By Arielle Hawkins, CNN
Here's the Belief Blog’s morning rundown of the top faith-angle stories from around the United States and around the world. Click the headlines for the full stories.
From the Blog:
CNN: Arkansas to allow concealed guns in churches
The Arkansas House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a measure that would allow concealed guns to be carried in churches and houses of worship, and the governor’s office says it plans to sign the bill. The measure, which passed 85-8 on Monday, gives houses of worship the option of allowing concealed weapons.
CNN: Nigeria's Igbo Jews: 'Lost tribe' of Israel?
A Shabbat service is underway at the Ghihon Hebrew Research synagogue in the Jikwoyi suburb of Nigeria's federal capital territory. Fourteen year-old Kadmiel Izungu Abor heads there with his family. In a country of 162 million people tensions often lead to violent uprisings between Christians and Muslims and being part of the religious minority can be an issue. But Abor wears his kippah and his identity with pride. "I am a Jewish Igbo," he says.
Belief on TV:
Belief on Radio:
Religion News Service: Chicago is ground zero in U.S. Muslim renaissance
Religious affiliation may be on the wane in America, a recent Pew study asserts, but there is a wave of new Muslim institutions emerging in the United States at an unprecedented pace. More than a quarter of the nation’s 2,106 mosques were founded in the last decade, according to a recent University of Kentucky study, and new social service organizations, many of them run by 20- and 30-something American-born Muslims, are thriving as never before. Chicago may be ground zero of this trend: The city’s 15-year-old Inner-City Muslim Action Network is one of several young Muslim organizations inspiring young Muslims to connect with their faith.
Catholic News Agency: Newark archdiocese stands by ministry of priest accused of sex abuse
The Archdiocese of Newark affirmed its decision to allow a priest accused of abusing a minor to remain in ministry, stressing that they are complying with authorities and prohibiting any interaction alone with children.
Religion News Service: New Vatican sex abuse prosecutor praises media
In his first public appearance since arriving in Rome, the new Vatican prosecutor for sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church praised the media’s role in uncovering the scandal. American priest Robert W. Oliver was chosen in December by Pope Benedict XVI to replace the Rev. Charles J. Scicluna as “promoter of justice” at the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after Scicluna was appointed a bishop in Malta.
The Guardian: Danish critic of Islam attacked by gunman
A gunman has tried to shoot a Danish writer and prominent critic of Islam, but the writer managed to fend off his assailant and was not injured in the attack. Police said Lars Hedegaard, who heads two groups that claim press freedom is under threat from Islam, was the target of the shooting.
Reuters: Former "Ground Zero mosque" imam accused of pocketing donations
The head of a proposed mosque that was to be built near the site of the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City was sued on Tuesday and accused of squandering millions of dollars in donations on lavish lifestyle perks for himself and his wife.
Reuters: Exorcism at the ghost fair
Malajpur is a small but not ordinary village in central India. In fact it is probably the only village in India which has been hosting a ghost fair for the past several years. People from across the country come to this fair to get rid of ‘evil spirits’ that they claim to be possessed by. As night falls on Paush Purnima (full moon night) the ‘possessed’ are taken to the local shrine to be exorcised.
Join the conversation…
CNN: Catholic hospital says it was 'morally wrong' to argue fetus is not a person
A Catholic hospital in hot water for claiming in a Colorado court that a fetus is not a person backtracked on Monday, saying it was "morally wrong" to make the argument while defending itself in a wrongful death lawsuit. The flip-flop concerns the case of Lori Stodghill. She was 28 weeks pregnant with twins when she went to the emergency room of St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City, Colorado, vomiting and short of breath. She went into cardiac arrest in the lobby and died. That was New Year's Day 2006.
TODAY’S MAGLEV TRAINS AND THEIR “ENGINE/MAGNETIC” MAKEUP 02/06/13
Lionly Lamb............i like these! way to stay positive!
Your pattern matching is off by months and even years. The moons have no religious significance. It isn't prophecy if we have to interpret it: if it isn't literally telling us exactly when and where and what and how, then it's just a vague guess that seems substantiated by any fevered hallucination. It's Nostradamus' ridiculous prophecies, which may be fun when one is 12 years old, but doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the scam.
Apparently even this Blitz guy agrees now it is insignificant because of the supposed other prophesied garbage that needs to happen before tribulation. You are a crazy, inept, deluded fuck who is late to his own conspiracy. You call yourself a prophet and you don't even realize your own stupid hinted "revelation" isn't going to happen.
You haven't even actually prophesied ANYTHING. You're merely telling us what the NASA web site shows: a naturally occurring event will happen again a couple times in 2014 and 2015 and then again years later, as it did years before. Because you'll accept any guesstimation as prophecy we'll now have to suffer through you claiming your "success" if even the tiniest of events occurs in Israel in the next few years, which is highly likely as events happen all the time, all year long, in every country of the world.
You're not prophetic, you're pathetic.
hey what a waste of hot air that was.
what did I prophesy? Nothing
when did the prophets end? new testament was the end of direct revelation.
your whole entire assumption and going off is your depserate attempt to turn what i said into something else.
calling me "a prophet" is twisted and full of contemptious deceit. absolutely rediculous! are you in a bad mood today end religion? sorry buddy.
1 Corinthians 12
New International Version (NIV)
Concerning Spiritual Gifts
12 Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[b] 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
a spiritual gift/ such as a vision, does not make someone a prophet. those are the guys who recieved DIRECT revelation.
a vision is a type of special revelation. special revelation is also the holy spirits internal communication. there is also demonic activity.
End religion. those blood moons, just happened to be close to the wars for israell. the 9th of AV is another subject did you listen. remember this .....................that israels old testament calandar and festivals revolved around the lunar cycle.
knowing that there will be a blood moon associated with the return of Christ, as a sign , is the way God works.
you can get all upset that the 4 consecutive blood moons are an obvious sign for israel, but you arent going to prevent Jesus Christ from doing anything. I will keep praying for you brother. don't be upset. I'm bringing you the truth. its the least i can do. leave science, listen to the Holy Spirit. maybe the earth is old, so is God.
i had a dream that there was a boat, with a terrorist attack on it. it was near israel, and there was a suitcase full of mustard gas, with a spigot on it that someone opened, and it smelled really bad. i felt like i actually could smell it. maybe this will happen. it probably wont but i feel it may have been a vision. if not it was just a dream.
Are you still posting irrelevant bible verse and going on about moons? Did you give any evidence that would support your inane babbling yet?
yes i have evidence. and yes im willing to be a test rat in a cage because Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is there, and
The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.”
15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring[b] all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because you have obeyed me.”
So you say you have evidence, but instead of presenting it, you go off on another irrelevant immoral bible story.
PLEASE! No more about blood moons. I know God knows it was me who sat on a blood orange and ruined my wife's new chair. I do not need to be reminded of this every day. Please stop!
New International Version (NIV)
25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
@All caps troll
So non-sensical jibberish with absolutely no specifics proves what? Oh that's right, nothing.
Joel 2:31 ►
The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.
The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
@all caps troll
And you know this would apply to now how? Are you saying that there was never a blood moon before then?
Trying to figure out which end times azzhole to believe is really hard. See http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/2015-blood-eclipses.htm for a bit of "Duelling Babble Humpers" but my personal favorite has long been that champion failure Marilyn Agee.
@Hot Air Ace that was nice response. i appreciate that critique . good call.
SUPER MAGNETIC LEVITATION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE USING TWO(2) COPPER CYLINDERS AND A MAGNET AS THE LEVITATOR 02/06/13
Do you have a point or do you just enjoy posting random nonsense?
He is non compos mantis. Even more than usual.
That's "non compos mentis" (not of sound mind)... unless you were doing a pun and were likening him to a praying mantis?!
The difference between a philosopher's mind and everyone else's is the ceaseless questions of life's quandary. Where others accept and go about life, we wonder how and why. From the age of reason we, thinkers, feel the burden to ask where others dare not. We do not often get answers but at times the act of questioning alone is a statement of such grand magnitude that actions are taken to change mankind and how we live due to it. Even lacking answers, we persist. We do not believe. We do not act without forethought. We live as if life was meant to be questioned and we live unknowing of what answers we will get. We never stop questioning. Atheists of every age are philosophers in their own right.
The faithful – due to having a lack of ability to think for themselves – I believe they have not yet evolved into h.omo sapien, not even the level of ho.mo sapien idaltu. Those of us who can think for themselves have clearly achieved this evolution and so are above in the status quo of nature. And in like manner of the chimp using a stick to get the termites, we thinkers should, to our best efforts, use the tools available to us to strive tirelessly to make life better on this planet now having the power to truly impact it as a whole. What else should a higher, more intelligent species do?
Religion: a belief in invisible magic superheroes, combined with abelief that it is everyone else who is crazy.
I feel sorry for you. upside down is a wicked sign ,, speaking from experience.
We know you have lots of experience with upside down logic.
Wicked? Care to explain? I haven't had a good laugh in a while, and I know you will deliverSophocles
look right down below here above that video next to the word "quantum"
for a clue
LEVITATION CIRCLE USING SUPER CONDUCTION 02/05/13
Every time I think LaLa could not get any more trivial and inane, he finds a way to do it.
NEW MONORAIL MAGNET DESIGN 02/05/13
Evolution is nothing more than naming and using a vain imagination. Adam already did that trick. EEEEeeeeewwww, name it and claim it? Blab it and grab it? Pay those science priests to the level they have become accustomed while they accost you.
You are very stupid.
@Niknak : Sedimentary rock forms over millions to billions of years, not in ONE year!
Except in the case of Mt. St. Helens, which formed multiple layers of Sedimentary rock in a few weeks.
Are you sure the sediment is rock yet?
You mean an ash layer that will take a lot of geological time to form sedimentary rock?
I have no idea where this goes, but ASSuredly, Gullible4Him is looking to have his/her ass handing to hiim/her once again.
"Except in the case of Mt. St. Helens, which formed multiple layers of Sedimentary rock in a few weeks."
Layers of debris and pyroclast maybe, but not rock.
Stupid4Him has returned to rain more ICR propaganda on us.
I thought volcanoes made igneous rocks.
concrete.......................just a thought
@ME II : Layers of debris and pyroclast maybe, but not rock.
What does it take to convert sediment into rock? Pressure. It has been assumed that these layers take a long time to build up. As the layers increase in weight / depth, they increase the pressure on the layers below. A labratory setting can also form such by duplicating the conditions (i.e. water and pressure) in less than a week.
So, while it STARTED as debris, it has become rocks.
These little bits of our earth are washed downstream where they settle to the bottom of the rivers, lakes, and oceans. Layer after layer of eroded earth is deposited on top of each. These layers are pressed down more and more through time, until the bottom layers slowly turn into rock.
Yet another lie from LIE4him
You do realize that even when they pour cement into the foundations of dams and buildinigs that it can take years for it to fully cure into stone. Sediment becomes rock over LONG time periods
@Austin : concrete.......................just a thought
This takes MILLIONS of years to form! :)
In your link the sentence just prior to your quote states:
"For thousands, even millions of years, little pieces of our earth have been eroded–broken down and worn away
by wind and water. These little bits of our earth ..."
"A labratory setting can also form such by duplicating the conditions (i.e. water and pressure) in less than a week."
I don't doubt that labs can produce rock. They can produce diamonds in short order as well. The point is that the current top-level sediment will not reach rock-forming depths, i.e. heat and pressure, until enough sediment has deposit on top of them.
No doubt that St. Helens debris will eventually become sedimentary rock, provided more layers are added on top and enough heat and pressure over enough time are in effect. I assume that, like cooking, lower heat and/or pressure require longer times for rock formation, but I don't know the details.
Liv4Him, your citation http://www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow1/oct98/create/sediment.htm does not give any information about a time frame for formation. I'd be more interested in your alleged Mt St Helens scenario. I've haven't found it on google yet.
Concrete is not a sedimentary rock, it is a man made mixture of aggregate and various chemicals depending on type.
Mt. St. Helens / Grand Canyon horseshit debunked:
@ME II : Quote-mining... again?
If I don't DON'T provide a reference, I'm asked for it. If I DO provide a reference (even if it is a non-Christian site), I'm criticized for it. I cannot win for losing! :)
@ME II : The point is that the current top-level sediment will not reach rock-forming depths, i.e. heat and pressure, until enough sediment has deposit on top of them.
How much is "enough"? It is much less than you expect. Morphological rocks require heat and pressure, but sedimentary rocks only need a litle pressure. The biggest requirement is water – to disolve the minerals needed to create formation (i.e. similar to concrete). However, if the pressure is light, they can break up before forming rocks.
Wow, even when caught red handed quote-mining from a site, you still can't admit to it. Are you that pathetic?
"If I don't DON'T provide a reference, I'm asked for it. If I DO provide a reference (even if it is a non-Christian site), I'm criticized for it. I cannot win for losing!"
It is simple. Quote credible sources and don't take them out of context. :)
"How much is 'enough'? It is much less than you expect."
So... what is it? You claim it is much less than I expect but don't give any evidence.
This is not a great primary source, but I think the idea is that the amount of time needed depends on the conditions, mainly heat and pressure.
"The evolution of sediment into rock typically takes thousands of years or longer in nature. Most sedimentary rocks are held together by the minerals calcite and quartz, which act like a cement. The combination of high temperatures and pressures speeds the process of cementation."
For example, the pre-existing soil underneath the Mt. St. Helens debris, if not eroded away, will form rock a little bit faster because of the eruption with its additional material providing pressure and insulation.
@lunchbreaker : I thought volcanoes made igneous rocks
There are three primary types of rocks – sedimentary, igneous and morphological. All of them are formed from the same basic minerals, so igneous rocks will break down into sedimentary rocks, given enough water and time. So, volcanoes are covered with a mixture of igneous and sediment – great for growing plants.
@lunchbreaker : I'd be more interested in your alleged Mt St Helens scenario. I've haven't found it on google yet. Concrete is not a sedimentary rock, it is a man made mixture of aggregate and various chemicals depending on type.
Mt St Helens is a volcanic mountain near Seattle, WA that exploded in the late 1980's ('88 I think). It was very devastating to the immediate surroundings. After things settled back down, scientists noticed that the debris field was settling into 20 or more strata layers. Unfortunately, some of this was from a National Geographic show on volcanoes – so I don't have a reference. However, you should be able to google this.
Contrary to this forum's popular belief, concrete is VERY similar to a sedimentary rock. The main difference is that sedimentary rock leaches the silica from the soil above to bond with the "sand" (i.e. aggregate), while concrete has the lime and silica included in the mix freeform to bond with sand. Sandstone is one example of such.
FYI, Lie4It has been presented with all this before. There's no point in a discussion really. Her goal is to spread disinformation as part of the Wedge Strategy.
@Gullible4Him – well you're the loon who brought this up – so I would suggest you get out and display the exact references where the same kind of rock in the same state resulted in that short time as the same type of rock in the same state that has taken much longer. Otherwise, as before, your point is pointless.
and by state, I don't mean Washington – I mean the properties of the rock
Found this site for you.
Within 15 to 20 seconds of a magnitude 5.1 earthquake at 8:32 a.m., the volcano's bulge and summit slid away in a huge landslide
Area covered 6 square miles; reached as far as 5 miles north of crater
Volume & depth* 0.029 cubic miles (155 million cubic yards); multiple flows 3 to 30 feet thick;
cumulative depth of deposits reached 120 feet in places
So, we have multiple layers between 3 to 30 feet thick, for a cumulative maximum depth of 120 feet. If we saw this now and didn't know the history, we'd conclude that it took millions of years.
So you're saying based solely on the thickness that we wouldn't know how long it took or at what stage it is in now??
What exactly is wrong with you? Let me see your chart.
Actually it sounds like you're saying is the only way one would bother to look at it is via its thickness.
I have already debunked your Mt. St. Helens lie, and here you are lying again. Bruce Malone, the creationist behind this was clearly tod by the lab that samples under 2,000,000 years old will give unreliable results. He did it anyway. He was told that certain minerals in the flow were unchanged at the eruption, and would give a reading of their age, not the age of the eruption. Malone did it anyway.
What we really have is a non-geologist with an agenda who, despite being told the failings of his approach before he did it, dishonestly did it anyway and published the perverted results.
You have been told this, and like Malone, you persist with your outright lie, because your agenda is more important than the truth.
You handle should be Lie4Him, because that is what you do.
@ME II : It is simple. Quote credible sources and don't take them out of context.
I did and you STILL criticized!
@ME II : The combination of high temperatures and pressures speeds the process of cementation.
Okay, now let's take this as a beginning – since you've presented it. How much pressure is needed? Next, lets consider the worldwide flood. At a depth of 2211 feet, there would be 1,000 pounds / sq. inch of pressure (i.e. 68 atmospheres). Would this speed the rock formation? Consider this, diamonds only need 58,000 atmospheres to be formed and they are the hardest substance (and require the greatest pressure to form). How much less to form sandstone?
"Okay, now let's take this as a beginning – since you've presented it. How much pressure is needed? Next, lets consider the worldwide flood. At a depth of 2211 feet, there would be 1,000 pounds / sq. inch of pressure (i.e. 68 atmospheres). Would this speed the rock formation? Consider this, diamonds only need 58,000 atmospheres to be formed and they are the hardest substance (and require the greatest pressure to form). How much less to form sandstone?"
Why presume a world-wide flood?
Someone yell at me when you get to the part about the ark. Cause I'm still not buying that the ark (which Topher said didn't have to go very far) just dropped those giant turtles off at Gibraltar and then they had to swim the rest of the way back to the Galapagos. It just doesn't make any sense at all. No sir.
So are clear that this:
"Except in the case of Mt. St. Helens, which formed multiple layers of Sedimentary rock in a few weeks."
Is not true?
All so called turtles are liars. Now when the self deluded turtle plans to attack the innocent it will pass by the Ark for fear of its own hide. The self deluded turtle has always proved to be a cowardly type and unwilling to take any risk that would bring harm to itself. Now they can fear both God and squid.
Liv4Him, Your article http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs036-00/ is very informative. However in all of the discussion about the thickness of particular layers, it does not state that the layers became sedimentary rocks.
Religious affiliation may be on the wane in America, a recent Pew study asserts, but there is a wave of new Muslim institutions emerging in the United States at an unprecedented pace.
Yup, This is true the saudi have been funding these things all around the world.
Just make sure to "walk your dog" near these mosques.
Atheists will soon be worshipping Allah
And....oh, I doubt it. Big time. I cannot imagine any atheist suddenly believing in Allah, or any other god...
and................. christians will be praying 5 times a day to the eats. :)
meant EAST; not eats. lmfao must be getting hungry.
Another Cambrian Discovery Discredits Evolution
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.
A fossil creature from the phylum Entoprocta (invertebrate animals that have tentacles and lacking a mineralized skeleton) was found in marked abundance (over 400 individuals) in Burgess Shale. The Burgess is a sedimentary layer that's purportedly part of the Cambrian period about a half-billion years ago, according to evolutionists.1 The problem for paleontologists is that the supposedly 520 million year old creature looks exactly like its living counterparts, only up to 8 eight times larger.
Thanks for the update. Human knowledge progresses through honest inquiry and critical review.
Wait a minute S_kank,
How can you use million year old fossils to support your sky fairy hypothesis when you believers claim the Eath is only 6000 years old?
I do not see how changing the size of a living creature over a long period of time "DISCREDITS" evolution. Care to elaborate?
Go to http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/cambrian-entoprocta/ for a critique of the above article. As the rebuttal article says, Tomkins provides no support for this statement,which clearly shows he is not an unbiased scientist:
"Clearly, a majority of the fossil record was formed as a result of the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis, making it one of evolution's greatest enemies.3 The original diversity of organisms were created by God to reproduce "after their kind," which is why fossils like the entoproct are complex, fully formed, and similar to their modern living counterparts."
That guy has those beliefs about some mythical flood yet calls himself a scientist?!?
Sedimentary rock forms over millions to billions of years, not in ONE year!
This is proven scientific fact.
This clown must get laughed at continuously at any certified scientific conference he attends.
Home schoolers must love his work though.
the cambrian fossil "explosion" has plenty of evidence that there are no missing link, if there were they would be preserved in this area.
you are also wrong about rocks forming over millions of years, rocks form on the bottoms of bridges over tens and hundreds of years.
hank... You did not answer my question above: "I do not see how changing the size of a living creature over a long period of time "DISCREDITS" evolution. Care to elaborate?"
I'm all ears...
You must have been homeschooled S_kank.
In geologic time 100 years is not even measurable.
The rate of accretion of stalagmites, which are considered fast forming sedimentary rock, is measured at .0051 inches a year.
Sedimentary rock that forms at the bottom of an ocean takes millions of years to form a layer that scientists consider sufficient to measure and paleontologists can use to corroborate fossil evidence.
A mind is a terrible thing to lose, to religion.......
5/6 of the rest of the article on the cambrian thing is missing i am sure you can find it . icr.org
i did paste that. i dont think canging size means anything. Another shock was the extremely well defined detail of the fossil's mouth, anus, and digestive tract, proving that the previous classification of C. tylodes as a cnidarian (a jellyfish-like creature) was wrong. In fact, not only was the creature postulated to be much older than previously estimated, it was incredibly more complex.
Interestingly, the fossils of C. tylodes also appear to have somewhat more complex features than modern entoprocts. Unlike living entoprocts, the stem and flowerlike feeding cup of the "ancient" version was covered by tiny hardened protuberances (sclerites), and the creatures were much larger.
Clearly, a majority of the fossil record was formed as a result of the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis, making it one of evolution's greatest enemies.3 The original diversity of organisms were created by God to reproduce "after their kind," which is why fossils like the entoproct are complex, fully formed, and similar to their modern living counterparts.
The rate of accretion of stalagmites, which are considered fast forming sedimentary rock, is measured at .0051 inches a year.
this has been obliterated! this part about stalagmits,
furthermore, there are examples of rock forming in short period of time in the right environment, as in a matter of years. does not need a measurement it can be assumed with the mind based upon logic and reason beyond a reasonable doubt.
All the sites (I could find) presenting this article in a positive light are actively engaged in pushing ID or creationism. In other words, their number one goal is to push a biased religious agenda. Those in opposition appear to rely on pure science, without reference to any religious beliefs. I'm going with the real unbiased scientists.
You shouldn't believe anything the ICR concludes. Science seeks the truth no matter where it eventually leads, the ICR seeks ways to discredit science that denies the biblical myths.
"For an evolutionist to argue with a creationist is like a reproductive scientist arguing with a believer of the stork theory"
ya well the real problem is the "supposedly constant model" that you worship. the constant model is a gigantic call for ignorance (not intended to be ignorant but it is)
this is not true,
The rate of accretion of stalagmites, which are considered fast forming sedimentary rock, is measured at .0051 inches a year.
hank, you should read the critique. You would find that Thomkins uses a constant model to support his non-scientific conclusions.
You shouldn't believe anything the ICR concludes. Science seeks the truth no matter where it eventually leads, the ICR seeks ways to discredit science that disproves the biblical myths.
You are trying to put forth discredited psuedo-science as if it were a reality, but it is not. The information you quote is flawed, and is not accepted as science .
And Stalagmites grow at a rate dependant on the flow of water and the amount of sediment in the water. To say you have it down to a specific measurement might be correct for ONE stalagmite, but certainly not for all.
So where are all the fossilized humans who supposedly died in the flood? Shouldn't there be a layer with an extraordinary number of human fossils of various ages who drowned?
"So where are all the fossilized humans who supposedly died in the flood? Shouldn't there be a layer with an extraordinary number of human fossils of various ages who drowned?"
Oh come on Bet, what are you arguing? The mysterious ways in which God works – he made them disappear, only he knows why! Or better still, Satan made them disappear to confuse man and lead him to believe there is no god!!!
Sharks and alligators have stayed pretty much the same for millions of years....so what? Once maximum survivability is reached, a species goes along happily until some disaster forces them to change or wipes them out.
Oh great. Another idiot copying-and-pasting ICR propaganda without bothering to investigate their claims.
@Bet – LOL!
That's a horrifying thought. Remember, though, that 'Satan' apparently planted fossils to make us think the planet is older; therefore, he also hid that layer of flood-bodies to fool us.
Ah, yes, gawd's misteerius ways!
I guess it won't do to ask why there are many intact records of civilizations in China, Egypt, Babylon, and Mesopotamia existing straight through the flood era of 2500-2000 BCE, with no mention of said flood either, then.
That Satan, he does get around! Planting fossils, planting fake stories of fake gods. Or maybe Simran's right, and god made them disappear to test our faith.
Who does a resentment toward religion harm more?
The person that holds that resentment? Or the people of that religion?
Even if the person who holds that resentment has a justified reason for hatred, who ends up being harmed the most?
How does resentment toward religion harm anyone?
I think resentments harm the person that holds them.
It really depends whether the resentment drives action or not.
Trying to sound deep doesn't make you deep. Resentment doesn't harm anyone regardless of who is resenting and who is being resented. The actions taken however can cause harm so who is doing more harm when one group who is secular or areligious deciding to legislate freedom for all or the other group that tries to limit freedom on certain groups because they don't believe the same thing they do?
I have resentments toward certain religious people. It brings up anger, grudges, cynicism and a desire for revenge. Very negative thoughts and energy that do not help me.
what are those freedom hindering examples?
by the way, now the broke government is handing out benefits to hmosxual spouses. in my opinion they should get rid of all benefits for anyone over this garbage.
they should give governement perks to single people.
Perhaps your question is too broad to be answered so simply. Consider, parallel to this, those in leadership that have held a certain position that was not the popular view, and may have at the time gone against their constituency, but for which they felt righteous.
Well, you a) answered it in your post by referring to gay marriage and b) there's also the little matter of abortion that religious groups have been stumping for years to have Roe vs. Wade overturned so they can start banning all abortions again and relegating them to back alley procedures. The religious right has for a while now tried to legislate christian values on this country well non-christians like it or not. Sometimes these are universal values (don't kill, steal, etc...) but when it comes to something purely christian that a jew, or an atheist shouldn't have to follow, the crazy fringe part of the religious right tries to push legislation through anyway or stops meaningful legislation from getting passed
What amazes me is how well the Supreme Court, a body dominated by delusional believers with not a single openly atheist member, keeps the religious crazies in congress in line.
You forget the rich fundies won't be having their knocked up daughters going into back allies for abortions.
Their daughters will get to go on "European" vacations to get themselves fixed.
I don't think many rich fundies or many members of the religious right are reading and posting on here.
Chuckiecheese.... that's a new one.
You don't think people of the religious right are posting here? Do you read posts or just skim em?
I should have said "leaders of the religious right."
I don't spend as much time on here as you, but I don't think there are many people of influence posting on here.
I don't spend as much time on here as you,
What December means is "I don't use this screen name as often as I use my other sock puppets."
for you to complain about christians voting with a religious conscience in law, or to be involved, is THE MOST HYPOCRITICAL AND COMMUNIST comment you all can even make. and it is a simple complaint that reveals the kind of control YOU expect. it is the same exact thing, on the other side
define democracy and stop hurting yourself trying to think.
Great point, Hank.
That's adorable, you pretending like you're making a good point. Simply precious. And calling me a communist, nice touch, because we all know that wanting freedom for everyone is such a communist position right?
*voting* what you believe is not what I said, I said *legislate* which is when the religious right has tried to introduce bills to obstruct certain groups freedoms. Also, I never said they shouldn't be allowed to do this, they have every right to try and do this, that doesn't mean it's right. A nazi has the right to speak hate, does that mean he's right?
Only the simple minded would think that hank made even a remotely good point.
chuckles. my only point is that this country is broke and throwing money everywhere. how much money do we owe china.
the fact is, we treat money like meaningless little carnival tickets. maybe if this country was not a idolatrous war monger who portrays "bombers" as awesome at the "the bombs bursting in air song" when they fly over at sporting events, maybe we would not be wasting money paying off pitiful pensions that we cant afford. the government is a parasite.
@HotAirAce. lol. Yes – military leader, Madison was not. But in laying down that wall of separation – he and the other key framers were quite capable IMHO. And it seems to me it was laid down in way that ever since then, the more the extreme ends of religion try to usurp it, the more broadly it gets applied.
Great point, December's Translator.
Our country worships the almighty dollar, you can't escape that. Moreoever government isn't the parasite, it's the anti-government people working in the government that's made it a sickness. When you have someone in the government on a mission to destroy the very government he's working in, it's less efficient.
Also, I don't want to take you on an econ course but there's good debt and there's bad debt. Spending a ton of money to create a cushion to soften and economy in free fall, spending money on programs to create healthcare for millions of people, that's something worth spending on. Bloated budgets for absurd wars is something we shouldn't be spending on. I agree that our war-mongering country is spending a breahttaking amount on defense (More than the next 13 countries combined), but that's something that can only be remedied by the government, not the states (unless we break up the union)
ya they are taking the country out intentionally. i think obama and bush are on the same team.
Lol. It's always amusing to see those who would deny equal rights for all of our citizens calling those who espouse equal rights "communists" or "fascists", when in fact they should be looking in the mirror and calling their reflection "hypocrite".
Of course you do, you see anyone in the government as being on the same team because they're all in government, regardless of their agendas.
I know, it made me.... chuckle..... too. Equal rights for people? Communist! universal healthcare? Facsist! Me legislating for big government to take away peoples freedoms? That's just the christian, democratic thing to do.
Hank – the government should give a handout to you to get a decent damn education. Not sure it would stick, though.
Begging the question fallacy. You presume atheists are resentful against religion. Not so. I personally want the world to be free from ignorance and delusion. There is nothing in religion for me to resent.
The 1996 British film Brassed Off! featured Pete Postlethwaite (1946-2011), Tara Fitzgerald, and Ewan McGregor. It is about the troubles faced by a colliery brass band, following the closure of their coal pit. The soundtrack for the film was provided by the Grimethorpe Colliery Band. One one of the pieces performed in the film was a brass arrangement of Joaquín Rodrigo's famous Concierto de Aranjuez featuring the flugelhorn (originally for orchestra and guitar). To keep things simple with the band, the director refers to the piece as the "Concerto d'Orange Juice". This is a beautiful brass version of this classic; the accompanying video clip from the movie shows the first female attempting to join the band with her flugel solo. (The flugel soloist on the recording is Paul Hughes.)
Love Spanish horns!
But that actress was awful it did not look like she was really playing that piece.
I like pork chops.
mmm. with home made sauerkraut, fried apples & fried okra.
and fresh biscuits, what was I thinking . .
That sounds really really good, I may have to make that tonight!
The farmers market in union sq. here in NYC has a stand from Flying Pigs Farm. Their meats are amazing, its some heritage breed of pig (I forget the exact breed) but its well worth the price, The flavor is exquisite .
Try Bubbies sauerkraut if you can get it. (from San Fran); WF carries it here in DC.
I have a place on Ess.ex st that I go to for pickles and kraut ,they have what they call "new kraut" and it comes fresh from the barrel,really good stuff.
>>>I've alrady explained to you that the big bang was not an explosion nor was their instant order right as the expansion occured. Are you purposefully ignoring that?
You have faith in this? Were you there? How do you know this? I thought most scientist agree this is a theory at this point, do you know better?
@meif: good for you – kraut should be fresh and pro-biotic. I would imagine okra is not in your neck of the woods, though.
@December: kraut doesn't have to cause a huge explosion anyway – that's why we're talking about "fixins" to make everything flow nicely.
Good morning, everyone! What shall we discuss today?
The intellectual dishonesty inherent in the following statement :
" By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "
I'd rather talk about actual theology, but if you want to continue talking about AiG, we can ...
Pick one of the stories from above, I will throw my two cents in.
Let's discuss how religion gives idiots something to occupy their limited intellect with, and how smart charlatans use it to control others.
Anything you want, dude. Have at it.
2 Cor 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
So what else should we talk about?
Trump sues Maher for $5 million for orangutan s ex joke. Donald's son didnt look happy about it either.
You have zero proof to back those claims up with.
God has no word because god does not exist.
Nothings really got me excited today and its slow here at work, I do find it funny though that the guy who was planning the mosque at ground zero has been accused of embezzling funds.
It is so common now for the religious to be caught embezzling the sheep's donations that it is not even funny or ironic anymore, just par for the course.
Religion is the biggest, longest running and most lucrative ponzi scheme ever invented.
Hold on, now. You shouldn't judge a religion by its followers.
Does a religion exist outside of the minds of its followers?
Do you think ridiculing people with autism is funny?
Yes, don't ridicule autism. It may be an emerging trait that protects humans against religion.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
It does if the religion is true.
A religion that's true? I thought an important feature of a religion is that it's truth is not determined. They are collections of beliefs, not facts.
I'll take a religious person over a person with the mentality that poking fun at people with disabilities is acceptable.
Some people have to make themselves feel better by preying on the weak or disabled. Yuck.
"A religion that's true? I thought an important feature of a religion is that it's truth is not determined. They are collections of beliefs, not facts."
I see what you are saying. But let's just say for the sake of argument that everything in the Bible is true. Then what a Christian believes doesn't matter. Or an atheist. What is true is true and would, as you said, exist outside of the believer's mind.
Then poking fun at religious idiots should be ok unless you define being religious as a disability. Or do you want to continue a special exemption ("free pass") for religion?
First I didn't understand what you meant by a religion that is true. But now that you have clarified, I must say that the Bible is true only for you and a handful of your own group, which form a small part of the entire human race. You believe it to be true. You have not been able to prove its truth to me or others like me (which would also include the ones who follow other religions).
So, your religious truth is only relative and exists only in your mind.
No, nonsense Deceminator, I think making fun of people's screen names is funny.
Is one of the things you fundies lose when you start believing in imaginary friends your sense of humor?
When I stereotype religious people I don't like as "religious idiots" I become arrogant.
And I am trying not to be that way today.
But I wasn't concerned about making fun of religious people I don't like. If you think that is ok, go for it. I'm sure that will work out well for you.
That's not true, if the bible is true then what a christian or an atheist believes is ALL the matters. Christianity hinges on accepting and believing in basic truths (there's only a single god, jesus is the lord and savior, he was ressurected, ect...). This isn't like science where whether you "believe" in gravity or not, when you drop a ball it will fall to the ground. If the bible is true, but there isn't any external evidence (like god speaking from the clouds or the second coming) then belief is the only thing that matters.
However, considering the bible, at the best of times is iffy and unverifiable, christianity really doubles down on you believing everything in spite of the lack of evidence or the ability to prove the bibles veracity.
Now only for the sake of argument, if we say everything in the Bible is true – wait, there is a problem – a lot of things in the Bible are not true. They are just stories, fairy tales. We could also say for the sake of argument, everything in the Quran is true!
Topher. That totally missed the point. The bible is not true so the belief can only be in the follower's mind.
I'm not a fundie. I don't believe in imaginary friends.
> I think making fun of people's screen names is funny.
What grade are you in? Not, high school, yet, right?
"When I stereotype religious people I don't like as "religious idiots" I become arrogant."
–You've crossed that bridge long ago buddy, now it's all about the level of arrogance.
Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it.
You have a high level of arrogance, too.
True, I believe it to be true, but that does not make it so. Truth is not relative. It either is true, or it isn't. Whether I can prove it to you or anyone else is irrelevant. Just because you don't believe something is true doesn't mean it isn't. If I murder someone and the police have no proof, that doesn't mean I didn't do it.
And again I go back to there being enough proof for me to conclude it is true. I find these evidences more compelling in the affirmative for God than against. Same with millions around the world. So what more would you need to sway you?
"Now only for the sake of argument, if we say everything in the Bible is true – wait, there is a problem – a lot of things in the Bible are not true. They are just stories, fairy tales. We could also say for the sake of argument, everything in the Quran is true!"
Yes, we could say the Quran is true "for the sake of the argument." That's fine.
And what exactly in the Bible is not true? Nothing has been proven not to be.
You believe in ana all powerful creature that has as it's proof a book called the bible.
Also in that book are talking snakes, angles, devils, behemoths, unicorns, first and second beasts and a bunch more that I won't waste time writing.
So if the babble is what proves your sky fairy, and you believe that, then how can you not believe the rest of that bull?
You either believe it all or you don't. There is no such thing as a little bit god.
Face it bro, you are a fundie.
Arrogant? Me? Sure, when we're discussing things I seem to be arrogant (usually the simple minded think good arguments must come from an arrogant person). I liken this exchange to what Santorum thought about Obama during the repub primaries. Obama said he wanted everyone to call to college, Santorum called him arrogant. You're the Santorum in this example.
I'm a fundamentalist. And proud of it. :)
You don't know me at all.
> You believe in ana all powerful creature that has as it's proof a book called the bible.
The proof for me is not in the Bible. The Bible points to God. I found God before I found the Bible. I didn't have to read a book to know He exists.
> So if the babble is what proves your sky fairy, and you believe that, then how can you not believe the rest of that bull?
I don't believe in a sky fairy. And I don't believe in the rest of your poor understanding of it (bull, basically).
The vast majority of the world does NOT believe in your babble or your god.
Just because you believe does NOT make it true.
You choose to believe based on nothing more then what you were told to believe growing up I. Your fundie household.
Had you been born in India you would believe in a completely different form of mythology.
Until you fundies can provide us with verifiable proof of your god(s), then they are just unproven hypothesis.
But keep on wasting your time and money, the religious scammers need to eat too.....
I'll take a fundamentalist over nik-nak's 'fundie' slur.
We can't all have as great a mind as you.
What is your occupation? What college did you go to?
So where is your proof Deceminator?
Oh yeah, cause you said so. Right?
Until you provide us with proof, then to us you found nothing but mental illness.
That is why I would never let a religious person around my family, they are dilusional and one never knows when they will snap and start to kill to prove how much they love jeebus. Kinda like Pitt Bulls that way.
December, present valid evidence that the claims of your religion regarding the existence of its "god" and the divinity of Jesus (or the bulk of Christianity's other specious and often contradictory claims) are not utter bullshit. Good luck with that; if you succeed, you'll be the first.
Immature name-calling aside, you have no idea what you are talking about.
"The vast majority of the world does NOT believe in your babble or your god."
That doesn't matter what-so-ever.
"Just because you believe does NOT make it true."
"You choose to believe based on nothing more then what you were told to believe growing up I. Your fundie household."
Didn't grow up in a "fundie household." In fact, I didn't grow up in even a Christian household.
"Had you been born in India you would believe in a completely different form of mythology."
So you are saying there are NO Christians in India. You sure you want to go down this road?
"Until you fundies can provide us with verifiable proof of your god(s), then they are just unproven hypothesis."
Maybe. But whether I can prove it to you or not is irrelevant.
–There it is, I was wondering when December would bust out the, "You don't know me!" line.
What contradictions? And if you say "bats aren't birds" I'm going to request you be banned from these boards. (Well, not really.)
You believe the Bible to be true doesnot make it true. I never stated Bible is not true bcoz I dont believe it to be true. I just pointed out that I and many others dont believe it to be true. You claim it to be true. But still fail to prove it so.
What about the Bible is not true? Well, for starters – the story of Adam and Eve, the Noah's ark and the flood, the walking on water, the talking snake, the heaven and hell..... Well, nothing about it is true, only relative. It may be considered to be a good course for some to learn morality (well, others would even object to that), but that is just what it is.
First off, why should my occupation or college matter? I happen to hold a very nice 5 figure salary and when to a top 25 school, but that's besides the point and obviously I could be lying (I'm not, but how are you to know?). Not that it really matters anyway, I know I've got a good head on my shoulders and generally am intelligent.
>> Until you provide us with proof, then to us you found nothing but mental illness.
Who is "us"? You, Chuckles and TomTom.
I'm supposed to be worried that NikNak, Chuckles and TomTom don't believe in God.
Even though I do believe in God.
And these 3 guys, NikNak, Chuckles and TomTom have failed to prove that God does not exist.
And one of them claims I have a mental illness.
And I'm supposed to be concerned? Why?
Because some guy with a resentment toward religion and people who love and believe in God disagrees with me?
I don't care what you think. You responses make me laugh, because I used to think like you.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.
You ask me personal questions. Just wondering, because you called my simple minded, that's all.
Just wondered what people who make claims that they are smarter than me do for a living.
> I know I've got a good head on my shoulders and generally am intelligent.
"And again I go back to there being enough proof for me to conclude it is true. I find these evidences more compelling in the affirmative for God than against. "
You notice the use of the word "I " here Topher – you find these evidences compelling. So you believe. I don't find them compelling. I don't. See the relativity of religion.
Now, you may want to argue with facts in the same way, you may say that there is no gravity since I don't find the evidence compelling. But it wouldn't work that way. Whether you believe it or not, if you fall, you will always fall down! Gravity wouldn't need your belief to work. Religion would.
It is the only thing that is relevant Gopher.
That is why your whole deal is called FAITH and NOT fact.
Because you have zero proof of what you are trying to pass of as fact to the rest of us.
If you went to some doctor for a serious medical issue and he told you to ingest armadillo ur_ine to cure it I bet you would want to know on what scientifically proven data he is recommending you do that. If he said he had no proof, but jus relieved it to be true, I bet everything I own you would think him a quack and seek out another doctor.
Fact is the ONLY thing that matters.
Where did the bats aren't birds come from? Which by the way they aren't. They are mammals! Order Chiroptera.
Looks like December has abandoned her high moral principles. . . And Topher, in addition to being a delusional fundie,you are an idiot but that's probably what makes you susceptible to mythology.
Ok nonsense Deceminator,
Prove the tooth fairy does not exist.
Or the Loche Ness monster?
Or Big foot?
You won't be able to, so I guess in your world they must all exist, right?
You claim to have a smart head on your shoulders, but if you have regressed to making us disprove your your sky fairy hypothesis as your rebuttal, then I question your intellect.
*You* notice the use of the word "I " here Topher – *you* find these evidences compelling. So *you* believe. I don't find them compelling. I don't. See the relativity of religion.
Now, *you* may want to argue with facts in the same way, *you* may say that there is no gravity since I don't find the evidence compelling. But it wouldn't work that way. Whether *you* believe it or not, if *you* fall, *you* will always fall down! Gravity wouldn't need *your* belief to work. Religion would.
That's a lot of *you* statements.
Do you like dictating what others believe and do?
Based on what you've posted, your rebuttles, your explanations, et al you intelligence seems low to me. That's not me being arrogant or rude, it's just pointing out a fact. You generally fall back on, "you don't know me at all" or "I didn't say that" more often than not and leave it at that, as if that answers everything.
I've never called you mentally ill, just mentally deficient. You pointed out that nobody has been able to come up with evidence to prove god doesn't exist, what sort of evidence would you take to prove this point? This is a very serious question because it's clear to me that the evidence to believe in your god is pretty easy to obtain, if god were to appear from the sky, a real, legit second coming of christ, a person (specifically a devout christian) magically regrowing a severed limb because of prayer and prayer alone. All those things would lead me to seriously reconsider my disbelief, so what evidence would lead you to believe god doesn't exist. If i provide mounds and mounds of evidence that shows your god doesn't exist but you refuse to accept it, is that me being unable to provide evidence or you refusing to believe the truth?
God has saved me.
It wasn't the tooth fairy, or the Loche Ness Monster or even Big Foot.
If he would save me, he would save you. Because we are both equal in His eyes.
"Where did the bats aren't birds come from? Which by the way they aren't. They are mammals! Order Chiroptera."
I know they aren't. This is just one thing some atheists try to use to "disprove" the Bible. It's brought up several times a week on these boards. I'm just sick of explaining it.
The Bible lists bats among a list of birds and some think the Bible is saying bats are birds. When in reality, in the original language, the word "owph" is used, which means "winged creatures." So no, the Bible is not saying bats are birds.
I dont care what others believe. The topic of debate here is relativity of beliefs, and the discussion is about your belief or mine. Now if "you" have nothing better to offer, have a great day.
Now that December has openly admitted she believes in some god I have no problem saying she is mentally ill, a liar or both.
How horrible for you that your religion makes you think you are a wretch that needs saving. And that you need to be saved from that which your own god allegedly created. Why would your god create such a horrible thing like hell, and then threaten you with it? Sounds like a major A hole
Save yourself from your god. Put down the bible and join reality.
It appears Deceminator has left us for fairy tale land.
Kinda like the main character did at the end of the movie Brazil.
When confronted with a reality that is too hard to deal with, fundies either start quoting babble passages or start posting hymns as their escape from that reality.
It is more of a heart thing than a head thing.
Yes, sir. General Control Freak.
Not an answer, you asked us to provide proof but if your saying no amount of proof will sway you, what exactly are you asking for?
Topher, Groundhog day has passed. The contradictions are enumerated for you most times you ask. You then sidestep and ignore, and come back the next day as if you never had an answer.
> It appears Deceminator has left us for fairy tale land.
Uh, do I have to tell you when I go to lunch so you don't proclaim that I'm worried that the 3 Stooges of the CNN Belief Board don't agree with me?
I am just so glad to learn that you are a male. Oh, for all those idiotic blondes who make all womankind look stupid, it is such a relief for me. You kind of even the balance of stupidity between genders.
December, if you can't prove that your or any god exists, why should I believe that you are male?
Same question to you. What would convince you that there is a God?
In Santa we trust
Huh? Did you ask a question I didn't answer?
>>Not an answer, you asked us to provide proof but if your saying no amount of proof will sway you, what exactly are you asking for?
You want me to prove to you on a message board that I believe and trust in God?
I understand some people don't believe in God. I used to be that way. I love people that don't believe in God.
But he has revealed himself as very real to me.
I dont know about others, but I would need to see God come down on earth to prove he/she/it/they exist, and to prove he/she/it/they care for the world he/she/it/they created (if it happened). What I cannot buy is a story written down a couple of thousand years ago as evidence of god. It is just a story.
Shimmie who are you to invite or uninvite anyone to comment on this blog???
I literally answered that in my post asking the same question but I'll rewrite it I guess. Evidence of god existing, specifically the one from the bible is very simple. If god decided to speak from the clouds, that'd be a good one. If the jesus actually returned, there's another. If a person, simply from prayer either 1) flew without the help of tech or 2) regrew a severed limb without the aid of medical assistance. If I was shown an event to happen that really defied any natural law and it was because of your god.
Since god is supposedly omnipotent any or all of these things should be a snap. It seems the christian god could prove his existance and have literally 100% or close to of followers in hours time and yet he allows us to try and interpret a 2,000 year old book or for most of the general population, simply ignore him. Seems like an odd god who's #1 commandment was not to have any other god except him because he's jealous.
Why do people who clearly don't know anything about evolution, or science in general, feel the need to come on here and prove it to everyone?
But dude, God already did come down to earth. The proof you're asking for has been given to you.
> Shimmie who are you to invite or uninvite anyone to comment on this blog???
Good question. Who made him the dictator of the CNN BELIEF blog?
That wasn't even close to answering my question. What evidence do you need me or others to show you that prove god doesn't exist? It's a simple question so stop dodging. This isn't the same as asking you to prove god exists it is merely a question about the sort of evidence you are looking for. I provided very clearly what I would need to believe in your god, so what about you?
How can anyone invite or un-invite anyone here? And why would anyone even care?
Trying to use logic or ask a fundie to provide logical proof of the magic wizard is like trying to get your dog to understand why you have to pay the cable bill.
I gave that up for lent.
In my part of the world, they say god came down as Rama, Krishna etc... That is what they believe. Doesn't make it to be true. Jesus was a simple philosopher, his teachings influenced the western world just like the teachings of Rama or Krishna or Buddha influenced the eastern world.
Jesus was not god or god's son. It is only a religious group's belief, not fact!!!
Jesus wasn't just a philosopher. He said He is God.
>>What evidence do you need me or others to show you that prove god doesn't exist?
If you can prove to me that I should have no hope at all in anything, than I might think there is no God.
Krishna said he is god too. So, do you follow him? And he has a wonderful inspirational book written too – Bhagwad Gita, was on this blog a few days ago. And Hindu mythology is full of stories of his miracles. Doesn't make him real god, does it?
You asked me a question, I answered it and asked a question of my own. If it's so exceedingly simple for a jealous god to prove to the world that he is real, he exists and everyone should be a christian, why doesn't he do it already, why does he leave up to a 2,000 year old book which so far has led to at least 2/3rds of the world still not believing in christianity plus 1000's of offshoot sects within the religion itself.
"If you can prove to me that I should have no hope at all in anything, than I might think there is no God."
- Why is having no hope at all in anything proof that there is no god? That doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you're trying to say that god is the only thing that gives you hope (which is pathetic and a little sad) but having or not having an abstract feeling is a far cry from "proof" especially since emotions can change at the drop of a hat.
Either you don't know what the word "evidence" means, or you were just trying to insinuate that non-christians don't have hope which is why they dont believe in your god, or a third option I didn't understand.... see what I'm talking about with that low intellect thing?
Simran--yeaterday you said something about "and everyone else who doesnt agree with my views of xianity are just WHITE
you made that up. i want you to know that.
December is just dancing around and deflecting because she knows she cannot prove that her, or any, god exists.
Sorry, dude. I must have missed your question before ...
" If it's so exceedingly simple for a jealous god to prove to the world that he is real, he exists and everyone should be a christian, why doesn't he do it already, why does he leave up to a 2,000 year old book which so far has led to at least 2/3rds of the world still not believing in christianity plus 1000's of offshoot sects within the religion itself."
I think He's done plenty to prove it. He's come to earth; and while here demonstrated the fact He was whom He claimed to be. And if that's not enough for you, He's revealed Himself through the 66 books He's written. Just because those books were written a long time ago doesn't mean they are any less true. We have every reason to believe they are reliable and true. There are all these sects because people don't want to hold God's word in high regard, so what you have is man's thoughts on what God was "really saying." If 1/3 of the world rejects Christianity (I think it's a LOT more than that) then that is their free will to choose so. Jesus sais there will be few who find it. Too bad we think so much more of ourselves than God. It's self-righteousness.
Some statements are made in the rhetorical. You said slavery was a White thing, not a Christian thing. There are several places where slavery is supported by the Bible. So, the rhetorical is that one always picks and chooses what is Christian or unchristian as one's own understanding. The rest – we blame on the culture, to justify our religion!
December just admitted that he is a HE, not she. I request more respect for womankind, Why do people always automatically as.sume that stupid posts come from women?
Topher, as you have been shown many times before, those are all unsupported claims. Again, where is the hard evidence that you have claimed to have but are never able to deliver?
A proof that God exists? A proof is something that can be repeated at will. A proof depends on evidence available on demand, and on justifiable premises. A proof leads to a conclusion that is required by logic operating on evidence within the constraints of accepted premises. So, what do we have to work with to prove that God exists?
To be fair, I just want to point out that the slavery in the Bible is not the same as the race-based slavery we once had in this country.
You aren't addressing the main issue but instead tryng to say I'm demanding because the horrible "evidence" given thus far isn't good enough. Topher, I've pointed it out twice and I'll do it again, if 2/3rds of the worlds population doesn't believe in your god and there are thousands of offshoot sects within the religion that does believe, clearly the problems and lack of evidence is not on humanity, that's gods problem. Considering we have the technology and the wherewithall now to record an event where god would come and reveal himself to show future generations, all god needs to do is demonstrate his power. This shouldn't be too difficult for an omnipotent god nor should it really be considered that much of an imposition, so why hasn't he yet? What's the hold up?
Instead of deflecting and saying the bible is perfect, really think for a moment why god hasn't replied yet
Tom, Tom the other one
Creation, for one. The fact you and I are having this conversation — our eyes to read the screen and their complexity, our brains to create the thoughts, the connection between the brain and our fingers to communicate those thoughts — shows me there's too much order and complexity for this to all have been some cosmic, chemical accident.
*I* have not made any linkage between gender and stupidity! For whatever reason, I came to believe that December is a female and despite claims, real evidence to the contrary, or lack of evidence, it is my right to cling religiously to what is probably an incorrect belief. December believes in something very fundamental without providing evidence therefore she has no credibility on other matters. Prove god exists and I will consider considering her a him.
That's not evidence for god, specifically your god. That's you looking at an event in hindsight and deeming it impossible to have happened any other way with nothing to back up that claim. Understand what evidence is, please!
Topher, I forget who asked but you said "what contradictions". That's what I was referring to (although maybe I should have c&p that into my response).
Why hasn't He come yet? No idea. I wish He would. When He does I get to go to Heaven. Woo-hoo! It could be that He's still giving unbelievers the chance to repent and trust in Him before it's too late.
Now, as far as why doesn't He show Himself now? One, why should He have to? He's given us plenty to believe in Him, including your conscience. Two, it would be against His Word. He closed His canon at the end of Revelation. When He does return it will be too late for you to make up your mind.
Looks like evidence to me. It demonstrates there must have been a Creator if there's a Creation. But let's go further. We have first and second laws of thermodynamics and entropy. Demonstrates there HAD to be a beginning.
I understand trying to argue logice with you is close to pointless but what you are saying here is that god, your jealous, angry god that wants nothing more for people to believe has decided that 2,000 years ago the only way to spread his word was through the worst way possible (hearsay) and then expects us to take it as if it was such a huge imposition to him in the first place? He has clearly NOT given us plenty to believe in him, that's foolish. If it were plenty there'd be more believers. And according to you he put himself in a bind, closing his canon and scre.wing everyone else in the world except for some folks in the ME just because?
Topher, why does this make sense to you? How can you possibly spew this nonesense and believe it to be true? That's the scariest bit of all this I tihnk.
So it comes down to the fact that things exist and
1- Existence of a thing implies that something caused its existence – Creation. Perhaps this comes from the Kalām argument.
2 -If the complexity of a thing is sufficient, only God could have caused it. Paley's watch?
This is what you work from, Topher?
No, you are still using implication as a stand in for evidence and that's not right. Your use of natural laws also belies your inability to understand conclusions. We have no idea what "beginning" means because we don't know what the universe was like pre-big bang. We can say this current iteration of the universe had a beginning from a singularity, but we don't know how long the singularity existed before expansion, or what it was like before.
Furthermore, trying to use logic and science to support the idea of "creation" and implication of your specific creation but refusing to use that same standard on your own bible and beliefs is unfair and wrong.
It's not hearsay. And He gave His word through 66 books so you can know Him and how to be saved. Why do you need more? I know you can read. Why don't you trust the Bible?
"Topher, why does this make sense to you? How can you possibly spew this nonesense and believe it to be true? That's the scariest bit of all this I tihnk."
Well, first, none of this is about you. It's about God. And it makes sense because it answers all the important questions. It also satisfies my conscience. And I believe it to be true because God says it's true.
Well, it's a start. Of course my position is that if it exists God had a hand in it.
I don't have enough faith to believe that nothingness somehow exploded and now we have order. Please demonstrate to me another instance where an explosion created order. What we have is a bunch of science that agrees with what the Bible says. So why shouldn't I believe it?
Gopher, you missed your calling.
You would have made a really good Islamic Imam or Cleric over in some hard line Islamic country.
There you could have used your religious views to persecute non believers to your heart's content, based solely on your "facts" from your book of magic spells.
Science has pushed your religion all the way back to the big bang as your "proof" that god exists.
If it wasn't for the fact you believers are so heavily armed and ready to use your guns to kill in the name of your particular god, this would be eternally funny the dilusional position you have taken.
As I have said many times before, a mind is a terrible thing to lose, to religion.
> Why is having no hope at all in anything proof that there is no god?
Where I see hope, there is God.
> trying to insinuate that non-christians don't have hope
Yea, that was not my point. That was your conclusion. I see hope in people from all belief backgrounds. Even people who don't know God exists.
> see what I'm talking about with that low intellect thing?
I can't explain or provide sufficient evidence for you about God on a message board.
If I could, that wouldn't be God. He far exceeds any explanation I can come up with.
You are the intellectual, right?
" There you could have used your religious views to persecute non believers to your heart's content, based solely on your "facts" from your book of magic spells."
I have not persecuted anyone nor do I want to. Believe what you want.
"Science has pushed your religion all the way back to the big bang as your "proof" that god exists."
I don't agree with the Big Bang.
"If it wasn't for the fact you believers are so heavily armed and ready to use your guns to kill in the name of your particular god, this would be eternally funny the dilusional position you have taken."
Not armed. I don't own a gun. And Christians aren't going around killing people, so try again. In fact, if a "Christian" kills in the name of God, they aren't a Christian. ( yeah, yeah, "No True Scotsman.) Jesus tells us in John 16:2-3 that there will be some who, in their error, commit atrocities and murder in the name of God: “The time is coming that whosoever kills you will think that he does God service.” However, He informs us that these are not true believers: “And these things will they do to you, because they have not know the Father, nor me.”
-"It's not hearsay. And He gave His word through 66 books so you can know Him and how to be saved. Why do you need more? I know you can read. Why don't you trust the Bible? "
- Eyewitness accounts recorded in a book to read is hearsay....also, I don't believe everything I read, why would I? And why do I need more? Because it's not enough, I've shown you what would be enough and the bible doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Just because the bible is good enough for you doesn't mean I should just suspend my reasoning and doubt because other people believe.
"I don't have enough faith to believe that nothingness somehow exploded and now we have order. Please demonstrate to me another instance where an explosion created order."
I've alrady explained to you that the big bang was not an explosion nor was their instant order right as the expansion occured. Are you purposefully ignoring that?
Why must you keep pus.syfooting around the question? Does it frighten you to actually imagine what the evidence would be to disprove your god because it's possible?
"I can't explain or provide sufficient evidence for you about God on a message board.If I could, that wouldn't be God. He far exceeds any explanation I can come up with."
- Again, I haven't been asking you to provide evidence for god in this thread, I've been asking you what evidence I would need to show you god doesn't exist. You said, "And these 3 guys, NikNak, Chuckles and TomTom have failed to prove that God does not exist." How have we failed when you have no allowed any possibility of successfullly proving it to you? If you are trying to in a very roundabout way say that the onus is on you to prove god exists and not me to disprove god exists, then I agree with you. Then we can start talking about your lack of proof and your lame attempts to say that being able to prove god on a message board isn't god. If you still think that it's on me to disprove god to you, then tell me exactly what type of evidence you would need. Evidence December, not a random lack of an abstract feeling on a particular day, but solid, real evidence.
I've got to get going, but I'll answer you this last question for the day.
" – Eyewitness accounts recorded in a book to read is hearsay....also, I don't believe everything I read, why would I?"
What isn't believeable about eyewitness accounts being backed up by even more eyewitnesses? Seems pretty logical to me.
"And why do I need more? Because it's not enough, I've shown you what would be enough and the bible doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Just because the bible is good enough for you doesn't mean I should just suspend my reasoning and doubt because other people believe. "
True enough. You should weigh its claims and try to discover if it's true. I might be wrong here, but you seem to have thrown the baby out with the bath water. You don't like one thing so it's all unbelieveable.
"I've alrady explained to you that the big bang was not an explosion nor was their instant order right as the expansion occured. Are you purposefully ignoring that?"
The explosion part is the very basis of the theory. Thus the big "bang". I know some people are changing that now a days (shocking that historical science is changing its beliefs again). But historically, that is what people said happened in the Big Bang. So are you saying that order EVENTUALLY came after it? So when I take a bucket of red, white and blue confetti up in an airplane and dumped it out .... given enough time it will land in the perfect shape of our flag on the ground? That's ridiculous. Chaos does not create order. Never has. Never will.
You do know what a scientific theory is right? And you asked me how I know this? I've looked at the pictures taken with hubble than can literally see into the past because of the speed of light, I've looked at the astrological equations and diagrams that show why the big bang theory is reasonable and makes sense. You see, I do research into claims, not just accept them blindly because I feel it in my heart. If tomorrow, someone were to give me new, solid evidence on why the big bang theory is out of date or altogether wrong, I have no problem changing my mind, can you provide me a better hypothesis that is grounded in real evidence that invalidates all the findings of the big bang theory? No? That's what I thought.
I've literally explained to you how it wasn't an explosion and how the name of the theory came to be, why ignore it? It gains you nothing and makes you lose a lot of credibility or do you just have a very short memory. As for your example, it's bs and you know it.
can you provide me a better hypothesis that is grounded in real evidence that invalidates all the findings of the big bang theory? No? That's what I thought.
See, you think wrong.
I believe in the big bang theory.
I have faith in the same scientific findings you've looked at.
Just because you are a self-proclaimed intellectual doesn't mean you know what I believe.
I'm not sure what you mean by an explosion in that context, Topher. Here's a useful concept: self-organized criticality – a means by which complexity emerges as a system dissipates, in this case the Universe we know dissipating in closely related (converging, really) senses. Entropy – the Universe is running down in a thermodynamic sense, and Kolmogorov complexity- information in the Universe is becoming less coherent, more random, or, more precisely, harder to describe. Seemingly complex states, like us, come into being as everything runs down.
HA! This is priceless, so now you're telling me I just told you, you don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, looks like the shoe is on the other foot so I'm going to take a little bit of glee in saying, I didn't say that! Looks like you're getting defensive again for no reason. Also, can we work on your insults please, everytime we trade barbs it feels like I'm hitting a 2 year old with a sledgehammer, instead of continually harping on how smart I am, lets work on getting you up to speed because right now it's just sad.
"can you provide me a better hypothesis that is grounded in real evidence that invalidates all the findings of the big bang theory? No? That's what I thought."
I concluded that you were insinuiating that I don't believe in the big bang theory.
"... take a little bit of glee in saying... I didn't say that! "
I can relate. That happens when I try to discuss with you. A lot.
Relax. You do a lot of insinuating, too. We are both human, it happens.
So you get caught insinuating and decided to say, "ewll we both do it". Glad you can at least admit something. I wager however I imply your statements from previous posts and paraphrase your own words, you just completely misunderstand, but then again to you most things are potato potahto, so whatever. In any case I see you've still decided to avoid answering my question. It's too bad I was hoping at least one believer would be able to provide me with an answer to my question of "what evidence is good enough". Pity.
"Chaos does not create order. Never has. Never will."
Crystal formation, notably the snowflake, is a good example of order-out-of-disorder, or self-organization.
So you get caught insinuaiting and you say you were just merely paraphrasing my own beliefs for me?
And that any misunderstanding is my fault, for not realizing your paraphrasing describes what I believe better than what I actually believe?
And that my misunderstanding are the same as people who pronounce the same word differently?
And that I've failed because I can't provide what evidence would I need to say to decide to not believe in God anymore?
You keep asking me to show you what "evidence I would need to show you god doesn't exist."
Why do I need to do that? Just because you asked? Who are you to need that info?
I do believe and trust in God.
The only person who said anything about requesting somebody be thrown off the board, that I could see, was Topher; in his defense, I took it to be purely in jest.
"Good morning everyone, what shall we discuss today?"
Ho-ho! How very relevant and clever!
You're amusing, I bet in a past life you were the court je.ster.
"And that I've failed because I can't provide what evidence would I need to say to decide to not believe in God anymore? You keep asking me to show you what "evidence I would need to show you god doesn't exist." Why do I need to do that? Just because you asked? Who are you to need that info?"
- You made the quote, ""And these 3 guys, NikNak, Chuckles and TomTom have failed to prove that God does not exist." , I, reasonably asked how this could be true and inquired what evidence I would need to prove that god does not exist. You decided to keep alternating between saying you do believe in god and that you can't on this message board alone prove him to me (both of which I might add don't even address the question let alone answer it), and now you try and turn this back on me asking "who [I] am to need this info". Boy, this question must really get under your skin huh? Using everything in your a.rs.enal to avoid answering the question. I bet it's probably because you're too afraid of the answer yourself but it honestly might be that you really don't understand. I'll type at a much easier level for you then, what do I need to show you there is no god?
I answered it. Remember, about hope. You just didn't like it.
>> Boy, this question must really get under your skin huh?
>> I'll type at a much easier level for you then, what do I need to show you there is no god?
>> I, reasonably asked how this could be true and inquired what evidence I would need to prove that god does not exist.
The onus is on you. Y ou prove to me God does not exist.
I'm not the one jumping in on every thread you are posting in.
You keep following me around.
>> Using everything in your a.rs.enal to avoid answering the question.
I gave you an answer, buddy.
There is no human power that can separate me from the love of God. Not even death.
You can not disprove God. FACT.
"I answered it. Remember, about hope. You just didn't like it."
- Not liking an answer would you be saying sometihng like, "Provide evidence of what the universe was like pre big bang", only because I clearly couldn't but at least you would have something to stand on. What you provided was not evidence but a personal abstract feeling, do I need to go over what the word "evidence" means?
"There is no human power that can separate me from the love of God. Not even death. You can not disprove God. FACT."
- Or there's that, you've decided that nothing will ever sway your mind, arrogance methinks, or just intense cognitive dissonance (I know those are fancy words, but try and keep up). Sorry you can't be as smart as me or else this would have actually been an interesting conversation.
Why context is important
Niknak asked for PROOF of God.
Niknak: "Until you provide us with proof, then to us you found nothing but mental illness."
That is what this quote is about:
""And these 3 guys, NikNak, Chuckles and TomTom have failed to prove that God does not exist."
Seems fair to ask that question, right?
So because Niknak asked a question you lumped TomTom and I in there just because?
"Seems fair to ask that question, right?"
- If you 're asking if your question was fair, then no. When someone says "prove this is real", trying to turn it around and say, "prove it's not real" doesn't make any sense. That's the same as you saying "Prove to me there's not a teapot flying around Saturn" and me saying, "well prove to me there's not one". On the otherhand if you're asking if my question seems fair, then sure it is, You've pointed out that NikNak hasn't given proof yet that there is no god so I wanted to expand on that and ask what that "proof" would be. Your response was first how you can't prove there is a god on this message board, then some malarky about feeling no hope and then ended it with saying that you will never accept any proof.....
I do believe in God.
But I can not produce evidence for you.
He doesn't ask me to go around proving himself to people. He will do that in his own time and way.
Somebody has provided evidence for me. I've tested it. It works.
God's ways are different from our ways.
Understanding that was my first step in uncovering His existence.
I never said I can prove God's existence.
I just said I love and trust in him.
I'm at complete peace with this.
Regardless of what insults you are preparing to throw at me.
>>> Your response was first how you can't prove there is a god on this message board, then some malarky about feeling no hope and then ended it with saying that you will never accept any proof.....
My first response FIRST was about why NikNak thinks it is funny to ridicule people with autisim.
And him using a degrading term about me – and claiming I don't have a sense of humor.
Because I didn't laugh at him changing the name "Austin" to "Autism".
You can't prove the guy even exists and yet you've been talking to him? That makes no sense.
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I don't give a diddly squat why you believe in god, you've had "Somebody has provided evidence for me. I've tested it. It works." yet you can't provide this same evidence, or more likely, the evidence isn't good enough for thinking people.
As for your "first response" I guess I can understand with a person with an IQ under 50 would think I was talking about your first response to NikNak instead of the first response to my question about what would be evidence in your mind on proving there is no god. My mistake, I guess I gave you too much credit as a thinker.
>> I don't give a diddly squat why you believe in god, you've had "Somebody has provided
This isn't the first thread you've jumped into asking me about God.
You seem interested.
Have a great rest of the day.
I'm sure you will find me tomorrow.
Wow.... just incredible. So after trying to constantly remind of me context you are going to be the biggest hypocrit on here and take my words out of context? Are you sure you aren't a Poe?
Also, god most likely doesn't exist, I hope you have a good day too!
There exists no evidence to support belief in any gods. Fact! There exists plenty of evidence to support belief in evolution. Fact! Since no evidence exists of any gods, gods only exist in the mind. Through the belief in god people have created traditions on how to worship and how to live in accordance to their gods commands. People who believe in gods adhere to a mental structure built to explain and give ease to unanswerible fears such as what happens after death. Since no evidence exists for any gods all belief in them is unfounded and speaks more to the fear of death which is as alive today as it was at the founding of the belief! Perhaps the fact of having a consciousness and our very awareness of life/death screams at us to question it all. And perhaps due to a lack of answers we choose to weave a story to answer everything instead of accept the facts! This part I completely understand. It is very nice to have and in the ancient times with many unanswerable questions it was a comfort. Now however with modern science and todays knowledge of the universe and life, beliefs such as these should be a thing of ancient times not modern. It was primitive mans way of coping with a lack of knowledge. It has served its purpose but now only serves to bring us back to its primitive roots.
To put it simply, the concept of gods bares no merit at this current stage in the evolution of the human species and it would be a betterment to the species to have the concept removed from accepted delusional realities so prevalent in todays society.
Haven't seen you around in a while HP, watcha been up to?
kids...and i find that when children are involved people act as if we SHOULD be religious...for them, for their sake...well f that noise. when i start off on how it is just an ancient form of child abuse that is more readily accepted today then other forms such as water boarding or whipping i get such looks. brings a smile to my face instantly. so now that i have pretty much alienated 3/4 of my family....they think i am raising my kids to go to hell, my daughter has already skipped a grade because she is so smart. my brother's son will get held back because he will be taught that the world is flat and it was created in 6 days!!!
how have you been?
This hippy is obsessed with religious talk. It is worst than what it professes to hate. Run from it.'
And DON'T listen to its poetry. The truth.
What about those who believed and experienced God prior to having any fear or recognition of death.
i would say that those who do not yet believe but upon having an "experience" they then find god are not really non believers, just those whom aren't yet able to say it out loud – and upon having their "experience" now feel confidence enough to be honest even to themselves.
basically they always believed.
and as far as that experience, any experience had on this planet can be explained by science – lacking that scientific knowledge...one who already is on the edge of open belief will i'm sure everytime turn and say it was a sign not a natural happening with a logical explaination. this is called bias and is not found amoung those who are actually open minded, only with those that claim such but are infact ready to believe in god and foresake everything else.
i have never heard of anyone having a true experience not explainable by science and that person is a non religous person who then upon having their experience turns to god and becomes a believer – never happened. you are either a person who sercetly wants god to exist and therefore is looking for a reason to believe or you accept the reality in front of you and the knowledge at hand with an open mind failing faith.
Oh, you have it so backwards and your reality is a sad one. On the science you hold so high as an explanation to the purpose for existence and why people actually seek God your facts are not facts at all. All of science and evolution do not address why you are here and why your children will be self limited in their perspective of reality as you are.
Perhaps a little light into your life will be welcome. The very foundation of science is built upon the unchanging nature of God. It is God who put consistency and order into the known universe. Science simply observes the uniform nature of Gods activity and sees a pattern. Science then calls these patterns laws. As T.W.Tozer said; the trustworthiness of God’s behavior in this world is the foundation of science”
Science observes records and calls as evidence these footprints of God while religion looks at the Source and observes records and calls as evidence the wisdom of God revealed to them through faith.
"unchanging nature of God" oh fred do please if only once, read the bible....for it is the foundation of the belief in that god and it makes it rather clear that god's nature is easily changed.
so easy is it that he has made an attempt to kill us off as a species twice...notice how god made an attempt but in the end was a failure...what kind of god fails in an endeavor? one not worth worshipping.
"...the science you hold so high as an explanation to the purpose for existence and why people actually seek God your facts are not facts at all. All of science and evolution do not address why you are here and why your children will be self limited in their perspective of reality as you are."
Thank you for this Fred. Nicely put.
“it rather clear that god's nature is easily changed.”
=>that would be impossible for God. Man and nature change as witnessed by your faith in Philosophical Naturalism. God cannot change because His nature is eternal which presents the Immutability of God. Many atheists are afraid of eternity so they run to the corner of denial and pretend existence is only the limited sequential time line we and our ancestors have experienced.
Let me help you understand eternity. C.S. Lewis gave a simple visual. Take a piece of paper that extends infinitely in all directions now draw a small line on it. You and your naturalism are but an atom on that small line patting yourself on the back for spotting an electron.
God is eternal and cannot change because God is the beginning and the end at the same moment. God is period. There is no past, present and future with God that is our nature.
“he has made an attempt to kill us off as a species twice...notice how god made an attempt but in the end was a failure”
=>impossible with God as the end and beginning are one. Perhaps you refer to the flood which was the removal of wickedness that was increasing in a hopeless direction which is not the perfect will of God. God is perfect wisdom and purity which can only result in the best possible outcome for the perfect number of people.
"God is perfect wisdom and purity which can only result in the best possible outcome for the perfect number of people."
best possible outcome....yeah because history is full of the best possible outcomes!
perfect number of people....yeah because 7 billion people plus is a great thing for this planet!
your gods wisdom seems to be a bit short sighted! perhaps he should have let the flood kill everyone not just those HE deemed to be wicked....wonder if the roles were reversed if he would have survived the flood – he is afterall the father of wickedness!
in all seriousness fred – you are an idiot.
make all the excuses you wish and make up all the bullshi t you want to help you feel more comfortable in the reality you have created around you. Won't change the truth, you are delusional. seek help.
Different kinds of fundamentalist Christians now as much as ever are arguing with each other with as much sense and rationality as a flock of chickens. They can't support their beliefs by any reasonable means, yet they deem themselves fit to judge others from those beliefs or attempt to put others in the midst of their religious infighting. Their beliefs have a very weak foundation and are not consistent, ergo the over 30,000 different denominations.
Thomas Jefferson (POTUS #3, principle author of the Declaration of Independence)
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
John Adams (POTUS #2, Patriot of the American Revolution)
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history.
James Madison (POTUS #4, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights)
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
Thomas Paine (Patriot of the American Revolution)
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Which of those folks were atheists?
Good morning, Robert and Atheism...
I suppose we can make a distinction between atheism and a-religionism. People like Jefferson, were appalled at how Christianity had grown into a large system of coercive cults, which was inevitable because it has no evident truth for people to agree on. He seemed to have no problem with Jesus or the God of Jesus, just what people made of them.
Kids Too! Something that comes up often: Children are born atheist. They have to be deceived and indoctrinated in order for belief in God and a particular religion to take hold.
None of them. Aside from my moniker, regarding my original paragraph, I would contend that the influence of Deism on them enabled them to see the absurdity of Christian infighting. Paine, a Deist Quaker knew quite well of his fellow Quakers being hung in Massachusetts at the time by Christians. Madison and Jefferson both were very disturbed by the fighting going on in their home state between Christians. It's what prompted them to become fierce advocates for separation of church and state.
Perhaps not atheists in the purest sense but they were by no means Christians by any metric used by most of todays believers.
At best they wre Deists. Believing in a higher power or creative force without any of the baggage and dogma of established religions and of Christian doctrine in particular.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth "that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785
Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived. – Thomas Paine
Yes, as AtheistSteve pointed out, very Deistic the founders were. Most Deists did not believe in the magic in the Bible, some of them refuting the Bible altogether. Most of them did believe in a higher being, and some of them did not subscribe to the God of Abraham (going along with not subscribing to the Bible).
Organized religion has done harm to the cause of Christ. Christianity should not be about bigotry, hatred, or hypocrisy, it is a personal relationship with Jesus. Judge not, love your neighbor as yourself.
Here a quote, there a quote, everywhere a quote quote.
Amazing how such differing quotes are attributed to the same people.
I am glad they set up the government the way they did. They saw the danger of people with one set of beliefs gaining control of the government. Representative government is a good thing.
True Damo, but what's important is the conclusion they arrived at. They knew that they could not let any one denomination take hold of the government. Jefferson, Madison & Paine knew it from personal experience. Even James Madison's cousin (also named James Madison, also Anglican, 1st Episcopal bishop of VA) knew it and promoted separation of church and state.
Rhetoric sometimes uses devices that are not to be taken as literal truth. People in Thomas Jefferson's time often mentioned a God or Creator in what they wrote and said. Mostly, I think, because that was familiar to readers who needed something to make what was said acceptable. Self-evident truths were thin stuff to people who grew up on absolute truths that come from God.
Things haven't changed much. Stephen Hawking sometimes uses "create", and "created" in the stuff he says for public consumption.
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
(John Adams, from A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America [1787-1788])
Oh I know, it just always amazes me how these differing quotes come about.
I guess if we're talking about Deism, we shouldn't leave old Ben out:
Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.
-Ben Franklin (from his Autobiography)
I still be praying (hope) u find a cure!!!
Pray without ceasing in 2013
Prayer changes things
Get a very large paper bag, wet it down and climb in. Pray without ceasing. Let us know if that gets you out of the bag.
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!
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.