Why do the God-haters persist?

[thanatos144]

This thread should have shut down awhile ago. We already see the irrational fear of God by the God haters and know why. They dont wish God to exist. Well go for it. He still loves you anyway. He isn't forcing you to live a life he wants there are just consequences to living a life in sin. Live how you want people. I will live in the light of the lord.

 

[Boss]

Funny stuff.

Now, go take your meds.

Yes guys, go take your meds and stop being funny. Everyone knows that hagette Hollie knows everything. Silly boob pointed out that if time the universe has existed were a year, man's existence in it would be less than a day... but in this short amount of time, airheads like Hollie have figured out everything and answered all the questions of the universe. Any challenge to what she knows will be met with stubborn opposition along with a healthy dose of crude ridicule and insult. No need in trying to teach her any more, she's figured all of it out. Now, if some smarter monkey like Algore comes along and tells her man is making the planet get warmer, that's a different story. What you guys need to do is abandon God and Religion and start talking about gay sex and killing babies, and I bet she'll listen to what you have to say!

 

[Uncensored2008]

"..... because I say so."

You speak with such authority on behalf of the gods.

And that should be reserved for the fuckwad nutjob AGW cultists. Silly Bonobo warns that Gaia is angry and will destroy the world by melting the ice caps. REPENT your carbon sins, SACRIFICE to Algore the magnificent (a wholly owned subsidiary of Al Jazeera) all that you have, lest the world end....

 

[Montrovant]

I don't have my own definition. Create: to bring into existence. God is immortal and eternal and always existed.

We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.

All that we are aware of. I can create a vacuum, you can't see it yet it exists. Still, it is a word we apply to physical creation. I don't know about God creating angels, if I ever see God create an angel, I'll believe that is a possibility. As for now, it's wild speculation that spiritual nature has spiritual creation or that the word can apply to spiritual things.



Hold on, you need correcting again. Theorized singularity does not "precede" the Big Bang. It is the point where the Big Bang begins. Nothing physical can exist prior to this, there is no time or space for physical to exist.



General relativity applies to our universe, time, space, and perception of physical reality. Without an expanding universe, there is no time and subsequently, no physical reality. As you said, you can't even explain how time cannot exist. Yet, before the Big Bang created the universe (including singularity), time did not exist. If time can't exist, the physical can't exist.



Well since we do know that time creates physical reality, we know that before time there couldn't have been physical reality. Singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang, it doesn't precede it. It's like claiming the dropping of the green flag in NASCAR is an event preceding the race, it is not. It is the event that begins the race.

Long before man knew ANY of this stuff, we had an intrinsic connection to something greater than ourselves, something greater than physical nature. We are aware of this by design. We could have never accomplished what we've done without this intrinsic connection and awareness of something greater.

You continue to make little sense. You have already used the word create in reference to non-physical things in your post. It doesn't matter if god is capable of creating angels or not, all that matters is that the word is correct in that context. The definition of create you provided, 'to bring into existence', does not require the physical.

I think you have a mistaken impression of the concept of the singularity from which the Big Bang sprang. Normal physics, general relativity, these things did not function within the singularity. Only after the explosion creating the universe occurred did those things begin. However, the singularity is not, that I am aware of, considered non-physical.

Existence. What is meant by this? Are you not talking about physical existence? When we use the word "create" it means to bring into physical existence. It can have no other meaning unless it's a philosophical speculation of something not known.

The Big Bang did not "spring from" singularity. Again, theorized singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang. If normal physics did not function within the singularity it wasn't physical because that's what physics entails. I don't profess to know if singularity is physical or non-physical, I presume it is physical if it happened in our physical universe and reality. Nevertheless, whatever preceded singularity is not physical and cannot be physical.

Now you want to argue that it's not known whether anything existed before singularity, and I can agree that surely nothing physical existed, but the notion that nothing created something is a contradiction of basic logic. It's "magic" on a higher order than any God man has ever imagined. Certainly something did cause the Big Bang, and certainly it wasn't physical.

Existence does not require the physical. While we do not have any proof that the non-physical exists, since we are limited to the physical in our perception, that doesn't mean that the word cannot be used to describe something non-physical. Just as with creation, the words are perfectly valid to describe concepts, theories, or even fiction. So again, while a Christian might make the argument that a non-physical god created non-physical angels, it doesn't matter that I believe in neither angels nor god. The use of the word created is still perfectly acceptable.

That normal physics may not have applied to the singularity does not mean it wasn't physical. Quantum physics are believed to be the way to explain the singularity from everything I've read.

There are many ideas about what may have come 'before' the singularity, assuming such a concept even applies if there was no time. There is hardly conclusive proof that there was nothing physical prior to the Big Bang, and there have been ideas about physical explanations, such as the Big Bang/Crunch or other previous universes, from physicists. So why you insist that 'we know' there was nothing physical before the Big Bang is baffling to me. Maybe you think you know that, but who else you include in that use of 'we' I'm unclear on.

 

[daws101]

“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.

Yea, he's not deep, you are boss man.

bossy is deep like an abyss and just as empty .

 

[daws101]

Very late to this party, but I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.

I keep my beliefs to myself 97% of the time, the other 3% comes from folks actively inquiring about my spiritual beliefs. Some don't mind my answer, some do. That's not my problem and I feel no shame or guilt. However, I do not and have not ever slighted any religion or belittled any believers. I consider that very disrespectful.

Nonetheless, I do not shy away from debates with believers as well, but I only discuss it with those who can actually carry on a measured, respectful discussion on the matter. If it gets out of control, I disengage.

In real life, I am much the same way. I keep my personal spirituality to myself and don't disparage others over what they believe. I find myself in an interesting scenario here over the past 6 months or so, because I am engaging in debate with predominantly atheists over the existence of God. From their perspective, I am some sort of "religious fundamentalist" but I repeatedly reject the claims of being religious. I am not religious.

I challenge the atheists on their arguments because they are weak and superfluous arguments. They like to attempt perverting science to promote atheism, and I call them on it. Now I could probably just as easily seek out a Christian forum and pick on Christians for their beliefs, but it's no fun for me to pick on Christians. I had much rather razz on atheists.

I am a Spiritualist. I don't simply "believe" in God, I am spiritually connected to God. It's not the God of the Bible or the Christian God, in fact, it has no humanistic attributes of Abrahamic religion or any other organized religion. It's spiritual energy, a guiding spiritual force that I know exists because I connect with it. Don't really care if anyone believes it, not trying to "win souls over" for God. It's just my personal spiritual foundation.

I have respect for most religious people, I believe they are honestly and earnestly attempting to understand a real spiritual connection. I respect what I've read and understand of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, I think there is a lot of wisdom there for leading a good spiritual life. I don't believe it is The Word of God or Jesus is The Son of God, but it is a great inspirational book of guidance for many, and I can appreciate that.

My argument and point of contention is with atheists who reject human spirituality. Even though the evidence shows humans have been spiritually connecting for all their existence and there is no scientific evidence to disprove spiritual nature. In fact, the scientific evidence very much suggests that spiritual nature created physical nature and reality.

I tried very hard not to do this but bossy's shit is getting so deep I just had too
if you're offended don't look....

 

[daws101]

But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.

Just plain ignorance at its worst.

1. There is no evidence that shows design in nature.

2. There no such thing as a "mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process ..."

Posting these absurdities you steal from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.

Anyone who denies the overwhelming evidence of design is just simply in denial. Of course there are mathematical impossibilities just as there are mathematical possibilities you dimwit.

So what is the purpose of mathematics

how does someone deny what not there?

and as always you are attempting a false equivalence ..Mathematical impossibilities. It is sometimes said that in the 1800s problems such as trisecting angles, squaring the circle, solving quintics, and integrating functions like Exp[x^2] were proved mathematically impossible. But what was actually done was just to show that these problems could not be solved in terms of particular levels of mathematical constructs - say square roots (as in ruler and compass constructions discussed on page 1135), arbitrary roots, or elementary transcendental functions. And in each case higher mathematical constructs that seem in some sense no less implementable immediately allow the problems to be solved. Yet with undecidability one believes that there is absolutely no construct that can explicitly exist in our universe that allows the problem to be solved in any finite way. And unlike traditional mathematical impossibilities, undecidability is normally formulated purely in terms of ordinary integers - making it in a sense necessary to collapse basic distinctions between finite and infinite quantities if any higher-level constructs are to be included.
Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science

do us a favor slapdick and use concepts you know something about.

 

[daws101]

SillyBonobo, you have less grasp of biology than the average 4th grader, and you have zero grasp of the scientific method. You think the mindless shit you read on the hate sites is a substitute for actual knowledge - it isn't.

No, we don't know how life on Earth started. There are dozens of competing hypotheses regarding it, ranging from the ever popular primordial soup, to the also popular hitch hiking microbes (where microbes on an asteroid that crashed into the planet are the basis of life) and every point in between. We have a solid gauge of age or the Earth due to radio decay, but life is far more tricky, we are at best in a range of a hundred million years for when life started.

In short, you are as ever, ignorant, uneducated, and talking shit you don't know anything about.

Wow that's a great point. We don't know what started the big bang and we don't know for sure how life started here on earth. Scientists thank god have a few good theories. It certainly wasn't a god and wasn't done in 7 days, right?

How do you know it was not God ?

how do you know it was ? were you there?
(that one I took from your playbook)

 

[Hollie]

Funny stuff.

Now, go take your meds.

Yes guys, go take your meds and stop being funny. Everyone knows that hagette Hollie knows everything. Silly boob pointed out that if time the universe has existed were a year, man's existence in it would be less than a day... but in this short amount of time, airheads like Hollie have figured out everything and answered all the questions of the universe. Any challenge to what she knows will be met with stubborn opposition along with a healthy dose of crude ridicule and insult. No need in trying to teach her any more, she's figured all of it out. Now, if some smarter monkey like Algore comes along and tells her man is making the planet get warmer, that's a different story. What you guys need to do is abandon God and Religion and start talking about gay sex and killing babies, and I bet she'll listen to what you have to say!

You're such a class act, bossy.

 

[daws101]

But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.

YWC: I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence ...


not everything, only nature demonstrates design and besides nature what else on any heavenly body displays evidence of design - nothing. most planets are lifeless with vast expanses without even simple shapes.

if it were not the forces of the Everlasting responsible for biological life why hasn't the Deity built any other structures to demonstrate the same design capabilities if for no other reason than to show variety in workmanship ?

show us what else (your) Biblical God has designed on any heavenly body to demonstrate his capabilities or presence.

.

You will have to take that up with the creator. The planets and their orbit and alignments plays an important role for life on this unique planet,This cannot be denied.

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.

 

[daws101]

But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.

this post just highlights that ignorance....
your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
so again : Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest

So now you are saying assumptions are just that, assumptions. That is what theories begin with opinions and assumptions,derived from the observation of evidence.

false! slappy o slapdick.
I did not say all assumptions, I said "your" (you personally) make assumptions constantly that are false...

Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest

 

[daws101]

You failed to make any point. Perhaps it's the other way around? Countries which do better have less religion because people don't feel the need for religious beliefs, life is good.



I haven't made a religious argument. You people continue to try and conflate religion with spirituality and I keep on trying to get you back on track, but you just keep derailing. You want desperately for me to be espousing religious philosophy here so you can attack it, and I get that, but you're being completely dishonest about the conversation. I believe all organized man-made religions are flawed, but they are evidence that man does spiritually connect to something greater than self and always has.



What is Karma? Do you have any physical evidence it exists? Can it be tested and falsified? I believe in Karma too, but you must realize this is a spiritual concept, not a physical one. Most people don't believe they do bad things or are bad people. Even someone like Hitler believed he was doing good and was a good person. I've never met another human who admitted, I am a bad person who does bad terrible things! What we do is rationalize our behavior whether others see it as good or bad.



So nearly 90% of the human race is not grown up? Only roughly 10% of us are grown ups? That's odd. What you're doing here is rationalizing your disbelief by viewing your disbelief as a sign of maturity. You have absolutely nothing to base this on, it's mere speculative opinion or rationalization of your disbelief.

really? so the tooth fairy the Easter bunny and saint nick are all real?

None of these are mentioned in the bible your point ?

neither are most all of the ones mentioned in the bible.....

 

[daws101]

None of these are mentioned in the bible your point ?

None of the individual species of dinosaurs herded onto Noah's Ark are mentioned in the bibles.

Wrong,it states all land living kinds were represented on the Ark.

bullshit "Dinosaurs were not mentioned in the bible, contrary to popular Christian mythology. When Christians mistakenly refer to the book of Job, he speaks of a "behemoth" which is mentioned to eat grass like an ox. There are plenty of meat-eating dinosaurs.

Those who mention a "dragon" in the book of revelation which concludes the bible after all the events of Christ, it refers to it as Satan. Do you expect people to believe that all dinosaur skeletons that are found are all Satan? Also, why have no dinosaur skeletons been found that date under 2000 years old? Even if God created Adam/Eve before, why do we not find human skeletons dating prior to dinosaurs?

Lastly, as far as using the term "leviathan," it's referred in a metaphoric sense. As common as they were, it would have been mentioned a lot more. Since they do not mention meat-eating dinosaurs, why would they battle a creature that eats grass in the first place?

Why are dinosaurs not mentioned in the Bible

 

[daws101]

What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?

karaoke?.....

good one!
I was gonna say crossword puzzles

 

[Hollie]

Boss'ism Alert!

I challenge the atheists on their arguments because they are weak and superfluous arguments. They like to attempt perverting science to promote atheism, and I call them on it. Now I could probably just as easily seek out a Christian forum and pick on Christians for their beliefs, but it's no fun for me to pick on Christians. I had much rather razz on atheists.

I though the above typifies so much of bossies arguments: ill-conceived, confused and mis-directed.

Firstly, I don't see bossie as challenging the arguments of anyone. Consistently, his arguments have been an insistence of spirit realms™, ruled by spiritual entities™ (which bossie claims to communicate with on a daily basis) and spiritual connections™ to spirit realms that bossie insists are imbued in all cultures and civilizations. With all this, bossie insists that it is Atheists who are perverting science.

All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more. If anyone steps back and objectively observes the comparisons that bossie is trying to make, you will see that the "spirit realm'ists" will reject the natural explanations over and over in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves up on fraudulant terms and despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are alive today who are doing it and culling the gullible. Think about it bossis -- every religion and every god(s) competing with your gods you must consider fraudulant else why aren't you a believer in them?).

 

[Boss]

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.

Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.

 

[Boss]

You continue to make little sense. You have already used the word create in reference to non-physical things in your post. It doesn't matter if god is capable of creating angels or not, all that matters is that the word is correct in that context. The definition of create you provided, 'to bring into existence', does not require the physical.

I think you have a mistaken impression of the concept of the singularity from which the Big Bang sprang. Normal physics, general relativity, these things did not function within the singularity. Only after the explosion creating the universe occurred did those things begin. However, the singularity is not, that I am aware of, considered non-physical.

Existence. What is meant by this? Are you not talking about physical existence? When we use the word "create" it means to bring into physical existence. It can have no other meaning unless it's a philosophical speculation of something not known.

The Big Bang did not "spring from" singularity. Again, theorized singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang. If normal physics did not function within the singularity it wasn't physical because that's what physics entails. I don't profess to know if singularity is physical or non-physical, I presume it is physical if it happened in our physical universe and reality. Nevertheless, whatever preceded singularity is not physical and cannot be physical.

Now you want to argue that it's not known whether anything existed before singularity, and I can agree that surely nothing physical existed, but the notion that nothing created something is a contradiction of basic logic. It's "magic" on a higher order than any God man has ever imagined. Certainly something did cause the Big Bang, and certainly it wasn't physical.

Existence does not require the physical.

You're absolutely correct, existence can also be spiritual or metaphysical. It is good to know you now seem to comprehend that. I've tried to make this point numerous times to no avail. Thanks for confirming you do comprehend spiritual existence.

While we do not have any proof that the non-physical exists, since we are limited to the physical in our perception, that doesn't mean that the word cannot be used to describe something non-physical. Just as with creation, the words are perfectly valid to describe concepts, theories, or even fiction. So again, while a Christian might make the argument that a non-physical god created non-physical angels, it doesn't matter that I believe in neither angels nor god. The use of the word created is still perfectly acceptable.

Again... "Creation" is something we generally apply to things that are physical in existence. I'm not even clear on how 'spiritual' creating 'spiritual' would work. How would you determine if something spiritual created something else spiritual? What does spiritual creation look like? Doesn't follow the same parameters of physical creation, or it wouldn't seem. But perhaps you have some insight into the spiritual realm that I don't know about?

That normal physics may not have applied to the singularity does not mean it wasn't physical. Quantum physics are believed to be the way to explain the singularity from everything I've read.

Well quantum physics are still physics which apply to the physical universe. As I said, I don't know if singularity is physical or non-physical. I presume if it existed in the physical universe at the beginning of the Big Bang, it has to be physical, but perhaps it's spiritual?

There are many ideas about what may have come 'before' the singularity, assuming such a concept even applies if there was no time. There is hardly conclusive proof that there was nothing physical prior to the Big Bang, and there have been ideas about physical explanations, such as the Big Bang/Crunch or other previous universes, from physicists. So why you insist that 'we know' there was nothing physical before the Big Bang is baffling to me. Maybe you think you know that, but who else you include in that use of 'we' I'm unclear on.

Well we know there was no time because time is created by an expanding universe. That's pretty conclusive proof there was no "physical" since physical nature requires time and physical reality to exist. I use "we" in context of scientific consensus. E=mc2 is a fairly widely accepted principle. You've not posed a theory on how "physical" can exist without time. Until you show me that, I cannot accept that physical existed before physical existence.

 

[daws101]

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.

Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.

false! you ignorant **** ..

Albert Einstein: God, Religion & Theology
Explaining Einstein's understanding of God as the Universe / Reality

Albert Einstein: Theology, Philosophy of Religion Quotations knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
thanks for once again proving you total ignorance...

 

[Boss]

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.

Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.

false! you ignorant **** ..

Albert Einstein: God, Religion & Theology
Explaining Einstein's understanding of God as the Universe / Reality

Albert Einstein: Theology, Philosophy of Religion Quotations knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
thanks for once again proving you total ignorance...

Thanks for the confirmation Einstein wasn't an atheist and what I said was correct.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.

Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.

Yes, he categorically DID say that belief was childlike.
See my signature.
Stop making an ass of yourself.