 |
|
|
|
|
July 21st, 2014
08:14 AM ET
ISIS to Christians in Mosul: convert, pay or dieBaghdad, Iraq (CNN) - Just days after the militant group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria said they killed hundreds of Syrians, dozens of Iraqi Christian families are now fleeing the ISIS-controlled city of Mosul, hoping to avoid a similar fate. On Friday, the al Qaeda splinter group issued an ultimatum to Iraqi Christians living in Mosul - by Saturday they must convert to Islam, pay a fine or face "death by the sword." A total of 52 Christian families left the city of Mosul early Saturday morning, with an armed group prohibiting some of them from taking anything but the clothes on their backs. "They told us, 'You to leave all of your money, gold, jewelry and go out with only the clothes on you,'" Wadie Salim told CNN. Images obtained exclusively by CNN show that the phrase "property of ISIS" scrawled in black paint on a number of the homes that were abandoned. Some of the families headed for Irbil - which is currently controlled by Kurdish forces - and others toward the Dohuk province. The majority went to Dohuk, which is 140 kilometers (87 miles) north of Mosul. "We did not know how to act," said another Mosul resident, Um Nazik. "Are we going to get killed?" ISIS was able to take over large swaths of land due to the lack of centralized authority in both Iraq and war-torn Syria. The Sunni militants hope to establish an Islamic state throughout the region it currently controls. FULL STORY
« Previous entryWorld Cup final: It's Pope versus Pope
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Evolution is a fraud.
The Archaeopteryx fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since.
The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.
The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers. Click the picture to see an enlargement.
The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown.
(...) This example would not have proven evolution even if the feathers had not been forgeries. Finding a few species with characteristics similar to two other species does not prove a link. There should be millions or billions of transitional links if evolution were true, not simply a few. A.Light
your trolling is getting a little too transparent ...
No kidding. He had me going for a while, but he's crossed the border into obvious. Maybe he just wanted to be caught.
So Scotty – what can you tell us about A. Light? –you know, anything at all about that person's credentials...
Doc had them posted below but.....
Maybe it stands for A. Busch Light. I don't see any real scientist with that name who would discuss this topic.
can't argue with sound logic and facts .. well i guess if you belong to the evolution cult you can. lol.
Sound logic and facts, you mean like the 2nd Law proves evolution false? Hilarious.
Scotty: "can't argue with sound logic and facts ..."
If you had any. Since you can't provide any info on this vague reference "A.Light", we can only assume you've made it up. Of course we've learned to expect this kind of behavior from you...
Evolution is a frog?
Fraud.
Frog?
Fraud.
Frog?
I think were on the same page...
I'm clicking the non-existent "like" button.
Me too.
Me too.
I hate acknowledging when advertising works..
Species become extinct, they don't evolve and that's a fact, not theory. Can this be denied? Nope
Yep. Evolution is a fact so is the extinction of many species. I can't decide whether you're a poe or a just a troll – do you have any objective evidence for creationism yet?
Some species become extinct. Others evolve, some have not changed for millions of years, while branches of the species could evolve or become exitnct.. YOU are an example of an evolved animal. THAT is fact. Your DNA proves it ( among many, many, many, many, many other things)
"Dr. Walt Brown" – Creationist with a degree in Engineering.
FAIL!
Since Scotty seems to be so down on established theory and Deism lately, I have to ask him (to try to understand how he "rationalizes" things):
when you let go of a ball, and it falls to the ground, who do you think took time out of their busy day to make it happen –
your God or the devil?
Doris,
There is science on that, it's called Intelligent Falling. There was a good article in the Onion describing it.
easy, gravity is a fact. evolution is a delusional theory.
While I agree that "gravity is a fact", there is much more to that statement than you may be aware of. Do you believe there exists an elementary particle called the graviton?
A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
The 5 laws of the Theory of Evolution have proven their validity thousands of times by millions of people for more than 150 years. If you can falsify any of those laws, you'll no doubt throw all of biology on it's ear and be the most famous Creationist in the world.
Evolution is fake.
Scientific Fact No. 7 – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics, which has never been proven wrong.
The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals, and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally towards disorder or chaos.
Quoting from the book, Evolution and Human Destiny, by Kohler,
"One of the most fundamental maxims of the physical sciences is the trend toward greater randomness – the fact that, on the average, things will get into disorder rather than into order if left to themselves. This is essentially the statement that is embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
This scientific law actually refutes and contradicts the Theory of Evolution in its entirety.
HAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Thanks, I needed that.
I know it's wrong to laugh at special people, but sometimes I just can't help myself.
You're allowed to laugh at clowns.
Wow!! And this simple, seemingly obvious fact was missed by the entire biology departments of all of the universities and colleges who teach a biology course anywhere in the World. Please let us know when you get your Noble Prize Scotty.
That's a rather vivid imagination you have...do your Dr's know the delusions have gotten this bad?
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies only to closed systems.
Their religion is a close system. To them, the bible poves the bible is true because the bible says so, so no need to cross reference it with anything other than itself, and when it seems to contradict itself, just randomly open any scripture, read it in a haughty voice and proclaim that explains it.
closed system...
No it does not apply only to closed systems and I've told you this before. I found a real scientist who confirms what i knew already. Harvard scientist John Ross had this to say in Chemical and Engineering News
"...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
That's some nice copypasta from trueorigin.org
Normally, entropy is a force of disorder rather than organization. But physicists have recently explored the ways in which an increase in entropy in one part of a system can force another part into greater order. In the case of phospholipids, for example, particle shape and entropy can produce highly complex, ordered structures.
("Disordered, Quasicrystalline And Crystalline Phases Of Densely Packed Tetrahedra", Nature, 462: 773-777 (10th December 2009)
If a particular system is a net recipient of energy from outside, like the Earth receiving energy from the Sun, then that energy can be harnessed within that system. The utilisation of energy by the biosphere (and thus evolution) is orders of magnitude too small to violate thermodynamic concerns.
("What is Life: The Next Fifty Years. Reflections on the Future of Biology", Cambridge University Press, pp. 161-172)
("Evolution And The Second Law Of Thermodynamics", Emory F. Bunn, arXiv.org, 0903.4603v1)
“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
― Plato
You just demonstrated beyond a doubt your ignorance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It applies to a closed system (which you also probably don't understand). The earth is not a closed system, it is an open system, i.e. energy and mass are exchanged with it's surroundings. In an open system, order can and does form. There are many examples.
Your lack of understanding of science and the scientific method is startling. You make up for it in dishonesty, libel, arrogance, and hubris though.
Bostonoila
"You just demonstrated beyond a doubt your ignorance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It applies to a closed system (which you also probably don't understand)."
Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems," and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes no further than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientific facts that invalidate their theory. In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.369
An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.
However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.
The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.
As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own.
The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles. – Harun Yahyah
And no credit given to biblelife.org I see and you didn't even change the number they assigned to their bogus banter.
Good job on the cut and paste though, those are some nifty skills you have... golf clap....
Just some more copypasta from the website that claims that cholesterol and fat cure heart disease and that "Vegetarianism is a religion falsely disguised as a healthy way of eating. True vegetarianism is the worship of animals."
wow. Just.....wow. Just as I start thinking I've heard it all.....along comes vegetarianism as the worship of animals.
scot
You keep posting Light's work as if it was your own...so you are a thief.
second you are a moron if you think this guy has anything on the ball.
His "work" is laughable and only someone who has been blinded by their religious nonsense wouldn't be able to see his work is a joke.
Stop posting his work without credit or permission, theif.
The list of "Facts" on that site is hilarius. Like # 10 "Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong." lol
or #11 "Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong."
or this gem "The Earth is not young as false teachers claim. The Earth is perhaps millions of years old but certainly not billions of years old as claimed by evolutionists." lol, certainly not Billions!
or this "However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons."
I'm laughing so much my sides are starting to hurt...
Oh please.....stop.....I'm laughing so hard it hurts!
Is it from biblelife.org? It is fascinating. Read the dietary stuff. He instructs people not to eat fruit out of season because Jesus never served apple juice. He's also fixated on guns. Surprise. However, I WAS surprised to see that he wasn't a YECer. Not that he's exactly an Old Earther, but still..
There are creationist, repeat, creationist web sites that explicity tell believers not to use the second law of thermodynamics argument. That's how bad it is.
"The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos."
Your quote is missing a HUGE part of the definition: "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy."
Note the term "Isolated" – local entropy can be overcome by the infusion of energy. On Earth, we have a near-limitless supply of external energy – the SUN!
Questions for my God believing friends:
Are the Muslims that are committing these crimes simply mistaken or are they manipulated by Satan?
Does Satan have power to do things in the physical world or just in people's minds?
Does God currently exercise power outside of people's minds? (i.e. does he actually change physical objects, events, etc)
I like these questions.
1. I'm not privy to the angelic realm, so I have no idea what is " human mistake" vs. " Satan." But mistaken, yes.
2. Both. The book of Job would be exhibit A ( Of course, if the bible is considered mythology this would be irrelevant).
3. This is a very good question, one of which I am not certain of the answer. For me, it is never a question of can or has , but rather of, does He. The act of healing is a prime example. I'm familiar with countless anecdotal stories of individuals who have been healed, but being the skeptic I am, I really do wonder. I have never once read an account of someone being healed of a genetic disorder such as Downs Syndrome, Fragile X, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.., all diseases that could be positively identified through genetic testing. Seems odd God would limit his healing to diseases like " Aunt Mary's arthritis disappeared after the preacher laid his hands on her."
So, my non- answer is that I'm not really sure to what extent God intervenes in space/time/history at this point.
Honest answer, thanks Devin.
Can humans have free will if God or Satan can make impressions on our minds?
Very complex question upon which volumes have been written.
It would first be necessary to define "free will ". The term is often considered philosophically/theologically in the area of soteriology and in a general, everyday sense ( i.e. do I have the free will to choose to cross the street or not?). My answer would depend on the context in which the term was used.
I agree, free will is hard to define, but often debated anyway (lol).
The example of Judas would be a good reference point to my mind. In many of the translations it is said that "the devil entered" Judas and was ultimately responsible for his actions.
God is an explanation for the reason behind the Universe's existence, something which is unknowable and has no relation to what happens in the Universe.
The Universe doesn't work how we want it to work.
We can only describe it, and chronicle its workings.
The more we have done that, the more we've found that the things to which humans previously ascribed supernatural explanations have turned out to be perfectly natural phenomena.
Whoops! Means as a reply to dalahast
which god?
Meh – any ol' god'll do.
Eenie meenie miney ... Quetzlcoatl!
Quetzalcoatl is not the creator of the universe in his pantheon, that Omoteotl zhe is the supreme deity and the creator
why does it say "Your comment is awaiting moderation." their is no bad words in it
Probably a naughty word fragment.
The mods seems to be in full overseer mode today – there were a number of posts removed this morning, leaving all those orphaned replies at the bottom of the page.
Seems my earlier joke about "catching an incurable case of The Gays" was over the line...
nope no word fragment can you read it, i was just informing you of the Aztecs supreme deity.
Why Zeus of course, you cursed unbeliever!
I disagree with your opinion and experience about God.
There is nothing in science that disproves God. In fact, as I've heard some actual scientists testify before, science actually points to God for some of us.
Which "actual scientists"?
Plenty of actual scientists believe in God. Science doesn't lead everyone to atheism or agnosticism.
Supernatural hypotheses are not falsifiable and therefore are the domain of theologians – not scientists.
Not necessarily.
Can you give an example of a supernatural claim that is falsifiable?
"God is an explanation for the reason behind the Universe's existence, something which is unknowable and has no relation to what happens in the Universe."
In my experience that is false statement about God. It in now way reflects what my belief is, but is merely your unscientific attempt to explain something you don't understand.
Can you give an example of a supernatural hypothesis that is falsifiable?
God exists.
What kind of test could be performed to falsify that statement?
Or to put it another way, what result could convince you that God does not exist?
You could try using philosophical or logical evidence, such as proving that God's attributes are self-contradictory.
The scientific method does not utilize philosophical arguments.
Is the scientific method the only way to understand everything? Not saying science is not deficient; just wondering if it always the right way to find differing kinds of truth?
And so we come full circle to the original statement:
"Supernatural hypotheses are not falsifiable and therefore are the domain of theologians – not scientists."
Only if science is the only way to falsify something. Which is your assumption, which I don't think can truly even be backed by science.
"Supernatural hypotheses are not falsifiable and therefore are the domain of theologians – not scientists."
I think there is at at least room to quibble here. In another comment you can find on this page, I mention a book by Victor J. Stenger in which he concludes that God (capital G) does not exist because the evidence that should be there if he does exist is not there. God (capital G) is said to daily and directly operate in the lives of humans. If these claims are true, then we should have some evidence of that.
Note again this is capital G God. The argument is necessarily a limited one, much like the incompatible properties arguments that Dala mentioned.
"There is nothing in science that disproves God."
Victor J. Stenger would disagree with you, at least with respect to the capital G God of the three great monotheisms. In his book "God: The Failed Hypothesis", he searches for evidence of God that should be there given how he is described/portrayed/etc. He concludes the evidence is not there and that we can say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
It is a dry book but it's an uncommon position to take, given the pains some people take to say that science can't say anything about god one way or the other (many of these people are scientists worried about grant money drying up).
I'm not surprised people would disagree with me.
And there are a lot of scientists/philosophers who disagree with Stenger's approach and findings, too.
As I mentioned in a later post, I am only bringing it up as potential quibble room. Compare:
"There is nothing in science that disproves God."
Maybe, maybe not.
"Science has nothing to say about God." [I know this is not what you said.]
I'm inclined to believe that this isn't true.
"No. It is possible that science can not detect everything. Believing that doesn't violate science. Or it is possible our understanding of science is so limited we don't fully understand it in this time."
Not detecting everything is completely different than believing that there are supernatural beings capable of manipulating how the universe works.
agreed the only thing out side the natural, or what is referred to as the supernatural is nothing nothing is the only supernatural. because nothing does not exist.
hay look Muslims give you 2 extra option that's more the Christians gave my people
which was convert and die. this is karma. the gods may have an accelerated sense of time, the could do nothing then but they can do it know. you all have it comming. get ready to have you wealth taken to be driven from your home and to be killed just like you all did to the, west Africans, the north Americans, the Aztec, the Romans, the Celts, the Sidhe, ect. everything comes back around.
Abraham's God is a god of peace and love.
And if you deny that basic fact, He'll send you to a fiery pit of eternal torture.
There you are AwanedringScott! I missed you these last few days. Were you off dealing with that alcoholic son of yours, Peter Griffin? Anyway, with some help from Doc Vestibule, I put this together just for you:
“There’s no way a blind person could be in San Francisco one day and then Los Angeles a few months later without a creator. God must have zapped the person instantaneously from one city to the other,” insisted Wandering Scott.
“What,” replied Charles, “Why do you always resort to a magic-divine explanation just because you don’t understand something?”
Wandering Scott – Well, you tell me how it happened, you God denying reprobate.
Charles – Simple. The person walked.
Wandering Scott – Oh, so you’re part of the ambulatory cult are you? It would take a huge leap for a person to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles, a much bigger step than any person could make. How could a person jump about 400 miles? What, are they Superman? Next thing you’ll tell me monkey can give birth to a human.
Charles – Of course not, but you are assuming that it was only one step. What if that person took only very small steps and over a long period of time, those little steps added up. You walk to the liquor store most mornings around 11:00 AM don’t you?
Wandering Scott – Now don’t you be trying that with me, you unregenerate. I believe in micro-voyages, just not macro-voyages. There’s not enough time. Look, here’s a quote from Runner’s World, a respected magazine; “No person could walk from San Francisco to Los Angeles.” Ha, I got you!!
Charles – But that quote continues “without proper preparation and the right shoes.” You totally took it out of context.
Wandering Scott – No I didn’t. It is your wicked arrogance and pride that wants to shut God out of your life, you filthy podiatrist-worshipper. That quote was made and now you’re stuck with it. And, anyway, where are the transitional footprints? If somebody walked from San Francisco to Los Angeles we would expect to see their transitional footsteps.
Charles – There are pathways along the route, roads, bike routes here and there. The entire route is not laid out with every single step, but there is enough evidence dotted along the way to show that it can easily be done. To expect to see every single footprint is just ridiculous.
Wandering Scott – So, you can’t explain the gaps in the footprint record, hey? Bet that makes you uncomfortable. Here’s another quote from the editor of Track and Field, another well reputed magazine, “Walking from San Francisco to Los Angeles……is a load of rubbish.”
Charles – Bur the words you omitted are “is a popular adventure. The claim that it is dangerous is.” The entire quote is, “Walking from San Francisco to Los Angeles is a popular adventure. The claim that it is dangerous is a load of rubbish.” You not only took it out of context, you intentionally turned the author’s quote around to say exactly the opposite of what he really meant. That is dishonesty of the highest order.
Wandering Scott. Ah, I’ve got you on the ropes now, haven’t I? Anyway, how would a blind person know the direction from San Francisco to Los Angeles. If they were blind, they would just be taking random steps. I am called “Wandering Scott,” so I should know!!
Charles – Well, what if there are external environmental pressures gently guiding them. What if they could feel the morning and afternoon sun on their face, knew the direction of traffic and could navigate suburbs as many blind people can, and even had a guide periodically. Every time they took a step in the wrong direction, the guide would prevented them taking another step in that direction, but would allow them to continue if they took a step in the right direction. Blind people run marathons.
Wandering Scott – Baa! There are no such things as the morning sun, guides and traffic. That’s all part of the god denying, foot worshipping cult of pseudo-scientists. The next thing you’ll try and tell me is the Earth is round and that it’s Summer in Australia when its Winter in the USA, and nighttime there when its daytime here, you pig-fvcking, Jesus hating, Satan worshipper.
You give me too much credit, sir.
Aside from suggesting you add the word "unregenerate", this piece of brilliance is all yours.
Yes, but it is the cherry on top of the ice cream........
Did you change the time of the liquor store stroll from 10 am to 11 am?
I did. I realized that I neglected to take into account daylight savings time -:)
People have been using religion to unite the masses for their own personal gain throughout history.
This is just one more case of a small group using the idea of a god to get others to give them what they want.
I don't know if it makes ant real difference or not, but so far it looks like the leadsers are actually muslims.
Has Baghdadi informed CNN his jurisprudence? If it saw then its petty $475 per family. What’s the big deal? Saudi will cover that. Shame on you CNN.
This statement is cromulent.
Assuming believers think this action by ISIS is wrong, would it be right/good if it was ordered by God?
They would sacrifice their own children if their God told them too, that is the pinnacle of their faith.
On believing, that's probably true – and that's a big problem!
A reasonable person might think the ultimate sacrifice is giving your own life, but the God if the bible wants your kids life instead. Sure, the kid has no say and it's not your life to give, but according to the bible you own your progeny. You might also think if he was trying to represent the sacrifice Christ would make by having Abraham nearly stab Isaac, and if Jesus is God, then why wouldn't he have instructed Abraham to stab himself?
Genesis Chapter 1: "In the beginning God......................So, God created man in his image.................God blessed them and said be fruitful"
Clearly as evidence by the history of mankind we have failed to be fruitful. By our choice we have rejected God and reached a point where we argue about what fruitful means rather than just being fruitful. We were blessed by God so we could be a blessing to all the generations so that fruitfulness was a state of being, the state of existence, which is image of God.
Mankind reflects the image of God within both individually and as to nations. In the ancient days the enemies of Israel did not fear God because they did not know the God of Abraham, but they feared Israel because God was with them. Across the globe today we see 2.3 billion Christians, a Christian President and Congress in the U.S. that close their eyes to religious persecutions the same way Hindu's close their eyes to the Dalit. Clearly God is not with them any longer and the image of God can hardly be seen behind the exterior of religion. We present a false God as we present our idols.
Every word of Jesus remains true and when he said; "as it was in the days of Noah they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark....", fiction is becoming reality for those who hold the Bible as myth.
In the beginning;
Man was confused and scared by the world around him, so he created god in his image to remove accountability and help him sleep at night.
Pure speculation and goes against evidence.
Neanderthal did not leave evidence that belief in the supernatural was in response to fear although they may have (pure speculation). They did leave a trail of personal belongs buried with their dead so we know their was afterlife ritual. Awareness of something greater than the physical observable world is the main trigger that is consistent to this day in 90%+ of humanity.
Please. Every culture has invented their own gods to explain the natural phenomena around them. These gods have always reflected the needs and the morals of the society from whence they came. The christian god is no different than any of the thousands of gods who came before and after. He is just another primitive invention created to so that people could explain away or attempt to bargain with the unknown.
Where is it fred – hell or afterlife ?
Or is it – The Axiom Method of Teaching Origins by Randall Hedtke ?
From you know fred.
God is a byproduct of sentience, not the other way around.
When early man, his little brain bent upon survival at all costs, discovered that the world worked independly from how he thought it worked, he was frightened and scared. That can't be! said early man to other early men. There must be some explanation, nature can't just be arbitrary!
"Ugg", said other early men, and thus "God" was born–or, more appropriately, gods. Early men weren't really very good at generalization, and since everything seemed to work independently from everything else, several gods were needed to explain the "stuff" that affected early man so profoundly.
But instead of "Gravityman," "LightWavesWoman," "FractalDemon," and "FunctionChild," early man, unaware of such mystical things as provability and objectivity, figured that somebody just like him, but a little smarter, must be responsible for how and why the world worked like it did. And since it was like him, it must be fickle, greedy, and childlike. Thus, mult.itheism had its glorious start.
As time went on, man began to build, man began to create, and gods began to resemble our more recent ancestors as their needs and wants changed. Christianity came along, a big beautiful "unified field theory" of a religion, and combined all of our fears and woes and hopes and dreams under one, easy-to-remember, easy-to-appease label, Jesus Christ.
Religion is an impossiblity our mind allows because it makes us feel safe, the ultimate goal of earlyman.
Faith is the emotion that precedes thought.
It is the cave-man instinct that comes upon us when we're confronted by something we don't understand.
Science Works
Randall Hedtke has some good points and if you read the grade school texts the conclusion is we are the result of natural process only. Religion is cast under a dark shadow and sometimes includes mention of creationism under that shadow. Like kids who have man caused global warming pounded into their heads they cannot recognize we are at the tail end of a 10,000 year warming cycle.
We have come full circle in public education.
Hey Fred – Since you brought it up –
For the kids fred – not some ideology .
Please check it out thanks.
Climate Science Students Bill of Rights
ALL KIDS DESERVE THE BEST CLIMATE SCIENCE EDUCATION AVAILABLE.
http://ncse.com/taking-action/climate-bill-rights
It shocks me to type this fred,
but we agree on something. Please give me your reasons for concluding that human activity has not caused global warming. I'm almost hoping you can change my mind.
Doc
Great summary! Absent a personal experience God could appear as the result of sentience. Problem is you are then stuck with accepting an un-caused cause at singularity which goes against everything known and observed in the natural. It is a bummer you cannot accept my personal experience as your own by definition or the apparent will of God, whichever comes first.
The question of the chicken or the egg was resolved thanks to evolution but social evolution or other sciences cannot support sentience predating God. If God does not exist then logically sentience would predate.
tallulah131
Correct so it is self evident to you that we appear hard wired to seek God. Atheism has succeeded in removing God from our public schools and in a short time geologically speaking we will reap the harvest of what Stalin could not accomplish by force.
Alias
Setting aside the fact the entire global warming alarm bells were politically motivated and funding driven by pro global warming concerns?
1)Over the last 450 million years carbon dioxide levels have risen in the same pattern as temperature. Man is a recent contributor so the pattern predates the bad oil companies and evangelical republicans.
2)ice core data actually shows receding glacier ice began 12,000 years ago
3)96% of CO2 levels are result of non human related activity currently.
Hey fred – are you this guy in real life ?
Creationist Ken Ham calls to end space program because aliens are going to hell anyway
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/21/creationist-ken-ham-calls-to-end-space-program-because-aliens-are-going-to-hell-anyway/
How can anyone take that Ham guy seriously? Really. What a useless bag of flesh.
tallulah131
Yeah his (Ham and fred too maybe) ideas/words stink worse than the methane gas that comes out of the swamp where the beaver play at our shack in the woods.
Don't trust soundbites out of context. The Bible says how can they believe if they have not heard and how can they hear if there is no testimony. Well we blew it when we sent our first message into space at cluster M13. Instead of including a testimony or John 3:16 the Arecibo message broadcast to M13 consisted of 1,679 binary digits.
Yep, no Alien is going to heaven based on that message for sure !
Fred but comet 67P will be visited August of 2014 by whom fred ? not you know who.
If the movie Ice Age is true I expect Rosetta probe will discover ice but no acorn
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/opinion/timothy-egan-faith-based-fanatics.html?emc=edit_th_20140719&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=9890152&_r=1
Science Works
The conflict is not religion or the fault of God but the nature of mankind. Adam and Eve reject perfect love and the result was their first son Cain killing the good, kind, sweet loving son Able. Why? Because Able followed God while Cain did not follow God. Jesus came and demonstrated that love and offered anyone who wants it the power to learn perfect love.............we nailed Jesus to the cross.
IF you are a deist and believe in God, then evolution can be derived from a twisted and contorted interpretation of scripture. However, scripture interprets scripture and does not contradict. Our rational being also does not allow that God would put creative forces to work in this way and then just walk away. it's only the carnal mind that considers such a possibility and is essentially a rebellious response to God's claim on us, that He is our creator.
"IF you are a deist and believe in God"
That would make you a Christian, Jew or Muslim right? They are the only one's I'm aware of that recognize Yahweh.
"However, scripture interprets scripture and does not contradict."
Pretty much the definition of confirmation bias right there. Only a few poorly written books would be internally contradictive.
Wicked arrogance and pride want to shut God out of their lives; denying Him they imagine escape from accountability. They're wrong. Deists do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture and are deceived by the devil. God's will here on earth is not going to be thwarted because puny rebels deny Him and remain unreconciled to Him. He is being patient with them and they unwise to think Him to be slow.
It seems like every time some sanctimonious fool wants to scare someone into believing, they run to their pal, Satan. They are really inescapably joined at the hip with the devil. Some of the earliest Christian apologists (Justin Martyr and others) utilized Satan in the strangest of ways – claiming that he was able to perform plagiarism in reverse time order to try to confuse the faithful. Of course they need to be able to claim the limits of the devil's involvement in history, otherwise, all of it could have been one big deception. And of course, like many things, they can't show much evidence for any of it.
Well, Doris, Satan did scatter all of those dinosaur bones all over the world. Quite the trickster.
scot
" in the inerrancy of scripture and are deceived by the devil"
First off, your bible errs...in many, many places.
second, it seems far more likely your Satan created your bible...god would not have gotten so much wrong.
considering the fact that there is just as much evidence of "god" having anything to do with it as satan ( and that being a big fat none), it is just as likely that YOU are the one being led astray by Satan with his book.
By the way, there is a significant amount of evidence showing men made up the whole thing....
@Scot
Shouldn't this article feed your Islamaphobia, and not your raging epistemophobia?
“Talk no more so very proudly;
Let no arrogance come from your mouth,
For the Lord is the God of knowledge;
And by Him actions are weighed. – 1 Samuel 2:3, NKJV
– the fear of God IS the beginning of wisdom
Fear is a great motivator.
Especially fear of loss.
Marketing uses this all the time.
Of course, it is more ignorance than wisdom.
Very good puppet!! Use circular reasoning to defend your position!!
I believe magic is cool...shall I quote Harry Potter? It's just as valid as what you posted!
"- the fear of God IS the beginning of wisdom"
Or not...likely not. Considering the fact that no one can show any god existing, let me say the exact same thing.
Fear of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the beginning of wisdom.
That says the exact same thing as you said scot...does that sound wise to you?
you misinterpret the meaning of fear in this context.
The religious are full of fear, primarily the fear they are wrong about the universe. It is the ever present doubt they try to stuff down and smother with their QVC bought snuggies. Their fear that they might not have all the answers and lose that clear image they have in their minds about how they will get to see loved ones they miss in some cloudy afterlife. They fear others finding out about their doubt which is why they keep talking so loudly about it, constantly trying to convince themselves of it's veracity with volume like a moron trying to communicate with someone of another language where they just keep raising their voice as if that will make them understand, "no, T H E B A T H R O O M, do you understand B A T H R O O M!" "I said T H E B I B L E! Its T H E T R U T H! cause its in T H E B I B L E! Duh!"
no...pretty sure it is you who misunderstands.
Stygiophobia leads to epistemophobia.
And just because I know how much you love when I quote him:
"Ignorance is the root of fear
And fear is the kindling of anger"
– Dr. Greg Graffin, ,"News From the Front"
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain..." Paul Atreides (Dune – Frank Herbert)
Awanderingscot,
What does this have to do with the article?
An omniscient, omnipotent God could put the ingredients in just right knowing that humans would come out, just as we have.
I just nearly choked on my bagel.
Hey Devin.
Hey boston,
If you start quoting from "Calvin's Inst itutes" I WILL need the heimlich maneuver !!!
lol.
"However, scripture interprets scripture and does not contradict."
Ah yes. exactly what Theo professes – analogia scriptura. (Otherwise known as "thinking in circles".)
For the earliest proponents of this concept the goal was to help the common person understand the (then) recently translated Bible (from Hebrew and Greek into English). But using such a technique to help understand similar Biblical passages and the notion that any one reader will achieve the inerrant Word of their God free from subjective influence are two very different things. Those like awanderingscot and Theo who have fallen prey to the latter, are quite obviously prime examples of the extremes of self-righteousness, sanctimoniousness.
scot
" a rebellious response to God's claim on us, that He is our creator"
Where did god claim anything? All I see is men caliming to speak for god. The bible is a work of men who claim this and that about god, say god said this and that...nowhere do you have god doing, claiming, or saying anything at all...nowhere.
"scripture interprets scripture"? What is that supposed to mean? Scripture literally means that someone wrote something...this is scripture...just because your bible was written does not mean it is anything more than the works of men.
What does this have to do with the article?
i believe in your god, i don't believe he created a damn thing but a lie. i believe in all gods, and your scripture is as about as meaningless to me the you false notion of god is in our image, what about fire monkey, or Artio last i checked shes a god, a cute cuddly bear god.
"They told us, 'You to leave all of your money, gold, jewelry and go out with only the clothes on you,'"
The premise of the Palestinian uprising is that they were forced to leave their houses in what is now called Israel. Given how strongly they feel about the immorality of forcing people from their property, I would have expected them to loudly condemn this action by ISIS. Not a peep though.
The hypocrisy is rampant.
I agree.
We've heard this before.
History repeats, and it is alarming.
I would guess they would see it as an eye for an eye thing, if they had any eye's left to see with...
An eye for an eye for an eye. Jews screw Muslims so the Muslims screw the Christians. I guess the Jews owe the Christians an eye.
couldn't the christian god just show himself and tell the ISIS folk that he is the real god? Why the childish game of hide and seek? Why does he keep leaving his followers hanging out to dry?
Agree. BTW do you ever wonder why Yahweh made such a lousy choice for his "chosen" people? Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Egyptians and many other races were available. They had art. They had culture. They had technology. They had science. What did the Israelites have? Goats. I can only imagine there was a Chosen people fantasy draft between the gods and Yahweh had a rather late pick.....
In all seriousness though, why not pick a people who refuse to do violence? Wouldn't a benevolent God want a people like that? If they were attacked from outsiders, he could just have magically made the spears bounce off.... Maybe the attackers would have learned violence is wrong and the world would be a great place. Silly Yahweh. For an omniscient being, he is quite dumb.
Have you ever heard the phrase – God hides his treasure in jars of clay?
God often works through people who know their weakness, see their flaws, admit their mistakes, and cry out to him for help. Why does scripture constantly refer to poor people as God's people? How will the meek inherit the earth?
Have you ever heard the phrase, "God does not exist"? That phrase explains all the illogical mysteries of your god.
Not necessarily. There are compelling reasons to believe in God. Life itself may be an illogical mystery, especially if there is no universal purpose or meaning behind our existence.
"There are compelling reasons to believe in God."
Like what? I've never heard any.
"Life itself may be an illogical mystery..."
It is a mystery. I see no reason to think the explanation is illogical though. On the contrary, we learn more and more every day through scientific logic. We have never learned a single thing about our world or existence through religion.
I didn't say the mystery is illogical. But it could be. It is a possibility. Look I appreciate and embrace science as much as you.
Most religious people have no problem with science.
But what is scientific logic? I've learned plenty through religious knowledge. I can't imagine scientific logic can answer all the questions we as human beings have. Science is a good tool. Logic is a good tool. But can either solely explain love, for instance?
What scripture refers to love in Corinthians, using poetry, teaches me something that science and logic is incapable of doing:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
Dalahast – ""Love is patient, love is kind. ..."
Science does have a description of love. Perhaps it doesn't fit your perception of it and you've found another description that's a better fit, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate other descriptions.
The purely scientific description of love is... unloving. It takes a scientist who knows love outside of what science tells us to give it meaning that we human beings can appreciate.
"Look I appreciate and embrace science as much as you."
That's not true. You think scientific principles can be turned off by your god, allowing for miracles. I fully embrace science and don't think there's a supernatural being that can manipulate it.
"I've learned plenty through religious knowledge."
There's no such thing as religious knowledge. The bible is has been proven to be a work of fiction.
"But can either solely explain love, for instance?"
Yes. I haven't researched the matter recently, but I read an article in the Economist over 10 years ago that explained the brain chemistry of falling in love. Our understanding of the science behind emotions continues to develop.
Dalahast – "The purely scientific description of love is... unloving."
Ask a hundred people for a definition of love and you'll likely get a hundred somewhat different descriptions; the basics will be the same, but the details will be more subjective.
+ That's not true. You think scientific principles can be turned off by your god, allowing for miracles. I fully embrace science and don't think there's a supernatural being that can manipulate it.
There is no science that says a being can't transcend scientific laws. You fully embrace scientism. But that isn't science.
+ There's no such thing as religious knowledge. The bible is has been proven to be a work of fiction.
Not true.
+ Yes. I haven't researched the matter recently, but I read an article in the Economist over 10 years ago that explained the brain chemistry of falling in love. Our understanding of the science behind emotions continues to develop.
You think what The Economist said 10 years ago about the brain chemistry of falling in love is love? What if love is more than just emotions and brain chemistry?
The Economist has some good things to say about religion. Do you agree with those?
Or we demonstrate love. Not examine it like an element that can only be described in scientific language. I don't think science is capable of completely and adequately describing love. It takes experience to really know it.
Dalahast – " I don't think science is capable of completely and adequately describing love. "
Agreed, with the caveat of "not yet, anyway". But that's true for any emotion, including anger, jealousy, and happiness, wouldn't you say?
You think love is just an emotion?
I suppose so... I haven't really considered it to be anything else. What do you consider it to be?
Something that is more easily experienced than defined. It is amazing, a blessing, it is free. It appears in acts of kindness, generosity and self-sacrifice. It may be what our purpose as human beings is defined by. There are no divine laws against it. It is a way to live. it takes poetry, imagination and creativity to explain it.
"You think love is just an emotion?"
Maybe, maybe not. It is the same as all brain activity...a series of electrochemical responses. That is all it really is.
But does that encompass it? If I tell you that defraction of water molecules passing though a light source will defract the light into its base colours, creating what we call a rainbow, I am correct, but does that really capture the raw beauty of nature at seeing a rainbow? or is it just more electrochemical responses to positive stimuli?
Answer those questions and you will win a Nobel prize.
Dalahast –
"Something that is more easily experienced than defined."
Agreed (but it is not unique in that regard).
"It appears in acts of kindness, generosity and self-sacrifice."
These can be the result of love, but I wouldn't say they are necessarily part of the definition of it.
"It may be what our purpose as human beings is defined by."
This is where we disagree.
That is all it really is, really. Luckily all scientists aren't materialists who just say that is all it is.
Have you seen any brain research that can explain experience? Or even consciousness?
Could facts and data really be just simplifications of experience?
What if brain responses are merely how the physical correlates, the way that guitar strings correlate to what a guitarist is doing?
Just like guitars don't perform music, our brain doesn't generate experiences of love. It is just aware of them.
Dala
It always amuses me when someone has this discussion with you.
Your basic argument is that science doesn't answer all questions, therefore the bible is god's word because it does answer everything.
And people actually debate this.....
Alias
You have me mistaken.
I have never said that that.
Dalahast – "Just like guitars don't perform music, our brain doesn't generate experiences of love. It is just aware of them."
In other words, we react to different experiences with different emotions, we don't spontaneously generate our own emotions (although some people with chemical imbalances can have various issues there). I don't disagree. Am I missing or misrepresenting your point?
" our brain doesn't generate experiences of love."
Really? What evidence do you have of that? ALL experiences are handled by the brain...everything you sense in everyway all happens in the brain...you can speculate all you want, but just because that seems too simplistic to you, does not change the fact that EVERYTHING you experience, is experienced IN YOUR BRAIN. There is NOTHING indicating anything further.
Just because the simple explaination seems or "feels" too simplistic doesn't change the evidence we have.
Your brain is where EVERYTHING happens...any other claim has no scientific basis.
I exist outside your brain. Just because your brain tells you there is no scientific basis to the spiritual aspect of your existence, doesn't mean there isn't a spiritual aspect of your existence. Your brain just doesn't see it.
Really Dala???
You said this:
"...But what is scientific logic? I've learned plenty through religious knowledge. I can't imagine scientific logic can answer all the questions we as human beings have. Science is a good tool. Logic is a good tool. But can either solely explain love, for instance?
What scripture refers to love in Corinthians ..."
Alias –
I said I learn from other sources, not just look at a purely scientific explanation.
I've never said, therefore, 'the bible is god's word because it does answer everything'. Or attempt to suggest that.
It doesn't answer everything for me. But it does provide spiritual guidance.
"There is no science that says a being can't transcend scientific laws."
Huh? There's no science that says science doesn't always work? Of course there isn't, because that sentence doesn't even make sense.
"You fully embrace scientism."
If you want to call my belief that there are non-supernatural answers to the mysteries of the universe scientism, I'm fine with that.
"Not true."
Ok, then what is an example of religious "knowledge"? What do we "know" about the universe from religion? We can observe how religion impacts peoples' behavior, but there's no factual knowledge to be gained from religion.
"You think what The Economist said 10 years ago about the brain chemistry of falling in love is love? What if love is more than just emotions and brain chemistry?"
Yes. The fact that I (or at least scientists) understand why I have evolved to feel the emotions of love towards another person doesn't detract from the emotion.
"The Economist has some good things to say about religion. Do you agree with those?"
I'm sorry to say I don't have every article ever written in The Economist memorized, so I'm not sure if I agree. If you agree with it, chances are I don't.
– If you want to call my belief that there are non-supernatural answers to the mysteries of the universe scientism, I'm fine with that.
That belief is not backed by science. In fact, science may one day reveal there are supernatural answers to the mysteries of the universe. As our technology and knowledge grows, so will our understanding of our universe.
" In fact, science may one day reveal there are supernatural answers to the mysteries of the universe."
If something can be explained scientifically, it is natural by definition.
One man's magic is another's engineering. To the scientific mind, "supernatural" is a null word.
"There is no science that says a being can't transcend scientific laws."
.Huh? There's no science that says science doesn't always work? Of course there isn't, because that sentence doesn't even make sense.
No. It is possible that science can not detect everything. Believing that doesn't violate science. Or it is possible our understanding of science is so limited we don't fully understand it in this time.
What we claim scientific fact today may one day, hundreds or thousands of years from now, be seen as misunderstandings.
Doc Vestibule
What if it is only natural for human beings to live by the limits of this world? But other beings exist that aren't limited by the physical like us? What if there is a new scientific discovery like E=MC2 on the horizon that will challenge how we see everything?
"In fact, science may one day reveal there are supernatural answers to the mysteries of the universe."
No, by definition, supernatural answers can not be proven by science since they conflict with science.
Supernatural: a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
What we, not science, refers to as supernatural today – may have an explanation that can be explained with science someday.
With the 42,000 different versions of Christianity, each with a slightly varried view of the creator, along with the thousands of other faiths all believing different supernatural claims, who will have a better track record in a thousand years? Science or religion?
NBHA
There are over 42,000 different versions of what science is and what it does being expressed from different non-scientist atheists and Christians. What atheists like you on this blog preach about science doesn't have a good track record. That is why I prefer to listen to actual scientists on the matter.
"What if there is a new scientific discovery like E=MC2 on the horizon that will challenge how we see everything?"
I consider that almost a certainty, and more to follow that.
I don't get how a being that operates outside the physical somehow is more likely to be omniscient or omnipotent though.
I don't get it either. Such a concept seems to be unattainable by the human mind.
"No. It is possible that science can not detect everything. Believing that doesn't violate science."
True, it is not only possible, but obvious that science has not been able to answer all of the questions of the universe. It is also obvious that science continues to answer more and more of the questions constantly.
What DOES violate science is a belief that there is a supernatural being who can turn off the laws of the universe and perform miracles.
What we, not science, refers to as supernatural today – may have an explanation that can be explained with science someday."
Exactly! The only difference is that I never thought those things were supernatural in the first place.
Dalahast,
"I don't get it either. Such a concept seems to be unattainable by the human mind."
I think it is quite attainable by the human mind, the idea of omnipotent Gods has been conceived of by primitive humans. What I don't get, is why the recognition of phenomena, dimensions, etc. beyond our knowledge would imply to some that an omniscient, omnipotent being exists.
The idea is attainable. Yes. But what it exactly entails seems to cause difficulty. No 2 people would probably same the same thing on what it means.
dala
"Your brain just doesn't see it."
and you see things that are not there...speculation is fine, but since there is NOTHING to back up your speculation all you can do is wonder.
Meanwhile EVERYTHING you experience goes is processed 100% by your brain. That is fact.
There is NO evidence of "spirituality"
No evidence of any "supernatural"
No evidence anywhere of things you claim to be real....when all it is , is pure speculation.
Bring some evidence....until then, ALL emotions that anyone experiences takes place 100% in the brain.ALL experiences are 100% in the brain...electrochemical reactions to stimuli.
By all means show any evidence to the contrary.
You might be wrong, though. All you know is limited to what is in your head, by your theory. There might be other means to know things and you refusing to even consider it limits you.
no dala
It is you who do not understand.
There is no evidence of anything supernatural, no evidence that anything we percieve happens outside of our brain. That is not to say there is nothing.
But you have already jumped from we do not know but have no evidence' to defining what we do not know..same issue that believers have...they have all defined "god" but each persons definition is diiferent.
Until anyone can find any information, calling it supernatural ( when it could be natural, or non-existant) or 'spiritual" or anything else is FALSE...we do not know does not mean spritual...it means we don't know, so calling it spirital or divine or supernatural...is simply false because you are defining something from what you IMAGINE is there.
same trap believers fall into.
I don't have faith in what you believe.
You are often irrationally rude toward anyone who disagrees with your theories and understandings. And many of your explanations are based in speculation. A trap many people fall into.
"There might be other means to know things and you refusing to even consider it limits you."
What makes you think anyone has refused to consider those things? Igaftr just consered the possiblity of spirituality and supernaturalism in the very post you just replied to. I've considered those things and concluded that since there is no evidence to suggest they exist, and since the concepts are wildly far-fetched, there, it would be highly illogical to assume they do exist.
Assuming in the existence of these things would be like assuming invisible unicorns live on the moon. Is it possible? I suppose, in theory. Have I considered it? Yes, just now for the first time. Do I think it makes sense to go with that as a working assumption? Of course not. Do I ask myself questions and then answer them? On occassion.
I'm speculating. Just like you guys are about me.
I'm glad you find it just as annoying when I do it to you as when you do it to me.
"You are often irrationally rude toward anyone who disagrees with your theories and understandings"
Really...irrationally rude?
By all means, examples.
You keep making false statements and I correct you.
You have been caught misrepresenting other peoples arguments, and even misrepresenting your own arguments, claiming to "know" god exists, and then claim you coould have been decieved ( meaning you do not know), and you claim I am irrationally rude? do tell.
Provide these "irrationally rude" statements dala.
"You keep making false statements and I correct you."
Wrong. You simply disagree with my opinions. And insist your opinions are right.
Dala
First, what examples of "irrationally rude" do you have, and when you say obviously false statements such as "
" our brain doesn't generate experiences of love." that are clearly false, and not opinion, I will correct you.
ALL experiences you perceive are processed by your brain. Everything you do, say, feel experience...all generated by the brain.
Just because you BELIEVE there is more, and it is your OPINION that there is more, doesn't mean that your opinion or belief has any merit.
If something more is found, great, but until then, you like stating baseless opinion ( as the above example), that is completely false. It is a FACT that ALL experiences are perceived and processed entirely in the brain.So your statement IS false, not my opinion....fact.
So you can lie, and misrepresent others statements, and your own, try to build some credibility into your spirituality hypothesis, and you claim others are trolls or that i have been "irrationally rude", when your own antics are well known.
You are not always very rational. Yesterday you asked a question, and then irrationally answered it as you imagined I would. It was rude and immature. You just aren't as logical or reasonable as you insist you are. Sorry.
dala
So no example I can look back to...that's what I thought...
So YOU think i was irrational....while you claim to "know" god exists.
You have lied, and been called out by not just me for misrepresenting other peoples arguments and even your own...and you claim I am irrational and rude...and now you throw in immature.
Seriously?
Where are the examples dala...where...site specifics.
You are making up terms, changing the meaning of words and terms, calling people trolls when they are not ( except for YOUR version of what a troll is, calling people anti-theists ( and then provioding a definition that would not be an anti-theist at all)
Grow up dala...YOU are the one who is rude and immature. When you falsely represent someone elses argument ( as you have more than once), do you not think that is rude, then name calling...how very mature dala.
Give some specific examples of what you accuse me of dala...don't just say it and then don't back it up...like you do with everything you post...you want to call me out, you better do your homework, especially considering YOUR history here.
Look at how you were, a couple days ago, and are, today, engaging in conversation with me.
Just right now you are being incredibly rude, demanding and irrational. You seem to be blowing things I've said out of proportion and taking your role as a message board poster way too seriously. You seem to always be in confrontation with everyone you engage in conversation with. It appears you are miserable. Not happy. Joyless.
According to Seavik's version of what a troll is, doG is one. doG never answered my question about his statement. This is the 8th time this month such a thing has happened. I've only called one person a troll. Not people.
I know people who self-identify as anti-theists. But please, show me where I provided a definition of what an anti-theist is, and show me how I was wrong. Please be specific. Don't just tell me I do that. Show me where.
What terms have I made up? Which terms are not backed by the dictionary? I'm careful to not define words differently than can be backed by the dictionary. Give me 3 terms I get wrong, and how the dictionary has no definitions that would support such a phrasing.
Don't you just say things, and then not back them up. Considering YOUR history here, which isn't perfect or pretty, you better do your homework.
And have a good day! It is going to be an awesome day.
dala
Now you are just flat out lying. You know nothing of me. I am far from miserable or any of the other names you call me.
YOU are the irrational one, claiming to "know" god exists when it has been shown to you countless times that you cannot know. YOU are the rude one...now trying to attack me personally.
This is rude dala...so you'll recognize it in the futre...F off and die young you ignorant , rude irrational liar.
That is rude and irrational...see the difference?
Now if you want to back up what you said so that I can see what you are talking about...by all means...If you want to continue to name call, and bear false witness...by all means...we are used to YOUR irrational immaturity.
You appear miserable. This post does nothing to change that observance about you. I don't care how you judge me. Or how you imagine others judge me who hold your same anti-theist viewpoint. I've had some rational atheists in the past come out to support me. While asking an irrational poster like you (it might have even been you in one instance) to tone it down.
You get a little carried away sometimes.
dala
Get over yourself. Your opinion of me does not mean you are right.
Considering how irrational and dishonest you have been, your opinion of me is meaningless.
Exactly! And your opinion doesn't mean you are right, either. It is just your opinion.
The entire notion of 'Chosen People' is abhorrent to me. When a new president is elected, some of the first sentiments expressed is that (s)he will be the president of all Americans, not just the ones in their party.
Benevolence is in the eye of the beholder:
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
- Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."
- 2 Samuel 12:13
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
–Numbers 31:17-18
1 Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished
–Zechariah 14:1,2
boston
" When a new president is elected, some of the first sentiments expressed is that (s)he will be the president of all Americans, not just the ones in their party.
NOt so much. George H. W. Bush, in a 1987 interview ( just before he was elected) stated that atheists are not patriots and should not be citizens ( and I was serving in the USAF at the time). He started out declaring that 20% of his people did not matter.
"What we, not science, refers to as supernatural today – may have an explanation that can be explained with science someday."
Exactly! The only difference is that I never thought those things were supernatural in the first place.
Let us pray: Dear Lord, thank you for the hundreds of murders today and all of the many murders yet to come in the days ahead. Thank you too for the millions of children dying of starvation and disease and neglect. Your lack of compassion for human life inspires us all to ponder your ineffectiveness. Heavenly Father, we gather in the shadow of your careless disregard for us. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.
– Concert in an Egg
More pointless whining because a god you don't believe in doesn't act in a way that no ons who does believes says he does.
unintelligible ...
Not at all.
I understood what you said, I just pointed out that your expectations are stupid.
“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake." – Matthew 24:9
Christ's disciples are increasingly being afflicted and persecuted because we belong to Him. This incident is just one prominent example of the wave of persecution that has recently come in these latter days.
Yes – it is a hard plight being a religious minority. With only 2 billion Christians in the world, it is hard to deal with unending persecution.
If only the most powerful nation on the planet could bring itself to elect an openly Christian President!
Or maybe 43 of them in a row...
Christians have persecuted and destroyed many cultures and people throughout history, and even to this day.
Baseless religious beliefs are the evil. Christianity is the most violent and inhumane religion of them all.
You don't really think that the hands of christianity are clean do you?
Yes, the hands of Christ's disciples are clean. To the others He will say "go away, i never knew you".
Your name is somewhat ironic in this thread since it calls to mind The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord – a terrorist, Baptist doomsday cult from the 1980s.
"Yes, the hands of Christ's disciples are clean"
Then there are no disciples of Christ.
History proves that, and even current events shows that. Do not be so blind.
Oh my, you need to stop listening to the conspiracy theories! Your ilk has had its hand in many atrocities, this is just karma biting you in your bible-butts!
"these latter days"
What a very sad outlook! It's what you see, so you stop trying for a better world.
Strip all of this of religion and you'll find peace!
A terrible state of affairs – but bear in mind that this convert or die mentality is not exclusive to militant Islam.
In India there is a group of Baptists known as the National Liberation Front of Tripura.
Between 1999 and 2001, some 5000 Hindus were forcibly converted to Christianity by this group who are known to use r/ap/e as a method of coercion. In fact, to help fund their terrorism, they film the se/xual as.saults and sell them on the black market as po/rnog/raphy.
Additonal monetary and military support is provided by the Baptist Church of Tripura.
More than 400 people lost their lives in terrorist attacks by the NFLT and related groups in 2001 alone.
They have kidnapped Hindu religious leaders like Shanti Kali and Labh Ku.mar Jamatia and then murdered them when they refused to convert to Christianity.
This type of behaviour is fuelled by the conceit that a particular religion, it doesn't matter which one, is The Truth. Adherents who use violence as a means of conversion can rationalize their actions by convincing themselves that their victims are better off with The Truth, no matter how they receive it.
Saint Augustine called the tactic "Cognite Intrare" – compel them to enter.
And the paying of the jizya (or tax) is as old as the Muslim conquest in the 7th century. It is the primary vehicle for the success of the conquest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
It is really not complicated:
Again from my scrapbook of essential theology and religious history:
Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
• A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.
Added details previously presented.
The work of evil.
Yes Vic...Baseless religious belief often leads to this...the christians have done the same thing to many cultures.
Religion begets evil quite often.
I believe it's man's evil take on things in general but Islam is inherently malevolent. I am a Christian and I never partake in such evildoing.
Neither do the majority of Muslims.
The history of christianity shows it is equally as violent or more than islam. You may not be, but neither are many muslims.
It is the baseless, nonsensical beliefs, superst!tions and the feeling that you are right, with NO VALID REASON for that belief, that leads to this.
It is mans religions that are the evil. You are part of one of them, so you do not see it.
Religions are the worst thing humanity has invented...by far.
That's partiality against Christianity. Opponents here are quick to condemn Christianity while turning a blind eye to the evildoing of Islam. I'm not surprised.
Aren't you the one turning a blind eye to the evils of christianity?
I see all religions as the exact same thing, different flavor. Religions beget evil...plain and simple. It allows people to justify (falsely) their actions based on nothing but belief in superst!tions.
ALL religions are the same thing.
I don't think he has ever denied that evil can be done by Christians. No group is immune to wickedness – not even atheists. I believe if you do what Jesus says, you will reject committing such wickedness on others. The same goes for what the essence of what Humanists, Buddhists, Muslims and Jews teach. There are some people that will use whatever: religion, nationalism, science, race, tradition, economics – to persecute and bully others. Blaming "religion" for all of this is far to simplistic to be sufficient.
A Christian has to twist what Jesus says quite a bit to justify murdering, persecuting or bullying other Christians and non-Christians. I think scripture refers to such people as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
dala
" Blaming "religion" for all of this is far to simplistic to be sufficient. '
Is it? Religions are completley baseless...nothing but beliefs, yet they are a huge source of friction, which leads to conflict. Religions ARE and always have been al;ways will be a major source of conflict...arguable THE biggest source of conflict mankind has ever invented.
NOT blaming religious belief for the reality of its effect on humanity is insufficient.
A religion ( one single set of beliefs) may be harmless, but when there are so many different ones, and those differences are a source of core beliefs, people will react more violently and in ways that are inappropriate than if we argue about the merits or negative sides of something like free form jazz.
It is because these baseless beliefs are so closely held that even questioning them garners a defensive response, which often leads to violence, or to try to "cleanse" the difference from culture.
Face it...religions ARE having a negative effect on humanity. The worst invention of man.
Yes. Your argument seems totally too simplistic. Especially the broad strokes you use to paint what you insist "religion" is.
I don't give "religion" a free pass. But not all religion is the same. Some religion is bad, yes. Everything is double-edged like that. We openly and honestly talk about that in my church, for instance. Because there are some people out there instead of teaching to love others, promote hating others. Even anti-religious fervor like the type you promote can be dangerous. History has proven that. The problem is human nature, as I see it. Without religion these violent acts still happen. People find something else to use as an outlet. Your anti-religious fervor is similar to the religious fervor some extremists use to hate others.
What do you do to help humanity? You really don't see anything that religion does that adds positive effects on humanity? I bet I would not have any problem finding evidence of people in a religious setting who do more to help humanity than you do. That is some evidence you seem to be turning a blind eye to. Right now I see evidence of you producing hate.
That Ornette Coleman is not a true jazz player – definitely going to hell.
Vic,
History shows ,amy cases of christians behaving in similar ways.
If you look on a smaller scale christians treat people like this every day.
Ugly fact. Christian settlers forced the indigenous people of the Americas to convert or die. They killed them, enslaved them, took their land and/or forced them into containment areas that could not sustain their populations. Millions died and some cultures were lost forever. It's very hypocritical for christians to condemn muslims without acknowledging their own crimes first.
And Vic no religious exemptions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-to-sign-orders-protecting-gay-employees/
Scientists fraudulently claim a newly-discovered fish is the second bridge fossil gap between sea and land creatures. The scientists have apparently forgotten that the first fossil gap, Archaeopteryx, shown above was also a fraud. Tiktaalik therefore becomes fossil gap fraud number 2. The claim that the stubby little fossil fins are "limb-like" is a real hoot. The fish doesn't even have fins as large as expected for its size. The scientists are claiming the fish walked around on the ground out of water and breathed air. This is pure make-believe speculation. No evidence exists that the fish is anything more than just another species.
The excitement about the Tiktaalik fossil is puzzling. Modern-day seals have fins and waddle around on the ground. Modern-day catfish have fins and walk around on the ground. Catfish can live out of water for a long time. Tiktaalik does not provide any support for evolution.
Evolutionists are now claiming that a dolphin captured with two little extra fins near the tail is proof that dolphins evolved from four-footed animals related to the dog. – A.Light
Awanderingscot,
You really don't understand, do you.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
wandering, This was thoroughly debunked by several people when you last posted this (and it was on-topic then).
..not debunked at all.
The Archaeopteryx fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since.
The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.
The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers. Click the picture to see an enlargement.
The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown.
(...) This example would not have proven evolution even if the feathers had not been forgeries. Finding a few species with characteristics similar to two other species does not prove a link. There should be millions or billions of transitional links if evolution were true, not simply a few. – A.Light
Evolution is a fact – some mechanisms are not fully understood but showing real or imagined flaws in our knowledge of evolution does not undermine the vast evidence that supports evolution and most importantly does not provide any evidence for creationism. When you can do that, come back and we'll all discuss that.
.. not debunked at all, evolution is a fraud
The Archaeopteryx fossil was heralded by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quar-ry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since.
The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.
The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smell.s of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers.
The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown.
not debunked at all
it's not been debunked at all despite you saying so.
"Archaeopteryx, shown above"
Are you calling Doc a Archaeopteryx whatever that is? I bet you wouldn't say that to his face.
LOL, no Anthony, i'm calling him a Tiktaalik!
@Scot
Non-sequiturtastic!
But you didn't cite your source.
Do you think perhaps that Biblelife.org might have a slight bias?
They quote Micheal Behe, and Denton as if they're credible, though they've both been thoroughly debunked many times over.
Their statement of principles says " We must take every word (of the Bible) at its primary, ordinary, literal, and usual meaning..." – which is just patently absurd.
Yes Santa I know, Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik have been thoroughly debunked, just as evolution has been thoroughly debunked.
so thoroughly debunked that 99% of the scientists doing the actual research still believe in it...
i did cite the source – A.Light and btw no religious bias on this, just good not so common sense.
scot
Still the evolution denier...funny...but what does that have to do with the article?
That site has to be POE.
There's a whole section about how the edible oil industry is responsible for promoting vegetarianism.
"Vegetarianism is a religion falsely disguised as a healthy way of eating. True vegetarianism is the worship of animals."
It also says that cholesterol and saturated fats cure heart disease.
"A. Light" is obviously a pseudonym to rope in suckers.
If you send BibleLife.org any money, the destination address is literally just some dude's house in Colorado.
Kent R. Rieske
5086 Cottonwood Drive
Boulder, CO 80301 USA
scot
Quoting Light shows how little you understand. Lights "work" has been trashed up one side and down another. He has no information at all...basically just tries to poke holes...His garbage is NOT thought out, NOT common snese at all, and is so easy to destroy because it is obvious he has extreme bias, ans no comprehension of the science.
Typical evolution denier...simply keep saying no it isn't enough times to convinve yourself that the fact of evolution isn't real.
wandering, The old "I know what you are but what am I?" response; sometimes I miss High School.
Why evolution is a fairie tale
Scientific Fact No. 3 – Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches
The Theory of Evolution states that minute improvements in an individual within a species increases the likelihood of survival of the offspring. These small steps of improvements continue for countless years until the individuals are changed to such a large extent that a new species has appeared.
This progression is an uninterrupted branch of the "evolutionary tree." These lines of progression can be seen in any biology text book for many species, including mankind. They almost look believable...
The siblings of an individual on the uninterrupted branch may fail to develop the minute improvement and may even suffer from an inferior evolutionary change. Each of these individuals represents a new branch on the tree that is moving away from the uninterrupted branch.
Let us say we have 100,000 coexisting individuals in a species such as a horse. Only a few of these individuals will begin new branches that will eventually become a new species such as a Zebra. The other 99,999 individuals may each begin a neutral or inferior branch that may continue for millions of years but will eventually stop, because the last individual on the branch fails to produce an offspring.
The odds that the branch will stop producing offspring is increased when the minute evolutionary changes are inferior. The theory of survival of the fittest or natural selection also works in reverse to produce death to the branch where the changes are inferior. The branch stops. This part of the tree is dead.
We see in Scientific Fact No. 2 above that the missing intermediary individuals in the branch of the evolutionary tree present a serious problem for the Theory of Evolution. One superior individual of the 100,000 is missing, but now we have an even more serious defect in the theory. Where are the 99,999 inferior branches? How could 99,999 branches go missing?
Actually, the fossil record shows that everything is missing. No individuals of the species existed. None. Most layers of the earth's crust are completely devoid of all life, but then a layer will appear that is teaming with an absolute abundance of separate species, each containing millions of individuals.
This hypothesis of the "missing inferior evolutionary branches" was developed and posted here by the author, Kent R. Rieske, on March 21, 2008. Thousands of biology professors at universities around the world, including Darwin, have completely missed this serious deficiency in the fossil record, because they have only been searching for the superior evolutionary branches, not the inferior branches.
Where are the fossils of horses with weak bones that fractured early in life and thereby prevented an offspring from continuing the branch? They don't exist, but they should if the Theory of Evolution was true. In fact, the fossil record should be full of dead branches, which is not. The fossil record simply shows individual species that have become extinct. – A.Light
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts.... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.
— Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"