By John Blake, CNN
(CNN) –True love doesn’t wait after all.
That’s the implication in the upcoming October issue of an evangelical magazine that claims that young, unmarried Christians are having premarital sex almost as much as their non-Christian peers.
The article in Relevant magazine, entitled “(Almost) Everyone’s Doing It,” cited several studies examining the sexual activity of single Christians. One of the biggest surprises was a December 2009 study, conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, which included information on sexual activity.
While the study’s primary report did not explore religion, some additional analysis focusing on sexual activity and religious identification yielded this result: 80 percent of unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29) said that they have had sex - slightly less than 88 percent of unmarried adults, according to the teen pregnancy prevention organization.
The article highlights what challenges abstinence movements face. Movements such as “True Love Waits,” encourage teens to wear purity rings, sign virginity pledges and pledge chastity during public ceremonies.
Yet many of these Christian youths eventually abandon their purity pledges, Relevant’s Tyler Charles concludes in the article. Tyler talked to people like “Maria,” an evangelical woman who said she wanted to wait until marriage to have sex.
CNN's Belief Blog – all the faith angles to the day's top stories
But she said she started having sex with her college boyfriend when she turned 20 because nearly everyone, even most of her Christian friends, were having sex.
It seemed everyone in my life, older and younger, had “done it.” In fact, I waited longer than most people I knew and longer than both of my sisters, even though we were all Christians and came from a good home.
Relevant theorizes about why it’s so hard for so many young Christians to wait, including the saturation of sex in popular culture, the prevalence of pornography and a popular “do what feels good philosophy.”
Yet the article also asks a question that rarely comes up in discussions about abstinence movement. Relevant notes that in biblical times, people married earlier. The average age for marriage has been increasing in the U.S for the last 40 years.
Today, it’s not unusual to meet a Christian who is single at 30 - or 40 or 50, for that matter. So what do you tell them? Keep waiting?
Scot McKnight, author of “The Jesus Creed,” and "One.Faith: Jesus Calls, We Follow," acknowledges that young, single Christians face temptations that their counterparts in the biblical age didn’t face.
He tells Relevant:
Sociologically speaking, the one big difference – and it’s monstrous – between the biblical teaching and our culture is the arranged marriages of very young people. If you get married when you’re 13, you don’t have 15 years of temptation.
So what should a Christian parent or youth pastor do? How do they convince more young Christians to wait until marriage, or should they stop even trying?
Better news would be "More Christians are getting Abortions" because they already do more than any other group.
Could you please refer to a valid study that supports this comment.
God is dead. Can we move on.
God is dead - Wouldn't that depend on the definition of God?
Can we move on? – no.
Anything else you need today? Pedicure perhaps?
We are moving on. gods always die. The Christian cults invisible sky jew will be no different. It is called cultural evolution.
Are yo sure about that Karen? How do you know this? You admit He is dead so you must believe He was alive at one time. Do not be blinded by everything around you. He is not keeping score and He wants to talk to you. Notice on all the pictures of Him knocking on the door, there is no door knob. He won't force His way in but waits for you to open the door. I encourage you to look up 24 minutes in Hell. Hope to see you on the other side in Heaven, it is as real as you are reading this. Take care and have a great weekend.
@ Michael lol that is all.
@Michael... It's a good thing we don't base our survival as a species on pictures of jesus knocking on doors and fantastical interpretations of what lies beyond the grave. No one can say what is waiting after death. If you can be conned into believing otherwise, you can be conned into believing anything.
And so will you. So if God doesn't really matter, which he does, then so will you when you die.
80% admitted it, the remaining 20% lied.
Charlie Sheen I am 26 and 100% virgin. I know I am special, but now 1% didn't lie.
I got married when I was 30... and I waited. Many of my friends did, too. It is possible.
Charlie Sheen had to pay to get it. He probably likes S&M, too.
o noes I'm afraid the very moral fabric of american society is under attack!
Ummm . . . duh. . . . Everyone has been doing it all along . . . the only difference is that now they are actually owning up to it and being a little more honest about it. My right-wing, uber-Southern Baptist grandparents were even doing it before they were married . . and that was 1935. Get real, American. Everybody does it – some just choose to lie about it like the hypocritical cowards they are . . .
Until we die we have no idea who is right or wrong..stop trying to make others look sound or feel stupid. Live your life and stop trying to rule or ruin others.
Only God knows those who belong to Him. Just because some claim to be a Christian does not mean I can validate data regarding those who claim to be Christians.
God does not change. There will always be people who want God to change for many reasons. The good thing about this is that He is still merciful and He still loves us. He wants us to seek His face. Even the most passionate followers of Jesus will face great temptation and will make mistakes.
Everyone believes in their version of truth in their lives. I believe if everyone knew the love and power that knowing Jesus offered, all would know Him. Lord, help me to know you better.
You say your god does not change. What you fail to understand is that an unchanging "god" is not a god at all but is only a non-existent illusion you have cooked up within your imagination. The real world is very harsh. I am not surprised so many people cannot handle the harsh truths of reality and turn to a made-up god for comfort. Santa Claus is a great guy. He actually gives people real presents! And he doesn't change either. His underwear, I mean. You can tell when the old guy has been there by the smell he left behind. And the presents. And the cookies and milk that were eaten. Yes, Santa is real and unchanging like your god. And just as ridiculous and impossible. Keep your fantasies to yourself and don't use them to hurt other people or oppress them and I'll have no reason to kill in self-defense. We don't need religious people in charge of explosives. Not ever.
People through good and bad of all walks of life are Christians. I don't know if Santa has a place in Jerusalem that has had 2000 years and more of exsitance. 21% of the world believes this fair tale according to a survey within the last 10 years. A lot of evolution scientist can't confirm they guess, people don't want the absolute answer so they keep exploring without complete taking in something they cannot see and if did would be afraid of, which we know that Jesus died for those who do feel get for their wrongs sinners. The other people are blind and ignorant if they believe they haven't done something wrong in their life. You know something they regret. Besides what if your wrong? Wouldn't you like to be safe and explore the territory? At least read a cheap book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.
steve, CSLewis was an idiot who couldn't tie his logic together any more than any other believer.
If you tie your logic together, you become an atheist or strong agnostic. CSLewis makes the same mistakes you are making.
Oh, maybe that's because you swallowed his spiel without questioning it too much. What a surprise.
If you read his book you would know he was an atheist himself searching for answers from a God who didn't seem existent. That man fought through a war and lost his wife the slow way. He spent many days looking for answers to the is there a god question? He reasoned his way into the possibility. What if all the humans that are flaud are wrong? I am saying we are not perfect in making judgment that God isn't real, yet our predecessors on this planet have witnessed Him in the Bible?
P.S. The C.S. Lewis you are talking about taught at Oxford University. I am not a know it all, but science in some of it's imperfections could have missed something that is all I am saying.
steve, I am always open to new facts as they appear. Yet after almost (theoretically) 15 billion years, don't you think there would be some sort of physical proof that is unquestionable after all this time? Yet there is nothing.
Here's a clue for you - Sincerity does not equal proof and gives no evidence of anything but the person's sincerity no matter how crazy or sane they are.
Another clue - Dying for something does not make the something real. It is simply an extension of a person's sincerity. (see first clue)
Yet another clue - Feeling something emotional in your brain does not validate your beliefs, it only reinforces them.
I could go on but I won't. You think CSLewis knew logic just because he became a professor. That's not how it works, bud.
Sweet cheeks to you ben. But really, take some personal quiet time, go for walk in the woods or along a nature path and talk to God. You may be surprised at how easy he is to find.
Pretty bunny rabbits, Sheila. They are easy to find, too.
We have a new philosophy for diagnosing people whom hear voices that others cant hear. Pkease invest in the dsm iv. Do you really think the being that controls the galaxies is taking his 15 minute breaks to chat with you?? It has bigger fish to fry. I wonder if the starving throughout Africa get this 1:1 time?
You need to get back on your meds, Sweet Cheeks Sheila. Good lord . . .
Did you just suggest that you take a walk in NATURE to get access to GOD?? BLASPHEMY!!! Thou shalt not find God except through your local pastor's Holy Scepter... and that is only for his altarboys.
This denial of the human condition and realities is hilarious. Might as well fight gravity. Just ask the altar boys...
Peggy, why are you not feeding the starving children ? I do donate to food banks, homeless shelters, emergency Red Cross drives and directly to people...and I am poor. If I was in good health I would be doing much more. God told us we are to love each other. That is the 2nd most important commandment of God. We are to love him with all our mind, heart, and soul, and then to love each other. Everything else hangs on these 2 commandments. Remember, I posted to you that human beings wanted a pagan King instead of God, so that is what we have ? So if the ills of the world bother you, just consider it is from our ill choices that the world is ill to begin with.
Does the Golden Rule apply to how Christians should treat gays?
Gays, Shmays, go to Iran and see how you'll be treated. No one is stopping you from fudge packing if that is what you want. In Iran you would be hung
Care to answer the question this time?
As an atheist, I have come to the conclusion that school prayer is a great educator. Rather than doing our best to keep Jefferson’s wall of separation between children and school prayer, I am going to suggest that we consider not only agreeing that prayer be allowed in government schools, but that it be made mandatory – in the following circu.mstances.
We set up a very simple physics or chemistry experiment. Say, a strip of blue litmus paper with a test tube of an acidic solution poised above it. We have all the students in class pray to god that it will not turn red when the test tube is upended and the acid pours on it. We then upturn the test tube and see what happens.
It will, of course, turn red.
We do this experiment every day, sometimes substi.tuting red litmus paper for blue litmus paper and an alkali solution for the acid solution – with the appropriate change in the prayer. We can also do other simple experiments – two identical poles of a magnet always being repulsive, with the students praying that they will attract.
We do these experiments every day of every year for their entire high school experience, with the children praying each day that the result will be different. As we know, their prayers to their gods will fail every day of every week of every year. Every single time, without doubt and 100% guaranteed.
After a few months of repeated failures, the students are invited to bring along their priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, and other religious authority figures to lead their prayers. They can all pray, chant, implore and bob to their various sky-deities that the litmus paper does not turn red. We can also bring in some gulf War veterans who lost limbs, and they can pray for their recovery.
We even have special “open” days where they are invited to bring along the Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Dalia Lama, head of the Orthodox Church, the USA’s most sacred rabbi etc., etc. to join their prayers.
As we know, their prayers to their gods will still fail every day of every week of every year. Every single time, without doubt and 100% guaranteed. A couple of practical realities we would have to guard are the occasional “flop” where, for example, a bad batch of acid has been delivered and the litmus paper does not change color (we don’t want anybody to claim that a prayer was answered) or intentional sabotage by those with a religious agenda, but that is no different to the risks of any other science experiment.
In this manner, prayer can “put up or shut up.” It is preferable to me that we expose the children to prayer in their formative years and let them see for themselves how utterly worthless it is, rather than try to keep prayer from them. The constant radio silence from above and the stoic indifference with which their prayers are met every day will help the students understand:
(i) that there is no god listening and that praying is a futile exercise when the results can REALLY be tested;
(ii) the complete superiority of the scientific method over religious supersti.tions, as science accurately predicts the results of each experiment every time;
(iii) the silliness of still believing in Bronze Age sky-gods in the 21st Century;
(iii) the frailties of their religious leaders as they scurry for excuses –“god won’t be tested”, “god moves in mysterious ways” etc; and
(iv) the weakness of human nature as the religious right moves to shut the experiments down.
Imagine if your typical Christian who has a bit of intelligence, but not enough science to elevate him or herself out of their dark superst.itions had the benefit of this!!
You have conducted this experiment as you say?
No, but, for example, six million Jews have, as they prayed to their sky-fairy that they would not die in Hitler's gas chambers.
He is correct, the laws of physics regarding the litmus test will always win over prayer, for the result has no meaning to God. God does not bother with being tested. but let people pray for a loved one dying and watch the results then. God doesnt play childish games to amuse the agnostic. his purpose is your soul not your science class.
God has no hands to physically reach down and change the world, only the power to change our hearts. I pray he opens yours.
or put another way guidedtouch and Mike in Michigan – it is exactly the same as it would be if there were no god. Why is it that your sky-god never cures amputees who have an injury that is verifiably curable. Why does he alsways hide?
You assume, of course, God would have to react to such a silly request. This isn't a good argument for atheism. There are better ones. "If you're going to bring it, dont' bring it weak(ly)..." as one would say.
Michael of Michigan, your argument fails in one very important place: If your god can "change a person" then he is indeed affecting the physical world in a testable way. Why not test for the existence of your god?
But what crazy believer will even try? Put your god to the test. Your god ALWAYS fails! There remains nothing upon which a reasonable belief can hang its hat. Read your Bible thoroughly and examine what it actually says closely.
You will find that your "god" does not exist as described in the Bible. Neither OT or NT. There is no such thing as sin, no gods, and no reason to believe in such psychotic babbling unless you have been indoctrinated and remain ignorant.
I as a Christian future educator getting my M.A. in Clinical Psychology will make a compromise with you. We will stop the push for prayers in schools if Creationism and all the other religions are taught in school. So people can make the choices and learn the values of each religion themselves. I think the children of America at the high school and grade school age should be educated about some of this stuff.
I'm an atheist and yet I still find this pretty offensive.
An atheist and a scientist (microbial genetics) no less.
Faith and science seek to explain two different things, apples and oranges.
Science takes us to the Big Bang, no problem. Science can posit multiple Big Bangs preceding the one that created our universe. There's just a problem with where it all (the matter) came from. And if some people like the idea of a God, well, that's honestly as likely an explanation as any that can be thought of.
But you'll probably have an issue with this response.
That sort of prayer is sinful (Luke 4:12) so, of course, God is not about to play along. How about doing some research before you write your papers? C-
The diseased who pray for a cure in a self-serving context are on one path. The diseased who pray for a cure so their friends or family will not suffer grief or so they may heal and continue serving others are on another path. It may seem like we have many decisions to make in our daily lives, but it really all boils down to the same thing; a single decision disguised as many different questions and situations throughout each day of our lives. One choice, one question, one decision with only two options. Will you serve Yourself sacrificing the gain of others? Or will you serve others sacrificing the gain of Yourself? This is our only decision, and we must decide hundreds or thousands or millions of times each day. Which path will you travel?
steve, I will make ABSOLUTELY NO COMPROMISE with crazy people. Never.
I might play along just to humor you for some reason, but the fact remains that you are indeed mentally ill.
Why should a sane person compromise with a crazy person over their craziness? Count me out of that stupidity forever.
You are a liar and a fake. No honest psychiatrist can fail to see how schizoid and insane a religious belief can be when put up against the very real knowledge of our human brains and derivative psyches. You fail at pretending.
Compromise? Every school? Why don't you lower your standard from 'every' to just one jurisdiction. One state.
Have a field test bed as per say. Let that state be mandatory for the next 30 years and give your honest results.
Show the correlation in improvements to culture and social guidance as well as the results in science and math.
Show the tolerance levels amongst all the religions. That would be a better working solution.
The first that will happen to my suggestion (the effect) of the mandatory system is that there will a mass emigration of the scientific community. That will happen. For certain. I can not predict other scenarios though.
Even scientists have argued that there maybe a such thing as other dimensions. Is it not possible?
What almighty creator would alter the very nature of science for a few moments simply because someone demands it? Can you imagine Congress altering a law for 20 seconds because you stand outside the Capital demanding they prove they have the power to pass laws?
You offer as proof the fact that God allows humans to exercise their free will by killing. What would happen if God intervened every time someone decided to do something bad? We would cease to have free will. We would be automatons, incapable of murder but also smoking a cigarette or speeding on the interstate.
Automatons incapable of choosing to worship, or reject, God.
HE gave us a choice, to make right or wrong decisions. HIS son payed the price to give us another choice, to have our wrong choices atoned for so we could be reconciled with HIS father. No one can choose for you. You cannot choose for another.
steve, we already KNOW there are other dimensions.
Even with all the different dimensions, there remains NO reason to assume or even require a "super-being" in explaining ANY of it!
You are a fake trying to bluff his way past logic. You fail.
If a man and woman conceived children, all of their descendants forevermore could trace their origins back to that man and woman, yes? Is it possible that all descendants (every single living thing that ever was and is, encompassiong every location in the universe) could trace their origins back to the same source. A single source. The very first living thing. Ever. Is it possible that the story of Eve's creation (which was written by those who had not the advantages of science and technology) be a metaphor for say, cellular mitosis?
@ steve. Yes i have considered all possibilities. That is what differs atheists and agnostics from believers; believers are convinced they have all the answers.
I think the tolerance of all religions would be better. Then that person could chose the religion or science that he sees is right. As much as I hope for Christianity maybe they will become Muslim.
You're right God's not going to answer a prayer like that: it has nothing to do with his will and faith doesn't work that way. God is a part of every aspect of life; without divine wisdom there would be no science and technology. Great ideas don't just happen, they're provided by God. Science and it's products fall into "Common Grace". We can attribute medicines, satellites, computers and automobiles to the wisdom God has shared with man about himself ( himself being man) and the earth. If you want to stick with your examples about magnets and acid you could say that God's not going to break a natural law he established especially without good reason. Faith is not magic and God is not a genie.
Benjamin, no one has given me a choice my whole life. Your fake god has never appeared to give me one.
We have the illusion of free-will. You want to couple that to the illusion of choice and the illusion of a supernaturally-determined predestination.
Your amazing lack of understanding just boggles the mind until one remembers that you are just brainwashed drek like all the other billions of religious believers. I truly pity you your crashing ignorance and inability to think clearly.
Fake i am a second year grad student, even by secular standards that is pretty good lol. I will say though that A God who's place is in another dimension (so to speak) that now dwells invisible in this one. You don't think that he if God has power over everything including our sight? Are you God? Could you say that he is not at work if you haven't seen him working? You can use the same argument for or against a God. Wouldn't you like it if you were a loving god see children change and be worked and learn through discipline what it is like to be perfect by Perfections standards? Could it be putting the science aside that we want to see only what we wish to see?
o look no god, o I do not wish to see that rattler in front of me I wish it gone. I cannot see it I hear it just go away let me have this territory.
I really want to say this, I may not know everything but I do believe in absolute truth. We are in chaos, but there is a place where chaos only exist because of fun, not because the human race rebelled against a living God.
steve, if I were on the medical board overseeing your application for a medical license, I would not only deny your application, but I would do everything in my power to see to it that you are barred from practicing medicine anywhere in the world.
You are a quack. A pretender. You give lip service to your education but your real agenda is the subjugation of everything to your religious world-view. People like you should be shot, but making sure you never get a license is more humane in some respects.
You are taking the wrong major. And as the first two years is mostly BS, you have yet to get slammed down by one of your professors or you wouldn't even be on here trying to rationalize your schizophrenic beliefs. Quack.
you and me ain't nothing but mammals so let's like they do on the discovery channel.
you and me ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.
KSO. Do you really want to settle with being classified as an "animal" instead of a living soul made in the image of God? If that's what you believe I respect it, but you're made of so much more than just your skin and organs. Have you ever wondered how and why you're living and breathing? Can your body really be your personality as well? What makes you, you if you're nothing but an animal made of flesh and bone?
Peggy, I logged back on to answer someone else, but I will answer you to. No I am not any better than you. God is no respecter of persons. Everyone is the same in his eyes. The only difference is that those who call on his son Jesus Christ and ask for his forgiveness will receive such. Those who do not acknowledge or turn from their sins and who do not call on the Lord will not be.
God's word says it rains on the just and the unjust. And there is more I could give you from scripture to answer your questions. God never desires the destruction, harm, or death of anyone. However, at some point he has to draw a line and punish. We are the one's who bring him to that point. How many times does someone has to wrongfully hurt you, antagonize you, or abuse you in some way before you stand up for what is right ? Are you saying God should not stand up for what is right ?
Peggy a long time ago, human beings said they didn't want God anymore but a human King like the pagans had. God let them have what they asked for. Those were our ancestors Peggy, and we suffered the consequences of that choice. If you had been able to read earlier postings by others you would see that Satan rules this world, he rules the governments of the world. God never intended for us to suffer harm, but human beings make that choice every time they rebel and disobey. If we willfully sin and push God away, while we do so, how can we expect him to "come to the rescue", or to our protection ? Good night Peggy. I have to answer a different question, then I have to go to bed. I am getting too tired to write. These human bodies are frail.
Doesn't "buy my product or suffer for eternity" sound a little childish to you?" Jealousy is not a trait of a supreme being.
Logic does not dictate a first cause unless you twist it to make it so. Nor does 'science'. I quoted for you the most respected scientist in the field. That is not an appeal to authority. Please present your evidence of a 'first ause'.
colin: "What makes your argument silly is the whole idea that a 13,700,000,000 year old Universe, consisting of 100,000,000,000 galaxies, each with 200,000,000,000 stars and five times as many planets was all put in place by some all knowing, all powerful sky fairy for the benefit of the species ho.mo sapiens on one of these planets."
How sad. You're angry because you know you've been defeated.
Much less, you still haven't proven your position: why is it "silly" to believe that there was a first cause, especially when logic and science dictate that it had to exist?
"Look, you are going to die. Get over it."
"No cosmic overlord is supervising your life so as to pass a final judgment on you. Live the 80 odd years you have, rather than waste them in some obfuscating religious fog that promises something it never has to deliver."
Alas, more conclusory statements with no substantiation.
But it's okay. Don't prove your position, or refute your opponent's. Just go on believing what you believe, just as dogmatically as you did before.
colin: "He is obviously Jesus-Juiced up too much at this point in his life. The trick is to let him put his " logic" out there for those with an open mind to see. The NAACP used to do this with the Ku Klux Klan."
Ah, yes. Of course. I must be "jesus-juiced up" because I pointed out how illogical your beliefs are.
Are you even capable of responding to the argument? Or are petty insults the best we can hope for from you?
"The trick is to let him put his " logic" out there for those with an open mind to see."
The implication of which is, of course, that the logic is wrong.
And yet merely saying it's wrong doesn't make it so, does it?
observer: "Tilt! Saying that this "first cause" must be the God of the Bible rather than a "committee of zombies" because the committee would add "irrelvent qualities" is nonsense."
Nah. The existence of a god and the bible are not co-extensive. Sorry if that confuses you.
"There is ZERO proof for either case. You have made zero credibility for the "first cause" to be anything we know of."
Were you going to prove this, or merely assert it?
Science has NOT dictated the necessity of a 'first cause'. You might want to study up before spouting nonsense. The best physicist in the world, stephen hawkings recently released his latest book, have you read it? he is very clear that there is no need for any gods or 'prime movers' for the universe to exist. You are simply put, wrong.
Tide goes in, tide goes out, can't top that.
LOL! Explain that!
ben: "Science has NOT dictated the necessity of a 'first cause'. You might want to study up before spouting nonsense. The best physicist in the world, stephen hawkings recently released his latest book, have you read it?"
Brilliant. A fallacious argument from authority.
Science dictates the necessity of a first cause insofar as 1) logic requires it, and 2) all things require a cause.
Quantum mechanics is unhelpful because things springing into action aren't quite the same as them springing into existence.
Much less, Hawkings' argument specifically centers are the "non-existence" of time before the Big Bang. However, because he's not well versed in philosophy, he doesn't seem to realize that that doesn't get rid of the problem of causation. In fact, it merely asserts what it's trying to prove: that no cause was required because no cause existed.
Glad I could disabuse you of your embarrassing opinion.
ben: "LOL! Explain that!"
Nah, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you know anything about quantum mechanics, you'd know that particles HAVE sp[rung into existence without cause. Also, responding to your claim that "science demands a first cause" with "actually the top scientist in the field disagrees, is not an appeal to authority. You stink at both science, and philosophy.
ben: "I quoted for you the most respected scientist in the field. That is not an appeal to authority. Please present your evidence of a 'first ause'."
Sorry to disappoint you, but "quoting" the most respected scientist saying a god doesn't exist, and pretending that that assertion therefore proves a god doesn't exist, is precisely what is called a fallacious argument from authority.
"evidence of a 'first ause'."
You were already given it. If you care to answer it, go ahead.
But keep in mind, merely saying "that" it's wrong won't help you.
I like phisosophy too, nah, but I understand it is NOT about answering these types of inquiries. Nice try, though.
ben: "Nah, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you know anything about quantum mechanics, you'd know that particles HAVE sp[rung into existence without cause."
Nah. I'm glad you can Google though.
The problem with the spontaneous creation of particles in experiments is the existence of background energy. You know, energy, the thing that "causes" the existence of particles.
"Also, responding to your claim that "science demands a first cause" with "actually the top scientist in the field disagrees, is not an appeal to authority."
You might want to backpeddle. You're embarrassing yourself, ben.
nah, you have given no evidence of a first cause, try again. You have given your REASON (a finite being) for why you think all things have a beginning and an end. that is not evidence.
Nah, I have just proven you wrong, and no googling is required (for me at least) you claimed that all things have a first cause, and I destroyed your argument. next?
ben: "I like phisosophy too, nah, but I understand it is NOT about answering these types of inquiries."
Philosophy is "precisely" about answering these types of questions. In fact, it's part of a field called "metaphysics". That is, understanding the foundations of the physical world, cause and effect, and so on.
Anyways, I'm out for the night. I'm sorry you're too dense to understand any of the arguments.
Nah, you must be some stupid college freshman who throws around terms he does not understand (oh! Ad Hominem!) when you grow up and get an education, you will be able to hang with me.
ben: "Nah, I have just proven you wrong, and no googling is required (for me at least) you claimed that all things have a first cause, and I destroyed your argument. next?"
"Nah, I have just proven you wrong ... and I destroyed your argument. next?"
Not really. I pointed out how and why the "spontaneous existence of particles" in experiments is inconclusive.
Much less, you didn't prove anything you wrong, you merely said "that" it was wrong. And what reason did you give for it being wrong? Because "Stephen Hawking says so".
ben: "Nah, you must be some stupid college freshman who throws around terms he does not understand (oh! Ad Hominem!) when you grow up and get an education, you will be able to hang with me."
Do you know what metaphysics means? clearly not, or you wouldn't be mentioning science, now would you?
Sayonara Mr. William Lane Craig wannabe.
nah, quick! save face! change your premise to "most things have a first cause". That will allow you to keep your dignity intact.
ben: "Do you know what metaphysics means? clearly not, or you wouldn't be mentioning science, now would you?"
You mad, bro?
Philosophy is science minus discipline and math. Religion is philosophy with Down Syndrome.
ben: "nah, quick! save face! change your premise to "most things have a first cause". That will allow you to keep your dignity intact."
Another swing and a miss for ben, eh?
Are you going to refute any of what I said, or is this the best we can hope for from you?
colin: "Philosophy is science minus discipline and math. Religion is philosophy with Down Syndrome."
Oooh, another great ad hominem from colin!
When you can't refute your opposition, call them names instead!
You must be the world's greatest intellectual :)
Its obvious that those with little science will use it heretically to challenge belief systems, even science in essence is a belief system and it has many flaws and theories that are unproven. I would rather believe in christianity with all its shortcomings than science with its claims. I spend 14-16 hours of my working days researching on human body in labs most of people will never have the opportunity to see them in their entire life, in order to come up with new medicine for cancer and otehr diseases, and I have been doing this for the past 25 years. The more school you have the more appreciation to divine and intelligent design and vice versa. The more science you have the more frustrated you get, and do not get me wrong, I know science has answered a number of problems and better our lives but I personally beleive its God's intervention thru science. Many things were discovered accidentally in the lab e.g. penicillin as an antibiotic etc.
More one liners and more insults from Nah.
What a child.
Is your "first source", which you call God, not the God that everyone else is talking about from the Bible?
lud: "Its obvious that those with little science will use it heretically to challenge belief systems"
Sadly it's obvious that the token trolls on here are atheists who don't know why they're atheists.
The most pitiful part, however, is that they take their simplistic, naive view of the world, philosophy, and science to be indications that they have an infinitely great intelligence.
Take "colin" for instance. He asks for an argument, he's given one, and instead of responding to it, he merely says that you're wrong, throws a tantrum and calls names instead.
Unfortunately, he'll just go on believing what he believed, as dogmatically as he did before. And that's the height of anti-intellectualism, isn't it?
observer: "Is your "first source", which you call God, not the God that everyone else is talking about from the Bible?"
I'm glad you didn't realize that the existence of a god and the bible are not co-extensive, though.
answer: 'more one liners from nah'
Please don't copy my response style. It makes you look childish.
I'm out, cuties.
Glad I could pwn you all.
Keep crying :)
nah, I thought you were going to bed, do you really want you into to philosophy skills to get trounced on all night?
LUD50 – so, do you enjoy washing the beakers?
To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in creationism is in the 21st Century, here are some areas fundamentalists must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did n¬ot start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo-Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.
First and most obviously is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor wiped them out.
The fossil record includes the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.
The fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?
A Tyrannosaurus Rex ate a lot of food – meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark. A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships bigger than the D Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the Ark.
Secondly, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another, independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large forests (in the case of coal) or tiny marine creatures (in the case of oil). That’s why they are called fossil fuels. Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor for why most of it was “given to the Muslims”).
Thirdly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13.7 billion years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny silent witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.
Fourthly, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims.
Fifthly, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed. It acts as yet another fatal blow to the “talking snake” theory.
Sixthly, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.
Seventhly, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.
I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics, even large parts of medical research (medical research on monkeys and mice only works because they share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs).
In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders were wrong.
Many things were discovered accidentally in the lab e.g. penicillin as an antibiotic etc.
That is true. Your point will still be based on how you wanted to perceive it. If you said it was god inspired that's an opinion. Whether you wanted or not an argument will be the outcome when it comes down to proving that god inspired the accident to be discovered.
what Nah does not understand, as he is a child. Is that we are dealing with philosophical issues that have been debated for thousands of years. to claim that "philosophy dictates the necessity of a first cause!" shows that he is a fool who only studies one side of the feild. FOr every philosopher to make that point, there was one to debunk it. To disagree with it. To better it. This guy stopped at phi 101. so sad.
I wouldn't copy your style. I believe in being directly honest with people and so would never mislead people by using the name God to represent anything other than the conventional meaning of the capitalized name.
I know his type.. when they don't want to admit that they themselves have no proof they reverse the flow of questions towards the other party to throw them into defense. It's just a fancy tactic. You can spot it easily. The thing to watch for is the one-liners and insults. A child beats his bravado any day.
Colin, almost all of your lengthy argument is based on bad scientific principles that have been proven unreliable: dating methods, fossil records and the like. Keep trying though. Not hating... just mentioning that you have great faith.
"Please don't copy my response style. It makes you look childish."
That's a classic. Thanks. I don't want my response style to look childish like yours.
HaHaHaHaHa ! Hormones win over Jeebus at least 90% of the time. Where do you think all the chritian preachers come from ? And I promise not to . . . in your . . .
Just remember, the piece you didn't get might have been your last.
www (dot) god is imaginary (dot) com
that is a GREAT web site and should be mandatory reading for all teens.
That website is a joke. It doesn't even offer a definition of God before it goes about disproving. The tone of the "proofs" seems to presuppose a mental projection of God by a certain sect of people that the administrator of the website is apparently trying to refute. Isn't it obvious that the agenda of GodisImaginarydotcom is just another part of the Idea Wars, as people try to dominate each other with their brains and their ideas. When willy you learn to look beyond your ego self? You look at religious people and you PERCEIVE them and your perceptions lead to your judgements and you tell yourself "these people are crazy and are dangeorus to the world and need to be stopped" but what you are really telling yourself is "My vision is far superior and I have amazing mental powers". What do you suppose you might gain by attempting to annihilate somebody's vision of self? All people will come to know themself in due time.
I hope some of that made sense. I tried to pack a lot into a small space there. I am sorry for being so harsh, but that's just how internet chat seems to work.
Allow me to be a little more clear and concise. Be careful, as you may throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. You become so easily disillusioned to the divine reality of creation just because you are repulsed by the Ideas conjured up by Christian Theology. Anybody who looks around closely will realize that we live in an incredible magical wonderland of bonded energy. The illusion is that everything that is happening is ordinary and predictable.
brewed, you are saying that reality is just an illusion. Got any red or blue pills to prove your assertion? No? What a surprise.
This is an interesting article I never thought about it that way its true in Biblical times people seemed to get married much younger Mary the mother of Christ herself was wed to Joseph at 13. How long did Adam wait? I think the its mostly the principals behind the waiting till marriage philosophy of the Bible thats important t under stand.
YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!!!
Read carefully, as this may save your life or that of someone else.
: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill ( 8.7% failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'"
clearly the solution to this problem is more anal s-e-x
Caused by the H-IV virus that invades the immune system, resulting in "well carriers" to severe and fatal disorders.
Contact with infected blood, se-men, va-ginal fluids mainly by unprotected se-x and needle sharing and maternal transfer. – unprotected an-al s-ex
– unprotected va-ginal se-x
– unprotected or-al s-ex
– injection of tainted blood
– injection by needle-sharing
– sharing objects and infected fluids
– maternal blood to fetus
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.