# A Short Meditation On Belief



## Asath

Looking over the history of various belief systems, whether religious, political, or a bit of both, it strikes me that each and all of them has either condemned or outlawed just about everything that people enjoy doing at some point.

Sexuality, and anything to do with it, seems to have been (and still is) one of the biggest bugaboos.  Depending on the time and the system, we’ve also seen music, art, dancing, foods, recognition of individuality, wine, games, flirting, free-thinking , writings, speech, and even styles of dress banned by the religious and political ‘authorities’.   In many places, many of these bans are still violently upheld.  Why?

So it seems that a True Believer, whatever their Belief system, can believe in a doctrine or a dogma, provided to them by someone else, but can’t actually believe in life.

It seems quite odd that the Belief systems are invariably death-centric, and tend to promise that if we obey them NOW, we’ll be rewarded after we die.  If you think about it, that is a bit awkward for them to promise, since none of the folks making those promises have ever actually BEEN dead, so they really have no business making promises such as that.  What, really, do they know about it?

A True Believer can devote their own lives, and by extension many of our own lives, to the Worship  of and Devotion to an unseen, unknown, invisible, supernatural deity  of their own choice who they allege CREATED all life (without a scrap of evidence to support this claim), and can strive to get every one of us to become a slavishly adhering servant to their own dogma  (which is theoretically designed to IMPROVE our condition) – but for life itself – REAL life, as lived in the here and now – they seem to hold little or no regard.  Why?

One tends to get the idea that these folks are dangerous egomaniacs, who consider that just letting folks live and have fun is an intolerable and frivolous distraction from the serious business of paying attention to THEM, and them alone.  I mean, there also isn’t a scrap of evidence that doing things THEIR way has made anything at all appreciably better, and quite a huge body of evidence to the contrary.  The human condition, and virtually all of actual human progress, has been made by folks who thumbed their noses at the True Believers and went ahead anyway, often at the cost of their own lives, and certainly against violent opposition.  Questioning established dogma was (and is) a capital offense.  Why?

So what’s up with this Belief thing?  Against your historical ‘certainties,’ we’ve managed to un-flatten the Earth and take it out of the center of the universe, predict weather as the result of natural processes, remove plagues by curing them, negate locusts with pesticides, observe and even travel to the Solar System, chart and measure the ‘heavens’, and reduce matter to the point that we can split atoms and look at what THEY are made out of, and still you persist?         Why?


----------



## bullethead

You aint neva told no lies brutha!!


----------



## centerpin fan

Short?


----------



## Artfuldodger

centerpin fan said:


> Short?



For Asath, that's short!


----------



## JB0704

Asath said:


> .....and still you persist?         Why?



Because without a god in the equation, it's just as likely to collapse as it is to continue.  Personally, I like the security of continuity and purpose.  Call me weak


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> ... observe and even travel to the Solar System, chart and measure the ‘heavens’, and reduce matter to the point that we can split atoms and look at what THEY are made out of, and still you persist?         Why?



Asath have you ever researched HOW it was possible for us to measure the heavens? 

Not only was earth in a perfect PLACE and TIME in the universe for carbon based life to exist and persist, but WE were are perched in the perfect position in time and space in our galaxy to measure our own distance from our spot on the Orion-Cygnus Arm to the center of our galaxy and to measure something even more special. From our nest in the Milky Way we could measure the approximate age of our universe as well. 

When you combine the above information with the fact we are in a special place and time to sustain life AND a special place to examine what TIME and WHERE we exist in the universe BELIEF get's a little bit easier for me.


----------



## ambush80

Thanatos said:


> Asath have you ever researched HOW it was possible for us to measure the heavens?
> 
> Not only was earth in a perfect PLACE and TIME in the universe for carbon based life to exist and persist, but WE were are perched in the perfect position in time and space in our galaxy to measure our own distance from our spot on the Orion-Cygnus Arm to the center of our galaxy and to measure something even more special. From our nest in the Milky Way we could measure the approximate age of our universe as well.
> 
> When you combine the above information with the fact we are in a special place and time to sustain life AND a special place to examine what TIME and WHERE we exist in the universe BELIEF get's a little bit easier for me.




You like playing the odds.  What are the odds that an identical situation to ours has NEVER happened, is happening currently or might happen again?


----------



## Thanatos

ambush80 said:


> You like playing the odds.  What are the odds that an identical situation to ours has NEVER happened, is happening currently or might happen again?



I never said they couldn't or haven't...

You are getting into a topic for another thread. The evidence is there to let us know this is a pretty special place and time in our universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system, and on our planet that we exist in.


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> Looking over the history of various belief systems, whether religious, political, or a bit of both, it strikes me that each and all of them has either condemned or outlawed just about everything that people enjoy doing at some point.
> 
> Sexuality, and anything to do with it, seems to have been (and still is) one of the biggest bugaboos.  Depending on the time and the system, we’ve also seen music, art, dancing, foods, recognition of individuality, wine, games, flirting, free-thinking , writings, speech, and even styles of dress banned by the religious and political ‘authorities’.   In many places, many of these bans are still violently upheld.  Why?
> 
> So it seems that a True Believer, whatever their Belief system, can believe in a doctrine or a dogma, provided to them by someone else, but can’t actually believe in life.
> 
> It seems quite odd that the Belief systems are invariably death-centric, and tend to promise that if we obey them NOW, we’ll be rewarded after we die.  If you think about it, that is a bit awkward for them to promise, since none of the folks making those promises have ever actually BEEN dead, so they really have no business making promises such as that.  What, really, do they know about it?
> 
> A True Believer can devote their own lives, and by extension many of our own lives, to the Worship  of and Devotion to an unseen, unknown, invisible, supernatural deity  of their own choice who they allege CREATED all life (without a scrap of evidence to support this claim), and can strive to get every one of us to become a slavishly adhering servant to their own dogma  (which is theoretically designed to IMPROVE our condition) – but for life itself – REAL life, as lived in the here and now – they seem to hold little or no regard.  Why?
> 
> One tends to get the idea that these folks are dangerous egomaniacs, who consider that just letting folks live and have fun is an intolerable and frivolous distraction from the serious business of paying attention to THEM, and them alone.  I mean, there also isn’t a scrap of evidence that doing things THEIR way has made anything at all appreciably better, and quite a huge body of evidence to the contrary.  The human condition, and virtually all of actual human progress, has been made by folks who thumbed their noses at the True Believers and went ahead anyway, often at the cost of their own lives, and certainly against violent opposition.  Questioning established dogma was (and is) a capital offense.  Why?
> 
> So what’s up with this Belief thing?  Against your historical ‘certainties,’ we’ve managed to un-flatten the Earth and take it out of the center of the universe, predict weather as the result of natural processes, remove plagues by curing them, negate locusts with pesticides, observe and even travel to the Solar System, chart and measure the ‘heavens’, and reduce matter to the point that we can split atoms and look at what THEY are made out of, and still you persist?         Why?



Asath, I can't speak for all religions, just mine, although your post seems to be directed to all religions in general. I sort of agree with your post when you lump all religions into one category, but I don't think that is the correct thing to do. Only one of them is true. That one true religion is really not about religion, but it is about a person's relationship with God.

The "rules" aren't meant to deny of you life's pleasures, but rather to protect you both physically and spiritually from harm. Sex for instance, is one of God's greatest creations. 
It is DESIGNED (for humans) to take place in the monogamous confines of marraige. Premarital or extramarital sex leads to a host of problems both physical and emotional. Another example would be the old testament law to not eat pork (unclean animals), because you cook over a fire and don’t have a microscope, so you don’t know what trichinosis is. This leads into your thoughts about EVIDENCE, and SCIENCE nicely. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that the bible is true, you just don't like it. Sorry, it still exists. You like the scientific method, but you add to it a capability that it does not have. We have discussed this many times. Science is a method of describing the things we observe. It does not prove anything.

Dogma is mostly created by men in order to control others and take their money, or their lives. There is no doubt that Christianity has suffered this fate at the hands of men, but then I would say that the perpetrators of such acts probably didn't understand or practice Christianity from the beginning. They practiced the dogma.

So I will try to answer your real question, "Why do I persist in believing in God?"

There is compelling evidence that God exists. There is no proof that God does not exist. There is an absolute truth that waits to be embraced. I am compelled mentally, physically, spiritually and emotionally, that there is a higher power than myself or any human, and, I have seen the positive change a real relationship with God can make in a person's life.


----------



## Asath

“Because without a god in the equation, it's just as likely to collapse as it is to continue. Personally, I like the security of continuity and purpose. Call me weak”

I don’t understand.  What, exactly, is likely to collapse?  The various churches?  Certainly they will.  Every one in history has.  The various governments?  Again, certainly.  Every one of them in history also has.  The star we call the Sun?  Once again, certainly.  They burn, they use up their fuel, and they collapse.  Our ability to deny that this has always been the truth?  Probably not.  Enjoying the security of an illusion has always been humanity’s stock-in-trade – which security and certainty has inevitably led to the collapse of every illusion-based construct ever devised.  Ours are no different, or better defended. We defend them not because they are somehow rational or defensible in the face of reality, but simply because they are OURS, and that has always seemed to be enough.  

Look around.  EVERYBODY thinks they are right.  Deep thinking abounds, huh?  

“When you combine the above information with the fact we are in a special place and time to sustain life AND a special place to examine what TIME and WHERE we exist in the universe BELIEF get's a little bit easier for me.”

Thank goodness for that, huh?  If we were someplace else, things would look different.  But, really?  We have only the vaguest notion of Time, as a dimension unto itself, some observational and measurable gradients that place us sort of just about someplace in our own Galaxy, and an increasing awareness that the universe itself is unimaginably freaking HUGE, without a clue as to where we are in that whole mess or the beginning of an idea as to how to make a map.  Someone once observed that, like Pakistan, the Universe is already a map of itself, and needs no further delineation.  Again, I don’t understand -- the sheer luck of being here certainly means no more than itself, and does not imply anything further.  

“Only one of them [religions] is true. That one true religion is really not about religion, but it is about a person's relationship with God.”

But which one?  The moment any religion proposes their own version, and seeks to tell anyone at all just what their own God means, or meant, or intended, or did, or will do, or promises, or withholds – and why – they immediately change the Word to their own (if, indeed, any of them ever had an actual Word to begin with).  This is a bit of a problem, since in all cases one’s relationship with one’s God needs start out with someone else describing that God for you.  You only have their word for it.  Of course, you are free to exercise your own imagination, and embellish this original description in any way you see fit, but that gets one no closer to realization.  At that point you’re only making up your own attributes, and assigning them to the God YOU wish to see.  That can hardly be the sort of thing that sustains Belief, unless your belief is unwaveringly in yourself – which is perhaps healthier, and can do without the middlemen. 

“There is compelling evidence that God exists.”

Really?  If that is the case, then we can safely excise the word ‘Faith’ from any further discussion, and from the dictionary itself.  ‘Compelling Evidence’ would, of needs, constitute an irrefutable proof.  Trot that one up, and put it front and center, and you can personally put an end to ten thousand years of idiocy.  

We’ll wait.

But still, what is the problem with just living, that some folks seem to have such a problem with?


----------



## ambush80

Asath said:


> “Because without a god in the equation, it's just as likely to collapse as it is to continue. Personally, I like the security of continuity and purpose. Call me weak”
> 
> I don’t understand.  What, exactly, is likely to collapse?  The various churches?  Certainly they will.  Every one in history has.  The various governments?  Again, certainly.  Every one of them in history also has.  The star we call the Sun?  Once again, certainly.  They burn, they use up their fuel, and they collapse.  Our ability to deny that this has always been the truth?  Probably not.  Enjoying the security of an illusion has always been humanity’s stock-in-trade – which security and certainty has inevitably led to the collapse of every illusion-based construct ever devised.  Ours are no different, or better defended. We defend them not because they are somehow rational or defensible in the face of reality, but simply because they are OURS, and that has always seemed to be enough.
> 
> Look around.  EVERYBODY thinks they are right.  Deep thinking abounds, huh?
> 
> “When you combine the above information with the fact we are in a special place and time to sustain life AND a special place to examine what TIME and WHERE we exist in the universe BELIEF get's a little bit easier for me.”
> 
> Thank goodness for that, huh?  If we were someplace else, things would look different.  But, really?  We have only the vaguest notion of Time, as a dimension unto itself, some observational and measurable gradients that place us sort of just about someplace in our own Galaxy, and an increasing awareness that the universe itself is unimaginably freaking HUGE, without a clue as to where we are in that whole mess or the beginning of an idea as to how to make a map.  Someone once observed that, like Pakistan, the Universe is already a map of itself, and needs no further delineation.  Again, I don’t understand -- the sheer luck of being here certainly means no more than itself, and does not imply anything further.
> 
> “Only one of them [religions] is true. That one true religion is really not about religion, but it is about a person's relationship with God.”
> 
> But which one?  The moment any religion proposes their own version, and seeks to tell anyone at all just what their own God means, or meant, or intended, or did, or will do, or promises, or withholds – and why – they immediately change the Word to their own (if, indeed, any of them ever had an actual Word to begin with).  This is a bit of a problem, since in all cases one’s relationship with one’s God needs start out with someone else describing that God for you.  You only have their word for it.  Of course, you are free to exercise your own imagination, and embellish this original description in any way you see fit, but that gets one no closer to realization.  At that point you’re only making up your own attributes, and assigning them to the God YOU wish to see.  That can hardly be the sort of thing that sustains Belief, unless your belief is unwaveringly in yourself – which is perhaps healthier, and can do without the middlemen.
> 
> “There is compelling evidence that God exists.”
> 
> Really?  If that is the case, then we can safely excise the word ‘Faith’ from any further discussion, and from the dictionary itself.  ‘Compelling Evidence’ would, of needs, constitute an irrefutable proof.  Trot that one up, and put it front and center, and you can personally put an end to ten thousand years of idiocy.
> 
> We’ll wait.
> 
> But still, what is the problem with just living, that some folks seem to have such a problem with?



They can't enjoy the "suck".


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> ...“When you combine the above information with the fact we are in a special place and time to sustain life AND a special place to examine what TIME and WHERE we exist in the universe BELIEF get's a little bit easier for me.”
> 
> Thank goodness for that, huh? If we were someplace else, things would look different. But, really? We have only the vaguest notion of Time, as a dimension unto itself, some observational and measurable gradients that place us sort of just about someplace in our own Galaxy, and an increasing awareness that the universe itself is unimaginably freaking HUGE, without a clue as to where we are in that whole mess or the beginning of an idea as to how to make a map. Someone once observed that, like Pakistan, the Universe is already a map of itself, and needs no further delineation. Again, I don’t understand -- the sheer luck of being here certainly means no more than itself, and does not imply anything further. ...



Here is the problem with your assumption. You still  have FAITH that God did NOT create this/us. FAITH...you can not get away from it. _*In our opinion it takes more FAITH to believe that life happened randomly than by intelligent design*_. Simple as that.


----------



## JB0704

Asath said:


> But still, what is the problem with just living, that some folks seem to have such a problem with?



I don't have a problem with just livin', and think you should live according to your guiding principles, and I live according to mine.  Yes, that has prohibitted me from indulging in some hedonistic good times, but, just like a diet, it was good for me.  

But, as Ted said, there are compelling reasons for "the rules" to exist.  It's not mine to force them on you......but, if you were a wise man, you would also cook pork to well done.


----------



## StriperAddict

JB0704 said:


> I don't have a problem with just livin', and think you should live according to your guiding principles, and I live according to mine.  Yes, that has prohibitted me from indulging in some hedonistic good times, but, just like a diet, it was good for me.
> 
> But, as Ted said, there are compelling reasons for "the rules" to exist.  It's not mine to force them on you......but, if you were a wise man, you would also cook pork to well done.


Some business leaders have taken the wisdom of Proverbs, for 
instance, and have done quite well 'economically' for themselves 
and their industry. Some are devout believers in the Risen Lord, 
some not. I find it interesting that those who didn't/don't believe still 
put the economic wisdom of scripture to the test and find it 
remarkably fulfilling. Too bad the search for some stops there, when 
there's so much more to 'uncover'...


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Because without a god in the equation, it's just as likely to collapse as it is to continue.  Personally, I like the security of continuity and purpose.  Call me weak



I don't think you believe that.



JB0704 said:


> I don't have a problem with just livin', and think you should live according to your guiding principles, and I live according to mine.  Yes, that has prohibitted me from indulging in some hedonistic good times, but, just like a diet, it was good for me.
> 
> But, as Ted said, there are compelling reasons for "the rules" to exist.  It's not mine to force them on you......but, if you were a wise man, you would also cook pork to well done.


_
Cooking Temperature for Pork Is Lowered
By WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: May 24, 2011

THE other pink meat?

That could be pork’s new slogan after the United States Department of Agriculture on Tuesday said it was lowering its safe cooking temperature to 145 degrees, from the longtime standard of 160. The new recommendation is in line with what many cookbook authors and chefs have been saying for years.

“History is littered with examples of what people thought was dogma and then dogma changed,” said David Chang, the chef and owner of the pig-happy Momofuku restaurants in New York. “Everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth, too.”

The agency said that after pork hits the target internal temperature, it should be allowed to rest for three minutes, while its temperature rises a few more degrees. That should be enough to kill any harmful bacteria, but the meat should be juicy and may look pink. The same temperature guidelines already apply to whole cuts of beef, lamb and veal. _



Ahhh. Progress.


----------



## JB0704

It's still cooked. I'd avoid rare.  But, ambush, I'm not sure I follow your other comment aboute believing what I wrote? I was being a bit flippant, and I don't think I'm weak, but I know many of you think I am. 

Heck man, I'm comfortable and happy in life. If I die incorrect I will be no less for it.

I was at a funeral of a friend Saturday. This man left three kids behind. I assure you it was a great comfort to those teenagers to believe they will see their daddy again.


----------



## Asath

“Here is the problem with your assumption. You still have FAITH that God did NOT create this/us. FAITH...you can not get away from it. In our opinion it takes more FAITH to believe that life happened randomly than by intelligent design. Simple as that.”

I made no assumption.  If there is ‘Compelling Evidence,’ then a fact is established.  I asked only to see that evidence.  If it is, indeed, ‘compelling,’ then it seems odd to keep it secret, and ask (nay, Demand) that all of humanity take YOUR Word for it, on ‘Faith.’  Religious sects ask, then, for us to have faith in them, rather than in the compelling evidence we’re told is in their sole possession.  My sole assumption (and it is more a fact than an assumption)  is that there is no such evidence, and my ‘Faith’ is that every single purveyor of the ‘Sole Truth’ is a simple snake oil salesman and a shamelessly profiteering control freak.  Were there only one such, I might think twice, but there are hundreds of you, and you make yourselves ridiculous in the competition with each other.  My only sense of ‘Wonder’ surrounds being mystified as to how the lot of you can do anything other than cower in abject shame at the harm you’ve done.

You cannot believe simultaneously in a god and in humanity, and having once chosen one the other has no choice but to abandon you. The two are, by the ‘Believers’ own definition, incompatible.   

Not a single sect has a shred of anything that is ‘compelling’ other than endlessly bombastic rhetoric, and that is evidenced by one simple and inescapable fact – If there WERE a Single Truth in this regard that could be demonstrated, we wouldn’t have any disagreements about it.  Everyone would be wearing the same hat, and kneeling down in front of the same men wearing the same dresses.  The establishment of this One True God would be a bit like gravity – like it or not, it just is.

This agreement isn’t the case, so, yes, I can get away from Faith, by simply rejecting the self-importance that lends it the sole validity it has.  It isn’t incumbent upon anyone at all to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a True Believer that their God DIDN’T do all the things they say it did, since we never put that assertion forward to begin with.  It is perfectly fair to ask – if you say that something is true, that you show us that it is.  If you cannot, then what you contend is not true.  Period.  The ‘faith’ you ask is in yourself and your own assertions, not in the thing you assert.  That lacks validity on the face of it, and you would accept nothing from anyone else on such terms, and asking others to accept it is to consider them to be fools.

‘Take my word for it’, is all that is on offer.   Really?  No Sale.  I don’t need to have ‘faith’ that it isn’t true – it simply isn’t, and that is already demonstrated, oddly enough, by the believers.          

“But, as Ted said, there are compelling reasons for "the rules" to exist.”

No argument with that thought.  The ‘rules’ are easy to understand.  As a whole they amount to a single statement – ‘Don’t do stupid stuff, and the rest of us won’t smack the crap out of you.’  Didn’t need to dream up any deities to figure that one out.  

“Ahhh. Progress.”   

Thank goodness for that, huh?

Or not.  Superstitions die hard.


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> “Here is the problem with your assumption. You still have FAITH that God did NOT create this/us. FAITH...you can not get away from it. In our opinion it takes more FAITH to believe that life happened randomly than by intelligent design. Simple as that.”
> 
> I made no assumption.  If there is ‘Compelling Evidence,’ then a fact is established.  I asked only to see that evidence.  If it is, indeed, ‘compelling,’ then it seems odd to keep it secret, and ask (nay, Demand) that all of humanity take YOUR Word for it, on ‘Faith.’  Religious sects ask, then, for us to have faith in them, rather than in the compelling evidence we’re told is in their sole possession.  My sole assumption (and it is more a fact than an assumption)  is that there is no such evidence, and my ‘Faith’ is that every single purveyor of the ‘Sole Truth’ is a simple snake oil salesman and a shamelessly profiteering control freak.  Were there only one such, I might think twice, but there are hundreds of you, and you make yourselves ridiculous in the competition with each other.  My only sense of ‘Wonder’ surrounds being mystified as to how the lot of you can do anything other than cower in abject shame at the harm you’ve done.



If you want the evidence to lead you to make a more educated assumption (because after all your typing and long winded paragraphs that's what it is at it's core) I will send you a copy of a book that will help you make a more educated assumption. It's called The Privileged Planet. It was written by two men who work for NASA .   Asath PM your address and I will send you a copy of it.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter

It's the power of the mind. That can exempt itself from reality. Belief systems has the compacity too keep the brain from over-loading .Because too much irrationality would become complacent.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> If you want the evidence to lead you to make a more educated assumption (because after all your typing and long winded paragraphs that's what it is at it's core) I will send you a copy of a book that will help you make a more educated assumption. It's called The Privileged Planet. It was written by two men who work for NASA .   Asath PM your address and I will send you a copy of it.



Um, one author is a theologian the other is simply a without tenure university professor of Astronomy.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Avalos.cfm

"Indeed, there is no escaping the fact that, whether we call the "Designer" the Christian God or not, the advocates of ID provide no scientific method to verify that any feature they observe about our universe corresponds to the intentions of a grand "Designer." And it is this ARBITRARY and UNVERIFIABLE attribution of intention that renders Intelligent Design an exercise in theology rather than in science."


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Um, one author is a theologian the other is simply a without tenure university professor of Astronomy.
> 
> http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Avalos.cfm
> 
> "Indeed, there is no escaping the fact that, whether we call the "Designer" the Christian God or not, the advocates of ID provide no scientific method to verify that any feature they observe about our universe corresponds to the intentions of a grand "Designer." And it is this ARBITRARY and UNVERIFIABLE attribution of intention that renders Intelligent Design an exercise in theology rather than in science."



You are correct. I should have verified the info before i posted it. To be even more specific I have posted their Bio's here. None-the-less there is a great amount of scientific information backing up the opinions in this book. Have you read it through yet sir? 

_GUILLERMO GONZALEZ_
Guillermo Gonzalez is an Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University, He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy in 1993 from the University of Washington. He has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and at the University of Washington and has received fellowships, grants and awards from such institutions as NASA, the University of Washington, Sigma Xi (scientific research society) and the National Science Foundation.

Dr. Gonzalez has extensive experience in observing and analyzing data from ground-based observatories, including work at McDonald Observatory, Apache Point Observatory and Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory. He has also published over sixty articles in refereed astronomy and astrophysical journals including Astronomy and Astrophysics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Astrophysical Journal and Solar Physics. His current research interest in astrobiology focuses on the "Galactic Habitable Zone" and captured the October 2001 cover story of Scientific American.

Another area of his research is focused on analyzing and interpreting ground-based photometric and spectroscopic observations of low and intermediate mass stars in relation to current theories concerning the late stages of stellar evolution and the formation and evolution of planetary systems.


_JAY W. RICHARDS_
Jay W. Richards is Vice President and Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He received his Ph.D. with honors in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was formerly a Teaching Fellow. 

He is the author of many academic articles, popular essays, and op-eds, on topics as diverse as science, philosophy, and theology. He is editor and contributor, with William A. Dembski, of Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies (InterVarsity Press, 2001), editor and contributor with George Gilder of Are We Spiritual Machines?: Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong AI (Discovery Institute Press, 2002), and author of The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Immutability, and Simplicity (InterVarsity Press, 2003).


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> "Indeed, there is no escaping the fact that, whether we call the "Designer" the Christian God or not, the advocates of ID provide no scientific method to verify that any feature they observe about our universe corresponds to the intentions of a grand "Designer." And it is this ARBITRARY and UNVERIFIABLE attribution of intention that renders Intelligent Design an exercise in theology rather than in science."



Of course it is unverifiable. That is the core mechanic of Christianity. Why do you think they wrote the book? It's to give a scientific background to their theological views. The author of that review makes it sound like he is revealing something to HIS readers, but what he is revealing was already known by the authors and "most" of the readers of the book.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> Have you read it through yet sir?



Affirmative.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> Of course it is unverifiable. That is the core mechanic of Christianity. Why do you think they wrote the book?



Same reason others before them have attempted to make their own exclusive beliefs fit the verifiable and observable.
Validation.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Affirmative.



So even with all the information given in the book you still want to put your FAITH in something even less probable. 

Randomness.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Same reason others before them have attempted to make their own exclusive beliefs fit the verifiable and observable.
> Validation.



Validating that the evidence given to us "could" mean God created us is a LOT different that someone saying their book proves God created us. Correct?


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> So even with all the information given in the book you still want to put your faith in something even less probable.
> 
> Randomness.



It takes no faith whatsoever to simply accept that we exist.  That is good enough for me.  I require not a supernatural reason nor do I require evidence to support any theory.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> Validating that the evidence given to us "could" mean God created us is a LOT different that someone saying their book proves God created us. Correct?



Not when the existance of any deity is impossible to prove or verify.  Matters not which side of the street one stands on.


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> “Because without a god in the equation, it's just as likely to collapse as it is to continue. Personally, I like the security of continuity and purpose. Call me weak”
> 
> I don’t understand.  What, exactly, is likely to collapse?  The various churches?  Certainly they will.  Every one in history has.  The various governments?  Again, certainly.  Every one of them in history also has.  The star we call the Sun?  Once again, certainly.  They burn, they use up their fuel, and they collapse.  Our ability to deny that this has always been the truth?  Probably not.  Enjoying the security of an illusion has always been humanity’s stock-in-trade – which security and certainty has inevitably led to the collapse of every illusion-based construct ever devised.  Ours are no different, or better defended. We defend them not because they are somehow rational or defensible in the face of reality, but simply because they are OURS, and that has always seemed to be enough.
> 
> Look around.  EVERYBODY thinks they are right.  Deep thinking abounds, huh?
> 
> “When you combine the above information with the fact we are in a special place and time to sustain life AND a special place to examine what TIME and WHERE we exist in the universe BELIEF get's a little bit easier for me.”
> 
> Thank goodness for that, huh?  If we were someplace else, things would look different.  But, really?  We have only the vaguest notion of Time, as a dimension unto itself, some observational and measurable gradients that place us sort of just about someplace in our own Galaxy, and an increasing awareness that the universe itself is unimaginably freaking HUGE, without a clue as to where we are in that whole mess or the beginning of an idea as to how to make a map.  Someone once observed that, like Pakistan, the Universe is already a map of itself, and needs no further delineation.  Again, I don’t understand -- the sheer luck of being here certainly means no more than itself, and does not imply anything further.
> 
> “Only one of them [religions] is true. That one true religion is really not about religion, but it is about a person's relationship with God.”
> 
> But which one?  The moment any religion proposes their own version, and seeks to tell anyone at all just what their own God means, or meant, or intended, or did, or will do, or promises, or withholds – and why – they immediately change the Word to their own (if, indeed, any of them ever had an actual Word to begin with).  This is a bit of a problem, since in all cases one’s relationship with one’s God needs start out with someone else describing that God for you.  You only have their word for it.  Of course, you are free to exercise your own imagination, and embellish this original description in any way you see fit, but that gets one no closer to realization.  At that point you’re only making up your own attributes, and assigning them to the God YOU wish to see.  That can hardly be the sort of thing that sustains Belief, unless your belief is unwaveringly in yourself – which is perhaps healthier, and can do without the middlemen.
> 
> “There is compelling evidence that God exists.”
> 
> Really?  If that is the case, then we can safely excise the word ‘Faith’ from any further discussion, and from the dictionary itself.  ‘Compelling Evidence’ would, of needs, constitute an irrefutable proof.  Trot that one up, and put it front and center, and you can personally put an end to ten thousand years of idiocy.
> 
> We’ll wait.
> 
> But still, what is the problem with just living, that some folks seem to have such a problem with?



You'll be waiting a long time Asath. I said I would answer your question, "why do I persist?". I did not imagine you would like or believe my response, nor did I expect that you would finally see the evidence.

I really can't do nothing for you, but answer the question you asked.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Not when the existance of any deity is impossible to prove or verify.  Matters not which side of the street one stands on.



To answer both questions you do have FAITH that one or all of these Gods do NOT exist.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> To answer both questions you do have FAITH that one or all of these Gods do NOT exist.



To simply say "I don't know" takes honesty, not faith.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> To simply say "I don't know" takes honesty, not faith.



Then why do you stay with your wife or girlfriend if you don't know they are faithful to you or not?


----------



## JB0704

Thanatos said:


> Then why do you stay with your wife or girlfriend if you don't know they are faithful to you or not?



Oh, goodness


----------



## Thanatos

JB0704 said:


> Oh, goodness



No popcorn needed. He's just going to retort with he can "see" the different actions that his spouse "physically" does for him. No sexual innuendo meant by that but could be included as well.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> Then why do you stay with your wife or girlfriend if you don't know they are faithful to you or not?



That is a half full beer bottle flying out of the right field bleachers...


----------



## ted_BSR

Thanatos said:


> Then why do you stay with your wife or girlfriend if you don't know they are faithful to you or not?



Cause he gots faith!


----------



## Asath

Why, exactly, would something such as an all-knowing, all-seeing entity, such as is imagined, require a whit of FAITH?

Life, as we can clearly see, and experience daily, simply is.  It ain’t all that much to write to heaven about, and has rather more tragedy than triumph written into the script, but at least we can confront it directly.  

Sort of like a wife or a girlfriend in that regard, huh?  Faith?  Not really.  More than half of those marriages that are made in God’s Eyes end in bitter acrimony, much like the rest of life.  But, again, it is real, and the astute can see it coming, and the rest just get blind-sided.  No less real for all of that.  Real experience doesn’t require any faith, just a strong will and often a strong stomach, because most of it smells pretty lousy.  Life is just what life is, and you make of it as well as it makes of you, and that is all there is to that story.  

Sink or swim. Win or lose.  Eat or be eaten.  Learn or be left behind.  There really isn’t much more to it than that.  No faith involved.  You work at it, you survive, you don’t work at it – well, sorry – your FAITH won’t feed the children or put the predators to flight.

So let’s talk about this FAITH thing again – How has THAT panned out?  Anyone got anything other than personal, anecdotal nonsense that might show just a single thing that FATH has ever provided?  Oh!  Wait!  There is misery, war, wholesale murder, prejudice, bigotry, institutionalized robbery, repression of progress, guilt, enforced ignorance, slavery, grandiose self-appointed demagogues in dresses, and incense.  So it hasn’t been a total loss – lots of people actually like incense.

Takes no faith at all to have no faith – faith itself is enough of a poison that it eventually kills any spirit, vital life force, or joy that it encounters.  And oddly enough, the sour, bitter, repressive, life-sapping forces that represent FAITH spend all their time preaching that by sucking all of the life out of life, they are actually doing us a favor – we need only give them OUR lives, and trust them – Have Faith, as they say.  In them.

As I said, No Sale.  I don’t need to have Faith that a god doesn’t exist –the mere fact that the ‘Faithful’ exist in their present and past manifestation is enough to prove that it isn’t possible.  No genuine god, unless it is an utter sadist, would tolerate you folks, nor the utter contradiction that you represent in the name of this unknown entity of yours.


----------



## gemcgrew

Asath said:


> your FAITH won’t feed the children or put the predators to flight.


How do you know this?

Before you answer, please provide an honest answer to a question I asked you *here*. I gave you an honest answer and expected an honest answer in return.


----------



## WTM45

ted_BSR said:


> Cause he gots faith!



Nope.  It is because I know the facts which are easily observable not only to me but to all those around us.  We work together, and spend rather significant amounts of time with each other while working and all hours after.

Very poor comparison attempt here between believing in (or not believing in) the existance of deities through faith and knowing if one's wife is dishonest.
There is no guessing or "I don't know" regarding this one.


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Nope.  It is because I know the facts which are easily observable not only to me but to all those around us.  We work together, and spend rather significant amounts of time with each other while working and all hours after.



Sounds like our relationship with Christ. Or, at least the relationship we strive for.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> Sounds like our relationship with Christ. Or, at least the relationship we strive for.



Well, far be it from me to discount what you feel exists.  I don't think I have ever done that on this forum to anyone.  

Than again, I do have to "ask forgiveness" a lot from my wife, so just maybe there are some similarities!


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Well, far be it from me to discount what you feel exists.  I don't think I have ever done that on this forum to anyone.
> 
> Than again, I do have to "ask forgiveness" a lot from my wife, so just maybe there are some similarities!



Ha! My wife thinks she's the deity of my life. I don't have much faith in that...lol


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> Ha! My wife thinks she's the deity of my life. I don't have much faith in that...lol



Mine KNOWS I worship her!  Headed out to dine with the princess now!  Have a good evening!


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Mine KNOWS I worship her!  Headed out to dine with the princess now!  Have a good evening!



Yes sir. Love is what's all about. Just got back from dinner with my 11 month old and the wife. Good stuff


----------



## Asath

Gemcrew— First of all. It takes a bit of temerity to place conditions on a man’s answer.  I must first answer YOU?  Honest?  You sound very religious in that regard, in the sense of Believing that folks need to take you seriously as a condition of interacting with the force that is yourself.  We don’t.

Nonetheless, I will belatedly address your original question, just for the entertainment value.  It is a boring evening  --  You asked:  "What will YOU believe in once Almighty God, the Creator of all things, makes Himself known to you in such a way as to leave no doubt?”

I’m afraid I have to answer a question with a question, which is bad form, mainly, except when the question is internally absurd, in which case it is fair game – When, exactly, do you suppose that such a thing will happen?

It hasn’t yet.  To anyone at all.  Ever.  Period.  

“ . . . to leave no doubt . . . “?   Pardon me, but you might need to revisit your religion, and take a gander at the theocratic and historical and analytical and even the rhetorical and thundering evangelistic bits of it.

Doubt is all that you religious folks have left to hang your hats on.  And at this point it isn’t even credible doubt, and strains mightily still against an ever advancing body of fact.   Once doubt is removed completely, and it will be, your goose is cooked.  Virtually EVERYTHING that religions have used over the centuries to snow people has been PROVEN to be wrong.  What else have you got?

Only your doubt.  Uneducated doubt, for the most part, but hey, ignorance works for many folks, and it is hardly my place to educate them.  So if YOUR god, as opposed to the hundreds of others, happens to stop by to share a beer and make ‘Himself’ known to me (you assume that your god is a ‘Him,’ rather than an ‘It,’ which is rather prejudicial to begin with), I suppose I’d ask a large number of questions that an “Almighty God, Creator of all things” wouldn’t be all that comfortable answering.  

Just because YOU fear the invisible and the imaginary doesn’t mean that I have to.  If this god of yours were to arrive at my doorstep, we’re going to have some serious differences in policy.  Like, , um, “Hey, god – if you made everything perfect, like these folks keep telling me, then how come they say that you decided that it all sucked, and drowned everything and started over? We take a dim view of mass-murderers down here, but folks reference YOUR mass murder as a sacred thing.  Huh? What’s up with that?”

Be serious.  You didn’t ask a question.  You made a statement, which is so far from a factual, possible, credible, or even imaginable reality as to be absurd.

As to, “How do you know this?” which was the original, conditional question, I know this the same way YOU know it – from experience and observation.  God never made a single mortgage payment, bought a single bag of groceries, knitted anyone a sweater, cobbled a single shoe, put a roof on a single house, drilled a well, bandaged a wound, changed a diaper, put up an electric line, stamped a microchip, forged a bullet, or built a voting machine, among an exhaustive list of things that god didn’t bother with --  god DID, on the other hand, in the opinion of the Religious, provide us with plagues, original sin, endless eternal punishment, pestilence, natural disasters, disease, shame, guilt, fear, intolerance of others, wholesale murder, slavery, demanding totalitarianism, betrayal, denial, and a demand for egomaniacal self-worship, among an equally exhaustive list of other, less than nice things.  

You decide.  What will YOU believe?  Reality, in which you, along with other people, actually work to improve your condition? Or ancient superstition, which works to enslave your mind and take away your money and your freedom?

You have a computer.  And it works.  THAT is how I know this.  Had any religion been right, and had successfully stopped progress, as they have all sought to do, you wouldn’t be on this forum.  Q.E.D.


----------



## bullethead




----------



## gemcgrew

Asath said:


> Gemcrew— First of all. It takes a bit of temerity to place conditions on a man’s answer.


A request, accompanied by the word "please", does not temerity make. You know this by sensation (experience and observation), yet you do not extend that to others.

I expected an answer and not another question. I am in no way disappointed.


----------



## vowell462

Asath said:


> Gemcrew— First of all. It takes a bit of temerity to place conditions on a man’s answer.  I must first answer YOU?  Honest?  You sound very religious in that regard, in the sense of Believing that folks need to take you seriously as a condition of interacting with the force that is yourself.  We don’t.
> 
> Nonetheless, I will belatedly address your original question, just for the entertainment value.  It is a boring evening  --  You asked:  "What will YOU believe in once Almighty God, the Creator of all things, makes Himself known to you in such a way as to leave no doubt?”
> 
> I’m afraid I have to answer a question with a question, which is bad form, mainly, except when the question is internally absurd, in which case it is fair game – When, exactly, do you suppose that such a thing will happen?
> 
> It hasn’t yet.  To anyone at all.  Ever.  Period.
> 
> “ . . . to leave no doubt . . . “?   Pardon me, but you might need to revisit your religion, and take a gander at the theocratic and historical and analytical and even the rhetorical and thundering evangelistic bits of it.
> 
> Doubt is all that you religious folks have left to hang your hats on.  And at this point it isn’t even credible doubt, and strains mightily still against an ever advancing body of fact.   Once doubt is removed completely, and it will be, your goose is cooked.  Virtually EVERYTHING that religions have used over the centuries to snow people has been PROVEN to be wrong.  What else have you got?
> 
> Only your doubt.  Uneducated doubt, for the most part, but hey, ignorance works for many folks, and it is hardly my place to educate them.  So if YOUR god, as opposed to the hundreds of others, happens to stop by to share a beer and make ‘Himself’ known to me (you assume that your god is a ‘Him,’ rather than an ‘It,’ which is rather prejudicial to begin with), I suppose I’d ask a large number of questions that an “Almighty God, Creator of all things” wouldn’t be all that comfortable answering.
> 
> Just because YOU fear the invisible and the imaginary doesn’t mean that I have to.  If this god of yours were to arrive at my doorstep, we’re going to have some serious differences in policy.  Like, , um, “Hey, god – if you made everything perfect, like these folks keep telling me, then how come they say that you decided that it all sucked, and drowned everything and started over? We take a dim view of mass-murderers down here, but folks reference YOUR mass murder as a sacred thing.  Huh? What’s up with that?”
> 
> Be serious.  You didn’t ask a question.  You made a statement, which is so far from a factual, possible, credible, or even imaginable reality as to be absurd.
> 
> As to, “How do you know this?” which was the original, conditional question, I know this the same way YOU know it – from experience and observation.  God never made a single mortgage payment, bought a single bag of groceries, knitted anyone a sweater, cobbled a single shoe, put a roof on a single house, drilled a well, bandaged a wound, changed a diaper, put up an electric line, stamped a microchip, forged a bullet, or built a voting machine, among an exhaustive list of things that god didn’t bother with --  god DID, on the other hand, in the opinion of the Religious, provide us with plagues, original sin, endless eternal punishment, pestilence, natural disasters, disease, shame, guilt, fear, intolerance of others, wholesale murder, slavery, demanding totalitarianism, betrayal, denial, and a demand for egomaniacal self-worship, among an equally exhaustive list of other, less than nice things.
> 
> You decide.  What will YOU believe?  Reality, in which you, along with other people, actually work to improve your condition? Or ancient superstition, which works to enslave your mind and take away your money and your freedom?
> 
> You have a computer.  And it works.  THAT is how I know this.  Had any religion been right, and had successfully stopped progress, as they have all sought to do, you wouldn’t be on this forum.  Q.E.D.



Holy bejaysus Batman! Wow!


----------



## gemcgrew

vowell462 said:


> Holy bejaysus Batman! Wow!


Do yourself a favor and start at "Q.E.D.". Work your way backward and make note of every logical fallacy. This may take considerable time on your part. Remember, even mindless clogs can serve a purpose.


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> Why, exactly, would something such as an all-knowing, all-seeing entity, such as is imagined, require a whit of FAITH?
> 
> Life, as we can clearly see, and experience daily, simply is.  It ain’t all that much to write to heaven about, and has rather more tragedy than triumph written into the script, but at least we can confront it directly.
> 
> Sort of like a wife or a girlfriend in that regard, huh?  Faith?  Not really.  More than half of those marriages that are made in God’s Eyes end in bitter acrimony, much like the rest of life.  But, again, it is real, and the astute can see it coming, and the rest just get blind-sided.  No less real for all of that.  Real experience doesn’t require any faith, just a strong will and often a strong stomach, because most of it smells pretty lousy.  Life is just what life is, and you make of it as well as it makes of you, and that is all there is to that story.
> 
> Sink or swim. Win or lose.  Eat or be eaten.  Learn or be left behind.  There really isn’t much more to it than that.  No faith involved.  You work at it, you survive, you don’t work at it – well, sorry – your FAITH won’t feed the children or put the predators to flight.
> 
> So let’s talk about this FAITH thing again – How has THAT panned out?  Anyone got anything other than personal, anecdotal nonsense that might show just a single thing that FATH has ever provided?  Oh!  Wait!  There is misery, war, wholesale murder, prejudice, bigotry, institutionalized robbery, repression of progress, guilt, enforced ignorance, slavery, grandiose self-appointed demagogues in dresses, and incense.  So it hasn’t been a total loss – lots of people actually like incense.
> 
> Takes no faith at all to have no faith – faith itself is enough of a poison that it eventually kills any spirit, vital life force, or joy that it encounters.  And oddly enough, the sour, bitter, repressive, life-sapping forces that represent FAITH spend all their time preaching that by sucking all of the life out of life, they are actually doing us a favor – we need only give them OUR lives, and trust them – Have Faith, as they say.  In them.
> 
> As I said, No Sale.  I don’t need to have Faith that a god doesn’t exist –the mere fact that the ‘Faithful’ exist in their present and past manifestation is enough to prove that it isn’t possible.  No genuine god, unless it is an utter sadist, would tolerate you folks, nor the utter contradiction that you represent in the name of this unknown entity of yours.



So, why did you even ask the question?


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


>



Cheerleadin' again.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Cheerleadin' again.



I have no problem giving a standing ovation for a good job.

It is comforting to know you notice.


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> Gemcrew— First of all. It takes a bit of temerity to place conditions on a man’s answer.  I must first answer YOU?  Honest?  You sound very religious in that regard, in the sense of Believing that folks need to take you seriously as a condition of interacting with the force that is yourself.  We don’t.
> 
> Nonetheless, I will belatedly address your original question, just for the entertainment value.  It is a boring evening  --  You asked:  "What will YOU believe in once Almighty God, the Creator of all things, makes Himself known to you in such a way as to leave no doubt?”
> 
> I’m afraid I have to answer a question with a question, which is bad form, mainly, except when the question is internally absurd, in which case it is fair game – When, exactly, do you suppose that such a thing will happen?
> 
> It hasn’t yet.  To anyone at all.  Ever.  Period.
> 
> “ . . . to leave no doubt . . . “?   Pardon me, but you might need to revisit your religion, and take a gander at the theocratic and historical and analytical and even the rhetorical and thundering evangelistic bits of it.
> 
> Doubt is all that you religious folks have left to hang your hats on.  And at this point it isn’t even credible doubt, and strains mightily still against an ever advancing body of fact.   Once doubt is removed completely, and it will be, your goose is cooked.  Virtually EVERYTHING that religions have used over the centuries to snow people has been PROVEN to be wrong.  What else have you got?
> 
> Only your doubt.  Uneducated doubt, for the most part, but hey, ignorance works for many folks, and it is hardly my place to educate them.  So if YOUR god, as opposed to the hundreds of others, happens to stop by to share a beer and make ‘Himself’ known to me (you assume that your god is a ‘Him,’ rather than an ‘It,’ which is rather prejudicial to begin with), I suppose I’d ask a large number of questions that an “Almighty God, Creator of all things” wouldn’t be all that comfortable answering.
> 
> Just because YOU fear the invisible and the imaginary doesn’t mean that I have to.  If this god of yours were to arrive at my doorstep, we’re going to have some serious differences in policy.  Like, , um, “Hey, god – if you made everything perfect, like these folks keep telling me, then how come they say that you decided that it all sucked, and drowned everything and started over? We take a dim view of mass-murderers down here, but folks reference YOUR mass murder as a sacred thing.  Huh? What’s up with that?”
> 
> Be serious.  You didn’t ask a question.  You made a statement, which is so far from a factual, possible, credible, or even imaginable reality as to be absurd.
> 
> As to, “How do you know this?” which was the original, conditional question, I know this the same way YOU know it – from experience and observation.  God never made a single mortgage payment, bought a single bag of groceries, knitted anyone a sweater, cobbled a single shoe, put a roof on a single house, drilled a well, bandaged a wound, changed a diaper, put up an electric line, stamped a microchip, forged a bullet, or built a voting machine, among an exhaustive list of things that god didn’t bother with --  god DID, on the other hand, in the opinion of the Religious, provide us with plagues, original sin, endless eternal punishment, pestilence, natural disasters, disease, shame, guilt, fear, intolerance of others, wholesale murder, slavery, demanding totalitarianism, betrayal, denial, and a demand for egomaniacal self-worship, among an equally exhaustive list of other, less than nice things.
> 
> You decide.  What will YOU believe?  Reality, in which you, along with other people, actually work to improve your condition? Or ancient superstition, which works to enslave your mind and take away your money and your freedom?
> 
> You have a computer.  And it works.  THAT is how I know this.  Had any religion been right, and had successfully stopped progress, as they have all sought to do, you wouldn’t be on this forum.  Q.E.D.



The hubris in this post could fill the interwebs one hundred fold.

When I hear agnostics or atheist want to question God or make him accountable for different events in our history I just laugh. "If God existed and was omnipotent", it is truly amusing to think about a human sitting there shaking there finger at God condemning him for events that transpired in history and at the same time those events would have brought that human into existence and ALLOWED him to be questioning God at the same moment in time. Truly, truly, laughable.


----------



## Asath

“ . . . it is truly amusing to think about a human sitting there shaking there finger at God condemning him for events that transpired in history and at the same time those events would have brought that human into existence and ALLOWED him to be questioning God at the same moment in time.”

Um.  Huh?  ‘Events that transpired in history  . . . brought that human into existence’?  Indeed they did.  Actually it turns out to have been only a single event that brought this particular human into existence, and I variously thank or curse my parents for that, depending on how the day has gone.  But I don’t see that any particular god was in the room with them at the time.

And please, spare me the colorful rhetoric – “ . . . shaking their finger at God . . .”?  This sounds like a phrase salvaged from a tent revival that had to get out of town quickly.  One would have to think that a god existed first, to ‘shake a finger’ at it, and I don’t think any such thing.  Do you also accuse people of ‘shaking their finger’ at visitors from UFOs, unicorns, and ghosts, if you happen to subscribe to those equally fictitious notions?  Doubting, and indeed stating aloud that the impossible is simply that – impossible --  is hardly a condemnation.  It is a simple observation. Alice never went through the looking glass – honest – even if you own a book that says that she did. 

The condemnation comes entirely from the Believer’s side, who bluff and bluster and condemn and thunder against any and all who do not agree with THEM, with no better evidence than the force of their own voices.  This is yet another method by which we can demonstrate that none of religion is true --  Real truth wouldn’t really need your help.  If you have a need to shout it into reality, rather than simply point at it, then your ‘Proof’ is little more than a con game, and a demand that everyone take your word for it.  We don’t.  Show it to us, in real terms, or for goodness sake just hush up and light your little votive candles in private.  We don’t much care what you wish to worship, what you wish to do once your door is closed, or why you think that is comforting.  If it works for you, then by all means – go for it – just leave us out, huh?

 We’ve all got our own problems, and piling your ancient superstitions onto our reality is rather intrusive of you, and distracts from the business at hand – which is surviving and thriving in a world that is so hostile to us that it tends to kill every one of us every time.  You religious folks aren’t helping.  Embracing and actually, literally, worshipping death as the doorway to the REAL life you yearn for is a pretty bleak and lousy point of view.  And, just to say – it prevents you from properly living THIS life – the only one you’ll actually get.  You’ve got it exactly backwards.  Your life is what is Real – your death is the end of that reality, not the beginning of it. 

Eternity is a purely intellectual and mathematical construct, and if you understand that construct, even fundamentally, then you know that eternity is the absence of time.  You can’t ‘Suffer Eternally,’ or conversely be ‘Rewarded Eternally,’ by failing to obey or unfailingly obeying, as the case may be, your church leaders – if only because the whole concept of eternity is outside of the dimension of Time, which is a function of relative motion.  Absence of motion (Time) is eternity.  It is also the absence of being, since without time to exist inside of, you obviously cannot be.      

So, you see, I don’t take the view that I’ve been ALLOWED to do a darned thing by anyone or anything.  I’ll take full responsibility for myself and my actions, and feel no need to attribute them to real or imaginary outside forces.  My parents may or may not have understood, fully, that I would be the result of their own acts, (and I suspect, in my own case, that they have often regretted those actions), but I doubt they had eternity in mind. And while someone may have shouted, ‘Oh God,’ aloud at some point, I’d be reticent to construe that literally . . . 

Life can be pretty good.  My recommendation is to take it at face value, and make the best of it.

My amusement is provided by folks that would be silly enough to deny this truth, and who think it wiser to mess up their lives by devoting them to a ‘NEXT LIFE’ that they must certainly know by now is a huge con designed to enrich the lives of their current leaders.  Can you point to any of your High Priests, Ministers, Parsons, Imams, Rabbis, Reverends, or other Poobahs who are living in poverty, and emulating the fictitious  humble poverty of their own particular God-On-Earth?  Of course not.  They want you to do that, so that they don’t have to.

Bring your wallet.  They’ll sell you eternity.   Then fold up the tent and move on to the next nest of suckers.  Religion is nothing more than an ever-moving, ever-adaptable, ever-rationalizing carnival show designed to separate the shills from their earnings.  Problem is, you end up the poorer for it.  The carnival moves on, and YOUR reality – your actual day-to-day, grindingly difficult, immovable, true, and inescapable reality – remains behind.  

Someone is laughing.  It just isn’t you.


----------



## JB0704

Asath said:


> Bring your wallet.  They’ll sell you eternity.   Then fold up the tent and move on to the next nest of suckers.  Religion is nothing more than an ever-moving, ever-adaptable, ever-rationalizing carnival show designed to separate the shills from their earnings.



There's a whole lot of discussion to be had on this topic.  I think, however, you may miss a point or two.

1.  In Christianity, heaven can't be bought.
2.  Giving is a voluntary act.
3.  Yes, religion has been used as a tool to sucker folks, but no, religion is not designed to sucker folks.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> There's a whole lot of discussion to be had on this topic.  I think, however, you may miss a point or two.
> 
> 1.  In Christianity, heaven can't be bought.
> 2.  Giving is a voluntary act.
> 3.  Yes, religion has been used as a tool to sucker folks, but no, religion is not designed to sucker folks.



1.A. With over 10,000 denominations in Christianity there sure are a lot of people selling and paying for spots up in Heaven, but I must agree with you, Heaven and every other non existent place cannot be bought.

2.A. Try not voluntarily giving your Church dues and see how quickly they voluntarily kick you out of the church.

3.A. Religion, made up by a human that has never or will ever talk to a God yet pretends to have done so while claiming to know their religion is the one and only correct religion and somehow claims to understand the most complex deity is ALL about suckering folks.


----------



## WTM45

JB0704 said:


> There's a whole lot of discussion to be had on this topic.  I think, however, you may miss a point or two.
> 
> 1.  In Christianity, heaven can't be bought.
> 2.  Giving is a voluntary act.
> 3.  Yes, religion has been used as a tool to sucker folks, but no, religion is not designed to sucker folks.



1.  But Hades IS inherited at birth... one has to find the way out of that destination through THEIR exclusive means.

2.  That is why it is not openly called "taking."  Some old time congregations call it "taking the offering."

3.  The very nature of belief system exclusivity imparts the "us vs. them" mentality and builds a platform for control, playing on human emotions the whole time.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> 1.A. With over 10,000 denominations in Christianity there sure are a lot of people selling and paying for spots up in Heaven, but I must agree with you, Heaven and every other non existent place cannot be bought.



If heaven is real, Christianity does not believe it is purchased.  Stupid people do stupid things, and the religious are not immune to stupidity.  That would be the folks selling tickets to heaven.



bullethead said:


> 2.A. Try not voluntarily giving your Church dues and see how quickly they voluntarily kick you out of the church.



I know you are aware of my multiple issues with the modern church, and that I do not currently attend regularly, nor am I a member of any church.  However, I have never attended one where giving was required for attendance.   Your premise is incorrect.  Even when I did attend church regularly, I would often direct my charitable efforts to whatever worthy cause I encountered.  I have seen churches make giving mandatory for employees, but never for congregants.



bullethead said:


> 3.A. Religion, made up by a human that has never or will ever talk to a God yet pretends to have done so while claiming to know their religion is the one and only correct religion and somehow claims to understand the most complex deity is ALL about suckering folks.



I get it.  You do not believe in God.  How does that negate the point that religion was not designed to sucker folks out of money?


----------



## JB0704

WTM45 said:


> 1.  But Hades IS inherited at birth... one has to find the way out of that destination through THEIR exclusive means.



How does that apply to buying heaven?



WTM45 said:


> 2.  That is why it is not openly called "taking."  Some old time congregations call it "taking the offering."



Honestly, man, I'm not the right guy to debate "giving" with, as I disagree with common thoughts as far as that is concerened.  I believe it is specifically stated as voluntary in the NT.  That may be a debate for a few floors up.



WTM45 said:


> 3.  The very nature of belief system exclusivity imparts the "us vs. them" mentality and builds a platform for control, playing on human emotions the whole time.



I agree.  This is relevant to any belief, not just belief in God.  People are whipped into emotional frenzies in many areas of life, politics, religion, etc.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> People are whipped into emotional frenzies in many areas of life, politics, religion, etc.



Does this explain the clapping smiley?


----------



## vowell462

gemcgrew said:


> Does this explain the clapping smiley?



To be honest, I find appreciation in someone who writes well. Asath obviously has a knack for explaining his thoughts. The same can be said for Thanatos. Its easy to write, but to explain what you mean into words anyone can understand is something I admire. Therfore, Thats my explanantion for the standing ovation clappy smiley icon earlier in the thread. Thus being, I dont need to do myself any favors as suggested by you.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> If heaven is real, Christianity does not believe it is purchased.  Stupid people do stupid things, and the religious are not immune to stupidity.  That would be the folks selling tickets to heaven.



If....that is a major obstacle.
Christianity... does that include all of the 10,000+ denominations?
I guess just all the smart Christians are on the up and up.





JB0704 said:


> I know you are aware of my multiple issues with the modern church, and that I do not currently attend regularly, nor am I a member of any church.  However, I have never attended one where giving was required for attendance.   Your premise is incorrect.  Even when I did attend church regularly, I would often direct my charitable efforts to whatever worthy cause I encountered.  I have seen churches make giving mandatory for employees, but never for congregants.



I wish I would have saved my letter from the church where it stated that because we did not meet our mandatory dues obligations that we will no longer be considered members of the congregation.




JB0704 said:


> I get it.  You do not believe in God.  How does that negate the point that religion was not designed to sucker folks out of money?



From the time the first person tried to convince a second person of their personal beliefs the sucker game was started. I don't see God funding a single thing that keeps the churches from closing.


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> Does this explain the clapping smiley?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Christianity... does that include all of the 10,000+ denominations?
> I guess just all the smart Christians are on the up and up.



Christianity being inclusive of those who follow the teachings of Jesus.  As far as being on the "up and up," I guess it would include those who can, and do, read.  The rest are mindles lemmings doing whatever the preacher tells 'em.  But, we have mindless people in every area we discuss also.  Religion does not have a monopoly on that.



bullethead said:


> I wish I would have saved my letter from the church where it stated that because we did not meet our mandatory dues obligations that we will no longer be considered members of the congregation.



Stupid people do stupid things, Bullet.  If you care to hear about it, I could shred their case for compulsory giving in about 3 seconds.

1. The "church" is not a local organization.
2. Giving is each "according to what he believes is right" and specifically not under compulsion:



> 2 Corinthians 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver





bullethead said:


> From the time the first person tried to convince a second person of their personal beliefs the sucker game was started. I don't see God funding a single thing that keeps the churches from closing.



Again, I get that you do not believe in God.  I do not see how this statement applies to my point.


----------



## gemcgrew

vowell462 said:


> Thus being, I dont need to do myself any favors as suggested by you.


I apologize that my sensation (experience and observation) was faulty. I was told that we know by sensation (experience and observation). I sensed that you needed to do yourself a favor. Now that you have told me otherwise, I understand that I did not know it.


----------



## WTM45

JB0704 said:


> How does that apply to buying heaven?
> Since some point out heaven can not be "bought" I thought I would simply remind folks what some believe has been given out for free simply by being born.
> 
> Honestly, man, I'm not the right guy to debate "giving" with, as I disagree with common thoughts as far as that is concerened.  I believe it is specifically stated as voluntary in the NT.  That may be a debate for a few floors up.
> 
> I agree with giving being a personal choice as well as any religious belief system based requirement for giving is a debate for those who believe in that requirement.  For me, giving is to directly help those in need, not to buy better stained glass or to pay a Cadillac payment for the clergy.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  This is relevant to any belief, not just belief in God.  People are whipped into emotional frenzies in many areas of life, politics, religion, etc.
> 
> Nothing else utilizes emotions as much as the religious based implication of eternal suffering after death.  Those who push such ideals on children should be viewed by society as abusers.



You make good points.  Thanks for the conversation and discussion!


----------



## TripleXBullies

I agree with this... MOSTLY. I think that the christians here who have their imaginary relationships "right" completely, whole heartedly and truly believe this is factually untrue... and I think for the most part it is also. The Poobahs that aren't in it for the money, yet still draw their pay checks from it, which I think are the majority, aren't doing it with deceit in mind. People have been duped for so long that everyone believes it's really true and that there's no deceit involved. The people that first came up with the schemes at some point in time aren't doing anything... they're dead and gone. If they could I'm not sure if they'd be proud of their own ingenuity or in total disbelief that their con was able control the minds of so many for so long.





Asath said:


> My amusement is provided by folks that would be silly enough to deny this truth, and who think it wiser to mess up their lives by devoting them to a ‘NEXT LIFE’ that they must certainly know by now is a huge con designed to enrich the lives of their current leaders.  Can you point to any of your High Priests, Ministers, Parsons, Imams, Rabbis, Reverends, or other Poobahs who are living in poverty, and emulating the fictitious  humble poverty of their own particular God-On-Earth?  Of course not.  They want you to do that, so that they don’t have to.
> 
> Bring your wallet.  They’ll sell you eternity.   Then fold up the tent and move on to the next nest of suckers.  Religion is nothing more than an ever-moving, ever-adaptable, ever-rationalizing carnival show designed to separate the shills from their earnings.  Problem is, you end up the poorer for it.  The carnival moves on, and YOUR reality – your actual day-to-day, grindingly difficult, immovable, true, and inescapable reality – remains behind.
> 
> Someone is laughing.  It just isn’t you.


----------



## JB0704

WTM45 said:


> You make good points.  Thanks for the conversation and discussion!



  I always enjoy discussing these things with you fellas.


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> Someone is laughing.  It just isn’t you.



Asath we finally agree. You are right I am not laughing. I am sad. I know God can save anyone, but you have so much pride in your own thoughts and opinions and so much contempt built up for us it is going to be hard to change your heart. I love you and these other men, not as I love my wife or daughter, but as I love a brother. It is sad that you will have faith in worldly matters, but you can not see the evidence that exist that you already know but have harden your heart to. I do love you and I will pray for you. Please do not take this as someone looking down on you. I am in need of as much prayer as anyone in my own struggles in life. The difference I see between us is that I know I am loved and have hope in my brothers and sisters, but I am not sure that you have felt this before.


----------



## Asath

“1. In Christianity, heaven can't be bought.
2. Giving is a voluntary act.
3. Yes, religion has been used as a tool to sucker folks, but no, religion is not designed to sucker folks. “

There’s nothing like a good three-point shot, but this one seems to be an air-ball.  Heaven would have to exist in order to be purchased, which it doesn’t, so they are selling you the PROMISE of heaven in exchange for your obedience (as well as your money).  Giving is NOT by any means a voluntary act – just ask the IRS, and any church up until relatively recent times.  And religion can ONLY be used to sucker people, since they are selling a product that doesn’t exist.  If you truly believe in some sort of transcendent ‘spirituality,’ it can only exist within yourself, and cannot have come from the outside ‘teachings’ of greedy, self-interested folks seeking to aggressively brainwash ever increasing ‘flocks’ in order to maximize their own income and/or political power.  Evangelism is no different than any other aggressive recruiting effort, in that it aims to create a large enough bloc of public opinion to sway events in the real world.

“It is sad that you will have faith in worldly matters, but you can not see the evidence that exist that you already know but have harden your heart to. I do love you and I will pray for you. Please do not take this as someone looking down on you. I am in need of as much prayer as anyone in my own struggles in life.”

A sincere expression of your own beliefs.  I would ask, however, that you refrain from attributing motives to my thoughts or attempting to diagnose what you see as my failings (“ . . . you have so much pride in your own thoughts and opinions and so much contempt built up for us  . . . “).  That sort of thing is presumptuous, and does, in fact, count as looking down on others.  Do you honestly feel sorry for the vast majority of the people on this planet who fail to see things YOUR way?

I cannot see the ‘evidence that exist(s)’ because there is no such evidence.  There are anecdotes, fanciful writings, conjectures, specious correlations, leaps of logic that skip most of the vital, logical steps, and threatening rhetoric delivered at loud volume and often with real violence attached – but there actually is no ‘evidence’ that would convince any jury.  

And please, don’t ‘pray’ for me.  Prayer is just metaphysical panhandling, begging for something from the unknown, and begging on behalf of yourself is unseemly enough – begging on behalf of others is just odd, and suggests that you possess some special powers that others somehow lack.  That a religion that purports to teach humility can spawn such displays of arrogance on a regular basis  tends to suggest that the lessons have not been learned, and works against any contention of simple, benign intent.  

Buying into a Lie is one thing – attempting to sell it to everyone as though it were a commodity is something I once thought only governments and stock markets depended upon.  But it seems that religions taught them the fundamentals of the con.


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> “1. In Christianity, heaven can't be bought.
> 2. Giving is a voluntary act.
> 3. Yes, religion has been used as a tool to sucker folks, but no, religion is not designed to sucker folks. “
> 
> There’s nothing like a good three-point shot, but this one seems to be an air-ball.  Heaven would have to exist in order to be purchased, which it doesn’t, so they are selling you the PROMISE of heaven in exchange for your obedience (as well as your money).  Giving is NOT by any means a voluntary act – just ask the IRS, and any church up until relatively recent times.  And religion can ONLY be used to sucker people, since they are selling a product that doesn’t exist.  If you truly believe in some sort of transcendent ‘spirituality,’ it can only exist within yourself, and cannot have come from the outside ‘teachings’ of greedy, self-interested folks seeking to aggressively brainwash ever increasing ‘flocks’ in order to maximize their own income and/or political power.  Evangelism is no different than any other aggressive recruiting effort, in that it aims to create a large enough bloc of public opinion to sway events in the real world.
> 
> “It is sad that you will have faith in worldly matters, but you can not see the evidence that exist that you already know but have harden your heart to. I do love you and I will pray for you. Please do not take this as someone looking down on you. I am in need of as much prayer as anyone in my own struggles in life.”
> 
> A sincere expression of your own beliefs.  I would ask, however, that you refrain from attributing motives to my thoughts or attempting to diagnose what you see as my failings (“ . . . you have so much pride in your own thoughts and opinions and so much contempt built up for us  . . . “).  That sort of thing is presumptuous, and does, in fact, count as looking down on others.  Do you honestly feel sorry for the vast majority of the people on this planet who fail to see things YOUR way?
> 
> I cannot see the ‘evidence that exist(s)’ because there is no such evidence.  There are anecdotes, fanciful writings, conjectures, specious correlations, leaps of logic that skip most of the vital, logical steps, and threatening rhetoric delivered at loud volume and often with real violence attached – but there actually is no ‘evidence’ that would convince any jury.
> 
> And please, don’t ‘pray’ for me.  Prayer is just metaphysical panhandling, begging for something from the unknown, and begging on behalf of yourself is unseemly enough – begging on behalf of others is just odd, and suggests that you possess some special powers that others somehow lack.  That a religion that purports to teach humility can spawn such displays of arrogance on a regular basis  tends to suggest that the lessons have not been learned, and works against any contention of simple, benign intent.
> 
> Buying into a Lie is one thing – attempting to sell it to everyone as though it were a commodity is something I once thought only governments and stock markets depended upon.  But it seems that religions taught them the fundamentals of the con.



Asath you sound like one of the most miserable people I've ever had the please and displeasure of communicating with. I will continue to pray regardless of your wishes. I hope one day, somehow you can lose that hardness around your heart you protect yourself in.


----------



## JB0704

Asath said:


> There’s nothing like a good three-point shot, but this one seems to be an air-ball.  Heaven would have to exist in order to be purchased, which it doesn’t, so they are selling you the PROMISE of heaven in exchange for your obedience (as well as your money).



I was responding to your comment on selling heaven.  Your claim was that religious people sell heaven.  My comment was that is not characteristic of Christianity. 

Your attack is on Christianity, which is based on the Bible.  I would like to challenge you, or any skeptic on the board, to use the Bible from a Christian perspective to demonstrate how that faith tries to sell tickets to heaven.

I like you guys, and think you all seem to be good folks, but you are way off point on this'n.



Asath said:


> Giving is NOT by any means a voluntary act – just ask the IRS, and any church up until relatively recent times.







Asath said:


> And religion can ONLY be used to sucker people, since they are selling a product that doesn’t exist.



Speculation.  



Asath said:


> If you truly believe in some sort of transcendent ‘spirituality,’ it can only exist within yourself, and cannot have come from the outside ‘teachings’ of greedy, self-interested folks seeking to aggressively brainwash ever increasing ‘flocks’ in order to maximize their own income and/or political power.



Interesting.....how do you determine this?



Asath said:


> Evangelism is no different than any other aggressive recruiting effort, in that it aims to create a large enough bloc of public opinion to sway events in the real world.



Agreed.  I don't think evangelism makes claims otherwise.



Asath said:


> That a religion that purports to teach humility can spawn such displays of arrogance on a regular basis  tends to suggest that the lessons have not been learned, and works against any contention of simple, benign intent.



While I do not believe Thanatos was demonstrating arrogance, I do agree that humility is a characteristic often lost on many religious people.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Even seemingly upset, Asath can still write! Asath, I think you're still wrong on one point. MOST of the people out there trying to sell the ticket aren't trying to brainwash people. They're just following their own brainwashing, compliments of others before them that were brainwashed. 

JB.. Christianity as a whole, is selling god and heaven. That's really all it is. You can look at that as not being a bad thing if you please, but that's what it is.


----------



## JB0704

TripleXBullies said:


> Even seemingly upset, Asath can still write!



Agree.  Though I disagree with him on many points, he has a gift of communication.



TripleXBullies said:


> JB.. Christianity as a whole, is selling god and heaven.



Can we call it a "sale" if the product is free?

Many churches package Jesus in a manner in which folks will join their church, so the church can grow, so they can bring in more revenue.  No doubt, it happens.

However, the core of Chrisitianity does not require attendance of one of these "businesses" in order to get what is being given.  Nor does it cost one penny.


----------



## TripleXBullies

It does cost... you have to buy in to it. The cost is abandoning your normal thought process for faith. You can decide if that's right or wrong. But the whole idea has to be sold.


----------



## JB0704

TripleXBullies said:


> The cost is abandoning your normal thought process for faith.



If we review the thread, you will find that the initial implications for the "selling" comment were specifically financial.

Faith is a normal process for many.  I see no reason to suspend reason in order to believe God is the OC.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Faith my be a normal process but I don't think faith in god is a normal type of faith. You're right though about referring to financially. I don't think that at this point in time it's a requirement, but I do feel that MOST people think it's obligatory.


----------



## JB0704

TripleXBullies said:


> I do feel that MOST people think it's obligatory.



You are correct.


----------



## WTM45

Seven verses in the NT address giving, and those who teach accordingly do not relieve believers from a responsibility to give.  Yes it is viewed as a somewhat different program than the OT tithe requirement, but now the responsibility lies on the believer and "what they feel in their hearts" knowing that their God is watching.  The guilt factor is used here in exchange for the allowance of Gentiles to receive the same benefits of belief as the Jew.


----------



## JB0704

WTM45 said:


> Seven verses in the NT address giving, and those who teach accordingly do not relieve believers from a responsibility to give.  Yes it is viewed as a somewhat different program than the OT tithe requirement, but now the responsibility lies on the believer and "what they feel in their hearts" knowing that their God is watching.  The guilt factor is used here in exchange for the allowance of Gentiles to receive the same benefits of belief as the Jew.



One of those references is while the OT law is still in effect (pre-crucifixion, if we want to dig into doctrine).

However, the wording of the scripture I referenced says "not under compulsion."  

Either way, there is no requirement to give to the local Church.  "Giving" could take the form of supporting homeless and hungry people.  That's my take on it, anyway.  I'm certain there is a scholar or two on here who would take issue with this position.


----------



## WTM45

Try this read...

http://www.intothelight.org/tithing.asp

I'm pretty sure the onus is placed on the believer to give, not by OT law guidelines by by command of the Holy Spirit.  God is watching.
Every church and institution I was involved with in the past has communicated this message loudly and clearly.  Sometimes entire sermons and lectures were focused on the teaching.


----------



## centerpin fan

WTM45 said:


> Every church and institution I was involved with in the past has communicated this message loudly and clearly.  Sometimes entire sermons and lectures were focused on the teaching.



Sometimes, it's necessary.  Because I'm a CPA, I've often been drafted to count the contribution, serve on the budget committee, etc.  Based on that, I can verify that the Pareto Principle definitely applies:  about 80% of church funding comes from about 20% of the people.  In some churches, it's 90/10.  For a lot of people, they have premium cable/internet/phone packages plus loads of consumer toys, and the church gets the scraps (if that.)


----------



## WTM45

centerpin fan said:


> Sometimes, it's necessary.  Because I'm a CPA, I've often been drafted to count the contribution, serve on the budget committee, etc.  Based on that, I can verify that the Pareto Principle definitely applies:  about 80% of church funding comes from about 20% of the people.  In some churches, it's 90/10.  For a lot of people, they have premium cable/internet/phone packages plus loads of consumer toys, and the church gets the scraps (if that.)



That is their individual choice.  Competition for the dollar is quite strong, they tends to go towards the consumer's perceived value.


----------



## centerpin fan

WTM45 said:


> That is their individual choice.


----------



## ambush80

centerpin fan said:


>



What does your church look like?  Nice crown molding?  Stained glass?  Oak pews?


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> What does your church look like?  Nice crown molding?  Stained glass?  Oak pews?



Mine is a refurbished KMART. Not very fancy, but effective, and HUGE.

BTW - It is an all volunteer staff, right up to the preacher. He has a day job and donates his time. I was pretty blown away when I learned that fact.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> I have no problem giving a standing ovation for a good job.
> 
> It is comforting to know you notice.



That's a little too personal of an assumption!

Just kidding BH, we been around too many times to get all nutty.

BTW, I was in Weisport, PA a few months back for a funeral. If times hadn't been so blue, I would have looked you up for that Wild Turkey toast. Maybe next time under happier circumstances.


----------



## ted_BSR

Thanatos said:


> Asath you sound like one of the most miserable people I've ever had the please and displeasure of communicating with. I will continue to pray regardless of your wishes. I hope one day, somehow you can lose that hardness around your heart you protect yourself in.



Did you notice that 2 or 3 sentences from you can get Asath all riled up and posting 4 or 5 paragraphs of his secular diatribe about why the notion of God is dumb, and people who believe in God are dumb?









...of course you did.


----------



## centerpin fan

ambush80 said:


> What does your church look like?  Nice crown molding?  Stained glass?  Oak pews?



Not even close.  It's a log cabin out in the boonies.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> That's a little too personal of an assumption!
> 
> Just kidding BH, we been around too many times to get all nutty.
> 
> BTW, I was in Weisport, PA a few months back for a funeral. If times hadn't been so blue, I would have looked you up for that Wild Turkey toast. Maybe next time under happier circumstances.



Sorry to hear of the event that brought you back to Pa. I would have driven to meet you for a 2 second hand shake just to put a face with our usernames.
Until happier times it shall wait....


----------



## Asath

“MOST of the people out there trying to sell the ticket aren't trying to brainwash people. They're just following their own brainwashing, compliments of others before them that were brainwashed.”

I’ll buy that, but only up to a point.  In actively trying to win converts, and push their own point of view even into legislation, they DO attempt to force an agenda.  Whether this is out of arrogance or ignorance is for others to decide, and perhaps ‘brainwashing’ is an inaccurate description, but the effect and the implementation is the same – total intolerance to disagreement and a violent unwillingness to just let others peacefully enjoy life without their insistent interference.  

And you must admit, the forcible imposition of dogma on children can only count as brainwashing.

And, odd personal attacks and disparaging speculations concerning my alleged state of mind aside, nobody has yet offered a demonstration of the rationality of following yet another of the tens of thousands of ‘Belief Systems’ that history has spawned.  All of the others have fallen by the wayside, for the same reasons this one will, and there is no real reason to think that – similarly lacking a basis in fact, as has afflicted all the others – the current belief systems won’t also implode dramatically.

Colorful rhetoric and violent anger spawned by the bold denial of a lack of truth didn’t serve any of the others any better than it will serve the current crop of baseless superstitions.  So what is it that annoys you folks so much?

Can it be that you’re too proud to admit that you were duped?  Don’t worry, we’ll forgive you for the honesty of the admission – you were inculcated as children, and are allowed to grow out of it.  You can be ‘thrice born’- going from the infant ‘sinner’ who is ‘saved’ by your fictional Poobah in the sky, (and of course, by those who told you that you needed to be ‘Saved’ in the first place – you didn’t know), to a living, thinking, independent human who, due to boredom, education, need, or simple embarrassment at the humiliation of herd-following, simply chooses to resume real life as you see fit, free of the mill-stone that your forebears hung on you.  

Clinging to human misery, justifying it, martyring yourselves in the service of it, and yearning for death to ‘Save’ you in the end just seems like a lousy way to enjoy life.  Taking responsibility for yourself, and accepting the consequences of your own choices, rather than blaming them on or attributing them to some invisible force outside of yourself, seems like a more reasonable thought.  

Are you that afraid of even yourself, that having a choice, and standing up to take responsibility for having made it, causes you to cower behind the robes of your priests --  begging excuses, help, justifications, forgiveness, and salvation from the likes of THEM?  Seems a bit cowardly, when you think about it in terms of what it really is, huh?  Do you really need to propose an invisible Higher Power to give purpose to your own thoughts, or to excuse your lack of same?

Real joy is in liberation from dogma – genuine personal freedom.  Scary, huh?


----------



## ambush80

Asath said:


> “MOST of the people out there trying to sell the ticket aren't trying to brainwash people. They're just following their own brainwashing, compliments of others before them that were brainwashed.”
> 
> I’ll buy that, but only up to a point.  In actively trying to win converts, and push their own point of view even into legislation, they DO attempt to force an agenda.  Whether this is out of arrogance or ignorance is for others to decide, and perhaps ‘brainwashing’ is an inaccurate description, but the effect and the implementation is the same – total intolerance to disagreement and a violent unwillingness to just let others peacefully enjoy life without their insistent interference.
> 
> And you must admit, the forcible imposition of dogma on children can only count as brainwashing.
> 
> And, odd personal attacks and disparaging speculations concerning my alleged state of mind aside, nobody has yet offered a demonstration of the rationality of following yet another of the tens of thousands of ‘Belief Systems’ that history has spawned.  All of the others have fallen by the wayside, for the same reasons this one will, and there is no real reason to think that – similarly lacking a basis in fact, as has afflicted all the others – the current belief systems won’t also implode dramatically.
> 
> Colorful rhetoric and violent anger spawned by the bold denial of a lack of truth didn’t serve any of the others any better than it will serve the current crop of baseless superstitions.  So what is it that annoys you folks so much?
> 
> Can it be that you’re too proud to admit that you were duped?  Don’t worry, we’ll forgive you for the honesty of the admission – you were inculcated as children, and are allowed to grow out of it.  You can be ‘thrice born’- going from the infant ‘sinner’ who is ‘saved’ by your fictional Poobah in the sky, (and of course, by those who told you that you needed to be ‘Saved’ in the first place – you didn’t know), to a living, thinking, independent human who, due to boredom, education, need, or simple embarrassment at the humiliation of herd-following, simply chooses to resume real life as you see fit, free of the mill-stone that your forebears hung on you.
> 
> Clinging to human misery, justifying it, martyring yourselves in the service of it, and yearning for death to ‘Save’ you in the end just seems like a lousy way to enjoy life.  Taking responsibility for yourself, and accepting the consequences of your own choices, rather than blaming them on or attributing them to some invisible force outside of yourself, seems like a more reasonable thought.
> 
> Are you that afraid of even yourself, that having a choice, and standing up to take responsibility for having made it, causes you to cower behind the robes of your priests --  begging excuses, help, justifications, forgiveness, and salvation from the likes of THEM?  Seems a bit cowardly, when you think about it in terms of what it really is, huh?  Do you really need to propose an invisible Higher Power to give purpose to your own thoughts, or to excuse your lack of same?
> 
> Real joy is in liberation from dogma – genuine personal freedom.  Scary, huh?



This is the saddest to me: "Lord come quickly".


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> It's a log cabin out in the boonies.





Hiram?!?!?!  Intersting what a fella from Dunwoody considers "boonies."  I live near there, and it's way too developed for my taste these days.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> This is the saddest to me: "Lord come quickly".



If you believed in heaven, and life was awful, what would you ask?


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> Hiram?!?!?!  Intersting what a fella from Dunwoody considers "boonies."  I live near there, and it's way too developed for my taste these days.



I hear ya.  The route I take along Hwy 92 is pretty desolate compared to Dunwoody, though.   Also, the property itself is tucked back in the woods.  It's very boonie-like.


----------



## centerpin fan

Asath said:


> “MOST of the people out there trying to sell the ticket aren't trying to brainwash people. They're just following their own brainwashing, compliments of others before them that were brainwashed.”
> 
> I’ll buy that, but only up to a point.  In actively trying to win converts, and push their own point of view even into legislation, they DO attempt to force an agenda.  Whether this is out of arrogance or ignorance is for others to decide, and perhaps ‘brainwashing’ is an inaccurate description, but the effect and the implementation is the same – total intolerance to disagreement and a violent unwillingness to just let others peacefully enjoy life without their insistent interference.
> 
> And you must admit, the forcible imposition of dogma on children can only count as brainwashing.
> 
> And, odd personal attacks and disparaging speculations concerning my alleged state of mind aside, nobody has yet offered a demonstration of the rationality of following yet another of the tens of thousands of ‘Belief Systems’ that history has spawned.  All of the others have fallen by the wayside, for the same reasons this one will, and there is no real reason to think that – similarly lacking a basis in fact, as has afflicted all the others – the current belief systems won’t also implode dramatically.
> 
> Colorful rhetoric and violent anger spawned by the bold denial of a lack of truth didn’t serve any of the others any better than it will serve the current crop of baseless superstitions.  So what is it that annoys you folks so much?
> 
> Can it be that you’re too proud to admit that you were duped?  Don’t worry, we’ll forgive you for the honesty of the admission – you were inculcated as children, and are allowed to grow out of it.  You can be ‘thrice born’- going from the infant ‘sinner’ who is ‘saved’ by your fictional Poobah in the sky, (and of course, by those who told you that you needed to be ‘Saved’ in the first place – you didn’t know), to a living, thinking, independent human who, due to boredom, education, need, or simple embarrassment at the humiliation of herd-following, simply chooses to resume real life as you see fit, free of the mill-stone that your forebears hung on you.
> 
> Clinging to human misery, justifying it, martyring yourselves in the service of it, and yearning for death to ‘Save’ you in the end just seems like a lousy way to enjoy life.  Taking responsibility for yourself, and accepting the consequences of your own choices, rather than blaming them on or attributing them to some invisible force outside of yourself, seems like a more reasonable thought.
> 
> Are you that afraid of even yourself, that having a choice, and standing up to take responsibility for having made it, causes you to cower behind the robes of your priests --  begging excuses, help, justifications, forgiveness, and salvation from the likes of THEM?  Seems a bit cowardly, when you think about it in terms of what it really is, huh?  Do you really need to propose an invisible Higher Power to give purpose to your own thoughts, or to excuse your lack of same?
> 
> Real joy is in liberation from dogma – genuine personal freedom.  Scary, huh?



I don't know any Christian that "yearns for death".  That's Islam.  A recurring theme I've noticed on this board is the skeptic's inability to distinguish between Islam and Christianity.  In all fairness, though, you probably don't see any differences.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> I hear ya.  The route I take along Hwy 92 is pretty desolate compared to Dunwoody, though.   Also, the property itself is tucked back in the woods.  It's very boonie-like.





I know where your church is.....that's a nice pocket of woods, but I guess "boonies" is a relative term.  They are going to be building a 4 lane near there which will connect 92 to 278 just below ridge road.....might be a little quicker than 92 if you come in on I-20.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> If you believed in heaven, and life was awful, what would you ask?



If the placebo works, take it.


----------



## Asath

“I don't know any Christian that "yearns for death". That's Islam. A recurring theme I've noticed on this board is the skeptic's inability to distinguish between Islam and Christianity.”

Perhaps you don’t know any Christians, then, and certainly you don’t know any Islamics.

In the Koran, Mohammad is commanded to say: “It is God who gives you life, causes you to die, then gathers you together for the Day of Resurrection, of which there is no doubt” (45:26)

This might sound pretty familiar to Christians.  Considering that Mohammad actually MET Jesus, in heaven itself, according to their legend (built, as it is upon your own), this should hardly be surprising.

What IS surprising is the ignorance, bigotry, inbred bias, and violent opposition among the three major religions, also considering that they have one thing in common – the Old Testament.  Each of them is built solidly upon the self-same imagined God of Abraham.  All you guys started at the same place.  What has happened from the origins of THAT particular superstition is the whole written history of stupidity that is the last few thousand years.

What I mean by ‘yearning for death,’ is simply this – you’ve each and all been taught, and have for some odd reason come to accept, the idea that your personal ‘Reward’ for the wonder and glory that is your own ego, and the ‘Forgiveness’ for the human failings that certainly were not your fault, will arrive wrapped in silk and scented with ambrosia AFTER you die.  

All you need to do is yearn properly for this to happen, which is what you each call ‘belief’.  If you think earnestly enough (‘Believe’), and adhere to what each of your own rituals and Books tell you, then your Eternal Reward is a lock.  Unfortunately, each and every one of you says this, and all in the face of the same original Book of ancient superstitions and odd parables.

Do you realize how silly this makes all of you look?  You’re really subverting all of humanity, starting wars, creating whole societies, clogging up intellect with inanity, opposing progress, diverting and commandeering hard-earned wealth, and building totalitarian authority structures – all of you, but each according to your own interpretation – based on the SAME THING?  Honest?  Only you can’t agree among yourselves on just what that thing really means?  When, really, it means NOTHING other than your uses of it?

This isn’t skepticism – this is the very truth of the matter.  Telling YOU the truth isn’t skepticism on my part – it is ignorance on your own part.  If the Believers can’t distinguish between themselves anymore, even though, at the heart of it they Believe in the SAME THING, written the SAME WAY in each case, then what is being put forward by the various Believers, of all stripes, is certainly something other than their Belief.  It is a lack of understanding, a lack of knowledge, a lack of thinking, a lack of tolerance, a lack of . . . well, just about any and all of the ‘Virtues’ that each of them will gladly tell you that they possess and the others lack.  

What they all put front and center, unfortunately,  is the same thing – and it stands so starkly illuminated by their past and present behavior, their demands for political control, their intolerance of disagreement of any sort, and their rash and quick tendency towards violence in the face of disagreement – and that is their hatred towards their fellow man.

The history of organized religion, regardless of glad-handing feel-good nonsense put forward by the few actually peaceful souls who managed to sift a few paragraphs of benevolence out of writings that are saturated by blood and violence, is a history that denies life as having a right to exist on its own terms.

For each of the religions, life may only exist on THEIR terms.  This, to any sensible person, is unacceptable.   Not a one of you can show us this purported God of Abraham, of your myths and legends – and until you can, you are welcome to keep your little religions to yourselves.  To me you’re no different than Wiccans or the Cult of Isis.  Your Sky Spirit isn’t interesting, except perhaps to you, and has never had, nor will ever have, any application in the real world other than to foment strife and fuel political egomania.


----------



## centerpin fan

Asath said:


> Perhaps you don’t know any Christians ...



Your posts tell me that you don't.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Sorry to hear of the event that brought you back to Pa. I would have driven to meet you for a 2 second hand shake just to put a face with our usernames.
> Until happier times it shall wait....



...wait indeed, but I feel like eventually it will occur! I look forward to it!


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> There’s nothing like a good three-point shot, but this one seems to be an air-ball.  Heaven would have to exist in order to be purchased, which it doesn’t, so they are selling you the PROMISE of heaven in exchange for your obedience (as well as your money).



I can't read your posts any more Asath. You are so wrong. I couldn't read past the above text in red.

Heaven is free my friend.

You don't seem to be paying attention.


----------



## Asath

Q.E.D.  In the words of a wiser man than I, “ Before curiosity kills it, the cat learns more of the world than a hundred uninquisitive dogs.” 

Your heaven is not free, my friend.  Aside from being imaginary, it is yearned for at the expense of your freewill.  You, personally, did not propose such an eventuality, and did not teach yourself how to achieve that imaginary goal.  Someone else did that to you.  

You took their word for it, and obeyed.

At the moment you made that choice, and never, to this day, questioned the wisdom and veracity of that teaching, you ceded your own not inconsiderable intellect to the service of a dogma that offered, in truth, little more than extended demands for your adherence. It  has delivered nothing other than carefully filtered excuses for just why the world remains the same as it was the day you made your decision to adhere. Oddly, as well, the world has actually advanced past the assertions that your elders made as recently as ten years ago, and you have certainly watched them react either in horror to new truth or in violent denial and rationalization.  Either reaction is a retreat, yet again, from dogma that has no internal support system other than assertion, and which cannot exist in the face of truth.  Does it not trouble you that NO prayers ever, actually, get answered?  Shouldn’t your (again, not inconsiderable)  sacrifice of Believing have made a discernable difference by now?   Do you ever think, for even a moment, that perhaps you’ve been duped?

How do your religious leaders square with the new discovery of an anomaly , far out in the universe, that is over 4 BILLION light years from one end to the other?  They can’t, of course, and so their only defense is denial.   

I’m not clear on just how giving up one’s actual freedom, curiosity, sense of wonder, and natural instinct to learn more  in favor of ancient fairy stories rammed down one’s throat in childhood counts as not having paid a very steep, and life-defining price in exchange for an illusory promise.  Doesn’t sound like a fair trade to me.  

Denying alternative ideas, by refusing to even entertain them, is certainly one way of building a citadel around one’s own adopted dogma, and defending it by denying that anyone other than yourself has any validity.  But history would have it that island fortresses are easily ignored, and much more easily laid siege.  Trapped inside themselves, occupants of forts trade the nimble mobility of learning and adapting for the safety and security of being consumed alive inside the walls they refuse to escape.


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> Q.E.D.  In the words of a wiser man than I, “ Before curiosity kills it, the cat learns more of the world than a hundred uninquisitive dogs.”
> 
> Your heaven is not free, my friend.  Aside from being imaginary, it is yearned for at the expense of your freewill.  You, personally, did not propose such an eventuality, and did not teach yourself how to achieve that imaginary goal.  Someone else did that to you.
> 
> You took their word for it, and obeyed.
> 
> At the moment you made that choice, and never, to this day, questioned the wisdom and veracity of that teaching, you ceded your own not inconsiderable intellect to the service of a dogma that offered, in truth, little more than extended demands for your adherence. It  has delivered nothing other than carefully filtered excuses for just why the world remains the same as it was the day you made your decision to adhere. Oddly, as well, the world has actually advanced past the assertions that your elders made as recently as ten years ago, and you have certainly watched them react either in horror to new truth or in violent denial and rationalization.  Either reaction is a retreat, yet again, from dogma that has no internal support system other than assertion, and which cannot exist in the face of truth.  Does it not trouble you that NO prayers ever, actually, get answered?  Shouldn’t your (again, not inconsiderable)  sacrifice of Believing have made a discernable difference by now?   Do you ever think, for even a moment, that perhaps you’ve been duped?
> 
> How do your religious leaders square with the new discovery of an anomaly , far out in the universe, that is over 4 BILLION light years from one end to the other?  They can’t, of course, and so their only defense is denial.
> 
> I’m not clear on just how giving up one’s actual freedom, curiosity, sense of wonder, and natural instinct to learn more  in favor of ancient fairy stories rammed down one’s throat in childhood counts as not having paid a very steep, and life-defining price in exchange for an illusory promise.  Doesn’t sound like a fair trade to me.
> 
> Denying alternative ideas, by refusing to even entertain them, is certainly one way of building a citadel around one’s own adopted dogma, and defending it by denying that anyone other than yourself has any validity.  But history would have it that island fortresses are easily ignored, and much more easily laid siege.  Trapped inside themselves, occupants of forts trade the nimble mobility of learning and adapting for the safety and security of being consumed alive inside the walls they refuse to escape.



Eloquent, but fraught with assumptions that you could not possibly know anything about. You know about me from a few words typed in an internet forum, you do not know me, or anything about how I came about my personal beliefs, except that you think I am a fool.

You certainly don't understand my religion; you just don't like religion in general. I don't particularly care for religion either, or religious leaders.

This whole concept that you have of "fairytales rammed down one's throat" is quite silly. You assume that I am a brainwashed robot for God. I think you are probably projecting your own negative experiences in life about religion on people who have what you do not.

You should check it out; it is the most curious wonderful freedom that anyone can experience!


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> Eloquent, but fraught with assumptions that you could not possibly know anything about. You know about me from a few words typed in an internet forum, you do not know me, or anything about how I came about my personal beliefs, except that you think I am a fool.
> 
> You certainly don't understand my religion; you just don't like religion in general. I don't particularly care for religion either, or religious leaders.
> 
> This whole concept that you have of "fairytales rammed down one's throat" is quite silly. You assume that I am a brainwashed robot for God. I think you are probably projecting your own negative experiences in life about religion on people who have what you do not.
> 
> You should check it out; it is the most curious wonderful freedom that anyone can experience!




"It's true!  It's TRUE!!   IT'S TRUE!!!!!!"

That's what the new believer proclaims form the mountain top, never again to honestly question the veracity of his statement because return to uncertainly is too frightful a proposition.


----------



## Asath

“You know about me from a few words typed in an internet forum, you do not know me, or anything about how I came about my personal beliefs, except that you think I am a fool.”

Mea culpa.  I meant, as always, to avoid the specific ‘You,’ that is often employed in favor of the more general ‘you,’ meaning believers as a whole.  But since we’re on the topic, knowing you personally would scarcely change the point.  HOW you came about your personal beliefs is irrelevant.  Largely because they are not personal – they are shared with an entire system of belief and based entirely on a work of shared fictions.  NOBODY, EVER, woke up one morning and dreamed up ANY religious dogma all by themselves.  Somebody else stuffed it into your head when you were a child.  

Never in history has a seven-year-old awakened one morning and created the Trinity out of whole cloth, having had the REAL TRUTH visited upon them in a dream-like encounter with the One True God.  Doesn’t happen.  So NOBODY can stand and claim that they, personally, came upon a sudden revelation, thunderstruck by circumstances and individually inspired and enlightened, resulting in the ‘Discovery’ of a god of their own.  Gods are societal constructs, and the teaching of them is institutionalized brain-washing.  If one were able to create one’s own vision of god and utopia, honestly, I doubt seriously that it would even vaguely resemble the written and freely revised and lavishly interpreted nonsense in the established Books.  Your OWN personal god would bear no resemblance to the god of the holy books.

“You certainly don't understand my religion; you just don't like religion in general. “

Here you perhaps mean to set yourself apart from your religion, and claim that it holds no power over you – YOUR OWN interpretation of it is completely unique, and sets you apart from the herd mentality.  But this is a bit like painting racing stripes on a Buick and calling it a unique creation.  OF COURSE I understand your religion.  I’ve studied all of them in more detail than most of the ‘leaders’ of each and all, and unless your own personal version contains some entirely new twists, then all you really have are the same old bugaboos painted up with your own air-brush of sanitizing revision.  But you are entirely correct in observing that I loathe religions as a whole.  Nothing personal – they are all equally self-deluded and ultimately destructive idiocy.

“I think you are probably projecting your own negative experiences in life about religion on people who have what you do not.”

And just who is projecting and casting purely personal aspersions without a shred of evidence here?  My own ‘experiences’ of religion were never in any significant way negative or in any way traumatic or bitter.  Heck, I was elected by the entire congregation as the High School Youth representative to my Parish Counsel.  Recognized as a rising star of faithfulness, I was . . . Odd, huh?  But that insider access had, for a free-thinker, a downside.  I was able to learn early-on that not only did these impressively authoritarian folks in dresses fail to possess something that I did not possess, but also that their own views were hugely impoverished by a lack of examination, imagination, learning, and freedom of will.

Turned out that they knew quite a lot about nothing at all aside from rationalizing, and had no deeper insight than I did.  One hundred percent of their worries and energies were devoted to the same, mundane, day-to-day worries that the rest of us suffer, ranging from money to organizational disputes to allocation of efforts to routine maintenance to the politics of leadership.  To my mind, then as now, the Church was nothing more than a miniature government, sometimes with better intentions than government, but only different in that regard.  Not only didn’t they have something I did not, they seemed to have nothing at all but self-declarations of their own  importance.

The message was clear.  This ‘religious freedom’ was simply another set of handcuffs, meant to shackle freedoms and tie them to the posts of obedience.  Obedience to them.  Governments use laws and armed enforcement and prisons to do that.  Religions used to use the same tactics, and much worse, and some still do – but the bottom line remains the same – obey us or perish.  

No Sale.  My freedom is much more precious than any threats that I must cede it to ANY demanding ideological control-freaks or suffer their punishment.


----------



## gemcgrew

Asath said:


> NOBODY, EVER, woke up one morning and dreamed up ANY religious dogma all by themselves.





Asath said:


> If one were able to create one’s own vision of god and utopia, honestly, I doubt seriously that it would even vaguely resemble the written and freely revised and lavishly interpreted nonsense in the established Books.


So we moved from an impossibility, to serious doubt?


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> "It's true!  It's TRUE!!   IT'S TRUE!!!!!!"
> 
> That's what the new believer proclaims form the mountain top, never again to honestly question the veracity of his statement because return to uncertainly is too frightful a proposition.



Huh? I ain't new at this. It is true! I have questioned it many times.


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> “You know about me from a few words typed in an internet forum, you do not know me, or anything about how I came about my personal beliefs, except that you think I am a fool.”
> 
> Mea culpa.  I meant, as always, to avoid the specific ‘You,’ that is often employed in favor of the more general ‘you,’ meaning believers as a whole.  But since we’re on the topic, knowing you personally would scarcely change the point.  HOW you came about your personal beliefs is irrelevant.  Largely because they are not personal – they are shared with an entire system of belief and based entirely on a work of shared fictions.  NOBODY, EVER, woke up one morning and dreamed up ANY religious dogma all by themselves.  Somebody else stuffed it into your head when you were a child.
> 
> Never in history has a seven-year-old awakened one morning and created the Trinity out of whole cloth, having had the REAL TRUTH visited upon them in a dream-like encounter with the One True God.  Doesn’t happen.  So NOBODY can stand and claim that they, personally, came upon a sudden revelation, thunderstruck by circumstances and individually inspired and enlightened, resulting in the ‘Discovery’ of a god of their own.  Gods are societal constructs, and the teaching of them is institutionalized brain-washing.  If one were able to create one’s own vision of god and utopia, honestly, I doubt seriously that it would even vaguely resemble the written and freely revised and lavishly interpreted nonsense in the established Books.  Your OWN personal god would bear no resemblance to the god of the holy books.
> 
> “You certainly don't understand my religion; you just don't like religion in general. “
> 
> Here you perhaps mean to set yourself apart from your religion, and claim that it holds no power over you – YOUR OWN interpretation of it is completely unique, and sets you apart from the herd mentality.  But this is a bit like painting racing stripes on a Buick and calling it a unique creation.  OF COURSE I understand your religion.  I’ve studied all of them in more detail than most of the ‘leaders’ of each and all, and unless your own personal version contains some entirely new twists, then all you really have are the same old bugaboos painted up with your own air-brush of sanitizing revision.  But you are entirely correct in observing that I loathe religions as a whole.  Nothing personal – they are all equally self-deluded and ultimately destructive idiocy.
> 
> “I think you are probably projecting your own negative experiences in life about religion on people who have what you do not.”
> 
> And just who is projecting and casting purely personal aspersions without a shred of evidence here?  My own ‘experiences’ of religion were never in any significant way negative or in any way traumatic or bitter.  Heck, I was elected by the entire congregation as the High School Youth representative to my Parish Counsel.  Recognized as a rising star of faithfulness, I was . . . Odd, huh?  But that insider access had, for a free-thinker, a downside.  I was able to learn early-on that not only did these impressively authoritarian folks in dresses fail to possess something that I did not possess, but also that their own views were hugely impoverished by a lack of examination, imagination, learning, and freedom of will.
> 
> Turned out that they knew quite a lot about nothing at all aside from rationalizing, and had no deeper insight than I did.  One hundred percent of their worries and energies were devoted to the same, mundane, day-to-day worries that the rest of us suffer, ranging from money to organizational disputes to allocation of efforts to routine maintenance to the politics of leadership.  To my mind, then as now, the Church was nothing more than a miniature government, sometimes with better intentions than government, but only different in that regard.  Not only didn’t they have something I did not, they seemed to have nothing at all but self-declarations of their own  importance.
> 
> The message was clear.  This ‘religious freedom’ was simply another set of handcuffs, meant to shackle freedoms and tie them to the posts of obedience.  Obedience to them.  Governments use laws and armed enforcement and prisons to do that.  Religions used to use the same tactics, and much worse, and some still do – but the bottom line remains the same – obey us or perish.
> 
> No Sale.  My freedom is much more precious than any threats that I must cede it to ANY demanding ideological control-freaks or suffer their punishment.



It's getting boring Asath. You don't get it. This post highlights how much you don't get it (again).


----------



## Asath

“You don't get it.”

Ah, the wonderfully vague and apocryphal ‘IT’.  I would be able to wax philosophical, theocratic, poetic, and perhaps even musical (with three part harmony and angels plucking lyres in accompaniment) if only I, a mere mortal possessing merely mortal qualities, could rise to the level of the enlightenment provided by getting ‘IT’.  

Alas, despite paying my tithe and sending in the subscription card time and again, I have yet to receive even the first breathlessly awaited issue of ‘IT’ by return post.  Perhaps ‘IT’ is only available in severely limited quantities, or requires some sort of secret handshake or insider initiation that a lifetime of serious scholarship does not entitle me.

And yes, I do mock, mildly, but not as much as the accusation and condescension involved in claiming to ‘get it,’ where others do not also mocks and makes claims of superior, insider knowledge.  It has been asked repeatedly that such knowledge, should it exist, be revealed for all of us poor fools to evaluate, and that request has been consistently rebuffed and answered only with bluster, vague association, unsupported assertion, and in the end the last resort to condescending and meaningless rhetoric, to whit: “You don't get it.”

Thank goodness that you do.  Now we can all sleep at night.

But all I see is THAT some believe in SOMETHING, and that belief seems to differ in each of them.  Nobody at all has explained, in any rational or comprehensive terms just WHAT they believe, or seems able to explain why.  ‘IT’ seems to vary widely, depending on the observer, so whatever ‘IT’ is that you ‘GET,’ it seems like just about everyone else has a different ‘IT’ that They ‘GET.’  If even one of you is correct, where a singular god of all things is concerned, then how can that be?  Surely such a god would have only made one ‘IT’ and be done with it.  Making a separate one for each person seems too much like running a sandwich shop for a god to bother with.

So if you mean that I don’t ‘GET’ you, then you are probably right.  Only you are able to do that.  And if you mean that I don’t ‘GET’ belief, then you are equally right, because it seems to me nonsensical and ever-changing, a constant reaction rather than a peace of being.  

But, if you mean that I do not ‘GET’ the comprehensive truths of the world and the universe that surrounds me, then you would be very wrong.  Modern physics has begun to conclude that the entire universe is not only made of information, but it is interchangeable rather than strictly binary.  Not two KINDS of particles, but two particles, period.  One positive, one negative, but able to exchange positions – in short, one particle with two natures. Yin and yang, light and darkness, positive and negative, intertwined, coiling around each other and never one cancelling the other out but in the relativity of their concentration.  All things, in the end, are one thing.  Tosses petty thoughts of ‘belief’ into a hat, huh?


----------



## ted_BSR

When I say "IT", I am speaking of Christianity, not religion, or belief, or the understanding of the world and how it works.


----------



## Asath

I see.  So Christianity is separate, and is neither a religion, nor a belief, nor and understanding of how the world works. Christianity is 'IT.'


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> I see.  So Christianity is separate, and is neither a religion, nor a belief, nor and understanding of how the world works. Christianity is 'IT.'



Technically it is different. Christianity is about a personal  relationship with someone who died and rose again and is alive today.


----------



## WTM45

Thanatos said:


> Technically it is different. Christianity is about a personal  relationship with someone who died and rose again and is alive today.



Exclusivity.  Every single religious belief system claims something which makes it unique and exclusive.


----------



## Asath

“Let him who is fond of indulging in a dreamlike existence go to Oxford, and stay there; let him study this magnificent spectacle, the same under all aspects, with its mental twilight tempering the glare of noon, or mellowing the silver moonlight; let him wander in her sylvan suburbs, or linger in her cloistered halls; but let him not catch the din of scholars or teachers, or dine or sup with them, or speak a word to any of the privileged inhabitants; for if he does, the spell will be broken, the poetry and the religion gone, and the palace of the enchantment will melt from his embrace into thin air.”

  -- William Hazlitt, ‘Sketches of the Principal Picture Galleries,’ 1824.


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> “Let him who is fond of indulging in a dreamlike existence go to Oxford, and stay there; let him study this magnificent spectacle, the same under all aspects, with its mental twilight tempering the glare of noon, or mellowing the silver moonlight; let him wander in her sylvan suburbs, or linger in her cloistered halls; but let him not catch the din of scholars or teachers, or dine or sup with them, or speak a word to any of the privileged inhabitants; for if he does, the spell will be broken, the poetry and the religion gone, and the palace of the enchantment will melt from his embrace into thin air.”
> 
> -- William Hazlitt, ‘Sketches of the Principal Picture Galleries,’ 1824.



Thank you for that. I had to wipe a tear away after reading that one...


----------



## Thanatos

WTM45 said:


> Exclusivity.  Every single religious belief system claims something which makes it unique and exclusive.



It's not that exclusive! Everyone can partake...lol

I know what you mean though...man if we only had the evidence to back one of them up! Argggggg!


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> I see.  So Christianity is separate, and is neither a religion, nor a belief, nor and understanding of how the world works. Christianity is 'IT.'



Yes. It is seperate, and it is not about religion, or how the world works.

It is about a FREE gift that the creator makes availble to everyone, because he loves each and every person. There is no catch, no fee, no tax, no requirement but to believe and repent.

It is about GRACE.


----------



## Asath

“Thank you for that. I had to wipe a tear away after reading that one...”

Ah, youth. To mock a man within his own thread, while relying on a prohibition against being mocked themselves . . . methinks we’ve perhaps raised a generation of princes and princesses . . . 

Just the same, we’re here to exchange thoughts, and I see no thought offered.  Hazlitt’s thought was that dream worlds and the protection of illusions quickly erode and fall away in the clear light of day and in the face of learning and progress.  His point was that if one wishes to cling to idealist visions then the cloistered environs of a protected oasis is the only place to hide, but that even that retreat will require silence and defense, since ideas and progress penetrate even the most sanctified and protectionist of environs.  What he said, in effect, is that, ‘You can Run But You Cannot Hide.’

“Technically it is different. Christianity is about a personal relationship with someone who died and rose again and is alive today.”   

Really?  Not about belief.  Not religion.  Not philosophy.  Not outlook.  Not even a transcendent glimpse into the infinite ether where All is One and One is All and the boundaries of the earthly rub elbows with the edges of the eternal?  IT is like a Facebook thing, where you can simply ‘Friend’ the living god, who once was just like you, then popped back up from Death and is just like you again??  

How very disappointing.  

So, IT is all about making friends with zombies (“died, and rose again and is alive today”)?  Really?  How very primitive, and how very like an aboriginal death-denial cult.  Are you sure about this?  (Please, please, don’t be sure – if it is prohibited that I mock you, except as a light-hearted jape, it is surely much more humiliating to mock yourself.)  Where is the spiritual, in such a literal view?  If you have no Belief or Faith at hand, but merely literal Truth, then you have no need of a Church, and the rest of us have no need of laboratories and observatories and the like.  If your view is FACT, then it does not fall into the realm of Belief.  You, then, personally, hold the ANSWER to ALL things.  We’ve been waiting for you to come along for quite some time . . .     

I suspect that many of your contemporaries in the Belief Industry will hasten to disagree with your view, and are already running to arm the ramparts to repel the inherently barbaric, pagan, primitivist, and personal egomainia of it.   

But therein lies the point – Belief is whatever anyone asserts it to be, and requires no further thought.  Truth is much more difficult than that, requiring, as it does, quite a lot of questioning, work, and (of course) punishment for failing to adhere to the view of the prince or princess who was raised to believe solely in their own omnipotence and infallibility.  Belief is complacency writ large.  Truth just slowly toddles along, testing and verifying.  So far, it is Belief that has ended up in steady retreat.


----------



## Asath

“Yes. It is seperate, and it is not about religion, or how the world works.”

Nonsense.  Christianity is DEFINED as a religion, and purports, by the mere assertion of a Creator, to tell everyone how the world, and indeed how the whole Universe works.  Blow smoke at someone else.

And No, it is NOT separate.  From Anything.  Even the term ‘Nazarine,’ as Paul claims for himself in Acts 24:5 is a misuse of the older ‘Nazirene,’ which described an older Jewish purity cult (the strictures of which can be found in Numbers 6), which eventually evolved into the Christian sect of still-observant Jews in the 100’s AD, also known now as the Ebionite Church, and also now largely defunct for reasons of financial and egotistically moral bankruptcy.  Not hard to follow the pattern, and it is said that human intelligence, if such a thing exists, is largely pattern recognition.  

NOTHING is separated, in truth, from ANYTHING.  The world is so intertwined and intermixed and entangled and retangled and in a fierce and lovely tango with itself that one can scarcely pry the influences of one part on another apart with a crowbar and a case of tequila.  

And yet we sit here, all stuck on this insignificant little orb together, fiercely glaring at one another in defiance and denial of that simple truth.  

So waddaya got?  “I BELONG to a group that is SEPARATE from YOU clowns?”  Right.  Tell that to your retirement fund, after the folks who taught you that have already long faded into retirement on the contents of your wallet.  You get the promises they made, while they get the condo on the beach and a limo to the nightclub.

I’ll not deny that there is a vanishingly slim CHANCE that the invisible may be real enough to some that it ought to hold them to a higher standard than they would otherwise observe.  But that is a pretty shallow and lousy reason to behave like a decent human being.  Everyone else does it because they know that they should.  Beliefs come and go, and always have and always will, and yours is no better or worse than any other, in that perspective, BUT – aligning with a Belief System, and allowing yourself to be herded into a pen like just another sheep is NOT spirituality – it is quite the opposite.

If the ancient stories in the ancient mythological Books teach anything at all about true spirituality it is simply this --  the real Heroes of all of these tales, now revered and ‘followed,’ rather than emulated, invariably displayed the personal courage to break from the pack and follow their own hearts rather than be herded along with the pack.  The tales teach quite the opposite of what the institutions founded in their name teach – The tales say Do NOT conform or blindly obey.  Be yourself, do what YOU think is right, and let the chips fall where they may.  

Odd, huh?


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> “Thank you for that. I had to wipe a tear away after reading that one...”
> 
> Ah, youth. To mock a man within his own thread, while relying on a prohibition against being mocked themselves . . . methinks we’ve perhaps raised a generation of princes and princesses . . .
> 
> Just the same, we’re here to exchange thoughts, and I see no thought offered.  Hazlitt’s thought was that dream worlds and the protection of illusions quickly erode and fall away in the clear light of day and in the face of learning and progress.  His point was that if one wishes to cling to idealist visions then the cloistered environs of a protected oasis is the only place to hide, but that even that retreat will require silence and defense, since ideas and progress penetrate even the most sanctified and protectionist of environs.  What he said, in effect, is that, ‘You can Run But You Cannot Hide.’
> 
> “Technically it is different. Christianity is about a personal relationship with someone who died and rose again and is alive today.”
> 
> Really?  Not about belief.  Not religion.  Not philosophy.  Not outlook.  Not even a transcendent glimpse into the infinite ether where All is One and One is All and the boundaries of the earthly rub elbows with the edges of the eternal?  IT is like a Facebook thing, where you can simply ‘Friend’ the living god, who once was just like you, then popped back up from Death and is just like you again??
> 
> How very disappointing.
> 
> So, IT is all about making friends with zombies (“died, and rose again and is alive today”)?  Really?  How very primitive, and how very like an aboriginal death-denial cult.  Are you sure about this?  (Please, please, don’t be sure – if it is prohibited that I mock you, except as a light-hearted jape, it is surely much more humiliating to mock yourself.)  Where is the spiritual, in such a literal view?  If you have no Belief or Faith at hand, but merely literal Truth, then you have no need of a Church, and the rest of us have no need of laboratories and observatories and the like.  If your view is FACT, then it does not fall into the realm of Belief.  You, then, personally, hold the ANSWER to ALL things.  We’ve been waiting for you to come along for quite some time . . .
> 
> I suspect that many of your contemporaries in the Belief Industry will hasten to disagree with your view, and are already running to arm the ramparts to repel the inherently barbaric, pagan, primitivist, and personal egomainia of it.
> 
> But therein lies the point – Belief is whatever anyone asserts it to be, and requires no further thought.  Truth is much more difficult than that, requiring, as it does, quite a lot of questioning, work, and (of course) punishment for failing to adhere to the view of the prince or princess who was raised to believe solely in their own omnipotence and infallibility.  Belief is complacency writ large.  Truth just slowly toddles along, testing and verifying.  So far, it is Belief that has ended up in steady retreat.



Again, I was just being a smart A. I have tendency to do that. I do respect your ideas and thoughts even though I do not believe them myself. I wish we could get the cliffnotes version of your post sometimes. I think it would help us communicate better.


----------



## TripleXBullies

ted_BSR said:


> When I say "IT", I am speaking of Christianity, not religion, or belief, or the understanding of the world and how it works.



Not religion. It is exactly religion. Maybe someone who is older than me will have a different understanding of this, but I feel like it has only been in the last 10 years or so that we the religious teaching started saying things like, "It's not about religion." That's just an attempt to find another way to re-capture those who have started to think for themselves. Everything you dislike about this place, this cult, this past time, we'll call lump it under the name religion and attempt to discard it (from your mind) and call what we're really trying to do a "relationship" and not religion, because we've discarded that. When really the "relationship" is what is at the center of the religion. The parts of the religion that the religious leaders are trying to discard with the word religion are the parts that maybe over time have made the whole scheme look more like scheme. So let's just get discard them verbally, but not really in practice so that we can keep this thing going. Saying it's not about religion is what you've been told, but it's not what you're still clinging to. You're clinging to the exact same thing you've always been.


----------



## WTM45

"World Religions" is an educational subject studied in many institutions of higher learning.  Has been for years.

The term "religion" is most often used when referring to a religious belief system other than the one chosen by the involved.  The word has developed a negative connotation.  Regardless of the belief system chosen, that chosen system is considered a "relationship" or a "lifestyle" by that believer.  It is a common trait found in pretty much all religious belief systems.  Exclusivity (read "mine is right, your's is not real" not "you are not invited in") is what creates the desire to defend one system while discrediting ALL other systems.

For many, placing them ALL on the  discard pile is as easy as a believer of any system to add one more they recently found out about to their pile.


----------



## Four

For those of you speaking about Christianity, it seem you're being even more specific than that. The form you're referring to is pretty specifically a protestant flavor. 

So saying "All you have to do is believe and repent." That's not referring to all of christianity, but merely the philosophical approach to it that you subscribe to.


----------



## ted_BSR

I am amused that you guys can tell me so much about my system of belief.

I am most amused by you Asath (quoting bible verses). Really? I am not allowed (as a matter of etiquette) to quote them on this forum as a form of apologetics, but you can quote them to make your case? You just don't like any of it. I think you are a hater.

This whole religion argument is laughable. God doesn't care what religious denomination you cleave to. He cares about you like a parent cares about a child.

The thing that separates Christianity from all other "religions" of the world is GRACE! It is the loving sacrifice to freely redeem an individual from an eternity of separation from the Father.

Old or new, the concept of no religion, and a relationship with God, and his unyielding love is exactly the point.

It is not about how much money you gave, or what church you belong to. It is not about how smart you are, or how eloquently you write. It is not about what hymns you sang on Sunday, or if you listened to religious rock and roll. It is not about logic, or science, or probability.

“IT” is about AMAZING GRACE!!!! The Creator knows you, and every hair on your head, and your heart, and your intentions, and your secrets, and He STILL loves you and wants you to be with Him. All you have to do is accept that gift.


----------



## Thanatos

ted_BSR said:


> I am amused that you guys can tell me so much about my system of belief.
> 
> I am most amused by you Asath (quoting bible verses). Really? I am not allowed (as a matter of etiquette) to quote them on this forum as a form of apologetics, but you can quote them to make your case? You just don't like any of it. I think you are a hater.
> 
> This whole religion argument is laughable. God doesn't care what religious denomination you cleave to. He cares about you like a parent cares about a child.
> 
> The thing that separates Christianity from all other "religions" of the world is GRACE! It is the loving sacrifice to freely redeem an individual from an eternity of separation from the Father.
> 
> Old or new, the concept of no religion, and a relationship with God, and his unyielding love is exactly the point.
> 
> It is not about how much money you gave, or what church you belong to. It is not about how smart you are, or how eloquently you write. It is not about what hymns you sang on Sunday, or if you listened to religious rock and roll. It is not about logic, or science, or probability.
> 
> “IT” is about AMAZING GRACE!!!! The Creator knows you, and every hair on your head, and your heart, and your intentions, and your secrets, and He STILL loves you and wants you to be with Him. All you have to do is accept that gift.



Perfect. I am so thankful for that love too. Amen brother.


----------



## alligood729

Oh my......I'm a Christian, I believe in the Trinity, and I believe in one God. I believe there is a Heaven, and I believe there is a H@#^.....(had to edit it, cause first time I was called a potty mouth several times, I forgot that...lol) I know where I'm going when I breathe my last.... I'm obviously not as smart as some of you guys, and I just remembered why I only visit here occasionally. All this gives me a headache....


----------



## Artfuldodger

People tell you it doesn't matter what denomination you are. But then they tell you, you must believe Jesus is God, you've got to be Baptised with certain words, you don't have to quit sinning, you have to follow the commandments, you must believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, Election, free will , and on and on and on. 
I'm believe Jesus died for my sins and by the grace of God, I was saved. I believe I have to use my free will to try and live a Christian life. I believe I have to repent and ask for forgiveness. I believe I can toss it all away tomorrow. This is where I differ from other Christians.


----------



## WTM45

Most who have rejected a particular belief system (or all of them for that matter) are quite knowledgeable in that system.  They came to their conclusions through extensive investigative study and research.   

A blind belief pro or con "just because I say so" is a very shallow belief with no support.  It can be refuted or influenced greatly by others or life itself.  Only the stubborn who refuse to consider the variables and differences would hang on to a true belief without doing any due dilligence or study.  It is interesting to observe the level of knowledge and understanding many staunch believers show, both high and low.

Question.  For those who are of the Christian faith and believe in Yahweh, what did you find in your investigation of Islam which led you to reject it over Christianity?  Do you know the shared similiarities?  Do you know the differences?

For many, it is purely the place of birth and the parent's belief system that folks tend to follow as it is all they have been introduced to.  And it scares them that their own neighbors in this "melting pot" can think otherwise or have different chosen religious belief systems.

Or that those neighbors might reject them all outright...


----------



## WTM45

ted_BSR said:


> I am amused that you guys can tell me so much about my system of belief.



Don't be amused, be impressed.  Find holes in logic and in interpretation.  Share your knowledge and beliefs, discuss the differences and refute what you believe to be incorrect.  That's the debate here, no one really can call "Winner!" or "Loser!"

But then, it really is all for entertainment!


----------



## ted_BSR

WTM45 said:


> Don't be amused, be impressed.  Find holes in logic and in interpretation.  Share your knowledge and beliefs, discuss the differences and refute what you believe to be incorrect.  That's the debate here, no one really can call "Winner!" or "Loser!"
> 
> But then, it really is all for entertainment!



Maybe not impressed, but yes, entertained. I agree with your post. Thanks for the perspective!


----------



## Asath

"In the name of the Former, and of the Latter, and of the Holocaust.  Allmen."

			-- James Joyce, 'Finnegans Wake.'

My observation is that the more one learns about Belief, the less attractive and the more oddly frightening it becomes.  If only because Belief is unable to answer the simplest of questions.  Watch:

". . . God doesn't care what religious denomination you cleave to. He cares about you like a parent cares about a child. . . . The thing that separates Christianity from all other "religions" of the world is GRACE! It is the loving sacrifice to freely redeem an individual from an eternity of separation from the Father. . . The Creator knows you, and every hair on your head, and your heart, and your intentions, and your secrets, and He STILL loves you and wants you to be with Him. All you have to do is accept that gift."

Question: How, exactly, do YOU know what this God you put forward does or does not care about, knows or does not know, loves or does not love, desires or does not desire, and wishes or does not wish?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Asath said:


> Question: How, exactly, do YOU know what this God you put forward does or does not care about, knows or does not know, loves or does not love, desires or does not desire, and wishes or does not wish?



It matters not if a Christian believes in election and pre-destination. You could have been created evil by the Potter to teach us a lesson on Free Will. If we didn't have Free Will, there would be no lesson gained by your Atheist beliefs and us questioning your beliefs. So I would like to thank God for creating you an Atheist to make me research my free will beliefs. 
Maybe learning & knowledge isn't such a good thing for a 
Christian. I have to agree, it was much easier when I was ignorant and just believed as my parents. Why God wanted me to look for the truth is beyond me.


----------



## Asath

See what I mean?


----------



## gemcgrew

Asath said:


> Question: How, exactly, do YOU know what this God you put forward does or does not care about, knows or does not know, loves or does not love, desires or does not desire, and wishes or does not wish?


You said we know by sensation (experience and observation). Would my sensation have to align with yours in order for me to know? Have you ever met "sensation" itself? Not the word but what it designates. Do you sense your sensation? How is this not circular? I am sensing a measure of faith here.


----------



## WTM45

Artfuldodger said:


> It matters not if a Christian believes in election and pre-destination. You could have been created evil by the Potter to teach us a lesson on Free Will. If we didn't have Free Will, there would be no lesson gained by your Atheist beliefs and us questioning your beliefs. So I would like to thank God for creating you an Atheist to make me research my free will beliefs.
> *Maybe learning & knowledge isn't such a good thing for a
> Christian*. I have to agree, it was much easier when I was ignorant and just believed as my parents. Why God wanted me to look for the truth is beyond me.



wow.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WTM45 said:


> wow.



This was in reference to Christians becoming educated beyond their intelligence to the point of becoming non believers. If that is possible then education is a bad thing.


----------



## WTM45

So, any knowledge gained that makes one question a belief in a religious belief system is wrong?  Is it OK for a Muslim?

How does one get "educated beyond their intelligence?"


----------



## Artfuldodger

WTM45 said:


> So, any knowledge gained that makes one question a belief in a religious belief system is wrong?  Is it OK for a Muslim?
> 
> How does one get "educated beyond their intelligence?"



I wonder if education has affected Muslims to become Atheist? What percentage of Muslims or any other faith from different countries have become Atheist compared to Christian nations? 
We had this education leads to Atheism topic on another thread recently. I personally don't believe education is a bad thing and would hope one's faith in God wouldn't falter with education/intelligence.


How does one get "educated beyond their intelligence?"
College, not everyone but i've met a few.


----------



## Asath

Anybody?

Bueller?

One more time – How Do YOU Know?

See, WE know through the long, slow, frustrating process of trial and error known as the empirical method.  We dream up a contention, then devise a series of tests that might falsify that contention, and embark on an often decades-long and sometimes centuries-long journey though the complexities of things to see if what WE thought might be right actually IS right.  We document every step, every success and failure, and build a base of empirical results that end up, for anyone who wishes to learn, being that dreaded education thing.  Nobody ever woke up one morning with a sudden revelation – “Hey Look!  There’s a Uranium Atom! Now I can make a power plant!”

 As a result, before anyone responsible reports that they can take some basic raw materials and some intelligent ingenuity and endless years of hard work and use them to build a railroad, put up streetlights, or cure Polio, they have something a bit more rigorously applied than a revelation to back up the claim.  

Since ya’ll are using our railroads, powering up your PCs, and presumably don’t suffer from Polio, we feel it is fair to ask for a bit of quid pro quo from your camp.  If you want to keep putting forward this god of yours, and want to continue to speak for this imaginary being – telling us all the while what this god wants and thinks and desires and indeed demands of us – then we feel it is fair to ask of your own rigor, and your own methods, in reaching such sweeping and life-altering conclusions.

You wouldn’t allow so much as a hunk of meat to be sold in your own supermarket without an FDA inspection stamp and a local Health Department approval posted for your comfort.  What makes you think we ought to swallow odd philosophical malarkey designed to dictate our very life trajectory without an independent third party testing?  We simply ask how it is that you KNOW that what you claim is true.

This isn’t a difficult question, if you are right.  When you ask US these questions, we have answers.  If your contentions and promised outcomes are tested, verified, independently reviewed, and can be verifiably duplicated by disinterested third parties (as ours must be, at YOUR  demand), then you have yourselves an established truth.  If not, you have a massive fraud, prosecutable as little more than organized crime.  

Any fool can contend something.  Most fools do.  Show us that it is true, and then you’ve got something to stand on.  Until then – sorry – No Sale.  Believe away – but leave the rest of us be, huh?  Your tax-exempt status may hinge on your answer.

When the fine point that is put on Belief and Faith has been reduced to the contention that it is valid because it CAN’T be tested, and must simply be accepted due to some personal revelation, then you ask us to accept foolishness as fact.  But this is the very reason that Believers of all stripes trot out to reject any Faith other than their own – all of the OTHER ones are foolishness, just not their own.  Rather egomaniacal and quite fatuous, as both a point of view and a set of reasons.  A point of view that assumes itself as a constant isn’t really to be taken seriously.

The question remains very simple: How Do YOU Know?

Anybody?


----------



## gemcgrew

Asath said:


> The question remains very simple: How Do YOU Know?
> Anybody?


You already psycho asserted your answer. Are you sensing something other? Any fool can assert -> attack -> assert again -> attack again -> conclude. Are you not using the senses to attack the senses? Must I hold your hand and rescue you from this circular reasoning? Do you sense the need for me to hold your hand?


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> You already psycho asserted your answer. Are you sensing something other? Any fool can assert -> attack -> assert again -> attack again -> conclude. Are you not using the senses to attack the senses? Must I hold your hand and rescue you from this circular reasoning? Do you sense the need for me to hold your hand?



How does your post differ from what you are accusing Asath of?

The only differences I can see is that you avoided his question and you make the claims and cannot back up a single one of those claims. If you have something share it.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> How does your post differ from what you are accusing Asath of?


Approximately 500 words. Grandeur perhaps? Some folks enjoy the attention provided by public vomiting. Some folks are entertained in pointing out the contents.


----------



## bullethead

Some folks.......


----------



## WTM45

gemcgrew said:


> Approximately 500 words. Grandeur perhaps? Some folks enjoy the attention provided by public vomiting. Some folks are entertained in pointing out the contents.



It is easy.  Refute his premise and stance with your own and explain how you came to your conclusions.  No one here judges the individual.  The discussion is much larger than anyone getting personal or attacking the messenger.  It is all about disagreeing or supporting the message.  I know having one's belief system questioned can become a personal thing.  That's at the very core of apologetics.
Please don't take the discussion personally.


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> Anybody?
> 
> Bueller?
> 
> One more time – How Do YOU Know?
> 
> See, WE know through the long, slow, frustrating process of trial and error known as the empirical method.  We dream up a contention, then devise a series of tests that might falsify that contention, and embark on an often decades-long and sometimes centuries-long journey though the complexities of things to see if what WE thought might be right actually IS right.  We document every step, every success and failure, and build a base of empirical results that end up, for anyone who wishes to learn, being that dreaded education thing.  Nobody ever woke up one morning with a sudden revelation – “Hey Look!  There’s a Uranium Atom! Now I can make a power plant!”
> 
> As a result, before anyone responsible reports that they can take some basic raw materials and some intelligent ingenuity and endless years of hard work and use them to build a railroad, put up streetlights, or cure Polio, they have something a bit more rigorously applied than a revelation to back up the claim.
> 
> Since ya’ll are using our railroads, powering up your PCs, and presumably don’t suffer from Polio, we feel it is fair to ask for a bit of quid pro quo from your camp.  If you want to keep putting forward this god of yours, and want to continue to speak for this imaginary being – telling us all the while what this god wants and thinks and desires and indeed demands of us – then we feel it is fair to ask of your own rigor, and your own methods, in reaching such sweeping and life-altering conclusions.
> 
> You wouldn’t allow so much as a hunk of meat to be sold in your own supermarket without an FDA inspection stamp and a local Health Department approval posted for your comfort.  What makes you think we ought to swallow odd philosophical malarkey designed to dictate our very life trajectory without an independent third party testing?  We simply ask how it is that you KNOW that what you claim is true.
> 
> This isn’t a difficult question, if you are right.  When you ask US these questions, we have answers.  If your contentions and promised outcomes are tested, verified, independently reviewed, and can be verifiably duplicated by disinterested third parties (as ours must be, at YOUR  demand), then you have yourselves an established truth.  If not, you have a massive fraud, prosecutable as little more than organized crime.
> 
> Any fool can contend something.  Most fools do.  Show us that it is true, and then you’ve got something to stand on.  Until then – sorry – No Sale.  Believe away – but leave the rest of us be, huh?  Your tax-exempt status may hinge on your answer.
> 
> When the fine point that is put on Belief and Faith has been reduced to the contention that it is valid because it CAN’T be tested, and must simply be accepted due to some personal revelation, then you ask us to accept foolishness as fact.  But this is the very reason that Believers of all stripes trot out to reject any Faith other than their own – all of the OTHER ones are foolishness, just not their own.  Rather egomaniacal and quite fatuous, as both a point of view and a set of reasons.  A point of view that assumes itself as a constant isn’t really to be taken seriously.
> 
> The question remains very simple: How Do YOU Know?
> 
> Anybody?



Read the instruction manual.


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> Anybody?
> 
> Bueller?
> 
> One more time – How Do YOU Know?
> 
> See, WE know through the long, slow, frustrating process of trial and error known as the empirical method.  We dream up a contention, then devise a series of tests that might falsify that contention, and embark on an often decades-long and sometimes centuries-long journey though the complexities of things to see if what WE thought might be right actually IS right.  We document every step, every success and failure, and build a base of empirical results that end up, for anyone who wishes to learn, being that dreaded education thing.  Nobody ever woke up one morning with a sudden revelation – “Hey Look!  There’s a Uranium Atom! Now I can make a power plant!”
> 
> As a result, before anyone responsible reports that they can take some basic raw materials and some intelligent ingenuity and endless years of hard work and use them to build a railroad, put up streetlights, or cure Polio, they have something a bit more rigorously applied than a revelation to back up the claim.
> 
> Since ya’ll are using our railroads, powering up your PCs, and presumably don’t suffer from Polio, we feel it is fair to ask for a bit of quid pro quo from your camp.  If you want to keep putting forward this god of yours, and want to continue to speak for this imaginary being – telling us all the while what this god wants and thinks and desires and indeed demands of us – then we feel it is fair to ask of your own rigor, and your own methods, in reaching such sweeping and life-altering conclusions.
> 
> You wouldn’t allow so much as a hunk of meat to be sold in your own supermarket without an FDA inspection stamp and a local Health Department approval posted for your comfort.  What makes you think we ought to swallow odd philosophical malarkey designed to dictate our very life trajectory without an independent third party testing?  We simply ask how it is that you KNOW that what you claim is true.
> 
> This isn’t a difficult question, if you are right.  When you ask US these questions, we have answers.  If your contentions and promised outcomes are tested, verified, independently reviewed, and can be verifiably duplicated by disinterested third parties (as ours must be, at YOUR  demand), then you have yourselves an established truth.  If not, you have a massive fraud, prosecutable as little more than organized crime.
> 
> Any fool can contend something.  Most fools do.  Show us that it is true, and then you’ve got something to stand on.  Until then – sorry – No Sale.  Believe away – but leave the rest of us be, huh?  Your tax-exempt status may hinge on your answer.
> 
> When the fine point that is put on Belief and Faith has been reduced to the contention that it is valid because it CAN’T be tested, and must simply be accepted due to some personal revelation, then you ask us to accept foolishness as fact.  But this is the very reason that Believers of all stripes trot out to reject any Faith other than their own – all of the OTHER ones are foolishness, just not their own.  Rather egomaniacal and quite fatuous, as both a point of view and a set of reasons.  A point of view that assumes itself as a constant isn’t really to be taken seriously.
> 
> The question remains very simple: How Do YOU Know?
> 
> Anybody?



You know what cracks me up about your posts Asath? It is funny to me how you are the self appointed rule maker and validity judger of all others that post here. Wielding that power in the name of logic and common sense must be a huge responsibility.

How about a big "NO SALE" for your latest post. I ain't buying.


----------



## ted_BSR

Artfuldodger said:


> People tell you it doesn't matter what denomination you are. But then they tell you, you must believe Jesus is God, you've got to be Baptised with certain words, you don't have to quit sinning, you have to follow the commandments, you must believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, Election, free will , and on and on and on.
> I'm believe Jesus died for my sins and by the grace of God, I was saved. I believe I have to use my free will to try and live a Christian life. I believe I have to repent and ask for forgiveness. I believe I can toss it all away tomorrow. This is where I differ from other Christians.



You can toss it, but God won't toss you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ted_BSR said:


> You can toss it, but God won't toss you.



Agreed, the Prodigal Son parable comes to mind.


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> You know what cracks me up about your posts Asath? It is funny to me how you are the self appointed rule maker and validity judger of all others that post here. Wielding that power in the name of logic and common sense must be a huge responsibility.
> 
> How about a big "NO SALE" for your latest post. I ain't buying.



Ok. You make the rules.  How do we test if something someone says is true?


----------



## Four

ted_BSR said:


> Read the instruction manual.





			
				Ezekiel 23:19-21 said:
			
		

> Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.



I don't get it.


----------



## bullethead

Classic!!! lololol


----------



## Thanatos

Asath said:


> Anybody?
> 
> Bueller?
> 
> One more time – How Do YOU Know?
> 
> See, WE know through the long, slow, frustrating process of trial and error known as the empirical method.  We dream up a contention, then devise a series of tests that might falsify that contention, and embark on an often decades-long and sometimes centuries-long journey though the complexities of things to see if what WE thought might be right actually IS right.  We document every step, every success and failure, and build a base of empirical results that end up, for anyone who wishes to learn, being that dreaded education thing.  Nobody ever woke up one morning with a sudden revelation – “Hey Look!  There’s a Uranium Atom! Now I can make a power plant!”
> 
> As a result, before anyone responsible reports that they can take some basic raw materials and some intelligent ingenuity and endless years of hard work and use them to build a railroad, put up streetlights, or cure Polio, they have something a bit more rigorously applied than a revelation to back up the claim.
> 
> Since ya’ll are using our railroads, powering up your PCs, and presumably don’t suffer from Polio, we feel it is fair to ask for a bit of quid pro quo from your camp.  If you want to keep putting forward this god of yours, and want to continue to speak for this imaginary being – telling us all the while what this god wants and thinks and desires and indeed demands of us – then we feel it is fair to ask of your own rigor, and your own methods, in reaching such sweeping and life-altering conclusions.
> 
> You wouldn’t allow so much as a hunk of meat to be sold in your own supermarket without an FDA inspection stamp and a local Health Department approval posted for your comfort.  What makes you think we ought to swallow odd philosophical malarkey designed to dictate our very life trajectory without an independent third party testing?  We simply ask how it is that you KNOW that what you claim is true.
> 
> This isn’t a difficult question, if you are right.  When you ask US these questions, we have answers.  If your contentions and promised outcomes are tested, verified, independently reviewed, and can be verifiably duplicated by disinterested third parties (as ours must be, at YOUR  demand), then you have yourselves an established truth.  If not, you have a massive fraud, prosecutable as little more than organized crime.
> 
> Any fool can contend something.  Most fools do.  Show us that it is true, and then you’ve got something to stand on.  Until then – sorry – No Sale.  Believe away – but leave the rest of us be, huh?  Your tax-exempt status may hinge on your answer.
> 
> When the fine point that is put on Belief and Faith has been reduced to the contention that it is valid because it CAN’T be tested, and must simply be accepted due to some personal revelation, then you ask us to accept foolishness as fact.  But this is the very reason that Believers of all stripes trot out to reject any Faith other than their own – all of the OTHER ones are foolishness, just not their own.  Rather egomaniacal and quite fatuous, as both a point of view and a set of reasons.  A point of view that assumes itself as a constant isn’t really to be taken seriously.
> 
> The question remains very simple: How Do YOU Know?
> 
> Anybody?



We do not know the same way you do not know. It's as simple as we have faith in God and you have faith he does not exist. Simple. Simple. Simple.

We see intent in our creation and you see that we are here by chance even though that means you have to violate scientific principles you hold so dear. Read the Faith in Randomness thread to see what the probabilities are that even after our good luck cosmically we had insurmountable odds to overcome to start the creation of our building blocks of life naturalistically.


----------



## Thanatos

Four said:


> I don't get it.



That's like turning to page 453 of a quantum physics book and reading a theorem and telling someone I don't get it...of course you don't.

Contextomy much?


----------



## ambush80

Thanatos said:


> We do not know the same way you do not know. It's as simple as we have faith in God and you have faith he does not exist. Simple. Simple. Simple.
> 
> We see intent in our creation and you see that we are here by chance even though that means you have to violate scientific principles you hold so dear. Read the Faith in Randomness thread to see what the probabilities are that even after our good luck cosmically we had insurmountable odds to overcome to start the creation of our building blocks of life naturalistically.



You believe. You KNOW we are wrong.  Shame on you.

Tell you what, I'll admit I could be wrong about the God of Abraham if you do the same.  Fair enough?


----------



## Thanatos

ambush80 said:


> You believe. You KNOW we are wrong.  Shame on you.
> 
> Tell you what, I'll admit I could be wrong about the God of Abraham if you do the same.  Fair enough?



I did admit that at one time. I did my due diligence and it lead me to believe that Christ is God. One and only. 

I KNOW that I want you guys to believe too. I do not want you to be wrong. I want you to be right with me


----------



## ambush80

Thanatos said:


> I did admit that at one time. I did my due diligence and it lead me to believe that Christ is God. One and only.
> 
> I KNOW that I want you guys to believe too. I do not want you to be wrong. I want you to be right with me




..Due diligence......Do you even know what that means?  What convinced you?  Miracles? Voices?  No longer wanted to look at free porn?  The warmest fuzzy of all time?  Can I get a witness?  PROOF, BABY!  That's all I want.  Falsifiable, testable, incontrovertible proof.


----------



## Thanatos

ambush80 said:


> ..Due diligence......Do you even know what that means?  What convinced you?  Miracles? Voices?  No longer wanted to look at free porn?  The warmest fuzzy of all time?  Can I get a witness?  PROOF, BABY!  That's all I want.  Falsifiable, testable, incontrovertible proof.



Main Entry: due diligence
Function: noun
Date: 1903
1 : the care that a reasonable person exercises under the circumstances to avoid harm to other persons or their property

Do you know what it means? 

It did all those things for me and more. The most important thing it did for me was kill my prideful, selfish being and make me love people in a way I could not before. I've said before that I plan on posting the material that i saw as evidence that lead me to Christ. Is it incontrovertible? No. Is it common sense and easy to have faith in. Yes! The last thing I'm going to do is post parts of that on here when I have not got all the information in a easily discernible, organized post  that you can pick apart. All of it together makes belief in Christ simple. Will it change your mind? Maybe not, but I want to at least put he seed there and make it a possibility that you will consider as time goes on before it is to late...


----------



## TripleXBullies

You and Ted have been especially preachy lately. Is the end near?


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> Ok. You make the rules.  How do we test if something someone says is true?



I would not presume to do so.


----------



## ted_BSR

TripleXBullies said:


> You and Ted have been especially preachy lately. Is the end near?



That's funny XXX!


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> I would not presume to do so.




Well, you don't want to use the standards that everyone else can agree to so here is your opportunity to explain how you determine truth; your own personal method.  


Throw it out there for "peer review".


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Well, you don't want to use the standards that everyone else can agree to so here is your opportunity to explain how you determine truth; your own personal method.



I tried to imagine a circumstance where a rock would evolve into a child.   I couldn't.


----------



## Asath

Main Entry: due diligence.
Source: Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged).
Result:  No entry.

Legal Usage: A term denoting the primary responsibility of any claimant to have thoroughly and exhaustively researched all aspects of the claim made, including evidence which may prejudice that claim, prior to assertion.

Casual Usage:  ‘Saw it in Reader’s Digest. Good enough for me.’

But wait.  “We do not know the same way you do not know.”   But, we DO know, you see, those things that WE assert to be facts.  If this is a roundabout way of saying that we do not know the unknown, then I suppose that is as factual as things can be said.

“ . . . you see that we are here by chance even though that means you have to violate scientific principles you hold so dear.”   Um, huh?  You oversimplify, since there is hardly anything random about chance (otherwise one would not be able to ‘calculate’ odds, eh?) – and ALL science points to just exactly the long series of happy and unhappy accidents that caused the world as we currently know it.  You’re here because this is where you are, and soon enough, in cosmic terms, this world and the universe around it will have continued on with the business of just being itself (you don’t think it STOPPED evolving and changing just because someone wrote a Holy Book once, right?), and we’ll be phased out and changed into the next thing.  If intelligent life continues (indeed, if it ever existed at all) it is a sure thing that in 10,000 years those rather more evolved beings will resemble us somewhat, but will view us much as we now view the Neanderthals.

Perhaps the most pernicious and self-deluded portion of any ‘Creation’ scenario is the egotism involved, as well as the assumption that man, the universe, and thus the world, is a static ‘creation’ – outside of time, outside of natural processes, and is simply ‘managed’ by some outside force that hands out lives, deaths, hurricanes, diseases, and the like according to some undisclosed whim.  

“It's as simple as we have faith in God and you have faith he does not exist.”   First, I have no such ‘Faith’ in either regard.  Faith does not enter into a dialogue with science – something either is (proven), is possible or probable (under active investigation), or is not (ruled out by exhaustive testing).  Second, ‘Faith’ is not an explanation for knowledge.  

If you ‘Know’ of the invisible forces you describe, in detail sufficient to assign them the actions, motivations, and desires that are attributed to them, and indeed can actually assign Words that they have actually Spoken, then we simply ask, yet one more time – HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

Simple.  Simple. Simple. 

“I tried to imagine a circumstance where a rock would evolve into a child. I couldn't.”  You’re just looking at it backwards – The oil that you pour into your crankcase is simply the ‘evolved’ child of billions of ‘children’ – the offspring of several billion years of plant and animal life, compressed into motor oil.  A child can ‘evolve’ into a rock, or a blob of oil, or simple fertilizer from which another type of life will rise, since the individual life is fleeting, but the planetary processes are mercilessly and unyieldingly moving along their path, undeterred by anyone’s Word on the matter.

If your entire education leads only to the conclusion that a rock cannot become a child, then by all means go with that.  Pardon us if we get on with it, just the same . . .


----------



## bullethead

Asath said:


> Main Entry: due diligence.
> Source: Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged).
> Result:  No entry.
> 
> Legal Usage: A term denoting the primary responsibility of any claimant to have thoroughly and exhaustively researched all aspects of the claim made, including evidence which may prejudice that claim, prior to assertion.
> 
> Casual Usage:  ‘Saw it in Reader’s Digest. Good enough for me.’
> 
> But wait.  “We do not know the same way you do not know.”   But, we DO know, you see, those things that WE assert to be facts.  If this is a roundabout way of saying that we do not know the unknown, then I suppose that is as factual as things can be said.
> 
> “ . . . you see that we are here by chance even though that means you have to violate scientific principles you hold so dear.”   Um, huh?  You oversimplify, since there is hardly anything random about chance (otherwise one would not be able to ‘calculate’ odds, eh?) – and ALL science points to just exactly the long series of happy and unhappy accidents that caused the world as we currently know it.  You’re here because this is where you are, and soon enough, in cosmic terms, this world and the universe around it will have continued on with the business of just being itself (you don’t think it STOPPED evolving and changing just because someone wrote a Holy Book once, right?), and we’ll be phased out and changed into the next thing.  If intelligent life continues (indeed, if it ever existed at all) it is a sure thing that in 10,000 years those rather more evolved beings will resemble us somewhat, but will view us much as we now view the Neanderthals.
> 
> Perhaps the most pernicious and self-deluded portion of any ‘Creation’ scenario is the egotism involved, as well as the assumption that man, the universe, and thus the world, is a static ‘creation’ – outside of time, outside of natural processes, and is simply ‘managed’ by some outside force that hands out lives, deaths, hurricanes, diseases, and the like according to some undisclosed whim.
> 
> “It's as simple as we have faith in God and you have faith he does not exist.”   First, I have no such ‘Faith’ in either regard.  Faith does not enter into a dialogue with science – something either is (proven), is possible or probable (under active investigation), or is not (ruled out by exhaustive testing).  Second, ‘Faith’ is not an explanation for knowledge.
> 
> If you ‘Know’ of the invisible forces you describe, in detail sufficient to assign them the actions, motivations, and desires that are attributed to them, and indeed can actually assign Words that they have actually Spoken, then we simply ask, yet one more time – HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?
> 
> Simple.  Simple. Simple.
> 
> “I tried to imagine a circumstance where a rock would evolve into a child. I couldn't.”  You’re just looking at it backwards – The oil that you pour into your crankcase is simply the ‘evolved’ child of billions of ‘children’ – the offspring of several billion years of plant and animal life, compressed into motor oil.  A child can ‘evolve’ into a rock, or a blob of oil, or simple fertilizer from which another type of life will rise, since the individual life is fleeting, but the planetary processes are mercilessly and unyieldingly moving along their path, undeterred by anyone’s Word on the matter.
> 
> If your entire education leads only to the conclusion that a rock cannot become a child, then by all means go with that.  Pardon us if we get on with it, just the same . . .



Good Stuff


----------



## JB0704

Asath said:


> “I tried to imagine a circumstance where a rock would evolve into a child. I couldn't.”  You’re just looking at it backwards – The oil that you pour into your crankcase is simply the ‘evolved’ child of billions of ‘children’ – the offspring of several billion years of plant and animal life, compressed into motor oil.  A child can ‘evolve’ into a rock, or a blob of oil, or simple fertilizer from which another type of life will rise, since the individual life is fleeting, but the planetary processes are mercilessly and unyieldingly moving along their path, undeterred by anyone’s Word on the matter.



YEs....but you are trapped by your own logic here.....we see a definite beginning to our planet, from where the oil comes.  So, the cycle has a beginning......with a rock?  Or a child?  You say rock, I say neither.  



Asath said:


> If your entire education leads only to the conclusion that a rock cannot become a child, then by all means go with that.  Pardon us if we get on with it, just the same . . .



Yes, that's what my education concludes.  I welcome you to prove otherwise.

Please, form a child from a rock, or, build a model in a labratory which is testable, and proveable.....then, you will have my full attention. 

(Please don't resort to posting theoretical models or videos on abiogenesis which are not testable or proveable.....or I swear I'll come back with Bible verses   )


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> YEs....but you are trapped by your own logic here.....we see a definite beginning to our planet, from where the oil comes.  So, the cycle has a beginning......with a rock?  Or a child?  You say rock, I say neither.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what my education concludes.  I welcome you to prove otherwise.
> 
> Please, form a child from a rock, or, build a model in a labratory which is testable, and proveable.....then, you will have my full attention.
> 
> (Please don't resort to posting theoretical models or videos on abiogenesis which are not testable or proveable.....or I swear I'll come back with Bible verses   )



You know what I love? Is when creationist say: "Take a bucket with some RNA and some goo and shake it up and see if you get a cell".


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> You know what I love? Is when creationist say: "Take a bucket with some RNA and some goo and shake it up and see if you get a cell".



Yes. And I always enjoy an atheist answering "I don't know but god's not it."


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> (Please don't resort to posting theoretical models or videos on abiogenesis which are not testable or proveable.....or I swear I'll come back with Bible verses   )


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> You know what I love? Is when creationist say: "Take a bucket with some RNA and some goo and shake it up and see if you get a cell".



You know what I love? When naturalists say:"take an imaginably gigantic bucket with some RNA and goo and shake it up and that's how we are standing here talking right now"


----------



## Asath

You know what I love?  When folks proudly wave their ignorance as a flag of triumph and ‘challenge’ folks to provide them with eighteen years of education in a few paragraphs, since that is the limit of their attention span.


----------



## gemcgrew

Asath said:


> You know what I love?  When folks proudly wave their ignorance as a flag of triumph and ‘challenge’ folks to provide them with eighteen years of education in a few paragraphs, since that is the limit of their attention span.


You know what I love? 

Vitriol!


----------



## JB0704

Asath said:


> You know what I love?  When folks proudly wave their ignorance as a flag of triumph and ‘challenge’ folks to provide them with eighteen years of education in a few paragraphs, since that is the limit of their attention span.



I see, I am ignorant because I do not agree with you? In the words if every one of you guys (who I like and have never insulted) "where's the proof?"

Otherwise, please refrain from telling me you don't have an answer aside from mine being wrong.  My 18 years of education didn't lead me where yours did......not sure that means I'm ignorant.

Besides asath, when have you ever been limited to a few paragraphs?


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> You know what I love?
> 
> Vitriol!


----------



## Artfuldodger

What is the connection between knowledge and the truth? What about plain old wisdom from living a long life and watching & listening to people & animals? What about knowledge gained from experience vs book learning.
Europeans  thought the natives here in America were ignorant.
I guess ignorance & education is a pretty broad spectrum. 
We did have a discussion earlier how education can influence your religion or lack there of.

(And I said that without using a caustic verbal attack)


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> Well, you don't want to use the standards that everyone else can agree to so here is your opportunity to explain how you determine truth; your own personal method.
> 
> 
> Throw it out there for "peer review".



That would be like a conservative discussing politics with a liberal (I am not categorizing anyone in particular, just an example).

When fundamental ideas about the way things are, or should be, are so far removed from each other, it is kind of pointless.


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> You know what I love?  When folks proudly wave their ignorance as a flag of triumph and ‘challenge’ folks to provide them with eighteen years of education in a few paragraphs, since that is the limit of their attention span.



More eloquently disguised venom. At least it was short!


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> That would be like a conservative discussing politics with a liberal (I am not categorizing anyone in particular, just an example).
> 
> When fundamental ideas about the way things are, or should be, are so far removed from each other, it is kind of pointless.



It's not pointless unless one side wants to use their own special 'math' or methods of gathering data/evidence.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> It's not pointless unless one side wants to use their own special 'math' or methods of gathering data/evidence.



Hey ambush, I thought about you in the book store tonight, if there is one book I think you should own, this is it......


----------



## ted_BSR

ambush80 said:


> It's not pointless unless one side wants to use their own special 'math' or methods of gathering data/evidence.



You just described this forum.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Balaam, a Gentile prophet. Was he evil? Evil prophets seem to appear in our posts lately. Another prophet who wanted to preach stuff God told him not to. Pretty common  problem with Old Testament Prophets. They must have had Free Will. God promises to kill them, thinks about killing them, or kills them. Prophets are Christians. Weird that God would do such terrible things to Christians. Gentile prophets, Jewish prophets, and Jewish prophets ordained to preach to Gentiles. Why in the world would a prophet of all people go against God? The donkey is the only reason the angel did not kill Balaam. That is more important than a talking donkey. We've already had a talking bush , why would a talking donkey be a problem for God? Don't forget the talking snake.
How do we know that these talking plants and animals used their vocal chords? That appears to be the problem with doubters.  Are you so simple as to not understand communicating without vocal communication?


----------



## bullethead

Anything is possible when Gods are involved. Is anyone so simple to think 'their" God has got the market cornered on creation, miracles, talking animals and bushes, floods, holy books???


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Anything is possible when Gods are involved.



Look at it the other way, Bullet, you(pl) are trying to say anything is possible without a God involved.  Everything would have to be.  Life springing from death, all of it happened, that we all know and can agree on.  We just disagree on why it happened.

I think a man resurected, and you(pl) think a rock did.


----------



## mtnwoman

TripleXBullies said:


> You and Ted have been especially preachy lately. Is the end near?



Yes, the end is near....want 'em to preach faster


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> Anything is possible when Gods are involved. Is anyone so simple to think 'their" God has got the market cornered on creation, miracles, talking animals and bushes, floods, holy books???



Anything is possible when scientists are involved? I believe that to be true. Would you have ever believed that 'mold' could be turned into an antibiotic if you didn't know it to be true? Mold has always been around though.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Look at it the other way, Bullet, you(pl) are trying to say anything is possible without a God involved.  Everything would have to be.  Life springing from death, all of it happened, that we all know and can agree on.  We just disagree on why it happened.
> 
> I think a man resurected, and you(pl) think a rock did.



Actually no I (sing) am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that things are what they are and as a species the more we advance the more we seem to understand the hows,whos and whys. We have not figured everything out but there is really no evidence that some sort of supreme being did any of it, let alone one specific supreme being. Many things that were once thought to be the result of a God has found out to be not so, as has many of the things credited to God's in holy books written by mankind. Many of it is just plain untrue. Having de-bunked many of these claims we are still left with quite a few things that we just have not been able to figure out so the pro=religious and (insert specific God here) worshipers just shift their attention to these things because there really is no way to disprove someone's imagination. The same types of people throughout history have clung on to these excuses and when advancements in science and technology prove them wrong they just shift their unprovable, nonfactual, non-evidence claims to something else. There is nothing that points to any intelligence, nothing that points to a deity, and certainly nothing that points to a loving and caring being having a hand in anything. The evidence against is overwhelming and the evidence for just simply does not exist except for in an individuals mind. THE difference is some people are fine with saying "we just don't know" and allow advancements in knowledge to guide our beliefs and trust that the gaps will be figured out eventually instead of inserting some sort of make believe imaginary vision of what they WANT it or NEED it to be in order to fill in the gaps.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> Anything is possible when scientists are involved? I believe that to be true. Would you have ever believed that 'mold' could be turned into an antibiotic if you didn't know it to be true? Mold has always been around though.



When was mold "born" or created? What is it's origins? I'm interested in learning something today.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> When was mold "born" or created? What is it's origins? I'm interested in learning something today.



It was created when water was created. It was a problem in homes until a scientist discovered 'bleach'. Obviously it was created for at least one thing we know of, antibiotics. Funny how all things work together for our good.

noun 
1. a growth of minute fungi forming on vegetable or animal matter, commonly as a downy or furry coating, and associated with decay or dampness. 
2. any of the fungi that produce such a growth. 
verb (used with object), verb (used without object) 
3. to become or cause to become overgrown or covered with mold.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> It was created when water was created. It was a problem in homes until a scientist discovered 'bleach'. Obviously it was created for at least one thing we know of, antibiotics. Funny how all things work together for our good.
> 
> noun
> 1. a growth of minute fungi forming on vegetable or animal matter, commonly as a downy or furry coating, and associated with decay or dampness.
> 2. any of the fungi that produce such a growth.
> verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
> 3. to become or cause to become overgrown or covered with mold.



When was water created? Did mold serve any purpose other than being created for our use? Is mold 6000 years old or billions of years old?
I have lots of questions for you.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Actually no I (sing) am not saying that at all.



I was trying to make sure you knew the comment wasn't specifically at you only. From what I gather, I think you are borderline agnostic?



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that things are what they are and as a species the more we advance the more we seem to understand the hows,whos and whys. We have not figured everything out but there is really no evidence that some sort of supreme being did any of it, let alone one specific supreme being. Many things that were once thought to be the result of a God has found out to be not so, as has many of the things credited to God's in holy books written by mankind. Many of it is just plain untrue. Having de-bunked many of these claims we are still left with quite a few things that we just have not been able to figure out so the pro=religious and (insert specific God here) worshipers just shift their attention to these things because there really is no way to disprove someone's imagination. The same types of people throughout history have clung on to these excuses and when advancements in science and technology prove them wrong they just shift their unprovable, nonfactual, non-evidence claims to something else. There is nothing that points to any intelligence, nothing that points to a deity, and certainly nothing that points to a loving and caring being having a hand in anything. The evidence against is overwhelming and the evidence for just simply does not exist except for in an individuals mind. THE difference is some people are fine with saying "we just don't know" and allow advancements in knowledge to guide our beliefs and trust that the gaps will be figured out eventually instead of inserting some sort of make believe imaginary vision of what they WANT it or NEED it to be in order to fill in the gaps.



Ok.  But, is there a difference between that mindset and a Christian saying "his ways are not our ways, and we'll know all about it in heaven?"

The truth is, I believe agnosticism is about the most 'intellectually pure' position one can hold. However, that is not my primary goal.  I can't conclude through logic or any other means that life is possible without a 'spark.'  There are as many theories on the subject as there are religions. But, until somebody animates dead matter, it is just speculation.

For me, I want to make sense of it all, and that outweighs my desire for purity. I can accomplish both, however by believing the most logical conclusion is God, and sticking to that until proven otherwise.  I am "intellectially honest" in that I truly believe God exists.  I am also honest enough to tell you I can't prove it 100%, but this is the system I am comfortable in.

Forget religion, and institutions and dogma for a second. Is the world a better place if God, as articulated in the nt, is real?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> When was water created? Did mold serve any purpose other than being created for our use? Is mold 6000 years old or billions of years old?
> I have lots of questions for you.



Mold is probably as old as life is.  But I wonder why the food chain evolved like it did. With chance guiding the system, it seems very fragile. One genetic twist could have stopped everything....mold and dinosaurs, and Jimmy Carter.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Forget religion, and institutions and dogma for a second. Is the world a better place if God, as articulated in the nt, is real?



The world is no better or no worse with that God, nor any other other of the thousands of Gods. The world got along fine believing they were "real" for thousands of years too.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Mold is probably as old as life is.  But I wonder why the food chain evolved like it did. With chance guiding the system, it seems very fragile. One genetic twist could have stopped everything....mold and dinosaurs, and Jimmy Carter.



I know about mold. I like to hear others facts sometimes. 

Survival of the fittest including and especially the food chain.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> When was water created? Did mold serve any purpose other than being created for our use? Is mold 6000 years old or billions of years old?
> I have lots of questions for you.



Well I don't have the answers...I suspect you do though. Remember I believe by faith and don't care why, when, how, or where. If scientists have all the answers, then you should be telling me, shouldn't you, if your faith is only in science? 

And I'm not trying to be a sa. I'm just saying. I don't know because I don't need that info for any reason.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> I know about mold. I like to hear others facts sometimes.



My point I guess, is mold good for something or not? And if it is, then everything, including nasty old mold, turns out to be for our benefit and that's what scriptures tells us, and that's why I believe it, because even mold has a good purpose for us, even though for many years, no one 'believed' it to be a fact.  A scientist proved it to be so.  It's hard for me to to seperate God and science...I could never pick one or the other, because I believe they work together for our good.

Hope that makes sense..just got home from work...lol.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> The world is no better or no worse with that God, nor any other other of the thousands of Gods. The world got along fine believing they were "real" for thousands of years too.



Is that a proven fact or just your opinion/belief? As you told me, belief doesn't make it a fact.  Who can prove the world is no better off without the God of Abraham? I just don't think any one knows that for a fact.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> Is that a proven fact or just your opinion/belief? As you told me, belief doesn't make it a fact.  Who can prove the world is no better off without the God of Abraham? I just don't think any one knows that for a fact.



The same can be said about any and every other God. Since no can prove these gods even exist then I have to conclude the world is what it is without them.

That God of Abraham has at least 3 religions dedicated to him. Lots  of "facts" those worshipers can't agree on.


----------



## ambush80

mtnwoman said:


> Well I don't have the answers...I suspect you do though. Remember I believe by faith and don't care why, when, how, or where. If scientists have all the answers, then you should be telling me, shouldn't you, if your faith is only in science?
> 
> And I'm not trying to be a sa. I'm just saying. I don't know because I don't need that info for any reason.



'Nuff Said.


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> 'Nuff Said.



I'm glad you agree with me for once. lol

What good do you think knowing that info would benefit me OR you? Do you need all the info on mold other than how it benefits or hurts us? Especially if you can say bleach to clean it or penicillin to help you? You really need all that other info, like when? If so, then perhaps you can answer Mr Bullets questions, eh? Please tell me mold isn't something you dwell on. lol


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> The same can be said about any and every other God. Since no can prove these gods even exist then I have to conclude the world is what it is without them.
> 
> That God of Abraham has at least 3 religions dedicated to him. Lots  of "facts" those worshipers can't agree on.



I totally agree. 

If all scientists could agree wouldn't more than a few have discovered vaccines, electronics, telephonese, boeing airplanes, fossil fuels, etc etc? I don't mean a few have discovered things, I mean only a few in each catagory researched...one for polio, one for antibiotics, and so on.

How many (more than 3?) scientists are trying to find a cure for cancer? for diabetes? do they all agree? Tell me the difference in what you 'trust/believe' in, than what I 'trust/believe' in? There is none that I can see. That's my point. If all scientists agreed would they have discovered the things they have discovered?  If all Christians agreed then who would've researched and came up with the 'right answer'? I'm sure I don't have all the right answers, just like all scientists don't have all the answers...yet we all have hope that we can seek until we find the right answers rather than naysaying each other constantly.


----------



## Asath

It goes like this:

“I just made contact with the Martians!  You guys can’t see them, because you have to believe and have faith, then you’ll see them too!”

“Um, sorry, there aren’t any Martians.”

“Oh Yeah? Then tell me how the human brain works, smart guy!”

“Um, huh?”

Lacking an answer, it is always a good strategy to start a brushfire as a distraction, but I’m afraid that doesn’t cut it here --  we’re no closer to an answer – If you ‘believe’ in the ‘Word of God,’ then you MUST have some proof that some god or another actually said something at some point – HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

I realize that it sounds kinda silly to admit, ‘Well, um, someone once read it to me out of a Book they had handy, and I took their word for it . . . ,‘   but that really IS the case, isn’t it?


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> If all scientists could agree wouldn't more than a few have discovered vaccines, electronics, telephonese, boeing airplanes, fossil fuels, etc etc? I don't mean a few have discovered things, I mean only a few in each catagory researched...one for polio, one for antibiotics, and so on.
> 
> How many (more than 3?) scientists are trying to find a cure for cancer? for diabetes? do they all agree? Tell me the difference in what you 'trust/believe' in, than what I 'trust/believe' in? There is none that I can see. That's my point. If all scientists agreed would they have discovered the things they have discovered?  If all Christians agreed then who would've researched and came up with the 'right answer'? I'm sure I don't have all the right answers, just like all scientists don't have all the answers...yet we all have hope that we can seek until we find the right answers rather than naysaying each other constantly.



Scientists are real


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> Scientists are real



I agree. Some bigger and better than others. Not ALL can prove their theories though.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"...which indicates to me there are other gods, too. 

I don't doubt either.


----------



## mtnwoman

Asath said:


> It goes like this:
> 
> “I just made contact with the Martians!  You guys can’t see them, because you have to believe and have faith, then you’ll see them too!”
> 
> “Um, sorry, there aren’t any Martians.”
> 
> “Oh Yeah? Then tell me how the human brain works, smart guy!”
> 
> “Um, huh?”
> 
> Lacking an answer, it is always a good strategy to start a brushfire as a distraction, but I’m afraid that doesn’t cut it here --  we’re no closer to an answer – If you ‘believe’ in the ‘Word of God,’ then you MUST have some proof that some god or another actually said something at some point – HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?
> 
> I realize that it sounds kinda silly to admit, ‘Well, um, someone once read it to me out of a Book they had handy, and I took their word for it . . . ,‘   but that really IS the case, isn’t it?



I'm sure many scientists felt the same way until they could prove their theory to be correct. How many people made fun of the Wright Bros, or Alexander Graham Bell...you think everyone believed them? I don't....course that's just my opinion.

And as a matter of fact, I believe in aliens, maybe not martians, but I believe  there is life elsewhere. Do I have proof, no, not anymore than anyone else...but I still believe it's possible. Many so called impossible things have been proven to be fact.  I'm not so narrow minded that I can't believe that someone else's imagination cannot be true. However my goal in life is not to prove that one opinion or another, whether I agree or not at this point and time, that they are dead wrong. Because I personally, don't know and can't prove it.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> I'm sure many scientists felt the same way until they could prove their theory to be correct. How many people made fun of the Wright Bros, or Alexander Graham Bell...you think everyone believed them? I don't....course that's just my opinion.
> 
> And as a matter of fact, I believe in aliens, maybe not martians, but I believe  there is life elsewhere. Do I have proof, no, not anymore than anyone else...but I still believe it's possible. Many so called impossible things have been proven to be fact.  I'm not so narrow minded that I can't believe that someone else's imagination cannot be true. However my goal in life is not to prove that one opinion or another, whether I agree or not at this point and time, that they are dead wrong. Because I personally, don't know and can't prove it.



I am quite certain your understanding of scientific theory differs from it's true meaning.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> I am quite certain your understanding of scientific theory differs from it's true meaning.



What do you mean?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I know about mold. I like to hear others facts sometimes.
> 
> Survival of the fittest including and especially the food chain.



I get survival of the fittest.  I understand evolution to some degree.  I don't see how it works with the food chain.

Algae eat something, something eats algae.  Algae evolve to not get eaten, the thing that eats algae evolves to be better at eating algae.....and so on.  After millions of years, it seems somebody would win.  Or, one wrong mutation would occur and the algae die, then the thing that eats the algae also dies.  It goes on and on, and the possibilities are endless.

I find it hard to believe that this planet is the laboratory of chance, where our circumstances happened to work.  Why can't life happen on Mars, or Pluto? What makes natural laws, natural laws?  Couldn't everything be nothing?  Couldn't life be just as likely to spring up in ice, or fire?  To assume otheriwse is putting limitations where you otherwise remove them.  So......saying "it wasn't God" requires a little more creativity and certainty in things which are clearly uncertain than I am able to see in the world around me.

That being said, yes, I believe in evolution to a certain extent.  I do not believe it is totally chance, nor do I beieve it is the product of water, rocks, electricity, and fatty acids interacting together until somebody was alive.  That would require too much faith in nothing


----------



## Asath

“I don't see how it works with the food chain. . . . After millions of years, it seems somebody would win.”

Unfortunately, after billions of years, nobody has actually ‘won.’  What we call the food chain isn’t something linear, that progresses from top to bottom – it is sort of a circular progression, and each organism, plant, and animal (including us) has advanced and progressed and become more or less complex in relation to circumstance and sustenance and speed of reproduction.  Circular doesn’t even really describe it, since the largest of whales survive on massive quantities of plankton – the plankton survive by multiplying so fast that no matter how much the whales eat they stay ahead of it, since the whales multiply so slowly.  In evolutionary terms, the plankton sacrificed complexity for speed of reproduction, and the whales sacrificed sheer numbers for a slower developmental process that resulted in greater complexity.  

Who ‘wins’?  Nobody.  The goal of all living things, on a fundamental level, is self-replication.  As conditions slowly change, each organism reacts according to circumstance, slowly changing and adapting, or not (extinction).  Also unfortunately, the natural history of the planet, honestly rendered, reveals that extinction is the eventual outcome no matter what, and there are very, very few examples of plants, animals, or even bacteria that have survived intact for very long in planetary terms.  Adapt, change, and evolve or be phased out – this is the only rule of nature.

“I find it hard to believe that this planet is the laboratory of chance, where our circumstances happened to work. Why can't life happen on Mars, or Pluto?”

Hard to believe?  Probably.  But the truth just the same.  Life may well have arisen on Mars at some point, and we’re actively looking to see if that was the case.  We’ve found living microbes on this planet under conditions we once thought impossible, so it is not so outlandish to think that some form of living thing might yet be found on Mars, despite the atmosphere that was once there having been largely dissipated.  But if even the slightest evidence of organized cellular life on Mars, now or in the past, is found, doesn’t this toss all of Creation theory into a hat?  The merest speculation of life elsewhere in the universe, which is perfectly probable, tosses all of Genesis into the realm of even further excuse-making.  One can’t have both, no matter how far one stretches the superstition.

“So......saying "it wasn't God" requires a little more creativity and certainty in things which are clearly uncertain than I am able to see in the world around me.”

Whereas, saying “It WAS God,” requires a gigantic amount of imaginative creativity in the crafting of ever-changing stories, and a huge amount of certainty in the invisible, which is proposed as a certainty just the same, but which cannot be seen at ALL in the world around us.  I’ll take recombinant DNA, electricity, vaccines, radio telescopes, electron microscopes, spectrometers, and satellite communications over the Old Testament stories any day.  ‘And God Said, Let There Be Life.’  C’mon.  That’s just silly.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I get survival of the fittest.  I understand evolution to some degree.  I don't see how it works with the food chain.
> 
> Algae eat something, something eats algae.  Algae evolve to not get eaten, the thing that eats algae evolves to be better at eating algae.....and so on.  After millions of years, it seems somebody would win.  Or, one wrong mutation would occur and the algae die, then the thing that eats the algae also dies.  It goes on and on, and the possibilities are endless.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that this planet is the laboratory of chance, where our circumstances happened to work.  Why can't life happen on Mars, or Pluto? What makes natural laws, natural laws?  Couldn't everything be nothing?  Couldn't life be just as likely to spring up in ice, or fire?  To assume otheriwse is putting limitations where you otherwise remove them.  So......saying "it wasn't God" requires a little more creativity and certainty in things which are clearly uncertain than I am able to see in the world around me.
> 
> That being said, yes, I believe in evolution to a certain extent.  I do not believe it is totally chance, nor do I beieve it is the product of water, rocks, electricity, and fatty acids interacting together until somebody was alive.  That would require too much faith in nothing



90% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is extinct. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of


> I don't see how it works with the food chain.
> Algae eat something, something eats algae.  Algae evolve to not get eaten, the thing that eats algae evolves to be better at eating algae.....and so on.  After millions of years, it seems somebody would win.  Or, one wrong mutation would occur and the algae die, then the thing that eats the algae also dies.  It goes on and on, and the possibilities are endless.


What you see now are the survivors, aka "current forerunners".

Life is in Ice. Life, not as we know it, could very well be on these other planets. What we have on this planet is sustainable to these conditions. As the conditions change so do the species. They either adapt or die.

Saying it wasn't God requires no creativity. Creativity lies in conjuring up an invisible, hands-off, un-provable, excuse to ease the mind of one's mortality.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> 90% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is extinct. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of
> 
> What you see now are the survivors, aka "current forerunners".
> 
> Life is in Ice. Life, not as we know it, could very well be on these other planets. What we have on this planet is sustainable to these conditions. As the conditions change so do the species. They either adapt or die.
> 
> Saying it wasn't God requires no creativity. Creativity lies in conjuring up an invisible, hands-off, un-provable, excuse to ease the mind of one's mortality.



No one has ever seen or heard a god.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> No one has ever seen or heard a god.



Nobody has ever seen or heard life create itself from inanimate material. Yet, you give such a concept more credibility.


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> No one has ever seen or heard a god.



The talking donkey was God's voice. Balaam heard that. Moses heard God's voice. All the people that heard Jesus, heard God's voice. Just because I didn't see someone turn mold into penicillin, I believe it to be true, there is evidence of it. To me there is evidence of God everywhere.

It's just a matter of opinion MrBush.

Why would you expect to see or hear God anyway?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Saying it wasn't God requires no creativity. Creativity lies in conjuring up an invisible, hands-off, un-provable, excuse to ease the mind of one's mortality.



In my best Jeff lebowski voice: "that's just your opinion, man."


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Nobody has ever seen or heard life create itself from inanimate material. Yet, you give such a concept more credibility.



I see random in the "good" and the "bad".  

Credibility comes from evidence.  Where is the evidence of a Designer, an intellect, a consciousness?



mtnwoman said:


> The talking donkey was God's voice. Balaam heard that. Moses heard God's voice. All the people that heard Jesus, heard God's voice. Just because I didn't see someone turn mold into penicillin, I believe it to be true, there is evidence of it. To me there is evidence of God everywhere.
> 
> It's just a matter of opinion MrBush.
> 
> Why would you expect to see or hear God anyway?



...again.  I'm speechless......


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Nobody has ever seen or heard life create itself from inanimate material. Yet, you give such a concept more credibility.



Who said it has? Who is to say that there was not always some sort of animate material always? We only guess about the big bang. We only seem to be able trace our universe back to that point. There may well have been something before that and before that and before that.

Creationists put the something from nothing notion out there. There very well may have always been something.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Who said it has? Who is to say that there was not always some sort of animate material always? We only guess about the big bang. We only seem to be able trace our universe back to that point. There may well have been something before that and before that and before that.
> 
> Creationists put the something from nothing notion out there. There very well may have always been something.



I don't ever seem to get a straight answer to the questions: 

Why a "guy"?  Why must a conscience be involved?  What points to "someone" doing something?  

Is it an extrapolation of the notion that if We can make stuff then there MUST be something greater than us that makes stuff too?  Is that why He acts like us?  

As Four says "The God of triangles has three sides".


----------



## TripleXBullies

Asath said:


> “I don't see how it works with the food chain. . . . After millions of years, it seems somebody would win.”
> 
> Unfortunately, after billions of years, nobody has actually ‘won.’  What we call the food chain isn’t something linear, that progresses from top to bottom – it is sort of a circular progression, and each organism, plant, and animal (including us) has advanced and progressed and become more or less complex in relation to circumstance and sustenance and speed of reproduction.  Circular doesn’t even really describe it, since the largest of whales survive on massive quantities of plankton – the plankton survive by multiplying so fast that no matter how much the whales eat they stay ahead of it, since the whales multiply so slowly.  In evolutionary terms, the plankton sacrificed complexity for speed of reproduction, and the whales sacrificed sheer numbers for a slower developmental process that resulted in greater complexity.
> 
> Who ‘wins’?  Nobody.  The goal of all living things, on a fundamental level, is self-replication.  As conditions slowly change, each organism reacts according to circumstance, slowly changing and adapting, or not (extinction).  Also unfortunately, the natural history of the planet, honestly rendered, reveals that extinction is the eventual outcome no matter what, and there are very, very few examples of plants, animals, or even bacteria that have survived intact for very long in planetary terms.  Adapt, change, and evolve or be phased out – this is the only rule of nature.



I think you and JB are looking at this at a micro level... and that is adaptation. Organisms adapt. An organism doesn't evolve to avoid extinction. A body of similar organisms evolve over time because of their ability to replicate. An organism may have some incredible ability to deal with its environment, but it won't evolve in to anything if it can't replicate. It will die and be gone. Organisms with those favorable traits, maybe just slightly more favorable than the similar organism beside them, will likely end up with a better chance at replicating, passing its traits on. This happens on a macro level with similar more favorable traits until the more favorable traits are more pronounced. I can't think of an organism that can do that by itself it its own lifetime.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I don't ever seem to get a straight answer to the questions:
> 
> Why a "guy"?  Why must a conscience be involved?  What points to "someone" doing something?



God is an entity.  The "guy" part is us putting a face to the name.  So....."entity" is more fitting than "guy."  Mroe accurate to the concept.

"Why" is that it makes a heck of a lot more sense than life being infinite, or life happening just because it did.



ambush80 said:


> Is it an extrapolation of the notion that if We can make stuff then there MUST be something greater than us that makes stuff too?  Is that why He acts like us?
> 
> As Four says "The God of triangles has three sides".



We can't make dead things live.  That's why we call it God.


----------



## JB0704

TripleXBullies said:


> I think you and JB are looking at this at a micro level... and that is adaptation. Organisms adapt. An organism doesn't evolve to avoid extinction. A body of similar organisms evolve over time because of their ability to replicate. An organism may have some incredible ability to deal with its environment, but it won't evolve in to anything if it can't replicate. It will die and be gone. Organisms with those favorable traits, maybe just slightly more favorable than the similar organism beside them, will likely end up with a better chance at replicating, passing its traits on. This happens on a macro level with similar more favorable traits until the more favorable traits are more pronounced. I can't think of an organism that can do that by itself it its own lifetime.



I always thought survival of the fittest had more to do with things adapting to survive.....like rabbits running fast, or natural camofloge.  The fast rabbits replicate more often than the slow rabbits because the slow rabbits get eaten.....so rabbits are fast.

I am not arguing against evolution, I do believe life has evolved on this planet.  I don't know what extent that is, but it seems quite evident on many levels......evidenced by the 90% failure rate of species.

I also don't see how that rules out a creator.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Who said it has? Who is to say that there was not always some sort of animate material always? We only guess about the big bang. We only seem to be able trace our universe back to that point. There may well have been something before that and before that and before that.
> 
> Creationists put the something from nothing notion out there. There very well may have always been something.



Infinite everything makes more sense to you than something creating?

Yes, I do believe that without God, the possibilities are endless.....which was my original point.

Honestly, though, do you think on some level your objections are more with religion and religious people than the concept of a god?  I would understand that a whole lot better.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> God is an entity.  The "guy" part is us putting a face to the name.  So....."entity" is more fitting than "guy."  Mroe accurate to the concept.
> 
> "Why" is that it makes a heck of a lot more sense than life being infinite, or life happening just because it did.
> 
> 
> 
> We can't make dead things live.  That's why we call it God.



Ok.  Entity, then......Spirit?  Stardust?  Dreamjuice?  It makes a heck of a lot of sense to you that this "dreamjuice" puked up the universe?  And by puked up the universe I mean that "it" made everything just for you with a tender, loving hand because you are special to "it" or because "it" was bored and lonely.



JB0704 said:


> Infinite everything makes more sense to you than something creating?
> 
> Yes, I do believe that without God, the possibilities are endless.....which was my original point.
> 
> Honestly, though, do you think on some level your objections are more with religion and religious people than the concept of a god?  I would understand that a whole lot better.



Imagine that......


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Ok.  Entity, then......Spirit?  Stardust?  Dreamjuice?  It makes a heck of a lot of sense to you that this "dreamjuice" puked up the universe?  And by puked up the universe I mean that "it" made everything just for you with a tender, loving hand because you are special to "it" or because "it" was bored and lonely.



Why not?  And your side is the one that credits stardust for all of it.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Imagine that......



I think somebody wrote a song about it......


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I don't ever seem to get a straight answer to the questions:
> 
> Why a "guy"?  Why must a conscience be involved?  What points to "someone" doing something?
> 
> Is it an extrapolation of the notion that if We can make stuff then there MUST be something greater than us that makes stuff too?  Is that why He acts like us?
> 
> As Four says "The God of triangles has three sides".



Agreed


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Infinite everything makes more sense to you than something creating?
> 
> Yes, I do believe that without God, the possibilities are endless.....which was my original point.
> 
> Honestly, though, do you think on some level your objections are more with religion and religious people than the concept of a god?  I would understand that a whole lot better.



My objections started with organized religion, then it's followers and now with a God concept. Of all the Gods mankind has worshiped Not one single God so great stands out therefore the likelihood of any of them has diminished to me. There just is no evidence of any god, anywhere, at any time. The more I hear about the evidence as touted by the organized religions and religious people the less impressed I am about their god.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> My objections started with organized religion, then it's followers and now with a God concept. Of all the Gods mankind has worshiped Not one single God so great stands out therefore the likelihood of any of them has diminished to me. There just is no evidence of any god, anywhere, at any time. The more I hear about the evidence as touted by the organized religions and religious people the less impressed I am about their god.




Organized or not there is simply no model/reference for a "guy" only evidence that people made the "guy" up.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Why not?  And your side is the one that credits stardust for all of it.



I credit something beyond our present understanding, and I may be wrong.  Can you say the same?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I credit something beyond our present understanding, and I may be wrong.  Can you say the same?



Yes. And now you got me in trouble with my side. But, you know, "his ways are not our ways...."


----------



## TripleXBullies

The faster rabbits were already faster. Or already had the ability to be faster. The slower rabbits, individually, couldn't adapt in their lifetime to have longer rear ends and longer strides.  They got eaten and couldn't reproduce as much. Individually the ones that had longer rear legs may have been able to learn to use their longer rear ends in their own lifetime, but couldn't grow longer rear ends. For the most part faster rabbits bred with faster rabbits and the faster ones are the ones that made it. Fast genes breeding with fast genes created faster genes. 

I also don't think that it rules out a creator by itself.




JB0704 said:


> I always thought survival of the fittest had more to do with things adapting to survive.....like rabbits running fast, or natural camofloge.  The fast rabbits replicate more often than the slow rabbits because the slow rabbits get eaten.....so rabbits are fast.
> 
> I am not arguing against evolution, I do believe life has evolved on this planet.  I don't know what extent that is, but it seems quite evident on many levels......evidenced by the 90% failure rate of species.
> 
> I also don't see how that rules out a creator.


----------



## Four

TripleXBullies said:


> The faster rabbits were already faster. Or already had the ability to be faster. The slower rabbits, individually, couldn't adapt in their lifetime to have longer rear ends and longer strides.  They got eaten and couldn't reproduce as much. Individually the ones that had longer rear legs may have been able to learn to use their longer rear ends in their own lifetime, but couldn't grow longer rear ends. For the most part faster rabbits bred with faster rabbits and the faster ones are the ones that made it. Fast genes breeding with fast genes created faster genes.
> 
> I also don't think that it rules out a creator by itself.



Also keep in mind there is a metobolical limit to speed.. the rabits (as a species) will tends to only get fast enough to be a bit faster than the fasted predator in a  given area. Really, its just as fast as they need to survive MOST of the time. any more and it takes to many resources without the benefit.

Same with skin pigment. Coloring the skin takes energy to do, so a species that moves out of an environment that needs darker skin will eventually lose it.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bullethead said:


> Of all the Gods mankind has worshiped Not one single God so great stands out therefore the likelihood of any of them has diminished to me



Not a single one stands out? Of course one stands out. The majority of the people around us believe in the same one... or infinite variations of the same one... Because that one stands out for that reason, it is self perpetuating. Although perpetuating probably isn't the right word because it will be a new one soon enough.


----------



## TripleXBullies

ambush80 said:


> I credit something beyond our present understanding, and I may be wrong.  Can you say the same?



Is it beyond our understanding scientifically speaking? Or is it beyond your (and mine) understanding SPIRITUALLY? Or could they ultimately be the same thing?


----------



## bullethead

TripleXBullies said:


> Not a single one stands out? Of course one stands out. The majority of the people around us believe in the same one... or infinite variations of the same one... Because that one stands out for that reason, it is self perpetuating. Although perpetuating probably isn't the right word because it will be a new one soon enough.



I am not talking about which one stands out by being believed more. I am talking actual hands on making itself known to the folks of this Earth. The best any of these gods could pull off is have some people(dependent on where they live geographically) write down and talk about some myths,legends and folklore. Not a single one did a thing without mans help. And that includes the son of a god too. There are holy men in India that do everything credited to Jesus. The witnesses are there to back that up too.


----------



## ambush80

TripleXBullies said:


> Is it beyond our understanding scientifically speaking? Or is it beyond your (and mine) understanding SPIRITUALLY? Or could they ultimately be the same thing?



I know what Webster says this word means but I don't think you or I or anybody will fully agree on what it means.  That's really the reason that Atheists deny god/spirit stuff.  There's no way for two people to agree on what that stuff is.  It's in your head.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I know. I mean is it possible for any scientific method to ever understand it? Or is it possible that it can/will never be scientifically explained? Is it explainable ever, or is it unknowable?


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> I know.


or dooooo you?


> or is it unknowable?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> I know what Webster says this word means but I don't think you, or I or anybody will fully agree on what it means.  That's really the reason that Atheists deny god/spirit stuff.  There's no way for two people to agree on what that stuff is.  It's in your head.



Atheists don't deny God because they can't agree with others on the definition of spirituality. IMO, pride is the number one reason, second would be what one will accept as reasonable evidence.


----------



## TripleXBullies

I know... it's unknowable


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> Atheists don't deny God because they can't agree with others on the definition of spirituality. IMO, pride is the number one reason, second would be what one will accept as reasonable evidence.



I think you're conditioned to believe it's pride... because that's what the good book and those that understand it tell you.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Yes. And now you got me in trouble with my side. But, you know, "his ways are not our ways...."



Your side is you and you alone.  We're all alone, together.


----------



## stringmusic

TripleXBullies said:


> I think you're conditioned to believe it's pride... because that's what the good book and those that understand it tell you.



Yep, you got me, I don't think for myself, I only go by what my pastor tells me to think. I haven't researched anything myself.

This is what so many threads on here lately end up like, and why I don't post in here much anymore.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Atheists don't deny God because they can't agree with others on the definition of spirituality. IMO, pride is the number one reason, second would be what one will accept as reasonable evidence.



I humble myself every day before "The Great I Don't Know".


----------



## TripleXBullies

stringmusic said:


> Yep, you got me, I don't think for myself, I only go by what my pastor tells me to think. I haven't researched anything myself.
> 
> This is what so many threads on here lately end up like, and why I don't post in here much anymore.



If you're going to pout, pout about not being able to see through your indoctrination


----------



## Four

stringmusic said:


> Atheists don't deny God because they can't agree with others on the definition of spirituality. IMO, pride is the number one reason, second would be what one will accept as reasonable evidence.



Saying I "Deny" god makes it sound like he showed up at my door needing a place to crash and i told him to shuffle on.

Personally the whole thing seems ridiculous.. like Santa Claus, tarot cards, crystal healing and astrology. I'm far more interested in the mental and social implications of religion vs. the truth claim.

Is that pride? maybe... I am pretty proud... I guess you could boil some stuff down to that. I don't see my pride as a bad or unearned thing though. 

I say i agree on the difference in what is considered reasonable evidence. I think it applies to more than just god. Like hearing people tell stories about a house they lived in that made weird noises and proclaiming that ghosts exist and houses are haunted.


----------



## ambush80

Four said:


> Saying I "Deny" god makes it sound like he showed up at my door needing a place to crash and i told him to shuffle on.
> 
> Personally the whole thing seems ridiculous.. like Santa Claus, tarot cards, crystal healing and astrology. I'm far more interested in the mental and social implications of religion vs. the truth claim.
> 
> Is that pride? maybe... I am pretty proud... I guess you could boil some stuff down to that. I don't see my pride as a bad or unearned thing though.
> 
> I say i agree on the difference in what is considered reasonable evidence. I think it applies to more than just god. Like hearing people tell stories about a house they lived in that made weird noises and proclaiming that ghosts exist and houses are haunted.



You doubt the POWER of my lucky crankbait!?!


----------



## stringmusic

Four said:


> Saying I "Deny" god makes it sound like he showed up at my door needing a place to crash and i told him to shuffle on.


eh, technicality. You could substitute "believe" in there.


----------



## mtnwoman

stringmusic said:


> eh, technicality. You could substitute "believe" in there.



He wouldn't dare.....


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> You doubt the POWER of my lucky crankbait!?!



I doubt it... never heard of it, never seen it and I'm not open minded enough to even consider it exists...and besides I don't even wanna know.....I'll just stick to worms cause that's all I have proof of that might even work, since I've only fished once and gagged to bait the hook.. so I'm not even gonna fish again...ever.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I humble myself every day before "The Great I Don't Know".



I think the difference is what we place value in.  I can have faith, know that I could never fully comprehend or understand a creator, and use reasoning to conclude that I was created.  I can't show you a picture of this creator, nor prove that he exists.  But, I see no harm in having faith that the evidence is as it appears to me.  

From there, I agree with many of you guys as far as religion and the actions of many religious people are concerned.  Many Christians hate this book, but read "Blue Like JAzz," it's a completely different take on faith, and the author comes pretty darn close to where I stand, I disagree on much of the minutia, but agree on the big picture.  If nothing else, it might shed a different light o many of us.

I'm not afraid of being wrong.  If you proved to me on my death bed that God does not exist, I would be glad I lived a life believing he did.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I think the difference is what we place value in.  I can have faith, know that I could never fully comprehend or understand a creator, and use reasoning to conclude that I was created.  I can't show you a picture of this creator, nor prove that he exists.  But, I see no harm in having faith that the evidence is as it appears to me.
> 
> From there, I agree with many of you guys as far as religion and the actions of many religious people are concerned.  Many Christians hate this book, but read "Blue Like JAzz," it's a completely different take on faith, and the author comes pretty darn close to where I stand, I disagree on much of the minutia, but agree on the big picture.  If nothing else, it might shed a different light o many of us.
> 
> I'm not afraid of being wrong.  If you proved to me on my death bed that God does not exist, I would be glad I lived a life believing he did.



I know many believers who have family that members that do not believe.  They have spent their lives thinking that their non-believing family members were going to He11, that they were somehow dearly lacking in some wondrous experience and that they were incomplete.  Those non-believers know how their family members view them.

There is a cost.


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> I know many believers who have family that members that do not believe.  They have spent their lives thinking that their non-believing family members were going to He11, that they were somehow dearly lacking in some wondrous experience and that they were incomplete.  Those non-believers know how their family members view them.
> 
> There is a cost.



How do you know that?....when we are the ones that have hope that something will change....family members never give up or give into the belief that their unsaved family member will go to he11...they just preach on....you never noticed that? Be honest, do the believers in your family just give up on
 you? None of us just don't give up...hardheaded. There's a price on both sides, ya know?
My daddy died thinking I was going to he!! and I regret that and am very sad for that, but I'm sure God's mercy on him, now in heaven, let's him know that I will be there soon to join him.  We ain't giving up on you MrBush.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> I know many believers who have family that members that do not believe.  They have spent their lives thinking that their non-believing family members were going to He11, that they were somehow dearly lacking in some wondrous experience and that they were incomplete.  Those non-believers know how their family members view them.
> 
> There is a cost.



My brother is an atheist, we kill squirrels, fish and hunt together all the time. Whats the cost in what I think about him and what he thinks about me?

You want to only look at one side of the coin when it comes to Christians, but there's two sides to this coin.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> My brother is an atheist, we kill squirrels, fish and hunt together all the time. Whats the cost in what I think about him and what he thinks about me?
> 
> You want to only look at one side of the coin when it comes to Christians, but there's two sides to this coin.



Do you think that if he dies an Atheist that he's going to He11?  Do you feel that his life is incomplete without Christ?

As far as  how I view Deists, I regard them as I do people that believe in ghosts or black magic.  I think they've gone too far in their assumptions but I don't pity them.  

The biggest problem I have with Deists is that they use their belief to shape social policy.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that if he dies an Atheist that he's going to He11?  Do you feel that his life is incomplete without Christ?


1.Yes, and it makes me very sad.

2.Yes.



> As far as  how I view Deists, I regard them as I do people that believe in ghosts or black magic.  I think they've gone too far in their assumptions but I don't pity them.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with Deists is that they use their belief to shape social policy.



Yes, I don't agree with forcing you to my belief system through government force either.


----------



## StriperAddict

mtnwoman said:


> My daddy died thinking I was going to he!! and I regret that and am very sad for that, but I'm sure God's mercy on him, now in heaven, let's him know that I will be there soon to join him.
> We ain't giving up on you MrBush.


 
1. From what I see in Scripture, I've no doubt that the moment your daddy crossed over into eternity he knew you were "there", and all was ok. I think those who have gone on before have an eternal perspective, shared with their Lord Jesus, that allows them to see the greater picture.  Remember... here, we see thru the "glass darkly", but soon face to Face.  I'll go so far as to say you and dad got a big hug going on, it's just you that has to wait for it - in the arena of time. 

2. Indeed.


----------



## mtnwoman

StriperAddict said:


> 1. From what I see in Scripture, I've no doubt that the moment your daddy crossed over into eternity he knew you were "there", and all was ok. I think those who have gone on before have an eternal perspective, shared with their Lord Jesus, that allows them to see the greater picture.  Remember... here, we see thru the "glass darkly", but soon face to Face.  I'll go so far as to say you and dad got a big hug going on, it's just you that has to wait for it - in the arena of time.
> 
> 2. Indeed.



Thanks MrStriper....it gives me much peace to realize that, too.


----------



## mtnwoman

stringmusic said:


> 1.Yes, and it makes me very sad.
> 
> 2.Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I don't agree with forcing you to my belief system through government force either.



It makes me sad for you, too and for your bro. I hope and pray that changes.

Yes, we are blessed to live in a country (even with all the complaining) that we can believe in whatever we want to.


----------



## ambush80

StriperAddict said:


> 1. From what I see in Scripture, I've no doubt that the moment your daddy crossed over into eternity he knew you were "there", and all was ok. I think those who have gone on before have an eternal perspective, shared with their Lord Jesus, that allows them to see the greater picture.  Remember... here, we see thru the "glass darkly", but soon face to Face.  I'll go so far as to say you and dad got a big hug going on, it's just you that has to wait for it - in the arena of time.
> 
> 2. Indeed.



That holds water like a sieve down here.


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> That holds water like a sieve down here.



We would've never guessed it...so thanks for telling us


----------



## StriperAddict

ambush80 said:


> That holds water like a sieve down here.


Don't forget this is the Apologetics forum as well as Athesists & Agnostics forum. My words were meant to encourage...


mtnwoman said:


> Thanks MrStriper....it gives me much peace to realize that, too.


Amen.  I'm looking forward to an incredible reunion with many of my family, too !


----------



## ambush80

StriperAddict said:


> Don't forget this is the Apologetics forum as well as Athesists & Agnostics forum. My words were meant to encourage...
> 
> Amen.  I'm looking forward to an incredible reunion with many of my family, too !



Apologetics means that you try to rationalize scripture with reason, not simply state it as fact. (Kinda silly if you ask me.  Maybe that's why my auto correct doesn't recognize the word).  

I encourage everyone to love your family members here and now as if you may never see them again.


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> I encourage everyone to love your family members here and now as if you may never see them again.



And that MrBush, I agree with...


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> And that MrBush, I agree with...





 ambush80


----------



## Asath

It seems that this thread, like just about all of them, has been reduced to yet another AMEN Chorus dedicated to shouting down disagreement through endless, relentless repetition as a substitute for knowing a single thing about what they are saying.

I simply asked how it is that YOU know what the god of your own imagining seems to want EVERYONE to do.  On what authority do you speak to the rest of us about God’s Will, and God’s Words, and God’s Intentions, and God’s Meanings?

Let me tell you a story, which is completely and verifiably true (something I’ve yet to encounter in response): Let us talk of the very centerpiece of Christianity – the Resurrection.  There are no two accounts that are in agreement.  The various accounts, in fact, are confusing, contradictory, and ultimately unreliable.  

The first thing that strikes any thinking person is the strangeness of the reactions – upon encountering the bodily resurrection, nobody rushes to the authorities with the risen Man as proof of their claim.  Rather odd.  Then Peter and Andrew, apparently unimpressed, return to fishing (John), rather than stick with the Risen Jesus or bother to preach His gospel?  The original Mark, if one holds aside the much later added Chapter 16, doesn’t have a Resurrection sequence at all.  In what is largely regarded as the Deutero-Mark 16, the people who went to the tomb were Magdalene, Mary-Alphaeus, and Joanna.  In John, its Mary Magdalene, later joined by Peter and John.  Both Mark and Matthew say there was an angel who spoke to the women (not woman – women), Luke and John say there were Two angels, and Matthew has it that the guards fainted in terror, while the other accounts have no guards at all.  

Most oddly, the gospels have no agreement on just where Jesus was or on just what he said AFTER this resurrection, an event that is the very center display of the Christian witness.  Deutero-Mark and Matthew have Mary tell the disciples to go to Galilee, where Jesus meets them.  Luke and John show Jesus never leaving Jerusalem, and Acts has it that Jesus himself insists that his disciples stay in the Holy city to wait for the Pentecost.  Luke says only that Jesus ‘departed’ from them, and only Deutero-Mark (already shown as a later invention) says that he ascended to heaven.

More oddly, nobody seems to recognize Jesus, after this centerpiece resurrection display – In John, Mary Magdalene (arguably the one person who knew him best) thinks he’s the gardener; in Deutero-Mark (probably the vaguest and most strained bit of ‘scripture’ in the entire New Testament) Simon and Cleopas don’t recognize him at the dinner they shared at Emmaus, where, according to Luke, Jesus disappeared like a ghost.  But then we get treated to a counteract, in John, where Jesus appears to a doubting Thomas, and proves he is bodily resurrected by asking for food.  

In Luke, after what is described as his ‘parting,’ the Disciples, like the good Jewish boys they were, go to the home of the Pharisees (who were described as masterminding his death) – the Temple – and give thanks!

You see – the Four Gospels have made the task of undermining them unnecessary.  They contradict themselves, if you bother to read them.  Few of you have bothered so much, it seems clear, since your Belief trumps even the word of your own Book, and YOU can tell all of us why that is.  (But it might do you good to actually READ the book.)

So I asked very simply, and ask again – HOW IS IT THAT YOU KNOW, with such sure confidence that you wish all of us to follow YOUR Word on the matter?  How do YOU Know those things that even your own Holy Book can’t agree on?

I’m not interested, and neither is anyone else, in what you Believe – that is between you and yourself – I’m asking what makes you so darned sure that YOU are right, and everyone else is wrong?


----------



## bullethead

A deity that cannot get 4 stories to jive is supposed to get credit for more complex feats. "Where's The Beef?"


----------



## Asath

And shall we speak of the most Holy of Holies?  The Holy Sepulcher?  The most disputed place on Earth, right there in Jerusalem – the City of Peace?

Tell me your stories.  

Explain the Chapel of the Apostles, fairly venerated with frescoes from floor to ceiling, which is now filled with debris and used as a dumping ground for rotted timber and discarded plumbing.  The Holy Sepulcher is shared, it seems, by the three major (disagreeing)  sources of what is surely right, along with many of their offshoots – so when the Syrian sect had a fire in their small section, their fellow Christians, rather than help, stood by and cheered their loss.  Every sect from the Franciscans to the Greek Orthodox have stood by and watched ceilings and walls fall in rather than lift a finger to do something that might help another group of their fellows.  

We’re talking about a Holy Place, (THE Holy Place), where in 1834 a fire broke out during which the ‘Christian’ congregation trampled 300 people to death in their panic to save themselves.  Nobody thought to try to put the fire out.  A Holy Place that in 1852 a tremendously violent riot ensued over just who got to sweep a particular doorstep.  A Holy Place where even in THIS century there was a riot over just who had the proper authority to change a particular oil lamp.  Monks have been killed by other monks here, over the issue of just who is allowed to polish which artifact.

So explain to me, again, how it is that WE ought to be learning lessons from the example of YOUR teaching? 

You can’t agree with each other, you can’t agree with yourselves, and even your own Holy  Books can’t tell a coherent story that does anything other than constantly contradict itself.   Read Psalms, or Proverbs again, just for fun.  You’ll find an excuse for all occasions – and if you don’t like one of the Verses, don’t worry – a page or so later you’ll find one that says exactly the opposite, and you can quote that one as your Scriptural Authority.

Sounds a bit too much like the Democratic Party for my taste.

So the question still stands – unanswered – How Do YOU Know?  Which Verse is the True Word, and which one is not?  And just How did YOU decide, where others could not?


----------



## TheBishop

Asath said:


> And shall we speak of the most Holy of Holies?  The Holy Sepulcher?  The most disputed place on Earth, right there in Jerusalem – the City of Peace?
> 
> Tell me your stories.
> 
> Explain the Chapel of the Apostles, fairly venerated with frescoes from floor to ceiling, which is now filled with debris and used as a dumping ground for rotted timber and discarded plumbing.  The Holy Sepulcher is shared, it seems, by the three major (disagreeing)  sources of what is surely right, along with many of their offshoots – so when the Syrian sect had a fire in their small section, their fellow Christians, rather than help, stood by and cheered their loss.  Every sect from the Franciscans to the Greek Orthodox have stood by and watched ceilings and walls fall in rather than lift a finger to do something that might help another group of their fellows.
> 
> We’re talking about a Holy Place, (THE Holy Place), where in 1834 a fire broke out during which the ‘Christian’ congregation trampled 300 people to death in their panic to save themselves.  Nobody thought to try to put the fire out.  A Holy Place that in 1852 a tremendously violent riot ensued over just who got to sweep a particular doorstep.  A Holy Place where even in THIS century there was a riot over just who had the proper authority to change a particular oil lamp.  Monks have been killed by other monks here, over the issue of just who is allowed to polish which artifact.
> 
> So explain to me, again, how it is that WE ought to be learning lessons from the example of YOUR teaching?
> 
> You can’t agree with each other, you can’t agree with yourselves, and even your own Holy  Books can’t tell a coherent story that does anything other than constantly contradict itself.   Read Psalms, or Proverbs again, just for fun.  You’ll find an excuse for all occasions – and if you don’t like one of the Verses, don’t worry – a page or so later you’ll find one that says exactly the opposite, and you can quote that one as your Scriptural Authority.
> 
> Sounds a bit too much like the Democratic Party for my taste.
> 
> So the question still stands – unanswered – How Do YOU Know?  Which Verse is the True Word, and which one is not?  And just How did YOU decide, where others could not?



I have faith that your question will go unanswered.


----------



## stringmusic

Asath said:


> How Do YOU Know?



"and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers."


----------



## Four

stringmusic said:


> "and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers."



I am not quite sure what to make of that. Does it mean that everyone follows the right god, because god doesn't let people follow a fake god?


----------



## mtnwoman

Four said:


> I am not quite sure what to make of that. Does it mean that everyone follows the right god, because god doesn't let people follow a fake god?



Of course you don't know what to make of it and the answer to your question is no....isn't it obvious to you that the God we believe in will let you believe whatever you want to....you haven't been forced into anything, have you?...so no. Now maybe if you lived in another country you may not have that choice.


----------



## mtnwoman

TheBishop said:


> I have faith that your question will go unanswered.



Well you can have faith that my questions will go unanswered, too. Course I'm looney tunes....


----------



## Four

mtnwoman said:


> Of course you don't know what to make of it and the answer to your question is no....isn't it obvious to you that the God we believe in will let you believe whatever you want to....you haven't been forced into anything, have you?...so no. Now maybe if you lived in another country you may not have that choice.



The God everyone believes in let people believe whatever they want... a could would have to be real to actually enforce something like that.

Now the people that make god claims sometimes force you to believe, as you pointed out.


----------



## stringmusic

Four said:


> I am not quite sure what to make of that. Does it mean that everyone follows the right god, because god doesn't let people follow a fake god?



It's more along the lines that if you follow Christ, you will know, because you have a relationship with Him along with the Holy Spirit.

It was my best answer to Asath's question, and I didn't want to disappoint Bishop.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> It's more along the lines that if you follow Christ, you will know, because you have a relationship with Him along with the Holy Spirit.
> 
> It was my best answer to Asath's question, and I didn't want to disappoint Bishop.



Have you ever been hypnotized?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever been hypnotized?



Curious, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? 

Asath's question went unanswered for multiple reasons:
1. I post mostly from my I-phone these days and I don't like typing that much.
2. Asath called us ignorant, then decided to accuse us of shouting 
3. It was so loaded a blind, deaf man would walk around it.

But, god is real to me. How do you know he isn't?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Curious, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
> 
> Asath's question went unanswered for multiple reasons:
> 1. I post mostly from my I-phone these days and I don't like typing that much.
> 2. Asath called us ignorant, then decided to accuse us of shouting
> 3. It was so loaded a blind, deaf man would walk around it.
> 
> But, god is real to me. How do you know he isn't?



People who believe in the power of hypnotism are susceptible to it.  

My lucky crankbait is filled with magic.  How do you know it isn't?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> My lucky crankbait is filled with magic.  How do you know it isn't?



I don't.  We've never been fishing together, I'll let you know after such an event


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I don't.  We've never been fishing together, I'll let you know after such an event




Maybe you should take my word for it.  I can give testimony.

Besides, you won't see its miraculous power unless you believe first.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Besides, you won't see its miraculous power unless you believe first.



  yea, I got nothing.  Well done.


----------



## Asath

" . . .  if you follow Christ, you will know, because you have a relationship with Him along with the Holy Spirit."

Um?  What sort of 'relationship'?

And you know, of course, about this Holy Spirit?  Did you know that it is female?

Probably the oldest and first part of what was later conflated into a Holy Trinity.  Historically, your Holy Spirit is none other than the Earth Goddess or Great Mother of nearly every age since the earliest traces of mankind some 35,000 years ago.  The concept, in Christianity, emerged from the much earlier, but well known at the time, Jewish concept of Sophia, the wisdom Spirit seen in Ecclesiastes, and in the wisdom of Solomon.  In the time of Jesus, Sophia (Wisdom) was so popular as a religious figure that she eclipsed Yahweh as the feminine presence and glory of God.

In the early beliefs, and indeed in early Christianity (the greatest church in ancient Christendom -- the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul -- was built in honor of Wisdom (Sophia)), there was no problem with nor argument with the idea that God was female.  Indeed, there were no problems back then with women in leadership roles, (Romans 16:1-2) ""I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Senkrae so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints" . . . (Colossians 4:15) "Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters in Laodicea and to Nympha and the church in her house."  

In the earliest (undisputed) Pauline Letters, there isn't a single prohibition against women holding leadership roles in the church.  You have to understand here that the very concept of a 'priest' was against the principles of the early Christians, since they were seeking to escape the Temple and the restrictive theosophy they had endured.  In Early Christianity the sole authorities were deacons and prophets, apostles, elders, and evangelists, and they made no distinctions here for gender. These were people who had ALWAYS had female gods, passed down from antiquity, and were a bit disturbed by this new breed of conquerers telling them that THEY were wrong.  This new Messiah turned out to be a man?  Okay, they reasoned, but the Earth Mother, this Mary, a renamed Sophia, had made this happen by bearing the child.  They weren't about to let go so easily, and never have.        

But about 1700 years ago, along came the likes of Jerome and Ambrose and Augustine, and the Great Mother, the Supreme Mother of the Early church -- in short, the Holy Spirit, was systematically eradicated.  Even her gender was changed, and in the Language (similar to how modern political types change things by changing what they are named) she became the Spiritus Sanctus by edict of Jerome -- both words couched in the masculine suffix.  

Seems that they had no problem with co-opting the Earth Goddess as part of a campaign of compromise, early on, then later stomping THAT out as well once they perceived that they had gained the upper hand.  But they had already firmly implanted this Holy Spirit in their traditions and their zeal to win converts by any means necessary, so they were stuck with it as an idea, and could only resort to changing the gender to better serve themselves.  

But, since you already have a 'relationship' with this Holy Spirit, you probably already knew that He was a She.  

Still, this 'relationship' with Jesus (undisputably a He in all of the legends) bears some thought -- How, exactly, do you go about conducting this relationship?  Certainly not by texting, or Tweeting, or talking on the phone.  I'll guess that you're not exchanging odd jokes on Facebook or posting hilarious videos on Youtube together, and sharing a coffee or a backyard barbeque is probably straight out. I'd guess that you'd never find him in a church, since his preachings were entirely against such 'leaders' and institutionalized 'worship.'  

So HOW do you get all of this insider information from Above, demonstrating that YOU are right?  " . . . if you follow Christ, you will know . . ."  Um?  How does one 'follow' someone who never wrote a single word of his own?  I have in my possession a Gospel of Mary Magdalene, a Gospel of Phillip, a Gospel of Thomas, a Gospel of Matthias, and fragments of a Gospel of the mysterious 'Q,' among many others, including the few that were allowed into the Bible after much additional vetting and editing, but no Gospel of Jesus.  How can that be?  HOW does one 'follow' something that isn't there?


----------



## Artfuldodger

In my research on the word "effeminate," I have discovered that some people look at Jesus as the Masculine manifestation of God and the Holy Spirit as the Feminine manifestation of God. I'm sure there are Pagan stories that twist Christian stories into theirs just as there are Christian stories twisted into the Pagan stories. 
Their are different relationships that don't involve sexuality. They could be but aren't limited to needs, love, obedience, etc. An example could be a relationship between a Father and a son/daughter. It could be a symbiotic relationship.
I have a personal relationship with my daughters.


----------



## Asath

I would largely agree, Dodger, but be careful in suggesting that those who are regarded as 'Pagans' may have ever 'twisted' any Christian stories into their own lore.  EVERY Christian story has an easily demonstrated preface and root in the older 'Pagan' tales, without exception.  There isn't a single new idea in the Bible, nor a single 'revelation' that wasn't borrowed from earlier superstitions. The Christians, who came along much later, did not influence 'Pagan' lore.  Quite the opposite is true.  

Also, my point was meant to enlighten, not to shock or imply impure motives -- All superstitions from the beginning of time held the belief in a largely female presence in the supernatural -- the Earth Mother -- if only because they observed their own women as the source of fertility as concerned children, and thus the source of life (and by simple deduction, their own as well), and since they had no idea how this came about, they held it to be sacred.  It could be observed, cynically, that they also observed the rather tempermental and whimsical nature of their own women, and found another parallel in the similar behavior of the world around them -- peaceful and nurturing one moment, then suddenly explosively violent and murderous the next.  Being merely men, and rather primitive ones at that, they understood neither women nor nature, and so invented stories to make it all seem sensible. That the men held tacit and apparent 'control' of primitive society was only because they had the physical ability to protect and defend, and the women and children HAD to cede the upper hand.   

But in the time of Jesus, the various gods were given attributes according to the common understanding of their nature, and this was not overtly sexual (though much was woven around this idea) -- the gods had their gender attributed to them according to their close resemblence to all too human characteristics. It was only when this traditionally polytheistic convention was co-opted, and certain men tried to shoehorn traditional beleifs in many gods into a single deity that problems arose, and they found that it couldn't be done without provoking outright revolt.  Thus, your Trinity.  

Not one god.  But not a few hundred either.  Compromises had to be made. How about three?    

If there were only One, the masses would have walked away, and the whole effort aimed at total control of all hearts and minds from below (the ultimate and most successful peasant revolt in all of history) would have failed.  They HAD to include many, if not most of the elements of the 'Pagans' in their theosophy, from rituals to holiday observances to odd symbolism in order to advance their agenda, and their 'Purity of Belief' was such that they did so readily in the interest of creating, advancing, and consolidating control.

So your Christian Trinity gained its female influence (Holy Spirit) out of necessity.  The overt sexism came much later than the time of the Jesus that many seem to misunderstand, and deliberately.

My point, of course, is as always -- once one learns of just HOW one's belief system was constructed in objectively historic terms, the more difficult it becomes to adhere to that system.


----------



## TripleXBullies

JB0704 said:


> yea, I got nothing.  Well done.



At least you can admit it


----------



## stringmusic

Asath said:


> And you know, of course, about this Holy Spirit?  Did you know that it is female?



This is where I stopped reading.


----------



## Four

stringmusic said:


> This is where I stopped reading.



Seriously, there is way to misogyny in the Abraham religions to put up with that.


----------



## stringmusic

Four said:


> Seriously, there is way to misogyny in the Abraham religions to put up with that.



 Na, it's just not true.

By that logic, if someone calls me a girl, then I deny being a girl, then I should be accused of being misogynistic.


----------



## Four

stringmusic said:


> Na, it's just not true.
> 
> By that logic, if someone calls me a girl, then I deny being a girl, then I should be accused of being misogynistic.



Of course not. I'm not calling you a misogynist, i'm saying that the texts and culture of the Abraham religions are misogynistic.

Which is somewhat natural given the time and area in which the legends and lore began.. but it persists today, although to a lesser extent.

Given that, naturally most wouldn't identify the holy spirit as feminine.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I started a topic on Effeminacy under the Spiritual Discussions forum. It was mostly related to how Effeminate is defined and if it is a sin. But part of the discussion was on the feminine aspects of God, Jesus, & Adam. It's hard to picture a spirit as being male or female. It is interesting on how we see God and other aspects of effeminacy. We do know God has other human traits and we are made in his image.


----------



## stringmusic

Four said:


> Of course not. I'm not calling you a misogynist, i'm saying that the texts and culture of the Abraham religions are misogynistic.
> 
> Which is somewhat natural given the time and area in which the legends and lore began.. but it persists today, although to a lesser extent.
> 
> Given that, naturally most wouldn't identify the holy spirit as feminine.


I knew you weren't calling me misogynistic, I didn't mean to imply that in my post.

I'm agree women were not thought highly of during that time. I can't fully agree with you on the hatred of women though, there is definitely a difference of roles for both men and women that might not toe the line of today's society.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> yea, I got nothing.  Well done.





TripleXBullies said:


> At least you can admit it



He could always ask to "Show me."


----------



## Four

From reddit...


----------



## bullethead

Four said:


> From reddit...



Nail=Head


----------



## Asath

We can go on in this vein all day:

Romans 16:1 “I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Senkrae that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints.”

Timothy 2:11 “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.  I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.”

New Revised Standard Version, in this case, but no matter which version one chooses the contradiction stands just as starkly.  The mere fact that there ARE so many different versions might, alone, cause one to be concerned.  But be consoled – they all contain the very same bald-faced contradictions. Hundreds of them.  

That one person or group might cherry-pick their quotes in order to support their own agendas ‘Scripturally’ is hardly surprising, but it shouldn’t be so shocking to them that their opposite number can find something in the same Book that says exactly the opposite.  And so y’all have been at odds with each other all these long, weary centuries, over the SAME BOOK.

And have come no closer to resolution.  All of the murder and mayhem to no clear end.  So, what say you of yourselves in answer to that?  

(And be careful here if one is a self-described Christian, since the Old Testament that you included whole is also the basis of Islam and Judaism. Same Book, word for word.  And be careful about distancing yourself personally – YOUR sect is no less a product of that history than any other, and can no more wipe the blood from its hands.)

Could it really be true that the parts YOUR group cherry-picked out of the whole is actually the Holy of Holies, and the rest is nonsense?  Nah.  That seems terribly egomaniacal.  Could it be that YOUR group has seen through the cosmic, metaphysical fog, and has properly interpreted just which parts are literal and which are merely allegorical or symbolic?  That too seems terribly egomaniacal.  Could your God, which each of the groups are convinced exclude all but themselves, have possibly created a world that is so large, and a heaven that is so small?  That seems to go beyond egomaniacal, and actually accrues to setting yourselves up exclusively as a sort of royal, Chosen class, held aside from your fellow man, and somehow charged by the supernatural with leading the rest of us to your own service.  Nobody sane can be THAT deluded.

Clearly it isn’t the Book itself that separates you, since every one of you share the same one.  Granted, you’ve each tried over and over to rewrite it in your own image, and have each endeavored to kill anyone who disagreed and to destroy any contrary writings wholesale.  But you’ve failed, you see?  Nobody expected objective scholarship, each thinking they could simply terrorize the world into doing as they wished at the point of a sword.  But folks managed to stash away copies of most of that which others sought to destroy, and now we have quite a body of comparative history – not a complete picture, thanks to you idiots, but quite enough.

And so I still wait for an answer – How do You know, for certain, that YOU are right?


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> We can go on in this vein all day:
> 
> Romans 16:1 “I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Senkrae that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints.”
> 
> Timothy 2:11 “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.  I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.”
> 
> New Revised Standard Version, in this case, but no matter which version one chooses the contradiction stands just as starkly.  The mere fact that there ARE so many different versions might, alone, cause one to be concerned.  But be consoled – they all contain the very same bald-faced contradictions. Hundreds of them.
> 
> That one person or group might cherry-pick their quotes in order to support their own agendas ‘Scripturally’ is hardly surprising, but it shouldn’t be so shocking to them that their opposite number can find something in the same Book that says exactly the opposite.  And so y’all have been at odds with each other all these long, weary centuries, over the SAME BOOK.
> 
> And have come no closer to resolution.  All of the murder and mayhem to no clear end.  So, what say you of yourselves in answer to that?
> 
> (And be careful here if one is a self-described Christian, since the Old Testament that you included whole is also the basis of Islam and Judaism. Same Book, word for word.  And be careful about distancing yourself personally – YOUR sect is no less a product of that history than any other, and can no more wipe the blood from its hands.)
> 
> Could it really be true that the parts YOUR group cherry-picked out of the whole is actually the Holy of Holies, and the rest is nonsense?  Nah.  That seems terribly egomaniacal.  Could it be that YOUR group has seen through the cosmic, metaphysical fog, and has properly interpreted just which parts are literal and which are merely allegorical or symbolic?  That too seems terribly egomaniacal.  Could your God, which each of the groups are convinced exclude all but themselves, have possibly created a world that is so large, and a heaven that is so small?  That seems to go beyond egomaniacal, and actually accrues to setting yourselves up exclusively as a sort of royal, Chosen class, held aside from your fellow man, and somehow charged by the supernatural with leading the rest of us to your own service.  Nobody sane can be THAT deluded.
> 
> Clearly it isn’t the Book itself that separates you, since every one of you share the same one.  Granted, you’ve each tried over and over to rewrite it in your own image, and have each endeavored to kill anyone who disagreed and to destroy any contrary writings wholesale.  But you’ve failed, you see?  Nobody expected objective scholarship, each thinking they could simply terrorize the world into doing as they wished at the point of a sword.  But folks managed to stash away copies of most of that which others sought to destroy, and now we have quite a body of comparative history – not a complete picture, thanks to you idiots, but quite enough.
> 
> And so I still wait for an answer – How do You know, for certain, that YOU are right?



You'll get no response from people you regularly insult.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What is the verse JW's use to justify women preachers & teachers?

Also we are all made in God's image, male & female. 
Acts 21:9 He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. 

Luke 2:36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, 
(advanced in years could explain why she was still a virgin)

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 
( I never knew there was female prophets. Maybe they could prophesy but not tell anyone) (maybe they can preach on the street, just not in a Church)

As a Christian, I see lot's of contradictions in the Bible starting with why were some books not included, why is the same stories told differently in different books,(creation & Christ's birth, major events) and contradictory verses.  
I just don't make a big thing out of it. It's not the deal breaker or deciding factor.


----------



## ambush80

ted_BSR said:


> You'll get no response from people you regularly insult.



I've never been intentionally insulting, snide maybe.  So how is it that you know that you're right?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> He could always ask to "Show me."



I would, but you said I had to believe first.  That would require faith.  Faith is believing without seing.  That being the case, requiring to be shown would prevent me from ever seeing it in the first place.....which is why I said I had nothing.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I would, but you said I had to believe first.  That would require faith.  Faith is believing without seing.  That being the case, requiring to be shown would prevent me from ever seeing it in the first place.....which is why I said I had nothing.



So you believe me?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> So you believe me?



Sure, why not.  Now, I can't wait to see this magic crankbait in action.  Currently, my son has the family record bass, and 8 lber.  I have not been able to match that, and being whipped by a kid is just embarrassing.  So, if you don't mind discussing this dillema with your crankbait, man, I'd sure 'nuff appreciate it


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> As a Christian, I see lot's of contradictions in the Bible starting with why were some books not included.....



I would call that a point of curiosity more than a contradiction.  The modern Bible was assembled by a council, my guess is that centerpinfan would know a good bit about what went on with all that, given that he is more in touch with his "roots" than most the rest of us.


----------



## Asath

"You'll get no response from people you regularly insult."

With all due respect, when I refer to 'You idiots," in context, I refer to ALL of the forebears of ALL of the religions, each and every of which has seemed to believe that it was both their prerogative as conquerers and their duty as 'Believers' to attempt the total eradication of their opponents culture.  Each of your 'benevolent, god-fearing' religions has sought to burn and destroy not only the physical bodies of folks who 'believed' differently, but also to destroy any writing, artifact, or icon of those 'false' enemies.  There are no exceptions, and page after page of examples of this can be easily cited implicating every religion, and indeed every sect within each religion, even when fighting among themselves for sole recognition.

If you are somehow insulted by the actions of your own sect, or cult, or whatever it is you represent, historically, then perhaps it might do to drop the posture of indignance and try to explain just where it says that completely destroying any trace of an opposing thought by any means necessary is countenanced by your leaders or gods or directions from the great invisibility you alone can perceive.  You cannot, sincerely, try to deny that this has been the historic pattern, nor can you deny that certain religious sects, most notably the Taliban, continue this practice in a most violent fashion to this day.

If you do NOT agree that the utter destruction of libraries, documents, temples and churches, icons and statues, artworks and in some cases entire cities simply because one disagreed with the religious convictions or opposing thoughts that might have been contained therein is and was idiotic, and if you do NOT agree that the people who perpetrated (and indeed still perpetrate) such atrocities were and are idiots, then I would be most enlightened by your defense of these practices.  

If you somehow feel that YOUR particular sect was never among such idiots, and is not directly descended from them, and does not share many of their convictions, then I would be quite interested in just how your own particulat cult arose independent of the history of itself -- sprung fully formed, you would need to argue and demonstrate, without a single antecedent.  I wish you luck in that effort, should you undertake it.

You see, I do not insult a single version or single tribe -- I treat all of them as equally barbaric, primitive, ignorant remnants of ancient superstitions, and welcome any of them to try to defend themselves and wash their own hands of the atrocities that have perpetuated what all of civilized and thoughtful humanity ought to condemn as a collective crime of epic proportion.  

If you find the stark facts of the history (and writings) of your own cult, when revealed and pointed out without prejudice but simply with an historian's objectivity, to be somehow 'insulting,' then perhaps you are blaming the messenger.  I'm not making any of this stuff up -- all of it is easily found -- I'm just telling you about it.  The Christian cults in particular seem to speak all too often of their 'revelations,' but appear no more able than any other tribe to accept the 'revelation' of the truth.  The violence of the reactions to any form of disagreement tells the entire tale.  

If truth is 'Insulting,' then belief must be even more delusional than I thought.


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> "You'll get no response from people you regularly insult."
> 
> With all due respect, when I refer to 'You idiots," in context, I refer to ALL of the forebears of ALL of the religions, each and every of which has seemed to believe that it was both their prerogative as conquerers and their duty as 'Believers' to attempt the total eradication of their opponents culture.  Each of your 'benevolent, god-fearing' religions has sought to burn and destroy not only the physical bodies of folks who 'believed' differently, but also to destroy any writing, artifact, or icon of those 'false' enemies.  There are no exceptions, and page after page of examples of this can be easily cited implicating every religion, and indeed every sect within each religion, even when fighting among themselves for sole recognition.
> 
> If you are somehow insulted by the actions of your own sect, or cult, or whatever it is you represent, historically, then perhaps it might do to drop the posture of indignance and try to explain just where it says that completely destroying any trace of an opposing thought by any means necessary is countenanced by your leaders or gods or directions from the great invisibility you alone can perceive.  You cannot, sincerely, try to deny that this has been the historic pattern, nor can you deny that certain religious sects, most notably the Taliban, continue this practice in a most violent fashion to this day.
> 
> If you do NOT agree that the utter destruction of libraries, documents, temples and churches, icons and statues, artworks and in some cases entire cities simply because one disagreed with the religious convictions or opposing thoughts that might have been contained therein is and was idiotic, and if you do NOT agree that the people who perpetrated (and indeed still perpetrate) such atrocities were and are idiots, then I would be most enlightened by your defense of these practices.
> 
> If you somehow feel that YOUR particular sect was never among such idiots, and is not directly descended from them, and does not share many of their convictions, then I would be quite interested in just how your own particulat cult arose independent of the history of itself -- sprung fully formed, you would need to argue and demonstrate, without a single antecedent.  I wish you luck in that effort, should you undertake it.
> 
> You see, I do not insult a single version or single tribe -- I treat all of them as equally barbaric, primitive, ignorant remnants of ancient superstitions, and welcome any of them to try to defend themselves and wash their own hands of the atrocities that have perpetuated what all of civilized and thoughtful humanity ought to condemn as a collective crime of epic proportion.
> 
> If you find the stark facts of the history (and writings) of your own cult, when revealed and pointed out without prejudice but simply with an historian's objectivity, to be somehow 'insulting,' then perhaps you are blaming the messenger.  I'm not making any of this stuff up -- all of it is easily found -- I'm just telling you about it.  The Christian cults in particular seem to speak all too often of their 'revelations,' but appear no more able than any other tribe to accept the 'revelation' of the truth.  The violence of the reactions to any form of disagreement tells the entire tale.
> 
> If truth is 'Insulting,' then belief must be even more delusional than I thought.



I am insulted by you Asath, repeatedly.

Your slick talkin' back peddling only proves your intentions to me. I have no time or need for FURTHER explanations. Please, give us all a break.


----------



## Asath

“HALO, n. Properly, a luminous ring encircling an astronomical body, but not infrequently confounded with "aureola," or "nimbus," a somewhat similar phenomenon worn as a head-dress by divinities and saints. The halo is a purely optical illusion, produced by moisture in the air, in the manner of a rainbow; but the aureola is conferred as a sign of superior sanctity, in the same way as a bishop's mitre, or the Pope's tiara. In the painting of the Nativity, by Szedgkin, a pious artist of Pesth, not only do the Virgin and the Child wear the nimbus, but a donkey nibbling hay from the sacred manger is similarly decorated and, to his lasting honor be it said, appears to bear his unaccustomed dignity with a truly saintly grace.”

“ZEAL, n. A certain nervous disorder afflicting the young and inexperienced. A passion that goeth before a sprawl.

When Zeal sought Gratitude for his reward
He went away exclaiming: "O my Lord!"
"What do you want?" the Lord asked, bending down.
"An ointment for my cracked and bleeding crown.
                                                                                            -- Jum Coople”

-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary


----------



## Four




----------



## TheBishop

Four said:


>


----------



## ted_BSR

Four said:


>



Well, I think it is less funny, and really quite sad. There are people out there like the ones portrayed in this cartoon. No doubt about that.


----------



## Asath

When in doubt, change the subject, and make it personal.  We're rather used to that tactic, as Four so ably pointed out.

Yet -- distraction, pretended outrage, emotional appeals to a pretended right to remain uninsulted by simple disagreement, and endless assertion as a substitute for thoughtful consideration hasn't gotten us anywhere.

If ANY Believer, of any stripe, sect, faction, denomination, or affiliation holds actual evidence that they, and they alone are Right, while everyone else on the planet is Wrong -- and each and every claim this to be so -- then where is the reluctance to show us your cards?

Is the entire secret to your secret that it IS a secret, even to yourselves?  What is it that causes such 'Revelations' to remain unrevealed?  If scientists thought the way believers seem to reason then every major discovery of mankind would be locked in a Holy Place, attended by High Priests who require only that the masses fall to their knees before such superiority, and we would have to take their word for such inventions, rather than share in them and enjoy them.  Imagine weekly devotions and the tithing of ten percent of one's income before the God of Electricity, which is revealed only to the few insiders, and must remain a Sacred Secret.  The masses, after all, must only Believe in Electricity, and need never be shown that it is real and present.  The Electricity itself becomes irrelevant once one argues that it is the Belief in it that matters more than the substance and usefulness of it.

And so it has become with your gods.  Substanceless, invisible, immeasurable, boundless, colossal, unfathomable, infinite, limitless -- in short, whatever anyone wants them to be upon the moment -- these gods are of no use to anyone except men who wish to use the very vagueness and secretive 'Insider Knowledge' of such things as a means to control and bully others. 

If it is only 'Belief,' and 'Faith' that define these gods, then the gods themselves become irrelevant, since they exist only in the descriptions and uses made of them by the various sects in the here and now.  Unable to forge a clear definition, or point to a clear existence of this entity, God becomes only what some few say it is.  That makes all of you right, if your thinking ability is so severely impaired that the mere 'Belief' in something makes it real.  It also makes all of you wrong, since this is clearly a terribly flawed method of approaching reality.

Darn.

So -- back to the topic, if you will, ladies and gentlemen -- Why is YOUR version right, and all of the other versions wrong?  And what, exactly, prevents ALL of you from being wrong?


----------



## ted_BSR

Asath said:


> When in doubt, change the subject, and make it personal.  We're rather used to that tactic, as Four so ably pointed out.
> 
> Yet -- distraction, pretended outrage, emotional appeals to a pretended right to remain uninsulted by simple disagreement, and endless assertion as a substitute for thoughtful consideration hasn't gotten us anywhere.
> 
> If ANY Believer, of any stripe, sect, faction, denomination, or affiliation holds actual evidence that they, and they alone are Right, while everyone else on the planet is Wrong -- and each and every claim this to be so -- then where is the reluctance to show us your cards?
> 
> Is the entire secret to your secret that it IS a secret, even to yourselves?  What is it that causes such 'Revelations' to remain unrevealed?  If scientists thought the way believers seem to reason then every major discovery of mankind would be locked in a Holy Place, attended by High Priests who require only that the masses fall to their knees before such superiority, and we would have to take their word for such inventions, rather than share in them and enjoy them.  Imagine weekly devotions and the tithing of ten percent of one's income before the God of Electricity, which is revealed only to the few insiders, and must remain a Sacred Secret.  The masses, after all, must only Believe in Electricity, and need never be shown that it is real and present.  The Electricity itself becomes irrelevant once one argues that it is the Belief in it that matters more than the substance and usefulness of it.
> 
> And so it has become with your gods.  Substanceless, invisible, immeasurable, boundless, colossal, unfathomable, infinite, limitless -- in short, whatever anyone wants them to be upon the moment -- these gods are of no use to anyone except men who wish to use the very vagueness and secretive 'Insider Knowledge' of such things as a means to control and bully others.
> 
> If it is only 'Belief,' and 'Faith' that define these gods, then the gods themselves become irrelevant, since they exist only in the descriptions and uses made of them by the various sects in the here and now.  Unable to forge a clear definition, or point to a clear existence of this entity, God becomes only what some few say it is.  That makes all of you right, if your thinking ability is so severely impaired that the mere 'Belief' in something makes it real.  It also makes all of you wrong, since this is clearly a terribly flawed method of approaching reality.
> 
> Darn.
> 
> So -- back to the topic, if you will, ladies and gentlemen -- Why is YOUR version right, and all of the other versions wrong?  And what, exactly, prevents ALL of you from being wrong?



Here they are:

Good luck with your psycho babble, I hope I have changed the subject enough to change the subject, because you are boring.


----------



## JB0704

Asath said:


> Why is YOUR version right, and all of the other versions wrong?



Aw, heck, man.....how 'bout you go first.  Since you are quite confident in your atheism, we must be wrong, right?

So, Asath, how do you know your version is right, and my version is wrong?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Aw, heck, man.....how 'bout you go first.  Since you are quite confident in your atheism, we must be wrong, right?
> 
> So, Asath, how do you know your version is right, and my version is wrong?



It is evidence for me. I took everything I was told, everything that I read and everything that I observed and compared it to the claims made by the followers of Gods. I searched for any evidence that could help make the case that these Gods are real and what was being told to me by their followers was true.
I have not been able to find any of it credible on my own and I have not been able to have any believer come forth with any credible evidence to prove anything that they say is true.
All I can come away with is that religions exist and people believe in many things yet not one single person of the billions of believers that exist now and billions that have existed in the past has a single shred of evidence that can prove anything of what they constantly claim is provable and true.

Your Turn.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Here they are:
> 
> Good luck with your psycho babble, I hope I have changed the subject enough to change the subject, because you are boring.



Believers can't deflect the questions hard enough. You either have something or you don't. It is crystal clear you don't.


----------



## TheBishop

ted_BSR said:


> Here they are:
> 
> Good luck with your psycho babble, I hope I have changed the subject enough to change the subject, because you are boring.



You can't answer so you deflect,and then demean, eh? I saw no babble, I saw a clear and consice arguement, for which you have no retort. His arguement have been blunt, but the reason you are so offended, is that you have nothing you can say that will counter his points.  You can make excuses all day but the truth is readily apparent.


----------



## WTM45

JB0704 said:


> Aw, heck, man.....how 'bout you go first.  Since you are quite confident in your atheism, we must be wrong, right?
> 
> So, Asath, how do you know your version is right, and my version is wrong?



Atheism is not a "version" of religious belief.  It is a rejection of all "versions" of religious belief due to lack of supporting evidence.


----------



## JB0704

WTM45 said:


> Atheism is not a "version" of religious belief.  It is a rejection of all "versions" of religious belief due to lack of supporting evidence.



And such rejection concludes I am wrong.  I guess that's what I'm getting at here, both sides claim they have the correct beliefs.  Not sure why one is superior to the other when viewed in that persective.

That being said, I wonder how many of you fellas would have rejected faith if you hadn't found religious people so unpleasant.  I have found many of my skeptic friends began their journey with a dislike of those who claim to have faith.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> And such rejection concludes I am wrong.  I guess that's what I'm getting at here, both sides claim they have the correct beliefs.  Not sure why one is superior to the other when viewed in that persective.
> 
> That being said, I wonder how many of you fellas would have rejected faith if you hadn't found religious people so unpleasant.  I have found many of my skeptic friends began their journey with a dislike of those who claim to have faith.



There is no need for beliefs when one can take the evidence provided and come to a logical conclusion. It is not hard to make conclusions when a side argues for things that they simply cannot prove to themselves without using their imagination. When cold hard facts are what is needed to back up claims and those facts just simply cannot be provided then it is not hard to conclude that one side probably has got it wrong.

How many fellas knowing nothing of any Gods could sit down and put together a conclusion that there is a God and then break it down into specifics on which God is responsible for what based solely off of evidence provided by these Gods?


----------



## Asath

To begin:  Ted -- Nice counterpoint. Well argued, cogently composed, thoughtfully presented, and likely to keep the deep thinkers at Cooperstown up all night wondering just how this might relate to the thought at hand.  

Then this: "So, Asath, how do you know your version is right, and my version is wrong?"

Um?  Is that a question?  You see, I don't have a 'version.'

This particular type of challenge fails by starting from a false premise.  If one puts forward a contention that Sasquach is real, and known to you, personally, and one goes on to ascribe characteristics and thoughts and motivations to this imaginary being, it would be odd to consider that I am putting forward just another 'version' of this delusion by saying, simply, -- "You Have To Be Kidding."  

I merely point out that what you contend cannot be supported.  I offer no competing 'version.'

The fact that Believers of all stripes have nothing at all to support their Faith is not a 'version.'  It is simply the condition that exists.  You have a Book; They have a Book; and Barnes and Noble has a warehouse full of Books.  If your Book is evidence enough, then Gulliver's Travels is also all the evidence any opponent needs.  It is also a Book, and is subject to Belief.  You have to be able to do a bit better than that if you wish to direct and control the behavior of all of humanity.   

But you can't.  (Realize, as well, that I didn't place the stakes so high --Eternity?  Immortal Souls? Total direction of all thoughts words and deeds?  Really?  You guys made this stuff up, for no better reason than to exploit fear of them; and control is the operative intent. You couldn't prove a single bit of your dogma, and you all know it.)   

I realize that turning the question around and throwing it back is a classic bit of false logic and denial that underpins the entire field of abnormal psychology, but most normal folks, when faced with something that makes no sense whatsoever, at least concede something along the lines of, "Geez, I Dunno."

Undaunted, our multiplicity of religious tribes all have a version of their own control-freak theology, and have proven themselves more than willing to kill everyone who disagrees.  In modern times most, but not by any means all, of the tribes have grown up a bit, and merely shun, ostracize, vilify, and exclude any who disagree.  Kind of like Junior High School.

So I repeat, yet again -- if you have a contention that you firmly feel is true, then you are welcome to PROVE that this contention is indeed true.  The standards that adhere to a proof are well established, and do not include your feelings, emotions, mystical wanderings in your own mind, stories you read or heard, or the vilifying of those who you dislike. Real Proof is a bit more rigorous than that.  

You may submit your actual evidence of the existence of your particular God whenever you see fit, but asking the rest of us to prove otherwise, and simply take your word for it in the meantime, is sort of like stomping your feet like a four-year-old and demanding that Mommy set a place at the table for your imaginary friend.

Among adults, it isn't interesting.  Show us your imaginary friend.


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> You can't answer so you deflect,and then demean, eh? I saw no babble, I saw a clear and consice arguement, for which you have no retort. His arguement have been blunt, but the reason you are so offended, is that you have nothing you can say that will counter his points.  You can make excuses all day but the truth is readily apparent.



Truly, I am not offended. Just bored with it I guess. The conversation on here is always the same. I am not singling any one person out in particular, this is how it always seems to happen.

"I believe in God."
_"That's not logical. You have no proof."_
"Yes, I know. Why do I have to prove it you?"
_"Because you are ignorant."_
"Well, the bible says...."
_"The bible is false, don't quote the bible, I don't believe in it."_
"I see evidence of God all around me."
_"No you don't, that is science. You're not an open minded free thinker. You have been brainwashed. You don't argue well either, because you don't stick to my rules of engagment."_
"Your logic is flawed, and you don't understand science."
_You can't come up with any logical rebuttal for the points I have made, so now you are dodging and demeaning._
"The conversation on here is always the same..."

Yeah, I am not interested anymore.

Edit to add: BTW, I stopped reading more than a couple of lines of Asath's post a long time ago, so that may explain why I don't logically rebut his points.


----------



## WTM45

Ted, if you are giving up at the "apologetics" effort just say so.  The discussion really is no different in here than anywhere else in the world.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> There is no need for beliefs when one can take the evidence provided and come to a logical conclusion. It is not hard to make conclusions when a side argues for things that they simply cannot prove to themselves without using their imagination. When cold hard facts are what is needed to back up claims and those facts just simply cannot be provided then it is not hard to conclude that one side probably has got it wrong.



Yes, one of us is wrong.  No, neither of us can prove who it is.

Unless, of course, you have the cold hard facts to prove everything is infinite.....or it all just poofed.

Yes, we both need a little imagination to believe the way we choose.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Yes, one of us is wrong.  No, neither of us can prove who it is.
> 
> Unless, of course, you have the cold hard facts to prove everything is infinite.....or it all just poofed.
> 
> Yes, we both need a little imagination to believe the way we choose.



I have enough cold hard facts to convince me what it isn't.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Truly, I am not offended. Just bored with it I guess. The conversation on here is always the same. I am not singling any one person out in particular, this is how it always seems to happen.
> 
> "I believe in God."
> _"That's not logical. You have no proof."_
> "Yes, I know. Why do I have to prove it you?"
> _"Because you are ignorant."_
> "Well, the bible says...."
> _"The bible is false, don't quote the bible, I don't believe in it."_
> "I see evidence of God all around me."
> _"No you don't, that is science. You're not an open minded free thinker. You have been brainwashed. You don't argue well either, because you don't stick to my rules of engagment."_
> "Your logic is flawed, and you don't understand science."
> _You can't come up with any logical rebuttal for the points I have made, so now you are dodging and demeaning._
> "The conversation on here is always the same..."
> 
> Yeah, I am not interested anymore.
> 
> Edit to add: BTW, I stopped reading more than a couple of lines of Asath's post a long time ago, so that may explain why I don't logically rebut his points.



The conversation could change dramatically if someone could share what Asath and all of as are asking for.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I have enough cold hard facts to convince me what it isn't.



But we are all working with the same info. I have yet in my life to encounter evidence of anything that would lead me to believe there is not an oc.

I am however, asking you or asath to fill me in on why I am wrong.

Beyond that, the extent of my discussions are "here is what I believe, and here is why." The why doesn't have any cold hard facts, just conclusions.  Same as your position.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> The conversation could change dramatically if someone could share what Asath and all of as are asking for.



Well.....you have everything we got, and see it differently. We have everything you got, and see it differently.  It's all an exercise in debating theory.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> But we are all working with the same info. I have yet in my life to encounter evidence of anything that would lead me to believe there is not an oc.
> 
> I am however, asking you or asath to fill me in on why I am wrong.
> 
> Beyond that, the extent of my discussions are "here is what I believe, and here is why." The why doesn't have any cold hard facts, just conclusions.  Same as your position.



Mine is more of a here is why I don't believe...because there are no facts to sway me otherwise.


----------



## Four

JB0704 said:


> But we are all working with the same info. I have yet in my life to encounter evidence of anything that would lead me to believe there is not an oc.
> 
> I am however, asking you or asath to fill me in on why I am wrong.
> 
> Beyond that, the extent of my discussions are "here is what I believe, and here is why." The why doesn't have any cold hard facts, just conclusions.  Same as your position.



If you're entire conclusion is that the universe has a discrete beginning, that's a completely rational position to take. If by original you mean it was the first, and by creator you mean that the universe didn't exist, and then did exist.

Once you start adding in all the other attributes that make up your proposed deity, its were things start breaking down.

For example.

There was an OC.
There was an OC that was without matter.
There was an OC that was sentient without matter.
There was an OC that was intelligent without matter.
There was an OC that was intelligent without matter, and designed the universe.
There was an OC that was intelligent without matter, and designed the universe and is omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.
There still is an OC that is intelligent designed the whole universe, and doesn't take any interest in humans.
There still is an OC that is intelligent designed the whole universe, and does take interest in humans.
There still is an OC that is intelligent designed the whole universe, and takes interest in humans and (insert the rest of you're specific brand/understanding of Christianity)


----------



## bullethead

Four said:


> If you're entire conclusion is that the universe has a discrete beginning, that's a completely rational position to take. If by original you mean it was the first, and by creator you mean that the universe didn't exist, and then did exist.
> 
> Once you start adding in all the other attributes that make up your proposed deity, its were things start breaking down.
> 
> For example.
> 
> There was an OC.
> There was an OC that was without matter.
> There was an OC that was sentient without matter.
> There was an OC that was intelligent without matter.
> There was an OC that was intelligent without matter, and designed the universe.
> There was an OC that was intelligent without matter, and designed the universe and is omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.
> There still is an OC that is intelligent designed the whole universe, and doesn't take any interest in humans.
> There still is an OC that is intelligent designed the whole universe, and does take interest in humans.
> There still is an OC that is intelligent designed the whole universe, and takes interest in humans and (insert the rest of you're specific brand/understanding of Christianity)


----------



## ted_BSR

WTM45 said:


> Ted, if you are giving up at the "apologetics" effort just say so.  The discussion really is no different in here than anywhere else in the world.



Yes, you are correct about the rest of the world, but I find that people react more to actual human interaction than keyboard diatribes.

No, I am not giving up; it is not in my nature to do that.

I'm just not going to continue going around in circles confined to the hamster ball that is the internet.

I'll be looking at You Tube videos and keyboard diatribes in the rear view mirror from now on!

Actions speak louder than keystrokes!!!


----------



## ted_BSR

Four said:


> If you're entire conclusion is that the universe has a discrete beginning, that's a completely rational position to take. If by original you mean it was the first, and by creator you mean that the universe didn't exist, and then did exist.
> 
> Once you start adding in all the other attributes that make up your proposed deity, its were things start breaking down.
> 
> For example.
> 
> There was an OC.
> There was an OC that was without matter.
> There was an OC that was sentient without matter.
> There was an OC that was intelligent without matter.
> There was an OC that was intelligent without matter, and designed the universe.
> There was an OC that was intelligent without matter, and designed the universe and is omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.
> There still is an OC that is intelligent designed the whole universe, and doesn't take any interest in humans.
> There still is an OC that is intelligent designed the whole universe, and does take interest in humans.
> There still is an OC that is intelligent designed the whole universe, and takes interest in humans and (insert the rest of you're specific brand/understanding of Christianity)



All quite possible from my perspective.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Mine is more of a here is why I don't believe...because there are no facts to sway me otherwise.



You should stop looking for facts.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> You should stop looking for facts.



now THAT would be boring


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> now THAT would be boring



Think of the possibilites.


----------



## WTM45

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, you are correct about the rest of the world, but I find that people react more to actual human interaction than keyboard diatribes.
> 
> No, I am not giving up; it is not in my nature to do that.
> 
> I'm just not going to continue going around in circles confined to the hamster ball that is the internet.
> 
> I'll be looking at You Tube videos and keyboard diatribes in the rear view mirror from now on!
> 
> Actions speak louder than keystrokes!!!



True regarding the old Internet oftentimes being a rather empty, cold and gymnasium-like, stuffy coffeehouse environment.  Not the most friendly or accomodating.  Oftentimes dull and motonous.  
But even greater so without contributions from all sides and angles.
Stay awhile.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Think of the possibilites.



I did that for 20 years, now it's time to find the truth. Those possibilities interest me way more.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> I did that for 20 years, now it's time to find the truth. Those possibilities interest me way more.



And where will you look for the "truth"?


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> And where will you look for the "truth"?


In each and every day life.
Not in the writings of an ancient tribe from thousands of years ago.


----------



## TripleXBullies

Are you asking him to think of the possibilities of where make believe can take him, as opposed to truth? Bullet, he's right. You can imagine up a lot!


----------



## bullethead

TripleXBullies said:


> Are you asking him to think of the possibilities of where make believe can take him, as opposed to truth? Bullet, he's right. You can imagine up a lot!



Exactly tripXB!
I have a great imagination but I know when to use it and can tell the difference of what is real and what it conjured up in my mind.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> In each and every day life.
> Not in the writings of an ancient tribe from thousands of years ago.



I lean towards everyday life too. Don't get so hung up on the bible, just look around.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> I lean towards everyday life too. Don't get so hung up on the bible, just look around.



Ted, I can't get enough of nature. I am awed by everything around me both man made and natural. Not one thing leads to think some sort of super being had a hand in any of it.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Ted, I can't get enough of nature. I am awed by everything around me both man made and natural. Not one thing leads to think some sort of super being had a hand in any of it.



Not even the duck billed platypus?


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Not even the duck billed platypus?



I have never looked at one and said "clearly a God made that".


----------



## Asath

Can’t remember who said it, so I can’t attribute the quote, but it goes something like this – “ It is said that the platypus was made out of the parts of the other animals.  I say that the other animals were made out of the parts of the platypus.”

Unfortunately, this sort of thing remains the level of inquiry we deal with daily, and informs the ‘arguments’ that are offered.  It hardly matters, you see, what anyone ‘thinks’ about the topic – science has already done the exhaustive analysis, traced the known and likely development, dated the artifacts with reasonable care and near certainty, and is glad to inform folks (without glee or judgment or condescension towards any ‘belief’) that just about everything those folks ‘think’ is quite wrong.

It becomes difficult to put forward the contention of an intelligent ‘invisible agent’ in an age where just about nothing at all remains invisible.  We are experimenting with, measuring, and manipulating portions of individual atoms, and have advanced that to the point where every kitchen has a portable device to cook their food using nothing more than carefully controlled wavelengths.  Invisible.  Real.  Not subject to debate, or Belief.  Pure Applied Science  -- $69.87 at WalMart.

At this point in the history of the development of knowledge it is no longer a matter of ‘I Say” vs. “You Say.”  That is playground logic, and harks back to the origins of Belief, which is simply a known and written and revealed history of bullying by control freaks exploiting the unknown for their own purposes.  There are very few unknowns that can be applied to this particular debate anymore, if a debate it is.  None, actually.

100% of every ‘Creation’ story ever written has been proven beyond any doubt to be wrong, under any terms that anyone wishes to put forward.  Timing?  Wrong.  Adam and Eve?  Not a chance.  Let There Be Light?  Be serious.  Man Made in God’s Image?  C’mon, really?  Truth and Morality Handed Down From On High?  Which version?  Divine Justice?  Reward and Punishment?  ETERNITY?  Really?

Sorry fellas.  I realize that the removal of cherished illusions is painful, like when you found out that there really WASN’T a Santa Claus, but this game has run its course.  Religions, across the board – all of them – are starkly revealed as human constructs, and worse, as purely political human constructs.  The fact that too many otherwise intelligent people for too long have been taken in, brainwashed from childhood, and went along without independent thought is not only too bad, but is the ink with which the tragedy of our current situation has been written.

Religion is no longer just a disagreement – and has never been – it is a dangerous, delusional, driving force that has destroyed and continues to destroy innocent people in an apparently inexhaustible thirst for conquest and superiority.  Religion is not, as all adherents to their own version would trumpet, a virtue.  It is a disease.


----------



## TripleXBullies

bullethead said:


> I have never looked at one and said "clearly a God made that".



If anything they point to evolution for me...


----------



## BuckHunter31

Phil Robertson pretty much sums it up at the end of "deciding to follow".

http://link.brightcove.com/services...yXxF2&bclid=2212959832001&bctid=2219203804001


----------



## Asath

"Phil Robertson pretty much sums it up at the end of "deciding to follow"."

And what do you suppose, just as a conservative guess, Phil Roberton's personal bank balance to be?

Probably just living paycheck to paycheck, slaving away in his service to the Lord . . .


----------



## BuckHunter31

As he simply put it, I believe the Lord exists. That's what I put my faith in along with his almighty power. He gives me hope.

Your belief is that he doesn't exist. That's your only hope.

Take care brother.


----------



## BuckHunter31

And I don't reckon money has anything to do with it. Last time I checked, you can't buy your way to heaven


----------



## dport7

Asath said:


> “You don't get it.”
> 
> But, if you mean that I do not ‘GET’ the comprehensive truths of the world and the universe that surrounds me, then you would be very wrong.  Modern physics has begun to conclude that the entire universe is not only made of information, but it is interchangeable rather than strictly binary.  Not two KINDS of particles, but two particles, period.  One positive, one negative, but able to exchange positions – in short, one particle with two natures. Yin and yang, light and darkness, positive and negative, intertwined, coiling around each other and never one cancelling the other out but in the relativity of their concentration.  All things, in the end, are one thing.  Tosses petty thoughts of ‘belief’ into a hat, huh?



Yep, only two. Good and evil. Right from wrong. God and satan One positive, one negative, but they don't change positions.

The particles you speak of don't change either, positive is positive and negative is negative. They live together, but they don't change polarity.


----------



## BuckHunter31

Thought this was pretty good. Enjoy


Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Is GOD good ?

Student : Sure.

Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?

Student : Yes.

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

(Student was silent.)

Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Is satan good ?

Student : No.

Professor: Where does satan come from ?

Student : From … GOD …

Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Professor: So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer.)

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them ?

(Student had no answer.)

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?

Student : No, sir.

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?

Student : No , sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn’t.

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class was in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?

(The class broke out into laughter. )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> Thought this was pretty good. Enjoy
> 
> 
> Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
> 
> Student : Yes, sir.
> 
> Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
> 
> Student : Absolutely, sir.
> 
> Professor : Is GOD good ?
> 
> Student : Sure.
> 
> Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
> 
> Student : Yes.
> 
> Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
> 
> (Student was silent.)
> 
> Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
> 
> Student : Yes.
> 
> Professor: Is satan good ?
> 
> Student : No.
> 
> Professor: Where does satan come from ?
> 
> Student : From … GOD …
> 
> Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
> 
> Student : Yes.
> 
> Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
> 
> Student : Yes.
> 
> Professor: So who created evil ?
> 
> (Student did not answer.)
> 
> Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
> 
> Student : Yes, sir.
> 
> Professor: So, who created them ?
> 
> (Student had no answer.)
> 
> Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
> 
> Student : No, sir.
> 
> Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
> 
> Student : No , sir.
> 
> Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
> 
> Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
> 
> Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
> 
> Student : Yes.
> 
> Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
> 
> Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
> 
> Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
> 
> Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
> 
> Professor: Yes.
> 
> Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
> 
> Professor: Yes.
> 
> Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
> 
> (The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)
> 
> Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
> 
> (There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
> 
> Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
> 
> Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
> 
> Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
> 
> Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
> 
> Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
> 
> Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
> 
> Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
> 
> Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
> 
> Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
> 
> Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
> 
> (The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
> 
> Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
> 
> (The class was in uproar.)
> 
> 
> Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
> 
> (The class broke out into laughter. )
> 
> Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
> 
> (The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
> 
> Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
> 
> Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
> 
> By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.



Nothing personal but I think 90% of religions problem is the followers believe everything they read.
P.T. Barnum would make a MINT in here alone!

From truthorfiction.com:
There is no evidence that this exchange ever took place.

This eRumor has circulated without Einstein's name and someone added it to a version that started circulating in the summer of 2004.
Also, it is not likely that young Einstein would have presented this argument.

In his Autobiographical Notes, he states that even though his Jewish family was not religious, he developed a "deep religiosity" as Jewish child that came to an end when he was 12.

He says he developed a skeptical attitude that never left him.

He made reference to "God" on many occasions but also said he did not believe some of the stories in the Bible and did not believe in a personal God.


----------



## BuckHunter31

It could be a made up skit for all I care. It makes a point in facts for those that need em. Good read none the less. 

And I don't believe everything I read, unless of course I read it on here  (they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true  )

No offense taken.


----------



## ambush80

BuckHunter31 said:


> It could be a made up skit for all I care. It makes a point in facts for those that need em. Good read none the less.
> 
> And I don't believe everything I read, unless of course I read it on here  (they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true  )
> 
> No offense taken.



And there it is.  It says it. I believe it. End of story.


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> It could be a made up skit for all I care. It makes a point in facts for those that need em. Good read none the less.
> 
> And I don't believe everything I read, unless of course I read it on here  (they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true  )
> 
> No offense taken.



The skit mixes in some facts with non-facts in order to make the non-facts seem credible.


----------



## BuckHunter31

Okay well I'm not going to argue over it. One of my buddies posted it up on FB so I thought I'd share. I had never read it before until today and don't really know much about Einstein. Just thought it was a cool read. 

But when you break it down, the point is clear. You walk by FAITH not by SIGHT. 

Not everything in this world can be explained. For instance, to think that the human body just happened is crazy to me. Just study the eye for instance. It is so complex in every aspect it's incredible. To think the reproductive system or the miracle of life, the way cells come together and know how to form organs and muscle and tissues is just a coincidence is crazy. To think that this is all we have... this life we live... these few short years is it... is crazy. BUT that's just me  You are entitled to your opinions. I'm sure someone can explain in a scientific manner all the questions of the universe. 

But I've always wondered how someone can think that God is absent. I mean, if that were true, how did all of this come about? Two atoms colliding? Evolution? My argument for those are this, you can not get something out of nothing. You can't have a completely empty space, or whatever you want to call it and then all of the sudden have things develop. SOMETHING created those things. If it were atoms, or heat, or pressure that you may think created it, SOMETHING had to create those atoms, heat or pressure. Break it down to where you think this life, world, universe came from. How did it become? Then ask yourself how did that become. If you keep asking yourself this enough times you will run out of answers. That's where you'll find God. A higher power. Our creator. I have my beliefs and I am in no way pushing them on people who don't want to accept it. But this is just a simple way of looking at "religion" and God and the questions "Is there really a God?" 

Guess that's what makes the world go round, different strokes for different folks


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> Okay well I'm not going to argue over it. One of my buddies posted it up on FB so I thought I'd share. I had never read it before until today and don't really know much about Einstein. Just thought it was a cool read.


It's an old one



BuckHunter31 said:


> But when you break it down, the point is clear. You walk by FAITH not by SIGHT.


I use my legs 



BuckHunter31 said:


> Not everything in this world can be explained. For instance, to think that the human body just happened is crazy to me. Just study the eye for instance. It is so complex in every aspect it's incredible. To think the reproductive system or the miracle of life, the way cells come together and know how to form organs and muscle and tissues is just a coincidence is crazy. To think that this is all we have... this life we live... these few short years is it... is crazy. BUT that's just me  You are entitled to your opinions. I'm sure someone can explain in a scientific manner all the questions of the universe.


So your God can make the complexities of the eye and instruct cells how to come together but cannot write a book?



BuckHunter31 said:


> But I've always wondered how someone can think that God is absent. I mean, if that were true, how did all of this come about? Two atoms colliding? Evolution? My argument for those are this, you can not get something out of nothing. You can't have a completely empty space, or whatever you want to call it and then all of the sudden have things develop. SOMETHING created those things. If it were atoms, or heat, or pressure that you may think created it, SOMETHING had to create those atoms, heat or pressure. Break it down to where you think this life, world, universe came from. How did it become? Then ask yourself how did that become. If you keep asking yourself this enough times you will run out of answers. That's where you'll find God. A higher power. Our creator. I have my beliefs and I am in no way pushing them on people who don't want to accept it. But this is just a simple way of looking at "religion" and God and the questions "Is there really a God?"



buckhunter then WHO created your God?

The universe cannot be created.

If the universe is “everything that exists,” and it could be created, then, whatever entity could create the universe, would be outside that universe. It follows, then, that such an entity would be outside “everything that exists.” An entity “outside” existence does not exist! A non-existent entity cannot do anything. Creation is an action that an entity must perform; it cannot be performed if the entity that would perform it does not exist!

It is instructive to note that this principle automatically refutes both the theory that “God created the universe” and that “the Big Bang created the universe.” Even if it were possible that all currently known entities were intelligently designed, they could not have been designed by a being that is somehow “beyond existence.” Rather, this being would need to be a delimited entity in its own right, with its own peculiar attributes (qualities) and capacities for action (relationships with other entities). Let the reader recall that everything which is or happens must in some manner involve some entity or entities. There are no such things as “pure” qualities, “pure” relationships, or “pure” creation, apart from the entities that exhibit, relate, and create.

Any Creator of other entities would thus need to exist and be a part of the universe (and it would need to relate to other entities in some manner, as a human creator relates to the entity, “brick,” when he constructs the new entity, “building”). The Creator would not be able to create the universe, the latter being a contradiction in terms. But God is not defined as an entity. As a matter of fact, God is defined precisely as a non-entity, something which does not only lack any set qualities, but which cannot possibly be understood or perceived by anyone anywhere in the universe. God clearly fails the third corollary of identity, which states that any entity must have some relationship to everything else that exists. (God also fails the first and second tests, as it is not defined what qualities God has; if God created the universe, He cannot have any qualities whatsoever, because the universe encompasses every entity that exists and thus every entity that can have qualities.)



BuckHunter31 said:


> Guess that's what makes the world go round, different strokes for different folks


Correct. If there was ONE way only everybody would be on the same page.


----------



## Asath

“The particles you speak of don't change either, positive is positive and negative is negative. They live together, but they don't change polarity.”

Um?  Do your homework. Yes they do.

I won’t waste bandwidth with the re-quoting of the entire BuckHunter thing, but while that sort of anecdote might amuse the faithful, it has no teeth.  It makes a nice stage-show, but it lacks the rigor of facts and actually employs the scientific concept of relativity in a rather perverse form --   no serious thinker has ever put forward the idea that darkness is the absence of light, for example.  That sort of definition is usually limited to children who need Mommy to install a night-light for them, because they have a terror of things they cannot see.  Cold, similarly, is not the absence of heat – it is simply a subjective judgment relative only to one’s personal comfort – the natural world (the universe) has no opinion as to whether it is too hot or too cold in any particular place or at any particular time – only spoiled children who consider all things only in relation to their own, personal point of view make such observations.  

In the end, this rather lengthy and amusing anecdote argues in favor of a god that serves YOU.  Perhaps, despite the flowery rhetoric and institutionalized exchange of wealth involved, and despite the Holy nature of the devotions and the trappings of long established politics, it might be true that nobody at all actually thinks that it is THEY who serve the god of their own imagining, but rather that they fall to their knees in the desperate hope that such an imaginary being will pop into existence suddenly to serve THEM, and their aims, and hopes, and fondest desires.  Be honest here – one cannot Serve God, because one would need first to know what it is.  You don’t, and readily admit that.  You have created your god to serve you, and make your own hopes and wishes come true.


----------



## BuckHunter31

God is the almighty, He created the heavens and earth, the creator of the universe. Some things just can't be explained brother. And that's okay. It's called Faith. I Believe there is a God and have Faith in Him and all He can do. 

Hold your newborn child and tell me they came from a monkey or a mud hole. Sit there and tell me it's all a coincidence and that science has all the answers. I live by Faith. I BELIEVE there is a God. You BELIEVE there isn't. I have FAITH in my God which gives me HOPE. You have FAITH that God doesn't exist and that's your ONLY hope. Ever hope your not wrong? I'm done swapping punches and reading big words that I don't know half the meaning of. I guess this thread will go on and on since there isn't any "proof" and folks to argue it. Kinda pointless. Entertaining at times but exhausting none the less.


----------



## Asath

Nice recitation of the dogma, but you rat yourself out with this bit -- 

“I'm done swapping punches and reading big words that I don't know half the meaning of.”

This is not in the spirit of this forum, where all are welcome to offer thoughtful opinions, and I realize that I risk censure simply for the asking, but I sense a note of rather desperate frustration in your response, so if I may beg the indulgence of the mods, I will go off-topic here for a moment  -- 

Sir – with all respect – which words do you find unintelligible?  No one here is deliberately trying, as preachers specialize in, to bowl anyone over with a cascade of endless words that the audience has no hope of understanding.  We all mean largely the opposite – to try to make our own positions clear.  Granted the subject matter is often quite dense and complex, and the exchanges elevate in complexity on the scale of the knowledge and understanding of those involved in the discussion, and we tend to range from the sub-atomic to the universal in trying to make our various points, but if you encounter things that are not within your own knowledge or understanding, please don’t take it personally.

 Allow me to offer an anecdote of my own – when I was 17 years old (back before the earth was discovered to be round), my buddies and I used to borrow my mother’s bone stock baby-crap brown Mercury station wagon (a Grand Marquis with a Canadian built 460), and take it over to another friend’s house, swap out the intake manifold with our own ( a Tarantula X with twin 850 Holleys), take off the muffler so it didn’t suffocate, and go out and win huge amounts of money street racing against the smug fellas with the souped-up 396 SS Chevys with the fancy paint and the bleach dispensers.  The wagon didn’t look like much, but all they ever saw were my tail-lights.   Today, some three hundred thousand years later (it often seems), I open the hood of my car, take a look at the purely mysterious bit of garlic that now counts as a car engine, and simply close the hood carefully and reverently, then call up the High Priests to solve whatever problem exists.  It is so frustratingly complex to someone who DIDN’T devote a lifetime to the study of it, as many did, that I must simply concede.  I no longer have any idea what is going on in there.  

I don’t try to ‘swap punches’ with the folks who DO know what’s going on in there.  Not knowing is not some sort of defeat.  It means only that I don’t know the things that they know.  They don’t know the things that I know.  Nor do THEY pretend to do so either, or feel the need to ‘swap punches’ with me over those things.  This isn’t a contest, or a personal challenge match where everyone gets to take a swing at the carnival sledge-hammer game to see who can hit it the hardest.  I don’t jump into discussions of astrophysics, then pretend to be insulted or slighted when my completely uninformed opinions are ignored, nor complain that I don’t understand half of the words they employed regarding their own specialty.

So to say – there is no shame in simply saying , “ This crap is out of my area, good luck fellas, and let me know if the car is running in the morning, I’ve got other stuff to do.”  Nobody, honestly, has a problem with that.


----------



## BuckHunter31

No desperate frustration here brother. Your - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ation ( Wow okay, salvation is allowed but not the opposite? is Darnation better  ) is not my salvation. 

But swapping punches is what we are exactly doing. I post my beliefs and they get dissected to prove other wise. It's like two little kids going back and forth about who is better... Batman or Superman  (which we all know Superman would destroy Batman any day of the week  )

And I don't rekon this "crap", as you like to call it, is out of my league. I'm still young and have a lot to learn but just because I'm unfamiliar with terms you are using does not mean I do not understand the concept. It seems to me that you use overly sophisticated filler words to come across as a man of seriousness and knowledge. But all you have come across to me is a man with no hope, no faith which in my eyes is foolish. But hey that's MY opinion. I'm pretty sure you have made it clear to everyone yours on every level. 

It seems all you do is break down everyone's response with your edjumcated words of wisdom. I could sit here and dissect each of your sentences but why? I'm not arguing to change your opinion. I'm simply stating mine.  

So go ahead and break down each sentence and de-rationalize my opinions. Or twist my words and make me come across as foolish. It's a public forum, that's the "spirit" of it. Or so they say 

Oh yeah, hope the car is running this morning. I have other stuff to do 



Take care.


----------



## ambush80

BuckHunter31 said:


> No desperate frustration here brother. Your - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ation ( Wow okay, salvation is allowed but not the opposite? is Darnation better  ) is not my salvation.
> 
> But swapping punches is what we are exactly doing. I post my beliefs and they get dissected to prove other wise. It's like two little kids going back and forth about who is better... Batman or Superman  (which we all know Superman would destroy Batman any day of the week  )
> 
> And I don't rekon this "crap", as you like to call it, is out of my league. I'm still young and have a lot to learn but just because I'm unfamiliar with terms you are using does not mean I do not understand the concept. It seems to me that you use overly sophisticated filler words to come across as a man of seriousness and knowledge. But all you have come across to me is a man with no hope, no faith which in my eyes is foolish. But hey that's MY opinion. I'm pretty sure you have made it clear to everyone yours on every level.
> 
> It seems all you do is break down everyone's response with your edjumcated words of wisdom. I could sit here and dissect each of your sentences but why? I'm not arguing to change your opinion. I'm simply stating mine.
> 
> So go ahead and break down each sentence and de-rationalize my opinions. Or twist my words and make me come across as foolish. It's a public forum, that's the "spirit" of it. Or so they say
> 
> Oh yeah, hope the car is running this morning. I have other stuff to do
> 
> 
> 
> Take care.



You, my friend are well suited to your chosen religious affiliation.  You might even say it was designed just for you.


----------



## BuckHunter31

More like I was designed for it. 

But I must say, I do love chocolate. I'm glad I, as a sole individual, was in mind when the Reese peanut butter cup was created.

Yeah, makes about as much sense.


----------



## BuckHunter31

bullethead said:


> buckhunter then WHO created your God?
> 
> The universe cannot be created.
> 
> If the universe is “everything that exists,” and it could be created, then, whatever entity could create the universe, would be outside that universe. It follows, then, that such an entity would be outside “everything that exists.” An entity “outside” existence does not exist! A non-existent entity cannot do anything. Creation is an action that an entity must perform; it cannot be performed if the entity that would perform it does not exist!
> 
> It is instructive to note that this principle automatically refutes both the theory that “God created the universe” and that “the Big Bang created the universe.” Even if it were possible that all currently known entities were intelligently designed, they could not have been designed by a being that is somehow “beyond existence.” Rather, this being would need to be a delimited entity in its own right, with its own peculiar attributes (qualities) and capacities for action (relationships with other entities). Let the reader recall that everything which is or happens must in some manner involve some entity or entities. There are no such things as “pure” qualities, “pure” relationships, or “pure” creation, apart from the entities that exhibit, relate, and create.
> 
> Any Creator of other entities would thus need to exist and be a part of the universe (and it would need to relate to other entities in some manner, as a human creator relates to the entity, “brick,” when he constructs the new entity, “building”). The Creator would not be able to create the universe, the latter being a contradiction in terms. But God is not defined as an entity. As a matter of fact, God is defined precisely as a non-entity, something which does not only lack any set qualities, but which cannot possibly be understood or perceived by anyone anywhere in the universe. God clearly fails the third corollary of identity, which states that any entity must have some relationship to everything else that exists. (God also fails the first and second tests, as it is not defined what qualities God has; if God created the universe, He cannot have any qualities whatsoever, because the universe encompasses every entity that exists and thus every entity that can have qualities.)



The creation of the universe must have been by an entity which is beyond time, or eternal, exactly how the Bible describes God.


----------



## bullethead

buckhunter31 said:


> the creation of the universe must have been by an entity which is beyond time, or eternal, exactly how the bible describes god.



must???


----------



## bullethead

The Infinite Regress Argument

This is the argument: Assuming God created everything that exists, then what created God? What created the thing that created God, and so forth? We can ask this question an infinite number of times and still have the question remain valid (and parts of it unanswered), assuming that we grant the existence of God. This is also logically impermissible, as the rationalist school of thought holds that anything can be understood in a finite series of observations and logical deductions.

The answer to this dilemma is to employ the technique of Occam’s Razor. (William of Occam himself was a theologian, it is true, but, in his studies, he inadvertently developed a method which, when taken to the extreme, challenges the very foundations of religion.) Occam’s Razor says that we must always take the simplest working explanation for anything, within the context of the evidence that we have available. If the simplest explanation for why letters are appearing on my computer screen right now is that my hand is typing them into the keyboard, it is logically impermissible to then have a theory which is more elaborate. An example of such a theory might be that there is an invisible green hippopotamus somewhere in the Alpha Centauri star system which is telekinetically manipulating the keyboard of my computer, while I have in reality been knocked out by the hippopotamus’s minions here on earth, bound, gagged, and given a hallucinogenic drug to make me think as if it is my hand which is typing this right now. There is no evidence to contradict the above theory directly, but there is also no evidence to support it. In the absence of evidence to support anything, we always presume its absence and embrace, as per Occam’s Razor, the simplest working explanation for anything whatsoever-- provided that the explanation is consistent with the rest of reality.

Here is what Occam’s Razor tells us on the question of what created the universe: The simplest working explanation is that the universe did not need to be created. The universe just is, always was, and always will be. Granted, particular entities in the universe changed. Star systems formed and disintegrated. The Earth was once a cloud of dust particles, and our distant ancestors were once single-celled organisms. But existence itself (i.e., the universe) always existed. We do need to undertake infinite regress to speculate as to what created the Creator, because even the very question is not a logical one to raise. The universe can be explained just fine without God, or without the Big Bang, or without any theories whatsoever about universal creation and/or destruction.


----------



## BuckHunter31

God exists, and therefore I have a basis for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. 

How, based on your presupposition that the universe is entirely made of matter, can you account for such laws?

How can you justifiably distinguish good from evil?

Try not to borrow any ideas about right and wrong from the Christian stand point to state your objection.

Ready... set... GO!


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> The Infinite Regress Argument
> 
> This is the argument: Assuming God created everything that exists, then what created God? What created the thing that created God, and so forth? We can ask this question an infinite number of times and still have the question remain valid (and parts of it unanswered), assuming that we grant the existence of God. This is also logically impermissible, as the rationalist school of thought holds that anything can be understood in a finite series of observations and logical deductions.
> 
> The answer to this dilemma is to employ the technique of Occam’s Razor. (William of Occam himself was a theologian, it is true, but, in his studies, he inadvertently developed a method which, when taken to the extreme, challenges the very foundations of religion.) Occam’s Razor says that we must always take the simplest working explanation for anything, within the context of the evidence that we have available. If the simplest explanation for why letters are appearing on my computer screen right now is that my hand is typing them into the keyboard, it is logically impermissible to then have a theory which is more elaborate. An example of such a theory might be that there is an invisible green hippopotamus somewhere in the Alpha Centauri star system which is telekinetically manipulating the keyboard of my computer, while I have in reality been knocked out by the hippopotamus’s minions here on earth, bound, gagged, and given a hallucinogenic drug to make me think as if it is my hand which is typing this right now. There is no evidence to contradict the above theory directly, but there is also no evidence to support it. In the absence of evidence to support anything, we always presume its absence and embrace, as per Occam’s Razor, the simplest working explanation for anything whatsoever-- provided that the explanation is consistent with the rest of reality.
> 
> Here is what Occam’s Razor tells us on the question of what created the universe: The simplest working explanation is that the universe did not need to be created. The universe just is, always was, and always will be. Granted, particular entities in the universe changed. Star systems formed and disintegrated. The Earth was once a cloud of dust particles, and our distant ancestors were once single-celled organisms. But existence itself (i.e., the universe) always existed. We do need to undertake infinite regress to speculate as to what created the Creator, because even the very question is not a logical one to raise. The universe can be explained just fine without God, or without the Big Bang, or without any theories whatsoever about universal creation and/or destruction.



If this is true, how did we get to the point where we are typing this right now?



> The argument at stage one proceeds from the nature and the existence of the physical. Confusions, quibbles and philosophical exercises—pointless and otherwise—aside, it is true that there is a physical world, and we do know that this is true. Further—although the nature of that world may be, ultimately, a profound mystery, or turn out to have some deep kinship with what we call the mental or spiritual—there are some things about its general character which we also know to be true. One of these is as follows: However concrete physical reality is sectioned up, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself.
> 
> This, I submit, is something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world, and of course anyone should feel free to submit a case of a physical state of which this proposition is not true. Now it is, certainly, an extremely complex proposition, and, if we begin to take it apart, we will surely be led to many things we do not know and possibly do not even understand. But it has that in common with nearly all of the truths which we know best, both in ordinary life and in science. One of the things which I hope might be clear at this point in humanity's intellectual development is that degree of simplicity or complexity in an object has no automatic significance either for being or for knowledge. It should be equally clear that inability to say how we know something does not imply that we do not know it—although it is always appropriate to raise the question of the "how" whenever someone claims to know something, and some appropriate kind of explanation is usually required.
> 
> Now any general understanding of the dependencies of physical states would require something like Aristotle's well-known four "causes." Restricting ourselves to the temporal order, however, we find, among other things, that every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions. This means that for any given state, e.g. Voyager II being past Triton, all of the necessary conditions of that state must be over and done with at that state, or at the event of which the state is the ontic residue. The series of "efficient" causes, to speak with Aristotle, is completed for any given event or state that obtains. At the state in question, we are not waiting for any of these causes to happen, to come into being.
> 
> Moreover, this completed set of causes is highly structured in time and in ontic dependence, through relationships which are irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive. Thus, no physical state is temporally or ontically prior to itself, and if one, a, is prior to another, b, b is not prior to a. Further, if a is prior to b and b to c, then a is prior to c. This rigorous structure of the past is eternally fixed and specifies a framework within which every event of coming into existence and ceasing to exist finds it place. Most importantly for present interests, since the series of causes for any given state is completed, it not only exhibits a rigorous structure as indicated, but that structure also has a first term. That is, there is in it at least one "cause," one state of being, which does not derive its existence from something else. It is self-existent.
> 
> If this were not so, Voyager's passing Triton, or any other physical event or state, could not be realized, since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, i.e. incompletable, series of events. In simplest terms, its causes would never "get to" it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before dominoe x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it.) Since Voyager II is past Triton, there is a state of being upon which that state depends but which itself depends on nothing prior to it. Thus, concrete physical reality implicates a being radically different from itself: a being which, unlike any physical state, is self-existent.


----------



## JB0704

BuckHunter31 said:


> How can you justifiably distinguish good from evil?



You may want to research some of Stringmusic's work on here.  That road has been traveled a good bit on this forum.


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> God exists, and therefore I have a basis for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws.
> 
> How, based on your presupposition that the universe is entirely made of matter, can you account for such laws?
> 
> How can you justifiably distinguish good from evil?
> 
> Try not to borrow any ideas about right and wrong from the Christian stand point to state your objection.
> 
> Ready... set... GO!



Energy can neither be created or destroyed. The Universe always has been. Man has turned the Universe into your God.


----------



## BuckHunter31

bullethead said:


> The Infinite Regress Argument
> 
> This is the argument: Assuming God created everything that exists, then what created God? What created the thing that created God, and so forth? We can ask this question an infinite number of times and still have the question remain valid (and parts of it unanswered), assuming that we grant the existence of God. This is also logically impermissible, as the rationalist school of thought holds that anything can be understood in a finite series of observations and logical deductions.
> 
> The answer to this dilemma is to employ the technique of Occam’s Razor. (William of Occam himself was a theologian, it is true, but, in his studies, he inadvertently developed a method which, when taken to the extreme, challenges the very foundations of religion.) Occam’s Razor says that we must always take the simplest working explanation for anything, within the context of the evidence that we have available. If the simplest explanation for why letters are appearing on my computer screen right now is that my hand is typing them into the keyboard, it is logically impermissible to then have a theory which is more elaborate. An example of such a theory might be that there is an invisible green hippopotamus somewhere in the Alpha Centauri star system which is telekinetically manipulating the keyboard of my computer, while I have in reality been knocked out by the hippopotamus’s minions here on earth, bound, gagged, and given a hallucinogenic drug to make me think as if it is my hand which is typing this right now. There is no evidence to contradict the above theory directly, but there is also no evidence to support it. In the absence of evidence to support anything, we always presume its absence and embrace, as per Occam’s Razor, the simplest working explanation for anything whatsoever-- provided that the explanation is consistent with the rest of reality.
> 
> Here is what Occam’s Razor tells us on the question of what created the universe: The simplest working explanation is that the universe did not need to be created. The universe just is, always was, and always will be. Granted, particular entities in the universe changed. Star systems formed and disintegrated. The Earth was once a cloud of dust particles, and our distant ancestors were once single-celled organisms. But existence itself (i.e., the universe) always existed. We do need to undertake infinite regress to speculate as to what created the Creator, because even the very question is not a logical one to raise. The universe can be explained just fine without God, or without the Big Bang, or without any theories whatsoever about universal creation and/or destruction.



The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Energy can neither be created or destroyed.



Why is that?



bullethead said:


> The Universe always has been. Man has turned the Universe into your God.



Speculation.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> If this is true, how did we get to the point where we are typing this right now?



""This, I submit, is something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world, and of course anyone should feel free to submit a case of a physical state of which this proposition is not true. Now it is, certainly, an extremely complex proposition, and, if we begin to take it apart, we will surely be led to many things we do not know and possibly do not even understand. ""

Right off the bat your "buddy" tells us his proposition is flawed.


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.
> 
> Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:
> 
> The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.



Sports Illustrated teaches me things too.....what is your point?


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.
> 
> Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:
> 
> The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.



YOUR Bible holds no clout in here.


----------



## BuckHunter31

bullethead, few questions for you...

Do you believe in absolute truths?

Do you know some things to be true?

Do you believe logic exists?

Does logic change?

Do you believe logic is material, or is it immaterial?

Do you believe that logic is universal or up to the individual?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Why is that?


First law of thermodynamics





JB0704 said:


> Speculation.


Is that the Pot calling the kettle something???


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> First law of thermodynamics



Yes.  But, do we know if the opposite was ever the case, or possible.  Where we are doesn't ahve to indicate where we've been.



bullethead said:


> Is that the Pot calling the kettle something???



Oh, absolutely.


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> bullethead, few questions for you...
> 
> Do you believe in absolute truths?
> 
> Do you know some things to be true?
> 
> Do you believe logic exists?
> 
> Does logic change?
> 
> Do you believe logic is material, or is it immaterial?
> 
> Do you believe that logic is universal or up to the individual?



I believe there is an Objective Reality


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But, do we know if the opposite was ever the case, or possible.  Where we are doesn't ahve to indicate where we've been.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, absolutely.




Looking at religion(s) and ALL the stories involved and looking at science and what we have found out.....I tend to go with science and what we have found and what we can speculate based off of the previous findings.


----------



## WTM45

bullethead said:


> YOUR Bible holds no clout in here.



Remember, exclusivism is the theme to the meme.
Ironic how some can be such Atheists towards any other religious belief system while standing firm on the exclusivism of their own.


----------



## BuckHunter31

You have to assume God in order to argue against Him. You are one of two people my friend.


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> You have to assume God in order to argue against Him. You are one of two people my friend.



We can have the same discussion about Hong-Kong-Phooey and Mighty Mouse. You have to imagine, not assume, them too just like a God.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Looking at religion(s) and ALL the stories involved and looking at science and what we have found out.....I tend to go with science and what we have found and what we can speculate based off of the previous findings.



Yes, there are plenty of different views of God and origins.  My point is that the natural laws that exist are either chance or not.  And, many different forces / elements/ must exist by chance for existence to happen.

Which is why I asked "why is that..."  Are we the beneficiaries of cosmic good fortune?   Either way, without gravity, we got nothing.  Without energy, we got nothing.  Without atomic particles, we got nothing.

And even with all those elements, existence is still not guaranteed.  Otherwise, we could create mini-universes complete with energy, gravity, and natural elements (which must be infinite) and expect to see some really cool stuff.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Yes, there are plenty of different views of God and origins.  My point is that the natural laws that exist are either chance or not.  And, many different forces / elements/ must exist by chance for existence to happen.
> 
> Which is why I asked "why is that..."  Are we the beneficiaries of cosmic good fortune?   Either way, without gravity, we got nothing.  Without energy, we got nothing.  Without atomic particles, we got nothing.
> 
> And even with all those elements, existence is still not guaranteed.  Otherwise, we could create mini-universes complete with energy, gravity, and natural elements (which must be infinite) and expect to see some really cool stuff.



To me, it makes much more sense from a Big Bang standpoint. Before the Big Bang another Universe, similar to ours.. with EXACTLY the same energy existed, shrank into a minuscule dot and re-released all that energy again. It makes sense to me that has happened over and over and over and where we are now, who we are now is a byproduct of the closest "bang" we know of. Each time how it falls into place decides if life(like we know it or otherwise) happens.


----------



## BuckHunter31

I agree with JB.

How else can you explain the constants of the universe? It just is? I'm not picking up what you're putting down. It all started from a dust cloud? Give me a break. Science doesn't have all the answers. 

Oh and Mighty Mouse is real! I met him while hiking the hills out in Santa Barbara


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> I agree with JB.
> 
> How else can you explain the constants of the universe? It just is? I'm not picking up what you're putting down. It all started from a dust cloud? Give me a break. Science doesn't have all the answers.
> 
> Oh and Mighty Mouse is real! I met him while hiking out in Santa Barbara



What constants do you know of in the Universe that holds true for the entire Universe?
I agree 10,000% that science does not have all the answers and because science does not quit searching and automatically insert "God" into the mix as the answer is why I tend to go with the scientific answers we do know. Science is not content. Religion is.


----------



## BuckHunter31

God is an absolute truth. He is ever lasting... kinda like this thread 



Believe what you will.  

Take care


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> I agree with JB.
> 
> How else can you explain the constants of the universe? It just is? I'm not picking up what you're putting down. It all started from a dust cloud? Give me a break. Science doesn't have all the answers.
> 
> Oh and Mighty Mouse is real! I met him while hiking the hills out in Santa Barbara



You can't conceive it started from a cosmic dust cloud.
I have no problem with that as I don't think it did either.

I have a problem with some "being" sitting in nothingness with other beings(angels so he wasn't lonely) and pondering for eons and eons whether or not he wants to make some creatures in "his image". I guess this nothingness must be heaven and it must not be that great if a bunch of his gang decided to revolt. Now we have two "nothingness" places Heaven and H3ll that are really "something" according to believers but their book says in the beginning there was nothing. That confuses me. Something cannot come from nothing, yet their God is essentially nothing and he lives in nothing and his nemesis the devil is also nothing and lives in nothing then when we die we turn into nothing and go nowhere to Heaven or H3ll which are really no place on nothing street zip code ZERO. 
It is argued that all we know is something but God does not fit within that realm so actually is he nothing. He is above or beyond our world. Yet I am told that kind of stuff simply cannot be, unless of course when a magical mystical, invisible, non-existent supernatural being is introduced....other than that the thought is ridiculous!!!

Yeah, I'm gonna stick with my side for a bit yet.


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> God is an absolute truth. He is ever lasting... kinda like this thread
> 
> 
> 
> Believe what you will.
> 
> Take care



Which is the absolute truth here:
The USA believes we are the "good" guys while fighting the "bad"  Terrorists/Insurgents.
The Middle Eastern Freedom Fighters believe they are the "good" guys while fighting the "bad" United States Infidels.

Gimme the absolute there??

And you can make all the statements you want about a God. The difference in here is that you have to back them up or they don't mean diddly.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> ""This, I submit, is something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world, and of course anyone should feel free to submit a case of a physical state of which this proposition is not true. Now it is, certainly, an extremely complex proposition, and, if we begin to take it apart, we will surely be led to many things we do not know and possibly do not even understand. ""
> 
> Right off the bat your "buddy" tells us his proposition is flawed.



He's talking about breaking down physical matter, something that is irrelevant to the argument he is making.

Do you care to submit a different proposition that is contrary to his claim?

How did we get to where we are right now, if the universe is inifinite?


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Which is the absolute truth here:
> The USA believes we are the "good" guys while fighting the "bad"  Terrorists/Insurgents.
> The Middle Eastern Freedom Fighters believe they are the "good" guys while fighting the "bad" United States Infidels.
> 
> Gimme the absolute there??
> 
> And you can make all the statements you want about a God. The difference in here is that you have to back them up or they don't mean diddly.



False dilemma.


----------



## BuckHunter31

I ain't gotta back nothing up brother. It's all in the good book. It's a personal decision. I could careless what you think. 

And the absolute truth on a scientific, rational level for you would be that we are engaged in fighting. Fighting for what WE believe to be right. 

Gotta get back to life outside of GON. Like DMX said, same old ish dog just a different day


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> He's talking about breaking down physical matter, something that is irrelevant to the argument he is making.
> 
> Do you care to submit a different proposition that is contrary to his claim?
> 
> How did we get to where we are right now, if the universe is inifinite?



I believe the universe expands and contracts. Infinite in that all the energy is always here but not exactly the same. We are here because the Universe is at a point where we can exist where conditions allow it.


----------



## bullethead

BuckHunter31 said:


> I ain't gotta back nothing up brother. It's all in the good book. It's a personal decision. I could careless what you think.
> 
> And the absolute truth on a scientific, rational level for you would be that we are engaged in fighting. Fighting for what WE believe to be right.
> 
> Gotta get back to life outside of GON. Like DMX said, same old ish dog just a different day



So long.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> False dilemma.



The religious are well versed in the Law of the Excluded Middle.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> False dilemma.



Surely you will provide the other options.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I believe the universe expands and contracts. Infinite in that all the energy is always here but not exactly the same. We are here because the Universe is at a point where we can exist where conditions allow it.



You're saying the exact opposite of Willard's argument, but you're going to have to back up what you're saying.


Start by giving an example of a physical state that does not owe it's existence to something other than itself.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Surely you will provide the other options.


I'll give you at least one, but there really is no reason to go on about this, I was just pointing out a fallacy.



> Which is the absolute truth here:
> The USA believes we are the "good" guys while fighting the "bad" Terrorists/Insurgents.
> The Middle Eastern Freedom Fighters believe they are the "good" guys while fighting the "bad" United States Infidels.
> 
> Gimme the absolute there??



They're both bad.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> the religious are well versed in the law of the excluded middle.



ok??


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> You're saying the exact opposite of Willard's argument, but you're going to have to back up what you're saying.
> 
> 
> Start by giving an example of a physical state that does not owe it's existence to something other than itself.



Energy


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> ok??



 Either the universe came about by chance or by design. It didn't come about by chance. So, it must have come about by design. There is at least one other possibility: The universe appears to be designed but it isn't. The universe has always been here in one form or another, and it takes whatever form it has at any given time due to a combination of accidental factors governed by inherent laws and constants.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Energy


Are you sure about that?

Is energy physical?



bullethead said:


> Either the universe came about by chance or by design. It didn't come about by chance. So, it must have come about by design. There is at least one other possibility: The universe appears to be designed but it isn't. The universe has always been here in one form or another, and it takes whatever form it has at any given time due to a combination of accidental factors governed by inherent laws and constants.



I didn't mean to indicate that I didn't know what you were talking about, I knew exactly what you meant. 

It was more of an "OK, what's your point", the post didn't seem relevant to the discussion.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Is energy physical?



Energy is abundant in many forms. Yes I am sure of it.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Energy is abundant in many forms. Yes I am sure of it.



So you're saying that energy doesn't owe it's existence to anything but itself?

Is there such a thing as physical energy?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> So you're saying that energy doesn't owe it's existence to anything but itself?
> 
> Is there such a thing as physical energy?



I thought I made that clear in my last post



bullethead said:


> Energy is abundant in many forms. Yes I am sure of it.


----------



## bullethead

Meeester Weellard, ju and haString hab sum esssplanin to dooooo!!!!


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I thought I made that clear in my last post


Do you have an example of physical energy?



stringmusic said:


> So you're saying that energy doesn't owe it's existence to anything but itself?



What is your answer to this question?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Do you have an example of physical energy?
> 
> 
> 
> What is your answer to this question?



You typing on your keyboard is physical energy.

Energy is neither created or destroyed. It's existence IS itself.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> You typing on your keyboard is physical energy.
> 
> Energy is neither created or destroyed. It's existence IS itself.



I'm talking about energy that is physical, not "physical energy" like exercising.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I'm talking about energy that is physical, not "physical energy" like exercising.



Energy you can feel???

Like heat from the Sun?
an explosion?
Wind?
A rocket blasting off?
A bullet hitting a groundhog?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I'm talking about energy that is physical, not "physical energy" like exercising.



Energy is in many different forms. The point is energy exists in various states always. It is around in one form or another continually. If you can feel it, it is physical.


----------



## bullethead

It's supper time string, I'm heading out to eat. All requiring energy.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Energy you can feel???
> 
> Like heat from the Sun?
> an explosion?
> Wind?
> A rocket blasting off?
> A bullet hitting a groundhog?



And all those things owe their existence to something other than themselves, the heat owes it to the sun, the explosion to the bomb etc etc.

Nothing you're putting forward shows me that any certain form of energy is self creating and doesn't owe it's existence from another physical entity outside of itself.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> It's supper time string, I'm heading out to eat. All requiring energy.



I'm not sure if this is just another example of energy, LOL, but if not, have a good supper, eat sum'n good!!


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> And all those things owe their existence to something other than themselves, the heat owes it to the sun, the explosion to the bomb etc etc.
> 
> Nothing you're putting forward shows me that any certain form of energy is self creating and doesn't owe it's existence from another physical entity outside of itself.



It is always being converted from one form to another. It is always existent.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> It is always being converted from one form to another. It is always existent.



Like, infinitely?


----------



## bullethead

Anti-Matter and Matter, mass, gravity, protons, electrons, Every single thing your body does requires energy and in turn that energy is converted from one form to another during the process. The process continues on and on and on.


----------



## bullethead

E=MC squared.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Anti-Matter and Matter, mass, gravity, protons, electrons, Every single thing your body does requires energy and in turn that energy is converted from one form to another during the process. The process continues on and on and on.



OK. Not sure where your going with that.


----------



## bullethead

I don't understand it all nor do I claim to. I try to read a lot. It doesn't matter about what but I have always read since an early age. 
If you get a chance read up on electrons, protons, neutrons and atoms. Everything is made up of atoms and withing those atoms energy is stored.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I don't understand it all nor do I claim to. I try to read a lot. It doesn't matter about what but I have always read since an early age.
> If you get a chance read up on electrons, protons, neutrons and atoms. Everything is made up of atoms and withing those atoms energy is stored.



Yea, I learned about atoms back in grade school, LOL. I could always learn more than what I know now though!


I think we may have gotten off on a little tangent here.

I'm still looking for something physical that doesn't owe it's existence to something outside of itself.

I don't think that claim can be made about energy.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Yea, I learned about atoms back in grade school, LOL. I could always learn more than what I know now though!
> 
> 
> I think we may have gotten off on a little tangent here.
> 
> I'm still looking for something physical that doesn't owe it's existence to something outside of itself.
> 
> I don't think that claim can be made about energy.



I am confident that energy is that very thing. Since the Big Bang all the energy in the Universe has been distributed throughout the Universe in a variety of forms. It has been expanding. It is entirely possible that at some point the Universe will start to shrink and all that energy will compact into the tiniest dot and Bang all over again. Energy is the Universe the ENTIRE Universe and there is a serious argument that it is infinite and owes it's very existence to itself.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I am confident that energy is that very thing. Since the Big Bang all the energy in the Universe has been distributed throughout the Universe in a variety of forms. It has been expanding. It is entirely possible that at some point the Universe will start to shrink and all that energy will compact into the tiniest dot and Bang all over again. Energy is the Universe the ENTIRE Universe and there is a serious argument that it is infinite and owes it's very existence to itself.



Ok, so you think energy is self creating. Can you give me an example of energy creating itself? Can the self creation of energy be lab tested?

Do you have a case as to when exactly energy created itself and how exactly it created other life? Is energy responsible for creating consciousness of inanimate matter?

I know those are tough questions, and I know you're not a scientist, just having conversation.


----------



## bullethead

I'll work on it.

I will research it.

I will report back.

I am confident that I will not find out an invisible guy that does not physically exist created physical things.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Ok, so you think energy is self creating. Can you give me an example of energy creating itself? Can the self creation of energy be lab tested?
> 
> Do you have a case as to when exactly energy created itself and how exactly it created other life? Is energy responsible for creating consciousness of inanimate matter?
> 
> I know those are tough questions, and I know you're not a scientist, just having conversation.



This a quick reply without details. I have been reading about it for over 20 years and there are many theories but all I can say right now is The Big Bang. It answers your questions and even modern religion accepts it. Now, to get into the meat and potatoes of it would take years so all I can offer to you for now is to check it out.
The problem is people are stuck on the  notion of"nothing".
There always was something.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> This a quick reply without details. I have been reading about it for over 20 years and there are many theories but all I can say right now is The Big Bang. It answers your questions and even modern religion accepts it. Now, to get into the meat and potatoes of it would take years so all I can offer to you for now is to check it out.


I'm sorry, but the "Big Bang" doesn't answer any of the questions.

There had to have been "something" to go "bang", it is either infinite matter, which is not logical, or something non-physical and eternal.



> The problem is people are stuck on the  notion of"nothing".
> There always was something.



Yes, there was always something, just not anything physical. That's where the supernatural comes in.

Willards first argument creates a logical problem for the physical being infinite.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I'm sorry, but the "Big Bang" doesn't answer any of the questions.
> 
> There had to have been "something" to go "bang", it is either infinite matter, which is not logical, or something non-physical and eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was always something, just not anything physical. That's where the supernatural comes in.
> 
> Willards first argument creates a logical problem for the physical being infinite.



Something was and is Energy. The Universe is literally full of it.
Willard.....
When the world comes to a grinding halt because Dallas Willard solved everything then he will get my attention.


----------



## bullethead

What I know so far is Energy exists and it can neither be created nor destroyed.
Supernatural is...well...err....ummm....used when a brain can't grasp the magnitude of what is really going on OR used when the brain does not want to try to figure anything that is going on.


----------



## bullethead

This guys has Willard about right
http://thoughtsfrommyreformedself.c...view-the-divine-conspiracy-by-dallas-willard/


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Something was and is Energy. The Universe is literally full of it.
> Willard.....
> When the world comes to a grinding halt because Dallas Willard solved everything then he will get my attention.


I never said Willard solved anything, but that sounds like something someone would say who can't get around his argument.



bullethead said:


> What I know so far is Energy exists and it can neither be created nor destroyed.
> Supernatural is...well...err....ummm....used when a brain can't grasp the magnitude of what is really going on OR used when the brain does not want to try to figure anything that is going on.


You're still not answering any of the questions. If you don't have the answers, just say so, I don't think anybody is going to have a problem with that, but energy ain't it. If you want to try to prove that energy is the answer, you're going to have to get around the sound logic provided in Dr. Willards article. 

You put your faith in energy creating the universe and everything in it, and if that's what you want to believe, then that's what you're going to believe. I'm not really sure why you would do that, but "OK".


----------



## bullethead

Taken from: http://thoughtsfrommyreformedself.c...r-3-of-dallas-willards-the-divine-conspiracy/



> Dr. Willard says that miracles are performed by Jesus by pulling energy out of the unseen to transform into the physical in the visible world.


Your Ace in the Hole Willard says Energy is used by Jesus. That energy is pulled out of the unseen to transform into the physical in the visible world.
Energy is both physical and Supernatural.
You and I will both sleep well tonight with the help of D.W.!


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> This guys has Willard about right
> http://thoughtsfrommyreformedself.c...view-the-divine-conspiracy-by-dallas-willard/



The link is not working for me, I'm not sure why.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Taken from: http://thoughtsfrommyreformedself.c...r-3-of-dallas-willards-the-divine-conspiracy/
> 
> 
> Your Ace in the Hole Willard says Energy is used by Jesus. That energy is pulled out of the unseen to transform into the physical in the visible world.
> Energy is both physical and Supernatural.
> You and I will both sleep well tonight with the help of D.W.!


That makes Jesus supernatural, not energy.

This is kind of off topic, it's more of the third part of the argument.


----------



## stringmusic

I gotta leave the office for a couple of hours, be back in a while.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I never said Willard solved anything, but that sounds like something someone would say who can't get around his argument.
> 
> 
> You're still not answering any of the questions. If you don't have the answers, just say so, I don't think anybody is going to have a problem with that, but energy ain't it. If you want to try to prove that energy is the answer, you're going to have to get around the sound logic provided in Dr. Willards article.
> 
> You put your faith in energy creating the universe and everything in it, and if that's what you want to believe, then that's what you're going to believe. I'm not really sure why you would do that, but "OK".



E N E R G Y
Look into it half as much as you do your spiritual stuff and you will get some insight to why I say what I say. Research the Big Bang and expanding and contracting Universe and some lights will come on. I'm not saying they are right but there are some darn good points to be made in favor of. They make more sense than the Invisible Buddy that never lived but lives in Nothingness or Heaven or I'm not quite sure what the story is...


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> That makes Jesus supernatural, not energy.
> 
> This is kind of off topic, it's more of the third part of the argument.



No, Jesus got the energy from the Unseen. Energy is in both world's apparently.
The more we talk the more I like Energy.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> E N E R G Y
> Look into it half as much as you do your spiritual stuff and you will get some insight to why I say what I say. Research the Big Bang and expanding and contracting Universe and some lights will come on. I'm not saying they are right but there are some darn good points to be made in favor of. They make more sense than the Invisible Buddy that never lived but lives in Nothingness or Heaven or I'm not quite sure what the story is...



You tell me energy creats itself as if you "busted the bubble" of the first argument in the article, then when I ask questions about energy you basically tell me to find the answers for myself.

I know a little about what scientists and physicists say about the big bang, I've never heard anyone but you say that energy created itself, then created conscious matter that was previously unconscious.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> No, Jesus got the energy from the Unseen. Energy is in both world's apparently.
> The more we talk the more I like Energy.



How does that make energy supernatural?

Jesus also turned water into wine, does that make either one supernatural?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> You tell me energy creats itself as if you "busted the bubble" of the first argument in the article, then when I ask questions about energy you basically tell me to find the answers for myself.
> 
> I know a little about what scientists and physicists say about the big bang, I've never heard anyone but you say that energy created itself, then created conscious matter that was previously unconscious.



You are STUCK on created and creation.
If Energy can neither be created or destroyed then it has always been.
Energy WAS released in the Big Bang and here we are (along with billions of other planets) so ,yes, Energy was and is involved in concious matter and all matter.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> How does that make energy supernatural?
> 
> Jesus also turned water into wine, does that make either one supernatural?



Willard says Jesus took energy out of the unseen to transform into the physical in the visible world.
That to me sounds as if Energy exists in the unseen world (like your God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Angels, Devils etc, remember they are not physical you told me) so Energy must be supernatural to exist in that state too. Energy must be spiritual as I have heard many people reference that also.
I don't remember the Bible saying Jesus used water from the unseen and transform into the physical wine.

You are making it way more complicated than necessary unless that is your plan.....


----------



## Asath

Bullet -- c'mon -- deliberate obfuscation and strident nit-picking is all they have as weapons, save threats of violence.  There is no 'intellect' of the absurd and impossible.  You already know that.  Just reference back to your Ayn Rand -- contradictions do not exist, one need only check one's premises . . .


----------



## bullethead

Asath said:


> Bullet -- c'mon -- deliberate obfuscation and strident nit-picking is all they have as weapons, save threats of violence.  There is no 'intellect' of the absurd and impossible.  You already know that.  Just reference back to your Ayn Rand -- contradictions do not exist, one need only check one's premises . . .



But I do, I do enjoy the conversation. I don't want to convert anyone. I like to hear the thoughts, no matter the thoughts, so I can try to rationalize why people think the way they do. I am intrigued how someone will state something as impossible then counter it with something so absurd and do it with a straight face. But that is what makes it all worth while.
I have to hand it to string and a few others. They at least indulge me and actually try to make a good case. We all go off on our own tangents but we always get back on track. 
I know string doesn't give up easy so I am interested in getting back into this Energy conversation with him.


----------



## TheBishop

String Watch "Through the Worm hole".  It's a great show and will help shed the light on what bullet is saying.  I don't pretend to know half of they are talking about but it definetly shed some light. The last episode is on the Higgs, I'm halfway through but it dovetails nicelys with this discussion.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> But I do, I do enjoy the conversation. I don't want to convert anyone. I like to hear the thoughts, no matter the thoughts, so I can try to rationalize why people think the way they do. I am intrigued how someone will state something as impossible then counter it with something so absurd and do it with a straight face. But that is what makes it all worth while.
> I have to hand it to string and a few others. They at least indulge me and actually try to make a good case. We all go off on our own tangents but we always get back on track.
> I know string doesn't give up easy so I am interested in getting back into this Energy conversation with him.


I don't really know where to go with the discussion to be honest, you're stating energy is infinite, even if it is, you run into a problem of something non physical and non supernatural creating physical matter and then making that inanimate matter gain consciousness.

So until you can provide some evidence that energy can do those things, we are at a stalemate.


TheBishop said:


> String Watch "Through the Worm hole".  It's a great show and will help shed the light on what bullet is saying.  I don't pretend to know half of they are talking about but it definetly shed some light. The last episode is on the Higgs, I'm halfway through but it dovetails nicelys with this discussion.



Yea, that show is really good. I watched one episode called "what happened before the big bang" that was interesting as heck. I'll try to record the one on the Higgs and maybe we could all discuss it.


----------



## bullethead

TheBishop said:


> String Watch "Through the Worm hole".  It's a great show and will help shed the light on what bullet is saying.  I don't pretend to know half of they are talking about but it definetly shed some light. The last episode is on the Higgs, I'm halfway through but it dovetails nicelys with this discussion.



That is great stuff. I was working up to mentioning it to string when(like he did in his last post) he tells me about the problems I have with my energy thoughts.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> That is great stuff. I was working up to mentioning it to string when(like he did in his last post) he tells me about the problems I have with my energy thoughts.



LOL, ain't that what I'm supposed to be doing?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I don't really know where to go with the discussion to be honest, you're stating energy is infinite, even if it is, you run into a problem of something non physical and non supernatural creating physical matter and then making that inanimate matter gain consciousness.
> 
> So until you can provide some evidence that energy can do those things, we are at a stalemate.



I am at least on a plausible track. And am excited about the Higgs Boson and the findings from CERN. I don't have a clue how inanimate matter gains consciousness but these scientists are finding out how matter is formed from energy. The next step is probably not far away.

I see your still saying energy is non-physical and non-supernatural but yet energy IS physical and being that believers can feel spiritual energy, I have to think it might be supernatural too.(Well the jury is still out on that...I'm just trying to play by the believers rules).  Energy exists and can be neither created or destroyed, we all know energy exists and yet you say it is not physical and it is not supernatural....how do you account for it then?




stringmusic said:


> Yea, that show is really good. I watched one episode called "what happened before the big bang" that was interesting as heck. I'll try to record the one on the Higgs and maybe we could all discuss it.


Honestly find the latest one about the Higgs Boson. Incredible episode.


----------



## TheBishop

bullethead said:


> I am at least on a plausible track. And am excited about the Higgs Boson and the findings from CERN. I don't have a clue how inanimate matter gains consciousness but these scientists are finding out how matter is formed from energy. The next step is probably not far away.
> 
> I see your still saying energy is non-physical and non-supernatural but yet energy IS physical and being that believers can feel spiritual energy, I have to think it might be supernatural too.(Well the jury is still out on that...I'm just trying to play by the believers rules).  Energy exists and can be neither created or destroyed, we all know energy exists and yet you say it is not physical and it is not supernatural....how do you account for it then?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly find the latest one about the Higgs Boson. Incredible episode.



Yeagh, 20 minutes in, and I thought of this conversation. String pay close attention to the conversation about the air hockey table.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> What I know so far is Energy exists and it can neither be created nor destroyed.
> Supernatural is...well...err....ummm....used when a brain can't grasp the magnitude of what is really going on OR used when the brain does not want to try to figure anything that is going on.



Prove it.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Prove it.



God told me, should be good enough proof.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> God told me, should be good enough proof.



Not for you. You don't believe in God. Where is your proof?

BTW BH, you sound as crazy as a believer when you discuss energy. It created itself, it can neither be created or destroyed, it created matter. Matter can neither be created or destroyed. The Big Bang....

None of this can be proven as you so rashly claim, BECAUSE, no scientific experiment can account for the variable of eternity.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Not for you. You don't believe in God. Where is your proof?
> 
> BTW BH, you sound as crazy as a believer when you discuss energy. It created itself, it can neither be created or destroyed, it created matter. Matter can neither be created or destroyed. The Big Bang....
> 
> None of this can be proven as you so rashly claim, BECAUSE, no scientific experiment can account for the variable of eternity.



Well as we go in time the advancements made in those areas certainly point to the scientists being on the right track.
While on the other hand
Nothing gained in over 2000 years.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Not for you. You don't believe in God. Where is your proof?
> 
> BTW BH, you sound as crazy as a believer when you discuss energy. It created itself, it can neither be created or destroyed, it created matter. Matter can neither be created or destroyed. The Big Bang....
> 
> None of this can be proven as you so rashly claim, BECAUSE, no scientific experiment can account for the variable of eternity.



I just don't believe in your God


----------



## bullethead

I am ashamed to admit that I think the findings at CERN with the particle accelerator are very interesting. But that is just more crazy talk by me being those incompetent scientists are behind it.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Well as we go in time the advancements made in those areas certainly point to the scientists being on the right track.
> While on the other hand
> Nothing gained in over 2000 years.



The right track of what? Science doesn't lead to truth; it is a method of describing phenomena in a common language. So, if you mean science can describe stuff, you are correct.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> I am ashamed to admit that I think the findings at CERN with the particle accelerator are very interesting. But that is just more crazy talk by me being those incompetent scientists are behind it.



Nothing to be ashamed of. They are not incompetent, nor do they have "findings". They have descriptions. It is most certainly interesting.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> The right track of what? Science doesn't lead to truth; it is a method of describing phenomena in a common language. So, if you mean science can describe stuff, you are correct.



Truth is relative Ted.
Science  happens to be the most spectacularly successful philosophy ever devised for interpreting reality.
The reason is, when a scientific theory doesn’t correspond to reality, the scientist assumes the theory is wrong and he attempts to modify it or he goes out to look for a better theory. In contrast, when a religious, political, or philosophical doctrine doesn’t correspond to reality, all too often it’s evidence that is assumed to be wrong.

1. Observe phenomena.

2. Formulate a theory to explain the phenomena.

3. The theory should encompass something greater than just the observed phenomena.

4. The theory should allow previously unsuspected phenomena to be predicted.

5. The theory should be testable through experimentation by anyone else possessing the necessary equipment.

All that makes much more sense to me than any religion.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Truth is relative Ted.
> Science  happens to be the most spectacularly successful philosophy ever devised for interpreting reality.
> The reason is, when a scientific theory doesn’t correspond to reality, the scientist assumes the theory is wrong and he attempts to modify it or he goes out to look for a better theory. In contrast, when a religious, political, or philosophical doctrine doesn’t correspond to reality, all too often it’s evidence that is assumed to be wrong.
> 
> 1. Observe phenomena.
> 
> 2. Formulate a theory to explain the phenomena.
> 
> 3. The theory should encompass something greater than just the observed phenomena.
> 
> 4. The theory should allow previously unsuspected phenomena to be predicted.
> 
> 5. The theory should be testable through experimentation by anyone else possessing the necessary equipment.
> 
> All that makes much more sense to me than any religion.



Wow. Truth is not relative. Truth is absolute (by definition). You have displayed (once again) your complete misunderstanding of science in this post. Politics and philosophy aside (for science is definitely NOT a philosophy), you have completely butchered the scientific method. I don't know what else to say BH. You clearly don't understand science. I don’t care how much you read, or what "scientific" programs you watch on TV or the internet, you just don't get science. Whatever you believe in, I assure you that it is NOT science.


----------



## bullethead

ted_BSR said:


> Wow. Truth is not relative. Truth is absolute (by definition). You have displayed (once again) your complete misunderstanding of science in this post. Politics and philosophy aside (for science is definitely NOT a philosophy), you have completely butchered the scientific method. I don't know what else to say BH. You clearly don't understand science. I don’t care how much you read, or what "scientific" programs you watch on TV or the internet, you just don't get science. Whatever you believe in, I assure you that it is NOT science.



Where did I state anything was scientific method?
Based on WHAT? YOUR incredible record for backing up what you say on here? You say you are a "scientist" and crack on science every chance you get.
You constantly tell everyone else they don't get science. Well TELL us what we are missing. I am sure knowing so much about it that you are obviously the head of your department or probably entire company, heck because you know all these other scientists are wrong I guess your the guy that all the others go to worldwide to tell them what they don't understand. Unless and until you want to lay down some credentials and actually back up what you say and show us that YOU above everyone else are the only person on here that understands anything, your blanket statements have no clout.
You have set the standard now please show us all your complete understanding of science. I actually hope it is better than your complete understanding of religion.


----------



## mtnwoman

ted_BSR said:


> Huh? I ain't new at this. It is true! I have questioned it many times.



Me, too.


----------



## mtnwoman

JB0704 said:


> You may want to research some of Stringmusic's work on here.  That road has been traveled a good bit on this forum.



String has gained the fruit of longsuffering much more than I have. I'm sure he's typed his fingers to the bone and his shoes are completely worn down to the nub from travelling this long dark dusty road....Jesus will say, 'well done, my good and faithful servent'.


----------



## ted_BSR

bullethead said:


> Where did I state anything was scientific method?
> Based on WHAT? YOUR incredible record for backing up what you say on here? You say you are a "scientist" and crack on science every chance you get.
> You constantly tell everyone else they don't get science. Well TELL us what we are missing. I am sure knowing so much about it that you are obviously the head of your department or probably entire company, heck because you know all these other scientists are wrong I guess your the guy that all the others go to worldwide to tell them what they don't understand. Unless and until you want to lay down some credentials and actually back up what you say and show us that YOU above everyone else are the only person on here that understands anything, your blanket statements have no clout.
> You have set the standard now please show us all your complete understanding of science. I actually hope it is better than your complete understanding of religion.



Sorry BH, I assumed your 5 bullet points were describing science. If that is true, it is wrong. I do not crack on science. I point out the gross misunderstanding of many (including other scientists) of what science is and what it does. In fact, I am the head of my department and the regional leader of the discipline. The scientific method speaks for itself. It is like the 2nd amendment. It is simple so that people won't screw it up, yet they do.


----------

