# Derren Brown--Messiah



## ambush80 (Feb 9, 2016)

Watch at 9:50 when he converts people to believe in God instantly.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2016)

"We all notice what supports our beliefs and disregard the rest"

No truer words....


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> "We all notice what supports our beliefs and disregard the rest"
> 
> No truer words....



You should see Derren Brown's _Miracles For Sale_ on faith healing.  Can't post it cause it's got some adult language.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> You should see Derren Brown's _Miracles For Sale_ on faith healing.  Can't post it cause it's got some adult language.



I will search it and check it out.
I wish some "believers" in here would take the time to watch the vids you have posted and weigh in with an honest opinion.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I will search it and check it out.
> I wish some "believers" in here would take the time to watch the vids you have posted and weigh in with an honest opinion.



I do too.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2016)

Miracles For Sale was equally as eye opening. Thanks.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 10, 2016)

I don't know why anyone wouldn't find these particular ways in which the mind works fascinating; at very least enough to know about them.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know why anyone wouldn't find these particular ways in which the mind works fascinating; at very least enough to know about them.



Agreed. And, religion aside, it gives insight on if and how someone somewhere somehow might be trying to scam you.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know why anyone wouldn't find these particular ways in which the mind works fascinating; at very least enough to know about them.



There's more than the mind involved when God reveals Himself through the Holy Spirit.Faith is essential to true belief,and faith is given by God to whomever He chooses.Not all people receive faith.

There are people by the millions trying to "believe" with only head-knowledge.These people eventually show evidence that they lacked faith.These are the ones that turn away, never to return again. When God gives faith,He has a definite purpose and end in mind for that individual.He never loses those that are His.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> There's more than the mind involved when God reveals Himself through the Holy Spirit.Faith is essential to true belief,and faith is given by God to whomever He chooses.Not all people receive faith.
> 
> There are people by the millions trying to "believe" with only head-knowledge.These people eventually show evidence that they lacked faith.These are the ones that turn away, never to return again. When God gives faith,He has a definite purpose and end in mind for that individual.He never loses those that are His.


You can only speak for yourself and at best it is all emotional guesses. You should have absolutely no problem showing us the most powerful being exists, you have no problem proving his infallible words, and you should certainly have no problems backing up your claims if they are at all valid.
So far you are batting 0.
Why so difficult?


----------



## welderguy (Feb 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You can only speak for yourself and at best it is all emotional guesses. You should have absolutely no problem showing us the most powerful being exists, you have no problem proving his infallible words, and you should certainly have no problems backing up your claims if they are at all valid.
> So far you are batting 0.
> Why so difficult?




Here we go with the proof demands again.

Ive been conversing with you guys for a year now.You haven't believed one single thing Ive said yet. Why is that?...no faith is what I'm suspecting.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Here we go with the proof demands again.
> 
> Ive been conversing with you guys for a year now.You haven't believed one single thing Ive said yet. Why is that?...no faith is what I'm suspecting.



On the contrary. Anything that is even half a true as you claim would be simple to provide evidence for.

Is me asking for proof too much of a task for you or your God to provide? Seriously, why are such universal truths without evidence?

We don't believe want you say because you have never once, in an entire year, been able to provide anything other than a claim.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> On the contrary. Anything that is even half a true as you claim would be simple to provide evidence for.
> 
> Is me asking for proof too much of a task for you or your God to provide? Seriously, why are such universal truths without evidence?
> 
> We don't believe want you say because you have never once, in an entire year, been able to provide anything other than a claim.



Here's you some proof:
(you're gonna think this is the strangest thing)

I can honestly say that I love you.I don't even really know you,except through the forum. There was a time in my life when I would have hated someone like you.But something changed drastically in me that I am sure as I'm breathing had nothing to do with me.

I live every day in complete wonder of how it changed pretty much every aspect of my being.

This is MY own personal proof,and I realize it probably means nothing at all to you,but it is real whether any other human being on this planet believes me or not.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Here's you some proof:
> (you're gonna think this is the strangest thing)
> 
> I can honestly say that I love you.I don't even really know you,except through the forum. There was a time in my life when I would have hated someone like you.But something changed drastically in me that I am sure as I'm breathing had nothing to do with me.
> ...



That's exactly right.  It's real to you.  No one can convince you otherwise.  What if I told you that I had an invisible dragon in a jar under my bed?  I insist that it's true.  Do you believe it?  Is that enough reason to believe that it's real?    Why do Gods get passes and dragons do not?

P.S. My dragon makes me love you, too.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 10, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> That's exactly right.  It's real to you.  No one can convince you otherwise.  What if I told you that I had an invisible dragon in a jar under my bed?  I insist that it's true.  Do you believe it?  Is that enough reason to believe that it's real?    Why do Gods get passes and dragons do not?
> 
> P.S. My dragon makes me love you, too.



fair enough


----------



## 660griz (Feb 11, 2016)

Pastafarianism. The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you.
http://www.venganza.org/


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> fair enough



Now what if I told you that My Dragon told me to do things?  Besides telling me how to love my neighbors, what if He told me which candidate to vote for or which laws to support? Would you say that that would be a good basis for me to live my life by?


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Now what if I told you that My Dragon told me to do things?  Besides telling me how to love my neighbors, what if He told me which candidate to vote for or which laws to support? Would you say that that would be a good basis for me to live my life by?



There is only one source of faith.And a dragon in a jar is just not that source.Plain and simple.I don't expect you to get that,and I don't hold it against you.I just hope some day that God will give you that faith.If and when He does you will say "ahh,now I see.I was so blind and didn't even realize it."


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> There is only one source of faith.



That is demonstrably untrue and the fact that you say such a thing makes me think that you don't know what the definition of the word faith is.



welderguy said:


> And a dragon in a jar is just not that source.Plain and simple.I don't expect you to get that,and I don't hold it against you.I just hope some day that God will give you that faith.If and when He does you will say "ahh,now I see.I was so blind and didn't even realize it."



_The reason that you don't believe in The Dragon is that you have no faith.  Do you understand that The Dragon has given faith in Himself to those who He chooses?  Perhaps you have been chosen by Him but it's not yet time for Him to be revealed to you.

What a glorious day when your eyes are opened and you rejoin us.  There will be great rejoicing._ 

Do you see how this works?  Do you understand why it works?


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> That is demonstrably untrue and the fact that you say such a thing makes me think that you don't know what the definition of the word faith is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats just it.It doesn't work,and I think you know that.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Thats just it.It doesn't work,and I think you know that.



You are a perfect of example that it does work.  My Dragon could be Allah or Vishnu or Zeus.  You just think that in your case that it is real or that your case is different.  You think that your revelation is superior to the revelations of believers in those Gods and you'll stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes when someone tells you that it's the same.  Faith, the belief in things unseen, works the same way no matter what is being believed.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> You are a perfect of example that it does work.  My Dragon could be Allah or Vishnu or Zeus.  You just think that in your case that it is real or that your case is different.  You think that your revelation is superior to the revelations of believers in those Gods and you'll stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes when someone tells you that it's the same.  Faith, the belief in things unseen, works the same way no matter what is being believed.



The reason your comparison doesn't work is because the dragon and allah and vishnu and zeus are all created.
God is the Creator.

Huge difference.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> The reason your comparison doesn't work is because the dragon and allah and vishnu and zeus are all created.
> God is the Creator.
> 
> Huge difference.



What about Nammu, Goddess of the primeval sea, "the mother who gave birth to heaven and earth


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> The reason your comparison doesn't work is because the dragon and allah and vishnu and zeus are all created.
> God is the Creator.
> 
> Huge difference.


Welder,you are the one with a dragon in a jar, you just fail to admit it.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> The reason your comparison doesn't work is because the dragon and allah and vishnu and zeus are all created.
> God is the Creator.
> 
> Huge difference.




Like I said, you think you are somehow special.  You think you have true revelation and anybody that disagrees with you doesn't.  They think the same thing about you.  When you realize that you ALL are doing the same thing then you'll get it.  

The point isn't that you are right and they're wrong.  It's understanding how each of you has gotten to that way of thinking.  It's easily explained.  Those videos show you how faith based beliefs are formed.  What part of those videos do you think is incorrect?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Welder,you are the one with a dragon in a jar, you just fail to admit it.




He would say "No.  I have a REAL dragon.  Yours is made up."

He says it over and over again.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2016)

Ain't no way he will take the time to watch those videos. He likes the sound of his dragon tapping on the glass way to much and will not do anything to disrupt the rhythm.
Or
The devil made those videos...
Lololololol


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> He would say "No.  I have a REAL dragon.  Yours is made up."
> 
> He says it over and over again.


Yes.
My dad can beat your dad up.
My dragon is real and your dragon isnt.
Everything must have a cause EXCEPT my god.
10,000+ gods are worshiped but MY god is the head honcho.
If you want to know what truth is just take my word for it.

It is nauseating.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Yes.
> My dad can beat your dad up.
> My dragon is real and your dragon isnt.
> Everything must have a cause EXCEPT my god.
> ...



There's a simple way to test if your dad can beat up my dad or not.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> There's a simple way to test if your dad can beat up my dad or not.


Yes, true, but unless/until they get Mayweather/Paciao type money I say we let the hype build.
But it was tongue in cheek for my(welders) god can beat up your (anyone who believes in any God other than welders)god.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> The point isn't that you are right and they're wrong.  It's understanding how each of you has gotten to that way of thinking.  It's easily explained.  Those videos show you how faith based beliefs are formed.  What part of those videos do you think is incorrect?



The video did not even remotely explain what true faith is.It dealt with things of the mind(heart).
I think that's where you guys are confused also.You are equating belief with kind of a decision that is made either consciously or subconsciously in the mind.That is not faith.Until you've actually been GIVEN faith,you can not understand what Im talking about.You will continue to try your mind games and they will be successful with some,but not the ones with faith.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> The video did not even remotely explain what true faith is.It dealt with things of the mind(heart).
> I think that's where you guys are confused also.You are equating belief with kind of a decision that is made either consciously or subconsciously in the mind.That is not faith.Until you've actually been GIVEN faith,you can not understand what Im talking about.You will continue to try your mind games and they will be successful with some,but not the ones with faith.


1. How would you know who has/had faith?
2. Why would think that everyone that was given faith would accept it equally?
3. If faith is GIVEN, why would anyone need it?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> The video did not even remotely explain what true faith is.It dealt with things of the mind(heart).
> I think that's where you guys are confused also.You are equating belief with kind of a decision that is made either consciously or subconsciously in the mind.That is not faith.Until you've actually been GIVEN faith,you can not understand what Im talking about.You will continue to try your mind games and they will be successful with some but not the ones with faith.



I'm gonna assume that you're a KJV kind of guy (forgive me if I'm wrong) so I'll use this definition so that we're on the same page:

_King James Bible
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."_

You're saying that this faith is just put upon you by God.  It was irresistible.  You couldn't reject it if you tried. What about the people who believe in a different God than you that think that their God put faith upon them?  What about me when I tell you that I had faith; real faith.  What mechanism is it that's different than yours that makes theirs fake and yours real?  According to that verse neither of you have proof.  Proof is unseen but hoped for.  Are you not responsible for the hoping part?  Are you and they compelled to hope?

By the way, listen to yourself when you call using reason a mind game.  You wouldn't (and don't) recognize a real mind game even when it's been "put upon you".


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> 1. How would you know who has/had faith?
> 2. Why would think that everyone that was given faith would accept it equally?
> 3. If faith is GIVEN, why would anyone need it?



1.I don't,I was speaking in general.(but there are evidences that lead you to make a good guess sometimes)

2.Because it's not dependant on a person's acceptance.The Holy Spirit changes the person's will upon giving them faith.

3.Faith is essential for belief.(in God and things of God)


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I'm gonna assume that you're a KJV kind of guy (forgive me if I'm wrong) so I'll use this definition so that we're on the same page:
> 
> _King James Bible
> "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."_
> ...



Faith is the substance(foundation) of things hoped for; the evidence(proof) of things not seen.

It's what holds the building(belief) up. And it's proof (not to the physical eyes) but to the eyes of the soul.

Hope goes hand in hand with faith and is a product of faith.

Any religion that does not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God is false and of satan.No ifs ands or buts.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> 1.I don't,I was speaking in general.(but there are evidences that lead you to make a good guess sometimes)
> 
> 2.Because it's not dependant on a person's acceptance.The Holy Spirit changes the person's will upon giving them faith.
> 
> 3.Faith is essential for belief.(in God and things of God)



So first God has to choose you to worship him.
Then God has to elect you so that you can accept the Holy spirit in order to worship him.
Then God has to give you faith so that while you are worshiping him and he is out for lunch you are sure he hears you worshiping him.

If you are chosen and elected why would you need faith?
And even if a guy like me didn't want faith, your God could give it to me anyway and there is nothing I could do about it?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Faith is the substance(foundation) of things hoped for; the evidence(proof) of things not seen.
> 
> It's what holds the building(belief) up. And it's proof (not to the physical eyes) but to the eyes of the soul.
> 
> ...


I could sort of respect you if you would say "it is my belief " or "it is my opinion" but when you make these ridiculous statements with the total inability to cover your own hind end with so much as a shred of proof to back it up I just cannot take you seriously.
Especially since you spend your time here in the AAA and full well know that if you really wanted to gain some respect all you would have to do is back up one thing. It's been a year and you continue to try to use outlandish statements to prove ridiculous claims.

I challenge you to come up with something credible.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> 1.So first God has to choose you to worship him.
> 2.Then God has to elect you so that you can accept the Holy spirit in order to worship him.
> 3.Then God has to give you faith so that while you are worshiping him and he is out for lunch you are sure he hears you worshiping him.
> 
> ...



1.and 2. Chose/elected (same thing)

3.Other than the ridiculous lunch thing, yes. He always hears the cries of His people.

4.It's the foundation that supports your belief. A person without faith is like a house built on sand.No stability.

5.He changes your will from resisting Him to being drawn to Him.Even a guy like you...and me.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I could sort of respect you if you would say "it is my belief " or "it is my opinion" but when you make these ridiculous statements with the total inability to cover your own hind end with so much as a shred of proof to back it up I just cannot take you seriously.
> Especially since you spend your time here in the AAA and full well know that if you really wanted to gain some respect all you would have to do is back up one thing. It's been a year and you continue to try to use outlandish statements to prove ridiculous claims.
> 
> I challenge you to come up with something credible.



I am very limited in my ability to help anyone understand the things of God.I'm only a reflector of His light.He is the light source.He doesn't give the essential faith to everyone, so not everyone believes.That's out of my hands.
All I can do is tell what I do know by faith,and try to represent Him the best I can according to His revealed word.He is the one who shines the light on the dark soul,not me.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> 1.and 2. Chose/elected (same thing)
> 
> 3.Other than the ridiculous lunch thing, yes. He always hears the cries of His people.
> 
> ...



So then Free Will is a lie?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I am very limited in my ability to help anyone understand the things of God.I'm only a reflector of His light.He is the light source.He doesn't give the essential faith to everyone, so not everyone believes.That's out of my hands.
> All I can do is tell what I do know by faith,and try to represent Him the best I can according to His revealed word.He is the one who shines the light on the dark soul,not me.


I didn't ask for an examples of EXACTLY what I was talking about but you nailed it.
Ambush's jar dragon has light up eyes. I am drawn to them.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 11, 2016)

bullethead said:


> So then Free Will is a lie?



Free will as far as salvation goes, is one of the biggest lies in religion that I know of.

But don't go into the other ditch and think we don't have choices in other aspects of our lives that we are accountable for.

Salvation is not by works,but we are called unto good works by salvation.Make sense?


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 11, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Now what if I told you that My Dragon told me to do things?  Besides telling me how to love my neighbors, what if He told me which candidate to vote for or which laws to support? Would you say that that would be a good basis for me to live my life by?



Could you get it to tell ME which candidate to vote for?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Free will as far as salvation goes, is one of the biggest lies in religion that I know of.
> 
> But don't go into the other ditch and think we don't have choices in other aspects of our lives that we are accountable for.
> 
> Salvation is not by works,but we are called unto good works by salvation.Make sense?



You have the same scripture that people who believe in free will do.  You hear the same kind of voices in your head that they do.  You get the same kind of revelation that they do.  Doesn't that tell you anything?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Could you get it to tell ME which candidate to vote for?




Dragons are anarchists.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> You have the same scripture that people who believe in free will do.  You hear the same kind of voices in your head that they do.  You get the same kind of revelation that they do.  Doesn't that tell you anything?



Im not catching what you are throwing.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Im not catching what you are throwing.



People have the same kinds experiences that you do; exactly the same,  but come to different conclusions.  This says more about how people experience things than the experiences themselves.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> People have the same kinds experiences that you do; exactly the same,  but come to different conclusions.  This says more about how people experience things than the experiences themselves.


Precisely!
If there were any universal truths, they would have the same effect on people universally. The fact that so many people read the same passages and all have different opinions and different interpretations shows just how non universal it all is. They all claim a God has filled them in a more special way than the next person and proceed to not only tell others why their interpretations are wrong but also speak for God by saying " what God means is.. or what God wants is.. or God thought...."


----------



## welderguy (Feb 12, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> People have the same kinds experiences that you do; exactly the same,  but come to different conclusions.  This says more about how people experience things than the experiences themselves.



You don't know what other people experience.

I told you theres a difference in experiences of the mind and experiences of faith.Your video showed experiences of the mind.It was proven because the guy was admittedly a fraud yet people THOUGHT it was real.No faith was involved.Faith is given by God.Its not worked up.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 12, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I told you theres a difference in experiences of the mind and experiences of faith.



It is one and the same.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2016)

welderguy said:


> You don't know what other people experience.
> 
> I told you theres a difference in experiences of the mind and experiences of faith.Your video showed experiences of the mind.It was proven because the guy was admittedly a fraud yet people THOUGHT it was real.No faith was involved.Faith is given by God.Its not worked up.


Since you claim Ambush doesn't know what other people experience it sounds like you would have us believe that you do know what other people experience since you can break the experiences down into two types.
 Tell us how you know, let's use your God for example, the difference between your mind having you believe you have faith and your God throwing the faith switch and giving it to you.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 12, 2016)

welderguy said:


> You don't know what other people experience.



But you do?  So much so that you can claim that other peoples' revelations are incorrect or from Satan because they don't match your revelation?  Or somehow they're confused about what REAL revelation is; the kind that you got that came directly from God?  



welderguy said:


> I told you theres a difference in experiences of the mind and experiences of faith.Your video showed experiences of the mind.It was proven because the guy was admittedly a fraud yet people THOUGHT it was real.No faith was involved.Faith is given by God.Its not worked up.



The video showed that the experiences of the mind get interpreted as revelation which leads to faith.  Why do you think that you are immune from the possibility of being duped?  Is it because you hold reason and rationality in high regard?


----------



## welderguy (Feb 12, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Since you claim Ambush doesn't know what other people experience it sounds like you would have us believe that you do know what other people experience since you can break the experiences down into two types.
> Tell us how you know, let's use your God for example, the difference between your mind having you believe you have faith and your God throwing the faith switch and giving it to you.



When I said Ambush doesn't know what other people experience,I was including myself.I can't judge if someone has faith anymore than anyone else can.Only God sees the heart.All we see is the fruit.And there are specific instances when we are to judge fruits,but not hearts.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 13, 2016)

I watched the video from 9:30 to 22:30.

Only a moron would believe that he learned anything from it.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> I watched the video from 9:30 to 22:30.
> 
> Only a moron would believe that he learned anything from it.



Had you ever seen conversions like that before?  I hadn't.  I learned something new.

I wonder how long those conversions would have lasted if the subjects hadn't been de-converted before turning them loose.  Do you know?  Have you ever been hypnotized?

I never really thought about mentalists until I saw a video of Derren Brown.  He uses mentalism in a really interesting way.  Along with his regular stage routine for audiences, he likes to do exposes on charlatanism and tries to educate people about how the mind works.  

My neighbor said I could hypnotize her when I figure out how.


----------



## Madman (Feb 13, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Is me asking for proof too much of a task for you or your God to provide? Seriously, why are such universal truths without evidence?



It is not because the evidence is not there, it is because you choose to suppress the truth.

_.....unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,.......
Romans 1_

Logical arguments have been made and gone neglected, because your worldview makes no logical sense and is not defend able.

Your decision is not an intellectual one, there is more than enough evidence, it is a moral one.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2016)

Madman said:


> It is not because the evidence is not there, it is because you choose to suppress the truth.
> 
> _.....unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,.......
> Romans 1_
> ...



Lets run it back for the new guys.  What are the three best arguments for the existence of God in your opinion?


----------



## Madman (Feb 13, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Lets run it back for the new guys.  What are the three best arguments for the existence of God in your opinion?



One is the informational sciences.


----------



## Madman (Feb 13, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> The video showed that the experiences of the mind get interpreted as revelation which leads to faith.



Or it showed a potential new series on the discovery channel to take the place of the dog whisperer.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2016)

Madman said:


> It is not because the evidence is not there, it is because you choose to suppress the truth.
> 
> _.....unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,.......
> Romans 1_
> ...


The same back atcha.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 13, 2016)

Madman said:


> Or it showed a potential new series on the discovery channel to take the place of the dog whisperer.


 
That would be fine.  I've seen some good things on the Discovery Channel when we used to have TV.  People should know about this stuff.


----------



## Madman (Feb 13, 2016)

bullethead said:


> The same back atcha.



Respond to me answer of the informational sciences.


----------



## Madman (Feb 13, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> That would be fine.  I've seen some good things on the Discovery Channel when we used to have TV.  People should know about this stuff.



Like the dog whisperer?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2016)

Madman said:


> Respond to me answer of the informational sciences.


Outside of the Bible there is very little said about your god. What is said is about a man. And very little of that.
We have gone over and disproved the writings regarding your god from Josephus and Pliny ten times already.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Outside of the Bible there is very little said about your god. What is said is about a man. And very little of that.
> We have gone over and disproved the writings regarding your god from Josephus and Pliny ten times already.



You've proven nothing.
Isaiah prophecied in detailed accuracy the coming of Cyrus the emperor of Persia.He foretold his name,the exact time of his birth,and the exact events and dates of of his defeat of the Babylonian empire.

And then,according to secular historians as well as the bible,it all came to pass just as prophesied,even down to the very day.

And then,in our lifetime,the dead sea scrolls were found,with the entire book of Isaiah preserved.Carbon 14 dating confirming its authenticity.

There's you some proof.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2016)

Madman said:


> Like the dog whisperer?




Sure.  That show's is informative.  When he said that some dogs need shock collars it justified my use of one on our dog to my wife.

Do you imagine that there might be people who think they've seen Bigfoot or a UFO and then watch one of those debunking shows and reconsider what they might have experienced, maybe looking at it in a skeptical way that might lead to the truth?

Yeah, me neither.  People cling pretty hard to stuff like that.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2016)

k





welderguy said:


> You've proven nothing.
> Isaiah prophecied in detailed accuracy the coming of Cyrus the emperor of Persia.He foretold his name,the exact time of his birth,and the exact events and dates of of his defeat of the Babylonian empire.
> 
> And then,according to secular historians as well as the bible,it all came to pass just as prophesied,even down to the very day.
> ...


Wait a minute, are you trying to tell me Isaiah went rogue and foretold the future on his own?
Or was he writing down what God told him?
Since you are obviously and blatantly overlooking the dozens upon dozens of things that did not come true, because those things show an omniscient being either got them wrong or no being was involved at all, you have a long uphill battle to explain it.

Nostradomus is more accurate than the word of your god.
And your God is no more accurate than the prophecies that have "come true" in all major and minor religions worldwide. We can add to the list, fortune tellers, psychics, and mediums that get one right every now and then also.

Bottom line is nothing stands out.
A real God wouldn't get one right every now and then.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2016)

welderguy said:


> You've proven nothing.
> Isaiah prophecied in detailed accuracy the coming of Cyrus the emperor of Persia.He foretold his name,the exact time of his birth,and the exact events and dates of of his defeat of the Babylonian empire.
> 
> And then,according to secular historians as well as the bible,it all came to pass just as prophesied,even down to the very day.
> ...


I am hoping that in your extensive research you also found that one of your favorite historians, Josephus,  wrote that Cyrus was shown the Old Testament prophesies written about him.
Many scholars make a very strong case that Cyrus used those OT writings to influence his decisions. In essence he followed the script instead of letting the history play out.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2016)

Madman said:


> One is the informational sciences.




Can you be more specific and elaborate?  I don't get the connection.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I am hoping that in your extensive research you also found that one of your favorite historians, Josephus,  wrote that Cyrus was shown the Old Testament prophesies written about him.
> Many scholars make a very strong case that Cyrus used those OT writings to influence his decisions. In essence he followed the script instead of letting the history play out.



Uuuh?...how did he know when to be born?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Uuuh?...how did he know when to be born?



Uhhhh, why are you ignoring the thousands of other fortune tellers, mind readers, mentalists, psychics and prophecies that got a few right all over world tens of thousands of times in recorded history?

NOSTRADAMUS, as one example if thousands throughout history, has more credible "hits" than your god.

Just as you ignore most questions in here and cherry pick the ones you have a poor answer for, you do the same with scripture. You ignore the complete misses and cheer for one hit.
Nobody argues that some prophesies in the bible have come true but in the same breath it has happened in every religion all over the planet. It has happened throughout world history in all types of settings.
The works of a god,  the prophesies of a god, the word of a god should be indisputable with 100% accuracy.
Yours is not.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2016)

I predict that "TOMORROW, ON THE FIRST HALF OF THE DAY, A GREAT HEALER WILL BE BORN IN THE CITY OF ANGELS."

Mark my words.  If in 20,30,40 years someone fulfills this prediction will you call me a prophet?  

February 14th, 2016 in the morning, a great healer will be born.  

I should throw several of these out a day.  I might make some bank.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2016)

Here are a couple more that Isaiah predicted.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Christians say that this verse is a prophecy of Jesus' birth to a virgin. There are a couple problems with this prophecy...First, virgin in this verse is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah", which actually means "young woman". A young woman is not necessarily a virgin.  "Bethulah" would have been the correct word to use if the author meant virgin. Second, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus referred to as Immanuel.

Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

Damascus is still inhabited today with over a million people, and hardly a ruinous heap.

Isaiah 19:4-5 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.

The river mentioned here is the Nile. The Nile is still one of Egypt's greatest natural resource.

Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.

The Canaanite language has never been spoken in Egypt, and is now an extinct.

Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

There are uncircumcised people living in Jerusalem even today.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Here are a couple more that Isaiah predicted.
> 
> Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
> 
> ...



Are you sure these prophecies haven't been or will not be fulfilled?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Are you sure these prophecies haven't been or will not be fulfilled?



What will you say if my prophesy is fulfilled?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Are you sure these prophecies haven't been or will not be fulfilled?


Yes.
Some of them, and dozens of others in the bible, are very time specific and they have come and gone.

Why do you not hold other religions prophecies to be as accurate or give them the same respect?
Ambush just made a prediction and by your standards he is just as accurate as everyone in your bible.

You really need to stop looking through blinders and see all the examples out there that are just as accurate as the stuff you try to pass off in here if for no other reason than because they meet and exceed your own standards.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Yes.
> Some of them, and dozens of others in the bible, are very time specific and they have come and gone.
> 
> Why do you not hold other religions prophecies to be as accurate or give them the same respect?
> ...



Go ahead and give us those specific time statements and we'll have a look.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Go ahead and give us those specific time statements and we'll have a look.



OYG, WHY do you just ignore and cherry pick?

You have left 50 questions unanswered already and just want to skip them because you won't be honest.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> WHY do you just ignore and cherry pick?
> 
> You have left 50 questions unanswered already and just want to skip them because you won't be honest.



If you don't want to post them just say so.


----------



## Madman (Feb 14, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Here are a couple more that Isaiah predicted.
> 
> Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
> 
> ...




https://youtu.be/bufTna0WArc


----------



## Madman (Feb 14, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Lets run it back for the new guys.  What are the three best arguments for the existence of God in your opinion?



Let's run back through your arguments.  Give me your best three arguments for nothing coming from nothing.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 14, 2016)

Madman said:


> Let's run back through your arguments.  Give me your best three arguments for nothing coming from nothing.



Who in here said Nothing came from Nothing? For that matter Has anyone said Something came from Nothing?
That is a fallacy you believers graciously give to non believers.
There is no point where there was nothing. For a big bang to occur something had to be there. We just don't claim to know what it is.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Who in here said Nothing came from Nothing? For that matter Has anyone said Something came from Nothing?
> That is a fallacy you believers graciously give to non believers.
> There is no point where there was nothing. For a big bang to occur something had to be there. We just don't claim to know what it is.



Where did the "something" that originated with come from?  What was the cause that triggered the Big Bang?  Your world view breaks down very fast.

How does intelligence come from unintelligence?

I am still wiating on a response from ambush.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Where did the "something" that originated with come from?  What was the cause that triggered the Big Bang?  Your world view breaks down very fast.
> 
> How does intelligence come from unintelligence?
> 
> I am still wiating on a response from ambush.


I am happy to say I don't know. One possible answer is Energy because it is neither created or destroyed it just changes forms.
What caused the Big Bang, again I admit that I wasn't  there so I do not know. But best answer we have is it was a sudden release of Energy. I do not know what was going on a millisecond before that. No one does, that is why you and I are arguing about it instead of agreeing.
My worldview is at least as solid as your world view and probably more so because I am open to evidence. I have made it this far n life using this world view and while I cannot accurately say I am any better off than you or the next person, here we both are so my world view has gotten me at least as far as yours has gotten you.
 Unlike your worldview where you pound your fist saying something cannot come from nothing and something cannot be eternal and then proceed to say that your god breaks all those rules is super weak. You have to fill in the blanks with this God thing and that is ok until you use the same biblical stories to back up your god argument. You are probably a big bang believer  and have some idea of the time it took for the Universe to form but your bible ruins that with it's description of creation and the timeline.
You and I have had this conversation before and it continues until you bow out for a couple months and then pop back in and bring up the exact same stuff.

Having an open minded world view that is based off of available evidence and I am willing to change my views based off of the newest best available evidence because I can be honest and admit that I really do not know for certain is a decent world view.

I can't fault you for you having a world view but I must admit that you telling me you have an invisible super daddy way up in the sky that goes against every point you argue with me about, and then proceed to tell me the bible you follow is his unfallible and inerrant word of this being......well....I can see a couple holes in your world view.

I can admit there could be a force that got the ball rolling.  There had to be. But I am honest enough to say I don't know what it is. I am confident enough that based off of the best available evidence that I have access to it is not any version of the God you worship, nor is it any version of a god that mankind has written a handbook about.

When you get the time write down for us all what your worldview consists of and why it is rock solid and doesn't break down. It should be easy if it is so solid.  All I see right now, and every time you pop in and out with this same tired argument, is you standing in a glass house with a couple ton of rocks at your feet.

Dazzle me with your world view madman. I am open to evidence. Here is your chance to sway me.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

I forgot one..
"How does intelligence come from unintelligence"

IF you have kids you will know.
They all think they are much more intelligent than their parents.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Where did the "something" that originated with come from?  What was the cause that triggered the Big Bang?  Your world view breaks down very fast.
> 
> How does intelligence come from unintelligence?
> 
> I am still wiating on a response from ambush.



Here's an explanation.  I kind of like it.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I forgot one..
> "How does intelligence come from unintelligence"
> 
> IF you have kids you will know.
> They all think they are much more intelligent than their parents.



I'll give you that one, but both of my sons are MUCH more intelligent than I am.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

The short version:

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Here's an explanation.  I kind of like it.



I am sure you do.  He still claims something comes from nothing.  He needs a matter/energy starting point for his "theory" to make sense.

You still have something out of nothing.  Let's see you make that happen.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

Krauss tries to make points in several of his articles but throws out straw men.   

In his article http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists

Krauss argues that "No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal. Davis is free to believe whatever she wants, just as the jihadist is free to believe whatever he wants; in both cases, the law constrains not what they believe but what they do."
and he is correct, Ms. Davis was jailed because she refused to sign marriage documents for same sex couples, however arrangements had been made for someone else to sign the documents, but that was not good enough for the likes of Mr. Krauss.  It is not about the same sex couple getting married, it is about forcing people to perform against their conscience.  

We allow conscience objectors certain passes when it comes to military service but the same is not given to the Christian.

The "militant atheist" as Mr. Krauss claims to be is not interested in rights of others, he is only interested in the destruction of society.

Another of el Diablo's "useful idiots".


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Krauss tries to make points in several of his articles but throws out straw men.
> 
> In his article http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists
> 
> ...




You can be an objector, that's fine, but if you break the law you will go to jail.  Don't like the law?  Change it.

The "destruction of society" is your opinion. I am of the opinion that throwing superstition based beliefs on the trash heap of bad ideas is advancement of society.  We can have a discussion about that in a rational way.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> I am sure you do.  He still claims something comes from nothing.  He needs a matter/energy starting point for his "theory" to make sense.
> 
> You still have something out of nothing.  Let's see you make that happen.




I prefer a scientific explanation to scientific questions.  The scientific method of inquiry has an excellent track record for examining questions of this nature.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I prefer a scientific explanation to scientific questions.



So do I, and questions lead to scientific explanation, unfortunatley the atheist's world view falls short.



			
				ambush80 said:
			
		

> You can be an objector, that's fine, but if you break the law you will go to jail. Don't like the law? Change it.



No need to change a the law, it is trumped by the Constitution.   Don't like the Constitution? Change it.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> So do I, and questions lead to scientific explanation, unfortunatley the atheist's world view falls short.



How so?



Madman said:


> No need to change a the law, it is trumped by the Constitution.   Don't like the Constitution? Change it.



The issue with Kim Davis has been settled.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman,

Wanna discuss this?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Madman,
> 
> Wanna discuss this?




At 3:19.  I disagree that the idea of Universal Human Rights isn't found in the Bible.  But I would say that the writers of the Bible didn't make it up.  They got it from a long history of moral philosophy predating Christianity by centuries.

It should be mentioned that the idea of slavery, which is supported by the Bible goes directly against the notion of Universal Human Rights.  Imagine that.  The Bible has a contradiction.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> The "destruction of society" is your opinion. I am of the opinion that throwing superstition based beliefs on the trash heap of bad ideas is advancement of society.  We can have a discussion about that in a rational way.



Then let's do that.

Christianity calls for the marriage of one man to one woman for life, for the purpose of raising "Godly offspring".  What are the advantages to that?

Studies show: 

1) There would be no STDs
2) Children would be raised by a father and a mother    which both have different additives for their proper development.
3) Generally it is extremely difficult for single parents to provide for the financial, social, cognitive, and emotional needs of children. Children 

In conclusion it is beneficial for society to favor, heterosexual marriage.

What does the atheists world view have to offer?


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> They got it from a long history of moral philosophy predating Christianity by centuries.



Some cultures had/have the "moral philosophy" that killing human babies, and abusing women, is morally acceptable.  I'm not much on cultural morality.   Bet you aren't either.

Your morals have been molded by 2000+ years of Christianity.



ambush80 said:


> It should be mentioned that the idea of slavery, which is supported by the Bible goes directly against the notion of Universal Human Rights.  Imagine that.  The Bible has a contradiction.



Here is a perfect example of cultural morality.  
Where does the Bible support slavery?  Christians put an end to slavery, check out William Wilburforce.

You can't discuss the Bible if you don't know what it says.  Atheism is a contradiction.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Then let's do that.
> 
> Christianity calls for the marriage of one man to one woman for life, for the purpose of raising "Godly offspring".  What are the advantages to that?
> 
> ...



Raising "godly offspring" will result in children turning into grown ups who perpetuate the same nonsensical, dogmatic behavior that their parents did.  We can talk about the bad things and good things that faith provides.

1) STD's are a health issue that can be resolved without religion.  As a matter of fact it's a science issue.  It has nothing to do with monogamy. One can have many sexual partners of any combination of sexes as long as proper precautions such as using prophylactics or pre-coital medical screening are employed.  Indeed, religion in the form of the Catholic prohibition of condom use is causing great suffering in third world, no-secular, hyper religious countries.  I know you don't proscribe to Catholic Dogma and the fact that you disagree with catholic dogma says something about the reliability of religion as a moral agent.

2) I agree that all things being equal (kind, loving, nurturing, financially equipped) the "nuclear family" model is the best for raising children.  That notion isn't the result of religious dogma.  It can be distilled through scientific inquiry.  The religious model in most religions, especially all the Abrahamic religions of the relationship between the man and woman is less than ideal and can be demonstrated by science.  But that's another issue. 

3) This is kind of the same as #2.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Some cultures had/have the "moral philosophy" that killing human babies, and abusing women, is morally acceptable.  I'm not much on cultural morality.   Bet you aren't either.
> 
> Your morals have been molded by 2000+ years of Christianity.
> 
> ...



I trust that you can find where the Bible tells slaves how they should treat their masters, how masters should treat their slaves and how slaves may or may not be taken.

William Wilberforce was driven by principles that he derived from secular, humanist inquiry.  We can shoot references at each other all day to dispute or support that but one thing for certain is that the people who he was arguing with, the slaveholders, supported their views of the righteousness of slavery with Bible passages, not reason and rationality.  That's the God's honest truth.

Give me two people who know the Bible backwards and forwards and they will disagree in what it says.  Take us for example.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Some cultures had/have the "moral philosophy" that killing human babies, and abusing women, is morally acceptable.  I'm not much on cultural morality.   Bet you aren't either.
> 
> Your morals have been molded by 2000+ years of Christianity..



Christianity got those ideas (and many of its mythologies) from cultures that came before it.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Then let's do that.
> 
> Christianity calls for the marriage of one man to one woman for life,



I think you will find even for the most devout believers that sometimes there comes a time where dissolving a marriage is the moral and righteous thing to do.  It will be religious dogma that will deny this truth.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> I'll give you that one, but both of my sons are MUCH more intelligent than I am.


I am in the same boat with three Sons.

Now that is out of the way, I hope you are working on my post above asking for you to address my points and also tell us what your worldview is and why it is so solid.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> the slaveholders, supported their views of the righteousness of slavery with Bible passages, not reason and rationality.



You are putting forth an argument that does not exist.  Please answer the question.  Where does the Bible condone slavery?



ambush80 said:


> Give me two people who know the Bible backwards and forwards and they will disagree in what it says.  Take us for example.


You are a perfect example of your first statement.  Those who used the Bible to condone slavery knew no more about the Bible then you do.

Be able to read does not give one comprehension.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I can admit there could be a force that got the ball rolling.  There had to be.



GREAT!  Let's start there!



bullethead said:


> But I am honest enough to say I don't know what it is.



But I do know Him.

_Acts 17:22-31

22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”_


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> You are putting forth an argument that does not exist.  Please answer the question.  Where does the Bible condone slavery?




Leviticus 25:44-46New International Version (NIV)

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
You are putting forth an argument that does not exist.  Please answer the question.  Where does the Bible condone slavery?[/QUOTE]


    And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.
    —â€‰Exodus 21

The Southern Argument for Slavery:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

That's enough to chew on.




Madman said:


> You are a perfect example of your first statement.  Those who used the Bible to condone slavery knew no more about the Bible then you do.
> 
> Be able to read does not give one comprehension.



Ah,  Now it's "my interpretation is better than yours".  I can't get into that one with you because it's a dead end.  Eventually you might say "You can't discern what the Bible says because you are an unbeliever".   How can I make a rational argument about that?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> But I do know Him.



If I might interject.  How do you know Him.  Will it be scientific?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> GREAT!  Let's start there!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have read that stuff too.
By your criteria you should know Allah, Vishnu and a couple hundred other gods after a couple of insomnia filled nights of reading.
GREEK gods are just as real with a few copy pastes.

Can you back up your scripture with any facts?
Does your scripture hold up to all scrutiny?


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I have read that stuff too.
> By your criteria you should know Allah, Vishnu and a couple hundred other gods after a couple of insomnia filled nights of reading.
> GREEK gods are just as real with a few copy pastes.
> 
> ...



You've said He's out there.  How do you see him?  why do you see him the way you do?

I see the God of the Bible because what He claims to be is what is evident in creation.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> If I might interject.  How do you know Him.  Will it be scientific?



If you see a painting, does science tell you there must be a painter?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> You've said He's out there.  How do you see him?  why do you see him the way you do?
> 
> I see the God of the Bible because what He claims to be is what is evident in creation.



No, No I have not said "He" is out there.
I said something is out there but in all reality that something most likely is the same energy that courses through our Universe every second of every day.
I do not See anything and I certainly do not see anybody or any being.
I do not NEED to give it human like qualities, features or thoughts.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> If you see a painting, does science tell you there must be a painter?


If you read a book do you believe there is an author?

Do you believe an author can use others to write his words?

Do you then think a force as powerful as a god that by his own book claims to tell the story of how existence came to be should be accurate?

Why is the Genesis version of creation different than the version science says?

Why would there be so many inaccuracies within the book of a god?

Why do you think the claims do not match facts?

Why is an all powerful and all knowing God portrayed as such a dummy in his own book that says he is no dumny?


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Leviticus 25:44-46New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
> 
> ...


 I see you have substituted the internet for television.

There is nothing for me to chew on.  Slavery was part of an economic condition of the time, people SOLD THEMSELVES INTO SLAVERY to pay off their debts, the Israelites were not to purchase other Israelites even for the purpose of cancelling debts.  Or from Exodus a criminal could make restitution by serving as a slave.

Check out 1 Timothy 1:1-10

You have to learn to put the Bible you read into context.  Spend more time looking for truth rather than justification for you lifestyle.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> If you read a book do you believe there is an author?
> 
> Do you believe an author can use others to write his words?
> 
> ...



I think it's time we take a break.  You have know moved to nothing more than mud slinging.

I am so sorry you have been wounded you so severely.  Hurt people really do hurt people.

Drop me PM if you can back this down a little.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> If you see a painting, does science tell you there must be a painter?



I you don't mind, I'll rephrase your question in the form of a statement.  It will make it easier to respond to.  

"I see evidence of design in the Universe.  Evidence of design implies a designer."

To which I would respond: The interpretation of design arises from several influences.  One of them being that humans are evolved recognize patterns.  They are also inclined to make false assumptions about causality for things that they don't understand.  There is also a long history of the notion of a Causal Being.  

I would also add that the analogy of a painting and the appearance of the Universe is a bad analogy.  The processes by which each are created are completely different.  Same with the Tornado in the Junkyard assembling a car.  The arguments against these analogies can easily be found.  If you insist I can Google them but it's just as easy for you to do it yourself.

So, if you still want to make the argument about design, we can, but The Scopes Monkey Trial, Kitzmiller vs. Dover and Willard vs. the AAA forum cover it pretty well.  

We can skip to the end and you will say "Everything had to have a cause.....except the un-caused cause".  To which I will respond "That is just contradictory nonsense on its face".


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> I see you have substituted the internet for television.
> 
> There is nothing for me to chew on.  Slavery was part of an economic condition of the time, people SOLD THEMSELVES INTO SLAVERY to pay off their debts, the Israelites were not to purchase other Israelites even for the purpose of cancelling debts.  Or from Exodus a criminal could make restitution by serving as a slave.
> 
> ...



This line of argument will get us to "I know the Bible better than you do".  Or  "I interpret it correctly and you don't".  As I said before, it's a dead end.

Besides, I thought we were gonna use reason as the basis for our discussion.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> I think it's time we take a break.  You have know moved to nothing more than mud slinging.
> 
> I am so sorry you have been wounded you so severely.  Hurt people really do hurt people.
> 
> Drop me PM if you can back this down a little.


Par for your course.
As long as the conversation goes the way you want it to, and as long as you do not have to back up claims you continue. But, like every other time, you find a way to cease the conversation before you have to actually go to the next step of backing up your claims.

If you have anything credible, anything worthy of defending an all powerful and all knowing god then post it.
If anything you say was true, I mean the truest of true...God true, nobody would be able to scrutinize it. There would be no contradictions to point out.  There would be nothing to nit pick.
If I wrote it yeah, if you wrote it yeah, but the works of a god should be godlike. 


I'm not wounded nor have I ever been. I am just tired of beating around the bush.
 Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence. Your god according to your claims and the claims within the bible should be simple to defend. Unless it is all just the work of men with no God involved at all, then you get what we have here. Believers making excuses for a no show. Then bowing out when the questions require more proof than you can provide. 

The truth is not hard to prove. 
Invisible is not hard to prove if true.
I can tell you about gravity and how it is exists, I can tell you what is does, I can show you examples of it in action. It is true and it is provable. Your god should be a lot easier.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Raising "godly offspring" will result in children turning into grown ups who perpetuate the same nonsensical, dogmatic behavior that their parents did.  We can talk about the bad things and good things that faith provides.



Just because it is nonsensical to you does not make it so.



ambush80 said:


> 1) STD's are a health issue that can be resolved without religion.  As a matter of fact it's a science issue.  It has nothing to do with monogamy. One can have many sexual partners of any combination of sexes as long as proper precautions such as using prophylactics or pre-coital medical screening are employed.  Indeed, religion in the form of the Catholic prohibition of condom use is causing great suffering in third world, no-secular, hyper religious countries.  I know you don't proscribe to Catholic Dogma and the fact that you disagree with catholic dogma says something about the reliability of religion as a moral agent.



We are not discussing religion.  We are discussing the God of the Bible.  That is where every argument you have made concerning the Bible breaks down.  You argue what fallen man does and says, I argue what God calls us too.





ambush80 said:


> 2) I agree that all things being equal (kind, loving, nurturing, financially equipped) the "nuclear family" model is the best for raising children.  That notion isn't the result of religious dogma.  It can be distilled through scientific inquiry.  The religious model in most religions, especially all the Abrahamic religions of the relationship between the man and woman is less than ideal and can be demonstrated by science.  But that's another issue.



Glad we agree on the family and that science agrees with the advice God gives.  When you were little and your mother told you not to touch the hot stove because it would hurt you, did you require scientific reasoning as to why that was true or did you simply not touch because you knew your mother loved you?  
When you were older probably learned the scientific reasoning.  God gives us loving advice.

For the rest see above.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> "Everything had to have a cause.....except the un-caused cause".  To which I will respond "That is just contradictory nonsense on its face".



Show me the contradiction, but first you need to revisit middle school logic.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Show me the contradiction, but first you need to revisit middle school logic.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

I'm gonna let your "Middle School" comment slide.  It was an unnecessary dig.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Just because it is nonsensical to you does not make it so.



"Godly Children" is too broad a term to discuss.  That's why suggested that we talk about specific things.  You might raise your kids to vote against stem cell research.  Other believers will side with secularists and teach their kids that God likes stem cell research.  You will each find Bible passages supporting your views and argue that the other isn't interpreting them right when all the while there was a better way to arrive at the truth.



Madman said:


> We are not discussing religion.  We are discussing the God of the Bible.  That is where every argument you have made concerning the Bible breaks down.  You argue what fallen man does and says, I argue what God calls us too.



...as a fallen man or something more righteous than the average bear?  You will have to take a stand somewhere and declare "*I* know what God meant by this, not you."  Where does that place you?




Madman said:


> Glad we agree on the family and that science agrees with the advice God gives.  When you were little and your mother told you not to touch the hot stove because it would hurt you, did you require scientific reasoning as to why that was true or did you simply not touch because you knew your mother loved you?
> When you were older probably learned the scientific reasoning.  God gives us loving advice.
> 
> For the rest see above.



Sometimes.  He also gives some horribly bad advice. But first you will have to prove that those things came from The God of the Bible and not from Pre-Christian history.  That's gonna be a tough one.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

I'll take that as a no.



bullethead said:


> Par for your course.


 
I have never backed down form any of your nonsense and have no intention of doing so now, I just thought you might like to show a little integrity. I should have known better. 




bullethead said:


> I can tell you about gravity and how it is exists,



No you can't.  You don't have a clue how gravity exists, all you can do is cut and paste something you found on the internet that sounds good to you.

You have never put forth a single intelligent argument on anything here.  

There is nothing from your world view that makes any logical sense.  

If you or ambush would spend 5 minutes reading about the informational sciences you would understand that "language" comes from intelligence.   

Language and code does not come from rocks or cosmic gas clouds.

Bullet,  you are the epitome of who Paul was speaking to on Mars Hill, the only difference is that they were seeking truth, you only seek self.


Atheism is not an intellectual choice it is a moral choice.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
> 
> I'm gonna let your "Middle School" comment slide.  It was an unnecessary dig.



No dig.  I first took logic in middle school, then high school, then in college, where did you take it?  

I am not sure what the link has to do with anything, we are not discussing informal fallacies, we would be discussing causality.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> He also gives some horribly bad advice.



Please enlighten us.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> No dig.  I first took logic in middle school, then high school, then in college, where did you take it?
> 
> I am not sure what the link has to do with anything, we are not discussing informal fallacies, we would be discussing causality.



"EVERYTHING has a cause....except this one thing."

_
"Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception"
_


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Please enlighten us.



What to do if your daughter gets raped.

King James Bible
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the (bad word that means prostitute starts with W) in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:21

Yeah, C'mon.  Play the "context" game.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> "EVERYTHING has a cause....except this one thing."
> 
> _
> "Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception"
> _



No special pleading.  The law of causality states that every "EFFECT" must have a cause.

come on now keep up.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> No special pleading.  The law of causality states that every "EFFECT" must have a cause.
> 
> come on now keep up.



Make an argument that everything is an effect.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> What to do if your daughter gets raped.
> 
> King James Bible
> Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the (bad word that means prostitute starts with W) in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
> ...



Let's do.

This is not about rape now is it? You have already tried to change the context.  Shame on you.

Who was being spoken to here?


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Make an argument that everything is an effect.



everything is not an effect.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> I'll take that as a no.


Good take





Madman said:


> I have never backed down form any of your nonsense and have no intention of doing so now, I just thought you might like to show a little integrity. I should have known better.


Your past posts say differently  






Madman said:


> No you can't.  You don't have a clue how gravity exists, all you can do is cut and paste something you found on the internet that sounds good to you.


I use the best available information given to me by whatever means is both convenient and fast where I can rely that information accurately.
If you are telling me flipping through the pages of an old book is any different or more accurate well then I'll have to ask you to prove that to me.



Madman said:


> You have never put forth a single intelligent argument on anything here.


Another flaw in yet another one of your claims. 



Madman said:


> There is nothing from your world view that makes any logical sense.


What is my world view? You use YOUR version of a world view you assigned to me.



Madman said:


> If you or ambush would spend 5 minutes reading about the informational sciences you would understand that "language" comes from intelligence.


I think your problem is that you need more than just 5 minutes, we spend more than 5 minutes on any thing we want to learn about.
So much so that we know many species of animals and mammals ad insects have a language.
Even your dog can understand more than a few of our words but I'd bet you cannot differentiate which bark is which or what it means.
Intelligent huh.....



Madman said:


> Language and code does not come from rocks or cosmic gas clouds.


I suggest you get into minute 6+ of your studies if you think that is where language comes from OR if you are suggesting that is where I ever said language comes from.
Take the time to use that darned Internet and educate yourself on how species communicate. I already have.
I'd post it for you but mine is from a more intelligent source than the one who wrote the different Languages came from thwapping an arrow in the sky off of a tall tower.



Madman said:


> Bullet,  you are the epitome of who Paul was speaking to on Mars Hill, the only difference is that they were seeking truth, you only seek self.


Paul probably had me in mind and just changed the names for legal purposes.




Madman said:


> Atheism is not an intellectual choice it is a moral choice.


Here is your chance to prove it...try to back that statement up yet again because I know it has been discussed on other threads before and I am pretty sure those are the threads that you jump into with statements like that and then dissappear as quickly when a half dozen guys prove your statement wrong.

And since you never hang around conversations long enough you must be confused or just ignorant implying that I am an athiest. I have said I am not an atheist at least 20 times in conversations in this AAA forum. I don't know if there is a god.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Let's do.
> 
> This is not about rape now is it? You have already tried to change the context.  Shame on you.
> 
> Who was being spoken to here?




My bad.  I mis-remembered.  Lets discuss the whole lewd thing.  



 Deuteronomy 22:18-23:8Contemporary English Version (CEV)

18 The town leaders will beat the man with a whip 19 because he accused his bride of not being a virgin. He will have to pay her father one hundred pieces of silver and will never be allowed to divorce her.

20 But if the man was right and there is no proof that his bride was a virgin, 21 the men of the town will take the woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her to death.

This woman brought evil into your community by sleeping with someone before she got married, and you must get rid of that evil by killing her.
Laws about Illegal Sex

Moses said:

22 People of Israel, if a man is caught having sex with someone else’s wife, you must put them both to death. That way, you will get rid of the evil they have done in Israel.

23-24 If a man is caught in town having sex with an engaged woman who isn’t screaming for help, they both must be put to death. The man is guilty of having sex with a married woman.[a] And the woman is guilty because she didn’t call for help, even though she was inside a town and people were nearby. Take them both to the town gate and stone them to death. You must get rid of the evil they brought into your community.

25 If an engaged woman is raped out in the country, only the man will be put to death. 26 Do not punish the woman at all; she has done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing deserving death. This crime is like murder, 27 because the woman was alone out in the country when the man attacked her. She screamed, but there was no one to help her.

28 Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, 29 they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and* can never divorce her.

30 A man must not marry a woman who was married to his father. This would be a disgrace to his father.*


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Just because it is nonsensical to you does not make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ambush80 said:


> "Godly Children" is too broad a term to discuss.  That's why suggested that we talk about specific things.  You might raise your kids to vote against stem cell research.  Other believers will side with secularists and teach their kids that God likes stem cell research.  You will each find Bible passages supporting your views and argue that the other isn't interpreting them right when all the while there was a better way to arrive at the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lets continue this conversation.  It's quite nice.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> everything is not an effect.




By everything I meant all of reality.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I don't know if there is a god.



Sure you do.  "It has been made evident".

I understand your desire to take the easy way out.  "Google give me quick answer."

I see from the the rest of your remarks why you do live in darkness.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> My bad.  I mis-remembered.  Lets discuss the whole lewd thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*

Was it about Rape?*


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Was it about Rape?



"My bad. I mis-remembered. Lets discuss the whole lewd thing."

It's about lying about being a virgin.  Truly a stoneable offense if ever there was one.

23-24 is about rape.  Also great advice about stoning.  Well done Men Who Wrote the Bible.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

Bullet,

Your claim was that YOU could tell me.  NO you can't.

Are trying to say that language does not come from intelligence?  If you are then you are at odds with science.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Sure you do.  "It has been made evident".
> 
> I understand your desire to take the easy way out.  "Google give me quick answer."
> 
> I see from the the rest of your remarks why you do live in darkness.


I don't believe in your god. I don't believe in any version of man made gods.
That does not change the fact that I do not know if a god of any sort exists.

Don't try to put words in my mouth in order to try to make yourself look better.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Bullet,
> 
> Your claim was that YOU could tell me.  NO you can't.
> 
> Are trying to say that language does not come from intelligence?  If you are then you are at odds with science.




The cause of intelligence is still a mystery to science.  The nature of consciousness is, too.  

Even if the Bible offers an explanation of either (which I would argue that it does not, specifically, and that gross manipulations of any text in support of the notions lead to only inferences of possible explanations) that doesn't mean that they're true.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> "My bad. I mis-remembered. Lets discuss the whole lewd thing."
> 
> It's about lying about being a virgin.  Truly a stoneable offense if ever there was one.
> 
> 23-24 is about rape.  Also great advice about stoning.  Well done Men Who Wrote the Bible.



Shall we continue?

Who was it written too?


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I don't believe in your god. I don't believe in any version of man made gods.
> That does not change the fact that I do not know if a god of any sort exists.
> 
> Don't try to put words in my mouth in order to try to make yourself look better.


What words have I put in your mouth?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Shall we continue?
> 
> Who was it written too?



Make a point.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Have you abandoned post #121?


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> The cause of intelligence is still a mystery to science.  The nature of consciousness is, too.
> 
> Even if the Bible offers an explanation of either (which I would argue that it does not, specifically, and that gross manipulations of any text in support of the notions lead to only inferences of possible explanations) that doesn't mean that they're true.



You are correct, it does not mean they are true, but saying that out of the Big Bang arose the codex for humanity is ...............................................?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

You said this:


_"We are not discussing religion. We are discussing the God of the Bible. That is where every argument you have made concerning the Bible breaks down. You argue what fallen man does and says, I argue what God calls us too."_

Are you arguing as a fallen man or something more righteous?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> You are correct, it does not mean they are true, but saying that out of the Big Bang arose the codex for humanity is ...............................................?



A hypothesis?  I don't think anybody has pursued that question except in the soft science field.

As a good scientist, I believe you know what it takes to prove or disprove the God Hypothesis.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Bullet,
> 
> Your claim was that YOU could tell me.  NO you can't.
> 
> Are trying to say that language does not come from intelligence?  If you are then you are at odds with science.


I am saying that not only spoken words are language.
Dolphins and Whales speak to each other.
Coco the gorilla uses her hands to not only speak to humans but also she can understand humans.
Dogs learn to understand what humans are saying. Ask a dog "do you wanna go outside" and it runs to the door. Have that same dog bark 3 or 4 or 5 times and you will sit there dumbfounded even though you heard those same barks a thousand times.
Bees have a language, they communicate through vibration and dance.
There is language and communication in all species.
Humans do not have the communication and language
market cornered, we just have our own version. 
We sure are intelligent. But at one time a series of grunts, hoots and whistles mimicking other creatures were all we had. Language was a part of evolution for our survival.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> What words have I put in your mouth?


You said I do know if there is a god despite me telling you otherwise. 
You continue along the lines that I am a card carrying atheist. I am not.
You make statements all of your own and act like I have said it.

You do it to change the conversation to favor your narrow argument .


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> A hypothesis.


So something comes from nothing and intelligence from non-intelligence, sounds more like alchemy and medieval spontaneous life debates.  



ambush80 said:


> As a good scientist, I believe you know what it takes to prove or disprove the God Hypothesis.



There are many things in science we cannot prove, yet we know they exists by the way other things work or the way they behave.  It is not that difficult.  I have not asked any of you to "prove" anything, all I asked is a logical argument.  Y'all either say something came from nothing, it has always existed, or you don't know, and that should be sufficient for the world to hang it's hat on.  I say, logically that "something can't come from nothing", if there ever was a time when nothing existed then "nothing can come from no thing" and because we don't see it anywhere else in nature, an "eternal effect" is a difficult concept for some of us, impossible really and "I don't know" just doesn't work for the inquiring mind.

All of those answers are supposed to be good enough for us but an eternal, self existent, intelligence that we call God is not good enough for you.

The Christian is called to "give a reason for the hope that he has", that is what I do, and in the midst of mine and your discussion I pray someone will read something that rings true.  I have no argument with you as a person, just putting forth an apologetic.  

This is not personal for me, what I believe God has to offer is His to offer, not mine.  I do know this, I was once an enemy of God, and while I still was, I believe He sent His Son to save me from that.

As I have said: As an engineer, not a scientist, I believe the evidence of a first cause is overwhelming, the deeper we get into the sciences, I believe it becomes more evident.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Bullet,
> 
> Your claim was that YOU could tell me.  NO you can't.
> 
> Are trying to say that language does not come from intelligence?  If you are then you are at odds with science.


Does science say a man and a woman were created in less than a week and we're pre-programmed to start speaking complex language?
Did Adam and eve throw on a production of Shakespeare while in the garden?

Or does science tell us it took millions upon millions of years to start to communicate in our most recent homo species?
It's the same science that traces our dna back long before the bible. In one sentence you recite the bible as fact and in the next tell us how accurate science is and yet in the next expect us to believe a few early humans were sleeping in tree limbs to stay away from predators but before bedtime they all conversed about how the stock market did that day.
You tend to leave out a couple hundred billion steps in the process that got us to where we are now.

It's not "poofed" intelligence. It's learned by survival of the fittest. It developed as our brain developed due to our eating habits fueled by fire.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I am saying that not only spoken words are language.
> Dolphins and Whales speak to each other.
> Coco the gorilla uses her hands to not only speak to humans but also she can understand humans.
> Dogs learn to understand what humans are saying. Ask a dog "do you wanna go outside" and it runs to the door. Have that same dog bark 3 or 4 or 5 times and you will sit there dumbfounded even though you heard those same barks a thousand times.
> ...



Sorry that you have a stupid dog, mine is intelligent and he communicates.  I have basket ball hoop in the drive way, it doesn't say much, it mostly just gets in the way.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Make a point.



context


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You said I do know if there is a god despite me telling you otherwise.
> You continue along the lines that I am a card carrying atheist. I am not.
> You make statements all of your own and act like I have said it.
> 
> You do it to change the conversation to favor your narrow argument .



My apologies,  I am not sure what you are,  other than lost.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Sorry that you have a stupid dog, mine is intelligent and he communicates.  I have basket ball hoop in the drive way, it doesn't say much, it mostly just gets in the way.



Don't be sorry. I don't have a dog at all.

I think you missed my points. I know dogs are intelligent as are most mammals,animals and creatures. They all have languages as we do. Some Not as complex, some possibly more complex.

Please tell us how language came about, start with just the human species.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> My apologies,  I am not sure what you are,  other than lost.



Again you are mistaken.
I am right here, the same place as you are. I don't know your life but I am a successful business man.  I am a loyal husband, I hope good father, and I have never even had so much as a traffic ticket in my life. I've been with the same woman since I was in 10th grade.
I made it through 46 years on this planet just as I am.
Lost ain't part of the program.

You are too narrow minded to know that all the stuff you contribute to life isnt the only way.
I am living proof that I have just as much going for me as you do without all the biblical nonsense to owe it to.
I am proof, in the flesh, that you are mistaken on many things.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Sorry that you have a stupid dog, mine is intelligent and he communicates.  I have basket ball hoop in the drive way, it doesn't say much, it mostly just gets in the way.


Your dog sounds smart enough to get rid of the unused B-ball hoop. You should give it to him.
But I'm getting off track, you were telling us about intelligence....


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I know dogs are intelligent as are most mammals,animals and creatures. They all have languages as we do. Some Not as complex, some possibly more complex.



I don't want to put words in your mouth, are you saying that intelligent animals can make languages?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> So something comes from nothing and intelligence from non-intelligence, sounds more like alchemy and medieval spontaneous life debates.



Can you imagine what Special Relativity would have sounded like to a Medieval alchemist?  How about what it might have sounded like to a writer of the Bible?  I find it strange that you wouldn't trust either of them to understand Relativity but you think they have valid insight into the origins of the Universe.  




Madman said:


> There are many things in science we cannot prove, yet we know they exists by the way other things work or the way they behave.  It is not that difficult.  I have not asked any of you to "prove" anything, all I asked is a logical argument.  Y'all either say something came from nothing, it has always existed, or you don't know, and that should be sufficient for the world to hang it's hat on.  I say, logically that "something can't come from nothing", if there ever was a time when nothing existed then "nothing can come from no thing" and because we don't see it anywhere else in nature, an "eternal effect" is a difficult concept for some of us, impossible really and "I don't know" just doesn't work for the inquiring mind.
> 
> All of those answers are supposed to be good enough for us but an eternal, self existent, intelligence that we call God is not good enough for you.
> 
> ...



The World should "hang it's hat" on what can be proven.    An Eternal Effect isn't that hard to imagine.   It simply doesn't have a basis other than speculation or wishful thinking.  Understanding the origins of the the concept of an Eternal Effect reveals something about the nature of people.  It doesn't reinforce the validity of it.  That's why the self existent intelligence is suspect.

The default position should be it doesn't exist.

I understand why belief in God gives hope.  I understand why healing crystals give hope.  So does Darren Brown, which is where this all started.  I posted the video to share with those that might not understand how the mind works or didn't know that conversion of that sort was possible.  I didn't know.  It's just information.  People will do with it what they will.

What are your thoughts on The Krauss interview.  Not about his atheism but about the science?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/language-evolve.htm
Evin eh dhummy lyke me wuz abel to posts dis.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> I don't want to put words in your mouth, are you saying that intelligent animals can make languages?


I am saying language and intelligence have evolved. Due to many, many factors that have influenced the progress in species,  languages have developed in both intelligent and not so intelligent creatures.
The basics which can be traced back to much less complex creatures.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You are too narrow minded to know that all the stuff you contribute to life isnt the only way.



I am not narrow minded, I have a submitted mind.

_Ah, snug lie those that slumber
Beneath Conviction’s roof.
Their floors are sturdy lumber,
Their windows weatherproof.
But I sleep cold forever
And cold sleep all my kind,
For I was born to shiver
In the draft of an open mind._
Phyllis McGinley





bullethead said:


> I am living proof that I have just as much going for me as you do without all the biblical nonsense to owe it to.
> I am proof, in the flesh, that you are mistaken on many things.



Yes you are proof of many things.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman are you fluent in sign language? 
Just for honesty sake, I am not.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> I am not narrow minded, I have a submitted mind.
> 
> _Ah, snug lie those that slumber
> Beneath Conviction’s roof.
> ...


No more or no less than you.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> I am not narrow minded, I have a submitted mind.
> 
> _Ah, snug lie those that slumber
> Beneath Conviction’s roof.
> ...



Would you rather be comfortable and secure in an untruth, or at least an unconfirmed, esoteric, unlikely truth or live with the burden of uncertainty that a skeptical mind might produce?

There's no fine line between open mindedness to the point of gullibility and skepticism to the point of disallowing new ideas.  

There's a word for clinging to old ideas that have been shown to be inaccurate but too comfortable to abandon.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Can you imagine what Special Relativity would have sounded like to a Medieval alchemist?  How about what it might have sounded like to a writer of the Bible?  I find it strange that you wouldn't trust either of them to understand Relativity but you think they have valid insight into the origins of the Universe.



I don't trust the writers to understand it, but I believe Scripture is "God breathed", and I don't expect you to understand that.




ambush80 said:


> The World should "hang it's hat" on what can be proven.



But you don't only believe in what can be proven.





ambush80 said:


> I understand why belief in God gives hope.



Belief in God gives me no hope.  "Even the demons believe". 



ambush80 said:


> What are your thoughts on The Krauss interview.  Not about his atheism but about the science?



I cannot remove his "militant atheism" (his words) from his beliefs anymore than I can remove God from mine.  He has some interesting "ideas" that are intriguing, but I have not had time to digest it all.  It is a long video and time is short.

I will watch it in it's entirety but it is going to take some time.  On the surface it appears he has to "start with someone else's dirt".


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Would you rather be comfortable and secure in an untruth, or at least an unconfirmed, esoteric, unlikely truth or live with the burden of uncertainty that a skeptical mind might produce?
> 
> There's no fine line between open mindedness to the point of gullibility and skepticism to the point of disallowing new ideas.
> 
> There's a word for clinging to old ideas that have been shown to be inaccurate but too comfortable to abandon.



Ah and here we are in agreement again.  Reread your words as though I had written them to you.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Madman are you fluent in sign language?
> Just for honesty sake, I am not.



Come on now!  The conversation has just gotten civil again and you are going to give me the one finger wave?

I'm heart broken.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Come on now!  The conversation has just gotten civil again and you are going to give me the one finger wave?
> 
> I'm heart broken.


Can you speak and understand sign language?


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Can you speak and understand sign language?



not really.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> not really.



Like I said before, me neither.
 But Coco the gorilla can. Is she more intelligent than us?
Did your god give her skills?


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

come on close the deal,  My wife made a big pot of seafood stew,  i got to get home.


----------



## Madman (Feb 15, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Like I said before, me neither.
> But Coco the gorilla can. Is she more intelligent than us?
> Did your god give her skills?



Bullet,

Is energy intelligent?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> Bullet,
> 
> Is energy intelligent?


My best guess says it is not.
The same hunch tells me the same type of thing that would be comparable to energy, like a spirit with no brain, is just as likely as non intelligent.

Now, introduce that un- intelligent energy force that due to a huge explosion the resulting  particles acting upon themselves, other particles and the chemistry of all the ingredients mixing with each other over the extreme temperatures along with periods of time and elements and we have conditions that allow for things to happen. How, I don't know. But I do know that bang didn't plop a man and a woman in a garden.

Is the gorilla more intelligent than you and I?
Did your god pass by a non believer and staunch believer and give the gorilla some of his intelligence?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2016)

Madman said:


> I don't trust the writers to understand it, but I believe Scripture is "God breathed", and I don't expect you to understand that.
> 
> But you don't only believe in what can be proven.



I believe in things that are likely.  I can't possibly say that "God Breathed" is proof of anything.  I can understand it as a concept.  I can even understand miracles, presupposing a God.  The question is always "But why presuppose a God?"  Does "Revelation" have anything to do with it for you?




Madman said:


> Belief in God gives me no hope.  "Even the demons believe".



Then what is it about God that gives you hope in a way that can't be had without it? 



Madman said:


> I cannot remove his "militant atheism" (his words) from his beliefs anymore than I can remove God from mine.  He has some interesting "ideas" that are intriguing, but I have not had time to digest it all.  It is a long video and time is short.
> 
> I will watch it in it's entirety but it is going to take some time.  On the surface it appears he has to "start with someone else's dirt".



Keep in mind that I don't fully understand some of his concepts and some of them I don't think have enough evidence behind them to declare as true.  But I respect the method of inquiry.

There are very good scientists that believe in God (which confounds me) but they seem to be able to compartmentalize their faith, which they admit is unscientific, and separate it from their scientific research.  It seems to have something to do with that Special Pleading again.  They would never publish a finding if were based on the same kind of evidence that they give for their deism. They hold their faith to lesser standards of proof than they do their research.


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Then what is it about God that gives you hope in a way that can't be had without it?



This is a different topic and I don't have time today, but i believe it is directly related to your question;

What do you do with your guilt?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> This is a different topic and I don't have time today, but i believe it is directly related to your question;
> 
> What do you do with your guilt?



It depends.  As of late, in the past few years, I find that when I think of something that I feel guilty for having done, often a wrong that I did to someone or something stupid that I said, I make a sound.  Sometimes a kind of grunt/sigh, sometimes it's kind of an "Eh...", not like a shoulder shrugging "eh" but more like a head shaking "Eh..." with a little disgust.

I wish that I could apologize to those who I've wronged or go back and do the "right thing".  Sometimes I get to do just that.  The other night, right before falling asleep, I remembered telling someone in college that they were going to He11 because they were an unrepentant non-believer.  It kept me up for a while.

I forgive myself for some of the things I did or said when I was younger and dumber.  Some things I still feel guilty for.  Mostly I try to learn from it.


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> My best guess says it is not.


I am trying to come to a point of agreement with you.  You say that language comes from intelligence, like people, apes, dogs, etc. and we agree that there is all kinds of language, barking, sign language, speaking, how about computer code?  Does it fit? 

 The informational sciences says it does.  So computer code or computer language, is written by a programmer to run a machine.  The programmer is of greater intelligence then the machine he is programming. 
Now let's look at the human gnome, the informational sciences show that it is nothing more than a very complex programming of the human body.  

I don't believe your "unintelligent energy force" can write that code.

It takes something with intelligence. 

It's just one more piece of my puzzle.



bullethead said:


> The same hunch tells me the same type of thing that would be comparable to energy, like a spirit with no brain, is just as likely as non intelligent.
> 
> Now, introduce that un- intelligent energy force that due to a huge explosion the resulting  particles acting upon themselves, other particles and the chemistry of all the ingredients mixing with each other over the extreme temperatures along with periods of time and elements and we have conditions that allow for things to happen. How, I don't know. But I do know that bang didn't plop a man and a woman in a garden.



This does not fit into the realm of being agnostic.  Which you claim to be.


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> It depends.  As of late, in the past few years, I find that when I think of something that I feel guilty for having done, often a wrong that I did to someone or something stupid that I did, I make a sound.  Sometimes a kind of grunt/sigh, sometimes it's kind of an "Eh...", not like a shoulder shrugging "eh" but more like a head shaking "Eh..." with a little disgust.
> 
> I wish that I could apologize to those who I've wronged or go back and do the "right thing".  Sometimes I get to do just that.  The other night, right before falling asleep, I remembered telling someone in college that they were going to He11 because they were an unrepentant non-believer.  It kept me up for a while.
> 
> I forgive myself for some of the things I did or said when I was younger and dumber.  Some things I still feel guilty for.  Mostly I try to learn from it.



Thanks for that answer, a lot of "non-believers" say they have no guilt.  I don't believe them.  

I have guilt, it has left wounds and scars, my belief system helps with that.  
It is good to see how other "new Christians", in other countries especially, make retribution to those whom they have wronged.  I used to do it for things I could, now it mostly apologies, etc., but I still am like King David who said My God, " I have sinned against you and you alone".  Even after I apologized to those I wronged, It was not until I became a believer could I get any relief.



What's in red, I believe falls into the category of judgement.  I can proclaim what I believe to be right and wrong, based on my belief system, but I don't get to pass sentencing.

Whether we have said it or not most of us have thought it.  It is those things most of all that I have to take to God, and admit that I do not have the authority to make that judgement, it belongs to Him alone.

Stay in the struggle.  We are not enemies.  

My fight is not against flesh and blood but with the powers and principalities in the heavenly places.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> I am trying to come to a point of agreement with you.  You say that language comes from intelligence, like people, apes, dogs, etc. and we agree that there is all kinds of language, barking, sign language, speaking, how about computer code?  Does it fit?
> 
> The informational sciences says it does.  So computer code or computer language, is written by a programmer to run a machine.  The programmer is of greater intelligence then the machine he is programming.
> Now let's look at the human gnome, the informational sciences show that it is nothing more than a very complex programming of the human body.
> ...



There's no intelligence without the hardware to generate it.  To me, it's all about the hardware.

That's where you and I disagree.  You see intelligence as a bizarre otherworldly thing so you give it a bizarre, otherworldly origin.  You see it as an impossibility that intelligence could have evolved so, as believers do with many other difficult and unanswered questions you insert God.

I think it's most likely that intelligence is an evolutionary offshoot of reflexes and mobility. When organisms developed hardware and mechanics to the point where they could react to environmental conditions, say, to move away from danger or towards food, those programs became the foundations of intelligence.  As the hardware developed, so did the capacity to run more complex software.  The programming didn't have to come from a weird ethereal place.  It resulted from the environment, or as in Bullethead's sig line "The available chemistry set".  

It's not impossible to imagine how from such humble beginnings as trying to find shelter or mate that the ability to plan, to imagine and to inquisite grew into the ability to conjure up a God or a sonnet.

I'm just saying it's possible that it happened that way and for myself, not jumping to the conclusion of a supernatural imposition, it makes most sense.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> Thanks for that answer, a lot of "non-believers" say they have no guilt.  I don't believe them.
> 
> I have guilt, it has left wounds and scars, my belief system helps with that.
> It is good to see how other "new Christians", in other countries especially, make retribution to those whom they have wronged.  I used to do it for things I could, now it mostly apologies, etc., but I still am like King David who said My God, " I have sinned against you and you alone".  Even after I apologized to those I wronged, It was not until I became a believer could I get any relief.
> ...



Guilt is a good thing.  I'm glad that it evolved in us.  

As for New Christians in other countries, I would prefer that they understand why they should feel guilty about things by way of reason as opposed to a God given mandate that has sketchy origins.  Also, relating to guilt is forgiveness. I see a lot of problems with the type of forgiveness which is attached (I wanted to say sold) with evangelism.   That's a different subject that we should discuss sometime.

By the Christian doctrine as I understand it.  We are not to judge a man's salvation or darnation. But we are also to judge a man by his fruits.  Which is it? That's one of the problems I had as an evangelical.  I felt like what I was doing was "I ain't saying your going to He11....But I'm just saying......"  Look upstairs at how often that dialogue happens _amongst believers_.  

I never think of us as enemies.  The fact that we engage with each other in discussion leads me to believe that we're both just muddling along best we know how.  We have ideas that are in opposition but I don't hold them against you as a person.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> I am trying to come to a point of agreement with you.  You say that language comes from intelligence, like people, apes, dogs, etc. and we agree that there is all kinds of language, barking, sign language, speaking, how about computer code?  Does it fit?
> 
> The informational sciences says it does.  So computer code or computer language, is written by a programmer to run a machine.  The programmer is of greater intelligence then the machine he is programming.
> Now let's look at the human gnome, the informational sciences show that it is nothing more than a very complex programming of the human body.
> ...


I was once a believer that started out on a quest to reinforce my beliefs by easily finding the facts that back up the biblical scripture . On that journey I found it increasingly difficult to back up much of it and that struck me as odd because something so true should not have a problem like that. The more I search and research I am more confident that all of the man made and man written religious stories are just that, man made stories. Once I was able to take a step back and look at it with no pre-conceived bias I was able to compare claims to facts.
That being said, while I am convinced that all of the man made religions are really just that, man made, I still cannot and probably will not ever know for sure. What I can believe is that if there is some sort of force out there that is either intelligent or unintelligent you, I , no one will ever know it. If it is intelligent enough to do as claimed nobody could possibly begin to understand it. I am convinced that anyone claiming to have a better grasp on such a  being is a liar. Maybe not intentionally a liar like some of these mega preachers, but a liar in that they are only telling them self what they NEED to hear to get them through life. 
So the bottom line is that I cannot say there is not a god (intelligent or otherwise, even though whatever is responsible for this Universe could be called a god) and I cannot say there is.
You are using your definitions to try to hold me accountable in order to make your points valid.

Language does not necessarily have to come from intelligence. You seem to be using humans as your standard for intelligence. All life forms have a way to communicate. Some very simple and some complex. All use a form of energy to dance, vibrate, posture, project air over vocal chords, draw etc etc etc but is it really intelligence that makes us/them understand these  things? Some people with 75 IQs can talk and get through life performing tasks yet some people with 140+ IQs cannot move out of a fetal position they cannot even blink to communicate. There are examples of in between to extremes too.
Some Humans in tribes make clicks to talk. Clicks are their language. Are they more intelligent than you? Less? Does intelligence have anything to do with it? 

I think you are jumping the gun on programmers/and a designer.
The Earth is about 4.5 billions years in existence. It started as pieces of particles slamming into each other until they formed the size and shape of what it is now, conditions varied so much that it took billions of years to make it habitable for the simplest forms of life. It took billions of more years for this life to evolve. Since life's inception as quickly as it becomes life that is as quickly as it is killed off. Every single day something changes due to a condition changing somewhere else. It is frightening fragile to think how everything teters on such a fine edge of existence or extinction. Let's add in a couple trillion things that took place and take place that we have not touched on.
Let's say for this argument you are correct in that there is a programmer.
 If a programmer programmed all this I am first to be honest enough to admit that it is beyond my comprehension. There is no way I can even begin to understand it. If it is "in the program" for me to know the programmer, or for any of us to know the programmer then I would have to think there would not be a single point of confusion or contention. If there is in fact a programmer I have to think that possibly the program is faulty or that everything is running exactly as intended and because of that I would say the program is not anything similar to what religions say it is. If the bible is the user manual that the programmer provided then it seems like I have called the 800 number and have gotten the foreign tech with horrible broken English on a bad phone connection and I and billions of others are having a hard time understanding what he is saying. Which if it were just a handful of humans on earth that just didn't get it I can understand there is a curve, but since the facts are that humans have not only disagreed but make it a point to kill each other over the identity of this programmer it goes back to a faulty program or that is the exact program that the programmer wants run, and in either case your bible, your version, of this programmer/God doesnt add up to the claims.

Speaking for myself only, if there is a god I do not know him,I cannot know him, I do not want to PRETEND know him. If the program is running fine I am supposed to be this way. If the program is corrupt there is something wrong with the programmer and it can't be called god.

NOW, if there is no God I  can see why I can make a great case for it through nature and evolution.


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I do not want to know him.



Thanks.  That says it all.


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Guilt is a good thing.  I'm glad that it evolved in us.
> 
> As for New Christians in other countries, I would prefer that they understand why they should feel guilty about things by way of reason as opposed to a God given mandate that has sketchy origins.  Also, relating to guilt is forgiveness. I see a lot of problems with the type of forgiveness which is attached (I wanted to say sold) with evangelism.   That's a different subject that we should discuss sometime.
> 
> ...



ambush,

You're on here (the forum) more than I am. Find a place we can take this discussion.  You have said a LOAD in this and I would like to discuss it.  You can PM me.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> Thanks.  That says it all.


Nothing like a good cherry pick to take what you want so you don't have to deal with the rest.
But you can't help it, you are programmed to be that way.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> Thanks.  That says it all.



And it's should have said
I do not want to pretend to know him.
I'm typing on a phone and autocorrect and fat fingers constantly have me adding, subtracting  or changing something. Most times my thoughts get ahead of my fingers.


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Nothing like a good cherry pick to take what you want so you don't have to deal with the rest.
> But you can't help it, you are programmed to be that way.



The rest has been dealt with.  You didn't understand.

My point is that ANY language, including gnomes, had to come from intelligence.  I don't care if it's sign language, clicks, or shaking.  Rocks and space gas, and ENERGY, do not communicate, they are not intelligent, they cannot provide the information, so the programming of the human gnome, which is language, could not have come from your energy. 

According to informational science "language" comes from intelligence and you said energy is not intelligent.


To the rest you said you don't want to know God.  That is fine.  That says it all.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> The rest has been dealt with.  You didn't understand.
> 
> My point is that ANY language, including gnomes, had to come from intelligence.  I don't care if it's sign language, clicks, or shaking.  Rocks and space gas, and ENERGY, do not communicate, they are not intelligent, they cannot provide the information, so the programming of the human gnome, which is language, could not have come from your energy.
> 
> ...




Yes, sure YOU understand, I just do not.


Informational Science says intelligence and language is due to evolution. Intelligence and therefore language has not been a constant and has had to evolve as species evolved.

The rest you cannot refute and your only defense it to keep going back to an incorrect statement that you will now use despite having been informed differently.

It is what you do in here, but then again some intelligent ghost hit a couple keys on the keyboard and that is how you are supposed to act so......


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> The rest has been dealt with.  You didn't understand.
> 
> My point is that ANY language, including gnomes, had to come from intelligence.  I don't care if it's sign language, clicks, or shaking.  Rocks and space gas, and ENERGY, do not communicate, they are not intelligent, they cannot provide the information, so the programming of the human gnome, which is language, could not have come from your energy.
> 
> ...



Let's go with language is proof of intelligence and intelligence is proof of a programmer.

Do you expect that one item to be the do all end all nail in the coffin?

Do you want to discuss every trait? Every situation? Every cause and effect outcome? Every scenario that has happened in 4.5 billion years?

Do you want to keep it more simple and discuss why the things are the way they are with this intelligent designer in control?


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Let's go with language is proof of intelligence and intelligence is proof of a programmer.
> 
> Do you expect that one item to be the do all end all nail in the coffin?
> 
> ...




So you admit that language points to a programmer?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> So you admit that language points to a programmer?


 I do not.
For the sake of conversing with you I will go along with it to continue the conversation.

I am dying to see you break it down into a specific programmer. But I am getting the sense you are about to get all Willard on me.


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Informational Science says intelligence and language is due to evolution.



No it does not.  You can't just make this stuff up.  Some evolutionists do, but Informational Science does not delve into evolution.

bullet,  I'm sorry I have to stop.  It is evident I don't have the capacity to help you see what I am trying to say.

If you want to continue to believe that intelligence can come from rocks have at it.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> No it does not.  You can't just make this stuff up.  Some evolutionists do, but Informational Science does not delve into evolution.
> 
> bullet,  I'm sorry I have to stop.  It is evident I don't have the capacity to help you see what I am trying to say.
> 
> If you want to continue to believe that intelligence can come from rocks have at it.



I think I also made the assertion that intelligence can come from rocks in post #180.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> The rest has been dealt with.  You didn't understand.
> 
> My point is that ANY language, including gnomes, had to come from intelligence.  I don't care if it's sign language, clicks, or shaking.  Rocks and space gas, and ENERGY, do not communicate, they are not intelligent, they cannot provide the information, so the programming of the human gnome, which is language, could not have come from your energy.
> 
> ...



I want you to explain it to me on how this programmer programmed language into us/humans for example.

When the programmer lit the fuse to ignite the Big Bang did he sprinkle some vowels and consonants in the firecracker and they floated around the Universe for a few billion years until about  a billion or so years ago when they inserted themselves into single cell organisms? 2 million years ago when they inserted themselve into early human ancestors? 6000 years ago when the bible says two fully formed and fully linguistic humans were whipped up from dirt?

If I have it wrong I'd like you to explain it to me even if you have to use the Informational Sciences to do so.
I have no problem with a copy and paste.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> No it does not.  You can't just make this stuff up.  Some evolutionists do, but Informational Science does not delve into evolution.
> 
> bullet,  I'm sorry I have to stop.  It is evident I don't have the capacity to help you see what I am trying to say.
> 
> If you want to continue to believe that intelligence can come from rocks have at it.


Hey, there you go trying to make it sound like I said intelligence comes from rocks.
You said I said it, but I'll be darned if I can find it in any of my posts.

I guess your programmer put up a firewall in me that will not allow you to be able to reach me. Let's call it an Anti-virus Program.
Is that because the program is faulty?
Is it because that is the way the programmer wanted it?
Is it because there is no program/programmer?


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I want you to explain it to me on how this programmer programmed language into us/humans for example.
> 
> When the programmer lit the fuse to ignite the Big Bang did he sprinkle some vowels and consonants I the firecracker and they floated around the Universe for a few billion years until about  a billion or so years ago when they inserted themselves into single cell organisms? 2 million years ago when they inserted themselve into early human ancestors? 6000 years ago when the bible says two fully formed and fully linguistic humans were whipped up from dirt?
> 
> ...



Yep your right.  sprinkled vowels and all that.  You got it.


----------



## Madman (Feb 16, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> There's no intelligence without the hardware to generate it.  To me, it's all about the hardware.
> 
> That's where you and I disagree.  You see intelligence as a bizarre otherworldly thing so you give it a bizarre, otherworldly origin.  You see it as an impossibility that intelligence could have evolved so, as believers do with many other difficult and unanswered questions you insert God.
> 
> ...



The only thing I have to go on is past experience. and nowhere else in nature do we see intelligence coming from no intelligence.  

Science teaches that everything moves from order to disorder.  That type of additional info would be disorder to order.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> Yep your right.  sprinkled vowels and all that.  You got it.



I don't know what the limits are of my program but I almost think you you might be saying that sarcastically.....

A quick diagnostics check has all my systems functioning normally so I feel I will be able to sit through a lengthy explanation on your end and will allow me to in turn interject any questions or comments along the way as I see fit.

Let's challenge the program and see if it is sound.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I was once a believer that started out on a quest to reinforce my beliefs by easily finding the facts that back up the biblical scripture . On that journey I found it increasingly difficult to back up much of it and that struck me as odd because something so true should not have a problem like that. The more I search and research I am more confident that all of the man made and man written religious stories are just that, man made stories. Once I was able to take a step back and look at it with no pre-conceived bias I was able to compare claims to facts.
> That being said, while I am convinced that all of the man made religions are really just that, man made, I still cannot and probably will not ever know for sure. What I can believe is that if there is some sort of force out there that is either intelligent or unintelligent you, I , no one will ever know it. If it is intelligent enough to do as claimed nobody could possibly begin to understand it. I am convinced that anyone claiming to have a better grasp on such a  being is a liar. Maybe not intentionally a liar like some of these mega preachers, but a liar in that they are only telling them self what they NEED to hear to get them through life.
> So the bottom line is that I cannot say there is not a god (intelligent or otherwise, even though whatever is responsible for this Universe could be called a god) and I cannot say there is.
> You are using your definitions to try to hold me accountable in order to make your points valid.



I'm gonna take this post in sections, if you don't mind.  "Something so true should not have a problem like that".  I've abandoned the argument "God wouldn't do it that way".  It really is illogical to say considering the concept of God.  God just might have revealed Himself in that insane and confusing book.  He may think we're funny.  The Christians may indeed have hold of the truth.   If He did do things the way it says He did in the Bible, He simply isn't worthy of worship. 

The Bible does most certainly have the appearance of being written my Iron Age Middle Eastern men.   There's all that boiler plate stuff that makes excuses and circular arguments for the weakness of the content.  Things like "They won't understand because they don't believe" and "The Word is foolishness to those who don't believe" and "They will make fun of you who believe.  See.  We told you so."


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> The only thing I have to go on is past experience. and nowhere else in nature do we see intelligence coming from no intelligence.
> 
> Science teaches that everything moves from order to disorder.  That type of additional info would be disorder to order.



How did the Earth form?
In a fiery mass consisting of elements crashing together that took billions of years of disorder to form our current "orderly" state?
Or
The world was an immediate oasis and we are on the decline to "disorder"?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> ambush,
> 
> You're on here (the forum) more than I am. Find a place we can take this discussion.  You have said a LOAD in this and I would like to discuss it.  You can PM me.



I can start a new thread.  What would you like me to call it?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I'm gonna take this post in sections, if you don't mind.  "Something so true should not have a problem like that".  I've abandoned the argument "God wouldn't do it that way".  It really is illogical to say considering the concept of God.  God just might have revealed Himself in that insane and confusing book.  He may think we're funny.  The Christians may indeed have hold of the truth.   If He did do things the way it says He did in the Bible, He simply isn't worthy of worship.
> 
> The Bible does most certainly have the appearance of being written my Iron Age Middle Eastern men.   There's all that boiler plate stuff that makes excuses and circular arguments for the weakness of the content.  Things like "They won't understand because they don't believe" and "The Word is foolishness to those who don't believe" and "They will make fun of you who believe.  See.  We told you so."


But I am not saying god wouldn't do it like that.
I am saying that if a god did it I can back it up with facts, or should be able to.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

What do the informational sciences say about the designer or programmer? 
Do they give a name or where it resides?
What information can the informational sciences tell us about it?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

> Information scienceCensoredis anCensoredinterdisciplinary field primarily concerned with the analysis, collection,Censoredclassification, manipulation, storage,Censoredretrieval, movement, dissemination, and protection ofCensoredinformation.[1]CensoredPractitioners within the field study the application and usage of knowledge inCensoredorganizations, along with the interaction between people, organizations and any existingCensoredinformation systems, with the aim of creating, replacing, improving, or understanding information systems.


Madman can you provide any source that shows how Information Science has any collective agreement on any one subject?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> But I am not saying god wouldn't do it like that.
> I am saying that if a god did it I can back it up with facts, or should be able to.



Of course a god could, but that doesn't mean should or would.  They might be right that god made it irrational so that people would have to believe without good evidence.  Can't put it passed a god to do something like that.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

Madman said:


> The only thing I have to go on is past experience. and nowhere else in nature do we see intelligence coming from no intelligence.
> 
> Science teaches that everything moves from order to disorder.  That type of additional info would be disorder to order.



You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth when you use natural observation to justify something and then say that natural observation is not the right tool to determine the nature of reality.

It's the conundrum of apologetic argument.  Is it rational or outside of reason (faith)?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Of course a god could, but that doesn't mean should or would.  They might be right that god made it irrational so that people would have to believe without good evidence.  Can't put it passed a god to do something like that.



It reminds me of the late Doug Henning's quote
"Anything is possible in the World of Illusion"


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> It reminds me of the late Doug Henning's quote
> "Anything is possible in the World of Illusion"




Doug Henning knew that what he was doing was creating illusions.  The Christians might be right.  Don't misunderstand me.  I think there's as much chance that the Zoroastrians, Jews or Hundus might be right. I just think it's unlikely.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

Intelligence involves having knowledge. Knowledge is gained from learning. Learning involves experiencing new things that you have not experienced before.
How can something all knowing be all intelligent unless it gains knowledge by learning something it didn't already know? If it didn't already know it is not all intelligent and if it existed before everything else what did it learn from?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Doug Henning knew that what he was doing was creating illusions.  The Christians might be right.  Don't misunderstand me.  I think there's as much chance that the Zoroastrians, Jews or Hundus might be right. I just think it's unlikely.


The argument can be made that any one of the religions could be right.
All that is missing are the facts that put the money where their mouth is.
The way it is now there is too much left unknown. So for me to agree one is right I'd agree they are all right.
All wrong too.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Speaking for myself only, if there is a god I do not know him,I cannot know him, I do not want to PRETEND know him. If the program is running fine I am supposed to be this way. If the program is corrupt there is something wrong with the programmer and it can't be called god.
> 
> NOW, if there is no God I  can see why I can make a great case for it through nature and evolution.




As I've been saying all along.  God might make himself known through the Bible or The Upanishads or through Joseph Smith.  The question is "What is likely?"  Really the same question, "What is likely", should be first asked about whether God is real or not.  We argue that point a lot. People bring up Willard and Irreducible Complexity in support of the assertion that God is real; not only real but necessary. The other side brings up current Cosmoligic and Physical Science endeavors as proof of why God is unnecessary for the Universe to exist.  Bear in mind that the scientific inquiry never states that God does not exist but that as an entity, God  is unnecessary for the Universe to exist.  Since neither position can definitively prove or disprove the existence of God, the default position should be "No God until further evidence".

When the "evidence" comes down to "I feel it in my heart", which it ultimately does (I don't care if it's Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig or Dinesh D'Souza) we have left the realm of reason.  Elvis has left the building.  I don't want to hang my hat on what someone feels in their heart, not even my own.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> As I've been saying all along.  God might make himself known through the Bible or The Upanishads or through Joseph Smith.  The question is "What is likely?"  Really the same question, "What is likely", should be first asked about whether God is real or not.  We argue that point a lot. People bring up Willard and Irreducible Complexity in support of the assertion that God is real; not only real but necessary. The other side brings up current Cosmoligic and Physical Science endeavors as proof of why God is unnecessary for the Universe to exist.  Bear in mind that the scientific inquiry never states that God does not exist but that as an entity, God  is unnecessary for the Universe to exist.  Since neither position can definitively prove the existence of God, the default position should be "No God until further evidence".
> 
> When the "evidence" comes down to "I feel it in my heart", which it ultimately does (I don't care if it's Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig or Dinesh D'Souza) we have left the realm of reason.  Elvis has left the building.  I don't want to hang my hat on what someone feels in their heart, not even my own.


I can relate to all that.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2016)

bullethead said:


> The argument can be made that any one of the religions could be right.
> All that is missing are the facts that put the money where their mouth is.
> The way it is now there is too much left unknown. So for me to agree one is right I'd agree they are all right.
> All wrong too.



I hear that loud and clear.  The arguments about the veracity of the Bible usually involve Fulfilled Prophesy, which you repeatedly point out that by the same standards, Nostradamus should be considered a diviner of the Ether.  Heck, the prophesy I made might come true.  What would that make me? 

The second argument that Christians make is that the Resurrection of Christ, as an irrefutable truth, is proof of the veracity of the Bible.   Sometimes they say "Why would people die for something they know isn't true?".  Anybody that does just a little inquiry into the power of belief can explain why that could happen.

The third most popular piece of evidence I've noticed is "I feel it in my heart" or "He spoke to me, pricked my heart, took off the blinders.......".  In all sincerity, what is one supposed to make of that?  A skeptical, rational inquiry will show how those experiences, though extremely powerful, may not be reflective of the truth.  That's whay I posted the Derren Brown (and the Michael Shermer) video(s) in the first place.  If someone is honest with themselves and first admits "I can be fooled" then they can do some homework and understand how they got fooled.  You've got to admit it first.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I hear that loud and clear.  The arguments about the veracity of the Bible usually involve Fulfilled Prophesy, which you repeatedly point out that by the same standards, Nostradamus should be considered a diviner of the Ether.  Heck, the prophesy I made might come true.  What would that make me?
> 
> The second argument that Christians make is that the Resurrection of Christ, as an irrefutable truth, is proof of the veracity of the Bible.   Sometimes they say "Why would people die for something they know isn't true?".  Anybody that does just a little inquiry into the power of belief can explain why that could happen.
> 
> The third most popular piece of evidence I've noticed is "I feel it in my heart" or "He spoke to me, pricked, my heart, took off the blinders.......".  In all sincerity, what is one supposed to make of that?  A skeptical, rational inquiry will show how those experiences, though extremely powerful, may not be reflective of the truth.  That's whay I posted the Derren Brown (and the Michael Shermer) video(s) in the first place.  If someone is honest with themselves and first admits "I can be fooled" then they can do some homework and understand how they got fooled.  You've got to admit it first.


1 and 3 are arguments that can go with any religion.
2. Has a few religions that claim resurrections, and even within Christianity there are a few people resurrected in the NT.
It is the silence of resurrection outside of religion that speaks the loudest to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2016)

bullethead said:


> 1 and 3 are arguments that can go with any religion.
> 2. Has a few religions that claim resurrections, and even within Christianity there are a few people resurrected in the NT.
> It is the silence of resurrection outside of religion that speaks the loudest to me.



Excellent point.

It seems like a subject best suited to Biology or Medicine, just as the existence of Dragons should be studied by Zoology.  Resurrection should be at the top of the list for Medical Research.  Why isn't it?


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth when you use natural observation to justify something and then say that natural observation is not the right tool to determine the nature of reality.
> 
> It's the conundrum of apologetic argument.  Is it rational or outside of reason (faith)?



What do we see in nature that Christianity soes not have a reasonable response too?


----------



## 660griz (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> What do we see in nature that Christianity soes not have a reasonable response too?



Homosexuality.
I guess I should have gotten clarification on 'reasonable', but whatever.
I am sure to some, it is reasonable.


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

bullethead said:


> The argument can be made that any one of the religions could be right.
> All that is missing are the facts that put the money where their mouth is.
> The way it is now there is too much left unknown. So for me to agree one is right I'd agree they are all right.
> All wrong too.



What do you see in Jediism that fits what you see in your world?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> What do you see in Jediism that fits what you see in your world?


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

ambush80 said:


>



That answers your previous question.

Jesus was a Jedi.


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> Homosexuality.
> I guess I should have gotten clarification on 'reasonable', but whatever.
> I am sure to some, it is reasonable.



And the point is?


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

bullethead said:


> and even within Christianity there are a few people resurrected in the NT.



Only one so far.

It is imperative you understand what you are trying to debunk.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> And the point is?



Sigh.

Christianity doesn't have a reasonable response to homosexuality. i.e. Found in nature, aka natural.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> Only one so far.
> 
> It is imperative you understand what you are trying to debunk.



What? There is like 7 or resurrections in the NT.
Not sure on the exact number but, I can look it up. I know it is more than 1, less than 20.


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> The second argument that Christians make is that the Resurrection of Christ, as an irrefutable truth, is proof of the veracity of the Bible.   Sometimes they say "Why would people die for something they know isn't true?".



Why didn't the Jewish leaders produce a body?  How did a raggedy band of 11 followers get past guards, and move a stone. Where did they take the body?  Pretty hard to hide a rotting corpse.

I see nothing inside nor outside the Biblical writings that explains that.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> That answers your previous question.
> 
> Jesus was a Jedi.



I'm not convinced of what Yoda was saying either.  I ain't never seen no X-Wing Fighter get levitated in real life.  

Are we really talking about Yoda being a good basis for a belief system?  If we are then I would say he's just as good as Jesus in that respect.  I would urge against believing that either of them and their super powers are real and they should be regarded as mythical creatures that tell semi-instructive fables.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> Why didn't the Jewish leaders produce a body?  How did a raggedy band of 11 followers get past guards, and move a stone. Where did they take the body?  Pretty hard to hide a rotting corpse.
> 
> I see nothing inside nor outside the Biblical writings that explains that.



There are more possibilities than the ones you mention.  I wouldn't dare to attempt to suggest a theory of what could have happened.  It's not my field of expertise. I wouldn't even try to make a judgement about the historicity of the event as recorded in the Bible.  Some people have.  Their theories should be examined and scrutinized properly like any other theory.  

What I will criticize about the Biblical account is the assertion of the resurrection and the existence of angels.   The miracle claims of the Bible will ALWAYS be a problem for me.  I will have to be convinced that miracles of those kind can happen.  Can you do it?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> There's no intelligence without the hardware to generate it.  To me, it's all about the hardware.
> 
> That's where you and I disagree.  You see intelligence as a bizarre otherworldly thing so you give it a bizarre, otherworldly origin.  You see it as an impossibility that intelligence could have evolved so, as believers do with many other difficult and unanswered questions you insert God.
> 
> ...



Madman,

Do you think this theory is possible?


----------



## 660griz (Feb 17, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> There are more possibilities than the ones you mention.  I wouldn't dare to attempt to suggest a theory of what could have happened.



Me neither. I don't know what happened. I do know what didn't happen. An actual dead person being resurrected.


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> What? There is like 7 or resurrections in the NT.
> Not sure on the exact number but, I can look it up. I know it is more than 1, less than 20.



Name them.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> Me neither. I don't know what happened. I do know what didn't happen. An actual dead person being resurrected.




Highly unlikely to the point of impossibility.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> Name them.



Jesus resurrects the widow's son at Nain 

Luke 7:13-15 (KJV) 
13 And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. 
14 And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. 
15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

Jesus raises Jairus' daughter from the dead

Matthew 9:25 (KJV) 
25 But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose. 

See also Mark 5:42, and Luke 8:55 

Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead

John 11:43-44 (KJV) 
43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 
44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. 

Many saints resurrected at Jesus' crucifixion

Matthew 27:52-53 (KJV)
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 

Â Christ's resurrection

Matthew 28:5-7 (KJV) 
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 

See also Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-11, and John 20:1-10

Peter raises a female disciple named Tabitha from the dead

Acts 9:36-42 (KJV) 
36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did. 
37 And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber. 
38 And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them. 
39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them. 
40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up. 
41 And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive. 
42 And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord. 

Paul raises Eutychus from the dead

Acts 20:9-12 (KJV) 
9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. 
10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. 
11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. 
12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. 

Â A strong possibility that Paul was raised from the dead

Acts 14:19-20 (KJV)
19 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. 
20 Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Christianity doesn't have a reasonable response to homosexuality. i.e. Found in nature, aka natural.



Sigh.

Alcoholism is found in nature also.  

What should be the Christian response to a life style fraught with depression, addictions, and disease ?


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> Jesus resurrects the widow's son at Nain
> 
> Luke 7:13-15 (KJV)
> 13 And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.
> ...



All but one died again and is buried. Reanimation does not fit the Christian definition of resurrection.

Psalm 16:10

Acts 2:14-38


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

An eternal Self sufficient being fits what we see better than, information from rocks, something from nothing, order from disorder, etc.

The non believer has a LOT of things to work out in their world view also.

Belief is a moral decision not an intellectual one.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> All but one died again and is buried. Reanimation does not fit the Christian definition of resurrection.



Funny. I got those from Christian websites. I guess they didn't get the memo about not using English definitions.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> Belief is a moral decision not an intellectual one.



O.k. Whatever makes you feel better.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> An eternal Self sufficient being fits what we see better than, information from rocks, something from nothing, order from disorder, etc.



And that being could be Puff the Magic Dragon, but why is it that Puff doesn't get any traction?  Because he's only mentioned in a weird book full of bizarre stories? 



Madman said:


> The non believer has a LOT of things to work out in their world view also.
> 
> Belief is a moral decision not an intellectual one.



Intellectually based morality will never get you to stoning.  I agree, having to think stuff through is a tough row to hoe but better than taking the word of people who didn't know what germs are.


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> Funny. I got those from Christian websites. I guess they didn't get the memo about not using English definitions.




griz,  even you are capable of knowing the difference.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resurrection

None of those places, other than in the instance of Jesus, does Scripture use the term resurrection.

Find another nit to pick.


----------



## Madman (Feb 17, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> And that being could be Puff the Magic Dragon, but why is it that Puff doesn't get any traction?  Because he's only mentioned in a weird book full of bizarre stories?


What has Puff done to reveal himself to creation?




ambush80 said:


> Intellectually based morality will never get you to stoning.  I agree, having to think stuff through is a tough row to hoe but better than taking the word of people who didn't know what germs are.



Never seen where a Christian was told by God to Stone anyone.

Go back and do as much research on why that passage is in the Bible as you do trying to justify an eternal effect or order from disorder.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> Why didn't the Jewish leaders produce a body?  How did a raggedy band of 11 followers get past guards, and move a stone. Where did they take the body?  Pretty hard to hide a rotting corpse.
> 
> I see nothing inside nor outside the Biblical writings that explains that.


If you want to believe those writings are true  then you have to look at the facts within those writings that show the authors were not only not there, but we're unfamiliar with procedures.

The Roman Legion never sent just two guards anywhere. 
Falling to sleep on the job is a death sentence.
Roman guards would have never reported anything to Jewish Pharisees.

I have written in lengthy detail about this in another thread.

Here is the thread, where much of what you are talking about now and where you are headed, that has already dealt with it in detail.
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=847117


----------



## 660griz (Feb 17, 2016)

Madman said:


> griz,  even you are capable of knowing the difference.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resurrection
> 
> None of those places, other than in the instance of Jesus, does Scripture use the term resurrection.
> 
> Find another nit to pick.



I find it humorous that you constantly feel the need to slide in a few intelligence jabs while constantly stating opinion as facts that EVERY ONE that isn't stupid should know yet, can't figure out a simple definition of resurrection.

There is the definition:
resurrection

1.a. a rising from the dead, or coming back to life
b. the state of having risen from the dead

Then there is "The Resurrection" which we all know that story. 

Now, if I say I have unlawfully, and with premeditation killed another human being. 
No where in there did I mention murder.  Jeesh!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 17, 2016)

660griz said:


> I find it humorous that you constantly feel the need to slide in a few intelligence jabs while constantly stating opinion as facts that EVERY ONE that isn't stupid should know yet, can't figure out a simple definition of resurrection.
> 
> There is the definition:
> resurrection
> ...


Madman's  definition, like the often plagiarized  escapades he refers to as facts, exists only in his bible.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 17, 2016)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection
Christianity doesn't have the market cornered.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2016)

Madman said:


> What has Puff done to reveal himself to creation?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Puff was an incomplete example.  An example with more parity would be Zeus or Buddah.  But as far as revelation goes, Puff is equal to Jesus (the super powered being depiction, not the man) in the task; equally magical, equally wondrous, equally fictional.

Make the argument against stoning to those who still stone in His name or burn witches alive.  It doesn't have to be stoning.  Use the example of Abraham and Issac.  There's no rational reason to suggest slaughtering someone's son in offering.  Whatever "lesson" you will have to try to conjure from the story could have been had by less barbaric means.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 18, 2016)

Madman said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Alcoholism is found in nature also.


 What is the Christian definition of nature or natural?
Since alcoholics and alcoholism is related to 'man' only.
While some animals have been known to indulge I don't think that qualifies as an alcoholic. 



> What should be the Christian response to a life style fraught with depression, addictions, and disease ?



AA?

But, what has this got to do with your original statement. I gave you an example of something Christians DON'T have a reasonable response to that actually occurs in nature.


----------

