Atheistforums.com

Anything that exists needs a cause, the universe needs a cause, the cause is God, "All powerful matter/energy" makes no sense to me since we know that matter, space, and time had a beginning, and that nothing in the order of creation can cause itself.  Hence, the universe must have a cause transcendent of itself: it must be caused by something outside of time, space, and matter. If it is mindless, it wouldn't have any power or self-awareness. And if it's all-powerful, then it certainly isn't mindless.

Only God can be the cause of the universe. If it were something other than God, then that would imply one of two things: one, God would have created this intermediary being, which in turn triggered the universe; or two, there is some powerful rival to God out there, which would undercut the idea of God's omnipotence. And this would be mean God isn't really God, because there is someone or something who exists independently of him.
The upshot is: It doesn't seem likely than anyone other God created the universe.

Aquinas also demonstrated that God's essence is His existence, which means He is Being, not simply "a" being.  All beings in the realm of space-matter-time participate in being, but are not eternal infinite being itself, by its very nature, as is "I Am" (Ex 3:14).

The answer is simple; if you say that something else caused the universe, then you must answer what caused that, and eventually you must admit to an uncaused cause.  The chief attribute of God relevant to this question is His uncaused nature.  God is not contingent on anything.  You will end in a string of causality with any other solution.
The only uncaused thing that there is evidence for in our universe is God, inasmuch as humans have been aware of Him, having an intrinsic religious nature that transcends all cultures and history (earliest archeological research shows rituals for the dead--expecting some sort of post-death existence). 

While this evidence may seem circumstantial, think about a house, you don't see the builder or architect within it, but it's very reality attests to it.  One can be inferred by the other.  God is not part of the universe, therefore you will not find evidence for Him in the same manner as other things, but you will find His influence felt, particularly in the moral dimension of Man.  This aspect of our nature seems to be unique.  We do not find evidence of animals making moral and ethical decisions.
The Bible says God exists.

 How often do you crap and fart?


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 26, 2016, 05:12:22 PM
How often do you crap and fart?


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.

Another theist scared shitless about the unknown.  Because this idiot cannot think and only believe, he/she expects all the world to follow suit.  I really believe this idiot is a drive-by.

"The upshot is: It doesn't seem likely than anyone other God created the universe."

I created the Universe. Prove I didn't.

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
which would undercut the idea of God's omnipotence.

so you don't think that the very babble which you wholly believe is telling the truth when it tells us that your almighty could not beat puny humans who had iron chariots......or that your almighty god always needed 3 tries to beat any other army at the cost of always 2/3rds of "his" armies?  Yer not quite "up" on your babble are you?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 26, 2016, 05:32:54 PM
"The upshot is: It doesn't seem likely than anyone other God created the universe."

I created the Universe. Prove I didn't.

You did create the universe (notice the lower case) in a manner of speaking.  Each being is a universe, and you create yourself (partially anyway).  These universes/beings overlap.  But contrary to Superstring theory, this multiverse is alive and holistic, not dead and atomistic.  Instead of colliding branes ... we have communication, such as the Internet.  Of course since we are not independent (contrary to American insanity) ... you don't create just yourself ... you partially create yourself and contribute to the creation of other universes (beings).  Beings have will, atoms do not.  I have yet to see any materialist theory that constructs the world from atoms, and arrives at will.

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
Anything that exists needs a cause, the universe needs a cause, the cause is God, "All powerful matter/energy" makes no sense to me since we know that matter, space, and time had a beginning, and that nothing in the order of creation can cause itself.  Hence, the universe must have a cause transcendent of itself: it must be caused by something outside of time, space, and matter. If it is mindless, it wouldn't have any power or self-awareness. And if it's all-powerful, then it certainly isn't mindless.

Only God can be the cause of the universe. If it were something other than God, then that would imply one of two things: one, God would have created this intermediary being, which in turn triggered the universe; or two, there is some powerful rival to God out there, which would undercut the idea of God's omnipotence. And this would be mean God isn't really God, because there is someone or something who exists independently of him.
The upshot is: It doesn't seem likely than anyone other God created the universe.

Aquinas also demonstrated that God's essence is His existence, which means He is Being, not simply "a" being.  All beings in the realm of space-matter-time participate in being, but are not eternal infinite being itself, by its very nature, as is "I Am" (Ex 3:14).

The answer is simple; if you say that something else caused the universe, then you must answer what caused that, and eventually you must admit to an uncaused cause.  The chief attribute of God relevant to this question is His uncaused nature.  God is not contingent on anything.  You will end in a string of causality with any other solution.
The only uncaused thing that there is evidence for in our universe is God, inasmuch as humans have been aware of Him, having an intrinsic religious nature that transcends all cultures and history (earliest archeological research shows rituals for the dead--expecting some sort of post-death existence). 

While this evidence may seem circumstantial, think about a house, you don't see the builder or architect within it, but it's very reality attests to it.  One can be inferred by the other.  God is not part of the universe, therefore you will not find evidence for Him in the same manner as other things, but you will find His influence felt, particularly in the moral dimension of Man.  This aspect of our nature seems to be unique.  We do not find evidence of animals making moral and ethical decisions.
The Bible says God exists.

You clearly do not understand Aristotle, nor omnipotence, nor the Bible.  But that's OK, one has to start somewhere.  Keep going, and you may arrive at your destination, whatever that may be ;-)

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
Anything that exists needs a cause....

Let's start with your first mere assertion, which, not surprisingly, was the opening of your post.  No need to go further until you demonstrate "[a]nything that exists needs a cause."

Please do so.  And, while you are at it, demonstrate how your God was caused without using the special pleading fallacy.

I have a question for the OP. Assuming what you say is true, that there is a creator of the universe that exists outside the known universe and that creator is called God, how does one determine that the Bible in any way is an accurate representation of this creator?

Quote from: sdelsolray on November 26, 2016, 06:20:14 PM
Let's start with your first mere assertion, which, not surprisingly, was the opening of your post.  No need to go further until you demonstrate "[a]nything that exists needs a cause."

Please do so.  And, while you are at it, demonstrate how your God was caused without using the special pleading fallacy.

The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effectthere is a definite cause, likewise for every cause there is a definite effect. Your thoughts, behaviors and actions create specific effects that manifest and create your life as you know it

GOD being uncaused is not special pleading because the law is based on the observable universe and as discussed; GOD encompasses the universe so to speak, is outside of it, where it's laws, the ones Created for that universe by that force or existence, don't constrain IT.

Does that make any sense?

Be honest....please.

And I'm sorry, I know you weren't talking to me.

peace

Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 26, 2016, 09:27:50 PM
I have a question for the OP. Assuming what you say is true, that there is a creator of the universe that exists outside the known universe and that creator is called God, how does one determine that the Bible in any way is an accurate representation of this creator?

Because we all, being of GOD (which by the way is a symbol or representation of the One Creator GOD of all existence regardless of the multitude of names) have a small essence or potential energy that can be tapped into upon negation of self deception, pride, and greed, and upon doing so, with a clear unbiased mind one can read parts of the bible and literally feel resonating effects that profound truths have on ones body and soul.


I attest to this wholly as I have personally experience it. To type them out wouldn't begin to do them justice though.

peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 26, 2016, 10:08:15 PM
Because we all, being of GOD (which by the way is a symbol or representation of the One Creator GOD of all existence regardless of the multitude of names) have a small essence or potential energy that can be tapped into upon negation of self deception, pride, and greed, and upon doing so, with a clear unbiased mind one can read parts of the bible and literally feel resonating effects that profound truths have on ones body and soul.


I attest to this wholly as I have personally experience it. To type them out wouldn't begin to do them justice though.

peace

Well, of course not--typing them out would not begin to do them justice.  Self deception is like that.  You are convinced you have 'the'  inside track on god and all that is holy and good.  You are talking about your subjective view on what you consider to be your life force.  I call it self deception tinged with wishful thinking.  You want that so badly you will believe anything to make it so.  Look, we all live in our own worlds, constructed as we construct them.  You see the world as you see it.  Same for me.  I like what Joseph Campbell said about life; follow your bliss.  Seems simple--but is not.  What is one's bliss?  Is it the same each day?  How is it obtained and what is real and what is what we simply want to see as real?  Does it change; and how do we know that?  I've sort of figured it out for myself and am satisfied with what I've come up with.  But I could not fully explain it to any other person; it is personal to me and for me.  He also said that the purpose of life is life.  And yes it is.  Once again, what does that mean to you will be different than what it means to me.  Anyway, I wander.  I don't see evidence of any sort of god, nor do I need to or want to.  But if some evidence were to show up, the I'd be open to changing my mind.

Simple language ... if there is a creation, there is a Creator.  But if there is no creation, then no need for a Creator.  So human beings aren't human, just clouds of stupid random atoms.  In materialism, and conservation of matter, there is no need for creation.  And no Creator ... because houses assemble themselves ... randomly though the odds are very small ... but in a giant universe, even the unlikely are certain ... or so we are told.  Thus an actual army of chimps actually did write the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Now materialism has become more complicated since the Greek materialists/atomists ... but it is still materialism, even if the conservation is now mass-energy, not mass and energy separately.  Physical law becomes an impersonal god, that the prophets (scientists) discover for us ... though they are often, in ancient and modern times ... Jews ;-)

Cause/effect is false, like every other human idea.  Yet falsehood is very useful.

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
Anything that exists needs a cause, the universe needs a cause, the cause is God, "All powerful matter/energy" makes no sense to me since we know that matter, space, and time had a beginning, and that nothing in the order of creation can cause itself.  Hence, the universe must have a cause transcendent of itself: it must be caused by something outside of time, space, and matter. If it is mindless, it wouldn't have any power or self-awareness. And if it's all-powerful, then it certainly isn't mindless.

Only God can be the cause of the universe. If it were something other than God, then that would imply one of two things: one, God would have created this intermediary being, which in turn triggered the universe; or two, there is some powerful rival to God out there, which would undercut the idea of God's omnipotence. And this would be mean God isn't really God, because there is someone or something who exists independently of him.
The upshot is: It doesn't seem likely than anyone other God created the universe.

Aquinas also demonstrated that God's essence is His existence, which means He is Being, not simply "a" being.  All beings in the realm of space-matter-time participate in being, but are not eternal infinite being itself, by its very nature, as is "I Am" (Ex 3:14).

The answer is simple; if you say that something else caused the universe, then you must answer what caused that, and eventually you must admit to an uncaused cause.  The chief attribute of God relevant to this question is His uncaused nature.  God is not contingent on anything.  You will end in a string of causality with any other solution.
The only uncaused thing that there is evidence for in our universe is God, inasmuch as humans have been aware of Him, having an intrinsic religious nature that transcends all cultures and history (earliest archeological research shows rituals for the dead--expecting some sort of post-death existence). 

While this evidence may seem circumstantial, think about a house, you don't see the builder or architect within it, but it's very reality attests to it.  One can be inferred by the other.  God is not part of the universe, therefore you will not find evidence for Him in the same manner as other things, but you will find His influence felt, particularly in the moral dimension of Man.  This aspect of our nature seems to be unique.  We do not find evidence of animals making moral and ethical decisions.
The Bible says God exists.

The argument of intelligent design again. Since you're new, I'll remain civil because maybe you haven't heard from atheists on this issue before. Consider this, if creation is intelligently designed, what makes the house stand out? If all that exists is intelligently designed, then the house created by humans is just one creation out of many. Your pointing out the obviousness of the design behind the house actually hurts your argument.

Also, claiming that everything must have a cause doesn't help you either. Claiming that God is "outside time and space" does not excuse him from the rule. I find it much more believable that there is a source of energy, with no personality or self-awareness, that creates universes. Such a non-intelligent creator could just as easily exist. Creationism's own arguments work against the likelihood that there was an intelligent creator. Creationists claim that because humans are intelligent, a greater intelligence must have been responsible for designing us. So then, what designed the intelligence of God?

It makes no sense for an intelligent God to just exist without a cause. Why would such a being have a personality? Why would such a being prefer one thing over another? Humans are that way because of a mix of biological and environmental influences. So then what determined that God would care about human lives? What prevented him from being an evil tyrant, entertaining himself by torturing his creation? Unless you can give a solid reason why an all powerful being must be the way you believe him to be, I have no more reason to believe in him than in the infinite other concepts of gods who are just as likely to exist.

I have a question for you. Why do you focus so hard on the past when trying to prove God exists? Why not look to the one short time frame you actually have experience with; the present? This is why I no longer believe in God. Imagine your life being exactly the same except for one thing: God doesn't exist. What else would change? If you're honest with yourself, you will know the answer. It's nothing. God or no God, his existence has no impact on my life at all. His "answered prayers" were random change, just as his unanswered prayers were random chance. If you talk to God, God does not talk back. If an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent creator exists, he has purposefully hid himself so well as to cause some to doubt he even exists. And those who do believe he exists have formed countless religions trying in vain to discover his nature. An active God would have no doubters, and religion wouldn't exist because his nature would be clear.

I also find it ironic that you would choose Rowan Atkinson as your avatar. It's funny, considering the comedy sketches he's performed, making fun of Christianity.

Quote from: sdelsolray on November 26, 2016, 06:20:14 PM
Let's start with your first mere assertion, which, not surprisingly, was the opening of your post.  No need to go further until you demonstrate "[a]nything that exists needs a cause."

Please do so.  And, while you are at it, demonstrate how your God was caused without using the special pleading fallacy.

You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God.

Likewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way itmis? Etc.

Even if there was a "big bang," that too would need a cause. To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense.

Things "just don't happen." If things just happen without reason or a cause, then the universe would be incomprehensible. There would be no order to it. Science itself would be impossible.

Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2016, 05:56:12 PM
so you don't think that the very babble which you wholly believe is telling the truth when it tells us that your almighty could not beat puny humans who had iron chariots......or that your almighty god always needed 3 tries to beat any other army at the cost of always 2/3rds of "his" armies?  Yer not quite "up" on your babble are you?

Good question, I just put my faith in God in the hope that God knows all best.

QuoteAnything that exists needs a cause...

Only if you view the world from a popular Western point of view.

QuoteLikewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way itmis? Etc.

What questions does it raise, might I ask? And why are those questions a concern when the idea of a creator does not apparently create any other important questions? To quote you...

QuoteYou ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God.

Who toasted the toast that is Yahweh? And to preemptively respond to the, "He didn't need one, he is constant and eternal!", do you not see the logical flaw o saying nothing (the universe) can come from nothing but god can?

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God.

Likewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way itmis? Etc.

Why would we need to accept that whatever preceeded THE universe functions by THE same rules, Logic and physics as THE universe we live in? Quantum-mumbo aside, cause and effect does seem to rule within our universe, to me. But I see no reason to see I Apply outside this universe or in another one if it had different internal rules. And if you believe god is uncaused and outside this universe, I suspect you are actually on agreement on that part. You just then give up and claim god did it.
Cause this is very telling, imo. It's not THE idea of "iTS just there" which raises other questions as to Why it is THE way it is. It's the intellectual honesty of not having a definite answer that makes us ask Why it is THE way it is. But then, Why is that bad? Are questions supposed to be frightening? Why should we not be happy to have such questions? Of course you already have your anwser. God. It doesn't add anything. It doesn't really solve anything. But it keeps you from questioning further and deeper. It saved you THE trouble of making THE effort. But you can have your unwarrented and void certainty: I Like wondering Why things are THE way they are.

Quote
Even if there was a "big bang," that too would need a cause. To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense.

Things "just don't happen." If things just happen without reason or a cause, then the universe would be incomprehensible. There would be no order to it. Science itself would be impossible.

See what I wrote above.

PS, how's about you making a proper introduction thread and following forum-policy before making threads Like these. Partcipating in and Reading THE rest of THE forum may also help you get your answer, if you truly are interested in getting our replies. You are not THE first to make this particular case. Nor Will you be THE last.

I don't believe in anything I have never seen proof of. Just because I don't understand how something works or how it came to be does not mean that I have to attribute it to a genocidal maniac who works in "mysterious ways".

Love your icon, Mr Bean ... just don't park you car in the wrong place at the military base ;-)

"You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God."

Aristotle noted 4 different kinds of causes ...

Material Cause = matter in general (matter without form, so unknown to modern science)
Formal Cause = structure in general (aka physics and chemistry)
Efficient Cause = how something comes about (aka energy and process)
Final Cause = only applies to sentient beings, why something comes about

Aristotle also invented the "unmoved mover" aka the impersonal principle, which substitutes for G-d

Modern science and atheists don't accept Final Cause ... for Aristotle it is teleological (you want to go to Disney World, so Disney World causes you to go on vacation).  Aristotle had a problem with the chicken-egg conundrum.  He opted for the future egg causes the mother hen, he was thinking of intention.  But modern science has a problem, called Quantum Mechanics ... which throws a spanner into this ... while there is little evidence that the future causes the past, even if we accept that the mother hen causes the future egg (more common sensical) we have to ignore intention (which Aristotle considered so important).  The problem is that Classical Mechanics assumes that the observer has no impact on what is observed ... and Quantum Mechanics says that when a scientist does an observation or sets up an experiment ... that this changes everything (but in statistically predictable ways).  So the intention of the scientist, still sneaks back in.

"Likewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way it is? Etc."

That which exists now, has a cause in the past, even if it is unchanged?  All things change, except for physical law (which ideally is unchanged and universal in space as well).  So what does change, does have a cause.  But what is unchanged doesn't have a cause, it just is.  But the question of how change happens is answered by science.  And science uncovers the unchanging (Heraclitus was almost right).  Even the 3.5K radiation form the Big Bang is slowly changing, under rules that are unchanging.  We don't actually know what happened before that ... we speculate ... and people take the speculations of science too seriously.  If we ask why, we are asking about sentience.  If I am typing, you can ask why ... if a book falls off my shelf, you don't ask why (nobody pushed it) you ask how, and the answer is gravity (but that as you point out, still begs the question).

"Even if there was a "big bang," that too would need a cause. To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense."

Correct, temporality makes sense, because we are temporal sentients ... eternity doesn't make sense, in spite of the efforts of theologians.

"Things "just don't happen." If things just happen without reason or a cause, then the universe would be incomprehensible. There would be no order to it. Science itself would be impossible."

People see patterns in clouds, and the romantic see a dragon in the sky.  But that pattern isn't real (aside from the human imagination).  Some patterns we call real, because while they depend on the human imagination, they are objective, not just subjective.  That is the scientific method, to separate the objective from the subjective (peer review, re-observation, repeat of experiment, tendency to measurable quantification).

Personally, I do take the position that science is man-made, not a Platonic Ideal ... but then I am empirical like Aristotle, not mathematical like Plato.  I don't think reality is rational ... only that some aspects of human experience are objective, but mostly subjective ... that chaos is more common than order, illogic more common than logic.  For me, ultimately the universe (as an idea of humans) is incomprehensible.

Things "just happen" all the time (in the sense that most often no sentience is involved, human or animal).  Again, that confusion is due to misapplication of Final Cause.

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom I think is a God, as I cannot accept nor understand science and besides I must be special"er" than a damn rat.

Fixed if for you.

Quote from: John PaulAnything that exists needs a cause,

Yes.

Quote from: John Paulthe universe needs a cause,

Yes.

Quote from: John Paulthe cause is God,

Non-sequitor. It does not follow, that the cause is God.

Quote from: John Paul"All powerful matter/energy" makes no sense to me since we know that matter, space, and time had a beginning, and that nothing in the order of creation can cause itself.  Hence, the universe must have a cause transcendent of itself: it must be caused by something outside of time, space, and matter.

"All powerful matter/energy" makes no sense to me either, and I have no idea where you came up with the notion.

We assume that time had a beginning, but we don't know anything about the beginning of the universe, or whether matter has a beginning.

Once again you fall back on a non-sequitor. It does not follow that “the universe must have a cause transcendent of itself: it must be caused by something outside of time, space, and matter.” Matter and space, and their effect on one another, are not completely understood yet. Our information will likely always be incomplete.

You want to jump to the answer without actually working the problem. We  don't know how it happened, therefore God did it, is a non-sequitor as well.

Quote from: John PaulIf it is mindless, it wouldn't have any power or self-awareness. And if it's all-powerful, then it certainly isn't mindless. 

Power and mind, are to completely different things. Nothing and no one is “all powerful.”

Quote from: John PaulOnly God can be the cause of the universe. If it were something other than God, then that would imply one of two things: one, God would have created this intermediary being, which in turn triggered the universe; or two, there is some powerful rival to God out there, which would undercut the idea of God's omnipotence. And this would be mean God isn't really God, because there is someone or something who exists independently of him.

You are so quick to dismiss the notion that the universe had a natural prime mover, but so ready to accept that God didn't need one.

The only thing that defies the laws of physics, is imagination. Which is why God can do anything: he is imaginary.

Quote from: John PaulThe upshot is: It doesn't seem likely than anyone other God created the universe.

It's true, that it doesn't seem likely that anyone other God created the universe. But it is equally unlikely that God did it.

Quote from: John PaulAquinas also demonstrated that God's essence is His existence, which means He is Being, not simply "a" being.  All beings in the realm of space-matter-time participate in being, but are not eternal infinite being itself, by its very nature, as is "I Am" (Ex 3:14).

Well then! He demonstrated it, did he? I guess there's no more room for doubt.

Quote from: John PaulThe answer is simple; if you say that something else caused the universe, then you must answer what caused that, and eventually you must admit to an uncaused cause. 

Possibly. But the same problem exists with God.

Quote from: John PaulThe chief attribute of God relevant to this question is His uncaused nature.  God is not contingent on anything.  You will end in a string of causality with any other solution.

Imaginary beings can possess any attributes you wish to assign them. That doesn't mean you have solved the math.

Quote from: John PaulThe only uncaused thing that there is evidence for in our universe is God, inasmuch as humans have been aware of Him, having an intrinsic religious nature that transcends all cultures and history (earliest archeological research shows rituals for the dead--expecting some sort of post-death existence).   

Human myths are not, in the slightest way, evidence of God. They are only evidence of the human imagination.

Quote from: John PaulWhile this evidence may seem circumstantial, think about a house, you don't see the builder or architect within it, but it's very reality attests to it.  One can be inferred by the other. 

If I were a simple-minded primitive, I might think the correlation was the same between a house and the universe. But reasoning by analogy, is not actual reasoning. It just sounds cute.

Quote from: John PaulGod is not part of the universe, therefore you will not find evidence for Him in the same manner as other things,

Of course not. Imaginary things usually function that way.

Quote from: John Paul...but you will find His influence felt, particularly in the moral dimension of Man.  This aspect of our nature seems to be unique.  We do not find evidence of animals making moral and ethical decisions. 

So, I don't kill my neighbor for farting, therefore God created the universe. Understood.

Quote from: John PaulThe Bible says God exists.

OH! Well then! I can't argue with that one. I guess you convinced me!

Quote from: Blackleaf on November 27, 2016, 01:26:08 AM
The argument of intelligent design again. Since you're new, I'll remain civil because maybe you haven't heard from atheists on this issue before. Consider this, if creation is intelligently designed, what makes the house stand out? If all that exists is intelligently designed, then the house created by humans is just one creation out of many. Your pointing out the obviousness of the design behind the house actually hurts your argument.

Also, claiming that everything must have a cause doesn't help you either. Claiming that God is "outside time and space" does not excuse him from the rule. I find it much more believable that there is a source of energy, with no personality or self-awareness, that creates universes. Such a non-intelligent creator could just as easily exist. Creationism's own arguments work against the likelihood that there was an intelligent creator. Creationists claim that because humans are intelligent, a greater intelligence must have been responsible for designing us. So then, what designed the intelligence of God?

It makes no sense for an intelligent God to just exist without a cause. Why would such a being have a personality? Why would such a being prefer one thing over another? Humans are that way because of a mix of biological and environmental influences. So then what determined that God would care about human lives? What prevented him from being an evil tyrant, entertaining himself by torturing his creation? Unless you can give a solid reason why an all powerful being must be the way you believe him to be, I have no more reason to believe in him than in the infinite other concepts of gods who are just as likely to exist.

I have a question for you. Why do you focus so hard on the past when trying to prove God exists? Why not look to the one short time frame you actually have experience with; the present? This is why I no longer believe in God. Imagine your life being exactly the same except for one thing: God doesn't exist. What else would change? If you're honest with yourself, you will know the answer. It's nothing. God or no God, his existence has no impact on my life at all. His "answered prayers" were random change, just as his unanswered prayers were random chance. If you talk to God, God does not talk back. If an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent creator exists, he has purposefully hid himself so well as to cause some to doubt he even exists. And those who do believe he exists have formed countless religions trying in vain to discover his nature. An active God would have no doubters, and religion wouldn't exist because his nature would be clear.

I also find it ironic that you would choose Rowan Atkinson as your avatar. It's funny, considering the comedy sketches he's performed, making fun of Christianity.

Can you show evidence of things being random or chance?

Also; from a creationists perspective, like the house, all creation hints to an intelligent omnipotent cause. Example you say?

All observable existence is exactly definable through mathematics. This is the hint to intelligent design.
We can, in part, observe the laws that bind all existence but cannot begin to know the actual cause of these binding laws.

If all was utter chaos then I think you would have a more valid argument, but all is set on a course, and not chaotic as far as I can tell.

peace

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God.

Likewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way itmis? Etc.

Even if there was a "big bang," that too would need a cause. To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense.

Things "just don't happen." If things just happen without reason or a cause, then the universe would be incomprehensible. There would be no order to it. Science itself would be impossible.

I follow your argument.  But, apparently, you don't!  God is the first and only uncaused first cause???? Why god?  Why not the universe?  Or even the system that produced the universe?  There must be a beginning sometime--or does there?  Maybe our limited viewpoint makes it feel better if there is a beginning to everything.  That, by itself, does not make it true.  I think your god is simply a construction made my man to answer all those unknowable (for the time being, anyway) things we want to know about.  Your god (and all others) is a fiction.

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense.

But it makes perfect sense that something existing before anything else did had knowledge of how the things that never existed looked and acted and then create that which had never existed prior to ever knowing that which it could not know as it never existed.

Makes sense when you say it that way.

Quote from: sdelsolray on November 26, 2016, 06:20:14 PM
Let's start with your first mere assertion, which, not surprisingly, was the opening of your post.  No need to go further until you demonstrate "[a]nything that exists needs a cause."

Please do so.  And, while you are at it, demonstrate how your God was caused without using the special pleading fallacy.

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God.

Likewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way itmis? Etc.

Even if there was a "big bang," that too would need a cause. To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense.

Things "just don't happen." If things just happen without reason or a cause, then the universe would be incomprehensible. There would be no order to it. Science itself would be impossible.

You repeat your mere assertion (the Universe must have a cause), add another one (God is the cause of the Universe), introduce a two false dichotomies and conclude with hasty generalizations.

Let's stick with your first mere assertion - that the Universe has a cause.  By (a rather poor) analogy, you state that events within the universe have causes therefore the Universre itself has a cause.

Please study the Composition Fallacy because you are using it in your argument, which renders your argument fallacious.

Now, to the second item, of which you failed to respond:

Quote from: sdelsolray on November 26, 2016, 06:20:14 PM
...
And, while you are at it, demonstrate how your God was caused without using the special pleading fallacy.

Put another way, if everything is caused, what caused your God?  You are not allowed to use the Special Pleading Fallacy.

Let me help:  Define the "Universe" as containing all that exists, including your God.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 26, 2016, 09:56:43 PM
The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effectthere is a definite cause, likewise for every cause there is a definite effect. Your thoughts, behaviors and actions create specific effects that manifest and create your life as you know it
...

A better analogy than the OP's analogy, but still a composition fallacy.  An example:

P1:  Atomic elements are not alive
P2:  Human beings are composed of atomic elements.
C1:  Human beings are therefore not alive.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 26, 2016, 09:56:43 PM
...
GOD being uncaused is not special pleading because the law is based on the observable universe and as discussed; GOD encompasses the universe so to speak, is outside of it, where it's laws, the ones Created for that universe by that force or existence, don't constrain IT.
...

Put another way, God requires no cause because I blindly assert so. 

Using a mere assertion fallacy to justify your special pleading is a cute trick.

You should study William Lane Craig's atte3mpt to get around this.  He argues that things that begin to exist have a cause and that things that have always existed do not.  It's turtles all the way down.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 26, 2016, 09:56:43 PM
...
Does that make any sense?

Be honest....please.
..

Your arguments are fallacious and that makes sense.

Honesty is the best policy.

Quote from: sdelsolray on November 27, 2016, 01:20:31 PM
A better analogy than the OP's analogy, but still a composition fallacy.  An example:

P1:  Atomic elements are not alive
P2:  Human beings are composed of atomic elements.
C1:  Human beings are therefore not alive.

Put another way, God requires no cause because I blindly assert so. 

Using a mere assertion fallacy to justify your special pleading is a cute trick.

You should study William Lane Craig's atte3mpt to get around this.  He argues that things that begin to exist have a cause and that things that have always existed do not.  It's turtles all the way down.

Your arguments are fallacious and that makes sense.

Honesty is the best policy.

It wasn't an analogy. It was copied and pasted from Google when I searched law of cause and effect.

My assertion that a thing that created a thing isn't bound to the limits of said created thing is not a fallacy.

You are stretching friend.

peace

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
We do not find evidence of animals making moral and ethical decisions.

Animals discriminate between in-group and out-group individuals, free each other from traps, share food, establish social norms, punish rule beakers, help injured group members, demand equal treatment, ect. They've never debated the trolley problem, that doesn't mean they don't make moral and ethical decisions.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 02:07:12 PMIt wasn't an analogy. ...

It's an analogy because you attempt to apply what happens inside of the universe to the universe itself.  That is a classic composition fallacy.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 02:07:12 PM...
It was copied and pasted from Google when I searched law of cause and effect.
...

Impressive.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 02:07:12 PM...
My assertion that a thing that created a thing isn't bound to the limits of said created thing is not a fallacy....

Moving the goalposts, but just a bit.  This is the first time you have made this precise claim.

Go back and read what you actually said before:

Quote..."GOD being uncaused is not special pleading because the law is based on the observable universe and as discussed; GOD encompasses the universe so to speak, is outside of it, where it's laws, the ones Created for that universe by that force or existence, don't constrain IT."
...

I said that the above claim (in italics) was a mere assertion, which in itself is a fallacy.  I also noted you used it (the mere assertion) in an attempt to justify your special pleading for your God claim.

Your claims are rejected for the reasons stated.

"My assertion that a thing that created a thing isn't bound to the limits of said created thing is not a fallacy."

A thing inside the universe, must obey the same things as everything else.  There is no thing outside the universe, because by definition, the universe is everything that is.  So if G-d is outside the universe ... then logically G-d cannot exist (and that is good standard atheist reasoning).  If G-d is within the universe, and if there is nothing supernatural in the universe, then G-d is just an ubermensch who can die from crucifixion like anyone else ... and if G-d can die, the G-d isn't a god.  But this is what happens when you let an opponent of your argument, define all the terms ;-)  Also usually there is the naturalism fallacy of not only including everything in the universe, but also that everything in the universe is natural aka materialist, once you kick out vitalism from biology and panpsychism from psychology.

So yes, if a carpenter carves wood, the carpenter has to have all the same limitation as wood, couldn't be anything other than wood ;-)  The problem happens when this is universalized to a universe creator, not a wood carving creator.

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
The Bible says God exists.

Yeah, I'm not buying it.   And until I have a reason to believe that gods exist, I will be unable to.

Just out of interest....  Do you believe in Baal?

Because I'm not retarded.

Quote from: Baruch on November 27, 2016, 02:30:36 PM
"My assertion that a thing that created a thing isn't bound to the limits of said created thing is not a fallacy."

A thing inside the universe, must obey the same things as everything else.  There is no thing outside the universe, because by definition, the universe is everything that is.  So if G-d is outside the universe ... then logically G-d cannot exist (and that is good standard atheist reasoning).  If G-d is within the universe, and if there is nothing supernatural in the universe, then G-d is just an ubermensch who can die from crucifixion like anyone else ... and if G-d can die, the G-d isn't a god.  But this is what happens when you let an opponent of your argument, define all the terms ;-)  Also usually there is the naturalism fallacy of not only including everything in the universe, but also that everything in the universe is natural aka materialist, once you kick out vitalism from biology and panpsychism from psychology.

So yes, if a carpenter carves wood, the carpenter has to have all the same limitation as wood, couldn't be anything other than wood ;-)  The problem happens when this is universalized to a universe creator, not a wood carving creator.

I'm still not getting it.

I am a carpenter. I build shit all day long, but I am in no way limited by or to the things that my work is. And yes, generally my work is obviously a product of the hands of man, similar to how the universe and the contents there of are not chaotic, but go along a set path with set laws. These laws in themselves lend credence to intelligent design.

Peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 07:32:32 PM
These laws in themselves lend credence to intelligent design.

I guess willful ignorance is your friend. Where do you see "intelligent design?" The fact that the biological world can lay to waste not just to humanity but all living "creatures" is a pretty good indication that your "god" is pretty much a fuck up. Life is a filthy disease ridden experience that shows that "intelligent design" would prove, if anything, complete incompetence. Your "god" is stymied by a woman's menstrual cycle. But that is because your "god" is the imagination of goat herders based on their understanding of a hundred previous myths they decided to incorporate. That you refuse to admit this if further proof that your god failed to instill intelligence in its creation"s".

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 07:32:32 PM
I'm still not getting it.

I am a carpenter. I build shit all day long, but I am in no way limited by or to the things that my work is. And yes, generally my work is obviously a product of the hands of man, similar to how the universe and the contents there of are not chaotic, but go along a set path with set laws. These laws in themselves lend credence to intelligent design.

Peace

A: Things made by intelligent beings operate logically.
B: The world operates under a logical set of rules.
C1: Thus the universe was designed by an intelligent being.
C2: By extention, God, who operates logically and according to a set of rules must also have an intelligent designer, who must also have an intelligent designer, who must also have an intelligent designer...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 07:32:32 PM
I'm still not getting it.

I am a carpenter. I build shit all day long, but I am in no way limited by or to the things that my work is. And yes, generally my work is obviously a product of the hands of man, similar to how the universe and the contents there of are not chaotic, but go along a set path with set laws. These laws in themselves lend credence to intelligent design.

Peace

Not necessarily a personality ... just abstract principle ... like arithmetic.  Arithmetic is intelligent, and Pythagoras would tell you it was created by the gods.  But it is a misnomer to call these regularities as laws, as if the universe is ruled by a Bronze Age king.  Science commits the same mistake ... they shouldn't use the word "law" ... when "regularity" is sufficient.

Quote from: Blackleaf on November 27, 2016, 07:42:33 PM
A: Things made by intelligent beings operate logically.
B: The world operates under a logical set of rules.
C1: Thus the universe was designed by an intelligent being.
C2: By extention, God, who operates logically and according to a set of rules must also have an intelligent designer, who must also have an intelligent designer, who must also have an intelligent designer...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

I get the circular thinking and lack of logic. That isn't what I was talking about.

Quote from: Baruch on November 27, 2016, 07:58:46 PM
Not necessarily a personality ... just abstract principle ... like arithmetic.  Arithmetic is intelligent, and Pythagoras would tell you it was created by the gods.  But it is a misnomer to call these regularities as laws, as if the universe is ruled by a Bronze Age king.  Science commits the same mistake ... they shouldn't use the word "law" ... when "regularity" is sufficient.

Regularity seems off to me. There is only one observable universe. The fact that everything seems set along some course and not static, nor chaotic could be called regular but there is no other readily observable universe to compare it to. Law does seem more fitting as these things don't deviate or waver. Only man does that in the face of potential and destiny.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 07:32:32 PM
I'm still not getting it.

I am a carpenter. I build shit all day long, but I am in no way limited by or to the things that my work is. And yes, generally my work is obviously a product of the hands of man, similar to how the universe and the contents there of are not chaotic, but go along a set path with set laws. These laws in themselves lend credence to intelligent design.



Peace

Another failed argument. 

P1:  I intelligently design/build stuff according to certain rules. 
P2:  The Universe is governed by rules.
C1:  Therefore, the Universe is intelligently designed/built.

aitm,

I assure you I am not willfully ignorant like you friend. Where do I see intelligent design? Perhaps you missed it; all readily observable existence is perfectly defined within mathematics. We just talked about how everything in the universe seems to go along a set ordained path, and how it isn't chaotic. Perhaps you haven't noticed the symmetry of existence on every level. It's just a coincidence that nature and geometry go so nicely together....oh wait, that's right, there in no evidence for coincidences....shit. Us (earth) being the only planet with observable complex life doesn't say anything for our uniqueness, or potential within a vast seemingly lifeless expanse. Single celled organisms can be seen to have similarities to galaxies thriving with life. And as far as life as we know it being wiped out by a parasite or what have you; surly it could happen, and all will have been warned. You seem to think that the limit on time that a created thing can do other than its intended purpose isn't determined by what made it.
What I'm trying to say is that all will have an end. And it is written that if man doesn't abide then it will be replaced by a new creation. What type of reasoning insists that a creator must conform to the will of the created?

As far as your last attempt at offence; I donot deny the singular harmonious accord of all the messengers and Prophets, nor do I appreciate your assumption that I think their messages ever really differed. They all had a conscience.

you'll have to try harder to offend me. While your at it you could show some evidence for chance or coincidence and explain away the binding laws of all existence but man. Shit, go ahead and explain the complexity of all existence while you are at it. Explain how energy can create itself from nothing. Explain how a creator is bound to the limits of its creation. Explain sacred geometry. So you really think that all throughout time and geography all man has spoken of the same spiritual things for the same spiritual reasons because of what? The conscience right. A natural thing. That naturally lead them to faith in things they couldn't readily see but that were known spiritually and internally. I'm not saying there must be GOD because man throughout all existence has proclaimed such; just saying it doesn't exactly help your case.

peace

Human beings can't help to be anything other than human.  Some think they can escape that restriction, but I think they are fooling themselves.  So what is human?  Generally speaking, relating to life as real and non-real ... rational and irrational ... personal and impersonal.  It is a stretch for me to imagine being a pagan, and seeing nymphs in the trees ... but I have stretched, so that I can relate to more people, both modern and ancient.  Being in common relation with people is human, and so is feeling alienated from our fellow humans.  I find I am more tolerant thru these ... walking in the other guy's moccasins ... I am able to relate to Muslims or Aztecs or any others I chose to relate to ... to be empathetic instead of judging.  Of course being malignant is also human.

Existence goes from the simplest to the more complex.  A deity would be the most complex existence.  Therefore, a deity should only exist at the end of the universe.  Not now.

Mathematical laws begin with 1+1=2. There can be no universe where 1+1=3. These laws are not written by any fucking god. They are inescapable, unchangeable facts that apply to all things. No one and nothing can be outside of them. No one wrote them. And no one ordained the course of the universe.

I was once foolish enough to believe God created the universe, but I was never stupid enough to think he made-up the laws of mathematics.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 28, 2016, 05:04:35 AM
Mathematical laws begin with 1+1=2. There can be no universe where 1+1=3. These laws are not written by any fucking god. They are inescapable, unchangeable facts that apply to all things.

But math might just be a product of human cognition and not actually exist in the physical universe... kinda like God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNymweHW4E

Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 28, 2016, 05:52:38 AM
But math might just be a product of human cognition and not actually exist in the physical universe... kinda like God.

I don't have time to watch the video right now, but I would say that math as a descriptive language, is a human product, but the principles it describes are intrinsic.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 28, 2016, 01:03:54 AM
Existence goes from the simplest to the more complex.  A deity would be the most complex existence.  Therefore, a deity should only exist at the end of the universe.  Not now.

So says Teilhard DeChardin.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 28, 2016, 05:04:35 AM
Mathematical laws begin with 1+1=2. There can be no universe where 1+1=3. These laws are not written by any fucking god. They are inescapable, unchangeable facts that apply to all things. No one and nothing can be outside of them. No one wrote them. And no one ordained the course of the universe.

I was once foolish enough to believe God created the universe, but I was never stupid enough to think he made-up the laws of mathematics.

Galileo taught that G-d was the ultimate mathematician, geometry in particular.  Kepler thought the same, as did Newton ... and they didn't take mathematics as prior to G-d.  In other number systems, XV + IV = XIX.  But you know that is only a notational difference, the abstraction is the same.  Plato got around that, by positing the world of Ideals, that mathematicians had special ability to perceive.

GSOgymrat ... if math only exists in the human mind, and math doesn't exist in the physical universe, then the human mind doesn't exist in the physical universe (as Plato supposed).  Descartes couldn't resolve the mind/matter problem either.

Evening everyone,

My next case is that the earth is only 6000yrs old, to backup this I have research click on the link to learn more. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/ (https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/)

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 07:22:08 AM
Evening everyone,

My next case is that the earth is only 6000yrs old, to backup this I have research click on the link to learn more. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/ (https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/)

Who toasted the toast?

I don't know about you but, I toasted my toast today.

Would you guys stop talking about toast? I'm trying to lose weight and you lot keep making me hungry!
Darn it, I want toast. :mad:

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 07:22:08 AM
Evening everyone,

My next case is that the earth is only 6000yrs old, to backup this I have research click on the link to learn more. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/ (https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/)

How does one person get to be so gullible?  So stupid?  Willfully ignorant??  Oh----by being a theist..............I see.

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
Anything that exists needs a cause...

That is all of the OP I needed to read to give you your answer.  Google "problems with first cause argument".

Aside from the myriad of problems you'll find with the argument there, there is also one very serious problem nobody seems to ever address.  Everything "in the universe" has a cause.  The universe is not "in the universe" and therefore the rules and laws of physics cannot be applied to its creation.  You are trying to apply the laws which govern our physical universe to a time when our physical universe did not exist.  There is no reason to believe that the laws which govern our universe also govern "not our universe", which is what you're talking about when you are talking about a "cause" for our universe.  You're talking about a "cause" in "not our universe".  We have made precisely zero observations in "not our universe", so it is pure speculation that the laws of cause and effect apply.  Worse than that, it's a wild, unfounded assumption that the laws which govern our physical universe govern everything, everywhere, even outside of our universe.  But if you apply those laws universally even outside of our universe it makes your god impossible as matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so "creation" becomes impossible.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 28, 2016, 10:19:54 AM
Would you guys stop talking about toast? I'm trying to lose weight and you lot keep making me hungry!
Darn it, I want toast. :mad:

Sorry I didn't know.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 28, 2016, 10:35:59 AM
How does one person get to be so gullible?  So stupid?  Willfully ignorant??  Oh----by being a theist..............I see.

| know you know that you've seen the theistic sides before and I am not new to you, neither is a person like you new to me.
The lust of flesh and pride blinds many, that is why they watch pornography or desire self will and what keeps them from accepting God, evidence isn't the problem. Quite with porn and you will open your eyes and realize that science is really on our side, but porn and other passions keeps you locked up from coming to the truth, unless you will to change your life, you don't have to let me know that. You might say that most people are with the secular view and follow it, but I warn you with meekness and gentleness that for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Matthew 7:13-14 God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts.  In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). 

So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God. The atheist is intellectually schizophrenicâ€"believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.

Quote from: Asshole of the Century| know you know that you've seen the theistic sides before and I am not new to you, neither is a person like you new to me.

Oh I've not only seen “the theistic side,” I've been totally immersed in it, and paid a lot of good money for my Bible College education, and I can say, with certainty, that “neither is a person like you new to me.”

Quote from: Asshole of the CenturyThe lust of flesh and pride blinds many, that is why they watch pornography or desire self will and what keeps them from accepting God,

No it isn't. It's what keeps you from accepting them. Your thinking is fucked-up with dogmas about sex, because you have been indoctrinated, into a cult, of superstitious fears about touching the penis, or the vagina, even when it's your own.

Quote from: Asshole of the Centuryevidence isn't the problem.

Then PRESENT SOME!

Quote from: Asshole of the CenturyQuite with porn and you will open your eyes and realize that science is really on our side, but porn and other passions keeps you locked up from coming to the truth, unless you will to change your life, you don't have to let me know that.

Science is on YOUR SIDE? You are getting your “science” from an illegitimate source(Probably “Answers in Genesis”).

Quote from: Asshole of the CenturyYou might say that most people are with the secular view and follow it, but I warn you with meekness and gentleness...

MEEKNESS AND GENTLENESS? Oh for fucks sake! Read what you just wrote, you fucking hypocrite!

Quote from: Asshole of the Century...that for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!Matthew 7:13-14

I'll drink my beer, smoke my weed, stroke my cock, and end up in the same place as you: NOWHERE. Only I will have had some great living along the way.

Quote from: Asshole of the CenturyGod Doesn’t Believe in Atheists...

Now THAT is FUNNY!

Quote from: Asshole of the Century...The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts.  In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Experience teaches, that Christians are not really Christians. That is, those who profess to be Christians, ultimately know that God does not exist. In fact, his absence is so obvious, that anyone who suppresses this truth is a dangerous delusional dick.

Quote from: Asshole of the CenturySo even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God. The atheist is intellectually schizophrenicâ€"believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.

Looking for pure motives here? Perhaps you should examine the beam in your own eye, little Christian.

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 01:34:42 PM
| know you know that you've seen the theistic sides before and I am not new to you, neither is a person like you new to me.
The lust of flesh and pride blinds many, that is why they watch pornography or desire self will and what keeps them from accepting God, evidence isn't the problem. Quite with porn and you will open your eyes and realize that science is really on our side, but porn and other passions keeps you locked up from coming to the truth, unless you will to change your life, you don't have to let me know that. You might say that most people are with the secular view and follow it, but I warn you with meekness and gentleness that for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Matthew 7:13-14 God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts.  In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). 

So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God. The atheist is intellectually schizophrenicâ€"believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.

Well, the poster child of willful ignorance chooses to address me.  I'm flattered...not.  You are correct, you are not new to me; the willfully ignorant are legion and so very proud of their ignorance. 

"Quite with the porn....."?????  What????  Oh, I think you mean 'quit'.  He, he.................one of the first things you tell me is to quit porn--I really did not know I had a problem with it.  But, you, on the other had, must  be riddled with guilt because of your 'addiction'.  It is simply a fact that the more a portion of our country is admittedly christian, the more they subscribe to porn.  Is that your problem, John?  Is your hand hairy from masturbation;  are you going blind from it???  My, my, that must be a huge problem for you............for some reason.  Anyway, I hope you seek help with that issue.  It is not an issue for me. 

You say--"In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). "  Of course the bible tells you that.  Your babble tells you that because it was created by man to be used as a tool for keeping the willfully ignorant compliant.  And it works.  Your babble did not just drop to the earth total and complete;  you do know that, don't you???  Have you considered doing a little research on when and where it came into being?   Have you ever considered why there are literally hundreds of different bibles? 

I don't have a 'disbelief' in your god.  That would mean I think god exists and I simply don't want to accept that as a fact; that I'm in rebellion against a real entity.  No.  I don't think your god ever existed; he is a fiction.  It would be like me saying I don't believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.  They are fictions.  I have never thought there was a god; I have seen not one shred of evidence to show me there is a god.  So, what your fiction says about me is of no consequence.  It would be like me worrying what Bugs Bunny had to say about me.  He can't say or think anything--they are fictions--except what you say they say.  I don't give a whit what you think or feel.  You have created your own personal hell; and that is the right and proper place for you to dwell. 

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 01:34:42 PMThe lust of flesh and pride blinds many, that is why they watch pornography or desire self will and what keeps them from accepting God, evidence isn't the problem.

Darn, I lost my place in heaven because of my sinful sex drive.  By the way, who came up with that "lust of flesh" stuff in the first place?

QuoteQuite with porn

Well, some of it is quite good.

Quoteand you will open your eyes and realize that science is really on our side, but porn and other passions keeps you locked up from coming to the truth, unless you will to change your life, you don't have to let me know that.

"Drink my koolaid and then you'll see!"  Umm, no thanks.  I'm good.

QuoteYou might say that most people are with the secular view and follow it, but I warn you with meekness and gentleness that for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction

Sheesh, I'd hate to see a non-gentle threat of eternal torment.  That sounds like the sort of thing a good person wouldn't have to resort to.

QuoteHow narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Matthew 7:13-14 God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts.  In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Did you know the one book that atheists take very seriously is the Bible?  Yep, it's true.  All you gotta do is thump it real hard and bam, easy conversions on the spot.  Tell your friends.

QuoteSo even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them.

Then it's a fortunate thing for Christians that God is willing and able to put all this disbelief to rest by demonstrating his existence unequivocally to everyone right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XGQ6ZXxf8

"Nothing yet, you?"
"A little thirsty."

Excuse me for my misspelling as I am from Asia and I am not very familiar with English, If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves whom you will serve  either yourself or the Lord your God. You are still not accepting God because you are continuing to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18 also you are spinning my points around, very clever, but remember you will not have the  opportunity to argue in front of God, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. I have already proven you that God exists on page one. But your heart tells you deep down that God exists, God is existence itself.

So while the you made a compelling argument about religion, it is an argument derived from your intellect. Without illumination from the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand the things of God and can only see the world through your intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18, 23, 2:14). Used to seeing religion as a system of “dos and don’ts” (I.e. control by the religious elites), it is hard for you to understand Christianity as a relationship with God.

So while I can counter your arguments, it may not necessarily convince you. your argument and your atheism merely offers me an opening to share the Gospel. If my aim is to convert you, I still need to preach the Gospel to you. Often, this includes the possibility of offending you since people are naturally hostile to the Gospel (Romans 8:7). True Gospel is Christ centered and not man centered. There is really no such thing as “seeker sensitive” as some churches are deep into these days.

Paul in Acts 17:16-34 serves as a good model for us. He used the “unknown god” as an opening to start a conversation with the Greeks. But once he started, he went straight to the Gospel. No time is spent debating to satisfy the listeners’ curiosity despite their inclinations (verse 21). Yet, while some mocked (verse 32), some were converted after hearing Paul (verse 34).

Ultimately, there is nothing inherently different between an atheist or a non- Christian with religious beliefs. We theists can definitely address your concerns and arguments but only the Holy Spirit can save (John 15:26, 16:8, 13-15). God always get the glory. We are only His instrument for evangelism. If you reject what I say, you are not rejecting me or the strength of my counter argument. Rather you are rejecting the One who sends me.

God bless.

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 04:14:31 PM
I have already proven you that God exists on page one.

No, you really haven't. I know you think you do. But no.

And again. Please go make an intro-thread. Strictly speaking, this thread shouldn't have been made (yet) if you were to follow the rules.

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 04:14:31 PM


Ultimately, there is nothing inherently different between an atheist or a non- Christian with religious beliefs. We theists can definitely address your concerns and arguments but only the Holy Spirit can save (John 15:26, 16:8, 13-15). God always get the glory. We are only His instrument for evangelism. If you rejects what I say, you are not rejecting me or the strength of your counter argument. Rather you are rejecting the One who sends me.

God bless.

John, are you on an assignment or something?  Were you sent to troll this site as a requirement of some sort; are you earning savior points or something?  So, who the fuck is sending you?  This One???  Oh yeah, that One god.  Not the others, but the one.  Since only the holy spit can save, I hope he is saving Green Stamps, for I can't use Blue Chip Stamps. 

John, look into a mirror--you see that reflection?  As kindly as I can put it, you are seeing an idiot; a gullible, stupid, vapid, thoughtless, blind person of belief.  Have you ever had a thought in your life; and I don't mean a belief, for you are riddled with them.  A thought--they are good for the soul--which does not exist either, but you know what I mean. 

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 04:14:31 PM
Excuse me for my misspelling as I am from Asia and I am not very familiar with English, If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves whom you will serve  either yourself or the Lord your God. You are still not accepting God because you are continuing to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18 also you are spinning my points around, very clever, but remember you will not have the  opportunity to argue in front of God, but as  but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. I have already proven you that God exists on page one. But you heart tells you deep down that God exists, God is existence itself.

So while the you made a compelling argument about religion, it is an argument derived from your intellect. Without illumination from the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand the things of God and can only see the world through your intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18, 23, 2:14). Used to seeing religion as a system of “dos and don’ts” (I.e. control by the religious elites), it is hard for you to understand Christianity as a relationship with God.

So while I can counter your arguments, it may not necessarily convince you. your argument and your atheism merely offers me an opening to share the Gospel. If my aim is to convert you, I still need to preach the Gospel to you. Often, this includes the possibility of offending you since people are naturally hostile to the Gospel (Romans 8:7). True Gospel is Christ centered and not man centered. There is really no such thing as “seeker sensitive” as some churches are deep into these days.

Paul in Acts 17:16-34 serves as a good model for us. He used the “unknown god” as an opening to start a conversation with the Greeks. But once he started, he went straight to the Gospel. No time is spent debating to satisfy the listeners’ curiosity despite their inclinations (verse 21). Yet, while some mocked (verse 32), some were converted after hearing Paul (verse 34).

Ultimately, there is nothing inherently different between an atheist or a non- Christian with religious beliefs. We theists can definitely address your concerns and arguments but only the Holy Spirit can save (John 15:26, 16:8, 13-15). God always get the glory. We are only His instrument for evangelism. If you rejects what I say, you are not rejecting me or the strength of your counter argument. Rather you are rejecting the One who sends me.

God bless.

Sorry, Mike and Mr. O, I know there are several composing responses to this, but I only have one question:
:signban:

I mean, for fuck's sake, man. Go preach on a street-corner or something.

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 04:14:31 PMUltimately, there is nothing inherently different between an atheist or a non- Christian with religious beliefs.

Well...except for the religious beliefs.  Other than that small difference (and the different mentalities that cause that difference), they're not very different at all.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 28, 2016, 04:31:09 PM
John, are you on an assignment or something?  Were you sent to troll this site as a requirement of some sort; are you earning savior points or something?  So, who the fuck is sending you?  This One???  Oh yeah, that One god.  Not the others, but the one.  Since only the holy spit can save, I hope he is saving Green Stamps, for I can't use Blue Chip Stamps. 

John, look into a mirror--you see that reflection?  As kindly as I can put it, you are seeing an idiot; a gullible, stupid, vapid, thoughtless, blind person of belief.  Have you ever had a thought in your life; and I don't mean a belief, for you are riddled with them.  A thought--they are good for the soul--which does not exist either, but you know what I mean.

I repeat, If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves whom you will serve  either yourself or the Lord your God. You are still not accepting God because you are continuing to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18 also you are spinning my points around, very clever, but remember you will not have the  opportunity to argue in front of God, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. I have already proven you that God exists on page one. But your heart tells you deep down that God exists, God is existence itself.

So while you made a compelling argument about religion, it is an argument derived from your intellect. Without illumination from the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand the things of God and can only see the world through your intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18, 23, 2:14). Used to seeing religion as a system of “dos and don’ts” (I.e. control by the religious elites), it is hard for you to understand Christianity as a relationship with God.

So while I can counter your arguments, it may not necessarily convince you. your argument and your atheism merely offers me an opening to share the Gospel. If my aim is to convert you, I still need to preach the Gospel to you. Often, this includes the possibility of offending you since people are naturally hostile to the Gospel (Romans 8:7). True Gospel is Christ centered and not man centered. There is really no such thing as “seeker sensitive” as some churches are deep into these days.

Paul in Acts 17:16-34 serves as a good model for us. He used the “unknown god” as an opening to start a conversation with the Greeks. But once he started, he went straight to the Gospel. No time is spent debating to satisfy the listeners’ curiosity despite their inclinations (verse 21). Yet, while some mocked (verse 32), some were converted after hearing Paul (verse 34).

Ultimately, there is nothing inherently different between an atheist or a non- Christian with religious beliefs. We theists can definitely address your concerns and arguments but only the Holy Spirit can save (John 15:26, 16:8, 13-15). God always get the glory. We are only His instrument for evangelism. If you reject what I say, you are not rejecting me or the strength of my counter argument. Rather you are rejecting the One who sends me.

God bless.

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 05:01:51 PM
I repeat, If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves whom you will serve  either yourself or the Lord your God. You are still not accepting God because you are continuing to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18 also you are spinning my points around, very clever, but remember you will not have the  opportunity to argue in front of God, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. I have already proven you that God exists on page one. But your heart tells you deep down that God exists, God is existence itself.

So while the you made a compelling argument about religion, it is an argument derived from your intellect. Without illumination from the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand the things of God and can only see the world through your intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18, 23, 2:14). Used to seeing religion as a system of “dos and don’ts” (I.e. control by the religious elites), it is hard for you to understand Christianity as a relationship with God.

So while I can counter your arguments, it may not necessarily convince you. your argument and your atheism merely offers me an opening to share the Gospel. If my aim is to convert you, I still need to preach the Gospel to you. Often, this includes the possibility of offending you since people are naturally hostile to the Gospel (Romans 8:7). True Gospel is Christ centered and not man centered. There is really no such thing as “seeker sensitive” as some churches are deep into these days.

Paul in Acts 17:16-34 serves as a good model for us. He used the “unknown god” as an opening to start a conversation with the Greeks. But once he started, he went straight to the Gospel. No time is spent debating to satisfy the listeners’ curiosity despite their inclinations (verse 21). Yet, while some mocked (verse 32), some were converted after hearing Paul (verse 34).

Ultimately, there is nothing inherently different between an atheist or a non- Christian with religious beliefs. We theists can definitely address your concerns and arguments but only the Holy Spirit can save (John 15:26, 16:8, 13-15). God always get the glory. We are only His instrument for evangelism. If you reject what I say, you are not rejecting me or the strength of my counter argument. Rather you are rejecting the One who sends me.

God bless.

Oh I get it. You're trying to convert us.

Sorry, I stopped believing in Santa Clause years ago.

If you want to know whether christianity is true and Jesus Christ is a real historical person, research it yourself.  You seem intelligent.  I'm sure you could find evidence on your own, most everyone else who studies history did.

Back to my main point, that the first thing to ever, ever exist is what? "Existence".  Existence is what first existed before anything came to be, God is existence that decides, what to come into existence. Existence is God, God is existence, if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It."

My main point on page one can be summarized, here by brother Linux from Catholic Forum who wrote:

QuoteAquinas does state that God's essence is identical with his esse; which means he is the act of existing itself, and is not simply participating in existence.

If this is true, then it would mean that the act of existence is God's nature, which explains his necessity.

Also God is the fullness of existence, which means God by himself is the very antithesis of nothing, he is the very meaning of existence itself.

He lacks no existence, which means he is not in potentiality to more existence, and therefore everything that is necessarily true of the act of existence is identical to God.

Thus if God creates something, it cannot mean that he creating another "act of existence", since that would mean he is not the fullness of reality given that there is an act of existence that is not his own; as a result he would be in potentiality to more existence which is a contradiction.

Also that which is synonymous to the act of existence would exists necessarily and so it is incoherent for God to create an act of existence. Therefore creatures, in-order to be real, have to participate in Gods existence, because they cannot by logical necessity have their own act of existence.

If creatures have an act of existence, their nature is either identical to the act of existence and therefore its their nature to exist (making them God, which is impossible), or the act by which they are real is not identical to their nature and therefore the act by which they are real is a distinct nature of its own. Since such a nature is the act of existence it would exist necessarily and would be God.

Think about it, but you don't have to let me know.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 09:42:48 PM

Blah blah….NOTHING suggests the universe NEEDS a creator, except for people like you who demand that your god is actually real to justify the time, money and ego you have spent defending it. Its called "embarrassment".

I don't need to explain any part of the universe when there is nothing that says it cannot happen naturally, and this is absolutely true because it everything says it happened that way!

You want intelligent design? Fine, I have no problem with an accidental creator or an apathetic creator, but the notion that in a 14 billion light year universe so vast that it could not recognize the difference between an atom and our entire planet was created for "us" and then demands our piety while being so incompetent that it cannot even defeat us in a war is fucking absurd.

You claim it is possible for a conscious "being" to have always existed prior to anything else existing, billions of years and have the ability to know everything of things "it' won't "create" for billions more, a concept so absurd that you claim it must be taken as reasonable simply because it IS absurd. This is not just an assumption but an absurdity that deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule. By your "logic" I can proclaim that Alice in Wonderland created the universe and then settled in as the character to watch humans exist. And using your "logic" I should be able to demand everyone listen and respect my "facts". Bull-shit. Absurdity does not get any special clause for consideration simply because you want it to be.

The only reason you are pushing "intelligent creation" is for the sake of your god who is so stymied by a woman's menstrual cycle (that you claim he made with intelligent design-HA) that he orders her to be ordered out of the village.  Even your god is an embarrassment.

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 05:20:55 PM
If you want to know whether christianity is true and Jesus Christ is a real historical person, research it yourself.   I'm sure you could find evidence on your own, most everyone else who studies history did.

BULLSHIT.

In the first place less than 1/3 of the world believes in your boy. Secondly "most" christians are christians not because they researched it, they were born into it and forced into it. Lastly, christianity was spread by the sword and gun and if you don't know that, you sure as hell shouldn't be flapping your lips about reading history.

Tell me this, John Paul:

If god exists, why isn't he able to help me find my car keys?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 28, 2016, 05:33:33 PM
Tell me this, John Paul:

If god exists, why isn't he able to help me find my car keys?

Obviously, in your heart of hearts, you hear him screaming: "check yesterday's pants you fool!" But you convince yourself you don't hear him because you want to live in sin and watch porn at home, rather than drive to salvation army and drop off some clothes.

Remember, the fool sayeth in his heart; there is no goddamned sign of my goddamned keys anywhere.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 28, 2016, 05:33:33 PM
Tell me this, John Paul:

If god exists, why isn't he able to help me find my car keys?

The prayer must be in Gods will~my thought, but lets see the full reason.

This may be sound insulting but I can't explain otherwise.

QuoteJohn 9:31 declares, “We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will.” It has also been said that “the only prayer that God hears from a sinner is the prayer for salvation.” As a result, some believe that God does not hear and/or will never answer the prayers of an unbeliever. In context, though, John 9:31 is saying that God does not perform miracles through an unbeliever. First John 5:14-15 tells us that God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will. This principle, perhaps, applies to unbelievers. If an unbeliever asks a prayer of God that is according to His will, nothing prevents God from answering such a prayerâ€"according to His will. https://gotquestions.org/unbeliever-prayer.html

Any question can be answered with a little bit of research e.g google, I may research for you if you couldn't find the answer to a particular question.

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 05:01:51 PM
I have already proven you that God exists on page one. But your heart tells you deep down that God exists, God is existence itself.

All my heart is doing at the moment is pumping blood.   

I've still seen no compelling reason to even suspect a god exists, let alone believe in one.

Your premise that god is existence is unfounded and nonsensical.   Have you heard of the Anthropic Principle?

The Anthropic Principle is speculation, it isn't science.

Just asserting that there is a reason for the universe and a cause of it is pretty arrogant. Not to mention claiming to know, what this cause is with out any proof is also pretty arrogant.

We don't know what was before the universe or what physical laws it followed. You coming here and telling us that you do with out a lick of evidence is a waste of your time and my time. If scientists don't know, what makes you think that you know or better yet some bronze age herders know? Did mommy and daddy teach you that from a young age and now you are unable to tell the difference between a perpetuation of deception and what is real?

Just because YOU can not fathom anything existing with out a cause or reason doesn't mean that it can't.

Going a step further and then assuming the creator is YOUR god is also pretty arrogant. You haven't even proven that the universe was created or what it was created by but now you go straight to your god! Pretty convenient way to explain things rather than doing any research or scientific studies.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 28, 2016, 07:28:32 AM
Who toasted the toast?

(http://new2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/It+seems+like+funnyjunk+community+is+turning+into+the+youtube+_2bca0c97bed5f36bfece12eebcd1bba4.png)

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 05:01:51 PM
I repeat, If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves whom you will serve  either yourself or the Lord your God. You are still not accepting God because you are continuing to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18 also you are spinning my points around, very clever, but remember you will not have the  opportunity to argue in front of God, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. I have already proven you that God exists on page one. But your heart tells you deep down that God exists, God is existence itself.

So while you made a compelling argument about religion, it is an argument derived from your intellect. Without illumination from the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand the things of God and can only see the world through your intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18, 23, 2:14). Used to seeing religion as a system of “dos and don’ts” (I.e. control by the religious elites), it is hard for you to understand Christianity as a relationship with God.

So while I can counter your arguments, it may not necessarily convince you. your argument and your atheism merely offers me an opening to share the Gospel. If my aim is to convert you, I still need to preach the Gospel to you. Often, this includes the possibility of offending you since people are naturally hostile to the Gospel (Romans 8:7). True Gospel is Christ centered and not man centered. There is really no such thing as “seeker sensitive” as some churches are deep into these days.

Paul in Acts 17:16-34 serves as a good model for us. He used the “unknown god” as an opening to start a conversation with the Greeks. But once he started, he went straight to the Gospel. No time is spent debating to satisfy the listeners’ curiosity despite their inclinations (verse 21). Yet, while some mocked (verse 32), some were converted after hearing Paul (verse 34).

Ultimately, there is nothing inherently different between an atheist or a non- Christian with religious beliefs. We theists can definitely address your concerns and arguments but only the Holy Spirit can save (John 15:26, 16:8, 13-15). God always get the glory. We are only His instrument for evangelism. If you reject what I say, you are not rejecting me or the strength of my counter argument. Rather you are rejecting the One who sends me.

God bless.

You are one inane idiot person.  :)))))))  You hardly qualify as a chew toy; and your are too stupid to be a good troll.  I guess, Zero would be a good name for you.  Have a grand life, Zero.  You interest me not.

aitm,

this is all quite laughable, bit I'll try to elaborate anyway.

I lost all pride or "ego" before GOD ever made itself known to me.

I've spent no money due to my belief. I may be slightly more giving, but I'm naturally frivolous anyway so another moot point.

Lastly; if you knew how I had spent my time prior to faith then you consider my studies or talks or worship or whatever you want to call it a better use of said time.

I don't really get embarrassed because I couldn't care less what others think.

No you don't need to explain anything. What you might want to explain is how and why you draw a dividing line between nature and the creation of nature as if it wasn't all caused by something greater than it.

What is an accidental creator....remember chance and coincidence have zero evidence backing them. Such sound logic...
An apathetic creator....really? Tell me, do you waste exponential amounts of energy and power on things you couldn't care less about?

You seem to be referencing the ot a lot. Care to site any other religious text? Preferably one that isn't said to be corrupt within the the same book? You should try to understand that things could be the way they are because GOD doesn't impose IT's will. We are given freedom. Anything else would be prison.

What is absurd is the notion that this vast, diverse, live, predictable expanse known as the universe and what is in it could have reasonably come about by chance or coincidence or simple chaos or void alone.

You seem quite obsessed with periods. Have you talked to your shrink about that?

get back to me if you ever really want to discuss things with some level of intellectual honesty.

peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 29, 2016, 12:24:15 AMWhat is absurd is the notion that this vast, diverse, live, predictable expanse known as the universe and what is in it could have reasonably come about by chance or coincidence or simple chaos or void alone.

Which is more absurd? To claim that the universe was created by natural means or to claim that something that has never been observed to exist must be the cause? Apply Occam's Razer here. One claims that nature was the result of natural processes. The other claims that something else stepped in and created nature. The bigger assumption is that there is something outside time and space, which exists outside the confines of nature, that consciously decided to create the world.

The atheist is consistent in his logic. He is honest in saying "I don't know." The theist has the nerve to say, "I know, and you should take my word for it."

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 08:33:10 AM
Can you show evidence of things being random or chance?

Research has been done on the effects of prayer, finding no difference between people prayed for and people not prayed for. The best prayer can be said to provide is a placebo effect, and even then it only works if the other person knows they're being prayed for. Heck, you could lie and say you're praying for someone and just forget about it, and the placebo effect would still be the same.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 29, 2016, 12:24:15 AMNo you don't need to explain anything. What you might want to explain is how and why you draw a dividing line between nature and the creation of nature as if it wasn't all caused by something greater than it.

That's the prevailing supposition.  But it's strange that this is asserted as if it were self-evident when it's actually not at all self-evident.

QuoteAn apathetic creator....really? Tell me, do you waste exponential amounts of energy and power on things you couldn't care less about?

*gazes wistfully at coin-collecting folders and dusty Sum 41 CDs*

QuoteWhat is absurd is the notion that this vast, diverse, live, predictable expanse known as the universe and what is in it could have reasonably come about by chance or coincidence or simple chaos or void alone.

A few quantum physicists might question the assertion that it's predictable.  But yeah, the universe is pretty big and diverse place. 

So...what about that necessitates some sort of divine intervention?  Isn't that just an argument from incredulity?  I don't see how this all might have come about naturally, so God done didit.  Our ancestors have been down that path before.  Lightning?  Goddidit.  Disease?  Goddidit.  Natural disasters?  Godidit.  Sure, all those claims are bogus and our ancestors were superstitious nitwits, but they're totally right about God speaking the universe into existence, separating the waters above from the waters below, etc.

How many Godidits do we have to bury before the godidit argument has lost all credibility?

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 29, 2016, 02:52:25 AM
That's the prevailing supposition.  But it's strange that this is asserted as if it were self-evident when it's actually not at all self-evident.
*gazes wistfully at coin-collecting folders and dusty Sum 41 CDs*
A few quantum physicists might question the assertion that it's predictable.  But yeah, the universe is pretty big and diverse place. 

So...what about that necessitates some sort of divine intervention?  Isn't that just an argument from incredulity?  I don't see how this all might have come about naturally, so God done didit.  Our ancestors have been down that path before.  Lightning?  Goddidit.  Disease?  Goddidit.  Natural disasters?  Godidit.  Sure, all those claims are bogus and our ancestors were superstitious nitwits, but they're totally right about God speaking the universe into existence, separating the waters above from the waters below, etc.

How many Godidits do we have to bury before the godidit argument has lost all credibly?

You are still missing the point.

Regardless of how far we are allowed to delve into nature and it's causes, what is natural is too of what created it or formed it. As if lightning can't be from GOD because we can describe where it comes from. They say the theist is classifying or compartmentalizing when this is done.

Quote from: Baruch on November 28, 2016, 06:45:28 PM
The Anthropic Principle is speculation, it isn't science.

It's logically consistent.  Which in my opinion puts it miles above "God did it."

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 29, 2016, 07:18:31 AMYou are still missing the point.

An ironic statement.

QuoteRegardless of how far we are allowed to delve into nature and it's causes, what is natural is too of what created it or formed it.

(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/files/2015/08/WordSalad-150x150.jpg)

QuoteAs if lightning can't be from GOD because we can describe where it comes from.

We can now.  But before it was known, virtually everyone "knew" it was a sure sign of the gods.  Goddidit.

As science has advanced as these supernatural causes have been increasingly explained by naturalistic causes, the reaction hasn't been to abandon this sort of magical thinking but to retreat to whatever gaps in knowledge still exist.  Enter your claim that God kicked off the universe - the ultimate god of the gaps.  And you never have to worry about being contradicted because so much of the subject is unknown and it's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to fully investigate.  So you get to pretend that your goddidit is on par with any other explanation.  But the reality is it's just another godidit in a long and ill-fated line godidits and doomed for identical reasons:  mere superstition masquerading as reasoned argument and dead the instant the unknown becomes known.

And then you'll just find something else.  And around and around we go.

Quote from: Blackleaf on November 27, 2016, 01:26:08 AM
The argument of intelligent design again. Since you're new, I'll remain civil because maybe you haven't heard from atheists on this issue before. Consider this, if creation is intelligently designed, what makes the house stand out? If all that exists is intelligently designed, then the house created by humans is just one creation out of many. Your pointing out the obviousness of the design behind the house actually hurts your argument.

Also, claiming that everything must have a cause doesn't help you either. Claiming that God is "outside time and space" does not excuse him from the rule. I find it much more believable that there is a source of energy, with no personality or self-awareness, that creates universes. Such a non-intelligent creator could just as easily exist. Creationism's own arguments work against the likelihood that there was an intelligent creator. Creationists claim that because humans are intelligent, a greater intelligence must have been responsible for designing us. So then, what designed the intelligence of God?

It makes no sense for an intelligent God to just exist without a cause. Why would such a being have a personality? Why would such a being prefer one thing over another? Humans are that way because of a mix of biological and environmental influences. So then what determined that God would care about human lives? What prevented him from being an evil tyrant, entertaining himself by torturing his creation? Unless you can give a solid reason why an all powerful being must be the way you believe him to be, I have no more reason to believe in him than in the infinite other concepts of gods who are just as likely to exist.

I have a question for you. Why do you focus so hard on the past when trying to prove God exists? Why not look to the one short time frame you actually have experience with; the present? This is why I no longer believe in God. Imagine your life being exactly the same except for one thing: God doesn't exist. What else would change? If you're honest with yourself, you will know the answer. It's nothing. God or no God, his existence has no impact on my life at all. His "answered prayers" were random change, just as his unanswered prayers were random chance. If you talk to God, God does not talk back. If an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent creator exists, he has purposefully hid himself so well as to cause some to doubt he even exists. And those who do believe he exists have formed countless religions trying in vain to discover his nature. An active God would have no doubters, and religion wouldn't exist because his nature would be clear.

I also find it ironic that you would choose Rowan Atkinson as your avatar. It's funny, considering the comedy sketches he's performed, making fun of Christianity.

You ask many important questions.  Let me direct you to a great source to get a handle on the nature of God, and that is Thomas Aquinas.  When you get a chance, slowly read and ponder his answers and responses to common challenges relating to the existence, essence, and operations of God:  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

There are a couple of problems with your presumptions, which I'll just mention quickly.  Reason and science tell us two things: a) Everything in the realm of space/time/matter has a cause outside itself; b) and in order for anything to exist now (which it does) causes could not have gone back infinitely.  This points to a transcendent first uncaused Cause.  You can call this whatever you want, but for anything to currently exist this is necessary. 

a) we know things in the realm of space/time/matter exist (we are a part of it); b) we know it was all caused by something outside itself since finite causes cannot go back infinitely, therefore, c) understanding this necessary uncaused Cause is the challenge.  Deists call this God (such as Aristotle), Jews and Christians also call this God; but if you want to call it something else, feel free.  Different than Deists, Jews and Christians supplement this gift of natural reason with the supernatural gift faith, and know God as not only the infinite and eternal creator of the universe, but also a personal God who loves His creation.  It makes sense that a God of Love would have an 'overflow' of goodness to share with creatures of His making.

Since God is not part of creation, He is not of the realm of time/space/matter, and He is not "a" being but rather being itself (since His essence is existence), the rules of finite creation do not apply to Him.

Peace,

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 29, 2016, 09:46:46 AM
An ironic statement.
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/files/2015/08/WordSalad-150x150.jpg)
We can now.  But before it was known, virtually everyone "knew" it was a sure sign of the gods.  Goddidit.

As science has advanced as these supernatural causes have been increasingly explained by naturalistic causes, the reaction hasn't been to abandon this sort of magical thinking but to retreat to whatever gaps in knowledge still exist.  Enter your claim that God kicked off the universe - the ultimate god of the gaps.  And you never have to worry about being contradicted because so much of the subject is unknown and it's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to fully investigate.  So you get to pretend that your goddidit is on par with any other explanation.  But the reality is it's just another godidit in a long and ill-fated line godidits and doomed for identical reasons:  mere superstition masquerading as reasoned argument and dead the instant the unknown becomes known.

And then you'll just find something else.  And around and around we go.

You're still missing the point. Natural causes are of GOD. Any truths we come to realize or because of GOD. No reasonable person claims science refutes GOD or visa versa.

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 29, 2016, 09:46:46 AM

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 29, 2016, 07:18:31 AM
You are still missing the point.

Regardless of how far we are allowed to delve into nature and it's causes, what is natural is too of what created it or formed it. As if lightning can't be from GOD because we can describe where it comes from. They say the theist is classifying or compartmentalizing when this is done.

We can now.  But before it was known, virtually everyone "knew" it was a sure sign of the gods.  Goddidit.

As science has advanced as these supernatural causes have been increasingly explained by naturalistic causes, the reaction hasn't been to abandon this sort of magical thinking but to retreat to whatever gaps in knowledge still exist.  Enter your claim that God kicked off the universe - the ultimate god of the gaps.  And you never have to worry about being contradicted because so much of the subject is unknown and it's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to fully investigate.  So you get to pretend that your goddidit is on par with any other explanation.  But the reality is it's just another godidit in a long and ill-fated line godidits and doomed for identical reasons:  mere superstition masquerading as reasoned argument and dead the instant the unknown becomes known.

And then you'll just find something else.  And around and around we go.

I clicked, "Like," but I have to give this one some "Love." You articulated this so well, I may have to save, and memorize it, for use later.
:high5:

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 29, 2016, 11:12:40 AM
You're still missing the point. Natural causes are of GOD. Any truths we come to realize or because of GOD. No reasonable person claims science refutes GOD or visa versa.

You are missing a point.  A big one.  You suggest than no reasonable person claims science refutes god.  I agree.  Because that is a false comparison.  Let me substitute a name for god--Bugs Bunny--and even you would see that science does not refute the existence of Bugs Bunny because Bugs is a fiction.  God is a fiction.  Science does not set out to refute anything.  It only demonstrates what is.  Oh, a scientist may perform an experiment to refute another person's experiment, but science is not built on refuting anybody or anything.  It is about the discovery of facts and reliable evidence.  And from those facts and evidence, more facts and evidence can be uncovered.  You seem very impatient to move this process along  quicker, for you seem to be quite upset with the gaps of knowledge that science has not filled in yet.  So, you simply insert 'god did it' and that seems to satisfy the need to know.  That is the same need that created god in the first place.  You, and other theists, are trying to wage a war where none exists.  Science doesn't give a whit about your god--or you Bugs Bunny or you Paul Bunyan; there is no war.  Give science one shred of evidence for god and then maybe you can start that war.

A technicality ...

Natural vs Supernatural - some see these as opposites, I see them as complements
Immanent vs Transcendent - some see these as opposites, I see them as complements

If y'all would be more clear, when speaking of Immanent god vs Transcendent god ... it would be more clear.

People who see opposites, also often take the position that A is real, but not-A is unreal.  I also don't agree with that.  People on both sides here, claim to have infallibility ... otherwise both sides would claim "I don't know" and the discussion would be over.  What is actually happening is that "I prefer this, but you prefer that, and I deny that this is complementary, or that opposites can both be real and that in particular my POV is right).  As is usual with humans, it is strutting roosters all the way down ...

Quote from: Baruch on November 29, 2016, 12:41:23 PM
A technicality ...

Natural vs Supernatural - some see these as opposites, I see them as complements
Immanent vs Transcendent - some see these as opposites, I see them as complements

If y'all would be more clear, when speaking of Immanent god vs Transcendent god ... it would be more clear.

People who see opposites, also often take the position that A is real, but not-A is unreal.  I also don't agree with that.  People on both sides here, claim to have infallibility ... otherwise both sides would claim "I don't know" and the discussion would be over.  What is actually happening is that "I prefer this, but you prefer that, and I deny that this is complementary, or that opposites can both be real and that in particular my POV is right).  As is usual with humans, it is strutting roosters all the way down ...

Are you saying that natural vs supernatural is redundant?  If so, why the two words?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 29, 2016, 11:12:40 AMNatural causes are of GOD. Any truths we come to realize or because of GOD.

Proof by assertion.

QuoteNo reasonable person claims science refutes GOD

Because it's impossible to prove a negative and also because it's impossible to disprove an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Quote from: Baruch on November 29, 2016, 12:41:23 PM
A technicality ...

Natural vs Supernatural - some see these as opposites, I see them as complements
Immanent vs Transcendent - some see these as opposites, I see them as complements

If y'all would be more clear, when speaking of Immanent god vs Transcendent god ... it would be more clear.

People who see opposites, also often take the position that A is real, but not-A is unreal.  I also don't agree with that.  People on both sides here, claim to have infallibility ... otherwise both sides would claim "I don't know" and the discussion would be over.  What is actually happening is that "I prefer this, but you prefer that, and I deny that this is complementary, or that opposites can both be real and that in particular my POV is right).  As is usual with humans, it is strutting roosters all the way down ...

Can the universe be eternal and uncaused?  This would make the universe a necessary being and place it on the plateau of being God, which is what ancient pantheists and Hindus held.  Not only does big-bang cosmology point to the universe having a beginning, but common human intuition, I believe rightly, seems to indicate there must be a transcendent intelligence behind the realm of matter/space/time that gives it meaning and purpose, not to mention existence and continued being.

St.Thomas Aquinas distinguished between creation and cause, and said that while the universe theoretically could have been caused without having a beginning in time, it still had to be caused. In other words, God who is eternal by nature could have caused the universe to have no beginning, while remaining its Cause, and sustaining its existence.  Personally, I don't understand this possibility, but his mind was much larger than mine is.  Nevertheless, Aquinas said that despite this theoretical possibility of being caused but not created with a beginning, he did indeed believe, through the supernatural gift of faith, that the universe had a beginning: God Himself revealed this through sacred Scripture.

Monotheism makes a lot more sense to me than pantheism. It not only satisfies the mind but also the heart and soul.  The universe is not personal and cannot be communicated with through prayer.  And we are more than material things that nonsensically evolved through secondary causes with no reason and for no purpose. Rather, we are persons with intellect and will and a destiny far beyond this confines of this temporal life.  The "happily ever after" and perfection of love and truth for which we were made - for which every human heart longs - is not to be found in this life. Sin interfered with that in Eden at the genesis of our existence and human nature that we inherited needs a redeeming Savior.  Hence, the love of God is both justice and mercy.

Peace,

Quote from: doorknob on November 28, 2016, 06:50:10 PM
Just asserting that there is a reason for the universe and a cause of it is pretty arrogant. Not to mention claiming to know, what this cause is with out any proof is also pretty arrogant.

We don't know what was before the universe or what physical laws it followed. You coming here and telling us that you do with out a lick of evidence is a waste of your time and my time. If scientists don't know, what makes you think that you know or better yet some bronze age herders know? Did mommy and daddy teach you that from a young age and now you are unable to tell the difference between a perpetuation of deception and what is real?

Just because YOU can not fathom anything existing with out a cause or reason doesn't mean that it can't.

Going a step further and then assuming the creator is YOUR god is also pretty arrogant. You haven't even proven that the universe was created or what it was created by but now you go straight to your god! Pretty convenient way to explain things rather than doing any research or scientific studies.

I am not being arrogant, If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions? If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon me that I am being arrogant or that God is arrogant?

The "secular, ordinary natural" view is inherently contradictory.  Basically it holds that all things have a cause and nothing can cause itself, but that there is no transcendent cause of the universe itself.  It focuses solely on secondary causes and purposely ignores the most important question of all, the primary cause.  Secondary causes fun to discover, but are meaningless - as is the entirety of life - without the First uncaused Cause.

Either God exists, or He doesn’t. And, theism and atheism imply starkly different worlds. Atheism is a world of no objective purpose, meaning, beauty, or value. Theism expects science to work, it’s a massive accident if God doesn’t exist. But this contradicts strong agnosticism, which entails that theistic and atheistic worlds must be indiscernible. It also means weak agnosticism is flawed. The wildly different implications of theism and atheism make it unreasonable to remain agnostic forever.

Back to my main point, that the first thing to ever, ever exist is what? "Existence".  Existence is what first existed before anything came to be, God is existence that decides, what to come into existence. Existence is God, God is existence, if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." Doesn't God need a cause? Nay, Since God is existence itself and therefore not part of the creation, He is not of the realm of time/space/matter, and He is not "a" being but rather being itself (since His essence is existence), the rules of finite creation do not apply to Him.

If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb evolution without meaning or purpose, then we obviously know God did it, But you may say "BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT Just because we didn't come here by an accident through chance of evolution!" Well in that case if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." With a meaning and a purpose to life.

Why should I presume ignorance about God’s existence? Is that the only way to give all the claims a fair hearing? First, that’s simply not true; agnosticism is a bias, so it’s no less free from the dangers of confirmation bias than theism or atheism. If we presume not to know whether God exists, we may treat the truth superficially and improperly preserve a pretended neutrality between the options. Second, from within agnosticism this only amounts to a recommendation, not an obligation. Agnosticism cannot ground objective morals.

Finally, a dogged stance of doubt in the face of uncertainty is not very reasonable. For instance, Jesus said: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7). You claim not to know whether God exists or not, very well, then where are you going to place your bet?
If you place it with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist e.g you are dead then you are dead, you don't suffer. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain, you will suffer in hell for 23940billionyrs+eternity. Let us assess the two cases: if you win being a christian and God does exist, you win everything, if you lose being a christian and God does not exist, you lose nothing.
Peace,

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 04:14:31 PM
Excuse me for my misspelling as I am from Asia and I am not very familiar with English, If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves whom you will serve  either yourself or the Lord your God. You are still not accepting God because you are continuing to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:18 also you are spinning my points around, very clever, but remember you will not have the  opportunity to argue in front of God, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. I have already proven you that God exists on page one. But your heart tells you deep down that God exists, God is existence itself.

So while the you made a compelling argument about religion, it is an argument derived from your intellect. Without illumination from the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand the things of God and can only see the world through your intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18, 23, 2:14). Used to seeing religion as a system of “dos and don’ts” (I.e. control by the religious elites), it is hard for you to understand Christianity as a relationship with God.

So while I can counter your arguments, it may not necessarily convince you. your argument and your atheism merely offers me an opening to share the Gospel. If my aim is to convert you, I still need to preach the Gospel to you. Often, this includes the possibility of offending you since people are naturally hostile to the Gospel (Romans 8:7). True Gospel is Christ centered and not man centered. There is really no such thing as “seeker sensitive” as some churches are deep into these days.

Paul in Acts 17:16-34 serves as a good model for us. He used the “unknown god” as an opening to start a conversation with the Greeks. But once he started, he went straight to the Gospel. No time is spent debating to satisfy the listeners’ curiosity despite their inclinations (verse 21). Yet, while some mocked (verse 32), some were converted after hearing Paul (verse 34).

Ultimately, there is nothing inherently different between an atheist or a non- Christian with religious beliefs. We theists can definitely address your concerns and arguments but only the Holy Spirit can save (John 15:26, 16:8, 13-15). God always get the glory. We are only His instrument for evangelism. If you reject what I say, you are not rejecting me or the strength of my counter argument. Rather you are rejecting the One who sends me.

God bless.

And there you go.  We've found some common ground.  Neither of us thinks that we will get the opportunity to argue in front of God.  Or Santa Claus either, I'd wager.

Quote from: widdershins on November 29, 2016, 04:16:06 PM
And there you go.  We've found some common ground.  Neither of us thinks that we will get the opportunity to argue in front of God.  Or Santa Claus either, I'd wager.

So your point is why do I or we christians believe in Jesus, but not in Santa Claus? Here's why. I asked Google. Google responded back with this: https://carm.org/why-do-you-believe-jesus-not-santa-claus

QuoteFirst of all, Jesus is presented as a historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings.  Santa Claus is simply presented as a fictional character.

Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles.  These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure.  Santa Claus is intentionally, and knowingly, presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole.

Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults, whereas the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children.  This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.1

Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit a historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality.  Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization except to state that there is a North Pole, and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.

Fifth, the facts are that parents buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children; and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer.  This latter point is worth a comment since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly.  This further adds to the irrationality of the Santa Claus story.  Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washington D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder.  No records of this have yet surfaced.

Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him), that the gospels are historically accurate and superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least that Jesus was an actual historical person.  But, we have no hard evidence to establish the validity of Santa Claus.  We have found no reindeer tracks on the roofs of millions of snow-covered homes on Christmas Eve.  There are no video accounts of Santa roaming throughout peoples' homes.  We know of no flying reindeer, and no one has yet established how Santa can live at the North Pole for hundreds of years without being detected--particularly in this technologically advanced culture.  Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text, performing miracles, etc., and you really don't have much evidence at all that Santa exists except in the minds of children.

Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can reasonably be proven to exist.  Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus; and though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality--particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them Santa is real.

For an atheist to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical, verifiable documents and known, constructed children's stories.  Jesus was an actual historical figure.  Santa, of course, is not.

No theological answer is impossible, with Google.

If I said I was god what proof would you require to believe me?

Also how does god/holy spirit/whatever communicate with you?  Does it beam something into your head?  Where does it come from, how can we measure it to know that it comes from somewhere else and not from your own brain?

I bet it would turn out (just by coincidence) that God hates every one of the people that the John Paul hates

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 29, 2016, 12:24:15 AM,

You seem quite obsessed with periods. Have you talked to your shrink about that?

Yes you would be embarrassed if it was proven to you that the gods are all myths. It's been proven pretty easily to some. But yes as much energy you have spent trying to convince yourself and others was proven to be all bunk you would probably go off and hide in a cave. You have too much ego at stake despite what you claim.

Why should I not be obsessed with vaginal discharge? Your god spend nearly two chapters yakking about how filithy women are, odd for the great creator of a universe not to understand the menstrual cycle you claim he created. He can never win a battle with his enemies the first two times,,,,always the third after he allows most his "followers" to perish, he can't beat humans in a chariot….  and this is what you champion as the creator of the universe. Yeah,,,once again, if it takes this much work to prove to yourself you are correct, you may want to reconsider. It would not be this hard to prove the existence of a god, but you can't come close to it when dealing with reasonable common sense. Sure you got the old women, near dead, ex-addict, and the mentally ill convinced….good for you.

Quote from: John Paul on November 29, 2016, 03:47:51 PM
I am not being arrogant, If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions? If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon me that I am being arrogant or that God is arrogant?

The "secular, ordinary natural" view is inherently contradictory.  Basically it holds that all things have a cause and nothing can cause itself, but that there is no transcendent cause of the universe itself.  It focuses solely on secondary causes and purposely ignores the most important question of all, the primary cause.  Secondary causes fun to discover, but are meaningless - as is the entirety of life - without the First uncaused Cause.

Either God exists, or He doesn’t. And, theism and atheism imply starkly different worlds. Atheism is a world of no objective purpose, meaning, beauty, or value. Theism expects science to work, it’s a massive accident if God doesn’t exist. But this contradicts strong agnosticism, which entails that theistic and atheistic worlds must be indiscernible. It also means weak agnosticism is flawed. The wildly different implications of theism and atheism make it unreasonable to remain agnostic forever.

Back to my main point, that the first thing to ever, ever exist is what? "Existence".  Existence is what first existed before anything came to be, God is existence that decides, what to come into existence. Existence is God, God is existence, if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." Doesn't God need a cause? Nay, Since God is existence itself and therefore not part of the creation, He is not of the realm of time/space/matter, and He is not "a" being but rather being itself (since His essence is existence), the rules of finite creation do not apply to Him.

If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb evolution without meaning or purpose, then we obviously know God did it, But you may say "BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT Just because we didn't come here by an accident through chance of evolution!" Well in that case if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." With a meaning and a purpose to life.

Why should I presume ignorance about God’s existence? Is that the only way to give all the claims a fair hearing? First, that’s simply not true; agnosticism is a bias, so it’s no less free from the dangers of confirmation bias than theism or atheism. If we presume not to know whether God exists, we may treat the truth superficially and improperly preserve a pretended neutrality between the options. Second, from within agnosticism this only amounts to a recommendation, not an obligation. Agnosticism cannot ground objective morals.

Finally, a dogged stance of doubt in the face of uncertainty is not very reasonable. For instance, Jesus said: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7). You claim not to know whether God exists or not, very well, then where are you going to place your bet?
If you place it with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist e.g you are dead then you are dead, you don't suffer. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain, you will suffer in hell for 23940billionyrs+eternity. Let us assess the two cases: if you win being a christian and God does exist, you win everything, if you lose being a christian and God does not exist, you lose nothing.
Peace,

That is quite a mountain of bullshit to refute. Made all the more frustrating, because you just keep adding to it. Even when you respond to a point directly, it is some pedantic shit like the Santa Claus comment, instead of the meat of what is addressed to you.

Quote from: John Paul on November 29, 2016, 04:50:07 PM
So your point is why do I or we christians believe in Jesus, but not in Santa Claus? Here's why. I asked Google. Google responded back with this: https://carm.org/why-do-you-believe-jesus-not-santa-claus

No theological answer is impossible, with Google.

Then Google is your priest, or prophet or Pope or god.  And don't diss Santa ... or you get coal in your stocking.  With baby Jesus, all you get are magically foul swaddling clothes ;-)

Quote from: John Paul on November 29, 2016, 03:38:53 PM
Can the universe be eternal and uncaused?  This would make the universe a necessary being and place it on the plateau of being God, which is what ancient pantheists and Hindus held.  Not only does big-bang cosmology point to the universe having a beginning, but common human intuition, I believe rightly, seems to indicate there must be a transcendent intelligence behind the realm of matter/space/time that gives it meaning and purpose, not to mention existence and continued being.

St.Thomas Aquinas distinguished between creation and cause, and said that while the universe theoretically could have been caused without having a beginning in time, it still had to be caused. In other words, God who is eternal by nature could have caused the universe to have no beginning, while remaining its Cause, and sustaining its existence.  Personally, I don't understand this possibility, but his mind was much larger than mine is.  Nevertheless, Aquinas said that despite this theoretical possibility of being caused but not created with a beginning, he did indeed believe, through the supernatural gift of faith, that the universe had a beginning: God Himself revealed this through sacred Scripture.

Monotheism makes a lot more sense to me than pantheism. It not only satisfies the mind but also the heart and soul.  The universe is not personal and cannot be communicated with through prayer.  And we are more than material things that nonsensically evolved through secondary causes with no reason and for no purpose. Rather, we are persons with intellect and will and a destiny far beyond this confines of this temporal life.  The "happily ever after" and perfection of love and truth for which we were made - for which every human heart longs - is not to be found in this life. Sin interfered with that in Eden at the genesis of our existence and human nature that we inherited needs a redeeming Savior.  Hence, the love of God is both justice and mercy.

Peace,

You said a lot and of substance.  I will examine just a part of it.  The idea that we have monism, dualism or pluralism (of ideals) or monotheism, dualism or polytheism (of gods) and all such similar comparisons .. are humans imposing their preferences on reality ... which is none of those things.  Back to the blind men and the elephant.  When we look at reality one way .. it looks theistic, we look at it another way .. it looks non-theistic and so it goes.  We aren't alive or dead, that is just us making false categories, and beating each other over the head with it.  Temporality and eternity depend on how you look at things.  I am flexible, so can do both, and many other things besides ... but only because I drop preconceptions (prejudices, ideologies, theologies etc).  You can't honestly find out what is in front of you, if you have already pre-judged.  Your POV has as much prejudging as the others ... but keep working on it ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 29, 2016, 01:28:18 PM
Are you saying that natural vs supernatural is redundant?  If so, why the two words?

Words are powerless, all POV are false.  But both are useful (the Buddhist Mahayana term, UPAYA).  So no, not redundant, but short of the mark in either case.  See my post just before ... you and I are neither alive nor dead ... we choose to label things the way we choose ... and that has nothing to do with the truth (which is beyond human ken).  Natural and Supernatural aren't the same thing, except that they are both false.  Adam was told in Genesis to name all the animals.  That is what humans did, we came up with arbitrary and inconsistent labels for everything, and for ideas, which aren't things, because they are themselves immaterial.  So the puritanical response should be to say nothing, since anything we say is wrong.  I say, go ahead and be wrong, you aren't going to be damned for it.  You learn to use a hammer by using it, and hitting your thumb a lot of times, and it hurts.  But a hammer isn't the truth, it is just a human tool, nothing at all without a human.  We are the key, not the hammer.

Quote from: Baruch on November 29, 2016, 07:43:16 PM
Words are powerless, all POV are false.  But both are useful (the Buddhist Mahayana term, UPAYA).  So no, not redundant, but short of the mark in either case.  See my post just before ... you and I are neither alive nor dead ... we choose to label things the way we choose ... and that has nothing to do with the truth (which is beyond human ken).  Natural and Supernatural aren't the same thing, except that they are both false.  Adam was told in Genesis to name all the animals.  That is what humans did, we came up with arbitrary and inconsistent labels for everything, and for ideas, which aren't things, because they are themselves immaterial.  So the puritanical response should be to say nothing, since anything we say is wrong.  I say, go ahead and be wrong, you aren't going to be damned for it.  You learn to use a hammer by using it, and hitting your thumb a lot of times, and it hurts.  But a hammer isn't the truth, it is just a human tool, nothing at all without a human.  We are the key, not the hammer.

I would say further, that we are the key--for ourselves.  The purpose of life is life.  For each of us that means something different, and it is up to us to figure that out as best we can.  Follow your bliss, where bliss is also different for everyone and probably different for each of us at various points in our lives.  I don't care if a person regulates their life around the Great Big Teddy Bear; as long as they don't insist that I have to do the same.  Theists seem to love to tell me what to do, how to do it and what to believe (but not think since they don't seem to know what that means). 

John Paul is the perfect example.  If he had his way, it would be mandatory that all live the way he says to.   

Poster John Paul needs to get laid, among other things, but getting laid should be first.

Quote from: John Paul on November 28, 2016, 01:34:42 PM
| know you know that you've seen the theistic sides before and I am not new to you, neither is a person like you new to me.
The lust of flesh and pride blinds many, that is why they watch pornography or desire self will and what keeps them from accepting God, evidence isn't the problem. Quite with porn and you will open your eyes and realize that science is really on our side, but porn and other passions keeps you locked up from coming to the truth, unless you will to change your life, you don't have to let me know that. You might say that most people are with the secular view and follow it, but I warn you with meekness and gentleness that for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Matthew 7:13-14 God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts.  In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). 

So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God. The atheist is intellectually schizophrenicâ€"believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.

If you want me to remain civil with you, which is becoming increasingly difficult with kind of bullshit you've been posting, then do yourself a favor and do not presume to know something about people you know nothing about. You know nothing about us. To even claim that atheists secretly know that God exists and just choose not to believe so they could sin is stupid beyond belief. If I wanted to sin and not have to answer for it, I'd be a Christian, because guess what. Jesus' sacrifice already covers our sins. And given how many priests have used their power to sexually abuse children, I'd say they understand this advantage of theirs quite well.

Now, if you're done telling me why I'm an atheist, you can click here to learn why I really became a nonbeliever: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9700.msg1121629#msg1121629

Believing in a god that leaves no undeniable evidence is a waste of time and energy. Going back to some logical argument about the creation of the universe is really lame evidence of god. Lets keep it real. What about evidence from the year 2016.

Trump got elected.
I don't know what god he prays to, but I'm pretty sure that's evidence that deity exists and performs miracles.

"John Paul is the perfect example.  If he had his way, it would be mandatory that all live the way he says to." ... politicians do this all the time, not just priests.  See my post on the new high tech totalitarianism in China?

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 29, 2016, 09:46:46 AM
An ironic statement.
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/files/2015/08/WordSalad-150x150.jpg)
We can now.  But before it was known, virtually everyone "knew" it was a sure sign of the gods.  Goddidit.

As science has advanced as these supernatural causes have been increasingly explained by naturalistic causes, the reaction hasn't been to abandon this sort of magical thinking but to retreat to whatever gaps in knowledge still exist.  Enter your claim that God kicked off the universe - the ultimate god of the gaps.  And you never have to worry about being contradicted because so much of the subject is unknown and it's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to fully investigate.  So you get to pretend that your goddidit is on par with any other explanation.  But the reality is it's just another godidit in a long and ill-fated line godidits and doomed for identical reasons:  mere superstition masquerading as reasoned argument and dead the instant the unknown becomes known.

And then you'll just find something else.  And around and around we go.

Thank you for a great question "How do you know Godidit?".  The cosmological argument is one that is used to “prove” GOD’s existence. I believe that there is something missing in your question.  You accept the argument and then ask how do we know that it is GOD that was the first cause.

Whatever created the universe was from outside the universe because something cannot create itself.  Whatever created the universe must be very powerful just because of how big the event was.  Whatever created the universe must also have been very intelligent because of how precise so many things are in the universe. Now we can look at what that entity must be. You ask could it be something other than GOD?

That could be a possibility but we need to try to define what that would be.  The being would be extremely powerful.  It would be very intelligent. It would exist outside of the entire created universe. The being would also have to have been without beginning or something else would have been necessary to create it. We are basically giving a short definition of GOD.

The first thing to ever, ever exist is what? "Existence itself".  Existence is what first existed before anything came to be, God is existence that decides, what should come into existence. Existence is God, God is existence, if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." Doesn't God need a cause? Nay, Since God is existence itself and therefore not part of the creation, He is not of the realm of time/space/matter, and He is not "a" being but rather being itself (since His essence is existence), the rules of finite creation do not apply to Him.

The next thing that I would like to do is share some scripture.  The Bible is the basis of how we look at the world around us.  Atheist may not like it but the Bible gives answers about life that always end up to be true even if we don’t understand them or agree with them.

First GOD was the beginning. GOD does not have a beginning.  When the Bible says beginning, it is giving a time reference for us and this creation.

Joh 1:1-2 ESV

(1)  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(2)  He was in the beginning with God.

Gen 1:1 ESV

(1)    In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The Bible also says that GOD created everything. I have added emphasis for you here.

Col 1:15-17 ESV

(15)  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

(16)  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

(17)  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

You will notice that verse in Colossians says that all things were created by GOD and Jesus.  If there was something other than GOD that created the universe it would have been created also by GOD. You will also note that the Bible says that GOD/Jesus created everything. This would leave out the possibility that something else created the universe after GOD created it.

Peace,

Quote from: Shiranu on November 27, 2016, 03:58:06 AM
Only if you view the world from a popular Western point of view.

What questions does it raise, might I ask? And why are those questions a concern when the idea of a creator does not apparently create any other important questions? To quote you...

Who toasted the toast that is Yahweh? And to preemptively respond to the, "He didn't need one, he is constant and eternal!", do you not see the logical flaw o saying nothing (the universe) can come from nothing but god can?

Thank You for you question, "Why should there be a first cause?"

I researched for you on Google, Google responded with this: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

QuoteWhy must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."
If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist.

In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary beingâ€"if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.
Saint Thomas has four versions of this basic argument.

First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.

Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.

Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.

Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God.

There is a single common logical structure to all four proofs. Instead of proving God directly, they prove him indirectly, by refuting atheism. Either there is a first cause or not. The proofs look at "not" and refute it, leaving the only other possibility, that God is.
Each of the four ways makes the same point for four different kinds of cause: first, cause of motion; second, cause of a beginning to existence; third, cause of present existence; and fourth, cause of goodness or value. The common point is that if there were no first cause, there could be no second causes, and there are second causes (moved movers, caused causers, dependent and mortal beings, and less-than-wholly-perfect beings). Therefore there must be a first cause of motion, beginning, existence, and perfection.

How can anyone squirm out of this tight logic? Here are four ways in which different philosophers try.

First, many say the proofs don't prove God but only some vague first cause or other. "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of philosophers and scholars", cries Pascal, who was a passionate Christian but did not believe you could logically prove God's existence. It is true that the proofs do not prove everything the Christian means by God, but they do prove a transcendent, eternal, uncaused, immortal, self-existing, independent, all-perfect being. That certainly sounds more like God than like Superman! It's a pretty thick slice of God, at any rateâ€"much too much for any atheist to digest.

Second, some philosophers, like Hume, say that the concept of cause is ambiguous and not applicable beyond the physical universe to God. How dare we use the same term for what clouds do to rain, what parents do to children, what authors do to books, and what God does to the universe? The answer is that the concept of cause is analogicalâ€"that is, it differs somewhat but not completely from one example to another. Human fatherhood is like divine fatherhood, and physical causality is like divine causality. The way an author conceives a book in his mind is not exactly the same as the way a woman conceives a baby in her body either, but we call both causes. (In fact, we also call both conceptions.) The objection is right to point out that we do not fully understand how God causes the universe, as we understand how parents cause children or clouds cause rain. But the term remains meaningful. A cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect. If no creator, no creation; if no God, no universe.

Third, it is sometimes argued (e.g., by Bertrand Russell) that there is a self-contradiction in the argument, for one of the premises is that everything needs a cause, but the conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause. The child who asks "Who made God?" is really thinking of this objection. The answer is very simple: the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause.

Fourth, it is often asked why there can't be infinite regress, with no first being. Infinite regress is perfectly acceptable in mathematics: negative numbers go on to infinity just as positive numbers do. So why can't time be like the number series, with no highest number either negatively (no first in the past) or positively (no last in the future)? The answer is that real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers. There is, in fact, a parallel in the number series for a first cause: the number one. If there were no first positive integer, no unit one, there could be no subsequent addition of units. Two is two ones, three is three ones, and so on. If there were no first, there could be no second or third.

If this argument is getting too tricky, the thing to do is to return to what is sure and clear: the intuitive point we began with. Not everyone can understand all the abstract details of the first-cause argument, but anyone can understand its basic point: as C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."

No theological answer is impossible with Google-Permitted under God's will,
             
Peace

Quote from: John Paul on November 30, 2016, 07:24:49 AM
Thank You for you question, "Why should there be a first cause?"

I researched for you on Google, Google responded with this: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

No theological answer is impossible with Google-Permitted under God's will,
             
Peace

Out of THE several questions shiranu posed, that was not one of them. If you just want to have a conversation with yourself; I'm setting up a shop selling such Goods as earplugs, mirrors and strawmen.

I'm calling it "the echochamber".

John, you keep quoting the babble as some sort of authority.  That would be like me quoting the lines of Bugs Bunny to you as an authority.  We both know that both are works of fiction created solely by people.  None of us on this forum accept the babble as anything other than fiction.

And you seem to be the king of the cut-and-paste theism.  You have not an original thought (or unoriginal for that matter) in your head.  You are preaching to a group who knows you are full of shit.  Why don't you simply crawl back under your bridge, troll???

Quote from: John Paul on November 29, 2016, 04:50:07 PM
So your point is why do I or we christians believe in Jesus, but not in Santa Claus? Here's why. I asked Google. Google responded back with this: https://carm.org/why-do-you-believe-jesus-not-santa-claus

No theological answer is impossible, with Google.

Um...no.  My point was, "Hey, I made a joke."

If you want a real point to be made in response to that, though, I can do that.  To say that we won't be able to argue in front of God is an asshole way to proclaim with absolute certainty that you are right and we are wrong and your Big Daddy is going to punish us because we deserve it because we mad you mad.  It's a childish, dickish, immature argument which neither contributes to the conversation intellectually nor actually does anything to show that you are right, it just makes you feel good to get in a jab by claiming once again that you are right.  It shows that you are not so much interested in intelligent discourse but to just be a general douchebag and throw your magical beliefs in people's faces.  It's certainly not very Christ-like.  So, there is a point for you.

By the way, I've seen actual physical, empirical evidence for Santa Claus.  I am absolutely certain that the presents under the tree on Christmas day marked as coming from Santa Claus were not there the night before.  Of course there is another, more plausible explanation which happens to be true, but it doesn't change the fact that in my life I have actually, in reality SEEN evidence for Santa Claus.  Yet all people like you have are arguments and snide comments.  Somehow the one that's definitely fake has more supporting evidence than the one that's definitely real...

I know you are upset with me, right now and angry, When you hate someone, you speak evil of him, say negative things about him, call him names, accuse him of wrongdoing, lying, etc. That is exactly what you were doing to me. I am not a troll, but I am a christian, and only want to address your skeptical questions to help you, also I can learn more about your stance, I will strive to answer your question as soon as I can. (Within a week or two but in some cases it may take longer.) Some questions may require a little bit of research, this means I may need to link you to sources and not give my own thought as my aim is to answer your questions and not show my skills. Some do cuss/insult a lot, but I do not mind them as they are but a bunch of words and it means nothing to me, however cussing is a sin. Now, I'm not saying every atheist does this, but I've noticed it is pretty common for them to say they "lack belief in God" or "don't believe he exists" and then site Old Testament Scriptures where God does what they think is morally reprehensible (which is funny since they have no objective and absolute morals by which to make such judgments).  They complain, mock, and pronounce ethical condemnation against the God of the Bible . . . just like you would do to someone you hate. According to my experience in various chat rooms on the Internet with atheists, I have to conclude that their regular condemnation of God, their accusations of his immorality, speaking evil of him, etc., clearly demonstrates that they hate God.

Quote"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." Romans 1:28â€"32

Peace

Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 26, 2016, 09:27:50 PM
I have a question for the OP. Assuming what you say is true, that there is a creator of the universe that exists outside the known universe and that creator is called God, how does one determine that the Bible in any way is an accurate representation of this creator?

Thank You for your question. I researched for you on Google and Google responded with this:https://carm.org/is-the-bible-reliable // https://carm.org/is-the-bible-true

QuoteWhen we ask if the Bible is true, we must ask in what sense is it true. Is it true as a historical document? Is it true in regard to its wisdom? Is it true in its claim to be inspired by God? Is it true regarding the person of Jesus, his claims, and his miracles? Different people will give different answers to the questions because different people have different beliefs, expectations, and emotional commitments to various topics that are covered in the questions. Not only that, but we have to ask ourselves a very important question: what is truth?

Basically, truth is a statement that agrees with reality and/or logic. Let me illustrate by giving you statements that are true.

A mouse is smaller than an elephant.
The earth orbits around the sun.
2+2 = 4
If A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C
As you can see, each of the preceding statements are true. That's the nature of truth. It is a statement that either agrees with actuality and/or logic. A statement cannot be true if it does not accurately represent what is real and what is logical. In addition, truth requires a mind because truth is a concept.

So, when we're looking at the Bible and asking if it's true, we are inquiring about the validity of statements about the Bible in regard to actuality, logic, morality, etc.  Furthermore, the answers to the questions are largely dependent on what you believe to begin with. If you are an atheist, then the Bible as a whole cannot be true because your presuppositions do not allow it. If you're a scientist who believes that all truths are subject to the scientific method, then the Bible cannot be demonstrated to be true or false because it falls outside of that scope of the examination. If, however, you just want to know if the Bible really is from God, then read it. Read the Gospels and learn about Jesus, his words, his deeds, his death, and his resurrection. See if the words resonate as true.

Whether you believe the statements about Jesus are true or not will depend largely on your assumptions. Therefore, you have to ask yourself if your assumptions themselves are true. Do you believe God exists? Would you believe Jesus is God in flesh? Are miracles possible? These questions deal withworldviews, preferences, emotional commitments, etc. All of these are factors to take into account when considering what you consider to be true, and ultimately whether or not you can believe the Bible is true.

But, the Bible is true. It is a historically accurate document. It is full of great wisdom; just consider the Proverbs. It claims to be the inspired word of God, and this is substantiated by the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament. But, ultimately, you will have to read through it and study. See if you can discern whether or not it is from God. It would be important for you to know. After all, eternity is a long time to be wrong, especially about Jesus.

One of the most important questions asked by non-Christians as they look into Christianity is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy.  Can the Bible be trusted?  If it has been corrupted, then we cannot trust what is attributed to Jesus' words and deeds.  So, is the Bible reliable or not?

Yes, the Bible is reliable.  The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied.  These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise.  The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks.  They took great care when copying the original manuscripts.  This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure.  This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation.  Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don't have the "typos" or by simply reading the context.  You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another.  The variants are very minor.  Nothing affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.

The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity.  The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy.  If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.

The Bible was written by those who were inspired by God, so it is accurate and true, and represents historical occurrences.  When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did.  They wrote what they saw.  They wrote about the resurrection of Christ.  They recorded His miracles and His sayings.  It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ.  Do you?

Peace

Quote from: Baruch on November 30, 2016, 04:33:51 AM
"John Paul is the perfect example.  If he had his way, it would be mandatory that all live the way he says to." ... politicians do this all the time, not just priests.  See my post on the new high tech totalitarianism in China?

Almost 6 billion people believe in one deity or another (at the exclusion of the other). I can't help but think that there is something in most humans that craves a strong hand that protects them and nurtures them. They don't mind submissiveness and they grovel on their knees being told that they live in perpetual and hereditary sin. Thought control is OK too, as long as they get a reward in an imaginary afterlife. All logic and reason is abandoned and the suspension of laws of physics is accepted as 'miracles'. It's only false consolation and self deception and it all would be benign if not for the steady and growing influence on our daily lives. The separation of church and state is a myth, a feeble attempt to separate reason from superstition.

To answer the OP, there are a thousand and one reasons to be secular, the main one: I can and will think for myself. I don't want to be a sheep in a flock or let some bronze age rules run my life. I am adult enough to forego a emotional crutch and live my ONLY life with dignity and integrity. No celestial dictatorship needed.

Quote from: John Paul on November 30, 2016, 01:15:45 PM
According to my experience in various chat rooms on the Internet with atheists, I have to conclude that their regular condemnation of God, their accusations of his immorality, speaking evil of him, etc., clearly demonstrates that they hate God.

Peace

Then you are wrong.  You are not very good at observations.  You come fully loaded with your expectations and you will not change a single one of them.  You cannot accept that I don't 'hate' your god.  Your god does not exist; never has.  I don't 'hate' Bugs Bunny because he is a fiction.  It is kind of useless to hate a fiction.  I don't even hate you, John.  But what I do hate is your attitude; your unwillingness to engage in any type of conversation, but only in a constant stream of preaching.  And you use the babble as some sort of proof that you are correct in your beliefs.  The bible is only a construct of many, many people over the course of time.  It is not derived from god, since god does not exist.  But you will not even consider that I may think that for good reasons; for you seem not to think nor reason.  I hate you willful blindness, your belief that does not tolerate reasoning, and in fact, according to your fictional bible, discourage it as a positive thing to do.  But I do hate your attitude (which I said before, I know) which allows you to force your beliefs onto me; and at times your religion has killed to force it's views on the rest of society.  Yes, I hate that.  From all that I have seen and studied, your religion is immoral and harmful to life in general.  This world would be better off if your religion had never existed. 

I realize that the above is/was a waste of time.  In your belief fuddled mind, you reject or even refuse to see--you make no attempt to understand what I/we are saying to you.  You have your faith that does not allow thinking nor reasoning.  So, that is why I call you a troll; you don't come to converse, you come to convert.  You are a TROLL of the worst sort.  Go back under you bride!

If a man is without good legs, but in pride declines a crutch ... but even freethinkers are free to disagree ...

Reason is a particularly rigorous version of superstition ... that Aristotle is right ...

I am the exception ... I hate G-d, with perfectly good justification.  But just because I hate X, doesn't mean that X is un-real, at least to me.  If G-d was unreal, it would be pointless to hate G-d.

I know of no miracles which suspend the rules of G-d, which are the same as the rules of nature.  The rules of nature are this ... that humans are omnivores, and if you are hungry you can kill and eat anything edible, with or without cooking it ... plant, animal or people.  I don't interpret the story of the vision Peter had on the roof of the Gentile in Caesarea ... the way the Church interprets it.

Quote from: John Paul on November 30, 2016, 07:13:35 AM

That much babble quoting is agin the rules…say hello to our troll room.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 29, 2016, 12:13:53 PM
You are missing a point.  A big one.  You suggest than no reasonable person claims science refutes god.  I agree.  Because that is a false comparison.  Let me substitute a name for god--Bugs Bunny--and even you would see that science does not refute the existence of Bugs Bunny because Bugs is a fiction.  God is a fiction.  Science does not set out to refute anything.  It only demonstrates what is.  Oh, a scientist may perform an experiment to refute another person's experiment, but science is not built on refuting anybody or anything.  It is about the discovery of facts and reliable evidence.  And from those facts and evidence, more facts and evidence can be uncovered.  You seem very impatient to move this process along  quicker, for you seem to be quite upset with the gaps of knowledge that science has not filled in yet.  So, you simply insert 'god did it' and that seems to satisfy the need to know.  That is the same need that created god in the first place.  You, and other theists, are trying to wage a war where none exists.  Science doesn't give a whit about your god--or you Bugs Bunny or you Paul Bunyan; there is no war.  Give science one shred of evidence for god and then maybe you can start that war.

I don't "insert" goddidit into gaps in my own understanding. I thought my understandings were just fine without being given faith.

Your point doesn't apply. GOD is not a work of fiction or of man.

I wasn't out looking for GOD. IT found me.

I don't use GOD as a fill all explanation though many things in my immediate life, and to do with life in general were explained to some extent.

Regardless of if there is absolutely no gap within human understanding of all things to do with existence, everything will still be of GOD. No amount of understanding can change that.

peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 30, 2016, 07:29:59 PM
I don't "insert" goddidit into gaps in my own understanding. I thought my understandings were just fine without being given faith.

Your point doesn't apply. GOD is not a work of fiction or of man.

I wasn't out looking for GOD. IT found me.

I don't use GOD as a fill all explanation though many things in my immediate life, and to do with life in general were explained to some extent.

Regardless of if there is absolutely no gap within human understanding of all things to do with existence, everything will still be of GOD. No amount of understanding can change that.

peace

So you say, Pops--so you say.  You can rattle on all day and night claiming god does it all.  Yet you cannot supply one shred of data to support that; except your famous brush with god itself.  That is all in your head; I can't control how crazy operates in there--your head.  Sure, you can believe all you want; you remind me of a petulant child insisting--There is too a Santa!!!   Saying god exists and creates, 3 million times, does not make it so.  I don't care what you fill the gaps of the unknown with, god is still and will ever be, a fiction. 

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 30, 2016, 07:29:59 PM
GOD is not a work of fiction or of man.

Despite the mountains of evidence that all the "other"gods are made up, this genius claim "his god" is the one true god….preach on bro….good luck with the stupid.

The existence of God is the merest wishful thinking, nothing more. God has become the comfort animal of many, they want to take it everywhere, even atheist forums.


(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CL1gmPbUAAAZdoG.png)

aitm,

Why would I be embarrassed? I don't care what others think. I'll tell what I would be though. If somehow someone could prove the opposite of what was already proved to me to be true, then I would sincerely be concerned for my mental health, and would seek professional help.
Good thing that will never happen. And to be clear; I'm not speaking of gods as in plural; I'm talking about a singular creative benevolent GOD...just one, with many names.

I have repeatedly stated that no work or effort on my part was exuded for my initial faith. Your willful ignorance is showing. What has been proven bonk? I assure you none have disproved my personal account or experience or anything else that stemmed from what happened.

What benefit would it be to me to simple claim humility?
I attempt to practice it daily, but I too have a tendency to act in like kind as well, hence the pissy attitude.

Why should you not be obsessed with vaginal discharge!?  Well...depending on who's vag and what was being discharged, many red flags pop up. It isn't some fetish for you is it? That could get messy. Okay, really; moving on....

Let me clear a thing up for you; I don't base what I know about GOD on books written by man, and if I did, I would base assumptions off of the collective accord of all books and writings of the faithful unto GOD, and not base it off of the only book that stands out as having any discrepancies or errors such as the ones you wave around in an effort to muddy up the waters.

Who are you to decide how difficult anything is supposed to be? Again, GOD isn't not here just because you can't bend IT to your little will.

Your turn

peace

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 30, 2016, 07:36:53 PM
So you say, Pops--so you say.  You can rattle on all day and night claiming god does it all.  Yet you cannot supply one shred of data to support that; except your famous brush with god itself.  That is all in your head; I can't control how crazy operates in there--your head.  Sure, you can believe all you want; you remind me of a petulant child insisting--There is too a Santa!!!   Saying god exists and creates, 3 million times, does not make it so.  I don't care what you fill the gaps of the unknown with, god is still and will ever be, a fiction.

You are right. I cannot prove it to you or any other.

peace

Quote from: aitm on November 30, 2016, 07:37:19 PM
Despite the mountains of evidence that all the "other"gods are made up, this genius claim "his god" is the one true god….preach on bro….good luck with the stupid.

Oh...show me where GOD is proven wrong. I'm not talking about a particular name of a particular god, I mean GOD.
Is this concept too much for you to grasp? I can explain it more if needed be.

peace

Quote from: Unbeliever on November 30, 2016, 07:51:32 PM
The existence of God is the merest wishful thinking, nothing more. God has become the comfort animal of many, they want to take it everywhere, even atheist forums.


(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CL1gmPbUAAAZdoG.png)

Cute picture.

Fact is; GOD is with you always and everywhere. Even when you are not a believer.

Obviously you don't have to take my word for it, or anything I say for that matter.

peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 30, 2016, 08:02:55 PM
Cute picture.

Fact is; GOD is with you always and everywhere. Even when you are not a believer.

Obviously you don't have to take my word for it, or anything I say for that matter.

peace

Gods.    You must mean gods.   As there is more than one god detailed in the bible you use.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 30, 2016, 08:02:55 PM
Obviously you don't have to take my word for it, or anything I say for that matter.

Damned lucky for me, eh, what what?





(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Buc6whmCAAASCgs.jpg)




(https://aventadores.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/what-you-see-might-not-be-real.jpg)

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PMWhile this evidence may seem circumstantial, think about a house, you don't see the builder or architect within it, but it's very reality attests to it.  One can be inferred by the other.  God is not part of the universe, therefore you will not find evidence for Him in the same manner as other things, but you will find His influence felt, particularly in the moral dimension of Man.  This aspect of our nature seems to be unique.  We do not find evidence of animals making moral and ethical decisions.

Hold on a minute. Doesn't the lack of morality in nature hurt your argument here? Several of your arguments work against you, but this one in particular. Think about it. You believe in a just God, whose moral code is objectively true. You also believe that God intelligently designed nature. Why, then, did he design animals that deceive, rape, or kill without reason? Why did he program the margay to imitate the call of a hungry baby monkey to lure adult monkeys to their doom? Why did he program the Blue-Footed Booby chicks to kill their younger siblings shortly after hatching? Why did he program ducks to rape each other so often that females require vaginas with multiple deadends, or a males to have an exploding corkscrew penis just to navigate it? I mean Jesus, both the males' and females' biologies are designed with rape in mind. You'd think that if we had a perfectly just God, he would have made the animals to behave in morally acceptable ways.

Reason and logic are the opposite of faith and superstition.

I can't hate god for two reasons. One, hatred is a waste of emotions and two, I can't hate something that doesn't exist.

Since there is no god, rules cannot be attributed to a ficticious entity.

Quote from: reasonist on November 30, 2016, 08:55:47 PM
Reason and logic are the opposite of faith and superstition.

I can't hate god for two reasons. One, hatred is a waste of emotions and two, I can't hate something that doesn't exist.

Since there is no god, rules cannot be attributed to a ficticious entity.

Come on. Who doesn't hate Ms. Umbridge? Be honest.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6e/b8/ed/6eb8edb9888e18b6569d6ecd0dfdd92e.jpg)

Ms. Umbridge? Ok, I hate her too.

We do not find evidence of animals making moral and ethical decisions.

That's the ignorance we have to deal with. Maybe a more efficient use of Google could reveal a world of fact based information to the flock.

https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals?language=en

Quote from: Jason78 on November 30, 2016, 08:11:43 PM

Gods.    You must mean gods.   As there is more than one god detailed in the bible you use.

What?  You must have quoted the wrong thing.

And if your insinuating that the bible is polytheistic then I would ask you to support your claim.

peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 30, 2016, 07:58:12 PM
You are right. I cannot prove it to you or any other.

peace

Wow, Pops.  Did not expect you to say that.  Honest of you, though.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 30, 2016, 09:46:35 PM
Wow, Pops.  Did not expect you to say that.  Honest of you, though.

My word is all I have.

Thank you

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 30, 2016, 09:47:53 PM
My word is all I have.

Thank you

And that, I think, is all any of us really have.

back to the original question "Why don't we believe in a god?". Let's change the question and ask John Paul the reasons why he does believe in "god". What is this evidence that you keep saying is every where?

Nevermind the fact that the Bible is an anthology that the editors left many sacred writings out of. Nevermind the fact that the Bible includes personal letters written by Paul (if they were actually written by him) that were never intended to be considered as sacred writing - Paul would be rolling over if he knew his letters were made into sacred writings.

John Paul I've spent my whole life in a Christian church, and you have not said one thing nor provided one shred of evidence to convince me that I wasn't wasting my time going to the church.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 30, 2016, 09:25:56 PM
What?  You must have quoted the wrong thing.

And if your insinuating that the bible is polytheistic then I would ask you to support your claim.

peace

Genesis 1:26 ... also status of angels, demons, the Devil and Lilith.  The first commandment of the Decalogue.  A lot of Bible, isn't in the Bible, you have to put it into context.  Christian trinity is explicitly polytheist ... though it was implicit in the writings the Church Fathers included as scripture, it was made explicit from Tertullian forward.

Monotheism in the Bible is in the eye only ... of rabbis and priests ... don't listen to them, find your own understanding of it.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 30, 2016, 09:25:56 PM
And if your insinuating that the bible is polytheistic then I would ask you to support your claim.

How many gods are in the bible? (http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/how-many-gods-are-in-the-bible)

Just for fun, before you click on the link, have a guess about how many gods are in the bible and then see if you've got it right!

Quote from: fencerider on December 01, 2016, 02:05:20 AM
"Why don't we believe in a god?"

The question is a little more loaded than that.   "Why do you think God does not exist what are your reasons?" presupposes a god exists and that we just don't think it exists.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 30, 2016, 07:29:59 PM
I don't "insert" goddidit into gaps in my own understanding. I thought my understandings were just fine without being given faith.

Your point doesn't apply. GOD is not a work of fiction or of man.

I wasn't out looking for GOD. IT found me.

I don't use GOD as a fill all explanation though many things in my immediate life, and to do with life in general were explained to some extent.

Regardless of if there is absolutely no gap within human understanding of all things to do with existence, everything will still be of GOD. No amount of understanding can change that.

peace

Atheists like to project their arguments onto theists, and vice versa.  It is ... rhetorical shit.  I would say you and G-d found each other, don't be so modest ;-)

Quote from: Jason78 on December 01, 2016, 07:12:33 AM
The question is a little more loaded than that.   "Why do you think God does not exist what are your reasons?" presupposes a god exists and that we just don't think it exists.

Arguing a hypothetical, is exactly how science hypotheses develop.  We presuppose electrons exist, then go do experiments.  Of course in religion, you don't do any experiments ;-)  In your POV, you are assuming the consequent.

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 28, 2016, 03:52:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XGQ6ZXxf8

"Nothing yet, you?"
"A little thirsty."

Of the ten year series, this is one of my favorite moments.  I've watched the series maybe four times, and I still get excited when this one shows up.  When they negate the prior's powers, he babbles on helplessly with Biblical sounding quotes and a perplexed expression on his face.  Biblical sounding quotes lose a certain punch when you are no longer able to smite someone to the ground or inflict them with a plague using magical powers.

But I don't remember this scene in the series, which seems rather important.  Perhaps I have to watch the series again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_hfTEGMChs

*Sees the poll*

Are bans part of a democracy now?

Quote from: Blackleaf on December 01, 2016, 12:45:48 PM
*Sees the poll*

Are bans part of a democracy now?

The moderators are getting weaker, weaker ... like just before Three Mile Island blew ;-(

Quote from: Jason78 on December 01, 2016, 07:10:29 AM
How many gods are in the bible? (http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/how-many-gods-are-in-the-bible)

Just for fun, before you click on the link, have a guess about how many gods are in the bible and then see if you've got it right!

Also, there's this:
2 Corinthians 4:4 (KJV)

QuoteIn whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Quote from: SGOS on December 01, 2016, 11:46:04 AM
But I don't remember this scene in the series, which seems rather important.  Perhaps I have to watch the series again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_hfTEGMChs

That, or you're a victim of the Mandela effect...

Quote from: Baruch on December 01, 2016, 07:15:01 AM
Arguing a hypothetical, is exactly how science hypotheses develop.  We presuppose electrons exist, then go do experiments.  Of course in religion, you don't do any experiments ;-)  In your POV, you are assuming the consequent.

No we don't.   We place a magnet near a hot cathode and hypothesise about what it is that the magnet is bending.   We don't just imagine electrons exist and then go out to prove they exist.

Quote from: SGOS on December 01, 2016, 11:46:04 AM
But I don't remember this scene in the series, which seems rather important.  Perhaps I have to watch the series again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_hfTEGMChs

That's from the Ark of Truth isn't it?

QuoteThat's from the Ark of Truth isn't it?

I hope so.  Either that or I'm losing my marbles.  I don't think I've seen the ark of truth.  But I'm going to see if it's available from Amazon.  I don't want to miss anything "Stargate".

Blessed are the Ori, Morena Baccarin is flamin' hot!

Just ordered a used copy for 28 cents plus $3.99 shipping.

Quote from: Jason78 on December 01, 2016, 07:12:33 AM
The question is a little more loaded than that.   "Why do you think God does not exist what are your reasons?" presupposes a god exists and that we just don't think it exists.

Exactly!  The theist argument is that it is up to atheists to prove that a deity does not exist.  It is a fallacy.  The claim is that a deity exists and it is up to the supporters of that idea to prove the claim.  And I have yet to see any rational argument in support of that claim.

People here are sooo rational, they believe in SciFi.

Quote from: Baruch on December 02, 2016, 07:36:16 AM
People here are sooo rational, they believe in SciFi.

Do you just type at random?

Quote from: Cavebear on December 02, 2016, 07:39:06 AM
Do you just type at random?

My random is better than other people's deliberate.  If you want pedantry, take a college course.

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/pubs-bars-pedantic-pedant-nit_picking-chats-conversations-kmhn57_low.jpg)

Quote from: Cavebear on December 02, 2016, 07:39:06 AM
Do you just type at random?

I understand most of what he says. Occasionally it will fly over my head, usually because I'm too young to understand the reference. I do think it's funny how hard of a time everyone else has, though. :lol:

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 02, 2016, 04:56:24 PM
I understand most of what he says. Occasionally it will fly over my head, usually because I'm too young to understand the reference. I do think it's funny how hard of a time everyone else has, though. :lol:

We can't all be born into the next-to-greatest generation (Baby Boomers) ;-)

Like your new motto ;-))  Jolly good show, old chap!

Just got my copy of the Ark of Truth from Amazon and watched it right away.  OMG!  It's like finding 3 new episodes of Stargate SG1.  What a find.  10 seasons of Stargate was never enough.  I'm sad every time I finish watching the series.  God I love that show.  Now what?.  And yes, that scene earlier in this thread where they put the kibosh on Morena Baccarin  was from the Ark of Truth.  Thanks for the heads up, Jason.   

Quote from: Jason78 on December 01, 2016, 07:10:29 AM
How many gods are in the bible? (http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/how-many-gods-are-in-the-bible)

Just for fun, before you click on the link, have a guess about how many gods are in the bible and then see if you've got it right!

Oh quit Jason, you wouldn't expect a xian thump head to actually...you know...read the babble?

Quote from: Jason78 on December 01, 2016, 07:10:29 AM
How many gods are in the bible? (http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/how-many-gods-are-in-the-bible)

Just for fun, before you click on the link, have a guess about how many gods are in the bible and then see if you've got it right!

The word "god" is used many times, and other words that have similar meanings.

But that doesn't mean the bible isn't monotheistic.

Something similar can be said about the upinashads, Bhagavad-Gita, and Zend Avesta. They are all still ultimately monotheistic though. We spoke of these things in the thread about idolatry.

peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 08, 2016, 08:31:53 PM
The word "god" is used many times, and other words that have similar meanings.

But that doesn't mean the bible isn't monotheistic.

Something similar can be said about the upinashads, Bhagavad-Gita, and Zend Avesta. They are all still ultimately monotheistic though. We spoke of these things in the thread about idolatry.

peace

The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost.  Yeah, monotheistic.  But then, it is just a fairy tale.

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 08, 2016, 08:34:18 PM
The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost.  Yeah, monotheistic.  But then, it is just a fairy tale.

Yeah...you would be hard pressed to find the coequal Trinity within the bible.

Nice try though.

peace

Quote from: Baruch on December 02, 2016, 01:10:59 PM
My random is better than other people's deliberate.  If you want pedantry, take a college course.

I have.  Many.  One of almost everything, and several of what interested me.  Ended up with a BS in 'Government and Politics' and a minor in History.  But college was a little bit of learning.  I've never stopped.  40 years of serious reading beats college every time.

why do i think god doesn't exist? well... There isn't any concrete evidence, as a matter of fact most of the evidence appears to be fictional.

and then there is this thing called prayer. When you pray for help for small things and no help comes, you say "I guess I don't deserve it". Then when you're losing your shirt, you pray for help. When nothing happens you say "What did I do wrong to be getting punished?". Or you may even face one of the worst things life has to offer. Then you pray and nothing happens you have to ask "hey god, are you paying attention?" If it only happens one time that a prayer doesn't get answered you soon forget about it. If it happens again and again that when you pray, you are only talking to yourself, you start asking questions about the validity of the program.

After examining the evidence presented my present conclusion is that either god doesn't exist or god doesn't give a rats ass about humans.... or if I look at the Bible and the actions god says are good my conclusion is that god is a little boy (at the age when boys tear the wings or legs off of bugs) abusing humans for entertainment

Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 01:42:26 AM
why do i think god doesn't exist? well... There isn't any concrete evidence, as a matter of fact most of the evidence appears to be fictional.

and then there is this thing called prayer. When you pray for help for small things and no help comes, you say "I guess I don't deserve it". Then when you're losing your shirt, you pray for help. When nothing happens you say "What did I do wrong to be getting punished?". Or you may even face one of the worst things life has to offer. Then you pray and nothing happens you have to ask "hey god, are you paying attention?" If it only happens one time that a prayer doesn't get answered you soon forget about it. If it happens again and again that when you pray, you are only talking to yourself, you start asking questions about the validity of the program.

After examining the evidence presented my present conclusion is that either god doesn't exist or god doesn't give a rats ass about humans.... or if I look at the Bible and the actions god says are good my conclusion is that god is a little boy (at the age when boys tear the wings or legs off of bugs) abusing humans for entertainment

By the time I was six, I realized that when I prayed, it was pretty much only me attempting to have a conversation.  It used to bother me that no one appeared to be involved on the other side of the conversation.  I was assured by my parents that God heard my prayers, even if it seemed like he didn't.  Oh, great.  Someone's listening, just not responding.  WTF??  When I talked to my mother about questions I had or needs that needed to be filled, she would at least respond, not always the way I would hope, but she was there, and she talked back to me reassuringly.  But she definitely existed at the other end of my conversation.  We were both participating with each other.

Forget about God answering your prayers, or even lifting a finger to let you know you have been acknowledged.  Prayer suffers in that respect.  In fact, it utterly fails.  Prayer should be the ultimate conversation of your life.  You can pray all you want, but unfortunately, you are the only one involved in the conversation.  There is no indication whatsoever that anyone else is there.

This is puzzling to a six year old, and it's when I first started modifying my six year old's image of God to resemble a thing that isn't there, but then again, we are told he is there, so it became, "He is there, he just doesn't act like it."  But how is this different from a thing that really isn't there?  This is where apologetics begins, and it just keeps getting more and more complicated as we get older and keep building houses of cards with new explanations for how and why God is so determined to live in the shadows beyond our senses.

Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 01:42:26 AM
why do i think god doesn't exist? well... There isn't any concrete evidence, as a matter of fact most of the evidence appears to be fictional.

and then there is this thing called prayer. When you pray for help for small things and no help comes, you say "I guess I don't deserve it". Then when you're losing your shirt, you pray for help. When nothing happens you say "What did I do wrong to be getting punished?". Or you may even face one of the worst things life has to offer. Then you pray and nothing happens you have to ask "hey god, are you paying attention?" If it only happens one time that a prayer doesn't get answered you soon forget about it. If it happens again and again that when you pray, you are only talking to yourself, you start asking questions about the validity of the program.

After examining the evidence presented my present conclusion is that either god doesn't exist or god doesn't give a rats ass about humans.... or if I look at the Bible and the actions god says are good my conclusion is that god is a little boy (at the age when boys tear the wings or legs off of bugs) abusing humans for entertainment

You are close to what I see as the truth (I am a theist), but nobody taught you to pray properly, and I don't practice it nearly enough myself, though I know how.  Prayer is psychosomatic induction.

Quote from: Baruch on January 07, 2017, 09:08:54 AM
You are close to what I see as the truth (I am a theist), but nobody taught you to pray properly, and I don't practice it nearly enough myself, though I know how.  Prayer is psychosomatic induction.

In other words it is simply another way to talk to yourself.

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2017, 09:52:18 AM
In other words it is simply another way to talk to yourself.

Exactly, and others if they are present.  It is arguable if G-d is present or not, hence the post by fencerider.  But psychosomatics are very powerful, in fact you can be Hitler and spellbind countless German audiences with it (he was an early expert at neurolinguistic programming of the masses).  Geeks of course are averse to psychology, or anything not in Popular Mechanics.

Quote from: Baruch on January 07, 2017, 09:59:24 AM
It is arguable if G-d is present or not,

Ummm-----------not really; unless one is arguing with oneself.  And yes, psychosomatics is very powerful!  Theists have used this for thousands of years to talk themselves into believing in god(s).

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2017, 11:10:08 AM
Ummm-----------not really; unless one is arguing with oneself.  And yes, psychosomatics is very powerful!  Theists have used this for thousands of years to talk themselves into believing in god(s).

Politicians and business marketing is all about it.  Don't just pick on priests ;-)  I don't argue with myself when I am speaking to G-d, we have polite discussions about why G-d might be such a dick ;-(

Quote from: SGOS on January 07, 2017, 02:35:39 AM
By the time I was six, I realized that when I prayed, it was pretty much only me attempting to have a conversation.  It used to bother me that no one appeared to be involved on the other side of the conversation.  I was assured by my parents that God heard my prayers, even if it seemed like he didn't.  Oh, great.  Someone's listening, just not responding.  WTF??  When I talked to my mother about questions I had or needs that needed to be filled, she would at least respond, not always the way I would hope, but she was there, and she talked back to me reassuringly.  But she definitely existed at the other end of my conversation.  We were both participating with each other.

Forget about God answering your prayers, or even lifting a finger to let you know you have been acknowledged.  Prayer suffers in that respect.  In fact, it utterly fails.  Prayer should be the ultimate conversation of your life.  You can pray all you want, but unfortunately, you are the only one involved in the conversation.  There is no indication whatsoever that anyone else is there.

This is puzzling to a six year old, and it's when I first started modifying my six year old's image of God to resemble a thing that isn't there, but then again, we are told he is there, so it became, "He is there, he just doesn't act like it."  But how is this different from a thing that really isn't there?  This is where apologetics begins, and it just keeps getting more and more complicated as we get older and keep building houses of cards with new explanations for how and why God is so determined to live in the shadows beyond our senses.

It is quite strange how a god who demands praise and a lifetime of devotion, and who gets jealous when other gods--which are totally fictional, unlike him--are worshiped instead, and whose only standard for determining who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell is based on belief in him, would try so hard to make it seem like he wasn't even there.

When the Jewish god speaks of other gods, he is being polytheist, not monotheist ;-)  Jewish monotheism only evolved very gradually, and is post-Biblical/Rabbinic.

is there a correct way to pray? there must be 100 videos on youtube of people saying they know the correct way to pray. I tried a few of them... not really feelin like tryin all of them.

Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 01:42:26 AM
why do i think god doesn't exist? well... There isn't any concrete evidence, as a matter of fact most of the evidence appears to be fictional.

and then there is this thing called prayer. When you pray for help for small things and no help comes, you say "I guess I don't deserve it". Then when you're losing your shirt, you pray for help. When nothing happens you say "What did I do wrong to be getting punished?". Or you may even face one of the worst things life has to offer. Then you pray and nothing happens you have to ask "hey god, are you paying attention?" If it only happens one time that a prayer doesn't get answered you soon forget about it. If it happens again and again that when you pray, you are only talking to yourself, you start asking questions about the validity of the program.

After examining the evidence presented my present conclusion is that either god doesn't exist or god doesn't give a rats ass about humans.... or if I look at the Bible and the actions god says are good my conclusion is that god is a little boy (at the age when boys tear the wings or legs off of bugs) abusing humans for entertainment

Prayer must be for the will of GOD for the believer; sincere, humble, and with sincere hope, if only momentarily, for the unbeliever.

Yet still one shouldn't expect things contrary to the Will of GOD. Thankfully that will is wholly benevolent, and equitably giving

Prayer is effectual when sincere.

I was atheist or I guess technically some form of agnostic at the exact time I first sincerely prayed.

I don't remember if it was a couple days or a couple weeks later, but my prayers were wholly answered and much more, hence my belief now. I have since had varied confirmations of the hearings of my own supplications.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 07, 2017, 08:48:08 PM
Prayer must be for the will of GOD for the believer; sincere, humble, and with sincere hope, if only momentarily, for the unbeliever.

Yet still one shouldn't expect things contrary to the Will of GOD. Thankfully that will is wholly benevolent, and equitably giving

You keep saying stuff like this but you never tell us how you 'know' this.  I get it that that is your opinion.  And your opinion is important only to you. 

Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 08:12:47 PM
is there a correct way to pray? there must be 100 videos on youtube of people saying they know the correct way to pray. I tried a few of them... not really feelin like tryin all of them.

If you don't know how to walk, you will have to crawl.  Look up psychosomatic affirmation.  Is anything holding you back?  How can you undermine that, so you are more effective?  What carrot do you need to offer yourself to be motivated?  It doesn't require an imaginary friend.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 07, 2017, 08:55:36 PM
Prayer is effectual when sincere.

I was atheist or I guess technically some form of agnostic at the exact time I first sincerely prayed.

I don't remember if it was a couple days or a couple weeks later, but my prayers were wholly answered and much more, hence my belief now. I have since had varied confirmations of the hearings of my own supplications.

That's funny. In my years of deep devotion to God, I made several sincere prayers, and God ignored all of them. And what was this prayer of yours for, that God would find it worth his time to grant your request and not mine? What makes you certain that you did not get what you wanted by random chance or by effort on your part?

Quote from: Blackleaf on January 08, 2017, 07:29:16 AM
That's funny. In my years of deep devotion to God, I made several sincere prayers, and God ignored all of them. And what was this prayer of yours for, that God would find it worth his time to grant your request and not mine? What makes you certain that you did not get what you wanted by random chance or by effort on your part?

There is no such thing as chance or random.

Out of the most debilitating depression and longing for death I prayed. I prayed to whatever may be listening; GOD, Christ, higher power....Whatever this thing was that I had heard of yet never believed in....That is why I prayed to. What I prayed for was help. I wished for death and loathed life and myself and others in general (much of the time) to the fullest.

I realized through my own doing, retrospect and introspection that regardless of my percievable will, I could not help the situation I was in for years. So I asked for help.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 07, 2017, 08:55:36 PM
Prayer is effectual when sincere.

I have several billion who would argue...if they had survived.

QuoteI don't remember if it was a couple days or a couple weeks later, but my prayers were wholly answered and much more,

put next to said several billion, it is indeed simple chance. How fortunate for you. I also met one such deluded and devoted as you before, he proclaimed he received gods grace while walking to a store to get some duct tape he found a small role with just enough to do the job...ain't god grand. Meanwhile...at the childrens hospital cancer ward....not so much, and we are quite convinced the prayers are sincere, as were the millions previous.

The babbling babble promises that if you pray believing, that nothing will be impossible for you and you can tell a mountain to move and it will. At last check...no mountains moved....nor barely a boulder, but one guy got some duct tape and Pops here got a pat on the back so....hip hip hooray!

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 08:35:36 AM
There is no such thing as chance or random.

God give diseases and deformities to the bastards that deserve it.

QuoteSo I asked for help.

I used google. Same results, less ass kissing.

Quote from: aitm on January 08, 2017, 09:29:35 AM
I have several billion who would argue...if they had survived.
put next to said several billion, it is indeed simple chance. How fortunate for you. I also met one such deluded and devoted as you before, he proclaimed he received gods grace while walking to a store to get some duct tape he found a small role with just enough to do the job...ain't god grand. Meanwhile...at the childrens hospital cancer ward....not so much, and we are quite convinced the prayers are sincere, as were the millions previous.

The babbling babble promises that if you pray believing, that nothing will be impossible for you and you can tell a mountain to move and it will. At last check...no mountains moved....nor barely a boulder, but one guy got some duct tape and Pops here got a pat on the back so....hip hip hooray!

Not talking about duct tape.

I didn't get a pat on the back. What I got was direction, healing, revelation, and undeniable conformation of not only the existence of GOD, but how that related to my individual, seemingly worthless, pointless existence.

Among other things I was suicidal due to my own knowing misdirection. I had watched myself destroy everything good in my life... nearly. Though recent efforts to change my own direction had seemingly proven somewhat profitable, I was a ticking time bomb, ready to explode at seemingly miniscule, irrelevant occurrences. I very nearly came to killing a mother of one of my children.

My anger and self loathing tendencies left me when I was given faith too. I experienced things that I never witnessed before. Can you imagine being burdened to the point of seeking out and seriously contemplating how to end your life? Do you know what it is to wake furious and sleep angry? Do you know how heavy the weight is of all things in ones own life observably going wholly the wrong direction, and how fatiguing it gets over years and with much effort to change only to have others pertinent to that change not be willing even for the sake of your child? You can? Good. Now attempt to imagine that heavy load, that burden, that inner detriment being wholly lifted and utterly removed, being replaced by never before fathomed joy and utter thankfulness. Couple that with all the other things, revelations, and circumstances and then tell me my own prayer wasn't effectual to any end whatsoever.

I do actively attempt to not take offence. Not that you care.

I am speaking the truth though.

It is the will of GOD for all creation to come to know and abide by what it was formed for.

In those cases of sincere humble selfless prayer, ones prayer is not only heard but answered. GOD is subtle yet all pervading, even so, you can get actual signs and evidences of ones own prayers being heard through all types of experiences.

Just my opinion; don't go thinking I insist all must do as I do or even listen to me

Yet still, my faith is not of me but was given to me, and the things I speak are not wholly the things I do. I am a low hypocrite at times for now.
peace

Isn't that odd how that works.  Idiots like Pops say there is no random chance or coincidence.  But then they deny that is what they mean.  So, my 3 yr. old grandson deserved the brain caner he got--or received from his own personal loving god.  All of the babies born deformed or diseased received only what they deserved since that was not a random act.  But if I were to sincerely, and correctly pray, then my prayer would be acted upon by my own personal loving god.  They would insist that cancer or any disease was a gift from god; yet if anything good happens, then that is a gift from god.  These people are not only ignorant, but stupid beyond belief.

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2017, 09:54:45 AM
Isn't that odd how that works.  Idiots like Pops say there is no random chance or coincidence.  But then they deny that is what they mean.  So, my 3 yr. old grandson deserved the brain caner he got--or received from his own personal loving god.  All of the babies born deformed or diseased received only what they deserved since that was not a random act.  But if I were to sincerely, and correctly pray, then my prayer would be acted upon by my own personal loving god.  They would insist that cancer or any disease was a gift from god; yet if anything good happens, then that is a gift from god.  These people are not only ignorant, but stupid beyond belief.

No jack ass, I insist that cancer could have been negated long ago, along with starvation, overpopulation, environmental dangers, diseases, hate/terror crimes, amebas/parasites and other things through the profitable equitable advancement of our species and life as a whole through wholly equitable and peaceable selfless means. Yet that isn't to say that death isn't part of life. But that seems too difficult a consent for you to grasp.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 10:01:04 AM
No jack ass, I insist that cancer could have been negated long ago, along with starvation, overpopulation, environmental dangers, diseases, hate/terror crimes, amebas/parasites and other things through the profitable equitable advancement of our species and life as a whole through wholly equitable and peaceable selfless means. Yet that isn't to say that death isn't part of life. But that seems too difficult a consent for you to grasp.

The ever loving Pops, I see.  So, your god can keep babies from being deformed or diseased at birth, but he is too busy?  Humans too wicked (even tho your perfect god make them)?  Humans too impotent?  And since you 'insist' that caner could have been negated long ago, then that must be so.  God created the cancer cell and he can stop making the cancer cell if humans jump through the correct hoops?  In your world god, the ultimate good, the perfect, the just and merciful, created all, including humans.  Yet this world has not a single 'perfect' thing in it--and never has.  But you are simply too blind to really see the world; you are too busy in your own imagination; too wrapped up in your own ego of knowing this fictional god of yours.  Pity.

Death is part of life.  Wow!  I had not considered that!!  And I give my 'consent' for you to grasp the 'concept' of that idea, that reality.  Nature is the creation of your wonderful god.  But look at it semi-closely.  Death is for sure a feature of that, of nature, and it is the biggest, most self evident feature of that system, we call nature.  Everything has to eat another creature to survive--except plants.  Cruelty is a cornerstone of this system; nature cares not if you live or die; cares not how you die, only that you will.  Your god does not care how you die or when you die--babies die a second after birth all the time.  And you cannot say that god was sort of asleep when he designed nature, for plants clearly show that life does not need to feed off other life--minerals and sunlight will do just nicely.  So, he chose his system of nature for nonplants knowing just how cruel it was/is.  You, my idiot friend are so wrapped up in your fiction that you simply cannot see what is under your nose. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2017, 10:22:29 AM
The ever loving Pops, I see.  So, your god can keep babies from being deformed or diseased at birth, but he is too busy?  Humans too wicked (even tho your perfect god make them)?  Humans too impotent?  And since you 'insist' that caner could have been negated long ago, then that must be so.  God created the cancer cell and he can stop making the cancer cell if humans jump through the correct hoops?  In your world god, the ultimate good, the perfect, the just and merciful, created all, including humans.  Yet this world has not a single 'perfect' thing in it--and never has.  But you are simply too blind to really see the world; you are too busy in your own imagination; too wrapped up in your own ego of knowing this fictional god of yours.  Pity.

Death is part of life.  Wow!  I had not considered that!!  And I give my 'consent' for you to grasp the 'concept' of that idea, that reality.  Nature is the creation of your wonderful god.  But look at it semi-closely.  Death is for sure a feature of that, of nature, and it is the biggest, most self evident feature of that system, we call nature.  Everything has to eat another creature to survive--except plants.  Cruelty is a cornerstone of this system; nature cares not if you live or die; cares not how you die, only that you will.  Your god does not care how you die or when you die--babies die a second after birth all the time.  And you cannot say that god was sort of asleep when he designed nature, for plants clearly show that life does not need to feed off other life--minerals and sunlight will do just nicely.  So, he chose his system of nature for nonplants knowing just how cruel it was/is.  You, my idiot friend are so wrapped up in your fiction that you simply cannot see what is under your nose.

I'm sorry you find life so cruel. I used to as well and still do understand your sentiments. Surly the innocent who are taken away before this life is really realized are returned in there innocence and beauty to there benevolent origin or source. Energy doesn't die, and though I cannot prove it, it seems to me that the breath and or light of life is indeed some grand form of energy.

For those of use privy enough to witness this existence are tested throughout it, perhaps oblivious to us. The life of self isn't the thing to grasp for are attain to, but that giving of life and help to life as a whole regardless of circumstance or affliction.

I'm not dumb friend, but do admit that I see things wholly differently from the way I used to. Pessimism and moreso nihilistic views are wholly contrary to the benefit of any at all, including self.

peace

Pops ... sorry you had to go there, but I understand suicidal thoughts, and people who have attempted and committed suicide ;-(  Glad you are still with us ;-)

"There is no such thing as chance or random" ... well there is in mathematics.  As far as I can tell however, everything in nature (other than mathematics) is pseudo-random.  So technically, nothing that happens to you or me, is completely due to chance, just do to complicated cause/effect that is beyond our ken.  Karma the Hindus call it.  Of course I consider this to be supernatural rather than natural, but one can take it as completely non-theistically, as some Buddhists and Hindus do.

A friend of mine, his dad passed away a week ago.  I am going to recite the 23rd Psalm for them, in Hebrew ... a surprise wake ... The Sleeper Must Awaken!  Muad Dib.  Why am I doing this ... my middle name is Son of Elijah ... and I do hear the small still voice, and that voice spoke to me before I went to breakfast this morning.  Of course nobody heard it, but I un-heard it ;-))

Quote from: Baruch on January 08, 2017, 11:05:22 AM
Pops ... sorry you had to go there, but I understand suicidal thoughts, and people who have attempted and committed suicide ;-(  Glad you are still with us ;-)

"There is no such thing as chance or random" ... well there is in mathematics.  As far as I can tell however, everything in nature (other than mathematics) is pseudo-random.  So technically, nothing that happens to you or me, is completely due to chance, just do to complicated cause/effect that is beyond our ken.  Karma the Hindus call it.  Of course I consider this to be supernatural rather than natural, but one can take it as completely non-theistically, as some Buddhists and Hindus do.

A friend of mine, his dad passed away a week ago.  I am going to recite the 23rd Psalm for them, in Hebrew ... a surprise wake ... The Sleeper Must Awaken!  Muad Dib.  Why am I doing this ... my middle name is Son of Elijah ... and I do hear the small still voice, and that voice spoke to me before I went to breakfast this morning.  Of course nobody heard it, but I un-heard it ;-))

Lovely.

My actual name was quite revealing when I actually looked into it.

It's good to hear your words of this sort, as sometimes I do wonder about your motives. I think that confusion is intentional on your part though and sort of a jest...Mostly harmless.

I wish you the best and hope that peace has come to your friends father and does come to your friend.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 10:34:36 AM
I'm sorry you find life so cruel. I used to as well and still do understand your sentiments. Surly the innocent who are taken away before this life is really realized are returned in there innocence and beauty to there benevolent origin or source. Energy doesn't die, and though I cannot prove it, it seems to me that the breath and or light of life is indeed some grand form of energy.

For those of use privy enough to witness this existence are tested throughout it, perhaps oblivious to us. The life of self isn't the thing to grasp for are attain to, but that giving of life and help to life as a whole regardless of circumstance or affliction.

I'm not dumb friend, but do admit that I see things wholly differently from the way I used to. Pessimism and moreso nihilistic views are wholly contrary to the benefit of any at all, including self.

peace

Once again you demonstrate the understanding of an ant.  I do not find life cruel.  I do see the reality of it though.  Life can be and is often cruel whether or not you see it.  I was reflecting what your 'seeing' is not seeing.  You simply ignore that which you do not like or make up fictional niceties about it.  Your fictional system is totally bankrupt of meaning and content.  You are just too stupid to see it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2017, 11:38:41 AM
Once again you demonstrate the understanding of an ant.  I do not find life cruel.  I do see the reality of it though.  Life can be and is often cruel whether or not you see it.  I was reflecting what your 'seeing' is not seeing.  You simply ignore that which you do not like or make up fictional niceties about it.  Your fictional system is totally bankrupt of meaning and content.  You are just too stupid to see it.

Whatever makes you feel better buttercup

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 11:49:13 AM
Whatever makes you feel better buttercup

You have the 'feel better' fiction all to yourself.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 08:35:36 AM
There is no such thing as chance or random.

Out of the most debilitating depression and longing for death I prayed. I prayed to whatever may be listening; GOD, Christ, higher power....Whatever this thing was that I had heard of yet never believed in....That is why I prayed to. What I prayed for was help. I wished for death and loathed life and myself and others in general (much of the time) to the fullest.

I realized through my own doing, retrospect and introspection that regardless of my percievable will, I could not help the situation I was in for years. So I asked for help.

As someone who's been educated on the subject of depression, I have my doubts.

1. Were you diagnosed with depression, which is a mental illness, or were you just glum?

2. How long did the depression/melancholy last?

3. If you were diagnosed, have you been symptom free on a consistent basis since your "healing," without any aid from medication, or any changes in diet, sleeping patterns, or behavior?

I was suicidal once. Know what helped me? Antidepressants and therapy. You don't need god to recover from depression. My depression was not a signal from an almighty god that he needs to be in my life. It was just symptoms of a psychological illness that needed treatment.

sorry baruch i dont understand yur response to my last post. Try rephrasing that....

As far as the general discussion on the last couple pages is concerned I don't think your sincerity in prayer makes any difference. I can say for myself over the last 20 years I have spent 2,3,4 hrs at a time hundreds of times praying. and somewhere between 30-40 times praying all night long. I fasted once 20 something days before praying; another time around 45. I tried praying with candles. I even tried praying while burning francinsense.

Do you think that any of that praying did me any good? Nope. the only thing I got out of it was getting a little older. Believe me when the shtf its gonna do you a whole lot more good to duck than to pray...

Blackleaf,

I was professionally diagnosed with severe depression and generalized anxiety disorder after two visits to a mental health clinic. I never made a third visit. This was years before my faith.

I was symptom free for years.

Now, at this time I fight self loathing and depression again at times due to my own seeming indifference to important things.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 08, 2017, 05:03:47 PM
I was suicidal once. Know what helped me? Antidepressants and therapy. You don't need god to recover from depression. My depression was not a signal from an almighty god that he needs to be in my life. It was just symptoms of a psychological illness that needed treatment.

Depression is a sign or warning system that lets us know we are in danger mentally. Similar to physical pain and the body. Altering the chemicals in the brain may help, bit is a cover up and not a permanent fix.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 09, 2017, 06:33:16 AM
Depression is a sign or warning system that lets us know we are in danger mentally. Similar to physical pain and the body. Altering the chemicals in the brain may help, bit is a cover up and not a permanent fix.

Complicated business, the mind.  Modern medicine is strictly Paracelsus ... there is a drug for everything, and psychosomatics are just bitching by the hypochondriacs.  Yes, addressing some problems, psychosomatically, can help ... personal testimony says.  But semi-scientific drug trials are as close as medicine gets to controlled experiments.  I don't know that there are any permanent fixes to something as dynamic as the living body or mind.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 09, 2017, 06:30:58 AM
Blackleaf,

I was professionally diagnosed with severe depression and generalized anxiety disorder after two visits to a mental health clinic. I never made a third visit. This was years before my faith.

I was symptom free for years.

Now, at this time I fight self loathing and depression again at times due to my own seeming indifference to important things.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 09, 2017, 06:33:16 AM
Depression is a sign or warning system that lets us know we are in danger mentally. Similar to physical pain and the body. Altering the chemicals in the brain may help, bit is a cover up and not a permanent fix.

No, depression is a permanent mental illness that skews one's perceptions of reality. It can hit you hard when everything is going right in your life, for no reason at all. With proper treatment, depression can be managed, and a person can be symptom free for a period of time, but it comes back. You are not healed when the symptoms are gone, but there are physical changes in the brain that do not reverse themselves. Since you say that your symptoms return at times, I do not think that you were miraculously healed. You still have depression.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 09, 2017, 06:33:16 AM
Depression is a sign or warning system that lets us know we are in danger mentally. Similar to physical pain and the body. Altering the chemicals in the brain may help, bit is a cover up and not a permanent fix.

Compared to prayer, drugs have proven efficacy.  Also, is it not proper to treat a chemical imbalance with chemicals?   :think:

Quote from: Hydra009 on January 09, 2017, 12:18:55 PM
Compared to prayer, drugs have proven efficacy.  Also, is it not proper to treat a chemical imbalance with chemicals?   :think:

That is the materialist version of Galen's humor theory (not comedy).  Yes, use drugs if necessary ... try anything if it works, not if it meets your patient's particular ideology.  But that is why the doctor needs a bedside manner, so you have confidence in his nostrums.  Some of which do more harm that good.  But anything a doctor can do to you, also damages you ... hence malpractice insurance.  I am not arguing for laying on of hands at a tent revival, neither is Pops.

Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 01:15:04 PMThat is the materialist version of Galen's humor theory (not comedy).

Materialism is kinda warranted in a materialist universe, isn't it?  If you show me ghosts or angels, I will change my mind on that.  Otherwise, cram it.

QuoteYes, use drugs if necessary ... try anything if it works, not if it meets your patient's particular ideology.

That last part of that sentence is worrying.  Healthcare beholden to ideology.  We've seen how that plays out with JWs and anti-vaxxers.

QuoteI am not arguing for laying on of hands at a tent revival, neither is Pops.

That's technically true, but what you both are doing is pooh-poohing medical treatment (and the underlying methodology of "materialist science") because it doesn't fit your worldviews.

Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 01:15:04 PM
I am not arguing for laying on of hands at a tent revival, neither is Pops.

I'll take your word on that, but I'm not getting the opinion clearly from Pops.  He still sounds like part of the "depression is a weakness of character crowd."  Like you, I'm not saying depression is always chemical.  But chemical depression a complicated diagnosis, and could easily be misdiagnosed by both the layman and the doctor.  Are we talking about a faulty body chemistry or feeling down in the dumps from guilt because it took longer than average to be potty trained?  Both scenarios exist, but they are not the same thing, and each can signal a different treatment.

One thing seems clearer and clearer today.  Chemical depression is serious, and you're not likely to talk yourself out of it in the presence of a psychiatrist, minister , or a god anymore than in the case of cancer.  Are drug cures abused?  Sure.  They are fast and easy.  That might not be the best thing.  On the other hand, I'm not sure if it's a bad thing in all cases.  Some people don't respond to drugs.  Some people don't respond to psychiatry.  But a person who doesn't respond to psychiatry might not be able to get the knack of introspection.  Is that a character flaw?  I don't know.

"it's a bad thing in all cases" ... about medical practice.  Nobody is arguing that here.  I assume you are clarifying, not putting up a straw man.  There are extremist faith healers ... again nobody like that here.

There is a reason why the word "placebo" comes up in medical discussions.  It doesn't meet the POV of materialists however.  I am having dental work tomorrow ... I am paying a dentist to hurt me in the short run, because we hope it will be good for me in the long run.  On the other hand, there may be no long run, given my age.  Never believe the self promotion of professional societies ... their considerable income depends on your swallowing their marketing.  It used to be that doctors were used in cigarette advertisements.

Depression runs in my mother's side of the family.
Though so far my brother, sister and cousins seem spared. Then again; the bouts have always begun midlife. We'll see.
I only know this: even with witnessing it up close, it remains hard to continuously be understanding towards someone with depression.

Quote from: Hydra009 on January 09, 2017, 01:45:47 PM
Materialism is kinda warranted in a materialist universe, isn't it?  If you show me ghosts or angels, I will change my mind on that.  Otherwise, cram it.
That last part of that sentence is worrying.  Healthcare beholden to ideology.  We've seen how that plays out with JWs and anti-vaxxers.
That's technically true, but what you both are doing is pooh-poohing medical treatment (and the underlying methodology of "materialist science") because it doesn't fit your worldviews.

Nonsense

I go to the doc when I need. I just don't find it beneficial to be like the walking dead and really do think emotional pain needs to be dealt with and not masked. When I get a lung infection about once a month, due to my COPD, I bring my ass on in for some steroids and antibiotics, because I understand and agree that my lungs can't fight the infection off on their own, and I will be otherwise hospitalized eventually.

You want people to have faith in doctors and science. I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that if I didn't have doctors argue with me about the origin of my own giant cell tumor, and then manipulate the scenario so they could do a needless biopsy. (They generally neglect to tell you that a biopsy generally raises the chances of metastasis, and  transformation into cancer)

They tried to have me allow them to remove my entire arm from the shoulder. They ended up doing a case study or something during the biopsy, bringing in specialists and students alike. The point is that you shouldn't have faith in things based on the general consensus.

And if you are curious; they demanded that a tumor cannot be caused by trauma.  Mine was. They claimed it would destroy the use of my right arm, yet has only worked to strengthen and reinforce it.

Funny how the body fixes itself when you don't f with it.

The same holds true for the mind in a sense, not that one should avoid depression or what have you; just that all other avenues such as self honesty and facing ones own shortcomings or demons should be thoroughly traversed prior to resorting to mind altering drugs.

And doubly so for children who's minds are still developing.

Just an opinion; don't freak out.

peace

Even atheists think doctors are gods ;-)  I work with them all day long, they put on their clothes one leg at a time, just like ordinary people.  Yes, by all means, go to a doctor/dentist if you can find a good one, or a specialist who understands your particular condition.  But don't expect it to be free.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 09, 2017, 06:33:59 PM
Depression runs in my mother's side of the family.
Though so far my brother, sister and cousins seem spared. Then again; the bouts have always begun midlife. We'll see.
I only know this: even with witnessing it up close, it remains hard to continuously be understanding towards someone with depression.

Some people are just no fun to be around.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 09, 2017, 07:57:53 PM
Nonsense

I go to the doc when I need. I just don't find it beneficial to be like the walking dead and really do think emotional pain needs to be dealt with and not masked. When I get a lung infection about once a month, due to my COPD, I bring my ass on in for some steroids and antibiotics, because I understand and agree that my lungs can't fight the infection off on their own, and I will be otherwise hospitalized eventually.

You want people to have faith in doctors and science. I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that if I didn't have doctors argue with me about the origin of my own giant cell tumor, and then manipulate the scenario so they could do a needless biopsy. (They generally neglect to tell you that a biopsy generally raises the chances of metastasis, and  transformation into cancer)

They tried to have me allow them to remove my entire arm from the shoulder. They ended up doing a case study or something during the biopsy, bringing in specialists and students alike. The point is that you shouldn't have faith in things based on the general consensus.

And if you are curious; they demanded that a tumor cannot be caused by trauma.  Mine was. They claimed it would destroy the use of my right arm, yet has only worked to strengthen and reinforce it.

Funny how the body fixes itself when you don't f with it.

The same holds true for the mind in a sense, not that one should avoid depression or what have you; just that all other avenues such as self honesty and facing ones own shortcomings or demons should be thoroughly traversed prior to resorting to mind altering drugs.

And doubly so for children who's minds are still developing.

Just an opinion; don't freak out.

peace

Well, Pops, I must admit I admire your grit and scrappiness.  Keep on doing what it takes to make it to the next day.  Whatever works for you works--and keep right on doing it.  I can only wish you the best of luck.  But I still think your ideas about god are not founded on rational thinking.  Be that as it may, maybe irrational thinking is what is keeping you keeping on.  So do it.

Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 06:16:28 PM
I am having dental work tomorrow ... I am paying a dentist to hurt me in the short run, because we hope it will be good for me in the long run.  On the other hand, there may be no long run, given my age. 

I am having dental work tomorrow.  At 3:15 PM.  Believe it or not, I still have a wisdom tooth to be extracted.  I was planning on dying with my wisdom teeth, but it ain't gonna happen.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 09, 2017, 06:33:59 PM
Depression runs in my mother's side of the family.
Though so far my brother, sister and cousins seem spared. Then again; the bouts have always begun midlife. We'll see.
I only know this: even with witnessing it up close, it remains hard to continuously be understanding towards someone with depression.

My father suffered from depression.  I know he was my father and all and deserved some slack, but my god, he could be a pain in the ass.  I've talked to a couple of other people who suffer from depression who seemed to have a pretty good understanding about how it can affect other people, and they said they have to make a concentrated effort at not pulling others down.  I kind of understood that in spite of their best efforts, they weren't always successful.  But I give them credit for understanding that aspect of their depression.

do the drs really give out cures for depression? dont they make more money off you by purposely not curing you? The first cure for cancer was found in 1921, and a few more have been found since then. The drug companies cant get a patent or copyright for natural substances so they try to keep them hidden. If they didn't they wouldn't get to cash in on their manufactured substances. For all we know there may be a cure for depression in your kitchen thats being hidden so the drug companies can sell chemicals

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 09, 2017, 08:31:48 PM
Well, Pops, I must admit I admire your grit and scrappiness.  Keep on doing what it takes to make it to the next day.  Whatever works for you works--and keep right on doing it.  I can only wish you the best of luck.  But I still think your ideas about god are not founded on rational thinking.  Be that as it may, maybe irrational thinking is what is keeping you keeping on.  So do it.

I'm only 35 and feel much of the time as if I am very near my death bed. I will keep on though, until I can no longer extract enough oxygen from the air to stay concious. Minus the whole illogical or irrational thing.

I do understand how and why you could and would find me irrational, but I really am not. You are entitled to your opinion though.

peace

Quote from: fencerider on January 09, 2017, 11:05:33 PM
do the drs really give out cures for depression? dont they make more money off you by purposely not curing you? The first cure for cancer was found in 1921, and a few more have been found since then. The drug companies cant get a patent or copyright for natural substances so they try to keep them hidden. If they didn't they wouldn't get to cash in on their manufactured substances. For all we know there may be a cure for depression in your kitchen thats being hidden so the drug companies can sell chemicals

Are you referring to alternative medicine? Irresponsible doctors have misused their authority status to recommend dietary supplements in the place of medicine *COUGH* Dr. Oz *COUGH*, but there is no evidence to support their effectiveness or safety. In some cases, they can actually cause your body harm. It's the modern day snake oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29v6rNFjlLI

For mental diseases in particular, I really don't see any pill ever curing them. The brain is a very complex organ. You can supply it with chemicals when the brain isn't producing enough on its own, or you can send MAOIs to inhibit a chemical that is overactive in the brain. But you cannot repair brain structures. Without making physical changes to the brain, you cannot cure depression. Furthermore, the brain uses very few neurotransmitters to communicate, which means any one neurotransmitter has a wide range of roles to play in the brain. Changing the chemical balance of these neurotransmitters for the sake of treating depression can have a number of undesirable side-effects because of that, depending on the drug type.

TL;DR: The brain is complicated. It's impossible to fix it with just any pill. No hidden cure exists.

Quote from: SGOS on January 09, 2017, 10:21:43 PM
I am having dental work tomorrow.  At 3:15 PM.  Believe it or not, I still have a wisdom tooth to be extracted.  I was planning on dying with my wisdom teeth, but it ain't gonna happen.

Yeah ... with the last wisdom tooth gone, you will have to go back to Church ;-)

Quote from: SGOS on January 09, 2017, 10:29:41 PM
My father suffered from depression.  I know he was my father and all and deserved some slack, but my god, he could be a pain in the ass.  I've talked to a couple of other people who suffer from depression who seemed to have a pretty good understanding about how it can affect other people, and they said they have to make a concentrated effort at not pulling others down.  I kind of understood that in spite of their best efforts, they weren't always successful.  But I give them credit for understanding that aspect of their depression.

And sometimes life isn't a bowl of Lucky Charms.  But yes, some people ... depressed? ... seem to suck the life out of the room.  I had to tell my ex, early on ... if you don't have anything good to say about your work life, then share it with someone else.  If it is about our marriage, I am all ears.  I didn't go home every day and spend the whole evening saying to her why my work day was terrible.  But if it was, then it was difficult to shake it off, on the way home while driving on the freeway.

Quote from: fencerider on January 09, 2017, 11:05:33 PM
do the drs really give out cures for depression? dont they make more money off you by purposely not curing you? The first cure for cancer was found in 1921, and a few more have been found since then. The drug companies cant get a patent or copyright for natural substances so they try to keep them hidden. If they didn't they wouldn't get to cash in on their manufactured substances. For all we know there may be a cure for depression in your kitchen thats being hidden so the drug companies can sell chemicals

You crossed a line.  Please accept my ... observations.  It isn't true that there are cures for anything.  They don't exist.  They aren't being hid.  While it is true that for-profit medicine is corrupt ... if there were cures, then medicine would be marketing it like mad, and making unlimited money.  There are palliatives, some which work on the cause, some which only work on the symptoms.  Back in the day, they only worked on symptoms, and some like pain medicine, still do that.  And some products are just ... nostrums ... placebos.  Most of those don't require a prescription, if they are harmless.  Nostrums that can cause harm (and it all depends on the individual, like peanut reaction) do require a prescription.  Read any page in the annual Pill Book.  Any medicine you take can make you sick or even kill you in some cases.  Doctors are knowledgable but fallible gate keepers for the FDA and the legitimate drug industry.  That is why they need a DEA license to prescribe.  Don't self medicate, unless you have to.  But the notion that only medical doctors, and not osteopaths or counseling services can help ... is narrow minded.  Counseling of any type, is psychosomatic ... but that isn't something that is "just in your head".

Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 09, 2017, 11:46:45 PM
I'm only 35 and feel much of the time as if I am very near my death bed. I will keep on though, until I can no longer extract enough oxygen from the air to stay concious. Minus the whole illogical or irrational thing.

I do understand how and why you could and would find me irrational, but I really am not. You are entitled to your opinion though.

peace

To be fair, how would you know?  I doubt many people are intentionally irrational.  It's not like anyone here thinks you woke up one day and said, "You know what?  This way of thinking is completely stupid, but I'm going to think that way anyway."

The rules of reason operate independently from a person's opinion of himself.

Quote from: SGOS on January 10, 2017, 11:49:05 AM
The rules of reason operate independently from a person's opinion of himself.

The rules of axioms, which fead the rules of reason, are directly tied to the ego.  Reason only makes you consistent, and sometimes that means being consistently wrong.

i will leave it at that. I was supposed to get a dvd from a pledge drive that explains these cures for cancer, but it didnt arrive yet.

Let's not forget how corrupt the pharmacies are. They have determined that the occassional wrongful death lawsuit costs them less than the profits they loose by pulling proven lethal medicines from the shelves.

Did the OP ever give a reason to believe in the existence of god?

Quote from: fencerider on January 14, 2017, 01:41:20 AM
i will leave it at that. I was supposed to get a dvd from a pledge drive that explains these cures for cancer, but it didnt arrive yet.

Let's not forget how corrupt the pharmacies are. They have determined that the occassional wrongful death lawsuit costs them less than the profits they loose by pulling proven lethal medicines from the shelves.

Did the OP ever give a reason to believe in the existence of god?

The drug industry is indemnified against occasional bad reaction (see aspirin) ... same as the nuclear power companies ... by the Federal government.

that is unfortunate. the government should not be in the business of defending the drug industry.

There was a dr that went so far as to try to charge the parents for child abuse for refusing chemotherapy for their daughter. All that when statistics show the overall success rate of chemotherapy is less than 15%.

There isn't occassional bad reactions. There are some pharmaceuticals which have killed more thsn 1,000 people that are still being sold. The drug companies have this wonderful thing called arbitrage. I don't think its possible to get medical insurance without agreeing to arbitrage. Whenever a legal matter goes to arbitrage the ruling is private. It doesnt become a matter of public record like a legal matter that goes to court. So everytime the drug companies can act like it is the first time that somebody was killed by the drug

Quote from: fencerider on January 14, 2017, 02:51:25 AM
that is unfortunate. the government should not be in the business of defending the drug industry.

There was a dr that went so far as to try to charge the parents for child abuse for refusing chemotherapy for their daughter. All that when statistics show the overall success rate of chemotherapy is less than 15%.

There isn't occassional bad reactions. There are some pharmaceuticals which have killed more thsn 1,000 people that are still being sold. The drug companies have this wonderful thing called arbitrage. I don't think its possible to get medical insurance without agreeing to arbitrage. Whenever a legal matter goes to arbitrage the ruling is private. It doesnt become a matter of public record like a legal matter that goes to court. So everytime the drug companies can act like it is the first time that somebody was killed by the drug

Not everyone agrees with the judicial tort model for ordinary citizens.  I prefer trial by ordeal myself ;-)  In fact there are constant efforts to restrict or ban tort law and tort lawyers (ambulance chasers).  So you get your 100,000 dollars together, go to court, the other side is a company with 1,000,000 dollars and more lawyers than you, and the judge or jury doesn't care either way, they just want to go home.  Then after a long long time you get a damage judgement (like the lady burnt by the McDonald's coffee).  Most tort cases fail, you will bat less than 50/50 ... and the other side if they sue you (the individual) you can be out the money and the time and still loose, in fact the other side (corporation) can obfuscate and extend the proceedings just to drive you bankrupt from the cost of your attorney.  This is why ... often there are contracts that imply arbitration of disputes .. of course the arbitration panel isn't looking to find fault, just get you to stop what you are doing, they work for The Man.  So lets say you get sick from aspirin ... they have grandfathered that, even though it wouldn't pass today's requirements for safety, some people get sick or die from taking it, depending on their blood chemistry (basically everyone is different).  If you were a drug company, knowing that any product you make, can randomly sicken or kill part of the population (usually a prescription med) ... then morally, you have to go out of business and join a nunnery right?

not go out of business. stop selling the particular product. And be held accountable like the Tekata airbag who got in trouble for selling airbags they knew weren't safe. Oh yes, the drug companies know as well as Tekata that their products are lethal. There are drugs that have very few fatalities on record and others that make a lot of money that have thousands of fatalities on record. They know, but like GM and Tekata they hope they can get away with it.

Quote from: Baruch on January 14, 2017, 09:09:34 AM
Not everyone agrees with the judicial tort model for ordinary citizens.  I prefer trial by ordeal myself ;-) 

Drowning or Rack?

Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 11:45:15 AM
Drowning or Rack?

Trial by fire then ... politicians have to pass thu a bonfire of their own vanities ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 11:47:07 AM
Trial by fire then ... politicians have to pass thu a bonfire of their own vanities ;-)

Repubs would say that.  Of course they would say anything.  Dems would argue that fire is good for staying warm.  Libertarians would say its a choice.  Coms would say (sorry thats a State secret which of course they aren't hiding.  Theists would say burn them all (except me) and let God sort them out.  The Greens would use a parabola to focus the solar energy on the victim (renewably, of course). 

Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 11:47:07 AM
Trial by fire then ... politicians have to pass thu a bonfire of their own vanities ;-)

Are we talking about Trump? That's gonna be a big fire; long enough for me to go to the store for burgers and marshmallows.

Quote from: fencerider on February 05, 2017, 03:53:30 PM
Are we talking about Trump? That's gonna be a big fire; long enough for me to go to the store for burgers and marshmallows.

Fat cats really sizzle, the Inquisition tells me ;-)

nobody like cats not even me. I think I'm gonna have to change to a dog

Love cats!

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 26, 2016, 09:56:43 PM
The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effectthere is a definite cause, likewise for every cause there is a definite effect. Your thoughts, behaviors and actions create specific effects that manifest and create your life as you know it

GOD being uncaused is not special pleading because the law is based on the observable universe and as discussed; GOD encompasses the universe so to speak, is outside of it, where it's laws, the ones Created for that universe by that force or existence, don't constrain IT.

Does that make any sense?

Be honest....please.

And I'm sorry, I know you weren't talking to me.

peace

that's nice. now prove god did it.

Quote from: doorknob on February 07, 2017, 01:54:21 PM
that's nice. now prove god did it.

He was speaking of karma.  In Indian thought, karma is natural, the effect of bad actions or even good actions done for bad reasons.  Part of the notion that there is no free lunch, and the human hope that malefactors will be punished ... eventually.  In Indian thought, it takes a god, like Krishna, to get you free of karma.

Seems as if there are a lot of God-haters here who try and throw a lot of fancy words around, but with little actual understanding of their meaning.  Mathematics is the language of science, but you must have faith to believe the basic premises of mathematics.  That's because you have to simply accept as true with no proof given that a point has no dimensions, a line has infinite length, and a plane has no boundaries.  Then once you convince yourself all that stuff is true, you get to deal with Euclidean's Fifth postulate that can change your entire perspective of what your own reality is!  "Modern Geometries" is nothing to mess with.  Russell had mathematicians jumping off buildings when he proposed his paradox regarding "predicates not predicable of themselves".  That sounds like where this discussion is headed.

Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 07:54:27 PM
Mathematics is the language of science, but you must have faith to believe the basic premises of mathematics.

You're trying to claim that it takes faith to believe in math? It's official. You're a hopeless idiot.

Blackleaf,
You probably hate mathematics because you don't take the time to fully understand it.  Is that how you deal with God too?

So much hatred being expressed here.  Is that how it normally is? Or is that how "abnormally" it is?

I was kind of hoping someone would bring up the dilemma that if God wants rationally-thinking creatures to love Him and serve Him, then it's impossible because God would have the ability to create and program automatons to think, act, and choose exactly as He wants.  Now that would be something to debate!

Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 08:30:05 PM
Blackleaf,
You probably hate mathematics because you don't take the time to fully understand it.  Is that how you deal with God too?

It seems to me that not only are you an idiot--but a nontruthful one as well.  You introduced yourself as one who is not sure if they wanted to embrace atheism.  Clearly you are a brainless shill for your religion.

Atheists don't 'deal' with god.  God does not exist.  Get it through your thick skull that we don't think a fiction is real.  You do.  I don't deal with the boogy man either.  Or Bugs Bunny.  They are fictions.  You do. 

Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 07:54:27 PMMathematics is the language of science, but you must have faith to believe the basic premises of mathematics.

Haha, no.  Math doesn't require faith.  Math consists of abstractions and logic designed to chug out predictable results from identical givens.  Math is a tool, not a cult.  Evidently, you're so faith-addled that you can no longer tell the difference.

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 10, 2017, 09:27:07 PM
Haha, no.  Math doesn't require faith.  Math consists of abstractions and logic designed to chug out predictable results from identical givens.  Math is a tool, not a cult.  Evidently, you're so faith-addled that you can no longer tell the difference.

What I find funny in a not so funny way is that math perfectly defined all readily observable existence totally and completely, but to many supposed free thinkers this doesn't speak to intelligent design at all.

It's intellectually dishonest to not admit that it is probable that some intellegent creative force caused existence to form into what we have today. All natural laws that we have thus far stumbled across support intellegent design, not chaos.

So why poke at theists? Are not most here some sort of deist in actuallity?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 10, 2017, 09:54:03 PMWhat I find funny in a not so funny way is that math perfectly defined all readily observable existence totally and completely

Haha.  Nice sarcasm.  Wait a sec, that wasn't sarcastic?

Yeah, the reason math is as complex as it is is because lots of people have had to invent whole new fields of mathematics to model stuff that existing math couldn't handle.  Newsflash:  it doesn't model reality totally nor very easily.  Hence the very smart people still working on that.

QuoteIt's intellectually dishonest to not admit that it is probable that some intellegent creative force caused existence to form into what we have today. All natural laws that we have thus far stumbled across support intellegent design, not chaos.

:histerical:  That was a joke, right?

QuoteSo why poke at theists? Are not most here some sort of deist in actuallity?

Have you seriously never looked at the site's url or banner?

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 10, 2017, 10:10:02 PM
Haha.  Nice sarcasm.  Wait a sec, that wasn't sarcastic?

Yeah, the reason math is as complex as it is is because lots of people have had to invent whole new fields of mathematics to model stuff that existing math couldn't handle.  Newsflash:  it doesn't model reality totally nor very easily.  Hence the very smart people still working on that.
:histerical:  That was a joke, right?
Have you seriously never looked at the site's url or banner?

Completely justified hypocricy

I'm still gonna need a tiebreaker here:  a joke mistaken as a serious argument or the dumbest thing I've seen today?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 10, 2017, 09:54:03 PM


So why poke at theists? Are not most here some sort of deist in actuallity?

A deist is still a theist.  This is an atheist site.  Atheist, by definition, don't think god or gods exist--even the ones that have come and gone.  You theists that visit here insist that all of us here believe in god--its just that we hate him.  Can't you understand that I don't think god(s) exist.  That is my default setting--no god--god is a fiction--so I don't dwell on any god and don't wonder why it acts as it does; it is a fiction and does not act in any fashion.  But I do wonder why theists believe as they do.  I have come to the conclusion they all suffer from a form of mental illness.

Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 08:35:05 PM
So much hatred being expressed here.  Is that how it normally is? Or is that how "abnormally" it is?

actually what you are perceiving as being hateful towards god is actually hatred for preachy christian who come here to try saving us heathens. Common sense is not the same as hatred and I have no feelings towards god or gods than I do about Santa clause or fairies. 

I love how christians come here and tell us we are hateful  or angry when the reality is we are just mater of factly stating facts. They have these preconceptions that atheists are hateful people. Probably because their idiotic book tells them so.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 05, 2017, 07:09:27 PM
Love cats!

I love my cats.  They seem to be completely and utterly atheistic. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 10, 2017, 11:11:07 PM
A deist is still a theist.  This is an atheist site.  Atheist, by definition, don't think god or gods exist--even the ones that have come and gone.  You theists that visit here insist that all of us here believe in god--its just that we hate him.  Can't you understand that I don't think god(s) exist.  That is my default setting--no god--god is a fiction--so I don't dwell on any god and don't wonder why it acts as it does; it is a fiction and does not act in any fashion.  But I do wonder why theists believe as they do.  I have come to the conclusion they all suffer from a form of mental illness.

I didn't say all here are deists now did I. So, you, not being a deist, had little business responding as my comment obviously wasn't addressing you.

Don't get it twisted. I was an actual atheist and know what a real atheist is. But most many here are deists and you cannot speak for them

Quote from: doorknob on February 10, 2017, 11:37:48 PM
actually what you are perceiving as being hateful towards god is actually hatred for preachy christian who come here to try saving us heathens. Common sense is not the same as hatred and I have no feelings towards god or gods than I do about Santa clause or fairies. 

I love how christians come here and tell us we are hateful  or angry when the reality is we are just mater of factly stating facts. They have these preconceptions that atheists are hateful people. Probably because their idiotic book tells them so.

Read your own degrading post and then attempt to say all you do is plainly state facts.

Who are all these deists? I think there are a few, but not many.
And what do you mean with real atheist @popsthebuilder ?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 11, 2017, 07:33:07 AM
Who are all these deists? I think there are a few, but not many.
And what do you mean with real atheist @popsthebuilder ?

I meant as opposed to the proclaimed atheist who is in actuallity a deist.

As far as naming them; I cannot. I am basing my assumption on previous interactions with other atheist forums. Namely TTA

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 11, 2017, 07:38:26 AM
I meant as opposed to the proclaimed atheist who is in actuallity a deist.

As far as naming them; I cannot. I am basing my assumption on previous interactions with other atheist forums. Namely TTA

...

Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 11:54:28 AM
The Greens would use a parabola to focus the solar energy on the victim (renewably, of course). 

Well, let's face it.  Burning everyone, as great as an idea it is, is going to require a lot of energy.  I would be OK with a combination of energy sources, but heavily weighted with wind and solar.  Let the oil companies participate, but save the electricity so we can televise it, and I'll need some power for my microwave, because I'll want a slice of pizza while I watch.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 01:10:39 AM
I love my cats.  They seem to be completely and utterly atheistic.

People worship them.  G-d is an atheist, and cats are made in Her image.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekhmet

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 10, 2017, 09:27:07 PM
Haha, no.  Math doesn't require faith.  Math consists of abstractions and logic designed to chug out predictable results from identical givens.  Math is a tool, not a cult.  Evidently, you're so faith-addled that you can no longer tell the difference.

Math started out as a cult ... with Pythagoras.  And continued under Plato, who invented academia, a revision of Pythagoras' cult.  Originally the primary use of advanced math was for astrology (trig functions).  Fortunately math grew up, separated from religion, but not from politics.  Economics is voodoo math, just ask President George H W.  Academics are still a cult.  They still dress up in funny costumes and use strange Latin incantations like "Idiot expelimus!".  The top math school is at Mathwarts.

I think the question being asked is really why there are theist so actively posting at an atheist site.  And I think the answer is twofold.  First, some may be looking for answers to questions their theism cannot answer.  Second, there are some who cannot imagine that some people truly have no theistic beliefs and keep looking for "slips" in our discussions expecting some evidence that we are secretly either reluctant theists or perhaps satanists (which is really only another theism.

I run into the "secret theist" idea a lot.   Its usually "Well, you must believe in SOMETHING".  Well, no really.  I don't act on "belief".  I act on facts and observations.  Then they get into "morality" and I won't bore you about that path.

I had a Jewish friend  (generally American Jews are least annoying to me  due to lack of evangelism) but he was constantly looking for errors.  If I approached a traffic light and expressed a hope that it would stay green, to him I was seeking a benefit from a deity.  I told him I was hoping that a random event in the universe would act in my favor.  We laughed.  I ditched him a few years later when he began to push too hard. 

So there are those people out there (and here) who just CANNOT comprehend non-theism.  To me, atheism is as natural as my skin.  To them, their theism is as natural as their clothes.  And therein lies the difference. 

Everyone is born atheist, theism is put upon you.

;)

Yes, some Jewish people are too critical, even too self critical (self hating).  Today lots of Americans are self hating, but hating their country, not themselves.  I don't know if some Jewish people are responsible.  Being evangelical is anti-Jewish ... so an evangelical Jew is confused.  So maybe your friend was criticizing your paganism ... you believe in Fortuna aka Tyche the goddess of business and gamblers.  It is very hard for even atheists to avoid unconscious ancestral paganism.  No event works for or against you ... if you are a consistent atheist.  You just didn't get what he was implying.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 08:44:14 AM
I think the question being asked is really why there are theist so actively posting at an atheist site.  And I think the answer is twofold.  First, some may be looking for answers to questions their theism cannot answer.  Second, there are some who cannot imagine that some people truly have no theistic beliefs and keep looking for "slips" in our discussions expecting some evidence that we are secretly either reluctant theists or perhaps satanists (which is really only another theism.

I run into the "secret theist" idea a lot.   Its usually "Well, you must believe in SOMETHING".  Well, no really.  I don't act on "belief".  I act on facts and observations.  Then they get into "morality" and I won't bore you about that path.

I had a Jewish friend  (generally American Jews are least annoying to me  due to lack of evangelism) but he was constantly looking for errors.  If I approached a traffic light and expressed a hope that it would stay green, to him I was seeking a benefit from a deity.  I told him I was hoping that a random event in the universe would act in my favor.  We laughed.  I ditched him a few years later when he began to push too hard. 

So there are those people out there (and here) who just CANNOT comprehend non-theism.  To me, atheism is as natural as my skin.  To them, their theism is as natural as their clothes.  And therein lies the difference. 

Everyone is born atheist, theism is put upon you.

;)

That last statement simply isn't true in all cases. Atheism must be a conclusion to a thought process.

That's fine, but to end said thought or inquiry as if one knows a thing as an utter surety is simply foolish,arrogant, and impedes the possibility of reaching further, significant truths.

Though religion (organized) is also a process (less of opened inquiry, and more of fear of the unknown/indoctrination)in cases; it too, in cases, is not from the persuasion of others, but can be known as utter truth via the innermost workings of self and all existence.


Some may be here in hopes of genuine honest conversation, seeing that they, in actuallity, have, and have had very much in common with many here, and find the general mass to be more intelligible, opened, and able to percieve error in logic. One may hope that through opened honest conversation, all might gain knowledge and direction profitable towards the betterment and benefit of all.


peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 11, 2017, 09:09:01 AM
That last statement simply isn't true in all cases. Atheism must be a conclusion to a thought process.

That's fine, but to end said thought or inquiry as if one knows a thing as an utter surety is simply foolish,arrogant, and impedes the possibility of reaching further, significant truths.

Though religion (organized) is also a process (less of opened inquiry, and more of fear of the unknown/indoctrination)in cases; it too, in cases, is not from the persuasion of others, but can be known as utter truth via the innermost workings of self and all existence.


Some may be here in hopes of genuine honest conversation, seeing that they, in actuallity, have, and have had very much in common with many here, and find the general mass to be more intelligible, opened, and able to percieve error in logic. One may hope that through opened honest conversation, all might gain knowledge and direction profitable towards the betterment and benefit of all.


peace

No, atheism is not a conclusion. It's a lack of faith of gods. No babies are born into the world believing in god. That is instilled into their minds by their parents, family, friends, church, etc. If a newborn does not believe in gods, they are atheistic by definition.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 01:10:39 AM
I love my cats.  They seem to be completely and utterly atheistic.

My cats were not atheistic.  They simply and naturally assumed they were god and acted as tho we should understand that! :))) 

Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2017, 09:17:06 AM
No, atheism is not a conclusion. It's a lack of faith of gods. No babies are born into the world believing in god. That is instilled into their minds by their parents, family, friends, church, etc. If a newborn does not believe in gods, they are atheistic by definition.

Babies are like cats, they are little gods.

Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2017, 09:17:06 AM
No, atheism is not a conclusion. It's a lack of faith of gods. No babies are born into the world believing in god. That is instilled into their minds by their parents, family, friends, church, etc. If a newborn does not believe in gods, they are atheistic by definition.

A new born has not been persuaded in any way nor has any knowledge but instinct. That instinct is to sustain itself via drinking and crying. It has no capacity to contemplate such things as the origins of life or the direction there of past its own naturally imbued instincts for survival.

If a newborn were to grow in a vacuum or rather, without the influence of societal norms, but remain in all other nature then would they eventually believe in purpose or lack there of?

Your statement is false as the criteria for determining atheism/deism/theism are not present in the newborn.

Some people haven't read studies of baby behavior, that indicates extreme neediness and egotism.  Very god like that.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 11, 2017, 09:45:13 AM
A new born has not been persuaded in any way nor has any knowledge but instinct.

Doesn't matter. They don't believe in gods. Therefor they are atheists.

It seems pretty clear this site draws mostly petty people who claim to be experts on absolutely "nothing"!  If you get what I mean.

I had a student in a high school geometry class tell me that since the number pi is a non-repeating decimal, that God wouldn't make an important constant act like that.  He wanted something more orderly and more defined according to his own requirements.  I get the same responses from students when I give essay questions on tests!   The point is we put restrictions on God and even say God doesn't exist because we always put restrictions on who we want God to be.  But God still "is" regardless of whether or not we like His creation or how He designed it.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 10:48:56 AM
It seems pretty clear this site draws mostly petty people who claim to be experts on absolutely "nothing"!  If you get what I mean.

Like you, for instance.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 10:58:49 AM
I had a student in a high school geometry class tell me that since the number pi is a non-repeating decimal, that God wouldn't make an important constant act like that.  He wanted something more orderly and more defined according to his own requirements.  I get the same responses from students when I give essay questions on tests!   The point is we put restrictions on God and even say God doesn't exist because we always put restrictions on who we want God to be.  But God still "is" regardless of whether or not we like His creation or how He designed it.

But the ego of the teacher should be more humble than that of the student ;-)  You have earned only two humility points so far.  Keep it up if you can.  Proper atheists do not claim to know G-d ... theists do.  It is incumbent on theists to know what they are talking about, to avoid embarrassment at the hands of atheists.  Very few who come here, to evangelize, have the humility to be proper theists.  I hope you can grow past your own ego.

I would sure like to see the real educational credentials of people like Blackleaf and Baruch.  Then we can determine how much their opinions really matter.  My hunch is neither of you have as much as an undergraduate college degree.  Give us some insight into your educational accomplishments (if any)...please, please, please.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 12:29:41 PM
I would sure like to see the real educational credentials of people like Blackleaf and Baruch.  Then we can determine how much their opinions really matter.  My hunch is neither of you have as much as an undergraduate college degree.  Give us some insight into your educational accomplishments (if any)...please, please, please.

Typical theist--full of ego and judgement.  And blind as a bat and can't listen.  And it would matter not what your degree is or what it is in.  In your case a PhD would simply mean piled higher and deeper.

Gee, Mike, and I was intending to leave you, sdelsolray, and Gawdzilla out of it.  You put forth the most logical discussion of anyone I've encountered yet, but don't get too overconfident.   

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 12:29:41 PM
I would sure like to see the real educational credentials of people like Blackleaf and Baruch.  Then we can determine how much their opinions really matter.  My hunch is neither of you have as much as an undergraduate college degree.  Give us some insight into your educational accomplishments (if any)...please, please, please.

Credentialism?  Why, how neolib is that?  If I know G-d personally, why do I need those?  Been mostly religious most of my life, and nearing retirement.  Do you respect your elders, boy? (sarcasm).  My ex was valedictorian at her seminary graduation, and I am way smarter than her.  Looks like it is time for ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE

College philosophy of religion classes usually square off immediately between believers in God and non-believers.  After the semester progresses, both sides eventually realize there is no way to absolutely prove whether God exists or not.  But one thing both sides eventually agree on is that believers in God are generally much happier with themselves than non-believers, and the non-believers tend to dislike the believers in God because they are happier!   My conclusion is that non-believers just don't like happy believers in God simply because they don't get the same benefit of being happy with their non-beliefs as believers get with their beliefs!  Amazing phenomenon.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:07:49 PM
College philosophy of religion classes usually square off immediately between believers in God and non-believers.  After the semester progresses, both sides eventually realize there is no way to absolutely prove whether God exists or not.  But one thing both sides eventually agree on is that believers in God are generally much happier with themselves than non-believers, and the non-believers tend to dislike the believers in God because they are happier!   My conclusion is that non-believers just don't like happy believers in God simply because they don't get the same benefit of being happy with their non-beliefs as believers get with their beliefs!  Amazing phenomenon.

You are a legend in your own mind!  Beware, pride goeth before the fall.  My happiness or not, has nothing to do with my religion.  I can always get false happiness from a bottle.  The video following my post, might be more your speed ... if you are a Modern Major General ;-)

Here is a very nice version, not the one immediately following ... a send up of pretentiousness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs3dPaz9nAo

I am about the same age as the General, but my education isn't a pretension.  I definitely approve of the beard ... Huzzah!

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 12:54:33 PM
Gee, Mike, and I was intending to leave you, sdelsolray, and Gawdzilla out of it.  You put forth the most logical discussion of anyone I've encountered yet, but don't get too overconfident.

The fact that you are a theist leaves you with not the tiniest tattered bit of an intellect that you believe (you operate on belief since you have not one empirical piece of evidence for your fictional god) you have.  You rattle on without the ability or desire to try to understand what another person is trying to tell you.  You are so addicted to your beliefs that you can't see past them.  And if you find the posters here so offensive or not your equal, why not simply leave. 

I've hinted at my educational credentials, but all I'm hearing is the thundering silence of the uneducated.  Notice how the issue is being sidetracked.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:07:49 PM
College philosophy of religion classes usually square off immediately between believers in God and non-believers.  After the semester progresses, both sides eventually realize there is no way to absolutely prove whether God exists or not.  But one thing both sides eventually agree on is that believers in God are generally much happier with themselves than non-believers, and the non-believers tend to dislike the believers in God because they are happier!   My conclusion is that non-believers just don't like happy believers in God simply because they don't get the same benefit of being happy with their non-beliefs as believers get with their beliefs!  Amazing phenomenon.

That hasn't been my experience nor the reported experience of a few people I know that took classes like that or similar to it.  The nonbelievers simply came away shaking their heads in befuddlement over the views of the believers. 

Personally, it is not the individual believers that give me any problems.  I am a firm believer in 'whatever gets one through the night'--as long as it hurts no one.  It is the hierarchies that grow up within each religion that causes the problems; that get people to do harmful things to those around them.  It is the hierarchies that tell people what to do and how to do it and what to think.  The hierarchies goal is to simply make the hierarchy grow--and nothing is out of bounds to get that job done!

I'm posting this again because it really says a lot about who participates in these forums:
College philosophy of religion classes usually square off immediately between believers in God and non-believers.  After the semester progresses, both sides eventually realize there is no way to absolutely prove whether God exists or not.  But one thing both sides eventually agree on is that believers in God are generally much happier with themselves than non-believers, and the non-believers tend to dislike the believers in God because they are happier!   My conclusion is that non-believers just don't like happy believers in God simply because they don't get the same benefit of being happy with their non-beliefs as believers get with their beliefs!  Amazing phenomenon.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:15:00 PM
I've hinted at my educational credentials, but all I'm hearing is the thundering silence of the uneducated.  Notice how the issue is being sidetracked.

The sound of one mouth flapping?  What is your interpretation of the first Gatha of Zoroaster, perhaps?  And answer in Persian, modern Farsi is sufficient, Avestan is not required.  Mine ...

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:15:00 PM
I've hinted at my educational credentials, but all I'm hearing is the thundering silence of the uneducated.  Notice how the issue is being sidetracked.

Papacy much?

PS if you back translate my Farsi, using Google Translate, it makes an error, do you recognize it?  Recognizing errors is very important!

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 10:58:49 AMBut God still "is" regardless of whether or not we like His creation or how He designed it.

That clears it up then. There must be a God, whether we like it or not, because you said so.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 12:29:41 PM
I would sure like to see the real educational credentials of people... Give us some insight into your educational accomplishments (if any)...please, please, please.

Check my credentials, Bitch. Uneducated hick. But I can take you.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:07:49 PM
College philosophy of religion classes usually square off immediately between believers in God and non-believers... But one thing both sides eventually agree on is that believers in God are generally much happier with themselves than non-believers...Amazing phenomenon.

Citation required. I suspect this is total bullshit.

Well even bullshit is useful, if you mix it with the garden soil at the beginning before planting.  Is this even that useful?

Farsi, Zoroaster?  Paltry arguments.  How about let's discuss who the Aryans (not the Nazi ones) were.  If you've had some training in philosophy of religion, you will surely have an opinion.  And I'll know whether or not you readily Googled the answer. Come on all you uneducated ones.

This one thinks he's special.  That's funny.

sdelsolray, 
Not special, just more educated and able to make a more valid argument than you.  I'd say you took Psych 1 and 2 at some community college or online.  What say you?

Quote from: sdelsolray on February 11, 2017, 01:46:06 PM
This one thinks he's special.  That's funny.

He's edumacated! All us yokels better just step back.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:48:27 PM
sdelsolray, 
Not special, just more educated and able to make a more valid argument than you.  I'd say you took Psych 1 and 2 at some community college or online.  What say you?

Stop bragging, and make your "more valid argument," then.

Solomon,
????

Solomon,
I gave you four of them because I had to grade on a curve!

What's really sad about this website is that the most vocal participants seem to be the most unqualified people who are filled with hatred for believers in God.  Not very good representatives for honest (sic) atheists everywhere.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:56:47 PM
Solomon,
I gave you four of them because I had to grade on a curve!

Well, if you would be so kind as to link me to them(I don't feel like sifting through 20 pages of posts), or restating them...

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 02:10:38 PM
What's really sad about this website is that the most vocal participants seem to be the most unqualified people who are filled with hatred for believers in God.  Not very good representatives for honest (sic) atheists everywhere.

That is simply not true. There are a wide variety of atheists here. And if I hated Christians, I would be miserable, like you think we're supposed to be, seeing as how they comprise the majority of my family, as well as the general population. You see what you want to see, in people. Christianity is not about convincing people of the existence of God, it's about the spirit of Love. That doesn't always translate well on the internet.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 11, 2017, 02:21:03 PM
That is simply not true. There are a wide variety of atheists here. And if I hated Christians, I would be miserable, like you think we're supposed to be, seeing as how they comprise the majority of my family, as well as the general population. You see what you want to see, in people. Christianity is not about convincing people of the existence of God, it's about the spirit of Love. That doesn't always translate well on the internet.

Jesus is about love?  Maybe.  Christianity definitely not ... it is about Roman power politics, in the 20th century and in the 4th century.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 11, 2017, 01:20:42 PM
That hasn't been my experience nor the reported experience of a few people I know that took classes like that or similar to it.  The nonbelievers simply came away shaking their heads in befuddlement over the views of the believers. 

Personally, it is not the individual believers that give me any problems.  I am a firm believer in 'whatever gets one through the night'--as long as it hurts no one.  It is the hierarchies that grow up within each religion that causes the problems; that get people to do harmful things to those around them.  It is the hierarchies that tell people what to do and how to do it and what to think.  The hierarchies goal is to simply make the hierarchy grow--and nothing is out of bounds to get that job done!

I like that. We agree here to a high degree.

Just saying

Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 01:24:24 PM
The sound of one mouth flapping?  What is your interpretation of the first Gatha of Zoroaster, perhaps?  And answer in Persian, modern Farsi is sufficient, Avestan is not required.  Mine ...

چرا سردرگÙ...ÛŒ در Ù...ورد Ù,دÙ...ت زندگی زرتشت وجود دارد؟

Damnit.....What did you say. Not fair....Could I use Google translate for that?

Danged ole ignince

Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 01:28:54 PM
Papacy much?

PS if you back translate my Farsi, using Google Translate, it makes an error, do you recognize it?  Recognizing errors is very important!

Damnit....Now I read this....More dumber....Yes please

Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 01:28:54 PM
Papacy much?

PS if you back translate my Farsi, using Google Translate, it makes an error, do you recognize it?  Recognizing errors is very important!

Such an obvious mistake....Most likely intentional.

Point made I would think, though perhaps not.

peace

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:43:21 PM
Farsi, Zoroaster?  Paltry arguments.  How about let's discuss who the Aryans (not the Nazi ones) were.  If you've had some training in philosophy of religion, you will surely have an opinion.  And I'll know whether or not you readily Googled the answer. Come on all you uneducated ones.

Arius and the non trinitarian or non consubstantial equality of GOD and the son or annointed "of" GOD seem closer to truth and more profitable towards what is good and right.

I could go on all day about why and how the traditional trinitarian view is that of misdirection.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 02:10:38 PM
What's really sad about this website is that the most vocal participants seem to be the most unqualified people who are filled with hatred for believers in God.  Not very good representatives for honest (sic) atheists everywhere.

You're a little demented aren't you? I suppose you are some how qualified enough to tell us that god is real? The hatred we feel for believers is because they come here and try to shove there beliefs down our throats. Any one would hate that, that's common sense.

You came to us so be prepared to have to defend and support your beliefs. And just because we disagree doesn't mean I hate you. I don't know you from a can of paint. Your OPINION is just that, your opinion.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:48:27 PM
sdelsolray, 
Not special, just more educated and able to make a more valid argument than you.  I'd say you took Psych 1 and 2 at some community college or online.  What say you?

K....I wasn't going to say anything, but now you have reiterated your own opinion that you are a scholar.

Perhaps you should inquire or what it means to be wise in your own conciept. Check...If you are open to knowledge and change, what is said of the scholastic.

Not sure if you read only the bible or what but it would behoove you to comprehend what you read....All of it....Not in biased partiality for your own gains or profit or will.

What where you getting at with Arians?

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:43:21 PM
Farsi, Zoroaster?  Paltry arguments.  How about let's discuss who the Aryans (not the Nazi ones) were.  If you've had some training in philosophy of religion, you will surely have an opinion.  And I'll know whether or not you readily Googled the answer. Come on all you uneducated ones.

Look, whoever the fuck you think you are--we don't have to prove anything to you so that you deem us worthy of comment.  You are so full of your self; you have a shit filled head and you prove it every time to type a response to this forum--it comes out shit.

Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 02:28:59 PM
Jesus is about love?  Maybe.  Christianity definitely not ... it is about Roman power politics, in the 20th century and in the 4th century.

Yeah, I know. I'm just pointing out, that the enjoyment of life, is not in agreeing what created the universe. It's love, for the most part, that makes it worthwhile. Love has no need of God. Atheists don't generally live in hatred of Christians, as he stated.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 11, 2017, 02:35:47 PM
I like that. We agree here to a high degree.

Just saying

Pops, I have never doubted for a second, that if we were to meet face-to-face, and had a discussion about religion, we would not leave that discussion enemies.  We see much the same way.  I simply do not think any god(s) exist now or ever.  And I don't need a prop called god to get me through the day.  You do believe in god and will go to any lengths to convince yourself that one exists.  But you are not the type of believer that is dangerous--and are probably a better person because of those beliefs--I really do think we are each responsible for our own choices and actions; and if those harm nothing then go for it; more power to you. 

I don't hate Christians. Rather I feel sorry for them. To never use critical thinking. To devote one's life to something that isn't even real. That's just sad.


I don't understand why Christians don't' under stand the phrase "I don't believe in god or gods."

It's very simple. Think of something you don't believe exists unicorns might be one good example. Then again I can't just assume you don't believe in unicorns so pick something you think is imaginary. Now put your god in it's place. Anything you would think or feel about that thing is how we feel about your god.

Quote from: fencerider on January 09, 2017, 12:59:12 AM
sorry baruch i dont understand yur response to my last post. Try rephrasing that....

As far as the general discussion on the last couple pages is concerned I don't think your sincerity in prayer makes any difference. I can say for myself over the last 20 years I have spent 2,3,4 hrs at a time hundreds of times praying. and somewhere between 30-40 times praying all night long. I fasted once 20 something days before praying; another time around 45. I tried praying with candles. I even tried praying while burning francinsense.

Do you think that any of that praying did me any good? Nope. the only thing I got out of it was getting a little older. Believe me when the shtf its gonna do you a whole lot more good to duck than to pray...

Quote from: Peter O'TooleWhen did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 11, 2017, 02:59:26 PM
Pops, I have never doubted for a second, that if we were to meet face-to-face, and had a discussion about religion, we would not leave that discussion enemies.  We see much the same way.  I simply do not think any god(s) exist now or ever.  And I don't need a prop called god to get me through the day.  You do believe in god and will go to any lengths to convince yourself that one exists.  But you are not the type of believer that is dangerous--and are probably a better person because of those beliefs--I really do think we are each responsible for our own choices and actions; and if those harm nothing then go for it; more power to you.

I would agree wholly that each is utterly responsible for thier own actions.

Even before faith I thought all things that happen to one where wholly the result of a thing that person initially did.

It's strange now as I see all wholly responsible but that all things happen too for a reason. That reason being either growth through the acquisition and use of knowledge, or fertilizer or rather knowledge in the form of failure and defeat, for the said individuals replacement with no qualms about responsibility or duty or potential.

Oops...

Oh yeah; please, could you not insist I would go to any length to prove a thing to myself. You know my faith wasn't due to my upbringing, or reading scriptures, or church. Just because I read a lot now and do make connections, to what resonates with me on an innermost level doesn't mean it is the source of or even remotely needed for my continued faith.

That singular event....Is all I will ever need for my rememberance, though many things on nearly all fronts have shown that same thing to be true for me personally.

peace

Quote from: doorknob on February 11, 2017, 03:02:02 PM
I don't hate Christians. Rather I feel sorry for them. To never use critical thinking. To devote one's life to something that isn't even real. That's just sad.


I don't understand why Christians don't' under stand the phrase "I don't believe in god or gods."

It's very simple. Think of something you don't believe exists unicorns might be one good example. Then again I can't just assume you don't believe in unicorns so pick something you think is imaginary. Now put your god in it's place. Anything you would think or feel about that thing is how we feel about your god.

I understand it just fine. I was an atheist and at a time agnostic in a way. I understand the differences but it seems that closet deists do not. Not that all atheists are closet deists.

Hey all you "smart" uneducated ones, let's discuss Anselm's ontological argument for "a being than which no greater can be conceived".  Do you think Anselm was referring to "a being than which no greater is possible" or to a "being than which no greater can be imagined (by a human)"?  Is there anybody here who can distinguish the difference and why it matters so much?  Caution: Notice closely what's included in quotation marks and what isn't.

So, you are a medieval churchman, Godis ... really?  The Ontological arguments are crap, because they involve axioms that are not acceptable to many people.  Without acceptable axioms, then even logical argument is pointless.  And rationality isn't all it claims to be anyway.  My right hand proves G-d, I don't need the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.  If agnostics and atheists want to deny the reality of their own hands ... then that is their problem, not mine.

Pops ... nobody believes in catharsis, but Aristotle did.  Materialists like Democritus ... probably avoided the Theater of Dionysus.

Unbeliever ... Peter O'Toole quote is true, just not in the way you think it is.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 11, 2017, 02:55:00 PM
Yeah, I know. I'm just pointing out, that the enjoyment of life, is not in agreeing what created the universe. It's love, for the most part, that makes it worthwhile. Love has no need of God. Atheists don't generally live in hatred of Christians, as he stated.

Correct ... Godis is projecting ... that is scary.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 11, 2017, 02:47:56 PM
Arius and the non trinitarian or non consubstantial equality of GOD and the son or annointed "of" GOD seem closer to truth and more profitable towards what is good and right.

I could go on all day about why and how the traditional trinitarian view is that of misdirection.

There was a dynastic political reason for the particular form of Trinitarianism adopted in the 4th century.  The formula where the Father was less than the Son (as was the Holy Spirit) made Roman imperial succession difficult.  See the Father is ... the Emperor and the Son is the Heir Apparent.  All of this is politics, not just theology.  Constantine thought he was the Second Coming.

Baruch,
If you or anyone else would have accepted my challenge regarding the Aryans, we would have already advanced past the ontological arguments of Anselm, Augustine, and Aquinas.  But you didn't.  So you're the one stuck in the ontological pit, not me.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 04:18:57 PM
Baruch,
If you or anyone else would have accepted my challenge regarding the Aryans, we would have already advanced past the ontological arguments of Anselm, Augustine, and Aquinas.  But you didn't.  So you're the one stuck in the ontological pit, not me.

Arians ... typo-man.  This wouldn't happen with ink and papyrus.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 11, 2017, 02:37:26 PM
Damnit.....What did you say. Not fair....Could I use Google translate for that?

Danged ole ignince

That would be telling.  You have to see past Google Translate into the living soul of the author (not that atheists or egotistical theists can do that ;-).  No cheat sheet, sorry.  But if you want to talk about Zoroastrianism some time, start a thread in the Other Religions section.  Ties into Bahais too.  There is Persian revelation, that impacted the Abrahamic faiths, and is the tie over to Hinduism/Buddhism.  All major religions are W Asian or S Asian.

Baruch,
So you think "Arians" is correct and "Aryans" is incorrect?  Wow, now I'm beginning to see what's what.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 04:18:57 PM
Baruch,
If you or anyone else would have accepted my challenge regarding the Aryans, we would have already advanced past the ontological arguments of Anselm, Augustine, and Aquinas.  But you didn't.  So you're the one stuck in the ontological pit, not me.

Yeah well I don't care about the ontological argument. Arguments are not PROOF of anything. They are just arguments that mean nothing to me. When you have empirical evidence then we can talk.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 04:24:27 PM
Baruch,
So you think "Arians" is correct and "Aryans" is incorrect?  Wow, now I'm beginning to see what's what.

Sorry, couldn't cross your reference, not Christian enough ;-)  So do you mean Aryan as in Indo-Iranian people, or as a Nazi, or as Arius the much abused presbyter?

Anybody with the slightest hint of education in philosophy of religion would know that the Aryan people originated in Asia Minor.  Some of them migrated south into the Mesopotamia Valley (Cradle of Civilization) and established the roots for the Semitic religions (Judaism and Zoroastrianism).  Some migrated into India and Asia and they established roots in the Eastern Mystic religions (Hinduism for one)  The key is that ALL religions and ancient texts - including the Vedas - available to us are derived and can be traced back to the Aryans.  Actually, Google "Veda" and you will read: "Believed to have been directly revealed to seers among the early Aryans in India".  Interestingly, I made a declaration to my philosophy professor that the Aryans must have been the descendents of Noah since they originated in the mountains of Ararat.  When he wanted proof, I suggested that the term "Semite" is derived from Shem, one of Noah's sons.  He offered that in the seventeen years he had been teaching the class that nobody except me made that observation.  He didn't accept my argument though, since he felt his argument of having taught the class for seventeen years and not hearing what I proposed was more valid than any argument I could present.  Sound familiar?

Hey, while we're talking about the Mesopotamia Valley and the Cradle of Civilization, let's tie in the notion of human evolution occurring over millions of years.  In the Mount Carmel caves in Israel (yeah the Biblical Mt. Carmel!) they discovered 48 or so variations or intergradations of human skeletal remains that ranged from early Neanderthaloid to modern man.  The progression - with no apparent missing link - was shown to have occurred over a period of less than 10,000 years (carbon-14 dating).  You won't read much about that though, since it doesn't make for good discussion with evolutionists.   "The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown."  I also asked my philosophy professor if he thought "came" really referred to "cum".   Nowadays it's commonly thought to be the case.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 04:07:37 PM
Hey all you "smart" uneducated ones, let's discuss Anselm's ontological argument for "a being than which no greater can be conceived".  Do you think Anselm was referring to "a being than which no greater is possible" or to a "being than which no greater can be imagined (by a human)"?  Is there anybody here who can distinguish the difference and why it matters so much?  Caution: Notice closely what's included in quotation marks and what isn't.

Ah.................!!  I sense that godis has a musical theme-----The March Of The Pampas Ass!--and it fits so well.   

Mike,
Are you honestly incapable of putting forward a mature and constructive ontological argument?  How about less antagonism and more quality product.  I promise I don't intend to steal your glory on this site.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 05:22:03 PM
Mike,
Are you honestly incapable of putting forward a mature and constructive ontological argument?  How about less antagonism and more quality product.  I promise I don't intend to steal your glory on this site.

To date, you have not put forth a mature or constructive argument of any kind.  I ask for such a simply thing--empirical evidence for god--any god, you choose.  So far, nothing.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 01:48:27 PM
sdelsolray, 
Not special, just more educated and able to make a more valid argument than you.  I'd say you took Psych 1 and 2 at some community college or online.  What say you?

You have yet to make any argument, at least one that rational adults would recognize.

You're not a very entertaining chew toy.  Please try harder.

Back to:  Do you think Anselm was referring to "a being than which no greater is possible" or to a "being than which no greater can be imagined (by a human)"?  The first phrase refers to a creature of some sort that is more "perfect" than anything else imaginable.  The second phrase refers to a state of being as imagined from a human's perspective that is more "perfect" than anything else imaginable.  Do you see how human bias and our human conditional tendencies restrict our notions of perfection and thus how we ponder and perceive a perfect "God"?  In other words, we always look first for what's in it for "me" because we want to place ourselves in a more perfect state or condition.  However, greed and envy are not proper traits to assign to "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived", but we can't help it because of our own human nature...we are ill-equipped to ponder God!  Whether we want to admit it or not is another question.

sdelsolray,
You didn't learn very much in that Psych 1 class you probably didn't complete, did you?  I mean, come on, I put out some really good stuff here for spurring an honest debate. 

Oooh, SNAP!

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 04:45:09 PM
Anybody with the slightest hint of education in philosophy of religion would know that the Aryan people originated in Asia Minor.  Some of them migrated south into the Mesopotamia Valley (Cradle of Civilization) and established the roots for the Semitic religions (Judaism and Zoroastrianism).  Some migrated into India and Asia and they established roots in the Eastern Mystic religions (Hinduism for one)  The key is that ALL religions and ancient texts - including the Vedas - available to us are derived and can be traced back to the Aryans.  Actually, Google "Veda" and you will read: "Believed to have been directly revealed to seers among the early Aryans in India".  Interestingly, I made a declaration to my philosophy professor that the Aryans must have been the descendents of Noah since they originated in the mountains of Ararat.  When he wanted proof, I suggested that the term "Semite" is derived from Shem, one of Noah's sons.  He offered that in the seventeen years he had been teaching the class that nobody except me made that observation.  He didn't accept my argument though, since he felt his argument of having taught the class for seventeen years and not hearing what I proposed was more valid than any argument I could present.  Sound familiar?

So not just a Protestant nut, but a Nazi nut.  Your ancestors came from Atlantis/Thera/Santorini?  No need to talk further, except to your psychiatrist ;-(

Baruch,
I'm getting the message that you don't really know much about Judaism, do you?  Jews are very special to me because there are many promises of God that still have to be fulfilled through their state and nation.  I just hope during the coming end times that the United States finds themselves on the right side of good and evil!

People ask me when I think the end times will occur.  I respond by pointing out that nobody knows the time or the day.  However, Jesus is the groom who is currently away preparing a house for his bride (Christianity) and he will return to claim and marry his bride when his Father tells him to.  When will that be?  It could be any time after May 14, 1948.  Do you know why?  "On May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv, Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel, establishing the first Jewish state in 2,000 years"

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 07:30:30 PM
People ask me when I think the end times will occur.  I respond by pointing out that nobody knows the time or the day.  However, Jesus is the groom who is currently away preparing a house for his bride (Christianity) and he will return to claim and marry his bride when his Father tells him to.  When will that be?  It could be any time after May 14, 1948.  Do you know why?  "On May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv, Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel, establishing the first Jewish state in 2,000 years"

Hey...Tell us the part about how those that don't believe as you do will be punished by your sky fairies.  That's always good for a laugh.

I personally believe Satan used Hitler during WWII to try and wipe out the remnant of Jews to prevent the end times from occurring.  You see, the end times must happen with the Jews participating.  For that matter, the end times are clearly meant to bring in a remnant of Jews - so they'll accept Jesus as their Messiah.  If there are no Jews left, it can't happen.  Get it?  That would make God a liar, by his own Word, the Bible.  Of course both Hitler and Satan failed, but the result was the establishment of the nation of Israel and thus, the beginning of the ushering in of the end times.  I'm excited about Judaism and so is God!

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 07:46:14 PM
I personally believe Satan used Hitler during WWII to try and wipe out the remnant of Jews to prevent the end times from occurring.  You see, the end times must happen with the Jews participating.  For that matter, the end times are clearly meant to bring in a remnant of Jews - so they'll accept Jesus as their Messiah.  If there are no Jews left, it can't happen.  Get it?  That would make God a liar, by his own Word, the Bible.  Of course both Hitler and Satan failed, but the result was the establishment of the nation of Israel and thus, the beginning of the ushering in of the end times.  I'm excited about Judaism and so is God!

But it was prophesied in the Bible and it didn't say it was the work of Satan.

Just saying

peace

pops,
I specifically stated it was my own belief and I offer no proof or excuses.  Make no mistake that EVERYTHING will work together to usher in the end times because that's what's included in the revealed and unchangeable will and Word of God.  Like it or not, it is going to happen.  And yes, the result will be that only the bride of Christ will enter the kingdom of God to become heirs to the throne.  All else will be cast into the Lake of Fire, which by the way, was made primarily for Satan and his followers.  You do not want to be confined with Satan and his demons in a fiery cage for eternity with no God around to get you "off the hook"!  My greatest hope is that when I'm standing in front of the Mercy Seat at the Great White Throne Judgement, that Jesus says, "Welcome my faithful and good servant".  My greatest fear (and yours should be too!) is that Jesus tells me, "Away from me, I don't know you!"

After all his proclamations superior learning, he is really just an ordinary Bible-thumper. What a disgrace.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 11, 2017, 08:18:59 PM
After all his proclamations superior learning, he is really just an ordinary Bible-thumper. What a disgrace.

Godis has it all figured out, according to Godis.  His ability to pretend is impressive.

About the Trinity:  A human is comprised of a physical body, a soul or mind that is conscious, and a spirit.  If we are made in God's image then God also has a physical body (Jesus), a spirit (Holy Spirit who works in Jesus' accord), and "God" as we can't perceive or know (the Father).  My point is that all rational people are without excuse when it comes to knowing God because their deepest spiritual component is surrounded by a violent sea of spiritual beings that are tugging and grasping at that tiny wandering spirit.  All of it is designed to keep "you" at a center point so you have an opportunity to do one thing: Decide whether or not you love God and want to serve Him.   In words, if your inclination is to believe and you've been dragged too far to one side, other evidence and occurrences will happen in your life to get you to not believe.  But it's only by faith that you decide which side of center you want to remain.  Furthermore, I believe we are accountable because sometimes God allows our spiritual components to reach out to our minds to say, "Hey, even if you don't know it, it's hell down here, so please make the right decision...have faith and believe in God or else!"  That's what a personal spiritual experience is, and it's undeniable when it happens.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 07:46:14 PM
I personally believe Satan used Hitler during WWII to try and wipe out the remnant of Jews to prevent the end times from occurring.  You see, the end times must happen with the Jews participating.  For that matter, the end times are clearly meant to bring in a remnant of Jews - so they'll accept Jesus as their Messiah.  If there are no Jews left, it can't happen.  Get it?  That would make God a liar, by his own Word, the Bible.  Of course both Hitler and Satan failed, but the result was the establishment of the nation of Israel and thus, the beginning of the ushering in of the end times.  I'm excited about Judaism and so is God!

You really are a sick puppy.  You rattle on about fairy tale stuff as tho it is the Truth.  You really DO have a sick and befuddled mind.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 08:07:48 PM
pops,
I specifically stated it was my own belief and I offer no proof or excuses.  Make no mistake that EVERYTHING will work together to usher in the end times because that's what's included in the revealed and unchangeable will and Word of God.  Like it or not, it is going to happen.  And yes, the result will be that only the bride of Christ will enter the kingdom of God to become heirs to the throne.  All else will be cast into the Lake of Fire, which by the way, was made primarily for Satan and his followers.  You do not want to be confined with Satan and his demons in a fiery cage for eternity with no God around to get you "off the hook"!  My greatest hope is that when I'm standing in front of the Mercy Seat at the Great White Throne Judgement, that Jesus says, "Welcome my faithful and good servant".  My greatest fear (and yours should be too!) is that Jesus tells me, "Away from me, I don't know you!"

Oh God, I know!!!  The Tooth Fairy told me that once and I was devastated!!! I still have not fully recovered.

This is important to people not aligned against God, so I'll repost it.
About the Trinity:  A human is comprised of a physical body, a soul or mind that is conscious, and a spirit.  If we are made in God's image then God also has a physical body (Jesus), a spirit (Holy Spirit who works in Jesus' accord), and "God" as we can't perceive or know (the Father).  My point is that all rational people are without excuse when it comes to knowing God because their deepest spiritual component is surrounded by a violent sea of spiritual beings that are tugging and grasping at that tiny wandering spirit.  All of it is designed to keep "you" at a center point so you have an opportunity to do one thing: Decide whether or not you love God and want to serve Him.   In words, if your inclination is to believe and you've been dragged too far to one side, other evidence and occurrences will happen in your life to get you to not believe.  But it's only by faith that you decide which side of center you want to remain.  Furthermore, I believe we are accountable because sometimes God allows our spiritual components to reach out to our minds to say, "Hey, even if you don't know it, it's hell down here, so please make the right decision...have faith and believe in God or else!"  That's what a personal spiritual experience is, and it's undeniable when it happens.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 07:30:30 PM
People ask me when I think the end times will occur.  I respond by pointing out that nobody knows the time or the day.

at once jesus is the son of god- when convenient.... and then IS god, when convenient. At one point jesus knows all, then nothing , then all again ,depending on who you are arguing with.  Meh....the babble is ridiculous stupidity. If that is your belief then you are an idiot. Post all the pictures and postcards and balloons you want....and toss out all the mindless arguments you want. The babble tells us the sky is water....the rest is just as ignorant.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 08:07:48 PM
pops,
I specifically stated it was my own belief and I offer no proof or excuses.  Make no mistake that EVERYTHING will work together to usher in the end times because that's what's included in the revealed and unchangeable will and Word of God.  Like it or not, it is going to happen.  And yes, the result will be that only the bride of Christ will enter the kingdom of God to become heirs to the throne.  All else will be cast into the Lake of Fire, which by the way, was made primarily for Satan and his followers.  You do not want to be confined with Satan and his demons in a fiery cage for eternity with no God around to get you "off the hook"!  My greatest hope is that when I'm standing in front of the Mercy Seat at the Great White Throne Judgement, that Jesus says, "Welcome my faithful and good servant".  My greatest fear (and yours should be too!) is that Jesus tells me, "Away from me, I don't know you!"

Indeed the end will come, but we aren't to fervently seek it out specifically. The will of GOD for us as Christian's is that we attempt to, to the best of our capacity, bring others into the light and knowledge of GOD in an attempt to guide them towards the Way.

By the way; I believe that annihilationism is supported moreso than eternal torment based on the bible and other sacred texts.

Separation and destruction will be eternal at the end times. All else will be wholly of GOD and ITs will.

The only fear we are to have is that of the consiquince for our own knowing misdirection, namely the intentional misdirection of others/ blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. All else is forgiven man by the grace of GOD due to the utter submission and self-sacrifice of the flesh by the annointed of GOD. Being faithful is to be utterly devoted unconditionally.

Believing on the name of the Christ is to follow the teachings and commands.

I hope when you come to your end and meet your eternity that you are embraced by and return to our Holy GOD, the GOD of all creation and existence. The Help in peril, the All subsisting, the beneficent.

peace

Can you determine which people and their spirits are pulling you one way or the other in this forum?   Have your own personal spiritual experience and learn from it.  Do some introspection and ask God to allow you to know the Truth.  Don't let these adverse forces control you and lead you to your own destruction!  Please find yourself and know that God is biased in your favor!

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 08:38:24 PM
About the Trinity:  A human is comprised of a physical body, a soul or mind that is conscious, and a spirit.  If we are made in God's image then God also has a physical body (Jesus), a spirit (Holy Spirit who works in Jesus' accord), and "God" as we can't perceive or know (the Father).  My point is that all rational people are without excuse when it comes to knowing God because their deepest spiritual component is surrounded by a violent sea of spiritual beings that are tugging and grasping at that tiny wandering spirit.  All of it is designed to keep "you" at a center point so you have an opportunity to do one thing: Decide whether or not you love God and want to serve Him.   In words, if your inclination is to believe and you've been dragged too far to one side, other evidence and occurrences will happen in your life to get you to not believe.  But it's only by faith that you decide which side of center you want to remain.  Furthermore, I believe we are accountable because sometimes God allows our spiritual components to reach out to our minds to say, "Hey, even if you don't know it, it's hell down here, so please make the right decision...have faith and believe in God or else!"  That's what a personal spiritual experience is, and it's undeniable when it happens.

Sounds like scare tactics.

Not a very good way to spread the word friend

Can you determine which people and their spirits are pulling you one way or the other in this forum?   Have your own personal spiritual experience and learn from it.  Do some introspection and ask God to allow you to know the Truth.  Don't let these adverse forces control you and lead you to your own destruction!  Please find yourself and know that God is biased in your favor!

Pops,
If you're a Christian, at least have the courtesy to capitalize "Word".  It does matter.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 09:10:54 PM

If you're a Christian, at least have the courtesy to capitalize "Word".  It does matter.

LOLOLOL....man these nuts crack me up

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 08:51:03 PM
This is important to people not aligned against God, so I'll repost it.
About the Trinity:  A human is comprised of a physical body, a soul or mind that is conscious, and a spirit.  If we are made in God's image then God also has a physical body (Jesus), a spirit (Holy Spirit who works in Jesus' accord), and "God" as we can't perceive or know (the Father).  My point is that all rational people are without excuse when it comes to knowing God because their deepest spiritual component is surrounded by a violent sea of spiritual beings that are tugging and grasping at that tiny wandering spirit.  All of it is designed to keep "you" at a center point so you have an opportunity to do one thing: Decide whether or not you love God and want to serve Him.   In words, if your inclination is to believe and you've been dragged too far to one side, other evidence and occurrences will happen in your life to get you to not believe.  But it's only by faith that you decide which side of center you want to remain.  Furthermore, I believe we are accountable because sometimes God allows our spiritual components to reach out to our minds to say, "Hey, even if you don't know it, it's hell down here, so please make the right decision...have faith and believe in God or else!"  That's what a personal spiritual experience is, and it's undeniable when it happens.

Do you really think there are people on this board who are interested in the vomit that erupting from your fingers????? You simply keep proving you are mentally ill.  I do hope you can get some help.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 12:29:41 PM
I would sure like to see the real educational credentials of people like Blackleaf and Baruch.  Then we can determine how much their opinions really matter.  My hunch is neither of you have as much as an undergraduate college degree.  Give us some insight into your educational accomplishments (if any)...please, please, please.

Masters of Arts in Psychology. But you failed a philosophy class, so I guess we're even.

 

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 07:25:02 PM
Baruch,
I'm getting the message that you don't really know much about Judaism, do you?  Jews are very special to me...

:kiddingme: :biglaugh: It takes a special blend, of ignorance and arrogance.

Godis, you're surrounded here by people smarter, more educated, and more experienced than you. Your inability to recognize that speaks volumes of your obliviousness.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 09:10:54 PM
Pops,
If you're a Christian, at least have the courtesy to capitalize "Word".  It does matter.

Excuse my error if you will. I capitalized way but not word. You got the jist of what I was saying did you not?

Grammar Nazis are silly things; and exceptionally so when speaking of common words like the word word, and demanding they be capitalized.

Now you've got me wondering; would the Christ of GOD/ the judge of man, care more about a pretend grammatical error, or the knowing misdirection of an individual propogated as truth towards others?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 11, 2017, 08:55:17 PM
Indeed the end will come, but we aren't to fervently seek it out specifically. The will of GOD for us as Christian's is that we attempt to, to the best of our capacity, bring others into the light and knowledge of GOD in an attempt to guide them towards the Way.

You know the funny thing is I came here as someone on-the-fence, who hadn't figured out where I stood on the existence of God. It's because of the stupidity (in general) of the Christians who came here that I was able to make up my mind and become an atheist.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 11, 2017, 10:19:30 PM
Excuse my error if you will. I capitalized way but not word. You got the jist of what I was saying did you not?

Grammar Nazis are silly things; and exceptionally so when speaking of common words like the word word, and demanding they be capitalized.

Now you've got me wondering; would the Christ of GOD/ the judge of man, care more about a pretend grammatical error, or the knowing misdirection of an individual propogated as truth towards others?

Every time I use G-d instead of God ... some people burst into flames, spontaneously combust ... that is how I get rid of Grammar Nazis ;-)  Poetic justice.

And the word isn't Word, it is λόγοÏ, which means "reason".  Take that, from the Grammar Rabbi ;-))  PS ... ×"Ö´×'ֵר in Hebrew, means commandment.

Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 10:40:41 PM
Every time I use G-d instead of God ... some people burst into flames, spontaneously combust ... that is how I get rid of Grammar Nazis ;-)  Poetic justice.

And the word isn't Word, it is λόγοÏ, which means "reason".  Take that, from the Grammar Rabbi ;-))  PS ... ×"Ö´×'ֵר in Hebrew, means commandment.

Clearly, you know nothing about Jews. So stop pretending to know Hebrew, you god-hater.

Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2017, 10:22:23 PM
You know the funny thing is I came here as someone on-the-fence, who hadn't figured out where I stood on the existence of God. It's because of the stupidity (in general) of the Christians who came here that I was able to make up my mind and become an atheist.

Yes, contention between the proud hypocrite only works to show others what is wrong with traditional organized religion.

the fact that he accused baruch of not being knowledgeable in the ways of the Jews is hilarious.

That alone proves to me that godis is a know nothing.

He must have quite a complex to boast how smart he is and how uneducated we are. Yet so far he's done nothing by the way of PROVING god exists and shown his own ignorance.

He must have been put down as a child and as a result every one must acknowledge how intelligent and educated he is to make up for it.

Well sorry to tell you this sweety but you just come off as arrogant holier then thou self important ass. You might want to check whether your methods of conversion are Jesus approved let alone effective. If you had a lick of sense you would have got to know the people on this forum and maybe not alienated your self from them. So far no one is interested in your brand of bullshit. And by the way you are treating us that just makes us less interested x10. Not only are you full of shit but you lack charisma and the know how to get people to listen to what you have to say.

It's literally impossible for you to convert any one here. You sir have your head up your ass !

And then Christians wonder why we find them so obnoxious and holier than thou. You'll never get a good reception rubbing people the wrong way like that. Good luck Sir. Might as well find another forum to spout nonsense on because no one here will tolerate it for very long. And you are not even an interesting or fun chew toy. Not worth my time.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 09:08:12 PM
God is biased in your favor

Prove it!!!

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM


While this evidence may seem circumstantial, think about a house, you don't see the builder or architect within it, but it's very reality attests to it. 

The very reasonable difference being that I can actually track down the builder of that house, touch him, and point out to the rest of the world that he is the builder of that house.

The same cannot be stated for god, the so-called creator of life as we know it.

Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 06:46:52 PM
The very reasonable difference being that I can actually track down the builder of that house, touch him, and point out to the rest of the world that he is the builder of that house.

The same cannot be stated for god, the so-called creator of life as we know it.

Excellent (said Emperor Palpatine) ... can you track down Lincoln and cross-examine him?  If not, the Lincoln is like a god ... and he is too!

Humans build houses ... if humans are demigods, then at least as members of the class of G-d ... then the building of a house is a divine act.  And that is why mezuzot are attached to doorways by observant Jews.  In ancient times, in Babylonia, the king of Babylon, at the dedication of a public building, would include a foundation brick, with appropriate approbations to the Babylonian gods.

Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:14:26 PM
Excellent (said Emperor Palpatine) ... can you track down Lincoln and cross-examine him?  If not, the Lincoln is like a god ... and he is too!

There is actual evidence existing in the world today that Lincoln was a real person.  The same cannot be stated for Jesus. 

Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:16:21 PM
There is actual evidence existing in the world today that Lincoln was a real person.  The same cannot be stated for Jesus.

There were many people named Jesus in ancient times.  Even more of them in Mexico today.  Lincoln may or may not have existed ... you can't prove it ... and I can easily bet that Lincoln you think of, wasn't the Lincoln that was.  How could it be?  You never knew him.

Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:38:22 PM
There were many people named Jesus in ancient times.  Even more of them in Mexico today.  Lincoln may or may not have existed ... you can't prove it ... and I can easily bet that Lincoln you think of, wasn't the Lincoln that was.  How could it be?  You never knew him.

Lincoln's existence is very much provable by the fact that there are documented photos of him. 

During a time when gods were made marble, where is the statue of Jesus?

Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 06:46:52 PM
The very reasonable difference being that I can actually track down the builder of that house, touch him, and point out to the rest of the world that he is the builder of that house.

The same cannot be stated for god, the so-called creator of life as we know it.

As I stated elsewhere before, the very fact that the house stands out as something obviously designed defeats the argument. In an environment filled with grass, trees, a mountain in the distance, an ocean to the east, and a house in the middle, the house stands out. That's because the house is designed by human hands. The rest is not.

Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2017, 07:49:25 PM
As I stated elsewhere before, the very fact that the house stands out as something obviously designed defeats the argument. In an environment filled with grass, trees, a mountain in the distance, an ocean to the east, and a house in the middle, the house stands out. That's because the house is designed by human hands. The rest is not.

Good golly gee, I have been converted.

Hardly.

The earth was created by natural means following the Big Bang.

Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:53:19 PM
Good golly gee, I have been converted.

Hardly.

The earth was created by natural means following the Big Bang.

I get the feeling you did not fully comprehend my post. I was agreeing with you.

Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:53:19 PM
Good golly gee, I have been converted.

Hardly.

The earth was created by natural means following the Big Bang.

And materialists illogically argue, that humans are also natural, so all our creations are also natural, just like glaciers and the like.

Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:12:29 PM
And materialists illogically argue, that humans are also natural, so all our creations are also natural, just like glaciers and the like.

Materialists do not care about humans.  They care about what they own.  Unless you are referring to Colonial life where they owned slaves.

Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 08:14:47 PM
Materialists do not care about humans.  They care about what they own.  Unless you are referring to Colonial life where they owned slaves.

I was speaking to Blacklead's argument with you.

Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:16:48 PM
I was speaking to Blacklead's argument with you.

Yet you quoted me.

Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:12:29 PM
And materialists illogically argue, that humans are also natural, so all our creations are also natural, just like glaciers and the like.

That is the weird thing about the definition of "natural." It means that humans didn't design it, and nothing supernatural designed it either. If a wasp builds a nest, it's natural because an animal designed it. But humans are animals, so what's the difference between a wasp's nest and a human's house? I suppose it's a definition of convenience. If we read "100% natural honey," we don't really care if bees made the honey. We just want to know if humans tampered with it somehow.

Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:12:29 PM
And materialists illogically argue, that humans are also natural, so all our creations are also natural, just like glaciers and the like.

Please identify the irrationality, illogic or whatever problem you have with defining or identifying homo sapiens as natural.

You will likely have to step out on a limb and define some terms here.  That could limit your future ability to dodge, weave or obfuscate.

Quote from: sdelsolray on February 12, 2017, 09:11:07 PM
Please identify the irrationality, illogic or whatever problem you have with defining or identifying homo sapiens as natural.

You will likely have to step out on a limb and define some terms here.  That could limit your future ability to dodge, weave or obfuscate.

Ha!  Don't underestimate my friend, Baruch! :))

Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2017, 08:19:24 PM
That is the weird thing about the definition of "natural." It means that humans didn't design it, and nothing supernatural designed it either. If a wasp builds a nest, it's natural because an animal designed it. But humans are animals, so what's the difference between a wasp's nest and a human's house? I suppose it's a definition of convenience. If we read "100% natural honey," we don't really care if bees made the honey. We just want to know if humans tampered with it somehow.

Where is the dividing line between natural and supernatural? We only have limited means to observe and understand our surroundings and existence at this time so the word or distinction supernatural isn't really fitting in this case.

I think people like the word because it can be likened to fairies and dragons and such. Just because a thing cannot be accurately explained away doesn't make it supernatural, nor the cause. Who has the knowledge to rightly claim that GOD cannot be both wholly causal to existence and existence still wholly caused naturally? And if said knowledge is with that individual then surely they can present it here.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 12, 2017, 10:22:44 PM
Where is the dividing line between natural and supernatural? We only have limited means to observe and understand our surroundings and existence at this time so the word or distinction supernatural isn't really fitting in this case.

I think people like the word because it can be likened to fairies and dragons and such. Just because a thing cannot be accurately explained away doesn't make it supernatural, nor the cause. Who has the knowledge to rightly claim that GOD cannot be both wholly causal to existence and existence still wholly caused naturally? And if said knowledge is with that individual then surely they can present it here.

Something supernatural is something that is beyond the material realm. It includes magic, ghosts, gods, etc. Sometimes aliens, yetis, and mythical creatures are thrown in too, but I think that just confuses the term. If aliens exist, they're just as natural to the universe as we are.

As for God using natural means to create the universe, that just makes God an unnecessary middle man. If we can explain the universe's existence without him, then adding God to the equation only complicates things.

Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2017, 11:01:23 PM
Something supernatural is something that is beyond the material realm. It includes magic, ghosts, gods, etc. Sometimes aliens, yetis, and mythical creatures are thrown in too, but I think that just confuses the term. If aliens exist, they're just as natural to the universe as we are.

As for God using natural means to create the universe, that just makes God an unnecessary middle man. If we can explain the universe's existence without him, then adding God to the equation only complicates things.

God alone set the laws of existence in motion. It is no middle man. It is causal to existence.

Sure...We can have theories all day. Some may even be fairly accurate, but none of them can be tested at this time with any level of real certainty, and none of them whatsoever show by what means all of existence is possible without an ultimate causal source. You can say it was a supernova or what have you which is merely conjecture by the way, but you still have to explain the laws that caused the supernovae in the first place. You can say there are whole universes within bubbles of sorts and that they are somewhat independent of one another, but you're gonna have a pretty hard time showing how that works by doing it. And if it can't be repeated then it isn't sound scientific law nor should it be considered truth. And you can claim science isn't about law but it is obvious that existence is governed by laws. So if we can't determine their source even though we can observe and describe them mathematically, then it is safe to assume that we are nowhere near being able to rightly claim that existence happened without an ultimate cause.

God is in all of nature as the force, energy, drive, and necessity of life to live. That is not to say that God isn't also outside of the governing laws that bind us as creation or formation.

peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 12, 2017, 11:11:44 PMGod alone set the laws of existence in motion. It is no middle man. It is causal to existence.

Supposedly. But what caused God to exist, and to be the way that he is and not some other way? Did something design God to be the way he is? If not, then he came from nothing. In which case, why can God come from nothing, but not the universe? All you've accomplished by throwing god into the mix was change what it was that came from nothing. That's what I mean when I say that God is the unnecessary middle-man. He doesn't explain anything. He just complicates things.

Quote from: sdelsolray on February 12, 2017, 09:11:07 PM
Please identify the irrationality, illogic or whatever problem you have with defining or identifying homo sapiens as natural.

You will likely have to step out on a limb and define some terms here.  That could limit your future ability to dodge, weave or obfuscate.

The problem is over-generalization.  I can identify a rock, as a rock.  Shall I define a man as a rock too?  Or because a man has minerals in his bones, am I over-generalizaing?  I never dodge, weave or obfuscate ... and I know many more fancy words too ;-)  I was agreeing with Blackleaf ... because his concerns are genuine.  I disagree with him, if he equates materialism with naturalism.  The quandary of humanism vs naturalism is a real problem too.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 10:58:49 AM
I had a student in a high school geometry class tell me that since the number pi is a non-repeating decimal, that God wouldn't make an important constant act like that.  He wanted something more orderly and more defined according to his own requirements.  I get the same responses from students when I give essay questions on tests!   The point is we put restrictions on God and even say God doesn't exist because we always put restrictions on who we want God to be.  But God still "is" regardless of whether or not we like His creation or how He designed it.

I was with you halfway through, but then you assumed a deity had to exist because you assume a deity has to exist.  With your assumption, I sure hope you aren't teaching any science class.

Quote from: Blackleaf on February 13, 2017, 12:20:37 AM
Supposedly. But what caused God to exist, and to be the way that he is and not some other way? Did something design God to be the way he is? If not, then he came from nothing. In which case, why can God come from nothing, but not the universe? All you've accomplished by throwing god into the mix was change what it was that came from nothing. That's what I mean when I say that God is the unnecessary middle-man. He doesn't explain anything. He just complicates things.

GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

peace

By the way; I do appreciate your general tone with regards to your interactions with me as of late, and mean no disrespect towards you or your own views.

QM gives materialism an advantage, because vacuity is treated as a dynamic substance, out of which, per Heisenberg, anything can emerge (not all of it stable of course).

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 06:48:28 AM
GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

peace

By the way; I do appreciate your general tone with regards to your interactions with me as of late, and mean no disrespect towards you or your own views.

The un-evidenced assumption that God is eternal (or the implied statement that one exists) means about as much as saying that we are all unicorns and just don't know it, that we are all from Andromeda, or that toads cause warts.  All 4 statements are equal in provability.

The only thing you can do is provide evidence that any deity exists, and that is not very likely.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 07:18:04 AM
The un-evidenced assumption that God is eternal (or the implied statement that one exists) means about as much as saying that we are all unicorns and just don't know it, that we are all from Andromeda, or that toads cause warts.  All 4 statements are equal in provability.

The only thing you can do is provide evidence that any deity exists, and that is not very likely.

Equal in provability does not mean equal in probability.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 07:44:08 AM
Equal in provability does not mean equal in probability.

A=A

Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 07:45:27 AM
A=A

I'm sorry; I am just a layman. Could you explain equation? I've seen it before but my memory isn't the best sometimes.

Thank you in advance.

peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 06:48:28 AM
GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

You admit that you can prove neither stance--god or no god--yet you chose to believe in god.  That seems to me to be wishful thinking.  You'd like there to be a god.  For you, you say that we don't really know how anything came into being, yet you insist that god did it.  Is that not the picture perfect circular believing?  Yet you accuse others of circular believing? (I won't say circular thinking orlogic, since I see none of it coming from you.)  Would it not be most accurate to simply say 'I don't know'?  And more honest?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 06:48:28 AM
GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

peace

If God had no beginning or cause, what determined his personality? Why should he care about anything, let alone us? What determined whether he'd be a good natured god versus an evil one, or an unpredictable one? To me, it is much simpler to think that the universe came into existence without any gods to help. Until any acts of god are scientifically proven to exist, I'm keeping God out of it.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 06:48:28 AMBy the way; I do appreciate your general tone with regards to your interactions with me as of late, and mean no disrespect towards you or your own views.

I try to match the tone of the people I talk with. People who offer arguments over name-calling get the same treatment. And after experiencing Godis, you're looking like Stephen Hawking by comparison.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 08:51:54 AM
You admit that you can prove neither stance--god or no god--yet you chose to believe in god.  That seems to me to be wishful thinking.  You'd like there to be a god.  For you, you say that we don't really know how anything came into being, yet you insist that god did it.  Is that not the picture perfect circular believing?  Yet you accuse others of circular believing? (I won't say circular thinking orlogic, since I see none of it coming from you.)  Would it not be most accurate to simply say 'I don't know'?  And more honest?

I admit I cannot prove it to others, but not that it hasn't been shown to be true to me personally on a multitude of levels reverberates through my very core and observable existence. When a thing verifies another it is not circular belief as you say, nor is it circular logic. It is simple logic similar to the verification of hypotheses one might see in a scientific model.

If through observation one surmises a thing, and then goes on to verify that thing in multiple ways then is it not logical and honest to agree with ones own findings.

Quote from: Blackleaf on February 13, 2017, 09:16:27 AM
If God had no beginning or cause, what determined his personality? Why should he care about anything, let alone us? What determined whether he'd be a good natured god versus an evil one, or an unpredictable one? To me, it is much simpler to think that the universe came into existence without any gods to help. Until any acts of god are scientifically proven to exist, I'm keeping God out of it.

I try to match the tone of the people I talk with. People who offer arguments over name-calling get the same treatment. And after experiencing Godis, you're looking like Stephen Hawking by comparison.

Thanks; that was funny.

But existence being creation of GOD, and our case; that of exceptional uniqueness, shows in itself that if there where a singular god of all creation that it indeed would care about what it created. Is it not evident that life is profound and unique? Would you, having formed a singular living being(offspring) care about that life at all? Would you confine and imprison that life or give it freedom with hope. Would this offspring be of you and as such, to some capacity, be able to attain to your traits and characteristics? Sorry; getting off subject.

If existence was caused by an infinite omnipotent cause/force/being, and that existence in general can be observed to be of law and not chaos then it too follows that the creator of said existence which that existence is a part of in some form, is to that of straightness/honesty/uprightness. We see life striving to exist so why would any consider that to be abject to its creator?

peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 09:50:33 AM
I admit I cannot prove it to others, but not that it hasn't been shown to be true to me personally on a multitude of levels reverberates through my very core and observable existence. When a thing verifies another it is not circular belief as you say, nor is it circular logic. It is simple logic similar to the verification of hypotheses one might see in a scientific model.

If through observation one surmises a thing, and then goes on to verify that thing in multiple ways then is it not logical and honest to agree with ones own findings.

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying.  You have had an experience that led you to believe god is real.  And since that experience, you have had personal experiences that reinforce that belief--to the point where it is no longer a belief but a 'knowing.'  Is that accurate?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 07:52:38 AM
I'm sorry; I am just a layman. Could you explain equation? I've seen it before but my memory isn't the best sometimes.

Thank you in advance.

peace

A=A  ... he may be quoting Ayn Rand.  In which case he isn't serious.  It is called the law of identity.  Things only get serious is A=B ;-)  In human terms ... "it is what it is" ... which is exactly how an atheist god would have spoken to Moses ... "in that case I am what I am".

I admit that I cannot prove to others that my dick is 12 inches long, but not that it hasn't been shown to be true to me, personally.  I cannot discuss the very personal experiences which tell me that my dick is 12 inches long and it wouldn't matter anyway to you damned atheists, who always demand inconsequential proof like actual physical measurements.  Yeah, if you break out a ruler it doesn't appear to be anywhere near that long, but empirical evidence is irrelevant in this case because I know that it is true, regardless what stupid empirical evidence says.

Quote from: widdershins on February 13, 2017, 01:26:45 PM
I admit that I cannot prove to others that my dick is 12 inches long, but not that it hasn't been shown to be true to me, personally.  I cannot discuss the very personal experiences which tell me that my dick is 12 inches long and it wouldn't matter anyway to you damned atheists, who always demand inconsequential proof like actual physical measurements.  Yeah, if you break out a ruler it doesn't appear to be anywhere near that long, but empirical evidence is irrelevant in this case because I know that it is true, regardless what stupid empirical evidence says.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling people to get down on their knees, in order to receive salvation.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 10:50:50 AM
Just to make sure I understand what you are saying.  You have had an experience that led you to believe god is real.  And since that experience, you have had personal experiences that reinforce that belief--to the point where it is no longer a belief but a 'knowing.'  Is that accurate?

Uhm...Though I feel you are setting me up for something; yes, to summarize.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 02:35:12 PM
Uhm...Though I feel you are setting me up for something; yes, to summarize.

No, no set up. :)  I understand better why you are a theist.  There is no way I prove to you that god does not exist; and there is no way you can prove to anybody that god does exist.  Your experience, while vital to you, does not constitute any sort of proof for me.  And so we are at an impasse.  And that is okay.  You are quite free to believe what you want--and I can think as I like.  As long as neither of us tries to harm the other.  I think we can agree on that.  Dealing with your type of theist is not difficult or harmful.  Soo--no set up.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 09:58:50 AM
But existence being creation of GOD, and our case; that of exceptional uniqueness, shows in itself that if there where a singular god of all creation that it indeed would care about what it created. Is it not evident that life is profound and unique? Would you, having formed a singular living being(offspring) care about that life at all?

If you think God cares, be sure to offer up a prayer of thanksgiving, for these little gems:

Acinetobacter infection
Actinomycosis   
African sleeping sickness (African trypanosomiasis)   
AIDS (Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome)
Amebiasis   
Anaplasmosis   
Angiostrongyliasis   
Anisakiasis   
Anthrax   
Arcanobacterium haemolyticum infection   
Argentine hemorrhagic fever   
Ascariasis   
Aspergillosis   
Astrovirus infection   
Babesiosis   
Bacillus cereus infection   
Bacterial pneumonia   
Bacterial vaginosis   
Bacteroides infection   
Balantidiasis   
Bartonellosis   
Baylisascaris infection   
BK virus infection   
Black piedra   
Blastocystosis   
Blastomycosis   
Bolivian hemorrhagic fever   
Botulism (and Infant botulism)   
Brazilian hemorrhagic fever   
Brucellosis   Brucella
Bubonic plague   
Burkholderia infection   
Buruli ulcer   
Calicivirus infection
Campylobacteriosis   
Candidiasis (Moniliasis; Thrush)   
Capillariasis   
Carrion´s disease   
Cat-scratch disease   
Cellulitis   
Chagas Disease (American trypanosomiasis)   
Chancroid   
Chickenpox   
Chikungunya   
Chlamydia   
Chlamydophila pneumoniae infection
Cholera
Christian Bible   
Chromoblastomycosis   
Chytridiomycosis   
Clonorchiasis   
Clostridium difficile colitis   
Coccidioidomycosis   
Colorado tick fever (CTF)   
Common cold (Acute viral rhinopharyngitis; Acute coryza)   
Creutzfeldtâ€"Jakob disease (CJD)   
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF)   
Cryptococcosis   
Cryptosporidiosis   
Cutaneous larva migrans (CLM)   
Cyclosporiasis   
Cysticercosis   
Cytomegalovirus infection   
Dengue fever   
Desmodesmus infection   
Dientamoebiasis   
Diphtheria   
Diphyllobothriasis   
Dracunculiasis   
Ebola hemorrhagic fever   
Echinococcosis   
Ehrlichiosis   
Enterobiasis (Pinworm infection)   
Enterococcus infection   
Enterovirus infection   
Epidemic typhus   
Erythema infectiosum (Fifth disease)   
Exanthem subitum (Sixth disease)   
Fasciolasis   
Fasciolopsiasis   
Fatal familial insomnia (FFI)   
Filariasis   
Food poisoning by Clostridium perfringens   
Free-living amebic infection   
Fusobacterium infection   
Gas gangrene    
Geotrichosis   
Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker syndrome (GSS)   
Giardiasis   
Glanders   
Gnathostomiasis
God's word   
Gonorrhea   
Granuloma inguinale (Donovanosis)   
Group A streptococcal infection   
Group B streptococcal infection   
Haemophilus influenzae infectionEnteroviruses,
Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS)   
Heartland virus disease   
Helicobacter pylori infection   
Hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS)   
Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS)   
Hepatitis A   
Hepatitis B   
Hepatitis C   
Hepatitis D   
Hepatitis E   Hepatitis
Herpes simplex   
Histoplasmosis   
Holy Books
Hookworm infection   
Human bocavirus infection   
Human ewingii ehrlichiosis   
Human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA)   
Human metapneumovirus infection   
Human monocytic ehrlichiosis   
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection   
Human parainfluenza virus infection   
Hymenolepiasis   
Epsteinâ€"Barr virus infectious mononucleosis (Mono)   
Influenza (flu)   
Isosporiasis   
Keratitis   
Kingella kingae infection   
Kuru   PRNP
Lassa fever   
Legionellosis (Legionnaires' disease)   
Legionellosis (Pontiac fever)   
Leishmaniasis   
Leprosy   
Leptospirosis   
Listeriosis   
Lyme disease (Lyme borreliosis)   
Lymphatic filariasis (Elephantiasis)   
Lymphocytic choriomeningitis   
Malaria   
Marburg hemorrhagic fever (MHF)   
Measles   
Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)   
Melioidosis (Whitmore's disease)   
Meningitis   
Meningococcal disease   
Metagonimiasis   
Microsporidiosis   
Molluscum contagiosum (MC)   
Monkeypox   
Mumps   
Murine typhus (Endemic typhus)   
Mycoplasma pneumonia   
Mycetoma (disambiguation)   
Myiasis   
Neonatal conjunctivitis (Ophthalmia neonatorum)   
Norovirus (children and babies)   
Nocardiosis   
Onchocerciasis (River blindness)   
Opisthorchiasis   
Paracoccidioidomycosis (South American blastomycosis)   
Paragonimiasis   
Pasteurellosis   
Pediculosis capitis (Head lice)   
Pediculosis corporis (Body lice)   
Pediculosis pubis (Pubic lice, Crab lice)   
Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)   
Pertussis (Whooping cough)   
Plague   
Pneumococcal infection   
Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP)   
Pneumonia   
Poliomyelitis   
Prevotella infection   
Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM)
Psittacosis   
Q fever   
Rabies   
Relapsing fever   
Respiratory syncytial virus infection   
Rhinosporidiosis   
Rhinovirus infection   
Rickettsial infection   
Rickettsialpox   
Rift Valley fever (RVF)   
Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF)   
Rotavirus infection   
Rubella   
Salmonellosis   
SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)   
Scabies   
Schistosomiasis   
Sepsis   
Shigellosis (Bacillary dysentery)
Shingles (Herpes zoster)   
Smallpox (Variola)   
Sporotrichosis   
Staphylococcal food poisoning   
Staphylococcal infection   
Strongyloidiasis   
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis   
Syphilis   
Taeniasis   
Tetanus (Lockjaw)   
Tinea barbae (Barber's itch)   
Tinea capitis (Ringworm of the Scalp)   
Tinea corporis (Ringworm of the Body)   
Tinea cruris (Jock itch)   
Tinea manum (Ringworm of the Hand)   
Tinea nigra   
Tinea pedis (Athlete’s foot)   
Tinea unguium (Onychomycosis)   
Tinea versicolor (Pityriasis versicolor)   
Toxocariasis (Ocular Larva Migrans (OLM))   
Toxocariasis (Visceral Larva Migrans (VLM))   
Trachoma   
Toxoplasmosis   
Trichinosis   
Trichomoniasis   
Trichuriasis (Whipworm infection)   
Tuberculosis   
Tularemia   
Typhoid fever   
Typhus fever   
Ureaplasma urealyticum infection   
Valley fever   
Venezuelan equine encephalitis   
Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever   
Vibrio vulnificus infection   
Vibrio parahaemolyticus enteritis   
Viral pneumonia   
West Nile Fever   
White piedra (Tinea blanca)   
Yersinia pseudotuberculosis infection   
Yersiniosis   
Yellow fever   
Zygomycosis   

It's an comprehensive Alphabetical Rosary for you. :bigangel:

Source: Wikipedia

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 09:58:50 AM
Thanks; that was funny.

But existence being creation of GOD, and our case; that of exceptional uniqueness, shows in itself that if there where a singular god of all creation that it indeed would care about what it created. Is it not evident that life is profound and unique? Would you, having formed a singular living being(offspring) care about that life at all? Would you confine and imprison that life or give it freedom with hope. Would this offspring be of you and as such, to some capacity, be able to attain to your traits and characteristics? Sorry; getting off subject.

If existence was caused by an infinite omnipotent cause/force/being, and that existence in general can be observed to be of law and not chaos then it too follows that the creator of said existence which that existence is a part of in some form, is to that of straightness/honesty/uprightness. We see life striving to exist so why would any consider that to be abject to its creator?

peace

That doesn't answer my question. You're just saying that creation shows that God does care, but that doesn't answer why he cares. The thing is, there's no reason for God to have one personality over another. My personality comes from the neurons in my brain and their unique pathways and electrochemical communications. My environment plays a role in what connections are made and which ones die off. Does God have a brain? Did he learn from his environment? No. He just was always the way he is, for no reason at all.

Also, I would make the case the creation and the Bible could more easily be used as evidence that God is evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKUZdQmtYFc&index=6&list=PL4CDEC9D004B0F325

If cause/effect isn't valid in eternity, then being/becoming isn't divided in eternity, and that means that creator/creation is not true in eternity.  What is in eternity?  Pantheism ... that Creator and creation are names for the same thing.  For me reality is alive and conscious, not un-alive and unconscious.  Are we like atheist escheria coli in my intestine?

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 03:19:06 PM
No, no set up. :)  I understand better why you are a theist.  There is no way I prove to you that god does not exist; and there is no way you can prove to anybody that god does exist.  Your experience, while vital to you, does not constitute any sort of proof for me.  And so we are at an impasse.  And that is okay.  You are quite free to believe what you want--and I can think as I like.  As long as neither of us tries to harm the other.  I think we can agree on that.  Dealing with your type of theist is not difficult or harmful.  Soo--no set up.

Cool cool

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 13, 2017, 05:54:10 PM
If you think God cares, be sure to offer up a prayer of thanksgiving, for these little gems:

Acinetobacter infection
Actinomycosis   
African sleeping sickness (African trypanosomiasis)   
AIDS (Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome)
Amebiasis   
Anaplasmosis   
Angiostrongyliasis   
Anisakiasis   
Anthrax   
Arcanobacterium haemolyticum infection   
Argentine hemorrhagic fever   
Ascariasis   
Aspergillosis   
Astrovirus infection   
Babesiosis   
Bacillus cereus infection   
Bacterial pneumonia   
Bacterial vaginosis   
Bacteroides infection   
Balantidiasis   
Bartonellosis   
Baylisascaris infection   
BK virus infection   
Black piedra   
Blastocystosis   
Blastomycosis   
Bolivian hemorrhagic fever   
Botulism (and Infant botulism)   
Brazilian hemorrhagic fever   
Brucellosis   Brucella
Bubonic plague   
Burkholderia infection   
Buruli ulcer   
Calicivirus infection
Campylobacteriosis   
Candidiasis (Moniliasis; Thrush)   
Capillariasis   
Carrion´s disease   
Cat-scratch disease   
Cellulitis   
Chagas Disease (American trypanosomiasis)   
Chancroid   
Chickenpox   
Chikungunya   
Chlamydia   
Chlamydophila pneumoniae infection
Cholera
Christian Bible   
Chromoblastomycosis   
Chytridiomycosis   
Clonorchiasis   
Clostridium difficile colitis   
Coccidioidomycosis   
Colorado tick fever (CTF)   
Common cold (Acute viral rhinopharyngitis; Acute coryza)   
Creutzfeldtâ€"Jakob disease (CJD)   
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF)   
Cryptococcosis   
Cryptosporidiosis   
Cutaneous larva migrans (CLM)   
Cyclosporiasis   
Cysticercosis   
Cytomegalovirus infection   
Dengue fever   
Desmodesmus infection   
Dientamoebiasis   
Diphtheria   
Diphyllobothriasis   
Dracunculiasis   
Ebola hemorrhagic fever   
Echinococcosis   
Ehrlichiosis   
Enterobiasis (Pinworm infection)   
Enterococcus infection   
Enterovirus infection   
Epidemic typhus   
Erythema infectiosum (Fifth disease)   
Exanthem subitum (Sixth disease)   
Fasciolasis   
Fasciolopsiasis   
Fatal familial insomnia (FFI)   
Filariasis   
Food poisoning by Clostridium perfringens   
Free-living amebic infection   
Fusobacterium infection   
Gas gangrene    
Geotrichosis   
Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker syndrome (GSS)   
Giardiasis   
Glanders   
Gnathostomiasis
God's word   
Gonorrhea   
Granuloma inguinale (Donovanosis)   
Group A streptococcal infection   
Group B streptococcal infection   
Haemophilus influenzae infectionEnteroviruses,
Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS)   
Heartland virus disease   
Helicobacter pylori infection   
Hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS)   
Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS)   
Hepatitis A   
Hepatitis B   
Hepatitis C   
Hepatitis D   
Hepatitis E   Hepatitis
Herpes simplex   
Histoplasmosis   
Holy Books
Hookworm infection   
Human bocavirus infection   
Human ewingii ehrlichiosis   
Human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA)   
Human metapneumovirus infection   
Human monocytic ehrlichiosis   
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection   
Human parainfluenza virus infection   
Hymenolepiasis   
Epsteinâ€"Barr virus infectious mononucleosis (Mono)   
Influenza (flu)   
Isosporiasis   
Keratitis   
Kingella kingae infection   
Kuru   PRNP
Lassa fever   
Legionellosis (Legionnaires' disease)   
Legionellosis (Pontiac fever)   
Leishmaniasis   
Leprosy   
Leptospirosis   
Listeriosis   
Lyme disease (Lyme borreliosis)   
Lymphatic filariasis (Elephantiasis)   
Lymphocytic choriomeningitis   
Malaria   
Marburg hemorrhagic fever (MHF)   
Measles   
Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)   
Melioidosis (Whitmore's disease)   
Meningitis   
Meningococcal disease   
Metagonimiasis   
Microsporidiosis   
Molluscum contagiosum (MC)   
Monkeypox   
Mumps   
Murine typhus (Endemic typhus)   
Mycoplasma pneumonia   
Mycetoma (disambiguation)   
Myiasis   
Neonatal conjunctivitis (Ophthalmia neonatorum)   
Norovirus (children and babies)   
Nocardiosis   
Onchocerciasis (River blindness)   
Opisthorchiasis   
Paracoccidioidomycosis (South American blastomycosis)   
Paragonimiasis   
Pasteurellosis   
Pediculosis capitis (Head lice)   
Pediculosis corporis (Body lice)   
Pediculosis pubis (Pubic lice, Crab lice)   
Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)   
Pertussis (Whooping cough)   
Plague   
Pneumococcal infection   
Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP)   
Pneumonia   
Poliomyelitis   
Prevotella infection   
Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM)
Psittacosis   
Q fever   
Rabies   
Relapsing fever   
Respiratory syncytial virus infection   
Rhinosporidiosis   
Rhinovirus infection   
Rickettsial infection   
Rickettsialpox   
Rift Valley fever (RVF)   
Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF)   
Rotavirus infection   
Rubella   
Salmonellosis   
SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)   
Scabies   
Schistosomiasis   
Sepsis   
Shigellosis (Bacillary dysentery)
Shingles (Herpes zoster)   
Smallpox (Variola)   
Sporotrichosis   
Staphylococcal food poisoning   
Staphylococcal infection   
Strongyloidiasis   
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis   
Syphilis   
Taeniasis   
Tetanus (Lockjaw)   
Tinea barbae (Barber's itch)   
Tinea capitis (Ringworm of the Scalp)   
Tinea corporis (Ringworm of the Body)   
Tinea cruris (Jock itch)   
Tinea manum (Ringworm of the Hand)   
Tinea nigra   
Tinea pedis (Athlete’s foot)   
Tinea unguium (Onychomycosis)   
Tinea versicolor (Pityriasis versicolor)   
Toxocariasis (Ocular Larva Migrans (OLM))   
Toxocariasis (Visceral Larva Migrans (VLM))   
Trachoma   
Toxoplasmosis   
Trichinosis   
Trichomoniasis   
Trichuriasis (Whipworm infection)   
Tuberculosis   
Tularemia   
Typhoid fever   
Typhus fever   
Ureaplasma urealyticum infection   
Valley fever   
Venezuelan equine encephalitis   
Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever   
Vibrio vulnificus infection   
Vibrio parahaemolyticus enteritis   
Viral pneumonia   
West Nile Fever   
White piedra (Tinea blanca)   
Yersinia pseudotuberculosis infection   
Yersiniosis   
Yellow fever   
Zygomycosis   

It's an comprehensive Alphabetical Rosary for you. :bigangel:

Source: Wikipedia

How many of those have been done away with by man? How many more would have never developed if it wasn't for man? Now, how many would negatively affect us if all had always been unified, peaceful, and regarded as equal?  Cool list though.

Quote from: Blackleaf on February 13, 2017, 06:13:43 PM
the Bible could more easily be used as evidence that God is evil.

That was supposed to be a secret.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 09:58:50 AM
if there where a singular god of all creation that it indeed would care about what it created.

That introduces the possibility of the universe being created by a group of gods. So where are they? Where is one of them? Did they all get in a fight and kill each other after creation?

@popsthebuilder

You've been here for a while. Can I ask something of you? I don't mean to be snappy, just; maybe concider an avatar? It helps to recognize you and set you apart from drive-by preachers. Especially in threads in which multiple avatar-less posters post.

Quote from: fencerider on February 14, 2017, 01:10:07 AM
That was supposed to be a secret.

That introduces the possibility of the universe being created by a group of gods. So where are they? Where is one of them? Did they all get in a fight and kill each other after creation?

Capt Kirk banished Apollo ;-)  Ultimately Apollo and the others left, because humanity was all grown up.  That and who wanted to tangle with the Klingons ;-)

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 14, 2017, 03:38:01 AM
@popsthebuilder

You've been here for a while. Can I ask something of you? I don't mean to be snappy, just; maybe concider an avatar? It helps to recognize you and set you apart from drive-by preachers. Especially in threads in which multiple avatar-less posters post.

That is an understandable request, but I donot use an avatar anywhere. The absence of one seems more fitting for some reason.

No one else will have my name though.

Sorry

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:36:38 AM
That is an understandable request, but I donot use an avatar anywhere. The absence of one seems more fitting for some reason.

No one else will have my name though.

Sorry

True true

How about you add a text underneath your posts, as someone does.  I just have Shalom, but some use a longer form, and even colored text.  You can stand out, and not be Wilson, the neighbor whose face we can never fully see.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 14, 2017, 06:37:21 AM
True true

That was obvious ... A=A ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 06:38:57 AM
That was obvious ... A=A ;-)

True = True

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 08:18:24 PM
How many of those have been done away with by man?

Probably a few, but only in very recent times. For thousands of years, there was no cure for any of them, and they contributed nothing but misery.

Quote from: popsthebuilderHow many more would have never developed if it wasn't for man

I'm guessing, few or none. Can you point to some, that developed because of man?

Quote from: popsthebuilderNow, how many would negatively affect us if all had always been unified, peaceful, and regarded as equal?  Cool list though.

Are you talking Eden? I don't understand the question. I don't see what "unified, peaceful, and regarded as equal" have to do with infectious diseases.

I think your response is skirting the issue. Why all the intentional infliction of suffering, designed by a benevolent creator? Obviously, most who contracted these diseases, throughout the ages, were not some evil monsters, deserving of such a fate. So what is his excuse?

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 14, 2017, 07:26:34 AM
Probably a few, but only in very recent times. For thousands of years, there was no cure for any of them, and they contributed nothing but misery.

I'm guessing, few or none. Can you point to some, that developed because of man?

Are you talking Eden? I don't understand the question. I don't see what "unified, peaceful, and regarded as equal" have to do with infectious diseases.

I think your response is skirting the issue. Why all the intentional infliction of suffering, designed by a benevolent creator? Obviously, most who contracted these diseases, throughout the ages, were not some evil monsters, deserving of such a fate. So what is his excuse?

GOD being benevolent doesn't mean IT has to force anything. Freedom is a thing that allows for potential in two directions. If man had always been at peace with one another then the carnage wouldn't have been an issue, cutting down much disease. Also the combined efforts of all to work together towards profitable existence for all would have by now lead to the eradication of much more disease.

I cannot say why GOD allowed such things.

Can you imagine how overpopulated the world might be if none died ever?

All the millions of suffering people, throughout the history of mankind, praying for mercy from the God who supposedly cares, without relief, convince me that God does not care(because he doesn't exist).

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 14, 2017, 07:57:31 AM
All the millions of suffering people, throughout the history of mankind, praying for mercy from the God who supposedly cares, without relief, convince me that God does not care(because he doesn't exist).

We are taught to not cling to this life or attainment for self, but that peace will come through devotion.

No gumball machine or pez dispenser.

Life

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: fencerider on February 14, 2017, 01:10:07 AM
That was supposed to be a secret.

That introduces the possibility of the universe being created by a group of gods. So where are they? Where is one of them? Did they all get in a fight and kill each other after creation?

Well, the babble does tell us that god is a jealous god--if he were the only one, then what would he be jealous of???

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 08:52:08 AM
Well, the babble does tell us that god is a jealous god--if he were the only one, then what would he be jealous of???

Idol worship

And I never said the One Creator GOD was the only god or angel or spirit, just that IT is ultimately over or more powerful than whatever other direction or void or deception there may be.

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 09:05:34 AM
Idol worship

And I never said the One Creator GOD was the only god or angel or spirit, just that IT is ultimately over or more powerful than whatever other direction or void or deception there may be.

faith in selfless unity for good

Once again (and always it seems) this stuff exists only in your brain; it is a fiction.  Your belief in all these spirits and spooks and gods and angels and stuff is unique to you; in other words, even tho others believe in god and spirits, your take is unique to you.  That must mean that you are the only one who has ever gotten god right; the only one to accurately communicate with god.  Is that not a little bit of a concern to you?  Or are you so sucked up in your fiction that you cannot see that--or most likely, don't want to see that.

So, for me, you are proof there is no god.  For a creator god who, according to you, is so involved with his creation and the messages and rules he wants us to know--yet is so invisible as to be nonexistent, is not believable.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:34:34 AM
GOD being benevolent doesn't mean IT has to force anything. Freedom is a thing that allows for potential in two directions. If man had always been at peace with one another then the carnage wouldn't have been an issue, cutting down much disease. Also the combined efforts of all to work together towards profitable existence for all would have by now lead to the eradication of much more disease.

I cannot say why GOD allowed such things.

Can you imagine how overpopulated the world might be if none died ever?

What the hell does freedom have to do with diseases?

"Also the combined efforts of all to work together towards profitable existence for all would have by now lead to the eradication of much more disease."

This also has nothing to do with proving god exists. And religion is the enemy of science. Over history how much has man been held back by the catholic church? God apparently hates knowledge. Why? Because knowledge causes critical thinking and destroys your fake religion.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:34:34 AM


Can you imagine how overpopulated the world might be if none died ever?

Can you imagine how overpopulated the world might be if Hitler had not killed all the people he did?

See, that argument just doesn't work. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 08:52:08 AM
Well, the babble does tell us that god is a jealous god--if he were the only one, then what would he be jealous of???

Sorry, there are clearly many gods, one for each tribe (see original Islam).  It was Buddhism that first claimed to be universal, and later Christianity (they are connected).  Islam only became partially universal ... it still counts to be Arab and Sunni.  The idea of monotheism, developed out of Judaism in its opposition to everyone else, and eventually Islam and Protestantism, again in reaction to what prevailed in their time.  They had to find a way to distinguish themselves.  Or in the case of Protestants, to show they were non-Catholic.

Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 09:57:23 AM
Can you imagine how overpopulated the world might be if Hitler had not killed all the people he did?

See, that argument just doesn't work.

Not just warfare and genocide.  Without germs and viruses, we would be hip deep in people, like in one episode of Classic Star Trek.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 14, 2017, 07:57:31 AM
All the millions of suffering people, throughout the history of mankind, praying for mercy from the God who supposedly cares, without relief, convince me that God does not care(because he doesn't exist).

Other alternative explanations.  G-d may care, but only thru people.  More disease exists than necessary, because humans don't care about hygiene or medicine.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 07:25:02 PM
Jews are very special to me because there are many promises of God that still have to be fulfilled through their state and nation. 

You mean like this promise?


Amos 5:1-2

QuoteHear ye this word which I take up against you, even a lamentation, O house of Israel.
The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up.

So, Israel shall no more rise - but what's that in the middle of the Palestinian's land?

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 07:30:30 PM
People ask me when I think the end times will occur.  I respond by pointing out that nobody knows the time or the day.  However, Jesus is the groom who is currently away preparing a house for his bride (Christianity) and he will return to claim and marry his bride when his Father tells him to.  When will that be?  It could be any time after May 14, 1948.  Do you know why?  "On May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv, Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel, establishing the first Jewish state in 2,000 years"

Yeah, he'll "come quicly," whatever that means...


Revelation 22:7

QuoteBehold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Revelation 22:12

QuoteAnd, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Revelation 22:20

QuoteHe which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

I don't think that 2000 years can be considered "quickly."

And if you want to claim that God's time is different than our puny human time, then I'd have to wonder why God wants to communicate with us puny humans with language that doesn't mean what we think it means.

Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 07:46:14 PM
That would make God a liar, by his own Word, the Bible.

The Bible already makes God out to be a liar:

Genesis 2:17

QuoteBut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:3-4

QuoteBut of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

with Genesis 5:5

QuoteAnd all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Adam did NOT die on the day he ate the fruit, as God said he would.




Jeremiah 4:10

QuoteThen said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul.

Jeremiah 20:7

QuoteO LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

Ezekiel 14:9

QuoteAnd if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

If God deceives, that's the definition of lying.



Jeremiah 18:8

QuoteIf that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

with 2Kings 23:3,5,8-15,21-22,25-26
2Kings 23:3

QuoteAnd the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all [their] heart and all [their] soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.

2Kings 23:5

QuoteAnd he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

2Kings 23:8-15

QuoteAnd he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates that [were] in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which [were] on a man's left hand at the gate of the city.
Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren.
And he defiled Topheth, which [is] in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathanmelech the chamberlain, which [was] in the suburbs, and burned the chariots of the sun with fire.
And the altars that [were] on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, did the king beat down, and brake [them] down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron.
And the high places that [were] before Jerusalem, which [were] on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.
And he brake in pieces the images, and cut down the groves, and filled their places with the bones of men.
Moreover the altar that [was] at Bethel, [and] the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he brake down, and burned the high place, [and] stamped [it] small to powder, and burned the grove.

2Kings 23:21-22

QuoteAnd the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as [it is] written in the book of this covenant.
Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah;

2Kings 23:25

QuoteAnd like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there [any] like him.

and 2Chronicles 34:33

QuoteAnd Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that [pertained] to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, [even] to serve the LORD their God. [And] all his days they departed not from following the LORD, the God of their fathers.

then see 2Kings 23:26-27

QuoteNotwithstanding the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal.
And the LORD said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.

Even after Josiah did all that God had asked, God did mot keep his promise of Jeremiah 18:8

So you see, God is already a liar, and needs nothing else for us to know it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 09:11:38 AM
Once again (and always it seems) this stuff exists only in your brain; it is a fiction.  Your belief in all these spirits and spooks and gods and angels and stuff is unique to you; in other words, even tho others believe in god and spirits, your take is unique to you.  That must mean that you are the only one who has ever gotten god right; the only one to accurately communicate with god.  Is that not a little bit of a concern to you?  Or are you so sucked up in your fiction that you cannot see that--or most likely, don't want to see that.

So, for me, you are proof there is no god.  For a creator god who, according to you, is so involved with his creation and the messages and rules he wants us to know--yet is so invisible as to be nonexistent, is not believable.

There you go conflating shit. There are two directions. All else stems from those two. I said shit about spooks. I know of demons because I was one. Does that mean I thing I was some literal monster bent on negative things....Well ....Yeah, but still human too. We can be likened to angels and demons as can all things with a soul. That is what I was doing. I never said or insinuated that I was the only one that got it right, not do I think I know everything and am without error in my theology. There are people that think quite similarly to me in regards to my faith, but even if there were not I wouldn't think too much of it. Misdirection abounds; it's obvious throughout he world isn't it? I'm sorry you cannot grasp the idea of a thing pervading all existence yet still undetectable by the means you predetermine because of looking in the wrong place for the wrong things.



faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 09:50:53 AM
What the hell does freedom have to do with diseases?

"Also the combined efforts of all to work together towards profitable existence for all would have by now lead to the eradication of much more disease."

This also has nothing to do with proving god exists. And religion is the enemy of science. Over history how much has man been held back by the catholic church? God apparently hates knowledge. Why? Because knowledge causes critical thinking and destroys your fake religion.

Freedom to choose right from wrong, greed from selflessness, wants of self or needs of others. Go kill a few thousand people and allow their corpses to fester near a water supply...Now if people had freely chosen peace then the criteria for the manifestation of a disease would have never presented itself. I wonder if sodomy ever caused anything?

Religion is not the enemy of science. Ask a Baha'i or anyone with a brain and faith....I know....

The ancient Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. So it is no wonder that they lead so many astray. Find a different argument.

Critical thinking is a very useful tool. I have used and do use it quite often, but admittedly not always. Sometimes it just isn't needed. Over thinking is as bad as not thinking.

So my belief and loyalty to a thing I believe in is fake? How so? Substantiate your claim critical thinker.



faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 09:57:23 AM
Can you imagine how overpopulated the world might be if Hitler had not killed all the people he did?

See, that argument just doesn't work.

News flash; the Holocaust was prophesied in the bible.

It works just fine

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:35:57 PM

Freedom to choose right from wrong, greed from selflessness, wants of self or needs of others. Go kill a few thousand people and allow their corpses to fester near a water supply...

Inform me, then, why do religious people tend to be Republicans; considering that Republicans are the opposite to everything a religious person should be.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:36:35 PM
News flash; the Holocaust was prophesied in the bible.

It works just fine

faith in selfless unity for good

Could you perhaps point me to that? I'm unfamiliar with that prophecy.

Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 06:38:39 PM
Inform me, then, why do religious people tend to be Republicans; considering that Republicans are the opposite to everything a religious person should be.

What? I will not be discussing politics

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 06:38:50 PM
Could you perhaps point me to that? I'm unfamiliar with that prophecy.

Jeremiah if I'm not mistaken.

Just fuel for your fire but I won't lie about it.

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:46:33 PM
Jeremiah if I'm not mistaken.

OK, but what if you are mistaken? There's s whole lot of stuff in Jeremiah - do I have to read the whole book again just to find whatever your reference is to?

QuoteJust fuel for your fire but I won't lie about it.

I don't know what you mean by this. Could you clarify?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:46:33 PM
Jeremiah if I'm not mistaken.

Just fuel for your fire but I won't lie about it.

faith in selfless unity for good

http://www.unvsil.com/holocaust.htm

What I found, though I hardly place much stock in prophecy for the very reason about which Terry Goodkind wrote. 

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 06:49:46 PM
OK, but what if you are mistaken? There's s whole lot of stuff in Jeremiah - do I have to read the whole book again just to find whatever your reference is to?
I don't know what you mean by this. Could you clarify?

Ammo for more bashing of the book and GOD.

Shaved heads, burned flesh, made to eat their children so forth and so on. It's there

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 06:57:00 PM
http://www.unvsil.com/holocaust.htm

What I found, though I hardly place much stock in prophecy for the very reason about which Terry Goodkind wrote.

That's not what I was talking about. It can be surmises from the simple reading and doesn't have to have conjecture added to it.

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:01:57 PM
That's not what I was talking about. It can be surmises from the simple reading and doesn't have to have conjecture added to it.

What makes you think we, as atheist, have not read the bible?

Due to the fact that we disagree with it's contents in comparison to the theist's view?

Do you know nothing of interpretation and critical thinking?

Even literary scholars disagree on what an author meant to convey in classic fiction novels.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:57:18 PM
Ammo for more bashing of the book and GOD.

Shaved heads, burned flesh, made to eat their children so forth and so on. It's there

faith in selfless unity for good

Yes, I've read the book, but how does it relate specifically to the Holocaust?

Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 07:06:14 PM
What makes you think we, as atheist, have not read the bible?

Due to the fact that we disagree with it's contents in comparison to the theist's view?

Do you know nothing of interpretation and critical thinking?

Even literary scholars disagree on what an author meant to convey in classic fiction novels.

What? Who said I thought you hadn't read the bible. As if I would be right to expect that you had or hadn't. I don't know you or your past. I would not assume one way or the other.

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 07:07:00 PM
Yes, I've read the book, but how does it relate specifically to the Holocaust?

There just haven't been a whole lot of mass genocides of Jews requiring the shaving of heads eating of babies and torching in order to get confused.

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:35:57 PM

Freedom to choose right from wrong, greed from selflessness, wants of self or needs of others. Go kill a few thousand people and allow their corpses to fester near a water supply...Now if people had freely chosen peace then the criteria for the manifestation of a disease would have never presented itself. I wonder if sodomy ever caused anything?

Religion is not the enemy of science. Ask a Baha'i or anyone with a brain and faith....I know....

The ancient Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. So it is no wonder that they lead so many astray. Find a different argument.

Critical thinking is a very useful tool. I have used and do use it quite often, but admittedly not always. Sometimes it just isn't needed. Over thinking is as bad as not thinking.

So my belief and loyalty to a thing I believe in is fake? How so? Substantiate your claim critical thinker.



faith in selfless unity for good

That's hilarious seeing as the Catholic Church is the oldest form of Christianity. Aka it's most raw original form of Christianity. How do you figure that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon? What are you basing that statement on?

This is the problem with the religious they all love their own brand of bullshit. No consistency. Who knows what the Christians actually believe! They all have the answers though, still no proof.

Christianity is made up just as all religions. It's even a mishmash of religions that came beforehand. 

Science doesn't support religion in the least and vice versa. Show me exactly how science supports religion. Maybe by a stretch of the imagination!

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:14:58 PM
There just haven't been a whole lot of mass genocides of Jews requiring the shaving of heads eating of babies and torching in order to get confused.

You haven't studied much of world history, have you?

Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 07:24:53 PM
That's hilarious seeing as the Catholic Church is the oldest form of Christianity. Aka it's most raw original form of Christianity. How do you figure that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon? What are you basing that statement on?

This is the problem with the religious they all love their own brand of bullshit. No consistency. Who knows what the Christians actually believe! They all have the answers though, still no proof.

Christianity is made up just as all religions. It's even a mishmash of religions that came beforehand. 

Science doesn't support religion in the least and vice versa. Show me exactly how science supports religion. Maybe by a stretch of the imagination!

I didn't say science supported religion. That is utter nonsense.

Religion should and does agree with sound science and accepts the findings there of.



faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 07:27:37 PM
You haven't studied much of world history, have you?

No

faith in selfless unity for good

At least he's honest.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:32:25 PM
I didn't say science supported religion. That is utter nonsense.

Religion should and does agree with sound science and accepts the findings there of.



faith in selfless unity for good

Is that why creationism exist? Glad you cleared that up for me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 07:37:40 PM
Is that why creationism exist? Glad you cleared that up for me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone spewing things wholly opposed to sound science are lost.

Just like the literalists.

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from.

From that statement forward, your logic failed. 

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:26:13 PM

There you go conflating shit. There are two directions. All else stems from those two. I said shit about spooks. I know of demons because I was one. Does that mean I thing I was some literal monster bent on negative things....Well ....Yeah, but still human too. We can be likened to angels and demons as can all things with a soul. That is what I was doing. I never said or insinuated that I was the only one that got it right, not do I think I know everything and am without error in my theology. There are people that think quite similarly to me in regards to my faith, but even if there were not I wouldn't think too much of it. Misdirection abounds; it's obvious throughout he world isn't it? I'm sorry you cannot grasp the idea of a thing pervading all existence yet still undetectable by the means you predetermine because of looking in the wrong place for the wrong things.

Several things.
1.  Demons are fiction, just as your god, jesus, other gods, spirits, angels and the like.
2.  Nothing has a 'soul'--that is a fiction as well.
3.  True--you are not the only theist.  But your precise way of belief is unique to you; no other theist agrees with everything you accept as being real.
4.  I can "grasp the idea of a thing pervading all existence yet still undetectable....".  It is just nonsense, that's all.  I know of the idea--but is based on fiction.
5.  How do you know what 'things' I've searched for or the instruments I used to conduct that search or the mindset I had when I was on each search???  You simply assume that I am too lazy/ignorant/defiant  to understand what it is you are saying.  I fully understand what you are saying and claiming.  I am saying back to you that that is based on a fiction and has no application in the real world nor is it based on any empirical data or facts.

So, stop telling me what I have read, searched for, or understand.  I would appreciate it if you could simply supply me with one tiny little fact about god or demons or spirits or souls. 

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 08:40:45 AM
We are taught to not cling to this life or attainment for self, but that peace will come through devotion.

No gumball machine or pez dispenser.

Life

That is insulting to every victim suffering at this moment, because of some shit your God created, for no other apparent reason, than for humans, and other mammals to be as miserable as possible, while it feeds on them.

No caring father.

Life.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 07:07:00 PM
Yes, I've read the book, but how does it relate specifically to the Holocaust?

German Christians ... and not so Christians, used the Bible as the blueprint for the Holocaust.  If there were no Bible, at least none that the Gentile could read, they wouldn't have used it as a pattern (self fulfilling prophecy, but Gentile on Jew, not Jew on Jew.).  And similarly the recreation in modern times of Israel and Modern Hebrew (not the same as Biblical Hebrew, it is Esperanto of Hebrew/Arabic base).

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 09:57:06 PM
Several things.
1.  Demons are fiction, just as your god, jesus, other gods, spirits, angels and the like.
2.  Nothing has a 'soul'--that is a fiction as well.
3.  True--you are not the only theist.  But your precise way of belief is unique to you; no other theist agrees with everything you accept as being real.
4.  I can "grasp the idea of a thing pervading all existence yet still undetectable....".  It is just nonsense, that's all.  I know of the idea--but is based on fiction.
5.  How do you know what 'things' I've searched for or the instruments I used to conduct that search or the mindset I had when I was on each search???  You simply assume that I am too lazy/ignorant/defiant  to understand what it is you are saying.  I fully understand what you are saying and claiming.  I am saying back to you that that is based on a fiction and has no application in the real world nor is it based on any empirical data or facts.

So, stop telling me what I have read, searched for, or understand.  I would appreciate it if you could simply supply me with one tiny little fact about god or demons or spirits or souls.

My faith is not based on a book.

I didn't assume you were lazy and meant incapable as you know there is no way to provide you with empirical evidence for GOD.

Show evidence that there is not. A person can be a demon anf an angel. Not literally of course.

I never told you what you read and wouldn't. I also haven't stated what you have or haven't searched for or the means you employed. If there was a tool that could prove the existence of GOD we might have e heard of it.

You can say my beliefs are based on fiction all you want. But it isn't true as I received faith in 2011 without any writings, and didn't read the NT until starting in 15.

faith in selfless unity for good

Faith in a book is bibliolatry .. an almost universal sin across many religions.  I am a great sinner, I adore books, much more than the Virgin Mary.  Zen is about the only partial exception that seriously opposes bibliolatry.  Sunni Islam is pure bibliolatry, hence their assurance that they are right ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 10:58:14 PM
Faith in a book is bibliolatry .. an almost universal sin across many religions.  I am a great sinner, I adore books, much more than the Virgin Mary.  Zen is about the only partial exception that seriously opposes bibliolatry.  Sunni Islam is pure bibliolatry, hence their assurance that they are right ;-)

Good point.

Through nearly all of them they insist their own truth, but few actually refute the truth of others. Is it not Islam that actually plainly states that all religions are right for their time and people or something along those lines? I have found none that refute the Christ of GOD, but many that reference the Christ in multiple ways.

Of course any can argue that I am overly using symbolism. But I'm pretty sure that has been the case for man for some time.


faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 08:40:45 AMWe are taught to not cling to this life or attainment for self, but that peace will come through devotion.

Are you sure you don't have Christians confused with atheists?  Because I'm pretty sure the central tenet (and big carrot) of Christianity is the promise of eternal life.  In fact, this tenet is so central that that if it were somehow retracted, I suspect Christianity would lose nearly all its membership extremely quickly.

Atheists typically do not employ such coping mechanisms about death and therefore can be said to more accepting of death and less "clinging to this life".

Refresh my memory, which group is more likely to assert a "culture of life" and disapprove of suicide?

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 15, 2017, 12:36:37 AM
Are you sure you don't have Christians confused with atheists?  Because I'm pretty sure the central tenet (and big carrot) of Christianity is the promise of eternal life.  In fact, this tenet is so central that that if it were somehow retracted, I suspect Christianity would lose nearly all its membership extremely quickly.

Atheists typically do not employ such coping mechanisms about death and therefore can be said to more accepting of death and less "clinging to this life".

Refresh my memory, which group is more likely to assert a "culture of life" and disapprove of suicide?

I'm certain there will be a falling away. No doubt. There will be a division between the hypocrite and the zealot.

Coping mechanism? Yes I'm sure that may be the case for some. Fear does motivate some I suppose. All are going to die and any return isn't said to be bodily...

Sorry falling asleep,will attempt to continue in the morning

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 06:48:28 AM
GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

peace

By the way; I do appreciate your general tone with regards to your interactions with me as of late, and mean no disrespect towards you or your own views.

When you speak of a deity as always existing because it always existed, you are creating a logical spiral.  The idea that some deity came into existence before existence to create existence just doesn't work.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 15, 2017, 12:03:38 AM
Good point.

Through nearly all of them they insist their own truth, but few actually refute the truth of others. Is it not Islam that actually plainly states that all religions are right for their time and people or something along those lines? I have found none that refute the Christ of GOD, but many that reference the Christ in multiple ways.

Of course any can argue that I am overly using symbolism. But I'm pretty sure that has been the case for man for some time.


faith in selfless unity for good

Our regulars oppose the cave art of Stone Age France ... because it is art, and it is French.  And no, it didn't cure any diseases (of the physical sort) it was shamanism, which they oppose.

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 15, 2017, 12:36:37 AM
Are you sure you don't have Christians confused with atheists?  Because I'm pretty sure the central tenet (and big carrot) of Christianity is the promise of eternal life.  In fact, this tenet is so central that that if it were somehow retracted, I suspect Christianity would lose nearly all its membership extremely quickly.

Atheists typically do not employ such coping mechanisms about death and therefore can be said to more accepting of death and less "clinging to this life".

Refresh my memory, which group is more likely to assert a "culture of life" and disapprove of suicide?

Ancient Egypt promised eternal life ... the Christians aren't original.  Are you opposed the Pharaoh's pyramid (Presidential libraries)?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 15, 2017, 01:01:16 AM

I'm certain there will be a falling away. No doubt. There will be a division between the hypocrite and the zealot.

Coping mechanism? Yes I'm sure that may be the case for some. Fear does motivate some I suppose. All are going to die and any return isn't said to be bodily...

Sorry falling asleep,will attempt to continue in the morning

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

Quran speaks of zealots and hypocrits.  Fear the zealots then, the Sicarii aka ISIS.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:06:18 AM
When you speak of a deity as always existing because it always existed, you are creating a logical spiral.  The idea that some deity came into existence before existence to create existence just doesn't work.

No, a thing outside of the confines of a thing it formed is simple logic.

You act as if existence must be limited to what is observable though we speak of origins prior to observable laws so your limits aren't accurate.



faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: Baruch on February 15, 2017, 06:49:23 AM
Our regulars oppose the cave art of Stone Age France ... because it is art, and it is French.  And no, it didn't cure any diseases (of the physical sort) it was shamanism, which they oppose.

Yet another great point. Before man could articulate thought through writing or even speech, they could and did use symbolism.

Guess what the symbolism shows....Obviously important to ancient man. Could you call it instinctual... prior to the addition of greed, or its manipulation of the societal structure of man?

How do you argue against something that has been portraid and expressed by man since before written word?

Thanks.

You jog the mind and bring things back into the fold with your thought provoking responses.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: Baruch on February 15, 2017, 06:52:16 AM
Quran speaks of zealots and hypocrits.  Fear the zealots then, the Sicarii aka ISIS.

Fear the consiquince of ones own actions. So fearing the keepers of the law would follow. If only the misdirected zealots would actually follow their own book they would show mercy, and realize their own inability to rightly judge while in obvious sin.

faith in selfless unity for good

Popsthebuilder: GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

In short....I make shit up. Don't need no answers, no reason, I make shit up.....Glad.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 15, 2017, 07:31:14 AM
No, a thing outside of the confines of a thing it formed is simple logic.

You act as if existence must be limited to what is observable though we speak of origins prior to observable laws so your limits aren't accurate.



faith in selfless unity for good

Some are prejudiced to what they can see and touch.  If they can't see it or touch it ... then nada.  In metaphysics and metamathematics, the problem of dealing with things, there contain other things, yet the container and the contained are not the same ... is dealt with.  But if all you have is a materialist hammer, then you cannot escape Russell's Paradox.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 15, 2017, 07:37:20 AM
Yet another great point. Before man could articulate thought through writing or even speech, they could and did use symbolism.

Guess what the symbolism shows....Obviously important to ancient man. Could you call it instinctual... prior to the addition of greed, or its manipulation of the societal structure of man?

How do you argue against something that has been portraid and expressed by man since before written word?

Thanks.

You jog the mind and bring things back into the fold with your thought provoking responses.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

Modern people have iPhones, they are the Brights ... all prior people are Dims and cave men ... who had no iPhones.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 15, 2017, 07:42:45 AM
Fear the consiquince of ones own actions. So fearing the keepers of the law would follow. If only the misdirected zealots would actually follow their own book they would show mercy, and realize their own inability to rightly judge while in obvious sin.

faith in selfless unity for good

That is the problem, in Islam, between the ordinary followers of Shariah, and the extraordinary followers of Suf.  The Sufis are actually closer to the real Muhammad, but are oppressed by the so called Orthodox.

Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 10:58:14 PM
Faith in a book is bibliolatry ..

(http://brennanhughes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/bibliolatry.jpg)

Quote from: Baruch on February 15, 2017, 06:49:23 AM
Our regulars oppose the cave art of Stone Age France ... because it is art, and it is French.  And no, it didn't cure any diseases (of the physical sort) it was shamanism, which they oppose.

Who opposes shamanism? Not I, says me! It's about the only form of religion that has any practical benefit for its followers.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 15, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
Who opposes shamanism? Not I, says me! It's about the only form of religion that has any practical benefit for its followers.

Actual shamen in Bali ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW6jPKKeFBA

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 15, 2017, 07:37:20 AM
Yet another great point. Before man could articulate thought through writing or even speech, they could and did use symbolism.

Guess what the symbolism shows....Obviously important to ancient man. Could you call it instinctual... prior to the addition of greed, or its manipulation of the societal structure of man?

How do you argue against something that has been portraid and expressed by man since before written word?

Thanks.

You jog the mind and bring things back into the fold with your thought provoking responses.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

What makes you think humans could not speak before they developed representational art?

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 15, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
Who opposes shamanism? Not I, says me! It's about the only form of religion that has any practical benefit for its followers.

Well, if you allow a placebo effect, Shamans might have made a difference.  Note that I differentiate it from surgeons who trepanned and set bones...

Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 07:20:20 AM
What makes you think humans could not speak before they developed representational art?

Man seems to have made an evolutionary leap at some point in the past, and though I haven't done a whole lot of research on it, I have a piece of a theory that this evolutionary gap or rather jump coincides with the aquisition of knowledge and or the introduction of some new process or capability that came about. At some point in the evolutionary line of man, he surely couldn't "speak".



faith in selfless unity for good

Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 17, 2017, 08:16:44 AM
Man seems to have made an evolutionary leap at some point in the past, and though I haven't done a whole lot of research on it, I have a piece of a theory that this evolutionary gap or rather jump coincides with the aquisition of knowledge and or the introduction of some new process or capability that came about. At some point in the evolutionary line of man, he surely couldn't "speak".



faith in selfless unity for good

Yes, at "some point" in the past we couldn't speak in the modern sense of the word, but we were surely speaking WAY before representational art.  Best understandings of lniguistics suggest organized language started about 100,000 years ago and representational art seems to have appeared 50 to 25 K years ago. 

Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 07:20:20 AM
What makes you think humans could not speak before they developed representational art?

The origin of speech is probably animal call imitations (hunting language).  Women probably developed body language ;-)  The original representational art, preceded clothing, the original clothing was body paint (woad of the Picts).  So they are both very ancient.

Ignoting Buarch's amateur ideas, studies in linguistics seem to show that speech preceded art by a long time.  I've been studying this for 15 years.  Art is hard to pin down.  Is a scratch on a wall, meaningful? But language seems older for essential tasks.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 12:45:16 PM
Ignoting Buarch's amateur ideas, studies in linguistics seem to show that speech preceded art by a long time.  I've been studying this for 15 years.  Art is hard to pin down.  Is a scratch on a wall, meaningful? But language seems older for essential tasks.

You need to research better.  The oldest written speech is 2300 BCE.  The oldest art is 23,000 BCE.  Unless you have tape recordings of Neanderthal grunts ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 12:49:11 PM
You need to research better.  The oldest written speech is 2300 BCE.  The oldest art is 23,000 BCE.  Unless you have tape recordings of Neanderthal grunts ;-)

Can you not tell the difference between written words and spoken ones?  I do worry about your mind sometimes.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 12:53:16 PM
Can you not tell the difference between written words and spoken ones?  I do worry about your mind sometimes.

We know nothing about spoken language, before written texts ... except by academic reconstruction (as in Proto-Indo-European) and even that is way younger (4000 BCE) than cave art in France.  Maybe you don't like the fact that the French have always been culturally superior? ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 01:03:57 PM
We know nothing about spoken language, before written texts ... except by academic reconstruction (as in Proto-Indo-European) and even that is way younger (4000 BCE) than cave art in France.  Maybe you don't like the fact that the French have always been culturally superior? ;-)

You DO realize the the current French are several times removed from the Lescaux cave painters, I hope. 

Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 01:15:23 PM
You DO realize the the current French are several times removed from the Lescaux cave painters, I hope. 

The current French also have very little to do with the Roman Empire, but that doesn't stop them from invoking that imagery when it's convenient.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 17, 2017, 02:43:48 PM
The current French also have very little to do with the Roman Empire, but that doesn't stop them from invoking that imagery when it's convenient.

The late Roman Germanic occupation of Gaul, was patrilineal in the German side, and matrilineal on the Gaulish side.  Mothers usually teach their babies their language, so that is why there is so little Old German in French, but much derivative from the particular dialect of Vulgar Latin that the Gauls spoke.  The Germans were similarly ineffective in the other parts of the Roman Empire that they over-ran, linguistically.  Strictly rape and pillage folks ... just like they still are ;-)  Though some Germans, having been working a long time for the Romans, simply wanted to be naturalized as a result of their Roman mercenary veteran status.  They had no desire to continue speaking German.  The Anglo-Saxon mercenaries brought over to Britain however, not only raped and pillaged, they managed to have their sons and daughters speak their father's language.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 01:15:23 PM
You DO realize the the current French are several times removed from the Lescaux cave painters, I hope.

That is what the French would expect an gauche Anglophone to say ;-)

Anglophone - is that Apple's new product?

Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 01:15:23 PM
You DO realize the the current French are several times removed from the Lescaux cave painters, I hope.

I know all about the peccadilloes of the Indo-Europeans, East and West.  Soma much?  There were a number of Paleocene, Mesocene and Neocene folks in W Europe, before the Russian hordes arrived from the steppes (R1b cattle herders with horses and bronze) into Europe after 2000 BCE.  This last happened in 1814 with the initial surrender of Napoleon outside Paris.  It may happen again in our day.  The Cold War isn't over, and what goes around, comes around.  Like with the later Anglo-Saxon case, they not only raped and pillaged, they managed to have offspring who spoke their father's language, but the women continued minus their original husbands.  But the earliest recorded European language, is early Greek circa 1200 BCE.  Then literacy was lost for almost 500 years, and was reinvented ... getting a good start by the 6th century BCE (Homer and Hesiod written down).  It took the Romans another 400 years go become literate for the first time (2nd century BCE).  There wasn't another literary European language, until Old Irish was recorded in the early Middle Ages.  So basically, our linguistic understanding of European languages, that has real hard evidence, begins with the Iron Age.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 17, 2017, 06:14:29 PM
Anglophone - is that Apple's new product?

Yes, but only sold in England, not in Scotland ;-)  The advertising jingle is "Seri, wha' for Brexit?"

Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 06:16:32 PM
I know all about the peccadilloes of the Indo-Europeans, East and West.  Soma much?  There were a number of Paleocene, Mesocene and Neocene folks in W Europe, before the Russian hordes arrived from the steppes (R1b cattle herders with horses and bronze) into Europe after 2000 BCE.  This last happened in 1814 with the initial surrender of Napoleon outside Paris.  It may happen again in our day.  The Cold War isn't over, and what goes around, comes around.  Like with the later Anglo-Saxon case, they not only raped and pillaged, they managed to have offspring who spoke their father's language, but the women continued minus their original husbands.  But the earliest recorded European language, is early Greek circa 1200 BCE.  Then literacy was lost for almost 500 years, and was reinvented ... getting a good start by the 6th century BCE (Homer and Hesiod written down).  It took the Romans another 400 years go become literate for the first time (2nd century BCE).  There wasn't another literary European language, until Old Irish was recorded in the early Middle Ages.  So basically, our linguistic understanding of European languages, that has real hard evidence, begins with the Iron Age.

If you are saying that Europeans are mostly from Asian steppes, I won't argue against it. 

My best understanding through reading of European immigration is that the Cro-magnons moved in, were replaced or pushed East by the Picts in the North, who were replaced or pushed East by the Celts, who were replaced or pushed East by the Gauls.

Meanwhile, The Minoans colonized coastlines of Greece, they they met people coming down from the Balkans, who adopted many Minoan habits and Linear A writing, then advanced to Mycenaean culture writing in Linear B (Minoan in their own sounds), who then became the Greeks, who attacked Minoan colonies like Try, which fled to Italy and become the Romans, who  conquored the Etruscans and took over their basic local gods structure, that discovered the Greeks and conquored THEM, and adapted their gods hierarchy, and fought the Asian steppes immigrants in the north until the whole thing collapsed for a few centuries until the combined peoples picked up the pieces and got everything together in small principalities until the Vikings came at them from the North, the Moors/Moslems from the southeast (Spain), and East (Byzantiam) and then they became knightly tugs who beat up all the locals and stole everything from them until Plagues and more Moslems came and forced them to organize.

And they were so desperate for unifying ideas that they let the Catholic Church take over until they couldn't stand it any more and the Reformation happened, which led to centuries of warfare until everyone was so exhausted they made large nations such as we see today.

Does that about summarize it?

No, the European part of Indo-European ... is fake news (promoted by the British East Indies Company).  There were already Europeans living in Europe, before the Russians arrived with their horses, kumis, carts, cattle, cow's milk and women who can give birth in a potato field, even before potatoes came from Peru.  My alpha male ancestry is Neolithic farmer from the Middle East ... we built Stone Henge (originally called Woodstock) where we had big parties and got stoned with beer (made from that new age food, barley).  We didn't conquer Europe ... we promoted FarmVille 1.0 ... we simply were unattached, more attractive males who out dated most of the hairy Stone Age men (bears?) already there (my ancestors shaved? ... women like shaved men better).

My alpha female ancestry is late Stone Age in the area of Spain/France.  This was the earlier Middle East invasion of Europe, facilitated by Stone Age America and Stone Age Britain dropping rocks from the sky on my Middle Eastern ancestors, because they knew we were sexier and more successful than they were, but it backfired as I stated, we visited Europe as traveling salesman, overstayed our visas, and married the hot cave babes we found there (while their men were away at work, hunting or painting caves).  The reason why the Middle East is still messed up? .... you have to imagine why all the Middle Eastern women back home in Syria are covered ... why we brought our sheep and goats with us as travel companions ;-))

Meanwhile a used Talmud salesman got in the mix in the 18th century ... with Jewish, it only takes one to make a pool of Gentiles kosher ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 06:28:22 AM
we built Stone Henge (originally called Woodstock) where we had big parties and got stoned with beer (made from that new age food, barley).  We didn't conquer Europe ... we promoted FarmVille 1.0 ... we simply were unattached, more attractive males who out dated most of the hairy Stone Age men

we visited Europe as traveling salesman, overstayed our visas, and married the hot cave babes we found there (while their men were away at work, hunting or painting caves).

Wow Baruch . didnt know you were that old... So why did you build stonehenge? and when did you stop partyin long enough to start chasin cave babes?

Quote from: fencerider on February 19, 2017, 04:07:04 PM
Wow Baruch . didnt know you were that old... So why did you build stonehenge? and when did you stop partyin long enough to start chasin cave babes?

Ancestry, which I share with many other people from Europe.  The European part of the Indo-Europeans were Russians ... and my main language descends from that ... English from Germanic, and Germanic from Indo-European.

Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 06:28:22 AM
No, the European part of Indo-European ... is fake news (promoted by the British East Indies Company).  There were already Europeans living in Europe, before the Russians arrived with their horses, kumis, carts, cattle, cow's milk and women who can give birth in a potato field, even before potatoes came from Peru.  My alpha male ancestry is Neolithic farmer from the Middle East ... we built Stone Henge (originally called Woodstock) where we had big parties and got stoned with beer (made from that new age food, barley).  We didn't conquer Europe ... we promoted FarmVille 1.0 ... we simply were unattached, more attractive males who out dated most of the hairy Stone Age men (bears?) already there (my ancestors shaved? ... women like shaved men better).

My alpha female ancestry is late Stone Age in the area of Spain/France.  This was the earlier Middle East invasion of Europe, facilitated by Stone Age America and Stone Age Britain dropping rocks from the sky on my Middle Eastern ancestors, because they knew we were sexier and more successful than they were, but it backfired as I stated, we visited Europe as traveling salesman, overstayed our visas, and married the hot cave babes we found there (while their men were away at work, hunting or painting caves).  The reason why the Middle East is still messed up? .... you have to imagine why all the Middle Eastern women back home in Syria are covered ... why we brought our sheep and goats with us as travel companions ;-))

Meanwhile a used Talmud salesman got in the mix in the 18th century ... with Jewish, it only takes one to make a pool of Gentiles kosher ;-)

Obvious sarcasm is boring and tedious.  My information stands.

Well tell us all about your ancestry research ... but in a different section.  I know what I know ... are you R1b chauvinist or not?

I know I already answered this but I'm Bored so back to the op.

I think it should be pretty obvious that there is no god. The christian religion seems like a big fat scam. Any one who tells you that blind faith as a virtue is full of shit. God basically says to believe in him, gives you no real good reason other then he'll throw you in hell if you don't. Does that seem very godly to you? Or does it sound like one of his prophets trying to scare people into believing because he didn't have a good reason for people to believe him? 

When you read the bible it's pretty clear that this was written by primitive people. It's clear as crystal that I don't know how you can miss it other than brainwashing. It sounds like bogus lies that desert people would tell each other both to control each other and to explain things they couldn't explain other wise. It seems so obvious to us atheists that we can't relate to those who believe. Just as believers can't relate or understand what not believing there is a god means. They come here believing all the lies they were told about us and fail to understand that we feel the same about god that you probably feel about unicorns. It's that simple!

Christianity is primarily, since Constantine, a European scam.  Islam is clearly an Arabic scam.  But they are very good scams, controlling almost 1/2 of humanity between them.  So ... don't get scammed yourself.  Most Jews have jettisoned the Jewish religion scam, though not all the ethnic aspects.

In many cases, relating go some religion is ethnic or national or cultural.  You can't just become Shinto because you want to.

Quote from: doorknob on February 20, 2017, 01:52:39 PM
back to the op

yes lets go there. www.kyroot.com 1490 Reasons why Christianity is false

Quote from: doorknob on February 20, 2017, 01:52:39 PM
the bible was written by primitive people

If we were to take our 2017 technology back to people living 2,000 years ago, they would think what we do is magic.... 3,000 years ago maybe they would call us gods; even demi-god Baruch

I recognize myself in the mirror, though it is an opposite handed version of myself.  With a definition of demigod, not distorted by either theists nor by atheists ... it was obvious that it applies to all humans, not just ones with big hands like Trump (or Julius Caesar).  Post-Christian atheists can't escape their post-Christian-ess .. they have internalized all the Christian criticisms of pagan Rome, in favor of Christian Rome.  Constantine got to write the history, not Maxentius.

So no, high technology wouldn't be mistaken by me, for von Daniken gods.  And I don't necessarily agree that people of the past were primitive.  We seem pretty primitive right now.  Excuse me, I need to go put that tribal bone in my nose, before I head on to work ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on February 21, 2017, 06:32:07 AM
I recognize myself in the mirror, though it is an opposite handed version of myself.  With a definition of demigod, not distorted by either theists nor by atheists ... it was obvious that it applies to all humans, not just ones with big hands like Trump (or Julius Caesar).  Post-Christian atheists can't escape their post-Christian-ess .. they have internalized all the Christian criticisms of pagan Rome, in favor of Christian Rome.  Constantine got to write the history, not Maxentius.

So no, high technology wouldn't be mistaken by me, for von Daniken gods.  And I don't necessarily agree that people of the past were primitive.  We seem pretty primitive right now.  Excuse me, I need to go put that tribal bone in my nose, before I head on to work ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79DijItQXMM&sns=em
 

Demi god? You mean like this?

Btw you're welcome is my favorite saying! When I first heard this song I said "wow this is me!"

I guess I'm a Demi god too! Secretly I already knew that .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's the difference between a demigod and a semi-hemi-demi-god?




(http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/j5h3k3j5h.png)

Glad you could put that into one word ...

Hemi-Greek = 1/2
Semi-Latin = 1/2
Demi-Greek = 1/2 so ...
1/(2*2*2) = 1/8

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 21, 2017, 04:39:29 PM
What's the difference between a demigod and a semi-hemi-demi-god?

(http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/j5h3k3j5h.png)

That gives the possibility of a deity too much likelihood.  More like zero to a pico-possibility.  But I get the gist...

Yeah, I got that from the word hemidemisemiquaver, which is a 64th note.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 06:22:56 PM
Yeah, I got that from the word hemidemisemiquaver, which is a 64th note.

Music is not my strong point, but a good analogy is a good analogy!

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 26, 2016, 05:32:54 PM
"The upshot is: It doesn't seem likely than anyone other God created the universe."

I created the Universe. Prove I didn't.

Easy you couldn't have because I created the universe. Prove I didn't, or is it that we collaborated in the creation.

Yeah, maybe it was a committee that created the thing, which would explain why it's so fucked up...

Quote from: Unbeliever on April 26, 2017, 07:35:13 PM
Yeah, maybe it was a committee that created the thing, which would explain why it's so fucked up...

The human world is created by the billions of humans who have lived and interacted with each other, and with surrounding nature.

Quote from: Baruch on April 26, 2017, 11:03:20 PM
The human world is created by the billions of humans who have lived and interacted with each other, and with surrounding nature.

The world is created by those in power; not the billions. 

Quote from: Sorginak on April 26, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
The world is created by those in power; not the billions.

Every human is equal, but some are more equal than others ;-)