1-packlondoner,
could you offer three, without a doubt examples of proof you would accept for the existence of a god?
[quote]kroby wrote:
Your faith in the Bible does not make it inviolate and the only authority in all matters metaphysical.[/quote]
I never said that.
Actually, I’m doing it now.
I never said someone could not have legitimate opinions contrary to mine. you seem confused.
I do accept another persons right to have an opinion that opposes mine. However, because someone has an opposing opinion that does not invalidate my right to express mine.
That you may not like, or agree with my opinion is your right. Just as it is my right to express it.
Pretty simple.
LOL, that’s funny, sorry.
If I was afraid of reading another persons opinion I would avoid all religious type threads. Have I done this?
It seems that it is you who does not like to be challenged regarding your beliefs.
I’m only stating that because you seem to be in attack mode on this post. And I have no idea why. I thought we were having a good discussion up to now.
Yea man, it’s all relative, there’s no right and no wrong. Oh wait, that’s not true.
I have a strong suspicion (okay a belief), that in the case of "religion, God the Bible etc. someone is going to be wrong and someone right.
And the good part is that we all get to find out in the end.
And, I never said that you called him a dirty liar. This is the third time on this post that you have put words in my mouth. I’m wondering why.
Regarding this last instance I’d like you to post exactly where I stated that you said “Jesus was a dirty liar”.
You’ll have a hard time finding that one because I never said it.
And your sudden lack of a firm grasp on the reality of what I have written is disappointing.
Where did I display this vitriol?
Not that I’m above it mind you. But I think I’ve been pretty gentlemanly especially in the face of certain atheists accusing me of buying into fairy tales. And then of course there is this post from you which can be considered as nothing more than an attack post.
Write back, I’d like some answers if you have the time, patience and desire.
Thanks,
Zeb
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And, I never said that you called him a dirty liar. This is the third time on this post that you have put words in my mouth. I’m wondering why.
Regarding this last instance I’d like you to post exactly where I stated that you said “Jesus was a dirty liar”.[/quote]
…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Do crazy people or liars turn water into wine, heal the sick and raise the dead?
I think not.
So, what you’re saying is he was incredibly great in these areas, but a dirty liar when it came to the main reason why he came to earth and that is to save humanity from its sin.[/quote]
Right here, you are claiming I say that Jesus is a dirty liar.
Eat your words.
…
Claiming I say Jesus is a dirty liar is caustic. Vitriolic.
I’m finished. Good day. Way to “win” a debate.
[quote]kroby wrote:
1-packlondoner,
could you offer three, without a doubt examples of proof you would accept for the existence of a god?[/quote]
Hiya,
I keep writing this disclaimer, but I am only speaking for myself, and not for any other atheist when I answer this question.
In truth for me it is a sliding scale of plausibility, and that scale currently resting at a kinda 0.0% evidence rating at the moment. I’m sure there are all sorts of minor things that could happen that would add points to my plausibility-meter but off the top of my head the things that would in an instant make me believe are…
- I would accept an event or ‘miracle’ that can be shown to have only been caused by something which operates completely outsides our current understanding of the laws of physics. I mean something on the scale of 'move the faces on Mount. Rushmore to 5 miles down the road.
If God exists and is omnipotent then this is surely no big deal. This is just one example obviously but the concept is there. But it would have to be something relevant which shows a conscious intelligence. Not ‘all the faces fell off and crashed to the ground’ because however implausible, that is still possible according to the laws of our physical world. But something that shows someone/something MEANT to do it.
- I would accept his/her manifestation before me. After I’d checked their credentials and asked if them could show me who they were. But again, this would come back proving who they were in the same way as number one. By performing some feat which shows they are not bound by the same physical laws as us.
By affecting the natural world in an unnatural way. In my absence, I would only give credence to a recording of such an event taking place if it could proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, by atheistic as well as theistic agencies, that these images were real and not manipulated.
3)An example of divine intervention. e.g. Halting the Tsunami.
- Ultimately though, surely God has no need of coyness. Why announce yourself in such circumspect ways to so few at a time, using such methods of tenuous and dubious plausibility. If he exists, it seems he really doesn’t want to let the cat out of the bag.
Why not appear to everyone as an entity at the same time in the sky and tell us all, in our own languages, exactly who he is and what he wants from us?
I get the feeling that many will say ‘well that’s asking a lot’ but is it? Really? In direct comparison to the amazing premise laid before me, I don’t really think it is too much to ask.
Because if today you laid out the most important events in both Testaments as bullet points and presented them as fact (for the first time) based on the scant supporting evidence, people would think you were off your head.
I genuinely don’t mean to offend anyone but even compared to the batshit ‘Thetans’ theory of Scientology, it is STILL quite a hardcore and fantastical story - and in my opinion, only its longevity, and possibly its use as an instrument of social control down the ages, has afforded it such credibility.
And of course, I cannot discount the fact that to some people it provides comfort. However, as I have stated before, this last has zero impact on the plausibility meter. Just because I would be comforted by believing Eric Clapton would one day want to jam at the Albert Hall with me, it don’t make it necessarily so.
Now, I reverse the question. To all you people of faith.
What proof would it take for you to accept that there is no God? What could I put in front of you that would make you renounce your belief in a God? Whichever God.
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
I am not so much ‘convinced’ that God does not exist.[/quote]
There you go again sounding like an agnostic. Just when we were about to put to bed the definition of atheism.
Oh well.
Oh, okay, then you’re an atheist.
Phew…oh wait, that’s not good.
[quote]
But at that point, people like yourself would say 'ah, but like George Michael (as long as he doesn’t want to get married) said, you gotta have ‘faith’… And THAT is exactly why I objected to you using my thought processes and eventual conclusions as ‘faith’, and certainly why I objected to the misuse of the word religion to describe them too. [/quote]
Oh I see your point.
Wow these Internet debates can be very enlightening.
(I bet you never read that one before on this here forum;)
[quote]
Why do I sound agnostic? [/quote]
Scroll back to [quote]I am not so much ‘convinced’ that God does not exist.[/quote].
That sort of sound agnostic to me. But fear not I think we’ve moved beyond this.
[quote]
Because I have not said I don’t WANT there there to be a God? Wants have nothing to do with it. I just want the truth. If there was enough evidence to prove it, or even make it seem plausible, have no doubts that my opinions would be very different. I just want the truth. The knowledge. The understanding. Whatever that may be.[/quote]
I don’t think the proof that you are looking for will ever turn up. As the Bible clearly says “it is impossible to please God without faith.”
Now I have no idea why faith is so important, well I do actually have an idea but I won’t bore you with it here.
All I know for sure is that faith is important. And as I’ve said to another on this thread “some have it some don’t.”
I do, you don’t, at least not yet.
But as far as conclusive proof of God, um I doubt you’ll be finding that in this lifetime. But good luck you never know. God may avail himself directly to you someday. But it might be in a form that you do not expect. So, keep an open mind.
[quote]
Science is ever-evolving. That is the nature of it. Religion is static. That is the nature of it. To be fair I don’t really think any scientific ‘absolute truths’ that were later debunked, have caused so big a rethinking by the public on how to live their lives that it ever undermined the scientific community.[/quote]
That could be because people can live there lives just fine (thank you) without much science involved. I mean, if you have a job in the media you can pretty much focus on that, your personal life etc. and get by with very little “science.”
But religion, that’s another matter. It must be static, or it’s wrong.
Think about that one.
Okay, don’t think about. But there is an ultimate right and wrong regarding the big spiritual topics and they don’t change my friend.
[quote]
Christianity instead has taken a stance which would be easy to prove or impossible to disprove. It has thrown in all sorts of caveats like ‘faith’ (as in the definition I shared earlier which is belief without proof) being such a part of it.[/quote]
Refer back to the one Bible quote I used. (I know it hurts…I know)
[quote]I have a 15 inch penis. I could show you and prove it quite easily, but instead of doing that, and in one hit removing all doubt as to the length of my penis, and bringing the knowledge that belief in my 15 inch penis would heal the world, I will instead say that if you don’t believe I have a 15 inch penis purely on my say so, then you will go to hell. **
Can you see why this is such a specious argument?[/quote]
When the original folks who first viewed this mega organ die because they are telling others of it and will not recant even one word, then I might believe without seeing.
And of course there are other examples which make your little dick story (sorry couldn’t resist) a ridiculous comparison.
I thought we were past that. You can call them anything you like.
I’ll do it again for you:
You can call yourself “convinced” for the time being. Okay? But it still smacks of faith to me. But again, why argue over word usage?
[quote]
C’mon big man, move past the wordplay and let’s stuck to the big topics.[/quote]
I think we have.
[quote]
Yes I do believe that all animals have instinct, some conscious and some not. For the most part as social animals we operate on a ‘what’s best for the pack is best for me’ mentality, and on occasion our personal interests are capable of overriding that in varying degrees, depending on the person and the action.
This can be very good or very bad - of course taking into account that both are subjective terms. If someone treats you badly it is instinctual to want to treat them badly back. So if you treat them nicely, it is instinctual to try and be nice back. As noted, there are varying degree and ‘niceness’ is subjective. But hang on, isn’t that the same as ‘loving my neighbour’. Wow… [/quote]
Actually, that’s not the case.
“Love thy neighbor as thy self.”
That means that you would NOT want to harm anyone if they first harmed you because you love them as much as you love yourself.
There are not many laws such as you describe that elevate mans thinking to what the Bible calls for in terms of how we treat each other etc.
I just proved that your example is incorrect.
I don’t doubt that thinks like “don’t kill” have been around for sometime. But please do get specific as to exactly which ones were around and in what text.
I’m interested, thanks.
First, as I asked I’d like to see what text you are referring to.
Secondly, the Bible never said that these laws were never before seen. But, after Moses brought them down from God they were in fact law.
I would not have voted that way, Seriously.
That, of course, is an entirely different topic. Organized religion (for all of its faults) does in fact help people in many ways. It keeps families together (that need to stay together). It unites couples in holy matrimony. And it does a myriad of other things, all essential to a healthy moral society.
And what does atheism do?
No, I’m asking, what does it do other than give people the right to not believe in God. Which a free society should do by the way.
But what good does it do for society other than that?
Believe it or not I can live without knowing that fact.
Ha…ha
Talk to you later my friend.
kroby:
I posed that as a question you must know that. But I can see how you could have taken it differently.
I’m in no way trying to rile you up. That would be sort of counter productive. And if there is any confusion let me apologize right now it’s my job as the communicator to get my point across and I should have used better wording.
But hopefully we can get back on topic.
Yes?
It seems that you are trying too have your cake and eat it to. And that never works.
You can piece meal a religion together, don’t get me wrong. But when you include Jesus Christ I think you have to be very careful. You are impressed by his incredible talents (miracles, healings etc.) on the one hand and then deny his deity on the other.
How could Jesus Christ perform all of the miracles that he did, healing, raising people from the dead etc., and then be disbelieved by whomever (better?) when he said that he is God?
Hopefully, I was much clearer this time. I try to get better as I go along.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t think the proof that you are looking for will ever turn up. As the Bible clearly says “it is impossible to please God without faith.”
Now I have no idea why faith is so important, well I do actually have an idea but I won’t bore you with it here.
All I know for sure is that faith is important. And as I’ve said to another on this thread “some have it some don’t.”
I do, you don’t, at least not yet.
But as far as conclusive proof of God, um I doubt you’ll be finding that in this lifetime. But good luck you never know. God may avail himself directly to you someday. But it might be in a form that you do not expect. So, keep an open mind.
[/quote]
Funnily enough I get this a lot from religious people.
‘It’s important. I’m not sure why. Or I do know why, but I can’t tell you.’
What sort of God gives us a mind for logic and then cares so much that we believe in His existence without proof? Again, this knocks the whole concept down a few notches on the plausibility-meter.
As for me not having faith yet… I love your tenacity, but belief without enough proof to push something over 50% on the meter is something you’ll never see from me.
Hang on… you don’t think the proof will ever turn up? Am I going mad or isn’t Jesus supposed to be returning some time soon? In fact, isn’t he a little late? Have I just betrayed my ignorance or wasn’t the 2nd Coming supposed to have occurred some time around the turn of the millennium?
All ye of little faith Zeb, I’m disappointed in you. 
It was science that got your hot water pumping. That got your car working. That got your TV numbing your brain. That filled the airwave with crap. That printed your bibles. And so on…
Sure, you can get by without an ‘interest’ in science, but you can’t get by without it. And I would suggest that I for one am a living embodiment of someone who gets by very well(thank you) without religion.
Ahh, so the fact that some people really really believed in something enough to die for it is reason enough for you to believe it? You measure truth by the amount of suffering someone endures to show their belief in it? Strange yardstick.
Which, incidentally, is what the ex said to me on many an occasion.
I disagree. It means treat your neighbour as you would have your neighbour treat you. Don’t be an arsehole to the next guy if you don’t want him to be an arsehole to you. Ooh, look at me lecturing you on scripture. I bet you thought you’d never see that day.
Sorry, even though what I wrote was still valid, I was actually thinking one thing and typed another. In fact I was thinking about the old ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ line. But in truth that AND the neighbour line are of great import here.
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:36-40)
This is the catch-all ‘ethic of reciprocity’ which is the basic tenant of near-enough all religions and surely is a basic component of human interaction. From the moment a human first realised that with an extra pair of hands he could bring down a larger animal, this has been part of the human psyche.
Other examples
1970 - 1640s BC “This is an ordinance: Act for the man who acts, to cause him to act. This is thanking him for what he does.” - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant In line B1 142 page 64 of The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems,
-
“Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.”
-Oscar Wilde
While this inverted formulation does not encompass the entire concept of the golden rule, it does have the advantage of emphasising respect for others' identity and ideals, which is included in most other forms but is easily ignored if the golden rule is considered exclusive to the physical elements of human interaction, rather than being inclusive of all elements of human interaction.
* "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors."
-Seneca the Younger, Epistulae morales ad Lucilium 47:11, 1st century
It was named the "Meta-Golden Rule" by Vernor Vinge.[1]
* "All human morality is contained in these words: make others as happy as you yourself would be, and never serve them more ill than you would yourself be served."
-Marquis de Sade, Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man
* â¿¿It is not fair to ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself.â¿¿ (Anna Eleanor Roosevelt)
* "We should bear ourselves toward others as we would desire they should bear themselves toward us." (Aristotle)
* "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus, circa 100 CE)
* "You should always ask yourself what would happen if everyone did what you are doing." (Jean-Paul Sartre)
* "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Plato)
* â¿¿Each man takes care that his neighbor shall not cheat him. But a day comes when he begins to care that he does not cheat his neighbor. Then all goes well - he has changed his market-cart into a chariot of the sun.â¿¿ (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
* â¿¿One of the most potent of the weapons of influence around us is the rule for reciprocation. The rule says that we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us.â¿¿ (Robert B Cialdini)
* "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." (Shayast)
* "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you."[citation needed]
* "What stirs your anger when done to you by others, that do not do to others." (Socrates)
* Refraining from doing what we blame in others. (Thales, Diogenes Laertius, vol I, page 39)
* One should be "contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow against himself." (Thomas Hobbes)
Damn, hate cutting and pasting from other sources but still, that’s a start. I recall having very similar stuff from ancient China too but will have to dig about for it.
But you have stated many times you don’t buy that morality can be personal and still share the same characteristics as those ideals you hold sacred and ascribe to Christianity.
If I show you that for a long time pre-Christ, people had agreed it was wrong to kill, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, wrong to do so many things which the Bible has also taken a dislike to, then surely you cannot claim them as solely Christian morals, which you referred to my morality as being.
Nearly 1am but I’ll get the info for you. When I next get a chance. Busy 3days coming up but I shall try because they make interesting reading.
Well as I have said many times, to be atheist does not make you some member of an organisation which has certain rules and regulations and communities etc. I’m somewhat surprised that after all this time you still don’t quite get what atheism IS. I would sooo love to be a fly on wall of these church meetings that discuss atheism because I truly get the impression that there is some serious scaremongering, or at the very least, some hardcore misinformation being bandied about.
But to continue along this train of thought, I will tell you about it on a personal level. It gives you the freedom to know that every choice you make is based on your own consideration of right and wrong, and not being made out of deference or fear of a being who doesn’t exist.
It gives one the freedom of trying to make this one chance they get at life be full of the most amazing experiences possible, because they know once it’s gone, it’s gone. It makes you responsible for your actions, without the opportunity to ever apportion blame or seek absolution for your wrongdoings in any other way than being a man (or woman, or ladyboy) about it, or making up for your transgressions.
It removes fear and guilt of something which doesn’t exist from the decision-making process and invites further objectivity in its place.
By the way, holy matrimony is not so different from civil matrimony. And I think the tax breaks are the same anyway.
And couples have been couples long before anyone made it a religious event.
Right. Bed time. Cheers mate.
PS - apologies for the weird characters in the text sometimes. Gremlins in the PC at the mo.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:
- Evolution is a fact, it happens all the time, all around us. =
Evolution is a theory. You know how I know? 'cause it’s called “The Theory of Evolution” I think it’s a fine theory, myself. I think it explains natural history very well, but it’s still a theory. No scientist would have the balls to call it fact because most scientists know there is very little that can be proven in absolutes.
This is also why the validity of experiments are quatified using statisitcal data rather than raw data. Very little is abosolute. If you want to study absolutes, mathmatics is your best bet.
There is also the “Theory of gravity” and gravity is a fact.
So is evolution.
It might not happen exactly the way the “Theory of Evolution” describes it, though it more or less does, but so what?
Um, no that’s called the “Law of Gravity”. Evolution is a strong thoery, but it has holes.
No, evolution IS a fact. There is no doubt that evolution is happening. It is happening all around us today, it has happened for thousands and thousands of year and it will keep happening. There is no doubt about this.
The internal mechanichs and the details of the hows/whys/whens… THAT is the theories which are in question. Just as we know that gravity IS pulling us down to earth (or any other object with a mass for that matter), without knowing all details of the how/why etc.
You are very mistaken if you think that evolution in it self is a “theory” that there is grounds to doubt.
(and the holes, well… care to point them out?).
I’ll end this post with a few friendly and peacefull words from the bible:
If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,”… you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage…
If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there, that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods” which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.
----DEUTERONOMY 13:6, 8-15
[/quote]
The scientific method means nothing to you does it? Adaptation is not the same as evolution. One of the big holes in the theory is that as species evolve from one adaptation to the next nobody can find the in between species. This happens all time. Where is the bridge between ape and man? Where is the bridge between dinosaurs and birds?
Adaptation is a fact, evolution is still in the “theory” category. Or should I just take your authoritative word on it?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
The scientific method means nothing to you does it? Adaptation is not the same as evolution.
[/quote]
Yes it is. Certain genes are selected because they offer survival/reproduction benefits.
That is because there are none. At least not in the way you understand it.
[quote]
This happens all time. Where is the bridge between ape and man? Where is the bridge between dinosaurs and birds?
Adaptation is a fact, evolution is still in the “theory” category. Or should I just take your authoritative word on it? [/quote]
No, science never proves anything, you can stay “agnostic” to anything it tells you, if you like.
Once it calls something a theory though, there is a shitload of evidence beyond “God made it so”.
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
pat36 wrote:
‘Burden of proof’ spoken in philosophical terms means ttat when somebody challeges a an argument the burden lies on the challeger to present the argument of challenge first.
You mean, as an example, that if I challenge your assertion that God exists, I must first outline exactly what your assertion is before I challenge it? Is that right? Ok, if it is, I thought I did that.
[/quote]
Burden of proof is a relative concept. Simply the one who challenge something has the burden of proof upon them. If I missed it in your case, I apologize because I was on the defensive from the get go. My line of reason is not common and it puts me on the defensive more than I like. In the end it doesn’t much matter so long as you find the answer to the your questions.
My experience is that God never makes it perfectly clear and concrete. It would take our “Freewill” out of the equation if he he did. We have to discover through thoughtful consideration. There is always doubt. I doubt.
In my heart and soul I am a skeptic with just a hint of faith. It is good to be skeptical. To many have taken advantage of unusual occurances for self gain. It is good a right to ask questions, but only if your brave enough to accept the answers. Metaphysical answers are often not what we think they should be.
In terms of the the miracle of the sun it was quite significant. The interesting part isn’t just merely that the sun danced and did interesting things. It is in the details. The day it happened, it had been raining all day, there was no sun to see. Everything was soaked.
After the miracle was finished, every thing was perfectly dry. So you decide, miracles are most important to those who witnessed them.
True. It is, but thinking as I do, I would have allowed my son to be crucified and killed. I would have brought in my son in glory to kick some mega ass.
Nevertheless, somehow it worked; it’s still working. God comes in a whisper not in load thunder with a mighty fist. That is what I see. He is not interested in masses, but in each individual as he thinks and moves. The decisions we all make.
Freewill is a huge topic to which I don’t have all the answers for. Though despite all paradoxes involved the concept is difficult to refute and is really a topic all it’s own.
Well the thing about this miracle and why I brought it up is that it can be witnessed right now, today. It is merely a plane ticket away. This host still exists and is in fact a living piece of flesh. You can actually go see this up close for yourself. That is also why it could not be faked. It’s still around some 12 centuries later.
You can go a see it and decide if somebody is causing this thing to be faked or not. My thoughts is that it probably would be discovered by now if it was a fake, but it’s for you to decide. Even people who witnessed Jesus performing miracles doubted.
It could have been easily faked then, for the moment. To last for 12 plus centuries makes it difficult for me to believe that was faked. Nevertheless, if it were or was, it wouldn’t be the first faked miracle. I say look what was behind it. Usually faked miracles were done for personal gain.
Referencing the inquisition, well that was horrible. This is where the power of religion was used for personal and political gain. Many lost their faith because of this. People aren’t perfect and neither are the institutions they run.
It’s a miracle the church can survive the behavior of it’s members really. In the end, the church corrected itself, but the pain from it remains from this day.
Well first you have to believe that God exists for any of it to make sense. You also have to allow the Christian Bible to be you guide. This is a vast topic really and one that belongs to Christianity.
The caveat to that statement is you have to pay attention to the heart of the word and not the letter. The letter of the word has led many people a stray. It’s more important to do good things for the people around you than it is to wash your hands and pray before meals.
Thanks.
The truth is good people come in all kinds of forms. Just because the don’t follow certain precepts doesn’t mean they aren’t close to God.
In the end faith is a personal journey no word, ritual, law or church teaching is going to bring you close to God. If you want it you’ll have it, if you don’t you won’t.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:
- Evolution is a fact, it happens all the time, all around us. =
Evolution is a theory. You know how I know? 'cause it’s called “The Theory of Evolution” I think it’s a fine theory, myself. I think it explains natural history very well, but it’s still a theory. No scientist would have the balls to call it fact because most scientists know there is very little that can be proven in absolutes.
This is also why the validity of experiments are quatified using statisitcal data rather than raw data. Very little is abosolute. If you want to study absolutes, mathmatics is your best bet. [/quote]
No scientists…?
I have shown you this article by Gould, I have also shown you statements from Richard Dawkins, one of the most, if not the, most important evolution experts.
You don’t seem to have the capability to read the Gould article, so I’m giving you one more chance. Stop making a fool of yourself, you have NO clue… WHAT SO EVER about evolution and how it is (and it is) a fact. You are in way over your head on this one I’m afraid.
(And your theories about “burden of proof” is just laughable… You should really try to think before you write something, you are a way too easy target when you spew out your regular bullshit)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
What sort of God gives us a mind for logic and then cares so much that we believe in His existence without proof? [/quote]
It’s the same God that gave us free will. He could have made “human robots” that were programmed without ree will. But like any father he wants us to be free to make our own decisions. He wants us to choose him to be sure, but it would be our choice.
It used to be evident to those from generations ago that there was a God. Then many people became so smart that they could not believe any longer.
Interesting, the Bible clearly talks about how in the end times there will be a tremendous amount of knowledge among men.
But keep in mind that logic and wisdom are two very different things.
But, each of our “meters” is different. And what YOU may “feel” is over 50% might not even be a blip on someone elses meter. And vice versa. And that is one reason why faith is so personal and many times cannot be explained.
You may very well have yourself an experience or two. Just keep an open mind and you may have that religious revelation that you are looking for.
You might be going mad, I don’t really know based on this thread.
But, no Jesus was NOT supposed to have returned at the turn of the century. I wonder where you read such a thing.
Funny though:
[b]2 Peter 3:3
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”[/b]
[quote]It was science that got your hot water pumping. That got your car working. That got your TV numbing your brain. That filled the airwave with crap. That printed your bibles. And so on…
Sure, you can get by without an ‘interest’ in science, but you can’t get by without it. And I would suggest that I for one am a living embodiment of someone who gets by very well(thank you) without religion.[/quote]
I never said that science was not important. But science can never take the place of religion and that’s what some people are in fact trying to do. Even if they do so unintentionally.
And as I said several posts back, some worship science and those who do are in for a very big let down for so many reasons.
Science is good, but it’s not God.
[quote]
Ahh, so the fact that some people really really believed in something enough to die for it is reason enough for you to believe it? You measure truth by the amount of suffering someone endures to show their belief in it? Strange yardstick.[/quote]
You like logic when it suits your desired end conclusion. But when it is in dispute with it you throw it.
There are laws of evidence which people are convicted by each and every day in your our court system.
Many times the law demands an eye witness. If two or more people step forward and said they saw a crazy looking guy by the name of Packlondoner sticking a knife in someones ribs you can bet that you’d be in big trouble Mr.
Okay why’d you kill em?
Oh…sorry I got into the scenario.
Anyway, we have far more than two people who walked with Christ tell us all about it. And beyond that many died in his name because they were witness to his miraculous existence.
As I’ve said repeatedly they had no reason to lie, none. And in fact they had plenty of reasons NOT to lie. One being to save their lives!
Instead of lying and saving themselves they told the truth and died horrible deaths.
Now, another atheist on this very thread went on to tell me about David Koresh and the Rev. Jim Jones and how their followers also died.
But, anyone can see (with a modium of logic) that there were BIG differences.
Here are just two:
1- From the beginning all Christ ever did was good. He taught, preached and healed. From the beginning all the other two bozos did was to cause trouble.
2- The followers of Christ died at the hands of others for preaching and telling the truth of Jesus Christ. Followers of the two cults died from suicide.
I hope you can see the difference.
And it’s not just the dying.
It’s not just the miracles.
It’s not just the solid writings in the Bible, a document which is highly accurate. And not one word of it has been disproved.
It’s all those things and far. far more.
[quote]
“Love thy neighbor as thy self.”
That means that you would NOT want to harm anyone if they first harmed you because you love them as much as you love yourself.
I disagree. It means treat your neighbour as you would have your neighbour treat you. Don’t be an arsehole to the next guy if you don’t want him to be an arsehole to you. Ooh, look at me lecturing you on scripture. I bet you thought you’d never see that day. [/quote]
“Love thy neighbor as thy self”
Hmm, love another as much as you love yourself. I think that’s pretty self evident.
Love him/her as much as you love…um you.
No need for debate here, none.
[quote]
Sorry, even though what I wrote was still valid, I was actually thinking one thing and typed another. In fact I was thinking about the old ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ line. But in truth that AND the neighbour line are of great import here.[/quote]
If you would just dedicate 5 min per day to reading the Bible you wouldn’t be confused as to those two.
No really, give it a try. What could it hurt?
[quote]
This is the catch-all ‘ethic of reciprocity’ which is the basic tenant of near-enough all religions and surely is a basic component of human interaction. From the moment a human first realised that with an extra pair of hands he could bring down a larger animal, this has been part of the human psyche. [/quote]
Loving another as you love yourself is NOT a basic instinct of man.
AND…you must know that.
What you described above are two or
more parties working together for the good of all, a collaboration.
Loving another as much as you love yourself?
No.
[quote]
1970 - 1640s BC “This is an ordinance: Act for the man who acts, to cause him to act. This is thanking him for what he does.” - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant In line B1 142 page 64 of The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems,
-
“Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.”
-Oscar Wilde[/quote]
You’re now off on a tangent. All fun and interesting but?
[quote] While this inverted formulation does not encompass the entire concept of the golden rule, it does have the advantage of emphasising respect for others’ identity and ideals, which is included in most other forms but is easily ignored if the golden rule is considered exclusive to the physical elements of human interaction, rather than being inclusive of all elements of human interaction.
* "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors."
-Seneca the Younger, Epistulae morales ad Lucilium 47:11, 1st century
It was named the "Meta-Golden Rule" by Vernor Vinge.[1]
* "All human morality is contained in these words: make others as happy as you yourself would be, and never serve them more ill than you would yourself be served."
-Marquis de Sade, Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man
* â¿¿It is not fair to ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself.â¿¿ (Anna Eleanor Roosevelt)
* "We should bear ourselves toward others as we would desire they should bear themselves toward us." (Aristotle)
* "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus, circa 100 CE)
* "You should always ask yourself what would happen if everyone did what you are doing." (Jean-Paul Sartre)
* "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Plato)
* â¿¿Each man takes care that his neighbor shall not cheat him. But a day comes when he begins to care that he does not cheat his neighbor. Then all goes well - he has changed his market-cart into a chariot of the sun.â¿¿ (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
* â¿¿One of the most potent of the weapons of influence around us is the rule for reciprocation. The rule says that we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us.â¿¿ (Robert B Cialdini)
* "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." (Shayast)
* "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you."[citation needed]
* "What stirs your anger when done to you by others, that do not do to others." (Socrates)
* Refraining from doing what we blame in others. (Thales, Diogenes Laertius, vol I, page 39)
* One should be "contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow against himself." (Thomas Hobbes)
Damn, hate cutting and pasting from other sources but still, that’s a start. I recall having very similar stuff from ancient China too but will have to dig about for it. [/quote]
Two different things:
-
The golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
-
Love thy neighbor as thy self.
I think we are all well aware that the golden rule has been repeated often times by others. And was apparent in fact in many versions before the Bible, no big deal.
I never said that everything Christ stated was not stated before. He walked the earth and emphasized many Godly principals, some original some not.
But,
“love thy neighbor as thy self” was a pretty original concept.
[quote]
That tells me that the ideals were about long before the religion, and various authorities have subsequently tried to make them canon or law, simply because they work well for society as a whole - Either by threat of punishment or damnation.
First, as I asked I’d like to see what text you are referring to.
Secondly, the Bible never said that these laws were never before seen. But, after Moses brought them down from God they were in fact law.
But you have stated many times you don’t buy that morality can be personal and still share the same characteristics as those ideals you hold sacred and ascribe to Christianity.
If I show you that for a long time pre-Christ, people had agreed it was wrong to kill, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, wrong to do so many things which the Bible has also taken a dislike to, then surely you cannot claim them as solely Christian morals, which you referred to my morality as being. [/quote]
That spoke these laws to Moses as things that he (God) insisted be followed tells me that those things were and are important.
And that man on his own decided that many of these same things were also important does not mean that there is no God.
It could however mean that man was not doing a very good job of following many of those “rules” and that’s why God decided to do what he did.
Either way, Christs message was not obey this law or that law. It was a message of forgiveness. Believe in Christ and the one who sent him and be forgiven.
A simple message which has so far been rejected by you.
Thank you, I’d love to read the information that you are referring to.
Right. Bed time. Cheers mate.
PS - apologies for the weird characters in the text sometimes. Gremlins in the PC at the mo. [/quote]
I hope you had a restful sleep.
And sorry about any errors I was in a hurry as I was late for Church.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:
- Evolution is a fact, it happens all the time, all around us. =
Evolution is a theory. You know how I know? 'cause it’s called “The Theory of Evolution” I think it’s a fine theory, myself. I think it explains natural history very well, but it’s still a theory. No scientist would have the balls to call it fact because most scientists know there is very little that can be proven in absolutes.
This is also why the validity of experiments are quatified using statisitcal data rather than raw data. Very little is abosolute. If you want to study absolutes, mathmatics is your best bet.
No scientists…?
I have shown you this article by Gould, I have also shown you statements from Richard Dawkins, one of the most, if not the, most important evolution experts.
You don’t seem to have the capability to read the Gould article, so I’m giving you one more chance. Stop making a fool of yourself, you have NO clue… WHAT SO EVER about evolution and how it is (and it is) a fact. You are in way over your head on this one I’m afraid.
(And your theories about “burden of proof” is just laughable… You should really try to think before you write something, you are a way too easy target when you spew out your regular bullshit)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html [/quote]
Wow, Adamsson is berating someone I can’t believe it. Oh that’s right he does this all the time. When the facts don’t add up forget debate just debase.
And just when Pack had me convinced that all atheists were just fun loving guiltless hedonists.
Oh well another myth busted.
Okay, now I’m really late for Church.
Bye.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:
- Evolution is a fact, it happens all the time, all around us. =
Evolution is a theory. You know how I know? 'cause it’s called “The Theory of Evolution” I think it’s a fine theory, myself. I think it explains natural history very well, but it’s still a theory. No scientist would have the balls to call it fact because most scientists know there is very little that can be proven in absolutes.
This is also why the validity of experiments are quatified using statisitcal data rather than raw data. Very little is abosolute. If you want to study absolutes, mathmatics is your best bet.
No scientists…?
I have shown you this article by Gould, I have also shown you statements from Richard Dawkins, one of the most, if not the, most important evolution experts.
You don’t seem to have the capability to read the Gould article, so I’m giving you one more chance. Stop making a fool of yourself, you have NO clue… WHAT SO EVER about evolution and how it is (and it is) a fact. You are in way over your head on this one I’m afraid.
(And your theories about “burden of proof” is just laughable… You should really try to think before you write something, you are a way too easy target when you spew out your regular bullshit)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Wow, Adamsson is berating someone I can’t believe it. Oh that’s right he does this all the time. When the facts don’t add up forget debate just debase.
And just when Pack had me convinced that all atheists were just fun loving guiltless hedonists.
Oh well another myth busted.
Okay, now I’m really late for Church.
Bye.
[/quote]
When people with intention ignores the facts, ignore the sources and still go on with statements they know are false, just to support their childish beliefs. I have no motivation to be a kindergarden aunt and put every argument in a pink, fluffy cushion. You and pat has yet to make one rational, serious and valid argument.
You have on the other hand made quite a few “appeal to authority”, “appeal to majority” and similar logical fallacies, you have also made futile attempts to attack me as a person, like you do here. Isn’t it ironic? Attacking me as a person, beacause you don’t like me when I’m direct… Go to church, get your daily dose of lies, deceit and fairytales. You obviously need it…
Man, I’d forgotten how much you like to make assumptions Zeb. If you think something about me just ask, I’m a open person. But please stop trying to tell me what my thoughts are and what I object to. I’ll be sure to tell you as soon I object to something.
And it’s weird. Whenever you try to make these assumptions from my point of view, you still bring God into them in some active role, which immediately voids your subsequent argument, as you are incapable of empathising or understanding where I am coming from and seeing anything from the viewpoint of there being no God in anything other than a terrifying manner. I assure you it is not in the least terrifying.
One example is you asking me what atheism brings to the party. I tell you about seizing the day. Making the best of your one life. And your response, is just to counter ‘yeah… one life ON EARTH, but you choose where you go after’. Erm, to the atheist NO YOU DON’T. In fact, screw it. To anyone, no you don’t.
But regardless, on this I’m gonna have to call you out. One shred, however tenuous or circumstantial, of evidence that supports the theory that there is an afterlife, a heaven and a hell. Come on, bring it on…
Oh, and ‘because Jesus said’ doesn’t count.
Oh, and when speaking about being guilt-free I meant free of the guilt that comes with being reminded every day what a sinner you are, and how imperfect you are - being judged by something that doesn’t exist. This is genius… A Christian telling me we are pre-programmed for guilt. Hahahahahahaha… Errr, no. We’re not. Your religion is.
Ooh also, who are these people who you say ‘worship’ science? Have you gotten confused again as to the meaning of the word you use? I thought you’d said we got past this deliberate misuse of a term to make a specious point. Unless of course you really did mean ‘worship’ in which case I would love to know who these people are.
If as you say I don’t find that proof, then there is not a nanometre of a chance of me ‘finding’ God. I hope one day you will be enlightened and extend your current atheism about every other deity to the Christian God too. It is not a hedonistic nihilistic freedom that you seem to think it is, but one of TRUE free will, free of worship. Maybe one day you’ll find the strength to stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for your own actions, rather than feel you have to run every action to make past a make-believe father figure. Have that Moment of clarity I know you are searching for
Right. Off to work yet again!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And just when Pack had me convinced that all atheists were just fun loving guiltless hedonists.
Oh well another myth busted.
Okay, now I’m really late for Church.
Bye.
[/quote]
Tounge-in-cheek or not, that was an incredibly patronising summation of all the effort I have put into being mindful and respectful or your beliefs whilst still being true to mine and trying to explain them to you so we could find common ground. You just demonstrated perfectly the condescension and patronising tone that gets atheist’s backs up. I was going to say I thought it was beneath you, but actually the frequency with which you do it makes me start to wonder whether it is in fact EXACTLY your sort of level.
How disappointing.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
There are several wacky atheist sites that claim Einstein didn’t believe in God. But then again those are the same sites which insist that there are contradictions in the Bible of which there are none.
[/quote]
“Thou shall not kill”
and
“Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.”
Contradiction.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are several wacky atheist sites that claim Einstein didn’t believe in God. But then again those are the same sites which insist that there are contradictions in the Bible of which there are none.
“Thou shall not kill”
and
“Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.”
Contradiction.[/quote]
I have shown you several contradictions. When it comes to Einstein:
“I don’t try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it”
or:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it”
or…
“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive”
Einsten was not a christian, claiming that shows how desperate the likes of ZEB is…
Dear Adamsson,
You might want to try a bit more tolerance for those who have different beliefs than you.
Tolerance is a good thing. It keeps those who think they’re superior from harming those who think they’re superior.
No seriously, give it a try.
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Man, I’d forgotten how much you like to make assumptions Zeb. If you think something about me just ask, I’m a open person. But please stop trying to tell me what my thoughts are and what I object to. I’ll be sure to tell you as soon I object to something. [/quote]
Please tell me of the false assumption(s) that I’ve made. I only ask in order to correct myself for next time.
I thought I was being understanding. And I think I get it, or am I making another false assumption:
You have not seen enough (or any) proof that God exists.
You operate as a free person, not afraid to make a choice in your life based upon God, as you don’t believe there is a God.
Am I wrong with any of that?
If not I get a gold star, right?
Hey pack scroll back I know you are a free spirit (is spirit a bad choice of words?) who can make your own choice not based on what God wants as you don’t believe that there is a God.
But what I tried to tell you is that Christians also have the freedom of choice. We can do whatever we want too, just like you and everyone else who moves about with a pulse.
And when I asked “what does atheism bring to the party” we were talking (at the time) about the many benefits of Christianity, helping civilization, the fabric of community etc.
I thought it was a fair question in light of the topic matter.
[quote]But regardless, on this I’m gonna have to call you out. One shred, however tenuous or circumstantial, of evidence that supports the theory that there is an afterlife, a heaven and a hell. Come on, bring it on…
Oh, and ‘because Jesus said’ doesn’t count. [/quote]
I’ve said this to your friend (no wait he’s probably not your friend, let’s say cohort) Adamsson on many of occasion.
That is:
If you are waiting for me or any other Christian and that includes Billy Graham as well, to prove to your satisfaction that there’s a God you have a long wait.
It’s about faith some of us have it and some don’t.
I do, you don’t, yet.
Ah, you are free of the reminder, but not free of the consequences of your sin. And ironically those consequences have a way of reminding you right here on earth.
I’d rather be reminded my own way now and again and try to improve from there.
But you can go on living as you like as you have free will given to you by God, enjoy it.
That’s odd, you’ve never felt remorse for a deed done while angry, for example?
I don’t think one has to be a Christian to feel guilt for something that they shouldn’t have done.
But you could be the first person that I’ve ever spoken to without any sort of remorse.
If that is the case, (and I don’t think it is) I feel sorry for you.
I do think that we are “programmed” in a sense, to want to hold certain things on a higher standard than ourselves.
Some “worship” athletes, I read it here on T-Nation all the time.
Some “worship” money, I see it in my daily life on a regular basis.
Others put science on a pedestal.
Oh, I’m not going to argue about the terms.
There are many forms of worship.
And it is in fact mentioned in the Bible as well.
In one instance it’s called idolatry, an “immoderate attachment or devotion to something”.
[b]Do you “worship” science?
I have no idea, so sorry if I made that assumption. But every time God is mentioned you look to science to prove that God exists. That doesn’t tell me that you worship science necessarily, but it does tell me that you are looking in the wrong place.[/b]
It’s sort of like looking for love in a whore house. It must be there somewhere if it’s real right?
Well, some components of “love” might be there but no, love won’t be found there.
Did you like that comparison?
I guess Billy Graham won’t be using it any time soon huh?
Are you suggesting that your brand of “freedom” vs my own, is actually “free” as in no cost?
Wow, I think you just made a false assumption and (in your own words) I’M GOING TO CALL YOU ON THAT.
LOL
Seriously, though you could not be further from the truth.
I’m not searching for anything my friend, I’ve found it.
I stood on my own two feet many years ago, as an adult, exercised my free will and became a Christian. I worship a God who loved me enough to sacrifice his one and only son Jesus Christ, for my sins.
Oh, and is it okay to express these things to you after you called them “fairy tales”?
I guess it must be, it works both ways huh?
Hope work went well,
Zeb