If God doesn't exist...

[james bond]

So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.

By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.

 

[OZman]

By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.

You have dispensed with rational thinking by citing mystical texts as literal truths.

 

[sealybobo]

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character

LOL.

Not really. That's the whole point, isn't it?

It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.

If one looks at science and how the universe started, we get the story of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). <Imitating Morgan Freeman's voice> "This is the Large Hadron Collider machine we spent billions on in order to unlock the secrets of the universe. It will tell us what happened."

What it will tell us is how we can build a better nuclear bomb and maybe find a cheaper form of energy or quantum energy. There won't be a black hole created nor another universe nor a small model of one. I already gave you my science thought experiment to show otherwise. You could have saved the billions of dollars spent. Ha ha.

Travel 15 billion light years out and we reach the edge of our little universe. But there's an infinite amount of space beyond our universe. Probably like a lava lamp there are other universes. There is so much you don't know and never will. It's cute how special you think you are.

Why did God first put tardigrade on earth for a billion years then dinosaurs for a billion years then apes for 1 million years then finally settle on very flawed humans who he sends to hell? So silly

 

[sealybobo]

In the end we'll end up just like you. What happens to a frogs soul when it dies? How about a crows? Or an elephant. Where does an elephants soul go? Same place yours goes.

Remember what it was like for you ten years before you were born? That's what things will be like for you the minute you die. Lights out

Frogs and elephants go to heaven. Not sure about crows.

We'll have to see what happens. The minute you die, consciousness still remains until you cross over into the beyond. During that time, my theory is you'll get what you've been believing in your worldview and thinking. From here, you have to choose where to go and atheists will be wrong 100%. Otherwise, why have such a short life when we have a beautiful Earth and universe to discover?

You mean your hypothesis not theory.

 

[sealybobo]

So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.

By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.

Those are the only two possibilities?

 

[HUGGY]

All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.

Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.

What is the death driven rubbish?

We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.

Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.

If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.

The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.

Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.

It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.

What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.

That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.

I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

It takes money to make money and to fight the atheist scientists and to fight for the teaching of creation in schools. Most of these donations are from individuals instead of corporations who stand to make profit by patenting their genetic modifications. Churches today have to teach creation using science, as well. Back to evolution, who better to foist on a public that has swallowed evolution "science" hook, like and sinker? Monsanto's slogan used to be "Better Living through Chemistry." It appears you have been brainwashed by their advertising and media articles just the same.

So what do the Mormons believe as you claimed? In the end, atheists and their scientists will realize that they'll just get what they have been spewing their entire lives and it won't get them anywhere.

No one is going "anywhere".

 

[HUGGY]

Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.

What is the death driven rubbish?

We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.

Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.

If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.

The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.

Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.

It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.

What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.

That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.

I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

It takes money to make money and to fight the atheist scientists and to fight for the teaching of creation in schools. Most of these donations are from individuals instead of corporations who stand to make profit by patenting their genetic modifications. Churches today have to teach creation using science, as well. Back to evolution, who better to foist on a public that has swallowed evolution "science" hook, like and sinker? Monsanto's slogan used to be "Better Living through Chemistry." It appears you have been brainwashed by their advertising and media articles just the same.

So what do the Mormons believe as you claimed? In the end, atheists and their scientists will realize that they'll just get what they have been spewing their entire lives and it won't get them anywhere.

In the end we'll end up just like you. What happens to a frogs soul when it dies? How about a crows? Or an elephant. Where does an elephants soul go? Same place yours goes.

Remember what it was like for you ten years before you were born? That's what things will be like for you the minute you die. Lights out

 

[HUGGY]

Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.

If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.

The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.

Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.

It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.

What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.

That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.

I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

.

That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity

Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.

The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....

Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...


sound familiar ...

.

Yes your comment does sound familiar. Very familiar. Atheist familiar.

It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not. Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about? It was already mentioned in this thread several times. Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin? He did not know what perfection was until it was gone. Why else do we admire and seek perfection? You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character

I find it especially interesting that this fool throws around the word "brainwashed". His brain was sent to the dry cleaners!

 

[HUGGY]

So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.

By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.

...........

 

[Epitah]

I see, hear, feel, and all that, my God every day. So why do I need faith to believe in God?

At this point I've determined you know little to nothing about science, most especially the scientific method, and only want to prolong this because you don't know any better.

Unless you can verify what you hear and feel as real and not just emotions you attribute to your god, then it's faith.

You saying I don't know the scientific method seems like projection to me. Not only have you not even explained how I don't understand, but if anything you're the one that has proven that you don't understand why we don't accept old ideas even though models change based on new information.

What is with Christians and music videos? They just seem to be naturally drawn to posting music videos in place of an actual argument, it's a bizarre and comedic phenomenon I've seen in more places than one. Posting them and spamming ***CHUCKLE*** isn't stylistic, the only thing it changes about your writing is that it makes it look like it comes from a little kid who just got a computer. It's like if I said the reaction gif I posted below is a stylistic choice.

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character

It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.

the day science verifies the bible is the day pigs fly and mole people enslave humanity

 

[james bond]

So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.

By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.

Those are the only two possibilities?

You could make up your own, but they're the two best theories and I think one is far above the other.

 

[emilynghiem]

So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.

By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.

Those are the only two possibilities?

sealybobo james bond

There is the presentation of the universe as self existing, with no beginning and no end. And this is still consistent with the concept of an eternal/infinite God and/or existence of universal/natural laws that we can study and use but may or may not be able to prove (but agree that they exist and how to express these laws).

There is the idea that the laws and truth about life and how the world works "is out there" but since humans do not have infinite capacity to perceive much less capture all this in words/finite terms, then we use RELATIVE symbols to express the points, concepts, principles and relationships.

Neither of these approaches has to negate or exclude either theist or nontheist perspectives or expressions in describing what's going on in the world.

There is no need to become defensive or attack differences with one another that are going to exist anyway.

 

[james bond]

I see, hear, feel, and all that, my God every day. So why do I need faith to believe in God?

At this point I've determined you know little to nothing about science, most especially the scientific method, and only want to prolong this because you don't know any better.

Unless you can verify what you hear and feel as real and not just emotions you attribute to your god, then it's faith.

You saying I don't know the scientific method seems like projection to me. Not only have you not even explained how I don't understand, but if anything you're the one that has proven that you don't understand why we don't accept old ideas even though models change based on new information.

What is with Christians and music videos? They just seem to be naturally drawn to posting music videos in place of an actual argument, it's a bizarre and comedic phenomenon I've seen in more places than one. Posting them and spamming ***CHUCKLE*** isn't stylistic, the only thing it changes about your writing is that it makes it look like it comes from a little kid who just got a computer. It's like if I said the reaction gif I posted below is a stylistic choice.

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character

It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.

the day science verifies the bible is the day pigs fly and mole people enslave humanity

As I have been saying all along, atheists are usually wrong. Here is another case. What you claim just goes to show you know very little about truth and the Bible. It's the most read and most famous book in the world selling over 5 BILLION copies. One of the reasons is science backs it up. Other reasons are for moral strength and guidance in times of need. It can help turnaround one's life. The atheist books cannot hold a candle to it. Probably Richard Dawkins writes his books so he can continue paying his ex-wife. Science has verified many things in the Bible. For one, atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe with no beginning and end. It was the Steady State Theory. Now, the Big Bang Theory has replaced it and SST became pseudoscience. The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days. It's missing the part of God the Creator because science will not accept the supernatural and the God Theory.

 

[forkup]

Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.

It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.

What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.

That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.

I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

.

That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity

Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.

The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....

Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...


sound familiar ...

.

Yes your comment does sound familiar. Very familiar. Atheist familiar.

It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not. Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about? It was already mentioned in this thread several times. Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin? He did not know what perfection was until it was gone. Why else do we admire and seek perfection? You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character

I find it especially interesting that this fool throws around the word "brainwashed". His brain was sent to the dry cleaners!

What I find intresting, is that he admitted to natural selection. Admitted to organisms changing over time, admitted to mutations, but denies evolution. He litterally admitted to everything Darwin said. Now that is brainwashed.

 

[james bond]

blah, blah, blah

Huggy, you've gone bonkers as most atheists do when confronted by the evidence and truth. It's like being arrested and going to jail when you thought you got away with it. He who laughs last, laughs best.

 

[emilynghiem]

I see, hear, feel, and all that, my God every day. So why do I need faith to believe in God?

At this point I've determined you know little to nothing about science, most especially the scientific method, and only want to prolong this because you don't know any better.

Unless you can verify what you hear and feel as real and not just emotions you attribute to your god, then it's faith.

You saying I don't know the scientific method seems like projection to me. Not only have you not even explained how I don't understand, but if anything you're the one that has proven that you don't understand why we don't accept old ideas even though models change based on new information.

What is with Christians and music videos? They just seem to be naturally drawn to posting music videos in place of an actual argument, it's a bizarre and comedic phenomenon I've seen in more places than one. Posting them and spamming ***CHUCKLE*** isn't stylistic, the only thing it changes about your writing is that it makes it look like it comes from a little kid who just got a computer. It's like if I said the reaction gif I posted below is a stylistic choice.

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character

It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.

the day science verifies the bible is the day pigs fly and mole people enslave humanity

As I have been saying all along, atheists are usually wrong. Here is another case. What you claim just goes to show you know very little about truth and the Bible. It's the most read and most famous book in the world selling over 5 BILLION copies. One of the reasons is science backs it up. Other reasons are for moral strength and guidance in times of need. It can help turnaround one's life. The atheist books cannot hold a candle to it. Probably Richard Dawkins writes his books so he can continue paying his ex-wife. Science has verified many things in the Bible. For one, atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe with no beginning and end. It was the Steady State Theory. Now, the Big Bang Theory has replaced it and SST became pseudoscience. The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days. It's missing the part of God the Creator because science will not accept the supernatural and the God Theory.

Dear james bond what you appear to be missing is that it isn't necessary to push this justification of faith onto atheists, nontheists or anyone. Because it's faith based anyway. No amount of arguing from this approach is going to change or help anything; in fact it makes it worse by causing more defensiveness back and forth.

As westwall summarized best, existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proven nor disproven but remains faith based. As soon as we can respect that, we can work with our differences without any need to attack, defend or justify why we do or do not follow what someone else believes. There is no need to demonize conflicts and differences because our perceptions are going to remain relative and individual anyway. That doesn't negate one universal truth, just because we all paint and express it differently which is natural given uniqueness of each individual.

What I do believe we can demonstrate by scientific research studies and sociological stats james bond:

We CAN prove that the spiritual healing and reconciliation process works, based on forgiveness of these differences, in order that we reach CONSENSUS on the MEANING of God Jesus and the Bible.

We can demonstrate by replicated trials and documented experiences that we can reach consensus on meaning WITHOUT having to CHANGE anyone's core beliefs. The nontheist can remain used to using science and secular terms/laws to express what is going on with the world, society and humanity while the theist uses religious symbols for the same.

We can still agree on points, principles, laws and concepts that are universal underneath our diverse ways of seeing and saying these things.

the key that we CAN PROVE is the FORGIVENESS is the factor that makes a difference if we succeed or fail in reconciling and communicating to reach agreement DESPITE our cultural religious political or personal differences.

We can show this by STATS, by documenting the degree of rejection/unforgiveness between people of conflicting groups/beliefs CORRELATING with the rates of success/failure in reconciling conflicts and resolving relationship issues in working together or not toward common goals/solutions.
VS.
the degree and rates of FORGIVENESS/INCLUSION correlating with ability to reach AGREEMENT and work on common solutions across political or religious groups.

 

[james bond]

So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.

By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.

Those are the only two possibilities?

sealybobo james bond

There is the presentation of the universe as self existing, with no beginning and no end. And this is still consistent with the concept of an eternal/infinite God and/or existence of universal/natural laws that we can study and use but may or may not be able to prove (but agree that they exist and how to express these laws).

There is the idea that the laws and truth about life and how the world works "is out there" but since humans do not have infinite capacity to perceive much less capture all this in words/finite terms, then we use RELATIVE symbols to express the points, concepts, principles and relationships.

Neither of these approaches has to negate or exclude either theist or nontheist perspectives or expressions in describing what's going on in the world.

There is no need to become defensive or attack differences with one another that are going to exist anyway.

Sure, you can believe that, but the scientific evidence shows that wasn't the case. Google the Steady State Theory.

The Bible hasn't changed in what it has been saying. There may be newer versions, but it always stated that there was a beginning with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

I think older people used to think the universe was eternal because maybe they were taught that in school or it's what the media presented during the time. It's the same now with the Theory of Evolution. There's a whole generation that thought the ToE was proven with the finding of the Piltdown Man that was the long-sought missing link of apes to man. However, that turned out to be a fraud. Despite the fraud, the truth came out and science backed up the Bible. The Bible can't change while scientific theories change all the time and older theories that are replaced become pseudoscience.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.

If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.

The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.

Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.

It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.

What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.

That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.

I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

.

That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity

Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.

The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....

Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...


sound familiar ...

.

Yes your comment does sound familiar. Very familiar. Atheist familiar.

It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not. Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about? It was already mentioned in this thread several times. Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin? He did not know what perfection was until it was gone. Why else do we admire and seek perfection? You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character

Dear sealybobo in that case Adam is a symbolic representation, used to depict either the first lineage of humanity that had "self awareness" ie ego, selfish desires, and understanding of free will vs. collective will involving others.

Or representing the historic lineage of the Hebrews, laws and culture.

After consulting with various people on the story of Adam and Eve, three of the most common interpretations I have found are:
1. this represents the spiritual development of humanity starting with the "blind faith/obedience" relationship between humans and God similar to Children and Parents. the whole issue of obeying parental authority starts off at the beginning with blind faith where the child is spanked and punished at that stage, due to immaturity and inability to understand by reason yet. And it is the NT where the children grow to adult stages, and become mature enough to learn right from wrong by reason and experience, trial and error, free will -- instead of blind faith in the OT.
2. the representation of the spiritual shift from matriarchal to patriarchal cultures/society in the process of restoring balance in the final stages where humanity reaches maturity and no longer fights between these complimentary sides (can also be represented using church as a mother figure and state as a father figure collective, where human's male/female issues are projected collectively onto society and institutions while we play out this same struggle for equal respect/consent in relationships on both the individual level in our personal lives, and the global level for all humanity collectively over history)
3. the social class development between the women representing working class and field hands valued less for picking fruits/crops and working manually in the fields/agriculture
VS. the men representing the meat hunters and thus valued more by society and creating class division by the greater control of management/ownership position at the top of the pay scale over the women/workers at the bottom.

sealybobo do any of these paradigms explain to you the fall of humanity to the history of suffering and corruption/abuse/oppression we have in the world today? if so, that is what that Adam and Eve story represents, to different people focusing on different aspects of what causes the downfall and division of man destroying ourselves until we grow to mature states to solve this problems with inequality, injustice and social oppression.

 

[james bond]

Dear james bond what you appear to be missing is that it isn't necessary to push this justification of faith onto atheists, nontheists or anyone. Because it's faith based anyway. No amount of arguing from this approach is going to change or help anything; in fact it makes it worse by causing more defensiveness back and forth.

As westwall summarized best, existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proven nor disproven but remains faith based. As soon as we can respect that, we can work with our differences without any need to attack, defend or justify why we do or do not follow what someone else believes. There is no need to demonize conflicts and differences because our perceptions are going to remain relative and individual anyway. That doesn't negate one universal truth, just because we all paint and express it differently which is natural given uniqueness of each individual.

What I do believe we can demonstrate by scientific research studies and sociological stats james bond:

We CAN prove that the spiritual healing and reconciliation process works, based on forgiveness of these differences, in order that we reach CONSENSUS on the MEANING of God Jesus and the Bible.

We can demonstrate by replicated trials and documented experiences that we can reach consensus on meaning WITHOUT having to CHANGE anyone's core beliefs. The nontheist can remain used to using science and secular terms/laws to express what is going on with the world, society and humanity while the theist uses religious symbols for the same.

We can still agree on points, principles, laws and concepts that are universal underneath our diverse ways of seeing and saying these things.

the key that we CAN PROVE is the FORGIVENESS is the factor that makes a difference if we succeed or fail in reconciling and communicating to reach agreement DESPITE our cultural religious political or personal differences.

We can show this by STATS, by documenting the degree of rejection/unforgiveness between people of conflicting groups/beliefs CORRELATING with the rates of success/failure in reconciling conflicts and resolving relationship issues in working together or not toward common goals/solutions.
VS.
the degree and rates of FORGIVENESS/INCLUSION correlating with ability to reach AGREEMENT and work on common solutions across political or religious groups.

I think you're right that it is faith-based and I want to clarify that our worldviews are entirely faith-based. It's not just Christians and the religious, but the same for atheists, non-theists or anyone.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Unless you can verify what you hear and feel as real and not just emotions you attribute to your god, then it's faith.

You saying I don't know the scientific method seems like projection to me. Not only have you not even explained how I don't understand, but if anything you're the one that has proven that you don't understand why we don't accept old ideas even though models change based on new information.

What is with Christians and music videos? They just seem to be naturally drawn to posting music videos in place of an actual argument, it's a bizarre and comedic phenomenon I've seen in more places than one. Posting them and spamming ***CHUCKLE*** isn't stylistic, the only thing it changes about your writing is that it makes it look like it comes from a little kid who just got a computer. It's like if I said the reaction gif I posted below is a stylistic choice.

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character

It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.

the day science verifies the bible is the day pigs fly and mole people enslave humanity

It would appear your reading abilities and comprehension are on par with your knowledge of science and the scientific method...

When have I ever stated that I was a Christian? I haven't and I'm not.

If you had even bothered to read the last few pages you'd have come across my question to yiostheoy in post 1482 that reads as follows...

How does a Pantheist separate his/her beliefs about God from that of science as you attempt to hold a teapot over his worldview/universeview?

Now knowing what my beliefs about God are should tell you that at no time have I been dishonest in how I've treated the information you and others have asked or provided.

I'd wish you better luck next time but I suspect that as with most progressive liberal atheists that you'll continue to make assumptions as you continue your bigotry and discrimination against people not of your mindset.

Which means I can continue to have...

*****ROFLMAO*****





...at your expense.