How Many T-Men Believe in God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
362

[quote]ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

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

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

[/quote]

"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."

You explained it by saying “They didnt have a phrase for belief system back then.”

BS semantics argument.

Those Christians commited murder. Period.

363

Nope.

I just don’t see any good reason to.

364

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Those Christians commited murder. Period.
[/quote]

I’ll have one more go at it just on the outside shot you are actually trying to understand and not simply arguing for the sake of it, because you are bored, or just like to hate, okay?

You use the term “belief system” as quite a harmless alternative to Christianity.

What if it wasn’t so harmless?

Charles Manson had a different “belief system.” Should he have been allowed to exercise that belief system? Would you have argued with the state of California if they decided to put him to death for his crimes? Would you call that “murder” if they did?

No, of course not.

It is my understanding that Witches in those days, unlike our current times, were indeed quite evil. It was not about a harmless ritual which might be practiced today.

In fact,

Some sources maintain that the early translation was “poisoner”. As in someone who poisons people. Presumably with various potions etc., I have no idea. But killing a person who poisoned someone is not murder.

Again, not all “belief systems” were good, this is one that apparently was not, at least at that point in time.

Snap judging certain lines from the Bible, or taking things out of context, is easy to do. And there are many wacky anti-Christian web sites that certainly fuel the hate.

If you want to hate on Christianity, nothing I’ve posted here, and nothing anyone could tell you online or in person will prevent that. But at least you have more knowledge than you did before, like it or not.

Easy to hate, more difficult to understand.

Take care,

Zeb

365

[quote]ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Those Christians commited murder. Period.

I’ll have one more go at it just on the outside shot you are actually trying to understand and not simply arguing for the sake of it, because you are bored, or just like to hate, okay?

You use the term “belief system” as quite a harmless alternative to Christianity.

What if it wasn’t so harmless?

Charles Manson had a different “belief system.” Should he have been allowed to exercise that belief system? Would you have argued with the state of California if they decided to put him to death for his crimes? Would you call that “murder” if they did?

No, of course not.

It is my understanding that Witches in those days, unlike our current times, were indeed quite evil. It was not about a harmless ritual which might be practiced today.

In fact,

Some sources maintain that the early translation was “poisoner”. As in someone who poisons people. Presumably with various potions etc., I have no idea. But killing a person who poisoned someone is not murder.

Again, not all “belief systems” were good, this is one that apparently was not, at least at that point in time.

Snap judging certain lines from the Bible, or taking things out of context, is easy to do. And there are many wacky anti-Christian web sites that certainly fuel the hate.

If you want to hate on Christianity, nothing I’ve posted here, and nothing anyone could tell you online or in person will prevent that. But at least you have more knowledge than you did before, like it or not.

Easy to hate, more difficult to understand.

Take care,

Zeb [/quote]

I give up.

You compare Paganism to murder, and expect to have serious debate?

You’re of the same breed of idiot that says things like “If two men can be gay, why cant a man fuck a 3 year old?!?”

I give up. Take care.

366

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Paul the Apostle is in the same cathegory as the brothers Grim: the fairy tale business.[/quote]

Now this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but I just have to correct this misconception. Brothers Grimm were in the business of documenting folklore.

367

Zeb, that ‘stand on your two feet’ thing was a direct response to YOUR little end comment about ‘maybe one day I will finally find God’. Was showing you that it is equally possible for you to ‘see the light’ as me.

To say I don’t believe in God is not demeaning, surely? To say I sometimes can’t get my head around why Christians or people of other faiths believe what they do, is surely not demeaning, but rather (I would hope) would suggest that I strive for greater understanding.

I may have questioned the authenticity of certain events. I STILL don’t see that as demeaning… I’m just waiting for people who know more than me to clarify it for me so again, I gain a greater understanding.

If you find that demeaning, then I would suggest you might need to re-evaluate your faith because if such a flimsy and light poke around the edges some of the basic foundations of Christianity can cause you to feel demeaned, then I think there is a far greater issue to be addressed here.

But the fact is Zeb, to continue doing something that someone has expressly asked you not to do, and taken time to to explain why is a little off. To then do it AGAIN, adding the little caveat that I should not be worried about definitions when if that were the case you could have used any number or more appropriate terms.

Well, it’s just not in the spirit of this conversation and is simply petty. I’m sure you’ll argue this point yet again because you seem to have an inability to simply say ‘Ok sorry. I get ya. Won’t do it again. Let’s carry on the conversation’. I know forgiveness is a strong part of the Christian faith. Is apologising not?

I have not ascribed to any of the myriad stereotypes of religious people to you. And yet you seem to be only too happy to lump me in with others and use these dismissive comments about atheists which I find not offensive, but saddening when I felt we could discuss a topic such as this without reducing it to such levels.

Anyway, take care. You know my thoughts Zeb, I don’t think you’re bad, I just think you’re wrong :wink:

368

[quote]ZEB wrote:
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.

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 ignore every source that proves you wrong

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

You’ll never top it.

You lie, deceit and act like a true machivellian…

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

[/quote]

Yes, being remembered is the true way of deciding if you are credible or not… :slight_smile: You are a true believer, aren’t you? :slight_smile: In the Eric Hoffer fashion. Logic and common sense isn’t important, ad-hoc arguments and statements are your tools.

  1. Being remembered doesen’t lend credibility

  2. Sam Harris is an extremely knowledgeable and aknowledged scientist. You tried to drag him into your mud, you failed.

  3. Evolution is a fact, period.

  4. There is no proof that god exists, period.

You have yet to refute any of these statements.

369

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I give up.

You compare Paganism to murder, and expect to have serious debate?

I give up. Take care.
[/quote]

My point is it was more than just harmless paganism, as we know it today. Please leave room for a closer consideration of those times. It was several thousand years ago.

370

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

Anyway, take care. You know my thoughts Zeb, I don’t think you’re bad, I just think you’re wrong :wink:
[/quote]

And I certainly don’t think that you’re at all bad. In addition to that I rather enjoy talking to you (most of the time:).

And who knows maybe someday we’ll agree on this issue. Crazier things have happened like…um…ah…well they’re there you just have to think for a while.

Hey, like I’ve been known to say, the good part is, we both get to find out who is right and who is wrong someday.

If we don’t get another opportunity to talk, take care and may the very best in life come your way.

Zeb

371

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.

  • Aristotle, Politics.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

  • Seneca
372

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

  1. Being remembered doesen’t lend credibility[/quote]

That’s not always the case.

It’s all about the impact that someone leaves. What was his life about? And what sort of legacy will he leave? The Apostle Paul left a legacy of spreading Christianity through out the land. He was not only a brave man, but a very good and dedicated Christian as well. All of that leads to great credibility.

I never once posted a bad word about Sam Harris. You either know this and are lying AGAIN, or you have a faulty memory. My point was, and still is, he does not come close to the Apostle Paul in terms of credibility.

Wow, I guess you have a faulty memory. You have to keep your Internet debates straight. I have not posted even one word either for or against evolution.

People (such as yourself) who look for God in science will never find God.

I posted this several pages ago:

FAITH:

A noun, The act of assenting intellectually to something which is proposed as true."

[b]Hebrews 11:6

"But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that draws near to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who seek him out.[/b]

It’s all about faith, I have it, and you don’t, yet.

373

[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.

  • Aristotle, Politics.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

  • Seneca

[/quote]

Here are some of my favorites:

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Science,

Albert Einstein Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941)

“Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”

Thomas Jefferson

“I say the whole earth and all the stars in the sky are for religion�??s sake.”

Walt Whitman

“The Almighty has his own purposes.”

Abraham Lincoln

“God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

George Washington

“Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, …”

George Washington
from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752]

“God is the perfect poet.”

Robert Browning

“When you knock, ask to see God - none of the servants.”

Henry David Thoreau

“Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God�??s great Judgment Seat.”

Rudyard Kipling

“We bow our heads before Thee, and we laud, And magnify thy name Almighty God! But man is thy most awful instrument, In working out a pure intent.”

William Wordsworth

“Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.”

Albert Einstein

“Everyone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force.”

Flavius Josephus

“Live among men as if God beheld you; speak to God as if men were listening.”

Seneca

“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”

C.S. Lewis

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

Albert Einstein

“The Creator has not given you a longing to do that which you have no ability to do.”

Orson Swett Marden

374

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I’ll try to put this in simple terms:

  1. 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

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]

Not only does the theory of evolution call for intermediate species, but thousands of them. So it is extremely problematic for the theory of evolution to not have many, if any, verified intermediate species for complex organisms.

375

[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.

  • Aristotle, Politics.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

  • Seneca

[/quote]

If someone farts in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it stink?

Your quotes are quite funny. They utilize situational logic and ignore the idea that God is not confined to time and space in a linier fashion as man. So when you or Epicurus can determine the eternal consequences of each choice or action, then you can ask these questions again. But without having that level of knowledge it is just meaningless rhetoric.

376

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Not only does the theory of evolution call for intermediate species, but thousands of them. So it is extremely problematic for the theory of evolution to not have many, if any, verified intermediate species for complex organisms.

[/quote]

This is false.

The term “species” makes sense here and now, animals that are not able to have offspring belong to different species.

If you go back in time however each generation n could have had offspring with both generation n-1 and n+1.

If evolution are tiny little changes added on top of each other over thousands if not millions of years and generations how could there be a “missing link”?

377

[quote]orion wrote:

This is false.

The term “species” makes sense here and now, animals that are not able to have offspring belong to different species.

If you go back in time however each generation n could have had offspring with both generation n-1 and n+1.

If evolution are tiny little changes added on top of each other over thousands if not millions of years and generations how could there be a “missing link”?[/quote]

You’re wasting your time.

People ignorant about evolution can educate themselves on the web ( The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs is a good starting point) or in a library. Evolutionary theory is not a secret held by a hidden cabal. There are tons of papers, books, articles, etc. available to anyone interested.

People unwilling to educate themselves about the actual theory, but who still insist in debating it with old, tired, thousand-times refuted arguments are simply stupid and won’t be convinced by anything you say. There not interested in the actual theory, not interested in science’s quest for truth and understanding of nature, the world, life and the universe. They simply want to attack anything that threatens their beliefs, like kids throwing tantrums if you try to pull their blankie from them.

It’s your time, but realize that even if you add another 1000 pages to this thread, those same people will still remain unconvinced and repeat the same nonsensical arguments you’re already getting.

378

[quote]orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Not only does the theory of evolution call for intermediate species, but thousands of them. So it is extremely problematic for the theory of evolution to not have many, if any, verified intermediate species for complex organisms.

This is false.

The term “species” makes sense here and now, animals that are not able to have offspring belong to different species.

If you go back in time however each generation n could have had offspring with both generation n-1 and n+1.

If evolution are tiny little changes added on top of each other over thousands if not millions of years and generations how could there be a “missing link”?

[/quote]

That is why people ask the question: “If man evolved from apes, how can there still be apes?”

You appear to be referring to adaptation or microevolution. The missing link idea does not apply to microevolution.

Macroevolution = a change at or above the level of species or a change in a species over time into another

Microevolution = a change below the level of species

So the missing link is the missing macroevolution species between the most evolved ape species and man. The thousands of adaptations (microevolution) that lead up to that point would not be what is missing.

379

I’m not ashamed to let you know , that Jesus Christ is my savior. The truth will set you free.

380

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Not only does the theory of evolution call for intermediate species, but thousands of them. So it is extremely problematic for the theory of evolution to not have many, if any, verified intermediate species for complex organisms.

This is false.

The term “species” makes sense here and now, animals that are not able to have offspring belong to different species.

If you go back in time however each generation n could have had offspring with both generation n-1 and n+1.

If evolution are tiny little changes added on top of each other over thousands if not millions of years and generations how could there be a “missing link”?

That is why people ask the question: “If man evolved from apes, how can there still be apes?”

You appear to be referring to adaptation or microevolution. The missing link idea does not apply to microevolution.

Macroevolution = a change at or above the level of species or a change in a species over time into another

Microevolution = a change below the level of species

So the missing link is the missing macroevolution species between the most evolved ape species and man. The thousands of adaptations (microevolution) that lead up to that point would not be what is missing.

[/quote]

  1. We have seen very wide ranges of adaptation in low life-span/high population species of insects the last 100-150 years. The fact that these are evolving is not inside the reach of any doubt.

  2. Fossils aren’t the rule, they are the exeption. You seem to WANT every speciment of every species to be fossilized. That is just… wrong.

381

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.

  • Aristotle, Politics.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

  • Seneca

If someone farts in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it stink?

Your quotes are quite funny. They utilize situational logic and ignore the idea that God is not confined to time and space in a linier fashion as man. So when you or Epicurus can determine the eternal consequences of each choice or action, then you can ask these questions again. But without having that level of knowledge it is just meaningless rhetoric.

[/quote]

That would be assuming ‘eternal consequences’ actually exist. I dare to question whether they do. I will question as I please with or without your insignificant consent.