How Many T-Men Believe in God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
342

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Yea, so? Whose trying to overthrow it. I am saying it just a theory, not that it’s wrong.
[/quote]

Whoa!

Evolution is a fact, just like gravity.

The theory of evolution may “just be a theory” but all science has to offer are “just theories”.

Even wrong theories are RIGHT ENOUGH though very often.

Newtonian physics may have been wrong but it described the world accurately enough to make clocks tick and plans fly.

IF the theory of evolution developes it will be in the direction of further refinement, it will very likely never be overthrown.

What is your exact point?

343

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
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.

I’ll be as brief as possible:

The 6th Commandment reads “thou shall not murder.”

Murder is the taking of innocent life.

In the OT a witch (or sorceress) was considered to be guilty of immense sin because as a group they had turned their back on God (at least in those days) and worthy of death.

In Hebrew there are 9 different words that mean to cause the death of another. But they do not all mean the same thing. The commandment is against murder, not death.

To further clarify:

All murder is killing but not all killing is murder.

Hence, some things are murder, such as taking an innocent life. Some folks like me would list abortion here. Other things are not murder of which one is taking a life in order to preserve your own, such as in a time of war etc.

The OT has some pretty heavy duty penalties.

It makes me even happier that Jesus Christ walked the earth in the NT.

Finally, while I have heard many claim contradictions in the Bible I have personally never seen one.

Of course the bible will never contradict itself if you can take the liberty to hijack the meaning of any of the words used.

Face it, to say “thou shall not kill”, then give instructions on who to kill, is a contradiction.

Twisting it to mean “Thou shall not murder…but its ok to kill under some circumstances” is bunk. Besides, that kinda brings up moral relativism, which Christians dont seem to be too keen on, from what I’ve gathered.[/quote]

Not so, as I’ve said prior “kill and murder” are two different things. And that’s not just under Gods law that’s mans law as well.

I don’t have time right now but maybe later in the day I’ll post the original Hebrew for you.

The commandment reads “Thou shalt not murder.”

344

Adamsson,

I don’t have time right now to answer your post, or even read it.

I’m helping out with VBS this year. That stands for “Vacation Bible School”.

Lots of fun for the kids, games, sports and plenty of Bible classes.

Talk to you later.

:slight_smile:

345

Everybody has a god in his mind and believes in his own god.I beleive religion is a form of slavery.Of the mind, not physically of course.Most religions are based on lies,stories and fairytales.

The bibles has been written three times and each time someone wrote what they wanted it to say.King james for example.Humans have instincs,urges and thirsts.If you supress these because someone tells you to then you
are slave.We must concentrate on the god inside us all.The only one worthy of calling a god.I am god.God walking earth!

346

[quote]bloodaxe wrote:
Everybody has a god in his mind and believes in his own god.I beleive religion is a form of slavery.Of the mind, not physically of course.Most religions are based on lies,stories and fairytales.

The bibles has been written three times and each time someone wrote what they wanted it to say.King james for example.Humans have instincs,urges and thirsts.If you supress these because someone tells you to then you
are slave.We must concentrate on the god inside us all.The only one worthy of calling a god.I am god.God walking earth![/quote]

What language is this?

347

[quote]orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Yea, so? Whose trying to overthrow it. I am saying it just a theory, not that it’s wrong.

Whoa!

Evolution is a fact, just like gravity.

The theory of evolution may “just be a theory” but all science has to offer are “just theories”.

Even wrong theories are RIGHT ENOUGH though very often.

Newtonian physics may have been wrong but it described the world accurately enough to make clocks tick and plans fly.

IF the theory of evolution developes it will be in the direction of further refinement, it will very likely never be overthrown.

b) theories are never proven. The general theory of evolution however is so , well, general, that it will probably always stay in principle.

Thanks for proving my exact point. Argument over.

[/quote]

Law of Gravity. Theory of Evolution…Laws and theories are not the same. Maybe in German they are, but in english they mean different things.

That evolution is a theory. Not a scientific law, nor scientific fact. It has not been proven to be stistiaclly signifigant in all tested cases and may never be.

348

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Not so, as I’ve said prior “kill and murder” are two different things. And that’s not just under Gods law that’s mans law as well.

I don’t have time right now but maybe later in the day I’ll post the original Hebrew for you.

The commandment reads “Thou shalt not murder.”

[/quote]

So killing someone for having a different belief system is not murder, according to the bible?

349

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Not so, as I’ve said prior “kill and murder” are two different things. And that’s not just under Gods law that’s mans law as well.

I don’t have time right now but maybe later in the day I’ll post the original Hebrew for you.

The commandment reads “Thou shalt not murder.”

So killing someone for having a different belief system is not murder, according to the bible?

[/quote]

Yea, how about that?

But keep in mind they didn’t have phrases like “belief system” in those days.

A witch in those days was considered to be quite evil (even more so than Adamsson, kidding ole’ pal).

They were like the terrorists of their day.

But,

they delivered all sorts of harsh punishment for “evil doers” in the OT. Have you ever read the part about stoning whores, or those who have been unfaithful? That was the punishment according to the OT.

But,when Jesus Chris came (NT) on the scene that all changed. As you may (or may not) recall Christ actually saved a whore from being stoned.

He told the men with the stones, “he without sin cast the first stone”.

Naturally they all dropped the rocks and went back to work, or to whatever they were doing.

But he didn’t accept the whores behavior, just because he removed the penalty.

(A good lesson for those of us who are Christians.)

He then turned to the whore and said “go and sin no more.”

There you have it. The forgiveness of Christ as God in action.

(I have delivered this message on one of the Church computers. Ironic huh?)

350

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Law of Gravity. Theory of Evolution…Laws and theories are not the same. Maybe in German they are, but in english they mean different things.
[/quote]

Pookie allready answered that above, therefore I did not reply to it.

I though you read it.

Newtons “LAW of Gravitation” was wrong.

Nobody calls things laws anymore, becuause of this.

Right now we have a “THEORY of gravition”, based on Einsteins “THEORY of relativity”.

That does not change the fact though that gravitation never ceased to work, apples did not halt in the middle of the air to await the result of an academic discussion.

The theories regarding gravitation might have changed, masses never ceased to attract it other.

See above, your use of “theories” remains questionable when there are no “laws” in science and how does statistic significance fit into this?

351

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Haha, yes… attacking Sam Harris personally, without any reason for it, is a good idea Zeb… :slight_smile: You are, as someone above me so eloquently put it: now an official retard. (see, I just did to you, as you did to me and to Sam Harris).[/quote]

I never attacked the man, perhaps you should take a closer look.

What I did do was compare the validity of “Sam Harris” to that of Paul the Apostle. I can understand why that would offend you a bit, but the audience that I was trying to reach with the comparison got the message. That is, Mr. Harris does not hold up to Paul the Apostle.

Also,

if you want to question the book written by John Galbraith Simmons, who is an eminent writer of medical and scientific biographies you may do so. However, let me caution you that HE has far more credibility than you on this topic. And for you to insinuate that he was less than forthcoming with his facts with no proof what so ever, is laughable. And in a close comparison with this gentleman you would not do well. In fact, you may do as poorly as as Mr. Harris compared to Paul the Apostle, maybe worse.

Onto on last point.

The fact is, there are many smart folks on both sides of the issue. And I’ve stated that on prior posts. However, in raw numbers there are far more “smart” people on the side of believing that there is a God than on the side that there is no God.

Why is that a fact?

Most people (about 90% last time I checked a reliable poll) believe that there IS a God.

So, I guess that puts you on the wrong side of the issue in more ways than one huh?

I can understand your frustration things are not working out quite as you thought they would when you entered the thread. You wanted to cast as much doubt as you possibly could in the minds of those who are still searching for answers regarding spiritual matters. And myself and others have appeared as road blocks to you in your “mission”.

Name calling? I knew that a time would come on this thread where you would resort to that. it’s your computer and you pay the bill. And best of all, your anonymous. I guess it’s only logical for you. But it won’t help you accomplish your goal. On the contrary, it may in fact weaken your already feeble case.

Okay, time is up, back to work for the kids at VBS.

Take care Adamsson.

Zeb

352

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, you have thin skin.

You call Christianity “fairy tales” and that we imagine God bla bla bla.

One crack about hedonism and you get bent out of shape.

But you did like the “fun loving” part right?

Hey wait…what do you have against hedonism? “A life devoted to pleasure”, guilt free of course.

Come on, you must have thicker skin that that.

I thought we were all friends here making fun of each others beliefs in a light hearted way of course.

It doesn’t work both ways?

Okay, now I know.

[/quote]

Where did I call your beliefs fairy tales? I think you confused me with someone else. Oh, but then I guess us atheists all look alike to you…

All I have done is ask why people believe what they believe in an effort to understand. Have you lumped me in with everyone else again?

It was the simple fact Zeb that in one sentence, you completely marginalised and trivialised everything I went to great lengths to try and explain to you, becaue it was as important to me that you understand me as it was that I understand you. To even suggest, after all the effort I have gone to, that you think my personal beliefs are a guilt-free pursuit of personal pleasure either shows a collossal lack of understanding on your part, an inability to articulate properly on mine, or a deliberate perverion of everything I have said to suit your own means.

Your depiction of me and how I live my life bares no relation to what I have described to you, which I have done being completely honest and open and unguarded.

Like your use of the words faith, religion and worship to describe me and my beliefs which I objected to previously, your joke was no innocent mistake or simple quip. You sought to reduce to sum of the atheist’s life to that simple derogatory statement.

And yes, I thought it showed a lack of class and respect most unbecoming in you.

Not arguing with you anymore. I have too much going on without banging my head against a brick wall trying to get you understand where I’m coming from. .

Work was fine but tiring thanks.

353

[quote]ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Not so, as I’ve said prior “kill and murder” are two different things. And that’s not just under Gods law that’s mans law as well.

I don’t have time right now but maybe later in the day I’ll post the original Hebrew for you.

The commandment reads “Thou shalt not murder.”

So killing someone for having a different belief system is not murder, according to the bible?

Yea, how about that?

But keep in mind they didn’t have phrases like “belief system” in those days.

A witch in those days was considered to be quite evil (even more so than Adamsson, kidding ole’ pal).

They were like the terrorists of their day.

But,

they delivered all sorts of harsh punishment for “evil doers” in the OT. Have you ever read the part about stoning whores, or those who have been unfaithful? That was the punishment according to the OT.

But,when Jesus Chris came (NT) on the scene that all changed. As you may (or may not) recall Christ actually saved a whore from being stoned.

He told the men with the stones, “he without sin cast the first stone”.

Naturally they all dropped the rocks and went back to work, or to whatever they were doing.

But he didn’t accept the whores behavior, just because he removed the penalty.

(A good lesson for those of us who are Christians.)

He then turned to the whore and said “go and sin no more.”

There you have it. The forgiveness of Christ as God in action.

(I have delivered this message on one of the Church computers. Ironic huh?)

[/quote]

So, wait wait.

Christians = good.

Terrorists = bad.

Terrorists = people who kill others because they have a different belief system.

Christians of old = people who kill others because they have a different belief system.

So, basically, any Christian who “did not suffer a witch to live” is about the same as a modern day terrorist.

I also like the whole OT/NT argument that gets thrown up.

“The whole bible is right!”

“But the bible says this, and you are against this!”

“But…thats uh… the part of the bible that doesnt count anymore! Only the NT counts!”

“So why do people still reference the OT?”

“…”

354

[quote]orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:

Law of Gravity. Theory of Evolution…Laws and theories are not the same. Maybe in German they are, but in english they mean different things.

Pookie allready answered that above, therefore I did not reply to it.

I though you read it.

Newtons “LAW of Gravitation” was wrong.

Nobody calls things laws anymore, becuause of this.

Right now we have a “THEORY of gravition”, based on Einsteins “THEORY of relativity”.

That does not change the fact though that gravitation never ceased to work, apples did not halt in the middle of the air to await the result of an academic discussion.

The theories regarding gravitation might have changed, masses never ceased to attract it other.

What is your exact point?

That evolution is a theory. Not a scientific law, nor scientific fact. It has not been proven to be stistiaclly signifigant in all tested cases and may never be.

See above, your use of “theories” remains questionable when there are no “laws” in science and how does statistic significance fit into this?

[/quote]

You’re right about one thing I did not read all 351 responses to this thread.

No laws in science? Whatever, your urination of the scientific method is criminal.

In science unless you can test all the cases in which a particular event happens you cannot know for sure a cause will have the expected effect. Therefore statistical math is used to calculate the probability of the event reoccuring outside the lab.

Unless you can witness and measure the adaptation of all living things to new an ever changing environment and from that data ensure that every adaptation event was one that fit the model of “Survival of the fittest” then you cannot say Evolution is a fact.

Based on my experience, evolution is likely a correct explination of how and why living things adapt, but it’s still a theory. Nothing you said makes the theory of evolution less of a theory. 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact, evolution is a theory.

355

pat, what the hell is your point already? so evolution is just an extremely plausible “theory” which, by your own admission, is merely ALMOST an absolute certainty. what the hell is your point? how does this validate your theistic beliefs?

356

[quote]pat36 wrote:

No laws in science? Whatever, your urination of the scientific method is criminal.

In science unless you can test all the cases in which a particular event happens you cannot know for sure a cause will have the expected effect. Therefore statistical math is used to calculate the probability of the event reoccuring outside the lab.

Unless you can witness and measure the adaptation of all living things to new an ever changing environment and from that data ensure that every adaptation event was one that fit the model of “Survival of the fittest” then you cannot say Evolution is a fact.

Based on my experience, evolution is likely a correct explination of how and why living things adapt, but it’s still a theory. Nothing you said makes the theory of evolution less of a theory. 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact, evolution is a theory.[/quote]

First, leave mathematics out of it, since it is a formal science.

Since the first paragraph of your links tells us that those “laws” can be wrong I do not see what the problem is.

I really do not see the difference between laws of physics, that are falsifiable and theories, that as Wikipedia tells me contain sets of physical laws and must also be falsifiable.

If I called a theory a set of laws and a law a tiny theory would I be completely wrong?

Possibly, because it is a matter of definitions, but would I be wrong in essence?

So, if theories can describe facts and laws must not be facts, what have you gained?

Both are not 100% true and if they were we had no way of knowing it.

So, in conclusion, you “laws” are not on a higher plane of truth than my “theories”.

To the “survival of the fittest”:

That is not necessarily true unless you broaden your idea of “fittest”. Not those who survive procreate, those who procreate procreate.

There are ideas like “conspicous consumption” by Zahavi (genius!!!) that describe why species develop traits that hinder their survival but further their sexual success.

To the statistical methods:

That would never work anyway, because how would you know what “the fittest” is?

I understand that you would have to know that in order to compare,but since Lorenz tells us that “evolution is everythiing interacting with everything” how could you?

357

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Haha, yes… attacking Sam Harris personally, without any reason for it, is a good idea Zeb… :slight_smile: You are, as someone above me so eloquently put it: now an official retard. (see, I just did to you, as you did to me and to Sam Harris).

I never attacked the man, perhaps you should take a closer look.

What I did do was compare the validity of “Sam Harris” to that of Paul the Apostle. I can understand why that would offend you a bit, but the audience that I was trying to reach with the comparison got the message. That is, Mr. Harris does not hold up to Paul the Apostle.

Also,

if you want to question the book written by John Galbraith Simmons, who is an eminent writer of medical and scientific biographies you may do so. However, let me caution you that HE has far more credibility than you on this topic. And for you to insinuate that he was less than forthcoming with his facts with no proof what so ever, is laughable. And in a close comparison with this gentleman you would not do well. In fact, you may do as poorly as as Mr. Harris compared to Paul the Apostle, maybe worse.

Onto on last point.

The fact is, there are many smart folks on both sides of the issue. And I’ve stated that on prior posts. However, in raw numbers there are far more “smart” people on the side of believing that there is a God than on the side that there is no God.

Why is that a fact?

Most people (about 90% last time I checked a reliable poll) believe that there IS a God.

So, I guess that puts you on the wrong side of the issue in more ways than one huh?

Safe to say, the thrown together list our little household retard (the day you start reading my sources and adressing my questions, you’ll lose the nickname, ok retard?) Zeb comes with, is ofcourse faulty. It reeks of “hey, we’ll just call people christians, especially dead people, they can’t defend themselves”.

I can understand your frustration things are not working out quite as you thought they would when you entered the thread. You wanted to cast as much doubt as you possibly could in the minds of those who are still searching for answers regarding spiritual matters. And myself and others have appeared as road blocks to you in your “mission”.

Name calling? I knew that a time would come on this thread where you would resort to that. it’s your computer and you pay the bill. And best of all, your anonymous. I guess it’s only logical for you. But it won’t help you accomplish your goal. On the contrary, it may in fact weaken your already feeble case.

Okay, time is up, back to work for the kids at VBS.

Take care Adamsson.

Zeb
[/quote]

Hahahahaha… yes…

“That is, Mr. Harris does not hold up to Paul the Apostle.”

You are amazing, you might think that you are doing a good job in this debate. Let me assure you, either you are a) incredible stupid or b) a bad troll. You are NOT in ANY way making a good figure in this debate. Ok…? Sam Harris is a very aknowledged scientist. Paul the Apostle is in the same cathegory as the brothers Grim: the fairy tale business.

You are as much of a roadblock as a dry leaf is when I’m out driving a stormy autumn night. You have yet to present any valid arguments. You attack me and my sources personally. You ignore every source that proves you wrong and you ignore every argument that sheds light on your fallacies… You lie, deceit and act like a true machivellian… I guess we should use you as a good example on how the christian “ethic” work… :slight_smile:

358

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

Where did I call your beliefs fairy tales? I think you confused me with someone else. Oh, but then I guess us atheists all look alike to you…[/quote]

Actually, I don’t think you did, sorry.

You did say this however, [quote]Maybe one day you’ll find the strength to stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for your own actions[/quote]

And a few other things at least as bad.

I didn’t get upset about it because I know that’s how you view Christians. But, in reality it’s very demeaning. Should I go on? Naw…I’m a big boy, I’m not going to play the “I’m sooo hurt game”. When I returned with the hedonism joke, you sort of flipped out. In a way you remind me a bit (just a bit) of American liberals. If one of them has an off color comment, no one gets upset. But if a conservative does it they act so very offended.

I guess one can’t joke when engaged in such a serious conversation. Or at least I can’t with you to be more specific.

Hey, I know where you’re coming from. You have articulated your point quite well and should feel proud, and I mean that.

Thank you for the discourse, it was a pleasure.

All the best,

Zeb

359

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

Hahahahaha… yes…

“That is, Mr. Harris does not hold up to Paul the Apostle.”

You are amazing, you might think that you are doing a good job in this debate. Let me assure you, either you are a) incredible stupid or b) a bad troll. You are NOT in ANY way making a good figure in this debate. Ok…? Sam Harris is a very aknowledged scientist. Paul the Apostle is in the same cathegory as the brothers Grim: the fairy tale business.[/quote]

You can think that Harris is more credible than Paul the Apostle. But 100 years from today Harris will not even be remembered and people will still be talking about Paul the Apostle, and his incredible Christian mission.

You don’t get that do you?

You’ve tried to make a case that only stupid people believe in God and you failed.

I’m sure that whatever group of people you hang with think that you and your ideas are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But in reality the majority of people (oh about 90%) think that your ideas are goofy and out of step.

You’ve given good sources? Now that’s funny.

You’ll never top it.

[quote] You lie, deceit and act like a true machivellian…
[/quote]

Darn, I was wrong, you topped it!

You are the only one on this entire thread, from what I’ve read, that was caught in a lie. And you didn’t even apologize for it. Do you represent all atheists?

No, no you don’t I’m not going to stereotype here. I’ll be the one to keep an open mind.

Talk to you soon, or not.

Zeb

360

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Christians of old = people who kill others because they have a different belief system.[/quote]

I thought I explained that one to you. Why don’t you scroll back and reread it, it’s becoming sort of redundant.

Asking a question in order to be argumentative is okay on the Internet. But after three or four posts with the same answers well…you’ll have to go to a new topic if you want me to play.

Keep in mind,

I respect your opinion to disagree with anything I say. And I hope that you respect mine as well.

Take care,

Zeb

361

Yes.

-dizzle