"only God acts without making any mistakes."
God cannot "screw up". This is man follwing his carnal desires - desires that are of the flesh, not of the spirit of God - (the Holy Spirit). It is not possible for God to be of ANYTHING except love and perfection - he is Holy, and WE screw up, because we reject him, and satan sees his opportunity and grabs it, because we are weak... rebellious... selfish... arrogant, and defiant... but God STILL loves us, regardless. You could go out and kill someone, rob a bank and rape a girl, and God would not love you ANY less, he just loves eternally, even though he is weeping at our sins. Judgement must be executed, from a perfect, flawless and beautiful, loving God - anything less would be unjust, which is why I love him and he brings me peace, even when I screw up and fall flat on my face (MANY times!) :).
God...
It's alright to disagree, Dave, but do you think it's kind to trash someone's beliefs?
Why is it not foolish to believe in an invisible, perfect, omnipotent being who never has the slightest measurable impact on the world?nahw you see? the burden of proof is to the person who claimed. i didnt say anything :P but i admit, the proof of existence is harder than the proof of nonexistence if its never been seen. what i can do is only projecting from what i've seen... everythings in existence are in 'pair'.
+1It's alright to disagree, Dave, but do you think it's kind to trash someone's beliefs?
This is the bit I don't get.
We can understand the foolishness of believing in Father Christmas.
We can understand the foolishness of believing in Fairies.
We can understand the foolishness of believing in Dragons or Unicorns.
Why is it not foolish to believe in an invisible, perfect, omnipotent being who never has the slightest measurable impact on the world?
Please, if you have the time, watch this video, but if not, cool :-)
Oops, damn, I've polluted the thread! :-[
Dave.
I am patient, I am not trying to make you look stupid, and I am a curious person.
Please, if you have the time, watch this video, but if not, cool :-)nice background and bikinis. why dont we embrace nudity? and start treating the penises and pussies are the same like the rest of body part? i believe 'they' should have the right to being equal? dont talk moral, where that comes from? :D
Okay. So, taking God out of the equation, tell me how you think the universe created itself, out of nothing, remembering that there was NOTHING beforehand. I'm curious...dont talk to me like i dont believe in god. life is created from an explosion of energy creating matter and antimatter. and that energy comes from i dont know where. people now start to believe a sea of antimatter exists somewhere just because it lies in Dirac's equation and human found a way to fabricate and contain it. but still it is in no natural way we will be able to see it next door. but still some people may hold true about creationism from nonexistence. not to mention the harmony of the law of the universe that in turn creates everything including us, that 'academic' people termed it as 'the evolution'. that harmony of law, its hard to prove who created it. not as easy as to prove the creator of law of a country.
just see this spiraling downhill...and you take the offense? ;) why dont you leave your emotional behind? this is the ugly truth that its the neverending albeit interesting debate. just mentioning the three letter g.o.d can be 'derailing' continuosly offtopic posts, its hard to resist face it.
Please, if you have the time, watch this video, but if not, cool :-)
Okay. So, taking God out of the equation, tell me how you think the universe created itself, out of nothing, remembering that there was NOTHING beforehand. I'm curious...
OH NO! Banana Man ALERT! :o
Damn, there goes the rest of the day, I'll be too busy thinking about that banana!
Dave.
Ehhh? ???
It will always be up to you to decide what makes sense and what doesn't and this will always be different to what other people think.
It doesn't mean one person is correct and the other is wrong
It will always be up to you to decide what makes sense and what doesn't and this will always be different to what other people think.Not so.
It doesn't mean one person is correct and the other is wrong
Most things that are statements of fact, have a right and wrong answer.
Most things are knowable through science, and a pretty good case can be made that all things are ultimately knowable given enough research.
If someone says that a god created the world in 6 days or whatever, then they are very very wrong. Dead wrong in fact.
If someone says that the world was created 6000 years ago, then they are very very wrong. Dead wrong in fact.
If someone says that a Noah put all animals on ship and blah blah, then they are very very wrong. Dead wrong in fact.
If someone says that the sun stopped in the sky or whatever, then they are very very wrong. Dead wrong in fact.
If someone says that *insert any one of countless silly bible stories*, then they are almost certainly wrong. Very likely dead wrong as a matter of fact.
Belief without proof, without room to change your view if new evidence comes about, without any evidence at all to support your belief over something else, is called faith. It is closed and self supporting by ignoring facts.
Belief in something based on evidence and experiment to prove or disprove the evidence and the belief is science. Science grows and changes the belief to match what is known and what is being observed.
Faith by definition is a way of living to avoid having to think or reason.
Science is the way of life that encourages thinking, exploring and seeking out information. By definition it is the opposite of the closed minded system of faith.
By starting a thread trying to shove your closed minded belief system down other people's throats you reveal your own insecurity of your own faith based belief system. Any real scientist, those who think and test for themselves, will find the argument you promote as old tired and a waste of time
There is no parent, group, school, friends, or society in general putting pressure on you to believe in santa or the easter bunny as you get older. But the opposite is certainly true for religion, and that's the only why it survives.
By starting a thread trying to shove your closed minded belief system down other people's throats you reveal your own insecurity of your own faith based belief system.
Religion MUST be a personal thingno you cant think that way. this is the way i see it... religion is a way of life, teaching whats moral and whats immoral, and its from god. dont kill people for no reason, dont drink alcohol because its bad is more than its good, dont fuck without marriage you'll screw heritage uncontrolled birth and abortion poison to moralistic nature :P etc etc (example) and its absolute even if you cannot comprehend why is the reason, including why we have to pray. just think we are a bunch of scientific community trying to unravel the truth here no personal mean :P
LMGDFAO
I can't believe that in this day and age there are still grown up educated, and otherwise intelligent people who believe in such rubbish.
What you saying, Dave? They are everywhere. Turn on your tv and watch our presidents and politicians.
obviously that was written by a man. granted a top physicist, but still a man.Okay. So, taking God out of the equation, tell me how you think the universe created itself, out of nothing, remembering that there was NOTHING beforehand. I'm curious...Ok then, read Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe From Nothing.
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X)
He is one of the top physicists who are working on that very question.
What you saying, Dave?...We're just lucky the holy books don't tell them that we must sacrifice a virgin every year for good fortune.What you saying dude? thousands of virgin get sacrificed daily my friend, in a new pleasurable way of men, not just by those idiotic people. and their blood just come to waste, sad :P
The same logic requires that the intelligent creator being must be created by another intelligent creator being and so infinite-um.probably you are right. but its not been told in the holy book.
why do we need a god creator in order to be, Its more a case of man created god in his own image than god created man in his.is that so? then why its not a harmony of law that... everything (car home computer etc) is not created, they just poof out of nothing? can we invent free energy out of neomedium magnet? or from nothing at all?
What you saying dude? thousands of virgin get sacrificed daily my friend, in a new pleasurable way of men, not just by those idiotic people. and their blood just come to waste, sad :P
[...]Hide from us?
obviously that was written by a man. granted a top physicist, but still a man.
another postulate (or paradox?)... let say god does exist, and He is supernatural supreme knowledge intelligent. do you think he will let us find Him while he's not intending to?
i believe He can find better place to hide than us can find him. or deceive us into making a law of "something from nothing" and believing it.
or if really he doesnt exist... then either way, we will get.... nothing!
Like everything else religions exist because they have the right recipe for survival. They exploit part of man's recipe for survival.
Hopefully faced with better education and communication in the modern world they will struggle and eventually go the way of the Dodo.
The argument goes, It takes an intelligent being like ourselves to create something like a computer therefore it must take an intelligent being to create us. The other argument is it must take an intelligent god being to create a universe out of a big bang consisting of nothing.
The same logic requires that the intelligent creator being must be created by another intelligent creator being and so infinite-um.
The obvious question one has to ask oneself is who or what created the first creating intelligent creator.
The religious people always just answer that god just is and needs no creator, but if god needs no creator in order to be the supreme intelligence why do we need a god creator in order to be, Its more a case of man created god in his own image than god created man in his.
I remember watching a very disturbing documentary that really shocked me
Hahahah, Ray Comfort is one of the biggest misleading douchebags walking on the planet right now. He is making a career out of spreading utter nonsense and pseudo-scientific rubbish. How can anyone take this man seriously with when he pulls out gems out of his arse like that banana video Dave posted earlier?
Please, if you have the time, watch this video, but if not, cool :-)
Ray Comfort (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVr4Uw1Bvmw#ws)
Dave,
For someone who purports to be a rabid non believer you sure do seem to have a deep knowledge of the lunatic fringe.
I being an Aussie do take umbridge with your statement that Australians are not interested in God.
Maybe the circles you move in perpetuate that way of thinking or is just convenience that motivates you?
Just to set the record about Aussies straight, i have travelled extensively in this world and the Aussie is renowned by all
and sundry as a gambler prepared to bet on anything. So it occurrs to me surely a gambling man would bet 2 bob eachway
regarding God.You are sure going to be sorry if it turns out that you have got it wrong by backing just one horse for a win mate!
All i am trying to say is each mans belief is a sacred private thing, not something to be bandied about on chat forums.
But something to be discussed quietly and reverently with regard and humility but above all in the knowledge that we are
for all our achievements weak and feeble men.
How can we hope to progress if we close our minds and seek to close the minds of others by dogmatic opinion?
We must be prepared to listen to others but not if we are talked down to and ridiculed.
Any form of belief can be substantiated by evidence if we look hard enough for it.
Besides, we all know the world is flat, carried by four enormous elephants standing on the back of a turtle...
The next great leap in human evolution will be to rid ourselves of religion, all we have to do is get over our fear of death and the unknown.
That would be the Jack Sparrow version. ( i know there's supposed to be a 'captain' in there somewhere... )Besides, we all know the world is flat, carried by four enormous elephants standing on the back of a turtle...
And what is the turtle standing on?
Why it's turtles all the way down!
Dave.
"God loves me" is nice to hear, but what is the value or worth of such love when it is ephemeral and unable to deliver anything but nice feelings?"Jesus Loves You" is also nice to hear, unless you are in a Mexican Prison.
Someone stating, given enough time and under the right circumstances a flight ready 747 could just come together by chance out of all of the correct base materials that exist in an industrial junk yard, would be called an idiot. Yet stating that we (life) immensely more complex than the 747, just happened out of primordial ooze is considered scientifically sound. ???
Someone stating, given enough time and under the right circumstances a flight ready 747 could just come together by chance out of all of the correct base materials that exist in an industrial junk yard, would be called an idiot. Yet stating that we (life) immensely more complex than the 747, just happened out of primordial ooze is considered scientifically sound. ???
I have an interest in the religion debate, so I read a bit. And I find it hilarious. If I need a laugh, I can just put on a Ray Comfort video!
Me personally, or Australia in general?
For the country, a lot of factors and history would come into play I'm sure. I'm not even sure if something like that has even been researched in any depth?
That's famously called Pascal's Wager.
You can't just make yourself believe in something when you don't, that's just, well, bullshit. And surely something a omnipotent god will see right through. Besides, according to Australia's top Cardinal, atheists have just as much of getting into heaven:
I always wondered why religious people believe in a creator as the reason for all existence as if its satisfactorily definitive. "We didn't come from nothing, we were created by God!"
Couldn't one simply than ask, "Well where did the creator or god come from?" Maybe some pious zealot here can shed some light as to why this never comes up.
Someone stating, given enough time and under the right circumstances a flight ready 747 could just come together by chance out of all of the correct base materials that exist in an industrial junk yard, would be called an idiot. Yet stating that we (life) immensely more complex than the 747, just happened out of primordial ooze is considered scientifically sound. ???So you
[...]
Christianity is the only belief that demands you accept it on Faith.God alone decides if you require or receive evidence.
Ps:- "Walk with Faith in the Light of God"
The next great leap in human evolution will be to rid ourselves of religion, all we have to do is get over our fear of death and the unknown.
We certainly know of examples of countries banning religion, and that doesn't work out too well. Also, there are plenty of religious people who are not afraid of death...suicide bombers sacrificing themselves for their convictions. I think the important thing is that we continue to move towards basing decisions on evidence.
Good to see you have an interest in these matters, hilarity is only a small part of a much larger serious whole though, after all we are talking here of your final destination.
"Doubting Thomas" had the same problem with evidence.Paul`s evidence arrived when he was on the road to Damascus to destroy Christ`s followers, in the form of temporary blindness and a fundamental change to his heart and intentions.
The evidence is there for you if you ask the right people and listen with a open heart.
So youslepthibernated through the semester in school when they covered evolution, mutation and natural selection? Ah sorry yes, they are reversing the calendar in the US school system - back to the middle ages. I smile at such ignorance, but only because the alternative would be to weep. I'm sure i am not alone.
Someone stating, given enough time and under the right circumstances a flight ready 747 could just come together by chance out of all of the correct base materials that exist in an industrial junk yard, would be called an idiot. Yet stating that we (life) immensely more complex than the 747, just happened out of primordial ooze is considered scientifically sound. ???
Absolutely nobody is claiming that humans just happened out of the primordial ooze.
How dare they claim incest is wrong when Adam and Eve's children are humping each others!
If only they question things will they ever wake up. After Adam and Eve the next logical conclusion is INCEST and LOTS OF IT!
OK, putting wiseassing to the side - how is it possible that you do not? You mean that a hypothetical higher being created just us but all the rest happened naturally? And this doesn't strike you the least bit ... odd? I forget the exact percentage in the DNA code that separates us from the chimps but it is like less than one percent. Even things like yeasts share something like half of their genetic code with us.So youslepthibernated through the semester in school when they covered evolution, mutation and natural selection? Ah sorry yes, they are reversing the calendar in the US school system - back to the middle ages. I smile at such ignorance, but only because the alternative would be to weep. I'm sure i am not alone.
I firmly believe in evolution, mutation and natural selection. Just not as how wecame aboutwere created. :)
OK, putting wiseassing to the side - how is it possible that you do not? You mean that a hypothetical higher being created just us but all the rest happened naturally?QuoteNo, I think God created all of it. Evolution, mutation and natural selection can and does exist but that does not prove that God did not create the starting point. I also don't believe that evolution, mutation and natural selection occur uniformly and continuously on everything
And this doesn't strike you the least bit ... odd? I forget the exact percentage in the DNA code that separates us from the chimps but it is like less than one percent. Even things like yeasts share something like half of their genetic code with us.
To me it is a great source of joy and comfort that all life is one family, and there is a crushing mass of proof that this is indeed the case. It would be a sad thing indeed if man was somehow excluded from the great tree of life. How someone can think that it would be a good thing and above all, believe in such a separation facing all the evidence is beyond me.QuoteIt strikes me as perfectly logical that duplication and similarities would exist in things created by the same designer/builder
I pity their closed mind. I am sure they are comfortable in their belief and i won't waste time arguing the case. But it is the comfort of a padded cell.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.evil is his creation. he let it loose so men can choose to follow evil or god.
- Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
- Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.you can kill somebody (innocent or criminal) if you want to, but you are not willing. are you malevolent?
- Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?[/i]he's able and willing. willing to do, and willing not to do.
i said virgin girls get sacrificed by men/boys everyday... get fucked (sacrificed = get fucked, hymen get torn apart, blood splattered around, get fucked without proper bondage (marriage)), of course some people dont call it sacrifice, they call it fun and moral ;)What you saying dude? thousands of virgin get sacrificed daily my friend, in a new pleasurable way?? me no understand. What you do to virgin men again?ofby men, not just by those idiotic people. and their blood just come to waste, sad :P
if we based on narrow view of human and knowledge, and this kind of question will come out including the funny turtle and elephant. ok our religion didnt say anything about turtle. but if we say... we are standing on earth, then we may question what earth standing on then? another earth? as science proved its not the case. but when its not proven by science, then people can come up with funny question. dont you think we are hilarious in the eye of supreme intelligent? ie more intelligent creature than us? those who already know what gravity standing on? of course we can always mock around on something we (science) dont know.Besides, we all know the world is flat, carried by four enormous elephants standing on the back of a turtle...And what is the turtle standing on?
Why it's turtles all the way down!
Dave.
How dare they claim incest is wrong when Adam and Eve's children are humping each others!And not only did the Adam and Eve family do it. Noah did it too! (Which makes the whole "so-and-so begat so-and-so" thing rather pointless if they all get wiped out in a flood.) So they've given us not one, but TWO examples telling us to commit incest. It must be really important.
If only they question things will they ever wake up. After Adam and Eve the next logical conclusion is INCEST and LOTS OF IT!
Couldn't one simply than ask, "Well where did the creator or god come from?" Maybe some pious zealot here can shed some light as to why this never comes up.i'm not zios pielot and the real answer is more complex than this (at least not within my domain of knowledge) but i can give an analogy or situation.
Really? How about Islam and Allah? No faith there at all? Allah has outsourced Paradise to God, maybe?Allah is God. only muslim call it 'Allah' it means God, just under another name. so "Allah has outsourced Paradise to God" is an irrelevant statement.
... since its irrelevant to the domain of robot knowledge. so the robot may start to come up with funny assumption this and that and become hilarious.
...
Please consider the following more an expression of my beliefs than direct argument against yours.OK, putting wiseassing to the side - how is it possible that you do not? You mean that a hypothetical higher being created just us but all the rest happened naturally?No, I think God created all of it. Evolution, mutation and natural selection can and does exist but that does not prove that God did not create the starting point. I also don't believe that evolution, mutation and natural selection occur uniformly and continuously on everythingQuoteIt strikes me as perfectly logical that duplication and similarities would exist in things created by the same designer/builder
And this doesn't strike you the least bit ... odd? I forget the exact percentage in the DNA code that separates us from the chimps but it is like less than one percent. Even things like yeasts share something like half of their genetic code with us.
To me it is a great source of joy and comfort that all life is one family, and there is a crushing mass of proof that this is indeed the case. It would be a sad thing indeed if man was somehow excluded from the great tree of life. How someone can think that it would be a good thing and above all, believe in such a separation facing all the evidence is beyond me.QuoteI pity their closed mind. I am sure they are comfortable in their belief and i won't waste time arguing the case. But it is the comfort of a padded cell.
27 years ago my mantra was "religion is a metal crutch for spineless wimps who can't cope with life without it". I mocked Christians at every chance I had. I was Paul before his encounter with God. Then I had my own encounter, wasn't looking for it. It just happened. After that the bible was a living document that was speaking directly to me. It was not a intellectual decision based on study or logic. I was not brainwashed by some religious group. God had just gotten through to me. Sorry but I can't go back now.
I know from my own experience that trying to "save" someone or prove the existence of God by argument or logic is a waste of time. All the attempts to convince me only raised my defenses. I am not trying to convince anyone now either. I also don"t think I have "arrived" or am better than those who don't believe. Its kind of like how political parties can't understand how the other party can think like they do.
Thanks for having a civil discussion.
robrenz
so the robots live in mars, fucking each other, have childrens and grandchildrens and pass down the story about their god called "Time".
you're so silly, mechatrommer, talking about robot fucking..... This is a bad example because we don't have emotion towards robots. Watch those cartoon on tv lately, robots are killed left and right. Robot incest that is nothing.here, you have to use up all bit of your imagination, not only what have been taught directly to you, but you need to expand it yourself, thats how human works, thats how scientists discover new things ;). i said, "let say" we are able to create "true intelligent"... now its seem its hard for you to understand semaphores...
He should have foreseen incest and created more humans in a mere thoughtand why do you expect Him to care? its in his own right. incest or not incest. incest doesnt reveal massive atomic energy to atmosphere? infact you do it who cares? but somehow there's something about incest that will give negative impact to humanity be it heredity, morality, spirituality or physically who knows? i believe, He let incest going rampant (exagerration here :P) is.... by design! for some unknown reason or nonsensical to our knowledge and understanding. but keep faith ;) scientists are looking for it... the reason why.
we are talking here of your final destination.wormfood / fishfood or ashes ...
The only rules/guidance I need and attempt to follow is in the book.
I hope not!and have you studied/look at the latest version muslim holy book quran? i believe its the latest after bible (old or new tastement) since in there mentioning about bible, but not in the bible mentioning about quran. let me relink again here...
There are many horrible things in that book! (and the new one too, let along the far worse "old" one)
Hopefully you are one of those who like to use their own morals to pick'n'chose the good bits... ::)
Dave.
I don't care if you believe in God / Gods / Flying spaghetti monsters / The Force / Eywa / treespirits or whatever. And i am not mocking anyone. To each his own beliefs. And i respect that. No problem. Do as you please.
But , here is the part i DO have a problem with : ORGANIZED religion. It's all about MONEY , POWER and CONTROL.
Someone stating, given enough time and under the right circumstances a flight ready 747 could just come together by chance out of all of the correct base materials that exist in an industrial junk yard, would be called an idiot. Yet stating that we (life) immensely more complex than the 747, just happened out of primordial ooze is considered scientifically sound. ???So youslepthibernated through the semester in school when they covered evolution, mutation and natural selection? Ah sorry yes, they are reversing the calendar in the US school system - back to the middle ages. I smile at such ignorance, but only because the alternative would be to weep. I'm sure i am not alone.
Australia`s Top Cardinal, for all his high office and grand title, is just like the rest of us a fallible human, what could have ever caused him to presume to know who will enter Heaven?Only God knows or will ever know who is to enter Heaven,be he sinner or saint.Presumption in any form is wrought with danger in this case danger of an eternal nature.It seems to me an unwise choice on your part to quote this man as a valid argument
To think that the Judeo-Christian god and it's holy books are in some way any different to the countless others, is just plain wishful thinking.
Yep. I think this gets lost on many people. We deride Greek and Roman mythology - we even call it MYTHology - but it was real as rocks to those people. What if Constantine (I think?) didn't convert to Christianity and the Roman Empire didn't fall?...They'd still be believing in their gods. Would that then make their religion more true? It was the Jews who got the idea to get rid of plural gods and come up with a single god.
both God and no God are correct and our arguments do not make sense.
The passion of the religious types arguing their case here reminds me of Dave's old blog about audiophoolery.they got a point! no cable is perfect 0 ohm. so on the other hand, the intelligent guys, who realized this simply say... there is no god, since there is no perfect 0 ohm cable :P
Once they are sucked in by the mythical benefits of the fantasy they have been peddled, the enormous financial and emotional investment compels them to defend it in the teeth of all the evidence.
Both cases are possible, but both cases are not equally likely, not by a long shot!
We reason almost everything in this world using evidence and processes of science.
itdontgo, this is actually enjoyment for Dave. ;)
You mean my ceramic audio cable supports are completely useless? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Both cases are possible, but both cases are not equally likely, not by a long shot!
Any "proof" we see, smell, hear, touch, observe, derive is specific to our special universe and the physics binding it.
Therefor we (in our incredibly limited fashion) can only say that there is nothing observable. If particles do not govern physics in another universe, then should God "break the rules" and provide proof in some fashion to them? Why to us in our realm?
Our science is only valid relative to what we know. If we determine our reality to be something very different from how we observe it (that we do not exist as we see we do) then you cannot apply "science" to add disproof to there being a God.
And so you do not know if it is less or more equal a chance.
Our science is only valid relative to what we know. If we determine our reality to be something very different from how we observe it (that we do not exist as we see we do) then you cannot apply "science" to add disproof to there being a God.
The only rules/guidance I need and attempt to follow is in the book.
I hope not!
There are many horrible things in that book! (and the new one too, let along the far worse "old" one)
Hopefully you are one of those who like to use their own morals to pick'n'chose the good bits... ::)
Dave.
this is more my style:
http://www.venganza.org/about/ (http://www.venganza.org/about/)
Apparently some states in the US allow this to be taught. Anybody know if thats true or just another urban legend?
No offense taken on any of your comments Dave. I am not saying this in a wise ass condescending way like I have arrived but I really understand your viewpoint completely since I used to think exactly like you do. No one could convince me otherwise, except God. It is one of the things that makes me so sure of Gods existence, that he could change my heart directly, no church, no religion, just me and him. I can't change your mind and I am not trying to.
So he spoke to you personally huh?
How exactly?
And what did the big fella say? :o
Dave.
I didn't say he spoke to me, I said he changed my heart. I have never heard the audible voice of God and I don't expect to here on earth. But he speaks directly to me thru the bible. Yeah, sounds crazy, It has to be experienced to believe. I thought it was BS until it happened to me.
Regards, robrenz
both God and no God are correct and our arguments do not make sense.
. Keep it out of the schools, don't expect government tax free status and favor because of it, keep it out of politics, and don't expect any special treatment because of what you believe.
I didn't say he spoke to me, I said he changed my heart. I have never heard the audible voice of God and I don't expect to here on earth. But he speaks directly to me thru the bible. Yeah, sounds crazy, It has to be experienced to believe. I thought it was BS until it happened to me.
diversity of life here on our little rock. The argument generally speaks of how you could not expect a complex machine to "evolve" just by having lots of bits and then randomly moving them about. Which of course is a massively disengenuous (and wrong) way of summing up evolution.bwahaha. i just gave robot fucking analogy earlier and be called silly. now this, i havent watch all, but only until the "fucking clock" simulation, i think i got it up to that point.
You see, I regard myself as a Fundamentalist Agnostic. Not only do I not know, but I know YOU don't know, either.
Oh, you may think you know. Wouldn't it be lovely to know? I know I would love to know. I certainly understand the desire to know, or even to just convince yourself you know even when you really don't and just plug in the gaps with this stuff called faith, which really is just pretending to know when you do not. Faith is to knowledge what chewing gum and bailing wire are to engineering. Yeah, they can suffice, but are not to be mistaken for doing a proper job of it.
I want to print up a bumper sticker and plaster it on the back of my car, only I am sure most people would not understand it: "Embrace the Ambiguity".
Leave yourself open to the possibility of anything. I do not particularly believe in God, but then, I don't believe that my belief is required for God to exist quite nicely. I do not particularly assume He would care one way or the other that I believe. But He may be there. Or not. Isnt that an intriguing possibility, though? Nothing that really requires you do do anything any different, necessarily, but still. Intriguing.
But that is simply not the case, and any sensible Atheists will happily chance their mind and believe in a god or gods is there is some decent evidence put forth. But of course, there is never any evidence put forth, not even the slightest bit, we are bombarded with calls to just take it on faith.so i guess thats the wrong kind of "brute force" bullshit calls? :D you havent met people with holy water yet.
.. rather they will be transported to heaven to have sex with 72 virgins.
i'm rephrasing the book using my on word (its maybe the wrong way and i'm no way expert) which i believe easier to comprehend, and i'm not going to persuade you :P
the evidents are everywhere, the trees and its fruits, the water you drink and in the sea, the sky the animals everything, esp the harmony of the universe's law. but of course the evidence can be twisted to means different thing. and the way we approach things has been changed since. furthermore, it has been claimed by science in the form of mathematical equations and theories. so human claim its their law, not nature's or god's law ;)
if evolution is not relating to intelligence as the clock video earlier said, then what is the intelligence that governs the universe? why dont everyday commet crash and killing our neighboor?
and why ever "intelligence and conciousness" do exist at all? why intelligent needs to exist in order nature to exist? even if it is, why the intelligent need to be concious? (us). US (not USA) is the very evidence. but as said, it depends on your point of view. (Dave's emphasis)
[...]There are 2 "why"s and it is very important to be able to distinguish between them.
And if you want to have philosophical arguments about the WHY, go ahead, it has absolutely nothing to do with god or religion and is proof of absolutely nothing.
Yet another common religious mistake along the lines of "science can't explain why", so "god did it". Just more god of the gaps rubbish ::)
Dave.
There are 2 "why"s and it is very important to be able to distinguish between them.
The answer to the first kind of "why" is an answer to the aim or purpose of something happening. It is intentional and must always have an (intelligent/conscious) agent (the one performing the action for some purpose).
The answer to the second kind of "why" is an answer to the cause and effect of a chain of events. No intention is assumed and the root cause does not have to be an animated agent.
Science answers and seeks knowledge only for the second kind of why's. Religion seeks answers to the first kind.
(Dont you love how theists say that "God works in mysterious ways", and then they proceed to tell us exactly what He is doing, why He is doing it and what He wants? Isn't it cute? As if they think He would be obligated to operate by any rules that are comprehensible to us. )
I regard myself as a Fundamentalist Agnostic. Not only do I not know, but I know YOU don't know, either.
Here's a question for you.
[...]
who are you talking to george.? i couldn't give a shiny shite about religion or answers about it.i'll stress again.i've never asked the question.
It is trolling when it has nothing to do with the orignal thread it was posted in,funny thing is the thread split started before me in the original thread.. somehow i got the 'honor' to be the split point ...
How do you know what truth is, when you deny God? God IS truth, the source and creator of truth and love. Without him, you would have no concept or measure of it. You can't have it both ways.
What iamwhoiam is saying, is that we can define god such that god is everything good, moral, compassionate, etc. From this definition, it is relatively straightforward to demonstrate that god exists. In fact, there are some very convincing philosophical arguments that follow this line of reasoning. Furthermore, if the principle of causality is accepted, then god must exist. Anyone familiar with the science of philosophy will recognize this. No one is arguing that this god is in any way, shape, or form similar to the god of most organized religions. I think it is even more interesting that god may exist without relying on any sort of faith; logic alone leads to the existence of this god.
What iamwhoiam is saying, is that we can define god such that god is everything good, moral, compassionate, etc. From this definition, it is relatively straightforward to demonstrate that god exists. In fact, there are some very convincing philosophical arguments that follow this line of reasoning. Furthermore, if the principle of causality is accepted, then god must exist. Anyone familiar with the science of philosophy will recognize this. No one is arguing that this god is in any way, shape, or form similar to the god of most organized religions. I think it is even more interesting that god may exist without relying on any sort of faith; logic alone leads to the existence of this god.
In that case you can replace the word god with unicorn, zeitgeist, or anything silly you like.
Relabelling something, or giving a bunch of ideas a collective term does not change the fact that you are still talking about those ideas and not the object/word you just made up to label it.
Let's not confuse the issue. We all know very well that iamwhoiam means the christian religious god as per the bible, and you likely just insulted him by saying that's not what he means! ;D
Dave.
I'm inoffendable :)
No, he didn't offend me; he makes sense.
So you disagree that god is everything good, moral, compassionate...? God is typically defined as the supreme being; this supreme being is the definition I gave. You can certainly disagree with that definition, but this is the definition used by philosophers. And I think I already demonstrated that there is nothing mythical or illogical about this thing we call god. Any other definition that you come up with is rather arbitrary and meaningless.
It is trolling when it has nothing to do with the orignal thread it was posted in, has nothing to do with the reason of existence of this forum, and is initiated by a person who uses the name of the mythical being you want to promote. I do not call this trolling based on my refusal to believe in fantasies. And don't use the word "conviction" for what I do NOT believe. Look the word up if you want to make any kind of argument. I am opposed to convictions. I want only truth and fact.
You can say what you want, believe what you want. I only believe what is evident, not what I wish were true.
It is trolling when it has nothing to do with the orignal thread it was posted in,funny thing is the thread split started before me in the original thread.. somehow i got the 'honor' to be the split point ...
So you disagree that god is everything good, moral, compassionate...? God is typically defined as the supreme being; this supreme being is the definition I gave. You can certainly disagree with that definition, but this is the definition used by philosophers. And I think I already demonstrated that there is nothing mythical or illogical about this thing we call god. Any other definition that you come up with is rather arbitrary and meaningless.
Yes, I absolutely disagree. And I suspect that the only 'philosophers' who use that definition are theologians.
Nor did you demonstrate anything of the kind. Since I don't believe there is a god, any definition of such a hypothetical entity is bound to be arbitrary.
No, he doesn't. As soon as you use the 'god' word for that purpose you are associating real concepts with a mythical being - you may not be 'arguing' that overtly, but the history of religion makes that argument for you, and consequently looks like another devious attempt to subvert rationality to religious dogma.
Incidentally, iamwhoiam (that name reminds me irresistibly of Popeye), is the faint air of sanctimony which pervades your posts part of your mission to infuriate this community of rationalists into irrationality?
You've hit the nail ON THE HEAD! God is not conformed to "rationality" - he is God. If you're testing him with human knowledge and "science", squeezing him into a nice cozy shape that fits into your box, and then putting him on the shelf, that tells me you don't know God, or his heart.
For the sake of peace, I hereby suggest this thread be closed.why? the only reason a person ask to close this thread is because of emotional. are you going to make war if this thread is proceeded? ;) whats your teaching said? to hate people who have different idea as your? to disrespect them. if really you are not offended, then why ask to close this thread? i treat this thread as informative thread, esp to understand more about people from the other side. living in a cave forever is not good for human sake! ;) :P
Umm, every atheistic philosopher will agree with my definition of god. What were you saying again? I suggest you read a little more about the arguments for and against the existence of god before making a statement like this. All arguments against the existence of god use the definition I gave. Yes, I will agree that there are strong arguments against the existence of god, but you're taking completely the wrong approach ;D Hint: it has to do with causality.
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear. I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition. So do not put words in my mouth.
Yes, I absolutely disagree. And I suspect that the only 'philosophers' who use that definition are theologians.
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear. I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition. So do not put words in my mouth.
I always found it somewhat entertaining that a lot of atheists are completely clueless when it comes to rationalizing their choice; not unlike many of their religious counterparts. I've spent considerable time studying the philosophical arguments on both sides and found them to be very educational.
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear. I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition. So do not put words in my mouth.
Absolutely, the definition of god exists as you have presented it. But the existence of a definition says nothing about the existence of the thing defined.
One only needs to rationalize something that is not rational. Seeing as atheists do not make up wild stories and fantasies nor believe in wild stories nor fantasies, there is nothing to rationalize!
Fair enough. Suppose I clarify my definition a bit and restrict it to the following: god is all the goodness we observe in this world. Now will you say that god doesn't exist?
Of course. Goodness is a quality, but the kind of god discussed in this thread is an actor. You are not talking about what everyone else is talking about.
God is not conformed to "rationality" - he is God. If you're testing him with human knowledge and "science", squeezing him into a nice cozy shape that fits into your box, and then putting him on the shelf, that tells me you don't know God, or his heart.
Proverbs 3:Quote5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto your own understanding.
I always found it somewhat entertaining that a lot of atheists are completely clueless when it comes to rationalizing their choice; not unlike many of their religious counterparts. I've spent considerable time studying the philosophical arguments on both sides and found them to be very educational.
Fair enough. Suppose I clarify my definition a bit and restrict it to the following: god is all the goodness we observe in this world. Now will you say that god doesn't exist?
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear. I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion.
This is absolutely correct. The god described by most religions cannot be explained rationally.
And I agree with most other folks here that belief in the gods described by most religions requires a faith.
This is a red herring, if anything. Lack of rational basis for justifying an atheistic position leaves open the possibility for the existence of a god. Well respected philosophers have demonstrated time and time again that it is, in fact, impossible to prove that god does not exist. Just as it is impossibile to prove that god does exist. So, philosphically speaking, the atheist is irrational. Flame away ;D
6.54 My propositions elucidate by whoever understands me perceiving them in the end as nonsensical, when through them – upon them – over them, he has climbed out. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed out upon it.) He must overcome these propositions, then he sees the world rightly.Note: Whereas means "Of what", thereof means "of that"
7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
I found this interview with Professor Robert Crotty very interesting.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/03/28/3465485.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/03/28/3465485.htm)
He was a devout Catholic priest who became an academic around the early 60's. This was a time of the "3rd Revolution" which I gather was a scholastic look at the Bible by many priests to reevaluate the Bible in terms of scientific and historical evidence. This push was encouraged by Pope St Pius XII back in 1943 to make the teachings of the church more relevant in a modern world.
Robert Crotty worked for a while at the Vatican around 1963 and then in Jerusalem under many of the best religious scholars of the time.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/03/28/3465485.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/03/28/3465485.htm)
The more he looked, the more he found that the Bible was not an infallible historical record. Rather it was a collection of stories with maybe a little historical truth. For example, if you take the Bible as a Historical fact, then when Joshua came to Jericho around 1400BC, Jericho had been uninhabited and in ruins for well over a century, so Joshua could not have brought the walls down with one of the standard wall-collapsing trumpet tunes. It may be that the Exodus was a collection of stories over centuries rewritten as one single huge exodus.
Here's the director of astronomy at the Vatican:
(yes, there is such a position!)
Bill Maher interview with Vatican Astronomer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVOonvm1qOg#noexternalembed)
Dave.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
No, it's not. It's a lack of a belief in a god.
You can only claim it's belief that there is no god if you include your own further logical step in the definition, and you can't define it in that way.
Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
This is also the same definition used in philosophy.
You can't validly assert that. Neither the English language nor the study of philosophy permits such a narrow, unqualified and limited statement or definition of terms.
In philosophy, we structure arguments...
I challenge you to find a single philosopher that uses your definition of atheism. I spent quite some time studying the field and speaking with philosophers (i.e., PhD in philosophy). Every single one of them uses the definition that I provided. The origin of the term is irrelevant to the current meaning.
You might stop using "we" like that. It's vastly too pompous.
I don't know any philosophers. I don't need to either, I'm not really concerned in how they use it.
The fact remains that the literal meaning of a word with the "a-" prefix means "not", or in this case, "without". The word is derived from the latin "atheos" which is "a" (without) "theos" (God).
Plus, why do we have the term "antitheist", then? Is it redundant now that these so-called philosophers use the term "atheist" incorrectly for their own purposes? Or is it perhaps the fault of arrogant "philosophers" that the word is defined in this way in the dictionary?
The term antitheist isn't common at all in my country and I've never heard a philosopher use the term. I would lump antitheist into the same position as atheist.
Stephen Fry's amazing speech on the catholic church (IQ2) debate, 2009 Part 2 of 2
This is what happens when someone runs out of rational justification for their position.
I bet you would.
But you seem to basically be using ad populum arguments to support any point you are making. Either that or you just claim it is so because you say it is.
Interesting to see what "philosophers" come up with these days.
In philosophy, we study theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Theism is a belief that god exists. If we accept the principle of causality, god must exist. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. This position is only rationally justifiable if we deny causality. Agnosticism is the position that there may or may not be a god and is the only one of these three views that can be rationally justified without making any assumptions.
Good grief, haven't we suffered enough? You may or may not be a decent engineer, but on the evidence you have provided to date you are not a competent philosopher.
The cosmological argument you are garbling had serious flaws when it was expressed by Thomas Aquinas 800 years ago, and since the advent of modern science it has been abandoned even by Christian apologists such as Swinburne. You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you resort to stating such outdated ideas as fact, particularly when you mangle them as you have.
Before words are used it is a good idea to know what they mean. Antithesis means a a person or thing that is direct opposite of some one or something else it has no direct relationship with religion.
Where in the Oxford English dictionary is "antitheist"
I still haven't seen you rationally refute my claims.
Good grief, haven't we suffered enough? You may or may not be a decent engineer, but on the evidence you have provided to date you are not a competent philosopher.
The cosmological argument you are garbling had serious flaws when it was expressed by Thomas Aquinas 800 years ago, and since the advent of modern science it has been abandoned even by Christian apologists such as Swinburne. You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you resort to stating such outdated ideas as fact, particularly when you mangle them as you have.
Hahaha! I was thinking the same.Where in the Oxford English dictionary is "antitheist"
Why should I, when your claims have already been refuted by numerous real philosophers, with the formal qualifications which you value so highly?
However, if you are truly unaware of the last several hundred years of philosophical progress, the argument from causation fails for several reasons:
- It requires a first cause, which is not necessarily true - the universe may always have existed
- It presupposes that the only first cause is god, when it could be an impersonal force, such as the Big Bang
- It invokes a potentially nonexistent god to explain a universe which manifestly does exist
Hahaha! I was thinking the same.Where in the Oxford English dictionary is "antitheist"
Hahaha! It's in Webster's dictionary.
Finally, a rational argument. Your claims are absolutely correct and I agree with them. However, you'll notice that I earlier defined "god" as the goodness we observe in this world. Denying this definition of god is difficult.Why should I, when your claims have already been refuted by numerous real philosophers, with the formal qualifications which you value so highly?
However, if you are truly unaware of the last several hundred years of philosophical progress, the argument from causation fails for several reasons:
- It requires a first cause, which is not necessarily true - the universe may always have existed
- It presupposes that the only first cause is god, when it could be an impersonal force, such as the Big Bang
- It invokes a potentially nonexistent god to explain a universe which manifestly does exist
While we're at it, would you also like to post Webster's definition for atheist? Oh, that's right, it agrees with my definition.Hahaha! I was thinking the same.Where in the Oxford English dictionary is "antitheist"
Hahaha! It's in Webster's dictionary.
I've explained why the dictionary definition of atheist isn't right. You seemed to have an issue with whether antitheist was even a word, which it is.
I did indeed notice your earlier attempt to come up with a spurious redefinition of god, but that bit of misdirection has already been disposed of by others.
You would garner a great deal more respect on this forum if you were willing to admit that you are not always right.
When you refuse the use the dictionary and philosophically accepted definition of the term, don't expect anyone else to understand what you're trying to say.I've explained why the dictionary definition of atheist isn't right. You seemed to have an issue with whether antitheist was even a word, which it is.
If you don't understand my logical explanation of why the term "atheist" means "without god" then you have no business claiming to be some sort of philosopher.
I never claimed to be a philosopher; you're putting words in my mouth.
If you don't understand my logical explanation of why the term "atheist" means "without god" then you have no business claiming to be some sort of philosopher.
Yep, and I never claimed to be a philosopher. Your point?
Finally, a rational argument. Your claims are absolutely correct and I agree with them. However, you'll notice that I earlier defined "god" as the goodness we observe in this world. Denying this definition of god is difficult.
Finally, a rational argument. Your claims are absolutely correct and I agree with them. However, you'll notice that I earlier defined "god" as the goodness we observe in this world. Denying this definition of god is difficult.It is just a totally useless definition as it is totally subjective, and different people will judge totally different things as Goodness. You only have to look at the radically different views people have on refugees, boat people, healthcare support, unemployment support, support for the democratic process, support for freedom of belief, etc.
It is just a totally useless definition as it is totally subjective, and different people will judge totally different things as Goodness. You only have to look at the radically different views people have on refugees, boat people, healthcare support, unemployment support, support for the democratic process, support for freedom of belief, etc.
If you are a radical hard liner in any belief, then you may think goodness is forcing other people to follow your belief, even of it means at the point of a gun. That fits well within your definition of Goodness. If you believe absolutely that there is only one person who can lead a country out from a disasterous situation to safety, then Goodness is doing anything to keep that person in power, even if it means establishing a ruthless dictator.
Either you are prepared to actually give some definitions of what Goodness is, or all you have is a word, and if all you have is a word, then there is no underlying concept to exist at all.
There is no organized religion that exists based only on an warm and fluffy word.
Richard.
And your statement of forcing other people to follow your belief violates others' fundamental rights according to utilitarianism, so it cannot be considered good.
It is really quite simple to show that forcing your belief on others violates utilitarianism. Consider the following: If person A does not follow person B's beliefs, person B will potentially use deadly force to make them follow person B's beliefs. If person B does not follow person A's beliefs, person A will potentially use deadly force to make them follow person A's beliefs. So, if they both hold different beliefs, persons A and B will kill each other. So now we can apply this to a whole society. We find that the society self destructs. Therefore, the position that if person B does not hold person A's beliefs, person B will kill him is inconsistent and violates utilitarianism.
Suicide bombers galore, constant religious wars, and so forth.
Contrast that to countries that do not force religion on anyone.
This is why I think the whole concept of organized religion is somewhat flawed. And your statement of forcing other people to follow your belief violates others' fundamental rights according to utilitarianism, so it cannot be considered good.This is where your definition hits the problem of ethics. Beliefs are not just religious beliefs - they include beliefs like it is wrong to kill someone. It is wrong to eat meat. Perhaps it is wrong to kill any living thing including plants. Perhaps that means that Goodness is to stop eating and just starve.
God wants us to love one another, not to sit around debating and arguing over his existance. He exists, we all know it, we just accept or deny it. Simple really - the evidence IS EVERYWHERE... you just have to LOOK; it's staring you right in the face.
God wants us to love one another, not to sit around debating and arguing over his existance. He exists, we all know it, we just accept or deny it. Simple really - the evidence IS EVERYWHERE... you just have to LOOK; it's staring you right in the face.
Aren't rights a totally made up set of beliefs? There have been times in history when people had absolutely no rights, so rights are an invention - they are not anything fundamental.
Without guidlines, your word Goodness is still absolutely meaningless and defines nothing. Once you have guidelines with built in ethical choices that will be good for some and bad for others, your definition of God no longer exists.
Richard.
Believing once, and then unbelieving sounds pretty unlikely. You can't see a car, believe it's there, and then suddenly say you didn't see it. You know he is real, you're just denying him. I would say man has let you down, not God, as he doesn't and cannot.
Then you never truly believed. That seems to be the case. I am not judging you, I am stating it how you have explained it. God is not to blame - that's a cop out, sorry mate.
Without guidlines, your word Goodness is still absolutely meaningless and defines nothing. Once you have guidelines with built in ethical choices that will be good for some and bad for others, your definition of God no longer exists.
God wants us to love one another, not to sit around debating and arguing over his existance. He exists, we all know it
, we just accept or deny it. Simple really - the evidence IS EVERYWHERE... you just have to LOOK; it's staring you right in the face.
Believing once, and then unbelieving sounds pretty unlikely. You can't see a car, believe it's there, and then suddenly say you didn't see it. You know he is real, you're just denying him. I would say man has let you down, not God, as he doesn't and cannot.
I'm saying the evidence IS there, I am not going to reel off a list; you can see for yourself. It's not about evidence - God's existance is not on trial by his own creation; that's absurd. I am saying IF you need evidence, think a little deeper about it, and you'll see. May take all your life, but I'll stake EVERYTHING that you'll either believe whilst alive, or immediately after your death, without any possible shadow of any kind of doubt, ever, EVER... hopefully not as late as the latter, and do you really want to miss out on heaven? There's no "inbetween world" between heaven and hell. To be blunt, that's how it is folks. I hope you find God's love, because it is incredible... you really have no comparison to it until you feel it.
Many people believed (and dare I say, the majority) in god because they have been indoctrinated into it, by their family, and society in general.
And until fairly recently it's often been hard to "come out" and say you don't believe, just like being gay or whatever.
Ianwhoiam, I get the feeling you are seeing the comments of others as an attack on you, and if that is the case, something is not quite right.Then you never truly believed. That seems to be the case. I am not judging you, I am stating it how you have explained it. God is not to blame - that's a cop out, sorry mate.
So if I believe then God exists, but if I don't believe then God doesn't exist? Doesn't that make the existence of God rather conditional?
He exists, whether or not you believe in him. Your choice. Why on EARTH would he "pop in and out of existance"? that's incredibly silly. ^_^
God is beyond ALL human understanding, so all your human debate amounts to foolish ends, it seems.
The religious folks I know are generally much more tolerant of other viewpoints than atheists. It seems to me that a lot of atheists, not unlike other so-called minorities, love to get up and arms in everyones' face about it. If religious zealots were doing that, it would be considered completely unacceptable. But for atheists, gays, minority races, etc. it's ok. Cut the double standard and everyone would be happy.
The religious folks I know are generally much more tolerant of other viewpoints than atheists.
It seems to me that a lot of atheists, not unlike other so-called minorities, love to get up and arms in everyones' face about it.
If religious zealots were doing that, it would be considered completely unacceptable.
One more thing: I don't care if you're atheist, agnostic, antitheistic, or religous. Criticizing someones religious beliefs comes across as very immature.
QuoteIf religious zealots were doing that, it would be considered completely unacceptable.
They do it every day, in spades.
Dave.
"so, we islam are peaceful religion. come and join us! my fellow christians and agnostics, come embrace Allah and believe Him with your heart!"
about the god threat and 72 virgins in heaven thing, i cannot help it, but its true, thats what written in the book, so if the book lies, then i lie (but i dont think so).
"so, we islam are peaceful religion. come and join us! my fellow christians and agnostics, come embrace Allah and believe Him with your heart!"
Sure, no problem, just show us your evidence of why we should believe. Seriously, that's all it takes.
It can't be that hard can it? ;D
Dave.
god's paradox... is clever than us, we'll never find Him his hiding. or... measurement problem! :P"so, we islam are peaceful religion. come and join us! my fellow christians and agnostics, come embrace Allah and believe Him with your heart!"Sure, no problem, just show us your evidence of why we should believe. Seriously, that's all it takes.
It can't be that hard can it? ;D
Dave.
I love my wife wholeheartedlymuslim can marry 4 women at a time, and whats the odd of that? divorce has it own specified procedure, not random (if you want to raise that point).
Sure, no problem, just show us your evidence of why we should believe. Seriously, that's all it takes.or if you let me to prove it in nontangible way... in the book, there's a complete teaching on how you behave. what the law and legistlation should be like. how you treat your girl and children, neighboor everybody. what you can eat or cant, what things are forbidden to avoid morality/ethical corruption. and for agnostics like you, i urge just to take a read, not to embrace, just to argue its invalidity. but if you ask proof such as where is god, or why we cant eat pig, then i cannot show you since i dont have a device to measure. of course you may break the rule you cant comprehend, just be an agnostics, and follow some of the sensible rules in there ;) or at least guide you to find your logic :P be it in science or morality (the way of life).
It can't be that hard can it? ;D
Dave.
i read a poet lingering in the net something like... if you give her a house, she will give you a home. if you give her ... she will give you more... i cant remember exactly. the point is.. being monogamists is another way of thinking, owning and being owned (let me say it that way), you own your wife alone, and she owns you, one and only. but if you are dear enough to your girl.. she will even let you get (or fuck :P) another girl ;). men are designed to can love many things/human, woman not. now its been misunderstood for muslim being polygamists, but its not as easy as it sounded, you have to be very just to your wives in almost all aspects, in other word... they all must be happy with you... impossible? king or china empire if i'm not mistaken had many girls/maid (cant recall the exact term), but his queen can still be happy for him.
now, if you think you really love your wife wholeheartedly... let me give you a good news... its not compulsary to fuck all those virgins (whether you are not "willing" or incapable of :P), you can use them to polish your wife's nail and hair ;) isnt that wonderful? true love to enternity :P
God wants us to love one another, not to sit around debating and arguing over his existance. He exists, we all know it, we just accept or deny it. Simple really - the evidence IS EVERYWHERE... you just have to LOOK; it's staring you right in the face.
What evidence is that, then?
A list would be good. It doesn't have to include EVERYTHING, but examples would be great.
I'm saying the evidence IS there, I am not going to reel off a list; you can see for yourself. It's not about evidence - God's existance is not on trial by his own creation; that's absurd. I am saying IF you need evidence, think a little deeper about it, and you'll see. May take all your life, but I'll stake EVERYTHING that you'll either believe whilst alive, or immediately after your death, without any possible shadow of any kind of doubt, ever, EVER... hopefully not as late as the latter, and do you really want to miss out on heaven? There's no "inbetween world" between heaven and hell. To be blunt, that's how it is folks. I hope you find God's love, because it is incredible... you really have no comparison to it until you feel it.
Hot off the press, from Bill Maher!
Bill Maher Knocks Liberty University: It Cheapens My Degree From a Real School (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35ymLxox0k#ws)
Dave.
First time I've heard of Bill Maher. Where can I find more of this stuff, he's good. You learn something new every day on this forum. Thank for posting this.https://www.youtube.com/user/RealTime (https://www.youtube.com/user/RealTime)
David
Hot off the press, from Bill Maher!
Bill Maher Knocks Liberty University: It Cheapens My Degree From a Real School (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35ymLxox0k#ws)
Dave.
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position."
--Bill Maher
That is a fallacy!
It is a fallacy because abstinence is a personal choice of refraining from indulging a physical occurring appetite: The sexual appetite, in particular, which, as an instinct, is a part of our reproductive system: Our sexual appetite is critical for the perpetuation of our species.
On the other hand, atheism is not an indulgence, or a self-restraint, from some kind of our physical needs for our perpetuation. It is a choice NOT to submit to an artificial control lever, as the religion is --and has always been.
- Our sexual appetite is a part of our reproduction mechanism, which is not an artificial need but one of our most critical physically occurring needs.
- Our submitting to an authority is an artificial need, based on our insecurity of functioning in a responsible and independent way within our societies --which is one of the products of choosing to live an irresponsible way of life.
-George
EDIT: Unless, of course, if Bill Maher states that, Atheism and Theism are the two opposite poles of the same subject matter, revolving around the existence or not of god(s) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/remember-math-yeah-it-was-just-a-theory-right/msg66599/#msg66599).
Not quite. It's a common misconception that all religions involve submitting to some sort of higher authority. In some religous doctrines, it's quite the contrary. Their god is an enabler, not a controller.
And yes, atheism is a religion. It requires believing that god does not exist. Since we cannot prove the non-existence of god (or existence of god, for that matter), atheism requires faith."Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position."
--Bill Maher
That is a fallacy!
It is a fallacy because abstinence is a personal choice of refraining from indulging a physical occurring appetite: The sexual appetite, in particular, which, as an instinct, is a part of our reproductive system: Our sexual appetite is critical for the perpetuation of our species.
On the other hand, atheism is not an indulgence, or a self-restraint, from some kind of our physical needs for our perpetuation. It is a choice NOT to submit to an artificial control lever, as the religion is --and has always been.
- Our sexual appetite is a part of our reproduction mechanism, which is not an artificial need but one of our most critical physically occurring needs.
- Our submitting to an authority is an artificial need, based on our insecurity of functioning in a responsible and independent way within our societies --which is one of the products of choosing to live an irresponsible way of life.
-George
EDIT: Unless, of course, if Bill Maher states that, Atheism and Theism are the two opposite poles of the same subject matter, revolving around the existence or not of god(s) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/remember-math-yeah-it-was-just-a-theory-right/msg66599/#msg66599).
As far from afraid of death as you could humanly imagine; TOTALLY the opposite. Why would I be afraid of living eternally in love unimaginable with the creator of everything seen and unseen?
If you can, find his documentary called "Religulous" (2008).
As far from afraid of death as you could humanly imagine; TOTALLY the opposite. Why would I be afraid of living eternally in love unimaginable with the creator of everything seen and unseen?
You are afraid of going to hell. I did say that.
So to counter this you believe in all of this and that religious mumbo jumbo, and heaven, in the hope that possibly you might get to go to heaven when you die, because you're afraid of the alternative.
Atheists tend to not be afraid of death either. Yet they don't subscribe to nonsense like heaven and hell.
Noone wants to go to hell... do they? I am not "bullied" into my belief - I love God because he has shown me he loves ME, more times than I can count. Christians are not fools or naive, and it's pretty ignorant to think this... but the general concencus of this thread was talked about in the Bible, many thousands of years ago - it was prophecied...
2 Peter 3, verse 3:Quote1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
I've just had a thought. If there is a god why does he/she rely on communicating in such an indirect way as the bible.
The passage quoted is very difficult to understand and will never win a plain english award.
If not, how can I be sure that my wife/mother/daughter/grand-ma don't ended up as those 72 virgins team for other males ?i'm told, the virgins are angel, not human from earth. so dont worry, your wife will be your queen. and god can easily duplicate/clone anybody He want to. and if your wife wish to have 72 male virgins (99 actually), wont you let her? you already got 99 angles? and semen/sperm is not, its changed with gaseous elements which will not impregnate. and rejuvenation is infinite, both to women and men, so do you really care? you are... super... there ;)
Cause you know your self on earth, muslim females are treated like dirt compared to muslim malesa bollock of the decade. (but isolated cases did happen... human error or gossip/conspiracy), the real teaching is not like that.
Was the founding father of Islam not a very nice chap by the name of Mohamed, whose favorite past time if I am not mistaken was invading all the surrounding territories and lopping of the heads of all who would not total acquiescence to his way of thinking from.this one deserve as a bollock of the century. seriously, where did you guys get these kind of shite infos? religious talked with faith. atheism/agnostics talked with facts. where's your facts?
God uses all his creation to speak to us... and he uses circumstances and blessings, even financial blessings. It would be foolish to underestimate a God of everything.
I've just had a thought. If there is a god why does he/she rely on communicating in such an indirect way as the bible.
The passage quoted is very difficult to understand and will never win a plain english award. Surely an omnipotent being will be far more direct and immediate in their communications. Why doesn't god use Twitter? Or the TV or even this forum?
God, if youre reading this thread show yourself.
God uses all his creation to speak to us... and he uses circumstances and blessings, even financial blessings. It would be foolish to underestimate a God of everything.
No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.Source: www.WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com (http://www.WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ)
If atheism is just a form of religion then by the same logic health is just a form of illness.
And yes, atheism is a religion. It requires believing that god does not exist. Since we cannot prove the non-existence of god (or existence of god, for that matter), atheism requires faith.
the jehovah : " you dont have to live this way"Surefire way to get rid of them ( i did this once.. never saw them again . they keep blacklists you know )
[...]It is an interesting question indeed, whether religions or regimes (or, put differently, whether religious doctrines or political doctrines) have been the most effective annihilators.
Which I supposed goes to demonstrate something I have long believed...its isnt religion that is so much the enemy of peace and civilization (or at least, it certainly is not exclusively so) as rigid, dogmatic belief systems that commonly have the suffix -isim tacked onto the end of them. ALL of them.
Unfortunately, this thread seems to have descended into a chaotic debateface it. thats the way it is. get acquainted or leave ;) this is not flowcode thread :P
Unfortunately, this thread seems to have descended into a chaotic debate. People seem to be more interested in trying to prove the existance of God, intellectually, which is fallible, foolish and impossible.
I am asking for this thread to be removed and/or locked.
You're ALL loved, ALL valuable and ALL God's children. If you seek the answers, get them from the source... ask God himself, and/or read the Bible.
Until people learn to accept the beliefs and opinions of others (which it seems many of you do not), these kinds of topics will never work well, as all folk seem to care about is to subversively or overtly insult the faith of another, and then laugh at them, whilst asking for "proof".
"A fool says in his heart 'there is no God' "
I am asking for this thread to be removed and/or locked.
"so, we islam are peaceful religion. come and join us! my fellow christians and agnostics, come embrace Allah and believe Him with your heart!"
If atheism is just a form of religion then by the same logic health is just a form of illness.Strictly speaking , 'life' is a medical condition to which 100% of the patients finally succumb ... You start as a random collection of atoms that clump together and form complex molecules. Eventually this contraption does fall apart again...
Mech, you failed to answer lots of my questions which some of them need only yes/no for answer.sorry i didnt see all the questions, only whats i can see clearly. or either the answer is unknown or unprovable (pointless to answer). the penalty for convert from islam is death after consultation and if unable to recover, thats what i learnt. but you never saw a person get killed because of that, even though there's many muslim converted to other religion everyday (they are lost). probably some practical law high up there among the rank of ulama (religious experts), i'm no expert to answer every details. i just tried in a way that probably agnostics will be able to understand, but i proved myself wrong :P
Peaceful eh ? Tell us "precisely" what is written in your Holy Book when someone decided that Islam is no longer the "right path", and going to leave Islam for other religion ? What will happened to that person ? :o
Just an exact answer please, no mumbo jumbo around ...
sorry i didnt see all the questions, only whats i can see clearly. or either the answer is unknown or unprovable (pointless to answer).Its not pointless, its simply there are no answer. Just ask your ulama and they also will not able to give you a clear answer rather than start to question your faith. Infact this is a well known tactic for ages in Islam communities, if they're overwhelmed by questions, they will start to blame/threaten you instead trying hard to answer the question.
the penalty for convert from islam is death after consultation and if unable to recover, thats what i learnt. but you never saw a person get killed because of that
probably some practical law high up there among the rank of ulama (religious experts), i'm no expert to answer every details. i just tried in a way that probably agnostics will be able to understand, but i proved myself wrong :P
Doesn't sound any worse then the Bible:the penalty for convert from islam is death after consultation and if unable to recover, thats what i learnt. but you never saw a person get killed because of that
See ? That is why non moslem don't trust easily when most moslems always called their Islam a peaceful religion.
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to deathfrom Leviticus.
Doesn't sound any worse then the Bible:
There is an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
There is an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
And HOooooooooooooOW did you know that? Are you all-knowing like God?
He may be omnipotent and omnipresent, but must surely have fallen asleep. If he was awake he'd be firing bolts of lightning up the asses of all the nitwits that commit atrocities in his name....
There is an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
And HOooooooooooooOW did you know that? Are you all-knowing like God?
A proof of God is not possible for humans.
Everything we do not know about the natural world, the "known unknowns" if you will, can only be accounted for by an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
or by other better explanations that do not require a God.
I am not asking for proof of God. I am asking how did you know he is omnipotent and omnipresent.
Everything we do not know about the natural world, the "known unknowns" if you will, can only be accounted for by an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
Everything we do not know about the natural world, ..., can only be accounted for by an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
or by other better explanations that do not require a God.
I am not asking for proof of God. I am asking how did you know he is omnipotent and omnipresent.
Everything we do not know about the natural world, the "known unknowns" if you will, can only be accounted for by an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
The fact that we are not brilliant does not prove the existence of a god. And why do you say one God? Surely many hands would make the job much easier? Perhaps a few wizards? I like magical dragons.
Richard.
the jehovah : " you dont have to live this way"Surefire way to get rid of them ( i did this once.. never saw them again . they keep blacklists you know )
First some background info:
According to their scripture only 144000 people will be allowed in heaven. ( This is a doctrine few of the jehovas witnesses understand themselves ) this started in the year zero and was completed by the 1930's... anyone not on that list cannot get into heaven and will wander earth forever after the apocalypse. I don't know the finer details but yehova's witnesses know the 144000 number ...
So here is how you do it:
You question them why they continue preaching and trying to convert people to their religion. The selection process is over. the 144000 have been chosen and you were born too late to get in. -baffled stare-
If they will mumble on about the process being 'flexible' and open for interpretation you strike the final blow :
Well , the more you spread this information the lower your own chances will be to get in.... i'd keep mum about it .. -grin-
That was it. They left. Never been back , and this was 15 years ago.
Everything we do not know about the natural world, ..., can only be accounted for by an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
The "omnipotent and omnipresent" still do not make sense. Why must we add them again? Plus, your statement doesn't make sense especially the "Everything we do not know about the natural world" part.
For example, we didn't know the world was round once so it can only be accounted for by an omnipotent and omnipresent God?
Arrgghhh!!!! I give up for I am just a mere man.
Are you trying to tell me that my magical dragon explanation is not as good as your an omnipresent and omnipotent God explanation?or by other better explanations that do not require a God.
I am not asking for proof of God. I am asking how did you know he is omnipotent and omnipresent.
Everything we do not know about the natural world, the "known unknowns" if you will, can only be accounted for by an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
The fact that we are not brilliant does not prove the existence of a god. And why do you say one God? Surely many hands would make the job much easier? Perhaps a few wizards? I like magical dragons.
Richard.
Of course all " better explanations" are God-less. But until you DO have that explanation, an omnipresent and omnipotent God is all you got. I do not know if there is more than one God as a proof of God is not possible for humans.
The whole point of their going door to door is to teach the above.....
Are there not things about the natural world we wonder about but do not have a full, god-less (scientific) explanation?
The whole point of their going door to door is to teach the above.....
The whole point of their going door to door is to convert people to their religion.
Please, I ask to all of us un-believers, being atheist or agnostics, to stop any discussion.
Please, I ask to all of us un-believers, being atheist or agnostics, to stop any discussion.
The believers started it first! ;D
Are there not things about the natural world we wonder about but do not have a full, god-less (scientific) explanation?
The only value in having an explanation (knowing why something happened in the past) is it allows us to make predictions about what will happen in the future.
God-full explanations which tell us what will happen in the future is whatever god decides are therefore utterly useless.
Are you trying to tell me that my magical dragon explanation is not as good as your an omnipresent and omnipotent God explanation?
It is OK if we do not know everything.
If we need to make up explanations, I still vote for magical dragons.
Richard.
And you completely lie when you say its OK that we don't know everything. If you have any scientific bone in you at all, you know how unsatisfying it is to not even try some kind of explanation. Its just human nature.
And you completely lie when you say its OK that we don't know everything. If you have any scientific bone in you at all, you know how unsatisfying it is to not even try some kind of explanation. Its just human nature.
Do you care about all the billion bugs and germs that grow in puddles that form when it rains? On a personal level even?
And you completely lie when you say its OK that we don't know everything. If you have any scientific bone in you at all, you know how unsatisfying it is to not even try some kind of explanation. Its just human nature.
The concept that we cannot know everything has been around for centuries, and all scientists live with the understanding that there are things we can never observe, and that we may never understand. Pushing the boundaries of what we can observe and understand is their challenge.And you completely lie when you say its OK that we don't know everything. If you have any scientific bone in you at all, you know how unsatisfying it is to not even try some kind of explanation. Its just human nature.
Quite the opposite. It is the mark of a scientist, the ability to say "I don't know". If you can't honestly say that then you are adhering to religion rather than science.
Calling people liars if they say it's OK to admit there are things we don't know is unreasonable. Of course it's OK to admit we don't know everything. We don't!
Human arrogance and pride are extremely ugly things. I see a lot of that here, and its very ugly indeed, and saddens me. It IS VERY okay not to know everything, why would you want to? That's pride, which is sitting right at the heart of EVERY SINGLE sin, just scratch the surface and you'll find it sitting there! Uggh!!
If you're going to tell me that the human race is going to explain EVERYTHING in the entire universe, scientifically, that's the height of utter arrogance, sorry to say. Who says science is infallible? Humans are such arrogant beings, it really saddens me. I don't CARE that I don't know everything.
So, say you woke up tomorrow and "knew everything" - what on earth would you find to prove it? You'd need God to tell you that you did or didn't... and then you'd be bored... and blame that on someone... Oh that's gonna be God too I am sure...
Religions are not God, they are humans attempting to rationalise and categorise him, which is inherently foolish and gives off totally the wrong signs, hurting people and putting them off discovering who God REALLY is, which is terrible, and very sad.
and i also forgot to mention. some religious are manipulative. like organized organization, millitants fanatics radical. they are dumbshit as well.america's law, uk's law, malaysia's law and any countries law for that matter.... are brainwashing? without law, men wil go rampant. thats it how its work face it. religion is one of the law, law by god, not by dumb judges human. face it... i wont traverse this thread, too long of the same :PAmen. Good word. :)
Why would you think I would be bothered being "shunned by society"? See, you're in a different place to me; I am dying to myself, and serving God; the opinion of man is of no consequence to me; it doesn't alter who I am, as I am a son of God, and HE died for all that I am, and to forgive me and pay for my for my eternal life. When you care less about yourself and "how you're seen" or perceived by human eyes, and more about loving and taking the love of God and sharing it with those who need it, your own wants and the way in which you let others affect you, lessens and lessens until it doesn't even make one scrap of difference; to care is self, and self adoration and seeking of praise and validating oneself and measuring one's value based upon the ever changing wind of "opinion" is vanity, and ever unstable. God is my rock, you may laugh and mock all you like, and it won't make one bit of difference; I am happy, in the truest sense.
You're very opinionated for such a kind and intelligent guy, it's quite ugly and offputting, but I forgive you mate as I know you don't intend to offend me.
Why would you think I would be bothered being "shunned by society"?
Did you ever stop to think that, maybe, just maybe, YOU could be completely wrong instead? Atheists seem to forget that part.
Your experience of God is inside your own head, it is one of your own making. You said yourself that God is only there if you truly believe, if you believe hard enough. The late David Watson once wrote a book called "My God is Real". Note that he didn't write "God is Real". It was the God of his experience that he was describing.
I think the worst thing a (non-religious in this case) person can be is to be tolerant and "respecting" of something they know is almost certainly a load of bunk, and potentially harmful to people and societyyes i know you are well mean to us just as we to yours. where you believe is a bunk, we also believe in a bunk, then we tried to convince each other ;). this playground is the proof who's fanatics who's not ;) i believe i understand clearly how do you perceive things (through science and math and probably some other ways you've been taught at your place and surroundings).
But it seems the same is often not true with religious people. They have made up their mind, and the more you try to reason with them, the more closed minded they getyou need to understand our difference. where you reason with science and math, we reason with feeling (faith). you require us to present proof in your way (science and math) where there's no such tool to prove it the way you want it. and we (i) understand that very well. to prove God is like to prove your feeling, and how a re you going to prove your feeling mathematically? if you say you are happy, then prove it! i dont want to see you jumping around to prove that you are happy, but lay it down on paper, the way we've been taught from primary school (science and math way), how?
I don't analyse God, I love him and he gives me peace. He forgives me for all the crap I do wrong (a LOT, we all do), guides me when I need it (all the time), and shows me my heart, so I may make amends with people and change my sinful ways.
I don't analyse God, I love him and he gives me peace. He forgives me for all the crap I do wrong (a LOT, we all do), guides me when I need it (all the time), and shows me my heart, so I may make amends with people and change my sinful ways.taking the bolded word alone, its bullshit! you do wrong you'll go to hell. we need to deeper study of what it means, not taking that alone. agree with G7PSK. only when you have broader picture of a religion, that you know this is not the case, only who have realized and paid for their wrong doing, improve themself (as the later sentence states "make amends with people and change my sinful ways") with their true heart purity, and then you will be forgiven.
you need to understand our difference. where you reason with science and math, we reason with feeling (faith). you require us to present proof in your way (science and math) where there's no such tool to prove it the way you want it. and we (i) understand that very well.
to prove God is like to prove your feeling, and how a re you going to prove your feeling mathematically? if you say you are happy, then prove it! i dont want to see you jumping around to prove that you are happy, but lay it down on paper, the way we've been taught from primary school (science and math way), how?
and as you say religious people is getting close minded, with respect i will say, agnostics is getting close minded. in a way they are focused on one way, ie math and science way.
now the real point is. we are talking different methodolgy here. where you cant acccept our methodology, we cant accept yours.
Did you ever stop to think that, maybe, just maybe, YOU could be completely wrong instead? Atheists seem to forget that part.
God must be someone pretty incredible, otherwise why would there be 26 pages of people trying to talk us out of him? I'm not talking anyone out of non-belief; that's your very own choice, and to force is to be unfair and unkind, but why would you wish to almost INSIST believers are foolish, and coax and convince them out of their faith, based upon your decision about God?
Read between the lines - read the signs - it's plain to see.
But you happily accept that methodology every time you fly in a plane, go under the knife, take drugs to fix a problem, and happily go about your everyday life.
Religion is always the exception, why?
science:... And for good reason, because that is the only way that has advanced our society.you see science as your's, but for me science is god's "instrument" provided to human to advance society. see? different perpective, different point of view. how do i get that perspective? my projection from what i've read in holy book :P
I plan to read this book soon: www.moralmolecule.com (http://www.moralmolecule.com) as it attempts to explain the origins of morality from a biochemistry stand point. Something that I thought the frequenters of this thread might also enjoy.yup could be an interesting info. but why people here keep linking videos? i have trouble playing those and i'm not interested in banana or straw man type video (theist or atheist) it wont change anything. i wish there's simple quick explanation on this moralmolecule. and i hope the doctor have a better explanation of it, from scientifical point of view and approach, beyond reasonable doubt :P
The biggest problems in the world come from three things; religion, greed and the want of power.there you have it. as long as the first is related to the later two, this will be a neverending story and atheists/agnostics will forever exist.
Atheism, or science, is an open system. Science looks for the truth based on ALL the evidence available. When a truth is thought to have been found to support this new truth, more evidence is sought out to confirm or contradict this new truth. If the new evidence does not support this new truth, then another truth is searched for to explain the new evidence.
Here's a phrase to mull over... "shifting the burden of proof". It's a tactic atheists and non-believers use a LOT.
Here's a phrase to mull over... "shifting the burden of proof". It's a tactic atheists and non-believers use a LOT.
Neither theists nor atheists have proof of the existence of God
and neither theists nor atheists have proof of the non-existence of God.
So why do you continue to tell us you are right and atheists are wrong? Because of a feeling you have?
Atheism is not anti-theist. To be anti-theist is to believe that a deity exists and you are opposed to it.
I don’t feel brainwashed at all, I feel loved and cared for by a community of people with similar beliefs.
It is impossible to describe the feeling of believing and the love of “God”
In fact I feel immense social pressure not to be Christian and fear when I tell others of my beliefs.
I think the bible is valuable as a supplement to faith and for its tales of the lessons people have learnt in the past. Not as a literal book of laws and truths.
I don’t see “religion” as an opposite or mutually exclusive thing from science. Creation and science are both equally bad explanations for the origin of this stuff around us we call the universe. I don’t think we will ever be able to fully explain our existence. Science has its place in explaining stuff and I love it for that.
• “…Correct. But they certainly DO think it's an entirely rational belief!”
I personally don’t try to pretend that it is an entirely rational belief.
I don’t want proof that god exists and frankly I have no idea what I would do if I was given it.
• “You claim something, you get to prove it. Religion is no (or should not be an) exception.”
As I said, for me proving the existence of god is neither important nor makes any sense.
For me faith is the core of it all. At some point logic can no longer be applied.
The wonderment and awe of it all is beautiful and music is one of the ways we can catch a glimpse of this. The fact that the whole of this wonderful universe exists is just mind-blowing and at some point you just have to step back and enjoy it and not try to explain it.
Dammit! I really didn't want to participate in any kind of religious forum threads.
But... If a believer in a faith based religion (is there any other kind?) is presented with evidence the "god" actually exists, doesn't it follow then that the faith must vanish since it is no longer required? Then musn't it also follow that the religion becomes pointless.
The Final Proof of the non-Existence of God was proved by a Babel Fish.
Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
To me this video showing Bertrand Russel is the "end it all" argument about this never-ending battle of whether religion / god / gods should be allowed to take over and dominate our lives in any way.
I see everyone latched onto my "you lie" comment and proceeded to substituted their own point of view with great zealousness. My central point is, because humans cannot know everything there is to know about the natural world, faith must have a part in forming a satisfactory appreciation of their existence.
Suppose you come across a curious piece of electronic gadget. You can see that it works and proceed to do a tear down. The more you look at it with a scientific eye the more you understand how it works. For the parts of it that you do not yet know how it works, one truth is self evident- you must to take it on faith that who or whatever put it together got that part to work somehow, someway. Your appreciation of how the gadget works is not possible without this measure of faith.
And so it is as humans form their appreciation of their natural world. How this innate need for faith then becomes high jacked by charlatans, frauds, charismatics, fascist, racist, xenophobes and pedophiles is completely beyond my central point.
What a cold way to live- to believe only on that which can be positively proven. Its great for math but what about personal relationships? My wife tells me she loves me. I don't demand proof. I simply respond in kind.
Just because it cannot be proven does not make it a lie. So where does it say that it is wrong to believe on things that cannot be proven?
To me this video showing Bertrand Russel is the "end it all" argument about this never-ending battle of whether religion / god / gods should be allowed to take over and dominate our lives in any way.
What a cold way to live- to believe only on that which can be positively proven. Its great for math but what about personal relationships? My wife tells me she loves me. I don't demand proof. I simply respond in kind.
Just because it cannot be proven does not make it a lie. So where does it say that it is wrong to believe on things that cannot be proven?
A quote comes to mind ,but I cannot remember who from "Religion is the opium of the masses" And I personally am absolutely convinced that this is the case and no evangelist is going to change my mind.
Religion is the opium of the people.Exactly!
-- Haim Mardochai Kissel (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg112870/#msg112870), also known as: Carl Marx
Suppose you come across a curious piece of electronic gadget. You can see that it works and proceed to do a tear down. The more you look at it with a scientific eye the more you understand how it works. For the parts of it that you do not yet know how it works, one truth is self evident- you must to take it on faith that who or whatever put it together got that part to work somehow, someway. Your appreciation of how the gadget works is not possible without this measure of faith.
That requires no faith whatsoever. You have the device in front of you, working. That's called evidence, not faith.
And so it is as humans form their appreciation of their natural world. How this innate need for faith then becomes high jacked by charlatans, frauds, charismatics, fascist, racist, xenophobes and pedophiles is completely beyond my central point.
It may not be relevant to the argument you are trying to make, but it is immensely relevant to how religious faith and the manipulation thereof actually plays out in the real world.
What a cold way to live- to believe only on that which can be positively proven. Its great for math but what about personal relationships? My wife tells me she loves me. I don't demand proof. I simply respond in kind.
Just because it cannot be proven does not make it a lie. So where does it say that it is wrong to believe on things that cannot be proven?
Well, first of all, you have your wife standing there saying "I love you". That may not be quite conclusive in all cases, but it certainly constitutes a measure of proof. You then get to observe her behaviors over a period of time and see whether or not they are consistent with her actually loving you. . "Evidence", we might call it.
Or did you marry the first girl that told you, "I love you"? That would not be a very reliable way of picking a good life partner, would it? Wouldn't you want to have some evidence that a) she loves you and b) she is a good partner for you before you pull the trigger on a marriage?
Its being unproven does not make it a lie, but it most certainly does not make it proven, nor does it necessarily require the intervention of a non-verifiable supernatural entity in order to be true. You are taking something that may be necessary for YOU and trying to tell us that its necessary for US as well, which is demonstrably not so.
Suppose you come across a curious piece of electronic gadget. You can see that it works and proceed to do a tear down. The more you look at it with a scientific eye the more you understand how it works. For the parts of it that you do not yet know how it works, one truth is self evident- you must to take it on faith that who or whatever put it together got that part to work somehow, someway. Your appreciation of how the gadget works is not possible without this measure of faith.
That requires no faith whatsoever. You have the device in front of you, working. That's called evidence, not faith.
You have no evidence as to how it works.
Suppose you come across a curious piece of electronic gadget. You can see that it works and proceed to do a tear down. The more you look at it with a scientific eye the more you understand how it works. For the parts of it that you do not yet know how it works, one truth is self evident- you must to take it on faith that who or whatever put it together got that part to work somehow, someway. Your appreciation of how the gadget works is not possible without this measure of faith.
That requires no faith whatsoever. You have the device in front of you, working. That's called evidence, not faith.
You have no evidence as to how it works.
That doesn't matter. You have it in your hands, you know it works. How is pretty irrelevant when you can see that it works. If you went and found the guy that designed it, he could explain how it works. Can't really do that with God, can we?
Suppose you come across a curious piece of electronic gadget. You can see that it works and proceed to do a tear down. The more you look at it with a scientific eye the more you understand how it works. For the parts of it that you do not yet know how it works, one truth is self evident- you must to take it on faith that who or whatever put it together got that part to work somehow, someway. Your appreciation of how the gadget works is not possible without this measure of faith.
That requires no faith whatsoever. You have the device in front of you, working. That's called evidence, not faith.
You have no evidence as to how it works.
That doesn't matter. You have it in your hands, you know it works. How is pretty irrelevant when you can see that it works. If you went and found the guy that designed it, he could explain how it works. Can't really do that with God, can we?
For the scientific minded, knowing how it works is very much relevant. To them, saying "it works, but I don't care how" is just not in their DNA. It is far better to say "there is an omnipresent and omnipotent designer that put this together to make work what I am working hard understand." That there is called faith.
Plus, it's not a question of how where God is concerned, it's a question of whether you can see that he is there, working, doing things, or even simply existing and doing nothing. And well, you can't. That's why people rely on feelings to justify their faith. You don't need feelings to believe in a working gadget in your hands.
Suppose you come across a curious piece of electronic gadget. You can see that it works and proceed to do a tear down. The more you look at it with a scientific eye the more you understand how it works. For the parts of it that you do not yet know how it works, one truth is self evident- you must to take it on faith that who or whatever put it together got that part to work somehow, someway. Your appreciation of how the gadget works is not possible without this measure of faith.
That requires no faith whatsoever. You have the device in front of you, working. That's called evidence, not faith.
You have no evidence as to how it works.
That doesn't matter. You have it in your hands, you know it works. How is pretty irrelevant when you can see that it works. If you went and found the guy that designed it, he could explain how it works. Can't really do that with God, can we?
For the scientific minded, knowing how it works is very much relevant. To them, saying "it works, but I don't care how" is just not in their DNA. It is far better to say "there is an omnipresent and omnipotent designer that put this together to make work what I am working hard understand." That there is called faith.
And the rest...QuotePlus, it's not a question of how where God is concerned, it's a question of whether you can see that he is there, working, doing things, or even simply existing and doing nothing. And well, you can't. That's why people rely on feelings to justify their faith. You don't need feelings to believe in a working gadget in your hands.
But anyway, knowing that someone designed an electronic gadget who has greater knowledge than you do doesn't require the leap of faith that believing in a divine being/creator of the universe/intelligent designer does.
I have no "faith" in the inventor/designer of any gadget, or vehicle, or whatever. I might say that I have *trust* in these people/things, but that trust is earned, and the things that it is based on can be tested, even if I cannot myself study and understand every single atom of the universe.
I have no "faith" in the inventor/designer of any gadget, or vehicle, or whatever. I might say that I have *trust* in these people/things, but that trust is earned, and the things that it is based on can be tested, even if I cannot myself study and understand every single atom of the universe.
Trust without faith? How is that possible?
Trust without faith? How is that possible?
"The legitimate question of how Hitler could have been such a monster..."
In explaining the universe around me, I do not require faith at all. There are things I understand, and there are things I don't. There's also a whole bunch of stuff no-one understands. I'm quite comfortable with "I don't know" and "we don't know" as a answers to that stuff. Indeed IMHO that's a significantly better answer than assigning anything to a supernatural power.
Faith doesn't come into it at all.
If we are to dispense with religion altogether we'll have to figure out a way of teaching Morality that everyone finds acceptable, otherwise we'll need to keep religion.
If we are to dispense with religion altogether we'll have to figure out a way of teaching Morality that everyone finds acceptable, otherwise we'll need to keep religion.
People know basic right from wrong without religion, and we have indeed "evolved" those morals over time in spite of religion.
Many people all want different things and have different personal moral codes, so it's impossible to get a full agreement on all but the obvious basic stuff. And each society and culture has had to develop it's own set of moral codes and enforce many of those into law.
If religion disappeared tomorrow, there would not be any breakdown in society, or moral values, it would just be business as usual (at least in this country). There is absolutely no need for religion when it comes to morals.
Dave.
I would hope so, at least most people in the West, even atheists are already informed of Christian Morality, even if they dont believe the larger fairy tale. But I'm not as confident that if we were to do away with religion and come back in a couple hundred years whether we would be in good shape. There doesn't seem to be many good examples from history. The ancient greeks were writing the rules for harmonious societies long before the old testament was ever written and it didn't really catch on, although was no doubt an influence in its writing. The old saying that good guys finish last is somewhat true simply because there are some real advantages to being a prick, especially on issues surrounding money and wealth. It seems to me that even small changes to the Moral norms has some quite significant changes esp if you look at the dog eat dog society in China, or the Money crazed US or the crony capitalism in Israel, the social welfare states in europe or oppressive societies in the Middle East.
If religion disappeared tomorrow, there would not be any breakdown in society, or moral values, it would just be business as usual (at least in this country). There is absolutely no need for religion when it comes to morals.
hell mercy Danny DeVito's gone grey :). good to hear only a few amens ffsIf religion disappeared tomorrow, there would not be any breakdown in society, or moral values, it would just be business as usual (at least in this country). There is absolutely no need for religion when it comes to morals.
Absolutely, nonbelievers are way better than this guy. He made the news today.
Local Pastor Calls For Death of 'Queers & Homosexuals' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU#ws)
speaking of brain deadThey are the same morons featured on the Louis Theroux' brilliant documentary episodes, "The Most Hated Family in America" and "The Most Hated Family in America in Crisis". Highly recommended, if you haven't seen them. You should find these episodes on youtube somewhere.
Thunderf00t -Westboro Baptist Church (full interview) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSbfs32yCU#ws)
And without having to spend a decade or two trying to learn and confirm it themselves, Joe Average can safely take what those experts say, dare I say "on faith". But it's a completely different "faith" to what religious people have and sprout, it's the alternative meaning of the word that means confidence in a source. It's a faith/confidence built on evidence, the scientific method, and peer review. Which is not only open to change within the scientific community, but with Joe Average who just follows along.
Dave.
There is only one way to take anything "on faith". The difference is what happens after that. A leading expert of a scientific field can easily take advantage of the faith placed in them and form some kind of religion. For example, the esteem Sir Isaac Newton who is thought to be a homosexual, BTW (not that there is anything wrong with that).
They (among many other groups and individuals) give Christians everywhere an horrible name.
There is only one way to take anything "on faith". The difference is what happens after that. A leading expert of a scientific field can easily take advantage of the faith placed in them and form some kind of religion. For example, the esteem Sir Isaac Newton who is thought to be a homosexual, BTW (not that there is anything wrong with that).
<sigh> Where to start...
I'm pretty sure that Dave is using a different definition of "faith" when he talks about accepting an established scientific theory, than a religious person does when talking about faith in their deity. That's why I prefer to use the word "trust", to avoid this confusion and any ensuing semantic games that get played as a result.
So I just outright reject your assertion that these things are the same, as they are demonstrably not.
As to whether a leading scientist could establish a religion? I really doubt it. One of the central and most important aspects of science is that any new idea will be tested to absolute destruction. If something doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it will be soundly rejected. Any 'scientist' who does not follow that, who continues to persist with something in the face of irrefutable evidence against, has ceased to be scientific. Whatever trust, or faith, or whatever they may have had would be lost. In any event, what would it matter? It would say nothing at all about science. If anything it would just illustrate how religion is very much a human invention, and not "divine".
And I don't know or care about Isaac Newton's sexuality, nor anyone elses.
No need to get semantic. Trust and faith are peas in a pod. Faith in God or faith in man does not change the meaning of faith or what it means to have it. That's pretty straight forward.
In case you have not noticed, religious dogma does go through the same vigorous scrutiny as scientific theories. For example, the religion I was born and raised with used to preach the Bible is God's strict word and must be followed to the letter. Now, years, and years later its merely a "guide" and "inspiration". That is a big shift that did not happen trivially.
And no, Newton's alleged homosexuality is irrelevant but that "man of science", a pillar even, thought and wrote more about religion than anything else. Clearly, he had an appreciation of the importance of faith.
Pete, please do not confuse the terms faith and trust. Maybe I am not the most suitable person to explain the difference, since English is not my native language; but I will give it try.
"Faith" in the religious context implies that one needs to have unconditional, or blind trust in a concept that can not be verified, ever.
"Faith" in a scientific, or engineering context implies that you trust a concept, because it was built on a foundation of verifiable knowledge.
Light years of difference, IMO.
Science will spin on a dime if the evidence requires it.
Or he lived in a time where it was drilled into you from birth, and where the church had so much power and influence that to oppose it would be unthinkable.
And while I *still* don't care about his sexuality, if he were gay, it's the church that would have forced him to deny/suppress or hide the fact. Something it still shamefully tries today.
Honestly I don't care what you believe nor what you do, so long as it doesn't affect me. Unfortunately religion can't see to keep its nose out of my business, and I don't like attempts to re-frame anything I say or do in such a way as to justify that intrusion. I don't have any belief or faith, I don't need it, and I don't want it.
"Faith" in the religious context implies that one needs to have unconditional, or blind trust in a concept that can not be verified, ever.
No need to get semantic. Trust and faith are peas in a pod. Faith in God or faith in man does not change the meaning of faith or what it means to have it. That's pretty straight forward.
In case you have not noticed, religious dogma does go through the same vigorous scrutiny as scientific theories. For example, the religion I was born and raised with used to preach the Bible is God's strict word and must be followed to the letter. Now, years, and years later its merely a "guide" and "inspiration". That is a big shift that did not happen trivially.
And no, Newton's alleged homosexuality is irrelevant but that "man of science", a pillar even, thought and wrote more about religion than anything else.
One does not need faith for verifiable knowledge. Faith is not needed for the "known knowns".Of course you don't, I'm merely illustrating the different mindset of people from each demographic.
Why is it only proper to have beliefs that has passed some sort of scientific litmus test? Can all valid beliefs pass a scientific litmus tests?Naturally, anyone is welcome to pursue their own beliefs, but they are a not free to assert that their version of faith is something everyone should abide by. If they do make these kinds of assertions, then their beliefs better pass the scientific litmus test. The latter part is not negotiable.
You sure about that. Climate change, anyone? No, there is as much debate in science as there is about religious dogma. You can't just show up one morning with some experimental result and expect that rest of the "scientific community" to accept it, even if its apparently valid. No dime spinning there.
Lets be more specific. The concept is of an omnipotent and omnipresent God; the "man/woman/thing behind the curtain" for our natural world. Forget about Christianity, forget about Islam or Judaism or Buddihsm or any other ism out there. Just focus on the concept. It can't be verified. But why is it immediately wrong?
Let's discuss Mosfet. Mosfet is a term semiconductor. Semiconductors are usually merchandise whoever a better standard of responsiveness towards household current is usually around that of a conductor in addition to insulator. Conductors usually are all-natural weather which allow energy to pass through. Varieties of these are gold coins. Insulators, on the other hand, are very natural and organic elements which are the as for from conductors. Merely don’t let energy source circulation through. Timber is definitely an style of your insulator. Mosfet incorporates semiconductors that happens to be designed to be certain that passing as well as insulation skills is were able.
Transistors will be traditional semiconductor equipment. Maybe you have already gained word of a the disease materials? Previously, transistors utilize bipolar technological know-how. P-type (optimistic) subject matter along with n-type (unfavorable) subject matter can be achieved by way of adjusting pure silicon, one of the initial compositions connected with mosfets. As soon as this pair types of things can be manufactured, it makes sense some sort of the disease device. Due to this fact, the illness with consumer electronics denotes holding equally bad and the good prices. Transistors usually are bipolar machines in which about three equipment notably: starting point, collector and additionally emitter. The present mixed up in the bottom level final enables the current amongst the financial institution and additionally emitter to become changed.
Mosfet equally utilizes the disease expertise, only that it’s more technical. Metal oxide insulators are usually mixed towards p and additionally n materials to boost purpose. The number of final additionally improved that will feature any drain, resource, gate plus term. Name`s business effect concerns the job about the power over the actual going electrons.
Mosfet is widelly seen as today’s most effective semiconductor somewhat transistor. It is full advantage on the subject of the illness technique is that it incorporates a advantageous warmth co-efficient, that triggers conductivity to shed while the technical staffing , arises. It assists to protection the unit through having demolished due to quick as well as extreme surge of temperature. A product heats up gets hotter takes in active above exactly what it can handle. As a result, conductivity cuts down. During times, Mosfets work like the moderator, making sure that existing on the product is sprayed without problems.
A digital age group includes sped up the creation of Mosfet know-how. The larger hope upon silicon-based transistors carries in the same way created Mosfet needed. Most of these state-of-the-art transistors holds oxide part concerning the entrance and then the station, which in turn slows down existing from exercising through the entrance, and therefore decreases energy in your diet.
Because of the aid of Mosfet, flipping, augmenting and rotaing electrical impulses is definitely less complicated. For that will, the fashionable contemporary culture owes Julius Edgar Lilienfeld, the particular Austro-Hungarian physicist what person trademarked sector effects transistor, many borrowing.
...which in turn slows down existing from exercising through the entrance, and therefore decreases energy in your diet.
"Faith" in the religious context implies that one needs to have unconditional, or blind trust in a concept that can not be verified, ever.
Of course, it will depend on the concept in question but on its face, what is wrong with that?
Is it really so bad to trust in a concept that cannot be verified?
Lets be more specific. The concept is of an omnipotent and omnipresent God; the "man/woman/thing behind the curtain" for our natural world. Forget about Christianity, forget about Islam or Judaism or Buddihsm or any other ism out there. Just focus on the concept. It can't be verified. But why is it immediately wrong?
How long do you guys think a mosfet needs to be cooked till it's done? ;)
Pete, please do not confuse the terms faith and trust. Maybe I am not the most suitable person to explain the difference, since English is not my native language; but I will give it try.
As an amateur etymologist (if there is such a thing), I appreciate your assiduous post on the words trust and faith. However, plain reading and common understanding of the words are all that is needed for the points I am making. No need to dig up archaeological sites.
Gosh! 7,000 views; shows how amazingly worthwhile God is, if he's attracted 7,000+ views! :D(http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/1310480585093.jpg)
Gosh! 7,000 views; shows how amazingly worthwhile God is, if he's attracted 7,000+ views! :D(http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/1310480585093.jpg)
I'm glad you're praying :-)
Pete, please do not confuse the terms faith and trust. Maybe I am not the most suitable person to explain the difference, since English is not my native language; but I will give it try.
As an amateur etymologist (if there is such a thing), I appreciate your assiduous post on the words trust and faith. However, plain reading and common understanding of the words are all that is needed for the points I am making. No need to dig up archaeological sites.
Sigh... This was one of the most expected reactions:
Confronting the messenger ("an amateur etymologist (if there is such a thing)") instead of the actual message (the difference between the terms faith and trust and whatever this could mean or lead to)...
This is called "attacking the messenger" and is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy.
Pete, I realise that this reply of yours was not a deliberate attack against my person; it is something deeper: It is a product of an instilled way of thinking that protects the indoctrinated (the closed) mind from opening and visualising a wider part of the picture. I hope this will not offend you because this is not my intention; I am just trying to help you see the same picture from an other, more revealing, point of view.
-George
Lets be more specific. The concept is of an omnipotent and omnipresent God; the "man/woman/thing behind the curtain" for our natural world. Forget about Christianity, forget about Islam or Judaism or Buddihsm or any other ism out there. Just focus on the concept. It can't be verified. But why is it immediately wrong?
It's not.
And any sensible atheist will grant you that assertion.
The problem is very few religious people are actually non-establishment non-holy book theists. So few in fact that it's down in the noise.
So when talking about religion, you can't just magically separate the two, that's creating a straw man.
The establishment theist view is trivially easily debunked with reason and evidence. The non-establishment theistic position is less easy, but still has that annoying problem of lacking any evidence for god what so ever. And until such evidence presents itself, god will remain just a concept, and a god of the gaps.
And if you want to think that concept of god is true, that's fine, but don't expect anyone else to play along without at least some evidence.
Dave.
Those are fair statements. Let's move on to evidence then. There are a handful of accepted standards of proof. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt)
The standard of "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is inappropriate for informing the decision to place faith in an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
The standard of "air of reality" is perhaps too low.
"Preponderance of evidence" is a good fit as it simply requires the body of evidence to say that "it is more likely than not" that faith in a God is reasonably placed.
On the flip side of that, I have not heard a body of evidence that says it is more likely than not that faith in a God is NOT reasonably placed. That would essentially be proving a negative, which as is well known, is not possible.
In any case, opposing views must agree on the standard of proof. Think of all the religious wars that could have been avoided if this basic step was first agreed upon.
I wouldn't call those 'accepted standards of proof' - Wikipedia is not always a reliable source of knowledge, and those definitions appear to have been devised by the author of the article.
Let's move on to evidence then. There are a handful of accepted standards of proof. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt)
The standard of "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is inappropriate for informing the decision to place faith in an omnipotent and omnipresent God.Why? If you are going to base your entire life on a set of beliefs then you should have compelling evidence of those beliefs.
The standard of "air of reality" is perhaps too low.Ya think?
"Preponderance of evidence" is a good fit as it simply requires the body of evidence to say that "it is more likely than not" that faith in a God is reasonably placed.
On the flip side of that, I have not heard a body of evidence that says it is more likely than not that faith in a God is NOT reasonably placed. That would essentially be proving a negative, which as is well known, is not possible.
In any case, opposing views must agree on the standard of proof. Think of all the religious wars that could have been avoided if this basic step was first agreed upon.
On the flip side of that, I have not heard a body of evidence that says it is more likely than not that faith in a God is NOT reasonably placed. That would essentially be proving a negative, which as is well known, is not possible.
Praying? Nah!
That gesture, above, was a Facepalm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facepalm), which usually is a display of frustration.
This is what praying looks like:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/?action=dlattach;attach=24686)
-George
Praying is not a bodily stance or posture, it is talking to God in your spirit. You don't have to physically position yourself in any way - God still hears your heart. Who said you have to close your eyes when praying? People have this idea that, when praying, you must put your hands together and close your eyes; that's just a stereotyped human tradition, not a must, and it doesn't "improve" the prayer. God knows our hearts, he isn't impressed with stone churches or certain stances or offerings; after all, did he not create ALL of these, so why would they impress him?
religion science
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let there be light : big flash of light we call big bang
created heavens and stars : stars formed after big bang out of cooling matter
and the earth : planets formed out of even colder material
and everything on it : nature evolved lifeforms
so up till here both are perfectly in sync... you coud drop 'god' and 'nature' in either column...
god said 'let there be light' , or god created the big bang , or nature created light (energy) , or nature created big bang
god shaped heavens and starts out of cooling material or nature created heaven and stars...
Guess which one is most likely ::)1 2 and 3 are wrong .. because there is no such thing as 'god'
Those are fair statements. Let's move on to evidence then. There are a handful of accepted standards of proof. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt)
The standard of "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is inappropriate for informing the decision to place faith in an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
The standard of "air of reality" is perhaps too low.
"Preponderance of evidence" is a good fit as it simply requires the body of evidence to say that "it is more likely than not" that faith in a God is reasonably placed.
On the flip side of that, I have not heard a body of evidence that says it is more likely than not that faith in a God is NOT reasonably placed. That would essentially be proving a negative, which as is well known, is not possible.
In any case, opposing views must agree on the standard of proof. Think of all the religious wars that could have been avoided if this basic step was first agreed upon.
How about you just present your evidence instead of trying to define a level?
Please, really, I want to know, because so far no religious person I've debated has come forth with anything the least bit credible.
Dave.
The standard of "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is inappropriate for informing the decision to place faith in an omnipotent and omnipresent God.Why? If you are going to base your entire life on a set of beliefs then you should have compelling evidence of those beliefs.
here a example of deluded standards of proof more over his idea that he cant learn or won't learn science is pathetic
Revelation TV Interview with Richard Dawkins, amazingly idiotic Creationist questions! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk1RnwbFIps#ws)
In any case, opposing views must agree on the standard of proof. Think of all the religious wars that could have been avoided if this basic step was first agreed upon.
You will be glad to hear that on this we are in agreement, although given the inability of religious fanatics to listen to reason I think the chances of it ever happening are remote.
On the flip side of that, I have not heard a body of evidence that says it is more likely than not that faith in a God is NOT reasonably placed. That would essentially be proving a negative, which as is well known, is not possible.
Ok, let take the christian god then. Being the predominate god in the western world, and likely the country of the majority of most people on this forum. But it doesn't matter, because the exact same evidence can be used for almost any major religion.
Yes, you can't prove a negative (not to offend any pure math enthusiasts). So it's pointless trying to prove that the christian god does not exist. But you can certainly look at the various reasons why christians believe in the christian god, and the things they believe.
And in that case, geeze, I don't know where to start. So much so that I don't think I'll waste my time.
But it's trivial to seriously debunk miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and huge numbers of stories in the bible. They are fairy tales, yet for example the catholic faith absolutely demands that these things are utterly true and must be believed.
Let alone the basic contradiction of the many religions, i.e. they can't all be true argument. That alone is a very powerful "beyond reasonable doubt" argument against any organised religion. So much so, that there is no "god told me to" defence in a court of law. Just guilty, not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity.
It really does only leave the "airy fairy" pure theistic view, and like I said, I've got no problem with such theists. Too bad it's so few religious people it borders on zero.
Dave.
One thing has always puzzled me with religions.
Let's say there is a magical God. Lets say he does dictate a whole lot of rules, with some making sense, and some sounding crazy.
Why should those rules be followed religiously? Even if God wants to be a dictator, is there any reason (other then fear of lightening bolts smiting us) why we should disobey our own conscious and instead follow these imposed rules?
Why on earth would you think a God is infallible, particularly if he is responsible for books like the Bible with all its apparent inconsistencies and errors? The translation error in the English Bibles that meant we were all told he parted the Red Sea was a very funny. How did he allow that to happen?
Anyway, if this God is currently focusing on a plumbing problem in a distant galaxy, then is could be that his commands can only arrive at the speed of light, so couldn't his commands may be thousand or millions of years late? He may be talking about the way he expects amoeba's to behave - not us.
Anyway, seriously, if a God wants to send us commands, wouldn't he have a better way to do it? Like instructions tattooed on the back of our hand or something? He wouldn't have the slightest problem emailing us, or setting up a TV channel?
Or can he build the world in 6 days, along with all of life, but the Internet is just too complicated?
Richard.
That would be too simple, too obvious, too real and graspable.
As sick as it is, it is much easier for the 'shepherds' to control their flock with a distant or nonexistent god. The missing evidence enables them to add their interpretation of how things should be and go. Anybody can 'believe' in a god whose existence has been proven, that is nothing 'special'. Believing in the existence of a non-existing god requires faith - lots of it.
One thing has always puzzled me with religions.
Let's say there is a magical God. Lets say he does dictate a whole lot of rules, with some making sense, and some sounding crazy.
Why should those rules be followed religiously? Even if God wants to be a dictator, is there any reason (other then fear of lightening bolts smiting us) why we should disobey our own conscious and instead follow these imposed rules?
Why on earth would you think a God is infallible, particularly if he is responsible for books like the Bible with all its apparent inconsistencies and errors? The translation error in the English Bibles that meant we were all told he parted the Red Sea was a very funny. How did he allow that to happen?
Anyway, if this God is currently focusing on a plumbing problem in a distant galaxy, then is could be that his commands can only arrive at the speed of light, so couldn't his commands may be thousand or millions of years late? He may be talking about the way he expects amoeba's to behave - not us.
Anyway, seriously, if a God wants to send us commands, wouldn't he have a better way to do it? Like instructions tattooed on the back of our hand or something? He wouldn't have the slightest problem emailing us, or setting up a TV channel?
Or can he build the world in 6 days, along with all of life, but the Internet is just too complicated?
Richard.
omnipresent, omnipotent
omnipresent, omnipotent
The same can be said of evolutionist. In fact, they rely quite a bit on "air of reality" to fill in between legitimate scientific facts. See video of Dawkins talking about the eye posted by Sionyn I think in this thread.
The standard of "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is inappropriate for informing the decision to place faith in an omnipotent and omnipresent God.Why? If you are going to base your entire life on a set of beliefs then you should have compelling evidence of those beliefs.
Do you always demand proof "beyond the shadow of a doubt" in all things aspects of your life? You'll be surprise to hear that 1 + 1 = 2 MAY NOT meet this standard.
here's an interesting tidbit to ponder on...Code: [Select]religion science
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let there be light : big flash of light we call big bang
created heavens and stars : stars formed after big bang out of cooling matter
and the earth : planets formed out of even colder material
and everything on it : nature evolved lifeforms
so up till here both are perfectly in sync... you coud drop 'god' and 'nature' in either column...
What has happened to these people?They believed what other people told them.
Exactly! These beliefs were/are instilled into the minds of people during childhood ("Get then while they are young," according to Justinian I), and come from the highest authority of that specific period: The beloved and loving (but already indoctrinated) parents and relatives, as I have written previously (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg113016/#msg113016).What has happened to these people?They believed what other people told them.
We can only be kept in the cages we do not see.
--Stefan Molyneux,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A) and
www.youtube.com/watch?v=k67_imEHTPE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k67_imEHTPE)
Exactly! These beliefs were/are instilled into the minds of people during childhoodWhat has happened to these people?They believed what other people told them.
[...]These beliefs were/are instilled into the minds of people during childhood [...]The influence of childhood induction can be observed in germany. West germany has an uninterupted religious tradition. In contrast in eastern germany religion was suppressed during the communist regime. Even today, 20 years later, religion is significantly lower there. Link: religion map of germany (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Religion_map_germany_2008.png&filetimestamp=20110806164935)
The influence of childhood induction can be observed in germany. West germany has an uninterupted religious tradition. In contrast in eastern germany religion was suppressed during the communist regime. Even today, 20 years later, religion is significantly lower there. Link: religion map of germany (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Religion_map_germany_2008.png&filetimestamp=20110806164935)
1). About faith: faith is a "blind" trust. It is the root of both science and religions since both has to believe things that are not yet happened. Even something already happened, to ascertain, it is happened or it is happened the way one (or a set of ones) thinks it happened needs faith. Therefore, what faith to follow or the way to re-conciliate the contradictions depends on which one one feels most comfortable (or have more peace of mind). One is allowed to actually do mix and match.
2). About God: Let's think a piece of semiconductor under voltage as our(human and god) universe. People are the electrons and God is the holes. Ironically, humens are the negative and the God is the positve; Apparently, Holes(God) are always moving against the electrons (human nature). Then, do you regard holes(God) real or not real (the consensus says the electrons are real)? Alternatively, can one construct or accept a theory in which, the holes are real that can also make one comfortable to think of (and apply) it?Huh? Again another straw man argument.
3). About approximations: both science and religions are approximations to human (personal) experiences. Think it in terms of the digitized understanding of the human experiences.
The 0th order approximation is a constant, which is best represented as ZERO. It is like someone at the farest end of the universe and thinking (or w/o knowing) of earth. At this level of approximation, whatever happened or happening on earth is approximately a big NULL.
The next level of approximation is binary (0 and 1), this has been termed as "everthing is (not) either black or white", and "yin and yang" by various cultures. In fact, this is the 1st operational useful approximation in term of understanding the "world" since the most powerful mental tool "analogy" happens on this level.
Science and religions are just further levels of approximations.
All levels of approximations has itsown utility.
With that we agree. Religion as an approximation of life has close to 0% utility, and science has close to 100%.
But if the major religions are right
which "one or two" is it... in islam holy book?But if the major religions are rightIt only takes one or two major tenets to be shown to be wrong and their whole deck of cards falls down.
it seems my last attempt to stop this thread has failed... :|Why stop ? Can't handle the truth ?which "one or two" is it... in islam holy book?But if the major religions are rightIt only takes one or two major tenets to be shown to be wrong and their whole deck of cards falls down.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why the all powerful God has never once struck down an infidel or heretic with his own hand? Not even one tiny lightning bolt from the heavens? At all times it is his followers who must act in his name. Perhaps the lack of action from God tells us his followers have it wrong and he really doesn't have anything against people with different beliefs?
Have you ever stopped to wonder why the all powerful God has never once struck down an infidel or heretic with his own hand? Not even one tiny lightning bolt from the heavens? At all times it is his followers who must act in his name. Perhaps the lack of action from God tells us his followers have it wrong and he really doesn't have anything against people with different beliefs?
Have you ever stopped to wonder why the all powerful God has never once struck down an infidel or heretic with his own hand? Not even one tiny lightning bolt from the heavens? At all times it is his followers who must act in his name. Perhaps the lack of action from God tells us his followers have it wrong and he really doesn't have anything against people with different beliefs?
Why stop ? Can't handle the truth ?because the discussion will go to no end. everybody try to convince each other, thats not gonna happen. everybody made the decision. i wish i could "preach" more, but... it will all buried unremembered, i've made the posts, thats enough i think. read or not read (study) is up to you, i know exactly how scientists reason ;)
Quote from Islam Holy book 8:12 -> http://quran.com/8/12 (http://quran.com/8/12)kudos! but not kudos :P this is the problem when we take only a slice from description. just like in 50ohm transmission line pcb, we just take rule of thumb trace width = 2 x pcb thickness and believe in that to the death, where actually its not that simple.
"[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
..simpler interpretation ...
"Allah is with you, He said it is "OK" for you to go chop heads of those non Muslims"
or this one ...same one. read the whole story. infact you just missed verse 4 just before it http://quran.com/9/4 (http://quran.com/9/4)
Quote from 9:5 -> http://quran.com/9/5 (http://quran.com/9/5)
"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
Peace Mech, nothing personal here, its just the fact and fact only, and if these quotes are totally wrong, please enlighten ussince you mean peace to me, then i will be peace to you ;), unless you intend to chop my head, then its better for me to chop your head first :P since Allah admit it ;) i'm not the writter of the book so i'm not offended, i'm just trying to correct the misconception, to do what i'm asked to do, to spread the truth :P since there is real threat by the writter in the book.
bronze age myths are true ?again that very nice biologist i was talking about. but now, i'm surprised how detailed he described (and believe) from a word of "pupils"? the salt and fresh water meant in the quran is between the sea and river. and its been proven salt water is denser than white water. surely this biologist is clueless when it comes to physics. the "idol" for many people, they may call him... "God"? the all knowing everything? or maybe a "bollock" type of "straw" man?
and give zakahfor those of you who dont know. zakah is another word for... tax, or donation, or interest or similar meaning in modern language. donation to the poor, tax that already been agreed, interest when you have debt etc. the very system implemented these days. except not according to the "balance" stated by the guide. eg, interest rate by bank nowadays are very high, we call them "riba" (excessive interest rate its forbidden). it will suffer the debtor, its been proven right for some countries and millions of people.
So you have no answer either. He definitely wasn't omnipresent when someone did the translation mistake I mentioned. The failure to set up a Facebook page means he isn't omnipotent.
In fact, what has he been doing for the last 2000 years? For someone who made the whole universe, he has been incredibly slack.
Can't he at least do the odd miracle on Morning Television?
I think God must be omniabsent at the moment.
omnipresent, omnipotent
Ah, the religious universal get out of jail free card!
Dave.
The same can be said of evolutionist. In fact, they rely quite a bit on "air of reality" to fill in between legitimate scientific facts. See video of Dawkins talking about the eye posted by Sionyn I think in this thread.
I get the impression that you want to question the fact of evolution that has been accepted scientific fact for over a century?
With the massive amount of research done on evolution, fitting all together nicely and "filling in the gaps" so far without fail (starting from one huge gap in our knowledge of how species came to be), scientists (and the common folk who care to study it) can be supremely confident in evolution's future ability to fill in what few gaps remain.
That is not faith, it's the complete opposite, it's confidence born about by countless steps and confirmations in a scientific theory, performed and confirmed by countless people.
Seriously, do you question it?
Dave.
Analytic thinking can decrease religious belief: UBC study
A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, even in devout believers.
The study, which will appear in tomorrow’s issue of Science, finds that thinking analytically increases disbelief among believers and skeptics alike, shedding important new light on the psychology of religious belief.
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/04/26/analytic-thinking-can-decrease-religious-belief-ubc-study/ (http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/04/26/analytic-thinking-can-decrease-religious-belief-ubc-study/)
If there was a God twitter account would you believe it? Nobody would.even if God presents Himself to them, they will say it a witch, or for scientists, "unexplained physical nature". there's no amount of saying to make them believe, its been stated in the book. there's a story of earlier prophet who can talk to god directly as he wished, he asked to see God's face to strengthen his belief, so God's did. its explained in some form of very bright light, the prophet unable to stare any longer. so you guess what in modern science? a lightning thunderbolt McQueen! not God. :P
God is the "man behind the curtain" of our natural world. Why would you expect that he be confined to the laws of physics as we understand them. This is a common trap for young players in the faith.I dare say this is yet another convenient get out of jail free card. I could make similar assertions about a whole range of things. Like the existence of Santa and his ability to simultaneously deliver gifts to children on christmas eve. Or the leprechaun spontaneously appearing in front of you, and being a little bastard. There are many mythologies throughout human history that involve events not confined to the laws of physics. We reject them as being facts. Why should christianity be any different in that respect? Religious groups has not managed to put forward anything compelling enough to differentiate their beliefs from all the other man made myths.
Santasanta is a myth! there's no presents falling from the sky! same with unicorn or centaur. do not equate those fairies with "God", please!.
If there was a God twitter account would you believe it? Nobody would.even if God presents Himself to them, they will say it a witch, or for scientists, "unexplained physical nature". there's no amount of saying to make them believe, its been stated in the book. there's a story of earlier prophet who can talk to god directly as he wished, he asked to see God's face to strengthen his belief, so God's did. its explained in some form of very bright light, the prophet unable to stare any longer. so you guess what in modern science? a lightning thunderbolt McQueen! not God. :P
I dare say this is yet another convenient get out of jail free card...As the scientific unknowns shrink, god gets constantly reshuffled into increasingly more ridiculous and abstract concepts. Talking about shifting goalposts.
God is the "man behind the curtain" of our natural world. Why would you expect that he be confined to the laws of physics as we understand them. This is a common trap for young players in the faith.
QuoteSantasanta is a myth! there's no presents falling from the sky! same with unicorn or centaur. do not equate those fairies with "God", please!.
because...Why? They have exactly the same amount of evidence. Exactly...QuoteSantasanta is a myth! there's no presents falling from the sky! same with unicorn or centaur. do not equate those fairies with "God", please!.
Dave.
I don't question it, only to say there is plenty of room for reasonable doubt. Natural selection as a biological process is persuasive. It does not however, say exactly how something actually happened. How could it, its more or less random mechanism.
It is a book full of contradictions, medieval understanding of the world and man made myths, not unlike fairy tales.who's talking about absolution? example? proof?
And using science we can safely conclude that the reality of god, santa, and other fairy tales, is highly improbable. This is an undeniable fact.why is it "improbable"? because it is "unprovable'?
Divine Revelation or Just Smack Headsat the end of writing... "If manna is indeed the psilocybin mushroom, then this means that the Koran, Bible, and Torah" - i dont see anywhere quotation from quran in that link. all from bible and yet, in the end, the koran is the one to be blamed. did your mentor ever teach you not to produce new thing/conclusion at the end of your master/phD research paper? i'll call that writing by Steve Kubby is rubbish. ask him to come back with Koran quotation... or be forever ignorant that koran is not bible. and he kept saying i,i, we, we... there's no external independent references... everything lingering in himself and his own belief. seriously, is this kind of paper used as a reference to prove what is wrong or right? "young" people!
now i understand why the bible and koran is full of rubbish,
they were high on narcotics
http://deoxy.org/manna.htm (http://deoxy.org/manna.htm)
now i understand why the bible and koran is full of rubbishand its easy to understand a writing from an illiterate man. or easier to believe a man who has the same "belief" as yours ;)
because...
1) its not stated in holybook.
2) it only exist in fairy tales made by human.
3) even if they do exist, they still creation of a God. God is higher level domain, the rest are lower level.
God is the "man behind the curtain" of our natural world. Why would you expect that he be confined to the laws of physics as we understand them. This is a common trap for young players in the faith.
It's the get out of jail free card the religious like to use to justify their belief that has zero proof.
It's a common trap the players with reason recognise and don't fall into.
Anyone can make the same "beyond the laws of physics" argument about anything, not just god. But those who try it with anything other than religion are branded nut cases.
Dave.
Gosh, must say I've never seen one of those.
Since you do not believe in God, how can you be sure your version of truth is reliable? Since all truth comes from God, and you say you deny he is real, you have no standard of truth to follow, and so you're easily deceived... or have I missed something?
Show me where I am wrong, and where the Bible is wrong, and I'll gladly read it :-)
After 38 pages of debate, you have missed everything.
After 38 pages of debate, you have missed everything.
Show me where faith is stubborn; you have faith for many things in life, but does that make you stubborn? I have no need to "prove" God to you - you can ask him to show you, yourself. It seems you're taking offence, where no offence was given; that's called being stubborn, isn't it, because you could just accept my faith and say "okay, I respect you", but you choose not to, but I don't take it offensively - that's your free will.I have faith in very little, actually. I have faith in certain people, for example, for I know their character. But I do not believe without evidence.
Is it not religion to stubbornly attempt to DIS-prove the personal faith of someone, adamantly implying "there is NO God"? Lack of faith can also be a religion - a belief in everything BUT God. Did you consider that?
I don't need "evidence" for God, as it's all around me everywhere I look.
I'm serious about truth, but not willing to force my point through subtle attempts to FORCE my opinion on others.
Show me where faith is stubborn; you have faith for many things in life, but does that make you stubborn? I have no need to "prove" God to you - you can ask him to show you, yourself. It seems you're taking offence, where no offence was given; that's called being stubborn, isn't it, because you could just accept my faith and say "okay, I respect you", but you choose not to, but I don't take it offensively - that's your free will.I have faith in very little, actually. I have faith in certain people, for example, for I know their character. But I do not believe without evidence.QuoteIs it not religion to stubbornly attempt to DIS-prove the personal faith of someone, adamantly implying "there is NO God"? Lack of faith can also be a religion - a belief in everything BUT God. Did you consider that?
No, I didn't consider that. Mainly because it's pure rhetoric.
Lack of faith is absolutely not, and can never be, a religion.
Also, nobody is attempting to disprove the existence of God - but instead explaining why the reasons for belief are just not good enough. It's not enough to try and move the goalposts and try and redefine acceptable levels of proof, as has been attempted earlier in the thread - there is no valid proof.
Nobody is asserting that there is definitely no God, either - but rather that there is absolutely no evidence to show that there is one.
Evidence is all around, if only your eyes would see it.
Do you not desire truth... and how can you even attempt to define it, when you do not know it?
Do you not desire truth... and how can you even attempt to define it, when you do not know it?
How can you claim to know truth when you cannot prove it? You certainly can't claim to desire truth when you disallow the probe of critical thinking.
Don't follow me, follow God; he is truth, and all truth created is from God.
1 Corinthians, verse 3:
Do you not desire truth... and how can you even attempt to define it, when you do not know it?
How can you claim to know truth when you cannot prove it? You certainly can't claim to desire truth when you disallow the probe of critical thinking.
Don't follow me, follow God; he is truth, and all truth created is from God.
1 Corinthians, 3: 18-23Quote18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.
Winnie the Pooh was great! I don't see the relevance, but what a brilliant character! Still got it on cine film somewhere :D It's alright, I am pretty tired too, so am gonna relax then sleep. Take care, have a wonderful and blessed day/night :-)
Do you not desire truth... and how can you even attempt to define it, when you do not know it? Truth is absolute, and all truth is from God alone, otherwise "truth" is a fallacy and "relative", and easily changeable for every individual, therefore no "rights" or "wrongs" can be judged, as I could make up my own morality, and you would have NO sound basis upon which to rely, to show me otherwise.
Do you not desire truth... and how can you even attempt to define it, when you do not know it?
How can you claim to know truth when you cannot prove it? You certainly can't claim to desire truth when you disallow the probe of critical thinking.
Do you not desire truth... and how can you even attempt to define it, when you do not know it? Truth is absolute, and all truth is from God alone, otherwise "truth" is a fallacy and "relative", and easily changeable for every individual, therefore no "rights" or "wrongs" can be judged, as I could make up my own morality, and you would have NO sound basis upon which to rely, to show me otherwise.
How has God given me proof exactly?Do you not desire truth... and how can you even attempt to define it, when you do not know it?
How can you claim to know truth when you cannot prove it? You certainly can't claim to desire truth when you disallow the probe of critical thinking.
Don't follow me, follow God; he is truth, and all truth created is from God.
1 Corinthians, 3: 18-23Quote18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.
You cannot cite any passage of the bible as proof of the existence of God. The result is a logical loop; no proof can be provided when the source of contention is also the proof.
I see many examples of people pre-supposing that I am going to give them outright "proof" of God's existance... maybe back-track a little, and you'll see that I have mentioned that I am not able to give you proof - God already did that for you. Why are you pinning your hopes on my "proof"? I ask you to seek that yourself, and you WILL find it, visible or in spirit, it will come... just ask him :D
iamwhoiam is a lost cause.
You can't offend me, I know my identity in Christ - I am not determined, shaped or defined by the opinions of man. I love you and respect you, but you can't offend me - I'm too full of joy and life to be shaped by wavering and changing opinion. God is my guide, nothing else. You can love me or hate me, take me or leave me, but I am no different because of it.Some of the counter arguments presented here are not opinions of man. Opinions are subjective by nature. The knowledge we gained by studying nature was through objective observation. Those who criticize religion essentially relay facts about how nature works and thus personal opinions are completely irrelevant in this case.
I have not the need for world-based proof and evidence that you do, as I see it all around me, and so do you.
... arising from a TOTAL VOID OF ALL TIME AND SPACE? Quite a belief to have faith in, considering not ONE shred of evidence exists for it; sounds like a "religion" to me, albeit undocumented in any way, and abstracted back far enough as to be supposed that it happened "billions of years ago", conveniently, therefore, shifting the burden of proof to believers to "prove that it DIDN'T happen"
I have not the need for world-based proof and evidence that you do, as I see it all around me, and so do you.
If the evidence is so apparent to all as you claim, then you should have no issue in communicating at least one example to us.
It's all around you, take your pick. If you can't see it, then okay. Jesus is not on trial; the clay doesn't judge the potter.
I have not the need for world-based proof and evidence that you do, as I see it all around me, and so do you.
If the evidence is so apparent to all as you claim, then you should have no issue in communicating at least one example to us.
It's all around you, take your pick. If you can't see it, then okay. Jesus is not on trial; the clay doesn't judge the potter.
If the potter doesn't exist, and the clay has nothing to fear from the non-existant potter, the clay may do as the clay pleases.
So, you have two options available to you, and only two.
1. Give one example of the evidence you speak of
or
2. Provide more entertaining, yet ultimately fallacious rhetoric
If you can read very well, but yet attempt to cause self-amusement through mockery of soneone's faith, then that's quite a shame; I thought you were an intelligent guy, and I don't see myself being disproved - you obviously are intelligent enough not to waste time attempting to coerse "proof" from someone who has repeatedly given you the answers - the ONLY answers you need. I will not be responding to your mockery further, have a great day okay :)
You mention that we discover things as men... so that shows that these things are already in existence BEFORE we found them, so therefore they were known about BEFORE man, therefore existed and were designed. You cannot discover something never before known - only something never before known BY MANKIND.Known about before man by whom? Matter and its properties does not need cognitive knowledge for it to exist physically. Plants have no understanding of soil and yet they thrive on it. Complex behaviour of natural phenomena can be perfectly (and in some cases, is only way) explained through stochastic interaction of its fundamental constituents. The universe we live in is non-deterministic and self organising by far and large; and therefore this fact makes the 'designer' concept completely redundant.
On another point: If you are (and I am not saying you are or were) of the belief of the whole big bang theory, then tell me what forces or intelligence caused such an incredible coincidence of creation to occur, out of nothing, based on the pre-supposition that NOTHING existed before it occured. That would be quite a feat, for nothing to explode into something, and suddenly begin to follow a rational, pre-designed pattern, laws of thermo-dynamics and evolution all along with it, conveniently pre-packaged and amazingly complex... arising from a TOTAL VOID OF ALL TIME AND SPACE? Quite a belief to have faith in, considering not ONE shred of evidence exists for it; sounds like a "religion" to me, albeit undocumented in any way, and abstracted back far enough as to be supposed that it happened "billions of years ago", conveniently, therefore, shifting the burden of proof to believers to "prove that it DIDN'T happen".There is plenty of evidence that matter spontaneously form and annihilate each other in the free vacuum of space. This has been experimentally verified. As for the rest, how amazingly complex system can form, see my response above.
If nobody knows, how can believers be wrong?Believers are not wrong, more like what they believe in is highly improbable!
I have not the need for world-based proof and evidence that you do, as I see it all around me, and so do you.
If the evidence is so apparent to all as you claim, then you should have no issue in communicating at least one example to us.
It's all around you, take your pick. If you can't see it, then okay. Jesus is not on trial; the clay doesn't judge the potter.
If the potter doesn't exist, and the clay has nothing to fear from the non-existant potter, the clay may do as the clay pleases.
So, you have two options available to you, and only two.
1. Give one example of the evidence you speak of
or
2. Provide more entertaining, yet ultimately fallacious rhetoric
If you can read very well, but yet attempt to cause self-amusement through mockery of soneone's faith, then that's quite a shame; I thought you were an intelligent guy, and I don't see myself being disproved - you obviously are intelligent enough not to waste time attempting to coerse "proof" from someone who has repeatedly given you the answers - the ONLY answers you need. I will not be responding to your mockery further, have a great day okay :)
Just what I expect from somebody without any answers when cornered: a rage quit.
A very polite rage quit, but a rage quit nonetheless. By the way, is your excessive 'niceness' a symptom of your faith?
"Rage"? that's undoubtedly what you'd like - it would add weight to your grudge against me, but it's alright - I don't have rages on forums, sorry!
Am I excessively nice, or are you excessively cynical? Thank you, either way; I just treat others as I like to be treated, or were you expecting me to be nasty or aggressive, to go nicely with my anticipated "rage", so you could point your finger and call me a hypocrite? I see your expectations of me, but you are wrong - I'm sorry to have let you down, but I am not a mean guy. Kindness and love towards others is something that is instinctive to me - yeah, I have off days, but no good can come of aggression or unkindness, eh! I am not perfect, but I try to be gracious - it can never hurt, and love is always a good thing.
Have a great day mate - I really have to sleep now, seeya soon! :)
3) C'mon, Mech. That's a ridiculous argument that you can never prove. And if you can't prove it, you can't claim it.this thread seems endless and agnostics/atheists keep posting nonsensical links/videos. the same standard with straw or banana man type video. even the biologist chap now talking bullshit out of his arse. the "flag point" for agnostics/atheist to "religious" is "nonsense belief" "cant prove cant claim" etc, but actually they are the one doing it by posting those atheist-banana man. if you have the absolution that i'm ridiculuos, then what right do i have to you? saying... "you are a brilliant!"? of course this whole thing is ridiculous, and even more ridiculuos if both party talking the same thing (banana thing).
... arising from a TOTAL VOID OF ALL TIME AND SPACE? Quite a belief to have faith in, considering not ONE shred of evidence exists for it; sounds like a "religion" to me, albeit undocumented in any way, and abstracted back far enough as to be supposed that it happened "billions of years ago", conveniently, therefore, shifting the burden of proof to believers to "prove that it DIDN'T happen"
All you faithless non-believers, that's your check mate right there.
or maybe you are refering to my point #1 (its written in holybook) well, you see the debate is between what theist believe, and what atheist believe. we dont talk what we both dont believe, like unicorn or santa, get it? try focus on our subject.
Besides which, lets take your random hypothesis that because the creation of the universe from 'nothing' is impossible there must have existed a god to create it... where did he come from then? who or what created 'him'?
There is no *before* in relation to the big bang, as 'before' is a concept relating to our perception of time, time being an aspect of space-time which was *created* at the instant of the big bang.and what a "concept" is? a concept is an idea, created inside the brilliant mind of human. right or wrong doesnt matter as it will be proven or unproven later. thats what advances us, not science. even science created/based upon it, concepts that very well documented/researhed and hence accepted. did i say it comes from human mind? and no human is perfect (is there?), how do we expect we can be? and including whats we are capable of creating? checkmate! :P
And as Carl Sagan said, if that is the case, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed? (going bang/squish/bang or any of the other hypothesis being researched?)possible! we will be interested to looking for the proven answer for that (since universe is our domain, so there's no word saying to stop us from understanding our domain). but as human step further, if they are looking for God, then they can make the effort, but i got the book to say otherwise, so i just prefer to play ping pong or solder something up rather than expecting for ultimatum (call it jail freeticket if you wish, and "jail" is the "interesting" word for that choosen by atheists ;)).
the sticker indeed did come from god Thats truthLOLz and where did you get that from? in a thousand years nobody ever dare claiming of making a holy book, whether written by a man, or by "another God" of the same quality, generality, and "diversifity" as the existing ones, which talk about science, moral, phycologhy up to the "world of soul/mystic/higher dimension" that is so correct and flawless, if the existing one is flawed (as many people mentioned and other "believed" from what other people said). take quran, or both with bible, twist it! condemned it! and make your own book, or combination from all of you effort. make one book that you claim is so complete and correct basing on whatever "concept" you are capable of. i'll order a copy ;) and thats a challenge from God himself, from quran.
infact its truth biblical 'logic' sense as mach as its fantastical improbable and imposable to verify so it must be true ;)
science is a "concept" that people accepted. so why is it hard to admit God is a "concept"? a concept that some people believe?
a concept that is very very hard to prove or disprove?
And therein lies the problem with the "god of the gaps" fallacy. If you attribute to the supernatural all the things that are not understood, then any attempt to understand and explain them, can (and will) be seen as a challenge.
author=dave]True, but it is trivially easy to disprove the claims in any of the holy book.i hope you are not talking about islam. thats entirely different from christians. it was from the same root (god) but... was.
In fact they do a great job on their own, of not only being mutually exclusive, but full of contradiction and things which are absolutely provable to be untrue.
And as has been explained before, the odds of there being a god or not are not the same. Because the more we learn about science and the world, the more unlikely any god seemslink again? (i'm sure i've missed it) or simply conclusion from the writing why the odd is not the same?...
scientists are not looking for godexactly my point! except some "other" community would like to take it too far...
Quoteauthor=dave]True, but it is trivially easy to disprove the claims in any of the holy book.i hope you are not talking about islam. thats entirely different from christians. it was from the same root (god) but... was.
In fact they do a great job on their own, of not only being mutually exclusive, but full of contradiction and things which are absolutely provable to be untrue.
@EEVBlog
Dave, forum owner or not, please, don't modify my posts for your own agenda, thanks mate.
Largely the same book, too...you seemed to have studied the both book (bible or quran)?. its true some contents are the same (didnt i say they was from the same source?), but some are different (since i believe the new tastement is not well "authenticated" and influenced by "organized church") due to "not so well" documentation/authentication technique during the time. earlier post, i have a link of the study made by a "witnessing" doctor french iirc (who i believe went round the globe) to show the differences and similarities. can you show yours?
Just for clarity, are you saying that your own "holy book" (the Qur'an, I assume) is not full of contradictions, or things which are provably untrue?of course yes. if not, why do i picked my side? and choosed to believe? hit me and hit me dont be afraid, question quran! if i cannot answer, i'll go and find "ulama" to explain that, i wont mind if they have to chop my head for questioning that. but only question if you have "so called" concrete evidence with "facts" "scientifical facts" (link), otherwise we are all just a bunch of another banana-man. and only question within our realm, dont talk about something invisible that cannot be proven or unproven (like where is god? or heaven or angel or satan? but no! santa doesnt exist!) i asked Dave to present his fact, none! (i believe He's the one who's responsible for this, since this thread just came out of nothing! :P) except iirc that "universe from nothing" book which must be paid (i cant justify why should i pay, maybe its just speculation inside (unproven science), the same with banana man? i dont have time for that). now most blame i can see goes to christians/bible/church. go create "christians thread" i will not interfere, but not "religion thread", religion are many which one are you talking about? all the same? NO! they are not "fully" the same. we pray differently, we dont drink alcohol, we dont eat pig/ham (and that example are what you can see, i dont like to give example differences of what you cant see, eg. spiritual, god is one not three etc you would'nt believe anyway). i believe if someone say they are all the same, he is just an ignorant clueless, because i clearly see the differences (in most aspects), but they/you cant.
It's only when individuals feel uncomfortable with the scientists' findings, religious people attempt to drag god into domain of science. Please don't.
Science is all about trying to understand how things work, so it's bound to be *seen* to be in conflict with those kinds of people.there again. religion. is that include islam? afaik, islam is in peace/harmony with science. i never heard any major events quarelling between science and islam (even minor one, except perharps with "speculative/unproven" science), have you? are you talking religion? or christian? or islam?
QuoteIt's only when individuals feel uncomfortable with the scientists' findings, religious people attempt to drag god into domain of science. Please don't.QuoteScience is all about trying to understand how things work, so it's bound to be *seen* to be in conflict with those kinds of people.there again. religion. is that include islam? afaik, islam is in peace/harmony with science. i never heard any major events quarelling between science and islam (even minor one, except perharps with "speculative/unproven" science), have you? are you talking religion? or christian? or islam?
So it's true, except when it isn't, and needs a person to "interpret" it...because its more complex than you can imagine. even to myself. its a complete set of rule and "vast". a quran alone will not stand by itself (how could it? its only a two inches book, generalizing everythings). we based on two "STRONG" things.... "quran" and "sunnah". they work together complimenting each other. "sunnah" is the vast one and very well elaborated and detailed (and not in contradiction with generalization of al-quran), not a single book! a single book of quran alone i have not completely read. you can pinpoint, i can search where, you ask me to explain everything, i cant... even with my current knowledge alone (incomplete), a forum will not "cut it".
The Earth is flatquoting like this is not quite appropriate. its better if you can pinpoint which verses that is in flawed, or link to the argument. you can find a copy of the book locally, free website as mentioned... www.quran.com (http://www.quran.com) or find the nearest mosque (if you have any), and ask guardian there for a copy, they probably will give you for free. and remember, arabic is not as simple as english or my language. one word can be two meaning or very hardly described in simple "one word" or no accurate meaning in our word. the best quran translation is with "elaborated footnotes".
The moon and the sun orbit the Earth, which is the center of the universe
The moon produces light.
Humans procreate by the man expelling a fluid from somewhere inside his chest/abdomen.
Bees eat fruit.
The Earth is flathavent you seen flat surface? what is flat by your definition? flat to infinitum? or flat at certain region, or "practically" flat? scientists define flat as different thing, engineers define it as different thing. so if in quran say earth is round, people can always argue, no! i see a flat "land"! so? semantics problem? http://quran.com/79/30 (http://quran.com/79/30)
The moon and the sun orbit the Earth, which is the center of the universeplease quote from quran of where specifically it mentioned... "earth is the centre". its a wrong deductive misinterpretation. its only mentioned sun and moon (and all) have their orbit, but not earth is the centre (or i havent read (and remember) all, i believe it isnt there. if you did, pinpoint the verse). so its like saying. "you have two eyes", "i have two eyes". so the wrong "deduction" is, "i have the same religion as yours" or "spider also has two eyes".
The moon produces lighthttp://quran.com/71/16 (http://quran.com/71/16)
Humans procreate by the man expelling a fluid from somewhere inside his chest/abdomen.i cant recall the sperm is secreted from abdomen/chest (how stupid the writer if he really meant that) specifically mentioned in the quran. at most i only read thing like this... http://quran.com/77/20 (http://quran.com/77/20) or http://quran.com/32/08 (http://quran.com/32/08) or http://quran.com/16/04 (http://quran.com/16/04)
Bees eat fruit.you are refering to this http://quran.com/16/68 (http://quran.com/16/68) and this http://quran.com/16/69 (http://quran.com/16/69) ... so this...
people in muslim societies accepting (for example) evolution?is that means we evolute from a stone? or anything hydrogen? because anything with dna , the simplest one must came from something. what else if not stone or hydrogen? i'm not well verse in evolution theory, pls provide link how its derived. all i understand its a "speculative" or "probabilistic" type of science, loosely concrete. sorry if i misinterprete you in earlier post... semantics! :P
Here's the problem I have with that. You're only able to extract the 'truth' from the text, when the truth is known in advance. If you had *only* the book, and nothing else, you would not reach these conclusions. You would likely imagine a flat worldyes! its a human mind limitation! there are much more thats peculiar in the book, something we've not discovered. and of course! we can speculate anything from it! my question is... who's the poet who made up this "so called nonsense"? so beautifully crafted that until so far (1000+ years) the modern human are unable to concretely prove wrong? who's the poet who said that "bees eat fruit", where did he get bees eat fruit? where everybody saw bees eat pollen flower? a lunatic? or genius? why mohamad didnt simply put it "bees eat pollen flower?" thats more understandable and less arguable isnt it? but why God choosed "fruit"? i dont know! ::) its my limitation to explain such "nonsense"
evolution is not an answer to "How did life begin?".and why atheists are basing on it to say god doesnt exist?
It does, however, have several probable and viable answers, which do not require the intervention of any supernatural forcewhere? how?
Evolution is well proven as a scientific theoryi read it otherwise
It is not in any way considered to be 'speculation'the founder himself admitted it! and whats with the "followers"?
There is a mountain of evidence, experimental resultsand failures and politics and religion (atheism) along the way. i read it otherwise... fossil proofs above.
My comments included every religion and organisations that believed in a deity, or a supernatural concept of some sort. What made you think that islam was exempted and gotten a special treatment?QuoteIt's only when individuals feel uncomfortable with the scientists' findings, religious people attempt to drag god into domain of science. Please don't.QuoteScience is all about trying to understand how things work, so it's bound to be *seen* to be in conflict with those kinds of people.there again. religion. is that include islam?
afaik, islam is in peace/harmony with science. i never heard any major events quarelling between science and islam (even minor one, except perharps with "speculative/unproven" science), have you? are you talking religion? or christian? or islam?Not in my experience. I've talked to members of the islamic faith and they held very similar views on science as some of the christian creationists did. I think the difference here is that islam is not as vocal compared to christians in the public arena.
10,000+ views, all to foolishly debate (and mostly try and "prove" with earthly knowledge and wisdom) how someone who most of you say doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Amazing. If I created a thread saying that six legged flourescent rhinos existed, it would be chuckled at and barely receive attention.You have just equated two opposites, while at the same time totally misunderstanding the argument put before you.
10,000+ thread views speaks for itself, no further debate is necessary; you voted with your feet, like it or not. If God didn't exist, you wouldn't argue to the contrary, not one bit of it.It is the fact that people like you genuinely believe in fairytales that brings people, along with the fact that allowances are given to religion where they are not due - this is no indication that God exists, and does not speak for itself to that end.
Love you guys, just be peaceful and consider this: The truth of life, existence and spirituality didn't start with your personal experiences, nor will they end there.More rhetoric. Show me the evidence!
ok (cooling down a bit :P) maybe evolution is right in some sense and up to some level. like skin color, people at cooler place got white color, people in hot place got darker color, its mutating, so evolution is somehow... "science" and "science" is somehow "right". but there's all to it, it doesnt explain god it doesnt explain origin, its just another science, observable one. but as i said. some community would like to take it too far.... the "followers", the "nonexistence fact" of God, where evolution theory got entirely nothing "a hoot" about it. ;) so thats my speculation on the harmonious between evolution and islam ;) (remember, i said ISLAM! not "religion"). the problem is when there's "organized atheism" (or organized "anything" for that matter), and thats not harmonious. ::)
10,000+ views, all to foolishly debate (and mostly try and "prove" with earthly knowledge and wisdom) how someone who most of you say doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Amazing. If I created a thread saying that six legged flourescent rhinos existed, it would be chuckled at and barely receive attention.
10,000+ thread views speaks for itself, no further debate is necessary; you voted with your feet, like it or not. If God didn't exist, you wouldn't argue to the contrary, not one bit of it.
Love you guys, just be peaceful and consider this: The truth of life, existence and spirituality didn't start with your personal experiences, nor will they end there.
It might be hard to know what sense of the words the writer originally intended.
Did Muhammad Exist? Robert Spencer & David Wood vs. Anjem Choudary & Omar Bakrican you prove darwin exist? or aristotle? in islam there's historical down/uplink that can be traced, dont ask me, go to mecca they have the record. haffiz'es (people who memorize quran) never extinct from the time of prophet, quran written down to paper form due to many haffizes dead during crusade war, but still not entirely extinct. so the khalifa (ruler) that day got an idea to write/gather it down on paper (single book) and distributed it among muslim countries so its not lost and copied to millions of what we see today, crusade war failed, islam did not self destruct, its just we stay low, not coward, because we are peaceful, war is not our main point. ulama came to our countries spreaded the truth, we become islamic country. then portugese struck with their "crusade war". we become dependent/non free country and then japanese war. and later treaty came, we got independent day 1957, but we become colonist and capitalist sad, we say we are islamic country but the rule and law is not fully islamic, we are controlled by "supernatural power", if we dont obey CNN will come up we have nuclear weapon, we are poor 3rd country how can we have nuclear, we bought 2nd or 3rd hand submarines that do not work, our government corrupts, or else food ration or oil will be cut from us, and we'll become palestine in our own country. and then i was born and become cynical and "analytical". i broke more toys during kid and got electric shock at 9. thats me, and thats history. i dont blame history, i am who i am, i have a choice i must made it before it too late :P
My comments included every religion and organisations that believed in a deity, or a supernatural concept of some sort. What made you think that islam was exempted and gotten a special treatment?if studied carefully, islam is different
Not in my experience. I've talked to members of the islamic faith and they held very similar views on science as some of the christian creationists did. I think the difference here is that islam is not as vocal compared to christians in the public arena.because they dont know science. you go talk to fisherman about science, he smile and nod. you take his fishing rod, he will get angry and start to talk about sagitarius lying in seabed going to kill you. you give an illiterate a religion they will twist it, you give them science they will twist it. you give them anything beyond their comprehension, they'll do nasty thing. i'm different, i combine both science and religion, find the harmony and the borderline, i'm the special one a few in my community 8)
The closest religion I can think of that is in actual harmony with other faiths AND science is Buddhism.its easily understandable the one created by "human idea". budhism is godlessness religion (see? didnt i mention religion doesnt have to have a god?), and it didnt mentioned in quran. so we dont believe budhism. i talked to buddhists, i have a few buddhists friends here, they admitted there is no god for them, only an idea from a "noble" human, "gautama buddha", but i respect them.
The fact that Darwin himself wasn't complete sure does not matter, because his book is not a 'bible'. That part of evolution which is still based firmly on Darwin's theories stands only because the evidence continues to support it, and not because it is in any way 'sacred'. He was not a "founder" of anything, nor does he have "followers".
Did Muhammad Exist? Robert Spencer & David Wood vs. Anjem Choudary & Omar Bakriok i only less than half way through (2KBps top todays raining). now he said, story can be forged, so he also can. show us the evidence, the methodology of the study. how he can collected saying of peoples, conquerers of the 6th-7th century? in his millions dollar book? give me the link if the book contains complete methodology and research on it. i know one book that was banned from our country.. "satanic versus" by salman rushd, give me the link of the study if its so rightfull, if its really a study? or simply just a babling mambling empty talk. how come the crusade war and islamic empire is so well documented? and then he came up with something different?
The field of evolution has advanced so much, that practically no one here, particularly religious people, is in the position to dismiss any part of itif it cant be flawed then why hide? if its so established, why hide? where? please expose the "truth" not hide it.
It was simply the first (brilliant) pioneering work on the subject.absolution yet you wont admit. i dont have to study all, i look at the foundation. the person who did the "brilliant" work himself not so sure. no followers? wrong! we are here! ;) ps: followers or "not followers" they are same, "dogmas". A will point to B to say he is wrong for that faith and belief, and vice versa. "it is wrong to have a faith in holybook and become fanatics" NO! you have to differentiate, there are two things there. one is to have a faith in the book. one is fanatics. the book got nothing to do with fanaticm, only human. fanaticm happened when you misinterpret and only take a slice from it, narrow minded and lust to have a "side" or "power". it actually common sense that alot of people missing out. you are human i am human, we meet each other we greet we make joke.. we are happy. if you hit me, i'm going to hate you and that is not good thats it! "respecting each other" thats common sense! that is what most esp "religious" people missing out.
Truth is, we're all burger boys herecorrect! the problem is even the so called "surgeon" (highly religious knowledgable) wont know everything and prefer to condemn other people that contradict with what he know. esp worsen during the era of christianity where the church is in charge. at least thats what is told to me, the real truth is of course uncertain. to really prove those kind of things (history), you need to go round the globe, dig some serious soils and dechipher some symbols. thats not easy and that is not our speciality.
Oh, and those gaps in the fossil record? They're not a flaw - they're *expected*, completely contrary to what creationists like to claim. Transitions in evolution happen *fast*, but can be a very long time apart. We're talking periods of a few years, spread across *billions*. The odds of finding a fossil of a particular transitional species are very slim. Which isn't to say that either the species themselves, or their fossil record, does not exist. However I'm no paleontologist, you might want to find one if you're trying to find a flaw in the fossil record.
As for Darwin, he was indeed not as emphatic about the theory as we are today. There are several very good reasons for this. Firstly, it was new, and he had only his own evidence to go on. We've had a couple of hundred years to hammer on the theory and test it to destruction, so we now know that it's sound. Secondly, he was himself a deeply religious man. He actually set out looking to document the variety of life, and hoping to find evidence pointing to its creation. However he was also fortunately a scientist, and having observed many species came to the inescapable conclusion that evolution was responsible, and not a creator. It still took him a long time to publish "On the Origin of Species" while he wrestled with the questions this raised for him. But publish he did, because the evidence was too compelling not to, and others were also coming to the same conclusion.
The fact that Darwin himself wasn't complete sure does not matter, because his book is not a 'bible'. That part of evolution which is still based firmly on Darwin's theories stands only because the evidence continues to support it, and not because it is in any way 'sacred'. He was not a "founder" of anything, nor does he have "followers".
If any of the objections to evolution held any water, then the theory would have collapsed a long time ago, and Darwin would just be a footnote in history.
Shame about the evidence for it being zilch.
Yet no new knowledge or new research or new science shows the the slightest evidence the other way for the existence of god. None. Zilch.
Dave.
Regarding the repeated claims of evolution *not* being established, proven theory, all I can say is:
[citation needed]
It gets tricky when you try to translate from an ancient language to a modern language.Ian, I am sorry I missed that post of yours...
I posted on the same passage a while back, where the translators chose different English words (#465):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg114394/#msg114394 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg114394/#msg114394)
[...]
This does not matter. It does not disprove God.
This does not matter. It does not disprove God.
So how does one prove God?
This does not matter. It does not disprove God.
So how does one prove God?
Humans can't. So, it seems faith in God is totally compatible with the science of evolution. What a remarkable result! :)
Truth convicts the heart.
in a thread which has attracted more than 10,500 views an 44 pages of discussionduh why am i still here? i must have made the one biggest mistake in historical event by posting something in "flowcode" thread. i am sinful! slash me! to save me!
So if you want to reconcile your beliefs with established science, knock yourself out. But you can't do it by *wishing* the science was different. Science does not care what you think, or what I think. It only cares what is provably true.
So we can't prove or disprove God.
Why then do people believe it?
@a hellene: save yourself the story. that is only a "story", what we need is scientifical background or talk. not philosophical one, no matter how good.Couldn't we also call "only a story" all the Talmud/Torah/Bible/Qur'an/Dharma/Brahmanas/etc. dogmatic books?
See? I can spot how an atheist writes about such things by the bitterness in their tone.
Your "established facts" are often wrong, change, and are built upon over time - are you saying everything currently is just as right as it was in the past? Nothing is wrong?
I've seen many "scientists" whom are religious, if not Christian, then more sensible choices. They can't explain everything, they can only explain the little (very very little) things they are working on in the grand scheme of the universe.
So many foolish comments have been attracted to this thread
If you say God doesn't exist, your actions contradict your thoughts, as noone fights against someone or something that *truly* does not exist, SO SO aggressively, in a thread which has attracted more than 10,500 views an 44 pages of discussion.
if god created life .. and we can create life .. does that makes us gods too ?
This does not matter. It does not disprove God.
So how does one prove God?
Humans can't. So, it seems faith in God is totally compatible with the science of evolution. What a remarkable result! :)
So we can't prove or disprove God.
Why then do people believe it?
Try to explain why we are conscious with a bag of watery neurons, maybe God made us to be :)
I cannot prove the non-existence of god. It's not possible. I've never claimed otherwise, and I have no interest in trying. From my *personal* perspective, the total *lack* of positive evidence is enough for me *personally* to reject the supernatural. But that's just me.
See? I can spot how an atheist writes about such things by the bitterness in their tone.
Your "established facts" are often wrong, change, and are built upon over time - are you saying everything currently is just as right as it was in the past? Nothing is wrong?
Bitterness? What *are* you on about?!
Anyway - *facts* do not change. Scientific theories change, as new facts are discovered. As they are refined, the result is almost certainly converging towards the truth, built on a sound foundation of evidence.
He's talking about the air of "I know it all because science told me it" and the general sense of "shut up, God ISN'T real... HE ISN'T!" that I also sense, that's what he means. Bitterness is all over this thread, and yet you can't sense it? Okay.
If you think God isn't real, and you genuinely believe it, you'd never even ask for "evidence", as you'd be SO certain that the suggestion of his existance is utterly preposterous, that you'd smile and walk away. The fact that you ask for evidence, immediately shouts "God is real, I am just rejecting him" to me.
"Lean not on thy own understanding".
Saying that death is the end of life, is like saying that the horizon is where the sea ends...
If you think God isn't real, and you genuinely believe it, you'd never even ask for "evidence", as you'd be SO certain that the suggestion of his existance is utterly preposterous, that you'd smile and walk away.
"Lean not on thy own understanding".
Saying that death is the end of life, is like saying that the horizon is where the sea ends...
If you think God isn't real, and you genuinely believe it, you'd never even ask for "evidence", as you'd be SO certain that the suggestion of his existance is utterly preposterous, that you'd smile and walk away.
You are missing the psychological element. When you have a bunch of sincerely deluded people, it is fascinating to find out why they are so deeply deluded.
"Lean not on thy own understanding".
Saying that death is the end of life, is like saying that the horizon is where the sea ends...
Please, do not believe anything the god-dealers tell their gulible customers who are afraid to die.
Death, by definition, IS the end of life.
Now, horizon (or apparent horizon) is the apparent intersection of the earth and sky, as seen by an observer. It is the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet; the term horizon comes directly from the Greek "horizon (kyklos)" meaning "limiting (circle)," from the verb "horizein" that means to bound, limit, separate, divide.
-George
I find it amusing, but also slightly bizarre, that you felt the need to explain what a horizon is... perhaps an act of distraction? There is nothing to fear in death, and I sincerely hope that you don't fear it, and if you do, that fear has no grounding.
Are you projecting, maybe? Do you think I fear death? Fear meeting my all gracious, loving daddy, spending all eternity in unimaginable bliss and his awesome presence? What is to fear? You couldn't be MORE wrong if you wanted to be :-)
I'm going to have to tell you, satan has deceived you well, and will continues to try to do so, if you allow him to.
Thanks.
Quotein a thread which has attracted more than 10,500 views an 44 pages of discussionduh why am i still here? i must have made the one biggest mistake in historical event by posting something in "flowcode" thread. i am sinful! slash me! to save me!
I knew a girl who thought Elvis was still alive. Does that make it true?of course. Elvis isn;t dead. He just went home. Havent you watched the MIB movies ? The hotsheets explained it all.
If you think God isn't real, and you genuinely believe it, you'd never even ask for "evidence", as you'd be SO certain that the suggestion of his existance is utterly preposterous, that you'd smile and walk away.
You are missing the psychological element. When you have a bunch of sincerely deluded people, it is fascinating to find out why they are so deeply deluded.
One of the reasons is because they are conditioned to understand its a grave sin to question ones faith. I still remember my horror as a 14 year old when during religious class I was told it was a Mortal sin to masturbate.
Whoever told you it was "a sin" to question faith, was talking nonsense. If you don't question it, you become indoctrinated in religion; THAT is bad news, and unfruitful. Do you think I have never questioned my faith? I have stolen from people, lied, smoked weed, been to prison for theft, been arrested more times than I can count, and questioned God, even cursed his name, MANY times...
That's quite a naive thing to say, and wholly false. I have come to rest in God's arms at the end of a long, troubled period of my life, many many times. It's quite silly to assume those with faith are fools, and the rest of you are wise... and proves nothing whatsoever, except that you're classifying people based on your OWN understanding. God is real, if you don't believe me, that's fine and dandy; I'm not into forcing others to believe in God, as many of you seem to be in attempting to cause us offence, whilst subversively forcing us to "admit" you are right, or suffer insults.
It's all fine with me, I bear no grudges to you :)
Are you projecting, maybe? Do you think I fear death? Fear meeting my all gracious, loving daddy, spending all eternity in unimaginable bliss and his awesome presence? What is to fear? You couldn't be MORE wrong if you wanted to be :-)
Are you projecting, maybe? Do you think I fear death? Fear meeting my all gracious, loving daddy, spending all eternity in unimaginable bliss and his awesome presence? What is to fear? You couldn't be MORE wrong if you wanted to be :-)
Why don't people who believe death is so wonderful kill themselves?
God is not about intellectual debate, he is God, and he is life and truth and love. You cannot deny life, truth or love, and so you cannot deny God, as he is all of these. Our earthly wisdom is all but foolish debate and self-satisfying distraction:
1 Corinthians 3:19QuoteFor the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness.
We only know what is of this world, and that alone. God reveals himself beyond that, if you humble yourself and listen... keep listening, and want to know him. He knows our hearts, and he has no obligation to his creation to "prove" his existence, although he can and he does ALL the time. It's called "faith" for a very, VERY simple reason, and whether you think it foolish or not is utterly irrelevant to those with faith, as what matters to us is our identity in God, not in man and his ever changing worldly opinion. Many things are hidden to us, we can never know every single thing in all universal creation, physical AND spiritual. Ergo, to deny God is to deny yourself of truth.
Think earthly, and you will forever find your identity in the things of the world; what may be physically experienced. Man knows not another man's heart TRULY, but God knows as, as he is in us, and defines us. I find peace in God, you cannot shake that, because I am eternally more than the sum of my parts. You are limited in your understanding, as I am, but more so, as many reject God, and are confined in a prison of carnal and earthly knowledge alone.
Once upon a time there were four little rabbits, and their names were Flopsy, Mopsy, Cotton-tail, and Peter. They lived with their mother in a sand-bank, underneath the root of a very big fir tree. "Now, my dears," said old Mrs. Rabbit one morning, "You may go into the fields or down the lane, but don't go into Mr. McGregor's garden. Your father had an accident there; he was put in a pie by Mrs. McGregor."
"Now run along and don't get into mischief. I am going out." Then old Mrs. Rabbit took a basket and her umbrella and went through the wood to the baker's.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a6a41bba60/inri-movie/Apart from the movie, you can also enjoy its IMDb User Reviews (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371573/reviews).
Alright! Since man-made movies can apparently hold divine truths, this will be my honest recommendation for anyone (believers or not) to watch:
It is a politically incorrect, 4:35' long movie by Emerson Bixby (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0084646/), called INRI (2009) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371573/) and it can be watched here:Quote from: INRI (2009)http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a6a41bba60/inri-movie/Apart from the movie, you can also enjoy its IMDb User Reviews (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371573/reviews).
-George
QuoteThe field of evolution has advanced so much, that practically no one here, particularly religious people, is in the position to dismiss any part of itif it cant be flawed then why hide? if its so established, why hide? where? please expose the "truth" not hide it.
God has no "agenda" - either he is who he says he is, or he is a liar, and why would he lie?
To give you eternal life in unimaginable love and beauty, free of pain, suffering and evil? So earthly and depressing a way of thinking. God CANNOT LIE, you're offered the best offer you will EVER have, on a plate, and yet we reject it through our deceived minds!
God is not about intellectual debate
Nice science! It all made itself, and the particles too? They came out of nowhere? okay then ;)
God is not about intellectual debate, he is God, and he is life and truth and love. You cannot deny life, truth or love, and so you cannot deny God, as he is all of these. Our earthly wisdom is all but foolish debate and self-satisfying distraction:
1 Corinthians 3:19QuoteFor the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness.
We only know what is of this world, and that alone. God reveals himself beyond that, if you humble yourself and listen... keep listening, and want to know him. He knows our hearts, and he has no obligation to his creation to "prove" his existence, although he can and he does ALL the time. It's called "faith" for a very, VERY simple reason, and whether you think it foolish or not is utterly irrelevant to those with faith, as what matters to us is our identity in God, not in man and his ever changing worldly opinion. Many things are hidden to us, we can never know every single thing in all universal creation, physical AND spiritual. Ergo, to deny God is to deny yourself of truth.
Think earthly, and you will forever find your identity in the things of the world; what may be physically experienced. Man knows not another man's heart TRULY, but God knows as, as he is in us, and defines us. I find peace in God, you cannot shake that, because I am eternally more than the sum of my parts. You are limited in your understanding, as I am, but more so, as many reject God, and are confined in a prison of carnal and earthly knowledge alone.
Why do you keep quoting the Bible? Don't you see the problem with that approach?
Allow me to demonstrate.
The Tale of Peter RabbitQuoteOnce upon a time there were four little rabbits, and their names were Flopsy, Mopsy, Cotton-tail, and Peter. They lived with their mother in a sand-bank, underneath the root of a very big fir tree. "Now, my dears," said old Mrs. Rabbit one morning, "You may go into the fields or down the lane, but don't go into Mr. McGregor's garden. Your father had an accident there; he was put in a pie by Mrs. McGregor."
"Now run along and don't get into mischief. I am going out." Then old Mrs. Rabbit took a basket and her umbrella and went through the wood to the baker's.
You should now all believe that rabbits talk to each other in human language, carry baskets and use umbrellas, for it is written. It is true and factual because it is in a book. This is the word of the author. Amen.
I see the problem quoting Peter rabbit! ^_^
Here's a question for those who believe - do you believe in things like psychic readings? If not, what would you think of someone that does?
Of course, but they are using counterfeit powers. Jesus said "No man comes to the father, except through me" - I don't consider psychic readings to be of God, or of light - they are a deception, as is all witchcraft and magic, palmistry etc. You see, the devil LEECHES - he uses everything created by God, and twists it with deceptions and trickery - he is SO SO unimaginative, he cannot create ANYTHING, as satan is of death... destruction... evil. Be under no delusions; the enemy WILL trick you, WILL deceive you, DOES want you dead, and in hell, ultimately.
How can evil *create*, when it is born of death and destruction? It's all LIES and deception, but sneakily and deceptively placed so as to fool you, when you do not have Jesus' protection and light in your life.
I encourage you to watch this video - my dear friend, Dan Mohler, even if you disagree - it's enlightening - DO NOT become deceived!
Dan Mohler - How to Resist the Devil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1SGGTWiIcM#)
For such a kind, intelligent person, you really do demonstrate a lot of ignorance, Dave. It's not about "proof" - you keep missing the point, almost intentionally. I am wasting my time and yours, here. You adamantly FORCE us believers to take your view, or be thought of as naive idiots, adding thinly veiled insults as weight to your argument? That's okay with me, no problem whatsoever. I feel great unrest and hurt in your heart, behind all the rage and obvious anger with God.
You won't win someone over with rages and insults, whether your forum or not. You're a good guy, I love and care for you, so I wish to leave it here; you don't want to listen, and I don't recall forcing you to think my way, even as the reverse appears to be the case. It's okay mate, I don't condemn you for your thoughts or views, just have peace in your heart man - keep going with the amazing stuff you do for us all; I strongly believe you are a great person, I am in no way judging you I hope you can feel this?
You don't know God, as you reject him. When you need him, he'll be there, regardless of anything said or thought. All I say is why not TRY and hear him? That would be a good starting point, right? You give your fellow man a second chance - forgiveness is SO powerful, so why not trash what you've heard, believed or been tricked into thinking by circumstance, and ask him to guide you, to show you if you are wrong? Can it really hurt? :-)
I am not asking what you would rather do, being wet has nothing really to do with your choice in the end. It is more about what you think of people who believe in psychic abilities. Let me ask you a direct question, and maybe, just maybe, you can give me a direct answer:Here's a question for those who believe - do you believe in things like psychic readings? If not, what would you think of someone that does?
Of course, but they are using counterfeit powers. Jesus said "No man comes to the father, except through me" - I don't consider psychic readings to be of God, or of light - they are a deception, as is all witchcraft and magic, palmistry etc. You see, the devil LEECHES - he uses everything created by God, and twists it with deceptions and trickery - he is SO SO unimaginative, he cannot create ANYTHING, as satan is of death... destruction... evil. Be under no delusions; the enemy WILL trick you, WILL deceive you, DOES want you dead, and in hell, ultimately.
How can evil *create*, when it is born of death and destruction? It's all LIES and deception, but sneakily and deceptively placed so as to fool you, when you do not have Jesus' protection and light in your life.
I encourage you to watch this video - my dear friend, Dan Mohler, even if you disagree - it's enlightening - DO NOT become deceived!
Dan Mohler - How to Resist the Devil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1SGGTWiIcM#)
They are a belief, just like belief in God. They're not inherently evil, just like belief in God.
So you are saying you believe the people that hold these beliefs to be deluded; that is at least better than being too wet to have an opinion at all - as is the case with many religious people - they think it is better to just shrug and say "live and let live" than stress themselves and risk their belief by using rational thought.
So if you don't believe that psychic readings are real, when a great many people have seen "evidence" that they are, or at least believe that they have seen it, why are you happy to assert that the "evidence" (which you have still not been able to describe in even the most vague detail) you have for God is legitimate, and the "evidence" for psychic abilities is not?
Sorry, maybe you should read my last comment, as I didn't say they were not real. The exact opposite. I'd rather be considered "wet", and live in light and peace, than walk the road with a deceiver, thank you. I'm happy living without worry, fear, panic, paranoia and lies... Satan IS a liar, he WILL deceive you - he already HAS, judging by the questions you are asking, but of course I will answer them, as it is my duty as a brother to help you out and show you, as you don't seem to realise the danger of these things (not that God cannot crush them in a fraction of a second! :D - I am not fearful of the enemy, but CERTAINLY I shall warn you of him, and try to guide you away, into the light of God's love).
Experience the peace of God, and you'll NEVER doubt him again, I promise this. Do you feel I have answered this okay? Sorry, quite tired now :-)
Regarding the repeated claims of evolution *not* being established, proven theory, all I can say is:
[citation needed]
This does not matter. It does not disprove God. It may repudiate Genesis chapter one (the Creation story); but that just one chapter in a book of many books and chapters.
lolI cannot prove the non-existence of god. It's not possible. I've never claimed otherwise, and I have no interest in trying. From my *personal* perspective, the total *lack* of positive evidence is enough for me *personally* to reject the supernatural. But that's just me.
Do tell then, what kind of *reasonable positive evidence* are you looking for? A burning bush? Mana from heaven? Pigs flying? Hell freezing over? LA Clippers winning the championship?
That is what is going to happen! Woo hoo! :D
I pretend nothing, but I respect that's your view. It's all cool my good friend, you're a great guy! :-)
Light exposes ALL darkness... that's a comforting thought, isn't it? :-)
Forgiveness, healing, love, creation, life, relief from suffering, they ALL manifest in God's presence! :-D
Experience the peace of God, and you'll NEVER doubt him again, I promise this.
Strange how non-believing evolutionists ALWAYS ALWAYS say "It's a FACT!", and then rely on the abstraction that all this amazingly coincidental explosion of nothing into VAST amounts of something, followed by convenient collisions and coming together of said matter, into carefully, intricately arranged, amazingly (read: intelligently) designed plants, beings etc, happened "Billions and billions of years agoooo"... or was it "hundreds of millions of years agoooo"? Oh, or was it "10 million years agoooo" (they change their mind SO often, it's incredulous).
Believers in God are told they are naively believing fantasy, and yet, somehow, the fantasy of evolution of everything from NOTHING, staring from an unknown, unquantifiable point in time and space, if at all, is somehow is less of a fantasy? Who's being fooled, sorry?
The GIGANTIC, unmissable flaw in this crazy land of self-creation, is that you've taken God out of the equation, and so are left with everything that has been created, MINUS the calm, simple sense and rational explanation, and so you're left scrabbling for best-guess explanations, based on HUMAN understanding, but altogether devoid of peaceful sanity, and soundness of mind.
Nice double standards, double-mindedness, but you're chasing make believe.
Nice science! It all made itself, and the particles too? They came out of nowhere? okay then ;)
That is what is going to happen! Woo hoo! :D
He's probably gonna do something similar to last time, flood the world and kill everything in it. Ahh... clean slate.
I can't wait for the rapture... Oh Mannnnn!!
http://www.end-times-prophecy.com/rapture.html (http://www.end-times-prophecy.com/rapture.html)
http://end-times-prophecy.com/blog/?category_name=jonathan-sebastian (http://end-times-prophecy.com/blog/?category_name=jonathan-sebastian)
I'm crying writing this... I want you all to feel God's love, I love you guys, you're all my family in Christ :D
I love you man. Have peace in your heart, love will win!
They bother God too, otherwise would he not have given us the choice - the free will, to have faith in him and abide in his love?
Do you think GOD causes evil? Do you think it is a small price, to have Jesus whipped, torn apart and murdered, to pay IN FULL, for all our transgressions and suffering? There is heaven beyond carnal life... life of the flesh is temporary... salvation is at hand, Dave, you just need to want to live in peace, and God will hear us, and show us how.
I agree - but mutilated kids and murder is because this is a fallen world, and satan is VERY MUCH alive and in our lives, and we have the free will to abide in God's loving arms and seek rest, where satan is CRUSHED, and evil cannot survive. God is not a tyrant, we HAVE free will, but why reject all thought of him, considering all the evil you just mentioned? The choice is ours, if only we trust in him and take him up on the amazing offer, see? It sounds simple because IT IS. He loves you mate, and he lives IN you, even when you reject him :-)
If you really, really, really want to know the answers to questions that drive you crazy over... why not keep asking! Ask again and again, you're agony is heard mate, it's not in vain! Seek truth, you will find truth, I give you my word.
You know better than this.no i dont. I do not know better, and neither do you. Fact is : Nobody 'knows'.. We 'believe' or we 'theorise'... But we don't know. Because knowing implies proof. And there is no absolute proof. ( either way ! Right now the arrow leans towards 'evolution' and 'big bang'. To change that arrow god would have to show up in person )
If there is indeed a pair... Do they have children ?
Anyway, I am theorising. If god created human in his image, and we have a male and a female.. It is logical to conclude that there must be a male and female part to god .
If there is indeed a pair... Do they have children ?
At the risk of getting roped in your attempt at the ridiculous, the answer to your question is in John 3:16. However, don't get to worked up about genders and procreation because said Son is famously not conceived from sexual reproduction.
Oh and yes, the Child was mortal. He indeed died.
I was hoping you could answer my question, PeteInTexas, in post https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg116901/#msg116901 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg116901/#msg116901)
Maybe I am on some people's ignore list or my question was too hard.
Simple. Thats evolution at work ! When a white man walk long in the sun he turns black. Move black man to scandinavia and after x generations he will become whiter. And those are not theries. They are fact. You can do the experiment for yourself.Anyway, I am theorising. If god created human in his image, and we have a male and a female.. It is logical to conclude that there must be a male and female part to god .
Your understanding of "in his image" is flawed. How can God be simultaneously be white and black. Brown and red. Having nordic and african features all at ones.
Simple. Thats evolution at work ! When a white man walk long in the sun he turns black. Move black man to scandinavia and after x generations he will become whiter. And those are not theries. They are fact. You can do the experiment for yourself.Anyway, I am theorising. If god created human in his image, and we have a male and a female.. It is logical to conclude that there must be a male and female part to god .
Your understanding of "in his image" is flawed. How can God be simultaneously be white and black. Brown and red. Having nordic and african features all at ones.
So back to my theory on the sex of gods...
Your understanding of "in his image" is flawed. How can God be simultaneously be white and black. Brown and red. Having nordic and african features all at ones.
Ahh, so God's image must have been that singled celled organism in the primordial soup that got hit by a volt of lightning. Damn it, I'm roped in. >:(
Who's trying to hide what? Evolution by natural selection is a complex field when you get down to it. But it such a fundamental theory in science, and as well proven as anything can be, any (non-scientist) who disputes it is a total fool, or at best, an ignorant fool. If you haven't already been convinced of it through your basic education, then I'd have to say you had a very poor education indeed.talking about biology? yes i'm a bit behind on it. all it taught me (mostly i can remember) is reproductive system. so... where's the link? i dont mind learning from elementary up to the highest rank. give me some textbooks to read and some formulas to crunch.
I am against believing in fairy talesand equating god with fairy tales is an insult and disrespect. its like, say a person he has a "pen" (or anything) that he believe that will heal him. and you say, that "healing" is fairy tale and you should not believe fairy tale. since the person believe that, he translate it as... "what you/i believe is a fairy tale".
What about those poor unfortunately kids that are born "in gods image", but are horribly disfigured and mutilated?why say "gods image"? why dont say "evolution image"? why poor? because human inability and unjust. what do you expect? (from god or evolution?) if you say god has no influence on all this, evolution has. so evolution is so "evil", who created it? it is always be? the "always be" is an evil. the natural selection of an evil, who do you got to blame? there is no god?! blaming something will not get us anywhere.
Hold that thought for a second.
Ahh, so God's image must have been that singled celled organism in the primordial soup that got hit by a volt of lightning. Damn it, I'm roped in. >:(
And why does your god let all that pain, suffering, and evil happen on earth? Why does he create us and put us here to torture us?
Why does he let those children be born into societies that guarantee they will be born into family that worship the wrong god, and will therefore live an eternity in hell?
Personally, I'm doing ok, as I'm sure you are, but what about those countless innocent babies born into poverty, famine, violence, torture, abuse etc? Over 20,000 children die every day through poverty alone.
Dave.
What do you care about these things? You said you believe in evolution and natural selection, right? Well, there it is in all its glory. You have nothing to complain about as you said, you and your family are doing ok and not being "selected" out.
Where is this sense of compassion coming from? It is certainly not compatible with the ideas of evolution as this means "propping up" organisms that should just die off.
Quote from: LightagesI am against believing in fairy talesand equating god with fairy tales is an insult and disrespect. its like, say a person he has a "pen" (or anything) that he believe that will heal him. and you say, that "healing" is fairy tale and you should not believe fairy tale. since the person believe that, he translate it as... "what you/i believe is a fairy tale".
similar to muslim, according to the rule, there's some bodypart for women that cannot be revealed to strangers, and you impose a law say all of you must reveal that "part". that is a serious insult, disrespect and violation of human (women) right. doesnt matter what you believe, what matter most is what their believe, esp to their own body (not imposing to others). most "modern" people cant see that, they've redefined the limit. instead of visual limitation, they've define the human right to only "not touching" that part. only "seeing" it is not a problem, thats what they understand and taught from kid, and thats what they try to impose on others... disrespect is the simplest term if you think about it.
you say its baseless? faith (no faith)? fairy tales? thats what you believe, not them, and vice versa.
Quote from: LightagesI am against believing in fairy talesand equating god with fairy tales is an insult and disrespect. its like, say a person he has a "pen" (or anything) that he believe that will heal him. and you say, that "healing" is fairy tale and you should not believe fairy tale. since the person believe that, he translate it as... "what you/i believe is a fairy tale".
similar to muslim, according to the rule, there's some bodypart for women that cannot be revealed to strangers, and you impose a law say all of you must reveal that "part". that is a serious insult, disrespect and violation of human (women) right. doesnt matter what you believe, what matter most is what their believe, esp to their own body (not imposing to others). most "modern" people cant see that, they've redefined the limit. instead of visual limitation, they've define the human right to only "not touching" that part. only "seeing" it is not a problem, thats what they understand and taught from kid, and thats what they try to impose on others... disrespect is the simplest term if you think about it.
This idea fits on so many levels. It matches the 'religious description' and what we can observe through science..
Ahh, so God's image must have been that singled celled organism in the primordial soup that got hit by a volt of lightning. Damn it, I'm roped in. >:(
similar to muslim, according to the rule, there's some bodypart for women that cannot be revealed to strangers, and you impose a law say all of you must reveal that "part". that is a serious insult, disrespect and violation of human (women) right. doesnt matter what you believe, what matter most is what their believe, esp to their own body (not imposing to others). most "modern" people cant see that, they've redefined the limit. instead of visual limitation, they've define the human right to only "not touching" that part. only "seeing" it is not a problem, thats what they understand and taught from kid, and thats what they try to impose on others... disrespect is the simplest term if you think about it.You talked a lot about "human" right there, is that a typo ? I thought you meant "male" only, not for "female" right ?
Are you now claiming a monopoly on compassion? Or just emotion in general?
So is that a 'no' then?
Mechatrommer and gregariz,
I must point out that when in Rome do as the romans do. Don't go to Rome and complain about something is covering or not covering a body part is unfair. Do that when you are back home. Peace out!
I still don't see how that's relevant to anything...
What do you care about these things? You said you believe in evolution and natural selection, right? Well, there it is in all its glory. You have nothing to complain about as you said, you and your family are doing ok and not being "selected" out.
Where is this sense of compassion coming from? It is certainly not compatible with the ideas of evolution as this means "propping up" organisms that should just die off.
That's the wrong assumption that nonbelievers are cold hearted. Have it ever occur to you that evolution and natural selection actually created caring individuals? Human can not live on this cold rock alone. Those groups that exhibit compassion and learn to take care of each other thrive.
I still don't see how that's relevant to anything...
You brought it (feeling compassion) up. I'm interested to know why. It's a simple question.
*** image removed ***
*** image removed ***
That is a question for Dave. He is the one feeling it. I simply see no evolutionary justification for it.
Where did me wanting see Muslim women's body parts come into this?i'm talking about some "government". they thought they did nothing but infact something (serious) to others... just as you assumed by stating "i'm not against God, but fairy tales" and what type of fairy tale are we talking about? i'm sure its not about santa or unicorn right? i assumed its "the fairy tale of a god" isnt it? or i maybe wrong. anyway i'm not offended by any mean, just clarifying thing that people may missed.
If I'm a muslim, I'll be given a bunch of virgins to entertain myself withand whats with this all "virgins" keep coming out as an argument? let me clarify and assure you. a person with only "sex" in his mind will not go to heaven just to get the virgins, even muslim! he will not get eternal erection. somebody who doesnt have "sex" as his "priori mordial" will (go to heaven and get the virgins), so he will not doomed to eternal erection since he can control the erection nicely ;)
You talked a lot about "human" right there, is that a typo ? I thought you meant "male" only, not for "female" right ?i can see you've been bluntly mislead by the world where you living in ;)
Let alone about dressing, what if a well educated woman decided to practice her own human right by showing just her "hair", is that considered a great insult to Islam ?its not an insult. she decided it and she will pay (in heaven, not by man)
For sure I know what you're talking about, even showing a small part of body at certain Islam strong holds will ended up .. hmm.. again, a decap.thats why i'm absolute you've been seriously mislead. decapitation is only for theft... wait! i'm not finished yet! he steal not because poverty but because some other ill intention, if "absolutely" comfirmed, then decap! yes we have "court" just as you do. and you know how? (if you want to argue some more) the punishment will be in public! why? lesson to others! you may pick what you like or dislike!
Geez Mech, personally I really wish that you're not suggesting by Islam law all woman "MUST" dress like these ?3rd reason why i'm really absolute! my belief got stronger! :P
I'm not so sure. I can see it for one's family or even tribe. But outside those, they're competition for scarce resources essential for thriving. So caring about 20,000 babies dying on the other side of the planet has no evolutionary justification.
Where is this sense of compassion coming from? It is certainly not compatible with the ideas of evolution as this means "propping up" organisms that should just die off.
its been proven by physological department. women less attracted to sex by visual alone, for men they see a boob, their little brother down there wake up, thats by design, proven by science! thats why forbidden area for women are more than men's ;) talking about prejudice? or science?
edit:... women... they see a dick? they get disgusted, really really disgusted. trust me i know! i'm the "expert" in that area :P :D
Where is this sense of compassion coming from? It is certainly not compatible with the ideas of evolution as this means "propping up" organisms that should just die off.
Social species evolved on the basis that the most effective care for the genes of an individual is provided by collective care of all genes in the society by all members of the society. Compassion is entirely compatible with the ideas of evolution.
See for your self, you just can't provide straight answer for such simple question, but don't blame yourself too much, this kiddy type of question is even way too much for highly respected "ulama" to answer. ("ulama" = a religious expert who spent their live with the Holy book). :PQuoteYou talked a lot about "human" right there, is that a typo ? I thought you meant "male" only, not for "female" right ?i can see you've been bluntly mislead by the world where you living in ;)
If she will face Allah and will be thrown to hell, its solely her own business with Allah alone, none of your own business, and why you or the society should care or worst must punish her ?QuoteLet alone about dressing, what if a well educated woman decided to practice her own human right by showing just her "hair", is that considered a great insult to Islam ?its not an insult. she decided it and she will pay (in heaven, not by man)
For sure I know what you're talking about, even showing a small part of body at certain Islam strong holds will ended up .. hmm.. again, a decap. thats why i'm absolute you've been seriously mislead. decapitation is only for theft... wait! i'm not finished yet! he steal not because poverty but because some other ill intention, if "absolutely" comfirmed, then decap! yes we have "court" just as you do. and you know how? (if you want to argue some more) the punishment will be in public! why? lesson to others! you may pick what you like or dislike!
QuoteGeez Mech, personally I really wish that you're not suggesting by Islam law all woman "MUST" dress like these ?3rd reason why i'm really absolute! my belief got stronger! :P
the limit to men... from navel to knee cannot be seen by strangers (family can). for women, only face and palm/hand can be shown (not like the exageratted picture you showed). we cannot dress "tight" that reveal that body shape/area, its considered as not wearing anything at all. now dont take that simple interpretation. think really really carefully what it means "physically", "psychologically", "mentally", "spiritually" and then come back and argue. (ps: if you dont get what i mean. you see, beside pussies, i also loved to watch "cameltoe" ;))
its been proven by physological department. women less attracted to sex by visual alone, for men they see a boob, their little brother down there wake up, thats by design, proven by science! thats why forbidden area for women are more than men's ;) talking about prejudice? or science?
edit:... women... they see a dick? they get disgusted, really really disgusted. trust me i know! i'm the "expert" in that area :P :D
what is your question? my typo? the answer is NO, thats not a typo. need i retype? human (FEMALE) right. next question?!See for your self, you just can't provide straight answer for such simple question, but don't blame yourself too much, this kiddy type of question is even way too much for highly respected "ulama" to answer. ("ulama" = a religious expert who spent their live with the Holy book). :PQuoteYou talked a lot about "human" right there, is that a typo ? I thought you meant "male" only, not for "female" right ?i can see you've been bluntly mislead by the world where you living in ;)
first, correct your typo. dont put your word in my word. my net is slow, cant expect me to correct quickly, but i'll do my best to correct typo. i double read my post. are your net slow too? mine is 2KBps, whats your mark?QuoteLet alone about dressing, what if a well educated woman decided to practice her own human right by showing just her "hair", is that considered a great insult to Islam ?its not an insult. she decided it and she will pay (in heaven, not by man)
For sure I know what you're talking about, even showing a small part of body at certain Islam strong holds will ended up .. hmm.. again, a decap. thats why i'm absolute you've been seriously mislead. decapitation is only for theft...
Also are you "100%" (not even 99.999....%) sure that she will go to hell if she keeps doing that ?are you talking about women exposing the hair? if yes then. exposing the hair for "muslim" women is a sin in islam (fyi islamic law will not apply to non-muslim women). i'm 100% sure of that because thats what written in the book. when did i insult Allah? i didnt say/judge she will go to hell. i said she will pay, how much pay i dont know. read back my post. i guess by you saying "educated women" it means "educated muslim women" isnt it? sorry if its wrong. you didnt complete your word if my interpretation is wrong.
How dare you, it is your Holly Allah's decision, not yours nor the society where she lives at, and nobody in this world should insult Allah's by "guessing" His decision for that
woman before He even made it.
Another simplified example just in case you still don't get it, you should NOT judge a person that in the court either guilty or not "BEFORE" the judge him/her-self made the final judgement/decision, dunno what to say anymore if this simple argument still doesn't make any sense to you.
Bad... really bad, you might not get those 74 virgins if you keep doing that. ;Dwho cares? i already got a very good one here. its the outsiders who have much more eager! :P
See the unfairness on male vs female ? Your definition and understanding of the words "human right" in Islam is so distorted beyond words, again, its expected, Muslims are and will never get this.it seemingly "unfair",but from another standpoint, its not (because the psychological differences between male and female, see above).... ok now i get it by your definition of "human right". is it means.... "what human like?"
Yeah, right, another "interesting" point of view regarding "human right", if you're sexually aroused because of seeing other people's limb, that it is their fault, not yours. Nice !if you have a million dollar, and you walking about in town putting the money in transparent bag everybody can see. then some crook steal it? whose fault? modern people talk about causality and effect. do people blame effect? or the cause? simple example, people got disease because of a virus (virus=cause, people with disease=effect) who doctor will fight and kill, the people or the virus? you get aroused=effect, what causing it? (you should know what) again you may twist/redefine to your liking ("your/western/non-muslim human right")
So if a woman dressed beyond the code and made a male aroused, it is the male's "right" to rape her and then punish her after he is done with her , nice eh ?this is what happen when you take matter simply and lightly. in another word "immature talk" and "ignorance" or taking one "localized event" and blaming the whole world case. and again misled. raping is a sin. if you got it too far by touching or raping her, you will get punished. do you know there is law for that in islam? or dont know?
Truly, deep inside my heart, I feel sorry for you and your couple in this subject, must feels like hell to her.you want to put me down? by saying sad and hypnotis me and other readers? by saying sad? sorry pal, hypnotism doesnt work with me. you accused me judging before god made the decision, and you judged me and my couple by me only saying the "expert" (which was meant as a joke). what if i say i have many "female nurses" friends and interviewed many of them? is that what you means? by saying "must feel like hell to her?"
"Self Restraint"please define. as from the word alone it means.. contradiction to "self/human right".
so its not a surprise those poor womens scare like hell when they see them everytimeagain you made the judgement about people that is well far beyond your reach/sight. they are not poor they are not afraid, just disgusted (you are american/english native right?). and yes, because its seldom to see such thing and its known to be painful the first time its penetrates (rumour among them, yes married women told our virgin women. cant hold that up)... i heard different things about women in your (i guess you are from western) country. if what i heard is true, if infront of me there's western women and muslim women, i pick muslim women. (sound insulting? sorry) if you have fresh mango and rotten mango, which one do you choose? we keep our women "golden!" and "fresh" before she met "her" legitimate "protector" /husband and we taught them that, about values. and of course semantics... "our definition of "golden" is not the same as you definition of "golden".. and lastly ps:.... i know among others, there are two type of female, one is called women, one is called whores. we tried so hard so our women will not fall into "whores".
Too much debate.
and whats with this all "virgins" keep coming out as an argument?
especially lack of education on human reproduction and sex education, cause you said it your self that male should restrict the exposure of their body parti missed this. bodypart exposure for no good reason is forbidden. but there's exception, such as in educational where its a necessity. and again i believe you dont know the detail implementation of the law. we have both certified male and female doctors here alot! infact we encourage female to take medic because we are lacking of it. our male doctor treating male patient. our female doctor treating female patient. male looking at cunt is "allowed" if its for medication/emergency reason (no other female doctor around), i guess you didnt know that as well. the are more forbidden in islam that will become allowable in case or emergency. one eg is we can eat pig if we are starving and no other food around other than pig. we can drink alcohol for medication purpose, etc many more.
I guess they think its sort of growing cancer/tumor that pop out from male's tighti used to think yeah! its just another bodypart so similar to our hand, arm, tits (not even powerful as bicep) etc. 2 arguments:
It because its absurd, its actually laughablewe have an old saying meaning like "word hard today, become wealthy/properous tommorow", that means... if you take it easy today, you'll get hard tommorow. in another meaning. you cry today you laugh tomorow, or "you laugh today you cry tomorrow" our life is like roller coaster sometime at the top, the next will be at the bottom, thats life... that just another poetry :P
I think the atheists have been pretty patient on here trying to have a logical argument, but all we ever get in reply is rhetoric, circular arguments and ambiguous scriptureI think the "theists" have been pretty patient on here trying to have a logical argument, but all we ever get in reply is rhetoric, circular arguments and ambiguous scripture.
Quote
link!? if evolution is so established as dave said (taught in school) then it must have a textbook! any recommendation for the "best" textbook? because all i get so far is "rhetoric" like "it is well 100% agreed among scientific community, thy thee foolish if say otherwise" and "the odd prefer god doesnt exist". thats not how we write thesis paper. thats how we make "poetry"
You could try The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin it is certainly a good place to start.
QuoteI think the atheists have been pretty patient on here trying to have a logical argument, but all we ever get in reply is rhetoric, circular arguments and ambiguous scriptureI think the "theists" have been pretty patient on here trying to have a logical argument, but all we ever get in reply is rhetoric, circular arguments and ambiguous scripture.
I think the "theists" have been pretty patient on here trying to have a logical argument, but all we ever get in reply is rhetoric, circular arguments and ambiguous scripture.
Now you are just doing what I predicted you would, pontificating from your computer. Like I said your intent here is to not discuss but to try and force your woowoo crap at anyone with eyes, trolling for God. Try and come up with something original or thought provoking instead of being an evangelist for your beliefs. Troll......
Father's Love Letter Extended Narration (YouTube)
link!? if evolution is so established as dave said (taught in school) then it must have a textbook! any recommendation for the "best" textbook? because all i get so far is "rhetoric" like "it is well 100% agreed among scientific community, thy thee foolish if say otherwise" and "the odd prefer god doesnt exist". thats not how we write thesis paper. thats how we make "poetry"
And to prove my point, here is my original statement about iamwhoaim's intentions:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg112172/#msg112172 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg112172/#msg112172)
So much resentment and bitterness. Why not just be happy?
So much resentment and bitterness. Why not just be happy?
Dave, if you think I am trolling, you've had 53 pages and 11,000+ views in which to close the thread. I'm obviously not trolling, or you'd have closed it by now. You can say whatever you wish to, but you're in charge here, and God is real, else, if you TRULY didn't believe, you'd have closed this.
You can say whatever you wish to, but you're in charge here, and God is real, else, if you TRULY didn't believe, you'd have closed this.
So much resentment and bitterness. Why not just be happy?
Resentment and bitterness? You are projecting, as indeed you must to validate your own beliefs. If Dave and others were not resentful and bitter it would undermine what you believe.
But just for the record, we are happy. For myself, I have never been happier since I broke free of religious thinking. Trying to accept the teachings of the religious people in church was making me very unhappy indeed.
You continually re-iterate how happy you are to be "free" from freedom; I don't think you are, sorry, as sad as it makes me. Your tone contradicts your intended sentiment, and I feel sad for you my dear friend. God loves you, one day you'll find him again, hopefully.
Cotfsm. Now there's an engeneers religion ?
I have seen threads at least this long, if not longer, about the flying spaghetti monster - the amount of debate doesn't add any credit to your assertions whatsoever, as you well know.
Dave, if you think I am trolling, you've had 53 pages and 11,000+ views in which to close the thread. I'm obviously not trolling, or you'd have closed it by now. You can say whatever you wish to, but you're in charge here, and God is real, else, if you TRULY didn't believe, you'd have closed this.
Just so you know, I forgive your perceptions of me as a troll, I cannot change what you think, but I can only forgive you my dear friend.
Sorry, but would you like to trawl this thread and find where I ONCE said that Dave was an a****le? That's quite a sad thing to imply, I have nothing but love and respect for ALL you guys, you just *think* I don't. I may not be amazing at getting my views across, but please, do not say things that HAVE never and WILL never be spoken by me
Dave, if you think I am trolling, you've had 53 pages and 11,000+ views in which to close the thread. I'm obviously not trolling, or you'd have closed it by now.
You can say whatever you wish to, but you're in charge here, and God is real, else, if you TRULY didn't believe, you'd have closed this.
Wow, you must be a politician or something, the amount of beating around the bush without addressing anything frankly amazing.
That is a question for Dave. He is the one feeling it. I simply see no evolutionary justification for it.
Natural selection favours mutations that offer an advantage, but that advantage can be subtle, and long term, because evolution operates over a massive time-scale. So if 'compassion' works for us, evolution will eventually converge on it.
I think compassion is probably a win, which is why we have it. I mean, our species has been to the *moon* - I think we're doing ok!
If evolution is a science, I want proof. The standard of proof that will satisfy me is "preponderance of evidence" from the fossil record that compassion is win for humans. I look forward to your discussion on the feelings of trilobites, mollusk and extremophiles from rock impressions.
If evolution is a science, I want proof. The standard of proof that will satisfy me is "preponderance of evidence" from the fossil record that compassion is win for humans. I look forward to your discussion on the feelings of trilobites, mollusk and extremophiles from rock impressions.It is like asking a person to prove what colour a car was by looking at the tire tracks in the dirt. Unless they can do that then they can't prove that the car had a colour? They have no other options to prove the colour? ::)
I'm not so sure. I can see it for one's family or even tribe. But outside those, they're competition for scarce resources essential for thriving. So caring about 20,000 babies dying on the other side of the planet has no evolutionary justification.
...but I care for the countless animals we slaughter for food everyday. If I can care for animals, you betcha I care for 20K dying babies...
So now we have another person giving up trying to present anything rational in this discussion. Guess what side that person is on in this discussion?
If evolution is a science, I want proof.
The standard of proof that will satisfy me is "preponderance of evidence" from the fossil record that compassion is win for humans. I look forward to your discussion on the feelings of trilobites, mollusk and extremophiles from rock impressions.
Are you suggesting humans will eat babies in another few beeelion years? Is that the next step in the evolutionary process?
If evolution is a science, I want proof. The standard of proof that will satisfy me is "preponderance of evidence" from the fossil record that compassion is win for humans. I look forward to your discussion on the feelings of trilobites, mollusk and extremophiles from rock impressions.Don't be daft. You cant reason with dead matter...
Are you suggesting humans will eat babies in another few beeelion years? Is that the next step in the evolutionary process?
"Bless you, you're an amazing person, and a very caring loving guy - it shows :)"
[Dave is] a good guy, I love and care for you,...
You are great people, and I love you all.
Find the AMAZING power of God on your side, and CRUSH SATAN!!!!! I am serious.
Experience the peace of God, and you'll NEVER doubt him again, I promise this.
And it seems we currently still do:interesting! if "vampires" are allowed, i'll teach them how to eat pussies.
http://www.americancannibalsociety.com/ (http://www.americancannibalsociety.com/)
No need to wait, join the society today! ;D
If you are trying to be funny like iamwhoiamno offense to Pete. but what i believe Placid meant is... "Learn Hypnosis". but sadly i believe, hypnosis will mostly work with... pussies! bwahahaha :D
i guess you are not in position to argue with me since you prefer to pick localized event, biased view and lack of knowledge about islamic law, and most importantly i can feel you provoke flamewar/troll/hatred.Regarding our (mine and your) positions in this arguments, lets the audience judge by themself, not by you nor me.
(you are american/english native right?). and yes, because its seldom to see such thing and its known to be painful the first time its penetrates (rumour among them, yes married women told our virgin women. cant hold that up)... i heard different things about women in your (i guess you are from western) country.You don't any slightest idea where I came or originated from, yes, sounds like you thought I was a westerner (maybe caucasian too) that is living comfortably in highly developed country, spending my spare lazy time googling craps about Islam, and brainlessly use them against you right ?
you heard stories about other "stronghold" countries, but you dont know whats really going on inside, how we perceive values, how we tried hard to maintain morality and avoid social corruption. and you prefer to define it in your own term.
are you talking about women exposing the hair? if yes then. exposing the hair for "muslim" women is a sin in islam (fyi islamic law will not apply to non-muslim women). i'm 100% sure of that because thats what written in the book. when did i insult Allah?You're a Malaysian and Malaysia is a country that implemented and complies "fully" with Syariah (Islam rules), am I right ?
You're a Malaysian and Malaysia is a country that implemented and complies "fully" with Syariah (Islam rules), am I right ?only this one.... BONK, EKKK! WRONG! we've been modernized and we like to eat pussies bwahahaha :D (not in the right mind)
only this one.... BONK, EKKK! WRONG! we've been modernized and we like to eat pussies bwahahaha :D (not in the right mind)
Ayo lah Cik Shafri, saya ini suka makan nasi lemak + banyak sambal belacan yang pedas, dan minum teh tarik buat sarapan"no it means... let fuck! (in hypnoctic way) bwahahahha :D
the 72 virgins in heavenlook around! its virgins everywhere! come and get them! hypnosis is proven to be correct! bwahahaha.
look around! its virgins everywhere! come and get them! hypnosis is proven to be correct! bwahahaha.
3) God has nothing to do with it, and it's all evolution. Much of this stuff is quite new research and hasn't been going on that long in the scheme or things. It naturally needs more time to get more evidence for.i watched the video. i will say. wonderful job! to all of them including dalai lama. cannot be faulted! but now...
Practically every evolutionary biologist on the planet think it's 3) BTW.
Perhaps this has something of interest here: video
Now, are the 72 promised virgins the original or a repaired/refurbished product?refurbished or not, what do you care? if you can refurbish something to perfection down to atomic level, can one distinguish? Matrix... our perception is just electrical impulses. if someone inject you the feeling of orgasm while you sitting on the chair, do you want to say... its a painful feeling? "feeling" is just a word, our perception is crude.. what matters is what understanding/knowledge/information that is collected/gathered/concluded in our brain/soul.
If evolution is a science, I want proof.3) God has nothing to do with it, and it's all evolution. Much of this stuff is quite new research and hasn't been going on that long in the scheme or things. It naturally needs more time to get more evidence for.
The standard of proof that will satisfy me is "preponderance of evidence" from the fossil record that compassion is win for humans. I look forward to your discussion on the feelings of trilobites, mollusk and extremophiles from rock impressions.
Dave.
Quoteif someone inject you the feeling of orgasm while you sitting on the chair, do you want to say... its a painful feeling?
I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure I know how science works: you show your evidence then I believe. The other way around requires faith (in evolutionary biologist) which, as has been beaten to death in this thread, has no place in science.
Your understanding of "in his image" is flawed. How can God be simultaneously be white and black. Brown and red. Having nordic and african features all at ones.
The other way around requires faith (in evolutionary biologist) which, as has been beaten to death in this thread, has no place in science.Not correct. Forget about evolutionary biologists, the other way around requires faith in your eyes.
[T]hey'd be peaceful in the knowledge that Christians are misguided.When I was 6-7 year old at the age which I realized religion was make-believe, you would think I had some grudge against Christians.
When I was 6-7 year old at the age which I realized religion was make-believe, you would think I had some grudge against Christians.I was by that age too, when I realised that what Christianity called Holy Communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist) was actually a symbolic act of anthropophagy: Eating of human flesh and drinking of human blood; the very definition of cannibalism.
Those with child-like faith, un-scarred by life and our accumulated "wisdom" as we get older, those who accept opinion but are not defined by it... they live the simplest, happiest life in the love of God, as no earthly knowledge has led them away from God, into the destructive maze of distraction and opinion of others.
When I was 6-7 year old at the age which I realized religion was make-believe, you would think I had some grudge against Christians.
We can rule out god from *evolution*, because that's a proven theory.true! see my reply to dave. god has nothing to do with this at all. dave's link about "compassion" is not touching or mentioning anything about god at all. just us. i would loved to see who are those scientists who concluded the "unlikeliness" of the existence of god, based on science, not basing on banana skin.
this is aint from holybook. but from a "surgeon" (we are burgers), a true (great) scientist...
As for compassion (or hate, or the appendix, or ingrown toenails, or *whatever*), evolution is a perfectly good explanation, even if the precise path by which it has come about is not known or proven.
The supernatural hasn't been ruled out, more that it simply isn't being considered in the first place because better explanations are available, and it's not something that can be tested anyway. You can make up an infinite amount of untestable supernatural explanations, and they're all as useless (and unlikely) as each other.
It's just 'god of the gaps' again, and if that's your bag, knock yourself out - that 'god' is getting smaller and less relevant every day.
I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure I know how science works: you show your evidence then I believe. The other way around requires faith (in evolutionary biologist) which, as has been beaten to death in this thread, has no place in science.
You don't know how science work. Look at your previous post.Your understanding of "in his image" is flawed. How can God be simultaneously be white and black. Brown and red. Having nordic and african features all at ones.
The other way around requires faith (in evolutionary biologist) which, as has been beaten to death in this thread, has no place in science.Not correct. Forget about evolutionary biologists, the other way around requires faith in your eyes.
LOL! You can accept this for a hard science like biology but you can't accept that faith in God is reasonably placed. Methinks you are going weebly-woobly on your arguments.
It is very doubtful that the [various?] theories of evolution has significantly advanced knowledge to the point God can be outright ruled out. For one, it will be at least another beeeelion years before any experimental result by evolutionary biologist would bear definitive data. Then its got to be peer reviewed...
Like I said the more humans get to know about their natural world the less they will need faith in God (but only asymptotically). It is very doubtful that the [various?] theories of evolution has significantly advanced knowledge to the point God can be outright ruled out. For one, it will be at least another beeeelion years before any experimental result by evolutionary biologist would bear definitive data. Then its got to be peer reviewed...
God is getting A GIGANTIC amount of press from this marvellous discussion. If you genuinely do not believe in him, then I have to tell you that your fight has back-fired - you're provoking people to consider God MORE!
I am quite happy for people to consider god and if they have more than a couple of brain cells in the light of the evidence they will conclude the existence god is extremely unlikely.
Each time the image of a drowning man grasping at a floating straw comes to mind.
If you are right and every believer is wrong, then you'd just leave it at "I don't believe in God", instead of attempting to justify your view by adding "weight" with attempting, not very well at all, to insult us? This is something I observe in almost EVERY SINGLE "Atheist vs Christian" debate on YouTube - the Atheist can't help themselves but hurl abuse
To say someone is stupid, a few cells short or diluded, on the other hand, is plain ignorance...
This is something I observe in almost EVERY SINGLE "Atheist vs Christian" debate on YouTube - the Atheist can't help themselves but hurl abuse - it's as if they almost are compelled to insult God
.... is the fight against the 95% of the world who blindly believe something like a sheeple...Couldn't have said it any better.
us Christians don't evangelise over nothing! If he wasn't real, how empty, meaningless and boring would it be
It's not about me - you may insult me all you wish. Deny God if you desire to, but aiming the insults at me is silly, because I care for you, and words can never hurt me or change me, as I have said many times over, and doubtless will again, LOL!
Sorry if I am putting intentions or words in your mouth Dave, but I think we are on the same page.
[...]Please, my dear EEVBlog fellow, stop quoting what others have said or written.
2 Thessalonians 2:
[...]
We'll just have to agree that you think I am closed minded, whilst you're obviously closed minded yourself, to the existence of God
In the second decade of the 21st century, with unparalleled access to information and technology, issues such as evolution, power of prayer and miracles should have been settled by now just as facts about gravity, the solar system and a "round earth" are pretty much accepted.
If there was any chance that God didn't exist, that would cause God to be a liar, and since he cannot lie, being the author of truth, NO.
Dave, when we meet in heaven, with all hope, I'll hug ya and say "SEE! told you so!" :-)
If there was any chance that God didn't exist, that would cause God to be a liar, and since he cannot lie, being the author of truth, NO.
Well, looky here at this logic. :o
If there was any chance that God didn't exist, that would cause God to be a liar, and since he cannot lie, being the author of truth, NO.
If there was any chance that God didn't exist, that would cause God to be a liar, and since he cannot lie, being the author of truth, NO. I take this on faith, as blind as you may think it, but that faith has substantial evidence - the evidence is our existence, and if I even needed more, there is PLENTY all around you - you're just robbed off it, as your earthly wisdom would have you blinded to everything around you which shouts "I AM HERE". You cannot know ultimate truth, as you have no yardstick against which to make such assumptions. Note: I am not saying you are a bad person, I am saying without God, you cannot comprehend what truth really means - it just is not possible, as you have no absolutes by which to measure anything.
Your volt meter says 1v for 1v today, but you only know this BECAUSE of past experience - because today is the same as yesterday, BUT you can have no guarantees that it will remain so and why our world is constant and predictable, because you reject God, and so your belief system is wholly based upon past experience and that of others, but that is as foolish a notion so as to say that, because it rained today, it will rain tomorrow - you have no guarantee of it, but because it may have rained for three years, you don't question it (man, that would be a bummer - three years of rain!).
God is constant, never changing, and he never goes back upon his word. So, we know God made us promises, and because he cannot lie, we KNOW that he will never leave us, and we know that we are based on a solid foundation of truth, ergo all worldly things... physics, natural laws, are constants, and we can rely on this, as God is a God of peace, stability, love... not the author of confusion and uncertainty - Satan.
Sorry, you asked me a simple question, but the truth is that truth is something unknowable without God, and so, I am happy I know what I know, and that his statutes remain for all time. He cannot lie, and what would it benefit him to do so? Lies are of man, because of pride, and our unwillingness to appear weak or fallible, and so we lie - the very fault in us that proves WE ARE weak and fallible, ironically, but God is not, which is why I take what he says at face value, and so should we all. I need not argue "evidence", as you already have it all, but are blind to it.
If there was any chance that God didn't exist, that would cause God to be a liar, ...
You really need to take some philosophy classes, because you are totally out of your depth here. I am not a philosopher by any means, but even I can tell your words are random gibberish.
Dave,
I am afraid you are being trolled. In my humble opinion, it is best to let this one go. You cannot defeat irrationality with rationality. The unreasonable are immune to reason.
PeteInTexas, proofs is all around you. Look and link them together.
LOL! You can accept this for a hard science like biology but you can't accept that faith in God is reasonably placed. Methinks you are going weebly-woobly on your arguments.
"Thing we have evidence for" is considerably more reasonable than "some invisible magic dude did it". Especially when all you're talking about is a minor specific case of a already established larger theory.
Like I said the more humans get to know about their natural world the less they will need faith in God (but only asymptotically). It is very doubtful that the [various?] theories of evolution has significantly advanced knowledge to the point God can be outright ruled out. For one, it will be at least another beeeelion years before any experimental result by evolutionary biologist would bear definitive data. Then its got to be peer reviewed...
I'm sorry Pete, but the only thing any god could possibly had a hand in evolution is to start the whole process.
There is no evidence of any hand of god intervening, none.
LOL! You can accept this for a hard science like biology but you can't accept that faith in God is reasonably placed. Methinks you are going weebly-woobly on your arguments.
"Thing we have evidence for" is considerably more reasonable than "some invisible magic dude did it". Especially when all you're talking about is a minor specific case of a already established larger theory.
Reasonable if "air of reality" is good enough for rigorous scientific work.
@ Kremmen
We are not that far apart on many things. Religions are not imune to the effects of human nature and large organization.
The only rules/guidance I need and attempt to follow is in the book.
Regards, robrenz
If there is room for reasonable doubt in the scientific evidence, then there is room for faith in God.
I am afraid you are being trolled.
Reasonable if "air of reality" is good enough for rigorous scientific work.
Dave,you got it backward at your first statement. but the later are true
I am afraid you are being trolled. In my humble opinion, it is best to let this one go. You cannot defeat irrationality with rationality. The unreasonable are immune to reason.
Well I watched the forst part of that video, and it was 40 minutes of nonsense woowoo circular argument. Another waste of timethats why i look at the person who post it. if its worthy, then its worthy my internet bandwidth.
I'm sorry Pete, but the only thing any god could possibly had a hand in evolution is to start the whole process.
Thanks Dave, appreciate your kindness. Love you man :)
Again, your views don't phase me; God has made people think... even you.
I've not ONCE said anything aggressive or vindictive
Do you not see how wonderful we are? If you think you are but a plant - an organism formed from coincidental collision and formation of biological organisms, then why do we consider respect, understanding and love SO important, if we are but a heap of cells? Morality is an illusion to you, if you believe we are without God, as your morality is based on nothing but your relativity to another, who's morality is also relative to another, up and up the family tree... abstracted as far back as to be totally unprovable, due to the "billions of years" theories, convenient eh!
If you consider yourself to be primordial soup, I am entitled to come and strike you down, as a lumberjack fells a tree, and noone has ANY say so in whether what I did was right or wrong, as morality is a concept that we've all learned from one another, but since not one of us is lord over all of us, not one of us may be the source of truth, ergo your morality is different to mine, since we ALL have differing opinions and ideas - not one of us has the right to definitively COMMAND that his interpretation is overall morality, and so I may kill anyone I wish, as they are a disposable heap of vegetation, and not one single person may object - my morality is my own perception, and yours is yours, and I may live according to my understanding of truth, not yours.
Without truth we are nothing- without God, no truth can be.
We are honest. Honestly!
--Religious books authors
What one cannot refute, one will insult. You feel threatened, but why? (rhetorical question).
he isn't "angry" because you don't believe, but loving arms await, the day he finds you, of that I am sure :)
Direct your anger to God - not man. All truth lays in God.
In what world could what I said EVER be seen as "a personal attack"? Sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous!
Direct your anger to God - not man. All truth lays in God.
Here's an idea: I am not the source of your answers, but I can suggest that you join a Christian forum or Google+ hangout, and discuss it with them
Okay, I mis-understood that as anger (I must be forgiven for that - lots of it here, strangely).I am not offended! Actually, I cannot be offended because I have chosen not to, for practical reasons: I cannot afford it!
Here's an idea: I am not the source of your answers, but I can suggest that you join a Christian forum or Google+ hangout, and discuss it with them, as you obviously don't like my answers (sorry mate).Please, do never underestimate yourself. I realise you have been told that you were born sick with an undetectable illness, called The Original Sin, that only they can cure; and that you are unimportant; that you are nothing... Well, is it so difficult for you to deduce that whoever told you such monstrosities does not want you to be thinking nor to be taking actions on your own, in order for them to be in total control of you?
God is truth, and until you see that in your heart, this confusion will see no end. That's the truth, as God cannot lie, and I believe him - you don't. I can't help any further.Actually, truth is anything verifiable, which is something that god is not. Even their own dogma admits that god cannot be seen or verified! Do not confuse feelings with reality; after all, all the deceiving techniques have the common denominator of targeting the sentimental world of the victims and not their reasoning.
ok :)
Why justify yourself to me; a stranger? Such need is not recipcrocated. Your thoughts are of a fool, I can't force you.
Please remember who you are arguing with, a troll. By his own admission he will not be swayed by any evidence, argument or proof. His sole intent here is to spread "the word" and each opportunity you give him the more he gets to repeat his insanity. Arguing with him/her is a futile exercise and just goes against the wishes of Dave that he goes away with his woowoo crap.
Dave, I agree wth Les.
On a second thought, is not, locking/closing/removing/deleting the thread, exactly what has iamwhoiam repeatedly asked for?
Repeatedly, as in: #1 (lock) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg111417/#msg111417), #2 (lock) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg112232/#msg112232), #3 (close) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg112266/#msg112266), #4 (remove/lock) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg112867/#msg112867), #5 (lock) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg116094/#msg116094), #6 (close) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg117178/#msg117178), #7 (lock/delete) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg117914/#msg117914) and #8 (close) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg117944/#msg117944), if I have not missed any other similar request...
Since I can't ban people from threads, and he won't seem to go away, my choices are:3)warn him to stop the troll. if he refuse, then ban (but we'll miss good scientific info from him later on)
1) Close the thread, so no one can discuss any more.
2) Or ban him completely from the forum.
I don't like either option, but feel I must do one...
Dave.
Of course he'd love that, so that he can show it as proof that I supposedly can't handle opposing talk on religion.
Dave.
To all responding to the troll: