rock would at least be worshiping something existent, and tangible. However, you hit it on the nail when you said it would have equal validity ;) This would be true regardless of Pantheism. And btw, Pantheism is higher on the totem Pole sir. It's the worshiping of existence itself, that little something you keep begging us is to be apart of! You do agree that your GOD would need existence in order to exist right? I must follow the rules of existence.. So umm.. who designed and created existence and it's rules?..Oh damn that's a quagmire!... Hence you have it ass backwards son!. You can not go back and learn and comprehend information theory, and your ABC's please!
I fixed that for you! :)
I fixed that to!
Oh but it was won before you could ever post such arguments of intentional ignorance, and sheer denial. As we can see below, I already won that debate:
Denial never wins a debate already lost.
No, intentional ignorance while losing a debate is childish. Information theory will always win the debate ;) Especially when it literally is the debate itself! Hence, I don't even have to try and win this debate. It was won it before it began!
LOL.. This is seriously a face palm. People that think Earth was Geologically dead with dinos and humans running around is scientifically illiterate in every way imaginable.
My314tin, If you believe that religion should be entirely separated from schools, government, libraries etc. then I think you are a reasonable person. From what it sounds like, that is the case and I am happy to hear it. I think the main focus for people like anj, sail cat and I is to root out the unreasonable ones who want to intrude into those areas. I have not heard Damons thoughts on this and would be very interested to hear them. We truly do not care what you believe privately, it is your right to believe what you wish, it's when it snakes its way into the public domain that makes it dangerous. Take the current republican candidates for example, bachmann and perry wing the most evil of the bunch.
So here is a challenge.. Say, conceive, think, convey, or express "TheJackel is wrong" here on Newsvine without needing to abide by the tenents of information theory... :) It's easy to say it, but proving your assertion I am wrong will be quite futile >:)
The best you can ever do is prove me right :)
I couldn't agree more!
Unfortunately, this is what the Creationist movement is about. That's actually the main GOAL behind the movement. Its about indoctrinating science, logic, and reason.
Jackel, I agree, they seem to be very focused on clouding the facts of evolution. This above everything else seems to be their main focus, to them the ends justify the means. To them it's not enough that we actually have private catholic schools that teach creationism, they have to try and muscle it into the public school system on brute force and money. This is why I love that I am from massachussetts. This would never happen here.
Viewing the compass, I have West Northwest political views and North Northeast spiritual views. There is nothing about US conservative politics that aligns with conservative religion.
When you state libraries I'm guessing you mean religion used to censor what is allowed in school libraries? If they choose to teach or censor I'm all for home schooling on their dime.
I think philosophy, religion and how it applies to whatever class instruction may choose to apply it would be good for students. The problem with most religion is there is only **my way** mentality. This thinking can be applied to how a rocket propels a capsule to the moon but for children developing cognitive skills it's dangerous.
I see no point in a teacher making a point to negate creationism as part of the lesson plan yet hopefully they have the skills to address the question if it arises. Anj or Cat would not be good candidates for the response if a child brought up creation. :-)
Yes I mean as far as censoring goes. There are great stories and books that have arisen from religion that are interesting reads, no doubt. As far as teaching it in the classroom, the only way to be objective about its to discuss it in a historical tone. That's how I learned about the worlds religions and it was very helpful. Once you start shoehorning it into the sciences that's where things become dangerous. There is no such thing as Christian science, just as there is no such thing as Muslim science, there is just science, the Muslim and Christian part are unnecessary, they add nothing to the definition. You might as well say Caucasian science or African American science, that is what baffles me about these creationists.
...That's right... Cuz I'd hit them in their stupid creationist face with a chalkboard eraser.
I'm sorry... That was mean... (but it felt so good).
My response to a child bringing that up is that it's irrelevant, and should be asked in the philosophy classroom.
Lol anjisan
...Although... There is the Christian Science Monitor. A fine publication.
"Anj or Cat would not be good candidates for the response if a child brought up creation."
Actually, I would be an excellent person for a child to discuss creationism with. I would inform them of everything they need to know about it by saying creationism is part of a larger more sinister lie associated with a violent mythological deity that is designed to deceive the weak-minded and deluded members of a large, but extremely dangerous, religious cult. All of which is the truth, of course.
Children can never be too young to warn of such things.
I like the DJs approach to the caller making a request; Yes we do have that but we're playing 50-60s today so we won't be playing your request.
The current trend to infiltrate government with religion is scary, really scary. From a biblical (NT) stand point, The command is to obey the laws of the land. That was from teacher to the students. How this was interpreted as make every attempt to change the laws of the land to suit my desires is the scary part.
When you state libraries I'm guessing you mean religion used to censor what is allowed in school libraries? If they choose to teach or censor I'm all for home schooling on their dime.
I think that would referring to public libraries in that they don't post something like scripture on their door step. I see no problem with religious books being in the religion section of the libraries. Public school libraries on the other hand might be pushing that.
This is not applicable to science, and should not be brought up in the public school system. At all!.. And I say that for the same reason why Atheism should not be taught in the public school system. Once you go down that dogmatic route, it becomes a problem.
And Creationism is not applicable to science.
LMAO, Yeah Cat, I'll stand by my first comment and thanks for the validation.
I agree,
There have been incidents where school teachers have unloaded on religious indoctrinated children which is inappropriate and only adds fuel for the creationist cause.
If you feel validated by that you are more deluded than I originally thought.
Well, science class in general is going to conflict with those people to whom are being brainwashed with pseudoscience.. Ultimately there is going to be some sort of clash there. Science doesn't care what they believe in, so of course it's going to be considered a problem for Creationists. They pretty much want science to agree with them, and care about their beliefs. Bow before them in obedience even.
Often when I hear about teachers unloading on such students, it's due to these problems.. However, science can't be afraid to offend someone's beliefs.
Give it up Cat, You're starting to imitate Camping again. America has to much diversity to be close minded. I have two unchurched children who are so by their choice. Children should not be force fed from any direction.
Validated me? No I wasn't giddy. You validated my comment on you not being a good candidate to answer a question on creationism to an impressionable child, or a question on atheism.
For those who think the tender sensibilities of the christian student are not being respected, here is an excerpt from a British documentary in which a science class in the US south is visited. The painfully ignorant comments of the children are eclipsed by the fact the science teacher himself is a christian and a creationist. How can children hope to compete in this world when their education is being undermined by the fact their teachers are eminently unqualified to teach the course?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbZKUNvmsCU
Sailcat-2064101
Sailcat, do me a favor, we can have our debates, but dont ever put words in my mouth, or try to claim you know my emotions of how I feel. I am not a blind cultist, I have seen the evidence, not facts before me and I dont agree with the evidence shown from a world view. For you to assume that it is frustrating, is not true at all, you dont know what I feel, you are not me, dont forget that. So dont ever assume again you think you know how I feel, because you dont.
I will tell you what I do feel, I feel great, I love God, my creator, Love Jesus who died for my sins. I give him praise, and thank him for every day that he allows me to be on this earth. I dont wish to go any time soon, but heaven is going to be a far better place than here :D I feel remorse for those who are lost and are not saved, and I pray that one day before they die, perhaps on their death bed, they may have that talk with God and become saved. I can only hope for you all right :D
The question is: Why would the British need to go to the southern US? It seems they might find similar thinking closer to home because it's not as if the kings of England didn't behead enough innocent.
For the child's sake we are fortunate the teacher will not be following the child throughout life.
"Give it up Cat, You're starting to imitate Camping again."
When I start using your cult in one of its favorite pastimes by defrauding the faithful of their money by promising them lies, you can accuse me of behaving like your Camping. Children only have the choices their parents give them until they reach the age of majority. Many have to endure hundreds of hours of religious indoctrination on their sabbath days until they are old enough to say no. The schools, on the other hand, are no place for that sort of superstitious teaching and children have in them at least one place that is safe from the destructive theologies they are force fed at home and at church.
"For the child's sake we are fortunate the teacher will not be following the child throughout life."
As long as that idiot remains in his post he is damaging the outlook on science and the world of a new batch of children each year. He is clearly unqualified to teach science in any accredited school district.
And it appears the British have a fascination with ignorant religious practices of the sort that are thankfully in decline in the US.
btw good post sailcat. That actually is a perfect example of this:
Now I'm sorry but I have to address this:
This is called ignoring evidence and claiming any evidence that contradicts your views.. You are unwilling to actually address the evidence. You have proven this throughout your entire time here in this debate.
Yes, you love the idea and concepts. But you still have nothing to show for it.. But that's part of the game ;) You need rely on ignorance for debate.
"...but dont ever put words in my mouth..."
Trust me, the words I put in your mouth sound much more intelligent than the ones you dredge up. I thought I was doing you a favor!
Damon please answer this:
Do you believe that religion should be taught in the science classroom in public schools and be infiltrated into government? If so, what religions?
Why should I even bother answering Led ? its just another thing you all like to look for to assault Christians. any answer given will be ridiculed, and mocked. So no more answers . You all can stay here and make fun all you want, since that is what you all like to do. Sorry I couldnt join you all in the name calling and mocking, but I have a higher standard of morals, and I will not let you all bring me down. My faith is rock solid, unshaken, and nothing you all can say or do will take that away from me.
I promise you I wont personally call you a name. However I add to the question,
Do you think it's right for the pope to dictate to Africans not to use condoms, which rapidly spreads the aids virus? If so, please explain why...
I promise you I will not call you a name and I am asking the others not to call you names either. This question is important and needs some insight.
"My faith is rock solid, unshaken, and nothing you all can say or do will take that away from me."
Not to put words in your mouth or anything, but what you are saying is that facts, evidence, and the truth cannot sway you from your chosen path toward ignorance, lies, and superstition.
You are the perfect cultist, Damon. You cannot provide proof to support your position nor can you disprove the evidence produced by your opponents. Rather, you rely on faith which is dependent upon willful ignorance and deliberate self-deceit for it to operate.
Thank you.
Please answer my questions Damon, you have my word that I will not call you names, in exchange for your answers and explanations.
And one follow up question.
What do you think of your fellow Christian on this board, my314tin, who disagrees with you on the answer to these questions? Do you think him to be less of a christian than you are? Again, no name calling I promise.
This is rather irrelevant to answer questions, not ignoring evidence, or properly addressing a debate without dishonest discourse. I am not worried, nor do I care how "rock solid" you feel about your faith. It still won't make it reflective of reality, or make it true :/ I'm sorry Damon, but we have asked you repeatedly to engage in honest discourse. I have yet to see it come forth. Have you asked yourself why you seemingly can not do this?
So I ask nicely, I ask you to please address the original argument on information theory and properly answer the questions. If you can not do so, then just say so. I already know you will not win the debate in reflection of reality. But it's ok admit it, it's ok to show a bit of actual humility. This video is a very good video for you to watch on showing humility:
Did you ever stop to think that, what is likely your GOD, is not the impossible GOD religion often depicts. Did you ever think that such a GOD needs not require Creationist pseudoscience, dishonesty, ignorance, or even be bound to the man made religions that feverishly profess to know it's will? Why not a more realistic ideal of a higher intelligence without having to suggest it would require to be a self-collapsing logical fallacy in order to be at all worthy of your praise, should you choose to? Does a GOD need impossibly be an Omniscient, Omnipresent, perfect, limitless, boundless, all loving and vengefully jealous GOD? One made of nothing, or one having no parts, composition, or support for it's existence? Since when was it necessary for Christianity to start begging us to believe in the Nothing GOD from Authoritative Creationists like William Lane Craig?
What makes you think your beliefs are even necessary? I will not tell you there can't be a higher intelligence, or some entity that my plausibly have caused a Big Bang that gives birth to the very Universe we emerged from, and literally apart of.
And despite supposed existing GODs, or mere mortals, we can all look back at existence itself that begs us to understand and comprehend what we are compared to it. It's a hard question on the surface, but yet so easy to answer. We all can look back, smile, and just say :
This thought is not of my own, but that of philhellenes's. The world is amazing, and we are litterally apart of how amazing it is. No matter what anyone tells you, you will never be any less amazing for valuable than anything else in existence. You will always have value and a purpose. And as that may change when you die, you could never be valueless or purposeless. Existence can't exist without you because you are apart of it even if it does not require your conscious mind to appreciate it.
I may die and become apart of a Star one day. A star to which some future child my wonder about in some primitive sentient species before they discover cosmology, or even the atom they are made of. What information theory tells us, is that information can never be lost or destroyed. It can only change function, definition, purpose, state, or value. We will always be a continuous emerging, and eternally changing property of The Universe.
These two videos are some of the best videos on Youtube:
The energy that makes us becomes so much more when it becomes us. How can anyone say our unique emergence is worthless and born an unworthy sinner? I often fail to understand why anyone needs to worship the ego of an imaginary being so impossible that they worship it out of fear of it's supposed judgment. Why can we not evolve beyond such conceit?
Led i can not know if anyone is a christian or not. If me and my314 have disagreements, thats fine. There is nothing wrong with that, and actually its in the bible where the have been disagreements with points of view with Jesus followers Paul and Barnabas Story about it linked.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/813-the-separation-of-paul-and-barnabas
So christians can have different points of view. Just like paul and barnabas , any disagreement we have, should never stop us from reaching out with the gospel.
I dont see eye to eye with Catholicism, it does fall with in the pale of orthodoxy of Christianity. But there are many denominations who disagree with each other and most of them are secondary issues. If a person is a Christian, only 2 people would know, that person them self, and God. I dont know anyones heart and mind.
Ill answer your questions, but like I said, I really need to stop coming here for now. , I have real life things to take care of, this has become to time consuming.
Damon please answer this:
Do you believe that religion should be taught in the science classroom in public schools and be infiltrated into government? If so, what religions?
I dont think any religion should be taught in any school. What i have a problem with though is persecution of Christianity in schools and work places, but allow other religions to do what they want. I hear about cases like this on jay Sekulow Live ( hes a lawyer at ACLJ American center for law and Justice. ) Cases like where schools or work places allow followers of Islam to do things, but when christians want to do something, its Bloody murder. Also kids have the right and freedom to pray in school if they want, say for example, before class starts, or some place where they are not interfering with the normal activities in school, but yet schools lash out at the kids and so many legal battles are taking place because of this. Once again, im not saying anything about religion being taught in school, I dont want to see that, but I dont want to see rights given to one crowd and the other crowd being persecuted.
Now if you want to know about if I believe creation should be taught, I say this, people should have all views expressed. Even from a World view, if I believed in Evolution, and the complete naturalistic view, then I am going to want to know what other views there are out there. Even if they would seem silly, or not logical. I would need to know that I have a choice, not be force fed to believe one way.
That goes from a christian view, I myself dont have a problem for chrisitan kids being taught evolution even in private christian schools. I personally dont think its right that a child be taught , ok jesus said so, so this is the only way you need to believe. I think it is harmful to anyone to be force fed and be told this is the only way. I think people need to be able to make their own mind up but to do that, they need to know BOTH views. Even if you think one is counter productive, they still need to be shown. How can you tell Day is day, with out Dark to show that Day even exists ? If all i ever knew was Day , then I never would have a choice in life to know Dark exists. How do I know if I prefer the Dark, if its never shown to me. I need to be able to make the choice of what I prefer. And then people need to respect that.
I dont feel the Pope has the right to tell anyone what they should be doing or not. To me he is nothing more then just a man. To catholics, hes almost like a God, or it seems to me when I watch TV they give him such praise and almost worship like behaviour. The pope has no meaning to me, just a man. The Aids virus is something I am very familiar with. I would concentrate more in people just not having sex, but I know this is easier said then done LOL. Science is so close to a cure, its amazing. Gene therapy and the blood stem cell change of the ccr5 receptor shows much promise. If people are going to have sex, which they do, then I would support a condom. Especially africa where HIV is running rampant.
Yeah I agree, it covers my escape until I was in my late teens and then graduated HS.
"Cases like where schools or work places allow followers of Islam to do things, but when christians want to do something, its Bloody murder."
Citation needed
"Yeah I agree, it covers my escape until I was in my late teens and then graduated HS."
Good for you. I am glad to see you were able to find a safe place and a school was able to provide it for you.
Soooo sneaky, so very sneaky ;) To which of course is followed up with:
Yep, the persecution claim! :/ Yes, public schools are persecuting Christians from teaching disingenuous pseudoscience, and not just persecuting the teaching of stupid (pseudoscience), or religiously disingenuous pseudoscience.. I pretty much see your argument here as a bad attempt at blurring the lines.
Now if you have a problem with other religions being able to do things like pray outside of class, or wearing head scarfs or religious symbols ect, I would be right there with you if they are preventing you from doing so. *I agree..Citation needed*
But this isn't the subject at all is it? Hence, you are deflecting and contradicting your own arguments.
Actually that is not true. Many sects disagree on primary issues. Some believe the Bible is a perversion of Jesus.. Some believe Jesus and GOD are the same being, some believe they are not the same being. Orthodox believe in the trinity, and oddly Pantheism at the same time. I could sit here all day listing things.. Every Christian sect will say they are the real Christians and that they have it right!. The Jews and Muslims will also say that they have it all right.. All believing in their own versions of an Abrahamic religion. And then you have Deists and other various religions.. So you can feel free to prove who's right and who's wrong here. Well, you can't at all! That requires actual process that involves actually substantiating your position.
So just picking and choosing what you want to believe in will magically be truth? Now I am all for kids taking their own time out of the Public school system to explore other views ect..But bringing religious pseudoscience into a science class is just nonsensical.
And yet the magic way seems to be the argument isn't it? So teaching kids to be willfully ignorant in science for sake of religion out to be an option in public schools? Seriously? Maybe we should start teaching pseudo English, Math, History, Art ect. Maybe we will get smarter if we believe 4+2 is 9 :/ If you need to teach a kid to willfully ignorant, there is a major problem your belief system. It's that simple.
A day is not determined by Darkness. It's determined by Earth rotation on it's axis in relation to it's orbital path around the sun. And we can still conceptualize a day just by implementing time measurement systems. A better question would be how do you invent darkness or light.. Without one there is only the other. That alone is a little creationist quagmire.
Walk in a closet and shut off the light.
Kinda kills the creation argument doesn't it? This same argument is applicable to anything with a consciousness or state of awareness.. See the interesting thing here is, all creation we know of is related to real world observations and the manipulation and duplication of in creative abstract ways. ;)
And choices can not be made without first available information to be observed, processed, analyzed, and then realized to the point where you can form a conscious event we call a choice. Hence, you must first sense, process, and then realize the fork in the road before any choices can be weighed and executed. Welcome to a complex adaptive system with positive, negative, and neutral informational feedback. Or welcome to systems theory :)
This is pretty much one of many ways of how I also come to understand religion, Creationism, The Flat Earth Society, or those who will tell you that Earth is blowing up.. :)
This is pretty much the difference between Atheism and religion.
To be honest Damon, I think that is a very honest and reasonable answer. I would say I only have one disagreement with you in all of your responses and that would be about teaching the other side of what may be true, because to me, even if god were true it doesn't belong in a science classroom which s asked on the scientific method. That would be my only rebuttal to your responses. I actually really don't mind if kids pray to themselves in school, I've actually personally never witnessed it but I don't think it would ever bother me as its not something that is forced upon them and is clearly a personal thing. Also, I've never actually seem any special treatment towards Islam or any other religion in public schools, but if there was I would clearly think its wrong as you seem to as well.
I feel no need to tear you down or call you names based on your responses because for the most part they aren't infringing on anything minus the bit you said about teaching the other side but I already addressed that. We could sit here and argue about why religion is dumb and why it's harmful and unnecessary, which we did before, but there is no point as like I said the only thing that matters to me is keeping religion out of government and school systems. What people want to believe privately in their own homes is completely up to them.
To be honest Damon, I think that is a very honest and reasonable answer. I would say I only have one disagreement with you in all of your responses and that would be about teaching the other side of what may be true, because to me, even if god were true it doesn't belong in a science classroom which is based on the scientific method. That would be my only rebuttal to your responses. I actually really don't mind if kids pray to themselves in school, I've actually personally never witnessed it but I don't think it would ever bother me as its not something that is forced upon them and is clearly a personal thing. Also, I've never actually seen any special treatment towards Islam or any other religion in public schools, but if there was I would clearly think its wrong as you seem to as well.
I feel no need to tear you down or call you names based on your responses because for the most part they aren't infringing on anything minus the bit you said about teaching the other side but I already addressed that. We could sit here and argue about why religion is dumb and why it's harmful and unnecessary, which we did before, but there is no point as like I said the only thing that matters to me is keeping religion out of government and school systems. What people want to believe privately in their own homes is completely up to them no matter how much I disagree with them.
Just know that we non believers are very strong n our views just like you are so we can definitely get frustrated and hot headed sometimes when things aren't adding up, just know that we aren't hateful people and our goal is not to destroy religion but to keep it in its place. It would be unconstitutional for me to tell you you cannot believe in god, I have no desire to do that. It's important we discuss religion and not treat it as a taboo that is immune from criticism. More now than ever, religion in this world has become extremely dangerous when interpreted by extreme fundamentalists, making it easy for one crazy person to cause harm to millions. We must get to the root of this problem and destroy it. Right now this problemis the violent interpretation of the Koran (not sure there is another way of interpreting it).
Jackel, I think many Christians would think they would be giving up part of themselves because modern day Christians are so wrapped up in their rituals and symbolism they miss the overall point. This is no different than 2K + years ago when the actions referenced in the NT were influenced by a multitude of ancient Greek mythological Gods that represented almost every physical action of their life.
The result for early Christians was they still secretly worshiped these gods while still attempting to practice their new faith i.e. hedging their bets. Most of the harsh word of the NT were a reference to this, where as today's Christians try to paint it as the immorality of society today. The problem with modern Christians is they still buy into what's written without ever really understanding what was written or why and when taken literally which many do, it comes across real close the Hatfield's and McCoy's. They act as if they do not do what someone they never met told them to do a bolt of lightning will strike them dead. Being wound so tightly isn't as important as portrayed by many because they miss out on the main focus of the NT which is peace.
The hell fire and brimstone folks like to bring OT law and intertwine it with NT gospel and use it as a club to beat the unknowing into submission. I see the same behavior from atheist who wish to prove their point and I guess with good reason, if they can do it why can't I? For many Christians you see this played out in the political arena regarding the death penalty. They use OT eye for an eye to justify behavior while ignoring the NT. This is one example of the hypocrisy that's been practiced for centuries specifically by Christians and society. Of course they also don't have a problem killing people while defending their stance on abortion or denigrating black citizens because created equal didn't include blacks. There's a litany of sins I could list but I don't have that much time. These are just a few reasons life for Christians is the way it is.
The love that is expressed in the OT & NT is overshadowed by the actions of humans both in the scripture as written, throughout history and including today, in short, it's evil. For me personally American politics and the hypocrisy portrayed by the presidential candidates mentioned above (plus a few more) is a black eye for America and humanity.
I'm not supporting your position on being an atheist, just expressing my frustration with Christians and probably at a minimum validating why you probably take your stance. With that said, my faith is still my own. It's difficult to forgive my brothers and sisters at times and that includes believers and non-believers. In the whole scheme of things on the issue of morality and myself a business person, it's easier doing business with non-Christians. To be succinct my worst business dealing are with professed Christians. Maybe I stand where Anj is on the issue, I expect more. God's command is that I love them, I'm not required to like them.
SailCat, I thought I would mention I didn't watch the British doc. video. I grew up in the deep south, I've lived it.
Then you probably know what it contains; "How could an African American person evolve from a white person? We have different skeen!"
It really is painful to watch.
LedZepp94,
He's been pushing the Creationist movement for quite some time now. So I don't think he's going to actually agree with you. When I said that Creationism was a movement / war on science, logic, and reason, I wasn't kidding. It's a real religious political and governmental movement. Those who organize the movement are indeed trying to install a religious theocracy. They are the same movement to which is also attempting to blur the lines between Church and state. They are the same movement that claims this to be a Christian Nation.
To put this into perspective, Creationism is primarily a theocritus American Christian movement. Their major goal is to indoctrinate science so it no-longer questions the supposed authority of the religious cult. If they can dumb down the populous into pure blind and confused ignorance, they can have an easier time targeting them for indoctrination, and installing a religious Christian theocracy.
Actually, the OT law is not abolished in the NT. The NT is more about enforcing it while trying to sound a little more polite about it. And there is nobody saying you can't try and prove your point. However, proving your point is going to be rather quite difficult :/
Except that the OT law was never abolished:
It's more about fulfilling it. Though the NT is more about trying to win hearts and minds as if the OT never existed, or as if Christians that still go by the OT aren't Christians anymore. The other problem with this is that when a religion seeks the need to change it's premises and laws, it becomes abundantly more clear that it's really just a self-contradiction. As if the NT will make everything wrong in the OT ok!. But the reality is that it really doesn't. And it doesn't change the fact that the actual GOD in both are the same Volcano/fire GOD.. That's the nature of Christianity's polytheistic roots.
Though I don't have a problem with religions evolving into peaceful one's. That would surely be the best case scenario anyone can realistically hope for :)
Now my Atheist stance comes from a wide range of things to which include logical deduction, applying infinite regress, science, philosophy, theology, geology, anthropology, cosmology, archeology, knowing what the bible says, knowing the religions polytheistic roots, information theory, systems theory, set theory, and through the simple use of critical thinking.. I didn't just dismiss my faith on a whim, or do to any one particular thing. :)
But I do believe that I could never ban religion.. That would be just as bad as trying to install a theocracy.
I have seen Black Parents give birth to a White child also twins, one white one black
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3060907/Black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/twins-black-and-white
Were all one Race, Human
http://patriotupdate.com/articles/aclu-okay-with-prayer-in-public-schools-muslim-prayer-that-is
Take note of the 4th paragraph down
http://www.persecution.org/2007/07/29/jay-sekulow-of-aclj-warns-christians-to-act-now/
Jay sekulow Has done alot to fight for religious freedoms in schools. Land marked cases that ruled in his favor. To allow faith based groups to be able to gather at schools. This did open the door to allow ALL groups be able to do such things now. Muslims, hindus, atheist groups as well. Which I am fine with it all. People have the right to get together and form their group. But like in that second article, when other religious groups are allowed to do certain things, and christians can not, then there becomes an issue of discrimination, persecution.
I was reading about Jackel Prions, found a different view point form what I read on his web page.
http://creation.com/prions-and-evolution
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/01/09/news-to-note-01092010
4. BBC News: "'Lifeless' Prion Proteins Are 'Capable of Evolution'"
Can non-life evolve? Scientists at the Scripps Research Institute have discovered that infectious protein particles called prions can adapt to new environments and compete with one another.
Prions, known for their role in causing diseases such as "mad cow," are similar to viruses in that they are not alive, yet are able to replicate themselves through the assistance of a host. Specifically, abnormal (disease-causing) prions multiply by corrupting normal prions in the body.
In the Scripps study, scientists transferred prions from brain cells to other cells. Some prions successfully "adapted" and quickly overran other prions. However, when transferred back to brain cells, the prions that had adapted were unable to compete, and the prions still suited for brain cells became dominant again.
Scripps' Charles Weissmann explained, "On the face of it, you have exactly the same process of mutation and adaptive change in prions as you see in viruses. This means that this pattern of Darwinian evolution appears to be universally active."
Are the prions "evolving"? We echo Weissmann in that, "on the surface," it would be fair to consider the prion population in the experiment to be "evolving"—in the sense of "changing" based on a selective process. However, we note, first, that even the simplest single-celled life-forms are astoundingly complex compared to prions, and, second, the way the prions are "adapting" is by corrupting other prions more rapidly—which does not sound like a constructive equivalent of the information-adding mutations Darwinists need evolution to produce. Thus, even if we assume that no minority of "adapted" prions was in the experimental population to begin with, prion evolution offers a poor analogy to Darwin's eons-long process.
-----------------------------------------------
creation agrees with darwinian natural Selection, of animals making small changes over time to adapt to their environment, but Darwins theory doesnt not show macro evolution of a species turning into a complete different species. As for prions showing any type of proof for goo to man, there is none there. Prion doesnt contain dna, we do, so until there is observable proof of prions all of a sudden gaining dna , then a prion is just what is stated in the links above.
"I have seen Black Parents give birth to a White child also twins, one white one black"
Really, Damon? You have been persistently quoting a book with such little credibility as the bible that I shouldn't be surprised you would use a tabloid newspaper as a resource.
The sound you hear is that of people laughing at, not with, you. I mean, damn.
Umm no we are not. The article you cited is interesting because it paints it religious, and if you haven't noticed, there is no paper on genetics concerning the subject. Hence, it's far more likely that someone else watered the inner lawn ;) Also, it's funny that they claim it's not an albino, and yet it appears to be so:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/108-1128170259-albino_african_americans.jpg
Has the same eye and hair discoloration to which are key elements of black albino babies.
But even if they had a white born child, it's not beyond the possible in genetics to have recessive genes or mutations to produce white children.. It's not one Race sir, we are still very much one species. Worse yet, what you would be showing me here is direct evidence of evolution... This white baby will grow up still having her black parents basic features like the albino I showed you above. Also we have this:
Many dark people from the Pacific have naturally blonde hair:
Now the challenge here Damon is to find me a Black family giving birth to an Asian child ;) Or two white parents giving birth to an Asian child, or two Asians giving birth to a white child.
Um sail cat, it is documented proof and fact that these did happen. This is something that can not be denied.
Documented examples of fraternal twins being “black” and “white” include:
The parents of the Hodgson-Horder twins were mixed race parents and each carried the genes for a blonde child. The parents of the Higgs twins are also of mixed race parentage. I can, therefore, certainly deny any credibility from the nonsense you gleaned from No Answers in Genesis.
I hear that sound again.
Umm prions were never considered living.. The paper I cited on it shows how prions, even though not living, are evolving.. Their article is quite wrong on so many levels. Sorry, but your article fails entirely!
What's worse is that the article you cited thinks evolution entails success.. Sorry son, but adaptations to one thing does not mean something will no result in failure in another thing. Just like any code, a change in the code can fix a bug here while at the same time break something else over there. And when putting them back in braincells you put them in an environment they didn't adapt to.. So no duh in concerning the results!.. All you did was prove the premises of evolution! GJ!
And then they shoot themselves in the foot with this:
LOL.. Oh and then comes the apologetic:
Sorry, this is taking the situation out of context in terms of evolution.. And worst of all, you don't need to add or remove information at all to have an evolutionary change! This is where you Creationists are clueless in terms of genetics and information theory. You only need information to change function, order in chains, value, or purpose. No different that what would happen if you changed a line in software code from this: 110010 to this 0110010.
You can not tell me if the difference in code will fix a bug, break the software, or contain any more information that the other. In fact you can not even tell me if there is a loss or gain of information. Also the complexity argument in creationism when it concerns genetic information is that they argue you can't add more information or support it due to limits of code..
Well, that is easy to debunk.. 26 letters can give you an entire library of knowledge. And that pales in comparison to what you can find in biochemistry. To put it simply, Creationists are full of crap ;)
We are one race :D
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html
I had a creation magazine, that has a picture of a black woman with asain eyes, Both parents black but she had the almond shaped eyes , extra fatty tissue around eyes.
Human body does adapt to environment, Skin can become darker, or lighter, more fat around eyes, or less fat. Nevertheless, despite any change we make, were still human. Natural Selection, micro evolution, small changes with species, but never into a complete new one.
So to put this simply for Damon, in the most simplest of terms possible, evolution simply means "change", and it matters not what change that is, or how big or small of a change occurs. It matters not if it's successful, or fails... All that needs to occur is a change to take place. if you google the human genome, you will find that the human genome is still changing! Evolution also doesn't mean there need be a split in species or have speciation occur! But if you need evidence of that you can look up speciation in salamanders, and exactly what entails speciation.
And the "Kinds" argument is rather hilarious giving I can just break that down to plant vs animal and still move the goal post dishonestly to carbon based living organisms! Thus everything is of "one" kind lol.. No we go by genetics and changes in biochemistry and adaptive behaviors ect sir!.
Looks are not the issue. It's genetic differences. And sorry, Asians can be classified just by the bone structures alone. What you are doing is trying to cherry pick to make an argument while failing terribly at doing so.. It's genetics sir!
And we have Captain Obvious here!
Again, this is complete and utter ignorance. There is zero difference between micro evolution and macro evolution other than time scales... What's worse is that people like you only want to agree with micro evolution while failing to understand that it is often micro evolution that can cause difference in physical shapes, soft body tissues ect when macro evolution would be considered multiple such changes over long periods of time that can result in speciation to where the genetic differences are so great that the two ends of a split species can no longer breed. I even posted a video on this. And I suspect you didn't bother to watch it, or read the information I provided you long ago in this debate. Before you respond, I suggest you do a bit more research and really take the time to understand what you are attempting to argue. :/
On that note I may have to watch but it still isn't going to be a surprise.
As the product of a Southern Baptist background, I recognize the children in the video as the same sort of kids I grew up with. They are not bad kids at all, but they are the also the products of their upbringing. The roots of religious ignorance run deep in their psyches and it is being reinforced, sadly, by at least some of their instructors in school, including their science teacher, unfortunately. The children you see in the film will find obtaining a higher education a struggle when they finally confront the fact the rest of the world does not necessarily accept their narrowly defined religious views as valid or useful.
This is probably an agree to disagree before we start but I'll try. In regard to the fulfill comment by Jesus, this was stating fulfill what was written, which is many OT verses defining his coming. The problem the Jewish scholars were having more so than his disciples was their interpretation of savior, which was a king with spiritual and ruling authority to rescue them from Roman control or any other ruling party they may be subjected to. The birth of Jesus was never intended to change the OT and nothing was changed other than people were no longer required to give sacrifices. The Crucifixion was a one time act of forgiveness for all, for eternity.
I think you're mixing what is written with the acts of people and the message becomes convoluted as it did with the disciples.
Luke 24: 27
In v.24 he states,
I did the verses in reverse because it's easy to pick "to fulfill the prophets" and expound on a few words and still stick to what you already choose to believe. Before v. 27 was spoken Jesus knew that what was spoken in V. 24 would still hold true after speaking v.27. They had their ideas of what was suppose to happen based on what they wanted despite what the OT scripture stated.
Winning hearts and minds via NT doesn't negate the OT believers. The OT states you are my people. The NT states all of you are my people. Nothing is contradictory.
We as humans can be pretty incongruous when we want to see only our point of view as the correct way. So, when science see's the need to change position on scientific law what do you call it?
Christians and non-Christians use the term **doubting Thomas** as if it's a bad thing to doubt what's written or stated as viewed as faithful. Jesus never looked at Thomas in this manner, actually his continued questioning was appreciated.
I've come to believe many Christians love the smell of sh^t because every time someone like Camping pulls something out of their a** people follow without a question.
Dang fellas... Still at it...?
Figured this was a fire that was all but out. What's keeping it burning? Obstinance?
Sorry for getting disrespectful with my last few posts, but it was feeling like there was simply no actual exchange of useful data taking place between the two sides.
At any rate... Battle on fellas. I'm heading out to greener pastures.
I check in everyonce in a while just to see if this lunacy has stopped yet.
I used to try and debate the Religious Nut Jobs...
Here's what I finally concluded after many frustrated attempts at a Logical Debate....
Trying to debate using logic and facts will never work on a person who believes in something which defies all logic and certainly is not dependent on any facts whatsoever, unless of course you consider a book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of goat herders to be factual....?
They have museums depicting pre-historic human civilizations with backdrops showing Jurassic and Cambrian Period animals playing peacefully together.
To them the Dinosaurs died because Noah couldn't get them into the boat, apparently they were too big....!
This type of lunacy is what they would like to see taught in our public schools to your children...
Chuckie, You capitalize "Logical Debate" as if your input adds importance to the thread.
Yes you did, now don't give up, keep trying. You'll make your mama proud one day.
314TINy, I can't say if my input added importance to this thread or not nor do I care, however I am just as certain that you believe that your input did add importance.
Which is of course the true mark of a Delusional Individual. You have successfully deluded yourself (probably not the first time)...
Congratulations are in order lets all hear if for Tiny, people...
The difference between what you posted and what I think of you have the same value. I have no need or am I inclined to tell others how to live their lives. Of all the ills that exist with Christianity there's also lots of goodwill and good intention. Many atheist are like you and do nothing more than promote ill will. It isn't only here regarding Christians where you choose to do so, you do so wherever you go.
If teaching creation in class was as bad as Christians chose to be then I think most could live with it. They're no different than atheists who choose to look at anything which may have religious undertones and view it as they have been harmed. If your interest is for the good of humanity then exert a little effort in this direction.
I'm not aware of any atheist groups driving hundreds of miles to assist in a natural disaster in the US or any involvement in poverty relief. Atheists for World Relief or Atheists Habitat for Humanity? Maybe I'm ignorant to what you do in an effort to support your cause but any example left by you to date has been rather pathetic. You probably do as much for the Atheistic cause as Camping does for Christianity.
In my Christian faith and my spiritual walk I was taught to respect the rights of others and abide by the laws of the US Constitution. I don't believe in abortion but I believe in a person's right to have an abortion if they choose. I'm not gay but I believe gay rights and the equal rights of gays which includes gay marriage. I've already stated my views on classroom studies if you care to read it. If the most you have to offer against me as a member of world humanity is my Christian faith and you choose to harbor resentments because of, then you are the delusional one.
There's really no point in being redundant, trolling is what trolling is. Your inability to decipher importance? Enough said!
Tiny read back, I have never attacked or assailed Christians, as a singularly reprehensible group.
I rebuke Religious Nut Jobs (RNJ's), Jews, Muslims any people that attend or claim to be a part of a group which has a common dogma and/or doctrine, preached to by a leader or all knower.
If you feel (obviously?) that you are a RNJ, then yes I am talking about you...
You mention all of the good that your particular religion does, what about children starving, because some ^-hole in the middle of Italy won't sanction birth control across poor Catholic nations, diseases brought to native tribes by missionaries, Oh I could go on and on...?
Ole Popey happens to believe as you probably do, in the Divine Jewish Zombie...
Tiny,
Another thing, millions of people give to charitable organizations all over this country and around the world that do no belong to a religious group. Religious groups that narcissistically have put thier particular religion's name and belief type in BOLD type on the check so to as to say" Hey Look At Us", We are the only people that care about you...
So I suppose in that lght maybe you are right, you are not aware of Atheists doing charitable work, but it certainly does not mean that non-religous secular peoples don't give and contribute, and I would argue at least impirically, probably more than all the religious groups on Earth put together, especially since we out number you.
Its the old erroneous Religious argument that you can't be a good person unless you believe what I believe, so Achmed (or Zacharia), I'll do you a favor and blow up you and your tent....
Same diatribe Chuckline, You say you didn't include me but you did. There's only been about six posters on this #1 comment/thread for the last few days so you did include me when you opened with your ignorance yesterday.
No religious and atheist are not the same!!! Plenty of people do not subscribe to atheistic views yet also do not support organised religion but they may believe in a God. Read my comment again about who I am. If I call myself a Christian I'm not Rev. Camping. Plenty of people donate to charities who don't attend church services regularly or ever, I know this. What do you contribute? This is rhetorical, no response required. Your comments have been 100% derogatory!! A troll is a troll!!
PS. Most checks are required to have the name of the organization or signer. Their intent isn't for you or I to judge.
my314tin,
I do not hold contempt for you per se, male or female I know not, but you do seem like a caring and moderate person and I'm relatively certain that in your sphere of religiousness you maybe somewhat of an outcast. If you have taken my comments to heart and felt personally maligned then I appologize to you.
There are peoples of all ideological and religious persuasions in the world today, maybe someday we can all agree to live together in a world without having to push our belief systems on others, have laws passed to force others to live our religious beliefs or kill people in the name of God...
This I Pray for...
CHuckline,
Than you. I apologize for being harsh also. As I stated earlier, if you read what I have posted up-thread then you will see I have some similar views as people who claim to be an atheist and it just means there are things we can agree on. I'm not hurt by your comment because my position is that I accept people who have different views. I attempt to approach daily living with tolerance for others.
I think our country was founded on the primary premise that religion would not be used to dictate government policy and the constitution seems to make that clear in my interpretation. I don't think I'm an outcast where I worship and I think many would like me to be more involved but church politics is similar to any other politics and I usually step away for fresh air.
I'm sure I cause eyes to roll especially if I challenge an idea that's critical or judgmental of others from a standpoint of "we are correct" or any other narrow view presented. I don't like rubbing shoulders with people who may confess to being a slumlord and seem to be proud of it or anyone who starts a conversation, "I was listening to Rush...." These conversations usually end quickly with me asking an open ended question, "Why...?"
If there is one item that causes more divisive attitudes and emotions it's money. It makes people and especially church people very ugly. It is the one topic in the NT that's discussed or referred to more than any other.
We may disagree on how to approach the matter but we agree on lots.
Peace!
Bill gates and warren Buffett are agnostic and have pledged together over 125 billion dollars. That's more than any religious organization could ever dream of even touching. The thing is their donations don't come with an asterisk. They are simply devoted to the cause rather than well...you can have this money buy you have to come to this missionary everyday and pray. Read the first chapter of the old testament and then we will feed you.
But its never about how much a person gives. They have the excess money to give away. Im not saying they give it away just because they have nothing better to do with it, or just as a tax write off. I thank them for all the giving they have done. That is very kind of them. Its a show of sacrifice to give something up to help others. The bible made it quite clear when in this verse
The Widow’s Offering
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
People do this with or without religion ect.. And sorry, the scripture you posted can not be substantiated as anything a supposed man named Jesus had said. There is actually zero evidence to even show Jesus even existed much less have said anything at all. It's pretty funny that a GOD man can't even write his own supposed philosophies down. Regardless, this is pretty common in terms of human actions and behavior. People sacrifice all the time for the greater good at a huge cost to themselves. There is nothing in the bible to which can be used to validate it's fallacies. And there is so much in the bible that contradicts the very scripture you posted.
Coming from the same supposed Jesus that tells people that if they not love him more than their families, or themselves is not worthy of being his disciple... Fun stuff!
And you must realize that in the Bible, sacrifice is in regards to those of the religion. It's about supporting the religious ideology no matter how poor you are. As if it's honorable to say it's a good thing that the poor give everything to support the religious ideology. Hence give everything to love Jesus!.. err I mean the Religion and those capitalizing on it! The bible manipulates the concept of sacrifice to the point where it's about brainwashing people to sacrifice and submit their entire lives to the ideology / cult. It's about worshiping power and control, and freely devoting your lives and everything you have to that. It has very little to do with actually treating your fellow man with love and respect. That only comes as a concept if the fellow man, or woman submits their lives to the ideology.. Nothing has changed in terms of the Bibles positions on non-believers, gays, ect.
Jackel only those with their hearts opened by Christ can fully understand. Your doesnt seem to be, so I dont expect you to understand any of it.
I have am well aware of the whole debate of If Jesus existed or not. This is nothing but another attack from you, and many others, to try to point out something that is not true.No doubt you will post your billions links to show your point, I can give you all my links to show evidence for it. So do me a favor , dont bother posting them, I wont look at them, as I am already aware about the debates.
These debates are nothing more then reduced to attack on Christianity. I done my part here, and that was to plant the seeds.
1 Corinthians 3:6-10 (KJV)
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
When your heart is opened by Christ then maybe well have a debate again. You also could be influenced by a Demon Jackel.
16 Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. 17 She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” 18 She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.
Its not too late my friend. Get to church and accept Christ into your heart. Find a good healthy church that can help you find the answers you seek. Pray to God for some wisdom and let the holy spirit help guide you to find truth in life. I really do pray you will come around one day. All I can do is plant the seeds, I hope they grow :D May you find the Love of God, God Bless.
Alright... Jeez, why do I keep reading these things... I know why, it's because I can't stand lies and deceit. I absolutely, positively despise lies and deceit.
Damon, I see that you are fully aware of the debate about whether or not Jesus was an actual person or not. I've been on many of the Christian websites that claim to have proof of Jesus' historical existence. I think your group's favorite argument is the writings of Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews".
It's your favorite proof of the historical Jesus, and it's been discredited time and time again as a fraud. Nothing more than a bad forgery that's been accepted as a bad forgery for almost a hundred years. Yet... Out it trots anytime someone questions the authenticity of Jesus.
You know my stance. I think the story of Jesus is just another retelling of the story of the Egyptian God, Horus. Go on... Keep telling yourself that he's real. Does it make you feel good. Lying to yourself. Committing fraud against yourself. Is life really that unendurable that people have to defraud and con themselves just for the sake of feeling like they are a part of a greater thing?
You are a part of a greater thing, you know. You don't need to have a fictional friend in the sky who's preparing your post-life retirement in paradise. You're a part of the human race. The greatest achievement of life on this planet in 3 billion years. The top. If life on this planet were in High School, then humans would be the King and Queens of the Prom. We are the Alphas on this planet.
That's pretty great, I think. My question for all those who insist on defrauding themselves is this: Why isn't that good enough for all of you?
"Jackel only those with their hearts opened by Christ can fully understand."
Which is just another way of saying if you are capable of willful self-delusion you are equally capable of believing any lie, myth, or unsubstantiated fairy tale a cult can feed to you.
Or are my interpretations of your shameless ravings going to be viewed as putting words in your mouth again, Damon?
The point to be made in the verses regarding the woman giving can probably be compared to to Gates, Buffet and anyone with views as theirs "vs" The Walton's and anyone with views such as their's.
The wealthy who gave 10% though they were better than the widow. It isn't the giving, it's how we think and feel about our giving. $1 to a poor person may be a $million to a wealthy person but what a person thinks when giving is the focus. As I stated in my comment to Chuckline, money is the topic referred to more than any other in the NT and for the same reasons then as today.
When a religious organization or church will spend millions to prevent a ballot measure allowing gay marriage I view it as utter corruption.
No anjisan not Joseph, I am well aware of his writingsas well. I have seen the long lenghty debates, been in many myself. I dont expect the unsaved or people who reject Christ to understand any of all of this. As i said im not debating anymore, open hearts to christ and you will see. Thats all i have to say anymore on here and all I will say .. God bless :D
Hey, Its almost Halloween. Right now is the perfect time to talk about Zombies.
Hey, sort of like Jesus the Jewish Zombie...
Before you RNJ zombie worshipers get all worked up,... this from WikiPedia:
Zombie is a term used to denote an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means...
Kind of fits the bill, I think, don't you..?
Zombies. Human sacrifice. Magic tricks. Hysterics. There is little to distinguish christianity from a B grade horror move and they both have equal credibility or lack thereof.
Back on the subject of charity, as mentioned previously religious charities rarely give anything without huge burdens and even the possibility of death attached.
How many So American Native cultures have been destroyed by RNJs binging the word of Jesus to them, along with a loss of culture and a host of diseases for which the natives have no immunity.
I'm sure (and I've heard) that many missionaries were quick to point out that at least they died as Christian soles and therefore would enjoy the kingdom of heaven.
Hey RNJ's, keep your misguided missionaries at home, native peoples don't need you, they have lived for thousands of years worshipping (as ignorant people are want to do) their own non-sense of gods and illogical beliefs.
Yours is not better or more logical, nor is it any more truthful, all religions are borne of ignorance and continue out of the fear of extreme consequences. If charity requires me to accept a Zombie as my saviour than I'll just hand you your money back. Use it to build yourself a new temple or some statues...
On a different subject, or perhaps closer to the original topic, Camping declares defeat and admits he cannot predict the date of the second coming of his imaginary deity, although he cannot quite bring himself to admit he is a con man and that his cult is just a load of preposterous nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9yQjClu7k8&feature=feedu
It is a long, rambling semi-apology that, in the end, merely passes the blame for Camping's egregious "error" onto his imaginary friend by claiming, in effect, his god is unknowable. Camping also claims his deity is merciful, too, which makes me think the mummified old fool is indulging in a bit of wishful thinking after he clearly defrauded millions of dollars from deluded believers whom Camping suckered into his scheme.
I just sent an email to Camping's organization giving them the benefit of my disgust at his con and the damage he inflicted upon deluded christians. I encourage all of you to express your opinions of Camping, his religious empire, and his con game. There is a link under the video I posted above.
It's probably like Ole Popey (Patron Saint and Protector of Child Molestors) back in 1992, when he finally forgave Galileo for being excommuncated and all of the persecution including imprisonment, all because Galileo made oulandish claims, like the Earth is not at the center of the Universe and that there were heavenly bodies he referred to as planets including Earth which orbited the Sun one of many stars within an uncountable galaxy of stars.
Its difficult to imagine how many times Religion has been proven wrong only to hear RNJs say that it has never happened. Yet everytime religion has been at odds with science and normal observation religion has been wrong.
Fortunately for our society these inconsistencies with real world knowledge and observations do not go unnoticed and therefore religion is and has been suffering and dying a slow death for centuries.
When religions are finally relegated to the dustbin of history the world will be free of its tyranny, unfortunately in uneducated countries it will take longer and even more unfortunate we rely on these uneducated RNJ populaces for a major component of our worlds economy...
GodSpeed...
yes getting back to topic would be nice :D What amazes me most about this guy, is he is supposed to be really knowledged in the bible. He spent all of his life preaching and teaching, and yet he would dare make a bold prediction about end times? Regardless of your belief in the bible or not, the point being is that it says no man shall know when Jesus will return. Also to watch out for false prophets. How could camping believe he could predict end times, if he knew the bible.
Then again you got people who Believe gabriel of Sedona ( think hes moved now ) who started a whole new cult and people believe him to be some star seed of some alien life. I seen a Dateline interview with him, and you want to talk about crazy.. Watch him some time.
Umm no it can't.. I can be subject to comparison to free mercenary, and Scientology or any cult to where it's seen as a positive that the poorest give everything and the wealthy do not into the religious ideology.. Note the scripture you are talking about deals with supporting the ideology, and the religious foundations and it's followers. Has nothing to do with the concept of general charity. Hence, this doesn't include giving to people who worship other GOD's ect. The bible specifically tells you not to support or let such people into your homes. It's about supporting those who follow the religion, and more specifically those at the top of the chain.
Religion is a multi-billion dollar industry that rivals even the oil industry. And you will notice that most of the money is kept at the top, and the remainder is mostly spent on trying to indoctrinate as many people as possible. You have missionaries that use their charity as a means to convert and convince people to believe as they do. That is largely what the NT is about. It doesn't change the fact that its about worshiping an IDOL's Narcasistic Ego.
religion has always been a corruption. By doctrine it's corrupt. Yeah, beating or killing slaves isn't corrupt at all (/sarcasm):
But let's really get to the point of what the bible is about in terms of becoming GOD's servants, or Jesus's disciples / servants..:
The bible is largely about teaching dangerously blind obedience to power and their lords [governors]. It's a theme repeated, and repeated, and repeated throughout the entire bible.
But hey, if you treat your slave ok by feeding them, they should obediently be happy being slaves right! ???
You know what's funny.. There is no specifics in terms of what the end of times is supposed to be.. End of existence? End of the Universe? End of Time? End of the human species? .. Of course it doesn't. And what's worse is that it's blatantly obvious that the end of Earth and the human species will come regardless! Religion plays on this no duh prediction as a conversion tool. Join now or you will face the wrath of the end of the world!....
Let me just say that if an Asteroid the size of our Moon was about to slam into us, I still wouldn't convert!! But the crazies will be screaming Rapture! Judgement!!! while I am just thinking: Yeah were dead, a big f-ing Asteroid is about to destroy Earth entirely. And I might even find solace in knowing that all the crazies are going down with me.
TheJackel,
Do you have any idea what you are reading when you are posting these scripture verses or are you mimicking Camping's followers in literal reading comprehension/thinking?
Actually I do.. And No, I am not mimicking Camping's followers... And of course there are lot's of Christians that like to self-invent meanings by proclaiming much of scripture to be metaphoric, abstract, suggestive ect in an attempt to play apologetic, or to skew it in order to rationalize what's written. If I was one of Camping's followers, I wouldn't think this stuff is nonsense.. And you can only honestly take what's written in literal context since you have no means to validate or substantiate anything was intended otherwise.. No where in the bible does it say "Oh, this is metaphorical".. Once you open such things to self-inventive interpretation, it becomes meaningless. So you follow the words, the context as is, and the definitions of the words being used unless there is explicit clarification of metaphorical use. Otherwise we can just say the whole damn bible is metaphorical and useless. So is this just a cherry picking game? Probably eh. And well, there are thousands of Christian sects out there with their own conceptual interpretations.
Example:
So many Christians want to play self-inventive interpretations of this. Many of them adding context and words that aren't even in the above scripture in attempt to change the meaning or context. But surely all literal context must be avoided because we know exactly how far that will go in reality. No where!
You are not going to cure world starvation via praying to Jesus no matter how much you believe. And no, the mountain will not be lifted and tossed into the sea literally. Or metaphorically in terms of hardship unless you yourself does something about it.. Jesus isn't going to come flying down to do it for you, nor will he be tossing mountains into the sea.
But I tell you this, I am sure millions of people pray for world hunger to stop.. Perhaps one of you can make it stop by noon tomorrow.. when you are confronted with reality such as this:
You really do realize the BS in religion pretty quickly. I will give respect to the man that gives another starving man a sandwich. I will not give respect to a man that prays for someone else to give a starving man a sandwich while expecting his prayer to do the work. As if Jesus will come down a feed him for him. I have even less respect for a Man that prays and then thanks GOD or Jesus for whenever another man feeds a starving man. As if his prayer was answered and all the credit goes to him and his imaginary invisible father. Religion steals peoples work, effort, sacrifices and gives that credit to their invisible father. It's such disingenuous bs.. I have absolutely no respect for. And I am not referring to the context where you wish or hope someone well when you can do nothing, or are unable to do anything at all.
Only thing you can do is just pray for him and give him blessings my314tin.
I pray that Jesus will get in there and soften up that hardened heart. Jesus does love you Jackel.
I do not know Jackel, but he doesn't seem to have a hardened heart at all his wording while firm does not sound condemning nor particularly damning.
He does however seem to have a firm grip on logic and seems to be able to interpret scripture pretty much just as it is written, unlike what most Religous people.
When confronted with logic Religious people have great difficulty.
I'm sure that Christians are not happy being lumped in with Moslems, Jews etc, and vice versa, because every religion believes that only theirs is the TRUE religion and those other guys are going to hell, but they all have a few things in common.
So here's some things that all religions have in common:
Religions were invented by men for men (the gender not the species).
In Islam women are not much better than animals, they can't vote, drive cars or even get an education. In catholicism they are Nuns(servants) to serve the priests, the best a Nun can hope for is to become head servant. In all of christianity women are reviled. In the old testament (Jew book) women are responsible for getting men kicked out of the garden of Eden. The new testament mentions women only as Whores and servants with the lone exception of Mary Virgin Mother of what is now Jesus our Zombie saviour.
Religion was created and of course used by powerful and wealthy men to enrich themselves and thus control masses of people ravaged by poverty with little hope of a decent life. Listen guys we can create a belief system with rewards that these poor bastards only receive after they die, and we can demand goods or servitude from them until they die and shrivel up (see Jackel's biblical quotes above), like the Good Reverend Camping did. No surprise that Jesus just happened to be a poor carpenter, and he found redemption hanging from a cross (if you believe that stuff). I know Life sucks but after you die it's awesome if you follow These Simple Rules...
Religion was created to explain those things which seemed far beyond the abilities of humans to offer any explanation. People are always want to wonder at intangible things that we observe in the sky in the oceans and within ourselves. Hey, I got your explanation right here, it's God...
These facts are obvious, I have no idea why any woman would be a part of any organized Religion, if you dismiss this as so much BS, Raise your hand if there is a woman in charge of your particular religous organization. Have you ever heard of a Religous organization that has a woman at the very top. Why is that anyway...?
Checking on the hardness of The Jackel's heart so I watched the Video from his post above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXoPhgTkuY&feature=player_embedded
Watch if you dare, Religionistas but I warn you now, It is possible that even your hardened hearts will find this very difficult to watch. Probably impossible if you are a woman, their hearts are known to be soft, probably why they make terrible Religious Leaders...
Chuckline, I don't think the message from God to Kevin Carter was; Ya' know Kevin I have tried to help these people and if you get to worked up about the results then I think you should just kill yourself.
Forget about whether you believe what you read in the bible but at least try and understand what was written and in what context. If your reading comprehension is so low then ask for help. From what language was the OT and NT translated? Be willing to understand the reference(s).
Within your argument on how or what religion has done to women, stop for a moment and look at the USA. Using the argument that our country and it's constitution wasn't founded on religion, why do we only have founding fathers? There are no founding mothers.
Yes they do, at the end of the day, after the debate, they all believe in God, the same God.
When I read this the first thing that comes to mind is; WOW, and atheists think Christians are deluded and ignorant.
Jackel, Try again. When you read the first five books of the NT most of Jesus' words and time are spent correcting his disciples and religious scholars. Looking at both their interpretation along with how or what their actions should be based on the interpretation.
If you are willing to do no more than pick a few verses and present it as a factual, literal statement then yes you are following in Camping's footsteps. The problem with your presentation is that I am not a Camping follower nor do I believe in Camping BS, or anyone who chooses the same tact as Camping. When you post Bible verses and then post your defense and reasoning I am led to believe you are a Camping escapee and have the limited indoctrination he wished you to have.
The same holds true with the video regarding the starving child. Tell me why Carter was told not to touch the child. There's a myriad of reasons. Is it possible religion played a part, yes. Is it the only reason, probably not. Was religion the primary reason, probably not.
My314tin, our Country and the Constitution of the United States were indeed written and founded on freedom of (from) religion but Religion was very much in control of all World Governments the 18th centur, thus women at that time were relegated to household activities. I'm sure that a government represented by women would never have been taken seriously. Oh, now isn't that cute the girls want to have their own government...!
In our (godless?) USA of today one would never be elected if they were not a Christian. Reading your posts it occurs to me that you and I probably more alike than different. I embrace many would be Republican Ideologies, with the exception of the Zombie worship. I can't get past or stomach the RNJs, people like Palin, Bachman, Perry, Romeny, etc. I want gays to marry (so they can be miserable too =)), abortion rights (don't like abortion don't have one). I want people to think, act and govern without fear of burning in Hell for eternity, I embrace technology and open knowledge, especially since I work in it. GW Bush was against Stem Cell research because he couldn't square it with his Religious convictions.
I was not always so convinced at the absence of a Supreme Deity, but at some point I became introspective and asked myself one question...
In the abesnce of any proof or logic why do I actually believe in a God..?
My answer was simple; what if there is a God and I don't accept the notion..?
So it was fear. I faced my fear and it freed me. I did not instantly turn into a horrible, mean and uncaring person I give to charities and whenever there is a natural disaster like katrina or Haiti...
Giving up fear (any fear) always frees you, being free of religious fear in particular, allows you to be accepting of other peoples. Us fearless non-God fearing people don't need to have government change laws, we don't care if people pray in schools. Do it if you think that it might help you get better grades, just leave us out of it...
BTW, As you state Christians, Muslims and Jews do in fact believe in the same God. Thats the reason they are all fighting each other, give up the fear people then you can take that bomb that's strapped around your nut sack off and do a big group hug....
This is inappropriate, and has been flagged. Telling people you think they should kill themselves because they have problem with your religion ect is just simply disgusting.
That's quite the problem isn't it. Context usually follows that words written and the definition of the words used. If you feel you need to invent your own context to rationalize away the disgusting nature, dishonesty, contradictions, and what can best be described as the preying on human weakness, that is up to you. You can sit there all day and make excuses, but it's not going to change the reality of it.
Using religious dogma here to assert someone's reading comprehension is to low to understand what is written in the bible really only shows how good his reading comprehension actually is. Your inability to deal with the immorality, the disgusting nature, the contradictions, or fallacies in your religion is your problem. It is not mine, or Chucks.
If you look at every translation out there, the context is the same if you take to overall entirety of the bible. The interesting thing to note those is that many bibles are edited out of context from Hebrew txts, and many cases to make them sound not as bad as they actually are. Hence adding of words!. You can see this through many different versions of the bible. So now you can feel free to cherry pick which version you want to play with here. But I get the feeling you are going to try and use the "Translation" excuse to rationalize away all the nonsense. As if a Volcano Deity committing infanticide because he was sorry for creating them would magically become righteous, just, and OK! That alone disgusts me.
This isn't dealing with Just Abrahamic religions btw. And sorry, they believe in a different ideological concept of the supposed same deity. Conceptually they are entirely different. Orthodox Christianity's GOD is not the same as Judaism's GOD. They classify it differently. Do take the time to read the Fount of Knowledge, or at least take the time to learn the differences between sects, and other Abrahamic religions.
You are talking to someone who's been a Christian for 20 years. I do believe I am in a better position to make that argument. And yes, many Christians are indeed deluded and ignorant to the point of being willfully so. Even in regards to their own religion. You wouldn't believe how many different self-inventive nonsense I see coming from Christians when concerning scripture. And this includes you.
You are not telling me anything I do not know. And the first five books should have been about him correcting himself.. And again, you have nothing to show that any Character named Jesus has ever existed. You are talking about things written long after his supposed death, as if by magic people knew what this Character Jesus said word for word. You can feel free to show us where this individual ever wrote down his own words.. Basically, the first five books is essentially a load of apologetics. For instance, Jesus contradicts himself regularly:
-
-
-
I could list literally hundreds of examples.. But lets make it clear the aims of Jesus here:
It's about getting the world to worship him, and love him! It's Narcissism at its extreme! Love him, the religion, the ideology, your supposed master with all your heart! You must be servant of the ideology, of him. Anything less is unworthy, is satanic, un-clean, ought to be cast into the lake of fire. Beleive not and you are told that you will go to hell ect. Non-believers, blasphemers, anyone that denies the "Holy Spirit", gays, lesbians, disobedient servant, those who disobey their parents and go worship other gods ect are deemed detestable as abominations ect.
Sorry but that is morally, and psychologically messed up in any context.
A yes, I am such a hard ass.. I actually volunteer and help feed the homeless. I donate my entire tax return every year to Charities such as the Red Cross ect. I do it because I am such a hard, hateful, evil, and vile individual. It's why I took in a kitten 16 years ago and gave her a warm loving home. Her name being shimmy. It's also why I don't use my charity with a string attached, or as a means to convince those whom I offer it to believe in Atheism. Unlike of course organized religious groups and missionaries ect.
But maybe I should just kill myself according to at least one of you right?. Well, my firmness isn't going to subside because you are threatened by it. Nor will it relent because it deems it necessary to think rationally, logically, and follow some sort of honest discourse.
You can pray for me all you want and it will be entirely meaningless. I also already know that line is a load of crap. If you are going to use that, I suggest not trying to use it on people who were once Christians. Dogma doesn't work on people like me Damon. It's a but amusing that you try though.
And yes, I do deny the "Holy Spirit". :
Now by example, this is how we correct ourselves and show some humility. I miss-read this.. But you are right, the context is never that you should kill yourself. It's you should be put to death or sent to hell if you don't agree, worship, or believe in the ideology. Still quite disgusting.. But I do apologize for my mistake, so disregard that portion of my response in post: #1.405 & #1.406
Though I suppose saying people ought to be put to death could include suicide being just another avenue to fulfilling that. :/ So it's debatable:
BTW, thanks Chuck for the support in post #1.400. I appreciate it :)
Is Jesus being self-contradictory here? Let's look at the facts:
Now with these facts in tow we can examine 5:31. The verse states: "If I [and only I -- the pronoun is emphatic] bear witness of myself [a possibility but not a given]..." The context indicates that Jesus is here discussing the hopelessness of a man's testimony being accepted on itself alone.
Recall Deut 19:15, where two or three witnesses are required for acceptance of a testimony. Jesus seems to be stating that the Jews won't find his witness true, because the Jews think that Jesus is alone testifying concerning Himself. Jesus is not at all stating that in reality His witness is not true: He is God and the very incarnation of truth; Jesus is merely acknowledging what the Jews are or might be thinking. Jesus knows that His witness is true, for in reality it is -- but the Jews fail to recognize that "another bears witness" in 5:32, clearly a reference to God the Father.
Jesus knows that His testimony is true because it is supported by Jesus Himself and the Father who sent him, fulfilling Deut 19:5. But the Jews do not recognize that the Father also bears witness to Jesus. This is the most natural exegesis of 5:31-2.
The above is my solution, and seems natural. A check of various commentaries on John, such as RCH Lenski's The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel (pp. 402-3), Leon Morris' revised The Gospel of John , pp. 287-8 (see also the fascinating footnotes there), and William Hendriksen's New Testament Commentary volume on John, pp. 205-7, yields general agreement on my interpretation, which really isn't "mine" as I am sure that it is natural enough to suggest itself to any serious reader.
Now we exegete 8:14, where Jesus again speaks to the Pharisees, stating (NIV) "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going." Here the interpretation is self-evident. Whereas in 5:31 the natural context was of Jesus' self-testimony's validity with respect to the minds of the Jews, His testimony, being perceived as being solitary by the Jews would not be valid to the Jews. On the other hand, here in 8:14 he states that his self-witness is true with respect to reality . Jesus is also stating that the Pharisees are not in a position to judge the truth of Jesus' testimony because they do not know where he came from or where he was going.
I quote Morris (pages 390-1), who seconds this notion: "In 5:31 He [Jesus] has said , `If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true,' by which he meant that his witness had to be supported to be accepted. There he agreed with the Pharisees that unsupported testimony has no legal value. He did not mean that his words were not in fact true. They were true. But if his testimony was unsupported it was not to be received. Here he has two points to make: the one is that he is qualified to bear witness though his enemies are not, and the other that in any case his testimony is not unsupported. The Father bears witness of him. Jesus is contrasting himself with the Pharisees. He knows both his origin and his destination, but they know neither. They are not in a position to comment on his witness. They are totally unaware of the great heavenly verities." Again, see the interesting footnotes on those pages.
Keeping these solid exegeses of the two verses, we see that there is really no case for asserting that Jesus is contradicting Himself.
---------------------------------
In John 5:31, the context is Jesus speaking about how He depends upon the Father and how He is seeking the will of the Father. John 5:30-32 says, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 31"If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true." The word "alone" is not in the Greek but is included in the NASB translation, though not the NIV, the KJV. Contextually, Jesus is not speaking as one alone, but as one dependent on the Father and that His judgments are true because He does the will of the Father. Jesus is reflecting on the Old Testament law that didn't allow the testimony of one person to condemn another to death. Two witnesses were needed to establish the fact:
In John 8:14, Jesus says, "IF" (kan, in the Greek) I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true. But He was speaking of being the light of the word, v. 12, and the Pharisees accused Him of bearing witness of Himself. Jesus was simply telling the truth that if He did, it would be true.
Would you like to enlighten yourself with more " what you think " as bible contradictions explained ?
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/contra11.html
Come on guys.. knock all this stuff off. The bible Holds its water, always has, always will. So let it go with the attacks your making such poor poor arguments.
Forgot the link of contradictions
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/contra11.html
Please point out where Jesus says:
That's he doesn't..
Now prove it. Prove this Jesus's witness be true.. Of course you can't, it's an appeal to ignorance. Anyone claiming to be a GOD is likely to make the same plea of course.
Ahh yes, Just believe me argument!.. Not much a surprise there. And have you even read Deut 19:5 in it's entirety? I suspect not giving your post.
Well that would make a great deal of sense considering he doesn't actually exist. However, like I said, the contradiction is evident. Because in the eye's of people that don't simply believe on faith, his testimony is pretty much worthless unless he can prove it. This is pretty much how testimonials operate in religion in general. Especially when it comes to claiming a Character named Jesus had said anything at all.
I am well aware of this.. I can claim anything be true to reality and you might not accept that. See, there is this thing called evidence, and testimonials are circumstantial at best. Especially when someone claims themselves to be a GOD in the flesh. It's pretty interesting that when you take such people the proclaim to be a GOD ect, they often resort to such contradicting pleas.
This is like saying me myself and I are witnesses. Especially if you want to play around with the Trinity. Please try again.
Wait a second, isn't your religion based to the argument of knowing origin and where everyone is going?. And it's really not relevant is it? Because when it comes to empirically supporting his position in the Bible, he can't actually do that can he? The contradiction is in the self-admission of that, and that's why such Charlatans appeal to ignorance. It's quite evident with:
So Mir Miracle Man.. Er GOD in the flesh can do nothing on his own initiative?.
Now I can sit here and pick apart how wrong this idea of a justice system would be, but this really had nothing to do with the premise of my post.
And then you get someone like me that says "Prove it". And again, there is zero evidence for any of this. So you find your religion in the same position of this supposed Jesus on trial. Oh wait.. Just believe because what you say is true right?. So depart from your assertions, or said Jesus and be cast into the lake of fire right?.. Common, this is way to easy :/
The answers was given, I planted the seeds. Thats all i can do. God Bless.
If that video demonstrates God's plan then we are surely doomed.
Anyways what I take from this discussion is that there is no God, so I'm going to wear my seatbelt. Praying has never saved or healed anyone no matter what RNJs will tell you.
As far as God or an Angel watching over you that just doesn't exist you are on your own...
Praisze the Lord, Allah Akbar and all the rest to you all...
Thanks for tuning in...
Its amazing what healing Goes on. dont say praying doesnt save, because it saved me. I have eternal life because of a prayer I said to God many many years ago .
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/contra11.html
Some of those on that link are still contradictions. There are many that use apologetics to excuse them as if they are not. Such as:
128. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness
[Gal 5:22]
The fruit of God's spirit is vengance and fury
[Judg 15:14/ 1 Sam 18:10,11]
The excuse given for the above contradiction is quite irrelevant. As if different times or situations would invalidate the contradiction. It would be no different than like saying god isn't a Jealous god when it states that it indeed is a Jealous GOD. But here is the lame excuse:
These are different situations and times. God made great warriors do great deeds for Israel's sake in days of hardness; the coming of Jesus heralded a time where God's new chosen would be called towards a temperance that still came from God. --RSNow I can point out many other on that list that use similar apologetics, but I think one is quite enough to demonstrate my point.
But we can also address contradictions such as:
Well let's see, he pretty much demands it!:
Praying is as effective as wishing in a wishing well. You could have wished your self be saved and have had the same effect. Now show me where Praying grows back an arm or leg, or feeds a starving child.. Well, it does neither! But for interest, I specifically addressed this issue here:
"I have eternal life because of a prayer I said to God many many years ago."
You have merely learned the fine art of deluding yourself. It is neither rational nor commendable. If I told you I talk to Elvis and he, in turn, grants my wishes, it would be reasonable to think I was deranged. You are no less off your rocker by talking to an imaginary being who is passing out tickets for a free ride on the Eternal Life Express. You might just as well be asking him for the next set of lottery numbers.
This belongs paired up with the quote:
The Word of God teaches that the Bible is incomprehensible to the "natural man"-the unsaved individual. It is a spiritual book and the unsaved person is not only spiritually blind, but 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that he "is incapable" of knowing that which is spiritually discerned.
14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Bible is very clear that an unregenerate individual will not seek God (Rom.3:11)
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eph.2:2
You used to live in sin, just like the rest of the world, obeying the devil--the commander of the powers in the unseen world. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God.
--------------------------------------------------
You guys are truly incapable of understanding. It clearly shows that those who are not saved, those who reject , can not understand the word of God.
"...the Bible is incomprehensible..."
The bible is worse than incomprehensible. It's incoherent. Give it up, Damon.
Then it's completely meaningless. If you are going to deposit this as an argument, you are thus self-admitting that it's nonsensical while you pretend to comprehend the incomprehensible. This is the same argument we get when Christian's will tell you that their GOD is incomprehenisble and yet they come up with a concept they worship. It's self-collapsing and makes no sense what-so-ever.
And then you go and post this:
So are we supposed to spiritually just be willing blind servants and believe without understanding of comprehension of what it is we are supposed to invest our entire lives to? Surely you jest! No? You're serious aren't you?
Oh yes, I must be obeying the devil because I can critically think for myself. Yes, you are just repeating the religious dogma that anyone not of your religion/faith is magically demonic, satanic, talking snake, obeying the devil ec ect. Just like Scientologists will tell us that we are child rapists, devil worshipers, murders ect because we don't believe in their religious cult either.
And on Satan, Your GOD acts more like a Satan than the one it attempts to depict. But to be clear hear, that little invention of a Character doesn't exist either. Makes me wonder how much I just pissed off your Satan too. And when some Christian tells me I will burn in hell for my blasphemy, well I can just say I am not afraid of magic fire, or the lava pit of your religion:
I am bound by my moral judgment in my own heart that I can not accept the GOD you worship, or the religion you so choose to follow. It is at best an immoral doctrine / faith that tries to prey on my human weakness. Never have I been given a good reason to devote my life to such a lowly worthlessness as a servant of some Ego Narcissistic jealous Genocidal Maniac that demands all of my love as if it owns it. Sorry, but that will never happen. EVER!
I love the attempts at fool proofing the bible. If you can't understand it, god predicted you wouldn't understand it. You have to understand how massively stupid that sounds to a rational thinking individual. Let me say this, evenif god was real (which I believe him not to be), why he hell would I want to spend an eternity worshiping something that clearly has an ego problem? Why would I want to worship someone who allowed cancer and starvation to run rampant on this earth? I wouldn't. Of course your response will be that Jesus is great and blah blah blah, the same old brainwashed crap. You will then quote me scriptures in a book that I don't believe. You will then do some Olympic level mental gymnastics to try and defend every word of Jesus and the bible. If given enough time I could turn Charles Manson into a god similar to your Jesus. All it takes is faith and some serious mental gymnastics.
the "natural man"-the unsaved individual. It is a spiritual book and the unsaved person is not only spiritually blind, but 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that he "is incapable" of knowing that which is spiritually discerned.
You guys are truly incapable of understanding. It clearly shows that those who are not saved, those who reject , can not understand the word of God.
LOL did I not predict that one guys?!
Damon, do you reject the teachings of the flying spaghetti monster? If yes please tell me why.
Really.. So we can't understand the definition of words? Please tell me you are not this intentionally ignorant. :/ So what we have here is an appeal to ignorance. This is the last little desperate line of defense when all else fails, appeal to ignorance and hope they don't notice. How about this:
And I love how you claim people are "spiritually blind".. This is only saying people don't believe in your BS. This is a typical mind wipe game to suggest that only people that believe will understand..Hence you must believe! That's typical in cults that must beg for your ignorance. At best its a means to rationalize away people who see through your BS.
Pretty funny considering I know the bible quite well. And worst of all, your religion does not hold a monopoly on spirituality. So quite frankly that is really a laughable argument you are attempting to make DamonWV.
Maybe we should define spirituality for you:
Firstly, we can negate any notion of immaterial spiritualism since Nothing can not be a person, place, object, substance or thing in any sort of existing context. Hence, things made of nothing don't exist. Or in simple math 0+0 = 0. Sorry DamonWV, there is not Heaven made of nothing, or an existent place made of nothing. To be immaterial would be lacking substance, and to lack substance is to lack value, or any sort of informational worth. So when I see people say that GOD is immaterial, I giggle because they are begging me to believe a Nothing GOD exists. So of course people like you DamonWV will attempt to argue "GOD is incomprehensible" ;)
As for the rest, well that can be applied to everyone including Atheists! Wiccans also practice spirituality. So do Buddhists and many other religions.
To which doesn't make it true. You tried and use this as some sort of credibility argument. Almost as an Authority argument to which is a logical fallacy. There are tons of so called "Spiritual Books" to which includes these gems:
And thousands more of course.. But it doesn't surprise me that you would suggest people are incapable of understanding spiritualism. Yes Damon, we understand your bible is your moral spiritual doctrine to which you live in accordance to. Yes we know you worship and imaginary invisible Genocidal Narcissistic Ego maniac Volcano/fire GOD. Yes we complete understand your spiritual connection (feelings and emotions) to your religion regardless of how irrational, impossible, contradictory, hypocritical, hateful, genocidal, self-collapsing, or dogmatic it is.
This brings up a point. He's an atheist of other supposed idols except his own. He will probably tell you that the Universe / Existence doesn't exist since Pantheists believe existence itself is GOD. Pantheism alone is higher on the totem pole than some deity he wants to beg is in existence, and of existence. It's a little quagmire, and it's also why I have gotten this gem from other Christians:
Yeah, I am not kidding.. It's the defecting of the other side of the argument in attempt to win the argument as if we wouldn't notice. Christians have to resort to the Nothing GOD argument for a reason. Their religion teaches pure intentional ignorance because is survives on it!
BTW, telling a former Christian they Don't understand is like telling a Retired Rock Star that they don't understand what it means to be a Rock Star... Not the brightest of arguments to be making.
RNJs, no need to wear seatbelts, no need for health insurance. You are already promised eternal and everlasting life and if this eternal life is so great and wonderful why would you want to extend your awful Earthly Life..?
I suppose in that regard Suicide Bombers are the most sincere in their convictions, they have absolutely no doubt as to their convictions and afterlife rewards.
I would have to say and you must agree that if you wear seatbelts, safety harnesses or helmets than you obviously are not really convinced of your own immortality.
If I was driving to some unbelievably awesome party in Never_Never-Land, I would most assuredly release my parking brake and have my foot on the gas peddle. Why be late for your first meal in the Clouds..?
the "natural man"-the unsaved individual. It is a spiritual book and the unsaved person is not only spiritually blind, but 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that he "is incapable" of knowing that which is spiritually discerned.
You guys are truly incapable of understanding. It clearly shows that those who are not saved, those who reject , can not understand the word of God.
Hey Damon,
Please answer a few questions for those of us incapable of understanding as you do.
Are Muslims and Jews that believe that they are saved (by the same God), according to them anyway, capable of understanding you..?
Are Religious peoples only saved and therefore able to understand if they believe exactly as you?
Is it your assertion that no one else on Earth of any other Religion belief system is capable of understand anything unless they believe exactly as you?
Not doing it anymore chuck, your just trying to set up another argument that can be explained , but the non believer wont be able to understand.. Im not dodging anything. Answers are out there abundantly , to anything and everything. I will keep referencing above if you keep insisting on another way to attack arguments you cant understand the answers.
the "natural man"-the unsaved individual. It is a spiritual book and the unsaved person is not only spiritually blind, but 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that he "is incapable" of knowing that which is spiritually discerned.
You guys are truly incapable of understanding. It clearly shows that those who are not saved, those who reject , can not understand the word of God.
Jackel, Speaking of reading comprehension try again. In the video you posted the narrator states that Kevin Carter after taking the photo of the starving child sat under a tree and cried and also prayed which I guessed was intended as prayed to God.
Stop, pause......I read your post down thread, apology accepted.
No there is no reference in context of the NT that references being put to death or going to hell if you reference Jesus' words. If there was I agree it would be disgusting. What many read into the words is what's been taught by many uninformed or those who have no training or skills in interpreting Hebrew or Koine Greek. There's no reference in the Bible defining hell or heaven to the degree many humans choose to take it, specifically hell. At best it's vague, very vague.
If you don't want to believe then just say I don't believe but attempting to support you argument based on your anger towards human misdeeds and crime based on a humans understanding of the Bible is disturbing.
An example of misinterpretation is any time someone quotes Ephesians especially in regard to gender and control. If right-wing evangelicals were to address sexual immorality based on comparisons then Hollywood today would look like a convent compared to 2K yrs. ago. So, if reading scripture based on what was happening in society during that time period you may understand the harshness of some verses but remember the harsh words were those of a human saying; God said.
Within the arena of the misinformed does it really make a difference?
There's to many self ordained Camping's who were one day an alcoholic and next day saint only to resort to raping women behind the church when his demons came to visit. The problem is people attempt to attach this action to any misdeed committed by a person professing a particular religion. Similar acts are written in the Bible but all should not be construed as actions of God nor condoned by God.
DamonWV,
Spamming the same nonsense to play the repeating game isn't going to make your deluded scripture true. Repeating your post only makes you look stupid.
Prove it. You want to make the claim, I suggest you prove it. Oh that's right, it's religious dogma and appeal to ignorance to play at people by telling them they are worthless if they don't follow your religion's "spiritual" beliefs. Nothing like dishonest discourse and manipulative mind games eh Damon? Like I said, your religion needs to prey on human weaknesses and fears in order to survive and indoctrinate.
Well since you know such things as supposed facts, you should have no problem proving it. Using fear of damnation as a tool to call people spiritually blind is a typical brainwashing tactic. It's the use of religious social dogma to outcast people, dehumanize them, and to suggest their worthlessness. It's to suggest that you can only be saved from eternal damnation if you believe. And when you believe, you will be saved and magically be spiritually blindfolded. This well understood here:
Born Again Brainwashing (Persuasion and Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public Today) June 6, 2005
Yes, I addressed how your religion uses brainwashing in the following article. This to which includes how I was taught to use it when advertising for various churches:
Such dishonest and sneaking subliminal programming and manipulation of human weaknesses. Of course your religion can't survive without trying to manipulate and brainwash people. You see Damon, this bs doesn't work on me because i know what it is. Anyone here can read these books and get a much deeper grasp of what your religion is really about:
Damnon, Your post #1.428 is worthless. It's the only argument you have left. The argument to prey on peoples ignorance, fears, and weaknesses to attempt to convince them to believe. And that is really pathetic. In fact, if your deity even needs require such tactics / religion, it really shows pathetically weak it actually is.
All religious cults will use the same argument as you do. So no prove that people are magically spiritually blind. So can anyone find these key elements in DamonWV's post?:
But the funny part is, rational and logical minds of course will reject your religion. And perhaps your GOD ought to speak for itself and actually try to make some sort of coherent logical sense. As an example:
I, if I were such a deity, I would have never made suffering possible. I would not have designed life to compete and murder itself in order to reproduce and survive. I would not allow a little girl to starve and then be eaten a live by a vulture to which stalks her. I would have made sin impossible to commit, and thus cutting out all the nonsensical bs! I would never have seen the need to commit infanticide, or genocide just because I was "sorry" for creating them. If fact, if anything went wrong, I would know it be my fault, and an error in my design. I would have made at least a much better world. I would have made a better GOD morally!
And if such a mere mortal such as myself can come up with a far more rational and intelligent world, it really shows how irrational and unintelligent your GOD is. Damon, you remind me of the person that would tell someone to walk away from a starving girl while reciting "God has a plan to prosper you, and not harm you".
This is what I want you to do Damon. Go to Sudan or any place where little girls are starving to death. Hold them in your arms and recite them the bible while refusing to feed them. You can sit their and watch them die while you sit there reciting your bibles load of crap. You can even sit there and pray for them to magically be fed. because that is the equivalent value, spiritually, and morally of what your bible represents in terms of pure ignorance and detachment from reality. I want you to literally experience and live that contradiction. Maybe you can your own child and drown them in the bathtub and cry out the excuse of how you were sorry for creating them. And then blame them for it all as if you are "righteous".
If anyone is spiritually blind, it surely is not I. My moral code is far better than the utterly idiotic and psychologically messed up one you find in the bible.
What's your point? The premise of the video is not magically invalidated because the photographer prayed. He also committed suicide a year later. And it's irrelevant if he prayed to GOD or not. Prayer wouldn't have done damn thing!
What's your point? So the Jesus in the OT doesn't exist? Hello!.. Again you demonstrate why Christians pretend the OT never existed, or has any barring on the NT... It's like saying "Oh, I guess I shouldn't do that in the NT", thus I will try to win their hearts and minds vs threatening them and demanding them to love me!.. Err ok? Sorry, but the OT rules still apply, and so does denying the holy spirit land you in hell. And btw, you are wrong about Hell not being present in the NT:
Hell is conveniently converted to Dark pit. So we go from the lava fire pit to Dark pit. This is just a change of fear tactics to where darkness and loneliness is used as a method of damnation vs burning in the everlasting fire. This is also commonly used in religious advertising. To forever be separated from GOD is to be forever in darkness and loneliness ect. Pretty funny how they just like to change the rules. But they did so because the everlasting fire actually makes sense considering the original Hebrew text, and the fact that the religion is actually a Fire/volcano cult. Jeus's name is not referenced to savior from the dark pit, it's referenced as the savior from a fire pit. What they did was change Fire to dark. Pit remains the same. But it's also referenced to a place where one awaits to be judged. So we also get this:
And:
This does a pretty good job regarding the subject as I agree with most of it. So rather than write an entire essay, I can just link you here:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/406-the-use-of-hell-in-the-new-testament
So the problem with your argument is that Jesus professed that if you did not love him and departed from him, you would indeed be cast into hell (regardless how you want to define it). You must love him more than your own family, or follow him as if he's the moral compass of the world. Well, he's not by any means! The wicked don't just include murderers ect. They include anyone not of the religion. The NT changes very little in regards to the OT.
I'm hardly misinformed. You can reference back to:
#1.234
I guess informed means a link to the KJV of the Bible? The farther away from the KJV the fewer references to hell are mentioned simply because there is no specific definition. Maybe Jesus referencing Gehenna and what it's like to walk without him was Kevin Carters hell and he chose to kill himself rather than accept the fact he wasn't in control of the dying child or her outcome. Letting go of things we cannot control or things we think we can control is peaceful. To whom do we relinquish the control we think we have only to discover an attempt to control destroys us? This doesn't mean we ignore the things we do have control of. It also doesn't imply we act as Rev. Camping who I see as a very unhappy controlling individual.
Stop a minute and ask why you choose to think my comment on being informed was directed at you and also ask what makes you think you are so informed. What you actually know with certainty about the bible could be printed on your thumbnail. Why do you see the Bible within the context of evil? Somehow it seems in your small world everything relating to the evil of the world is related to God, Christianity or any religion that worships a god.
I don't know you any more than you or Chuckline know me, but for Chuckline to think we have similar thoughts and follow with his acceptance of Republican political positions couldn't put us farther away from being of similar thoughts. Maybe Chuckline supports Republican ideology because it's so far away from being what Christian is meant to be IMO.
I don't just reference the King James Version of the bible.. If you like I can list them all and come out with the same context. It's not going to change the religion from being a Fire/volcano cult, or that people of the religion offer up burnt offerings ect. The concept of hell is widely disputed because people who wrote the bible were not working together, and many of them had their own concepts of what hell would be.
The most valid is the fire pit definition giving that Jesus as a concept is by definition a savoir from the everlasting fire. His name doesn't carry the Shin for no reason, and his relation to yahweh / El Shaddai in that same regard is equally important to note. Especially if you want to consider the Trinity where they are of the same essence.
Regardless, the concept of hell is well noted.. It's irrelevant how often it's referenced in the NT. It's simply a control and indoctrination tool. That is what it's used for. And Jesus's purpose in that is to give you a carrot of salvation should you choose to join the religion and accept him as your lord savior. That's what his name actually means. I pointed this out already "/
This has nothing to do with the overall premise of the video. You are basically trying to rationalize something to which is incredibly traumatic. You can not marginalize his pain by suggesting that he hadn't any control.. Sorry but it goes way beyond that. And that he committed suicide is only a part of the videos context. What you are doing is the same thing that preacher in the video was doing.
Sorry, but this fails utterly at trying to rationalize it away. It's not even on point in regards to the subject of the video.
This is like a reflection of your GOD.
It's quite evident if you begin reading this article from start to finish in regards to my comments. I may not be omniscient, but I am surely not stupid or uninformed on these subjects. :/
So what.. I can debunk that with less than a pinky nail. I only need apply information theory, opinion, and deductive logic. Didn't take much to debunk the fount of knowledge did it? I know with absolute certainty of the following:
Now this really isn't hard to answer:
You only need read Genesis and the Deut. to understand this.
For people that claim GOD created everything, this is a pretty interesting argument. And yes, I consider infanticide / genocide "evil". But I can't even take that seriously since the GOD in the Bible is just a Volcano "/
All religious peoples believe that they and only people who believe just like them are the only ones going to heaven. Every single person who calls themself a Chrisian, Catholic, Mormon, JW, Jew, Muslim and on and on, believe themselves to be the chosen people.
They each believe Heaven was meant and created just for them. It is a weird way of thinking, it is a way of thinking borne out of ignorance, delusion and lets not forget fear...
Your all powerful and Loving God has a plan and a future for you and it includes a horrible, painful and possibly lingering death. The same as the rest of us...
Though this is a typo correction, it bares repeating.
As if such a thing would logically be necessary in a perfect world, or by a supposed "all loving", "all powerful", "all knowing", and all "perfect" entity. :/ It couldn't be a worse contradiction.
Thanks and praise be to The Jackel, I have learned a great deal reading your posts.
As far as the opposing view point, I have learned that I can't understand their way of life, apparently it is just way beyond my comprehension level.
It's just as well, all of my life I have had to deal with RNJ's who for some reason or another were the worst, most reprehensible people. I have been lied to and been cheated by RNJ's so many times that I avoid the Religious Nuts like the plague.
If they're all going to Heaven then that's not where I want to go, besides I'm sure I would be way better off with the people that just don't seem capable of understanding those Religious Crazy People...
Good Luck and GOD Bless you all...
On both ends of this spectrum there is no "end" because it's infinite.
As I stated earlier; I believe what you accept and I need not accept what you believe.
You present information directed towards me as if I choose to ignore situations such as Sudan, well I don't. There are right wing evangelicals who believe biblical scripture from a literal position as you have and they thing or project the women and children are suffering because of God's wrath and this is false. If you choose to use their position to support your argument of hate then continue to do so.
In the US there are to many right-wing evangelicals who have the power to influence votes in Washington which in turn is a cause for politicians to turn a blind eye to Sudan or any other country in plight. These conservative politicians happen to be right-wing Republicans who use religion as their platform or support for their platform. The last administration survived eight years based on lies and faith based initiatives rhetoric. There's no one on the Republican ballot for 2012 who doesn't fall into this category.
I'm guessing you think the issues or incidents taking place in the world such as Sudan could or should be prevented by my God but in your belief it's my God that allows this to happen in order for you to justify your thoughts? Seems pretty sick Jackel.
What is your take on Sudan? Why is this happening? What will it take to stop it? Maybe if everyone became atheists then all the evil in the world would stop?
I've done my best to state a person has a choice to do otherwise.
my314, your wasting your time. These guys are past help. Jackel has his own religion that he worships now, his delusional view of God, his hatred and pure bias shows. I cant say it enough
the "natural man"-the unsaved individual. It is a spiritual book and the unsaved person is not only spiritually blind, but 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that he "is incapable" of knowing that which is spiritually discerned.
You guys are truly incapable of understanding. It clearly shows that those who are not saved, those who reject , can not understand the word of God.
Yes i will spam it, because it Holds true, you all are the very prime examples of those verses.
All religions are sure they are right, what would make me choose your religion over another? And don't quote the bible because I'll just quote the Koran. Don't quote Jesus because I'll just quote Allah. The Muslims believe you are going to hell Damon. Just like you believe I'm going to hell. But the thing is you don't believe in their hell just like I don't believe in any hell......so I guess you and the Muslims can go to hell and I'll replenish the earth the way thins are suppose to be.
Who the hell wants to fly around in the sky with your dead relatives for eternity worshipping a narcissistic god who is either really mean, really lazy, or really stupid. Or if he's anything like his followers, all 3.
Not only does every religion firmly believe it is the one true faith, each religion is equally and blindly confident all other religions are false. The interesting thing is that they all operate on the same profound lack of evidence to support their individual viewpoints and all depend solely upon fictional holy books and improvised theological doctrines to prop up their bankrupt belief systems.
No sorry, but repeating and spamming things will not make them true. Though i am sure that is how your delusional thinking works. Now prove anything you've said True.. Oh..yeah, truth kinda involves validating and substantiating it. You kinda skipped over that didn't ya, you sneaky little tike you! ;)
Sorry kids, but faith = hope that something is true. It does not mean truth!
So under Damon's argument to suggesting truth, we can say he's a child rapist and have that be true!.. Yes It's true because TheJackel has surely spoken it as so! Believe it not, and you will burn in hell! Yes, just repeat this a few times and it will certainly be true! Teach your kids, cause we don't want them going near him!. Only believers will understand this truth! Any non-believer is also a child rapist unsaved from the truth!
What? You don't believe? Well you are a child rapist and a:
Infinite is very subjective to what you are talking about. it can not be applied incoherently.
Completely irrelevant to information theory or reality. Logical fallacies will not magically come true no matter if you accept them or not. Reality is not bound to your acceptance. In information theory, it represents it, literally, but doesn't mean it will be true or even actually applicable. Hence, somethings are just simply concepts, ideas, thoughts, beliefs, media, art, or literature.
I am not just specifically addressing you. I am addressing your religion and it's doctrine. Your interpretation is just basically equivalent to writing your own bible.. At that point you may as well just toss the one you read in the trash can and write your own.
Yes because drowning the world to death is somehow rational. Go drown a baby bunny and then come back and tell me about how this rationality works out for you.
Yes, and this is a very dangerous thing. Equally as dangerous if Atheists tried to install an Atheist state. It wouldn't just turn a blind eye to Sudan, it would likely turn America into something similar to Sudan. Do you know what causes most problems in the world?
Life in general must compete and murder itself in order to survive and reproduce. Inventing such a system in itself is psychologically messed up. I'm sure some theists think GOD is up there watching a baby seal get ripped apart by an Orca and thinking "Perfect" with a smile as it's mother watches helplessly in horror!
I am well aware of what they are doing.. And it's not just the political movement but the war on science, and the education system. I don't have a problem with people that believe in a GOD ect. This doesn't mean I will be shy of debating the issue should you or any theist choose to join in the discussion. But at the end of the day, the difference in beliefs is quite irrelevant so long as we share the same secular ideals in regards to freedom, our rights, government, and law. In this case we have nothing to fear from each other.
Why should it have been a possibility in the first place? And how on Earth do you attempt to spin this as if my thoughts are magically "sick"? Like I said, if I were your GOD, starving children wouldn't even exist.. I think that would make me just a tad more "loving" and Empathetic of the plight of others. Narcissism deals with total lack of Empathy and self elitism. The major trait in the biblical deity!
"Equally as dangerous if Atheists tried to install an Atheist state."
Atheism means by its very definition, no god. The US government, by that definition and by the Supreme Court interpretations of the First Amendment, is an a-theist state. With that in mind, I don't see how, in the 200+ years since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, we have become like Sudan, at all.
My reference to Atheist state was in regards to a Police state similar to a religious police state / theocracy. I wasn't generalizing a state that might so happen be atheist. :) We live in a Republic to which is a secular system. A system that the wright have been trying to convert to a democracy so they can install a theocracy. They don't like a secular system because that allows atheists freedom to be Atheists.. They believe the secular system breeds atheism.
We haven't. :)
Your reference to atheism seems to suggest it has an ideology that can be subverted for insidious purposes and that is completely false. You need to reexamine the notion of atheism because it has no ideology or doctrine beyond the denial of the existence of a god and the subsequent validity of religion.
Atheists are not without the ability to be crazy. It's not saying it's an ideology vs a force of position.. An Atheist police state would be an attempt to abolish religion entirely, and force Atheism "non-belief". You can see this similar thing in hero worship like in the case of Stalin. The point being is that I would, as an atheist, be perfectly happy with a secular system. It naturally gets dangerous when you begin to step out side that since you are talking about oppressing one side, or several by law, legislation, ect.. Hence, it's unrealistic to try and take someones beliefs away. It's more realistic that we limit them in accordance to common law to protect everyone from everyone's extremes, radicals, or fanatics. This includes militant Atheists.
And yes there are militant Atheists out there that would love to ban religion ect.. So we must keep that in mind. So a secular system is a means to keep everyone's extremes in check.
There's a constant theme or reference to what you think my God represents while constantly stating my God doesn't exist along with referencing Christianity and Sudan. There's been thousands of Sudan's in history and unfortunately for you and I religion has played a part in many but there is nothing stated by a God of love that there will be no pain.
At a very human level; If your parent says I love you do you feel pain, do you suffer? Do they love you less if you caused the pain or it was caused by another?
Cat, I think Jackel is referring to the fanatical right both religious and political because I don't think the can be separated.
Though there are some extremists you don't have to worry about:
The more extreme a person in in terms of Ahimsa, the less you have to worry about them. ;) This is a huge contrast from the bible, or the deities in the Abrahamic Religions.
You are probably right. Oh well, I have the telescope set up outside and it's supper time, so good night, everyone.
Firstly, I do know what your religion represents. Secondly, your point here is rather pointless and seems to not go anywhere :/
I don't think that is helping your case at all. It actually quite frankly makes it worse.
This is a self-collapsing argument. Is this an S&M God? Again this brings me back to the image of a father drowning his children why exclaiming how sorry he was for creating them.. I love you!, I love you so much that I am going to drown you! I didn't promise you no pain! Oh wait.. yes I did, I am here to prosper you and not harm you! Drowning and starving is prosperous! Let us evaluate shall we? :
Have you ever read the book "The Island Of Dr. Monroe"? This is pretty damn psychotic :/ But that's not even half of the intellectual failure this supposed deity displays here:
Yes hypocrisy solves the problem!.. Wait, it actually solved nothing and was pretty pointless conceptually. Why? Because wtf is the point to committing a world abortion of all life one finds as abominations only to save 2 of each species that will just repopulate and do the same damn thing over again! That was pointless and a waste of time wasn't it? Not to mention psychologically messed up.
And it get's worse!:
Ok.. how did Noah survive again? Worse yet, fish and other animals breath oxygen, and not every living thing has "nostrils". Some can breath through their skin, and some can swim! Such as seals, whales ect. Birds can swim too! .. And the bible can't make up it's mind on all life on Earth, or just life living on land! It's an incoherent mess!
However, such a flood would kill everything since it would raise atmospheric pressure to nearly 700 times. The heat alone would kill everything including all that which were on the supposed ark.
And this is the kind of crap you want me to believe in. Or deity so intellectual inept that it can't even see how incoherent and worthless his actions are. Basically, lots of baby bunnies, puppies, school children ect died because some deity had a psychotic episode of pure stupidity "/ Noting like righteous infanticide / genocide. Damn them unclean puppies! Drown EM!
:/
Don't worry, it's a confession. It's ok if you say sorry. It's as bad as Gaddafi telling his captors if they know right from wrong in order to save himself. But in the religious point of view, it's righteous love! :/
Like I said, go drown a baby bunny and then comeback to me on how that rationally, morally, and ethically works out for you. Do you have enough love to drown a baby bunny? Maybe this one?:
Well come on now the OT was written by a bunch of GoatHerders living in a desert, 2000+ years ago.
Does anybody really believe that the guys married to Goats knew the Earth was round and that people and animals were living on the other side of the planet, in things like jungles filled with amphibious animals and such, that they didn't even know existed?
Does anyone really believe that the GoatHerders could have known what was living on other continents and in the depths of the Oceans?
"Does anyone really believe that the GoatHerders could have known what was living on other continents and in the depths of the Oceans?"
Can anyone believe the sheep shaggers even knew what was going on only fifty miles away?
What is truly hard to believe is that some twenty-first century people will discard all of their critical thinking skills and embrace the primitive myths of an ancient tribe of ignorant lice-ridden nomads. It's defies all common sense.
Jackel, In your obsession with evil take a brief pause and explain how your world of 100% love works.
No pain or suffering? How long would people live? You would control every move? How many people would inhabit the earth? Would you choose how many children were born and to whom? etc. etc. Your name and your hatred for God or your perception of God tends to skew your desire for a loving God.
Curious to see your "If I were God" model works out.
As a child growing up my job was to prep for Sunday dinner (lunch) so the lives of several bunnies, a few young chickens (or a larger an older one) was at stake, but that doesn't make me an evil unloving person.
Me thinks you watch to much U-T!
The interesting thing to me is Mr my314tin. You in your world must have a god, you ask about a perception of god but you obviously cannot perceive of a world without a God.
How can someone hate something that does not exist. I don't hate God, How would that be possible when I don't believe he exists. I also don't hate Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy, I just do not beleive that they exist...
I'm not sure about Mr Jackel...
Chuckline, Apply your response to what I asked of TheJackel. He continues to post links expressing his disgust in all the evil that exists in the world in reference to God. .
Why don't you answer the question for Jackel if you think you can. Jackel stated the conditions in Sudan would not exist if "he was God." I asked, as posted above. Give it a whirl if you think you have the intellect. Maybe Jackel will come back and assist you?
So killing and drowning baby bunnies isn't evil? I am not asking for you to address a world if it's 100% love or not. What makes you think I should reconsider my position on that subject with your argument here? The only way it makes sense that bad things happen is if the world really is a Chaotic world where bad things can happen simply because they can. Reality is a hard thing to deal with, but getting mad at it is pointless in the end. However, the thought of a supposed "All Loving" deity committing Infanticide, genocide, hate, and being a Narcissistic Ego maniac makes no sense at all.
I am asking you to address the killing of the baby bunny for a reason, and not to just be an ass. If you can't face the reality of that issue, or why it's conceptually messed up in any sort of sense when dealing with psychology, sociology, morality, ethics, or entities such as our selves. So I ask you again to address the issue:
This is just one bunny, and I am not even asking you to grasp the entire scope of drowning all living things such as a baby bunny.
Why would I need to.. If I were all powerful, I would just create an infinitely growing earth. Maybe let people decide how long they want to live, or perhaps allow people to control their own lives and even reincarnate themselves into other things as they please. My imagination could go wild here and come up with a better situation.
However, your questions are quite irrelevant to the discussion. :/
Am I supposed to love a supposed entity that commits infanticide, genocide, kills baby bunnies ect? Am I supposed to love something that demands me to love it? Why should I love a Narcasicitic Ego Maniac? Why should I love a Volcanic jealous entity? ... Why should I love something I know is just a Volcano/fire GOD that derived from it's polytheistic roots at a time that the Hebrews worshiped Mountain GOD's? Seriously! ... But this doesn't mean I hate it considering I just consider it non-existent. I can't hate what doesn't exist, but I can dislike the concept you call GOD.
I could tell you one thing. Children wouldn't be starving!
Ever watch the movie Avatar? Food is not an issue here. Life doesn't have a choice in this matter. It's sad that life must compete and murder itself in order to survive and reproduce, but it's psychologically disturbing to conceive it being designed that way. And I didn't not place the context of killing a rabbit in the notion of having to eat and survive. Maybe you can try again:
Now the following gets even more interesting:
Here is something you can do. Take a camera, a baby bunny, and record yourself drowning it to death while exclaiming how sorry you are for buying it, and having it. When you are done there, put it on youtube and quote the bible. Exclaim how unclean it is, and how much of an abomination it is. Let them know how righteous it is. You can than place yourself right up there with the GI's that killed a puppy!.
Senseless kills makes so much logical and pyschological sense if it's "Righteous".. Hey, that was a unclean puppy, so GOD didn't care!
my314tin,
Let me put it to you this way:
If an entity were to have induced the Big Bang either by intention or mistake, I highly doubt it would resemble anything close to what your bible depicts it to be. And it surely won't be a darn silly Volcano that sheep herders were in pure awe of. :/ And even if some entity induced the big bang, I wouldn't consider it a GOD, or bow to it. I don't worship power, control, Narcissism, Ego maniacs, or anything that thinks it's "righteous". These are not good Characteristics worthy of worship. In fact, worshiping in general is just plain nonsensical. If I don't worship existence itself, I surely am not going to bother worshiping something that is slave to require existence in order to exist.
Now I could become "friends", and even come to care for another entity should it be friendly.. But worship it? I would tell it to keep dreaming! ;)
Figured I would add to that.
TheJackel
I did ask and as I stated earlier as your continued postings of drowning bunnies and young children hanging to a thread before having their flesh stripped by vultures seem to be your angle in proving there is no God or look my314tin at what your God allows.
You throw out hypothetical remedies or actions you would take without addressing my question, because you can't. You don't believe in God so tell me how or why all the evolutionary processes you believe in has created so much turmoil pain and suffering for children and bunnies as you point out. If you believe in what you say you believe in "There is NO GOD!" then what is it about the world events that's really bothering you? You seem to be expending a lot of energy on something that doesn't exist just to prove it doesn't exist all the while pointing your finger at my comments and my God.
You want specifics about my God, so when you are God try being more specific. When I comment on your interpretation of the scripture verses you post you say I'm writing my own Bible, which I'm not but you think so. If this is what you truly think I'm doing then write your own Bible and be specific how the world would be if you were God.
No hunger is a good start. Are people just magically fed? I only gave a few items for you to deal with and you just threw out magical solutions. You're an intelligent being so surely you can make a better showing than your Disneyland start. No food lines now that's a concept even Disney couldn't achieve.
Jackel,
#1 You are making a weak attempt to walk both sides of the fence. Walking the centerline will get you run over and you become dinner for vultures. You can't have it both ways. Your non-acceptance for what is written leaves you with Sudan and all your humanly power to solve the problem and we have only started with the dying babies, there's lots more.
#2 If you want to blame this on God then you must become better educated on what is written and what the interpretations truly are which creates a conundrum for you. If you find this unacceptable see #1.
So if there is an entity that commits such acts, you would consider it a GOD? You do realize this has just one small part in regards to why I reject the concept of GOD entirely right? Or have you not payed any attention at all to the majority of my posts in this article?
Wow, someone doesn't pay attention much. This isn't just about what the fictional character in your bible "allows".. This is also about equivalent of what that fictional character supposedly --->did<---. Let's repeat this so you can actually comprehend the drowning baby bunny:
Deal with it! Your inability to address and deal with this is blatantly obvious! You seem to be struggling with this.. So I made a little effort and added in some context above in highlighted text for you.
You made no question that I need bother with. Hypothetically in ethical terms, I wouldn't even allow the possibility of suffering, death, or even pain..
You can't call evolution psychotic for one. It's not a conscious entity. What are you going to do, scream at Carbon atoms and the basic elements that make you possible? .. Ok, go out side and curse and damn a Tornado for killing people. Let's see how far that gets you in this argument.
And just so you know, Evolution is required for there to even be the possibility of a conscious mind anyways! There can be no conscious state without the progression and inertia of information. Consciousness is an emergent property. Creationism is a logical fallacy!
Are you saying I shouldn't be bothered by world events if there is No GOD? Coherency please.. I can still be bothered by people killing baby bunnies.
Yes I can do that.. I don't have a problem combating intentional ignorance, or promoting the use of critical thinking skills that actually employ rational logic and reason. It beats spending so much energy trying to circumvent rationality in favor of some irrational religious ideological construct that literally teaches and survives on ignorance. So why should I not do so?
Eh? .. I know the specifics on your supposed GOD, I outlined them already, and I know it's polytheistic roots too. You must think this is a clever argument, but it's more amusing than clever. :/ Btw, science is far more specific than that spectacularly incoherent bible. So perhaps you can be more specific on what specifics you are talking about. It wouldn't even be hard for me to be more specific! I could do so with just a 4th grade education in science and biology. Sorry kids, but the human body isn't made of dirt! That alone is more specific!
This is a mass of nonsensical pile of circular logic to avoid having to deal with the argument I've made. So by this you mean to say:
Tell me, was Hitler righteous for trying to create the perfect race? After all, the Jews were unclean! Heh, I find it actually scary that religious people like you actually defend this kind of stuff.
Apparently I am far more educated on your religion than you are. And sorry but #1 fails entirely at addressing the issues. I kind of laugh that you suggest I am interpreting it wrongly. I guess your GOD was just putting his children to sleep. I'm sure that excuse will go over well in court after some mother drowns her kids in the bath tub.
If a propane tank blows up and kills your family, Do you blame the propane tank, or the designer that designed it with flaws that would without a doubt cause it to blow up and potentially kill your family? Now I asked you if you had ever read or watched the Island of Dr Monroe for a reason.
Blaming the beasts of your creation for what goes wrong with them is intellectually dishonest and idiotic. And then killing them all for it, in the ultimate act of hypocrisy, is even worse. This would be like the CEO of the company that made the propane tank blaming the tanks for their flaws as if the CEO or the Company had nothing to do with that.
So can we sue your GOD for this imperfect world?
err.
And here is another reason why the whole flood thing is intellectually moronic. For a deity that is supposed to be "all knowing" and "All Powerful", why would it need drown anything? Why would it need to use a flood?.. Hell, why would it need even kill anything? Was your GOD incapable of hitting the pause button and just fix what it thought was wrong and unclean? Wash that baby bunny if you think it's "unclean", or fix that abomination instead of killing it. That would just make too much logical sense eh?
Seems pretty interesting that the only solution this supposed deity could come up with was to kill everything by drowning. I guess snapping magic fingers and making it all instantly perfect isn't as fun as drowning every living thing on Earth.
Yes, curse us atheists! We make too much damn sense!
I don't think you could have a good argument with someone who doesn't value common sense, which is exactly what this is, sorry m314tin. I don't mean to be rude but youre trying to defend mythical entities and debate that to people who value science and common sense. to people who value truth, facts and evidence.
If jack and the beanstock were in the bible you would believe that too. But because it's not, it makes sense to you why it s an absurd notion to think it were true.
What a small world, because we view you all the same way, and not having value common sense. The issue with jackel is he cant comprehend why God, if there was a bog, the god of the bible , does or did the things he did, because they could had been done some other way. Well, thats true, God could have done everything different, but its the way HE did it. Jackel cant accept it, and has an easier time just making up his own reality and conclusion in his own world. There are great answers out there for you all. Im just sorry you all cant have open hearts to really see the answers. Do i need to quote what I said above again ? :D
Jackel, I have no reason to curse you nor do I have reason reason to watch your youtube posts from Atheists International Inc.
You believe in Darwin and his theories yet when you produce a video of a starving child lying in the shadows of a vulture you have a need to portray it as caused by Christian religion. Why accuse something you state you don't believe in as the cause if it doesn't exist.
It seems you have many conflicting thoughts and struggles. Why not look at the starving child in Sudan and think **survival of the fittest**. Pan the camera or take a shot of hyenas or jackels waiting to dine.
As I stated earlier up-thread, you are ill informed on the Bible and it's translations and choose to take most as literal while poking fun at the Rev. Camping. When one argument fails you pick another angle. If your position is directed towards evolution taught as science and I agree you have no argument. Then your argument becomes the great flood and drowning bunnies.
Lets go to the Discovery channel and watch Dos Coyotes stretch a rabbit. This makes you ill unless you can blame it on God. You prefer to direct your anger toward religion and a drowning bunny which seems to be an obsession. As I also stated up thread, it seems to be pretty sick thinking. It's to sick for me to follow.
It's rather simple to bring this to a close for you. There's lots of distance between the book of Genesis and the book of John and verse 3:16.
Shall I take this to mean you interpret Darwin as highly unethical?
Zepp,
On the contrary, you can't have it both ways. If you choose to not believe in God then so be it, but you can't take that stance and then point to Christians, Sudan, dying children and vultures and say; look at what your God allows. Jackel then follows with hypothetical solutions on the topic of "If I were God."
WTF is "Hypothetically in ethical terms," It surely isn't common sense.
This is not the point.. You can view it anyway you want to. However, you forget that you have engaged in a debate to where your view is open to criticism and subject to being questioned. If you didn't want to hear or deal with the subject, you should have not bothered engaging in the debate. It's no surprise that you believe you view should be unquestioned and just accepted on blind faith even in a debate. Sorry, that's not how this works.
WTF? So you are telling me that there is a good reason to drown your children if you are sorry for creating them? Are you people really this psychologically disturbed? This defending of Genocide and Infanticide has Stockholm syndrome or batter wife syndrome written all over it. BTW, it didn't have to happen at all, especially if you consider the fact it didn't accomplish anything. It's like a kid that burns his hand on the stove and then does it again because he didn't learn the lesson the first time around. The GOD you supposedly worship is, well, literally stupid.
Oh yeah, this makes Genocide and infanticide OK! Do you people even listen to yourselves? This is some seriously messed up stuff I reading here. But hey Hitler could have tried a world peace approach to a better society, but he chose to commit genocide too. I guess his reasons and his actions were ok. He was such a nice all loving guy! He even gets his motivation from the Bible:
So I am going to ask you both a real simple question:
And this comment is just a pathetic joke:
You don't have any actual answers, the ones you provide are just pure unadulterated ignorance. Great answers come from commonsense, logic, reason, and the empirical methods. They do not come from willful ignorance or the intentional intellectual retardation of the human species.
This would be equivalent of a nut case telling us we just don't understand why they killed 23 people. :/ Feel free to repeat it, I can just repeat that you are child molester. Hence, I don't need to understand stupid to understand that it's stupid. Sad part is, I was once just like you. Quoting that to me is the dumbest thing you can possibly attempt to use for an argument DamonWV. So to actually equivocate, this is what your quote basically states:
Yeah, you teach and preach that well DamonWV! Just keep repeating it! ;) I know you know I am right even if you will sit there and deny it :) And it's rather amusing that you think people here don't know this, as if you think you are actually clever ;)
Wrong! we can have it both ways! Sorry, but we can point to Sudan and then point to your religion / GOD.. Yep, simply because we can! Watch the video again, you seem clueless as to why we can.
This doesn't help your argument at all. My pointing to this hypothetical me being GOD demonstrates how intellectually inept your GOD would be. Or how moronic it's own supposed comments are in the bible. It's a demonstrations of how someone such as myself can actually think more rationally and intellectually on the same subject than some imaginary deity / bible you worship. And that clearly bothers you when I say:
Yes, it is that simple.. Yes I can have it both ways! And I wouldn't be dumb enough to tell everyone I am not here to harm you, but only to prosper you while you starve to death, or while I commit mass genocide and infanticide because I am sorry for creating you!. It's even more moronic to suggest an all loving GOD that demands you to worship it or go to hell. There is absolutely nothing intellectually honest, rational, or sound about it.
I do have answers, from those who have the answers, but you dont want to accept them because you have a twisted view on God. If God kills someone, and you cant comprehend why he did such act, you go to the fact that God must not exist, because a Loving God is incapable of doing such horrendous acts. If God created, then God has every right to do what he wants. Its the same thing from atheists, you just want to cherry pick selected verses that you find hard to digest them take it all out of context turning the character of God and jesus into something entirely different from what they are. It is a religion you have made jackel, and your deeply in passion with it,
My314tin,
Thats pretty condescending, it probably makes you feel better in your Father, Ghost and Zombie delusional mind to put others down.
At least I don't worship imaginery friends, ghosts or zombies, I would ask, "Who really needs help here me or you"..?
Luckily for us, according to your definition of Religion only you and your buddies will be in Heaven and from reading your posts its probably likely that some of them won't make the cut either.
Anyway good luck with your delusional mental world My314tin. I for one, hope you get what you deserve(expletive deleted due to better judgement)...
You would like to create this image of me that you have of Christianity and you can't. What bothers me is there are hungry children in the world, in the United States and many are dying. You can't have it both ways and you are limited in as many ways as I in regard to hunger in the world. You choose to ignore free will or self will of mankind and while doing so your hatred of Christians grows.
I think it was Zepp who posted up-thread on the different possibilities of God and who God may be to some. I think the same about hell and how it applies to humans who obsess with playing God but can't. Just because you can pull a fantasy out of your backside you think you have risen to godlike status. You then call it rational or more intellectual. It seems you are living your hell daily and it isn't about the hell of fire you keep referring to in the Bible. What your hell consists of is the hell that's defined in the Bible.
Extend yourself past your fantasy, your hypothetical ethics and morality and tell us all how you would end hunger. This isn't something God hasn't asked you to do already do so why does it exist?
In regard to "bother" yes I guess it does because you have all the power and the child is still in the shadow of the vultures while you do nothing.
I would like to see your demonstration! Maybe another youtube post from Atheists International on one of your miracles I missed.
Chuckline,
First it wasn't condescending. Jackel may choose to help you or he may abstain. If people (including Christians) are willing to quote the Bible then at a minimum be willing to become educated on the content. What Jackel has posted along with his interpretation is miles away from what's written and you choose to step in and back him up. Then you post another incorrect comment;
I don't play God. Nothing I have written would indicate such.
Jackel has chosen to portray himself as someone with the intellect and power to create a world without consequences. Everything's free and there's no pain. In the mean time everything that's wrong in our world as we know it today is God's fault.
BTW, I have to say this, as a straight up debater The Jackel would win under any rules of judgement here.
He does appear to not only have a more extensive and better knowledge of the Bible than any of you Zombie worshipers but he also puts forth a much more coherent argument.
If I came upon and read this exchange rith at this very moment with no knowledge of the Christian Religion whatsoever, I certianly wouldn't be saying a prayer to some 2000 year old Zombie before biting into my cheeseburger at lunch time today...
Yes, In Jackels world we would not be having this discussion. Everyone would agree. There would be no pain, suffering or hunger. I do seem to remember in one post where he allowed a choice and with a choice comes consequences. I'm sure he's still working this out in his first prototype.
PS. What knowledge of the bible do you have that might possibly give you an edge in voting. Copy paste isn't a qualifier.
Actually in a real debate we all lost because we all showed loss of self control to keep the debate civilized. For someone to come on here and say the debate was over before it started , atheists( jackels long abc list ) has already showed a one mind sided point of view with out even weighing in any other evidence from debate. If were engaged in debate and your telling me I lost before we even started, then its not even a debate any longer. If at anytime you tell someone they have to leave their evidence out of a debate , then your ending the debate with subjectivity, and selective debating. Watch some debates on you tube between richard dawkins, and ben stein, richard and lennox, richard and john Mc something.. I forget his name I posted it somewhere above. These guys do have different views, but atleast they debate in a civilized manner with out the name calling.
Its always a bias though, an attack against a preconceived idea of what people think God is. Have you seen how richard dawkins starts his book off in the God Delusion ? Could there be any more of a biased view of God ? The issue is with peoples personal view and what they think is moraly correct or their own ideas of what is good and evil, or how they think they could do it better if they were in charge. Just because things arent done your way, or regardless if you think you can do it better, doesnt dismiss that God exists.
Firstly, I didn't "twist" anything. I put it in exact context. Secondly, the answers you think you have and attempt to give are nothing but assertions that appeal to ignorance, emotion, and human vulnerabilities. Nothing you have stated even comes close to actual substantiated answers.
Another poor attempt to rationalize murder, genocide, and infanticide. And it's absolutely hilarious that you then deposit this:
You really must be completely deluded if you can't comprehend your own self-collapsing arguments. And then you post this rationality:
GOD has every right to commit murder, genocide, and infanticide! Thus
Wait.. wft? Yeah, you are definitely not clever at all in your arguments are you DamonWV.
Umm I never took them out of context lol.. In fact, I placed them in their actual context and used them as examples. Nothing I've stated was "out of context". The verses are not hard at all to digest, I can rip them out, eat them, and them pass them along as the steamy pile of crap they are.
Sorry, but I am far more educated in the content than you are. But let's play this game:
Ok, you tell us the rationality behind these verses:
Explain to me how it's rational, loving, morally, and ethically ok to commit genocide and infanticide. Would you worship me if I were to do the same thing? How about Hitler? Do you worship Stalin or Pole Pot too? See you want to play this game, but you don't actually want to address it. You want to sit there and cry about how I got the context wrong, and yet you seem unable to put it into an acceptable context to which I could ever consider it morally or ethically ok.
This is the usual escape goat in having to deal with your bibles immorality. And worst yet, you claim I have a "hatred" for "Christians"... Please state where I sated that I hate "Christians". And let's address free will:
Free will is a logical fallacy. You do not have free will, you only have limited choices to choose from regardless if you are religious or not. You do not have the free will to live forever, not have your loved ones die, be what you want, do anything you want, be GOD, or even be supernatural. Sorry, but Free will suggests infinite freedom and power. Well guess what, that doesn't exist! The limited will you think you have is applicable regardless if you are an Atheist or a theist!. It's not a magical gift, it's an inherent consequence of consciousness, or anything with a brain.
Sorry, the ABC's list owns all sides of the debate. Literally! You can't even deposit a debate without being forced to abide by it. This is exactly why you are unable to address it because it actually proves me correct in every way imaginable possible. Information theory is not something you can just circumvent lol.
This is a fact, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you might actually start engaging in intellectually honest discourse. You can feel free to attempt to tell me how it's not a fact...Wait, you can't do that without actually proving it as a fact! ;) The ABC's are non-arguable... There is no circumventing information theory, or why consciousness can not exist without cause, or a sht load of information to support it. Without information or the inertia of, there is no possibility of consciousness! Sorry but this is a 100 percent pure fact:
And it's quite interesting when you make your argument above and then deposit this argument:
Hate to break it to you, but this is exactly what you have been doing the entire time. Information Theory addresses every argument you can possibly make. Information theory is the only thing I require to conclude that GOD's are logical fallacies. Especially the Abrahamic GOD. Sorry, but you can't create and design existence or the rules to it. All conscious minds / entities are emergent properties of existence. There are no such things as "GODS".
So when you sit here a beg me to believe your GOD exists, I can sit back knowing it does not. Yes, information theory alone allows me to understand why GOD's are logical fallacies. Information is POWER! literally all of it, and literally that of everything!. You think it's some entity that wields it, but I know better, I know better that without it, that which wields it is nothing without it!.
Your GOD concept in conceptual terms would be no different than me comparing modern technologically advanced man to a single celled organism. You may as well call us GOD's, or just take the Pantheist route and call existence itself as GOD.
I would make Ben stein cry because I wouldn't be afraid to actually take him to town on this subject. But I suspect you mean civilized as in suggesting I must make concessions to intentional ignorance :/ Sorry, but that's not going to happen with me in such debates. Hence, I don't allow you to play those games, and I will call you out on them. You can call that uncivilized if you like, but it's far more dishonest when someone uses intentionally dishonest arguments and appeals to ignorance in a debate.
Yes, anything against your religion with automatically be considered an attack.. And even worse when you can't even define for me what exactly your GOD actually is.. Because if you go by the history, archeology, and where Christianity actually came from, it's this: #1.234 .. And if you go by Orthodox Christianity, it's Pantheism! You don't even know what a GOD actually is because it is purely a concept of opinion and title of opinion to where everything and anything can be considered a GOD.. News flash, you live in polytheistic world! You can't seem to handle the fact that the concept is self-collapsing and entirely moot to where it's actual value and relevance is pretty much pure irrelevance.
The reason for the idea of a Creator GOD is to establish supposed first cause. Well, anything conscious can not represent "first cause", solve infinite regress, be the creator to existence and it's rules, or exist without cause! It's exactly why a rock would require far less cause to exist than some conscious entity..
This isn't hard to figure out! It's blatantly obvious as to why creationism and the GOD concept is purely a logical fallacy!
When you can answer to my own posts, questions, and arguments in a proper context with honest discourse, you let me know.
The debate is civilized. We are not threatening each other, killing each other, punching, kicking, or pulling hair.. Practical tolerance doesn't mean we need hold hands and dance in an open field. The debate went down the darker path when one side decided they wanted to use dishonest discourse :/ But yes, this is just changing the discussion to distract from having to address the issues.
This is not why I can dismiss a GOD's existence. You can say it's why I would dismiss it being a GOD on moral, ethical, and intellectual grounds. Hence, why would I worship stupid, genocidal, infanticidal , and psychotically nonsensical behavior? Hello! There is a laundry list a mile long as for why I can establish the non-existence of your supposed GOD. Perhaps you need to start over and read this article again from start to finish. ABC's son, ABC's!
Just to repeat why this is crying foul. When you engage in this debate, and you then thus given up your right to call foul when the other side of the debate criticizes your position. Call it a lesson learned? You don't see me crying about being "attacked" in this debate do you?
If I were to actually attack Christianity, or Christians, I would seek to ban them. And yet, even as I sit here and debate Christianity, I often defend it's right to exist as a religion. You even know how many times I had put fellow Atheists in check for calling out the banning of your religion? I'm a secularist, and I can not just be summed up into being "anti-christian" in such a generalized context. I don't attack my Christian friends and family, so that makes no sense does it.. :/
You kepe stating the bible has its immoralities, in comparison to whos morals ?
Also when i say horrendous acts, we as people view any killing as horrendous do we not ? Obviously we view the outright killing of someone for no reason as an evil act. What if the killing had a reason ? What if its a reason that is known, it did have a purpose , but its something you will never know. Would that still make it wrong ? If there was a purpose to taking life, and you dont know why it was taken, does that still make it wrong ? You cant even conceive why God took the lives of many in the Old testament. He gave people a chance to turn from their wicked idolatry ways or they cursed and mocked him, and so he took lives. Whether it be a flood or any other way, he did take, but he gave oppurtunity, and he has the right to take life. He gave it, he can take it. I dont see why you have such a difficult concept with this. I dont love him out of fear that he can kill me, I love him because he sent his son to die for me and cover my sins with his blood. God has shown his love and his mercy as well as his wrath time and time again. I dont expect you to understand because your heart has become hardened and you no longer are able to see the love of Christ.
Is this a reference to me ? What makes it dishonest , that it comes from Christians ? That you cant accept it because it is in conflict with your faith and views ? Tell me jackal, what can you possibly show dishonesty that makes the history of such a religion and how its held its ground since the 2nd century to be false in anyway ? Your an Atheist Jackal, your heart is shut off to any notion of a God. You have a hatred, and total misconception of God and christianity . It has to be from not getting the right answers , being part of some very awful churches or bad experiences.
once again your pre conceived idea of what you think God is , your bias and terrible character assassination of God shows why you cant accept. Your list is long with problems you have with God, your rejection of his ways, because you cant stand the way God does what he does. You think you could do better ?
Your abcs are your religion, they are not proving anything. Its not making a point, what point are you even trying to make with your abc. Its your view.
When you try to take God out of the picture , it is an attack, when you characterize God as something hes not, it is an attack. Not direct, more indirect. I understand all people have different interpretation of God and his Character, but there is a majority, just like your Evolution scientists with their peer reviewed data, there is the same for Christianity. There is a consensus since the beginning of The bible of the Character of God. Jesus, what scripture means, its interpretation. Everything you state, is in direct conflict with that majority. I reject your minority view God, just like you reject my minority view with Evolution.
Should we take a poll on genocide and infanticide? I wonder who will win that.
Your question makes no coherent sense.
Yeah, there must always be a good reason to drown babies, pregnant women, puppies, school children, kittens, new born dolphins.. Maybe you can give me a good reason for how a babies in the world can be considered abominations, unclean, and needing of extermination. People like you remind me of the KKK who defend Hitler and try to rationalize genocide.
No you are appealing to ignorance. Your bible gave a supposed reason. "it was sorry for creating them". It's murderous intent is clear in Genesis. But you can feel free to give me a valid reason why I should go out and kill every baby on Earth. Go on.....
So now Genocide and infanticide has a purpose? Perhaps for the psychologically disturbed. Yeah, WHITE POWER! WHITE POWER!.. HAIL HITLER!
Was your god defending him self from being killed? Was he in any way threatened by life on Earth? And to answer your question, yes it makes it WRONG!.. Your kind of irrationality is why people commit genocide. Nut cases always believe such acts are justified and moral. Hitler, Stalin, and Pole Pot all believe their killing of millions of people had a "purpose", and were justified.
Oh but I can, the fictional GOD you worship is psychologically disturbed:
This is what you call NPD.. It's by definition Narcissism:
To which includes:
Also well noted here:
Just making these up is psychologically disturbing:
And yes, God doesn't mind killing children:
Yes, THOSE EVIL CHILDREN! .. Oh, it's repeated here for you to!:
But let's do better and evaluate this:
Reference the above to this:
Fun stuff! But let's evaluate your next argument:
Prove it! And it seems you think we should give parents the right to kill their children. Kinda like honor killings in Afghanistan! Oh, that's covered here too! :
So if parents are sorry for having their children, the should be able to just murder them! Why not, your GOD thinks this behavior is ok:
I could go on, but I am really beating a dead horse here.
Light has infinite speed! ..err wait, what's Snell's law again? News flash, it doesn't matter if it comes from a Christian, or from some midget from the movie Alice and Wonder land. Appeals to ignorance is dishonest discourse. You do that constantly in your debates. let's out line one here:
This is called an Authority argument:
In this case, in question form. And yes I can, your religion has nothing to actually substantiate or validate anything it claims. Especially in terms of the GOD it so depicts. Saying oral traditions or beliefs being around for whatever length of time does not make the factual or anymore than just beliefs. The dishonesty comes in asserting they are factual without substantiation or validation. Or without any means to do so.
And again, information theory. I only require information theory to win that debate. And I can use science to.. So what can I show?
People are not made simply dirt! Or blowing Oxygen into dirt! Let's define dust and dirt shall we?
Dirt:
Well, the human body is about 75% water molecules. It's also 97+ percent empty space. But to be more specific, the human body consists of the following:
And sorry, women didn't come from a mans rib! Your religion survives on ignorance, manipulation of, and the teaching of ignorance through the preying on human vulnerabilities and emotions. It's how you get people to believe light travels at infinite speed while ignoring wtf light refraction is or how light's velocity is actually measured.
Do you believe your deity designed and created this world or not? If you believe that, then yes it would be psychologically disturbing and messed up. Sure we can get mad at nature too, but that would be a pointless endeavor eh? It would be like trying to hold a unconscious tornado accountable for it's actions. And you know whats is worse? You believe in an omniscient entity right?
Well, from a design perspective, anything made would be made knowing everything that which was made would do in infinite detail. Infinite detail from beginning to end like a pre-planned puppet show it already knows the ending to. You can then say Hitler's slaughter of the Jews was planned before Hitler was ever born! This starving girl was thus planned and executed!.. Omniscience would make all purpose lost actually! It could only at that point be an infinitely known movie that has already been executed and played out. And it gets worse! You can't create or do anything from a position of omniscience! Why? because everything would already infinitely be known, done, repeated, experienced, felt, seen, heard, executed in every infinitely imaginable and knowable way ect ect ect..
This is why this stuff is utter BS. ;)
Now this really made me laugh:
Makes you wonder if DamonWV has even bothered to read them ;)
So, we have the above ABC's.. So let's address DamonsWV's question:
The points are made in the ABC's themselves ;) But for fun we can just make those points and apply them to you specifically:
But let's move on to his assertion:
Really? Ok, make a post on Newsvine without having to abide by the ABC's. This includes using the alphabet. Please tell me what doesn't it not prove? Are you telling me that you can exist with zero existential value? Are you trying to tell me that nothing in the literal context can exist as a person, place, substance, object, or thing?
Please tell me you aren't going to resort to the Nothing GOD. A supposed existing non-existence deity made of nothing and magically exists without any sort of "Value".
Oh wait, it's an imaginary fictitious being! So I guess that is equivalent to a nothing GOD to which has zero value or relevance beyond the imaginary concept, idea, media, or art. Hence, not being applicable to being real:
So tell us how my ABC list doesn't prove anything? Do tell me how there is awareness without the flow and inertia of information that supports basic functions such as "Obseravation", or things like Experience, emotion, knowledge, or basic cognitive dynamics.
How do you have will or intent without any information? Hence, can you intend to do anything without knowing what you intend to do? NO you can't. Intent involves knowing, and knowing involve needing information. Intelligence can't exist without information either!.
This isn't rocket science, it commonsense! Nor is it a religious view / position. And sorry DamonVW, your religion wouldn't even exist without information, or the premisses of information theory. Yes, you have indeed lost this debate before it began sir! And you will lose before you can even start trying to post your next reply. :/
Jackel you are just pwning this entire thread. It got weird when they started to defend genocide and murder. Creepy.
Jackel you are just pwning this entire thread. It got weird when they started to defend genocide and murder. Creepy.
Jackel
Indeed. You could simply state that existence (and all emergent properties thereof) is impossible without information.
There is need to continually copy & paste your ABCs, etc. and include boatloads of links to give the impression that yours is an intricately designed argument drawing upon the greatest minds of science.
If you want to make your point to a theist it seems to me you could start off with (and then elaborate on) something like this:
If God is the creator | designer of reality and reality (all that exists) is information then how could God predate information?
This is similar to (albeit quite more esoteric) the more cogent argument: If a designer (God) is required to produce the complexity and apparent order we observe then God would be necessarily more complex than this reality. So there must be a meta designer (for God), ad infinitum.
Bottom line, if your intent is to educate (rather than ridicule) the fundamental arguments against particular religions are easily stated. Although more complicated, the fundamental arguments against theism itself are also easily stated.
Jackel isnt owning anything. He has his unlimited links to show some superior knowledge. I havent seen any valid in his arguments yet. Only thing I see with Jackel is his twisted sick views on religion. Im glad you look up to him so much. Maybe he can be your God and you can worship him. I see him as someone who is lost in the world. I feel sorry that he was taken by the lies of man.
Now he thinks im some supporter for KKK.. Jackel just shows more of his ignorance of know something, and just going to character assassination. Oh did I forget to say ...
the "natural man"-the unsaved individual. It is a spiritual book and the unsaved person is not only spiritually blind, but 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that he "is incapable" of knowing that which is spiritually discerned.
You guys are truly incapable of understanding. It clearly shows that those who are not saved, those who reject , can not understand the word of God.
I wish jackel would actually take time to go debate someone who could give him a run for his money. I could be saying the same thing you you Led, if jackel were to debate Dr lisle, Ken ham , rc sproul, any of those guys. But its easier for jackel to come here and TRY to show his transparent logic to those who dont know any better. He hasnt convinced me one bit. Nothing he has said has any foundation. Its nothing more then his religion of twisted thoughts.
And once again all he can do is just focus on what he has issues with, infanticide, genocide, but he has no interest in acknowleding anything positive, or the good of the bible.
So your abc prove existence of God. Information just doesnt come from no where. Why dont you explain where they came from ? Your good and just posting them over and over, but how did they get there ?
Like I said , hes owning nothing. Im glad your brimming with hero woship. Im just sitting here rolling my eyes, not just at him but now at you too. And you too, like jackel seem to think im something , that im not. I defend God in what he does. Big difference on him doing something and us as people doing it. guess you have a hard time figuring that one out.
and you state;
I have stated before if you were honest you would post scripture verses to show the context they were intended versus how you would like them to be interpreted.
Why not post the verses to reflect their intent then you will have your answer to your youtube video post on the starving child in Sudan. Have some degree of honesty.
Ponder v. 44 & 45
Wrong, it disproves it. You ignore the complexity required to support a conscious state of awareness when it comes to information processing, complexity, structure, and system functionality. It takes a lot of informational complexity just to support a plant capable of moving around in a 3D environment much less a conscious entity being capable of self-cognitive direction in a 3D environment. Do you know what systems theory is, and what it has to do with information theory? Do you know why there must be a system with feedback to support just a primitive reaction that involves no cognitive thought or control?
DamnonWV, consciousness is highly complex, and takes far more cause to support it's existence as a phenomenon than you think. I asked you the difference between a rock, this dot --->. <---, and a conscious mind in terms of information theory, complexity, and what would be required to support their existence for a reason. So I will ask you again:
This is a question I would love to ask those who you think I should debate. Because since consciousness can't exist without cause, it's clear that no conscious entity can represent first cause. Consciousness is subject to the rules of existence, and cause and effect processes. Hence, It would be subject to being an emergent property from physical processes just like everything else is.
So... without information, the inertia of information (time), or information processing information, there can be no possibility of the existence, or the emergence of a conscious mind.
Sorry, but information itself can neither be designed or created into existence. Information is the substance of existence itself. So you are right, it doesn't come from "nowhere". And well, it just so happens that Energy and information are two sides of the same coin as both substance and value. Your argument is like asking:
Well your GOD can't preexist existence in order to create it can it? Nor can consciousness preexist information especially when it first takes the processing of information to support a conscious state. Consciousness can not exist without cause. So how did Existence / information get here?
It's simple:
If you really want the simple "E"asy version, it's this:
You want to know how to figure out your Origins and where everything comes from right? It's very simple, Origin can only be what you and everything else is made of. Thus to solve infinite regress in terms of origins, you have to find the universal set of all sets. Everything is made of Energy!
Well, energy is made of energy. It's the substance of existence itself! Thus it can only have come from itself. Energy can't come from nothing, or be made from nothing! It can only be made of what it is made of. It's the end of the rope!. Thus energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Same with information! Energy simply exists because the opposite is impossible. Energy is the very physical capacity of existence!
And I didn't link you to understanding capacity here for no reason!:
And if the kid would have actually read the articles I told him to read, he would actually understand this. If a 10 year old child can understand it, so should he be capable of understanding it..
Let me know when you can figure this out ;)
I will post what I want thanks.
Sorry, but the argument had nothing to do with preexisting information ect. The ABC's are quite self-explanatory. And if people can't comprehend the context, they either didn't read, are avoiding it, or are being intentionally ignorant. If my 10 year old Nephew can grasp this, DamnonWV and yourself should have no problems with it.
This is a given. One can not design and create that which one is slave to require for it's own existence. I've pointed this out several times already, and DamonWV really doesn't get it no matter how you present it to him. Why? Because he's intentionally playing ignorant.
Doesn't get more obvious in the title does it:
The problem we have here is that people like DamnonWV do not actually read this stuff, they intentionally ignore it. I've asked him several times already to tell me how information theory is wrong, as he so claimed. I gave him simple questions to address to which is obviously, with intention, ignores.
I didn't ridicule him at all. I used his name to demonstrate information theory, or I called him out on his dishonest discourse.
Interesting, I actually understand what the links say. Knowledge comes with understanding what you are posting. Hence, I don't just post "links". You on the other hand post a lot of creationist links to material you do not understand. And it's been quite obvious you do not understand the material you post. Does this make me more knowledgeable on these subjects? Yes!. Does it make me a superior human being? No! But it doesn't surprise me that you will cling to playing a morality game, and use dogma for a shot at a credibility argument. Oh, and we can see how dishonest you are with this:
No where did I make such a claim. Lie much? And well, you assassinated your own Character by lying, appealing to ignorance, defending Genocide / infanticide, avoiding my questions, posting authority arguments, making assertions you have no means of validating, as well as posting pseudoscience as fact to which you have no fundamental understanding of.
They could do no such thing..
So you are admitting you are not in a position to make a real argument. I can respect that, and it's something you should have admitted to a while back. To keep in mind here, all you did was use typical talking points that are easily shot down by the very same people you think I should go and debate. Most of those people don't even know what they are talking about either. They are the same type of people where you get "Infinite light speed" from.
I'm not here to "convince you". And sorry, I have a foundation..It's called information theory, logic, reason, and science. But you like to make up a lot of assertions that are basically flat out false. And you actually believe people won't notice that.
I don't need to, there is a reason why Atheists consider the bible a self-collapsing contradiction. Me posting positives would not invalidate the negatives! What I am doing is forcing you to deal with the negatives. And you don't like having to do that do you. And I don't just address the "negatives" like genocide and murder, I also address the logical fallacies, or what the GOD in the bible actually is. All you want to do is just believe and assert it as magical divine truth as if what collapses the entire religion doesn't exist. So all you will end up doing to make yourself feel better is claim that people don't understand and it's magically incomprehensible. Well, you couldn't be more wrong regardless of how much denial you need to convince yourself otherwise.
This is more appealing to dogma, and it's quite worthless to the debate. How about you actually try debating the issues intellectually, proving and substantiating your position as actual fact, or provide something tangible in terms of empirical support without all the dogma, logical fallacies, authority arguments, appeals to ignorance, lying, or any other sort of dishonest discourse.
No, I don't self-invent my own context. I take the scripture and comment on exactly what it says. The scripture I posted is not out of context. It would be the same context within the body of scripture it came from. What you might be trying to do is find a magical excuse that doesn't exist if I were to have posted the entire body of scripture. If you like, I can post the body of scripture with them..It won't get you anywhere in this debate.
I know very well what the intent was. The intent does not change the narcissism value. And the scripture you quoted had nothing to do with the Sudan argument. The video on Sudan references it's own context in regards to "GOD's Plan" ect.. Yes, the video has quite a bit of degree of honesty.
This is still Narcissism. It did not change the context at all. I used that quote in only two places in my arguments. One dealing with Narcissism, and why the religion is a volcano/fire cult. I did not take it out of context. But it's interesting that you cherry pick that verse to show that it some how made rational sense to burn people in an ever lasting fire or send them to eternal damnation for not supposedly feeding him, clothing him, or giving him something to drink. But you really left out the entire thing didn't you:
Sorry, but the context is about worshiping him. Hence not serving or caring about Jesus = eternal punishment.. Not sure if you understand the purpose of these stories. They are to make you feel guilty for not serving Jesus, and if you don't, you will be cast into eternal damnation. This is essentially about separating believers and non-believers. Hence, sheep from goats! Serve the king like a good slave and you will magically go to heaven to serve him forever. And you really need to take the entire bible in context when dealing with this issue. Just denying the Holy spirit is enough to land you in this supposed eternal damnation. And what's worse is that many Christian's don't see why they are referred to as sheep in the bible.
Sheep being coined at people that blindly follow and obey. Goats being those who do not just blindly follow and obey... It's pretty much the difference between a free thinker and one that is programed to be obedient. Another prime example of this is this:
This is about suggesting anyone that doesn't believe as being "wicked", and shouldn't be allowed in your home. This is about teaching Christians to love each other and hate those whom are not Christians. Non-Christians are deceivers, and wicked! It's tricky use of religious dogma where Christian's profess the bible to preach love when it really doesn't.
Jackel your --->.<--- Dot came from some where. It just didnt randomly appear. It took a creator to make that dot appear. You were the creator who pushed the button on the keyboard. The key board was made from a creator. So if everything is information, where is it coming from ? Also your abcs, where did you get those from ? Did you make those yourself ? or is there some movement out there that is using this ABC structure that you keep posting ? If it is by some movement, group of people I want to know who it is where you got the information from so I can do some digging myself.
Better question, why do we have the ability to know what is conscious and whats not. Rock is an inaminate object is it not ? It doesnt have a complex design of intelligence like we do.
They could do no such thing..
Do you know why Jackel ? First, your more than likely to avoid a debate with someone who can toss vast knowledge back your way.
Its easier for you to come on here and prey on the weaker mined showing off the dazzling display of a superior knowledge. To those who are not equipped to see through will believe anything you have to say, because your good and making anything sound real, I do give you that.
Lastly you wouldnt dabate them because you already know..
the "natural man"-the unsaved individual. It is a spiritual book and the unsaved person is not only spiritually blind, but 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that he "is incapable" of knowing that which is spiritually discerned.
No matter how good the information, no matter if they could pick your argument apart, you would still sit there and shake your head and believe in what you do. It takes a person who has the spirit of god to understand the things of God. How can you understand what you dont possess.
Joke site, but completely hilarious!
christwire.org/2011/06/atheist-math-teachers-will-force-your-children-to-learn-irrational-numbers/
You're right it did. But that is not the premise of the argument. That dot is just Energy and atoms. Perhaps we can go over this again:
And are you saying I am GOD? I created a dot right? Ahh no, I being an emergent property of energy can only influence and manipulate energy / information. And that simply just falls under:
So I ask you again sir, Specifically how and why is consciousness an emergent property / phenomenon. Tell me what consciousness requires to exist, and then tell me exactly how consciousness magically is without cause. Is a single bit / piece of information capable of consciousness? Nope!. It takes more cause for a conscious state to exist, function, and be in process than for a Rock to exist, or any relative dot / point to exist! There is a reason for that DamonWV ;) This might make it easier for you:
Consciousness can't come before information, and the processing of information. Consciousness is a emergent property of realization, a state of awareness, and this only can happen after information has been processed to achieve that state. It's no different as to why the image on your computer screen can't display until after the processing of information and the execution of. And for consciousness to continue being an emergent property, that process must be continuous while the emergent property can never precede the processes that make it possible. So like the computer image on your screen, if the processing stops, the computer breaks, or if you turn off the computer, the image will cease to display (death). Sorry DamonWV, but anything with a conscious mind can not represent first cause, causation, or a universal set that solves infinite regress.
The fact that unconsciousness exists, or unconscious things exist, is another reason why we can establish the fact that consciousness can not solve infinite regress. That's right, Existence does not require your GOD, me, or anything else with a mind to exist! You have it ass backwards DamonWV. Anything with a consciousness is bound and slave to require existence, it's substance value, and it's rules to exist, to or be existent! Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of Existence, it is not the creator of! All a conscious mind can possibly do is creatively, with limitations, manipulate and control the system the are made from, substance, and the information. Hence, the best you, I, or any conscious entity could do is creative material physical manipulation. Ants create tunnels, Bess create beehives, Man creates Sky scrapers and synthetic living organisms ect.. Unconscious processes create us, the mind, sand dunes, snow flakes, stars, galaxies, life ect.. So here it is:
Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, consciousness, matter, anything possible possible, or anything with mass possible. "A universal set of all sets"
And DomonWV, I didn't just use the dot as an example. I used a Rock and a Dot. I can use empty space too! And the purpose of it is have you address why a Rock or Dot isn't conscious.. Please try again.
There is no such thing as "random" regardless of natural emergence of things, or things emergent from cognitive intervention.
Really? There are lots of dots in exists. In fact there are an infinite number of relative points in space. All I did was point to one. It's again no surprise you are avoiding the context of the argument. Consciousness is very complex, can't exist without cause. If you want to debate me, please adhere to the premises of the debate.
Incorrect, they would do the same thing you did above. And that is actually avoid the debate and trying to change the debate. Sorry, but I do believe it would be entirely the opposite. Not once have I avoided anything you have said, but you surely avoid 90 plus percent of what I have had to say, and that includes having to properly address my arguments.
No, you chose to engage in this discussion, and you are finding yourself out matched. That is not me intending to prey on you. What's even interesting is that I don't even think of you as dumb or stupid. You may not be well educated in these subjects, but that doesn't make you dumb or stupid. But if you pay attention and try to learn from these debates, you can makes yourself more knowledgeable on the subjects being discussed. I had to go through the same process by honestly taking the time to read and try to understand the material. People don't take the time to post resources and educational material for you just to prey on you. They do it in hopes you will actually click on that link, read it, and take the time to comprehend it as they have. It's not worth my time to sit here and prey on people.
I do remember stating that I would debate them because I do know. And that clearly bothers you. It bothers you that I can sit here and say that Information / existence itself is higher on the totem pole that the entity you beg me to believe is existent. Telling me something is slave to the same rules as I am in order to exist is magically a GOD isn't going to cut it. It bothers you that Consciousness can not represent first cause, solve infinite regress, or represent a universal set. It bothers you that existence itself does not require me, you, or any conscious entity to exist.
I will indeed win that debate. And it won't be because I am arrogant, on a high horse, or anything like that. It will be because I am just simply right to which was easily deducted from the use of basic critical thinking skills. Anyone could do this. I am not special in any sort of way in regards to this. It's simply how the Religious cookie crumbles under it's own self-collapsing weight.
Jackel
From what I have observed, Jackel, you are here to show off. I see no attempt by you to have a thoughtful discussion with DamonWV. As I suggested, your point is indeed simplistic yet you gratuitously dress it up with your ABCs, pet phrases ("consciousness cannot exist without cause", "universal set of all sets", "infinite regress", "self-collapsing argument", "I win") and bombastic linking.
Given you admit ...
... there really is no need for a pretentious presentation is there? If you cannot make your simple, commonsense point in a few basic sentences then you either have low communications skills (unlikely) or you prefer obfuscation. It is almost as if you do not want people to realize that your point is really not all that brilliant and the 'deep thinking' is really not all that deep.
__________
Bottom line, a rather cliche but solid base argument an atheist can present to a theist arguing in favor of ID | creationism is: "If a designer (God) is required to produce the complexity and apparent order we observe then God would be necessarily more complex than this reality."
If someone truly wants to be understood and honestly engage a theist in a thoughtful discussion they would make their case in cogent terms and then incrementally add detail in response to rebuttals | questions.
Information theory will be waiting in the wings to use if the discussion demands it. Your 10 year old nephew may be well-studied in information theory but most people are not up on theoretical computer science - it is a tad esoteric and quite revealing that you use it as your opening move.
Jackel, You have gone from simi-coherent to insane dishonesty. I you know as much about the Bible as you claim then you know this is false. You choose to focus on daily bowing down to God as the only act a Christian is called to do. Your desire to incessant repeating the same doesn't make it true.
In worshiping God you are called to assist the starving child. If you choose to not believe in God then you are still called to assist the starving child. Your choice is to defer to why God is allowing the incident rather than take responsibility. I can only guess you would prefer to allow the child to die than take action because a good deed may take on an appearance of being Christlike.
You are the person mocking Christianity. This along with constant copy/paste doesn't support your argument. Your argument against Christ would be compared to rescuers throwing a life ring to those already in the boat.
edit;
If you know...
PS. Yes you are "creating your own text" by picking one or two verses to prove a point. Your thought process doesn't extend past your own desire to see only hellfire and brimstone or drowning bunnies and volcanoes.
If you choose to take this from biblical scripture and apply it to any study it proves true. If you're closed minded, choose to filter or deny information then the flow of information will cease.
TiG, We started simple.....it got progressivley more detailed. They move the goal post, they squirm around and desperately grasp at straws. They ignore facts. Now yes, displaying simple explanations may work for someone who is reasonable or someone who thinks critically, but when someone is clearly ignoring facts and essentially saying "it is what it is because I say it is"....you have to be a little bit more thorough. This thread has been going for almost 2 weeks and yet we have gotten nowhere. I guess the point is, people will believe what they want to believe regardless of what is true or not. Mainly i'm talking about evolution here. Creationists are notorious for trying to mix things up in the evolution world by saying that it is controversial among scientists......it is controversial among CHRISTIANS! NOT SCIENTISTS! To date however, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine. The question is not.....If evolution was true would you accept it.....the question is.....Evolution is true, why don't you accept it?
The thing that bothers me most is the attack on science simply because it goes against certain beliefs....its funny because you don't see other scientific arguments coming out of the christian communities, only the ones that threaten their fundamental views. There is a simple and obvious answer for why that is, people don't want to come out of their comfort zone, to accept evolution would be to shake their belief system. Rather than facing their truth they would rather live in ignorance, which is fine!! But don't go on a crusade against evolution and try and muddy the waters of its legitimacy. IT..........ISSSSSSSSSS............FACT!!!!!!!!!!!! ACCEPT IT OR DO NOT!!!! The systematic approach of grasping at straws, a religious trademark, is getting old, you could try and say the same thing about gravity (michele bachmann) or global warming (republicans) but there is obviously a motive behind why someone believes those things. Whether it be money or religion, people don't like change, simple as that. The funny thing is though, science is indifferent to how you feel, facts are facts are facts, you can try and manipulate the facts you can try and take the facts out of context (religious trademark) and you can try and just plain lie about them but at the end of the day they are still facts, unchanged and unscarred.
I really don't care if you personally believe in evolution, but to try and go toe and toe and knock down evolution.....you're gonna have to do A LOT better than the bible.
To me, god is a placeholder for that which we do not know (the unknown). This does not mean that we will never know this stuff, this does not mean that because we don't know things yet that god must exist. As intelligence progresses and science progresses, so will our knowledge of the universe. And the game that religious people play is moving the goal post. The scientific community comes out with a discovery that conflicts with something in the bible....uh oh....it MUST not be true!!!! How can we manipulate this data so that we can muddy the waters and other religious people can feel comfortable knowing that "it is controversial" so they can go back to protecting the bible with every inch of their being.
I just hate the arrogance the religious community thrusts upon the community, you see it in politicians and you see it in the private sector. This entire republican panel of candidates are super religious, emotionally driven wackjobs who want to control how people live and think. It's just so f&#*@&* arrogant! Yet so hypocritical!!! SURE....herman cain is a wonderful christian man!!!! yet he sexually harasses women, typical story. The fact that, in this day and age, a story can come out about a priest sexually assaulting a child and we can say....oh that's not surprising.....is mind numbing!
Look, I may have been all over the place there but I made some valid points. You will never stop science from advancing and yes im talking about evolution. Evolution will eventually be accepted universally just like every other major scientific discovery has been, it takes a while of course because scientific literacy is nil amongst the layman, especially in this country. People seem to have a tendency of blindly believing what other people tell them rather than doing the research to verify the results themselves. "Oh the pope says evolution isn't true so it must not be true.....and of course I base that on absolutely nothing." A celebrity tells us to do things and to think things so we must do it because they are after all celebrities. Same thing. Thinking objectively is one of the most important traits of our critical thinking process, if you do not think objectively you do not have much to contribute.
The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007.[66][67] This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce.[68][69] The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1100[70]) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.[28]
LedZepp,
You gotta admit that Intelligent Design, does sound very elegant, and has a much better sound than Creationism, their PR campaign has certainly helped...
Religion's power has been steadily waning in the centuries since the Dark Ages, the centuries when Religion and Law rode shotgun on each other, darkness is what you will inevitably get when Religion is allowed to reign supreme.
People like Johannes Keppler, Copernicus and Galileo would be able to do their lifes work without fear of death knocking at their doors at any moment, if they lived in this age. Too bad we'll never know how far they could have gone without the ignorance of Religious Nuts holding them back.
Sad to say, and unbelievable as it may seem they are still clinging on (read above) and they even want to be The President of the USA, Some of them actually worship a Zombie, crazy as it may sound, but you can't make this stuff up...
We can never let them regain power, or a new Dark Age will certainly swallow the world...
To vote for someone like michele bachmann would be to doom this country to a second tier country. If you vote in a zealot be prepared for serious scientific setbacks. Not to mention the bat sh*t insane ideas they will come up with because "god told them so".
Actually that gives me an idea. I think we should find an unknown atheist or agnostic, someone who values critical thinking and science, possibly a scientist....we have him pretend like he's a god nut and have him run for president but when he gets in he starts funding science.....leaves god out of the oval office decision making process. Trick the zealots at their own game.
I thought we had eight years of this before President Obama?
:-)
Ya and look where that got us.....
I always thought " No one can take him seriously" and then "I sure hope people learned a lesson" and then "I hope the Mayberry Machiavelli has satisfied the fanaticals" anyway the whole 2012 ticket is full of them to add to those currently in congress. Did you happen to see Jon Stewart, Men Not at Work? The latest on the motto vote.
Far from it, but I am saying you created the dot. It took your mind to think of pressing the key board to make the dot. There for you did create the dot. I know what your saying we are all atoms of energy, but why does that have to exclude God ? How does, us, this key board, your dot, our conscious , the galaxy, even able to exist ? Energy has been eternal ? Maybe you could use that as an argument, but you can in no way use observable , emperical data to back that. No one was there to know when or how energy came to be, you can ASSUME, and I am fine with that. You can give your best answers, and if your abc's are your best answers, I am fine with that too, but do not exclude God. because your abc's can not prove there is no God. Just like You can not prove how atoms and energy exist, and why they exist.
I get it , but your still using your naturalist world view. We are bound by such conclusions you make IF we take God out of the picture, but IF God exists, do those rules / laws need to apply to him ? If God is eternal, and has always existed, your issue is at what time when God started to exist was first ? His existence, or information. But if we look at eternity, its something that can not even be comprehended. We honestly have no way to know if Eternity can exist. No one of us was there to witness the start of eternity. None of us would be able to know the end of eternity. Which is self contradiction , paradox, and a fatal argument. Because our rational of etnerity is soemthing that has no beginning or no ending. It would have to , to be eternal, so therefor it had to always have existed. So even if you can say energy has always existed, you still can not prove that by any type of scientific method, so therefor you can not exclude God from the picture.
once again the dots in space came from somewhere. You did point to a dot, but you made that dot appear. It took intelligence to make it appear. It would have never appeared, had you never pushed the keyboard key to make it appear. It could not have just appeared with out not action making it appear.
Those guys could give you the debate you seek. But you would reject any point they make because you have already set your belief that God can not exist.
I still want to know where you got your ABC's from ? Is this something you made up, or is it from some movement going around that is using this argument, and you picked up on it. Give me your sources of the ABC argument .
Well the 2008 election was horrible. I kept thinking to myself, this is it ? This is all that can be offered to us ? I didnt care for obama or mccain. All anyone cared about in that election was making history. It was all about color of skin. Ok history has been made, now please lets get back to getting someone in the office who can get this country moving in the right direction. With so much greed, corruption from BOTH sides, I wonder if they will ever be something attainable. Getting a president in there who can do some good.
http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
Absolutely, some funny $#it for sure...
Another funny thing about Religious people, many of them call the US a Godless country. Yet imagine how far a candidate for President would get in this country if he/she said that they don't regularly attend chuch or belong to any Religious organization. Never mind a stated Agnostic or Atheist.
Reagan had fake Religion, claimed to be Christian but never attended any church or religious ceremonies. GW Bush 43 was by far the scariest so far, getting us into 2 wars, each one longer and more costly than any other war in US history.
I thought nuclear annhiliation at his/Gods hand might be the next shoe to drop, we probably got off easy on that one...
oops i leftout my AIG link . I was asking about if your ABCS was the information theory. WHich i just read about it on wikipedia, but now im reading about it on AIG and trueorigins.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/information-theory
This one get technical farther down
http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
It ends with a challenge to dawkins..
So your saying you knew reagan so well in his heart to know if he was a christian or not ? How could you even make a statement like this ? You using your assumptions, and trying to make a point that reagan was not a christian because he didnt go to church. Were you his shadow ? Does he have to go all the time just to be a christian ? You need to study up.
This statement cleary shows your personal bias. Your now stating that Bush could not be a chrisitan because we went to war. even if you didnt agree with it, you know for a fact is he was a christian or not. You have all the facts in your possession to know why GW bush did what he did. Im not in favor of the war Btw, but my point is being that you can not know everything, your not his shadow either, nor know his heart.
DamonWV, I can walk with you but I don't have to agree, especially in supporting either Bush. Both involved us in wars and at least one of the last two wasn't warranted. How we entered Iraq wasn't or shouldn't be considered a Christian act with all the lies and deception taking place. Thousands of innocent women and children died. Both father and son Bush have the worst jobs record in the last four decades. Many people consider Carter as on of the worst presidents but he created more jobs in four years than the Bush team did in twelve. I speak out about the actions of Christians especially when it comes to human rights and this is what being Christian is all about correct? Within this context GWB was the most pathetic of pathetic. If our nations economy was back to where it was before eight years of Bush I would call it a miracle.
Being a Christian president isn't indicated by how often he attends church or through a statement or profession of faith. The true indicator is that his conviction leads him to make decisions for all the people of the United States, and for all good. This isn't personal bias this is fact. Jesus didn't break the bread and fish and say; feed the believers.
I myself dont know if they are christians are not, and I did state I was not in support of the war. My point to Chuck is , he is trying to base whether if someone is a christian or not if they are attending church, or going to war. Only God knows the heart, and as for war, I , personally myself dont know all the facts, nor would I ever know. All i can do is say I myself am opposed to it, and hope all our troops get back home before the end of the year like Obama said.
Led
You seem to be sincere; here is how I see it.
I agree with you. It is very difficult to change someone’s beliefs. To do so one must change the base of knowledge that ultimately causes the individual to hold a particular belief. This means making changes to notions that may have existed for a lifetime and are likely reinforced by a network of facts (as the individual perceives fact) that allow the belief to continue.
I would not attempt to change what someone believes. Certainly one should realize that it is impossible to make the kind of changes you are talking about by bullying tactics, ridicule, sarcasm or condescension. In my judgment it is
more effective to simply express a different point of view. This can be done with respect. Also, how do you know that you hold truth ... that you are indeed right?
I do not understand how someone could deny evolution but the reasons are clearly faith based.
Frankly if someone were to tell me they believe the Earth is about 8,000 years old and that the biological source for all humanity come from a single ancient couple I would be interested to hear the logic which justifies contradiction of known science.
However, if they fail to deliver suitable logic (and that is likely what would happen) I would recognize that they weigh faith very highly and leave it at that. But that is just me.
I would defend science (i.e. extant scientific theories, scientific facts, laws) against the attack.
Of course. Why do you find that noteworthy?
I suspect that has a lot to do with it. Recognize that a belligerent viner is not going to make coming out of their comfort zone happen any sooner.
It is scientific fact. It represents our best understanding to-date. (Just to be clear.) But in the spirit of your comment I am quite against non-scientific attempts to discredit science.
Mostly true.
Science is ideally an exercise in critical analysis.
Absolutely. The Bible (and similar works) are incredibly easy to shoot holes in from a scientific perspective. If someone attempts to contradict science with the Bible I would suggest leaving them alone because there is no chance anything good will come from the exchange.
Spoken like a scientist. :-) We know what we know and accept the notion that future observations may require that we revisit what we thought we knew.
It usually takes time but most religions historically defer to science. After a while it becomes quite difficult for a religion to assert something that its followers have largely learned is false.
Historically, blind faith has a truly horrible track record. Faith and critical thinking do not really coexist well. However that does not mean in any way that a spiritual or even a religious individual is incapable of critical thinking. The human mind is complex and can deal with reality on many levels as well as function well with contradiction. Like I said before, faith (and belief in general) is complex and will not be discarded because of a few exchanges on NV.
I would let the facts come out first.
Certainly. So let’s apply some critical thinking. When engaging a theist one should have a clear objective. Assuming one is honest and wishes to be productive I would think a decent objective is to provide education/information in areas one suspects the theist could benefit. The theist will accept the information or not. If not, what is a logical course of action (sticking with the objective of education)? I, personally, see no value in berating the individual. Instead I would encourage them to ask challenging questions.
Maybe I have missed something in my analysis … let me know.
TiG, I would invite you to engage Damon on evolution. You will be surprised the ignorance and complete bias involved. All sources, of course, from Christian sources. You wouldn't go to the nazi's for historical information on Jewish culture, why would you go to religion for scientific information. It is absurd.
Why would it matter zep ? At least he knows that he wont change peoples minds. You think he will have anything to include that I wont reject ? Just like you automatically discredit " christian sources " I can say I easily reject "Atheistic sources " Just two religions clashing nothing more. Like all this debating we all have done here had any positive influence .. You know when we were talking about the winners of this debate.. I was saying there are none. But the ones who did win, are the ones who never said anything. They came here, they read, the left, never to return. Those are the winners :D LOL
Who am I showing off to? You seriously need to suggest people are showing off when they make solid logical arguments? You do understand what a formal logical fallacy is right? :
You obviously not have read this from beginning to end. And thoughtful does not mean I make concessions to his position. Thoughtful is putting up a strong argument. If you get offended by that, too bad! Grow some thicker skin!
Guess what, this is a pleading argument that does nothing to address the arguments made in my posts. You are just basically sitting here crying about it, or trying to call "foul". I could go much deeper into systems theory, information theory in a more technical manner, but that would really complicate trying to make it easy to understand for people who have no background or understanding in these subjects. So yes, I keep it easy. Your arguments are just as deflective and dishonest as DamonWV's. And do tell me how the ABC's are complicated. You either have to be really dumb not to understand them, or intentionally ignorant. It's pretty sad a 10 year old can understand them, and some people here seemingly can not.
This Phrase is used to say that it doesn't take a genius to figure this out, or understand it. This didn't admit anything, it was making a point! You do understand the usage of this phrase right?
Wouldn't need one if people actually engaged in honest discourse would we? And it's irrelevant if you perceive an argument as pretentious, or even arrogant. It will not invalidate an argument, or make an argument untrue. Hence, you are using a fallacy argument as a means of debate.
Sorry but this is utterly nonsensical. Your argument is like suggesting we can teach Nuclear physics in just a few sentences! Sorry, but subjects to be understood will often require more than a few sentences. Example: I don't have 6 years to sit here and educate DamonWV on the basics of micro-biology, Snell's Law, basic physics, information theory, complex adaptive systems with feedback ect. And I did a pretty damn good job making it simple enough to grasp.
Oh yeah, you caught me! That's got to be it! /sarcasm .. Sorry, but the intention is to make logical arguments. I really don't care if you view them as brilliant or deep. You are in fact using a Straw man argument:
Again, nothing you have said addresses or invalidates anything I've said. It's all just dogmatic crying.
This is not the specific argument being made.. Suggest you go back and read my posts.
Oh I did thanks.. Perhaps you can outline for me what exactly I posted to which you had problems understanding.
Information theory doesn't just deal with computer science. And I gave them the tools to study up on it. Oh that's right, that bombastic linking, and articles! If you are going to complain, actually make a valid complaint.
Damon, My point is that both President Bush's professed their faith in God and Christianity. I think #2 did a poor job in supporting what he professed. When Chuckline throws out an inane comment regarding war and Christianity or going to church, with a zombie attached he expects it to stick. Why I'm not sure, only he knows. My background isn't biology but my military experience along with knowledge of our Constitution and the war powers act is sufficient to understand imminent threat. This is one reason it takes two people to fire one of those big missiles with nuke warheads (MIRVS). An act of war should be taken as seriously as firing a nuclear missile/weapon.
I think the same amount of seriousness is required here if you are representing Christianity in this discussion on creation vs evolution. In doing so I think it disingenuous to brush off a presidents actions as only God knows what was in his heart. We know it's public knowledge today that every tool used to commit the United States to war against Iraq was falsely used. There was every indication prior to entering that the tools were being used in a false manner. I think the President did a disservice to the Office of the President and also his professed Christian faith. This may sound judgmental and my position is based on his actions which he repeated on numerous occasions regarding war along with his attitude of being totally disconnected from the plight of humanity in the US and around the world.
He is/was called to uphold the laws of our land and the Office of the President of the United States. He wasn't called to twist and distort to suit his needs an ideas. The same actions he took to involve the US in war is the same action and thinking that earned he and his administration "Mayberry Machiavelli." John J. DiIulio Jr., Ph.D who was the Bush administration staffer on Faith Based Initiatives coined the phrase to define Bush political policy in action. If you haven't read it I suggest it as a good read and if you have, read it again. There's a link to the letter on wiki.
This is OT in a sense and at the same time is topical when we look at issues of teaching creation in the science classroom. If I choose to stand on the side opposing my views on my faith it will be in cases such as what is taught in the classroom regarding religion and issues such voting for the motto In God we Trust
edit; such as voting for the motto in God we Trust when there are many more important issues at hand other than the need to remind President Obama that E Pluribus Unum is not our country's motto, as if it were under attack.
Tell me how I created the dot. How did I create the energy, and the atoms to make said dot.
Irrelevant. I didn't actually create the dot. I was only a part of the process that led to the Dot's emergence.
Incorrect. The processes in the computer made the dot. Energy did the work, not just me specifically. Energy processes energy and makes the dot. Energy processes energy to make you a conscious being capable of making a computer that can make a dot by pressing a key... The problem here is that you are not applying infinite regress. Where does it actually begin? What process led to the dot's emergence. Well, it didn't begin with a conscious mind. There are a lot of unconscious processes that led to the dot's emergence. Yes, consciousness was apart of this, but it was not the originating cause. So you first require the processes that make consciousness possible, and then you can move on from there.
Example:
This is a very simplified explanation of a very complex system with feedback. We still don't know exactly how the brain produces the conscious state because it's a very complex process that leads to this very complex phenomenon. This might be of interest to you:
* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization
Abstract
Or:
We do know the basics of what must happen before the conscious state can be an emergent property, and what is required to support it. This is far more complex that the dot, or a Rock. A dot or rock would require far less cause to exist than a conscious mind. And my reference to a dot is not specific to just the one displayed on your computer screen as I can refer you to any point in space and make the same argument. So now tell me about the rock Damon..
Firstly, a GOD is a concept of opinion and tile of opinion. What this excludes is the notion of the concept you believe to be a GOD. Usually a supposed conscious individual entity described as follows:
Well, this GOD doesn't exist. And the closest you can get is Existence itself. And we are all emergent conscious representatives of existence. Maybe we can simplify this debate a bit:
No, that would be impossible.
No, that would be impossible. It would be bound and slave to those rules as anything else would be. This alone nullifies the GOD concept.
No, this would be impossible giving consciousness is highly complex. The origins of complexity can not come from conscious entities.
So if you can tell me how a conscious entity can design and create existence into existence, the rules to existence, the complexity and processes required to support a conscious state, information, cognitive dynamics, system functions that can support the ability to observe, respond, or act. I will then consider the possibility of a GOD.
Energy is simply eternal because it's not made from anything else. Energy is made of energy. And energy can not come from nothing, or be created from nothing. Energy is the capacity of information, dimensional value, space, volume, you, a brick, or the entirety of the physical system we call existence. There is no non-physical system, or outside to the physical system. Why? Because again, Nothing can not exist as an existing person, place, substance, object, entity, or thing. There can be no boundaries to the physical reality simply because the boundaries can only be represented, should it be argued for, as literal nothing. Well nothing can't literally exist. And well, we can't exist in a Nothing box to which has no capacity to contain or support our existence either. I gave you this example for a reason:
You are like the brick. And so is a conscious mind. Even imagined images in your head are indeed physical objects, or patterns of energy. Hence, you could say that a green monster did eat your neighbors cat in your mind. But the relevance doesn't go beyond that no differently than the relevance of pixie fairies in a movie. Hence, a monster really didn't eat your neighbors cat.
Actually I can.. We are here. We are apart of existence. Existence and its properties are thus observable and can be empirically supported...If we are to be existent, we can only be made of what existence is made of. We can't be made of non-existent stuff! Aka Nothing!... So yes, we can indeed understand why energy is eternal, and whey energy =/= information as both substance and value. We can understand that Energy/information = Causation. Yes, E = everything. It's why I pointed this out:
It's also why I posted this:
The hard part is figuring out how everything work in accordance to. And well, that's not as easy as understanding the basics, and the fundamental rules.
I didn't need to be there, I only need to be a conscious entity in order to figure that out. There is no assumptions here, it's all empirically supported.
Yes it does. But what it doesn't exclude is a being that could perhaps have possibly induced a Big Bang. I am not telling you that there can't be a higher intelligent being out there capable of doing things we currently can not. The only GOD concepts I can invalidate, or prove wrong are the impossible ones that are self-collapsing logical fallacies. And you have no idea in terms of how many such higher entities could exist. There could be billions of them, or even billions of different species of higher intelligent beings out in the infinite vastness of existence. And to some entities, we ourselves may appear to be one of those... Now if you choose to worship some possible existing, really smart, and powerful entity as a GOD, that is up to you. But in terms of the Biblical GOD, that god doesn't exist. Or if it does, it's a volcano.
Perhaps you can define for me what exactly your GOD is. In terms of Pantheism, God is existence itself. Well, I and disprove the non-existence of existence can I ?? Empirically, their GOD exists. So tell me why Existence itself is not GOD? Or tell me why your GOD wouldn't require the Pantheist's GOD in order to exist.
Umm, that would be a natural process.. In fact, there actually is no such thing as a UN-natural thing or process. All phenomenon or things that are in and of existence are natural. We as a species like to think we are separate from the natural order of things, or nature itself. But in reality, that is a fallacy regardless of what we make, do, or destroy.
This is simple yes. Let's take the first rule Positive:
If your GOD exists, it would be greater than zero. It's existence would be a positive vs a negative existence right? Well, it's bound to require that rule. It must have a positive informational value. It must have a capacity to exist.. It will be bound to require the positive inertia of information (time) to have a conscious mind.
This is the chicken and the Egg argument. But here we know the answer since consciousness can not exist prior to the processes that make it possible. This is subject to cause and effect to where consciousness is the effect / emergent property / phenomenon... Just like snowflakes are the emergent property of the material physical processes that make them possible. So your argument would be like suggesting that Snowflakes existed before the crystallization of water, or the processes that make snowflakes. Well, that's not possible.
I can.. Existence will exist eternally simply because Non-existence can not literally be an existent person, place, object, substance, or thing. Hence, there are no existing non-existing things. Existence exists without creation simply because of this. It's understood and solved by an impossible. And you can only solve infinite regress with an impossible variable... And it's why consciousness can't solve infinite regress since we know that unconsciousness exists. I can regress it to where an unconscious state is possible. Hence, the Rock, or the dot.
Please see the definition of non-existence and why it can not exist.
Incorrect :/
Can you tell me how time can begin and end? For instance, if you stop time (the inertia of information), how long of a time period will the stoppage supposedly last? Well, time can only be argued to where you could say that time could be placed in suspended animation to where the inertia of information becomes static from one frame to the next. But you could never literally stop time, or have time cease to exist.
I just did.. I do so just by being existent.
Do you understand what makes up a somewhere? Space is the capacity of a place, a where, a somewhere!. Energy is the volume and capacity of space. It's of infinite volume since Existence must also be of infinite volume. There can be no existing volume of non-existence. There can be no such thing as a literal Nothing place to exist in.
I helped make it appear. And it appeared in a relative point in space. You can refer to it as a point, or a dot as it's irrelevant to which you want to argue with. The point of that example was to ask you why the dot is not conscious in order to have you address the issue of what is required to support a conscious state/enity, vs a non-conscious state/entity. You are not adhering to the premise of my arguments, or questions.
The computer is intelligent? The processes that displayed the dot are all intelligent?
It would have also never have appeared if not for all the unconscious, and unintelligent processes. Especially those that support intelligent processes.
Energy is always in action. You can not state that information or energy is never in a state of inertia. Energy has this amazing ability to self-oscillate, and self-organize. It's pretty much a natural property of energy. If it didn't or couldn't, you wouldn't be here and existence would just be a static infinite volume of energy without you, planets, snowflakes, or conscious minds.
Actually no. There is a reason why people like William Lane Craig are now resorting to the Nothing GOD argument. They are now trying for the ultimate appeal to ignorance as if nobody would notice. Hence, they trying to win the debate by defecting to the other side of the debate. Hence, I now get arguments like this:
Well, atheists will agree.. A non-existent god doesn't need anything to exist because it's non-existent.
No, I would evaluate their points and make an argument. I didn't simply reject your points. I evaluated your points and then told you why they are either right or wrong.
I wrote them.. yes, that article wasn't just copy pasting. There is quite a bit of my own content in there.
What difference does it make? How about you actually try addressing them instead of trying to find an excuse not to.
Me, myself, and I. I wrote them in reference to much of our modern understanding of information, and information theory. It's not hard to grasp that anything that exists will have informational value, structure, cause, complexity, and substance. I brought together many of the tenets of complicated information theories into an easier to understanding for many people who might not know a whole lot about information theory. A lot of it deals with systems theory, and digital physics. I also brought in philosophies on information theory ect.
Jackel
Exactly. Who indeed?
So you beat the (scientific) crap out of an anonymous Christian viner on a social network site – does that really matter? Like I told you before, use the energy you put forth in this seed alone to write a paper proving that the ToE is absolute truth – an unfalsifiable scientific theory which is nevertheless dependent upon observations in reality. Demonstrate proof that you have identified a scientific theory that for all of time will NEVER be refined or superseded as a result of observation. That is where you can make a difference.
No, it is when people jump well beyond cogent responses into rebuttals which knowingly employ esoteric concepts and knowingly overload the response with links that few viners will spend the required hours reviewing.
Deflection. Moving on.
You obviously are presumptuous. It took you very little time for you to go from a meaningful response into throwing information theory, etc. on an ‘opponent’ who clearly had probably never even heard of the term.
Read the posts objectively, Jackel, it is rather obvious.
No it does not. Thoughtful means considering the other position and attempting to rebut in terms that a) will be reasonably understood and b) in pursuit of a productive end.
A strong argument is absolutely fair game. Bullying and obfuscation are despicable and indeed offensive – growing a thicker skin will not change that fact.
Another one of your inventory lines: ‘pleading argument’ to which I respond: ‘bull@!$%#’.
Your point is simplistic as you have so indicated. Your 10 year old nephew understands your point. If you believe you are debating a viner who cannot match the cognitive abilities of a 10 year old then throwing increasing levels of links and esoteric concepts cannot be claimed by you as making an attempt to achieve a productive end.
You are playing your game and it is obvious.
Do you honestly believe most viners have a clue as to what your posts say? Many of your posts employ terms which require not only research but an advanced degree. Individuals who do not understand a basic concept such as set theory will clearly have no idea what you mean when you speak of information theory. What percentage of the population do you believe are comfortable with abstract concepts – even simple ones such as binary representation of information (00100101 vs 00100011) much less concepts such as systems theory?
Here you are responding to DamonWV @1.497:
LOL. Come on Jackel, tell me you truly believed that DamonWV (and most individuals) would gain anything from what you said. If this pedantic quote is not enough to demonstrate that you seek to bully rather than thoughtfully debate you have provided ample opportunities for me to deliver additional quotes and I will be pleased to do so.
Yeah. Name the argument you consider deflective and dishonest. I need more than mere claims.
Apparently you did not read the quote from me that you provided. Here is what I said: “As I suggested, your point is indeed simplistic yet you gratuitously dress it up with your ABCs, pet phrases ("consciousness cannot exist without cause", "universal set of all sets", "infinite regress", "self-collapsing argument", "I win") and bombastic linking.”
The ABCs are 26 obvious assertions (which you will of course correct me on and say that they are not assertions but truth) which in aggregate state that without information there is nothing. You present these ABCs as if their mere enumeration grants you an infallible argument – anything you say from this point on cannot be challenged. That is what I mean by dressing up. It is unnecessary and flamboyant.
Instead of this obvious grandstanding you could make a cogent argument as I have suggested in my prior post – one that provides your ‘opponent’ a reasonable opportunity to respond. See, it is not that the ABCs are complicated; it is that you present them (and other items) as though you have discovered the essence of truth. You are putting on a show replete with over-the-top drama when your essential point (one that I agree with by the way) is indeed simple.
Exactly my point.
It is relevant in this sense. My claim is that you are NOT attempting thoughtful debate but rather simply showing off. My argument is that you clearly seek to baffle your opponent with powerful (highly information bearing), esoteric terminology and a volume of links to content that is well beyond the specific point at hand. It is not honest discourse by any definition.
My argument follows your very own statement: “This isn't rocket science, it commonsense!”. So is it commonsense or not? Which is it?
I am saying that if you agree your point is commonsense then you should be able to make it in a few sentences. You need not throw 100 links at DamonWV and demand he have a working knowledge of information theory, systems theory, etc.
As you contradict yourself (“This isn't rocket science, it commonsense!”). See, point of fact, there is no way in hell you will educate an arbitrary viner on even basic physics. You recognize that so why do you keep going? Clearly you know that continually emitting content will bury the guy yet you continue. How very odd.
Cool ... a lame dodge. To be a straw man argument I must falsely imply that YOU made a particular claim and then I would have to argue against the bogus claim. Show me where I have done this. Show me where I have twisted your words or misrepresented your position. Good luck! Not even a nice try.
I am not disputing your content Jackel, I am criticizing your tactics. Did you not notice?
I knew that no matter what I stated you would claim it is incorrect. Thanks for adding to my confidence that I have your number. By the way, of course this was not the SPECIFIC ARGUMENT you made; it was a similar argument. But of course in your next post you will claim that it is not even similar. ;-)
Trouble is Jackel I understand you and I agree with most of what you have posted. I have yet to have a problem with your content in this seed. I am not saying that you are wrong; I am saying that you are showing off. I am saying that you are simply using what might be called ‘intellectual bullying’ – a gratuitous practice that clearly defeats any possibility of a thoughtful exchange.
LOL Predicted. How funny.
Here is the bottom line; I am accusing you of showing off. In other words I see no evidence that you seek to thoughtfully engage (and enlighten) individuals you disagree with but rather to bury them in terminology and content. You are a smart guy, Jackel, do not attempt to suggest to me that you innocently provide information that you believe is digestible by the average viner. It seems to me that your objective is ‘to win’, not to enlighten.
But if you truly have honorable intent I apologize for incorrectly interpreting your history of posts. :-)
Non of that supports creationism. It supports the idea that some things can emerge from intelligent intervention, but it clearly doesn't even come close to tackling the subject of consciousness, or existence itself. It basically just states that everything informational value. While this is true, it doesn't mean anything with informational value needs some entity to create it. They hence make the fallacious argument that anything with informational value thus requires creation by a creator GOD. They of course don't want to go into the complexity that is required to support a conscious state.
And let me point this little number out:
These people clearly don't know their periodic table or the differences in atoms to which give us the chemical diversity and biodiversity of our planet. They are basically trying to tell you that reactions, or self-organization can't occur without "CODE".. What they don't tell you is that such code arises from various processes. Little do they realize that like the computer, life is also electromagnetic phenomenon. The difference being the in the atoms, chemical states, chemical processes, thermodynamics ect.. Under their same argument, they would tell you that snowflakes are impossible to form naturally, or that patterns, shapes, and reactions are impossible. They are trying to argue a Clock Work world to which doesn't involve systems with feedback, interference, or pressure within an environment. Their arguments are essentially biochemical ignorance:
Ahh, and snowflakes must be impossible to!.. Makes you wonder if they have ever watched the secret life of chaos. Emergence of patterns and complexity from a system of chaos. Order from simplicity.
Plants should have gone extinct a long time ago. Plant evolution deals a lot with mutations. Mutations do not all = loss of information, bad, or good. In fact, many do nothing at all. Here they try to paint the idea that all mutations are magically "Bad"... That is a direct lie!. And again, there is no such thing as "random". Random only deals with the limits of human predictability of event and phenomenon. In the real world, random doesn't exist. It's irrelevant if there was intelligent intervention or not. Emergent properties arise from processes that make them possible. Most of which have nothing to do with being influenced by something of intelligence. And I already went over how information theory works in biology in this post above: #1.134
They basically want you to believe self-organization is impossible. Or that self-organizing systems don't exist. So it's no surprise that they don't talk about that.
This is not how evolution works in biology, or in biochemistry. These people are morons. Also, they don't discuss self-organizing algorithms to which can show an evolutionary process over time scales. Such as:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912353/
Or these:
http://web.mac.com/camazine/Camazine/Self-organization_files/Self-organization.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100413131941.htm
Computer programs do not operate in regards to biochemistry.
Incorrect
Incorrect. Your conscious state being a prime example.. Snow flakes being another example.
AIG isn't any better of a source than the others you have posted. It's more pseudoscience, appeals to ignorance, and so forth.
I'm not here to beat the crap out of them. They chose to engage in the debate. And yes it matters to dispel ignorance. Especially intentional ignorance since such ignorance is what can drive a nation straight into the ground. There is no dishonor in exposing this, especially when it's connected to a movement that is geared towards attacking the education system, and science here in America. What matters is what people can learn from this.. It matters not that I have owned him in a debate.
Again, refining entails evolutionary process. Observation equally so. I've told you before, evolution can only cease to be if the inertia of information halts entirely.. TOE will not be superseded by an observation by a conscious entity. Sorry.
You do realize your own post collapses your entire argument right? Sorry, no assertions there. Yes it's an infallible argument. Now try making that argument / post without needing information. Well, it wouldn't exist without it.
I made cogent arguments, and I gave him plenty of time to respond. A non-cogent argument is suggesting something can exist without any sort of existential value. Sorry, but you can't make an argument for an existing nothing object that would have literally zero informational value had have that make any coherent sense to which doesn't self-collapse.
No, it's not me putting on a show here. That would you, and you alone. You are basically internet trolling this article. You will not get any further responses from me unless you can actually address the subjects. I don't care what you think in terms of how I conduct myself here on Newsvine, or how I engage in debates. Hence, find 25 cents and call someone who cares. :/
Uhh no, the way you phrased your response did not reflect this statement of yours at all. You claimed it was admitting something. But what-ever makes you happy as it's not relevant.
You are misrepresenting my position by claiming it's to show off ect.
Though it could be closer to and Ad hominem
This of course reflected here:
Actually my arguments were of honest discourse. You are just complaining about it.. If the debate is more than he can handle, it makes logical sense to exit the debate and stop digging himself an intellectual hole. Getting upset because I debunk pseudoscience or other nonsense with a no nonsense approach is pointless. And sorry, but he has all the time he want to go back and read those links ect. I wouldn't have a problem if he told me he needed time to read them.
As you can see, I mostly respond to his posts. I've tried to get him to stick to one subject.. He refused to properly address my posts. That's not my problem!
The point is that it only takes commonsense to understand the listed ABC list. It's self-explanatory. Each thing on that list is a single sentence or less. I elaborate on it because :
If he had questions, he should ask.
I'm supposed to care what you think of my tactics? Uhh try again! Did I notice? Yeah, I didn't care lol.
Sorry but it was not a similar argument. My argument dealt with the differences between unconscious things and conscious things. The specific issue I was engaging DamonWV in didn't even come close to being a similar your argument here:
Yes, you are indeed incorrect. I did not ask him to address your argument. I asked him to address my argument and questions related to my argument.
Sorry, this is not my intention. And I shouldn't have to tell you this several times over. I really don't care if you see it as "Intellectual bullying". Especially when we are dealing with people that use intentional intellectual dishonesty. And well, I am not afraid to offend them or expose that. If you want to call that being a bully, that's to bad because I won't allow such dishonesty turn a debate into pure ignorance. I spend my time here not with the intention to bully him.
I spend it to educate people about the tactics they use, the intentional ignorance, the dishonest discourse, the pseudoscience they use, and many other things. I use these debates to perhaps provide some sort of educational material on subjects being discussed. What you are seeing here Trig is what the two sides of the fence are like on these subjects. And that is really the point.
It has nothing to do with "showing off".
So I am done discussing this with you Trig. If you don't like my debating style, form, tactics ect. That's fine, it's of no further interest to me. I am a very straight forward and firm person, and you will just have to learn to deal with that.
typo correction
I think that proves my point Damon, you reject everything that makes sense, you reject it before its even told to you. And no, this isn't two religions clashing this is science and Christianity clashing. I've already described to you why quoting Christian sources on scientific topics is bias and automatically hurts your argument. Every article you have posted was written with the intention of fitting science into your religion. We are not quoting atheist sources we are quoting true scientific sources.
Science doesn't need people to believe in it for it to be true, unfortunately for you.
Can i not say the same ? If it doesnt fit into your model, its rejected ? And i dont reject it. I read from those who are qualified to reject it based off of their science and data. Im no scientist, never claimed to be. I allow those who are qualified to have their debates. I myself determine which side I think has truth and which side is just making assumptions. All of this is not new to me. I have been in debate for years and years. Its the same stuff over and over. There is nothing new that has been shown that will change my mind.
Im not quoting christian sources , Im quoting science sources from people who believe in creation. If your going to make a statement that is bias, then I can also say your side is bias as well because you start off with a non creation old world view. That also is Bias. You are starting with that in mind.
No , every article I post is scientists showing flaws with other scientists work.
True scientific sources .. Im not always quoting science from creation believers, there are scientists out there who are atheist, who are ID believers, theistic evolution, agnostic, all kinds who have different views on the science. Would you like for me to dig up some quotes from NON creation scientists who also see issues with main stream goo to you evolution, and all these other topics we talk about ? Actually i have posted some from those type of scientists, I dunno if it was in this thread or another, but I got the infamous line back from one of you all, just because they believe that , it isnt true. Something along that lines. So what you want me to do, is toss out any contrary belief system other then yours , you want me to try to use your own belief system and try to find the flaws in it .
There has never been a time when I said science can prove God, nor can science disprove God. I see the science and God fitting together , but that statement doesnt mean that science can prove or disprove God. I am saying I have never seen any conflict in the two.
Tell me how I created the dot. How did I create the energy, and the atoms to make said dot.
Irrelevant. I didn't actually create the dot. I was only a part of the process that led to the Dot's emergence.
You did create the dot. Even if it is energy , the energy of the dot was not there until you pushed the button to make that energy appear there. Its still a basic concept of cause and effect. The dot would have never appeared, had you not pushed the button.
There is too much to quote and for me to go into detail, this is already consumed more then enough of my life doing this debate that I wanted to. All that above is such a circular statements. I never say God had a beginning or he will have an end. Also I never stated that I believe energy is eternal or not eternal. What i said above is , you, or any other scientist can not prove that there was a time when energy may not have existed. Even if you use logic and reasoning looking at energy now, and using what you can observe , it is absurd to make a claim that a person knows if there was time when energy was not there, or it came to be.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats all the information I needed to know right there. With that you said above,, and having seen your debate with Tig, i got a good feel for your mind set now. So , I am out of here. I had you off ignore for a bit, but back on you go. I said it many times in this thread that i was done, but this time I am done. I have seen what I needed to see. I no longer desire to engage in an endless debate. My life has to move on past this. Its gotten us no where.
I truly do hope you guys do come to Christ in life before the end. That will only happen is you open your heart to Christ to see the truth of it all.
the "natural man"-the unsaved individual. It is a spiritual book and the unsaved person is not only spiritually blind, but 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that he "is incapable" of knowing that which is spiritually discerned.
Bye guys, this time I do mean it. I will stop tracking this thread now.
I did forget to add this when i was quoting jackel, when he talks about his 10 year nephew or who ever that can understand this. this information is not that simple you are using maths and sciences that most people dont understand. He can go by what you state, your training his mind to your belief system. You make it seem that everyone need to do it your way, or the highway mentality , like some dictatorship. Your belief only and nothing else. Never giving a person the chance to decide on their own.. Ok now im gone, just forgot to add that in there when i posted above. Now BYE for good :D
This is an avoidance and a poor authority argument. And btw, in accordance to the ABC's, your own post is considered scientific data. Yes, people can apply the scientific method all on their own. You don't need to be a scientist to apply the scientific method, logic, and reason.
Sorry, but that's not how truth is actually established. Reality does not conform to your religious beliefs. You think the ABC's are an assumption, and yet you keep proving them absolutely rights. They aren't going to magically become false just because you can string words together to make a denial argument.
Yes, we can see that you spent all your efforts in avoiding issues, ignoring them, and using dishonest discourse. We don't care if you change your mind, we only care about what you can prove or establish. All your arguments have been mostly consisting of pseudoscience, logical fallacies, appeals to ignorance, avoidance tactics, intentional ignorance, self-invention, and dogmatic discourse.
Wrong! You are posting Christian sources. Creationism is not a science. Worse yet, everything you have posted is not peer reviewed. It's a ripping and the skewing of science to mold and conform it to some magical Creationist religious point of view. In fact, the scientists you deposit, their actual work and posted journals do not involve creationism. This tells me you don't actually read the actual journals vs those that are gutted and manipulated into pseudoscience to be posted in the public fora, or on places like AIG.
They know most of you won't bother fact checking, or bother to do your own research into the subjects. I have here debunked a huge chunk of the garbage you have posted. But of course you simply reject it in favor of faith based pseudoscience..
What flaws can you post that will magically make their pseudoscience a fact?... Is infinite light one of these sad attempts? Yep.. And then you get upset that I can come along and expose the nonsense in the crap you post.
No you rip / cherry pick science data from science and then dishonestly try to indoctrinate it into a creationist view. Your arguments are so disingenuous that it's actually ridiculous.
Ahh, am I supposed to magically agree with your BS pseudoscience? You're kidding me right? You've had me on ignore the entire time son! That's why you use these avoidance arguments. This is a man who lost a debate to whom doesn't know when to leave the debate.
Translation:
And of course you last statement in that post is another threat to peoples souls and a dogmatic appeal:
You really showed how worthless your concept of "truth" is.
I wasn't referring to the Math or Science. I was referring to the basic premises of information theory. More specifically the listed ABC's.
Ahh yes, the conspiracy theory! You can't have a dogmatic religious belief without one of those! Yes information theory is so wrong! That's why DamonWV can post nonsense such as this! Not very clever at all sir, not at all.
This is a false claim. Your argument is like saying doing math the right way is wrong and should include other ways of doing math to where 2+1=5.. You are basically trying to tell me it's a dictatorship that I am telling that 2+1 doesn't equal 5, and that it equals 3. You are making dogmatic appeals here because that's all you can do.
But ok, I will give you this chance. You want it your way? Show me your way and post a reply here without having to abide by my supposed way in regards to information theory. It shouldn't be an issue or problem for you then! You should have no problems with defying just this one:
Feel free to make a post and prove this wrong! You have your chance. Call this a scientific experiment.
Some glaring typos:
This is why you are ridiculous. You assume that we are living in ignorance of your religions "truth". Well I will tell you this......I truly hope one day you see the truth and fallacies of your religion and become an agnostic, denying the myths of Christianity and all organized religion. Embrace the truth.
The claims ...
'God [creator] exists' and 'God [creator] does not exist' both express certainty (truth). Anyone who makes a claim of truth has the burden of proof.
The soft atheistic view of 'I do not believe there is a God', the more common theistic view of 'I believe in God' and of course the agnostic view of 'I am not convinced either way' make no claims of certainty but rather summarize an individual's base of knowledge.
For someone to change their beliefs - especially beliefs as powerful as quintessential existence (the question of a creator 'God') - the individual must change a complex base of knowledge that has been reinforced for likely decades. While possible, this is a process that takes considerable time (and may never happen).
That said, I offer this.
Statements of truth are legitimate challenges for a logical argument. The claimer of truth has the burden to prove his assertion and to counter offered falsification. Such is the making of an objective debate. If the claim is not proved true (or is falsified) the claim must be retracted.
However, the statements of belief (above) are impossible to debate, per se. No amount of logic and fact in a debate will persuade an individual who holds such a strong belief. Logic will be frustrated by the belief (faith) and the chance for ridicule, condescension and other ugliness will emerge.
To wit ...
Attempts to coerce someone to change a well established belief will end badly.
TiG, I appreciate your attempt to calm such arguments but I have to say....jackel and I are not here to change Damon's beliefs, we are here to defend science. Your statements are,I think, obvious. We are not unaware of this. I don't know, I think your intentions are well but we are way beyond what your are putting forth. We aren't trying to change his belief system, but when someone makes claims against well accepted scientific research they better have good reason to do so. It just sounds like you are narrating this discussion rather than contributing anything.
Led
Note: "Logic will be frustrated by the belief (faith) ..."
Correcting misunderstanding or contradiction of science is of course a positive contribution. But when one reaches a point where someone denies science based upon faith (or when the person is clearly overwhelmed with volumes of esoteric information) that pretty much ends thoughtful discourse. When that point is reached if you are not trying to change a belief system then what honorable purpose is left?
As for my contribution, I do not disagree with the scientific arguments so what would you have me do ... pile on against DamonWV? Once the scientific part of the debate meets with a faith-based rebuttal I say respect the individual's beliefs and walk away. Ridicule, condescension, etc. will never lead to a good end. That kind of advice is the only 'contribution' I care to make in this thread.
@TiG.
Thanks for your words in your attempt to restore a sense of balance in the discussion. I've stated earlier I do not have extensive knowledge in biology or science and yet I accept science and proved theory. I work in an industrial environment and use applied science daily. I resist science theory that hasn't been proved along with anyone who presents unproved theory as factual.
When using applied science in industry there is a continual need to stop, pause and readjust the process used. Folks in the central and eastern US don't give much thought to earthquakes but do spend a considerable amount of time on weather related issues. In both cases nature shows us how far away from our hard science facts we may be when an event occurs that tests the facts and proves them wrong. People living in earthquake prone areas build to resist the damage earthquakes cause yet have been proved wrong by nature on many occasions. I think most agree that structures are designed and built based on scientific data along with the data relating to risk of an occurrence.
When defending a design, especially a failed design an engineer may have a difficult time escaping liability if he/she chose to ignore a proved design unless special circumstances can be proved. I think most here is aware of our space industry failures and I primarily say failure within the spectrum of loss of life because much was learned and at the same time it seems critical issues were ignored which resulted in the loss of life along with millions of dollars in materials. What comes out of these incidents is finger pointing and double-talk similar to the discussion here and primarily within the parameters of unproved theory.
@ LedZepp94,
I'm not sure when you stated narrating you meant moderating but if not I see TiG's comments as moderating and adding to what has been expressed here along with pointing out something that has been intentionally dismissed by Jackel specifically. Although Anjisan63 hasn't been commenting for a few days he used the practice on a regular basis. This topic is in regard to Rev. Camping and his followers who believe in his ability to predict the coming of Jesus/God and the end of the world.
When you state,
I think you are being disingenuous. Science wasn't under attack no more than God and Christianity was under attack when our congressional house decided to vote on the motto of the US.
Jackel has been posting lengthy comments filled with links without support or explanation for most. There's no need to post energy's position of positive, neutral or negative the number of times it was posted along with many of the other links especially intermingled with his rocket science/common sense remarks.
No atheist who's posted has any proof God doesn't exist any more than I can prove evolution doesn't exist. When I say evolution I'm referring to Sailcats reference of a protein string existing in a primeval tidepool, however many billion years ago that a person chooses to work with.
It would be foolish to deny the efforts of science with physical evidence in my face. This hasn't been my argument and I don't think it's DamonWV's either. He and I obviously have different views but many of our positions fall into soft science e.g. Our positions as stated by evolutionist or creationist.
Jackel's attempt to paint God as evil and demean anyone who believes in God is just part of Tig is pointing out. It wouldn't be considered common sense if I ridicule you, Jackel or any other individual for not having information in a field in which I have experience in if you have little or none. Everything presented by anyone supporting evolution from the beginning of time (our universe) has done so using something that existed on earth or built off of something created in the same manner using matter. If I ask for something prior to this as proof I don't expect to be ridiculed nor presented with a hundred links that no one has time to read.
I'm familiar with information theory and what's been accomplished in science. Much of what I read from Jackel and Anjisan were comments and links connected to doubletalk. In regards to answering a straightforward question or example of a false statement Jackel choose to ignore or makes another nonsensical comment e.g. isn't common sense.
I think you are forgetting this:
Do you realize how ridiculously absurd and offensive this statement is? You are playing the innocent card when you are FAR from innocent. If everyone just ignored and walked away our schools would be infested with religion and our values completely religiously based. It takes people to stand up and say NO!! Again, evolution at this point is not debatable as being fact or not,it is fact, you can choose to accept this or not that's up to you. trying to throw cogs in the scientific wheel by trying to discredit evolution is completely ridiculous. 20 years ago I would have said lets open up the debate about evolution. These debates have occurred, there has not been 1 peer reviewed paper successfully discrediting evolution. I'm pretty sure we can put this to rest and move on.
Zepp, I was making statements primarily for myself. In remembering the topic here, no one from Rev. Camping's camp sent you (or I) an invitation to pack your suitcase and meet on the hill. I have actually seen people with suitcases..:-)
My belief in God doesn't affect you. If you go back as far as fossils and scientific evidence exists to prove evolution, in part I will agree with you. This isn't a discussion you have with someone who thinks the world is less than **pick a number** ? By current scientific measuring methods available today the earth is 4-4.5 billion years old. This has changed through my lifetime along with the age of fossils, how America became inhabited etc. So when you prevent factual evidence why the need of change?
Twenty years ago I think evolution might have been more debatable than today. Things were presented as factual based on devices used to measure which have been greatly improved upon in the last 20 yrs. What I see happening is scientific orthodoxy. You follow along because all your buddies accept the latest findings which have been proved false many many times.
A recent example was the re-dating of a mastodon rib bone found in 1977 with a spear point lodged in it. Prof. Carl Gustafson was just vindicated because he thought it proved America was inhabited earlier than science believed. i.e. his buddies. The re-dating proved him correct in terms of hunters being in America 800 years prior to what was accepted. Or maybe it means the mastodon was wounded in Siberia and humanity decided to cross the bridge 800 yrs later.
When you state "peer reviewed" are you stating people who agree with each other?
I'm not disputing evolution within the context of not believing humans and creatures of the earth have not evolved over their lifespan. My disagreement come with all living beings on earth coming from a single protein string, single cell, amoeba, etc. You have no proof of this but you are using theory to base your assumptions.
Going back to the mastodon bone with the spear tip in the rib bone; It took 35 years before the re-dating occurred and being off by by 800 years changes lots as to when America was inhabited. If you haven't read the article it's a good short read and his peers didn't agree and only a few scientists were on the outside of this circle of thinking.
I can't post the link but The Seattle Times local news last week has an artricle.
Edit; So when you
preventpresent factual evidence why the need of change?Led
That is not what I was suggesting. I fully support defending science against non-scientific attacks as well as disputing pseudo-science.
By 'walk away' I was referring to an individual debate. Faith-based notions cannot counteract scientific observations and the scientific theories developed to explain and predict said observations according to the scientific method. I was saying that there really is no point in continuing a science-based debate if the 'other side' is arguing faith.
Essentially 'it is true because my faith says so' is a non argument. So take the ToE vs. creationism. The ToE must be disputed on scientific grounds because it is indeed a genuine, well-corroborated scientific theory. To disprove the theory (in whole or in part) one must produce observed evidence which contradicts the theory. Religious works are not evidence thus they are, in such a debate, irrelevant. So if a religious argument contradicts genuine scientific theory the religious argument will simply not be credible in a science-based debate. It can be dismissed on those grounds and the debate can either move onto other areas or cease.
I believe there is no productive end to a debate in which one (or both) side(s) claims 'truth' because 'they say so'.
Except I used a tangible and empirically supported basis for establishing the non-existences of said deity within the context of it's supposed description. Do note where I have told them the limits of my arguments. It seems many of you keep skipping over the following, as If I never had said it:
I didn't even need to go into information theory, or science to empirically support this position against their GOD concept. I in fact only require theology itself to debunk their GOD concept with another. This is also highly ignored in this debate:
You will notice that DamonWV or My314tin do not address my posts honestly on a point by point basis. They skip and ignore the majority of what I have had to say. They then either put up an avoidance argument, off subject/point argument, or try to shift and change the subject to something else. The only time they even remotely stayed on subject is during the morality debate. None of them seemed to be capable of honest debate or directly address my arguments in science, information theory, why consciousness can't exist without cause, what their God concept is vs Pantheism, or the self-collapsing logical fallacies. Neither seem able to deal with what their GOD actually is, or why their interpretation of what they believe it is can't actually exist.
Here are other Key areas they refused to properly address:
Now much of the science stuff had dealt with dispelling the pseudoscience DamonWV was posting. He of course will not address what I have proven to be wrong in his pseudoscience. Infinite light speed being among the most obvious. He thus just moves on to posting more pseudoscience that is obviously wrong on so many levels to which he then tries to support by an Authority argument in regards to scientists he thinks are posting peer reviewed papers / journals in regards to creationism. He's clearly never actually read the actual journals to understand why they actually have little to nothing to do with "creationism or ID". Hence, he thinks that if people can rip content out of journals and science to mold a concept of Creationism that it must mean Creationism is what the science is telling him.. Umm NO!. And it's glaringly obvious as to how wrong that is when you actually pick it apart and put the content back into the science they came from, or the peered reviewed journals.
Yes, we are done with the dishonest BS, and we are indeed fighting back to keep America from becoming a 3rd world nation of pure ignorance. Sorry, when I see the education system being attacked by religion, or science for that matter, there is reason enough to fight back. You forget that what DamonWV is posting is an actual and real movement to indoctrinate the education system and science.
And then you list the reasons, evidence, logic ect.., it becomes blatantly obvious which is more evident. A soft Atheist is more in lines with non-militant Atheists who think religion ought to be banned. I for example am a soft Atheist even though many perceive me to be a militant atheist. I like a soft Atheist go by the evidence and what is actually tangible, logical, and reasonable. And I don't just use science to determine this stance. I use:
Now lets move on:
Now if someone want's to believe in X-entity regardless of how impossible that is. Well, that's fine! I have no problems with that. But that isn't the issue here in this debate. It's not what I have a problem with here in this debate. And I think many of you keep forgetting that they chose to debate, chose to engage in the debate! So they can't sit there and use that as an excuse since they waiver that once they choose to debate the issue. They thus open up their beliefs to opposition and scrutiny. So telling me I am trying to change their minds is a very dishonest argument to which suggests I am somehow not allowed to scrutinize their position in a debate. This has a lot to do with why I told you I am not here to "show off" or to bombast someones arguments. I only responded with the opposing argument with prudent information and criticism to which includes calling out their dishonest discourse.
No they are not. Truth in reality is only dependent on what is actually true. It's not bound to what you want it to be. Hence, truth can hurt, and reality can suck if it contradicts your beliefs. Truth does not come in the form of blind faith based assertions. Truth is better reflected by what is real, as in that can be established, demonstrated, and validated to the point of actual substantiation. Example would be:
Or:
Now lets address this:
I don't think anyone would disagree here. I've done plenty of that. :/ What's interesting about this however is that which deals with opinion. Power of opinion can exceed this boundary since concepts like GODS, regardless if existent or proven existent, are still just concepts of pure opinion and title of opinion. Hence, they only have relevance to whom has the opinion.
Example:
As you can see, it is true that I can sit here and state that either all things are GODs or there are no such things as GODs. Just opinion alone will either verify everything as such, or nullify anything as such. This is a quagmire for such religious that profess their GOD of choice is somehow the one and only GOD. They can't seem to handle the power of opinion, especially in terms of Pantheism vs some GOD they try to claim is without cause.
Well, I don't really need retract much do I? I won't mind retracting anything I say that is proved false. I tend to stick to things that are inherently unfalsifiable when weighing this matter. Though I do use some things that could be falsifiable as further support. The level of certainty that the Abrahamic GOD doesn't exist is 100% certain, as in it's current description since it's a literal self-collapsing contradiction and impossibility.
No they are not. If you have an honest debate, it's not impossible to debate and come to a rational conclusion. What make the debate impossible is when one side sees the need to be completely disingenuous while ignoring just about everything the other side has had to say.
This is false.. It happened to me and many once were Theists. I was once amongst the most radical of theists. It's incorrect to say it wouldn't. But again, this isn't the purpose of this debate.
Usually because faith based arguments revolve around having to use intentional ignorance and dishonest discourse. The ridicule then becomes self-deserving when called out on such dishonesty. Ugliness is some times intended to induce a logical debate into a debate the regresses to pure ignorance. Yes this is an actual tactic used by theists, and I used to use it well!. And you can clearly see it being used throughout this debate.
Again, this is not the objective of this debate. It's simply a perceived to be thing since the debate evolves two opposing arguments.
That is a fact! There isn't a single actual journal that deals with Creationism. And it's because no particular journal can actually substantiate or subjectively show "Creationism" as a cause. And because such journals contain no such claims. Even the supposed "Creationsist" scientists do not have peer reviewed journals that deal with Creationism. They take (cherry pick) aspects within journals or science and then try to indoctrinate and mold them into a Creationist religious view. They then dishonestly suggest that Atheist scientists are magically for ID :/ .. Yes, it's that bad. Creationism is not scientific, does not follow the scientific method, and has no science discipline applied to actually establish it. It's the same method in which Flat Earthers use to argue a Flat Earth. And Flat Earthers will ignore anything that contradicts their fallacy, and even suggest it's a conspiracy. Well, would DamonWV and My314tin believe in flat Earth after reading these articles?:
Flat Earth Society: Bendy Light
Flat Earth Society: Map Debunked
Hence to believe in a flat Earth, you would have to ignore pretty everything we have learned in science in regards to Earth, and your own observational abilities to believe Earth is Flat. The creationist movement does this exactly the same way! It has as much relevance as the Flat Earth society.
They, the Flat Earthers and Creationsists, attempt to use science facts and mold them into their ideology. Such as Flat Earthers using mass energy equivalence in reference to Gravity, and our perception of it. As in you can not tell the difference between a rotating mass, and an upward accelerating mass at 9.80665 m / s2.
Hence, even the visual effect of gravity wouldn't be any different locally. And their arguments reside on local measurements since they know most people won't be able to, or willing to make non-local measurements. Hence, gravity on our Oblate spherical Earth will be different at the poles vs the equator while the gravity would be the same uniformly on a flat upward accelerating disk.
Creationists use these same types of science arguments that prey on their ignorance. Creationsists are like Flat Earthers telling me to look out my window as evidence the Earth is flat while asking me if I can see a spherical Earth from my vantage point. And if I say I can see a sinking ship, they immediately tell me it's an optical illusion, aka bendy light!
So it's no surprise that Damon gives me a link about infinite light speed!. And I found it interesting that I can take the same article on bendy light and disprove his articles entire premise with the laws that govern light refraction and propagation through different mediums. I only needed a prism to prove his argument false!
That is what we are dealing with here!
This has much to do with this debate. More specifically dealing with much of DamonWV's arguments.
This is false because those who might come by here and read these arguments can learn something from this. This directly ties into your first statements I quoted above. Here in America today, it's absolutely prudent that we do so. This isn't just arguing with an specific individual, this is about dispelling a real movement that is attempting to indoctrinate our education system and body of governance. I actually don't care what DamonWV personally believes. I care about how those beliefs are being used to attack our education system, and the secular government. They already got most Americans believing we are Democracy rather than a Republic in order to further their agenda in a majority rule for that bid to convert America to a religious police state/theocracy. This is a real problem Trig. We aren't living in a fairy tale, and I surely don't want to be forced to live in accordance to one!
It's scary enough that both DamonWV and My314 would defend infanticide and genocide. It reminds me of these questions:
Now I use the term "Just" since it's irrelevant in regards to whom kills them. So it brings me to this question:
Well, if the roles were reversed, I would tell this deity where it could shove that button.
This is one area you continue to tread where you have no basis other than your obsession. With "If I were God" I have never stated I supported nor stated I support it.
Just more hypothetical, distorted, illogical brain farts. There's nothing in Christianity where this applies or does this fall in line with your fire and volcano god?
You may accuse me of skipping over your references yet you continue to post excessive repetitive comments and links that I have no inclination to check out, especially your Atheist International Inc. YouTube links such as the starving child in Sudan where a video implies the cause is Christianity. To add to this you post a NT verse attempting to support your hellfire and brimstone position of the Christian God. Although you state you are well versed in biblical scripture you continue to pick and choose verses out of context to support your arguments. Granted there are plenty of Christians who do the same e.g. Rev. Camping. I continue to state "Rev." Camping although I have never considered him worth of the title, so it's there for reference.
In regard to your button pushing example of annihilation of non believers; I'm not called to do such a thing and my peace on earth or place in heaven is in no way connected to such an act.
In your choice to reference the KJV scripture verses and references to hell, I ask you; why? To me you have a cause and agenda. You state you are very knowledgeable of the Bible and it's interpretations. If you research the KJV of the bible along with all other versions where some have no references to hell, why use the KJV? Your intent seems to bring your discussion back to your view of an evil god and only your interpretation. If you truly know what you state you know the KJV is not accurate in the interpretations and references to hell.
TheJackel, I think you could shorten your list if you stick to things we could debate versus including items in which there's no need e.g. The Flat Earthers. These are just diversions so why include them.
In regard to evolution we might discuss the theory man evolved from apes and that DNA evidence hasn't proved it. Moving from earliest scientific theory on the evolution of man to present I haven't seen evidence or proved theory this is true. Science is still pushing the theory and as Anjisan likes to put it, we'll keep pushing until it sticks.
My position on evolution was I would like you to take me back to the big bang and prove it. It's only been replicated in a lab under controlled conditions with a result from science of; We think this is what happened.
Jackel
I was not considering your posts when I wrote that. I was establishing a logical base upon which to make a point.
I agree. On the proof part in particular I agree because proof (certainty) only exists in formal systems whose rules we control. Propositional calculus is such a system.
Yup. The argument is not complex and the defense need not bring in theoretical mathematics or myriad scientific references.
Indeed, a cliché argument (and I think you did use this at one point) offers the question of why the Christian God is the true God and not the Hindu gods. Why is the trinity Christian God true but not Allāh or the Judaist God?
So given this, what is a logical course of action?
Of course there is. I believe my last few posts were clear on this.
Did I? How are you interpreting my last few posts?
I am one of those who perceived you as such. My impression was indeed that you 'know with certainty' there is no creator entity. Your actual position is good to know (for future reference).
Noted.
I did not tell you that and I certainly was not making an argument to that
effect. I was saying that when faced with a faith-based (belief-based) argument there really is no logical | scientific basis upon which to proceed. Faith frustrates logic. So if you do indeed recognize that an ‘opponents’ argument is really nothing more than ‘it is true because my faith tells me so’ what could you possibly hope to accomplish by continuing to produce arguments of logic and science?
I personally cannot see what one would hope to accomplish other than to try to change their beliefs (assuming one is being honorable).
My last two posts addressed to you covered well my position on your style. You stated that you did not want to continue the discussion and frankly I did not either. I remain entirely comfortable with my posts and have no motivation to
add to what I have said. That said, I take you at your word that your intent is not to show off or bombast someone’s argument. Your posts demonstrate (to me) the opposite but you know yourself and your intentions better than anyone else so I will factor that in moving forward.
What?!
This is funny. Look, my statement was very simple … I was saying that when someone makes a statement that is claimed to be truth that statement is a
challenge and a logical argument is the thing that would act on that challenge. In short, you misunderstood my statement in a rather grand way. I suppose my phrasing could have been clearer. I see information theory made an appearance again too. :-)
Uh … Jackel … I still do not think we are communicating. This is another very basic statement on my part. Note the phrase ‘the claimer of’. I did not say ‘the holder of’. If someone claims ‘truth’ they have the burden of proof. Absent the proof they merely have an opinion – a belief.
I do not believe I have suggested once in this thread that you have been factually
or logically incorrect. I suppose I could go through your posts and look for flaws but frankly that has not been my interest. You should know that the point I made has really nothing to do with the validity of your posts.
The above (quote) is simply an exercise in logic. One can indeed achieve certainty in a formal system such as logic. I agree it is quite easy to poke holes in
religious teachings – especially when taken literally. It is much harder to, say, prove that there is no creator of the known universe where ‘creator’ simply means an intelligence and ‘known universe’ means that which we perceive as human beings.
You mean like a faith-based rebuttal to a scientific fact? If you read carefully you would see that is what I was saying. ( In my opinion you tend to assume or even seek disagreement and in so doing miss areas of obvious common ground. )
Again, I developed this point quite well. Take a theist (like Jackel of the past) who has 20 years of knowledge reinforcing his religious beliefs. I am saying that
this individual will not during the course of a debate change such a well-established belief. I am not saying that belief cannot be influenced or indeed changed. I stipulated that belief can be changed right there in my rather brief posts.
Do you read this? … “For someone to change their beliefs - especially beliefs as powerful as quintessential existence (the question of a creator 'God') - the individual must change a complex base of knowledge that has been reinforced for likely decades. While possible, this is a process that takes considerable time (and
may never happen).” -- TiG @1.541
Well I will not debate your reasons because what you said does indeed happen and I suspect that even when it does not happen you still perceive it as such.
I am just pleased you interpreted my words properly.
Sure, I never suggested it was unjustified. I suggested it was pointless (among other things).
Does it work? Does it accomplish a useful purpose?
Let me state this more clearly. You buried your ‘opponent’ in concepts drawn from theoretical mathematics, logic, computer science and general (observation-based) science and you knew he had no clue as to what you were saying. Clearly, Jackel, clearly! As soon as you recognized that he was way over his head you should have backed away from information theory, systems theory, chaos theory, etc. and moved the argument back into terms you knew he could relate to. Why? Because that is the only way you could possibly communicate with him.
So if you were not just showing off as you have informed me then what were you
doing - acting the intellectual bully beating up someone for fun? What possible productive consequence did you imagine from this? You brought this back up; not me. But since you did I am curious as to how you thought your tactics would ever accomplish something constructive. What was the ‘objective of the debate’ and how does blowing well past an ‘opponents’ ability to comprehend (base of knowledge) accomplish this objective? Don't interpret these as words of attack ... rather I am asking a candid and sincere question.
The readers will learn quite a bit more, Jackel, if you operate on equal terms. When one side is throwing down a plethora of links, terms, concepts related to science and the other side is talking about how he simply believes, there is not intellectual exchange taking place. The two individuals might as well be talking
at the same time.
Much, much better would be a debate in which a point is countered on equivalent terms. For example, the theist may state that the Earth and its inhabitants are far too complex to NOT be the work of intelligence. In response you could list your ABCs, three articles in cell theory and one of your summary paragraphs riddled with references to entire bodies of academic and scientific work. Or you could say something like: ‘Well, if complexity requires a creator wouldn’t that creator be even more complex than its creation? So would it not too need a creator?’.
In short, if the argument falls on deaf ears both ways it is not valuable for the participants or for observers.
I understand Jackel and your point is well taken. But what you seem to refuse to accept is that fact that one cannot influence minds who do not understand what you are saying. I am talking about your ‘audience’ as well as your ‘opponent’. I have mentioned this before but you must know that very few people have a background in theoretical mathematics and computer science. Honestly how many people on Newsvine will understand your multipage posts with 20 links, esoteric terms and arguments expressed in language that only those with advanced degrees have experienced? Right? You must know what I am saying here.
You ABCs (for example) are themselves simple and quote obvious. But to go from ‘there is nothing without information’ into ‘there can be no God’ is not a transition that is immediately obvious by your listing 26 rather obvious statements. Yet you present this (and other things) as though it is.
Jackel, I do not want to debate this at the moment, but on the question of Democracy vs Republic have you considered indirect democracy (i.e. representative government) as a special kind of democracy? You might want to go to Bob Nelson’s column and pick one of his articles on this question. I would be interested (in that venue) to hear your position.
Now back to your comment. It is a real problem. Simply stated when we have people in power who can operate based upon a suspension of critical thinking and who can justify their actions by an interpretation of a divine authority we have the very worst kind of authoritarian rule.
This is one of the reasons I make stark contrasts between religion and spirituality. Religion has a well established history. I am not saying that religion
is all bad – plenty of good people with good intent are religious and use their
religion for good. But religion in the hands of powerful people can be (as history shows) brutal because the followers can indeed be made to believe anything (70 virgins, etc.).
Yes, I remember him saying on at least two occasions; "If I were a dictator" and I was thinking, WOW you already have the shoes on I hope you don't decide to tie them.
Thanks, TiG I appreciate your input.
And.. ?? I made several points, and My314 continues to demonstrate several of those. This to which I will follow up on in the next post.
Sorry, but when a theist makes a supposed post and links to a body of pseudoscience and his means of argument, I can indeed post the relevant material that debunks it. When I see someone like DamonWV post that crap, I will feel free to dispel it regardless he comprehends it or not. Clearly he shouldn't be posting material he has no comprehension of as arguments! So when I see you post the following, I can help but face palm:
Clearly this is needed when people try to insist pseudoscience is magical truth. Sorry, I have no sympathy for him in this regard. He dug his own hole. Hence, he kept posting it, and posting it, and posting it. All I did was respond with actual science, and references that deal with actual science on the subjects. You are basically defending intellectual laziness. It's too hard to thing and understand, so why bother?..Typical argument you will find from Ray Comfort.
I don't need follow what you think I should have done. He keeps posting pseudoscience, I am going bury in in real science.. I don't care if he bothers to get it or not. Other readers here do, and many will actually read the links, the material, and the science to actually educate themselves. I get many e-mails that thank me for what I provide here on such subjects. Your complaint here is misplaced.
Wrong, this had nothing to do with why I did that. And sorry, I communicated with him on all sorts of levels. You are grasping at straws here.
Sorry, proving someone wrong is not being an intellectual bully. If he can't handle or admit being wrong, that is his problem to deal with. Again you are grasping at straws here.
Many people will see and read the material and actually understand why his pseudoscience ect are wrong and disingenuous while getting something educational out of it. Productive doesn't mean I need appease him, or not post things he might not understand. Hence, I am not simply addressing him as an individual as I am addressing his arguments. You seem quite misdirected when I comes to what I am doing.
Think outside the box.. Whether or not he gets it is irrelevant.
Oh I tried that route in my first post. You might want to go check that out. But I suppose talking about the complexity of consciousness is supposed to be out of bounds right? Sorry, didn't mean to destroy that debate so easily by asking a simple question. :/ Note: they avoided it. Again you are grasping at straws here.
You seem to have a very low opinion of those who come here on Newsvine. There are plenty that do understand what I am saying, and if just 1 does so, that's more than enough. Some people do take the time to listen and actually "TRY" to understand. Intellectual laziness is not an excuse. And if Damon or anyone else doesn't understand, the information is there and they can begin at any time to actually read the material and "TRY" to understand. This is the same as saying that a Biologist doesn't have 8 years to sit there and Teach them everything they are ignorant of. I even gave him a link to biochemistry 101. But you get excuses like these:
This is basically saying:
This is the kind of stuff they resort to Trig, and it's why they are not the target audience. Sorry, I already know they won't agree or read the material. I am not that stupid, I know exactly what they are doing Trig. And often I use this to expose it. And the readers do pick up on that. What's more interesting is that I actually know why they won't, and that is because the know their pseudoscience is utter nonsense. I knew it when I was their shoes to. They can't actually deal with real science.
I already took that discussion to town in another debate. I do believe it was under my theocracy article. The point of a Republic is representation for everyone, and secular law that protects everyone from each other in what is best described as common law. Actual Democracy usually leads to dictatorships and theocracies. The majority rule is more dangerous than a Republic where the majority are forced to deal with not alienating the minority. A republic doesn't mean the minority rules the majority either.
my314tin
It is incredibly easy for people to fail to communicate when they have opposing views. I wish we were more motivated to find areas where we agree but it seems the motivation is to find area where we disagree. This is a statement in general.
One point ...
Science will not provide you proof of evolution (biological or cosmological). Proof is not the objective of science; knowledge is the objective. The scientific method takes us from observations of reality into scientific theories. A scientific theory represent our best explanation to-date of that which we observe. By definition, each scientific theory is only as good as its ability to explain (predict) ongoing observations. Every scientific theory is dependent upon observations and thus is falsifiable. That is, it could be proved to be false (in part or whole) and be refined | superseded by a superior theory.
In fact the falsification of a scientific theory is a great thing in that it represents a step forward ... a higher level of understanding.
Biological evolution (the ToE) is a well-established scientific theory that has been so thoroughly corroborated by evidence that it has a very high confidence by the scientific community. It is, in effect, a scientific fact. That does not mean that a future scientist will not find evidence that shakes the ToE but right now the scientific community considers the possibility to be slim.
Jackel can provide you plenty of information which demonstrates that the process of evolution does indeed occur. But asking for proof is too high a bar for science.
Moving from biological evolution, the Big Bang (and cosmological evolution in general) is quite theoretical and I would be surprised (and disappointed) if a scientist would suggest that we are even at a high level of confidence and certainly no credible scientist would deliver a 'proof'.
But now keep in mind that there exists no proof of God either.
Jackel
I started responding to your post but quickly lost interest while reading items such as your allegations that I am grasping at straws, etc. Now you are arguing with
me about advice I have provided in response to your post to me. I am not going to redirect and repeat … a pointless exercise. My past posts include all I need to say. (Also the NV editor is acting very strange.)
Moving on …
Did you not read what I said about indirect democracy? You quoted it! :-) I ask because your answer shows zero recognition of the concept yet indirect democracy was the point of my question. Like I said, if you have interest see Bob Nelson’s column. I have made my case on several of his articles. Bob would have words to offer regarding some aspects of your viewpoint (as would I). But not in this venue - especially with over 500 items under #1.
If you worship a GOD that has done so, its really no different than supporting it. You are basically defending it regardless that it never actually happened.
Here you fail to understand to purpose of the hypothetical. Its pretty reflective of what your supposed deity does in the bible. And yes it does apply to a fire/volcano GOD. People make up what they think their GOD wants and does regardless if it's just a Volcano, or some diety they like to attach to a phenomenon they don't understand. Zeus and lightning for example. However, all I did was put the button in your hands and ask you if you would push the button. This is to place you in that moral context since it matters not who pushes the button and does the deed. Hence, If I were the one to do it, would you worship me?
You would have made a proper reply in terms of the actual context if you had. The video for one doesn't say "Christianity" was the cause. That right there tells me you didn't actually watch the video. It's about questioning the validity and morality of the religion's GOD, and other such religions. It also addresses apposing religions and not just Christianity. Perhaps you should actually address the video in it's proper context.
Umm sorry, but the verses don't talk about cuddly bears giving children hugs. Maybe you can try harder!
I didn't take anything out of context. You basically believe I am because your context involves self-invention of context to where everything bad in the bible must be metaphorical or magically justified. It's not my problem that you can't deal with the dark side of the bible, or your religion.
Camping or no Camping is not going to change the violence, hate, murder, genoicide, infanticide ect ect in the bible. Sorry, but reality sometimes hurts.
This is an avoidance argument. And again it seems you are playing the ignore the existence of the OT game. This stuff is in the bible, and you need to deal with that, or simply stop responding to this debate. You aren't winning this debate by playing an avoidance game.
Sorry, I referenced the OT. And I can reference all the other versions of the OT and not come out any different. It's not going to change Exodus, the Deut, or Psalm ect.
Example:
The context doesn't actually change. Though it's attempted by trying to change basic words. What interesting is that there are many different translations in different versions. The dishonesty is that much of the NT's versions do not come anywhere near what the actual Hebrew text says. The older versions actually have a closer translation. However we can go over this here:
Let's define what fire and sulphur and brimstone are with one definition:
Sorry, but it's still a fire and brimstone thing! It's directly related to volcanic activity! And yes, it's still in reference to the Fire/Volcano GOD.
You are now grasping at straws. Clearly anyone in a debate is going to have an agenda. Yours is to defend, and mine is to question and challenge it. Mine in terms of morality is to expose and discuss the dark side of the bible. You don't want to do that because it's a hard thing to confront and deal with. So you tiptoe around the issues.
I am, and if I read it as written and not try to self-invent context or metaphors, I am at least trying to be more honest about it. You do realize that Camping's arguments had a lot to do with self-inventing interpretations right? Like I said before, the only honest interpretation is the literal since you have no means of establishing any metaphorical context since you have no means of asking those who wrote the bible. Christians love to take things metaphorically and make stuff up. So can you pray to Jesus and have a mountain tossed into the sea? Can you pray and have world starvation end tomorrow? NO! It won't happen regardless of how much you believe in Jesus, or what he supposedly said! So what do Christians do, they claim such verses are "metaphorical" because they know the literal interpretation is obviously bogus. So they play the wishing well game:
The following is also wrong:
I don't need to use the KJV to come out with the same context. Please see example given above.
Genocide pretty much solves that issue. It's not exactly petting your cat and telling it how much you love it even though it clawed on your couch today.
See the above as to why changing words do not magically change context. The term "hell" might be less frequent, but the subliminal context to it is still pretty much there. And it does come in different flavors.
This is both wrong and correct. First half is wrong, and the second have is correct. You can google observed instances of speciation, or evolution if you need help with that.
And when the observation is evolution, it becomes fact. Please try again. You can google the human genome and how it's changed over the last few thousand years and you might just figure out what evolution is indeed happening. Heres a little help:
You can learn a lot by actually doing a little research. And I have provided a ton of information on evolution. Like I said before, it takes literally intentional ignorance to suggest evolution theory is false. It's actually really pathetic that we even need discuss the issue at this point.
This is wrong. Things observed do not mean they will be falsifiable. It only means they are open to falsification if you should choose to try and do so. Evolution is the observation of changes, and we know by observation that changes occur all around us and in our own genome. Sorry, but evolution itself is not subject to falsifiability as it's an already observed and verified fact. How things evolve is a theory, but the fact they evolve is not. Big difference!
Science is open to it. It does not mean everything in science is falsifiable. You seem to attempt to suggest everything is falsifiable, and that is incorrect. You are trying to argue from a really old and outdated point of view that does not reflect modern science. Hence, we don't need to test whether or not evolution is happening, we know it happens. We now study how it happens, and how it did happen.
In direct democracy is similar to a Republic, but there are small differences outlined in our constitution. If you need clarification you can reference this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C_YBhY11yA&feature=related
But this isn't exactly true if you understand the constitution since there are limits to what laws can be passed by such representative government. I can't seem to locate his column, but I remember something about blue hats vs red hats ect. I remember that it seems to ignore section 8. If people respect the constitution, follow secular law, it couldn't ever become or be anything other than what it was intended by the founding fathers. However, the current government we have has already pretty much torn up the constitution to where a lot of legislation violates Article 1 section 8.
It's what you very much seemed to be doing. I think you largely misunderstand what exactly I am doing when I debate people like DamonWV, or My314tin. Yes some of my arguments can by overwhelming and complex when I can resort to simpler means of arguments that they will also ignore and not properly address. So I focus on that and expose that to the readers. I will indeed rip apart pseudoscience when i see it. I will call people out. I understand what you think I should do, or how you think I should debate. However, that's not how it's going to pan out. ;) So you are right, there would be no sense in discussing that further.
Actually, you are doing far worse. Science bases their work empirical evidence. Your position is asserting what you think happened as magical truth.. And yet, your arguments never actually come close to anything we actually know and observe. But to place this GOD of the Gaps argument in a more clear context in terms of human evolution vs the bible, you can visit this article:
There is a reason why theists don't like having to actually address genetics, or why their argument really is just an assertion with nothing at all to support itself. I find it a bit interesting that My314 would make an argument against human evolution based on a position of pure assumption. Sorry, but science isn't saying "this is just what we think". That is what you are doing My314. Science bases its conclusions on actual empirical evidence. Like the human genome, how it's changing, how it can trace back our lineage ect. But of course this is the very simplistic argument, but I can post dozens of sources and material if you need me to. But I am sure I'll get yelled at and get told that I am not playing fair. Right?
I tell you what, can you trace back the human lineage all the way back to a supposed Adam and Eve? I will bet not ;) And definitely not in terms of genetics..
Jackel
Tell you what, you respond to my post without conflating the words 'observation' and 'scientific theory' and we might be able to continue.
Observations represent that which we perceive - evidence. Observations can exist fully intact even if a scientific theory is falsified. I am not and never have mentioned the falsification of observations.
Scientific theories represent our best explanation of our collective observations. By definition, a scientific theory is only as good as its ability to explain (and predict) observations. Falsifiability simply means that a scientific theory is dependant upon observations and thus could be contradicted by future observations.
Stating the ToE (the explanation of observations) is falsifiable is not the same as suggesting that evolution (observations of mutation, etc.) is not occurring. If you cannot deal with those rather clear fundamentals I am not going to bother with you.
One more thing, when you imply that I am suggesting the ToE is false or that I am denying scientific evidence of biological evolution you demonstrate blatant dishonesty and thus contradict your claim that your motivation in these discussions is to stop dishonesty.
Jackel,
I'm pressed for time today but I will come back and address your comments later.
In regard to your comparison of verses and the interpretations in different Bible versions, make an attempt at being sincere. You use your Matthews reference for the starving child and in your rebuttal you choose to use verses based on John's dreams and symbolism.
I only need reply with this:
Sorry, we have.. My claims are not contradicted sir. Especially in changes in the human genome. And btw, evolution is not subject to just mutations. And yes we have observed genetic drifting. The problem here is you are using a false argument to support your argument about science's objective when it conducts science, or what it's purpose is.
Which wouldn't be applicable to evolution but rather how something has evolved or come to be based on the empirical evidence. If more data shows humans have evolved rapidly vs slowly in the past, then that would indeed change the theory to a deeper understanding. But the point is that people like My314 often use this as a GOD of the Gaps argument. This to which I am sure she will be posting if she/he actually responds to my post on the subject.
All I am doing with you Trig is clarifying what is still subject to your position and what isn't.
before you begin that, those two subjects are separate subjects being discussed. And I have read every version of that verse and the context is the same. Some try to be more subliminal about it, but it's no different. You can cherry pick what you want out of that and it's not going to change much. The newer NT does a big effort to manipulate the scripture and make it look as if the concepts are there, but they are. Like I said, it won't change the deut, psalm, Exodus, what Yahweh actually is, or what El-shaddai actually is. It will not change the fact your religion came from its mountain GOD polytheistic roots either.
Jackel
You are still conflating observation with theory. If you attempt to argue that I was talking about observation rather than theory my post @1.557 which contains the quote also holds clear context which demonstrates that I was talking about theory. But your intellectual dishonesty is already well illustrated. My other posts explicitly state my support of the ToE and the evidence to-date. For you to ignore such explicit statements and pretend I have argued the opposite contradicts your claim of honesty.
Do you NOT understand what is meant by 'etc.' ?
'If more data' is precisely the point. Do you or do you not recognize that the ToE (theory of evolution - the explanation of collective observations) is something that could change (be refined or superseded) based upon future observations?
Sorry but you seem to keep changing what you mean in accordance to the sentences you right. What you wrote above does not contextually reflect these to sentences:
I already told you that the first sentence is wrong, and the second is semi correct. Proof is more of a consequence that becomes apparent as we gain more knowledge. Just because science's intention is to gain knowledge does not me it doesn't provide proof along it's journey. Right? I am not being dishonest here, I am trying clear up a miscommunication and some of the sentences you write.
Fare enough, I did not see that part of the statement.
Yes, that part I didn't have a problem with. Our confusion here is you being specific, and I being general in terms of evolution. Hence I am speaking in the context that human evolution has happened and is happening still, but you are arguing this from the view point of exactly how it happens is open to debate and still subject to further study that cane be falsifiable in different aspects of human evolution depending on further observations. This is the problem between me and your debate on the subject.
my314 doesn't even need to argue against evolution to make an argument for the creation of this observable universe. She doesn't even need to argue against the Big Bang. :/
Jackel
Give me a break Jackel, one of the drawbacks of presenting yourself as intelligent is that feigned obtuseness is off the table. My posts are quite clear.
I have said even in this thread (I believe) that through science we may have indeed nailed truth in some areas (e.g. the Earth revolves around the Sun). We just cannot know for certain that we have (e.g. the Earth simply appears to revolve around the Sun in our 4-dimensional projection of what is 100 years from now found to actually be a 7-dimensional universe). No matter how obvious we find a scientific theory to be, we cannot escape the fact that our understanding may be found to be faulty by future observations. (But note that our historical observations may remain entirely valid - we just has the wrong explanation - it was the scientific theory that was wrong.)
Observations will either corroborate a theory or contradict it. Science can prove a scientific theory false (in part or whole) with a single contradicting observation. But no matter how much corroboration we have there exists no logical means to know that a future observation will not contradict a scientific theory (in part or whole).
I am saying that we can be 99.9999999999% confident that a particular theory is right on the money (e.g. the ToE) based on overwhelming corroboration and the absence of any contradicting evidence. But even then we cannot know that the scientific theory will always predict (explain) observations for the rest of time. Certainty is too high a bar for science ... science delivers confidence, not certainty ... science delivers corroboration, not proof. And yes I am still talking only about scientific theories - our best explanations for collective observations of reality (where we do not make the rules).
That was an honest comment!
Given I have explicitly stated in this and in past debates that biological evolution is indeed enjoying strong corroboration clearly I am not arguing against it. Clearly. Given I have explicitly stated in this and past debates that I endorse the ToE clearly I am not saying it is false. Clearly.
I am, as always, arguing that science is all about the pursuit of knowledge, not the declaration of truth. Ironically part of my motivation for this aligns with your stated objectives - to protect the integrity of science.
To be valid science must remain objective. If the scientific community were to be one that declares proof then any scientific theory short of a 'proof' will be discredited ("well it is not really proven is it?"). Worse, what happens if something that was "proven" turns out to be wrong (even slightly)?
The scientific method wisely remains objective - critical thinking at its best. The method will produce scientific theories which seek to explain well-founded observations. Each theory will be continually scrutinized and tested against the observations it should predict. Confidence in a scientific theory rises commensurate with corroborating evidence.
If a scientific theory is contradicted that is a good thing. It suggests that science may be on the verge of taking another major step in an area of research.
Science, wisely, recognizes that no matter how confident we are based upon our observations there is always the chance of a future contradicting observation because we truly do not know everything and do not have control over the reality we observe.
Jackel
I did neglect to repeat my key qualification; so I will include it just to be complete.
Science (in the most inclusive sense) can indeed deliver proofs. Within a formal system whose rules we control (such as arithmetic, propositional logic or a formal grammar) it is of course possible to produce a formal proof.
We can (and Turing did) for example prove that there is no general algorithm which can solve the halting problem for Turing machine formalisms.
The scientific theories of which I speak in my prior posts are those which are dependent upon observations of the reality whose rules we cannot control and whose secrets we must find over time. Formalisms such as the Turing machine are not what I am talking about.
TiG,
I agree completely. In reading your opening comment on areas of disagreement being or seeming to be where the discussions seems to be drawn I am guilty as well although I make attempts to divert. I get an overwhelming sense that Jackel is offended by my professed faith in God and all other discussion topics seem irrelevant.
In reading your #1.557 comment I agree with your presentation. I ask questions in general terms in most cases specifically because this isn't my field of expertise. This isn't intended to state I am not informed or choose to have tunnel vision on the topics of discussion. There's to many beliefs in religion about God that are based on ritual, symbolism and interpretation for me to cling blindly without searching for answers. Although Jackel, Zepp, Anjisan and Sailcat have presented their position as that of being the protector or defensive position I don't think this is really the case. On face value it seems Jackel has been wounded by religion, spirituality or God and any presentation in this area is subject to ridicule with rigid guidelines which he doesn't hold as tightly when discussing evolution.
I have never stated I don't believe in evolution and to do so would be ludicrous. If one wishes to see evolution in fast forward just watch the changes take place in a colony of feral cats over a period of 6 months to a year. The mating process along with the offspring yields dramatic results.
The area of ToE I have difficulty with accepting are those areas where there is no proof and many a hypothesis will have these three words "and we believe" within the first paragraph. When we move into areas regarding the origin of man and humanity I am not (less) accepting of the theory. Personally I find the study of science in this area very interesting and I'm not one to constantly finger point that science got it wrong again. There's a saying I try to apply when I am discussing topics with opposing views; I don't have to be wrong for you to be right.
In regard to Big-Bang,
I agree on this and I have already drawn the line in the sand on this in at least one instance but likely a few times only to be ridiculed and this is why I proposed my question question to Jackel on the big-bang. I think this is an area where we will back up the bus so far and the result will have the same answer as the original topic of this discussion; I (we) don't know, resulting in, and we believe.
Jackel,
I'm still pressed for time but I would like to open in regard to my comment about the possibility of you being wounded by religion and I have no way of knowing. How you express yourself has a thread of resemblance to many I have known who think and have similar feelings about God and religion. I thought and felt the same way for years.
I don't have an argument against ToE with the exception to what I posted in the above post. In regard to your second sentence, I have no argument in this area, I call it Gods Big Bang. :P
I would like you to present reference to scripture verses in a like manner as those you reserve for your defenses of your beliefs. I'm hesitant to say this because we can be lax at times in how we treat our beliefs. This falls into the same category as how we are suppose to treat our neighbor. Some neighbors have a tough road based on their neighbors self esteem.
I think you know when sulfur is mentioned what it is intended to represent. This holds true for sheol, gehenna, hades and tartroo. They all have roots in the OT and in the Hebrew language they are translations for dark places. i.e. less than desirable lifestyle. The repetitive references to hell in the KJV is indicative of who it was written for, when it was written, along with acceptable translations. Gehenna in itself has some interesting history but it wasn't a reference to hell and Johns dreams can't be attributed to the same. What do we know about dreams today? How people process their daily life has a huge impact on their nightlife. i.e. how well they sleep.
In regard to my response about equal value being given to comments and your comments in this statement, how do you apply the same to your comments in your link? Biblical Family Lineage: A Reproductions End
In regard to God of the Gaps, how does evolution deal with incest and birth defects which you hold to be truthful of Gods creation? As you stated in your NV link these are things Gods creation would need to deal with. When I view references of single cell to multiple cell evolution then those evolve into multiple cell creatures splitting and evolving into multiple subspecies, to finally arrive to where we are today and beyond are not the same laws applicable.
I'm familiar with what happens in nature. i.e. animals, mammals etc. Would not the same hold true for Gods creations? I'm also aware we think of Gods creations as the fully developed animals, creatures and humans in our world as they exist today. To clarify my "we think" I am stating this as to how creationism is portrayed or projected by many believers. To do so would be to discount all fossils discovered to date. No, I'm not tiptoeing back into evolution, I just approach this with an open mind.
In discussing theory I'm not adverse to listen to hypothesis and I have listened to lots of Hawking theory but after a while when he starts to waffle he sounds like Camping. I needed to add that as I go. Still short on time. If I avoided a specific you would like to address please point it out. As TiG pointed out, I and many more here don't have degrees or post graduate degrees in what you are presenting but it doesn't mean I'm short on brain power. I am very familiar with the element table so there's no need to post it on my behalf.
In regard to what's written in the Bible, specifically the OT, this isn't suppose to be taken as a history book. This applies to the NT also but there's always much reference to the OT in regard to dates and perceived misalignment with humanity, dinos, fossils etc. Especially true because of , In the beginning...
my314tin
I am interested in the ongoing dialogue between atheists (especially those few who are hard atheists 'there is no God') and theists ('I know God exists'). Both take impossible positions of certainty and neither side can, of course, prove its claim.
What I try to do is encourage both sides to recognize that the other side could be right. There could indeed by an intelligence which created the known universe. Such an intelligence could have established the conditions which caused our universe to come into existence and evolve into what we see today. This view (an abstract creator who engineered the Big Bang) does not conflict with science.
However, there are some rather profound questions we can ask regarding this creator such as its origin. If you follow Jackel's information theory arguments he would suggest that there can be no existence without information. This is an implicit 'bottom up' argument which states, in effect, that no consciousness can exist without information and thus any creator would have to (somehow) preexist its own consciousness. That is, it would have to create the information which enables it to exist. This is what Jackel is trying to explain with terms such as 'infinite regress' and slogans such as 'consciousness cannot exist without cause [information]'
Now if the creator is a perpetual existence (always has existed) it is rather clear that no human being can explain this since we are temporal creatures - we cannot comprehend perpetual existence much less explain it. Jackel would argue that even a perpetual existence cannot exist without information. I am confident he would state that as 'truth' whereas I consider it to be a premise. The problem is that Jackel is operating within the limits of human cognition. I am not willing to accept that what we perceive and what we understand as inarguable notions are indeed such. That is, I am of the position that we are barely scratching the surface of univeral understanding and we would be prudent to remain uncertain about pretty much everything.
In short, nobody knows.
____
Now contrast this with a debate between an atheist and a theist who believes in the teachings of a particular religion - say Christianity in general. This is an entirely different picture. The Bible is like a gift to atheists in that it is replete with contradictions of known science.
Personally, I believe anyone who attempts to argue faith based upon religious teachings and quotes of scripture with a scientifically aware atheist will lose the debate. Those who claim the Abrahamic God (as an example) exists cannot win an argument against science and logic. This is certainly a place where Jackel and I hold common ground.
I believe that such a pure debate of science vs. faith is pointless and should not take place. It will never end well and will almost always be disrespectful.
Yes im back, I had to comment when I seen about pre existence before something was. Rc sproul, a Philosopher talked about this.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/gods-self-existence/
God’s Self-Existence
“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”(Ps. 14:1a).
- Psalm 14:1a
We conclude our study of the relationship between science and theology with an examination of aseity — the doctrine of God’s self-existence. Aseity is the view that God is entirely self-sufficient and not dependent or contingent upon anything else. In other words, He is the eternal, independent, and personal cause of the universe.
Some thinkers appeal to self-creation in order to account for reality while denying God’s existence. As self-creation is illogical, others attack the concept of causality itself. An appeal to the philosophy of David Hume is often made to prove that uncaused effects do exist.
Using his famous illustration of a pool table, Hume stated that we never perceive the immediate cause of anything that happens. True, we strike a cue ball with a pool stick and believe the ball moves because of the impact. However, this does not prove striking the ball causes it to roll across the table. All we have seen for sure, Hume said, is a relationship of contiguity — a relationship where one event follows another in sequence. We assume the cause behind the effect but cannot be certain that something else did not cause the ball to move. Perhaps an unseen force was the actual cause of movement (as Christians, we answer Hume’s skepticism by saying both the cue stick and the unseen force of God’s decree make the ball roll).
In any case, Hume did not deny that causes exist, he just believed we cannot determine what they are. The law of causality still holds true: “Every effect must have a cause.”
In order for anything to exist, an uncaused something, or someone, must exist. It is not an uncaused effect that must exist, for there can be no such thing. Self-creation, an uncaused effect, may be an illogical contradiction, but a self-existent, “uncaused cause” is not.
This “uncaused cause” must have the power of being within itself — it must exist in and of itself. This cause must be eternal, for that which does not exist cannot later bring itself into existence. Moreover, this cause must be personal for an impersonal one could not create personal beings. Only a personal, self-existent God can answer the question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Coram Deo
In the end we find that the assumptions of chance and naturalistic evolution are not sufficient to save the phenomena, to explain reality. In addition to the many natural evidences that contradict such theories, we have also seen how illogical they are. Only a self-existent, personal God for whom non-existence is impossible can adequately explain the design, causality, and personality evident in the universe. Praise the self-existent Creator of all things.
Also Rc sproul talks about causality with decartes , this is a video
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/consequences-of-ideas/descartes-and-cause-and-effect/
He talks about energy around 1/4 to 1/3 of the way in. This is a very interesting video about cause and effect. Its about 30 minutes long, as im sure most wont take the time to watch, but I felt I had to toss it out there for you all.
DamonWV
In effect this suggests that our explanations for what we observe could be oversimplifications which overlook a much deeper reality that we simply cannot yet perceive. Basically it taps into an objective notion that our perceptive abilities fall short of perfection (incomplete, imprecise).
Note that what you have provided is NOT a scientific argument. It offers no evidence and simply speculates on what could be. It is basically a philosophical argument. This should not be used to counter a scientific argument nor should it be used to support a posit that God exists. It is speculation ... interesting but nevertheless mere speculation. I can, however, see this used as a mild counter to hard atheism's stance of 'there can be no god' because it demonstrates that the certainty of such a statement is unjustified. But most atheists hold the soft position 'there is no evidence of a god' and in so doing they are aligned with the full body of knowledge we call science.
If you saw the The Matrix movies you would see humans living their lives in one reality (that which they perceived) yet when you peel the onion they are really just human energy sources being fed a mental fantasy. We are limited by our ability to perceive. We can produce logical explanations for all that we perceive but in the end our knowledge (our understanding) is limited by both our ability to perceive and our cognitive abilities to process what we perceive.
The limits of human perception and cognition represent, in my opinion, the strongest faith-based argument for the possibility of a god - a creator. However, as soon as one crosses the line from abstract theism into religion the argument takes an entirely different form. Now instead of an abstract creator entity of unknown origin and unknown form there is a specific entity with specific behavior, characteristics and history. The more detail a religion applies to a god the more difficult it is to defend the story. Thus I would recommend all theists avoid entering a religious debate where the opponent can apply formal logic and/or science. Religious debates should stay in religious / philosophical circles.
I never stated it as anything else. It was a in detail philosophical view of Causality. A look at mind and matter. Matter as an extension, mind as a non-extension. It gives insight on the issue with people thinking God needed to have a creator, or he created himself, which is an illogical statement, because nothing can pre-exist before it was. God couldnt be and not be in the same time and the same relationship.. So Rc sproul was pointing out that a self creation is impossible, but Self Existence is possible, and necessary in a Biblical view.
DamonWV
And I never suggested you did. :-) I was simply commenting on your post.
Great Movies btw. I believe the question should be then, what exactly is energy ?, and Why is it here, instead of not being here ? Is God energy ?
DamonWV
... as you segue into pantheism (i.e. does energy = God?)
If that were the case, then everything regardless if God existed or not could be pantheism. We could just say its energy we worship because everything is energy. Even though if everything is energy, made out of atoms, the next question would be , do we know, is God is made out of atoms, or energy ? Or is he some form of consciousness ? I believe from what the Bible says, that we will have actually heavenly Bodies. Even when Christ was resurrected and appeared before Doubting Thomas, he told thomas to touch the hole in his side where the spear had pierced him. Which also makes one think if Jesus was resurrected why did he still have the hole in his side ? I think 2 reasons can be thought of. One is jesus had not ascended to heaven yet, also the other is even in heaven perhaps the scars on his hands and side will always to remain as a reminder for his sacrifice.
That probably got off the point of energy, but it just ran that way, sorry. :D
DamonWV
I am not so sure 'worship' is an appropriate term regarding pantheism. :-)
I do not consider the Bible to be a source of factual information. This is simply a 'FYI' - for future reference.
And that is where 2 debaters could never come to terms in a debate which I was reading from a lot of your above comments. We just go on living life in our belief system :D
DamonWV
Our beliefs are the summary (the essence) of our knowledge. We cannot change what we believe but we can question what we 'know' and, in so doing, evolve our knowledge and thus our beliefs. This requires an honest (and private) application of critical thinking - objectively reviewing the information before us and doing our own research (and cross checks).
So yes we should not try to change someone's beliefs ... the best one can do is offer maybe a different perspective or some new information and then move on.
Damon,
I was reading through the comments and had just a minute. So Damon, you really never left? I'm wondering if you are approaching this in order to convert someone? My position is probably close to what TiG has presented as discussing this and finding some middle ground.
In your comment about heavenly bodies, my first thought was how human we are in not stopping to appreciate the heavenly body we have in the present. This is just another view but I still wonder how you came to the heavenly bodies and I'm guessing you are expressing this as in a physical sense.
On more quick one; When one questions what is written or how they have been conditioned why is it portrayed within the negative context e. g. Doubting Thomas.
TiG,
In this I also agree. In this constant cycle of discussing knowledge while taking a hard position, lots of knowledge is lost at least within the context of communication. I think I've developed a reflexive twitch to literal (hard) interpretations, especially biblical. I've learned it's best to not react as difficult as it may be. There may be a lesson I'm blocking if I do. If I'm not willing to take the time to listen to the opposing viewpoint and be open to compromise there's no point in attending the meeting.
I think we are wide open, infinite, on both sides of this topic. I think the positive in this is neither side is sitting idle and both are digging furiously and it seems someone thinks they have finally found the key on a regular basis.
I think in most cases my comments regarding science presenting information as fact is taken in a negative context. I'm referring to theory or hypothesis that's being tested and it's always subject to change. As absolute as Christians and most religions prefer to see their faith or beliefs much of what they are clinging to is symbols and rituals. Human nature says the same holds true in the science community. The reluctance to speak out or offer an opposing view seems taboo. The case of the spear in the mastodon bone was difficult for WSU Professor Carl Gustafson because he and only a few others accepted his view and he remained silent. The re-dating of the bone changed the window of America being inhabited by 800 yrs. and this isn't big when we are discussing millions of years but the change has a ripple affect and science will take another look at existing theory. In science and religion we return to "and we believe."
In this regard I think it's the interpretations creating the flaws. I prefer to separate, actually I do separate any reference to after life in professing my faith and beliefs because as I have stated earlier, "my faith and belief is mine" and there's no way to transfer this even to another believer. Fanatical's and radicals are created out of incorrect interpretations. I'm a firm believer that what goes on in our head plays itself out in our bodies. When a person of a specific religion spends their days obsessing about evil it doesn't leave much room for happiness or tolerance. This is a trait of fanatical Christians who feel compelled to constantly reference Satan.
I make every attempt to to keep win or lose out of my posts or discussions and if we can reach some common ground there are no winners or losers.
I agree and this was an area where I agreed with Jackel, Zepp, and the others who professes their beliefs and were against creationism being taught in a science class. Of course the offensive strategy didn't cease. There are places more suited for this debate than K-12 classrooms.
Yes and I usually refer to this as my perception of the truth. What I perceive to be true changes every time I gain more knowledge (education) .
my314tin
I pretty much have nodded to your comments.
Even if one presents comments clearly there is no way to prevent others from misunderstanding - innocently or maliciously.
Scientists generally seek to be right before taking a public stand - especially when suggesting a flaw in a well established scientific theory. Politics is quite strong in the scientific community.
In general, science represents our best example of critical thinking. You will find more 'Mr. Spock' individuals in science than any other field.
TiG,
I've learned that I can only be responsible for my comments and I have no way to control the receiver. So with that said;
Without looking at statistics or opinion expressed by opposing parties I'm inclined to agree. Taking pause to reflect on my comments puts things in perspective. At face value when I state science states theory as fact, I know they are making their statement based on current findings and tools they work with. e.g. The mastodon bone was re-dated with updated technology that didn't exist 30 yrs ago.
I don't think science comes across as Christians do when they state; "God said it so I believe it" and they present their position as fact. This usually happens in science when a person is promoting their image vs that of science and the subject presented. e.g. Falsified or compromised theory test results. Of course I think this is poles apart if referencing Rev. Camping types along with those blindly following. People don't survive in science acting like Camping.
My comment on how science presents information comes across as biased and there probably is a thread of truth to this but within the context of the position I take I'm saying, help me out here a little so I may be more able to understand. e.g. My question to Damon regarding heavenly bodies, as I understood his comment as being physical, in an earthly sense yet I have no knowledge where this is supported. Returning to church after an extended absence I attempt to peel away falsehoods I hear presented by Christians and towards Christians. I survived four corners of the earth and God would never allow man on the moon mentality as a child so in more than one way I am a survivor.
Backing up a bit;
I think the is true and referencing the mastodon bone again Professor Gustafson had a correct gut feeling about the fossil and a rib bone with a spear head embedded but lacked the tools to prove it. Although he wasn't instrumental in the R&D process of more advanced dating procedures, an individual(s) who thinks like he did was. A case in reverse is a recent finding in Australia presented as the oldest (3.4 billion yrs) non-air breathing micro-fossil bacteria. This was present as a possibility (key) to life having existed on Mars. The science community's general consensus was no, it's rock formation. I'm guessing theory will be tested. Of course these findings can't be compared to 2K artifacts found in archaeological digs in Israel where Christians or other religious groups attempt to use the findings as proof of Gods existence.
Funny this article was posted on October 20th, 2011. Oct 21 hasn't even arrived in the EDT time zone yet. I don't know which I find funnier, the guy who thinks he knows when the world will end, or the fact that MSNBC jumped the gun on helping the guy make a fool of himself. BTW....Jesus said you won't know the say or the hour...nuff said.
What Jesus said that is recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13 , Luke 17 and Luke 21 has nothing at all to do with the end of time or our world. You will find the subject that he is discussing in Matthew 24: 1-2 and if you follow it all the way through you will see he never changes subjects and the context in Matthew 24 does not change until chapter 26:3.
Yes he is talking about a judgement, one that is pronounced on Jerusalem and is fulfilled in AD 70 when Rome destroys the Temple and Jerusalem.
As far as the end time predictions we need to stop worring about when Jesus returns and start worring about where we will stand in our relationship with God when he does come
Patrick...I was thinking the same thing...that uhhh not the 21st LOL
Don't know which one is funnier - Some delusional idiot predicting the end of the world based on the imaginary tales in some imaginary book OR some other delusional idiots who believe in Jesus and the imaginary gang, calling out on the first delusional moron, basing their logic on the imaginary quote from the imaginary book of the imaginary man.... I am LOST!!!
Blind faith doesn't mean someone needs to be blind to have faith, wonder how he missed that one...oh yeah, couldn't see it coming!
Actually its kinda sad, that people could be so gullible to have been misled by a foolish old man. Thank God that the old feller didn't make a habit of foraging for locusts, or grazing off the grass, or wearing a mohair coat as many might have taken him more seriously. Its a silly world when people would withdraw their life savings to follow the words of one man, but ignore the words of the original content of the Bible which says no man would know the day or the hour.
Actually it is Oct 21 for something like 12 hours before it is in the US Eastern Time Zone.
I'll laugh if something actually happens at 11:59pm on the 21st.
The MSNBC reporters would feel so bad about themselves, "We couldn't even cover the apocalypse right...."
My favorite part is how the rapture obeys timezones. Like an earthquake will stop at a timezone change. Want to bet he issues yet a fourth date?
that's what I am saying..it's not 6 pm EST yet.....oh goody...I've got my best shoes on too. Jesus is gonna see my new kicks I bought just for this event. lol.
I think he's done. He's old. Has zero credibility. And a bunch of his followers donations.
The day's not over yet. We may luck out. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the religious zealots of all faiths were "taken up" at the same time? The rest of us who are left on the planet could then live peaceful and productive lives without blind judgment, bigotry, and hatred preached at us on a regular basis. (This doesn't mean that people who have a belief system belong with the zealots. I'm just wishing the "rapture" for those who so quickly condemn the rest of us to go ahead and "depart.")
I don't think it was MSNBC that makes him look stupid
Without Jesus you might have noticed it says Oct 21 arrived in parts of the world, and not just EST.
messenger-2: Are they going to teach English in your "school"? You could use a little help stringing your words into what we call sentences.
WOW Patrick, my condolences that you have to live with your brain. Though it is not noon here in the midwest, it is past noon somewhere.
Keep the blind faith baby, it is what keeps the rest of us laughing our azzes off.
It's already October 22nd in Sydney, Australia and seeing is how no one (including Jesus) knew there was a North America at the time he was alive or when the bible was written (you would have to wait 1000, A.D before the Vikings discovered Newfoundland), I am pretty sure the human race is in the clear.
Time zones don't start in EST duhhhhhhhhhhh. The entire world doesn't revolve around EST. The day of Oct. 21 started about 16 or 17 hours before EST. Sheesh.
You said it, not me.
Family Radio broadcasts a lot of garbage. If people believe what they air, it's no surprise that some of them also believe this charlatan knows when the 'world' is going to end.
Amazing what passes for religion with some of these people. And even more amazing what passes for science. I'm speaking about both the "pros" and the "cons". Something about the bigotry of the believer and the bigotry of the non-believer. Yada, yada, woof, arf, blah, blah, blah.
Use the Greenwich world clock...lol Then everyone can understand what the real time is...lol http://wwp.world-clock.com/
Time zones.. just mess with end of the world news... I think we should get the gov't working on a universal time zone.. so what if noon is the middle of the night for you LOL <j/king>
I actually wondered about this - why not? The numbers are pretty arbitrary, does it really matter?
But then, yes they kind of do in a sense of relation to one another. If someone says "I was walking down the street at 6AM" - immediately you know that he was walking down the street in the morning. He doesn't have to say it because it's implied by the time.
If there was a universal time - although the numbers are arbitrary in themselves, we've attached meanings to them regarding the time of day/night and it would be hard to get people around that.
I think what would end up happening is that people will just create an extra layer of qualifiers on top of the universal time to indicate what information we'd be missing - thus basically making another system to replace time-zones lol
Patrick: It's October 21st somewhere in the world....I don't think he specifically mentioned it had to be in the United States......just saying...
Guess I need to stop asking ladies if they want to "go out with a bang."
Even if MSNBC wrote this before Oct. 21 and were somehow able to predict nothing would happen, they would be a whole lot more accurate than this "prophet".
The ironic thing is when the bible was written, they didn't even know there was land in the 'eastern time zone' . Their absolute all-powerful God, saints, and prophets didn't have a clue about the very nature of the ground they were praying on.
In the immortal words of Buggs Bunny; Harold Camping is a "freaking maroooon"!! LMFAO!! What a shmuck!
I realize that you're joking and just want to add to it. This will go over about as well as the metric system which we took in school because it was also going to be used globally someday... lol
Several people have mentioned "blind faith".
That was a helluva good band back in the day...
edit error
Terry, WHY were you collasped. It seems that when someone tells the truth they are collasped. WHY????
While I don't think the world will end on FRIDAY October 21st I think you jumped the gun on this article MSNBC. While it is Friday October 21st in some parts of the world the US hasn't even hit Friday October 21st yet (as of this post). Maybe you should have waited until it was the 21st across the globe. Just sayin...
Well the US isn't the only Country in the World. As Friday rolls around in different countries and nothing happens it pretty much proves that he was wrong. So what difference does it make if it's Friday in the US? He was wrong, plain and simple.
Jason from St. Stupid, don't you think Camping would mean for the place he occupied, not Australia? He is self centered after all.
Jwright771984
"I think you jumped the gun on this article MSNBC. While it is Friday October 21st in some parts of the world the US hasn't even hit Friday October 21st yet"
If you really think that is so, and are worried about it, you should go ahead and take out your savings and invest it in the great rapture.
I think you totally missed the point of the article showing the absurdity of blind faith. If the old man was right, and the end did come, or the rapture anyways, then the bible is a lie and Jesus himself a liar, as he stated no man would know the day or the hour.
So with blind faith abundant, shear ignorance and a plague of mental blindness is relevant and abundant, I suppose is my prediction of the day. Wonder if I could get a few million in donations on a "Stupid Movement".
Unfortunately, at the old man's age, he will continue to dwindle and amount to less and less as he breathes his air, and lives life's disappointing promise of things to come. Prediction by the nature of the beast is a fool's worst as in any gambling game, where on the other hand, preparedness has always been one's best bet.
djdrew201, you obviously didn't read the first part of my post which states:
I think this whole doomsday nonsense is just that, nonsense. And to add to that I'm not even religious, I'm an agnostic. However to the people who ARE religious and believe this guy the bible clearly states no man shall know when these things will come to pass. But my whole point, all absurdness aside, that posting a story about something not happening when the date hasn't even come to most of the world is jumping the gun a bit. In my opinion it's just bad taste for a big media company to do, no matter how ridiculous the story.
actually they didnt
the last time for the may, or april or whenever it was, he claimed that end timezone would get a rapture, so in theory, if you stood in alabama, and I think georgia, you could watch someone disappear, or float off, or whaterever, an hour before. assuming both were going to be, heh
he may...IS a crackpot, but he seems to be a semi well thoughtout crackpot
Also, remember that his conclusions are from numerology and whatever other nonsense - the specific date is likely very important to his prediction; which is why he earlier predicted the 'rolling time-zone earthquake' (which is freaking hilarious).
So I find it unlikely that the geographic location would trump the actual date in his 'findings'...
Patrick - I think MSNBC is safe. Either the world doesn't end and their story is accurate, or it does and none of us are going to care whether MSNBC got it right or not.
Luckily for all of us, MSNBC didn't have a "Dewey Defeats Truman" story when they ran it early!
@@@messenger2------your writing style????????very annoying!!!!!!!suggest you---****take.......English composition.....!!!
You DO realize this man was talking about the "END OF THE WORLD" not the "END OF THE UNITED STATES" and you do realize that it is October 21st in parts of the world HOURS before it's October 21st on the East Coast, right?? Right????
What you expect that the world could end in different parts at different times? You are as bad as the person who asked the airport personel how his flight from Detroit could land at 8:33 in Chicaqgo when it left at 8:30.
It frustrated me that this guy and his campaign received any media press anyway. This man is a retired civil engineer. He has not spent his life studying the Bible in its original language, nor has he had any involvement with any experts in the field of Bible studies. I take Bible study classes and have taught Sunday school, but I would in no way consider myself an expert in the study of any religion. And that's what I think of this guy.
What infuriated me about the whole May Doomsday fiasco is that the media reported it as if there was an actual story. There wasn't. Some guy who ran a few numbers and used numerology (?????) comes forward and a group of his followers foolishly spent their life savings decide on a date - and suddenly everyone is talking about it as if there was something to report. Clearly there was not. So, why are we giving him any credibility again???? Give me a break.
I had a hand in putting together this story, and I hope it pointed out that the Oct. 21 date was sweeping around the world with no doomsday in evidence. Back in May, some folks even tried to get specific enough that it was going to be 6 p.m. in New Zealand or on the U.S. East Coast, but I'm not aware that even Camping was that specific. Not that it makes all that much difference. It's already Saturday in New Zealand, and nothing will be happening. I agree that there would have been little attention given to this bogus prediction except for the fact that so much money was spent (by Family Radio as well as Camping's followers) hyping the May 21 date. I hope that came through in the story as well.
That is exactly what Harold Camping first posited for his May rapture prediction - that a rolling hilariously time-zone observant Earthquake would hit the earth... running into each time-zone in the proper order.
you might be right, I am not sure where the 'rolling earthquake' thing started - but I feel relatively certain that it was Camping that first brought it up as a possibility. Maybe others just ran with it...
I can't believe you guys are even TALKING about time zones, etc.
This weirdo's predictions are not even worth that much thought.
Just like an economist. Keeps trying until he gets it right.
I beg to differ. I think economists have education and expertise in their field. This guy was playing a guessing game with numbers. I mean, really, do economists use numerology as a credible source for their predictions?
Imagine that he was wrong again. Those who contribute to his organization can at least claim a tax deduction if not the facts.
As a Christian myself, let me be the first to own that since day 1 through today and forever Christians have the worst public relations department and this guy is one of the examples. Before anyone can bust my chops about hypocrisy I shall bust my own as I have broken in some degree every one of the ten commandments...so really who am I to judge this guy....except to bring to the attention to everyone, believers or not, that no where does the Bible state a specific point in time. Matthew 24:36 states by Jesus Christ, not even He knows when "the end" comes. Jesus does give us clues as time nears, certain things we should take notice as we live our lives. If you don't know and would care to see what the Bible says look at Matthew 24:42-44... My whole point is this guy is an idiot that represents Christians and I am here to say because he tries to predict the demise of the world, this is nothing but false teachings...and not apart of Christianity. There is a difference between the Christian that commits sin and one that professes false teachings that he of all people should know better. It's no wonder many of the academia scoff at the Christian...One of the few things I'd agree with on their philosophies of life. I just know Jesus Christ didn't die a horrible death for the self righteous, perfect, judging and hyper-religiousity folks....but for broken souls like myself.... . Jesus Christ is one of the most misunderstood individuals that ever walked this earth...HE DESPISED RELIGIOUSITY......and for those that read this and your Christian "faith" scrutinizes others not like your faith and bars them from freedom to worship in your church dont call yourself Christians. And you know exactly who you are...modern day Pharisees...Matthew 21:12-13. Your clean life living is all negated by your seperatism ways...you don't get to Heaven riding a bike and knocking on doors.
See, you christians are all alike, committing all sorts of sins against humanity. I am an atheist and have broken none of the ten commandments, (except 4 - remember the sabboth). Must be nice to be able to do all wrong, then just have your conscience cleared by your almighty.
Mark, Chapter 13:
"But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not
when the time is."
Cut the crap, Protestant fool/geezer, and focus on saving souls and performing good works, not being a false prophet and inevitably mocking and diminishing the validity of the Word. Your stupidity makes others throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the Truth revealed to the world in Christianity (the fulfillment of the Jewish covenant).
I was thinking the same thing.
The Bible states over and over to not presume to know the will of G-d.
As soon as someone prefesses to have this "info". I immediately tune out.
Seriously, Once the Bible was printed in contemporary language(s)....there has been no excuse for anyone literate to not research this stuff.
My first thought when this old fool started his predictions was, where is his nurse? Obviously has skipped his meds.
I agree with both of you. And Pam, I think you hit the nail on the head about contemporary languages. I don't think anyone should be given any credibility or considered an expert in the field of religion unless they learn the language of the original texts. Yes, we can learn about the Bible in translation, but we can't really understand its true meaning unless the experts who can read the literal, original text can offer us guidance.
And those of us who don't believe in your fairy tail god or the fictional writings of the bible written by man and his own beliefs say whatever!
Based on this guys photo the only thing nearing the end is him.
Gimmeabreakoradrink-
I'll take a drink. And make it a double!
Not true, I went to heaven but decided to come back because no wine and booze and girls were flying around as angels.
THAT WAS YOU!? Man you missed it! After you left the big guy cracked out the booze , MARY DID A HOT STRIPTEASE AND THOSE ANGELS BROKE OUT SOME REALLY FINE BUDS(how else did you think they flew? those paper mache wings?)should of stayed!
Betcha there weren't any 72 virgins available, either !!!
Uhh...Ummm...Its still Thursday.
Uhhhh, it's already Saturday in Austrialia.
Well, wadda-ya-know!
I am SO surprised. Was ready to die 'n stuff.
"Thus we can be sure that the whole world, with the exception of those who are presently saved (the elect), are under the judgment of God, and will be annihilated together with the whole physical world on October 21, 2011, on the last day of the present five months period. On that day the true believers (the elect) will be raptured. We must remember that only God knows who His elect are that He saved prior to May 21." This is taken from the preacher's website, so I conclude that Saturday the 21st is the "chosen" date.
Please, disregard my post...Obliviously, I don't know what day it is.
LOL! No need to feel bad. You're just as accurate as Camping is!
Well, we have had a couple of earthquakes here in Northern California tonight...
Raj, while your date was wrong, the quote you put up from his website sort of says it all, doesn't it? It's a total cop out. He is predicting Doomsday, but also says that 'only God knows' - the perfect cop out when it doesn't actually happen . . . .
If he admitted that only God knows, then why did the idiot predict it?
"... 'cept for that Jesus fella. I'm sure he was 100% right on the money."
He might have been 100% right but we wont know since there is no reliable recordings of what Jesus said. Writers of the New Testament wrote long after Jesus died and based their writings on word of mouth. Then their writings were edited by the church and poorly translated. With the possible exception of "A Course in Miracles" there is no accurate record of what Jesus said or believed.
I have bad news for any remaining Camping or Doomsday followers. You're going to live a long life with the rest of us.... until you die. My condolences.
And now they have to save up all the money they blew . . . . There's another important lesson here for those 'believers' who went through their life savings. It's not from the Bible, but it does say something: A fool and his money soon part . . . .
wonder what the suckers did with all their 401k assets, and all the money they gathereed together and give it away? (Hint: bet the rev and his family will be living high off the hog for another five months til the next armageddon scare).
Suckers is right.
There are apparently a lot of gullible people out there.
Those are the types that religion feeds on.
He'll get to Heaven and God will be like, "Dude...thanks, but I got a handle on it, okay?..."
Amen
The Bible was not too fond of false prophets, the last time I checked. As a matter of fact, you couldn't get your prophecy wrong in the old testament. Those who did were slaughtered. Therefore, heaven might not be the place where he is going.
If this crazy preacher could predict the end of the world, he should have been able to predict, his stroke. Now that he's a drooling vegetable, whatever he says should be taken, with a grain of salt.
You're very kind. I wouldn't even consider him a preacher . . . .
While I doubt his prediction will pan out, this report is absurd.
It is 9:25 PM Oct 20th right now on the west coast.
Many places on this earth will be Oct 20th for quite awhile.
Ya might want to wait until the 21st has passed everywhere before you start bothering the guy at home.
Camping's prediction accounted for time-zones... as in, each time zone will be effected individually on the 21st.
Honestly, he believes that. This time though he went with the 'quietly' instead of the 'rolling time-zone observant earthquake' probably to cover his nonsensical bases.
So, if the 21st came elsewhere, it already debunks his prediction.
Never heard the time zone idea before.
How did he tie that into the scripture?
Pretty much everything he has said he ties to scripture somehow.
the same way alot of this "God convinantly seems to hate what I hate, and like what I like" stuff shows up
pulled out their ass then wiped up with a bible verse that sounds nice
JOrgen - maybe the media wanted to be on his doorstep when 'it' happens. How great of a scoop would that be? Ha. ha.
j oregon - how those anything tie to scripture - thru fantasy land
You "DOUBT" his prediction will pan out!!??? How about it WON'T pan out at all!!?? Nothing is going to happen and nothing will happen. Period. I told you this 5 months ago and you're still giving the man the benefit of the doubt??? C'mon, JOregon, I know you've got to be smarter than that!
Comment # 18 deleted for death wishing.
D Luniz-
I like it! Very well put!
Camping tied his predictions through the wallets, savings accounts, and homes of his gullible believers. He played on the sincere beliefs of misguided and willfully ignorant christians and used their faith against them in order to steal their life savings. He is an evil and unrepentant mummified old con man.
So this is why the religious loons have been so quiet this month.
Well I guess they will pick their misspelled signs, shove tea bags down their pants and start screaming "socialist" again.
It was so peaceful for a while there.
Is the only thing you can comment on, politics? Everything comes back to a hatred of Republicans in your comments. One trick pony? Show that you have a broad based knowledge of some other topic and you will be taken seriously.
that gnashing of teeth sound is Sarah and Michelle and Ricky Perry having to drive the republican clown car to church this Sunday. At least they can still keep asking for donations to further their collective nonsense
There is nothing serious about mythical creatures and the way people use them to control or flim flam others.
Much like the tea party.
WHAT AN IDIOT! Wait, his followers are the real idiots. Wait, they're ALL idiots. Jesus is not coming back. And 97% of the worlds population will NOT spend eternity in hell because they are not Christians. What an egotistic religion.
He's an idiot, you're a bigot. What a pair...
I think you're overestimating with 97%. Are you saying only 3% are christians? I really feel sorry for you...
Anyone who thinks we are nothing more than the reult of luck and evolution is a fool.
It is false teaching, false prophets, and false doctrine.
Agreed. And don't forget bad reporting. News media outlets went nuts reporting this non-story as if it actually was true. What they should have done besides blindly report what this guy was 'preaching' they should have done some actual reporting and maybe they could have found an interesting angle - like this guy has no expertise in his field and has been wrong over and over again. THAT would have been newsworthy . . . .
False... false... false... as are all religions.
No @!$%#, sherlock! Good thing you folks published this story, or I'd always have wondered.
What a dope! Here I am drunk with a prostitute singing and screwing! ROFLMAO.....
wait a minute: a bright light in the West - WTF Arrrghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh great, I get 50 large from two toes tony at %25 daily for hookers,drugs,smokes & booze. Now,you tell me you were off again ????
Bart, that's hysterical!!!! :) :)
Thank you Wendy.
Looks like judgement day is going to be coming for you pretty darned soon, bart!
@Bart
Should have bet against Camping to cover yourself!
I hope Tony has a sense of humor. ;-)
So Camping answered the door wearing a bathrobe and leaning on a walker saying, "We're not having a conversation".
And me...I'm fully expecting the end of the world. So my wife comes home tonight, seeing me wearing a bathrobe and leaning on a hooker and says, "We're having a conversation".
I had a stroke...
Baaaaahahahahahahahah! Nice!
Slugbait
“...So my wife comes home tonight, seeing me wearing a bathrobe and leaning on a hooker...” Sounds like it could be the end of the world for you, Slugbait!
Slugbait - it could be your own personal Doomsday . . . :)
I predict Slugbait's world will come to an end on November 21. It will begin when he gets the test results back.
When this delusional idiot last predicted the end of the world a reporter was asking people on the street what they thought about it all. One guy looked at the reporter and asked: "If the world ends, who's going to see this news video?" . . . too funny! And now poor Harold has gone and done it again! . . . what's the world coming to anyway? . . . certainly not the end. I still contend this old fart is as dumb as a fox and laughing all the way to the bank.
I wouldn't call him dumb...outsmarted many people and stole lots of their hard earned money yes...but that hardly makes him dumb.
I'm frustrated this 'story' was given any credibility in the first place . . ..
It's only our own fault for playing along. The sooner we ignore this guy, the sooner he will disappear into oblivion.
Oh crap, I giant crevasse opened up in my backyard....There are weird looking creatures climbing out of it.....
Meh, may as well go say hi.
probly just Morlocks
just make sure to point out your NOT a Eloi and youll be fine
I got a crevasse that opened up... oh sorry I was taking a dump! wont happen again
let see what happens on 12/21/12 , anyone!