Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

[orogenicman]

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Non-sequitur. A dell is not biological organism.

No kidding?? I suppose its designer wasn't either? You continue to amuse me.

You're just full of non-sequiturs today, aren't you?

 

[Hollie]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

There is no such thing as "blind nature". That description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“...the illusion of design.” What a stretch to try to hold things together.

That's a good piece of writing. Nature has no "intent".

What do your prayer leaders at the Harun Yahya madrassah think of the above?

 

[orogenicman]

I didn't say you started the thread. I said people like you did. Try again.

There is no one like me. My DNA is unique unto myself. Try again to excuse your desire to showcase yourself.

Non-sequitur. But you knew that.

Yes. There is very little which I require of you to tell me.

That made no sense. But then, you knew that as well.

I know. I'll simply have to back myself down to the sixth grade level to communicate with you.

That would be a step up for you.

 

[Hollie]

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Yes, and?

Let's explore that. Your intelligent designer gawds then had an entire hierarchy of intelligent designers gawds designed by yet higher intelligent designer gawds who in turn were designed by even more intelligent designer gawds, ad infinitem.

Yes. I don't cotton to your tornado thesis.

That's fine. Your only responses thus far have been pointless quips devoid of anything useful.

 

[DriftingSand]

funny.. I've found it to be the exact opposite. I find that faith expands and enlightens the mind and mote importantly it increases and opens the heart.

it's the misapplication of reason that get people to refuse to consider things outside ones immediate sense. They say I will not consider this or that unless I see evidence. Then they raise the bar of what they consider evidence so high that nothing will satisfy it. Instead of using reason to learn they use it as an excuse to not learn. Faith can likewise be misused.

faith allows people to expand their minds and consider things not immediately apparent. It allows people to learn where reason alone cannot.

I say reason alone but it's more misunderstanding of reason. People dont recognize the limitations of reason. Reason is only good if you have accurate data you are putting in.

those who misuse reason are likely to misunderstand faith as well. They are also likely to miss the opportunity of the heart

So faith then is only good when a person has inaccurate data.

And what kind of heart opening does that give you?

A nice self-induced self-gratifying feeling based on nothing accurate.

Mental masturbation.

Regards
DL

you just proved my point. You reject faith in Christ and have closed your hearty and mind rather than expanding it. When a man begins to truly rely on Christ Hid mind is open to things he has never considered because the Spirit of Truth enlightens His mind and teaches him the truth of all things.

in addition the Spirit shows us the love God has for us. As we see Gods love, we begin to seek after it and share it with others. We begin worrying about the welfare of others.

a rejection of that faith in Christ bring cynicism, despair, and end to growth

Love of God my ass. Only a big fool would think God can love at all.

The bastard has promised to destroy the majority of us while keeping just a few of his best in heaven.

You can shove that love exactly where you keep your head. Up his ass.

Thanks for showing all here how little of love your corrupt religion has taught you.

Regards
DL

you think God created us with the ability to love and yet doesn't know love? He is love. And He will show you if you let Him.

talk with Him. You'd be surprised what you learn. Especially when you let go of your anger

I'd like to ask your gawds about that little dalliance they orchestrated that caused most of humanity to be wiped from the planet.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the O.T. says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did. “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths.

We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses.

Regards
DL

“My belief in miracles cannot be considered a mystical belief: it is founded on human evidence, as is my belief in the discovery of America. It is, indeed, a simple logical fact that hardly needs to be recognized or interpreted. The extraordinary idea going around is that those who deny the miracle know how to consider the facts coolly and directly, while those who accept the miracle always relate the facts with the dogma previously accepted. In fact, the opposite is the case: the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so. The unbelievers deny it (with or without reason) because the doctrine they profess compels them to do so.”
– G.K. Chesterton from “Orthodoxy” (1908 a.d.)

This is how and where Theist apologists lose most of us- "the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so". If there is evidence that an event happened (no matter how improbable) then it is reasonable to believe that it indeed did happen. Without evidence there is no reason to absolutely believe an event happened no matter how probable. Inclusion in an ancient text is not evidence no matter how fervently a
particular group believes that text is somehow the inspired inerrant words of their chosen Deity. It is no more reasonable to believe a messiah want-to-be fed thousands with a few fish than it is to believe Theseus slew the Minotaur.

Atheists are too caught up in "reason." Can a single atheist give us a "reason" for the existence of the universe? If you believe that there is a reason for life and the universe then you have no choice but to conclude that it is a product of a master mind for "reason" is a product of the mind. If you reject the idea that life and the universe are products of "reason" then your entire thought process is based on a faulty premise thus, unreasonable. You can no longer demand "reason" from others.

You're anthropomorphizing nature the same way you anthropomorphize you polytheistic gawds.

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

There is no reason to assume we won't find out more and more about the universe as time goes on. This is a very rational and empirical approach given the history of the growth of human knowledge. And, as we know, no discovery in the history of humanity has had a supernatural / magical causation.

Laws of physics don't "break down" per se, although it is a commonly used term even in the scientific community. They just describe different things. An effort has long been underway to come up with a Grand Unified Theory, or GUT. One theory that would explain everything. Although this has more to do with the four prime forces: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear force, and Weak Nuclear force. So far 2 have been successfully combined, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force has been combined into the "Electro-Weak" force. If the supernatural does exist there is no way to ultimately define it within natural law. But, the fact that Newtonian mechanics break down on the quantum level does not mean that quantum phenomena do not exist. Within the total realm of physics we had to understand a new branch to explain phenomena which fall under the principles of relativity.

Religious zealots hijack this idea with sidestepping and denial. Empirically there is no reason to assume an asserted irrational / supernatural being will somehow be discovered by any rational means, and until such time as the idea of supermagical revelation or asserted "psychic methods" are shown conclusive (or is in any way demonstrated), this is what the zealots must contend with.

1) God set the rules. He offered blessings if those rules were followed but He promised punishment if the rules were broken. Mankind at the time of Noah chose to ignore God and follow their own lusts. God simply kept His promise.

2) I see you have no answer to my question. The answer should be simple. There's either reason for the Universe or there isn't. If there is then by Whose reasoning does the Universe exist? If there is no reason for the Universe then you need to stop concerning yourself with any and all reasons for they are all irrelevant and it would be totally unreasonable for you to expect others to produce reasons for their beliefs. In other words (using your logic) reason is the product of chance and happenstance. That's totally unreasonable.

 

[orogenicman]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

There is no such thing as "blind nature". That description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“...the illusion of design.” What a stretch to try to hold things together.

What he means by it being an illusion of design is that natural selection is not purposeful but also not random. Ant hills that are constantly changing (i.e., becoming deeper or taller) will induce an anteater to evolve with a longer and longer tongue to reach the ants. It has the appearance of design, but is merely the result of life's constant struggle for survival.

 

[the_human_being]

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Non-sequitur. A dell is not biological organism.

No kidding?? I suppose its designer wasn't either? You continue to amuse me.

You're just full of non-sequiturs today, aren't you?

That's better than what you're full of. LOL!!

 

[orogenicman]

So faith then is only good when a person has inaccurate data.

And what kind of heart opening does that give you?

A nice self-induced self-gratifying feeling based on nothing accurate.

Mental masturbation.

Regards
DL

you just proved my point. You reject faith in Christ and have closed your hearty and mind rather than expanding it. When a man begins to truly rely on Christ Hid mind is open to things he has never considered because the Spirit of Truth enlightens His mind and teaches him the truth of all things.

in addition the Spirit shows us the love God has for us. As we see Gods love, we begin to seek after it and share it with others. We begin worrying about the welfare of others.

a rejection of that faith in Christ bring cynicism, despair, and end to growth

Love of God my ass. Only a big fool would think God can love at all.

The bastard has promised to destroy the majority of us while keeping just a few of his best in heaven.

You can shove that love exactly where you keep your head. Up his ass.

Thanks for showing all here how little of love your corrupt religion has taught you.

Regards
DL

you think God created us with the ability to love and yet doesn't know love? He is love. And He will show you if you let Him.

talk with Him. You'd be surprised what you learn. Especially when you let go of your anger

I'd like to ask your gawds about that little dalliance they orchestrated that caused most of humanity to be wiped from the planet.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the O.T. says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did. “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths.

We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses.

Regards
DL

“My belief in miracles cannot be considered a mystical belief: it is founded on human evidence, as is my belief in the discovery of America. It is, indeed, a simple logical fact that hardly needs to be recognized or interpreted. The extraordinary idea going around is that those who deny the miracle know how to consider the facts coolly and directly, while those who accept the miracle always relate the facts with the dogma previously accepted. In fact, the opposite is the case: the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so. The unbelievers deny it (with or without reason) because the doctrine they profess compels them to do so.”
– G.K. Chesterton from “Orthodoxy” (1908 a.d.)

This is how and where Theist apologists lose most of us- "the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so". If there is evidence that an event happened (no matter how improbable) then it is reasonable to believe that it indeed did happen. Without evidence there is no reason to absolutely believe an event happened no matter how probable. Inclusion in an ancient text is not evidence no matter how fervently a
particular group believes that text is somehow the inspired inerrant words of their chosen Deity. It is no more reasonable to believe a messiah want-to-be fed thousands with a few fish than it is to believe Theseus slew the Minotaur.

Atheists are too caught up in "reason." Can a single atheist give us a "reason" for the existence of the universe? If you believe that there is a reason for life and the universe then you have no choice but to conclude that it is a product of a master mind for "reason" is a product of the mind. If you reject the idea that life and the universe are products of "reason" then your entire thought process is based on a faulty premise thus, unreasonable. You can no longer demand "reason" from others.

You're anthropomorphizing nature the same way you anthropomorphize you polytheistic gawds.

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

There is no reason to assume we won't find out more and more about the universe as time goes on. This is a very rational and empirical approach given the history of the growth of human knowledge. And, as we know, no discovery in the history of humanity has had a supernatural / magical causation.

Laws of physics don't "break down" per se, although it is a commonly used term even in the scientific community. They just describe different things. An effort has long been underway to come up with a Grand Unified Theory, or GUT. One theory that would explain everything. Although this has more to do with the four prime forces: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear force, and Weak Nuclear force. So far 2 have been successfully combined, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force has been combined into the "Electro-Weak" force. If the supernatural does exist there is no way to ultimately define it within natural law. But, the fact that Newtonian mechanics break down on the quantum level does not mean that quantum phenomena do not exist. Within the total realm of physics we had to understand a new branch to explain phenomena which fall under the principles of relativity.

Religious zealots hijack this idea with sidestepping and denial. Empirically there is no reason to assume an asserted irrational / supernatural being will somehow be discovered by any rational means, and until such time as the idea of supermagical revelation or asserted "psychic methods" are shown conclusive (or is in any way demonstrated), this is what the zealots must contend with.

1) God set the rules. He offered blessings if those rules were followed but He promised punishment if the rules were broken. Mankind at the time of Noah chose to ignore God and follow their own lusts. God simply kept His promise.

2) I see you have no answer to my question. The answer should be simple. There's either reason for the Universe or there isn't. If there is then by Whose reasoning does the Universe exist? If there is no reason for the Universe then you need to stop concerning yourself with any and all reasons for they are all irrelevant and it would be totally unreasonable for you to expect others to produce reasons for their beliefs. In other words (using your logic) reason is the product of chance and happenstance. That's totally unreasonable.

Either/or arguments are a logical fallacy. Look it up.

 

[the_human_being]

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Yes, and?

Let's explore that. Your intelligent designer gawds then had an entire hierarchy of intelligent designers gawds designed by yet higher intelligent designer gawds who in turn were designed by even more intelligent designer gawds, ad infinitem.

Yes. I don't cotton to your tornado thesis.

That's fine. Your only responses thus far have been pointless quips devoid of anything useful.

Yes. I am tiring of hearing the word "gawds" for the millionth time.

 

[Hollie]

So faith then is only good when a person has inaccurate data.

And what kind of heart opening does that give you?

A nice self-induced self-gratifying feeling based on nothing accurate.

Mental masturbation.

Regards
DL

you just proved my point. You reject faith in Christ and have closed your hearty and mind rather than expanding it. When a man begins to truly rely on Christ Hid mind is open to things he has never considered because the Spirit of Truth enlightens His mind and teaches him the truth of all things.

in addition the Spirit shows us the love God has for us. As we see Gods love, we begin to seek after it and share it with others. We begin worrying about the welfare of others.

a rejection of that faith in Christ bring cynicism, despair, and end to growth

Love of God my ass. Only a big fool would think God can love at all.

The bastard has promised to destroy the majority of us while keeping just a few of his best in heaven.

You can shove that love exactly where you keep your head. Up his ass.

Thanks for showing all here how little of love your corrupt religion has taught you.

Regards
DL

you think God created us with the ability to love and yet doesn't know love? He is love. And He will show you if you let Him.

talk with Him. You'd be surprised what you learn. Especially when you let go of your anger

I'd like to ask your gawds about that little dalliance they orchestrated that caused most of humanity to be wiped from the planet.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the O.T. says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did. “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths.

We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses.

Regards
DL

“My belief in miracles cannot be considered a mystical belief: it is founded on human evidence, as is my belief in the discovery of America. It is, indeed, a simple logical fact that hardly needs to be recognized or interpreted. The extraordinary idea going around is that those who deny the miracle know how to consider the facts coolly and directly, while those who accept the miracle always relate the facts with the dogma previously accepted. In fact, the opposite is the case: the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so. The unbelievers deny it (with or without reason) because the doctrine they profess compels them to do so.”
– G.K. Chesterton from “Orthodoxy” (1908 a.d.)

This is how and where Theist apologists lose most of us- "the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so". If there is evidence that an event happened (no matter how improbable) then it is reasonable to believe that it indeed did happen. Without evidence there is no reason to absolutely believe an event happened no matter how probable. Inclusion in an ancient text is not evidence no matter how fervently a
particular group believes that text is somehow the inspired inerrant words of their chosen Deity. It is no more reasonable to believe a messiah want-to-be fed thousands with a few fish than it is to believe Theseus slew the Minotaur.

Atheists are too caught up in "reason." Can a single atheist give us a "reason" for the existence of the universe? If you believe that there is a reason for life and the universe then you have no choice but to conclude that it is a product of a master mind for "reason" is a product of the mind. If you reject the idea that life and the universe are products of "reason" then your entire thought process is based on a faulty premise thus, unreasonable. You can no longer demand "reason" from others.

You're anthropomorphizing nature the same way you anthropomorphize you polytheistic gawds.

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

There is no reason to assume we won't find out more and more about the universe as time goes on. This is a very rational and empirical approach given the history of the growth of human knowledge. And, as we know, no discovery in the history of humanity has had a supernatural / magical causation.

Laws of physics don't "break down" per se, although it is a commonly used term even in the scientific community. They just describe different things. An effort has long been underway to come up with a Grand Unified Theory, or GUT. One theory that would explain everything. Although this has more to do with the four prime forces: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear force, and Weak Nuclear force. So far 2 have been successfully combined, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force has been combined into the "Electro-Weak" force. If the supernatural does exist there is no way to ultimately define it within natural law. But, the fact that Newtonian mechanics break down on the quantum level does not mean that quantum phenomena do not exist. Within the total realm of physics we had to understand a new branch to explain phenomena which fall under the principles of relativity.

Religious zealots hijack this idea with sidestepping and denial. Empirically there is no reason to assume an asserted irrational / supernatural being will somehow be discovered by any rational means, and until such time as the idea of supermagical revelation or asserted "psychic methods" are shown conclusive (or is in any way demonstrated), this is what the zealots must contend with.

1) God set the rules. He offered blessings if those rules were followed but He promised punishment if the rules were broken. Mankind at the time of Noah chose to ignore God and follow their own lusts. God simply kept His promise.

2) I see you have no answer to my question. The answer should be simple. There's either reason for the Universe or there isn't. If there is then by Whose reasoning does the Universe exist? If there is no reason for the Universe then you need to stop concerning yourself with any and all reasons for they are all irrelevant and it would be totally unreasonable for you to expect others to produce reasons for their beliefs. In other words (using your logic) reason is the product of chance and happenstance. That's totally unreasonable.

What gawds set what rules? The Noah fable is of myth and legend. Why would you expect any reasonable person without a similar pre-commitment to fundamentalist Christian dogma to accept it as true?

I see the entirety of your argument is premised upon ".... because I say so".

 

[Hollie]

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Yes, and?

Let's explore that. Your intelligent designer gawds then had an entire hierarchy of intelligent designers gawds designed by yet higher intelligent designer gawds who in turn were designed by even more intelligent designer gawds, ad infinitem.

Yes. I don't cotton to your tornado thesis.

That's fine. Your only responses thus far have been pointless quips devoid of anything useful.

Yes. I am tiring of hearing the word "gawds" for the millionth time.

You'll read it and like it.

gawds.

 

[the_human_being]

you just proved my point. You reject faith in Christ and have closed your hearty and mind rather than expanding it. When a man begins to truly rely on Christ Hid mind is open to things he has never considered because the Spirit of Truth enlightens His mind and teaches him the truth of all things.

in addition the Spirit shows us the love God has for us. As we see Gods love, we begin to seek after it and share it with others. We begin worrying about the welfare of others.

a rejection of that faith in Christ bring cynicism, despair, and end to growth

Love of God my ass. Only a big fool would think God can love at all.

The bastard has promised to destroy the majority of us while keeping just a few of his best in heaven.

You can shove that love exactly where you keep your head. Up his ass.

Thanks for showing all here how little of love your corrupt religion has taught you.

Regards
DL

you think God created us with the ability to love and yet doesn't know love? He is love. And He will show you if you let Him.

talk with Him. You'd be surprised what you learn. Especially when you let go of your anger

I'd like to ask your gawds about that little dalliance they orchestrated that caused most of humanity to be wiped from the planet.

“My belief in miracles cannot be considered a mystical belief: it is founded on human evidence, as is my belief in the discovery of America. It is, indeed, a simple logical fact that hardly needs to be recognized or interpreted. The extraordinary idea going around is that those who deny the miracle know how to consider the facts coolly and directly, while those who accept the miracle always relate the facts with the dogma previously accepted. In fact, the opposite is the case: the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so. The unbelievers deny it (with or without reason) because the doctrine they profess compels them to do so.”
– G.K. Chesterton from “Orthodoxy” (1908 a.d.)

This is how and where Theist apologists lose most of us- "the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so". If there is evidence that an event happened (no matter how improbable) then it is reasonable to believe that it indeed did happen. Without evidence there is no reason to absolutely believe an event happened no matter how probable. Inclusion in an ancient text is not evidence no matter how fervently a
particular group believes that text is somehow the inspired inerrant words of their chosen Deity. It is no more reasonable to believe a messiah want-to-be fed thousands with a few fish than it is to believe Theseus slew the Minotaur.

Atheists are too caught up in "reason." Can a single atheist give us a "reason" for the existence of the universe? If you believe that there is a reason for life and the universe then you have no choice but to conclude that it is a product of a master mind for "reason" is a product of the mind. If you reject the idea that life and the universe are products of "reason" then your entire thought process is based on a faulty premise thus, unreasonable. You can no longer demand "reason" from others.

You're anthropomorphizing nature the same way you anthropomorphize you polytheistic gawds.

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

There is no reason to assume we won't find out more and more about the universe as time goes on. This is a very rational and empirical approach given the history of the growth of human knowledge. And, as we know, no discovery in the history of humanity has had a supernatural / magical causation.

Laws of physics don't "break down" per se, although it is a commonly used term even in the scientific community. They just describe different things. An effort has long been underway to come up with a Grand Unified Theory, or GUT. One theory that would explain everything. Although this has more to do with the four prime forces: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear force, and Weak Nuclear force. So far 2 have been successfully combined, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force has been combined into the "Electro-Weak" force. If the supernatural does exist there is no way to ultimately define it within natural law. But, the fact that Newtonian mechanics break down on the quantum level does not mean that quantum phenomena do not exist. Within the total realm of physics we had to understand a new branch to explain phenomena which fall under the principles of relativity.

Religious zealots hijack this idea with sidestepping and denial. Empirically there is no reason to assume an asserted irrational / supernatural being will somehow be discovered by any rational means, and until such time as the idea of supermagical revelation or asserted "psychic methods" are shown conclusive (or is in any way demonstrated), this is what the zealots must contend with.

1) God set the rules. He offered blessings if those rules were followed but He promised punishment if the rules were broken. Mankind at the time of Noah chose to ignore God and follow their own lusts. God simply kept His promise.

2) I see you have no answer to my question. The answer should be simple. There's either reason for the Universe or there isn't. If there is then by Whose reasoning does the Universe exist? If there is no reason for the Universe then you need to stop concerning yourself with any and all reasons for they are all irrelevant and it would be totally unreasonable for you to expect others to produce reasons for their beliefs. In other words (using your logic) reason is the product of chance and happenstance. That's totally unreasonable.

What gawds set what rules? The Noah fable is of myth and legend. Why would you expect any reasonable person without a similar pre-commitment to fundamentalist Christian dogma to accept it as true?

I see the entirety of your argument is premised upon ".... because I say so".

Yet another rehashing of your Noah crap? Not again!

 

[the_human_being]

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Yes, and?

Let's explore that. Your intelligent designer gawds then had an entire hierarchy of intelligent designers gawds designed by yet higher intelligent designer gawds who in turn were designed by even more intelligent designer gawds, ad infinitem.

Yes. I don't cotton to your tornado thesis.

That's fine. Your only responses thus far have been pointless quips devoid of anything useful.

Yes. I am tiring of hearing the word "gawds" for the millionth time.

You'll read it and like it.

gawds.

I thought you'd have had your bottom spanked by M.D. Rawlings and the other guy enough by now. You must like abuse.

 

[the_human_being]

There is no one like me. My DNA is unique unto myself. Try again to excuse your desire to showcase yourself.

Non-sequitur. But you knew that.

Yes. There is very little which I require of you to tell me.

That made no sense. But then, you knew that as well.

I know. I'll simply have to back myself down to the sixth grade level to communicate with you.

That would be a step up for you.

You skip elementary school today because of snow? I need to move over to the political forum and see if there are any adults to converse with.

 

[orogenicman]

Non-sequitur. But you knew that.

Yes. There is very little which I require of you to tell me.

That made no sense. But then, you knew that as well.

I know. I'll simply have to back myself down to the sixth grade level to communicate with you.

That would be a step up for you.

You skip elementary school today because of snow?

I'm an adult with a 4wd vehicle. Snow doesn't bother me, plus I live where it doesn't snow much. Next.

 

[the_human_being]

Yes. There is very little which I require of you to tell me.

That made no sense. But then, you knew that as well.

I know. I'll simply have to back myself down to the sixth grade level to communicate with you.

That would be a step up for you.

You skip elementary school today because of snow?

I'm an adult with a 4wd vehicle. Snow doesn't bother me, plus I live where it doesn't snow much. Next.

Sure had me fooled. I figured you for about ten years old.

 

[orogenicman]

That made no sense. But then, you knew that as well.

I know. I'll simply have to back myself down to the sixth grade level to communicate with you.

That would be a step up for you.

You skip elementary school today because of snow?

I'm an adult with a 4wd vehicle. Snow doesn't bother me, plus I live where it doesn't snow much. Next.

Sure had me fooled. I figured you for about ten years old.

Obviously, you are easily fooled.

 

[Hollie]

Love of God my ass. Only a big fool would think God can love at all.

The bastard has promised to destroy the majority of us while keeping just a few of his best in heaven.

You can shove that love exactly where you keep your head. Up his ass.

Thanks for showing all here how little of love your corrupt religion has taught you.

Regards
DL

you think God created us with the ability to love and yet doesn't know love? He is love. And He will show you if you let Him.

talk with Him. You'd be surprised what you learn. Especially when you let go of your anger

I'd like to ask your gawds about that little dalliance they orchestrated that caused most of humanity to be wiped from the planet.

This is how and where Theist apologists lose most of us- "the believers accept the miracle (with or without reason) because the evidence compels them to do so". If there is evidence that an event happened (no matter how improbable) then it is reasonable to believe that it indeed did happen. Without evidence there is no reason to absolutely believe an event happened no matter how probable. Inclusion in an ancient text is not evidence no matter how fervently a
particular group believes that text is somehow the inspired inerrant words of their chosen Deity. It is no more reasonable to believe a messiah want-to-be fed thousands with a few fish than it is to believe Theseus slew the Minotaur.

Atheists are too caught up in "reason." Can a single atheist give us a "reason" for the existence of the universe? If you believe that there is a reason for life and the universe then you have no choice but to conclude that it is a product of a master mind for "reason" is a product of the mind. If you reject the idea that life and the universe are products of "reason" then your entire thought process is based on a faulty premise thus, unreasonable. You can no longer demand "reason" from others.

You're anthropomorphizing nature the same way you anthropomorphize you polytheistic gawds.

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

There is no reason to assume we won't find out more and more about the universe as time goes on. This is a very rational and empirical approach given the history of the growth of human knowledge. And, as we know, no discovery in the history of humanity has had a supernatural / magical causation.

Laws of physics don't "break down" per se, although it is a commonly used term even in the scientific community. They just describe different things. An effort has long been underway to come up with a Grand Unified Theory, or GUT. One theory that would explain everything. Although this has more to do with the four prime forces: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear force, and Weak Nuclear force. So far 2 have been successfully combined, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force has been combined into the "Electro-Weak" force. If the supernatural does exist there is no way to ultimately define it within natural law. But, the fact that Newtonian mechanics break down on the quantum level does not mean that quantum phenomena do not exist. Within the total realm of physics we had to understand a new branch to explain phenomena which fall under the principles of relativity.

Religious zealots hijack this idea with sidestepping and denial. Empirically there is no reason to assume an asserted irrational / supernatural being will somehow be discovered by any rational means, and until such time as the idea of supermagical revelation or asserted "psychic methods" are shown conclusive (or is in any way demonstrated), this is what the zealots must contend with.

1) God set the rules. He offered blessings if those rules were followed but He promised punishment if the rules were broken. Mankind at the time of Noah chose to ignore God and follow their own lusts. God simply kept His promise.

2) I see you have no answer to my question. The answer should be simple. There's either reason for the Universe or there isn't. If there is then by Whose reasoning does the Universe exist? If there is no reason for the Universe then you need to stop concerning yourself with any and all reasons for they are all irrelevant and it would be totally unreasonable for you to expect others to produce reasons for their beliefs. In other words (using your logic) reason is the product of chance and happenstance. That's totally unreasonable.

What gawds set what rules? The Noah fable is of myth and legend. Why would you expect any reasonable person without a similar pre-commitment to fundamentalist Christian dogma to accept it as true?

I see the entirety of your argument is premised upon ".... because I say so".

Yet another rehashing of your Noah crap? Not again!

Actually, it's your myth. I challenge the veracity of the fable and try to make sense of how the fable is consistent with the historical and geological record. It isn't.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, and?

Let's explore that. Your intelligent designer gawds then had an entire hierarchy of intelligent designers gawds designed by yet higher intelligent designer gawds who in turn were designed by even more intelligent designer gawds, ad infinitem.

Yes. I don't cotton to your tornado thesis.

That's fine. Your only responses thus far have been pointless quips devoid of anything useful.

Yes. I am tiring of hearing the word "gawds" for the millionth time.

You'll read it and like it.

gawds.

I thought you'd have had your bottom spanked by M.D. Rawlings and the other guy enough by now. You must like abuse.

You're pursuing a sound strategy of avoiding any defense of your specious claims by spamming the thread with irrelevant piffle.

Why not address the assumed hierarchy of designers of, designers of, etc., designer gawds who designed your designer gawds. Or, instruct us as to your polytheistic three gawds. Was it a unionized syndicate of gawds who designed your three designer gawds?

 

[the_human_being]

you think God created us with the ability to love and yet doesn't know love? He is love. And He will show you if you let Him.

talk with Him. You'd be surprised what you learn. Especially when you let go of your anger

I'd like to ask your gawds about that little dalliance they orchestrated that caused most of humanity to be wiped from the planet.

Atheists are too caught up in "reason." Can a single atheist give us a "reason" for the existence of the universe? If you believe that there is a reason for life and the universe then you have no choice but to conclude that it is a product of a master mind for "reason" is a product of the mind. If you reject the idea that life and the universe are products of "reason" then your entire thought process is based on a faulty premise thus, unreasonable. You can no longer demand "reason" from others.

You're anthropomorphizing nature the same way you anthropomorphize you polytheistic gawds.

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

There is no reason to assume we won't find out more and more about the universe as time goes on. This is a very rational and empirical approach given the history of the growth of human knowledge. And, as we know, no discovery in the history of humanity has had a supernatural / magical causation.

Laws of physics don't "break down" per se, although it is a commonly used term even in the scientific community. They just describe different things. An effort has long been underway to come up with a Grand Unified Theory, or GUT. One theory that would explain everything. Although this has more to do with the four prime forces: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear force, and Weak Nuclear force. So far 2 have been successfully combined, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force has been combined into the "Electro-Weak" force. If the supernatural does exist there is no way to ultimately define it within natural law. But, the fact that Newtonian mechanics break down on the quantum level does not mean that quantum phenomena do not exist. Within the total realm of physics we had to understand a new branch to explain phenomena which fall under the principles of relativity.

Religious zealots hijack this idea with sidestepping and denial. Empirically there is no reason to assume an asserted irrational / supernatural being will somehow be discovered by any rational means, and until such time as the idea of supermagical revelation or asserted "psychic methods" are shown conclusive (or is in any way demonstrated), this is what the zealots must contend with.

1) God set the rules. He offered blessings if those rules were followed but He promised punishment if the rules were broken. Mankind at the time of Noah chose to ignore God and follow their own lusts. God simply kept His promise.

2) I see you have no answer to my question. The answer should be simple. There's either reason for the Universe or there isn't. If there is then by Whose reasoning does be totally unreasonable for you to expect others to produce reasons for their beliefs. In other words (using your logic) reason is the product of chance and happenstance. That's totally unreasonable.

What gawds set what rules? The Noah fable is of myth and legend. Why would you expect any reasonable person without a similar pre-commitment to fundamentalist Christian dogma to accept it as true?

I see the entirety of your argument is premised upon ".... because I say so".

Yet another rehashing of your Noah crap? Not again!

Actually, it's your myth. I challenge the veracity of the fable and try to make sense of how the fable is consistent with the historical and geological record. It isn't.

Then you have arrived at your answer. Why question it further if you already know the answer? You make no sense.