oscar;1445998 wrote: No apology needed... my user name Is after my Persian Cat, Oscar.
We were going to call our dog oscar but it ended up he answered to ozzie instead. People kept asking where sharon was and i used to wonder why till it dawned on me they assumed we wee black sabbath fans - actually my wife is. Our other dog is called ziggy, he has one brown and one blue eye the connection that time was deliberate.
Isn't it interesting the random things that go through your mind when reading a thread.
Welcome to conversation.
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446330 wrote: We were going to call our dog oscar but it ended up he answered to ozzie instead. People kept asking where sharon was and i used to wonder why till it dawned on me they assumed we wee black sabbath fans - actually my wife is. Our other dog is called ziggy, he has one brown and one blue eye the connection that time was deliberate.
Isn't it interesting the random things that go through your mind when reading a thread.
Yes I went through a thread and read you say that you were Agnostic, now your Atheist. An interesting random thing.
Isn't it interesting the random things that go through your mind when reading a thread.
Yes I went through a thread and read you say that you were Agnostic, now your Atheist. An interesting random thing.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446337 wrote: Yes I went through a thread and read you say that you were Agnostic, now your Atheist. An interesting random thing.
Why random ? Its a progression, maybe reached after long thoughtful consideration. It's been 10 years since your "discovery" He could of reached a different conclusion but instead thought logically and scientifically rather than religiously and faith based.
It seems lost on you that we all reach different conclusions and decisions in life. It irks you that our minds find different answers to our questions. You are arrogant to think that only you know where to find the answers. Our free though allows us the ability to understand the world in our own way, not necessarily YOUR way.
The more you shout, the less we want to listen. Its like being lectured and reprimanded all in one go.
My views, incidentally have nothing to do with me being an Atheist, since you will probably insist that my "atheist behaviour" dictates the way I think about you. It doesn't. You dictate the way I think about you
Why random ? Its a progression, maybe reached after long thoughtful consideration. It's been 10 years since your "discovery" He could of reached a different conclusion but instead thought logically and scientifically rather than religiously and faith based.
It seems lost on you that we all reach different conclusions and decisions in life. It irks you that our minds find different answers to our questions. You are arrogant to think that only you know where to find the answers. Our free though allows us the ability to understand the world in our own way, not necessarily YOUR way.
The more you shout, the less we want to listen. Its like being lectured and reprimanded all in one go.
My views, incidentally have nothing to do with me being an Atheist, since you will probably insist that my "atheist behaviour" dictates the way I think about you. It doesn't. You dictate the way I think about you
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446337 wrote: Yes I went through a thread and read you say that you were Agnostic, now your Atheist. An interesting random thing.
You don't go out much do you.
No it's not. An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. An atheist is one who does not believe there is a god. Sometimes it's easier to say you are an agnostic it's saves a lot of hot air coming from religious nuts who assume atheists have just made the same kind of leap of faith that they have. Yes it was a cop out. You can't have rational discussion with someone who is a religious fundamentalist they do not have the capacity to reason. You cannot prove the on existence of something that does not exist therefore it is impossible to prove there is no god. That's not a problem since it is up to those who claim there is a god to provide evidence. I am 99.99% an atheist.
Religious people cannot explain the how and why of how we got here except to decide the explanation must be god because they can't imagine anything else, God is just that, an imaginary being made up to explain things by primitive people. Science goes some way to explaining how we got here in a way that can be tested and checked out by anyone interested in doing so but does not answer all the questions Just because it does not answer all the questions religious people tell themselves that must be because god did it. They are so terrified they might be wrong they don't even want to think about it instead they build their lives round a ridiculous fantasy and if they kept it to themselves all would be well but they don't.
Religion has been carefully constructed by those in power to keep control of society, if you read the old testament you can see that is exactly what moses was doing, shaping the tribes of israel and creating a religious dictatorship he could use then to conquer the neighboring tribes. Maybe he really did believe god was guiding him he would not be the first that heard voices. The catholic church did exactly the same, you can follow the way doctrine was shaped and used to make society in the way they wanted. same with islam, over and over again.
All it comes down to is does god exist, he doesn't you can't prove he does and endless arguments about the nature of god and how that god is not the god I know etc etc are pointless. If there is only one god there is only one god and arguing which one is the real one is stupidity piled on stupidity. Too many people in this world look to religion to give them moral guidance and tell them right from wrong rather than think for themselves.
How demented do you have to be to believe that by following a set creed or finding your own personal jesus (that's heresy by the way according to some) you will go to heaven and everyone else is going to hell. Come to that what does it say about you that you want to believe such a thing. By the way don't bother telling me that is not what you believe I really don't care what version of the imaginary friend you hold to it's all hokum.
Theology and spirituality are interesting and religious people are interesting because it's puzzling why otherwise intelligent people can believe such patently arrant nonsense. You know a great deal less about theology than you think you do and i see you have gone back to talking to yourself or rather reciting bits from the last religious brochure you read and getting annoyed at people who interrupt your flow. Pity that, arguing with you could be fun otherwise.
You don't go out much do you.
No it's not. An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. An atheist is one who does not believe there is a god. Sometimes it's easier to say you are an agnostic it's saves a lot of hot air coming from religious nuts who assume atheists have just made the same kind of leap of faith that they have. Yes it was a cop out. You can't have rational discussion with someone who is a religious fundamentalist they do not have the capacity to reason. You cannot prove the on existence of something that does not exist therefore it is impossible to prove there is no god. That's not a problem since it is up to those who claim there is a god to provide evidence. I am 99.99% an atheist.
Religious people cannot explain the how and why of how we got here except to decide the explanation must be god because they can't imagine anything else, God is just that, an imaginary being made up to explain things by primitive people. Science goes some way to explaining how we got here in a way that can be tested and checked out by anyone interested in doing so but does not answer all the questions Just because it does not answer all the questions religious people tell themselves that must be because god did it. They are so terrified they might be wrong they don't even want to think about it instead they build their lives round a ridiculous fantasy and if they kept it to themselves all would be well but they don't.
Religion has been carefully constructed by those in power to keep control of society, if you read the old testament you can see that is exactly what moses was doing, shaping the tribes of israel and creating a religious dictatorship he could use then to conquer the neighboring tribes. Maybe he really did believe god was guiding him he would not be the first that heard voices. The catholic church did exactly the same, you can follow the way doctrine was shaped and used to make society in the way they wanted. same with islam, over and over again.
All it comes down to is does god exist, he doesn't you can't prove he does and endless arguments about the nature of god and how that god is not the god I know etc etc are pointless. If there is only one god there is only one god and arguing which one is the real one is stupidity piled on stupidity. Too many people in this world look to religion to give them moral guidance and tell them right from wrong rather than think for themselves.
How demented do you have to be to believe that by following a set creed or finding your own personal jesus (that's heresy by the way according to some) you will go to heaven and everyone else is going to hell. Come to that what does it say about you that you want to believe such a thing. By the way don't bother telling me that is not what you believe I really don't care what version of the imaginary friend you hold to it's all hokum.
Theology and spirituality are interesting and religious people are interesting because it's puzzling why otherwise intelligent people can believe such patently arrant nonsense. You know a great deal less about theology than you think you do and i see you have gone back to talking to yourself or rather reciting bits from the last religious brochure you read and getting annoyed at people who interrupt your flow. Pity that, arguing with you could be fun otherwise.
Welcome to conversation.
I will discuss things in Peace; the arguement stops here.
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446495 wrote: Translation: I can't think of any counter argument beyond repeating the same nonsense over and over again and my brain hurts when I think so i will stop posting and pretend to myself I'm giving up for the sake of peace.
The reason (IMO) religious fundamentalists get so angry when their beliefs are challenged is because they know something is wrong about the way they think and they instinctively iknow they would lose faith if they spent any time examining what they believe. I also think many of them like being told it's OK to hate gays, women, and all other religions be they protestants, catholics, muslims, hindu. etc etc. small minds need hate to have someone to blame for their miserable existence much better then dealing with the real problems. We are the chosen people knuckle draggers of the world unite and follow my god.
I am not religious and I do not like religion, although i recognise the good they have done; I also see the evil. I am not involved in any religion; I don't hate gays or women, and I am not chosen by God, I don't know God. I will continue the conversation with you, but I will just ignore your insults and rants, because I have been fighting Atheist all this week, and now the fight is over;
but I am willing to talk; welcome to the conversation. I can counter any arguement you present, as long as you care to present it.
The reason (IMO) religious fundamentalists get so angry when their beliefs are challenged is because they know something is wrong about the way they think and they instinctively iknow they would lose faith if they spent any time examining what they believe. I also think many of them like being told it's OK to hate gays, women, and all other religions be they protestants, catholics, muslims, hindu. etc etc. small minds need hate to have someone to blame for their miserable existence much better then dealing with the real problems. We are the chosen people knuckle draggers of the world unite and follow my god.
I am not religious and I do not like religion, although i recognise the good they have done; I also see the evil. I am not involved in any religion; I don't hate gays or women, and I am not chosen by God, I don't know God. I will continue the conversation with you, but I will just ignore your insults and rants, because I have been fighting Atheist all this week, and now the fight is over;
but I am willing to talk; welcome to the conversation. I can counter any arguement you present, as long as you care to present it.
Welcome to conversation.
Snowfire;1446354 wrote:
The more you shout, the less we want to listen. Its like being lectured and reprimanded all in one go.
I am content with who is listening.
The more you shout, the less we want to listen. Its like being lectured and reprimanded all in one go.
I am content with who is listening.
Welcome to conversation.
Some people want to rant on about religion, I simply hold little interest in religion, but i am interested in God. The things religion has done, was done by religion, not by God. And God and religion are not the same, nor does God endorse any religion.
If religion irritates you, why blame a God who has nothing to do with religion?
If religion irritates you, why blame a God who has nothing to do with religion?
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446512 wrote: I am not religious and I do not like religion, although i recognise the good they have done; I also see the evil. I am not involved in any religion; I don't hate gays or women, and I am not chosen by God, I don't know God. I will continue the conversation with you, but I will just ignore your insults and rants, because I have been fighting Atheist all this week, and now the fight is over;
but I am willing to talk; welcome to the conversation. I can counter any arguement you present, as long as you care to present it.
At the request of the administrator i have removed that last post. Apparently I am ranting a bit. I have presented several arguments but you choose not to try and answer.
I don't need to prove the non existence of god, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. You claim god exists why don't you prove it?
but I am willing to talk; welcome to the conversation. I can counter any arguement you present, as long as you care to present it.
At the request of the administrator i have removed that last post. Apparently I am ranting a bit. I have presented several arguments but you choose not to try and answer.
I don't need to prove the non existence of god, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. You claim god exists why don't you prove it?
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446560 wrote: At the request of the administrator i have removed that last post. Apparently I am ranting a bit. I have presented several arguments but you choose not to try and answer.
I don't need to prove the non existence of god, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. You claim god exists why don't you prove it?
Sure, why not?
Lets start with your " Random conversion" from Agnostic to Atheist, you claim it turned into a deliberate conversion over the years. I accept that formula; I also accept it with creation. It was not random over the years, it was deliberate year by year.. If you walk down a street and find one dime on the ground, so what! Yet if you walk further and find 3 dimes on the ground, you may correctly assume that someone has dropped them. Even still, if you walk further and find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each one individually balanced and standing up on their edges, now you can correctly assume that this was deliberately done. Not random over the years.
This is absolute proof of God, when we look at the " Dimes on their edges that are spread out in the Universe", the planets and their vast trillions in numbers, and thier order of placement in space. We can correctly assume that there exist a creator who deliberately did this.
I don't need to prove the non existence of god, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. You claim god exists why don't you prove it?
Sure, why not?
Lets start with your " Random conversion" from Agnostic to Atheist, you claim it turned into a deliberate conversion over the years. I accept that formula; I also accept it with creation. It was not random over the years, it was deliberate year by year.. If you walk down a street and find one dime on the ground, so what! Yet if you walk further and find 3 dimes on the ground, you may correctly assume that someone has dropped them. Even still, if you walk further and find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each one individually balanced and standing up on their edges, now you can correctly assume that this was deliberately done. Not random over the years.
This is absolute proof of God, when we look at the " Dimes on their edges that are spread out in the Universe", the planets and their vast trillions in numbers, and thier order of placement in space. We can correctly assume that there exist a creator who deliberately did this.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446567 wrote: Sure, why not?
Lets start with your " Random conversion" from Agnostic to Atheist, you claim it turned into a deliberate conversion over the years. I accept that formula; I also accept it with creation. It was not random over the years, it was deliberate year by year.. If you walk down a street and find one dime on the ground, so what! Yet if you walk further and find 3 dimes on the ground, you may correctly assume that someone has dropped them. Even still, if you walk further and find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each one individually balanced and standing up on their edges, now you can correctly assume that this was deliberately done. Not random over the years.
This is absolute proof of God, when we look at the " Dimes on their edges that are spread out in the Universe", the planets and their vast trillions in numbers, and thier order of placement in space. We can correctly assume that there exist a creator who deliberately did this.
Now, a second proof is " Consciousness of that deliberance." We are aware of the Universe; conscuious of it and of a bit of our place in it. We can correctly assume that Consciousness is deliberate, and learning from knowledge we already know that life can only come from life. Thus we can know that conscious life can only come from conscious life, and we can correctly assume that conscious living humans originated fron a Conscious living being. We can use our conscious knowledge to reject the premise and theory that our conscious living origins came from unconscious dead things which appeared from nothing over a period of non accumlating eons.
Lets start with your " Random conversion" from Agnostic to Atheist, you claim it turned into a deliberate conversion over the years. I accept that formula; I also accept it with creation. It was not random over the years, it was deliberate year by year.. If you walk down a street and find one dime on the ground, so what! Yet if you walk further and find 3 dimes on the ground, you may correctly assume that someone has dropped them. Even still, if you walk further and find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each one individually balanced and standing up on their edges, now you can correctly assume that this was deliberately done. Not random over the years.
This is absolute proof of God, when we look at the " Dimes on their edges that are spread out in the Universe", the planets and their vast trillions in numbers, and thier order of placement in space. We can correctly assume that there exist a creator who deliberately did this.
Now, a second proof is " Consciousness of that deliberance." We are aware of the Universe; conscuious of it and of a bit of our place in it. We can correctly assume that Consciousness is deliberate, and learning from knowledge we already know that life can only come from life. Thus we can know that conscious life can only come from conscious life, and we can correctly assume that conscious living humans originated fron a Conscious living being. We can use our conscious knowledge to reject the premise and theory that our conscious living origins came from unconscious dead things which appeared from nothing over a period of non accumlating eons.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446569 wrote: Now, a second proof is " Consciousness of that deliberance." We are aware of the Universe; conscuious of it and of a bit of our place in it. We can correctly assume that Consciousness is deliberate, and learning from knowledge we already know that life can only come from life. Thus we can know that conscious life can only come from conscious life, and we can correctly assume that conscious living humans originated fron a Conscious living being. We can use our conscious knowledge to reject the premise and theory that our conscious living origins came from unconscious dead things which appeared from nothing over a period of non accumlating eons.
A Third proof is the lack of conscious life being eliminated by anything in existence. If life was the result of happenstance luck , then that luck could also hold the power to eliminate all life in another lucky moment; it has not. Thus we can correctly assume that life was PLANNED, and that no luck can eliminate it.
A Third proof is the lack of conscious life being eliminated by anything in existence. If life was the result of happenstance luck , then that luck could also hold the power to eliminate all life in another lucky moment; it has not. Thus we can correctly assume that life was PLANNED, and that no luck can eliminate it.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446571 wrote: A Third proof is the lack of conscious life being eliminated by anything in existence. If life was the result of happenstance luck , then that luck could also hold the power to eliminate all life in another lucky moment; it has not. Thus we can correctly assume that life was PLANNED, and that no luck can eliminate it.
Of course now I have hundreds of other proofs I can list, according to your pleasure. And we can converse on each one as you wish.
Of course now I have hundreds of other proofs I can list, according to your pleasure. And we can converse on each one as you wish.
Welcome to conversation.
Assume.....taking for granted without proof. Its not absolute proof and shows a bad understanding of evolution. I ..ahem.. assume you think that evolution means we evolved from monkeys.
There has to be an explanation for the question of the very beginning. You choose not to go for the Big Bang, presumably because it would seem you don't like the "getting something from nothing" explanation. Fine. As I said, we all need to find our own answers.
But both of our explanations have the same "beginning" what was before God. It makes no sense to believe that God has existed for an infinite time anymore than matter has. Its a problem for us both.
I believe science will one day tell us the answer. You believe your faith tells you the answer.
Truth is , there is little difference in us both while striving to find some of the answers. We can only be sure that our answers are different.
There has to be an explanation for the question of the very beginning. You choose not to go for the Big Bang, presumably because it would seem you don't like the "getting something from nothing" explanation. Fine. As I said, we all need to find our own answers.
But both of our explanations have the same "beginning" what was before God. It makes no sense to believe that God has existed for an infinite time anymore than matter has. Its a problem for us both.
I believe science will one day tell us the answer. You believe your faith tells you the answer.
Truth is , there is little difference in us both while striving to find some of the answers. We can only be sure that our answers are different.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Welcome to conversation.
Faith isn't suppose to depend on proof. That is, in itself, the definition of faith
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Welcome to conversation.
Snowfire;1446576 wrote: Assume.....taking for granted without proof. Its not absolute proof and shows a bad understanding of evolution. I ..ahem.. assume you think that evolution means we evolved from monkeys.
There has to be an explanation for the question of the very beginning. You choose not to go for the Big Bang, presumably because it would seem you don't like the "getting something from nothing" explanation. Fine. As I said, we all need to find our own answers.
But both of our explanations have the same "beginning" what was before God. It makes no sense to believe that God has existed for an infinite time anymore than matter has. Its a problem for us both.
I believe science will one day tell us the answer. You believe your faith tells you the answer.
Truth is , there is little difference in us both while striving to find some of the answers. We can only be sure that our answers are different.
That may be one of the best explanations I have read. Thanks.
Doesn't mean I have any idea what did what and when it did it.
There has to be an explanation for the question of the very beginning. You choose not to go for the Big Bang, presumably because it would seem you don't like the "getting something from nothing" explanation. Fine. As I said, we all need to find our own answers.
But both of our explanations have the same "beginning" what was before God. It makes no sense to believe that God has existed for an infinite time anymore than matter has. Its a problem for us both.
I believe science will one day tell us the answer. You believe your faith tells you the answer.
Truth is , there is little difference in us both while striving to find some of the answers. We can only be sure that our answers are different.
That may be one of the best explanations I have read. Thanks.
Doesn't mean I have any idea what did what and when it did it.
Welcome to conversation.
YZGI;1446579 wrote: That may be one of the best explanations I have read. Thanks.
Doesn't mean I have any idea what did what and when it did it.
I have a go in my own simple way Wisey. I don't pretend to know, we may NEVER know. We can only look at both explanations and find an answer that makes sense to us. That, surely is what free thought is.
I just choose to find my own path. One that is important to me. I equally want people to choose their own path. The only rule is, each path can run parallel and cross and even go the opposite way but it can't obstruct or hinder the freedom of the other traveler. That doesnt make us different, it makes us the same.
Doesn't mean I have any idea what did what and when it did it.
I have a go in my own simple way Wisey. I don't pretend to know, we may NEVER know. We can only look at both explanations and find an answer that makes sense to us. That, surely is what free thought is.
I just choose to find my own path. One that is important to me. I equally want people to choose their own path. The only rule is, each path can run parallel and cross and even go the opposite way but it can't obstruct or hinder the freedom of the other traveler. That doesnt make us different, it makes us the same.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Welcome to conversation.
Snowfire;1446576 wrote: Assume.....taking for granted without proof. Its not absolute proof and shows a bad understanding of evolution. I ..ahem.. assume you think that evolution means we evolved from monkeys.
There has to be an explanation for the question of the very beginning. You choose not to go for the Big Bang, presumably because it would seem you don't like the "getting something from nothing" explanation. Fine. As I said, we all need to find our own answers.
But both of our explanations have the same "beginning" what was before God. It makes no sense to believe that God has existed for an infinite time anymore than matter has. Its a problem for us both.
I believe science will one day tell us the answer. You believe your faith tells you the answer.
Truth is , there is little difference in us both while striving to find some of the answers. We can only be sure that our answers are different.
My faith tells me nothing, because I have no faith, I depend on the facts as I present them. The 4th proof of God is Law; the universe and earth has obvious laws in place. The law of gravity, the laws of mathmatics, the laws of Conservation, the laws of Nature, the Laws of energy, and so on. Absolute proof of a Law Giver, laws do NOT create themselves; even in the human world, Laws do not create themselves, they were created. Stunning proof of God.
Simple pragmatic proof of him.
There has to be an explanation for the question of the very beginning. You choose not to go for the Big Bang, presumably because it would seem you don't like the "getting something from nothing" explanation. Fine. As I said, we all need to find our own answers.
But both of our explanations have the same "beginning" what was before God. It makes no sense to believe that God has existed for an infinite time anymore than matter has. Its a problem for us both.
I believe science will one day tell us the answer. You believe your faith tells you the answer.
Truth is , there is little difference in us both while striving to find some of the answers. We can only be sure that our answers are different.
My faith tells me nothing, because I have no faith, I depend on the facts as I present them. The 4th proof of God is Law; the universe and earth has obvious laws in place. The law of gravity, the laws of mathmatics, the laws of Conservation, the laws of Nature, the Laws of energy, and so on. Absolute proof of a Law Giver, laws do NOT create themselves; even in the human world, Laws do not create themselves, they were created. Stunning proof of God.
Simple pragmatic proof of him.
Welcome to conversation.
Its only proof to you. You have merely provided the proof necessary to convince yourself. You long for it so hard , it presents itself too easily. There is nothing within your words that provide any proof to my satisfaction. I am content with how I feel, the questions I ask and the answers I find. I don't struggle with this. There is nothing missing in my life that I feel I need to find in God.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Welcome to conversation.
Snowfire;1446645 wrote: Its only proof to you. You have merely provided the proof necessary to convince yourself. You long for it so hard , it presents itself too easily. There is nothing within your words that provide any proof to my satisfaction. I am content with how I feel, the questions I ask and the answers I find. I don't struggle with this. There is nothing missing in my life that I feel I need to find in God.
well yes, the proof has convinced me. I long for food sometimes hard; I long for romance often hard; I long for peace very hard at times; I see absolutely nothing wrong with longing for God. He is just as real as the other things I long for; longing for things does not in any manner make those things myths. By the way, Romance is a proof of God; I see no possible way for romance to come from the theory of evolution, or from natural progression. Romance is evidence of programed behavior, which is evidence of a programer.
The 5th proof of God is knowledge; where did knowledge come from? Well knowledge came from knowledge, even it did not produce itself. See, when you try to remove God from the picture, then everything must produce itself, which is obvious flawed reasoning; knowledge cannot produce itself, and keep reproducting itself. Which is the 6th proof of God, " Reproduction." Again, obvious planning, no cell alive could have created itself. And cells could in no manner reproduce themselves withiout being created from instant creation.
well yes, the proof has convinced me. I long for food sometimes hard; I long for romance often hard; I long for peace very hard at times; I see absolutely nothing wrong with longing for God. He is just as real as the other things I long for; longing for things does not in any manner make those things myths. By the way, Romance is a proof of God; I see no possible way for romance to come from the theory of evolution, or from natural progression. Romance is evidence of programed behavior, which is evidence of a programer.
The 5th proof of God is knowledge; where did knowledge come from? Well knowledge came from knowledge, even it did not produce itself. See, when you try to remove God from the picture, then everything must produce itself, which is obvious flawed reasoning; knowledge cannot produce itself, and keep reproducting itself. Which is the 6th proof of God, " Reproduction." Again, obvious planning, no cell alive could have created itself. And cells could in no manner reproduce themselves withiout being created from instant creation.
Welcome to conversation.
The 7th proof of God is Language; now, if the something from nothing theory was true, then organization could evolve from disorder, and life could evolve from death. You see how backwards these theorys really are? That same off reasoning would suggest that whole languages could evolve from speechless grunts. Our languages are not continuous with the idiot lower grunts of speechless apes.
We were given the first language, and all others evolved from that language. The 8th proof of God is the verbs and nouns and adjatives that God taught Adam, which in no manner could evolve from voweless rocks and verbless chemicals.
We were given the first language, and all others evolved from that language. The 8th proof of God is the verbs and nouns and adjatives that God taught Adam, which in no manner could evolve from voweless rocks and verbless chemicals.
Welcome to conversation.
The 9th proof of God is increasing knowledge, which gave birth to technology and science, both of which are proofs of God. The manner in which the human brain was designed to learn and calculate and create; all signs of a parent God who does those things. Human calculation cannot be derived from meaningless explosions in empty space.
Welcome to conversation.
I am glad gmc requested this conversation, it can be both simple and complex. And that is the 10th proof of God, Irreducible Complexity. The fact that complex things in reality cannot be reduced is evidence they were made that way. Air is air and cannot be reduced in its complexity, neither could water. Humans are complex and nothing has been able to reduce that complexity, not even time.
Nor can that complexity be reproduced.
Originality is another proof of God, things in their original state is proof of God designing them in that reality, and if they were in a different state, they could not exist. Such as the Earths distance from the Sun, if it were closer we would experience global warming that would eventually destroy all life on earth, or if we were any farther away, we would frezze to death.
Nor can that complexity be reproduced.
Originality is another proof of God, things in their original state is proof of God designing them in that reality, and if they were in a different state, they could not exist. Such as the Earths distance from the Sun, if it were closer we would experience global warming that would eventually destroy all life on earth, or if we were any farther away, we would frezze to death.
Welcome to conversation.
You know I welcome anyone to this thread, and anyones proofs of God. Variety is a wonderful thing, a lot of different people with different ideas and views on the same topic; which is why Variety is a proof of God. Random evolution has no mindset of its own, variety is evidence of a planner; a thinker, a creator with a designing flair. Thats why there is so much difference in reality; so much originality in species.
How could that be random? How could such diversity come from mindless power? Or unreasoning happenstance?
How could that be random? How could such diversity come from mindless power? Or unreasoning happenstance?
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446567 wrote: Sure, why not?
Lets start with your " Random conversion" from Agnostic to Atheist, you claim it turned into a deliberate conversion over the years. I accept that formula; I also accept it with creation. It was not random over the years, it was deliberate year by year..
I don;t think you quite understand what an agnostic is.
For any particular god that you can imagine, a theist is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in the god. A gnostic is one who knows about the existence of god and an "agnostic" is one who thinks that god is unknowable. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don't think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don't choose to believe in one without further proof. People assume that atheists believe that gods have been proven not to exist, but that isn't strictly true.
1. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable
2. Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge
3. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved
4. Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist
Since it can't be proven god does not exist any more than you can prove he does. I would best describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I think that is where religious people get confused they assume all atheists don't believe in god and have made a leap of faith as have they, they can't get their heads round the notion that someone can suspend belief until there is proof. The claim that atheism is a religion is generally made by Christians who have been religious all their lives and thus cannot conceive of anyone not having some kind of religion as an integral part of their lives.
If you walk down a street and find one dime on the ground, so what! Yet if you walk further and find 3 dimes on the ground, you may correctly assume that someone has dropped them. Even still, if you walk further and find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each one individually balanced and standing up on their edges, now you can correctly assume that this was deliberately done. Not random over the years.
This is absolute proof of God, when we look at the " Dimes on their edges that are spread out in the Universe", the planets and their vast trillions in numbers, and thier order of placement in space. We can correctly assume that there exist a creator who deliberately did this.
The person noticing the dimes thinks it looks designed...but compared to what? In order for one to recognize design, one must have a concept of non-design as a frame of reference to work from. So if the placing of the dimes looks deliberate compared to its natural surroundings, then that clearly implies those natural surroundings were not, in fact, designed, though they may exhibit the appearance of order
Interesting variation on the "watchmaker argument". There is also a contradiction is in your last sentence. You see order in the universe but that is not absolute proof of god but you would like it to be so you ASSUME there must exist a creator. People used to ASSUME thunder and lightning was due to the gods arguing in heaven now we no longer believe that because we know better. There is order in the universe but no evidence to suggest it was the result of a creator - and the assumption that these is does rather beg the question of who created the creator. That he is and always has been is just not a satisfactory answer.
It's the same with all your other proofs of god, basically your argument can be summed up as we don't know why we exist but I perceive an order in things therefore it must be god that does it. It's really not much of an argument far less proof of god.
My faith tells me nothing, because I have no faith, I depend on the facts as I present them. The 4th proof of God is Law; the universe and earth has obvious laws in place. The law of gravity, the laws of mathmatics, the laws of Conservation, the laws of Nature, the Laws of energy, and so on. Absolute proof of a Law Giver, laws do NOT create themselves; even in the human world, Laws do not create themselves, they were created. Stunning proof of God.
You haven't presented any facts you have just made a series of statements and basically said god must have done it. I don't know how it came about so it must be god really doesn't make any kind of sense.
Lets start with your " Random conversion" from Agnostic to Atheist, you claim it turned into a deliberate conversion over the years. I accept that formula; I also accept it with creation. It was not random over the years, it was deliberate year by year..
I don;t think you quite understand what an agnostic is.
For any particular god that you can imagine, a theist is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in the god. A gnostic is one who knows about the existence of god and an "agnostic" is one who thinks that god is unknowable. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don't think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don't choose to believe in one without further proof. People assume that atheists believe that gods have been proven not to exist, but that isn't strictly true.
1. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable
2. Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge
3. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved
4. Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist
Since it can't be proven god does not exist any more than you can prove he does. I would best describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I think that is where religious people get confused they assume all atheists don't believe in god and have made a leap of faith as have they, they can't get their heads round the notion that someone can suspend belief until there is proof. The claim that atheism is a religion is generally made by Christians who have been religious all their lives and thus cannot conceive of anyone not having some kind of religion as an integral part of their lives.
If you walk down a street and find one dime on the ground, so what! Yet if you walk further and find 3 dimes on the ground, you may correctly assume that someone has dropped them. Even still, if you walk further and find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each one individually balanced and standing up on their edges, now you can correctly assume that this was deliberately done. Not random over the years.
This is absolute proof of God, when we look at the " Dimes on their edges that are spread out in the Universe", the planets and their vast trillions in numbers, and thier order of placement in space. We can correctly assume that there exist a creator who deliberately did this.
The person noticing the dimes thinks it looks designed...but compared to what? In order for one to recognize design, one must have a concept of non-design as a frame of reference to work from. So if the placing of the dimes looks deliberate compared to its natural surroundings, then that clearly implies those natural surroundings were not, in fact, designed, though they may exhibit the appearance of order
Interesting variation on the "watchmaker argument". There is also a contradiction is in your last sentence. You see order in the universe but that is not absolute proof of god but you would like it to be so you ASSUME there must exist a creator. People used to ASSUME thunder and lightning was due to the gods arguing in heaven now we no longer believe that because we know better. There is order in the universe but no evidence to suggest it was the result of a creator - and the assumption that these is does rather beg the question of who created the creator. That he is and always has been is just not a satisfactory answer.
It's the same with all your other proofs of god, basically your argument can be summed up as we don't know why we exist but I perceive an order in things therefore it must be god that does it. It's really not much of an argument far less proof of god.
My faith tells me nothing, because I have no faith, I depend on the facts as I present them. The 4th proof of God is Law; the universe and earth has obvious laws in place. The law of gravity, the laws of mathmatics, the laws of Conservation, the laws of Nature, the Laws of energy, and so on. Absolute proof of a Law Giver, laws do NOT create themselves; even in the human world, Laws do not create themselves, they were created. Stunning proof of God.
You haven't presented any facts you have just made a series of statements and basically said god must have done it. I don't know how it came about so it must be god really doesn't make any kind of sense.
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446670 wrote:
You haven't presented any facts you have just made a series of statements and basically said god must have done it. I don't know how it came about so it must be god really doesn't make any kind of sense.
All the proofs are facts, just facts that your physce cannot accept. Such as proofs 11 - 20; again here are the facts;
Cells, Membranes, Flagella, Mitochondria, Plasma Membrane, Plasmic Reticulum, Nucleus and DNA, are all designed factual proofs of God. Science knows that a bacterial cell, with its prokaryotic organization is too organized to have created itself from nothing, or from billions of years of chance nothing. They are enclosed by an outer cell wall, which is obvious design, and that wall surrounds a Plasma Membrane, which is a created lipid bilayer with obvious embedded protiens that controls the permeability of the cell to water dissolved substances. Cells have no brain to figure this out on their own, they are way to organized and uniform, just as the universe is on a grand large scale, the same uniformity exist on these very small scales, that is another proof of God,(21).
Cells Flagella are just as uniform. They are thread like Protien, ( Protien is no. 22), structures that move the bacteria by rotating. It is totally impossible for this to have a " First evolved trail run", and finally get it right after trillions of years, stunning proof of God. And the sheer complexity of " Eukaryotic cells", ( no. 23), they are far more complexly designed. They were even given a " Power to drive them", Mitochondria." And within these complex cells is a " Nucleus"; and even more evidence of design is the compartments of the winding membrane system called Endo Plasmic Reticulum.
Any suggestion that these are not proof of organized designed or are not facts , are just whistling Dixie.
You haven't presented any facts you have just made a series of statements and basically said god must have done it. I don't know how it came about so it must be god really doesn't make any kind of sense.
All the proofs are facts, just facts that your physce cannot accept. Such as proofs 11 - 20; again here are the facts;
Cells, Membranes, Flagella, Mitochondria, Plasma Membrane, Plasmic Reticulum, Nucleus and DNA, are all designed factual proofs of God. Science knows that a bacterial cell, with its prokaryotic organization is too organized to have created itself from nothing, or from billions of years of chance nothing. They are enclosed by an outer cell wall, which is obvious design, and that wall surrounds a Plasma Membrane, which is a created lipid bilayer with obvious embedded protiens that controls the permeability of the cell to water dissolved substances. Cells have no brain to figure this out on their own, they are way to organized and uniform, just as the universe is on a grand large scale, the same uniformity exist on these very small scales, that is another proof of God,(21).
Cells Flagella are just as uniform. They are thread like Protien, ( Protien is no. 22), structures that move the bacteria by rotating. It is totally impossible for this to have a " First evolved trail run", and finally get it right after trillions of years, stunning proof of God. And the sheer complexity of " Eukaryotic cells", ( no. 23), they are far more complexly designed. They were even given a " Power to drive them", Mitochondria." And within these complex cells is a " Nucleus"; and even more evidence of design is the compartments of the winding membrane system called Endo Plasmic Reticulum.
Any suggestion that these are not proof of organized designed or are not facts , are just whistling Dixie.
Welcome to conversation.
Sexual Reproduction, ( No. 24), is a stunning proof of God, a factual proof indeed. Sexual Reproduction and " Meiosis", no. 25, are obvious designs; its academic. And " Fertilization", no.26, is just plain to see Gods hand. Fertilization and Meiosis together consitute a cycle of reproduction in which two sets of " Chromosomes", no. 27, present in the body cells of adult individuals, which are said to be diploid, one set present in the Gametes, which are haploid, are outstanding factual examples of what natural selection cannot do and only a grand design has done.
Welcome to conversation.
Another factual proof of God that I like is, no. 28, " Intrinsic Morality"; where did morality come from and how did it even get in our physical make up? How did these concepts first appear in humanity? Here is a stickler for science nomads who oppose creation, morals did not evolve from some kind of nomadic spaced out theory, they are in us and no science can deny it. Morals breed morals, just as life breeds life; morals did not crawl out from under countless rocks of theorys about how to sidetrack creation.
They were obviously downloaded into humanity from a moral creator. Evolution is not moral, nor does it have morals.
They were obviously downloaded into humanity from a moral creator. Evolution is not moral, nor does it have morals.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446681 wrote: All the proofs are facts, just facts that your physce cannot accept. Such as proofs 11 - 20; again here are the facts;
Cells, Membranes, Flagella, Mitochondria, Plasma Membrane, Plasmic Reticulum, Nucleus and DNA, are all designed factual proofs of God. Science knows that a bacterial cell, with its prokaryotic organization is too organized to have created itself from nothing, or from billions of years of chance nothing. They are enclosed by an outer cell wall, which is obvious design, and that wall surrounds a Plasma Membrane, which is a created lipid bilayer with obvious embedded protiens that controls the permeability of the cell to water dissolved substances. Cells have no brain to figure this out on their own, they are way to organized and uniform, just as the universe is on a grand large scale, the same uniformity exist on these very small scales, that is another proof of God,(21).
Cells Flagella are just as uniform. They are thread like Protien, ( Protien is no. 22), structures that move the bacteria by rotating. It is totally impossible for this to have a " First evolved trail run", and finally get it right after trillions of years, stunning proof of God. And the sheer complexity of " Eukaryotic cells", ( no. 23), they are far more complexly designed. They were even given a " Power to drive them", Mitochondria." And within these complex cells is a " Nucleus"; and even more evidence of design is the compartments of the winding membrane system called Endo Plasmic Reticulum.
Any suggestion that these are not proof of organized designed or are not facts , are just whistling Dixie.
None of these facts in any way require a god to design them. You presuppose design in order to prove a designer, The appearance of order in nature is not enough for assuming that this order is the result of purposeful, intelligent design by a supernatural being - trees providing oxygen etc.- but most of the sciences have shown us that there are practical, mechanistic explanations for how and why things work in nature the way they do. Evolution is a s a generally accepted scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. The reason it is so well accepted in the scientific community is because it is supported by a wide variety of evidence, including fossils, taxonomy, genetics and experimental biology results. Same with geology and earths history so we know it is more than six thousand years old and did not spring in to existence in a single moment.
In order to mount a convincing proof or argument that things in nature require a Divine Creator to explain them you also need to prove it was impossible for them to have been created any other way. You just can't do it all you have is I believe in god despite all the evidence.
Why whistling dixie by the way? I know it's from the American civil war but that's it.
Cells, Membranes, Flagella, Mitochondria, Plasma Membrane, Plasmic Reticulum, Nucleus and DNA, are all designed factual proofs of God. Science knows that a bacterial cell, with its prokaryotic organization is too organized to have created itself from nothing, or from billions of years of chance nothing. They are enclosed by an outer cell wall, which is obvious design, and that wall surrounds a Plasma Membrane, which is a created lipid bilayer with obvious embedded protiens that controls the permeability of the cell to water dissolved substances. Cells have no brain to figure this out on their own, they are way to organized and uniform, just as the universe is on a grand large scale, the same uniformity exist on these very small scales, that is another proof of God,(21).
Cells Flagella are just as uniform. They are thread like Protien, ( Protien is no. 22), structures that move the bacteria by rotating. It is totally impossible for this to have a " First evolved trail run", and finally get it right after trillions of years, stunning proof of God. And the sheer complexity of " Eukaryotic cells", ( no. 23), they are far more complexly designed. They were even given a " Power to drive them", Mitochondria." And within these complex cells is a " Nucleus"; and even more evidence of design is the compartments of the winding membrane system called Endo Plasmic Reticulum.
Any suggestion that these are not proof of organized designed or are not facts , are just whistling Dixie.
None of these facts in any way require a god to design them. You presuppose design in order to prove a designer, The appearance of order in nature is not enough for assuming that this order is the result of purposeful, intelligent design by a supernatural being - trees providing oxygen etc.- but most of the sciences have shown us that there are practical, mechanistic explanations for how and why things work in nature the way they do. Evolution is a s a generally accepted scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. The reason it is so well accepted in the scientific community is because it is supported by a wide variety of evidence, including fossils, taxonomy, genetics and experimental biology results. Same with geology and earths history so we know it is more than six thousand years old and did not spring in to existence in a single moment.
In order to mount a convincing proof or argument that things in nature require a Divine Creator to explain them you also need to prove it was impossible for them to have been created any other way. You just can't do it all you have is I believe in god despite all the evidence.
Why whistling dixie by the way? I know it's from the American civil war but that's it.
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446694 wrote: None of these facts in any way require a god to design them. You presuppose design in order to prove a designer, The appearance of order in nature is not enough for assuming that this order is the result of purposeful, intelligent design by a supernatural being - trees providing oxygen etc.- but most of the sciences have shown us that there are practical, mechanistic explanations for how and why things work in nature the way they do. Evolution is a s a generally accepted scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. The reason it is so well accepted in the scientific community is because it is supported by a wide variety of evidence, including fossils, taxonomy, genetics and experimental biology results. Same with geology and earths history so we know it is more than six thousand years old and did not spring in to existence in a single moment.
In order to mount a convincing proof or argument that things in nature require a Divine Creator to explain them you also need to prove it was impossible for them to have been created any other way. You just can't do it all you have is I believe in god despite all the evidence.
Why whistling dixie by the way?
I disagree, the evidence I have already presented has absolutely nothing to do with " Belief", they are hardcore facts. I could argue the facts and give you the Transcendental Arguement, The Cosmological Arguement, The Ontological Arguement, the Modal Arguement, or the Biogenesis Arguement, but these will just roll off your back like the others, so I am using common easy to understand arguements. I could use the fossil arguement to prove God, I could use the age of the Universe, Carbon Dating, and you will continually deny and turn away from the evidence because of your predesposed mindset.
And that choice you have to believe or not believe, is superior evidence of God; nature did not give you that. Science and its theories did not give you that; evolution, which I believe in, did not give you that; its simple proof that your choice in reasoning came from reasoning itself. Reasoning cannot be derived from unreasonable origins, like something popping out of nothing.
In order to mount a convincing proof or argument that things in nature require a Divine Creator to explain them you also need to prove it was impossible for them to have been created any other way. You just can't do it all you have is I believe in god despite all the evidence.
Why whistling dixie by the way?
I disagree, the evidence I have already presented has absolutely nothing to do with " Belief", they are hardcore facts. I could argue the facts and give you the Transcendental Arguement, The Cosmological Arguement, The Ontological Arguement, the Modal Arguement, or the Biogenesis Arguement, but these will just roll off your back like the others, so I am using common easy to understand arguements. I could use the fossil arguement to prove God, I could use the age of the Universe, Carbon Dating, and you will continually deny and turn away from the evidence because of your predesposed mindset.
And that choice you have to believe or not believe, is superior evidence of God; nature did not give you that. Science and its theories did not give you that; evolution, which I believe in, did not give you that; its simple proof that your choice in reasoning came from reasoning itself. Reasoning cannot be derived from unreasonable origins, like something popping out of nothing.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446698 wrote: I disagree, the evidence I have already presented has absolutely nothing to do with " Belief", they are hardcore facts. I could argue the facts and give you the Transcendental Arguement, The Cosmological Arguement, The Ontological Arguement, the Modal Arguement, or the Biogenesis Arguement, but these will just roll off your back like the others, so I am using common easy to understand arguements. I could use the fossil arguement to prove God, I could use the age of the Universe, Carbon Dating, and you will continually deny and turn away from the evidence because of your predesposed mindset.
And that choice you have to believe or not believe, is superior evidence of God; nature did not give you that. Science and its theories did not give you that; evolution, which I believe in, did not give you that; its simple proof that your choice in reasoning came from reasoning itself. Reasoning cannot be derived from unreasonable origins, like something popping out of nothing.
As usual. Patronising. You can keep your "easy to understand" rhetoric. Continue please to entertain yourself in your little play area. You know all the answers, so no need for conversation. Bye !
And that choice you have to believe or not believe, is superior evidence of God; nature did not give you that. Science and its theories did not give you that; evolution, which I believe in, did not give you that; its simple proof that your choice in reasoning came from reasoning itself. Reasoning cannot be derived from unreasonable origins, like something popping out of nothing.
As usual. Patronising. You can keep your "easy to understand" rhetoric. Continue please to entertain yourself in your little play area. You know all the answers, so no need for conversation. Bye !
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Welcome to conversation.
Snowfire;1446699 wrote: As usual. Patronising. You can keep your "easy to understand" rhetoric. Continue please to entertain yourself in your little play area. You know all the answers, so no need for conversation. Bye !
How rude and condesending; I welcome you back to talk this out; why go away upset? You are welcome; I suggest you use your imagination in this conversation. Imagination, no.30, is an excellent proof of God. Where did human imagination come from?
From Darwin? From scientific theories? From nameless magical exploding chemicals that crept through a magical hole in space ghost dogma?
No, it came from an imaginitive being.
How rude and condesending; I welcome you back to talk this out; why go away upset? You are welcome; I suggest you use your imagination in this conversation. Imagination, no.30, is an excellent proof of God. Where did human imagination come from?
From Darwin? From scientific theories? From nameless magical exploding chemicals that crept through a magical hole in space ghost dogma?
No, it came from an imaginitive being.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446701 wrote: How rude and condesending; I welcome you back to talk this out; why go away upset? You are welcome; I suggest you use your imagination in this conversation. Imagination, no.30, is an excellent proof of God. Where did human imagination come from?
From Darwin? From scientific theories? From nameless magical exploding chemicals that crept through a magical hole in space ghost dogma?
No, it came from an imaginitive being.
You continue to talk down to members here. There is an inability for you to talk on the same level. Its patronising. I say again. If you know all the answers, there is no need for conversation.
I have asked questions and received no answers. Just the usual "listen to me"
From Darwin? From scientific theories? From nameless magical exploding chemicals that crept through a magical hole in space ghost dogma?
No, it came from an imaginitive being.
You continue to talk down to members here. There is an inability for you to talk on the same level. Its patronising. I say again. If you know all the answers, there is no need for conversation.
I have asked questions and received no answers. Just the usual "listen to me"
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446701 wrote: How rude and condesending; I welcome you back to talk this out; why go away upset? You are welcome; I suggest you use your imagination in this conversation. Imagination, no.30, is an excellent proof of God. Where did human imagination come from?
From Darwin? From scientific theories? From nameless magical exploding chemicals that crept through a magical hole in space ghost dogma?
No, it came from an imaginitive being.
I am sorry, but I must interject.
It is you that is being rude and condescending.
90% of your posts are simply your opinion, offered up as proof to your own opinion. And when anyone comments, you are dismissive and condescending. All the while claiming to want conversation.
Conversation is a two-way exchange of ideas, not a monologue. You appear to actually have no interest in any other opinions or ideas. You invite "Conversation" merely to dismiss any attempts to join in.
If you truly want to have conversations with others, then please consider these comments as constructive criticism, and try to be a bit more receptive to the ideas and thoughts of others on this forum.
If all you want to do is ramble on with you own opinions, then it is time for you to consider other options.
From Darwin? From scientific theories? From nameless magical exploding chemicals that crept through a magical hole in space ghost dogma?
No, it came from an imaginitive being.
I am sorry, but I must interject.
It is you that is being rude and condescending.
90% of your posts are simply your opinion, offered up as proof to your own opinion. And when anyone comments, you are dismissive and condescending. All the while claiming to want conversation.
Conversation is a two-way exchange of ideas, not a monologue. You appear to actually have no interest in any other opinions or ideas. You invite "Conversation" merely to dismiss any attempts to join in.
If you truly want to have conversations with others, then please consider these comments as constructive criticism, and try to be a bit more receptive to the ideas and thoughts of others on this forum.
If all you want to do is ramble on with you own opinions, then it is time for you to consider other options.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Welcome to conversation.
Snowfire;1446703 wrote: You continue to talk down to members here. There is an inability for you to talk on the same level. Its patronising. I say again. If you know all the answers, there is no need for conversation.
I have asked questions and received no answers. Just the usual "listen to me"
Excuse me, you accuse me of patronizing and having a play area; that is what I consider talking down to others. And I have seen no questions from you.Yet if you think I think I have all the answers, why even ask me questions?
I have asked questions and received no answers. Just the usual "listen to me"
Excuse me, you accuse me of patronizing and having a play area; that is what I consider talking down to others. And I have seen no questions from you.Yet if you think I think I have all the answers, why even ask me questions?
Welcome to conversation.
LarsMac;1446705 wrote: I am sorry, but I must interject.
It is you that is being rude and condescending.
90% of your posts are simply your opinion, offered up as proof to your own opinion. And when anyone comments, you are dismissive and condescending. All the while claiming to want conversation.
Conversation is a two-way exchange of ideas, not a monologue. You appear to actually have no interest in any other opinions or ideas. You invite "Conversation" merely to dismiss any attempts to join in.
If you truly want to have conversations with others, then please consider these comments as constructive criticism, and try to be a bit more receptive to the ideas and thoughts of others on this forum.
If all you want to do is ramble on with you own opinions, then it is time for you to consider other options.
I disagree with you; the poster asked me to prove God, gmc; I agreed that I would. I am receptive to others thoughts that I agree with, and not because of this forum. If I don't agree with them, I just don't. And if your inviting me to leave because of that, then simply make that the option that you are suggesting; agree and stay, or disagree and leave. I have not dismissed anybody from this thread, and it is you who is suggesting that I be dismissed.
It is you that is being rude and condescending.
90% of your posts are simply your opinion, offered up as proof to your own opinion. And when anyone comments, you are dismissive and condescending. All the while claiming to want conversation.
Conversation is a two-way exchange of ideas, not a monologue. You appear to actually have no interest in any other opinions or ideas. You invite "Conversation" merely to dismiss any attempts to join in.
If you truly want to have conversations with others, then please consider these comments as constructive criticism, and try to be a bit more receptive to the ideas and thoughts of others on this forum.
If all you want to do is ramble on with you own opinions, then it is time for you to consider other options.
I disagree with you; the poster asked me to prove God, gmc; I agreed that I would. I am receptive to others thoughts that I agree with, and not because of this forum. If I don't agree with them, I just don't. And if your inviting me to leave because of that, then simply make that the option that you are suggesting; agree and stay, or disagree and leave. I have not dismissed anybody from this thread, and it is you who is suggesting that I be dismissed.
Welcome to conversation.
LarsMac;1446705 wrote:
If all you want to do is ramble on with you own opinions, then it is time for you to consider other options.
In this whole thread I am talking with others; literally begging to talk to people; then you suggest that all I want to do is ramble on with my opinions.
Man get real.
If all you want to do is ramble on with you own opinions, then it is time for you to consider other options.
In this whole thread I am talking with others; literally begging to talk to people; then you suggest that all I want to do is ramble on with my opinions.
Man get real.
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446560 wrote:
I don't need to prove the non existence of god, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. You claim god exists why don't you prove it?
Here I am requested to prove that God exist; I accepted that challange and I enjoy doing it.
But I don't know how to do it without posting it. So posting it is just something I have to do, and there are thousands of proofs.
I don't need to prove the non existence of god, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. You claim god exists why don't you prove it?
Here I am requested to prove that God exist; I accepted that challange and I enjoy doing it.
But I don't know how to do it without posting it. So posting it is just something I have to do, and there are thousands of proofs.
Welcome to conversation.
Mikiel,
Rather than be defensive, read back through the last couple of pages of conversation objectively.
Rather than be defensive, read back through the last couple of pages of conversation objectively.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Welcome to conversation.
LarsMac;1446725 wrote: Mikiel,
Rather than be defensive, read back through the last couple of pages of conversation objectively.
I am not being defensive, I read every single word that is spoken to me. Is there such a thing as objective disagreement? Because that is all I can offer to those who do not view God as real. And I am not giving my opinons, I am stateing known facts. Now when my presented facts are called " Opinions" by others, then it is not I who is not being objective.
Rather than be defensive, read back through the last couple of pages of conversation objectively.
I am not being defensive, I read every single word that is spoken to me. Is there such a thing as objective disagreement? Because that is all I can offer to those who do not view God as real. And I am not giving my opinons, I am stateing known facts. Now when my presented facts are called " Opinions" by others, then it is not I who is not being objective.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446698 wrote: I disagree, the evidence I have already presented has absolutely nothing to do with " Belief", they are hardcore facts. I could argue the facts and give you the Transcendental Arguement, The Cosmological Arguement, The Ontological Arguement, the Modal Arguement, or the Biogenesis Arguement, but these will just roll off your back like the others, so I am using common easy to understand arguements. I could use the fossil arguement to prove God, I could use the age of the Universe, Carbon Dating, and you will continually deny and turn away from the evidence because of your predesposed mindset.
And that choice you have to believe or not believe, is superior evidence of God; nature did not give you that. Science and its theories did not give you that; evolution, which I believe in, did not give you that; its simple proof that your choice in reasoning came from reasoning itself. Reasoning cannot be derived from unreasonable origins, like something popping out of nothing.
You assume the world is designed in order to prove it is the work of a designer. Your argument boils down to these things are so and we can discern a pattern in them therefore god must have done it. Our scientific knowledge, you now cite as proof of god, has been acquired despite the church and in the face of extreme opposition to anything that challenged the description of creation given in the bible is ironic to put it mildly.
And that choice you have to believe or not believe, is superior evidence of God;
:-5:-5
Not the hoary old chestnut of free will is it?
You accept the theory of evolution as valid (it's not a belief system that requires faith) so the random factors that have affected our development and all the various things that go along with it - babies born without brains, with down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, holes in the heart, good people suffering monstrous tortures from ebola hemorrhagic fever, are presumably also part of the design.
So do you believe that these things are punishment for some misdemeanor (certainly there were those that said as much about hurricane katrina,the earthquake in haiti and even the earthquake in japan recently was punishment for pearl harbour) or do you say that these things only seem random to us because we are ignorant of god's plan and so we cannot say they are good or bad.
You cannot argue they are not part of god's plan unless you claim insight to the workings of god and in all your postings I don't think you have ever claimed to be a prophet.
If you could actually prove god exists there would be no need for faith and that would mean the end of religion.
No need to simplify things either you could give all the arguments you want I can deconstruct them all, but I doubt we will ever agree. They all boil down to the universe exists god must have done it. It's the perennial variation of the cogito argument, I think therefore I am, since couldn't imagine myself in to existence god must have made me. It's not proof that god exists just wishful thinking perhaps! I want to believe therefore I will shut out the rational part of my mind that tells me it's nonsense.
May your god go with you - assuming of course you have picked the right one unless you believe they various deities are all aspects of the same god in which case you are a heretic and you can argue that one with your coreligionists.
And that choice you have to believe or not believe, is superior evidence of God; nature did not give you that. Science and its theories did not give you that; evolution, which I believe in, did not give you that; its simple proof that your choice in reasoning came from reasoning itself. Reasoning cannot be derived from unreasonable origins, like something popping out of nothing.
You assume the world is designed in order to prove it is the work of a designer. Your argument boils down to these things are so and we can discern a pattern in them therefore god must have done it. Our scientific knowledge, you now cite as proof of god, has been acquired despite the church and in the face of extreme opposition to anything that challenged the description of creation given in the bible is ironic to put it mildly.
And that choice you have to believe or not believe, is superior evidence of God;
:-5:-5
Not the hoary old chestnut of free will is it?
You accept the theory of evolution as valid (it's not a belief system that requires faith) so the random factors that have affected our development and all the various things that go along with it - babies born without brains, with down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, holes in the heart, good people suffering monstrous tortures from ebola hemorrhagic fever, are presumably also part of the design.
So do you believe that these things are punishment for some misdemeanor (certainly there were those that said as much about hurricane katrina,the earthquake in haiti and even the earthquake in japan recently was punishment for pearl harbour) or do you say that these things only seem random to us because we are ignorant of god's plan and so we cannot say they are good or bad.
You cannot argue they are not part of god's plan unless you claim insight to the workings of god and in all your postings I don't think you have ever claimed to be a prophet.
If you could actually prove god exists there would be no need for faith and that would mean the end of religion.
No need to simplify things either you could give all the arguments you want I can deconstruct them all, but I doubt we will ever agree. They all boil down to the universe exists god must have done it. It's the perennial variation of the cogito argument, I think therefore I am, since couldn't imagine myself in to existence god must have made me. It's not proof that god exists just wishful thinking perhaps! I want to believe therefore I will shut out the rational part of my mind that tells me it's nonsense.
May your god go with you - assuming of course you have picked the right one unless you believe they various deities are all aspects of the same god in which case you are a heretic and you can argue that one with your coreligionists.
-
Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Welcome to conversation.
gmc, you use the same old 'tired chestnut' arguments over and over again, without any reasonable basis for your adamant belief in disbelieving. As with any other theories, including any scientific ones, I feel that there are several theories advanced by religions which can be proved beyond reasonable doubt- but you will never be satisfied with reasonable doubt. So long as the 'religious' tag is attached, you will only accept absolute proof, shutting out the rational arguments and citing your capability to refute them as proof that they must be wrong. Unfortunately, even the most stringently scientifically tested theory is, and always will be, impossible to verify beyond all doubt. In spite of your claim that it's not a belief system which requires faith, Evolutionary theory is a clear example of this, as can be seen from the number of Creationists who still choose not to believe in something else. If you do believe in free will (which also happens to be something which it is extremely difficult to find a logical basis for if we take a purely scientific point of view, and deconstruct the inner workings of our mental processes- after all, aren't our minds basically intrinsically flawed super-computers, with any illusions of innovations of originality stemming from an intrinsic flaw of their self-regenerating capabilites, compromising any information stored in our minds over a period of time due to repeated copying onto new cells and deletion of the source data through the death of the old ones? How can we prove scientifically that every decision we make isn't defined completely by who we are genetically, and by our biochemistry? 
) Then you can choose to believe or not believe in anything. No theory, not even our own existence (eg, Nihilists) can ever attain universal acceptance among a populace with any measure of free will, because this element of choice means that doubt is an inherent defining characteristic of sentient beings; and because of this omnipresent element of doubt, nothing can be accepted without an element of faith.
So, to counter your arguments. (Not to your satisfaction, obviously, but that would be impossible, wouldn't it? :-5) Firstly:
gmc;1446740 wrote: You accept the theory of evolution as valid (it's not a belief system that requires faith) so the random factors that have affected our development and all the various things that go along with it - babies born without brains, with down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, holes in the heart, good people suffering monstrous tortures from ebola hemorrhagic fever, are presumably also part of the design.
Let's just ignore the last one, because even though Ebola is a virus which has itself evolved to take advantage of humanity's prolifigacy, and is in no way a part of our evolutionary development at all, you couldn't have possibly been expected to actually take a step back and think about it...
Even with the others though, if we accept that evolution is part of the design, then yes, all of these things have to be part of the design, because no species on the evolutionary ladder, not even ourselves, will ever be the ultimate embodiment of biological perfection. That's what evolution's all about- it's always possible to do it better, working out the kinks through trial and error to improve things in the long run. The errors may be difficult to cope with, but they are an intrinsic part of the system, without which our entire species' lineage would be doomed to genetic stagnation and eventual extinction. Next:
gmc;1446740 wrote: So do you believe that these things are punishment for some misdemeanor (certainly there were those that said as much about hurricane katrina,the earthquake in haiti and even the earthquake in japan recently was punishment for pearl harbour) or do you say that these things only seem random to us because we are ignorant of god's plan and so we cannot say they are good or bad.
You cannot argue they are not part of god's plan unless you claim insight to the workings of god and in all your postings I don't think you have ever claimed to be a prophet.
Far from it. If they exists, then they must be a part of God's plan. And there's no escaping the fact that these natural phenomena, and several more- hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods- all lavish devastation on those communities unfortunate enough to lie in their path. But while these are indeed massive disasters for those directly impacted by them in the short term, we have to consider them in the context of what we know about the world on which we live. The Earth is a dynamic body, more so than any of the other terrestrial planets in our Solar System. These disasters are all elements of this fluid dynamism, and all of them serve to stabilise the system by releasing pent-up energy, preventing things from spiralling out of control. Without them, the Earth would become a dead body- and we now have incontrovertible evidence that if it were to do so, the Earth would swiftly become completely uninhabitable for ourselves, and eventually for all forms of life. These phenomena all take such a toll because the percentage of the total human population living in their path is disproportionately high compared to the area afflicted by them; but ask yourself, why do these areas have a disproportionately high population? Because of the positive legacy of increased fertility left behind in their wake. The true purpose of these phenomena is not to take human life, but to sustain and replenish the earth, and by extension to sustain earth-bound life. Without them, the Earth would be too barren for humanity to even exist.
gmc;1446740 wrote: If you could actually prove god exists there would be no need for faith and that would mean the end of religion.
So long as there is free will, there will always be a need for faith, and there will always be people who believe in what they want to believe (or, indeed, disbelieve what they want to disbelieve) purely for the sake of it. This will never change, and as such, until the day when free will is eliminated, religion will continue to endure.
gmc;1446740 wrote: No need to simplify things either you could give all the arguments you want I can deconstruct them all, but I doubt we will ever agree. They all boil down to the universe exists god must have done it. It's the perennial variation of the cogito argument, I think therefore I am, since couldn't imagine myself in to existence god must have made me. It's not proof that god exists just wishful thinking perhaps! I want to believe therefore I will shut out the rational part of my mind that tells me it's nonsense.
Rest assured, I'll be waiting for you to actually deconstruct my arguments, (as opposed to using the classic toys-out-of the-pram, "I won't believe it, so there!" argument you always seem to end up resorting to). As an entity which totally accepts any data according to laws and regulations, with no room for any doubt whatsoever, a computer could voice the statement "I think, therefore I am" with far more conviction than you ever could. Would that make its existence, and sentience, more valid that yours? Doubt is the defining characteristic of true intelligence, not certainty.
gmc;1446740 wrote: May your god go with you - assuming of course you have picked the right one unless you believe they various deities are all aspects of the same god in which case you are a heretic and you can argue that one with your coreligionists.
Ah, I see we're wrapping things up with the same old base, discriminatory insults, inciting religious hatred against non-Atheists yet again. We have just as much of a right to our beliefs as you do; if you don't like those beliefs, or even if you think that they're delusional, then tough. We're all just as human as you are, we all have equal human rights, so regardless of their beliefs' apparent validity, they're all just as legitimate as yours. I also doubt that some of us will ever agree. But if you remain closed to the notion of agreeing to disagree, then your hatred of religion, and inability to get over it, will continue to eat you up inside... :-1
) Then you can choose to believe or not believe in anything. No theory, not even our own existence (eg, Nihilists) can ever attain universal acceptance among a populace with any measure of free will, because this element of choice means that doubt is an inherent defining characteristic of sentient beings; and because of this omnipresent element of doubt, nothing can be accepted without an element of faith.So, to counter your arguments. (Not to your satisfaction, obviously, but that would be impossible, wouldn't it? :-5) Firstly:
gmc;1446740 wrote: You accept the theory of evolution as valid (it's not a belief system that requires faith) so the random factors that have affected our development and all the various things that go along with it - babies born without brains, with down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, holes in the heart, good people suffering monstrous tortures from ebola hemorrhagic fever, are presumably also part of the design.
Let's just ignore the last one, because even though Ebola is a virus which has itself evolved to take advantage of humanity's prolifigacy, and is in no way a part of our evolutionary development at all, you couldn't have possibly been expected to actually take a step back and think about it...
Even with the others though, if we accept that evolution is part of the design, then yes, all of these things have to be part of the design, because no species on the evolutionary ladder, not even ourselves, will ever be the ultimate embodiment of biological perfection. That's what evolution's all about- it's always possible to do it better, working out the kinks through trial and error to improve things in the long run. The errors may be difficult to cope with, but they are an intrinsic part of the system, without which our entire species' lineage would be doomed to genetic stagnation and eventual extinction. Next:gmc;1446740 wrote: So do you believe that these things are punishment for some misdemeanor (certainly there were those that said as much about hurricane katrina,the earthquake in haiti and even the earthquake in japan recently was punishment for pearl harbour) or do you say that these things only seem random to us because we are ignorant of god's plan and so we cannot say they are good or bad.
You cannot argue they are not part of god's plan unless you claim insight to the workings of god and in all your postings I don't think you have ever claimed to be a prophet.
Far from it. If they exists, then they must be a part of God's plan. And there's no escaping the fact that these natural phenomena, and several more- hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods- all lavish devastation on those communities unfortunate enough to lie in their path. But while these are indeed massive disasters for those directly impacted by them in the short term, we have to consider them in the context of what we know about the world on which we live. The Earth is a dynamic body, more so than any of the other terrestrial planets in our Solar System. These disasters are all elements of this fluid dynamism, and all of them serve to stabilise the system by releasing pent-up energy, preventing things from spiralling out of control. Without them, the Earth would become a dead body- and we now have incontrovertible evidence that if it were to do so, the Earth would swiftly become completely uninhabitable for ourselves, and eventually for all forms of life. These phenomena all take such a toll because the percentage of the total human population living in their path is disproportionately high compared to the area afflicted by them; but ask yourself, why do these areas have a disproportionately high population? Because of the positive legacy of increased fertility left behind in their wake. The true purpose of these phenomena is not to take human life, but to sustain and replenish the earth, and by extension to sustain earth-bound life. Without them, the Earth would be too barren for humanity to even exist.
gmc;1446740 wrote: If you could actually prove god exists there would be no need for faith and that would mean the end of religion.
So long as there is free will, there will always be a need for faith, and there will always be people who believe in what they want to believe (or, indeed, disbelieve what they want to disbelieve) purely for the sake of it. This will never change, and as such, until the day when free will is eliminated, religion will continue to endure.
gmc;1446740 wrote: No need to simplify things either you could give all the arguments you want I can deconstruct them all, but I doubt we will ever agree. They all boil down to the universe exists god must have done it. It's the perennial variation of the cogito argument, I think therefore I am, since couldn't imagine myself in to existence god must have made me. It's not proof that god exists just wishful thinking perhaps! I want to believe therefore I will shut out the rational part of my mind that tells me it's nonsense.
Rest assured, I'll be waiting for you to actually deconstruct my arguments, (as opposed to using the classic toys-out-of the-pram, "I won't believe it, so there!" argument you always seem to end up resorting to). As an entity which totally accepts any data according to laws and regulations, with no room for any doubt whatsoever, a computer could voice the statement "I think, therefore I am" with far more conviction than you ever could. Would that make its existence, and sentience, more valid that yours? Doubt is the defining characteristic of true intelligence, not certainty.
gmc;1446740 wrote: May your god go with you - assuming of course you have picked the right one unless you believe they various deities are all aspects of the same god in which case you are a heretic and you can argue that one with your coreligionists.
Ah, I see we're wrapping things up with the same old base, discriminatory insults, inciting religious hatred against non-Atheists yet again. We have just as much of a right to our beliefs as you do; if you don't like those beliefs, or even if you think that they're delusional, then tough. We're all just as human as you are, we all have equal human rights, so regardless of their beliefs' apparent validity, they're all just as legitimate as yours. I also doubt that some of us will ever agree. But if you remain closed to the notion of agreeing to disagree, then your hatred of religion, and inability to get over it, will continue to eat you up inside... :-1
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Welcome to conversation.
Blimey !!!!
I have to say Singh Song, that was a blinding post.
I can't wait to see gmc answer that one.
I have to say Singh Song, that was a blinding post.
I can't wait to see gmc answer that one.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446740 wrote: You assume the world is designed in order to prove it is the work of a designer. Your argument boils down to these things are so and we can discern a pattern in them therefore god must have done it. Our scientific knowledge, you now cite as proof of god, has been acquired despite the church and in the face of extreme opposition to anything that challenged the description of creation given in the bible is ironic to put it mildly.
:-5:-5
Not the hoary old chestnut of free will is it?
You accept the theory of evolution as valid (it's not a belief system that requires faith) so the random factors that have affected our development and all the various things that go along with it - babies born without brains, with down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, holes in the heart, good people suffering monstrous tortures from ebola hemorrhagic fever, are presumably also part of the design.
So do you believe that these things are punishment for some misdemeanor (certainly there were those that said as much about hurricane katrina,the earthquake in haiti and even the earthquake in japan recently was punishment for pearl harbour) or do you say that these things only seem random to us because we are ignorant of god's plan and so we cannot say they are good or bad.
You cannot argue they are not part of god's plan unless you claim insight to the workings of god and in all your postings I don't think you have ever claimed to be a prophet.
If you could actually prove god exists there would be no need for faith and that would mean the end of religion.
No need to simplify things either you could give all the arguments you want I can deconstruct them all, but I doubt we will ever agree. They all boil down to the universe exists god must have done it. It's the perennial variation of the cogito argument, I think therefore I am, since couldn't imagine myself in to existence god must have made me. It's not proof that god exists just wishful thinking perhaps! I want to believe therefore I will shut out the rational part of my mind that tells me it's nonsense.
May your god go with you - assuming of course you have picked the right one unless you believe they various deities are all aspects of the same god in which case you are a heretic and you can argue that one with your coreligionists.
I do not believe in free will, I believe in " Limited will", we are limited in our conscious will, not free. And again I am answering your questions and proving God per your request, with the facts as I view them. I believe in evolution, just not the evolution that you see. In my sight, God created certain things to evolve, simply no doubt about it, but not all things to evolve. Evolution is why God created Cells; everything an organism's body does happens because its cells make those actions happen. You think that is happenstance luck that nothing designed, I think its obvious design that cannot develop from nothing. Two contrast in our thinking and reasoning. And I arrive at my beliefs from reasoning's, not from faith.
A human being has approximately 10 million cells, that is absolute proof of God in my view, and stunning evidence that cells are not self made. Those cells have structure, specialized internal compartments that are OBVIOUSLY designed; such as the nucleus that houses your DNA. Life begat life is simple biology; simple science; cells combined and produced you; it was therefore impossible for the first cells to produce themselves, even they had to be produced by a life source. Hey, these are facts, facts that explain and prove God.
The facts are as diverse as the proofs of God are. The human body has 46 Chromosomes, 2 each of 23 different kinds. Science can map these ( called a Karyotype), but cannot create them. Nor can they film them creating themselves from nothing; still evidence of a Creator. God designed these so that ONLY parents can pass them along, science cannot create this process, only hope to duplicate it. They can genetically modify things, but only those things already provided by creation. Still more proof of God, and still factual.
When humans are born with birth defections that in no manner disproves creation; does it mean God created these defections? Absolutely it does, there would be no defections without God, no life without him, and no suffering without him. I think God is ultimately responsible for ALL things. Even the evil in our physical bodies. And I for one am glad of that, because it means he is responsible to fix it, and not man.
And he will.
:-5:-5
Not the hoary old chestnut of free will is it?
You accept the theory of evolution as valid (it's not a belief system that requires faith) so the random factors that have affected our development and all the various things that go along with it - babies born without brains, with down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, holes in the heart, good people suffering monstrous tortures from ebola hemorrhagic fever, are presumably also part of the design.
So do you believe that these things are punishment for some misdemeanor (certainly there were those that said as much about hurricane katrina,the earthquake in haiti and even the earthquake in japan recently was punishment for pearl harbour) or do you say that these things only seem random to us because we are ignorant of god's plan and so we cannot say they are good or bad.
You cannot argue they are not part of god's plan unless you claim insight to the workings of god and in all your postings I don't think you have ever claimed to be a prophet.
If you could actually prove god exists there would be no need for faith and that would mean the end of religion.
No need to simplify things either you could give all the arguments you want I can deconstruct them all, but I doubt we will ever agree. They all boil down to the universe exists god must have done it. It's the perennial variation of the cogito argument, I think therefore I am, since couldn't imagine myself in to existence god must have made me. It's not proof that god exists just wishful thinking perhaps! I want to believe therefore I will shut out the rational part of my mind that tells me it's nonsense.
May your god go with you - assuming of course you have picked the right one unless you believe they various deities are all aspects of the same god in which case you are a heretic and you can argue that one with your coreligionists.
I do not believe in free will, I believe in " Limited will", we are limited in our conscious will, not free. And again I am answering your questions and proving God per your request, with the facts as I view them. I believe in evolution, just not the evolution that you see. In my sight, God created certain things to evolve, simply no doubt about it, but not all things to evolve. Evolution is why God created Cells; everything an organism's body does happens because its cells make those actions happen. You think that is happenstance luck that nothing designed, I think its obvious design that cannot develop from nothing. Two contrast in our thinking and reasoning. And I arrive at my beliefs from reasoning's, not from faith.
A human being has approximately 10 million cells, that is absolute proof of God in my view, and stunning evidence that cells are not self made. Those cells have structure, specialized internal compartments that are OBVIOUSLY designed; such as the nucleus that houses your DNA. Life begat life is simple biology; simple science; cells combined and produced you; it was therefore impossible for the first cells to produce themselves, even they had to be produced by a life source. Hey, these are facts, facts that explain and prove God.
The facts are as diverse as the proofs of God are. The human body has 46 Chromosomes, 2 each of 23 different kinds. Science can map these ( called a Karyotype), but cannot create them. Nor can they film them creating themselves from nothing; still evidence of a Creator. God designed these so that ONLY parents can pass them along, science cannot create this process, only hope to duplicate it. They can genetically modify things, but only those things already provided by creation. Still more proof of God, and still factual.
When humans are born with birth defections that in no manner disproves creation; does it mean God created these defections? Absolutely it does, there would be no defections without God, no life without him, and no suffering without him. I think God is ultimately responsible for ALL things. Even the evil in our physical bodies. And I for one am glad of that, because it means he is responsible to fix it, and not man.
And he will.
Welcome to conversation.
The nervous system is an excellent proof of God. Stunning evidence of a mind behind man; a mind that created and stored things in us that are responsible for picking up information from the organism's sense organs, interpreting that information, and coordinating a response. The chemicals in our bodies that Endocrine releases are hormones that were " Pre-regulated" from their conception, and these in no manner were lucky chemicals created over time, by a time that created itself when it thought it was time to have time enter into reality.
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446740 wrote:
You accept the theory of evolution as valid (it's not a belief system that requires faith) so the random factors that have affected our development and all the various things that go along with it - babies born without brains, with down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, holes in the heart, good people suffering monstrous tortures from ebola hemorrhagic fever, are presumably also part of the design.
So do you believe that these things are punishment for some misdemeanor (certainly there were those that said as much about hurricane katrina,the earthquake in haiti and even the earthquake in japan recently was punishment for pearl harbour) or do you say that these things only seem random to us because we are ignorant of god's plan and so we cannot say they are good or bad.
You cannot argue they are not part of god's plan unless you claim insight to the workings of god and in all your postings I don't think you have ever claimed to be a prophet.
.
Now, why did God create suffering in his plans for humans? Well one reason is " Bacteria", he wanted " Prokaryotic cells" to reside freely in our genetic makeup. God wanted Bacterial DNA to be in our cells, simply no doubt about this. Which means that he WANTED humans to get sick and have it in our genetic characteristics, it was not an error in creation. Bacteria was created, and thus we can know so were viruses. And our membranes transported these throughout human bloodlines in history. I know religion will disagree with me on this, but I see it as truth.
Bacteria grows, and so has human suffering. The presence of Bacteria cannot be excused from God. He could have created life without it; he did not. God made sure the certain elements that fulfill the nutrition bacteria needs to survive and grow were also created. He gave us inorganic salts, such as potassium and iron and micronutrients such as zinc, and carbon energy; and even used this to help transfer genetic information and DNA. A stunning proof of him.
You accept the theory of evolution as valid (it's not a belief system that requires faith) so the random factors that have affected our development and all the various things that go along with it - babies born without brains, with down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, holes in the heart, good people suffering monstrous tortures from ebola hemorrhagic fever, are presumably also part of the design.
So do you believe that these things are punishment for some misdemeanor (certainly there were those that said as much about hurricane katrina,the earthquake in haiti and even the earthquake in japan recently was punishment for pearl harbour) or do you say that these things only seem random to us because we are ignorant of god's plan and so we cannot say they are good or bad.
You cannot argue they are not part of god's plan unless you claim insight to the workings of god and in all your postings I don't think you have ever claimed to be a prophet.
.
Now, why did God create suffering in his plans for humans? Well one reason is " Bacteria", he wanted " Prokaryotic cells" to reside freely in our genetic makeup. God wanted Bacterial DNA to be in our cells, simply no doubt about this. Which means that he WANTED humans to get sick and have it in our genetic characteristics, it was not an error in creation. Bacteria was created, and thus we can know so were viruses. And our membranes transported these throughout human bloodlines in history. I know religion will disagree with me on this, but I see it as truth.
Bacteria grows, and so has human suffering. The presence of Bacteria cannot be excused from God. He could have created life without it; he did not. God made sure the certain elements that fulfill the nutrition bacteria needs to survive and grow were also created. He gave us inorganic salts, such as potassium and iron and micronutrients such as zinc, and carbon energy; and even used this to help transfer genetic information and DNA. A stunning proof of him.
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446740 wrote:
If you could actually prove god exists there would be no need for faith and that would mean the end of religion.
.
God plans on ending religion. Something I think you are simply unaware of, because your rants depend on religion so much. God is more against religion than you are. God has never endorsed religion, any religion; and he has never supported any religion on earth, and still does not.
And he will end religion on earth, because he does not need it; there is no religion around God in heaven; absolutely none!
And God does not need the faith of men. He doesn't need anything from humans.
If you could actually prove god exists there would be no need for faith and that would mean the end of religion.
.
God plans on ending religion. Something I think you are simply unaware of, because your rants depend on religion so much. God is more against religion than you are. God has never endorsed religion, any religion; and he has never supported any religion on earth, and still does not.
And he will end religion on earth, because he does not need it; there is no religion around God in heaven; absolutely none!
And God does not need the faith of men. He doesn't need anything from humans.
Welcome to conversation.
posted by singh song
gmc, you use the same old 'tired chestnut' arguments over and over again, without any reasonable basis for your adamant belief in disbelieving. As with any other theories, including any scientific ones,
--------
------------------
Then you can choose to believe or not believe in anything. No theory, not even our own existence (eg, Nihilists) can ever attain universal acceptance among a populace with any measure of free will, because this element of choice means that doubt is an inherent defining characteristic of sentient beings; and because of this omnipresent element of doubt, nothing can be accepted without an element of faith.
Firstly i was answering the arguments put by mickiel. If you have any that are different by all means out them forward.
As with any other theories, including any scientific ones, I feel that there are several theories advanced by religions which can be proved beyond reasonable doubt-
Bu all means set them out.
Unfortunately, even the most stringently scientifically tested theory is, and always will be, impossible to verify beyond all doubt. In spite of your claim that it's not a belief system which requires faith, Evolutionary theory is a clear example of this, as can be seen from the number of Creationists who still choose not to believe in something else.
A scientific theory is the best explanation based on the evidence and experimentation that is available at the time. If someone comes up with a better theory than evolution or a different perspective on it and can back it up with evidence then the acceptance of that theory will change. If acceptance of the theory of evolution required faith then any such variation would not be accepted. If you recall when galileo dared to dared to suggest the earth revolved around the sun he found himself on trial by the inquisition. In the 1930's in america there was the stokes trial when a teacher teaching evolution as a scientific theory found themselves on trial for blasphemy. Even in this century teachers in america can find their livelihoods at stake for daring to challenge the religious establishment Questioning religion is blasphemy which in some countries around the world can result in the death penalty, question a scientific theory and the response is prove it. I trust you can understand the difference.
If you do believe in free will (which also happens to be something which it is extremely difficult to find a logical basis for if we take a purely scientific point of view, and deconstruct the inner workings of our mental processes- after all
Free will is a religious construct thought up to answer some of the contradictions in religious teachings (why are some men good etc etc) . My question referencing was addressed to mickiel to see what his response was. I find it interesting if somewhat spurious
Let's just ignore the last one, because even though Ebola is a virus which has itself evolved to take advantage of humanity's prolifigacy, and is in no way a part of our evolutionary development at all, you couldn't have possibly been expected to actually take a step back and think about it... Even with the others though, if we accept that evolution is part of the design, then yes, all of these things have to be part of the design, because no species on the evolutionary ladder, not even ourselves, will ever be the ultimate embodiment of biological perfection. That's what evolution's all about- it's always possible to do it better, working out the kinks through trial and error to improve things in the long run. The errors may be difficult to cope with, but they are an intrinsic part of the system, without which our entire species' lineage would be doomed to genetic stagnation and eventual extinction. Next:
You contradict yourself there, or maybe you miss the point that evolution applies to everything, even a virus which in this case had adapted to humans - and it must be part of our evolutionary process otherwise it wouldn't be killing us. although killing all it's hosts rather suggest it has a way to go.
if we accept that evolution is part of the design,
Yet again you assume there is a design therefore there has to be a designer. must be a designer
How can we prove scientifically that every decision we make isn't defined completely by who we are genetically, and by our biochemistry? ) Then you can choose to believe or not believe in anything. No theory, not even our own existence (eg, Nihilists) can ever attain universal acceptance among a populace with any measure of free will, because this element of choice means that doubt is an inherent defining characteristic of sentient beings; and because of this omnipresent element of doubt, nothing can be accepted without an element of faith.
We can't because we are still working out how our brains work and what part genetics and brain chemistry play in the way we turn out. The notion that chemical changes in our brain can affect our personalities to some religious people flies in the face of man's soul. What does it say for the soul if a chemical imbalance can lead you to sin? ( no let's not star on whether man has a soul).
Far from it. If they exists, then they must be a part of God's plan.And there's no escaping the fact that these natural phenomena, and several more- hurricanes, earthquakes, -----------
The true purpose of these phenomena is not to take human life, but to sustain and replenish the earth, and by extension to sustain earth-bound life. Without them, the Earth would be too barren for humanity to even exist.
Once again the point was aimed at mickiel If You see them as part of god's plan so are you one of those who say we should just accept it all as god's will? Speaking for myself the concept is less than appealing.
These phenomena all take such a toll because the percentage of the total human population living in their path is disproportionately high compared to the area afflicted by them; but ask yourself, why do these areas have a disproportionately high population? Because of the positive legacy of increased fertility left behind in their wake. The true purpose of these phenomena is not to take human life, but to sustain and replenish the earth, and by extension to sustain earth-bound life. Without them, the Earth would be too barren for humanity to even exist.
I'm sorry but the only reply to that is bollocks. If you want to believe stuff like that it's up to you.
Rest assured, I'll be waiting for you to actually deconstruct my arguments, (as opposed to using the classic toys-out-of the-pram, "I won't believe it, so there!" argument you always seem to end up resorting to). As an entity which totally accepts any data according to laws and regulations, with no room for any doubt whatsoever, a computer could voice the statement "I think, therefore I am" with far more conviction than you ever could. Would that make its existence, and sentience, more valid that yours? Doubt is the defining characteristic of true intelligence, not certainty.
Now there's a good argument. I would refer you back to the agnostic atheist. I am doubtful almost to the point of certainty that there is no god but I cannot be 100% absolutely certain there is not one. You on the other hand are certain with no doubt whatsoever that god exists.
Doubt is the defining characteristic of true intelligence, not certainty
By that logic the only positions for an intelligent person to take is that of agnostic atheist - or of agnostic.
Ah, I see we're wrapping things up with the same old base, discriminatory insults, inciting religious hatred against non-Atheists yet again. -------
------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you remain closed to the notion of agreeing to disagree, then your hatred of religion, and inability to get over it, will continue to eat you up inside...
Save the victims lament for someone else. Have I ever suggested religion be banned or that churches be closed down? No I have not, indeed I would make reading the bible and the history of how it was written and rewritten compulsory in all schools, the bast defence against religious fanaticism is knowledge. Has anyone ever told you you cannot express your views? What I object to is when religious organizations try and prevent the teaching of science, force those around them to adhere to their own religious beliefs on things like contraception and abortion and join in the intolerance and hatred over things like gay marriage. I particularly detest separate religious schools because all they do is encourage sectarianism and hatred and that's because I have personal experience of their effect.
It's not atheists the religious need to worry about it's their fellow believers who happen to worship a different version of god. Most of the horrors reaped on the religious are carried out by their co-coreligionists see the inquisition, holocaust. or if you prefer present day Israel, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, sudan nigeria the list is endless. As an atheist I don't have a god whispering in my ear that I am one of the chosen and everybody else is going to hell.
I also doubt that some of us will ever agree.
Speak for yourself. I agree to disagree with many people, including mickiel and yourself - you're right we are not going to persuade each other but when you have to put forth your arguments I find it a useful way to organise my thoughts and work out my views and how to express them. Hopefully you do too.
gmc, you use the same old 'tired chestnut' arguments over and over again, without any reasonable basis for your adamant belief in disbelieving. As with any other theories, including any scientific ones,
--------
------------------
Then you can choose to believe or not believe in anything. No theory, not even our own existence (eg, Nihilists) can ever attain universal acceptance among a populace with any measure of free will, because this element of choice means that doubt is an inherent defining characteristic of sentient beings; and because of this omnipresent element of doubt, nothing can be accepted without an element of faith.
Firstly i was answering the arguments put by mickiel. If you have any that are different by all means out them forward.
As with any other theories, including any scientific ones, I feel that there are several theories advanced by religions which can be proved beyond reasonable doubt-
Bu all means set them out.
Unfortunately, even the most stringently scientifically tested theory is, and always will be, impossible to verify beyond all doubt. In spite of your claim that it's not a belief system which requires faith, Evolutionary theory is a clear example of this, as can be seen from the number of Creationists who still choose not to believe in something else.
A scientific theory is the best explanation based on the evidence and experimentation that is available at the time. If someone comes up with a better theory than evolution or a different perspective on it and can back it up with evidence then the acceptance of that theory will change. If acceptance of the theory of evolution required faith then any such variation would not be accepted. If you recall when galileo dared to dared to suggest the earth revolved around the sun he found himself on trial by the inquisition. In the 1930's in america there was the stokes trial when a teacher teaching evolution as a scientific theory found themselves on trial for blasphemy. Even in this century teachers in america can find their livelihoods at stake for daring to challenge the religious establishment Questioning religion is blasphemy which in some countries around the world can result in the death penalty, question a scientific theory and the response is prove it. I trust you can understand the difference.
If you do believe in free will (which also happens to be something which it is extremely difficult to find a logical basis for if we take a purely scientific point of view, and deconstruct the inner workings of our mental processes- after all
Free will is a religious construct thought up to answer some of the contradictions in religious teachings (why are some men good etc etc) . My question referencing was addressed to mickiel to see what his response was. I find it interesting if somewhat spurious
Let's just ignore the last one, because even though Ebola is a virus which has itself evolved to take advantage of humanity's prolifigacy, and is in no way a part of our evolutionary development at all, you couldn't have possibly been expected to actually take a step back and think about it... Even with the others though, if we accept that evolution is part of the design, then yes, all of these things have to be part of the design, because no species on the evolutionary ladder, not even ourselves, will ever be the ultimate embodiment of biological perfection. That's what evolution's all about- it's always possible to do it better, working out the kinks through trial and error to improve things in the long run. The errors may be difficult to cope with, but they are an intrinsic part of the system, without which our entire species' lineage would be doomed to genetic stagnation and eventual extinction. Next:
You contradict yourself there, or maybe you miss the point that evolution applies to everything, even a virus which in this case had adapted to humans - and it must be part of our evolutionary process otherwise it wouldn't be killing us. although killing all it's hosts rather suggest it has a way to go.
if we accept that evolution is part of the design,
Yet again you assume there is a design therefore there has to be a designer. must be a designer
How can we prove scientifically that every decision we make isn't defined completely by who we are genetically, and by our biochemistry? ) Then you can choose to believe or not believe in anything. No theory, not even our own existence (eg, Nihilists) can ever attain universal acceptance among a populace with any measure of free will, because this element of choice means that doubt is an inherent defining characteristic of sentient beings; and because of this omnipresent element of doubt, nothing can be accepted without an element of faith.
We can't because we are still working out how our brains work and what part genetics and brain chemistry play in the way we turn out. The notion that chemical changes in our brain can affect our personalities to some religious people flies in the face of man's soul. What does it say for the soul if a chemical imbalance can lead you to sin? ( no let's not star on whether man has a soul).
Far from it. If they exists, then they must be a part of God's plan.And there's no escaping the fact that these natural phenomena, and several more- hurricanes, earthquakes, -----------
The true purpose of these phenomena is not to take human life, but to sustain and replenish the earth, and by extension to sustain earth-bound life. Without them, the Earth would be too barren for humanity to even exist.
Once again the point was aimed at mickiel If You see them as part of god's plan so are you one of those who say we should just accept it all as god's will? Speaking for myself the concept is less than appealing.
These phenomena all take such a toll because the percentage of the total human population living in their path is disproportionately high compared to the area afflicted by them; but ask yourself, why do these areas have a disproportionately high population? Because of the positive legacy of increased fertility left behind in their wake. The true purpose of these phenomena is not to take human life, but to sustain and replenish the earth, and by extension to sustain earth-bound life. Without them, the Earth would be too barren for humanity to even exist.
I'm sorry but the only reply to that is bollocks. If you want to believe stuff like that it's up to you.
Rest assured, I'll be waiting for you to actually deconstruct my arguments, (as opposed to using the classic toys-out-of the-pram, "I won't believe it, so there!" argument you always seem to end up resorting to). As an entity which totally accepts any data according to laws and regulations, with no room for any doubt whatsoever, a computer could voice the statement "I think, therefore I am" with far more conviction than you ever could. Would that make its existence, and sentience, more valid that yours? Doubt is the defining characteristic of true intelligence, not certainty.
Now there's a good argument. I would refer you back to the agnostic atheist. I am doubtful almost to the point of certainty that there is no god but I cannot be 100% absolutely certain there is not one. You on the other hand are certain with no doubt whatsoever that god exists.
Doubt is the defining characteristic of true intelligence, not certainty
By that logic the only positions for an intelligent person to take is that of agnostic atheist - or of agnostic.
Ah, I see we're wrapping things up with the same old base, discriminatory insults, inciting religious hatred against non-Atheists yet again. -------
------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you remain closed to the notion of agreeing to disagree, then your hatred of religion, and inability to get over it, will continue to eat you up inside...
Save the victims lament for someone else. Have I ever suggested religion be banned or that churches be closed down? No I have not, indeed I would make reading the bible and the history of how it was written and rewritten compulsory in all schools, the bast defence against religious fanaticism is knowledge. Has anyone ever told you you cannot express your views? What I object to is when religious organizations try and prevent the teaching of science, force those around them to adhere to their own religious beliefs on things like contraception and abortion and join in the intolerance and hatred over things like gay marriage. I particularly detest separate religious schools because all they do is encourage sectarianism and hatred and that's because I have personal experience of their effect.
It's not atheists the religious need to worry about it's their fellow believers who happen to worship a different version of god. Most of the horrors reaped on the religious are carried out by their co-coreligionists see the inquisition, holocaust. or if you prefer present day Israel, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, sudan nigeria the list is endless. As an atheist I don't have a god whispering in my ear that I am one of the chosen and everybody else is going to hell.
I also doubt that some of us will ever agree.
Speak for yourself. I agree to disagree with many people, including mickiel and yourself - you're right we are not going to persuade each other but when you have to put forth your arguments I find it a useful way to organise my thoughts and work out my views and how to express them. Hopefully you do too.
-
Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446836 wrote: Firstly i was answering the arguments put by mickiel. If you have any that are different by all means out them forward.
You're on ForumGarden; isn't this thread open to all of us? And, as I'm sure any else without their black-and-white Religion vs Atheism spectacles on will be able to tell straight away, the viewpoints I argue are very, very different from mickiel's. They already have been (put? slight typo) forward; any answers?
gmc;1446836 wrote: A scientific theory is the best explanation based on the evidence and experimentation that is available at the time... If acceptance of the theory of evolution required faith then any such variation would not be accepted.
Very flawed answer there; let me just reiterate my point for you. Because doubt is a defining characteristic of intelligence, acceptance of ANY theory requires an element of faith, INCLUDING those which already exist. And if a new theory, scientific, religious or otherwise, makes more sense and hence requires less faith than the existing theories, then it will eventually become more widely accepted. You say that 'If acceptance of the theory of evolution required faith then any such variation would not be accepted'; but how long did it take for the theory to be accepted even within the scientific community? How many people are there who still remain unconvinced by it? But it eventually took hold because it made more sense, and it was ultimately easier for future generations to believe in.
gmc;1446836 wrote: Questioning religion is blasphemy which in some countries around the world can result in the death penalty, question a scientific theory and the response is prove it. I trust you can understand the difference.
Yes, 'Questioning religion is blasphemy which in some (actually, very few) countries around the world can result in the death penalty'; but there are other countries where questioning science with religious theories is insanity, which can result in a lifetime term in the lunatic asylum. We can both agree that the nations which implement the prior policy deserve to be ousted from the international community and shunned as pariahs; but could we hope to agree that the latter policy is also repressive and unacceptable? Or would you support this policy, and encourage its extension worldwide through its adoption by the UN in lieu of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Do I even have to ask...?
gmc;1446836 wrote: Free will is a religious construct thought up to answer some of the contradictions in religious teachings... I find it interesting if somewhat spurious
Well you said previously that you only know one thing; I think, therefore I am. But without the notion of free will, how can we be said to 'think' any more than a robot does? Indeed, considering our own meagre processing speed in comparison to modern computers, how primitive and obsolescent would our own thought processes already be in comparison? If we remove the illusion of free will, then we are in principle just as inanimate as the Earth itself, all mere puppets on the strings of creation in the same way. How could this be possible- unless, of course, there was some entity pulling the strings...?
gmc;1446836 wrote: You contradict yourself there... although killing all it's hosts rather suggest it has a way to go.
Sorry, but how is the separate evolutionary process followed by a single-celled organism a part of our own evolutionary process? Our vulnerability to Ebola is merely a kink in our genetic system at this stage in our development; eventually, as Ebola continues to evolve and we continue to evolve, the disease's mortality rate will continue to fall, trending towards zero.
gmc;1446836 wrote: Yet again you assume there is a design therefore there has to be a designer. must be a designer
:-2 You're the one who used the words 'part of the design'; I was just using your own terminology...
gmc;1446836 wrote: If You see them as part of god's plan so are you one of those who say we should just accept it all as god's will? Speaking for myself the concept is less than appealing.
They have to be accepted as an unavoidable part of living on a terrestrial planet suitable for widespread human habitation. Without earthquakes and volcanoes, and by extension tsunamis, Earth's tectonic system would grind to a halt and our planet would swiftly become cold and barren in the same way Mars did; without hurricanes to distribute the oceans' heat from near the equator to more temperate latitudes, our climate would quickly spiral out of control, either in a runaway Greenhouse Effect Venus-style or into a runaway Global Cooling Effect a la the Snowball Earth period.
gmc;1446836 wrote: I'm sorry but the only reply to that is bollocks. If you want to believe stuff like that it's up to you.
(the 'bollocks' insult again, how original. :rolleyes: Moving on...) The population figures in regions of the world near tectonic boundaries, and those affected by hurricanes, typhoons and seasonal flooding, speak for themselves. If they had a negative net impact on us over the course of human history, then these areas would be more sparsely populated; I think it speaks volumes that these are instead the most densely populated regions on Earth and have been for the majority of human history, with their population still continuing to grow faster on average than regions outside of these disaster risk zones.
gmc;1446836 wrote: Now there's a good argument... You on the other hand are certain with no doubt whatsoever that god exists.
On the contrary. In spite of the fact that I have my own personal experience to go on, I still possess the capacity to decide how to interpret it, and hence an inherent element of doubt. I choose to believe in God (aka Waheguru), and I believe in God's existence wholeheartedly; but belief is not the same thing as knowledge. Unless I can surrender the illusion of free will and embrace truly becoming one with God, I can never claim to be absolutely 100% certain that he exists.
gmc;1446836 wrote: By that logic the only positions for an intelligent person to take is that of agnostic atheist - or of agnostic.
Many people might make the claim, and millions of people have died for what they believe in, but no-one's belief is truly absolute. One has a choice between three options; believing in a belief system, believing in one's disbelief, or believing in doubt itself.
gmc;1446836 wrote: Have I ever suggested religion be banned or that churches be closed down?... I particularly detest separate religious schools because all they do is encourage sectarianism and hatred and that's because I have personal experience of their effect.
Now, it is true that you haven't suggested these things explicitly; but in other posts, and indeed even in this paragraph, you express your loathing and detestation of these very same entities, religion and the church. I agree that the best defence against religious fanaticism is knowledge, as with any other form of fanaticism, and I'm sure that most religious people in this world would also agree.
I also object to any organisation trying to prevent the teaching of other beliefs, forcing those around them to adhere to their own beliefs and inciting intolerance and hatred against them over mutual disagreements; but religious organisations aren't the only organisations guilty of this. I personally think it's unfair to force religious communities opposed to the practice of homosexuality to conduct gay marriages in their places of worship, in the same way as it would be unfair to force a Jewish community to participate in the butchering of pigs in their synagogue. They have a right to gay marriage, and no-one else has the right to intolerance- but I don't think they should have the right to force their practices on other communities which disagree with it.
BTW, I also attended a separate religious school, a Catholic Convent school, where I was the only member of my faith in the entire student body. As such, I can relate to your experience, but my experience seems to have been very different to your own. There, they accepted my views, I accepted theirs (to an extent- with my in-class debates, I had the Religious Studies teacher pulling her hair out by the time I gave it up at GCSE level, but that was what made it so fun...
) and thanks to its community spirit and the levels of student support available, I found it to be the most enjoyable educational establishment I ever attended.
gmc;1446836 wrote: It's not atheists the religious need to worry about it's their fellow believers who happen to worship a different version of god... or if you prefer present day Israel, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, sudan nigeria the list is endless.
Well of course, if you look over the course of history, the majority of these instances of religious persecution were carried out by other religious communities; for most of the history of human civilisation, there were no atheist communities to carry them out. Even with your examples, the unspeakable horror of industrialised genocide which was the Holocaust was of course carried out by Nazi Germany; which just happened to be a secular state, not a religious one. Hitler himself believed that in the long run, Nazism and religion could not co-exist, and that religion would eventually have to be eliminated. Other secular states include the CSA (Slavery, US Civil War), the Soviet Union (Stalin's Purges), South Africa (Apartheid), the PRC (the Great Leap Forward), and North Korea (current state of affairs)- hardly glowing endorsements for atheism.
gmc;1446836 wrote: As an atheist I don't have a god whispering in my ear that I am one of the chosen and everybody else is going to hell.
Neither do we, gmc. Give it a rest...
You're on ForumGarden; isn't this thread open to all of us? And, as I'm sure any else without their black-and-white Religion vs Atheism spectacles on will be able to tell straight away, the viewpoints I argue are very, very different from mickiel's. They already have been (put? slight typo) forward; any answers?
gmc;1446836 wrote: A scientific theory is the best explanation based on the evidence and experimentation that is available at the time... If acceptance of the theory of evolution required faith then any such variation would not be accepted.
Very flawed answer there; let me just reiterate my point for you. Because doubt is a defining characteristic of intelligence, acceptance of ANY theory requires an element of faith, INCLUDING those which already exist. And if a new theory, scientific, religious or otherwise, makes more sense and hence requires less faith than the existing theories, then it will eventually become more widely accepted. You say that 'If acceptance of the theory of evolution required faith then any such variation would not be accepted'; but how long did it take for the theory to be accepted even within the scientific community? How many people are there who still remain unconvinced by it? But it eventually took hold because it made more sense, and it was ultimately easier for future generations to believe in.
gmc;1446836 wrote: Questioning religion is blasphemy which in some countries around the world can result in the death penalty, question a scientific theory and the response is prove it. I trust you can understand the difference.
Yes, 'Questioning religion is blasphemy which in some (actually, very few) countries around the world can result in the death penalty'; but there are other countries where questioning science with religious theories is insanity, which can result in a lifetime term in the lunatic asylum. We can both agree that the nations which implement the prior policy deserve to be ousted from the international community and shunned as pariahs; but could we hope to agree that the latter policy is also repressive and unacceptable? Or would you support this policy, and encourage its extension worldwide through its adoption by the UN in lieu of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Do I even have to ask...?
gmc;1446836 wrote: Free will is a religious construct thought up to answer some of the contradictions in religious teachings... I find it interesting if somewhat spurious
Well you said previously that you only know one thing; I think, therefore I am. But without the notion of free will, how can we be said to 'think' any more than a robot does? Indeed, considering our own meagre processing speed in comparison to modern computers, how primitive and obsolescent would our own thought processes already be in comparison? If we remove the illusion of free will, then we are in principle just as inanimate as the Earth itself, all mere puppets on the strings of creation in the same way. How could this be possible- unless, of course, there was some entity pulling the strings...?
gmc;1446836 wrote: You contradict yourself there... although killing all it's hosts rather suggest it has a way to go.
Sorry, but how is the separate evolutionary process followed by a single-celled organism a part of our own evolutionary process? Our vulnerability to Ebola is merely a kink in our genetic system at this stage in our development; eventually, as Ebola continues to evolve and we continue to evolve, the disease's mortality rate will continue to fall, trending towards zero.
gmc;1446836 wrote: Yet again you assume there is a design therefore there has to be a designer. must be a designer
:-2 You're the one who used the words 'part of the design'; I was just using your own terminology...
gmc;1446836 wrote: If You see them as part of god's plan so are you one of those who say we should just accept it all as god's will? Speaking for myself the concept is less than appealing.
They have to be accepted as an unavoidable part of living on a terrestrial planet suitable for widespread human habitation. Without earthquakes and volcanoes, and by extension tsunamis, Earth's tectonic system would grind to a halt and our planet would swiftly become cold and barren in the same way Mars did; without hurricanes to distribute the oceans' heat from near the equator to more temperate latitudes, our climate would quickly spiral out of control, either in a runaway Greenhouse Effect Venus-style or into a runaway Global Cooling Effect a la the Snowball Earth period.
gmc;1446836 wrote: I'm sorry but the only reply to that is bollocks. If you want to believe stuff like that it's up to you.
(the 'bollocks' insult again, how original. :rolleyes: Moving on...) The population figures in regions of the world near tectonic boundaries, and those affected by hurricanes, typhoons and seasonal flooding, speak for themselves. If they had a negative net impact on us over the course of human history, then these areas would be more sparsely populated; I think it speaks volumes that these are instead the most densely populated regions on Earth and have been for the majority of human history, with their population still continuing to grow faster on average than regions outside of these disaster risk zones.
gmc;1446836 wrote: Now there's a good argument... You on the other hand are certain with no doubt whatsoever that god exists.
On the contrary. In spite of the fact that I have my own personal experience to go on, I still possess the capacity to decide how to interpret it, and hence an inherent element of doubt. I choose to believe in God (aka Waheguru), and I believe in God's existence wholeheartedly; but belief is not the same thing as knowledge. Unless I can surrender the illusion of free will and embrace truly becoming one with God, I can never claim to be absolutely 100% certain that he exists.
gmc;1446836 wrote: By that logic the only positions for an intelligent person to take is that of agnostic atheist - or of agnostic.
Many people might make the claim, and millions of people have died for what they believe in, but no-one's belief is truly absolute. One has a choice between three options; believing in a belief system, believing in one's disbelief, or believing in doubt itself.
gmc;1446836 wrote: Have I ever suggested religion be banned or that churches be closed down?... I particularly detest separate religious schools because all they do is encourage sectarianism and hatred and that's because I have personal experience of their effect.
Now, it is true that you haven't suggested these things explicitly; but in other posts, and indeed even in this paragraph, you express your loathing and detestation of these very same entities, religion and the church. I agree that the best defence against religious fanaticism is knowledge, as with any other form of fanaticism, and I'm sure that most religious people in this world would also agree.
I also object to any organisation trying to prevent the teaching of other beliefs, forcing those around them to adhere to their own beliefs and inciting intolerance and hatred against them over mutual disagreements; but religious organisations aren't the only organisations guilty of this. I personally think it's unfair to force religious communities opposed to the practice of homosexuality to conduct gay marriages in their places of worship, in the same way as it would be unfair to force a Jewish community to participate in the butchering of pigs in their synagogue. They have a right to gay marriage, and no-one else has the right to intolerance- but I don't think they should have the right to force their practices on other communities which disagree with it.
BTW, I also attended a separate religious school, a Catholic Convent school, where I was the only member of my faith in the entire student body. As such, I can relate to your experience, but my experience seems to have been very different to your own. There, they accepted my views, I accepted theirs (to an extent- with my in-class debates, I had the Religious Studies teacher pulling her hair out by the time I gave it up at GCSE level, but that was what made it so fun...
) and thanks to its community spirit and the levels of student support available, I found it to be the most enjoyable educational establishment I ever attended.gmc;1446836 wrote: It's not atheists the religious need to worry about it's their fellow believers who happen to worship a different version of god... or if you prefer present day Israel, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, sudan nigeria the list is endless.
Well of course, if you look over the course of history, the majority of these instances of religious persecution were carried out by other religious communities; for most of the history of human civilisation, there were no atheist communities to carry them out. Even with your examples, the unspeakable horror of industrialised genocide which was the Holocaust was of course carried out by Nazi Germany; which just happened to be a secular state, not a religious one. Hitler himself believed that in the long run, Nazism and religion could not co-exist, and that religion would eventually have to be eliminated. Other secular states include the CSA (Slavery, US Civil War), the Soviet Union (Stalin's Purges), South Africa (Apartheid), the PRC (the Great Leap Forward), and North Korea (current state of affairs)- hardly glowing endorsements for atheism.
gmc;1446836 wrote: As an atheist I don't have a god whispering in my ear that I am one of the chosen and everybody else is going to hell.
Neither do we, gmc. Give it a rest...
-
Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Welcome to conversation.
Oh, and thanks oscar. I can't wait to see how (/if) he'll answer it either...
I can't wait to see how (/if) he'll answer it either...