FRENCH the real argument is already over from the beggining, God does have proof BUT YOU ARE NOT CONVINCE OF IT, but He does have proof, YOU IN THE OTHER HAND DENIES IT AND REPITITIOUSLY WOULD SAY "You have no proof, you have no proof of God, YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF GOD!" with both of your hands covering your ears. And so indeed I came down to your level, indeed there is no proof of God that convinces atheist, even scientific and historical facts isnt enough, or even billions of testimony, even environmental reality, even when visible miracles documented by skeptics isnt enough. Well you know what God according to you is a myth right? Well so is King Henry, King James, and Shakespeare, they are all myths and have no proof as well. BUT GUESS WHAT, YOU IGNORED ME BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THEM AS WELL THAT WILL BE CONVINCING YOU RANT AND RAMBLE CLAIMING THEY HAVE MORE PROOFS THAN GOD BUT HAVE NOT YET PROVIDED ME OF ONE. THE PROOFS YOU GAVE ME SO FAR ARE THE SAME PROOFS I GAVE YOU FOR GOD, AND IN FACT I HAVE GIVEN YOU MORE PROOF OF GOD. WELL? WHERES YOUR PROOF THAT KING HENRY AND KING JAMES EXIST? GIVE IT AND STOP REAMBLING. KING HENRY AND KING JAMES OR SHAKESPEARE CANNOT BE PROVEN AND THEY ARE INDEED A TALE, MYTH. PERIOD.
Atheist..Please stand up
- Thread starter Lady
- Start date
FRENCH the real argument is already over from the beggining, God does have proof BUT YOU ARE NOT CONVINCE OF IT, but He does have proof, YOU IN THE OTHER HAND DENIES IT AND REPITITIOUSLY WOULD SAY "You have no proof, you have no proof of God, YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF GOD!" with both of your hands covering your ears. And so indeed I came down to your level, indeed there is no proof of God that convinces atheist, even scientific and historical facts isnt enough, or even billions of testimony, even environmental reality, even when visible miracles documented by skeptics isnt enough. Well you know what God according to you is a myth right? Well so is King Henry, King James, and Shakespeare, they are all myths and have no proof as well. BUT GUESS WHAT, YOU IGNORED ME BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THEM AS WELL THAT WILL BE CONVINCING YOU RANT AND RAMBLE CLAIMING THEY HAVE MORE PROOFS THAN GOD BUT HAVE NOT YET PROVIDED ME OF ONE. THE PROOFS YOU GAVE ME SO FAR ARE THE SAME PROOFS I GAVE YOU FOR GOD, AND IN FACT I HAVE GIVEN YOU MORE PROOF OF GOD. WELL? WHERES YOUR PROOF THAT KING HENRY AND KING JAMES EXIST? GIVE IT AND STOP REAMBLING. KING HENRY AND KING JAMES OR SHAKESPEARE CANNOT BE PROVEN AND THEY ARE INDEED A TALE, MYTH. PERIOD.
Muzzleman:
Shut the fuck up.
"even scientific and historical facts isnt enough, or even billions of testimony, even environmental reality, even when visible miracles documented by skeptics isnt enough"
Let me reitterate that you have not given us one shred of this type of evidence. PROOF IS IN CITATION, not your incessent rambling.
"YOU IGNORED ME BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THEM AS WELL "
I most certainly DID NOT ignore you. I told you I agree, we do not have proof of them, we do, however, have tons more evidence and very little if any contradictory evidence, unlike your bible.
"THE PROOFS YOU GAVE ME SO FAR ARE THE SAME PROOFS I GAVE YOU FOR GOD"
So you yourself agree that I did not ignore you. Don't contradict yourself, its why people think your an idiot.
Yes, I did say that both god and henry have written, and verbal evidence. Yet henry's does not contradict itself, and is in much greater and widespread abundance. God's does contradict itself and is mainly focused on the bible and the verbal teaching of the church FROM the bible. Thus making god's "same" proof 90% less valid than henry's.
Once again, shut the fuck up before you have noone but enemies.
Shut the fuck up.
"even scientific and historical facts isnt enough, or even billions of testimony, even environmental reality, even when visible miracles documented by skeptics isnt enough"
Let me reitterate that you have not given us one shred of this type of evidence. PROOF IS IN CITATION, not your incessent rambling.
"YOU IGNORED ME BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THEM AS WELL "
I most certainly DID NOT ignore you. I told you I agree, we do not have proof of them, we do, however, have tons more evidence and very little if any contradictory evidence, unlike your bible.
"THE PROOFS YOU GAVE ME SO FAR ARE THE SAME PROOFS I GAVE YOU FOR GOD"
So you yourself agree that I did not ignore you. Don't contradict yourself, its why people think your an idiot.
Yes, I did say that both god and henry have written, and verbal evidence. Yet henry's does not contradict itself, and is in much greater and widespread abundance. God's does contradict itself and is mainly focused on the bible and the verbal teaching of the church FROM the bible. Thus making god's "same" proof 90% less valid than henry's.
Once again, shut the fuck up before you have noone but enemies.
WONDERING STARS
Upon asking atheist to state why they hold to the postion of the non-existence of God I have heard many things and am confused. I being a believer in God through personal proof is the strongest reasoning for my position. However, those who haven't had a encounter with God can't attribute the origins of the universe and all that is in it to God, which leads to confusion and much questioning.It is a fact that the universe was here before I and any other human-being and that we are not responsible for its existence. I don't understand why people would rather attribute something to nothing.Some atheist believe that our origins just evolved out of nothing. Personally, that theory goes against logic.....something can't come out of nothing. Nor could I get a logical explanation on evolution& sex. I understand that atheist don't believe in Genesis,however, it explains how sex came about. And if Genesis isn't accurate and our origins just evolved, than sex would not be neccessary(even now).Why does the program change from evolution without sex to evolution with sex?
Upon asking atheist to state why they hold to the postion of the non-existence of God I have heard many things and am confused. I being a believer in God through personal proof is the strongest reasoning for my position. However, those who haven't had a encounter with God can't attribute the origins of the universe and all that is in it to God, which leads to confusion and much questioning.It is a fact that the universe was here before I and any other human-being and that we are not responsible for its existence. I don't understand why people would rather attribute something to nothing.Some atheist believe that our origins just evolved out of nothing. Personally, that theory goes against logic.....something can't come out of nothing. Nor could I get a logical explanation on evolution& sex. I understand that atheist don't believe in Genesis,however, it explains how sex came about. And if Genesis isn't accurate and our origins just evolved, than sex would not be neccessary(even now).Why does the program change from evolution without sex to evolution with sex?
So you dont like it when I contradict myself? Frencheneez I just copied your act, your the one who contradicts yourself you liar. YOU SAID "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GOD" OVER AND OVER AGAIN, MEANWHILE YOU SAID ABOVE "Yes, I did say that both god and henry have written, and verbal evidence"- By lying Frencheneez. I COPIED YOUR ACT AND SAY "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF KING HENRY AND KING JAMES".
AND HOW DOES GOD CONTRADICTS HIMSELF? BECAUSE PEOPLE CONTRADICTS THEMSELVES BY THEIR THOUGHTS OF HIM? KINDA LIKE YOU, AS A GOOD EXAMPLE. I CAN STATE KING HENRY CONTRADICTS TOO BECAUSE BY THE FACT YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE OF HIM (IM COPYING YOUR LYING SELF) THEN HOW CAN YOU SAY HE EXIST THEN? IF HE DOESNT? THEREFORE HE ALSO CONTRADICTS HIMSELF IN THAT SENSE, FURTHEREMORE, IT IS SO SIMPLE TO FIND OUT STORIES OF THAT GUY AND FIND TOONS OF CONTRADICTION, SUCH AS A MYTHICAL STORY ( I SAID MYTH BCUZ U CANNOT PROVIDE ONE EVIDENCE IT IS TRUE )THAT HE WANTED TO DIVORCE, WELL AS A KING HE SHOULDNT BECAUSE HE HOLD VOWS AND SAID "TILL DEATH DO US PART" WEL HE DOES CONTRADICT THERE.
Re: Hi Lady
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
(1) Logically explain the origin's of human& animal evolution?
There is a small problem with the question. Humans ARE animals
as much as cats and dogs are. Now keep in mind evolution is
a theory. There is lots of evidence to support it at the macro
level (and even a little to contradict it at the macro level). Micro
evolution (small changes due to environmental pressures) has
been successfully reproduced in a controlled lab environment FYI.
Now on to the good stuff (in a simplified fashion). There are a
variety of chemicals that (when combined at certain
temperatures) produce Amino acids. These amino acids have
a natural tendency to clump with each other. This part has been
reproduced in a lab environment FYI. Any complex sequence of
chemicals can literally translate into a sequence of physical
actions... consider them biological programs if you will. Now
consider (when the world was in it's infancy) that over a long
period of time one or more 'programs' arose that can reproduce. Each offspring of course would contain a slightly different
program. Those programs that could meet or exceed the
demands of their environment would continue reproducing and
those that could not would die off. Now, continue this same
process over a huge period of time in environments that are
constantly changing and you are left with the life forms (chemical
programs) that you see on earth today (humans included of
course).
** You explain the mechanics of this complex process great,however, how is is that sex interrupts a seemly productive process?
It doesn't? It just a part of the current process for some of
the species on earth. Declaring something as being 'productive'
is a human-made opinion and really does not apply here.
*** If we just evolved from nowhere sex isn't neccesary.
4) As far as space travel goes we can't even get out of our own solar system so why dismiss the existence of God or any other life form?
I am not making the claim that there is a God. You (and others)
are, so prove it to me (your responsibility as the claimer). Alien
life forms could be a possibility. Given enough time in the correct
environment Amino Acids may form reproducing 'programs' in
other non-Earth environments. Once again, just logic at work. In
fact Amino Acids may not be the only building blocks for adaptive
reproducing 'programs'. There may be others that we simply don't
know about. Currently people are constantly testing the
hypothesis that extra-terrestrial life exists by simply looking for it.
To my knowledge there has been no success in this area, but
people are still trying. I have not, on the other hand, seen too
many people who are trying to prove that there is a god.
** See paranormal photo (paranormal thread)
Sorry, I didn't find it using the search abilities of this forum (but
its possible that I mis-used it some how). Would you post a link
and set my expectations as to its relevance?
*** Pseudoscience/paranormal photo/ Lady( extra-terrestrial)
** As far as wanting to know God........well I would suggest you pray( you have nothing to lose)
I believe it was Christ who said something to the tune of 'if
you want to find me then simply put... get rid of all your selfish
behavior'. I can accept this pre-requisite and I have done it (for
most of my life actually). Still, no response. I think before I could
get to know 'God'... I have to see proof of his existance... and
so far no proof.
*** Pray.
(7a) Did a human being create him or herself?
We can probably do it through cloning nowadays; otherwise,
it's a process of natural selection that account for the current
state of our species.
** Even Frankenstein needed electricity.
A hollywood creation? I don't see the relevance.
*** We can do the mechanic's but can't give it life.
(8a) What does a atheist expect after death?
I have no expectations. I have desires (like everyone else),
but no expectations.
** What are your desires?
I'd like to be with my wife.
*** Nice
(11) Science is a on going study of the universe....why?
Here are just a few reasons off the top of my head:
A) Curiosity.
B) Necessity (pennacillin for example).
C) Makes life easier and more fun.
D) Makes it easier to kill your enemies.
E) Making discoveries is very satisfying.
** Discoveries of someone or somethings works
ooookaaaaaay...
*** Discoveries of Gods works(specific)
** Most people believe in God because he has proven himself to exist to the individual not just because someone told them he exist.
I have had an open and genuine invitation to 'God' to join me at
Starbucks for a Frapaccino. It's been open for years now... and
he still has stood me up. So, for someone whom he has not
proven himself to... what are they to do... just accept without
proof because someone says he exists?
*** God is omnipresent.
** A genuine desire to make contact with God is honorable . I would suggest you start through prayer and read the works of a man by the name of William Marrion Branham, whom I believe to be the Prophet of our age, deceased now, His literature is inexpesive and available (Branham.org) You will never in your life hear a man speak like this, but then again it's not the man but the spirit within.
Prayer? Been there done that. Nothing ever came of it. Set my
expectations on William Branham. Why would I want to read his
book? Does he have conclusive empirical evidence that God
exists?
*** You'll never be the same.
**Please feel free to state your thoughts on why people should accept atheism.
Nobody should accept something they don't want to. I can tell
you that my 'absence of belief' has freed my mind and I am
very happy with this state.
** To me that state sounds like bondage. Say the Christian Bible is true and there is a heaven & hell....what would it hurt to pray for salvation just in case? Most non-believers start the what if on the death bed.
Bondage eh? I can predict explicitly when you will be furtile during
the month using nothing but your saliva and a cheap microscope.
Thats cheap and accurate birth control. I can force your 'time
of the month' to occur at another date using nothing but your
sense of smell... and the list goes on. I can do these things
because I don't have 'belief' (aka: acceptance without proof),
interfering with my thought process.
*** Happy with presence state....perhaps invitation to God isn't genuine.(fickle)
On a sidenote, I find it very interesting that you bring up
Evolution, the Big Bang, and various aspects of general science.
Don't you think it's possible for these things to be TRUE AND
for God to exist? I see the concept of God as a mutually exclusive
against the other concepts.
** Some people don't realize it but science only proves God.
So, then show me the proof! Scientifically even.
*** Doctors aren't healers(W.M.B)
Last edited:
"** The intelligence of monkeys...hmm...way dumber than dogs. "
Actually, it is only opinion, but the majority holds that a monkey is smarter than a dog. Monkeys use tools, dogs don't, monkeys can be taught to speak using sign language, dogs have not been.
Never the less, Intelligence is not the reason we think humans evolved from earlier primates. The reason I say earlier primates is because the current day primates are also evolved from those earlier primates. We are just a different mutation line.
"I don't understand why people would rather attribute something to nothing"
Many Theists like yourself think that since Atheists admit that they don't know everything (they might articulate it poorly), then we think something comes from nothing. It is a scientific principle that things cannot be created or distroyed, just moved around. We do not know where matter came from, but science is there to find out.
"YOU SAID "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GOD" OVER AND OVER AGAIN"
I said "there is no PROOF of god", a big diffence. A "proof" needs a lot of evidence, and no contradictory evidence (no absolue proof exists for anything but close proofs work). God has a bunch of contradictory evidence, therefore there is no proof. Henry has very little or no contradictory evidence.
"WELL AS A KING HE SHOULDNT BECAUSE HE HOLD VOWS AND SAID "TILL DEATH DO US PART" WEL HE DOES CONTRADICT THERE."
He did that. Just because he "shouldn't" doesn't mean it is false. Your opinion that he shouldn't have broken his marital vows does not make the "story" false.
Muscleman, I think I read somewhere that you don't take genesis litterally. I can't find it now! I would like to just assume, but you have kind of make it clear that you do believe in genisis. Am I right, did you say you don't take genisis litterally?
Actually, it is only opinion, but the majority holds that a monkey is smarter than a dog. Monkeys use tools, dogs don't, monkeys can be taught to speak using sign language, dogs have not been.
Never the less, Intelligence is not the reason we think humans evolved from earlier primates. The reason I say earlier primates is because the current day primates are also evolved from those earlier primates. We are just a different mutation line.
"I don't understand why people would rather attribute something to nothing"
Many Theists like yourself think that since Atheists admit that they don't know everything (they might articulate it poorly), then we think something comes from nothing. It is a scientific principle that things cannot be created or distroyed, just moved around. We do not know where matter came from, but science is there to find out.
"YOU SAID "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GOD" OVER AND OVER AGAIN"
I said "there is no PROOF of god", a big diffence. A "proof" needs a lot of evidence, and no contradictory evidence (no absolue proof exists for anything but close proofs work). God has a bunch of contradictory evidence, therefore there is no proof. Henry has very little or no contradictory evidence.
"WELL AS A KING HE SHOULDNT BECAUSE HE HOLD VOWS AND SAID "TILL DEATH DO US PART" WEL HE DOES CONTRADICT THERE."
He did that. Just because he "shouldn't" doesn't mean it is false. Your opinion that he shouldn't have broken his marital vows does not make the "story" false.
Muscleman, I think I read somewhere that you don't take genesis litterally. I can't find it now! I would like to just assume, but you have kind of make it clear that you do believe in genisis. Am I right, did you say you don't take genisis litterally?
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
*** Doctors aren't healers(W.M.B)
ROFLMAO!!!
ROFLMAO!!!
Lady:
"*** If we just evolved from nowhere sex isn't neccesary. "
First of all, we didn't "just evolve from nowhere". Second of all, sex developed for faster evolution. And no, the little bacteria did not go "Hey, man, lets get together, well evolve faster!". What did happen is: Some life evolved sex and some did not. The ones that evolved faster lived, the ones that didn't died.
Why would faster evolution help a speicies live? Well, If you were cloned millions upon millions of times (like a bacteria does), then when a virus came along that effected one and killed it, ALL OF HIS CLONES WOULD BE KILLED TOO! So, when we have sexual reproduciton, every child is different. Some may have resitance to a virus that kills his siblings. That is why sex evolved.
"*** If we just evolved from nowhere sex isn't neccesary. "
First of all, we didn't "just evolve from nowhere". Second of all, sex developed for faster evolution. And no, the little bacteria did not go "Hey, man, lets get together, well evolve faster!". What did happen is: Some life evolved sex and some did not. The ones that evolved faster lived, the ones that didn't died.
Why would faster evolution help a speicies live? Well, If you were cloned millions upon millions of times (like a bacteria does), then when a virus came along that effected one and killed it, ALL OF HIS CLONES WOULD BE KILLED TOO! So, when we have sexual reproduciton, every child is different. Some may have resitance to a virus that kills his siblings. That is why sex evolved.
This is disgraceful
This topic is an utter disgrace. First off, I can't believe it's still going on, and secondly, I can't believe the low degree of faux-intellectualism going into it.
Lady: Why do you not respect the terms of your own questions?
Atheists: Why do you let someone set such firm terms for debate?
I saw Raithere, somewhere in there, finally get around to the point that it's okay to say, "I don't know" in the scientific fields as well as in the atheistic arena. However, that's as close as I'm seeing this debate get to anything substantive.
Thus:
(1) Logically explain the origin's of human& animal evolution?
As time passed in the Universe, and it cooled away from the Big Bang, much differentiation occurred. As the basic units of matter came together according to natural physical law, certain results occurred. Hydrogen and oxygen made water. Molecules developed more and more complex. At the base of all physical relationships is energy. Some of the molecules made spent their energy and decayed. Others exploited their energy and formed more complex things. Life is no different from rust or a stone on the ground. The electricity in a living organism does more complex things than the energy in a rock's molecules, but that's the thing. Life is merely an electrical phenomenon developed within certain constraints. The properties of something don't do nothing, they are constantly in flux and motion. Look at a picture of the farthest object in the Universe you can find; do you realize that you have an integral, direct, and vital relationship to that object? Human and animal evolution are mere electrical phenomena, growing more and less complex according to environmental needs, seeking a more efficient and sustaining function in the Universe. Remember old TV sets? How when you turned them off they would glow for a while, and how the little dot would form over the tube, flickering and fading into darkness? Life is merely an electrical phenomenon capable of sustaining itself, capable of continuing to fuel and burn itself. Everything else is a perceptual accretion. Life is hard to examine in this conduct because we choose to make it more important than it is. But all substances, all compounds, all things radiate, give off energy. Life is merely a phenomenon that allows matter to refuel itself and operate as a dynamic system. All you really need to prove by this theory is that electricity exists, that radiation exists, and that objects have energy within their structures. I don't find any of these requisites a scientific stretch.
(2) Who or what initated the big bang? How is it that the earth was designed for the human make-up?
See #11 for the both. But, at present, we might say that the earth occurred and that life figured out the rest. It is not necessary to presume that the earth was "designed" for human population. That such a result occurred is predictable if we accept a Universe of infinite space or infinite expansion potential. I don't recall hearing any new studies suggesting retraction or closure in the Universe.
(3) I hear that atheist base their belief on science, however has science disproved or proved the existence of God?
Science has not disproved or proven the existence of God directly. However, in examination of the attributes of God, most are found to be scientifically untenable. Specifically, the atheistic conclusion that there is no God is based in a certain limited objectivity. Objectivity, however, changes dynamically based on the acquisition of knowledge.
(4) As far as space travel goes we can't even get out of our own solar system so why dismiss the existence of God or any other life form?
As far as the Bible goes, God hasn't shown his face in two-thousand years, so why believe in what you can't seee?
However, I would say that rejection stems from an examination of objective realities according to subjective priorities of immediate relevance. Personally, I find atheism wrongly focused on the most childish aspects of religions. But then again, these stupid aspects of religions are often the ones made most important by the adherents. Take a look around at what happens when I discuss Christianity, and not vulgar Christian doctrine: I confuse everybody. Sure, there are deeper issues to consider, but nobody seems particularly enthusiastic about examining them. They'd rather feel good shouting "Is too!" and "Is not!"
Uh-huh! Nuh-uh. Uh-huh! Nuh-uh ...!
(5) Does anyone have any reculection on where they were before conception? And where the life giving force came from?
I have a couple but they're not reliable. In fact, having just watched a special on past-life regression (Mitch Pileggi In Search Of ...) I'm starting to realize that most past-life believers are merely falling victim to a psychological process that I seem to know. The same with believers in faith healing. (I listened to Bob Larsen talk about exorcisms last night on MSNBC; watching him and others work, I think I know exactly what they're after, and it's a matter of whether I can reproduce the factors contributing to the psychological phenomenon.)
6) Who or what would you say is the designer of this complex universe and all that is in it?
See #11.
Questions like this are part of what science is for.
(7) Did a human being create him or herself? If so why are women still getting pregnant?
Most likely, human beings were the result of specific accidental genetic mutations fostered by environmental demands. While the line between species is most likely not one single generation. Nature created humans.
(8)What does a atheist expect after death? To go back to?
Kind of like television inasmuch as I ever understood it. When you die, that's it. Lights out, and no more worries. However, atheists are prone to believe whatever they will. I know one who wants to spend eternity as a ghost playing baseball in his grandson's cornfield.
(9) Explain the mystery of conception?- reflective thinking
Conception as opposed to perception? I'll try that one on another day. Of late I'm only allowed a certain quota of words a day, anymore.
(10) Can the non-existence of God be proved scientifically?
Depends on how you look at it.
Nothing to see, nothing to observe, nothing to calculate. God is, technically, a scientific non-issue. Of various phenomena attributed to God, we can often prove a certain amount. Was it a deluge from heaven? No, it was a natural climatological and meteorological phenomenon. Was it the wrath of God in heaven? No, it was lightning in a dry forest.
So in that sense, the works of God can be examined and disproven of a sort.
But there's nothing for scientists to observe.
(11) Science is a on going study of the universe....why?
Well, it seems that science is a natural function of humanity. Even when you're a child, picking up a rock and saying to yourself, "What is this? What does it do?" is science of a sort. Because you will test that rock, record data of what happens from the tests, and then let those results affect your perception on later occasions.
In a more formal structure, science is merely the recording of that natural process.
We humans see something and we are compelled to determine its relevance to us; this is a natural function of the idea of "I". If there is a self, there is "other", and understanding that "other" has become integral to the perpetuity of life.
Otherwise, we'd just be rocks, or puddles of goo, or something else inanimate and thoughtless in the Universe.
Nor are humans born knowing everything. Were that so, there would be no diaper industry, no baby food industry, no public schools, no colleges, no churches ... ad nauseam.
Science is an ongoing investigation of the natural Universe. We look because it is a vital human process. We continue because we do not know everything.
Now pay attention, atheists and theists alike: Scientific inquiry is an unfinished process. Christian doctrine is a finished process. To wit:
• After the canonization of the Bible, what changes Christian principle, aside from whimsy?
• After the institution and recognition of the scientific process, what changes the scientific perspective?
Christian principles are old, dogmatic, and their dynamism comes only from the human tendency to redefine things anew for each generation. Nonetheless, new "data" has been rejected in the form of various "heresies", the arrival of Islam, and so forth. Christianity is two-thousand years old. What is left to learn? Just a few tricks of the tongue to make you feel better?
Scientific principles are constantly reborn and reassimilated. Nobody in their right mind expects science to remain fixed like a religion. It's one of the primary differences between religious faith and scientific integrity.
As such, I think much of the topic's inquiry could be revised to recognize the facts of its own eleventh question. And the failure of our atheists to move the discussion to that vein speaks volumes about their frame of reference and their chosen priorities in the world.
This topic is six pages long and still people are running around like children thinking they've learned something important. Get off the stick, shake away the doldrums and realize that there's no reason to let the inquiry limit the response; one can write inquiries designed to avoid responses.
Lady, in her topic posts, has asked questions that she can answer for herself in consideration of #11. Science is an on-going study of the Universe. Right. "On-going."
And I just don't see enough recognition of that point from either side of the aisle. A couple of people have hit on that point, but only in the roundabout way. That's why I find this topic so disgraceful.
They're very basic questions, some of which have direct answers and some of which do not. But we cannot pretend to have enough information to answer some of these questions, and I'm really quite disappointed at the amount of effort lent to such considerations. I had thought my fellow posters generally smarter than that.
Of course, I was holding that one out on faith, so chalk one up for atheistic cynicism.
thanx,
Tiassa
This topic is an utter disgrace. First off, I can't believe it's still going on, and secondly, I can't believe the low degree of faux-intellectualism going into it.
Lady: Why do you not respect the terms of your own questions?
Atheists: Why do you let someone set such firm terms for debate?
I saw Raithere, somewhere in there, finally get around to the point that it's okay to say, "I don't know" in the scientific fields as well as in the atheistic arena. However, that's as close as I'm seeing this debate get to anything substantive.
Thus:
(1) Logically explain the origin's of human& animal evolution?
As time passed in the Universe, and it cooled away from the Big Bang, much differentiation occurred. As the basic units of matter came together according to natural physical law, certain results occurred. Hydrogen and oxygen made water. Molecules developed more and more complex. At the base of all physical relationships is energy. Some of the molecules made spent their energy and decayed. Others exploited their energy and formed more complex things. Life is no different from rust or a stone on the ground. The electricity in a living organism does more complex things than the energy in a rock's molecules, but that's the thing. Life is merely an electrical phenomenon developed within certain constraints. The properties of something don't do nothing, they are constantly in flux and motion. Look at a picture of the farthest object in the Universe you can find; do you realize that you have an integral, direct, and vital relationship to that object? Human and animal evolution are mere electrical phenomena, growing more and less complex according to environmental needs, seeking a more efficient and sustaining function in the Universe. Remember old TV sets? How when you turned them off they would glow for a while, and how the little dot would form over the tube, flickering and fading into darkness? Life is merely an electrical phenomenon capable of sustaining itself, capable of continuing to fuel and burn itself. Everything else is a perceptual accretion. Life is hard to examine in this conduct because we choose to make it more important than it is. But all substances, all compounds, all things radiate, give off energy. Life is merely a phenomenon that allows matter to refuel itself and operate as a dynamic system. All you really need to prove by this theory is that electricity exists, that radiation exists, and that objects have energy within their structures. I don't find any of these requisites a scientific stretch.
(2) Who or what initated the big bang? How is it that the earth was designed for the human make-up?
See #11 for the both. But, at present, we might say that the earth occurred and that life figured out the rest. It is not necessary to presume that the earth was "designed" for human population. That such a result occurred is predictable if we accept a Universe of infinite space or infinite expansion potential. I don't recall hearing any new studies suggesting retraction or closure in the Universe.
(3) I hear that atheist base their belief on science, however has science disproved or proved the existence of God?
Science has not disproved or proven the existence of God directly. However, in examination of the attributes of God, most are found to be scientifically untenable. Specifically, the atheistic conclusion that there is no God is based in a certain limited objectivity. Objectivity, however, changes dynamically based on the acquisition of knowledge.
(4) As far as space travel goes we can't even get out of our own solar system so why dismiss the existence of God or any other life form?
As far as the Bible goes, God hasn't shown his face in two-thousand years, so why believe in what you can't seee?
However, I would say that rejection stems from an examination of objective realities according to subjective priorities of immediate relevance. Personally, I find atheism wrongly focused on the most childish aspects of religions. But then again, these stupid aspects of religions are often the ones made most important by the adherents. Take a look around at what happens when I discuss Christianity, and not vulgar Christian doctrine: I confuse everybody. Sure, there are deeper issues to consider, but nobody seems particularly enthusiastic about examining them. They'd rather feel good shouting "Is too!" and "Is not!"
Uh-huh! Nuh-uh. Uh-huh! Nuh-uh ...!
(5) Does anyone have any reculection on where they were before conception? And where the life giving force came from?
I have a couple but they're not reliable. In fact, having just watched a special on past-life regression (Mitch Pileggi In Search Of ...) I'm starting to realize that most past-life believers are merely falling victim to a psychological process that I seem to know. The same with believers in faith healing. (I listened to Bob Larsen talk about exorcisms last night on MSNBC; watching him and others work, I think I know exactly what they're after, and it's a matter of whether I can reproduce the factors contributing to the psychological phenomenon.)
6) Who or what would you say is the designer of this complex universe and all that is in it?
See #11.
Questions like this are part of what science is for.
(7) Did a human being create him or herself? If so why are women still getting pregnant?
Most likely, human beings were the result of specific accidental genetic mutations fostered by environmental demands. While the line between species is most likely not one single generation. Nature created humans.
(8)What does a atheist expect after death? To go back to?
Kind of like television inasmuch as I ever understood it. When you die, that's it. Lights out, and no more worries. However, atheists are prone to believe whatever they will. I know one who wants to spend eternity as a ghost playing baseball in his grandson's cornfield.
(9) Explain the mystery of conception?- reflective thinking
Conception as opposed to perception? I'll try that one on another day. Of late I'm only allowed a certain quota of words a day, anymore.
(10) Can the non-existence of God be proved scientifically?
Depends on how you look at it.
Nothing to see, nothing to observe, nothing to calculate. God is, technically, a scientific non-issue. Of various phenomena attributed to God, we can often prove a certain amount. Was it a deluge from heaven? No, it was a natural climatological and meteorological phenomenon. Was it the wrath of God in heaven? No, it was lightning in a dry forest.
So in that sense, the works of God can be examined and disproven of a sort.
But there's nothing for scientists to observe.
(11) Science is a on going study of the universe....why?
Well, it seems that science is a natural function of humanity. Even when you're a child, picking up a rock and saying to yourself, "What is this? What does it do?" is science of a sort. Because you will test that rock, record data of what happens from the tests, and then let those results affect your perception on later occasions.
In a more formal structure, science is merely the recording of that natural process.
We humans see something and we are compelled to determine its relevance to us; this is a natural function of the idea of "I". If there is a self, there is "other", and understanding that "other" has become integral to the perpetuity of life.
Otherwise, we'd just be rocks, or puddles of goo, or something else inanimate and thoughtless in the Universe.
Nor are humans born knowing everything. Were that so, there would be no diaper industry, no baby food industry, no public schools, no colleges, no churches ... ad nauseam.
Science is an ongoing investigation of the natural Universe. We look because it is a vital human process. We continue because we do not know everything.
Now pay attention, atheists and theists alike: Scientific inquiry is an unfinished process. Christian doctrine is a finished process. To wit:
• After the canonization of the Bible, what changes Christian principle, aside from whimsy?
• After the institution and recognition of the scientific process, what changes the scientific perspective?
Christian principles are old, dogmatic, and their dynamism comes only from the human tendency to redefine things anew for each generation. Nonetheless, new "data" has been rejected in the form of various "heresies", the arrival of Islam, and so forth. Christianity is two-thousand years old. What is left to learn? Just a few tricks of the tongue to make you feel better?
Scientific principles are constantly reborn and reassimilated. Nobody in their right mind expects science to remain fixed like a religion. It's one of the primary differences between religious faith and scientific integrity.
As such, I think much of the topic's inquiry could be revised to recognize the facts of its own eleventh question. And the failure of our atheists to move the discussion to that vein speaks volumes about their frame of reference and their chosen priorities in the world.
This topic is six pages long and still people are running around like children thinking they've learned something important. Get off the stick, shake away the doldrums and realize that there's no reason to let the inquiry limit the response; one can write inquiries designed to avoid responses.
Lady, in her topic posts, has asked questions that she can answer for herself in consideration of #11. Science is an on-going study of the Universe. Right. "On-going."
And I just don't see enough recognition of that point from either side of the aisle. A couple of people have hit on that point, but only in the roundabout way. That's why I find this topic so disgraceful.
They're very basic questions, some of which have direct answers and some of which do not. But we cannot pretend to have enough information to answer some of these questions, and I'm really quite disappointed at the amount of effort lent to such considerations. I had thought my fellow posters generally smarter than that.
Of course, I was holding that one out on faith, so chalk one up for atheistic cynicism.
thanx,
Tiassa
what are the evidence of God in the field of science that contradicts it? We are stating in scientific field, however, if we talk about biblical perspective nothing in such part contradicts as well.
Speaking about Xev, or Xelios (Im not sure which one) but one of them quoted how God is "Vengeance" and killed tons of innocent children, how can that be a loving God?
You kids are all confused and taking things out of context, indeed God said "Thou shalt not kill" in the book of Genesis, but you forgot He also said "Whoever blasphemes their parents shall be stoned to death", in other words "An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth", this is called "justice". In fact, when jews sinned (and because they always do) God asked them to offer their most costly possesion and dearest to their heart in atonement for their sins, at the time sheeps and cows were the most valuable possesion, and so they offer it and kill it and burn it to atone for their sins, for sins is an abomination in the sight of God, it is an act of disrespect. God gave help to the slaves, Jews, who were given no justice by their enemies, but have their house burned down, outnumbered, killed by others who worshiped other gods, thus God gave the jews permission to slaughter them for the sake of justice. However, this all changed when "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" came, His name was Jesus. God came down Himself, because he loved us dearly and realize that we will always disrespect Him, so He died for our sins. Now Jesus who takes away the sins of the world said "You heard in the old it was written ' an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say "If a man strikes you on your right cheek, offer your left cheek as well", Jesus now took away the sins of the world, therefore noone should now kill each other because of their beliefs or moral values or ethnicity.
Today, indeed death penalty is wrong, but again there will always be certain circumstances. For example, stealing is a sin right? my friends stereo was stolen, then the theif placed that same stereo in front of his house for sale, I passed by it and realized that it was my friends, that night i sneaked in and stole the stereo and returned it to my friends, such act of stealing is justified.
Same for death penalty, it is wrong under any circumstances because we have no right to judge and jesus already took the sin away from us, it is written in the book of James "There is only One judge who can build and destroy", God alone.. The church teaches death penalty is wrong, however, the church also teaches under circumstances, for example, if there was a man strapped with bombs and is about to run in kindergarten school and blow himself up in attempt to kill the innocent children in the room, the police have the right to shoot to kill the man before he makes it to the room filled with kids. The point is to protect and serve the innocent, "if for the good of society" as it is written by the Pope, if the moral values are at stake, then death penalty will be necessary.
Again this is where it comes down to, where is this wise judgment from? It is from Jesus Himself, handed to the apostles with st. Peter as the head, and Peter inturn founded the "universal" church for gentiles and jews, first founded in Rome, Italy, now known as "Roman Catholic (latin for universal) church.
Yes, the pope sins, yes so does the bishops, in fact u see the news, some stupid people who have the outfit of bishops are protecting the child molesters, yes, in fact we all make mistakes, atheist, protestants, christians, buddhist, mongolians, blacks, whites, etc.. But then again, this has nothing to do with doctrines and scriptures. HUMAN ERRORS AND MISTAKES DOESNT MEAN GOD CONTRADICTS HIMSELF, ok children.
note: Im a catechist teacher, Im the perfect guy to ask concerning any biblical confusion your having.
*wild applause*
Bravo! Magnificant!
I've been lurking in this thread for a while and haven't had the stomach to wade in; thank you THANK YOU for doing what I could not.
In fact you did it far better than I could ever have... it was succinct and simple to the point that even muscleman could understand it! I salute you heartily.
Lady
(1) Logically explain the origin's of human& animal evolution?
There is a small problem with the question. Humans ARE animals
as much as cats and dogs are. Now keep in mind evolution is
a theory. There is lots of evidence to support it at the macro
level (and even a little to contradict it at the macro level). Micro
evolution (small changes due to environmental pressures) has
been successfully reproduced in a controlled lab environment FYI.
Now on to the good stuff (in a simplified fashion). There are a
variety of chemicals that (when combined at certain
temperatures) produce Amino acids. These amino acids have
a natural tendency to clump with each other. This part has been
reproduced in a lab environment FYI. Any complex sequence of
chemicals can literally translate into a sequence of physical
actions... consider them biological programs if you will. Now
consider (when the world was in it's infancy) that over a long
period of time one or more 'programs' arose that can reproduce. Each offspring of course would contain a slightly different
program. Those programs that could meet or exceed the
demands of their environment would continue reproducing and
those that could not would die off. Now, continue this same
process over a huge period of time in environments that are
constantly changing and you are left with the life forms (chemical
programs) that you see on earth today (humans included of
course).
** You explain the mechanics of this complex process great,however, how is is that sex interrupts a seemly productive process?
It doesn't? It just a part of the current process for some of
the species on earth. Declaring something as being 'productive'
is a human-made opinion and really does not apply here.
*** If we just evolved from nowhere sex isn't neccesary.
Nowhere? Proto-earth? Amino acids?... that does not seem like
nowhere to me. You declaring sex as being 'unnecessary' is your
opinion (not a fact). You are consequently aware of the 'fact' that
not all life on Earth reproduce by having sex right? Some life
forms are 'A-Sexual'... meaning they reproduce without having
sex with one another.
4) As far as space travel goes we can't even get out of our own solar system so why dismiss the existence of God or any other life form?
I am not making the claim that there is a God. You (and others)
are, so prove it to me (your responsibility as the claimer). Alien
life forms could be a possibility. Given enough time in the correct
environment Amino Acids may form reproducing 'programs' in
other non-Earth environments. Once again, just logic at work. In
fact Amino Acids may not be the only building blocks for adaptive
reproducing 'programs'. There may be others that we simply don't
know about. Currently people are constantly testing the
hypothesis that extra-terrestrial life exists by simply looking for it.
To my knowledge there has been no success in this area, but
people are still trying. I have not, on the other hand, seen too
many people who are trying to prove that there is a god.
** See paranormal photo (paranormal thread)
Sorry, I didn't find it using the search abilities of this forum (but
its possible that I mis-used it some how) . Would you post a link
and set my expectations as to its relevance?
*** Pseudoscience/paranormal photo/ Lady( extra-terrestrial)
I'll take a look at it, but I really wish you told me 'why' I am
looking at it.
** As far as wanting to know God........well I would suggest you pray( you have nothing to lose)
I believe it was Christ who said something to the tune of 'if
you want to find me then simply put... get rid of all your selfish
behavior'. I can accept this pre-requisite and I have done it (for
most of my life actually). Still, no response. I think before I could
get to know 'God'... I have to see proof of his existance... and
so far no proof.
*** Pray.
I mentioned this before my response to another one of your items... been there done that. Should I spend my whole life
praying and believing all the while not knowing if there is a such
thing as 'God'? I expect you to say 'yes' here of course. Don't
dissappoint me.
(7a) Did a human being create him or herself?
We can probably do it through cloning nowadays; otherwise,
it's a process of natural selection that account for the current
state of our species.
** Even Frankenstein needed electricity.
A hollywood creation? I don't see the relevance.
*** We can do the mechanic's but can't give it life.
Wait... we CANNOT 'do' the mechanics. Even in cloning. We're not
creating skin/bone/bile/etc.... We're just taking advantage of
existing mechanics. In the case of a 'Frankenstein'... if we took a bunch of dead body parts, sewed them together, and applied a
lightning bolt to it then we would have ourselves a very well
cooked custom corpse.
I seem to note that you maintain a distinction between
mechanics and a 'life force'. Couldn't it be the case that the
mechanics are really responsible for human sentience instead of
a 'life force'? After all, I could hypothetically stick electrodes in
your brain and make you feel pleasure, pain, and a wide variety
of emotions by applying electricity to various parts of your brain.
I could also scramble your thought process, memory, and
perceptions. All of this by simply toying with existing mechanics.
(8a) What does a atheist expect after death?
I have no expectations. I have desires (like everyone else),
but no expectations.
** What are your desires?
I'd like to be with my wife.
*** Nice
I suspect most people have desires (athiest or not).
(11) Science is a on going study of the universe....why?
Here are just a few reasons off the top of my head:
A) Curiosity.
B) Necessity (pennacillin for example).
C) Makes life easier and more fun.
D) Makes it easier to kill your enemies.
E) Making discoveries is very satisfying.
** Discoveries of someone or somethings works
ooookaaaaaay...
*** Discoveries of Gods works(specific)
Thats your opinion of what science is. It does not prove that
'God' exists.
** Most people believe in God because he has proven himself to exist to the individual not just because someone told them he exist.
I have had an open and genuine invitation to 'God' to join me at
Starbucks for a Frapaccino. It's been open for years now... and
he still has stood me up. So, for someone whom he has not
proven himself to... what are they to do... just accept without
proof because someone says he exists?
*** God is omnipresent.
** A genuine desire to make contact with God is honorable . I would suggest you start through prayer and read the works of a man by the name of William Marrion Branham, whom I believe to be the Prophet of our age, deceased now, His literature is inexpesive and available (Branham.org) You will never in your life hear a man speak like this, but then again it's not the man but the spirit within.
Prayer? Been there done that. Nothing ever came of it. Set my
expectations on William Branham. Why would I want to read his
book? Does he have conclusive empirical evidence that God
exists?
*** You'll never be the same.
I am not the same as I was last year... yet William was not part
of the change. Once again, why whould I read this book?
**Please feel free to state your thoughts on why people should accept atheism.
Nobody should accept something they don't want to. I can tell
you that my 'absence of belief' has freed my mind and I am
very happy with this state.
** To me that state sounds like bondage. Say the Christian Bible is true and there is a heaven & hell....what would it hurt to pray for salvation just in case? Most non-believers start the what if on the death bed.
Bondage eh? I can predict explicitly when you will be furtile during
the month using nothing but your saliva and a cheap microscope.
Thats cheap and accurate birth control. I can force your 'time
of the month' to occur at another date using nothing but your
sense of smell... and the list goes on. I can do these things
because I don't have 'belief' (aka: acceptance without proof),
interfering with my thought process.
*** Happy with presence state....perhaps invitation to God isn't genuine.(fickle)
Thats the same thing as saying as someone who is happy with
his/her cognitive abilities is incapable of being genuine. Thats
just poor logic. My invitation to 'God' is genuine. If I prayed to
'God' just to avoid heaven or hell but didn't know he existed
then THAT would NOT be genuine (fickle).
On a sidenote, I find it very interesting that you bring up
Evolution, the Big Bang, and various aspects of general science.
Don't you think it's possible for these things to be TRUE AND
for God to exist? I see the concept of God as a mutually exclusive
against the other concepts.
** Some people don't realize it but science only proves God.
So, then show me the proof! Scientifically even.
*** Doctors aren't healers(W.M.B)
I never claimed that a doctor was a 'healer'... but do you believe
that If a doctor injects you with bacteria to kill the Scarlet Fever
thats killing you then thats a proof of 'God'? That seems more like
a proof that the pennacillen can kill the Scarlet Fever bacterium.
If you cut your finger and your cells respond (according to their
chemical programming) by clotting the blood and growing new
skin then you consider that proof of 'God'? That's chemistry.
On a sidenote, sorry if I sounded coarse in any of my responses.
I lost my first reponse by accidentally hitting the 'ESC' key and
that was quite irritating. I have no doubt that some of the readers
of this post will 'believe' that my hitting the 'ESC' key was an act
of 'God' rather than me making an error.
Anyhow, as it stands this entire thread is getting nowhere. No
matter what the 'Athiests' say, the 'Christians' will think its stupid
and illogical. No matter what the 'Christians' say, the 'Athiests'
will think its stupid and illlogical. The end result a very unfriendly
environment.
I am going to make an attempt to have everyone understand
each other a little better so that we can be 'open' to each others
arguments. The risk to either party is confronting the truth.
TO ATHIESTS: Alot of Christians have had profound positive
experiences localized to their own perceptions that they consider
proof of 'God'. I have recently performed interviews of 4 such
people. The professions of these people are Pastor, Colleage
Administrator, Biotech Engineer, and Business owner. All
of these people are in my opinion very intelligent, logical, and
truthful. I performed these interviews for my own personal
knowledge... not for any special thesis/study. The results are
as follows... in each case 'God' communicated with these people
by any combination of the following methods:
* Planting very clear thoughts into the recepients mind.
* Planting awe inspiring images into the recepients mind.
* Planting very clear sounds into the recepients mind.
* Planting very powerful sensations into the recepient.
* Planting very powperful emotions into the recepient.
The commonality of these cases was that these experiences
were not part of these peoples thought processes, they occured
when they were awake, and they were simply 'forced' upon
them. This would answer the ol' question of why 'God' does not
use typical human-oriented communnication. The answer being
because he/she/it has a better way.
Now, if you were to have powerful experiences like my
interviewees (especially if it was on a regular basis), doesn't
the idea of someone not believing in the existance of 'God' sound
ludicrous?
Now also consider that at least 60% (a number based on
personal experience) of your fellow Athiests are stupid. They go
off on tangents and say things like 'we evolved from Monkeys'
(which clearly is complete BS in the context of evolution theory)
and try to pass it off as a proof that there is no 'God' (a logical
pitfall... you can't disprove something). I would like to see the
40% remainder the ones who represent us within this thread.
Also, the people whom you are discussing 'God' with may not
have the same scientific/engineering/etc... background that you
do and because of this you need to educate them from time
to time on matters of fact. Be patient and understanding.
TO CHRISTIANS: Athiests have had no experiences (positive
or negative... personal or external) with 'God' (or anything
paranormal). Many of us have actually come from religious
upbringing (we've prayed, worshipped, etc.) and absolutely
nothing ever came of it. We also tend to have
scientific/engineering backgrounds, which attributes to a deeper
sense of logic and a greater exposure to sciences. In our
professional lives, we tend to excel in careers that allow us to
create and discover in a scientific/engineering context.
Athiests have made a choice. We choose not to live our lives
blindly 'believing'. Instead we remove the concept of 'belief' from
our lives. The result of this choice is a double-edged sword.
On the positive side, we don't have what we would consider to
be hinderance to our thought/logic process. We thusly tend to
observe things and derive factual relationships that thought
processes influenced with 'belief' tend not to. On the negative
side (and I am speaking in terms of living in the U.S.), we are not
the majority and sometimes will be the targets of anger, hate,
and violence especially when becoming an Athiest from an
environemnt of deeply and blindly religous people.
In the 'TO ATHIESTS' section I discussed my 4 Christian subjects
who claim to have communicated with 'God'. There was another
commonality between them that I had not mentioned but I feel
is very important to mention here. All 4 of them indpendently
asserted that approximate 90% of all Christians they know are
morons who blindly believe in 'God'. If this is accurate then I
would like the 10% represent Christians in this thread.
TO BOTH ATHIESTS AND CHRISTIANS:
Our goal in this thread could be to discover fact (truth). Rather
than debating who is 'right' and who is 'wrong', lets talk about
the experiences the Christians have had with 'God'. Lets see
what type of patterns and commonalities we can find between
them. Lets also talk about what experiences the Athiests have
had in the absence of belief? What are the positives? What
are the negatives? We can also discuss interesting factual data
that stands at the midpoint of Athiesm and Christianity. The
Septuagent for example. It's a document that predicited the birth
of Jesus Christ some 300-400 years before he was born... and
carbon dating of the documents paper proved this. What are
peoples thoughts on this? Are there anything else that raises
the hypothesis of paranomral events? If so, what are they?
How do they all relate?
I hope some truth comes of this.
-CC
(1) Logically explain the origin's of human& animal evolution?
There is a small problem with the question. Humans ARE animals
as much as cats and dogs are. Now keep in mind evolution is
a theory. There is lots of evidence to support it at the macro
level (and even a little to contradict it at the macro level). Micro
evolution (small changes due to environmental pressures) has
been successfully reproduced in a controlled lab environment FYI.
Now on to the good stuff (in a simplified fashion). There are a
variety of chemicals that (when combined at certain
temperatures) produce Amino acids. These amino acids have
a natural tendency to clump with each other. This part has been
reproduced in a lab environment FYI. Any complex sequence of
chemicals can literally translate into a sequence of physical
actions... consider them biological programs if you will. Now
consider (when the world was in it's infancy) that over a long
period of time one or more 'programs' arose that can reproduce. Each offspring of course would contain a slightly different
program. Those programs that could meet or exceed the
demands of their environment would continue reproducing and
those that could not would die off. Now, continue this same
process over a huge period of time in environments that are
constantly changing and you are left with the life forms (chemical
programs) that you see on earth today (humans included of
course).
** You explain the mechanics of this complex process great,however, how is is that sex interrupts a seemly productive process?
It doesn't? It just a part of the current process for some of
the species on earth. Declaring something as being 'productive'
is a human-made opinion and really does not apply here.
*** If we just evolved from nowhere sex isn't neccesary.
Nowhere? Proto-earth? Amino acids?... that does not seem like
nowhere to me. You declaring sex as being 'unnecessary' is your
opinion (not a fact). You are consequently aware of the 'fact' that
not all life on Earth reproduce by having sex right? Some life
forms are 'A-Sexual'... meaning they reproduce without having
sex with one another.
4) As far as space travel goes we can't even get out of our own solar system so why dismiss the existence of God or any other life form?
I am not making the claim that there is a God. You (and others)
are, so prove it to me (your responsibility as the claimer). Alien
life forms could be a possibility. Given enough time in the correct
environment Amino Acids may form reproducing 'programs' in
other non-Earth environments. Once again, just logic at work. In
fact Amino Acids may not be the only building blocks for adaptive
reproducing 'programs'. There may be others that we simply don't
know about. Currently people are constantly testing the
hypothesis that extra-terrestrial life exists by simply looking for it.
To my knowledge there has been no success in this area, but
people are still trying. I have not, on the other hand, seen too
many people who are trying to prove that there is a god.
** See paranormal photo (paranormal thread)
Sorry, I didn't find it using the search abilities of this forum (but
its possible that I mis-used it some how) . Would you post a link
and set my expectations as to its relevance?
*** Pseudoscience/paranormal photo/ Lady( extra-terrestrial)
I'll take a look at it, but I really wish you told me 'why' I am
looking at it.
** As far as wanting to know God........well I would suggest you pray( you have nothing to lose)
I believe it was Christ who said something to the tune of 'if
you want to find me then simply put... get rid of all your selfish
behavior'. I can accept this pre-requisite and I have done it (for
most of my life actually). Still, no response. I think before I could
get to know 'God'... I have to see proof of his existance... and
so far no proof.
*** Pray.
I mentioned this before my response to another one of your items... been there done that. Should I spend my whole life
praying and believing all the while not knowing if there is a such
thing as 'God'? I expect you to say 'yes' here of course. Don't
dissappoint me.
(7a) Did a human being create him or herself?
We can probably do it through cloning nowadays; otherwise,
it's a process of natural selection that account for the current
state of our species.
** Even Frankenstein needed electricity.
A hollywood creation? I don't see the relevance.
*** We can do the mechanic's but can't give it life.
Wait... we CANNOT 'do' the mechanics. Even in cloning. We're not
creating skin/bone/bile/etc.... We're just taking advantage of
existing mechanics. In the case of a 'Frankenstein'... if we took a bunch of dead body parts, sewed them together, and applied a
lightning bolt to it then we would have ourselves a very well
cooked custom corpse.
I seem to note that you maintain a distinction between
mechanics and a 'life force'. Couldn't it be the case that the
mechanics are really responsible for human sentience instead of
a 'life force'? After all, I could hypothetically stick electrodes in
your brain and make you feel pleasure, pain, and a wide variety
of emotions by applying electricity to various parts of your brain.
I could also scramble your thought process, memory, and
perceptions. All of this by simply toying with existing mechanics.
(8a) What does a atheist expect after death?
I have no expectations. I have desires (like everyone else),
but no expectations.
** What are your desires?
I'd like to be with my wife.
*** Nice
I suspect most people have desires (athiest or not).
(11) Science is a on going study of the universe....why?
Here are just a few reasons off the top of my head:
A) Curiosity.
B) Necessity (pennacillin for example).
C) Makes life easier and more fun.
D) Makes it easier to kill your enemies.
E) Making discoveries is very satisfying.
** Discoveries of someone or somethings works
ooookaaaaaay...
*** Discoveries of Gods works(specific)
Thats your opinion of what science is. It does not prove that
'God' exists.
** Most people believe in God because he has proven himself to exist to the individual not just because someone told them he exist.
I have had an open and genuine invitation to 'God' to join me at
Starbucks for a Frapaccino. It's been open for years now... and
he still has stood me up. So, for someone whom he has not
proven himself to... what are they to do... just accept without
proof because someone says he exists?
*** God is omnipresent.
** A genuine desire to make contact with God is honorable . I would suggest you start through prayer and read the works of a man by the name of William Marrion Branham, whom I believe to be the Prophet of our age, deceased now, His literature is inexpesive and available (Branham.org) You will never in your life hear a man speak like this, but then again it's not the man but the spirit within.
Prayer? Been there done that. Nothing ever came of it. Set my
expectations on William Branham. Why would I want to read his
book? Does he have conclusive empirical evidence that God
exists?
*** You'll never be the same.
I am not the same as I was last year... yet William was not part
of the change. Once again, why whould I read this book?
**Please feel free to state your thoughts on why people should accept atheism.
Nobody should accept something they don't want to. I can tell
you that my 'absence of belief' has freed my mind and I am
very happy with this state.
** To me that state sounds like bondage. Say the Christian Bible is true and there is a heaven & hell....what would it hurt to pray for salvation just in case? Most non-believers start the what if on the death bed.
Bondage eh? I can predict explicitly when you will be furtile during
the month using nothing but your saliva and a cheap microscope.
Thats cheap and accurate birth control. I can force your 'time
of the month' to occur at another date using nothing but your
sense of smell... and the list goes on. I can do these things
because I don't have 'belief' (aka: acceptance without proof),
interfering with my thought process.
*** Happy with presence state....perhaps invitation to God isn't genuine.(fickle)
Thats the same thing as saying as someone who is happy with
his/her cognitive abilities is incapable of being genuine. Thats
just poor logic. My invitation to 'God' is genuine. If I prayed to
'God' just to avoid heaven or hell but didn't know he existed
then THAT would NOT be genuine (fickle).
On a sidenote, I find it very interesting that you bring up
Evolution, the Big Bang, and various aspects of general science.
Don't you think it's possible for these things to be TRUE AND
for God to exist? I see the concept of God as a mutually exclusive
against the other concepts.
** Some people don't realize it but science only proves God.
So, then show me the proof! Scientifically even.
*** Doctors aren't healers(W.M.B)
I never claimed that a doctor was a 'healer'... but do you believe
that If a doctor injects you with bacteria to kill the Scarlet Fever
thats killing you then thats a proof of 'God'? That seems more like
a proof that the pennacillen can kill the Scarlet Fever bacterium.
If you cut your finger and your cells respond (according to their
chemical programming) by clotting the blood and growing new
skin then you consider that proof of 'God'? That's chemistry.
On a sidenote, sorry if I sounded coarse in any of my responses.
I lost my first reponse by accidentally hitting the 'ESC' key and
that was quite irritating. I have no doubt that some of the readers
of this post will 'believe' that my hitting the 'ESC' key was an act
of 'God' rather than me making an error.
Anyhow, as it stands this entire thread is getting nowhere. No
matter what the 'Athiests' say, the 'Christians' will think its stupid
and illogical. No matter what the 'Christians' say, the 'Athiests'
will think its stupid and illlogical. The end result a very unfriendly
environment.
I am going to make an attempt to have everyone understand
each other a little better so that we can be 'open' to each others
arguments. The risk to either party is confronting the truth.
TO ATHIESTS: Alot of Christians have had profound positive
experiences localized to their own perceptions that they consider
proof of 'God'. I have recently performed interviews of 4 such
people. The professions of these people are Pastor, Colleage
Administrator, Biotech Engineer, and Business owner. All
of these people are in my opinion very intelligent, logical, and
truthful. I performed these interviews for my own personal
knowledge... not for any special thesis/study. The results are
as follows... in each case 'God' communicated with these people
by any combination of the following methods:
* Planting very clear thoughts into the recepients mind.
* Planting awe inspiring images into the recepients mind.
* Planting very clear sounds into the recepients mind.
* Planting very powerful sensations into the recepient.
* Planting very powperful emotions into the recepient.
The commonality of these cases was that these experiences
were not part of these peoples thought processes, they occured
when they were awake, and they were simply 'forced' upon
them. This would answer the ol' question of why 'God' does not
use typical human-oriented communnication. The answer being
because he/she/it has a better way.
Now, if you were to have powerful experiences like my
interviewees (especially if it was on a regular basis), doesn't
the idea of someone not believing in the existance of 'God' sound
ludicrous?
Now also consider that at least 60% (a number based on
personal experience) of your fellow Athiests are stupid. They go
off on tangents and say things like 'we evolved from Monkeys'
(which clearly is complete BS in the context of evolution theory)
and try to pass it off as a proof that there is no 'God' (a logical
pitfall... you can't disprove something). I would like to see the
40% remainder the ones who represent us within this thread.
Also, the people whom you are discussing 'God' with may not
have the same scientific/engineering/etc... background that you
do and because of this you need to educate them from time
to time on matters of fact. Be patient and understanding.
TO CHRISTIANS: Athiests have had no experiences (positive
or negative... personal or external) with 'God' (or anything
paranormal). Many of us have actually come from religious
upbringing (we've prayed, worshipped, etc.) and absolutely
nothing ever came of it. We also tend to have
scientific/engineering backgrounds, which attributes to a deeper
sense of logic and a greater exposure to sciences. In our
professional lives, we tend to excel in careers that allow us to
create and discover in a scientific/engineering context.
Athiests have made a choice. We choose not to live our lives
blindly 'believing'. Instead we remove the concept of 'belief' from
our lives. The result of this choice is a double-edged sword.
On the positive side, we don't have what we would consider to
be hinderance to our thought/logic process. We thusly tend to
observe things and derive factual relationships that thought
processes influenced with 'belief' tend not to. On the negative
side (and I am speaking in terms of living in the U.S.), we are not
the majority and sometimes will be the targets of anger, hate,
and violence especially when becoming an Athiest from an
environemnt of deeply and blindly religous people.
In the 'TO ATHIESTS' section I discussed my 4 Christian subjects
who claim to have communicated with 'God'. There was another
commonality between them that I had not mentioned but I feel
is very important to mention here. All 4 of them indpendently
asserted that approximate 90% of all Christians they know are
morons who blindly believe in 'God'. If this is accurate then I
would like the 10% represent Christians in this thread.
TO BOTH ATHIESTS AND CHRISTIANS:
Our goal in this thread could be to discover fact (truth). Rather
than debating who is 'right' and who is 'wrong', lets talk about
the experiences the Christians have had with 'God'. Lets see
what type of patterns and commonalities we can find between
them. Lets also talk about what experiences the Athiests have
had in the absence of belief? What are the positives? What
are the negatives? We can also discuss interesting factual data
that stands at the midpoint of Athiesm and Christianity. The
Septuagent for example. It's a document that predicited the birth
of Jesus Christ some 300-400 years before he was born... and
carbon dating of the documents paper proved this. What are
peoples thoughts on this? Are there anything else that raises
the hypothesis of paranomral events? If so, what are they?
How do they all relate?
I hope some truth comes of this.
-CC
*********Now on to the good stuff (in a simplified fashion). There are a
variety of chemicals that (when combined at certain
temperatures) produce Amino acids. These amino acids have
a natural tendency to clump with each other. This part has been
reproduced in a lab environment FYI. Any complex sequence of
chemicals can literally translate into a sequence of physical
actions... consider them biological programs if you will. Now
consider (when the world was in it's infancy) that over a long
period of time one or more 'programs' arose that can reproduce. Each offspring of course would contain a slightly different
program. Those programs that could meet or exceed the
demands of their environment would continue reproducing and
those that could not would die off. Now, continue this same
process over a huge period of time in environments that are
constantly changing and you are left with the life forms (chemical
programs) that you see on earth today (humans included of
course).*******- By Crunchy Cat.
As a christian and open in a field of scientific facts, I donot doubt reality and truths, but if there are really truths to the claim above, that indeed life forms evolved from natural means without a cause of intelligent designer (even though the word "natural means" is questionable and may well be questioned to what designed it), then please be my guest and DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH BEHIND SUCH CLAIM. It is so easy to make claims, but it is not easy to make a claim with evidence. It is so easy to say "Amino acids clump together, then mysteriously became mitchondria and came to life by magic, etc." Well your claims indeed are accessible, lightnings, amino acids, etc. SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? FEEL FREE TO DEMONSTRATE IT IF YOU CAN AND PROVE US CHRISTIANS WRONG ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Take the existence of a car for example, I can simply say it is possible that series of earthquake and lightning strikes can create a car, why and how? Well lightning can melt rocks and may turn it into metals, in fact volcanoe lava's can also melt any car parts, maybe then the tornado and hurricane will carry its parts and earthquake will shape the car seats, then series of lightning will create a stereo. But then you will say "Thats impossible because a car is too complex for that", well so is life form. Got it?
***** Athiests have had no experiences (positive
or negative... personal or external) with 'God' (or anything
paranormal). Many of us have actually come from religious
upbringing (we've prayed, worshipped, etc.) and absolutely
nothing ever came of it. We also tend to have
scientific/engineering backgrounds, which attributes to a deeper
sense of logic and a greater exposure to sciences. In our
professional lives, we tend to excel in careers that allow us to
create and discover in a scientific/engineering context.******- By Crunchy Cat.
I also dont understand why we as a christian cannot use numbers and authority as an argument meanwhile atheist will say "We are successfull in science, etc." what does that have to do with God being a myth? On top of that thats not even true, speaking about success, the most successfull people, from Donald Trumph, to Bill Gates, to the best athletes, to Presidents, to world leaders are believers of God. And Crunchy I do notice that there are christians who live a blind faith, however, so does the atheist for walking a path of PURE BELIEF and by admittance cannot prove God is a myth. Maybe agnostic is more logical for atleast they admitted they donot know, meanwhile as a true christian (not blind christian) we are solid on our belief and do claim there is God and is ready to defend it, and I am one of them, we can use science, or we can use philosophy, bring it on.
I also dont understand why many will say "Atheism is non-belief" when the fact is it is true-belief, atheism isnt proof, its another belief; it requires far more faith to be an atheist than to be a christian for christianity is environmental reality. Atheism DOES MAKE A CLAIM, a claim that GOD IS A MYTH AND A DELUSION, but such claim HAVE NO PROOF, and the burden of proof is on your claim CONSIDERING CHRISTIANS OUTNUMBERED YOU BY BILLIONS, but then that doesnt mean all christians are good people.
variety of chemicals that (when combined at certain
temperatures) produce Amino acids. These amino acids have
a natural tendency to clump with each other. This part has been
reproduced in a lab environment FYI. Any complex sequence of
chemicals can literally translate into a sequence of physical
actions... consider them biological programs if you will. Now
consider (when the world was in it's infancy) that over a long
period of time one or more 'programs' arose that can reproduce. Each offspring of course would contain a slightly different
program. Those programs that could meet or exceed the
demands of their environment would continue reproducing and
those that could not would die off. Now, continue this same
process over a huge period of time in environments that are
constantly changing and you are left with the life forms (chemical
programs) that you see on earth today (humans included of
course).*******- By Crunchy Cat.
As a christian and open in a field of scientific facts, I donot doubt reality and truths, but if there are really truths to the claim above, that indeed life forms evolved from natural means without a cause of intelligent designer (even though the word "natural means" is questionable and may well be questioned to what designed it), then please be my guest and DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH BEHIND SUCH CLAIM. It is so easy to make claims, but it is not easy to make a claim with evidence. It is so easy to say "Amino acids clump together, then mysteriously became mitchondria and came to life by magic, etc." Well your claims indeed are accessible, lightnings, amino acids, etc. SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? FEEL FREE TO DEMONSTRATE IT IF YOU CAN AND PROVE US CHRISTIANS WRONG ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Take the existence of a car for example, I can simply say it is possible that series of earthquake and lightning strikes can create a car, why and how? Well lightning can melt rocks and may turn it into metals, in fact volcanoe lava's can also melt any car parts, maybe then the tornado and hurricane will carry its parts and earthquake will shape the car seats, then series of lightning will create a stereo. But then you will say "Thats impossible because a car is too complex for that", well so is life form. Got it?
***** Athiests have had no experiences (positive
or negative... personal or external) with 'God' (or anything
paranormal). Many of us have actually come from religious
upbringing (we've prayed, worshipped, etc.) and absolutely
nothing ever came of it. We also tend to have
scientific/engineering backgrounds, which attributes to a deeper
sense of logic and a greater exposure to sciences. In our
professional lives, we tend to excel in careers that allow us to
create and discover in a scientific/engineering context.******- By Crunchy Cat.
I also dont understand why we as a christian cannot use numbers and authority as an argument meanwhile atheist will say "We are successfull in science, etc." what does that have to do with God being a myth? On top of that thats not even true, speaking about success, the most successfull people, from Donald Trumph, to Bill Gates, to the best athletes, to Presidents, to world leaders are believers of God. And Crunchy I do notice that there are christians who live a blind faith, however, so does the atheist for walking a path of PURE BELIEF and by admittance cannot prove God is a myth. Maybe agnostic is more logical for atleast they admitted they donot know, meanwhile as a true christian (not blind christian) we are solid on our belief and do claim there is God and is ready to defend it, and I am one of them, we can use science, or we can use philosophy, bring it on.
I also dont understand why many will say "Atheism is non-belief" when the fact is it is true-belief, atheism isnt proof, its another belief; it requires far more faith to be an atheist than to be a christian for christianity is environmental reality. Atheism DOES MAKE A CLAIM, a claim that GOD IS A MYTH AND A DELUSION, but such claim HAVE NO PROOF, and the burden of proof is on your claim CONSIDERING CHRISTIANS OUTNUMBERED YOU BY BILLIONS, but then that doesnt mean all christians are good people.
Lady I saw your picture...
4) As far as space travel goes we can't even get out of our own solar system so why dismiss the existence of God or any other life form?
I am not making the claim that there is a God. You (and others)
are, so prove it to me (your responsibility as the claimer). Alien
life forms could be a possibility. Given enough time in the correct
environment Amino Acids may form reproducing 'programs' in
other non-Earth environments. Once again, just logic at work. In
fact Amino Acids may not be the only building blocks for adaptive
reproducing 'programs'. There may be others that we simply don't
know about. Currently people are constantly testing the
hypothesis that extra-terrestrial life exists by simply looking for it.
To my knowledge there has been no success in this area, but
people are still trying. I have not, on the other hand, seen too
many people who are trying to prove that there is a god.
** See paranormal photo (paranormal thread)
Sorry, I didn't find it using the search abilities of this forum (but
its possible that I mis-used it some how) . Would you post a link
and set my expectations as to its relevance?
*** Pseudoscience/paranormal photo/ Lady( extra-terrestrial)
I'll take a look at it, but I really wish you told me 'why' I am
looking at it.
I just saw your photo. It looks like a magnified pollen spore.
I applied your picture to several types of filters and saw little
ball like protrusions AND long tubes. Because of this I strongly
hypothesize that this is a glorified Germinating pollen
(Sauromatum guttatum). You can see a picture of this type of
pollen at:
http://www.denniskunkel.com/PublicH...1=Pollen&Keyword2=&Keyword3=&EduSearch=Search
Anyhow, I am still not sure why you wanted me to see that
thanks for showing it to me anyway
4) As far as space travel goes we can't even get out of our own solar system so why dismiss the existence of God or any other life form?
I am not making the claim that there is a God. You (and others)
are, so prove it to me (your responsibility as the claimer). Alien
life forms could be a possibility. Given enough time in the correct
environment Amino Acids may form reproducing 'programs' in
other non-Earth environments. Once again, just logic at work. In
fact Amino Acids may not be the only building blocks for adaptive
reproducing 'programs'. There may be others that we simply don't
know about. Currently people are constantly testing the
hypothesis that extra-terrestrial life exists by simply looking for it.
To my knowledge there has been no success in this area, but
people are still trying. I have not, on the other hand, seen too
many people who are trying to prove that there is a god.
** See paranormal photo (paranormal thread)
Sorry, I didn't find it using the search abilities of this forum (but
its possible that I mis-used it some how) . Would you post a link
and set my expectations as to its relevance?
*** Pseudoscience/paranormal photo/ Lady( extra-terrestrial)
I'll take a look at it, but I really wish you told me 'why' I am
looking at it.
I just saw your photo. It looks like a magnified pollen spore.
I applied your picture to several types of filters and saw little
ball like protrusions AND long tubes. Because of this I strongly
hypothesize that this is a glorified Germinating pollen
(Sauromatum guttatum). You can see a picture of this type of
pollen at:
http://www.denniskunkel.com/PublicH...1=Pollen&Keyword2=&Keyword3=&EduSearch=Search
Anyhow, I am still not sure why you wanted me to see that
thanks for showing it to me anyway
muscleman
*********Now on to the good stuff (in a simplified fashion). There are a
variety of chemicals that (when combined at certain
temperatures) produce Amino acids. These amino acids have
a natural tendency to clump with each other. This part has been
reproduced in a lab environment FYI. Any complex sequence of
chemicals can literally translate into a sequence of physical
actions... consider them biological programs if you will. Now
consider (when the world was in it's infancy) that over a long
period of time one or more 'programs' arose that can reproduce. Each offspring of course would contain a slightly different
program. Those programs that could meet or exceed the
demands of their environment would continue reproducing and
those that could not would die off. Now, continue this same
process over a huge period of time in environments that are
constantly changing and you are left with the life forms (chemical
programs) that you see on earth today (humans included of
course).*******- By Crunchy Cat.
***** As a christian and open in a field of scientific facts, I donot doubt reality and truths, but if there are really truths to the claim above, that indeed life forms evolved from natural means without a cause of intelligent designer (even though the word "natural means" is questionable and may well be questioned to what designed it), then please be my guest and DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH BEHIND SUCH CLAIM. It is so easy to make claims, but it is not easy to make a claim with evidence. It is so easy to say "Amino acids clump together, then mysteriously became mitchondria and came to life by magic, etc." Well your claims indeed are accessible, lightnings, amino acids, etc. SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? FEEL FREE TO DEMONSTRATE IT IF YOU CAN AND PROVE US CHRISTIANS WRONG ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Take the existence of a car for example, I can simply say it is possible that series of earthquake and lightning strikes can create a car, why and how? Well lightning can melt rocks and may turn it into metals, in fact volcanoe lava's can also melt any car parts, maybe then the tornado and hurricane will carry its parts and earthquake will shape the car seats, then series of lightning will create a stereo. But then you will say "Thats impossible because a car is too complex for that", well so is life form. Got it?
**** - By muscleman
Anything that I claim is 'fact' (from my post above) I would be
happy to dig up some proof for. I was describing how evolution
works (theoretically) to Lady. Theories are modeled on factual
data. If there is ever an error in a theory then it gets corrected
when the error is discovered FYI.
I like your car analogy. It's flawed though. An Amino Acid is a
'building block' for proteins and enzymes. They have attractions
to each other (this is defined chemically)... A series of chemicals
bound together have complex behaviors. You can think of this
as a program of some sort (I am sure you have seen very
simplistic programs in Chemistry... mix an acid with a base for
example and you'll see a nice little program at work - stand back
though-). Your car analogy is using components that don't really
attract each other nor react to each other like a program. Sorry.
***** Athiests have had no experiences (positive
or negative... personal or external) with 'God' (or anything
paranormal). Many of us have actually come from religious
upbringing (we've prayed, worshipped, etc.) and absolutely
nothing ever came of it. We also tend to have
scientific/engineering backgrounds, which attributes to a deeper
sense of logic and a greater exposure to sciences. In our
professional lives, we tend to excel in careers that allow us to
create and discover in a scientific/engineering context.******- By Crunchy Cat.
**** I also dont understand why we as a christian cannot use numbers and authority as an argument meanwhile atheist will say "We are successfull in science, etc." what does that have to do with God being a myth? On top of that thats not even true, speaking about success, the most successfull people, from Donald Trumph, to Bill Gates, to the best athletes, to Presidents, to world leaders are believers of God. And Crunchy I do notice that there are christians who live a blind faith, however, so does the atheist for walking a path of PURE BELIEF and by admittance cannot prove God is a myth. Maybe agnostic is more logical for atleast they admitted they donot know, meanwhile as a true christian (not blind christian) we are solid on our belief and do claim there is God and is ready to defend it, and I am one of them, we can use science, or we can use philosophy, bring it on.
I also dont understand why many will say "Atheism is non-belief" when the fact is it is true-belief, atheism isnt proof, its another belief; it requires far more faith to be an atheist than to be a christian for christianity is environmental reality. Atheism DOES MAKE A CLAIM, a claim that GOD IS A MYTH AND A DELUSION, but such claim HAVE NO PROOF, and the burden of proof is on your claim CONSIDERING CHRISTIANS OUTNUMBERED YOU BY BILLIONS, but then that doesnt mean all christians are good people. **** - By muscleman
I actually said 'We also tend to have scientific/engineering
backgrounds'. It's just an observation on the paths Athiests
tend to take. It is not meant to make us an authority. It was part
of a paragraph that was designed to let you know who Athiests
are. I also said 'we tend to excel in careers that allow us to
create and discover in a scientific/engineering context'. Once
again it's an observation about what Athiests tend to excel
at. I never said they had a tendency to be great as athlets, world
leaders, financial giants, etc... Honestly, you're trying to make me
take ownership of statements I'm not making.
On the subject not being able to prove that 'God' is a myth... its
a logical impossibility to prove that something does not exist.
I can't prove that 'God' doesn't exist any better than proving the
'Easter Bunny' doesn't exist. If; however, someone made a claim
about something, proved it, and the proof contradicted the
existance of 'God', then the claim that 'God' exists would be
rendered false.
I also noticed that you are ready to 'adversify'. You have the
bible in your left hand and belief in your right... 'bring it on' right?
Wrong. I'm not trying to convince you of something. I was
originally just answering 'Ladys' questions. She wanted to know
what makes Athiests tick via questions she defined 'on her
ground'. You approached me, and said "we are solid on our belief
and do claim there is God...we can use science". Alright, if you
can prove that God exists using science you'll convert me (and
I suspect many others)... but something about what you said
worries me... ""we are solid on our belief and do claim there is
God"? You are solid in your belief... we'll if you know that there
is a 'God'... then what you have is not a belief... its a FACT. Yet
you call it a belief.
Ok, your statement "atheism isnt proof, its another belief" is
just a little bizarre, but I'll address it. Athiesm as I recall is defined
something on the lines of a refusal to accept the existence of a
God. I don't like that definition because there is an implication
that he/she/it DOES exist but we just refuse to accept that...
which is not the case (that would be ignorance). A better
definition of Athiesm in my opinion would be "Refusal to accept
the existence of a God without proof". Of course that would
simply be a natural result of getting 'belief' out of our lives.
I don't think it takes any faith to be an Athiest. I think it takes
alot of guts to go against what the world is telling you to accept
... but no faith involved there. Lastly, if all the world believed
that the Easter Bunny was real except the folks in Japan... I
am sure the rest of the world would coin a term for it
('Bunnyism'... 'Refusal to accept the existance of the Easter
Bunny'). Consequently, I am sure that the majority would say
that 'Bunnyism' is a claim and the burden of proof is on Japans
shoulders because they are a minority... absurd isn't it? A
majority does not change the fact that it is the burden of the
'Claimer' to provide proof of the claim... not the person who
doesn't buy the claim without proof.
-CC
*********Now on to the good stuff (in a simplified fashion). There are a
variety of chemicals that (when combined at certain
temperatures) produce Amino acids. These amino acids have
a natural tendency to clump with each other. This part has been
reproduced in a lab environment FYI. Any complex sequence of
chemicals can literally translate into a sequence of physical
actions... consider them biological programs if you will. Now
consider (when the world was in it's infancy) that over a long
period of time one or more 'programs' arose that can reproduce. Each offspring of course would contain a slightly different
program. Those programs that could meet or exceed the
demands of their environment would continue reproducing and
those that could not would die off. Now, continue this same
process over a huge period of time in environments that are
constantly changing and you are left with the life forms (chemical
programs) that you see on earth today (humans included of
course).*******- By Crunchy Cat.
***** As a christian and open in a field of scientific facts, I donot doubt reality and truths, but if there are really truths to the claim above, that indeed life forms evolved from natural means without a cause of intelligent designer (even though the word "natural means" is questionable and may well be questioned to what designed it), then please be my guest and DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH BEHIND SUCH CLAIM. It is so easy to make claims, but it is not easy to make a claim with evidence. It is so easy to say "Amino acids clump together, then mysteriously became mitchondria and came to life by magic, etc." Well your claims indeed are accessible, lightnings, amino acids, etc. SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? FEEL FREE TO DEMONSTRATE IT IF YOU CAN AND PROVE US CHRISTIANS WRONG ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Take the existence of a car for example, I can simply say it is possible that series of earthquake and lightning strikes can create a car, why and how? Well lightning can melt rocks and may turn it into metals, in fact volcanoe lava's can also melt any car parts, maybe then the tornado and hurricane will carry its parts and earthquake will shape the car seats, then series of lightning will create a stereo. But then you will say "Thats impossible because a car is too complex for that", well so is life form. Got it?
**** - By muscleman
Anything that I claim is 'fact' (from my post above) I would be
happy to dig up some proof for. I was describing how evolution
works (theoretically) to Lady. Theories are modeled on factual
data. If there is ever an error in a theory then it gets corrected
when the error is discovered FYI.
I like your car analogy. It's flawed though. An Amino Acid is a
'building block' for proteins and enzymes. They have attractions
to each other (this is defined chemically)... A series of chemicals
bound together have complex behaviors. You can think of this
as a program of some sort (I am sure you have seen very
simplistic programs in Chemistry... mix an acid with a base for
example and you'll see a nice little program at work - stand back
though-). Your car analogy is using components that don't really
attract each other nor react to each other like a program. Sorry.
***** Athiests have had no experiences (positive
or negative... personal or external) with 'God' (or anything
paranormal). Many of us have actually come from religious
upbringing (we've prayed, worshipped, etc.) and absolutely
nothing ever came of it. We also tend to have
scientific/engineering backgrounds, which attributes to a deeper
sense of logic and a greater exposure to sciences. In our
professional lives, we tend to excel in careers that allow us to
create and discover in a scientific/engineering context.******- By Crunchy Cat.
**** I also dont understand why we as a christian cannot use numbers and authority as an argument meanwhile atheist will say "We are successfull in science, etc." what does that have to do with God being a myth? On top of that thats not even true, speaking about success, the most successfull people, from Donald Trumph, to Bill Gates, to the best athletes, to Presidents, to world leaders are believers of God. And Crunchy I do notice that there are christians who live a blind faith, however, so does the atheist for walking a path of PURE BELIEF and by admittance cannot prove God is a myth. Maybe agnostic is more logical for atleast they admitted they donot know, meanwhile as a true christian (not blind christian) we are solid on our belief and do claim there is God and is ready to defend it, and I am one of them, we can use science, or we can use philosophy, bring it on.
I also dont understand why many will say "Atheism is non-belief" when the fact is it is true-belief, atheism isnt proof, its another belief; it requires far more faith to be an atheist than to be a christian for christianity is environmental reality. Atheism DOES MAKE A CLAIM, a claim that GOD IS A MYTH AND A DELUSION, but such claim HAVE NO PROOF, and the burden of proof is on your claim CONSIDERING CHRISTIANS OUTNUMBERED YOU BY BILLIONS, but then that doesnt mean all christians are good people. **** - By muscleman
I actually said 'We also tend to have scientific/engineering
backgrounds'. It's just an observation on the paths Athiests
tend to take. It is not meant to make us an authority. It was part
of a paragraph that was designed to let you know who Athiests
are. I also said 'we tend to excel in careers that allow us to
create and discover in a scientific/engineering context'. Once
again it's an observation about what Athiests tend to excel
at. I never said they had a tendency to be great as athlets, world
leaders, financial giants, etc... Honestly, you're trying to make me
take ownership of statements I'm not making.
On the subject not being able to prove that 'God' is a myth... its
a logical impossibility to prove that something does not exist.
I can't prove that 'God' doesn't exist any better than proving the
'Easter Bunny' doesn't exist. If; however, someone made a claim
about something, proved it, and the proof contradicted the
existance of 'God', then the claim that 'God' exists would be
rendered false.
I also noticed that you are ready to 'adversify'. You have the
bible in your left hand and belief in your right... 'bring it on' right?
Wrong. I'm not trying to convince you of something. I was
originally just answering 'Ladys' questions. She wanted to know
what makes Athiests tick via questions she defined 'on her
ground'. You approached me, and said "we are solid on our belief
and do claim there is God...we can use science". Alright, if you
can prove that God exists using science you'll convert me (and
I suspect many others)... but something about what you said
worries me... ""we are solid on our belief and do claim there is
God"? You are solid in your belief... we'll if you know that there
is a 'God'... then what you have is not a belief... its a FACT. Yet
you call it a belief.
Ok, your statement "atheism isnt proof, its another belief" is
just a little bizarre, but I'll address it. Athiesm as I recall is defined
something on the lines of a refusal to accept the existence of a
God. I don't like that definition because there is an implication
that he/she/it DOES exist but we just refuse to accept that...
which is not the case (that would be ignorance). A better
definition of Athiesm in my opinion would be "Refusal to accept
the existence of a God without proof". Of course that would
simply be a natural result of getting 'belief' out of our lives.
I don't think it takes any faith to be an Athiest. I think it takes
alot of guts to go against what the world is telling you to accept
... but no faith involved there. Lastly, if all the world believed
that the Easter Bunny was real except the folks in Japan... I
am sure the rest of the world would coin a term for it
('Bunnyism'... 'Refusal to accept the existance of the Easter
Bunny'). Consequently, I am sure that the majority would say
that 'Bunnyism' is a claim and the burden of proof is on Japans
shoulders because they are a minority... absurd isn't it? A
majority does not change the fact that it is the burden of the
'Claimer' to provide proof of the claim... not the person who
doesn't buy the claim without proof.
-CC
""natural means" is questionable and may well be questioned to what designed it"
If you believe god was NOT designed, then I cannot see how it is so hard to comprehend that the universe was not either.
"It is so easy to say "Amino acids clump together, then mysteriously became mitchondria and came to life by magic"
Likewise, it is easy to say that the universe was magically created by a magically intelligent being that has been "living" forever.
Not to mention there is no magic in why amino acids tend to clump. It is not because they can see eachother, but becuase they have a dual magnetism that allows them to be attracted to eachother, like water molecules. Its all thanks to the electromagnetic force.
"But then you will say "Thats impossible because a car is too complex for that""
Don't put words in "our" mouths. The reason a car would not be created is because the probability that it would be created without evolving through a series is 1 out of trillions and trillions, mostly never. Not to mention a car can't evolve from any simpler vehical, because vehicals do not reproduce.
A car has the same or more chance of being created in your scenario as a human. For a human to be created, a long line of organisms need to reproduce.
"to world leaders are believers of God"
First of all, you have no idea which famous people are actually believers of god. Many many famous people refer to religion just because it puts on a "good" popular image. What president hasn't been "religious" in public?
"Maybe agnostic is more logical for atleast they admitted they donot know"
Most Athiests are actually agnostics who think that there is the possibility, but it is not probable. That is what I am. There is always that possibility that some giant purple squid monkey is living out there, somewhere.
"Atheism DOES MAKE A CLAIM, a claim that GOD IS A MYTH AND A DELUSION, but such claim HAVE NO PROOF"
you keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, yet agian. Like I said, most atheists and theists alike admit there is no proof of god. YET, this being the case, there cannot be a disproof. You cannot disprove something that doesn't exist unless its existance contradicts a known existance, which god does not.
But why don't we all believe in that giant purple squid-monkey?
"the burden of proof is on your claim CONSIDERING CHRISTIANS OUTNUMBERED YOU BY BILLIONS"
I seriously doubt that the number of christians is near a billion. Why don't you prove that claim? Do you even know the approximate population of earth?
"we are solid on our belief and do claim there is God and is ready to defend it, and I am one of them, we can use science, or we can use philosophy, bring it on. "
Thats excellent. So far you have failed to convince ANYBODY of your so called "proof". You have even convinced a fellow christian to join the ranks of "satans atheists". So far you have even decided to ignore my question ABOUT your so called "proof". Ill just post it again just in case that blind spot in your eye is by "chance" covering most of your vision.
Why can't intelligence be created through a process that is not intelligent?
If you believe god was NOT designed, then I cannot see how it is so hard to comprehend that the universe was not either.
"It is so easy to say "Amino acids clump together, then mysteriously became mitchondria and came to life by magic"
Likewise, it is easy to say that the universe was magically created by a magically intelligent being that has been "living" forever.
Not to mention there is no magic in why amino acids tend to clump. It is not because they can see eachother, but becuase they have a dual magnetism that allows them to be attracted to eachother, like water molecules. Its all thanks to the electromagnetic force.
"But then you will say "Thats impossible because a car is too complex for that""
Don't put words in "our" mouths. The reason a car would not be created is because the probability that it would be created without evolving through a series is 1 out of trillions and trillions, mostly never. Not to mention a car can't evolve from any simpler vehical, because vehicals do not reproduce.
A car has the same or more chance of being created in your scenario as a human. For a human to be created, a long line of organisms need to reproduce.
"to world leaders are believers of God"
First of all, you have no idea which famous people are actually believers of god. Many many famous people refer to religion just because it puts on a "good" popular image. What president hasn't been "religious" in public?
"Maybe agnostic is more logical for atleast they admitted they donot know"
Most Athiests are actually agnostics who think that there is the possibility, but it is not probable. That is what I am. There is always that possibility that some giant purple squid monkey is living out there, somewhere.
"Atheism DOES MAKE A CLAIM, a claim that GOD IS A MYTH AND A DELUSION, but such claim HAVE NO PROOF"
you keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, yet agian. Like I said, most atheists and theists alike admit there is no proof of god. YET, this being the case, there cannot be a disproof. You cannot disprove something that doesn't exist unless its existance contradicts a known existance, which god does not.
But why don't we all believe in that giant purple squid-monkey?
"the burden of proof is on your claim CONSIDERING CHRISTIANS OUTNUMBERED YOU BY BILLIONS"
I seriously doubt that the number of christians is near a billion. Why don't you prove that claim? Do you even know the approximate population of earth?
"we are solid on our belief and do claim there is God and is ready to defend it, and I am one of them, we can use science, or we can use philosophy, bring it on. "
Thats excellent. So far you have failed to convince ANYBODY of your so called "proof". You have even convinced a fellow christian to join the ranks of "satans atheists". So far you have even decided to ignore my question ABOUT your so called "proof". Ill just post it again just in case that blind spot in your eye is by "chance" covering most of your vision.
Why can't intelligence be created through a process that is not intelligent?