 |
|
|
|
 Harold Camping, now 91, is the force behind Family Radio -- and a couple failed prophecies.
May 16th, 2013
07:00 AM ET
End times for doomsday-linked radio network?By Jessica Ravitz, CNN (CNN) - Dealing with a struggling radio business – this wasn’t the way it was supposed to be. By all his calculations, Harold Camping expected to be nearly two years into his Rapture revelry, hanging in heaven with God and the select others who’d been saved. But when his predicted and vastly promoted May 21, 2011, Day of Rapture came and went, and the end of the world on October 21, 2011, didn’t pan out either, Camping lost his doomsday mojo. It didn’t help that he had another knock against him, having made a similar failed prophecy back in 1994. By March 2012, the degreed engineer who’s spent more than a half-century studying the Bible admitted mistakes. He vowed to back off from the prediction business. Now it seems Family Radio, the nonprofit Christian radio broadcasting network Camping started in 1959, may be foundering, according to an investigative story recently published in the Contra Costa Times. Financial documents show that Family Radio's assets dropped by more than $105 million in less than five years, despite an influx of $85 million in donations over that time, the California newspaper reported. This, of course, was during the big push to spread the news about the end that wasn’t. The paper also said donations have tumbled nearly 70% since May 21, 2011, spawning layoffs of longtime employees. And saddled with loans, a dwindling cash flow and alleged mismanagement, the network was reportedly forced to sell off its three biggest stations. “You eliminate those three (FM stations) and, ultimately, the rest of it dies,” former employee Matt Tuter told the Contra Costa Times. “I believe they are killing it off.” All of these financial struggles, however, come as the network grapples with losing the voice of its biggest star - Camping himself. He suffered a stroke in June 2011. And though he remains involved and still serves as the network's president, the flagship show he hosted, "Open Forum," is only running previously recorded programs. It was through Family Radio – and its multitude of U.S. stations, satellite feeds, shortwave radio use, Internet reach and translation machine – that Camping’s teachings and 2011 predictions spread across the globe. His doomsday message was bolstered by a massive billboard campaign at a reported price tag of $5 million. There were also initiatives like Project Caravan, which dispatched teams of volunteers in RVs to warn the people. CNN hopped on board one caravan and traveled with faithful ambassadors who’d given up everything for this cause. The coordinator for Project Caravan, Ted Kim, left Family Radio soon after May 21, 2011. Once his ambassadors - still around and not raptured - had a place to go, he told CNN, his work was done. Even though he doesn't work there anymore, that doesn’t mean he’s lost faith in the mission. He still believes spiritual judgment occurred in 2011 and that the world’s physical destruction is near. Photos: Doomsdays throughout time Kim, who is now home schooling his children and caring for his mother, suspects the supporters who fell away had erroneously put more stock in Camping than they’d put in the Bible or God himself. But Tuter, the former employee who served at Camping’s side for years before he was fired in 2012, suggested to the Contra Costa Times that a demise of Family Radio may be deliberate. He said Camping made it clear to him in 1996 that he wanted the network to die when he did. "He was very specific he did not want it to continue," Tuter told the newspaper. He said Camping confided in him a week before going into heart surgery: "God raised up Family Radio just as a platform for me!" Tom Evans, who has taken over the network’s day-to-day reins since Camping suffered that stroke, could not be reached by CNN for comment. But he offered the newspaper a very different perspective than Tuter's. Evans said he hopes that Family Radio can move forward, leaving this end-of-the-world banter behind it. “We want to be a comfort and reminder of God’s strength and mercy,” he said. “In the end, our founding mission is to proclaim the word of God.” That mission, coupled with the network’s recent history, may not make them boom like they once did. But to Evans and those who are keeping the faith, neither should it portend doom.
Next entry »My Take: What Tsarnaev gets wrong about Islam
« Previous entryFranklin Graham: IRS targeted ministries
|
  About this blog
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.  |
|
|
|
I am the 1 who will end this world.In 2 years top.
what about the bottom?
Chad
Bring up the ad hominem fallacy again. Pointing out a truth about a person is not an ad hominem attack, for example.
Hitler was a dictatorial tyrant and mass murderer, true. James Eagan Holmes is a mass murder of innocent children, true.
Chad is disingenuous lying troll, TRUE, therefore not ad hominem.
JMEF...............CHAD...................likes to go SPLAT .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35WVf6Uvk8U
Diminishing circles until Chad disappears up his own asz.
@Colin "Very simple. Any theory that has evidence behind it can be presented"
@Chad "Outstanding, glad to hear you endorse the teaching of theistic creation/evolution.
Theistic Evolution
The theory that the God of Israel has orchestrated mutation and natural selection conditions to create mankind from the dust of the earth, to their present form.
Evidence:
Fossil Record.
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.This confirms the theistic claim:
1. The bible claims that the universe had a beginning
2. We know that a non-natural agent stands in causal relationship to the creation.
3. God is a non-natural causal agent.
– 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 mas ses 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
“As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” - Professor Freeman J. Dyson of the Insti tute for Advanced Study in Princeton
”The big bang appeared to be a very peculiar kind of explosion. Just imagine a pin balancing on its point. Nudge it slightly in any direction and it will fall. So it is with the big bang. A large universe sprinkled with galaxies, like the one we see around us, is produced only if the power of the primoridial blast is fine tuned with incredible precision. A tiny deviation from the required power results in a cosmological disaster, such as the fireball collapsing under its own weight or the universe being nearly empty” – Alexander Vilenkin
Now, neither Davies or Hawking is a believer in God. They both believe in fine tuning, they just posit natural reasons for it.
Fine Tuning is consistent with the theistic claim that God created the universe
Evidence from human experience
– Objective morality exists
– Free will exists
The atheist has absolutely no way of physically justifying a belief in free will.
Free will is consistent with the theistic claim that God imbues humans with a soul.
Gospel of Chad:
(Updated list derived from history of Chad conversations.)
Atheism:
1. All atheists agree with everything Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins say, even if it is unrelated to atheism. Hawking and Dawkins disagree on free will, however, but you should ignore this conflict or any atheist who says they disagree.
2. All atheists agree with one another on everything even if it has nothing to do with atheism. See #1 for models from which you can derive all their beliefs.
3. The definition of atheist includes anything that any atheist I disagree with believes or anything I feel like tossing in there. Ignore any definitions in pesky places like dictionaries and philosophical encyclopedias.
4. If one atheist somewhere on the internet said something, then, since all atheists agree with him/her, I can use that randomly selected example as an argument to address all other atheists.
5. The definition of atheism includes not just materialism but strict deterministic materialism. Non-believers who might be Buddhists, believe in probabilistic physics, see consciousness as prior to the physical world, believe in, say, witchcraft aren’t really atheists.
6. No atheist has ever read the bible. I mean, obviously, they’d be Christians if they had, right? OK, so a few have proven to me – OK, multiple times – that they have read the bible. See #11 (just lie).
Free will:
7. All people who use the term “free will” really mean the same exact thing by that term, which matches my personal use of the term “free will” (unless backed into a corner, then I just declare all other meanings irrelevant)
8. Fatalism and determinism are the same thing. It has been pointed out to me that historically these terms have been used with different meanings, but I find it more convenient to make up my own definitions, as with atheism and free will.
In fact, I brilliantly argued “If a person is a determinist, how in the world does deterrence even come into the picture? Determinists believe in an ever marching set of deterministic outcomes based on an existing set of antecedent conditions. Those conditions march back to the origin of the universe, no way to change the past, so no way to change the future. (On April 17, 2013 at 6:20 pm)
After reading a bit more about fatalism and determinism I decided to change my tune to a claim that determinism leads to fatalism (and to pretend this was what I was saying all along). I’m sticking to reading easy pop philosophers, though, and selective websites on the topic as anything more complex makes my head hurt. I have read snippets from a couple of websites now so that ought to put me on par with people who’ve read dozens of books on the topic, understand neurobiology and have written on both the philosophical and cultural aspects of free will and people’s belief in the topic. Oh, yeah, I know what I’m talking about!
9. A determinist cannot believe that humans can change. This would, of course, mean that nothing can change. Which would mean…oh…crud…better put my head back up my ass.
10. A determinist cannot believe in punishing people for crimes. This is because…well…it doesn’t matter. Just keep repeating it.
Telling lies:
11. It is ethical to lie so long as it promotes Christian beliefs.
12. Speaking of telling lies, a really good way to do this is to rephrase what your opponent says and then keep repeating the misquote in hopes that he or she will get bored and leave your lie as the last statement. Then you win. You can do this either by rewording as a supposed paraphrase or pulling lines out of context and reordering them. God really loves this and gives you extra endurance to sit at the computer all day and keep repeating it.
13. One way to use this super endurance to your advantage is to keep posting the same questions over and over again even after they’ve been answered 50 times. Just pretend they haven’t been answered and act self-righteous about it. It’s really cool if you can ask this same thing on multiple threads and then claim it was never answered forcing people to waste time on the same thing over and over and over.
14. In particular don’t forget that whatever someone says you can respond with “What investigation have you done into…”. Especially good is to ask what investigation was done into the truth of the God of Israel. When the non-Christian comes back to ask how much research you did to prove other gods aren’t real answer “I don’t need to do any because I proved the God of Israel is real and that negates all other gods”. When asked how you proved that repeat the words “empty tomb” over and over until divine light shines on the souls of the heathens.
15. When they refuse to play your game or you don’t like the answer add some sarcasm, but use an emoticon to soften it so they’ll know your snide remarks are all in good fun.
16. Consider asking completely nonsensical questions that can’t even be understood, let alone answered. Best yet include something the person didn’t say as a premise. For example, you might ask an atheist opponent “You say you like murdering small children on Wednesdays, could you explain how this fits with your beliefs about string theory?” Then when your question is ignored accuse the person of avoidance and make up wild hypotheses as to why they are avoiding you.
17. Above all else keep asking questions while avoiding answering any yourself.
Science, math and psychology:
18. If one scientist says something that backs me, then I can assume all scientists agree with that statement.
19. If atheist scientists say something, even if it is the view of the majority of people in that science, it should be ignored. See #11.
20. Atheists are ruled by confirmation bias. I am free of it – it’s just great luck that everything I read and all the “data” around me confirm my strong religious convictions. See #19 on ignoring anything else.
21. Infinity = all finite numbers according to the Chad. Thirty or forty years of constraint is the same as eternal torment.
22. Rehabilitation and deterrence are the same thing. Yep…convincing a drug addict not to use drugs in case they are shot dead and getting them off the addiction would be the same by my wondrous Chad logic.
General truths about the CNN belief blog:
23. All non-believers are, by definition, idiots so you can use illogical arguments and they’ll just fall for it.
24. If I post a quote that has a few key words in it from our discussion I can claim it backs my point even if it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I’m claiming. Atheists, as mentioned above, are too dumb to notice. Best yet is to post a link or reference a book which actually says the opposite of what I’m saying and just assume no one will look at it.
25. There is a huge mass of fence sitters out there who are eagerly reading CNN blog comments in order to decide whether or not to believe in God.
26. I will personally save all those mentioned in # 25 because I, Chad, am super smart. I know this because I get away with all the above mentioned lies and manipulations. Sometimes people think they are pointing these things out but they really aren’t. Or the stupid atheist masses aren’t reading them anyway.
27. Phrase everything as if it’s a lecture so you look like you know what you’re talking about. See #23 about atheists being idiots and #24 about people not reading anything you post you’ll see that the silly atheists will fall for it every time. In particular they won’t look back to the earlier part of the discussion to see how I’m contradicting myself. This is very well aided by another tactic;
28. As soon as you make an ass of yourself break the conversation into a new thread. That way all the newcomers (see #25 on how they are waiting to have their souls saved) will not bother to read back and see how ignorant you are.
29. If someone points out to you that citing Wikipedia is not an adequate source for the discussion at hand you can always find a good undergraduate philosophy paper to cite instead.
30. Never question another Christian no matter how incorrect or offensive their position.
31. Just remember that you can define a term any way you want and you are always right!
There are no measurements to record nor experiments to conduct that might determine whether or not some "supernatural force" is involved in the process of evolution; therfore, "theistic evolution" is a philosophical determination and not science.
Here we go again.
Free will and an all-knowing creator cannot co-exist.
You have no way of proving objective morality exist.
Free will is inconsistent with Christian theology that states god knows all things, is the blessed controller of all things, and the sentiments expressed in relation to Pharoah, Isaac and Esau, and other claims of predestination made in Romans 9.
booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
stale bread
booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
As yet another exercise in futility ensues...
Chad posting as "Rachel" –
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/richard-dawkins-evolution-is-not-a-controversial-issue/comment-page-10/#comments
Starting ~September 9, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Busted – September 9, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Cheers, you smug, disingenuous, dishonest jackass.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Colossians 2:8
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.
Proverbs 14:12
Amen
I can't believe this idiot Chad is still posting this garbage after it's been disputed and proven wrong. Chad your head must be really flat and full of rocks since you keep beating it against the wall. Wow I didn't know someone this dense really existed before this guy started posting.
@Pete, I think this Chad character is still in high school which is why they keep trying their poor theories over and over again on here regardless of the fact they've been proven wrong. He's a classic example of a troll.
Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20
Amen.
"Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil;"
Woe to those that can't think for themselves, they become trolls quoting text that is not related to reality since the definitions of good and evil have changed over time. LOL!
ad-hominems and references to non-existent "other refutations" dont really have that much credibility...
"ad-hominems and references to non-existent "other refutations" dont really have that much credibility..."
...and neither does Chad.
Chadis that you and Rachel burnt into the toast over here ?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/vatican-swaps-old-masters-for-modernity-with-venice-biennale-debut/#comments
@Cpt. Obvious "Free will is inconsistent with Christian theology that states god knows all things, "
=>you want it to be, but it isnt.
God is, in fact, not aware of future events, but rather, being eternal, He is outside time, and sees the past, present, and future as one whole creation. Consequently, it is not as though God would know "in advance" that Jeffrey Dahmer would become guilty of homicide years prior to the event as an example, but that He was aware of it from all eternity, viewing all time as a single present.
@Chad
I think you're missing the point.
First, it's ad-hominem if it's false or even exageration. People are doing neither of these things, they're just stating facts.
Second, what you posted doesn't make any sense in context. Theistic evolution is just evolution with an apologetic spin that tries to claim that humanity was the end goal of everything that happened from when life first began to now. Which is not supported in any way but is a philisophical way for apologetics like you to reconcile the fact that evolution is real and correct and still tie it to your bible.
It's pathetic really.
Chad, your claims are baseless and without any merit. Your arguments are so bad that they turn people AWAY from considering what you have to say. You'll have to start making some sense if you want anyone to take you seriously or offer rebuttals to your points. I mean, how silly would it be of me to get mad at others for not offering good rebuttals if my argument is that "Unicorns fart skittles, and everybody knows it."?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology
Chad's using wiki again, but there is a counter argument to his post on this site as well but of course in Chad's deceit he leaves that part out. LMAO!
@Chad
"God is, in fact, not aware of future events, but rather, being eternal, He is outside time, and sees the past, present, and future as one whole creation. Consequently, it is not as though God would know "in advance" that Jeffrey Dahmer would become guilty of homicide years prior to the event as an example, but that He was aware of it from all eternity, viewing all time as a single present."
1. Where are you quoting this from?
2. This quote means absolutely nothing. Maybe for god the "future" doesn't exist, according to this quote, but for us we experience time in a linear fashion where past, present and future all exist. If god can see everything in eternal present and knows that Jeffrey Dahmer is born in xyz location, kills people at xyz time and then is tried and executed for murder then god knows all, god knows jeffs future before jeff does which means jeff has no free will and has no choice but to play out these actions lest god see something that doesn't happen, proving him fallible and untrustworthy.
Please, keep trying to play your word games, or better yet just run away. I know I've soundly beaten your point when you stop responding to me.
"God is, in fact, not aware of future events"
"Calvinist theologian Loraine Boettner argued that the doctrine of divine foreknowledge does not escape the alleged problems of divine foreordination. He wrote that "what God foreknows must, in the very nature of the case, be as fixed and certain as what is foreordained; and if one is inconsistent with the free agency of man, the other is also. Foreordination renders the events certain, while foreknowledge presupposes that they are certain."[8] Some Christian theologians, feeling the bite of this argument, have opted to limit the doctrine of foreknowledge if not do away with it altogether, thus forming a new school of thought, similar to Socinianism and process theology, called open theism."
Nope, Chad. A reasonable reading of various scriptures including Romans 9 make a mockery of "free will." The bible porttays god as changing people's minds, performing miracles to change events in accordance with his will, and hating and loving people before they were born or did any wrong.
The bible portrays free will as necessary, but then describes a god who interferes and does not allow free will. Humorous to the nonbeliever, but quite the problem for the believer.
People like Chad just started to slap "theistic" in front of "evolution" because they can't deny that evolution happens anymore. In reality there is no such thing as "theistic evolution" there is only evolution.
@Chuckles "First, it's ad-hominem if it's false or even exageration. People are doing neither of these things, they're just stating facts."
@Chad "responding to a presented argument with "oh yeah, well, you're a moron" indicates that you cant address the argument.
"When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff". – Marcus Tullius Cicero
===
@Chuckles "Theistic evolution is just evolution with an apologetic spin that tries to claim that humanity was the end goal of everything that happened from when life first began to now. Which is not supported in any way but is a philisophical way for apologetics like you to reconcile the fact that evolution is real and correct and still tie it to your bible."
@Chad "actually, atheistic evolution is just theistic evolution with an athestic spin that tries to claim that humanity is the result of purely impersonal chance/random events. Which is not supported in any way but is a philosophical way for atheists like you to deny the fact that the God of Israel is real.
@Chuckles, @Cmt Obvious
=>as always, the simple example that resolves the argument.
If I went back in time and wrote down on a piece of paper that Chuckles would be an atheist posting on the CNN Belief Blog in May of 2013, would that obviate your free will?
no, now of course, you'll ignore the obvious implications of a being existing outside our time and space because you are trying to make a point. But the other readers see that this simple example makes sense, and your continuing denial of it demonstrates that your commitment to the notion of atheism is preventing you from following the argument where it leads.
Chad, you aren't putting forth any arguments that merit any "rebuttals" at all. You're just expressing your own opinion as if it's fact. If you can't put forth an argument, don't expect any rebuttals. You throwing a pile of sh!t on the stage and then strutting around and calling it an airplane doesn't mean you've got an airplane. And it also doesn't mean that we're wrong for pointing out that you've just got a pile of sh!t and not an airplane. I'm not sorry that you're such an idiot, though; I'm quite glad.
@Chad
Hmmm so you now want to try and turn this around huh? Lets see if we can do that shall we? At what point can you prove that evolution was designed specifically for man? I'm not talking about just the evolution of man himself (everything from the brain, to the eye, to opposable thumbs, etc....) but that all other species on this planet to every have existed was there simply to benefit mankind. Why dinosaurs chad? why the rhinocerous?
Furthermore, if theistic evolution were actually real, it would be humans are a finished product that took biilions of years to create and yet we are still seeing mutations in mankind and have to believe that evolution of mankind is stull chugging forward so how would evolution explain that?
We could look at the apologetic form and say god made a perfect creation but needs to make it better (Hmmmm something sounds wrong there huh?)
Or we could look at regular evolution (calling it atheistic evolution is redundant) and we can recognize that the evolution of mankind does not have to be personable, or make sense or have a endgoal that it's striving for. Why do you need it to be? What upsets you so much about chance and impersonal imporbabilities?
IMO I think that humanity is a product of pure chance is more beautiful than any other reasoning. If we try and insert that there was a plan and a creator we can then start questioning the end result (why don't we have wings? why don't we have biological armor like that of an armadillo? why can't we run as fast as a cheetah? etc...) We have so many different things in nature showing us just how deficient humanity is in many aspects that a creator being involved and calling humanity a "perfect creation" makes no sense.
"@Chad "actually, atheistic evolution is just theistic evolution with an athestic spin that tries to claim that humanity is the result of purely impersonal chance/random events. Which is not supported in any way but is a philosophical way for atheists like you to deny the fact that the God of Israel is real."
"I mean the guy made a million dollars!"
I like how it goes from a general "theistic evolution" to "the God of Israel is real." in just two sentences.
Chad, you are a delusional little troll who lacks integrity and repeats the same bogus garbage every day. Try learning anything without going into it thinking "How will I fit this into my already held world view of the Hebrew God on top...?"
Chad, I don't need free will, and I think it's funny that you can't figure out what it means. You have to invoke supernatural forces and mythical explanations to resolve the problems that arise from imagining particular supernatural forces and certain mythical explanations. Just keep inventing more invisible, mythical, undetectable mechanisms to solve the problems you have with your invisible, mythical, and undetectable forces. What's stopping you? Keep imagining.
@Chad
"as always, the simple example that resolves the argument.
If I went back in time and wrote down on a piece of paper that Chuckles would be an atheist posting on the CNN Belief Blog in May of 2013, would that obviate your free will?"
- At least you are now uncovering your ignornace a little more. This is ignoring a lot of key factors. First. Would I be aware that you are a time traveler from the future? Second, would you be able to travel back to the present prime? Third, would your presence throw off the timeline and start creating different timelines?
You see, if you are writing on a piece of paper now that I will be an atheist posting on the blog in say 3 days from now. Will you be right? We don't know, it will be supposition and neither of us know if I will be buried in work come 3 days from now and will write on it. Or I'll have a religious experience and become saved or whatever.
If you have foreknowledge of the future however and travel backwards, make a prediction know the end result and then travel forward again and nothing has changed, then you have made it clear that the future is as set in stone as the past and we are all acting out parts with only the illusion of free will.
Don't mess around with time travel chad, you clearly do not understand even the beginnings of the consequences of knowing what happened, what's happening and what will happen.
@Cpt Obvious
=>merely saying "you dont have an argument" does nothing, you need to clearly refute the argument.
Guys, just let Chad be. As a Christian, he has no free will so that fact that he presents the same worn out arguments every day really isn't his fault. It is just god's plan for Chad, and there is nothing he can do to change it.
Chad do you feel you can argue a point from outside of humanity? What do any of us, theists and non-theists, mathematicians, you name it, propose anything (even 1+1=2) that we don't propose from some measure of consensus? So how can anything be solely objective?
@Chuckles
=>if I can go back, I can go forward and come back.
You have seen "The Butterfly Effect" a couple to many times (or perhaps it was "Back to the Future"?)..
@mama k "So how can anything be solely objective?"
=>if God exists, then objectivity exists.
You can argue that He doesnt exist, but you cant argue that if He does exist, objectivity exists.
should have been "You can argue that He doesnt exist, but you cant argue that if He does exist, objectivity doesnt exist"
Chad...............non casual agent = religious BS
Chard crap..
Spewing the same drivel.
@Chad
Come back to waht exactly? That's what you have to figure out when you discuss time travel and ignore the host of paradoxes created just by being able to travel faster than the speed of light.
1. The butterfly effect was a crap movie but at least addressed the idea of trying to change something and then seeing the huge amount of consequences that you couldn't account for.
2. Back to the future addressed some of the issues but, being a movie, tied things up a neat little bow for the audience. In the first one we have Marty going back and making his parents meet under completely different circu/mstances AND getting back at Biff. He doesn't account for the fact that his mere presence is essential for this to happen and yet his parents might instead of meeting and getting married, meet and have a really passionate dating life and then break up in the 1970's as Marty is traveling forward back to 1985. He doesn't account for Biff, a bully who is clearly dumb and wants revenge wouldn't take his revenge on George McFly later on after the Enchantment Under the Sea dance. Marty chances everything and succeeds, again because it's a movie and the good guy has to win and the bad guy has to lose.
Back to the Future II at least tried to address this issue with time travel by making Marty come back from the future only to find his present completely changed due to Biff going back to 1955 and changing it by actually getting his revenge on george mcfly, becoming rich, marrying lorraine and torturing Marty (though how Biff wouldn't recognize that Marty looks exactly like the Calvin Klein from 1955 that embarrassed him is beyond me).
Both movies make some egregious errors but clearly show the dangers of time travel. You however completely disregard that in favor of trying to create an example within a complete vacuum to prove your point and ignore the huge amount of consequences that come with messing with the time space continuum.
Did you create an atheist persona yet Chard?
Love to see how that plays out. You can do an endless cheer from 'Rachel' to help your theistic arguments. XD
Hmm. So Chad it seems you are trying to use as evidence for "Theistic evolution" (that God did it) this notion of objective truths (including objective morality) that to be objective on their own (from God) depend on God's existence. And you don't see a problem with that kind of reasoning – like going in a tiny circle?
As I've expressed to you several times, Chad, you'd have to put forth an argument in order to receive a rebuttal. Your opinion stated with sincere intensity is just crap opinion unworthy of rebuttal. Sorry you can't figure out what is and is not logical structure and what is just shouting in the wind.
also remember, time travel is just a tool to help people understand the concept of "standing outside time", which any object that exists outside our universe would do.
Fascinating that atheists accept the concept of a multiverse, and the concept that enti ties in "these other universes" wouldnt be bound in any way by the linear progression of our time, yet flatly refuse to accept the notion that God, existing outside our universe as well, wouldnt be bound either..
endlessly fascinating.
@mama k "So Chad it seems you are trying to use as evidence for "Theistic evolution" (that God did it) this notion of objective truths (including objective morality) that to be objective on their own (from God) depend on God's existence. And you don't see a problem with that kind of reasoning – like going in a tiny circle?"
=>the interesting part is you had to invent some argument that I didnt make to post something.. (that's a strawman BTW)
no
my argument is simply this: If God exists, objectivity exists.
bullet proof reasoning.
@Chard
"existing outside our universe as well,"
–Existing is a physical presence. So in order to say something exists then you have to give a reference of "where" or "when" and of course "how."
So where is this "outside"?
Where is this "when"?
And how does this existence of outside take place?
If something exists outside of something – then it is in another universe. With physical attributes. If it exists outside of every universe then it does not exist because nothing exists in the nothingness.
You're a convoluted tool and an idiot.
I paraphrased you, Chad, no invention I believe. OK, I'll put it together with your words this time. (Next reply.)
Chad: point to an empty spot on the stage... "You know that there's a chair here by faith and so there's no argument against it. Obviously the chair exists."
Atheist: "Um, no, there's no chair. If you think there is one, just sit down and prove it."
Chad: "No, I don't need to sit in the chair to prove it because I have faith. It's your fault if you don't believe it."
Atheist: "Okay, believe what you want, but there's clearly no chair."
Chad: "Saying that there is no chair is not a rebuttal to my claim that there is a chair, so therefore, I win, and there is a chair by faith. See, I proved my faith is correct because you don't have an argument."
Atheist: "No, you've not done anything except say stupid sh!t. There's nothing for us to discuss."
Chad: "You don't have any argument against me, so I win the argument."
Athiest: "You're as stupid as they come, aren't you?"
Chad: "Ad hominem! Ad hominem! You don't have any rebuttal."
Chad, you're just empty and sad.
So now all atheists accept the multi-verse theory? What is really endlessly fascinating, is that Chad seems to think that all atheists agree on everything. Where does he come up with this stuff?
Chad your position is not "if god exists" Your position is that god does exist, and therefore objective morality exists. The only problem is you don't have any actual evidence to back that up.
@Chad
"also remember, time travel is just a tool to help people understand the concept of "standing outside time", which any object that exists outside our universe would do."
- What? One, Time travel doesn't exist, andeven if it did you wouldn't stand outside of time, you would accelerate time or slow it down, but real time travel theories don't think you can move outside the dimension of time in order to choose another point and come back in. Two, you aren't addressing any of the problems and paradoxes you created by traveling back in time, writing on a piece of paper about a future event and then traveling forward again. 3. If you were to do these things, travel forward and arrival in the current present and literally nothing had changed, then it stands to reason that no one would have free will because the future is definite and unchanging. If you were to travel back here after making the prediction and then be proven wrong because I saw the note and deliberately didn't write on the blog to prove it wrong, it would show that free will does indeed exist, regardless of your faith, but that god wouldn't be able to see the future, regardless of his point of view because the future is changing all the time. That would be god fallible and not omniscient.
Looks like you're screwed either way huh?
"Fascinating that atheists accept the concept of a multiverse, and the concept that enti ties in "these other universes" wouldnt be bound in any way by the linear progression of our time, yet flatly refuse to accept the notion that God, existing outside our universe as well, wouldnt be bound either..
endlessly fascinating."
–Please see the manifesto created after the initial post. I do love when you make general statements that have no bearing on the conversation because it means you are losing the logic argument, you are shown to be way out of your depth and so instead try and change the topic by making snarky comments. It makes me feel good because it shows you are losing in the debate. so thanks for that.
I think the most fascinating thing here is that you use only assumption to prove your god exist and then move to more assumption how god exists, where he exists and his actions there.
Sort of like I've seen a rainbow, thus I now must assume that leprachauns and a pot of gold exist. Using that, I now know that leprachauns use rainbows for travel, can grant 3 wishes to anyone that catches them, and they must use some "magic" in order to stay hidden from the material world. Ipso facto, leprachauns exist because rainbows exist and I read in Irish legend about leprachauns so.....
Draw a circle on blank sheet of paper, Chard.
Have yourself define the line of the circle as the edge of the physical universe. The area inside is the vast universe. The outside of the line is just "nothingness."
You can draw as many circles you would like around the first. Your choice of words will always be to define the areas of nothingness as "nothing can exist in those areas."
You can draw any number of dots inside the circles and they will always have the words to define those dots. The dots have an existence. The moment you decide to place a dot in the blank areas of the paper without the circles you will have to say to yourself "this dot exists in nothingness."
When you do say that.. then you will immediately grasp the fact that you have to place a circle around that new dot and define it as now existing to be able to say it now exists.
Grasp the concept you maggot.
END TIMES AYE CHAD !................chad has so many webs ?
8, 2013 — An international team of physicists has found the first direct evidence of pear shaped nuclei in exotic atoms
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130508172151.htm
Plus new woodland lizard found in Peru !
May 12, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
@Joey "So now all atheists accept the multi-verse theory?
=>I didnt say that all atheists accept the multiverse theory, there are some that accept "the universe has always been here" theory (even though it has been proved incorrect). There are also some that accept the "the universe was created by nothing, out of non-being" (even though that is metaphysically impossible).
what I said was that atheists accept it, which (most, but not all) do.
===
@Chuckles
you have derailed badly on understanding what it would mean to exist outside our universe.
read this, particularly the part about disconnected space-times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
@Answer
read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Chad (May 17, 2013 at 1:06 pm): [
@Chad [to Colin] "Outstanding, glad to hear you endorse the teaching of theistic creation/evolution.
Theistic Evolution
The theory that the God of Israel has orchestrated mutation and natural selection conditions to create mankind from the dust of the earth, to their present form.
Evidence:
Fossil Record.
[..]
Fine Tuning of the universe
[..]
Evidence from human experience
– Objective morality exists if God exists, then objectivity exists. ]
Chad, it should be obvious that I'm not arguing your last statement above. I'm arguing your use of objective anything (morality in this case) as evidence for a characteristic of your God when you would have to prove your God to prove anything is purely objective. See how that looks like a circle to me?
sorry will re-do my last post, some angle brackets caused some text to be deleted – one moment
Not to mention he ties the concept of free will to a soul, which there is also no evidence for.
Chad,
"There are also some that accept the "the universe was created by nothing, out of non-being" (even though that is metaphysically impossible).
You have your own "nothing from nothing" theory so don't pick on atheists.
You apparently believe that God came from nothing and then created the universe from nothing.
Chad (May 17, 2013 at 1:06 pm): [
@Chad [to Colin] "Outstanding, glad to hear you endorse the teaching of theistic creation/evolution.
Theistic Evolution
The theory that the God of Israel has orchestrated mutation and natural selection conditions to create mankind from the dust of the earth, to their present form.
Evidence:
Fossil Record.
[..]
Fine Tuning of the universe
[..]
Evidence from human experience
– Objective morality exists ]
Chad (May 17, 2013 at 2:31 pm) [ @mama k "So how can anything be solely objective?"
- if God exists, then objectivity exists. ]
Chad, it should be obvious that I'm not arguing your last statement above. I'm arguing your use of objective anything (morality in this case) as evidence for a characteristic of your God when you would have to prove your God to prove anything is purely objective. See how that looks like a circle to me?
I think it is time to remind Chad of the following cold, hard fact –
To date, there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that the god of Israel exists. None. No other reason is needed for suspension of acceptance of the hypothesis.
@Chard
Do the circles and paper.
Do it as many times as you want. The definitions will always arrive in the same manner.
A dot in a circle is an endless regression.
All your vast pile of crap is just for one thing... "I want my god to exist so I can feel comfortable."
@Chard
Do this also.. cut your square sheet of paper into the shape of a circle. You'll see the endless regression.
And one for Rachel.....................chad ?
Rachel
Hope the pope also makes positive strides in ending hunger and poverty around the world!
May 15, 2013 at 9:34 pm | Report abuse | Reply
Science
Is that you chad ?
http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/5/5/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority#
May 15, 2013 at 9:36 pm | Report abuse |
Pope's hopes soaps dopes.
May 15, 2013 at 9:37 pm | Report abuse |
Chad
You tell 'em Rachel
May 15, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Report abuse |
Science
https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10151583537145155
Front page there too billie and chadie............check it out !
Have not seacrh for twiiter yet.............page 88
May 15, 2013 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
Science
Chadie..................where are yiu ???
May 15, 2013 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
Science
Old Rachel..................is racing around today..........doing the pokla twist with the snake on sholders ...................is that
dance Rachel ?....................or to I have that backwards chad.............who is who CHAD ?
May 16, 2013 at 6:11 pm | Report abuse |
Science
Oops ...............is that a new dance ?
May 16, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Report abuse |
Science
Oops .............shoulders...................red devil .............looks better for visualo !
May 16, 2013 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse |
In Santa we trust
I hope so too. However history shows that the RCC and most churches put a higher premium on their own wealth and well-being than on anything else.
May 16, 2013 at 6:22 pm | Report abuse |
In Santa we trust
I get it now. For some reason I thought this was the Franklin Graham thread.
May 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm | Report abuse |
Science
In Santa we trust..................as chad slithers along .............with partner in tow !
May 16, 2013 at 7:07 pm | Report abuse |
Science
Hey Chad ...................do you take your show on the road or are you stck down at the creation museum ?
May 16, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Report abuse |
Science
And look who show up above ................chadie............post.
May 17, 2013 at 9:22 am | Report abuse |
Science
Oops forgot the ..............s.
May 17, 2013 at 9:24 am | Report abuse |
Science
Chad is this.....................your true love....................... the RCC ?
And from another thread lol??
In Santa we trust
With the RCC goes the oldest of old the damn bedVROOOOOOOM..............they need to stay the FVCK OUT OF IT !
You know with is partner...............the red thing............the devil !!!
May 16, 2013 at 6:38 am | Report abuse | Reply
May 17, 2013 at 8:32 am | Report abuse |
May 17, 2013 at 9:28 am | Report abuse |
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/vatican-swaps-old-masters-for-modernity-with-venice-biennale-debut/#comments
The Dover trial was held for reason.
@Chad
"you have derailed badly on understanding what it would mean to exist outside our universe.
read this, particularly the part about disconnected space-times."
- So lets see, you post a wiki article on the universe, you point me towards disconnected space-times which relies heavily on the multiverse theory (something you continuously like to make fun of . atheists for believing in because you don't believe in yourself). You also apparently don't know how to read because it mentions nothing in reference to my earlier post about a) time travel being impossible and b) if time travel were possible, the theories surrounding time travel all rely on accelerating or slowing time, not removing oneself from it and travling to a separate universe.
Wanna try that again buddy?
What you are seeing is Chad going further afield into subjects that he has even less understanding of than the latest one that he was just trounced in. It's just desperation – subject switching, but he keeps getting caught in it.
@Chuckles
you are derailing on these items, please try to read them carefully:
1. as I noted above, time travel is an example to help you understand the concept of existing out side our time. God does not time travel.. He exists outside our time.
2. as I noted above, pay special attention to disconnected space-times. You arent getting it yet.
3. I have never "made fun" of the multi-verse (as I have pointed out a million times to you). I merely point out that it it irrational for an atheist to embrace the notion of another universe existing (a notion that is not scientifically testable), while at the same time rejecting the notion that the God of Israel exists because it is not scientifically testable.
You te'll 'em Chad. Don't let them push my boy around with logic. That's me boy 🙂
Chad the god of israel does not exist because I flattened the little sucker with a lightning bolt that I borrowed from my pal Zeus. And because stories of that god that Christians keep spewing are so nonsensical and contradictory that they don't pass a sniff test.
@Chad
"1. as I noted above, time travel is an example to help you understand the concept of existing out side our time. God does not time travel.. He exists outside our time."
- What a terrible example then. If you are using time travel as an example that applies to something that doesn't time travel then whats the point?
Another thing is, other than you having 0 knowledge of where, how, when or why god exists outside of time, space and this universe entirely, you STILL run into the contradicting logic of somehow having free will but god also seeing your entire life, nanosecond by nanosecond, and knowing what happens to you. The only thing a christian can claim is that they have the illusion of free will by making a "choice" when really there's no choice at all.
"2. as I noted above, pay special attention to disconnected space-times. You arent getting it yet."
- Poor chad, clinging to and rejecting the multiverse theory at the same time. That's impressive doublethink you are using here but on the whole, pointless. Instead of me trying to guess what you are getting at (and unavoidably going back and forth where I think you are saying something only for you to reject it) why don't you just tell me what you are getting at here so I can show you why you're wrong. The mere fact that you are pointing me towards disconnected space time as a way to prove your point shows you know nothing about what the multiverse theory is, what it means to be "outside" the universe, time travel or anything else for that matter.
"3. I have never "made fun" of the multi-verse (as I have pointed out a million times to you). I merely point out that it it irrational for an atheist to embrace the notion of another universe existing (a notion that is not scientifically testable), while at the same time rejecting the notion that the God of Israel exists because it is not scientifically testable."
–You've done nothing of the sort, you call the multiverse theory irrational and ridiculous and then try and pin it on all atheists even when many many people tell you differently. You use duplicitous means to try and equate the faith I have in a theory of the multiverse (faith that it has slightly more merit than the god theory) vs. your god theory (the god of israel absolutely, 100% exists) and then try and pin irrationality onto the atheist because you think my swerving the debate towards the atheist, you can cover your own irrationailty of devoting your life to a being that has in no way been verified to exist.
@Chad
You said, "3. I have never "made fun" of the multi-verse (as I have pointed out a million times to you). I merely point out that it it irrational for an atheist to embrace the notion of another universe existing (a notion that is not scientifically testable), while at the same time rejecting the notion that the God of Israel exists because it is not scientifically testable."
Based on available evidence, accepting the possibility of multiple universes is infinitely more reasonable than accepting the possibility that your imaginary friend exists anywhere outside your mind.
There is evidence that there are universes. We live in one. There is no reason to assume it's the only one. Excluding the possibility of others is irrational.
On the other hand, the complete and utter lack of even so much as a single, solitary shred of evidence for your imaginary friend, makes a belief in it completely unreasonable. In light of far more reasonable explanations of how beliefs in imaginary friends evolved, it is foolish to put much stock in your version.
@Chad "I have never "made fun" of the multi-verse (as I have pointed out a million times to you). I merely point out that it it irrational for an atheist to embrace the notion of another universe existing (a notion that is not scientifically testable), while at the same time rejecting the notion that the God of Israel exists because it is not scientifically testable."
@LinCA "Based on available evidence, accepting the possibility of multiple universes is infinitely more reasonable than accepting the possibility that your imaginary friend exists anywhere outside your mind. There is evidence that there are universes. We live in one."
@Chad "evidence we live in one of many universes? What evidence would that be?
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.
— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse
again, it is irrational to think that a belief in the multiverse is somehow more "scientific" than the belief in God.
Chad
So, is God like Star Trek's Q, or the Wormhole aliens called the Prophets?
@Chad
This sh.it is my bread and butter chad. If you want to go toe to toe with me on this, I suggest you read up and not cite a single wiki page about the most general thing imaginable (the universe)
To date, there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that the god of Israel exists. None. No other reason is needed for suspension of acceptance of the hypothesis.
Cheers, Chad, you smug, disingenuous, dishonest, lying jackass.
Theist: "What would you consider valid empirical evidence?"
Atheist "Step 1: IDIOT, look it up!"
Theist: "ok, so "empirical means it is a "source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. The origin of the universe, origin of life on earth, the fact that the universe obeys laws all qualify as observable. There are also the unmoved mover, first cause, argument from contingency, argument from degree, or teleological arguments."
Atheist "IDIOT!!!! None of that proves God"
Theist: "Well, something need not prove God to serve as viable evidence for God, right?"
Atheist "IDIOT!! That's all nonsense!! Anyway they arent empirical"
Theist: "well, they are according to the dictionary"
Atheist "IDIOT!!! all you ever do is quote the dictionary, I'm telling you they arent empirical, I AM THE FINAL WORD!!!"
Theist: "ah.. ok, well then, why dont you tell me what you would consider valid empirical evidence then, since you reject the common use of the term?"
Atheist "Go to Step 1 you IDIOT!!!!"
Chad is feeling the heat – he's resorted to one of his childish and ridiculous imagined theist v atheist conversations. We should see adolescent emoticons soon.
By the way, Chad still has not presented any empirical evidence that supports the existence of the god of Israel. Priceless.
@Chad
First and foremost, thanks for stopping to respond to me. That validates everything I've written so far more than anything else, mostly because everyone here knows that when you stop responding it means you can't come up with anything else and so you wait to move this discussion to a different thread and have the same conversation again.
In short, thanks.
Second,
"Theist: "What would you consider valid empirical evidence?"
Atheist "Step 1: IDIOT, look it up!""
I stopped reading at this, mostly because everytime anyone asks what we, as atheists, would consider valid empiracle evidence the answer has always been, DNA sampling, photographs or video, an event that breaks that natural laws, a voice that is heard on every part of the earth....
Then that's when Chad busts out his "the universe has an origin" nonesense, which he can no more verify than anyone else.
When will you learn to read chad?
@Chuckles
no offense but it's just way to tedious getting you plugged into the discussion at hand..
but, I did update the dialog, thanks!
Theist: "What would you consider valid empirical evidence?"
Atheist "Step 1: IDIOT, look it up!"
Theist: "ok, so "empirical means it is a "source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. The origin of the universe, origin of life on earth, the fact that the universe obeys laws all qualify as observable. There are also the unmoved mover, first cause, argument from contingency, argument from degree, or teleological arguments."
Atheist "IDIOT!!!! None of that proves God"
Theist: "Well, something need not prove God to serve as viable evidence for God, right?"
Atheist "IDIOT!! That's all nonsense!! Anyway they arent empirical"
Theist: "well, they are according to the dictionary"
Atheist "IDIOT!!! all you ever do is quote the dictionary, I'm telling you they arent empirical, I AM THE FINAL WORD!!!"
Theist: "ah.. ok, well then, why dont you tell me what you would consider valid empirical evidence then, since you reject the common use of the term?"
Atheist: "ok smart guy, DNA sampling, photographs or video, an event that breaks that natural laws, a voice that is heard on every part of the earth"
Theist: "well.. A. "DNA sampling, photographs or video" God is disembodied so none of that works. We actually do have events that broke natural laws (such as the origin of the universe), but you reject any historical event as being valid. " a voice that is heard on every part of the earth" is really obviating our free will dont you think?.
In general, you are asking for items, the very nature of which are contrary to the nature of God.
Kind of like "I'll accept that that is your car only if it tells me so itself!!"
So, you are structuring your evidentiary requirement so that it cant be met."
Atheist "Go to Step 1 you IDIOT!!!!"
"Chad", I hope you don't mind, but I've take the liberty of designing a new moniker for your use. I thought it might help you in times of stress when you are defending so many unfounded assertions. The moniker I have designed is: "kierkegarten". It's a combination of "kierkegaard" and "kindergarten". Alternatively, you could use "kindergaard".
Oh, Lord! I guess I'm left to assume that Chad believe that the Lincoln Highway is empirical evidence in support of the existence of John Deere. Lordy, lordy, lordy, that Chad is one sad, silly, little man. Hahahahaha!
@Really-O!
Chad likes to use these little dialogues of misrepresentation as a not-so-subtle way to call atheists illogical idiots and then he turns around and whines that everyone else is using ad hominems. He's shown himself incapable of seeing his own hypocrisy, though. Anyone can make up a fake dialogue misconstruing his or her opponents position ... and you get a two for one by mixing a straw man and an insult all in one with this kind of laziness. At least when people call Chad a lying twit they don't bother wasting a readers time with multiple lines of middle school level dialogue.
@Saraswati –
Chad's shortcomings, ploys, faults, and nonsense are glaringly obvious to all of us. One thing (although there are innumerable others) for which Chad has no reasoned response is –
To date, there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that the god of Israel exists. None. No other reason is needed for suspension of acceptance of the hypothesis.
Enjoy your weekend.
@Chad
I'm shocked you find this tedious but you are fine with coming back day in and day out to be word ra.ped on this blog, constantly harangued by many different people, but sure "updating" your little conversation has to be the tedious part right?
What I think is adorable is that ask the question and I think every atheist has said what they would like to see as empiracle evidence, not as you put it, "IDIOT, look it up". That's just sloppy which obviously means that was you and not the shadow atheist that you've converse with when you aren't on this blog.
Also, I like how you ask what good empiracle evidence would be and when you are provided what we expect, you say it's contrary to gods nature as if that settles it. You asked what the evidence would be, we've told you, if you can't provide that maybe you want to rethink this whole god thing and realize what atheists have been telling you for years, "if you can't provide the evidence, not even a single shred, you might want to rethink about dedicating your life to something that has a solid chance of being imaginary"
Or you know, you can keep arguing with yourself, calling yourself an idiot and pretending like what you are saying is actually profound and relevant. I would like to mention though what you are writing here is tantamount to public mastu.bation and I think your god frowns upon that, right?
Regarding Chad's theistic evolution (or, actually, a workable theistic evolution): Take a coherent, consistent, and falsifiable theory of evolution well-supported by both the fossil record and by molecular biology. Add the God of your choice (some recommend the God of Israel) as a non-participating observer. Voilà, you have theistic evolution. How could you not be persuaded by it?
How about a song while we wait for Chad?
I woke up on the roadside daydreaming about the way things sometimes are
Visions of your chestnut mare shoot through my head and are making me see stars
You hurt the ones that I love best and cover up the truth with lies
One day you'll be in the ditch, flies buzzing around your eyes
Blood on your saddle.
Idiot wind blowing through the flowers on your tomb
Blowing through the curtains in your room
Idiot wind blowing every time you move your teeth
You're an idiot babe
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.
@Tom, Tom, the Other One –
Dylan. Nice.
I like the dialogues as they are a good way of illustrating to the reader in concise form the nature of the atheist request. Namely that it is structured as to be contrary to the very nature of the thing that it purports to provide the ability to demonstrate evidence of.
The atheist acceptance of the possibility (indeed, even the high probability of it as the explanation of the origin of our universe) of the multiverse (one poster even claimed it was proven) without any empirical evidence (as you define it) shows that you are irrationally creating two standards of evidence..
This demonstrates that atheists disbelieve not because of the evidence, but because of the predisposition.
Good afternoon Really-O?
Looks like you've got Chad at bay... Will he return or does he need to recover?
And Chad continues to "dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge" (thanks, Patches O'Houlihan) the following, because he has no reasoned response –
To date, there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that the god of Israel exists. None. No other reason is needed for suspension of acceptance of the hypothesis.
@Saraswati "Chad likes to use these little dialogues of misrepresentation as a not-so-subtle way to call atheists illogical idiots and then he turns around and whines that everyone else is using ad hominems"
@Chad "there is some truth in that.. I can get the same exact effect by using actual quotes, which I'll do going forward.."
@Saraswati " Anyone can make up a fake dialogue misconstruing his or her opponents position ... and you get a two for one by mixing a straw man and an insult all in one with this kind of laziness. "
@Chad "that's nonsense, that dialogue is an extremely accurate representation of the typical atheist response on this blog. I'm happy to dig up nearly exact responses to the ones I put above, and you'll be happy to just call me a name and call it quits." QED
A predisposition to disbelieve outrageous claims for lack of evidence is unreasonable, Chad? Well, it has been proposed that evolution has provided a predisposition to believe. That rustle in the rushes, is it just the wind? It could actually be a large carnivore or even the God of Israel. Maybe it's prudent to believe. Blaise Pascal thought so.
@TTtOO –
Been a while. How's it been centered lately? Other than as an object of ridicule, who really gives a rip about Chad? He's pathetic.
Cheers
Chad: "...that dialogue is an extremely accurate representation of the typical atheist response on this blog.
Well, that's one for the "Dishonest Things Chad Posts" file.
Hey, Chad ... something cannot be extremely accurate, it is either accurate or it is not accurate. I'd expect someone with "several master's degrees" to know that. Hahahaha!
Sarasw.: "Anyone can make up a fake dialogue misconstruing his or her opponents position ... and you get a two for one by mixing a straw man and an insult "
Actually Chad did exactly that here at 2:50 pm (then see my response at 3:14 pm–with no reply since).
@Chad
Oh kiddo.... buddy....ace,
The conversation that you apparently worked so hard on illustrates your profound misunderstanding of everything that an atheist types on this board (presumably due to your predispostion that you can't be proven wrong). An atheist like myself wants empiracle evidence for god because if god actually did exist, it would have a lot of bearing on my life and my actions from then on. It becomes imparative to prove if your god is real because lets face it, if god is real and there is a hell, I don't really want to end up there. I want to be surrounded by lovely lady angels all day fawning over me.
This is of course completely different and not equivalent to the multiverse theory which in no way has any bearing on my life whether there are multiple universes, or we live in an oscillating universe or any other possibilty. The mulituniverse idea is fun in a way, to think that in a paralell universe, I'm batman.
The basis for the multiverse has some sense and although its unproven, to give the multiverse theory credence isn't irrational. It would be irrational to go further and use assumptions about the multiverse in order to alter my life.
Gosh TTTOO, where did I hear this "rustle in the rushes" before?
maybe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTgw6iHLnFY
no that's not it ("push push in the bush"; lol)
or maybe I was confusing it with "wind in the willows" from Van Morrison's Piper at the Gates of Dawn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14VTF3EWqUo
and as for the wind, well it's only the wind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpepqG9KE3o
"Piper at the gates of dawn
The coolness of the riverbank, and the whispering of the reeds
Daybreak is not so very far away..."
I was taken back for a moment. Piper at the Gates of Dawn was Pink Floyd's first album.
Looks like both the Van Morrison and the PF album name came from the classic children's book The Wind in the Willows is a classic by Kenneth Grahame, first published in 1908. In that book there is a chapter named "Piper at the Gates of Dawn".
(Van Morrison song)
@Chad
You said, "@Chad "evidence we live in one of many universes? What evidence would that be?"
I never claimed that we live in one of many universes. I claimed we live in one. Do you disagree that we live in a universe?
I don't claim there to be other universes, I simply don't dismiss the possibility. The argument isn't that there are multiple universes, but that there can be. With a sample of one, and without the ability to see outside it, it is simply unknown how many universes there are or have been.
It is the religious argument of a "finely tuned universe" that relies on there being only one universe, and that the perceived tuning is the work of a tuner. There is, of course, not a shred of evidence that would lead anyone with half a brain to believe there is a tuner. The possibility of other universes and the complete absence of evidence for a tuner causes the "finely tuned universe" argument to completely fail. It doesn't, in any way, establish the existence, or even the likelihood of any gods.
I realize that for your argument to appear to hold water, you need to believe that I make a positive claim about the existence of other universes, but you are being disingenuous by twisting my position to fit yours.
You said, "again, it is irrational to think that a belief in the multiverse is somehow more "scientific" than the belief in God."
Bullshit. Until you present some evidence that your imaginary friend actually exists, it remains a fact that there is infinitely more evidence for universes than there is for any gods. Quoting a fellow believer adds little, if any weight to your argument.
Don't worry Chad. I'm with me too 🙂
@LinCA "There is evidence that there are universes. We live in one. There is no reason to assume it's the only one. Excluding the possibility of others is irrational."
@LinCA "I don't claim there to be other universes, I simply don't dismiss the possibility."
@Chad "hmm.. perhaps your use of the plural "universes" was an error then? Followed immediately by "we live in one"?
========
@Chad ""again, it is irrational to think that a belief in the multiverse is somehow more "scientific" than the belief in God."
@LinCA "!@#K!@# Until you present some evidence that your imaginary friend actually exists, it remains a fact that there is infinitely more evidence for universes than there is for any gods. "
@Chad "A. there is no, zero,nada, nothing, zip, zilch scientific evidence for any other universes. none. by definition, because "science" studies only the universe we live in.
B. So, if you claimed there was zero evidence for God, then the evidence for other universes and the evidence for God would be exactly identical, none.
C. However, we do have evidence for God. Even if you posit(without any scientific data to support that) the multiverse scenario as the causal agent responsible for the origin and fine tuning of our universe, that still can not explain the origin of life and the historicity of Jesus and the empty tomb.
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.
— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse
It would be NICE......... but...........................................sole is n bottom of shoe can be replaced or repaired CHAD !!!
Maybe they should not have created the wedge !!!
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Insti-tute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Insti-tute manifesto known as the Wedge Docu-ment,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic
convictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
@Chad
The first instance of anything, proves that it exists. The existence of a planet that supports life, proves that planets that support life can exist. That science hasn't been able to conclusively show that there are other planets that support life, doesn't mean they are not out there.
The existence of one universe (singular, ours) proves they (plural) can exist, not that they do. To dismiss they possibility that there are, or have been, multiple universes just because we haven't been able to prove they exist is ridiculous.
The existence of just a single universe sets a precedence.
For gods, on the other hand, there is no such precedence. There is no evidence, and thus no reason to believe, that gods exist.
Poe's Law was written with HeavenSent in mind ...
Poe's Law: "it's impossible to distinguish a sufficiently advanced troll from a truly ignorant twit".
Exodus 34:14 – For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Deuteronomy 4:24 – For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
Why T F would an all powerful being need to be jealous? Jealous of what, of whom?
God loves you so much, that he created hell in case you don't love him back... LOL
The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.
Psalms 145:20
Amen.
"Why T F would an all powerful being need to be jealous? Jealous of what, of whom?"
.
Interesting when they claim no other god exists. Sounds liek their god is mentally ill.
Oh look heavensent is casting scripture spells...she actually think the words have power. lol
What I find both hilarious and terribly sad is that so many of these supposed Christians were disappointed that the world didn't end and billions of non-believers were not whisked off to their eternal torture chambers.
"Awww man, why aren't I in heaven having my feet rubbed to some relaxing harp music while all the people I don't like are screaming in agony already? I mean come on, it was never supposed to drag on this long, I mean I went out and told all the people I hate that they were going to die so now it's a bit awkward here without getting picked up, save me already!"
When you realize that not everyone has the same goal for the planet, you know, one of peace where we keep trying to fix the problems that arise with patience and cooperation, you begin to understand why their sick mentality of hoping for the planets destruction has no place in our world.
I thnk that's the saddest bit of all. There are so many people out there who think the earth is just stop #1 before heading on to some afterlife and because of this, taking care of the earth, its inhabitants and other problems that arise are inconsequential.
I wish we could build something like a space elevator where people could go up and get the same effect that astronauts contract while in space. The Overlook effect instills a sense of duty to the earth and makes everyone insanely protective of the environment.
If we could just get a couple of reverends from megachurches to go and preach that stuff instead of crazy fire and brimstone sh.it., maybe, just maybe we could use this stupid religious stuff and put it to good use.
Many of them probably react quite similarly every draw when their Powerball tickets don't make them wealthy. Probably think that they deserve it the same too.
Chuckles
As chad knows PBS has a 2 hour show ti-tled.................Earth from Space....................google it chad
Revelation 9:15
15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. (KJV)
Revelation 15:1
1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God. (KJV)
Amen.
Do a YouTube search for "Pale Blue Dot". Makes the hair stand up on my neck every time I watch it.
HS,
I can quote nonsensical bible quotes too.
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Ezekiel 23:19-21
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prost itute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.
(NIV 1984)
Like donkeys, huh? Lucky girl.
Romans 1:18-20
(18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed {it} unto them. (20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, {even} his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Amen.
"Your mutha sucks fvckin elephant d!cks"- Joey LaMotta, Raging Bull.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Timothy 2:12.
OK, that one's not so bad. (duck and cover)
HS, your god being "wrathful" again – sounds like quite the thug.
My god is only wrathful to those who deserve it. I try to only harvest from my cat hoard when he isn't looking, so I'm hoping I'll get a pass on that. I just get so honnnnnnngryyyy.
Amen.
Jude 1:4-7
Amen.
Phony heavensent, BAITER is, what BAITER does.
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy 4:2
Amen.
This time HeavenSent's "loving", "forgiving" sky creature is torturing with a hot iron. Too funny. What a farce, what she believes.
But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
Hebrews 3:13
Amen/
Chuckles
If you would grace a church once in while with your presence you find that care for the environment is discussed. The Bible instructs us to care for the earth and even in the first book of your Bible you find in Genesis that Adam was to tend the Garden of Eden. Adam gave each animal a name so we see the bond with man and all life should be there. There was no death in the Garden until man wanted things his way.
As to the secular world we see the liberals blessing the wind turbines that chop up millions of birds a year not to mention thousands of protected eagles in Wyoming. On the other hand they just fined Exxon 6 million dollars for the death of 3 eagles that fell into an oil reclamation pond. You cannot blame selfish rules of man just on Christians.
Powerball is expected to top 600 million Saturday, the biggest jackpot yet. Needless to say that there will be a lot of praying until the draw.
For 600 million I would say that I believe in god, hell I'd probably do it for 1 million.
@fred
There was no death in the Garden until man wanted things his way.…and leprechauns chased dragons on unicorns, while elves made cookies covered in pixie dust, and drizzled with nectar from talking plant in a hollowed out tree, all the while keeping an eye out for smurfette to make an appearance.
get the point?
+
The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.
Psalms 145:20
Amen.
Poor widdle terribly sad and sadder than all, Don'r cry. Daddy won't tell you 'bout mean ol' God no mo'. Have sum mo' cookies and ilk. ANYTHING for yo pleasure.
I read that before the big bang, space was less than the size of a subatomic particle. If someone believed that God created this but did not think this should be taught in the schools as it obviously cannot be proven, did not force their views on others, and accepted science such as evolution, would any of you have a problem with this?
As far as it is known there are no answers as to what if anything was before the big bang, there have been plenty of questions and idea's pertaining to this but there's no definitive answer.
Children should be taught that which is peer-reviewed.
@liar prefails
nope
In fairness, Henry, wouldn't we have to teach all of the creation stories? There are thousands of them, all equally as unsupported by science as the Christian one. How could we do that when schools are struggling to find the time and resources to teach even the basics?
nope: get back under the bridge troll!
@Henry "....."
Based on the premise of your question, I can only answer with a question!
Why would God have man evolve while He created him COMPLETE?!
The premise of Evolution COMPLETELY contradicts the premise of Creation!
Regarding Public Education, it is ONLY fair if Evolution is treated the same as Creation, you either include or exclude BOTH!!
Vic, your statement is misleading, and by now, you must know that. The scientific case for creationism simply does not have the support in evidence and science that evolution has. You may want desperately to believe in creation, but that does not a scientific case make.
You are grasping at straws, and I suspect that you are being duplicitous too.
Vic
You can teach all creation stories in some comparative religion class, something I doubt many Christian parents would want to expose their children to, but it isn't science, and has no place in any science class any more than real science should be taught in Sunday School, correct?
The creationists have had abundant opportunities to present the science behind their case, and have utterly failed. Time to move on, Vic. You lost bigtime and your delusions are running out of steam.
Vic,
Evolution is NOT the same as creationism. Evolution is a proven scientific theory with reams of evidence backing it up. Creationism is a WAG at best.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority/comment-page-95/#comment-2332481
"Regarding Public Education, it is ONLY fair if Evolution is treated the same as Creation, you either include or exclude BOTH!!"
Vic,
How about we only teach theories that can be backed up with evidence.
If creation was taught in school it would be a very short class.
"GOD DID IT....CLASS DISMISSED"
Although I do believe in God, I do not think creationism should be taught in schools.
If were created in our present forms, then why is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is present in most if not all mammals, on the wrong side of the heart?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve
@Henry,
you should investigate theistic evolution
Very simple. Any theory that has evidence behind it can be presented, such as the mulitverse theory and big-bang-big crunch theories for the origins of the Universe; abiogenesis, pans.permia and evolution for the origin and subsequent development of life on Earth and any other theory that has evidence for it.
So, for all those who subscribe to the "six days and a talking snake" theory of the origins of the Universe and the origins of life on Earth, please present your evidence.
There is nothing to investigate with "theistic evolution." There's no measurement to be made or hypothesis to be falsified or proven; it's just adding irrelevant opinion onto proven facts. Stupid.
It is impossible to teach biology without at least teaching the proven science behind the working theories of evolution. It is also impracticable to teach biology while at the same time teaching magic which is what teaching creationism to students is.
Chad
"Theistic" evolution is like saying that there actually are gremlins responsible for mechanical failures.
@Chad
The captain pretty much summed it up. The only difference between evolution and your made up theistic evolution is to ascribe a "why" to different mutations and belief that there was an end result (man) in mind that guided evolution instead of seeing man as a random result.
Stupid.
Chad: You mean Adam and Eve? Or perhaps just Intelligent design? Either way neither can be taught.
Henry: Check out The Dover Trial...it offers an explanation on this subject. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
You tell 'em Chad. That's me boy 🙂
Cpt Obvious
I suppose I do believe in Theistic Evolution but that’s not to say I would want something like this should be taught in school. I ONLY want facts taught in school and that would obviously mean to keep God out of the equation.
Quite right, Henry.
Vic, that is absurd. The only thing that should be taught is evolution. Creationism isn't even considered a scientific theory, and has no place in a science classroom.
Where the hell is Topher today? I don't think Chad can answer this one for me. How big really was Goliath?
On the run/fly:
@B a t C "....."
Occam's Razor
@Henry "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve"
I will check out that link later!
For now, Adam & Eve were relegated to a mortal form due to the original sin, they were transfigured!
They were created in a glorified form at the beginning!
@T P "...Dover Trial..."
The Dover Trial and teaching Evolution in Public Schools is a matter of Law and NOT Science!
Vic, the science case is even worse for your creationism case than that lawsuit was.
I think you must already know that, though. More and more, I think you are being duplicitous. At this point, you have to realize that your case is an empty one, or else you aren't even being honest with yourself. I suppose that is what it takes to believe in what you believe.
That is true vic, but only because nobody considers creationism to be science.
OK, it's Friday, and no, it's not near time for my rye manhattan, but I am already getting in my Friday science fiction mode already. Plus, given the subject of this article, I feel pretty much anything is fair game; lol. So what about these supposed giants? The problem is evidence of course, but what if they were wiped out by flesh-and-bone eating virus that itself died out and disappeared once it had consumed its favorite source? I have thoughts as Lewis Black said.
a previous related race of giants could explain a crapload of stuff – maybe even how the Mayans got to be so damn smart; lol.
Another thing that made me think of a earlier somewhat parallel race of possibly very advanced giants was watching the video about the feathers – talking about dinosaurs and birds – related, evolving from same source, but also during some period of time co-existing.
Of course these looney ideas of mine do not address creation of universe, but think of the impact a very few remaining, but very advanced number of giant humans could have had on any possibly real character from the OT. As the rest of them died off, that would also coincide with the reduction of western "gods".
OK, well at least it's not my same old argument. We need some fresh ideas.
"The Dover Trial and teaching Evolution in Public Schools is a matter of Law and NOT Science!"
Given that evolution is science based, it is about science! The Dover Trial was about whether or not Intelligent Design/Creationism could be taught as fact opposed to Science's Evolution. Fiction vs Fact
Did you even view the video?? Do you even care that you are wrong based on the scientific data alone? How you still believe in creationism when there is so much against it baffles the rational mind.
Maybe I should just make this into a sci-fi story: the god of the OT was one of two last surviving natural human giants – very advanced related species, but that had much longer life-spans, and dying from a virus that focused on them. David killed one and the other, whose mother was already suffering from the virus when she bore him, was born a dwarf giant so people didn't know he was a giant. He used he advanced intellect to make people hear him as a god during his long life all throughout the OT in his part of the world. Before he died, he mated with Mary. Maybe Jesus had some conversation with him before he eventually succumbed to the same virus that killed the rest of his kind. Well that gets us up to the spooky part of the NT anyway.
Vic,
Occ.um's Razer says that "the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected",
The problem is Creationism is ALL assumption.
I really hope that was meant as a joke or that could be one of the stupidest defenses of creationism I have ever heard.
END TIMES AYE VIC !................your thread vic ?
8, 2013 — An international team of physicists has found the first direct evidence of pear shaped nuclei in exotic atoms
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130508172151.htm
Plus new woodland lizard found in Peru !
May 12, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
"The Dover Trial and teaching Evolution in Public Schools is a matter of Law and NOT Science!"
Vic,
The reason that the teaching of Evolution is a matter of LAW is that Creationism is a matter of RELIGION not science.
@Vic
For now, Adam & Eve were relegated to a mortal form due to the original sin, they were transfigured!
They were created in a glorified form at the beginning!
Are you paid to make stuff up, or is it just a hobby?
meant as reply, close enough.
It's close enough for me!
Like playin' with horse shoes and nukes.
I read that before the big bang, space was less than the size of a subatomic particle. If someone believed that God created this but did not think this should be taught in the schools as it obviously cannot be proven, did not force their views on others, and accepted science such as evolution, would any of you have a problem with this?
I don't think too many people would have a problem with that, Henry. Even as an atheist, I think that it is likely that our universe is a very, very, very tiny part of a super-massive hyper-structure which might be alive and/or conscious.
mama k
A good debate if you have not seen it is the Munk debate "Religion is a force for good in the world.", pro, Tony Blair, con Christopher Hichens. Hitchens clearly dominates the debate.
gremlins
Whips and chains, too??
BTW, turning Jesus into a religion means you better start over.
lol??..............have not found your thingy yet ?
Excellent!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JVRy7bR7zI
mama k
Craig as you know is one of Chad's heroes, not surprising that he has adopted the same sort of tactics that Craig uses, don't let the facts get in the way.
Yes, JMEF. I see that someone with the moniker craigvideos uploaded this one to youtube. It is the entire debate. Millican is really good here. I'm hearing his thorough presentations for the first time – he is quite good and IMHO makes the better case here.
Excuse me, the uploader to youtube was "drcraigvideos". But again, Peter Millican is excellent.
Tag along................?
You know creationists...........ID believers...............The Bone !
Messed-Up Bible Stories – 2 – Adam and Eve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRGnPIlclps&feature=player_embedded
How did feathers evolve? – Carl Zimmer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPLgfGX1I5Y&feature=player_embedded
JMEF
Craig is about the most impressive Christian apologist when it comes to formal debate, but it would be interesting to see him answer questions when he doesn't have the comfort of setting up all the parameters for what he's arguing for and has to actually think on his feet. Do you know if he's ever done anything like that?
I hear ya, Ken. I think that's why I liked this one better than say the one from Oxford Union. Here, rather than having several people just present, there was more of a back-and-forth with rebuttals, with even a different format at the end between the two.
And I'm not sure, but I don't think Millican ever need to point his fingers up in the air at any point to make a point. lol.
Ken
Craig does like to set up the parameters including the venue in front of a Christian biased audience.
( ever needed )
Yeah, I get the feeling that if Crag showed up at a bar, or a dinner party and had to defend his beliefs in a quick back-and-forth he wouldn't be able to adjust. It's like most Christian apologetics: It works best when they don't give their audience any opportunity to question statements while they're making them.
Someone on another site that the scientific theory of the big bang could have came from nothing. Is this true?
[
"The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge."
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article/
]
As a Christian, I believe God created everything from NOTHING.
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/22/science-seat-another-earth-called-a-certainty/#comment-138045
Vic: google "Argument from Ignorance Fallacy". Seriously.
@vic – the 'big bang' theory does not attempt to answer the initial 'bang'. It is simply an observation of expansion from a central focal.
When you don't know the answer to a question, you should answer honestly and say: "I don't know." You should not pretend to know and claim that it was an invisible and undetectable sky wizard with magic spellz.
Vic said he BELIEVED the universe was created by God. He didn’t say he KNEW that God created it.
Vic
Is it more wise to admit when we just don't know the answer to some question yet, or to just arbitrarily select the most popular guess and declare it the answer?
Remember also that people are still working on finding the actual answer to this, like we have for a number of things that use to only be explainable by God being involved. The real answer to this may very well be discovered as well but, even if it never is, what kind of inflated ego do you need to demand that we have to know the answer to everything? I'm content with by belief that I will never have the god-like knowledge of everything even after I die. Why do you need this fantasy?
Henry: We're well aware of what Vic thinks.
Vic: ""The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. "
Even though they may not have an answer now does not mean there never will be. You don't get to plug a god in to all unknown's, at least not without providing evidence for said god. That evidence in order to be accepted must follow the Scientific Method. Your argument is the god of the gaps: the theological reasoning which invokes divine intervention as a way to understand natural phenomena that science is unable to explain; since we don't know how x happens, it is assumed that God-did-it.
(http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html)
You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
"Science has many questions that may never be answered, theism has many answers that may never be questioned."
@Henry
"Vic said he BELIEVED the universe was created by God. He didn’t say he KNEW that God created it."
Right on!
That is exactly your problem, Vic. You believe, but all the evidence is counter to what you believe in. That basically says that you are really just wishful thinking, and are even being dishonest with yourself.
Why is he not in jail for fraud?
why are you not in jail for stupid
He did nothing illegal .... People gave everything up voluntarily . They went broke because they believed him .
Like modern socie gubmint. Send it all to washington and pray to get some back.
The World as humanity knows it may very well end soon – just too many of us, with nowhere to run, competing for less and less resources....it will be a meat grinder for sure. But there wont be any otherworldly force to pick up the pieces.
The real tragedy is we had what it took to turn the corner, but the single greatest loadstone around our collective necks has been religion...it delayed advancement of knowledge just long enough.
Once we are gone – the world will spin on:)
If things got so bad with disease and famine that aliens picked up some of the survivors and put them in a zoo of sorts to breed, the Christians amongst them would think that they'd been raptured up into heaven. Maybe that's how the animals we keep in our zoos see us, as gods who saved them?
Jesus told his followers to abandon their families and their possessions, with failure ultimately being punished by unimaginable pain. This is enough to put him in the same category as David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. Governments generally ignore the homeless and artsy, so the account of Jesus being targeted and executed by the state suggests similar behavior: maybe he was a conman like Smith or Hubbard, a stoker of violence like Manson, or a kidnapper/pedophile like Koresh or Jones. Just imagine what perverted accounts of 'history' their followers would write if they had escaped!
The bottom line is, Christians defend X by quoting X. This is understood to be a sign of severe mental defect when any other subject is discussed. If I find a crazy person willing to argue for the existence of fictional characters, they will in no way improve their case by pulling out a novel and giving me quotations.
As I said before (and a point never confronted):
The Legend of King Arthur is not evidence for Merlin.
The Greek myths are not evidence for Heracles.
The Epic of Beowulf is not evidence for Grendel.
The American folk tradition is not evidence for Paul Bunyan.
The New Testament is not evidence for Jesus.
The miracles happened ... in the story.
The prophesies were fulfilled ... in the story.
The character was emotionally appealing and morally correct ... in the story.
Can not one of you escape?
Ignorance of the truth, does not void the truth, no matter how much you want to avoid it. It takes belief to get to know Jesus through the New Testament accounts. The eye witnesses there with him, told the truth. What they said, really happened. They didn't exagerate.
@Summer songs – You keep using that word ["truth"]. I do not think it means what you think it means . . .
Summer songs: you merely said it was true because the witnesses said it was true and (for a reason never, ever stated) the witnesses are believed to be true. Because they were true. You might as well chant 'holy, holy, holy' now and forever like the lobotomized slaves in Revelations. This is subhuman intelligence.
Thankfully, Christian history is near its end. Perhaps true humans, with minds, will survive the self-inflicted apocalypse and be alone and free in 2100.
All of Jesus's friends eventually died, they would have died physically anyway. If they had wanted to save their physical lives, they could have denied him and walked away. That is the truth, and it's obvious.
@Summer songs – Consider all those who have chosen death out of sincere conviction to their beliefs, e.g. 9/11 terrorists, Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, etc, etc. Sincere belief is not evidence of the veracity of the belief.
By your own words, the apostles were convinced they saw Jesus die on the cross, and raise again the third day. They did not deny him even when faced with death. They saw it, they knew it happened. The later apostles knew the Holy Spirit and those there testified of that too. Yes, they knew it was the truth, willing to die to get the word out.
Summer Song,
Here is a list of Muslim Martyrs - 23 pages long (and it's just the famous ones).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslim_martyrs
@Summer songs – I take it then, that you simply didn't grasp the distinction, illustrated in the examples I listed, between sincerely held belief and whether said belief was actually true?
How many of them said they heard God speak, or saw Jesus and talked with him, or saw those being healed? None? There is a huge difference... Jesus is the truth.... what he said is from God.
– Luke 24:13-16 “That same day two of Jesus' disciples were going to the village of Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. As they were talking and thinking about what had happened, Jesus came near and started walking along beside them. But they did not know who he was.”
@Summer songs – If you cared to investigate, you would find that those I referenced made exactly those claims. For a clearer example, consider the 11 witnesses to Joseph Smith's Golden Plates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses
By your reasoning, they are equally valid . . .
All Jesus clothes were split up and taken by the soldiers that crucified him. With other clothes, it would be easy to not recognize him with how they dressed back then.
You are of the type that doesn't want to know God. Where are all his friends, he thought there were more. You don't know what he can do.
Summer songs,
Of course the clothes fooled him. No one ever looks at a face, they just look at clothes. Yep.
So they ask, "What is truth? Can you prove it?" Instead of believing God and asking him, they ask others and deny what ever they're told, unless it's what they wanted to hear.
You don't want the truth, I do.
@Summer songs – " . . . deny what ever they're told, unless it's what they wanted to hear." Pot-Kettle. Your premise is that your premise is true. That is not seeking "truth"; that's a dog chasing its tail.
Summer songs,
Believe me, I want the truth, probably more than you do. It's these inane excuses for the Bible that turns so many people off. This "black means white" and "night means day" mentality for apologizing for the Bible creates atheists and agnostics.
No thinking person is going to buy the argument that in a time where nearly everyone wore similar clothing, that no one would look at the face of a person joining them. Too much nonsense for belief. When people suddenly walk up next to you, do you look at their clothes to see if you know them or look at their FACES?
And you wonder why there are so many people who don't believe the Bible!
How do you feel about your decision?
Summer songs,
What decision? To be an agnostic? To realize that the existance of God cannot be proved or disproved?
Summer songs
Unless you can demonstrate that he actually exists, "asking God" would most likely be an exercise in self-delusion similar to every pagan who ever came to believe that some other god spoke to them in prayer, correct?
Summer songs
"All Jesus clothes were split up and taken by the soldiers that crucified him."
Who would want them after Jesus had be whipped, and his clothes dripping in his blood and gore?
"With other clothes, it would be easy to not recognize him with how they dressed back then."
Why need Judas to identify him with a kiss then?
Your logic is flawed Markus. There are many tangible and verifiable events recanted in the Bible that center around people, places and things. Prophecies and Biblical facts that are supported by history, archeologists, and even science. For those of us who desire to believe there is overwhelming evidence to support our faith, for those who are determined not to believe, you will continue to grasp at straws to try and prove us wrong. Jesus Christ himself could appear and he would still be denied.
dissidentfairy, what you said is very stupid. Sure, there are records of a person and percieved events that can be presented but there is no proof of the divinity of Jesus, and also, how is it that a "god" cannot make his existence readily apparent to all of us today rather than have to rely on 2000+ year old accounts that are arguable at best.
Why should we have to struggle to believe in your god? Your post smacks of requests for confirmation bias.
"There are many tangible and verifiable events recanted in the Bible that center around people, places and things. Prophecies and Biblical facts that are supported by history, archeologists, and even science"
Name one.
dissidentfairy:
No one is surprised that the men who wrote the bible knew their local geography and the names of relevant people. This is not proof that the prophecies and the supernatural elements of the bible are real.
Archeologists found Troy using geographical descriptions and clues from the Iliad. By your logic, this means that the Greek pantheon is real.
dissidentfairy
Lots of believers say this, but can you possibly list some of these things you consider "evidence"?
For those who desire to believe in astrology there is overwhelming evidence that it actually works as well.
Tell me, even if you saw a huge face of Jesus up in the clouds, wouldn't you suspect some kind of holographic projection? There must be a couple of hundred illusionists who could pull off the kind of things that passed as "miracles" in the Bible.
Also, I think that it's just as likely that you would reject Jesus if he happened to come back and say, or so something that you didn't expect. If he came back and said "Why are are these gentiles claiming to be my followers", would you deny that it was actually him?
I've posted this before, but it belongs here.
You do not decide what to believe. You do decide if you are going to attend mass, and if you are going to donate in the collection plate, but if they say things that don't make sense to you, you will not believe it.
Many christians i've known only look at the easy parts of the bible. The bible does have a lot of lessons and wisdom. They then accept the rest of the stories and go along feeling good about their beliefs without ever trying to answer the hard questions.
Just because there is some good acvice in the book, that doesn't make it all true. I don't believe a lot of what it says because it makes no sense to me.
I looked at the parts where God speaks, and yes, he's there. When God talks, he makes it obvious that it's from him... if you believe him. Can he do a sign, certainly. Can he see what's up ahead? Absolutely. You all are so missing out, he is that incredible. There is no one like him.
Same old stories rehashed ...
Let's talk about Horus from Egypt in 3000 BC (Jesus is a copy of Horus), or Attis from Greece in 1500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Attis), or Mithra from Persia in 1200BC (Jesus is a copy of Mithra), or Krishna from India in 900BC (Jesus is a copy of Krishna), or Dionysus from Greece in 500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Dionysus) .... or any of the DOZENS of other gods predating the bronze age book character Jesus who were born of a virgin on Dec 25, traveled as a teacher, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was killed and lay dead for 3 days and was resurrected.
You Christians are not even original! What a joke!
Exactly. Idiot Christians should be reminded of their story theft regularly. Not only is their delusion absurd, but it is not even original.
Don't worry. He's a one trick dog, and OLD.
"Let's talk about Horus from Egypt in 3000 BC (Jesus is a copy of Horus),"
No evidence
"or Attis from Greece in 1500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Attis),"
No evidence
"or Mithra from Persia in 1200BC (Jesus is a copy of Mithra),"
No evidence
"or Krishna from India in 900BC (Jesus is a copy of Krishna),"
No evidence
"or Dionysus from Greece in 500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Dionysus)"
No evidence
"or any of the DOZENS of other gods predating the bronze age book character Jesus who were born of a virgin on Dec 25, traveled as a teacher, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was killed and lay dead for 3 days and was resurrected."
No evidence.
The only old dog is Dyslexic that hasn't leanred yet that without evidence, these are opinions without merit. I suggest he look at real history and forgo the websites that he must be reading from.
JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.
Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Many contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers (to include Camping) of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man would do or say?
And you want me to worship nothing. No thanks. Nothing has never said what it did at any time. There is no proof nothing made a universe. There are lots of wild claims that nothing did something, but we all know nothing did nothing at all.
God made everything. God sent his only begotten son Jesus Christ of Nazareth to die and raise again the third day. And God did say what he did, and he told others many times over history that he's there. He's as there as anyone, and more, the greatest being in all history, ever, is God. I love God and hate your nothing god, because your nothing god is a LIE that you can't prove, nor can anyone else.
(from Professor JD Crossan's book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)
"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."
"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."
"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."
o Think infinity and recycling with the Big Bang expansion followed by the shrinking reversal called the Gib Gnab and recycling back to the Big Bang repeating the process on and on forever. Human life and Earth are simply a minute part of this cha-otic, sto-cha-stic, expanding, shrinking process disappearing in five billion years with the burn out of the Sun and maybe returning in another five billion years with different life forms but still subject to the va-ga-ries of its local star.
Reality, you sure have a lot of expert opinions. They are like straw polls, subject to flash fires. Straw is dusty, perfect for dust balls.
What we also know: (from the fields of astrophysics, biology, biochemistry, archeology, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)
1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.
2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.
3. One wayward rock/comet and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.
4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.
5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.
6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.
7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode cataclysmically at any time ending life on Earth.
8. Many of us are part Neanderthal and/or Denisovan.
Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?
Jessica Ravitz, CNN, are you some kinda kook like 99% of the commie commmmmmenters here?? Where did you come up with "doomsday"?? When are you due, woman, for your doomsday??
"Jhn 16:21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world."
Prayer changes things
God was not healthy for children and other living things according to the Bible.
@unobservant
nope
describes nope
Then pray for a brain.
Nope,
Read a Bible someday so you'll know better.
oh no, you're back again.
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!
"Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things"
That's why the data, has shown that atheists have happier and healthier lives than conservative Christians. Your post is built on a lie!
Ah, Russ the coward, you greasy slimeball, back again are you.... Read these direct quotes from your book of nasty, and this time try to comprehend how "context" and "interpretation" are addressed in the following.
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a supposedly perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Bobbette, when you divorced your hubby you cut off your head. Now you want God to give you another one??
he Legend of King Arthur is not evidence for Merlin.
The Greek Myths are not evidence for Heracles.
The Epic of Beowulf is not evidence for Grendel.
The American Folk Tradition is not evidence for Paul Bunyan.
The New Testament is not evidence for Jesus.
The Old Testament is not evidence for Yahweh.
The miracles happened ... in the story.
The prophesies were fulfilled ... in the story.
The character was emotionally appealing and morally right ... in the story.
Get out of your stories.
what bothers you so much about Christians believing?
I disagree. Even in my intense agnostic phase I could not discount Jesus' Existence. Too many historical connections and independent sources validate His Existence.
Historical writings aside, how can anyone explain the voluntary deaths that so many of His immediate follows suffered, when all they had to do was renounce Him to save their own skin? NOBODY dies for what they know is a lie.
Even our calendar is established on Him dividing time.
As a believer in Christ, I not only believe but am certain of Him, God's intense love for all of us, and God's intense hatred of what keeps us separate from him: sin.
I will die professing Him my Savior.
I pray when your time comes, you will too!
In His Love, Juanito.
Because they try (quite successfully) to push their religion on the rest of us – you must have seen this list enough to memorize but somehow you don't: your god mentioned on the currency, your religious beliefs taught in place of science, your religious texts on public buildings, prayers to your god at public assemblies, your religious beliefs should be the basis for our law, etc.
Juanito. One can be an agnostic theist, which it sounds you were.
Juanito,
"Even our calendar is established on Him dividing time."
Yesterday was Thursday, named after the god THOR. The day before was Wednesday, named after the god WODEN.
@ inSantawetrust:
I don't think you too far off the mark in saying I was an agnostic theist at one time.
In absence of perfect evidence to discount the existence of an intelligent creator, a well as the fallibility of our math, limitation of our language, lack of baseline to human knowledge and the primitive nature of our even most advanced tools, I concluded that The possibility of God was just as feasible as life on other planets.
I just didn't know its nature, how or why it created life or could believe a God that loves so much but kills so readily.
So I started talking to It(I believed He was an It at the time because if it could create everything, it wasn't going to be confined and defined my terms or understanding, but on its own) at random times, asking for selfish things, thanking for things given and yelling when things were taken away.
Then I had an encounter with Him that was the most terrifying experience I've ever had. When it happened, like Adam, I ran and hid. My life was fine the way it was, the status quo just perfect for me, and what was revealed meant everything was going to change and the stakes were extremely high.
If He revealed Himself to me, then He revealed Himself to others, those in the Scripture, those whom He beckoned at other times in history, the whole thing. It also meant everything that was written was true, and my condemnation was mirrored by a holiness without fault. Keep in ind I wasn't on the fences, in a foxhole, or in time of an immediate need. I really enjoyed where I was in life and didn't want to face this at all.
I pushed it far down inside and I never said anything about this to anyone for almost six years.
And there came a day when i really needed to know what i experienced for real, and I professed as much, and demanded that He just gives me one more sign, just one more thing to let me knownHe's for real.
Ten minutes later, there was a knock on my door.
And I answered. And I accepted Jesus into my life as my lord and savior, and have seen many things testifying to His love us ever since.
It's easy for people to point out that I was predispositioned to believe in God. I agree. It's probably why He revealed Himself to me. I can't say with certainty why He did, but I can say with certainty that He did.
I've heard and spoken to those who were avowed athiests whom converted without direct encounters like mine.
So conversion varies, and also keep in mind that encounters don't always lead to conversions.
InSantawetrust, I know you don't believe, but I know you spend a lot of time on sites like this to comment and bust a few chops like so many non-believers(and believers). Something more than that brings you here.
Please know that because you can't wrap your mind around Him, or can't experience Him with your senses, doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
You don't have to find Him. He's waiting for you. Pride blinds the very best and least of us, and you don't want to miss what He has for you.
I pray you open your heart, mind and eyes to Him.
In His Love, Juantio
Juanito
The existence of a historical Jesus does not mean that he was this Christ character any more than Vlad The Impaler being a real person means that he cast no reflection and could change into a bat at will. The Jesus of history is not the same as the Christ of Faith. Try to remember that, OK?
In Santa we trust
Nope, he claims to know for certain that God is real, which makes him a gnostic theist, correct?
Chad
What bothers Christians so much about atheists not believing?
"laternarius lightem upus"
CHAD FACTS !!!!.................you know the BONE !!!
Messed-Up Bible Stories – 2 – Adam and Eve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRGnPIlclps&feature=player_embedded
How did feathers evolve? – Carl Zimmer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPLgfGX1I5Y&feature=player_embedded
"Too many historical connections and independent sources validate His Existence"
There is not one single shred of evidence of jesus actually existing that dates to the period he was supposed to be alive. The first mentions of a historical jesus is from more than thirty years after his death. Image how twisted a story gets after thirty years before someone actually bothers to write it down.
"Even our calendar is established on Him dividing time"
Unless you are chinese or hindu.
And the days and months are all Roman and Pagan. The year was established 500 years after the death of the so called jesus. There is actually no way possible to know the exact date of jesus birth, so the calendar is likely wrong anyway. It is simply a point of reference.
derp
There are lots of different calendars used throughout the world. The world generally follows the American/European standard dating system because of business concerns, not any religious difference to Jesus' supposed birthdate. Even Jews and Muslims call this year by another number.
Gregorian calendar 2013. Here are some others.
Bahá'í calendar 169–170
Bengali calendar 1420
Buddhist calendar 2557
Chinese calendar 壬辰年十一月二十日
(4649/4709-11-20)
— to —
癸巳年十一月廿九日
(4650/4710-11-29)
Coptic calendar 1729–1730
Ethiopian calendar 2005–2006
Hebrew calendar 5773–5774
Hindu calendars
– Vikram Samvat 2069–2070
– Shaka Samvat 1935–1936
– Kali Yuga 5114–5115
Iranian calendar 1391–1392
Islamic calendar 1434–1435
Julian calendar Gregorian minus 13 days
Korean calendar 4346
Thai solar calendar 2556
@Ken
That was my point. Juanito made the absurd assumption that "our" calendar was based on Jesus birth as a dividing line. I was simply pointing out that it is not the case for everyone.
Sorry, I should have addressed that to her then.
@ Ken
I disagree about you differentiating between the historical Jesus and the Christ. He is one and the same.
He professed it, and His immediate disciples accepted their deaths instead of recanting their faith.
What would lead people to die like that? If the miracles He performed did not actually happen, and His Resurrection was just something they concocted to just to spread His Good News, why would they not recant when faced with the horrific deaths they would have to endure?
It would have been a con game without much upside. Again, NOBODY willfully dies in defense of what they know is a fraud.
This is not the reason for believing but one very hard question without plausible answers other than the Apostles really knew Jesus to be what He said He was.
The same question has to be asked for Christians who have been martyred since, and those suffering persecution today in China and Iran. All they have to do is recant and they can be spared whatever unpleasant things they suffer otherwise.
I ask with sincerity of any non-believer for their input.
I'll preface this to those who only offer antagonism and ridicule as a response: I expect it because its easier for you to do that than to have intelligent discourse and mutual respect for those who aren't sitting across the table with you.
In His Love, Juanito.
Juanito, you are quite the wingnut. Wow, just wow.
Give some thought to why you get the ridicule. It is mainly because the religion that you keep trying to sell us on is so fucking stupid, and your posts about it are too.
Juanito, people deserve respect, which also comes in the form of rights that your sick religion would deny women and other groups. Ideas do not deserve respect. Try to understand the difference.
Christianity is a really bad set of ideas and fiction, and deserves to be exposed for what it is. You've been unable to present any sound defense of your crazy beliefs. That and the responses to your posts should make you think harder about your crazy beliefs, and ultimately reject them.
Juanito
"He is one and the same."
I may be inclined to agree that the historical Jesus probably existed. Why not? There were many similar preachers, miracle workers and messianic claimants floating around the area back at that time as well as tens of thousands of crucified Jews. Nothing implausible about that at all, but it's also clear that Jesus' supposed divinity increases with each new gospel.
It's the same thing as separating the historical congressman Davy Crockett from the guy in the Disney shows who use to wrestle bears. Great people very often have legends told about them. It's only natural.
Simply, as Christianity started to expand into solely gentile communities, gentile pagan ideas about what the term "Son of God" meant replaced the Jewish one. Jesus became less a David-like figure and more a Hercules-like one. Most modern scholarship supports this view.
What would lead people to lay down their lives for a religious belief? In this post 9/11 world do you really have to ask that? Believing something that you would lay your life aside for doesn't actually make that belief true, correct? If it did then a lot of terrorists are in heaven right now.