# Sam Harris An Atheist Manifesto



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2016)

http://m.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto
An Atheist Manifesto

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.Censored Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

Censored

It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim toCensorednever doubt the existence of GodCensored should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: Most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

We live in a world where all things, good and bad, are finally destroyed by change. Parents lose their children and children their parents. Husbands and wives are separated in an instant, never to meet again. Friends part company in haste, without knowing that it will be for the last time. This life, when surveyed with a broad glance, presents little more than a vast spectacle of loss. Most people in this world, however, imagine that there is a cure for this. If we live rightly—not necessarily ethically, but within the framework of certain ancient beliefs and stereotyped behaviors—we will get everything we want after we die. When our bodies finally fail us, we just shed our corporeal ballast and travel to a land where we are reunited with everyone we loved while alive. Of course, overly rational people and other rabble will be kept out of this happy place, and those who suspended their disbelief while alive will be free to enjoy themselves for all eternity.

We live in a world of unimaginable surprises—from the fusion energy that lights the sun to the genetic and evolutionary consequences of this lights dancing for eons upon the Earth—and yet Paradise conforms to our most superficial concerns with all the fidelity of a Caribbean cruise. This is wondrously strange. If one didn’t know better, one would think that man, in his fear of losing all that he loves, had created heaven, along with its gatekeeper God, in his own image.

Consider the destruction that Hurricane Katrina leveled on New Orleans. More than a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and nearly a million were displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely he heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: These poor people died talking to an imaginary friend.

Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm of biblical proportions would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. Nevertheless, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that 80% of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.

As Hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran: Their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence; their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is—and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.

One wonders just how vast and gratuitous a catastrophe would have to be to shake the world’s faith. TheCensoredHolocaustCensoreddid not do it. Neither did thegenocide in Rwanda, even with machete-wielding priests among the perpetrators. Five hundred million people died ofCensoredsmallpoxCensoredin the 20th Century, many of them infants. God’s ways are, indeed, inscrutable. It seems that any fact, no matter how infelicitous, can be rendered compatible with religious faith. In matters of faith, we have kicked ourselves loose of the Earth.

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem oftheodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If he exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: The biblical God is a fiction. AsCensoredRichard DawkinsCensoredhas observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion—to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions and religious diversions of scarce resources—is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2016)

I don't know why the filters throw the word "censored" in there every so often, there are no curses.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 4, 2016)

A little dramatic maybe but some undeniable points that can't be "explained" away.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 4, 2016)

Quote "Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering"

This statement is untrue, and may be part of the reason for his confusion.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 4, 2016)

If only they would keep it to themselves.  

I've been thinking about the people I know that are marginally religious and have wondered "what harm are they doing?"  They tend to be rational in every other way, why should I care if they believe in Heaven or God?  The answer is I shouldn't.  But when they say things like we shouldn't do stem cell research on human embryos (clusters of 500 cells) because God told them or convicted them I remember the dangers.  Then I realize that their belief system pervades everything they do which I must admit for the ones that I know, who are generally quite liberal, it is a net positive.  When I visit my friends and extended family in more rural environments where there is less education, the dangers of religious belief become readily apparent.  As is always the case, religiosity is tempered by secular education.  They can't keep it to themselves.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Quote "Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering"
> 
> This statement is untrue, and may be part of the reason for his confusion.


There are certainly some examples of that being true.
You might not say it or believe it personally, but you are  incorrect to say the statement is untrue. You ignore the examples given in the forums here and above. The excuse that man has brought it upon himself is the rally cry.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 4, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> If only they would keep it to themselves.
> 
> I've been thinking about the people I know that are marginally religious and have wondered "what harm are they doing?"  They tend to be rational in every other way, why should I care if they believe in Heaven or God?  The answer is I shouldn't.  But when they say things like we shouldn't do stem cell research on human embryos (clusters of 500 cells) because God told them or convicted them I remember the dangers.  Then I realize that their belief system pervades everything they do which I must admit for the ones that I know, who are generally quite liberal, it is a net positive.  When I visit my friends and extended family in more rural environments where there is less education, the dangers of religious belief become readily apparent.  As is always the case, religiosity is tempered by secular education.  They can't keep it to themselves.


I'm wondering, and maybe I'm just ignorant on this, but is the "danger" in that thinking all that dangerous any more?
Doesn't have the power that it used to?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 4, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Quote "Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering"
> 
> This statement is untrue, and may be part of the reason for his confusion.



I think in general his point is for example -
The person of course survived the horrific car crash because "God was with them".
Of course no mention of where God was about 2 seconds BEFORE the crash.
But yes there are a minority of you that come right out and say your god is responsible for the bad as well as the good.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I think in general his point is for example -
> The person of course survived the horrific car crash because "God was with them".
> Of course no mention of where God was about 2 seconds BEFORE the crash.
> But yes there are a minority of you that come right out and say your god is responsible for the bad as well as the good.


No mention on how the drunk that caused the crash survived and how the entire family of four that he hit burned alive screaming to the very end because their vehicle caught fire and they were trapped. I have not heard a person mutter "that's the way God wanted it" at their funeral. Not saying there aren't any, but it would not seem the majority give god credit for both .


----------



## welderguy (Mar 4, 2016)

bullethead said:


> There are certainly some examples of that being true.
> You might not say it or believe it personally, but you are  incorrect to say the statement is untrue. You ignore the examples given in the forums here and above. The excuse that man has brought it upon himself is the rally cry.



All you have to do is look at the cross, where God poured out His wrath on His Son.Our relatively small suffering in this life can not even compare to what He saved His people from.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2016)

If you click on the link there are 3 more pages to go along with the writing above.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 4, 2016)

welderguy said:


> All you have to do is look at the cross, where God poured out His wrath on His Son.Our relatively small suffering in this life can not even compare to what He saved His people from.


I looked. I see a symbol of a religion. Jesus was crucified like thousands before and after. I do not see a shred of evidence of any saving going on. He didn't suffer any more or any less than all the others. He got off easy compared to how some people suffer for their lifetime in these modern times.
What I see in believers is the twisted thought process that ignores facts in favor of fiction.
I do not see what you see and neither do billions of others.

Jesus must be thrilled to have the device that tortured him as the symbol his followers chose to represent him.
Kind of like putting a picture of the burnt up vehicle next to the casket at the wake. Ya know, to show what the person endured.....


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 4, 2016)

bullethead said:


> No mention on how the drunk that caused the crash survived and how the entire family of four that he hit burned alive screaming to the very end because their vehicle caught fire and they were trapped. I have not heard a person mutter "that's the way God wanted it" at their funeral. Not saying there aren't any, but it would not seem the majority give god credit for both .


And to Sam's point, the comforting phrase of the day will be "it must be God's plan".
Nobody will question how an innocent, screaming, burning child fits into that plan.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 4, 2016)

welderguy said:


> All you have to do is look at the cross, where God poured out His wrath on His Son.Our relatively small suffering in this life can not even compare to what He saved His people from.



God poured out his wrath on himself. Or, there are 2 Gods.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 4, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I looked. I see a symbol of a religion. Jesus was crucified like thousands before and after. I do not see a shred of evidence of any saving going on. He didn't suffer any more or any less than all the others. He got off easy compared to how some people suffer for their lifetime in these modern times.
> What I see in believers is the twisted thought process that ignores facts in favor of fiction.
> I do not see what you see and neither do billions of others.
> 
> ...





WaltL1 said:


> And to Sam's point, the comforting phrase of the day will be "it must be God's plan".
> Nobody will question how an innocent, screaming, burning child fits into that plan.




I totally agree with you all, Sam included, that if this is the best that God could do then He sucks.  BUT, if this _IS_ how God set it up, then all I can do is complain and refuse to worship Him.  "That God is a meany" isn't really a good argument against his existence.  I think a completely rational argument against the divinity of the Bible is relatively easy to make.  

Again, saying "that's not how I would have done it" doesn't refute the existence of God.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 4, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I totally agree with you all, Sam included, that if this is the best that God could do then He sucks.  BUT, if this _IS_ how God set it up, then all I can do is complain and refuse to worship Him.  "That God is a meany" isn't really a good argument against his existence.  I think a completely rational argument against the divinity of the Bible is relatively easy to make.
> 
> Again, saying "that's not how I would have done it" doesn't refute the existence of God.



The beauty of it, is that we don't have to refute the existence of God...since there is no proof there is one.

For believers of the Christian God of mercy and love, God is a meany, bully, and 'that's not how I would have done it', even though I was created in his image, should be another little sample of evidence that the bible was written by men in a very dark time.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 4, 2016)

660griz said:


> The beauty of it, is that we don't have to refute the existence of God...since there is no proof there is one.
> 
> For believers of the Christian God of mercy and love, God is a meany, bully, and 'that's not how I would have done it', even though I was created in his image, should be another little sample of evidence that the bible was written by men in a very dark time.



Right.  We have to refute the "proof" as it is presented, which is never that hard.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I totally agree with you all, Sam included, that if this is the best that God could do then He sucks.  BUT, if this _IS_ how God set it up, then all I can do is complain and refuse to worship Him.  "That God is a meany" isn't really a good argument against his existence.  I think a completely rational argument against the divinity of the Bible is relatively easy to make.
> 
> Again, saying "that's not how I would have done it" doesn't refute the existence of God.


"IF", one god...then 10,000 gods.
The same argument can be made for them all yet for the same reasons believers believe in one, they dismiss all the others for those same reasons.

Atheists are just honest enough to take on e more god off the list for those reasons.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 5, 2016)

bullethead said:


> "IF", one god...then 10,000 gods.
> The same argument can be made for them all yet for the same reasons believers believe in one, they dismiss all the others for those same reasons.
> 
> Atheists are just honest enough to take on e more god off the list for those reasons.



Atheists are not honest. And in taking that one more off your list,you try to eradicate the One who created the dust you are made of and everything else.All those other gods could not exist in the minds of all those other people without first One creating the mind itself.See how that works?It all comes back to a single source of creation.
If you can work out some other PROOF of another means of creation,instead of a ridiculous theory,then we will have something to discuss.Until then,you are just as proofless as the next guy,so you might as well get off the merry-go-round.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Atheists are not honest. And in taking that one more off your list,you try to eradicate the One who created the dust you are made of and everything else.All those other gods could not exist in the minds of all those other people without first One creating the mind itself.See how that works?It all comes back to a single source of creation.
> If you can work out some other PROOF of another means of creation,instead of a ridiculous theory,then we will have something to discuss.Until then,you are just as proofless as the next guy,so you might as well get off the merry-go-round.


The ONE and ONLY MIGHTY MOUSE (notice all caps) created your god. We have the same proof.

In your spare time take the opportunity to look up what constitutes a scientific theory. It is not an invisible excuse for a big brother up in the sky.
Nothing, literally nothing points to or comes back to a single source of creation. There is a point in time where our Universe was created but nobody, literally NOBODY, knows what was before that. 
Get of your high horse in thinking you know anything. Not once have you posted anything but your indoctrinated opinion. Repeating it over and over is not evidence. Get some and then you can be taken seriously.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 5, 2016)

bullethead said:


> The ONE and ONLY MIGHTY MOUSE (notice all caps) created your god. We have the same proof.
> 
> In your spare time take the opportunity to look up what constitutes a scientific theory. It is not an invisible excuse for a big brother up in the sky.
> Nothing, literally nothing points to or comes back to a single source of creation. There is a point in time where our Universe was created but nobody, literally NOBODY, knows what was before that.
> Get of your high horse in thinking you know anything. Not once have you posted anything but your indoctrinated opinion. Repeating it over and over is not evidence. Get some and then you can be taken seriously.



See. That's what I thought. You have zero proof either.

All you have is cartoon analogies and insults and opinions. We know for a fact that the human body reduces back to dust when it dies.Therefore,it doesn't take a genius to conclude that it is made of the elements of the earth.You can't even explain that,much less how all the complex bodily functions came to be.Then throw in thought waves and emotions.You've got nothing.

So, Mr. Proof, like I said before, when you get it all figured out come see me. Until then, have fun on your merry-go-round with your cartoon friends.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Atheists are not honest. And in taking that one more off your list,you try to eradicate the One who created the dust you are made of and everything else.All those other gods could not exist in the minds of all those other people without first One creating the mind itself.See how that works?It all comes back to a single source of creation.
> If you can work out some other PROOF of another means of creation,instead of a ridiculous theory,then we will have something to discuss.Until then,you are just as proofless as the next guy,so you might as well get off the merry-go-round.


Don't you ever read what you post?
Your second paragraph completely contradicts your first paragraph and you just keep on driving like it's not even a speed bump.
I have no doubt you are probably a good guy but holy carp......


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 5, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Atheists are not honest.



Welder,
Atheists are blind.

Bullet denied the gospel as the distinctive of the One True God, apparently without comprehension, simply because it was stated by a believer.  Walt declared that all believers are dishonest unless, or until, they deny their faith.  Griz stated the gospel distinctive without recognizing it.

They do not cry out “Lord, Lord” and claim the works of God (Mat. 7:22) as so many do.

These men are simply subject to the sovereign will of God, as are we all.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2016)

welderguy said:


> See. That's what I thought. You have zero proof either.
> 
> All you have is cartoon analogies and insults and opinions. We know for a fact that the human body reduces back to dust when it dies.Therefore,it doesn't take a genius to conclude that it is made of the elements of the earth.You can't even explain that,much less how all the complex bodily functions came to be.Then throw in thought waves and emotions.You've got nothing.
> 
> So, Mr. Proof, like I said before, when you get it all figured out come see me. Until then, have fun on your merry-go-round with your cartoon friends.


"You have zero proof EITHER".
See my above post.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Welder,
> Atheists are blind.
> 
> Bullet denied the gospel as the distinctive of the One True God, apparently without comprehension, simply because it was stated by a believer.  Walt declared that all believers are dishonest unless, or until, they deny their faith.  Griz stated the gospel distinctive without recognizing it.
> ...



Would love for you to copy and paste here where I said that.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 5, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Would love for you to copy and paste here where I said that.



I don't think I know how to do it properly (jumping threads).
It's #108 in the "It's a bird,..." thread; noting the specificity of the words "God is real" [oops, "God being real"] in the post you are responding to.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> I don't think I know how to do it properly (jumping threads).
> It's #108 in the "It's a bird,..." thread; noting the specificity of the words "God is real" [oops, "God being real"] in the post you are responding to.



So apparently you equate admitting you could be wrong with denying your faith?
1. Considering you have faith and belief but not universal proof, that you could be wrong is honest, a fact, the truth and undeniable.
2. To agree with that you feel would be denying your faith.
Is my observation that honesty and faith can't coincide here off the mark?


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 5, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> So apparently you equate admitting you could be wrong with denying your faith?
> 1. Considering you have faith and belief but not universal proof, that you could be wrong is honest, a fact, the truth and undeniable.
> 2. To agree with that you feel would be denying your faith.
> Is my observation that honesty and faith can't coincide here off the mark?



Yes, I deny your "undeniable" in #1.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Yes, I deny your "undeniable" in #1.


Of course you do.
To agree you feel would be denying your faith.
But your denial doesn't change the facts.
So what we have is another example where honesty and faith can't coincide..
By the way, I don't think that makes you individually a dishonest person, but I do believe your indoctrination/belief/faith has you minimize or ignore the implications of it.
And I'm not pointing the finger at your god.
But the dudes who came up with the rules you have to follow......


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 5, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course you do.
> To agree you feel would be denying your faith.
> But your denial doesn't change the facts.
> So what we have is another example where honesty and faith can't coincide..
> ...



So your clairvoyant also.
Of course you are.
It's the only way you can justify condemnation of that which you do not understand.

I don't know why unbelievers, and believers alike, assume indoctrination as the cause for all that they disagree with.  I am often accused in that way, and yet, beyond "God is real", my personal convictions often disagree with many, sometimes seemingly all, others.  No too long ago, I had to go back 1700 yrs. just to find one person who agreed with me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> So your clairvoyant also.
> Of course you are.
> It's the only way you can justify condemnation of that which you do not understand.
> 
> I don't know why unbelievers, and believers alike, assume indoctrination as the cause for all that they disagree with.  I am often accused in that way, and yet, beyond "God is real", my personal convictions often disagree with many, sometimes seemingly all, others.  No too long ago, I had to go back 1700 yrs. just to find one person who agreed with me.


You seem to be making a habit of expanding what I actually say.
I didn't condemn anything.
I stated facts. Feel free to address them. I admit the possibility I have my facts wrong.
And I didn't say only indoctrination. I even broke it up into different categories.
Your getting snotty with me is just detracting from the conversation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 5, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> You seem to be making a habit of expanding what I actually say.
> I didn't condemn anything.
> I stated facts. Feel free to address them. I admit the possibility I have my facts wrong.
> And I didn't say only indoctrination. I even broke it up into different categories.
> Your getting snotty with me is just detracting from the conversation.



And your insistence that believers are dishonest is promoting conversation.

I'm going fishing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 5, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> And your insistence that believers are dishonest is promoting conversation.
> 
> I'm going fishing.



Post 29 about half way down
Are my posts showing up in a different language or something?
TESTING TESTING 1 2 3


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2016)

welderguy said:


> See. That's what I thought. You have zero proof either.
> 
> All you have is cartoon analogies and insults and opinions. We know for a fact that the human body reduces back to dust when it dies.Therefore,it doesn't take a genius to conclude that it is made of the elements of the earth.You can't even explain that,much less how all the complex bodily functions came to be.Then throw in thought waves and emotions.You've got nothing.
> 
> So, Mr. Proof, like I said before, when you get it all figured out come see me. Until then, have fun on your merry-go-round with your cartoon friends.


Lol, the elements throughout the Universe are found in our bodies. Stardust not Earth dust.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...pernova-astrophysics-health-space-ngbooktalk/


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2016)

How much of the human body is made up of stardust?


Did you ever wonder where you came from? That is the stuff that’s inside your body like your bones, organs, muscles…etc.All of these things are made of various molecules and atoms. But where did these little ingredients come from? And how were they made? The answer to these questions will take us back to a time long ago when the universe was much different than it is now. However, the physics was the same.

The early universe expanded after the big bang for only 3 seconds before it cooled to a state where subatomic particles assembled into atoms. Hydrogen atoms formed first since they are the simplest type of atom. Hydrogen atoms contain only one proton in its nucleus which makes it number one on the periodic table of elements. After the universe aged a little (roughly 300 million years) the hydrogen atoms started to clump together under the force of gravity. As these clumps grew in size, the pressure at the center grew larger. When the temperature reached 15 million degrees F, the pressure caused the hydrogen to fuse their nuclei together. This process is known as nuclear fusion. The positively charged nuclei naturally repel each other. However under high temperatures and pressure, the nuclei are moving fast enough to smash together and fuse. When the two proton nuclei of the hydrogen atoms fuse, they form a nucleus consisting of two protons. Some electrons also combine with protons to form neutrons and neutrinos. These neutrons also bind to the nucleus helping it to remain more stable under the nuclear forces. An atom with two protons in its nucleus is Helium. That’s why helium is number two on the periodic table of elements. The fusion process also releases a lot of energy in which some of the hydrogen mass converts into light energy. This conversion of mass in to energy uses Einstein’s famous equation: E=mc2.

At this point, our universe has a bunch of large clumps of hydrogen fusing together to create helium while releasing large amounts of light. This is what we commonly call a star! In fact our sun is doing this right now as we speak (or read). As a star ages, it then fuses the helium with hydrogen to form lithium which has three protons in its nucleus. Take a look at the periodic table to see which number it is. This fusion process continues to create larger and larger nuclei. The forth, the fifth and all the way up to 26.

This is the general idea but it’s not exactly this easy. We have to remember that this is in fact nuclear physics that we’re dealing with here. It looks like a pretty simple picture as we just described but up close it is actually an intricate jigsaw puzzle. 

The fusion process doesn’t actually create the elements in order through the periodic table. In fact, the process jumps around. And some fused nuclei decay down to lower elements that were skipped over. Fusion also creates neutrons which combine with atoms to create isotopes which act like atomic cousins. Overall, we can say that a star produces all of the elements up to iron in the periodic table through the fusion process. The details of this process are fascinating, yet they deter us from answering the question at hand.

The element with 26 protons in its nucleus is iron. It turns out that this is the last element that is created. To create higher elements, fusion requires more energy than it produces. We mentioned earlier that a star glows because the fusing atoms release energy (E=mc2). However, the amount of energy released becomes smaller and smaller as the atoms grow larger. Eventually at iron, there is no energy released at all. And for elements beyond iron more energy is need for fusion than gravitational pressure can provide.

After a star has created enough iron, fusion ceases and the hot burning core begins to cool. Up until this point the hot core of the star erupting outwards and preventing gravity from collapsing the star. Now that the star has cooled, the core no longer expands and gravity quickly collapses the star. The star implodes with enough energy to immediately fuse some of the atoms into higher elements like Nickel, Krypton, Gold, Uranium,… etc. This quick and violent implosion releases an enormous amount of energy that explodes the star. This is what we call a supernova! Astrophysicists are still not exactly certain about the details of how a supernova explodes. Hopefully you can figure it out someday!

The exploded remains from a supernova travel through out the universe only to someday clump together with other stardust and give birth to a new star. This is the life of our universe.

Now that we have established that every element in the periodic table aside from hydrogen is essentially stardust, we have to determine how much of our body is made up of this stardust. If we know how many hydrogen atoms are in our body, then we can say that the rest is stardust. Our body is composed of roughly 7x1027atoms. That is a lot of atoms! Try writing that number out on a piece of paper: 7 with 27 zeros behind it. We say roughly because if you pluck a hair or pick your nose there might be slightly less. Now it turns out that of those billion billion billion atoms, 4.2x1027of them are hydrogen. Remember that hydrogen is bigbang dust and not stardust. This leaves 2.8x1027 atoms of stardust. Thus the amount of stardust atoms in our body is 40%.

Since stardust atoms are the heavier elements, the percentage of star mass in our body is much more impressive. Most of the hydrogen in our body floats around in the form of water. The human body is about 60% water and hydrogen only accounts for 11% of that water mass. Even though water consists of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen, hydrogen has much less mass. We can conclude that 93% of the mass in our body is stardust. Just think, long ago someone may have wished upon a star that you are made of.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 5, 2016)

bullethead said:


> How much of the human body is made up of stardust?
> 
> 
> Did you ever wonder where you came from? That is the stuff that’s inside your body like your bones, organs, muscles…etc.All of these things are made of various molecules and atoms. But where did these little ingredients come from? And how were they made? The answer to these questions will take us back to a time long ago when the universe was much different than it is now. However, the physics was the same.
> ...



Isn't God's plan amazing?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Isn't God's plan amazing?


Some of the excuses men make because they cannot or will not take the time to try to understand the gaps are way more amazing than any God.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 5, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Post 29 about half way down
> Are my posts showing up in a different language or something?
> TESTING TESTING 1 2 3



The fish were very good to me today, they didn’t bother me at all.
I used a portion of the available time to ponder a question.  I’m pretty sure that there is no time, meaning from recent past to foreseeable future, when I am not a believer.  In an attempt to step aside to investigate that I ask myself, “Is there an identifiable time when Walt is a believer?”  Since Walt declares himself to be an unbeliever, and the very little information I have available exposes no reason for his making the claim falsely, “Walt is an unbeliever” seemed a valid starting place.  The next step was to consider additional options between believer and unbeliever, such as seeker or doubter.  But that didn’t seem fruitful because the validity of those positions is uncertain and, even if valid, have no bearing on the question at hand.  Next was a fairly long, relatively uneventful period in my thinking (thanks to the fish), as a very few ideas about things that might suspend Walt’s status, or mine, were immediately dismissed.  It seems that, within the established time perameters, Walt is always an unbeliever and I am always a believer.  Therefore, your platitude concerning my dishonesty seems unsustainable.  

Not to make a short story any longer: a declaration of dishonesty is a condemnation, I am always one among many believers (also giving me standing), your assumption of my motivation is unwarranted, your facts appear to be your conclusions, of which my human rule makers is one.  On the converse, God guides His People’s relationship with unbelievers and I try to be guided accordingly.  Therefore, I hope I have not told you what your conclusions should be, but have tried to draw attention to erroneous conclusions concerning believers.

I should point out that you have said much to confirm that “Walt declared that all believers are dishonest unless, or until, they deny their faith”, but don’t let that worry you, your still and unbeliever to me, and I will still try not to tell you what to believe, only try to point out what you’ve got wrong about us.


----------



## fireman32 (Mar 5, 2016)

bullethead said:


> No mention on how the drunk that caused the crash survived and how the entire family of four that he hit burned alive screaming to the very end because their vehicle caught fire and they were trapped. I have not heard a person mutter "that's the way God wanted it" at their funeral. Not saying there aren't any, but it would not seem the majority give god credit for both .



So what is the reason for them burning alive?  What do you tell cancer patients? You're just star dust, suck it up?  There is no hope for you, you were just dealt a crappy hand?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 5, 2016)

fireman32 said:


> So what is the reason for them burning alive?  What do you tell cancer patients? You're just star dust, suck it up?  There is no hope for you, you were just dealt a crappy hand?


The reason would be a drunk smashing into them and their vehicle bursting on fire.

I would tell them fight until you do not want to fight anymore. 
I had to have that conversation.

In either case what should you tell those people? 
God has a plan for you?
Or
God takes the good ones first so he thought you should burn to death ....and for you....God wanted your insides to to be slowly eaten away so you can go see him?

Or just make up a story about an invisible guy in an invisible place just to comfort them and tell it so many times until I start to believe it myself??


----------



## welderguy (Mar 6, 2016)

bullethead said:


> The reason would be a drunk smashing into them and their vehicle bursting on fire.
> 
> I would tell them fight until you do not want to fight anymore.
> I had to have that conversation.
> ...



That "invisible guy" was pretty visible to Stephen as unbelievers mercilessly crushed his body with stone after stone.

But the pain and suffering was the last thing on Stephen's mind because his eyes were fixed on the Saviour.


----------



## Israel (Mar 6, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> The fish were very good to me today, they didn’t bother me at all.
> I used a portion of the available time to ponder a question.  I’m pretty sure that there is no time, meaning from recent past to foreseeable future, when I am not a believer.  In an attempt to step aside to investigate that I ask myself, “Is there an identifiable time when Walt is a believer?”  Since Walt declares himself to be an unbeliever, and the very little information I have available exposes no reason for his making the claim falsely, “Walt is an unbeliever” seemed a valid starting place.  The next step was to consider additional options between believer and unbeliever, such as seeker or doubter.  But that didn’t seem fruitful because the validity of those positions is uncertain and, even if valid, have no bearing on the question at hand.  Next was a fairly long, relatively uneventful period in my thinking (thanks to the fish), as a very few ideas about things that might suspend Walt’s status, or mine, were immediately dismissed.  It seems that, within the established time perameters, Walt is always an unbeliever and I am always a believer.  Therefore, your platitude concerning my dishonesty seems unsustainable.
> 
> Not to make a short story any longer: a declaration of dishonesty is a condemnation, I am always one among many believers (also giving me standing), your assumption of my motivation is unwarranted, your facts appear to be your conclusions, of which my human rule makers is one.  On the converse, God guides His People’s relationship with unbelievers and I try to be guided accordingly.  Therefore, I hope I have not told you what your conclusions should be, but have tried to draw attention to erroneous conclusions concerning believers.
> ...



Not to correct, but to add, in perhaps where a thing may be lacking.
Walt, and at least Ambush...and I believe a few others (may I pay better attention, I think Bullet, too) confess as to once "having been a believer". It is not as though, in one sense, a "clean slate" state is extant. At least in word.
This is something that both simplifies, and also complicates simultaneously.

It is not unlike the joke that circulates at work, and no doubt in many places. "Why do divorces cost so much?"

"Because they are worth it..."

(I think of Gordon's exchange with Ambush not long ago and his response, "the cost of your humor is higher than I am willing to pay", Gordon said. It is wisdom. We seek _common ground_ that we might make freely known the riches of grace...and yet to tread in our seeking, where others walk (for now) with their seeming impunity can be the place we are compelled to part ways.)

It was not for me then to explain to the Dr. who told that above joke while going through his divorce, "it is not that I don't like you, it is not that I want to insult you, it is not even that I do not understand where you are coming from (I am divorced, twice)...but the cost of that laughter will follow me home to my own house. (That it took years and years for me to wake up to the things I brought home that compelled two women to leave...well, it would also take that same "waking light" for this man...to see.)

That I still, at times "give in" to men pleasing, that "going along to get along" is also something I am waking up to that troubles my own house. It is not good. The cost is way too high. And if, turning from this thing I am being compelled to tear down in light, I seek to rebuild, I find myself a liar.

In the joke, my laughter takes the teller's part. I know him (in part) am kindly affected to him (in part), am certainly his subordinate (not in part, but in the very whole of the system). Nurses have no orders to follow...without Doctors, and their place is soon taken from them if in insubordination they are found.

A better wisdom(?), more cynical (?)...or just myself? might have said "Sorry Doc, I already heard that joke, your wife is telling it all over town..." For the believer, (as Gordon had also once said years ago,) has perhaps, the ability to see two sides of a thing and knows not where he must come down "in a thing" till it be revealed. If he is to "come down" at all.
But suffice it to say...the believer is not unfamiliar with a man willing to throw his wife "under the bus" lest he appear with dirty garments. 
And always, what we say, is far more telling than what we think we may be wanting to be heard.

So, when Walt, Ambush, et al, say "I once was a believer" I hear "I know all about the stuff you purport, I once lived there, but I woke up and saw it was a dump, and left". (not unlike the cynical man telling his divorce jokes, thinking he knows all about marriage...but all he knows about his his response to marriage...and I do not know if his wife was a harridan, harlot, or most patient saint ever born...and this man must flee for he cannot bear the light...) Thus, to whom I lend my assent and laughter is paramount now, to me.

I heartily lend my assent to the wisdom you shared. (But my assent is as nothing) For it is from a man not knowing a thing "in this mix", sometimes thinking he sees both sides...but not assured at all if there is to be a "coming down"... nor where to come down. I too, seek light, or so I say, want a common ground (or so I say)...and like a man in the dark, probe with what little light I may have...

Ambush, I speak to you of the cross as that place where all my assumptions, even all my prior "concrete" experience...must make way, that place where I must be, cannot be found a liar...for it strips away the "everything" I know of me...and displays all the "wrongness" (and even previously assumed "rightness") of me...as a very sufficient level. 

What must go...goes...and I never know, till it's revelation...that bubble is either between the lines(of which I yet must discover)...or it is "watch the touch of fire" to my work.

The plain truth of it is, even in the looking at smoldering stubble of framework...or what yet appears to stand, I can never assume the standing is worthy...or simply not yet had the level put to it. So, in that sense, I am only sure of one thing...the level comes, and it is not in my hand. You may say "how can you build without a level? all your work has to be askew." To this, all is only of he who holds the level says "go...speak, and work, in the faith I am the master builder" And I am able to make you stand...should even all your speaking and work...even be of wood, hay, and straw. ("But Lord," I say, "I don't want to embarrassed, nor ashamed of my work..." I hear laughter. "Do you think I don't know that?" is the reply. [Who first scorned the shame?]
 "May I show you what you built when you were afraid of being ashamed before men?...may I show you how that has turned out? Would you like to see how "well" is truly "well" when you thought _you were_ doing well?"
Whom do you truly fear?
And I am made to see.


To this cross, you seem non plussed, totally unfamiliar...which...to the _which_, I must ask..."then how could this man call himself a "once" believer...if this is so strange to him?" Could he have been a babe, simply abducted? Mercy...Lord. Was he just a mouther of words of no substance? I know there be those...the fire has shown me that...quite personally. Is he a dog returning to his vomit? I believe I know of that...too. Or is he one taken captive of the evil one to do his bidding...is he one "impossible to renew to repentance" counting the blood of Jesus as an unholy thing...and crucifying to himself afresh the Lord of Glory?

Or, is he moving? Is he divorcing himself from the false god(s) of obligation, debt, lack, penury, and mere religiousity, my brother struggling against the woeful indoctrinations foist upon a soul by man's lust to control...and he is simply...as brother of Christ, seeking as I believe I am...that place of liberty (as I often may be found...even in "fits and starts" and likely appearing to some as the most bewildered worldling)?

As there are "false gospels" and "false Christs" made known to us,  of which to be aware and shunned...is he one...simply just like me...walking through a minefield...needing light...and direction. Then, we are no different, and to "divorce him" is simply to divorce my own self. But the which remains precisely my prescription, nonetheless. How wonderful to find...in the desert. Things that help me see myself...as helpless, hapless, inadequate...and press me to a "someone else".

And so, in it all, God is glorified. For here, I know nothing of my own ability to know...anything. Here...all my failure is palpable...all my words...as dust. Here, all my own power is perfectly frustrated.

And I must confess to all my failure. The which, in simplest terms to those who think I am (we are) so bizarre and off base, who once knew a house they abandoned in which they believe I (we) yet live, I must confess, I am simply a failed atheist. I once lived there, too...as far from the God who told me, and showed me plainly, I was a failure at it as any I might imagine.

That he has assured me it is His pleasure to work with failures...he shows through a thing too marvelous for my apprehension, and therefore, my ability to translate. It is where failures live...because of His triumph in it.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 6, 2016)

Israel said:


> And I must confess to all my failure. The which, in simplest terms to those who think I am (we are) so bizarre and off base, who once knew a house they abandoned in which they believe I (we) yet live, I must confess, I am simply a failed atheist. I once lived there, too...as far from the God who told me, and showed me plainly, I was a failure at it as any I might imagine.
> 
> That he has assured me it is His pleasure to work with failures...he shows through a thing too marvelous for my apprehension, and therefore, my ability to translate. It is where failures live...because of His triumph in it.



Salvation is so simple, isn't it?  Believe in all your heart that Jesus is Lord.  I did that as well as anyone could and I reaped all the benefits of it.  I know what a nice place it is to be.  The problem is that along with that very simple beliefs come an avalanche of insanity starting with First Tier beliefs:

https://www.google.com/search?q=firt+teir+beliefs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=first+tier+beliefs

_1st Tier: This level deals with salvation issues. These are high priority, non-negotiable beliefs. We have nothing to unite around if we do not all hold these beliefs.

-The death and bodily resurrection of Christ
-Being saved by grace alone
-Salvation exclusively through Christ 
-The nature of the Trinity 
-Belief in the Virgin Birth
-Ultimate authority of Scripture_

I can't get passed number one.  That's a pretty big problem, isn't it?  It wasn't that the stench of baloney wasn't there when I was a believer, it's that I ignored it, like when there's a dead rat under the house or a clunking noise coming from my truck.  I just covered it up with air freshener or turned up the radio.  Problem solved. I remember like it was yesterday trying to square the resurrection in my mind; in my HEART.  

I wanted to simply believe but I couldn't.  I can't convince myself that dead people can come back to life. It doesn't make sense.  I couldn't lie to myself anymore and yes, I think that you are lying to yourself.  You may say "No, Ambush.  I really really believe that Christ rose from the dead.  I'm absolutely certain of it".  That's a lie.  There's no way to be absolutely certain of that.  Grant that one insane claim and reality goes off the rails.  Remember that avalanche?  Now I have to believe in talking snakes and burning bushes, men living in fish, giant boats......WHY?  For God's sake WHY? If only there weren't all those idiotic stories!  And then there's that problem about HOW the Bible was ASSEMBLED.  It never ended.  Too many stinking, dead rats in the crawlspace and the wheels came off. 

"Just believe.  Just try it.  Give it an honest chance.  It is SOOOOOOO awesome!"  If it's true then I must truly be a Vessel of Wrath because there's no way I can look at myself in the mirror and say "I believe. I simply believe."


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 6, 2016)

Israel said:


> Not to correct, but to add, in perhaps where a thing may be lacking.
> Walt, and at least Ambush...and I believe a few others (may I pay better attention, I think Bullet, too) confess as to once "having been a believer". It is not as though, in one sense, a "clean slate" state is extant. At least in word.
> This is something that both simplifies, and also complicates simultaneously.
> 
> ...



Both you and Hummer gave very lengthy, thoughtfull responses. You both covered everything except the FACT that you sometimes have to ignore the truth to avoid denying your faith.
THAT'S part of the problem. Not that your place was a dump.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 6, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Both you and Hummer gave very lengthy, thoughtfull responses. You both covered everything except the FACT that you sometimes have to ignore the truth to avoid denying your faith.
> THAT'S part of the problem. Not that your place was a dump.



For my part, Thanks for the kindness.  If I could ignore spiritual truth we would certainly disagree on fewer things.  I recognize and accept the fact that you do not recognize and accept the spiritual, that doesn’t make you a liar.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2016)

welderguy said:


> That "invisible guy" was pretty visible to Stephen as unbelievers mercilessly crushed his body with stone after stone.
> 
> But the pain and suffering was the last thing on Stephen's mind because his eyes were fixed on the Saviour.


Who is Stephen? Or are you making up a feel good hallmark story?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2016)

Israel said:


> Not to correct, but to add, in perhaps where a thing may be lacking.
> Walt, and at least Ambush...and I believe a few others (may I pay better attention, I think Bullet, too) confess as to once "having been a believer". It is not as though, in one sense, a "clean slate" state is extant. At least in word.
> This is something that both simplifies, and also complicates simultaneously.
> 
> ...



And you are convinced two wives and other women  left because the house was a dump?


----------



## welderguy (Mar 6, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Who is Stephen? Or are you making up a feel good hallmark story?



Let me google that for you:
:

Acts 7:54-59

54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Let me google that for you:
> :
> 
> Acts 7:54-59
> ...



Hallmark story it is.


----------



## Israel (Mar 6, 2016)

bullethead said:


> And you are convinced two wives and other women  left because the house was a dump?



All that I did was a "dump". All problems, matters of impasse were always "not me". All imagined slights or discomforts were intentionally aimed "at me."
When such a man lasts long enough...even years after a first confession of faith, he can find God remains faithful...even to this: 

"To him who has, more shall be given, but to him who has not..._even that which he thinks he has_, shall be taken from him..."

It was in the midst of losing all _I had_, watching it go away as surely as though I had purchased the tickets myself (for, in truth, I had) that that _word_ came to me as plainly as anything I have ever "heard". 
I was thrilled beyond measure. I was neither forsaken, nor forgotten, and what in any previous circumstance would have been a thing at best, of some "biblical" warning to be laughed off or discarded...I knew in that moment...I was being "seen". And that was all that mattered. Even being seen in the worst of lights, as one deserving to lose all...I knew...Truth is a real thing. And the observer...sees...me.
And that was all I needed to know. And still...need.

And so for 17 years thereafter the Lord kept a man who once thought he would die without a woman's intimacy, who would promise moon and stars but deliver d*ng, from even touching one in pursuit. And then, He brought one to me. The one I couldn't earn in lies, or try to keep with lies. Someone very much like Him...she sees right through me...and yet...loves me...and stays...in Truth.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 6, 2016)

Israel said:


> All that I did was a "dump". All problems, matters of impasse were always "not me". All imagined slights or discomforts were intentionally aimed "at me."
> When such a man lasts long enough...even years after a first confession of faith, he can find God remains faithful...even to this:
> 
> "To him who has, more shall be given, but to him who has not..._even that which he thinks he has_, shall be taken from him..."
> ...



What if you got to watch while all those people you loved were lit on fire and burned to death?  Still Amen?  That's a yes or no.  Wax poetic after the yes or no.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 6, 2016)

Israel said:


> All that I did was a "dump". All problems, matters of impasse were always "not me". All imagined slights or discomforts were intentionally aimed "at me."
> When such a man lasts long enough...even years after a first confession of faith, he can find God remains faithful...even to this:
> 
> "To him who has, more shall be given, but to him who has not..._even that which he thinks he has_, shall be taken from him..."
> ...


Yep, you need someone who accepts you as you, someone who forgives, someone who is there for you no matter what. When all else fails invent ome.


----------



## Israel (Mar 6, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> What if you got to watch while all those people you loved were lit on fire and burned to death?  Still Amen?  That's a yes or no.  Wax poetic after the yes or no.



There is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man, but God is faithful who will, with the temptation, provide means of escape that you may bear it. 

I would need him no more nor less than if someone walked up and gave me a winning lottery ticket. Or my tomato harvest was perfect. Or they all rotted in the ground. Or he appeared to you tonight and told you "you not what spirit you are of..."

Every word has a source.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 6, 2016)

Israel said:


> There is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man, but God is faithful who will, with the temptation, provide means of escape that you may bear it.
> 
> I would need him no more nor less than if someone walked up and gave me a winning lottery ticket. Or my tomato harvest was perfect. Or they all rotted in the ground. Or he appeared to you tonight and told you "you not what spirit you are of..."
> 
> Every word has a source.




I would love that. That would be proof to me.  Is that what he does to you?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 6, 2016)

Israel said:


> There is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man, but God is faithful who will, with the temptation, provide means of escape that you may bear it.
> 
> I would need him no more nor less than if someone walked up and gave me a winning lottery ticket. Or my tomato harvest was perfect. Or they all rotted in the ground. Or he appeared to you tonight and told you "you not what spirit you are of..."
> 
> Every word has a source.



The Charleton Heston voice or the Morgan Freeman voice?


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 6, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> The Charleton Heston voice or the Morgan Freeman voice?



I think Morgan Freeman would make an excellent God.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 6, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I think Morgan Freeman would make an excellent God.



I liked Alanis Morissette.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 6, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I liked Alanis Morissette.



Been a long time since I watched Dogma. I remember liking it, wonder if I still would.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 6, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Been a long time since I watched Dogma. I remember liking it, wonder if I still would.




It's really not that good.  Jay is the best part.


----------



## Israel (Mar 7, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I would love that. That would be proof to me.  Is that what he does to you?


Yes. 
I have been told that.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 7, 2016)

Israel said:


> Yes.
> I have been told that.




A voice in your head?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 7, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> For my part, Thanks for the kindness.  If I could ignore spiritual truth we would certainly disagree on fewer things.  I recognize and accept the fact that you do not recognize and accept the spiritual, that doesn’t make you a liar.


I'm curious, how did you deduce that I don't recognize or accept spirituality?


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 7, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious, how did you deduce that I don't recognize or accept spirituality?



Ahh, a good question.  I don’t recall your having stating “Nothing spiritual exists”, or words to that effect.

I deduced that you do not recognize or accept the spiritual (semantically different than spirituality*) from the sampling that I have read of what you wrote on this forum over the past 6+ years.  How?  I can’t seem to find a particular post that I read a couple of weeks ago, nor do I remember just what it said.  What I remember is turning to Sweetie and saying, “He has no clue what an experience of faith, or the Spiritual relationship, is”.  It was your post.  Assuming you to be an honest man, you certainly would not express yourself as though you were unaware of the Spiritual realm if you were in fact aware of that realm (I hope you won’t insist that I dig around for examples).  Additionally, I do not perceive that your conclusions concerning “truth” include considerations outside the physically sensible, within which I include the functions of the mind. —BTW, we seem to agree that what we believe has no effect whatsoever on that which is true.  Therefore, what is true should dictate that which we believe.— If I am correct about your perception of the spiritual, it is not at all surprising that we would differ on our perception of truth.  If I were incorrect about your perception of the spiritual I would have to reluctantly reconsider your honesty, hopefully finding a previously unconsidered factor; if not, I might come to the same conclusion about you that you have expressed about me.


*Esp, channeling, and other “new age” phenomena have not been addressed.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 7, 2016)

Ironic that he makes the case that the term Atheist shouldn't exist....and yet has written volumes advancing the cause of a non-existent non-world view.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Mar 7, 2016)

Don't sell Yourself short.You are capable of doing this all on Your own.It's called perseverance.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2016)

Huntinfool said:


> Ironic that he makes the case that the term Atheist shouldn't exist....and yet has written volumes advancing the cause of a non-existent non-world view.



You cannot possibly be pointing fingers at someone for writing about advancing the cause of non-existant things are you?


----------



## Israel (Mar 8, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You cannot possibly be pointing fingers at someone for writing about advancing the cause of non-existant things are you?



For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,…


You think you hold certain people clearly in eye and mind. But really, who has seen...who?

Clearly


----------



## 660griz (Mar 8, 2016)

Israel said:


> For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,…



And responsible for all the good and every comfort you enjoy.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2016)

Israel said:


> For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,…
> 
> 
> You think you hold certain people clearly in eye and mind. But really, who has seen...who?
> ...


I hold people to their word and their ability to back it up.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 8, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You cannot possibly be pointing fingers at someone for writing about advancing the cause of non-existant things are you?



What's good for the goose.....right?

However, just to clarify, I'm not actually claiming that my cause is non-existent....he is.  It's just funny to me that he starts the manifesto off with the claim that his cause doesn't exist and then proceeds to defend it.  

I guess he's sort of like Jesse Jackson, he's made a very lucrative career out of being angry about a non-existent cause.  

At least, to his credit, he admits it up front.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 8, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Ahh, a good question.  I don’t recall your having stating “Nothing spiritual exists”, or words to that effect.
> 
> I deduced that you do not recognize or accept the spiritual (semantically different than spirituality*) from the sampling that I have read of what you wrote on this forum over the past 6+ years.  How?  I can’t seem to find a particular post that I read a couple of weeks ago, nor do I remember just what it said.  What I remember is turning to Sweetie and saying, “He has no clue what an experience of faith, or the Spiritual relationship, is”.  It was your post.  Assuming you to be an honest man, you certainly would not express yourself as though you were unaware of the Spiritual realm if you were in fact aware of that realm (I hope you won’t insist that I dig around for examples).  Additionally, I do not perceive that your conclusions concerning “truth” include considerations outside the physically sensible, within which I include the functions of the mind. —BTW, we seem to agree that what we believe has no effect whatsoever on that which is true.  Therefore, what is true should dictate that which we believe.— If I am correct about your perception of the spiritual, it is not at all surprising that we would differ on our perception of truth.  If I were incorrect about your perception of the spiritual I would have to reluctantly reconsider your honesty, hopefully finding a previously unconsidered factor; if not, I might come to the same conclusion about you that you have expressed about me.
> 
> ...


You've got alot of different thoughts there and I'm having trouble formulating a response that makes any sense. Maybe the best way to do it is to tell you what spiritual etc means to me and then you can apply that.
Spiritual realm - man's imagination of what a "spirit world" would be like based on their religious beliefs etc. Pretty much all religions have their own version of a "spiritual realm" and everybody's version includes the cast of characters pertaining to their particular religious beliefs.
Spiritual - at the most basic level it's a "feeling". For example when I go camping at the lake I often get up early, paddle my kayak out on the lake in the dark and just sit quietly, sip my coffee and watch and listen to nature waking up and the sun rising.
To me it is what I think could be accurately described as "spiritual".
Of course I don't give credit for it to any particular God and I admit to not knowing for a fact how it all got here. I just enjoy it for what it is. All we know for a fact is that it's here so why pollute the experience with all this trying to claim who's unprovable God did it.
Truth - There are individual truths and universal truths. As you mentioned that we agree there are truths that you and I agree are true regardless of what you and I believe. Those are universal truths/facts. They have been and can be PROVEN to be true at this time.
Individual truths include belief in a god and do not meet the above criteria. 
Of course individual truths can also be universal truths.
Truth outside the physically sensible -
See truth above. There may be truth outside the physically sensible. However right now they are not PROVEN to be true so can be considered but not given any weight. 
What is true dictating what we believe -
I'm sure we all believe things that are not true/fact. I don't think our brains are built to only believe true/facts or we would have been extinct long ago.
My conclusions about you -
The only thing I know about you is what we discuss here so can't really conclude much outside of that.
I do think your personal beliefs dominate your thought process when it comes to universal truths vs personal truth and the can of worms that can open.
I question why that has to be in order not to deny ones faith.
Kinda seems like the Truth and the universal truth should coincide.
I also think that you dont realize its not "God" that I have an issue with. It's the story organized religion wants you to believe about that God and think about other people for their own power and financial gains.
In the end, if there is a god he might appreciate the fact that A/As didn't believe that man made story. 
Maybe this horrendously long post gives you a better idea of what I actually think as opposed to what you think I think.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 8, 2016)

Israel said:


> For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,…
> 
> 
> You think you hold certain people clearly in eye and mind. But really, who has seen...who?
> ...


Israel you missed your calling. Should have been a Motivational Coach


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 8, 2016)

Excellent thread.  I miss hanging out in here.  Just seems sometimes I have said much of what I have to say, and get bored hearing myself say it again.  I always did enjoy the exchange of ideas.  I hope to come back more often.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 8, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> You've got alot of different thoughts there and I'm having trouble formulating a response that makes any sense. Maybe the best way to do it is to tell you what spiritual etc means to me and then you can apply that.
> Spiritual realm - man's imagination of what a "spirit world" would be like based on their religious beliefs etc. Pretty much all religions have their own version of a "spiritual realm" and everybody's version includes the cast of characters pertaining to their particular religious beliefs.
> Spiritual - at the most basic level it's a "feeling". For example when I go camping at the lake I often get up early, paddle my kayak out on the lake in the dark and just sit quietly, sip my coffee and watch and listen to nature waking up and the sun rising.
> To me it is what I think could be accurately described as "spiritual".
> ...



If your post is “horrendously long”, I will accept responsibility because you have concisely made you points, and they are as I would have anticipated, had I anticipated this type of response: the Spiritual realm is imaginary, spiritual is feeling/emotion, all truth is corporeal and temporal or it is impotent.





> What is true dictating what we believe -
> I'm sure we all believe things that are not true/fact. I don't think our brains are built to only believe true/facts or we would have been extinct long ago.
> My conclusions about you -
> The only thing I know about you is what we discuss here so can't really conclude much outside of that.
> ...



Are you saying my beliefs are invalid, therefore, my thought process is invalid?; I’m incapable of discerning truth because I believe in God?; I’m not really following.  Don’t everyone’s beliefs, if they are beliefs, influence their thought process?



> I also think that you dont realize its not "God" that I have an issue with. It's the story organized religion wants you to believe about that God and think about other people for their own power and financial gains.
> In the end, if there is a god he might appreciate the fact that A/As didn't believe that man made story.
> Maybe this horrendously long post gives you a better idea of what I actually think as opposed to what you think I think.



No, I don’t think you have an issue with God; I have no reason to think you consider God at all.

From over here it appears that you arbitrarily assume everyone who professes belief in God to BE the propagators and purveyors of that story which you accurately describe, and proceed from that arbitrary assumption to categorize, deride, and lambast those whom you admittedly don’t know, and whose spiritual experience you deny because you, quite understandably, do not share that experience.  It occurs to me that those people you alienate with your pejoratives are allies of sorts, in that they oppose the same charlatans that you oppose; although they are probably better equipped to recognize them.  You would, of course, have to give up your arbitrary assumption to gain from the “enemy of my enemy” benefit.

I guess the bottom line is that you have generally confirmed what I was thinking, and I appreciate it.  Regrettably, I don’t know how to dissuade your assumptions, so I guess all believers will continue to be liars in your eyes.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Excellent thread.  I miss hanging out in here.  Just seems sometimes I have said much of what I have to say, and get bored hearing myself say it again.  I always did enjoy the exchange of ideas.  I hope to come back more often.



It sounds like you are content and satisfied with what you believe.   I guess I'm not as certain.  

The other day I was looking at a tree in my brother in law's backyard (this goes along with what Walt said about the lake).  I was looking at the ivy and the wind and the sunlight and I was moved.  I was overcome with a sensation of yearning and aching and I though "What if it's true?  Am I missing out on a life of meaning and purpose?  Am I just telling myself that all there is to life is what I can see and measure?  Are there realities that cannot be measured with tools but only with the heart?  Am I just afraid of being ridiculed as soft minded?  What's the harm in opening myself to the possibility of realms that I can't measure with science?  So many people believe in it.  Are they better off?  Do they 'Get it'?  Why am I holding back?  What have I got to lose and what am I keeping myself from gaining?"

I just finished Daniel Pinchbeck's book _Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism _.  

I know for a fact that certain chemicals will put your mind and spirit in a very bizarre place; a place that I think would be impossible to get to without them.  I know for a fact that there are experiences that absolutely, without a doubt elude measure.  I'm guessing that a Christian might say "It's not the same.  Tripping is NOT like experiencing Christ (Or Buddah or Mohammed...).  Why not?  Can you honestly say that when you are communing with God through prayer or experiencing His glory through revelation that you are as lucid and rational as you could possibly ever be?  Or are you in a "different place"?  A place unrelated to the Natural World?

If you spoke to a Shaman or some Amazonian Indian or even a Muslim, I'm sure that they would say very similar things about what it "feels like" to commune with the "spiritual" as you would.   I find it hard to believe that you, JB, would pull a Welder and say "Those experiences are from Satan.  MINE are from REAL God."  But maybe you would. If so I would ask "Why?"

For me, I just can't seem to make the distinctions between my "spiritual" experiences and those of a Shaman or a Christian.  If one is real then in essence they all are and the things that separate the different kinds of beliefs are the man made garbage.  All I can say for sure is that sometimes I get "moved".  Pinning it down, trying to putting it in a box, trying to define it by any pre-fab notions, calling it Faeries or God actually taints the experience in a way that I can only describe as a shame.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> If your post is “horrendously long”, I will accept responsibility because you have concisely made you points, and they are as I would have anticipated, had I anticipated this type of response: the Spiritual realm is imaginary, spiritual is feeling/emotion, all truth is corporeal and temporal or it is impotent.
> 
> Are you saying my beliefs are invalid, therefore, my thought process is invalid?; I’m incapable of discerning truth because I believe in God?; I’m not really following.  Don’t everyone’s beliefs, if they are beliefs, influence their thought process?
> 
> ...



Hummer,

Please see my post.  

What I would say is that you were given an IDEA of what those kinds of experiences are called and what causes them.   Surely you must admit that if you were born in a different place on the globe that the names of those causes would be different.  Also, recognize that there is a LOOOONG history of people ascribing certain types of experiences to "things" which are unconfirmed. It seems that it's something that we as humans like to do.  We might even be designed to do it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 8, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> If your post is “horrendously long”, I will accept responsibility because you have concisely made you points, and they are as I would have anticipated, had I anticipated this type of response: the Spiritual realm is imaginary, spiritual is feeling/emotion, all truth is corporeal and temporal or it is impotent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Obviously I did a whole lot of typing for nothing


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Obviously I did a whole lot of typing for nothing



Walt,

I just realized that I basically said the same thing that you did in #71.  We should start a church.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 8, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Obviously I did a whole lot of typing for nothing



Hey Walt,
I'm take comfort from the fact that we were in it together,
How about you.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2016)

Huntinfool said:


> What's good for the goose.....right?
> 
> However, just to clarify, I'm not actually claiming that my cause is non-existent....he is.  It's just funny to me that he starts the manifesto off with the claim that his cause doesn't exist and then proceeds to defend it.
> 
> ...



His defense seemed to me to be more of an explanation about why there is no cause.

And in your case you claim a non-cause exists .


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 8, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Hey Walt,
> I'm take comfort from the fact that we were in it together,
> How about you.



Actually I'm frustrated at our failure to communicate.
If all that translates to that I think all Christians are liars then either I'm doing a really poor job of expressing myself or it doesn't matter what I say because you are translating through your Christian goggles.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 8, 2016)

bullethead said:


> His defense seemed to me to be more of an explanation about why there is no cause.
> 
> And in your case you claim a non-cause exists .



Me?  Claim a non-cause exists? 

You mean...Alchemy ISN'T real?

Sam Harris has proven pretty clearly that it is possible to turn no cause into several million dollars.  So there's definitely "something" in his "nothing".


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 8, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually I'm frustrated at our failure to communicate.
> If all that translates to that I think all Christians are liars then either I'm doing a really poor job of expressing myself or it doesn't matter what I say because you are translating through your Christian goggles.



I’m sorry to hear that.  I thought that we had confirmed my understanding of your view of Spiritual realm, spiritual, and truth.  You explained them from your perspective and I paraphrased them, which I have always found to be a good method of confirmation.  I haven’t done the same from my perspective of the same terms because of my assumption that you had heard it before and didn’t want to hear it again.  I could present a version that I think would include significant differences, but frankly, I can’t imagine that those differences would be of interest you as they would reflect a difference in the understanding of God’s economy, and you don’t believe in Him to start with, right(?) (besides, you talk about time-consuming, wow!).  Again, your position is such that you would likely just say “prove it”, and I would lay out a metaphysical proof which you would reject.  That would be a bunch of wasted time.

I did state that there was a portion of your post that I didn’t understand, which included “I question why that has to be in order not to deny ones faith”.  It might be a waste of time, but if you want to take another shot at me, I’m willing to try to grasp your thinking.

“Walt declared that all believers are dishonest unless, or until, they deny their faith” is certainly not all I got from you post, but it is the basis of our conversation, and what we are trying to deal with; that’s why I am here.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 9, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> It sounds like you are content and satisfied with what you believe.   I guess I'm not as certain.



I guess.  I believe a better way to put it would be that I know I am happier here than I would be there.  Isn't our experience all about perspective anyway?  For all the people who have lived their entire life believing in and worshipping a loving God.........did they suffer if they were wrong, or, did they benefit from the belief for whatever comfort it provided?  Regardless of what other interpretations may have been.  Their perspective was their reality.

The above ^^^ is not a discussion over what is, but more a commentary on the relevance to the individual.



ambush80 said:


> The other day I was looking at a tree in my brother in law's backyard (this goes along with what Walt said about the lake).  I was looking at the ivy and the wind and the sunlight and I was moved.  I was overcome with a sensation of yearning and aching and I though "What if it's true?  Am I missing out on a life of meaning and purpose?  Am I just telling myself that all there is to life is what I can see and measure?  Are there realities that cannot be measured with tools but only with the heart?  Am I just afraid of being ridiculed as soft minded?  What's the harm in opening myself to the possibility of realms that I can't measure with science?  So many people believe in it.  Are they better off?  Do they 'Get it'?  Why am I holding back?  What have I got to lose and what am I keeping myself from gaining?"
> 
> I just finished Daniel Pinchbeck's book _Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism _.
> 
> ...



I'm glad you brought that up.  I have had experiences to the opposite, which I can only believe are chemical to some level, and possibly psychological based on some synapse firing off to some external stimulus.  For instance, if I drink Nyquil or tequila I have some of the most insane and god-awful dreams, and wake up with a deep feeling of dread and remorse.  It takes hours to shake it........so, I avoid those things knowing the chemical reaction they produce.

Recently, I had such a moment where I woke from a dream where I had a "clarity" that my beliefs were wrong.  I thought about each of you......Ambush, Bullet, Walt, 3xb......all the guys I have debated and argued our belief systems with over the years.  I considered what y'all had said and how it contrasted with what I believed.  I was very sad.  For myself.  For my kids.  For humanity.  

It took me a few hours to shake it.

Something I ate, or saw on t.v. (quite possibly I think it was something made me think of the movie Melancholia earlier the previous day) had influenced my dreams in a very realistic sort of way.  I refocused my thoughts on why I believe what I believe, and why it makes sense to me.........and the sadness and remorse was gone.  I am a believer, for many reasons that have more to do with logical conclusions than chemical reactions.

I do not think my experience is any different than anybody else's.  I think my conclusions and perspective are unique.  As are yours.  As are the Shamans.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 9, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I guess.  I believe a better way to put it would be that I know I am happier here than I would be there.  Isn't our experience all about perspective anyway?  For all the people who have lived their entire life believing in and worshipping a loving God.........did they suffer if they were wrong, or, did they benefit from the belief for whatever comfort it provided?  Regardless of what other interpretations may have been.  Their perspective was their reality.



You are absolutely correct. I think there is a misunderstanding that atheist want religion to go away. Well, I can't speak for every atheist but, I don't care what religion folks decide to go with. Really I don't. I understand that some folks need religion and prayer,(like placebos) has been know to work.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 9, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Walt,
> 
> I just realized that I basically said the same thing that you did in #71.  We should start a church.



Save me a pew, too.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 9, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> Save me a pew, too.



Looks like it's a congregation of 4 or 5.  You might have to be a Deacon.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 9, 2016)

And....nice to see Mr. JB back in the mix.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 9, 2016)

bullethead said:


> And....nice to see Mr. JB back in the mix.


----------



## Israel (Mar 9, 2016)

660griz said:


> And responsible for all the good and every comfort you enjoy.



If by responsible, you imply authorship, that is the springing of good and its recognition...it is for my part acknowledged in debt to a man...but not a man who hates God.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 9, 2016)

bullethead said:


> And....nice to see Mr. JB back in the mix.



I honestly thought the 2nd half of my long post would get a bit more traction


----------



## bullethead (Mar 9, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I honestly thought the 2nd half of my long post would get a bit more traction


Speaking for myself, I can relate to your 2nd part.
I dream every night.
I've had dreams taken to another level by Nyquil.
I've also had some dreams, the same dreams, often enough over the years that I know what is coming and can alter the dream while still dreaming.
I can admit I've had god dreams and devil dreams that seemed so real I've woken up with heart pounding and thinking about the dream for the rest of the day.
I've also battled vampires. " bad guys", and have been relentlessly chased by animals. Ive been the bad guy and hero.
I have driven cars I've never owned on roads Ive never traveled with passengers that I never met, yet I knew the car as well as my own, knew the roads and where they took me, and conversed with the passengers who's faces I had to make up in my own mind as if I've known them my entire life.

The brain is as incredible as any story book, hollywood
film, or super computer as far as I am concerned.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 9, 2016)

Agreed bullet.  Always amazed how it can affect my day following......and it's all chemical or electrical.  I don't think there's a subconscious devil in there, just memories n synapses that fire off. Like NyQuil with me.  That stuff triggers done awful stuff in my head.  There is one line in the movie melancholia that dang near haunts me, n when I remember it I am dragged down.

It just puzzled me that I came to a conclusion in my sleep that I had to honestly had to reason my way out is when I woke up.  Almost troubling.  But, still, just a dream.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 9, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Agreed bullet.  Always amazed how it can affect my day following......and it's all chemical or electrical.  I don't think there's a subconscious devil in there, just memories n synapses that fire off. Like NyQuil with me.  That stuff triggers done awful stuff in my head.  There is one line in the movie melancholia that dang near haunts me, n when I remember it I am dragged down.
> 
> It just puzzled me that I came to a conclusion in my sleep that I had to honestly had to reason my way out is when I woke up.  Almost troubling.  But, still, just a dream.


It seems with me that things that are unresolved or bug me more than others are more frequent in dreams.
A what I thought was a close friend(20 years) and I had a falling out about 4 years ago. I did everything possible to make things right despite being fully confident I had done nothing wrong in the first place.(long story short he, egged on by his wife, had taken a fantastic buck off of my youngest son) Anyway after a face to face talk and a handshake, 9 months later I get an email from him out of the blue as if we had never spoken about it earlier. Well I was done taking the higher ground and I let him have it with both barrels. To this day, and I am not a hot head or violent, I am gonna rearrange his nose when we meet. I just have no use for a spineless backstabber.
But anyway....I find that he is in more dreams than I'd ever care to have involving him in, and in roles as still good friend or arch enemy. Subconsciously it must occupy a part of my brain even though during the hours I'm awake I don't think about the ordeal at all.
I'm looking forward to "meeting " him again and wonder if the frequency he is involved in dreams subsides afterwards.
You may think about the discussions on here mixed with your own personal thoughts and questions more than you realize? ?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 9, 2016)

Possibly bullet.  I don't talk religion much in my daily conversations.  Most my friends believe similarly to myself (aside from my views on church) and I wouldn't discuss it at work.  This sub-forum is kinda my way of checking myself.  

Even though I haven't posted much in the last year or so I still think a lot about our discussions, n read along when I can.   I miss the debates.  it was funny that I woke up arguing with yall in my head 

Fwiw, I have no ill will towards any of you guys, in fact the opposite is true.  

I am very sorry about what happened with your friend.  That stinks man.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 10, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I guess.  I believe a better way to put it would be that I know I am happier here than I would be there.  Isn't our experience all about perspective anyway?  For all the people who have lived their entire life believing in and worshipping a loving God.........did they suffer if they were wrong, or, did they benefit from the belief for whatever comfort it provided?  Regardless of what other interpretations may have been.  Their perspective was their reality.
> 
> The above ^^^ is not a discussion over what is, but more a commentary on the relevance to the individual.
> 
> ...


Hey JB, hope you and your family are doing well.
Some of us can certainly relate to the feeling you had when you woke up from your dream.
I think sometimes some Christians have the impression that us "used to believers" went to Chucky Cheese and celebrated our walking away from Christianity.
You shook it off in a couple hours, for some of us it led to years of questions and research that took us in the opposite direction.
Wasn't necessarily a joyous journey.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 10, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey JB, hope you and your family are doing well.
> Some of us can certainly relate to the feeling you had when you woke up from your dream.
> I think sometimes some Christians have the impression that us "used to believers" went to Chucky Cheese and celebrated our walking away from Christianity.
> You shook it off in a couple hours, for some of us it led to years of questions and research that took us in the opposite direction.
> Wasn't necessarily a joyous journey.


Absolutely a process that took many years for me Walt....spot on.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Absolutely a process that took many years for me Walt....spot on.


It's funny tjhough, you never actually completely walk away. At the risk of being shunned, I have to admit that every once in while the thought pops into my head -
"Boy if God shows up tomorrow I'm screwed for the stuff I've said on here".


----------



## 660griz (Mar 10, 2016)

Israel said:


> If by responsible, you imply authorship, that is the springing of good and its recognition...it is for my part acknowledged in debt to a man...but not a man who hates God.



What man hates God? Only a believer could hate God.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 10, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey JB, hope you and your family are doing well.



Hey Walt.  Thanks.  We are chugging right along......my kids keep my crazy busy.  They both play 3 sports, so that makes for insane schedule.  I hope things are well for you also.

I was happy to get a text from you a few months back.  Figured I was part of a group send-out, but, it was very appreciated. 



WaltL1 said:


> Some of us can certainly relate to the feeling you had when you woke up from your dream.
> I think sometimes some Christians have the impression that us "used to believers" went to Chucky Cheese and celebrated our walking away from Christianity.
> You shook it off in a couple hours, for some of us it led to years of questions and research that took us in the opposite direction.
> Wasn't necessarily a joyous journey.



I understand.  I had a period in my life where I tried my best to shake faith, when ultimately I needed to shake religion.  I came close..........but, it was an effort to rebel against the things that people did to make me dislike God, or the god-concept.  That's just my experience, I know it's not what y'all went through.

The dream was a very weird and challenging thing for me.  I woke up thinking I had a revelation that there was no god, and we were all alone.  Chemical, electrical, whatever it was, it shook me pretty bad.  Of course I believe in God, not sure why I would have a dream otherwise.  It was just one of those crazy things.  

I guess it gave me a small window of perspective into y'alls world.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 10, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I honestly thought the 2nd half of my long post would get a bit more traction



I'm on it.  I'm just thinking about how to word my response in 500 words or less.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I'm on it.  I'm just thinking about how to word my response in 500 words or less.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 10, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I guess.  I believe a better way to put it would be that I know I am happier here than I would be there.  Isn't our experience all about perspective anyway?  For all the people who have lived their entire life believing in and worshipping a loving God.........did they suffer if they were wrong, or, did they benefit from the belief for whatever comfort it provided?  Regardless of what other interpretations may have been.  Their perspective was their reality.
> 
> The above ^^^ is not a discussion over what is, but more a commentary on the relevance to the individual.



You are happier because your concept of what life is like without God was full of despair.  My life with God was quite nice.  I had explanations for things that I couldn't explain, Why am I here?  What is my purpose?  What happens when I die?  I also had a friend I could turn to when things were bad and that I could look to for protection when evil was trying to get me.  I knew that I would go to Heaven and be with my family and friends forever, maybe even some pets; except for the ones that don't get to go to Heaven but go to the other place.  That wasn't so comforting anymore.  And the "evil" and the demons and devils, that wasn't so comforting.  And the Robotic reality of Heaven, that wasn't so comforting.  And the way that miracles defy science, that wasn't comforting.  And the fact that I can't prove any of it but have to just believe, that wasn't so comforting.  I like a good "Trust Fall" as much as the next guy.  But only when there's a person behind me, a real person. 

So what's the alternative?  It's "not knowing".  

I don't know if I have an ultimate purpose.  I don't know if my daughter does.  I know what she means to me and I know what my life means to me.  I don't know if I will see her again after I die but in the event that I don't, how should I relate to her NOW?



JB0704 said:


> I'm glad you brought that up.  I have had experiences to the opposite, which I can only believe are chemical to some level, and possibly psychological based on some synapse firing off to some external stimulus.  For instance, if I drink Nyquil or tequila I have some of the most insane and god-awful dreams, and wake up with a deep feeling of dread and remorse.  It takes hours to shake it........so, I avoid those things knowing the chemical reaction they produce.
> 
> Recently, I had such a moment where I woke from a dream where I had a "clarity" that my beliefs were wrong.  I thought about each of you......Ambush, Bullet, Walt, 3xb......all the guys I have debated and argued our belief systems with over the years.  I considered what y'all had said and how it contrasted with what I believed.  I was very sad.  For myself.  For my kids.  For humanity.
> 
> ...



Why would you be sad for humanity if everyone became unbelievers (not that there is no God, just that people didn't believe in something they couldn't prove)?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Why would you be sad for humanity if everyone became unbelievers (not that there is no God, just that people didn't believe in something they couldn't prove)?



I wouldn't be sad if they quit believing.  I would be sad if there was no God.  It would make all the suffering and pain that much more meaningless.  

We both have daughters, so we can relate to what a father feels when their baby girl is sad.  It tears me apart, and, I generally end up trying to find a way to relieve her sadness.  Her sadness hurts me worse than when she gets physically hurt.  If there is no design/plan/purpose then those tears, that pain, is miniscule and meaningless.......just another assembly of stardust doing what stardust does.  That wouldn't make me love her any less, but, it would make me incredibly mad at the cosmos for arranging pain and suffering for no other reason than to be wiped away by the next arrangement.

Im sure you saw the movie Melancholia.  It was an absolutely awful and ridiculous movie.  However, there is one sentence in there that kills me (and I think it was the trigger for my crazy dream)......."we are the only ones, and it won't be for long."  The crazy girl knew that there was no other life in the universe, and that all the life that existed was about to be wiped out by a random circumstance.  Everything that ever happened before that moment would be rendered meaningless on a grand scale.  That makes me sad.

So, if I am "tricking" my brain in order to find purpose and meaning, so be it.  I am happier here, I find purpose here, and I am comfortable here.  That perception is my reality, and I see no harm in it.

That being said, I do believe in God, now more than ever, as a result of my dream.  There are def more nuances to my beliefs that I won't discuss here, but, I can't reason existence without a creator.  It makes no sense to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 10, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I wouldn't be sad if they quit believing.  I would be sad if there was no God.  It would make all the suffering and pain that much more meaningless.
> 
> We both have daughters, so we can relate to what a father feels when their baby girl is sad.  It tears me apart, and, I generally end up trying to find a way to relieve her sadness.  Her sadness hurts me worse than when she gets physically hurt.  If there is no design/plan/purpose then those tears, that pain, is miniscule and meaningless.......just another assembly of stardust doing what stardust does.  That wouldn't make me love her any less, but, it would make me incredibly mad at the cosmos for arranging pain and suffering for no other reason than to be wiped away by the next arrangement.
> 
> ...



Or it would mean that the pain and suffering is part of a plan.  It could be the plan of a mischievous, sadistic God.  If you look at how the world is, purely objectively, it seems to me that God is more likely mischievous, possibly belligerent or simply uninvolved.  I'm sure you recognize what a mental loopdey loop is involved in calling God just, kind and loving considering reality or trusting that He has a plan that we can't fathom.  Are you sure that that proposition is comforting?

I've had two deaths in the family recently and I saw first hand how faith was able to comfort people.  I also saw how, in myself and other non-believers in my family, we found comfort.  

There's a difference between saying "How lucky am I that God made me be born with all my limbs" as opposed to saying "How lucky am I that I was born with all my limbs".  I think sometimes atheism is a bit of an extravagance.  I wonder if I were born in a trash heap in Bangladesh if it would be easy to say "Oh well,  just bad luck of the draw" or I would need to, as a method of self preservation, say "God has a plan for this suck and I will be rewarded in the next life".  Most of the time I recognize "It could be worse.....much, much worse".


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Or it would mean that the pain and suffering is part of a plan.  It could be the plan of a mischievous, sadistic God.  If you look at how the world is, purely objectively, it seems to me that God is more likely mischievous, possibly belligerent or simply uninvolved.  I'm sure you recognize what a mental loopdey loop is involved in calling God just, kind and loving considering reality or trusting that He has a plan that we can't fathom.  Are you sure that that proposition is comforting?



We have different views of creation.  An objective view of existence reveals something other than a sadistic creator to me.  It sometimes reveals sadistic creation.  We can get into a debate where I throw out the warm fuzzies and you through out the uglies, and neither would win.  I still would find it more comforting than the stardust proposition.  That is chaos to me.



ambush80 said:


> I've had two deaths in the family recently and I saw first hand how faith was able to comfort people.  I also saw how, in myself and other non-believers in my family, we found comfort.



You know that I believe atheists can find comfort and love their friends n family.  I am glad for it, and I am sure you have found a way to ground yourself in the universe you perceive.  

I went through a stretch several years ago where I had several people close to me die.  Two very close friends (both way too young), a friend's baby, and several  acquiantences (also all way too young).  It was crazy, but we were constantly at funerals.  There was the given "why God" questions in all circumstances.  In most cases it was the fault of the deceased. In a few it was just "natures" cruelty. 

The one that impressed me the most was the friend who lost his infant daughter to natural causes.  They taught me what faith looks like, and, without faith I don't think they would have survived the situation.  I don't care if they are 100% wrong, I will never believe it is a negative for them.



ambush80 said:


> There's a difference between saying "How lucky am I that God made me be born with all my limbs" as opposed to saying "How lucky am I that I was born with all my limbs".  I think sometimes atheism is a bit of an extravagance.  I wonder if I were born in a trash heap in Bangladesh if it would be easy to say "Oh well,  just bad luck of the draw" or I would need to, as a method of self preservation, say "God has a plan for this suck and I will be rewarded in the next life".  Most of the time I recognize "It could be worse.....much, much worse".



Isn't it a general rule that folks in bad situations look for faith as a rescue?  It lends credence to atheism being an extravagance.  Some people don't "need" god.  Some do in order to keep sanity.  I am def the latter.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 10, 2016)

When someone dies too young of "natural' causes, I am upset at religion for setting back research that could have saved their life.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 10, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> We have different views of creation.  An objective view of existence reveals something other than a sadistic creator to me.  It sometimes reveals sadistic creation.  We can get into a debate where I throw out the warm fuzzies and you through out the uglies, and neither would win.  I still would find it more comforting than the stardust proposition.  That is chaos to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't bring out all the uglies as a proof of chaos.  A stronger proof of the chaos is the beauties and the uglies combined.  The rain falling on the just and unjust really says it all.  Assuming agency seems to complicate it for me. YMMV.  

I would never have told anyone grieving that what they believe is unproved.  For the most part I see peoples' belief in God as net good but that's mostly because most of the believers I know are progressive, liberal, secular believers.  When I visit my uneducated, country friends and family in the sticks, or even in Snellville and Johns Creek I see how their belief can twist their thinking in truly harmful directions and because their beliefs are faith based, it's impossible to discuss things rationally.  I see the superstition and divisiveness in strong ways.  

If I had been born in a trash heap in Bangladesh and someone told me that line from Melancholia, I don't know how I would take it.  Maybe I would say "Lie to me".


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 10, 2016)

660griz said:


> When someone dies too young of "natural' causes, I am upset at religion for setting back research that could have saved their life.



That is a strong argument.  Seems to me like one of the last gripes I have with Christianity.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 10, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> It's funny tjhough, you never actually completely walk away. At the risk of being shunned, I have to admit that every once in while the thought pops into my head -
> "Boy if God shows up tomorrow I'm screwed for the stuff I've said on here".


I ease myself by saying if I am wrong, and everything is predestined, I am doing exactly as I am supposed to do.
If I am wrong and everything is not predestined then I 
had hoped my intentions to find this God would have not taken me on this current path.
If I am wrong and everyone else is also wrong, I'll be in good company.
If I am right, I'll never know.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I ease myself by saying if I am wrong, and everything is predestined, I am doing exactly as I am supposed to do.
> If I am wrong and everything is not predestined then I
> had hoped my intentions to find this God would have not taken me on this current path.
> If I am wrong and everyone else is also wrong, I'll be in good company.
> If I am right, I'll never know.




Without the religion, do you all think your life would change if you believed in God?  I'm not so sure mine would, only because I wouldn't make Her in a religious mold.  Without thinking that God revealed Herself in some weird book, I would assume that Her ways were completely mysterious.  The net result would be the same as not believing in Her at all.  

I wonder how Ol' Pnome is getting along with his new deism.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Without the religion, do you all think your life would change if you believed in God?  I'm not so sure mine would, only because I wouldn't make Her in a religious mold.  Without thinking that God revealed Herself in some weird book, I would assume that Her ways were completely mysterious.  The net result would be the same as not believing in Her at all.
> 
> I wonder how Ol' Pnome is getting along with his new deism.


Doubtful mine would have changed either.
It was actually a nice relationship for the time I had totally given up on organized religion(church and bible) and decided that I did not need a middle man(pastor or priest) for me to have a relationship with a god
99.9% of that time(about 10 years) my prayers consisted of thanks instead of requests. Requests were only out of concern for the health and well being of others. Then prayers weaned down to a quick thanks for being in the woods, the opportunity to spend that time with family and friends, and if I was lucky enough to get a shot at an animal to Please let it
be on target and result in a quick kill. Not so that I look all macho sniper to my buddies, but more so because I felt that if I squeeze the trigger or release the arrow I owe it to the animal to make it as quick as possible.
In fact, and I don't know why, maybe hoping some spirit of the hunt is listening...I still say my piece before every hunt. Almost a feeling of being a part of the process in nature. Wierd. Idk. Afterwards I give thanks to the animal for giving up its life so that it helps ours go on.
It doesn't seem religious,it is more a sense of being a part of nature with possibly some (like walt touched on) leftover remnant of religious indoctrination spilling over into the giving thanks to the nature side only because that was how I was used to trying to communicate to something that I felt existed.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 10, 2016)

Wish pnome would post a follow up.  Had to be hard for him to come clean on here.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 10, 2016)

660griz said:


> When someone dies too young of "natural' causes, I am upset at religion for setting back research that could have saved their life.



Think that could be a whole 'nuther thread.......I think the only religious hindrance to medical advancement, beyond the fringe elements that deny medicine, is the act of taking a life to save a life.  That really ought present a moral dilemma to both the believer and non-believer.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> For the most part I see peoples' belief in God as net good but that's mostly because most of the believers I know are progressive, liberal, secular believers.  When I visit my uneducated, country friends and family in the sticks, or even in Snellville and Johns Creek I see how their belief can twist their thinking in truly harmful directions and because their beliefs are faith based, it's impossible to discuss things rationally.  I see the superstition and divisiveness in strong ways.



I am assuming you are looking at it from a theological perspective and not a political one.  I am curious though, about the Johns Creek believers.......how is their faith harmful?  What criteria establishes one's position as a believer as being progressive?  Any thought which builds on the prior, or expands, can also be progressive, yet adhere to what they believe to be a strict view of doctrine.  For instance, Calvinism, would be progressive at some point in history, yet it is a very rigid view of Biblical doctrines.



ambush80 said:


> If I had been born in a trash heap in Bangladesh and someone told me that line from Melancholia, I don't know how I would take it.  Maybe I would say "Lie to me".



No doubt that religion thrives where people find themselves in need.  Many different ways to look at it.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 11, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Think that could be a whole 'nuther thread.......I think the only religious hindrance to medical advancement, beyond the fringe elements that deny medicine, is the act of taking a life to save a life.  That really ought present a moral dilemma to both the believer and non-believer.



Only to those that believe life begins at conception. I don't. 
What about, take a life to save millions?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 11, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Wish pnome would post a follow up.  Had to be hard for him to come clean on here.



I could just as easily believe in God or not.  There's the same amount of evidence either way.  "Why don't you?" can be answered by "Why should I?".  The default position for me is the negative.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 11, 2016)

660griz said:


> Only to those that believe life begins at conception. I don't.



No doubt influenced by your worldview, as is my opinion.  Regardless, the point remains, no matter where life begins.  Determining to kill a person to study them in order to possibly save future people is a moral dilemma.  I would hope any of us agree.........or, to put yourself in my shoes, consider where you think life begins.  Is it ok to kill that person at that point for science?



660griz said:


> What about, take a life to save millions?



Are you guilty of murder when you do so?  Or are you acting in defense of millions?

Like I said, it's prolly best for a whole new thread.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 11, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> No doubt influenced by your worldview, as is my opinion.


 I guess you could say that if worldview includes science and definition of mammal. 


> Regardless, the point remains, no matter where life begins.  Determining to kill a person to study them in order to possibly save future people is a moral dilemma.


 Yes it is, but if it is technically not a person, it is not a moral dilemma.  


> I would hope any of us agree.........or, to put yourself in my shoes, consider where you think life begins.  Is it ok to kill that person at that point for science?


 If that person is not breathing, has no hair, and no heartbeat, and no brain, then yes. Especially if that 'person' has been grown in a test tube for the sole purpose of research. 



> Are you guilty of murder when you do so?


 No more than using mice is animal abuse


> Like I said, it's prolly best for a whole new thread.


 No need. I think we have covered it all.  Sorry for the derail.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 11, 2016)

660griz said:


> I guess you could say that if worldview includes science and definition of mammal.



Does science include listening for a heartbeat?  Im a little lost as to how any discussion as to when life begins can be considered unscientific?  Even "conception" must be defined scientifically.



660griz said:


> Yes it is, but if it is technically not a person, it is not a moral dilemma.



Agreed, but, this is limited by the statement above.



660griz said:


> If that person is not breathing, has no hair, and no heartbeat, and no brain, then yes. Especially if that 'person' has been grown in a test tube for the sole purpose of research.



I do not see a difference between a test tube person and another person.  A person is a person.  We get back to the above (what is a person).




660griz said:


> No more than using mice is animal abuse



I think you miss my point.  If you and I agreed that the thing was a person, I think we would also agree that killing it in the name of science is still murder.



660griz said:


> No need. I think we have covered it all.  Sorry for the derail.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 11, 2016)

660griz said:


> I guess you could say that if worldview includes science and definition of mammal.
> Yes it is, but if it is technically not a person, it is not a moral dilemma.
> If that person is not breathing, has no hair, and no heartbeat, and no brain, then yes. Especially if that 'person' has been grown in a test tube for the sole purpose of research.
> 
> ...





JB0704 said:


> Does science include listening for a heartbeat?  Im a little lost as to how any discussion as to when life begins can be considered unscientific?  Even "conception" must be defined scientifically.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most of the testing can be done on a blastocyst about 500 cells worth. I can't call that alive or human.


----------



## pnome (Mar 11, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Wish pnome would post a follow up.  Had to be hard for him to come clean on here.



You rang?

I am still an "Agnostic-Theist".  I believe there is meaning to our existence.  I just don't claim to know what that meaning is.

My life has not really changed.  Though, I get in religious debates a LOT less now.  

One thing that I've got to say is a nice side-effect is that I worry a lot less now.  I'm more care-free in a sense.  You might call it "putting things in God's hands".  I call it "trusting in the meaning".


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 11, 2016)

pnome said:


> You rang?
> 
> I am still an "Agnostic-Theist".  I believe there is meaning to our existence.  I just don't claim to know what that meaning is.
> 
> ...




Meaning or not I'm having a pretty good time.  It could have been much, much worse.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 14, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Most of the testing can be done on a blastocyst about 500 cells worth. I can't call that alive or human.



Exactly. However, for the 'life begins at conception" crowd, it is.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2016)

660griz said:


> Exactly. However, for the 'life begins at conception" crowd, it is.





> *life*
> /līf/
> 
> noun
> ...



I think you should give that crowd a little more credit.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I think you should give that crowd a little more credit.




You can suspend the growth of the blastocyst almost indefinitely, like an acorn.  Is an acorn alive?  How about brine shrimp eggs? Just add water.

Some nematodes can be dried and ground up and remain that way until you add water. Then the cells divide and grow new nematodes.  Were they alive or nematodes in the ground up state?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> You can suspend the growth of the blastocyst almost indefinitely, like an acorn.  Is an acorn alive?  How about brine shrimp eggs? Just add water.
> 
> Some nematodes can be dried and ground up and remain that way until you add water. Then the cells divide and grow new nematodes.  Were they alive or nematodes in the ground up state?



I thought we were all about science in here.  Science says the embryo is alive.  You then have to go to brine shrimp and acorns to keep your point valid........which is ultimately influenced by your worldview, as is mine.  The only difference is that this situation puts me on the side of science.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2016)

FWIW, I think implantation is a more accurate place to begin human life, because it will never become a human until implanted.........I am just sticking up for the "life begins at conception" view because that perspective is very logical and scientifically defendable.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 14, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> FWIW, I think implantation is a more accurate place to begin human life, because it will never become a human until implanted.........I am just sticking up for the "life begins at conception" view because that perspective is very logical and scientifically defendable.


This is a tough subject for me. I still haven't figured out what I think about it.
"Life" is a pretty general term. Doesn't necessarily include self awareness or thought or feelings etc.
For example scrambled eggs vs. scrambled chickens/human egg vs. a human.
I'm just not sure.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2016)

Yea, Walt, it is a tough one.  I get the "just a bunch of cells in a petri dish" argument.  But, if the other side is grounded in science (where to begin life), I do not think it should be dismissed as religious fanaticism.  No matter where the line is drawn and who draws it, any killing beyond that line = killing human life which will make it discussion of morality.  I think many AA's tend to draw the line closer to birth than Christians / believers do, but I don't know how much of that is because of the other side's position.

Another thing to consider is this, think about where you draw the line for human life v not human life.  Let's say you determine it to be birth (very few hold this position).  Would you ever support killing that person for the sake of scientific study?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 14, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I think you should give that crowd a little more credit.



I don't. 

What is functional activity? What is reproduce? 
Are sperm 'dead'? Why start at conception? Are fertilized eggs made from dead parts? 
Alive, does not equal human/mammal. 
Even Adam was dead until God blew air into him.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2016)

660griz said:


> I don't.
> 
> What is functional activity? What is reproduce?
> Are sperm 'dead'? Why start at conception? Are fertilized eggs made from dead parts?
> ...



Every argument you are making against the fertilized egg can also be made against a newborn baby.  

On it's own, reproductive cells will never be a human.  Neither will the petri dish........neither will the baby just before birth.  None can survive on their own even the post birth baby.  Certainly none can reproduce.

So, instead of picking arbitrary lines, the conception crowd picks the most distinguishable event where the reproductive cells become a person.  I say implantation because it will never become a person until that happens.  They are using science.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 14, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Yea, Walt, it is a tough one.  I get the "just a bunch of cells in a petri dish" argument.  But, if the other side is grounded in science (where to begin life), I do not think it should be dismissed as religious fanaticism.  No matter where the line is drawn and who draws it, any killing beyond that line = killing human life which will make it discussion of morality.  I think many AA's tend to draw the line closer to birth than Christians / believers do, but I don't know how much of that is because of the other side's position.
> 
> Another thing to consider is this, think about where you draw the line for human life v not human life.  Let's say you determine it to be birth (very few hold this position).  Would you ever support killing that person for the sake of scientific study?


Difficult questions.
First, on this subject, religion or religious fanaticism doesn't even enter the equation for me. It's just not something that influences my thoughts on the subject.
Technically, I think, maybe, "life" beginning at conception is a valid argument. Technically.
I think for me personally, "consciousness" seems to be my dominant consideration. 
I do agree that there is certainly a human life quite a bit prior to birth. It's how much prior that I haven't personally worked out. That's how I end up back at consciousness.
As for the scientific study question I need more details. Just for the sake of study?
Then no. After that it can get complicated. 
As for the morality argument of it all I can't think of an argument that would allow me to call any of this "moral". Of course as we've discussed, morality is fluid depending on culture, society, personally beliefs etc.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 14, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Every argument you are making against the fertilized egg can also be made against a newborn baby.
> 
> On it's own, reproductive cells will never be a human.  Neither will the petri dish........neither will the baby just before birth.  None can survive on their own even the post birth baby.  Certainly none can reproduce.
> 
> So, instead of picking arbitrary lines, the conception crowd picks the most distinguishable event where the reproductive cells become a person.  I say implantation because it will never become a person until that happens.  They are using science.



The catholic church was against all forms of contraception until very recent. They were using science too and 'potential'.

This is a pretty good example of bias in science. For a non-believer, science proves 5 day old blastocyst is not a human. For a believer, it proves it can become a human. 
Many blastocysts fail to implant and die.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2016)

Are we talking USA cells and fetuses or worldwide cells and fetuses?
And why is it immoral to do anything to a fetus or pre  fetus but then be OK with a Daisy Cutter taking out a couple hundred at a time as long as they are 10,000 miles away and of a different religion?

My point is, that at some point we all draw the line in the sand but are willing to cross it for what we consider "right" or "ok " reasons.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Are we talking USA cells and fetuses or worldwide cells and fetuses?
> And why is it immoral to do anything to a fetus or pre  fetus but then be OK with a Daisy Cutter taking out a couple hundred at a time as long as they are 10,000 miles away and of a different religion?



Well, cause God hates other Gods. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me"
Gotta do something about the competition.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2016)

660griz said:


> Well, cause God hates other Gods. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me"
> Gotta do something about the competition.



Yep.
Everyone has a line that they will cross.

For the record I have some similar concerns as Walt and sit between your views and his.

Throughout history, experiments on humans of all stages has been done in the name of science, medicine, genetics, warfare, etc etc etc. 
Pigs, mice and monkeys only tell us so much.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Are we talking USA cells and fetuses or worldwide cells and fetuses?
> And why is it immoral to do anything to a fetus or pre  fetus but then be OK with a Daisy Cutter taking out a couple hundred at a time as long as they are 10,000 miles away and of a different religion?
> 
> My point is, that at some point we all draw the line in the sand but are willing to cross it for what we consider "right" or "ok " reasons.


Or drowning them all in a flood...
Emphatically supports your poiint.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2016)

660griz said:


> The catholic church was against all forms of contraception until very recent. They were using science too and 'potential'.
> 
> This is a pretty good example of bias in science. For a non-believer, science proves 5 day old blastocyst is not a human. For a believer, it proves it can become a human.
> Many blastocysts fail to implant and die.



That's why I say implantation.  But, I don't see how science proves anything other than the 5 day old blastocyst being alive.  I think you are drawing your line when it becomes human / mammal.

Mammal is defined as a vertebrate having hair.  There is some other stuff in there about caring for the young, n milk, but that doesn't apply to the newborn.  Spine is week 5 and hair is around week 14 (thanks google).  Are you saying birth, week, 14?

That's kind-of my point, though......there are lots of places in development where we can say "this is a person, this is not a person."  The conception crowd is drawing a line at the earliest point, removing the subjective, and saying "this is a human."  Which it is......just a human in an extremely early stage of development.  Either way, it's grounded in science.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> My point is, that at some point we all draw the line in the sand but are willing to cross it for what we consider "right" or "ok " reasons.



....making it a question of morality.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> ....making it a question of morality.



I agree.
And the side that would not have so much as one cell damaged usually worships a being that killed tens of millions of his own likeness and image in the scripture they follow.

Morals.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I agree.
> And the side that would not have so much as one cell damaged usually worships a being that killed tens of millions of his own likeness and image in the scripture they follow.
> 
> Morals.



C'mon man.  When God does something it's righteous.  That doesn't mean that people are supposed to do the same thing.  

Then again.....Jesus was God as man.  Jesus would not have killed millions of people, would he?  But.....Jesus is god....  Was Jesus god in the Old Testament?  Was it the same guy in Leviticus as in Matthew?

How in the World am I supposed to get moral understanding from this?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> C'mon man.  When God does something it's righteous.  That doesn't mean that people are supposed to do the same thing.
> 
> Then again.....Jesus was God as man.  Jesus would not have killed millions of people, would he?  But.....Jesus is god....  Was Jesus god in the Old Testament?  Was it the same guy in Leviticus as in Matthew?
> 
> How in the World am I supposed to get moral understanding from this?


I am not sure if there is a new movie coming out about a young Jesus or if it is a made for TV movie but I caught a piece of the commercial and Mary said to Joseph, (I am probably paraphrasing because I was not paying attention until it donned on me) "how do we tell this young boy that God is his father?"

And I'm thinking...wait...what?? 
Isn't Jesus also god? Wouldn't he knows who he is, what his purpose was and who was his father right off the bat? Wasn't he always part of the big 3?

Or, was he just human like everybody else?

Now I am not so dense to not understand that the whole flipping movie dialog was some Hollywood writers baby, but there will be people saying amen's and hallelujah to every line.


----------



## Israel (Mar 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I am not sure if there is a new movie coming out about a young Jesus or if it is a made for TV movie but I caught a piece of the commercial and Mary said to Joseph, (I am probably paraphrasing because I was not paying attention until it donned on me) "how do we tell this young boy that God is his father?"
> 
> And I'm thinking...wait...what??
> Isn't Jesus also god? Wouldn't he knows who he is, what his purpose was and who was his father right off the bat? Wasn't he always part of the big 3?
> ...


Jesus walked as a man in every way...(yet, without sin) full of the Holy Spirit, but man nevertheless.
Of the many things of which he freely admitted, omniscience was not one of them, in fact he denied knowing certain things. He speaks of relying on His Father for all the things he did, and admitted that "of myself, I can do nothing". 
He admits he has a will to submit, and, that in order to be in conformity with God, was surrendered.

But, that "information" gives only the outline, so to speak, of what could easily be assumed to many errors as to his being in his relationship to the Father. (Which is fundamentally a lifelong investigation and discovery...so that we too, might become "normal" men in relationship through Jesus the Son...to the knowing of our true Father.

But, as to my relationship to Him, as he has been given authority over all things (and all pertaining to me) is as the creature to his God. For it is only through Him, I can see the Father. Of all.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2016)

Israel said:


> Jesus walked as a man in every way...full of the Holy Spirit, but man nevertheless.


I can agree that a spiritual man most likely existed all those years ago. No more or no less spiritual than many who have come before him and after.


Israel said:


> Of the many things of which he freely admitted, omniscience was not one of them, in fact he denied knowing certain things. He speaks of relying on His Father for all the things he did, and admitted that "of myself, I can do nothing".
> He admits he has a will to submit, that in order to be in conformity with God, was surrendered.


Now here is where you are starting to lose credibility. 
You weren't there. Jesus has not visited you since and has not told you these things. You are using the stories that were written by anonymous people that not only were not there but had never even met him.
Just like the writers of this movie, they have to take some creative leeway and totally and literally make up conversations that took place between only one or two people.



Israel said:


> But, that "information" gives only the outline, so to speak, of what could easily be assumed to many errors as to his being in his relationship to the Father. (Which is fundamentally a lifelong investigation and discovery...so that we too, might become "normal" men in relationship through Jesus as the Son...to the knowing of our true Father.


That information is only as good as the reporters, who covered the events 40-70years later.
It certainly is inspiring to some, but inspiration comes in many forms to many people.




Israel said:


> But, as to my relationship to Him, as he has been given authority over all things (and all pertaining to me) is as the creature to his God. For it is only through Him, I can see the Father. Of all.


That is your choice to give him whatever credit you need to in order to get you through life.
I won't fault you for that. 
But please don't try to pass off to me that you actually know anything about a guy named Jesus other than what anonymous men wrote.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I agree.
> And the side that would not have so much as one cell damaged usually worships a being that killed tens of millions of his own likeness and image in the scripture they follow.
> 
> Morals.



Ok.  You perceive hypocracy.  I think it would be more accurate if they practiced those things they condemn others for (many do).  And I get what your saying about God.  If I were you I'd view it the same.

My point n this whole last page or so is to demonstrate we all apply morality at some level to what we think ought be.  Getting mad at Christians over where they believe life begins seems to disregard they are drawing lines no differently than anybody else.

I personally don't know what to think of the cells in the Petri dish.  They will never be human until implanted, so my logic indicates they are not.........but (and I am just being honest with yall here), something about creating it to destroy it feels wrong.  I have no basis for that position outside of my "gut feeling."  Perhaps it has been hammered home enough that I default to that position.  I do not adhere to it strictly because logic indicates a human requires implantation.  

Now, if on of my children suffered from an illness we believed science could cure through such a study, I am pretty sure my "gut feeling" would change in the matter.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 15, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> That's why I say implantation.  But, I don't see how science proves anything other than the 5 day old blastocyst being alive.  I think you are drawing your line when it becomes human / mammal.
> 
> Mammal is defined as a vertebrate having hair.  There is some other stuff in there about caring for the young, n milk, but that doesn't apply to the newborn.  Spine is week 5 and hair is around week 14 (thanks google).  Are you saying birth, week, 14?
> 
> That's kind-of my point, though......there are lots of places in development where we can say "this is a person, this is not a person."  The conception crowd is drawing a line at the earliest point, removing the subjective, and saying "this is a human."  Which it is......just a human in an extremely early stage of development.  Either way, it's grounded in science.



Don't forget, "breaths air".


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> Don't forget, "breaths air".



So you don't think it's a person until birth?  I read that as basically having lungs.  These develop very early in the process.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 15, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> So you don't think it's a person until birth?  I read that as basically having lungs.  These develop very early in the process.



Well, it gets a little complicated for me after all the organs form but, hopefully, it is clear I don't think a blastocyst is a person. 

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 15, 2016)

660griz said:


> Well, it gets a little complicated for me after all the organs form but, hopefully, it is clear I don't think a blastocyst is a person.



Yes, that is clear.



660griz said:


> "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."



I thought we were using science, but, we can also use the Bible if you prefer


----------



## 660griz (Mar 15, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, that is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were using science, but, we can also use the Bible if you prefer



Sorry. We can use science. I assumed your beliefs were influenced by the Bible. My bad.
Strike that verse.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 15, 2016)

My beliefs are influenced by the Bible, no doubt.  In this debate, however, I am very comfortable and confident sticking to science.

This is one of those areas where my beliefs would not change if I woke up tomorrow not believing in God.  I think the logic is sound.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 15, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> My beliefs are influenced by the Bible, no doubt.  In this debate, however, I am very comfortable and confident sticking to science.
> 
> This is one of those areas where my beliefs would not change if I woke up tomorrow not believing in God.  I think the logic is sound.



I think my logic is sound too. The end. 

I mentioned scripture because most of the arguments against stem cell research are moral, not scientific.

From:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC525749/
When does life begin? The answer to this question has enormous consequences for the future study of hESCs. Defining life as the moment of conception is certainly a convenient starting point, but this relies on an assumption about the value of a potential life. In this argument, value is placed on function (potential for future development) rather than structure (current state of development). This starting point, conception, is also promoted by many of those who rely on revealed Scripture. For those holding such beliefs, research on stem cells and the destruction of human blastocysts are simply unacceptable.

To many, implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall is the best landmark for the definition of life. Indeed, this is the first stage at which the individual is defined (e.g., the blastula is past the stage in which it can split to form twins). This is the point described in Subpart B of 45CFR46 as the first stage covered by human protections regulations. This is also the last developmental stage accepted in the United Kingdom and in many other countries throughout the world. For research on human embryos, gastrulation is another strong candidate, as it is reasonable to consider the phase in which the nervous system is formed and the possibility of sensation first exists as the beginning of human life.

One of the most dangerous trends in this debate is that of offering religious opinions cloaked in the language and veneer of science (e.g., using systems theory to justify the belief that life begins at conception). We have emphasized differences between embryonic and adult stem cells because many in the public and in Congress have claimed, arbitrarily, that the two sources are identical. Richard Dorflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat of the pro-life activities of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has claimed that adult stem cells hold more promise than embryonic stem cells and that research on embryonic stem cells is therefore unnecessary. The passion behind Dorflinger’s statement is laudable, but it must be recognized that it is based on religious conviction, not on scientific induction or verified data.


----------

