Is there Evidence for God’s Existence?

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  2 weeks ago  •  554 comments

Is there Evidence for God’s Existence?
Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on judgment day and God asked him, “Why didn’t you believe in me?” Russell retorted, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'” One wonders what kind of evidence Russell was referring to when he made this statement. Did he expect God to appear to him in the flesh? Write him a personal message in the clouds? Give him the ability to fly? From my perspective, God has given us evidence — a lot of it for that matter. From my perspective, so much evidence for God exists, that it seems unreasonable to doubt his existence.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on judgment day and God asked him, “Why didn’t you believe in me?” Russell retorted, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'”

One wonders what kind of evidence Russell was referring to when he made this statement. Did he expect God to appear to him in the flesh? Write him a personal message in the clouds? Give him the ability to fly?

From my perspective, God has given us evidence — a lot of it for that matter. From my perspective, so much evidence for God exists, that it seems unreasonable to doubt his existence. Let me give you two quick arguments to show you what I mean.

Cosmological Argument


The argument goes like this:

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is a logically valid argument. That is, if premises 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion (3) necessarily follows. Let’s look at the premises in turn:

1. Everything that Begins to Exist has a Cause

The fundamental principle in science is the law of causality. That is, every effect comes with an underlying cause. We know of no single effect in the universe that came about uncaused. The computer I’m using exists because programmers, engineers, and technicians all worked to create it. The desk I’m using was made by a craftsman. The tree used to make my desk grew because a seed was put in the ground and the sun and rain helped it grow. And I could go on. The point is that cause and effect is the way things work. We don’t know of any exceptions.

For centuries, skeptics never denied this premise, because they asserted that the universe itself was eternal (it didn’t begin to exist). Prominent eighteenth century skeptic David Hume even declared, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.”1

Recently, however, skeptics have changed their tune because it’s virtually undeniable that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Therefore, they sometimes respond by saying the cause and effect structure is true of everything in the universe, but not for the universe itself. This, however, commits the taxi-cab fallacy. It’s the idea that I can use certain principles to support my claims, but then hop off those same principles (like you would a taxi) when they’re inconvenient.

2. The Universe Began to Exist

The evidence for a universe that began a finite time ago is overwhelming to say the least. Let me give a few pieces of evidence. First, in 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered a “red shift” in the light from distant galaxies, which meant they were flying apart from us at rapid speeds. In other words, Hubble discovered, through observation, that our universe is expanding.

If our universe is expanding (picture a cone shape), all one needs to do is subtract our universe back in time to discover that it eventually comes to a point — the time of its inception. Hubble’s discovery by itself is enough to demonstrate a definite beginning of our universe. But there’s more.

Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, which others have confirmed down to the fifth decimal point, demands that all space, time, and matter came into existence simultaneously, and they’re all co-relative. Furthermore, his calculations predicted an expanding universe — much like the one Hubble discovered through his telescope.

Einstein, not a theist himself, was troubled by his findings because of the theological implications. He even tried to fudge his numbers to avoid a definite beginning of the universe, but later corrected them and admitted it was the biggest blunder of his career.

Finally, the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves the universe isn’t eternal, but rather began a finite time ago. The Second Law states that the universe is running out of usable energy. Much like a car driving down the highway that will eventually run out of gas, the universe will eventually run out of usable energy. Thus, if the universe has existed for all eternity, it would have already run out of energy, pointing to the fact that it began a finite time ago.

3. Therefore, the Universe has a Cause

Since space, time, and matter all came into existence simultaneously, whatever caused it must be beyond space, time, and matter. In other words, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Furthermore, it must be personal to choose to create, and all-powerful to create a universe as massive as ours.

Teleological Argument


The argument goes like this:

  1. All designs have a designer
  2. The universe has a complex design
  3. Therefore, the universe has a designer

Let’s look at the premises in turn:

1. All Designs have a Designer

Imagine one day you were walking through the woods and stumbled across a pocket watch. You pick it up, take it apart, see all the different moving parts, and ponder its existence. What would you conclude about the cause of the watch? Did it come about from the rain and mud? Did a combination of natural forces produce the watch? No, of course not. You immediately recognize that it was designed for a specific purpose. This illustration, made famous by eighteenth century philosopher William Paley argues that all complex designs require a designer.

After all, specific, complex designs don’t happen by chance through natural causes. The computer I’m using, with all its different parts, was obviously designed by intelligent beings. Same is true for the computer or phone you’re using to read this article. The car you drive or the house you live in are all examples of design. Imagine if I said my car was the result of a tornado going through a junk yard filled with different parts. That claim would be absurd, because we all know that designs require an intelligent designer and don’t arise by chance through natural causes.

2. The Universe has a Complex Design

The truth is that our universe is far more complex than any computer, car, phone, or any other human design for that matter — something William Paley was hinting at in his watch illustration. For example, all the seemingly arbitrary laws of physics, which could be completely different, are all the precise values you need if you want to have a universe capable of sustaining life.

Take the law of gravity. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% we would all die.2 To illustrate how precise this law is, imagine stretching a tape measure across the entire universe. The tape would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches long, and this tape measure represents the possible range of the force of gravity. The force of gravity as we know it is set on one of the inch marks along the tape. Now, imagine that we move the force of gravity one inch in either direction, the impact would be catastrophic. We would all die.

The law of gravity doesn’t have to be what it is. It could be a little stronger or a little weaker, but it’s set precisely where it needs to be for life to exist.

Let me give you another example. The so-called cosmological constant — the energy density of empty space — is fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a ten with fifty-three zeroes behind it.3 In essence, this constant impacts the expansion rate of the universe. If the constant was altered in the slightest bit, causing the universe to expand a little faster, the result would be that galaxies, stars, and planets could not have formed. If it caused the universe to expand slightly slower, the universe would have collapsed back in on itself. Either way, we wouldn’t exist.

One scientist suggests there are at least thirty of these different physical laws that require such precision in order for life to exist.4 That’s pretty incredible when you consider that none of those parameters had to be what they are. It seems that a designer knew we were coming.

3. Therefore, the Universe has a Designer

British philosopher Alister McGrath states, “Is it pure coincidence that the laws of nature are such that life is possible? Might this not be an important clue to the nature and destiny of humanity?”5 Based on the evidence from design, we can conclude that the cause of the universe must also be supremely intelligent and purposeful.

Overwhelming Evidence


Based on these two arguments alone (and there are more), we learn that whatever caused our universe to come into existence must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent, and purposeful. That sounds an awful lot like God, wouldn’t you say?

So why do skeptics, like Bertrand Russell, say there isn’t enough evidence? I submit to you that they’re looking in the wrong places. They’re looking for God to do something inside the creation — like do a miracle, appear to them, or give them a special message — when all they need to do is consider the origin and design of the universe.

This would be equivalent to me denying D. R. Horton’s existence (my home builder) because I don’t see him anywhere in my house. I’ve checked all the rooms, the garage, and even the attic, but I can’t find him. Therefore, I conclude, he must not exist.

But that’s absurd. Of course he exists! How do you suppose my house got there? And what about all the evidence for design on in the inside and outside of the house? It’s evident, based on the house itself, that D.R. Horton exists. In the same way, when we consider the origin and design of our universe, it’s evident that God exists too.

 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Xxjefferson#51
1  seeder  Xxjefferson#51    2 weeks ago

“Based on the evidence from design, we can conclude that the cause of the universe must also be supremely intelligent and purposeful.

Overwhelming Evidence

Based on these two arguments alone (and there are more), we learn that whatever caused our universe to come into existence must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent, and purposeful. That sounds an awful lot like God, wouldn’t you say?

So why do skeptics, like Bertrand Russell, say there isn’t enough evidence? I submit to you that they’re looking in the wrong places. They’re looking for God to do something inside the creation — like do a miracle, appear to them, or give them a special message — when all they need to do is consider the origin and design of the universe.”

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
1.1  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago

The scientific evidence for both an intelligent creator for the earth and the universe and for the intelligent designer being an all powerful God is overwhelming.  A great article. [deleted]

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.1    2 weeks ago

There is no scientific evidence for a god or ID. it seems you do not understand what constitutes actual evidence. 

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
1.1.2  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]  

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

Since when are empty threats scientific?  That sounds more emotional than rational. No wonder your absurd assertions are so laughable and not worthy of consideration.  

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
Since when are empty threats scientific?

Thankfully today they are empty, but that's only been the case in the last hundred years or so. Before then the proof of God was a gun to your head or a noose around your neck. While their methods are no longer as violent, those behind them are just as worthless and immoral as they've ever been.

 
 
TᵢG
1.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
And you will stand with Russell Bertrand on judgement day.

His name was Bertrand Russell.   Look him up.   He used his mind effectively - a genuine critical thinker.

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

Critical thinking seems to be an anathema to YECs.

 
 
TᵢG
1.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

They are the poster children for non-critical thinking.   This is evidenced by the substantial effort they put in to try to discredit anything that conflicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible.

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.8    2 weeks ago

Well, they get an 'A' for effort, but an 'F' for results. They probably got an 'F' in science too. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
epistte
1.1.10  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
And you will stand with Russell Bertrand on judgement day.   

You are assuming that there will be a judgment day, but you have no evidence of such ever existing, outside of a book of myths written by ancient men.

 
 
Phoenyx13
1.1.11  Phoenyx13  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
And you will stand with Russell Bertrand on judgement day.

we've all been hearing of this "judgement day" for over 200 years... what's taking so long for it to arrive ?

 
 
SteevieGee
1.1.12  SteevieGee  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.1    2 weeks ago

Rediculous!  If D.R. Horton isn't in your house it's because he doesn't live there.  If you go to D.R. Horton's house you could easily prove his existence.  I don't know if there's a god.  You can't prove that something doesn't exist.  All of the major religions are WRONG though especially Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  

 

 
 
Tacos!
1.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.1    2 weeks ago
The scientific evidence

To be fair, the arguments are not scientific. It's more like deductive reasoning (or inductive, but that's a different discussion). I think God by his very nature isn't something we can investigate scientifically. The scientific method just doesn't lend itself effectively to that inquiry.

And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Scientific processes are not the only path to knowledge and truth. A lot of "scientific" theoretical physics and cosmology operates the same way.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
1.1.14  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

There was no threat.  It is a fact of the future fate for all humanity that refuses to believe rejecting all opportunities presented to change ones mind.  All humanity that has ever lived, is living, and ever will live will either be inside the New Jerusalem or outside it during that final battle between good and evil.  

 
 
Gordy327
1.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

Of course it's a threat. It's a threat of impending doom or damnation if one doesn't believe in your particular god. It's like the divine version of "an offer you can't refuse." And it's not a fact as you claim. It's nothing more than your own belief. Belief does not equal fact. It's also nothing more than emotionally based drivel, which only shows your inability to formulate any rational argument or rebuttal.

 
 
devangelical
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago

No evidence and this article is seeded under the wrong topic.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
1.2.1  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  devangelical @1.2    2 weeks ago

The article is using science to prove creation and that the creator is in fact God.  

 
 
Eagle Averro
1.2.2  Eagle Averro  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
The article is using science to prove creation

E.A If I may::

 Romans Chapter one in particular verses 18 - 27 make the same point ALL evolutionist and Anarchist make, Go and learn from NATURE what is indisputable!!

 Indisputable that is to those " that have ears ……. and Have Eyes …. "

 
 
Gordy327
1.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

there is no science in it. Just assumptions. 

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
The article is using science to prove creation and that the creator is in fact God.

Science: noun - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific method involves careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a precept. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

Where in that mass of garbage seed above does it describe any actual observation and experiment? Where is even a smidgen of skepticism let alone rigorous skepticism? Where are the experimental findings to argue for a God hypothesis?

So no, your seed does not in any way use science to prove creation, it uses half baked opinion, conjecture and backwards reasoning to reach a predetermined conclusion the authors were set on believing before they even set out.

 
 
MrFrost
1.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
The article is using science to prove creation

And it failed miserably.

 
 
Tacos!
1.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @1.2    2 weeks ago
this article is seeded under the wrong topic

Isn't it under "Religion and Ethics?" Seems appropriate.

 
 
devangelical
1.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.6    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
1.2.8  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  devangelical @1.2.7    2 weeks ago

I didn’t change it.  The change was theocratically imposed by those on high despite the fact that the seeded article used scientific methodology to promote his  case.  The article was reseeded over and above my objections to The contrary.  

 
 
epistte
1.2.9  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.2.8    2 weeks ago
I didn’t change it.  The change was theocratically imposed by those on high despite the fact that the seeded article used scientific methodology to promote his  case.  The article was reseeded over and above my objections to The contrary.  

What scientific methodology is being used to promote this illogical claim of god existing?

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.10  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @1.2.9    2 weeks ago
What scientific methodology is being used to promote this illogical claim of god existing?

probably the same methodology that led a priest to be the first to theorize the big bang theory.

 
 
epistte
1.2.11  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.10    2 weeks ago

That priest was a graduate of MIT, so he was extensively trained in science. He wasn't an idiot thumper. 

A professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.2.8    2 weeks ago

What scientific methodology?  The only "methodology" used  are assumption. The article has a distinct lack of real science.

 
 
lady in black
1.3  lady in black  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago

No evidence, wrong as usual

 
 
TᵢG
1.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

see TiG @16

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
1.4  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago
Take the law of gravity. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% we would all die.2

That's a frikken hilarious amount of zeroes. Did someone's key get stuck?  

Why do I have the feeling that whoever wrote that isn't all that great with math? I see that the listed reference is just to some creationist book.

That would be a very, very, very, very, very (+32 more very's) insignificant amount of anything. If gravity changed that little I doubt we'd even notice with our best instruments.

To illustrate how precise this law is, imagine stretching a tape measure across the entire universe. The tape would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches long

LOL! Inches? Try light years. The tape would be billions upon billions of light years long.

Now, imagine that we move the force of gravity one inch in either direction, the impact would be catastrophic. We would all die.

Uh huh. One inch out of billions upon billions of light years. Just one light year is something like 6 trillion miles. I'm not even going to bother with how many inches would be in billions upon billions of light years.

A change that infinitesimally small would very likely be meaningless. We damn sure wouldn't just up and die.

 
 
MrFrost
2  MrFrost    2 weeks ago
Is There Evidence For God’s Existence?

No. Never has been, never will be. 

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
2.1  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  MrFrost @2    2 weeks ago

You are looking in all the wrong places.  The universe and its creation are proof enough that God, it’s intelligent creator exists.  

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @2.1    2 weeks ago
The universe and its creation are proof enough

Wrong. There is no proof at all. You and this article are an OPINION. 

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @2.1    2 weeks ago

That's no more proof of a god than it is for fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes.  Try again!

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.3  Freefaller  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @2.1    2 weeks ago
The universe and its creation are proof enough that God, it’s intelligent creator exists.  

Actually they are proof of the non-existence of your god or anyone elses god.

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
You are looking in all the wrong places

Should I be looking outside of the infinite universe? You got a map to this magical place of wonder that PROVES 'God' created the universe? 

 
 
Eagle Averro
2.1.5  Eagle Averro  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
Should I be looking outside of the infinite universe?

E.A   Yes see any " Physics Book " or ask any one to explain " Gravity " and why they have to come up with " Multi Verse "

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Eagle Averro @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
Yes see any " Physics Book " or ask any one to explain " Gravity " and why they have to come up with " Multi Verse "

If the theory of "gravity" was that a guy named "gravity" made things fall towards the center of massive celestial bodies, I'd say you had a point. But that's not the theory of gravity, and it uses no "multi-verse" in its theorem.

"Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass. The most extreme example of this curvature of spacetime is a black hole, from which nothing—not even light—can escape once past the black hole's event horizon. However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which describes gravity as a force which causes any two bodies to be attracted to each other, with the force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

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

 
 
Eagle Averro
2.1.7  Eagle Averro  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
If the theory of "gravity"

E.A  Thank you for your " Name Game "

 But see real Physics, and how  even with the latest so called " God Particle " Muon Higgs whatever one wants to call it, it still does not answer fundamental questions as to what allowed the Big Bang, now if you want to know more ask for the reopening of the  Blog " BigBang Vs Creation " it is all written and explained there, in pure MATH! Have fun!

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Eagle Averro @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
Yes see any " Physics Book "

I have several physics books, (it's a hobby), none, not even one, mentions, "god". 

 
 
Eagle Averro
2.1.9  Eagle Averro  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.8    2 weeks ago
I have several physics books, (it's a hobby), none, not even one, mentions, "god". 

E.A  If You says so , Most of the ones I know have at least one on list   mentioned such as

, under " God Particle " have fun!

 
 
Eagle Averro
2.1.10  Eagle Averro  replied to  Eagle Averro @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

Some one fix this crappy editor!

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.11  Freefaller  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
Should I be looking outside of the infinite universe? You got a map to this magical place of wonder that PROVES 'God' created the universe? 

My opinion you should look in your imagination cause that's the only place magic or god exists.

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.11    2 weeks ago

Wait, magic does exist! Don't you know there are 3 hidden schools of witchcraft and wizardry, where kids Learn about magical spells, fantastic beasts, and how to ride broomsticks? jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

You mean the Higgs Boson? Not sure that's "god."

 
 
Eagle Averro
2.1.14  Eagle Averro  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.13    2 weeks ago
You mean the Higgs Boson? Not sure that's "god."

E.A I am Sure you are sure it is not, but the point was that it was referred as " God Particle " for a reason that might well be beyond the " logic " of some!

IE: Those quandaries still continue and are even more confusing because what the last Physics have shown is that the " Higgs Boson " does not have the energy level that was once thought by some, and it does not cause " Gravity " as so many " Believed and Based their whole LIFES Studies upon! "

 
 
epistte
2.1.15  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @2.1    2 weeks ago
You are looking in all the wrong places.  The universe and its creation are proof enough that God, it’s intelligent creator exists.

That is known as an argument from design or the Watchmakers Fallacy. Just because a universe exists doesn't prove that your god or the gods of 100 other religions created it.  When will you accept that belief has no place in science or logic/ 

This entire thread is a situation of "Identify the logical fallacy that XXX-for-Palin is citing". 

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
and how to ride broomsticks? 

My x-wife gives weekly classes. 

 
 
epistte
2.1.17  epistte  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.16    2 weeks ago

I should schedule an appointment to have my broom winterized.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.18  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Eagle Averro @2.1.14    2 weeks ago
but the point was that it was referred as " God Particle " for a reason that might well be beyond the " logic " of some!

"The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics, produced by the quantum excitation of the Higgs field, one of the fields in particle physics theory. It is named after physicist Peter Higgs, who in 1964, along with six other scientists, proposed the mechanism, which suggested the existence of such a particle. Its existence was confirmed by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations based on collisions in the LHC at CERN.

On December 10, 2013, two of the physicists, Peter Higgs and François Englert, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their theoretical predictions. Although Higgs's name has come to be associated with this theory, several researchers between about 1960 and 1972 independently developed different parts of it.

In mainstream media the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle", from a 1993 book on the topic, although the nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, including Higgs himself, who regard it as sensationalistic."

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

So dumb ass believers and a small number of ignorant media who are trying to come up with headlines called it the "God Particle", no one else. Is that really the "reason" you want to hang your hat on? Click bait?

 
 
Eagle Averro
2.1.19  Eagle Averro  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.18    2 weeks ago
So dumb ass believers and a small number of ignorant media who are trying to come up with headlines called it the "God Particle", no one else. Is that really the "reason" you want to hang your hat on? Click bait?

E.A  You seem to know what is in My Mind so YOU tell us!

Say Was there Gravity before the Theoretical BigBang?

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.20  Freefaller  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
Don't you know there are 3 hidden schools of witchcraft and wizardry, where kids Learn about magical spells, fantastic beasts, and how to ride broomsticks? 

Got me to thinking. Ya know in a thousand or so years with a few wars, massive indoctrination, severe tortures and punishments and of course some good PR maybe we could create a new religion out of that series.

At the very least it would be more fun than the currently popular fictional beliefs

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.21  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.20    2 weeks ago

I doubt you would even need torture. Just make the religion fun and people might come to on their own. After all, who wouldn't want to believe thet can cast magic spells. Maybe we can build our own "ark" full of displays of  fantastical beasts and get less than intelligent city or state legislatures to pay for it. 

 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.22  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Eagle Averro @2.1.19    2 weeks ago
Say Was there Gravity before the Theoretical BigBang?

if your asking did things fall down before that catholic priest first theorized the big bang theory?

of course :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 
 
Eagle Averro
2.1.23  Eagle Averro  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.22    2 weeks ago
did things fall down

E.A  lol ,, yes and what the " Devout Factionalist " do not want to comprehend is that complexity of ANY BigBang, let alone that one, and how critical GRAVITY is,, so if you want to chat about it please go right ahead! Fall all Over   Roll all you want!! 

But never mistake Centripetal with centrifugal as they DO!!!

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.24  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @2.1.14    2 weeks ago

The "God Particle" is just a nickname, and a misnomer at that. You're really grasping at straws if you think the name itself has any significance. You seem to be reading into a name just a little too much.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.25  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Eagle Averro @2.1.23    2 weeks ago
Devout Factionalist

What the hell is that?  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.26  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Eagle Averro @2.1.14    2 weeks ago
Higgs Boson " does not have the energy level that was once thought by some, and it does not cause " Gravity " as so many " Believed and Based their whole LIFES Studies upon! "

Whenever the science-ignorant try to wade in on science like this, hilarity is sure to follow. Thanks for the best laugh since "devout factionalist"  so far today.   You're on a comedic roll. 

 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

This, from "jesus isn't fake news" web site.. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea, I am sure they are all science based and factual. This is like using the bible to prove the existence of 'god'.. Holy crap, that's hilarious. 

 
 
MrFrost
4  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

Why would god created an infinite universe, and plop humans on one insignificant rock on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy? Why all the extra space? 

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
4.1  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  MrFrost @4    2 weeks ago

What makes you think we are alone or His only intelligent creation?  

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1    2 weeks ago
What makes you think we are alone

Actually I don't, and I participate in the SETI @ home project. But why would god make other beings so far away that even if we did know they were there, would literally take us millions of years to get there? Why not put them close, so we could, I don't know, actually communicate in some way with them? 

Your theory that god created the universe is so full of holes it's scary. 

 
 
cjcold
4.1.2  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

I also know folk at SETI and believe in their mission. God doesn't enter into my idea of infinity.

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1    2 weeks ago

We are probably not alone. But that doesn't mean there's a god . There's just no evidence of one.

 
 
Eagle Averro
4.1.4  Eagle Averro  replied to  cjcold @4.1.2    2 weeks ago
I also know folk at SETI and believe in their mission. God doesn't enter into my idea of infinity.

E.A  and Yet SETI and Most Scifi, is reliant on " God " before Jumping the gun ask for the " definition of God " according to them!

IE: Entities Far more advanced then HUMANS of Earth, Able to terraform and seed lifeforms!

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

"Advanced entities"  does not equate to a deity, especially the idea of a biblical god being touted as the "creator " of the universe. 

 
 
Eagle Averro
4.1.6  Eagle Averro  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
"Advanced entities"  does not equate to a deity,

E.A One only for You!:::

 And  " We " are to take YOUR  word for this " Revelation "

The Last I Spock with those that SET Up SETI, they said " Any Advanced Civilization that can terraform and seed life to that Life it be as if a " God " so you go and argue with them!

 As to SciFi, How many different series finish with " The Possibility of Nirvana " that ios another way of saying " we have attained to a status of being gods "?

As to any " Thinking Person " who can  know the " Unknowns "?

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
4.1.7  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

We are the only world with intelligent beings God created that actually fell to the deception of Lucifer and his 1/3 of the angels who were expelled from Heaven with him.  We will have no contact with any of Gods created beings from around the universe until after the 2nd coming.  

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

That's nice. Prove it! 

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

Apparently you use the term "god" more loosely. 

 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Eagle Averro @4.1.6    2 weeks ago
The Last I Spock with those that SET Up SETI

Don't take Spock's name in vain.

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  cjcold @4.1.2    2 weeks ago
I also know folk at SETI and believe in their mission.

Well, I cannot claim to KNOW people that work there, but it is a worthy project. With the same infrastructure they also looks for cures to cancer, etc.. 

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1.7    2 weeks ago
We are the only world with intelligent beings

You can prove that, right? 

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
4.1.13  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.8    2 weeks ago

You and Bertrand and many others will receive your proof together.  

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
4.1.14  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.12    2 weeks ago

I wouldn’t try to because I never said that.  

 
 
MrFrost
4.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1.14    2 weeks ago

I quoted what you posted, so yea, you kinda did say that. 

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
4.1.16  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.15    2 weeks ago

You quoted part of what I said, leaving out the part that clearly contradicts what you said that I said. [Deleted]

[I
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1.13    2 weeks ago

Still have nothing but irrational and emotional based rhetoric I see!

 
 
epistte
4.1.18  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.10    2 weeks ago
Don't take Spock's name in vain.

That deserves to be on a bumper sticker.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1.13    2 weeks ago
You and Bertrand and many others will receive your proof together.

Ah yes, the last refuge of those who can't produce an actual brother bigger than someone else who's supposedly going to beat up your dissenters, the old "You're gonna get it someday! Just you wait!"...

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
4.1.20  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.19    2 weeks ago

It’s a fate I wish upon no one but too many will sadly choose to not believe no matter what is presented as evidence.  Blessed are those who having not seen yet believe.  

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.21  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1.20    2 weeks ago
Blessed are those who having not seen yet believe.

Parents: "Hey, would you jump off a bridge just because your friend does it?"

Religious parent: "Hey, jump off this bridge, an invisible man in the sky told me to tell you to do it..."

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1.20    2 weeks ago

When you can prove that nonsense you spew, then maybe we'll consider believing it. Until then, believing nonsense without proof isn't blessed. It's delusional.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.22    2 weeks ago
When you can prove that nonsense you spew, then maybe we'll consider believing it.

Nay-say all you want, his implausible "Squish your head" thumb and forefinger death trap technology is almost perfected. Now all he has to do is get you within his visual pinch range and your head will go "Pop!". Ignore his mystically inspired ravings at your own peril!

 
 
Gordy327
4.1.24  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.23    2 weeks ago

And nay say I shall until proof is provided.

 
 
TᵢG
4.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1.20    2 weeks ago
It’s a fate I wish upon no one but too many will sadly choose to not believe no matter what is presented as evidence.

This is pure projection.   By the very definition of faith, religious beliefs are not based on evidence.   There is no evidence for a God - certainly none for the Abrahamic God - indeed, quite the opposite.    You have presented this seed as evidence for God yet this seed consists of two philosophical arguments (flawed as I noted @8) and a bunch of mere non-sequitur claims.   

To wit, you have not presented evidence of God - not even close.   Nothing whatsoever.   And you must realize this, yet you proudly claim you have nonetheless.   jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif   

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.26  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1    2 weeks ago
What makes you think we are alone or His only intelligent creation?  

The sentence is an example of self-negation. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.27  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
Your theory that god created the universe is so full of holes it's scary. 

Hey, was that an entendre double?  Cuz, like the universe IS full of holes---get it?  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.28  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

And, with that, Jesus weeps. 

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
4.1.29  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.27    2 weeks ago

I've completed the fence painting Sensei,

Wax on wax off....what's Next?

 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.30  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @4.1.29    2 weeks ago

Perhaps a bath and don't forget to use soap again.

 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

Why would god create MACS J1149+2223? 

 
 
cjcold
5.1  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @5    2 weeks ago

Watched Contact with Jody Foster last night. The Sagan book was better. 

 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  cjcold @5.1    2 weeks ago

No arguments here! 

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
6  seeder  Xxjefferson#51    2 weeks ago

Specific complex designs do not come to be by accident through natural causes.  The universe and the living human body both are far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.  

 
 
Gordy327
6.1  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @6    2 weeks ago

Thats an argument from ignorance fallacy. 

 
 
TᵢG
6.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1    2 weeks ago

... and an argument from incredulity.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @6    2 weeks ago
 The universe and the living human body both are far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.  

And an intelligent designer is far too complex to have come to be except through creation by an immortal galactic spirit bunny...

How you can't see the flaw in that argument is truly a wonderment. 

 
 
epistte
6.3  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @6    2 weeks ago
Specific complex designs do not come to be by accident through natural causes.  The universe and the living human body both are far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.  

What parts of the human body are so complex that they require an intelligent designer to exist? 

 
 
TᵢG
6.4  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @6    2 weeks ago
The universe and the living human body both are far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.  

By that reasoning:  God is far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.

 
 
epistte
6.4.1  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @6.4    2 weeks ago
By that reasoning:  God is far too complex to have come to be except by creation by an intelligent designer.

Since someone cannot will themselves into existence, the logical question is "who created God"? 

 
 
Gordy327
6.4.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.4    2 weeks ago

Oh TiG, there you go using logic and reasoning in a clearly illogical and unreasonable article. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @6    2 weeks ago
Specific complex designs do not come to be by accident through natural causes.

Yet,, that is precisely how they "come to be." Although, "accident" is, of course, not the scientific term for that process.  It's called randomness. Even the slightest acquaintance with the sciences would have taught you that. 

 
 
Gordy327
6.5.1  Gordy327  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.5    2 weeks ago

Who said he was aquainted with science? His posts on scientific matters and principles makes it abundantly clear he has no understanding of actual science. He seems to think belief equates to science.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.5.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Gordy327 @6.5.1    2 weeks ago
Who said he was aquainted with science?

  I'm sure he must have been in some science class at some point in his very deficient education but his mind was so stuffed with god blather none of it took.  

 
 
Gordy327
6.5.3  Gordy327  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.5.2    2 weeks ago

In other words,  he might have bothered to show up for class, but that's about it. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.5.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Gordy327 @6.5.3    2 weeks ago

Precisely

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    2 weeks ago

I really wish Noah would have put the dinosaurs on the ark.

320

 
 
TᵢG
7.1  TᵢG  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    2 weeks ago
I really wish Noah would have put the dinosaurs on the ark.

The YECs believe he did.

 
 
MrFrost
7.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    2 weeks ago
The YECs believe he did.

They also think The Flintstones is a documentary. 

 
 
epistte
7.1.2  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    2 weeks ago

A dingbat preacher claims that civil war soldiers fought dinosaurs. 

http://www.theweek.co.uk/odd-news/96736/preacher-claims-us-civil-war-soldiers-fought-dinosaurs

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    2 weeks ago
The YECs believe he did.

What I find funny is that some researchers have concluded that the mass of the 70,000 animals that would have needed to be on the ark just barely could have been kept afloat by the ark dimensions described in the bible. But those are based on existing animals. If you add extinct animals or dinosaurs it makes it physically impossible to have stayed afloat for even two minutes let alone forty days and forty nights. So one could say, YEC's sink their own hypothesis...

 
 
TᵢG
7.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

The ark would have sunk without a single animal on board.   It was supposedly made of wood.   At those dimensions, modern engineering (hell, even ancient ship-building knowledge) shows the ark would have twisted at sea -springing leaks- and sunk.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
7.2  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    2 weeks ago

I’m glad that God did not let them on the ark. 

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @7.2    2 weeks ago
I’m glad that God did not let them on the ark

E.A   Just a little interesting side note::

 How many of ALL life forms could survive ON the Oceans without the need to be ON/IN the ark?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @7.2    2 weeks ago
I’m glad that God did not let them on the ark. 

But your YEC compadres claim that the ark did have dinosaurs:  Dinosaurs on the Ark

Ken Ham would be very disappointed if one of his Young Earth Creationist kinsmen did not 'correctly' take the Bible literally.

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.1    2 weeks ago

How many ocean species would become  extinct if the amount of fresh water rainfall (enough to cover and submerge all landmasses) diluted the salinity of the oceans? Of course, logical points like that often fall on deaf ears of creationists or biblical literalists.

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @7.2    2 weeks ago

Well known YEC Ken Hamm sure believes dinosaurs were on the ark. What makes your belief right? Certainly not fossil or geological evidence.

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.5  Eagle Averro  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.3    2 weeks ago
logical points like that often fall on deaf ears

E.A Yes I have noticed as IF the salinity would not  change with evaporation!!!!

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.5    2 weeks ago

Salinity would change with the sheer volume of fresh water entering the oceans. Evaporation of the water would also take years. And where would all that water go? That amount of evaporation would cause a cloud cover of the planet and block out the sun.

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.7  Eagle Averro  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.6    2 weeks ago
s. And where would all that water go?

E.A   So Much for your " Understanding of the Bible " Why not read it and find out?!

IE: It makes Clear where the " Water Came from " and it also make Clear " where the water went " :-)

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.7    2 weeks ago

Fairy tales is hardly indicative of reality or rationality. 

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.9  Eagle Averro  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.8    2 weeks ago
Fairy tales is hardly indicative of reality or rationality

E.A I agree absolutely  like that a BigBang Brought about " Something out of Nothing " and the Laughable mater then " Dust bunnies "  Melted and Formed Solid  form. ( See how they can still not explain Protoplanet Formation ALL Faith No Science )

And that some " Magical Electrical ZAP "  Caused Over 400 Proteins and Some Magical Number of LEFT spinning ONLY Amino Acids to form a " Single Life " form and it Magically Procreated, even Amoebas would Laugh at that one !!! 

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.10  Eagle Averro  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.6    2 weeks ago
That amount of evaporation would cause a cloud cover of the planet and block out the sun.

E.A   LOL     as I said Read the BIBLE LOL::

 For that is exactly what it Says about " Water Above   … and water … "   so much for Knowing what one critics on!! :-))

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.10    2 weeks ago

As I said, fairy tales does not equate to reality or rationality. 

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
7.2.12  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.2    2 weeks ago

There is no evidence of any dinosaur on earth post flood.  I don’t believe that God directed them to the ark. Mr. Ham and I disagree on that. 

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.13  Eagle Averro  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.11    2 weeks ago
not equate to reality or rationality. 

E.A  You got That part right, but ,,, but …

 LOL Thanks for the laughs I have had enough for now, remember what was said " Laughter is the best Medicine " till next time I need a Laugh!!

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif  Keep digging :-)

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.13    2 weeks ago

More like I have all parts right. You, not so much. Especially when you use circular reasoning. Now that's funny.

 
 
epistte
7.2.15  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @7.2    2 weeks ago
I’m glad that God did not let them on the ark.

Do you believe that dinosaurs existed 6000 years ago?

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.16  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @7.2.12    2 weeks ago

Again, what makes your beliefs more valid or true than Mr. Hamm's?

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @7.2.12    2 weeks ago
There is no evidence of any dinosaur on earth post flood.

Indeed.   There is no evidence of any dinosaur living 10,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago (well before the YEC Earth was created) or 1,000,000 years ago or even 10,000,000 years ago.  They went extinct 65 million (65,000,000) years ago.

I don’t believe that God directed them to the ark. Mr. Ham and I disagree on that. 

You dare think Ham might possibly be wrong about this?   His world is rather replete with dinosaurs coexisting with humans.   He and countless millions of YECs are teaching their children that all the various species of dinosaurs evolved from a pair of baby dinosaurs from the ark.   

You are quite correct that there is no evidence of a dinosaur living 5,000 years ago.   So a good piece of evidence and a good conclusion that no dinosaurs were around after the alleged ark.   But why accept the 5,000 year findings of science and reject the 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 or indeed the 65,000,000 findings of science?   

 
 
epistte
7.2.18  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.3    2 weeks ago
How many ocean species would become  extinct if the amount of fresh water rainfall (enough to cover and submerge all landmasses) diluted the salinity of the oceans? Of course, logical points like that often fall on deaf ears of creationists or biblical literalists.

Where did the flood water drain away to for the landmasses to be exposed again? The atmosphere was obviously already saturated and it would take millions of years for that amount of water to trickle down into aquifers. 

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.19  Eagle Averro  replied to  epistte @7.2.18    2 weeks ago
Where did the flood water drain away

E.A   Ahhh Another one that critics what it has not read, while claiming to know it all about it, I wonder why??

HINT: And the Land rose out of the …..   

 and what was that Ancient Elephant species discovered with food still in its mouth all frozen, indicating " Instant Freezing.:]"   that type to " Climatic Shock " would to what for the polar regions  just a thought  for the " 90% Sarcasm 10 % .. " club!!

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.19    2 weeks ago

Rising land masses is the result of tectonic activity, and also requires millions of years. Once again, your biblical based explanations are not only irrational and illogical, they are refuted by actual science.

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.21  Eagle Averro  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.20    2 weeks ago
they are refuted by actual science.

E.A  Yes thanks I am sure ALL readers would have noticed who gave answers worthy of thought and who avoided answering ALL of the Science questions Posed, well done  ~

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.22  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.21    2 weeks ago

The only one avoiding science here is you and Xx. Here's a tip: the bible is not a science book. Neither is it's fairy tales reality.

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.19    2 weeks ago

You might want to inform whatever translation program you're using that "critic" isn't a verb.

 
 
pat wilson
7.2.24  pat wilson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.23    2 weeks ago

Not to mention referring to another member as "it". Rather crude.

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.25  Eagle Averro  replied to  pat wilson @7.2.24    2 weeks ago
Not to mention referring to another member as "it". Rather crude.

E.A Interesting!!!   But     ….

 Actually in a Lot of Countries now one is not allowed to use a " Gender specific term " for if gender is unknow or unwanted, what is the " gender Neutral " term ?

 
 
epistte
7.2.26  epistte  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.19    2 weeks ago
E.A   Ahhh Another one that critics what it has not read, while claiming to know it all about it, I wonder why??

HINT: And the Land rose out of the …..   

 and what was that Ancient Elephant species discovered with food still in its mouth all frozen, indicating " Instant Freezing.:]"   that type to " Climatic Shock " would to what for the polar regions  just a thought  for the " 90% Sarcasm 10 % .. " club!!

Geology doesn't work that way. Land cannot rise 40' worldwide.

 
 
epistte
7.2.27  epistte  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.21    2 weeks ago
E.A  Yes thanks I am sure ALL readers would have noticed who gave answers worthy of thought and who avoided answering ALL of the Science questions Posed, well done  ~

Say WHUT?

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.28  Eagle Averro  replied to  epistte @7.2.26    2 weeks ago
Geology doesn't work that way. Land cannot rise 40' worldwide.

E.A  " World Wide " LOL and who said that, and offcourse the " 90% Sarcasm and 10% " Club would know it all right?

 
 
pat wilson
7.2.29  pat wilson  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.25    2 weeks ago
Actually in a Lot of Countries now one is not allowed to use a " Gender specific term " for if gender is unknow or unwanted,

I've travelled a bit and know that in France, Italy, Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica they absolutely use gender specific terms. Please tell us in which countries "one is not allowed to use a "gender specific term" "? 

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.2.30  Eagle Averro  replied to  pat wilson @7.2.29    2 weeks ago
I've travelled a bit and know that in France, Italy, Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica they absolutely use gender specific terms.

E.A  " A Bit " of yesterday, does nothing for today and tomorrow, the net is your friend search and find!

 
 
epistte
7.2.31  epistte  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.28    2 weeks ago
E.A  " World Wide " LOL and who said that, and offcourse the " 90% Sarcasm and 10% " Club would know it all right?

Since the Earth was covered worldwide with 40' of water, all of the land would have to rise 40'. That isn't geologically possible, especially in the space of 2000 years. 

 
 
pat wilson
7.2.32  pat wilson  replied to  Eagle Averro @7.2.30    2 weeks ago

I've just returned from two of these countries. I know my comment to be accurate. Please answer my question, which countries do not allow "one to use a " Gender specific term " ?

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.33  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  epistte @7.2.31    2 weeks ago
Since the Earth was covered worldwide with 40' of water

I thought it was supposed to be enough to cover mountains. That's how the Young Earthers say seashell fossils got up there, right? 

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.34  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @7.2.12    2 weeks ago
There is no evidence of any dinosaur on earth post flood.  I don’t believe that God directed them to the ark. Mr. Ham and I disagree on that. 

Help me out here. How old is the Earth, and when did the flood occur?

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.35  Gordy327  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.33    2 weeks ago

YECs can't even keep their myths straight. Some can't even agree with dinosaurs on the Ark or not. Watching them stumble over their own toes is rather amusing though. 

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.34    2 weeks ago

You will not get an answer, but yes Xxjefferson#51 has stated that he is a YEC.

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.38  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.36    2 weeks ago

I was just wondering if he agreed with Ken Ham on the dates, because according to Ham, the Earth is 6021 years old, and the flood happened in 2348 BC.

That puts it about 200 years after the Great Pyramid was built (which was somewhere around 2570 BC), right at the end of the Fifth Dynasty.

How dumb can these people be? The world wasn't wiped clean in 2348 BC. The Sixth Dynasty started right after the Fifth ended in about 2345 BC, and Egypt was still there. Everything else was still there, too. Don't these people know that recorded history actually goes back that far? Information is sparse, but it's there. Obviously, there was no long break in civilization after the Fifth Dynasty during which Noah's kids incestuously repopulated the planet (the animals on the Ark, too).

Hell, for that matter, there were no dinosaurs roaming around Egypt before the flood. If there were, they would have surely had dinosaur gods and dinosaur hieroglyphs (as I'm sure you know, the Egyptian pantheon was nature-based, and gods were often depicted in animal form). There's no way they would have missed some of the biggest and most ferocious beasts ever to walk the Earth. Hell, some of the slower herbivores might have even made great beasts of burden for pyramid construction. :)

YEC is about as dumb as it gets. Absolute, unadulterated bullshit.

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.38    2 weeks ago

YEC is the epitome of anti-critical-thinking.   People like Ken Ham make statements and the flock basically accepts it without using their minds.

Ham, for example, dismisses the old Earth by saying science cannot possibly know the age of the Earth because none of the scientists were there.   Yes, the only real science per Ham is what we can observe today.  He likes to note that artifacts do not have birthdate labels attached to them.  He goes on to say that there is a solution.   He asserts God was there and God tells us the age of the Earth in the Bible (referring now to the analysis of 17th century Archbishop Ussher who calculated the age of the Earth from the Bible).

Other historical records are also dismissed if they do not correlate with the Bible.  So you can just toss out your Egyptian history because none of that is the word of God.


If I did not observe human beings engage in such reasoning I would have never believed it possible.   But 10% or so of the USA accepts this nonsense as truth.   The YECs are my prime example of serious, organized dumbing down of the younger generations.

 
 
epistte
7.2.40  epistte  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.38    2 weeks ago

I'll just leave this here for other's amusement,

Stonehenge is perhaps the world’s most famous prehistoric monument. It was built in several stages: the first monument was an early henge monument, built about 5,000 years ago, and the unique stone circle was erected in the late Neolithic period about 2500 BC. In the early Bronze Age many burial mounds were built nearby.
 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.41  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.39    2 weeks ago
He goes on to say that there is a solution.   He asserts God was there and God tells us the age of the Earth in the Bible

I remember him doing that in the Bill Nye debate. "I've got this book..."

How I wish Bill had asked him about the date of the flood, and then said something like, "2348? What about Egypt? We have a record of Pharaohs going back farther than that. No flood." 

If I did not observe human beings engage in such reasoning I would have never believed it possible.

Me either. I still can't believe that people go to Ham's Creation Museum and Ark Experience...and claim to actually believe what they see! They're on YouTube doing it. It's astonishing.

The sickest thing I've seen on YouTube having to do with Ken Ham is a clip of him in front of a theater full of little children, mocking evolution and indoctrinating them with his bullshit. It's disgusting. I don't remember where I saw it or I'd link it.

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
7.2.42  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  epistte @7.2.40    2 weeks ago

I thought about referencing Stonehenge, but ancient Britain lacks the detailed chronological record that ancient Egypt has.

I guess I could always just say, "I've got his book, it's called Sarum."

Nah... :)

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.43  TᵢG  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @7.2.41    2 weeks ago
How I wish Bill had asked him about the date of the flood, and then said something like, "2348? What about Egypt?

He would have glibly responded that he admits he is a Christian and that he holds the Bible divine.  Basically he dismisses anything that contradicts the Bible.  

How do you debate 'la la la ... I cannot hear you'?

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.44  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.43    2 weeks ago

Or how can one debate close minded delusion?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.45  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.44    2 weeks ago
Or how can one debate close minded delusion?

I've seen lots of conservatives speak slower and raise their volume when they're trying to communicate with someone who doesn't speak English. Maybe all we need to do is just start speaking slowly and loudly as if they're mostly deaf and dumb (the latter being self evident) and start with "THE... EARTH... IS... FOUR.... AND .... A....HALF....BILLION ....YEARS ....OLD.....OKAY? ....IF.....YOU .....UNDERSTAND.....ME..... BLINK..... TWICE....".

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.46  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.45    2 weeks ago

That might still be too complicated. 

 
 
TᵢG
7.2.47  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.44    2 weeks ago

Clearly there is no debate.   One can counter religious declarations with science and logic and in many cases, such as right here, the response is empty platitudes.   Not even a hint of intellectual discourse.   Then in other cases when an attempt is actually made to intellectually support the religious claim, the debate quickly devolves into emotion.   Understandably, I suppose, because it must be frustrating to try to defend a belief based on faith sans evidence (and in many cases in spite of evidence and logic to the contrary).

 
 
Gordy327
7.2.48  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.47    2 weeks ago

So true. Notice in this thread alone how certain theists replies went straight into emotional rhetoric, including threats from their cosmic boogeyman. They seem unable to distinguish religious belief from science and simply tune out when their arguments are blown out of the water with actual science or when they're challenged to support their beliefs and assertions. I've always said there is a distinct lack of intellectual integrity from them and this article and the theistic/emotional based replies only reinforces that assessment.

 
 
TᵢG
8  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

These are philosophical arguments - they are not evidence.   That said, these arguments are valid but not sound.   Here is why:

Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that Begins to Exist has a Cause

True.  That which BEGINS to exist would have a cause.   

Clearly existence itself is true as evidenced by our presence.   And existence cannot emerge from nothing (talking about pure nothing now - nothing at all).   This means that existence is eternal.   There is your uncaused cause - existence itself.    If you wish to call existence itself 'God' then join the pantheists in making a sound declaration.

Bottom line, premise one simply states that something is eternal.   I agree.   Something must be eternal.

2. The Universe Began to Exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a Cause

Yes.  The fact that the universe began to exist means that the universe is the effect of a cause.   The cause, however, is not necessarily sentient.

NOTE:   The universe has a cause is the only conclusion.   This argument does not establish the cause as sentient.

Teleological Argument

1. All Designs have a Designer

By definition of the word 'design'.   If you say something is designed you are stipulating that the thing was conceived by sentient intent.   

2. The Universe has a Complex Design

Unsubstantiated claim.   You must prove that the universe was designed.    I agree the universe is complex (as human beings define complexity) but not that our universe was designed because you offer no evidence that the universe was designed.

3. Therefore, the Universe has a Designer

Conclusion is not possible because of unproven assertion above.


Based on these two arguments alone (and there are more), we learn that whatever caused our universe to come into existence must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent, and purposeful.

These two argument fail to demonstrate that our universe was created (simply asserted it).   Further this entire seed does not establish the cause to be spaceless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent or purposeful.   The only supported attribute of the above is timeless.   The author simply states the desired conclusion while failing miserably to support the conclusion.

 
 
lennylynx
9  lennylynx    2 weeks ago

Even if there is a supreme supernatural entity that judges us, a completely insane hypothesis with no basis whatsoever in reality or even reasonableness, I reject completely that this being would care if we believed it existed or not.  The way Christians portray their God as this angry, petty, insecure being who needs our approval, is a blatant blasphemy against it.

 
 
TᵢG
9.1  TᵢG  replied to  lennylynx @9    2 weeks ago

Agreed.   I have oft noted that the Bible is actually rather good evidence that the God it describes does NOT exist.

 
 
Gordy327
9.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.1    2 weeks ago

It's too bad creationists and other theists don't want to hear that. They seem to prefer something that echos their own beliefs or caters to their emotional needs.

 
 
Eagle Averro
9.2  Eagle Averro  replied to  lennylynx @9    2 weeks ago
I reject completely that this being

E.A why would that " Being you mentioned " care about what you think?

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
9.3  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  lennylynx @9    2 weeks ago
The way Christians portray their God as this angry, petty, insecure being who needs our approval, is a blatant blasphemy against it.

Nah. It's not blasphemy. The first four commandments are all about that. Bill Maher did a bit about it last night. 

:)

 
 
Eagle Averro
10  Eagle Averro    2 weeks ago
(deleted)
 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Eagle Averro @10    2 weeks ago
I wonder is this is evidence of Creation or Evolution?

E.A " I wonder IF  " this was corrected But, But,, have I said this elsewhere, could it be the same " but " with the same " editor "?

 
 
epistte
10.2  epistte  replied to  Eagle Averro @10    2 weeks ago
I wonder is this is evidence of Creation or Evolution?

 One states " You Sin you will Die "  and the other states " DNA Critical point of CD4 T Cells brings about Apoptosis "  One says much the same as the other, right?

So fighting against it, is it environmental anarchy?

Anal sex is not limited to gay men. There are far more hetrerosexual couples that take part in anal sex than the 2% of gay/bi men.   Do you desire to create the buttsecks police to keep us safe from AIDS?  Will they also get their own version of COPS TV show?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.2.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  epistte @10.2    2 weeks ago
Anal sex is not limited to gay men

E.A   Who has this Anal Sex fixation??

 But now that YOU brought it up the CDC puts it at what " High Risk " activity list?

AND, lets not forget do only Males have anuses?

 
 
epistte
10.2.2  epistte  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.2.1    2 weeks ago
E.A   Who has this Anal Sex fixation??

 But now that YOU brought it up the CDC puts it at what " High Risk " activity list?

AND, lets not forget do only Males have anuses?

How exactly do heterosexual couples take part in anal sex if you believe that I hinted that only men have an anus? The next sentance is not "family friendly", so I'll save Perrie the effort of purple inking it and just stop here.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  epistte @10.2    2 weeks ago
Will they also get their own version of COPS TV show?

"Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come on you..."

A certain someones obsession with anal sechs makes me wonder, is this just another case of "the lady doth protest, too much, me thinks"..?

 
 
MrFrost
10.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.2.1    2 weeks ago
AND, lets not forget do only Males have anuses?

WTF?! 

 
 
MrFrost
10.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  epistte @10.2    2 weeks ago

800

 
 
Skrekk
10.3  Skrekk  replied to  Eagle Averro @10    2 weeks ago
The vast majority of new cases in China were transmitted through sexual activity.

Somehow you manage to twist any topic into something about butt sechs.    That's a very weird obsession you've got.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.3.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Skrekk @10.3    2 weeks ago
Somehow you manage to twist any topic into something about butt sechs.    That's a very weird obsession you've got.

E.A  Thank YOU, for making it so obvious what Bigotry does!

 So tell me did I add that line or was it part of the Article Posted?

 
 
lennylynx
10.3.2  lennylynx  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.3.1    2 weeks ago

Don't worry about Skrekk's criticism, EA, there is nothing wrong with being obsessed with butt sex, nothing at all! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.4  Eagle Averro  replied to  Eagle Averro @10    2 weeks ago
were transmitted through

E.A  So how save are those around carriers?

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1h
aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1h
Credit: Shutterstock

After a 4-year-old boy in Portugal was diagnosed with HIV, the biggest question was how he got the infection.

His mother, for example, didn't have it (women with HIV can pass the virus to babies). An investigation revealed a surprising source: leaky blisters on the boy's father's skin.

While it's well-known that a mother can pass HIV to her child during pregnancy and childbirth, transmission from father to child is very rare. The new report, published Sept. 20 in the journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, describes one of the few documented cases of this happening, the authors said.

 
 
MrFrost
10.5  MrFrost  replied to  Eagle Averro @10    2 weeks ago

Such a kind an loving 'god' that would create a virus that kills so indiscriminately. 

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  MrFrost @10.5    2 weeks ago
Such a kind an loving 'god' that would create a virus that kills so indiscriminately.

E.A Yes Indeed and Jesus called " The God of this World " also as " The Father of the Lie " and if you want to know what His Father and His Angels will do with this " god " read Revelations!

Shame so many have been Fooled by this " Father of the Lie " to think of " Wolfs in Sheeps Clothing " and  Followers of the Creator God!

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.2  Eagle Averro  replied to  MrFrost @10.5    2 weeks ago
create a virus that kills so indiscriminately

E.A  So tell me " you god " evolution and Apoptosis, how does that fit in?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.3  Eagle Averro  replied to  MrFrost @10.5    2 weeks ago
kills so indiscriminately

E.A  " Indiscriminately " having reading or comprehension problems?? 1-4 % of populace 74 - 96 % of pathogens and deaths, does that sound indiscriminate?

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.4  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.5.2    2 weeks ago

So tell me, how is evolution a "god" exactly? 

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.5  Eagle Averro  replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.4    2 weeks ago
So tell me, how is evolution a "god" exactly? 

E.A say pretty please and I will consider explaining the Basics!

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.5.1    2 weeks ago
if you want to know what His Father and His Angels will do with this " god " read Revelations!

Why do you refer us to a book of fairy tales for predictions?

Absurd.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.7  Eagle Averro  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.6    2 weeks ago
Why do you refer us to a book of fairy tales for predictions? Absurd.

E.A  Lets see:

  Ahhh yes I was asked about that " Book " and it seems this seed is about that also!

 But why does it bother you so, I mean I spoke about Star Wars and Star Trek, did that bothered you also?

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.8  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.5.5    2 weeks ago

In other words, you have nothing and are just spewing your usual BS! Got it.

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.5.7    2 weeks ago
Ahhh yes I was asked about that " Book "

No, you weren't.  You were asked about a "loving" god who makes killer pathogens.

You didn't speak about Star Trek.  You just couldn't spell "spoke" correctly.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.10  Eagle Averro  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.9    2 weeks ago
No, you weren't.  You were asked about a "loving" god who makes killer pathogens. You didn't speak about Star Trek.  You just couldn't spell "spoke" correctly.

E.A is That a Personal Attack?

 and WHY are you fixated with Me?

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.5.10    2 weeks ago
E.A is That a Personal Attack?

How is pointing out that you misspelled "spoke" a personal attack?

And how is responding to you a few times a fixation?

If you want to talk about fixations, let's address your tendency to make almost every conversation about homosexuality and HIV.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.12  Eagle Averro  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.11    2 weeks ago
How is pointing out that you misspelled "spoke" a personal attack? And how is responding to you a few times a fixation?

E.A as Usual I provide that Facts::

 I did Mention Star Wars and Star Trek now that makes it as I " Spoke " about them

 Then to Your Fixation NO one else bothered to correct the Spock to Spoke but YOU

 Why would of all the Words, all the Comments from Hundreds of people here over that time frame, someone guess who! just " happen " to pick that " misspelling "?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.13  Eagle Averro  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.11    2 weeks ago
If you want to talk about fixations, let's address your tendency to make almost every conversation about homosexuality and HIV.

E.A Interesting,, so for over a decade you followed me around, and all you learned is what I say about HIV?

 That be a terrible Fail, so tell me that article from China what was that about?

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.5.12    2 weeks ago
Then to Your Fixation NO one else bothered to correct the Spock to Spoke but YOU

Your translation program's failings are not my responsibility.

Or did you intend to use "Spock" as a verb incorrectly, as you have repeatedly used "critic" as a verb incorrectly?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.15  Eagle Averro  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.9    2 weeks ago
No, you weren't.  You were asked about a "loving" god who makes killer pathogens.

E.A  Am I the topic?

 I responded to a Question asked, you did what?

 Can you read the questioners Mind and Mine?

 Did you comment on the Seeded topic, or on an individual?

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.5.13    2 weeks ago
all you learned is what I say about HIV?

I choose my sources of information carefully.  I've learned much, from those actually in a position to impart information.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.5.17  Eagle Averro  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.14    2 weeks ago
Your translation program's failings are not my responsibility. Or did you intend to use "Spock" as a verb incorrectly, as you have repeatedly used "critic" as a verb incorrectly?

E.A    END  with your and Your Fixation as you have well demonstrated here,, you do " personal attacks " on an individuals spelling and gramar, and not commenting on the Topic or seed!

IE: Critic' is what it is!

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.5.17    2 weeks ago

Every time you used "critic" incorrectly, it was in a personal attack on another NTer.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
10.5.19  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.4    2 weeks ago

It’s not.  It’s nothing more than pseudoscience psychobabble.  

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
10.5.20  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  MrFrost @10.5    2 weeks ago

God didn’t create harmful bacteria and viruses.  We did. By sinning we no longer had eternal life and learned the wages of sin and the knowledge of good and evil.  Death however it occurs is a natural result of our imperfect sinful nature and was not intended for us by God. The 2nd coming will result in the transformation of the saved to perfection and eternal life for the saved and destruction for everyone else.  After the judgement and all the lost join the saved in kneeling down before God the wicked will make their final charge at the New Jerusalem and be destroyed by Hell.   Then the earth will be recreated by God as it once was before sin and the flood and Eden restored here.  It is Satan that deceived humanity into blaming God for that which he caused by his rebellion.  

 
 
epistte
10.5.21  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @10.5.20    2 weeks ago
God didn’t create harmful bacteria and viruses.  We did. By sinning we no longer had eternal life and learned the wages of sin and the knowledge of good and evil.  Death however it occurs is a natural result of our imperfect sinful nature and was not intended for us by God. The 2nd coming will result in the transformation of the saved to perfection and eternal life for the saved and destruction for everyone else.  After the judgement and all the lost join the saved in kneeling down before God the wicked will make their final charge at the New Jerusalem and be destroyed by Hell.   Then the earth will be recreated by God as it once was before sin and the flood and Eden restored here.  It is Satan that deceived humanity into blaming God for that which he caused by his rebellion.  

You could not pass a high school biology course with this claim.

I assume that you do not benefit from vaccines, eat cheese, ingest antibiotics or any other products that are derived from virus' and bacteria.

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.22  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @10.5.19    2 weeks ago

Keep demonstrating your ignorance of science. jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. 

 
 
TᵢG
10.5.23  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @10.5.19    2 weeks ago
It’s [evolution] nothing more than pseudoscience psychobabble.  

Right, it is a worldwide conspiracy by evil scientists all pretending that evolution is the foundation of modern biology.   jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.24  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @10.5.21    2 weeks ago

I doubt he would pass any science course, especially given his dismal display of understanding it here.

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.25  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @10.5.20    2 weeks ago

So do tell how sin somehow creates a natural, infectious organism which causes illness? This should be quite interesting. 

 
 
epistte
10.5.26  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.22    2 weeks ago
Keep demonstrating your ignorance of science.  It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. 

It would not be difficult to convince me that some people are parodying the modern GOP base.

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.27  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @10.5.26    2 weeks ago

I doubt they're paroding. 

 
 
epistte
10.5.28  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @10.5.27    2 weeks ago
I doubt they're paroding. 

That is not a comforting thought.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
10.5.29  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  epistte @10.5.21    2 weeks ago

I could easily enough parrot what they want to hear to pass a secular pseudoscience test.  

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.30  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @10.5.29    2 weeks ago

I suppose that's what creationists do. It's not like they learn, or have any desire to learn actual science.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10.5.31  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @10.5.29    2 weeks ago
I could easily enough parrot what they want to hear to pass a secular pseudoscience test.

No.  You could not.  You don't have the faintest idea of what science is.  

 
 
TᵢG
10.5.32  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @10.5.29    2 weeks ago

What is important is to study and ultimately learn.   Anyone who thinks evolution is pseudoscience is either woefully NOT understanding the subject matter or is blindly rejecting anything that compromises their religious beliefs.

Pseudoscience is the utter nonsense proposed by YEC organizations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG).   These people offer the following explanation for dinosaurs as they stupidly try to interpret the Bible as a science book.   Note the contortions these people go through to explain dinosaurs on the ark:

When were dinosaurs created?

God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:20–25, 31). Adam and Eve were also made on Day 6—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, not separated by eons of time.

Why did the dinosaurs not eat other animals on the ark?

Originally, before sin, all animals, including the dinosaurs, were vegetarian. Genesis 1:30 states, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, which has life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.”   This means that even T. rex, before sin entered the world, ate only plants. Some people object to this by pointing to the big teeth that a large T. rex had, insisting they must have been used for attacking animals. However, just because an animal has big, sharp teeth does not mean it eats meat. It just means it has big, sharp teeth!31    Today’s world has been changed dramatically because of sin and the Curse. The present food chain and animal behavior (which also changed after the Flood—Genesis 9:2–3) cannot be used as a basis for interpreting the Bible—the Bible explains why the world is the way it is.

How did dinosaurs fit on the ark?

Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went aboard Noah’s Ark.     Recent research suggests that dinosaurs underwent rapid adolescent growth spurts.39 So it is realistic to assume that God would have sent young adults to the Ark, not fully grown creatures.

Now, observe carefully what these snake-oil-salesmen do to explain the many species of dinosaurs:

Some might argue that the 600 or more named species of dinosaurs could not have fit on the Ark. But Genesis 6:20 states that representative kinds of land animals boarded the Ark. The question then is, what is a “kind” (Hebrew: min)? Biblical creationists have pointed out that there can be many species descended from a kind. For example, there are many types of cats in the world, but all cat species probably came from only a few kinds of cats originally.40 The cat varieties today have developed by natural and artificial selection acting on the original variation in the information (genes) of the original cats. This has produced different combinations and subsets of information, and thus different types of cats.   Mutations (errors in copying of the genes during reproduction) can also contribute to the variation, but the changes caused by mutations are “downhill,” causing loss of the original information. Even speciation could occur through these processes. This speciation is not “evolution,” since it is based on the created information already present and is thus a limited, downhill process, not involving an upward increase in complexity. Thus, only a few feline pairs would have been needed on Noah’s Ark.

These despicable charlatans tacitly admit speciation because they cannot otherwise explain the species post Noah's ark.   Due to size limitations the ark could not have pairs (or more) of each species so they go with 'kind' (which equates to something like the biological classification known as 'family' or possibly 'order').   The 'kinds' are things like 'bears, rats, lizards, etc.'   So the leading Young Earth Creationist organization, Answers In Genesis, tacitly admits that the biological process of evolution is true.


So do you now realize that AiG is logically forced to recognize the science of evolution?   They deny the time period yet tacitly admit that speciation occurs.   But they still market the notion that evolution is pseudo-science because they must do so to keep the faithful in check.   They are an organization of contradictions devoted to one thing:  keeping people ignorant because that is what drives their revenue.   

The slimy deception of AiG is what is meant by the term 'pseudoscience'.

Do you ever sit down and seriously try to think any of this through?    That is, do you have anything to offer other than parroting slogans and platitudes of others?

 
 
Gordy327
10.5.33  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @10.5.32    2 weeks ago

Bravo TiG. Well said. jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10.5.34  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @10.5.20    2 weeks ago
By sinning we no longer had eternal life and learned the wages of sin and the knowledge of good and evil.

And, again, Jesus weeps. 

 
 
Tessylo
10.5.35  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.5.11    2 weeks ago
'If you want to talk about fixations, let's address your tendency to make almost every conversation about homosexuality and HIV.'

Which is exactly what he's done at the end of the comments section.  What a surprise!  

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.5.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tessylo @10.5.35    2 weeks ago

He did the same thing in his comment #10, but it was deleted.

 
 
epistte
10.5.37  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @10.5.29    2 weeks ago
I could easily enough parrot what they want to hear to pass a secular pseudoscience test.  

1.) All science is secular because belief has no place in the scientific method. 

2.) Intelligent design is pseudoscience because it rejects the scientific method in favor of the religious belief in Genesis.

 
 
Eagle Averro
11  Eagle Averro    2 weeks ago

Evolution OR Creation

#10 Eagle Averro

One does have to wonder tho::

 Now that China can watch and see how the US of A has dealt or failed to, for over 50 Years, how a simple Epidemic has become a Pandemic, how they will deal with it!

 
 
Eagle Averro
12  Eagle Averro    2 weeks ago

There Is a Rogue Group of Stars Behaving Very Suspiciously in the Milky Way's Disk

By Brandon Specktor, Live Science Senior Write

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kv

Did an ancient encounter with a nearby galaxy throw millions of Milky Way stars out of alignment? Astronomers investigate in a new study.

Credit: ESA

E.A  " Very Suspiciously " As if we know it all, but wait some on NT do KNOW it all!! 

 Say Any one seen the Photo I posted a few years back to Michael Astronomy FM, If you did you might recall that " We have NEVER Been in this LOCATION Before, so what DO we know again?

 
 
Eagle Averro
12.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Eagle Averro @12    2 weeks ago
what DO we know again?

E.A  A Direct Quote so READ the article!!! 

According to the researchers, one possible explanation is that a smaller, satellite galaxy swooped past the Milky Way sometime during that period, and the visitor's considerable gravity accidentally tugged the affected stars out of step "

 "Possible explanation" does that mean they have many points of Faith that they wish that at least ONE would be True?

 
 
Eagle Averro
12.1.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Eagle Averro @12.1    2 weeks ago
points of Faith

E.A  Is Faith and Believe  closely related?

Scientists now believe that our galaxy is slowly absorbing the stars of Sagittarius and, within the next 100 million years or so, will rip it to shreds. Touché! "

E.A  Now is not yesterday and not likely to be tomorrow 

 Bold and Colour added by E.A

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
12.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Eagle Averro @12.1.1    2 weeks ago
 Bold and Colour added by E.A

Well, also those circular bands on the left.  Or maybe someone else added those.  You realize the entire picture is an artist's creation, right?  There's no actual picture from that perspective of the Milky Way. 

 
 
Steve Ott
13  Steve Ott    2 weeks ago

Everything that begins to exist has a cause

So what is the cause of god?

 
 
Eagle Averro
13.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Steve Ott @13    2 weeks ago
Everything that begins to exist has a cause So what is the cause of god?

E.A See My Blog Bigbang Vs Creation it is all outlined that in Mathematics, and it also has a link to a photo where Hawkins also had an issue with that!

https://thenewstalkers.com/eagle-averro/blog/1350/big-bang-vs-creation

 
 
Steve Ott
13.1.1  Steve Ott  replied to  Eagle Averro @13.1    2 weeks ago

Either the link is broken, or the blog no longer exists.

 
 
Eagle Averro
13.1.2  Eagle Averro  replied to  Steve Ott @13.1.1    2 weeks ago
Either the link is broken, or the blog no longer exists.

E.A If it " Brocken " see management, they might " Fix " It!

It Exists, as I exist :-)

 
 
Steve Ott
13.1.3  Steve Ott  replied to  Eagle Averro @13.1.2    2 weeks ago

That may be, but it only takes me to this:

https://thenewstalkers.com/eagle-averro/blog/category/1

 
 
Eagle Averro
13.1.4  Eagle Averro  replied to  Steve Ott @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
Eagle Averro
13.1.5  Eagle Averro  replied to  Steve Ott @13.1.3    2 weeks ago
That may be, but it only takes me to this:

E.A This might just give a glimpse of why it is " Locked "

 
 
Skrekk
13.2  Skrekk  replied to  Steve Ott @13    2 weeks ago
So what is the cause of god?

No doubt it's just a human brain fart.

 
 
Steve Ott
13.2.1  Steve Ott  replied to  Skrekk @13.2    2 weeks ago

I'm kinda thinking it's turtles all the way down.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
13.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Steve Ott @13    2 weeks ago
So what is the cause of god?

Physics.

 
 
TᵢG
13.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @13.3    2 weeks ago

Specifically the physics underlying the formation of the human brain - an organ capable of inventing answers to unanswered questions.

 
 
Eagle Averro
14  Eagle Averro    2 weeks ago

"It's a bit like looking under the lamp post for our lost keys at night, rather than venturing out into the dark where it might be a bit harder to find new information."
Working on a relatively unknown gene means taking the time to build the tools required to study that gene, which is tough in an industry where the currency is published research.
"By that time, a few years might have passed and if you haven't been very productive in terms of publishing papers and winning grants, that tends to put a very big chilling effect on your career," Dr Saunders said.
While the imbalance between the pursuit of truly novel medical breakthroughs and the logistical realities of research is well known within science, Dr Saunders acknowledged it could come as a shock to the rest of us who trust science to solve the big problems.
"There's a big disconnect between how people think science works and how it actually works in practice," he said.

 
 
Eagle Averro
14.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Eagle Averro @14    2 weeks ago
big disconnect between how people think science works and how it actually works in practice," he said.
9391886-3x2-medium.jpg?v=2
Dr Darren Saunders says fellow researchers, not just funding bodies, need to shift their thinking.
(ABC News: David Lewis)

Here in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recently reformed its grant program to "encourage greater creativity" and avoid an environment that "favour[s] 'safe' research to the detriment of innovation".

Dr Saunders said the changes were a good start, but a shift needs to happen at all levels.

"It's up to all of us, both the people writing the grant funding and asking the questions in science, and those of us who review the funding applications, to try and be a little bit more risky, less risk-averse, in our approach to what we fund," he said.

"Maybe we need to be a little bit more accommodating of scientists who take risks that don't necessarily always have those risks pay off.

"Because that's kind of the nature of science, right? You can't always predict where it's going to go."

 
 
Eagle Averro
15  Eagle Averro    2 weeks ago

Cern scientist: 'Physics built by men - not by invitation'
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

_103643682_gettyimages-671045964.jpgGetty Images
Image caption
Cern, based in Switzerland, is one of the world's largest centres for scientific research

A senior scientist has given what has been described as a "highly offensive" presentation about the role of women in physics, the BBC has learned.
At a workshop organised by Cern, Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University said that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by invitation".
He said male scientists were being discriminated against because of ideology rather than merit.
He was speaking at a workshop in Geneva on gender and high energy physics.
Prof Strumia has since defended his comments, saying he was only presenting the facts.
Cern, the European nuclear research centre, described Prof Strumia's presentation as "highly offensive".
The centre, which discovered the Higgs Boson in 2012, has removed slides used in the talk from its website "in line with a code of conduct that does not tolerate personal attacks and insults".
Prof Strumia, who regularly works at Cern, presented the results of a study of published research papers from an online library.
He told his audience of young, predominantly female physicists that his results "proved" that "physics is not sexist against women. However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside".

 
 
Eagle Averro
15.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Eagle Averro @15    2 weeks ago
However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside

Prof Strumia pointed to behavioural research which he suggested may account for the disparity.
One study, he told his audience, indicated that "men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people" and another, he claimed, suggested that there was a "difference even in children before any social influence".

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
15.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Eagle Averro @15    2 weeks ago

Extry, extry....read all about it!! Italian man found to be a sexist pig!!!!

 
 
TᵢG
16  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

Response to xxJefferson @1.3.1  'rebuttal by proxy' which offers only a link to an 'argument'.    This 'argument' claims to prove God exists.    An amazing level of hubris by the author to claim to prove the existence of God when that has escaped all of humanity for all of recorded history.

PROOF 1 — Creation Demands a Creator

By definition.  If something is created, a creator must be involved.   

Flaw in Logic:   Must prove the universe was created.

PROOF 2 — Life Demands a Life-Giver

Flaw in Logic:  Argument needs to prove that life cannot form by undirected processes.    Lacking this, proof 2 is simply an assertion, not a proof.

PROOF 3 — Laws Demand a Law-Giver

Flaw in Logic:  Laws are simply patterns human beings observe in nature.   Argument would have to prove that patterns do not emerge naturally.  Lacking this, proof 3 is simply an assertion, not a proof.

PROOF 4 — Design Demands a Designer

By definition.  If something is designed, a designer must be involved.   

Flaw in Logic:   Must prove the universe was designed.   ( This is simply a restatement of PROOF 1 )

PROOF 5 — Fulfilled Prophetic Promises

Flaw in Logic:  Elevating coincidence and predictable patterns to 'prophecy' level.

Sidon is promised to have a bloody history but to continue to exist (Ezekiel 28:22–23). By contrast, Ezekiel very specifically prophesied that many nations would come against Tyre like waves of the sea (26:3). 

Predicting that select nations of this era would engage in bloody battles is simply extrapolation of human nature.   I can predict that Egypt's future is one of violence (and like the Bible I do not have to specify when this will occur or get into any specific details).

Another series of remarkable prophecies concerns specific promises about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And how surprising it is that the NT (written after the OT) correlates with this.   This is no more surprising than the work of an author correlating with the author's prior work.

PROOF 6 — Answered Prayer

This has been studied.   There is no apparent causal relationship between prayer and divine intervention.  

Flaw in Logic:  False fact; unsubstantiated claim.

PROOF 7 — A Way of Life That Works

Following the Bible could offer good life lessons (e.g. love thy neighbor) and truly horrible life lessons (e.g. slavery, rape, killing of homosexuals, etc.).    

Flaw in Logic:  Cherrypicking - ignoring all the bad and only acknowledging the good

 
 
Gordy327
16.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @16    2 weeks ago

Slam dunk as usual TiG. Too bad you probably will not get a reply or if you do, it will be something along the lines of "nuh uh," or other obtuse rationalizations. Such is the demonstrable lack of intellectual integrity of some theists.

 
 
TᵢG
16.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @16.1    2 weeks ago

In this case I am rebutting a rebuttal by proxy.   Instead of formulating his own response the seeder simply linked to another article to have someone else argue on his behalf.   

I am trying to encourage people to think for themselves.   That is the only way to learn - nobody gets smarter by merely parroting the words of others.   And, of course, this ultimately means making one's own arguments.   If one cannot even formulate a response, that suggests one needs to do more thinking on the subject matter.

 
 
Gordy327
16.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.1    2 weeks ago

Your attempt to get people to think for themselves or on an issue is both an admirable and worthy endeavor. Unfortunately, there are some  (especially certain individuals here on NT) who prefer to not think or learn anything new, especially if it conflicts with their beliefs. 

But I applaud and salute your efforts. I usually learn something new from your replies and/or citations. So I offer a sincere thank you for that.jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
TᵢG
16.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @16.1.2    2 weeks ago

Thanks.   There is no downside that I have seen to critical thinking.

 
 
Gordy327
16.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.3    2 weeks ago

The only "downside" I can see with critical thinking is the shattering of someone's fragile emotional state if they adopted critical thinking over mere belief and the emotional comfort they derive from it. But I would consider that the beginning of intellectual enlightenment and strong mindedness, which is hardly a "downside."

 
 
TᵢG
16.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @16.1.4    2 weeks ago

truth-will-set-you-free-orlando-espinosa

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
16.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  TᵢG @16    2 weeks ago
An amazing level of hubris by the author

That is the most forgiving and gentle way of putting it.  

 
 
TᵢG
16.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @16.2    2 weeks ago

I too have more aggressive words in mind.   jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Eagle Averro
17  Eagle Averro    2 weeks ago

 
 
Eagle Averro
17.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Eagle Averro @17    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

Culper and Bold Added by E.A

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Eagle Averro @17.1    2 weeks ago

Culper? 

 
 
Eagle Averro
17.1.2  Eagle Averro  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @17.1.1    2 weeks ago
Culper? 

E.A  Yes it seems that the Editor on NT is working Just Fine :-) 

 That is Colour!

 
 
Tessylo
17.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Eagle Averro @17.1    2 weeks ago

So you have a problem with people with HIV and/or AIDS getting their life sustaining/prolonging medications?  

 
 
Eagle Averro
17.1.4  Eagle Averro  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @17.1.1    2 weeks ago
Culper? 

E.A  And nice to see as Always, that some Choose the MOST important part of a Post :-)

 So the Cost in $$$?

Cost in Human life and well being?

In Community and Family?

 What is Religion ( Re Ligion ) Again?

 
 
TᵢG
17.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Eagle Averro @17.1.2    2 weeks ago

The NT editor does not auto-correct words.  'Colour' to 'culper' is user error and/or your device.

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Eagle Averro @17.1.4    2 weeks ago
that some Choose the MOST important part of a Post

Well, context is everything, is it not?  It seemed like it should have been color but I had a hard time thinking that much difference in the two words was just a typo. In fact, for a brief moment I thought it might have been a reference to the spy ring used by the Americans during the Revolutionary War (for a great dramatization of that story, see the fine AMC series "Turn").  Then I remembered your impenetrable phrase making, e.g. "devout factionalist," and it seemed all bets were off for divining what you could possibly have meant.  Thus, the question.  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Eagle Averro @17    2 weeks ago
Currently, 25 countries have recognised same-sex marriage. Homosexuality remains illegal in 71 countries. The new Trump administration policy update was circulated in a United Nations (UN) memo.

And those countries would be religious states and those run by regressive dictatorships (ah, but I repeat myself).  "Congratulations" on our joining the bottom of the barrel. 

 
 
Skrekk
17.3  Skrekk  replied to  Eagle Averro @17    2 weeks ago
The memo states: "As of 1 October 2018, same-sex domestic partners accompanying or seeking to join newly arrived United Nations officials must provide proof of marriage to be eligible for a G-4 visa or to seek a change into such status."

I was going to seed this separately and it's definitely off-topic here.     However it's quite a cruel policy change since it will subject many of these UN staffers and their partners to criminal penalties (even the death penalty) in their home countries.

It's a very deliberate attempt by the Trump regime to harm LGBT folks in a truly horrible way.

 
 
Eagle Averro
17.3.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Skrekk @17.3    2 weeks ago
It's a very deliberate attempt by the Trump regime to harm LGBT folks in a truly horrible way.

E.A the question then to be on topic,

has this " New Religion  " gone too far and demanded too much, and now there is a reaction because of that?

Note the Three Question I asked about the " Costs " ( 17.1.4  Eagle Averro   ) of this New Religion, the word " New " is a misnomer I know  but its Pollical push and Pull and it demands are indeed " new " is a form of speaking

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.3.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Eagle Averro @17.3.1    2 weeks ago
" New Religion  "

Here's another example of inventive phrase-making with no frame of reference whatsoever.  And your attempt (I think) to enlarge upon ends up making even more obscure.  You need to take a course in polemics, not to mention basic English composition,  if you ever hope to be understood.  

 
 
Phoenyx13
17.3.3  Phoenyx13  replied to  Eagle Averro @17.3.1    2 weeks ago
has this " New Religion  " gone too far and demanded too much, and now there is a reaction because of that?

what is the "New Religion" ? are you referring to a sexual orientation as a "religion" now ?

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.4  Gordy327  replied to  Phoenyx13 @17.3.3    2 weeks ago

He seems to think evolution is a god/religion. So I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks the same about sexual orientation. But if you ask nicely and say "pretty please," maybe he'll provide an answer. Otherwise, you'll probably just get a deflection.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
17.3.5  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.4    2 weeks ago

The whole secular progressive humanist atheism is the new religion and science is their idol of “reason” they worship substituting their limited human understanding of science and knowledge for God and then like blind hateful bigots that they all are they denigrate our creation science and our belief in spiritual matters such as social conservative values and theology like angels as pseudoscience when it is they who are narrow minded intellectually lazy bigots toward all who don’t see the world and the universe as they do.  Their views really are jrSmiley_23_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif   Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy.  jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

 
 
TᵢG
17.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.5    2 weeks ago

Not a single intellectual rebuttal in the comment.   Nothing but complaints, platitudes and slogans.

Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy.

Who could possibly be persuaded by you making such a claim when you clearly cannot offer even the most basic intellectual response to direct rebuttals of the nonsense you have seeded?

I have two detailed rebuttals:  TiG @8 and TiG @16

Do something more than simply claim 'idiocy'.   Make a counter-argument based on fact and logic.   Clearly you will not do so.   Hopefully everyone reading the crap you have offered will realize that it is indeed crap and that you do not have the first clue on how to defend that which you propose.    To wit, which of us have proposed the idiocy?

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.7  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.5    2 weeks ago

Do you actually have any intelligent, rational, or relevant reply to add? Because so far, all you've done this entire discussion is dodge, deflect, and spew baseless assertions and irrational nonsense like that. You certainly haven't offered any logical replies or  rebuttals to challenges and points presented, especially when they prove you wrong. Frankly, I would be embarrassed if I were you.

 
 
Skrekk
17.3.8  Skrekk  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.5    2 weeks ago
Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy.

Can you name any relevant Nobel prizes which Cretinists have won due to the awesome analytical powers of their superstitions about a sky fairy?

 
 
epistte
17.3.9  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @17.3.8    2 weeks ago

I'd like to know even one scientific discovery that was conclusively overturned by religion?  What problem has ever been solved by prayer and religious belief?

 
 
epistte
17.3.10  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.5    2 weeks ago
The whole secular progressive humanist atheism is the new religion and science is their idol of “reason” they worship substituting their limited human understanding of science and knowledge for God and then like blind hateful bigots that they all are they denigrate our creation science and our belief in spiritual matters such as social conservative values and theology like angels as pseudoscience when it is they who are narrow minded intellectually lazy bigots toward all who don’t see the world and the universe as they do.  Their views really are    Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy.  

Can someone please give Palin-for-XX his period key back. Thanks. 

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.11  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @17.3.9    2 weeks ago

Religion has perhaps most notably tried to overturn evolution. Too bad for it that is has consistently and spectacularly failed since Darwin first introduced the theory. Many theists are just sore losers about it and cannot accept that science trumps their silly religious beliefs.

The only thing prayer has ever done is make the one praying feel good about doing nothing. Prayer or religious belief certainly hasn't solved any problems or has had any tangible effect. Neither have theists ever been able to prove otherwise. 

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.12  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @17.3.8    2 weeks ago

Don't you know creationists have never won a noble prize based on their god because evil heathen secular progressives conspire to keep them down? jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.13  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @17.3.6    2 weeks ago

TiG, he hasn't had a single intellectual rebuttal in the entire discussion, even when he's had ample time to formulate one. All he's done is ignore challenges and rebuttals while spewing the same irrational, nonsensical tripe. 

 
 
cjcold
17.3.14  cjcold  replied to  epistte @17.3.10    2 weeks ago

Pretty sure that punctuation is not required for insane rants.

 
 
sandy-2021492
17.3.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  cjcold @17.3.14    2 weeks ago

Punctuation is actually undesirable in rants.  It slows down the flow of angry word salad.

 
 
Phoenyx13
17.3.16  Phoenyx13  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.5    2 weeks ago
The whole secular progressive humanist atheism is the new religion and science is their idol of “reason” they worship substituting their limited human understanding of science and knowledge for God

so they go on facts, verifiable evidence, logic and critical thinking - this is a bad thing in your opinion ?

and then like blind hateful bigots that they all are they denigrate our creation science and our belief in spiritual matters such as social conservative values and theology like angels as pseudoscience

and they reject mythology, emotional arguments and suspension of critical thinking due to "belief" as a basis or explanation for scientific matters - this is a bad thing in your opinion ?

when it is they who are narrow minded intellectually lazy bigots toward all who don’t see the world and the universe as they do.

this sounds like the religious who constantly condemn others to be eternally tortured in a lake of fire (and many who eagerly advocate it and eagerly await their "enemies" to be judged and tortured for all time) - just because they don't share the same beliefs.

Evolution in general as to origins is idiocy

please explain in detail what you find to be "idiotic" about Evolution and why you disagree with it. thanks :)

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
17.3.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.5    2 weeks ago
blind hateful bigots that they all are they denigrate our creation science

So we're "blind" because we choose to believe our eyes? We're "hateful bigots" because we don't want unfounded, unproven conjecture based on archaic shepherds musings to be taken as fact?

When a scientist presents years of experiments, physical evidence and observations to support a hypothesis, they are not "denigrating" the person who believes it happens by magic. They are simply accepting that the only verifiable truths are those that can be thoroughly challenged and rigorously vetted.

Just because I don't believe in Santa doesn't mean I'm trying to run around informing every child of this fact in order to ruin a potentially special spiritual family experience. I would never recommend lying to your children about Santa even though its relatively harmless, but I'm not trying to stop any Christians from having whatever special holiday they want to imagine and enjoy.

What I won't do is entertain any person trying to discuss the supposed science behind how Santa makes it to every child's home in one night or how he magically fits down chimneys. Debating such nonsense is a waste of time. I feel the same about debating the supposed "young earth" theory because it's as ridiculous as Santa visiting every child in one night with his sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.

And while no school in America bans Christmas art projects or other Christmas events, the science class doesn't start teaching any Christmas pseudoscience about elf biology or flying reindeer lift and velocity. The same can be done in regards to YEC's. They can believe whatever they want at home, but don't expect any respectable science teacher to present their ridiculous theories as even possible let alone plausible.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
17.3.18  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.7    one week ago

The sources I would choose to use are not ok to use here so silence will have to substitute due to censorship.  

 
 
TᵢG
17.3.19  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.18    one week ago

Another cop out.  Nothing stops you* from making your own rebuttal.   Indeed, making your own case is vastly superior to running out and finding links to serve as your proxy.


* = Assuming you understand the subject matter of your seed.

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.20  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.18    one week ago

That's just an excuse and a poor one too. If you're so sure about your "sources," then there should be no issue with citing them. All you're doing is dodging again, which comes as no surprise either.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
17.3.21  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.20    one week ago

jrSmiley_52_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gifAnd now for the truth:  Written like a newspaper article, Why Evolution is a Fraud: A Secular and Common-Sense Deconstruction exposes the shocking racism and blatant distortions of this pseudo-scientific, atheistic philosophy. Regardless of your background in science (or lack thereof), Why Evolution is a Fraud is easy to understand, decisive and engrossing. What makes Why Evolution is a Fraud unique is that it breaks the tired old stalemate of âÂÂreligion versus scienceâ by using scientific facts and common sense to annihilate evolution. Definitive and heavily researched Why Evolution is a Fraud shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically and genetically impossible. The book also shows how such a weak, wannabe-science has survived in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Readers who liked Treason by Ann Coulter, Blink & The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell will enjoy Why Evolution is a Fraud. https://books.google.com/books/about/Why_Evolution_Is_a_Fraud.html?id=I0cGGQAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description

 
 
epistte
17.3.22  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.18    one week ago
The sources I would choose to use are not ok to use here so silence will have to substitute due to censorship.

The Stream isn't proof of anything. 

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.23  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.21    one week ago

In what way is that book a peer reviewed scientific work or its author a credible scientist? It doesn't discredit evolution in the slightest. It's just another transparent  attempt at pretzel logic to somehow show evolution as a fallacy, much like you try (and fail) to do. Of course, actual educated and rational people can see right through that (and your) nonsense. If you want to discredit evolution,  all you need is some empirical evidence which does just that. So far, neither you nor anyone else had ever been able to do so since evolution was first introduced. But by all means, come up with actual evidence and present it to the scientific community (such as the National Academy of Sciences) for review. If anyone ever did manage to discredit evolution, they just might win a nobel prize. So if that's the best you can offer, then it's no wonder your arguments have been blown out if the water, you demonstrating profound ignorance of science, and have absolutely zero credibility. But thanks for the laughs.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
17.3.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.23    one week ago
But by all means, come up with actual evidence and present it to the scientific community (such as the National Academy of Sciences) for review.

That would be like presenting the book "Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone" as proof of wizards.

"Non-magic people (more commonly known as muggles) were particularly afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognising it." - History of Magic by Bathilda Bagshot

If it's written in a book, it must be true, right?... /s

"Regardless of your background in science (or lack thereof), "Why Evolution is a Fraud" is easy to understand, decisive and engrossing"

I think Tom Sutcliff (who is not a scientists of any kind) is relying on the reader to lack any background in science. And I love how a book about theories is described as being "decisive". Yeah, it's decisive because the author already had his mind made up as to the conclusions he would draw before ever looking at a single piece of evidence.

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.25  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @17.3.24    one week ago
That would be like presenting the book "Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone" as proof of wizards.

That is often the example I use when someone tries to use the bible as "proof" of god.

If it's written in a book, it must be true, right?... /s

Apparently, that's what some theists really think. Unless it's a science book of course.

Yeah, it's decisive because the author already had his mind made up as to the conclusions he would draw before ever looking at a single piece of evidence.

That about sums it up. It parrots (and like-minded individuals parrot back) anti-evolution animus and scientific ignorance without providing evidence of their assertion or understanding of why their position is erroneous.

 
 
epistte
17.3.26  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.25    one week ago
That is often the example I use when someone tries to use the bible as "proof" of god.

The idea that a book written by man cannot possibly be proof of god is one of the biggest problems that religious conservatives fail to understand. The Bible is their idea of what god is supposed to be and what they want god to be, but logically it cannot be proof of god if it was written by men.

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.27  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @17.3.26    one week ago
The Bible is their idea of what god is supposed to be and what they want god to be, but logically it cannot be proof of god if it was written by men.

You forget, biblical authors were "inspired" by god. So naturally, that just as good as god writing the bible himself. Lol

 
 
epistte
17.3.28  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @17.3.27    one week ago

I like to ask how their god inspired the bible.

 
 
Gordy327
17.3.29  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @17.3.28    one week ago

Because...god. Right? jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.3.30  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.5    one week ago
The whole secular progressive humanist atheism is the new religion and science.....blah.....blahhhhhh.......blllllaaaaahhhhhhhh

Here, again, is this believer thinking that trying to  drag atheists and rational thinkers in general down to his level seems like an argument winning strategy.  It continues to crack me up.  

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.3.31  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  epistte @17.3.22    one week ago
The Stream isn't proof of anything. 

But it does suggest micturition which proves that they're terrible at "creative thinking" (pun intended).   

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.3.32  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @17.3.21    one week ago

This kind of comment actually makes me almost feel sorry for you, xxj.  But then I remember what you stand for and......*pooof*...... that sentiment disappears. 

 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
18  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 weeks ago

It took me a while to do the research, which is always necessary whenever this author puts up another article, but I finally did track down what is probably the original source for this alleged comment by Russell.  Of course, it turns out that it didn't come from Russell.  In an article by Leo Rosten in the Feb. 23, 1974 issue of Saturday Review/World it was actually Rosten who's the source for that quote, not Russell.  Indeed, Russell died four years before this article appeared so Rosten was what could be charitably called "poetic license" to describe Russell's rationalism.  From then on it has always been falsely attributed to Russell so it's not like our author is alone in making the error but it does fall into the continuum of his pattern to publish false quotes and events in order to prop up his beliefs.  

And then I need to address this statement from his OP:

From my perspective, so much evidence for God exists, that it seems unreasonable to doubt his existence.

Of course, when that perspective is the unconditional and unquestioned belief  it's inevitable that reason would never enter into the matter. 

 
 
gooseisgone
18.1  gooseisgone  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @18    5 days ago
unconditional and unquestioned belief  

This exists on both sides of the argument.  I look at it from this stand point, you either believe in magic or you believe in a higher power regardless of what name you assign to it. When I say you believe in magic you want people believe something(the universe) was created from nothing.  If you believe in a higher power the question is, where did the higher power come from.  There is no rational answer except "unconditional and unquestioned belief ". 

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1    4 days ago
When I say you believe in magic you want people believe something(the universe) was created from nothing. 

Who says the universe came from nothing?   Existence itself is something - we know this by simple observation; existence itself is also necessarily eternal.  There is a quintessential substance of existence (might be quantum particles, might be much lower).   

The universe did not come from literally nothing - that is a semantic contradiction.   Everything (including our known universe) is an emergent property of existence.   The universe came from something - it came from existence itself. 

The question is if there was a sentient agent involved.   

 
 
Gordy327
18.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1    4 days ago
you either believe in magic or you believe in a higher power regardless of what name you assign to it.

Those are essentially two of the same thing.

When I say you believe in magic you want people believe something(the universe) was created from nothing. 

The universe wasn't created from nothing. 

 There is no rational answer except "unconditional and unquestioned belief ". 

Belief is not a rational answer either. It's simply an emotionally comforting cop-out way to fill in a gap in knowledge.

 
 
TᵢG
18.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisgone @18.1    4 days ago
There is no rational answer except "unconditional and unquestioned belief ". 

How is that rational?

Mere faith (unconditional and unquestioned belief) is probably the worst method for finding truth.   It foregoes all critical analysis and simply accepts as true what other human beings claim.

Santa Claus is believed to be true by many based on faith.

Faith is an unreliable method for approaching truth.   Much better to objectively follow the evidence to where it leads.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
19  seeder  Xxjefferson#51    one week ago

.... Therefore in the face of all the evidence that God exists and in the face of just plain common sense that every design has a designer – why do atheists deny the evidence? Why do atheists lie to themselves? Here’s why…

1. Atheists Experience Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance is a mental conflict which occurs when current beliefs are contradicted by new information or when current wrong beliefs are contradicted with the truth.
So in the case of the atheist – the atheist believes that nothing made everything – which is a lie?
Even though there is no observable or testable evidence, they believe that the universe and all living things are the product of evolution and not intelligent design.
So when the atheist is confronted with the truth that the universe and living things did not create themselves – just as a computer cannot create itself – the tendency for the atheist is to deny common sense rather than accept the truth.
The atheist chooses to believe that a computer, an aeroplane and a building are the result of intelligent beings. However they refuse to believe that a human, a bird or the entire universe are the result of an Intelligent Creator.

2. Atheists Love the Pleasures of Sin
Atheists lie to themselves because they love the pleasure of sin. They will not give up their sins. They love the pleasures of sin so much that the possibilities of being accountable for sin is something they would rather deny.
This is why the atheist not only denies the existence of God but atheists also deny the existence of sin itself. Atheists do not believe that there is such a thing called “sin”. They also do not believe in the existence of good and evil.
They would rather lie to themselves by denying the existence of sin or good and evil because admitting to the existence of sin would make the atheist morally and spiritually accountable.

3. Atheists Suppress God in Their Life
Think about it. Why do atheists try to convert religious people to atheism? Why do they attempt to mock God and Christianity?
If they don’t believe in God, why do they feel the need to oppose anything that resembles the values of God & Christianity?
Psalms 14:1 says “A fool says in his heart “There is no God…”. Now that scripture isn’t saying that atheists can’t think or that they are not intelligent. However this scripture exposes the fact that it is foolishness for a person to deny the existence of a Creator in the face of such evidence.
Romans 1:20 says that no one is without excuse when it comes to the existence of God because nature itself and all of creation testifies that God exists.
It is foolishness to believe that every design does NOT have a designer.
Romans 1:22 says “Claiming to be wise, they became fools”.

Atheists should therefore be honest with themselves.... http://www.inspiredwalk.com/4052/3-reasons-why-atheists-lie-to-themselves

 
 
Skrekk
19.1  Skrekk  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @19    one week ago
every design has a designer

That's definitely one of the loonier and dumbest logical fallacies which Cretinists have come up with.

 
 
epistte
19.1.1  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @19.1    one week ago
That's definitely one of the loonier and dumbest logical fallacies which Cretinists have come up with.

The environment is the designer.

 
 
Gordy327
19.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @19.1    one week ago

And that's saying something. 

 
 
TᵢG
19.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @19.1    one week ago

It is a word game.   Design, by definition, is the result of a designer.   The trick is that one must establish that the universe was designed.   Same trick goes for everything that is created has a creator.  Well, sure, but one must establish that the universe was created.

In both cases the creationist ignores the distinct possibility that the universe is the result of undirected forces.

 
 
Skrekk
19.1.4  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.3    one week ago
Design, by definition, is the result of a designer.   The trick is that one must establish that the universe was designed.

Exactly.

Funny how many different logical fallacies the "watchmaker analogy" encompasses, everything from circular logic, a false premise to a very weak analogy.

 
 
TᵢG
19.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @19.1.4    one week ago
Funny how many different logical fallacies the "watchmaker analogy" encompasses, everything from circular logic, a false premise to a very weak analogy.

If one is interested in studying logical fallacies and truly ugly debate tactics just observe the religious side of these debates.    I still am amazed that someone today would actually argue that slavery is not always immoral.  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Phoenyx13
19.1.6  Phoenyx13  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.5    one week ago
I still am amazed that someone today would actually argue that slavery is not always immoral.

oh i am amazed by that too, same with murder among other things

 
 
Skrekk
19.1.7  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.5    one week ago
I still am amazed that someone today would actually argue that slavery is not always immoral.

It's not that uncommon for bible-babbling extremists.   Don't forget that both Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann signed a pro-slavery & anti-gay pledge when they were running for prez in 1011.

 
 
epistte
19.2  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @19    one week ago
2. Atheists Love the Pleasures of SinAtheists lie to themselves because they love the pleasure of sin. They will not give up their sins. They love the pleasures of sin so much that the possibilities of being accountable for sin is something they would rather deny.

Sin doesn't naturally exist. It was created by religions to control gullible people who lack the ability to think logically.

3. Atheists Suppress God in Their Life

Logically you cannot suppress anything that has no empirical evidence of existing.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @19    one week ago
The atheist chooses to believe that a computer, an aeroplane and a building are the result of intelligent beings. However they refuse to believe that a human, a bird or the entire universe are the result of an Intelligent Creator.

Atheists do not refuse to believe - that is a function of people who accept things as true or false based on faith.   Given good evidence that the universe was the result of a sentient intelligence, things would be quite different.  But, as it stands, there is no evidence -not a shred- that the awesome complexity of nature is the result of a sentient designer.   Yes reality is very complex, but incredulity is not evidence.

Atheists lie to themselves because they love the pleasure of sin. 

This is just too stupid to warrant a rebuttal.

Atheists Suppress God in Their Life

Atheists are people who are not convinced that a god exists.   That is it;  very simple.   No special agendas, no psychosis, nothing really at all other than the lack of good evidence.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.1  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3    one week ago
But, as it stands, there is no evidence -not a shred- that the awesome complexity of nature is the result of a sentient designer.

Humans can only figure out "how" something happens. "The Mechanics". The "Why" things happen can't be proven by the "Almighty" science. 

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.1    one week ago
The "Why" things happen can't be proven by the "Almighty" science. 

Questions such as:  'why do we exist' which ponder the meaning of life cannot be fully answered by science.   But such questions cannot be fully answered by any other means either.   Lots of people claim to have answers but the answers are simply human inventions.   Nobody knows the meaning of life - the answer is always simply human opinion.

However, science can offer answers to questions such as 'why do bad things happen to good people?' or 'why do we exist?".   You may not like the answers, but based on modern understanding of reality the very best answers from science are:

  • 'why do we exist?':   Our planet is positioned far enough from our sun to provide a temperature range that enables the evolution of life.   The elements present on Earth (mostly C) provide the necessary building blocks for life as we know it.   And over a process of billions of years life has evolved to the point where the species homo sapiens has emerged.
  • 'why do bad things happen to good people?':   Because nature is an undirected force.   Nature does not try to direct change so that only good things occur (good as perceived by human beings that is).   If one understands that concept, it is easy to see why bad and good happens.   It is also easy to see why beauty and ugliness occur or why some biological mechanisms seem brilliantly designed (e.g. the eagle eye) while others look like a Rube Goldberg invention (e.g. the laryngeal nerve).

Finally, science is not 'almighty'.  It is likely the most objective process we have for learning about reality.  It has amassed more actionable knowledge about reality than any other discipline in history.   Bottom line, science works - just look around and observe the engineering that is based on science.   Not almighty, not infallible, but demonstrably impressive.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.3  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.2    one week ago
'why do we exist' which ponder the meaning of life cannot be fully answered by science.

So why constantly rule out the possibility of a higher being ?

Science gives us the "Mechanics" of reality all the time. Impressive yes, but in the mechanics ONLY !

There is ALWAYS at least two sides to a story.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.3    one week ago
So why constantly rule out the possibility of a higher being ?

Who rules out the possibility of a sentient creator?   I, for one, routinely acknowledge that possibility.   Seems to me a lot of people do not carefully read what others write.   The only atheists who rule out the possibility of a sentient creator are the gnostic atheists (aka hard atheists).   They are a slim minority of atheists.   And, by the way, their position is unsupportable.

Science gives us the "Mechanics" of reality all the time. Impressive yes, but in the mechanics ONLY !

Religions invent answers.   Nothing but human imagination - no basis in fact.   What good is that?   It is not knowledge, it is fiction.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.5  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.4    one week ago
Religions invent answers. 

Answers that aren't Scientific, yet here we are talking about the possibilities of what they talk about.

I, for one, Didn't single you out specifically in my comment at all. Seems some read into a statement, something that isn't there.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.5    one week ago

Human beings have invented gods for all of recorded history.   No doubt well before that to explain weather (among other things).   It seems logical that when faced with something of enormous power (e.g. a thunderstorm) tiny creatures such as human beings would be awe-struck and presume it to be a powerful entity.

So yes we are discussing the very human belief in god(s).   And there have been thousands of gods invented by human beings.    

Do you rule out any of those possible gods?   After all, we are talking about them.

I, for one, Didn't single you out specifically in my comment at all. 

I know you did not.  I was noting what I have done here on NT, etc. since I know with certainty what I write.   Speaking for others now, you will be hard-pressed to find an atheist on NT who will state that it is impossible for the universe to be the result of a sentient entity.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.7  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.6    one week ago
Do you rule out any of those possible gods? 

I only know of One possibility.

Again, they may have seen something we don't see now, but weren't as articulate about it as we are now.

We still say "Mother Nature" to this day, when things go hairy. We know the why, but still have that Olde perception.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.8  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.7    one week ago
I only know of One possibility.

Why do you deny Brahman?   Brahman predates Yahweh and remains as the key god of Hinduism.   A billion people believe in Brahman.   On what grounds do you tell Hindus that their god is impossible?

Allah is the god of Islam.   Approximately 1.8 billion Muslims believe in Allah.  On what grounds do you tell Muslims that their god is impossible?

The Christian god varies per denomination.   Which denominations have the true god and which ones are wrong?   On what grounds do you tell Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses that their god is impossible?

In short, out of thousands of gods, on what basis do you accept the possibility of only one god and deny the possibility of the other gods?

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.9  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.8    one week ago

Different names in no way means a Different God. After all, God is "Everywhere". jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

I called my Grandmother Nana. Others call their grandmother something else. Aren't Grandma's, no matter what you call them, still a Grandmother ?

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.10  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.9    one week ago

Those are not just different names.   Those are profoundly different gods.   They contradict each other.   

Read up on Brahman, for example, and then state honestly that this is just another name for Yahweh.

Do you honestly think that Allah is just a name?   If so, you are violating the demands of god on a daily basis by not engaging in the Islamic prayer ritual.   Further, you would be forced to deny the divinity of Jesus.

The god of JW has no trinity.    

The only commonality for all these gods is that they are powerful.

 
 
It Is ME
19.3.11  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.10    one week ago
Those are profoundly different gods.

As they thought. We know better now.

Grandmas do different things too !

"Do you honestly think that Allah is just a name? If so, you are violating the demands of god on a daily basis by not engaging in the Islamic prayer ritual."

Yep !

Should I start hording guns and ammo now ?

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.12  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.11    one week ago
As they thought. We know better now.

Yes we do.  That is the point I made upfront.

So given these are quite different gods, why do you deny Brahman or Allah?   Why do you deny the god of Jehovah's Witness?    On what grounds do you tell the Hindus, Muslims and JWs that their god cannot possibly exist?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
19.3.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.10    one week ago
Those are not just different names.   Those are profoundly different gods.   They contradict each other.

We must first acknowledge that most believers have an incorrect view of most atheists who would be better defined as agnostic atheists who do not rule out the possibility of a God, they just simply see no evidence of one thus don't believe in one. When the believer is made aware of this difference, they often attack the atheist for not believing in their specific brand of God.

This is rather funny because they don't realize that by definition they're doing to the same thing to the Gods imagined and worshiped by other religions. Christians are calling Vishnu, Brahma, the flying spaghetti monster, Allah, Zeus, Odin and every other God worshiped throughout history besides their own, fake, false and imaginary with zero proof.

An agnostic atheist is just like a Christian believer who disbelieves in all other Gods/gods except they've gone one God further. I do not believe any of the invented Gods/gods/goddesses imagined and invented by humans throughout history exist or have ever existed, but I don't rule out the possibility that something we might define as God or a god might exist somewhere in this universe.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @19.3.13    one week ago

Basically the agnostic atheist (the average atheist) is waiting for evidence that a god exists.   The average theist has already decided on their one god but have done so without evidence - simply based on what other human beings have stated.   The gnostic theists go one step further and hold that what other people have told them to believe is 100% truth - no possibility that they are wrong.

The gnostic theist is quite something to behold:  'my god is the only true god and there is no possibility that I am wrong'.   What would one call that:  naive hubris?

There are a few gnostic atheists but there seems to be many (most?) gnostic theists.   

 
 
Gordy327
19.3.15  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.11    one week ago
The "Why" things happen can't be proven by the "Almighty" science.

Depends on the context. Are you referring to philosophical concepts?

So why constantly rule out the possibility of a higher being ?

No one is ruling out a possibility. But considering there is no evidence whatsoever of a higher being (which would need to be defined first), it becomes more of a probability of there not being a higher power. Neither is there any logical reason to assume there is without evidence.

Answers that aren't Scientific, yet here we are talking about the possibilities of what they talk about.

Perhaps in a more philosophical context.

I only know of One possibility.

So you can prove there is only one possibility? Even if that's the only "one" you know, do you automatically rule out other possibilities? if so, why?

Again, they may have seen something we don't see now, but weren't as articulate about it as we are now.

That is just speculation.

Different names in no way means a Different God. After all, God is "Everywhere"

That is false! Polytheistic religions clearly have different gods with different names, purposes, characteristics, ect. 

As they thought. We know better now.

How so? Are you suggesting polytheistic religions are wrong, but somehow monotheistic religions are right?

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.16  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @19.3.15    one week ago

Theists claim all gods except theirs are false - only their god is true.

Atheists, in contrast, simply note that they are not convinced (sans evidence) that a god exists.

Generally, it is theists who claim 'impossible', not atheists.

 
 
Gordy327
19.3.17  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.16    one week ago
Theists claim all gods except theirs are false - only their god is true.

Indeed. Which only shows the degree of intellectual dishonesty exhibited. Some talk of the "possibility" of a god, but are unwilling to consider the possibility of other god/s or that their own beliefs might be wrong.

Atheists, in contrast, simply note that they are not convinced (sans evidence) that a god exists.

But in some theists minds, that equates to hating/denying/suppressing/ect. god. Go figure. 

It is theists who claim 'impossible', not atheists.

Yep. Atheists simply want evidence or proof of the impossible first.

 
 
TᵢG
19.3.18  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @19.3.17    one week ago

I wonder if it is intellectual dishonesty or simply not realizing the logical consequences of the belief.

 
 
Gordy327
19.3.19  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @19.3.18    one week ago

Perhaps both. There is certainly a lack of logical analysis.

 
 
MrFrost
19.3.20  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @19.3.7    one week ago
I only know of One possibility.

Thor? Poseidon? 

 
 
charger 383
19.4  charger 383  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @19    one week ago
2. Atheists Love the Pleasures of Sin

But who gets to decide if it I sin?

 
 
Skrekk
19.4.1  Skrekk  replied to  charger 383 @19.4    one week ago

If it's not pleasurable you're not "sinning" right.

 
 
AJP
20  AJP    one week ago

I used to believe there was no GOD.

No GOD who created everything we are, we have, we see and experience.

Now I say: I don't know. MAYBE there is a god, some god, someone or something who created all of cosmos and everything that comes with it.

I still do not believe in the human version of "god" - that god is someone who sees us, cares about us, knows about us etc.

Please. If you create the ancient Universe, what is a speck of a human life? Just dust. Just like the life of a frog or a dinosaur. So, no, if there is "god" who created everything, he ain't keeping track of YOUR thoughts, YOUR deeds so he can decide an eternity from now where you go to "heaven" or "hell".

Besides, don't you think it is strange that dinosaurs existed for 150 million years, dinosaurs who had no brains, no cognition, certainly did not worship any God, and would've existed for eternity were it not for that random Yucatan meteorite?

Humans only go back about 100,000 ago, and now we have GOD, we actually have many gods, hierarchies of Gods, and we presume we KNOW what the REAL GOD is?!

Please

I actually subscribe to the "digital universe" / "our Universe is a simulation" theory. So did Steve Hawking. So does Elon Musk, and a number of geniuses in our World.

I arrived at the "simulation hypothesis" via a route different from Hawking and Musk. So did my CS major husband.

We all believe we live in a simulation, "video game" of sorts, because nobody can explain why we have these immutable laws of physics that govern our Universe. Also, we know our Universe is discrete, not continuous, i.e. it's made of particles held together by the strange "laws of physics" that are not logical and "just exist".

"Discrete" means "matter/no matter", like "ones and zeros", like in computers.

Immutable, illogical laws of physics means like something we program - it doesn't have to make sense, it only has to behave the way we want it to behave.

So, if our Universe and us in it is a simulation - is there a god? Or are we one of the million-kazzilion video game scenarios by some god or gods? Or some other aliens altogether?

One thing that makes me believe is that NONE of them gods or simulation creators cares about us, little people like you think Christian God does, or Muslim, or Jewish god. The Universe is much too big for any of us to enter their vision even.

 
 
Gordy327
20.1  Gordy327  replied to  AJP @20    one week ago
I actually subscribe to the "digital universe" / "our Universe is a simulation" theory. So did Steve Hawking. So does Elon Musk, and a number of geniuses in our World.

Here's an interesting video on that topic:

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
21  seeder  Xxjefferson#51    one week ago

Science was originally a Christian idea.

The Christian understanding that the universe was created by the logos(“word,” “reason,” or “mind”) of God led to the belief that the world is rational and can be studied. The great progenitors of modern science—Copernicus, Galileo, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton—all professed belief in the Christian God and viewed their scientific studies as a mode of worship.

Science, however, has come to encompass not only the scientific method, but the scientific method plus naturalism (or materialism), a philosophy that ultimate reality is nothing but matter and energy and time and space; and that there is nothing transcendent, nothing actually spiritual—certainly no God.

There is a better approach.

In seeking to explain the origin of the universe, one should look not for the best naturalistic explanation, but for the best explanation, period.

In seeking to explain the origin of the universe, one should look not for the best naturalistic explanation, but for the best explanation, period. Even atheist professor Thomas Nagel acknowledges that, while the existence and nature of God are outside the realm of scientific inquiry, this “does not imply that there cannot be scientific evidence for or against the intervention of such a non-law-governed cause in the natural order.” As to the assumption that science can’t consider evidence for a designer which itself can’t be explained by science, Nagel concludes, “That assumption is without merit.”1

But does the evidence really point to a designer? Or is it more reasonable to continue to look, with so many atheistic scientists, for the elusive naturalistic explanation of the universe?

Let us consider four evidences from science that demonstrate that intelligent design is the explanation most in conformity with what we observe in nature.......

Conclusion

The finitude and fine-tuning of the cosmos, the problem of biogenesis, and the presence of information in organisms all contribute scientific evidence for the existence of an all-powerful, life-giving, intelligent being, which we call God.

In the past 60 years, I have seen science moving more and more consistently in every area toward a consistent vision of an ordered universe that points beyond itself to a design and a designer. In other words, it is becoming more and more evident that science and Scripture, rightly understood, are not incompatible.

Nevertheless, Scripture has revealed something that science could never have revealed. Science demonstrates that the universe was likely created by a powerful and great mind. But what it can never teach us, that Scripture does teach us, is that the One who holds the universe together is also the Lover of our souls. And that is reason for hope beyond this life.

Science and Scripture, rightly understood, are not incompatible. . . . Nevertheless, Scripture has revealed something that science could never have revealed. . . . that the One who holds the universe together is also the Lover of our souls..........https://kenboa.org/apologetics/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/
 
 
TᵢG
21.1  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21    one week ago
The great progenitors of modern science—Copernicus, Galileo, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton—all professed belief in the Christian God and viewed their scientific studies as a mode of worship.

Of course.  At the time virtually everyone in modern civilizations was religious.   Most atheists of today would no doubt be theists is they lived in ancient times.

In seeking to explain the origin of the universe, one should look not for the best naturalistic explanation, but for the best explanation, period

I agree.

The finitude and fine-tuning of the cosmos, ...

Only makes sense if one is arrogant enough to think that a creator entity constructed this vast universe (which is almost entirely hostile to life) so that it could place planet Earth in the right spot and give it the right chemicals and dynamics to host life as we know it.   A far less arrogant view is that the reason we think our universe is fine-tuned is because we can exist in it.   If the universe had a different configuration of elements, forces, etc. there might be another form of exotic life arguing that the universe was fine-tuned for it.

... the problem of biogenesis, ...

This is simply: 'we cannot explain abiogenesis therefore God did it'.   It is an argument from ignorance coupled with an argument from incredulity.

... and the presence of information in organisms ...

Explained by evolution

... all contribute scientific evidence for the existence of an all-powerful, life-giving, intelligent being, which we call God.

Powerful life-giving forces yes.   There is zero evidence that this is the result of a sentient creator.

In the past 60 years, I have seen science moving more and more consistently in every area toward a consistent vision of an ordered universe that points beyond itself to a design and a designer.

Understanding how nature works is not evidence of a design or a designer.

In other words, it is becoming more and more evident that science and Scripture, rightly understood, are not incompatible.

Sure.   You argue that the Earth is ~6,000 years old and also claim science and scripture are compatible.  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

Science demonstrates that the universe was likely created by a powerful and great mind.

Someone needs to learn some science.

But what it can never teach us, that Scripture does teach us, is that the One who holds the universe together is also the Lover of our souls. And that is reason for hope beyond this life.

Declaring something that ancient human beings made up as divine truth is not a good thing.  

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
21.1.1  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  TᵢG @21.1    one week ago

It is when God told them to write what they did.  

 
 
TᵢG
21.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21.1.1    one week ago
It is when God told them to write what they did.  

So per you, God, the grandest possible entity - the arbiter of objective morality told the ancient men to write stuff like this:

Affirming that one human owning another as property is moral (just ensure that when you beat them they do not die in a day or two):

20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

Assigning a death penalty to a homosexual act:

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Just the tip of the iceberg.

 
 
epistte
21.1.3  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21.1.1    one week ago
It is when God told them to write what they did.  

Your supposed god is either bipolar or he has multiple personalities because there are many books of the Old Testament that disagree. Even the 4 gospels do not agree with each other. Your god is a sadistic sociopath and can even be an outright psychopath. 

Claiming that God wrote the bible only appeals to people who cannot think critically and logically. Not everyone is that simple or afraid of baseless threats.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
21.1.4  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  epistte @21.1.3    6 days ago

......"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails." With this wonderful description of love we have the promise that love never fails! If God would send the bulk of humanity to be tortured in hell for all eternity, then that would be the proof that love had failed. Therefore we know that God will not do that.

Since God is love, we know that everything He does comes from a heart of love. All His thoughts, words and actions have love as their source and motive. His goal for all humanity is rooted in love. He can do nothing other than love. His disciplines too are rooted in love.

God's love is not a permissive love. He doesn't say, "You can do whatever you please and I'll love you anyway." Responsible and mature parents train their children to be trustworthy, respectful, reliable, truthful and loving. God also trains His children. He does not withhold His love in the training sessions, but He shows us the areas in which we need to change. He is always right, and we do well to heed His voice. God is very thorough in His training, for He has committed Himself to change us into the exact image or representation of Christ!

We also know that God is absolutely righteous. How does the mixture of the two absolutes, love and righteousness, work towards unrighteous humanity? Does God love us just the way we are or does He love us in spite of the way we are? God's passion is against unrighteousness. Does God's hatred of evil obstruct His love for the sinner? Many theologians claim that God does not love the sinner, since He hates evil, and there is nothing good in unrighteous humanity. Others say that He loves the sinner but hates their unrighteous deeds. What do the scriptures declare?

In Romans 5:8 we read, "But God demonstrates His love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Sending Jesus Christ to this earth to die that horrible death on the cross is a demonstration of God's love for sinners - and that includes all of us, for at one time we were sinners. Our minds may wonder how this can be possible, but this is the declaration of scripture. God is always true to Himself....... http://www.thegoodseed.org/insights/godislove.html

 
 
epistte
21.1.5  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21.1.4    6 days ago
....."Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails." With this wonderful description of love we have the promise that love never fails! If God would send the bulk of humanity to be tortured in hell for all eternity, then that would be the proof that love had failed. Therefore we know that God will not do that.

Since God is love, we know that everything He does comes from a heart of love. All His thoughts, words and actions have love as their source and motive. His goal for all humanity is rooted in love. He can do nothing other than love. His disciplines too are rooted in love.

God's love is not a permissive love. He doesn't say, "You can do whatever you please and I'll love you anyway." Responsible and mature parents train their children to be trustworthy, respectful, reliable, truthful and loving. God also trains His children. He does not withhold His love in the training sessions, but He shows us the areas in which we need to change. He is always right, and we do well to heed His voice. God is very thorough in His training, for He has committed Himself to change us into the exact image or representation of Christ!

This is an example of emotion based religious apologetics. 

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21.1.4    6 days ago
Since God is love

Not according to the bible he's not.

We also know that God is absolutely righteous.

it's quite arrogant to presume you know or understand the grandest entity possible. 

Regardless, your tripe is just emotionally based rhetoric and fantasy!

 
 
TᵢG
21.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21.1.4    6 days ago
"But God demonstrates His love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Sending Jesus Christ to this earth to die that horrible death on the cross is a demonstration of God's love for sinners - and that includes all of us, for at one time we were sinners.

On this example, have you ever paused to consider this?:

God sends His Son hypostasis (i.e. Himself) so that He will be crucified (human sacrifice of Himself to Himself).

Because He loves us.

God has Himself crucified (human sacrifice) by His creations so that He can then forgive His creations of the original sin they inherited from Adam & Eve who committed the original sin by eating from the forbidden tree of knowledge even though God knew they would eat from it (being omniscient) and was the entity who created them (and the tempting tree) predisposed to eat from this tree (omnipotent).

Moral of our story:   Don't just accept the words of ancient men as divine.   The God of the Bible is an absurd character and the Bible is replete with contradictions.   The God character invented by these ancient men is an impossible logical contradiction.   It is self-refuting fiction.   

There may indeed be a God - a creator of the universe - a supreme entity, but it is most assuredly not the character described by the Bible.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @21.1.7    6 days ago
have you ever paused to consider this?:

Or considered how illogical the story really is? The idea that a supposed omnipotent god, who can do anything, requires a human sacrifice in order to "forgive" people of sin, is absurd. Other ancient cultures and religions also practiced human sacrifice. The Christian religion is no different. It seems the crucifixion was borrowed from those other cultural practices.

 
 
TᵢG
21.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.8    6 days ago

Exactly.   The story is absurd yet people nod their heads as if this makes the slightest bit of sense.   

I want to forgive you from the original sin of Adam & Eve which took place well before you were born, but before I do I need you to crucify me.   Once you have tortured and killed me I can then grant you everlasting life.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @21.1.9    6 days ago
The story is absurd yet people nod their heads as if this makes the slightest bit of sense.

I doubt they even think about it. They simply accept it as is and as truth. Why think about it? That just takes extra effort. Of course, rational minded people do think and can point out how absurd the story really is.

I want to forgive you from the original sin of Adam & Eve which took place well before you were born

Since when is sin (a personal action that pisses god off) a hereditary trait? Why should we be punished for the sins of others? Makes no sense!

but before I do I need you to crucify me. Once you have tortured and killed me I can then grant you everlasting life.

Because somehow, god is incapable of simply saying "I forgive you of your sins." But murdering him is ok? "You tortured and killed me so all is forgiven now." Say what? jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
TᵢG
21.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.10    6 days ago
I doubt they even think about it.

Agreed.   It is simply accepted without thought.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @21.1.11    6 days ago
It is simply accepted without thought.

And that is what makes theists intellectually lazy and/or dishonest.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
21.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.10    6 days ago
somehow, god is incapable of simply saying "I forgive you of your sins." But murdering him is ok? "You tortured and killed me so all is forgiven now." Say what?

And not only that, but those who do not throw themselves on Gods mercy will be tortured for eternity. How's that for a God who is supposed to be the embodiment of love. 50 or 60 years of bad behavior here on earth, if you don't get it right you're going to spend billions of years being roasted and tormented by your loving creator. Sounds like the God they worship has more in common with Buffalo Bill than the "turn the other cheek" Jesus Christ described in the gospels.

 
 
epistte
21.1.14  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.8    6 days ago
Or considered how illogical the story really is? The idea that a supposed omnipotent god, who can do anything, requires a human sacrifice in order to "forgive" people of sin, is absurd. Other ancient cultures and religions also practiced human sacrifice. The Christian religion is no different. It seems the crucifixion was borrowed from those other cultural practices.

God can do anything except to prevent sin or to banish Satan that he created. If this was a movie it would earn the golden raspberry.  Even Waterworld had a better premise.

 
 
epistte
21.1.15  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @21.1.9    6 days ago
Exactly.   The story is absurd yet people nod their heads as if this makes the slightest bit of sense. 

I'm not sure if they have been so brainwashed that they cannot think logically about religion because of the innate cognitive dissonance, or they are afraid to open the door of critical thinking because of the social repurcussions among their friends and family. 

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @21.1.14    6 days ago
God can do anything except to prevent sin or to banish Satan that he created.

God supposedly created Satan and humans, knowing they would rebel and sin respectively. Yet, he blames us for those (meaning his) failings. How is that logical?

If this was a movie it would earn the golden raspberry. 

A 0% on Rotten tomatoes.

Even Waterworld had a better premise.

I actually liked Waterworld.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @21.1.15    6 days ago

Perhaps a little bit of both.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @21.1.13    6 days ago
And not only that, but those who do not throw themselves on Gods mercy will be tortured for eternity. How's that for a God who is supposed to be the embodiment of love.

Sounds like god is quite the ogre. Why anyone would worship such a deity is beyond me.

 
 
Trout Giggles
21.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.16    6 days ago
I actually liked Waterworld.

lol, me too

 
 
Trout Giggles
21.1.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @21.1.15    6 days ago
social repurcussions among their friends and family. 

I came out as an agnostic atheist to my family and friends. They still don't understand. I think the only one that might understand is my MIL, even tho she is a devout Catholic

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.21  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @21.1.19    6 days ago

Maybe it's just me, but I thought Jeanne Triplehorn was hot back in the 90's. 

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @21.1.20    6 days ago
They still don't understand.

They're not the only ones. Ever notice that whenever one challenges claims about god's existence, the response is sometimes along the lines of "you hate god," or "you know god exists but you want to deny Him...yada yada." It's like they can't even fathom that some people simply do not believe in their god.

 
 
epistte
21.1.23  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @21.1.20    6 days ago
I came out as an agnostic atheist to my family and friends. They still don't understand. I think the only one that might understand is my MIL, even tho she is a devout Catholic

I stopped going to mass and I sent a letter to the Cleveland diocese to remove my name from their membership list in 1992-3. I told my family that I didn't believe about 10 years ago and I have been a target of a few of the more extreme family members ever since.  They became enraged when I logically took apart the Bible and religious belief.  Only my older sister understands my Humanist beliefs. My daughter bought me a SCIENCE icon that parodies the X-tian fish but she isn't supportive. 

https://goo.gl/images/nGkEU8

 
 
epistte
21.1.24  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.16    6 days ago
God supposedly created Satan and humans, knowing they would rebel and sin respectively. Yet, he blames us for those (meaning his) failings. How is that logical?

That is prototypical gaslighting. You do something and them blame others for what you did. 

Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of manipulation through persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying in an attempt to destabilize and delegitimize a target. Its intent is to sow seeds of doubt in the targets, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity.

There is nothing healthy about theistic religious belief.

I want to slap sense into people when they tell me that they have been saved and earned god's grace.  The concept is insane. 

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @21.1.24    6 days ago
That is prototypical gaslighting. You do something and them blame others for what you did. 

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
― Gene Roddenberry

There is nothing healthy about theistic religious belief.

Theists also tend to be the most close-minded people too.

I want to slap sense into people when they tell me that they have been saved and earned god's grace. The concept is insane.

It's nothing more than emotionally based rhetoric. It's certainly not rational.

They became enraged when I logically took apart the Bible and religious belief.

Not surprising. Look at how some theists here react when their beliefs are challenged or picked apart. It's purely emotionally driven, without a hint of rationality.

Only my older sister understands my Humanist beliefs. My daughter bought me a SCIENCE icon that parodies the X-tian fish but she isn't supportive.

At least she understands. That's probably more than most.

I told my family that I didn't believe about 10 years ago and I have been a target of a few of the more extreme family members ever since.

Black sheep of the family, eh?

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.12    6 days ago
And that is what makes theists intellectually lazy and/or dishonest.

It's not just that.  They're afraid.  They've been taught since birth, probably, that doubting will lead to eternal damnation.  So they do everything they can to avoid doubting.

 
 
epistte
21.1.27  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.25    6 days ago
“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” ― Gene Roddenberry

We have consumer protection laws to protect people when they buy defective products that harm them. Apparently people don't see the connection on Sunday morning or Wednesday evening.  They cannot bring themselves to think logically about their beliefs because of the brainwashing.

Not surprising. Look at how some theists here react when their beliefs are challenged or picked apart. It's purely emotionally driven, without a hint of rationality.

They are also the most amoral bunch of people when it comes to their actions toward others. Apparently you can do anything that you want as long as you get on your knees on Sunday moring and admit that you are a fallible person. They are not required to make amends to people they hurt or to learn from their past actions. They defend their acts by claiming that their god commands it. They are also lousy liars.

At least she understands. That's probably more than most.

She knows that I am not going to change and that she doesn't want me to focus my sarcasm on her sacred cows. I know that anything that I tell her will be passed along to others to use against me because I've caught her doing it.

 
 
livefreeordie
21.1.28  livefreeordie  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.26    6 days ago

Truly an ignorant post.  We love and trust God because we have a personal intimate relationship with Him.  

God is the true reality and it's the atheists who live in denial of reality which they will have to face the moment they die.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.29  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.26    6 days ago
They're afraid.  They've been taught since birth, probably, that doubting will lead to eternal damnation.  So they do everything they can to avoid doubting.

True. Teaching/indoctrinating a child into believing that they must worship a god or be doomed to eternal damnation is mental child abuse. And some theists will claim it's for their own good, eternal soul, so they can go to heaven, ect.. It's outright despicable.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.30  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.28    6 days ago
Truly an ignorant post. 

Speak for yourself!

We love and trust God because we have a personal intimate relationship with Him.  

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Even children have a "personal, intimate relationship" with their imaginary friends. The only difference is, children outgrow such childish and delusional fantasies.

God is the true reality

That's nice. prove it!

and it's the atheists who live in denial of reality which they will have to face the moment they die.

An irrational appeal to emotion (fear) and an empty threat. it's no wonder no one rational takes you seriously. Nor should they or anyone else!

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.28    6 days ago
Truly an ignorant post.

Please.  We all know that's why most Christians would never wait until kids are older to introduce them to religion.  You'd miss your chance to indoctrinate them and instill in them a fear of thinking logically about religion.  If they thought logically about it, they wouldn't join.

God is the true reality

That's nice.  Prove it!  (All credit ot Gordy, of course).

You can't support your position, so you go on the attack.  Typical.

 
 
epistte
21.1.32  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.28    6 days ago
Truly an ignorant post.  We love and trust God because we have a personal intimate relationship with Him.   God is the true reality and it's the atheists who live in denial of reality which they will have to face the moment they die.

How can you possibly have a relationship with something that you can't prove exists to anyone who isn't also a believer? What you describe borders on a delusion in the same way that children have imaginary friends. If you had empirical proof of god then you would not need belief and faith.

Atheists cannot possibly deny something that has no proof of existing to people other than those who believe.   We can't see individual atoms with the unaided eye but we can prove that they exist.

 
 
livefreeordie
21.1.33  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @21.1.32    6 days ago

Simple. God promises a personal relationship to everyone who is born again in Christ.  We experience that relationship on a daily basis.  God speaks to us and for many of us like myself, we have had personal experiences where He manifests Himself to us.

God is NO imaginary person.  For believers He is as real as anyone we know.

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.33    6 days ago

So, still no proof?

 
 
Phoenyx13
21.1.35  Phoenyx13  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.22    6 days ago
"you know god exists but you want to deny Him...yada yada." It's like they can't even fathom that some people simply do not believe in their god.

that is a very popular line of thought for a few posters on NT that i have debated with on religious articles... they claim to be open minded and logical - yet cannot fathom that someone would simply not be convinced in their God so they jump to the conclusion that those people "must know he exists but deny him"... it's a rather odd jump in "logic" (seems to be more emotional than logical)

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.36  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @21.1.32    6 days ago
How can you possibly have a relationship with something that you can't prove exists

That is what FAITH is. 

 
 
livefreeordie
21.1.37  livefreeordie  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.31    6 days ago

Wrong. I teach that God and His existence is a reasoned conclusion based upon objective evidence.

The first evidence is creation itself.

The second evidence is Jesus who is God come to mankind in the form of man. He demonstrated His deity and power by laying His life down and then rising again from the grave and now sits in heaven until He comes again in power of His lordship over all of creation

The third evidence is the Holy Spirit who reveals all truth, who speaks for the Godhead, who convicts those who are honest about their sins, and who distributes gifts from God to demonstrate the power and presence of God

 
 
Phoenyx13
21.1.38  Phoenyx13  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.33    6 days ago
God speaks to us and for many of us like myself, we have had personal experiences where He manifests Himself to us

so you have actually seen God physically and can describe, in detail, what God looks like and mannerisms etc to everyone ? you should definitely let scientists know this as well so they can document such a phenomenon and then you'd have the empirical proof that your God does exist - although i do think you won't do any of those things which would give empirical proof that your God does exist and i'm pretty sure you know why.

 
 
livefreeordie
21.1.39  livefreeordie  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.34    6 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.40  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.36    6 days ago

Ok.

Sounds pretty illogical.

And it's absurd to assert that it's reality when one can't prove that one member of this relationship even exists, and hint that others are ignorant for not buying into the fantasy.

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.41  sandy-2021492  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.39    6 days ago
the proof is there.

Produce it, then.

 
 
livefreeordie
21.1.42  livefreeordie  replied to  Phoenyx13 @21.1.38    6 days ago

God the father is spirit, not human flesh.  Jesus who is also part of the Godhead is the one who reveals God.  

Yes I have been twice with Jesus, once taken up in the spirit to heaven and once when He came to visit to rebuke me for developing hardness of heart.  He loved me enough to do so in both instances.

I know many others who have had similar experiences as Jesus promised us.

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.43  sandy-2021492  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.37    6 days ago

None of that is evidence.

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.44  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.40    6 days ago

Do you believe in anything that can't be proven?  How about love?
Not the automatic kind between parents & children etc, but the complicated kind between a man and woman?  Is there really such a thing?

 
 
epistte
21.1.45  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.37    6 days ago
Wrong. I teach that God and His existence is a reasoned conclusion based upon objective evidence. The first evidence is creation itself.

That is the watchmaker's fallacy or the fallacy from design. The existence of the Earth or the universe does not in any way prove that a god created it.  That claim is a case of correlation does not prove causation.  Genesis is a myth and it isn't original to Genesis. 

 
 
Phoenyx13
21.1.46  Phoenyx13  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.37    6 days ago
The first evidence is creation itself.

Creation itself is only evidence of creation - not of any God creating anything.

The second evidence is Jesus who is God come to mankind in the form of man. He demonstrated His deity and power by laying His life down and then rising again from the grave and now sits in heaven until He comes again in power of His lordship over all of creation

So your God impregnated one of it's own creatures, which gave birth to a lesser form of your God since it was human, and then died (as humans tend to do)... this is proof of what ? that your deity impregnated one of it's own creations against it's will, then dies and expects everyone to bow down to it's death ? Should all human women be scared now that they could be impregnated at any minute by this mystical unproven entity ?

The third evidence is the Holy Spirit who reveals all truth, who speaks for the Godhead, who convicts those who are honest about their sins, and who distributes gifts from God to demonstrate the power and presence of God

The Holy Spirit speaks for Godhead ? who's Godhead ? is the Holy Spirit like Santa Claus from your description by distributing gifts to all the good believers ?

(this religious stuff gets more confusing the more you delve into it...)

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.44    6 days ago

The existence (or not) of love is not something that lends itself especially well to scientific investigation.  That's more a question for philosophy.  I wouldn't consider that comparable to producing evidence for a god who is supposedly the creator of the universe, and acted repeatedly within that universe, according to its followers.  They can produce no proof, so I have no reason to believe.

 
 
epistte
21.1.48  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.36    6 days ago
That is what FAITH is. 

Faith is the absence of proof. It isn't something to base your life on.

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.49  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @21.1.48    6 days ago
Faith is the absence of proof.

Wrong. Faith is the belief in something without proof

 
 
Phoenyx13
21.1.50  Phoenyx13  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.42    6 days ago
God the father is spirit, not human flesh.  Jesus who is also part of the Godhead is the one who reveals God.  

who is Godhead ? is Godhead another mystical unproven entity ? or is Jesus just God who reveals... himself ?

Yes I have been twice with Jesus, once taken up in the spirit to heaven and once when He came to visit to rebuke me for developing hardness of heart.  He loved me enough to do so in both instances.

so why haven't you reported this ? this is a great discovery which would provide empirical proof of your God existing if it can be proven - i would think that is something you would want so you can prove to the non-believers that your God does exist.

I know many others who have had similar experiences as Jesus promised us

why is there no recorded proof ?

 
 
epistte
21.1.51  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.33    6 days ago
God is NO imaginary person.  For believers He is as real as anyone we know.

Just because you have managed to convince or delude yourself into believing doesn't in any way mean that your beliefs are true.  Religious belief is a skyscraper built on logical quicksand.

 
 
Phoenyx13
21.1.52  Phoenyx13  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.44    6 days ago
Do you believe in anything that can't be proven?  How about love?

love can't be proven ? how odd.... 

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/

they seem to do a pretty good job...

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.53  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.47    6 days ago
The existence (or not) of love is not something that lends itself especially well to scientific investigation. 

It dosen't lend itself at all to scientific investigation. There are people who believe in it. Others call it nonsense. There is no proof that such an emotion is real.

I wouldn't consider that comparable to producing evidence for a god who is supposedly the creator of the universe, and acted repeatedly within that universe, according to its followers.

Producing evidence would end any conversation on God. At that point there would be no need for faith or religion, we would all simply accept the facts provided and live accordingly. Even when I was a believer, I never expected "proof" nor did I believe that God took part in the activities of mankind.

They can produce no proof, so I have no reason to believe.

That's fine, but understand believing without proof is what FAITH means.

 
 
livefreeordie
21.1.54  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @21.1.45    6 days ago

off to a speaking engagement, it's been fun

 
 
TᵢG
21.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.28    6 days ago
God is the true reality and it's the atheists who live in denial of reality which they will have to face the moment they die.

Fear of eternal damnation from a loving God.   Perfectly logical.

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.56  Vic Eldred  replied to  Phoenyx13 @21.1.52    6 days ago

Tell it to the people who have been married & divorced five and six times or more

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.57  Vic Eldred  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.54    6 days ago

It's been a pleasure, sir

 
 
TᵢG
21.1.58  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.33    6 days ago
For believers He is as real as anyone we know.

Well of course!   If someone believes in an entity the entity will be real to them.

 
 
TᵢG
21.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.37    6 days ago
The first evidence is creation itself.

First you need to show evidence of creation.   We have evidence that the universe came into existence.  That does not necessarily mean 'creation'.    The existence of our does not evidence a creator.

The second evidence is Jesus who is God come to mankind in the form of man. He demonstrated His deity and power by laying His life down and then rising again from the grave and now sits in heaven until He comes again in power of His lordship over all of creation

Your evidence boils down to the Bible.   You have no empirical evidence that Jesus (the Son hypostasis) ever existed.   Your evidence is a story in a book.   That is not evidence.

The third evidence is the Holy Spirit who reveals all truth, who speaks for the Godhead, who convicts those who are honest about their sins, and who distributes gifts from God to demonstrate the power and presence of God

You have no evidence of the Holy Spirit.  It is simply a claim.

Three strikes, you are out.

 
 
Phoenyx13
21.1.60  Phoenyx13  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.56    6 days ago
Tell it to the people who have been married & divorced five and six times or more

how odd you would suggest that people never change, that people never develop nor grow nor learn nor make mistakes etc... maybe you didn't read the article and understand it fully ?

i mean.. just by reading the article you would find:

In short, love makes us dumb. Have you ever done something when you were in love that you later regretted? Maybe not. I’d ask a certain star-crossed Shakespearean couple, but it’s a little late for them.

and this:

But that can’t be the whole story: love is often accompanied by jealousy, erratic behavior, and irrationality, along with a host of other less-than-positive emotions and moods. It seems that our friendly cohort of hormones is also responsible for the downsides of love.

it seems you didn't read the article... maybe you just don't like science much and prefer mythology ?

 
 
TᵢG
21.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.42    6 days ago
Yes I have been twice with Jesus, once taken up in the spirit to heaven and once when He came to visit to rebuke me for developing hardness of heart. 

What hubris - claiming to have had an audience in Heaven with a supreme entity.   jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
epistte
21.1.62  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.42    6 days ago
Yes I have been twice with Jesus, once taken up in the spirit to heaven and once when He came to visit to rebuke me for developing hardness of heart.  He loved me enough to do so in both instances. I know many others who have had similar experiences as Jesus promised us.

That sounds suspiciously close to a group delusion. 

There is no proof that Jesus as the son of man ever existed. The Bible isn't proof. The story of Jesus is far more likely that of a itinerant street preacher who was killed by the Romans and Jews for being a religious radical and his story was embellished by believers 

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.53    6 days ago
That's fine, but understand believing without proof is what FAITH means.

I do understand.  That doesn't make it any more rational.

And as far as not needing proof as a believer, you might want to give HA a hint.  He seems to need proof, and it leads him to post laughably ignorant seeds.

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.64  sandy-2021492  replied to  epistte @21.1.62    6 days ago
That sounds suspiciously close to a group delusion. 

That kinda shit is how we got the Salem witch trials.

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.65  Vic Eldred  replied to  Phoenyx13 @21.1.60    5 days ago

Maybe you didn't really read it or maybe you have less should I say "life experience."  Have you not met anyone who says they have never experienced such emotion? How about people who have sought it yet could not find it?   Others claim that sex is synonymous with it. How can science measure an emotion?


Btw, aren't there scientists who believe there must be a Supreme Being?

 
 
Freefaller
21.1.66  Freefaller  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.33    5 days ago
God speaks to us

Could you have a tape recorder handy for the next time that happens?

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.67  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.63    5 days ago
That doesn't make it any more rational.

Whatever it is, it once was the glue that held our society together. The firm belief that stealing is a sin appeals a lot more to me than having steel grates covering store fronts and surveillance cameras throughout the store.

 
 
epistte
21.1.68  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.65    5 days ago
Maybe you didn't really read it or maybe you have less should I say "life experience."  Have you not met anyone who says they have never experienced such emotion? How about people who have sought it yet could not find it?   Others claim that sex is synonymous with it. How can science measure an emotion?

We can measure those emotions with an MRI, but it doesn't mean that God is speaking to you.

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.69  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @21.1.68    5 days ago
but it doesn't mean that God is speaking to you.

Whaaaaaa?

 
 
epistte
21.1.70  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.65    5 days ago
Btw, aren't there scientists who believe there must be a Supreme Being?

Are they social Christians and deists, or are they religious fundamentalists that deny evolution and the Big Bang?

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.71  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.67    5 days ago

Considering the tiny percentage of prisoners who are atheists, it seems that religion hasn't bee especially good at preventing crime.  As society has become less religious, it has also become less violent.  And religion has "held society together" in a negative way - justifying slavery, misogyny, racism, child abuse...

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.72  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.33    5 days ago
Simple. God promises a personal relationship to everyone who is born again in Christ. 

That doesn't answer epistte's question.

We experience that relationship on a daily basis.  God speaks to us and for many of us like myself, we have had personal experiences where He manifests Himself to us.

Sounds like a psychological condition. Kind of like a bad drug trip.

God is NO imaginary person.  For believers He is as real as anyone we know.

Still waiting for you to prove it!

Wrong. I teach that God and His existence is a reasoned conclusion based upon objective evidence.

So in other words, you're lying! There is no objective evidence for a god.

The first evidence is creation itself.

Wrong! That's just evidence of creation. it's no more evidence for your god than it is for fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. Try again!

The second evidence is Jesus who is God come to mankind in the form of man. He demonstrated His deity and power by laying His life down and then rising again from the grave and now sits in heaven until He comes again in power of His lordship over all of creation

Circular reasoning, based on biblical heresay and belief. there is no evidence of jesus (assuming he actually existed) ever being god. Try again!

The third evidence is the Holy Spirit who reveals all truth, who speaks for the Godhead, who convicts those who are honest about their sins, and who distributes gifts from God to demonstrate the power and presence of God

No evidence of any spirit either. That's just subjective belief and/or delusion. Try again!

God the father is spirit, not human flesh. Jesus who is also part of the Godhead is the one who reveals God.

That's nice. prove it!

Yes I have been twice with Jesus, once taken up in the spirit to heaven and once when He came to visit to rebuke me for developing hardness of heart. He loved me enough to do so in both instances.

Refer to my statement about psychological conditions or bad drug trips!

I know many others who have had similar experiences as Jesus promised us.

Subjective and anecdotal. That's not objective evidence. Do you even know what real evidence is?

off to a speaking engagement, it's been fun

I don't blame you for running away, considering how easy it is to blow your argument and so-called "evidence" out of the water. 

 
 
epistte
21.1.73  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @21.1.72    5 days ago
Sounds like a psychological condition. Kind of like a bad drug trip.

Stay away from that bible acid dude. Didn't Grace Slick say somthing about that in White Rabbit? 

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.74  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @21.1.70    5 days ago

"According to a much discussed survey reported in the journal "Nature" in 1997, 40% of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence, but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer"

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/us/scientists-speak-up-on-mix-of-god-and-science.html

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.75  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.71    5 days ago
Considering the tiny percentage of prisoners who are atheists

I think you have forgotten how many are still designated as belonging to a religion long after they have stopped believing. This is mostly a secular society - except for the immigrants, who still practice their religion.

 
 
epistte
21.1.76  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.74    5 days ago
According to a much discussed survey reported in the journal "Nature" in 1997, 40% of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence, but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer"

That was 20 years ago.  At that time I was still a deist. What is the result in 2018?

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.77  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.75    5 days ago

Very few people are "designated" as belonging to a religion.  So far as I've heard, it's pretty much just Catholics and Mormons who are kept on church membership rolls long after they stop attending church.  Makes the numbers look better.

When polls are carried out to determine what percentage of the population belongs to what religion or denomination, they aren't checking with church membership rolls.  They're asking the poll participants themselves, and those folks are free to give any answer they like.

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.78  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @21.1.76    5 days ago

I have no idea. Isn't that enough?

 
 
MrFrost
21.1.79  MrFrost  replied to  epistte @21.1.76    5 days ago
At that time I was still a deist.

I still am and damn proud of it. :)

 
 
MrFrost
21.1.80  MrFrost  replied to  Freefaller @21.1.66    5 days ago
Could you have a tape recorder handy for the next time that happens?

Don't need one, just check the twitter feed. ;)

 
 
epistte
21.1.81  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.78    5 days ago
I have no idea. Isn't that enough?

People change their beliefs when they have more information and talk to others about religion. The internet encourages both actions.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
21.1.82  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  epistte @21.1.81    5 days ago

Religious people in all professions aren’t going to go away.  We are here to stay to the end of the age.  

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.83  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.36    5 days ago
That is what FAITH is. 

Sounds like another word for delusion to me.

Do you believe in anything that can't be proven?

I don't! Why would I, or anyone else? Even if something isn't proven, I'll consider the evidence available to establish a probability approximating "proof."

How about love? Not the automatic kind between parents & children etc, but the complicated kind between a man and woman? Is there really such a thing?

Yes, love can be proven. MRI imaging of the brain has done that. Love is a neurochemical reaction in the limbic system of the brain, specifically in the amygdala, which regulates emotional states and responses. Hormonal actions also regulate the "love" response. It's simple neuro science. No belief is necessary or required. 

Faith is the belief in something without proof

See first statement. I'd rather have actual proof. Who wouldn't?

It dosen't lend itself at all to scientific investigation. There are people who believe in it. Others call it nonsense. There is no proof that such an emotion is real.

Demonstrably false! 

Producing evidence would end any conversation on God. At that point there would be no need for faith or religion, we would all simply accept the facts provided and live accordingly.

So? What's the problem? That sounds like a far more rational way to live. it sounds as if some people prefer irrationality or the emotional comfort of faith or god over actual reality. I'll take rationality and reality, thank you.

Even when I was a believer, I never expected "proof" nor did I believe that God took part in the activities of mankind.

That makes faith or god irrelevant then. no need for belief.

That's fine, but understand believing without proof is what FAITH means.

See first statement.

Have you not met anyone who says they have never experienced such emotion? How about people who have sought it yet could not find it?

What about them? People sometimes form emotional attachments to others and sometimes they don't. It's all about the brain.

Others claim that sex is synonymous with it.

Sex can enhance an emotional attachment through the use of endorphins, and vice versa

How can science measure an emotion?

That has already been explained. It's neurochemistry.

Btw, aren't there scientists who believe there must be a Supreme Being?

Of course. But that doesn't lend any validity to claims for a god and most credible scientists won't invoke a god as an explanation for anything. Good scientists go where the evidence leads, not what they want to believe.

According to a much discussed survey reported in the journal "Nature" in 1997, 40% of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence, but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer"

Relevance? See previous statement!

Whatever it is, it once was the glue that held our society together.

Back in the Bronze Age maybe. Fortunately, society has advanced and progressed over the centuries (although I still wonder about that sometimes). 

The firm belief that stealing is a sin appeals a lot more to me than having steel grates covering store fronts and surveillance cameras throughout the store.

Sin is just a silly religious concept. It certainly doesn't detract from the act of stealing itself. If one needs to contemplate stealing as a sin or fear cosmic punishment as a result to keep them from stealing, then perhaps that individual has a character flaw. Some of us are capable of knowing stealing is wrong and engaging in the act would never cross our minds to begin with.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.84  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @21.1.73    5 days ago
Stay away from that bible acid dude.

I avoid it like the plague. I'd rather sacrifice my brain cells to good booze rather than bad religion. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.85  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21.1.82    5 days ago
Religious people in all professions aren’t going to go away.  

That just shows how close minded they can be.

We are here to stay to the end of the age.

So are non-religious people. Your point?

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.86  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @21.1.61    5 days ago
What hubris

Or delusion.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.87  Gordy327  replied to  Phoenyx13 @21.1.35    5 days ago
they claim to be open minded and logical

If that were true, they would at least acknowledge that their beliefs might be wrong.

it's a rather odd jump in "logic" (seems to be more emotional than logical)

It's all emotional. There's no logic in it at all.

 
 
epistte
21.1.88  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21.1.82    5 days ago
Religious people in all professions aren’t going to go away.  We are here to stay to the end of the age.  

Religious belief is fading away at an almost exponential pace as people discuss religion and as people learn. Nobody will ban religion but it will slowly die off because it will be seen as irrelevant and unnecessary.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.89  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @21.1.88    5 days ago
Religious belief is fading away at an almost exponential pace as people discuss religion and as people learn. Nobody will ban religion but it will slowly die off because it will be seen as irrelevant and unnecessary.

This can only be a good thing.

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
21.1.90  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.28    5 days ago

Exactly. Well said. 

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
21.1.91  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.34    5 days ago

No, and there never will be the kind of proof the willful skeptics demand.  They will refuse to believe to the end of the age unwilling to demonstrate any faith at all.  There is enough out there to have a rational basis for our faith that God exist and that He is the creator of us, our world, and the universe.  

 
 
Xxjefferson#51
21.1.92  seeder  Xxjefferson#51  replied to  livefreeordie @21.1.37    5 days ago

Bravo!  Correct on every point. Thanks for your contribution to this seed.  jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
epistte
21.1.93  epistte  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21.1.91    5 days ago
No, and there never will be the kind of proof the willful skeptics demand.  They will refuse to believe to the end of the age unwilling to demonstrate any faith at all.  There is enough out there to have a rational basis for our faith that God exist and that He is the creator of us, our world, and the universe.  

Show me physical proof of god that can be replicated by non-believers and I'll become a Christian.

Faith and belief are emotions and point to the lack of proof.

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.94  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @21.1.77    5 days ago
They're asking the poll participants themselves, and those folks are free to give any answer they like.

They do. How many who haven't been to Church in years still list themselves under the religion they were born into?

 
 
Vic Eldred
21.1.95  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @21.1.81    5 days ago

I think it is life's experiences that either change or foster beliefs, not the internet.

 
 
epistte
21.1.96  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.95    5 days ago
I think it is life's experiences that either change or foster beliefs, not the internet.

The existence of the internet fosters change because it allows groups of disparate people to discuss  and debate ideas in real time and without emotions, unlike in person or via telephone. The discussion that we are having here would have been almost impossible 20 years ago, especially among such a wide group of people in real time.

I had never met an atheist until I was on the net and was brainwashed by the church to think that atheist were amoral back alley criminals. Atheists are just like you and other people  but we believe in one less god than you do. I didn't even known that Humanists existed until the internet gave me the ability to research such topics from the comfort of my desk 24/7/365. 

Ive only ever met a handful of people who are atheists in real time because we don't have large meetings and because I live in a relatively conservative area. I just discovered a Humanist group that meets a few times a month in the Akron area and I might attend one of the discussions next week because of the topic. 

 
 
sandy-2021492
21.1.97  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.94    5 days ago

Is one not able to believe without setting foot inside a church?  I've known believers who never went to church, and nonbelievers who did.

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.98  Gordy327  replied to  Xxjefferson#51 @21.1.91    5 days ago
No, and there never will be the kind of proof the willful skeptics demand.

Then neither you or any other believers have any credibility for  claims regarding god and no one has any reason to take your seriously!

 They will refuse to believe to the end of the age unwilling to demonstrate any faith at all.  

That's just it: some of us do not believe, period, because of the lack of evidence. We prefer evidence and facts over mere belief/faith. Faith is just an emotionally based belief without any proof whatsoever. it's neither rational or logical.

There is enough out there to have a rational basis for our faith that God exist and that He is the creator of us, our world, and the universe.  

Just no actual empirical evidence. All you have is subjective and anecdotally based belief. And there's nothing rational about that.

Exactly. Well said.

Only if your standards for logical discussion is exceedingly low!

Correct on every point

Too bad all of his (and your) points are logically blown out of the water!

 
 
Gordy327
21.1.99  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.94    5 days ago
How many who haven't been to Church in years still list themselves under the religion they were born into?

Is going to a church or religious institution of one's choice a requirement to be religious?

I think it is life's experiences that either change or foster beliefs, not the internet

Of course. But the internet can be a source of information and knowledge, where one can gain the information to critically think about something rather than rely on mere belief or wishful thinking.

 
 
Phoenyx13
21.1.100  Phoenyx13  replied to  Vic Eldred @21.1.65    5 days ago
Maybe you didn't really read it or maybe you have less should I say "life experience."  Have you not met anyone who says they have never experienced such emotion? How about people who have sought it yet could not find it?   Others claim that sex is synonymous with it. How can science measure an emotion?

well thanks for confirming you didn't read the article. How do medical professionals treat an emotion like.... depression ? gee... it's ... well... chemicals ! chemicals affecting your brain, correct ? do you think love, hate, anger etc are different ? or that somehow love is magic emotion that doesn't involve chemicals being released in the human body ?

some people claim they haven't found it - that's whatever their definition of "it" is (we all have different viewpoints on what "love" is from a social standpoint, but all of those still involve... ready ?.... chemicals being released into the body ! isn't science fun ?) is it possible they have ? absolutely, they just didn't think it was what they consider to be their version of love from a social standpoint (do you really need humans explained to you ? you inferred you have much "life experience" so i figured you should know this by now).

If you read the article then you would understand why some people think sex is synonymous with love, i suggest you start with that article and then do a simple Google search (or your favorite search engine) and it'll solve the "mysteries" of love that you seem to think exist with this emotion and science. (for someone who infers they have had more "life experience" - you don't seem to know very much concerning humans)

Btw, aren't there scientists who believe there must be a Supreme Being?

you did have a point to that statement right ? lots of people find mythology fascinating, in many different career fields.

 
 
Gordy327
21.2