 |
|
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
I see the Blog's little troll awandering "pseudoscience fanboy" Scot was at it again last night.
Let's just take a look at the last author and work Scotty referenced: Michael Behe for Darwin's Black Box.
Behe serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Insti.tute's Center for Science and Culture. [LOL – since the latter position we know involves pseudoscience – it's pretty obvious already that we're dealing with another Andrew Snelling type here...you know, a scientist who for some reason – but most likely for ca$h, goes against the teaching that got him his current credentials so that he can $ell creationists what they want to hear.]
Anyway, Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which asserts that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature. [Ouch- Behe got butthurt on that one.]
Behe, a Roman Catholic, claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design. ("Department Position on Evolution and 'Intelligent Design'". Department of Biological Sciences. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University.) [Ouch–more butthurtedness.]
Before I get into Darwin's Black Box, I just have to note this:
Behe tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (2006).
[LOLOLOLOLOLOL]
In Behe's 1993 Of Pandas and People, he presented a chapter on blood clotting. In 1996, he presented the same arguments of that chapter in Darwin's Black Box adding the name "irreducible complexity" to these arguments. The book has received highly critical reviews by many scientists, arguing that the assertions made by Behe fail with logical scrutiny and amount to pseudoscience. Jerry Coyne panned the book for what he saw as usage of quote mining and spurious ad hominem attacks. (Coyne, J.A. (1996). Nature 383 (6597): 227–227.)
[Coyne, professor of biology at University of Chicago holds a B.S. from the College of William and Mary, and a PhD from Harvard; he studied under both Theodosius Dobzhansky and Richard Lewontin.]
University of Rochester professor of biology H. Allen Orr has called Behe's argument in the book "...just plain wrong", arguing that gradual adaptation could produce irreducibly complex systems. Orr points to examples of gradual adaptation already known (citing to the work of H. J. Muller in the early 20th century).
In 2005, while testifying for the defense in the Dover trial, Behe claimed under oath that the book had received a more thorough peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal, a claim which appears to conflict the facts of the book's peer review. Four of the book's five reviewers (Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro, K. John Morrow, and Russell Doolittle) have made statements that contradict or otherwise do not support Behe's claim of the book passing a rigorous peer review.
Example: Morrow criticized the book as appalling and unsupported, which contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication. Shapiro has said that he reviewed the book, and while he agreed with some of its analysis of origin-of-life research, he thought its conclusions are false. Doolittle, upon whom Behe based much of his discussion of blood clotting, described it as misrepresenting many important points and disingenuous, which also contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.
In the same trial, Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".
The result of the trial was the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.
Scotty who in the world do you think you're fooling?
you all seem obsessed with Scot, me thinks it's the Holy Spirit within him that makes him so attractive to you all. It's great.
Many Blessings!
If by "holy spirit" you actually meant a demonstrable ignorance of science and a clear disposition to knowingly and purposefully misrepresent, then yeah, it must be that "holy spirit."
redoza, a person' word(s) should have meaning. That said:
"The Holy Spirit is a personality, and is not an "it," nor an influence. The Holy Spirit is a presence, a power, a person, [Wisdom]. That is the reason why the Lord said, "When the Spirit of truth has come, The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth"
Jesus said the Spirit of the Lord [is] upon Me, because He has anointed Me [the Anointed One, the Messiah] to preach the good news (the Gospel) to the poor; He has sent Me to announce release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to send forth as delivered those who are oppressed [who are downtrodden, bruised, crushed, and broken down by calamity],
That's the Holy Spirit and that's how H.S works.
Sure mathmaticians have shown time and again that 2 + 2 equals 4 but new-man and his fellow religious zealots know that their God and his Holy Spirit are more powerful than math and when the time comes we will all know that 2 + 2 = apple. There is nothing their God cannot do so this equation is an easy one for him.
Sorry new-man, but your attempt to divert from the point of my OP is transparent.
A couple of key points summarizing the long post should highlight the pertinence of redzoa's description of Scotty's "clear disposition to knowingly and purposefully misrepresent" [by relying on sources such as Michael Behe]:
- Behe's claims have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design.
- Under oath, Behe claimed that the book had received a thorough peer review – which was flatly refuted by nearly all of the of peer reviewers.
This is not new information. I'm sure Scotty is quite aware of it.
@new-man – "a person' word(s) should have meaning" Agreed. Unfortunately, it appears neither scot nor yourself can meet this challenge. Whereas scot invariably offers some trite c&p anti-evolution arguments lacking any understanding of the relevant issues, you offer trite declarations of magical ent-ities as if this has any impact outside your subjective faith-based beliefs. But seeing as you were so kind to "enlighten me," I'll try and share the favor . . .
Of course I understand this is unsolicited but hey, you appear to be comfortable with a spontaneous digression into rather desperate self-indulgent attempts to placate one's fears of mortality, etc.
"Tinker Bell is both sweet and sassy. She is loyal to her friends and will help fix their problems like a true Tinker Fairy. She loves adding lost things to her collection and going on adventures."
So . . . clearly you should take heed. If you want enough magic pixie dust to fly to Never Land (you know the real one, not MJ's ranch), you'll need to make nice with "Tink" (that's her nickname). She's not an it, or an influence, she's a tiny flying personality, a power, and while not a person per se, she is definitely a fairy. That is the reason Peter Pan said:
"All it takes is faith and trust... oh!
And something I forgot–Dust!
Dust? Dust?
Yep! Just a little bit of pixie dust
Now, think of the happiest things.
It's the same as having wings
Let's all try it, just once more
Look! We're rising off the floor
Jiminy! Oh my! We can fly!
You can fly! We can fly!
Come on, everybody, here we go!
Off to Never Land!"
That's Tinkerbell and that's how pixie dust works . . .
Scot know that with evolution, there is no need for any gods.
Though he is still fighting it for all he is worth, there may still be hope for him.
I'm not surprised that someone who would start their response with "you all" would think the way you do, new-man.
If you have read more than a few of scot's postings, and are convinced that they result from the Holy Spirit, then I can only conclude that your opinion of the Holy Spirit is quite low indeed.
new-man
scot is a prime example of one who is blindly ignorant out of fear, sheer arrogance or declare they are right and all others are wrong by default. Oh wait, is that not what all Christians proclaim, you new-man included?
A very difficult situation indeed. Having to deal with criminals and thugs who are religious Fanatics. However of one thing I'm sure and it is that if they Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son they WILL NOT Panic.
"The word panic derives from the Greek πανικός, "pertaining to shepherd god Pan", who took amusement from frightening herds of goats and sheep into sudden bursts of uncontrollable fear. Prehistoric men used mass panic as a technique when hunting animals, especially ruminants. Herds reacting to unusually strong sounds or unfamiliar visual effects were directed towards cliffs, where they eventually jumped to their deaths when cornered." wiki
The only ones panicking are the religious morons who are edging themselves ever closer to the sheer cliffs of irrelevence.
Who Do You Say Jesus Is?
Mark 8:29 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.”
Do you know that how you see Jesus determines what you receive from Him? If you see Jesus as your healer, you will receive healing. If you see Jesus as your refuge and fortress, you will receive protection.
The people of Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown, saw Jesus in the natural. They said of Him, “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” (Matthew 13:55–56) They saw Jesus in the natural. They did not see Him as God in the flesh. As a result, He could not do many mighty works there. (Matthew 13:58)
Today, many people, including some philosophers, see Jesus of Nazareth as a good person who led an exemplary life. They feel that if all of us could live our lives like Him, the world would be a better place.
They don’t see Jesus as the bread of God who came from heaven to give life to the world. (John 6:33) They don’t see Him as the one who came to give them living water, so that they would never thirst again. (John 4:14) They don’t see Him as the Lamb of God, who took away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) They don’t receive from Him what they need because they don’t esteem Him rightly.
Jesus did not come just to set a good example for man to follow. He came to be our Redeemer. (Galatians 3:13) He came to be our righteousness. (1 Corinthians 1:30) He came to be our shepherd, so that we will not lack anything. (Psalm 23:1)
Jesus asked His disciples once, “But who do you say that I am?” How you answer this question depends on how you see Jesus. And how you see Jesus will determine how and what you receive from Him. So see Him as your God, as everything He claims to be in His Word, and He will do mighty works in your life!
JPM
as new-man continues the comedy .
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/23/jon-stewart-loves-the-dummies-at-cnn-so-much-he-wants-you-to-help-him-buy-it/
What the he!l does the jon stewart/rupert murdoch story have to do with newman's post ?
thank you,
Blessings!
For the hell of it.
Sarah Palin Says God Told Her President Obama Should Be Impeached (VIDEO)
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/21/sarah-palin-says-god-told-her-president-obama-should-be-impeached-video/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com
So your specialty remains non-sequitur replies that have relevance neither to the original post, or the story at hand ? Gotcha.
He/she hardly ever makes sense. I' have a susp.icion they used to post as "PalinTwit".
Your buddy dala.
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/23/neil_degrasse_tyson_exclusive_i_don%E2%80%99t_know_what_kind_of_democracy_that_is_if_you%E2%80%99re_gonna_cherry_pick_science_because_it_conflicts_with_your_philosophy/
Please understand that Dala is a fraud, a self admitted fraud, although he denies that he made that statement/admission. Poor sad Dala.
me: “...the most profound of all religious sentiments should not be certainty, which inevitably leads to arrogance, but modesty, which because of a generous God, leads to mercy and forgiveness.” – peter gomes
aushpor: How serious are your attempts to follow jesus both his teachings and his life example?
me: I've asked for His help in doing so today.
aushpor: Are you the protestant/Lutheran version of a Jesuit, disdaining all worldly goods?
me: No.
aushpor: Big fail there in your quest, good thing you can repent and beg god for salvation.
me: Amen to that! I have personal short-comings I'm working on, I'm quite aware of that. By the grace of God I'll do better today.
aushpor: You just admitted to being a phoney.
doG: He is a fraud.
aushpor: You just admitted to being a fraud.
me: No I didn't.
aushpor: uh uh!
me: That was doG, not me.
--
This should be easy. Show me where I admitted to be a fraud.
@Dala
Isn't that excuse like saying the doG ate your homework?
doG
I imagine his explanation will be along those lines. Yes.
"PalinTwit".- Hey dala nope.
Dala
You first, show me the Christian god is real. You are a follower of Christ, says you, but you are a fraud and have admitted to that. Get over yourself, you avoided the inevitable, death, and had an epiphany, HALLELUJAH JESUS. Please you were a _______ before that, nothing like facing oblivion to grab onto the crutch of salvation. Fill in the blank with any demeaning adjective you chose to describe your pre-epiphany self.
Where did I admit to being a fraud?
Help me understand what you are talking about!
It appears you just made that up.
You believe in God, too. I haven't seen you prove your God to anyone but yourself.
Dala
Wow just wow. For someone that claims that he does not give a good god damn what people think about him, I fear you protest too much. You are a fraud, learn to live with yourself or start really living the life you say you believe; most Christians just talk the talk and cannot abide walking the walk. The sheer hypocrisy of religions is amazing love thy neighbour unless he pi$$es you off then go to war with the heretic. Turn the other cheek you hypocrite. Wow just wow.
Are you dodging and dancing?
More than once you've said I admitted to being a fraud.
Just show me where.
It is that easy.
Dala
You have already posted you are a fraud, I will let a third person determine what is the correct interpretation of your statements. Except for Theo Phileo, he is never objective. I stand by my claim that you are a fraud, you deny that, such is the way the world turns, no god needed unless you can summon him up as the judge of that which is correct. Good luck with that, har dee har.
Where
did
I
admit
to
being
a
fraud?
Just show me. No 3rd party needed. Not 'does somebody think I'm a fraud'?
Where did I state it?
Dala
I, Colin and Jesus believe you are a fraud. Jesus because you say you follow his example and teachings, you make a lie of that with almost your every post, turn the other cheek (you really cannot get your head around that concept can you, you naughty Christian) and Colin and I because we read your posts, they indicate you are a fraud, a slippery, slithering, hard to pin down fraud but a fraud none the less.
Ugh.
Where did I admit I'm a fraud?
Not, do you think I'm a fraud?
Dala
You are a fraud and admitted same, repent already.
You should try following your own advice.
Dala
What is the matter with you Christian people? I do not believe in your book of silly, why do you assume I should be guided by what you all suppose it dictates? Do you not realize that that more than 5 billion people think you are delusional in your beliefs? Christians have to grow up and understand that their moral code is not predominant on this earth, learn to get along with others and not dictate.
Quit preaching about it. Quit trying to speak for Jesus. Go practice your Deism in peace.
Dalahast has repeatedly lied on this blog. He is indeed an artful dodger as many others have noted, an especially slippery one. He is even being dishonest with himself, in that his personal, archetypal Jesus figure that he props up here so belligerently is not even consistent with the biblically described one.
Dalahast is a liar. Beware!
Right. EdSed, Colin, doG, Santa, etc. – all atheists that express disdain for me. They've never shared any kind words toward me. All is hateful.
Ausphor is one deist who express disdain from me.
Yet there are other atheists and deists that do not take such an extreme issue with me.
I'm not the one trying to tell people how to live their lives. But that is what the extreme religionists, atheists and deists do.
EdSed
Can you provide examples of 2 of my lies? That might be helpful to let me know what you are talking about.
Links already provided, Artful. Enough with your lies and dodging already.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
"For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."
God's strength is perfected in my weakness. Jesus has saved me. Amen.
Great points. Indeed, if you don't know the word and you don't know God, the scriptures you quoted are like meaningless drivel. The natural man cannot understand the word of God because you understand with your heart and not with your head. It's for this reason debating the word with someone who doesn't even know their words have power- for good or bad; for life or death; is a futile endeavor.
Do you ever wonder why we have 2 sides to our brains?
A rational, rigid, logical side?
And a creative, imaginative, innovative side?
Did evolution just randomly develop these facets of ourselves? Is it just a survival skill? Or is there a purpose to this dual nature of human beings? Do we need to use our whole brain, not just half of our brain, to find God?
I don't know. But the way God reveals Himself is not the way self-righteous man reveals things. God's way is better. Humbly seek God, right?
These are intriguing and great questions!
The human body – as it relates to "the kingdom of God within" us is a topic that's fascinating to me. Psalm 91 (not his real name) has some great writings that explore these and what's so revelatory and insightful about these writings is that most were done at least 20 years ago.
If you're interested, the writing that deals specifically with the left and right brain is found here:
http://www.dayspringfromonhigh.com/The%20Chariot%20of%20the%20Cherubims.pdf
I do hope you bookmark the page for future reading because it's very educational, revelatory, insightful.
"A rational, rigid, logical side?
And a creative, imaginative, innovative side?"
As I understand it, this is not actually the case, though it's been a popular belief for some time. Yes there are some differences in the way the 2 halves of our brain process some information but it's not nearly so clear-cut as most seem to believe.
dala
"Do we need to use our whole brain, not just half of our brain, to find God? "
There's that assumptive bias again...there is no indication or evidence there is any "god" to find.
As far as the brain...look up synesthesia...a condition where parts of the brain cross talk, people "seeing" music, mathematics.
And by the way, you are using all of your brain all of the time.
We do not only use 10%, or 20%...but we use 100% of the available space, and when more is needed, the brain can grow to suit. There are many studies of the brain you can look at....none of them indicate any "gods" though.
Just one more example of Dala and new-mna spewin gout of date science as if it were representative of all human knowledge. Please read a book written this decade, or at least this century.
G to the T
Yea, I simplified my understanding.
I've been working on brain exercises in relation to realistically drawing the human figure. It is amazing how my rational side pushes for me to use basic symbols for eyes, noses, hands, etc. But when I work on silencing that side – I can start to see past my own understanding and begin to see and draw more clearly. I see there is more than what my rational side says is happening.
igaftr
It is quite reasonable to find people who believe in God talking about God on a belief blog.
You don't have to jump in and tell us you don't believe everytime we talk. I totally get you don't believe in God. You really, really, really don't believe. Great!
Alias
First, I was asking questions. I've experienced the 2 different "halves' in my brain.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/02/248089436/the-truth-about-the-left-brain-right-brain-relationship
Alias,
let this mind be in you – things change, science changes, but the Word of God remains FOREVER.
Do you know how long forever is? IT'S FOREVER!
Yes new-man,
it was wrong when it was written, it is wrong now, and it will always and forever be wrong.
I think I get the concept.
"but the Word of God remains FOREVER."
That is not a feature...that is a flaw.
What is eternal?
dala
I do not need your permission to post a response to anyone on a public blog...get over yourself.
The question was asked, I showed why it is an invalid question.
This is the same question...
Do we need to use our whole brain, not just half of our brain, to find the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Same EXACT question dala...go ahead and answer it, since it is a moot question, just like yours. Just trying to help you out by identifying an exercise in mental futility.
If the unicorn is invisible, how do you know it is pink?
The article of this blog is about believers in Jesus Christ. Not believer in invisible (pink?) unicorns. Doesn't it seem reasonable to find believers in Jesus posting on this blog?
Using my whole brain, I see no reason to believe in invisible (pink?) unicorns. But I do for God.
I think your question would me more relevant here:
https://www.wizard101.com/forum/
"There's that assumptive bias again...there is no indication or evidence there is any "god" to find."
You counter my assumptive bias, with your own assumptive bias???
Dala
Your link, http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/02/248089436/the-truth-about-the-left-brain-right-brain-relationship took me to an article that explained the right/left brain thing was old and wrong.
Interesting that you would site a source that contradicts your post.
No wonder the bible has meaning to you.
Other than the fact that more people believe in god the amount of evidence for the pink unicorn and the god of the bible are equal in my opinion. I would assume that it takes faith to know that the unicorn is pink. However, since he says he has evidence for a pink unicorn in his garage I would think you should accept it since it seems that you want others to take your beliefs as evidence for god.
Alias
Right. I never said left brain – right brain. References to that usually have to do with personality descriptions. Which I wasn't addressing. I was talking about the dual nature of our brains. How we learn things.
joey3467
+ However, since he says he has evidence for a pink unicorn in his garage I would think you should accept it since it seems that you want others to take your beliefs as evidence for god.
That would only be valid if that is the only reason I give for why I believe in God.
He honestly doesn't have an invisible pink unicorn in his garage. It is just a popular argument he is using to promote his atheism. Why he chooses to come to a religion blog to talk about his atheism? Not a science or technology blog?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
dala
Once again, you clearly do not seem to understand English. I stated a fact. There is no infdication there are any gods.
You on the other hand have already decided that there is, so off on a fools errand you go.
I have no bias, since I know that I do not know. I do not make an assumption., simply stated a fact... a fact that makes YOUR question moot.
I never said there is or is not any god, so I made no assumption.
Joey
Whoops!
He never said it was in his garage. But that is what the original author of that argument stated a long time ago.
Also, there is a right and wrong way to use that argument. It doesn't apply to everyone's beliefs.
igaftr
"There is no infdication there are any gods."
That is an opinion. A personal statement. I don't mind if you say that for yourself. You can't know if there is no indication for other people. You can only speculate about it.
But you don't know everything there is to know about God.
The fact that CNN has a blog dedicated to such things like belief in God – indicates the belief might be valid.
The fact that less than 4% of human beings make claims like you do indicate you might just be completely wrong.
"If the unicorn is invisible, how do you know it is pink?"
All things are possible through the invisible pink unicorn.
Who are you to question?
+ All things are possible through the invisible pink unicorn.
+ Who are you to question?
I'm a person with serious doubts. If I'm not allowed to ask questions I'm going to assume you are full of crap. With God, I can ask questions. And doubt. In fact it is encouraged.
Do you honestly believe in the invisible pink unicorn? Can you point to anyone in history that most people view as credible, such as doctors, civil rights leaders or aid workers that testify about the unicorn? Can I read what they say?
"The fact that CNN has a blog dedicated to such things like belief in God – indicates" nothing.
"The fact that less than 4% of human beings make claims like you do indicate you might just be completely wrong." Of course the fact that 2/3rds of the world doesn't believe in the Christian God indicates you might just be completely wrong...but then again, it doesn't really indicate anything at all since no religion is based on empirical evidence to support their supernatural narrative.
Does the fact that hundreds of thousands of people visit Comic-Con or Star Trek conventions each year indicate that Superman and Spock might be real? I think not.
dala
"Do you honestly believe in the invisible pink unicorn?"
Another moot question.
The number of people who believe a given thing has no bearing on its validity. Whether one person, or 10 billion believe, does not change whether or not it is true.
"I'm a person with serious doubts. If I'm not allowed to ask questions I'm going to assume you are full of crap." So why all the grief when we ask you for proof of your supernatural claims?
"With God, I can ask questions. And doubt. In fact it is encouraged." So have you gotten any actual answers you can show empirically come from God or is it just a gut feeling you get?
Dala
you have no right to call anyone else 'full of crap'.
You posted:
"Do you ever wonder why we have 2 sides to our brains?
A rational, rigid, logical side?
And a creative, imaginative, innovative side?"
And later posted a link that calls these questions out of date and inaccurate.
When I called you out you tried to change what you had sid with "I was talking about the dual nature of our brains. How we learn things."
Now, to educate you on the IPC Giddess, it is an obvious contradiction to be pink and invisible. It's a joke, get it?
Those of us who refer to the IPC (most of us anyway) are mocking what we see as absurdities of organized religion and what the followers do/believe. Kind of like the trinity – an obvious contradiction that people jump through mental hoops to try to explain.
+ Of course the fact that 2/3rds of the world doesn't believe in the Christian God indicates you might just be completely wrong...but then again, it doesn't really indicate anything at all since no religion is based on empirical evidence to support their supernatural narrative.
Not necessarily. I'm not the one claiming my opinions are facts.
I don't understand how someone can state it is a fact that there is no indication of God.
No indication? At all? Why are so many people seeking after God?
I see indication. And it is not the same as someone making up an analogy of a unicorn and insisting it is exactly like that.
+ Does the fact that hundreds of thousands of people visit Comic-Con or Star Trek conventions each year indicate that Superman and Spock might be real? I think not.
No, it doesn't. They don't claim Superman and Spock are real, though. If they do, I will doubt and test out what they say.
ig
+ "Do you honestly believe in the invisible pink unicorn?" Another moot question.
If you don't actually believe in the unicorn, it is different from my belief in God. It is an important distinction.
+ The number of people who believe a given thing has no bearing on its validity. Whether one person, or 10 billion believe, does not change whether or not it is true.
It is an indication that belief in God may not be what you suggest it is.
+ So why all the grief when we ask you for proof of your supernatural claims?
Because most people who give me grief are atheists that claim there is no indication or proof of God. No matter what I offer they refuse it.
Very few will answer my questions about what they are searching for. Too often I have non-scientists trying to apply science to the discussion. It just isn't that sensible of the to do so.
+ So have you gotten any actual answers you can show empirically come from God or is it just a gut feeling you get?
I've gotten answers that indicate that God is real and is not just like some science we study. It is not a gut feeling. It is bigger and better than those 2 options you limit this to.
dala
"It is an indication that belief in God may not be what you suggest it is."
In what way specifically.
How is belief in any unsubstantiated anything any different than belief in any other unsubstantiated thing? All you have to go on is imagination.
dala
" No matter what I offer they refuse it."
I have NEVER seen you offer anything but another tap dance arounnd the subject. You have never offered anything that has any substance.
+ you have no right to call anyone else 'full of crap'.
If someone seriously wants me to believe in a invisible pink unicorn, I have the right to think they are full of crap. I didn't call anyone that.
+ Those of us who refer to the IPC (most of us anyway) are mocking what we see as absurdities of organized religion and what the followers do/believe. Kind of like the trinity – an obvious contradiction that people jump through mental hoops to try to explain.
Kind of like few atheists who follow the IPC theory – another obvious contradiction that people jump through mental hoops to try to explain.
+ In what way specifically.
+ How is belief in any unsubstantiated anything any different than belief in any other unsubstantiated thing? All you have to go on is imagination.
Like when you declare something is a fact, like no inidcation of God. No, it is your opinion and experience.
There are people; some who even have the education, mutual respect of others and credentials; who completely disagree with your factual statement. It is not scientifcally backed – because you haven't studied all the indications to determine they don't point to God.
Opinion. Not fact.
+ I have NEVER seen you offer anything but another tap dance arounnd the subject. You have never offered anything that has any substance.
I have NEVER seen you offer anything postive. You just seek out believers in God to argue about why you think they are wrong. You offer no sustance yourself.
All you do is talk about how you don't believe in God. All the time.
"Because most people who give me grief are atheists that claim there is no indication or proof of God. No matter what I offer they refuse it."
If you and I were looking out upon the Sahara Desert and noting the paterns in the sand, the great undulating waves that look like some giant serpents had just traveled in a sort of migration, or maybe some huge rakes creating the intricate paterns like some zen rock garden, we would both be seeing the same thing and yet drawing different conclusions. I would see the paterns as naturally occuring phenomenon created by the wind where you may see it as some great design instigated by some all powerful alien creator. And thats fine, we can both have our opinion. But if I ask you to present evidence of this grand design you simply point at the patern again and say "See?" and again I look and see naturally occuring phenomenon albeit beautiful. You look at the universe and see something supernatural, I look at the universe and see some super nature. Until you can definitively link some patern to some supernatural being you only have your opinion that it was a grand plan and thus you say things like "I don't understand how someone can state it is a fact that there is no indication of God." because anything and everything you see as an indication of God, I do not because I think imaginging an invisible realm where spirit beings have some interaction with our universe while not having a smidgon of empirical evidence to support that opinion is not only folly, it's a recipe for disaster.
Dala
You still don't get it.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn IS A JOKE. It is not a religion. No one believes in it. There are no mental hoops to jump through to explain it. Please google 'paradox' if you are still confused, but I can't expalain this in any smaller words.
On a side note, I believe humans will be genetically creating Pink Unicorns long before the debate over universal origins is settled.
Could you imagine what a hot seller a genetically engineerd mini-horse Pink Unicorn would be just before Christmas?
by all means dala...show that your OPINION that there is some verifiable indication of some "god" somewhere...it needs to be verifiable , otherwise an individuals delusion is too easy to manifest as something tangible ( as I suspect in your case).
There is a million dollar prize available to anyone who can show anything supernatural to exist.
Showing anindication of a god would certainly qualify.
Until that prize is claimed, it is FACT that there are no verifiable indictions that any "god" exists...none other than that which exists entirely in the thoughts of single individuals.
Go ahead...back up your statement and show the proof, show the evidence...anything at all really.
No one has ever presented any evidence of any of the gods....that is fact, deny it all you want...it is simply YOU rationalizing your belief...also a known psychological phenomena.
Meanwhile, I will continue to NOT jump to any conclusion about any "gods"...because of the complete and total lack of evidence either way.
Alias
Right.
It is a joke.
But people are tyring to use it as if it is not a joke. As if it matter of fact proves that I believe in the exact same kind of thing.
That is when they start jumping through hoops.
Get it?
Here was the point I was trying to make to Newman:
I used to be very rigid in my thinking. I began to be more open-minded and willing to learn new things. To look at things I knew were wrong, and consider how others look at them.
So some Bible verses that used to make no sense to me, do today. God has stepped into my life, grabbed my attention and set me in a new direction.
The evidence points to this being a good thing. The testimony of other people, even those of no belief, indicates something changed within me. I don't go around talking about God very much. Except on religion blogs. I hope to find people to share my experiences with. For some reason there are mostly people who don't believe in God. Fine. Why? I don't know. It doesn't seem sensible. A few keep claiming they love science, logic and reason – why not go to a blog dedicated to such things? Why not go to school and learn more about science?
I do. I go to school. I'll be taking a biology of behavior class this fall. I want to learn more.
I assume people come here because they want to know more about God. Or understand how religion can be beneficial in our lives.
There is no shame in seeking out God. And talking about it. I'm going to keep studying this world. On an artistic, physical and spiritual level. I question everything. Especially people who try to dictate to me their opinions.
Live and let live. Keep learning. Keep an open mind. Be honest. And have no fear.
"But people are tyring to use it as if it is not a joke. As if it matter of fact proves that I believe in the exact same kind of thing."
The invisible Pink Unicorn is the same as your God because:
Both have specific properties assigned to them by believers with zero evidence of such traits. "Invisible" "Pink" "all powerful" "all knowing"
Neither have ever been seen, photographed, heard, recorded or captured in any form.
Both are only visible in the minds eye using individual imagination.
The only difference between them is that you assign additional powers to your God that preclude any other imagined Gods essentially claiming the right of supernatural abilities for your champion and denying the possibility of anyone elses imagined deity.
"It doesn't seem sensible. A few keep claiming they love science, logic and reason – why not go to a blog dedicated to such things? Why not go to school and learn more about science?"
I come here because I consider religion to be one of the major problems with the world and especially our country. I hope (probably naively) that some believers will read these comments and realize that religious views make no sense and they'll be able to open their minds.
If religious people kept their religious views to themselves and didn't instil those views upon their children from birth, I would not have any interest in being here. The fact that we had the likes of Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman as serious contenders for the Republican presidential nomination is absolutely terrifying to me. The fact that there are enough people in our country who support politicians so clueless about the inappopriateness of injecting their religious views into public forums, laws, education, etc is very disturbing (not to mention embarassing on a international level).
"The only difference between them is that you assign additional powers to your God that preclude any other imagined Gods essentially claiming the right of supernatural abilities for your champion and denying the possibility of anyone elses imagined deity."
No I don't.
SeaVik
That is very noble of you to take on this battle. Good luck.
I don't think scapegoating religion for all of the world's problems is that great of an idea. Histories have shown that governments, societies and individuals with no religion have done horrible things, too. I think addressing the human nature is the best approach to this problem.
There are even atheists forming their own religions. It appears there are some benefits that even non-theists see in religion.
Look, I don't promote religion as something that should get a free pass. But I'm hesitant to go to the other extreme and try to tell people how they should raise their kids and run their lives. It doesn't seem to be promoting open-mindedness at all.
"I don't think scapegoating religion for all of the world's problems is that great of an idea."
I didn't say religion is responsible for all of the world's problems, I said it is one of the biggest problems.
The negative impact of religion goes well beyond direct impacts such as inequal laws, unconst.itutional teaching of creationsim in public schools, interference with scientific discovery, etc. The even bigger impact comes as a result of the religious mindset. To believe in religion, you have to be willing to believe things without evidence and in many cases, believe things that directly conflict with existing evidence. In fact, it is taught that doing this (faith) is a good thing. It is exactly this type of thinking that is required for idiots to decide that they don't agree with the conclusions of the world's climatologists even though they are completely unqualified to dispute them. The religious mindset allows them to ignore what we know to be true and just believe things will be fine because they have faith that they will be fine.
There are broad ramifications when you have a population that believes in fairies. Unfortunately, our earth parishes as a result.
I will defend the freedom of religion that our country embraces. I especially will fight for those who have little or no voice. Unless that voice wants to silence other voices. Then I will defend my rights guaranteed by our Const.itution and fight for those who want an equal and diverse nation.
You and the likes of Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman and your divisive mindsets can argue with each other all day long. I'll join those who are actually making a difference. Whether they be religious or not – I don't care.
I'm going to respond in a new post since we're actually getting on the topic of this article for a change.
Oh no. This ought to be great.
New-man
very good post and i agree heartily.
– Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." John 18:37, NKJV
A non-topic issue:
Obviously, awanderingscot still has not completed any basic course on evolution. There is an excellent one on-line at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01. Nor has awanderingscot perused any of the required historical Jesus studies previously presented.
Fifty percent of the solution:
From the studies of Armstrong, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Richardson and Bayhaqi--–
The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:
( –The Steps take less than two minutes to finish- simply amazing, two minutes to bring peace and rationality to over one billion lost souls- Priceless!!!)
Are you ready?
Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.
The First Five of the 77 Branches:
"1. Belief in Allah"
aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc. should be added to your self-cleansing neurons.
"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."
Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gi-b G-nab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "crea-tionist".
"3. To believe in the existence of angels."
A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/de-vils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hitt-ites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ug-ly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as f–airies and "tin–ker be-lls". Modern de-vils are classified as the de-mons of the de-mented.
"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."
Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.
Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the un-educated masses in line. Today we call them for-tune tellers.
Prophecies are also invali-dated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.
"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days "fasting" (the Ramadan legend) in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic vi-olence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallu-cinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.
Walk these Five Steps and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!
Unfortunately, there are not many Muslim commentators/readers on this blog so the "two-minute" cure is not getting to those who need it. If you have a Muslim friend, send him a copy and help save the world.
Analogous steps are available at your request for deprogramming the myths of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Paganism..
+++++
and don't forget the myth of evolution!
We have already described how one of the fundamental principles that make up life is "knowledge," and it is clear that this knowledge proves the existence of an intelligent Creator. The theory of evolution, which tries to account for life as being the result of coincidences in a purely material world, and the materialist philosophy it is based on, are quite helpless in the face of this reality.
When we look at evolutionists' writings, we sometimes see that this helplessness is openly admitted. One forthright authority on this subject is the well-known French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé. He is a materialist and an evolutionist, although he sometimes openly admits the quandaries Darwinist theory faces. According to Grassé, the most important truth which invalidates the Darwinist account is the knowledge that gives rise to life:
Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from?... This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it.387
The reason why Pierre-Paul Grassé says, "Science seems incapable of solving it," is that he does not want any nonmaterialist explanation to be thought of as "scientific." However, science itself invalidates the hypotheses of materialist philosophy, and proves the existence of a Creator. Grassé and other materialist "scientists" either ignore this reality, or else say, "Science does not explain this." They do this because they are materialists first and scientists second, and they continue to believe in materialism, even if science demonstrates the exact opposite.
For this reason, in order to possess a correct scientific att-itude, one has to distinguish between science and materialist philosophy. – Harun Yahya
Reading the words of a renowned evolutionary biologist describing coagulation of blood fills me with awe and wonder of our awesome creator and God.
"Take, for example, regulation of the coagulation of blood, a highly complex phenomenon to which biologists seem to have given little thought. Its normal cause is the opening of a vein, artery, or capillaries; the blood brought into contact with the lip of the wound (damaged tissues) becomes the site of chain reactions ending in the formation of a clot. This is only possible because there preexist in the blood reaction agents or their precursors whose end effect is to coagulate certain proteins of the blood plasma. The organism, ready for all eventualities, bears within itself in the latent state its own protective system. Genes control the elaboration of coagulants, proteins, and enzymes. Such a process forms a single whole; a lack of a substance arises, an enzyme is affected, and the system will not work. One does not see how it can have been formed by successive chance effects supplying a protein or an enzyme in any random order. Besides, we know that the effects of mutations on the system are disastrous and form the lengthiest chapter in blood pathology. The system has become functional only when all its components have come together and adjusted themselves to one another. The Darwinian hypothesis compels us to postulate a preparatory period during which selection acts upon something that does not, physiologically speaking, yet exist. Under the necessary conditions of the postulate, the action can only have been prophetic!" (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.152. Emphasis original).
"The Darwinian hypothesis compels us to postulate a preparatory period during which selection acts upon something that does not, physiologically speaking, yet exist." Yes, thank you for that admission whether intentional or not Mr.Evolution.
Another scientist weighs in on the irreducible complexity of blood clotting. Only a wonderfully intelligent designer could have created life!
"Blood behaves in a peculiar way. When a container of liquid like a carton of milk, or a tank truck filled with gasoline-springs a leak, the fluid drains out. The rate of flow can depend on the thickness of the liquid (for example, maple syrup will leak more slowly than alcohol, but eventually it all comes out. No active process resists it. In contrast, when a person suffers a cut it ordinarily bleeds for only a short time before a clot stops the flow; the clot eventually hardens, and the cut heals over. Blood clot formation seems so familiar to us that most people don't give it much thought. Biochemical investigation, however, has shown that blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts. The absence of, or significant defects in, any one of a number of the components causes the system to fail: blood does not clot at the proper time or at the proper place. ... Blood clotting ... requires extreme precision. When a pressurized blood circulation system is punctured, a clot must form quickly or the animal will bleed to death. If blood congeals at the wrong time or place, though, then the clot may block circulation as it does in heart attacks and strokes. Furthermore, a clot has to stop bleeding all along the length of the cut, sealing it completely. Yet blood clotting must be confined to the cut or the entire blood system of the animal might solidify, killing it. Consequently, the clotting of blood must be tightly controlled so that the clot forms only when and where it is required ... the blood-clotting system fits the definition of irreducible complexity. That is, it is a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system effectively to cease functioning. The function of the blood clotting system is to form a solid barrier at the right time and place that is able to stop blood flow out of an injured vessel. The components of the system ... are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. ... none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a blood clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails. There are other ways to stop blood flow from wounds, but those ways are not step-by-step precursors to the clotting cascade. For example, the body can constrict blood vessels near a cut to help stanch blood flow. Also, blood cells called platelets stick to the area around a cut, helping to plug small wounds. But those systems cannot be transformed gradually into the blood-clotting system any more than a glue trap can be transformed into a mechanical mousetrap. The simplest blood-clotting system imaginable might be just a single protein that randomly aggregated when the organism was cut. ... [but] the simplistic clotting system would be triggered inappropriately, causing random damage and wasting resources. ... [It] is not the final activity ... clot formation ... that is the problem-rather, it is the control system. One could imagine a blood-clotting system that was somewhat simpler than the real one-where, say, Stuart factor, after activation by the rest of the cascade, directly cuts fibrinogen to form fibrin, bypassing thrombin. Leaving aside for the moment issues of control and timing of clot formation, upon reflection we can quickly see that even such a slightly simplified system cannot change gradually into the more complex, intact system. If a new protein were inserted into the thrombin-less system it would either tum the system on immediately-resulting in rapid death-or it would do nothing, and so have no reason to be selected. Because of the nature of a cascade, a new protein would immediately have to be regulated From the beginning, a new step in the cascade would require both a proenzyme and also an activating enzyme to switch on the proenzyme at the correct time and place. Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.78-79, 86-87).
scot
Your entire argument is " Life is too complex for it to be a natural occurance, which is a false argument.
Your god would then require a creator, because he is even more complex, and that creator would then need a creator, etcetera ad infinitum
See the FALSENESS of the argument?
There is nothing that says that just because something is complex, it cannot be naturally occuring. Nothing.
Obviously, awanderingscot still has not completed any basic course on evolution. There is excellent on- line at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01. Nor has awanderingscot perused any of the required historical Jesus studies previously presented.
It is pretty clear that scot does not have an original thought of his own. He goes to one of the apologist sites that have a section on how to answer critics on blogs and gives him cut and paste quotes or statements to post. Boring stuff by deluded people.
Awanderingscot: Stop lying! Just because you like the incest story of the bible doesn't make it true! No matter how many lies you spread about evolution, you will not falsify it. An education would be a good thing for you.
Colin,
“Skeptic: Ok, what proof do you have that your god exists?”
Creation itself for one.
Creation (as you put it) implies a creator and without providing evidence of that creator, your claim becomes moot.
If you'd prefer to use the term "the universe", so be it. The universe and all physical matter is evidence for God.
That's not evidence and it's an uneducated mind that fails to comprehend that. You still haven't verified your gods existence, you've merely pointed to things that you give it credit for. So once again you have failed.
The Christian God, being immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and extremely powerful is the One who created space-time and all material existence. What do you posit?
That you suck at guessing, tf.
tf: I posit that we don't have the answers which is far more honest than you could wish to be. No matter how many times you spew that creation is proof of your god, you still not have not validated anything and thus do not have a point. How do you know it is the Christian god when so many gods were invented before that one? It is a dishonest stance to look at the world and your preconceived notions (the notions your parents brainwashed you with) and posit a god.
And if it is spaceless, timeless and immaterial it is safe to say it is supernatural and if you'd learn to use a dictionary, you'd comprehend that supernatural is beyond understanding and should not be taken literally. Use whatever brain cells you have left functioning and get an education (the true cure for your ignorance).
tf1
The Christian god being immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and extremely powerful.....
What a load. A useless god that couldn't even get its message out to the majority of its so called creations is hardly extremely powerful, more like a wimp. The PEOPLE, not some god, that did get the message out to the sheep are the clergy that have been living the high life of the suckers that believe the delusion. BTW not even the only god that perpetuated a scam on the gullible, so many gods, so many sheep so many shearers.
"The universe and all physical matter is evidence for God."
Not even close. There are far too many possibilities.
To say something like this is to embrace willful ignorance.
Tf;s and fred;s code of conduct – scene 1 take 1.
Preface – from the funny book of proceedings.
Oops the last paragraph – pure comedy really.
It is our prayer that all who read these proceedings will be blessed with a greater awareness and appreciation of the
scientific evidence for Creation. (pure comedy really.) Moreover, we hope for an increased appreciation for the authority of Scripture....
God, being immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and extremely powerful is the One who created space-time and all material existence. What alternative do you posit? I hope you certainly don't believe, as Doris indicated in the past, that it's possible for something to pop into being, uncaused out of nothing.
Casual agent = religious BS or a Jackalope
What do you posit? The universe just popped into being, uncaused out of nothing?
tf, It's human nature to create a story around events but the truth is – we don't know. That doesn't mean a god did it and it definitely isn't any god described by religions. What created god and if a god doesn't need a creator why does a universe?
Santa,
Are you seriously positing that our universe didn't have a beginning? Do you subscribe to the Big Bang and all science that goes with it? Do you believe an infinite regress is possible?
Hey tf -one millionth of a second (if I not mistaken) is unaccounted pre Big Bang is the devil hiding there?
"The universe just popped into being, uncaused out of nothing?"
Much more likely that the incompetent Christian god did it.
tf: The Big Bang, regardless of what you say, is the most acceptable answer we have based on facts that have been readily accepted. For you to posit a god is merely you using the God of the Gaps (I don't know therefore...) and is extremely dishonest but being dishonest seems to make you think you're smart when in fact all you're doing is showing how extremely dishonest intellectually you are. Such a giant bubble of ignorance you reside in!
Hey tf might help – But ?
Stephen Hawking's big ideas... made simple | Guardian Animations
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6lFGJdwRyo#t=68}
Dalahast: I believe in God and that Jesus loves me:
Skeptic: Ok, what proof do you have that your god exists?
Dalahast: I know he exists.
Skeptic: I get that. I understand you firmly believe he exists, my question was, what evidence do you have to support your belief?
Dalahast: Define evidence.
Skeptic. You can’t be serious. I mean facts that support your belief that god exists.
Dalahast: I never said I believe god exists. That might be some people’s belief, but it is not mine. Sorry.
Skeptic: But you just said you did. You said “I believe in God.”
Dalahast: Well, that’s different isn’t it. Define “exists.”
Skeptic: Now you’re just being evasive and silly.
Dalahast: Some evasive people are silly, but not all. I know of silly people who are evasive, too. At my church, we discuss silliness and evasiveness. I could do better at being neither silly nor evasive. I try to love everybody, including evasive people and silly people. Sometimes I fall short.
Skeptic: Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Look, I asked you for evidence that god exists and all you have done is run around hiding behind definitions and throwing out meaningless plati.tudes.
Dalahast. Some scientists throw out meaningless plati.tudes. Einstein, who was a gifted orator, once said; “Just because we can define meaningless plati.tudes as a string of words does not make their meaning any less plati.tudinal.” I, for one, know God exists. God loves me and sent Jesus to save me and help guide my life.
Skeptic: Once again, I get that you believe this. What I keep asking you for is evidence to support your belief.
Dalahast: Well, what if God doesn’t live by the same rules we do. What if he exists in a plane we can know nothing about?
Skeptic: But you just said you knew of God’s intentions (about Jesus and your life). Well, which is it? Can we know things about him or not. It seems Christians like you are quick to claim they know God’s wishes, hopes or intentions but, the minute they are cornered on an issue, they immediately resort to mysticism and claim God is “unknowable.”
Dalahast: I don’t believe God is unknowable. Some people might, but I don’t. Sorry.
Skeptic: But you just said EXACTLY that!
Dalahast: Define “unknowable.” Many scientists are unknowable. Isaac Newton once said, “to be unknowable is like the reflection of true love passed through the prism of human experience.”
Skeptic: That isn’t even logical. It makes no sense whatsoever!!
Dalahast: What I mean is that there are logical explanations for belief in God. Your beliefs are not completely logical. All human beings are imperfect, even their greatest attempts to remain logical fail. I've seen you do this before.
Skeptic: Look, you repulsive little tu.rd, either answer my question or admit you have no evidence God exists.
Dalahast: Some repulsive little tu.rds may answer questions, but not all. You call me names and make personal attacks. I try not to. I could do better.
Skeptic. I’m sorry, but you infuriate me. You spend hours and hours on here day after day and, whenever anybody engages you in debate, you go on with the same dribble, running around, being evasive and arguing in circles.
Dalahast: Martin Luther King once said that it takes a scientist with more credentials than you have to argue in circles.
"that might well be your point, but don't go putting it in bostontola's mouth. that is dishonest." – Colin
"That is why I said "I think.......You've put things in my mouth before, in a similar manner you just accused me of. Is it dishonest when you do it?" – Me
"I insult you, but I don't ever misquote yoou" – Colin
Uh. Have you changed your ways?
How is that post not dishonest by your own standards?
I think it is pretty obvious that I was mocking your debating style through the use of a theoretical conversation, Dalahast. I'm pretty sure nobody thinks the above exchange actually took place
Me: (posts something similar mocking Colin)
Colin: That is (*&$()*&#%(*&!!!!!! You idiot. That is so dishonest of you. And totally irrational. Now watch me parrot Richard Dawkins and imagine I'm a smart scientist. I love knowing I'm right.
some random atheist: (posts logical fallacy)
Colin: whistles.
Christian: Nice day everyone!
Colin: PATHETIC! What is so nice about it? There is no God...AND I HATE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do so many Christians think atheists hate the Judeo Christian god when it is something we don't even believe exists? It would be like hating Bigfoot. Do you think we also hate the hundreds of other gods we don;t believe in?
But Colin, I think it is pretty obvious that I was mocking your debating style through the use of a theoretical conversation Theoretically you did say that. Basically. In a round about way. Following your logic. Yes.
I didn't say or mean to suggest that atheists hate God.
I was just talking about you. Do most atheists spend as much time as you talking about a God they don't believe in? I would say no. In my experience most are not as irrational and obsessed with their atheism as you are.
I don't hate the Judeo Christian God, Dalahast. I know it does not exist. Get it this time?
Well, if I ignore your reasoning that makes it ok for your to post inaccurate things about me, then yes i get it.
The question is do you get it? Or are you going to keep holding on to your double standards?
Dala
You have admitted to being a phoney. You claim that you are not really that religious but strive to be a follower of jesus and his teaching. Yet you suck at it. You have stated you have not given up your possessions to live the simple life that jesus led and definitely do not turn the other cheek but strike out at those that dare criticize you. Your posts reminds me of an ouroborus because you do tap dance around as some sort of pious know it all in a circle of nonsense. This is of course my personal opinion based on your posts and the many phoney Christians like you I have come in contact with. BTW that last line is based on one of the gambits you use, "from what I observe of" whatever. Colin has you down to a peg, only Theo Phileo is more pompous and arrogant than you, take a bow and don't forget the turn the other cheek shtick.
"Fraud" is the word you're looking for. Dala is a fraud.
DdoG
Quite right, fraud is the better term. Spelling...ouroboros not ouroborus, mea culpa.
Ausphor
I can't change overnight. It is a process. You are not one to judge me. And I can criticize you for the same things you do of me. I don't think Jesus wants me to be like you: judgmental, preachy, arrogant and unkind. Love, tolerance of others and patience is the way.
In following Jesus we don't become perfect. What possessions do I need to get rid of? If you know me so well, tell me? Who said life was supposed to be made simple? Who did Jesus tell to get rid of their possessions? And why? What questions did the guy ask of Jesus? What did he want? Was he rich? Am I rich? Tell me 3 of my possessions Jesus doesn't want me to have. And why.
Dala
Please, read the things that you have posted over the last months, you will find you answers there. You may also want to read the bible about your questions about the life of jesus or go to a Jesuit site and read about how a true jesus follower should conduct themselves. Oh dear, why should I not have the right to judge you, you take it upon your self to judge all the atheists that post on this blog? Come to think of it that could be the only reason you post here to discredit atheist posts. Look up poe and ouroboros, you are the tap dancer in a diminishing circle.
When did I admit I was a phony?
That sounds like a lie.
You can claim I'm a phony. Fine. Who cares what you imagine. But saying I admitted I'm one. NO.
Don't be so dishonest about things like that.
\
Wrong. I never said you have no right to criticize me. I'm saying you possess the same traits you criticize me about. You point to the speck of dirt in my eye, while ignoring the log in yours.
I don't need a hypocrite like you trying to fix me. Go away. Nobody is asking for your help. Go read your deist website again.
Dala
You have stated that you are a follower of jesus but have not followed his teachings that I take as an admission of you being a fraud/phoney, many would agree with me. It is slightly ironic that I was called to perform jury duty earlier this year and was accepted into the eligible jury pool as a competent citizen (thankfully I was not called upon to sit on a case and was released). Interesting that so called Christians like you say who am I to judge when we do not believe in your book of silly. I am very competent to judge you on what you post as you think you are on judging what others, mainly atheists post (you seldom criticize the fringe lunatic Christians that post here I have noticed). Sir, you are a fraud, in my not so humble judgement.
Dala
No, sir, I will not go away, you are stuck with me. Now forgive those that transgress against you, like you are supposed to and try to be nice, jesus would. Not being bound by your christian standards is just such a relief, freedom if you will.
+ You have stated that you are a follower of jesus but have not followed his teachings that I take as an admission of you being a fraud/phoney, many would agree with me.
That is not what I said. You were asking loaded questions of me, which I could obviously see. I decided to play along with you to see you you would react. And you reacted how I expected.
+ It is slightly ironic that I was called to perform jury duty earlier this year and was accepted into the eligible jury pool as a competent citizen (thankfully I was not called upon to sit on a case and was released).
No. This is a differnt kind of judging. Nobody called you or selected you to be a judge on an opinion blog.
+ Interesting that so called Christians like you say who am I to judge when we do not believe in your book of silly. I am very competent to judge you on what you post as you think you are on judging what others, mainly atheists post (you seldom criticize the fringe lunatic Christians that post here I have noticed). Sir, you are a fraud, in my not so humble judgement.
I'd say it would be wise to not be dishonest and quick to judge others. You need to work on not being a fraud yourself, before you start pointing at others.
+ No, sir, I will not go away, you are stuck with me. Now forgive those that transgress against you, like you are supposed to and try to be nice, jesus would. Not being bound by your christian standards is just such a relief, freedom if you will.
I can't recall anyone taking you seriously on this blog. At least I've had atheists and others come to my defense in the past. Your notion that I'm just attacking all atheists like Colin attacks me isn't based in reality. Most atheist posts I try to discredit is when they insist they know what I believe better than I do myself. Kind of like what you are doing today to me.
I don't like when Christians try to play Jesus and preach at me. And when Deists like you do it it is just as annoying. Especially when they fail to practice what they preach. Thank God most Deists don't do such things. I think you should try to emulate those that don't do such things.
Dala
The same old dodge, thank goodness most Deists don't... How on earth do you know what most Deist think or do? How often you use that is really quite telling, you seem to know so much more of how other groups behave and are blind to the lunatic fringe Christians that post on this blog. Judge not lest you be judged does not apply to me, since your judgement of me maybe correct does not offend me at all. Why do you get so uptight when I or others call you a fraud, is your self esteem so low that it hurts your ego?
Dala
BTW look again at colin's original post, it is exactly what you are doing on this thread. You are a fraud, both clever and funny at the same time.
ausphor
+ The same old dodge, thank goodness most Deists don't... How on earth do you know what most Deist think or do?
No, most Deists I know don't say the stuff you say to me.
I didn't mean to say I know what most Deists think or do. Just in the same way you told me your opinion on Christians, is the same way I know most Deists. I know Deists. You are the only one that twists what I say and asks loaded questions.
+ How often you use that is really quite telling, you seem to know so much more of how other groups behave and are blind to the lunatic fringe Christians that post on this blog. Judge not lest you be judged does not apply to me, since your judgement of me maybe correct does not offend me at all. Why do you get so uptight when I or others call you a fraud, is your self esteem so low that it hurts your ego?
No. You said I admitted I was a fraud. I didn't. If your opinion is that I'm a fraud, that is fine. What you think of me is none of my business.
+ BTW look again at colin's original post, it is exactly what you are doing on this thread. You are a fraud, both clever and funny at the same time.
No, it is not exactly what I'm doing. He even admitted it was a parody – an exaggeration. You saying it is exactly the same is an error. Most of what he wrote in his parody I don't even believe.
Anyway, why did you dodge the questions I asked? What possessions do I need to get rid of? How do I need to give more? What possessions have you gotten rid of?
Dala
I am not a Christian so why do you think I would follow those standards? Read the bible on what jesus taught, go to a Jesuit web site and learn what a true life in Christ entails. You can do it all by yourself without the assistance of a Deist heretic. Answer your own questions.
Dude, I'm trying to figure out what you mean. You want to tell me I'm doing something wrong, but turn around and do the same thing? You want to dictate and preach to me how I should be, but refuse to answer questions? I'm glad the Christians I know can at least engage in a conversation. And allow me to doubt and ask questions. It is a better way of learning than what you preach.
You want to tell me I'm doing something wrong, but turn around and do the same thing? You want to dictate and preach to me how I should be, but refuse to answer questions?
Dala
I simply called you a fraud, is that preaching? The answer to your question, give up all your possessions as jesus suggested. Since I am not Christian........ No. For someone that does not care what other people think of him you sure are sensitive. Sorry if I resort to ridicule but you don't care do you? Have the last word, I will start picking at you some other time, I think you enjoy it.
You didn't just call me a fraud.
You said I admitted I was a fraud. And I didn't.
Which shows you to be a fraud.
Jesus hasn't asked me to give up all my possessions. Why are you?
I don't care if you ridicule me. Just don't be dishonest about it and expect me not to call you out on it.
No post is complete without reference to Einstein:
" I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being"
I've noticed some non-scientist atheist religion bloggers claim belief in God is counter against all scientific knowledge.
So I provide a few quotes of actual scientists who happen to believe in God who offer an opinion different from that of a non-scientist atheist religion blogger.
And they don't like that. At all. Anything that doesn't match up with their opinion about science and God is rubbish. Even actual scientists who can do what these men like Colin can not do: provide credentials that they know what they are talking about in regards to science.
Dalahäst
Yeah, I remember when all the scientific scientism was starting to gnaw at my faith so I had coffee with a rocket scientist @ NASA and physicist at Lockheed who both believe logic and reason can only support your belief but cannot bring you to believe in God.
I was always curious as to why when 90% of the world believes in something greater than the natural as self-evident it is shot down as an argumentum ad populum while when atheists claim that 90% of biologists believe no god exists proves there is no God is never an argumentum ad populum.
That is awesome. I'm lucky to have some connections with those with a science background, nothing like those 2. But what actual scientists say and what anti-theist non-scientists on here say are often at odds.
Colin
Why waste time with that little parody when you can simply cut to the chase. There are many evidences of God, whether cosmological, ontological, teleological, whatever, that have been offered ad nauseum on this forum. You simply choose not to accept them, which is fine, just have the personal integrity to acknowledge they have been presented.
Oh rubbish. I am yet to see any compelling, much less convincing evidence presented for the existence of the Judeo-christian god on this blog. Mental gymnastics (cosmological argument, ontological argument) are not evidence and they convince nobody. Mere thoughts in one's own head (i.e. "I know God exists") is not evidence. The Bible is not evidence God exists, it is the assertion that God exists – just like star Wars is not evidence that Luke skywalker exists.
The second time.
You don't EXCEPT the given evidence, that does not mean none was given, which was the implication in the parody ( "What I keep asking you for is evidence") Obviously your own words betray you because you later make the claim " I yet to see any COMPELLING or CONVINCING evidence."
The flip side of this is that I find the arguments and evidences for atheism presented on this forum to be simplistic, naive and at times, silly. I do not, however, deny that they are intended as such (evidence) and that their proponents consider them to be so.
I've tried having conversations with him, in which I later found out was actually a "debate". He was the moderator and rule maker of the "debate" . And he declared himself the "winner".
And he was quite pleased with himself. He told us so.
I have never seen any evidence for atheism.
I have seen a great deal of evidence to not believe the bible.
Dalahast
I really have no interest in who makes the rules, who the moderator is, or who perceives themselves the winner. I'm concerned only with the truthfulness of a given statement or implication. " Show me the evidence" is the perpetual cry of many atheists on this site. The evidence has been presented innumerable times. It is not accepted. I'm good with that. My plea is simply for people to use precision and validity in their statements, not the contrived vitriol used simply to bolster their views.
You should be "good with that" because the "evidence" is utter garbage, just like the overwhelming majority of the idiocy you post.
" I've tried having conversations with him, in which I later found out was actually a "debate". He was the moderator and rule maker of the "debate" . And he declared himself the "winner". "
You have just described awanderingscot to a T – and isn't it interesting how quickly both fred and scot abandoned their conversation ?
midwest rail
Yes. But also the way Colin engages in conversation reminds me of them, too. And he is kind of the atheist version of Salero. I swear – the fanatical religious and atheists have the same mindset. I don't want what either one of them are selling.
ddeevviinn
So when they say you have no evidence, despite what you say, what does that suggest to you?
Dala – my view regarding evidence, for what it's worth...I have no issue with anyone who asserts they have evidence to support their belief. My only issue is when they assert that they have proof. Evidence that is sufficient to an individual is substantially different from proof.
Actually I didn't think Fred engaged in conversations like that.
midwest
What if God can offer proof in His ways, not your ways? Your ways are important to you, but do you expect God to bow down and meet your standards? What if He has a better way?
I found my evidence for God in humility. And it wasn't by anything good or worthy I was doing. Back then, and even today, pride and arrogance are my biggest stumbling blocks in seeking God.
In other words, when I have no evidence whatsoever that any sensible person would consider persuasive, I claim god's proof is "proof in his way." lol.
Again, if I did the same thing you are doing, you would call me dishonest.
But when you do it it is merely an "observation", which makes it ok.
Right.
You really are not that sensible, especially with your theory that all people who believe in God are not sensible people.
The issue seems to be what one considers "evidence".
While Dalahast and other theists appear to consider personal and/or subject experience as evidence, that is apparently not acceptable as evidence to colin. and other atheists.
One question for theists why is it important that your experience is considered evidence?
One question for atheists why is it important that their experience is not considered evidence?
It is not important, it is a fact. If internal experiences were evidence, we would have evidence for UFOs, bigfoot, and and every god, demon and goblin man has ever thought was communicating with them.
ken, Subjective experience is unreliable at best. Magic tricks, alien abduction, bigfoot, etc. all become "legitimate" evidence. btw they reject the subjective experience of other believers as unreliable.
I don't believe things without proof or evidence.
God has given me proof of His existence.
If I didn't have this proof I would be agnostic, or possibly an atheist.
What Colin and Santa offer is not proof that God doesn't exist. I just see proof that it really bothers them that I seek after God.
I have no evidence for UFOs, bigfoot, and and every god, demon and goblin man has ever thought was communicating with them.
I know, but others have a strong internal belief in them all. Their internal evidence is no better or worse than yours.
I never said it was. You are the one boasting about being better than others.
I'm not telling them what they should believe, like is constantly done to me.
I'm just sharing my experience.
If you want to debate that subjective evidence is not convincing: I agree.
But I'm not going to lie and say I have no compelling reasons to believe. If the best people have is to insult me and write up a parody and fictionalize me; great. I can do that right back to you. Anyone can do that.
dala, No one can provide proof that a god does not exist. Likewise no one can provide proof that a unicorn does not exist, or the Hindu gods do not exist, etc. It is up to those making the claim to support it with evidence. The bible is typically provided as that evidence except that the foundational parts are incorrect. The creation myth in the bible supposedly establishes god's power and authority, but of course it doesn't as it is wrong. Your "personal experience" with god is no more compelling than Joseph Smith's or a Hindu's – neither of which you accept.
You can never explain why your god and not theirs, you can never point to objective evidence. You even claim that you came across Jesus without the bible or church or indirectly from someone who heard about him from the bible or church – incredible.
In Santa We Trust
There are a lot of people who believe in things I don't understand. But I'm not going to obsess over it and devote my life to seeking them out to argue with them about it.
I have more evidence for God then what you speculate about what my belief in God is about. If you can't come up with a better argument than the same one you've been showing me, perhaps it is not that great of an argument? Sure, it convinced you God doesn't exist. Good for you. Move on.
I know you don't care for the Bible or origin stories, so I avoid talking about it with you. But you keep bringing it up. You keep popping up in threads wanting to talk about God. You keep asking for evidence.
What do you want? If God reveals Himself to you – that might be a question he will ask. What would you say?
slippin' and slidin'
It was an honest and relevant question.
If you just want to keep telling me I can't prove God to you, we can keep that conversation going all night, all week, all year. I don't care. I enjoy talking about God. Even with non-believers. That is why I come to this religion blog.
Dalahast
"So when they say you have no evidence, despite what you say, what does that suggest."
It suggests that we have reached an impasse and that we have a fundamental difference in what we consider evidence. The vast majority of the human race are theists, so obviously there is sufficient evidence to cause them to go in that direction. It is the 2% of the population that kicks and screams for evidence, when in fact it surrounds them. Many would not acknowledge it if it were to hit them on the head.
The problem I have with the OP is one of veracity. His rage and angst directed toward theism ( more specifically christianity) causes him to fabricate and embellish his arguments. He has never learned to check his emotions at the door and carry on meaningful dialogue. It is why he will so often resort to "stupid" " idiot" and other terms of endearment. He has never left the context of junior high school conversation.
If you say something stupid,, do not be offended when people call you stupid. If you believe in childish nonsense and say so on a national blog, do not be offended when people call you childish. It is not my fault if your beliefs are stupid and childish. That is your choice.
You mistake "offended" for pity. I come to this forum with my big boy pants on. Nothing can be said or implied that will offend me. I consider the source and take it with a grain of salt. What I do find obnoxious is the need to falsely misrepresent a statement. In the present context it was " evidence has been presented" ( we're talking evidence, not proof). Now you can attempt to ci r c u m vent the truthfulness of the statement until the cow's come home, it will not change the validity of the statement.
On a side note, and don't take this as an extension of an olive branch, it is not, I actually enjoy some of your posts. Once I'm able to weed through much of the naturalism bravado and the at times blatant lies, I find the thoughts of someone who has a good grasp of the nuances and theological/philosophical difficulties that theists must address. I do commend you for that.
"Naturalism bravado?" What is that? Confidence in our ability to understand the natural world without having to revert to mythological/divine beings? Religion and its cast of supernatural characters – gods, saints, angels, demons – is not an explanation for anything. It is a pathetic pantomime for those who find life and death too tough to handle. Your "evidence" is pathetic; mental gymnastics or "I don't know" equals [the Judeo-Christian] god. That is not evidence, it is a poor excuse for evidence.
If any believer just once presented anything even remotely convincing I would be thrilled, because it would mean there is a slight chance that I and those I love can escape death, but all I ever see is the same old tired garbage – have faith, arguments from ignorance or the mental gymnastics you trotted out.
An no, just because I reject garbage arguments does not mean I would reject evidence laid before my face. I have just never, in over 30 years of asking, ever seen any.
And that speaks volumes.
"my big boy pants on. "
Apparently not...big boys don't have imaginary friends!
"just have the personal integrity to acknowledge they have been presented."
devin,
Claiming something is evidence for a god is not the same thing as it actually being evidence. Yes they have been presented, and then they have been refuted.
Yes it is. It is for me and it is for the other 6 billion theists on the planet. For you and your like minded brethren, nope.
It is a heightened arrogance when the significantly small minority of the population thinks they can declare as " non evidence" that which the vast majority has deemed evidence. Might does not make right, and the majority opinion does not always lead to truthfulness. But you, et al, have no business attempting to determine what is or is not evidence for me or any other theist. Now if I came to you and offered my evidences as proof, it would be a different story. That is not what I'm doing.
evidence – "something that shows that something else exists or is true." Oxford Dict.
Most of us on this planet believe that there are many things that show the existence of God. Evidence. You don't see it, fine. The fact that YOU don't see it changes nothing.
Post by 'ddeevviinn' contains instances of the Ad Populum Fallacy, the Secret Decoder Ring Fallacy, and other basic fallacies.
http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Fallacy
You can read, correct?
"Skeptic: Ok, what proof do you have that your god exists?"
Creation itself for one.
Calling the universe "creation" shows your bias, but the universe is only evidence of the universe...not how it came to exist.
Claiming the universe is evidence of god is simply willful ignorance.
dog
"How does a Christian know what is a direct command..."
Because we apply the second option in my previous reply.
Sorry dog, that was meant for your follow up question from the previous thread.
PLEASE tell me there's someone actually discussing beliefs here ...
Nothing but factpinions here.
Oh Dal ... you're better than that ... you know which side has the facts and which side has the faith ...
That is an opinion, not a factual statement. A factpinion! Thanks for illustrating that.
The Urban Dictionary "definition" of that "word" makes no sense. A fact that people think is a fact?? If you mean an opinion that many regard as fact, then you're right – it sums up belief in a god quite nicely.
I hadn't seen that definition. Yea,quite a few people express personal opinions as if they are facts on this blog, not just those expressing their belief in God.
If you feel that my personal opinion that there is no evidence for a god is wrong, feel free to present that evidence.
Your atheism doesn't bother me until you try to shove it down my throat.
You're the one posting here claiming a god – all I do is ask for the evidence and point out the inconsistencies and tap-dancing. Where have I posted that there is no god and that you should be an atheist?
" all I do is ask for the evidence and point out the inconsistencies and tap-dancing."
No. That is not all you do. Come on, be real. Look at your name, for starters. Look at how you engage in conversation with me. There are some very reasonable and respectful atheists that demonstrate better how to approach our differences. It would be great if you learned from them.
So you do have objective evidence for your god?
You see no parallels between your god and other mythical creatures or even your god and other gods.
You really expect people to believe that the holy spirit chose you and you never learned about Jesus from the bible or religion – despite previously posted that you were brought up in a christian home, despite having previously posted that you had researched all possibilities and protestantism was right in your opinion. When asked about the extent of your research and how you decided, you go into tap-dancing mode. The the fake outrage – "I don't have to support my position – the fact that I say it is good enough".
If you honestly want to know God, you can.
If you just want to insist my belief in God is like belief in others things you don't understand, you can.
I'm sharing my experience. You are free to accept it or disbelieve. That is fine.
If you are going to keep arguing with me over it and overreacting, avoiding questions and resorting to the same atheistic arguments – basically running in circles around God – that is your problem, not mine.
"If you honestly want to know God, you can."
Yup – I did. Now I don't and I'm pretty sure what I did know was wrong.
Did you pray? What were your prayers like? Did you pray like Jesus taught?
Oh yes, I prayed. I prayed that his will be done. I prayed for the strength to follow his example. Towards the end I desparately prayed not to lose my faith...
Since then I've found there are many teachers out there – it all comes down to what you believe the root problem is and what solution words. For some it's "sin" and the answer is "salvation". For me it's that "suffering exists" and the answer is to avoid certainty and limit my expectations/attachments.
Yea, I've found there are many teachers out there, and I try to take advantage of what they teach. Each day is an opportunity to learn something new. I am learning that following Jesus is not a suffering avoidance program – it does exist. I will go through it. But it doesn't have the final word. My ideal is to help those through their suffering. I've been through it and survived. I can help others.
For a comedy show sure.
I found something awanderingscot didn't lie about:
wan·der
v. wan·dered, wan·der·ing, wan·ders
v.intr.
1. To move about without a definite purpose.
2. To go astray: wander from the path of righteousness.
3. To lose clarity or coherence of thought or expression.
Here's a funny and relevant quote from one of my favorites: John Stewart ...
"Religion: It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion."
He's really funny.
Good one, DD. And sadly, like many of Stewart's insights, very true.
I'm old and don't mind being called mean-spirited – especially when it comes to the education of my grandchildren and those that will become their children. This country will never fully realize its potential to lead the way in science while young-earth charlatans like awanderingscot are running around willfully misrepresenting current scientific theory.
I have a young family and live in "the south" and the hijacking of the education system here by creationists is very troubling.
Sorry to hear that, DD. I'll bet it's troubling.
Devin, because it retards education, especially in biological science.
" This country will never fully realize its potential to lead the world in science while young earth charlatans,,,,"
Doris, please do explain. How is that an individual who believes in a young earth will impinge upon us reaching our full scientific potential? How will advances in molecular biology, biochemistry, theoretical and applied physics, bio-medical engineering, nanotechnology etc.., how will these be hindered ?
I know it sounded good when you wrote it, it's the truthfulness of the statement that concerns me.
Because a belief in a "young" earth invalidates the tools necessary to persue those other disciplines.
Yep, if you want to claim the earth is young you have to throw out the majority of modern biology, geology, astronomy, nuclear physics (since decay rates aren't constant), as well as archeology and world history (since nothing could have happened earlier than 6 to 10 thousand years ago).
Dyslexic doG
I am wondering if all the Christians on deck would tell me if they believe that the bible is 100% the word of your god or if it is partly the word of your god and partly "inspired" by your god (how accurate is that?) or if it is partly the word of your god and partly just bronze age and iron age stories meant to guide the people of the tribes?
– So D0G here opened with what appears to be an honest well-intentioned question concerning the Bible's inspiration.
But evidently some very mean-spirited people like Ausphor, Boston, MidwestKen, Tallulah, Doris, TruthPrevails et al are not interested in dialogue and are interested only in tearing people and their beliefs down. If atheists were truly interested in dialogue they would not make statements such as the following:
bostontola
He's actually wrong.
The difference between your assertion and mine, is that I provided an evidence based argument.
He would have stated instead that he disagreed and this is why. Atheists such as Boston are arrogant, prideful, and hateful people and the only reason they are here on this blog is to satisfy the sadistic twisted nature that dwells in them.
Of course not as prideful as the person who thinks they know what is in someone else's heart. Almost every time you post, you demonstrate profoundly un-Christian behavior. Your unblemished record of lies is appalling. Please get help.
You as a God-hating unregenerate (by your own admission) would know the very least about what it means to be a Christian.
I have never seen bostontola say he hated God.
Please provide the post where he stayed that explicitly.
I do know that people like you give them a bad name because if being Christian means acting like you I'll pass.
*stated
There's not much to know, love God, love your fellow man. Thou shalt not lie. You fail, miserably.
Hey Scot – remember Grandma and Grandpa did it to create Mom and Dad. No supernatural stuff involved.
bostontola
There's not much to know, love God, love your fellow man. Thou shalt not lie. You fail, miserably.
– yes indeed, we ALL fail miserably. the difference between you and i is that i freely confess that i fall short and have need for a Saviour, you on the other hand arrogantly deny God and thereby hate Him, hate your fellow man, and lie about your Creator.
Again, please show where Boston has ever said he hates God, or stop lying about him.
LaBella,
I have explicitly stated many times that i don't hate God, Yahweh, Jesus, Zeus, Osiris, or any other. Why would I?
In these comments, some fail more than others. For instance someone who would say quote someone like Stephen Gould and leave out the author's next sentence – you know, even though this has been pointed out to that person many times before.. Oh who could that be? Oh I just wander and wander who that could be that willfully misrepresents science nearly every day here? And I just keep wondering how they can justify such dishonesty with their God.
scot,
You willfully violate the basic tenets of Christianity on a serial basis, showing no remorse or any trend of improvement. Confessing that you violate Christian tenets does not eliminate the fact of your unrepentant un-Christian behavior.
I know, Boston. Hence, my question to Scot as to why he keeps lying that you did.
Doris,
scot's own posts are records of many lies. There is much worse though, scot has on multiple occasions borne false witness, accusing people of fraud and hoaxes, never providing one shred of evidence of said crimes. That is reprehensible. Don't worry though, scot will confess.
awanderingscot
"You as a God-hating unregenerate (by your own admission) would know the very least about what it means to be a Christian."
=>What sets a Christian apart ?
" =>What sets a Christian apart ? "
From the evidence shown by the Christians posting here, nothing.
LOL .. so Boston you are now a believer just like Akira? so you feel qualified now to judge me on the merits of being a Christian? you can articulate accurately the tenets of Christianity? surely you want to go even further and dispute my salvation don't you? interesting and on such short notice too. you should know however being that you are a Christian, that you are not the one to justify me.
Well, Scotty, is lying a merit of being a Christian?
scot,
I am not a Christian, I don't believe. I love many Christians though. I follow some of the Christian tenets because they make sense to me. I already laid out the christian tenets, love God, love your fellow man.
Do you think a person has to be a Christian to understand the philosophy and tenets? If so, how does anyone convert? Why proselytize? Because some people who are not Christian can understand it, and some of those convert.
Please get help, stop wandering.
believerfred
=>What sets a Christian apart ?
– certainly not lying about what God says.
– Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-7
I get it now. Only Scot understands what his god says, and that makes it OK for him to lie and misrepresent any other kind of authority on any subject if he thinks it may conflict with his own (Scot's) divine authority.
scot,
fred asked what sets Christians apart, not what doesn't set Christians apart. Please try to stay focused, oh I forgot, you wander.
And that reminds me of my two-year-old grandchild who thinks when he's playing with his sister's toy that it's really his. He's very adamant – he knows he's right and you can't tell him otherwise. Of course he's two and he sometimes has to live with having the toy taken away from him.
Bottom line, Scotty – my grandchild's education is NOT your toy....
Scot,
And yet you have no qualms about defying Exodus 20:16, do you?
awanderingscot
I do not knowingly lie unfortunately I am often wrong. As to Genesis I assume you are referring to my position that Genesis does not conflict with science as to evolution, biopoiesis, geology, paleontology or cosmology ?
one believes with the heart, not with the mind. one truly loves with the heart, not with the mind. turn to God so that you may be healed.
For fred and scot.
http://ncse.com/blog/2014/07/misconception-monday-natural-selection-evolution-part-2-0015736
well Fred, everyone is either a theist or a deist or atheist. you either believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God or you don't. i don't believe it's a salad bar do you?
Scot: "one believes with the heart, not with the mind. one truly loves with the heart, not with the mind."
Well that's nice because we wouldn't want you walking up to people in church a$$ first.
Doris
"Bottom line, Scotty – my grandchild's education is NOT your toy...."
=>She is the most precious to God and there is good reason God said teach them the way and good reason Jesus modeled the way and good reason why you continue to visit this board.
=>Einsteins wonder and awe of existence and order in the laws of observable was enhanced by virtue of his early childhood belief in God even though at age 12 he rejected the anthropomorphic and childish concept of God presented by theology of his day. A child never suffers from the possibility of hope as they do from the impossibility of hope.
Scot: "i don't believe it's a salad bar do you?"
It was already a salad bar long before you came along. In fact it's chopped up so fine now, someone might think it's a plate of green grits.
No problem there, fred. My kids ultimately had to decide, and given various factors, I posed no disagreement for their decision to enroll their kids in Sunday school. I feel fortunate that they are in an area with good educational standards where they don't have to deal with the absurdity of young-earth creationism.
awanderingscot
"well Fred, everyone is either a theist or a deist or atheist. you either believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God or you don't. i don't believe it's a salad bar do you?"
=>It's a salad bar and as such you will eat from it what you truly desire
=>as to theist, deist or atheist you are either in "the way" or on "the way"
=>The Bible is not the Word of God as the Bible is limited by the codex which is limited by variables of time and culture. The Word of God is by definition perfect and absolute in all regards. The Bible is divine in that it brings out the Word of God in man revealing what is in the heart of the reader and the love of God.
If you truly seek God then the God you seek will be clearly revealed whereas if you seek conflict, evil, lies, a wicked god, a slavery promoting god, a foolish god, an unjust women hating raping god etc you will find it. All this from a codex that says God loves, love covers all wrong and only in perfect love is there perfect unity from the very beginning. "In the beginning God created" and made a garden for man simply so we could learn to love.
" simply so we could learn to love."
And there sits the evidence that the majority who post here are no different than the ones they gleefully condemn. Thank you, fred.
Science Works,
Thanks for the link. I hadn't realized that NCSE had a blog going.
http://ncse.com/blog
I haven't read it all yet but Misconception Monday: Everything Is Adaptation sounds very good.
MidwestKen – you are welcome – it is a great site to bookmark or FRED you could make it your start page ?
Science Works
How am I ever going to get my creation museum compete if I must constantly remind you that shifts in allele frequencies are only possible because that capacity already existed. The process of natural selection only accelerates change in populations however it is impossible for a change in state if that capacity was not present. Now, if you want to argue that the chemical structures underlying a gene that codes for a certain protein are not subject to the universal property of causality I am all ears. Oh, wait a minute Homo habilis lacks capacity to become all ears...........
believerfred
=>It's a salad bar and as such you will eat from it what you truly desire
– If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.
For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. – James 1:5-8, NKJV
– i believe one born again risks becoming a double-minded man and unstable if he takes this approach to God's word. if a child of God does not understand something in the word he asks the Father for wisdom, without doubt. he humbles himself to the Lord to the extent that if he does not receive an answer immediately, he takes it on faith and does not "eat only what he desires."
=>as to theist, deist or atheist you are either in "the way" or on "the way"
– But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? – Galatians 2:14, NKJV
-this is a prime illustration in scripture that shows the truth is more important than unity. Peter realized he was "in the way" and he changed course and did harbor no bitter root for his brother Paul.
=>The Bible is not the Word of God as the Bible is limited by the codex which is limited by variables of time and culture. The Word of God is by definition perfect and absolute in all regards. The Bible is divine in that it brings out the Word of God in man revealing what is in the heart of the reader and the love of God.
i'm not sure you understand God's way of preserving His word down thru the ages. the manuscript tradition that preceded codex was the perfect way for doing this. the plethora of textual variants actually insured that the gospel did not fall into the hands of a single human authority. many minor differences in translation did not effectively change what God had to say. do you really believe God would allow His word to change so drastically as to render His will and decrees ineffective? would our loving shepherd really leave His sheep to wander and make their own way? is not His word, all of it, a lamp unto our feet and a light to our path?
If you truly seek God then the God you seek will be clearly revealed whereas if you seek conflict, evil, lies, a wicked god, a slavery promoting god, a foolish god, an unjust women hating raping god etc you will find it. All this from a codex that says God loves, love covers all wrong and only in perfect love is there perfect unity from the very beginning. "In the beginning God created" and made a garden for man simply so we could learn to love.
– Even as I have seen, Those who plow iniquity And sow trouble reap the same. – Job 4:8
– if there ever was a theme in scripture then one has to include the one which says [we reap what we sow] it would seem as if all of the patriarchs had experience with this, and the se-xually immoral, idolatrous demon worshiping heathens with their child sacrificing rituals more so. God has many perfect attributes such as love and patience, but also justice and wrath. we must be very careful not to accuse our God of malfeasance, or of being unrighteous or unjust merely because we may not understand His decrees and His will.
Hey believerfred – have you thought about selling your sole to the supposed devil to help you complete your supposed museum ?
scot..If attempting to remain ignorant of the real world and to believe that you must love a god or more than your fellow man..then i guess i am glad i am not a believer in a god or any deity. This article is about the very fact that gods are more important to some than humanity...it is so sad.
Science Works
I send my sole to the cobbler as the Devil cannot walk a mile in shoes.
awanderingscot
"- i believe one born again risks becoming a double-minded man and unstable if he takes this approach [salad bar] to God's word."
=>For generations believers have taken the salad bar approach to seek out words to support their way rather than to seek Gods truth. That is a salad bar approach and objectively the behavior we actually see from believers does not reflect the way God would have it.
Ideally a born again Christian should be in the process of reflecting Christ likeness in his love of others.
"this is a prime illustration in scripture that shows the truth is more important than unity. Peter realized he was "in the way" and he changed course and did harbor no bitter root for his brother Paul."
=>This is a warning to us not to twist scripture to fit our way because mankind, like Peter, will go astray and behave in the most unloving ways.
"do you really believe God would allow His word to change so drastically as to render His will and decrees ineffective?"
=>The important truths of the Bible are repeated story after story and are very clear. Arguments and denominations multiplied over the smallest of words which is why Peter above was called out for bringing circumcision back into the early church.
"would our loving shepherd really leave His sheep to wander and make their own way? is not His word, all of it, a lamp unto our feet and a light to our path?"
=>Certainly did not leave His sheep but, he warned his disciples not go out until the Holy Spirit was with them. Jesus said I will send the Holy Spirit who will lead you to all truth. If we could understand the Bible by reading alone we would not need the Holy Spirit.
Cherry picking for cobbler fred ?
Science Works
No, but thanks to your suggestion I did have sole with butter, garlic and capers drizzled on top. I could not taste its ancestor Parophrys vetulus but given it is a hybrid it was confirmation that the egg did come before the chicken. Fortunately we need not wait millions of years to discover transitional fossils validating the evolution of my dinner last night.
Now, your buddy Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker, tried to profit off the Amphistium (50 million year old great granddad of my dinner) much as any televangelist would by claiming his god (yes atheists have a god) created the flatfish with one eye using the process of evolution. Well my God created the Amphistium and flatfish by giving genes the capacity to adapt. My God is in the 7th day of creation and is resting while atheists with their scientism scurry down the rabbit hole of evolution coming up with evidence that only proves they scurried down the rabbit hole. Not to worry there are more rabbit holes when this one is exhausted.
Would you be kind enough to tell me who my "god" is fred?
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
I don't know (thanks to you and Einstein I can say that in confidence) so I would need to guess. People have all kinds of material or non material strongholds in their life. Money is an easy example where someone may spend a lifetime seeking wealth or security and they may or may not find it yet their only journey in life is focused on that "god" which gives purpose to their lives. Self is a common god where everything is about me. Power lust is a god etc.
Ohhh, now I get it fred...
You are using a very broad, non-traditional definition of "god" that encompasses just about anything and everything in an attempt to either drag atheists down to your level or you up to ours.
Of course the opposite of "I don't know" is that "you do know". Which is a claim of knowledge. Knowledge can be demonstrated...which you have admitted you can't do in this case. So you are claiming to have something you really don't have. What you have is an "opinion".
Blessed are the Cheesemaker
I have no reason to drag atheists down or believers down. It is called honesty with ones self. Everyone has a core belief that that drives them. Even the sluggard who is atheist or Christian has a core belief that drives them. I could convince myself I am a Christian yet slothfully move through life never carrying my load yet alone leaving the world a better place. The God of the Bible is obviously not my god otherwise my actions and life patterns would reflect strong work ethics and purpose onto God. Slothfulness that is not medically caused has other inducements such as self image or negative attitude towards the normal demands of existence. Those are the gods driving the sloth.
If you look at say fertility gods they served a purpose as did the Greek gods etc. All these gods were put in their place by God who is not a respecter of man and does not carryout the demands of man or needs man creates gods for.
"The God of the Bible is obviously not my god"
who is your god?
blessed are the cheesemakers
"Of course the opposite of "I don't know" is that "you do know". Which is a claim of knowledge. Knowledge can be demonstrated...which you have admitted you can't do in this case."
=>I don't know who your god is so I have no opinion as the specifics of your god.
=>No problem demonstrating that you have a god. Take an accounting of where you spend your money, thought and your time. Work in proper relationship is not a god, take the hunter gatherer of old as these activities have the same value as breathing (necessary). But, the hunter who sees personal glory from killing and providing has the god of pride to contend with.
Dyslexic doG
The God of Abraham as clearly presented in Jesus is my God. My priorities are God, family, friends, work, racing (ok some pride there manifesting itself in showing off).
=>I don't know who your god is so I have no opinion as the specifics of your god.
BUT you have an opinion it is a "god" using a definition of "god" that is so broad and general that it is rendered useless.
=>No problem demonstrating that you have a god. Take an accounting of where you spend your money, thought and your time.
Well, in that case the vast majority of my money, thought and time is spent on my wife and kids. So my wife and kids are "god"...at least according to you. While I think it absurd to label them "god" I do think they are far greater and in much more need of my attention than any nebulous god you have proposed...and definately more than your Christian "god"....
fred really – racing turtles.....all the way down ?
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
-god: an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
-used as a conventional personification of fate.
-an adored, admired, or influential person.
-a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
Good for you Cheesemaker your family is blessed by you which is also the prime directive (Star Trek term) given to me which is to be a blessing to those God has placed in my life. I assume you believe you were given your prime directive by natural causes which you see originating from social evolution out of a primate and you are comfortable with that. You assign a naturalistic cause while I assign a cause to be greater than the natural. Your purpose ends with the object you have chosen to assign cause as does mine. This is a major decision on your part as you have tethered your purpose to physical which will pass away rather than to the eternal state you know constitutes existence (i.e there is no such thing as non existence which is demonstrated by the fact it can only be addressed in terms of what is known to exist). If I am wrong nothing changes but the alternative is what leads to wild speculations
Science Works
Thank God for Odontochelys otherwise there would be no turtle race !
Hey fred might be to simple for you
Stephen Hawking's big ideas... made simple | Guardian Animations
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6lFGJdwRyo#t=68}
Science Works
Not sure how that clip was put together or when but Hawking radiation cannot be observed because of the even horizon. The graphic also is in conflict with Hawking's statement that one cannot go beyond the singularity of black hole anymore than you can go south of the south pole. The video does serve its purpose to applaud Stephen Hawking as a smart man and good person.
fred and his Jackalope .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/questions_and_ideas/big_bang/
Science Works
I am puzzled as to what you really want to ask. God is not part of nor does discussion concerning God enter the scientific arena as it limited to naturalism. There is no continuing debate about that as it is a finished matter.
Debate only enters only when scientism attempts to extrapolate scientific fact into the arena of purpose and meaning of existence. When I make comments on this site it is because it is a belief site. As such, atheists who predominately have a world view based on naturalism somehow think science address God (which it cannot and does not) while believers sometimes think they have found a scientific discovery from the Bible. When I reply to an atheist who thinks science supports his or her position I simply point out the obvious.
Hey fred giddy-up – does fred have spurs too ?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0103613
-god: an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
-used as a conventional personification of fate.
-an adored, admired, or influential person.
-a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
Ahh yes. Conflation of mutiple definitions for a word. One of the main tools for the religious apologist.
And you do lose something for being wrong in the end fred. All the time and effort you have spent believing. All the misinformation you will have spread. I could go on but I think you get my point.
Coming from the King of Ad Hominem, this post seems somewhat curious.
oh but you NEVER call anyone names here right Akira?
Not like you do, Scot.
Awanderingscot,
I hate to appear "mean spirited", but wasn't bostons post a direct reply to one that stated, in its entirety, "He's actually correct." And yet, you single out boston for his terse response?
bostontola
Another truly absurd and baseless assertion by the scot. Human literature is quite extensive and filled with stories highlighting the foibles and failures of humans. Do you ever critically review your comments before you click Post?
– i love the arrogant condescending tone as demonstrated here.
If the shoe fits...
Scot,
If you attack, you should not be surprised when people give it back to you in the measure you give.
I'd try looking past the tone to the content. Because he most definitely does have a point...
wandering
Boston did say that he disagreed and why. Maybe you miss a lot with your fly-by posts, but Boston is not mean-spirited, arrogant, prideful, or hateful.
What is your reason for posting on this blog – you mainly post lies about evolution.
The only thing that makes sense to me would be that he does it to make Christians look bad.
AtheistSteve wrote about awanderingscot on The Year Without God blog....well written piece (okay I'm biased).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearwithoutgod/2014/07/17/an-interview-with-brian-mclaren/#disqus_thread
Huh.
Grumpy cat, lol.
Well written, indeed.
I am wondering if all the Christians on deck would tell me if they believe that the bible is 100% the word of your god or if it is partly the word of your god and partly "inspired" by your god (how accurate is that?) or if it is partly the word of your god and partly just bronze age and iron age stories meant to guide the people of the tribes?
That's easy, they believe that the parts they like are 100% the word of God and the parts that don't seem right like in3st and stuff must just be human corruption and the parts about our origins in Genesis was never meant to be taken literally but reveals its own truth in metaphor about the sinful condition of mankind...Oh, and they can change which parts they like anytime they want so the 100% part is always true, it's just 100% of what they want to be true is true, the rest, well thats just stuff for those ancient hebrews but doesn't concern them...
Scripture is the written word of God and is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Jesus is the Living word of God, who existed in the very beginning with God. This living Word became flesh=human being. There is no disagreement between the written word and the living word. The word of God is a seed that must be sown in order to take root, grow and produce. God's Word is Spirit and Life.
You need the help of the Holy Spirit to understand what I just wrote to you.
I understand, and agree that is the belief of many people. I just disagree personally based on what I've learned about the bible and it's history.
you may agree this is the belief of many but I guarantee you 100% you do not understand. If you understand that the word is the seed and there is life and power in the word of God your response would have been different.
Blessings!
@newman... I guarantee you 100% you do not understand that what you claim to be truth is nothing more than mythology and your imagination.
you would have to know that the Bible is mythology and you would also have to know my imaginings in order to make your claim.
what you've just spoken is all nonsense!
All the evidence shows that the bible is the work of men. There are only unsupported claims that the bible is the word of god.
all the evidence? what evidence – this is a joke, right.
how can one disprove the work of the Holy Spirit?
new-man
Take a look at near the bottom of page 2, Dala (@9:41AM) makes a nice synopsis of what the bible includes; some such as stories, myths, parables, personal opinions of the authors, etc. Hardly the word of some god, historical fiction at best.
ausphor,
as I've said above ALL Scripture is 100% inspired and narrated by the Holy Spirit, written down by men, and the reason Scripture is given is to instruct us, to correct us, to discipline us, and train us in righteousness. Why? So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every GOOD work.
There are NO idle words in the Bible – every account is there for a purpose. You read it, ask the Holy Spirit to help you and teach you the purpose of that account.
new-man
You believe that but have no evidence. The voices you may hear in you head are not supernatural, treatment may help.
new-man
BTW by ALL scripture I assume you are including the Theogony, the Vedas, Quran, Gospel of the FSM, etc. or are you an atheist in regard to all other religions?
Newman
"as I've said above ALL Scripture is 100% inspired and narrated by the Holy Spirit, written down by men"
There is just as much evidence Satan inspired or wrote it...that evidence being none whatsoever.
On the other hand there actually is evidence men wrote it....
One thing is certain...there continues to be absolutely no evidence anywhere of any of the thousands of gods men have worshipped.
"you may agree this is the belief of many but I guarantee you 100% you do not understand. If you understand that the word is the seed and there is life and power in the word of God your response would have been different.
Blessings!"
The irony being that I used to think exactly like this. So yes, I do understand, I just don't believe anymore.
G to the T,
while I get it, that you (perhaps) believed God in the past, based on John's very own writings narrated to him by the Holy Spirit, this is what I'll say to you:
"True believers will continue; they might leave for a while but they'll always come back."
John had this to say specifically – They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
so, time will tell.
Blessings.
And when I read John – I see a rationalization for how/why some people could not accept the "truth" as he saw it. Because if you have the ultimate truth, how can any sane person deny it?
As you said, time will tell, but unless something truly miraculous happens, I honestly don't see how I could accept the bible as anything other than a very human book.
"while I get it, that you (perhaps) believed God in the past"
Oh yeah – almost forgot – your "perhaps" is insulting and arrogant. If you can't see that, I'm not sure what else to tell you.
None of that. I believe it is the best book dealing with understanding God and what he expects of us. Those bronze age and iron age men struggled with selfishness, self-righteousness, arrogance, greed, jealousy, envy, hate and apathy just like modern day scientists and message board posters do. Our knowledge of the physical world often doesn't lead to better people. Our human nature still rears its ugly head – and modern day men and women have the same issues that the Bible describes those primitive and ignorant men and women as possessing.
Dalahast,
We aren't that far apart on that. I believe it is one of the best books dealing with man's social contract. Both the OT and NT were advances in social philosophy. The NT was nothing short of revolutionary. I am thankful that humans have not stopped thinking about our social contract and have improved on it over the many years. As our societies have gotten much larger and denser, new ideas have emerged, one could say evolved, to meet our ever changing needs.
Well, dang. That is close to my understanding. Good points.
IF the bible were merely written by men it would not have included all of the foibles, failings, and sinful nature in those claiming to be God's servants. The fact that things such as David's great sin concerning adultery and murder are evidence that God wanted it included in scripture. The bible is 100% inspired by God yet written by men. Some may find things difficult to understand but those things are due to man's fallen nature and a carnal mind.
"IF the bible were merely written by men it would not have included all of the foibles, failings, and sinful nature in those claiming to be God's servants."
Another truly absurd and baseless assertion by the scot. Human literature is quite extensive and filled with stories highlighting the foibles and failures of humans. Do you ever critically review your comments before you click Post?
He's actually correct.
He's actually wrong.
The difference between your assertion and mine, is that I provided an evidence based argument.
human literature doesn't or cannot site redemption of those flawed characters because there is only ONE Redeemer, His name is Christ Jesus.
new-man,
That may or may not be true, but it is not relevant. He made an assertion with a rationale. The rationale is false on it's face. Literature written by humans is filled with characters with human foibles and failings.
That's ridiculous, new-man. Even something as simple as the game of Monopoly includes a get-out-of-jail-free card. Cut with the sanctimonious rubbish already. Scotty's argument fails miserably.
scot
Mans fallen nature fallen from what? Carnal mind, you mean that the powerful instinct to reproduce and therefore continue the existence of our specie? What are you babbling about?
Man's fallen nature (sin nature) is our shortfall from the perfection God's created.
God did not create a sinful/carnal/disbelieving Adam. Adam left the perfect realm of his creator. He walked out of God's presence.
new-man ... how does anyone know the story of adam and eve and the fall? Do you think god told the person who eventually wrote it down? Did adam and eve write it down? Did someone make it up based on some inspiration they had from god?
How did that work?
New-man,
I thought it was created "good",or so I've been repeatedly told.
If it was perfect then how could it be tainted/broken/fallen/etc?
Ddog,
do you know that Adams son was still alive and was the contemporary for Abraham. Abraham went to Shem to be taught the ways of God. What do you suppose Shem told Abraham? His parents A&E were alive on earth for more than 900 years. They actually communed with God daily,- what do you suppose they (A&E) shared with their children regarding God, regarding their natures before and after the fall?
Do you suppose they had more pressing things to occupy their time than learning from where they came?
The head of gold that Nebuchadnezzar saw spoke of the spiritual purity of that time. our current time is the feet mixed with iron and clay- strong but lacking in purity.
again, it takes the workings of the Holy Spirit to fully comprehend. Yes, I know, I'll be called arrogant blah blah, but it's the truth and there's no other way around it. You need the Holy Spirit in order to have your mind unveiled and scripture open up to you.
Midwest ken,
I take it you or no one you know of have broken something that was 'created perfectly'.
that's what sin (noun) does. it taints, it decays, it causes death.
DdoG
May I suggest a talking snake slithered along telling the tale to anyone that would listen or someone chatting with a burning bush brought up the subject. new-man is hilarious in his own pious way.
new-man: "that's what sin (noun) does. it taints, it decays, it causes death."
No need for definitions for your obsession. Many of the rest of us have moved past Jack and Jill.
New-man,
Are you saying that it is possible to create something "perfect" in this "fallen" world? I thought sin was the source of all decay that renders all things temporary and thus imperfect.
new-man, did you know that Adam and Eve never actually existed and thus Christianity fails miserably.
If Adam and Eve had ever existed, there only would have been one religion.
Ddog,
I apologize for the faux pas of responding to a question for Christians. As a person who has been schooled on the bible for many of the formative years, it was apparent to me that the bible was written by men. The characterization of God in the bible is revelatory. The God depicted in the OT was so human. It is petty, easily angered, intolerant of the humans it invented with omniscience, displayed primitive justice unacceptable to mere humans today, etc.
If Yahweh is real and inspired the bible through humans, the human lens has distorted God so fully, that it just looks like a spiteful flawed human of that time amplified with God power, not even the morals of most modern humans.
Young Master Boston. Your input is greatly appreciated. Many thanks!
as a follow up question, how does a Christian know what is a direct command from your god and cannot be disobeyed VS. what is a passage written by men inspired by what they think god might want which should be followed as a broad guideline VS. what is a bronze age or iron age story that was in the book for entertainment value rather than being a command.
dog
" How does a christian know..."
We apply the 2nd option in my previous reply.
If the goal here is intellectual integrity to the biblical narrative, there really are only 2 available options.
The first option, which is the choice of many here, is that the bible is simply the product of myth. While it may contain information about actual historical people, places and events and may also provide some pleasantries and beneficial moral instruction, nevertheless it ultimately is nothing more than the words of human beings attempting to make sense of their world.
The second option, that which the bible claims for itself, is that the Scriptures are the very word of God. It asserts that all the written words are "God breathed" ( Gr. theopneustos, theos/God, pneustos/ breathed, from which we get are term pneumatic). It is why, when the apostle Paul writes to the church at Thessalonica he states " but when you received the word of God from us you excepted it not as human words, but for what it is , the word of God."
Now a third option, which is really not an option if "intellectual integrity" is the goal. is that of neo – orthodoxy . Neo-orthodoxy was basically a response and reaction to the theological liberalism of the early 20th century. Guys like Barth. Tillich, and Brunner ( of whom I have spent WAY too much time reading) proposed this new method for understanding the Scriptures. In this view the bible is the work of human beings, but in particular instances ( instances = the existential moment) the bible can BECOME the word of God for the individual reading it in the moment). IT is this "leap of faith" that Kierkegaard describes.
Neo-orthodoxy flourishes in many mainline protestant denominations today. But, as mentioned previously, it is not concerned about intellectual integrity of the actual claims the bible makes, and it will very quickly take you down the slippery slope of biblical subjectivity. This is why I appreciate, in a warped sense, Bart Ehrman. He recognizes the options: words of men or words of God?
ddeevviinn yes the first option was the correct one. .
Your choice of course. The correct one? Not so much
Many of these ISIS people know that Allah is the one true God, and that Jesus was a prophet, not the son of God or a God himself. They KNOW it. They know that the Quran is the literal voice of Allah. They know that the bibles are ancient texts with errors that have been allowed to creep in. They are so passionate and sure about this knowledge that they are willing to kill and die to protect it.
Some Christians know that Jesus is their God and savior. They know that the bible is the word of God (literal or not).
I'm sure there are Jews that know that Jesus is not the messiah, much less a son of God. Other religions have people that know that their God(s) are true and others are false, their sacred texts are true.
So people are segmented by what they are certain they know. What they know is mutually exclusive to what others know, i.e. what the others know must be false.
There is only 2 possibilities regarding these people. 1) One group is right and everyone that knows something in conflict with what they know is wrong, or 2) They are all wrong.
This actually proves something. This proves that knowledge based on subjective evidence is not trustworthy. The ones that are wrong, are certain they are right.
Objective scientific knowledge is not perfect, it can have error, but it is much more resistant to the frailties of subjective knowledge. By measuring and verifying and crosschecking, scientific knowledge has stood the test of time (not to be confused with scientific hypotheses that have not yet run the gauntlet). There aren't different scientific sects. One sect has validated scientific evidence for evolution and another with validated scientific evidence against evolution. There is one science. Not because of some global cabal that imposes scientific dogma. In fact, scientists are rife with iconoclasts that revel in discontent and rebellion.
No, science has congealed even though humans naturally fragment. Look at all the different cultures, nations, religions, etc. Religion has all the hallmarks of a local phenomenon, of local tribal truth. Science is unique in that it is a world view that in spite of our own human nature to splinter, it has emerged as one.
I appreciate what Peter Gomes offers on a similar subject.
“...the most profound of all religious sentiments should not be certainty, which inevitably leads to arrogance, but modesty, which because of a generous God, leads to mercy and forgiveness.”
Scripture often reminds me our ancestors often got things wrong. And that we, too, can and often do, get it wrong.
"God is greater and more generous than the best of those who profess to know and serve him. This is the radical nonconformity with the conventional wisdom that Jesus both proclaimed and exemplified, and, alas, it cost him his life. Will we hope to fare any better, as disciples of his nonconformity?"
The fact that agnosticism is allowed, not discouraged, in my religious beliefs has been helpful not only to me, but to those God loves – my neighbors. It is something that is very helpful in my attempt to follow Jesus and seek God.
And that is a reasonable approach.
He also says:
"The gospel, however, does tell us where we ought to be, tough, untenable, and difficult as that place may be. Love, justice, and righteousness are superior to wisdom, might, and riches. How often do we have to be told that?"
So long as a distinction is drawn between "righteousness" and judgmentalism or applying one's own definitions of "righteousness" on others, sure.
Yea, I don't think the theology promotes judgmentalism as a good ideal. And I don't think it is speaking about self-righteousness.
"the most profound of all religious sentiments should not be certainty, which inevitably leads to arrogance, but modesty"
While I agree completely with this statement, I rarely see believers that aren't "certain" that Yahweh exists, is the only god and Jesus was his only son (who is also god). So even when they don't mean to be, they can often come off as arrogant.
Yep.
Dal – I find your answer ironic as you've statement multiple times that you KNOW God exists.
and now the cult followers on this blog will ignore Boston's powerful overall message and take one small fraction of one sentence and argue with it in an attempt at changing the subject ...
The problem with that notion is that it is not just about coming to conclusions on subjective evidence. It is also about people having subjective conclusions based on any evidence no matter how solid that evidence is.
@bostonola,
nice post. In this context, contrasting science with dogmatism, begs the 'science is a religion' argument, but it would concur that it isn't.
Dala
How serious are your attempts to follow jesus both his teachings and his life example? Are you the protestant/Lutheran version of a Jesuit, disdaining all worldly goods?
– How serious are your attempts to follow jesus both his teachings and his life example?
I've asked for His help in doing so today.
– Are you the protestant/Lutheran version of a Jesuit, disdaining all worldly goods?
No.
Dala
Big fail there in your quest, good thing you can repent and beg god for salvation.
Amen to that! I have personal short-comings I'm working on, I'm quite aware of that. By the grace of God I'll do better today.
Criminals always pretend to be innocent victims, and pretend real victims are Criminals.
Creationist Ken Ham Says Aliens Will Go To Hell So Let's Stop Looking For Them
(Huffington Post, 7/22/2014 by Ed Mazza)
======
Creationist Ken Ham, who recently debated Bill Nye the Science Guy over the origins of the universe, is calling for an end to the search for extraterrestrial life because aliens probably don't exist – and if they do, they're going to Hell anyway.
"You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe," Ham wrote on his blog on Sunday. "This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation."
The post was driven in part by NASA experts saying that they expect to find evidence of alien life within the next 20 years.
"It's highly improbable in the limitless vastness of the universe that we humans stand alone," NASA administrator Charles Bolden said last week.
But Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., said we probably are alone. He wrote "earth was specially created," and the entire hunt for extraterrestrials is "really driven by man’s rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!"
If aliens do exist, however, Ham said even Jesus can't save them:
'Jesus did not become the “GodKlingon” or the “GodMartian”! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God’s Son remains the “Godman” as our Savior. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we see the Father through the Son (and we see the Son through His Word). To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong.'
Sorry, Worf.
======
Especially the young-earth variety.
One only need search for "young earth geology" on youtube to get a plethora of videos from a Dr Snelling who was referenced a few times by Ham a recent Ham-Nye debate. But what story is this Dr Snelling telling? Another geologist, Dr Alex Ritchie has some interesting insight.
==========
Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?
Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15
Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.
For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.
These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.
Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.
There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications – a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).
Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.
But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.
For convenience I refer to them below as follows:
(a) Dr A A Snelling 1 – creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).
(b) Dr A A Snelling 2 – consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.
Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.
Snelling 1
For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.
Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.
Why should Snelling 1's activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.
CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.
"(A) PRIORITIES
1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.
(B) BASICS
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.
5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.
(D) GENERAL
The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture
(i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.
(ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
(6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.
(iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
(iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."
These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.
Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF's Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is "Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah's Flood".
From the Gospel according to Snelling 1, the Earth is geologically young, created ex nihilo ("from nothing") by a supernatural being, during a short, well defined construction period of only six days. This miraculous creation event, usually dated some 6000 years ago (around 4004 BC), is not the end of the story. The Earth we live on today is not the same as the original created model, which was almost totally destroyed and remodelled some 1,600 years later (around 2345 BC) by an irate Creator who conjured up an unique, world-wide Flood to do the job.
This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal – except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.
Snelling 1 (1983a) presented his views on Flood chronology in an article, Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. After reviewing mainstream views on geology and evolution, he remarked:
"On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood....Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation."
"However the flood was global, erosional and its purpose was destruction. Therefore the first major fossilisation commenced at this time, and the majority of the fossils are regarded as having been formed rapidly during this event. Creationists therefore regard sedimentary strata as needing to be classified into those formed during the time of creation week, pre-flood, flood (early, middle and late), post-flood and recent" (p. 42)
Snelling 1 then quoted one J C Dillow, a creationist writing on the Earth's supposed pre-Flood "vapour canopy":
"It should be obvious that if the Earth is only 6000 years old, then all the geological designations are meaningless within that framework, and it is deceptive to continue to use them. If, as many creationist geologists believe, the majority of the geological column represents flood sediments and post-flood geophysical activity, then the mammoth, dinosaur and all humans existed simultaneously .... Some limited attempts have been made by creationist geologists to reclassify the entire geological column within this framework, but the task is immense." (Dillow 1981, "The Waters Above". Moody Press, 405-6)
Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:
"It is my contention that those who do this have failed to study carefully the evidence for the flood deposition of many Precambrian strata and have therefore unwittingly fallen into the trap of lumping together the Precambrian strata to the creation week. The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description." (1983, 42).
Snelling 1 thus pushes the earliest limits of Flood strata far back into the Early Precambrian (early Archaean) times , before even the first appearance of fossils resembling blue-green algae:
"What I am contending here is that fossils, whether they be microscopic or macroscopic, plant or animal and the fossil counterpart of organic matter, along with its metamorphosed equivalent graphite, are the primary evidence which should distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks, regardless of the evolutionary 'age'." (1983, 45).
Lest there remain any doubt, Snelling 1 (1983, 42) stated:
"For creationists to be consistent the implications are clear; Precambrian sediments containing fossils and organic remains were laid down during Noah's flood. Creationist geologists need to completely abandon the evolutionist's geological column and associated terminology. It is necessary to start again, using the presence of fossils or organic matter as a classification criterion in the task of rebuilding our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."
It is difficult to believe that the writer of the foregoing article has a BSc (Hons) and PhD in geology! However an examination of other articles by the same author in Ex Nihilo reveals that, to Snelling 1, everything geological (Ayers Rock, Mt Isa ore deposits, Bass Strait oil and gas, Queensland coal deposits, Great Barrier Reef, etc.,) can be explained as the result of Noah's year-long Flood.
DOOLAN, ROBERT & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1987. Limestone caves ...a result of Noah's Flood? Limestone caves... a result of Noah's Flood? (4), 10-13.
READ, PETER & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1985. How Old is Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Creation Ex Nihilo. 8(1), 6-9.
SNELLING, ANDREW A 1982. The Recent Origin of Bass Strait Oil and Gas. Ex Nihilo 5 (2) 43-46.
SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. Ex Nihilo 6 (1), 42-46.
SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. What about Continental Drift? Have the continents really moved apart? Ex Nihilo 6 (2), 14-16.
SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The recent, rapid formation of the Mt Isa orebodies during Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo 6 (3) 40-46 (cf. also abstract 17-18).
SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The Origin of Ayers Rock. Creation Ex Nihilo 7 (1).
SNELLING, ANDREW A 1986. Coal Beds and Noah's Flood. Creation Ex Nihilo 8 (3), 20-21.
SNELLING, ANDREW A 1989. Is the Sun Shrinking? Creation Ex Nihilo (pt. 1) 11 (1), 14-19. (pt. 2) 11 (2), 30-34. – The Debate Continues. (pt. 3) 11 (3), 40-43 – The Unresolved Question.
SNELLING, ANDREW A & John Mackay 1984. Coal, Volcanism and Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo Tech. J. 1, 11-29.
SNELLING 2
If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale.
The latest paper by Snelling 2 (1990, 807 -812) is a detailed technical account of the "Koongarra Uranium Deposits" in the Northern Territory. It appears in an authoritative two volume work on "Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. The references list eight earlier papers by Snelling 2 in refereed journals (or symposium volumes) on aspects of uranium mineralisation; three as sole author and five as junior co-author.
In discussing the regional geology (p. 807) and age (p. 811) of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Snelling 2 describes their geological history in fairly technical terms, however, to avoid the charge we lay against the creationists, of taking quotations out of context, I will quote Snelling 2 verbatim from the paper (p. 807):
"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."
For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:
"The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."
There is no question here of "abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology", and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years.
One further quotation (p.807), "A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism.", is self explanatory.
There are several further references to ages of millions and thousands of millions of years, and to commonly accepted geological terminology, throughout the paper but, to spare the lay reader, I will only summarise them here:
1. During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.
2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.
3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.
Nowhere in this, or in any other article by Snelling 2 is there any reference to the creation week, to Noah's Flood or to a young age for the Earth. Nor is there any disclaimer, or the slightest hint, that this Dr Snelling has any reservations about using the standard geological column or time scale, accepted world-wide. The references above to hundreds and thousands of million of years are not interpolated by me. They appear in Dr Snelling 2's paper.
The problem is obvious – the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.
One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?
Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.
I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?
POSTSCRIPT
Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart – Noah's Flood – The Geological Case For and Against.
I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.
For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.
In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.
==========
Obviously, some scientists who know better will $ELL young-earth creationists what they want to hear.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/22/nc-pastor-kills-self-in-front-of-deputies-as-they-try-to-arrest-him-on-child-se-x-charges/
Your link does work if the hypen is removed from the word that does not pass the word filter here. I will attempt to post a workable link:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/22/nc-pastor-kills-self-in-front-of-deputies-as-they-try-to-arrest-him-on-child-sex-charges/
Thanks Hal – But does Dala know who Hal is ?
lol ..sadists and fools.
Hey Scot –
Talking about yourself again eh.
nothing against the content but maybe you can try considering this a "Bebrief Blog" as well as a "Belief Blog"...
Obviously a hit piece by a deluded evolutionist ideologue on a real scientist he disagrees with.
No one has denied that Snelling is an educated geologist. In case you missed the point, it is that he sells (like for money in case you don't understand what that is) erroneous information to young-earth creationists that is CONtradictory to what his real occupation has been – the one he achieved by having the credentials earned through the proper study of geology.
Maybe this will explain it better:
Religious community "We want some proof to back up our religious convictions!"
Scientific community "Sorry, but we aren't in the business of backing up convictions, we just present the evidence as we find it."
Religious community "We've got very deep pockets and are willing to pay heavily for reports that while implausible could be seen as backing up our preconcieved convictions."
Dr Andrew Snelling "How deep?"
Religious community "Deeeeeeeep."
Dr Andrew Snelling "Deep you say? As deep as the earths crust would need to be to contain enough water to cover all the mountains in a global flood? You got yourself a deal!"
And you have a saddle that fits right Scott ?
Guy Who Says Evolution is “Anti-American” Donates Dinosaur
http://www.patheos.com/.../guy-who-says-evolution-is-anti-american-d...
Patheos
by Hemant Mehta – May 24, 2014 – In fleeing the rising waters, posits Dr. Snelling, Ebenezer was swept away in ... Furthermore, a dinosaur skeleton proves the “truth” of the Great .
On the basis of natural selection and time, it has been theorized that single cellular organisms may have arisen from a primordial mixture of ancient elements and energy. Scientists "theorize" single celled organisms "may have arisen".
Membranes organize proteins and other molecules enabling the cell to run much more efficiently than if everything were floating freely. Mitochondrial membranes, for example, keep protein assembly lines together for efficient energy production. And the lysosome safely holds enzymes that would destroy essential proteins if released into the cytoplasm. Membrane-enclosed vesicles form packages for cargo so that they may quickly and efficiently reach their destinations. In this way, membranes divide the cell into specialized compartments, each carrying out a specific function inside the cell.
Phospholipids provide the framework for all membranes in the cell. Phospholipids are made up of a phosphate head region and a lipid tail region. The two ends of a phospholipid have very different chemical properties. The head end is attracted to water, while the tail end moves away from water.
When phospholipids are placed into water, they organize themselves into a structure called a bilayer. The water-fearing tail regions clump together on the inside of the bilayer, as far from water as possible. The head regions move toward the outside of the bilayer where they contact the surrounding water molecules.
The shape and chemical nature of phospholipids drives them to organize themselves one level further. A flat phospholipid bilayer leaves the edges of the tails exposed to water. By forming into a sphere, all of the tail regions are protected inside the bilayer as far from water as possible. The result is a membrane-enclosed compartment.
Phospholipid membranes form a barrier that most molecules cannot cross. But living things need to be able to interact with the outside world. At the very least, waste must be able to go out and raw materials need to come in. That's where membrane proteins come in. Membrane proteins that contact the spaces on both sides of the membrane are the gate keepers of cellular compartments. Each type of compartment has a specific population of membrane proteins that largely define its function. On average, proteins make up about half the mass of membranes.
The nuclear pore complex is a unique protein structure that controls traffic flow in and out of the nucleus. Each nuclear pore complex is made up of hundreds of individual proteins.
Phospholipids with their embedded proteins form a dynamic, fluid environment. Individual proteins and phospholipids flow freely. Complexes of proteins and specific subtypes of phospholipids form "rafts" that move through the membrane. Organelles stretch and bend and even flow through the cell. Fluid membranes allow cells to be dynamic and responsive to their environment.
This is only a partial description of the complexity of a single cell which by the way was needed at the outset in order for the cell to survive. Of course this single-celled organism just magically came together in a 'primordial soup' ! Baaaaahaaaahaaahaaaa.....
wandering, This is debunked by multiple people every time you post it.
You are quite correct, In Santa We Trust. The assertions presented by awanderingscot have been debunked many times using up-to-date, legitimate scientific data and sources.
you cannot disprove ANYTHING stated above concerning cell structure.
I'm sorry, awanderingscot. It's not necessary to disprove outdated, partial or misrepresented data and sources to highlight your propensity for usage of outdated or partial data in a way that misrepresents current evolutionary theory. I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but your assertions remain in a debunked status.
that information concerning cellular complexity is from a recent scientific journal dated 2005, hardly dated. the cult of darwinism is in complete denial in the face of new and emerging real science yet continues to defend their dogma as if it were not still theory. evolution is being exposed as the junk science it always has been.
Perhaps, awanderingscot, you missed this expression from my last reply:
"..or partial data in a way that misrepresents current evolutionary theory.."
specifically what has been debunked?
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but all of your assertions have been debunked. The major problem with most of your assertions is that they are based on outdated information.
That these posts offer any invalidation of evolution. Evolution is a fact – gaps in our knowledge do not change that. Did you read that link I provided? Do you have any evidence for creationism?
This is the typical petulant atheist response to information they cannot handle, fold arms across chest, push bottom lip out, and look the other way. darwinistic denial mechanism.
Pigeon chess nonsense.
Explain how it debunks the whole theory of evolution.
Provide evidence for an alternative – presumably creationism.
Sorry scot but my irony meter exploded after you said that. I think I've got re-calibrated now – care to try again?
oh Scott, you really are a very funny fellow.
scot
You are a theif. You stole this directly from Gerda Peachy, without noting your source, thus taking credit for anothers work.
You do this all the time.
Can you come up with anything on your own, or do you just find this sort of lunacy, think it sounds good because you don't comprehend what you are reading, and post it as if you wrote it.
you are a liar. it came from utah.edu
Regardless of the source, awanderingscot, you did not give credit – a common tool for those who often misrepresent current scientific theory.
Hal, you and your hatetheist friends are hypocrites since you don't always source your information either.
in this instance there is no common source. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/membranes/
"Hal, you and your hatetheist friends are hypocrites since you don't always source your information either."
They do not STEAL other peoples works verbatim as if they wrote it like you do.
Nothing you have posted is even slightly valid , but by all means, explain any of your information...in your own words.
Considering the fact that , to this point each of your posts has been STOLEN from others, and already shredded by various other sources, it would be flogging a dead horse, not worth addressing.
You are nothing butan evolution denier, and by posting others works in their entirelty, proves you do not comprehend it...otherwise, you could not opnly put things into your own words, but explain what you write, showing your understanding...you have never done this.
Instead you post others works as if you comprehend it, and think that makes an argument.
You even once posted something from a site that specifically said not to re-post....you could be arrested for that.
"you are a liar. it came from utah.edu"
Then you KNOWINGLY took it from someone else and di not show the credit.
Thank you for admitting you are a theif. You fell into that trap far too easily.
IGAFTR, you're all about obfuscation and denial and when you cannot disprove what is said by a poster, you attack the poster. you're also dishonest and vindictive as evidenced by your internet research on the posters here you disagree with.
Quite the contrary, awanderingscot. igaftr has, on numerous occasions, pointed out the errancy and misrepresentations common to your arguments. I'm sorry, awanderginscot, but you assertions, to date, remain in the debunked status.
"Quite the contrary, awanderingscot. igaftr has, on numerous occasions, pointed out the errancy and misrepresentations common to your arguments. I'm sorry, awanderginscot, but you assertions, to date, remain in the debunked status."
LOL .. once again more of the same obfuscation and non-answers from hatetheists.
if you posted something that was priginal, I might take your bait, but since you continue to post OTHER PEOPLES work that has already been discredited, there is no point.
Since I have seen you childishly name call and act childishly, yet present NOTHING original...what do you expect.
As far as looking up posters, I simply did a quick google search, and came up with huge amounts of info on you, so you either do not care about privacy, or are ignorant on how to remain private.
By all means...search for me...I know you will not find a single scrap about me.
I violated nothing by doing so, so quit complaining.
No need to disprove his cut and paste when he doesn't understand his own post which is demonstrated by his need to cut and paste. This moron couldn't tell you what the cytosol of the cytoplasm is let alone describing how cells interact with their fluid environment and store energy in polyhydroxybutyrates.
IGAFTR
You certainly have MOTIVE for RESEARCHING POSTERS ON THIS BLOG WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU as you have admitted. You have admitted to being a dishonest coward.
"This moron couldn't tell you what the cytosol of the cytoplasm is let alone describing how cells interact with their fluid environment and store energy in polyhydroxybutyrates"
– oh this is hilarious, we have a microbiology major with us today folks, LOL.
hurry and study up scot and maybe you can actually refute what I said instead of just making yourself look even more silly...
If you don't understand the reason that 99% of biologists believe in evolution but you want to cut and paste the work of the 1% who think they know better, then maybe you ought to understand what they are even talking about before you try to use it to further your own agenda.
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but even grade schoolers can identify the misrepresented information in your posts. Perhaps you should consider repeating grade school so that you might start to be capable of accurately representing current science.
"You have admitted to being a dishonest coward."
No...I have not, since I am neither.
You call me names simply for being curious and doing ONE google search?
My motive was curiosity, and doing a search on the people you are conversing with is normal.
How does that make me either a liar or coward scot?
You still have nothing TOT!! Just your delusions!
In the mid 20th century, Dr. Sidney Fox synthesized amino acids, the basic building blocks of organic life, from inorganic compounds and thermal energy. What he made have been dubbed "protobionts". Protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction, metabolism, and excitability, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings.
You can read more about it by searching his paper, "Thermal Copolymerization of Amino Acids to a Product Resembling Protein".
On the basis of awanderingscot, we find the defendant guilty of sheer ignorance. Bwahahahahaha. In a Foghorn Leghorn tone of voice: : " I say, boy. Boy suffers from a severe case of cranial/rectal inversion. Heh, heh heh."
scot's c&p is more or less an accurate description of a cell membrane and its basic properties; however, it's not an accurate conclusion that this level of current complexity was necessarily required for a protocell. This is the common mistake, by ignorance or disingenuous intent, of ID/creationists; that is, to point to some current structure and then declare the impossibility of any functional precursor.
http://exploringorigins.org/fattyacids.html
The above link, complete with a link to Szostak's lab, provides the relevant context. Once again, scot is guilty of posting on a topic with which he has little if any understanding. I suspect he'll follow up with some quote mines or just more impotent outrage given his inability to offer anything other than well-refuted negative arguments of incredulity . . .
thanks to the oil coming up out of the ground, some of the richest countries in the world are muslim countries. It sure would be nice to see some of these more "civilized" muslim countries helping out other countries that are under attack from the barbaric muslim sects, rather than leaving all the cost and casualties to the US and western allies. I'm sure the military industrial complex would be just as happy making their money from these oil rich muslim countries as from the US Government. It would also be a statement from the muslim world that islam is not just a religion of barbarism and hate and murder and oppression, but it is a religion that can exist in the modern world.
but I'm not holding my breath.
you keep sucking that crude out of the ground and burning it up into the skies and something has to give. their puddles of wealth can not last forever. what happens when they start drying up? then you will see some real barbarism and religion will not matter as much as food and who has it.
"but it is a religion that can exist in the modern world."← Really!! So in your opinion such a religion can exist in the modern world. How much more of a hypocrite can you be? See this is why I MUST keep reminding atheists that atheism/evolutionism/cultism and idolatry are all Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE [STUPIDITY]. And that atheists et al are extreme hypocrites and compulsive pathological LIARS
I'm sorry, Salero21, but your assertions are without any reasonable foundation. In addition, they are evidence of a similar expression made by two-year-old children when they don't get their way.
To call someone who simply fails to believe the ancient nonsensical stories that you hold so near and dear to your heart, "stupid", is showing anyone who reads your endless drivel, your obvious shortcomings in the area of cognitive thinking. But then anyone who's been reading the Belief Blog, regularly, is already very well aware of this fact.
"To call a believer who simply fails to believe the nonsensical stories about evolution that you hold so near and dear to your heart, "stupid", is showing anyone who reads your endless drivel, your obvious shortcomings in the area of cognitive thinking"
there, fixed it for you.
I'm sorry, awanderingscot, but evolution is not a story. Your assertions all continue to remain in the debunked status.
Dear Salero21
As an atheist who likes to convert religious people, I want to thank you for all your hard work you do for my cause.
Please keep it up.
Thanks!
As an atheist who tries to convert religious people, I want to thank you for exposing my ignorant and illogical cause.
– there, fixed it for you D0g
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source." Einstein
You and Salero have a lot in common. And your motivations and results of your actions are probably very similar.
And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone sna. tch them out of My hand. – John 10:28, NKJV
-you'll never "convert" a born-again son of God.
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. – John 6:44, NKJV
– you cannot do what the Holy Spirit will not do.
Oh Dal, I take it as a compliment that you always insult me personally whenever I post. It shows that you are afraid. As this blog plainly shows, when Christians read something that sets that little seed of doubt growing inside them, that frightens them because even their Christian cognitive dissonance can't deny shows that their bronze age magical fairy story beliefs aren't real, that makes them doubt their faith ... their (your) immediate knee jerk reaction is to insult the messenger.
I know you think you write intelligently, but the fact that you write about something with no basis in truth that is only backed up by millennia of stories and analysis of the stories by other people in your same deluded cult, means that you sound like a little boy using words too big for him. I could write endless paragraphs about the existence of pink fluffy unicorns but whatever I wrote, the underlying subject would just render me foolish.
So ... keep insulting me and accusing me of trolling. It is a great compliment.
scot, you are failing miserably at demonstrating your Christian faith. Your behavior on these pages is that of either a total hypocrite, or a troll intentionally trying to make believers look bad.
Midwest. LOL .. anything you say concerning God or Christ or Christians concerning your perceptions of how it should be or how it should not be, i automatically discount as that of an unregenerate God-hater.
TOT: Do you hate things you don't believe in?? It seems that you've yet to purchase a dictionary or enroll in the Grade 3 science course...you're part of what is wrong with America.
Uh, one of your fellow atheists admitted you were trollish. And by his standards of what a troll does, you fit the bill.
I'm not afraid of anything you say. Especially when you post something questionable, like saying I worship Roman paganism, and then deny requests to back it up with credible sources.
" i automatically discount as that of an unregenerate God-hater. "
Discount away, scot – you have proven yourself over and over on these pages. Total hypocrite, or total troll. Take your pick.
"saying I worship Roman paganism, and then deny requests to back it up with credible sources."
I'm just curious, because I have never seen you worship, but do you celebrate Christmas or Easter? Just curious because both of those celebrations are in fact squarely based in paganism. No where will you find either celebration in the bible and none of the disciples or apostles ever worshiped or celebrated Christs birth but would only observe a solemn passover which was the supposed representation of the young sinless lamb being sacrificed for the sins of mankind. Now most Christians just sit around getting sick on chocolate bunnies while their kids run all over looking for more candy in eggs before their suger high runs out...
No, I don't observe any Pagan religious holidays. Some holiday I do celebrate have Pagan origins. There is no problem with that, because I don't worship holidays. Lots of cultures hold onto their cultural traditions. Not all Christians celebrate Christmas and Easter at the same time, way or manner. And that is fine.
Ah, Sombrero21, with his tired and inane bluster. You know he's full of it as he keeps spouting it. Need a napkin, SallyO, your lower lip is dribbling.
Not hard to see where Topher and Theo get their ridiculous ideas from. It is really difficult to believe how gullible some people are.