Addicted to the almighty

[beowulf 1]

I never said Evolution was proof of anything. It's a theory of how we came to be here.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

I have read the thread, dude. It appears as though you accept and worship your God because you believe your God exists and is the true God and commanded you to do so. There are some people who accept and worship Hitler because Hitler existed and commanded them to do so. Would you care to elaborate on why you accept your God, or is the reason that some people accept and worship Hitler good enough for you to accept and worship your God?

Did Hitler prove his divinity?

No, and neither has your God. If we wait a hundred years before allowing people to write books about Hitler, then allow the people that worship Hitler to compile their book from the books that they agree with and destroy the remaining books that they do not agree with, and then allow the people that worship Hitler to spread the message of their book by any means necessary for a thousand years ... they would probably have the same level of proof that you have.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[pajarito 0]

Quote

No, and neither has your God. If we wait a hundred years before allowing people to write books about Hitler, then allow the people that worship Hitler to compile their book from the books that they agree with and destroy the remaining books that they do not agree with, and then allow the people that worship Hitler to spread the message of their book by any means necessary for a thousand years ... they would probably have the same level of proof that you have.

There is so much in what you posted that is based on incorrect information derived from uninformed (and way overused) assumptions.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

You choose to not believe (repent & trust) in the Savior. I never said you could live up to God's standard of goodness even if you "chose" to do so.

Then this statement

Quote

You can’t blame God for your transgression. He created you. He did not make you rebel against Him. Even so, he stepped in and took the punishment you deserve.

is obviously complete bullshit, isn't it?

If god makes people incapable of upholding his law, then it is his fault that they cannot, and it would be completely appropriate to blame god for all our transgressions.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

The problem with these threads are that the anti-religious folks are going onto a thread on the internet and asking for answers that can fit onto an internet post. They want spiritual truths that can fit on a bumpersticker.

I think you're missing the point. Many atheists have read about the subject, in depth. The fact that we have read, and thought, and read, and thought some more and still found that it is unconvincing has lead us to the position we now take. Simply rereading the same tired old arguments over and over will not make them any more convincing.

In decades of trying, I have yet to come across one single "spiritual truth" that stands up to scrutiny. Heck, even pinning down exactly what a "spiritual truth" is, is virtually impossible. The simple fact that after all this time, effort, thought and debate, that the whole subject is still an incoherent shitstorm of a mess is probably the biggest single reason that I've come to the conclusion that it's grade one bullshit.

Perhaps you are just annoyed that showing up the flaws in religion actually will fit on a bumper sticker.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Paj - you used to provide great discussions and insight, while still remaining very true to your beliefs, without getting all up on the pulpit and talking to yourself. It was intelligent, your belief was admirable in that it was yours and wasn't all cliche'd.

Now you just sound like a cult member.

what happened?

It just seems like a friend went from a truly righteous man, to more of a cliched 'self righteous' man.

He went from posting his own thought to a simple C&P of the thought of others... sadly that quickly put him in the same realm as hairyjaun (or whatever he's posting as now) and so isnt worth taking the time to read, much less engage in discussion and debate.

if i wanted to read circular arguments quoted from an apologist website I'd be there instead of here...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

He went from posting his own thought to a simple C&P of the thought of others... sadly that quickly put him in the same realm as hairyjaun (or whatever he's posting as now) and so isnt worth taking the time to read, much less engage in discussion and debate.

if i wanted to read circular arguments quoted from an apologist website I'd be there instead of here...

Good day to you Zen.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

No, and neither has your God. If we wait a hundred years before allowing people to write books about Hitler, then allow the people that worship Hitler to compile their book from the books that they agree with and destroy the remaining books that they do not agree with, and then allow the people that worship Hitler to spread the message of their book by any means necessary for a thousand years ... they would probably have the same level of proof that you have.

There is so much in what you posted that is based on incorrect information derived from uninformed (and way overused) assumptions.

What was incorrect? The books of your Bible were not written when Jesus was alive, there are more books written about Jesus than there are books in your Bible, and the message of Jesus was spread by any means necessary. Denying facts based on your faith does nothing to change the facts.

If your God commanded you to sacrifice your first born child, would you?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[maadmax 0]

Butters you ask a lot of good questions, your frustration is probably similar to what we all feel from time to time. All I can tell you is that I have unspeakable gratitude for what GOD has done for me. There is not a day that goes by that I don't refresh myself if GODs presence and power. The thought of living with out this relationship makes me shudder. You all are right their is little proof for any spiritual phenomenon if you want print outs, facts and figures. But once you have experienced what I am talking about, that becomes proof enough. It is not that I want you to become spiritually alive because I feel insecure unless surrounded by a crowd
of like minded people. It is by the Grace of God I have been save from the chains of life and for good or bad I feel the need to raise my hand and say there is another way. Sorry, other than that there is no proof.

[philh 0]

So your only evidence is your own personal experience.
Are you familiar with temporal lobe epilepsy? This is a condition which can generate fervent religious feeling, the sense of a presence in a room with only you in it etc. These states can be induced in a lab quite easily for many people . Watch this vidoe and you will see one reason why you cant trust your experience:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

dont you thin its funny that those brought up in a Muslim culture have a perosnal exerience of Allah but not Jesus and thsoe in a chrstin culture have a perosnal experience of Jesus but not Allah? I think its a good bet the 9/11 hijackers felt they had such a personal experience. What do you thin that means for the validity of your personal experience?

[Beckuboo 0]

I am a Christian, saved by the grace of God. I, too, have a personal experience. Unless one has been converted, it is extremely difficult to explain to non-believers how I believe with regards to faith, being spiritual, or even blessings that I have personally received.

I would like to offer this for consideration: For those of us who enjoy skydiving, did you not find it trying to explain to those who care about you why you enjoyed your skydiving experience so much? I propose a similarity of why it is so difficult to explain something that means so much to one that words alone doesn't seem to be sufficient enough to fully describe it to others. A personal experience is just that, an experience that is truly personal to the individual.

I don't recall if it was in this thread or another one, but from the words of another poster, "it works for me".

Best regards

[Zenister 0]

Quote

So your only evidence is your own personal experience.
Are you familiar with temporal lobe epilepsy? This is a condition which can generate fervent religious feeling, the sense of a presence in a room with only you in it etc. These states can be induced in a lab quite easily for many people . Watch this vidoe and you will see one reason why you cant trust your experience:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

dont you thin its funny that those brought up in a Muslim culture have a perosnal exerience of Allah but not Jesus and thsoe in a chrstin culture have a perosnal experience of Jesus but not Allah? I think its a good bet the 9/11 hijackers felt they had such a personal experience. What do you thin that means for the validity of your personal experience?

and we have a winner... the mind seeks to classify experience into patterns it recognizes... if you were raised with Allah, that which fits your 'preconception of divinity' will be called the name you know.. ala Allah. If you are Christian and experience something that doesnt fit into 'generally accepted reality' it becomes a vision of Christ/Visitation by Angels/Mary etc.... If you indoctrinated someone early enough in the teaching of Yoda they would call such phenomena " the Force..."

Doesn't make any of them correct.

notice that there are no accounts of anyone ever suddenly converting to a religion they'd never heard of before. EVERYONE is persuaded by human exposure and experience at some point ala "my Grandmother was a Xtain and she was such a personal inspiration to me' etc..

would be an interesting experiment to raise someone with NO exposure to religion or religious teaching of any kind and see how they described such experiences..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

"it works for me".

and that is a FINE answer for anyone.. right up until the point you try to tell anyone else they are going to hell/damned/are immoral etc for following what "works for them"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

He went from posting his own thought to a simple C&P of the thought of others... sadly that quickly put him in the same realm as hairyjaun (or whatever he's posting as now) and so isnt worth taking the time to read, much less engage in discussion and debate.

if i wanted to read circular arguments quoted from an apologist website I'd be there instead of here...

Good day to you Zen.

Thank you...hope yours is lovely as well..

i highlighted the 'sadly' part because it is sad (IMO) that youve gone from expressing your own understanding and beliefs to aping that of an apologist website.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Since you cannot prove there is even a god out there then there is no way to know if what you believe is true or not.

Proving God's existence is easy. It doesn't even require religion or faith.

Go on then....

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Since you cannot prove there is even a god out there then there is no way to know if what you believe is true or not.

Proving God's existence is easy. It doesn't even require religion or faith.

Go on then....

Waiting......... maybe its not that easy after all, probably why nobody has managed yet to prove your gods existence.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[Stumpy 256]

Isnt it obvious?! its all in the design of a banana! or a jar of peanut butter!!!

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[maadmax 0]

Well one thing is obvious, I doubt there will be any agreement between those of us who believe and those who don't any time soon. If you are content with the explanations you all have given to what some of us have shared with you, then as they say in my neck of the woods " WELL SHUT MY MOUTH".
May I wish you many fortuitous chance occurrences with beneficial combinations. May you find sufficient empirical theories, scientific rationalizations and one liners to make sense out of the chaos. And most sincerely may you acquire a seizure disorder that fulfills your deepest yearnings.

In the meantime lets go skydiving!!!!!!

BIIIIIGWAAAAAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Waiting......... maybe its not that easy after all, probably why nobody has managed yet to prove your gods existence.

A painting is empirical evidence that there was a painter. A building is evidence that there was a builder. The irreducible complexity of Creation is 100% proof that there was a Creator. It doesn't take religion or faith to see that. Just eyes that can see and a brain that works.

[billvon 2,454]

>A painting is empirical evidence that there was a painter. A building
>is evidence that there was a builder.

And evolving species are empirical evidence that there is a process called evolution.

[Butters 0]

Quote

A painting is empirical evidence that there was a painter. A building is evidence that there was a builder.

I can paint a painting or build a building ... it doesn't mean I am a good painter or builder.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

A painting is empirical evidence that there was a painter. A building is evidence that there was a builder. The irreducible complexity of Creation is 100% proof that there was a Creator.

By this logic, I would be more inclined to believe that there were multiple creators rather than a single creator, given the complexity of our world. In general, the more complex a creation (a straw hut vs. the Empire State Building), the more people involved in the creation.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Waiting......... maybe its not that easy after all, probably why nobody has managed yet to prove your gods existence.

A painting is empirical evidence that there was a painter. A building is evidence that there was a builder. The irreducible complexity of Creation is 100% proof that there was a Creator. It doesn't take religion or faith to see that. Just eyes that can see and a brain that works.

Such simplistic reasoning doesn't correlate to "Creation".

Not only that how do you know the Christian God is the one that created everything?

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

Quote

Waiting......... maybe its not that easy after all, probably why nobody has managed yet to prove your gods existence.

A painting is empirical evidence that there was a painter. A building is evidence that there was a builder. The irreducible complexity of Creation is 100% proof that there was a Creator. It doesn't take religion or faith to see that. Just eyes that can see and a brain that works.

Every painter was born. Every builder was born. Who gave birth to the creator?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[philh 0]

" painting is empirical evidence that there was a painter. A building is evidence that there was a builder. The irreducible complexity of Creation is 100% proof that there was a Creator. It doesn't take religion or faith to see that. Just eyes that can see and a brain that works. "

well I can c you are well versed in those great intellectuals Kirk Cameron and the other guy. The argument you(I mean they) present was utterly demolished hundreds of years ago by David Hume. He clearly pointed out that one can only make that argument because we have prior knowledge of the way paitings are made. we see paintings being made by painters and so when we see another painting we assume the method we have observed repeadetdly is the same method. However we cannot do this with lets say the origin of life or the origin of the universe . We have not observed many many universes being created or life originating and so we cannot use the same reasoning.

David Humes defeat of the design argument of course was before Darwn. DArwin adds another nail in the coffin. He showed (restated in the modern version) that if you have random mutation combined with non random selection on organisms that reporoduce you can have increasing complecxiity. The example given by Cameron et al do not work becuase a paiting does not reproduce itself, even if it diid it would not have random mutation , even if it had mutation and reproduction it would not have selection pressure. If somehow paintings could reproduce themselves be subject to selection and have mutation then we would not be able to conclude there was a painting repsonsible. Of course paitnings dont have this and so the analogy fails. Its clear cameron et al are ignorant of both the history of philosophy and the science of biology. Can I suggest get yourself an education?