A world with a loving God.

[foghorn]

If people use 50% of their brain, the rest is 50% soul. So people who don't use their brain much, say 20%, tend to be endearing in most cases.

I just think men and women's brains work differently, and they haven't(women), perhaps, been able to explore their intellect to its full potential, so I guess we'll see what happens.

So, according to you Dave, when women do reach their full intellectual potential, they will have less soul? Is that right?

 

[Write4U]

Lol Some of these replies. Do some of you actually believe that most believers cling to the idea of God, as being a controlling ant farmer? Oh my.

No wegs, these are probing questions as to what makes a theist tick. So far Jan's answer was that belief in the concept of being an ant in God's ant-farm; "is a start" .
Just read Jan's latest answer about a flat earth and how he will believe what he "accepts" (being told), regardless of what is objectively true.

The idea of “acceptance” is different from what is objectively true.

I rest my case.

Not sure why some non-theists/believers feel the need to degrade and insult believers in this way. How do you expect Jan to honestly answer your questions, Write4U when your questions are not genuine, they’re just designed to insult him?

What about my questions is not genuine and/or degrading? That judgement is reserved for the response to the question, no?

Why don't you ask Jan yourself or do you agree with Jan on everything he presents as his belief? Don't project your frustrations on me.

 

[wegs]

No wegs, these are probing questions as to what makes a theist tick. So far Jan's answer was that belief in the concept of being an ant in God's ant-farm; "is a start" .
Just read Jan's latest answer about a flat earth and how he will believe what he "accepts" (being told), regardless of what is objectively true.
I rest my case.
What about my questions is not genuine or degrading? That judgement is reserved for the response to the question, no?

Why don't you ask Jan yourself or do you agree with Jan on everything he presents as his belief? Don't project your frustrations on me.

Not all theists think alike, and your questions to Jan, have to do with an ant farm. I'm a believer, and I don't envision God to be a controlling ant farmer, and we are all ''his ants.'' I may not agree with someone, but it's kind of fruitless to reply with strawmen answers that honestly appear like degradation tactics. I'm surprised those comments came from you, because you're usually gracious, even when you disagree. I have no frustrations with this thread or your posts; I'm finding it comical in a way, that you would conclude that most believers are building their lives around the notion that God is a micromanaging ant farmer, and we're all his ants.

 

[Write4U]

I’m here to engage in discussion.
Why are you here?

And what, pray tell is your concept of a discussion? Blind acceptance of what you tell me? Is that the religious way of discussing a subject and examining it from various perspectives?

I have a subject I really would like to discuss (is about MT). Look what I have to put up with. And I come prepared with at least some proofs to back up my claims.

 

[Write4U]

I'm surprised those comments came from you, because you're usually gracious, even when you disagree. I have no frustrations with this thread or your posts; I'm finding it comical in a way, that you would conclude that most believers are building their lives around the notion that God is a micromanaging ant farmer, and we're all his ants.

I am gracious to those who are gracious to me and not treat me as a gullible sheep (ant) who can be told anything and "accept" it, regardless of truth. Those are not my words wegs, they're Jan's.

And asking a question is not stating a conclusion. Jan stated that the concept of a God's ant-farm "is a start"! That is a conclusion, and what am I to make of that answer but to express a certain amount of incredulity?

Are you good with that in the spirit of having an objective discussion? Did you not reject that answer a few moments ago?

 

[(Q)]

I think I’ve been the most communicative person in this thread, since I posted my first response. I think you’ll find that my posts are actual, proper responses. To questions posed.
You don’t have to like or agree with them, but they are there.

Well, when you change the meanings of words to suit your narrative, or you say something and then turn around and claim you never said it, how is that being the most communicative person in the thread?

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with what you say, it's a matter of you not being able to communicate using the English language. And, while you may understand what it is you're talking about, no one else does.

So, no, your posts are not actual, proper responses. And, if you won't bother to rectify that, then you clearly aren't here to have discussions.

 

[(Q)]

Don't believe Jan when if he tells you he "accepts evolution". When he uses scientific terms, by the time he is done redefining them to suit his own purposes they don't really mean anything other than whatever it is that Jan wants them to mean. The only evolution that Jan accepts is his own bastardised version of what he thinks evolution entails.

It seems to run even deeper than that. It appears Jan has never looked up anything, has never fact checked anything, has never even cracked open a dictionary and seems to only rely on using buzz words he may have picked up here and there. He doesn't even know the meaning of the word evolution let alone bothered to read the postulates of the theory. I think we give Jan far too much credit.

 

[(Q)]

Everybody accepts evolution.
Most people don’t accept Darwin’s theory.
It is the rejection of that, that gets these guys goats.

It's the rejection of science from those who have no idea what the word science means that would get any thinking person's goat. But, that's what you do.

I am a monotheist.
I believe in the One God, The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes, Who Himself is not caused.
The creator of gods, and all creatures.

You've probably never even bothered to read the Bible, let alone any other books.

 

[(Q)]

Borrowing from a recently-attempted parable—(never mind)—I might try a parental metaphor.

Who will kill the child for having a temper tantrum?

Who will chain the child to the radiator for smarting off?

Who will strike off the offending hand because the child is a little wanker?

This isn't difficult.

​

Remember that critics of religion at Sciforums, generally speaking, don't know a whole lot about what they criticize; also keep in mind that some of them actually think they don't need to know about what they criticize. The result of this is that critics try to box in what they criticize, and shape it so they might dress it up to fit their criticism.

You've obviously been here way too long, not only because you believe you're better than everyone else and we all just annoy you to no end, but you've grown tired of yourself and your whole life and are now forced to go around making posts like this pretending the high horse you're on is more than just a bean bag chair on the floor. You need a vacation from here, get out of the house and do something productive with yourself rather than sitting around all day writing endless, long, boring posts that no one reads.

 

[billvon]

The Earth I experience is flat. As for the whole earth,?I can only go on what evidences there are. But the “reality” is, I don’t know.

You don't know if the Earth is flat or round?

 

[Sarkus]

The Earth I experience is flat. As for the whole earth,?I can only go on what evidences there are. But the “reality” is, I don’t know.

You don't know if the earth is flat or not? Seriously???

The idea of “acceptance” is different from what is objectively true. Most people will accept, when informed of reality they are aware of, what is objectively true.

Note your gradual move from "everyone" to now "most". Quite telling that you can't support your own position, isn't it.

Why is that not evidence of evolution/natural selection?

Evolution is a change in biological characteristics between one population/species and another, usually over multiple generations, not simply a superficial change in a single member of that population due to climate. Evolution is where one population doesn't have the characteristic and another does. You have simply offered up a horse. The fact that a horse can grow and shed hair with the climate is merely a characteristic of a horse.

Isn’t that what Darwin experienced with the finches?

No. He identified differences between populations of finches in their entirety, not between a single finch at, say, different times of the year.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

The Earth I experience is flat. As for the whole earth,?I can only go on what evidences there are. But the “reality” is, I don’t know.

Seriously?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You don't know if the Earth is flat or round?

Neither do you.
We accept what we’re shown or told.
I believe the earth is a globe, but I don’t know it as fact.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And what, pray tell is your concept of a discussion? Blind acceptance of what you tell me? Is that the religious way of discussing a subject and examining it from various perspectives?

How you partake in the discussion is up to you.

 

[billvon]

Neither do you.

Actually I do. I have spoken to people who have been in orbit and seen it with their own eyes. I have worked on satellite systems that had to track orbiting satellites. They pass right overhead and return 90 minutes later, just as orbital mechanics says they will.

I believe the earth is a globe, but I don’t know it as fact.

So you don't know that you are male, or that your name is Jan, or that God exists?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Note your gradual move from "everyone" to now "most". Quite telling that you can't support your own position, isn't it.

From your perspective, no theist can support their position, If there are s no agreement with you. Because you are stuck in a loop.

 

[Write4U]

I believe the earth is a globe, but I don’t know it as fact.

You do not accept every piece of information about the fact that the earth is round as convincing evidence?
But you do know for a fact that God exists, even as you cannot prove it in any way, other than imagination?

p.s

If there were no God, there would be no Atheists. G.K. Chesterton.

Tell Mr. Chesterton that if there were no God, everyone would be Atheist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's the rejection of science from those who have no idea what the word science means that would get any thinking person's goat. But, that's what you do.

No, that’s what you do.
But it doesn’t get my goat.

You've probably never even bothered to read the Bible, let alone any other books.

Why would you even say that?
Are becoming unhinged?
Back to the old Q!

 

[Jan Ardena]

You do not accept every piece of information about the fact that the earth is round as convincing evidence?
But you do know for a fact that God exists, even as you cannot prove it in any way, other than imagination?

Did you not read what I wrote?
I said I believe the earth is a globe, but I haven’t seen the earth from a position where I can know it is a globe. And neither have you.

There’s nothing difficult about believing God exists. It is a connection that humans have. The thing that’s hard to get your head round, is how you can conclude there is no God.

 

[Write4U]

Did you not read what I wrote?
I said I believe the earth is a globe, but I haven’t seen the earth from a position where I can know it is a globe. And neither have you.

I have seen plenty pictures of the Earth fromevery possible angle in space and it is obviously a globe. Live pictures from space are reliable evidence, IMO. [/quote]

There’s nothing difficult about believing God exists. It is a connection that humans have. The thing that’s hard to get your head round, is how you can conclude there is no God.

Show me a picture, then I'll believe.
What connection? Can you explain that to me.