A path to faith with science

[Hardcore Newbie]

...I believe that comparing both sides and weighing the evidence is an important part ofd this process...
There might be only two side of the debate in one manner (ID or creation vs "not designed"), but if you get into the hows and whens of each side, there are probably millions of known ideas and billions more that are unknown and not really thought of .... that's a lot of work :D

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome View Post

A person has to be open for something to be proven to them. There can be proof, but we value in our minds and hearts what's reasonable as proof. SOme people see things with their own eyes and it's not proof enough. For some people with some things their never enough proof. It's just a lack of faith, it's not reasonable or logical.


mfqr:

There's a difference between being open enough to be able to evaluate both sides of the argument and come up with your own conclusion, or remaining neutral, and being open minded to the extent that you believe everything you read/hear/see. It's a lack of faith, sure. But it doesn't make sense to have that faith without a believable story. To me, the story is fairly unbelievable. I am open-minded. Open-minded enough to say that it's a possibility, and hinted with enough narrow-mindedness to say there's not enough evidence, and thus is more improbable than probable. I think that's reasonable, don't you? I think it's pretty logical thinking, too.

There is no possible nuetrality. There is no perfect unbias.


Quote:


natureisawesome:
can you show me some examples?


Google can. It's documented that people back in the days of Christ, and even before, have made drawings and paintings of strange objects in the sky, which look quite like the ones we imagine and see today. I am not saying it is 100% true that people back then believed they were gods. I am assuming that they would, because it's far beyond them in any sort of explanation. Remember, back then, anything out of the ordinary was supernatural.

I'll have to look into that. I would think knowledge of drawings like that would be well circulated. You seem to say It's something you really believe in so I thought maybe you could find me a few examples.




Quote:

natueisawesome:


And are you referring to the catholic church ? I already pointed out that the catholic church isn't Christian earlier in this thread. They're not Christian and Jesus did not teach us to have any kind of physcial warfare, the opposite actually. If you want me to explain a few things about the catholic babylon mystery religion another thread can be started about that later. ( Like when thsi thread is done at least), but otherwise let's leave the rcc out of this.

mfqr:

Catholicism was only used as an example. Jesus did not teach anybody to have physical war, sure, that's true. However, people obviously took it into their own hands and used religion as a form of control, whether or not your Christian God exists.

That's true.




natureisawesome:


The evangicals and everyone else who votes in a Democracy all judge easch other through the ballot so everyone is guilty. But again, evangicals are obviously not Christians either. And I know their false doctrine.

mfqr:

Well, you believe their doctrine to be false - millions of others don't. Another example of conflicts between different faiths.

Millions of people are evil and ignorant. But when it comes to something like conflict in Christian doctrine, It's possible to hold it accountable to scripture. Unlike people have been indoctrinated to believe, there are not many interpretations to scripture, and the correct understanding can be found. The meaning is not fundamentally ambiguous.





natureisawesome:

I will reiterate a previous declaration in my post. There is no morality without God. And yes, I'm a sheep and I'd rather be a sheep than a wolf.



There is no morality without God? That's quite the statement there. I would say I am a moral human being, and yet I do not endorse the belief of any God but myself. You'd rather be a sheep than a wolf? Are you using the "wolf" as a metaphor to describe someone who is mentally free, and at the same time using that as a comparison to a sheep, like a wolf eats sheep, and is therefore a vicious animal?

I wish you understood the hypocricy when people say that sheep are close minded and igorant, or when they say they don't think for themselves. If I didn't think for myself, I would go along the same wide path that the world takes, but instead I use discernment and swim against the flow. And many people want to be and "special" and "unique", but they don't understand that everything they have is a gift from God. They in fact conform to unconformaty, but I think it's really only rebellion and selfishness.

mfqr:


Let me get down to explaining something that might peak your interests.

There are many, many, many religions and faiths. Most religions will tell you that if you do not believe in that particular religion, that you will ultimately go to hell in the afterlife. Am I right? Well, then let's dig a bit deeper.

Not all religions believe that. Not at all. But some do.


Everyone who believes in a particular religion believes their religion is correct, right? Obviously, because then they would not believe it. A bit deeper now...

I think that a lot of people don't really care whether it's correct or not honestly. Or at least not that much. And a lot of people convinced that there is no Truth only personal truth (which is a contradiction) or a few people like Imitator who think it's close to being or is unsearchable or unknowable. It's interesting how one can assert to know it's unknowable.



If every religion claims you will go to hell if you do not believe in it, and you can only choose one religion, then you are ultimately doomed to go to hell. Your only way of not going to hell, in the eyes of religion, is to believe and have faith in every single religion. Of course, that is not possible either, because every religion tells you that you can only believe in that particular religion. But then again, your religion/belief is correct, right? Correct just like catholicism is correct, and Islam is correct, and Judaism is correct, and so on. Sigh. So which religion should you believe in? Any of them. Mostly all of them have the same general beliefs as to how a human being should act, and they all believe theirs is the correct one.

Why are you doomed to hell? If there's the right religion, then you can find it.

You don't have to believe in every religion, it's not unsearchable. So few have truly tried with honestly . And I know people will disagree with mwe on that. Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find. And there are big big differences between these religions.

[natureisawesome]

Looks like I have some catching up to do.

[imitator]

imitator:



I don't agree that there are totally unbiased journals or media.

There are testimonies of creation scientists who have been unrightfully (and probably unlawfully ) discriminated against that you can find by searching on the internet.

Everyone is biased and when you understand that, you realize it's a matter of finding the right bias rather than no bias. Even when we anylize information, we used a biased mind to do that. People have to decide for themselves ultimatley for themselves whether what someone shares is right or wrong. I believe that comparing both sides and weighing the evidence is an important part ofd this process.

There is truth in what you say. You will tend to find the "correct" answer if you look at what both sides are saying, and try to find what sits in the middle.

If you can provide me a few links to some people who have been treated as such, I would gladly read them, but I dont have much desire to do the looking myself. Figured it was one of those things that the burden of proof wasnt on me.

Still, I believe there are places where bias is purposely seeked and destroyed. There are magazines, and publications who try their best to not have a bias. Yes, some will still be there, even if the bias is that they try to have no bias.

[imitator]

Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find. And there are big big differences between these religions.

Its quotes like these that keep me in discussions like this.

And I dont mean that in a bad way. I enjoy talking with people are willing to entertain possibilities outside of those that they believe are the truth.

A question for you natureisawesome. You have said that there are many different religions, and that these many religions can be very very different from each other. What purpose do you think these other religions serve? Assuming that there is only one correct religion/god? Assuming that there is a pantheon-esque scheme?

Personally, I see religions as a tool to aid man. Its something that is there to help give us answers when we have nothing but questions, to give us strength when we feel weak, and to give us hope when things seem bleak. It allows people to keep on through life with their chin up, and for some it gives their lives meaning.

The bible, the Qur'an, The Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfold Path, etc etc... They are all texts that are there to help show people how to live a good life. And even if no god(s) exist at all, these texts have helped millions upon millions of people with their lives, and for that they are amazing. A person can read the bible, take the lessons that it teaches through its stories, and live a great life without ever having to believe in anything that the bible actual said was true. The stories dont need to be true to convey the important message. I say the important message, because we can debate about gods and afterlife til we are blue in the face, but we have no way of knowing the truth behind the matter. But we do "know" that we are living here and now, and that if nothing else, if there is no afterlife or god or rewards, we can still be happy if we live a good life now. And that is what these texts, in my belief, are really for, and what their true purpose is.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:


I was just watching Colbert Report, an old one, that had a paleantologists(sp) on there, who had discovered a fossil from 375 million years ago, that was a link between fishes and the first land creatures. It had parts of a land creature in it, and still parts of a fish, and was believed to live in shallow water and ventured onto land occasionally.

It was called Tiktaalik, and here is a link to a transcript of a Nature documentary on its discovery.

: Nature

I think thats a pretty good example of evolution in action right there.

I've read several atricles on this now.

This is a fish that is supposed to be a missing link between fish and tetrapods. First off, it's not even complete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. A picture of it is here:

http://www.icr.org/i/articles/news/tiktaalik_roseae.jpg

And from that they conclude that he could walk like a normal land creature.


In his description of this fossil, evolutionist Shubin states the front fins look basically â??like a scale-covered armâ?� with â??bones that correspond to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and a primitive version of a wristâ?� (AP 2006)...

One should note that the bones in Tiktaalikâ??s fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers..




The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle.

Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as â??walkingâ?� in only the most trivial sense of the word.


The media gives the impression that this is something new but it's really not. There are more than a few fish than can breathe air and slide around on thier bellies for long distances with help of pectoral fins. The northern snakehead and walking catfish are air breathing fish that can travel for some notable distances. MUdskippers can breathe air through thier skin and can skip along with thier fins. The climbing perch breathes air and walks on land and can even climb trees. The flying fish can glide hundreds of yards over water. There are other examples also.

None of these though are considered to be anscestors of tetropods by evolutionists, they're just special fish. It's important to understand that fish come in lots of forms that defy consistant classification. There are different classifications depending on the bias of the classifier.

Evolutionists are not sure whether lungs came first before gills or vice verca .They're not sure whether cartaligious or bony fish came first either.

These sensational claims appear every now and then, and then soon faid away into obscurity when the evidence is more closely examined.

One thing is for sure, it's a fish.

more can be read about it here:

Tiktaalik and the fishy story of walking fish, part 2 - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/tiktaalik-fishy-fish)

[natureisawesome]

tool 9:


I hope you didnt type all that stuff... and if you did how long did it take?

A couple days. I know it's long, but I think it's really important to have a thorough and concise line of reasoning to begiinning to end. too often people nit pick about various evodence but it never really goes anywhere.

[natureisawesome]

Staurm:


WOW- - - i n f o r m a t i o n o v e r l o a d

DANGER Will Robinson....

I understand. I didn't mean for it to get like this. There's so many side questions and differnet objections. It's a deep post though, so it's not suprising. It's easier if you just stick to the posts relevant to the original thread, but I think a lot of stuff besides has gotten some good coverage.


Could you perhaps condense this thread into a scientific text and next time I'm in Waterstones I'll pick up a copy and then I can read in on the train on the way to work?

Just stick to the posts between me and you and you'll be fine. Remember there are several other people who have been posting in this thread.


You seem keen to dismiss Prigonine's theories very quickly, I find that surprising since you seem to know a thing or two about a thing or two. I feel out of my depth. I am somewhat sceptical about your bible babble though. I hope I can get round to replying to your comments. Order and disorder are confusing and somewhat subjective concepts when it comes to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. It's perhaps better to think of it in terms of equilibrium, non-equilibrium and quasi-equilibrium.


It's easy to discredit. Especially when Prigonine himself addmited it was not an obstacle to the second law. There is order, and then there is complexity. Randomness, order, and compexity are three seperate things. Life has order and specific complexity. But there is also "order" (really patterns) which arise from natural physical processes inherent to the nature of the molecules and natural laws themselves. But this is still the wrong direction from going to life. I hope you get around to replying to my comments too. I would like to actually confront the original post more than what has been done.

Hope to hear from you soon.

[imitator]

Nature:

The big difference is the bone structure in its fins. There is an almost complete wrist and finger structure there, not found in any other fish during that era.

They arent saying it walked on land, but that it was the father of land walking creatures.

And even if they found tommorow that the back half of it was fish like, the front half is still enough to show the difference.

And no fish during that time could even slide around on land. So this one was a first.

Ill post more in a bit, I am on my way out the door from work, and then off to a GH2 competition. Wish me luck. =P

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:




Quote:
1. Messiah is to be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15)

â?? Jesus was born by Mary (Matthew 1:18â??25, Luke 2:1â??7, Galatians 4:4)

2. Messiah was to be descended from Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 18:18)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Abraham (Luke 3:34, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:16)

3. Messiah to be born of Jacob (Numbers 24:17,19)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Jacob (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34)
4. Messiah to be descended from Judah, a son of Jacob (Genesis 49:10)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Judah (Luke 3:33, Matthew 1:2)

5. Messiah to be descended from King David (Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Isaiah 11:10)

â?? Jesus is a direct descendant of Kind David through both his mother and adoptive father (Matthew 1:6, Luke 1:32â??33, Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30)

Every other person that he is supposed to have descended from, according to the bible, they state that he is to descend from said person. But not with Jacob.

Why the difference when it came to Jacob?

I sat here trying to understand what you mean and what your objection is but I don't get it.Please clarify for me.

[imitator]

One last thing though.

Just the existance of such fossils, and the age of them, would help to show if nothing else, that the current believed age of this world is incorrect according to the bible.

I skimmed through the article on AiG, but it looks like the only thing they dispute is that this fish exists due to evolution, not the actual time period that it lived in?

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:



Also, one problem I always had with the gospel's.

They were written after the fact.

You yourself said that Luke interviewed many people to write his gospel. How on earth do they know that what they quote Jesus and others as saying, is the EXACT words that he used, if its written after the fact? That leaves a margin of error in his words, and no reliable means at the time to make sure what they were attributing to him, was actually what he said.

It's true on one hand that they're fallible men, but on the other hand if it's God's word then he would exert control over it's being written and make sure it came out right.

You have to understand that back then people have much better memories then we do now. They trained themselves to memories long genialogies and stoies and such. There must have also been at least some scribes who wrote it down, and not to mention thousands upon thousands of people who heard him speak.

If 7 thousand people stood in front of the twin towers and specifically saw bombs going off inside both buildings wouldn't that be credible? He preached out in the open. He performed miracles out in the open, where everyone could see him. He spoke and taught in the temple, and I think most likely his words were taken down by scribes more than once. He preached throughout the whole land of Israel. And after the gospels were finished, many of the people who were alive with Jesus were alive also, and not to mention their children. That's what people don't think of. They think it's only a few people who wrote all this. But they only recorded his sayings from numerous testimonies. And in the end, if we look at his word, we find it to be consistant and not with any sign of fabrication.


Im not saying that Jesus didnt say things similar, with the same meaning, but a revisionists history is always much more interesting then the actual thing. There is too much of a chance for bias in the writings, and too much of a chance of error in its quotation of others.

Why do you doubt everything so much? It's not reasonable, and there's more reason to believe and confirm it was consistantly well recorded than there is any error would be in it. There is thousands and thousands of witnesses to his words and acts. And no doubt, these gospels were circulated and read throughout the churches as well, making it hard to teach error because of those living who had witnesses Jesus with there own eyes, this very thing also would help to cross anylize the word for any mistakes if the authors of the gospels hadn't gotten it right the first time.

The gospel was most definitely more widely circulated by mouth than by writing, at least in the beginning for sure. This wide circulation made it possible for errors to be corrected.


Not to mention, man is imperfect, so to expect man to be able to transcribe past events, perfectly, in a book, is hard to believe. There are bound to be errors, but how can you have errors in a book of God?

Just look at the history of scripture manuscripts! Over hundreds and hundreds of years, and of all the manuscripts we have they almost all match up exactly, only having certain spelling errors for the most part. Hows that for a testimony to man's ability to transcribe events.

[mfqr]

There is no possible nuetrality. There is no perfect unbias.


I'm sorry, but that is obviously beyond my point. Sounds to me like you didn't know what to reply with. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if you're going to reply, make sure to construct it to be arguable against my point.




I'll have to look into that. I would think knowledge of drawings like that would be well circulated. You seem to say It's something you really believe in so I thought maybe you could find me a few examples.


They are indeed well-circulated. Do I really believe that people back then saw ufo's? I don't know, it's possible... just like people see ufo's nowadays. However, if we go any further into this another discussion on the concept of extraterrestial life would start, so I won't go into that. Somebody could have, of course, made it all up to try and disprove of religion. Then again, maybe not.




That's true.


And for that reason that you agree with, I believe you are indeed following a religion that currently has no purpose but to control. To me, it's all a system of control.



I wish you understood the hypocricy when people say that sheep are close minded and igorant, or when they say they don't think for themselves. If I didn't think for myself, I would go along the same wide path that the world takes, but instead I use discernment and swim against the flow. And many people want to be and "special" and "unique", but they don't understand that everything they have is a gift from God. They in fact conform to unconformaty, but I think it's really only rebellion and selfishness.


Then again, everyone has a definition of their own. My definition of a sheep is, in fact, someone who is closed minded and ignorant, and doesn't think for themselves. Are you a sheep? Maybe not. Am I a wolf? I don't know. You make some contradictions here, so I'm a bit confused as to what to say about that.



I think that a lot of people don't really care whether it's correct or not honestly. Or at least not that much. And a lot of people convinced that there is no Truth only personal truth (which is a contradiction) or a few people like Imitator who think it's close to being or is unsearchable or unknowable. It's interesting how one can assert to know it's unknowable.


If people don't care whether it's correct or not, then they're wasting their time. One can know it's unknowable, at least in our present state of science. Our science, and your bible, have no way of disproving, or proving, that your faith exists. Thus, at this time it is indeed unknowable, and I know it.



Why are you doomed to hell? If there's the right religion, then you can find it.


Exactly my point, if you can find the right religion, and if there is a right religion. And by no means does that mean that christianity is the end-all, be-all. However, every Christian would say so, just like every muslim would say Islam is.



You don't have to believe in every religion, it's not unsearchable. So few have truly tried with honestly . And I know people will disagree with mwe on that. Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find. And there are big big differences between these religions.


The only thing I can think of that has any truth to what you say about the right religion being found, is about one finding the right religion for them. It's an individual preference. Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find? You just agreed with one of my biggest points. Yes, there are big differences with the religions, and yet at the same time they are all alike.

Like I said, I don't believe in God, but I don't rule out the possibility. And as I see it, if God does exist, I would not respect him. And yes, I would rather go to hell than to follow what the bible says. Even though the bible has been edited and revised many times to justify certain causes. To explain what the bible is in one word, it would be "propaganda." And in fact, it fits the definition of propaganda perfectly.

Some people use religion to find meaning in their life. Some people believe in God because they're afraid of the afterlife. Some people go to religion because they feel helpless and afraid in life (fight or flight. religion would be flight, in this case).
Some people use religion to help stay sober from addictive drugs.
Some people abide by religion because they grew up in a religious family.
Some people use religion as control, and to justify otherwise unjustifiable things.

From what I've seen in my life, these are some of the most common reasons why people believe in some sort of God.

[Pass That Shit]

Sorry to break it to you, but there is NO RIGHT RELIGION. EVERY religion is FALSE. Religion is Satan @ his best!

What happened natureisawesome? Can't come up with ONE scripture to back up your point? That's what I thought.
You would have to re-write the word of God for it to say what you preach!

You are the typical religious dude who doesn't know Jesus.

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

Jesus is LORD!

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:



Quote:
Daniel uses the term sevens, sometimes translated weeks, to mean a group of seven years. 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens. 69 x 7 years equals 483 years. The decree came in 445 b.c from Artaxerxes the king of Persia.Using 360 day years as the Hebrews did, we add 483 years and come to ad. 32 plus or minus 1.5 years.

Imitator:

So wait, it sometimes is translated into weeks, but just for this excercise we know that he meant seven years? How do we know, excluding the fact that it fits your excercise here, that he didnt mean weeks? Especially if what he said could be interpretted as weeks?

I have my concordance right here with me, and here is the meaning of the word used for weeks:

shabuwa

- lit. sevened, i.e. a week (spec. of years): seven, week.

from online concordance:

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week

a) period of seven days, a week

1) Feast of Weeks

b) heptad, seven (of years)

So for starters, it meaning seven years cannot be ruled out. It would mean a day for a year, that is seven years. There are other examples in scripture of the day for a year rule:


Ezekiel 4:6
6And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

numbers 14:34
34After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.

In both of these examples it was meant to be reminder of the rebellion of the Hebrews. In Daniels time, God had appointed 70 years for them to be held in captivity in Babylon. THis was foretold and prophesied by Jeremiah:

11And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.



Jeremiah 25

12And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.

13And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations.



Daniel 9

1In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

2In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

3And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

Now in response to this prayer God sent him the response of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. Now the 70 weeks begins "From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Dn 9:25) to the coming of "the Anointed One , the ruler, comes, and is then "cut off" (Dn 9:26). Now the word sevens could mean a regular week, but not in this context, and not comparing the other examples of prophecy that have been shown above. The decree to rebuild the temple was issued right about 445 BC, and took several years to finish. There is no mention of any claimed annointed one right around this period, as it would have been only 483 days until he would be killed! This doesn't fit the context at all and from comparing to the other prophecies shown it fits the context of the prophecy given to Daniel that it would mean a group of seven years, or a year for a day. You must also keep in mind these verses:


Daniel 9
26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

That's a pretty specific prophecy that was also fulfilled in Christ. In fact, the fact that Christ fulfilled all of his prophecies just as it was foretold over 600 years earlier is iin itself be proof enough. It took them years to buiild the temple, and after the end when the messiah was to be cut off the temple and city were to be destroyed. This never happened in 446 b.c. but it was fulfilled exactly in the time of Christ.



Quote:
For example, the only way you could logically support buddhism is to deny that the second law always holds true, or to deny that the outside world exists, or that time is real, or that reality is even real. In fact, these are some of the things that buddhism does claim! They are forced to. I think this is unrealistic, and dangerous. Besides, there is no evidence to support that the 2nd law, the outside world, or reality are not real. The case is quite the opposite. I hope these facts do not elude anyones notice.



Imitator:

You took a shred of truth there, and spread it into something entirely different.

Buddhism says that its foolish to look at things as having a definite start, and a definite end. Such things are human creations to help deal with the first Noble Truth, Pain. Doing so, will only cause more pain, and will prevent you from ever reaching nirvana.

To deny that the universe had a definite start is to deny the second law. It's interesting how you can say we know so little but you're so sure there was never a beginning.


Secondly, what Buddhism says makes perfect sense, because alot of what they speak of works on the scientific level.


I know that evolution and buddhism go hand in hand, and tha't probably one of the greatest reasons so many westerners are embracing this religon. There is believed to be a parallel in the antithesis between Darwin's theory of the evils of evolution and Buddha's doctrine of the evolution of evils. The former is due to the great struggle for existence and the latter, to the will to live (tanha). which gives rise to the struggle for existence.

Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading. Nothing exists 'from its own side' or by reference to its own essence. So yes, it does deny reality. It's hard for a religion that teaches total impermanence to fit with science's foundational axiom which is that the natural laws remain true, and that the material world exists.





Everything in life is waiting for the proper conditions to support its current manifestation. It doesnt completely poof out of no where, pretty much everything needed for it to manifest is there, its waiting for proper conditions.

It's waiting? Life doesn't come out of nowhere but the proper conditions do, it seems like what you're saying.

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
3. All events require that something caused them.

Imitator:

What caused the creation of God? If all events require that something caused them, then what caused the initial existance and creation of God?


If God can "just exist" and "just is", then doesnt that explicitly discredit that third rule? The key word for making it so its a problem, is of course "all", which implies everything, no exceptions.

That's in this universe. The second law holds true in this universe, because the natural law is in this universe. Outside of this universe things would be different. You know I already addressed this a long time ago!


Quote:
Some things we don't know. Perhaps we never will. But this doesn't mean answers don't exist, or are fundamentally ambiguous.A fact is a fact whether anyone recognizes it or not.


So wait, you state right here with this statement that some things we dont know, but that it doesnt mean that the answers dont exist, or that what we dont know doesnt exist? Isnt that what I was saying in regards to the Dreamer theory? That we dont know, but that doesnt mean its not true? And what did you say to argue against that? Odd...

I never contradicted myself at all. You were arguing for a possibility as a fact when you had no evidence. It's not that possiblities don't exist, the evidence we have clearly supports that, it's that some things arn't possible, and possibilities aren't given, so you must go with the evidence always in determining your assumptions.



Quote:
Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove.

Exactly. Thats the beauty of it, in so many ways.

Hard to prove but not impossible.


And throughout the time you mention the option of this, you seem to immediately discredit it just from a dislike of your own. You claim its unrealistic, but in that case, what is realistic? Do you have definitive proof of what is realistic? Or just an assumption that you choose to believe in because its easier then the alternatives?

Remember I told you that it all depends upon human logic and reasoning. It's all we have. Once you establish anything , for instance your mind, then you can logically follow that the same mind you use as valid in one instance, can be applied for another similar purpose recognising the existance of the outside world as valid also.




Quote:
1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.

Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.

Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.

Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.

The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.

Jumping back again to this, and I apologize for the jumping.

If God exists while being exempt from the third rule, then we can assume that the third rule doesnt apply to everything, which means in essence it could apply to nothing. Not that it is applying to nothing, but that its possible if it doesnt apply to everything, that it could apply to nothing.

Not applying to anything a biiiig step from not applying to everything. Besides, like I said, you can't lump God in with this because he's outside of the universe.

[natureisawesome]

myself:


If this is a book, it's all wrong (sorry if this is your own post that you wrote)

First let me start off by re-introducing the first Law of thermodynamics.


Energy can not be created or destroyed

As if I was unaware of this!



That means energy has always been here, and always will be. The energy just didn't pop out of nowhere and is now here. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, and will always be seeing as you can not destroy it. Therefor, the universe can not end, nor can it be destroyed.
Our universe is nothing but pure energy, down to every single atom and quark.

No that's not what it means. You must not have been paying attention to my original post. Matter cannot be created or destroyed by the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics shows that the universe is running down. Because it's degrading towards an end it thus neccecitates a beginning. The energy available to do work is decresing as time goes on, and since the total energy to do work can't exceed the total amount available you can only extrapolate as far back back in time as the point where they were equal and this would be the beginning , the point where they are equal.

So something had to start motion in the first place. Because complexity is decreasing with time, it must have started higher to begin with.

If low entropy systems like life can never be created by the universe but we know both things exist, then something besides our universe must be responsible.

Matter and energy are interchangable.If the energy for motion must have come from the supernatural then the energy for matter must have too. That is, the original provider of all energy.

So you're wrong. There's more to it than the first law.

[natureisawesome]

Time for a serious break.

[imitator]

I never contradicted myself at all. You were arguing for a possibility as a fact when you had no evidence.

Ok, I am going to say this one more time, with nothing else in the post but it, so that you can get this.

I, Imitator, have not once stated anything to be a fact. I have not insinuated anything to be a fact. I have not hinted at anything being a fact.

When I mention something from a specific source, I am merely quoting it for the point. It doesnt mean I believe in it, or that I hold it to be true at all, its merely a point to be brought up in a discussion to see what you have to say in response to it.

I have not, nor will I ever willingly state anything as a fact. Please, for the last time natureisawesome, stop stating that I have said something to be a fact, or have hinted at it being a fact, or anything that involves me, facts, and the stating of said facts.

[imitator]

Besides, like I said, you can't lump God in with this because he's outside of the universe.

If one thing can be exempt, why cant others? Who is to say that we ourselves are entirely a part of just this universe? Why cant we be like God, able to exist upon multiple universes, sort of like the principles behind String Theory?

[mfqr]

Here's a good place for all you hardcore christians to answer questions from:
God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs (http://www.godisimaginary.com)

[mfqr]

And also, take a look at:

Why Won't God Heal Amputees? (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)

Please tell us why this is. Read the sites I posted. Perhaps some of you christians might end up re-thinking your belief...

[imitator]

In situations like this, I usually dont even want them to rethink their belief so much as understand where others are coming from, understand that they are not of their faith and choose not to be, and that that choice is ok.

I mean certainly, Id love to be able to "wake up" some people to the rest of the world and all the religions in it, and let them see things from a step back, because its hard to really look at something if you are right up in its midst... But I would be happy if there was more tolerance in the world from said religious people.

The idea that they can say they are tolerant and then in the same breath condemn me to their hell because I dont follow their exact beliefs... Its mind boggling.

[Kai as a kite]

I also find it humurous that people who are seemingly so well educated can still deny what others bring to a discussion about religion and cling to their beliefs. I, for one, don't believe in god, but in a way I appreciate religion. It's got a lot of control over its believers, and can be used to spread good ideas. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case. I also like the tales I hear about the bible, they sound like lovely little fables. Hopefully I can get a whole load of weed soon, maybe I'll just smoke and read the bible for a day.

By the way, to the OP, I'd be a little more cautious with spreading your ideas around and trying to push them on other people. If someone who was gay decided to come on here and tried to recruit you with photos of naked men and tried to convince you that their lifestyle was the right one, I imagine you'd be pretty aggravated. Because that would go against what you (or possibly your religion) has determined to be the correct way of living.

Even though your intention to save mankind and shit is pretty noble, at this stage in the game, I doubt many people will be swayed over to some radical new way of thinking just because of a post on cannabis.com.

[Hardcore Newbie]

By the way, to the OP, I'd be a little more cautious with spreading your ideas around and trying to push them on other people. If someone who was gay decided to come on here and tried to recruit you with photos of naked men and tried to convince you that their lifestyle was the right one, I imagine you'd be pretty aggravated. Because that would go against what you (or possibly your religion) has determined to be the correct way of living. Haha that's pretty funny.

Gay Agenda, August 31st, 2007:

Convert Xians.


:D

[imitator]

Haha that's pretty funny.

Gay Agenda, August 31st, 2007:

Convert Xians.


:D

They already have the Gay Mafia working on it... The Mauve Hand.

[natureisawesome]

mfqr:



Here's a good place for all you hardcore christians to answer questions from:
God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

mfqr, Please refrain from elephant hurling. I have no problem with these challenges but one thing at a time.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:



The big difference is the bone structure in its fins. There is an almost complete wrist and finger structure there, not found in any other fish during that era.

They arent saying it walked on land, but that it was the father of land walking creatures.

No, that's not true at all:


While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the fore limbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.

Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that â??although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.â?�




And even if they found tommorow that the back half of it was fish like, the front half is still enough to show the difference.

no it's not by any means. Compare the bone structure to that of other fish and you will find, that it was a fish. A special fish.


And no fish during that time could even slide around on land. So this one was a first.

Assumption!


Just the existance of such fossils, and the age of them, would help to show if nothing else, that the current believed age of this world is incorrect according to the bible.

I skimmed through the article on AiG, but it looks like the only thing they dispute is that this fish exists due to evolution, not the actual time period that it lived in?

Do you know anything about dating methods? They are all based on assumptions. And carbon dating, which they use on dead things, can only be used up to a period of about 100,000 years If I remember correctly. They date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks are dating by the fossils. They use circular logic, theirs really no other way for them to do it:


In the April 2006, issue of Nature, Daeschler, et al. reported the discovery of several fossilized specimens of a Crossopterygian fish named Tiktaalik roseae. These well preserved specimens were found in sedimentary layers of siltstoneâ??cross-bedded with sandstonesâ??in Arctic Canada.4

Like the other lobe-fin fish, Tiktaalik was declared to be late Devonian (between 385-359 million years old) by means of a â??datingâ?� method known as palynomorph biostratigraphy. This method presumes to date sedimentary rock layers on the basis of the assumed evolutionary age of pollen and spores contained in the rock. Most importantly, the discoverers of Tiktaalik claim that it â??represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs.â?�

These claims are all based on evolutionary assumptions. cannot be validated by empirical science. You have to realize that empirical science only works in the present! When it comes to talking about origins, it's a totally different matter.

[imitator]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

Was reading through the 50 reasons website, came across this gem of a quote.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:




natureisawesome:
Besides, like I said, you can't lump God in with this because he's outside of the universe.

If one thing can be exempt, why cant others? Who is to say that we ourselves are entirely a part of just this universe? Why cant we be like God, able to exist upon multiple universes, sort of like the principles behind String Theory?

First off, string theory is only a hypothesis which lacks experimental support and has not yet connected as far as I know with any data whatsoever. It doesn't predict or explain any data. Second, string theory has been replaced by superstring theory also lacking in experimental support, which postulates eleven dimensions.

Third, as far as I know any other dimensions would still be subject to space-mass-time. (proponents say for instance, the reason some of these hypothetical dimensions are not seen is that they are rolled up into incredibly tiny spaces). As our space-mass-time universe (sometimes called the space-time continuum) was created by God, He is therefore beyond or transcendent to itâ??i.e., not subject to its limitations (Genesis 1:1)

[Hardcore Newbie]

Was reading through the 50 reasons website, came across this gem of a quote.I use that quote quite often, paraphrased, of course. Actually, I think I'll put that in my signature.

[natureisawesome]

123




I contend that we are both created. I believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all the other so called Gods, then you will understand why I trust in the One True God.

-Nature I. Awesome

[imitator]

123

How can you dismiss Gods you havent even heard of or know of yet?

See, that is the problem with this entire thing for me. You dismiss things without even properly understanding them, as is apparent by your complete lack of understanding of what Buddhism teaches and is about... and yet claim that you know the truth because you found this God.

And then you try to take the path of science to prove you are right, when you dont even know half of the other variables that could exist. Perhaps your God is one of many, and a lesser God at that. Hence his worry of people worshiping gods other then him, as is in the scriptures. And perhaps, since the entire concept of God(s) are hypothetical at best in terms of proving existance or non-existance, if you had taken the time to not be so instantly infatuated with the first neato thing you came upon, you would have found some of the Greater gods, ones that were greater, more benevelant, and more everything, then your God.

The lovely thing about that entire little hypothetical is, you cant prove it isnt possible. By the same reasons that your God can exist, so can other gods, and you cant disprove their existance. God himself made it a crime against him to worship any other gods. Thats a pretty interesting thing to think about... why not say false gods? Why not say psuedo gods, or anything else to make it so he was saying that he didnt want people putting fake gods before him... instead of other gods.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:


How can you dismiss Gods you havent even heard of or know of yet?

Because I don't need to know about every other so called God to know the True God. Like I said, it's not about finding the best God it's about finding the right God. Listen I don't just have some whimsical faith like believing in the toothfairy. There's evidence for God all around us. I believe and I know for sure in my heart that God exists. I have to believe because I can't see God with my eyes. But I can see him in my heart. And you can too.


See, that is the problem with this entire thing for me. You dismiss things without even properly understanding them, as is apparent by your complete lack of understanding of what Buddhism teaches and is about... and yet claim that you know the truth because you found this God.

Show me an example in this thread where I dismissed something without properly understanding it.


And then you try to take the path of science to prove you are right, when you dont even know half of the other variables that could exist. Perhaps your God is one of many, and a lesser God at that. Hence his worry of people worshiping gods other then him, as is in the scriptures. And perhaps, since the entire concept of God(s) are hypothetical at best in terms of proving existance or non-existance, if you had taken the time to not be so instantly infatuated with the first neato thing you came upon, you would have found some of the Greater gods, ones that were greater, more benevelant, and more everything, then your God.

I go with the evidence. You do not. You dream up possibilities with no evidence, and disregard the evidence that does exist.

And I don't mean to be rude, but you are being hypocritical. You contend that I have taken hold of a God when I don't know what else might be out there, but what about your belief? Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading. He didn't observe these things by empirical science. He "envisioned" them. These claims have never been validated in any way whatsoever. You believe that
buddha's teachings are valid, and you don't know what else might be out there either. Buddism teaches there is no God. Buddism has it's own set of "noble truths". What do you have to support these claims? Nothing. what evidence do I have to support my God? Everything.



The lovely thing about that entire little hypothetical is, you cant prove it isnt possible. By the same reasons that your God can exist, so can other gods, and you cant disprove their existance. God himself made it a crime against him to worship any other gods. Thats a pretty interesting thing to think about... why not say false gods? Why not say psuedo gods, or anything else to make it so he was saying that he didnt want people putting fake gods before him... instead of other gods.

No there can't be other Gods. That's one of the points covered in my original post. If you study the bible, you'll realize that he does call them false Gods numerous times. Here is one example:





Isaiah 44

9They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.

10Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

11Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together.

12The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint.

13The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.

14He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.

15Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.

16He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:

17And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

18They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.

19And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?

20He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?

[Pass That Shit]

Imitator,

Has natureisawesome made any progress in showing you that science points to a God? The reason I ask is because faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. If science was the way to God, there would be way more Christians.

HardcoreNewbie,

I think you believe in 3 less Gods than he does. I'm not trying to knock him, but from his testimony, it's clear that he believes in 3 seperate Gods. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

[imitator]

I go with the evidence. You do not. You dream up possibilities with no evidence, and disregard the evidence that does exist.

And I don't mean to be rude, but you are being hypocritical. You contend that I have taken hold of a God when I don't know what else might be out there, but what about your belief? Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading. He didn't observe these things by empirical science. He "envisioned" them. These claims have never been validated in any way whatsoever. You believe that
buddha's teachings are valid, and you don't know what else might be out there either. Buddism teaches there is no God. Buddism has it's own set of "noble truths". What do you have to support these claims? Nothing. what evidence do I have to support my God? Everything.


Seriously. Im getting aggitated at this now. Do you fucking read at all? Ever? Or do you just look for slight bits to base your quotes off of before spouting the same stuff you said before and were corrected on at least 4 times now?

I DID NOT, nor have I EVER, stated something was a fact.

I dont follow Buddhism, I dont agree with a portion of what they believe, but I find it interesting. I dont neccessarily hold true the theory of never ending, never beginning, but at least I understand it fully, and can see the points for and against it. You on the other hand have displayed a complete lack of understanding of the points of Buddhism on at least two occasions in this thread, and then dismissed it as a false religion. There is your example of dismissing something you dont understand.

And you have no PROOF of God's existance, because if you did, there would be no way for anyone to ever argue or bring up any counter point to your display. This entire thread is because you dont have proof, and you feel the need to make people share the same beliefs as you, so to validate your beliefs more. If you had taken any classes in sociology or psycology, it would be painfully obvious. Its a textbook case, one of the first things studied when you are looking into an ethics surrounding, because with ethics, innevitably comes the people stating that ethics are because of God.

You disregarded Carbon Dating awhile back, but iirc, what is the main way that creationists use to try to show that the Great Flood happened? Yeah...

So, for the FIFTH time now, if I hold any beliefs, you have no clue about them, because I have not posted once about my personal beliefs in this thread. Not once. I have NOT stated anything as fact, I have NOT stated any personal beliefs, I have NOT claimed that any one thing was right and another was wrong. The ONLY person doing this is yourself, quit projecting yourself upon me.

If you cant stop with the slander and lying, then I have nothing more to say to you. This is getting old, and enough is enough. You can say what you will about me raising hypotheticals and trying to get you to flesh out things you have said in light of other possible evidence, but do not attribute anything I say as a belief or fact stated by me, unless I specifically state it as such. And trust me, just for you, I will make it blatantly clear when I do so.

And finally.

Your very own holy laws, The Ten Commandments, does not state false gods. It states:


Exodus 20:2-17

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;

3 you shall have no other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

8 Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy.

9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any workâ??you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

12 Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

13 You shall not murder.

14 You shall not commit adultery.

15 You shall not steal.

16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

17 You shall not covet your neighbourâ??s house; you shall not covet your neighbourâ??s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

The same also appears in Deuteronomy 5:6-21. It makes no mention of fake gods, it specifically states OTHER GODS. And a perfect being would not make a mistake in such a critical thing as its holy laws. So either God is paranoid, which he cant be as that is a fault, and God is perfect, or other gods exist.

[imitator]

Imitator,

Has natureisawesome made any progress in showing you that science points to a God? The reason I ask is because faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. If science was the way to God, there would be way more Christians.



No.

He had shown me some inner workings behind the logic for creationism, and had some points that had a decent bit of sense and proof behind them. Currently, he seems to be more interested in lying and misattributing things to me then anything else, so especially not at that time. Although even when things were going more amicably, I wasnt convinced. I merely understood where he was coming from, same thing I have done with any other religions I take the time to look into and learn about. Its a learning experience, not a search for a creator, at least for me.

[mfqr]

In situations like this, I usually dont even want them to rethink their belief so much as understand where others are coming from, understand that they are not of their faith and choose not to be, and that that choice is ok.

I mean certainly, Id love to be able to "wake up" some people to the rest of the world and all the religions in it, and let them see things from a step back, because its hard to really look at something if you are right up in its midst... But I would be happy if there was more tolerance in the world from said religious people.

The idea that they can say they are tolerant and then in the same breath condemn me to their hell because I dont follow their exact beliefs... Its mind boggling.

Yes.

Religion is a scourge. It's probably the best scam in the history of the world. People believe so much in it that it is pretty much cult-like. Religion fucks everything up... and I'm sick of it. I really wish someone would go and blow up all the big churches. Maybe that will be Al-Qaeda's next move: blowing up all the big churches in the US! I'd like that.

[mfqr]

mfqr:



mfqr, Please refrain from elephant hurling. I have no problem with these challenges but one thing at a time.

Why should I refrain from this so-called "elephant hurling" (I don't know what that is)? That website offers a lot of valid questions about the existence of God. As a Christian, you are obligated to support your God, and thus make sure that you answer those questions, and make justifications to trick yourself into still believing in God.

[imitator]

The Nature of Dukkha: All life is suffering. This is the noble truth of "dukkha": the word "Dukkha" is usually translated as "suffering" in English. Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, sickness is dukkha, death is dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; to get what one does not want is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha. This first Noble Truth reflects on the nature of suffering. It comments on types of suffering, identifying each type in turn. A more accurate simplification of this truth is "Life is full of suffering."
The Origin of Dukkha (Samudaya): Suffering is caused by desire. This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha: It is craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. The second Noble Truth reflects on the sources of suffering (Dukkha.) Put very simply, it states that suffering results from expectations linked to our desires, and our attachment to those desires themselves.
The Cessation of Dukkha (Nirodha): To eliminate suffering, eliminate desire. This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, and non-reliance on it. The third Noble Truth reflects on the belief that suffering can be eliminated. It asserts that it can be done, and that it has been done.
The Way Leading to the Cessation of Dukkha (Magga): To eliminate desire follow the Eightfold Path. This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of Dukkha: It is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.


Btw, what is there to support about these claims? Is life not filled with suffering? Could not your suffering be eliminated by removing desire? Could you not live a good life, by always having the right view, right intention, right speech, right actions, right livelihood, right effor, right mindfulness, and right concentration?

I would imagine that to most the things The Four Noble Truths speak of are pretty damn obvious and self evident. That is the entire idea behind them.

I seriously doubt you spent any time looking into anything involving The Four Noble Truths or The Noble Eightfold Path.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Yes.

Religion is a scourge. It's probably the best scam in the history of the world. People believe so much in it that it is pretty much cult-like. Religion fucks everything up... and I'm sick of it. I really wish someone would go and blow up all the big churches. Maybe that will be Al-Qaeda's next move: blowing up all the big churches in the US! I'd like that.The end doesn't justify the means. Destroying people's property is wrong.

[mfqr]

The end doesn't justify the means. Destroying people's property is wrong.

Maybe to you destroying people's property is wrong. But to me, religion is wrong. The Christians crusaded and killed and destroyed to convert people to Christianity. But now is the time to crusade and destroy to snap people out of the hypnosis that they have put you under to believe in such hogwash.

[imitator]

Yes.

Religion is a scourge. It's probably the best scam in the history of the world. People believe so much in it that it is pretty much cult-like. Religion fucks everything up... and I'm sick of it. I really wish someone would go and blow up all the big churches. Maybe that will be Al-Qaeda's next move: blowing up all the big churches in the US! I'd like that.

Religion itself may be a horribly misdirected good intention. That I would be willing to entertain. But I cant say its entirely a scourge. It is seperate from faith and spirituality, as it is a physical manifestation of such, imo.

I dont want anyone to be hurt, and I dont neccessarily believe that God(s) do or do not exist. I think that if someones faith brings them joy and enhances their life, and that they are not harming others to acheive this, that that is a wonderful thing worth noting.

[mfqr]

Religion itself may be a horribly misdirected good intention. That I would be willing to entertain. But I cant say its entirely a scourge. It is seperate from faith and spirituality, as it is a physical manifestation of such, imo.

I dont want anyone to be hurt, and I dont neccessarily believe that God(s) do or do not exist. I think that if someones faith brings them joy and enhances their life, and that they are not harming others to acheive this, that that is a wonderful thing worth noting.

And then they will corrupt their children, and their children will corrupt their children, and so on, until the spell is broken.

[imitator]

And then they will corrupt their children, and their children will corrupt their children, and so on, until the spell is broken.

Can you truely blame the religion and faith for it if its the fault of evil men? Evil men are evil men no matter what they believe in. There are evil atheists, just as there are evil religious people.

Its usually the acts of evil men that cause corruption, and I cant blame religion for the creation of evil men.

There are plenty of people who are religious and follow a specific religion who are not corrupt, not evil, and are good people.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:


natureisawesome:
I go with the evidence. You do not. You dream up possibilities with no evidence, and disregard the evidence that does exist.

And I don't mean to be rude, but you are being hypocritical. You contend that I have taken hold of a God when I don't know what else might be out there, but what about your belief? Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading. He didn't observe these things by empirical science. He "envisioned" them. These claims have never been validated in any way whatsoever. You believe that
buddha's teachings are valid, and you don't know what else might be out there either. Buddism teaches there is no God. Buddism has it's own set of "noble truths". What do you have to support these claims? Nothing. what evidence do I have to support my God? Everything.


Seriously. Im getting aggitated at this now. Do you lalala read at all? Ever? Or do you just look for slight bits to base your quotes off of before spouting the same stuff you said before and were corrected on at least 4 times now?

You havn't corrected me at all, except this once because you appeared to be defending buddhism . And don't cuss in my thread please.


I DID NOT, nor have I EVER, stated something was a fact.

Yes you have.


I dont follow Buddhism, I dont agree with a portion of what they believe, but I find it interesting. I dont neccessarily hold true the theory of never ending, never beginning, but at least I understand it fully, and can see the points for and against it. You on the other hand have displayed a complete lack of understanding of the points of Buddhism on at least two occasions in this thread, and then dismissed it as a false religion. There is your example of dismissing something you dont understand.

I havn't displayed any misunderstanding about Buddhism. You certainly were working to defend Buddhism.


And you have no PROOF of God's existance, because if you did, there would be no way for anyone to ever argue or bring up any counter point to your display. This entire thread is because you dont have proof, and you feel the need to make people share the same beliefs as you, so to validate your beliefs more. If you had taken any classes in sociology or psycology, it would be painfully obvious. Its a textbook case, one of the first things studied when you are looking into an ethics surrounding, because with ethics, innevitably comes the people stating that ethics are because of God.


I do have proof of God's existence. That's what this whole thread is about. It's not my fault people choose ignorance and fail to recognise the evidence.



You disregarded Carbon Dating awhile back, but iirc, what is the main way that creationists use to try to show that the Great Flood happened? Yeah...

Creation scientists do not depend solely on carbon dating. 6,000 years is certainly a lot shorter, and can be possibly used with the right adjustments (if they were known, but this would still be based upon asumptions), but they recognise their bias and the limits of science, wheras evolutionists have not. creationists do not rely on dating methods the way evolutionists do.



So, for the FIFTH time now, if I hold any beliefs, you have no clue about them, because I have not posted once about my personal beliefs in this thread. Not once. I have NOT stated anything as fact, I have NOT stated any personal beliefs, I have NOT claimed that any one thing was right and another was wrong. The ONLY person doing this is yourself, quit projecting yourself upon me.

I understand now that you are not a Buddhist. You were defending buddhism. If someone came in another thread about buddism ,and argued that Christianity made more sense, people would rightly assume he is a Christian. You have stated things as facts numerous times, and I will not back down.


If you cant stop with the slander and lying, then I have nothing more to say to you. This is getting old, and enough is enough. You can say what you will about me raising hypotheticals and trying to get you to flesh out things you have said in light of other possible evidence, but do not attribute anything I say as a belief or fact stated by me, unless I specifically state it as such. And trust me, just for you, I will make it blatantly clear when I do so.

You cannot make an assertion without evidence. You have made many assertions in this thread. You cannot debate ANYTHING without evidence to back your assertions. Whenever you state a possibility, you assert that as a fact. Otherwise, you cannot state whether is may be possible or not, and you have no way to make any assertion. I base my assertions upon evidence, the evidence I wish you would look to, for if you did it would show evidence of God. Your assertions are groundless.

If you don't like talking to me, or if you don't like what I'm saying, leave. Honestly, I'm tired of bickering with you. I'm tired of side objections being brought up that arn't neccesary for the purpose of this thread. I'm tired of arguing over the same thing also.

Let the potsherds strive with the potsherds.


And finally.

Your very own holy laws, The Ten Commandments, does not state false gods. It states:

That's so rediculous that doesn't even deserve a response.

[mfqr]

Can you truely blame the religion and faith for it if its the fault of evil men? Evil men are evil men no matter what they believe in. There are evil atheists, just as there are evil religious people.

Its usually the acts of evil men that cause corruption, and I cant blame religion for the creation of evil men.

There are plenty of people who are religious and follow a specific religion who are not corrupt, not evil, and are good people.

They're good people, but they are gullible people who are delusional. I think Christians should be admitted to the nut house.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Maybe to you destroying people's property is wrong. But to me, religion is wrong. The Christians crusaded and killed and destroyed to convert people to Christianity. But now is the time to crusade and destroy to snap people out of the hypnosis that they have put you under to believe in such hogwash.
Um, do we not both agree that forcing your beliefs on others is wrong? You show an example of injustice done by the Christians, yet you think that because you have a good cause that your actions will be just? Isn't this exactly the reason that you don't approve of what happened in the past, because people were too concerned with putting their beliefs in the forefront, no matter what the costs?

"Maybe to you destroying people's lives is wrong. But to me, the occult is wrong. The witches crusaded and killed and destroyed to convert people to the devil. But now is the time to crusade and destroy to snap people out of the hypnosis that they have put you under to believe in such hogwash."

I changed a few of your own words to "justify" the crusades.

[mfqr]

I do have proof of God's existence. That's what this whole thread is about. It's not my fault people choose ignorance and fail to recognise the evidence.


Where's the proof? I have read the entirety of this thread, and I see no proof that your imaginary friend is not imaginary. The concept of God is the same as a little kid having a little imaginary friend.

What do you think proof is, natureisawesome? Is it stating facts such as "you are thinking," "you are thinking because you're alive," "you can sense time," and then switching the subject to how you are alive and thinking because God created you? Can you please tell me how that even closely resembles science? Where are the equations to support what you say is true? Surely there is a mathematical equation which shows that God exists, if you can combine God with science. You don't even have any evidence of God's existence, and nobody else does either. Thus, without even the most simplistic evidence which can be attributed to to God (and nothing else, like evolution), your "proof" doesn't even fit in the realms of pseudo-science, but rather bullshit. I'm sorry, but it is. It would really help the world out if people like you would stop going around trying to convert people to Christianity.

[natureisawesome]

Originally Posted by imitator:
In situations like this, I usually dont even want them to rethink their belief so much as understand where others are coming from, understand that they are not of their faith and choose not to be, and that that choice is ok.

I mean certainly, Id love to be able to "wake up" some people to the rest of the world and all the religions in it, and let them see things from a step back, because its hard to really look at something if you are right up in its midst... But I would be happy if there was more tolerance in the world from said religious people.

The idea that they can say they are tolerant and then in the same breath condemn me to their hell because I dont follow their exact beliefs... Its mind boggling.
Yes.

mfqr:

Religion is a scourge. It's probably the best scam in the history of the world. People believe so much in it that it is pretty much cult-like. Religion fucks everything up... and I'm sick of it. I really wish someone would go and blow up all the big churches. Maybe that will be Al-Qaeda's next move: blowing up all the big churches in the US! I'd like that.

Christians don't codemn people to hell. God is the judge. But both God and Christians actually do the opposite, we try to save people from condemnation.

When Imitator uses the word "understand", it really goes beyond the realm of tolerance, into the realm of sympathy for his choices and beliefs, which I have none nor should I.

People condemn themselves to hell. They choose to do wrong.

And mfqr, this is the second time you've used such hatful language, something I have not done. It may even be a violation of the rules of this forum.

[mfqr]

Maybe you can start providing actual proof of the existence of God, natureisawesome? Because last time I checked, there is absolutely no proof provided. Remember, you started this thread and claimed you had proof of God's existence. That means the burden of proof is on you... and you have yet to provide proof. If you did provide proof, we would all believe you, and I would have stopped burning bibles by now.

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome:


mfqr, Please refrain from elephant hurling. I have no problem with these challenges but one thing at a time.

mfqr:

Why should I refrain from this so-called "elephant hurling" (I don't know what that is)? That website offers a lot of valid questions about the existence of God. As a Christian, you are obligated to support your God, and thus make sure that you answer those questions, and make justifications to trick yourself into still believing in God.

You should refrain from elephant hurling because it's a form of dishonest propaganda, and even if you think those arguements are valid, it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.

Elephant hurling is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.

[Hardcore Newbie]

II understand now that you are not a Buddhist. You were defending buddhism. If someone came in another thread about buddism ,and argued that Christianity made more sense, people would rightly assume he is a Christian.
I thought it was pretty clear he was defending Buddhism in the sense that you can't disprove it, not that he believed it. I defend Xianity or theism from time to time when somebody makes a remark that doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean I'm a theist in any way. There's a difference between assumption and "rightly assuming". Rightly assuming is when you find out you're right, after the fact.


That's so rediculous that doesn't even deserve a response.I thought it looked valid.

[Hardcore Newbie]

...it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.
isn't that what you did in your initial post?

[mfqr]

You should refrain from elephant hurling because it's a form of dishonest propaganda, and even if you think those arguements are valid, it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.

Elephant hurling is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.

It's not elephant hurling then. Maybe you should look at it, and answer the biggest questions stated there. I am not failing to consider opposing data, you are, if you won't look at it and think about it. I've already been Christian once. I know how lame it is to be a Christian, and how people are so brainwashed to think that God will get them out of every bad situation they're in. Trust me, I've considered the other side. Now is your turn to consider the other side. Thanks.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the proof that God exists. Apparently I was deceived to think that the proof was in this thread, but it's not. Oh well, I guess nobody will be proving that God exists anytime soon... probably not ever, since he most likely does not exist.

By the way, I was kidding about the mean stuff I said before... about blowing up churches and stuff like that.

natureisawesome, give us what you promised us! We want the proof already!

[natureisawesome]

Hardcore Newbie:


Quote:

Originally Posted by natureisawesome:
...it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.


isn't that what you did in your initial post?

No way. Isn't that why I said at the end, that It was open for debate? I've actually gotten more side arguments than anything else.

Here's how it works. You read the article. If it looks right, then you can go ahead with it. If it looks wrong, then lets talk about your objections. But this portion of the thread isn't about showing my proof. I already showed my proof in the original post. There's no way for me to prove it to everyone. You have to prove it to yourself. The best I can do, is point out the logic and evidence the best I can, and then it's for everyone to accept or deny.

If you don't agree with my proof after everything, then that's your choice. It happens all the time. People disagree and someone will say "you still havn't shown me proof" whether the person showed them valid proof or not. This can go on forever!

So if you don't agree with my evidence, that's your choice. Say, I don't agree with your logic/evidence. But if you say I don't have eny evidence, you're ignorant and the numerous page post is right there at the beginning of the thread to show this plain and clear.

So if you are really conscerned about finding the truth of the matter then this is a good place for you to discuss it. If not, then perhaps you shouldn't be here.

[mfqr]

No way. Isn't that why I said at the end, that It was open for debate? I've actually gotten more side arguments than anything else.

Here's how it works. You read the article. If it looks right, then you can go ahead with it. If it looks wrong, then lets talk about your objections. But this portion of the thread isn't about showing my proof. I already showed my proof in the original post. There's no way for me to prove it to everyone. You have to prove it to yourself. The best I can do, is point out the logic and evidence the best I can, and then it's for everyone to accept or deny.

If you don't agree with my proof after everything, then that's your choice. It happens all the time. People disagree and someone will say "you still havn't shown me proof" whether the person showed them valid proof or not. This can go on forever!

So if you don't agree with my evidence, that's your choice. Say, I don't agree with your logic/evidence. But if you say I don't have eny evidence, you're ignorant and the numerous page post is right there at the beginning of the thread to show this plain and clear.

So if you are really conscerned about finding the truth of the matter then this is a good place for you to discuss it. If not, then perhaps you shouldn't be here.

Hahah, ohhh no buddy, you won't be getting away with it that easily. I am 100% sure that most of the people posting on this thread are here to argue against your false proof, which has no evidence to back it up.

[mfqr]

And I find it hilarious how you call us ignorant because we disagree with your false proof and lack of evidence. If it was good evidence, and proved anything but the fact that God is a delusion, then nobody would be arguing with it. And if they did, you would have been able to provide valid evidence to prove them wrong. You have not done any of this, and thus your proof is not proof. There is no proof of God's existence, and I think that is pretty much the only thing you have proved.

[Hardcore Newbie]

No way. Isn't that why I said at the end, that It was open for debate? I've actually gotten more side arguments than anything else.

Here's how it works. You read the article. If it looks right, then you can go ahead with it. If it looks wrong, then lets talk about your objections. But this portion of the thread isn't about showing my proof. I already showed my proof in the original post. There's no way for me to prove it to everyone. You have to prove it to yourself. The best I can do, is point out the logic and evidence the best I can, and then it's for everyone to accept or deny.

If you don't agree with my proof after everything, then that's your choice. It happens all the time. People disagree and someone will say "you still havn't shown me proof" whether the person showed them valid proof or not. This can go on forever!

So if you don't agree with my evidence, that's your choice. Say, I don't agree with your logic/evidence. But if you say I don't have eny evidence, you're ignorant and the numerous page post is right there at the beginning of the thread to show this plain and clear.

So if you are really conscerned about finding the truth of the matter then this is a good place for you to discuss it. If not, then perhaps you shouldn't be here.Many people have raised arguments that, at the time, for whatever reason, you feel that you shouldn't have to respond, because it's "unreasonable" or "unrealistic", or that they've been smoking too much weed.

[natureisawesome]

Hardcore Newbie:


Many people have raised arguments that, at the time, for whatever reason, you feel that you shouldn't have to respond, because it's "unreasonable" or "unrealistic", or that they've been smoking too much weed.

I think most or all of the time I stopped answering because I had already responded before and felt I had made my point, and after that it was unreasonable or unneccesary to respond. . As for Imitator's weed induced logic of unprovability, I did answer that, many times. I just didn't answer his whole post, point for point. That was way too long, and I don't expect anyone to do that for me.

[mfqr]

Many people have raised arguments that, at the time, for whatever reason, you feel that you shouldn't have to respond, because it's "unreasonable" or "unrealistic", or that they've been smoking too much weed.

You're completely right about that. He is also calling us ignorant if we disagree, which is clearly stated in the post you're replying to.

I think the only thing that he has proof of is that there is no valid proof or evidence that God does exist, and that the God that "does" exist is the God told about in the bible. I can't believe that anyone would take this "proof" seriously.

Tell us, natureisawesome, is there a mathematical equation to support the existence of God?

[Hardcore Newbie]

Hardcore Newbie:



I think most or all of the time I stopped answering because I had already responded before and felt I had made my point, and after that it was unreasonable or unneccesary to respond. . As for Imitator's weed induced logic of unprovability, I did answer that, many times. I just didn't answer his whole post, point for point. That was way too long, and I don't expect anyone to do that for me.If I cared about the argument happening in this thread at this point, I'd go back an rehash all the stuff that, to me, looked valid at the time and didn't get a response. So I guess you're right in the sense that if one isn't putting effort in, one shouldn't expect anybody else to.

[imitator]

You havn't corrected me at all, except this once because you appeared to be defending buddhism . And don't cuss in my thread please.

Oh, never EXCEPT this time eh? Is that way we are phrasing it this time.

And there is a stark difference between pointing out wrongly made statements in regards to something, and defending it. I am defending the truth behind something, not anything that it states. So I am not, actually, defending Buddhism.


Yes you have.

Come on now, get with the program man. You know if you make a statement like this you are going to get asked to prove it.

Prove it. Show me an example.


I understand now that you are not a Buddhist. You were defending buddhism. If someone came in another thread about buddism ,and argued that Christianity made more sense, people would rightly assume he is a Christian. You have stated things as facts numerous times, and I will not back down.

I am not defending Buddhism. If someone made a FACTUAL comment towards buddhism in a negative or positive light, I would not care at all. But when you sprout half truths and flat out lies about something, I will correct you, so that others who may not know dont assume that what you said was true, and end up misinformed.

And again, provide me some proof of something I have stated as an absolute fact?


You cannot make an assertion without evidence. You have made many assertions in this thread. You cannot debate ANYTHING without evidence to back your assertions. Whenever you state a possibility, you assert that as a fact. Otherwise, you cannot state whether is may be possible or not, and you have no way to make any assertion. I base my assertions upon evidence, the evidence I wish you would look to, for if you did it would show evidence of God. Your assertions are groundless.


How can something not be a possibility if you cant prove that its not possible? Isnt that the entire concept behind a possibility, is that its possible? And to make it not a possibility, you have to be able to prove its not possible. Show me the proof. Undeniable, unquestionable proof.

And I have looked at your evidence. I have read almost every link you have provided, and every word you have written. Just because I cant make what you think is a "logical" jump to the conclusion that god exists, doesnt mean that im illogical or wrong or ignorant or anything else. It means that I wasnt able to use "faith" to make the leap. You havent shown any concrete evidence. Evidence that you would be able to take to a scientific gathering and say, hey, this definitively and permanently shows the existance of God. If you had such evidence, you most certainly would not have to explain it to us, as we would already have heard about it.


If you don't like talking to me, or if you don't like what I'm saying, leave. Honestly, I'm tired of bickering with you. I'm tired of side objections being brought up that arn't neccesary for the purpose of this thread. I'm tired of arguing over the same thing also.

I have no problem talking with you when you arent slandering me and lying about what I have said. That has no place in a decent conversation. And if you honestly feel that you cant refrain from doing so, please, tell me so, so that I can bow out now and save us both a big waste of time.


That's so rediculous that doesn't even deserve a response.

Come on now. I have scriptures quoted for you, and a pretty solid bit of logic behind it. And apparently others who want to see your response to this.

You cant just choose to ignore the questions that are too hard for you to handle with a simple link to AiG.

[imitator]

When Imitator uses the word "understand", it really goes beyond the realm of tolerance, into the realm of sympathy for his choices and beliefs, which I have none nor should I.

Let me be the one to tell people what I mean when I say things, mkay?

I state nothing more then for you to understand what they believe in, so that you can know why they do what they do. You dont have to like it, you dont have to agree with it, and you can condemn it if you want... but the key is not to be an ignorant fool who is condemning something that you dont even begin to comprehend.

[imitator]

As for Imitator's weed induced logic of unprovability, I did answer that, many times. I just didn't answer his whole post, point for point. That was way too long, and I don't expect anyone to do that for me.


Take note of that. Your own words. You cant discredit it if you cant disprove it.

Thats the key thing. Now you might want to type up something about how its not up to you to disprove something if I am trying to prove it. But thats the lovely part. I am not trying to prove anything, I am saying what if. And you lack an answer to the what if minus choosing to ignore it, or dismissing it. If I wanted to prove Dreamer theory or anythign else, yes, I would be required to have evidence, and actually prove it. Just the same if you want to disprove something, you have to have evidence to disprove it. And you have none. YOu can play your games and dismiss it and call it whatever you want, but it still remains that you havent disproven it, so by definition, it is a possibility, no matter how far fetched and unlikely it may be.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Imitator, as far as the reality verifiable/unverifiable thing, I'm done with that. I don't think you got my point . "Anything is possible", statement of fact. prove it.Talking donkeys and snakes.

[imitator]

And don't cuss in my thread please.

One thing about this. I will stop cussing when you stop lying in your posts about things I have not done. You have wrongly attributed countless things to me that I have had to take time to correct you on, with not so much as even an apology for wrongly doing so. If it was an accident or not, if I stated you felt a specific way, or said a specific thing, and I was wrong, I would apologize to you for doing so.

Its the Christian thing to do. :p

[Hardcore Newbie]

Talking donkeys and snakes.
Just to elaborate...

Anyone who believes in an all powerful being should also believe that "anything is possible". If God wanted it to rain donuts tomorrow, we'd have a tasty surprise. can it rain donuts? Most people would say "no", but if you believe in an all powerful god, and god wanted it to rain donuts, it would happen.

This is what I believe Imitator means when he says "anything is possible"

We have no reason to believe that it would ever rain donuts, but "anything is possible".

[imitator]

I sat here trying to understand what you mean and what your objection is but I don't get it.Please clarify for me.

Meant to respond to this yesterday and got high and forgot.

I mean, why the change in wording for that one spot? Everyone else is listed as a descendant, but not that one. I am just curious why?

The bible is infalible if it is the book of God. So that wasnt a mistake, it was meant, for a reason. I am curious what the reason is.


Why do you doubt everything so much? It's not reasonable, and there's more reason to believe and confirm it was consistantly well recorded than there is any error would be in it. There is thousands and thousands of witnesses to his words and acts.

Because it is foolish to accept something unless you have been given adequate proof to convince you of its truth. Considering that we are talking about an item that is highly contested in regards to its authenticity in the area of actual factual events that happened... Id say that its perfectly acceptable to question things such as that.

And even in the cases of stories passed via the storyteller figure, over time things are changed, meanings are lost or twisted in subtle ways, and more twisted as time goes on. To fully trust and believe in something as a fact that you know yourself to be true, when you have not had the ability to be there to witness it, is to act upon faith. And while I accept some things on "faith" to make day to day life easier, that is not one of them.

[imitator]

It's waiting? Life doesn't come out of nowhere but the proper conditions do, it seems like what you're saying.

It doesnt rain until conditions exist to allow it to, why is this any different for other things?


So yes, it does deny reality.

Actually, considering its hard to look at things on the truely Macro level, we can instead look to the more Micro level of things, and see what Buddhism speaks of.

Everything on this planet goes into everything else, according to Buddhism. A tree is formed because of the rain, and the earth, and the plant seed, and so on and so forth, including sunlight and wind and everythign else. When the tree dies, it goes back into the soil, and then will be used in the existance of other things. Everything goes into one another, hence there is no real start and end, merely a forever moving circle.

And to clarify, this is the position of Buddhism. Not mine. By clarifying this, I am not stating any belief, or fact in regards to this. Merely repeating what Buddhism states, and correcting some misconceptions/untruths you had/have in regards to it.

[imitator]

Just to elaborate...

Anyone who believes in an all powerful being should also believe that "anything is possible". If God wanted it to rain donuts tomorrow, we'd have a tasty surprise. can it rain donuts? Most people would say "no", but if you believe in an all powerful god, and god wanted it to rain donuts, it would happen.

This is what I believe Imitator means when he says "anything is possible"

We have no reason to believe that it would ever rain donuts, but "anything is possible".

Exactly, in an existance that has an all powerful being in it that can do anything, anything would be possible.

If God is above all the laws and rules in regards to this universe, then he can break them with no regard, logically, no? So God could make you poo rainbow flavored sherbet, or make unicorns run the white house, or any number of other things. That is the problem with an all powerful being. It can do anything, because its all powerful.

This is as close as I will come to stating a fact here... or a belief, but its my personal belief that:


If God exists, then anything is possible. If anything is not possible, then God can not exist.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator,

you're blowing up my thread! Please, slow down. You post and post and post. It's starting to feel like spam!

[imitator]

I like to split up my posts so that they are easier to digest. That way you dont have to worry about remembering what spot you stopped at in a post, and it means you know that whatever I say there is it, and it makes it harder to mistakenly think something else later in a post was related to something else.

I you prefer, I will put everything into one big post from now on, I just figured it made thigns easier. Its the same amount of text either way, so I dont care how I go about it in the end.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:





Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie View Post
Just to elaborate...

Anyone who believes in an all powerful being should also believe that "anything is possible". If God wanted it to rain donuts tomorrow, we'd have a tasty surprise. can it rain donuts? Most people would say "no", but if you believe in an all powerful god, and god wanted it to rain donuts, it would happen.

This is what I believe Imitator means when he says "anything is possible"

We have no reason to believe that it would ever rain donuts, but "anything is possible".

Exactly, in an existance that has an all powerful being in it that can do anything, anything would be possible.

If God is above all the laws and rules in regards to this universe, then he can break them with no regard, logically, no? So God could make you poo rainbow flavored sherbet, or make unicorns run the white house, or any number of other things. That is the problem with an all powerful being. It can do anything, because its all powerful.

This is as close as I will come to stating a fact here... or a belief, but its my personal belief that:


Quote:
If God exists, then anything is possible. If anything is not possible, then God can not exist.


You can't say or assert God is a possibilty without proof. And you say there is no proof for GOD. You can't say God is a possibility without evidence to back it up. But then you may find yourself helping me .But that's not a bad thing.

[natureisawesome]

teatime

[imitator]

Imitator:





You can't say or assert God is a possibilty without proof. And you say there is no proof for GOD. You can't say God is a possibility without evidence to back it up. But then you may find yourself helping me .But that's not a bad thing.

Im saying you havent shown me any proof of God.

Once again, Im not picking sides on this. I am asking questions, and pointing out things that dont seem to correspond with the logical arguement you are laying out.

I am saying, that if God does exist, IF, then anything would have to be possible. And I am saying that if you state that "anything is possible" is incorrect, then logically God could not exist.

[natureisawesome]

I have to cook up some pancakes for tomarrow. It's the sabbath.

bbl

[mfqr]

I have to cook up some pancakes for tomarrow. It's the sabbath.

bbl

I have to drink Jesus' blood and eat his body tomorrow. Yum!

[Kai as a kite]

Haha, good times. But I give this thread another day or so until everyone gets tired of attempting to make valid points, only to find that they fall on dumb ears.

If someone could convert a devout Christian into an Atheist or Agnostic, I think that qualifies as a miracle, right? That's when I might believe that there is a God.

[mfqr]

Haha, good times. But I give this thread another day or so until everyone gets tired of attempting to make valid points, only to find that they fall on dumb ears.

If someone could convert a devout Christian into an Atheist or Agnostic, I think that qualifies as a miracle, right? That's when I might believe that there is a God.

Lol, what? But God wouldn't let that happen. Anyway, I have seen people stop believing in God. And I used to be a christian, but I stopped believing, because I realized it was all bullshit. :thumbsup:

[Kai as a kite]

Yeah, good for you. I know somebody else who's like that. It's funny how much you change after you start realizing things from a different viewpoint.

Oh, and my last post didn't really come out right, because Mary Jane wouldn't let me think straight. But I know that wouldn't happen, 'twas a joke.

[Pass That Shit]

Let me be the one to tell people what I mean when I say things, mkay?

I state nothing more then for you to understand what they believe in, so that you can know why they do what they do. You dont have to like it, you dont have to agree with it, and you can condemn it if you want... but the key is not to be an ignorant fool who is condemning something that you dont even begin to comprehend.

He did just that to me. He understands NOTHING about the deepest teaching in scripture, nor did he back up his accusations with a single scripture, and then started condemning me about going to hell? He ignorantly stated that even the pagans with minimal study know that the Son of God has a father but yet there isn't A SINGLE SCRIPTURE to support this private interpretation!

Everyone has their opinion, and mine is that natureisawesome is a FRAUD!

If he's serious about keeping the sabbath, he's WAY OFF BASE!

Keeping the sabbath, is putting Jesus back on the cross. What happened nature? Jesus fulfilling the law was not good enough for you? Are you trying to fulfill the law yourself? Are you not aware that if a man keep the whole law and yet offend it in one point, he is guilty of the entire law? If you live under the law, you'll be judged by the law. And under the law, the penalty for one sin is death. Why would anyone put themselves in that situation? I'm glad that the handwriting of requirements, the law of ordinaces, which was contrary to us, has been nailed to the cross. He has taken it out of the way.

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome

You can't say or assert God is a possibilty without proof. And you say there is no proof for GOD. You can't say God is a possibility without evidence to back it up. But then you may find yourself helping me .But that's not a bad thing.



Imitator:

Im saying you havent shown me any proof of God.

Once again, Im not picking sides on this. I am asking questions, and pointing out things that dont seem to correspond with the logical arguement you are laying out.

I am saying, that if God does exist, IF, then anything would have to be possible. And I am saying that if you state that "anything is possible" is incorrect, then logically God could not exist.


It's interesting how you kept on denying over and over and now all the sudden your objection has changed.

If we can assert that God exists (or may exist), then ultimately It must have been revealed to us by the understanding he has given us in our hearts and in our minds, and by this proof : that If God is all knowing and all powerful, then he cannot have any imperfection in him. And hatred and evil go against the way of perfection. And all of his creation show his eternal nature. If we knew God exists, then it would be by his Spirit, because you can only percieve Spirtiual with Spiritual. It is with an understanding deeper than any understanding, we recognise his eternal nature, and it encompasses all. Love is perfect. And if we know that Love is perfect, then God must be perfect, because God in his omnipotence and ominscience must surely be perfect. He would indeed be the standard for all righteousness. And since God would sustain the universe, and be the source of all things, then He himself must be love.


4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not (M)arrogant,

5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but )rejoices with the truth;

7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8Love never fails;


If God were evil, we still exist. And we know that this universe exists also by the same consciousness and mind (it doesn't matter how, nevertheless we are here, whereever here is) , and that it cannot sustain itself according the the laws of this universe. Once we follow this logical path as I laid down in my original post, then we come to go beyond merely the knoledge of God's existence but
go on to determining if there is evidence for us to find out who God is. So there is both scientific and Spiritual evidence.

If God were a liar, or deceitful, or psychotic we're still here, even if here is part of a trick that is meant to give us a misunderstanding of his nature. We know we exist somehow, whether in a dream, or a delusion, we exist and the universe exists whether in a dream or what and so do the laws in it exist. And the laws in effect point to a creator. Once we go further along we can learn more about God's nature. But do not forget there is also Spiritual evidence. I know I explained this twice but it's really important.

[natureisawesome]

pass that stuff:

He did just that to me. He understands NOTHING about the deepest teaching in scripture, nor did he back up his accusations with a single scripture, and then started condemning me about going to ***? He ignorantly stated that even the pagans with minimal study know that the Son of God has a father but yet there isn't A SINGLE SCRIPTURE to support this private interpretation!

Everyone has their opinion, and mine is that natureisawesome is a FRAUD!

If he's serious about keeping the sabbath, he's WAY OFF BASE!


I have answered your foolish arguments. Stop harrasing me and misusing this thread. You are not a Christian. You do not keep his righteousness. I am done talking to you. If you don't stop harassing me I will report you to the moderator.


Keeping the sabbath, is putting Jesus back on the cross. What happened nature? Jesus fulfilling the law was not good enough for you? Are you trying to fulfill the law yourself? Are you not aware that if a man keep the whole law and yet offend it in one point, he is guilty of the entire law? If you live under the law, you'll be judged by the law. And under the law, the penalty for one sin is death. Why would anyone put themselves in that situation? I'm glad that the handwriting of requirements, the law of ordinaces, which was contrary to us, has been nailed to the cross. He has taken it out of the way.


You're a fool, and you don't understand what you're talking about.

The law that was nailed to the cross was not the ten commandments. What was nailed to the cross is what Paul called
"the shadow of the good things to come". Now in the old testament their were two parts, the ten commandments that were spoken directly by God to the Hebrews and later written on tablets. The there was the levitical law, which was given to Moses and written down and spoken to the Hebrews. The ten commandments for placed inside the ark. The other law were placed on the outside of the ark . This was what Paul refers to when he says shadow of the good things to come. That old law was abolished. But Christ himself said that the commandments were not abolished:


Mathew 5


17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."[/QUOTE]


I am saved by Grace, and through that Grace I am given the power to overcome sin and not sin any more. He has paid the price for my past sins. It is then not works but grace. To abide in God's love you must keep his righteousness.

Jesus commands us to be perfect:


Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

You are the one still in sin. You are the fraud. You don't understand the bible.

[Pass That Shit]

So why don't you clarify for me and others that are listening?

God is ONE (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

If you say that they are ONE, but you also deny ONE being the other, do you really believe they are ONE?

And I'm the fool?

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

Were there two manifestations? Are there two Spirits? NO! The scriptures DON'T contradict themselves. You lack wisdom and understanding of him. You saying that the Son of God has a father, is the same as saying that God has a father.

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Why would you say that I'm not a christian? I'm the one preaching christ to you and you're the one denying him.

If Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, explain this verse to me?

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

How can Jesus be present if he is not the Holy Spirit?

If you don't testify of him = FRAUD!

But then again, as long as you don't curse and keep the sabbath, you'll go to heaven right?

[natureisawesome]

from now on whenever you do this I'll just refer you to the post I responded to you in. Please go to this thread to see my answer:

http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/130797-beginning-word-3.html

Now please stop harrasing me. You've had your say, now leave me alone. I'm not convincing you any time soon, and you're not convincing me, so let it go.

[Pass That Shit]

What are you doing posting on the sabbath? :D

BTW, you never answered there, that's why I asked you here. It's funny how you say that even a pagan knows but yet you CAN'T COME UP WITH ONE SCRIPTURE! Don't come accusing me if you can't back it up!

Please don't report me to the mods. :(

[Pass That Shit]

What a hyprocrite. Do you think you're convincing anyone on this thread with those LOOOOONNNNGGGGG Posts? Why don't you let it go?

[Staurm]

I understand. I didn't mean for it to get like this.

It doesn't matter, beats talking about weed anyday. :D


It's easy to discredit. Especially when Prigonine himself addmited it was not an obstacle to the second law.

In what way is it an obstacle to the second law? So far as I understand it is not in conflict with the 3 laws of thermodynamics whatsoever, rather thermodynamics failed to accomodate the phenomenon within the boundaries of the rules it laid forth. These laws failed to describe or explain the existence of life within the universe, they pertained to the idea that at sometime in the future the workings of the organism would eventually be explained through mechanics at a level of complexity not yet surpassed by the human mind, and things transpired they were right!, only the scietific community seems thus far largely dismissive of Prigogine's theory since (as yet) there seems to be no way to capitalise on it.


There is order, and then there is complexity. Randomness, order, and compexity are three seperate things.

No they aren't, you fail to realise the subjective and paradoxical nature of science. This is where the real beauty and spiritual side of scientific study lies, the realisation that we are in fact intrinsically incapable of fully understanding ourselves because basically we are the process of understanding. There is arguably no such thing as randomness, as Einstein once said prophetically, God does not play dice".

All I can say at the moment....

[imitator]

It's interesting how you kept on denying over and over and now all the sudden your objection has changed.

If we can assert that God exists (or may exist), then ultimately It must have been revealed to us by the understanding he has given us in our hearts and in our minds, and by this proof : that If God is all knowing and all powerful, then he cannot have any imperfection in him. And hatred and evil go against the way of perfection. And all of his creation show his eternal nature. If we knew God exists, then it would be by his Spirit, because you can only percieve Spirtiual with Spiritual. It is with an understanding deeper than any understanding, we recognise his eternal nature, and it encompasses all. Love is perfect. And if we know that Love is perfect, then God must be perfect, because God in his omnipotence and ominscience must surely be perfect. He would indeed be the standard for all righteousness. And since God would sustain the universe, and be the source of all things, then He himself must be love.


4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not (M)arrogant,

5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but )rejoices with the truth;

7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8Love never fails;


If God were evil, we still exist. And we know that this universe exists also by the same consciousness and mind (it doesn't matter how, nevertheless we are here, whereever here is) , and that it cannot sustain itself according the the laws of this universe. Once we follow this logical path as I laid down in my original post, then we come to go beyond merely the knoledge of God's existence but
go on to determining if there is evidence for us to find out who God is. So there is both scientific and Spiritual evidence.

If God were a liar, or deceitful, or psychotic we're still here, even if here is part of a trick that is meant to give us a misunderstanding of his nature. We know we exist somehow, whether in a dream, or a delusion, we exist and the universe exists whether in a dream or what and so do the laws in it exist. And the laws in effect point to a creator. Once we go further along we can learn more about God's nature. But do not forget there is also Spiritual evidence. I know I explained this twice but it's really important.

No. Again, I deny that you have valid proof to convince me of God's existance.

I do not deny that he exists, but I do not acknowledge his existance either. I acknowledge the possibility of his existance, but nothing more. No one has given me proof on either side to ever fully convince me of this, and considering what we are talking about, I am not going to just willy nilly place my belief into it. Until I find proof to convince me, I am merely a bystander observing.

And I think that God and Jesus would acknowledge and understand my wariness. No one wants to be tricked into worshiping a false god, and iirc, there are scriptures speaking to this, and that to search for proof of God is not wrong.

You have your evidence, and your faith, which give you YOUR truth of God existing. Having read through a decent amount of religious texts for a few religions, I see your evidence, and see it lacking, because other evidence for other religions exists as well. If there was nothing at all that could be corresponded with said religion, then it would have been discredited and discarded long ago.

There are holes in your arguement, holes in your proof. Holes in the entire basis of the religion in some sections, that are convienently ignored or "fixed" with a line or two in scriptures saying, "yeah, that was the word of the lord, but the perfect creature decided that he was wrong, or didnt like those rules, so he made some new ones". Thats a problem with the entire thing... a perfect creature would not need to revise his rules or what he said, because he is perfect. You cant completely remove the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is at odds with the New Testament in a few important areas.

In my eyes, you have just as much evidence as every other person who has tried to convince me of the error in my ways, and convert me into something else. You have enough that it makes perfect sense to you, which is great, and I am happy for you. I just happen to look at religion itself as a tool made by man, for the benefit of man. Faith, and the existance of gods are independant of religion itself, at least in my eyes.

[imitator]

And I am still curious what you have to say in regards to the idea of a pantheon-esque setting?

God doesnt mis-speak, and God does everything for a reason. What was his reason for specifically stating "other gods" and not "false gods"? Its such a drastic difference in what that commandment means.

[imitator]

Do you personally feel that a good action done by someone of a one religion or belief system is any more or less good then the exact same action being done by another religion or belief system? If so, why?

That question was from the Christians on Board? thread that was closed prematurely.

Just curious nature, on what you think about the subject? Is a good action by a christian more or less good then the same good action by someone else of a different religion? Assuming a person who lived a life just as good, or possibly better then a christian.. would they be accepted into heaven? If they followed all of God's laws and teachings, without following God, or having ever known of God, would they still be sent to hell, or purgatory?

[natureisawesome]

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome



It's easy to discredit. Especially when Prigonine himself addmited it was not an obstacle to the second law.

Staurm


In what way is it an obstacle to the second law? So far as I understand it is not in conflict with the 3 laws of thermodynamics whatsoever, rather thermodynamics failed to accomodate the phenomenon within the boundaries of the rules it laid forth. These laws failed to describe or explain the existence of life within the universe, they pertained to the idea that at sometime in the future the workings of the organism would eventually be explained through mechanics at a level of complexity not yet surpassed by the human mind, and things transpired they were right!, only the scietific community seems thus far largely dismissive of Prigogine's theory since (as yet) there seems to be no way to capitalise on it.

Scientists had hoped that â??chaos physicsâ?? would have somehow allowed the universe to be seen as â??creativeâ?? of its own complexity in spite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of universal decay), but no such fulfillment ever occured. We recognise the type of information contained in living things and it is subject to the second law. The fact is that the type of order that is recognised by chaos theory is totally unrelated to the information contained in life.

It looks like chaos theory may become a useful tool in weather forecasting.

The laws of thermodynamics were never meant to show a materialistic mechanism for the existence of life. A person with a materialistic bias may refuse to consider an creator and organizer outside of the universe, which the second law points to because of the universes inability to form life on it's own. We observe the formation of life all around us. There are many examples to point to that show that it uses a special "path of least resistance" that cannot otherwise be made through natural laws, rather by itself information and life are subject to degredation and there is no more evidence needed to make a conclusion. It's a straw man arguement saying that choas theory is not in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Of course it's not because chaos theory has nothing to do with the formation of life. It has to do with (one of the things it has to do with) the discovery of unsuspected patterns of harmony in apparently chaotic systems. It actually follows a path of entropy and does the opposite that life does. For example, there is believed to be a superstructure of some predictability in the otherwise unpredictable behaviour of water flowing turbulently. Scientists use the word â??chaosâ?? to indicate simple things that behave in complicated and unexpected waysâ??things that surprise us and confound our ability to predict how they will behave in the future.

Evolutionists argue that life is nothing but chemicals, but then they claim that living things are exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics that describe the behaviour of chemicals. I believe this shows the inconsistency of this materialistic belief .



Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
There is order, and then there is complexity. Randomness, order, and compexity are three seperate things.

Staurm:


No they aren't, you fail to realise the subjective and paradoxical nature of science. This is where the real beauty and spiritual side of scientific study lies, the realisation that we are in fact intrinsically incapable of fully understanding ourselves because basically we are the process of understanding. There is arguably no such thing as randomness, as Einstein once said prophetically, God does not play dice".

All I can say at the moment....

Hey look whatever you want to call them, they are three different concepts that can be scientifically differentiated.

Life is characterized by high specified complexity. The leading evolutionary origin-of-life researcher, Leslie Orgel, confirmed this:


Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.

When it comes to life's complexity, it has specifc semantic characteristics that wholly set it apart from the order we otherwise find in the natural universe. Proteins and DNA are non-random aperiodic (irregular) sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures or other fractal patterns recognized by chaos theory , which are caused by the properties of their constituents.

This is why I wanted you to study that book or the movie, I pointed out. Information theory is not simple. the basic point is that there is a quantative measure of information, and also a qualative measure of information. As to the qualative, there are 5 levels neccesary to understand it's nature : statistical, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

It will help very much to recognise the difference between information and randomness once the attributes of information are.

Here is a summarizing portion in this article which I insist you read at least to understand the nature of information.

The most important empirical principles relating to the concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems. Here is a brief summary of them:


1.No information can exist without a code.

2.No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.

4.No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

5.No information can exist without a transmitter.

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

7.No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

8.No information can exist without a will.


Information, science and biology (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp)


I also recognise that what we see as randomness may be also in fact ordered by a creator. In fact, if God exists it would have to be. But there is a great difference between the order in nature and the order and complexity in living things.

[Kai as a kite]

I think somebody needs to check out God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs (http://www.godisimaginary.com) and see how they can refute that.

[natureisawesome]

kai as a kite:


I think somebody needs to check out God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs and see how they can refute that.

That's not what this thread is about and that's very unreasonable. It's not my purpose here to disarm every single objection there is to God. I don't have a problem with dealing with objections as long as they are directly relevant to this thread, but otherwise forget it.

All I have to do is show a single valid logical path to God. It's not necessary for me to disprove all of those.

And how would you like it if somebody did that to you, elephant hurler.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:


And I am still curious what you have to say in regards to the idea of a pantheon-esque setting?

God doesnt mis-speak, and God does everything for a reason. What was his reason for specifically stating "other gods" and not "false gods"? Its such a drastic difference in what that commandment means.

This is just totally rediculous. He never says "actual living Gods that I don't want you to worship". He only says " Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ". And from this you read into it to mean he's referring to actual other Gods. If he's telling people who worship dumb idols as Gods, then this makes perfect sense. And in the next verses, he actually does refer to these graven images:


4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;


There is absolutely no place of inference to assert he was in any way referring to actual Gods. The context does not allow it not only in this passage, but throughout this book and the whole bible he consistantly refers to these Gods as false gods, abominations constructed by the hands of men which have no life in them. He also clearly states there are no other Gods beside him numerous times throughout scripture:



Deuteronomy 4:35
35Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

Deuteronomy 4:39
9Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Deuteronomy 32:39
39See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

2 Samuel 7:22
22Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

2 Samuel 22:32
32For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

1 Kings 8:60
60That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.


Isaiah 43
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isaiah 44:6
6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.


Isaiah 44
8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.



etc. etc. etc. etc.

I already went over a "pantheon-esque" setting in my original post. If you have any objections, feel free to post them with references.

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:


Quote:
Do you personally feel that a good action done by someone of a one religion or belief system is any more or less good then the exact same action being done by another religion or belief system? If so, why?

That question was from the Christians on Board? thread that was closed prematurely.

Just curious nature, on what you think about the subject? Is a good action by a christian more or less good then the same good action by someone else of a different religion? Assuming a person who lived a life just as good, or possibly better then a christian.. would they be accepted into heaven? If they followed all of God's laws and teachings, without following God, or having ever known of God, would they still be sent to hell, or purgatory?

first of all, without faith noone can please God:


Hebrews 11
6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. But his faith was proven through his obedience, and faith without works is dead.

Noone can follow all of God's teachings without faith. The most important commandment also, is to Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind,soul, and strength. How can you love someone you do not recognise, or do not believe in? You can't. THis is the most terrible crime, to not love God.

But some might say they do love God. But Jesus points out that if you love God's commandments, that is his righteousness, then you will in effect be drawn to God by your acceptance of his eternal nature.



John 14

21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

This is actually the only way you can come to God. It always begins with his righteousness. If they really did love his righteousness, then they would be drawn to him and become Christians.

furthermore, yes non Christians can do good works with an outward appearance. They can even feel good about them by the recognition of their conscience. But just like a beautiful woman with an evil heart can give a gentle and tender hug and feel good about it, the unsaved person cannot bear the true Spiritual fruit of righteousness. Without God their Love is incomplete, a mere superficial and tainted reflection of the nature of God. To bring forth Spiritual fruit, you must have God's Spirit working in you and have a true and perfect recognition of his nature.


4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

To a Truth, God's Love is not the Love of this world. God's righteousness is not the righteousness of this world. In feeling, in power, in nature it is greater than that which is of this world, which is in the corrupted minds of men. That is why they are called "dead works". Because they are not done in the Spirit of love, and are worthless to both the purpose of righteousness and sanctification.

And besides that,

You can't go to heaven unless your sins are accounted for. There is no other way for this to happen except through faith in Jesus Christ. The same Faith which saves, is the same faith which brings access to the grace which works in those who are saved to bring forth spiritual fruit and perfection. Sinners are under the power of the devil, and they cannot overcome the lusts of the flesh on thier own.

So it's just as Jesus says:


John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


Noone can live any more perfectly than a Christian. A sinner cannot even externally live up to the Christian standard. Thier whole being is continually drawn into sin. A True Christian does not sin . When they stumble, it is because this body is sold under sin, and we fight and war against it until we are given new Spiritual bodies.


Oh, and there is no purgatory.

[Staurm]

NatureisAwesome I don't have time to read your last retort but I just watned to add have you ever considered that the dissipative structures which organisms adopt in order to harness energy from somewhere might in fact trascend 4 dimensional space and time? Its all based on topology and strange attractors. I dunno I think we are probably both arguing the same toss of the coin. Are you aware also that Capra, someone you seem to also dismiss readilly, has written a paper on the parallels between science and christianity? (I've not read it though)

[Hardcore Newbie]

I already went over a "pantheon-esque" setting in my original post. If you have any objections, feel free to post them with references.We did, and then you said No, it's not the case. You have no reason to believe it.

We have shown evidence which you choose to reject, but when we disagree with your evidence, it's because we refuse to see the truth.

If you blast us with a lot of information, it's the truth. If we blast you with a lot of information, it's unfair and elephant hurling.

When you make assumptions, yours are correct. When we make assumptions, we need to back them up.

When we question your sources, you say it's because the creation scientists are being discriminated against in biased evaluations. When you question our sources, it's because our sources are corrupt, and we believe in them like bland religion.

Have fun with the thread.

[natureisawesome]

Hardcore Newbie:


Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome View Post
I already went over a "pantheon-esque" setting in my original post. If you have any objections, feel free to post them with references.


We did, and then you said No, it's not the case. You have no reason to believe it.

I'm not sure what your referring to. The logical path I explained in my original post to show a pantheon scenario as invalid was never actually adressed.


We have shown evidence which you choose to reject, but when we disagree with your evidence, it's because we refuse to see the truth.

I reject it because it's shown to be invalid.


If you blast us with a lot of information, it's the truth. If we blast you with a lot of information, it's unfair and elephant hurling.

I don't post "50 reasons why God is true". People bring up objections which require more than a few sentences to respond. That's not elephant hurling.


When you make assumptions, yours are correct. When we make assumptions, we need to back them up.

I do back up my assumptions. and Axioms are far from being any everyday asumptions that people make. You can call anything an assumption. In reality, axioms such as "you are thinking" are only remotely called assumptions for the sake of arguement. Nomatter how well you know something you can always deny it, even when it doesn't make sense.


When we question your sources, you say it's because the creation scientists are being discriminated against in biased evaluations. When you question our sources, it's because our sources are corrupt, and we believe in them like bland religion.

Have fun with the thread.

I havn't discredited anyones sources like mine have been. I disccredit information because it is proven to be fallacious.

I'm being attacked with so many false accusations there's no room for me to justifiy myself. I suppose people will think what will.

[imitator]

Nature, I am not going to respond point for point in regards to the pantheon thing, because I dont see a point in it.

To put it simply, I find it humorous that you say we need to look at texts in the bible to clarify one of God's laws. I didnt see anything next to that commandment that said, (see such and such). Its a law, it stands on its own, and its very clear. He says worship no other gods. The next commandment is seperate from the others. They are all seperate from each other, otherwise that commandment wouldnt be a commandment, but a subsection of the one before it.

God said dont worship any other Gods before me. I want to know what other Gods those might have been.

He also says dont make any idols, of him or anyone else, and worship them. He doesnt want them worshiping any idols, including those of him, because he wants all the worship to go directly to him himself. He doesnt even want to compete with images of himself.

And since we have shown, in a round about way, that this God is what some might consider a jealous and petty God, and you need look no further then the Old Testament for proof of that, I dont think it would be a stretch to think that he would try to ensure that people didnt believe in anyone but him by claiming he was the one and only god.

Thats just going on all the documented things that were written in the bible. Do I think God is those things? Idk, but if he really is, I would have to question if he isnt just something much more advanced then us, and not an actual god.

[Pass That Shit]

And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.

And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

And they shall answer, Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil

Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.

This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.

Then they shall answer, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD their God, and worshipped other gods, and served them.

And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt

The LORD will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case and point. Natureisawesome believes in his God, which clearly is a different God than the ONE I worship.
If his God exists, then there are many gods, but there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD!

"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever."

[natureisawesome]

Nature, I am not going to respond point for point in regards to the pantheon thing, because I dont see a point in it.

To put it simply, I find it humorous that you say we need to look at texts in the bible to clarify one of God's laws. I didnt see anything next to that commandment that said, (see such and such). Its a law, it stands on its own, and its very clear. He says worship no other gods. The next commandment is seperate from the others. They are all seperate from each other, otherwise that commandment wouldnt be a commandment, but a subsection of the one before it.

You havn't the slightest clue as how to go about exegesis. It doesn't matter that it's seperate from the others. The fact that the very next verse refers to graven images (i.e. false Gods) clarifies the meaning. And there's no room for inference to take it to mean he's referring to real Gods. It a simple statement : Have no other Gods before him. If he was talking about false Gods that's a very normal way to say it. to He says himself over and over again that there are no other Gods. You argue God "cannot have made a mistake", so is he making a mistake there? Your interpretation is in trouble now. "no other Gods" can also refer to Gods which have no idol such as Allah. I just can't believe you're arguing this. It's so obvious that you're heart is hardened and you bicker about foolish things. If you argued that before any Hebrew scholar he wouldn't take you seriously. He would very likely laugh at you, even if he wasn't a Christian. You're wasting my time.


God said dont worship any other Gods before me. I want to know what other Gods those might have been.

There are none, like He says, there are no other Gods. You're going to to twist scripture like that and say God cannot lie so thus and thus, but he clearly states there's no other Gods multiple times and you don't take it as evidence at all. Oh he couldn't have been lying before, but he's lying now is he?


And since we have shown, in a round about way, that this God is what some might consider a jealous and petty God, and you need look no further then the Old Testament for proof of that, I dont think it would be a stretch to think that he would try to ensure that people didnt believe in anyone but him by claiming he was the one and only god.

He might seem like a foolish and petty God to someone who is a fool and has no understanding. There is one type of love given to animals, one type given to children, another type given to men, another variation given to your wife, and there's a special type of Love for God. He deserves our worship. He deserves our dedication to him as God only, and it's great sin and blasphemy to worship some false God that cannot save. It's personally insulting and a great sin. It's a lack of love to God, and that's a greater sin than anything else. I completely understand how he is "jealous", and that is not petty, that is righteous. A man would be "jealous" if his wife went off with another man. A mother would be "jealous" if her children disregarded her who raised them and went off and honored some other woman. How much more then should, we give honor and Love and worship to God who created all things and has given us life?


Thats just going on all the documented things that were written in the bible. Do I think God is those things? Idk, but if he really is, I would have to question if he isnt just something much more advanced then us, and not an actual god.

There are more than a few examples of idol worship in the bible and God condemning it in the books of Moses. I already showed one verse in Deuteronomy (actually more than one) where God claimed there is no other God. And you have no argument to choose one book or chapter and discriminate against the other books. Actually you have no reason to disregard any of them, they are all authentic historical records by all standards.

There are however, false living Gods. Paul talks about these. I don't suggest you try to "know" them to well at all, especially since they are demons.

1 corinthians 10


19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

[imitator]

Is it neccessary to insult me and my views with every post you make?

Its either lying about what I said, which you still have yet to ever address, or insulting me in some manner or another.

I am now a waste of your time, because you dont like the questions. Poorly a savior would look upon you, for so easily giving up on someone who might be saved.

You seem to take this stance that anything I bring up must be my personal opinion or belief in some manner or another. But that is not the case, nor has it been throughout this entire thread. My stance is of no importance to this conversation. I am merely bringing up points, some of them from that very link you claimed was elephant hurling, in an individual context related to what you are discussing, so that you might address it.

And what standards are they considered completely factual historical record? Can you show me a reference where it states such? A non-biased source would be best.

And as I said before, and you did not respond to at all, a petty God such as the one described in The Old Testament would not be beyond lying to those around him, as such an act is also petty. Someone who is fighting to try to gain belief with a large number of people is better to claim that he is the only, then to claim he is one of many.

And to claim that god is actually jealous speaks leagues. You admited it. You even attempted to justify it. And jealousy is a trait of those who are imperfect. Which is it? Was/Is he a jealous god, or is he a perfect being?

[imitator]

for he will famish all the gods of the earth

Nature, how exactly do you famish something that is made up? Fake dieties can not be fanished, but real ones can. Deny a god all of his worshipers, so that no one exists that believes in it, and some have said you will have destroyed said god. That sounds similar to that idea right there.

There are just as many scriptures making hint to other gods existing as there are of God stating that he is the only god. There is a reason for this... if your God is infallable, then what was written there was not a mistake, and there are alot of references that just dont apply to imaginary gods.

[natureisawesome]

I'm done talking about that Imitator. If you want to strive with the potsherds you can go find pass that --- . I've already adressed this and I feel my response was more than adequate. If you refuse to recognise poetic language, I'm really sorry. I'm very sorry you think that selfish or evil jealousy is the kind that God has, even when I've plainly explained it's not, and the bible shows it's not. I'm really sad that you get hung up on such things. Rightly divide the word of truth, Imitator.

I think I'm also very sorry that my thread has been totally abused and repeatedly brought off topic, that I've been pushed to repeatedly deal with side issues that are not necessary for the purpose of this thread.

At first, I had no problem answering peoples other questions, and I have been slow to anger. But I am sick and tired of this kind of bickering. If people listen to you and they fall into the ditch, it serves them right.

No more about that Imitator. I'm done. Adress the logic in my orignal thread or do not post in here any more. I'm sick and tired of it. Please. And that goes for anybody else either. This is not for you to throw up every little objection you can think of to God. No.

The next person who posts off topic, I am reporting to the moderator.

[mfqr]

By the way, natureisawesome. With the so-called "elephant hurling" website that I posted. I didn't expect you to answer all of them. I simply expected you to answer the ones that are of the most significance. Here, I'll pick a couple out for you and then it won't be "elephant hurling," okay?

1. God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i13.htm) - read it to its full extent, and answer it well. I don't want any beating around the bush and stupid justifications like "oh well god made it that way so that is how it must be" kind of bullshit.

2. God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i21.htm)

3. God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i36.htm)

4. God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs (http://www.godisimaginary.com/i41.htm)

Four simple questions.
I also wanted you to read the whole website, and see the other side of the story. Remember, there's not always one side. That especially goes for religion.

I can't wait to hear about how these questions are invalid, or contribute to "elephant hurling."

[mfqr]

You might also want to watch the videos on that site, too. Such as the "The Bible is Repulsive" video. In fact, watch them all. Religion is bullshit. I have nothing wrong with people turning to the bible to clean their lives up from drugs or something, but anyone that seriously lives their life to the bible is obviously brainwashed. At least the drug addicts have a reason other than "that's the way it is." It's a system of control.

And by the way, with the crusades... the Bible DOES support the crusades.

[imitator]

I'm done talking about that Imitator. If you want to strive with the potsherds you can go find pass that --- . I've already adressed this and I feel my response was more than adequate. If you refuse to recognise poetic language, I'm really sorry. I'm very sorry you think that selfish or evil jealousy is the kind that God has, even when I've plainly explained it's not, and the bible shows it's not. I'm really sad that you get hung up on such things. Rightly divide the word of truth, Imitator.

I think I'm also very sorry that my thread has been totally abused and repeatedly brought off topic, that I've been pushed to repeatedly deal with side issues that are not necessary for the purpose of this thread.

At first, I had no problem answering peoples other questions, and I have been slow to anger. But I am sick and tired of this kind of bickering. If people listen to you and they fall into the ditch, it serves them right.

No more about that Imitator. I'm done. Adress the logic in my orignal thread or do not post in here any more. I'm sick and tired of it. Please. And that goes for anybody else either. This is not for you to throw up every little objection you can think of to God. No.

The next person who posts off topic, I am reporting to the moderator.

Report me then. At this point, with your insulting tone, and your insulting of anyone elses viewpoint, I think you wouldnt like the results on your end either. The ONLY reason I havent reported you myself is because you were continuing the conversation, which interested me.

I have yet to bring up something that didnt have to do with the subject at hand. You just dont like the questions, so you are trying to limit what can be asked, and what can be said, in some sort of facist way.

But you want to stick to easier subjects, with yes or no answers and no challenge on your part? Stuff that you can get your answers from AiG? How about this one then.

It is against God's laws to worship any idol, even if it is of himself. Yet in almost every church you go to, you will find Christ upon the cross in the center of the church. Every person who goes there and worships is worshiping a false idol, and that much is comfirmed by the Church, since it was not allowed for a long time by one of the Popes, for that exact reason.

So do you, natureisawesome, have a crucifix anywhere? Do you wear a crucifix? What do you think of those who blatantly and willing defy one of God's laws by owning one of these idols, or going to a church which proudly displays one?


I can't wait to hear about how these questions are invalid, or contribute to "elephant hurling."

Dont even bother, its not worth your time. Its obvious, yet again, that this is someone who didnt want to actually have a conversation about anything but exactly what he believed in, with people who agree with him. The second that we started bringing up questions in regards to things we saw as a problem with his theory and such, we met immediate resistance.

I will say I enjoyed what came of this, I truely did. I learned a decent bit of information that I had not known before, and for that I am thankful.

But nature wasnt looking for a conversation in regards to this. He was looking for people to look at his arguement and go "oh my god, I never looked at it like that, you are so right, im a christian from now on." Every time he had to explain something that he felt was self evident in regards to a topic or question we brought up, it was with condescendence, and insults. We were foolish for this, or ignorant for that, or playing stupid, in almost everything that he posted.

He has displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of basic philosophy and Buddhism, and general logic in quite a few cases. The fact that he states that his perceptions have to be correct is probably the most hilarious statement I have ever heard, considering human perception is probably THE most flawed way to try to find facts, as we can be fooled in so many ways. Optical illusions anyone?

He attacked the Four Noble Truths, without obviously having ever read them, because what he stated was completely incorrect if you take even a short period of time to read them and the scripture they come from.

He claims that science is wrong on any aspect that might disprove or cause him a problem in regards to his subject, but then uses science to try to prove what he is talking about. His science is always right, our science is always wrong.

At this point, and Id almost argue from the start although I may be being a bit too cynical, its like arguing with a 7 yr old child who is plugging their ears and just repeating themselves to try to win the arguement. Even worse, its a child repeating copy-paste stuff.

But I am done with this thread. Congratulations nature, you ran out someone who was probably one of the more enthusiastic of this thread, and one who never once ridiculed your beliefs and really only said anything negative of you once you started doing the same to me. You turned a conversation into a pissing contest, you turned a conversation into a means for you to insult everyone who didnt agree with your viewpoint, and you turned a conversation into nothing more then another typical thread by ignorant small minded religious people. Also, please note, I am not saying all religious people are ignorant or small minded, just some.

The fact that you wouldnt even begin to entertain any other possibilities, while the entire time chiding us for not entertaining your possibility, is hilarious, and hypocritical at best.

Also, you still have never disproven the Dreamer theory, therefore, its still a possibility. And Id recommend really learning what a fact, theory, possibility, and how to identify a statement of any of those apart from the other. You seem to be lacking that right now, and I think it will help you convey your point a bit better next time.

Have fun with the rest of your thread, I am unsubscribing to it. Report me if you wish.

Peace

[FakeBoobsRule]

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks NatureisAwesome. If there is one person who is abusing this thread the most it seems to me to be you yet you are calling out others on your own thread. Since your posts are soooooooooo long it is hard to read this whole thread without getting a headache. It seems that you are more upset with people not agreeing with you and you are looking for reasons to get people in trouble based on that or you are baiting them into breaking the rules. We have a word for that and it is trolling. This is not the only thread you have done this is so if anyone is pressing the rules to the edge of the limits it is NatureIsAwesome. I'm not saying everyone else is innocent but you make it hard with your baiting and your extremely long posts to see past your own role in this but from what I see the responders have been quite respectful for the most part. I'm not going to close a thread just because people don't agree with NatureIsAwesome because no one is breaking the rules and that would be extreme censorship.

I would like to see less statements like Screw Religion or Religion is BS ,etc. Say something a little more profound people.

If people want to carry on with this thread then carry on but this thread may have steered a little off the original topic but not by much. Try to return it to center and keep it respectful!

[natureisawesome]

Imitator:


Report me then. At this point, with your insulting tone, and your insulting of anyone elses viewpoint, I think you wouldnt like the results on your end either. The ONLY reason I havent reported you myself is because you were continuing the conversation, which interested me.

That's rediculous. This is my thread. Even if it wasn't I have obeyed all of the rules of the forum. You on the otherhand, have sworn, (and refused to stop swering) you have repeatedly posted over and over andover with spam like posts and off topic arguements and objections, and would not stop when I asked. You have also posted off topic once again.


It is against God's laws to worship any idol, even if it is of himself. Yet in almost every church you go to, you will find Christ upon the cross in the center of the church. Every person who goes there and worships is worshiping a false idol, and that much is comfirmed by the Church, since it was not allowed for a long time by one of the Popes, for that exact reason.

So do you, natureisawesome, have a crucifix anywhere? Do you wear a crucifix? What do you think of those who blatantly and willing defy one of God's laws by owning one of these idols, or going to a church which proudly displays one?

No I don't actually. It's wrong to make assumptions like that. I have no denomination. I have no church I agree with. The cross is ultimately derived from what's called a solar halo which was ultimately derived from the Babylonian mystery religion. It has no relation to true Christianity.


He has displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of basic philosophy and Buddhism, and general logic in quite a few cases. The fact that he states that his perceptions have to be correct is probably the most hilarious statement I have ever heard, considering human perception is probably THE most flawed way to try to find facts, as we can be fooled in so many ways. Optical illusions anyone?

And it's interesting how you continue to use your invalid mind to try to come up with valid arguements against me. Pointing out optical allusions does not help your case at all because for us to recognise optical allusions we have to use our eyes in the first place.


He attacked the Four Noble Truths, without obviously having ever read them, because what he stated was completely incorrect if you take even a short period of time to read them and the scripture they come from.

How do you know I've never read them or read about them? Quite an assumption.


He claims that science is wrong on any aspect that might disprove or cause him a problem in regards to his subject, but then uses science to try to prove what he is talking about. His science is always right, our science is always wrong.

Science is a tool. It can be used in a good way, or it can be turned in the wrong direction, all depending on the person that uses it.


But I am done with this thread. Congratulations nature, you ran out someone who was probably one of the more enthusiastic of this thread, and one who never once ridiculed your beliefs and really only said anything negative of you once you started doing the same to me. You turned a conversation into a *** contest, you turned a conversation into a means for you to insult everyone who didnt agree with your viewpoint, and you turned a conversation into nothing more then another typical thread by ignorant small minded religious people. Also, please note, I am not saying all religious people are ignorant or small minded, just some.

How ironic. I think if anyone has turned this into a pissing match it's you. You're not enthusiastic about the Truth. I don't believe you came in here with the right attitude.



The fact that you wouldnt even begin to entertain any other possibilities, while the entire time chiding us for not entertaining your possibility, is hilarious, and hypocritical at best.

That's not true at all. I get the feeling you derive this strange sick pleasure from turning christians away from their faith.


Also, you still have never disproven the Dreamer theory, therefore, its still a possibility. And Id recommend really learning what a fact, theory, possibility, and how to identify a statement of any of those apart from the other. You seem to be lacking that right now, and I think it will help you convey your point a bit better next time.

I did answer the dreamer theory. And you answered "NO". You wouldn't accept it. Like I said, ultimately everyone has to prove it to themself. You chose not to. I'm quite capable, much more than you in knowledge of those things, and the fact that you denied you were stating a possibility as a fact multiple times, and then finally changed your objection dramatically (and in effect recognizing your previous error without addmiting it) show that your are the one in need of lessons in reason and logic.



Have fun with the rest of your thread, I am unsubscribing to it. Report me if you wish.

I will report you, and as a final note I recognise and hope it's obvious to others that you are unreasonable and argumentative, and in my honest opinion in a state of mental anguish. I hope the best for you. Please don't come back.

[natureisawesome]

fbr:


Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks NatureisAwesome. If there is one person who is abusing this thread the most it seems to me to be you yet you are calling out others on your own thread. Since your posts are soooooooooo long it is hard to read this whole thread without getting a headache. It seems that you are more upset with people not agreeing with you and you are looking for reasons to get people in trouble based on that or you are baiting them into breaking the rules. We have a word for that and it is trolling. This is not the only thread you have done this is so if anyone is pressing the rules to the edge of the limits it is NatureIsAwesome. I'm not saying everyone else is innocent but you make it hard with your baiting and your extremely long posts to see past your own role in this but from what I see the responders have been quite respectful for the most part. I'm not going to close a thread just because people don't agree with NatureIsAwesome because no one is breaking the rules and that would be extreme censorship.

If people want to carry on with this thread then carry on but this thread may have steered a little off the original topic but not by much. Try to return it to center and keep it respectful!

I'm not sure how I am baiting other people into breaking the rules. I'm not sure at all how I'm calling out others. I'm also really not sure how I've been trolling on other threads. I thought cussing, posting off topic, and spam like posts were against the rules, but if you don't agree I suppose that's your choice. Honestly I don't want this thread to go on anymore.

[Pass That Shit]

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A REQUEST TO ANY MODERATOR THAT WOULD LISTEN!

Due to his CONSTANT attacks of other peoples faith, I REQUEST THAT THIS THREAD BE CLOSED!

Now that imitator opted out of it, I doubt anyone will continue to debate him anyway. If I understood correctly in another thread, Hardcore Newbie also implied that he was gonna start ignoring natureisawesome, (i could be wrong on this).

I NEVER personally attacked him, but he never wanted to address his accusations of me. Alot of posts and threads have been deleted for lesser reasons. I felt from the start that if natureisawesome complained to the mods, and the mods read the thread through, it would work AGAINST him.

If the mods choose not to honor my request, it will say alot about this site and I will have to reconsider staying a member on here!

He ONCE AGAIN brought me into a conversation that I had nothing to do with. See the post above addressed at imitator.

I also am a man of faith, but being faithful and attacking others is COMPLELETLY DIFFERENT!

Since he has agreed to not wanting this thread to go on, it's only fair to all members that this thread get locked. I think it will be the RIGHT thing to do, and maybe it will raise his awareness for future threads. As you can see, right now, he still thinks of himself a saint and all others are devils. He states that he has not responded out of anger, but in my eyes, he has been doing this from the start. Thanks for listening to my rant. :D

[Pass That Shit]

"I'm done talking about that Imitator. If you want to strive with the potsherds you can go find pass that --- ."

potsherd = "a broken piece of a brittle artifact"

What did I have to do with this conversation natureisawesome? NOTHING! You blasting me is only looking for trouble.

You couldn't be more wrong on your accusation though. I have faith that the God of the whole Earth is a righteous judge, UNLIKE YOU!

[FakeBoobsRule]

Now that imitator opted out of it, I doubt anyone will continue to debate him anyway.
Are you saying people will no longer continue to debate Imitator or NatureIsAwesome?


I felt from the start that if natureisawesome complained to the mods, and the mods read the thread through, it would work AGAINST him.

If the mods choose not to honor my request, it will say alot about this site and I will have to reconsider staying a member on here!

Hello, did you not read my response a few hours ago? Did I not make it clear who I thought was the number one offender? To me, to let someone push the limits of the rules and then complain about everyone else and ask for the thread to be closed so no one else could respond seemed like total crap, which is what I think was going on.


Since he has agreed to not wanting this thread to go on, it's only fair to all members that this thread get locked. I think it will be the RIGHT thing to do

You can't please everyone all the time. NatureIsAwesome seemed to want this thread closed because people disagreed with him and to me that is not a legitimate reason to close a thread. That's like running to mommy and daddy when things get heated up. Also, the religious and political forums have a slightly different standard applied to them (read stickys by Psycho4Bud on this matter if you were not aware). Hopefully people knew that because common sense dictates that these are two areas in any conversation that can get heated because people feel passionately about them and if you want to get involved, you better have thick skin. If I closed the thread people would have complained, if I left it open people would have complained. I wrote a note and I have been paying attention to this headache of a thread. I don't need 3 posts to tell me it is a problem especially after writing a note. For the most part we don't just go closing and deleting threads because people want to. Notice the edit time on posts is only 10 minutes, that's because you better realize what you write is going to stay forever if it follows the rules. Have you ever seen someone ask to get their account and posts deleted, what is the answer, NO. I'm sure if people pointed out specific post numbers to us, it would make it easier to clean up posts or make a decision to close or delete the thread easier because NIA is writing an essay with each post and there are almost 400 posts.

Like I said, if I closed it people would be upset, if I left it open, people would be upset. Either:

1) Don't respond and the thread will die
2) Everyone involved in this thread say their peace/last words and the thread will be closed
3) Point out posts by numbers that you feel might violate the rules and show us possible rule violations. I'm sorry but I just don't have the patience right now to read all 367 posts.


Truly this thread is a moderating headache but I would rather put in a little extra effort and get it right than to say screw it and close it.

Excuse me, I keep say Religious forum when it is the Spirituality Forum.

[natureisawesome]

I think people should be able to close their own threads, regardless of the reason. Sorry it's a moderating headache. Not my intention. I hope I don't get a bad rep for it.

I disagree with just about everyone however, and that's my right to opinion.

I've already tried to defend my actions to no avail, and every time I post there's 4 or 5 to come and attack me. This thread is taking too much of my time and I could could care less what people say anymore. I hereby abandon this thread.

[snowblind]

natureisawesome why dont you pray for the thread to be closed ?

and if a mod does close it please state you are otherwise we will never here the end of it.

i think natureisawesome set out with this thread to convince everyone in god and to belive in a higher power, because in his mind this is all logical. however to most people it isnt. it really is weak to get it closed down as you are the main prog in this and shoot people down. you backed yourself into the corner with this one. it pisses me off cus i like debating this stuff, just with less narrow minded people. natureisawesome, no one has actually attacked you from the start, the attacks are based on the tone and aggression of your replies. this has been mentioned numerous times but you seem unable to step away from yourself and understand how your posts make people feel.

at the end of the day the evidence for either side is based upon the convition of the people on either side. faith vs science. there is no answer.

i think this thread is dead.

R.I.P

[chisme]

maaaaan i must be stupid i can hardly understamnd any of the phyco-babble goin on here...i mean like you guys put everything into mindless rants about nothing defined.....or maybee im just dumb....probably that then

[Pass That Shit]

Since natureisawesome has stated that he will abandon this thread, I have no problem it staying open. I made the request cause I was tired of hearing him blast everyone who didn't agree with him, and I felt he shouldn't have that right, since others don't have the right on other threads. To me personally, it wasn't about disagreement, it was that every time he disagreed, he began name calling like a child. And after the name calling, he would threaten that he would report us. I guess I was starting to scoop to his level by asking for the thread to be closed. As far as thick skin, I would be all for "free speech" and "everything posted, stays posted". I have read many of threads, in which I wanted to comment, but they got closed by a mod. And I didn't see anything worthy of closing those threads. I guess I feel that threads have been closed for lesser offence than this one. Keep in mind that almost all the people who have been part of this debate, have pointed out that they have been offended by this character. I don't have the desire to go pulling all the offensive comments. I don't have the desire to be a mod. Like I said, I'm all for "free speech". If someone is offended, they have the option to stay away. I made the request not because I couldn't handle his childish name calling, cause they are just words, and I could easily avoid them, but rather cause of the inconsistency of the moderators. I guess the mods don't have a specific pattern to follow, cause I see they close threads when they feel like it. I don't think the thread starter should be able to close his own thread either. Peace!!! ;)

[FakeBoobsRule]

I made the request not because I couldn't handle his childish name calling, cause they are just words, and I could easily avoid them, but rather cause of the inconsistency of the moderators. I guess the mods don't have a specific pattern to follow, cause I see they close threads when they feel like it. I don't think the thread starter should be able to close his own thread either. Peace!!! ;)
Wow, Pass That, you completely missed the boat on that one. We don't close threads when "we feel like it." We close threads when there are violations. We do follow patterns and trends. We don't have dartboards in our homes that we throw at and depending on where the dart lands, then that's what we do. If we went around closing threads, deleting posts, handing out infractions at will then that would be chaos and anarchy. We follow our own guidelines and don't just go around waiving the ban stick for the hell of it.

Like you said earlier in your post you don't want to be a mod. Remember we are unpaid volunteers who do it because we like it. We have a life and commitments beyond this board. It is a holiday weekend. I was the first one to tackle this and there was so much information posted from NatureIsAwesome I had to get help from the others. We discussed what was going own. We researched it, we went through posts, we discussed it some more. Notice who was complaining about everyone else and how everything was handled? I think the outcome has been quite a fair and just one. If we just did things based on if we feel like it or not, we wouldn't have spent hours trying to come up with a fair and just outcome instead of a kneejerk reaction.

So in summary there is the report feature on every post, I suggest people use it in the future to help us. This is a community and we sometimes rely on members to help us. In the political and spirituality forums, there is a slightly different standard. It doesn't mean the rules are different just the threshold at which something is considered an attack on another poster is different. Consider it like the speeed limit in the city and the speed limit on the interstate. The mods sometimes discuss problems and work together before coming to a kneejerk reaction. Be patient. Stop complaining about everything too. Nothings perfect in this world but we try our best.

Now if you don't mind Pass that, I have a date with a hot tall blonde with fake boobs and I have spent enough time on this thread. I'm going to leave this open for a little while longer in case Hardcore or Imitator or others wish to post since the attacks have been dealt with but I hope when I return later tonight I find anymore complaining from you.

[Pass That Shit]

With that being said, I appreciate the personal time and effort you guys put in. :thumbsup:

Thx

[mfqr]

Natureisawesome said:



That's rediculous. This is my thread. Even if it wasn't I have obeyed all of the rules of the forum. You on the otherhand, have sworn, (and refused to stop swering) you have repeatedly posted over and over andover with spam like posts and off topic arguements and objections, and would not stop when I asked. You have also posted off topic once again.


So because it's your thread, you can insult people, and do whatever you wish? By the way, posting about how someone posted off-topic is off-topic as well. And yes, I am off-topic. A lot of people swear in this forum, and I haven't seen a person get banned for it, unless it was excessive swearing, and used intentionally to insult someone. This post by you is ridiculous, and people do not have to abide by your rules just because you made the thread. The rules are made and enforced by moderators.

God could exist, or he may not exist. The evidence supplied in the initial post was not evidence or proof of God's existance, but rather evidence of proof that God's existence cannot be proven until death. Just remember, life here on Earth didn't start out as we know it. It started out without life at all, and life slowly began to show up for whatever reason. These life forms (very simple bacterium - the most primitive of lifeforms) obviously were more like nano machines in a way that they most likely did not have a conscience, and only reacted based on their surroundings in a very simplistic way. The fact that we are here, and have came this far from that, holds more true to evolution than creationism, as far as I can see. So considering my argument, I would have no reason to believe that God decided to put these creatures in billions of years before we even started to come about. Why would he? He could have just jumped the gun and said "Hey, why don't I just put humans on there right now, rather than beat around the bush? I'm perfect, omni-potent, all-powerful, and I exist beyond the realms of science and time and space." It would make no sense for an all-powerful, omnipotent, benevolent, perfect entity to do such a thing. And if he did, what was his logic for doing so? Anybody want to answer that?

I have one more question, too. Why should I pick the Christian God over, say, the Muslim God, or the greek gods, or any kind of pagan gods? Why should I, other than "because the Bible says so?" And if that is anyone's answer, why is the Bible more right than the Quran, the Torah, or any other books like them? Why can't I believe that I control my own destiny, and that my fate is not pre-written?

[Staurm]

Oh come on don't close the thread down because of a few people arguing, I've barely had the chance to get involved yet! There are still people in the thread who are treating others opinions with respect, whether or not anyone is being somewhat closed minded is irrelevant to me, I am engaged in an interesting dialogue with Natureisawesome and I would like to continue it, so please don't close it down. Natureisawesome if the thread gets modded then we can continue our debate about entropy and autopoiesis in the science section if you like...

EDIT: I see someone has been banned... shame.....

[BeforeYourTime]

Carbon Dating has proved! that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. The bible states otherwise. One of many bibles written!!!{Surely there should only be one, if its true!}

Tell me ,did god put dinosaur bones here to test our faith?

The bible states the earth is 6000years old. Hmmm... What a load of SH*T..... CARBON DATING ppl.

Did god make carbon dating to test our faith?

Religion for 1000s of years was an explination for things ppl did not understand! But now we have science and logic and now we DO understand!
How can some of the ppl of our planet be so narrow minded.
Only ignarance to logic and science can now provide faith in god!

You shall not kill ... or go to Hell!
What about flies??? We have all killed something in our lives...Are we all doomed to Hell??? ............. Hell is a Moronic idea as is God!

God IS a figment of our imaginations. God DOES NOT and CAN NOT exist. With a little intelligence anyone can see this!

Slate me if u wish. I dont mind.

[Pass That Shit]

Carbon Dating has proved! that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. The bible states otherwise. One of many bibles written!!!{Surely there should only be one, if its true!}

Tell me ,did god put dinosaur bones here to test our faith?

The bible states the earth is 6000years old. Hmmm... What a load of SH*T..... CARBON DATING ppl.

Did god make carbon dating to test our faith?

Religion for 1000s of years was an explination for things ppl did not understand! But now we have science and logic and now we DO understand!
How can some of the ppl of our planet be so narrow minded.
Only ignarance to logic and science can now provide faith in god!

You shall not kill ... or go to Hell!
What about flies??? We have all killed something in our lives...Are we all doomed to Hell??? ............. Hell is a Moronic idea as is God!

God IS a figment of our imaginations. God DOES NOT and CAN NOT exist. With a little intelligence anyone can see this!

Slate me if u wish. I dont mind.


Where in the bible does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old? :wtf:

[BeforeYourTime]

look it up!

How old is the earth according to the Bible? (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/earthsage.html)

Stupidest notion ive ever read. I mean IMO u really need to be thick as pig sh*t to believe this.

[Pass That Shit]

Where in the bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old? :wtf:

[BeforeYourTime]

Where in the bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old? :wtf:

If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).


Adam was created on the sixth day of God's Creation Week, so the earth must be only 6000 years old too.


It cant be any clearer.. The bible implys/says that the earth is only around 6000 years old!

Heres a video of a preacher to support this.
TV Links (http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/6185)

yet more crap for the weak minded

[Pass That Shit]

Where does it say in the bible that the earth is 6,000 years old? :(

But it's the christians who are brainwashed right? Don't believe everything you read on a website!

[BeforeYourTime]

Where does it say in the bible that the earth is 6,000 years old? :(

But it's the christians who are brainwashed right? Don't believe everything you read on a website!


Did u watch the video? Do u understand what is implied by the bible?

The bible clearly indicates the earth is around 6000 years old.

The Earth Is 6000 Years Old (http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html)
Layman Bible Answers: Can Christians argue the Earth is only 6000 years old? (http://laymanbibleanswers.blogspot.com/2007/08/can-christians-argue-earth-is-only-6000.html)
Earth 6,000 years old, says creationist (http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/02/021207_news_creation.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=7)

I could copy/paste endless info on this topic but if u watch the video it will answer your questions alot better.
TV Links (http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/6185) .. creation and eden
Failing that u could always type it into google or do your own research.

Personally i believe our universe was created by the big bang. I also believe and have alot more reason to believe in M Theory.

TV Links (http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/5239) .. M Theory

[Pass That Shit]

I asked you three times, and you came up with nothing. If you don't read the bible, don't sit there and tell us what's in it. I asked you to back up your statement about what the bible says, but you linked me to a 2hr movie! :wtf:

The bible DOES NOT say how old the Earth is, therefore carbon dating DOES NOT disprove the bible!

[BeforeYourTime]

I asked you three times, and you came up with nothing. If you don't read the bible, don't sit there and tell us what's in it. I asked you to back up your statement about what the bible says, but you linked me to a 2hr movie! :wtf:

The bible DOES NOT say how old the Earth is, therefore carbon dating DOES NOT disprove the bible!

Firstly i havent read a bible in over 40 years and i rely on my memory and what info i can readily find.

Pass that Sh*t , it seems to me that your itching for an argument with the narrow mindedness of your one question replies.
If the movie is 2h then judging by your post time u clearly didnt watch it. If your going to be ignorant to the other side of the story and not watch/read the info i link you, or do your own reasearch behind what im trying to explain, then your biased opinion really means nothing here. There is endless info on this subject!

Where does it state the earth is more than 6000 years old?
The movie is of a preacher, who clearly has studdied this subject for a long time and knows the bible inside out. All the links given and countless more are from ppl who know the bible inside out. Are they wrong about the bibles meanings/interpritation? Yes they probably are considering the bible itsself is but a novel. I now hear that Jedi is a recognized religion because enough ppl believe in it. :wtf: If this worries you then go figure it out yourself. Add up the ages. Also this is but 1 of the endless amounts of the bible's flaws.

Your last statement is false. Of Course carbon dating disproves the bible. If man existed in the 6th day then we would have to have lived for the entire duration of the earth including alongside dinosaurs!! :wtf: This is impossible

If we all came from Adam and Eve then who did their children mate with .... each other? This is incest and against my moral values which is enough to convince me that creation is not correct.

I never have and never will believe in religion. Science and logic are my only gods.

[Pass That Shit]

"The bible states the earth is 6000years old. Hmmm... What a load of SH*T..... CARBON DATING ppl."

That was the comment I replied to. I asked you where in the bible does it state that the bible is 6000 years old? :wtf:

You didn't say that some preachers opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old, did you? If you did, I wouldn't be asking you the question! :jointsmile:

[BeforeYourTime]

"The bible states the earth is 6000years old. Hmmm... What a load of SH*T..... CARBON DATING ppl."

That was the comment I replied to. I asked you where in the bible does it state that the bible is 6000 years old? :wtf:

You didn't say that some preachers opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old, did you? If you did, I wouldn't be asking you the question! :jointsmile:

You misunderstand the meaning of my statement, i appoligise.
Ill rephrase it for your narrow mind.

The bible implies the earth is 6000years old. Hmmm... What a load of SH*T ...... CARBON DATING ppl.

:beatdeadhorse:

[Pass That Shit]

The bible does not imply that the Earth is 6000 years old. You do. I doubt anyone who reads the bible will take your word on it, since you haven't read it in over 40 years. You're entitled to your opinion, but no need to knock me cause I disagree with you! :jointsmile: