By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
Huge crowds in the Vatican cheered Pope Benedict XVI Wednesday as he made his first public appearance since announcing his resignation at the end of the month.
He thanked the Roman Catholic faithful in several languages and said it was not appropriate for him to continue as pope.
He appeared tired but not visibly unwell as he sat and read his remarks off several sheets of paper.
Benedict will also celebrate an Ash Wednesday mass marking the beginning of Lent at St. Peter's Basilica in the afternoon.
The following is according to the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him (John 14:17).
The church hierarchy refers to the Pope as 'Holy Father', while the Word of God teaches us to call no man your (spiritual) father upon the earth (Matthew 23:9). The Pope was never appointed or ordained by God but rather by men and a quick study of the Papal Office will confirm that it is not 'Holy' at all.
For a better understanding of the history of the Papacy and the spirit the Pope serves, we invite you to read the articles 'Papal Infallibility, Contradictions and Spiritual Blindness', 'The Mystery Babylon' and 'Popes and the Princes of This World', listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca
We also invite you to read the second item on the Recent Revelations Page. It simply and clearly explains the deceptions that for centuries have been hidden and have now been revealed, confirming what is written in Matthew 10:26 that there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
All of the other pages and articles listed on our website explain how and by whom this whole world has been deceived as confirmed in Revelation 12:9.
Ask, and it shall be given you (Matthew 7:7).
The truth below...................AvdBerg
Gravity is not up for debate ! ............E = mc2..........(U–Pb).................two math formulas..........that do not lie or sin !!!..........
Free speech helps educate the masses................POLITICIANS too !
Where do morals come from?
By Kelly Murray, CNN
Gravity is not up for debate ! ............E = mc2..........(U–Pb).................two math formulas..........that do not lie or sin !!!..........
BY the way ...................Splat goes a fairy in the sky !...............bye bye tinker bell !
Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet
Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before
Hey James Madison................religion has none it looks like.............with the comments on this blog.
The Big question is ETHICS ! does religion have any ?
The Ethics of Resurrecting Extinct Species
Apr. 8, 2013 — At some point, scientists may be able to bring back extinct animals, and perhaps early humans, raising questions of ethics and environmental disruption.
April 30, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
May 1, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
Dinosaur Egg Study Supports Evolutionary Link Between Birds and Dinosaurs: How Troodon Likely Hatched Its Young
And NO ANGELS the pope KICKED them OFF the TEAM last year !
From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life
the wrong path is Adam and Eve !
Human Y Chromosome Much Older Than Previously Thought
Mar. 4, 2013 — The discovery and analysis of an extremely rare African American Y chromosome pushes back the time of the most recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome lineage tree to 338,000 years ago. This time predates the age of the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils.
No god(s) needed or required to graduate from public schools in the US
Remember : Adam had to POKE himself hard with his OWN BONE to create Eve.
No god(s) needed................... Old. DNA works..................also catches crooks !
Ancient DNA Reveals Europe's Dynamic Genetic History
Apr. 23, 2013 — Ancient DNA recovered from a series of skeletons in central Germany up to 7,500 years old has been used to reconstruct the first detailed genetic history of modern Europe.
Ca-nabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) – National Cancer Insti-tute
Mar 21, 2013 – [1,2] These plant-derived compounds may be referred to as phytocannabinoids. ... have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. ... In lung cancer cell lines, CBD upregulated ICAM-1, leading to ...
Good stuff !
The fact...............the earth is to old for this nonsemse ! Time to EVOLVE !
Ancient Earth Crust Stored in Deep Mantle
Apr. 24, 2013 — Scientists have long believed that lava erupted from certain oceanic volcanoes contains materials from the early Earth's crust. But decisive evidence for this phenomenon has proven elusive. New research from a team including Carnegie's Erik Hauri demonstrates that oceanic volcanic rocks contain samples of recycled crust dating back to the Archean era 2.5 billion years ago. Their work is published in Nature.
For what...................... ? Make sure to read what the pope said !
Learning is fun with facts.......................... and facts work when teaching children.
Atheist Prof. Peter Higgs: Stop calling Higgs boson the ‘God particle’
Professor Peter Higgs said recently that there is no God and so people should stop referring to the theoretical partial that
bears his name as the “God particle.”
Pope praises science, but insists God created world updated Thur October 28, 2010
Stephen Hawking is wrong, Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday – God did create the universe. The pope didn't actually mention the world-famous scientist, who argues in a book published last month that the laws of physics show there is no need for a supreme... \
Heaven is 'a fairy story,' scientist Stephen Hawking says updated Tue May 17, 2011
By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor The concept of heaven or any kind of afterlife is a "fairy story," famed British scientist Stephen Hawking said in a newspaper interview this week. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when...
April 7th, 2012
08:32 PM ET
The Jesus debate: Man vs. myth
Make sure to read comments
April 18, 2013 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
NASA: Three planets found are some of best candidates so far for habitable worlds outside our solar system.
NASA: Mars could have supported life
Star Dust we are
Holy Hallucinations 35
The ORIGIN story is bullsh-it...............so is the bible............... nasty !
Scientists have unearthed the first direct signs of cheesemaking, at a site in Poland that dates back 7,500 years.
BBC. Planet of the Apemen. Battle for Earth 1. Ho-mo Erectus
BACKFILL on E =mc2.....
Einstein letter, set for auction, shows scientist challenging idea of God, being 'chosen'
By Jessica Ravitz, CNN
Decades before atheist scientist and author Richard Dawkins called God a "delusion," one world-renowned physicist – Albert Einstein – was weighing in on faith matters with his own strong words.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends,” Einstein wrote in German in a 1954 letter that will be auctioned on eBay later this month. "No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
May 4, 2013 at 6:47 am | Report abuse |
Cheech & Chong's History of 420
Cheech & Chong's History of 420 from CheechAndChong
All cults...........creationists, ID believers and devil cults.................
The fact...............the earth is to old ...........time to EVOLVE !.
Dover Trial Transcripts............................................. FACTS.
Below are the complete transcripts from the Dover Trial. Thanks to our friends at the National Center for Science Education for helping us fill in the missing transcripts.
Education works for children
Earth From Space
Detailed satellite images reveal the web of connections that sustain life on Earth. Aired February 13, 2013 on PBS
"Earth From Space" is a groundbreaking two-hour special that reveals a spectacular new space-based vision of our planet. Produced in extensive consultation with NASA scientists, NOVA takes data from earth-observing satellites and transforms it into dazzling visual sequences, each one exposing the intricate and surprising web of forces that sustains life on earth. Viewers witness how dust blown from the Sahara fertilizes the Amazon; how a vast submarine "waterfall" off Antarctica helps drive ocean currents around the world; and how the sun's heating up of the southern Atlantic gives birth to a colossally powerful hurricane. From the microscopic world of water molecules vaporizing over the ocean to the magnetic field that is bigger than Earth itself, the show reveals the astonishing beauty and complexity of our dynamic planet.
February 16, 2013 at 7:18 am | Report abuse |
May the God of hope bring comfort and healing to all souls that feel lost and hopeless.
May he grant wisdom to discern the truth in his word.
In the beginning...
"...we have a viable theory of the universe back to about 10-30 seconds. At that time, the currently observable universe was smaller than the smallest dot on your TV screen, and less time had passed than it takes for light to cross that dot."
-George F. Smoot, Winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics
A believer of sorts seemed almost willing to explain how he is able to know his God:
(Faith is) "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
What is spiritual apprehension? Does it support the truth of anything? Does it justify belief? Can things be known on the basis of it?
"Spiritual apprehension" is a euphamism for "using your imagination."
I luuuuv to su ck co ck.
What's the matter, honey? Didn't your mommy breast-feed you?
Damn, what is this troll, about 12? Moron.
Been thinking about the transcon flight I took with my fundie coworker over this past weekend, and the conversation that we had during the five hour flight.
And I have come to the realization that there is nothing that will ever change a believer's mind, or even make them admit that they have nothing, other than faith, to back up their claims of a god.
My coworker said it best; Anything (or anyone) that contradicts that bible is wrong.
They, the believers, have made up their minds and that is that, regardless of the fact that there never has been one shred of evidence to support the existence of a creator. Much less all the other rediculous things in the bible like some mythical flood story etc.
The arguments we have here daily are the same ones I had with him.
I started to think what else I could have been doing on that flight instead of having that discussion. Read, work on the computer, work on some music/languages or just take a nap.
No, I wasted 5 hours listening to him rehash the same old and tired lines about why he believes and how everyone will burn in hell and how there is all this "real" scientific "evidence," but the scientists and the media won't talk about it because they want us to turn against god.
One last nugget, there is appearently some caveate with god called "backsliding," which means a saved person can still sin, but it does not revoke their get into heaven free card. This fundie had an affair a few years back, but he has been absolved of that, in the eyes of god, so he is back in the in crowd.
Really sick to use your "faith" to basically be a douch but still get to sleep well at night.
Don't want to be "too long, too boring" with all this, just wanted to say goodbye.
This is my last post.
I just don't have the time anymore to waste going over the same ground everyday with people who espouse the views of people like my coworker, who is a carbon copy of the regular believers here.
As I have posted many times, a mind is a terrible thing to lose, to religion.
So, happy Valentine's Day to all of you.
It has been entertaining posting with you all for the last year or so.
Sad we will never meet, as some of you seem to be real standup guys/gals, my favorite peeps to be around.
Take care, and let's all enjoy and make the most out of that long slide into oblivion.......
what is this i hear now that the pope is seeking immunity from the italian govt?
The reason the Vatican is it's own country is that Catholic clergy are always immune there.
Its, not it's.
Oh yeah!?!?!? OH YEAH?!?!?!?!?!?! Well I have news for you, little Miss Dippy, the Lesser Spelling God of Burnt Jesus-Toast! Sentences have verbs in them!
But your grammatically incorrect comment on my incorrectly spelled comment is duly noted.
I guess it wouldn't hurt to actually proof-read my comments every now and then.
Proof reading won't help if you don't know the difference.
Please join us and be saved! That's all we ask. Think of the eternity of bliss you will enjoy in His holy presence. Think of having your troubles lifted and your cares taken away – what joy! Come discover the joy and fulfillment of having a personal relationship with him. Embrace the goodness! Be righteous! Find the joy and love of others who have come to accept SpongeBob into their lives.
Does SpongeBob involve harsh cleansers?
Only for the darned (SpongeBobians are not allow to say damned . . . OH NO! I said "damn!" AH! I said "damn" again! And again!!!!
Oh I am really darned now! SpongeBob will throw me on the crabby patty grill of fire in heck for that!
@Rice Sage, @Tom Tom The Other One has Chad nailed, especially Chad's lack of faith. You see, if you have faith, you don't need evidence (and for faith to be faith, there cannot be evidence). Religious people who search for evidence are rejecting faith in favor of evidence.”
=>Interesting tactic, thanks for the opportunity to discuss it.
A. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
B. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Faith has essentially two accepted usages in the English language; atheists In this case discard ‘A’ over ‘B’, then attack Christians in that context only, making a further critical and purposeful redefinition of the word “faith”, claiming that proof obviates it.
Atheists claim that faith and knowledge of, or evidence of the existence of that which faith is being placed, are incompatible. This is patently nonsense in both current secular usage and biblical context.
Secular usage: “faith” is an accepted concept in modern law. “Good faith”, fiduciary duty is ingrained in contract law, and nowhere does it require a lack of knowledge about the object in which faith is being expressed. “I have faith in John, he will do what he says”, it does not require that one has no knowledge of the true existence of John. Indeed it is nonsensical to have a faith in something you don’t know exists.
Biblical context: “ And without faith it is impossible to please God Hebrews 11
Which faith is being discussed? A faith for which there is no proof? Does proof obviate faith?
Throughout the bible it is crystal clear that people, whom are commended for their faith, had ample proof of the existence of God PRIOR to their faith being commended.
Abraham commended for his faith (Hebrews 11) had ample proof (God speaking to him).
Moses commended for his faith (Hebrews 11) had ample proof (multiple miracles in Egypt, God speaking directly to him, etc, etc).
In fact, NO WHERE in the bible is definitive proof of the existence of God EVER shown to obviate a person’s faith. Quite the contrary in fact, God promises to reveal Himself, and make Himself known to you if you search after Him. The biblical pattern is ALWAYS the same, God reveals Himself, then asks for a person’s trust in Him. That is biblical faith.
There is simply no biblical support for proof obviating faith, or the faith that God desires requires a lack of proof as to His reality.
That atheists attempt to make this case is clear evidence of their utter lack of familiarity with the bible, and their complete willingness to suspend objective critical thought when it comes to criticizing Christians.
"The biblical pattern is ALWAYS the same, God reveals Himself, then asks for a person’s trust in Him. That is biblical faith."
- This brings us back to the question of, why doesn't god just reveal himself and get 99% of the world to believe in him (I would say 100% but that's probably too opptomistic). Why has god changed his MO and now expects people to trust in him before revealing himself? Does it not seem strange to you that god, in his infinite power and wisdom, would wait for people to believe he exists before revealing himself. You even have the bible to back it up that its not how god works and yet once the canon was closed god decided to do a 180?
Most fundies who come here constantly argue that "faith" is impossible if you have evidence because "faith" is deliberately avoiding all evidence in favor of "believing" in things with no evidence (things unseen, etc.) on purpose.
In other words, willful ignorance is the basis for all religion, for to actually investigate any unknown would cause knowledge...and knowledge is the "original sin", you religitard.
"The biblical pattern is ALWAYS the same, God reveals Himself, then asks for a person’s trust in Him. That is biblical faith."
That's why there are so many different denominations of Christianity and so many different interpretations of what the scriptures actually say. That's just proof your statement is false.
- God HAS revealed Himself to us all, through nature, the bible, and Jesus Christ. If there were no God, there would be no atheists.
– Further, God invites you into a more intimate saving relationship.
If there was no Santa Claus then there wouldn't be any atheists.
Tinkerbell invites into a more intimate saving relationship.
@Bleh "Most fundies who come here constantly argue that "faith" is impossible if you have evidence because "faith" is deliberately avoiding all evidence in favor of "believing" in things with no evidence (things unseen, etc.) on purpose."
=>thanks for illustrating my point completely
A. You completely misunderstand the Christian concept of faith
B. As a result, your objection isnt based in fact.
"- God HAS revealed Himself to us all, through nature, the bible, and Jesus Christ. If there were no God, there would be no atheists.
– Further, God invites you into a more intimate saving relationship."
How is that revealing himself to me? You're just slapping the word god on natural phenomena but the bible has shown that god wasn't show when it came to revealing himself literally (via burning bush, pillar of fire, 40 day floods, etc...). Furthermore, how is the bible or jesus, two things that are 2,000 years old "revealing himself". All three things you listed still fall into the category of "believe and then he'll reveal himself to you" instead of your earlier statement that god reveals and then we have faith in him. You can't get around this chad, the only way for you to believe in god is to first believe he exists which directly contradicts your earlier statement about how god usually does it biblically.
"If there were no God, there would be no atheists."
Chesterton said that as a sarcastic, ironic bon mot.
If there were no theists, there would be no atheists *might* fit better.
If there were no IDEA or POSTULATION of a god, there would be no-one against it.
If there were no IDEA or POSTULATION of a god, there would be no-one against it.
=>there are lots of widely held ideas/postulations for which there is virtually no vocal/activist/organized opposition to.
that was Chesterton's point, atheism opposes the God of Israel, if God wasnt real, the opposition would be roughly the size of the atheist population that oppose hinudism, buddhism. Basically non-existent.
"atheism opposes the God of Israel, if God wasnt real, the opposition would be roughly the size of the atheist population that oppose hinudism, buddhism. Basically non-existent."
What a ridiculous statement. First and foremost, atheism opposes all religions, why you think you can argue your way out of this one is beyond me, but believe me when I say that a person saying that he/she is an atheist does not mean they are anti-christianity. Secondly, the population that opposes hinduism? Well that'll be about every non-hindu out there. Same goes for Islam, or Christianity..... if you believe in a god or gods most of the world disagrees with you, that's the way it is.
If you really want my thoughts on why I oppose Hinduism, I'll tell you, but it'll just be you and me coming to the same conclusion using two very different paths to get there. I laugh that hinduism believes there was an elephant headed man, or that there are real things with 6 limbs with magic powers, or that cows are allowed to walk willy-nilly through the streets because people think that the cow is a person. You laugh at hinduism because they're polytheistic (well, most sects anyway) and they don't acknowledge your god.... So tell me, why should we discuss or debate something we mostly agree on when you and I clearly have issues on how we arrived to the agreement? What is the point discussing another religion with you chad?
Just because the words "ahinduist" and "abuddhist" have not been coined, doesn't mean that you are not one.
Strange how no matter how many times atheism is defined using the dictionary, Chad continues to think it is "against" something.
Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in any gods. That is IT.
Atheism is NOT "against" any gods.
Chad is the worst and stupidest troll I have ever seen.
There are two types of atheism, both make a knowledge claim.
Weak: disbelief in the existence of deity.
Strong: the doctrine that there is no deity
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or ent ities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.
The following definition of atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools:
“Your peti tioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.
An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.
"Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter)" The author is "Admin" at the American Atheists site. Kind of shoddy and I disagree. Facts exist but are not matter. The author wants to arrive at "the supernatural does not exist". Are facts supernatural? I don't think they are. Arguments?
What is spiritual apprehension? Does it support the truth of anything? Does it justify belief? Can things be known on the basis of it?
Wow! The following was posted by Chad. A positive, rational elucidation of what many non-believers hold true. I'm impressed.
An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
...however, personally I would substitute "accepts based on the fact that there is no good evidence to the contrary" for "believes".
So, Chad you are now suggesting atheists are secular humanists???
Chad cut-and-pasted that from an athesist website. That's why it sounds sane and totally out of character for Chad.
hence the citation "From http://atheists.org/atheism"
I think what Chad is trying to point out is the two typesl; Weak and Strong. He seems to think that by calling my atheism "weak atheism" will make me sound weak by extension.
What chad has completely ignored, clearly, is his as.sertion that atheists are really just anti-christians and atheism doesn't oppose hinduism or buddhism which is why, in his addled mind, christianity is correct because it has a group of people opposing it.
I was not implying those were Chad's words, I realize they come from Murray v. Curlett; I was simply shocked that Chad would post such positive words describing non-believers.
tsk tsk tsk
That is one of Chad's positions I find most comical - the strength of an argument is directly proportional to the intensity of the opposing argument. WTF?
The only reason that Christians get the majority of atheist attention in America is that Christians are doing the majority of shoving their views into schools and laws and government. Let's face it: Hindus haven't been stacking school boards as a way to force the golden egg origin of the universe into education.
I do find it pretty funny, I've seen it creep into a lot of his arguments about christianity is right. People have died because the believed so feverently whereas atheists change their minds at the drop of a hat, ipso facto christianity is right. I hope one day he realizes that there's a difference between flip flopping and changing your mind and it's not weak or cowardly to change your opinion in light of new evidence.
It's the reason why you'll never see Chad admit he's wrong, ever, on this forum. He'd rather die than admit defeat, much like his martyr heroes.
The blurb from the atheist site shows that atheists want to dodge the burden of proof that comes with stating that "God does not exist" by saying they only "disbelieve", however that is immediately followed by a sequence of statements that confirm a denial of all things super natural. Pretty cowardly... Dodge the burden, but retain the denial.
Blurb also shows that when atheists say "God" everyone knows they are talking about the God of Israel (confirming that they are overwhelmingly anti-Christian in organization and activity).
Yes, hubris is one of the many crosses Chad must bear.
"Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, "
Yet Chad wants it to equal only his god, too funny. Do we really have to explain the definition of deity? LOL!
Considering that religious people have avoided their burden of proof for their claim, you are being intensely hypocritical for berating others for not doing the same.
And, of course, you cannot prove the non-existence of things that do not exist. You know that of course; you are being a dishonest sophist.
A) I've asked countless times but I guess I'll ask again. What would you consider proof from an atheist to show you that god does not exist. To harp that the burden of proof is on the atheist (even though it's foolish in of itself) and then refuse to accept proof provided is super disingenuous, even for you.
B) Like I said, would you like to discuss why I don't believe in Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other religion other than christianity? Lets pretend for a minute that American society isn't inundated with christianity all the time, what would be the point of going after another religion that isn't well represented in the US? In the 1960's, do you think MLK Jr. decided to just target a certain aspect of civil rights? Or speak out against just the small community of Brooklyn Jews who are xenophobic? Think about it for a second Chad. If MLK got up on the Lincoln memorial and started talking about the injustice of how jews in brooklyn were exluding people, how many of the followers would have cared? It's about the audience chad and the biggest audience in the US is christian.
"Blurb also shows that when atheists say "God" everyone knows they are talking about the God of Israel"
Precisely what in the Murray v. Curlett quotation leads Chad to this conclusion? Persecutory delusions much?
The size of the opposition to a belief does not correlate to the "correctness" of the belief but rather the number of people claiming the belief is correct. We atheists do not oppose the christian god in such high numbers because he seems plausible to so many of us, Chad, but because there's so many of you making obviously stupid claims about that god. Get with the program, dipsh!t.
Religious people I've known from the world outside the grip of Abrahamism and its God seem to recognize actual truth in their beliefs to the degree by which they have been able to demythologized them. Education does that for them. The myths of the God of Israel aren't particularly good (and are sometimes appalling), so they tend to be scrapped rather than rehabilitated for the bits of truth they may have in them. This is why people who cling to the God of Israel find little sympathy, while some Buddhists, for example, are sometimes seen as fellow travelers by non-theists.
atheism opposes the God of Israel, if God wasnt real, the opposition would be roughly the size of the atheist population that oppose hinudism, buddhism. Basically non-existent.
1. Atheists oppose ALL gods. Therefore that number would be as large as it is now.
2. People who "oppose" the god of israel would make up roughly 5/7s of the world's population. Is that fraction made up of atheists only? No.
@Really-O? "Precisely what in the Murray v. Curlett quotation leads Chad to this conclusion?"
An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god.
=>singular usage instead of "any god"
An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church
=>Christian place of worship
Why are you ignoring me? Truth hit too close to home?
We don't oppose gods, because of course there aren't any. We oppose the imposition of religious views into law, schools, and other areas of our lives that we do not welcome. I personally don't care if they want to believe it, but they just won't mind their own business!
I do wish they would get a grip on reality and realize there is no god, but as long as they leave me alone, they can believe in Franky The Magic Invisible Clown-Aardvark for all I care. But when they invade my life, I will fight back, hard!
@Chuckles "I've asked countless times but I guess I'll ask again. What would you consider proof from an atheist to show you that god does not exist. To harp that the burden of proof is on the atheist (even though it's foolish in of itself) and then refuse to accept proof provided is super disingenuous, even for you."
@Chad "it is impossible to prove that God does not exist.
It is irrational for a strong atheist to make that claim
The difference between weak atheism and agnosticism is -0-, symantics. Weak atheists are just people that want to deny the existence of God, but dont want to shoulder the burden of proof that accompanies that claim.
@Chuckles "Like I said, would you like to discuss why I don't believe in Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other religion other than christianity?"
@Chad "sure, why dont you believe in those?
That is a very dishonest tactic, Chad. You well know it is impossible to prove the non-existence of thing which do not exist. That is pure sophistry.
You similarly have completely failed to prove the existence of god in any way, which makes you a hypocrite. Sorry, but your ususal list of "evidence" is nothing but esoteric questions on cosmology which in no way support the existence of a deity. Your "evidence" is not evidence but criticism, and failed criticism it is – over 99% of the scientists in those fields would laugh at your analysis and conclusions.
So do tell use why you must resort to sophistry and hypocrisy?
"@Chad "it is impossible to prove that God does not exist.
It is irrational for a strong atheist to make that claim
The difference between weak atheism and agnosticism is -0-, symantics. Weak atheists are just people that want to deny the existence of God, but dont want to shoulder the burden of proof that accompanies that claim. "
–If you really believe that's the case, whatever, what it all shakes down to now is I don't have to shoulder the burden of proof and you do. You have yet to provide legitament evidence, so until you are able to provide evidence your faith is as weak as my atheism.
"@Chad "sure, why dont you believe in those?"
–Hinduism: I'm supposed to take on faith that there are many gods out there, some with extra limbs, another with an elephant head, and there's even one that's blue. There's also the ridiculous story of creation, where gods are having se.x and then poof! Universe! Then Brahman prematuraly ejaculates and poof! Man! Apparently we"re all god se.man which is weird as sh.it.
Buddhism: I'm supposed to believe some guy waltzed out of his moms va.gina walking and talking and then grows up and can live off of dew drops and good vibes.That's called hallucination and it's a bad thing. Furthermore, I find it rediculous that this religion preaches against good deeds. One thing I'll credit abrahamic religions is that they all believe in helping out your fellow man, in buddhism to achieve the desired goal of getting out Samsara you can't have any karma, good or bad.
Reincarnatoin: Both incorporate it, both have 0 evidence that there is anything that happens after death, whether it's heaven, nirvana or having a soul transfre to another body is just imagination run amok.
@Chuckles " what it all shakes down to now is I don't have to shoulder the burden of proof and you do."
@Chad "if you claim God does not exist, you shoulder a burden of proof
If you merely claim you dont believe God exists, you dont have that burden
If I claim God exists, I have a burden"
@Chuckles " You have yet to provide legitament evidence"
@Chad "Legitimate evidence for the existence of the God of Israel:
– no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect
– Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth
– Historicity of the empty tomb
– Origin of the disciples belief that they had met a resurrected Jesus, a belief they held so strongly that they were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth.
Scientific evidence for the God of Israel
From the late 1800's thru 1972 the notion of "Darwinian gradualism" held the world captive. The notion that purely random mutation preserved in the population by natural selection would produce a gradual change, which over time would create the complexity of life we now observe (phyletic gradualism).
Then, in 1972 the publication of "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" by Stephen Gould (atheist) finally forced the scientific world to accept the reality that the fossil record does not show the gradual change over time that Darwin proposed.
Instead, what the community was forced to acknowledge, is that the fossil record reflects stasis and rapid change.
This supports the theistic evolutionist claim that God used natural processes to develop life on this earth, as pure chance can never explain the grand paroxysm of necessarily interrelated mutations that are required to occur to accomplish this rapid change.
Origins of the universe
For most of scientific history, the universe was thought to have always existed, directly refuting the theistic claim that the universe had a beginning, and a creator.
Then, a series of discoveries resulted in a complete transformation of thought, we now know that our universe has not always existed, rather it had a beginning, confirming the theistic claim:
– 1929: Edwin Hubble discovers red shift (the stars and planets are all moving away from each other. The universe is expanding in all directions)
– 1965: discovery of microwave cosmic background radiation (the echo's of the big bang)
– 1998, two independent research groups studying distant supernovae were astonished to discover, against all expectations, that the current expansion of the universe is accelerating (Reiss 1998, Perlmutter 1999).
– 2003: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe proves our universe had a beginning
Fine Tuning of the universe
In the past 30 or 40 years, scientists have been astonished to find that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of building blocks of life. Constants such as gravitational constant have been found, the variation of which to even the smallest degree, would have rendered the universe utterly incapable of supporting life.
"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." - Paul Davies
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life - Stephen Hawking
Now, neither Davies or Hawking is a believer in God. They both believe in fine tuning, they just posit natural reasons for it.
It doesnt have to convince you to be "legitimate"
"singular usage instead of "any god"
-there are monotheistic religions other than those based on the god of Israel.
"Christian place of worship"[church]
-There are religions other than those based on the god of Israel that call their place of worship a "church".
Again, persecutory delusions much?
Chad, your stupid arguments have been refuted many, many times. You'd believe the refutations if they aligned with your a priori beliefs, but since they don't, you cling to stupid arguments that have already been refuted. That's called "willful ignorance." You are ignorant because you want to be and that is because you hold your a priori beliefs sacred over truth. Too bad you love yourself (your own conclusions) over truth. It's a shame.
As I see it, what it "really comes down to" is the fact that, for most of us, this blog is just a diversion; however, for Chad, this is serious business because deep-down he knows his superstitions are untenable.
Chard, not a single thing you've posted is evidence for a god. You just believe it is. That doesn't make it so.
Why are you so stupid?
Chad once again employs Argument from Assertion and Argument for Ignorance, and thinks he has suppied science.
"- no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect"
It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).
It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.
" no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect"
The fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.
Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened"
Smithsonian, you'd think Chard would realize that, but he doesn't.
There is ZERO empirical evidence of a miracle-wielding medieval carpenter named Jesus. Chad's "mountains of evidence" (you'll note is not empirical) includes such gems as "the historicity of an empty tomb" which of course is proof of nothing. Chad's "evidence" is a redefinition of "fervent belief".
Chad's "scientific evidence of god" is that science changes as it uncovers more truths about our reality.
'"The history of physics has had that a lot," says [Lawrence] Krauss. "Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective."'
If "fine tuning" is empirical evidence that supports the claim that the god of Israel exists, provide one or both of the following:
1) A reference to a peer reviewed science journal that claims "fine tuning" is empirical evidence that supports the claim that the god of Israel exists and details the observations, experiment and resulting data that statistically demonstrates the existence of the god of Israel is probable.
2) Provide a well designed experiment that would be able to test the hypothesis that ' "fine tuning" is empirical evidence that supports the claim that the god of Israel exists.' Remember, you have to actually test the hypothesis, gather data, and statistically analyze the data.
Debunking William Lane Craig and the misuse of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe
Chad's "archaeological evidence"? Chad said, "http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28162671/#.URw1Fh082Js"
This is your archaeological evidence? Oh, Chad...
8 paragraphs of "maybe" with some of the maybes hinging on previous maybes, and the final paragraph comprised mostly of statements against the fable of Masada. The "hinge" of these discoveries is some pottery which "contains five lines of faded characters that may bear the oldest Hebrew inscription ever found." Hooray mankind found some evidence of our past - that's a good thing - but there's no reason at all to claim it goes to shore up anything Biblical.
And in the end even if all this points to a city that existed during the time of the Bible, what does that prove? That a city existed during a time period. It doesn't mean a single event attributed to that city ever occurred unless it can be independently verified. We keep telling you over and over that the Spiderman stories are based in New York so by your logic that makes Spiderman real.
"[Excavactor] Garfinkel, who said in 2010 that the debate [about the veracity of the Biblical account of the United Monarchy at the beginning of Iron Age II] could not "be answered by the Qeiyafa excavations."
Historical evidence: Not evidence at all, just your as.sumption. I;'ve already gone into depth on how the bible is as historically true as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire hunter. You're only comeback to that was that you know Abe Lincoln was written as fiction because the author says so but refuse to understand that if we had the authors of the bible alive and could talk with us you'd probably find the same thing (obviously also as.sumption, but hey, if you think the authors wrote the bible as purely historical text, prove it).
Fossile Record: Again, all assumption and proving flaws in Evolution theory in no way is affirmative evidence for god, it just means that there are holes that have yet to be filled, it could be filled with god I'll allow, but you would have to literally find the fingerprints of god in the fossil record in order to link your god to having a hand in evolution.
Origins of the universe: Again, you are assuming god into existance and leaning heavily on bias with unfounded support. Considering we have no idea what conditions were like pre-big bang, we don't know anytihng and so can't say with complete faith we know anything about it. Proving our universe has a beginning only proves that our universe has a beginning, nothing more.
Fine Tuning: You are using fine-tuning profoundly wrong. The universe, as far as we can tell right now, is very uninhabitable for life and so far Earth is the only place where life has been found, which means 99.99999999^1000000000000 % of the universe is very uninhabitable for life. As for why science and the universe follows laws... again you are using your extreme bias to support something that is not apparent at all. It's like you coming across a house, moving in and then looking back and saying the house was built specifically for you because it fits all your stuff perfectly when in reality you molded to it. Earth wasn't created to host life, life happened and adapted to conditions on earth.
PS Why ask me about other religions if you don't want to discuss them?
@Chad " "singular usage instead of "any god"
@Really-O? "there are monotheistic religions other than those based on the god of Israel."
@Chad "That may be, but for the use of the term "god" to reflect YOUR contention that atheism rejects all religions, the use of singular "god" is completely inappropriate as it excludes polytheistic religions."
So, as stated, the use of the singular god refers to the God of Israel.
@Chad "Christian place of worship"[church]
@Really-O "There are religions other than those based on the god of Israel that call their place of worship a "church".
A church is technically a term for a gathering of citizens in a town (origins from ancient Greek), but is commonly understood by the Christian adoption of the word as gathering of Christians in a building or structure to facilitate worship and the meeting of its members, specifically in Christianity
I could find no other religion that meets in Churches. As I'm sure you didnt just guess that there were, why dont you tell me :-)
@Smithsonian “The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient.
@Chad “most atheists believe that the bible starts with “2,500 years ago, God created the universe”
But, it doesn’t. There is simply NO WHERE in the bible where the age of the earth is stated.
Many erroneously come to that conclusion by adding up all the “begats”, however this is a gross misuse of genealogies, which are NOT provided for that purpose and routinely omit many generations that aren’t relevant to that which is being discussed.
@Smithsonian “The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically”
@Chad “again, simply not true. The bible chronicles over 2000 years of history, all of which can be checked, and NONE of which has ever been proved incorrect.
@Smithsonian “The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible.”
@Chad “utter speculation, other than your personal opinon, what data do you cite to support it?
@Smithsonian “The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).”
@Chad “Very true, the bible was not intended to be a “history of the world”, it contains accurate descriptions of relevant historical interactions between God and humanity.
@Smithsonian “It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy.”
@Chad “complete and utter nonsense. Thousands of years of recorded history, none of which has ever been disproved, and note, the years 2500—30AD are all years for which we have some archeological evidence.
No historical fact has ever been disproved.
It doesn't HAVE to be "disproved," you dimwit. You have the onus of proving that it is factual. You can't. It isn't.
But keep right on lying, Chard. It does SO much for your cause.
While we will one day find evidence of Israel's slavery in Egypt, we will never find archaeological evidence of the 40 years in the wilderness.
why? They took nothing from the land except water, and left nothing behind.
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. 4 Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years. 5 Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you. - Deuteronomy 8
“During the forty years that I led you through the wilderness, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. 6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the Lord your God.” - Deuteronomy 29
No, Chard. We won't find it because it didn't happen.
Chad you got debunked at the Dover Trial Keep Pushing your Crap !
Sam Stone and others accusing me of being a closet queen, I am not a closet anything. I want the following to happen
1. marriage b/w man and woman only
2. the link between s3x and having children must not be broken in any way. Kids must be natural consequence of s3x.
3. divorce only for abuse and adultery only. Society also to shun divorce, make a marital unit the most important thing there is.
Its about more than g@ys you see. See how this will bring morality back.
Oh yeah, did I mention picket fences and a parent looking after the kid rather than 'day care'?
women to be baby making machines and should stay in the kitchen
go back 50 no make it 100 years please
Please fall on your sword, soldier. You suck as a human being.
fornication to be shunned by society
So SoC wants to be able to tell you who you can marry because he knows best. He wants to tell you not to use contraceptives because he knows best. He wants to force you to remain married to people who you don't even like anymore.
Guess it's a good thing that the USA is a country of FREEDOM and we don't have to listen to morons like SoC. Go fvck yourself sir!
MassDebater wants to allow you the freedom to
– Kill anybody without regard to conseqience (unborn or born)
– Marry a kid, a goat or a group of people
he wants society to have no rules or social mores or expectations....
All marriages need work. when there are differences one works thru them. has been that way for thousands of years, in every culture. "I dont love you anymore so buh-bye" is really stupid
There is no reason to argue with you SOC, because you don't believe what you claim to. You're just here to post ridiculous pronouncements about how life should be "purer" and women should be forced to be pregnant against their will.
You're just posting silly sh!t you don't believe to make a stink.
You're not even good at it.
Your ideal world exists. Go to any arab country. or Iran. Heck, there ya can have _four_ wives. aint that great for ya?
Natural cycles not god cycles
Explains Life great show watching now
is that the Necronomicon the pope's holding? it'd be fitting.
This thread has been closed.
What is your problem man?
Who died and made you CNN Belief Blog?
What thread? The one coming out of your ass?
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.