Gunny's Thread on Religion

[Gunny]

Nor the ones who say god loves 'all his children' or who present the biblical god as one of peace and love and mercy

"God" the Creator. What does "God" actually have to be? A life form beyond the intellectual capability of Man, who is able to create life in its own image. Man himself is capable of recreating life through cloning. Don't think because there is some ban on human cloning that some eggheads aren't already hard at it.

So let's apply some logic here. Life, and consequently Man was created by happenstance. Just teh exact mixture of air, water and minerals came together at exactly the perfect time to create life on Earth; which , just happens to be a planet perfectly situated in the galaxy to support life as we know it.

That is neither logical, nor is it mathematically even close to likely.

Where science attempts to encroach on religion, it fails miserably.

Would you agree that where theology tries to encroach on science, it is also out of its depth? At least that the two should be taught as separate disciplines?
As for happenstance in science, ecology, specifically the study of biota, suggests evolution is evident in many more places than you might think. The hierarchy of levels, scales, and natural constraints of different criteria, and even landscape corridors match in some way arrangements of human government, civil engineering, competition, family structure (more cohesive within than without), and social activity points to the smallest of organisms. Humans, no matter how one sees them emerging, got here last. Does it not seem more reasonable that the similarities we see are evolutionary, and that we copy other organisms because we have a (or some) shared beginning (s)?

As for me, I believe in the great "I am," but I also believe that a supreme being, or deity, has the necessary reach to reach all people in the way they would best understand. Its the "dad likes me best" wars of exclusive use I find disturbing about organized religion, the social controls built into the dogma, and the history of using it as an excuse to demonize others to steal their women, their land, and their water.

I mostly agree. I am not a proponent of organized religion, nor am I a proponent of religion encroaching science. In this particular argument, religion does not encroach on science. Science encroaches on religion by stepping outside the laws of science in an effort to provide answers it cannot. Belief in scientific theories of origin require no less faith than belief in Creationism.

As far as evolution goes, I am not aware that religion questions evolution. Obviously, life is continually evolving or it is dead. What religion DOES question is Darwin's theory of evolution; which, is a specific theory that uses the word "evolution", but is not evolution itself.

 

[Care4all]

I'm reposting this from the "logical, rational, and reasonable debate" thread:

I think this might be a good place to pose a few questions to the religious people who are participating in this discussion.

So, for Christians, it's a given that those who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah and died for their sins (meaning: all those who are not Christian, even Jews and Muslims who believe in the same god) are going to hell, which is a place where they will be separated from God and be tortured with fire and brimstone for all of eternity (although there are some Biblical scholars who believe that the Bible actually teaches that nonbelievers will be completely destroyed, but that's a whole other discussion). Please correct me if any of that is wrong.

NO, i am a Christian, and believe those who are not Christians, will be Judged by the Law on judgment day and that ONLY GOD, (Jesus on Judgment Day) can determine whether you are worthy to see God, are saved.

It is also a given that God created man in his own image, and loves and takes a special interest in each and every one of the people he created. God's love for man is emphasized throughout Christianity.

Now, the word of God is revealed to us through the Bible. As God no longer makes his presence known the way he did in Biblical days, the Bible is the only direct communication we have from God. It is his word, written by him through man, and contains all the information we need in order to know what it takes to be saved. (Again, please correct me if any of this is wrong)

Here are some facts about the Bible and about the world today, from my understanding: the Bible was written (in installments) about two millenia ago, in a particular language (Hebrew) to a particular group of people. There is a story in the Bible about the Tower of Babel, in which God punishes mankind for trying to build a tower tall enough to reach Heaven by scattering them across the earth and splitting their languages. So, according to the Bible, the reason that we have about 7,000 different languages spoken on the planet today is because God made it so as a punishment. Because the Bible must be translated into so many different languages from its original Hebrew, and since the Hebrew language has changed and evolved so much in the last two thousand years, as all languages do, many things in the Bible are lost, confused, or the meaning changed in translation.

So, these are the questions I have for you:

God created us all and loves us all immensely. Any of us who do not believe in him will be doomed to suffer for all of eternity. Is there a way to reconcile those two ideas? Is eternal horrendous suffering a punishment that is fitting of the crime of not believing in the existence of God? Why would a loving God base the salvation of his creations on their belief in him, rather than their character or morality or some other criteria?

Wow, that's alot to respond to....I found this link that goes over the many different ways that various people have thought brings Salvation.... it should answer many of your questions, it does answer many of my questions regarding this...and I have not even finished reading it all yet...

What does the Bible say about salvation?

here is a part from it:

Love God, love your neighbor
Jesus emphasized the sincere, heart-felt application of His two Great Commandments:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: "Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?" Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?" The man answered, " 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " "Right!" Jesus told him. "Do this and you will live!" (NLT, Luke 10:25-28)

Jesus then went on to tell the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) to show that a "neighbor" includes all people everywhere, even those of different nationalities and religions, even enemies. We are all God's children!

The English word "love" can have affectionate, romantic, sexual, or benevolent meanings. The original Greek word agape, used in the Bible, has a benevolent meaning. It means having a sincere concern for the welfare of others and holding them in high regard. That is what Jesus meant when He said, "Love your neighbor."

We are not saved just by following rules
The Pharisees, religious leaders of Jesus' time, believed that salvation could be earned by strict observance of the Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments plus the other Old Testament rules). Jesus rejected that belief and stressed that we will be judged on the purity of our motives, not just on the outward observance of rules.

Jesus said we must strive to go beyond the Ten Commandments in our practice of love for all people. What He asks is true concern and caring, not mere compliance with a set of rules. Not only must we not murder (Exodus 20:13), we should avoid even holding a grudge:

"You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell." (NLT, Matthew 5:21-22)

Not only must we not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14), we should avoid entertaining even the thought of it (Matthew 5:27-29). Not only must we not steal (Exodus 20:15) and not envy what others have (Exodus 20:17), we should focus our lives on God, not on earthly possessions (Matthew 6:19-21). Not only must we not give false testimony (Exodus 20:16), we should even avoid evil thoughts and speech (Matthew 12:35-37). Not only must we be considerate to the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7-8), we should treat them as we would treat Jesus, Himself! (Matthew 25:31-46).

Also: is it fair that since the punishment for nonbelief is eternal torment, God made it so difficult to come to believe in him? Would he not be morally obligated to make his existence painfully obvious to each and every one of us, if the consequences for not believing in him are so severe?

I believe He has made it painfully obvious...of course this is probably easy for me to say, because I wholeheartedly believe that there is a God....I suppose it is sorta a Catch 22 or what came first, the Chicken or the egg type thing!?

I am not asking these questions as some sort of challenge; these are legitimate questions I have about Christianity and they are some of the main reasons why I do not believe. My mind is open to the existence of a higher power...I just don't believe that the higher power in question is the one I desrcribed above. But my mind isn't even completely closed to THAT possibility, since I acknowledge it's possible that there are things I don't fully understand...which is why I'm posing these questions, in hopes that someone can give me a good explanation for the discrepancies I feel I'm seeing here.

And, again, if I am wrong in any of those above assertions, please correct me. If I'm going to believe or disbelieve in something, I want to know the absolute truth about that something first.

As simply as you can, type these questions of yours in the Google Search, you will get many answers to your questions....

I personally do not believe God is this hateful God that you spoke of above either...in fact, I know with every inch of my body and soul, that He is not....I think your instinct is correct on this....though I am certain others differ with me.

Care

 

[amrchaos]

I am afraid to post to much on this thread since stating something I think is true (my perception) could seriously insult someone possessing a radically different Perception from mine. Yet the question begs, How does one talk about religion and compare beliefs and understanding.

Should we tip toe around each others emotions? Like If I were a Christian, I have to not inscribe the concept "All non-believers go to hell!!" when I talk to JB or Agnaposte? Or if I were Jewish, should I hold my tongue and agree dishonestly when someone exclaims the glories of Christ?

I can understand the sensitivity surrounding religon. In a sense, you are talking about an intricate part of persons personality and how the individual might view themselves. But where is the fine line, the no man zone, when we discuss such a topic.

Is there some set of rules that describes what is acceptable language and what is considered RUDE.


Since we are about to start attacking each other over the Divine topic(religion), I took up the liberty of drawing upon my STATIST side of my brain and wish to suggests these rules.

The Politically Correct way of discussing Religion

1) When making a statement that is peculiar to your belief, Please Start the following with "I believe that..." or "According to my understanding,....."

For instance "According to my understanding about Atheism, The practioner does not possess any religious principles. Therefore, how can I trust an Atheists??"

2) When addressing someone outside your religious belief. Please refrain from using terms that could be provocative. A suggested term is Non-co-religionists.

3) If you are not part of a religious belief, do not make arguements as if you have obtained mastery of it. UNLESS, you do hold all necessary documents that indicate that you have mastery of said religion as indicated and honored by the ranking members of that religious belief. There are exception such as religions without a central governing body.

4) If you are fearful, or completely dislike a relgious belief and/or the people that practice it. Please treat them as human beings and treat them as if they were apart of your belief system or social group.


Are there any other suggestions. With enough help, we will make this the most Political Correct Religion Discussion board on the planet. How many of you are with me!!

(SIGNATURE WITHHELD DUE TO THE SENSITIVITY OF MY FELLOW NON-CO-RELIGIONISTS!!)

 

[amrchaos]

armchaos, why don't we all just squeeze our buttcheeks and see who can hold it the longest? (I think I just lost, lol)

"According to my understanding about Atheism, The practioner does not possess any religious principles. Therefore, how can I trust an Atheists??" According to my understanding of your question, you should wait until your brain is fully developed before you attempt to equate religious principles with trust. Ex: Madoff was a practicing jew.

Now I understand what Gunny mean!!! Mr. Gunn--what is amrchaos religion?

 

[JBeukema]

How do come to that conclusion. Judeo-Christianity holds the belief that God is always. He was not created.

Nothing 'just exists'- that's why the proverbial 'cosmic egg' must have been created, right?


Surely god is more 'complex' than the universe- therefore he can't 'just exist'. He must be created by an even greater being, to e so great as to create the universe. Christianity demands regress, yet refuses to follow through with it

The Big Bang is a scientific theory based on creating something from nothing.

No. It postulates how the universe came to be; it does not directly address whether the proverbial 'cosmic egg' had been there all along- hell, it could even be cyclical, per the bang-crunch model

A distinct difference between the two.[/quote]

"Better"? A subjective word.

Not so much, in science. The better model makes a greater number of more accurate predictions, using as few factors and assumptions as possible

What religion DOES question is Darwin's theory of evolution; which, is a specific theory that uses the word "evolution", but is not evolution itself.

That doesn't even make sense. ToE simply states that evolution (which is seen today_ occured in the past, and that is how life came to it's current form.

 

[Montrovant]

It bothers me that in discussions of the origin of the universe, there often seems to be an assumption of belief. Whether religious or scientific, many people seem to think that everyone has a belief about how the universe began. I'm at a loss to understand why a subject like this requires a belief; as though ignorance about what happened in such a distant past (be that thousands, millions or billions of years ago) and which, at least as far as the scientific theories go, is outside the real comprehension of most individuals, if not humanity as a whole, is a horrible thing. I have no problem at all accepting my ignorance of the subject. I have discussed the big bang theory before, Christian creation with various denominations, had other religious beliefs of the origin at least briefly described, and have not found evidence to make me believe I know the answers.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

RGS: Look up red shift, the expanding universe, background radiation...

Red shift doesn't prove the big bang... nor does background radiation...

The closest thing science has towards that is String or 'brane theory';r the theory of M... in quantum physics...

Which provides the mathematical calculation which holds together back through the moment...

This theory holds that our universe is but one of infinite demensional universes... where two adjacent membranes touched creating another demensional universe, know to us as "the Universe..."

Atheists HATE this theory, as it provides for a very plausible path by which one can understand how a Deity could 'watch over everyone' where one extrapolates the potential of a multi-verse...

But what I love about string is how it proves that what we or 'science', "KNOWS" about the universe is basically nothing... at least beyond the mechanics of that which is observable to us.

As a result, where the question is to prove a Deity, the answer is that, despite the tired demands by the Secular Left, that "SCIENCE" has proven this or that... Science in fact has proven very little; and with regard to the empirical evidence of the Creators existance; "SCIENCE" is not even remotely capable of testing for such, as for one to implement such a test, one must first know what questions must be asked to even know what TO TEST...

So, no.. there are no facts which prove the Big Bang... There are no FACTS which prove the evolution of man from Ameba to ape to the present; there are theories, which are sustained by plausible rationalizations... but which suffer from substantial 'missing links' which, again... despite what some project as the infallibility of SCIENCE... simply asks questions and seeks to test, so that what can be observed through those tests can be analyzed; whereupon the results of those tests, lead to better questions, more tests and more observed data to analyze.

In closing SCIENCE does NOT compete with those who believe in the Creator nor vice versa.

 

[JBeukema]

M-Theory is a misnomer

it is philosophy as much as, if not more than, science

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Red shift doesn't prove the big bang... nor does background radiation...

You're right, however they do support the theory. Red shift occurs because the Universe IS expanding.

The closest thing science has towards that is String or 'brane theory';r the theory of M... in quantum physics...

Which provides the mathematical calculation which holds together back through the moment...

This theory holds that our universe is but one of infinite demensional universes... where two adjacent membranes touched creating another demensional universe, know to us as "the Universe..."

Infinite dimensions?

Atheists HATE this theory,

Bzzt. Wrong. Atheists do NOT hate this theory. That is a statement without plausibility.

as it provides for a very plausible path by which one can understand how a Deity could 'watch over everyone' where one extrapolates the potential of a multi-verse...

Huh? How can you claim that using any logic? Honestly, I would like to know how you came up with that conclusion. I would be interested in your seing you line of reasoning.

But what I love about string is how it proves that what we or 'science', "KNOWS" about the universe is basically nothing... at least beyond the mechanics of that which is observable to us.

Very valid point.

As a result, where the question is to prove a Deity, the answer is that, despite the tired demands by the Secular Left, that "SCIENCE" has proven this or that... Science in fact has proven very little;

If science has proved very little, then why do planes fly, microchips work, we use electricity, microwaves, satellites, etc. etc.?

and with regard to the empirical evidence of the Creators existance; "SCIENCE" is not even remotely capable of testing for such, as for one to implement such a test, one must first know what questions must be asked to even know what TO TEST...

Undoubtedly. Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist? Not in the imaginable future.

So, no.. there are no facts which prove the Big Bang... There are no FACTS which prove the evolution of man from Ameba to ape to the present; there are theories, which are sustained by plausible rationalizations... but which suffer from substantial 'missing links'

The implication of Darwin's Theory that all life evolved from a single common ancestor has not been proved. Have human beings observed one species evolve into another? No. Do we use that framework that evolution can occure across species lines in practical way with success? Yes. The same kinds of genetic markers used to identify and convict criminals have been identified across species boundaries. And mitochondrial DNA can be traced along ancestral lines in human beings. And there is no "missing link". There are many links between humans and our primate ancestor. Read a physical or biological anthropology text. Its all right there in the fossil record. Just like there is no missing link between modern English and Olde English, there just isn't enough evidence to show the language evolving over the course of hundreds of years, yet would you deny the language changed into its current form? It isn't proved that species evolve into other species, but it isn't logical to think that evolution stops at speciation. If life evolves, why wouldn't it evolve over millions of years into forms unrecognizable from the original?

which, again... despite what some project as the infallibility of SCIENCE... simply asks questions and seeks to test, so that what can be observed through those tests can be analyzed; whereupon the results of those tests, lead to better questions, more tests and more observed data to analyze.

What makes you think Science is regarded as infallible? Science is open to revision. That's the beauty of science: when new discoveries are made, opinions and theories for understanding natural phenomena can be revised. There is only one provable constant in the Universe and that is change. Science allows for that and for the imperfection of human observation and reasoning.

In closing SCIENCE does NOT compete with those who believe in the Creator nor vice versa.

Science is an amazing human tool. Maybe the best tool we ever developed because look at what it has done for us and understanding the mechanisms of the world around us. Can you deny that science has proved itself to be extraordinarily useful for human beings?

And the old argument that science doesn't prove such-n-such - meaning: human beings are at this time ignorant of such-n-such so it must be God, doesn't PROVE there is a God. It just proves that we don't know what happened YET. And maybe will never know. But that doesn't prove anything beyond our current ignorance and is referred to as The God of the Gaps. It has been shown to be a fallacious argument. It doesn't mean there's no God, it just means that your argument has already been debunked. Google God of the Gaps to see exactly how.

 

[JBeukema]

Undoubtedly. Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist? Not in the imaginable future.

Wrong. If it exists, it's possible to know- and such a being could give evidence that would lead science to such a conclusion

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Undoubtedly. Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist? Not in the imaginable future.

Wrong. If it exists, it's possible to know- and such a being could give evidence that would lead science to such a conclusion

But do we have the technology or frames of reference NOW to see such evidence for what it is, if it is a Creator?

 

[JBeukema]

Undoubtedly. Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist? Not in the imaginable future.

Wrong. If it exists, it's possible to know- and such a being could give evidence that would lead science to such a conclusion

But do we have the technology or frames of reference NOW to see such evidence for what it is, if it is a Creator?

I said before: evidence of the supernatural and miraculous, evidently controlled by an intelligent being, would be a good start


Of course, RGS attacked me for it

The challenge remains open for them to present their evidence

So long as no such conclusive evidence is forwarded, the only logical conclusion is (agnostic) atheism

 

[JBeukema]

M-theory posits that which cannot be determined, if it its true

that is where it crosses into the field of philosophy


Also, stop saying 'sring theory' unless you're going to specify which flawed/debunked string theory

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Red shift doesn't prove the big bang... nor does background radiation...

You're right, however they do support the theory. Red shift occurs because the Universe IS expanding.

Agreed...

The closest thing science has towards that is String or 'brane theory'; the theory of M... in quantum physics...

Which provides the mathematical calculation which holds together back through the moment...

This theory holds that our universe is but one of infinite dimensional universes... where two adjacent membranes touched creating another dimensional universe, know to us as "the Universe..."

Infinite dimensions?

Uh huh...

Atheists HATE this theory,

Bzzt. Wrong. Atheists do NOT hate this theory. That is a statement without plausibility.

FALSE... It's a highly plausible statement of unsubstantiated supposition...

Put it this way, I've never met an Atheist that didn't reject it or desperately need to discredit it... the latest example being:

M-Theory is a misnomer

it is philosophy as much as, if not more than, science

which goes towards establishing it's 'plausibility.'

as it provides for a very plausible path by which one can understand how a Deity could 'watch over everyone' where one extrapolates the potential of a multi-verse...

Huh? How can you claim that using any logic? Honestly, I would like to know how you came up with that conclusion. I would be interested in your seing you line of reasoning.

Fair question...

The multi-verse provides for an infinite stream of dimensions... all existing simultaneously... Meaning that every moment, of every potential, is occurring in a distinct dimension; thus the Creator would readily see all things and be everywhere at once and all by essentially being in one place…


Imagine, where such a multi-verse provides for layers of our universe, where all potential futures are taking shape from all potential pasts, simultaneously; where those pasts and futures are observable, the observer, it seems to me would have little problem being everywhere... at the same time. Thus meeting omnipotence... and the same serves all others facets of the deity as well.

As a result, where the question is to prove a Deity, the answer is that, despite the tired demands by the Secular Left, that "SCIENCE" has proven this or that... Science in fact has proven very little;

If science has proved very little, then why do planes fly, microchips work, we use electricity, microwaves, satellites, etc. etc.?

Well you're speaking purely to perspective, aren't you? To you, these elementary 'advances' seem enormous, both in terms of technological leaps and in volume...

On the scope of the universal potential, their infinitesimal on both scales.

and with regard to the empirical evidence of the Creators existence; "SCIENCE" is not even remotely capable of testing for such, as for one to implement such a test, one must first know what questions must be asked to even know what TO TEST...

Undoubtedly. Could science ever prove that a Creator or Supreme Being does or does not exist? Not in the imaginable future.

Agreed... and this despite the certainty of the most ignorant amongst us, who strongly 'feel' otherwise.

READ MY FIRST POST - Gunny... believe that most of what can be known, is already known... which is the modern equivalent of the ‘flat-earthers’ of the 12th century... which presents the hysterical irony that they are coming to the table, advocating for SCIENCE!

So, no.. there are no facts which prove the Big Bang... There are no FACTS which prove the evolution of man from Ameba to ape to the present; there are theories, which are sustained by plausible rationalizations... but which suffer from substantial 'missing links'

The implication of Darwin's Theory that all life evolved from a single common ancestor has not been proved. Have human beings observed one species evolve into another? No. Do we use that framework that evolution can occurs across species lines in practical way with success? Yes. The same kinds of genetic markers used to identify and convict criminals have been identified across species boundaries. And mitochondrial DNA can be traced along ancestral lines in human beings. And there is no "missing link". There are many links between humans and our primate ancestor. Read a physical or biological anthropology text. Its all right there in the fossil record.

A common biology amongst the varying species is perfectly understandable, without regard to an ancestral connection between lower sub-species and humanity.

There are common elements found between sky scrapers and mud huts... but there are no skyscrapers which evolved from mud huts. Surely you can argue that the technology of mud huts grew, through an evolving human understanding of the physical sciences, into what are enormous structures reaching into the sky... Thus where a creator came to provide life, it would be perfectly logical for such a being to use the elements common biological elements of lower forms of life, in creating a a higher form of life.

But with that said, in my opinion, evolution in and of itself, doesn't preclude Creation...

What from our infinitesimal perspective, hundreds of thousands of years of 'evolution' would be no discernible flicker to a being who can traverse infinite simultaneous dimensions...

If the good Lord created Human beings using natural selection... I fail to see the relevance. That he opted not to explain every scintilla of such in the scriptures seems to me to fall under the standard "need to know'... Why would such be necessary to individuals who had no means to comprehend it and while I understand that there exist those who require the scriptures to be taken literally... in my experience those individuals take such a position on faith... which is precisely my position.

With that said, my belief that every word of the scriptures is truth, that it's not for me to doubt the word, nor to explain it and; for instance, where the word states the universe was created in seven days... I believe it, completely, utterly and fully... Where it becomes important to the Lord that I understand his scale; he'll inform me.

which, again... despite what some project as the infallibility of SCIENCE... simply asks questions and seeks to test, so that what can be observed through those tests can be analyzed; whereupon the results of those tests, lead to better questions, more tests and more observed data to analyze.

What makes you think Science is regarded as infallible?

ROFL... Familiar with Eugenics? How about AGW? Both are absolute nonsense and both held up by the ideological left as incontrovertible fact.

In closing SCIENCE does NOT compete with those who believe in the Creator nor vice versa.

Science is an amazing human tool.

Agreed...

And the old argument that science doesn't prove such-n-such - meaning: human beings are at this time ignorant of such-n-such so it must be God, doesn't PROVE there is a God.

Nor does it disprove it... Which is your default assumption.

That you can't prove god exists is not evidence that god does not exist.

As I've stated many times; long before man could understand gravity... Long before anyone ever considered asking what was this force which drew them towards the center of the earth... gravity existed.

The believers in the Creator are the would-be equivalent of people who would have proclaimed the existence of gravity... 7000 years ago.

It just proves that we don't know what happened YET. And maybe will never know.

Such is the nature of faith... "I know..." and I know all I need to know.

But that doesn't prove anything beyond our current ignorance and is referred to as The God of the Gaps.

Atheist rationalizations, such a TGOG... are little more than the typical fallacious reasoning common to left-think...

It has been shown to be a fallacious argument.

No, what is fallacious is the straw man TGOG farce

There isn't a single conclusion in the full scope of the ideological left which is not fallacious.

It doesn't mean there's no God, it just means that your argument has already been debunked.

But my argument hasn't been debunked, nor anything approaching it.

Although, I have personally debunked many, MANY times, the Atheist position that 'there is no GOD,' based upon their position that there subjective rejection of the abundance of evidence of the existence of God; all of which is based upon their sliverous understanding of the mechanics of the observable universe and their irrational demand that they, themselves, MUST BE the supreme intelligence in the Universe; despite the incontrovertible evidence that Atheists are amongst the least intelligent within our own species...

 

[Avatar4321]

It's a sad thing to say but there have been more people killed on planet Earth in the name of God than for any other reason.

That is blatantly untrue. There were more people killed because of various forms of socialism in the 20th century than were ever killed in earlier generations in the name of God.

Seems like everybody thinks their religion is "the only one" and everybody else is a heathen.

It seems rather stupid to believe a religion you believe/know is incorrect.

That is the one thing that has always puzzled me about religion. Every major religion professes that if you don't believe their doctrine that you won't make it into heaven.

Then you really haven't studied every major religion.

Ok, if this is true, who has the right rule book?

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all liberally and upbraideth not. And it shall be given unto him.

I find more comfort in what my Grandmother used to say about there will be some of all in God's heaven...

What's more important, the truth or whats makes you feel comfortable?

The comfort that comes from the Spirit is different than that which comes from the world. It's the truth that sets you free. The Truth that gives you power. Which makes you happy. It's the Truth tnat gives us real hope and peace in this life and the life to come.

But back to all of the killing in the name of God.
All of the major religions are guilty of it."

Again, blatantly false.

Too bad. It's a shame world history has tossed this at us all.

Id be more impressed if your version of world history was more accurate.

 

[JBeukema]

There are common elements found between sky scrapers and mud huts... but there are no skyscrapers which evolved from mud huts.

Surely you can argue that the technology of mud huts grew, through an evolving human understanding of the physical sciences, into what are enormous structures reaching into the sky...

So... god had to experiment and learn how to make life?

ROFL... Familiar with Eugenics? How about AGW? Both are absolute nonsense and both held up by the ideological left as incontrovertible fact.

The science of eugenics was never falsified, merely rebranded as genetics to avoid the association with the policies known as eugenic and the various pseudosciences that tended to also be practiced by the same people

Nor does it disprove it... Which is your default assumption.

That you can't prove god exists is not evidence that god does not exist.

When there is a distinct lack of evidence for the existence of X, X is concluded to not exist and the operating model of the universe is constructing without X, pending conclusive evidence to the contrary.

gremlins, deity, fairies, a teapot orbiting jupiter, and incubis all belong are concluded to not exist based on the same lack of evidence.

As I've stated many times; long before man could understand gravity... Long before anyone ever considered asking what was this force which drew them towards the center of the earth... gravity existed.

Gravity is an observable fact. How it operates and what particles or other mechanisms explain how it works are what the various theories address.

The believers in the Creator are the would-be equivalent of people who would have proclaimed the existence of gravity... 7000 years ago.

actually, you're more like those who believed in the biles, bloodletting, alchemy, and the miasma theory of disease

Atheist rationalizations, such a TGOG... are little more than the typical fallacious reasoning common to left-think...

Actually TGoG is an observation.

What causes lightening? The hna do f gog. Wait,... actually not...


What causes disease? The wrath og God. Wait... actually not


'God' is a catch-all term for anything not yet understood, usedby weak hearts and minds to avoid seeking true answers upon reaching the limints of their own understanding.

what is fallacious is the straw man TGOG farce

TGoG is neither fallacious or a strawman. It is an observation regarding the decreasing amount of the world attributed to deity as scinece answer more and mopre questions.

You don't know what a strawman is, so I advise you to never use the term again until you know hot to do so porperly.

You laugh 'parapgraph' consists merely of talking out your neck and puffing out your chest

 

[Avatar4321]

As I said, the reason for secularist attacks against religion and theism is as a result of the undue influence that those exert over wider society. Have you witnessed comprehensive or detailed secularist attacks against astrology on this board? Both belief in astrology and belief in religion are based on a certain degree of irrationality and faith despite a lack of evidence, but secularists have no interest in attacking the former because it lacks any relevance in mainstream society.

And who are you to determine what is undue influence? Why do you have the right to influence society with your idealogy and others dont? Why should we be any less free than you?

You don't attack astrology because astrology isnt a threat. There is no power with it. But there is power in Christianity. And that power comes from the Holy Spirit which empowers the individual to change their life and the world around them for the better. You try to change people by changing the environment, but Christ changes people who then change their environmente. You don't have that power, and it scares you.

I can say quite as confidently that your disbelief in religion is based on a certan degree of irrationality. And it would be completely true. What person has ever been rational? I know you think you are. But in my experience, no one is rational. We all do stupid thinks that we know are wrong when we do them.

So let's put sophistry aside. Let's stop pretending the secular mind is superior to the religious mind and vice versa. Because no ones mind see's reality clearly.

"Attack" is somewhat more comprehensive than that. I'm referring to complaints about secularists penning detailed and comprehensive critiques of religious belief, such as the "Unholy Trinity" of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. There exist detailed attacks on religious belief where detailed attacks on belief in astrology do not exist because religious belief exerts an undue influence over mainstream society where belief in astrology do not.

Because you fear individual power.

Though secularists consider both forms of belief to be based on irrationality, there is little use in attacking astrology where there may be greater use in attacking religion, since belief in its tenets can be reduced, thereby reducing its influence.

Again because of fear.

Of course they are. I'm merely explaining why opposition to religion has traditionally appeared; it's always been a matter of objection to its excessive influence or power. That was the basis behind the opposition to excessive entanglement between church and state in both historical and modern terms.

But who determines what is excessive? Why is the secular view the valid one? Simply because you say so?

The establishmenet clause and the free exercise clause exist so that Government stays out of religion, not vice versa. The Founders designed this nation with the specific intention to have religious groups involved in the dialogue of this nation. They would be treated like any other interest group. They have the right to influence the minds and hearts of people and get them to support and oppose their causes just like every other group does.

And that's how Republics work. People band together in groups to support issues. They are checked by groups that oppose them. Then through the representative process the rules favored by the majority pass.

Secularism is a neutral condition and a happy medium between state theism and state atheism

.

False. Secularism is state athiesm

Although "atheism" is technically merely the lack of theism, strong atheism has manifested itself in the form of direct anti-theism. State theism seeks to impose religious mores or principles on a public citizenry, while state atheism seeks to obstruct and diminish them through the vessel of the government. Secularism does neither; it merely prevents the undue influence of either extreme. The problem with theists is a poor framing wherein secularism is itself depicted as an extreme akin to state atheism and some form of theism as "moderate,"

Not a very impressive argument. "Im right. You're wrong"

Problem is there is no moderate view. No one exists who can hold a position that wont effect anything. Their is no compromise in values because there are no neutral values. We live in a world when even choicing nothing is making a choice.

When we refuse to make choices, we create a vaccuum. If we don't choose values, nature will choose our values for us. That is why it's important to choose good. Because by choosing nothing, you are acceptive the bad.

I don't believe there are many positive elements caused directly by religious belief that couldn't be replicated by secular rationality, whereas there are clearly negative elements of religion that could seemingly only stem from faith in particular religious doctrines but not from that same secular rationality. I can envision an obvious role for secular rationality aiding the formation of detailed ethical codes; I cannot envision any basis in secular rationality for declaring jihad.

I am not sure I accept the premise that all secular is good and some religious is bad. And simply because you can or can't see something doesn't mean your view reflects reality. Nor should we accept it merely because you say so.

The major problem with your theory is that people arent rational. People make stupid decisions all the time. They choose things that are irrational all the time. There isnt a person in the world who doesnt.

Example: the rational choice for dinner would be some sort of vegetables and some lean meats. That way our bodies will get the nutrients we need to continue to function. But I bet you a million dollars that most people arent making that rational decision tonight. My guess is most people are eating what they feel will taste good tonight even if they know it will be totally horrible for them in the short and long term.

Your second major flaw in your premise is that rational thought id dependent to the availability of information. Since we all have imperfect knowledge our ability to be rational is severely limited to what we are able to see or deduce correctly.

Example: Patient comes into the ER with symptom X. Dr. knows from experience and study that Symtom X can be successfully treated with Medicine M.

Acting as a rational person, Dr. would give Patient M to treat X.

However, in this case there is information Dr. doesn't know. Patient is experiencing Symptom X because of the influence of a rare poison P, that Dr doesnt know exists and which is totally unknown to the medical community. When P and M mix, the result is leathal for Patient.

The Dr was acting rationally, but because of unknown information the conclusion Dr reached about how to treat Symptom X was incorrect.

In other words, its possible to rationally come to incorrect conclusions. In fact, it happens quite frequently because people don't know everything. They only one who can rationally determine the correct answer in all instances is God.

Yet, according to the "secular rationality" that's the one being we have to completely ignore to reach the proper decision. And that's why it's a flawed system.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, there are numerous falsifiable elements of religion, contrary to the typical assertion that they "cannot touch each other." For example, some of the standard fare against theism consists of this:

Except that each of these so called falsifiable elements you've provided have major flaws in your reasoning.

The Paradox of Omnipotence

1. Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.

2. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.

3. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.

4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

This "proof" is flawed because it's misrepresenting what omnipotence entails.

Omnipotence is having all the power in the universe. By it's very definition, the limitation of what omnipotence can do is spelled out. An omnipotent being can do everything that is possible in the universe.

Your "proof" uses an impossibility to disprove omnipotence. Impossibilities can't disprove omnipotence because impossibilities lie outside the very definition of omnipotence.

If you have power to do everything that is possible, then being unable to do something impossible doesn't at all effect your power to do what is possible.

So logically, your proof doesnt hold up.

A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.

4. But the universe is not perfect.

5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.

Your flaw here is premise 3. And it again lies with the definition. What does perfect mean?

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect : flawless <a perfect diamond> b: satisfying all requirements : accurate c: corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept <a perfect gentleman> d: faithfully reproducing the original ; specifically : letter-perfect e: legally valid

2: expert, proficient <practice makes perfect>

3 a: pure, total b: lacking in no essential detail : complete cobsolete : sane d: absolute, unequivocal <enjoys perfect happiness> e: of an extreme kind : unmitigated <a perfect brat> <an act of perfect foolishness>

In otherwords, it's flawless or complete.

What your premise fails to take into account is that the universe is not the finished project. God is still creating worlds. He is still refining us. The fact that we havent reached the end would necessitate that the work is not perfect. He isnt done working. It doesnt have to be perfect till the end. And God has promised that in the end it will be perfect. We will be perfect. That was the point of the Atonment, to help complete us.

The Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the attributes of evil.

2. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.

3. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

[/QUOTE]

This "proof" is flaw from premise one. Mostly because premise one is completely incoherent. What are the attributes of God and why must they be consistant with the attributes of evil. What are these attributes of evil? These is no reason to accept this premise as true or even to accept it makes sense. How can polar opposites be in harmony??? Why must they?

Your premises are conclusions. You havent shown them to be accurate. That's why the proof fails.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Eternalism or nihilism?


Which are you promoting?

 

[JBeukema]

Eternalism or nihilism?


Which are you promoting?

To whom are you speaking?