Why do the God-haters persist?

[daws101]

No, you're a bigot because you keep saying that people who believe in God are necessarily stupid.

That's like saying Muslims and Buddhists are stupid, or Pakistanis, lol. And it's definitely bigoted.

pakistanis are not a religion...
stupid is not a necessity it is however an option lot's o believers choose...

 

[koshergrl]

How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?

do you have any idea how long 200 thousand years is....

Well I believe it is certainly much less than "millions of years" ...is it not?

Duhs has a serious blind spot with regards to the time/space continuum. She has no concept of time, no sense of history, and limited understanding of such complex issues.

She maintained for DAYS that the BRONZE AGE occurred in the 1500s. She thinks she looks smart when she makes historical references...but they're always incorrect (WAAAYYYY incorrect) and she refuses to accept correction regarding them because that's #1, how she validates herself TO herself, and #2, because when she has to admit she's using the reference INCORRECTLY she also has to admit she's WRONG.

In other words...she can't distinguish between millions and 200 thousand, and she has no idea what the history of Man is, except what she picks up from the most bizarre and lunatic wicca sites on the internet.

And trust me, those things aren't run by historians, biologists or scholars.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not suddenly.
It took millions of years.
Silly man.

How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?

Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
That was pretty easy.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You reject love outright, so it's to be expected that you don't recognize it when you see it.

Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control?
Would it look anything like that?
Where are those traits in you?

 

[daws101]

do you have any idea how long 200 thousand years is....

Well I believe it is certainly much less than "millions of years" ...is it not?

Duhs has a serious blind spot with regards to the time/space continuum. She has no concept of time, no sense of history, and limited understanding of such complex issues.

She maintained for DAYS that the BRONZE AGE occurred in the 1500s. She thinks she looks smart when she makes historical references...but they're always incorrect (WAAAYYYY incorrect) and she refuses to accept correction regarding them because that's #1, how she validates herself TO herself, and #2, because when she has to admit she's using the reference INCORRECTLY she also has to admit she's WRONG.

In other words...she can't distinguish between millions and 200 thousand, and she has no idea what the history of Man is, except what she picks up from the most bizarre and lunatic wicca sites on the internet.

And trust me, those things aren't run by historians, biologists or scholars.

there it is folks kosher hag's delusion....in all it's glory...
please make special note of the furiously desperate projection....

 

[daws101]

Not suddenly.
It took millions of years.
Silly man.

How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?

Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
That was pretty easy.

hey buddy! logic and facts have no place in this thread

 

[thebrucebeat]

It's precisely what you are doing. You and others are trying your best to destroy something that has been present in man since the inception of man. And you laughably think your goofy immature chortles are accomplishing this! We should actually invent a new word beyond "fool" to describe you.

Not trying to destroy, but rather illuminate the fear that causes man to create fantasies to sooth himself.
When losing, resort to attack mode.

Well, yes... I think "destroy" is the apt word to apply here. I find it very interesting how you dance around what you are doing. You denounce spiritual belief in God but when it comes to the universe you don't quite want to say there isn't a God who created it. You think God is a man-created fantasy, but you stop short of proclaiming your Atheism, preferring to call yourself "agnostic" instead. When asked if man would be better off without any spirituality, you hem-haw around an answer then throw out some emotional vomit about your hopes in what man might become without it. When confronted with the actuality that human spirituality is where we get the uniqueness of humanity, you balk and run to some idiotic notion that our uniqueness caused the spirituality.

You're not trying to "illuminate" anything. You are trying to destroy something which has been ingrained in mankind for all of his history. And you are doing a really piss-poor job of it at that.

Seems like if I hit a nerve that makes you abandon argument.
You want to talk about me instead.
Go with that if you're lost.

 

[holston]

Ask any scientist worth his salt and they will flat out say it is entirely possible that there is some supernatural cause for the universe or life on Earth, but there is no evidence to point in that direction. Even someone like Dawkins will acknowledge the possibility, but the next question out of his mouth will be "so where's the evidence of God?"

Psalm 19

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

God made himself visible to man once in the form of Jesus Christ but the world didn't recognize him, at least not most of it, and not immediately.

Hebrews 11

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

There are many things which we accept as fact for which our personal knowledge of is only second hand and/or circumstantial.

You should be able to think of many examples without my help.

We take these things for granted without proof in the sense in which you are demanding it.

People may reject some things even given "proof".
In such cases no amount of "proof" would be sufficient for them. For they could always find reasons to doubt it such as those problems which have been proposed by philosophers.

Indeed, I believe it was a mathematician named Godel who proposed a theorem which states something to the effect that all "proofs" must ultimately lie upon a foundation of assumptions called lemmas.

A crude way of saying this is that a man believes what he wants to believe.
This is exactly what the doubters and skeptics of the Christian faith accuse believers of, ie believing in something for which there is no proof.

Again, the same thing could be said about anyone and everyone. For their very existence lacks "proof". It is simply "self evident" which is not to say it is "proven".

It is not fair to say that all Christians have a "blind" faith. This implies that they have no evidence. But there IS evidence. There is much evidence. The difference in people is in what bodies of evidence they are willing to accept or focus their attention on. One must first seek it. To do that he must at least be receptive to it when it is revealed to him. Otherwise how will he notice it?

I have tried to avoid the position that so many athiests have taken wherein they only admit arguments which tend to bolster their own desire to disprove that which they inwardly reject. I also have tried to avoid the timid position that so many Christians of little faith assume when they put on blinders at any evidence which is presented to them which challenges their own preconceived notions of how the universe MUST operate in order to permit the existence of God.
Based on my past experience with such questions, I do not fear that anything which supports my faith worth keeping will fail given enough information and enough scrutiny, for I do not believe that it is possible to disprove a thing which is true under those circumstances. If these supports are so shaky that they fall that easily then they weren't very sturdy in the first place. It's better to build on a strong foundation.

I believe your estimation of "any" or "most" scientists is an inaccurate one. There are many scientists both past and present who do see the sense in a creator and take it to be such a reasonable or likely proposition that they readily accept it as well as the most unlearned man might. One doesn't have to be ignorant in order to believe in God but he does have to have enough humility to realize the fact that he does not nor cannot know everything.

I welcome revelations of new knowledge of a scientific nature for I am convinced that ultimately they can do nothing but add weight to the convictions I have already. Those convictions are based not only on a knowledge of what the scriptures have to say about the condition of man, but the corroboration of them with what I have experienced is actually there. There is no other codified religion which correlates better with reality as I perceive it than that which is contained within the Bible.

You can not go to the Bible looking for an aerodynamic, thermodynamic explanation for the origin of the universe. It isn't there. But I would take care not to make gross and premature assumptions in making my interpretations of the first few chapters of Genesis or of accepting those of others when attempting to extrapolate that narrative with the theories which have been proposed by men in order to explain them. You wouldn't want to mistake those theories for known facts in either case.

The Bible was written no doubt with ALL of the generations of men in mind, That would include those who lacked knowledge which we possess today and those which will have knowledge in the future which we do not possess today.

It's clear enough to me that man will never possess all knowledge and power in the sense in which God possesses it, not in this lifetime or any others. But it is still possible I believe to possess the "peace which passeth all understanding".
This does not require us to close our eyes to the light of day, only to open them.

 

[Boss]

false! you've contradicted your own edict ..
spirituality /god has no physical component(paraphrased boosy claim)
now you claim, "direct physical evidence".
if that's fact
then god and spirituality can be traced measured etc...making it part of the physical universe.
something you proclaim is impossible..

Spirituality is certainly physically measurable, the SPIRITUAL is not.

I've not said that it's impossible for God and the spiritual to be traced or measured. Many people do this through faith in spiritual nature. It is also a possibility that physical science will one day discover a physical aspect to God or the spiritual, but whenever that happens it will cease to be something "spiritual" by definition.

YOU are the one who dismisses possibility, not ME!

bullshit if spirituality is then logically the spiritual must be too....don't backpedal now boosy...

No backpedal, you're just illiterately stupid. Human spirituality is a physical behavior found in humans. It is measurable and traceable by monitoring brain activity. What humans are connecting to, the spiritual, is not physical and not detectable or traceable by physical science at this time. They are two quite different things, hence the reason for two different words. I realize they seem to sound alike... spiritual, spirituality... very close, but very different also.

So "logically" you are just illiterate and stupid.

 

[daws101]

Spirituality is certainly physically measurable, the SPIRITUAL is not.

I've not said that it's impossible for God and the spiritual to be traced or measured. Many people do this through faith in spiritual nature. It is also a possibility that physical science will one day discover a physical aspect to God or the spiritual, but whenever that happens it will cease to be something "spiritual" by definition.

YOU are the one who dismisses possibility, not ME!

bullshit if spirituality is then logically the spiritual must be too....don't backpedal now boosy...

No backpedal, you're just illiterately stupid. Human spirituality is a physical behavior found in humans. It is measurable and traceable by monitoring brain activity. What humans are connecting to, the spiritual, is not physical and not detectable or traceable by physical science at this time. They are two quite different things, hence the reason for two different words. I realize they seem to sound alike... spiritual, spirituality... very close, but very different also.

So "logically" you are just illiterate and stupid.

every thing you just said is back peddling
my logic is sound unlike yours.......

 

[Boss]

Not suddenly.
It took millions of years.
Silly man.

How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?

Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
That was pretty easy.

Well, aside from the fact that you have not proven this... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual?

Yes... it IS easy... you have NO EVIDENCE!

 

[Boss]

bullshit if spirituality is then logically the spiritual must be too....don't backpedal now boosy...

No backpedal, you're just illiterately stupid. Human spirituality is a physical behavior found in humans. It is measurable and traceable by monitoring brain activity. What humans are connecting to, the spiritual, is not physical and not detectable or traceable by physical science at this time. They are two quite different things, hence the reason for two different words. I realize they seem to sound alike... spiritual, spirituality... very close, but very different also.

So "logically" you are just illiterate and stupid.

every thing you just said is back peddling
my logic is sound unlike yours.......

You have no logic, dawsy-doodle. You are logicless. Devoid of logic. A logical black hole.

Backpedaling is when you change or alter something you originally stated. I have not changed a thing. I've always maintained that human spirituality is a natural attribute of humams for as long as humans have existed. I've also maintained spiritual nature is not measurable by physical science. Where do you see anything that indicates I've backpedaled, and why are you failing to point that out here?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Spirituality is certainly physically measurable, the SPIRITUAL is not.

I've not said that it's impossible for God and the spiritual to be traced or measured. Many people do this through faith in spiritual nature. It is also a possibility that physical science will one day discover a physical aspect to God or the spiritual, but whenever that happens it will cease to be something "spiritual" by definition.

YOU are the one who dismisses possibility, not ME!

bullshit if spirituality is then logically the spiritual must be too....don't backpedal now boosy...

No backpedal, you're just illiterately stupid. Human spirituality is a physical behavior found in humans. It is measurable and traceable by monitoring brain activity. What humans are connecting to, the spiritual, is not physical and not detectable or traceable by physical science at this time. They are two quite different things, hence the reason for two different words. I realize they seem to sound alike... spiritual, spirituality... very close, but very different also.

So "logically" you are just illiterate and stupid.

What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.

 

[Boss]

What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.

Defies biology because we don't see such a phenomenon elsewhere in nature. If anything you are claiming were true, we'd see apes and chimps exhibiting similar behavior patterns, since they are our closest supposed common ancestors. We'd probably see such phenomena in most mammals with cognitivity. BUT... we see it nowhere except in humans.

 

[thebrucebeat]

How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?

Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
That was pretty easy.

Well, aside from the fact that you have not proven this... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual?

Yes... it IS easy... you have NO EVIDENCE!

Didn't make the argument that the predecessors had it, so you have again created a strawman that you can work with. It is your habit, and we have come to expect this common dodge from you. You are nothing if not predictable.
It took millions of years for species to develop to attain the cognitive abilities we have both recognized are unique to humans.

 

[daws101]

How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?

Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
That was pretty easy.

Well, aside from the fact that you have not proven this... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual?

Yes... it IS easy... you have NO EVIDENCE!

ah yes he did , I did and so have many thousands of paleobiolgists, paleontologists ,amature fossil hunters...
lets do a little speculative storytelling..shall we..
One fine day the human race obliterates itself...NOTHING IS LEFT but a few objects to denote what the now extinct species knew or did or believed.
lets say that this obliteration is the kickstart for the evolution of another species. lets say the cockroach.
they are in fact, almost indestructible and adaptable making them a good candidate for survival
they evolve SENTIENCE , technology and science.
they explore their world and find an ancient human cemetery .
having no experience with human civilization they speculate on what these creatures were and what thought and believed....
the unearth a cross, with jesus on it .
a cigarette lighter and pacemaker..
from these few and unrecognisable objects could they correctly guess ,infer etc,
what sort of spiritually if any these creatures had or did they believe in a deity....
my guess is no.....
making them just like us...

 

[thebrucebeat]

What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.

Defies biology because we don't see such a phenomenon elsewhere in nature. If anything you are claiming were true, we'd see apes and chimps exhibiting similar behavior patterns, since they are our closest supposed common ancestors. We'd probably see such phenomena in most mammals with cognitivity. BUT... we see it nowhere except in humans.

The physiology of those brains are not the same, are they?
Closest ancestors, but an entirely different species. Totally different brain, isn't it?
Silly argument.
Totally silly.
Embarrasing, really.

 

[orogenicman]

What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.

Defies biology because we don't see such a phenomenon elsewhere in nature. If anything you are claiming were true, we'd see apes and chimps exhibiting similar behavior patterns, since they are our closest supposed common ancestors. We'd probably see such phenomena in most mammals with cognitivity. BUT... we see it nowhere except in humans.

Chimpanzees and Bonobos can make and use tools, show grief upon the death of a relative, laugh when they see something funny, and recognize themselves in a mirror, demonstrating that they understand the concept of self.

Neanderthals conducted rituals for the dead, made sophisticated tools and weapons, and may have been the first to make cave drawings of animals and items they saw in their every day lives. It has also been demonstrated that they were anatomically capable of human speech (their hyoid bones were identical to ours). Whether they had an actual language is unknown at this time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.

Defies biology because we don't see such a phenomenon elsewhere in nature. If anything you are claiming were true, we'd see apes and chimps exhibiting similar behavior patterns, since they are our closest supposed common ancestors. We'd probably see such phenomena in most mammals with cognitivity. BUT... we see it nowhere except in humans.

Yet again your ignorance is palpable. Studies have identified the brainwave patterns of humans undergoing spiritual experiences and found similar brainwave patterns in other animals. Links to these studies have been provided to you several times in this thread and you have denied the scientific evidence that exposes your ignorance and outright lies. Furthermore it exposes your claim to be qualified in this area since you would have come across these studies as a professional.

 

[koshergrl]

No, you're a bigot because you keep saying that people who believe in God are necessarily stupid.

That's like saying Muslims and Buddhists are stupid, or Pakistanis, lol. And it's definitely bigoted.

pakistanis are not a religion...
stupid is not a necessity it is however an option lot's o believers choose...

I didn't say Pakistani was a religion, duhs. My point is about the nature of bigotry, which is not confined to RELIGION. You can be bigoted against someone based on their skin color, their point of origin, their height, their accent, their religion, or their nation.

Which was rather my point. Which of course must eternally be dumbed down for you..a point I have also made before. It's remarkable how consistent you are in your inability to comprehend the simplest and most commonly understood concepts. No wonder you seek out alternate methods of fulfillment...it's obvious that you have very limited understanding of anything normal, reasonable, or even factual.