# How Intellectual is Atheism?



## reformedpastor

How much knowledge does a person need to become an atheist? 

I pose this question because, as I read various arguments,  it is often promoted on this forum that atheism is a superior expression of intelligence. 

Or does it have anything to do with intellectualism and is it really a moral question. All invited to express your views.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

This is in the wrong forum


----------



## Paymaster

Dixie Dawg said:


> This is in the wrong forum



I agree.So I moved it.


----------



## rjcruiser

reformedpastor said:


> How much knowledge does a person need to become an atheist?





Dixie Dawg said:


> This is in the wrong forum





Paymaster said:


> I agree.So I moved it.




Enough to get a thread in the right forum  



Sorry reformed...I just couldn't resist.

Good question though..I'd like to know the answer myself.


----------



## gtparts

My answer is simply less than the Truth.


----------



## WTM45

All you have to do is to see much of the imagery found in the  Christianity belief system was gathered from previous belief systems.  Many pagan stories, images and ideals are shared, and a little was taken by those who wrote, interpreted and put together the book some base everything they know on.

Imagination is a powerful thing.


----------



## reformedpastor

Actually, it was the right forum since we are discussing epistemology - the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and origin of knowledge. Epistemology asks the question “How do we know what we know?”

Ultimately its a religious question.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> All you have to do is to see much of the imagery found in the  Christianity belief system was gathered from previous belief systems.  Many pagan stories, images and ideals are shared, and a little was taken by those who wrote, interpreted and put together the book some base everything they know on.
> 
> Imagination is a powerful thing.



This isn't answering my question. All you are doing is exposing your ignorance and prejudice against Christianity.

What are the determining factors of atheism? 

What would be considered the apex of atheist literature?


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> This isn't answering my question. All you are doing is exposing your ignorance and prejudice against Christianity.
> 
> What are the determining factors of atheism?
> 
> What would be considered the apex of atheist literature?



Kind of a loaded question from the OP.

You're trying to fit atheism into the only mold you know, the religious mold. We don't have a holy book or holy person that we think is infallible.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> This isn't answering my question. All you are doing is exposing your ignorance and prejudice against Christianity.
> 
> What are the determining factors of atheism?
> 
> What would be considered the apex of atheist literature?



That might be all you can observe through my style of communication here.  I know otherwise.



In all honestly, unless a person is able to break away from the illusion that the words of the holy books are the only guides to be found and heeded regarding life here on earth, they will not open up to any other thought regarding the origin and future of man.

A deity can not be totally proven or totally disproven.  Eternity is a concept that can not be proven.  Each person must find their own satisfaction in following their heart and mind, develop faith if necessary to their belief, and then act in accordance with their beliefs.


----------



## gordon 2

WTM45 said:


> All you have to do is to see much of the imagery found in the  Christianity belief system was gathered from previous belief systems.  Many pagan stories, images and ideals are shared, and a little was taken by those who wrote, interpreted and put together the book some base everything they know on.
> 
> Imagination is a powerful thing.



Man's spiritual nature is a real documented, historical thing, yes. Imagination, can be powerfull I guess.... Imagine thinking man can fly like a bird! geee...


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Kind of a loaded question from the OP.
> 
> You're trying to fit atheism into the only mold you know, the religious mold. We don't have a holy book or holy person that we think is infallible.



And you are trying to fit religion into a mold you do not know. One that denies the metaphysical.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> That might be all you can observe through my style of communication here.  I know otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> In all honestly, unless a person is able to break away from the illusion that the words of the holy books are the only guides to be found and heeded regarding life here on earth, they will not open up to any other thought regarding the origin and future of man.
> 
> A deity can not be totally proven or totally disproven.  Eternity is a concept that can not be proven.  Each person must find their own satisfaction in following their heart and mind, develop faith if necessary to their belief, and then act in accordance with their beliefs.



If I write the number two on a chalk board is that the number two? 

More later gotta run..............


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> How much knowledge does a person need to become an atheist?




None.

It takes only the realization that you do not know.


----------



## gordon 2

Yes it is mostly intelectual in my view. The  present day arguments of athiest go back to the 1800 in my view...

Lots of british stuff out there. Robert Owen comes to mind and others namely artists etc...which I don't recall the names. 

Most were original and intelectually honest. The new brand of athiest seem to be less honest in that they do not pause to douth that they might entertian errors in their logic.

 Most athiest seriously find the world a dung heap and blame it on religion and belief in the devine. It is easy to understand a young person born say 20 yrs ago for doubting the benefits of religion and christians when one studies the history of the last 20 yrs in our communities. Our political and religious leaders have not exactly been good examples. As a matter of fact, young people have a case that they are spiritual hypocrits in my view.

I think that athiest are just raging against a generation, like kids rebel against parents so they can get going on their own  and get their act together.

The intelect is a powerful aspect of human nature especially to the young person armed with it and the intelect will say if spiritual life  leads in many cases to hypocracy, logic and intelligence are its only counter and in it hopes are pinned.

The pins are on a donkey in my view. In time they will know that when moma is not happy it don't matter how much intellect one can carry, moma is from another orbit.

Athiest are enjoying a fad, like buckells on men's shoes, speedo baithing suits, studs in the nose etc...

Some athiest are honest, but many are just mocking christianity, religion and faith because it is fashionable to say Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- to complicated human issues.

In the case of  the athiest intellect the grass is often yellow in the neigbours yard.  Somethings just have to run their course... For example the pucks of yesterday are the serious citizens of today....

So yes it is mostly intelectual...


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> If I write the number two on a chalk board is that the number two?
> 
> More later gotta run..............



To those with eyesight, who are in viewing distance of the chalkboard, and who understand the numerical system and place value notation digits, they will recognize the thought communicated in that written digit.

Take care, pastor!


----------



## WTM45

gordon 2 said:


> Yes it is mostly intelectual in my view. The  present day arguments of athiest go back to the 1800 in my view...
> 
> Lots of british stuff out there. Robert Owen comes to mind and others namely artists etc...which I don't recall the names.
> 
> Most were original and intelectually honest. The new brand of athiest seem to be less honest in that they do not pause to douth that they might entertian errors in their logic.
> 
> Most athiest seriously find the world a dung heap and blame it on religion and belief in the devine. It is easy to understand a young person born say 20 yrs ago for doubting the benefits of religion and christians when one studies the history of the last 20 yrs in our communities. Our political and religious leaders have not exactly been good examples. As a matter of fact, young people have a case that they are spiritual hypocrits in my view.
> 
> I think that athiest are just raging against a generation, like kids rebel against parents so they can get going on their own  and get their act together.
> 
> The intelect is a powerful aspect of human nature especially to the young person armed with it and the intelect will say if spiritual life  leads in many cases to hypocracy, logic and intelligence are its only counter and in it hopes are pinned.
> 
> The pins are on a donkey in my view. In time they will know that when moma is not happy it don't matter how much intellect one can carry, moma is from another orbit.
> 
> Athiest are enjoying a fad, like buckells on men's shoes, speedo baithing suits, studs in the nose etc...
> 
> Some athiest are honest, but many are just mocking christianity, religion and faith because it is fashionable to say Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- to complicated human issues.
> 
> In the case of  the athiest intellect the grass is often yellow in the neigbours yard.  Somethings just have to run their course... For example the pucks of yesterday are the serious citizens of today....
> 
> So yes it is mostly intelectual...



Some good thoughts here, some are off by a mile.
Disbelief in religious systems will be as long as there are religious belief systems.

Lots of gods have been the flavor of the month.  If there is anything that has remained the same it is the questioning nature of those who will not fall easily for a belief system, whether it be religiously or politically based.


----------



## footjunior

wtm45 said:


> disbelief in religious systems will be as long as there are religious belief systems.
> 
> Lots of gods have been the flavor of the month.  If there is anything that has remained the same it is the questioning nature of those who will not fall easily for a belief system, whether it be religiously or politically based.



qft


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> None.
> 
> It takes only the realization that you do not know.



Not really that would be an agnostic. You are patently denying there is a God or the possibility of one.


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> Not really that would be an agnostic. You are patently denying there is a God or the possibility of one.




LOL.  I realized I would get this response about 5minutes ago.

Allow me to amend my statement.  This might sound arrogant to 5solas.

To be an atheist does not take any specific knowledge.  As I've said before, we are all born atheists.  It takes realizing that you do not know, _and neither does anyone else_.

You're right though.  At that point, it's merely agnosticism.  The next step takes only a bit of mental courage.


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> LOL.  I realized I would get this response about 5minutes ago.
> 
> Allow me to amend my statement.  This might sound arrogant to 5solas.
> 
> To be an atheist does not take any specific knowledge.  As I've said before, we are all born atheists.  It takes realizing that you do not know, _and neither does anyone else_.
> 
> You're right though.  At that point, it's merely agnosticism.  The next step takes only a bit of mental courage.



You see this is where we split on the idea of Atheism NOT being a religion. You BELIEVE we are born Atheists and are taught about God. If we are created in God's image as we believe then you know him from the womb and rebel against his authority from that moment on.


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> You see this is where we split on the idea of Atheism NOT being a religion. You BELIEVE we are born Atheists and are taught about God. If we are created in God's image as we believe then you know him from the womb and rebel against his authority from that moment on.



No.  I KNOW we are all born without any belief in this thing mommy and daddy call "God" as surely as we are born without a belief in Santa Claus.  

You BELIEVE there is a god in who's image we are created.

Atheism is not a religion.  It is a state of mind.  A disposition.


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> You see this is where we split on the idea of Atheism NOT being a religion. You BELIEVE we are born Atheists and are taught about God. If we are created in God's image as we believe then you know him from the womb and rebel against his authority from that moment on.




The idea of a deity is taught.  Indoctrinated early, imprinted by the adults who nurture the child.


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> No.  I KNOW we are all born without any belief in this thing mommy and daddy call "God" as surely as we are born without a belief in Santa Claus.
> 
> You BELIEVE there is a god in who's image we are created.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is a state of mind.  A disposition.



Nope... Not buying it. 

If you have your idea on how we got morals and where we come from then you answer the questions of faith. And you cannot prove your position. So you have a belief system and therefor a Religion. Well maybe with a little "r".


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> The idea of a deity is taught.  Indoctrinated early, imprinted by the adults who nurture the child.



Then what about those who come to God but are not taught by society or their parents?


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Then what about those who come to God but are not taught by society or their parents?



Could you name someone who has done this? You're speaking of feral children I assume? You believe that Incans came to God before the Conquistadors came from the Old World?


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> And you cannot prove your position.




And you cannot prove yours.  Which is partly my point.  So, the logical default is "no" until such time as you can offer unambiguous evidence to the contrary.


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> Then what about those who come to God but are not taught by society or their parents?




What FJ said.   Who exactly are these people?


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> And you cannot prove yours.  Which is partly my point.  So, the logical default is "no" until such time as you can offer unambiguous evidence to the contrary.



Actually it isn't logical. Kind of like believing in air or not. You can see the affects of it. Not accepting it does not mean it is logical. You can see the affects of God in lives and in history. 

It's your God given right to deny him. Ironic huh?


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> You can see the affects of God in lives and in history.



You can see the effects of a belief in God in lives and in history.

Do you see the effects of Allah or the effects of the belief in Allah?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Could you name someone who has done this? You're speaking of feral children I assume? You believe that Incans came to God before the Conquistadors came from the Old World?



Nope. I am talking about people in the rain forest who have no contact with the outside world. Muslims who are visited by Christ and later are matyred for believing in him yet have no access to missionaries or christians of any kind. 

There are plenty of anecdotes on these cases. Just don't set it up as a social issue or lack of intelligence that brings people to God.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> You can see the effects of a belief in God in lives and in history.
> 
> Do you see the effects of Allah or the effects of the belief in Allah?



Never said you didn't. You see the affects of everything. You just chose to deny it.


----------



## pnome

footjunior said:


> You can see the effects of a belief in God in lives and in history.
> 
> Do you see the effects of Allah or the effects of the belief in Allah?




This


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Nope. I am talking about people in the rain forest who have no contact with the outside world. Muslims who are visited by Christ and later are matyred for believing in him yet have no access to missionaries or christians of any kind.
> 
> There are plenty of anecdotes on these cases.



If they are so plenty, could you perhaps give an example? So then you are saying that there are feral children who have come to God? You're saying "Nope" to what?


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Never said you didn't. You see the affects of everything. You just chose to deny it.



Do you see the effects of Allah or the effects of the belief in Allah?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

reformedpastor said:


> Actually, it was the right forum since we are discussing epistemology - the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and origin of knowledge. Epistemology asks the question “How do we know what we know?”
> 
> Ultimately its a religious question.



It was in the wrong forum.  That forum is not for discussion. It is for prayer and spiritual support.  THIS forum is for discussion, as you stated in red


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> If they are so plenty, could you perhaps give an example? So then you are saying that there are feral children who have come to God? You're saying "Nope" to what?



Read Foot. There are lots of examples on this but once I post them you will say that since it is from a Christian source it can't be credited. You've done it before. This is where our discussions break down. 

And maybe you should read my posts before coming to a conclusion. Nope is saying No that was not what I was referring to. While I understand the idea of feral children and the history of them that is not at all what I was saying.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Do you see the effects of Allah or the effects of the belief in Allah?



Want to get in an oval and go round and round??? Not arguing that point. You can chose to but you will be chasing your own tail. 

Allah has his presence thru the people of the earth who follow him. An entity that was suggested to Mohammed thru more than likely Satan himself not the angel Gabriel. And that was actually Mohammed's first conclusion until believe it or not a Christian (who was a very new convert) convinced him otherwise... Talk about irony...


----------



## watashot89

cause i dont like the hastle of reading the bible and praying all the time. and theres a bunch of stuff that is "sin" that is fun and i enjoy it so im gunna do it. and i dont believe that god has been here for FOREVER. there has to be a answer besides he has always been. cause no he hasnt.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Read Foot. There are lots of examples on this but once I post them you will say that since it is from a Christian source it can't be credited. You've done it before. This is where our discussions break down.



So you're saying that you can't find a secular piece of literature that backs up what you're saying?

Reminds me of the problem me and you had against fivesolas in the other thread. He made a assumption, didn't back it up, and then wondered why we didn't just take it on face value.

You've made an assumption that there are cases "about people in the rain forest who have no contact with the outside world", you have provided no data in congruence with your assumption, and you are expecting me to take it on face value.

Could you answer these questions?

Do you think there were Incans that lived before the Conquistadors who believed in the Christian God?

Do you think there are instances of feral children who have come to believe in the Christian God?



> And maybe you should read my posts before coming to a conclusion. Nope is saying No that was not what I was referring to. While I understand the idea of feral children and the history of them that is not at all what I was saying.



Well... I guess that's why I asked you what "Nope" was referring to.


----------



## hoytman

You have apparently answered your own question. Who are these people who were not raised by society or their parents. Maybe the Geico man.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Want to get in an oval and go round and round??? Not arguing that point. You can chose to but you will be chasing your own tail.
> 
> Allah has his presence thru the people of the earth who follow him. An entity that was suggested to Mohammed thru more than likely Satan himself not the angel Gabriel.



Why can't you just answer the question in a direct format instead of trying to dance around it by giving reasons why me and you shouldn't discuss it?

Do you see the effects of Allah or the effects of belief of Allah?


----------



## celticfisherman

Hoytman- Society is not what we are discussing. Society with God is what we are discussing. Christian God in particular.

Foot- Why the world would secular society write on the finding of God by someone? I'm sure that isn't the problem I had with 5solas.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Why can't you just answer the question in a direct format instead of trying to dance around it by giving reasons why me and you shouldn't discuss it?
> 
> Do you see the effects of Allah or the effects of belief of Allah?



I did. Read. Also explained where it came from.

Foot you only believe everyone dances around you.


----------



## celticfisherman

This was just to good to pass up...


Through countless discussions surrounding atheism, it has become apparent that someone must be feeding bad advice to atheists.  Since the following errors are made repeatedly, this partial list has been populated to warn atheists of this underground movement in order for them to avoid these pitfalls.  If you are an atheist and hear any of the following advice, realize that if used, it will be harmful to your cause.

1. Assume that because you compare theism to believing in pink unicorns or fairy tales that you have made a good argument.

2. Become hostile and use degrading vulgarities while maintaining that Christianity is an immoral religion.

3. When you are having trouble answering an argument posed by a Christian theist, simply say, “well even if this were true, it doesn’t prove the existence of the ‘Christian’ God.”

4. Assume that simply because you explain a phenomena from a naturalistic perspective that it constitutes an argument which must be true.

5. When arguing against the Christian God, simply say that you only believe in “one less god” than most people, as if that does not require you to defend an atheistic understanding of cosmology, anthropology, ethics, philosophy of history, philosophy of politics, philosophy of science, and epistemology.

6. Make metaphysical statements that suggest that metaphysics are a useless waste of time.

7. Argue that we should only believe things proven by empirical evidence without proving it with empirical evidence.

8. Use logic like it is a universal, transcendent, unchanging reality when atheistic naturalism cannot account for universal, transcendent, unchanging realities.

9. Argue that there is no evidence to believe in the existence of God because all the evidence that is produced fails to pass the standards of evidence which have been constructed from the belief that God does not exist.

10. Argue that human beings are robots, puppets, and machines programmed by natural selection in a closed system of cause and effect, and then argue for free thought and moral agency.

11. Place your ultimate trust in human reason while believing that man’s mind evolved from lower animals such as monkeys and will continue to evolve until we become the monkeys from which the minds of the future will have evolved.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Foot- Why the world would secular society write on the finding of God by someone?



So you're not going to provide data? Ok.



> I did. Read. Also explained where it came from.
> 
> Foot you only believe everyone dances around you.



Well... since you refuse to simply answer the question in a direct manner, I'm going to have to interpret:

You think that there is not a God by the name of Allah who actually, objectively exists. Muhammed saw what was probably just ol' Satan. You don't see the effects Allah, you see the effects of the belief in Allah.

And whats up with the copy and pasting of that list? Shouldn't that be a new thread?

I thought this was too good to pass up:


----------



## Madman

I don't belive in atheists.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> So you're not going to provide data? Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> Well... since you refuse to simply answer the question in a direct manner, I'm going to have to interpret:
> 
> You think that there is not a God by the name of Allah who actually, objectively exists. Muhammed saw what was probably just ol' Satan. You don't see the effects Allah, you see the effects of the belief in Allah.
> 
> And whats up with the copy and pasting of that list? Shouldn't that be a new thread?
> 
> I thought this was too good to pass up:



Just because you don't understand doesn't mean I didn't answer.

But since you continued the discussion with the voices in your head apparently I will answer and correct this way. The affects of God in this world are proof of his existence. The affects of Allah are proof of the existence of Evil. Maybe that was more down on your level. If you want to get petty.


----------



## celticfisherman

Madman said:


> I don't belive in atheists.



I agree with you there...


----------



## Madman

For someone to be an atheists they are professing to be god. They are claiming to have infinite knowledge. Knowledge that there is not know nor has there ever been evidence of a creator.  I don't believe them.  Tell me you are agnostic but not an atheist that is dishonest.


----------



## footjunior

Why can't you just be rigorous when someone asks you to? Where have I been "petty"?



> down on your level


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Why can't you just be rigorous when someone asks you to? Where have I been "petty"?



Pretty much every post again. You have days when I believe you want to talk and discuss. This isn't one of them. So preach on...


----------



## celticfisherman

Henny Youngman-

I once wanted to be an Atheist but I gave up. They have no holidays...


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> For someone to be an atheists they are professing to be god.



No. I'm an atheist, and I am not professing to be God.



> They are claiming to have infinite knowledge.



No. I'm an atheist, and I'm not claiming to have infinite knowledge.



> Knowledge that there is not know nor has there ever been evidence of a creator.



No. I'm an atheist, and I'm not claiming to know that there has never been evidence of a creator.



> I don't believe them.



Dang if someone said those things I wouldn't believe them either!


----------



## Madman

> No. I'm an atheist, and I'm not claiming to have infinite knowledge.


Then you are admiting that there may be some evidence somewhere that there is a god.


----------



## celticfisherman

No just that he KNOWS there is no God. How??? He KNOWS.


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1 KJV) and "The wise in heart will receive Commandments: but a prating fool shall fall." (Proverbs 10:8 KJV).


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> Then you are admiting that there may be some evidence somewhere that there is a god.



I'm saying that there is plenty of evidence out there that could easily be interpreted as evidence for a god.



> No just that he KNOWS there is no God. How??? He KNOWS.



Not saying that either. Man is that really what ya'll think of atheists?


----------



## celticfisherman

Not only is that what I think but it's what you put forth. That there is no God. You are willing to bet on it with your very life. So I would pretty much assume you are sure and have more knowledge than all the rest of us. And by this I mean you must have knowledge of the entire universe and how it was created without doubt and without any apprehensions. So to follow that on out... Yes we have now been fortunate enough to be visited on this forum by God. FJ himself.


----------



## Madman

> I'm saying that there is plenty of evidence out there that could easily be interpreted as evidence for a god.



The definition of atheist is "some who denies the existance of god."



> Not saying that either. Man is that really what ya'll think of atheists?



So if you believe there is evidence for god how are you an atheist?


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> The affects of God in this world are proof of his existence. The affects of Allah are proof of the existence of Evil.



Muslims feel and believe just the opposite.  Who is right?

Quite possibly, they both are.


"Two men say the're Jesus,
One of them must be wrong!"
Dire Straits, "Industrial Disease"


----------



## celticfisherman

C.S. Lewis-

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell. 


If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> The definition of atheist is "some who denies the existance of god."
> 
> 
> 
> So if you believe there is evidence for god how are you an atheist?



It's that little word FJ used in his statements you are addressing, "interpretation"......


----------



## Madman

> "Two men say the're Jesus,
> One of them must be wrong!"



the one who rose from the dead.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Muslims feel and believe just the opposite.  Who is right?
> 
> Quite possibly, they both are.
> 
> 
> "Two men say the're Jesus,
> One of them must be wrong!"
> Dire Straits, "Industrial Disease"



We need a harder question. Who is right is by fruit. Look at the fruit of Islam??? Look at the fruit of Christianity.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> It's that little word "interpretation"......



aâ‹…theâ‹…istâ€‚   â€‚[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation   
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Not only is that what I think but it's what you put forth. That there is no God. You are willing to bet on it with your very life. So I would pretty much assume you are sure and have more knowledge than all the rest of us. And by this I mean you must have knowledge of the entire universe and how it was created without doubt and without any apprehensions. So to follow that on out...



Obviously you don't really believe that I claim to have knowledge of the origin of the universe since I have stated numerous times in the past that I simply do not know the origin of the universe. The difference between the atheists (who say they don't know) and the theists is that the theists claim to have an answer to that question. Therefore, wouldn't it be the theist who is claiming to have more knowledge than the atheist on this question?


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> Not only is that what I think but it's what you put forth. That there is no God. You are willing to bet on it with your very life. So I would pretty much assume you are sure and have more knowledge than all the rest of us. And by this I mean you must have knowledge of the entire universe and how it was created without doubt and without any apprehensions. So to follow that on out... Yes we have now been fortunate enough to be visited on this forum by God. FJ himself.



Flipping that coin reveals the tenent of Pascal's Wager, believing in the story only in order to prevent the possibility of an eternity without hope, which is also unproven and impossible to know exists.

Hey, nothing wrong with doing just that.  Some folks just don't want to put their belief in a book of stories written by men.  They dont believe in God, therefore you can not refute their stance by quoting from anything man has labeled a holy book.

No need for insults.   It just is.  And, no one has to change how they believe because of anyone else!
It's all discussion.  That is all.


----------



## Madman

> It's that little word "interpretation"......



There is no "interpretation" of your own ideas.  You either believe or you don't.  
The other option would be that you have been disingenuous throughout this discussion.


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> We need a harder question. Who is right is by fruit. Look at the fruit of Islam??? Look at the fruit of Christianity.



They think little of our production, we think even less of theirs.  Yep, they lump everything American in as Christian, what you consider good and bad.  We do the same to them, lumping in murderers and the holy leaders.

Fruit.  That's individual interpretation.  Can't even get all Christians of their varied persuasions to come together on that one.


----------



## Madman

> The difference between the atheists (who say they don't know)



That is not an atheist, that is an agnostic (without knowledge)


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> The definition of atheist is "some who denies the existance of god."
> 
> So if you believe there is evidence for god how are you an atheist?



This has been discussed plenty of times before. There very well could be a god, gods, goddess, or goddesses, etc. There very well could be evidence to support the claim that one of these entities exist. Until I see evidence that convinces me that one of these entities exist, I will be an atheist.

The many uses of "atheist" often causes confusion for believers. Under some definitions, I am not an atheist. Under others I am an agnostic. Under others I am an atheist.


----------



## WTM45

footjunior said:


> I'm saying that there is plenty of evidence out there that could easily be interpreted as evidence for a god.



Madman, he said INTERPRETED as evidence, not proof.
A very accurate statement indeed.

That's pretty much up to the individual reviewing the evidence for themselves.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Flipping that coin reveals the tenent of Pascal's Wager, believing in the story only in order to prevent the possibility of an eternity without hope, which is also unproven and impossible to know exists.
> 
> Hey, nothing wrong with doing just that.  Some folks just don't want to put their belief in a book of stories written by men.  They dont believe in God, therefore you can not refute their stance by quoting from anything man has labeled a holy book.
> 
> No need for insults.   It just is.  And, no one has to change how they believe because of anyone else!
> It's all discussion.  That is all.



Not being insulting only facetious. 

That really isn't the wager though. And also if you truly believe the bible was written by men with no inspiration and influence from God. Then you shouldn't believe. You shouldn't follow.

What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step. 
C. S. Lewis 


I've been reading a lot of Lewis lately...


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> That is not an atheist, that is an agnostic (without knowledge)



If that is the rule for being labeled an atheist or agnostic, then most atheists should be considered agnostic. Richard Dawkins, often considered a "staunch atheist," would be an agnostic. A chapter in his book is labeled, "Why there almost certainly is no God." Logically this means that Dawkins believes that there is a chance that God in fact does exist.

To add onto this, if you read Josh McDowells, "Evidence for Christ: Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (I think this is the title, it's been a while since I read it), you'll notice that right off the bat he goes into how no one can be sure that there is or is not a God. I believe he states it as, "When attempting to discover the truth, one must enter the realm of probability."


----------



## WTM45

Yep, had the old "Screwtape Letters" for a sememster in 8th grade....

Did I mention I went to parochial schools?  Then a private Baptist (gasp) university?  I've had access to a LOT of material.  And it really is interesting how different teacher/professor interpretations can be.
Almost as bad a Literature professors and their poetry interpretations!

All fun and interesting!


----------



## Madman

> If that is the rule for being labeled an atheist or agnostic, then most atheists should be considered agnostic.



I agree.  As I said in the begining "I don't believe in atheists."


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> They think little of our production, we think even less of theirs.  Yep, they lump everything American in as Christian, what you consider good and bad.  We do the same to them, lumping in murderers and the holy leaders.
> 
> Fruit.  That's individual interpretation.  Can't even get all Christians of their varied persuasions to come together on that one.



Not even close. Please. Western civilization and the rights you are now exercising by being an Atheist come from Christianity not Islam. Try being an Atheist there. And while we are on it... 14th century riding donkeys and shooting muzzleloaders still vs... A B2 and GPS and drones firing rockets. Medical technology beyond their comprehension and availability. Gov't that has protected our individual rights to worship when and how you please. Or not.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Yep, had the old "Screwtape Letters" for a sememster in 8th grade....
> 
> Did I mention I went to parochial schools?  Then a private Baptist (gasp) university?  I've had access to a LOT of material.  And it really is interesting how different teacher/professor interpretations can be.
> Almost as bad a Literature professors and their poetry interpretations!
> 
> All fun and interesting!



Men are not angered by mere misfortune but by misfortune conceived as injury. And the sense of injury depends on the feelings that a legitimate claim has been denied.

CS Lewis- Screwtape Letters


See this is why I like you being in these discussions.


----------



## Madman

> Did I mention I went to parochial schools? Then a private Baptist (gasp) university?



WTM45 -- Now you are "measuring"


----------



## reformedpastor

Dixie Dawg said:


> It was in the wrong forum.  That forum is not for discussion. It is for prayer and spiritual support.  THIS forum is for discussion, as you stated in red



I gotcha, I thought I had posted it in the discussion forum. I apologize it wasn't on purpose.


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> Western civilization and the rights you are now exercising by being an Atheist come from Christianity not Islam.



Good one!  Hey, I like how you can determine I am an Atheist through an electronic medium!

Just funnin' with you!  Some will say I am a fence straddler, because I have not right out stated my personal beliefs.  I feel that might negatively impact what I have tried to do here.  All I want to do is present different views in order to stimulate the discussions.  And, the forum has picked up in its activity!  I hope to help folks clearly communicate what it is they believe or follow.
That's all.

And, you are good at what you believe and are efficient at communicating it.  That's what it is all about!


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> WTM45 -- Now you are "measuring"



With only the smallest of rulers you can find, my friend.  I have so little to offer this world and any deity I am humbled daily to have but breath in my lungs and food on my table.

We all have where we've been.  We can only hope to have some control of the steering wheel regarding where we are going.  I'm probably one of the simplest, most humble folks you will ever come across.  It takes that type of humility to leave GA for the cold of New England.
Throw in the love of a fantastic woman.  Why?  I'll never know.  I certainly won the lottery with her!


----------



## celticfisherman

Guess you are good at it too. Because you convinced me you were...

No offense intended. Didn't mean to do that only I guess I made an assumption in your case. And you know what that means...


----------



## Madman

> Madman, he said INTERPRETED as evidence, not proof.
> A very accurate statement indeed.
> 
> That's pretty much up to the individual reviewing the evidence for themselves.



WTM45--We are in agreement.  Somehow the the posts came  out of order originally.  I didn't get the intire quote until you responded.  

Thanks


----------



## Madman

> if you read Josh McDowells, "Evidence for Christ: Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (I



You would have to give e chapter and verse because I don't remmber that.  I do know he calls Evidence that demands a verdict an "book of apologetics." and then defines apologetics to mean " to give a defense of what one believes is true"  Speaking of himself.


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome has offered his answer to my question



pnome said:


> None.
> 
> It takes only the realization that you do not know.



Now, not sure what he means but if I read what he is saying, knowledge isn't the same thing as realization, they are different? That is you don't need to know anything to know you don't know, you realize it. 

Did I understand him properly?


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> Guess you are good at it too. Because you convinced me you were...
> 
> No offense intended. Didn't mean to do that only I guess I made an assumption in your case. And you know what that means...



None taken, my friend!  And I have DEFINATELY meant no insult to anyone or their beliefs!  I like to hear how others express their thoughts.  I'll admit communication via the internet is pretty unique.  It takes WORK to fully understand each other without the benefits of expressions, gestures and voice inflection.

I know I am not the best writer, but it sure makes me work harder to get better at it!


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> pnome has offered his answer to my question
> 
> 
> 
> Now, not sure what he means but if I read what he is saying, knowledge isn't the same thing as realization, they are different? That is you don't need to know anything to know you don't know, you realize it.
> 
> Did I understand him properly?



And, one can realize they have no knowledge, just as they can find knowledge might not bring realization.

Oh my.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> pnome has offered his answer to my question
> 
> Now, not sure what he means but if I read what he is saying, knowledge isn't the same thing as realization, they are different? That is you don't need to know anything to know you don't know, you realize it.
> 
> Did I understand him properly?



Well... I don't usually speak for other people, but you asked. I can't understand what you're saying, so I'm just going to give my interpretation.

I think he's saying that atheists don't claim to know anything for certain. This is the opposite of theists, which claim to know for certain that their God exists. As an atheist, I'm not claiming absolute knowledge that your preferred God doesn't exist. I'm saying that the evidence does not point towards the existence of a deity, therefore the logical default for the question "Does God exist?" is "no".

When the evidence points toward a specific god, then atheists will move from the logical default to believing the god exists.


----------



## Madman

> How much knowledge does a person need to become an atheist?



reformedpastor -- my answer, before I say my prayers and go to bed, would be: infinite knowledge and anyone with infinite knowledge would be God.  

Can God not believe in himself? 

_Go on your way into the world in peace….
Be of good courage; Hold fast that which is good;
Render no man evil for evil; Strengthen the faint hearted;
Support the weak; Help and cheer the sick; Honor all men; 
Love and serve the Lord;
And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us 
all evermore._


----------



## pnome

Dang,  I went away to watch a movie and this thread exploded.  Now I'm completely lost.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> pnome has offered his answer to my question
> 
> 
> 
> Now, not sure what he means but if I read what he is saying, knowledge isn't the same thing as realization, they are different? That is you don't need to know anything to know you don't know, you realize it.
> 
> Did I understand him properly?



Yup.  

Though, now that I read it, maybe I'm wrong.  You might have to know _something_ in order to know what not knowing is.


----------



## Lowjack

reformedpastor said:


> How much knowledge does a person need to become an atheist?
> 
> I pose this question because, as I read various arguments,  it is often promoted on this forum that atheism is a superior expression of intelligence.
> 
> Or does it have anything to do with intellectualism and is it really a moral question. All invited to express your views.



Said the fool in his heart , there is no God"


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> 1. Assume that because you compare theism to believing in pink unicorns or fairy tales that you have made a good argument.



I agree that the analogy is overused.  But that is because it is apt.



> 2. Become hostile and use degrading vulgarities while maintaining that Christianity is an immoral religion.



No place for that, I agree, on either side.  

Religion is immoral.



> 3. When you are having trouble answering an argument posed by a Christian theist, simply say, “well even if this were true, it doesn’t prove the existence of the ‘Christian’ God.”



Well.  It doesn't. 



> 4. Assume that simply because you explain a phenomena from a naturalistic perspective that it constitutes an argument which must be true.



No.  Not must be true but; Is far more probable to be true.



> 5. When arguing against the Christian God, simply say that you only believe in “one less god” than most people, as if that does not require you to defend an atheistic understanding of cosmology, anthropology, ethics, philosophy of history, philosophy of politics, philosophy of science, and epistemology.



The burden of proof is upon you my friend.  If you want me to defend the big bang, or Darwinian evolution I'd be happy to.  But understand,  since atheism is not a religion, there is no common philosophy of anything.  There is only one thing that has to be common among atheists,  and that is simply, non belief in god.  This is not the same thing as "knowing" that there is no god.  (you seem to make this mistake sometimes) No atheist would ever claim such a thing.  



> 6. Make metaphysical statements that suggest that metaphysics are a useless waste of time.



Metaphysics are a useless waste of time.  Nothing metaphysical about that.



> 7. Argue that we should only believe things proven by empirical evidence without proving it with empirical evidence.



You've lost me here.  What are we supposed to prove?  



> 8. Use logic like it is a universal, transcendent, unchanging reality when atheistic naturalism cannot account for universal, transcendent, unchanging realities.



Sure we can.   In our world there are many realities that are unchanging (without getting into quantum physics).  Mathematics is the first example that springs to mind.  Logic really is just an extension of that.  

However, none of them, even logic, transcend our universe.  They are part of it.



> 9. Argue that there is no evidence to believe in the existence of God because all the evidence that is produced fails to pass the standards of evidence which have been constructed from the belief that God does not exist.



Not exactly right.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

And again, I do not believe god does not exist.  "God does not exist" is the default position barring the evidence spoken of earlier.



> 10. Argue that human beings are robots, puppets, and machines programmed by natural selection in a closed system of cause and effect, and then argue for free thought and moral agency.



You've got a lot of strawmen in this post.  This is another.  We are certainly victims of causality.  However, we do have free will.  



> 11. Place your ultimate trust in human reason while believing that man’s mind evolved from lower animals such as monkeys and will continue to evolve until we become the monkeys from which the minds of the future will have evolved.



Human reason is the best thing we've got going for us.  It has served our species well.


----------



## pnome

No. GA. Mt. Man said:


> "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1 KJV)



I think I'm becoming an expert at this Psalm.  Anyone want to invite me to their church to give a sermon on it?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

reformedpastor said:


> What are the determining factors of atheism?
> 
> What would be considered the apex of atheist literature?



Not sure - but the word itself suggests no belief in a deity.  That'll be my answer.

Probably either "God is not great: how religion poisons everything" or "The God delusion".


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> I think I'm becoming an expert at this Psalm.  Anyone want to invite me to their church to give a sermon on it?



You're invited! Let me know when. After wards we will have lunch in my home with desert and maybe even a little debate.


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> I think I'm becoming an expert at this Psalm.  Anyone want to invite me to their church to give a sermon on it?



I agree. Quoting scripture to an Atheist is a little weird... I do it too and then think afterwards. Why did I do that??? 

Now back to the list.

Good answers but on one. No pink unicorns does not mean No God. That is not logically honest. You know it. A better analogy is the college students favorite right now the flying spaghetti monster...


----------



## celticfisherman

Six million dollar ham said:


> Not sure - but the word itself suggests no belief in a deity.  That'll be my answer.
> 
> Probably either "God is not great: how religion poisons everything" or "The God delusion".



If the pinnacle of Atheist literature is "the God Delusion" you really should think twice about your faith...

Talk about lightweights.


----------



## reformedpastor

Ok, believe it or not I have read through every post. 

My original question: How much knowledge does one need to be an atheist? 

It would be wrong for me to judge every atheist by the few on here so I will try hard not to use  broad sweeping comments, but confine them to the comments on here.  

I think its safe to say that atheism really isn't about knowledge. At least no one here has offered or suggested a standard, scientific or other, for the preconditions of atheism. 

This leads me to believe, think, realize that its not really a question of knowledge but more of a question of morality. Which they will reject and I understand why they must reject this. 

That is, its a moral position, FIRST, then everything else follows, supporting this moral position. This is where the interpretation of the evidence comes in play. The evidence requires an interpretation to makes sense. 

That's where I was going when I started to use the number two as an illustration earlier.  Atheism refuses to account for the idea, concept, abstraction of the number two. Yet they interpret a known concept or abstraction that is universal and fixed, unchangeable as evidence towards -NO GOD AND NO STANDARD. How? Again, its not really about truth, science or knowledge but a moral one. 


Philosophically the atheist accepts that the number two is unchangeable in an ever changing cosmos! Is this a faith? I think so, but that's me. He can live in denial of this but he doesn't have to.He chooses to, again is this a position of knowledge or prejudice? Its only by this universal truth about the number two that he can even balance his check book. The atheist doesn't want the number two to change to the number one tomorrow, nor does he worry about it he accepts its fixed quality without giving credit to God and this is grievous. So does he really believe his own claim there is no God? Even though interprets the evidence to justify his belief of no God he nevertheless lives inconsistent to his own interpretation.  

I don't see the atheist as objective, neutral or truly scientific at all, only the contrary. 

In a atheist world how can I be wrong? If each man is a law unto himself so how can anyone ever be wrong? Or if one is wrong maybe tomorrow he will be right? Is this inconsistent with their beliefs? I think it is. 

Wouldn't it be more consistent if they rejected anything like "laws of logic" since they have never seen one or the evidence of one? Yet they use them. They are the beneficiaries of something they cannot explain from their point of view but believe in nevertheless. Another contradiction? I think so. 

Both the atheist and the christian argues in a circle. The atheist begins with himself and ends with himself. He is his final authority. He doesn't do this perfectly. 

The christian begins with God-His word -and ends with God as the final authority. Nor does the christian do this perfectly. 

FJ has said on here that he has not seen any evidence for the christian God, but it really depends on who is interpreting the evidence. 

For me, I see atheism as a very disingenuous faith. Let me quote pnome's Psalm again, in context- Psalm 14:1  The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. 

They say there is no God so they can justify there deeds which God calls abominable. 

Its a moral position!!!


----------



## Six million dollar ham

celticfisherman said:


> If the pinnacle of Atheist literature is "the God Delusion" you really should think twice about your faith...
> 
> Talk about lightweights.



Don't go by what I say.  Those are the only ones I'm aware of and I've read neither.  Just threw 'em out there.  

Point of clarification - there is no faith for me to think twice (or even once) about.  That's atheism.


----------



## reformedpastor

celticfisherman said:


> I agree. Quoting scripture to an Atheist is a little weird... I do it too and then think afterwards. Why did I do that???
> 
> Now back to the list.
> 
> Good answers but on one. No pink unicorns does not mean No God. That is not logically honest. You know it. A better analogy is the college students favorite right now the flying spaghetti monster...



Any argument that suggest that believing in God is no better than pink whatever is not valid. 

Show us where thor, pink elephants, or the tooth fairy claim to be the creator of the world and all that's in it?

Is there such a claim? I don't know, if there is lets examine it and go from there.


----------



## RThomas

I got to the party late, so I didn't read the 6 pages of responses prior to mine.  So to the original question:



> How much knowledge does a person need to become an atheist?



I can't answer as I'm not familiar with the knowledge scale. How does it work?


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Ok, believe it or not I have read through every post.
> 
> My original question: How much knowledge does one need to be an atheist?
> 
> It would be wrong for me to judge every atheist by the few on here so I will try hard not to use  broad sweeping comments, but confine them to the comments on here.
> 
> I think its safe to say that atheism really isn't about knowledge. At least no one here has offered or suggested a standard, scientific or other, for the preconditions of atheism.
> 
> This leads me to believe, think, realize that its not really a question of knowledge but more of a question of morality. Which they will reject and I understand why they must reject this.
> 
> That is, its a moral position, FIRST, then everything else follows, supporting this moral position. This is where the interpretation of the evidence comes in play. The evidence requires an interpretation to makes sense.
> 
> That's where I was going when I started to use the number two as an illustration earlier.  Atheism refuses to account for the idea, concept, abstraction of the number two. Yet they interpret a known concept or abstraction that is universal and fixed, unchangeable as evidence towards -NO GOD AND NO STANDARD. How? Again, its not really about truth, science or knowledge but a moral one.
> 
> 
> Philosophically the atheist accepts that the number two is unchangeable in an ever changing cosmos! Is this a faith? I think so, but that's me. He can live in denial of this but he doesn't have to.He chooses to, again is this a position of knowledge or prejudice? Its only by this universal truth about the number two that he can even balance his check book. The atheist doesn't want the number two to change to the number one tomorrow, nor does he worry about it he accepts its fixed quality without giving credit to God and this is grievous. So does he really believe his own claim there is no God? Even though interprets the evidence to justify his belief of no God he nevertheless lives inconsistent to his own interpretation.
> 
> I don't see the atheist as objective, neutral or truly scientific at all, only the contrary.
> 
> In a atheist world how can I be wrong? If each man is a law unto himself so how can anyone ever be wrong? Or if one is wrong maybe tomorrow he will be right? Is this inconsistent with their beliefs? I think it is.
> 
> Wouldn't it be more consistent if they rejected anything like "laws of logic" since they have never seen one or the evidence of one? Yet they use them. They are the beneficiaries of something they cannot explain from their point of view but believe in nevertheless. Another contradiction? I think so.
> 
> Both the atheist and the christian argues in a circle. The atheist begins with himself and ends with himself. He is his final authority. He doesn't do this perfectly.
> 
> The christian begins with God-His word -and ends with God as the final authority. Nor does the christian do this perfectly.
> 
> FJ has said on here that he has not seen any evidence for the christian God, but it really depends on who is interpreting the evidence.
> 
> For me, I see atheism as a very disingenuous faith. Let me quote pnome's Psalm again, in context- Psalm 14:1  The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
> 
> They say there is no God so they can justify there deeds which God calls abominable.
> 
> Its a moral position!!!



Reformedpastor,
Sorry, but you have so much to learn about Atheism. 
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheistsMorals.htm

Actually, it is the Christian that justifies all bad deeds by stating they are born with sin, and only have to ask forgiveness of a deity to be forgiven of those sins.

There are plenty of moral people who do not use a holy book as their guide in life.  Fact.

But I value your opinion.  Thanks for posting it!


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Show us where thor, pink elephants, or the tooth fairy claim to be the creator of the world and all that's in it?
> 
> Is there such a claim? I don't know, if there is lets examine it and go from there.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishvakarman
Here's one that does make that claim.  MANY others have as well.


----------



## WTM45

RThomas said:


> I can't answer as I'm not familiar with the knowledge scale. How does it work?



That's too scientific.   
I'm sure a Bible verse will be posted shortly for your answer.  I already know which ones are the potential candidates!


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Reformedpastor,
> Sorry, but you have so much to learn about Atheism.
> http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheistsMorals.htm
> 
> Actually, it is the Christian that justifies all bad deeds by stating they are born with sin, and only have to ask forgiveness of a deity to be forgiven of those sins.
> 
> There are plenty of moral people who do not use a holy book as their guide in life.  Fact.
> 
> But I value your opinion.  Thanks for posting it!



I will check out the site and try and expand my understanding of atheism. But your rejection of comments prove nothing. I go back to the"precondition of intelligibility."


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishvakarman
> Here's one that does make that claim.  MANY others have as well.



Ok. Is there any support to validate the claim? That's were we need to begin. What is their world view?


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Ok. Is there any support to validate the claim? That's were we need to begin. What is their world view?



The Rigveda is their holy book, just like Christians and the Bible.

I'm not seeking to validate.  Only giving an example of another belief system that most Americans do not accept as their own today.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> Ok, believe it or not I have read through every post.
> 
> My original question: How much knowledge does one need to be an atheist?
> 
> It would be wrong for me to judge every atheist by the few on here so I will try hard not to use  broad sweeping comments, but confine them to the comments on here.
> 
> I think its safe to say that atheism really isn't about knowledge. At least no one here has offered or suggested a standard, scientific or other, for the preconditions of atheism.



Atheism is about the lack of knowledge. We don't know whether or not a God exists, and until we see some evidence that proves one god or another, we go with the logical default which is that no gods exist. It's about realizing that you don't know.



> This leads me to believe, think, realize that its not really a question of knowledge but more of a question of morality. Which they will reject and I understand why they must reject this.
> 
> That is, its a moral position, FIRST, then everything else follows, supporting this moral position. This is where the interpretation of the evidence comes in play. The evidence requires an interpretation to makes sense.
> 
> That's where I was going when I started to use the number two as an illustration earlier.  Atheism refuses to account for the idea, concept, abstraction of the number two. Yet they interpret a known concept or abstraction that is universal and fixed, unchangeable as evidence towards -NO GOD AND NO STANDARD. How? Again, its not really about truth, science or knowledge but a moral one.



How does any of this point towards atheism being a "moral position"? You've completely lost me on this one. We DO NOT interpret a universal law as evidence towards no god and no standard. How does the fact that a universal law exist prove or disprove the existence of a god? It provides no evidence either way. The fact that 2+2=4 is not considered evidence for the atheist or theist. I cannot understand how you see it this way.



> Philosophically the atheist accepts that the number two is unchangeable in an ever changing cosmos! Is this a faith? I think so, but that's me.



... I think this is where I quietly exit stage left. Good luck in your quest, Reformedpastor.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> I will check out the site and try and expand my understanding of atheism. But your rejection of comments prove nothing. I go back to the"precondition of intelligibility."



I'm not looking to prove anything.  And, the website I gave a link to is just a basic beginning resource in the understanding of Atheism.  There are volumes written by many that are out there.  I'm not suggesting research in order to convert, but for a deeper understanding.

I'm not rejecting comment, as so much of that ground has been covered in multiple posts on various threads.


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man

I hate Soccer but I don't feel the need to bash people who like it. People who don't believe in God relish the opportunity to bash believers. Kinda strange to bash something that doesn't exist......unless you need a confidence builder.


----------



## WTM45

No. GA. Mt. Man said:


> I hate Soccer but I don't feel the need to bash people who like it. People who don't believe in God relish the opportunity to bash believers. Kinda strange to bash something that doesn't exist......unless you need a confidence builder.




Who is bashing anyone?  It is a discussion of reilgious belief systems and those who do not follow a religious belief system.

Some people just interpret anything contrary to their beliefs as an attack on those beliefs.  Some are looking to be "persecuted" or questioned.

If you don't want to participate, fine.  No one is making you.  I'd hope you would want to in order to express your beliefs and share your experiences!

If anyone is found to be guilty of attempts at conversion, it is usually the Christian side, as they follow a basic exclusivism that promotes evangelizing others based on the "Great Commission" doctrine.


----------



## WTM45

God at the source of, and at the result of the "precondition of intelligibility" thesis is circular in and of itself.

What God is to you is completely yours.  It is a very individual concept that can be and is shaped by what a person believes found in what they read and are taught.  I'd never tell someone God is not real to them, as I can not read their heart.
But there are some who do not believe in the concept of a deity, even as described in holy books.  And, there are those who have not decided either way.


----------



## Madman

> WMT45--There are plenty of moral people who do not use a holy book as their guide in life. Fact.



Who's morality are you using?  If you say there are moral people than you are admiting that there is good and bad and if there is good and bad then you are admiting that there is an ultimate arbiture of good and bad.  We call him God.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> Who's morality are you using?  If you say there are moral people than you are admiting that there is good and bad and if there is good and bad then you are admiting that there is an ultimate arbiture of good and bad.  We call him God.



I don't claim there is an ultimate "arbiture" (?) of good and bad, yet I still think of some people as moral and some people as not. From my local perspective, they are either moral or immoral. From other perspectives, they may be looked upon differently. For instance, if I claim that my mom is a moral person, that only means that she is moral in my local perspective. Rick Warren may think she is immoral, from his local perspective. These are two equally valid assertions, but only in the local sense. Just because I say my mom is moral, doesn't mean that there is some objective, absolute, morality attribute that follows my mom around. Just because Rick Warren says my mom is immoral doesn't mean that she is immoral, even if he uses a supposed absolute source (for example, The Bible) to claim that my mom is immoral. There may be other people who also recognize the authority of the Bible yet think that my mom is moral. This is due to different (ie subjective) interpretations of the supposed sources of absolute morality.

My point is that morality domains only exist in the local perspective. That is, they are individual.


----------



## Madman

So to drag a five year old girl into the woods, beat, rape and kill her could be a moral act depending on one's perspective.

Moral relativism will be the end of the civilized world.


----------



## Madman

I have not used the Bible in any argument.  If you are a non believer you don't understand the Bible so it would be foolish for me to mention it.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> I don't claim there is an ultimate "arbiture" (?) of good and bad, yet I still think of some people as moral and some people as not. From my local perspective, they are either moral or immoral. From other perspectives, they may be looked upon differently. For instance, if I claim that my mom is a moral person, that only means that she is moral in my local perspective. Rick Warren may think she is immoral, from his local perspective. These are two equally valid assertions, but only in the local sense. Just because I say my mom is moral, doesn't mean that there is some objective, absolute, morality attribute that follows my mom around. Just because Rick Warren says my mom is immoral doesn't mean that she is immoral, even if he uses a supposed absolute source (for example, The Bible) to claim that my mom is immoral. There may be other people who also recognize the authority of the Bible yet think that my mom is moral. This is due to different (ie subjective) interpretations of the supposed sources of absolute morality.
> 
> My point is that morality domains only exist in the local perspective. That is, they are individual.




You have still never answered where you get the "moral" idea and basis for comparison to non-moral.


----------



## Madman

celticfisherman said:


> You have still never answered where you get the "moral" idea and basis for comparison to non-moral.



He is admiting there is an ultimate arbiture, there is a supreme being who decides good and bad.  

Bring all things into the light.


----------



## celticfisherman

I thought he was just being local and "green" with his answer...


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> So to drag a five year old girl into the woods, beat, rape and kill her could be a moral act depending on one's perspective?



Yes. How can you not see this? If a person views that as a moral act, then the person views that as a moral act. Does that mean it's moral for me and you? Of course not. Does that mean that I should just sit back and be like, "Oh... Well since it's moral in his eyes he should be allowed to do it. So I'm just not going to intervene." Of course not.

I'm going to get a lot of flames for this (or perhaps a lot of agreement from Christians), but here it is. In America, I believe the laws are representative of the people who vote on them. Some laws or propositions are even (gasp) directly voted on by the citizens. They are a collective morality, sucked from the voters and written down on paper. If a law ever came up asking me whether or not I believed it should be illegal to "drag a five year old girl into the woods, beat, rape and kill her," I would say that it should be illegal. I have a feeling that most other people would too.



> Moral relativism will be the end of the civilized world.



9/11 was acted out by people who believed in an absolute morality. They were so confident that they were right that they gave their lives for it. Would they have done so if they had not believed in an absolute morality?


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> You have still never answered where you get the "moral" idea and basis for comparison to non-moral.



I have. Read.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> I have. Read.



No you bounce around and obfuscate the question but never answer it. And go ahead and explain why you are moral and your Mom is moral too.

Matter of fact explain why an Atheist would date a Christian.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Yes. How can you not see this? If a person views that as a moral act, then the person views that as a moral act. Does that mean it's moral for me and you? Of course not. Does that mean that I should just sit back and be like, "Oh... Well since it's moral in his eyes he should be allowed to do it. So I'm just not going to intervene." Of course not.
> 
> I'm going to get a lot of flames for this (or perhaps a lot of agreement from Christians), but here it is. In America, I believe the laws are representative of the people who vote on them. Some laws or propositions are even (gasp) directly voted on by the citizens. They are a collective morality, sucked from the voters and written down on paper. If a law ever came up asking me whether or not I believed it should be illegal to "drag a five year old girl into the woods, beat, rape and kill her," I would say that it should be illegal. I have a feeling that most other people would too.
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 was acted out by people who believed in an absolute morality. They were so confident that they were right that they gave their lives for it. Would they have done so if they had not believed in an absolute morality?



As someone else said earlier. I am really glad you do not live next to me. If you can't see that then there really is a problem.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> No you bounce around and obfuscate the question but never answer it. And go ahead and explain why you are moral and your Mom is moral too.
> 
> Matter of fact explain why an Atheist would date a Christian.



Celt you just think people bounce around and obfuscate the question.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Celt you just think people bounce around and obfuscate the question.



Actually if you want to quote me use the words YOU ONLY BELIEVE.

Makes better sense and at least then you get it right. But from someone who quotes Dawkins and Russell I guess we will take what we can get.


----------



## Madman

> I have read it.



So you are saying that the majority of the population when speaking in unison is the arbiture of truth.  I am glad that god was gracious enough to allow you to be born in the United States of America.   It would have been a difficult and very short life in any Muslim country.  

We are only discussing religion. Islam is a religion, Buddism is a religion, Hinduism is a religion,  but Christianity is not a religion it is about a relationship with the man/God Jesus Christ.


----------



## Madman

This proves to be more true with each passing day.


“Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God, there is one last virtue they insist upon: tolerance for their immorality. They will not have you condemning what they have done as being wrong, and they have created a belief system in which it is not, and in which they are no longer the criminal or the villain or the evil person, but you are!”
			D. James Kennedy


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> So you are saying that the majority of the population when speaking in unison is the arbiture of truth.



No. I was just giving Celt a taste of his own annoying medicine.

There is no "arbiture" of truth. I've never heard of the word "arbiture", but I'm assuming you mean "absolute morality"? Please correct me if I'm wrong.



> And go ahead and explain why you are moral and your Mom is moral too.



I'm beginning to think you are incapable of understanding this Celt. I'm truly sorry. I have made numerous posts dealing with this very subject.



> Matter of fact explain why an Atheist would date a Christian.



Yet another already answered question, if you only read. There's more to a person than just their religious beliefs.



> You have still never answered where you get the "moral" idea and basis for comparison to non-moral.



I have answered this in another thread, but I will answer it in this one as well. It's very simple: Nature and Nurture.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God,



That would include Christians as well, since they violate 603 out of the 613 commandments that God gave.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> No. I was just giving Celt a taste of his own annoying medicine.
> 
> There is no "arbiture" of truth. I've never heard of the word "arbiture", but I'm assuming you mean "absolute morality"? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think you are incapable of understanding this Celt. I'm truly sorry. I have made numerous posts dealing with this very subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another already answered question, if you only read. There's more to a person than just their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this in another thread, but I will answer it in this one as well. It's very simple: Nature and Nurture.



Sorry maybe we just all need to be on the same page. So my idea of morality is wrong because it includes a God and ultimate good and righteousness. Your idea is OK even though you will not say rape and murder is wrong. So Nature and Nurture doesn't answer the question. But I am sure if you claim it does and get Dawkins to back you someone will believe it.

Now that we are on the same page let's add this in. 

If she is willing to date and Atheist. SHe isn't following Christianity. 

Now go ahead and call me judgmental.


----------



## celticfisherman

Dixie Dawg said:


> That would include Christians as well, since they violate 603 out of the 613 commandments that God gave.



W.I.T.H do you get that.


----------



## RThomas

celticfisherman said:


> W.I.T.H do you get that.



http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
Feel free to read them all.


----------



## footjunior

> So my idea of morality is wrong because it includes a God and ultimate good and righteousness.



I'm simply stating that I don't believe there is an absolute morality. So yes, I do believe you are wrong, but I completely understand why you think you're right. If I believed that the Bible is the ultimate source for morality, then I would obviously believe in an absolute morality.



> Your idea is OK even though you will not say rape and murder is wrong.



I have said in other posts that I think rape and murder is wrong.



> So Nature and Nurture doesn't answer the question.



How does it not answer the question?



> If she is willing to date and Atheist. She isn't following Christianity.
> 
> Now go ahead and call me judgmental.



You are judgmental. 

She isn't following your brand of Christianity. Her and her parents have a different interpretation of 2 Corinthians 6:14-15


----------



## Madman

celticfisherman said:


> W.I.T.H do you get that.



She is talking about the extra 603 commandments the Orthodox Jews recognize, many of which are the "laws of man" plus the 10 commandments.  I am not sure of Dixie's belief and it would therefore be useless to argue from a Scriptual basis.  I will admit, if I followed the other 603 it would not harm me and I very well may be a bit leaner.

As I said earlier every religion in the world is the same except Christianity. Every religion is about man reaching to God in an atempt to please him.  Chirstianity is about God reaching down to man to save him.


----------



## RThomas

Oh, and for more fun reading, here are the "other" 10 commandments: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 34:10-26


----------



## Madman

> A- I'm simply stating that I don't believe there is an absolute morality.



You said there is good and bad.  Therefore you must have a standard to measure good and bad.  what is that standard?  Your standard is some ultimate lawgiver, I call that lawgiver God, you called it the government.

Therefore your logic says that whatever the government allows is moral and if you thought the policies of one administration was immoral and the new adminsitration change that policy then you have to change your moral view.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> She is talking about the extra 603 commandments the Orthodox Jews recognize, many of which are the "laws of man" plus the 10 commandments.




They aren't 'extra'.  If you read the bible, there is no distinction between the first 10 commandments and the last 603.  There is no differentiation in them.  They aren't the 'laws of man'... either you believe it all came from God or it didn't.


----------



## Madman

RThomas said:


> Oh, and for more fun reading, here are the "other" 10 commandments: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 34:10-26



You had better be careful RThomas spend that much time in the Word and you may begin to understand it!!!  That is what happend to Josh McDowell.


----------



## Madman

Dixie Dawg said:


> They aren't 'extra'.  If you read the bible, there is no distinction between the first 10 commandments and the last 603.  There is no differentiation in them.  They aren't the 'laws of man'... either you believe it all came from God or it didn't.



Yes there is.  And if you were a believer you would understand them.  The Jews live under the Law, Christians live under grace.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> You said there is good and bad.  Therefore you must have a standard to measure good and bad.  what is that standard?  Your standard is some ultimate lawgiver, I call that lawgiver God, you called it the government.



No no no no no... 

Yes there is a good and a bad, LOCALLY. I have no objective "standard" to measure good and bad. Can you not get this from when I said that I don't believe in an absolute morality? I have a standard which I create locally. IT IS NOT SOLELY DEPENDENT UPON ANYONE OR ANYTHING ELSE. If the government decides that a particular action is immoral, I do not automatically update my local morality standard to include this new moral value. Likewise, just because the Bible or some invisible sky-daddy says that something is moral doesn't mean that I think that it's moral.

The caps are not yelling, I'm just trying to get a point across.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> Yes there is.  And if you were a believer you would understand them.  The Jews live under the Law, Christians live under grace.



Wrong.
Please show me where there is a pause or a distinction in the Old Testament between the first 10 commandments and the rest of the 603.  Where the first ten are given precedence over the others.  

Secondly, if you are not under the law any longer, why even bother recognizing the first 10 commandments?  It's all 'law'.

It makes absolutely no sense to want to respect the first 10 commandments and leave the other 603 out.  All it does is show lack of understanding of the Original Testament.


----------



## Madman

Good night footjunior / Dixie / Celt,

I see that logic has began to take hold of you Foot, you  are trying to convince yourself more than me.

*I was born to fight devils and factions. It is my business to remove obstructions, to cut down thorns, to fill up quagmires, and to open and make straight paths. But if I must have some failing, let me rather speak the truth with too great severity than once to act the hypocrite and conceal the truth. 
							                            Martin Luther	*


----------



## RThomas

Madman said:


> You had better be careful RThomas spend that much time in the Word and you may begin to understand it!!!  That is what happend to Josh McDowell.



Oh, I understand it.  But it's not likely to convert me, if that's what you mean.  
I've read the bible front to back and back to front.  Reading the bible is what set me firmly on the side of atheism.  And, most atheists would tell you the same thing.  Don't assume because one is an atheist, that they are therefore ignorant of the bible. Quite the contrary, I assure you.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> Good night footjunior / Dixie / Celt,
> 
> I see that logic has began to take hold of you Foot, you  are trying to convince yourself more than me.



Trust me. I'm not trying to convince anyone as far as this subjective morality issue is concerned. You're asking questions, and I'm simply answering them... repeatedly... over and over... in the same manner. I know exactly what I mean when I say it, but you evidently do not.


----------



## Madman

Dixie Dawg said:


> Wrong.
> Please show me where there is a pause or a distinction in the Old Testament between the first 10 commandments and the rest of the 603.  Where the first ten are given precedence over the others.
> 
> Secondly, if you are not under the law any longer, why even bother recognizing the first 10 commandments?  It's all 'law'.
> 
> It makes absolutely no sense to want to respect the first 10 commandments and leave the other 603 out.  All it does is show lack of understanding of the Original Testament.



You have a partial uderstanding.  Would you like to begin with the diatary Laws?  Christ Jesus said it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, would you like to mention the Saboth, Christ  asks the Pharisees was man made for the Saboth or the Saboth for man.  And let us not forget, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength, this is the first and greatest commandment, the second is like unto it love your neighbor as your self, on these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.

I suppose it just depends on what and who you believe God to be.  I know it is Jesus Christ because of what I once was and what I am now and it is only because of His Grace and His mercy.



Go on your way into the world in peace….
Be of good courage; Hold fast that which is good;
Render no man evil for evil; Strengthen the faint hearted;
Support the weak; Help and cheer the sick; Honor all men; 
Love and serve the Lord;
And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us 
all evermore.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> You said there is good and bad.  Therefore you must have a standard to measure good and bad.  what is that standard?  Your standard is some ultimate lawgiver, I call that lawgiver God, you called it the government.
> 
> Therefore your logic says that whatever the government allows is moral and if you thought the policies of one administration was immoral and the new adminsitration change that policy then you have to change your moral view.




That's kind of ironic, because if one begins at the beginning of the bible, incest used to be 'moral'.


----------



## footjunior

RThomas said:


> Oh, I understand it.  But it's not likely to convert me, if that's what you mean.
> I've read the bible front to back and back to front.  Reading the bible is what set me firmly on the side of atheism.  And, most atheists would tell you the same thing.  Don't assume because one is an atheist, that they are therefore ignorant of the bible. Quite the contrary, I assure you.



Werd. Reading the Bible was eye opening to me. Just eye opening in a way that most Christians would consider impossible. Probably one of the best decisions I've ever made.


----------



## Madman

> I've read the bible front to back and back to front.




Read it again and this may make since to you one day and I pray it does.  

" To know me is eternal life."  Jesus Christ


Good night.


----------



## Madman

Dixie Dawg said:


> That's kind of ironic, because if one begins at the beginning of the bible, incest used to be 'moral'.



I really need to go to bed, but please tink this over during the evening and let me know tomorrow why "incest" was moral at one time and is not moral now.

Since you are such a Bible scholar put forth your best argument.


----------



## RThomas

Madman said:


> Read it again and this may make since to you one day and I pray it does.
> 
> " To know me is eternal life."  Jesus Christ
> 
> 
> Good night.



G'night.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> I really need to go to bed, but please tink this over during the evening and let me know tomorrow why "incest" was moral at one time and is not moral now.
> 
> Since you are such a Bible scholar put forth your best argument.



I don't have an answer for that.  Since God is supposed to be the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow, it certainly doesn't make much sense, does it?


----------



## celticfisherman

Madman said:


> She is talking about the extra 603 commandments the Orthodox Jews recognize, many of which are the "laws of man" plus the 10 commandments.  I am not sure of Dixie's belief and it would therefore be useless to argue from a Scriptual basis.  I will admit, if I followed the other 603 it would not harm me and I very well may be a bit leaner.
> 
> As I said earlier every religion in the world is the same except Christianity. Every religion is about man reaching to God in an atempt to please him.  Chirstianity is about God reaching down to man to save him.



The Jews don't even view them as commandments.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> I'm simply stating that I don't believe there is an absolute morality. So yes, I do believe you are wrong, but I completely understand why you think you're right. If I believed that the Bible is the ultimate source for morality, then I would obviously believe in an absolute morality.
> 
> 
> 
> I have said in other posts that I think rape and murder is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> How does it not answer the question?
> 
> 
> 
> You are judgmental.
> 
> She isn't following your brand of Christianity. Her and her parents have a different interpretation of 2 Corinthians 6:14-15



I am not being judgmental I just knew you couldn't let that go by without saying it is my opinion. No there is a VERY VERY VERY good reason for it. And the older I get the more I realize it and have been thinking of it a lot lately due to some other issues BUT. That is not a area open for interpretation. You may chose to do whatever you want but it is a sin nonetheless. Saying it ain't so doesn't remove it. She is sinning against her chosen religion. 

So you really are living your true atheistic life. And it shows you truly will not do something that stands in the way of your pleasure. Including helping to cause another to fall in her chosen faith. So think of it this way you are betting the life of someone you profess to love. That is not love.


----------



## celticfisherman

Dixie Dawg said:


> They aren't 'extra'.  If you read the bible, there is no distinction between the first 10 commandments and the last 603.  There is no differentiation in them.  They aren't the 'laws of man'... either you believe it all came from God or it didn't.



Yes there are plenty of distinctions. Moral law, ceremonial law, and legislative law. Each has it's own purpose.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

celticfisherman said:


> The Jews don't even view them as commandments.



Really.... source, please?

Because I have some sources that say otherwise....  here is just one... 

"According to Jewish tradition, G-d gave the Jewish people 613 mitzvot (commandments). All 613 of those mitzvot are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important, because human beings, with our limited understanding of the universe, have no way of knowing which mitzvot are more important in the eyes of the Creator."   http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm


----------



## Dixie Dawg

celticfisherman said:


> That is not a area open for interpretation.



The entire bible is open for interpretation.  Whether someone thinks it should be or not is on them.


----------



## Madman

Good morning Dixie,

Before we begin this exercise would you be kind enough to fill us in on your belief system?  What is your faith? If you profess to be Christian what is yur denomination?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> Good morning Dixie,
> 
> Before we begin this exercise would you be kind enough to fill us in on your belief system?  What is your faith? If you profess to be Christian what is yur denomination?



Good morning!
It's an 'exercise'?  

My belief system is complicated, and yet simple at the same time.  If you are truly interested, here is a link to the thread where I shared my 'testimony'.  http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3040382&postcount=2


----------



## Madman

footjunior said:


> Werd. Reading the Bible was eye opening to me. Just eye opening in a way that most Christians would consider impossible. Probably one of the best decisions I've ever made.



How Convenient.  Continue reading it and this time ask God to reveal himself to you in his word.


----------



## Madman

Dixie Dawg said:


> Good morning!
> It's an 'exercise'?
> 
> My belief system is complicated, and yet simple at the same time.  If you are truly interested, here is a link to the thread where I shared my 'testimony'.  http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3040382&postcount=2



Great testimony! So Where do you stand today?


----------



## reformedpastor

Judaism is not a religion of the Torah but of the Rabbis. Just ask one.  

The Jews do not follow scripture but the Rabbinic commentary on scripture. Which is perverted and twisted. That the reason Jesus had such a problem with the religion of His day. It wasn't a biblical one, or from God. It was man made.


----------



## Madman

> Dixie---Good morning!
> It's an 'exercise'?





Yes.  To reason from the Scriptures with a non-Christian is just and exercise, (I was not sure of your background or belief so it would be an exercise).  There is general revelation, in which God reveals Himself to all men and there is "special revelation” where God reveals Himself to man in the human form of Jesus Christ, mainly by the New Testament.
Am I zealous?   Yes, I probably am, but here is the reason.  I love to talk about the people in my life, my wife, my children, coaches, clergy, male friends (that I consider accountability partners).  The reason I love to talk about them is because they have had such a profound impact on my life, each of them has made me better in some way, but the one who has had the most profound effect on me is Jesus Christ, therefore I cannot, not, talk about Him.  Everyone has free will and how God chooses to work in their life is for Him to decide.  
He has worked in my life in a very tangible way and I thank Him for that.  Perhaps one day I will post my testimony, but right now God uses it in person.  He introduces me to people in restaurants, parking lots, on the job, on the street; He even sends them to my door.  I never would have thought about it but apparently He even introduces me to them on line.  

I went to GON looking for cheap bullets for my family’s shooting hobby and look where it has led me.
God has brought me kicking and screaming into the refiner’s fire, and this is where I will live until the day I die.
I understand a small part about your family’s life in the Jehovah’s Witness.  There are two ladies “teaching” my wife and me on Saturdays in our home.  On the days they do not have an elder with them I hear their hearts breaking for the true God of the Bible, they cry because they do not know how to get out, one of their stories is very similar to your mothers.
We are trying to find a church in their area that understands the JW’s so they will have a place to go when they are “disassociated.” 


If you are interested I will begin to show you what has been revealed to regarding incest.  Believe it or don’t believe it, it is ok.  I am only here to put forth an argument for anyone who seeks the truth.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> Werd. Reading the Bible was eye opening to me. Just eye opening in a way that most Christians would consider impossible. Probably one of the best decisions I've ever made.



The bible alone affects folks in many different ways. But the bible along with the Spirit together work to the saving of man. 

The bible alone can only make one a legalistic at best.


----------



## gtparts

footjunior said:


> I don't claim there is an ultimate "arbiture" (?) of good and bad, yet I still think of some people as moral and some people as not. From my local perspective, they are either moral or immoral. From other perspectives, they may be looked upon differently. For instance, if I claim that my mom is a moral person, that only means that she is moral in my local perspective. Rick Warren may think she is immoral, from his local perspective. These are two equally valid assertions, but only in the local sense. Just because I say my mom is moral, doesn't mean that there is some objective, absolute, morality attribute that follows my mom around. Just because Rick Warren says my mom is immoral doesn't mean that she is immoral, even if he uses a supposed absolute source (for example, The Bible) to claim that my mom is immoral. There may be other people who also recognize the authority of the Bible yet think that my mom is moral. This is due to different (ie subjective) interpretations of the supposed sources of absolute morality.
> 
> My point is that morality domains only exist in the local perspective. That is, they are individual.





footjunior said:


> There is no "arbiture" of truth. I've never heard of the word "arbiture", but I'm assuming you mean "absolute morality"? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> I'm beginning to think you are incapable of understanding this Celt. I'm truly sorry. I have made numerous posts dealing with this very subject.
> 
> Yet another already answered question, if you only read. There's more to a person than just their religious beliefs.
> 
> I have answered this in another thread, but I will answer it in this one as well. It's very simple: Nature and Nurture.





footjunior said:


> No no no no no...
> 
> Yes there is a good and a bad, LOCALLY. I have no objective "standard" to measure good and bad. Can you not get this from when I said that I don't believe in an absolute morality? I have a standard which I create locally. IT IS NOT SOLELY DEPENDENT UPON ANYONE OR ANYTHING ELSE. If the government decides that a particular action is immoral, I do not automatically update my local morality standard to include this new moral value. Likewise, just because the Bible or some invisible sky-daddy says that something is moral doesn't mean that I think that it's moral.
> 
> The caps are not yelling, I'm just trying to get a point across.



FJ, have you confused yourself?

First, let's get this out of the way.

ar·bi·ter  (ärb-tr)
n.
1. One chosen or appointed to judge or decide a disputed issue; an arbitrator.
2. One who has the power to judge or ordain at will.

So, the question posed was (and I shall paraphrase here for the sake of clarity): 

In your understanding of morality, who or what determines what actions are and are not moral, what is good and what is bad?

Now, in the above three quotes you have contradicted yourself several times while you have indeed answered the question.

As to an arbiter, you have stated:



> "I don't claim there is an ultimate "arbiture" (?) of good and bad,....."
> 
> "There is no "arbiture" of truth."
> 
> "I have no objective "standard" to measure good and bad."


And, yet, you also say:



> " I still think of some people as moral and some people as not. From my local perspective, they are either moral or immoral.
> 
> "Nature and Nurture." (In response to the inquiry as the basis or origin of your moral code.)
> 
> "I have a standard which I create locally."


And you go on to say:



> "IT IS NOT SOLELY DEPENDENT UPON ANYONE OR ANYTHING ELSE. If the government decides that a particular action is immoral, I do not automatically update my local morality standard to include this new moral value. Likewise, just because the Bible or some invisible sky-daddy says that something is moral doesn't mean that I think that it's moral."


What is obvious from these comments is that you have decided to be the arbiter of what is moral and immoral for you. You make the call in any given situation based on nature and nurture. In some areas, you will yield to the moral code set by governments, particularly when they serve your best interest, such as avoiding the penalties associated with violating their code, regardless of whether you disagree with it.

That would make you the ultimate authority on what is right and wrong for you. Likewise, you can only extend logically to others the authority to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Am I correct?

So, why do you not allow theists the same right you claim for yourself? Whatever they decide is moral and immoral for themselves is no less valid than what you decide for yourself. 

And, if they defer to the moral code of the deity to which they express allegiance, is that also not their right?

And, if so, why do you struggle so against a moral code that is consistent and superior to the codes held by men which allow for rape, murder, theft, cheating on taxes, cheating on spouses, drunkenness to the point of doing property damage and personal injury, etc.,etc? Is not the moral code given by the Christian God as expressed by the life of Jesus Christ of a higher and superior nature than all the codes derived from men?

It is. The problem for everyone is that the code is perfect and none of us can measure up. We all deserve to suffer the penalty of breaking the perfect moral code. You reject it, by rejecting the Ultimate Arbiter who decided on the code. You set yourself in His place. You and those who think like you have made of yourselves gods.

The grandest part is that the Ultimate Arbiter has provided a substitute to take the punishment for each one of us, the guilty, that we might be redeemed and made right for His pleasure, to those who accept the free gift of Grace.

The saddest part is that the Ultimate Arbiter has provided a substitute to take the punishment for each one of us, the guilty, that we might be redeemed and made right for His pleasure, except those who reject the free gift of Grace.

This, my friend, is the choice everyone who claims the blood of Christ for their salvation, has made: To believe in the personal sacrifice of the perfect Son of God on the cross for their salvation and to submit to His moral code as the the ultimate authority over their lives. They will live in relationship with the Ultimate Arbiter forever.

Any other choice is on the head of the one that makes it. If that is the choice you make, God will not stop you.

I pray for you godly wisdom.

Peace.


----------



## Madman

> FJ--Yes there is a good and a bad, LOCALLY. I have no objective "standard" to measure good and bad.



Then it would be alright for someone to kill you and take your stuff since their "moral standard" says it is alright to do so.

Good for you but not for me. --moral relativism


Moral relativism will be the downfall of this country.  
I do not believe you are an athisest, I believe you are very confused.  But I will give you credit on this count, every atheist/agnostic I have ever known personally was on an ardent search for god.


----------



## Madman

Dixie--- I must let you know I am a “young earth creationist” (Let’s not go down that rabbit hole at this time), I also believe in the inerrancy of The Holy Bible, (Let’s not go down that rabbit hole at this time), and my profession is mechanical engineering, (I give God the credit for my education and the business that I own.  It is what I do not who I am), I have been married to the same, wonderful women since 1986 (I did not always see her as the wonderful gift that she is) and have been blessed with two sons (one 15 and one 17 I still do not always see them as the wonderful gift that they are).  
I do not claim to know everything, I only know what God has chosen to reveal to me.  If you read the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed you will get a clip of my beliefs though they are not complete.

My family attends the Charismatic Episcopal Church (Not associated with the Episcopal Church of the United States) 
Years ago I struggled with what I believed to be a call to Holy Orders, before God revealed to me that many people miss-here the call to Christian service as a call to the priesthood.   As one priest said to me; “God needs Godly men in the pews and on the street more than he needs priest behind the alter”.

I constantly take apart what I believe and put it back together, if it is still consistent from beginning to end I move forward if not I search and study and pray.  What is important to me are the essentials; the deity of Jesus Christ and His atoning blood 

I may be a zealot, but my zeal is for the One who stepped out of eternity and saved me.  if you are interested I will attempt to explain what we call incest, the argument will be only from the Bible, but you will see it fits with science. If you would like I can also put forth a short argument on why I believe we were at one time all vegetarians also, (I'm not I love rare red meat, not bloody just rare, remember "Life is in the blood", there is some pretty intense foreshadowing there too.).


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> FJ, have you confused yourself?



No. I know exactly what I mean when I say something. The fact that I've said it so many times to the same people here leads to believe that they don't understand what I'm saying.



> First, let's get this out of the way.
> 
> ar·bi·ter  (ärb-tr)
> n.
> 1. One chosen or appointed to judge or decide a disputed issue; an arbitrator.
> 2. One who has the power to judge or ordain at will.



Thank you. As you can see from the above quotes of my words that you listed, if you replace "arbiture" with "absolute morality," it makes sense. However, now that I understand what he is talking about, I can see that it might be a little confusing.

Yes. In practical reality, we vote on people to be arbiters: Judges. However, that is not what I'm speaking of here. Every person is his own arbiter of his local morality. Each individual's morality is created by his or her nature and nurture. I'm assuming that everyone understands the concept of nature and nurture.



> So, the question posed was (and I shall paraphrase here for the sake of clarity):
> 
> In your understanding of morality, who or what determines what actions are and are not moral, what is good and what is bad?



Each person determines his or her own local morality. Action F can be moral to person A yet immoral to person B. Both are correct, locally. BUT, to me the person who I view as correct would be the person who shares my morality on that action F.

Christians, some of whom view the Bible as a source of absolute morality, still have different views of morality on specific issues (Abortion, death penalty, etc.). This is due to nature and nurture. Not all Christians have the same genes, and not all Christians have the same upbringing and life experiences. These differences in nature and nurture lead to different, subjective interpretations of scripture, which then lead to different local morality domains.

Most Christians believe their individual, local morality domain lines up with the absolute morality domain provided by their absolute source: The Bible. This is the current problem in Islam. Radical Muslims, who do not share the same nature and nurture as other Muslims, interpret the Quran differently than moderate Muslims do. This leads to different local morality domains between the two groups. However, each group (radical, moderate) believes that their local morality domain lines up with the absolute morality domain provided by their absolute source: The Quran.



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> Now, in the above three quotes you have contradicted yourself several times while you have indeed answered the question.
> 
> As to an arbiter, you have stated:





			
				Footjunior said:
			
		

> I don't claim there is an ultimate "arbiture" (?) of good and bad, yet I still think of some people as moral and some people as not. From my local perspective, they are either moral or immoral.



I think the above is a lack of understanding of what was meant by "arbiture" on  my part, which is why I had a little (?) beside it and also why I asked what it meant.



			
				Footjunior said:
			
		

> My point is that morality domains only exist in the local perspective. That is, they are individual.





			
				Footjunior said:
			
		

> There is no "arbiture" of truth. I've never heard of the word "arbiture", but I'm assuming you mean "absolute morality"? Please correct me if I'm wrong.





			
				Footjunior said:
			
		

> I have no objective "standard" to measure good and bad.





			
				Footjunior said:
			
		

> I have a standard which I create locally.



These two things do not contradict themselves, believe it or not. I do not have an objective "standard" to measure good and bad, but I do have a standard which I create locally. This standard which I create locally is subjective, not objective (like the morality domain that the Bible provides).



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> What is obvious from these comments is that you have decided to be the arbiter of what is moral and immoral for you. You make the call in any given situation based on nature and nurture. In some areas, you will yield to the moral code set by governments, particularly when they serve your best interest, such as avoiding the penalties associated with violating their code, regardless of whether you disagree with it.
> 
> That would make you the ultimate authority on what is right and wrong for you. Likewise, you can only extend logically to others the authority to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Am I correct?



Yes. Each individual, being influenced by his or her nature and nurture, sets his or her own morality domains.



> So, why do you not allow theists the same right you claim for yourself? Whatever they decide is moral and immoral for themselves is no less valid than what you decide for yourself.



Where have I ever not allowed theists the same right?



> And, if they defer to the moral code of the deity to which they express allegiance, is that also not their right?



Yes, of course it is. Where have I said otherwise?



> And, if so, why do you struggle so against a moral code that is consistent and superior to the codes held by men which allow for rape, murder, theft, cheating on taxes, cheating on spouses, drunkenness to the point of doing property damage and personal injury, etc.,etc?



Where am I struggling against it? Most moral values in the New Testament are good (in my local view). Many in the Old Testament are bad (in my local view). What moral code held by men allows for "rape, murder, theft, cheating on taxes"?

Yes. The Bible provides a supposed absolute morality on which to base local morality domains, but people must interpret the Bible first. This interpretation is subjective in nature, and therefore leads to different local morality domains which differ from Christian to Christian.



> Is not the moral code given by the Christian God as expressed by the life of Jesus Christ of a higher and superior nature than all the codes derived from men? It is. The problem for everyone is that the code is perfect and none of us can measure up. We all deserve to suffer the penalty of breaking the perfect moral code. You reject it, by rejecting the Ultimate Arbiter who decided on the code. You set yourself in His place. You and those who think like you have made of yourselves gods.



No. We simply reject the authority of the Bible over our lives. We do this because we don't believe the god of the Bible exists, and we believe the Bible is a creation of man and man alone. Most atheists do this, you know. We take what is good from the Bible and use it. The rest we leave in the book. I believe we should treat our neighbor as we would like to be treated, but I don't condone the beating of one's servant (Exodus 21:20-21),  no matter when it occurred. That is what's so good about being an atheist. You get to see books as they are, not be forced to accept everything in the Bible as true. Christians, when viewing verses like the one above for the first time, sometimes enter into a sort of cognitive dissonance with their local morality domain (which may say that condoning the beating a servant is bad, no matter when it occurred and no matter what led to the beating) and the absolute morality domain provided by the Bible (which says that under certain circumstances it is ok to beat your servant, as long as he or she recovers after a day or two). This cognitive dissonance is usually resolved by saying that this scripture was only intended for Old Testament peoples. This may be correct, but it still does not change the fact that at one time, a loving and merciful God condoned the beating of a servant as long as the servant didn't die, for the servant "is his money."


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> Then it would be alright for someone to kill you and take your stuff since their "moral standard" says it is alright to do so.
> 
> Good for you but not for me. --moral relativism
> 
> 
> Moral relativism will be the downfall of this country.
> I do not believe you are an athisest, I believe you are very confused.  But I will give you credit on this count, every atheist/agnostic I have ever known personally was on an ardent search for god.




For those reading this thread. Moral relativism is the best the atheistic world view can offer. The arbitrary ethical system of an atheist is the very reason atheist were not allowed to give testimony in a court of law in the early years of this nation. 

Think about it, how could you ever expect an atheist to take his oath before God seriously??

Only Christianity can makes sense of the world we live in, nothing else!!!!


----------



## Madman

> This cognitive dissonance is usually resolved by saying that this scripture was only intended for Old Testament peoples.



I have no cognitive dissonance on the matter.  I don’t believe you can fathom life in Asia some 4000 years ago.  You are viewing life and “your local morality” through the lens of 2000 years of Christianity.

If it were not for Christianity I can assure you, you would be living in a world where the least of your troubles would be a little physical abuse.  

I like that picking and choosing what you want, especially when you couple that with your own "local morality".  Not only do you pick what you believe to be right, you also get to decide what is right.  My children tried that at the age of about 3.  You get all the fun with none of the responsibility; it ties right into what I have found the religion of atheism, aka secular humanism, to be: simple convenience.



"An infraction allowed to go uncorrected is simply the setting of a new, lower standard."


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> I have no cognitive dissonance on the matter.



So you condone the beating of servants?


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Think about it, how could you ever expect an atheist to take his oath before God seriously??



The same way you have to take an obvious lie from the lips of a Christian who took the same oath.

Circular reasoning.


----------



## Wild Turkey

What is it about many christians? They spend an inordinate amount of time pondering/writing about atheists, darwin and other idealists.
Are they so uncomfortable in their own beliefs that they require moral support from others in order to go thru each day. Why cant they just believe what they believe, worship who they worship, and leave other people alone in their beliefs.

Before the rocks start flying, I am not an athiest etc. just tired of this tired bashing of other peoples beliefs.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> The bible alone affects folks in many different ways. But the bible along with the Spirit together work to the saving of man.
> 
> The bible alone can only make one a legalistic at best.



Far be it from me to tell anyone what they perceive or feel regarding the Bible and the Holy Spirit.  It is just that individual.  If it works for you, that is excellent.

There are those who chalk that experience of others up to simple natural human emotions, and do not hold such an unquestioning belief in the words of a book, or the beckoning of a spirit.

Those who do, will never truly understand those who do not.  And vice-versa.


----------



## gtparts

> What moral code held by men allows for "rape, murder, theft, cheating on taxes"?



FJ, 

I would submit that we would have no people imprisoned for the crimes listed above (with the exception of the truly innocent) if they individually held to a moral code that repudiated such actions. 

In as much as the guilty, by definition, have done the deeds, their local moral codes must allow for such behavior. 

Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## WTM45

Wild Turkey said:


> Why cant they just believe what they believe, worship who they worship, and leave other people alone in their beliefs.



Because the exclusiveness of their religious belief system challenges its followers to evangelize everyone.  That is a basic fundamental of religious belief systems.  Exclusivism, and all others are wrong.  So, go out and tell them that.
The Great Commission.

Many different systems promote that in order to grow and perpetuate the system for generations.  They are memes.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> The same way you have to take an obvious lie from the lips of a Christian who took the same oath.
> 
> Circular reasoning.



Not sure your comment is related to worldview on the atheist. If you are making the point christians can lie then I am sure you have not shocked anyone on here. 


Go back and read one of my earlier post. Sure I engage in circular reasoning. So do you. I start with God and end with God that's circular. You start with yourself and end with yourself that's circular. 


You continue to prove that atheism begins conscientiously or unconsciously by making a moral decision not to believe. Everything else follows.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> You continue to prove that atheism begins conscientiously or unconsciously by making a moral decision not to believe. Everything else follows.




It's not a moral decision.  It's a logical one.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Because the exclusiveness of their religious belief system challenges its followers to evangelize everyone.  That is a basic fundamental of religious belief systems.  Exclusivism and all others are wrong.  So, go out and tell them that.
> The Great Commission.
> 
> Many different systems promote that in order to grow and perpetuate the system for generations.  They are memes.





I agree with you. Isn't this true of atheism too? Are not atheist active in seeing their religion, which is humanism, dominate as the superior influence over man? 

I know this kills you to think about atheism as a religion but that's the way it is............


----------



## gtparts

footjunior said:


> So you condone the beating of servants?



If the punishment is deserved, that is, the servant has broken the moral code, it is entirely within the right of the master to do so ....or extend mercy as he sees fit. The passage does not address the unjust punishment of an innocent.


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> It's not a moral decision.  It's a logical one.



Keep saying that long enough and you might start believing it, but I completely disagree, but ok, how? Give me what you think is the best logical argument for atheism in a nut shell if possible.


----------



## reformedpastor

gtparts said:


> If the punishment is deserved, that is, the servant has broken the moral code, it is entirely within the right of the master to do so ....or extend mercy as he sees fit. The passage does not address the unjust punishment of an innocent.



Shouldn't we define beating first?


----------



## Madman

Wild Turkey said:


> What is it about many christians? They spend an inordinate amount of time pondering/writing about atheists, darwin and other idealists.



Because they ask.  Then they claim we have nothing but blind faith, I do not have a blind faith, I have a reasonable faith.

I also spend a lot of time writing about Christians, if they ask.  This is an open forum on those beliefs.  

"Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within you."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his."
						                              Benjamin Franklin


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> FJ,
> 
> I would submit that we would have no people imprisoned for the crimes listed above (with the exception of the truly innocent) if they individually held to a moral code that repudiated such actions.
> 
> In as much as the guilty, by definition, have done the deeds, their local moral codes must allow for such behavior.
> 
> Wouldn't you agree?



People do stuff that they think is morally wrong all the time. And those people get arrested. And then they say that what they did was wrong and they knew it was wrong but they did it anyways.

Did I misunderstand you?


----------



## gtparts

reformedpastor said:


> Shouldn't we define beating first?




Can you define it based on the passage footjunior posted?

Exodus 21:20-21


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Not sure your comment is related to worldview on the atheist. If you are making the point christians can lie then I am sure you have not shocked anyone on here.
> 
> All humans can and do lie at various times.  That's a reflection of each person's survival instinct.  My comment is more reflective of the un-necessary nature of an oath, be it to a deity or to each other.  It will not prevent the act of lying, not will it give an assurance of truthfulness.
> 
> 
> Go back and read one of my earlier post. Sure I engage in circular reasoning. So do you. I start with God and end with God that's circular. You start with yourself and end with yourself that's circular.
> 
> We all start with ourselves, and end with ourselves, as we can not think or answer for anybody else.  And, we know we exist along with the physical world around us.  Of that we are certain.
> Will we know when we are dead?
> A belief or disbelief in a deity has little to do with it.  Technically, you start with a belief in the words of the Bible, and end with the words of the Bible, as that is where all of the Christian belief system comes from.  The entire idea of sin, eternity, a deity, etc... comes from that book and that book alone.  That's OK for you, it's OK with me.  But you can not provide argument against an Atheist or an Agnostic solely on the words of the Bible, as it is not recognized as the sole source of all knowledge.  That's just how it is.  I don't know how else to say it.
> 
> You continue to prove that atheism begins conscientiously or unconsciously by making a moral decision not to believe. Everything else follows.
> 
> It's not really a moral decision, it is one of pure reasoning and scientific principle.  Without evidence of every part as true, the default answer is to not believe UNLESS evidence to the contrary is found or provided.  And that evidence is not based on the human's emotional response or reaction to a ghost.



Respectfully, everyone that is not an Atheist has to understand how the Bible is viewed by non-followers of the Christian belief system.  It is viewed as art, literature, some history, some recordkeeping, some examples of literary and oratory skills and a large conglomeration of tales, fables, stories and songs handed down through the years.  Some study it, some avoid it altogether.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> I agree with you. Isn't this true of atheism too? Are not atheist active in seeing their religion, which is humanism, dominate as the superior influence over man?
> 
> I know this kills you to think about atheism as a religion but that's the way it is............




Call it what you will, does not affect me.  Realistically, Atheism it is the antithesis of organized religion.

Atheists do not want to see any religious belief system take control over nations, governmental actions, leadership or groups of people.  
They have to be active in preventing that from happening, only because those religious belief systems are so aggressive in their desire to evangelize or expand their power and force controls over people.

That, in and of itself, is the "new Atheism."  An outright move to protect the freedom from forced belief and forced compliance with any religious belief system.


----------



## gtparts

footjunior said:


> People do stuff that they think is morally wrong all the time. And those people get arrested. And then they say that what they did was wrong and they knew it was wrong but they did it anyways.
> 
> Did I misunderstand you?



No, you provided what I was looking for in your response. 

Why would someone do something that is a direct violation of their own "local" moral code? 

Or could it be that, while their code allows such behavior, they fully understand that such behavior is contrary to the code of a higher authority,....say... the local government, to which they are subject, voluntarily or otherwise?


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> Why would someone do something that is a direct violation of their own "local" moral code?



They were mentally unstable at the time? Desperation? Only that person knows the situation he or she was in.



> Or could it be that, while their code allows such behavior, they fully understand that such behavior is contrary to the code of a higher authority,....say... the local government, to which they are subject, voluntarily or otherwise?



Yes. I'm sure there are people out there who believe that stealing is moral yet realize that the law says it is not.


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> Why would someone do something that is a direct violation of their own "local" moral code?



Humans have a wide variety of emotions.  Usually, one of them is the driver in their resulting actions.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> Keep saying that long enough and you might start believing it, but I completely disagree, but ok, how? Give me what you think is the best logical argument for atheism in a nut shell if possible.



Simply this:

The existence of God(s) is an extraordinary claim.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  No such evidence exists.  The logical default for the proposition that god(s) exists, barring evidence, is no.  De facto atheism.

I'm not saying there is no way that god(s) exist.  Just that, given what information we have, it is highly improbable.

Flow chart:


----------



## Madman

WTM45 said:


> Call it what you will, does not affect me.  Realistically, Atheism it is the antithesis of organized religion.
> 
> Atheists do not want to see any religious belief system take control over nations, governmental actions, leadership or groups of people.




WT-- That is not totally true, atheists want secular humanism to be the religion of the masses.  The touchy feely age of enlightenment, "I am smarter because I am an intellectual. You unwashed who still believe in some sky king are the great unwashed."  

You live in a country founded by Christians and to say otherwise is untrue.  Thomas Jefferson approved funds for Christian Bibles to be printed so that the indians could be evangelized.  

I am going to tell people about Jesus Christ because I know Him and I know what He can do.  I hope you tell people about the things in life that you believe to be benefical.  I can not, not, tell people about the giver of life.  Believe it or not.  It is of no concern to me, I care about you because you are a son of Adam or a daughter of Eve.

Got to go it is Ash Wed.  

till tomorrow.


----------



## Madman

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No such evidence exists.



Yes it does!!  You have to do something with the person of Jesus Christ.  A true person, historically documented.  That is a post that will go on forever.  There have been entire religions statred in an attempt to deny Him and who and what He is.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> Thomas Jefferson approved funds for Christian Bibles to be printed so that the indians could be evangelized.



I hope we all know, through our History study, just where that got them.  I'd not say the way the .gov (who just might have been supportive of and dominated by the Christian belief system) treated the Native Americans was very Christian at all.

Peace to you as well, my friend!  Have a happy and peaceful Ash Wednesday!


----------



## ToLog

the term (secular) humanism has been penned in a few posts.  the effort, i suppose was to posit humanism and atheism as the "same" thing.

while it's kinda easy to see that Atheism might be a subset of secular humanism, it is not the "whole" thing.

my point would be many humanists believe that "Godly" or God's information is uploaded (downloaded?) into humans as they progress.

(some) Medical Doctors might be an example. they receive their knowledge to heal from their studies, and abilities. New technologies occur, which are manifest into the world to help patients.  Elements of Humanism could allow for such inputs from the supernatural.  

but, we're talking about Athiesm here, not Secular Humanism.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Respectfully, everyone that is not an Atheist has to understand how the Bible is viewed by non-followers of the Christian belief system.  It is viewed as art, literature, some history, some recordkeeping, some examples of literary and oratory skills and a large conglomeration of tales, fables, stories and songs handed down through the years.  Some study it, some avoid it altogether.



I understand that but, people view the bible in many different ways. I don't believe what the atheist says about himself because deception is a powerful thing. Rather I believe what scripture says about the atheist and accept that as truth.


Surly my position, which is reformed and Calvinistic,  can't come as a shock to you if your knowledgeable of scripture? 



Your position on oaths is not surprising given your worldview. But I hold that men are fallen and that's the reason for inconsistent morality plus a need to be held accountable. If no in this life certainly in the next. 

Respectfully, atheism doesn't have a need for truthfulness in court, seeing how justice is pliable and not fixed. Which really isn't justice since justice presupposes a standard of right. 


Look can the atheist worldview makes sense of REALITY, KNOWLEDGE AND ETHICS?? Not really. 


It looks like we are now debating ethics. How one lives is important. Can the atheist given his worldview be a good neighbor? Maybe. Who is going to define 'good'? And when we define good won't we segregate by definition? 

The atheist strives hard to believe against God. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> I don't believe what the atheist says about himself because deception is a powerful thing. Rather I believe what scripture says about the atheist and accept that as truth.


----------



## WTM45

The Atheist does not follow the Bible as being the only thing that matters in this life.  The idea of eternal life is an idea found in the Bible.  Man wrote the Bible.  No scientific proof exists of an afterlife, or of a deity.  So, the defualt for the Atheist is the Bible and God exist only in the mind of those who will follow the book.

I understand your personal position fully, and am not questioning your right to believe in the Bible as unfailing and totally accurate.  Your interpretation can be shaped by your leadership's directives and your personal study.  Semantics aside.

Atheists can be quite moral, as they feel responsible for their actions not as something inately inside them from birth that is not their fault, but that they are fully responsible without any excuse or guarantee of forgiveness if they will "believe" in such forgiveness.

They live, most often, in complete harmony with their neighbor.

They believe that justice should be metered out in this life, as it is the one we have actual evidence of.  Eternity and eternal life is a concept found in the Bible.  Remember, they see the Bible as much different than a fundamental believer.

Are there exceptions?  Sure.  Just like there are exceptions in anything.  There are extremists as well.


----------



## Madman

> I'd not say the way the .gov (who just might have been supportive of and dominated by the Christian belief system) treated the Native Americans was very Christian at all.



You will get no argument from me that the American Indians as a whole were not treated very in a Christian manner by 21st century standards.  But once again I will remind you that even 150 years ago the USA was still a harsh environment.  I would argue that we view the treatment of people through the lens of 2000 years of Christianity. In the west our views have been shaped by pretty easy living for the last 100 years.  

I put that in the catagory of slavery, had it not been for the Christians the indians would have been treated worse and we would still own slaves. 

Remember where I come from: I believe we live in a fallen world even Christians are fallen.  My best works are "but filthy rags."  I also believe in justice and grace.


----------



## ToLog

Madman said:


> I put that in the catagory of slavery, had it not been for the Christians the indians would have been treated worse and we would still own slaves.



treated worse by whom, pray tell? 

the English, the Spanish, the Italians, the Portuguese?

are you saying they weren't Christian? 

the invasion of North & South America was by groups of individuals that possessed the technology to control the countryside. and they were willing to utilize that technology to further their aims.

the Christians helped the Native Americans, please.


----------



## Madman

> the Christians helped the Native Americans, please.



RT-- you may be the only person I have ever heard that believes the world would be a better place without Christianity.

You are also a little rude.  That even comes through in your writing.  Crass, rude languge is the weapon of small men.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> RT...You are also a little rude.  That even comes through in your writing.  Crass, rude languge is the weapon of small men.



I do not see that.  Been in many discussions with roothog.

So, your calling someone a "small man" is acceptable?  Why?
Remember, I can not judge what is truly in a man's heart by his actions.


----------



## Madman

So you do not agree that rude language is the weapon of small men.


For me and you to be in dissagreement should be no suprise.   I see it as sarcatic and rude, look at the post.  I believe RT would admit he was looking for a gig.

And yes RT it could have been worse the atheist were not running out to help the indians, Christian groups were.


----------



## ToLog

Madman said:


> And yes RT it could have been worse the atheist were not running out to help the indians, Christian groups were.



heh, nothing rude about me.  because i have eyes to see means i should be able to see, right? 

the Atheists and the Christians all came over on the same boat, together, is my understanding.

humans in America already had a system in place to allow living, and let living.  sure, there were displacements before White men arrived, but the pace of change pickedup considerably after he arrived. but, that's the advantage of Technology, it's supposed to cause advancement, right? 

sorry if i came across as rude it was not the intent.


----------



## Madman

Accepted.

Good night fellows I have to Go.  Have a great evening.

Madman


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> WT-- That is not totally true, atheists want secular humanism to be the religion of the masses.



Atheists don't want any religion.  



> You live in a country founded by Christians and to say otherwise is untrue.  Thomas Jefferson approved funds for Christian Bibles to be printed so that the indians could be evangelized.



Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian.  He was a deist.




Madman said:


> Yes it does!!  You have to do something with the person of Jesus Christ.  A true person, historically documented.



Why do we have to 'do something' wtih the person of Jesus Christ?  So what if he was a true, historical documented person? I don't deny that a man named Jesus existed.  I do deny that he died, was buried in a tomb for three days and then rose from the dead.  I do deny that he was born to a woman who was miraculously impregnated by a ghost.  There is absolutely no evidence of that, anywhere. 



Madman said:


> I put that in the catagory of slavery, had it not been for the Christians the indians would have been treated worse and we would still own slaves.



That's actually pretty comical, considering the south (who wanted slaves) is called the 'bible belt'.     I'm pretty sure those good Southern Christians are the ones who were supportive of forcing the Cherokee out on the Trail of Tears as well.   Yep, sure is a good thing they were around to make sure nobody was treated worse!!


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Call it what you will, does not affect me.  Realistically, Atheism it is the antithesis of organized religion.
> 
> Atheists do not want to see any religious belief system take control over nations, governmental actions, leadership or groups of people.
> They have to be active in preventing that from happening, only because those religious belief systems are so aggressive in their desire to evangelize or expand their power and force controls over people.
> 
> That, in and of itself, is the "new Atheism."  An outright move to protect the freedom from forced belief and forced compliance with any religious belief system.



Nothing new about "the new atheism."

Here again, the atheist in aggressively working to keep "religion" from dominating man insert their own beliefs. Do you not see this???


There can be no neutrality, ever. Someone's beliefs,  religion, ideas or logic will be followed. Whether its christianity, atheism, or something more pluralistic. This is the nature of life. 


Don't you agree???


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> Simply this:
> 
> The existence of God(s) is an extraordinary claim.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  No such evidence exists.  The logical default for the proposition that god(s) exists, barring evidence, is no.  De facto atheism.
> 
> I'm not saying there is no way that god(s) exist.  Just that, given what information we have, it is highly improbable.
> 
> Flow chart:




First, I want to tell that I appreciate you giving a response the question. I think its a good response. 

Here's my response: 1. God's existence is not a extraordinary claim in my worldview.My worldview includes supernaturalism. Only in yours. Why? 

How you would define extraordinary evidence? In my view evidence isn't the real problem at all rather its a moral antitheses. 

I have said this before but maybe an illustration will help. 

Take a crime scene. Evidence lies everywhere, and its the job of the investigator to gather the evidence and put together a probable scenario in order to solve the crime. Of course the investigator comes to the scene with already per-determined idea's, drugs, passion crime...........ect. These will affect his scenario. His presuppositions will shape and determine who and how he "thinks" the crime was committed and will follow that theory until proven otherwise. 

Life is no different, though the investigator is very conscience of the importance of his job and the power of influence the common day to day folk are not. Doesn't mean the use less logic or reason it simply means they are not as aware of their pre-suppositions they use everyday that affect their belief system. 

You say "The logical default for the proposition that god(s) exists, barring evidence, is no.  De facto atheism." 

But this logic is flawed because presuppositions come before and shape our suppositions. You interpret your supposition/ hypothesis by your presuppositions (worldview). Given this, 'defacto atheism' is not an honest position at all.  Don't take this as me claiming your deliberately dishonest. Do you need more information? Or are you misinterpreting the information you already have? I say the later. 

Atheism just can't account for reality, knowledge or truth. So the atheist lives very inconsistent within his own worldview. Doesn't mean he can't enjoy the many pleasures of this life..........etc. because many do.


Thanks pnome.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

reformedpastor said:


> Atheism just can't account for reality, knowledge or truth.



Nobody can.

God is an idea created to give reason for those things that we do not understand.  Take, for example, the story of Soddom and Gomorrah in the bible.  Fire and brimstone rained down from heaven on those cities, destroying them.  It is said in the bible to be rained down by God.  However, recent archaeological research has shown that there is evidence that the cause was from volcanic activity.   The plagues of Egypt with Moses and the Pharaoh.  I recently saw an episode of Naked Archaeologist that explained the exact way (from nature) that the sequence of the plagues likely happened.  But all of these things were not understood then, and therefore attributed to the judgement of 'God'.

Nobody knows exactly how the earth began or was created or what will happen when you die.  We only have ideas and theories, faith or lack thereof.   Believers attribute the things they don't understand to God.  Atheists simply say, I don't know.


----------



## ToLog

Dixie Dawg said:


> Nobody knows exactly how the earth began or was created or what will happen when you die.  We only have ideas and theories, faith or lack thereof.   Believers attribute the things they don't understand to God.  Atheists simply say, I don't know.



back in the day, when i was serving the military, one had best not say "i don't know."  Give an answer, any answer, but not That one. 

of course, that's where Faith and Knowledge depart paths. two different trails, one is Faith. the other is called Knowledge.  Knowledge has been discredited. just look at the history of the Gnostics.  they were not well-thought of by the Status Quo, at all.

well, the Works people, they're sprinkled in as  well. but they seem to be over-working, and might be over-doing it a bit?? 

sorry,


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Here again, the atheist in aggressively working to keep "religion" from dominating...



The "New Atheism" is that newer push since the world changing events of 9/11/2001.
There have always been Atheists, and they have existed with other religious belief systems.  Now, the extremism of religious belief systems is becoming more of a concern to them.

I'm gonna say it one time.  I do not care what anyone believes.  That is your choice.  But do folks just stand by and let any one group work their way into domination of a state?  A country?  Of the world?

Oh, its OK if it is Christianity, right?  That's the only true way to the only true deity?  What if it is not your brand of Christianity?  Hmmmmm......


----------



## reformedpastor

Dixie Dawg said:


> Atheists don't want any religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian.  He was a deist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to 'do something' wtih the person of Jesus Christ?  So what if he was a true, historical documented person? I don't deny that a man named Jesus existed.  I do deny that he died, was buried in a tomb for three days and then rose from the dead.  I do deny that he was born to a woman who was miraculously impregnated by a ghost.  There is absolutely no evidence of that, anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually pretty comical, considering the south (who wanted slaves) is called the 'bible belt'.     I'm pretty sure those good Southern Christians are the ones who were supportive of forcing the Cherokee out on the Trail of Tears as well.   Yep, sure is a good thing they were around to make sure nobody was treated worse!!





All of this is proves nothing. Its obvious you lack understanding of Southern history. 

Look who here has denied the imperfections of christians? We can get into the "list of terrible acts" if you want and humanism/atheism will far out way the christian side. So, your sweeping statements only prove a moral animosity towards God. And by the way can you support that claim about the Cherokee??? I can say many missionaries were tortured and killed by the Indians they were trying to evangelize but hey the Indians did the world a favor because they were just christians infecting the world with their virus. You approve RIGHT?  

Try to do better than make these kind of statements.Thanks


----------



## celticfisherman

Sorry. You can Dixie. It is sad to come to a point where you miss so much but...

Sorry you really can account for knowledge truth and reality. Morals and everything. We have been doing so for thousands of years thru one specific system and we have benefitted greatly from it.


----------



## celticfisherman

reformedpastor said:


> All of this is proves nothing. Its obvious you lack understanding of Southern history.
> 
> Look who here has denied the imperfections of christians? We can get into the "list of terrible acts" if you want and humanism/atheism will far out way the christian side. So, your sweeping statements only prove a moral animosity towards God. And by the way can you support that claim about the Cherokee??? I can say many missionaries were tortured and killed by the Indians they were trying to evangelize but hey the Indians did the world a favor because they were just christians infecting the world with their virus. You approve RIGHT?
> 
> Try to do better than make these kind of statements.Thanks



Sounds good to me buddy. I think I will sit here and wait for the answers to not make any sense...


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> All of this is proves nothing. Its obvious you lack understanding of Southern history.
> 
> Look who here has denied the imperfections of christians? We can get into the "list of terrible acts" if you want and humanism/atheism will far out way the christian side.



Pick your favorite atheistic "terrible act," and then describe, in rigorous format how that act was directly caused by atheism.


----------



## ToLog

celticfisherman said:


> We have been doing so for thousands of years thru one specific system and we have benefitted greatly from it.



well, uh, i'm not Dixie, but...

my response is that sure "we" have. it's been through superior technology.

that means, that those in front of us either succumb, or are imprisoned or annihilated.

is that a good thing?  well, look at the expressways on Monday morning. just a bunch of happy winners of the lottery, right?


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> You say "The logical default for the proposition that god(s) exists, barring evidence, is no.  De facto atheism."
> 
> But this logic is flawed because presuppositions come before and shape our suppositions. You interpret your supposition/ hypothesis by your presuppositions (worldview). Given this, 'defacto atheism' is not an honest position at all.



Pastor, the average religious belief system follower doesn't even do that much analysis.  They follow a holy book without any doubt, not daring to question what does not even make logical sense.
And the greatest majority of Christians/Muslims/Buddists/etc... were BORN into their belief system.  
That's some real time pre-supposition, as they follow the same meme they inherited at birth.

For many Atheists, it took much more work, study, research and investigation to reach their logical conclusions.  Religious belief system followers rarely step outside their parent's indoctrination.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

reformedpastor said:


> All of this is proves nothing. Its obvious you lack understanding of Southern history.



Blame it on my southern public schooling  



> And by the way can you support that claim about the Cherokee???



Which claim? The Trail of Tears?  It's in pretty much every history book....  



> I can say many missionaries were tortured and killed by the Indians they were trying to evangelize but hey the Indians did the world a favor because they were just christians infecting the world with their virus. You approve RIGHT?



Of course not.  I've never said anything that would warrant that sort of comment, and find it a bit insulting that you would insinuate that.  I don't wish for anyone to die, regardless of their religious beliefs.  But back to the topic of the Indians...  I would doubt that the Indians killed the missionaries because they were evangelizing them.  It probably had something to do with looking out for their own interest due to masses of their relatives being killed by the white man.  It was probably very hard for them to trust anyone white.  That's just a guess, though....


----------



## reformedpastor

Dixie Dawg said:


> Nobody can.
> 
> God is an idea created to give reason for those things that we do not understand.  Take, for example, the story of Soddom and Gomorrah in the bible.  Fire and brimstone rained down from heaven on those cities, destroying them.  It is said in the bible to be rained down by God.  However, recent archaeological research has shown that there is evidence that the cause was from volcanic activity.   The plagues of Egypt with Moses and the Pharaoh.  I recently saw an episode of Naked Archaeologist that explained the exact way (from nature) that the sequence of the plagues likely happened.  But all of these things were not understood then, and therefore attributed to the judgement of 'God'.
> 
> Nobody knows exactly how the earth began or was created or what will happen when you die.  We only have ideas and theories, faith or lack thereof.   Believers attribute the things they don't understand to God.  Atheists simply say, I don't know.





I can. Plus, I don't put a lot of stock in archeology that says this or that "likely" happened. I don't blame you for rejecting supernaturalism. You don't have to explain yourself to me. Again, whoever interprets the evidence defines it and whoever defines it controls it. 

Doesn't mean its accurate.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

reformedpastor said:


> I can. Plus, I don't put a lot of stock in archeology that says this or that "likely" happened.



I put more stock in that than something that has no evidence at all for support.  At least with archaeology, they have tangible evidence to support their theory instead of just 'faith'.



> I don't blame you for rejecting supernaturalism.



I don't really reject it though. I simply don't have enough evidence to make a verdict.  I've never seen a ghost, but I suppose if I had things happen in my home that suggested evidence that a ghost existed, I would change my mind.

And that's basically all the atheists on this board are saying.  They don't necessarily reject the possibility of God.  They just don't have enough evidence to accept it.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Pick your favorite atheistic "terrible act," and then describe, in rigorous format how that act was directly caused by atheism.



Pick your favorite Christian atrocity and explain in rigorous format why it is God's fault. And why you reject him because of it.


----------



## celticfisherman

Dixie Dawg said:


> I put more stock in that than something that has no evidence at all for support.  At least with archaeology, they have tangible evidence to support their theory instead of just 'faith'.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really reject it though. I simply don't have enough evidence to make a verdict.  I've never seen a ghost, but I suppose if I had things happen in my home that suggested evidence that a ghost existed, I would change my mind.
> 
> And that's basically all the atheists on this board are saying.  They don't necessarily reject the possibility of God.  They just don't have enough evidence to accept it.



Then again that is not being consistent with your reading or definitions. Atheism rejects God and the possibility of God.


----------



## ToLog

celticfisherman said:


> Pick your favorite Christian atrocity and explain in rigorous format why it is God's fault. And why you reject him because of it.



the Christian's represent and defend and support the Christian God.

if it happens on Earth and God is involved, well..........

oh, sorry, i thought it was all Bush's fault.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> We can get into the "list of terrible acts" if you want and humanism/atheism will far out way the christian side.



Are you SURE you want to go there?

Dixie has made valid points to her argument.  Address them.
Do not belittle her, or patronize her please.  I'm sure she has a grasp of southern history.  No need to be insulting.
She gives respect here to others, we have to do the same or else the discussion breaks down completely.


----------



## reformedpastor

Dixie Dawg said:


> Blame it on my southern public schooling
> 
> 
> 
> Which claim? The Trail of Tears?  It's in pretty much every history book....
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  I've never said anything that would warrant that sort of comment, and find it a bit insulting that you would insinuate that.  I don't wish for anyone to die, regardless of their religious beliefs.  But back to the topic of the Indians...  I would doubt that the Indians killed the missionaries because they were evangelizing them.  It probably had something to do with looking out for their own interest due to masses of their relatives being killed by the white man.  It was probably very hard for them to trust anyone white.  That's just a guess, though....





You doubt???????? Or you want to believe??? It states that Christians were responsible?? I need to see this, with my back ground in history I would have to see this and check the source. 

The Indian represents the noble savage, right??? all that is fair and honest and righteous..........etc.  

Hey, public schooled myself, I am relearning much. Especially history.


----------



## ToLog

reformedpastor said:


> The Indian represents the noble savage, right??? all that is fair and honest and righteous..........etc.
> 
> Hey, public schooled myself, I am relearning much. Especially history.



Heh, Paster, me too.

but, can't we refer to the Native Americans as just that. i mean we've got Americans and African Americans, why not Native Americans?

Indians, naturatized here are from India, right??


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Are you SURE you want to go there?
> 
> Dixie has made valid points to her argument.  Address them.
> Do not belittle her, or patronize her please.  I'm sure she has a grasp of southern history.  No need to be insulting.
> She gives respect here to others, we have to do the same or else the discussion breaks down completely.




Sure! Lets go. All its going to prove is that men can and do act in horrible ways. And the atheist has more reasons to act in this manner. Wouldn't you agree??? 

Start your list if you like. 

Have I not addressed her comments? Which ones and I will.


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> Pick your favorite Christian atrocity and explain in rigorous format why it is God's fault. And why you reject him because of it.



An Atheist will not blame "God" for an atrocity committed by members of a religious belief system.  They will blame the members themselves.  God does not exist to them.

Dixie has also stated in the not so distant past she is not an Atheist.  Where does she say she has rejected Him?


----------



## reformedpastor

Dixie Dawg said:


> I put more stock in that than something that has no evidence at all for support.  At least with archaeology, they have tangible evidence to support their theory instead of just 'faith'.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really reject it though. I simply don't have enough evidence to make a verdict.  I've never seen a ghost, but I suppose if I had things happen in my home that suggested evidence that a ghost existed, I would change my mind.
> 
> And that's basically all the atheists on this board are saying.  They don't necessarily reject the possibility of God.  They just don't have enough evidence to accept it.





Ok. But remember blind faith is not biblical faith. I perfectly see the evidence because I start with God is.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

reformedpastor said:


> You doubt???????? Or you want to believe??? It states that Christians were responsible?? I need to see this, with my back ground in history I would have to see this and check the source.



Well, admittedly I have not looked up the source for every leader in office at the time of the Trail of Tears, but if it matters that much I can look up to see what religion President Jackson was, or the Congress members in 1830, or the US Senate in 1835, or even Gen. Winfield Scott. I feel fairly confident, however, that at least the majority were God-fearing Christian men, following the Christian principles that you say this country was founded upon....


----------



## GA1dad

reformedpastor said:


> Judaism is not a religion of the Torah but of the Rabbis. Just ask one.
> 
> The Jews do not follow scripture but the Rabbinic commentary on scripture. Which is perverted and twisted. That the reason Jesus had such a problem with the religion of His day. It wasn't a biblical one, or from God. It was man made.




I've read every post here, and chosen to stay out of it up to this one.

I don't understand the logic in it. Absolutley everything in it can be said of all "christian" religions as well. If Jesus was here today,,,, I doubt he would condone any of our modern religions.


----------



## footjunior

footjunior said:


> Pick your favorite atheistic "terrible act," and then describe, in rigorous format how that act was directly caused by atheism.



Does anyone mind doing this? Pastor?


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> Pick your favorite atheistic "terrible act," and then describe, in rigorous format how that act was directly caused by atheism.



Off the top of my head The French Revolution. the term "Favorite" really isn't applicable to mass murder.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Sure! Lets go. All its going to prove is that men can and do act in horrible ways. And the atheist has more reasons to act in this manner. Wouldn't you agree???



No.  There is no more of a reason for an Atheist to do anything horrible any more than there is reason for a religious belief system follower to do anything horrible.

Yes, humans have been very cruel to each other for a long time.  For many reasons.

Even missionaries brought disease to groups of humans, exposing them to things that wiped out generations.  Smallpox, malaria, the common cold, STD's, the list goes on........

Yep.  I said STD's.  Oh boy!


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> Off the top of my head The French Revolution. the term "Favorite" really isn't applicable to mass murder.



And now how did atheism lead directly to the French Revolution? You only answered half the question.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> An Atheist will not blame "God" for an atrocity committed by members of a religious belief system.  They will blame the members themselves.  God does not exist to them.
> 
> Dixie has also stated in the not so distant past she is not an Atheist.  Where does she say she has rejected Him?



No Dixie is constantly rejecting him and Truth by saying "that's your opinion". No one has offered opinions on this but Biblical Truth. You either understand or not. We have presented you with the Gospel. There is nothing left to do is the point I think I am coming to. A clear and precise presentation by a number of people.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

celticfisherman said:


> No Dixie is constantly rejecting him and Truth by saying "that's your opinion". No one has offered opinions on this but Biblical Truth.



That's not entirely accurate.  I do not reject God.  I reject your idea of God.


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> No Dixie is constantly rejecting him and Truth by saying "that's your opinion". No one has offered opinions on this but Biblical Truth. You either understand or not. We have presented you with the Gospel. There is nothing left to do is the point I think I am coming to. A clear and precise presentation by a number of people.



A large number of people believe the Bible completely.  Can you accept that some do not?  Don't they have that individual right to question it and seek their own answers and interpretation?  Have you personally ever questioned the exclusivism found within the Christian belief system?

Biblical truth?  That has to be an individual belief based on faith.  There is no evidence, other than the feeling you have personally, which I will not deny can be VERY real to you!  And, I would not attempt to deny you the right to believe and feel the way your individuality/heart leads you.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> And now how did atheism lead directly to the French Revolution? You only answered half the question.



Ok, there's a lot here and I can't type that fast or that well so be a little patient. Plus I have a conference call at 8:45.

I would deal with personalities. The key shakers and movers of the F.R. were atheist. Voltaire comes to mind, he was a public God hater. They personalities attached were christians. The Saint Bartholomew's massacre directed against the French Calvinists. This is as far as I can go now but its a start. 

Have to get ready for my call. Don't let it get out of hand. Be back in an hour or so.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> Ok, there's a lot here and I can't type that fast or that well so be a little patient. Plus I have a conference call at 8:45.
> 
> I would deal with personalities. The key shakers and movers of the F.R. were atheist. Voltaire comes to mind, he was a public God hater. They personalities attached were christians. The Saint Bartholomew's massacre directed against the French Calvinists. This is as far as I can go now but its a start.



Ahh... so since a couple of people involved were atheists, that means that atheism is the direct cause of the French Revolution!!!

It makes perfect sense!


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> A large number of people believe the Bible completely.  Can you accept that some do not?  Don't they have that individual right to question it and seek their own answers and interpretation?  Have you personally ever questioned the exclusivism found within the Christian belief system?
> 
> Biblical truth?  That has to be an individual belief based on faith.  There is no evidence, other than the feeling you have personally, which I will not deny can be VERY real to you!  And, I would not attempt to deny you the right to believe and feel the way your individuality/heart leads you.



I never said she didn't have the right to question it. What I have said is that I do not believe anymore it is sincere. Or will be successful at this time.

There is plenty of evidence of what happened in the bible. There is more evidence on the Bible than Plato and Socrates combined and multiplied. But no one disputes there writings with the vitriolic hatred that some day or the "that's just your opinion" junk.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Ahh... so since a couple of people involved were atheists, that means that atheism is the direct cause of the French Revolution!!!
> 
> It makes perfect sense!



Did you not read anything to get to Tech? 

The Enlightenment was the foundation of that movement. The Enlightenment is an almost purely Atheistic movement. About finding truth away from God.


----------



## Madman

Dixie Dawg said:


> Atheists don't want any religion.
> 
> Atheism is a religion of it's own.
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian.  He was a deist.
> We may call him a diest today.  So I picked the wrong founding father, sorry , I choose Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to 'do something' wtih the person of Jesus Christ?  So what if he was a true, historical documented person? I don't deny that a man named Jesus existed.  I do deny that he died, was buried in a tomb for three days and then rose from the dead.  I do deny that he was born to a woman who was miraculously impregnated by a ghost.  There is absolutely no evidence of that, anywhere.
> 
> Sure there is, there are plenty of extra-Biblical writings about Jesus.  There are several writings from historians like Josephus that speak about the miracles Jesus preformed.  Don't wash over the resurection.  If there really was a body why did the Pharisees not produce it when the deciples claimed he was risen.  Oh yeh I forget some frightened men and women over powered the Roman guards and rolled a multi-ton stone out of the way and stole the body.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually pretty comical, considering the south (who wanted slaves) is called the 'bible belt'.     I'm pretty sure those good Southern Christians are the ones who were supportive of forcing the Cherokee out on the Trail of Tears as well.   Yep, sure is a good thing they were around to make sure nobody was treated worse!!



Probably were some Christians involved in slavery can't and won't justify it but as I said to RT, Christian relief organizations have been on the front line since the beginning helping where they could.  By the way the south was not the only part of the country that had slavery and had it not been for Christians like Wilberforce we verywell may have had slavery in the US and Europe for longer than we did.  Are you implying that Christians are all quilty by association?  Seems like a far fetch to me.  

Are you interested in my incest thoughts?


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> There is plenty of evidence of what happened in the bible. There is more evidence on the Bible than Plato and Socrates combined and multiplied. But no one disputes there writings with the vitriolic hatred that some day or the "that's just your opinion" junk.



That was a horrible analogy. Plato and Socrates most likely existed, as did Jesus. But Plato never claimed that someone walked on water either. Or that he was born of a virgin birth. These events in the Bible have no evidence. They're simply the myths included in a religion known as Christianity that you just happened to be born into.



			
				Celticfisherman said:
			
		

> The Enlightenment was the foundation of that movement. The Enlightenment is an almost purely Atheistic movement. About finding truth away from God.



Rigorously explain how the Enlightenment was the "foundation" of the French Revolution and not other causes, such as the economy, taxes, famine. Also rigorously explain how the Enlightenment was an "almost purely Atheistic movement" instead of a movement founded on deism, liberty, and the natural rights as human beings.

Remember the original request:



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Pick your favorite atheistic "terrible act," and then describe, in rigorous format how that act was directly caused by atheism.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> Are you interested in my incest thoughts?


----------



## Madman

WTM45 said:


>



Yeh. That was pretty scary and if you had not read Dixie and my exchange yesterday it probably looked real bad in print.  

If she responds I will try to explain more thoroughly. 

Want to hear God laugh?  Tell him your plans.

We really do take ourselves to serious.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

celticfisherman said:


> I never said she didn't have the right to question it. What I have said is that I do not believe anymore it is sincere. Or will be successful at this time.



My questioning of the bible is always sincere.  Just FYI.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> Are you interested in my incest thoughts?





WTM45 said:


>





Madman said:


> Yeh. That was pretty scary and if you had not read Dixie and my exchange yesterday it probably looked real bad in print.



   For sure that didn't come out the right way!  But I know what you meant 

Yes I would love to hear your thoughts on biblical incest.





> We really do take ourselves to serious.



On that we can definitely agree!!!


----------



## celticfisherman

Dixie Dawg said:


> My questioning of the bible is always sincere.  Just FYI.



Maybe but not your search.


----------



## Madman

I'm out of here.  I pray that I have not been offensive.  If I have please forgive me.  I believe most of you are sincere in your beliefs and probably "good" by worldly standards.

I am "good" by worldly standards but unfortunately that is not the standard for me.

Perhaps we will meet one day, in this world or the next, I pray we do.

They call me the Madman because I ponder useless unnecassary topics like this.  Here are my beliefs of why I believe the practice of what we call incest changed.  

Let me first say what brought this on. (edit: actually I asked if )Footjunior implied that the government was the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. I said that would be a problem when administrations change and the laws change you would have to change your moral compass as well.  Dixie asked me to explain why at one time incest was practiced by believers if it is outlawed.  (I think that was the exchange)

Anyway, I believe the Scriptures to be true and believe them from the beginning.  Adam and Eve were the first created and the only ones created, henceforth the question: where did Cane and Able get their wives?  It would have had to have been their sisters.  I do not understand why this is such a problem.  The only reason incest is illegal today is because of the high probability of passing on a recessive gene and causing severe birth defects.  Soon after creation the gene pool was perfect there was no reason to be concerned about recessive genes.  Fast forward hundreds of years to the time of Moses (Lev.) when God is building a nation of priests, due to the fall the gene pool had began to breakdown.  In order to keep His people safe God commands that they do not “lay” with close relatives.

Originally there was a perfect gene pool, no problems after all Adam and Eve had been commanded to populate the earth.  

After the fall the gene pool begins to break down, recessive genes can cause serious birth defects so God puts a stop to it to protect His people.  


Don't take this too seriously I don't.  

Good night and good bye for now.

The Madman

Go on your way into the world in peace….
Be of good courage; Hold fast that which is good;
Render no man evil for evil; Strengthen the faint hearted;
Support the weak; Help and cheer the sick; Honor all men; 
Love and serve the Lord;
And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us 
all evermore.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

celticfisherman said:


> Maybe but not your search.



My search for the 'truth' is sincere as well.  Unless you are God, you really wouldn't know otherwise, would you?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> Anyway, I believe the Scriptures to be true and believe them from the beginning.  Adam and Eve were the first created and the only ones created, henceforth the question: where did Cane and Able get their wives?  It would have had to have been their sisters.  I do not understand why this is such a problem.  The only reason incest is illegal today is because of the high probability of passing on a recessive gene and causing severe birth defects.  Soon after creation the gene pool was perfect there was no reason to be concerned about recessive genes.  Fast forward hundreds of years to the time of Moses (Lev.) when God is building a nation of priests, due to the fall the gene pool had began to breakdown.  In order to keep His people safe God commands that they do not “lay” with close relatives.



So God is not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  Good to know... and it makes much more sense knowing that.  And since that is the case, one can never be certain of anything, including their eternal salvation.  Because just as you say God changed the rules between the OT and the NT, he could change them up again at a moment's notice.


----------



## footjunior

Dixie Dawg said:


> My search for the 'truth' is sincere as well.  Unless you are God, you really wouldn't know otherwise, would you?



Celt knows everything. He regularly reads my mind through these forums. He knows me better than I know myself.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Celt knows everything. He regularly reads my mind through these forums. He knows me better than I know myself.



FJ- Everyone here knows you better than you know yourself. Everyone (or most everyone) here has been thru what you are going thru.

The difference is some of us grow out of it. Some of us actually truly seek the truth at some point. Maybe you will. Maybe you won't I have no idea. That is not why you are here. At first it was to test a hypothesis. Now who really knows but it is not for honest discussion and searching.

The point is don't try and tell us how moral you are. How nice a guy you are and how wonderful life would be if we just worshipped at the altar of Atheism. How the world would be a much better place without religion. You have created another one just for you. A congregation of one. Where there is no right and wrong outside of you and your beliefs. Where there is no accountability. No God to look down and say how much He loves you and cares for you and only wants the best for you.

Good night and good luck.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> First, I want to tell that I appreciate you giving a response the question. I think its a good response.
> 
> Here's my response: 1. God's existence is not a extraordinary claim in my worldview.My worldview includes supernaturalism. Only in yours. Why?



You're welcome.  If God's existence (and I'm talking about your God) is not extraordinary in your worldview, and your worldview includes supernaturalism, then why not worship all gods?  Why narrow it down to one? 

If you can believe Genesis, without need of proof, because it doesn't seem extraordinary to you, why not believe the Völuspá?  Is it not just as plausible an account of creation?




> How you would define extraordinary evidence?



Maybe an example will help.  My turn for an illustration.

I was abducted by aliens on my way home from work today.  I can show the red spot on my arm where they connected this thing to me to scan my body.

Based on the evidence I've offered, do you believe me?  You shouldn't, or else you're a pretty gullible guy.

Now, let's say I offer some more evidence.  How about a grainy photograph of the aliens that abducted me?  Believe me yet?

How about if I produce both the aliens and the spaceship for your review.  Believe me then?

How about if I produce expert upon expert who certified that the ship was of alien design and the alien definitely extraterrestrial? 

Ok, now... What if I told you I bumped my arm on the way home from work today.  And showed you the red spot on my arm.  Would you believe my story, based on the evidence I had provided?

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.





> You say "The logical default for the proposition that god(s) exists, barring evidence, is no.  De facto atheism."
> 
> But this logic is flawed because presuppositions come before and shape our suppositions. You interpret your supposition/ hypothesis by your presuppositions (worldview). Given this, 'defacto atheism' is not an honest position at all.



There are no presuppositions yet.  You are trying to assert your first one: "God exists."   I'm challenging that presupposition.





> are you misinterpreting the information you already have?



I certainly have to accept the possibility.  But if that is so, it's not my fault.  It's god's fault for giving me this brain that tells me he isn't there.



> Atheism just can't account for reality, knowledge or truth.



Define: "truth"

For me, truth must be proven.


----------



## Ronnie T

John 20:27Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 
28Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 
29Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." 

30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 
31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> FJ- Everyone here knows you better than you know yourself. Everyone (or most everyone) here has been thru what you are going thru.
> 
> The difference is some of us grow out of it. Some of us actually truly seek the truth at some point. Maybe you will. Maybe you won't I have no idea.



Maybe _you_ will actually seek out the truth at some point. You probably won't though. I just don't see it in you.



> The point is don't try and tell us how moral you are. How nice a guy you are and how wonderful life would be if we just worshipped at the altar of Atheism. How the world would be a much better place without religion.



I think I'm a moral guy, and I think that you think so too. I'm a nice guy, and life would be wonderful if there were less idiots out there.



> Where there is no accountability.



We're accountable to our conscious. Those of us who choose to live under a government are also accountable to it.


----------



## Madman

> So God is not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.



I missed the part of my argument that even implies that God is different today than He was yesterday.  I see no conflict between the God described in the OT and the God described in the NT. 

If my children do something inappropriate and I institute a change due to that act has my character changed?

How does the fact that God put another "layer of protection" around His people make Him different?  That is what the Law is and was, a boundry of protection.

At what point in your children's lives did you begin to add more rules?  A loose example would be the evening bath.  At what age is it no longer appropriate for brothers and sisters to bath in the same tub?  That change was made not because the parent changed but the children changed, they grew up, and a correction need to be added.  

The Law is not restrictive it is liberating.  I have unlimited freedom within the boundries of the law, just like my marriage, I have unlimited freedom in my marriage to do those things that the married life affords.  That includes sex. I do not have freedom outside my marriage or if I was not married, I do not have the freedom to do those things that should be reserved for a married couple.  One man for one woman for life, if we had held to that "rule" STDs would be almost non existant.

Instead we move outside the bonds of marriage and 25% of young women have an STD, by the year 2012 the CDC is expecting the number to rise to 35%.

"I Am" is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  

Honestly review the logic in the argument again, I think you will be hard pressed to force dispensationalism into the argument.


----------



## reformedpastor

I thought things were not to get out of hand.

There's a lot here, I started back where I left off and need to address several things directed to me. I will hopefully get to them today-tonight, so, don't think I have pulled an Elvis and left the building. 

I will leave you with this question. Agree-disagree? 

Which world view provides the bases for the greater act of violence against the human race? Atheism or Christianity? 

I am not asking what you (atheist) or you (christian) would do personally. Both atheists and christians can act very contrary to their commitments such as the ten commanments for the christian and the council for secular humanism for the atheist..........or whatever they want to use. 

This is not a philosophical question it is an objective one based on open commitments, such as the bible or secular documents. 

Hope I put this in a way most will understand. I accept responsibility if its to vague.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> I will leave you with this question. Agree-disagree?
> 
> Which world view provides the bases for the greater act of violence against the human race? Atheism or Christianity?



This could be an entire other thread.  But no need to clutter up the forum with any more atheist threads.  

Your question is a bit of a false dichotomy.   A better comparison is Atheism vs. Religion.

The answer is pretty clear to me.  Religion.  Religion conditions the mind to accept the worldview and orders of others without question.  If gives the mind an excuse to see unbelievers as less than human.  

Sure, there have been atheists in the past who have been mass murderers.  But they weren't suffering from an overabundance of critical thinking.  Religious mass murderers, on the other hand, do suffer from an over abundance of religious faith.   It can be further argued that people like Stalin thought of themselves as their own gods and like the God of Abraham, they would stand for no other gods before them.


----------



## celticfisherman

Why clutter it up when every thread we have turns into this with the assertions of Atheists....


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> This could be an entire other thread.  But no need to clutter up the forum with any more atheist threads.
> 
> Your question is a bit of a false dichotomy.   A better comparison is Atheism vs. Religion.
> 
> The answer is pretty clear to me.  Religion.  Religion conditions the mind to accept the worldview and orders of others without question.  If gives the mind an excuse to see unbelievers as less than human.
> 
> Sure, there have been atheists in the past who have been mass murderers.  But they weren't suffering from an overabundance of critical thinking.  Religious mass murderers, on the other hand, do suffer from an over abundance of religious faith.   It can be further argued that people like Stalin thought of themselves as their own gods and like the God of Abraham, they would stand for no other gods before them.




Not a valid point.  We are not discussing religions in general but Trinitarian christianity versus atheism. I will stand with you against other religions, especially those who see unbelievers as less than human. Religion in and of itself is an arbitrary term. 

I do agree religion does shape worldviews which includes atheism which is a religion. 



Hope this helps others.


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> Why clutter it up when every thread we have turns into this with the assertions of Atheists....



_ _


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> those who see unbelievers as less than human. Religion in and of itself is an arbitrary term.



Matthew 7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Deuteronomy 17
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

"Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)





> I do agree religion does shape worldviews which includes atheism which is a religion.



We've got a whole thread for that discussion.


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> This could be an entire other thread.  But no need to clutter up the forum with any more atheist threads.
> 
> Your question is a bit of a false dichotomy.   A better comparison is Atheism vs. Religion.
> 
> The answer is pretty clear to me.  Religion.  Religion conditions the mind to accept the worldview and orders of others without question.  If gives the mind an excuse to see unbelievers as less than human.
> 
> Sure, there have been atheists in the past who have been mass murderers.  But they weren't suffering from an overabundance of critical thinking.  Religious mass murderers, on the other hand, do suffer from an over abundance of religious faith.   It can be further argued that people like Stalin thought of themselves as their own gods and like the God of Abraham, they would stand for no other gods before them.



I have no problem as to arguing against religion on a collective basis. But Christianity would necessarily be excluded because unlike all the others, it is based on a relationship. 
Nevertheless, it is rude to try to redirect or reword reformedpastor's premise. Either respond to him or take a pass.

I don't see you getting many takers who, will out of hand, argue for religion. Most here understand that atheism is a religion in itself, having the basic component of faith. Really makes no sense to go there. I, for one, will not make a defense of Jainism, Buddhism, Hedonism (the old word for atheism), Hinduism, or any other "religious isms".

So, please answer the man's question as posed without alteration.


----------



## pnome

> atheism is a religion in itself, having the basic component of faith.



We have a whole other thread for this discussion.

Christianity is a religion and suffers all of the same weaknesses that all other religions suffer from.


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> Matthew 7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
> 
> Deuteronomy 17
> 17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
> 
> "Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've got a whole thread for that discussion.





Looks like a thread on hermeneutics is needed. If you are equating these terms with meaning, less than human, your problem isn't logic its understanding literature. 

from the mean old testament: 

Deuteronomy 10:19   19 "So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. 

Matthew 5:44   44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 


SO...................


----------



## Dixie Dawg

gtparts said:


> I have no problem as to arguing against religion on a collective basis. But Christianity would necessarily be excluded because unlike all the others, it is based on a relationship.



I don't know enough about the other religions you listed to make a judgement call, but I can say that Christianity is not exclusive to having a 'relationship' with God.   Judiasm (another 'religious ism', as you put it) has a very long lasting, close relationship with God.  I did notice that you didn't include them in your list of 'isms'... however your comment that Christianity is unlike ALL the others is incorrect.


----------



## reformedpastor

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't know enough about the other religions you listed to make a judgement call, but I can say that Christianity is not exclusive to having a 'relationship' with God.   Judiasm (another 'religious ism', as you put it) has a very long lasting, close relationship with God.  I did notice that you didn't include them in your list of 'isms'... however your comment that Christianity is unlike ALL the others is incorrect.



I agree! The similarities and dissimilarities need examination to differentiate the uniqueness. But that's not what we are doing here. 


Come on...............


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> Matthew 7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.



"Dogs" and "swine" are metaphors to illustrate those who have no knowledge or understanding of the value of a proper relationship to God, who will not reverence the holy, perfect, and precious nature of the Trinity. It is not that they are inhuman, only that their attitude and behavior is likened to animals as regards the spiritual Truth. 




> Deuteronomy 17
> 17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.



This does not indicate in any way that non-believers are less than human.



> "Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)



This does not indicate in any way that non-believers are less than human, but it should give your current squeeze reason to kick you to the curb if she is a Christian.

I would highly recommend you seek to understand scripture before you quote it. You make yourself appear foolish.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Not a valid point.  We are not discussing religions in general but Trinitarian christianity versus atheism. I will stand with you against other religions, especially those who see unbelievers as less than human. Religion in and of itself is an arbitrary term.
> 
> I do agree religion does shape worldviews which includes atheism which is a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this helps others.



So is Atheism.
See, you have placed the Christian belief system above all other religious belief systems, even if they are monotheistic.

Atheism is an absence of religion.  If it were a religion, those so labeled would have to question it and reject it by nature.  Circular.

When Atheism builds meeting places, private schools, universities and gets a deduction credit on taxes for donations, then we can consider that possibility.


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> I would highly recommend you seek to understand scripture before you quote it. You make yourself appear foolish.



I'd highly suggest we identify our remarks as "our interpretation of the scriptures" or at least say "this is what I have been taught/instructed about the scriptures."

The possiblity is always present each of us can appear to be "foolish," or at least ignorant of what we interpret.

Just because someone sees it differently, does not mean they are wrong.  Literal/figurative/actual/metaphorical....
arguments can be made for many parts of a holy book.


----------



## gtparts

WTM45 said:


> I'd highly suggest we identify our remarks as "our interpretation of the scriptures" or at least say "this is what I have been taught/instructed about the scriptures."
> 
> The possiblity is always present each of us can appear to be "foolish," or at least ignorant of what we interpret.
> 
> Just because someone sees it differently, does not mean they are wrong.  Literal/figurative/actual/metaphorical....
> arguments can be made for many parts of a holy book.



I would agree if we were discussing a secular work. However, when one crosses over to the issue of scriptural interpretation of the Bible, proper understanding is spiritually discerned, something pnome could not possibly have any connection to, being de facto atheists as he has claimed. He would have to admit he does not qualify for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the necessary component of proper interpretation.

Spiritually speaking, he is a dead man.


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> Spiritually speaking, he is a dead man.



And we are all "infidels" for not following the Quran.
Exclusivism.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> metaphors



Dehumanizing metaphors.


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> I would agree if we were discussing a secular work. However, when one crosses over to the issue of scriptural interpretation of the Bible, proper understanding is spiritually discerned, something pnome could not possibly have any connection to, being de facto atheists as he has claimed. He would have to admit he does not qualify for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the necessary component of proper interpretation.
> 
> Spiritually speaking, he is a dead man.



Give me a scripture that says that it requires spiritual discernment in order to "properly" interpret the Bible.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> So is Atheism.
> See, you have placed the Christian belief system above all other religious belief systems, even if they are monotheistic.
> 
> Atheism is an absence of religion.  If it were a religion, those so labeled would have to question it and reject it by nature.  Circular.
> 
> When Atheism builds meeting places, private schools, universities and gets a deduction credit on taxes for donations, then we can consider that possibility.



Correct. I have placed Christianity above everything else. It's exclusive, are you shocked that I think so? I wouldn't be a Christian if I thought it wasn't logical, reasonable and ethically superior to everything else. I wouldn't want anything to do with  christianity if I thought otherwise. 


Atheism hasn't built meeting places, organized societies, clubs and universities to promote their agenda???? 

I think you need to rethink that one.  As far as I know they can be non profit and fall into non taxable status. But maybe someone on here would know better that me. Just about anything can be non profit. 


What did your comments prove???


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> Give me a scripture that says that it requires spiritual discernment in order to "properly" interpret the Bible.



something like this. 

1 Corinthians 2:12-16   12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,  
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.  
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.  
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.  
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.


----------



## WTM45

My comments were not intended to insult.  I'm not shocked in your revelation, I am quite knowledgeable in the basics of Christianity.

Yours point out and support the statement that Atheism is not considered a religion, especially in the USA.  No, there is no way to declare a deduction from any financial gift to any Atheistic cause.  It is not a belief system.

Your un-acceptance of all other religious belief systems as being legitimate  or acceptable is only evidence of the exclusivity found in the Christian belief system.  That's fine for you.
Atheists see that as interesting, to say the least.


----------



## gtparts

reformedpastor said:


> something like this.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 2:12-16   12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
> 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
> 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
> 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
> 16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.



Thanks, brother. I'm just a tad slow on the copy and paste sometimes....comes with the age-related ADD.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> My comments were not intended to insult.  I'm not shocked in your revelation, I am quite knowledgeable in the basics of Christianity.
> 
> Yours point out and support the statement that Atheism is not considered a religion, especially in the USA.  No, there is no way to declare a deduction from any financial gift to any Atheistic cause.  It is not a belief system.
> 
> Your un-acceptance of all other religious belief systems as being legitimate  or acceptable is only evidence of the exclusivity found in the Christian belief system.  That's fine for you.
> Atheists see that as interesting, to say the least.




Sir, I am not insulted. I am passionate, educated and well aware of much around me. I have much to learn and I look forward to learning. But All of this is biographical not theological or permanent to our debate. 

Did you disagree with me about schools, societies, and other organized entities to promote atheism??

this is from the Secular Humanism website. 

    *  Vendor: Council for Secular Humanism
    * Type: Contributions

$10.00 - $10,000.00

Your gift to the Council for Secular Humanism will ensure that secularism and humanism will be strongly defended in the challenging days ahead. Your gifts are truly our lifeline, and there are many ways to support the Council and its work.

Make a one-time contribution using the pull-down menu at the bottom of this page. Your most generous contribution will be put to work at once.

Or contact the Council to explore these and other alternative ways to give:


    * Pledges: A multi-year pledge can make a significant contribution surprisingly affordable. For example, a $1,000 gift costs only $28 per month if paif over three years.

    * Gift Annuities can provide future financial support for the Council and its programs while yielding to the donor an immediate charitable deduction and tax-advantaged lifetime income.

    * Bequests can enable a donor to make significant contributions not possible during life.

    * Securities, paid-up life insurance policies, real estate and tangible personal property can also be used to make your charitable contribution.


They say it's tax deductible. 


Sounds a lot like some of those televangelists. But that's me. 


Do not misunderstand my position as one of arrogance or think that people are not important or valuable. I do believe that all men are made in God's image. Confidence should not be confused with narrow mindedness.


----------



## WTM45

Still attempting to make a permanent link between Atheism and Secular Humanism, huh?


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Still attempting to make a permanent link between Atheism and Secular Humanism, huh?




Tell me how they differ?

How about my question?


How much of their membership (council on secularism) would claim to be an atheist?


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> He would have to admit he does not qualify for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the necessary component of proper interpretation.




So, only believers can properly interpret the bible.  Which sort of makes it hard for an unbeliever like myself to argue against it huh?  

You say "The bible doesn't say this"  I quote the bible where it does say that.  Then you respond with "well you're just not interpreting it correctly, and don't bother trying because you can't."

I guess you don't see any problem with that.  

Ok, so I wonder if you can give me the proper interpretations of the following scripture:



> *1 Timothy 6:1 (King James Version)*
> 
> *1 Timothy 6*
> 
> <sup id="en-KJV-29790" class="versenum" value="1">1</sup>Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
> <sup id="en-KJV-29791" class="versenum" value="2"></sup>



Now, to me, as you say fully unqualified to interpret scripture, that seems like an endorsement of slavery.   What do you think?


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> How much of their membership (council on secularism) would claim to be an atheist?



If it were 99%, would you consider that to be proof that secular humanism and atheism are practically the same thing?


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45

Help me here? 

How you you personally differ?

This is from their web site

What Is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

    * A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

* A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> something like this.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 2:12-16   12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
> 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
> 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
> 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
> 16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.



I interpret those scriptures to mean that all people can interpret because we're all imprinted with the image of Christ at birth.

Therefore we all have a right to interpret scripture.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Tell me how they differ?
> 
> How about my question?
> 
> 
> How much of their membership would claim to be an atheist?



Promoting choice is a good thing.  That is my answer to your question.  Question everything that states "this is the only true way" to anything.

I can not speak for the tax-exempt status of any organization promoting secular humanism.  I have not researched that, and frankly, I don't care if they have it or not.  Churches of all types participate in that, and in my opinion it is a .gov control most folks do not even recognize.  That's a subject for a different day.

To say Secular humanism and Atheism are one in the same would be to say Christianity and Islam are the same simply because they each have a holy book.  We all know the differences between the two.
Secular humanism and Atheism in comparison would be another thread topic altogether.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> If it were 99%, would you consider that to be proof that secular humanism and atheism are practically the same thing?



I never said they were one and the same. But, they are very related and apart of the same fabric.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Promoting choice is a good thing.  That is my answer to your question.  Question everything that states "this is the only true way" to anything.
> 
> I can not speak for the tax-exempt status of any organization promoting secular humanism.  I have not researched that, and frankly, I don't care if they have it or not.  Churches of all types participate in that, and in my opinion it is a .gov control most folks do not even recognize.  That's a subject for a different day.
> 
> To say Secular humanism and Atheism are one in the same would be to say Christianity and Islam are the same simply because they each have a holy book.  We all know the differences between the two.
> Secular humanism and Atheism in comparison would be another thread topic altogether.




This elementary. We may have a book. It's not the same book. Come one guys.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> I interpret those scriptures to mean that all people can interpret because we're all imprinted with the image of Christ at birth.
> 
> Therefore we all have a right to interpret scripture.




Sure you can interpret it that way if you like. So, have you proved anything? No. Interpret away young man, but you do want to strive for a correct interpretation.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> Sure you can interpret it that way if you like. So, have you proved anything? No. Interpret away young man, but you do want to strive for a correct interpretation.




Ahh yes.  Dismiss critics as not being able to criticize because they are critics.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> We may have a book. It's not the same book.



It is just that exclusivity that lets one follower feel they are right and the other follower is wrong.
Can they both be wrong?  Let's view the evidence and proofs in a scientific manner.  That is the question an Atheist asks himself/herself.

One HAS to let go of the fundamental exclusivity of the belief system they find themselves in, no matter how they got there (birth is the largest reason), in order to objectively view and understand where the Atheist is coming from.

Maybe it is just that impossible.  FJ, how's your experiment coming along?  Just like you thought, huh?


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> Ahh yes.  Dismiss critics as not being able to criticize because they are critics.


----------



## WTM45

pnome said:


> Ahh yes.  Dismiss critics as not being able to criticize because they are critics.



Dismiss critics simply because they do not believe in the holy book no one is to question.  Circular.


----------



## footjunior

WTM45 said:


> FJ, how's your experiment coming along?  Just like you thought, huh?



Yes


----------



## WTM45

footjunior said:


> Yes



We learn as we go.  We interpret what we gather with our senses and grow our knowledge as we seek out answers.
We are all human.
There are some mighty intelligent humans out there.
Many of them are Atheists, and for their own reasons.
Their decision is totally personal in nature.
Learning is personal in nature.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> It is just that exclusivity that lets one follower feel they are right and the other follower is wrong.
> Can they both be wrong?  Let's view the evidence and proofs in a scientific manner.  That is the question an Atheist asks himself/herself.
> 
> One HAS to let go of the fundamental exclusivity of the belief system they find themselves in, no matter how they got there (birth is the largest reason), in order to objectively view and understand where the Atheist is coming from.
> 
> Maybe it is just that impossible.  FJ, how's your experiment coming along?  Just like you thought, huh?



Last post today. 


There are several mistakes being made in this post. 

1. You suppose science will answer the question. Yet you can't prove scientifically the "laws of logic". Have you ever observed one. 

2. You suppose I oppose science. Not at all it has its place But is not the final authority. 

3. you suppose one has to let go of fundamental beliefs in order to truly find the answer. Yet, I have purposed that its impossible to do that. We interpret within a system. A net work of presuppositions that affect our interpretation of everything. 



You still have have not disproved christianity. Change the circle you are are arguing in and then you views will change. 

You are right. Two can be wrong and both cannot be right.


----------



## pnome

> You still have have not disproved christianity.



Somehow I doubt WTM45 was trying to do that.


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> So, only believers can properly interpret the bible.  Which sort of makes it hard for an unbeliever like myself to argue against it huh?
> 
> You say "The bible doesn't say this"  I quote the bible where it does say that.  Then you respond with "well you're just not interpreting it correctly, and don't bother trying because you can't."
> 
> I guess you don't see any problem with that.
> 
> Ok, so I wonder if you can give me the proper interpretations of the following scripture:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, to me, as you say fully unqualified to interpret scripture, that seems like an endorsement of slavery.   What do you think?





> 1 Timothy 6:1
> 
> "Let as many as are servants under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and the doctrine be not blasphemed."




Paul's letter to Timothy recognizes the reality of the relationships between servants (This word is frequently used in a generic sense to accommodate bond servants and slaves.) and their masters (Again, to address those to whom a debt of servitude is owed or one having ownership of chattel.). As Christians in the first century, some were bond servants and slaves. Paul is instructing Timothy to teach those under his leadership that God is dishonored when Christian bond servants or slaves to not pay proper respect and obedience to those in authority over them.

The carnal reaction is that because Paul and Timothy are not railing against such cultural arrangements, then God and the two aforementioned must necessarily be condoning the same. You suggest that this is your position.

This out-of-context view is typically what one finds in a non-believer and even in some new believers. 

The context is this:

The purpose of God-incarnate was not to bring about social or cultural change. He came to provide a way to reconcile sinful man to Himself, knowing that in so doing, social and cultural changes would take place. Paul and Timothy's minds were to be set on one thing: Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ unto salvation. Neither was called into the diversion of addressing issues of servitude or slavery beyond teaching spiritual truths about those relationships.

So, what the verse boils down to is this:

Christian servants, if you bring dishonor on yourself by your attitudes and actions toward your masters, you dishonor God. If your service to your master is honorable, it brings honor to God. Therefore, do not bring dishonor to God or His Word.

I know, it doesn't make sense to an atheist.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> The purpose of God-incarnate was not to bring about social or cultural change. He came to provide a way to reconcile sinful man to Himself




So, slavery is not considered "sinful"?

Ok how about this one:


> _Deut 20:10-11
> When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
> And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that _*all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee*_, and they shall serve thee._



Or this one:


> _Deut 20:12-16
> And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
> And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
> But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
> Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
> But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, _*thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth*_:_



These:


> _Lev 25:44-46
> And as for thy bondman(slaves) and thy handmaid(slaves) whom thou shalt have -- of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen(slaves) and handmaids(slaves).
> Moreover of the children of them that dwell as sojourners with you, of them may ye buy, and of their family that is with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession.
> And ye shall leave them(the slaves) as an inheritance to your children after you, to inherit them(the slaves) as a possession: these may ye make your bondmen for ever; but as for your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour._





> _Exo 21:20-21
> And if a man strike his bondman(slave) or his handmaid with a staff, and he(the slave)die under his hand, he shall certainly be avenged.
> Only, if he(the slave) continue (survive the beating and live) a day or two days, he shall not be avenged; for he(the slave) is his(the owner's) money(property)._



Now, when you look at all those, it certainly seems to this unworthy unbeliever that the bible is endorsing slavery.  But, why don't you give me your interpretation?


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Last post today.
> 
> 
> There are several mistakes being made in this post.
> 
> 1. You suppose science will answer the question. Yet you can't prove scientifically the "laws of logic". Have you ever observed one.
> Science supports its own conclusions.  Logic is built from those conclusions.  Faith is a concept that falls outside the scientific realm.
> 
> 2. You suppose I oppose science. Not at all it has its place But is not the final authority.
> I never said you opposed science.  And I never said science is the "final authority."  Knowledge is supported by science, and we know death is a part of life.  After that, proofs are not forthcoming.  Your addition of faith into your decision making is outside the scientific realm.  I've tried to keep that seperate, out of respect for you.
> 
> 3. you suppose one has to let go of fundamental beliefs in order to truly find the answer. Yet, I have purposed that its impossible to do that. We interpret within a system. A net work of presuppositions that affect our interpretation of everything.
> I purpose doing just that is not only possible, it can be liberating and free of stress and anxiety!  I believe doing just that can make whatever decision a person makes even that much more strong a decision!
> 
> 
> You still have have not disproved christianity. Change the circle you are are arguing in and then you views will change.
> That's not my intent, nor is it my calling or vocation.  Each person must make their own choices in the matter.
> 
> You are right. Two can be wrong and both cannot be right.
> 
> We may find that two can be right as well!



I do not have the answers.  Nor does any religious belief system, of that I am confident.


----------



## gtparts

Everybody worships something or someone, even if it is themselves.
Everybody is subject to someone, whether it be an officer of the law, a lieutenant, a father, an employer.

What you can not grasp is that, as a Christian, circumstance has nothing to do with freedom, peace, joy. Slavery, then, is an opportunity to glorify God and the few years of slavery one might have to endure in this life are nothing compared to the eternity with Jesus. That is why Paul tells us to "count it all joy", not that we experience pleasure in the suffering, but that we share in it with Christ, to glorify God.

I know, lost you again. 

Problem is, you can't get it by rejecting it. And you will not quit rejecting it until you have absolute, scientific proof. And you will never be given the proof that you want until it is too late to accept it. Unless......



Romans 14:11-12

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God.  So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God. 

Philippians 2:9-11

Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 
that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven and [things] on earth and [things] under the earth, 
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> What you can not grasp is that, as a Christian, circumstance has nothing to do with freedom, peace, joy. Slavery, then, is an opportunity to glorify God and the few years of slavery one might have to endure in this life are nothing compared to the eternity with Jesus. That is why Paul tells us to "count it all joy", not that we experience pleasure in the suffering, but that we share in it with Christ, to glorify God.



So you're condoning slavery, as long as that slavery involves people being brought to Christ?


----------



## gtparts

footjunior said:


> So you're condoning slavery, as long as that slavery involves people being brought to Christ?




On the contrary, I think that the forced subjugation of others, apart from the righteous judgment of God, or the criminal punishment by civil authorities through the proper application of just laws, is wrong. 

That being said, neither God nor governments can sin. Individual humans sin.

What I am saying is that attention to slavery is a relatively lesser concern compared to the eternal destination of an eternal soul. While tragic in practice, it is not the most important consideration in the life of a Christian. 

At the time of the writing, slavery was a common and accepted practice, as was gladiatorial contests, prostitution, pedophilia, and a host of other practices contrary to the will of God. Changing hearts is the only way to openly change these sinful practices. Atheism does nothing to oppose such practices and in many situations is the catalyst for people in power to implement such practices. After all, if you are the ultimate power and arbiter of right and wrong, with no higher accountability, you can pretty much do whatever you please and justify it.

Can you wrap your mind around that?


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> On the contrary, I think that the forced subjugation of others, apart from the righteous judgment of God, or the criminal punishment by civil authorities through the proper application of just laws, is wrong.



Oh... so slavery, when as a punishment for criminal offenses, is fine? As well as when it's a righteous judgment of God? Got it.



> At the time of the writing, slavery was a common and accepted practice, as was gladiatorial contests, prostitution, pedophilia, and a host of other practices contrary to the will of God.



So by your own words, slavery was a common practice that was "contrary to the will of God." Yet it is ok for civilizations to implement slavery as a form of punishment? I understand that these two statements are compatible. But what about where it says, "for he is his money." Now, being an atheist, I can only offer my invalid interpretation of this scripture, and I will do so now. The Bible is condoning the type of slavery that is not about criminal punishment. It is condoning slavery that views humans as commodities, or "money," as the Bible calls them.

So... if it was contrary to the will of God, then why did God say that a slave was another person's "money"? The Bible did not say, "It is ok to beat your slaves because they did a criminal act." It says that if you beat a slave and he or she dies, you will be punished. If the slave recovers, then you will not be punished, for the slave is your money.

Seems to me that if God viewed slavery as going against his will he would have said so, not openly condoned it in his word.



> Atheism does nothing to oppose such practices and in many situations is the catalyst for people in power to implement such practices.



You're right. Atheism does nothing to oppose such practices, but it also does not provide an absolute morality which condones it, like Christianity does. We've all heard of the southern plantation owners using scripture to convince their slaves that slavery is perfectly normal under God's eyes. And they were right. It is acceptable under God's eyes, according to his Word.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> I do not have the answers.  Nor does any religious belief system, of that I am confident.



Well you are the most humble person you know.


----------



## ToLog

it just seems like, and i could be wrong, that all of this arguiing is going on in the "cerebral" level?

thoughts, and those who own and possess them? 

what if we delve a bit deeper, and see what lies below?

get beyond all the English logistics and get into the true realities of Life on Earth, and who gets to eat steak, and who doesn't? 

we're not talking about justifying our position as an 'Eater' on the Earth, we're talking about humans on Earth, right?

what can we say about that, and how do we open the arguments, so that everyone might or can participate?

beats me, but i'm not a Theologian, so i don't have to Know.


----------



## Madman

reformedpastor said:


> Well you are the most humble person you know.



They gave him a medal for humility, then took it away from him for wearing it.


----------



## reformedpastor

*An Atheist says it better than I*

I have tried to point out the importance of ones presuppositions and the impossibility of neutrality. I don't argue to win, that's not my goal, I argue with my atheist acquaintances to point out their inconsistency. 

I have remembered a quote in one of my books from an atheist that says it better than I have here, or could say hear. 

Scientist Richard Lewontin, "Billion and billions of demons" The New York Review January 9, 1997

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door."  


Well said......


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> They gave him a medal for humility, then took it away from him for wearing it.



Want to see my DD-214?

The most humble man I have ever personally known rests at Arlington.


----------



## Madman

WTM45 said:


> Want to see my DD-214?
> 
> The most humble man I have ever personally known rests at Arlington.




Why would I?


----------



## WTM45

You are the ones talking about medals.  I thought I'd offer.
Being a true gentleman, and all........

I'll exit, stage right.  Thanks.


----------



## Madman

WTM45 said:


> You are the ones talking about medals.  I thought I'd offer.
> Being a true gentleman, and all........
> 
> I'll exit, stage right.  Thanks.



I missed something.


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> I missed something.



Look what you gone and did!!!!!!!! You run him off. Now who are we going to play with????


----------



## WTM45

I figured the OP's subject was finished, now that the conversation had turned to my humility or medals.  That will really interest the crowd.  
So, off to other things I guess.  Glad to have been a part of your playtime!


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> I figured the OP's subject was finished, now that the conversation had turned to my humility or medals.  That will really interest the crowd.
> So, off to other things I guess.  Glad to have been a part of your playtime!



I would like to hear your comments on the quote I posted. If not I understand, take care.


----------



## Madman

reformedpastor said:


> Look what you gone and did!!!!!!!! You run him off. Now who are we going to play with????



RP-- I was going to offer to show him mine but then I figured he would want to show me his so I didn't offer.

I Have a theory about your signature. Which is very appropriate.  Most Christian Churches paint Jesus Christ as some guy with long hair walking around in a white robe with a neatly trimmed beard talking lovingly to women and children.  There is church near me with a stained glass window that even shows animals standing around and birds flying while the kids sitat his feet.  

I think some of these old boys believe that is too sissy for them so they would rather sit on the side of a tree in 33 degree drizzle at 4 a.m. than sit in a pew and have their neighbor think less of them.

I have a stained glass window I going to have made.  It shows Christ and His army riding in as described in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. 

"And written on His thigh was King of Kings and Lord of Lords."


----------



## Madman

I was born to fight devils and factions. It is my business to remove obstructions, to cut down thorns, to fill up quagmires, and to open and make straight paths. But if I must have some failing, let me rather speak the truth with too great severity than once to act the hypocrite and conceal the truth. 
							                            Martin Luther	




John Hancock ended his speech, in which he eulogized Crispus Attucks and the other men from the Boston Massacre, with words that we still need to hear today: 


And let us play the man for our God, and for the cities of our God; … let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the universe, who loves righteousness and hates iniquity. And…by a faithful and unwearied discharge of our duty to our country, let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of HIM who raises up and pulls down the empires and kingdoms of the world as HE pleases and with cheerful submission to HIS sovereign will.

Good night ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## christianhunter

I wish I didn't have to say it,but considering the name of the Thread I feel compelled to.I'am not ashamed of The WORD Of GOD.So why sugar coat it."The fool has said in his heart,there is no GOD."


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> RP-- I was going to offer to show him mine but then I figured he would want to show me his so I didn't offer.
> 
> I Have a theory about your signature. Which is very appropriate.  Most Christian Churches paint Jesus Christ as some guy with long hair walking around in a white robe with a neatly trimmed beard talking lovingly to women and children.  There is church near me with a stained glass window that even shows animals standing around and birds flying while the kids sitat his feet.
> 
> I think some of these old boys believe that is too sissy for them so they would rather sit on the side of a tree in 33 degree drizzle at 4 a.m. than sit in a pew and have their neighbor think less of them.
> 
> I have a stained glass window I going to have made.  It shows Christ and His army riding in as described in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
> 
> "And written on His thigh was King of Kings and Lord of Lords."




Well, you point out a valid problem today about the church being overly feminized. 

My signature is mainly an attack on the intensity men  put into temporary and trivial matters while completely apathetic to eternal ones. 

Sure wouldn't hurt for the church to get a glimpse of Jesus as King.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> Scientist Richard Lewontin, "Billion and billions of demons" The New York Review January 9, 1997
> 
> "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door."



Thankfully Richard Lewontin speaks for Richard Lewontin and not anyone else. This may be what Richard Lewontin does, but I would argue that other scientists think differently.

I think this belief that people interpret new experiences only based on their pre-existing presuppositions is incorrect. If your theory is correct, then how do you explain my transition from Christianity to Atheism? When I was a Christian, all of my presuppositions pointed towards a God. I projected all my experiences onto the framework of Christianity and my relationship with Jesus Christ. Not believing in God was simply absurd. I knew God existed, and therefore I interpreted everything that happened through that viewpoint. I viewed life through the lens of a Christian. If what you're saying is correct, then I always would have been a Christian, because all of my presuppositions would have always lead me to see things from a Christian's perspective. But yet I am an atheist.

I agree, one's presuppositions obviously play a very important role to almost everyone when making a decision, but they are not the only variable in this equation.

To some people, when they encounter new evidence, they sometimes are persuaded to change their mind based on this new evidence. When I was presented with evidence that I had not seen before, I was persuaded to change my mind. This new evidence was adequate enough to to override my presuppositions.

People often enter into a state of cognitive dissonance, where you have your presuppositions on one side, and the alternative (with its evidence) on the other. You use reason and logic to decide between the two. Sometimes you stick with your original conclusion, sometimes you are persuaded by the new evidence to accept the alternative conclusion.

To claim that atheists are somehow so caught up in their presuppositions that they are unable to see "the truth" (your truth) is incorrect, for many once held the presuppositions that you do and were persuaded by new evidence to accept the other "truth" (atheism).

Atheists are not as "set in their mind" against any possibility of God as you might think. Take me for example. I have always accepted that there very well could be a god. All one must do is provide adequate evidence that he or she exists and I will believe. Not all atheists are like Richard Lewontin.


----------



## gtparts

footjunior said:


> Oh... so slavery, when as a punishment for criminal offenses, is fine? As well as when it's a righteous judgment of God? Got it.



Convicted criminals should be compelled to work to offset the expense on the public to maintain them. The sovereign, righteous God can and does render judgment as he sees fit and when He sees fit.





> So by your own words, slavery was a common practice that was "contrary to the will of God." Yet it is ok for civilizations to implement slavery as a form of punishment? I understand that these two statements are compatible. But what about where it says, "for he is his money." Now, being an atheist, I can only offer my invalid interpretation of this scripture, and I will do so now. The Bible is condoning the type of slavery that is not about criminal punishment. It is condoning slavery that views humans as commodities, or "money," as the Bible calls them.
> 
> So... if it was contrary to the will of God, then why did God say that a slave was another person's "money"? The Bible did not say, "It is ok to beat your slaves because they did a criminal act." It says that if you beat a slave and he or she dies, you will be punished. If the slave recovers, then you will not be punished, for the slave is your money.



You really aren't up to speed on this, are you? 
Do you remember where I explained the various types of servants in the earlier post? Well, bond servants voluntarily submitted to render service for a stated period of time in exchange for land or oxen or sheep or perhaps a wife. The barter system worked well until or unless one of the participants reneged. It was common enough that God, through the Old Testament gave laws for the purpose of protecting both parties. If, during the specified time of service, the bond servant "shorted" the master, the master had the right to punish the servant but not take his life. If we are talking about a slave, we are still talking about an investment on the part of the master. So, in either case the master is entitled to a reasonable return on his investment. Only for capital crimes could a servant be put to death.

And I will restate, in case you missed it, slavery, in its cruelest form, is not the worst thing that can happen to a person.






> Seems to me that if God viewed slavery as going against his will he would have said so, not openly condoned it in his word.



condone  _n._ To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

God never overlooks or disregards sin. Sin always receives censure; whether by punishment of the sinner or by Christ accepting our punishment in our place.

Just because God does not mete out justice immediately does not mean He approves of the thoughts and actions of men. It appears that most of your inability to understand God comes from your attempts to view Him in human terms, as one would a man. You can not understand God by trying to bring Him down to your level.





> You're right. Atheism does nothing to oppose such practices, but it also does not provide an absolute morality which condones it, like Christianity does. We've all heard of the southern plantation owners using scripture to convince their slaves that slavery is perfectly normal under God's eyes. And they were right. It is acceptable under God's eyes, according to his Word.



Perhaps we have "heard" such stories.....in novels or seen something along those lines in a movie. I have never seen legitimate documentation of such behavior, if it exists. Some how you conveniently forget that God will hold all accountable for unrepentant sin. The blood of the perfect lamb of God is sufficient to pay for the sins of the world. God has never and will never condone sin and those, who do not receive forgiveness through Jesus, will suffer eternal separation from God.

I find it quite interesting that in some way you want to hold God accountable (as if you could) for something men have done and which He will or has already punished. Then, you turn around and claim you are not accountable for your sin because you do not believe He exists.


Peace.


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> If we are talking about a slave, we are still talking about an investment on the part of the master. So, in either case the master is entitled to a reasonable return on his investment. Only for capital crimes could a servant be put to death.



K I just wanted to make sure that God condones the slavery that I'm talking about. The kind that treats a person as a commodity.



> God never overlooks or disregards sin. Sin always receives censure; whether by punishment of the sinner or by Christ accepting our punishment in our place.



Yep. And slavery isn't a sin. Neither is beating a slave, when done under certain circumstances. God never explicitly calls it a sin, and he seems to be openly condoning it in these verses.


----------



## Madman

> FJ--When I was presented with evidence that I had not seen before, I was persuaded to change my mind. This new evidence was adequate enough to to override my presuppositions.



Would you be kind enough to share that evidence with us?


----------



## celticfisherman

*Intellectual embarrasment*

http://pulltheplugonatheism.com/art15.shtml


atheism: the intellectual
embarrassment

    “Just because a few atheists believe that everything came from nothing doesn't mean that all atheists believe that.” Robert Madewell

It’s not a matter of not believing it. It’s a matter of definition. If you say of your Ford Expedition that you have no belief that there was a maker, then you think that nothing made it. It just happened. You have defined yourself as having that mentality.

So if you call yourself an atheist, you are saying that you have no belief in a God—a Creator. Creation just happened. Everything you see—all the different breeds of dog (both male and female), all the different breeds of cat (both male and female), all the different fish in the ocean (both male and female), giraffes, elephants, cattle, sheep, horses, birds, flowers, trees, the sun, the moon, the stars, the four seasons, night and day, the marvels of the human body—the eye with its 137,000,000 light sensitive cells (we have been made well Robert) . . . all these marvels of creation were made by nothing. They all just happened. That’s atheism at its core. What an intellectual embarrassment.

Then the professing atheist has the unbelievable gall to consider himself intelligent, and he thinks that science backs up his delusion. Think of the ludicrous language an atheist is forced to use. He can’t say that creation was “created” and he has to avoid saying that everything has been “made.” He will even say that he has no beliefs . . . that he is “without belief.” His problem is that he hasn’t thought his beliefs through. If he has any intellectual self-respect he will move from the “nothing created everything” belief, to the “something did it but I just don’t know what it was.” And is doing so he distances himself from the embarrassing label of “atheist.”


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> Would you be kind enough to share that evidence with us?



It would be impossible to "share that evidence," if you mean each individual piece of evidence. The most comprehensive answer I can give you is simply: Science, History, and Logic.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> http://pulltheplugonatheism.com/art15.shtml
> 
> 
> atheism: the intellectual
> embarrassment
> 
> “Just because a few atheists believe that everything came from nothing doesn't mean that all atheists believe that.” Robert Madewell
> 
> It’s not a matter of not believing it. It’s a matter of definition. If you say of your Ford Expedition that you have no belief that there was a maker, then you think that nothing made it. It just happened. You have defined yourself as having that mentality.
> 
> So if you call yourself an atheist, you are saying that you have no belief in a God—a Creator. Creation just happened. Everything you see—all the different breeds of dog (both male and female), all the different breeds of cat (both male and female), all the different fish in the ocean (both male and female), giraffes, elephants, cattle, sheep, horses, birds, flowers, trees, the sun, the moon, the stars, the four seasons, night and day, the marvels of the human body—the eye with its 137,000,000 light sensitive cells (we have been made well Robert) . . . all these marvels of creation were made by nothing. They all just happened. That’s atheism at its core. What an intellectual embarrassment.
> 
> Then the professing atheist has the unbelievable gall to consider himself intelligent, and he thinks that science backs up his delusion. Think of the ludicrous language an atheist is forced to use. He can’t say that creation was “created” and he has to avoid saying that everything has been “made.” He will even say that he has no beliefs . . . that he is “without belief.” His problem is that he hasn’t thought his beliefs through. If he has any intellectual self-respect he will move from the “nothing created everything” belief, to the “something did it but I just don’t know what it was.” And is doing so he distances himself from the embarrassing label of “atheist.”



The intellectual embarrassment is that you think this is what atheism is or what atheists think.


----------



## celticfisherman

the atheist's
leap of faith

According to the News Bureau at the University of Illinois, "Life did not begin with one primordial cell. Instead, there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations. They swam in a pool of genes, evolving in a communal way that aided one another in bootstrapping into the three distinct types of cells by sharing their evolutionary inventions."

I have some news for the University News Bureau. If you talk about life beginning as a "loosely constructed cellular organizations" that swam "in a pool of genes," then it wasn’t the beginning at all, because loosely constructed cellular organizations swimming in a pool of genes already existed. 

Ex-atheist, Lee Strobel said, "Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take . . ."

For the beginning to be the beginning, there must be nothing. Zilch. If you disagree, in simple language, explain to me where I am going wrong. Tell me what was in the beginning--what was it that began the evolutionary process? Let me guess your answer. You don't know what it was, but you know that it wasn't God.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> The intellectual embarrassment is that you think this is what atheism is or what atheists think.



Seems to fit... Might be useful to study those whom you quote and use to form your opinions.


an atheist's
challenge

    “I've challenged you repeatedly to cite even a single instance of an atheist stating that nothing created everything, and have been met with silence every single time. Every time.” - C. Howdy

“It is now becoming clear that everything can—and probably did—come from nothing.”
- Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Aston University, England [1]

“Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.”
- Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer.” [2]

“Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing.”
- Scienceline.org [3]

“Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.”
- Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University [4]

“Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.”
- Atheist, Victor J. Stenger, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. [5]Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

“Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things—perhaps even the entire universe—can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes.”
- Creation ex nihilo—Without God (1997), Atheist, Mark I. Vuletic [6]

___________________________
[1] http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid
=news&type=anews
[2] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=364
[3] http://scienceline.org/2006/08/21/ask-snyder-bang/
[4] http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html
[5] http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/
Godless/Origin.pdf
[6] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/
vacuum.html


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Seems to fit... Might be useful to study those whom you quote and use to form your opinions.
> 
> an atheist's
> challenge
> 
> “I've challenged you repeatedly to cite even a single instance of an atheist stating that nothing created everything, and have been met with silence every single time. Every time.” - C. Howdy
> 
> “It is now becoming clear that everything can—and probably did—come from nothing.”
> - Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Aston University, England [1]
> 
> “Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.”
> - Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer.” [2]
> 
> “Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing.”
> - Scienceline.org [3]
> 
> “Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.”
> - Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University [4]
> 
> “Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.”
> - Atheist, Victor J. Stenger, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. [5]Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
> 
> “Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things—perhaps even the entire universe—can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes.”
> - Creation ex nihilo—Without God (1997), Atheist, Mark I. Vuletic [6]
> 
> ___________________________
> [1] http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid
> =news&type=anews
> [2] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=364
> [3] http://scienceline.org/2006/08/21/ask-snyder-bang/
> [4] http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html
> [5] http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/
> Godless/Origin.pdf
> [6] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/
> vacuum.html



Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, nothing more. You're simply trying to attach the belief that something came from nothing by giving anecdotal evidence. Even if 99% of atheists believed that "something came from nothing" it doesn't mean that this belief is within the scope of atheism. Sorry.


----------



## gtparts

footjunior said:


> K I just wanted to make sure that God condones the slavery that I'm talking about. The kind that treats a person as a commodity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And slavery isn't a sin. Neither is beating a slave, when done under certain circumstances. God never explicitly calls it a sin, and he seems to be openly condoning it in these verses.



In your ignorance you keep using the word "condone". You are using it improperly.



> condone n.  To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.



God does not overlook or disregard sin.
He absolutely does censure.
He just does not do it on your time schedule.

Try reading for content and understanding for a change.


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> In your ignorance you keep using the word "condone". You are using it improperly.
> 
> God does not overlook or disregard sin.
> He absolutely does censure.
> He just does not do it on your time schedule.
> 
> Try reading for content and understanding for a change.



My point is that he never condemns it.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> Thankfully Richard Lewontin speaks for Richard Lewontin and not anyone else. This may be what Richard Lewontin does, but I would argue that other scientists think differently.
> 
> I think this belief that people interpret new experiences only based on their pre-existing presuppositions is incorrect. If your theory is correct, then how do you explain my transition from Christianity to Atheism? When I was a Christian, all of my presuppositions pointed towards a God. I projected all my experiences onto the framework of Christianity and my relationship with Jesus Christ. Not believing in God was simply absurd. I knew God existed, and therefore I interpreted everything that happened through that viewpoint. I viewed life through the lens of a Christian. If what you're saying is correct, then I always would have been a Christian, because all of my presuppositions would have always lead me to see things from a Christian's perspective. But yet I am an atheist.
> 
> I agree, one's presuppositions obviously play a very important role to almost everyone when making a decision, but they are not the only variable in this equation.
> 
> To some people, when they encounter new evidence, they sometimes are persuaded to change their mind based on this new evidence. When I was presented with evidence that I had not seen before, I was persuaded to change my mind. This new evidence was adequate enough to to override my presuppositions.
> 
> People often enter into a state of cognitive dissonance, where you have your presuppositions on one side, and the alternative (with its evidence) on the other. You use reason and logic to decide between the two. Sometimes you stick with your original conclusion, sometimes you are persuaded by the new evidence to accept the alternative conclusion.
> 
> To claim that atheists are somehow so caught up in their presuppositions that they are unable to see "the truth" (your truth) is incorrect, for many once held the presuppositions that you do and were persuaded by new evidence to accept the other "truth" (atheism).
> 
> Atheists are not as "set in their mind" against any possibility of God as you might think. Take me for example. I have always accepted that there very well could be a god. All one must do is provide adequate evidence that he or she exists and I will believe. Not all atheists are like Richard Lewontin.




Good post. I plan to respond when I have more time. 10-4 JF.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, nothing more. You're simply trying to attach the belief that something came from nothing by giving anecdotal evidence. Even if 99% of atheists believed that "something came from nothing" it doesn't mean that this belief is within the scope of atheism. Sorry.



Your lack of understanding and unwillingness to accept the consequences of what you have decided upon does not make it any less a religion. Sorry.

The Atheist world view is first and foremost a world view and becaue of the answers you give it is a religion. Now go file for a 501(c)3 and quit whining. Shoot these people are even petitioning for holidays now.


----------



## Madman

> It would be impossible to "share that evidence



A professed athiest can not produce a single piece of evidence.  I believe the believers in the room can rest their case.


----------



## Madman

> Atheism is a lack of belief in deities



Up until now your argument has been not a lack of belief, but that you simply were not sure.

come on try to remember what you believe.


----------



## ToLog

Madman said:


> A professed athiest can not produce a single piece of evidence.  I believe the believers in the room can rest their case.




friend, as a close associate of the individual you have in your avator, , i'm wanting protein and lots of it.

but, they're trying to feed me carbo's and fiber.  why can't we have real food, like chicken protein, and real beef?

so what if it costs another 1 dollar, is that a problem??

or is all the food we want taken for granted, and all we gotta do is think about the hereafter, and our place in the lineup??


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> A professed athiest can not produce a single piece of evidence.  I believe the believers in the room can rest their case.



You purposely misinterpret what I say? You know exactly what I meant. I'm saying that many things led to my atheism. Too many things to list.

You want just one? Our origins from other primates described by the theory of evolution via natural selection is not compatible with the creation story of Genesis, even with the loosest interpretations of the particular creation myth.

There you go.


----------



## reformedpastor

My original supposition. Atheism is not neutral.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> Up until now your argument has been not a lack of belief, but that you simply were not sure.
> 
> come on try to remember what you believe.



Please quote me where I said I'm not sure what I believe.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Please quote me where I said I'm not sure what I believe.



Let me help you out Madman...


Post #51 from another thread written by FJ:

Quote:
Originally Posted by celticfisherman  
Then how in a world view where there is no creator did we get here?
If speaking of before the singularity...

WE DON'T KNOW

If speaking of everything after the singularity: Big bang, abiogenesis, evolution via natural selection.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Your lack of understanding and unwillingness to accept the consequences of what you have decided upon does not make it any less a religion. Sorry.



Under some definitions I am an agnostic, under others I am an atheist.

If you would like to use your chosen definitions just so you won't be wrong in your own stubborn mind, then do so. I truly fail to see how it would change anything. You will continue to think that atheism is somehow a religion. We understand that you are wrong. We also understand your simple motives for doing so. Under what I believe are the common definitions of atheism and religion, atheism could never be considered a religion. It is the lack of beliefs. If you understand the discussion that me and Madman had about the different types of "belief," then you will understand why atheism is not a religion under the common definition of religion. However, I really doubt you will. Pnome has covered this topic rigorously. If you don't understand it by now, you probably never will.


----------



## Madman

> theory of evolution via natural selection QUOTE]
> 
> Do you believe in "microbs to man" via natural selection or do you species adapt to their environment but remain within that species?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Under some definitions I am an agnostic, under others I am an atheist.
> 
> If you would like to use your chosen definitions just so you won't be wrong in your own stubborn mind, then do so. I truly fail to see how it would change anything. You will continue to think that atheism is somehow a religion. We understand that you are wrong. We also understand your simple motives for doing so. Under what I believe are the common definitions of atheism and religion, atheism could never be considered a religion. It is the lack of beliefs. If you understand the discussion that me and Madman had about the different types of "belief," then you will understand why atheism is not a religion under the common definition of religion. However, I really doubt you will. Pnome has covered this topic rigorously. If you don't understand it by now, you probably never will.



Your honesty and understanding is the only thing it shows.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Let me help you out Madman...
> 
> 
> Post #51 from another thread written by FJ:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by celticfisherman
> Then how in a world view where there is no creator did we get here?
> If speaking of before the singularity...
> 
> WE DON'T KNOW
> 
> If speaking of everything after the singularity: Big bang, abiogenesis, evolution via natural selection.



Madman was speaking of my atheism (or under your definition: agnosticism), not of any scientific theory, but I'll play along anyways.

The fact that I don't know how something happened does not mean that I don't know what I believe. It means that I lack belief in any explanation. Do you understand the difference? If there were multiple theories and I had partial belief in some of them but was unable to make up my mind, I would say that I don't know what I believe. But with this there is a clear lack of belief in any theory (collision between universes, God did it, etc.).


----------



## Madman

> Under some definitions I am an agnostic, under others I am an atheist.



Is this a double minded man?


----------



## celticfisherman

Madman said:


> Is this a double minded man?



Just an ignorant one.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> Do you believe in "microbs to man" via natural selection or do you species adapt to their environment but remain within that species?



Macroevolution and microevolution are both adequately supported by evidence.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> Is this a double minded man?



??

There are multiple definitions for words. If atheism is described as a complete and utter denial of the possibility of deities, then I am not an atheist. If you are speaking of de facto atheism, then I am an atheist. Likewise there are definitions of agnosticism that I fall under.

Obviously you can see the broad gray line of religiosity. If you cannot, then please view the "How (ir)religious are you?" thread.


----------



## Madman

AJ-- I did not mean for any of my post to be rude, condesending, or seem like I was trying to be humorus at your expense.  I know you honestly believe what you believe and have honest questions about what you do not know.  

I am the same way.  I would like to hear a few of the things that changed your mind.  I notice on your hobbies you are a seeker of knowledge.  There is a fine line between knowledge and truth, my suggestion would be to seek truth.

Fill me in on some of those things that changed your mind.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> Thankfully Richard Lewontin speaks for Richard Lewontin and not anyone else. This may be what Richard Lewontin does, but I would argue that other scientists think differently.



This is part I of my response: 

I do think it’s funny that you so easily dismiss the comments of a die hard atheist who had nothing to gain by making such a statement other than to point out to his fellow atheist that assuming anything other than "this" is to sell the farm of atheism. If people think science is neutral and without bias then they are terribly naïve. Of course I don't agree with much of what is called 'popular christianity" either.  Even though you are taken issue with a "professional" in his field of study. Could it be that it's your deconstruction education coming through? 

I would like for your to argue for scientist being neutral. Isn't that what we are really saying? I say there is no neutral ground and you say there is. 

To think one can be neutral is worse than believing in the flying spaghetti monster!  Neutrality is the biggest myth and its been around since the fall of man. College prof's love to dupe weak and ignorant and unprepared Christians with the lie of neutrality. Could this have been you FJ. This is why 2/3 of christians deny the faith by their senior year in college. It's not because the evidence against God is so overwhelming.It's because they were not prepared by their parents or churches to recognize and defend their faith.  These gullible students were taught that "educated" and "intelligent" people start from nothing and work to enlightenment. But really its the opposite. We must start with God and then can we see clearly to reason and be logical. 



Part II to come


----------



## pnome

footjunior said:


> Madman was speaking of my atheism (or under your definition: agnosticism)



You know, this gives me an idea.

I think I'm just going to say I'm "agnostic" on this forum from now on.  Having to explain the difference between strong and weak atheism over and over and over again is getting old.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> Macroevolution and microevolution are both adequately supported by evidence.




Macroevolution? Really? Wouldn't we see evidence in the fossil record of one species becoming another species? Can you name a species of animal that used to be a species of another kind?


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> You know, this gives me an idea.
> 
> I think I'm just going to say I'm "agnostic" on this forum from now on.  Having to explain the difference between strong and weak atheism over and over and over again is getting old.



If you are just intellectually honest it becomes easier.


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> You know, this gives me an idea.
> 
> I think I'm just going to say I'm "agnostic" on this forum from now on.  Having to explain the difference between strong and weak atheism over and over and over again is getting old.



Please be patient with us we just ignorant ole christians who don't know any better. 

pnome, in an atheist worldview why do definitions really matter? I thought deconstructionism justified many meanings?


----------



## Madman

AJ-- Since you are a seeker of knowledge I will ask you to earnestly seek the truth.  There are no transitional fossils.

If you were to visit the Darwin museum in England you would see finches and dogs and monkeys when you enter.  When you leave you will see finches and dogs and monkeys.  Each has reproduced after it's own kind.

If birds came from reptiles, where did the extra gentic information come from to grow wings?  

Science teaches us the everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder.  You could breed the genetic code for wings out of a bird but you could never breed the genetic code "for wings" into a lizard.


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> If you are just intellectually honest it becomes easier.


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


>



pnome, I have to tell ya I like your trekky stuff. I am ready for the new star trek movie to come out. It looks like it will be good one.


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> AJ-- Since you are a seeker of knowledge I will ask you to earnestly seek the truth.  There are no transitional fossils.
> 
> If you were to visit the Darwin museum in England you would see finches and dogs and monkeys when you enter.  When you leave you will see finches and dogs and monkeys.  Each has reproduced after it's own kind.
> 
> If birds came from reptiles, where did the extra gentic information come from to grow wings?
> 
> Science teaches us the everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder.  You could breed the genetic code for wings out of a bird but you could never breed the genetic code "for wings" into a lizard.





Hey, madman, you said what I was thinking. Good post.


----------



## Madman

> Obviously you can see the broad gray line of religiosity



There are definite differences in religions.  Different religions worship different gods, and they do it differently.

Christianity is one Religion, with several denominations, and we do not fully agree on several of the finer points, we are all still growing.  But I assure you we do agree on the esentials, and that is that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, he is the creator of the universe, he was born of the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirt, took upon himself the sins of the world, past present and future.  Mine and yours.  Man has seen the general revelation of a creator by the evidence given in His creation, Christians have been give the revelation of His Son Jesus Christ by His word.

I know that to be because He has changed my life.  I have seen Him, I have touched Him, so when I look at creation I see a creator.  You are unsure so when you look at the world you are not always sure what you see.  That is an agnostic.  Some look at the world and see blood and claw, they do not believe in God and therefore they must answer all of their question by starting with NO god.  It had to be evolution, billions of years it is the only thing that fits their prsuposition.

We all have presupostions, I say God, you say I don't know, the atheist says no god.


----------



## reformedpastor

I really would like to get more into the myth of neutrality and how it has produced the monsterous offspring of deconstructionism and such.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> Please be patient with us we just ignorant ole christians who don't know any better.
> 
> pnome, in an atheist worldview why do definitions really matter? I thought deconstructionism justified many meanings?




More "stubborn" than "ignorant".  I just want to use terms that you can recognize so we can get over this terminology barrier.

FJ and I have explained our positions in great detail.  If you want to call it agnosticism, fine.  Let's call it that and move on.

Definitions matter when they are agreed upon.  

Now, are you sure you're a "Christian"?  Let's define exactly what a "Christian" is.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> I do think itâ€™s funny that you so easily dismiss the comments of a die hard atheist who had nothing to gain by making such a statement other than to point out to his fellow atheist that assuming anything other than "this" is to sell the farm of atheism. If people think science is neutral and without bias then they are terribly naïve. Of course I don't agree with much of what is called 'popular christianity" either.  Even though you are taken issue with a "professional" in his field of study. Could it be that it's your deconstruction education coming through?



I think what you're really asking is why doesn't science allow intelligent design (or a "divine being") to be an answer to unsolved problems. It is a great question, and thankfully it has a simple answer: Intelligent design is not falsifiable. For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. How can we falsify the theory that, "God did it"? We cannot falsify it. Therefore it is not scientific.

Now, does that mean that God didn't do it? No. It simply means that we cannot scientifically prove (or disprove) that intelligent design is a possible theory. Science simply offers explanations that can be proven and disproven.

You're correct... science is not "neutral", if by neutral you mean that it allows intelligent design an equal opportunity. It should and will never allow intelligent design an equal opportunity because intelligent design has the cards stacked in it's favor: It can never be disproven.



> To think one can be neutral is worse than believing in the flying spaghetti monster!  Neutrality is the biggest myth and its been around since the fall of man. College prof's love to dupe weak and ignorant and unprepared Christians with the lie of neutrality. Could this have been you FJ? This is why 2/3 of christians deny the faith by their senior year in college. It's not because the evidence against God is so overwhelming. It's because they were not prepared by their parents or churches to recognize and defend their faith.  These gullible students were taught that "educated" and "intelligent" people start from nothing and work to enlightenment. But really its the opposite. We must start with God and then can we see clearly to reason and be logical.



I highlighted the above quote in red because I thought it was ironic. Don't you think that your words deny the neutrality as well? You're saying that "we must start with God". If you were perfectly neutral, wouldn't you say, "We must start with no assumptions and then logically prove theories"?

You may think differently, but I believe the best way to find the truth is by first assuming nothing, and then rigorously prove theories to find probable truth. You are claiming that we must first assume that God is true, and then, under that premise, look at the world and try to explain things.

I believe I somewhat understand what Richard Lewontin means when he says that he doesn't want to let the divine have a foot in the door, and it closely relates to Russell's teapot.

If I am correct, he is speaking of allowing "the divine" (intelligent design, the supernatural) to be a legitimate answer for scientific inquiry. If we allow even the slightest bit of supernaturalism to creep into science, the door will burst open. It will be pushed open by all of the various religions hoping to put their unfalsifiable claims in the theories of science. Of course, it would not be technically considered science anymore, yet it would probably for a while still maintain it's political and academic merit. It would be impossible for scientists to refute their claims since they are unfalsifiable.


----------



## Madman

> Now, are you sure you're a "Christian"? Let's define exactly what a "Christian" is.



As incomplete as it is I tried.


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> More "stubborn" than "ignorant".  I just want to use terms that you can recognize so we can get over this terminology barrier.
> 
> FJ and I have explained our positions in great detail.  If you want to call it agnosticism, fine.  Let's call it that and move on.
> 
> Definitions matter when they are agreed upon.
> 
> Now, are you sure you're a "Christian"?  Let's define exactly what a "Christian" is.



I do understand what you are saying and in debating this is essential to progress. I can give you that but not much more 

What is your definition of a christian?


----------



## Madman

> cannot scientifically prove



AJ-- Does everything have to be scientifically proven?  There are other forms of proof, literary, historical,, eyewitnss, etc.

Courts pass judgement everyday on evidence that is not scientific.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> AJ-- Since you are a seeker of knowledge I will ask you to earnestly seek the truth.  There are no transitional fossils.
> 
> If you were to visit the Darwin museum in England you would see finches and dogs and monkeys when you enter.  When you leave you will see finches and dogs and monkeys.  Each has reproduced after it's own kind.
> 
> If birds came from reptiles, where did the extra genetic information come from to grow wings?
> 
> Science teaches us the everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder.  You could breed the genetic code for wings out of a bird but you could never breed the genetic code "for wings" into a lizard.



All of this has been discussed before. There are plenty of transitional fossils, creationists simply refuse to recognize them as transitional fossils.

A clear example of macroevolution is the evolution of the horse. It is macroevolution because macroevolution is defined as changes beyond the changes within a species (microevolution). The evolution of the horse shows evolution between genera (genus), which is a level above species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Secondly, it is possible for genetic information to increase via duplication and polyploidy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

Finally... evolution does not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here's why: Evolution is a closed-system, yet it interacts with an open-system (the universe). The entropy in evolution decreases (more order) but the net entropy of the universe increases.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> What is your definition of a christian?



Mine is pretty broad.  Anyone who accepts the divinity of Jesus.


----------



## Madman

AJ-- My last post would probably be a better beginning to a new thread.  I may not have scientific evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived, but I due have historical, I have evidence that would stand up in court.  There is evidence that he died, there is extra Biblical evidence that He performed miracles. 

This could go on for a while.  PLEASE seek truth!!!!


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> AJ-- Does everything have to be scientifically proven?  There are other forms of proof, literary, historical,, eyewitnss, etc.
> 
> Courts pass judgement everyday on evidence that is not scientific.



I never said that everything must be proven scientifically.


----------



## Madman

> Anyone who accepts the divinity of Jesus.[



I believe Satan accepted the divinity of Jesus Christ.


----------



## pnome

Madman said:


> I may not have scientific evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived, but I due have historical, I have evidence that would stand up in court.  There is evidence that he died,



Don't need to have much in the way of evidence to prove that Jesus lived and died.  I'll take the bibles word for it on that, because it is not an extraordinary claim in any way.



> there is extra Biblical evidence that He performed miracles.



I really am interested in this.  What evidence do you speak of?


----------



## Madman

> I never said that everything must be proven scientifically.



I am trying togive you leeway but you are making it difficult.  I clipped your quote.  Let me ask it this way.  Is the only way you will believe something is if it it is scientifically proven?


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> I am trying togive you leeway but you are making it difficult.  I clipped your quote.  Let me ask it this way.  Is the only way you will believe something is if it it is scientifically proven?



No.


----------



## Madman

> What evidence do you speak of?



Josephus writes of a man named Jesus performing miracles.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> I think what you're really asking is why doesn't science allow intelligent design (or a "divine being") to be an answer to unsolved problems. It is a great question, and thankfully it has a simple answer: Intelligent design is not falsifiable. For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. How can we falsify the theory that, "God did it"? We cannot falsify it. Therefore it is not scientific.
> 
> Now, does that mean that God didn't do it? No. It simply means that we cannot scientifically prove (or disprove) that intelligent design is a possible theory. Science simply offers explanations that can be proven and disproven.
> 
> You're correct... science is not "neutral", if by neutral you mean that it allows intelligent design an equal opportunity. It should and will never allow intelligent design an equal opportunity because intelligent design has the cards stacked in it's favor: It can never be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> I highlighted the above quote in red because I thought it was ironic. Don't you think that your words deny the neutrality as well? You're saying that "we must start with God". If you were perfectly neutral, wouldn't you say, "We must start with no assumptions and then logically prove theories"?
> 
> You may think differently, but I believe the best way to find the truth is by first assuming nothing, and then rigorously prove theories to find probable truth. You are claiming that we must first assume that God is true, and then, under that premise, look at the world and try to explain things.
> 
> I believe I somewhat understand what Richard Lewontin means when he says that he doesn't want to let the divine have a foot in the door, and it closely relates to Russell's teapot.
> 
> If I am correct, he is speaking of allowing "the divine" (intelligent design, the supernatural) to be a legitimate answer for scientific inquiry. If we allow even the slightest bit of supernaturalism to creep into science, the door will burst open. It will be pushed open by all of the various religions hoping to put their unfalsifiable claims in the theories of science. Of course, it would not be technically considered science anymore, yet it would probably for a while still maintain it's political and academic merit. It would be impossible for scientists to refute their claims since they are unfalsifiable.




I must confess that I am against the intelligent design movement. It isn't going to prove God, it's only going to promote the alien idea. Just my opinion. 

I don't think anyone is really neutral. I guess my question for you is, if you start with nothing what do you judge the evidence with? You have nothing to use as a standard by which to judge the evidence.

 By starting with God I can question the reality of anything, examine claims made in scripture with great scrutiny. To see if God is who He says He is. Judge all claims, religious and nonreligious with the same standard. 

My faith isn't in conflict is real science. Even though science isn't able to explain the supernatural it has a place and will point to God every time. Think about the time period called the "dark ages," some very important discoveries were made by scientist that claimed to be christians. 

Now, I only point this out because today many think that science is naturally opposed to faith but that's no the case at all when its legitimate science.


----------



## pnome

Madman said:


> Josephus writes of a man named Jesus performing miracles.



I don't think that would stand up in court.  That is simply hearsay.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> All of this has been discussed before. There are plenty of transitional fossils, creationists simply refuse to recognize them as transitional fossils.
> 
> A clear example of macroevolution is the evolution of the horse. It is macroevolution because macroevolution is defined as changes beyond the changes within a species (microevolution). The evolution of the horse shows evolution between genera (genus), which is a level above species.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
> 
> Secondly, it is possible for genetic information to increase via duplication and polyploidy.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy
> 
> Finally... evolution does not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here's why: Evolution is a closed-system, yet it interacts with an open-system (the universe). The entropy in evolution decreases (more order) but the net entropy of the universe increases.




I am looking into your links. But one question about the horse fossils. Are there fossils that capture the transition? What I mean is, are there fossils that have a horse with 3 legs with 4 toes and 1 leg with a hoof?


Now, you haven't proven macroevolution by posting these links. You have posted information that may give a strong defense and credibility to your argument. We will need to examine the evidence.


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> I don't think that would stand up in court.  That is simply hearsay.



It might not stand up in court but it is the writing of an historian that wasn't a christian. It's not without validity you think?


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> I guess my question for you is, if you start with nothing what do you judge the evidence with? You have nothing to use as a standard by which to judge the evidence.



I really don't want to get into very philosophical arguments on if we are capable of knowing, or if we are even capable of knowing that we are capable of knowing. This discussion can devolve into an impossible argument of epistemology. 

I start with A = A. I view the world with human perception and then attempt to interpret it through reason and logic. There is no need to assume that a deity exists in order to understand an objective truth.



> By starting with God I can question the reality of anything, examine claims made in scripture with great scrutiny. To see if God is who He says He is. Judge all claims, religious and nonreligious with the same standard.



Yes. Starting with an unproven assumption allows for wondrous things. By starting with the assumption that Allah exists, I can believe that when I fly into a building I will be miraculously teleported to the highest level of heaven to enjoy 72 virgins.

You cannot start with the assumption of a positive. That is you cannot start with the assumption that God exists. You must prove that he exists before you can base anything else off of his existence.



> My faith isn't in conflict is real science. Even though science isn't able to explain the supernatural it has a place and will point to God every time.



Science will never be able to explain the supernatural. That is why it is supernatural. Muslims really think that science points to Allah.



> Think about the time period called the "dark ages," some very important discoveries were made by scientist that claimed to be Christians.



There were also many discoveries by Muslims, and Hindus, and many other religions. This proves nothing. Christian scientists continue to provide discoveries in science, as do people of all faiths.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> I am looking into your links. But one question about the horse fossils. Are there fossils that capture the transition? What I mean is, are there fossils that have a horse with 3 legs with 4 toes and 1 leg with a hoof?



Are you serious? 

Pnome... you gotta help me out. I can't handle this one... 

First off, I'm going to assume that you were kidding. But if you weren't this shows a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution via natural selection.


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> I don't think that would stand up in court.  That is simply hearsay.



Sounds like a similar argument on Jews who wrote about Christ...

BTW- He is one of the most respected historians when it comes to the Romans... Especially pre-Nero.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Pnome... you gotta help me out. I can't handle this one...
> 
> First off, I'm going to assume that you were kidding. But if you weren't this shows a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution via natural selection.



Your arrogance is appalling.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Your arrogance is appalling.



It's not arrogance. I'm sure he was just kidding, I'm laughing with him because I understand that he was just making a funny.

Hopefully...


----------



## footjunior

Reformedpastor, I'm sorry if my post seemed a little condescending. I can see now that it might be viewed that way. I really didn't think you were serious about finding a transitional fossil with 3 legs containing 4 digits and 1 leg with a hoof. I'm still not, to be honest. But in the case that you are...

To answer your question. No. Not that I  know of. There has never been such a fossil found. And if there was a fossil like that found, it would not be considered a transitional fossil. It would most likely be considered a very strange deformity. All 4 legs would have transitioned gradually over time together. Not 1 leg at a time.

Thankfully, information about evolution is abundant on the internet. You can get a better understanding of evolution and it's processes from these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01


----------



## Madman

> an open-system (the universe).



AJ-- I am beginning to doubt you are a seeker of knowledge if Wikipedia and the internet are the best you can do.  I would no more site wikipedia and PBS as the final authority than I would site one our posts here.


Go back to your physics books that you were given in engineering school and revisit open vs. closed systems.  Size of system is irelevant.  It sounds to me you are claiming there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe which is then able to be imparted to universe subsets,i.e. galaxies, planets, etc.  You have agreed that the universe is "winding down" a Biblical reference by the way.  Then who or what is producing this new "universal energy" that is sustaining what we have today?

Talk about blind faith!!! Gene replication which can produce added information.  

Seek truth!!!!


----------



## Madman

pnome said:


> I don't think that would stand up in court.  That is simply hearsay.



Don't understand the hearsay comment, it is historically documented.

Them lets look at Tacitus, or Pliny the Younger, (Who by the way tells of "SLAVE WOMEN" who were silling to die rather than deny Christ) or Thallus.

I believe that due to your predispostion of a total lack of 
god you would deny any historical reference.


----------



## Madman

> Muslims really think that science points to Allah.



No they don't!!! Islam has no place for science.  There is no historical, scientific or archeology, that points to the claims of Muhammid.


----------



## Madman

Got to go. my boyscout troop is hosting a pinewood derby for the cubscouts.

AJ-- I would like you to explain to me how many times a lizard has to jump off a cliff to decide that he needs wings and then to begin to grow them.  

Or how many times a bird has to slam his head into a tree trying to extract bugs before his beak begins to lengthen, his tounge grows to such a lenth it wraps around the inside of his skull, shock absorbers miraculously appear so that is brain will not be damaged by the pounding on the tree.

I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist!!!!!

See ya'll later.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Pnome... you gotta help me out. I can't handle this one...
> 
> First off, I'm going to assume that you were kidding. But if you weren't this shows a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution via natural selection.




The comment was meant to be overt the top. Let me use your own words, extraordinary claims means extraordinary evidence. For one species to turn into a different species is an extraordinary claim. I just want to see the evidence.


----------



## reformedpastor

FJ- I really don't want to get into very philosophical arguments on if we are capable of knowing, or if we are even capable of knowing that we are capable of knowing. This discussion can devolve into an impossible argument of epistemology.

I start with A = A. I view the world with human perception and then attempt to interpret it through reason and logic. There is no need to assume that a deity exists in order to understand an objective truth.


Go back and read my original post. That is what this discussion is about. How much knowledge does it take to be an atheist? 

NONE. pnome has already said this. Atheism is a system of beliefs built on prejudice not real science or fact. Atheist have commitments that affect how they see everything else so the will continue to be atheist until they change their commitments. 

You don't want to discuss epistemology but that at the heart of all this. How do you know what you know????

Never mistake confidence with being correct. You can have one without the other. 

Atheism really begs the question and is a less than an honest approach  to science, philosophy, education, politics, and ethics. 

I have pressed you to be consistent with your worldview but consistent atheism leads to nihilism. 

I think I am going to start another topic on the affects of the lie of neutrality.


Without God you can prove nothing!!!!


----------



## Madman

> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_01



I was looking forward to some intense research material from Berkeley, since it is such a bastion of nuetral thought.

All I see are a lot of claims without ANY support!!  I am not a philosopher, or even a theologin, I am a mecahnical engineer.  AJ--Wants Scientific proof, do not go to this url here is a short version of the logic there.

Bats have wings, birds have wings, lizards have legs, birds have legs, they look similar therefore they are all related.
I will now draw a chart proving how they are related.

The only relation is a common maker.  The Berkley site starts its tree with living creatures.  How do they jump from nothing to the living.  What animated their dirt?  Better yet where did the dirt come from?  Still more questions: what produced the energy that started the process that made the dirt? 

AJ--The same questions that lead you away from god, strengthened my belief, but only after I began to seek the truth.

I am really intersted in the part of the site that talks about dating rocks.  They date the rock, so we know exactly how old they are, now we find bones in the rocks and since you can not date bones the same way they "Assume" the bones are the same age as the rocks.  what if they missed the rock dates?  Go back to your physics books and relearn about the serious problems they have with the actual dating of rocks.  If you miss the rock date, you miss the bone's age.  If you miss the bones age, you have go back and rebuild your model. FROM THE BEGINNING!!

Seek truth not knowledge.

I do not have enough faith to be an atheist!!!


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Madman said:


> Josephus writes of a man named Jesus performing miracles.



Forgery.


----------



## reformedpastor

Dixie Dawg said:


> Forgery.



 If you say so. 


Madman You will like this link. Its a scholarly and well footnoted. work.  

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMn14.htm


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> AJ-- I am beginning to doubt you are a seeker of knowledge if Wikipedia and the internet are the best you can do.  I would no more site wikipedia and PBS as the final authority than I would site one our posts here.



Wikipedia works in practice, not in theory. If you think anyone can go and edit the evolution of the horse page on wikipedia, go there and try it for yourself and see how long it lasts. Go to the wikipedia page and scroll to the bottom. Those are citations to published literature, that is where wikipedians construct the articles from. Is Wikipedia the apex of credibility? Of course not. It is simply an easily accessible page that provides comprehensive data. Would you like me to start providing links to peer-reviewed journal articles that one must have an EBSCO account to view? While the credibility would be much higher, I don't think that would be helpful, seeing that many might not be able to view the information.

I provided links to wikipedia and PBS because they offer basic information about evolution. I tell you what, instead of attacking the credibility of the sites, why not attack the arguments within the sites? The "internet and Wikipedia" are not the best I can do, they're simply the best I can do over the internet. We are indeed talking on an online discussion board. It seems only natural to provide links that are easily accessible on this medium that we call the internet. How else would you like me to provide proof? Hand you a book through the computer? Words on the internet are authored by people just like books are authored by people. Some books are more credible than others, and some websites are more credible than others. Wikipedia (believe it or not) is a remarkably credible source.



> Go back to your physics books that you were given in engineering school and revisit open vs. closed systems.  Size of system is irelevant.  It sounds to me you are claiming there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe which is then able to be imparted to universe subsets,i.e. galaxies, planets, etc.



It is not energy, it is entropy. In it's simplest form, the 2nd law states that for any reaction the entropy (chaos or disorder as some call it) of the universe must increase. Evolution is a reaction, and it decreases the entropy within itself. That is, order is created from chaos. How is this possible, you say? Doesn't that break the 2nd law? No. The 2nd law is upheld because evolution increases the entropy of the universe while decreasing the entropy within its system. Entropy can be transferred between systems, and that is exactly what happens in evolution, as well as other closed-systems. Entropy is being transferred from a closed-system (evolution) to an open-system (the universe). The order within evolution increases, while the order in the universe decreases, thus maintaining the 2nd law of thermodynamics.



> You have agreed that the universe is "winding down" a Biblical reference by the way.  Then who or what is producing this new "universal energy" that is sustaining what we have today?



What "universal energy" are you talking about? Can you define it?



> Talk about blind faith!!! Gene replication which can produce added information.



Uhh...? A gene duplication results in a net increase of information provided by the gene. What's so hard to see about that? Am I missing something?



			
				Madman said:
			
		

> J-- I would like you to explain to me how many times a lizard has to jump off a cliff to decide that he needs wings and then to begin to grow them.
> 
> Or how many times a bird has to slam his head into a tree trying to extract bugs before his beak begins to lengthen, his tounge grows to such a lenth it wraps around the inside of his skull, shock absorbers miraculously appear so that is brain will not be damaged by the pounding on the tree.



Looks like you need to view the links above as well. A basic understanding of evolutionary processes is essential in this discussion.



> Let me use your own words, extraordinary claims means extraordinary evidence. For one species to turn into a different species is an extraordinary claim. I just want to see the evidence.



Thankfully we have the evidence. Have you looked at the evolution of the horse yet? Do you see the fossils showing the transition between genera? That is the evidence. If you honestly don't see that as evidence of a transition, then I'm sorry.

There is also evidence that doesn't require fossils at all. Evolution resulting in different species has been observed and continues to be observed. Speciation is fairly easy to produce in the lab because isolation is controlled by the experimenter. This technique has been used to show that speciation can occur. You can pick just about any lifeform with a very quick reproduction rate, create two, isolated groups of this lifeform, feed each group a different type of food, and before long you will end up with 2 distinct species that will not reproduce with each other. This has been particularly studied with fruit flies. After a certain number of generations, the two groups of fruit flies are brought together and tracked. Studies have shown that the two groups have in fact become two different species, feeding off of different foods and breeding only within their group.



> NONE. pnome has already said this. Atheism is a system of beliefs built on prejudice not real science or fact.



Atheism is a lack of beliefs. You say that we don't use real science, but just a few posts back you said that you start off with the assumption that God is real and then base everything on that. How is that real science? You're starting off with an assumption that you haven't proven.



> Atheist have commitments that affect how they see everything else so the will continue to be atheist until they change their commitments.



I have a commitment to the truth. If God is real, and he is the truth, then I want to know. But so far I haven't seen any evidence that proves that he is true.



> You don't want to discuss epistemology but that at the heart of all this. How do you know what you know????



How do you know that God exists? Then why do you assume that he exists?

Never mistake confidence with being correct. You can have one without the other.



> Atheism really begs the question and is a less than an honest approach to science, philosophy, education, politics, and ethics.



Atheism is nothing about education, politics, or ethics. It's a lack of belief in deities. Why do you continue to try to attach other things to it? A less than honest approach is assuming that something is true before you have proved it.



> Bats have wings birds, have wings, lizards have legs, birds have legs, they look similar therefore they are all related.
> I will now draw a chart proving how they are related.
> 
> The only relation is a common maker. The Berkley site starts its tree with living creatures. How they jump from nothing to the living. What animated their dirt? Better yet where did the dirt come from? Still more questions: what produced the energy that started the process that made the dirt?



Again, please learn more about evolution and get back to me. Having a discussion on the specifics will do no good if you don't understand the basics. Also, evolution is not abiogenesis. That is why they "jump from nothing to the living". Evolution only deals with living creatures and how they evolve. It does not deal with how life comes from non-life. That is in the realm of abiogenesis. Good questions though.


----------



## reformedpastor

From the book "In the Minds of Men: Darwinism and the New World Order"  I posted the link above. 

Faith in a belief system takes us beyond science into the metaphysical and, thereby, into the realm of religion. Many writers are beginning to recognize this; for instance, historian and philosopher of science Grene says, "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men's minds. The derivation of life, of man, of man's deepest hopes and highest achievements, from the external and indirect determination of small chance errors, appears as the keystone of the naturalistic universe" (Grene 1959, 48). Macbeth (1971, 124), a nonreligious critic, notes that Darwinism itself has all the attributes of a religious faith and lists five major points, one of which is that the true disciples manifest an outright contempt for Christianity. For example, those holding a belief in biblical Creation are today rooted out of teaching positions with the same righteous fervency as the heretics were at one time rooted out of the church. Thus the ongoing evolution-creation debate, which has been blowing hot and cold ever since Darwin's Origin, is clearly a matter of two diametrically opposed belief systems or religions: atheism on the one hand and theism on the other.



One of the most respected biological evolutionists of today, Ernst Mayr, has stated, "The basic theory [of evolution] is in many instances hardly more than a postulate and its application raises numerous questions in almost every concrete case" (Mayr 1963, 8). A postulate is a supposition assumed without proof; the truth of Mayr's statement may be evident from those pieces of evidence offered as "proof" in the past, such as Bathybius haeckelii, the vestigial organs, development of the embryo, and the numerous fossil men, each of which eventually turned out to be misrepresentation or even fraud. If the "proof" in the past was spurious, it might be asked if genuine proof has been offered more recently, but there is, as yet, no affirmative answer. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, should be in a position to know, yet declared before his peers at a meeting in 1981 that evolution was "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth" (Patterson 1981, 2).

The attempt to provide proof by expanding the definition of the term "species" was evidently not acceptable to Erhlich, Mayr, or Patterson, and until concrete proof is provided, it has to be concluded at this point that evolution is a belief system held to by faith. Of course, the Creation account is similarly a belief system held to by faith, and the parallel may be recognized that neither explanation for origins has been observed, neither can be tested in the laboratory, and neither is refutable; that is, neither explanation can be proved or disproved.


----------



## reformedpastor

FJ- "Atheism is nothing about education, politics, or ethics. It's a lack of belief in deities. Why do you continue to try to attach other things to it? A less than honest approach is assuming that something is true before you have proved it."

Either you are very naive or dishonest. I choose to believe you are naive. For you to say that atheism has nothing to do with education, politics, science...............etc. is incorrect. Maybe you need to go back an listen to your leader's speech one more time. 

Listen to me: there is now amount of evidence going to change your mind. NONE. That's been my point from the beginning.


----------



## Madman

> “before long you will end up with 2 distinct species that will not reproduce with each other.”



We are in agreement!!! You have bread information out of the Fruit Flies.  Now, let’s see bread the information back into them.  Bread them back together to produce the original fruit fly.  You cannot do it.

It is impossible to breed two poodles and get a mastiff. The original dog kind information that includes mastiff traits is gone.  Two pure bread poodles produce two pure bread poodles. 

You know it is impossible because the information is GONE.  And all the entropy in the world will not bring it back.

My neighbor is a veterinarian, he claims to be a nothing more than a life support system for poodles, because everything has been bread out of them.



> “ It is not energy, it is entropy. In it's simplest form, the 2nd law states that for any reaction the entropy (chaos or disorder as some call it) of the universe must increase. Evolution is a reaction, and it decreases the entropy within itself. That is, order is created from chaos.”



Are you saying that in evolution the entropy or chaos that is happening in the universe adds information and energy to the lower subset?  I think I see your reasoning, I do not agree with your conclusion, but tell me if this is correct. 

The typical chaos example: a butterfly flaps its wings in south america produces an air movement which produces an air current, so on...... until it causes a tornado in Oklahoma.  

Fun exercise, a lot of neat equations have been written.

But we are talking about adding INFORMATION we are talking about CODE, we are talking about the Language that causes life to run.  We are not talking about the effects of a old lady with a funeral fan causing a hurricane in Europe.

Your argument was we live in an open system, so if the implication was not that information is added from outside what were you trying to say?

I understand entropy I deal with it every day.  I also deal with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, every day.  Energy, decreases, information decreases, you have shown me nothing that remotely shows how an organism can receive extra information.  The sun can give it energy but it cannot increase the information in the genetic code.  

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. (That is maximum disorder) Since its discovery, this idea has been the focus of a great deal of thought, some of it confused. A chief point of confusion is the fact that the Second Law applies only to isolated systems. For example, the Earth is not an isolated system because it is constantly receiving energy in the form of sunlight. In contrast, the universe may be considered an isolated system, so that its total disorder is constantly increasing.


> “What "universal energy" are you talking about? Can you define it?”




Once again you made reference to an open system, the inference being that something is adding energy or information.  So if you look at the universe as a closed system where is the energy being added to keep it going?

See the highlighted above.

AJ-- I think we are way off topic if someone wants to continue this line I think we need to start a new thread.


----------



## Madman

Dixie Dawg said:


> Forgery.



Well that certainly ends all debate on that subject.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> NONE. pnome has already said this. Atheism is a system of beliefs built on prejudice not real science or fact.



I've said no such thing.  

You are misrepresenting me.  Once again, atheism is simply the state of non-belief.  There is no "system" to it.


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> None.
> 
> It takes only the realization that you do not know.



Is this YOU??????? Did you say none????????? That would  be post #15. So did I misrepresent you?


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> Is this YOU??????? Did you say none????????? That would  be post #15. So did I misrepresent you?



I did say that.  But not this:


> Atheism is a system of beliefs built on prejudice not real science or fact.


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> I did say that.  But not this:



Read it again. I don't think folks thought those were your words, they are mine. You said "none". Man...........


----------



## Madman

> I really am interested in this. What evidence do you speak of?



You wouldn't accept the writings of Josephus you called it hearsay, how about the other extra-Biblical evidence?  How about Thallus, Pliny the Younger, or Tacitus?

I suppose that you will consider that hearsay aso.  Will you accept any of the first hand evidence?  I have some of that I can present.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> FJ- "Atheism is nothing about education, politics, or ethics. It's a lack of belief in deities. Why do you continue to try to attach other things to it? A less than honest approach is assuming that something is true before you have proved it."
> 
> Either you are very naive or dishonest. I choose to believe you are naive. For you to say that atheism has nothing to do with education, politics, science...............etc. is incorrect. Maybe you need to go back an listen to your leader's speech one more time.



New Atheism is not equal to atheism. If you were speaking of the New Atheism movement, you would be correct. I believe it does seek to remove religion from all disciplines. However, atheism does not deal with education, ethics, politics, etc. It is simply the lack of belief in deities.



			
				Madman said:
			
		

> We are in agreement!!! You have bread information out of the Fruit Flies. Now, let’s see bread the information back into them. Bread them back together to produce the original fruit fly. You cannot do it.



??? "Bread information out of the fruit flies"?

I don't understand what you mean by this. The experiment begins with one group of fruit flies. They are separated into 2 isolated groups. After many generations, they emerge as separate species. The two groups are placed into one container , and yet they do not reproduce with each other.

If the two groups do not reproduce with each other, how do you propose to "bread them back together"?



> It is impossible to breed two poodles and get a mastiff. The original dog kind information that includes mastiff traits is gone. Two pure bread poodles produce two pure bread poodles.



Ok I agree with you here, but I do not understand how this relates to anything. If you have a large enough population of poodles and enough time, you can in fact breed these poodles into mastiffs by artificial selection. That is what breeders do, they artificially select.



> Are you saying that in evolution the entropy or chaos that is happening in the universe adds information and energy to the lower subset? I think I see your reasoning, I do not agree with your conclusion, but tell me if this is correct.



No. Not energy and not information. Here is how it works.

There are two systems that we are dealing with in this problem.

The first system is the universe. Being the highest superset of all subsystems, it interacts with all subsystems it contains. Which, since it is the universe, it's domain contains ALL subsystems.

The second system is evolution. However, it interacts with other systems, namely the universe. What I mean by interact is that entropy can flow from one system to another. In this case, entropy flows from the closed system of evolution to its "parent" domain, which is the universe system.

Now, the 2nd Law states that for any reaction in a system, the net entropy in the universe must INCREASE. Therefore, the entropy in any subsystem can in fact decrease (leading to more order) as long as the net entropy of the universe increases. In other words, the entropy is passed from the system that is becoming more orderly (evolution) to the system that is becoming more chaotic (the universe).

For example... the development of a human baby in the womb. Obviously this is an increase in order. Now, if the human development system was not connected to the universe, this would be an obvious breach of the 2nd Law. However, the two systems are in fact connected. As order increases in the womb, the order decreases in the universe, and thus the 2nd Law is maintained.

This may be a hard concept to understand when you are applying the 2nd Law to biological systems such as evolution. However, it is much easier to understand when talking of heat since it does not require much abstract thinking.



> But we are talking about adding INFORMATION we are talking about CODE, we are talking about the Language that causes life to run.



Exactly, and as order increases in the subsystem that is DNA mutations, the order of the universe decreases because of entropy flow.



> Your argument was we live in an open system, so if the implication was not that information is added from outside what were you trying to say?



I meant open-systems regarding entropy flow in the 2nd Law.



> I understand entropy I deal with it every day. I also deal with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, every day. Energy, decreases, information decreases, you have shown me nothing that remotely shows how an organism can receive extra information. The sun can give it energy but it cannot increase the information in the genetic code.



The Sun...? Gene duplication increases the total amount of information in a gene. It's fairly simple. It's simply a portion of code in the DNA that duplicates itself into a larger DNA segment.

Maybe this will be a good example. Consider the array of information:

[A][D]_[P][R][G][V][E][L][K]

A duplication could possibly result in this:

[A][D][P][R][G][V][P][R][G][V][E][L][K]

Notice that the information [P][R][G][V] has duplicated itself. Notice also that the resulting fragment of DNA now has more information.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3562










			Once again you made reference to an open system, the inference being that something is adding energy or information. So if you look at the universe as a closed system where is the energy being added to keep it going?
		
Click to expand...


There is only so much energy in the universe because there is only so much mass in the universe (and vice versa). This is because mass is convertible to energy. E = mc^2.

So my answer is that there is no energy being added to the universe to "keep it going". Entropy is being transferred between systems. Some of these systems (like evolution) experience a net increase in order because they pass entropy to their parent system: the universe._


----------



## Madman

> Ok I agree with you here, but I do not understand how this relates to anything.



No you don't agree. Because you were responding to my statement "It is impossible to breed two poodles and get a mastiff "  then you respond.....



> If you have a large enough population of poodles and enough time, you can in fact breed these poodles into mastiffs by artificial selection.



I say prove it!!  The information is GONE!!  In your breeding process you have removed the mastiff gene.  Where are you getting the new mastiff gentic code from, gene duplcation?

I love the evolutionist way out: enough dogs, and enough time.

We do not have to use science because it takes to long.  




> If the two groups do not reproduce with each other, how do you propose to "bread them back together"?



Now you are getting it!!! You have removed the information that gives them the information to reproduce and they can never get it back.

My point is if gene replication works then why can't you do your voodoo that you do so well, let them replicate genes and start reproducing?  Because the code that allows them to reproduce is GONE!

Let order come out of chaos; PLEASE!!!!

Let me ask you a question.  If you walked out your front door and saw a line of leaves 100 yards long.  They alternated Pen Oak leaf, Water Oak leaf, Maple leaf, Poplar leaf and then the pattern started over for the entire 100 yards.  Each leaf was exactly 8.25" center to center, the stems were all oriented at 29 degrees.  Would believe that they feel from their respective tree and landed like that or would you believe someone placed them that way?


----------



## Madman

AJ-- I wouldn't put my faith in gene duplication.  Duplications and mutations do not add information to the genome.

Think about it this way: if I give someone a copy of a book they already own, then they don’t have any new information, just a copy of information they already had. If I subsequently take a marker and mark out some of the letters or words in the copy of the book I gave them, they still don’t have any new information—just a messed up copy of one of the books.

There are some mutations that are beneficial such as bacteria that is antibacterial resistant but it is a mutation caused by a LOSS of information.

But for microbs to man you MUST assume that duplication and mutation ADDS information, there is absolutely no evidence of this.  


We are all looking at the same evidence.  The central issue is what our starting point is when looking at the evidence; belief in the constantly changing ideas of man or belief in the unchanging Word of God.

I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.


----------



## reformedpastor

> New Atheism is not equal to atheism. If you were speaking of the New Atheism movement, you would be correct. I believe it does seek to remove religion from all disciplines. However, atheism does not deal with education, ethics, politics, etc. It is simply the lack of belief in deities.




I want you to know, I do understand what atheism is. Actually, I have been getting a kick out of reading articles by other atheist scientist that find Dawkins as an embarrassment. I plan to do a lot more reading.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> No you don't agree. Because you were responding to my statement "It is impossible to breed two poodles and get a mastiff "  then you respond.....





I agree with you that you cannot breed two poodles once and get a mastiff. However, if you have enough poodles and enough time, you can in fact produce a mastiff.



> I say prove it!!  The information is GONE!!  In your breeding process you have removed the mastiff gene.  Where are you getting the new mastiff genetic code from, gene duplication?





> I love the evolutionist way out: enough dogs, and enough time.
> 
> We do not have to use science because it takes to long.



I don't even understand what you're saying anymore. How is it a "way out"? I'm simply stating that if you have a large enough population of poodles (for enough variation to occur) and enough time (enough generations to produce the desired traits).

For example this cow is simply a variation of a normal cow. However, it took breeders over 100 years and many cows to produce this breed of cow.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nmkj5gq1cQU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nmkj5gq1cQU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Now if they wanted to, they could take this breed's population and selectively breed them back into normal cows. It would likely take another 100 years to do so.

Likewise, a breeder can (if given enough poodles and enough time) breed a poodle population into a mastiff population. Then he could breed that mastiff population back into poodles. Again, I believe you simply need to spend a few hours and research the topic of breeding, gene mutations, and evolution.



> Now you are getting it!!! You have removed the information that gives them the information to reproduce and they can never get it back.



I think you are misunderstanding me. My point is that these two entities are now 2 different species. Two different species of fruit flies. We do not want to breed them back together.

However, two breeds of dogs are still the same species. See the difference?

The two groups of flies: different species.

The two breeds of dogs: same species. A mastiff and a poodle are both just dogs. They have variations of canine genes, but they both belong to the same species. This is what allows them to have mixed breeds.



> Let order come out of chaos; PLEASE!!!!



Errr... if you're speaking of entropy flow, it happens. Sorry. Entropy flows from one system to another, increasing order in the system that entropy is flowing out of.



> Let me ask you a question.  If you walked out your front door and saw a line of leaves 100 yards long.  They alternated Pen Oak leaf, Water Oak leaf, Maple leaf, Poplar leaf and then the pattern started over for the entire 100 yards.  Each leaf was exactly 8.25" center to center, the stems were all oriented at 29 degrees.  Would believe that they feel from their respective tree and landed like that or would you believe someone placed them that way?



I would believe that someone placed them in that way.



> I wouldn't put my faith in gene duplication. Duplications and mutations do not add information to the genome.
> 
> Think about it this way: if I give someone a copy of a book they already own, then they don’t have any new information, just a copy of information they already had. If I subsequently take a marker and mark out some of the letters or words in the copy of the book I gave them, they still don’t have any new information—just a messed up copy of one of the books.



I don't put faith in gene duplication. It is well understood. No faith is required.

I understand what you are saying, but this is not the way in which mutations work. The same information in a different sequence makes the gene act in a completely different way. This in turn leads to different traits within the organism. These traits are naturally selected, leading to evolution.

Different orders of genes result in different traits.

[A][C]*[D] is different than [D][A][C], even thought the information is the same.




			But for microbs to man you MUST assume that duplication and mutation ADDS information, there is absolutely no evidence of this.
		
Click to expand...


I think you are misunderstanding the word information and how it applies to genetics. You remember this picture?






This shows that duplication results in an increase of information provided by the gene. Now, the type of information is indeed the same information because it is a duplication. However, you must remember that duplication has changed the order of information provided by the gene, this results in the gene producing different traits for the organism.

I believe you understand that duplication increases the amount of information in a gene, you're just saying that the information is the same and therefore duplication has no real effect. Now, as I said above, the order of information will in and of itself lead to different traits in the organism. Since duplication changes the order, it will lead to different traits. However, the other obvious thing is that once duplication takes place, regular mutations can then change the information within the specific elements. Consider this example:

We start with:
[A][D][F][P][R][G][V][E][L][K]

A duplication could possibly result in this:

[A][D][F][P][R][G][V][P][R][G][V][E][L][K]

Now, after a regular mutation, we could have:

[A][D][F][P][R][G][V][H][J][E][X][E][L][K]

Can you see now that duplication increases the information in the gene?




			There are some mutations that are beneficial such as bacteria that is antibacterial resistant but it is a mutation caused by a LOSS of information.
		
Click to expand...


Mutations that result in a loss of information can be beneficial or negative. Mutations that result in a gain of information can also be beneficial or negative.




			I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.
		
Click to expand...


I think if you understood the topics you wouldn't need faith. If you understood gene duplication there would be no need to place any "faith" in it. If you understood evolution and breeding there would be no need to place any faith in it. Besides, atheism has nothing to do with any of these things. There are Christians who understand and recognize evolution as fully sufficient in explaining the diversity of life on Earth from microbes to man. Atheism is just a lack of belief in deities. It is devoid of faith.*


----------



## reformedpastor

> I think if you understood the topics you wouldn't need faith. If you understood gene duplication there would be no need to place any "faith" in it. If you understood evolution and breeding there would be no need to place any faith in it. Besides, atheism has nothing to do with any of these things. There are Christians who understand and recognize evolution as fully sufficient in explaining the diversity of life on Earth from microbes to man. Atheism is just a lack of belief in deities. It is devoid of faith.



This is where I have a problem. Science and Revelation are compatible as long as one understands the purpose and limitations of the other. The bible isn't a science manual and yet it describes a complex science in very basic terms, such as isostacy, way before that particular science was discovered. Darwinian science and scripture are not compatible and no amount of time and or books saying so will change that.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Let me ask you a question.  If you walked out your front door and saw a line of leaves 100 yards long.  They alternated Pen Oak leaf, Water Oak leaf, Maple leaf, Poplar leaf and then the pattern started over for the entire 100 yards.  Each leaf was exactly 8.25" center to center, the stems were all oriented at 29 degrees.  Would believe that they feel from their respective tree and landed like that or would you believe someone placed them that way?



I like this one..... I've also heard the example:  If you are walking along a beach and you see something in the sand that appears to have been written by a stick and it says: "John lives Mary", you MUST assume that there was an intelligent creator.   

The first mistake is to make this situation (or the one about the leaves) analogous to the complexity of life in the universe (or the one about the BMW being assembled by a tornado).  They're flawed analogies.   what we observe in nature doesn't require there to be a creator and strangely enough, neither does the "penmanship" in the sand.   

Its a great big philosophical issue that perhaps someone else can give the readers digest version of.


----------



## Madman

> ”I would believe that someone placed them in that way.”



I would believe they were placed there also.  So if you believe something as simple as leaves on the ground had to placed there by something intelligent how can you believe that something as complex as the human genome came from randomness, simple logic tells me that an intelligence arranged the code in that order?



> “This shows that duplication results in an increase of information provided by the gene.”



This shows nothing but a duplication of the same information, not additional information.  



> “If you understood genetics”



Your remark was pretty condescending, I assure you I understand genetics as well as you do.  I have seen no evidence that you are a geneticist, only that you spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet doing unverified research.  I am not a geneticist, but I have been reading and studying this topic for the better part of 15 years and every time some new idea pops up I study it in depth.  I must admit that there have been a couple of times the information seems credible on the surface but over time they have all played out and shown to be incorrect.  If you desire to be honest and well read on the topic I will give you a list of books that you can read on the subject.



> “I'm simply stating that if you have a large enough population of poodles (for enough variation to occur)”



I understand Exactly what you are saying, and you understand what I am saying, you simply choose not to acknowledge that once information is gone it is gone, there is no variation for mastiffs in a pure poodle.  You question my knowledge of breeding.  I understand breeding also.  Ask any dog breeder this question:  If you decide you want a dog with no tail how do you do that?  The answer will be that you keep breeding dogs with no tail (not one that has been removed but ones that were born without a tail) until the genetic information for a tail is gone.  It will take many generations for that information to be bread out.  Now, you and the breeder agree that the “tail” information is gone. Ask them can you take two of these tailless dogs and breed them back with their offspring to produce a dog with a tail.

The answer is NO the tail information is GONE.

Why has there never been a monkey born with wings?  The monkey genome does not have the information for wings, and gene duplication will not give it to them.

“There are Christians who understand and recognize evolution as fully sufficient in explaining the diversity of life on Earth from microbes to man.”

And they are just a wrong as you are.  Christianity is not about evolution, Christianity is about Jesus Christ, do not confuse the two, I assure you if they are Christians we agree on that item.  Remember, not everything is necessary for salvation.


If you were a Christian and arguing for evolution my approach would different and considerably less gracious. 


By the way you have yet to give me any examples of evidence that caused you to lose your faith.  Were you like so many who have fallen at the feet of college professors?   Not wanting to seem unenlightened, ignorant.  If you were I am terribly sorry, Christ’s Church has failed in several areas and one of them has been “to always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within you.”

Look at the information you are given by the evolutionist as critically as you look at creation.  Look at the evidence of God as critically as you look at the argument against Him.  Don’t give up, He has not given up on you.

Peace


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Its a great big philosophical issue that perhaps someone else can give the readers digest version of.



If you can dismiss the argument so easily then you should be able to give the "Reader's Digest" version.
I await your argument.


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> If you can dismiss the argument so easily then you should be able to give the "Reader's Digest" version.
> I await your argument.



I have found the approach taken of this forum concerning the complex issues of life tragic. Now that I have familiarized myself with dawkins I can see in several posts more of a following than a commitment to truth. 

By saying God is a delusion, Dawkins is making the same fatal mistake Nietzsche made when he declared 'God is dead.' Nietzsche died and religion presses on, even stronger maybe, the same will be true of Dawkins. He will pass off the scene and religion will continue. 

The more Dawkins writes the less science he uses. It looks like he is a victim of his own dogma. He is a true atheist fundamentalist.


----------



## Madman

> I have found the approach taken of this forum concerning the complex issues of life tragic. Now that I have familiarized myself with dawkins I can see in several posts more of a following than a commitment to truth.



RP-- Good post.  As an engineer I look at God's creation and see how it fits PERFECTLY with God's word.  As Christians we must begin with the Truth, no matter where it leads us.  

Most of my associates believe me to be an ignorant, young earth, creationist, but as I advised AJ, if they were as critical of the atheistic, evolutionary model, as they are of God's Word, they would begin to see how time and time again their man made model changes, but God's Word does not.

“The soldier is summoned to a life of active duty and so is the Christian.” _William Gurnall_


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> If you can dismiss the argument so easily then you should be able to give the "Reader's Digest" version.
> I await your argument.




Because the spots on a trout are not the same thing as writing in the sand.  Besides, maybe the wind did it.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Because the spots on a trout are not the same thing as writing in the sand.  Besides, maybe the wind did it.



Sorry to hear that is as deep as your thinking gets.

Peace


----------



## Huntinfool

Based on what I've seen lately????





Not very.
(I'm just kidding guys.  Hold your fire!)


----------



## JohnK3

Original article by Frank Turek: http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2009/03/02/sleeping_with_your_girlfriend?page=full



> My friend David has a knack for cutting through the smokescreens people throw up when they’re trying to avoid making commitments, be they commitments to God or to other people. Last week, with one comment, he blew away all the smoke that a young agnostic was hiding behind. It was a demonstration of tremendous insight, and it required some courage to say.
> 
> For several weeks David was teaching through a series on Christian apologetics, which involves providing evidence for the truth of Christianity. In addition to the biblical mandate to provide such evidence, David thought it would be wise to do so because 75 percent of Christian youth stop attending church after age 18. Many of them abandon the church because they’re bombarded by secularism in college and they’ve never been taught any of the sound evidence that supports Christianity.
> 
> Last week, after David finished a presentation refuting the “new atheists”—Dawkins, Hitchens and the like—a young man approached him and said, “I once was a Christian, but now I’m an agnostic, and I don’t think you should be doing what you’re doing.”
> 
> “What do you mean?” David asked.
> 
> “I don’t think you should be giving arguments against atheists,” the young man said. “Jesus told us to love, and it’s not loving what you’re doing.”
> 
> David said, “No, that’s not right. Jesus came with both love and tuth. Love without truth is a swampy, borderless mess. Truth is necessary. In fact, it’s unloving to keep truth from people, especially if that truth has eternal consequences.”
> 
> David was absolutely right. In fact, if you look at Matthew chapter 23, Jesus was more like a drill sergeant than he was like Mister Rogers.
> 
> But the young man would have none of it. Without acknowledging David’s point, he immediately brought up another objection to Christianity. David succinctly answered that one too, but again the kid seemed uninterested. He fired a couple of more objections at David, who began to suspect something else was up—something I’ve noticed as well.
> 
> I’ve found that the machine-gun-objection approach is common among many skeptics and liberals. They throw objection after objection at believers and conservatives but never pause long enough to listen to the answers. It doesn’t matter that you’ve just answered their question with an undeniable fact—they’ve already left that topic and are rattling off another objection on another topic as if you hadn’t said a word. They don’t really seem interested in finding answers but in finding reasons to make themselves feel better about what they want to believe.
> 
> After all, a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs.
> 
> David recognized that’s exactly what was happening in his conversation. So after the kid fired off another objection, David decided to end the charade and cut right to the heart. He said, “You’re raising all of these objections because you’re sleeping with your girlfriend. Am I right?”
> 
> All the blood drained from the kid’s face. He was caught. He just stood there speechless. He was rejecting God because he didn’t like God’s morality, and he was disguising it with alleged intellectual objections.
> 
> This young man wasn’t the first atheist or agnostic to admit that his desire to follow his own agenda was keeping him out of the Kingdom. In the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul revealed this tendency we humans have to “suppress the truth” about God in order to follow our own desires. In other words, unbelief is more motivated by the heart than the head. Some prominent atheists have admitted this.
> 
> Atheist Julian Huxley, grandson of “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley, famously said many years ago that the reason he and many of his contemporaries “accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn‘t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”
> 
> Professor Thomas Nagel of NYU more recently wrote, “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.”
> 
> Certainly the new atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have problems with cosmic authority. Hitchens refuses to live under the “tyranny of a divine dictatorship.” Dawkins calls the God of the Bible a “malevolent bully” (among other things) and admits that he is “hostile to religion.”
> 
> It’s not that Hitchens and Dawkins offer any serious examination and rebuttal of the evidence for God. They misunderstand and dismiss hundreds of pages of metaphysical argumentation from Aristotle, Aquinas and others and fail to answer the modern arguments from the beginning and design of the universe. (Dawkins explanation for the extreme design of the universe is “luck.”)
> 
> Instead, as any honest reader of their books will see, Hitchens and Dawkins are outraged at the very thought of God. Even their titles scream out contempt (god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and The God Delusion). They don’t seem to realize that their moral outrage presupposes an objective moral standard that exists only if God exists. Objective morality—as well as the immaterial laws of reason and science—cannot exist in the materialist universe they attempt to defend.
> 
> In effect, they have to borrow from a theistic worldview in order to argue against it. They have to sit in God’s lap to slap his face.
> 
> While both men are very good writers, Hitchens and Dawkins are short on evidence and long on attitude. As I mentioned in our debate, you can sum up Christopher’s attitude in one sentence: “There is no God, and I hate him.”
> 
> Despite this, God’s attitude as evidenced by the sacrifice of Christ is: There are atheists, and I love them.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> I would believe they were placed there also.  So if you believe something as simple as leaves on the ground had to placed there by something intelligent how can you believe that something as complex as the human genome came from randomness, simple logic tells me that an intelligence arranged the code in that order?



The human genome came from it's ancestor's genome, which came from it's ancestor's genome, which came from... etc. 

Simple logic tells me that gradual changes over the course of billions of years can produce startling results. When you look at mount improbable from one side, you cannot see how it is possible for something this complex to be created by random mutations. However, if you walk around to the back of the mountain, you will notice a long gradual slope. This slope is known as evolution. It is the slow, gradual processes that have added up over billions of years. There are animals with just as complex genomes as ours, and more importantly there are organisms with genomes that are very simple. These organisms do not have complex genomes because their environment didn't select the organisms with more complex genomes.

As ambush pointed out, this is a false analogy. This also relates to the halibut that I posted above (I think it's in this thread). Natural selection teaches us that just because something looks designed, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has a designer.



> This shows nothing but a duplication of the same information, not additional information.



I answered this above. Do you not understand that the order of information changes the effect of the gene? The same information in a different order changes the effect of the gene.



> Your remark was pretty condescending, I assure you I understand genetics as well as you do.  I have seen no evidence that you are a geneticist, only that you spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet doing unverified research.  I am not a geneticist, but I have been reading and studying this topic for the better part of 15 years and every time some new idea pops up I study it in depth.  I must admit that there have been a couple of times the information seems credible on the surface but over time they have all played out and shown to be incorrect.  If you desire to be honest and well read on the topic I will give you a list of books that you can read on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand Exactly what you are saying, and you understand what I am saying, you simply choose not to acknowledge that once information is gone it is gone, there is no variation for mastiffs in a pure poodle.  You question my knowledge of breeding.  I understand breeding also.  Ask any dog breeder this question:  If you decide you want a dog with no tail how do you do that?  The answer will be that you keep breeding dogs with no tail (not one that has been removed but ones that were born without a tail) until the genetic information for a tail is gone.  It will take many generations for that information to be bread out.  Now, you and the breeder agree that the “tail” information is gone. Ask them can you take two of these tailless dogs and breed them back with their offspring to produce a dog with a tail.



You would breed the dogs who have shorter than normal tails. Eventually you will have a dog with no tail. You could then breed that population back to have tails. Show me where a breeder uses your method on dogs...



> Why has there never been a monkey born with wings?  The monkey genome does not have the information for wings, and gene duplication will not give it to them.



Again, you are misunderstanding the concept of information and how the order of the information changes the effect of the gene. Gene duplication could lead to the DNA strand giving different instructions to cells. It's that simple. These changed instructions could be beneficial or negative. This leads to natural selection on those different traits.

Look at this article by researchers from Yale. This article is actually from the journal _Molecular Biology and Evolution_. I really don't feel that I could post a more credible article that can be accessed by the public.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...ce&volume=23&firstpage=887&resourcetype=HWCIT

"We know that genome duplication is often followed by rapid genomic rearrangements, variable patterns of gene loss, and decay of synteny. These factors contribute to increased genetic variation which may allow stronger responses to various selection pressures, thereby providing more opportunities for survival in changing environments."



> By the way you have yet to give me any examples of evidence that caused you to lose your faith.  Were you like so many who have fallen at the feet of college professors?   Not wanting to seem unenlightened, ignorant.  If you were I am terribly sorry, Christ’s Church has failed in several areas and one of them has been “to always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within you.”



No. This has been brought up and answered in the past. I was an atheist in high school, where I was surrounded by Christians. Trust me, there was no pressure for me to be an atheist. It was quite the opposite.

Something that led me to realize that I didn't know if there was a god or not: knowledge. I don't really know how else to put it. Evolution, logic, philosophy, history, science, etc. The more I learned about these things, the more I realized that I didn't know anything for certain.


----------



## pnome

JohnK3 said:


> Original article by Frank Turek: http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2009/03/02/sleeping_with_your_girlfriend?page=full




When will you guys abandon the "You're only an atheist because you want to live an immoral life" straw man?


----------



## reformedpastor

> The human genome came from it's ancestor's genome, which came from it's ancestor's genome, which came from... etc.



Ask Richard Dawkins 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

How do you know? Evidence for this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk


----------



## reformedpastor

pnome said:


> When will you guys abandon the "You're only an atheist because you want to live an immoral life" straw man?



Ok-everybody lets abandon the apologetic we are using to push these guys to be consistent with their worldview. 

Look, its immoral to live in God's world and not give Him credit. You know this. We are glad you are not as immoral as you could be, nevertheless its immoral not to believe.


----------



## gtparts

> from footjunior, post# 424
> 
> You would breed the dogs who have shorter than normal tails. Eventually you will have a dog with no tail. You could then breed that population back to have tails. Show me where a breeder uses your method on dogs...



Why do you waste so much time poodles and mastiffs, tails and no tails. The animals remain the same species. This is not evolution in any true sense of the word. For evolution to take place two separate species must "spin off" from a single species or in two successive generations there must arise the impossibility of successful interbreeding between the first generation and the succeeding one.
Until this can be fully documented at every generational stage, microbe to man or ape to man is just evolutionary garbage. Science can't just guess at the gaps. If speciation could be proven on the basis of natural selection and Darwinian evolution, it would not still be considered theory.


----------



## Ronnie T

gtparts said:


> Why do you waste so much time poodles and mastiffs, tails and no tails. The animals remain the same species. This is not evolution in any true sense of the word. For evolution to take place two separate species must "spin off" from a single species or in two successive generations there must arise the impossibility of successful interbreeding between the first generation and the succeeding one.
> Until this can be fully documented at every generational stage, microbe to man or ape to man is just evolutionary garbage. Science can't just guess at the gaps. If speciation could be proven on the basis of natural selection and Darwinian evolution, it would not still be considered theory.




Obviously, there has been some evolving since the creation.  

But, at all times, God has been the Master Breeder.


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> Why do you waste so much time poodles and mastiffs, tails and no tails. The animals remain the same species. This is not evolution in any true sense of the word. For evolution to take place two separate species must "spin off" from a single species or in two successive generations there must arise the impossibility of successful interbreeding between the first generation and the succeeding one.



I understand this and I've often wondered why he brought it up and we continue to discuss it. I gave examples of speciation through the fruit flies.



> Until this can be fully documented at every generational stage, microbe to man or ape to man is just evolutionary garbage. Science can't just guess at the gaps. If speciation could be proven on the basis of natural selection and Darwinian evolution, it would not still be considered theory.



It has been documented with numerous animals. I gave the example of fruit flies above. Speciation has been proven on the basis of natural selection, and it is still considered a theory. It will always be considered a theory. Please do not confuse the colloquial use of the word "theory" and it's scientific definition.


----------



## pnome

reformedpastor said:


> its immoral not to believe.






You and I will just have to disagree on that point.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> If you can dismiss the argument so easily then you should be able to give the "Reader's Digest" version.
> I await your argument.




Because "sand scribblings" aren't the same as spots on a trout.   Nothing in nature is like a carburetor showing up on a beach.


----------



## ambush80

footjunior said:


> Please do not confuse the colloquial use of the word "theory" and it's scientific definition.




Fo real, yo.


----------



## Madman

gtparts said:


> Why do you waste so much time poodles and mastiffs, tails and no tails. The animals remain the same species.



The argument is against the spontainious generation of information.  The genome is a living code that defines what a living organism is going to be.  The tale analogy is as simple as it gets.  No code for a tail, the animal does not develope a tail.  PERIOD  I don't care how many times he walks around the mountain.

As RP says.

Show me the evidence.


----------



## ToLog

all of this contemplation of the past as related to "what is" is just about to wear us all out, scientists, theologians, commoners, and tax-payers alike. 

what about the future? we've talked about dogs with and without tails, mastifs and poodles, etc. etc., all dogs, to one degree or another.

but what about us Humans? that's a subject close to home, isn't it? 

can we evolve, or "devolve" into two separate species, later on?  i don't know, that's why i'm asking.

i mean, technology is giving us unprecedented carte blanche to do what is necessary.

so, what's next for us Humans, given that the dogs are pretty amenable to anything, given an opportunity to populate the next generation?


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> The argument is against the spontainious generation of information.  The genome is a living code that defines what a living organism is going to be.  The tale analogy is as simple as it gets.  No code for a tail, the animal does not develope a tail.  PERIOD  I don't care how many times he walks around the mountain.
> 
> As RP says.
> 
> Show me the evidence.



I have shown the evidence above. What exactly are you refusing to believe? I've almost forgotten what it was. Would you like to comment on the article from Yale that I posted? Gene duplication leads to new information. This new information can result in all sorts of changes in the organism. I fail to see how you can fail to see this.


----------



## footjunior

roothog said:


> all of this contemplation of the past as related to "what is" is just about to wear us all out, scientists, theologians, commoners, and tax-payers alike.
> 
> what about the future? we've talked about dogs with and without tails, mastifs and poodles, etc. etc., all dogs, to one degree or another.
> 
> but what about us Humans? that's a subject close to home, isn't it?
> 
> can we evolve, or "devolve" into two separate species, later on?  i don't know, that's why i'm asking.
> 
> i mean, technology is giving us unprecedented carte blanche to do what is necessary.
> 
> so, what's next for us Humans, given that the dogs are pretty amenable to anything, given an opportunity to populate the next generation?



Very interesting topics. I read a book titled "Remaking Eden" by Lee M. Silver that deals with this subject. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in genetic engineering, human reproduction possibilities, cloning, eugenics, hybrids, etc.

Near the end of the book he speculates that there may be a 2 class system of humans in the future. One class will be those who are unable to afford genetic enhancements for their babies. The upper class will be those who can afford genetic enhancements for their offspring. Obviously, these genetically enhanced offspring will be able to perform at a much higher level than "natural" persons. This leads to a "vicious cycle," where the genetically enhanced are the only ones able to afford genetically enhanced offspring, while the less fortunate are left in the dust (genetically speaking). He goes on to say that the 2 classes may even become two distinct species, not able to reproduce with each other due to completely different genetic structures.

He talks about "genetic packages" and how genetic engineering will be marketed on a mass scale. How you will be able to go into a clinic, select which fetus you want, and then select from a wide range of genetic packages. You may select the "athletic" package, which will lead to your son or daughter having amazing physical abilities. You may select the "intellectual" package, leading to high performances in academia. You get the idea. Those who are rich enough to buy all of them will probably be allowed to do so, leading to "super-children".

Looking back through history, the implementations of eugenics have been failures. I think world leaders are now seeing that the only practical way for them to increase the performance of their citizens is through genetic engineering. It doesn't limit reproductive rights like eugenics often does. It's something that people can "choose" to do. Now obviously some traditional people might choose not do it, opting to have a "natural" child. However, as Lee Silver notes in his book, once these parents see their children not able to keep up with these other children who have an "unfair" advantage, they might change their mind about the morality of creating genetically enhanced offspring.

 I'm very interested in this subject, so I better stop now since it's a little bit off-topic.


----------



## gtparts

Madman said:


> The argument is against the spontainious generation of information.  The genome is a living code that defines what a living organism is going to be.  The tale analogy is as simple as it gets.  No code for a tail, the animal does not develope a tail.  PERIOD  I don't care how many times he walks around the mountain.
> 
> As RP says.
> 
> Show me the evidence.



The indefinite pronoun, _you_ in my post was not directed at any individual. Traits can be bred out, for sure. They can not be naturally resurrected once they are gone. The "blueprint" has to be altered by external reintroduction or manipulation to accomplish the reappearance of the "tail" trait. You are correct. Once material specific to a trait is gone, it's gone.


----------



## Madman

RF-- Has your original question been answered?


----------



## celticfisherman

Madman said:


> RF-- Has your original question been answered?



I'm trying to figure out how we got 438 posts about people who don't believe anything...


----------



## JohnK3

pnome said:


> When will you guys abandon the "You're only an atheist because you want to live an immoral life" straw man?


Because for many, not for all, but for many atheists, it isn't a straw man.

Marx was a classic case of the "immoral atheist."  He had been a Jewish convert to Christianity.  He had actually written a very well-received paper in defense of Christianity.  Later in life, he became involved with a married woman.  After his involvement with her, he began to write more and more agnostic, finally atheistic papers.  He adopted atheism, as a Christian morality went against his desires, therefore  he went against Christianity.

Personally, I've seen others adopt the same attitude.  Sometimes they simply drop Christianity to adopt paganism, Buddhism or some other non-Judeo/Christian religion that allows their desired behavior.  Other times, they see their behavior as so completely at odds with any religion they are familiar with and therefore become avid, devout atheists.

Certainly, not every atheist follows this path.  However, there are enough atheists out there that this path at least partially explains their decision to become atheist, that it is not a straw-man.


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> The indefinite pronoun, _you_ in my post was not directed at any individual. Traits can be bred out, for sure. They can not be naturally resurrected once they are gone. The "blueprint" has to be altered by external reintroduction or manipulation to accomplish the reappearance of the "tail" trait. You are correct. Once material specific to a trait is gone, it's gone.



What do you mean by external?


----------



## Madman

celticfisherman said:


> I'm trying to figure out how we got 438 posts about people who don't believe anything...



Amen!!  See ya in the funny papers.

Madman

_"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: 
its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. 
If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." 
-- Josef Stalin (1879-1953) Communist leader of the USSR_


----------



## gtparts

footjunior said:


> What do you mean by external?



The genetic material to reverse engineer a tail would have to come from outside the tail-less grouping....a posterior appendage donor, as it were.


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> The genetic material to reverse engineer a tail would have to come from outside the tail-less grouping....a posterior appendage donor, as it were.



So you don't see how a mutation could result in the information necessary for the animal to have a tail?


----------



## reformedpastor

> Simple logic tells me that gradual changes over the course of billions of years can produce startling results.



Simple logic tells you no such thing. That is a statement of faith. Wouldn't this be a more accurate statement to make FJ? 

"I believe (faith) that with enough time along with the precisely perfect conditions anything is possible." 


As for the fruit flies, they were still fruit flies in the end!!!! Now, if they had changed from fruit flies to birds or snakes or even a simple wasps I would be impressed. 


Also, as I read articles about the genome, which I find fascinating by the way, the consensus or conclusion among evolutionary scientists isn't monolithic. Its varied at best with some stating that we have more questions than answers. How does a scientist prove the origin of the information? Can Nature really put it there? If that were that case Nature would be god. Is this really new information at all? 


It seems to me, you have been enamored by those personalities of the 'new atheism' movement. Maybe it's the boldness or confidence they bring to the debate?

Or, the way evolution is described? Even though I find Dawkins' logic rudiment and flawed I still like hearing him speak. So the best thing that evolution has going for it is not the science, its Dawkins. These men remind of an older school of philosophy that taught it was more important to win the debate with cunning illustration and witty statements rather than with real logic in pursuit of the truth.


My original post has been satisfied. I would like to discuss the "myth of neutrality." Which I think is vital to any apologetic. Who is really neutral?


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> Simple logic tells you no such thing. That is a statement of faith. Wouldn't this be a more accurate statement to make FJ?
> 
> "I believe (faith) that with enough time along with the precisely perfect conditions anything is possible."



No. Evolution operates off of imperfect conditions. Imperfect conditions leads to evolutionary change.



> As for the fruit flies, they were still fruit flies in the end!!!! Now, if they had changed from fruit flies to birds or snakes or even a simple wasps I would be impressed.



...

They were different species of fruit flies.



> Also, as I read articles about the genome, which I find fascinating by the way, the consensus or conclusion among evolutionary scientists isn't monolithic. Its varied at best with some stating that we have more questions than answers. How does a scientist prove the origin of the information? Can Nature really put it there? If that were that case Nature would be god. Is this really new information at all?



If you have read and understood the information I have provided so far and still do not recognize gene duplication as the method of introducing new information into DNA, then you are purposely refusing to believe it.



> It seems to me, you have been enamored by those personalities of the 'new atheism' movement. Maybe it's the boldness or confidence they bring to the debate?
> 
> Or, the way evolution is described? Even though I find Dawkins' logic rudiment and flawed I still like hearing him speak. So the best thing that evolution has going for it is not the science, its Dawkins. These men remind of an older school of philosophy that taught it was more important to win the debate with cunning illustration and witty statements rather than with real logic in pursuit of the truth.



I was an atheist long before Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, or Hitchens were well known as New Atheists. For that matter, I was an atheist before New Atheism.



> My original post has been satisfied. I would like to discuss the "myth of neutrality." Which I think is vital to any apologetic. Who is really neutral?



I agree. Absolute neutrality is a myth.

Let me give you an example of something very far from neutrality: Starting off with an unproven assumption that God is real and then explaining everything around you under that assumption.


----------



## gtparts

OR.....Starting off with an unprovable assumption that God is not real and then refusing to accept the possibility that an act of God could explain everything, including the discoveries we call science.


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> OR.....Starting off with an unprovable assumption that God is not real and then refusing to accept the possibility that an act of God could explain everything, including the discoveries we call science.



Of course we start off with the assumption that he is not real. It is the logical default when making the claim that he exists. I do not refuse to accept the possibility that an act of God could explain everything, I just require evidence to move from possibility to probable.


----------



## connorreid

Here is what happens in an atheistic world (if possible, which it's not) - One would be born, live then die.  Nothing would matter b/c there would be no ultimate accountability for one's actions.  There would be no such thing as good and bad, wrong or right.  Everything would be relative.  One guy might like to help people and one guy might like to kill people and it wouldn't matter.  Why would it?  I just ask the atheist to live out his professed worldview.  Problem is - he can't.  He starts crying about God not being fair, and Christians being hypocrites, etc but the atheist is so blinded he can't even see his own absurdity! Actually, he conforms to what God says about him - Romans 8:7 talks about an unbeliever's mindset which is HOSTILITY to GOD and not being able to submit to Him.    He continues to prove the existence of God by being who he is!! By the way, why in the world would an atheist take the time to argue about the existence of God?? Is he threatened?? I know I wouldn't waste my time arguing about something that didn't exist.  And atheists think Christians are silly??


----------



## reformedpastor

connorreid said:


> Here is what happens in an atheistic world (if possible, which it's not) - One would be born, live then die.  Nothing would matter b/c there would be no ultimate accountability for one's actions.  There would be no such thing as good and bad, wrong or right.  Everything would be relative.  One guy might like to help people and one guy might like to kill people and it wouldn't matter.  Why would it?  I just ask the atheist to live out his professed worldview.  Problem is - he can't.  He starts crying about God not being fair, and Christians being hypocrites, etc but the atheist is so blinded he can't even see his own absurdity! Actually, he conforms to what God says about him - Romans 8:7 talks about an unbeliever's mindset which is HOSTILITY to GOD and not being able to submit to Him.    He continues to prove the existence of God by being who he is!! By the way, why in the world would an atheist take the time to argue about the existence of God?? Is he threatened?? I know I wouldn't waste my time arguing about something that didn't exist.  And atheists think Christians are silly??




Good post


----------



## gordon 2

footjunior said:


> Of course we start off with the assumption that he is not real. It is the logical default when making the claim that he exists. I do not refuse to accept the possibility that an act of God could explain everything, I just require evidence to move from possibility to probable.




Somewhere back say post 150 or so did somebody ask for a definition of what God is? This would be logically relevant since if A argues that X exists or And B argues that Y does not exist then X being God to one and Y being God to the other, A and B can  both  be correct. 
Who is God and what is God? Can you agree on it?

I have my doubts because that question(s) must be answered independent of your biasis. Often we are simply behaving from the frustrations of being males and females in our reasonings and what goes for intelect is not necessarily inteligent. For example I'm not certain that your "logical default" is intelligent, if at all logical. But I don't know that it is intelligent in spiritual matters? Your default might be the equivelent of saying that the earth is 6000yrs old, because of some scriptural default. Default, contains the word meaning for error.


----------



## connorreid

gordon 2 said:


> Somewhere back say post 150 or so did somebody ask for a definition of what God is? This would be logically relevant since if A argues that X exists or And B argues that Y does not exist then X being God to one and Y being God to the other, A and B can  both  be correct.
> 
> Who is God and what is God? Can you agree on it?
> 
> I have my doubts because that question(s) must be answered independent of your biasis. Often we are simply behaving from the frustrations of being males and females in our reasonings and what goes for intelect is not necessarily inteligent.


The Christian God of the Bible - see Bible for definition/ revelation of God - how about the atheists? Since there is not one atheistic god (and each atheist is his own god), can each one define who he is? We know they all have different biases and opinions.


----------



## gordon 2

connorreid said:


> The Christian God of the Bible - see Bible for definition/ revelation of God - how about the atheists? Since there is not one atheistic god (and each atheist is his own god), can each one define who he is? We know they all have different biases and opinions.




You know that Atheist will retorque back that christians cannot agree on bible definition and amounst themselves concerning what God is and what he/she is about? Or they will say what about the Jewish God of the bible? What about the Muslim God of the bible? and so on.

From what I can gather, Atheist form their definition of what God is not, from what many from many faiths say God is. Problem is that what many from many faiths say God is, He is not. Therefore, in such cases, Atheists are right.


----------



## connorreid

gordon 2 said:


> You know that Atheist will retorque back that christians cannot agree on bible definition and amounst themselves concerning what God is and what he/she is about? Or they will say what about the Jewish God of the bible? What about the Muslim God of the bible? and so on.
> 
> From what I can gather, Atheist form their definition of what God is not, from what many from many faiths say God is and that what many from many faiths say God is, He is not. Therefore, in such cases, Ateists are right.


I will help the atheists argue against all other definitions of God and other religions as well.


----------



## gordon 2

connorreid said:


> I will help the atheists argue against all other definitions of God and other religions as well.




That is why Saddam Hussain aaaaaaaad the Taliban were once allies of US foreign policy. I'm not certain it is a good plan, but hey...it's up to you....


----------



## connorreid

gordon 2 said:


> That is why Saddam Hussain aaaaaaaad the Taliban were once allies of US foreign policy. I'm not certain it is a good plan, but hey...it's up to you....



I only believe in the God of the Bible so I'd have to put down all other religions!! Take care......Going to lunch


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> I only believe in the God of the Bible so I'd have to put down all other religions!! Take care......Going to lunch



Exclusivism.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Exclusivism.



So is yours. Only with no redeeming value.


----------



## WTM45

How do you know what mine is?  Define redeeming value.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> How do you know what mine is?  Define redeeming value.



The fruits of the ideas you posses. Do we need to start with the French Revolution and work our way up to the current time with the contributions of atheism.


----------



## WTM45

Actually, I care very little about the past, history, things that are out of my control or the future that I can not impact with my decisions and choices.  I did not vote for Obama, and I can not blame myself for what is currently happening from his administration.
That's how I consider the examples of the past.  Just that.  The past.
I'm not attempting to measure up to anyone else, nor am I trying to impact anyone else negatively.  So, all in all, I'm quite satisfied.
Is that fruit?


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Actually, I care very little about the past, history, things that are out of my control or the future that I can not impact with my decisions and choices.  I did not vote for Obama, and I can not blame myself for what is currently happening from his administration.
> That's how I consider the examples of the past.  Just that.  The past.
> I'm not attempting to measure up to anyone else, nor am I trying to impact anyone else negatively.  So, all in all, I'm quite satisfied.
> Is that fruit?



No. Negative impact on the world. Those who do not know our history and learn from it are bound to repeat it. History is a linear line one thing affects the other. No way out of it no matter what you may think. It is proven time and time again. 

You have chosen a view that is of no value or contribution. What does that say about you personally?


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> No. Negative impact on the world. Those who do not know our history and learn from it are bound to repeat it. History is a linear line one thing affects the other. No way out of it no matter what you may think. It is proven time and time again.
> 
> You have chosen a view that is of no value or contribution. What does that say about you personally?



And, with that, I'll move along.  Permanently.


----------



## footjunior

gordon 2 said:


> For example I'm not certain that your "logical default" is intelligent, if at all logical. But I don't know that it is intelligent in spiritual matters? Your default might be the equivelent of saying that the earth is 6000yrs old, because of some scriptural default. Default, contains the word meaning for error.



I think you're misunderstanding the concept of a logical default. Logical defaults and alternatives come into play when constructing proofs. For example, if I were to create a sorting algorithm that runs in O time, my computer science friends would require proof of this. In other words, their logical default would be, "No. You did not create a sorting algorithm that runs in O time." In order for them to accept the logical alternative ("Yes. You did create a sorting algorithm that runs in O time.") they would require evidence. This evidence would most likely come from me constructing a mathematical proof which rigorously explains the steps in the algorithm. However until I provide this proof, my peers rightly remain at the logical default.

Now let's look at an example of what would happen if it were the opposite: If "yes" was the logical default and "no" was the logical alternative.

Let's say you're walking down the street and a crazy guy comes up to you and says, "Hey there's a huge teapot revolving around my head! But you can't detect it in any way!" You immediately are forced to make a decision. There either is or is not a teapot revolving around the man's head. In this example your logical default would be, "Yes. There is a teapot revolving around your head." The logical alternative would be, "No. There is not a teapot revolving around your head." So in order to move from the logical default "yes" to the logical alternative "no" it is up to you to provide evidence that there is not a teapot revolving around the mans head. But how do you do this? It is impossible. The teapot is completely undetectable.

Do you see the difference between the two examples? In the first one, it is up to the person making the assertion to provide proof that something is true. In the second example, it is up to the person not making the assertion to provide proof that something is not true. Which is of course impossible since the teapot is undetectable.

Theists often attempt to use the second method to "shift the burden of proof" onto nonbelievers. However it is impossible for us to disprove God. It is up to the ones making the assertion that he exist (the theists) to provide evidence to convince people to go from the logical default to their preferred logical alternative.


----------



## gordon 2

footjunior said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the concept of a logical default. Logical defaults and alternatives come into play when constructing proofs. For example, if I were to create a sorting algorithm that runs in O time, my computer science friends would require proof of this. In other words, their logical default would be, "No. You did not create a sorting algorithm that runs in O time." In order for them to accept the logical alternative ("Yes. You did create a sorting algorithm that runs in O time.") they would require evidence. This evidence would most likely come from me constructing a mathematical proof which rigorously explains the steps in the algorithm. However until I provide this proof, my peers rightly remain at the logical default.
> 
> Now let's look at an example of what would happen if it were the opposite: If "yes" was the logical default and "no" was the logical alternative.
> 
> Let's say you're walking down the street and a crazy guy comes up to you and says, "Hey there's a huge teapot revolving around my head! But you can't detect it in any way!" You immediately are forced to make a decision. There either is or is not a teapot revolving around the man's head. In this example your logical default would be, "Yes. There is a teapot revolving around your head." The logical alternative would be, "No. There is not a teapot revolving around your head." So in order to move from the logical default "yes" to the logical alternative "no" it is up to you to provide evidence that there is not a teapot revolving around the mans head. But how do you do this? It is impossible. The teapot is completely undetectable.
> 
> Do you see the difference between the two examples? In the first one, it is up to the person making the assertion to provide proof that something is true. In the second example, it is up to the person not making the assertion to provide proof that something is not true. Which is of course impossible since the teapot is undetectable.
> 
> Theists often attempt to use the second method to "shift the burden of proof" onto nonbelievers. However it is impossible for us to disprove God. It is up to the ones making the assertion that he exist (the theists) to provide evidence to convince people to go from the logical default to their preferred logical alternative.




Ok thanks, I have your point. My initial suspicion about profs that God is must then come from the experiences of Mystics and not the ordinary religious. I will return...latter, must serve the employer.

In the meantime this is something you probably have not overlooked, but just in case. ( It is my understanding that the understanding of creation and creator is not from an understanding of when the universe was created, but from an understanding of when or how life and its makeup was created.) Later bros.

-----------------
Phenomenological definition of God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007) 

The philosopher Michel Henry defines God in a phenomenological point of view. He says: "God is Life, he is the essence of Life, or, if we prefer, the essence of Life is God. Saying this we already know what is God, we know it not by the effect of a learning or of some knowledge, we don’t know it by the thought, on the background of the truth of the world ; we know it and we can know it only in and by the Life itself. We can know it only in God." (I Am the Truth. Toward a Philosophy of Christianity).

This Life is not biological life defined by objective and exterior properties, nor an abstract and empty philosophical concept, but the absolute phenomenological life, a radically immanent life which possesses in it the power of showing itself in itself without distance, a life which reveals permanently itself. A manifestation of oneself and a self-revelation which doesn’t consist in the fact of seeing outside of oneself or of perceiving the exterior world, but in the fact of feeling and of feeling oneself, of experiencing in oneself its own inner and affective reality.

As Michel Henry says also in this same book, "God is that pure Revelation that reveals nothing other than itself. God reveals Himself. The Revelation of God is his self-revelation". God is in himself revelation, he is the primordial Revelation that tears everything from nothingness, a revelation which is the pathetic self-revelation and the absolute self-enjoyment of Life. As John says, God is love, because Life loves itself in an infinite and eternal love.

Michel Henry opposes to the notion of creation, which is the creation of the world, the notion of generation of Life. The creation of the world consists in the opening of this exteriority horizon where every thing becomes visible. Whereas Life never stops to generate itself and to generate all the livings in its radical immanence, in its absolute phenomenological interiority that is without gap nor distance.

As we are living and by consequence generated continually by the infinite Life of God, as he never stops to give us life, and as we never cease of being born into the eternal present of life by the action in us of this absolute Life, God is for Christianity our Father and we are its beloved Sons, the Sons of the living God. This doesn’t only mean that he has created us at the time of our conception or at the beginning of the world, but that he never stops to generate us permanently into Life, that he is always at work in us in the least of our subjective impressions.


[edit] See also


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the concept of a logical default. Logical defaults and alternatives come into play when constructing proofs. For example, if I were to create a sorting algorithm that runs in O time, my computer science friends would require proof of this. In other words, their logical default would be, "No. You did not create a sorting algorithm that runs in O time." In order for them to accept the logical alternative ("Yes. You did create a sorting algorithm that runs in O time.") they would require evidence. This evidence would most likely come from me constructing a mathematical proof which rigorously explains the steps in the algorithm. However until I provide this proof, my peers rightly remain at the logical default.
> 
> Now let's look at an example of what would happen if it were the opposite: If "yes" was the logical default and "no" was the logical alternative.
> 
> Let's say you're walking down the street and a crazy guy comes up to you and says, "Hey there's a huge teapot revolving around my head! But you can't detect it in any way!" You immediately are forced to make a decision. There either is or is not a teapot revolving around the man's head. In this example your logical default would be, "Yes. There is a teapot revolving around your head." The logical alternative would be, "No. There is not a teapot revolving around your head." So in order to move from the logical default "yes" to the logical alternative "no" it is up to you to provide evidence that there is not a teapot revolving around the mans head. But how do you do this? It is impossible. The teapot is completely undetectable.
> 
> Do you see the difference between the two examples? In the first one, it is up to the person making the assertion to provide proof that something is true. In the second example, it is up to the person not making the assertion to provide proof that something is not true. Which is of course impossible since the teapot is undetectable.
> 
> Theists often attempt to use the second method to "shift the burden of proof" onto nonbelievers. However it is impossible for us to disprove God. It is up to the ones making the assertion that he exist (the theists) to provide evidence to convince people to go from the logical default to their preferred logical alternative.


Can an atheist truly debate or argue from his worldview?  Nothing would matter in an atheistic world so why would the atheist defend anything?  Any words that came out of an atheist's mouth would be gibberish for it would mean nothing, since his world is meaningless.  He would be making a statement presupposing TRUTH...where would that come from in his worldview? The atheist can't deal with the fundamentals of life and since he can't get that right the rest is pointless.......HERE IS WHAT HAPPENS IN AN ATHEISTIC WORLD - You are born, you live, you die! That would be it and since there would be no accountability to GOD the atheist could live however he wants.  He could call killing babies, raping women, beating up old folks and so on good or he could call it bad - wouldn't matter b/c everything would be relative.  The atheist, again does just as God says in Romans - he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness - He HAS to steal from GOD's view of life in order to make sense of his own.  That is why God in Psalm 14 does give the biblical definition of an atheist - He calls him a fool.


----------



## footjunior

gordon 2 said:


> -----------------
> Phenomenological definition of God
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)
> 
> The philosopher Michel Henry defines God in a phenomenological point of view. He says: "God is Life, he is the essence of Life, or, if we prefer, the essence of Life is God. Saying this we already know what is God, we know it not by the effect of a learning or of some knowledge, we don’t know it by the thought, on the background of the truth of the world ; we know it and we can know it only in and by the Life itself. We can know it only in God." (I Am the Truth. Toward a Philosophy of Christianity).
> 
> This Life is not biological life defined by objective and exterior properties, nor an abstract and empty philosophical concept, but the absolute phenomenological life, a radically immanent life which possesses in it the power of showing itself in itself without distance, a life which reveals permanently itself. A manifestation of oneself and a self-revelation which doesn’t consist in the fact of seeing outside of oneself or of perceiving the exterior world, but in the fact of feeling and of feeling oneself, of experiencing in oneself its own inner and affective reality.
> 
> As Michel Henry says also in this same book, "God is that pure Revelation that reveals nothing other than itself. God reveals Himself. The Revelation of God is his self-revelation". God is in himself revelation, he is the primordial Revelation that tears everything from nothingness, a revelation which is the pathetic self-revelation and the absolute self-enjoyment of Life. As John says, God is love, because Life loves itself in an infinite and eternal love.
> 
> Michel Henry opposes to the notion of creation, which is the creation of the world, the notion of generation of Life. The creation of the world consists in the opening of this exteriority horizon where every thing becomes visible. Whereas Life never stops to generate itself and to generate all the livings in its radical immanence, in its absolute phenomenological interiority that is without gap nor distance.
> 
> As we are living and by consequence generated continually by the infinite Life of God, as he never stops to give us life, and as we never cease of being born into the eternal present of life by the action in us of this absolute Life, God is for Christianity our Father and we are its beloved Sons, the Sons of the living God. This doesn’t only mean that he has created us at the time of our conception or at the beginning of the world, but that he never stops to generate us permanently into Life, that he is always at work in us in the least of our subjective impressions.



I'm going to be honest. That sounded like a bunch of mumbo jumbo. I would like to hear his rigorous definition of "Life".

I don't think Michel Henry really said anything of substance in the above article.

Maybe you could provide some clarification of the above article?


----------



## earl

Almost sounds like big10point has a new name.  connerreid ?


----------



## reformedpastor

earl said:


> Almost sounds like big10point has a new name.  connerreid ?



Not following that????


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> Almost sounds like big10point has a new name.  connerreid ?


Not following either...sorry, I'm slow.


----------



## earl

He was a former member who's approach was a lot like yours . My bad.


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> He was a former member who's approach was a lot like yours . My bad.


Roger.  Not me......I just got on for the first time a few days ago.....see ya


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER

wow, i just thought i would check this thread out since it probably does nothing less than bash atheists...and i was right.  Christians rejoice in the fact they think they are superior,....even still!!  Question i ask is, who really gives two grunts what others believe?  I normally just leave religion alone because everyone thinks their right and everyone who does not believe what they believe is automatically wrong and needs saving.  WHY??  Maybe some religions need to police amongst themselves and try to save some amongst themselves before hopping out into the world and trying to save everyone from whatever.


----------



## connorreid

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> wow, i just thought i would check this thread out since it probably does nothing less than bash atheists...and i was right.  Christians rejoice in the fact they think they are superior,....even still!!  Question i ask is, who really gives two grunts what others believe?  I normally just leave religion alone because everyone thinks their right and everyone who does not believe what they believe is automatically wrong and needs saving.  WHY??  Maybe some religions need to police amongst themselves and try to save some amongst themselves before hopping out into the world and trying to save everyone from whatever.


If you don't give two grunts what others believe then why did you make a comment (your actions say you do care b/c you took the time to comment).  By the way, this is a forum to discuss the issues..............have a good one


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER

connorreid said:


> If you don't give two grunts what others believe then why did you make a comment (your actions say you do care b/c you took the time to comment).  By the way, this is a forum to discuss the issues..............have a good one



Just proving a point.  Who cares what others believe, i just get sick and tired of everyone bashing Atheists for not believing what they believe.  

You have a good one too buddy!


----------



## Huntinfool

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> Just proving a point.  Who cares what others believe, i just get sick and tired of everyone bashing Atheists for not believing what they believe.
> 
> You have a good one too buddy!



Read some other threads.....I think you'll find there is just as much giving as there is getting when it comes to the atheists around here.

It's all just good debate.  I think we've all said that we would probably get along on 90% of stuff.  This just happens to be stuff we disgree on.


----------



## connorreid

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> Just proving a point.  Who cares what others believe, i just get sick and tired of everyone bashing Atheists for not believing what they believe.
> 
> You have a good one too buddy!


I hear ya.  It's hard to believe you don't care what others believe though.  If your next door neighbor had served 20 years for killing women and raping little girls, you'd probably care what he believed wouldn't you? I bet you would.  Take care.


----------



## earl

Dang ole son !!! You take your debate more serious than me and thats saying something. Gitter dun !!!


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> Dang ole son !!! You take your debate more serious than me and thats saying something. Gitter dun !!!


I hear ya big daddy!! Have a good evening!


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER

connorreid said:


> I hear ya.  It's hard to believe you don't care what others believe though.  If your next door neighbor had served 20 years for killing women and raping little girls, you'd probably care what he believed wouldn't you? I bet you would.  Take care.



When the rapist killer was let out, i wonder what got him parole...He probably claimed he found religion!!  As for what he believes in...who cares, until he tries to move onto my own family, thats when i get involved.  

There are websites that tell you how many sexual predators live in your zipcode, and even gives their names, addresses and what they went to jail for.  Wish i could find it again, you personally might be surprised who YOU live next too!!   Sleep on that...


----------



## reformedpastor

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> When the rapist killer was let out, i wonder what got him parole...He probably claimed he found religion!!  As for what he believes in...who cares, until he tries to move onto my own family, thats when i get involved.
> 
> There are websites that tell you how many sexual predators live in your zipcode, and even gives their names, addresses and what they went to jail for.  Wish i could find it again, you personally might be surprised who YOU live next too!!   Sleep on that...




I not sure what you have a problem with? I started this thread to handle the question is the atheist position an intellectual one. This is what "they" say not me, I'm just a dumb young earth creationist. So by examining their claims it has been determined (limited to this forum) that it is more of a moral than intellectual position. 

This is why its called debate........and its not for everyone. Take care.


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER

reformedpastor said:


> This is why its called debate........and its not for everyone. Take care.




Not for those who believe otherwise??


----------



## connorreid

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> When the rapist killer was let out, i wonder what got him parole...He probably claimed he found religion!!  As for what he believes in...who cares, until he tries to move onto my own family, thats when i get involved.
> 
> There are websites that tell you how many sexual predators live in your zipcode, and even gives their names, addresses and what they went to jail for.  Wish i could find it again, you personally might be surprised who YOU live next too!!   Sleep on that...


I was just using that as an example to show you that you do care what others believe.  I've seen all the registered sex offenders by zip code online but that wasn't the point.  If you took the time to get on here and comment, then you care what other people believe.....have a good un.


----------



## reformedpastor

connorreid said:


> I was just using that as an example to show you that you do care what others believe.  I've seen all the registered sex offenders by zip code online but that wasn't the point.  If you took the time to get on here and comment, then you care what other people believe.....have a good un.




A testy ole' chap if you ask me.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> If you took the time to get on here and comment, then you care what other people believe.....have a good un.



Not necessarily.
Some only want to express what they believe.
Some seek guidance.  Some seek to address incorrect statements or facts.

Some express ideas that are not what they believe personally, but they bring them to the discussion in order to keep the subject moving and the thread flowing.  
They might just want to see how other people answer the tough questions, and how they communicate their thoughts.

There is room here for everyone.  Most are not going to change their minds over it, so it is all good clean fun.


----------



## reformedpastor

Intellect is a gift from God. How we use it determines how we live. A man is that he believes. 

Reason is never to be used outside, away from God's word. It's a tool to be used with God's word not independent of it. 

Man isn't autonomous, even if he thinks he is, he lives and moves a world established and maintained by God.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Not necessarily.
> Some only want to express what they believe.
> Some seek guidance.  Some seek to address incorrect statements or facts.
> 
> Some express ideas that are not what they believe personally, but they bring them to the discussion in order to keep the subject moving and the thread flowing.
> They might just want to see how other people answer the tough questions, and how they communicate their thoughts.
> 
> There is room here for everyone.  Most are not going to change their minds over it, so it is all good clean fun.


bottom line is they care......they invested their time and people only do that in things they are concerned about


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> bottom line is they care......they invested their time and people only do that in things they are concerned about



That is not set in stone.
This is the internet.  For some it is purely entertainment.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> That is not set in stone.
> This is the internet.  For some it is purely entertainment.


That's your opinion.......  Are we going to talk about How intellectual is Atheism or are you going to continue to travel off topic.........start another thread about other peoples' interests if you want to discuss that..


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> That's your opinion.......  Are we going to talk about How intellectual is Atheism or are you going to continue to travel off topic.........start another thread about other peoples' interests if you want to discuss that..



My observations are right in line with the topic, my friend.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Intellect is a gift from God. How we use it determines how we live. A man is that he believes.
> 
> Reason is never to be used outside, away from God's word. It's a tool to be used with God's word not independent of it.
> 
> Man isn't autonomous, even if he thinks he is, he lives and moves a world established and maintained by God.



Intellect can be found in all religious belief systems as well as in Atheism and Agnosticism.  It is not only a matter of being well read, but many specialize in their knowledge without having a basis of a religious belief system.

There can also be some simple minded folks found in all religious belief systems, Atheism and Agnosticism as well.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Intellect can be found in all religious belief systems as well as in Atheism and Agnosticism.  It is not only a matter of being well read, but many specialize in their knowledge without having a basis of a religious belief system.
> 
> There can also be some simple minded folks found in all religious belief systems, Atheism and Agnosticism as well.


Apart from God, life would not make sense, thus no intellect.  What would be smart or dumb in an atheistic world and who would define that?? Again, atheism is a religious belief system (it just doesn't believe in GOD) but it definitely has its beliefs........


----------



## celticfisherman

connorreid said:


> Apart from God, life would not make sense, thus no intellect.  What would be smart or dumb in an atheistic world and who would define that?? Again, atheism is a religious belief system (it just doesn't believe in GOD) but it definitely has its beliefs........



They now have the "New Atheism"... I am waiting on the atheist reformation next and then for the first atheist gathering picnics and the atheistcostal movement and their tongues to begin.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> Apart from God, life would not make sense, thus no intellect.  What would be smart or dumb in an atheistic world and who would define that?? Again, atheism is a religious belief system (it just doesn't believe in GOD) but it definitely has its beliefs........



That's your opinion.  You are entitled to it.
Many share that same opinion.  Many do not.

Intellect is found in all cultures, religious belief systems and levels of education.  Whether or not a person believes in a deity has nothing to do with their capability to reason, gain knowledge or become an expert in their chosen field of study and work.

For some, the belief in a deity fills the holes in their understanding of the unknown and unproven.  For others, it is simply what they were born into and taught to never question or think outside of.
Either is fine.
So is Atheism and Agnosticism.

It is very personal and individual.  I'll not tell you what you believe and feel is wrong or imaginary.  I'm pretty sure it is very real to you.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> That's your opinion.  You are entitled to it.
> Many share that same opinion.  Many do not.
> 
> Intellect is found in all cultures, religious belief systems and levels of education.  Whether or not a person believes in a deity has nothing to do with their capability to reason, gain knowledge or become an expert in their chosen field of study and work.
> 
> For some, the belief in a deity fills the holes in their understanding of the unknown and unproven.  For others, it is simply what they were born into and taught to never question or think outside of.
> Either is fine.
> So is Atheism and Agnosticism.
> 
> It is very personal and individual.  I'll not tell you what you believe and feel is wrong or imaginary.  I'm pretty sure it is very real to you.


We can go back and start over with the simple and fundamental questions about what would matter in an ATHEISTIC world again if you would like to answer them (not dodge them like last time).........Let look at what an atheist says - I'll use R Dawkins - he quotes ina RIVER OUT OF EDEN: A DARWINIAN VIEW OF LIFE that the universe has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference" (on page 133 if you need to look it up).  Now, you tell me according to his beliefs what is right or wrong, good or bad in his view???  Why would anything matter?? What's funny is that Dawkins thinks of religious people as being evil (and he even said there was not such a thing!!)  WHICH IS IT??


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> That's your opinion.  You are entitled to it.
> Many share that same opinion.  Many do not.
> 
> Intellect is found in all cultures, religious belief systems and levels of education.  Whether or not a person believes in a deity has nothing to do with their capability to reason, gain knowledge or become an expert in their chosen field of study and work.
> 
> For some, the belief in a deity fills the holes in their understanding of the unknown and unproven.  For others, it is simply what they were born into and taught to never question or think outside of.
> Either is fine.
> So is Atheism and Agnosticism.
> 
> It is very personal and individual.  I'll not tell you what you believe and feel is wrong or imaginary.  I'm pretty sure it is very real to you.



It's actually not "his" opinion. it is the stance of our world view. One that has been successful enough to allow the detractors of our worldview to live in peace within it. And to even flaunt their "falsehood" as science. 

Now I have respect for anyone's worldview as long as they acknowledge the consequences of the worldview. The problem here is that while we jump around and proclaim our "opinions" the ability of this lunacy to continue is based on the Christian Worldview. 

So as He said. The Lord makes it to rain on the just and unjust.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> That's your opinion.  You are entitled to it.
> Many share that same opinion.  Many do not.
> 
> Intellect is found in all cultures, religious belief systems and levels of education.  Whether or not a person believes in a deity has nothing to do with their capability to reason, gain knowledge or become an expert in their chosen field of study and work.
> 
> For some, the belief in a deity fills the holes in their understanding of the unknown and unproven.  For others, it is simply what they were born into and taught to never question or think outside of.
> Either is fine.
> So is Atheism and Agnosticism.
> 
> It is very personal and individual.  I'll not tell you what you believe and feel is wrong or imaginary.  I'm pretty sure it is very real to you.


By the way, everything on here in any discussion is an opinion of somebody........you don't have to put that on all of your statements........you know, where you claim "that is your opinion".........we already know that


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> It's actually not "his" opinion. it is the stance of our world view. One that has been successful enough to allow the detractors of our worldview to live in peace within it. And to even flaunt their "falsehood" as science.
> e said. The Lord makes it to rain on the just and unjust.



Not everyone on this big planet fits into the "our" group.
I do give them as much right to believe the way they wish as I give those who are in the "our" group the same right.

But fanatical extremism worries me.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> By the way, everything on here in any discussion is an opinion of somebody........you don't have to put that on all of your statements........you know, where you claim "that is your opinion".........we already know that



Now you are telling me how to communicate my own thoughts and opinions?
Post #490, Mr. Kettle.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Not everyone on this big planet fits into the "our" group.
> I do give them as much right to believe the way they wish as I give those who are in the "our" group the same right.



No but "Our" group is the profitable, most free, most civilized on the planet. Like I have said look at the fruit of the view. And our view has historically been based on Scripture.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Now you are telling me how to communicate my own thoughts and opinions?
> Post #490, Mr. Kettle.


You dodging my simple questions again..........I'm not surprised


----------



## WTM45

I thought the current most popular western religious belief system promoted the hereafter and servitude to the deity, not the present which is temporary and materialistic?  What's most important?

It has been the blending of cultures and religious beliefs that has contributed to making this civilization successful and peaceful, not the limitations expressed by one distinct religious belief system over another.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> You dodging my simple questions again..........I'm not surprised



Not everyone outside of a religious belief system agrees with Dawkins in lock step.
That's where you are making a stereotypical judgement.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> I thought the current most popular western religious belief system promoted the hereafter and servitude to the deity, not the present which is temporary and materialistic?  What's most important?
> 
> It has been the blending of cultures and religious beliefs that has contributed to making this civilization successful and peaceful, not the limitations expressed by one distinct religious belief system over another.


God owns everything.....the hereafter and the now - The most important is that we honor God in EVERY AREA of life here and later.........why are you separating the two? and why would one be more important than the other?  You must not understand basic Christianity where Jesus Christ is Lord over all.....


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Not everyone outside of a religious belief system agrees with Dawkins in lock step.
> That's where you are making a stereotypical judgement.


I asked you to deal with Dawkins's statement but I didn't lump all atheists into that category - go back and REREAD my statement, then answer the simple question I asked you to deal with........thanks!!


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> God owns everything.....the hereafter and the now - The most important is that we honor God in EVERY AREA of life here and later.........why are you separating the two? and why would one be more important than the other?  You must not understand basic Christianity where Jesus Christ is Lord over all.....



That's your belief.  That's fine.  I am WELL versed and educated in the Christian faith.  MANY years of formal and private education, post secondary inclusive.  You are not reading other previous posts and are coming into the discussion without knowing the background of the people here.

I have come to the realization many can and do live very fulfilled lives within other religious belief systems and personal understandings.  I give them the freedom to follow their opinions and ideas as well.
Until it gets extremist or fanatical to a level of concern over physical control and take over of religious freedoms.

Your agruments are made at the fundamental level and understanding of the exclusivism of the Christian belief system.  I understand them well.  Maybe even better than you give me credit for.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> That's your belief.  That's fine.  I am WELL versed and educated in the Christian faith.  MANY years of formal and private education, post secondary inclusive.  You are not reading other previous posts and are coming into the discussion without knowing the background of the people here.
> 
> I have come to the realization many can and do live very fulfilled lives within other religious belief systems and personal understandings.  I give them the freedom to follow their opinions and ideas as well.
> Until it gets extremist or fanatical to a level of concern over physical control and take over of religious freedoms.
> 
> Your agruments are made at the fundamental level and understanding of the exclusivism of the Christian belief system.  I understand them well.  Maybe even better than you give me credit for.


 Others live fulfilled lives b/c they don't live in an atheistic world where nothing matters.  R Dawkins - he is an extremist.  As educated as you are then, why can't you answer the SIMPLE questions I have put before you? Instead, you avoid them.  You can be "highly educated" in the Christian faith and still not know much about true Christianity b/c God has not shown it to you.  If my arguments are at the fundamental level (and I claim to be asking simple questions) why can't you handle them? How do you get to a sophisticated, intellectual, complex level w/out dealing w/ the simple facts? Makes one wonder...........Have a great Friday evening.....signing off..


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> Others live fulfilled lives b/c they don't live in an atheistic world where nothing matters.  R Dawkins - he is an extremist.



On your first sentence, it is not entirely true.  Even Atheists understand and hold a value for life.  They do not follow the belief that nothing matters.  That is something you keep saying but just is not true.

Your second sentence, I can somewhat agree with.  Dawkins is pretty firm in his stance.  But his concepts do not hold any hatred or disdain for other humans in a way that is extremist or violent in its potential.

Many of the questions you have asked are discussed in other threads here on this forum.  I'm not addressing them directly because it takes the current thread off on a tangent.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> On your first sentence, it is not entirely true.  Even Atheists understand and hold a value for life.  They do not follow the belief that nothing matters.  That is something you keep saying but just is not true.
> 
> Your second sentence, I can somewhat agree with.  Dawkins is pretty firm in his stance.  But his concepts do not hold any hatred or disdain for other humans in a way that is extremist or violent in its potential.
> 
> Many of the questions you have asked are discussed in other threads here on this forum.  I'm not addressing them directly because it takes the current thread off on a tangent.


My first sentence was true.  What is truth to you? Secondly, I keep ASKING what would matter in an atheistic world but you can't answer (very, very simple question).  I was sticking with the current thread - go back and read the quotes - you take us off course (and I know you do that b/c you can't answer an elementary, simple question).  By the way, please give me a definition of TRUTH in an atheistic world (I can't wait to hear it!!!)


----------



## earl

connor ,do you fully understand that the'' atheist world '' is the same place that the boogy man lives ? It doesn't exist. Your level of agitation is a little out of proportion. Go to the gun range until it stops raining and then go fishinng. Things will be OK.


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> connor ,do you fully understand that the'' atheist world '' is the same place that the boogy man lives ? It doesn't exist. Your level of agitation is a little out of proportion. Go to the gun range until it stops raining and then go fishinng. Things will be OK.


Thanks for getting my point!!! I have continuously tried to show that even the IDEA of an atheistic world is absurd b/c nothing would make sense.  Where you get the agitation from, I don't know.  I'm trying to press the debaters into proving how an atheistic world could be......Things are definitely OK b/c GOD is sovereign over everything and governs His creation.  I trust in that everyday.  Maybe you need a little range time..........later


----------



## heavymetalhunter

connorreid said:


> I have continuously tried to show that even the IDEA of an atheistic world is absurd b/c nothing would make sense.


how would it really be that absurd? we are both atheists to a degree, the only difference between you and me  is that i chose to believe in one less god that you did. think about the reasons why you dont believe in any of the other gods out there, and then realize that those are the same reasons i dont believe in your god.


----------



## celticfisherman

heavymetalhunter said:


> how would it really be that absurd? we are both atheists to a degree, the only difference between you and me  is that i chose to believe in one less god that you did. think about the reasons why you dont believe in any of the other gods out there, and then realize that those are the same reasons i dont believe in your god.



What an absurd statement. Even when Dawkins made it. 

Be a little imaginative sometime in your argument. 

You don't believe in God for one simple reason. It would keep you from doing whatever you feel like. Like making yourself a god.


----------



## heavymetalhunter

celticfisherman said:


> What an absurd statement. Even when Dawkins made it.
> 
> Be a little imaginative sometime in your argument.
> 
> You don't believe in God for one simple reason. It would keep you from doing whatever you feel like. Like making yourself a god.



never heard dawkins say it, but oh well.

the last part of your statement is whats absurd. what a typically religious thing to do. why would someone who thinks the idea of "god" is pure insanity, try to make themself a god?


----------



## connorreid

heavymetalhunter said:


> how would it really be that absurd? we are both atheists to a degree, the only difference between you and me  is that i chose to believe in one less god that you did. think about the reasons why you dont believe in any of the other gods out there, and then realize that those are the same reasons i dont believe in your god.


What is right or wrong in an atheistic world? What is good or bad?  I'd like to hear your answers......Is what Hitler did right or wrong? and why?  Would you need laws in an atheistic world? and why?


----------



## heavymetalhunter

connorreid said:


> What is right or wrong in an atheistic world? What is good or bad?  I'd like to hear your answers......Is what Hitler did right or wrong? and why?  Would you need laws in an atheistic world? and why?



so, your another one of those people who think that a religious foundation is the only way to be decent person?

if so, then all i can say is i feel sorry for you.


----------



## celticfisherman

heavymetalhunter said:


> never heard dawkins say it, but oh well.
> 
> the last part of your statement is whats absurd. what a typically religious thing to do. why would someone who thinks the idea of "god" is pure insanity, try to make themself a god?



Because otherwise there is someone above Us the collective us as society. And you can't stand the idea of that. You would rather make human reasoning god. 

And look how well that works out.


----------



## heavymetalhunter

celticfisherman said:


> Because otherwise there is someone above Us the collective us as society. And you can't stand the idea of that. You would rather make human reasoning god.





why cant you just understand...............

note- i deleted my original response.


----------



## WTM45

heavymetalhunter said:


> why cant you just understand...............




Some just simply can not understand that point of view.  That's fine.  They have the right to believe or not believe as they wish.  That's religious freedom.

Nobody has to change.  Nobody has to "convert."


----------



## celticfisherman

heavymetalhunter said:


> why cant you just understand...............
> 
> note- i deleted my original response.


It's not me who can't understand.

Listen just be thankful you live in a society based on Christian concepts that lets you openly say this stuff. 

The Fool says in his heart there is no God.


----------



## heavymetalhunter

WTM45 said:


> Nobody has to change.  Nobody has to "convert."



which is not my point or goal.

my point toward celticfisherman is that while is think the idea of any form of "god" is pure insanity, his posts toward me are always related to my world revolving around some form of god,  whether it be reasoning or whatever.


----------



## celticfisherman

heavymetalhunter said:


> which is not my point or goal.
> 
> my point toward celticfisherman is that while is think the idea of any form of "god" is pure insanity, his posts toward me are always related to my world revolving around some form of god,  whether it be reasoning or whatever.



Sorry you don't understand the concept. 

But there is no denying what you have done. Just admit it file for a 501(c)3 status and enjoy it. Just quit hiding behind some type of "scientific" reasoning and platitudes like "I beleive in one less god than you".  No. What you have done is decide that you can form a rational and self sustaining civilization without God. Well.... Marx couldn't do it. Stalin didn't do it. The Germans (which were mostly influenced by the Enlightenment and Nietzche and Marx) couldn't do it either. 

Your idea of an atheist world is as Reformedpastor and connorreid and many others have been saying a non starter. Why? You can't have an anything goes life and no accountability and have right and wrong. Morals. Society living together in order. 

Darwin's ideas don't work that way. Dawkins and Russell can't answer the questions either. And in fact have an easier time believing in freakin Aliens coming here to create life then God. So what does that say?


----------



## heavymetalhunter

celticfisherman said:


> Your idea of an atheist world is as Reformedpastor and connorreid and many others have been saying a non starter. Why? You can't have an anything goes life and no accountability and have right and wrong. Morals. Society living together in order.



why is it that you keep saying that only religious people know right from wrong or have morals?

atheists dont live an "anything goes" life with "no accountability". i know right from wrong, i hold my self accountable for my actions, and i have morals. the only difference is that yours is all religion based.


----------



## celticfisherman

heavymetalhunter said:


> why is it that you keep saying that only religious people know right from wrong or have morals?
> 
> atheists dont live an "anything goes" life with "no accountability". i know right from wrong, i hold my self accountable for my actions, and i have morals. the only difference is that yours is all religion based.



So what makes your morals right? Why aren't the morals of PolPot better than yours?

That's all any one is asking.


----------



## earl

hmh, you just have to find the correct version of the bible and you will find that nonchristians have no morals and the weaker the christian faith the weaker the moral. Kind of a sliding scale thing. Keep that in mind and some of the posts here will become clearer.


----------



## Dawgy_Daddy

After reading this moral issue, I wont be trusting and leave my tree stand in the woods anymore.


----------



## connorreid

heavymetalhunter said:


> why is it that you keep saying that only religious people know right from wrong or have morals?
> 
> atheists dont live an "anything goes" life with "no accountability". i know right from wrong, i hold my self accountable for my actions, and i have morals. the only difference is that yours is all religion based.


 There are no morals, right or wrong, good and bad in an atheistic world.  The reason you know right and wrong is b/c you don't live in an atheistic world.  You live in a world created by God, made in His image.  You have to steal or borrow from God's world of right and wrong, morals, love and hate in order to make sense of your own.  Since you are an atheist you DENY God, yet you can't escape living in His world.  If you can't understand that NOTHING WOULD MATTER in an atheistic world, then oh well, not my problem.....


----------



## reformedpastor

The secular humanist, atheist and others like them have both feet planted firmly in thin air- Francis Shaffer.


----------



## celticfisherman

reformedpastor said:


> The secular humanist, atheist and others like them have both feet planted firmly in thin air- Francis Shaffer.



Didn't he and Greg Koukle write that book together. Koukle was on Apologetics.com this past week. Very very good show.

I do love that analogy.


----------



## reformedpastor

celticfisherman said:


> Didn't he and Greg Koukle write that book together. Koukle was on Apologetics.com this past week. Very very good show.
> 
> I do love that analogy.




Not sure about the book. I'll have to check it out.


----------



## ambush80

connorreid said:


> There are no morals, right or wrong, good and bad in an atheistic world.  The reason you know right and wrong is b/c you don't live in an atheistic world.  You live in a world created by God, made in His image.  You have to steal or borrow from God's world of right and wrong, morals, love and hate in order to make sense of your own.  Since you are an atheist you DENY God, yet you can't escape living in His world.  If you can't understand that NOTHING WOULD MATTER in an atheistic world, then oh well, not my problem.....



You can REASON your way through to "right" and "wrong" .  Which in my opinion is a far better way to arrive at those judgments as opposed to some traditional, perhaps even obsolete "moral code book".  

As opposed to the terms "right" and "wrong", I prefer the terms: "beneficial" or "detrimental".  "To whom?" You ask.  "To the majority" I answer, which you don't have in a religion based society, especially one that is so exclusive.

Your sense of self preservation and you understanding of how we need to operate TOGETHER as a society will get you pretty far in terms of defining "right" and "wrong".  If you allow superstition or tradition to supercede your reason then we get conflict.....Let it go and allow yourself to think through the complex issues.  Use your noggin as opposed to your fear of the Boogie Man to determine right and wrong.  WE will all be better off for it.


----------



## reformedpastor

This may enhance our discussion. This has been my apologetic approach. 

Presuppositional Apologetics

This form of Christian apologetics deals with presuppositions.
1 A Christian presuppositionalist presupposes God's existence and argues from that perspective to show the validity of Christian theism.
2 This position also presupposes the truth of the Christian Scriptures and relies on the validity and power of the gospel to change lives (Rom. 1:16). From the scriptures, we see that the unbeliever is sinful in his mind (Rom. 1:18-32) and unable to understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).  This means that no matter how convincing the evidence or good the logic, an unbeliever cannot come to the faith because his fallen nature will distort how he perceives the truth.  The only thing that can ultimately change him is regeneration.  To this end, the presuppositionalist seeks to change a person's presuppositions to be in conformity with biblical revelation.

I have found that a person's presuppositions are extremely important when discussing God and the validity of Christianity.  I always ask diagnostic questions to find out where a person is philosophically and presuppositionally so I might better discuss Christianity.  This is a very important point to focus on because one's presuppositions will govern how one interprets facts.  Please consider the following dialogue as a realistic example of how this works.


Allen:  I am an atheist and evolutionist.  Prove to me there is a God.

Paul:   I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.
    Allen:  Why not?

Paul:  Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence.

Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence.

Paul:  See?  There you go.  You just confirmed what I was stating.

Allen:  How so?

Paul:  Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God.  If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.

Allen: It is not limited.

Paul:  Yes it is.  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.

Allen:  I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can.

Paul:  Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?  I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.

Presuppositional apologetics differs from Classical apologetics "in that presuppositional apologetics rejects the validity of traditional proofs for the existence of God." A pure presuppositionalist tackles the worldview of a person and seeks to change the very foundation of how a person perceives facts.

Adherents to this position have been Cornelius Van Til, Abraham Kuyper, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, etc.


Here is the link this article came from http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/presuppositional-apologetics


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> You can REASON your way through to "right" and "wrong" .  Which in my opinion is a far better way to arrive at those judgments as opposed to some traditional, perhaps even obsolete "moral code book".
> 
> As opposed to the terms "right" and "wrong", I prefer the terms: "beneficial" or "detrimental".  "To whom?" You ask.  "To the majority" I answer, which you don't have in a religion based society, especially one that is so exclusive.
> 
> Your sense of self preservation and you understanding of how we need to operate TOGETHER as a society will get you pretty far in terms of defining "right" and "wrong".  If you allow superstition or tradition to supercede your reason then we get conflict.....Let it go and allow yourself to think through the complex issues.  Use your noggin as opposed to your fear of the Boogie Man to determine right and wrong.  WE will all be better off for it.


So why, in your relativistic world, should I listen to you?  You have already defined right and wrong in your own terms, so I might create my terms and they may contradict yours..........How can we know ANYTHING from your perspective??? Nothing would be based on ABSOLUTES so how can we even make up definitions?? Also, if somebody wanted to believe in the boogey man or be superstitious, why would that bother you?  You must be wanting everybody to conform to your thinking (that makes sense, I'm starting to see that you can't live consistently with what you are preaching..........)


----------



## vanguard1

never saw that in my bible................anyway i think you have to be nuts to look at all this world,birds, fish, trees,pets,waterfalls,etc. and think it all just happened.


----------



## ambush80

reformedpastor said:


> This may enhance our discussion. This has been my apologetic approach.
> 
> Presuppositional Apologetics
> 
> This form of Christian apologetics deals with presuppositions.
> 1 A Christian presuppositionalist presupposes God's existence and argues from that perspective to show the validity of Christian theism.
> 2 This position also presupposes the truth of the Christian Scriptures and relies on the validity and power of the gospel to change lives (Rom. 1:16). From the scriptures, we see that the unbeliever is sinful in his mind (Rom. 1:18-32) and unable to understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).  This means that no matter how convincing the evidence or good the logic, an unbeliever cannot come to the faith because his fallen nature will distort how he perceives the truth.  The only thing that can ultimately change him is regeneration.  To this end, the presuppositionalist seeks to change a person's presuppositions to be in conformity with biblical revelation.
> 
> I have found that a person's presuppositions are extremely important when discussing God and the validity of Christianity.  I always ask diagnostic questions to find out where a person is philosophically and presuppositionally so I might better discuss Christianity.  This is a very important point to focus on because one's presuppositions will govern how one interprets facts.  Please consider the following dialogue as a realistic example of how this works.
> 
> 
> Allen:  I am an atheist and evolutionist.  Prove to me there is a God.
> 
> Paul:   I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.
> Allen:  Why not?
> 
> Paul:  Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence.
> 
> Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence.
> 
> Paul:  See?  There you go.  You just confirmed what I was stating.
> 
> Allen:  How so?
> 
> Paul:  Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God.  If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.
> 
> Allen: It is not limited.
> 
> Paul:  Yes it is.  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
> 
> Allen:  I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can.
> 
> Paul:  Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?  I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
> 
> Presuppositional apologetics differs from Classical apologetics "in that presuppositional apologetics rejects the validity of traditional proofs for the existence of God." A pure presuppositionalist tackles the worldview of a person and seeks to change the very foundation of how a person perceives facts.
> 
> Adherents to this position have been Cornelius Van Til, Abraham Kuyper, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, etc.
> 
> 
> Here is the link this article came from http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/presuppositional-apologetics





Allen:  How do you know that the Bible is true?

Paul:  Because it says so in the Bible.



connorreid said:


> So why, in your relativistic world, should I listen to you?
> 
> You don't have to listen to me but you do have to obey the laws of society (remember: self preservation and the good of the group)  or we will throw you in the pokey.
> 
> You have already defined right and wrong in your own terms, so I might create my terms and they may contradict yours..........How can we know ANYTHING from your perspective???
> 
> Majority rule
> 
> Nothing would be based on ABSOLUTES so how can we even make up definitions??
> 
> Beneficial or Detrimental (do you even read my posts?)
> 
> Also, if somebody wanted to believe in the boogey man or be superstitious, why would that bother you?
> 
> Because there are better ways to arrive at value judgements.  You can fear the boogie man on your own time and in the privacy of your home or church all you want.  Just don't bring that stuff into the ballot box or out into society.
> 
> You must be wanting everybody to conform to your thinking (that makes sense, I'm starting to see that you can't live consistently with what you are preaching..........)



In a sense.  I would like to see people discontinue superceding their reason with superstition.


----------



## gtparts

Looks like you made RF's point. Since you cling so tenaciously to the presupposition that there is no God, debate or discussion is pointless.

So far, no one has proposed a more satisfying alternative to believing in and being obedient to the God of Christianity. Atheism is not compelling as a life style. It presents no boundaries or absolutes by which one can consistently live ones life. It offers no hope for the future. There is no reason to want to wake up each morning. It is the perception of a fatalist, adrift in a swift river, without rudder or means of propulsion and destined to pass over the falls and to perish on the rocks below. Your only ability to control is to hasten the final plunge at your own hand. So why is it that you and others can not stand the idea that others maybe have found a relationship that gives us confidence that when our craft passes the edge of the falls, we will not wind up on the rocks below? People ultimately do not just find themselves to be Christians. Christians of all intellectual levels have weighed the cost and chosen to believe and worship the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It's not about computing the odds and placing the most advantageous wager. It's about understanding the grace of God through Jesus Christ and accepting it, that we might have the right relationship to God.....,even if human logic will not bring us to that decision. I can not, will not rely on human logic. I have seen its application and the resulting mess it has caused. Most can't "think" their way out of a wet paper bag. 

God has never failed me.


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> Allen:  How do you know that the Bible is true?
> 
> Paul:  Because it says so in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> In a sense.  I would like to see people discontinue superceding their reason with superstition.


ATHEIST:  Mr. Atheistic Scientist, how do we know what we know?

ATHEIST SCIENTIST:  Because we tell you what to believe.  That is why it requires much great faith on your part to believe.  

ATHEIST:  That's true.  Or is it.  What is truth Mr. Scientist?

ATHEIST SCIENTIST:  Whatever we tell you......


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> Allen:  I am an atheist and evolutionist.  Prove to me there is a God.
> 
> Paul:   I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.
> 
> Allen:  Why not?
> 
> Paul:  Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence.
> 
> Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence.
> 
> Paul:  See?  There you go.  You just confirmed what I was stating.
> 
> Allen:  How so?
> 
> Paul:  Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God.  If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.
> 
> Allen: It is not limited.
> 
> Paul:  Yes it is.  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
> 
> Allen:  I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can.
> 
> Paul:  Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?  I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
> 
> Presuppositional apologetics differs from Classical apologetics "in that presuppositional apologetics rejects the validity of traditional proofs for the existence of God." A pure presuppositionalist tackles the worldview of a person and seeks to change the very foundation of how a person perceives facts.
> 
> Adherents to this position have been Cornelius Van Til, Abraham Kuyper, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, etc.
> 
> Here is the link this article came from http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/presuppositional-apologetics



I am open to the possibility that there is a God. So far, I HAVE seen evidence that could be interpreted that there is a God. That evidence is not adequate for me to actually believe in a God. It might be adequate for you, but not for me.

Some people see some strange apparition in their back yard and then believe that ghosts exist. I see a strange apparition in my back yard and then investigate it. After questioning the source, I find out that it was just 2 shadows cast by trees above interacting with the dew on the grass that caused the strange movement that I saw from my back door.

Some people see design in nature and associate it with a designer. If they would go and investigate it, they would realize that natural selection is the source of the supposed design. Many people do not adequately investigate the source. Most people are implicit theists. They never question or investigate their beliefs. How many theist students take theology/philosophy classes then come out as agnostics/atheists? Investigating why you believe what you believe often leads to a change in beliefs.



> So far, no one has proposed a more satisfying alternative to believing in and being obedient to the God of Christianity.



Satisfying to you maybe. I'm satisfied as an atheist. Many Buddhists are satisfied as Buddhists. Many Muslims are satisfied as Muslims. If you were born and raised in Iran you would not think Christianity as satisfying as Islam.



> Atheism is not compelling as a life style.



Atheism is not a life style. Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). Yet again people continue to try to attach more stuff to atheism isn't implicitly associated with it. Many atheists have very different lifestyles from one another, just like many Christians have different lifestyles from other Christians.



> It presents no boundaries or absolutes by which one can consistently live ones life.



You're right, it presents no boundaries or rules by which to live by. We don't cherry pick scriptures (that, by the way, are often found in most other religions) that we already agree with and then say that we must have those scriptures as rules to live a good moral life.

In short, we don't need an invisible sky daddy to tell us how to go through life, and you don't either, you just keep telling yourself that you do because you've heard it repeated your entire life.



> It offers no hope for the future. There is no reason to want to wake up each morning. It is the perception of a fatalist, adrift in a swift river, without rudder or means of propulsion and destined to pass over the falls and to perish on the rocks below. Your only ability to control is to hasten the final plunge at your own hand.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism



> So why is it that you and others can not stand the idea that others maybe have found a relationship that gives us confidence that when our craft passes the edge of the falls, we will not wind up on the rocks below?



If religions were simply that, then I would be fine with it. However they are not. They are mythologies built up over thousands of years with many different moralities and rules and regulations attached to them that affect me. They affect the entire world.

What if Islam was simply the sentence: "When you die your soul will go to a place called Heaven where you will live in eternal bliss."? Then most people would be fine with Muslims.

However Islam is not just that one sentence. It has many ridiculous things attached to it. For example if you die as a martyr then you will go to the highest level of Heaven. A person who believes this obviously has a chance of impacting many people (literally  ), and therefore they have a right to persuade that person to drop his beliefs. The problem is that these beliefs are so attached to the framework of Islam that it is nigh impossible to get people to believe in Allah and not believe in the authority of certain scripture.

This is the same for Christians. Thankfully there are many people who are becoming moderate and liberal Christians and Muslims who do not view the Bible and Quran as infallible. They are able to separate the good from the bad.



> People ultimately do not just find themselves to be Christians. Christians of all intellectual levels have weighed the cost and chosen to believe and worship the Son of God, Jesus Christ.



I disagree. There are many implicit theists out there. They have never questioned their beliefs because they live in lands dominated by one religion. Cultural and religious diversity leads to questioned beliefs.



> It's not about computing the odds and placing the most advantageous wager.



Then why do so many people fall back on Pascal's Wager? Even on these forums?



> I can not, will not rely on human logic.



Didn't you just say that people have "weighed the cost and chosen to believe and worship the Son of God, Jesus Christ." You're saying that you didn't do this? You used logic to decide this? It was a purely emotional decision? Was it because you feared of going to He11? Pascal's Wager? If it wasn't logic, then what was it?



> God has never failed me.



Because you set up the odds to always be in God's favor. No matter what happens to you, you will always believe that God has never failed you. A modern Job. Unfortunately you'll probably take that as a complement.


----------



## reformedpastor

I think your openness to God is debatable. Sure....many people do many different things and define it according to the level of the understanding. 

There are many Christians who used to be agnostic and atheists until they examined what they believe.................so, now what? Just proves what I have said all along, before you can change anyone's mind you have to deal with their underlining presuppositions. You have to change the grid of interpretation. 

Atheism is a commitment to non belief. Its a moral position first then it is cloaked in the mythology of evolutionary theory concerning the origin of all life.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> There are many Christians who used to be agnostic and atheists until they examined what they believe.................so, now what? Just proves what I have said all along, before you can change anyone's mind you have to deal with their underlining presuppositions. You have to change the grid of interpretation.



I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you here. Your choice of presuppositional preaching is yours to make. I think it's odd that when someone doesn't agree with you, you automatically make the jump to say that it must be their underlying presuppositions about God that prevents them from viewing the evidence as you do. And when you change someone's mind, you claim it was because you changed their presuppositions. 

Some atheists like myself do not have the presuppositions that you speak of and yet are still not able to see adequate evidence for the Christian God. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and that there is a God, but I would have to see adequate evidence for that. Right now I see some data that could be interpreted as evidence for a God, but it is far from adequate and often must be interpreted a specific way for it to even be considered evidence at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



> Atheism is a commitment to non belief. Its a moral position first then it is cloaked in the mythology of evolutionary theory concerning the origin of all life.



I've yet to see you explain how atheism is a "moral position". Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). Please explain how that is a "moral position".


----------



## ToLog

after reading all this stuff, ad infinitum, looks like the question still prevails, "how did we get here, exactly?" 

well, if one is a member of the Christian tradition, and particularly if one is paid to be an apologist, we came from God, where else could we have come from?

then, if want to start at the "big-bang" or thereabouts, we came from the big bang, through development of chemistry, organics and physics through time. 

how long did all of that take? who knows, but evidence indicates in the range of 14-16 billion years. a long time, but what's a billion compared to a trillion? 

anyways, i digress. as others have said, what "if" we're all wrong, then what?  

i've about decided this is a resting place from Cosmic wars, and we're here to take a restful respite, and recover from earlier warfare, before rejoining the fray.

but, others think differently. Give everyone the space they need. that's my position. 

Michio Kaku and his ilk seems to think that God is above and beyond us....he's asking us to hurry and catch-up, but not to blow ourselves up in the meanwhile...


----------



## ambush80

roothog said:


> after reading all this stuff, ad infinitum, looks like the question still prevails, "how did we get here, exactly?"
> 
> well, if one is a member of the Christian tradition, and particularly if one is paid to be an apologist, we came from God, where else could we have come from?
> 
> then, if want to start at the "big-bang" or thereabouts, we came from the big bang, through development of chemistry, organics and physics through time.
> 
> how long did all of that take? who knows, but evidence indicates in the range of 14-16 billion years. a long time, but what's a billion compared to a trillion?
> 
> anyways, i digress. as others have said, what "if" we're all wrong, then what?
> 
> i've about decided this is a resting place from Cosmic wars, and we're here to take a restful respite, and recover from earlier warfare, before rejoining the fray.
> 
> but, others think differently. Give everyone the space they need. that's my position.
> 
> Michio Kaku and his ilk seems to think that God is above and beyond us....he's asking us to hurry and catch-up, but not to blow ourselves up in the meanwhile...



I think these are all wonderful sentiments.  I agree to give everyone space to follow their spiritual path....as long as they don't bring it into the voting booth.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you here. Your choice of presuppositional preaching is yours to make. I think it's odd that when someone doesn't agree with you, you automatically make the jump to say that it must be their underlying presuppositions about God that prevents them from viewing the evidence as you do. And when you change someone's mind, you claim it was because you changed their presuppositions.
> 
> Some atheists like myself do not have the presuppositions that you speak of and yet are still not able to see adequate evidence for the Christian God. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and that there is a God, but I would have to see adequate evidence for that. Right now I see some data that could be interpreted as evidence for a God, but it is far from adequate and often must be interpreted a specific way for it to even be considered evidence at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see you explain how atheism is a "moral position". Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). Please explain how that is a "moral position".


Are you saying you don't have presuppostitions???


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> I think these are all wonderful sentiments.  I agree to give everyone space to follow their spiritual path....as long as they don't bring it into the voting booth.


What is wrong with bringing it to the voting booth? How can you not.  Everybody does.  I vote for people based on what they believe, don't you?


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> Are you saying you don't have presuppostitions?



Everyone has presuppositions. I don't have the presupposition that RF was talking about.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> Everyone has presuppositions. I don't have the presupposition that RF was talking about.


That is a statement of truth - what is truth in your atheistic worldview? Who defines it?


----------



## reformedpastor

After all thats been said here I will make this statement. Atheism and the like is an anti-intellectual philosophy. 

What I am not saying. 

1. That atheist and the like or dumb and can't invent or makes discoveries. 
2. Or that atheist and the like don't care about others or attempt to serve others. 

What I am saying 

1. The atheist and the like do not live consistently within their evolutionary philosophy of life. 
2. The atheist does has a standard of right and wrong and will and can advocate human rights. But the atheist is his own authority. Good and evil are defined by his understanding and will always be utilitarianism at best. 


Thus I hold the position that scripture is our starting place and from there life and the world is defined and understood. It is my standard of right and wrong. It governs my thoughts, words and actions.

It even guides the way I vote. Which lead me not to support either of the two main parties. In my opinion, just liars and crooks. But, they are doing what is good as they have determined it. So atheism strikes again.


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> That is a statement of truth - what is truth in your atheistic worldview? Who defines it?



Truths concerning what?



> Atheism and the like is an anti-intellectual philosophy.



I'm sorry but I still do not understand how you can come to this conclusion. I've yet to see anything anti-intellectual said within this discussion by atheists or agnostics.



> 1. The atheist and the like do not live consistently within their evolutionary philosophy of life.



Consistent to what? I live a very consistent life. Could  you give specifics on how we do not live "consistently?"

If anything is inconsistent it's the beliefs of theists, and especially Christians. You are all given the same book and cannot agree on anything within it.

Yet again theists are attempting to attach "bad" things to evolution like they do to atheism. The theory of evolution via natural selection is not a "philosophy of life". It's simply a scientific theory which describes the natural phenomenon of evolution. It has nothing to do with philosophy. It is science. Science does not attempt to describe what should be, it merely attempts to describe what is.



> 2. The atheist does has a standard of right and wrong and will and can advocate human rights. But the atheist is his own authority. Good and evil are defined by his understanding and will always be utilitarianism at best.



I agreed with this up to where you said it will be utilitarianism at best. I disagree. Many atheists are ideologists and very principled when it comes to morals, ethics, policies, etc. They, like theists, are shaped by both nature and nurture. The political spectrum of atheists is as wide as Christians.


----------



## reformedpastor

*Finaly found me a chart to post*



Found this along with the image. Its a little different from some of my other comments but I think very helpful. 

“Neutrality” toward God is actually a negation of God because we are talking about an absolute God. If an absolute God exists, one who is the source of all unity and diversity in the world and whose existence is necessary for the possibility of rationality, then there can be no area of life, no fact, that is religiously neutral.  And by choosing a starting point that is logically inconsistent with the desired conclusion of the existence of an absolute Creator, the Christian is unable to defend other doctrines that are logically dependent on an absolute God, such as absolute ethical standards, moral defect as rebellion against God, salvation from sin being exclusively provided by Christ, an infallible Bible, and others (see From Theism to Christianity, below). 

The Christian believer does have common ground everywhere with which to reason with the unbeliever, but it is not religiously neutral ground.  All facts are God-created, God-interpreted facts.  Thus every fact in the world is revelatory of God.  Every fact proves God’s existence.  The Christian can begin his argument for God’s existence with cause, order, being, or any other facts of creation, but the intent must be to show how the starting point requires an absolute God.

Christians and non-Christians share metaphysical, ethical and epistemic common ground, but differ in terms of their ultimate philosophy in these three areas:  

            1) Believers and unbelievers have metaphysical common ground.  Unbelievers live in God’s world, despite their denials.  Believers and unbelievers differ in their philosophy of being, particularly in terms of the ultimate being that is said to determine the nature of the universe.

            2) Likewise, believers and unbelievers share ethical principles by which they ought to live. Unbelievers ought to serve God, despite their denials.  They differ in their philosophy of ethics, particularly in terms of the ultimate ethical standard. 

            3) Believers and unbelievers have much knowledge in common, even knowledge of God (though unbelievers suppress that); but they differ in their philosophy of knowledge, their epistemology, particularly in terms of ultimate interpretative principles.  All facts are God-created facts, but unbelievers want to interpret them as non-created facts.

Because unbelievers are inconsistent in applying their ultimate, God-denying presuppositions they are able to learn much that is true about the world. But by refusing to acknowledge that all ground is God’s ground, the unbeliever has no justification for being able to utter a single word in affirmation or negation of anything, including words concerning cause, order, and being.

http://www.christianciv.com/ChristCivEssay.htm


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> Truths concerning what?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I still do not understand how you can come to this conclusion. I've yet to see anything anti-intellectual said within this discussion by atheists or agnostics.
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent to what? I live a very consistent life. Could  you give specifics on how we do not live "consistently?"
> 
> If anything is inconsistent it's the beliefs of theists, and especially Christians. You are all given the same book and cannot agree on anything within it.
> 
> Yet again theists are attempting to attach "bad" things to evolution like they do to atheism. The theory of evolution via natural selection is not a "philosophy of life". It's simply a scientific theory which describes the natural phenomenon of evolution. It has nothing to do with philosophy. It is science. Science does not attempt to describe what should be, it merely attempts to describe what is.
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with this up to where you said it will be utilitarianism at best. I disagree. Many atheists are ideologists and very principled when it comes to morals, ethics, policies, etc. They, like theists, are shaped by both nature and nurture. The political spectrum of atheists is as wide as Christians.


Junior - are you telling us that you don't disagree with others on some books (many Christians disagree on many issues.....atheists don't??).
You just said yourself that the theory of evolution via natural selection is a "scientific THEORY" -  theories are not facts and that is NOT SCIENCE -    Surely, you don't believe that............a theory is science?????  As I mentioned yesterday about natural selection / survival of the fittest - bigger animal can eat smaller animal, but can bigger human go over to his neighbor's house and plunder it and take everything, without repercussions???  Is that OK??? After all, bigger human was more over powering than smaller human...............................In regards to your definition of truth - just give me a SIMPLE, ELEMENTARY definition of truth.......thanks!!


----------



## reformedpastor

The doctrine of the Fall and its affects on this conversation

To the modern atheist the Biblical account of the historical fall of man from perfection into sin appears no more believable than a children’s fable.  The truth is that a historical fall is necessary for the possibility of rationality in the universe.  If there were no fall, then evil and irrationalism would be original aspects of the universe and equally ultimate with goodness and rationality.  A historical fall preserves the ultimate goodness and rationality of the universe.  The creation must have been originally good.  There could be no evil in God because then negation would be as ultimate as affirmation.  “Commit adultery” would be as ultimate as “Do not commit adultery.”  “Is not,” at the same time and in the same sense, would be equivalent to “is.”  Obviously, such a universe would be ultimately irrational; the law of non-contradiction would not apply to it.  Therefore sin must have been introduced by man

Can find a greater explanation at the link given earlier


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> Junior - are you telling us that you don't disagree with others on some books (many Christians disagree on many issues.....atheists don't??).



Of course I "disagree with others on some books." Please quote me where I have said otherwise.



> You just said yourself that the theory of evolution via natural selection is a "scientific THEORY" -  theories are not facts and that is NOT SCIENCE -    Surely, you don't believe that............a theory is science?????





Hopefully this is just another case of someone confusing the colloquial use of the word "theory" with it's scientific use. Based on what you've said above, I'm not sure if further discussion on these matters will be fruitful. One must understand the basic structure of science and how it operates in order to discuss more complex matters within a particular science.

I will answer your questions though. Yes, the theory of evolution via natural selection is a scientific theory. You are correct again, theories are not facts. Theories attempt to describe the "facts", or natural phenomenon, that we see around us. However, sciences are made up of theories. They are not made up of facts. This is very important. It is what defines science.

For example, psychology is a science. It is a specific realm of science that deals with the mind. It is comprised of theories which, among other things, attempt to describe how and why we think the way we do. Psychologists use theories to, among other things, predict behavior and thought patterns under specific situations.

Another example: Mathematics is not a science. It is made up of facts, not theories. 2 + 2 = 4. Mathematics is empirical, and therefore no theories are required to describe the facts contained within mathematics.

Facts are obviously an important part of science, but it is important to understand that facts would still be there even if science (the theories which attempt to describe the facts) did not exist. Science is the theories which attempt to describe the facts. By facts I mean reality, or the natural world that we perceive.

Let me give 3 examples that may elaborate my point:

1. The eruption of a volcano is a fact. By that I mean it is a natural reality; a natural phenomenon. We as humans have created theories which attempt to describe why and how it happens. The theories which attempt to describe volcanoes vary widely across time and cultures. For example an early theory might be that eruptions happen because the Volcano God "JuJu" is angry at us because we didn't sacrifice enough of our babies this month. On a side note, this theory is of course not scientific because it is unfalsifiable. Other, more modern theories are based upon experiments and empirical data.

2. The attraction between two bodies of mass is a fact. It is a natural phenomenon. We as humans have created theories which attempt to describe why and how it happens. One such theory was created by Isaac Newton and is accurate for most normal circumstances. Other theories on gravity have since been created which more accurately describe and predict the natural phenomenon known as gravity.

3. Evolution is a fact. It is a natural phenomenon that we observe through the fossil record, through experiments in the lab, and through observations of currently living species in nature. We as humans have created theories which attempt to describe why and how it happens. One such theory was created by Charles Darwin. His theory is called the theory of evolution via natural selection. Over time the theory has been improved upon.

Do you see the difference between facts and theories and why sciences are made up of theories, not facts? Volcanic eruptions, gravity, and evolution all existed prior to the creation of the theories which attempt to describe them. That is because they are natural phenomenon. Humans create theories which attempt to describe the facts, and sciences are indirectly created as a structure of related theories.



> As I mentioned yesterday about natural selection / survival of the fittest - bigger animal can eat smaller animal, but can bigger human go over to his neighbor's house and plunder it and take everything, without repercussions? Is that OK? After all, bigger human was more over powering than smaller human.



No I do not think that is ok. This is another confusion of science and it's applications. The theory of evolution via natural selection simply describes the natural phenomenon of evolution. It DOES NOT set up absolute morality domains, tell you how to act, guide policy decisions, etc. It's just a theory describing the diversity of life on earth. Do not attach things to it that are not there.

Again, all of this has been covered in a previous post. Please search for it.



> In regards to your definition of truth - just give me a SIMPLE, ELEMENTARY definition of truth.......thanks!!



Great question. I think that there are absolute truths in the natural world. By that I mean there is an objective reality. I think that we can come closer to the truth by building up more and more evidence for a particular theory on the truth. I also think that it may be possible for us to find the truth. However, I do not believe it is possible for us to know for certain if we have found the truth or not.

For example, there may or may not be a cell phone right beside me here on the desk. There are two possible absolute truths:

1. A cell phone exists and is resting on the desk beside me.

2. A cell phone does not exist on the desk beside me.

I can build up evidence using my senses. For example I see the cell phone beside me. I pick it up, make calls with it, etc. This builds evidence towards absolute truth #1. Like I said above, "I also think that it may be possible for us to find the truth." For example I can come to the conclusion that the cell phone exists, and that might be in congruence with absolute truth #1. If it is in congruence, then I have found the truth. BUT, like I said above, "I do not believe it is possible for us to know for certain if we have found the truth or not." I can come to the conclusion that absolute truth #1 is correct, but I will never know for certain that is the case. It may in fact be the case that absolute truth #2 is true and the cell phone is simply an illusion.

Is that what you were looking for?


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> The doctrine of the Fall and its affects on this conversation
> 
> To the modern atheist the Biblical account of the historical fall of man from perfection into sin appears no more believable than a children’s fable.  The truth is that a historical fall is necessary for the possibility of rationality in the universe.  If there were no fall, then evil and irrationalism would be original aspects of the universe and equally ultimate with goodness and rationality.  A historical fall preserves the ultimate goodness and rationality of the universe.  The creation must have been originally good.  There could be no evil in God because then negation would be as ultimate as affirmation.  “Commit adultery” would be as ultimate as “Do not commit adultery.”  “Is not,” at the same time and in the same sense, would be equivalent to “is.”  Obviously, such a universe would be ultimately irrational; the law of non-contradiction would not apply to it.  Therefore sin must have been introduced by man
> 
> Can find a greater explanation at the link given earlier



I agree that the Bible can be thought of as a supposed source of objective morality. However the Bible must be interpreted, and this leads to subjective moralities. This is why we see Christians with such different moralities. They have different interpretations of the same Bible. The Bible offers no more absolute morality than does the law of the land. Both are interpreted by humans and therefore lead to differing interpretations, which in turn lead to differing behaviors.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> I agree that the Bible can be thought of as a supposed source of objective morality. However the Bible must be interpreted, and this leads to subjective moralities. This is why we see Christians with such different moralities. They have different interpretations of the same Bible. The Bible offers no more absolute morality than does the law of the land. Both are interpreted by humans and therefore lead to differing interpretations, which in turn lead to differing behaviors.



I though science needed interpreting too?


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> Of course I "disagree with others on some books." Please quote me where I have said otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully this is just another case of someone confusing the colloquial use of the word "theory" with it's scientific use. Based on what you've said above, I'm not sure if further discussion on these matters will be fruitful. One must understand the basic structure of science and how it operates in order to discuss more complex matters within a particular science.
> 
> I will answer your questions though. Yes, the theory of evolution via natural selection is a scientific theory. You are correct again, theories are not facts. Theories attempt to describe the "facts", or natural phenomenon, that we see around us. However, sciences are made up of theories. They are not made up of facts. This is very important. It is what defines science
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that one must understand the basic structure of science and how it operates in order to discuss more complex matters.  I do think that you have to have the CORRECT presuppositions in order to be right though (that's why we are debating).  I don't believe you have the RIGHT ones.  As you have said - "theories are not facts".  However you treat them as FACTS.  My question to you is, how can we even DEFINE anything in your worldview where life has no point or meaning.  What you may label "theory", I may label "lie".  So, how could we even begin to agree on a definition in order to pursue any knowledge? "Truth" would be relative in your worldview, not absolute.  So you may define "truth" one way, and I may have a totally different definition.  It would be highly illogical and NOTHING could ever be accomplished.  Since we live in a THEISTIC world, we are able to make sense of things, use words (with meaning) to communicate and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Evolution is a fact. It is a natural phenomenon that we observe through the fossil record, through experiments in the lab, and through observations of currently living species in nature. We as humans have created theories which attempt to describe why and how it happens. One such theory was created by Charles Darwin. His theory is called the theory of evolution via natural selection. Over time the theory has been improved upon.[/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is not a fact.  This is your religion of "Theoryology" or "Scientific Mythology".  See, in your worldview where definitions are realtive, you can just make up things, like calling a "theory" a "fact".  You need "pieces of the puzzle" to make your system work and whatever it takes, even defying logic, you will make up.  Have you ever stopped to question the "fossil record"??  If scientist can't explain FOR SURE where we come from, how can they date bones?? It is amazing how many people out there like you TRUST in these scientists.  You just take what they say and live by faith that they are right (b/c surely you haven't personally done every scientific experiment possible in the world, have you??)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the difference between facts and theories and why sciences are made up of theories, not facts? Volcanic eruptions, gravity, and evolution all existed prior to the creation of the theories which attempt to describe them. That is because they are natural phenomenon. Humans create theories which attempt to describe the facts, and sciences are indirectly created as a structure of related theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that volcanic eruptions and gravity existed prior to the creation of theories b/c I believe God created the world and governs His creation through His providence.  I have a belief and an answer for that.  However, how do you know volcanic eruptions and gravity happened before scientific theories?? Are you guessing or are you relying on common sense???  Were you there to witness these activities or are you depending on and trusting in what you call "science" to answer these questions??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I do not think that is ok. This is another confusion of science and it's applications. The theory of evolution via natural selection simply describes the natural phenomenon of evolution. It DOES NOT set up absolute morality domains, tell you how to act, guide policy decisions, etc. It's just a theory describing the diversity of life on earth. Do not attach things to it that are not there.
> 
> Again, all of this has been covered in a previous post. Please search for it.
> 
> Great question. I think that there are absolute truths in the natural world. By that I mean there is an objective reality. I think that we can come closer to the truth by building up more and more evidence for a particular theory on the truth. I also think that it may be possible for us to find the truth. However, I do not believe it is possible for us to know for certain if we have found the truth or not.
> 
> For example, there may or may not be a cell phone right beside me here on the desk. There are two possible absolute truths:
> 
> 1. A cell phone exists and is resting on the desk beside me.
> 
> 2. A cell phone does not exist on the desk beside me.
> 
> I can build up evidence using my senses. For example I see the cell phone beside me. I pick it up, make calls with it, etc. This builds evidence towards absolute truth #1. Like I said above, "I also think that it may be possible for us to find the truth." For example I can come to the conclusion that the cell phone exists, and that might be in congruence with absolute truth #1. If it is in congruence, then I have found the truth. BUT, like I said above, "I do not believe it is possible for us to know for certain if we have found the truth or not." I can come to the conclusion that absolute truth #1 is correct, but I will never know for certain that is the case. It may in fact be the case that absolute truth #2 is true and the cell phone is simply an illusion.
> 
> Is that what you were looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.  Just wanted a simple, easy, child-like definition of what truth is.  The problem with your cell phone analogy is that you presuppose we both know what a cell phone is.  In your world of relativism, how can we define a "cell phone"?  You may call it a "cell phone" but I may call it a "bottle of ketchup".  How could we ever know anything with that line of thinking.  Would I be WRONG to call a "cell phone" a "bottle of ketchup" in your worldview??
> 
> By the way, ABSOLUTE TRUTH is CERTAIN.  How you can talk about absolute truth, then say it is not for certain leads to absurdity.......See, you can't FOR CERTAIN know anything in your worldview, thus the ridiculousness of it.  I don't even understand how you can debate or argue if nothing is ABSOLUTE or FOR CERTAIN, do you??
> 
> You give theistic proof of God by being who you are and thinking the way you do.  Romans 1:18 & 19 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, b/c what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."  In order to make sense of the world you live in, you have to "borrow" or "steal" from the Christian worldview (absolute truth, right & wrong, good & bad) in order to live, otherwise you couldn't.  You suppress or push down the image in which you were created only to have it rise to the surface at times.  You can't live CONSISTENTLY in your worldview so you rob from God's.  You believe things are good & bad, right & wrong but then in your worldview you can't even account for them b/c you can't ever KNOW FOR CERTAIN ABSOLUTE TRUTH...........
Click to expand...


----------



## earl

Christianity has stolen from pagans, druids,etc. Before christianity there were other ,older religions. Actually you guys are kind of the new kids on the block.


----------



## reformedpastor

earl said:


> Christianity has stolen from pagans, druids,etc. Before christianity there were other ,older religions. Actually you guys are kind of the new kids on the block.



Ok earl, please prove this. Thanks.


----------



## earl

Constantine started incorporation of pagan rituals to make christianity palatable. Easter and Christmas are both based on another religions . That's for starters. Sunrise services --sun god worship. How far do you really want to take this ? Any half hearted research verifies all of this.


----------



## earl

I will even leave out all of the jewish traditions if you want.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> I though science needed interpreting too?



In a sense yes. The theories are the interpretations of observing natural phenomenon. However, when the evidence builds up so much that only one interpretation is reasonable, then scientists reach a "consensus". For example evolution has been reached as a consensus by scientists. It has built up so much evidence that it is viewed as the only reasonable interpretation of the diversity of life. That is, unless evolution interferes with your personal religious beliefs. If that is the case, some often reject the consensus of evolution in order to maintain their religious beliefs.



			
				connorreid said:
			
		

> As you have said - "theories are not facts". However you treat them as FACTS.



No. I treat them as theories. Some theories have more evidence than others. The ones that have plenty of evidence deserve to be treated practically as facts. The theories concerning gravity are so well-founded that it is practical to assume that the theories are relatively close to correctly interpreting the natural phenomenon known as gravity. However, at the same time, one must always realize that one repeatable experiment that proves one of the theories wrong could lead to a complete revolution in the theories concerning gravity.

The same goes for evolution. So much evidence has been built up around evolution that is practical to assume that the theories are for the most part correct. However, at the same time scientists realize that one case of irreducible complexity would completely wreck the theories.



			
				connorreid said:
			
		

> My question to you is, how can we even DEFINE anything in your worldview where life has no point or meaning.



Please explain how that worldview prevents us from defining anything? Nihilists and existentialists define things all the time.



			
				connorreid said:
			
		

> What you may label "theory", I may label "lie". So, how could we even begin to agree on a definition in order to pursue any knowledge?



You are correct. What I may label theory, you may label lie. The obvious example is evolution. However, don't you agree that if we both build up evidence that points towards a certain theory as being correct, then we can at some point reach an agreement about the theory? I think we could. That is how we agree on things. We build up evidence towards a specific theory. If someone does not know about this evidence, we present it to that person. If the person rejects the evidence, we examine why he/she rejects it and address those issues. If the person still refuses to accept the evidence, then there's really not much we can do except for continuing to express (in greater detail) why we believe this theory is the correct one. In doing so we may learn more about the theory.

This has been the case with me when discussing evolution. The more I discussed it (while a Christian), the more I learned about it.



> "Truth" would be relative in your worldview, not absolute. So you may define "truth" one way, and I may have a totally different definition. It would be highly illogical and NOTHING could ever be accomplished.



I disagree. I just said that I believe there are absolute truths in the natural world. These absolute truths exist regardless of our recognition of them. Truth is not relative, only our interpretations of truth. Do you see the difference?



> Since we live in a THEISTIC world, we are able to make sense of things, use words (with meaning) to communicate and so on.



Atheists make sense of things, use words with meaning, and communicate complex thoughts just like theists do.



> Evolution is not a fact. This is your religion of "Theoryology" or "Scientific Mythology". See, in your worldview where definitions are relative, you can just make up things, like calling a "theory" a "fact".





No. Where have I said that theories are definite facts? A scientific theory has many requirements. If these requirements are not met, then it is not a scientific theory.



> You need "pieces of the puzzle" to make your system work and whatever it takes, even defying logic, you will make up.



Incorrect. I was once a Christian and was convinced by the evidence that the theory of evolution was correct. I was still a Christian.



> How you ever stopped to question the "fossil record"? If scientist can't explain FOR SURE where we come from, how can they date bones?





Dating bones and explaining "where we come from" are two very different things, and the ability to explain where we come from is not a dependent factor of being able to date bones. I can't believe some of the stuff you say.



> It is amazing how many people out there like you TRUST in these scientists. You just take what they say and live by faith that they are right (b/c surely you haven't personally done every scientific experiment possible in the world, have you??



Of course I haven't done every scientific experiment in the world. I have also never been to Australia, but based on the evidence from other people I believe that it exists. Likewise, I have never actually performed the fruit fly speciation experiment, but based on the evidence from qualified, authoritative people (read: scientists) I believe that it happens. This is very different from the beliefs of theists, which are based upon little to no evidence and supported by dogma and indoctrination.

It is not amazing how many people out there are like you.It is easy to understand how religions spread through their memetic structure and easy to see how people such as yourself fall under their indoctrination.



> However, how do you know volcanic eruptions and gravity happened before scientific theories? Are you guessing or are you relying on common sense?



Because the apple fell before Newton developed his theory concerning gravity. Surely you understand my point?

The natural phenomenon known as gravity obviously occurred before any humans created theories which attempt to describe gravity.



> Not really. Just wanted a simple, easy, child-like definition of what truth is.



My definition is as simple as I can get. If you don't consider it as simple, then I'm sorry.



> The problem with your cell phone analogy is that you presuppose we both know what a cell phone is. In your world of relativism, how can we define a "cell phone"? You may call it a "cell phone" but I may call it a "bottle of ketchup".



That is because I was explaining it under the obvious, simple premise that we both do indeed know what a cell phone is. I cannot believe you are crafting these ridiculous straw man arguments and thinking that you are refuting anything I say.



> By the way, ABSOLUTE TRUTH is CERTAIN. How you can talk about absolute truth, then say it is not for certain leads to absurdity.......See, you can't FOR CERTAIN know anything in your worldview, thus the ridiculousness of it.



No. Realizing that you do not possess the power of absolute certainty does not mean that your worldview is "ridiculous." Absolute truth and absolute certainty are two different things. There may be an absolute truth, but you will never know for certain if you have found it. Do you see the difference? That is the difference between absolute truth and absolute certainty about the absolute truth.



> You give theistic proof of God by being who you are and thinking the way you do. Romans 1:18 & 19 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, b/c what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them." In order to make sense of the world you live in, you have to "borrow" or "steal" from the Christian worldview (absolute truth, right & wrong, good & bad) in order to live, otherwise you couldn't. You suppress or push down the image in which you were created only to have it rise to the surface at times. You can't live CONSISTENTLY in your worldview so you rob from God's. You believe things are good & bad, right & wrong but then in your worldview you can't even account for them b/c you can't ever KNOW FOR CERTAIN ABSOLUTE TRUTH.



More like Christianity has stolen from every pagan religion before it. Just like Islam and Mormonism has stolen from Christianity and Buddhism has stolen from Hinduism. Christianity is no different. It is riddled with paganism and references to earlier religions.

South Americans before the Conquistadors lived without Christianity. You may say that they were able to exist because they carried the "image" of Christ. However they did not "rob from Christianity". They had no idea what Christianity was.


----------



## ambush80

footjunior said:


> Dating bones and explaining "where we come from" are two very different things, and the ability to explain where we come from is not a dependent factor of being able to date bones. I can't believe some of the stuff you say.



He did the same thing in the science vs. Christianity thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by connorreid View Post
God could speak everything into existence in 1 second. He chose 6 days instead. How do you know that what science has observed in terms of the age of certain rocks is true? They can't even tell you where we come from and they can age rocks??? What great faith you have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ambush80
One thing has nothing to do with the other. How old are you if you don't mind me asking?

Will somebody else, maybe a Christian try to explain to him what the problem is?


----------



## reformedpastor

earl said:


> Constantine started incorporation of pagan rituals to make christianity palatable. Easter and Christmas are both based on another religions . That's for starters. Sunrise services --sun god worship. How far do you really want to take this ? Any half hearted research verifies all of this.



This proves that christianity is a melting pot of other religions?


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> He did the same thing in the science vs. Christianity thread:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by connorreid View Post
> God could speak everything into existence in 1 second. He chose 6 days instead. How do you know that what science has observed in terms of the age of certain rocks is true? They can't even tell you where we come from and they can age rocks??? What great faith you have.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by ambush80
> One thing has nothing to do with the other. How old are you if you don't mind me asking?
> 
> Will somebody else, maybe a Christian try to explain to him what the problem is?



From a christian philosophical view every truth is connected to the next truth. Its all related because God is the source of all truth. Therefore there is no random reality over here and completely different one over there unrelated. 

But I am not sure why you are barking up this tree sense absolutes are myths?

My point on this matter of dating rocks is this, lets say the rocks dates 2 million years old. How do we know thats correct? Do we have a archtype rock that's 2 million to help us gauge all other rock dating? What does a 2 million year old rock look like? No one knows because they have never seen one. 

The concept of the earth being millions and then billions of years old came along with the myth of evolution. It must give the earth a old date why? To attempt to disprove the validity of scripture. I can say the any rock I pick up might be 2000 years old but I don't know. But what I do know is it's not older than creation. Which in my view is around 6000 years old. 

So it is connected to the question of origin.


Think about this. When God made man, after creating everything else and man opened his eyes and walked around, noticing fruit on trees and hills and mountains...................etc. How old would man date them? 

How old does a mountain look?? OLD. How long does it take for a fruit tree to produce fruit? 3, 5, 7 years? Yet trees had fruit on them so he could feed himself. 

It would be foolish for man to begin a series of tests to prove the age of the rocks unless man thought God was lying to him and needed to confirm the age of rocks so he could know if God could be trusted or not. This is silly. 

The only reason we have such tests is to attempt to prove there is no God. This is and always will be foolish. The evolutionist takes for granted principles and laws put in place by God proving His existence to prove He doesn't exist. The fool knows more about God than he lets on.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> My point on this matter of dating rocks is this, lets say the rocks dates 2 million years old. How do we know thats correct? Do we have a archtype rock that's 2 million to help us gauge all other rock dating? What does a 2 million year old rock look like? No one knows because they have never seen one.



This shows a lack of understanding on how we date rocks. Before the discussion goes any further, it is important to understand the method known as radiometric dating.

Here is an article from a Christian scientist. He holds a PhD in Physics. It describes common misconceptions about dating rocks and briefly describes how the process works. I highly recommend that everyone read this.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html



> The concept of the earth being millions and then billions of years old came along with the myth of evolution.



Incorrect. The concept of the earth being millions and then billions of years old did NOT coincide with Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. The notion that the earth was much older than 6,000 years old was around in the 1700's. Darwin's Origin of the Species was published in 1859.



> It must give the earth a old date why? To attempt to disprove the validity of scripture.



You're basically advocating the belief that all of the hard work done by Christian scientists to better understand our origins is a conspiracy theory created by atheists to disprove the validity of scripture. Is that what it has been reduced to now? A conspiracy theory by those meddling, godless scientists?



> I can say the any rock I pick up might be 2000 years old but I don't know. But what I do know is it's not older than creation. Which in my view is around 6000 years old.





Talk about presuppositions. You don't know how old it is, but you do know that you are able to give the rock a maximum age, which you base upon scriptures? Simply stunning. Your presuppositions about the age of the Earth (which are entirely based upon your subjective interpretation of Genesis) has completely prevented you from accepting the possibility that the Earth is indeed older than 6,000 years old.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/close-minded

The age of a rock is a scientific question and can (and has) been answered by scientific methods. You cannot accept this particular scientific discovery only because it goes against your religious beliefs. I don't see any Christians upset because science has created X-ray machines. This is likely due to the fact that X-ray machines do not contradict anything in the Bible. If the Bible had a verse saying that it is impossible for humans to see the skeletal structure of a human without actually cutting open the human then there would no doubt be throngs of Christians adamantly denying the accuracy of X-ray machines and saying that the images produced by X-ray machines are simply the creation of atheist doctors who want to disprove the validity of scripture.



> It would be foolish for man to begin a series of tests to prove the age of the rocks unless man thought God was lying to him and needed to confirm the age of rocks so he could know if God could be trusted or not. This is silly.
> 
> The only reason we have such tests is to attempt to prove there is no God. This is and always will be foolish. The evolutionist takes for granted principles and laws put in place by God proving His existence to prove He doesn't exist. The fool knows more about God than he lets on.



Sounds like anti-intellectualism to me. Again, someone once asked the question, "Hold old is that rock?" That question is out of pure curiosity, not of any desire to disprove God or scripture or anything else. It is a purely scientific question, and people (many of them Christians like the one I posted a link to above) have developed scientific methods to answering that question. The fact that this scientific discovery is a contradiction to your preferred brand of creationism is your problem. The rest of the world is free to simply acknowledge the truth shown by the evidence.


----------



## earl

*post 557*



reformedpastor said:


> This proves that christianity is a melting pot of other religions?



My post was in response to connor's assertions that christians were being stolen from. You asked that I explained. If you want to spin that christianity is a melting pot ,you will get no argument from me . However ,from reading some of connor's posts  I think he will say that christianity is the only way. Of course some of us know better. The biggest difference I see in the ancient religions and the ''new'' ones is the absence of human sacrifice.


----------



## ToLog

earl said:


> The biggest difference I see in the ancient religions and the ''new'' ones is the absence of human sacrifice.



well, that alone is an advancement, wouldn't you say? 

beyond all the back and forth, religion came before Science, didn't it?

i mean, if we're in the Middle Ages, and want to know how many teeth a Horse has, then why speculate?   Why not open his mouth (heavens to betsy!), and count the number of teeth a Horse has??

Religion and Science both have important roles & responsibilities to play. I guess the effort is to how best to divide the playing field? 

well, there's plenty of room for both, imho. but, the dividing line appears to be very jagged. not clear-cut at all.

but, heah, we gotta start somewheres.


----------



## reformedpastor

Foot Junior- I don't give darwin credit for evolution. It was around before him.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> Foot Junior- I don't give darwin credit for evolution. It was around before him.



I disagree and would ask for proof that the theory of evolution via natural selection was "around" before Darwin. But even if you are correct, how does that change anything?


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> I disagree and would ask for proof that the theory of evolution via natural selection was "around" before Darwin. But even if you are correct, how does that change anything?



Do the research and you find that there were articles published before Darwin. If I found the info. I know you can. Your more capable at that I'm sure.

Does that change anything? Probably not. Yet, long periods of time came about at that time.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> Does that change anything? Probably not. Yet, long periods of time came about at that time.



My whole point is that you are making this out to be some sort of coordinated conspiracy theory by nonbelievers who want to invalidate scripture. But where is the proof for this? Do you have any real proof or is it mere speculation?

There are many Old-Earth Creationists (even some on these forums) that are Christians and yet believe that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years old.

I was hoping you would address the issues raised by the link I posted above by the Christian scientist.


----------



## earl

*Not necesarily*



roothog said:


> well, that alone is an advancement, wouldn't you say?
> 
> beyond all the back and forth, religion came before Science, didn't it?
> 
> i mean, if we're in the Middle Ages, and want to know how many teeth a Horse has, then why speculate?   Why not open his mouth (heavens to betsy!), and count the number of teeth a Horse has??
> 
> Religion and Science both have important roles & responsibilities to play. I guess the effort is to how best to divide the playing field?
> 
> well, there's plenty of room for both, imho. but, the dividing line appears to be very jagged. not clear-cut at all.
> 
> but, heah, we gotta start somewheres.



The druid study of the solar and lunar cycles are very involved mathematically, yet they were persecuted for religious reasons. Biblical sources for the sciences is sadly lacking. Odd don't you think ?


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> This shows a lack of understanding on how we date rocks. Before the discussion goes any further, it is important to understand the method known as radiometric dating.
> 
> Here is an article from a Christian scientist. He holds a PhD in Physics. It describes common misconceptions about dating rocks and briefly describes how the process works. I highly recommend that everyone read this.
> 
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The concept of the earth being millions and then billions of years old did NOT coincide with Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. The notion that the earth was much older than 6,000 years old was around in the 1700's. Darwin's Origin of the Species was published in 1859.
> 
> 
> 
> You're basically advocating the belief that all of the hard work done by Christian scientists to better understand our origins is a conspiracy theory created by atheists to disprove the validity of scripture. Is that what it has been reduced to now? A conspiracy theory by those meddling, godless scientists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about presuppositions. You don't know how old it is, but you do know that you are able to give the rock a maximum age, which you base upon scriptures? Simply stunning. Your presuppositions about the age of the Earth (which are entirely based upon your subjective interpretation of Genesis) has completely prevented you from accepting the possibility that the Earth is indeed older than 6,000 years old.
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/close-minded
> 
> The age of a rock is a scientific question and can (and has) been answered by scientific methods. You cannot accept this particular scientific discovery only because it goes against your religious beliefs. I don't see any Christians upset because science has created X-ray machines. This is likely due to the fact that X-ray machines do not contradict anything in the Bible. If the Bible had a verse saying that it is impossible for humans to see the skeletal structure of a human without actually cutting open the human then there would no doubt be throngs of Christians adamantly denying the accuracy of X-ray machines and saying that the images produced by X-ray machines are simply the creation of atheist doctors who want to disprove the validity of scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like anti-intellectualism to me. Again, someone once asked the question, "Hold old is that rock?" That question is out of pure curiosity, not of any desire to disprove God or scripture or anything else. It is a purely scientific question, and people (many of them Christians like the one I posted a link to above) have developed scientific methods to answering that question. The fact that this scientific discovery is a contradiction to your preferred brand of creationism is your problem. The rest of the world is free to simply acknowledge the truth shown by the evidence.


Going by your own words that we cannot "obtain absolute truth" then how do you believe all that you have written?? It begs the question:  Is what you say ABSOLUTELY TRUE?? Why should we believe you when you tell us we can't obtain absolute truth.........would you believe somebody like that???  When GTech sent you an accceptance letter to go to school there, was it really true (absolutely true)??  Or did you not believe them and just show up for classes??  Your reasoning is inconsistent and arbitrary.....


----------



## ToLog

earl said:


> The druid study of the solar and lunar cycles are very involved mathematically, yet they were persecuted for religious reasons. Biblical sources for the sciences is sadly lacking. Odd don't you think ?




whom? the Druids?  wow, haven't thought about them in awhile. 

they made way for the Monks, who dissipated after the fall of the Roman Empire, didn't they?  

one thing i've never understood, why persecute anyone for religious reasons?

Reason/reasons?  season/seasons ?  sorry, i'm off-topic.


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> My post was in response to connor's assertions that christians were being stolen from. You asked that I explained. If you want to spin that christianity is a melting pot ,you will get no argument from me . However ,from reading some of connor's posts  I think he will say that christianity is the only way. Of course some of us know better. The biggest difference I see in the ancient religions and the ''new'' ones is the absence of human sacrifice.


I do think Christianity is the only way and I trust the Lord b/c He says so.  Christ says in John 14:6 that "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me".  If you want to discuss that start another thread and we'll discuss it.  I would say Christianity has been here since God created the world (b/c He created it through Christ and followers are termed "Christians" b/c of that - even though they weren't formally called that until the gospel was preached in Jerusalem after Christ's death).  What you think of in terms of "Judaism" is that monotheistic religion that was described in the Old Testament.    However, there was nothing "Christian" about that religion.  The unsaved jews who did not look FORWARD to Christ and believe on Him were ungodly and did not inherit the kingdom.  Christ made it pretty clear that the Pharisees and Saducees had made up their own religion......


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> Going by your own words that we cannot "obtain absolute truth" then how do you believe all that you have written?? It begs the question:  Is what you say ABSOLUTELY TRUE?? Why should we believe you when you tell us we can't obtain absolute truth.........would you believe somebody like that???  When GTech sent you an accceptance letter to go to school there, was it really true (absolutely true)??  Or did you not believe them and just show up for classes??  Your reasoning is inconsistent and arbitrary.....



This is being discussed in the other thread and therefore I will not respond to such inquiries on this one. The answers to your questions here are indeed the same answers that I have provided on the other thread.


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> I do think Christianity is the only way and I trust the Lord b/c He says so.



And Muhammad said Allah was the one true God. Is that proof that Allah is the one true God?


----------



## reformedpastor

The Heart of the Argument

In terms of the one and the many, all the different views can be reduced to only two possibilities.  Either unity and diversity are eternally related to one another, or they originally exist abstracted from each other.  In terms of the second choice, there are three possibilities:  (1) Only an abstract diversity originally exists, (2) only an abstract unity originally exists, or (3) abstract diversity and abstract unity both originally exist, only later to become positively related (synthesized) to each other.  But regardless of which of these latter three options one chooses, there are only two basic worldviews:  (I) The Christian worldview, which, affirms an eternal concrete universal – God, and (II) the non-Christian worldview, which denies it, and thereby affirms an abstract one and/or many as the ultimate determiner of the world. Beads with no holes, and string with no ends

So which view is true?  The problem with the abstract one and many view is that neither an abstract one nor an abstract many can be an object of knowledge, and the abstract one and the abstract many cannot become positively related to one another to become objects of knowledge because they each exclude the other by hypothesis.  Trying to add a blank (abstract unity) to chaos (abstract diversity) to create knowledge and an intelligible world is like trying to add two zeros together to produce a positive number. The rational cannot be derived from the wholly irrational.  It is as futile as trying to string an infinite number of beads that have no holes (abstract particulars) onto an infinite string that has no ends that can be found (abstract unity).

The proof for the existence of God is that God’s existence is necessary for the very possibility of rationality.  Inescapable evidence for God’s existence is found in every fact of experience and every statement uttered by man.  Without God, predication is impossible, "with respect to anything in the universe, whether it be the trees of the garden or the angels in heaven." Predication is when properties are attributed to objects.  If all is one, then all properties could be attributed to all objects.  That would lead to irresolvable contradictions.  It would be just as true that an object is black as it is white, at the same time and in the same respect.  Any distinctions would be meaningless. Hegel criticised this view that "all is one" as a "night in which, as we say, all cows are black -- that is the very naïveté of emptiness of knowledge."  Two plus two would not equal four.  Everything would equal one. Everything would be a pure blank.

From the same link I posted in an earlier post. Saying the same thing in a different way may help those who are following this thread.


----------



## ambush80

reformedpastor said:


> The Heart of the Argument
> 
> In terms of the one and the many, all the different views can be reduced to only two possibilities.  Either unity and diversity are eternally related to one another, or they originally exist abstracted from each other.  In terms of the second choice, there are three possibilities:  (1) Only an abstract diversity originally exists, (2) only an abstract unity originally exists, or (3) abstract diversity and abstract unity both originally exist, only later to become positively related (synthesized) to each other.  But regardless of which of these latter three options one chooses, there are only two basic worldviews:  (I) The Christian worldview, which, affirms an eternal concrete universal â€“ God, and (II) the non-Christian worldview, which denies it, and thereby affirms an abstract one and/or many as the ultimate determiner of the world. Beads with no holes, and string with no ends
> 
> So which view is true?  The problem with the abstract one and many view is that neither an abstract one nor an abstract many can be an object of knowledge, and the abstract one and the abstract many cannot become positively related to one another to become objects of knowledge because they each exclude the other by hypothesis.  Trying to add a blank (abstract unity) to chaos (abstract diversity) to create knowledge and an intelligible world is like trying to add two zeros together to produce a positive number. The rational cannot be derived from the wholly irrational.  It is as futile as trying to string an infinite number of beads that have no holes (abstract particulars) onto an infinite string that has no ends that can be found (abstract unity).
> 
> The proof for the existence of God is that Godâ€™s existence is necessary for the very possibility of rationality.  Inescapable evidence for Godâ€™s existence is found in every fact of experience and every statement uttered by man.  Without God, predication is impossible, "with respect to anything in the universe, whether it be the trees of the garden or the angels in heaven." Predication is when properties are attributed to objects.  If all is one, then all properties could be attributed to all objects.  That would lead to irresolvable contradictions.  It would be just as true that an object is black as it is white, at the same time and in the same respect.  Any distinctions would be meaningless. Hegel criticised this view that "all is one" as a "night in which, as we say, all cows are black -- that is the very naïveté of emptiness of knowledge."  Two plus two would not equal four.  Everything would equal one. Everything would be a pure blank.
> 
> 
> From the same link I posted in an earlier post. Saying the same thing in a different way may help those who are following this thread.



That's a unnecessarily long winded way of saying:

"How do I know that God is real?  Because He said so."  I know that's what you believe.  You know that's what you believe.  Stand by it in all its irrationality and we can all go home.


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> That's a unnecessarily long winded way of saying:
> 
> "How do I know that God is real?  Because He said so."  I know that's what you believe.  You know that's what you believe.  Stand by it in all its irrationality and we can all go home.


Bush........no way you read all that so fast....ha ha ha ha


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> And Muhammad said Allah was the one true God. Is that proof that Allah is the one true God?


Not trying to proove anything...I said I don't have a problem believing what Jesus says about Himself.  You may, but I don't.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> This is being discussed in the other thread and therefore I will not respond to such inquiries on this one. The answers to your questions here are indeed the same answers that I have provided on the other thread.


Junior......take a break and go do your homework


----------



## footjunior

ReformedPastor said:
			
		

> The proof for the existence of God is that God’s existence is necessary for the very possibility of rationality.



This is essentially an appeal to the consequences of a belief, which is a fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html

This is not proof that God exists. It's simply stating that if God does not exist, then you believe that irrationality would follow. 

But even that statement needs a logical proof. You would have to logically prove that God's nonexistence would lead to irrationality. If history repeats itself, your method for doing so is laced with unproven premises. The first of which is that God exists. Of course, you seem to have no problem starting with unproven and unwarranted premises that you then use to create more theories on the world.


----------



## ambush80

connorreid said:


> Bush........no way you read all that so fast....ha ha ha ha



I read some of it twice.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> This is essentially an appeal to the consequences of a belief, which is a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> So is evolution, it's a fallacy.....it is also an appeal to the consequences of a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not proof that God exists. It's simply stating that if God does not exist, then you believe that irrationality would follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It may not be proof to you, but could be to others.  Are you defining "proof" for others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even that statement needs a logical proof. You would have to logically prove that God's nonexistence would lead to irrationality. If history repeats itself, your method for doing so is laced with unproven premises. The first of which is that God exists. Of course, you seem to have no problem starting with unproven and unwarranted premises that you then use to create more theories on the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A logical proof, whether you accept it or not, is God's word.  It says in Acts 17:28 that "in Him we live, and move, and have our being".  He sustains everything and according to Hebrews 1:3 He is "upholding all things by the word of His power."  If God did not sustain everything life would not exist.  There is the proof (whether you reject or not, who cares).  You, as well, seem to have no problem starting with unproven and unwarranted premises to create more theories on the world.  You aren't even 100% on ANYTHING.  That's why I find it hard to believe that someone as scholarly, intellectual and sophisticated as you can't even determine what color your hair is.  You are only 99.9999999% sure it's black.
Click to expand...


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> So is evolution, it's a fallacy.....it is also an appeal to the consequences of a belief.



Evolution is a natural phenomenon. If you are attempting to disprove the theory which describes evolution, then I would urge you to make a new thread explaining the fallacy of the theory of evolution via natural selection. Better yet, write up an article and send it to some journals. There are millions of people just like you who are waiting for someone to disprove it. In fact, they have been waiting for over 150 years.



> It may not be proof to you, but could be to others.  Are you defining "proof" for others?



It is not proof of the existence of anything. It is simply stating a believed consequence of the nonexistence of God.



> A logical proof, whether you accept it or not, is God's word.  It says in Acts 17:28 that "in Him we live, and move, and have our being". He sustains everything and according to Hebrews 1:3 He is "upholding all things by the word of His power." If God did not sustain everything life would not exist.  There is the proof (whether you reject or not, who cares).



Who cares if I accept it or reject it? Anything you'd like to clarify about that statement?


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> Evolution is a natural phenomenon. If you are attempting to disprove the theory which describes evolution, then I would urge you to make a new thread explaining the fallacy of the theory of evolution via natural selection. Better yet, write up an article and send it to some journals. There are millions of people just like you who are waiting for someone to disprove it. In fact, they have been waiting for over 150 years.
> 
> 
> 
> The "theory"  of evolution does not need disproving b/c it never has been proven.  It is simply a "belief" that people like you cling to.  This is the kind of thinking that results in a sinful world.  Men, hostile to God, create their own explanation of things.
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> It is simply stating a believed consequence of the nonexistence of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your definition of "proof"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if I accept it or reject it? Anything you'd like to clarify about that statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your worldview you are not 100% certain of anything and in order to accept or reject something, you have to be.  You perspective is illogical.  Is this thinking the product of your idea of evolution?
Click to expand...


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> The "theory" of evolution does not need disproving b/c it never has been proven.  It is simply a "belief" that people like you cling to.  This is the kind of thinking that results in a sinful world.  Men, hostile to God, create their own explanation of things.



The theory of evolution via natural selection results in an evil world? How so?



> Is this your definition of "proof"?



No. If you would actually read the previous posts, you would see that ReformedPastor offered it as a proof.



> In your worldview you are not 100% certain of anything and in order to accept or reject something, you have to be. You perspective is illogical.



Newsflash: You do not have to be 100% certain of something in order to accept it or reject it.

Please keep repeating yourself and bumping the threads.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> The theory of evolution via natural selection results in an evil world? How so?
> 
> 
> 
> Read the Bible....it's everywhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. If you would actually read the previous posts, you would see that ReformedPastor offered it as a proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for your definition of proof.  You didn't give one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash: You do not have to be 100% certain of something in order to accept it or reject it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you 100% certain about this comment you have made.  If you are not, don't make it b/c it would not make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please keep repeating yourself and bumping the threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repetition happens following your logic..
Click to expand...


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> Read the Bible....it's everywhere



Please give me scriptures which say that the theory of evolution via natural selection leads to evil.



> I asked for your definition of proof.  You didn't give one.



Point me to where you asked for my definition of proof. You asked me if a particular statement was my definition of proof. I answered no. No where in this thread have you specifically asked for my definition of proof.

There are many different types of proofs.



> Are you 100% certain about this comment you have made.  If you are not, don't make it b/c it would not make sense.



Newsflash: You do not have to be 100% certain about something to make a statement about it.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> Please give me scriptures which say that the theory of evolution via natural selection leads to evil.
> 
> 
> 
> It is implied everywhere in scripture that sin is lawlessness and against God.  As Adam and Eve fell into sin, all kinds of evil have come about.  Evolution is just one of many things leading to destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point me to where you asked for my definition of proof. You asked me if a particular statement was my definition of proof. I answered no. No where in this thread have you specifically asked for my definition of proof.
> 
> There are many different types of proofs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back and read and you will see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash: You do not have to be 100% certain about something to make a statement about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you 100% certain about that.  Since you can't be in your worldview, how can I take what you say as truth? You don't even realize how you contradict yourself.  By making a statement that "you do not have to be 100% certain about somehting to make a statement about it" implies THAT YOU ARE CERTAIN.
Click to expand...


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> It is implied everywhere in scripture that sin is lawlessness and against God.  As Adam and Eve fell into sin, all kinds of evil have come about.  Evolution is just one of many things leading to destruction.



Are you ever going to actually explain how evolution leads to destruction or are you just going to continuously repeat the statement and pretend that I care?



> Go back and read and you will see.



Or you could quote yourself. But I doubt you'll find the post to quote.



> Are you 100% certain about that.  Since you can't be in your worldview, how can I take what you say as truth? You don't even realize how you contradict yourself.  By making a statement that "you do not have to be 100% certain about somehting to make a statement about it" implies THAT YOU ARE CERTAIN.



I've answered this before on the other thread but I will answer it here: Philosophical skepticism is a epistemological position. It does not imply that we are certain that philosophical skepticism is in fact correct. If we were absolutely certain that it was correct, then we would not be philosophical skeptics.

Secondly, you continually seem dumbfounded by the idea that you do not have to be 100% certain in order to make a decision on something or to make a statement about something.

Are you 100% sure that you voted for the right person? Now did you vote?

Most reasonable people would say that they're not absolutely certain (in a epistemological sense) that they voted for the best candidate. Yet they still vote.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> Are you ever going to actually explain how evolution leads to destruction or are you just going to continuously repeat the statement and pretend that I care?
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could quote yourself. But I doubt you'll find the post to quote.
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered this before on the other thread but I will answer it here: Philosophical skepticism is a epistemological position. It does not imply that we are certain that philosophical skepticism is in fact correct. If we were absolutely certain that it was correct, then we would not be philosophical skeptics.
> 
> Secondly, you continually seem dumbfounded by the idea that you do not have to be 100% certain in order to make a decision on something or to make a statement about something.
> 
> Are you 100% sure that you voted for the right person? Now did you vote?
> 
> Most reasonable people would say that they're not absolutely certain (in a epistemological sense) that they voted for the best candidate. Yet they still vote.


I do not care if you "care".  Most reasonable people are still laughing at your nonsensical outlook on life.  Are you  absolutely, 100% sure that one day you will die?


----------



## ambush80

connorreid said:


> I do not care if you "care".  Most reasonable people are still laughing at your nonsensical outlook on life.  Are you  absolutely, 100% sure that one day you will die?



They're laughing alright.  You better ask around. They may not be laughing at who you think.


----------



## footjunior

> Are you  absolutely, 100% sure that one day you will die?



No. I'm fairly certain that I will. But I'm not absolutely certain. Ask futurists and many will tell you that it may be possible for people not to die in the near future. Mind uploading, the shift from biological systems to mechanical life support systems, cryonics, etc. are all very real possibilities after the singularity (if and when it happens).


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> They're laughing alright.  You better ask around. They may not be laughing at who you think.


Look at the other thread on Science and you'll see that aren't laughing at me


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> No. I'm fairly certain that I will. But I'm not absolutely certain. Ask futurists and many will tell you that it may be possible for people not to die in the near future. Mind uploading, the shift from biological systems to mechanical life support systems, cryonics, etc. are all very real possibilities after the singularity (if and when it happens).


I disagree (if you knew anything about postmillinealism you would rethink some things as well).  One more question:  When you get a job are you 100% sure you are going to pay taxes or ALMOST sure? Remember, the IRS might be watching!!!


----------



## Madman

> I agree to give everyone space to follow their spiritual path....as long as they don't bring it into the voting booth. Ambush80



Hey Ambush, do you leave your beliefs outside the voting booth?  Your views on firearms ownership, marriage, war, etc.?  Do you just walk in blindly and vote for the first name on the ballot? 

I didn't think so.  No one else leaves their belief system outside the voting booth, including agnostics, remember I don't believe in atheists, so why should Christians?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Hey Ambush, do you leave your beliefs outside the voting booth?  Your views on firearms ownership, marriage, war, etc.?  Do you just walk in blindly and vote for the first name on the ballot?
> 
> I didn't think so.  No one else leaves their belief system outside the voting booth, including agnostics, remember I don't believe in atheists, so why should Christians?



I try to use reason exclusively for matters concerning my influence on the general public.  I use my "spiritual influence" in places like this, where everybody's here of their own free will.


----------



## Madman

> I try to use reason exclusively for matters concerning my influence on the general public.



So you vote to "force" your ideas of how things should be based on your "reason".

Your belief system is human reason and you take it into the booth.  My belief system is Christianity and I take it into the booth.  Your system has no way to measure its value to society, mine does.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> So you vote to "force" your ideas of how things should be based on your "reason".
> 
> Your belief system is human reason and you take it into the booth.  My belief system is Christianity and I take it into the booth.  Your system has no way to measure its value to society, mine does.



Really?  Is reason a belief system?  Can one determine through reason which course of action might be more or less beneficial to most concerned?  

I contend that the "Christian system" subverts reason and is only concerned with the benefits of the few.


----------



## Madman

> I contend that the "Christian system" subverts reason and is only concerned with the benefits of the few.



When followed how does Christianity only benefit those who adhere to its prcatices?

Reason for good can be subjective, what was good for Stalin was not good for Gandhi.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> When followed how does Christianity only benefit those who adhere to its prcatices?
> 
> Because of the great commission. Not everybody wants to believe that stuff.
> 
> Reason for good can be subjective, what was good for Stalin was not good for Gandhi.



Ghandi was a reasonable man, and not a Christian.  Stalin's "reason" was flawed.  The rest of the world disagreed with him and made their objections known.  I don't claim to be able to know what's best for everybody (unlike the religious), but I can sometimes do a little head scratchin' and try to figure our what's best for most.  If enough people agree with me, then by default, my will gets done.   At least I can make an argument to support my position that isn't based on superstition.


----------



## connorreid

Madman said:


> When followed how does Christianity only benefit those who adhere to its prcatices?
> 
> Reason for good can be subjective, what was good for Stalin was not good for Gandhi.


These agnostics and atheists better be glad Christianity is out there.  It by no means only benefits those who adhere to it....They (the ungodly) benefit b/c God's law restrains evil.  They are very glad that we should not "murder", "steal" and so on.  Problem is in their worldview, none of that could be wrong b/c they can't be absolutely, 100% sure about anything.  They have no moral absolutes so anybody could define "murder" however they wanted to.  The whole irony of their view is that they come to defend something that they aren't even sure of.


----------



## ambush80

connorreid said:


> These agnostics and atheists better be glad Christianity is out there.  It by no means only benefits those who adhere to it....They (the ungodly) benefit b/c God's law restrains evil.  They are very glad that we should not "murder", "steal" and so on.  Problem is in their worldview, none of that could be wrong b/c they can't be absolutely, 100% sure about anything.  They have no moral absolutes so anybody could define "murder" however they wanted to.  The whole irony of their view is that they come to defend something that they aren't even sure of.




You don't need God, specifically Jesus, to believe that murdering and stealing is bad.


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> You don't need God, specifically Jesus, to believe that murdering and stealing is bad.


Not in your worldview b/c you can just make up things, like morals.  Everything is relative.  We would not know murder was wrong unless God had conveyed that to us (which is what he did).


----------



## celticfisherman

connorreid said:


> Not in your worldview b/c you can just make up things, like morals.  Everything is relative.  We would not know murder was wrong unless God had conveyed that to us (which is what he did).



Glad to see you are still holding strong!!!


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER

I disappear and the whole world turns to mush....guess some do not have anything better to do than bash Atheists....typical, i guess i gotta step up my pro atheist remarks just to egg on Connorreid...give me a day or so, i gotta get some sleep,...but think on this...if "Jesus Saves", whats the collection plate for??


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> Not in your worldview b/c you can just make up things, like morals.  Everything is relative.  We would not know murder was wrong unless God had conveyed that to us (which is what he did).



I would like for you to explain how biological altruism does not provide some moral guidance for humans.


----------



## connorreid

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> I disappear and the whole world turns to mush....guess some do not have anything better to do than bash Atheists....typical, i guess i gotta step up my pro atheist remarks just to egg on Connorreid...give me a day or so, i gotta get some sleep,...but think on this...if "Jesus Saves", whats the collection plate for??


Can't let the atheists bash everybody, got to level the playing field....the collection plate is for funding the earthly "kingdom of God".  Your question is kind of like asking a business why they charge their customers...


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> I would like for you to explain how biological altruism does not provide some moral guidance for humans.


How could you account for that in your worldview? It's easy in mine b/c God tells us to "esteem others higher than ourselves" and we should want to serve and help others.  I didn't know natural selection (in particular the "survival of the fittest") promoted that.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> I would like for you to explain how biological altruism does not provide some moral guidance for humans.


One more.........Can you give me just ONE example of a "moral absolute" in your worldview?  Thanks.


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> One more.........Can you give me just ONE example of a "moral absolute" in your worldview?  Thanks.



This question has already been answered. Can you answer my question?


----------



## Madman

> You don't need God, specifically Jesus, to believe that murdering and stealing is bad.  Ambush



Early in this debate the argument was put forward that if you believe in good and evil then you have to believe in an arbiter of good and evil.  
You believe that you are the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, I believe it is God.  You believe Stalin’s reason was flawed simply because you do not agree with it, however Stalin was able to convince a majority of the population of his country to allow his murdering, so by your logic , ("If enough people agree with me, then by default, my will gets done")  his actions were good.  That sounds like a democracy to me. Do you know the definition of a democracy? "Three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper. 

I know that Stalin’s reason was flawed because God says it is flawed. 



> I don't claim to be able to know what's best for everybody



That is disingenuous; you claim to know what is best by the way you vote.  If you did not think that a candidate or law was best for everybody you would not vote at all.  



> (unlike the religious),



Christians do not claim to know what is best we believe God knows what is best and attempt to forward that lifestyle.

You never did answer how, if lived out according to God's Word, Christianity harms society.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> This question has already been answered. Can you answer my question?


I did.  Go back and read.  Answer my question.


----------



## Madman

footjunior said:


> I would like for you to explain how biological altruism does not provide some moral guidance for humans.



I would like for you to explain how it does.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> I would like for you to explain how it does.



It's pretty obvious to see the extreme socalistic tendencies that surround us.
Stalin is a bad example here.  He did not convince anyone of anything except that questioning his motives would get you dead.  So, the majority of peons did not question him.  And they lived.
That does not equate to overall group acceptability.

But people wish to be seen as acceptable, productive or positive to their groups as it is a surefire way to higher standing within that group.

Current thought states that external factors do contribute to further development of such altruism, and if the Bible is one such factor that gives a person their needed guidance then excellent.  That was entirely why the stories have been told, and the words have been written and taught for generations.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> It's pretty obvious to see the extreme socalistic tendencies that surround us.
> Stalin is a bad example here.  He did not convince anyone of anything except that questioning his motives would get you dead.  So, the majority of peons did not question him.  And they lived.
> That does not equate to overall group acceptability.
> 
> But people wish to be seen as acceptable, productive or positive to their groups as it is a surefire way to higher standing within that group.
> 
> Current thought states that external factors do contribute to further development of such altruism, and if the Bible is one such factor that gives a person their needed guidance then excellent.  That was entirely why the stories have been told, and the words have been written and taught for generations.


My question is, how can an atheist give an account in his worldview for even having the desire to further development of such altruism?  Where would it come from and why would it be needed?  I can make sense of that in a world created by God who gives common grace and has told us how we should live.  From an atheistic perspective, though, I don't see how they justify it.  

I AM NOT saying they are not able to live that way (I think they can b/c they live in world created by God and can make sense of things):  I am trying to find how they can give an ACCOUNT for it.  Plus, if there are no moral absolutes and no uniformity of nature then where would these desires to further development come from?


----------



## Banjo

I have really enjoyed reading these posts.  I usually don't comment....but had to here:



> I contend that the "Christian system" subverts reason and is only concerned with the benefits of the few.



Nothing could be further from the truth....When Jesus summed up the Law, one of those two summations was:

"To love your neighbor as yourself."

How is that inclusive and only concerned with the benefits of the few?  

We are commanded to feed and clothe our enemies.  We are commanded to pray for those who misuse us.  We are even commanded to "love" our neighbor as ourselves...which includes other believers as well as nonbelievers.


----------



## Madman

> Stalin is a bad example here



Stalin is not a bad example.  He is only one example of many that could be used.  Stalin believed he was doing what was best for his country, just because you do not agree does not make it so.  

The Christian acknowledges an arbiter of truth and good, the agnostic does not, and Christians look to the God of creation for the answers, the agnostics looks to himself.


----------



## Madman

> Bible is one such factor that gives a person their needed guidance then excellent. That was entirely why the stories have been told, and the words have been written and taught for generations.



You missed that one.  The Bible is God's special revelation to man, His creation is His general revalation to man.


----------



## connorreid

Madman said:


> Stalin is not a bad example.  He is only one example of many that could be used.  Stalin believed he was doing what was best for his country, just because you do not agree does not make it so.
> 
> The Christian acknowledges an arbiter of truth and good, the agnostic does not, and Christians look to the God of creation for the answers, the agnostics looks to himself.


Absolutely correct!!


----------



## reformedpastor

I have been gone for a week or so and its breaks loose. 

Madman, glad to see ya posting again.


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> I would like for you to explain how biological altruism does not provide some moral guidance for humans.



Shouldn't we first agree on the definition of the word moral?

I'll suggest the 10 commandments as a summery of moral ethics.

You???


----------



## reformedpastor

> footjunior said:
> 
> 
> 
> This shows a lack of understanding on how we date rocks. Before the discussion goes any further, it is important to understand the method known as radiometric dating.
> 
> Here is an article from a Christian scientist. He holds a PhD in Physics. It describes common misconceptions about dating rocks and briefly describes how the process works. I highly recommend that everyone read this.
> 
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My response
> 
> Science and Assumptions
> 
> Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
> The Hourglass Illustration
> 
> Radioisotope dating can be better understood using an illustration with an hourglass. If we walk into a room and observe an hourglass with sand at the top and sand at the bottom, we could calculate how long the hourglass has been running. By estimating how fast the sand is falling and measuring the amount of sand at the bottom, we could calculate how much time has elapsed since the hourglass was turned over. All our calculations could be correct (observational science), but the result could be wrong. This is because we failed to take into account some critical assumptions.
> 
> Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was first turned over (initial conditions)?
> Has any sand been added or taken out of the hourglass? (Unlike the open-system nature of a rock, this is not possible for a sealed hourglass.)
> Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate?
> Since we did not observe the initial conditions when the hourglass time started, we must make assumptions. All three of these assumptions can affect our time calculations. If scientists fail to consider each of these three critical assumptions, then radioisotope dating can give incorrect ages.
> 
> The Facts
> 
> We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.
> 
> Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).
> 
> Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with “science” that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support God’s Word.
> 
> Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history.
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove
> 
> 
> FJ, you have said, christians should be consistent with the bible and believe in 6 24 hour creation days. I agree! Any christian that starts off doubting the reliability of scripture in the opening chapters of Genesis has really no bases to accept the rest of it as reliable.
> 
> Scripture is reliable historically or its not reliable at all.
Click to expand...


----------



## earl

When followed how does Christianity only benefit those who adhere to its prcatices?
Because every one else has to go to time out in he11 ?


----------



## Madman

> http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...c-dating-prove



RF... Been real busy. I had a lot of catching up to do reading all the posts too.  

Glad to see others enjoy Answers in Genesis.  In fact, I took the family to the AIG museum over Christmas.
Worth the trip if you have never been.

Peace


----------



## Madman

> Because every one else has to go to time out in he11 ?



It is much more than "time out" and it is purely by your own choice.

Peace


----------



## connorreid

Madman said:


> RF... Been real busy. I had a lot of catching up to do reading all the posts too.
> 
> Glad to see others enjoy Answers in Genesis.  In fact, I took the family to the AIG museum over Christmas.
> Worth the trip if you have never been.
> 
> Peace


That's on our list to do as well!! The kids and myself just finished up a Ken Ham video on Dinasours about an hour ago (interesting that the word "dinasour" only came about in 1841..........)


----------



## Diogenes

reformedpastor:  (Following a stunning display of scientific nonsense) makes this statement:

"Conclusion
The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universeâ€”the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with â€œscienceâ€� that is based upon manâ€™s fallible assumptions. True science will always support Godâ€™s Word.

Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history."

Well, actually -- being ignorant, and actually embracing ignorance are different things, if only because the former is curable -- But I understand your reticence to understand, since refusing to learn has a firm historical basis.  I mean, in 1584 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Church for daring to propose the blasphemous idea of many Suns existing in the Universe, and putting forth the outrageous premise that many 'Earths' might exist.  There are plenty of examples of that sort of thing, where established religious doctrine simply killed those who sought actual truth.  But, it is not 1584 anymore, and now the Earth is no longer flat, the sun no longer revolves around the Earth, and burning heretics requires a bit more intellectual wherewithal than simply putting one book of fiction in your hand and declaring sovereignty.  So let's skip past the seventh-grade level challenges to rocks (which, by the way, a seventh-grader can tell you are being newly formed at each and every volcanic event, even as we speak) as a basis for anything at all, and turn to more actually scientific matters.  

In the modern world of actual science, you might wander out into your own yard on a clear night and look up.  See that?  Little pinpricks of light in the sky.  All over the place.  We call those stars.  Suns, in other words, and often whole galaxies.  We have measured the speed of light, using something called science, and have used a range of increasingly sophisticated scientific tools  (which I will gladly describe in exhaustive detail if you push me) to determine that the speed of light is not just a good idea, itâ€™s the law.  Now, by all measurement, the nearest star to our sun, Sirius, is about 10 light years away, and is the brightest star in our nighttime sky.  For reference, one light year is the distance that light can travel in one average solar Earth year, or about 5.88 trillion miles.  So, with the education of a seventh-grader, one might posit that the star Sirius may have simply popped into existence as recently as 10 years ago, and correctly conclude that it is mind-bogglingly far away.  One would be very wrong, but still, I can see the argument.

But, everywhere astrophysicists look, they find an indelible fingerprint of 2.73-degree microwave photons, the background echo of that helium distribution you speak of (which, actually, started as hydrogen, but Iâ€™m already boring you folks . . . ).  Now, the speed of light is not completely immutable, and is observed to travel more slowly (ever so slightly) in transparent substances than it does in a vacuum.  But in a vacuum (space) it is a constant.  Accounting for small shifts in the energy levels of atoms, but understanding that the charge of an electron canâ€™t vary, and that pi will continue to hold up its value, the most distant measurable object is about 13.7 billion years old.  That sort of thing makes six thousand years, give or take a few thousand, look a bit like waiting in line at the Universal drive-thru.  The planet around us has ice cubes frozen into the poles that are older than six thousand years.  The Chinese can trot out artwork, sculpture, and pottery that is more than six thousand years old.  It took more than six thousand years for all of those guys who lived to be 900 years old back in the Old Testament just to dig the Grand Canyon, and they didnâ€™t even invent a decent shovel until about 1,500 years ago.

So, actually, â€œThe best way to learn about history and the age of the earth . . . ,â€� is to learn about history and the age of the earth.  If the entirety of your science is found, discovered, and learned from an ancient book of fiction, then please tell NASA to leave your tax dollars out of the next Mars Mission.  Clearly Mars is not there in your own world view, and the science involved in landing a spacecraft there violates your interpretation of your narrow doctrine in hundreds of different ways.  

I was about to say something about the dinosaurs, but I had to stop myself upon realizing that I was actually addressing one . . .


----------



## celticfisherman

Might want to learn how to use the quote button. That way every one can know where you call RP a dinosaur.


----------



## Banjo

celticfisherman said:


> Might want to learn how to use the quote button. That way every one can know where you call RP a dinosaur.



Take it from one who knows...He is the mighty Tyrannosaurus Rex...King of all those terrible lizards....


----------



## reformedpastor

Diogenes said:


> reformedpastor:  (Following a stunning display of scientific nonsense) makes this statement:...................................................................................... I was about to say something about the dinosaurs, but I had to stop myself upon realizing that I was actually addressing one . . .




I have to say that I have been called worse and I sort of take it as a compliment though its not really meant to be one. 

Jer 6:16  Thus says the LORD: "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.' 

Grace and Peace


----------



## ambush80

Banjo said:


> I have really enjoyed reading these posts.  I usually don't comment....but had to here:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing could be further from the truth....When Jesus summed up the Law, one of those two summations was:
> 
> "To love your neighbor as yourself."
> 
> How is that inclusive and only concerned with the benefits of the few?
> 
> We are commanded to feed and clothe our enemies.  We are commanded to pray for those who misuse us.  We are even commanded to "love" our neighbor as ourselves...which includes other believers as well as nonbelievers.



But the Bible also tells some Christians to not advance science.  Maybe that's just operator error.


----------



## celticfisherman

ambush80 said:


> But the Bible also tells some Christians to not advance science.  Maybe that's just operator error.



Which ones?


----------



## connorreid

diogenes said:


> reformedpastor:  (following a stunning display of scientific nonsense) makes this statement:
> 
> "conclusion
> the best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible word of god for our scientific assumptions than to change his word in order to compromise with “science” that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support god’s word.
> 
> Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history."
> 
> well, actually -- being ignorant, and actually embracing ignorance are different things, if only because the former is curable -- but i understand your reticence to understand, since refusing to learn has a firm historical basis.  I mean, in 1584 giordano bruno was burned at the stake by the church for daring to propose the blasphemous idea of many suns existing in the universe, and putting forth the outrageous premise that many 'earths' might exist.  There are plenty of examples of that sort of thing, where established religious doctrine simply killed those who sought actual truth.  But, it is not 1584 anymore, and now the earth is no longer flat, the sun no longer revolves around the earth, and burning heretics requires a bit more intellectual wherewithal than simply putting one book of fiction in your hand and declaring sovereignty.  So let's skip past the seventh-grade level challenges to rocks (which, by the way, a seventh-grader can tell you are being newly formed at each and every volcanic event, even as we speak) as a basis for anything at all, and turn to more actually scientific matters.
> 
> In the modern world of actual science, you might wander out into your own yard on a clear night and look up.  See that?  Little pinpricks of light in the sky.  All over the place.  We call those stars.  Suns, in other words, and often whole galaxies.  We have measured the speed of light, using something called science, and have used a range of increasingly sophisticated scientific tools  (which i will gladly describe in exhaustive detail if you push me) to determine that the speed of light is not just a good idea, it’s the law.  Now, by all measurement, the nearest star to our sun, sirius, is about 10 light years away, and is the brightest star in our nighttime sky.  For reference, one light year is the distance that light can travel in one average solar earth year, or about 5.88 trillion miles.  So, with the education of a seventh-grader, one might posit that the star sirius may have simply popped into existence as recently as 10 years ago, and correctly conclude that it is mind-bogglingly far away.  One would be very wrong, but still, i can see the argument.
> 
> But, everywhere astrophysicists look, they find an indelible fingerprint of 2.73-degree microwave photons, the background echo of that helium distribution you speak of (which, actually, started as hydrogen, but i’m already boring you folks . . . ).  Now, the speed of light is not completely immutable, and is observed to travel more slowly (ever so slightly) in transparent substances than it does in a vacuum.  But in a vacuum (space) it is a constant.  Accounting for small shifts in the energy levels of atoms, but understanding that the charge of an electron can’t vary, and that pi will continue to hold up its value, the most distant measurable object is about 13.7 billion years old.  That sort of thing makes six thousand years, give or take a few thousand, look a bit like waiting in line at the universal drive-thru.  The planet around us has ice cubes frozen into the poles that are older than six thousand years.  The chinese can trot out artwork, sculpture, and pottery that is more than six thousand years old.  It took more than six thousand years for all of those guys who lived to be 900 years old back in the old testament just to dig the grand canyon, and they didn’t even invent a decent shovel until about 1,500 years ago.
> 
> So, actually, “the best way to learn about history and the age of the earth . . . ,” is to learn about history and the age of the earth.  If the entirety of your science is found, discovered, and learned from an ancient book of fiction, then please tell nasa to leave your tax dollars out of the next mars mission.  Clearly mars is not there in your own world view, and the science involved in landing a spacecraft there violates your interpretation of your narrow doctrine in hundreds of different ways.
> 
> I was about to say something about the dinosaurs, but i had to stop myself upon realizing that i was actually addressing one . . .


this looks like a personal attack.  Totally uncalled for.


----------



## reformedpastor

connorreid said:


> this looks like a personal attack.  Totally uncalled for.



Its fine!! I think he made his point and I take no offense to it at all. In one sense he is correct, in today's evangelical world I am ancient dinosaur. Hold to 6 day 24 hour creation and you are in the minority and I am perfectly ok with that. 

No foul here.  We are all adults and can take certain things without making a huge deal out of nothing. Take care.


----------



## connorreid

reformedpastor said:


> Its fine!! I think he made his point and I take no offense to it at all. In one sense he is correct, in today's evangelical world I am ancient dinosaur. Hold to 6 day 24 hour creation and you are in the minority and I am perfectly ok with that.
> 
> No foul here.  We are all adults and can take certain things without making a huge deal out of nothing. Take care.


roger, roger......since the term "dinosaur" only became a term in 1841, then you are relatively young........They should have called you a dragon (that would have lined up more biblically)


----------



## celticfisherman

connorreid said:


> roger, roger......since the term "dinosaur" only became a term in 1841, then you are relatively young........They should have called you a dragon (that would have lined up more biblically)


----------



## lpwilson7

There are no true Athiests!   But there are many rebels!!!


----------



## reformedpastor

lpwilson7 said:


> There are no true Athiests!   But there are many rebels!!!



Well said. Like we have also said before, that, in order to reject God, irrationalism is accepted and embraced as rational. Thats their only choice.


----------



## Madman

> Hold to 6 day 24 hour creation and you are in the minority and I am perfectly ok with that.... Reformed



I have been a dragon for many years.  I watched a teenager in my Sunday School class give his life to Christ, while the whole time trying to prove that there was no God with arguments just like diogenes was making.

The difference in that young man and diogenes is that he was willing to look at all the facts and all the arguments.

When I look at God's world and I look at God's Word, they fit perfectly, and I deal with it everyday.

Science is always having to remake itself.  God's Word never has to.  Always remember,  someone or something designed the system that is governed by those laws.  

Peace


----------



## celticfisherman

Bring out the roothog dictionary again man. You lost me...


----------



## Madman

What did Roothog say?


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> My response
> 
> Science and Assumptions
> 
> Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
> The Hourglass Illustration
> 
> Radioisotope dating can be better understood using an illustration with an hourglass. If we walk into a room and observe an hourglass with sand at the top and sand at the bottom, we could calculate how long the hourglass has been running. By estimating how fast the sand is falling and measuring the amount of sand at the bottom, we could calculate how much time has elapsed since the hourglass was turned over. All our calculations could be correct (observational science), but the result could be wrong. This is because we failed to take into account some critical assumptions.
> 
> Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was first turned over (initial conditions)?
> Has any sand been added or taken out of the hourglass? (Unlike the open-system nature of a rock, this is not possible for a sealed hourglass.)
> Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate?
> Since we did not observe the initial conditions when the hourglass time started, we must make assumptions. All three of these assumptions can affect our time calculations. If scientists fail to consider each of these three critical assumptions, then radioisotope dating can give incorrect ages.
> 
> The Facts
> 
> We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.
> 
> Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).
> 
> Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with “science” that is based upon man’s fallible assumptions. True science will always support God’s Word.
> 
> Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history.
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove
> 
> FJ, you have said, Christians should be consistent with the bible and believe in 6 24 hour creation days. I agree! Any christian that starts off doubting the reliability of scripture in the opening chapters of Genesis has really no bases to accept the rest of it as reliable.
> 
> Scripture is reliable historically or its not reliable at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
> 
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-gl4.htm
> 
> If you wish to believe the results of 8 "scientists" who are funded by the Institute for Creation Research, then be my guest. I don't blame the ICR for wanting to create some material to combat Old-Earth Creationism and secularism in general. I don't blame Answers in Genesis for deciding not to publish the criticisms of RATE's work from academics. Why would they post scientific criticisms of YEC research?
> 
> However, I fail to see how people do not understand that the scientific evidence points toward the Earth being much older than 6,000 years old. I'm fine with people wanting to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. They can believe that if they would like to. However, they should also be able to say that the evidence points towards a much older Earth. In a sense, I'm saying that they should accept that their beliefs are almost completely based on faith and not evidence. This twisting of science in order to fit a particular view of creation is absurd.
> 
> The scales of evidence overwhelming point towards an Old-Earth. Unless all you read is Answers in Genesis.
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> reformedpastor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to believe the results of 8 "scientists" who are funded by the Institute for Creation Research, then be my guest. I don't blame the ICR for wanting to create some material to combat Old-Earth Creationism and secularism in general. I don't blame Answers in Genesis for deciding not to publish the criticisms of RATE's work from academics. Why would they post scientific criticisms of YEC research?
> 
> 
> 
> I wish to believe them and not evolutionary scientists who go out of their way to create their own system and have their own "blind" faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I fail to see how people do not understand that the scientific evidence points toward the Earth being much older than 6,000 years old. I'm fine with people wanting to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. They can believe that if they would like to. However, they should also be able to say that the evidence points towards a much older Earth. In a sense, I'm saying that they should accept that their beliefs are almost completely based on faith and not evidence. This twisting of science in order to fit a particular view of creation is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionary scientists views are definitely based on faith as well.  They don't even know how we came to life other than their THEORIES they have put forth (and in their theories they want us to believe life comes from non life, order from no order and so on.  That sure isn't science only chaotic and supernatural theories).  Evolutionary scientists also "twist" in order to fit their views.
> 
> For example:  in 1994 when the Wollemi Pine Tree (also known as the dinosaur tree -scientists labelled it) was discovered, scientists had said for years that the Wollemi Pine was extinct and didn't exist.  All they had were fossilized remains.  Then, all of a sudden it is discovered, and they have egg on their face and NOBODY HOLDS THEM ACCOUNTABLE.  So before 1994 they thought anybody who believed a Wollemi Pine existed was NUTS and laughed at them.  Then they changed their minds.  Talk about getting it wrong.......that messed up their THEORETIC mold of their system.  Of course, that is where blind faith and not evidence leads you.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## celticfisherman

connorreid said:


> footjunior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reformedpastor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish to believe them and not evolutionary scientists who go out of their way to create their own system and have their own "blind" faith.
> 
> Evolutionary scientists views are definitely based on faith as well.  They don't even know how we came to life other than their THEORIES they have put forth (and in their theories they want us to believe life comes from non life, order from no order and so on.  That sure isn't science only chaotic and supernatural theories).  Evolutionary scientists also "twist" in order to fit their views.
> 
> For example:  in 1994 when the Wollemi Pine Tree (also known as the dinosaur tree -scientists labelled it) was discovered, scientists had said for years that the Wollemi Pine was extinct and didn't exist.  All they had were fossilized remains.  Then, all of a sudden it is discovered, and they have egg on their face and NOBODY HOLDS THEM ACCOUNTABLE.  So before 1994 they thought anybody who believed a Wollemi Pine existed was NUTS and laughed at them.  Then they changed their minds.  Talk about getting it wrong.......that messed up their THEORETIC mold of their system.  Of course, that is where blind faith and not evidence leads you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only a tree but how many times a year do species supposedly "extinct" with no evidence for "millions" of years in the fossil record show up? Just the other day there was another fish "discovered" that was supposedly extinct for millions of years.
> 
> Evolutionary scientists are as bad as the weatherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Madman

> Just the other day there was another fish "discovered" that was supposedly extinct for millions of years.



Celt/Reformed.. You are correct "living fossils" are found quite often.  Then the "scientific" community makes a mad rush to change their world view or "reason" their way out.

It is pretty humorous.

It would appear they think we are looking at different evidence, but we start at the same place with the same evidence.


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> Celt/Reformed.. You are correct "living fossils" are found quite often.  Then the "scientific" community makes a mad rush to change their world view or "reason" their way out.
> 
> It is pretty humorous.
> 
> It would appear they think we are looking at different evidence, but we start at the same place with the same evidence.





.....................and yet we have different conclusions, why???

PRESUPPOSITIONS!!!!!!!!!! Of course the Holy Spirit has changed our minds, from an darkened state to an enlightened one. We now are able to see (understand in a small way) that God governs His creation. 

The evidence doesn't interpret itself, that is something we are to do, starting with the infallible all sufficient word of God. 

Making sense of this world begins with faith, so, I would call FJ, ambush and others to repent of their sins and autonomy and embrace Christ as the Savior He is. Repent and begin to see this world through the grid of scripture. Flee to Christ and He will save you because He is a gracious God full of lovingkindness and mercy. Repent and recognize that your minds are gifts from God to be used subordinate to scripture not apart from. Repent dear people, for no one knows what day or hour He will require an account of lives, gifts and talents. 

Atheism and the like are self defeating worldviews (irrational and anti-intellectual) that are unsustainable. 


Grace and Peace


----------



## connorreid

celticfisherman said:


> connorreid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> footjunior said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only a tree but how many times a year do species supposedly "extinct" with no evidence for "millions" of years in the fossil record show up? Just the other day there was another fish "discovered" that was supposedly extinct for millions of years.
> 
> Evolutionary scientists are as bad as the weatherman.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  And these atheists never like for things like this to be brought up.  It exposes their fraudulent system everytime.  Like I said - Nobody holds them accountable and then they move on to their next crazy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Madman

> Atheism and the like are self defeating worldviews (irrational and anti-intellectual) that are unsustainable... RP



Spot on!!  Presuppositions!

I thank God everyday he removed the veil from my eyes.  EVERYTHING is so much clearer.


----------



## footjunior

reformedpastor said:


> Evolutionary scientists views are definitely based on faith as well. They don't even know how we came to life other than their THEORIES they have put forth (and in their theories they want us to believe life comes from non life, order from no order and so on.  That sure isn't science only chaotic and supernatural theories).  Evolutionary scientists also "twist" in order to fit their views.



Yet again I must say that abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution via natural selection.



> For example:  in 1994 when the Wollemi Pine Tree (also known as the dinosaur tree -scientists labelled it) was discovered, scientists had said for years that the Wollemi Pine was extinct and didn't exist.  All they had were fossilized remains.  Then, all of a sudden it is discovered, and they have egg on their face and NOBODY HOLDS THEM ACCOUNTABLE.



Being wrong is what makes science... a science. It is a set of interrelated theories. The key word here is theories. Of course some of the theories are going to be wrong. In fact, our current theory of evolution could be wrong. But the evidence overwhelmingly points towards it being the correct model. Until someone can bring forth evidence that the theory of evolution via natural selection is not correct, then I am unable to change my views on its correctness.

Likewise, the current consensus among scientists was that the Wollemi Pine tree had gone extinct. When someone brought forth evidence that the theories were wrong, the scientists acknowledged that they were wrong.



> So before 1994 they thought anybody who believed a Wollemi Pine existed was NUTS and laughed at them.



Evidence for this ridicule? Or is this just another one of your stereotypical views of scientists?


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> Being wrong is what makes science... a science. It is a set of interrelated theories. The key word here is theories. Of course some of the theories are going to be wrong. In fact, our current theory of evolution could be wrong. But the evidence overwhelmingly points towards it being the correct model. Until someone can bring forth evidence that the theory of evolution via natural selection is not correct, then I am unable to change my views on its correctness.
> 
> Likewise, the current consensus among scientists was that the Wollemi Pine tree had gone extinct. When someone brought forth evidence that the theories were wrong, the scientists acknowledged that they were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence for this ridicule? Or is this just another one of your stereotypical views of scientists?


Wow......a new defintion of "science" to fit your mold.  In your worldview you don't have to be consistent b/c it is irrational.  So, since you are saying science is THEORIES, not FACTS, how can you know anything? This is obviously a BELIEF system on your part (judging by your own words)......You have said before in previous posts that evolution is FACT, now you say it is a theory that could be wrong?? Please, pick one and stick with it.


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> Wow......a new defintion of "science" to fit your mold.  In your worldview you don't have to be consistent b/c it is irrational.  So, since you are saying science is THEORIES, not FACTS, how can you know anything? This is obviously a BELIEF system on your part (judging by your own words)......You have said before in previous posts that evolution is FACT, now you say it is a theory that could be wrong?? Please, pick one and stick with it.



You lack a basic understanding of what science is and is not. Further discussion with you is pointless unless you educate yourself.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> You lack a basic understanding of what science is and is not. Further discussion with you is pointless unless you educate yourself.


You are the one who said we can't be absolutely certain about anything.  That statement alone is absolutely "absurd".  And I need educating???


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> You lack a basic understanding of what science is and is not. Further discussion with you is pointless unless you educate yourself.



He's far more educated than you are in this aspect. Most people on here are. You have yet to see where you flip flop on your requirements of science. 

The difference in watching you argue and my squirrel dog chase her tail... Is she eventually learns going in a circle makes her dizzy.


----------



## footjunior

How old are both of you? celticfisherman and connorreid?


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> How old are both of you? celticfisherman and connorreid?


Old enough to have been out of college for a while......and your point, Junior?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> How old are both of you? celticfisherman and connorreid?



A lot older than you... Lots of mileage and lots hard lessons learned.

Matter of fact I was probably in HS when you were born. Maybe in college.

Now thanks for making me feel older than I already did today. 3 car wrecks and countless mountains climbed and lots of rivers waded have made my knees ache every time it rains.


----------



## Madman

Conner/Celtic..

AJ has been on his merry-go-round since page one.  

Some people are educated beyond their intelligence.


----------



## connorreid

Madman said:


> Conner/Celtic..
> 
> AJ has been on his merry-go-round since page one.
> 
> Some people are educated beyond their intelligence.


I agree.


----------



## celticfisherman

Madman said:


> Conner/Celtic..
> 
> AJ has been on his merry-go-round since page one.
> 
> Some people are educated beyond their intelligence.



Yep... Amusing too.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Conner/Celtic..
> 
> AJ has been on his merry-go-round since page one.
> 
> Some people are educated beyond their intelligence.



Isn't there something in the Bible that says (and I paraphrase) that God has a special place in his heart for the less intelligent because they are readily capable of childlike faith?


----------



## Madman

> Isn't there something in the Bible that says ... ambush



Since you are the Bible Scholar why don't you "enlighten" us?


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> Old enough to have been out of college for a while......and your point, Junior?



My point here goes back to my entire point of coming to these forums. Are "dyed-in-the-wool" fundamentalists able to be convinced by any secular arguments? Are their minds capable of change? I think that in order to change your mind about something, you must understand both sides of the argument. In this case, fundamentalists must have an adequate understanding of science, evolution, etc. in order to be convinced that a specific theory such as evolution is correct or not. However, from what I've seen on these forums, some do not understand the basic concepts of such things. They simply reject them by repeating insubstantial nonsense over and over without ever rigorously explaining why they reject them. There are people here who seem unable to understand philosophical skepticism. There are people here who simply do not know what science is and is not. Are these people capable of understanding specific theories in science such as evolution if they do not even know what a scientific theory is? If they confuse scientific theories with facts or think that science is made up entirely of facts? If they confuse scientific "laws" with facts and think that laws are some sort of "step up" from theories? I think not. Until one gains the foundations of what science is, all subsequent knowledge will be placed upon the incorrect framework of this warped definition of science.

Are these people too set in their ways to change even if the evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction opposite of their current viewpoint? Are long-held views able to be changed without the person encountering some sort of pride or ego problem? Are they like Kurt Wise - even if all the evidence pointed towards an opposite direction they would maintain their position due only to beliefs?

This also goes back to one of my first posts here on these forums. Data shows an inverse correlation between degree of religiosity and level of education. That is, as a person's education increases, their degree of religiosity decreases. Why is this statistically significant correlation there? What are the causes of the correlation? Is this related to my above 2 paragraphs? I think it is. I'm not saying that religious people are uneducated or that there are no educated theists. Obviously that statement, if it were made, would be untrue. The data does all of the talking. Education is key.

Once people finish school, whether that be high school, college, etc. they rarely come back for more education. Therefore, if the education they received from their last institute was inadequate for understanding certain aspects of science, then that person will never be able to understand that part of science unless they educate themselves or return to school to be educated. Another problem is that the specific knowledge that these discussions require are often not taught at all on any level. What I mean by this is that it is possible for someone to have a Ph.D in Civil Engineering and not know anything about evolution. Much in the same way if I went on to get a Ph.D in Computer Science that would not guarantee that I understand the basics of Civil Engineering. The information that I received in high school about evolution was terribly inadequate, and it saddens me that, for many people, this is all of the education they receive concerning evolution. Some people who are older have never received any formal education about evolution because it simply was not taught at the time. Obviously this is not their fault. It is a failure of the education system. Or worse in some sections of the country it just isn't taught at all due to the religious convictions of the teachers. I for one have seen this first hand. Casually talking to an 8th grade science teacher, she said that she would not teach evolution regardless of what the state said. In her own words, "I don't want my kids learning about evolution." I also don't blame people for going to a source (such as Answers in Genesis) that already agrees with their views on creationism for education on evolution.


----------



## celticfisherman

FJ- "
This also goes back to one of my first posts here on these forums. Data shows an inverse correlation between degree of religiosity and level of education. That is, as a person's education increases, their degree of religiosity decreases. Why is this statistically significant correlation there? What are the causes of the correlation? Is this related to my above 2 paragraphs? I think it is. I'm not saying that religious people are uneducated or that there are no educated theists. Obviously that statement, if it were made, would be untrue. The data does all of the talking. Education is key."



What crap! If no one else will I will call it! Back that one up. There isn't any back up to this one. You pulled that right out of some professors lap. Regurgitating nonsense with no study of your own. Goodness I wish you would not have told us you went to GT. Your bringing the whole place down in image.

And you feel good enough about your education to make that claim.... Boy have you got a lot to learn. You need to quit wasting time here and go study.

FJ- you are really embarrassing yourself here. Such nonsense has no place. "most people don't go back to learn" what a pious load of ....

When you get close to doing the reading and studying many (and many I do not agree with AT ALL) have done on this board you might get to some level of understanding. Until then you are just an impolite little child sitting in class wanting to show off what someone told him.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> What crap! If no one else will I will call it! Back that one up. There isn't any back up to this one. You pulled that right out of some professors lap. Regurgitating nonsense with no study of your own. Goodness I wish you would not have told us you went to GT. Your bringing the whole place down in image.



http://sda.berkeley.edu:8080/quicktables/quicksetoptions.do?reportKey=gss04:1

After opening the link above in a new window,

1. Make sure that "Religious preference" is selected under the first drop down menu labeled "Select the religion variable you want to analyze:"

Obviously you can change this to whatever you'd like. For instance change this variable to "How Fundamentalist is R Currently" to get some very interesting data. This is more along the lines of what I was saying in my previous post.

2. Make sure that "Highest Degree Earned" is selected under the second drop down menu labeled "Select the breakdown that you want - by:"

3. Click "Create the Table" near the bottom left part of the page.

How do you explain that correlation?



> FJ- you are really embarrassing yourself here. Such nonsense has no place. "most people don't go back to learn" what a pious load of....



What I mean is that once someone graduates from an institution in their early life and enters the workforce, they usually do not go back for formal training (college) later in life. Don't you agree? Why are you so upset? I fail to understand how such a mild statement can elicit such a response from a normal human being.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> My point here goes back to my entire point of coming to these forums. Are "dyed-in-the-wool" fundamentalists able to be convinced by any secular arguments? Are their minds capable of change? I think that in order to change your mind about something, you must understand both sides of the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Is an atheist able to be convinced by any Biblical arguments? Is his mind capable of change?  No.....He is hostile to God and will do everything in his power not to believe in God.  Unless God opens his eyes to see his sin, he will never have it right.  Instead he will rely on blind faith in science to justify his own irrationality and foolishness.
Click to expand...


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> http://sda.berkeley.edu:8080/quicktables/quicksetoptions.do?reportKey=gss04:1
> 
> After opening the link above in a new window,
> 
> 1. Make sure that "Religious preference" is selected under the first drop down menu labeled "Select the religion variable you want to analyze:"
> 
> Obviously you can change this to whatever you'd like. They all give very interesting data.
> 
> 2. Make sure that "Highest Degree Earned" is selected under the second drop down menu labeled "Select the breakdown that you want - by:"
> 
> 3. Click "Create the Table" near the bottom left part of the page.
> 
> How do you explain that correlation?
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is that once someone graduates from an institution in their early life and enters the workforce, they usually do not go back for formal training (college) later in life. Don't you agree? Why are you so upset? I fail to understand how such a mild statement can elicit such a response from a normal human being.



So if I create a web page with this stuff on it it is valid???


Quote from the site:

Explanation of Results

Statistical significance: The differences between the columns are significant at less than the .01 level. That is, you would expect to find differences this large or larger less than 1 percent of the time, if there were no differences at all in the population from which the sample was drawn. (Based on the chi-square statistic, assuming simple random sampling.)

Number of cases: This table is based on 44,837 valid cases.
This table does not include 1,673 cases with invalid codes on the row or column variables.

Description of the variables:

    *

      Row variable: FUND - HOW FUNDAMENTALIST IS R CURRENTLY

      104C. Fundamentalism/Liberalism of Respondent's Religion

    *

      Column variable: SEX - RESPONDENTS SEX

      CODE RESPONDENT'S SEX


So... I can post something online and it be relevant? Cool... But then again statistical analysis also said 80% didn't want the words "In God we trust" removed from our money...

So who are the studies? Who set the standards on the "religiosity" of the participants? What standard did they use for church attendance, grade completed, and also let's just throw in thre denominations. Cause I am considered more liberal than a pentecostal but the church of christ might believe I am eternally doomed. Muslims... How do we account for them? Ever been to an emergency room in ATL? Boy couldn't tell they weren't educated. 

Point being... 

Feel good about being superior to all of us while you can. In fact rush out and make all the money you can right now while you still know it all.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> So if I create a web page with this stuff on it it is valid?



If you actually go out, get the data in a correct fashion, and input it into software to compute statistics, then yes, your data would be valid. Pretty simple. It's just statistics.

This data is collected from one of the most respected social research organizations in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Opinion_Research_Center

The annual survey conducted by this organization is known as the General Social Survey. It is used widely by governments and organizations to make policy decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey

Education institutes such as Berkley (which is where the data above is hosted) use/host the data collected from the survey both as a public service and also for it's own students/faculty.



> Quote from the site:
> 
> Explanation of Results
> 
> Statistical significance: The differences between the columns are significant at less than the .01 level. That is, you would expect to find differences this large or larger less than 1 percent of the time, if there were no differences at all in the population from which the sample was drawn. (Based on the chi-square statistic, assuming simple random sampling.)



Yep. As I'm sure you know, statistical significances of .01 (or even rarer if below .01) indicate a very strong correlation between the two variables. This further proves my point that a correlation exists.



> So... I can post something online and it be relevant? Cool... But then again statistical analysis also said 80% didn't want the words "In God we trust" removed from our money...





If you're speaking of the same poll that I'm thinking of, then you are making a faulty analogy. That was an MSNBC poll, not a survey based off of random sampling. Although I will admit that the poll was probably accurate enough to draw some basic conclusions about what Americans think of the issue, it does not even compare to the accuracy of the GSS. 



> So who are the studies? Who set the standards on the "religiosity" of the participants? What standard did they use for church attendance, grade completed, and also let's just throw in thre denominations. Cause I am considered more liberal than a pentecostal but the church of christ might believe I am eternally doomed. Muslims... How do we account for them? Ever been to an emergency room in ATL? Boy couldn't tell they weren't educated.



All of these questions are answered by the surveying organization. The religiosity was self-determined by the respondent. If you look at the page, you will see the actual questions that the surveyor asked. For example when comparing religious preference to level of education, the questions are:

Actual question from surveyor: What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, 
Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?

Second actual question from surveyor: Do you (Does [he/she]) have any college degrees? (IF YES: 
What degree or degrees?)

The surveyor then encodes the data and later inputs it into software which generates statistics, which is what we see in the link.

This whole issue brings me again to the point I made earlier. Could it be that the reason fundamentalists seem to be unreachable by science is because so many of them are uneducated when it comes to such issues?

I would like to see some sort of standardized test created which tests knowledge specific to evolution. Maybe there's already one out there that I don't know about. I would be interested in seeing the correlations between test scores and other variables such as degree of religiosity, education level, gender, state of residence, parent's religiosity, etc.

Maybe in the future this will happen.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> If you actually go out, get the data in a correct fashion, and input it into software to compute statistics, then yes, your data would be valid. Pretty simple. It's just statistics.
> 
> This data is collected from one of the most respected social research organizations in the US:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Opinion_Research_Center
> 
> The annual survey conducted by this organization is known as the General Social Survey. It is used widely by governments and organizations to make policy decisions.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey
> 
> Education institutes such as Berkley (which is where the data above is hosted) use/host the data collected from the survey both as a public service and also for it's own students/faculty.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. As I'm sure you know, statistical significances of .01 (or even rarer if below .01) indicate a very strong correlation between the two variables. This further proves my point that a correlation exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're speaking of the same poll that I'm thinking of, then you are making a faulty analogy. That was an MSNBC poll, not a survey based off of random sampling. Although I will admit that the poll was probably accurate enough to draw some basic conclusions about what Americans think of the issue, it does not even compare to the accuracy of the GSS.
> 
> 
> 
> All of these questions are answered by the surveying organization. The religiosity was self-determined by the respondent. If you look at the page, you will see the actual questions that the surveyor asked. For example when comparing religious preference to level of education, the questions are:
> 
> Actual question from surveyor: What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant,
> Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?
> 
> Second actual question from surveyor: Do you (Does [he/she]) have any college degrees? (IF YES:
> What degree or degrees?)
> 
> The surveyor then encodes the data and later inputs it into software which generates statistics, which is what we see in the link.
> 
> This whole issue brings me again to the point I made earlier. Could it be that the reason fundamentalists seem to be unreachable by science is because so many of them are uneducated when it comes to such issues?
> 
> I would like to see some sort of standardized test created which tests knowledge specific to evolution. Maybe there's already one out there that I don't know about. I would be interested in seeing the correlations between test scores and other variables such as degree of religiosity, education level, gender, state of residence, parent's religiosity, etc.
> 
> Maybe in the future this will happen.


I love it when college kids no it all!!!!!! God has made foolish the "wisdom" of this world......This kid is an example.


----------



## christianhunter

I can't believe this Thread has had so many posts.How intellectual is atheism?
Lets see,GOD Is LOVE!
Assuming atheists love their families,where does that love come from.What is Love?
There are so many song's wrote on it there is a category for them called "Love Songs".The rock group Foreigner wrote and sang a song titled "I want to know what love is".I can take my finger and run it along my arm and feel nothing,but my finger going across it.My wife can do the same in the same place,and a warm and compassionate feeling comes with it.I can pick up either one of my grandbabies,hug my son,mother,dad,or any close relative,and feel that same warmth.Believing in GOD,and knowing you are secure in HIS Arms,gives you that feeling and more,security,that protected feeling you had as a small child with your parents,because that is exactly what it is.You know you are protected by your ETERNAL FATHER.How intellectual is atheism?
It depends on what you call intellect,The Religious Leaders of the day's when THE LORD walked the earth,were considered very learned,and wise.They even scoffed at the disciples,but who literally turned the world upside down,and it is still with us 2,000 years later.If you can understand this,are you intellectual?
Do you know where love comes from?
Do you know what love is,instead of endorphens (SP?)?
As secular science would have you believe,why do we possess it?
Why not just animalistic procreation?
You decide.


----------



## Madman

> the annual survey conducted by this organization.. Aj



and the survey says!!!!!


----------



## Madman

> Lets see,GOD Is LOVE!...
> CH



He also just, and righteous, and jealous


----------



## footjunior

christianhunter said:


> I can't believe this Thread has had so many posts. How intellectual is atheism?
> Lets see,GOD Is LOVE!
> Assuming atheists love their families,where does that love come from. What is Love?



The love that I have for my relatives is explained thoroughly by biological altruism, coevolution, and the gene frequencies model of evolution. You can learn more about these subjects by reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins or by simply researching them on the internet.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> and the survey says!!!!!





Are you asking a question? If so, what is it? Your sentence is ended by 5 exclamation points.

The survey doesn't conclude anything as far as causation goes. It merely provides statistics which form correlations. We here on the forums can form conclusions based on these statistics. For example some non-theists might conclude from the statistics that theists are uneducated. Some theists might conclude that the statistics provide evidence that evil atheistic college professors are indoctrinating theists and turning them into atheists/liberal theists.

If you would like to see the data yourself, click the link below and configure the variables however you'd like to.

http://sda.berkeley.edu:8080/quicktables/quicksetoptions.do?reportKey=gss04:1


----------



## christianhunter

Madman said:


> He also just, and righteous, and jealous



AMEN!
I know.


----------



## christianhunter

footjunior said:


> The love that I have for my relatives is explained thoroughly by biological altruism, coevolution, and the gene frequencies model of evolution. You can learn more about these subjects by reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins or by simply researching them on the internet.



You can also find,just about anything else you might want to know.I think you might be on to  something about atheism,with that selfish gene though.


----------



## ambush80

footjunior said:


> Are you asking a question? If so, what is it? Your sentence is ended by 5 exclamation points.
> 
> The survey doesn't conclude anything as far as causation goes. It merely provides statistics which form correlations. We here on the forums can form conclusions based on these statistics. For example some non-theists might conclude from the statistics that theists are uneducated. Some theists might conclude that the statistics provide evidence that evil atheistic college professors are indoctrinating theists and turning them into atheists/liberal theists.
> 
> If you would like to see the data yourself, click the link below and configure the variables however you'd like to.
> 
> http://sda.berkeley.edu:8080/quicktables/quicksetoptions.do?reportKey=gss04:1



You have the patience of a saint.   Please continue to try and educate these "wise old men".  Whenever they get worked up it reminds me of the end of the movie _Inherit the Wind_.   I hope no one ends up like William Harrison Brady.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> If you actually go out, get the data in a correct fashion, and input it into software to compute statistics, then yes, your data would be valid. Pretty simple. It's just statistics.
> 
> This data is collected from one of the most respected social research organizations in the US:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Opinion_Research_Center
> 
> The annual survey conducted by this organization is known as the General Social Survey. It is used widely by governments and organizations to make policy decisions.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey
> 
> Education institutes such as Berkley (which is where the data above is hosted) use/host the data collected from the survey both as a public service and also for it's own students/faculty.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. As I'm sure you know, statistical significances of .01 (or even rarer if below .01) indicate a very strong correlation between the two variables. This further proves my point that a correlation exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're speaking of the same poll that I'm thinking of, then you are making a faulty analogy. That was an MSNBC poll, not a survey based off of random sampling. Although I will admit that the poll was probably accurate enough to draw some basic conclusions about what Americans think of the issue, it does not even compare to the accuracy of the GSS.
> 
> 
> 
> All of these questions are answered by the surveying organization. The religiosity was self-determined by the respondent. If you look at the page, you will see the actual questions that the surveyor asked. For example when comparing religious preference to level of education, the questions are:
> 
> Actual question from surveyor: What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant,
> Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?
> 
> Second actual question from surveyor: Do you (Does [he/she]) have any college degrees? (IF YES:
> What degree or degrees?)
> 
> The surveyor then encodes the data and later inputs it into software which generates statistics, which is what we see in the link.
> 
> This whole issue brings me again to the point I made earlier. Could it be that the reason fundamentalists seem to be unreachable by science is because so many of them are uneducated when it comes to such issues?
> 
> I would like to see some sort of standardized test created which tests knowledge specific to evolution. Maybe there's already one out there that I don't know about. I would be interested in seeing the correlations between test scores and other variables such as degree of religiosity, education level, gender, state of residence, parent's religiosity, etc.
> 
> Maybe in the future this will happen.



You are proving that there is no standardized test...

Crash test dummies can follow this stuff. Yet it eludes you... Might want to stop and think about your gods. Reason ain't doing all that well with you. Especially since it eludes your thought processes so regularly.


----------



## celticfisherman

ambush80 said:


> You have the patience of a saint.   Please continue to try and educate these "wise old men".  Whenever they get worked up it reminds me of the end of the movie _Inherit the Wind_.   I hope no one ends up like William Harrison Brady.



Give me a break.

You guys are more fundamentalist than any snake handlind poison drinking fire breathing pentecostal I know. 

Watching you guys argue is really a lesson in why atheists were not allowed to testify in court back when. You can't even follow a sentence to the logical conclusion.


----------



## celticfisherman

Madman said:


> and the survey says!!!!!



AWWW MAN!!! What was that guys name on the Family Feud? I mean the original one way back when... Not Al.

Cause that is it!!! 

Survey's are inaccurate for a reason... It's the lazy way out of discovering anything.

If we ran a poll asking:

Would it be OK to kill someone who was innocent of any wrong doing and had done nothing to society?

What do you think the answers would be?




































Yet these geniuses here don't realize we just asked a question on abortion. It's all in how you ask the question. If I had said...



Is abortion legal?


The answers would be entirely different.

There is never enough proof for people like you and there never will be. Reason is your god. You worship her with wild abandon and have sacrificed your mind to the void of intellectualism and rationalism. You view the world as if YOU are god. 

Have fun... It must be hard with all that weight on your shoulders... And Atlas shrugged...


----------



## WTM45

footjunior said:


> This whole issue brings me again to the point I made earlier. Could it be that the reason fundamentalists seem to be unreachable by science is because so many of them are uneducated when it comes to such issues?



Yes.  Not uneducated in the sense of illiterate or lacking intelligence, but unexposed to science and its known truths.

I can recommend reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.
It is an eye-opener.


----------



## earl

Richard Dawson from Hogan's Heros


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Yes.  Not uneducated in the sense of illiterate or lacking intelligence, but unexposed to science and its known truths.
> 
> I can recommend reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.
> It is an eye-opener.



It's a good book. I own a copy and have listened to it a couple of times.

I wouldn't recommend it for what you are but he is entertaining and comical. His book about europe was funnier though.


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> It's a good book. I own a copy and have listened to it a couple of times.




That explains why you are an "old-earth" believer!

The book I mentioned is not satire.  It is pretty impressive how much data and information he managed to gather.
It takes small steps.  This book is just the first step of many.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> That explains why you are an "old-earth" believer!
> 
> The book I mentioned is not satire.  It is pretty impressive how much data and information he managed to gather.
> It takes small steps.  This book is just the first step of many.



Actually he had nothing to do with it. I was an old earth person for a while before reading that. My reasons for that are biblical.


----------



## GA1dad

christianhunter said:


> I can't believe this Thread has had so many posts.



I'm starting to think this thread is just an old fashion "stare down". Just to see who can hold out the longest.

My compliments to the competitors (both sides) that have gone above and beyond,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> The love that I have for my relatives is explained thoroughly by biological altruism, coevolution, and the gene frequencies model of evolution. You can learn more about these subjects by reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins or by simply researching them on the internet.


what is love in an atheistic world? a very simple answer will suffice......no 10 pages required.


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> You have the patience of a saint.   Please continue to try and educate these "wise old men".  Whenever they get worked up it reminds me of the end of the movie _Inherit the Wind_.   I hope no one ends up like William Harrison Brady.


why would an atheist argue anyway? feel threatened or something especially by something that doesn't exist??


----------



## Madman

Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom. 
Charles Spurgeon


----------



## footjunior

ambush80 said:


> You have the patience of a saint.   Please continue to try and educate these "wise old men".  Whenever they get worked up it reminds me of the end of the movie _Inherit the Wind_.   I hope no one ends up like William Harrison Brady.



Thanks. I worked on my patience as a computer repair technician for a few years. I think most of the customers were like my grandmother: I'm really not sure if she is capable of using a computer. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks.



> Yes. Not uneducated in the sense of illiterate or lacking intelligence, but unexposed to science and its known truths.



Exactly. Hopefully through New Atheism we can change all of that. Perhaps in the future in-depth knowledge of evolution will be a commonplace occurrence even amongst the least educated.


----------



## footjunior

connorreid said:


> what is love in an atheistic world? a very simple answer will suffice......no 10 pages required.



A very simple answer will not suffice, and I will not dumb down my answers to meet these ridiculously low standards. "Love" in the context in which you are using it in fact does have an evolutionary basis. As I said before, biological altruism and coevolution in the context of gene frequencies describe the concept of love very well. If you do not want to put forth the effort required to understand these concepts, then any explanations that I offer would be pointless. In fact, I gave an explanation of this earlier. Remember the whole gene frequencies/biological altruism/bacteria self-destruction due to selfish genes post that I made?

I doubt 10 pages would suffice. I'm guessing many dissertations have been written on this subject of explaining human emotions in terms of evolutionary processes. As I said before, parts of The Selfish Gene deal with this subject and provide great explanations of the concepts.


----------



## Madman

> A very simple answer will not suffice... AfootJr


Afoot,

Thanks for not getting on your merry-go-round (all 10 pages).
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.


----------



## reformedpastor

> footjunior Thanks. I worked on my patience as a computer repair technician for a few years. I think most of the customers were like my grandmother: I'm really not sure if she is capable of using a computer. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks.



I didn't think you were religious? Just replace words referring to God's law with evolution OK.

Psalm 119:97-104   O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.  98 Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, For they are ever mine.  99 I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation.  100 I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Your precepts.  101 I have restrained my feet from every evil way, That I may keep Your word.  102 I have not turned aside from Your ordinances, For You Yourself have taught me.  103 How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth!  104 From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.




> Exactly. Hopefully through New Atheism we can change all of that. Perhaps in the future in-depth knowledge of evolution will be a commonplace occurrence even amongst the least educated.



Again.........

Hebrews 8:10-12   10 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.  11 "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.  12 "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." 


The New Atheism...............a religion. Sorrry, can't teach an old dog new tricks..............right? 

Look I suggest you give up on Dawkins, he is nothing more than a shame artist who is in love with himself. Turn to Christ he will forgive you of your rebellion.


----------



## celticfisherman

Madman said:


> Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.
> Charles Spurgeon


That is an excellent quote.


----------



## Diogenes

Wow.  From the looks of some of the arguments here one might conclude that humanity has wasted quite a lot of time constructing silly things like sciences and humanities and arts, and has made a huge and costly mistake investing in libraries.   If only we had known that everything worth knowing is entirely explained by a single book . . . 

Yet, before we go and rely entirely on one flawless source, as we are urged to do, could someone take a stab at explaining why this source is riddled with absurdities, highly questionable precepts, outright atrocities, and contradictions?  (As an atheist, my personal explanation would be that it was written by men, and thus can be no better than we are --  flawed in many ways, -- but perhaps I read too carefully, and there is another explanation . . . )

Even the most basic statement, recently made here, that, “God is Love,” seems to meet with some disagreement inside the Bible:  

It says:   GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."

Then it says:
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

And Again, it says:   JER 13:14 "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

Then it says :  JAS 5:11 "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.”
1CH 16:34  "For his mercy endureth forever." 
 PSA 145:9 "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." 
1JO 4:16 "God is love." 

Well, geez.  Which is it?  It is pretty tough to get a reliable answer out of this book.
I would ask for an answer based on the collected ‘wisdom’ of the assembly, but the Bible counsels me in both directions on that one too:  
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

It is all pretty confusing, and makes it quite difficult to make any decent policy decisions when every time you turn around the Author is saying completely opposite things.  God can’t even decide if He is visible: EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9 
God CAN be seen:
EXO 33:23 "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." 
EXO 33:11 "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." 
GEN 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

God CANNOT be seen:
JOH 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time." 
EXO 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." 
1TIM 6:16 "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." 

So, really, when somebody says, “Watching you guys argue is really a lesson in why atheists were not allowed to testify in court back when. You can't even follow a sentence to the logical conclusion,” it causes me to wonder just which sort of logic is being employed . . .  Certainly logical fallacies are being used up so fast that it is difficult to catalogue them all.  Here are a few of the highlights among the more liberally sprinkled fallacies:   

The fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." This fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.  Both sides have fallen prey to this one. (Note, please, that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty, and as is true within most logical systems, if there is not a preponderance of evidence to assert the existence of a given thing, it is generally dismissed.)

The fallacy of Bifurcation, also often referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy," bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. 

The fallacy of Circulus in demonstrando, in which you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument.

The fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before that event.

The fallacy of Petitio principii , also known as begging the question, occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form. For example:
     "The Bible is the word of God. The word of God cannot be doubted, and the Bible states that the Bible is true. Therefore the Bible must be true.”   The conclusion, you see, is exactly the same as the premise, rendering the entire argument fallacious by definition.

Logically, if that accusation of failing to follow a (sentence) to a logical conclusion is sincere, faith is by definition, “belief that is not based on proof.”  (Random House, Unabridged, 2nd Edition).  Faith, then, is the antithesis of proof, and is inherently illogical.  Reason, by definition, presupposes a basis or cause for some belief, action, fact, or event, and implies “the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.”  (Ibid.)   So, having faith in some invisible power somewhere that can’t be seen, heard, smelt, felt, or touched by anybody but the believers is all well and good if you choose to engage in such things, but placing the completely undetectable into the realm of ‘logic’ is, by all accounts, a poor defense of faith.  

Similarly, using a single source of ancient and internally inconsistent writings as the sole demonstration of the truth of any assertion is logically indefensible, and one would think that trying to do so violates the entire tenet of faith – that a thing is believed simply because it is believed.  If one believes a thing strongly enough, then no argument from any side is likely to counter that belief.  But – hitting folks on the head with the club of faith, and asserting that the club is evidence enough for truth is not sufficient to make a coherent argument.  It is incumbent upon the prosecution, if I might make the legal analogy again, to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt – not upon the accused heretics to defend themselves.  One cannot, within any logical context, prove the existence of a negative, since there is no need to do so – I do not assert nor believe in a God of any kind, no more than I assert or believe in any other ancient mythologies, from Apollo to the Gorgons, and so have no responsibility, logically or intellectually, to DISPROVE the existence of same.  

If the faithful feel some compelling need to prove the existence of their own invisible deity, and clearly they seem to, then by all means carry on . . . it is nothing if not entertaining . . .  Especially since the Bible again seems undecided on the point – 

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

(Warning For the Humor Impaired:  Joke Follows ---- Christian Logical Proof:  (1)  God Is Love;  (2)  Love is Blind;  (3)  Stevie Wonder is Blind;  (4)  Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God . . . )


----------



## farmasis

Diogenes said:


> Even the most basic statement, recently made here, that, “God is Love,” seems to meet with some disagreement inside the Bible:
> 
> It says: GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
> EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
> EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
> LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
> NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
> 2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
> EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
> 
> Then it says:
> 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
> GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
> 
> And Again, it says: JER 13:14 "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
> 
> Then it says : JAS 5:11 "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.”
> 1CH 16:34 "For his mercy endureth forever."
> PSA 145:9 "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works."
> 1JO 4:16 "God is love."


 
I understand your frustrations of not being able to understand the Word of God. It is not for you to be able to understand.

<SUP>14</SUP> But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know _them,_ because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2)

However, I think this verse sums it up pretty good.

<SUP>36</SUP> He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3)

Just as in the verse you sited,     
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-22681 value="2">2</SUP> God _is_ jealous, and the LORD avenges; 
      The LORD avenges and _is_ furious. 
      The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, 
      And He reserves _wrath_ for His enemies; 
       <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-22682 value="3">3</SUP> The LORD _is_ slow to anger and great in power, 
      And will not at all acquit _the wicked._ (Nahum 1)

So, who are the ememies of God?

Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4)



> Well, geez. Which is it? It is pretty tough to get a reliable answer out of this book.
> I would ask for an answer based on the collected ‘wisdom’ of the assembly, but the Bible counsels me in both directions on that one too:
> PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
> ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
> 1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."


 
http://www.tektonics.org/af/follywise.html



> It is all pretty confusing, and makes it quite difficult to make any decent policy decisions when every time you turn around the Author is saying completely opposite things. God can’t even decide if He is visible: EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
> God CAN be seen:
> EXO 33:23 "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
> EXO 33:11 "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
> GEN 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
> 
> God CANNOT be seen:
> JOH 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
> EXO 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live."
> 1TIM 6:16 "Whom no man hath seen nor can see."


 
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/visiblegod.html




> If the faithful feel some compelling need to prove the existence of their own invisible deity, and clearly they seem to, then by all means carry on . . . it is nothing if not entertaining . . . Especially since the Bible again seems undecided on the point –
> 
> PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
> 
> PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


 
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/proverbsfool.html


----------



## earl

Diogenes , excellent post !


----------



## WTM45

Wow!  Awesome post, Diogenes!

There is so much there, it will take some time to fully sink in!

Until folks realize the idea of a deity is totally man made, they will not be able to refute your logic.


----------



## WTM45

farmasis said:


> I understand your frustrations of not being able to understand the Word of God. It is not for you to be able to understand.
> [/URL]



And that is a load of bull.
Everybody has the ability, but only some have the fortitude to address the issues.  Believe what you wish.  That is your choice.  But do not deny that what you use as the ultimate guide just might be flawed, as it is a work of man, both in composition and in editing.


----------



## Diogenes

farmasis:  "It is not for you to be able to understand."   

Presumably, then, only for you?

"However, I think this verse sums it up pretty good.

36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3)

Just as in the verse you sited (sic), 
2 God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; 
The LORD avenges and is furious. 
The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, 
And He reserves wrath for His enemies; 
3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, 
And will not at all acquit the wicked. (Nahum 1)

So, who are the ememies of God?

Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4)"

Wow.  Well, I guess that rather condemns the environmentalists . . . C'mon out fellas . . . the jig is up . . . You might as well go peacefully . . .


----------



## farmasis

WTM45 said:
			
		

> And that is a load of bull.
> Everybody has the ability, but only some have the fortitude to address the issues.


 


			
				Diogenes said:
			
		

> Presumably, then, only for you?


 
No, not everybody has the ability to understand spiritual things. Even believers struggle, that is why there are so many arguments on here about doctrines that can be interpreted differently. Only God can reveal the spiritual things.

Unless the Holy Spirit is within you, you cannot know him.

<SUP>16</SUP>And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-26675 value="17">17</SUP>the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. (John 14)

And unless you have the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand spiritual matters.

<SUP>13</SUP> These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy<SUP class=footnote value='[d]'>[d]</SUP> Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28403 value="14">14</SUP> But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know _them,_ because they are spiritually discerned. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28404 value="15">15</SUP> But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is _rightly_ judged by no one. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-28405 value="16">16</SUP> For _“who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?”_<SUP class=footnote value='[e]'>[e]</SUP> But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor 2)

However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own _authority,_ but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-26735 value="14">14</SUP> He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare _it_ to you. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NKJV-26736 value="15">15</SUP> All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare _it_ to you. (John 16)

Therefore, the message of salvation appears foolish to you.

<SUP>18</SUP> For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor 1)


----------



## farmasis

WTM45 said:


> Wow! Awesome post, Diogenes!
> 
> There is so much there, it will take some time to fully sink in!
> 
> Until folks realize the idea of a deity is totally man made, they will not be able to refute your logic.


 
Give me a break. There is nothing new here. All of these 'contradictions' can be googled and found word for word (from the posting of Diogenes notes  ) all across the internet. Even the ramblings of fallacy is found verbatim.

There are also many sites that have contradictions resolved. Like the one I used. So, it has been done on both sides. Read into which ever one you want, and feel confident in the choice you make.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> And that is a load of bull.
> Everybody has the ability, but only some have the fortitude to address the issues.  Believe what you wish.  That is your choice.  But do not deny that what you use as the ultimate guide just might be flawed, as it is a work of man, both in composition and in editing.


God made it clear in Romans chapter 8:7 that "B/c the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be".  So, you don't have the ability unless God reveals Himself to you.  So far He has chosen to leave you in your sins, and He continues to harden your heart.  

Whether you accept it or not doesn't matter.  I deny that God's work was a work of "man".  God used men to write it (since he makes use of means and has a means to an end).  I don't think anything else on this planet like trees, animals, rocks and so on can write).  So how else would it have been written??

Believe me you haven't addressed all of the issues.........don't even think you have.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> A very simple answer will not suffice, and I will not dumb down my answers to meet these ridiculously low standards. "Love" in the context in which you are using it in fact does have an evolutionary basis. As I said before, biological altruism and coevolution in the context of gene frequencies describe the concept of love very well. If you do not want to put forth the effort required to understand these concepts, then any explanations that I offer would be pointless. In fact, I gave an explanation of this earlier. Remember the whole gene frequencies/biological altruism/bacteria self-destruction due to selfish genes post that I made?
> 
> I doubt 10 pages would suffice. I'm guessing many dissertations have been written on this subject of explaining human emotions in terms of evolutionary processes. As I said before, parts of The Selfish Gene deal with this subject and provide great explanations of the concepts.


Thank you.  Again, proof that your world can't exist.  You can't even decide on basic, fundamental definitions in order for people to be able to communicate properly.  And you don't see the absurdity that you live in.  See, when you can't give simple and easy definitions it BEGS THE QUESTION, "How can this guy even use words?".

So how am I to take everything you have written on all threads (every word)?  I don't even know if you have meanings for them.  I am sure you might but in your view they are subjective, thus they only have meaning for you.  

Also, very arrogant on your part to think you know the backgrounds of people and what they've studied.  Again, your youthfulness and lack of experience in life is very telling.  

You love the "look" of the complex, but in reality you are bogged down in the  foolishness.  I mean, when you ask somebody what love is, and they say they can't define it, then we have some serious problems..........

The best you can do is start pointing a finger at people and saying they are behind the times and won't study.  Surely you don't believe such "scholorship" of yours is creditworthy, do you?


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> Thanks. I worked on my patience as a computer repair technician for a few years. I think most of the customers were like my grandmother: I'm really not sure if she is capable of using a computer. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Hopefully through New Atheism we can change all of that. Perhaps in the future in-depth knowledge of evolution will be a commonplace occurrence even amongst the least educated.


Hey, your grandmother may have been smarter and wiser than you.........Rather pompous on your side to elevate yourself above somebody b/c they are old, isn't it?  I'm sure if you ever have grandkids, they'll say the same about you.........."I got this Grandfather called Junior and he's stuck back in the atheist days....and so on."


----------



## connorreid

Diogenes said:


> Wow.  From the looks of some of the arguments here one might conclude that humanity has wasted quite a lot of time constructing silly things like sciences and humanities and arts, and has made a huge and costly mistake investing in libraries.   If only we had known that everything worth knowing is entirely explained by a single book . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God in His created order that man has a brain and can think so all these make sense.  Please give an account for why you would need these things like these in an atheistic world?  Footjunior can't even give a simple definition in his atheistic world, can you?  Doesn't look like the libraries and sciences have helped him.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, before we go and rely entirely on one flawless source, as we are urged to do, could someone take a stab at explaining why this source is riddled with absurdities, highly questionable precepts, outright atrocities, and contradictions?  (As an atheist, my personal explanation would be that it was written by men, and thus can be no better than we are --  flawed in many ways, -- but perhaps I read too carefully, and there is another explanation . . . )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We would ask the same of you about your system.  Many, many flaws.  All of this has been addressed on this thread.  You may want to go back and read. Many of these questions have been addressed and dealt with. Might save you some typing.
> 
> 
> 
> Even the most basic statement, recently made here, that, “God is Love,” seems to meet with some disagreement inside the Bible:
> 
> It says:   GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
> EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
> EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
> LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
> NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
> 2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
> EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
> 
> Then it says:
> 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
> GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
> 
> And Again, it says:   JER 13:14 "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
> 
> Then it says :  JAS 5:11 "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.”
> 1CH 16:34  "For his mercy endureth forever."
> PSA 145:9 "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works."
> 1JO 4:16 "God is love."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you define love.  Please give me simple definition then we will be exactly sure what you think "love" is.  Seems like you are relating love to some "romantic" view or have a "goo-gaga" idea of what love is.  Your defintion will help us out........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, geez.  Which is it?  It is pretty tough to get a reliable answer out of this book.
> I would ask for an answer based on the collected ‘wisdom’ of the assembly, but the Bible counsels me in both directions on that one too:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you read every other book like you read the Bible?  I'd say love is all of it.....is that so hard to understand (God is perfect so whatever He does is done out of love - He owes us, sinful man, NOTHING!)  However, do you want to talk about getting collected "wisdom" from your system.  Your atheistic scientists all agree on everything, right?? I might ask, why would you need love in an atheistic world and where would it come from?? What would be love and what would be hate? Simple definitions will do so we can deal with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is all pretty confusing, and makes it quite difficult to make any decent policy decisions when every time you turn around the Author is saying completely opposite things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your claim.  Let's look at your system.......you don't think it's confusing?? Thousands of scientists all with different theories???
> Atheists that can't even make definitions in order to communicate??? How are the words of the Bible (or any other book) even intelligable to the atheists who claim there is no absolute certainty about anything? If that's the case, words couldn't have meaning b/c they would be based on absolutism.  Please explain.
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Wow!  Awesome post, Diogenes!
> 
> There is so much there, it will take some time to fully sink in!
> 
> Until folks realize the idea of a deity is totally man made, they will not be able to refute your logic.


Didn't look like much logic there to me..........Please define "logic" for me so we can make sure we are on the same page.  Thanks.


----------



## reformedpastor

earl said:


> Diogenes , excellent post !



Not really Earl. Don't fall all over this guy like you and the others on here need someone to rescue you and be a hero. 

The mistake Diogenes makes is the same one children make when being overwhelmed with something they are not familiar with and incapable of sorting out on their own. He presupposes a definition of love and then proceeds to judge God by his fabricated definition. This leads him to absurdity. Let me define absurity for you in case you and the others are not clear. 

ABSURD', a. [L. absurdus, from ab and surdus, deaf, insensible.] Opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with reason or the plain dictates of common sense. An absurd man acts contrary to the clear dictates of reason or sound judgement. An absurd proposition contradicts obvious truth. An absurd practice or opinion is repugnant to the reason or common apprehension of men. It is absurd to say six and six make ten, or that plants will take root in stone .


A question for Diogenes. Do you act like Diogenes did in public?(the one I am refering to is the contemporary of Socrates) If it is you have an obvious affinity for this philosopher, since you use his name as your alias,  who even by todays worldly standards would labeled a pervert and insane. 

Just wanting to know the connection.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Not really Earl. Don't fall all over this guy like you and the others on here need someone to rescue you and be a hero.



Nobody is considering Dio's posts to be their "rescue" or that he is a "hero."

Look, folks.  To understand the thoughts of an athiest, you must first have the basic fundamental understanding that for them there are no gods.  That is a man-made concept to them.
So, any book discussing a deity is man-made as well.
You can not use words of that book to prove a deity exists to an athiest.

I have said before, I am not an athiest.  
So, do not persist in calling me a "sinner" or "lost" or "unforgiven" or "unable to understand spiritual things."

But we begin to see the typical fundamentalist believer's defensive tactic rearing its head..........attack the messenger rather than the message.

There are religious belief system believers that just can not comprehend a world without a deity.  They are so immersed in their belief system, bolstered by faith, that any thoughts outside are wrong, wrong, wrong.

And that's OK.  That is the freedom we have here in America!
It is the exclusivism that causes the rift in discussing religious belief systems and their origins, impact and perpetuation.


----------



## earl

Actually from a debate stand point it was an excellent post . He stated what he perceived to be the truth concisely and clearly.
[it has been done on both sides. Read into which ever one you want, and feel confident in the choice you make. ] to paraphrase Farmasis.
What this entire 15 page thread boils down to is what you personally believe. Niether side can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are correct. If there were unquestionable proof , we all believe the same .


----------



## WTM45

earl said:


> What this entire 15 page thread boils down to is what you personally believe. Niether side can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are correct. If there were unquestionable proof , we all believe the same .



Nailed it.
I will add the emotional trump card is very powerful in influencing a decision as well.  There is no doubt people feel moved, touched and even physically impacted by religion.  ALL religions.


----------



## reformedpastor

> WTM45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is considering Dio's posts to be their "rescue" or that he is a "hero."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My impression, which is right to me? Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, folks.  To understand the thoughts of an athiest, you must first have the basic fundamental understanding that for them there are no gods.  That is a man-made concept to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have we not understood this? Another emotional plea it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, any book discussing a deity is man-made as well. You can not use words of that book to prove a deity exists to an athiest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion as you have stated before. Got it. So....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said before, I am not an athiest.
> So, do not persist in calling me a "sinner" or "lost" or "unforgiven" or "unable to understand spiritual things."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where it gets tricky. Maybe you are confused? If this has been said its only relaying the message of the book. If this bothers you you may want to stick with the political threads. Just a thought. You are dealing with Christians which you seem to know so much about yet this surprises you? Confused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we begin to see the typical fundamentalist believer's defensive tactic rearing its head..........attack the messenger rather than the message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a fundamentalist. Yes they are no this forum but I would be in that camp. I think you just did what you accused me of...........attacking the messenger. Confused???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are religious belief system believers that just can not comprehend a world without a deity.  They are so immersed in their belief system, bolstered by faith, that any thoughts outside are wrong, wrong, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't this another attack? Confused? I would say so. Please keep posting this does more to support what we have said then anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's OK.  That is the freedom we have here in America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. You don't read me crying on here do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the exclusivism that causes the rift in discussing religious belief systems and their origins, impact and perpetuation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even to define a word supports one right definition over another. Atheism is a self defeating system of belief that can never sustain itself but will ever have to borrow from the Christian worldview to make sense of anything.
Click to expand...


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> My impression, which is right to me? Right?
> 
> Sure.  You are so entitled.
> 
> 
> 
> Where have we not understood this? Another emotional plea it seems.
> 
> Not an emotional plea at all.  Just the simple fact.
> It only applies to those who defend solely by using the Bible as their evidence.  If anything, to the Athiest, a man-made work of writing only enforces the idea of a deity as being man-made.
> 
> 
> Your opinion as you have stated before. Got it. So....
> 
> Not so much my opinion as just how it is for an athiest.  A book that discusses purple unicorns will not change a disbeliever of purple unicorns into accepting their existance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where it gets tricky. Maybe you are confused? If this has been said its only relaying the message of the book. If this bothers you you may want to stick with the political threads. Just a thought. You are dealing with Christians which you seem to know so much about yet this surprises you? Confused?
> 
> Oh, I'm not confused at all.  Thanks.
> I'm not suprised at all in the judgemental nature of Christians.  I know far too well how the exclusivism of the belief system attempts to put them above all others and challenges them to denounce all others.  Yes, the book tells them to, I know.
> It is that same segregation from and casting out of others that is potentially dangerous, and when taken to extremes it is cult forming.
> 
> 
> I am not a fundamentalist. Yes they are no this forum but I would be in that camp. I think you just did what you accused me of...........attacking the messenger. Confused???
> 
> No attacks are coming from me, personal or otherwise.  I truly think folks should have the right and freedoms to believe whatever they wish.  Most fundamentalist Christians are not that accepting or accommodating.  It is good discussion, that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this another attack? Confused? I would say so. Please keep posting this does more to support what we have said then anything else.
> 
> Nope.  Not confused at all.  I know my beliefs and have studied extensively to get to where I am.  Am I there yet?  I really don't think so.
> I'll probably not be done investigating things until I die.
> But I can still share the information I have gathered regarding Athiesm even if that is not my personal belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. You don't read me crying on here do you?
> 
> I have not observed anything from you that reflects "crying" or upset emotions.  Your posts are rather well though out and well worded.  I enjoy your discussions!
> We agree on something!  And, as I have said before, we probably agree on MANY things!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even to define a word supports one right definition over another. Atheism is a self defeating system of belief that can never sustain itself but will ever have to borrow from the Christian worldview to make sense of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I do not see much that Athiesm borrows from the Christian worldview.  I think the Christian worldview is one that has done much changing and adapting.
> It uses the rules found in it's Holy Book, and those rules were written and complied over generations.  Mostly by non-eyewitness accounts.  Some are purely embellished generational stories.  A few are pagan.
> Just look at how people have changed compared to some of those rules.
> 
> 
> But we each have opinions, sometimes they differ.  But we are probably not far off in our understanding.  And, I have never attempted to insult anyone here.  I'll keep doing my very best not to.
Click to expand...


----------



## Diogenes

reformedpastor writes:  "The mistake Diogenes makes is the same one children make when being overwhelmed with something they are not familiar with and incapable of sorting out on their own. He presupposes a definition of love and then proceeds to judge God by his fabricated definition. This leads him to absurdity. Let me define absurdity  for you in case you and the others are not clear."

Sir, let us please dispense with the condescending accusation and the smug assumption.  If you will notice, I did not 'presuppose' anything at all.  I merely repeated, verbatim, the words as written in the book you have chosen.  I assigned no meaning to any word, nor did I make any interpretation other than to point out the obvious, literal, as written, contradiction.   If you and your compadres insist that words themselves be given only the meaning you choose to assign, then it is no wonder your view of the universe is so narrow as to contain only one view.  You state: "Atheism is a self defeating system of belief . . .," apparently without any intended irony.  But the only assertion that has been made that atheism is a ‘belief system’ has been your own.  Not a single voice in opposition to theism has made any statement that can be even maliciously twisted into such an assertion.  So, in truth, you (childishly) made the accusation out of whole cloth, for the sole reason of refuting your own proposition.   Assigning fictitious positions to others, then answering them, is rather a classic straw man argument, and you are free to continue arguing with yourself if you wish.  If nothing else that sort of thinking allows you to duck the more difficult points of opposition, which you have done quite neatly by simply ignoring them and retreating back behind your ramparts .  

Atheism is not a belief system of any kind -- it is the rejection of belief systems.  Lacking theism or deism, I am afraid that I need not defend any particular doctrine, since I follow none.  You say that I, “proceed(s) to judge God by (my) fabricated definition,” when I did not fabricate any definition at all, and can hardly judge a ‘god’ that I do not deem to exist.  You are arguing with wisps of smoke that are simply the remnants of your own imaginings.  It is theism that needs to defend itself, and frankly, it isn't doing a very good job.  Oddly, it seems to be the nonbelievers in this thread who are more in line with the views of Pierre Bayle and John Locke concerning religious toleration.  Even the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, while marginally a religious man, observed, “Fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind or imagined from tales publicly allowed, [is] religion; not allowed, superstition.”  Not exactly a fundamentalist, you might observe, but tolerant of opposing viewpoints just the same.    

There is no ‘system of belief’ involved in the simple rejection of quaint, antiquated myths.  You will notice that, these days, we no longer need to appease the ‘Sun God’ to assure ourselves that the sun will rise, and sacrificing a goat to Neptune is no longer an answer to hurricanes, and it has been a darned long time since someone felt compelled to toss a virgin into a volcano (though it might teach them a lesson).  Freed of the strictures and structures of outdated and long discredited superstitions, I am able to approach the universe with an open eye and an open mind, untainted by the rituals that bind too many otherwise intelligent people to the mythological explanations of the natural world provided by their great-great-great forebears.  So, to paraphrase a famous reformedpastor, “The mistake (theists) make is the same one children make when being overwhelmed with something they are not familiar with and incapable of sorting out on their own – they invent fairy tales to make it all easier to explain to themselves.”

 If  further insult was intended  by observing that you consider my namesake, Diogenes the Cynic, to have been a pervert, I’m afraid that I consider the comparison, considering the source, to be a compliment.  His particular ‘perversion’ was to challenge the established doctrine and the reigning order, which was then, as now, corrupt, narrow-minded, dictatorial, heavy-handed, and ignorant in the extreme.  So thank you.

connorreid:  Since you asked, I do view all books and all writings with an informed, educated eye, so as not to be accidentally hoodwinked by nonsense.  Setting aside the fact that not a single thing you wrote makes any coherent sense at all, I was going to provide you with some definitions anyway, just to give you some additional minutia to get wound up about.  (What can I say . . . it isn’t easy being a subversive, and I take my entertainment where I can get it . . . )  The problem is, when coming up with a list of words to ‘define,’ there just turn out to be so very, very many . . .


----------



## Diogenes

Just a random thought:

Reformedpastor writes, in reply to WTM45: "This is where it gets tricky. Maybe you are confused? If this has been said its only relaying the message of the book. If this bothers you you may want to stick with the political threads. Just a thought. You are dealing with Christians which you seem to know so much about yet this surprises you? Confused?"

Um?  The title of the forum, last I looked, was, "Spiritual Discussions, Debate, and Study."   The title of the thread is "How Intellectual is Atheism?"  This sounds pretty spiritual, so I guess it counts.  

So where does this come from --"You are dealing with Christians which you seem to know so much about yet this surprises you?" ??  I missed the part where it said the forum was called  "Exclusively Christian Discussions, Debate, and Study,"  as well as that portion of the thread title which explained that only agreement with Christian Doctrine would be tolerated.

Anyone up for a good discussion of Confucius v. Buddah?  

Confused about 'Spirituality'?  Seems so.


----------



## WTM45

Diogenes said:


> Anyone up for a good discussion of Confucius v. Buddah?



You would be hard pressed to get more than three people to participate, and one would probably know nothing at all about the subject while ranting on about the exclusivity of their chosen belief system.


----------



## Diogenes

WTM45:  I suspect that you are right, having seen the level of 'debate' on offer, but if only one element is allowed to hijack the entire realm of spirituality to only their own ends . . . well . . . where is the fun in that?


----------



## earl

connorreid said:


> God made it clear in Romans chapter 8:7 that "B/c the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be".  So, you don't have the ability unless God reveals Himself to you.  So far He has chosen to leave you in your sins, and He continues to harden your heart.
> 
> Whether you accept it or not doesn't matter.  I deny that God's work was a work of "man".  God used men to write it (since he makes use of means and has a means to an end).  I don't think anything else on this planet like trees, animals, rocks and so on can write).  So how else would it have been written??
> 
> Believe me you haven't addressed all of the issues.........don't even think you have.



The problem I have with that is ...
God gave Moses the stone tablets with the 10 commandments. 
God is all powerful.
That should prove that not only is he capable of writing ,there is biblical proof that he has written directly to man.
The commandments do not appear to be ambiguous. No parables ,no stories that need man's interpretation.
Going by the only documented proof of his writing ,he appears to be concise and his meaning clear. All other information contained in the bible is open to any ones interpretation whether individually ,or as a group. 
If he used man as you describe ,he made a rather botched job of getting the one and only truth out .
Of course when you ask for proof all I can do is use your bible .


----------



## WTM45

earl said:


> Of course when you ask for proof all I can do is use your bible .



And that's all a believer can use too.  An interpretation of the book.

If Moses witnessed a deity actually writing the commandments, then how in the world could he muster up the courage, or let his emotions run so rampant, that he would physically throw them to the ground and break the tablets?  Especially when he knew firsthand the violent and vengeful nature of the deity involved?

Oh, I know.  It is because I have no "faith" and the Holy Spirit is not within me.


----------



## earl

WTM45 said:


> And that's all a believer can use too.  An interpretation of the book.
> 
> If Moses witnessed a deity actually writing the commandments, then how in the world could he muster up the courage, or let his emotions run so rampant, that he would physically throw them to the ground and break the tablets?  Especially when he knew firsthand the violent and vengeful nature of the deity involved?
> 
> Oh, I know.  It is because I have no "faith" and the Holy Spirit is not within me.



I think on the political side they call it ''drinking the kool aid.''


----------



## christianhunter

WTM45 said:


> And that's all a believer can use too.  An interpretation of the book.
> 
> If Moses witnessed a deity actually writing the commandments, then how in the world could he muster up the courage, or let his emotions run so rampant, that he would physically throw them to the ground and break the tablets?  Especially when he knew firsthand the violent and vengeful nature of the deity involved?
> 
> Oh, I know.  It is because I have no "faith" and the Holy Spirit is not within me.



THE LORD is not violent and vengeful,If HE were there would be a lot of people in the world dead,including some on this forum.GOD is not mocked,have your dangerous games with him now.Go ask John Lennon,Napolean,Marx,Stallin,and Hitler when you get to eternity,and see what they found out.The atheist woman that had prayer in school stopped,I forget her name,not that I ever tried to remember it.Ask her too.HE will only take your fist waving so long.Wouldn't want to be in any of your shoes,that mock HIM.


----------



## connorreid

Diogenes said:


> reformedpastor writes:  "The mistake Diogenes makes is the same one children make when being overwhelmed with something they are not familiar with and incapable of sorting out on their own. He presupposes a definition of love and then proceeds to judge God by his fabricated definition. This leads him to absurdity. Let me define absurdity  for you in case you and the others are not clear."
> 
> Sir, let us please dispense with the condescending accusation and the smug assumption.  If you will notice, I did not 'presuppose' anything at all.  I merely repeated, verbatim, the words as written in the book you have chosen.  I assigned no meaning to any word, nor did I make any interpretation other than to point out the obvious, literal, as written, contradiction.   If you and your compadres insist that words themselves be given only the meaning you choose to assign, then it is no wonder your view of the universe is so narrow as to contain only one view.  You state: "Atheism is a self defeating system of belief . . .," apparently without any intended irony.  But the only assertion that has been made that atheism is a ‘belief system’ has been your own.  Not a single voice in opposition to theism has made any statement that can be even maliciously twisted into such an assertion.  So, in truth, you (childishly) made the accusation out of whole cloth, for the sole reason of refuting your own proposition.   Assigning fictitious positions to others, then answering them, is rather a classic straw man argument, and you are free to continue arguing with yourself if you wish.  If nothing else that sort of thinking allows you to duck the more difficult points of opposition, which you have done quite neatly by simply ignoring them and retreating back behind your ramparts .
> 
> Atheism is not a belief system of any kind -- it is the rejection of belief systems.  Lacking theism or deism, I am afraid that I need not defend any particular doctrine, since I follow none.  You say that I, “proceed(s) to judge God by (my) fabricated definition,” when I did not fabricate any definition at all, and can hardly judge a ‘god’ that I do not deem to exist.  You are arguing with wisps of smoke that are simply the remnants of your own imaginings.  It is theism that needs to defend itself, and frankly, it isn't doing a very good job.  Oddly, it seems to be the nonbelievers in this thread who are more in line with the views of Pierre Bayle and John Locke concerning religious toleration.  Even the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, while marginally a religious man, observed, “Fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind or imagined from tales publicly allowed, [is] religion; not allowed, superstition.”  Not exactly a fundamentalist, you might observe, but tolerant of opposing viewpoints just the same.
> 
> There is no ‘system of belief’ involved in the simple rejection of quaint, antiquated myths.  You will notice that, these days, we no longer need to appease the ‘Sun God’ to assure ourselves that the sun will rise, and sacrificing a goat to Neptune is no longer an answer to hurricanes, and it has been a darned long time since someone felt compelled to toss a virgin into a volcano (though it might teach them a lesson).  Freed of the strictures and structures of outdated and long discredited superstitions, I am able to approach the universe with an open eye and an open mind, untainted by the rituals that bind too many otherwise intelligent people to the mythological explanations of the natural world provided by their great-great-great forebears.  So, to paraphrase a famous reformedpastor, “The mistake (theists) make is the same one children make when being overwhelmed with something they are not familiar with and incapable of sorting out on their own – they invent fairy tales to make it all easier to explain to themselves.”
> 
> If  further insult was intended  by observing that you consider my namesake, Diogenes the Cynic, to have been a pervert, I’m afraid that I consider the comparison, considering the source, to be a compliment.  His particular ‘perversion’ was to challenge the established doctrine and the reigning order, which was then, as now, corrupt, narrow-minded, dictatorial, heavy-handed, and ignorant in the extreme.  So thank you.
> 
> connorreid:  Since you asked, I do view all books and all writings with an informed, educated eye, so as not to be accidentally hoodwinked by nonsense.  Setting aside the fact that not a single thing you wrote makes any coherent sense at all, I was going to provide you with some definitions anyway, just to give you some additional minutia to get wound up about.  (What can I say . . . it isn’t easy being a subversive, and I take my entertainment where I can get it . . . )  The problem is, when coming up with a list of words to ‘define,’ there just turn out to be so very, very many . . .


Just what I thought.  You, like junior, can't even define simple terms.  You can't even define "love", yet you put forth a page of mumbo jumbo.  So, if you can't deal with the basics, how do you move on to more complex issues? Everyoned on here can see the foolishness of your system.  When guys can't define 1st grade level words like LOVE, TRUTH, RIGHT, WRONG, then there is a huge problem............


----------



## WTM45

christianhunter said:


> THE LORD is not violent and vengeful,If HE were there would be a lot of people in the world dead,including some on this forum.GOD is not mocked,have your dangerous games with him now.Go ask John Lennon,Napolean,Marx,Stallin,and Hitler when you get to eternity,and see what they found out.The atheist woman that had prayer in school stopped,I forget her name,not that I ever tried to remember it.Ask her too.HE will only take your fist waving so long.Wouldn't want to be in any of your shoes,that mock HIM.



Um, the first sentence and the last sentence are a total dichotomy.

Is the name Madalyn Murray O'Hair the one you are trying to remember?


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> The problem I have with that is ...
> God gave Moses the stone tablets with the 10 commandments.
> God is all powerful.
> That should prove that not only is he capable of writing ,there is biblical proof that he has written directly to man.
> The commandments do not appear to be ambiguous. No parables ,no stories that need man's interpretation.
> Going by the only documented proof of his writing ,he appears to be concise and his meaning clear. All other information contained in the bible is open to any ones interpretation whether individually ,or as a group.
> If he used man as you describe ,he made a rather botched job of getting the one and only truth out .
> Of course when you ask for proof all I can do is use your bible .


I see a perfect God using sinful men to accomplish His holy will.  

I can walk down to my mailbox or I can drive down.  Would it matter to you which one I did as long as I got my mail?  I could care less how God chooses to work.  Just my opinion.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45;3424801

[QUOTE said:
			
		

> Honestly, I do not see much that Athiesm borrows from the Christian worldview.  I think the Christian worldview is one that has done much changing and adapting.
> It uses the rules found in it's Holy Book, and those rules were written and complied over generations.  Mostly by non-eyewitness accounts.  Some are purely embellished generational stories.  A few are pagan.
> Just look at how people have changed compared to some of those rules.


We believe as Christians that God has revealed what is wrong and right, good and bad, etc.  I'm just wanting to know where in an atheistic world would you get good and bad from?  Can you give me some simple definitions of good and bad from their perspective and then maybe we can start discussing some things.  See, footjunior can't even be 100% absolutely certain about anything in his view, so in order to make sense of life he has to go somewhere and get the idea of "good" and "bad" b/c he CAN'T define it in his view.  That is what is being referred to when he is accused of borrowing from the Christian worldview.  There is no such thing as "good" and "bad" in an atheistic world b/c everything is subjective and relative.  

For ex:

If you ask footjunior if is there such a thing as absolute truth, then he will say "no".  

That's BEGS THE QUESTION:  Is that TRUE????

If he says "YES" then he AFFIRMS ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!

If he says "NO" then he contradicts himself.  Why? B/c his statement presupposes truth exist. 

Either way would be nothing but absurdity.

I'm just wanting the atheists on here to come and deal with the SIMPLE issues and they always have excuses not to.  Then, they get upset and start acting like everybody on here who isn't an atheist is not as intellectual as they are.  I then ask them if that is the best scholarship that they have to offer.  They never give anything better.  

Ask these guys yourself to just give you some simple definitions and see how they respond.  Tell them to define LOVE, HATE, ANGER, TRUTH, WRONG.
It would be hard for me to trust in a system or people who want to razzle dazzle you with complex issues but can't even start with the basics.........These guys are like the Joel Osteen's of the modern church - they paint a nice big picture with a smile but are nothing but hot air and looking for ways to advance their own intellectualism.

Would you be a follower of the atheistic religion? I couldn't trust in it.......

Look how many times on here and other threads that I have pressed them to give me some simple definitions and they never do.  Sophistication and intellectualism has eaten them up.  Their own belief system fails them b/c they can't even define words.  

I'm not trying to respond to you in a sarcastic or silly way, so don't take me wrong.  I'm glad you brought this up.  Take care.


----------



## earl

connorreid said:


> I see a perfect God using sinful men to accomplish His holy will.
> 
> I can walk down to my mailbox or I can drive down.  Would it matter to you which one I did as long as I got my mail?  I could care less how God chooses to work.  Just my opinion.



The difference in obtaining your mail wouldn't be the problem.  Being able to ascertain that it was the one and only truth being delivered would be a problem unless it was  legible not only to you but to the multitude of people who handled it.
OK that was a hard one to make an analogy from so I wont cry if you don't get it.


----------



## earl

[Tell them to define LOVE, HATE, ANGER, TRUTH, WRONG.] quote 
I may not be able to define them to your satisfaction but I recognize them enough to point out a post from a self proclaimed christian who uses them all in one post directed at me.


----------



## celticfisherman

connorreid said:


> Just what I thought.  You, like junior, can't even define simple terms.  You can't even define "love", yet you put forth a page of mumbo jumbo.  So, if you can't deal with the basics, how do you move on to more complex issues? Everyoned on here can see the foolishness of your system.  When guys can't define 1st grade level words like LOVE, TRUTH, RIGHT, WRONG, then there is a huge problem............



I agree.

If you cannot give a precise and definitive answer on those words and terms. Then this does indeed show how badly our culture has lost it's simple ability to think.


----------



## WTM45

Anyone can give a definition of anything.  That does not mean all those reading it will be in agreement with that definition.
Some concepts are quite interpretative and individual in scope.
Even those who follow a holy book's definitions will find themselves not in agreement at every definition or interpretation.

Humans continuing to exist is proof enough that simple words can be defined to a basic level of understanding regardless of the language used to communicate them.


----------



## Madman

> Look, folks. To understand the thoughts of an athiest, you must first have the basic fundamental understanding that for them there are no gods.  WTM45



Not so.  I put forth the argument early in this thread that athiests are proclaiming to BE god.  The claim that there is no information ANYWHERE in the universe that could direct them to God.  They claim to be ALL KNOWING and that is god.

At that time some began scrambling to redefine athiests, they claimed it simply meant that there was not enough evidence to prove god to them.  That is AGNOSTIC, without knowledge of god.  But like their hero Dawkins, athiest sounds cooler than agnostic.

I would have to dig through every post to see which one it was, but I asked the question, what would it take for you to believe in God, the answer was: If He came down and said "I am God, I exist."

He did that, and it is fully documented in the Book called the Bible, agnostics choose not to accept it, they choose to not accept the general revalation of creation. 

And that is OK, the argument has been presented, when one of their arguments is "shot down" they ignore the response and throw up another paper tiger.

My argument is not against them, but with the "Powers and principalities of the heavens."


----------



## footjunior

I would much rather give the definition of love that I believe is most correct rather than a definition like, "It's a warm fuzzy feeling." I mean, what is your definition of love?

I have never claimed to be all knowing, but even if I were, that would not necessarily mean that I am calling myself God. Not all gods are omniscient. For example in a previous post about Noah's Ark, a Christian on these boards said that he did not believe that God was completely omniscient.

Atheism is being redefined as we speak. Obviously, there are common misconceptions about the differences between agnostics and atheists, even among atheists and agnostics. The definitions overlap in some areas, and the idea of defacto atheism means that the old definitions of hard atheism have passed. Look up my post on the scale or spectrum of atheism (a scale from 1 to 7 which determines how religious you are) for an idea on what I mean.

I for one do not require God to come down and show himself to me in order for me to believe in God. I can only speak for myself here, because there may be others who have that requirement. If there were substantially more historical proof that Jesus was anything more than just a human who was thought of as a prophet, then I would believe. If there were substantially more proof that he rose from the dead, then I would believe. These are just a few of the ways that I could believe.



> If you ask footjunior if is there such a thing as absolute truth, then he will say "no".



Why do you continue to do this? 

Please quote me in the past where I have said that I didn't think absolute truths existed. I have always claimed that there are absolute truths. Are you ever going to post a real argument?

connorreid, this is my last post directed towards anything you say. You have offered absolutely nothing of substance in your time here on the forums. You seem incapable of understanding the smallest things. You simply repeat your ridiculously simplistic arguments over and over, thinking that with repetition you will somehow wear us down. In short...

Mr. connorreid, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on these boards is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> Not so.  I put forth the argument early in this thread that athiests are proclaiming to BE god.  The claim that there is no information ANYWHERE in the universe that could direct them to God.  They claim to be ALL KNOWING and that is god.
> 
> At that time some began scrambling to redefine athiests, they claimed it simply meant that there was not enough evidence to prove god to them.  That is AGNOSTIC, without knowledge of god.  But like their hero Dawkins, athiest sounds cooler than agnostic.
> 
> I would have to dig through every post to see which one it was, but I asked the question, what would it take for you to believe in God, the answer was: If He came down and said "I am God, I exist."
> 
> He did that, and it is fully documented in the Book called the Bible, agnostics choose not to accept it, they choose to not accept the general revalation of creation.
> 
> And that is OK, the argument has been presented, when one of their arguments is "shot down" they ignore the response and throw up another paper tiger.
> 
> My argument is not against them, but with the "Powers and principalities of the heavens."



Again, the argument presented is one of the holy book, written by men, describing a deity, is evidence enough that the deity is real.

Would a book, describing a purple unicorn, be enough for you to believe that purple unicorns exist?

The logical method of deduction and reasoning leads the Athiest to believe there is no deity because there is no proof or evidence of a scientific nature.  If such a piece of evidence or proof was found through investigation, the scientific method of deduction and reasoning would have to allow it.

Yes, the Agnostic sits with the stance of having no proof or existance, but no proof of non-existance.  That's a position that should be defaulting to Athiesm simply because of that lack of proof of existance if the scientific method is followed.

Let's say you do not believe there is such a thing as a troll who speaks French living under your bed.  Because you have seen no evidence of such activity, you default to the belief that there is no such a thing as a troll who speaks French that lives under your bed.

Athiests do not put themselves up as being a "god" or a "deity" as there really is no such a creature in their world.  Nothing needs to be imagined or feared as a super-power or point of accountability in order to live a full and successful life in their world.
Those who seek "eternal life" when it's clear all will one day die, are closer to making themselves some type of deity than any Athiest.
It's very rare to meet an Athiest that considers himself/herself "all knowing."  They tend to be the most inquisitive investigators and voracious readers of everything they can get their hands on.  Including the Bible.

And it comes back around full circle to the beginning of the thread.......


----------



## Madman

> If there were substantially more proof that he rose from the dead, then I would believe. These are just a few of the ways that I could believe. ... FootJunior



If you honestly want to read well researched fully documented material here are three books that could help you in that journey.  

1) More than a Carpenter .... Josh McDowell
2) These Case for Faith........  Lee Strobel
3) The Case For Christ. ........  Lee Strobel

Josh and Lee were both "atheists" at one time in there lives.

Josh puts forth the argument that you have to do something with Jesus.  He can not just be a good man.  He is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.

Lee is a reporter who began on the same path you may be on FootJr.  He wanted historical proof.  Read his books and read the books of the people he interviews.

Then get a Bible and read the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Matthew, then tell me if you believe they are talking about the same man.  

One last thing, God exists whether you believe in Him or not, when you are reading the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Matthew asked God to reveal Himself to you.  If you earnestly seek Him, He will find you.

Peace.


----------



## Madman

> Would a book, describing a purple unicorn, be enough for you to believe that purple unicorns exist?..WTM45



Is there as much historical evidence for a purple unicorn as there is for the bodily resurection of Jesus Christ?  If there was I would believe in purple unicorns.



> Let's say you do not believe there is such a thing as a troll who speaks French living under your bed. Because you have seen no evidence of such activity, you default to the belief that there is no such a thing as a troll who speaks French that lives under your bed...WTM



the premise of your statement is false.  There is no "troll who speaks French living under my bed" because I looked under my be every night and every norning and have not found one nor have I found evidence for one but I do not say there is no such thing as a troll who speaks French because you may have one living under YOUR bed, of which I would have no knowledge.

I would be a Troll-nostic because I am unsure of their existance.

By default, a term you like to use because it sounds scholarly, an athiest says "I have looked at all the evidence, and there is none that directs me to God". Therefore, BY DEFAULT, they claim to have infinite knowledge, knowledge that there is no evidence anywhere in the universe that would direct them to God.

Therefore the logical DEFAULT would be: Since a part of the definition of God would be that he has to be all knowing, and they think they are all knowing therefore they think they are God or at least partly a god.


----------



## footjunior

Madman said:


> By default, a term you like to use because it sounds scholarly, an athiest says "I have looked at all the evidence, and there is none that directs me to God". Therefore, BY DEFAULT, they claim to have infinite knowledge, knowledge that there is no evidence anywhere in the universe that would direct them to God.



Obviously when people say they have looked at all the evidence they mean they have looked at all the available evidence. You know what people are implying when they say this, I don't know why you purposely continue to twist their words to fit what you would like them to say.

I feel that I have looked at most of the available evidence for Jesus. However, I realize that there is probably much more evidence out there that points towards either a divine Jesus or just a normal human Jesus. I am not claiming to be all-knowing when it comes to this, although I'm sure you would just love to believe that I am claiming to have infinite knowledge.



> Therefore the logical DEFAULT would be: Since a part of the definition of God would be that he has to be all knowing, and they think they are all knowing therefore they think they are God or at least partly a god.



Why are you calling this a default?


----------



## Madman

Foot Jr.

I knew you were not serious about the statement "If there were substantially more historical proof that Jesus was anything more than just a human who was thought of as a prophet, then I would believe". I just thought I would make you play that hand.

Touché


----------



## Diogenes

I just spoke with God.  I did, and you can’t prove that I didn’t.  He told me, in a dream, that you were wrong and I am right. Really. He also said he left some typos in Genesis, and those stupid priests didn't catch it! He likes to listen to Black Sabbath and the Grateful Dead and drink beer on Saturday nights, and because He’s God, he never even gets a hangover.  He also said that He only lets the really hot chicks into heaven, and He lets them play all the volleyball they want.  He's a pretty cool dude. I like Him better than your version.  Are you willing to let Him come into your world? He will if you want him to.  But you gotta try really, really hard. It takes faith.  Just believe in Him and he will set you free. Look outside your window and you'll see His creation -- beer, pizza, Toyotas, shopping malls, nuclear submarines, junk mail, outboard motors, Prince, infomercials, and the George Foreman Grill. Wondrous, ain't it? I'm following His instructions right now and it's pretty awesome. I think I'll start a new church because God said all the others are false faiths and if we don't do something soon, He's gonna get all Saddam & Godiva on us again and we'll be sorry, but the price of salt will come down.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> Is there as much historical evidence for a purple unicorn as there is for the bodily resurection of Jesus Christ?  If there was I would believe in purple unicorns.
> 
> I never said there was no historical evidence of a man named Jesus who walked this earth.
> Whether or not he was a deity, or even if there exists a deity is an altogether different subject.  You have the right to believe as you wish.  Athiests do not follow the same logic.
> 
> 
> 
> the premise of your statement is false.  There is no "troll who speaks French living under my bed" because I looked under my be every night and every norning and have not found one nor have I found evidence for one but I do not say there is no such thing as a troll who speaks French because you may have one living under YOUR bed, of which I would have no knowledge.
> 
> No, you would have to give credit to those other individuals who have verified the same result as you, and weigh your response accordingly.  There has been NO identified by proof or by evidence of a troll that speaks French living under ANY bed, ANYWHERE.
> Until you find one, or see proof or documented evidence, you would have to defualt to the statement that they do not exist.  Unless you want to have faith one does exist......
> 
> I would be a Troll-nostic because I am unsure of their existance.
> 
> You would have that right.  The scientific method will require you to go one step further and outright say they do not exist, simply due to a lack of proofs or of evidence.
> 
> By default, a term you like to use because it sounds scholarly, an athiest says "I have looked at all the evidence, and there is none that directs me to God". Therefore, BY DEFAULT, they claim to have infinite knowledge, knowledge that there is no evidence anywhere in the universe that would direct them to God.
> 
> No, they only claim to have knowledge that the available proofs and evidence are non-existant.  They do not rely on faith or an internal feeling or emotion to make their deduction.  The do not work in the realm of the imaginary.
> 
> I am not saying what YOU might believe or feel is not real.  It very well may be, for you.  But Athiests do not make their deductions and logical reasoning on feeling.
> 
> 
> Therefore the logical DEFAULT would be: Since a part of the definition of God would be that he has to be all knowing, and they think they are all knowing therefore they think they are God or at least partly a god.



Athiests, like many scientists and researchers, are very open minded and accepting of new findings, proofs and evidence.  They are constantly seeking to find evidence of things that some people just believe through faith and imagination.
Remember, Athiests do not believe in deities.  How could they "think they are a god or at least partly a god?"  That's circular reasoning.  
Athiests are well aware of the limitations of a human lifespan, and without evidence of an eternity it seems the believers are the ones who wish eternal life like some god or deity.


----------



## Madman

You spoke with your god.  Maybe it was FootJr.  It was not  my God because what you claim he told you does not match up with the True God's written Word. 

Nice try.  

"Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting."


----------



## Madman

> Is there as much historical evidence for a purple unicorn as there is for the bodily resurection of Jesus Christ? If there was I would believe in purple unicorns.



You avoided the question.


----------



## Madman

> you would have to defualt to the statement that they do not exist





> The scientific method will require you to go one step further and outright say they do not exist, simply due to a lack of proofs or of evidence.



pretty closed minded don't you think?


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> pretty closed minded don't you think?



Not really for an Athiest.  It is clear that a decision can be made scientifically based on proofs and evidence.
Most are in constant research, open to any and all new proofs and evidence.

As far as the question regarding Jesus and the resurrection, there are no people alive today that saw it firsthand.  And, the gospels found in the Bible (NT) were written by men who were NOT physically present as eyewitness to the event either (Mathew, Mark, Luke... only John actually saw Jesus firsthand).  Was John a witness to the resurrection and the ascension?
So, some take it on faith that it occured.  Others do not believe it happened at all.  Some think it might or might not have happened.
Everyone has to decide for themselves.


----------



## christianhunter

WTM45 said:


> Um, the first sentence and the last sentence are a total dichotomy.
> 
> Is the name Madalyn Murray O'Hair the one you are trying to remember?



The first and last sentence are not contradictory.THE LORD Is Slow To Anger.You may live to be 100,HE May require your soul tonight.The same goes for me,for different reasons though.No one is promised tommorow,Christian or non-Christian.HE is a GOD Of Love and Mercy,but HE is also A GOD of Judgement.I'll stick with the atheist woman who had prayer stopped in school,I really prefer not to remember her name.She did have a son who became a Preacher,GOD is not mocked.


----------



## WTM45

christianhunter said:


> The first and last sentence are not contradictory.THE LORD Is Slow To Anger.You may live to be 100,HE May require your soul tonight.The same goes for me,for different reasons though.No one is promised tommorow,Christian or non-Christian.HE is a GOD Of Love and Mercy,but HE is also A GOD of Judgement.I'll stick with the atheist woman who had prayer stopped in school,I really prefer not to remember her name.She did have a son who became a Preacher,GOD is not mocked.



All I am doing is discussing what Athiests believe and don't believe.  It has nothing to do with who I am, or who you are.
Or what I personally believe.
It's only a discussion. 
Can you dig it?

I'm not questioning your faith here.  You previously said one thing and then said something entirely different in the same paragraph.  That's all.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Anyone can give a definition of anything.  That does not mean all those reading it will be in agreement with that definition.
> Some concepts are quite interpretative and individual in scope.
> Even those who follow a holy book's definitions will find themselves not in agreement at every definition or interpretation.
> 
> Humans continuing to exist is proof enough that simple words can be defined to a basic level of understanding regardless of the language used to communicate them.


Look, if we can't define a few simple words, then there is a problem.  If anyone can give a definition of anything, then I'd like to see some definitions for the words I listed above.  By not seeing them, it only confirms a worldview of relativism and confusion.  It's funny how nobody will give a few simple definitions but then go on to use these words on here to communicate ideas.  If we take up the logic used on here, how could we know anything?  It seems to me we wouldn't be able to b/c we'd have a breakdown in communication......


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> I would much rather give the definition of love that I believe is most correct rather than a definition like, "It's a warm fuzzy feeling." I mean, what is your definition of love?
> 
> I have never claimed to be all knowing, but even if I were, that would not necessarily mean that I am calling myself God. Not all gods are omniscient. For example in a previous post about Noah's Ark, a Christian on these boards said that he did not believe that God was completely omniscient.
> 
> Atheism is being redefined as we speak. Obviously, there are common misconceptions about the differences between agnostics and atheists, even among atheists and agnostics. The definitions overlap in some areas, and the idea of defacto atheism means that the old definitions of hard atheism have passed. Look up my post on the scale or spectrum of atheism (a scale from 1 to 7 which determines how religious you are) for an idea on what I mean.
> 
> I for one do not require God to come down and show himself to me in order for me to believe in God. I can only speak for myself here, because there may be others who have that requirement. If there were substantially more historical proof that Jesus was anything more than just a human who was thought of as a prophet, then I would believe. If there were substantially more proof that he rose from the dead, then I would believe. These are just a few of the ways that I could believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to do this?
> 
> Please quote me in the past where I have said that I didn't think absolute truths existed. I have always claimed that there are absolute truths. Are you ever going to post a real argument?
> 
> connorreid, this is my last post directed towards anything you say. You have offered absolutely nothing of substance in your time here on the forums. You seem incapable of understanding the smallest things. You simply repeat your ridiculously simplistic arguments over and over, thinking that with repetition you will somehow wear us down. In short...
> 
> Mr. connorreid, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on these boards is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Anybody can go back and read all of the arguments and see very clearly that you DO NOT believe in anything that is 100% absolutely certain / absolute truth.  

Now, is this the best scholarship that you can offer?.....to start pointing fingers and dodging questions?  If you must bid "adieu", then see ya.

One more thing - let's see your definition of love.  I bet you won't put one down here.  You acted real boldly like you were going to, but I don't believe your worldview will allow you to do it, will it? If you do, then we can discuss it.  I'D LOVE TO DO THAT!! That's what I've been trying to get you to do.  Give us some simple definitions of some words and let's talk about them..............


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> Look, if we can't define a few simple words, then there is a problem.  If anyone can give a definition of anything, then I'd like to see some definitions for the words I listed above.  By not seeing them, it only confirms a worldview of relativism and confusion.  It's funny how nobody will give a few simple definitions but then go on to use these words on here to communicate ideas.  If we take up the logic used on here, how could we know anything?  It seems to me we wouldn't be able to b/c we'd have a breakdown in communication......



Sorry, but I can not waste my time with the mundane requirement to "define" literary terms which you have been posting.  You are light years behind the understanding of the scientific method of reasoning and deduction.
The simple fact that words are used and understood by both the writer and the reader gives common definition to suffice.

The following is serious and not sarcastic in any way.
If you want to contribute, then how about addressing how your faith in the existance of a deity and faith in the concept of eternity is founded and maintained.  Can you explain that without the Bible being your only source of presented evidence?
Can you share your proofs that led you to the deduction of both a deity and eternity as being real?

I'm not saying your faith, beliefs and what you hold dear are not true.  They just might be very true to you.  And you have the right to believe as you wish.
But can you express that belief using a method that does not require faith or a belief in something intangible?


----------



## Madman

> no people alive today that saw it firsthand...WTM45



No body alive today that saw George Washington as pres. maybe he wasn't.



> Not really for an Athiest.



Seems atheism is pretty convienent.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Again, the argument presented is one of the holy book, written by men, describing a deity, is evidence enough that the deity is real.
> 
> Would a book, describing a purple unicorn, be enough for you to believe that purple unicorns exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe books that scientists put out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The logical method of deduction and reasoning leads the Athiest to believe there is no deity because there is no proof or evidence of a scientific nature.  If such a piece of evidence or proof was found through investigation, the scientific method of deduction and reasoning would have to allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just don't like the proof.  I don't need much proof to believe in God.  You, however, may need tons and tons of it.  Do you think that all people must think the same way as you? I don't.  I believe the logical method of deduction and reasoning can only come from God.  I believe in His word that has been around for thousands of years but you may not.  You may believe what atheist scientists say and I don't.  You think Christians have no logic and we think atheist scientist don't have any, so back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say you do not believe there is such a thing as a troll who speaks French living under your bed.  Because you have seen no evidence of such activity, you default to the belief that there is no such a thing as a troll who speaks French that lives under your bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we as Christians claim that we have all of the evidence we need.  It would be the atheist that would need more evidence.  The proof is sufficient for me although not to their liking.
> 
> 
> 
> Athiests do not put themselves up as being a "god" or a "deity" as there really is no such a creature in their world.  Nothing needs to be imagined or feared as a super-power or point of accountability in order to live a full and successful life in their world.
> Those who seek "eternal life" when it's clear all will one day die, are closer to making themselves some type of deity than any Athiest.
> It's very rare to meet an Athiest that considers himself/herself "all knowing."  They tend to be the most inquisitive investigators and voracious readers of everything they can get their hands on.  Including the Bible.
> 
> And it comes back around full circle to the beginning of the thread......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .I don't doubt that many atheists are inquisitive investigators and voracious readers of everything but so are other people.  And look at all of the different conclusions drawn from everybody.  I don't know anybody either who is "all knowing" - only God.
> 
> What I try to get an atheist to explain is why would anything matter in an atheistic world? You live and die, that's it, so who cares what you do here or how you live your life? They cannot give an account for how they justify life here or make sense of it.  Nobody could live in a world of relativism that they propose.  Instead, they do like God says of them - they suppress the truth that has been revealed to them.  They claim they want proof for God, all the while living in His world of order.
Click to expand...


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> No body alive today that saw George Washington as pres. maybe he wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems atheism is pretty convienent.



Very well might be true, but there is a whole lot of written documentation by a lot of eye-witnesses to his presidency and life.

Athiests feel that obtaining forgiveness for wrongs never done, done, or about to be done simply by praying a little prayer is pretty convenient.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Sorry, but I can not waste my time with the mundane requirement to "define" literary terms which you have been posting.  You are light years behind the understanding of the scientific method of reasoning and deduction.
> The simple fact that words are used and understood by both the writer and the reader gives common definition to suffice.
> 
> The following is serious and not sarcastic in any way.
> If you want to contribute, then how about addressing how your faith in the existance of a deity and faith in the concept of eternity is founded and maintained.  Can you explain that without the Bible being your only source of presented evidence?
> Can you share your proofs that led you to the deduction of both a deity and eternity as being real?
> 
> I'm not saying your faith, beliefs and what you hold dear are not true.  They just might be very true to you.  And you have the right to believe as you wish.
> But can you express that belief using a method that does not require faith or a belief in something intangible?


Believe me, the atheist has plenty of faith.  And blind faith at that.  He TRUSTS in science.  I don't really care if you like my posts or not.  You and footjunior still can't define anything.  All you can do is point fingers at me and accuse me of this and that when the fact is - you guys argue from the absurd.  Just the "idea" of an atheistic world is utter foolishness.  Nothing would matter.....


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> WTM45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe books that scientists put out?
> 
> I read a lot.  I study a lot.  I have furthered my education, and continue to grow daily.  "Believe?"  Maybe the better question is "what do I understand?"
> 
> 
> You just don't like the proof.  I don't need much proof to believe in God.  You, however, may need tons and tons of it.  Do you think that all people must think the same way as you? I don't.  I believe the logical method of deduction and reasoning can only come from God.  I believe in His word that has been around for thousands of years but you may not.  You may believe what atheist scientists say and I don't.  You think Christians have no logic and we think atheist scientist don't have any, so back to square one.
> 
> That's fine.  I've never made my posts here as an argument against your belief system.  I'm sure it is real to you, and you have the right to believe as you choose.  Not everyone agrees with your system, though.  Especially Athiests.
> 
> 
> But we as Christians claim that we have all of the evidence we need.  It would be the atheist that would need more evidence.  The proof is sufficient for me although not to their liking.
> 
> Your proof is based on faith and emotion.  That's OK for you.  Some people require more tangible evidence.
> 
> 
> .I don't doubt that many atheists are inquisitive investigators and voracious readers of everything but so are other people.  And look at all of the different conclusions drawn from everybody.  I don't know anybody either who is "all knowing" - only God.
> 
> No one is even attempting to state that they are "all knowing."  I do not know how this came into play on this thread.
> 
> What I try to get an atheist to explain is why would anything matter in an atheistic world? You live and die, that's it, so who cares what you do here or how you live your life? They cannot give an account for how they justify life here or make sense of it.  Nobody could live in a world of relativism that they propose.  Instead, they do like God says of them - they suppress the truth that has been revealed to them.  They claim they want proof for God, all the while living in His world of order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, not everyone needs to have some understood meaning of life.  Those that do usually seek to find it in religious belief systems, for science expresses the circle of life in complete terms.  Born, live, die, decay.
> 
> The Athiest has the same motivations to enjoy life and live it to the fullest as any religious belief system follower.  They just do not need any imaginary or spiritual power to get what they are seeking.
> 
> There is a lot of information out there on the subject of altruism and human behavior.
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Very well might be true, but there is a whole lot of written documentation by a lot of eye-witnesses to his presidency and life.
> 
> 
> 
> If we truly thought this way we could know nothing.  It's obvious that we don't live that way.
> 
> Just the fact that we can come here and communicate coherently presupposes absolutes.  Atheists couldn't dare have that in their worldview (and as we have pressed them on this thread, they have shown that).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Athiests feel that obtaining forgiveness for wrongs never done, done, or about to be done simply by praying a little prayer is pretty convenient.[/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheists might feel this way but who cares.  Others may not.  What's your point?
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> connorreid said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, not everyone needs to have some understood meaning of life.  Those that do usually seek to find it in religious belief systems, for science expresses the circle of life in complete terms.  Born, live, die, decay.
> 
> The Athiest has the same motivations to enjoy life and live it to the fullest as any religious belief system follower.  They just do not need any imaginary or spiritual power to get what they are seeking.
> 
> There is a lot of information out there on the subject of altruism and human behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is an atheistic world could one person believe murder is fine and another not like it? And the one that liked to murder, would it be OK for him to go around killing people?  This might be his enjoyment in an atheistic world but not enjoyment for others.  Would that be OK?  Since we are born, live, die, and decay, wouldn't the murderer be justified in killing?
Click to expand...


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> Believe me, the atheist has plenty of faith.  And blind faith at that.  He TRUSTS in science.  I don't really care if you like my posts or not.  You and footjunior still can't define anything.  All you can do is point fingers at me and accuse me of this and that when the fact is - you guys argue from the absurd.  Just the "idea" of an atheistic world is utter foolishness.  Nothing would matter.....




Actually, the Athiest does not have to trust anything.  Only that they are existing, breath is in their lungs and their heart is beating.  That's more physiological than "science."

I don't dislike your posts.  I just wish you had more background so as to understand the real talking points a little better.
I'm not accusing you of anything other than getting hung up on word definitions that are commonly defined in Webster's.

Athiesm might be "absurd" to you as your belief system is all you are willing to see.  You appear to have a strong faith, so that should be considered a good thing as your chosen system requires a lot of that.  And that is good for you.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> WTM45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is an atheistic world could one person believe murder is fine and another not like it? And the one that liked to murder, would it be OK for him to go around killing people?  This might be his enjoyment in an atheistic world but not enjoyment for others.  Would that be OK?  Since we are born, live, die, and decay, wouldn't the murderer be justified in killing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Dawkins says it very well.
> http://richarddawkins.net/print.php?id=106
> 
> Physicist and Nobel prizewinner Stephen Weinberg describes religion as an insult to human dignity. 'Without it,' he says, 'you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.' Dawkins agrees.
> It is more moral, he says, to do good for its own sake than out of fear.
> Morality, he says, is older than religion, and kindness and generosity are innate in human beings, as they are in other social animals. The irony is that science recognises the majesty and complexity of the universe while religions lead to easy, closed answers.
> 
> Is there no more than just this life? asks Richard Dawkins. How much more do you want? We are lucky to be here, he says, and we should make the most of our time on this world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, Mr. Reid, you are wishing to discuss things here not having at least read what the current and past schools of thought are regarding Athiesm.  Never mind holding an understanding of just how religious belief systems work on the individual, starting with childhood indoctrinations.  This is not limited to Christianity either.  It is found in virtually all religious belief systems, and to understand it takes time and effort.
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> I don't dislike your posts.  I just wish you had more background so as to understand the real talking points a little better.
> I'm not accusing you of anything other than getting hung up on word definitions that are commonly defined in Webster's.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, please put the common definitions out there so we can discuss them.  It's so simple but none of the atheists on here will do it.
> 
> I would say the same thing about background.  You wish I had more background in your studies and I wish you had more in mine.  I understand the talking points exactly but most of the atheists on here just don't like what I say.  When they are pressed to give an account, they can't.  Sure, they think I'm not up to par, but I think the same of them.  When I see the people Footjunior quotes from the Christian community it is comical and does give me a lot of understanding about him.......Have a good night!! I'm crashing!!
> 
> I have enjoyed the discussion.  At least we can come here and debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Athiesm might be "absurd" to you as your belief system is all you are willing to see.  You appear to have a strong faith, so that should be considered a good thing as your chosen system requires a lot of that.  And that is good for you.:cool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's be honest - Don't you think the atheists on here think Christianity is "absurd"?  And it's quite clear their belief system is all they are willing to see.  You may say they don't have faith but I think they have LOTS of it!!! There is no neutrality or common ground in these arguments - we are worlds apart for sure in these opposing worldviews........Later.
Click to expand...


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> WTM45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish I had more background in your studies and I wish you had more in mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you would be VERY suprised at the level of theology I have personally undertaken and completed.  I don't put too much stock on the diplomas and such, but I do value the years greatly.
> 
> Hang around.  There is always the possiblity of learning something new!  Just remember, this is not a room of amateurs!
> 
> Common definitions are found in Webster's.  That's a resource worthy of the task.
> 
> Athiests think pretty much ALL religious belief systems are absurd.  It is only Christianity that anyone is speaking up to defend here.  Should I move into Buddist thought or Hindu philosophy, and then we will have someone take the Athiest side?
> 
> Christianity is one of the most, if not THE most exclusive of religious.  So, it only is fitting that those who do not believe in the concept of a deity or of eternity would address it first and foremost.
> 
> Understanding what others believe, and why, can help to strengthen one's own personal beliefs.  Or, quite possibly, show them the fallacy or outright untruths within.
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> connorreid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Dawkins says it very well.
> http://richarddawkins.net/print.php?id=106
> 
> Physicist and Nobel prizewinner Stephen Weinberg describes religion as an insult to human dignity. 'Without it,' he says, 'you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.' Dawkins agrees.
> It is more moral, he says, to do good for its own sake than out of fear.
> Morality, he says, is older than religion, and kindness and generosity are innate in human beings, as they are in other social animals. The irony is that science recognises the majesty and complexity of the universe while religions lead to easy, closed answers.
> 
> Is there no more than just this life? asks Richard Dawkins. How much more do you want? We are lucky to be here, he says, and we should make the most of our time on this world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, Mr. Reid, you are wishing to discuss things here not having at least read what the current and past schools of thought are regarding Athiesm.  Never mind holding an understanding of just how religious belief systems work on the individual, starting with childhood indoctrinations.  This is not limited to Christianity either.  It is found in virtually all religious belief systems, and to understand it takes time and effort.
> 
> 
> 
> The same could be said of the atheists on here as well.
> 
> You know what's hilarious - this quote from Dawkins in RIVER OUT OF EDEN: A DARWINIAN VIEW OF LIFE (pg 133) - He said that the universe has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
> 
> Wow.......for someone as brilliant as Dakins to believe in good and evil then make a statement earlier in his book about it not existing is SUCH IMPRESSIVE SCHOLARSHIP!!
> 
> I am going to bed now, I promise......
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> connorreid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you would be VERY suprised at the level of theology I have personally undertaken and completed.  I don't put too much stock on the diplomas and such, but I do value the years greatly.
> 
> Hang around.  There is always the possiblity of learning something new!  Just remember, this is not a room of amateurs!
> 
> 
> 
> I am impressed!!! You might not want to think so lowly of others either.......you aren't omniscient are you??  Some others could have been staunch atheists back in the day until God granted mercy.......
Click to expand...


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> WTM45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am impressed!!! You might not want to think so lowly of others either.......you aren't omniscient are you??  Some others could have been staunch atheists back in the day until God granted mercy.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could I be?  That's quite "god-like."
> I'm only carbon, water and a few other things that helps to grow tomatoes!
Click to expand...


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> The same could be said of the atheists on here as well.
> 
> You know what's hilarious - this quote from Dawkins in RIVER OUT OF EDEN: A DARWINIAN VIEW OF LIFE (pg 133) - He said that the universe has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
> 
> Wow.......for someone as brilliant as Dakins to believe in good and evil then make a statement earlier in his book about it not existing is SUCH IMPRESSIVE SCHOLARSHIP!!
> 
> I am going to bed now, I promise......



Totally out of context, my friend! Did you read page 132? 

Dawkins statement was extrapolating on the comment of a priest regarding the resulting misfortunes and calamaties (a deadly bus crash in this instance) as having no meaning if the universe was only "electrons ...there would be no human suffering." 
Dawkins was explaining what would really be like (p. 133)if the universe was only electrons and selfish genes like the priest tried to suppose.


----------



## Diogenes

Teaching a donkey to sing, it looks like . . . 

(Heavy sigh.)  By all appearances, there are thoughtful spiritual people out there, but they generally do not feel the need to shove their beliefs down other people's throats, nor do they think they are self-appointed by God to save humanity -- I thought you folks believed that job was already taken anyway.

Skipping the question, and writing out pages of Bible verse to prove the validity of Bible verse as a source to prove that the source is right is sort of like quoting yourself to prove that you said true.  Right?  It is self negating.  

The real kicker here is, you have not -and cannot- make a sound argument that the text of the Bible itself comes from the spirit, the hand, or the mouth of God.  (And if God turns out to have a mouth, well, you can just raise my rent and butter my backside . . . )  The reason for this is because we cannot trust the book to verify its own accuracy except by comparison to other, objectively verifiable things. And there is no way to objectively verify superstitions.  

There are numerous claims of subjective verifications, when people got good feelings or visions or hallucinations or whatever, but those are useless for determining actual truth, since they're not objectively verifiable. And worse, you cannot accurately trace and determine the cause or source of these feelings, so they're not really even subjective verifications. You've decided that they're from God . . . but you might as well believe a complete stranger who walks up and tells you he's God.  You have as much reason to trust him as you have to trust your own guesses as to the causes of your 'experiences' and beliefs, and more reason to trust him than to trust a book that has already been demonstrated, historically, to be a compilation of stories from dozens of sources, some taken verbatim.

Using nothing more than a boundless skill at mistaking belief for fact is a lousy way to make an argument.  If your God is only the God you see and believe in, then mine is as good as yours, and if I assert that my God is a little green watering can in Geneva you have no possible way of refuting that claim.  You folks don’t even make what would be a semi-intellectually courageous leap by asserting just what you believe your God to be.  Is it a person?  A place?  A thing?  A tripartite, amorphous intelligence?  A hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue?  A collection of writings?  A cloud of all-powerful smoke?  What?  C’mon – you are true believers, so tell me just what it is you believe in and have named.  To take a page from your book, I insist on a definition . . . and it had better be consistent and concise . . .  Otherwise, well, you are asserting the existence of something you can’t even grasp, let alone define . . .  It is disingenuous, both intellectually and rhetorically to demand definitions of Words while asserting that your God is the Word.  Which Word?  There are a bunch of them.      

And spare me the Creation crap as well – if you wish to assert that everything that exists must have been created, and you also assert the existence of your God, then you have walked yourselves into a trap.  You cannot assert that the universe was created by ‘God,’ then in the same breath say that this ‘God’ just exists, and needed no creator.  If you can accept, intellectually, that something just exists, then why go back the extra step?  If ‘God’ can ‘just exist,’ then why can’t the universe?  Think long and hard on that one . . .

Additionally, the entire concept of ‘Intelligent Design’ is actually a philosophy of ignorance, based on the claim that if you, personally, cannot figure out the answer to a problem then nobody else can either.  Thank goodness we didn’t rely on you folks to work out nuclear power plants and Mars landings.  If you look around with a critical eye, you might actually come to the opposite conclusion – Stupid Design.  Colliding galaxies, exploding stars, killer asteroids, matter-hungry black holes, carnivorous animals, snow, deserts, viruses, diseases aplenty, parasites, cancers, volcanoes, hurricanes . . . random disorder abounds.  An ordered and ‘intelligently’ designed universe might be a bit better behaved than this one – and don’t even try that crap about it all being part of ‘God’s Plan’ – that is an idiotic rationalization that you use for everything you don’t understand.  Intelligent people go out and try to find out why, and those of us that do have given the rest of you morons everything from vaccines against the diseases that were ‘God’s Plan’ to a scientific abstract of weather patterns that can accurately predict a hurricane in time to save your dumb life.  Intelligence is human, not Divine.  You might try some out.  It is very refreshing.       

And also spare me the ‘origins of morality’ argument – I can go on for miles of bandwidth on that one -- from the earliest tribal collections of humans there has been a common interest in discouraging certain types of behavior in order to facilitate something approaching a civil collective.  (And unfortunately, as recently as 9,000 years ago folks had it together enough, society-wise, to be collectively farming, making metal tools, herding animals, communicating with a common language, and building with brick.)  Clearly, if folks are going to gather in groups with a collective interest, then the collective has an interest in such things as not killing your own tribesmen, not raping your tribesmen’s wives and daughters, not stealing their goods, and respecting your elders, among many other things.  Reasonable men make laws and taboos to serve the interest of the majority, do they not?  Now, I can get all scholarly here, and trot out a few thousand pages of dissertation to demonstrate the truth of that, but a moment of thinking, if thought there be, might lead a reasonable mind see the sense in ‘morality’ having arisen out of common interest, not out of a book that had not yet been written, and that nobody extant at the time could have read even if it had been written.  (News Flash: World literacy rates, circa 2009, hover at 25%.  World literacy rates, estimated, circa 100 A.D., hovered around 0.0001% -- This is to say, that if God thought writing a book was the best way to spread his Word, then he might have first taught folks to read . . . ) 

Try out a few small thought experiments on yourselves – If the Good Book had said that it was just as fine to kill and eat babies as it was to murder them (and it did condone murdering them, don’t deny it), would you go along with that, because it was written?  Of course you wouldn’t.  But in making that judgment, yourself, you have just demonstrated your own capacity to derive morality out of your own senses.  Another thought experiment – just because the Good Book is rife with examples of folks impregnating their own daughters, slaughtering women and children, sacrificing animals to appease the Lord, and smiting ‘sinners,’ do you take those examples to heart, and behave accordingly?  Of course you don’t, because you, yourself, objectively consider such behavior to be appalling.  Again you have made an independent moral judgment, all by yourself.  So if you have proven to yourself that you are able to make such judgments, then what do you need a God for?  

That moral sense came out of your own thoughts, did it not?  Do not sputter . . . think.

During the 6th millennium BC (8,000 years ago), agriculture spread from the Balkans to Italy and Eastern Europe and from Mesopotamia to Egypt.  Fact.  Verified.  So please take the nonsense about all of ‘Creation’ being 5 or 6 thousand years old back to your elementary school teachers and ask them just what they were thinking when they taught that.  Do not bother us with easily refuted nonsense, then use further nonsense to demonstrate the ‘truth’ of your claim.  The title of this thread implied that Atheism was not intellectual, but all of the argument intending to demonstrate that implication has been so far removed from universally accepted intellectual fact that most of you might as well be arguing that the Earth is flat.  

I thought it was a joke, when I first hear Emo Phillips tell it, but you folks seems to embody it, so I’ll repeat the joke here --  “I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man on the edge, about to jump off.  So I ran over and said, “Stop!  Don’t do it!”
	“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.  
	I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
	He said, “Like what?”
	I said, “Well . . . are you religious or atheist?”
	He said, “Religious.”
	I said, “Me too!  Are you Christian or Buddhist?”
	He said, “Christian.”
	I said, “Me too!  Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
	He said, “Protestant.”
	I said, “Me too!  Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
	He said, “Baptist!”
	I said, “Wow! Me too!  Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
	He said, “Baptist Church of God!”
I said, “Me too!  Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”
	He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”
I said, “Me too!  Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”
	 He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”
	I said, “Die, heretic scum,” and pushed him off.

That used to be funny.  Then I met some of you . . .


----------



## Diogenes

"You know what's hilarious - this quote from Dawkins in RIVER OUT OF EDEN: A DARWINIAN VIEW OF LIFE (pg 133) - He said that the universe has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." 

Wow.......for someone as brilliant as Dakins to believe in good and evil then make a statement earlier in his book about it not existing is SUCH IMPRESSIVE SCHOLARSHIP!!"

Um . . . Not to belabor the obvious, but you might notice, if your reading skills are up to it, that he said that the "Universe" has no evil and no good . . . since it does not.  He never said that 'people' lack those traits. A volcano is not good or evil when it erupts -- it has no intentions, or benevolent or malevolent thoughts whatsoever.  Those thoughts and intentions are the sole domain of people . . .

Read correctly and thoroughly, sir, or please develop better skills, since you present yourself, in your arguments, as functionally illiterate.


----------



## connorreid

Diogenes said:


> "You know what's hilarious - this quote from Dawkins in RIVER OUT OF EDEN: A DARWINIAN VIEW OF LIFE (pg 133) - He said that the universe has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
> 
> Wow.......for someone as brilliant as Dakins to believe in good and evil then make a statement earlier in his book about it not existing is SUCH IMPRESSIVE SCHOLARSHIP!!"
> 
> Um . . . Not to belabor the obvious, but you might notice, if your reading skills are up to it, that he said that the "Universe" has no evil and no good . . . since it does not.  He never said that 'people' lack those traits. A volcano is not good or evil when it erupts -- it has no intentions, or benevolent or malevolent thoughts whatsoever.  Those thoughts and intentions are the sole domain of people . . .
> 
> Read correctly and thoroughly, sir, or please develop better skills, since you present yourself, in your arguments, as functionally illiterate.


Again, more senselessness.  Dawkins pulls "good" and "evil" out anytime he wants to and uses it to benefit himself.  Sometimes it exists, and sometimes not -  whatever works for his absurd worldview, he will use.  

Think about it - if people are evil and the universe contains them - then the universe has evil in it.  Not that hard to see it..........


----------



## Patriot78

Well said Diogenes.


I have not the aptitude, the inclination to argue nor the abilities to put together such a well thought out diatribe, so I'll simply say.....

I believe in Jehovah just as strongly as you believe in Zeus.


----------



## connorreid

Diogenes said:


> Teaching a donkey to sing, it looks like . . .
> 
> (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy sigh.)  By all appearances, there are thoughtful spiritual people out there, but they generally do not feel the need to shove their beliefs down other people's throats, nor do they think they are self-appointed by God to save humanity -- I thought you folks believed that job was already taken anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is shoving views down others throats? You like to think that and throw that accusation out there, yet you don't have a problem spouting out your beliefs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skipping the question, and writing out pages of Bible verse to prove the validity of Bible verse as a source to prove that the source is right is sort of like quoting yourself to prove that you said true.  Right?  It is self negating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think little college atheists do when they see their atheists gods writing books about science? They salivate and lap up every word like little doggies, then go spew out all they've memorized thinking they have all the answers.  They don't even ask elementary questions like "how do these guys know this for sure", "where did they get this absurd theory from", and so on.  They are so razzled-dazzled by these "high" and "lofty" thinkers that they can't stop to think clearly, much less wipe the drool off of their chin.
> 
> 
> 
> The real kicker here is, you have not -and cannot- make a sound argument that the text of the Bible itself comes from the spirit, the hand, or the mouth of God.  (And if God turns out to have a mouth, well, you can just raise my rent and butter my backside . . . )  The reason for this is because we cannot trust the book to verify its own accuracy except by comparison to other, objectively verifiable things. And there is no way to objectively verify superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your atheist science does the same thing.  You can't objectively verify the origin of this universe can you?  Were you there? No.  So, you trust in these scientists and what they say.  You read their data, then like it, and then believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous claims of subjective verifications, when people got good feelings or visions or hallucinations or whatever, but those are useless for determining actual truth, since they're not objectively verifiable. And worse, you cannot accurately trace and determine the cause or source of these feelings, so they're not really even subjective verifications. You've decided that they're from God . . . but you might as well believe a complete stranger who walks up and tells you he's God.  You have as much reason to trust him as you have to trust your own guesses as to the causes of your 'experiences' and beliefs, and more reason to trust him than to trust a book that has already been demonstrated, historically, to be a compilation of stories from dozens of sources, some taken verbatim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have actual truth? If so, please define it so we can discuss it.  That would be great!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using nothing more than a boundless skill at mistaking belief for fact is a lousy way to make an argument.  If your God is only the God you see and believe in, then mine is as good as yours, and if I assert that my God is a little green watering can in Geneva you have no possible way of refuting that claim.  You folks don’t even make what would be a semi-intellectually courageous leap by asserting just what you believe your God to be.  Is it a person?  A place?  A thing?  A tripartite, amorphous intelligence?  A hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue?  A collection of writings?  A cloud of all-powerful smoke?  What?  C’mon – you are true believers, so tell me just what it is you believe in and have named.  To take a page from your book, I insist on a definition . . . and it had better be consistent and concise . . .  Otherwise, well, you are asserting the existence of something you can’t even grasp, let alone define . . .  It is disingenuous, both intellectually and rhetorically to demand definitions of Words while asserting that your God is the Word.  Which Word?  There are a bunch of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys are the ones that can't give definitions and you want them from us? DUH....  Your subjective worldview will not allow for ABSOLUTE terminology (that's why you never define anything - you can't).
> 
> I can give a definition of God, according to his revealed Word.  I like the definition the Westminster Divines give of God -
> "There is but one only, living, and true God:  who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutalbe, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most living, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin."
> 
> You may not LIKE the defintion, but is a definition.
> Now I gave a defintion so it is your turn and you better be concise and consistent.  Please define TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And spare me the Creation crap as well – if you wish to assert that everything that exists must have been created, and you also assert the existence of your God, then you have walked yourselves into a trap.  You cannot assert that the universe was created by ‘God,’ then in the same breath say that this ‘God’ just exists, and needed no creator.  If you can accept, intellectually, that something just exists, then why go back the extra step?  If ‘God’ can ‘just exist,’ then why can’t the universe?  Think long and hard on that one . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have you been? The Christian has always asserted God is not created and is eternal and has created all things.  You are the one that just accepts something "exists".  The only "trap" out there is the one you are dangling upside down in right now.  You're willing to believe anything your little atheists gods in science tell you to believe.
> 
> You want so badly to say the universe is eternal but you know we'd eat your lunch in a heartbeat!! We can say it b/c we believe God's word.  You couldn't dare b/c the first question we'd ask you is HOW DO YOU KNOW BASED ON OBSERVATION?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, the entire concept of ‘Intelligent Design’ is actually a philosophy of ignorance, based on the claim that if you, personally, cannot figure out the answer to a problem then nobody else can either.  Thank goodness we didn’t rely on you folks to work out nuclear power plants and Mars landings.  If you look around with a critical eye, you might actually come to the opposite conclusion – Stupid Design.  Colliding galaxies, exploding stars, killer asteroids, matter-hungry black holes, carnivorous animals, snow, deserts, viruses, diseases aplenty, parasites, cancers, volcanoes, hurricanes . . . random disorder abounds.  An ordered and ‘intelligently’ designed universe might be a bit better behaved than this one – and don’t even try that crap about it all being part of ‘God’s Plan’ – that is an idiotic rationalization that you use for everything you don’t understand.  Intelligent people go out and try to find out why, and those of us that do have given the rest of you morons everything from vaccines against the diseases that were ‘God’s Plan’ to a scientific abstract of weather patterns that can accurately predict a hurricane in time to save your dumb life.  Intelligence is human, not Divine.  You might try some out.  It is very refreshing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never brought up "Intelligent Design".  My apologetics is based on transcendentalism and pressuppossitionalism not individual theistic proofs.....I don't aree with that argument either, so I would join you in condemning that in terms of apologetics.
> 
> 
> 
> And also spare me the ‘origins of morality’ argument – I can go on for miles of bandwidth on that one -- from the earliest tribal collections of humans there has been a common interest in discouraging certain types of behavior in order to facilitate something approaching a civil collective.  (And unfortunately, as recently as 9,000 years ago folks had it together enough, society-wise, to be collectively farming, making metal tools, herding animals, communicating with a common language, and building with brick.)  Clearly, if folks are going to gather in groups with a collective interest, then the collective has an interest in such things as not killing your own tribesmen, not raping your tribesmen’s wives and daughters, not stealing their goods, and respecting your elders, among many other things.  Reasonable men make laws and taboos to serve the interest of the majority, do they not?  Now, I can get all scholarly here, and trot out a few thousand pages of dissertation to demonstrate the truth of that, but a moment of thinking, if thought there be, might lead a reasonable mind see the sense in ‘morality’ having arisen out of common interest, not out of a book that had not yet been written, and that nobody extant at the time could have read even if it had been written.  (News Flash: World literacy rates, circa 2009, hover at 25%.  World literacy rates, estimated, circa 100 A.D., hovered around 0.0001% -- This is to say, that if God thought writing a book was the best way to spread his Word, then he might have first taught folks to read . . . )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but an atheistic worldview cannot account for moral absolutes.  Nothing would be bad or good b/c neither would exist.  If you think otherwise please, very simply, give us a defintion of good and bad and we'll discuss.  I bet you won't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was a joke, when I first hear Emo Phillips tell it, but you folks seems to embody it, so I’ll repeat the joke here --  “I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man on the edge, about to jump off.  So I ran over and said, “Stop!  Don’t do it!”
> “Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
> I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
> He said, “Like what?”
> I said, “Well . . . are you religious or atheist?”
> He said, “Religious.”
> I said, “Me too!  Are you Christian or Buddhist?”
> He said, “Christian.”
> I said, “Me too!  Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
> He said, “Protestant.”
> I said, “Me too!  Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
> He said, “Baptist!”
> I said, “Wow! Me too!  Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
> He said, “Baptist Church of God!”
> I said, “Me too!  Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”
> He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”
> I said, “Me too!  Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”
> He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”
> I said, “Die, heretic scum,” and pushed him off.
> 
> That used to be funny.  Then I met some of you . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How could that be funny or sad in an atheistic world since good or bad wouldn't exist? Stop stealing from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of your own.  Go make up your own.  At lease be original.....Quit taking our concepts of true/false, good/bad, love/hate.
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot78

I can give a definition of God, according to his revealed Word. I like the definition the Westminster Divines give of God -
"There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutalbe, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most living, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin."


Ummm.... I have a 10 year old nephew that has been battling cancer for a year now. The poor kid just had a bone marrow transplant, and guess what... That's right, the cancer came back. This child has sufferd with pain and sickness that few can imagin, and every time there is a ray of hope it is dashed. All the radiation, the bone marrow transplant, he has been through more than I would wish on anyone, and yet here he is with cancer reforming in his system, and it looks like he isn't going to make it. The doctors have confirmed it.

What a wonderful merciful god you have that would inflict this on a child.Forgive me for not falling to my knees and groveling in thanks for his holy smiting of my nephew.

And yes I was an Atheist before all this. And yes his parents ( my sister ) are Christian.


----------



## Madman

> Very well might be true, but there is a whole lot of written documentation by a lot of eye-witnesses to his presidency and life.... WTM45



Yes there is but it was written by men

There is a lot of documentary and historical evidence about the death, burial and resurected Christ but you disregard it with a flip of the hand.

I know agnostics who say "Yes a man named Jesus lived aout 2000 years ago and he was a good man, taught love and respect then he died."  

I argue that is incorrect He was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord, because He professed to be God.  

You pick which one you think he is I know Him as Lord.




> current and past schools of thought are regarding Athiesm. ....WTM45



The FBI is the best in the world at noticing counterfeit money.  They do that by closely studying REAL U.S. currency.  They do not waste their time with Rubles or Euros or Pesos, that way when a counterfeit bill crosses their path they know it immediately.

I don’t spend much time studying atheism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, I know counterfeit when I see it.
Reformed originally asked how much intelligence does it take to be an atheist.  I say not much.


----------



## Madman

> have a 10 year old nephew that has been battling cancer for a year now. The poor kid just had a bone marrow transplant, and guess what... That's right, the cancer came back. This child has sufferd with pain and sickness that few can imagin, and every time there is a ray of hope it is dashed. All the radiation, the bone marrow transplant, he has been through more than I would wish on anyone, and yet here he is with cancer reforming in his system, and it looks like he isn't going to make it. The doctors have confirmed it...Patriot78



I am terribly sorry for your families pain, it is great and it is real, I've lived through it.


----------



## Patriot78

Madman said:


> I am terribly sorry for your families pain, it is great and it is real, I've lived through it.



Thank you. 

And I wont cheapen his struggle to debate anyone over it. I'm sorry I brought it up in a debate thread. I'm just angry.


----------



## WTM45

Patriot78 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> And I wont cheapen his struggle to debate anyone over it. I'm sorry I brought it up in a debate thread. I'm just angry.



Give the little guy a big hug from me.  I completely understand your anger.

Patriot, if you ever want or need to talk PM me.  





I'm done with this one fellas.


----------



## PWalls

Patriot78 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> And I wont cheapen his struggle to debate anyone over it. I'm sorry I brought it up in a debate thread. I'm just angry.



I am heartfully sorry to hear that about your nephew. I will add him to my prayers.


----------



## connorreid

Patriot78 said:


> I can give a definition of God, according to his revealed Word. I like the definition the Westminster Divines give of God -
> "There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutalbe, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most living, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin."
> 
> 
> Ummm.... I have a 10 year old nephew that has been battling cancer for a year now. The poor kid just had a bone marrow transplant, and guess what... That's right, the cancer came back. This child has sufferd with pain and sickness that few can imagin, and every time there is a ray of hope it is dashed. All the radiation, the bone marrow transplant, he has been through more than I would wish on anyone, and yet here he is with cancer reforming in his system, and it looks like he isn't going to make it. The doctors have confirmed it.
> 
> What a wonderful merciful god you have that would inflict this on a child.Forgive me for not falling to my knees and groveling in thanks for his holy smiting of my nephew.
> 
> And yes I was an Atheist before all this. And yes his parents ( my sister ) are Christian.


We do serve a merciful God.  I hate to hear that about your nephew.  It does sadden me.  I do believe that God is sovereign and will use this to His glory.   

The problem with your view is (my opinion), since you don't believe in God and you know that God does not exist, then things are pretty bleak for you.  One really wouldn't have any hope or anything to live for if you think about it.  There would be no purpose in life.  However, look at how you feel about the whole situation.  You are extremely sad.  It seems to me, the reason is b/c you were created in the image of God and can make sense of life (love people, communicate, be sad or happy) but you suppress the truth in  unrighteousness.  If this was an atheistic world then how could somebody be happy or sad? What you might call happy, I might call sad (and who would be right).  The atheist worldview leads to absurdity.

I have to wonder, since you don't believe in God, then why do you accuse something that doesn't exist of inflicting this on your nephew?  That is highly illogical......Fact is, you know God exist and you don't like him; that's what He says about the unbeliever.  You actually only confirm God's existence by being who you are.  Romans 8:7 talks about how the carnal mind is at war with God and cannot submit to Him......

I will be praying for your nephew though.  That one cuts to the heart and I feel your pain......May God grant mercy.


----------



## Diogenes

Connorreid says:  “I can give a definition of God, according to his revealed Word. I like the definition the Westminster Divines give of God - 
"There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutalbe, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most living, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin."
You may not LIKE the defintion, but is a definition.
Now I gave a defintion so it is your turn and you better be concise and consistent.”

Sir, I think that, as definitions go, that is certainly not one -- but it sounds like a very good description of Jerry Garcia.  

Then:  "The Christian has always asserted God is not created and is eternal and has created all things."   Um . . . and so, 'just exists'.  Yes, as I said, that is what you assert.  I'm afraid that your reading comprehension has reached an all time low.

But here we part company now and forever : "Oh, and since you don't believe in God, then why do you accuse something that doesn't exist of inflicting this on your nephew? That is highly illogical....."

Sir, no such accusation was made, and attempting to defend your irrational views on the back of a real and genuinely human tragedy marks you as the sort of zealot that society has a right and an obligation to weed out.  If you consider yourself to be a Christian, then I would hope fervently that the real Christians hereabouts will castigate you with all the vehemence at their disposal.  That, sir, was the most shameful thing I have read in my life.  I am ashamed for you.

I think, as WTM45 suggests, that this thread has outlived any useful purpose after such a cold and calculated shot, and I will respectfully withdraw, unable to interact with such a man.  

To those who are thoughtful, and there are many – and to those who can respectfully discuss differences in an intelligent and civil manner, I would welcome the opportunity to engage our minds in metaphorical combat.  Healthy debate, minus rancor, aids the thinking of all involved, and helps us hone our minds and sharpen our perspectives.  If the ‘Spiritual’ is to be largely Christian in nature, as it appears to be here, I will happily walk into any discussion  from casuistry to deism, gnosticism to montanism, chain of being to design argument, Feurbach to Faust, Donatist schism and the concept of the noble savage to Saint Ambrose and soteriology.  My mind is open to any and all well thought opinions.  

But, I will not entertain or suffer fools, and will no longer engage nor answer them.


----------



## connorreid

Diogenes said:


> Connorreid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> says:  “I can give a definition of God, according to his revealed Word. I like the definition the Westminster Divines give of God -
> "There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutalbe, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most living, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin."
> You may not LIKE the defintion, but is a definition.
> Now I gave a defintion so it is your turn and you better be concise and consistent.”
> 
> Sir, I think that, as definitions go, that is certainly not one -- but it sounds like a very good description of Jerry Garcia.
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that you wouldn't like it, but I gave you one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then:  "The Christian has always asserted God is not created and is eternal and has created all things."   Um . . . and so, 'just exists'.  Yes, as I said, that is what you assert.  I'm afraid that your reading comprehension has reached an all time low.
> 
> But here we part company now and forever : "Oh, and since you don't believe in God, then why do you accuse something that doesn't exist of inflicting this on your nephew? That is highly illogical....."
> 
> Sir, no such accusation was made, and attempting to defend your irrational views on the back of a real and genuinely human tragedy marks you as the sort of zealot that society has a right and an obligation to weed out.  If you consider yourself to be a Christian, then I would hope fervently that the real Christians hereabouts will castigate you with all the vehemence at their disposal.  That, sir, was the most shameful thing I have read in my life.  I am ashamed for you.
> 
> I think, as WTM45 suggests, that this thread has outlived any useful purpose after such a cold and calculated shot, and I will respectfully withdraw, unable to interact with such a man.
> 
> To those who are thoughtful, and there are many – and to those who can respectfully discuss differences in an intelligent and civil manner, I would welcome the opportunity to engage our minds in metaphorical combat.  Healthy debate, minus rancor, aids the thinking of all involved, and helps us hone our minds and sharpen our perspectives.  If the ‘Spiritual’ is to be largely Christian in nature, as it appears to be here, I will happily walk into any discussion  from casuistry to deism, gnosticism to montanism, chain of being to design argument, Feurbach to Faust, Donatist schism and the concept of the noble savage to Saint Ambrose and soteriology.  My mind is open to any and all well thought opinions.
> 
> But, I will not entertain or suffer fools, and will no longer engage nor answer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew you'd be short lived on here!! Look at you, I told you that you were too scared to put down any definitions and couldn't even do it b/c your worldview CANNOT allow it.  Thanks for confirming that....
> 
> What pitiful scholarship you have.  I knew you wouldn't be on here long.  You talk a big game but it doesn't take long to see it's nothing but hot air......
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

Diogenes said:


> Sir, no such accusation was made, and attempting to defend your irrational views on the back of a real and genuinely human tragedy marks you as the sort of zealot that society has a right and an obligation to weed out.  If you consider yourself to be a Christian, then I would hope fervently that the real Christians hereabouts will castigate you with all the vehemence at their disposal.  That, sir, was the most shameful thing I have read in my life.  I am ashamed for you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are referring to my comments to Patriot then you must re-read them.  You definitely cannot read.  I was saddened by hearing about his nephew.  However, it was highly offensive in regards to what He accused God of.  (and since God doesn't exist to him, why would he do that?)
> 
> If Christians came on debate forums and offered "subjective testimonies" you guys would butcher them but it's OK when somebody like Patriot does it.  He even admitted he probably shouldn't have put that on here.
> 
> I think people can read for themselves and see what's happening.  They don't need guidance from somebody like you.  I'm sure you don't think people are capable of that, but they are.
Click to expand...


----------



## celticfisherman

Patriot78 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> And I wont cheapen his struggle to debate anyone over it. I'm sorry I brought it up in a debate thread. I'm just angry.



I can understand your anger. Two of my very best friends in this world have passed away from cancer. There is nothing anyone can say that will make it any easier. That is a fight that is beyond imagination. But there are things worse than death or cancer.

I will be praying for your nephew and your family.


----------



## earl

cr and cf, That was pretty cold.From personal experience I can assure you that the last thing a nonbeliever wants in a time like Patriot is going through is a sermon. If you can't give a religious message that gives a little support or comfort in his time of need ,do you really expect him to hear your heaven or Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- message ? Please reread the text on ''there is a season''. IMHO ya''ll are in the wrong season.


----------



## celticfisherman

earl said:


> cr and cf, That was pretty cold.From personal experience I can assure you that the last thing a nonbeliever wants in a time like Patriot is going through is a sermon. If you can't give a religious message that gives a little support or comfort in his time of need ,do you really expect him to hear your heaven or Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- message ? Please reread the text on ''there is a season''. IMHO ya''ll are in the wrong season.



Where did I give a sermon? Quote me? I expressed my sympathy and said I would pray for his family? Maybe your arrogance and compulsive spewing of crap is getting to you and you don't read anymore.


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> But there are things worse than death or cancer.



Nice. Real nice.  Classy.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> I think people can read for themselves and see what's happening.



They sure are.  And it is plainly obvious.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Nice. Real nice.  Classy.



Really? You cannot think of anything worse than death or cancer? 

You really like to add into what is said don't you.


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> Really? You cannot think of anything worse than death or cancer?
> 
> You really like to add into what is said don't you.



I did not have to, my friend.  The words spoke loudly enough.



Mr. Reid, you need therapy.

I'll go as I said I would.  PM if any questions or additional comments.  I can handle it.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> I did not have to, my friend.  The words spoke loudly enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Reid, you need therapy.
> 
> I'll go as I said I would.  PM if any questions or additional comments.  I can handle it.



I thought better of you till this. Telling someone you do not know they need therapy??? 

Then add in there jumping to the conclusions about what I mean about death and cancer? Give me a break. I can think of a dozen things worse without even getting to the after life. If you can't then it shows how truly lost and self involved you are.


----------



## WTM45

So you minimize and downplay a man's sorrow and pain regarding a child who is terminal by stating there are things "worse than death or cancer?"
Only because he does not follow your religious belief system?

Tell ME who is the one who is showing major insensitivity?


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> So you minimize and downplay a man's sorrow and pain regarding a child who is terminal by stating there are things "worse than death or cancer?"
> Only because he does not follow your religious belief system?
> 
> Tell ME who is the one who is showing major insensitivity?
> 
> IF THAT IS "TRUE" CHRISTIANITY, YOU AND CR CAN HAVE YOUR FILL.  NOBODY WANTS IT.
> 
> GOODBYE TO THIS FORUM.



There again if you cannot think of anything worse than death and cancer. You are simply showing your selfishness.


----------



## earl

Since you are the one that said there are worse things... and meant it in an uplifting way ,why not elaborate ?
quote[ Maybe your arrogance and compulsive spewing of crap is getting to you and you don't read anymore. ]
Referencing ''time of the season'' is arrogance and compulsive spewing of crap ?
On ocassion you let your disdain for me overcome good sense.


----------



## celticfisherman

earl said:


> Since you are the one that said there are worse things... and meant it in an uplifting way ,why not elaborate ?
> quote[ Maybe your arrogance and compulsive spewing of crap is getting to you and you don't read anymore. ]
> Referencing ''time of the season'' is arrogance and compulsive spewing of crap ?
> On ocassion you let your disdain for me overcome good sense.



Sure.

#1- My wife suffering from Cancer.
#2- My kids suffering from ANY type of illness.
#3- Losing my wife or children in any manner of ways.


Lots more. Without getting into the afterlife. You assume to much. You are not yoda sitting around doling out wisdom. Contrary to popular belief.


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> Sure.
> 
> #1- My wife suffering from Cancer.
> #2- My kids suffering from ANY type of illness.
> #3- Losing my wife or children in any manner of ways.



That can appear to be quite selfish to some.  (EDITED by poster to remove insult.....)

Some of us see the agony in watching ANY child suffer with an incurable and terminal illness.  Now I understand what you meant when you said "there are worse things than death or cancer" to a man watching his nephew suffer.
All it took to elaborate was the addition of "my" to your statement.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Talk about selfishness.
> 
> Some of us see the agony in watching ANY child suffer with an incurable and terminal illness.  Now I understand fully what you meant when you said "there are worse things than death or cancer" to a man watching his nephew suffer.
> All it took to elaborate was the addition of "my" to your statement.
> 
> I'd suggest therapy for you as well.



Others pain is far worse than ours. SOrry you don't understand that WTM. I don't need therapy. That hocus pocus mindless drivel has caused enough damage in this world.

You asked in another thread then deleted it. What is wrong with me. 

I am sick and tired of people making no sense then claiming anyone who answers a question is either arrogant or belligerent. Time and again we chase atheists around to answer something then get more jibberish. We have people claiming "relationships" with people they do not know from any aspect. We have people on here now spewing out right heresy and calling it "truth". Yep. Got a little mad lately.

With your world view (whatever that might be) why be on here? Why engage in this? I don't think you enjoy the debate and I know that when you no longer enjoy it you stop being productive. There are those I no longer "preach" to (stealing many of the people on here opinions of many Christians). But there is times when stuff is spewed that cannot be allowed to stand without confrontation.

I never give innuendo. I may outright question and state what you or someone else is. But if I have something to say about it you will know it. Not have to try and read between the lines.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45-

I think we missed each other on this one. Reading back on what I have said to you. I apologize and openly ask for your forgiveness.

Sorry man. You are still welcome down here anytime in my fish camp!


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> Others pain is far worse than ours. SOrry you don't understand that WTM.
> 
> Oh, I understand that concept very well.  Why is the suffering of your own child worse than the suffering of someone else's child?
> 
> 
> I don't need therapy. That hocus pocus mindless drivel has caused enough damage in this world.
> 
> I deleted my comment regarding that.  My apology for being insulting.  But it was my observation you needed to get something off your chest.
> 
> You asked in another thread then deleted it. What is wrong with me.
> 
> PM was sent instead.  Did not want to "air out" anything.
> 
> I am sick and tired of people making no sense then claiming anyone who answers a question is either arrogant or belligerent. Time and again we chase atheists around to answer something then get more jibberish. We have people claiming "relationships" with people they do not know from any aspect. We have people on here now spewing out right heresy and calling it "truth". Yep. Got a little mad lately.
> 
> Obviously.  But it goes both ways.  Even those who have great faith in their belief system should understand there are those who will disagree with or question it in whole or in parts.  That's just the nature of religious debate.  It should not become so personal.  Chances are, I have gotten personal as well.  For that I will apologize.
> 
> 
> With your world view (whatever that might be) why be on here? Why engage in this? I don't think you enjoy the debate and I know that when you no longer enjoy it you stop being productive.
> 
> I do enjoy discussion and debate.  It makes the world go 'round.  Yes, not everything is productive but it is purely entertainment, not an attempt to persuade or to convert.
> 
> There are those I no longer "preach" to (stealing many of the people on here opinions of many Christians). But there is times when stuff is spewed that cannot be allowed to stand without confrontation.
> 
> If we all just give up on the preaching, and explain our views we will be more the better.
> 
> I never give innuendo. I may outright question and state what you or someone else is. But if I have something to say about it you will know it. Not have to try and read between the lines.



Sorry, but we are both guilty of innuendo and underhanded comments.  It is our style, and sometimes
we do it in order to bring about levity and even an attempt at humor.  I promise to make every attempt to be as civil as I can be in the future.


----------



## earl

All I can do is add a big atta boy to wt's post. I hope I never have to depend on your peculiar brand of brotherly love.
Patriot ,consider the source . I would like to offer my nonbeliever's support to you and yours. Unconditionally.


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> Sorry, but we are both guilty of innuendo and underhanded comments.  It is our style, and sometimes
> we do it in order to bring about levity and even an attempt at humor.  I promise to make every attempt to be as civil as I can be in the future.



I agree with the levity and humor gone wrong. 

This internet thing is a pain!


----------



## WTM45

celticfisherman said:


> WTM45-
> 
> I think we missed each other on this one. Reading back on what I have said to you. I apologize and openly ask for your forgiveness.
> 
> Sorry man. You are still welcome down here anytime in my fish camp!



No insult taken, apology accepted.  My apology as well for jumping to conclusions.  I know you are much more sensitive and caring of others than can be interpreted via this medium.

No facial expressions, no hand gestures, no tone inflections and no volume control.....it's amazing we can even communicate at all through this thing!
Thank goodness I'm not Italian (like my better half)!  It would never work for me!  The monotone and simple Irish dominates my Creek ancestry bloodline!


----------



## celticfisherman

WTM45 said:


> No insult taken, apology accepted.  My apology as well for jumping to conclusions.  I know you are much more sensitive and caring of others than can be interpreted via this medium.
> 
> No facial expressions, no hand gestures, no tone inflections and not volume control.....it's amazing we can even communicate at all through this thing!
> Thank goodness I'm not Italian!  It would never work for me!  The monotone and simple Irish dominates my Creek ancestry bloodline!



I am a true Southerner. I talk with my hands way to much. Tie my hands behind me and I would be mute...


----------



## reformedpastor

I have been away for several days and a lot has been posted and discussed so I will try and sum up what I have read. 

It goes without saying that this continues to be classic struggle between those who hold to the scriptures of the OT and NT as the word of God, their standard of faith and practice, and those who maintain that reason alone is their standard of faith and practice. 

In this classic struggle. The atheist, as part of his tactic, pleads with and invites the Christian to forsake the "BooK"  and come reason together.Claiming neutrality is the key if this is going to be fruitful for both. (Neutrality is a myth, and if the Christian yields here the atheist wins the debate) The Christian (who practices presuppositional apologetics) pleads with the atheist to see that his autonomy apart from scripture reduces him to a life of absurdity. The Christian at this point should never let the atheist borrow from his worldview in order to be consistent. The sad truth about this is many atheist think its better to be absurd than embrace God through His Son Jesus Christ as revealed in the WORD. They are ok with this!!! 

These two systems are at war and both cannot tolerate the other if both are honest. I think Diogenes has already made similar comments to that affect? 


We have a definition of God, culture, love, hate, economics, future, hope, sin law, liberty, peace, justice, right and wrong. They don't apart from the christian worldview!!! They like all that those words imply but cannot give themselves over the God who give them meaning. No way, this is there unforgivable sin.  

Diogenes as mocked the idea of God's eternity but this seems to be a sophomoric mocking because to be God is to eternal and uncreated. It's not our fault Diogenes won't accept this. Maybe its correct to say that Diogenes can't because "spiritually" speaking he's blind and in need of divine enlightenment. Something only God can do when He chooses and if He chooses. 


Life without God is absurd, "vanity" the preacher said. To live without God purposely is opposed to common sense. It's ok to steal from our worldview and use it, please, don't stop, life will be better for you and for us if you will do this. Because as soon as you do you will slip over into insanity like Nieche and others who spent all their strength fighting a losing battle. To all atheist, hear this, the old atheism didn't hinder, stop, or deter true biblical christianity and nor will the new atheism esopused by newer and slicker fools like Dawkins. They will die be buried and the return to dust and Christianity will continue to march forward. Atheism has no future, and really no present. It's a sham, a delusion, and a true test to human depravity. This anti intellectualism is a moral position instead of one of discovery like they want us to believe. Look around you! We are suffering now with the affects and fruits of atheism. A tyrannical Federal government, fiat banking, mass murders, and all of this in done in the name of civil advancement and international brotherhood. 

The church is full of practical atheist, due to the weak pulpit, and while culture is embracing a new form of atheism because the old couldn't get the job of stamping out rival faiths done quick enough. How embarrassing it must be to be a self conscience atheist! Though pride and arrogance will never allow them to admit their embarrassment.


No atheist on here has made the case that atheism is intellectual and not a moral decision.


By the way- Patriot I am truly sorry for your nephews struggle with cancer, heartbreaking. I will pray for his healing and his parents faith.


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> cr and cf, That was pretty cold.From personal experience I can assure you that the last thing a nonbeliever wants in a time like Patriot is going through is a sermon. If you can't give a religious message that gives a little support or comfort in his time of need ,do you really expect him to hear your heaven or Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- message ? Please reread the text on ''there is a season''. IMHO ya''ll are in the wrong season.


I've been thinking about Patriot's nephew throughout the day.  If that's cruel, sorry.  I also didn't give him a sermon, but had to ask the questions since he brought it up.  Why did he bring it up on this forum? I find it extremely cruel about what he said concerning God and what he accused God of.  Sorry you disagree but I've prayed for that child several times today.  Have you?


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Mr. Reid, you need therapy.
> 
> I'll go as I said I would.  PM if any questions or additional comments.  I can handle it.


I prayed for the child and am concerned about him, so I need therapy? Patriot brought this up to point a finger at God and since he did, I questioned him.  I can question him, give my opinion and be concerned for his nephew.  If that's  worthy of therapy, then so be it.  Sorry if you misconstrued what I said.


----------



## earl

connorreid said:


> I've been thinking about Patriot's nephew throughout the day.  If that's cruel, sorry.  I also didn't give him a sermon, but had to ask the questions since he brought it up.  Why did he bring it up on this forum? I find it extremely cruel about what he said concerning God and what he accused God of.  Sorry you disagree but I've prayed for that child several times today.  Have you?



 No .I don't pray . I have had both them ,you and cf on my mind quite a bit today. My father [the preacher ] offered to pray with me after telling me that gods will was done when I had a tragedy in my life . Not only did it drive me further from god it opened a chasm between he and I that never was bridged before he died. I have no regrets . I realize it is taboo to share personal moments on an internet forum but I feel strongly that Patriot deserves unconditional support at this point in his life irregardless of what he says. The man is obviously torn up about this to even put it out in public like that. IMHO


----------



## Diogenes

Q.E.D.    Single-minded zealotry, known to the psychiatric community as 'lunacy,' cannot be addressed.  Do not bother, fellas.  These folks have shown us all we need to know about them.


----------



## reformedpastor

Diogenes said:


> Q.E.D.    Single-minded zealotry, known to the psychiatric community as 'lunacy,' cannot be addressed.  Do not bother, fellas.  These folks have shown us all we need to know about them.



The philosopher! Thought you were finished? 

Hey, thats the way to make your point. 

I really thought you would add to this thread but I was having a weak moment. Must of been one of those single minded, lunatic, psychiatric moments too! 

I was only reminded that it doesn't matter how intelligent atheist appear or are, they, are more bark than bite. They really don't have answers only myths. 


Please, hang around and keep posting your absurdities.....................please?


----------



## Diogenes

Like I said . . .


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> No .I don't pray . I have had both them ,you and cf on my mind quite a bit today. My father [the preacher ] offered to pray with me after telling me that gods will was done when I had a tragedy in my life . Not only did it drive me further from god it opened a chasm between he and I that never was bridged before he died. I have no regrets . I realize it is taboo to share personal moments on an internet forum but I feel strongly that Patriot deserves unconditional support at this point in his life irregardless of what he says. The man is obviously torn up about this to even put it out in public like that. IMHO


We showed support for him.  You can't deny that.  What is confusing to me (especially people that don't believe in God, or whatever they are) is how you said you have no regrets about not being able to be reconciled with your dad, then you turn around and say somebody deserves unconditional support....That is a major contradiction.  A world apart from God, I think, is absolutely pointless. Just my view, not trying to stir you up........


----------



## connorreid

Diogenes said:


> Q.E.D.    Single-minded zealotry, known to the psychiatric community as 'lunacy,' cannot be addressed.  Do not bother, fellas.  These folks have shown us all we need to know about them.


Thanks for your masterful scholarship......You came busting on the scene like a roaring lion, but you were nothing more that a shivering mouse..........

Hey, you are the guy who can't even write down simple defintions when asked to do so.  And we are lunatics? The people can clearly see when absurdity is used and they've seen much of it from you.  We can't help it that you're under the discipleship of modern day atheistic scientists......not our fault, just a poor choice on yours.


----------



## earl

I don't see the contradiction. The reconciliation was not sought by either one of us. We went our separate ways. Had there been unconditional support ,things would have gone much differently. Knowing my beliefs, rather than saying I am sorry this happened to you ,or something similar , my hurt and pain was trumped by his need to take  it as an opportunity to ''testify''. Wrong time ,wrong place ,wrong person. If you are consoling a fellow christian ,with similar beliefs , by all means pray ,quote scripture ,or share your testimony. If you want to console a nonbeliever ,leave your beliefs out of it. This is his pain ,his grief,if you must preach ,pick a time that is better suited to spreading your religion.
A world apart from god is lived by many. You may think it pointless, but the calamities of life are felt just the same by all. Do you really imagine that human emotions are exclusive to christians ? Do you think their loved ones less important to them ?


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> I don't see the contradiction. The reconciliation was not sought by either one of us. We went our separate ways. Had there been unconditional support ,things would have gone much differently. Knowing my beliefs, rather than saying I am sorry this happened to you ,or something similar , my hurt and pain was trumped by his need to take  it as an opportunity to ''testify''. Wrong time ,wrong place ,wrong person. If you are consoling a fellow christian ,with similar beliefs , by all means pray ,quote scripture ,or share your testimony. If you want to console a nonbeliever ,leave your beliefs out of it. This is his pain ,his grief,if you must preach ,pick a time that is better suited to spreading your religion.
> A world apart from god is lived by many. You may think it pointless, but the calamities of life are felt just the same by all. Do you really imagine that human emotions are exclusive to christians ? Do you think their loved ones less important to them ?


My religion makes up who I am so can't just set it aside.  Unbelievers always tell believers to quit preaching and pushing their views on them, all the while doing the exact same thing.  

I can't figure out why people who don't believe in God, want to point a finger at Him and say bad things about Him.  If he doesn't exist, why do that?  Do you have any suggestions? 

In a world apart from God all you will have is bitterness especially when it comes to losing a family member, friend or any other tragedy.  There is no alternative.  What a horrible world that would be.  I would think that you wouldn't need to console somebody b/c you couldn't.  Only in a created world by God can somebody understand what it is to be joyful and to be sad.  Atheistic world would have nothing.  Just my thoughts........


----------



## earl

I see that with you ,as with my father , that your religion and the all consuming need to push it no matter the circumstances will always be foremost with you no matter the damage done. 
IMHO Patriot lashed out in anger at god. If there is indeed a christian god ,I would expect him to understand and forgive.  
You say that nonbelievers push their views on christians . I won't say that they are  nonexistant ,but when was the last time you saw an atheist building devoted to converting others to atheism. Atheist trips to foreign countries to convert. TV shows ,Theme parks,Million men marches ? Have you ever heard an atheist comforting a christian friend by giving him an atheist view? Have you ever even had an atheist try to convert you  ? They might tell you you are silly to believe in a fairy tale ,but have they ever invited you to an atheistic gathering ? 
Just for clarification you can insert nonbeliever in place of atheist if you would like.
If atheism is  as terrible as your thought s would have you believe ,point out some of these folks for me to observe. If they are truly as miserable as you describe they should be obvious.


----------



## earl

I just had a stray thought to throw in . Out of the last 3 to 4 people banned that were spiritual forum more vocal participants , I believe all were christians . If this is incorrect ,please feel free to rectify my thought.


----------



## Madman

> Out of the last 3 to 4 people banned that were spiritual forum more vocal participants , I believe all were christians



I'm still new to this stuff.  How do you know who got banned?


----------



## earl

Go to durn it part two . Under hoggers name it says banned. Other times they disappear and you can ask a mod why they are no longer in the members list.


----------



## earl

I think I will bow out of this discussion for a while .Gentlemen and ladies ,enjoy .


----------



## footjunior

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvrm9E4fUGQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvrm9E4fUGQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>


----------



## connorreid

earl said:


> I see that with you ,as with my father , that your religion and the all consuming need to push it no matter the circumstances will always be foremost with you no matter the damage done.
> IMHO Patriot lashed out in anger at god. If there is indeed a christian god ,I would expect him to understand and forgive.
> 
> 
> 
> You can substitute "religion" with "unbelief or no religion" and get the same thing.  After all you are speaking your beliefs now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that nonbelievers push their views on christians . I won't say that they are  nonexistant ,but when was the last time you saw an atheist building devoted to converting others to atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Public school buildings. They teach secular atheistic humanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist trips to foreign countries to convert. TV shows ,Theme parks,Million men marches ? Have you ever heard an atheist comforting a christian friend by giving him an atheist view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you imagine the comfort? It'd go something like this:  "What's got you down? Forget about it.  You live and die that's it.  Move on."  I don't think they would have much comfort to give, Earl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever even had an atheist try to convert you  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of my college professors.
> 
> 
> 
> They might tell you you are silly to believe in a fairy tale ,but have they ever invited you to an atheistic gathering ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My professors' classrooms....
> 
> 
> 
> Just for clarification you can insert nonbeliever in place of atheist if you would like.
> If atheism is  as terrible as your thought s would have you believe ,point out some of these folks for me to observe. If they are truly as miserable as you describe they should be obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go to any secular college campus tomorrow and sit in on some classes.
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot78

I LOL over that vid.

But we as Atheists can come off a bit condescending.

But then again so do the religious.

Hmmmm.


----------



## connorreid

footjunior said:


> <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvrm9E4fUGQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvrm9E4fUGQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>


I think he would have been better as a comedian, don't you? He was a little distasteful for me, even though I am a creationist.


----------



## Patriot78

connorreid said:


> earl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can substitute "religion" with "unbelief or no religion" and get the same thing.  After all you are speaking your beliefs now.
> 
> Public school buildings. They teach secular atheistic humanism.
> 
> Could you imagine the comfort? It'd go something like this:  "What's got you down? Forget about it.  You live and die that's it.  Move on."  I don't think they would have much comfort to give, Earl.
> 
> Most of my college professors.
> My professors' classrooms....
> Go to any secular college campus tomorrow and sit in on some classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was for connorreid, I think I misquoted.
> 
> Just so you know I took no offense to what you wrote, only because I believe that offense wasn't your intention.
> 
> 
> Just for clarification I wasn't blaming your God in the sense that I believe there is one to be angry with. I was just making a point that there is no "God" that is merciful, loving and caring, and if there was then he is a horrible excuse for a father.
> 
> I'm not going to discuss this any further. No hard feelings, and I wish you all the best in life.
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

Patriot78 said:


> I LOL over that vid.
> 
> But we as Atheists can come off a bit condescending.
> 
> But then again so do the religious.
> 
> Hmmmm.


So did I and I'm a creationist.  I think many Christians and atheists are full of pomp and show.


----------



## connorreid

Patriot78 said:


> connorreid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you know I took no offense to what you wrote, only because I believe that offense wasn't your intention.
> 
> 
> Just for clarification I wasn't blaming your God in the sense that I believe there is one to be angry with. I was just making a point that there is no "God" that is merciful, loving and caring, and if there was then he is a horrible excuse for a father.
> 
> I'm not going to discuss this any further. No hard feelings, and I wish you all the best in life.
> 
> 
> 
> I figured you didn't get offended and blow everything out of proportion like some others tried to do.  I wish you the best.  I will be praying for your nephew as well and have been since I found out about him.  He has been on my mind since you told us of him.
Click to expand...


----------



## Patriot78

connorreid said:


> Patriot78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figured you didn't get offended and blow everything out of proportion like some others tried to do.  I wish you the best.  I will be praying for your nephew as well and have been since I found out about him.  He has been on my mind since you told us of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, even though I believe you to be wasting your breath  it's the thought that counts, and I thank you and everyone else for the thoughts and even the prayers. He is currently at Duke university hospital because Childrens of Atlanta wrote him off. Looks like he will be undergoing another bone marrow transplant from a different donor soon. Lets hope this is the one that the cancer can't recognize as being able to defeat.  Thanks again everyone.
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Totally out of context, my friend! Did you read page 132?
> 
> Dawkins statement was extrapolating on the comment of a priest regarding the resulting misfortunes and calamaties (a deadly bus crash in this instance) as having no meaning if the universe was only "electrons ...there would be no human suffering."
> Dawkins was explaining what would really be like (p. 133)if the universe was only electrons and selfish genes like the priest tried to suppose.


I see why you are a confused individual now.  If you read every book like you read RIVER OUT OF EDEN, then no wonder you don't understand proper context.  Go back to the beginning of the chapter 4 where he starts off talking about the digger wasps and how she paralyzes her prey.  He says, "This sounds savagely cruel but as we shall see, nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.  This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn.  We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."

At least Dawkins gets the idea, somewhat.  He should have used the term "neutral" instead of callous b/c callous implies some type of hardening perhaps by anger or some sense of "wrongness".  The only problem with Dawkins idea, other than that his intellectualism has blinded him, is that he can't live consistently with that perspective.  He DOES NOT NOR IS ABLE TO live this way.  So, he has to make up his own definitions of good and bad, right and wrong in order to live.  Purely subjective, of course, and always to his benefit.

Also, in terms of childhood indoctrination (a statement you made in an earlier post) - that happens everyday in government funded, secular humanist, atheistic school systems. 

The disciples of Dawkins and other atheists are simply indoctrinated by them.  What you accuse religion of is the same thing you do.  It's quite entertaining to watch you do it as well.


----------



## reformedpastor

connorreid said:


> I see why you are a confused individual now.  If you read every book like you read RIVER OUT OF EDEN, then no wonder you don't understand proper context.  Go back to the beginning of the chapter 4 where he starts off talking about the digger wasps and how she paralyzes her prey.  He says, "This sounds savagely cruel but as we shall see, nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.  This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn.  We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."
> 
> At least Dawkins gets the idea, somewhat.  He should have used the term "neutral" instead of callous b/c callous implies some type of hardening perhaps by anger or some sense of "wrongness".  The only problem with Dawkins idea, other than that his intellectualism has blinded him, is that he can't live consistently with that perspective.  He DOES NOT NOR IS ABLE TO live this way.  So, he has to make up his own definitions of good and bad, right and wrong in order to live.  Purely subjective, of course, and always to his benefit.
> 
> Also, in terms of childhood indoctrination (a statement you made in an earlier post) - that happens everyday in government funded, secular humanist, atheistic school systems.
> 
> The disciples of Dawkins and other atheists are simply indoctrinated by them.  What you accuse religion of is the same thing you do.  It's quite entertaining to watch you do it as well.



I don't think I'd want Dawkins for crisis counseling. Where's the hope?


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> connorreid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Dawkins says it very well.
> http://richarddawkins.net/print.php?id=106
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physicist and Nobel prizewinner Stephen Weinberg describes religion as an insult to human dignity. 'Without it,' he says, 'you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.' Dawkins agrees.
> It is more moral, he says, to do good for its own sake than out of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure this quote by Weinberg is in the cute little ATHEIST BIBLE I saw at Barnes & Noble.  Just the quote itself is absurd.  It begs the question - why in an atheistic world would there be good or evil and how?? Dawkins doesn't even believe in good or evil then agrees with the guy!! Amazing!! As I said before, Dawkins will have his own definitions of good and evil and will use them when he wants.
> 
> This quote was just like what Descartes said when he stated: "I think, therefore, I am".  It's sounds intellectual but it's just stupid.  He should have said "I am, therefore, I think".
> 
> As we have seen, atheism leads to absurdity.:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality, he says, is older than religion, and kindness and generosity are innate in human beings, as they are in other social animals. The irony is that science recognises the majesty and complexity of the universe while religions lead to easy, closed answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does he know morality is older that religion?  Are we to trust in him and have faith in what he says, or has this been proven by observation?  The irony actually is how ungodly science has no answers absolutely.  When atheists are pressed to give some simple defintions, they can't.  If you don't believe me please define "morality" for me so we can discuss it.  Where would morals come from anyway apart from God?
> 
> 
> 
> Is there no more than just this life? asks Richard Dawkins. How much more do you want? We are lucky to be here, he says, and we should make the most of our time on this world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does Dawkins recognize "luck".  Doesn't that presuppose some supernatural force that guides.  Exactly what is luck from his viewpoint?  How do we make the most of our time here? What if most of the people in the world wanted to make the best of their time here by having religion and shoving it down others throats? Would that be OK with them? After all, that would be what made those people happy........
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## reformedpastor

footjunior said:


> <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvrm9E4fUGQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uvrm9E4fUGQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>





This is terrible! Some times I think evolution might be true. Is that wrong ???


----------



## reformedpastor

> Morality, he says, is older than religion, and kindness and generosity are innate in human beings, as they are in other social animals. The irony is that science recognises the majesty and complexity of the universe while religions lead to easy, closed answers.




Which social animals could he be referring to I wonder? Maybe the chimps? They are really kind and generous. They kindly eat one of there own and generously feed others too. 

Maybe he's on to something.


----------



## connorreid

reformedpastor said:


> Which social animals could he be referring to I wonder? Maybe the chimps? They are really kind and generous. They kindly eat one of there own and generously feed others too.
> 
> Maybe he's on to something.


These guys are like the Greeks......they are looking for worldly wisdom.  

"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise........" 1 Corinthians 1:27


----------



## gtparts

reformedpastor said:


> I have been away for several days and a lot has been posted and discussed so I will try and sum up what I have read.
> 
> It goes without saying that this continues to be classic struggle between those who hold to the scriptures of the OT and NT as the word of God, their standard of faith and practice, and those who maintain that reason alone is their standard of faith and practice.
> 
> In this classic struggle. The atheist, as part of his tactic, pleads with and invites the Christian to forsake the "BooK"  and come reason together.Claiming neutrality is the key if this is going to be fruitful for both. (Neutrality is a myth, and if the Christian yields here the atheist wins the debate) The Christian (who practices presuppositional apologetics) pleads with the atheist to see that his autonomy apart from scripture reduces him to a life of absurdity. The Christian at this point should never let the atheist borrow from his worldview in order to be consistent. The sad truth about this is many atheist think its better to be absurd than embrace God through His Son Jesus Christ as revealed in the WORD. They are ok with this!!!
> 
> These two systems are at war and both cannot tolerate the other if both are honest. I think Diogenes has already made similar comments to that affect?
> 
> 
> We have a definition of God, culture, love, hate, economics, future, hope, sin law, liberty, peace, justice, right and wrong. They don't apart from the christian worldview!!! They like all that those words imply but cannot give themselves over the God who give them meaning. No way, this is there unforgivable sin.
> 
> Diogenes as mocked the idea of God's eternity but this seems to be a sophomoric mocking because to be God is to eternal and uncreated. It's not our fault Diogenes won't accept this. Maybe its correct to say that Diogenes can't because "spiritually" speaking he's blind and in need of divine enlightenment. Something only God can do when He chooses and if He chooses.
> 
> 
> Life without God is absurd, "vanity" the preacher said. To live without God purposely is opposed to common sense. It's ok to steal from our worldview and use it, please, don't stop, life will be better for you and for us if you will do this. Because as soon as you do you will slip over into insanity like Nieche and others who spent all their strength fighting a losing battle. To all atheist, hear this, the old atheism didn't hinder, stop, or deter true biblical christianity and nor will the new atheism esopused by newer and slicker fools like Dawkins. They will die be buried and the return to dust and Christianity will continue to march forward. Atheism has no future, and really no present. It's a sham, a delusion, and a true test to human depravity. This anti intellectualism is a moral position instead of one of discovery like they want us to believe. Look around you! We are suffering now with the affects and fruits of atheism. A tyrannical Federal government, fiat banking, mass murders, and all of this in done in the name of civil advancement and international brotherhood.
> 
> The church is full of practical atheist, due to the weak pulpit, and while culture is embracing a new form of atheism because the old couldn't get the job of stamping out rival faiths done quick enough. How embarrassing it must be to be a self conscience atheist! Though pride and arrogance will never allow them to admit their embarrassment.
> 
> 
> No atheist on here has made the case that atheism is intellectual and not a moral decision.
> 
> 
> By the way- Patriot I am truly sorry for your nephews struggle with cancer, heartbreaking. I will pray for his healing and his parents faith.



Thanks rf. 
I have thought of the young man and his parents often because a 15 yr. old member of our church entered eternity and the the loving, compassionate arms of his Savior barely 2 wks. ago after suffering from leukemia for slightly over a year. For Grant, his life was far shorter on Earth than anyone would have wished and far more painful than most could conceive, yet his impact on his schoolmates and fellow members of the church's youth group is incalculable. My heart goes out to Patriot and his family as they deal with this serious medical problem. 

That so many struggle with the reality of God is not difficult to understand. A superficial knowledge about God is kind of like trying to understand life from a comic book. The limitations make it nearly impossible to get anything spiritually meaningful out of it. 

All the rhetoric, posturing, and bluster is a cover. Those who want to remain in darkness will do and say, even believe almost anything to avoid the light. So it is with natural man. No surprise here, at all.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> I see why you are a confused individual now.  If you read every book like you read RIVER OUT OF EDEN, then no wonder you don't understand proper context.  Go back to the beginning of the chapter 4 where he starts off talking about the digger wasps and how she paralyzes her prey.  He says, "This sounds savagely cruel but as we shall see, nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.  This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn.  We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."
> 
> At least Dawkins gets the idea, somewhat.  He should have used the term "neutral" instead of callous b/c callous implies some type of hardening perhaps by anger or some sense of "wrongness".  The only problem with Dawkins idea, other than that his intellectualism has blinded him, is that he can't live consistently with that perspective.  He DOES NOT NOR IS ABLE TO live this way.  So, he has to make up his own definitions of good and bad, right and wrong in order to live.  Purely subjective, of course, and always to his benefit.
> 
> Also, in terms of childhood indoctrination (a statement you made in an earlier post) - that happens everyday in government funded, secular humanist, atheistic school systems.
> 
> The disciples of Dawkins and other atheists are simply indoctrinated by them.  What you accuse religion of is the same thing you do.  It's quite entertaining to watch you do it as well.



I'm glad you find entertainment value somewhere.

Certain things in our known world do reflect indifference.
Callousness has more to do with a lack emotions than it does any sense of "wrongness."

But you did use the earlier Dawkins quote out of context.

Again, definitions of words and terms are found in Webster's.  There you will find what you seek.  

What Dawkins and other Athiests discuss is not indoctrination.  Anyone can walk away from it at any time.

It is the man-made religious belief systems which introduce an indoctrination of the repercussion of eternal ****ation resulting from rejection of or disbelief in (lack of Faith) the non-visible, completely imaginary and emotional response based belief.

I'll not say that such beliefs are not REAL to some people, as emotions are pretty powerful and completely subjective in nature.


----------



## reformedpastor

> It is the man-made religious belief systems which introduce an indoctrination of the repercussion of eternal ****ation resulting from rejection of or disbelief in (lack of Faith) the non-visible, completely imaginary and emotional response based belief.




Seriously, how do you know? I am reading the "Atheist Manifesto" by Micheal Onfray, who some claim is a set up from Dawkins, which isn't hard in my limited opinion, and all through the book there are mischaracter after mischaracter of christians and their theology, which would lead anyone not knowing better to believe his dishonest rhetoric.

One thing is for certain I can admit failures in my own faith and often do, but, the atheist I have read on line along with the book I'm reading now is full of arrogance and self exaltation like nothing else I've read. Amazing! I will post comments as I am able.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Seriously, how do you know?



Because religious belief systems are totally subjective and highly individually interpreted by nature.  Easy.
A person wishing to be a believer in a specific religious belief system has to build their own mental imagery (through much influence), control their imagination, and then allow their emotions to move them.

Take away the emotional component, replace it with a requirement for proofs or evidence and the result is a rejection of religious belief systems.

Yes, there are extreme fundamentalist or radical exceptions within each religious belief system, within Athiesm, within Agnosticism and all other thoughts regarding the spiritual or meta-physical.


----------



## ambush80

How intellectual is Atheism? 


  1in·tel·lec·tu·al 

 \ËŒin-tÉ™-Ëˆlek-chÉ™-wÉ™l, -chÉ™l, -shwÉ™l, -chü(-É™)l\ 
Function:
    adjective 
Date:
    14th century

1 a: of or relating to the intellect or its use b: developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c: requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>


Can we all agree on this definition from Webster?  Now, can we discuss how this definition relates to Atheism?


----------



## ambush80

This is an interesting word as well, straight from Webster:



    su·per·sti·tion 

\ËŒsü-pÉ™r-Ëˆsti-shÉ™n\ 
Function:
    noun 
Etymology:
    Middle English supersticion, from Anglo-French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand â€” more at stand
Date:
    13th century

1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary


----------



## reformedpastor

> ambush80;How intellectual is Atheism?
> 
> 
> 1in·tel·lec·tu·al
> 
> \ËŒin-tÉ™-Ëˆlek-chÉ™-wÉ™l, -chÉ™l, -shwÉ™l, -chü(-É™)l\
> Function:
> adjective
> Date:
> 14th century
> 
> 1 a: of or relating to the intellect or its use b: developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c: requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>
> 
> 
> Can we all agree on this definition from Webster?  Now, can we discuss how this definition relates to Atheism?



The original Webster dictionary

IN'TELLECT, n. [L. intellectus, from intelligo, to understand. See Intelligence.] That faculty of the human soul or mind, which receives or comprehends the ideas communicated to it by the senses or by perception, or by other means; the faculty of thinking; otherwise called the understanding. A clear intellect receives and entertains the same ideas which another communicates with perspicuity.







> This is an interesting word as well, straight from Webster:
> 
> 
> 
> su·per·sti·tion
> 
> \ËŒsü-pÉ™r-Ëˆsti-shÉ™n\
> Function:
> noun
> Etymology:
> Middle English supersticion, from Anglo-French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand — more at stand
> Date:
> 13th century
> 
> 1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary




The original Webster Dictionary 
SUPERSTI'TION, n. [L. superstitio, supersto; super and sto, to stand.]

1. Excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points of minor importance; excess or extravagance in religion; the doing of things not required by God, or abstaining from things not forbidden; or the belief of what is absurd, or belief without evidence.

Superstition has reference to god, to religion, or to beings superior to man.

2. False religion; false worship.

3. Rite or practice proceeding from excess of scruples in religion. In this sense, it admits of a plural.

They the truth 

With superstitions and traditions taint.

4. Excessive nicety; scrupulous exactness.

5. Belief in the direct agency of superior powers in certain extraordinary or singular events, or in omens and prognostics.



There seems to be some discrepancy of definitions. Mine came first.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> There seems to be some discrepancy of definitions. Mine came first.



Anything used before 1864 will reflect Noah Webster's etymology,
developed from his interpretation of the KJV Bible.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Because religious belief systems are totally subjective and highly individually interpreted by nature.  Easy.
> A person wishing to be a believer in a specific religious belief system has to build their own mental imagery (through much influence), control their imagination, and then allow their emotions to move them.
> 
> Take away the emotional component, replace it with a requirement for proofs or evidence and the result is a rejection of religious belief systems.
> 
> Yes, there are extreme fundamentalist or radical exceptions within each religious belief system, within Athiesm, within Agnosticism and all other thoughts regarding the spiritual or meta-physical.




Your comments continue to prove my point, though you will disagree. 

Atheism is a religion in my worldview. I hold that there is no neutral ground in God's world. Even though men can, will and do deceive themselves into believing there is. You answer my question easily, but, I find your answer completely flawed, thus revealing that you DO lack a serious understanding of the system you have claimed many times in past posts to know so much about. 



> Because religious belief systems are totally subjective and highly individually interpreted by nature.  Easy.




Has atheism proven there is no God? If so could you point to such clear evidence so that I may put away childish things. Secondly, isn't the scientific evidence interpreted by some one? Is that evidence so overwhelmingly against God that every atheist scientist in in agreement with its meaning and implications? I submit that your answer to my question could be easily used against you. Is there more? Or is this all you can offer? This isn't intellectual at all just you telling us your person opinion. 



> Take away the emotional component, replace it with a requirement for proofs or evidence and the result is a rejection of religious belief systems.



So if I understand you what you are saying here, is that all religions is supported emotionally. Take away the emotion and religion falls. Um..........since you have stated several times to have a vast knowledge of religion, isn't there religions that are anti-emotional and purely stoic?


When you can bring yourself to see atheism as a religion, yourself as god, which determine what is right and wrong, then maybe and with God's grace you will realize you have been deceived. But, understand, I view those like yourself who has some understanding to be even more deceived because you fight the light of nature with unrighteousness.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> Anything used before 1864 will reflect Noah Webster's etymology,
> developed from his interpretation of the KJV Bible.



Not good enough? I can say everything after reflects dishonest humanist changing Webster's original work to reflect a atheist worldview. So, where does that leave us now? 

I guess what you believe does impact how you see everything, even definitions to words.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45;3448805

[QUOTE said:
			
		

> What Dawkins and other Athiests discuss is not indoctrination.  Anyone can walk away from it at any time.


I disagree.  They have formulated their own religion.  It's just secular humanism, that's all.



> It is the man-made religious belief systems which introduce an indoctrination of the repercussion of eternal ****ation resulting from rejection of or disbelief in (lack of Faith) the non-visible, completely imaginary and emotional response based belief.


I don't think Christianity was man made.  It came from God.




> I'll not say that such beliefs are not REAL to some people, as emotions are pretty powerful and completely subjective in nature.


Exactly.  I don't believe subjective testimonies are good in apologetics even if they are true.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Because religious belief systems are totally subjective and highly individually interpreted by nature.  Easy.
> A person wishing to be a believer in a specific religious belief system has to build their own mental imagery (through much influence), control their imagination, and then allow their emotions to move them.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this just your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take away the emotional component, replace it with a requirement for proofs or evidence and the result is a rejection of religious belief systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have proof.  You just don't except it.  God's word and self revelation.  Some don't need the proof you need.
Click to expand...


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Anything used before 1864 will reflect Noah Webster's etymology,
> developed from his interpretation of the KJV Bible.


Anything used after 1864 may reflect man's opionion developed from secular humanism.........your point?


----------



## reformedpastor

connorreid said:


> Anything used after 1864 may reflect man's opionion developed from secular humanism.........your point?




The fruits of the enlightenment, oops..........I meant endarkenment!!!!


----------



## ambush80

reformedpastor said:


> Not good enough? I can say everything after reflects dishonest humanist changing Webster's original work to reflect a atheist worldview. So, where does that leave us now?
> 
> I guess what you believe does impact how you see everything, even definitions to words.





connorreid said:


> Anything used after 1864 may reflect man's opionion developed from secular humanism.........your point?





reformedpastor said:


> The fruits of the enlightenment, oops..........I meant endarkenment!!!!



This is unbelievable.   You're trying to refute the legitimacy of Websters dictionary?   When did you accept that the Earth is a Sphere?  Was it very recently or have you not done so yet?   

I mean, this is really incredible!!!  Trying to discredit a DICTIONARY!!!!!   

Its appalling.

I wish everybody in Woody's could see this nonsense.  I've got to print this out and show everybody I can.  This idiocy must be exposed to the public.


----------



## Israel

Despite assertions of atheism and scorn, the worldly cannot help but proceed according to their own "faith".
Their unspoken tenet, as their unframed creed (even in their own minds) is simply that mankind is evolving/progressing toward greater enlightenment/tolerance or wisdom.
Willing to discount what they consider the superstitions of religion, they march nonetheless, to the rhythmic beat of their own religion and toward an imaginary perfection of man.
Though they rarely frame it in such obviously spiritual terms, they see man progressing from darkness to light.
Religion, for them, belongs to the dark past.
What lay ahead, though indistinct, is as much an impetus for their evolution as any vision of a Judaean prophet.
They would be loathe to admit this but that vague archetype beckons them forward, and their faith and dedication to such is as real as any martyr. It becomes the justification for their licentiousness when confronted. "Men are not debauching themsleves, they are simply becoming more free." That archetype of the fallen mind  becomes their motive and excuse. 
(Each man will offer a man for his justification.)
What lay at the end, however, is the plain display of their mind's projectionist. The imp behind the curtain.
He will be shown for who and what he is, no friend of man, no substance of liberty, no reality but degradation and shame.
I take no comfort from the religions of man, nor from superstition.
But one man, far wiser than any that have yet, or will, ever ascend the world's stage, has made plain the folly of those who unite to elevate a marred image.
He sealed his word with his own blood.
Truth and redemption are there.
Soon, fallen man's image of perfection will arise to meet him.
And be found wanting.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Not good enough?



I never said that.  I only related some history as to how Webster expressed his etymology before 1864.
Nothing more.
Use whichever version fits you.  That's OK.
Same goes for the Bible.  Whichever version you are comfortable with.

Emotions seem to be running a little high today.  So, I'll take the side door.
Everyone enjoy their weekend, however you believe or worship!


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> I never said that.  I only related some history as to how Webster expressed his etymology before 1864.
> Nothing more.
> Use whichever version fits you.  That's OK.
> Same goes for the Bible.  Whichever version you are comfortable with.
> 
> Emotions seem to be running a little high today.  So, I'll take the side door.
> Everyone enjoy their weekend, however you believe or worship!



You and ambush seem to need some reading lessons.............and you claim to be able to critically think??? I guess you didn't notice the question mark??


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> You and ambush seem to need some reading lessons.............and you claim to be able to critically think??? I guess you didn't notice the question mark??



I am answering your question with my statement.  Any definition you choose to use is fine.  We can communicate following those basic principles.

I'd like it if we cut out the innuendo and veiled insults.  I try to be respectful of others, is it a lot to ask you for, Reformedpastor?

Have a nice Good Friday, and a beautiful Easter weekend, however you believe!


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> I am answering your question with my statement.  Any definition you choose to use is fine.  We can communicate following those basic principles.
> 
> I'd like it if we cut out the innuendo and veiled insults.  I try to be respectful of others, is it a lot to ask you for, Reformedpastor?
> 
> Have a nice Good Friday, and a beautiful Easter weekend, however you believe!



I assure you I am not making what you claim to be veiled insults. I like my insults to be clear and in the open. All I ma doing is bring what you have wrote, whether clearly or implied as I understood it, to make my point, which is how discussions/debate works. 

Hope this helps. I celebrate the resurrection of Christ every Lord's Day not just once a year, But thanks for your kindness.


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> This is unbelievable.   You're trying to refute the legitimacy of Websters dictionary?   When did you accept that the Earth is a Sphere?  Was it very recently or have you not done so yet?
> 
> I mean, this is really incredible!!!  Trying to discredit a DICTIONARY!!!!!
> 
> Its appalling.
> 
> I wish everybody in Woody's could see this nonsense.  I've got to print this out and show everybody I can.  This idiocy must be exposed to the public.


I'm not discrediting the dictionary at all.  The only way we can have one in the first place is b/c of objective truth.  The atheistic world could not have a dictionary b/c all words would be subjective.  I think you missed the whole point.  Of course an atheist can quote from Webster's dictionary or any dictionary and make sense of it b/c it's based on truth.  The problem is that his WORLDVIEW cannot account for it.  That's what we have shown on the entire thread - that the atheistic mindset becomes absurd.  Apart from God, where all knowledge comes from, truth could not exist.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> I assure you I am not making what you claim to be veiled insults. I like my insults to be clear and in the open.



This is how a pastor works?
I'm getting enlightened everyday.
Have a good weekend.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Despite assertions of atheism and scorn, the worldly cannot help but proceed according to their own "faith".
> Their unspoken tenet, as their unframed creed (even in their own minds) is simply that mankind is evolving/progressing toward greater enlightenment/tolerance or wisdom.
> 
> Perhaps this enlightenment may involve some version of Christianity.  There have been many versions through the ages.  Its unlikely that it will be a fundamentalist version.
> 
> Willing to discount what they consider the superstitions of religion, they march nonetheless, to the rhythmic beat of their own religion and toward an imaginary perfection of man.
> 
> Why does this have to be "either/or"?  I can accept that man has an element of his nature that is unkind.  I don't need to call it "sinful" in order to realize that it needs temperance.
> 
> Though they rarely frame it in such obviously spiritual terms, they see man progressing from darkness to light.
> Religion, for them, belongs to the dark past.
> 
> Certain versions of it do, just like the notion that the Earth is flat.
> 
> What lay ahead, though indistinct, is as much an impetus for their evolution as any vision of a Judaean prophet.
> They would be loathe to admit this but that vague archetype beckons them forward, and their faith and dedication to such is as real as any martyr. It becomes the justification for their licentiousness when confronted. "
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Men are not debauching themsleves, they are simply becoming more free."
> 
> Again, not necessarily "either/or".  Freeing your mind will not necessarily end up in debauchery any more than being a Christian will compel you to blow up an abortion clinic.  That is the result of operator error.
> 
> That archetype of the fallen mind  becomes their motive and excuse.
> (Each man will offer a man for his justification.)
> What lay at the end, however, is the plain display of their mind's projectionist. The imp behind the curtain.
> He will be shown for who and what he is, no friend of man, no substance of liberty, no reality but degradation and shame.
> 
> Not if you believe that men can temper themselves.
> 
> I take no comfort from the religions of man, nor from superstition.
> But one man, far wiser than any that have yet, or will, ever ascend the world's stage, has made plain the folly of those who unite to elevate a marred image.
> He sealed his word with his own blood.
> Truth and redemption are there.
> Soon, fallen man's image of perfection will arise to meet him.
> 
> .....Assuming such a fellow.
> 
> And be found wanting.



You will not "want" if you don't set yourself up for failure by assuming that your a no good wretch.


----------



## ambush80

connorreid said:


> I'm not discrediting the dictionary at all.  The only way we can have one in the first place is b/c of objective truth.  The atheistic world could not have a dictionary b/c all words would be subjective.  I think you missed the whole point.  Of course an atheist can quote from Webster's dictionary or any dictionary and make sense of it b/c it's based on truth.  The problem is that his WORLDVIEW cannot account for it.  That's what we have shown on the entire thread - that the atheistic mindset becomes absurd.  Apart from God, where all knowledge comes from, truth could not exist.



You really don't understand the difference between practical truth and absolute truth?   Still?   Or do you not accept that there is a difference?


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> You really don't understand the difference between practical truth and absolute truth?   Still?   Or do you not accept that there is a difference?


Please enlighten me with your expertise.  Just give me a simple summary and we will talk about it.  Now, what I will need to know after you give your summary is this:  Will your statement be based on practical truth or absolute truth? And if it's not based on absolute truth then will it be subjective? Thanks and I look forward to the answer!!


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> You will not "want" if you don't set yourself up for failure by assuming that your a no good wretch.


 
Oh, no, that is never an assumption...I always assume I am right, kind, just, perceptive, objective, unbiased...these are my "assumptions".
The truth, however, shows a distinction when he appears.
If he has not appeared to you, be patient.
Or not.
And it's true...men cannot temper themselves...if they "can" do it...they will.


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> This is how a pastor works?
> I'm getting enlightened everyday.
> Have a good weekend.



This was the whole post. I will quote myself- 





> "I assure you I am not making what you claim to be veiled insults. I like my insults to be clear and in the open. All I am doing is bringing what you have wrote, whether clearly stated or implied as I understood it, to make my point, which is how discussions/debate works.
> 
> Hope this helps. I celebrate the resurrection of Christ every Lord's Day not just once a year, But thanks for your kindness."




I thought you could recognize humor, I was wrong, I get enlightened every day.


----------



## WTM45

A preacher that likes "my insults to be clear and in the open."

I failed to see the humor.

I MUST be my fault.  I'm sorry.

I'm not comfortable speaking with a pastor this way.  I try to communicate via the internet just like as if we were face to face, and I would NOT be comfortable talking in this manner.  
I am a very respectful person, believe it or not.
Oh, and a highly spiritual one as well.
Can we move on?


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> A preacher that likes "my insults to be clear and in the open."
> 
> I failed to see the humor.
> 
> I MUST be my fault.  I'm sorry.




I guess the reason for this is so there can be no misunderstanding about the insult given. Meaning if I intended to insult you it would be obvious. 

We are never to offenses take lightly nor or we to ever minimize their affect on others but an insult/offense may be called for at particular times. But this was not one of those times. The gospel, Peter says, "is offensive to those who do not believe."


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> I guess the reason for this is so there can be no misunderstanding about the insult given. Meaning if I intended to insult you it would be obvious.



And I interpreted a couple of things as insults.  
We've discussed MULTIPLE subjects here, so you should know I am WTM45 by now, not WTMB.
I'll have taken you at your word it was a simple mistake done twice.  Forgotten.

But you have inferred I need reading lessons, and that is an  insult to me.  I have worked hard on my abilities to read as well as my ability to think critically.  I know you have as well.

I can not control how others interpret what I have written, but when you to go right out and state something completely different than what I actually said, even if only incorrectly paraphrasing it, that is insulting.  It weakens your argument and stance. 

Please use the quote feature, or cut-and paste ctrl-c and ctrl-v so to prevent such an error.
Refer to YOUR post, #140, and my response posting #141 in the "Legislating Morality" thread.

I will continue to be respectful.


----------



## ambush80

connorreid said:


> Please enlighten me with your expertise.  Just give me a simple summary and we will talk about it.  Now, what I will need to know after you give your summary is this:  Will your statement be based on practical truth or absolute truth? And if it's not based on absolute truth then will it be subjective? Thanks and I look forward to the answer!!



You did this with footjunior already.  Remember when he was talking about his hair being black?  But here we go AGAIN , anyway.   

If you don't understand that absolute truth is beyond us, then this discussion is pointless. 

When I say to you that "fire is hot" or that my "hair is black", it is subjective, but we have enough agreement amongst ourselves to be able to call these things "true" (practically).  


Back to the topic of the thread.  When you fish or hunt do you sometimes throw your lure in a certain spot or head off in a certain direction because "it just feels right"? 

 I do.  

But I also learn what I can about habitat and game patterns and look at the solunar table in an attempt to make an informed decision about lure color or tree stand placement.  

The first method,though valid, can't really be called "intellectual", can it?  The same methods can be applied to one's spiritual journey, as a matter of fact, I contend that it is the crux of this debate.  Faith is the belief in things without evidence--throwing your lure yonder because you  "just know it in your bones that its the right thing to do".  Valid, but the antithesis of intellectual.


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> You did this with footjunior already.  Remember when he was talking about his hair being black?  But here we go AGAIN , anyway.
> 
> If you don't understand that absolute truth is beyond us, then this discussion is pointless.
> 
> When I say to you that "fire is hot" or that my "hair is black", it is subjective, but we have enough agreement amongst ourselves to be able to call these things "true" (practically).
> 
> 
> Back to the topic of the thread.  When you fish or hunt do you sometimes throw your lure in a certain spot or head off in a certain direction because "it just feels right"?
> 
> I do.
> 
> But I also learn what I can about habitat and game patterns and look at the solunar table in an attempt to make an informed decision about lure color or tree stand placement.
> 
> The first method,though valid, can't really be called "intellectual", can it?  The same methods can be applied to one's spiritual journey, as a matter of fact, I contend that it is the crux of this debate.  Faith is the belief in things without evidence--throwing your lure yonder because you  "just know it in your bones that its the right thing to do".  Valid, but the antithesis of intellectual.


You also missed the point as well.  For you to make any statement at all presupposes absolute truth, else your statement is nothing.  Like you said, here we go again.  

You say "absolute truth is beyond us."  I ask you, "is that absolutely true?"  
How can I believe what you say if it's not absolutely true? Would you believe somebody making statements like that?? 

See, you take statements that scientists say as truth (absolute truth).  If absolute truth is beyond us, then you can't be sure if what the scientists are saying is true or not.  Thus, the absurdity of the faithful atheistic view.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Oh, no, that is never an assumption...I always assume I am right, kind, just, perceptive, objective, unbiased...these are my "assumptions".
> 
> And rightfully so....sometimes.
> 
> The truth, however, shows a distinction when he appears.
> 
> It appears to me that the "truth" reveals itself differently to everyone, even to the homogeneous group here in Woody's.  So vastly differently that I would be inclined to call it subjective.
> 
> If he has not appeared to you, be patient.
> Or not.
> And it's true...men cannot temper themselves...if they "can" do it...they will.



But they can be shown how being "good" to others is "good" for themselves. Or at very least they can be tempered by their peers.


----------



## ambush80

connorreid said:


> You also missed the point as well.  For you to make any statement at all presupposes absolute truth, else your statement is nothing.  Like you said, here we go again.
> 
> You say "absolute truth is beyond us."  I ask you, "is that absolutely true?"
> 
> Its true enough
> 
> How can I believe what you say if it's not absolutely true? Would you believe somebody making statements like that??
> 
> You can arrive to that conclusion on your own through simple reasoning.
> 
> See, you take statements that scientists say as truth (absolute truth).
> 
> No I don't.  They come up with a notion that attempts to explain how something works and if it is an accurate explanation then I apply it as practical truth.  Some examples are Gravity, Thermodynamics,  Quantum Physics and so on.  I have no idea that they are ABSOLUTELY true.
> 
> 
> 
> If absolute truth is beyond us, then you can't be sure if what the scientists are saying is true or not.
> 
> Their data has undergone enough scrutiny and experimentation to be considered practically true that I feel confident operating by their theories.  Some of them I have been able to observe personally.  (Ever fallen down?)
> 
> Thus, the absurdity of the faithful atheistic view.



You've bought a fishing lure that claims it can make fish appear out of nowhere but you cant even test it.  How do you know that it works?  It says so right there on the box.  The box is empty, just the words.   Not very intellectual.


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> But they can be shown how being "good" to others is "good" for themselves. Or at very least they can be tempered by their peers.



Very true!  Good point.
Humans have an innate desire to be known within their social groups as "good."  
Identification of mental illness once included those who did not want to be known as "good."
They were handled a little differently, let's just say.


----------



## reformedpastor

What qualifies as mental illness?


----------



## reformedpastor

**k9** said:


> Ps 14:1 ¶ To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. *The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. *They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.




Still doesn't look intellectual!!


----------



## celticfisherman

connorreid said:


> You also missed the point as well.  For you to make any statement at all presupposes absolute truth, else your statement is nothing.  Like you said, here we go again.
> 
> You say "absolute truth is beyond us."  I ask you, "is that absolutely true?"
> How can I believe what you say if it's not absolutely true? Would you believe somebody making statements like that??
> 
> See, you take statements that scientists say as truth (absolute truth).  If absolute truth is beyond us, then you can't be sure if what the scientists are saying is true or not.  Thus, the absurdity of the faithful atheistic view.



In order for us all to have a discussion on this let me ask a couple of questions...


#1- What is 1+1?

#2- What is the square root of 9?

#3- What planet do we live on?


----------



## ambush80

celticfisherman said:


> In order for us all to have a discussion on this let me ask a couple of questions...
> 
> 
> #1- What is 1+1?
> 
> 1+1 what?  Clouds?  Ideas?
> 
> #2- What is the square root of 9?
> 
> Same as above.
> 
> #3- What planet do we live on?



I practically understand us to be living on Earth, but there is no way to REALLY know absolutely.  What things do you know with absolute, 100% certainty and what is your proof?


----------



## ambush80

reformedpastor said:


> Still doesn't look intellectual!!



You're using the words written on the empty fishing lure box (refer to post #864) to tell you what's right.


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> Your using the words written on the empty fishing lure box (refer to post #864) to tell you what's right.



Thanks for your opinion. Its noted.


----------



## Madman

> Thanks for your opinion. Its noted....RP



Is that really his opinion?  LOL
How do you know?  LOL


----------



## WTM45

We don't.
That's the crux of an open discussion and debate.  Any side or issue can be argued for or against by anyone with subject knowledge, whether that is what they personally believe or not.


----------



## reformedpastor

Madman said:


> Is that really his opinion?  LOL
> How do you know?  LOL




I don't know!!!!!!


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Is that really his opinion?  LOL
> How do you know?  LOL





reformedpastor said:


> I don't know!!!!!!




Do you know that fire is hot?  Will it burn your hand every time you touch it?  Every single time?  Without fail?  Is it POSSIBLE that you might touch it and it not burn you?

(This is what an intellectual exercise looks like, by the way.)


----------



## reformedpastor

ambush80 said:


> Do you know that fire is hot?  Will it burn your hand every time you touch it?  Every single time?  Without fail?  Is it POSSIBLE that you might touch it and it not burn you?
> 
> (This is what an intellectual exercise looks like, by the way.)



Thank you for the lesson. I don't know if its your real opinion or not. 

I do know this, fire burns.


----------



## WTM45

An Athiest can not hate what to them does not exist.
And, they do not hate others who believe in things that to them do not exist.  They are just mostly curious as to why and how people are led to believe in something based on faith alone.

Most Athiests could not care what others believe or practice.  They do find religious belief systems to be an interesting study in people control.
There are a few radicals, just like in anything else found on the planet.

Almost all religious belief systems hold an exclusive belief (one way is the right way, and it is OUR way), and stress the requirement that their message is to be carried and propogated worldwide.
That's a little more aggressive than the Athiest asking "Where's the proofs or evidence?"


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> We don't.
> That's the crux of an open discussion and debate.  Any side or issue can be argued for or against by anyone with subject knowledge, whether that is what they personally believe or not.


Then how can you make a statement like you just did if we can't.  You are showing the absurdity of your system and the more you talk the less you make sense.  Please continue on or don't - it doesn't matter b/c nobody can rationalize from your perspective, not even yourself.


----------



## connorreid

ambush80 said:


> I practically understand us to be living on Earth, but there is no way to REALLY know absolutely.  What things do you know with absolute, 100% certainty and what is your proof?


If we can't really know absolutely anything 100% , then why are you on here trying to educate us on your view? It practically and absolutely is worthless.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> Then how can you make a statement like you just did if we can't.  You are showing the absurdity of your system and the more you talk the less you make sense.  Please continue on or don't - it doesn't matter b/c nobody can rationalize from your perspective, not even yourself.



I'm not suprised that so much information flies harmlessly over your head.
I'd suggest you re-read some of your posts.  They have been truly inspiring.  Not.

In my beliefs, I rationalize quite well and have a firm understanding of what they are and exactly why I believe what I do.  I doubt you have the ability to read my mind.

I also have studied to gain the knowledge and the ability to discuss any side of a topic as if I was retained counsel.  I just might lose a client once and a while!

If we all chose to discuss subjects from the same viewpoint, it would be rather mundane, wouldn't it?


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> If we can't really know absolutely anything 100% , then why are you on here trying to educate us on your view? It practically and absolutely is worthless.



I believe all he has done is present his view.  Where has he implied or said YOUR view was worthless?

Everyone has a right to a view and opinion.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> I'm not suprised that so much information flies harmlessly over your head.
> I'd suggest you re-read some of your posts.  They have been truly inspiring.  Not.
> 
> In my beliefs, I rationalize quite well and have a firm understanding of what they are and exactly why I believe what I do.  I doubt you have the ability to read my mind.
> 
> I also have studied to gain the knowledge and the ability to discuss any side of a topic as if I was retained counsel.
> 
> If we all chose to discuss subjects from the same viewpoint, it would be rather mundane, wouldn't it?


We know you think very highly of yourself and you obviously like to argue for the sake of arguing.  That's what happens when you have a system where you aren't 100% absolutely certain about anything.  How could truth dare survive from your perspective.  It couldn't b/c it's subjective and can change directions like the wind at any time.  I've enjoyed reading your OPINIONS (especially about yourself).  Now, do you have anything else on how intellectual is atheism?


----------



## WTM45

**k9** said:


> By the way, if you would answer, are you an atheist?
> 
> What I believe comes from the word of God, as I do believe that God exists and is very alive.



I've said multiple times, and will say again, I am not an Athiest.

But, I believe they have the same rights to their beliefs as any follower of a religious belief system does.

I respect your views as well.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> I believe all he has done is present his view.  Where has he implied or said YOUR view was worthless?
> 
> Everyone has a right to a view and opinion.


He has presented his view but says he can't be absolutely 100% sure of anything........hard for me to take somebody's word like that.  He may have a view and an opinion but if he's not 100% sure about it, it's pretty pointless.  Hence, the purpose of exposing his system and showing how the atheist is not truly intellectual, but blinded and self deceived.

We all have views and opinions so how does that statement of yours relate to the topic on here?


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> We know you think very highly of yourself and you obviously like to argue for the sake of arguing.  That's what happens when you have a system where you aren't 100% absolutely certain about anything.  How could truth dare survive from your perspective.  It couldn't b/c it's subjective and can change directions like the wind at any time.  I've enjoyed reading your OPINIONS (especially about yourself).  Now, do you have anything else on how intellectual is atheism?




Um, I do think highly of myself.  It is the only self I have and I do try to make the best of it.
I'm here to discuss, debate and study spiritual subjects.
Simple.
I'll add more to the thread as I feel inclined.  Thanks.


----------



## connorreid

**k9** said:


> Also, *it will lead to *a hatred of God, God's people, and anything that pertaineth to God.
> 
> *The atheist knows that there is God*, they simple reject God, and say in there heart "THERE IS NO GOD".
> 
> 
> The atheist did not want to retain God in his knowledge.
> 
> I did not say they hated anything! Read!
> The rejection of God, will lead to the hatred of the things of God.
> Let's see what God say about it.
> 
> Lu 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will *hate the one*, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
> 
> There is only God and mammon!
> 
> he will either (ONE OR THE OTHER) HATE THE ONE AND LOVE THE OTHER or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.
> 
> Rejecting God can certainly lead to hatred.  Why do these same FOOLS shake their fists to God in heaven when they don't believe that he exists.
> When they say I don't believe that anything exists that I can't see, tell that person that they can't see their brain; does that mean they don't have one. (You may be right)
> 
> I don't believe in wars but, does that mean that they do not exist.
> 
> By the way, if you would answer, are you an atheist?
> 
> What I believe comes from the word of God, as I do believe that God exists and is very alive.
> 
> Lu 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. *Ye cannot serve God and mammon.*


WTM45 will not reveal what he believes.  I don't think he can, thus the fruits of an atheist intellectual.  He won't claim anything on here but I say he's an atheist no doubt and until he proves otherwise that's how I'll treat his thinking.........Who cares what he says.  Anybody getting on here that can't openly admit what they believe and profess is too flighty.  I know I would not trust what anybody said if they couldn't tell me some basics of their beliefs (and he wants people to listen to him on here??) He has killed his credibility.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> .......hard for me to take somebody's word like that.



Why does a person need to take anyone's word for anything if they have all the answers covered in their own mind?
Drive on with confidence!

Can we discuss a subject that is religious in nature without it becoming a contest of wills or getting in the final word?
Maybe not.  Maybe so.

Most often, debate and discussion ends with each side having expressed their opinions, rebuttals completed and no final judgement is given as to a right/wrong result.
The only tangible result is in how the players play the game.  Being considerate and respectful of others is usually an accepted rule.


----------



## WTM45

connorreid said:


> wtm45 will not reveal what he believes.  I don't think he can, thus the fruits of an atheist intellectual.  He won't claim anything on here but i say he's an atheist no doubt and until he proves otherwise that's how i'll treat his thinking.........who cares what he says.  anybody getting on here that can't openly admit what they believe and profess is too flighty.  I know i would not trust what anybody said if they couldn't tell me some basics of their beliefs (and he wants people to listen to him on here??) he has killed his credibility.



Now it has become personal.
Welcome to my ignore list.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=93552


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Why does a person need to take anyone's word for anything if they have all the answers covered in their own mind?
> Drive on with confidence!
> 
> Can we discuss a subject that is religious in nature without it becoming a contest of wills or getting in the final word?
> Maybe not.  Maybe so.
> 
> Most often, debate and discussion ends with each side having expressed their opinions, rebuttals completed and no final judgement is given as to a right/wrong result.
> The only tangible result is in how the players play the game.  Being considerate and respectful of others is usually an accepted rule.


You have missed the entire point.  I am showing how the atheist is reduced to absurdity in their thinking.  Ambush said he couldn't be 100% certain about anything, however he lives contrary to that.  He says he's not 100% sure if he lives on earth.....um, ok????  So, I think people can read the arguments and see that the atheist is not truly intellectual, but irrational.  

In terms of accepted rules, being considerate and respectful is great.  However, why would that matter in an atheistic world?  Can an atheist account for  being considerate? I don't think so.  The atheist world is subjective and relative.  Since Ambush doesn't even know if he lives on earth, do you think he could define a term like "considerate"?  No way.


----------



## connorreid

WTM45 said:


> Now it has become personal.
> Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## connorreid

I think everyone reading this thread can clearly see that when atheists are pressed, they have no firm ground to stand on.  Instead of continuing in debate they become irritated and overtaken by emotion thus showing their lack of self control. 

So, how intellectual is atheism?  Well, it doesn't look intellectual to me at all, but instead it looks irrational, illogical, and just plain ridiculous.  

Romans 1:18-19:  "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who SUPPRESS THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, b/c what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."

These atheists can't escape the image that they were created in.  Although they profess the foolishness and absurdity that they do, they cannot live consistently with those views.  They cannot escape God's image but will do everything in their power to do so.  Thus, the Lord hands them over to their subjectivism, nonsense, and unreasonableness and openly exposes them for who they really are:  haters of God.


----------



## WTM45

**k9** said:


> If the atheist want to *believe that God does not exist *then,  that is their belief. Oh, I see now, THEY BELIEVE IN NOTHING (BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST)!



Interesting thought K9, although it is somewhat circular in nature.  
Question.  Do you think an Athiest can find a proof or evidence of the existance of God simply from looking at the earth, the heavens and through reading the Bible WITHOUT exchanging their logic for faith?


----------



## ambush80

connorreid said:


> If we can't really know absolutely anything 100% , then why are you on here trying to educate us on your view? It practically and absolutely is worthless.



I'm here for amusement.  Like a cat with a wounded mouse.  What do you know with absolute certainty?



connorreid said:


> You have missed the entire point.  I am showing how the atheist is reduced to absurdity in their thinking.  Ambush said he couldn't be 100% certain about anything, however he lives contrary to that.
> 
> I don't live contrary to that.  I think that it's possible that if I jump off a building that I might not fall but I have enough evidence to show that I will most likely fall.  So I avoid rooftops.  Same with fire. What do you know with 100% absolute certainty?
> 
> He says he's not 100% sure if he lives on earth.....um, ok????  So, I think people can read the arguments and see that the atheist is not truly intellectual, but irrational.
> 
> I'm certain enough to state as fact that I live on Earth.  What things do you know with absolute certainty?
> 
> 
> In terms of accepted rules, being considerate and respectful is great.  However, why would that matter in an atheistic world?
> 
> Because in any society, atheistic or otherwise, if your not friendly and cooperative then your peers will lock you up or kill you.  Works like that with most pack animals.
> 
> Can an atheist account for  being considerate? I don't think so.  The atheist world is subjective and relative.  Since Ambush doesn't even know if he lives on earth, do you think he could define a term like "considerate"?
> 
> I'm certain enough that I live on Earth that I can discuss it in those terms.  "Consideration" is closely linked to morals, which come from different places depending on who you talk to.
> 
> No way.



You don't want to believe it, but its true.  People have come up with morals all over the world even without your particular God.



connorreid said:


> I think everyone reading this thread can clearly see that when atheists are pressed, they have no firm ground to stand on.
> 
> They rely on reason.
> 
> Instead of continuing in debate they become irritated and overtaken by emotion thus showing their lack of self control.
> 
> So, how intellectual is atheism?  Well, it doesn't look intellectual to me at all, but instead it looks irrational, illogical, and just plain ridiculous.
> 
> If you base your beliefs on the product of your reasoning that's called....what?
> 
> If you base your beliefs on superstition or things unseen that's called...... what?
> 
> Romans 1:18-19:  "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who SUPPRESS THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, b/c what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."
> 
> These atheists can't escape the image that they were created in.
> 
> An assumption with no evidence.
> 
> Although they profess the foolishness and absurdity that they do, they cannot live consistently with those views.  They cannot escape God's image but will do everything in their power to do so.  Thus, the Lord hands them over to their subjectivism, nonsense, and unreasonableness and openly exposes them for who they really are:  haters of God.



I hate yard work and taxes. God or the idea of God, not so much.  Piety is somewhere in the middle of my list of dislikes, maybe in the upper third.


----------



## earl

Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him..


To cr ,with hope.


----------



## Madman

> Question. Do you think an Athiest can find a proof or evidence of the existance of God simply from looking at the earth, the heavens....WTM45



I know an atheist can find proof for God simply by looking at the earth and heavens, they don't even need the Bible.

That is called "General Revelation".  There have been several famous non-believers who have come out over the last few years and said they do not know who or how but some being started what we see here.  They could no longer accept the idea that the living came from non-living.

"They heavens declare the glory of God"


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> I know an atheist can find proof for God simply by looking at the earth and heavens, they don't even need the Bible.
> 
> That is called "General Revelation".  There have been several famous non-believers who have come out over the last few years and said they do not know who or how but some being started what we see here.  They could no longer accept the idea that the living came from non-living.
> 
> "They heavens declare the glory of God"



I understand your point, and the premise of your answer.
But without the Bible's definitions, what would the deity THEY find appear to be?
Think a little before answering.  Look at what the Native American Indian believed as far as a deity or spirit.


You skipped the last part of the question also.  Do they have to replace their logic with faith?


----------



## WTM45

**k9** said:


> I believe that an atheist (God rejector) can't find their way to the bathroom without the grace of God.
> 
> To answer your question I will let the word of God speak for me.
> 
> Ps 19:1 ¶ To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
> 
> Ps 50:6 And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God [is] judge himself. Selah.
> 
> Ps 97:6 The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.
> 
> Ro 1:20 *For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:*
> 
> The word of God declares God, and I am declaring the word of God at this very moment.
> 
> Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
> Ro 10:18 *But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.*
> 
> The atheist has a choice to either repent from rejecting God and receive the Gospel, and to receive Jesus as his Saviour, or continue rejecting God and suffer the judgment of all those who reject God's so great salvation.



I respect your point of view, and clearly see the exclusivism found within Christianity.


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> Interesting thought K9, although it is somewhat circular in nature.
> Question.  Do you think an Athiest can find a proof or evidence of the existance of God simply from looking at the earth, the heavens and through reading the Bible WITHOUT exchanging their logic for faith?



There are thing in the Bible that escape logic.  Some of it will have to be believed by faith, which is not logic.


----------



## christianhunter

Over 8,000 views,and all of these posts.19 pages and counting.The simple answer is atheism is not intellectual at all.It leaves me in awe at the Christians that are still partaking.I'm partaking at this moment because of the wonder of it."The fool has said in his heart,there is no GOD".Plain and simple,THE LORD HIMSELF said it!


----------



## Madman

> through reading the Bible WITHOUT exchanging their logic for faith? .... WTM45



I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.  I will say that the more I look at God's world and God's Word the more they are aligned.  

I am not a scientist, I am a mechanical engineer and the things I deal with everyday reflect exactly what I read in the Scriptures.

There are some things that have not been totaly revealed and that is alright, the overwhelming parts that I understand and are proven to be true give me great confidence in the rest.



> But without the Bible's definitions, what would the deity THEY find appear to be?... WTM45




I do not know much about the god or gods of the American Indians.  I think they have an certain amount of animism in their beliefs and I see where that could come from.  I say that because I believe every religion has evolved from Adam's earliest relationship with God, the original knowledge of God when Adam walked with God in the garden.  I do know that most cultures have a "flood story",that the idea of sacrifice is prevelant in many cultures and that can be seen in Genesis when God killed an animal to cloth Adam and Eve to cover their sin.  "The wages of sin is death."

I believe that god would appear to them as a creator, a sustainer, a lover (perhaps, depending on how hard their life was) etc.

If they lived in the desert they would see him one way, if they lived in the mountains they would see him another, but they would see Him none the less.

Now we can move forward to the Bible, it is God's special revelation to the world.  I believe Paul's journey to Mars Hill would be a good example of how a Christian should talk to someone who is polytheistic.  Paraphrase : I see you have alters to many gods, even to the unknown God, it is Him that I have come to tell you about.  

Then we can talk of the loving, just, righteous, etc., etc., etc., God of creation.

 I ramble, tell me what I need to clarify.


----------



## Madman

> There are thing in the Bible that escape logic. Some of it will have to be believed by faith, which is not logic. ...Ambush



There are a lot of things that have to be taken on faith.  Everytime a paratrooper jumps from a plane he must have faith that the laws of phsysics still work, the parachute will open, that gravity will cause him to fall straight down, that air will fill his chute, and allow him to float gently to the ground.

We all have some kind of faith, just where do you choose to place it?


----------



## Madman

> I respect your point of view, and clearly see the exclusivism found within Christianity. .. WTM45



Most every religion or belief system has exclusivity.


----------



## Madman

> We all have some kind of faith, just where do you choose to place it? ...Madman



that's Biblical you know.   "but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Romans 12:3


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> There are a lot of things that have to be taken on faith.  Everytime a paratrooper jumps from a plane he must have faith that the laws of phsysics still work, the parachute will open, that gravity will cause him to fall straight down, that air will fill his chute, and allow him to float gently to the ground.
> 
> We all have some kind of faith, just where do you choose to place it?



Mostly in things that have ALOT of proof in.


----------



## ambush80

christianhunter said:


> The simple answer is atheism is not intellectual at all.



How so?


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Mostly in things that have ALOT of proof in.




Lot of proof for Biblical things also.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> There are a lot of things that have to be taken on faith.  Everytime a paratrooper jumps from a plane he must have faith that the laws of phsysics still work, the parachute will open, that gravity will cause him to fall straight down, that air will fill his chute, and allow him to float gently to the ground.
> 
> We all have some kind of faith, just where do you choose to place it?



That's not an example of faith.  That is an example of trust based on the evidence of previous controlled experimentation and equipment development.
Proofs.  Evidence.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> Most every religion or belief system has exclusivity.



Very true.  And most of them they share prejudice. arrogance and intolerance among other traits as well.


----------



## Madman

WTM45 said:


> That's not an example of faith.  That is an example of trust based on the evidence of previous controlled experimentation and equipment development.
> Proofs.  Evidence.



The non believer's argument has been that everything is subjective.  Therefore the chute may open this time it may not will it absolutly work or subjectively work?

will it tangle? will a line break? will I get tangled in the cords?

You have faith none of that will happen.

Always be prepared to carry an argument out to its logical conclusion.


----------



## Madman

QUOTE]Very true... WTM45[/QUOTE]

Very good!  A point of aggreement, I like progress!




> And most of them they share prejudice. arrogance and intolerance among other traits as well.



That is pretty much a human trait, even non-believers have that.  We agree again!!


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> The non believer's argument has been that everything is subjective.  Therefore the chute may open this time it may not will it absolutly work or subjectively work?
> 
> will it tangle? will a line break? will I get tangled in the cords?
> 
> You have faith none of that will happen.
> 
> Always be prepared to carry an argument out to its logical conclusion.



That's still not an example of faith.  It is an example of trust based on the probability of success vs. failure.
Faith does not do one thing to prevent failure or to insure success in parachute operations.

Even partial success/limited failure can be considered a total success if the paratrooper/skydiver survives the landing.

Faith is complete hope in the unknown or evidence which is unseen.  Hoped for, not using a probability based on actual experimental testing with documented rates of failure.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> That is pretty much a human trait, even non-believers have that.  We agree again!!



So religious belief systems reflect human traits.  Hmmmmm.  Could that be because they are created by humans?  

Why wouldn't a perfect deity provide a perfect system?  Perfect evidence?  Perfect proofs?

There has been no consideration in this discussion for how the Buddist, the Hindu or how the Druids view Athiesm.
I might have to bring something new to the discussion outside the two most exclusive systems, Christianity and Islam.


----------



## Madman

> So religious belief systems reflect human traits.



Humans reflect human traits.  So non-believers are never exclusive? Never prejudice? How about Buddists? Or druids.

Don't get circular on me now.


----------



## Madman

Got to go!  My son, may be valadictorian of his class.  Accepted to Ga tech, starts his first somester with 22+ hours under his belt and most importantly a young man who has been saved and he knows it has something at school he wants me to attend.

Even Christian dads crow ocassionally.

God's peace!!


----------



## WTM45

**k9** said:


> Thank you however, it is not my "point of view" that I am quoting.  I am merely quoting the word of God.   It is God who "excludes" or who "includes".I will show several examples:
> [/COLOR]



K9, I totally meant what I said to you as a complement.  
Also, thank you for your research into the Biblical support for your posts.

Problem.
Athiests do not believe the Bible is the direct word(s) of a deity.  
Sorry, but that is just the way it is.  We have been down that road in this thread already.


----------



## christianhunter

ambush80 said:


> How so?



"The fool has said in his heart,there is no GOD."


----------



## Madman

> Man has excluded himself from God by sin, and God has provided THE WAY to include man. However, many reject God's WAY (Jesus) and continues to exclude himself.



I agree, Unless I misread WTM45's original post the insinuation was that Christianity is the only belief system that is exclusive, and narrow minded as to its beliefs.

My argument is every belief system is narrow and exclusive including atheism.  I am a very narrow minded person on a lot of matters.  For instance, when I fly in airplane, I expect the pilot not to fly us into a mountain or crash dive into a building. I believe a lot of people agree with that but it is still narrow minded because I will only accept one outcome, safe take-off and safe landing.

That is pretty narrow minded.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> I agree, Unless I misread WTM45's original post the insinuation was that Christianity is the only belief system that is exclusive, and narrow minded as to its beliefs.



You probably did not misread, you just mis-interpreted.
I include most all of the currently practiced religious belief systems as being exclusive.  Christianity is one of the current two MOST exclusive.

Athiesm is undoubtably the most open to adaptation and change simply because as proofs and evidence are found through investigation and scientific methods, it is more than willing to consider accepting it as verifiable.
The only serious constant is it will not be swayed by "faith" or emotional response.


----------



## Madman

> The madman received Jesus,



Enough said.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> I am a very narrow minded person on a lot of matters.  For instance, when I fly in airplane, I expect the pilot not to fly us into a mountain or crash dive into a building. I believe a lot of people agree with that but it is still narrow minded because I will only accept one outcome, safe take-off and safe landing.
> 
> That is pretty narrow minded.



I think if you are truly honest, you are not that narrow minded in this example.  You are willing to accept a controlled forced landing as one possible outcome as long as you are personally safe from injury or death.  Maybe even an outright full blown crash in a cornfield!  As long as you can walk away!
Again, that is not faith.  It is trust in the statistical possibilities that are mathmatically calculated through documented experimentation with filght.

That's a broad spectrum of possibilities and results, as long as your one parameter (surviving) is met.

I too share that parameter.  I want to survive a flight, but no matter how it happens.
I'd like to have the parameter set of making the destination as well!  But, if I have to give up something to get something, I'll take surviving first.

Congrats on the success of your son!  You have a right to be proud!


----------



## WTM45

Going back to the original poster's subject.
Question.
Do most people think that Athiests reject the Bible as being a holy book containing words of and proof of the existance of a deity simply on its face?  Without investigation or research?


----------



## Madman

> The only serious constant is it will not be swayed by "faith" or emotional response...  wtm45



We disagree here.  Non-believers are swayed by a lack of belief, call it antifaith.  God can never be considered because he does not exist.  They must always look for the answer that excludes the possiblity of a diety.  Whereas the believer looks at facts knowing that God does exist.

As to the emotional component, as stated before it is a human trait not exclusive to Christians.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> We disagree here.  Non-believers are swayed by a lack of belief, call it antifaith.
> 
> That's pretty good.  But there really is no such animal.
> 
> God can never be considered because he does not exist.
> 
> Most Athiests come to their position because at one time or another they DID consider the possibility of a deity.  They never saw evidence or proof of existance so they exclude the possibility.  Finding evidence or proof would change their stance.
> 
> They must always look for the answer that excludes the possiblity of a diety.  Whereas the believer looks at facts knowing that God does exist.
> 
> The believer has moved past the requirement for logical proof or evidence, and has replaced that with faith.  That's OK for some, completely unacceptable for others.
> 
> As to the emotional component, as stated before it is a human trait not exclusive to Christians.
> 
> Of course.  But to have faith, emotions must be in concert with the speculative.  Emotion has very little to do with the scientific method.  Maybe emotion plays a part in the expression and communication of the results.



Faith really has no place in the scientific method of testing and reasoning, except for the belief in the accuracy and reliability of the scientist conducting the experiment and presenting the findings.  And that is a stretch to say.


----------



## ambush80

christianhunter said:


> The simple answer is atheism is not intellectual at all.





ambush80 said:


> How so?





christianhunter said:


> "The fool has said in his heart,there is no GOD."



"It's true."
"How do you know?"
"Because the Bible says it's true and everything in the Bible is true"
"How do you know the Bible is true?"
"It says so in the Bible."

Intellectual?


----------



## Madman

> except for the *belief in the accuracy and reliability of the scientist* conducting the experiment and presenting the findings.



Not that belief and faith are synonomous but you got pretty close.  My faith is in what the God of Creation has to say about a subject and He has not had to change yet.
Non-believers faith is in the scientist and they are constantly having to "rework" their findings to match their "truth."


----------



## Madman

> That's pretty good. But there really is no such animal.



Are you sure?  Are you 100% sure?  Some non-believers would disagree.


----------



## WTM45

Explain "antifaith."
Give a definition.

Sounds like someone else's argument style, huh?

Just messin' around.
Really, if a person can not see a use for faith, they can not see a use for the anthesis of faith or "anti-faith."

But I'll give you the credit for an interesting concept and word.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> Non-believers faith is in the scientist and they are constantly having to "rework" their findings to match their "truth."



That still is not in line with the believer's definition of faith,
and the faith needed to believe in the existance of a deity.



Scientists find changing results based upon many changing factors and imputs.  Those scientists who manipulate the results are exposed quickly by other scientists.


----------



## Madman

> That still is not in line with the believer's definition of faith,
> and the faith needed to believe in the existance of a deity...WTM45



You can argue all you want.  To deny that a non-believer does not have any faith in anything is disingenuous.  Call it what you will but it is still faith, the belief in things unseen, confindence.



> They in fact do not see that they are their own gods. ...K9



they see this but have no logical agument against it, they therefore simply dismiss it.


----------



## WTM45

How is an Atheist their own god?  They know they will not live forever, death awaits all who live.  It is those who wish an eternal existance, however it can be obtained, who seem to have a god like demeanor?

Humans can exist without any faith.  There is nothing that has to be accepted blindly.

Belief in unseen things/laws/nature is different, as it is based on evidence, proofs and results.  Belief is found in and required for existance.  Trust follows belief.

You believe a roller coaster will stay on the tracks because you have witnessed it do just that with your own eyes, or have seen how long it has been in existance while staying on the tracks.
That belief will lead you to trust it, and get on for a ride.

Faith is promising to come to my house blindfolded and ride the roller coaster I just built in my backyard.  You have not seen it, confirmed it exists, know anyone who has seen it, ridden it, if I have actually built it, if I am capable of building one, or if I have tested it or ridden it myself.


----------



## Madman

> Faith is promising to come to my house blindfolded and ride the roller coaster I just built in my backyard. You have not seen it, confirmed it exists, know anyone who has seen it, ridden it, if I have actually built it, if I am capable of building one, or if I have tested it or ridden it myself. ...WTM45



So you have tested all of the "evidence" that scientist put forth yourself, you have seen it, touched it, verified the testing methods?  Or do you have faith in them, their findings, thier test methods and results?



> How is an Athiest their own god? They know they will not live forever, death awaits all who live... WTM45



Once again we agree!!   I love progress!!
"The wages of sin is death."  "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."  Glad to get that settled. 

Now.  Eternal life is not necessarily only an attribute of God.
I have eternal life, it has been promised to me and I am not God.  It available to everyone, all they have to do is accept it. 

Joh 3:15  “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

But I will never have infinite knowledge only God has infinite knowledge.
Atheists claim that there is no evidence anywhere in the universe that could convince them that God exists; therefore they claim to have infinite knowledge at least on that subject.

Please do not get into the discussion of atheist vs. agnostic we’ve been through that ad nauseam.    
Atheist is without god, agnostic is without knowledge.
Non-believers here choose to be intellectually dishonest and use atheist.  I refuse to let them.

I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.


----------



## Madman

> Humans can exist without any faith. .... WTM45



Perhaps they can exist without any faith but that would be their choice, everyone has been given a measure of faith.



> There is nothing that has to be accepted blindly




I agree.  I do not have a blind faith, I have been given a reasonable faith.

So has everyone else.  God's Word does not ask me to believe in anything that is anymore miraculous than the big bang or life evolving from nothing.  THAT is extraordinary FAITH.

It is always fun.

God's peace.


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> So you have tested all of the "evidence" that scientist put forth yourself, you have seen it, touched it, verified the testing methods?  Or do you have faith in them, their findings, thier test methods and results?



I believe in results.  Results can be seen, proofed, verified and investigated.  Humans do not have faith in results of evidence or proofs.  They have belief.

Faith is accepting something that is not possible to prove.


----------



## Huntinfool

Sing it with me folks!

This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Someone started posting it not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue posting in it forever just because, 

(then repeat back at top)


----------



## WTM45

Madman said:


> God's Word does not ask me to believe in anything that is anymore miraculous than the big bang or life evolving from nothing.  THAT is extraordinary FAITH.



Not all Atheists believe in your examples either.

The Bible asks us to believe in a deity that has always been, and was not created.  
It's not such a big jump to think the universe has always been and was not created.  Is it?


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> Sing it with me folks!
> 
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Someone started posting it not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting in it forever just because,
> 
> (then repeat back at top)



Do you not find interest in understanding how the world around you thinks?  And how your belief system and faith can be either supported and strengthened or its weaknesses can be identified?


----------



## Huntinfool

Good grief.....


----------



## Madman

> It's not such a big jump to think the universe has always been and was not created. Is it?



From a scientific or believers prospective it is.  From an non-believers perspective it is not because you have no choice.


----------



## reformedpastor

I have posted something similar on another post. The historical, creedal and orthodox understanding of faith is not subjective but objective. Like other objective realities it does have a subjective nature to it, it is personal and can be seen as private in that sense. But saving faith isn't like other faiths, like historical or arbitrary, etc. Saving faith, is something that manifests itself in real time and reality, a new creature in Christ, Paul calls it. In this sense its not mystical but judicial. If you are a christian you have to believe in certain doctrines and there are certain moral laws you subscribe to, as another has put it, saving faith produces fruit, its comports with scripture, since the same Holy Spirit that indwells the convert is the one responsible for writing scripture. Saving faith believes the word of God as the word of God.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> I have posted something similar on another post. The historical, creedal and orthodox understanding of faith is not subjective but objective. Like other objective realities it does have a subjective nature to it, it is personal and can be seen as private in that sense. But saving faith isn't like other faiths, like historical or arbitrary, etc. Saving faith, is something that manifests itself in real time and reality, a new creature in Christ, Paul calls it. In this sense its not mystical but judicial. If you are a christian you have to believe in certain doctrines and there are certain moral laws you subscribe to, as another has put it, saving faith produces fruit, its comports with scripture, since the same Holy Spirit that indwells the convert is the one responsible for writing scripture. Saving faith believes the word of God as the word of God.



So, only 32% (max) or so of the world will be given the gift of "saving faith" directly from God, and within that 32% (the majority (65%) being Catholic/Orthodox and the Protestants being 17%) they do not agree among themselves on most of the interpretations and doctrines.

"Objective" and "can be measured by fruit?"  Maybe only by the deity who "hands down" such a gift, surely not by a human being.  What is the standard of measurement used?  The physical results of works?  Surely some good people might get excluded by mistake, and some really bad ones included by error. 

But, as the famous Lou Reed has told us, we will need "a Bus-load of faith to get by."


----------



## Madman

> Maybe only by the deity who "hands down" such a gift, surely not by a human being. What is the standard of measurement used?... WTM45



God is the one who sets the standard, He is the only one who can make the measurement and that measurement has been made and written down in a book we call the Bible.

This is where non-believers have a difficult time understanding Christianity. It is about a persons relationship with Jesus Christ.  That very real, relationship is what changes a person, maybe not overnight but certainly over time.

Non-believers get hung up on the fruit because the fruit is not what they believe it should be, they get hung up on language and feelings, how nice you were when you spoke to them.  

How rediculous that we allow non-believers to define Christianity and even enter into "discussions" with them on the subject when only God can define good and evil, right and wrong.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> God is the one who sets the standard, He is the only one who can make the measurement and that measurement has been made and written down in a book we call the Bible.
> 
> This is where non-believers have a difficult time understanding Christianity. It is about a persons relationship with Jesus Christ.  That very real, relationship is what changes a person, maybe not overnight but certainly over time.
> 
> Non-believers get hung up on the fruit because the fruit is not what they believe it should be, they get hung up on language and feelings, how nice you were when you spoke to them.
> 
> How rediculous that we allow non-believers to define Christianity and even enter into "discussions" with them on the subject when only God can define good and evil, right and wrong.




Valid...But not intellectual, by far.


----------



## reformedpastor

No doubt unbelievers enjoy many benefits of a world that has "standards" which is as it should be. Yet, for the unbeliever to point out the subjective claim of may christians like they are not guilty of being subjective too is laughable. Truly laughable.


----------



## WTM45

Everyone will have to admit, to be honest with themselves and others, that the interpretation of Christianity, the Bible and an acceptance thereof is totally personal and totally subjective.

So is Islam.  So is Buddism.  So is Hinduism.  Etc........

It is done from within each person's own heart and mind.  There is no objective proof or evidence for others to see.  It is subjective.

The Christian (not the unbeliever) is the one hung up on "fruits."  That is, the constant judgement of others looking for "works" and evidence of their beliefs.


----------



## Madman

> Valid...But not intellectual, by far. ...ambush80



Thank you.  I am not an "intellectual", I am truthful.

Valid  \\  2: founded in truth or fact ; capable of being justified or defended. : sound...


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Thank you.  I am not an "intellectual", I am truthful.
> 
> Valid  \\  2: founded in truth or fact ; capable of being justified or defended. : sound...




I was using "Valid" in these terms.  

2 a: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>3: appropriate to the end in view

Like saying " I won't buy a red car because I don't like the color red."  That's a valid reason not to buy a red car; though completely subjective.


----------



## reformedpastor

Maybe I should post a definition of the word subjective. At least the way I am using it. 

SUBJECTIVE, a. Relating to the subject, as opposed to the object. Certainty--is distinguished into objective and subjective; objective, is when the proposition is certainly true of itself; and subjective, is when we are certain of the truth of it.

There are unbelievers, and some on here, have made the claim they can't disprove God, but, they are certain He doesn't exist. They burden lies with the Christian to prove Him they say, this is subjective. Right? 

I am not comfortable with only defending Christianity in it's subject aspect. I have stated before its both objective and subjective, both public and personal. 

Since many Christians have forgotten that Christianity is objective, that is, having essential doctrines that must be ascribed to before one could ever consider themselves Christians, it has given way to many interpretations of the  same faith which has led to subjectiveism, I am a christian soley because I say I am. This is dangerous not to mention silly.

Isn't this the same testimony mormons and JW's give? Don't they want us to listen to how god changed them and if we would just take their word for and give it a try we would see that they are telling us the truth??? 

I can't persuade any on here that the Bible is true, or, that God exists. I take the position that they already know this and have deceived themselves into believing otherwise. This goes back to my earlier comments about the preconditions of intelligibility, knowing how we what we know. The atheist cannot do this. He can only offer subjective reasons why he can't, or won't believe in God. Some on here have intimated its because there is no proof, others seem to imply the God of the bible is hypocritical, and, others that the bible is just a ordinary book written by men who were at best confused and disillusioned.   

What ever the reason the atheist offers its all subjective.


----------



## Madman

> Isn't this the same testimony mormons and JW's give? Don't they want us to listen to how god changed them and if we would just take their word for and give it a try we would see that they are telling us the truth??? ....Reformedpastor



That is interesting.  I do not interact often with the Mormons but I do with the JW's.  I have never had one claim that god had changed them or even affected their life.  I'll have to listen closer or pose the question directly.



> Since many Christians have forgotten that Christianity is objective, that is, having essential doctrines that must be ascribed to before one could ever consider themselves Christians, it has given way to many interpretations of the same faith which has led to subjectiveism, I am a christian soley because I say I am. This is dangerous not to mention silly....Reformedpastor



Spot On!!  And the church has allowed this to happen.  We have not taught that we have not been given a blind faith, but we have been given a reasonable faith.  Most "Christians" do not have a clue what they believe and why.  

It is time that Christ's Chruch pick up the mantle and do its job.



> Maybe I should post a definition of the word subjective....Reformedpastor



This is for the philosophers  in the crowd, believers or non-believers, agnostics who claim to be atheist pay particular attention.

When the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius was asked what he would do to set the world right he answered: “I would insist on the exact definition of words.”


----------



## ambush80

reformedpastor said:


> Maybe I should post a definition of the word subjective. At least the way I am using it.
> 
> SUBJECTIVE, a. Relating to the subject, as opposed to the object. Certainty--is distinguished into objective and subjective; objective, is when the proposition is certainly true of itself; and subjective, is when we are certain of the truth of it.




Fire burns. Unicorns exist.   Which statement is objective and which is subjective?


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

ambush80 said:


> Fire burns. Unicorns exist.   Which statement is objective and which is subjective?



Ok, Ambush I'll bite, I still think it takes more blind faith to be athiest then to believe in a Creator


----------



## WTM45

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Ok, Ambush I'll bite, I still think it takes more blind faith to be athiest then to believe in a Creator



Oh, the "Prime Mover" debate.
Believing in a deity that has always been or believeing in a universe that has always been.  It's not much of a leap to move from one to the other.


----------



## ambush80

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Ok, Ambush I'll bite, I still think it takes more blind faith to be athiest then to believe in a Creator



I think a little less to be an atheist. After all, an atheist will constantly seek proof to support his claim.  They are by nature skeptics.  He will continue to turn over rocks (without passion, if hes doing it right) to attempt to arrive at the truth.  A Deist will not likely turn over rocks that he thinks might undermine his faith. He is confident that what he knows is "true" and therefore never continues to search for the TRUTH.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

WTM45 said:


> Oh, the "Prime Mover" debate.
> Believing in a deity that has always been or believeing in a universe that has always been.  It's not much of a leap to move from one to the other.



But the universe has not always been, is the big bang supposed the be the beginning??


----------



## WTM45

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> But the universe has not always been, is the big bang supposed the be the beginning??



The proposed beginning of this galaxy and grouping of planets and stars.
There are literally billions of other universes out there in space.
Check out what the Hubble has pictured.  It is quite impressive.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

WTM45 said:


> The proposed beginning of this galaxy and grouping of planets and stars.
> There are literally billions of other universes out there in space.
> Check out what the Hubble has pictured.  It is quite impressive.



If we take you're point, then it is impossible to "prove" either way no??


----------



## ambush80

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> If we take you're point, then it is impossible to "prove" either way no??



Correct.  But I shook the Magic 8 Ball and it said: 
"All Signs Point To Yes"


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

ambush80 said:


> Correct.  But I shook the Magic 8 Ball and it said:
> "All Signs Point To Yes"



Yes to what??


----------



## ambush80

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Yes to what??



That was my next question and the Magic 8 ball said: "Ask Again Later"


----------



## gtparts

ambush80 said:


> I think a little less to be an atheist. After all, an atheist will constantly seek proof to support his claim.  They are by nature skeptics.  He will continue to turn over rocks (without passion, if hes doing it right) to attempt to arrive at the truth.  A Deist will not likely turn over rocks that he thinks might undermine his faith. He is confident that what he knows is "true" and therefore never continues to search for the TRUTH.



When one finds the Truth, the quest is over. So it is with Christians. Christians who are scientists continue the pursuit of answers to scientific questions, for the expansion of human knowledge and with an eye towards improving temporal life while he or she can.

The atheist surely wastes his or her time if their interest is in disproving the existence of God. I guess if one is truly atheist, trying to disprove God is as good as any other diversion to pass the time until they "cease to exist". The last rock the atheist will turn over will be the proverbial "dirt nap", only to reveal the God that they so desperately sought to disprove.


----------



## WTM45

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> If we take you're point, then it is impossible to "prove" either way no??




That's the quandry humans find themselves in here on Earth.  There is little open and available proof of how we came to be, why we are here, what we are supposed to do other than to exist and where we are going.

Some need a strong answer to their question of why.
So, for some, religion fills the void and answers hard questions with simplistic reasoning.  Faith in something "greater" or a "higher meaning" to life.

Others take what they learn and try to work within it,  constantly seeking to learn more and explore the world around them through science and reasoning.  Questioning everything and seeking answers to the tough questions.

The choice is purely individual, but is greatly influenced by where you were born or where you find yourself today.


----------



## ambush80

gtparts said:


> When one finds the Truth, the quest is over. So it is with Christians. Christians who are scientists continue the pursuit of answers to scientific questions, for the expansion of human knowledge and with an eye towards improving temporal life while he or she can.
> 
> What if the Christian scientist finds something that contradicts the Bible?
> like the age of the Earth?  Do the change their thinking to a"metaphoric" six day creation story?  What if they find a "gay gene"?
> 
> The atheist surely wastes his or her time if their interest is in disproving the existence of God.
> 
> I think their interest is knowledge.  I think they just start from a position that God doesn't exist because there's not enough proof.
> 
> I guess if one is truly atheist, trying to disprove God is as good as any other diversion to pass the time until they "cease to exist". The last rock the atheist will turn over will be the proverbial "dirt nap", only to reveal the God that they so desperately sought to disprove.



Maybe.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

WTM45 said:


> That's the quandry humans find themselves in here on Earth.  There is little open and available proof of how we came to be, why we are here, what we are supposed to do other than to exist and where we are going.
> 
> Some need a strong answer to their question of why.
> So, for some, religion fills the void and answers hard questions with simplistic reasoning.  Faith in something "greater" or a "higher meaning" to life.
> 
> Others take what they learn and try to work within it,  constantly seeking to learn more and explore the world around them through science and reasoning.  Questioning everything and seeking answers to the tough questions.
> 
> The choice is purely individual, but is greatly influenced by where you were born or where you find yourself today.



Good post overall, but I take issue with you're implication that all faith is based on "simplistic" reasoning. You udercut the effect of you're position with that.


----------



## WTM45

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Good post overall, but I take issue with you're implication that all faith is based on "simplistic" reasoning. You udercut the effect of you're position with that.



We've delved deeply into faith in some other threads of late.
"Simplistic" was the wrong word choice on my part.  It is far from simple, as the Bible and other holy books that require belief in a deity makes having faith complicated just within interpretation and doctrine.

Faith in a creator is the easier of the choices, unless that faith is put to the test and questioned.  And, not all faith is weak, not all is strong.  But faith gets in the way of investigation more often than any other thing, as investigation threatens to overrule it with logic and a desire for proofs and evidence.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

WTM45 said:


> We've delved deeply into faith in some other threads of late.
> "Simplistic" was the wrong word choice on my part.  It is far from simple, as the Bible and other holy books that require belief in a deity makes having faith complicated just within interpretation and doctrine.
> 
> Faith in a creator is the easier of the choices, unless that faith is put to the test and questioned.  And, not all faith is weak, not all is strong.  But faith gets in the way of investigation more often than any other thing, as investigation threatens to overrule it with logic and a desire for proofs and evidence.



Weak faith maybe, strong faith like true courage wishes to be tested.


----------



## ambush80

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Weak faith maybe, strong faith like true courage wishes to be tested.



Then by all means, Test It!!!  Brave soldier!!!!  If you do, then you're one of the good guys.  Ever hung out with Wiccans?


----------



## WTM45

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> Weak faith maybe, strong faith like true courage wishes to be tested.




Careful what you wish for!  Testing of one's faith can be a difficult and dangerous experience!



WELCOME TO THE CAMPFIRE, Johnny Greywolf!


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> Careful what you wish for!  Testing of one's faith can be a difficult and dangerous experience!



He aint skeered.  i think hes gonna be a welcome addition.


----------



## reformedpastor

Please!!! Serious??


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

ambush80 said:


> Then by all means, Test It!!!  Brave soldier!!!!  If you do, then you're one of the good guys.  Ever hung out with Wiccans?



I have had some dabates/discussions with some of that persuasion.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

WTM45 said:


> Careful what you wish for!  Testing of one's faith can be a difficult and dangerous experience!
> 
> 
> 
> WELCOME TO THE CAMPFIRE, Johnny Greywolf!



It has been, a number of times, I did not arrive at my faith the easy way.. Thanks for the welcome


----------



## ToLog

welcome, J. Greywolf. we're beginning to get quite a collection of hogs, wolfs, one or two Dawgs or more,  , and others, maybe even some rabbits of one kind or another.   

anyways, it's good to have some fresh meat on board. sorry,   

as to the Wiccans, isn't that a man-made religion of sorts?


----------



## ambush80

roothog said:


> as to the Wiccans, isn't that a man-made religion of sorts?



   Which one isn't?


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> Which one isn't?



Pass "Go" and take $50, move three spaces, add a hotel to Park Place.


----------



## Ronnie T

How Intellectual is Atheism?

Let me just say this, atheist believe the same scientist who use to claim that if you left fresh meat out for more than 48hours, it would begin turning into worms.


----------



## reformedpastor

Hey, they are proving my point, post by post............got rope?


----------



## Ronnie T

A frog crawled out from a swamp(a swamp that could not exist) and thru evolution, I now have an oak tree in my front yard.


----------



## ambush80

Ronnie T said:


> How Intellectual is Atheism?
> 
> Let me just say this, atheist believe the same scientist who use to claim that if you left fresh meat out for more than 48hours, it would begin turning into worms.



They also claimed that it was invisible "bugs" causing people to get sick.  They were laughed out of town.  In days passed they were called heretics and persecuted by the church for committing blasphemy (remember all that Earth around the Sun business?).   

The point is that they continue to ask "why".  They don't just stop at "because God says so".  They're not always right, but they keep looking.   There are still scientists scrutinizing the Theory of Evolution, though they use it as the best explanation that we have at present to describe a natural process.  

There are no scientists that would say "If it's good enough for Darwin, it's good enough for me!"  (Sounds like a hymn, doesn't it?)


----------



## reformedpastor

Here is another example of poor scholarship. Please point to an official position that the Church had a doctrine that the earth was flat?


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

as to the Wiccans, isn't that a man-made religion of sorts? [/QUOTE]

In manner of speaking I suppose, but some of their theories have some basis in how things work


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Here is another example of poor scholarship. Please point to an official position that the Church had a doctrine that the earth was flat?




That would be your due dilligence in representing your side, since the "flat earth" subject is being introduced here by you.
Ambush gave specific examples.

Oh, here's a real doozy of brilliance and knowledge.
http://www.fixedearth.com/


----------



## ambush80

reformedpastor said:


> Here is another example of poor scholarship. Please point to an official position that the Church had a doctrine that the earth was flat?



I was talking about Copernicus, who was persecuted by the church because he said that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that it revolved around the Sun.

A short article on the matter:

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/pre20th_europe_church.html


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

ambush80 said:


> I was talking about Copernicus, who was persecuted by the church because he said that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that it revolved around the Sun.
> 
> A short article on the matter:
> 
> http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/pre20th_europe_church.html



Don't forget Galileo


----------



## GONoob

gtparts said:


> The atheist surely wastes his or her time if their interest is in disproving the existence of God. I guess if one is truly atheist, trying to disprove God is as good as any other diversion to pass the time until they "cease to exist". The last rock the atheist will turn over will be the proverbial "dirt nap", only to reveal the God that they so desperately sought to disprove.



Disapproving the existence of God is merely a bonus to his research. Thousands of years ago people worshiped the Sun, Moon, etc. Now it just sounds absurd. Why? Because we the people are smarter. We have been to the moon, studied solar flares on the sun, sent rovers to Mars. Because of scientists whom 99% are atheists does researches to challenge theories and continue to make breakthroughs. Finding out that some guy in a chariot doesn't drives across the sky everyday is just merely a bonus. A thousand years from now, the world will look at religion in a totally different way -I guarantee it.

There are also atheists out there who live and breath to try to prove the religious wrong. These types annoy me. As well as the religious nut trying to convert me.


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF

GONoob said:


> A thousand years from now, the world will look at religion in a totally different way -I guarantee it.
> 
> I agree with that, but I'd bet a fiddle of gold that by then spiritual knowledge will be much more respected then it is today


----------



## reformedpastor

> GONoob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disapproving the existence of God is merely a bonus to his research. Thousands of years ago people worshiped the Sun, Moon, etc. Now it just sounds absurd. Why? Because we the people are smarter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, people don't worship the sun and moon anymore? We are just smarter?? You might want to rethink this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been to the moon,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some might debate this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of scientists whom 99% are atheists does researches to challenge theories and continue to make breakthroughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that is a high figure. Have a stat for us from some credible source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finding out that some guy in a chariot doesn't drives across the sky everyday is just merely a bonus. A thousand years from now, the world will look at religion in a totally different way -I guarantee it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you talking about? What way will the world be looking at religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also atheists out there who live and breath to try to prove the religious wrong. These types annoy me. As well as the religious nut trying to convert me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you felt free to post your opinion.
Click to expand...


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Some might debate this!



And they would be certifiably wrong.


----------



## Ronnie T

WTM45 said:


> And they would be certifiably wrong.




Prove it!  Prove we've placed a man on the moon many, many times?


----------



## WTM45

Ronnie T said:


> Prove it!  Prove we've placed a man on the moon many, many times?



Ugh oh.  A tin-foil hat wearing conspiricist?
Man has set foot on the moon.  The proof is in many forms, some evidence is in our own Smithsonian.


----------



## reformedpastor

What a leap in character assassination. All he said was "prove it," which shouldn't be to hard?


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> What a leap in character assassination. All he said was "prove it," which shouldn't be to hard?




If the tin-foil fits........

NASA had some men who are quite smarter, higher educated, more experienced and much more and daring than myself do just that.  They proved it.


----------



## ToLog

JOHNNY GREYWOLF said:


> as to the Wiccans, isn't that a man-made religion of sorts?



In manner of speaking I suppose, but some of their theories have some basis in how things work[/QUOTE]

no way to argue that one.    i too agree that they have a perspective on today's reality that "does" work, at least for some.  just see their rise in numbers of "enrollment, or membership."  (i have no proof of this - it's just my understanding, based upon readings, and what i've been told.)

who would possibly join something that they don't believe in?


----------



## WTM45

roothog said:


> who would possibly join something that they don't believe in?



Literally millions of people follow the same path as their parents just because.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Been waiting for the right moment to reply with 



REPLY NUMBER 1000


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> If the tin-foil fits........
> 
> NASA had some men who are quite smarter, higher educated, more experienced and much more and daring than myself do just that.  They proved it.



You would have cried for days if someone said that about you. 

Not to mention the conspiracy guys I know are atheists. Go figure!


----------



## reformedpastor

WTM45 said:


> If the tin-foil fits........
> 
> NASA had some men who are quite smarter, higher educated, more experienced and much more and daring than myself do just that.  They proved it.



Shouldn't be hard then? The man asked you a question and all you have done is belittle him.


----------



## Ronnie T

It's back to the original question.

How intellectual is Atheism?

It depends on who's doing the evaluating...... 1.Themselves.  2.Me.  3.God.

God makes the wisdom of men into foolishness.


----------



## Ronnie T

reformedpastor said:


> Shouldn't be hard then? The man asked you a question and all you have done is belittle him.




I think WTM45 would say that he admits to not being able to prove man has set foot on the moon.  But he has seen some evidence of it and he believes it to be so.
He has faith in it.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> You would have cried for days if someone said that about you.




There are a lot of people who have been labeled as conspiricists, very few take it as an insult.  Most see it as a label of non-conformity.

RonnieT, if you took my comment as an insult, I apologize.


----------



## WTM45

Ronnie T said:


> I think WTM45 would say that he admits to not being able to prove man has set foot on the moon.  But he has seen some evidence of it and he believes it to be so.
> He has faith in it.



Twelve men, in my lifetime, have set foot on the Moon.  Fourteen others have orbited it.  I'd say that is pretty strong evidence supporting the fact.

I do not have to personally prove it, as others have done just that already.  To include those men who have taken the trip themselves.
There is a ton of verified data, authenticated samples and the fact that man-made items are in place on the Moon RIGHT NOW that were not there before humans visited.
I've seen some of the actual evidence with my own eyes.  

It aint' faith, fellas.  It is factual and proven history.

Literally thousands have worked for NASA, the .gov space programs and it's vendors.  You want to tell me faking a Moon landing was the greatest secret/lie ever to be performed against mankind?  And not one person has broken the silence or revealed the lie?


----------



## Ronnie T

I once read that the U.S. Space program was nothing but a front for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
But honestly, I assume everything concerning the space program is true and authentic.
I also believe in God.
Actually, I trust God more than an astronaut.
I wonder what God thinks of our space program?
Silly humans.


----------



## Israel

Ronnie T said:


> I once read that the U.S. Space program was nothing but a front for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
> But honestly, I assume everything concerning the space program is true and authentic.
> I also believe in God.
> Actually, I trust God more than an astronaut.
> I wonder what God thinks of our space program?
> Silly humans.




God liked the space program "Star Trek", but "Lost in Space"...not so much.


----------



## Ronnie T

Israel said:


> God liked the space program "Star Trek", but "Lost in Space"...not so much.



Oh no, I like "Lost in Space".
Back then I thought the little Angela Cartwright was cute.


----------



## ToLog

WTM45 said:


> Twelve men, in my lifetime, have set foot on the Moon.  Fourteen others have orbited it.  I'd say that is pretty strong evidence supporting the fact.
> 
> D




in the Post-Modern Era, in which we find ourselves, ,
having Twelve Humans not only orbiting the Moon, but setting down there, is a profound moment of progress! Yes!

Dr. Michio Kaku (who?) seems to indicate that "machines" will rove the galaxy and beyond, setting down to the surface, and replicating themselves for further adventure, learning, and understanding.

they'll, in short, lay in wait, for other space travelers, then report back to higher HQ for further instructions, once other intelligent Beings arrive and have been identified.

A Universe that is commanded, controlled, and managed by a bunch of Earthlings?  how peculiar can the post-modern world become???


----------



## PWalls

WTM45 said:


> Literally thousands have worked for NASA, the .gov space programs and it's vendors.  You want to tell me faking a Moon landing was the greatest secret/lie ever to be performed against mankind?  And not one person has broken the silence or revealed the lie?



According to some on here, a moon landing conspiracy doesn't hold a candle to Christianity.


----------



## charlieboy

WTM45 said:


> Twelve men, in my lifetime, have set foot on the Moon.  Fourteen others have orbited it.  I'd say that is pretty strong evidence supporting the fact.
> 
> I do not have to personally prove it, as others have done just that already.  To include those men who have taken the trip themselves.
> There is a ton of verified data, authenticated samples and the fact that man-made items are in place on the Moon RIGHT NOW that were not there before humans visited.
> I've seen some of the actual evidence with my own eyes.
> 
> It aint' faith, fellas.  It is factual and proven history.
> 
> Literally thousands have worked for NASA, the .gov space programs and it's vendors.  You want to tell me faking a Moon landing was the greatest secret/lie ever to be performed against mankind?  And not one person has broken the silence or revealed the lie?



Actually I have walked on the moon too, so you even have more proof than you thought. NASA is a very small company and everyone knows everyone elses business so you could never keep a secret. On a clear night you can actually see the vehicles still parked up there next to the flag.Now that is proof! Last but not least I've seen the footage on TV so it has to be real and Uncle Sam would not lie to WE the People.VERY INTELLECTUAL


----------



## Diogenes

My goodness.  This is still going on?   

Reformed pastor states: “ . . . objective, is when the proposition is certainly true of itself;”  Why yes it is, which makes it very difficult to follow that with this:   “Since many Christians have forgotten that Christianity is objective . . .”    Um?  Certainly true of itself?   By what possible standard?    Then the immediate negation and backing away:   “I can't persuade any on here that the Bible is true, or, that God exists.”   Um?  Why not?  If something is objective, and is certainly true of itself, then that thing ought to be easily demonstrated – I pick up a rock, I drop it, and it falls: Gravity.  Simple, and objective, and therefore easily demonstrated.  So why this:  “What ever the reason the atheist offers its all subjective.”  Wow.  Compared to what?  The ‘certain’ truth of a set of declarations that do little more than assert themselves to be true?  Objectivity requires a bit more thinking than declaring.  

 Madman states: “When the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius was asked what he would do to set the world right he answered: “I would insist on the exact definition of words.”   Excellent point, I’ll get right back to that one . . . 

Gtparts states: “When one finds the Truth, the quest is over. So it is with Christians.”  Whew, thank goodness the quest is over . . . but how come Christian doctrine has changed so many times if you had it right to begin with?  Not to belabor the parts folks want to gloss over and forget about in the history of this particular religion, but it is easily demonstrated that ‘Christian’ truth, believed without question, has supported some pretty wrong-headed ideas over the years, and has somehow evolved past the burning of witches and the like . . .  So, if it was the Truth, and the quest was over, then a few years later it wasn’t the truth, and the quest wasn’t over, then which parts of the doctrines that are still being changed today are you willing to defend?  At which particular date did you decide to draw your own personal line?  The funny part about ‘truth’ is that is doesn’t keep on changing . . .      

Ronnie T states: “It's back to the original question. How intellectual is Atheism?”  Ah.  Now we are back to that definition question that madman brought up  . . . 

There is a fairly huge distinction, so far as definitions go, between intelligence and intellect.  (And I’d hardly be one to let Confucius down, what with him being so inscrutable and all . . . )  Hofstadter spent quite a lot of time refining the difference, but in the interest of brevity – Intelligence is a practical quality that operates solely within the confines of a set of limited but clearly stated goals.  Having once been provided with an idea or a goal, intelligence remembers and is able to implement.  Admirable enough, and all too rare . . . 

Intellect, on the other hand, (and the question was, How intellectual is Atheism?), is the creative and contemplative side of the mind, that part of us that ponders, imagines, theorizes, examines, criticizes, and wonders.  In short, intellect does not simply accept teachings, where intelligence might.  The intellectual learns his lessons, the same as the intelligent, but does not leave it at that – the intellectual asks why, and seeks to change those things that make no real sense and which cannot be demonstrated to be true.

Religions, all religions, are handed down as teachings, and intelligent people can learn those teachings and carry them forward, unquestioning.  Or, they can utilize their intellect and question those teachings . . . and perhaps stop burning witches and ‘heretics,’ and adapt to demonstrable truth -- real truth.  Or not.  Perhaps the utterly silly exchange over the Moon landings is an example of the ‘or not’ portion . . . Stubborn adherence to ancient doctrine, when it leads to denying the easily demonstrated, cleaves the ‘intelligent’ from the ‘intellectual,’ and leaves the ‘true believers’ behind . . .    So, perhaps in this regard, the question is posed backwards, and it ought to be, “How Intellectual is Religion?”


----------



## Ronnie T

Diogenes said:


> My goodness.  This is still going on?
> 
> Reformed pastor states: “ . . . objective, is when the proposition is certainly true of itself;”  Why yes it is, which makes it very difficult to follow that with this:   “Since many Christians have forgotten that Christianity is objective . . .”    Um?  Certainly true of itself?   By what possible standard?    Then the immediate negation and backing away:   “I can't persuade any on here that the Bible is true, or, that God exists.”   Um?  Why not?  If something is objective, and is certainly true of itself, then that thing ought to be easily demonstrated – I pick up a rock, I drop it, and it falls: Gravity.  Simple, and objective, and therefore easily demonstrated.  So why this:  “What ever the reason the atheist offers its all subjective.”  Wow.  Compared to what?  The ‘certain’ truth of a set of declarations that do little more than assert themselves to be true?  Objectivity requires a bit more thinking than declaring.
> 
> Madman states: “When the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius was asked what he would do to set the world right he answered: “I would insist on the exact definition of words.”   Excellent point, I’ll get right back to that one . . .
> 
> Gtparts states: “When one finds the Truth, the quest is over. So it is with Christians.”  Whew, thank goodness the quest is over . . . but how come Christian doctrine has changed so many times if you had it right to begin with?  Not to belabor the parts folks want to gloss over and forget about in the history of this particular religion, but it is easily demonstrated that ‘Christian’ truth, believed without question, has supported some pretty wrong-headed ideas over the years, and has somehow evolved past the burning of witches and the like . . .  So, if it was the Truth, and the quest was over, then a few years later it wasn’t the truth, and the quest wasn’t over, then which parts of the doctrines that are still being changed today are you willing to defend?  At which particular date did you decide to draw your own personal line?  The funny part about ‘truth’ is that is doesn’t keep on changing . . .
> 
> Ronnie T states: “It's back to the original question. How intellectual is Atheism?”  Ah.  Now we are back to that definition question that madman brought up  . . .
> 
> There is a fairly huge distinction, so far as definitions go, between intelligence and intellect.  (And I’d hardly be one to let Confucius down, what with him being so inscrutable and all . . . )  Hofstadter spent quite a lot of time refining the difference, but in the interest of brevity – Intelligence is a practical quality that operates solely within the confines of a set of limited but clearly stated goals.  Having once been provided with an idea or a goal, intelligence remembers and is able to implement.  Admirable enough, and all too rare . . .
> 
> Intellect, on the other hand, (and the question was, How intellectual is Atheism?), is the creative and contemplative side of the mind, that part of us that ponders, imagines, theorizes, examines, criticizes, and wonders.  In short, intellect does not simply accept teachings, where intelligence might.  The intellectual learns his lessons, the same as the intelligent, but does not leave it at that – the intellectual asks why, and seeks to change those things that make no real sense and which cannot be demonstrated to be true.
> 
> Religions, all religions, are handed down as teachings, and intelligent people can learn those teachings and carry them forward, unquestioning.  Or, they can utilize their intellect and question those teachings . . . and perhaps stop burning witches and ‘heretics,’ and adapt to demonstrable truth -- real truth.  Or not.  Perhaps the utterly silly exchange over the Moon landings is an example of the ‘or not’ portion . . . Stubborn adherence to ancient doctrine, when it leads to denying the easily demonstrated, cleaves the ‘intelligent’ from the ‘intellectual,’ and leaves the ‘true believers’ behind . . .    So, perhaps in this regard, the question is posed backwards, and it ought to be, “How Intellectual is Religion?”




Diogenes.......... You've said a lot in your last post.  You republished several people's words; you've restated the original question again ( as I did also).
But, lets face the fact.  Fact.  If you remain an atheist all of your nature life, you'll never know for sure if our God exist or not.  You will always have that little question in the back of your brain.
And I might some day find out that the entire space program was/is a lie.
Wouldn't that be something?


----------



## Diogenes

I suppose that it would be something, but I'll think that the odds, on both sides, are pretty much against you ever finding a truth in either proposition.   The nagging doubt in the back of the brain is not mine, that is to say . . .


----------



## ambush80

Some interesting thoughts from The Church of Free Thought:

http://www.churchoffreethought.org/frequently-asked-questions#beliefs

How can you think freely if you are not free to believe in god(s)?

Freethought is not thinking whatever one likes. Thinking is much like many other things we do in that it is subject to certain rules and restrictions that we call reason or logic. Freethought consists of applying the tools of reason to problems that are generally considered "religious."

For thousands of years, those who have thought hardest about the question of god(s), carefully setting aside faith and other personal considerations, have been forced to the conclusion that the existence of god(s) remains speculative at best. At the same time, the efforts of believers to construct arguments to prove the existence of god(s) have all met with failure.

Therefore, until and unless new and relevant facts or reasons are introduced, Freethinkers remain unpersuaded of, and, in fact, are justified in strongly doubting any claims of the supernatural.

Don't you know it is impossible to declare with certainty that there are no gods?

Some atheists say that they are certain that no god(s) exist. When they do, they typically mean that a particular sort of god cannot exist because of some logical impossibility. For example, even ancient thinkers rejected the idea of a god who was both all-powerful and all-knowing, because these two attributes are mutually exclusive. The same difficulties apply in the case of a god claimed to be all-good and all-powerful.

Other atheists say that the notion of god(s) is incomprehensible, or too vague to be meaningful. They point out that the problem is not that one cannot prove a negative. After all, it can easily be disproved that the National Zoo has a unicorn exhibit. But one cannot disprove a claim that god(s) exist in the absence of any means of testing for such existence.

Each of these positions and others besides them come with their own set of arguments and objections. All are useful and instructive in understanding what it means to believe or know something. But atheism doesn’t stand or fall on any particular interpretation of these subtleties. Finally, to the extent that certainty about the nonexistence of god(s) is not possible, certainty about their existence is equally impossible.

Can a Freethinker believe in God?

It is exceedingly doubtful that a Freethinker today could believe in god(s). There are three reasons for this:

There is essentially a complete lack of evidence for the existence of god(s), and all evidence once thought to be supportive of the existence of god(s) is better explained by other means.

There are many facts and reasons that weigh against the existence of most kinds of god(s).

There is strong evidence that god(s) were devised by human beings to meet human needs.

Essentially the only reasons left for believing in god(s) today are those of tradition, authority, and established belief, all of which Freethinkers reject as a means to discerning truth. Therefore, if a Freethinker did believe in god(s) it would be likely that he or she simply had not yet gotten around to examining the question. In this case, though, the belief would be held provisionally and not dogmatically.



Sounds pretty thoughtful to me.


----------



## Ronnie T

ambush80 said:


> Some interesting thoughts from The Church of Free Thought:
> 
> http://www.churchoffreethought.org/frequently-asked-questions#beliefs
> 
> How can you think freely if you are not free to believe in god(s)?
> 
> Freethought is not thinking whatever one likes. Thinking is much like many other things we do in that it is subject to certain rules and restrictions that we call reason or logic. Freethought consists of applying the tools of reason to problems that are generally considered "religious."
> 
> For thousands of years, those who have thought hardest about the question of god(s), carefully setting aside faith and other personal considerations, have been forced to the conclusion that the existence of god(s) remains speculative at best. At the same time, the efforts of believers to construct arguments to prove the existence of god(s) have all met with failure.
> 
> Therefore, until and unless new and relevant facts or reasons are introduced, Freethinkers remain unpersuaded of, and, in fact, are justified in strongly doubting any claims of the supernatural.
> 
> Don't you know it is impossible to declare with certainty that there are no gods?
> 
> Some atheists say that they are certain that no god(s) exist. When they do, they typically mean that a particular sort of god cannot exist because of some logical impossibility. For example, even ancient thinkers rejected the idea of a god who was both all-powerful and all-knowing, because these two attributes are mutually exclusive. The same difficulties apply in the case of a god claimed to be all-good and all-powerful.
> 
> Other atheists say that the notion of god(s) is incomprehensible, or too vague to be meaningful. They point out that the problem is not that one cannot prove a negative. After all, it can easily be disproved that the National Zoo has a unicorn exhibit. But one cannot disprove a claim that god(s) exist in the absence of any means of testing for such existence.
> 
> Each of these positions and others besides them come with their own set of arguments and objections. All are useful and instructive in understanding what it means to believe or know something. But atheism doesn’t stand or fall on any particular interpretation of these subtleties. Finally, to the extent that certainty about the nonexistence of god(s) is not possible, certainty about their existence is equally impossible.
> 
> Can a Freethinker believe in God?
> 
> It is exceedingly doubtful that a Freethinker today could believe in god(s). There are three reasons for this:
> 
> There is essentially a complete lack of evidence for the existence of god(s), and all evidence once thought to be supportive of the existence of god(s) is better explained by other means.
> 
> There are many facts and reasons that weigh against the existence of most kinds of god(s).
> 
> There is strong evidence that god(s) were devised by human beings to meet human needs.
> 
> Essentially the only reasons left for believing in god(s) today are those of tradition, authority, and established belief, all of which Freethinkers reject as a means to discerning truth. Therefore, if a Freethinker did believe in god(s) it would be likely that he or she simply had not yet gotten around to examining the question. In this case, though, the belief would be held provisionally and not dogmatically.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds pretty thoughtful to me.



Just the opposite seems likely to me.  The free thinker can more honestly look at the world and realize that all of this could not have happened without a Super-Divine God being involved in it.
Case in point.  Last night on Nat Geo channel I caught a bit about a particular bird that had a very unusual ability.  The narrator said something like this.

"This bird had such a keep desire to move his life beyond its limited that it would ways to evolve so that it could become what it knew it could become.  It changed it natural limitations because of it's desire to do more."

I consider myself a free thinker but I believe the above statement could only be believed by an idiot.
The bird willed itself to evolve!!  Get out of here.


----------



## ambush80

Ronnie T said:


> Just the opposite seems likely to me.  The free thinker can more honestly look at the world and realize that all of this could not have happened without a Super-Divine God being involved in it.
> 
> Evidence?  Or do you just know it in your bones?
> 
> Case in point.  Last night on Nat Geo channel I caught a bit about a particular bird that had a very unusual ability.  The narrator said something like this.
> 
> "This bird had such a keep desire to move his life beyond its limited that it would ways to evolve so that it could become what it knew it could become.  It changed it natural limitations because of it's desire to do more."
> 
> I consider myself a free thinker but I believe the above statement could only be believed by an idiot.
> The bird willed itself to evolve!!  Get out of here.



Please fix your quote so that it makes sense.


----------



## Ronnie T

See if it makes better sense now.  Sometimes my fingers don't hit the button my brain wants them to press.
"Case in point. Last night on Nat Geo channel I caught a bit about a particular bird that had a very unusual ability. The narrator said something like this.

"This bird had such a keen desire to move his life beyond its limitations that it would find ways to evolve so that it could become what it knew it could become. It changed it natural limitations because of it's desire to do more."

I consider myself a free thinker but I believe the above statement could only be believed by an idiot.
The bird willed itself to evolve!! Get out of here. 
End Quote.

You're right, I did make a mess of that.


----------



## ambush80

Ronnie T said:


> See if it makes better sense now.  Sometimes my fingers don't hit the button my brain wants them to press.
> "Case in point. Last night on Nat Geo channel I caught a bit about a particular bird that had a very unusual ability. The narrator said something like this.
> 
> "This bird had such a keen desire to move his life beyond its limitations that it would find ways to evolve so that it could become what it knew it could become. It changed it natural limitations because of it's desire to do more."
> 
> I consider myself a free thinker but I believe the above statement could only be believed by an idiot.
> The bird willed itself to evolve!! Get out of here.
> End Quote.
> 
> You're right, I did make a mess of that.



Whatever that narrator said is nonsense.  He doesn't understand evolution.  He doesn't have a good grasp of how evolution works.  I suspect he may have been speaking metaphorically, perhaps about the development of the whole species.  I don't know.  I'd have to see the show.


----------



## Diogenes

To ambush80’s thoughts  -- well said.  

Ronnie T responded:  “The free thinker can more honestly look at the world and realize that all of this could not have happened without a Super-Divine God being involved in it.”         It is hard to know what you mean by, “. . . all of this. . . ”     Would that include, say, random meteor and asteroid strikes (proven); volcanic catastrophes (proven); Tsunamis and glacial torrential flooding resulting from volcanic activity (proven); advancing and retreating glaciers (proven); massive extinctions of creatures on a global scale (proven); tornadoes (proven); hurricanes (proven); magnetic pole shifts (proven); changes in the angle of the planet’s axis of rotation (proven); new land masses forming from volcanic activity in a matter of days (proven); and on a smaller scale, bacterial and viral plagues that wipe out millions (proven); cancers (proven); predatory and poisonous animals and insects (proven); undrinkable water (proven); droughts that wipe out thousands (proven); and the whole host of natural phenomena that I could easily take ten pages to list without exhausting the catalog?   

Super-Divine.   Honestly.  You’ve certainly won converts with that argument . . .  But really, right now there are more people living on this planet than have lived cumulatively in all of history, and there is only one reason for that – We have learned how to overcome, predict, and mostly protect ourselves from all of those ‘Super-Divine’ things that nature uses to try to kill us, and has used to kill us ever since we arrived.  So if “ . . . all of this . . .” is the result of a Divine Being, then simple observation might cause one to arrive at the conclusion that we’re doing a pretty good job of thwarting that Being’s will . . .


----------



## Ronnie T

Diogenes said:


> To ambush80’s thoughts  -- well said.
> 
> Ronnie T responded:  “The free thinker can more honestly look at the world and realize that all of this could not have happened without a Super-Divine God being involved in it.”         It is hard to know what you mean by, “. . . all of this. . . ”     Would that include, say, random meteor and asteroid strikes (proven); volcanic catastrophes (proven); Tsunamis and glacial torrential flooding resulting from volcanic activity (proven); advancing and retreating glaciers (proven); massive extinctions of creatures on a global scale (proven); tornadoes (proven); hurricanes (proven); magnetic pole shifts (proven); changes in the angle of the planet’s axis of rotation (proven); new land masses forming from volcanic activity in a matter of days (proven); and on a smaller scale, bacterial and viral plagues that wipe out millions (proven); cancers (proven); predatory and poisonous animals and insects (proven); undrinkable water (proven); droughts that wipe out thousands (proven); and the whole host of natural phenomena that I could easily take ten pages to list without exhausting the catalog?
> 
> Super-Divine.   Honestly.  You’ve certainly won converts with that argument . . .  But really, right now there are more people living on this planet than have lived cumulatively in all of history, and there is only one reason for that – We have learned how to overcome, predict, and mostly protect ourselves from all of those ‘Super-Divine’ things that nature uses to try to kill us, and has used to kill us ever since we arrived.  So if “ . . . all of this . . .” is the result of a Divine Being, then simple observation might cause one to arrive at the conclusion that we’re doing a pretty good job of thwarting that Being’s will . . .



Your comments and beliefs as shown above are the very reasons I don't think atheists are very intellectual.
I'm not able to say for sure but I suspect God is the originator of the things that I highlighted in blue above.  The other things, we humans probably are responsible for them.

*1Corinthians 1:19  *For it is written,
         "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 
22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;  23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 
26For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 
27but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,  28and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,  29so that no man may boast before God. 
30But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,  31so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."


----------



## ambush80

Diogenes said:


> To ambush80’s thoughts  -- well said.
> 
> Ronnie T responded:  “The free thinker can more honestly look at the world and realize that all of this could not have happened without a Super-Divine God being involved in it.”         It is hard to know what you mean by, “. . . all of this. . . ”     Would that include, say, random meteor and asteroid strikes (proven); volcanic catastrophes (proven); Tsunamis and glacial torrential flooding resulting from volcanic activity (proven); advancing and retreating glaciers (proven); massive extinctions of creatures on a global scale (proven); tornadoes (proven); hurricanes (proven); magnetic pole shifts (proven); changes in the angle of the planet’s axis of rotation (proven); new land masses forming from volcanic activity in a matter of days (proven); and on a smaller scale, bacterial and viral plagues that wipe out millions (proven); cancers (proven); predatory and poisonous animals and insects (proven); undrinkable water (proven); droughts that wipe out thousands (proven); and the whole host of natural phenomena that I could easily take ten pages to list without exhausting the catalog?
> 
> Super-Divine.   Honestly.  You’ve certainly won converts with that argument . . .  But really, right now there are more people living on this planet than have lived cumulatively in all of history, and there is only one reason for that – We have learned how to overcome, predict, and mostly protect ourselves from all of those ‘Super-Divine’ things that nature uses to try to kill us, and has used to kill us ever since we arrived.  So if “ . . . all of this . . .” is the result of a Divine Being, then simple observation might cause one to arrive at the conclusion that we’re doing a pretty good job of thwarting that Being’s will . . .



"The free thinker can more honestly look at the world and realize that all of this could not have happened without a Super-Divine God being involved in it."



I imagine he's talking more about: The first smile from your child or the cloud of steam from an elks mouth on a frosty morning or the jewel like spots on a fresh caught trout or amazement at the stars on a clear night.  Indeed, all these things induce a visceral response that may move one in a way that is simultaneously powerful and enigmatic; so much so that we may attribute some unearthly cause to them.   

I've felt those things.  I've been moved by great art or great beauty and by the smile of my first born and the intensity of my response leaves me clueless.  But I realize that just because I don't fully understand it doesn't make it magic.  In a sense, it's like lightning to the caveman, but unlike the caveman I'm going to try to understand its nature.  If it turns out to be magic then I'll except that, but as you pointed out, the odds are that we will eventually be able to describe the source of these mysteries.

I sometimes think that persons of faith don't want to investigate the nature of the "great mysteries" for fear  that they will somehow be diminished.  A psychologist or a behaviorist or an anthropologist can explain how my love for my child works but it will never diminish how I feel.  I believe that I am better off for knowing how it works, though.


----------



## ambush80

Ronnie T said:


> Your comments and beliefs as shown above are the very reasons I don't think atheists are very intellectual.
> I'm not able to say for sure but I suspect God is the originator of the things that I highlighted in blue above.  The other things, we humans probably are responsible for them.



That's the whole point right there!  Keep that uncertainty fire burning and burning HOT!  That's where knowledge comes from.  That's why people look through microscopes and fly to the Moon.  That's why we have fuel burning dragsters and the Amish drive horses and buggies.  They decided to stop advancing with the rest of civilization somewhere along the line (most likely not an intellectual descision)They decided they were good right where they were at.   I'm not saying that we're better than the Amish, but they benefit from technology too.

I can't imagine how we will ever find out who the "originator" is or if there even is one.  So, I implore you, believe or don't believe, just don't allow your position to limit your quest for knowledge, either way.  I assure you that Atheists are delving into the mysteries of spirituality and in the same way people of faith should delve into science.  That's intellectual.


----------



## redwards

ambush80 said:


> ....
> I can't imagine how we will ever find out who the "originator" is or if there even is one. So, I implore you, believe or don't believe, just don't allow your position to limit your quest for knowledge, either way. I assure you that Atheists are delving into the mysteries of spirituality and in the same way people of faith should delve into science. That's intellectual.


I can. When an undertaker gets the call to come pick up the body of an individual who has passed on....believe me.... that individual who has passed on knows whether there is an "originator" or not.
And unless you know something the rest of us don't, you, as we all, will face that day...someday.


----------



## WTM45

redwards said:


> I can. When an undertaker gets the call to come pick up the body of an individual who has passed on....believe me.... that individual who has passed on knows whether there is an "originator" or not.
> And unless you know something the rest of us don't, you, as we all, will face that day...someday.



There is no proof or evidence available to confirm that stance as being factually based.


----------



## combsatl

reformedpastor said:


> How much knowledge does a person need to become an atheist?



It simply takes the harsh realization that religion, in general, is not an answer. While it may not necessarily take 'knowledge' to become atheist, it takes one to open their eyes and see the big picture - a picture painted by contrasting religions, competing gods and deities, and the overall hypocrisy that causes smart and decent people to do dumb and indecent things.

Some atheists decide to learn all they can about the religions of the world to try to find something that makes sense to them or conflicting information between the religions to further build a case disproving the existence of any god. 

The main thing, with me, is this: the word of the bible is good; do not kill, do not steal, treat others like you want to be treated, etc.  I would have no problem with any religion if that's where it all stopped... but it doesn't. Far too many people take the bible literally and believe every... single... story. I find it amazing that so many smart people get so wrapped up in this idea that a story, written by many different people, over 2000 years ago (and many of them older than that - borrowed or stolen from previous beliefs and stories) actually happened and that an invisible, infallible, intangible being is watching your every move and the wrong one could land you in an eternity of ****ation and hellfire. 

If mankind would look in themselves (as well as family/friends), rather than an intangible being, for guidance, help, strength the world would be a much better place.  



Madman said:


> the one who rose from the dead.



Can you PROVE he rose from the dead? Were you there to see it happen? Did you have any friends who saw it, or maybe your brother's, friend's, mom's, cousin's, best friend's brother's, sister's, seeing eye dog?


----------



## ambush80

redwards said:


> I can. When an undertaker gets the call to come pick up the body of an individual who has passed on....believe me.... that individual who has passed on knows whether there is an "originator" or not.
> And unless you know something the rest of us don't, you, as we all, will face that day...someday.



The deceased may stop "knowing" anything from that moment forward. 

I do know that no one has come back from the dead (except in mythology) and brought back proof of an originator.  Yes. As far as I know, everyone will die, beyond that, it's all speculation.



combsatl said:


> I find it amazing that so many smart people get so wrapped up in this idea that a story, written by many different people, over 2000 years ago (and many of them older than that - borrowed or stolen from previous beliefs and stories) actually happened and that an invisible, infallible, intangible being is watching your every move and the wrong one could land you in an eternity of ****ation and hellfire.



See the post about predestination.


----------



## redwards

ambush80 said:


> ....
> I do know that no one has come back from the dead (except in mythology) and brought back proof of an originator.....


How do you "know" that it was/is "mythology"? 
Were you there in person to dispute the claims?


----------



## redwards

WTM45 said:


> There is no proof or evidence available to confirm that stance as being factually based.


The following is accepted by many as "proof" or "evidence" that it is factually based....


> Luke 16:19-31
> *19* "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.
> *20* "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,
> *21* and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.
> *22* "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
> *23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. *
> *24* "And he cried out and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'
> *25* "But Abraham said, `Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
> *26* `And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'
> *27* "And he said, `Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--
> *28* for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
> *29* "But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
> *30* "But he said, `No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'
> *31* "But he said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "


.....
Whether you accept it as such is up to you....


----------



## Ronnie T

In my mind (and please believe me when I say that I'm not patronizing anyone when I say this), there is nothing more pitiful than a man or woman who gladly takes on the title of atheist.


----------



## ambush80

Ronnie T said:


> In my mind (and please believe me when I say that I'm not patronizing anyone when I say this), there is nothing more pitiful than a man or woman who gladly takes on the title of atheist.



You realize that they might think it pitiful that an intelligent person would supersede their reason for superstition, right?


----------



## Diogenes

Ronnie T states: " Your comments and beliefs as shown above are the very reasons I don't think atheists are very intellectual."  Then says:  “I'm not able to say for sure but I suspect God is the originator of the things that I highlighted in blue above. The other things, we humans probably are responsible for them.”           Um?         Which parts are beliefs?  And which parts demonstrate a lack of intellect?  All are easily proven parts of the natural world surrounding us.  There was not a single leap of faith.  Can one honestly think that bacterial and viral plagues are things that man made?  Cancers (the natural mutation of cells unchecked by the immune system) are our doing?   Undrinkable water (pretty simple), since most of it, from the oceans to the streams, untreated, will kill you, was a man-made problem?  And droughts?   Probably we made it not rain in certain regions?  Wow.  So, in this view, we are “probably” responsible for some parts of the natural world, and not at all responsible for others?
  Respectfully, sir, one takes natural processes as a whole, as a set of interrelated parts, and does not ascribe some of them to one source and some to another as suits the current, and ever-changing religious doctrine and endless rationalizations.  That sort of view is truly anti-intellectual.  And, to say true, even those parts you wish to acknowledge as ‘originated’ by God tend to be things that aspire to kill his chosen creatures, rather than to exist as a display of benevolence and mercy.  If there is no argument with that , or the point that we only exist because we have learned how to resist those forces as well, then I’m afraid that I have no idea what your point might be  . . . thoughtful folks find it difficult to so neatly compartmentalize the simple observations of the natural universe that surrounds us, and place some portions in one basket, and others in another.  That is dishonest.         

Redwards states: “When an undertaker gets the call to come pick up the body of an individual who has passed on....believe me.... that individual who has passed on knows whether there is an "originator" or not."  I vote 'not.'  Let me know the moment you get a telegram from the ‘beyond,’ and then we can actually have an intellectual discussion of that point.   Lacking that, all the undertaker does is try to bury the bodies before they start to stink and breed even more natural diseases. 

Ronnie T states: “In my mind (and please believe me when I say that I'm not patronizing anyone when I say this), there is nothing more pitiful than a man or woman who gladly takes on the title of atheist.”          Sir, I do not believe you.  The statement, on its face, is patronizing.   (Similar to someone saying, I don’t mean any insult, but you are little more than a festering boil on the perineum of Saint Swithin, but, really, nothing personal . . . C’mon, saying that you ‘pity’ someone for not agreeing with you is arrogance writ large.)   Believe me, truly, when I say that pity is a highly over-rated emotion, and I can’t find it in my heart to actually pity those who disagree with me.  The simple position, that of taking pity, assumes that I stand above them in some fashion, and where belief is concerned nothing could be further from the truth.  Belief, for all of the atrocities it has authored, has also stood some of the best works of mankind, and it would not be even-handed or nearly intellectual not to notice that the Catholic Church alone has done, and continues to do, more good in the modern world than any government can claim.  Intellect, you might notice, observes without single-minded judgement.  

	The fact that I personally do not believe, and find no rational reason to do so, takes nothing away from those who do believe, and while the believers must stand with the less than admirable results of their history on their own hands, that takes nothing away from the good they have also done and continue to do without the coercion of government.  I find it odd that one would need the authority of either a government or a God to justify doing what you think is right, and I, personally, observe that civilization advances because most folks, regardless of belief, stripe, affiliation, or which book they have read, seem to feel the same.  I asked once before, to those who think that what is ‘Written’ and is quoted ad nauseum is all of the truth, a hypothetical question – if your book had said that it was okay to kill and eat babies, would you do it?   Of course you wouldn’t.  Nor would you do most of what your particular book literally advises.  But – by making that decision, you have just proven to yourself your own ability to make an independent moral judgment . . .  Darn . . .

Relying on your own mind can be so inconvenient sometimes . . .


----------



## reformedpastor

*Atheism's Moral Swindle*

Atheism's Moral Swindle

From the web site American Vision: Today's Feature Article 

By Joel McDurmon

I long since stopped blogging on atheism, deeming it often a waste of time and occasionally counterproductive. Sometimes, however, the issue merits revisiting. After rereading some old classics, I find the following quotation worth sharing:

"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God has truth—it stands or falls with faith in God."

In this quotation, many of my readers will immediately detect the echo of Van Til, or Bahnsen, or some other related apologist infused with “worldview,” or presuppositional thinking. Such a guess comes close in content, but misses widely. The surprise: this quotation flows candidly—and insightfully!—from arch-atheist Friedrich Nietzsche.[1] This is not, of course, to say that Van Til derived his ideas from reading Nietzsche—highly unlikely. The point—completely lost on modern atheists—is that when you strike down Christianity, Christian morality necessarily goes with it. Nietzsche candidly professed this, as did his earlier French counterpart Marquis de Sade: no God, no moral imperatives; no “thou shalt,” and no “thou shalt not.” Only, “I will.”

But modern atheists have not only ignored this logical conclusion, they have actually attempted to attack Christianity in the name of Christian morality, calling the Christian God cruel, bloodthirsty, racist, sadomasochistic, etc.[2] Richard Dawkins’ now famous book begins an early chapter with such accusations and much more. Whence the moral outrage?

Nietzsche’s honesty above grows all the more relevant (and this is what sparked me to write this article) when we read his context: he wrote the above as a commentary on the English writer George Eliot, decrying her clinging to morality despite her rejection of God. In fact, according to some accounts, and just as Dawkins, she attacked Christianity in the name of morality, calling the faith “immoral.” Nietzsche spies the “English” inconsistency and condemns her (and thus Dawkins) as a weak, effeminate, and illogical atheist. He writes:

G. Elliot: "They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. This is an English inconsistency: we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England [then and now, apparently] one must rehabilitate oneself after ever little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there."

We others hold otherwise.… [then follows the earlier quotation][3]

Upon reading this again, I could not help but think of today’s little rosy-cheeked moralist, Dawkins, preaching against the cosmic bully of the Old Testament, and denouncing the extremes of religion—all the while unaware that he must have the morality of Christendom under his feet (and his audience’s feet) in order to denounce those extremes. Still English, yes, and still inconsistent.

Nietzsche blows up the charade:

"When the English actually believe that they know “intuitively” what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem."[4]

For this reason—for his fearless and relentless consistency—I love reading Nietzsche. The arch-atheist—the honest, consistent atheist—foils all the prominent modern atheists. He knows and admits that Dawkins’ moral indignation arises from the very God he denounces. Nietzsche knows that such moral fire only expresses the prior power and dominion of Christianity. Nietzsche knows that moral indignation itself is borrowed capital from Christendom.

Unlike Dawkins, however, Nietzsche refused to keep pretending. Nietzsche had the intellect to see the connection, and the guts to admit the outcome of his worldview. Modern atheism, apparently, has neither. For them, Christian society provides them enough comfort to enjoy the peace and tolerance of Christian rules while denying the existence of the Rule-giver. For them, morality is not yet a problem—simply because they refuse to admit it. Well, despite the “flatheads,” “this point has to be exhibited again and again,” and I don’t mind letting Nietzsche do so for us.



Endnotes
1 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515–6.
2 See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31.
3 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 515. 
4 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 516.


----------



## reformedpastor

All of the atheist on here have only proven on thing- they are without answers!!!!!!

We live in a society that is becoming more and more atheistic so what can we expect? More of what we have today. CHAOS!!!!


----------



## WTM45

And Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Taoists and other religious belief systems have all the answers.  HA!


----------



## reformedpastor

Nope! Only Christians rightly interpreting God's Word! Remember, these are false religions and just a different expression of atheism.


----------



## Ronnie T

Diogenes you missunderstand me.

It isn't that I'm shocked that you would dare disagree with me.  It isn't that unusual for someone to disagree with me.  Sometimes it's wise to disagree with me.

Here's where I'm coming from though.

"Suppose that you are speaking on your cell phone one Saturday afternoon and suddenly the signal obviously gets crossed and you begin listening in on a conversation between two middle east men who are talking about their plans to detonate bombs in the largest mall in Atlanta.  From their conversation, you realize it's going to happen this afternoon.
"So you rush to the mall to let everyone know and to tell them to leave the mall.  You rush around madly screaming, pleading with people to leave the mall.  But they laugh at you.  They think you are crazy.  They even taunt you.  Some leave just to be safe.  Most think it could not be possible."

Atheist think it is not possible.  It doesn't make sense to them.  There's no proof.

It isn't a good feeling to know that there are those who refuse the faith that's necessary to believe the message of the man in the mall.


----------



## ambush80

Ronnie T said:


> Here's where I'm coming from though.
> 
> "Suppose that you are speaking on your cell phone one Saturday afternoon and suddenly the signal obviously gets crossed and you begin listening in on a conversation between two middle east men who are talking about their plans to detonate bombs in the largest mall in Atlanta.  From their conversation, you realize it's going to happen this afternoon.
> "So you rush to the mall to let everyone know and to tell them to leave the mall.  You rush around madly screaming, pleading with people to leave the mall.  But they laugh at you.  They think you are crazy.  They even taunt you.  Some leave just to be safe.  Most think it could not be possible."
> 
> Atheist think it is not possible.  It doesn't make sense to them.  There's no proof.
> 
> It isn't a good feeling to know that there are those who refuse the faith that's necessary to believe the message of the man in the mall.



They've seen evidence; PROOF that that such a thing might occur.  Some people will run out of the mall immediately.  There is no proof that ANYONE will burn in He11 except for what it says in  the Bible, which is hardly proof at all.


----------



## Ronnie T

ambush80 said:


> They've seen evidence; PROOF that that such a thing might occur.  Some people will run out of the mall immediately.  There is no proof that ANYONE will burn in He11 except for what it says in  the Bible, which is hardly proof at all.




The message has been delivered.  Do with it as you wish.


----------



## reformedpastor

The book "Atheist Manifesto" I am reading is a very easy read and one of the must striking characteristics about the book is, not ONE footnote supporting any of his claims. Its really like we all should take his word for because he is an atheist and opened minded and INTELLECTUAL.  

The book is hardly a piece of work that can be taken seriously, other than knowing what is "out there" when it comes to academia, since this guy is highly lauded in those circles.


----------



## WTM45

reformedpastor said:


> Nope! Only Christians rightly interpreting God's Word! Remember, these are false religions and just a different expression of atheism.



Exclusivism.


----------



## Ronnie T

It is God that is Exclusive.

One must worship the only true God.


----------



## WTM45

Ronnie T said:


> One must worship the only true God.




More exclusivism.


----------



## reformedpastor

wtm45 said:


> exclusivism.



correct!!!!!!!!


----------



## Diogenes

Ah, but we have a problem.  Morality is one thing, and ‘Christian Morality’ is another.  Quoting someone who cherry-picks quotes from another, and ascribes a position to that other on that basis, is one of the oddest third-hand straw-man attempts I’ve seen in quite some time.  Philosophers, unlike evangelists, deal in the exact meanings of words and phrases.  So, in context, remove the phrase ‘Christian Morality,’ and insert the phrase ‘Arabic Morality,’ and you will see that it is only the qualifier that makes the point.  It might also be enlightening, though more difficult, to read the entirety of the argument Nietzsche made rather than to try to excerpt bits of it out of that context (second hand, even, which should be intellectually humiliating . . . ) in the vain, vague, and futile attempt to find some sort of a condescending ‘Gotcha!’

Nietzsche was disdainful of bad thinking, and his criticism of Eliot, in context, was an argument against a poorly constructed and incomplete argument.  Not, as is suggested, a vindication of the evangelical Christian view.  One will need to do much better if the argument, as it appears here again and again, is solely that morality sprang fully formed from the bosom of the Christian God, and has no other basis.  Nietzsche held that it was the will of men to have power over other men that was the chief motivating factor both of the individual and of society.  He held that ‘God’ was invented for this purpose, and that that invention has been particularly powerful, pervasive, effective, and equally destructive when poorly implemented, as it has usually been.  In all cases, he boiled that invention, whether well employed for good ends or cited as a cause to persecutions, down to the uses men make of their own thoughts.  

In order to even begin to lay a foundation upon which to rest the contention that morality is invested solely in the Christian God, and far from being an exhaustive list of the problems involved, one must first demonstrate four basic things which are not possible to demonstrate:  First, that there even exists within the words ascribed to this idea of a God a singular, consistent moral voice.  Next, one would need to demonstrate that these consistent and unambiguous words are, in fact, the words of some sort of Supreme Being.  Third, one would need to demonstrate that human morality, as the collective need to codify collective behavior for the benefit of the group, does not pre-date the ‘Word’ of this Supreme Being.  Then, having overcome those problems, one would be compelled to demonstrate that this morality, being by assertion an exclusively ‘Christian’ concept, not only is not shared by non-believers in that particular dogma but has also never changed.  (The idea of a ‘morality’ handed down as an absolute has only one conclusion – it is absolute, and cannot have changed, ever.)  None of these things can be substantiated, and three of them can be easily disproven.    

It is anti-intellectual and self-defeating to fall back time and again upon Scripture as the proof of itself, and completely avoids the questions and the problems involved.  Faith, I have observed before, is the antithesis of proof, and while it has a place in this world that no person here has tried to deny or remove, there is not a single straw of evidence other than that same often quoted Faith that supports a view that there is only one light in all of this darkness, and that it happens to be your own.  There is, to an intellectual view of the subject, a preponderance of evidence that says otherwise, in fact, and clinging to personal superstitions rather than asking of them is rather the definition of a lack of manifest, substantiated intellect.


----------



## Diogenes

Ronnie T :  I understand the point you try to make with the 'man in the mall' thought, but even allegorically it serves only a single point, and honestly, everyone from the Shiites to the Democrats can trot out exactly the same story, with few variations, to try to prove that they are right, and all others are blind.


----------



## Israel

I wonder if one is an atheist because he does not believe in God, or does not believe in God because he is an atheist?
Nietsche is correct about the motivation of man. He just stops short of the remedy.
But even if one were to eradicate all the "defective" theists, you're still left with that underlying base motivation for power.
I always admired his better work as a linebacker, though.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I wonder if one is an atheist because he does not believe in God, or does not believe in God because he is an atheist?



The first part would be the label given to someone who arrived at that conclusion, the second part would describe how a person thinks if they are so labeled.


----------



## ambush80

Ronnie T said:


> The message has been delivered.  Do with it as you wish.



The intellectual thing to do would be to assess its validity by rational process.


----------



## Ronnie T

Diogenes said:


> Ah, but we have a problem.  Morality is one thing, and ‘Christian Morality’ is another.  Quoting someone who cherry-picks quotes from another, and ascribes a position to that other on that basis, is one of the oddest third-hand straw-man attempts I’ve seen in quite some time.  Philosophers, unlike evangelists, deal in the exact meanings of words and phrases.  So, in context, remove the phrase ‘Christian Morality,’ and insert the phrase ‘Arabic Morality,’ and you will see that it is only the qualifier that makes the point.  It might also be enlightening, though more difficult, to read the entirety of the argument Nietzsche made rather than to try to excerpt bits of it out of that context (second hand, even, which should be intellectually humiliating . . . ) in the vain, vague, and futile attempt to find some sort of a condescending ‘Gotcha!’
> 
> Nietzsche was disdainful of bad thinking, and his criticism of Eliot, in context, was an argument against a poorly constructed and incomplete argument.  Not, as is suggested, a vindication of the evangelical Christian view.  One will need to do much better if the argument, as it appears here again and again, is solely that morality sprang fully formed from the bosom of the Christian God, and has no other basis.  Nietzsche held that it was the will of men to have power over other men that was the chief motivating factor both of the individual and of society.  He held that ‘God’ was invented for this purpose, and that that invention has been particularly powerful, pervasive, effective, and equally destructive when poorly implemented, as it has usually been.  In all cases, he boiled that invention, whether well employed for good ends or cited as a cause to persecutions, down to the uses men make of their own thoughts.
> 
> In order to even begin to lay a foundation upon which to rest the contention that morality is invested solely in the Christian God, and far from being an exhaustive list of the problems involved, one must first demonstrate four basic things which are not possible to demonstrate:  First, that there even exists within the words ascribed to this idea of a God a singular, consistent moral voice.  Next, one would need to demonstrate that these consistent and unambiguous words are, in fact, the words of some sort of Supreme Being.  Third, one would need to demonstrate that human morality, as the collective need to codify collective behavior for the benefit of the group, does not pre-date the ‘Word’ of this Supreme Being.  Then, having overcome those problems, one would be compelled to demonstrate that this morality, being by assertion an exclusively ‘Christian’ concept, not only is not shared by non-believers in that particular dogma but has also never changed.  (The idea of a ‘morality’ handed down as an absolute has only one conclusion – it is absolute, and cannot have changed, ever.)  None of these things can be substantiated, and three of them can be easily disproven.
> 
> It is anti-intellectual and self-defeating to fall back time and again upon Scripture as the proof of itself, and completely avoids the questions and the problems involved.  Faith, I have observed before, is the antithesis of proof, and while it has a place in this world that no person here has tried to deny or remove, there is not a single straw of evidence other than that same often quoted Faith that supports a view that there is only one light in all of this darkness, and that it happens to be your own.  There is, to an intellectual view of the subject, a preponderance of evidence that says otherwise, in fact, and clinging to personal superstitions rather than asking of them is rather the definition of a lack of manifest, substantiated intellect.



I agree with you in that morality means a million different things.  The social morals of Pike Street in Seattle, WA and the morals in my small home town cannot be compared.  The morals in Iran or Iraq and the U.S. have very little in common.

As far as proof the proof of God.  Well, there's plenty of proof for those open to the idea and/or willing to seek proof rather than seek to disprove.


----------



## Ronnie T

Diogenes said:


> Ronnie T :  I understand the point you try to make with the 'man in the mall' thought, but even allegorically it serves only a single point, and honestly, everyone from the Shiites to the Democrats can trot out exactly the same story, with few variations, to try to prove that they are right, and all others are blind.



I only wanted you to understand my position.  

No one will listen.  And they will die for the refusal.
That doesn't bring me satisfaction.
It might mean that I have failed.


----------



## Israel

Ronnie T said:


> I only wanted you to understand my position.
> 
> No one will listen.  And they will die for the refusal.
> That doesn't bring me satisfaction.
> It might mean that I have failed.



The foolishness of the cross can never be overestimated.


----------



## gtparts

Israel said:


> I wonder if one is an atheist because he does not believe in God, or does not believe in God because he is an atheist?
> Nietsche is correct about the motivation of man. He just stops short of the remedy.
> But even if one were to eradicate all the "defective" theists, you're still left with that underlying base motivation for power.
> I always admired his better work as a linebacker, though.




I remember Ray. One of the toughest to ever play the game. Those bruising tackles seemed to bring the entire crowd to their feet.    

A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.


----------



## Madman

> It aint' faith, fellas. It is factual and proven history....WTM45



So is the fact that approximately 2000 years ago Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross, was buried in a tomb, rose from the dead three days later and was seen by thousands.

I doubt Ronnie was offended, he is a big boy.  Unlike some people  LOL


----------



## Madman

> Nietzsche held that it was the will of men to have power over other men that was the chief motivating factor both of the individual and of society. He held that ‘God’ was invented for this purpose, and that that invention has been particularly powerful, pervasive, effective, and equally destructive when poorly implemented, as it has usually been....diogenes



I do not know if that is an accurate assessment or not, but assuming it is Nietzsche has totally missed the “Christian” God.
He, Jesus Christ, came as a servant; do not confuse those who attempt to be Christian with God, His character and His purposes.  

They are not the same as mans.


----------



## Diogenes

madman -- Um, sir?  I read that last post six times, and it makes less sense each time -- I'm afraid I've entirely missed your point.  Could you restate that in some terms that we can understand?


----------

