Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: King Shizzo on October 29, 2014, 09:31:01 AM
-
Says god isnt a magician. :D
-
Says god isnt a magician. :D
No no, animals follow after there kind, noah's ark is real and what happened before the big bang? who made it bang?
-
Even the pope is keeping it real.
-
I like to see this.
I would like to have kids and raise them catholic.
That being said they'd have to do alot to get with the times.
They should start teaching actual philosophy as part of their mass.
-
Does he even lift?
-
Popes been watching Dawkins on utube..
-
I thought the Vatican have been saying this for years.
-
I thought the Vatican have been saying this for years.
For a few years they've been hinting at at. Or at least I think they have.
-
Full article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/)
Delivering an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Francis continued his habit of making provocative, seemingly progressive statements. The pontiff appeared to endorse the theory of the Big Bang and told the gathering at the Vatican that there was no contradiction between believing in God as well as the prevailing scientific theories regarding the expansion of our universe.
“When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”
The pope avoids gesturing at the thorny issue (at least for some Christians) of whether humans descended from apes. Atheists argue, moreover, that understanding the Big Bang and what emerged from that cosmic moment obviates a need to believe in a deity. On that count, Francis obviously disagrees. He repeated the idea of God not being a “magician,” an entity that conjured all into being.
“God is not... a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
In other words, to borrow from an earlier Enlightenment idea, God is more a clockmaker than a conjurer of miracles.
-
Big hitter, the Pope. Very long off the tee.
-
Congrats. The Church's teachings have been compatible with evolution since an encyclical in the 50's. Nice of everybody to be shocked, tho.
-
It's funny that the most powerful Christian leader on earth, says that god is neither a wizard or magician.
Thats strange, I thought that is exactly what he is supposed to be. ???
Isn't he the one who "snapped his fingers" and created the universe, and everything in it?
The Vatican is not stupid. They notice that it is harder and harder to pass off fairytales to a more progressive society.
-
Says god isnt a magician. :D
Catholic is nothing but a business it has nothing to do with god most of what they do goes against the principles of the bible, so what the pope says is irrelevant unless you are a sheep.
-
i'm an agnostic who celebrates the bells and whistles of Christmas (my wife's Catholic) and I applaud Pope Francis for trying to bring a wee bit of a common sense to the Catholic Church.
-
It's funny that the most powerful Christian leader on earth, says that god is neither a wizard or magician.
Thats strange, I thought that is exactly what he is supposed to be. ???
Isn't he the one who "snapped his fingers" and created the universe, and everything in it?
The Vatican is not stupid. They notice that it is harder and harder to pass off fairytales to a more progressive society.
Nothing the pope has said is new teaching or at odds with current thinking at the Vatican. It's just the non-Catholic rubes that love to think that the Church is still stuck in the 1500's.
-
With all of this backpedaling from the church, they might have to revise the bible (again) in the near future.
-
With all of this backpedaling from the church, they might have to revise the bible (again) in the near future.
Sigh. This time the troll was too obvious. Checking out of this thread.
-
Nothing the pope has said is new teaching or at odds with current thinking at the Vatican. It's just the non-Catholic rubes that love to think that the Church is still stuck in the 1500's.
Ofcourse it isn't stuck in the 1500's or even the 1800's. The advancements of science (the Vatican has its own scientists) has forced them to change the way they think.
The archaic views of the past simply won't work today.
Unfortunately, you still have millions upon millions of people who still believe in the old world teachings.
They scoff at discoveries such as the big bang and evolution.
The pope is basically telling these people to "evolve" ;D
-
Big bang and evolution is a bunch of garbage that comes from the human desire to know shit but the fact is they dont know shit, all these dumbass scientist have is a bunch of theories that they keep changing every month with a bunch of dumbfucks following behind them eating up their stupid words.
-
Ofcourse it isn't stuck in the 1500's or even the 1800's. The advancements of science (the Vatican has its own scientists) has forced them to change the way they think.
The archaic views of the past simply won't work today.
Unfortunately, you still have millions upon millions of people who still believe in the old world teachings.
They scoff at discoveries such as the big bang and evolution.
The pope is basically telling these people to "evolve" ;D
so what's your excuse?
-
Sigh. This time the troll was too obvious. Checking out of this thread.
Not trolling at all.
Hell, 1,000 years from now, the Christian God might be viewed in the same light as Zeus.
How many people believe in Zeus today?
-
To me, Pope Francis is to Roman Catholicism what Joel Osteen is to Christianity. Both appear to love God, but I can't help but feel they love pleasing people even more.
-
America is one of the most immoral countries in the world spreading their disgusting lifestyle to the rest of the planet that is what pisses off the muslims, humans want to give into temptation and live the dirty lifestyle of alcohol, sex with strangers etc like sodom and gomorrah and they want the church to go along with it claiming morals are outdated so they can feel better about their disgusting selves.
-
Big bang and evolution is a bunch of garbage that comes from the human desire to know shit but the fact is they dont know shit, all these dumbass scientist have is a bunch of theories that they keep changing every month with a bunch of dumbfucks following behind them eating up their stupid words.
Says the highschool dropout.
-
Its 2014 stop believing in some invisible man in the sky and do something constructive.
-
To me, Pope Francis is to Roman Catholicism what Joel Osteen is to Christianity. Both appear to love God, but I can't help but feel they love pleasing people even more.
What do you feel about what Pope Francis said?
-
Says the highschool dropout.
Here we have another brainwash sheep, college is a waste of time and money you can get all your knowledge from da streets to make all the money you want.
-
To me, Pope Francis is to Roman Catholicism what Joel Osteen is to Christianity. Both appear to love God, but I can't help but feel they love pleasing people even more.
This. And only to the unobservant which a lot of people are apparently judging by Osteens following.
-
“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”
Why would god do that? why would he care? BTW if the bible which is suposed to be god's voice is perfect, how come dumbass pope has to re explain it to morons? Isnt he the same pope who recently said homos had their place in catholicism ? Fact is christian religion is in a state of complete deliquessence.
More and more people are abandonning christianism, portestants or catholics, than ever, to embrace atheism. Christianism is dying, it's too late.
So is judaism, as israelis are getting outnumbered by arabs in their own land.
-
Who still listens to crossdressing religious "leaders" these days? Hahahaha.....
The only man wearing a dress that I'll listen to is Bruce Jenner ;D
-
Who still listens to crossdressing religious "leaders" these days? Hahahaha.....
The only man wearing a dress that I'll listen to is Bruce Jenner ;D
This is the only man in a dress that I listen to.
(http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2536401&d=1277125259)
-
Full article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/)
Delivering an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Francis continued his habit of making provocative, seemingly progressive statements. The pontiff appeared to endorse the theory of the Big Bang and told the gathering at the Vatican that there was no contradiction between believing in God as well as the prevailing scientific theories regarding the expansion of our universe.
“When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”
The pope avoids gesturing at the thorny issue (at least for some Christians) of whether humans descended from apes. Atheists argue, moreover, that understanding the Big Bang and what emerged from that cosmic moment obviates a need to believe in a deity. On that count, Francis obviously disagrees. He repeated the idea of God not being a “magician,” an entity that conjured all into being.
“God is not... a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
In other words, to borrow from an earlier Enlightenment idea, God is more a clockmaker than a conjurer of miracles.
Creating the universe and two sinners was fairly magical, no?
-
There are a lot of closeted atheists that work in the church. Usually the higher ups that make a lot of money. They want to keep their income so continue to tow the company line.
Like a hotshot salesman for a large corporation who secretly doesn't like the product they sell.
-
Francis is a sellout kunt - I don't believe in the 6000er timeline either but the Pope has some obligations to fulfill. >:(
-
There are a lot of closeted atheists that work in the church. Usually the higher ups that make a lot of money. They want to keep their income so continue to tow the company line.
Like a hotshot salesman for a large corporation who secretly doesn't like the product they sell.
/end of thread.
-
Francis says: "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation."
I thought god created humans in his image?
Where do the apes fit in the equation?
Or is Francis going to make up his own theory on that as well?
-
its not a new thing for catholic's to be allowed to believe in evolution, its not saying god did not create the world after all just dismissing the 7 day creationist story which protestants have to adamantly believe.
-
if pope francis ever read darwin he s in for a rude awakening lol.
-
Why would god do that? why would he care? BTW if the bible which is suposed to be god's voice is perfect, how come dumbass pope has to re explain it to morons? Isnt he the same pope who recently said homos had their place in catholicism ? Fact is christian religion is in a state of complete deliquessence.
More and more people are abandonning christianism, portestants or catholics, than ever, to embrace atheism. Christianism is dying, it's too late.
So is judaism, as israelis are getting outnumbered by arabs in their own land.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/6c/6cb33cea6b630f7a8ab865f5a0d99c1c7fb6fd1f3700f62ca17b5c2f99331c32.jpg)
-
its not a new thing for catholic's to be allowed to believe in evolution, its not saying god did not create the world after all just dismissing the 7 day creationist story which protestants have to adamantly believe.
Ro, honest question. No sarcastic or disrespectful replies from me, promise.
I know you're very spiritual, and with the meditation and enlightenment, etc., I'm assuming Buddhist, or at least elements of Buddhism. But I also heard you slam someone as "Godless," which kinda confused me, as Buddhism, to my understanding at least, isn't so much about a god or gods.
Question: Have you adopted a personalized spirituality which utilizes beliefs and practices from one or more religions, philosophies, etc., and how do you define God?
Thanks, seriously curious.
-
(http://s27.postimg.org/iz1mbd9er/tumblr_l8dtf7mv_CV1qda2v1o1_500.jpg)
-
(http://s21.postimg.org/p3d1p0yef/loljes.jpg)
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/6c/6cb33cea6b630f7a8ab865f5a0d99c1c7fb6fd1f3700f62ca17b5c2f99331c32.jpg)
Can you prove that god does not exist no you cant so shut the fuck up.
-
Can you prove that god does not exist no you cant so shut the fuck up.
I don`t have to. You make the claim it exists, you have to prove it.
Kinda like your physique and your pictures.
-
It's funny that the most powerful Christian leader on earth says that god is neither a wizard or a magician. That's strange. I thought this is exactly what he is supposed to be. Isn't he the one who "snapped his fingers" and created the universe, and everything in it? The Vatican is not stupid. They notice that it is harder and harder to pass off fairytales (as truth).
Right on the mark.
Lots of good commentary in this thread.
As another member says, the time when "God" (Jesus, whoever) is seen as no more real than, say, Odin, is fast (relatively speaking) approaching.
The horseshit fairy tales can only exist for so long in a world that is snowballing towards mindboggling eras of scientific/technical enlightenment.
The moronic and diseased Islam might be the last real bastion for the truly mentally ill, it would seem.
Those who crave belief in SOMETHING, because of fear, arrogance (" ... but I CAN'T die!") and the need to submit will be lost to unchecked insanity, diving from rooftops by the thousands.
Perfect. :D
"God" = what a joke.
-
Ro, honest question. No sarcastic or disrespectful replies from me, promise.
I know you're very spiritual, and with the meditation and enlightenment, etc., I'm assuming Buddhist, or at least elements of Buddhism. But I also heard you slam someone as "Godless," which kinda confused me, as Buddhism, to my understanding at least, isn't so much about a god or gods.
Question: Have you adopted a personalized spirituality which utilizes beliefs and practices from one or more religions, philosophies, etc., and how do you define God?
Thanks, seriously curious.
did I say godless? I don't mind if people want to live without belief or experience of what I consider to be God, it annoys me when atheists make it their life mission to prove the non existence of such things. As it annoys me when theists of whatever religion make it their goal to convince and convert.
To me spirituality comes with being alive its not something to pick up from this or that religion or path as much as it comes with this body, breath and mind.
God to me would be what one experiences in profound meditation and devotion, inseparable from nirvana, samadhi, mystic union.
-
Who still listens to crossdressing religious "leaders" these days? Hahahaha.....
The only man wearing a dress that I'll listen to is Bruce Jenner ;D
Simple minded people pathologically incapable of critical thinking and would fight tooth and nail to defend their indoctrination.
'God' in the Christian world will be dead in 50 years.
-
I don`t have to. You make the claim it exists, you have to prove it.
No kidding. A person suggesting there is a man in the sky, but with no proof of such, is the one with the burden to find proof. Not the folks who remain grounded in reality.
-
did I say godless? I don't mind if people want to live without belief or experience of what I consider to be God, it annoys me when atheists make it their life mission to prove the non existence of such things. As it annoys me when theists of whatever religion make it their goal to convince and convert.
To me spirituality comes with being alive its not something to pick up from this or that religion or path as much as it comes with this body, breath and mind.
God to me would be what one experiences in profound meditation and devotion, inseparable from nirvana, samadhi, mystic union.
Oh, I get it. A moron like you does not like skepticism and the Scientific Method where ideas and evidence and claims are always challenged and scrutinized in order to cast false information aside, getting to truth and sound principles.
People like you are the reason why bad ideas, like Islam can spread because you believe they shouldn`t be checked.
-
did I say godless? I don't mind if people want to live without belief or experience of what I consider to be God, it annoys me when atheists make it their life mission to prove the non existence of such things. As it annoys me when theists of whatever religion make it their goal to convince and convert.
To me spirituality comes with being alive its not something to pick up from this or that religion or path as much as it comes with this body, breath and mind.
God to me would be what one experiences in profound meditation and devotion, inseparable from nirvana, samadhi, mystic union.
Amazing man.
But in the end; you live, you work, you lift, you shit, you procreate, you die.
Everything else you convince yourself of is just to keep yourself busy and engaged until the die you die and the next person takes your place.
That's really all there is.
-
(https://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/cippv.jpg?w=640)
-
Oh, I get it. A moron like you does not like skepticism and the Scientific Method where ideas and evidence and claims are always challenged and scrutinized in order to cast false information aside, getting to truth and sound principles.
People like you are the reason why bad ideas, like Islam can spread because you believe they shouldn`t be checked.
you actually make the claim that the Divine does not exist so your in the same boat, prove your conclusion.
also meditation can be approached with a scientific mind and the benefits realized like a peaceful and serene mind and a calm and de-stressed body, nothing airy fairy there right.
-
you actually make the claim that the Divine does not exist so your in the same boat, prove your conclusion.
also meditation can be approached with a scientific mind and the benefits realized like a peaceful and serene mind and a calm and de-stressed body, nothing airy fairy there right.
Sciences (anthropology, ethology, archeology, psychology to name a few) prove day after day our ancestors created gods and godesses everywhere on earth because they were scared of death. But you re not educated enough to reach that level of understanding. Just like adonis said, keep believing in magical mumbo jumbo, it is actually better suited for people of your intelligence.
We told you what , who to read and you obviously didnt so far, accusing us of "godless neo nazism??" for advising you to do so, so any kind of argument with you is pointless, you re simply backward.
-
your not intelligent enough to separate belief in gods and goddesses from what I am really interested in, your conditioned to lump it all under the same banner.
Putting the subject of god aside you cannot so easily disprove the value of meditation which has been shown to have 'real world' benefits in many controlled studies.
-
you actually make the claim that the Divine does not exist so your in the same boat, prove your conclusion.
also meditation can be approached with a scientific mind and the benefits realized like a peaceful and serene mind and a calm and de-stressed body, nothing airy fairy there right.
Moron, how come you don`t ask me to prove that there are no talking alligators flying jet airplanes above 80,000 feet?
-
your not intelligent enough to separate belief in gods and goddesses from what I am really interested in, your conditioned to lump it all under the same banner.
Putting the subject of god aside you cannot so easily disprove the value of meditation which has been shown to have 'real world' benefits in many controlled studies.
Meditation has zero to do with mysticism, genius.
-
I wonder if they'll apologize now for the burning of Giordano Bruno >:(
The world lost a monumental genius that day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
-
I just can't wrap my head around the simplest things when it comes to religion.
Why do we not take the Greek gods seriously anymore?
What about the Ancient Egyptian gods?
What made those gods so rediculous, that they were no longer taken seriously?
Zeus living atop Mt. Olympus? Thats so rediculous.
God living in the clouds? Thats all of a sudden believable?
Hades reigning supreme over the underworld? Thats rediculous.
Satan waiting for you in a fiery pit of hell? Sounds perfectly logical.
Do you guys see how dumb this all sounds?
Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess :-\
-
Meditation has zero to do with mysticism, genius.
what the fuck do you know about it fuck face? that's right fuck all because you don't meditate.
And btw yes it does. :-*
-
-
did I say godless? I don't mind if people want to live without belief or experience of what I consider to be God, it annoys me when atheists make it their life mission to prove the non existence of such things. As it annoys me when theists of whatever religion make it their goal to convince and convert.
To me spirituality comes with being alive its not something to pick up from this or that religion or path as much as it comes with this body, breath and mind.
God to me would be what one experiences in profound meditation and devotion, inseparable from nirvana, samadhi, mystic union.
It was "anti-god," sorry. Still not sure I fully understand, but appreciate the reply. Thank you.
-
did I say godless? I don't mind if people want to live without belief or experience of what I consider to be God, it annoys me when atheists make it their life mission to prove the non existence of such things. As it annoys me when theists of whatever religion make it their goal to convince and convert.
To me spirituality comes with being alive its not something to pick up from this or that religion or path as much as it comes with this body, breath and mind.
God to me would be what one experiences in profound meditation and devotion, inseparable from nirvana, samadhi, mystic union.
Agree, both equally annoying.
-
Agree, both equally annoying.
Looks like you want to share BigRo`s Dunce cap as well.
Do me a favor and watch this. Hell do yourself a favor actually.
-
Looks like you want to share BigRo`s Dunce cap as well.
Do me a favor and watch this. Hell do yourself a favor actually.
You missed the point. Or maybe I did. What I meant (and thought I'd read from Ro) was endlessly cramming your shit down people's throats, from either side, is annoying. If faith helps or comforts my friends and family, why would I want to interfere? That's some selfish bullshit there, so shove your f'n dunce cap up your ass, Adam.
If (as it certainly appears to me) science leads us further and further away from the probability of a creator, it doesn't bother me an iota. I'm already convinced, and science was only partly responsible.
-
You missed the point. Or maybe I did. If (as it certainly appears to me) science leads us further and further away from the probability of a creator, it doesn't bother me an iota. I'm already convinced, and science was only partly responsible.
What I meant (and thought I'd read from Ro) was endlessly cramming your shit down peoples throats, from either side, is annoying. If faith helps or comforts my friends and family, why would I want to interfere? That's some selfish bullshit there, so shove your f'n dunce hat up your ass, Adam.
You clearly missed the point then. The point is that we should never sit idly by and let dumb ideas continue to spread by not challenging them at every opportunity.
Cutting off heads of infidels gives great comfort to many people in Islam as well and I am sure it comforts them greatly. I guess in your fucked up world, we should just keep silent and praise them for following their holy book literally because it brings them comfort. ::)
The same is true with Bigro`s bullshit mumbo jumbo. His bad ideas and wrong information is not as extreme as Islam of course, but they are false just the same. Bad ideas comfort many people, that does not make them true and that does not mean they are free from criticism or scrutiny. Without doing so, such ideas spread and people like you essentially give them a rubber stamp because you are too scared to say anything and point out why they are incorrect.
-
You clearly missed the point then. The point is that we should never sit idly by and let dumb ideas continue to spread by not challenging them at every opportunity.
Cutting off heads of infidels gives great comfort to many people in Islam as well and I am sure it comforts them greatly. I guess in your fucked up world, we should just keep silent and praise them for following their holy book literally because it brings them comfort. ::)
The same is true with Bigro`s bullshit mumbo jumbo. His bad ideas and wrong information is not as extreme as Islam of course, but they are false just the same. Bad ideas comfort many people, that does not make them true and that does not mean they are free from criticism or scrutiny. Without doing so, such ideas spread and people like you essentially give them a rubber stamp because you are too scared to say anything and point out why they are incorrect.
You obviously haven't read any of my posts. Enjoy your mission.
-
No kidding. A person suggesting there is a man in the sky, but with no proof of such, is the one with the burden to find proof. Not the folks who remain grounded in reality.
Man in the sky = Strawman
-
I don`t have to. You make the claim it exists, you have to prove it.
Kinda like your physique and your pictures.
The existence of life, for one, is proof of God just as the existence of books is evidence of their authors. The reason scientists have not cracked the mystery (to the materialists anyway) to the origin of life is that the answer lies beyond the scientific scope.
-
The existence of life, for one, is proof of God just as the existence of books is evidence of their authors. The reason scientists have not cracked the mystery (to the materialists anyway) to the origin of life is that the answer lies beyond the scientific scope.
Dude.
Please explain. Your analogy doesn't work, friend. Other possible explanations for life, but none for a book. Agree it probably can never be explained definitively, but the 'Gaps' explanation is no explanation.
-
It appears the Catholics are bending with the times.
-
Simple minded people pathologically incapable of critical thinking and would fight tooth and nail to defend their indoctrination.
'God' in the Christian world will be dead in 50 years.
That's what the Romans said 2000 yrs. ago.
-
Its 2014 stop believing in some invisible man in the sky and do something constructive.
Like posting on GB? ;D
-
Like posting on GB? ;D
Or in Darren's case, watching re-runs of Danny Dyer's hardest men. ;D
-
America is one of the most immoral countries in the world spreading their disgusting lifestyle to the rest of the planet that is what pisses off the muslims, humans want to give into temptation and live the dirty lifestyle of alcohol, sex with strangers etc like sodom and gomorrah and they want the church to go along with it claiming morals are outdated so they can feel better about their disgusting selves.
-
First Pope that I (Atheist) actually like: he's humble, honest, stands up for abused and discriminated people, he's more trustworthy than all politicians combined.
-
its not a new thing for catholic's to be allowed to believe in evolution, its not saying god did not create the world after all just dismissing the 7 day creationist story which protestants have to adamantly believe.
Allowed to believe? any fucking book, person, thing that tells you what you can and cannot believe is bullshit. There is nothing to believe it's a fact like gravity. The rest of the bullshit will continue to retreat as it has, now god is some fucking wind up toy, evolution is brutal, survival of the fittest, this is what a loving god chooses to use? absolute non sense, however, it does fit with a god who actually murdered every living thing at one point. He is clearly a sadist.
-
its not a new thing for catholic's to be allowed to believe in evolution, its not saying god did not create the world after all just dismissing the 7 day creationist story which protestants have to adamantly believe.
This is true.
-
its not a new thing for catholic's to be allowed to believe in evolution, its not saying god did not create the world after all just dismissing the 7 day creationist story which protestants have to adamantly believe.
x2
Some people totally don't understand the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism .
Protestants rely on the bible as a literal interpretation because that's all they have to represent their religion.
From the beginning the catholic church was created by theologians, that compiled a bible(incomplete scriptures).
From the beginning the catholic church had atheistic, biblical skepticism as the foreground.
(What people don't tell you is that theologians that founded the church were just as aware of atheistic arguments, as most people are today.)
Catholism gets a bad rap, because there are lots of old uneducated folk around that wouldn't know the first thing of theology.
On top of that the church obviously suffers from corruption, which is what happens when your the longest established institution on this planet.
The problem with the catholic church is it's unable to translate it's complex theology to your average church goer.
Which is why the church is so flimsy on stuff.
The church really is poorly understood, and could easily with a bit of political muscle be one of the more important institutions on the planet.
-
what the fuck do you know about it fuck face? that's right fuck all because you don't meditate.
And btw yes it does. :-*
Sorry bro, my wife's family is from Cambodia and Vietnam and are all Buddhists. Father in law spent some time as a monk too. Mysticism has nothing to do with meditation.
Meditation is great stuff though. There are tons of quantifiable therapeutic benefits. But to make things perfectly clear, many Buddhist monks embrace the scientific method and are interested in participating in studies to gain a more concrete understanding.
-
Tolerant of Gays.....
Believes in the Big Bang and evolution theory.....
Doesn't take himself too seriously......
Man, I really like this Pope. We should get him to post here!
"1"
-
Late to this thread a sorry if this is a repeat but scientists claim that the BB happened in a quadriliAnth os a second . Sounds to me like Gen1.1
:)
-
Late to this thread a sorry if this is a repeat but scientists claim that the BB happened in a quadriliAnth os a second . Sounds to me like Gen1.1
:)
Nah, it doesn't sound like that fairy tale.
-
And once again, another God thread....
Haven't we learned one thing about this, Class? That talking about God on a Bodybuilding forum is a "no-no". Why? Well, because we of all people try to make ourselves into our own Gods and Goddesses. For we are selfish Gods, who will accept no other God above us, not even Weider!
-
Allowed to believe? any fucking book, person, thing that tells you what you can and cannot believe is bullshit. There is nothing to believe it's a fact like gravity. The rest of the bullshit will continue to retreat as it has, now god is some fucking wind up toy, evolution is brutal, survival of the fittest, this is what a loving god chooses to use? absolute non sense, however, it does fit with a god who actually murdered every living thing at one point. He is clearly a sadist.
So what is the alternative?
-
P-Frank is a getbigger in the truest sense. Makes me proud again of my Catholic heritage.
-
why are you so upset about non existent gods ?
Because the religions that the gods are a part of disturb citizens in many countries against their will. Laws banning stem cell research, abortion, the changing of text books etc... to the extreme of ISIS and the radical Islamic ilk. They can never just keep it to themselves. Left unchecked, it will continue to spread.
-
There's this guy I know at work that mentioned this and said its another reason why the Catholic church sucks. Funny thing is he's a biblical literalist and believes that Adam had supernatural powers like super strength and speed, and that the earth is in fact 1600 years old. Crazy thing is that he is a fucking physics major. :o
-
There's this guy I know at work that mentioned this and said its another reason why the Catholic church sucks. Funny thing is he's a biblical literalist and believes that Adam had supernatural powers like super strength and speed, and that the earth is in fact 1600 years old. Crazy thing is that he is a fucking physics major. :o
Probably gets high a lot too! ;D
-
Sorry bro, my wife's family is from Cambodia and Vietnam and are all Buddhists. Father in law spent some time as a monk too. Mysticism has nothing to do with meditation.
Meditation is great stuff though. There are tons of quantifiable therapeutic benefits. But to make things perfectly clear, many Buddhist monks embrace the scientific method and are interested in participating in studies to gain a more concrete understanding.
well we do not agree on what mysticism is then. Mysticism is not flashy lights and transient ecstasys, mysticism is about enlightenment, self knowledge beyond all things.
-
lots of great info in this thread
-
So what is the alternative?
It didn't happen and the world is simulation.
-
With all of this backpedaling from the church, they might have to revise the bible (again) in the near future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)
-
It didn't happen and the world is simulation.
Of Course.
-
There's this guy I know at work that mentioned this and said its another reason why the Catholic church sucks. Funny thing is he's a biblical literalist and believes that Adam had supernatural powers like super strength and speed, and that the earth is in fact 1600 years old. Crazy thing is that he is a fucking physics major. :o
So, how does he explain China being 5,000 yrs old. Egypt being probably older, and the Sphinx possibly being 10,000 yrs old?
-
So, how does he explain China being 5,000 yrs old. Egypt being probably older, and the Sphinx possibly being 10,000 yrs old?
or the spruce tree in Sweden thats 9500 years old?
-
or the spruce tree in Sweden thats 9500 years old?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko)
-
So, how does he explain China being 5,000 yrs old. Egypt being probably older, and the Sphinx possibly being 10,000 yrs old?
He says everything is explained in the bible and that science is ever changing (using that to say not to trust science). In regards to the Earth's age he mentioned something about being 10 generations of families since adam and eve. Also mentioned a ring of water around the Earth's atmosphere, which was how God flooded the Earth, and that people don't live as long today because we live in a post-flood Earth.
I mean this guy knew the bible front and back, so there was no point in trying to discuss anything since he just sourced all his information back to the bible. He then used the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain how evolution would literally be impossible, and if kids today knew that they wouldn't even think otherwise.
Strange all around, but it was quite interesting because that was the first time meeting someone like that in real life. And I live in the south so I've heard some strange people before lol
-
He says everything is explained in the bible and that science is ever changing (using that to say not to trust science). In regards to the Earth's age he mentioned something about being 10 generations of families since adam and eve. Also mentioned a ring of water around the Earth's atmosphere, which was how God flooded the Earth, and that people don't live as long today because we live in a post-flood Earth.
I mean this guy knew the bible front and back, so there was no point in trying to discuss anything since he just sourced all his information back to the bible. He then used the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain how evolution would literally be impossible, and if kids today knew that they wouldn't even think otherwise.
Strange all around, but it was quite interesting because that was the first time meeting someone like that in real life. And I live in the south so I've heard some strange people before lol
These fundy types further back themselves into a corner with science continually disproving literal biblical translation. Of course, if you distrust and/or disregard science out of hand the delusion remains intact, which is often the case. But the willful ignorance certainly doesn't help one's credibility should they attempt to defend their position in debate.
-
I wonder what Pope Francis' opinion is towards Phil Heath's Olympia win this year.
-
These fundy types further back themselves into a corner with science continually disproving literal biblical translation. Of course, if you distrust and/or disregard science out of hand the delusion remains intact, which is often the case. But the willful ignorance certainly doesn't help one's credibility should they attempt to defend their position in debate.
You'd have to have a very low iq are fundamentalist.
Even lower to think the vast majority of christians actually are.
-
You'd have to have a very low iq are fundamentalist.
Even lower to think the vast majority of christians actually are.
Seems this sentence was produced by a very low IQ.
-
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not religious nor am I in a hurry to disprove God like a lot of people are. My question is this....
Why is (The Big Bang Theory) still called a theory if it is has been proven to be scientific fact?
-
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not religious nor am I in a hurry to disprove God like a lot of people are. My question is this....
Why is (The Big Bang Theory) still called a theory if it is has been proven to be scientific fact?
Most things that have been essentially proven are still called theories.
Gravity, Evolution, and relativity are still all theories.
-
Most things that have been essentially proven are still called theories.
Gravity, Evolution, and relativity are still all theories.
Proven, or essentially proven? There is a difference.
-
Proven, or essentially proven? There is a difference.
most idiots dont realize that when an idea becomes a "theory" its one of the highest academic achievements. so when people say, "its just a theory" you know they do not know shit about science.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
-
most idiots dont realize that when an idea becomes a "theory" its one of the highest academic achievements. so when people say, "its just a theory" you know they do not know shit about science.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
A "valid explanation" doesn't sound the same to me and "scientific fact".
Are we gonna act like scientists aren't wrong about shit all the time?
-
A "valid explanation" doesn't sound the same to me and "scientific fact".
Are we gonna act like scientists aren't wrong about shit all the time?
When did I ever say that scientists were never wrong?
Science is about progress. You can hardly every say anything with 100% certainty. Besides mathematics, there are probably not as many "facts" in science as you would think. Again, science is about progress.
However, when a hypothesis has enough repeatable evidence it becomes a "theory." Does that mean it can never be disproven? No. It just means based on the available evidence, it explains the hypothesis. If a hypothesis has over 100 years of repeatable evidence, I am comfortable knowing that its the best explanation we have. Perhaps it will be disproven. Perhaps it will not. Only time will tell.
What more do you want? I, for one, am happy to know that the fundamental nature of science is PROGRESS.
From the national center for science education:
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
-
So science facts are different that regular facts in that they don't have to be 100% guaranteed, indisputably true? Got it.
-
So science facts are different that regular facts in that they don't have to be 100% guaranteed, indisputably true? Got it.
Um, we live in an imperfect universe. Humans are fallible and complex. Things are always changing. That is the nature of the world we live in. With that, science has to adapt to an ever changing world. With that, comes new facts, hypotheses, and theories. Thus, you will never hear a scientist say something is 100% guaranteed, indisputably true. No good scientist would say this.
Do you actually think that science can ever come up with anything with 100% certainty on most things? ??? ???
Either you're trolling or stupid? I hope its the former, because you appear to be a pretty smart guy.
-
Do you actually think that science can ever come up with anything with 100% certainty on most things? ??? ???
That's my point exactly. Science is great but it has a lot of limitations. Not every science lover remembers that when making their bold proclamations crapping on anyone who has a dissenting viewpoint. The global warming zealots are a good example of this. They treat people that aren't convinced like mentally retarded neo-nazis that deny the holocaust ever happened. They crap on religion while not realizing that global warming is a religion of it's own.
-
That's my point exactly. Science is great but it has a lot of limitations. Not every science lover remembers that when making their bold proclamations crapping on anyone who has a dissenting viewpoint. The global warming zealots are a good example of this. They treat people that aren't convinced like mentally retarded neo-nazis that deny the holocaust ever happened. They crap on religion while not realizing that global warming is a religion of it's own.
Science is not great, its fundamental. Why do you think the world has progressed so far? Because of nothing else but science. Everything is science. Medicine, technology, engineering, etc. Thus, its baffling when people hate science. May as well throw away your computer and stop taking medicine. Those evil scientists are at it again with their damn medicine and inventing technology!!
I have not studied global warming all that much, so I cannot talk on that subject. Dissenting voices are important, but dissenting voices with EVIDENCE!! You just can't say you hate global warming without presenting evidence. I have no problem with dissenting voices, as long as with that voice comes with evidence of some sort. If not, then you just sound like an idiot who says, "I don't want to believe in global warming, for no other reason than to just not believe in it." Great, but it doesn't work that way. And this can go for any theory or idea, not just global warming.
-
Science is not great, its fundamental. Why do you think the world has progressed so far? Because of nothing else but science. Everything is science. Medicine, technology, engineering, etc. Thus, its baffling when people hate science. May as well throw away your computer and stop taking medicine. Those evil scientists are at it again with their damn medicine and inventing technology!!
I have not studied global warming all that much, so I cannot talk on that subject. Dissenting voices are important, but dissenting voices with EVIDENCE!! You just can't say you hate global warming without presenting evidence. I have no problem with dissenting voices, as long as with that voice comes with evidence of some sort. If not, then you just sound like an idiot who says, "I don't want to believe in global warming, for no other reason than to just not believe in it." Great, but it doesn't work that way. And this can go for any theory or idea, not just global warming.
I don't hate science. I'm a big fan of science. Stuff related the the universe and planets, etc is of particular interest to me. I spend a lot of time reading about it, learning about it, watching documentaries, etc. All I'm saying is that we should all remember to keep our beliefs in perspective.
I do disagree with something you just said a little bit. It's not the dissenting voices that need to provide evidence. The people that are making the claims that they have an explanation to something are the ones that have the burden of proof. The same thing with God, I think the people that are claiming there is a God are the ones who should provide the evidence, not the people that are saying "no there isn't a God". It seems people on both sides of these hotly debated issues want to relax the rules a little bit sometimes.
-
I don't hate science. I'm a big fan of science. Stuff related the the universe and planets, etc is of particular interest to me. I spend a lot of time reading about it, learning about it, watching documentaries, etc. All I'm saying is that we should all remember to keep our beliefs in perspective.
I do disagree with something you just said a little bit. It's not the dissenting voices that need to provide evidence. The people that are making the claims that they have an explanation to something are the ones that have the burden of proof. The same thing with God, I think the people that are claiming there is a God are the ones who should provide the evidence, not the people that are saying "no there isn't a God". It seems people on both sides of these hotly debated issues want to relax the rules a little bit sometimes.
I agree, to a certain extent.
You are correct, but youre also incorrect. In many peer-reviewed journals, you will see papers written that oppose a view and present their own evidence. In fact, these papers are often titled directly against another author. These papers will often present flaws in the methodological approaches associated with said theory, or present opposing viewpoints. These are all ways of provided evidence that "disproves" another's theory. Most people just oppose global warming and come up with some lame reason like, "Its a big conspiracy and thousands of scientists are in on it." Not good enough.
-
Call me crazy, but I believe that the people that are trying to convince me of global warming and the resulting apocalypse that it is supposed to cause need to provide the evidence. Real, hard, indisputable evidence. Evidence that....
A. The planet is actually getting hotter
B. Human beings are the cause as a result of industrialization, etc.
C. The "solutions" to global warming will have a real, measurable, significant impact on the problem.
So far they have not been able to do that to my satisfaction or the satisfaction of other people that don't have a vested political, financial or ideological interest in it. I feel that a simpler and more likely explanation for this hysteria is that it undermines capitalism and takes money out of certain people's wallets and puts it in the wallets of other people. After all, most of the politicians and activists that are pushing this movement had an anti-capitalist agenda long before they became aware of the issue of global warming. This is just the latest tool in their toolbox.
-
Earlier this year the papacy noted that Martin Luther's protest had ended and encouraged the reformed church to end their continued protest of Rome as well. Pope Francis wants Catholics and Christians (excuse men - Evangelicals or Charismatics) to unite. Beautiful sentiment and would be very nice. My only problem is I that have issue with putting Rome ahead of Jesus Christ. Sorry but I'm a sola scriptura advocate, not a sola Roma advocate.
-
Earlier this year the papacy noted that Martin Luther's protest had ended and encouraged the reformed church to end their continued protest of Rome as well. Pope Francis wants Catholics and Christians (excuse men - Evangelicals or Charismatics) to unite. Beautiful sentiment and would be very nice. My only problem is I that have issue with putting Rome ahead of Jesus Christ. Sorry but I'm a sola scriptura advocate, not a sola Roma advocate.
That's science fiction.
Catholics have more interest in Islumists that protty's.
Protestants are fucking morons, they took a midevil edition of christanity and held on to it for centuries.
Catholicism has always had an element of intelligence, protestanism cannot match.
-
Earlier this year the papacy noted that Martin Luther's protest had ended and encouraged the reformed church to end their continued protest of Rome as well. Pope Francis wants Catholics and Christians (excuse men - Evangelicals or Charismatics) to unite. Beautiful sentiment and would be very nice. My only problem is I that have issue with putting Rome ahead of Jesus Christ. Sorry but I'm a sola scriptura advocate, not a sola Roma advocate.
Does that mean Protestants would have to start worshipping Mary, accept the dreadfully inconvenient layover of Purgatory, and extend their kneelfest funerals a couple hours, so their family and friends can pray their souls up to heaven?
-
That's science fiction.
Catholics have more interest in Islumists that protty's.
Protestants are fucking morons, they took a midevil edition of christanity and held on to it for centuries.
Catholicism has always had an element of intelligence, protestanism cannot match.
LOL!! Ok.
-
Does that mean that Protestants would have to start worshipping Mary, accept the dreadfully inconvenient layover of Purgatory, and extend their funerals a couple hours, so their family and friends can pray their souls up to heaven?
Yep, that's my understanding.
-
I don't hate science. I'm a big fan of science. Stuff related the the universe and planets, etc is of particular interest to me. I spend a lot of time reading about it, learning about it, watching documentaries, etc. All I'm saying is that we should all remember to keep our beliefs in perspective.
I do disagree with something you just said a little bit. It's not the dissenting voices that need to provide evidence. The people that are making the claims that they have an explanation to something are the ones that have the burden of proof. The same thing with God, I think the people that are claiming there is a God are the ones who should provide the evidence, not the people that are saying "no there isn't a God". It seems people on both sides of these hotly debated issues want to relax the rules a little bit sometimes.
LOLOL. the globe is warming, it's a fact, like 2 degree celcius is hotter then 1 degree. HAHAHA on the god comment, youre the one asserting a all powerful sky daddy, how can anyone prove a negative? what about the cheese monster on the moon, prove he doesn't exist, or the garden elf that hides behind your back. you are no fan of science, no one would suggest such irrational concepts.
Anyone who says there is no god in all seriousness is geussing, no one knows, there is no good evidence for God or thor or zeus. Why don't you beleive in zeus?
-
Yep, that's my understanding.
Good times.
-
Pope is the shit, he is from argentina and his favorite team is San Lorenzo!
-
Congrats. The Church's teachings have been compatible with evolution since an encyclical in the 50's. Nice of everybody to be shocked, tho.
This.
Never understood why so many argued either way.
Both views can be compatible.
-
LOLOL. the globe is warming, it's a fact, like 2 degree celcius is hotter then 1 degree.
What are you basing that on? Says who? Is it real data or projected data? For how long has the globe been warming? What about the alleged "global warming pause" since 1998?
HAHAHA on the god comment, youre the one asserting a all powerful sky daddy, how can anyone prove a negative? what about the cheese monster on the moon, prove he doesn't exist, or the garden elf that hides behind your back. you are no fan of science, no one would suggest such irrational concepts.
Anyone who says there is no god in all seriousness is geussing, no one knows, there is no good evidence for God or thor or zeus. Why don't you beleive in zeus?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I feel like you did not understand a single word of my post. You are talking to me as if I am advocating that God exists when my post was about just the opposite. Re-read my post dude. Slowly....out loud if it will help you.
I'll wait.
-
What are you basing that on? Says who? Is it real data or projected data? For how long has the globe been warming? What about the alleged "global warming pause" since 1998?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I feel like you did not understand a single word of my post. You are talking to me as if I am advocating that God exists when my post was about just the opposite. Re-read my post dude. Slowly....out loud if it will help you.
I'll wait.
There has been no pause, nasa and every credible scientist in the world, every single meterological society and organization, the UN. Satellite data, ocean data, tree data, ice core data etc. pauses are part of most models also, there should be slowing at particular times, for example when the polar vortex oscillated south due to ice melt, that alters air temp quite drastically. The globe is warming, it's not up for debate, like gravity isn't up for debate, the evidence is literally overwhelming.
I went full retard on your god stuff, I read it to fast.
-
This.
Never understood why so many argued either way.
Both views can be compatible.
Big duh.
people wanna just break everything done to partisan bullshit.
Especially in america.
It's such a strange obsession.
-
There has been no pause, nasa and every credible scientist in the world, every single meterological society and organization, the UN. Satellite data, ocean data, tree data, ice core data etc. pauses are part of most models also, there should be slowing at particular times, for example when the polar vortex oscillated south due to ice melt, that alters air temp quite drastically. The globe is warming, it's not up for debate, like gravity isn't up for debate, the evidence is literally overwhelming.
You should say amen after you recite that.
A couple quotes from the Scientific American website.
"It's true that Willis and nearly every other climate scientist dismiss the idea that global warming has paused. Yet the fact remains that average surface temperatures worldwide have not increased since around the turn of the century".
"Even if they don't think global warming has paused, scientists are still interested in learning why the rate of surface warming over the last 10 to 15 years has been much slower than in the decades before, even as levels of greenhouse gases continue to increase".
There is more to the article of course and people can choose to believe what they want to believe but there are obviously still a lot of unanswered questions. To act like the issue of global warming is a closed case is absolutely not true. I'm also interested where to find this list of every credible scientist. What makes certain scientists credible and others not credible? Is it simply that they have a dissenting opinion on global warming or do they all have some history of mental illness that only you know about?
-
You should say amen after you recite that.
A couple quotes from the Scientific American website.
"It's true that Willis and nearly every other climate scientist dismiss the idea that global warming has paused. Yet the fact remains that average surface temperatures worldwide have not increased since around the turn of the century".
"Even if they don't think global warming has paused, scientists are still interested in learning why the rate of surface warming over the last 10 to 15 years has been much slower than in the decades before, even as levels of greenhouse gases continue to increase".
There is more to the article of course and people can choose to believe what they want to believe but there are obviously still a lot of unanswered questions. To act like the issue of global warming is a closed case is absolutely not true. I'm also interested where to find this list of every credible scientist. What makes certain scientists credible and others not credible? Is it simply that they have a dissenting opinion on global warming or do they all have some history of mental illness that only you know about?
Yes I have been through this about a million times on this board, are surface temperatures the only measurement? what about the oceans? deep oceans? what about the fact that the information you posted is incorrect? why are the oceans acidifying? why are they increasing at 3.17mm per year in height? why because water expands when warmed.
You are misinformed, if you actually really want to know i have no problem posting the shit but I have no troll energy left today.
-
Yes I have been through this about a million times on this board, are surface temperatures the only measurement? what about the oceans? deep oceans? what about the fact that the information you posted is incorrect? why are the oceans acidifying? why are they increasing at 3.17mm per year in height? why because water expands when warmed.
You are misinformed, if you actually really want to know i have no problem posting the shit but I have no troll energy left today.
Are we talking about real, measured data or data taken from computer models?
Don't bother answering. There is no reason for us to go back and forth about a tired issue. Time will eventual show us all who was right and who was wrong. In the meantime I'm just going to sit in my palatial, air-conditioned, mansion and wait for the oceans to dry up and the planet to burst into flames.
-
Are we talking about real, measured data or data taken from computer models?
Don't bother answering. There is no reason for us to go back and forth about a tired issue. Time will eventual show us all who was right and who was wrong. In the meantime I'm just going to sit in my palatial, air-conditioned, mansion and wait for the oceans to dry up and the planet to burst into flames.
yep yep
-
yep yep
But this is the crux of the issues is it not? you guys won't believe actual data, nor the organizations which deal in this stuff, you think it's political etc. however, waiting will only make the problem more severe, we have all witnessed in history the stifling of facts for gain, the outcome is always terrible.
Doing nothing, despite the overwhelming evidence is only going to effect your grand kids etc
-
If the Pope beleives it real then it must be fake. Fact is he still beleives in an invisible man who lives in the clouds and a fiery man who lives in the center of the earth.
-
But this is the crux of the issues is it not? you guys won't believe actual data, nor the organizations which deal in this stuff, you think it's political etc. however, waiting will only make the problem more severe, we have all witnessed in history the stifling of facts for gain, the outcome is always terrible.
Doing nothing, despite the overwhelming evidence is only going to effect your grand kids etc
What data do I not believe?
-
What data do I not believe?
That Allah is the one true god, Islam is the one true religion, and Muhammad is the one true prophet.
-
That Allah is the one true god, Islam is the one true religion, and Muhammad is the one true prophet.
You are correct....I do not believe this.
-
What data do I not believe?
You don't beleive that that globe is heating up.
why are the oceans rising 3.17mm per year? explain that?
-
America is one of the most immoral countries in the world spreading their disgusting lifestyle to the rest of the planet that is what pisses off the muslims, humans want to give into temptation and live the dirty lifestyle of alcohol, sex with strangers etc like sodom and gomorrah and they want the church to go along with it claiming morals are outdated so they can feel better about their disgusting selves.
The United States is already in decline and now the worlds second largest economy.
When Russia, China, India and the rest of the developing world dump the dollar they will be in trouble.
-
You don't beleive that that globe is heating up.
why are the oceans rising 3.17mm per year? explain that?
Well, I don't really have a firm position on global warming. I've heard both sides and based on that I believe it's warming up slowly.
Melting of the polar ice caps is my understanding.
-
Screw all that. I pray to a shrine of the great Johnny Falcon. A fearless man who has literally tackled impossible mental challenges and physical endeavors.
-
Well, I don't really have a firm position on global warming. I've heard both sides and based on that I believe it's warming up slowly.
Melting of the polar ice caps is my understanding.
Same here. Is there a scientific consensus yet on human contribution to said data? If so, and, hypothetically, everyone finally agreed the problem needed immediate addressing, what exactly would the climatologists or whomever have us do about it?
Ban cars and factories? What is the main contributor to warming according to scientists? Fossil fuels, no?
-
Same here. Is there a scientific consensus yet on human contribution to said data? If so, and, hypothetically, everyone finally agreed the problem needed immediate addressing, what exactly would the climatologists or whomever have us do about it?
Ban cars and factories? What is the main contributor to warming according to scientists? Fossil fuels, no?
Best solution- Have more abortions, more pulling out, more condom usage, more birth control. Anything that can lead to less humans writ large. I would suggest a tax incentives or even outright payments to anyone who chooses not to have children.
-
Best solution- Have more abortions, more pulling out, more condom usage, more birth control. Anything that can lead to less humans writ large. I would suggest a tax incentives or even outright payments to anyone who chooses not to have children.
Adam, I have been to some AA meetings recently. They seem to rely heavily on faith in god. The AA book we read from might as well be a bible of sorts.
What is your take on this subject?
-
Adam, I have been to some AA meetings recently. They seem to rely heavily on faith in god. The AA book we read from might as well be a bible of sorts.
What is your take on this subject?
Useless shit. Just another method to crowbar faith into a place where it has no belonging. Alcoholism has nothing to do with religion.
Do like Charlie Sheen. Quit because you have the power to do so yourself. Own yourself. What do you need these meetings for? You either want to quit drinking and do so or you don`t. Your choice. I don`t see how this program would help anyone other than making you feel more shitty about yourself and everything that you did that got you there. Then they beat you over the head with the bible to create more guilt. Absolutely pathetic.
Find your balls and quit because you want to.
-
Useless shit. Just another method to crowbar faith into a place where it has no belonging. Alcoholism has nothing to do with religion.
Do like Charlie Sheen. Quit because you have the power to do so yourself. Own yourself. What do you need these meetings for? You either want to quit drinking and do so or you don`t. Your choice. I don`t see how this program would help anyone other than making you feel more shitty about yourself and everything that you did that got you there. Then they beat you over the head with the bible to create more guilt. Absolutely pathetic.
Find your balls and quit because you want to.
I agree, but it was not my choice to go to these meetings.
But...........I will say that they have helped me open my eyes. I was probably the youngest guy there (25+ people)
Unbelievably, many of the guys that go to these meetings have been sober for years.
They keep coming anyway.
The topic for today's meeting was: "Have you replaced fear with faith?" I said that I had faith in myself, and faith that my family and friends care about me.
-
I agree, but it was not my choice to go to these meetings.
But...........I will say that they have helped me open my eyes. I was probably the youngest guy there (25+ people)
Unbelievably, many of the guys that go to these meetings have been sober for years.
They keep coming anyway.
The topic for today's meeting was: "Have you replaced fear with faith?" I said that I had faith in myself, and faith that my family and friends care about me.
You should have said:
"The definition of faith is belief in the absence of evidence. No. I do not have any faith because basing anything on faith is useless and pointless because there is no Science or Evidence to back it up. I do know however that I can quit drinking without faith because it was not faith that led me to drink initially. Plus we have evidence of millions who have stopped drinking so it is possible. Furthermore, alcoholism can be studied biologically. My question to you is, why do you insist on on bringing faith into any of this? Its a ridiculous notion founded on nonsense."
-
I agree, but it was not my choice to go to these meetings.
But...........I will say that they have helped me open my eyes. I was probably the youngest guy there (25+ people)
Unbelievably, many of the guys that go to these meetings have been sober for years.
They keep coming anyway.
The topic for today's meeting was: "Have you replaced fear with faith?" I said that I had faith in myself, and faith that my family and friends care about me.
'Fear is healthy- panic will kill you.'- Rob O'Neil, Highly Decorated Navy SEAL who killed Bin Laden
-
I agree, but it was not my choice to go to these meetings.
But...........I will say that they have helped me open my eyes. I was probably the youngest guy there (25+ people)
Unbelievably, many of the guys that go to these meetings have been sober for years.
They keep coming anyway.
The topic for today's meeting was: "Have you replaced fear with faith?" I said that I had faith in myself, and faith that my family and friends care about me.
Were you court ordered or something? If so, you could probably go before the court and argue that you can no longer attend as they brought religion into it and cite separation of church in state in government proceedings.
-
You should have said:
"The definition of faith is belief in the absence of evidence. No. I do not have any faith because basing anything on faith is useless and pointless because there is no Science or Evidence to back it up. I do know however that I can quit drinking without faith because it was not faith that led me to drink initially. Plus we have evidence of millions who have stopped drinking so it is possible. Furthermore, alcoholism can be studied biologically. My question to you is, why do you insist on on bringing faith into any of this? Its a ridiculous notion founded on nonsense."
We all have our beliefs on things Adam. I am all for whatever helps these guys cope/ get through the day.
God is not my path to sobriety, but I respect a person's right to travel down that road.
-
We all have our beliefs on things Adam. I am all for whatever helps these guys cope/ get through the day.
God is not my path to sobriety, but I respect a person's right to travel down that road.
I am not because its all predicated on lies and guilt. That is no way to govern behavior, especially under such false pretenses. I think it hurts the situation actually more than helps.
-
Were you court ordered or something? If so, you could probably go before the court and argue that you can no longer attend as they brought religion into it and cite separation of church in state in government proceedings.
The court had nothing to do with it. I was not in trouble with the law.
I was given an ultimatum.
-
We all have our beliefs on things Adam. I am all for whatever helps these guys cope/ get through the day.
God is not my path to sobriety, but I respect a person's right to travel down that road.
yes.
AAs system works for people who are so broken that they meed something bigger than themselved to believe in.
Thats why the system works, theyre told 'this is the only way, do EXACTLY as we say and you can stay sober.'
And it works for those people that whole heartedly buy into it, give up the idea that the can control it, and follow their system. Rhese people often have nothing, no family, no loved ones, nothing but drugs/booze
I wasnt one of those people, and i couldnt just give on to the system. I had to find something more important than drugs, (namely my wife and son).
It works great for many. It will not work for anyone who thinks critically and/or hasnt hit rock bottom yet. You need to completely surrender your thought process and just accept that youre powerless.... which is exactly opposite my nature. I believe you always have an option, a way to fight back.
But its hard with drugs, because you have to fight it differently.
But, i agree with shizzo here. These people have NOTHING while using. If god helps them, then they need it. Without AA, a lot of thek would be dead or in prison.
-
The court had nothing to do with it. I was not in trouble with the law.
I was given an ultimatum.
Who gave you the ultimatum, why and what are the terms? So it would seem you are only doing it to please this entity and not for any other reason.
-
-
-
No. Not here please.
-
-
Garbage.
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tnuOLAwZdxI/UWYQs_2SbEI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/CockHPoWUjo/s1600/religious-discoveries.jpg)
-
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L_a0lLKeMAI/UWXeQulx7eI/AAAAAAAABKE/5qbld3T6au0/s1600/harris-meme.jpg)
-
-
(http://s27.postimg.org/n6hvscxw3/Xp_SG247.jpg)
(http://s16.postimg.org/fbndk8ak5/6n_We_RA5.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/eWNQ0bo.jpg)
-
(https://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/59623_10151294730726043_748850498_n.jpeg?w=640)
-
(http://s29.postimg.org/a4dbctww7/4bb24195593dc1a65d454c97d184f98b.jpg)
-
yes.
AAs system works for people who are so broken that they meed something bigger than themselved to believe in.
Thats why the system works, theyre told 'this is the only way, do EXACTLY as we say and you can stay sober.'
And it works for those people that whole heartedly buy into it, give up the idea that the can control it, and follow their system. Rhese people often have nothing, no family, no loved ones, nothing but drugs/booze
I wasnt one of those people, and i couldnt just give on to the system. I had to find something more important than drugs, (namely my wife and son).
It works great for many. It will not work for anyone who thinks critically and/or hasnt hit rock bottom yet. You need to completely surrender your thought process and just accept that youre powerless.... which is exactly opposite my nature. I believe you always have an option, a way to fight back.
But its hard with drugs, because you have to fight it differently.
But, i agree with shizzo here. These people have NOTHING while using. If god helps them, then they need it. Without AA, a lot of thek would be dead or in prison.
Very well stated, excellent post. F'n nailed the AA thing.
-
Best solution- Have more abortions, more pulling out, more condom usage, more birth control. Anything that can lead to less humans writ large. I would suggest a tax incentives or even outright payments to anyone who chooses not to have children.
You must know your solution, however effective, would never happen here. Certainly can't legislate it, and if you are at all familiar with the culture of our exponentially growing Mexican population, you'd realize the exact opposite is an inevitability.
Put as simply and sensitively as possible: They fuck like rabbits and despise condoms. They start quite young as well. Plenty of pregnant students at my old high school. Not being intentionally racist, but browns make babies like yellows make rice. 5, 10, 15 to a family, very common. These were my neighbors growing up, and now their kids, grandkids, etc. are keeping the tradition alive.
So what's Plan B?
-
You must know your solution, however effective, would never happen here. Certainly can't legislate it, and if you are at all familiar with the culture of our exponentially growing Mexican population, you'd realize the exact opposite is an inevitability.
Put as simply and sensitively as possible: They fuck like rabbits and despise condoms. They start quite young as well. Plenty of pregnant students at my old high school. Not being intentionally racist, but browns make babies like yellows make rice. 5, 10, 15 to a family, very common. These were my neighbors growing up, and now their kids, grandkids, etc. are keeping the tradition alive.
So what's Plan B?
Lace the tacos.
-
Were you court ordered or something? If so, you could probably go before the court and argue that you can no longer attend as they brought religion into it and cite separation of church in state in government proceedings.
Won't work.
AA never mentions any specific religion, no bibles, except the Big Book, which they sometimes refer to as the bible. It's an alcoholic recovery text is all and they don't really cram it down your throat. What they do is "suggest" you adopt and surrender to a Higher Power, as you, an addict, are powerless over your "disease." But they quickly and often point out it doesn't have to mean God, just something stronger than you that you can lean on through recovery (the group itself, friends/family support, etc.)
So if it's court ordered, the freedom of/from religion angle won't fly.
-
Won't work.
AA never mentions any specific religion, no bibles, except the Big Book, which they sometimes refer to as the bible. It's an alcoholic recovery text is all and they don't really cram it down your throat. What they do is "suggest" you adopt and surrender to a Higher Power, as you, an addict, are powerless over your "disease." But they quickly and often point out it doesn't have to mean God, just something stronger than you that you can lean on through recovery (the group itself, friends/family support, etc.)
So if it's court ordered, the freedom of/from religion angle won't fly.
Thats pure shit. That is putting alcoholism on some sort of pedestal and casting you as the weakling. By doing so, I could see human nature overriding and wanting it even more. What a joke.
-
Thats pure shit. That is putting alcoholism on some sort of pedestal and casting you as the weakling. By doing so, I could see human nature overriding and wanting it even more. What a joke.
it certainly works for a lot of people. In the short term, they need something like that to latch onto until they get a normal life back together.
Theres no options for a lot of these guys, they do whatever they can grab on to that will give them enough sober time to get some semblence of self control back.
Right now, it has the highest success rate by far... people like me are vastly in the minority.
Its one of those deals whete regardless of what we think of thr message/idea, it works. And thats all that matters for addicts.
-
it certainly works for a lot of people. In the short term, they need something like that to latch onto until they get a normal life back together.
Theres no options for a lot of these guys, they do whatever they can grab on to that will give them enough sober time to get some semblence of self control back.
Right now, it has the highest success rate by far... people like me are vastly in the minority.
Its one of those deals whete regardless of what we think of thr message/idea, it works. And thats all that matters for addicts.
What happens if they discover its bullshit?
-
it certainly works for a lot of people. In the short term, they need something like that to latch onto until they get a normal life back together.
Theres no options for a lot of these guys, they do whatever they can grab on to that will give them enough sober time to get some semblence of self control back.
Right now, it has the highest success rate by far... people like me are vastly in the minority.
Its one of those deals whete regardless of what we think of thr message/idea, it works. And thats all that matters for addicts.
This is interesting:
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/23/291405829/with-sobering-science-doctor-debunks-12-step-recovery
(http://media.npr.org/assets/bakertaylor/covers/t/the-sober-truth/9780807033159_custom-aa69d0c6083765fd987b9d676dccf7bbd3099f86-s2-c85.jpg)
Since its founding in the 1930s, Alcoholics Anonymous has become part of the fabric of American society. AA and the many 12-step groups it inspired have become the country's go-to solution for addiction in all of its forms. These recovery programs are mandated by drug courts, prescribed by doctors and widely praised by reformed addicts.
Dr. Lance Dodes sees a big problem with that. The psychiatrist has spent more than 20 years studying and treating addiction. His latest book on the subject is The Sober Truth: Debunking the Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and the Rehab Industry.
Dodes tells NPR's Arun Rath that 12-step recovery simply doesn't work, despite anecdotes about success.
"We hear from the people who do well; we don't hear from the people who don't do well," he says.
Interview Highlights
On Alcoholics Anonymous' success rate
There is a large body of evidence now looking at AA success rate, and the success rate of AA is between 5 and 10 percent. Most people don't seem to know that because it's not widely publicized. ... There are some studies that have claimed to show scientifically that AA is useful. These studies are riddled with scientific errors and they say no more than what we knew to begin with, which is that AA has probably the worst success rate in all of medicine.
It's not only that AA has a 5 to 10 percent success rate; if it was successful and was neutral the rest of the time, we'd say OK. But it's harmful to the 90 percent who don't do well. And it's harmful for several important reasons. One of them is that everyone believes that AA is the right treatment. AA is never wrong, according to AA. If you fail in AA, it's you that's failed.
On why 12-step programs can work
The reason that the 5 to 10 percent do well in AA actually doesn't have to do with the 12 steps themselves; it has to do with the camaraderie. It's a supportive organization with people who are on the whole kind to you, and it gives you a structure. Some people can make a lot of use of that. And to its credit, AA describes itself as a brotherhood rather than a treatment.
Lance Dodes is also the author of Breaking Addiction and The Heart of Addiction. i
Lance Dodes is also the author of Breaking Addiction and The Heart of Addiction.
Zachary Dodes/Courtesy of Beacon Press
So as you can imagine, a few people given that kind of setting are able to change their behavior at least temporarily, maybe permanently. But most people can't deal with their addiction, which is deeply driven, by just being in a brotherhood.
On a psychological approach to addiction
When people are confronted with a feeling of being trapped, of being overwhelmingly helpless, they have to do something. It isn't necessarily the "something" that actually deals with the problem. ... Why addiction, though — why drink? Well, that's the "something" that they do. In psychology we call it a displacement; you could call it a substitute ...
When people can understand their addiction and what drives it, not only are they able to manage it but they can predict the next time the addictive urge will come up, because they know the kind of things that will make them feel overwhelmingly helpless. Given that forewarning, they can manage it much better.
But unlike AA, I would never claim that what I've suggested is right for everybody. But ... let's say I had nothing better to offer: It wouldn't matter — we still need to change the system as it is because we are harming 90 percent of the people.
-
This is interesting and just what I figured when they cast you as the weakling. "It's not only that AA has a 5 to 10 percent success rate; if it was successful and was neutral the rest of the time, we'd say OK. But it's harmful to the 90 percent who don't do well. And it's harmful for several important reasons. One of them is that everyone believes that AA is the right treatment. AA is never wrong, according to AA. If you fail in AA, it's you that's failed."
-
AA is beyond fucked up: The only alternatives to AA, as asserted by the Big Book, are "jails, institutions, and death."
-
Charlie Sheen was correct on the facts of AA actually. lol
-
AA is beyond fucked up: The only alternatives to AA, as asserted by the Big Book, are "jails, institutions, and death."
what youre missing, is that the 5-10% that it DOES work for, nothing else will help. Also, is extremely hard to calculate a true succrss rate, as there pure sobriety rate for addicts is extremely low. Relapse happens all the time, sometimes to addicts that have had 25-30 years sober.
For those 5-10%, AA is a godsend. Trying to negate that for thosr people because you dont like the message is pretty short sighted and selfish, IMO.
It does work for many of these people (a lot more than the 5-10% thats being cited, IMO, thats probably defined as permanent sobriety, which is very low in general).
I dont believe in AAs message. It didnt work for me. But i know tons of guys who literally had their lived turned around from AA, who nothing else worked for them.
IMO, that benefit, for them, far outweighs our personal feelings on the subject.
Thats the whole point Adam, these are people who NOTHING ELSE will work for.
-
what youre missing, is that the 5-10% that it DOES work for, nothing else will help. Also, is extremely hard to calculate a true succrss rate, as there pure sobriety rate for addicts is extremely low. Relapse happens all the time, sometimes to addicts that have had 25-30 years sober.
For those 5-10%, AA is a godsend. Trying to negate that for thosr people because you dont like the message is pretty short sighted and selfish, IMO.
It does work for many of these people (a lot more than the 5-10% thats being cited, IMO, thats probably defined as permanent sobriety, which is very low in general).
I dont believe in AAs message. It didnt work for me. But i know tons of guys who literally had their lived turned around from AA, who nothing else worked for them.
IMO, that benefit, for them, far outweighs our personal feelings on the subject.
Thats the whole point Adam, these are people who NOTHING ELSE will work for.
I don`t buy that for a second. Its not like the 5-10 percent exhausted all things and this is the only alternative. 5-10 percent is what happened to work. Thats worse odds than a coin flip or randomly guessing. If you had a medical problem and were given treatment options and then given the success rates, you would NOT choose the one with 5-10 percent rate of success. That is a dismal failure.
Another good article:
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_pseudo_science_of_alcoholics_anonymous_theres_a_better_way_to_treat_addiction/
The pseudo-science of Alcoholics Anonymous: There’s a better way to treat addiction
-
Overall, the success rate for AA is very poor.
Does anyone remember the program D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education)? DARE is taught widely in schools, yet is extremely ineffective.
The Effectiveness of DARE
Scientific evaluation studies have consistently shown that DARE is ineffective in reducing the use of alcohol and drugs and is sometimes even counterproductive -- worse than doing nothing. That's the conclusion of the U.S. General Accounting Office, 1 the U.S. Surgeon General, 2 the National Academy of Sciences, 3 and the U.S. Department of Education, 4 among many others. 5
Unfortunately, a lot of these programs have strong political backings that they continue to be implemented, despite ineffective results.
-
what youre missing, is that the 5-10% that it DOES work for, nothing else will help. Also, is extremely hard to calculate a true succrss rate, as there pure sobriety rate for addicts is extremely low. Relapse happens all the time, sometimes to addicts that have had 25-30 years sober.
For those 5-10%, AA is a godsend. Trying to negate that for thosr people because you dont like the message is pretty short sighted and selfish, IMO.
It does work for many of these people (a lot more than the 5-10% thats being cited, IMO, thats probably defined as permanent sobriety, which is very low in general).
I dont believe in AAs message. It didnt work for me. But i know tons of guys who literally had their lived turned around from AA, who nothing else worked for them.
IMO, that benefit, for them, far outweighs our personal feelings on the subject.
Thats the whole point Adam, these are people who NOTHING ELSE will work for.
That is not true. Evidence shows there are many more evidence-based treatments that work and are much better than AA. The fact that it helps some people does not mean that it should be consistently implemented when there are better treatment methods out there.
Will AA help some people? Of course it will. However, the downside is that we need to offer the best treatment to people that is backed up by evidence. AA has poor evidence, and therefore should not be the first approach people take.
-
Overall, the success rate for AA is very poor.
Does anyone remember the program D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education)? DARE is taught widely in schools, yet is extremely ineffective.
The Effectiveness of DARE
Scientific evaluation studies have consistently shown that DARE is ineffective in reducing the use of alcohol and drugs and is sometimes even counterproductive -- worse than doing nothing. That's the conclusion of the U.S. General Accounting Office, 1 the U.S. Surgeon General, 2 the National Academy of Sciences, 3 and the U.S. Department of Education, 4 among many others. 5
Unfortunately, a lot of these programs have strong political backings that they continue to be implemented, despite ineffective results.
Get a load of this:
One of the founders of AA was a total nutjob:
Alternative cures and spiritualism
In the 1950s Wilson used LSD in medically supervised experiments with Betty Eisner, Gerald Heard, and Aldous Huxley. With Wilson's invitation, his wife Lois, his spiritual adviser Father Ed Dowling, and Nell Wing also participated in experimentation of this drug. Later Wilson wrote to Carl Jung, praising the results and recommending it as validation of Jung's spiritual experience. (The letter was not in fact sent as Jung had died.)[32] According to Wilson, the session allowed him to re-experience a spontaneous spiritual experience he had had years before, which had enabled him to overcome his own alcoholism. Bill was enthusiastic about his experience; he felt it helped him eliminate many barriers erected by the self, or ego, that stand in the way of one's direct experience of the cosmos and of God. He thought he might have found something that could make a big difference to the lives of many who still suffered. Bill is quoted as saying: "It is a generally acknowledged fact in spiritual development that ego reduction makes the influx of God's grace possible. If, therefore, under LSD we can have a temporary reduction, so that we can better see what we are and where we are going — well, that might be of some help. The goal might become clearer. So I consider LSD to be of some value to some people, and practically no damage to anyone. It will never take the place of any of the existing means by which we can reduce the ego, and keep it reduced."[33] Wilson felt that regular usage of LSD in a carefully controlled, structured setting would be beneficial for many recovering alcoholics. However, he felt this method only should be attempted by individuals with well-developed super-egos.[34] In 1957 Wilson wrote a letter to Heard saying: "I am certain that the LSD experiment has helped me very much. I find myself with a heightened colour perception and an appreciation of beauty almost destroyed by my years of depressions." Most AAs were violently opposed to his experimenting with a mind-altering substance.[35]
Wilson met Abram Hoffer and learned about the potential mood-stabilizing effects of niacin.[36] Wilson was impressed with experiments indicating that alcoholics who were given niacin had a better sobriety rate, and he began to see niacin "as completing the third leg in the stool, the physical to complement the spiritual and emotional." Wilson also believed that niacin had given him relief from depression, and he promoted the vitamin within the AA community and with the National Institute of Mental Health as a treatment for schizophrenia. However, Wilson created a major furor in AA because he used the AA office and letterhead in his promotion.[37]
For Wilson, spiritualism was a lifelong interest. One of his letters to adviser Father Dowling suggests that while Wilson was working on his book Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, he felt that spirits were helping him, in particular a 15th-century monk named Boniface.[38] Despite his conviction that he had evidence for the reality of the spirit world, Wilson chose not to share this with AA. However his practices still created controversy within the AA membership. Wilson and his wife continued with their unusual practices in spite of the misgivings of many AA members. In their house they had a "spook room" where they would invite guests to participate in seances using a Ouija board
-
That is not true. Evidence shows there are many more evidence-based treatments that work and are much better than AA. The fact that it helps some people does not mean that it should be consistently implemented when there are better treatment methods out there.
Will AA help some people? Of course it will. However, the downside is that we need to offer the best treatment to people that is backed up by evidence. AA has poor evidence, and therefore should not be the first approach people take.
no one is arguing that it should be the primary treatment.
What im saying, over and over, is that a lot of these people have NOTHING and AA is the only thing they can grab onto to give them something to move forward for.
For many of these addicts, with no families, no homes, they have literally NOTHING, they find sanctuary with AA.
And there are plenty of people who AA is the only thing theyve found that works.
Let them have it. Its their life, its taken them from a hell im pretty sure neither of you understand to something that they can actually move forward from.
Thats the whole point. It DOES help these people, and we have no right to tell them that they shouldnt go along with whatever it is that got them straight.
Everyone has to find their own path home from addiction. If AA works for them, great. Let them have it. Theres no reason to tell them they cant because you dont agree with its message.
-
no one is arguing that it should be the primary treatment.
What im saying, over and over, is that a lot of these people have NOTHING and AA is the only thing they can grab onto to give them something to move forward for.
For many of these addicts, with no families, no homes, they have literally NOTHING, they find sanctuary with AA.
And there are plenty of people who AA is the only thing theyve found that works.
Let them have it. Its their life, its taken them from a hell im pretty sure neither of you understand to something that they can actually move forward from.
Thats the whole point. It DOES help these people, and we have no right to tell them that they shouldnt go along with whatever it is that got them straight.
Everyone has to find their own path home from addiction. If AA works for them, great. Let them have it. Theres no reason to tell them they cant because you dont agree with its message.
Playing hop scotch and marbles instead of drinking has the same or greater efficacy rate as AA. :-\
-
no one is arguing that it should be the primary treatment.
What im saying, over and over, is that a lot of these people have NOTHING and AA is the only thing they can grab onto to give them something to move forward for.
For many of these addicts, with no families, no homes, they have literally NOTHING, they find sanctuary with AA.
And there are plenty of people who AA is the only thing theyve found that works.
Let them have it. Its their life, its taken them from a hell im pretty sure neither of you understand to something that they can actually move forward from.
Thats the whole point. It DOES help these people, and we have no right to tell them that they shouldnt go along with whatever it is that got them straight.
Everyone has to find their own path home from addiction. If AA works for them, great. Let them have it. Theres no reason to tell them they cant because you dont agree with its message.
The issue is this, there are many programs like AA that utilize a group format that have shown to be effective. So, why continue to implement a program which has poor results? As stated, many of the people you mentioned would also do quite well in other group format treatment programs, but they choose AA because of the hype. Perhaps these people would do EVEN better in these programs. You don't know that.
Youre letting your emotions get the best of you. This is about factual evidence and what treatment work and do not work. This objectively about it.
-
Adonis why not try some good LSD for yourself. Or Magic Mushrooms.
-
Get a load of this:
One of the founders of AA was a total nutjob:
Alternative cures and spiritualism
In the 1950s Wilson used LSD in medically supervised experiments with Betty Eisner, Gerald Heard, and Aldous Huxley. With Wilson's invitation, his wife Lois, his spiritual adviser Father Ed Dowling, and Nell Wing also participated in experimentation of this drug. Later Wilson wrote to Carl Jung, praising the results and recommending it as validation of Jung's spiritual experience. (The letter was not in fact sent as Jung had died.)[32] According to Wilson, the session allowed him to re-experience a spontaneous spiritual experience he had had years before, which had enabled him to overcome his own alcoholism. Bill was enthusiastic about his experience; he felt it helped him eliminate many barriers erected by the self, or ego, that stand in the way of one's direct experience of the cosmos and of God. He thought he might have found something that could make a big difference to the lives of many who still suffered. Bill is quoted as saying: "It is a generally acknowledged fact in spiritual development that ego reduction makes the influx of God's grace possible. If, therefore, under LSD we can have a temporary reduction, so that we can better see what we are and where we are going — well, that might be of some help. The goal might become clearer. So I consider LSD to be of some value to some people, and practically no damage to anyone. It will never take the place of any of the existing means by which we can reduce the ego, and keep it reduced."[33] Wilson felt that regular usage of LSD in a carefully controlled, structured setting would be beneficial for many recovering alcoholics. However, he felt this method only should be attempted by individuals with well-developed super-egos.[34] In 1957 Wilson wrote a letter to Heard saying: "I am certain that the LSD experiment has helped me very much. I find myself with a heightened colour perception and an appreciation of beauty almost destroyed by my years of depressions." Most AAs were violently opposed to his experimenting with a mind-altering substance.[35]
Wilson met Abram Hoffer and learned about the potential mood-stabilizing effects of niacin.[36] Wilson was impressed with experiments indicating that alcoholics who were given niacin had a better sobriety rate, and he began to see niacin "as completing the third leg in the stool, the physical to complement the spiritual and emotional." Wilson also believed that niacin had given him relief from depression, and he promoted the vitamin within the AA community and with the National Institute of Mental Health as a treatment for schizophrenia. However, Wilson created a major furor in AA because he used the AA office and letterhead in his promotion.[37]
For Wilson, spiritualism was a lifelong interest. One of his letters to adviser Father Dowling suggests that while Wilson was working on his book Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, he felt that spirits were helping him, in particular a 15th-century monk named Boniface.[38] Despite his conviction that he had evidence for the reality of the spirit world, Wilson chose not to share this with AA. However his practices still created controversy within the AA membership. Wilson and his wife continued with their unusual practices in spite of the misgivings of many AA members. In their house they had a "spook room" where they would invite guests to participate in seances using a Ouija board
That is quite troubling. Sounds like a lot of quackery to me.
-
you need some LSD too ^^^
-
you need some LSD too ^^^
Do you think I am going to take advice from a man who was accepting weekly or monthly payments from uncle junior? Sounds pretty sketchy to me. What type of pictures did you send him in exchange for the money? :-\ :-\
-
no one is arguing that it should be the primary treatment.
What im saying, over and over, is that a lot of these people have NOTHING and AA is the only thing they can grab onto to give them something to move forward for.
For many of these addicts, with no families, no homes, they have literally NOTHING, they find sanctuary with AA.
And there are plenty of people who AA is the only thing theyve found that works.
Let them have it. Its their life, its taken them from a hell im pretty sure neither of you understand to something that they can actually move forward from.
Thats the whole point. It DOES help these people, and we have no right to tell them that they shouldnt go along with whatever it is that got them straight.
Everyone has to find their own path home from addiction. If AA works for them, great. Let them have it. Theres no reason to tell them they cant because you dont agree with its message.
Its kinda like putting Creationism in a text book and then proclaiming, "Whats the harm? It allowed some people to understand the universe. Even if it is horrible evidence and no science, we should not be overly critical of it. Let them have it."
When the failure rate of something is far greater than the success rate, something is dearly wrong, especially when the approach is not based on any sound evidence or medical science. :-\
-
Do you think I am going to take advice from a man who was accepting weekly or monthly payments from uncle junior? Sounds pretty sketchy to me. What type of pictures did you send him in exchange for the money? :-\ :-\
just take some once in your life.
-
just take some once in your life.
Not interested. I like my synapses the way they are and do not need some chemical to alter them.
-
No idea why AA would bag on Prison. I bet prison has about a 100 percent success rate as far as dealing with alcoholics and drug addicts.
-
Not interested. I like my synapses the way they are and do not need some chemical to alter them.
Your loss mate, at least take some if you find out at some point you are terminally ill, I have a bucket list including heroin when my time comes.
-
sounds like your scared to try, dont be, you can still come back to your rotten cynicism of all things spiritual.
-
just take some once in your life.
why? so i can turn into someone who accepts money from strangers online, like you? :-X :-X sorry, ill keep my self-respect.
-
The issue is this, there are many programs like AA that utilize a group format that have shown to be effective. So, why continue to implement a program which has poor results? As stated, many of the people you mentioned would also do quite well in other group format treatment programs, but they choose AA because of the hype. Perhaps these people would do EVEN better in these programs. You don't know that.
Youre letting your emotions get the best of you. This is about factual evidence and what treatment work and do not work. This objectively about it.
Dude... i fucking hated AA. But im not about to force someone else out of something thats keeping them sober into something else that may or may not work, and risk them losing their sobriety, because i dont agree with ones message, and I like the results better on a different program.
Thats not our decision to make. Thats theirs.
I think YOU guys are letting your emotions cloud your judgement, because you dislike the spirituality angle and because there are other treatments that have been shown to have a better success rate.
Thats all fine and good, but thats no reason to try and take someone out of a program that they found that works for them.
I guarantee you, theyd be pretty pissed if they lost 25 yrs of sobriety because you said 'AA is flawed, you need to try this program instead, it has a better success rate', only for them to decide they hate the programs ideas/message/people, and go get fucked up.
You habr to remember, these people arent rational, theh live on the razora edge, one bad experience away from being fucked up again.
You can disagree with me all you want, thats fine, but ive lived and seen this shit 1st hand.
I hated it. Other guys cant live without it. We dont habe a right to tell them they need to jeaporsizs what works for them because we dont like the idea of AA or its principles.
-
sounds like your scared to try, dont be, you can still come back to your rotten cynicism of all things spiritual.
What you call cynicism, I call "reality" or being "realistic"
But you can spit it anyway you want to try to make yourself appear right. Whatever helps you sleep better at night.
-
Dude... i fucking hated AA. But im not about to force someone else out of something thats keeping them sober into something else that may or may not work, and risk them losing their sobriety, because i dont agree with ones message, and I like the results better on a different program.
Thats not our decision to make. Thats theirs.
I think YOU guys are letting your emotions cloud your judgement, because you dislike the spirituality angle and because there are other treatments that have been shown to have a better success rate.
Thats all fine and good, but thats no reason to try and take someone out of a program that they found that works for them.
I guarantee you, theyd be pretty pissed if they lost 25 yrs of sobriety because you said 'AA is flawed, you need to try this program instead, it has a better success rate', only for them to decide they hate the programs ideas/message/people, and go get fucked up.
You habr to remember, these people arent rational, theh live on the razora edge, one bad experience away from being fucked up again.
You can disagree with me all you want, thats fine, but ive lived and seen this shit 1st hand.
I hated it. Other guys cant live without it. We dont habe a right to tell them they need to jeaporsizs what works for them because we dont like the idea of AA or its principles.
They can do whatever they want, but they can`t deny the facts. They will be true regardless if they believe them or not.
-
What you call cynicism, I call "reality" or being "realistic"
But you can spit it anyway you want to try to make yourself appear right. Whatever helps you sleep better at night.
your not getting a rise out of me tonight, however much you may want to sleep better with your boring worldview.
-
Dude... i fucking hated AA. But im not about to force someone else out of something thats keeping them sober into something else that may or may not work, and risk them losing their sobriety, because i dont agree with ones message, and I like the results better on a different program.
Thats not our decision to make. Thats theirs.
I think YOU guys are letting your emotions cloud your judgement, because you dislike the spirituality angle and because there are other treatments that have been shown to have a better success rate.
Thats all fine and good, but thats no reason to try and take someone out of a program that they found that works for them.
I guarantee you, theyd be pretty pissed if they lost 25 yrs of sobriety because you said 'AA is flawed, you need to try this program instead, it has a better success rate', only for them to decide they hate the programs ideas/message/people, and go get fucked up.
You habr to remember, these people arent rational, theh live on the razora edge, one bad experience away from being fucked up again.
You can disagree with me all you want, thats fine, but ive lived and seen this shit 1st hand.
I hated it. Other guys cant live without it. We dont habe a right to tell them they need to jeaporsizs what works for them because we dont like the idea of AA or its principles.
This is the problem: AA has such a poor rate of success that there are only a handful of people that actually benefit from it. Youre making it seem like there is overwhelming evidence that its a great program. Its not. Id rather get rid of all AA programs and have people start to attend programs that have been shown to be effective because we will be helping a larger amount of people. The fact that it helps such a small percentage of people is not good justification for keeping a poor treatment program around.
I did not say take anyone out of a program. AA should be gradually phased out and so that people who are initially seeking treatment for substance issues will go to treatment programs that are shown to be effective. If the "old timers" want to stick with AA that is fine. But all new referrals for substance use should be referred to treatment programs with evidence.
I am not letting my emotions get the best of me. I am speaking purely from an evidence-based perspective. Youre the one who keeps referring to your own personal experience. That's being driven by emotion.
-
your not getting a rise out of me tonight, however much you may want to sleep better with your boring worldview.
I have no intentions of getting a rise out of you.
What you call boring, I call "reality." I dont have to believe in spiritual or mysterious nonsense to make my life exciting.
Just looking up at the stars and the vast universe is excitement enough for me. I do not need to invent supernatural nonsense to make my worldview "exciting." That is idiotic. That is believing in silly nonsense just because you want your worldview to be "exciting." If you need to believe in supernatural nonsense to make your life not boring, that is pretty sad.
-
This is the problem: AA has such a poor rate of success that there are only a handful of people that actually benefit from it. Youre making it seem like there is overwhelming evidence that its a great program. Its not. Id rather get rid of all AA programs and have people start to attend programs that have been shown to be effective because we will be helping a larger amount of people. The fact that it helps such a small percentage of people is not good justification for keeping a poor treatment program around.
I did not say take anyone out of a program. AA should be gradually phased out and so that people who are initially seeking treatment for substance issues will go to treatment programs that are shown to be effective. If the "old timers" want to stick with AA that is fine. But all new referrals for substance use should be referred to treatment programs with evidence.
I am not letting my emotions get the best of me. I am speaking purely from an evidence-based perspective. Youre the one who keeps referring to your own personal experience. That's being driven by emotion.
-
This is the problem: AA has such a poor rate of success that there are only a handful of people that actually benefit from it. Youre making it seem like there is overwhelming evidence that its a great program. Its not. Id rather get rid of all AA programs and have people start to attend programs that have been shown to be effective because we will be helping a larger amount of people. The fact that it helps such a small percentage of people is not good justification for keeping a poor treatment program around.
I did not say take anyone out of a program. AA should be gradually phased out and so that people who are initially seeking treatment for substance issues will go to treatment programs that are shown to be effective. If the "old timers" want to stick with AA that is fine. But all new referrals for substance use should be referred to treatment programs with evidence.
I am not letting my emotions get the best of me. I am speaking purely from an evidence-based perspective. Youre the one who keeps referring to your own personal experience. That's being driven by emotion.
Funny how you guys think you have stone cold objectivity because your "scientists" Just talking in general, its a nice cover.
-
I have no intentions of getting a rise out of you.
What you call boring, I call "reality." I dont have to believe in spiritual or mysterious nonsense to make my life exciting.
Just looking up at the stars and the vast universe is excitement enough for me. I do not need to invent supernatural nonsense to make my worldview "exciting." That is idiotic. That is believing in silly nonsense just because you want your worldview to be "exciting." If you need to believe in supernatural nonsense to make your life not boring, that is pretty sad.
I do not need constant excitement. I can sit in a dark room enjoying simply being without obsessive thinking.
-
-
Funny how you guys think you have stone cold objectivity because your "scientists" Just talking in general, its a nice cover.
No, you moron, I am speaking objectively because I want on the SAMSHA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices. Go ahead and present your evidence.
Here is a list of 200 evidence based treatments for substance abuse/issues. I believe AA did not even make the list.
http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/SearchResultsNew.aspx?s=b&q=substance%20abuse
-
;D ;D
-
This is the problem: AA has such a poor rate of success that there are only a handful of people that actually benefit from it. Youre making it seem like there is overwhelming evidence that its a great program. Its not. Id rather get rid of all AA programs and have people start to attend programs that have been shown to be effective because we will be helping a larger amount of people. The fact that it helps such a small percentage of people is not good justification for keeping a poor treatment program around.
I did not say take anyone out of a program. AA should be gradually phased out and so that people who are initially seeking treatment for substance issues will go to treatment programs that are shown to be effective. If the "old timers" want to stick with AA that is fine. But all new referrals for substance use should be referred to treatment programs with evidence.
I am not letting my emotions get the best of me. I am speaking purely from an evidence-based perspective. Youre the one who keeps referring to your own personal experience. That's being driven by emotion.
why not let people find a program that works for them, whichever it may be, rather than advocating complete removal of a program because you dont agree with its message and dont like its success rate?
You keep pointing to the success rate over and over, but you gloss over the large fact that you absolutley , vehemtly disagree with the spirituality message, and try to act like it has nothing to do with your absolute belief that AA needs to go as a treatment. Now if you dont see that as an emotional response, thats fine. Maybe im way off, but i think its more tied into this subject than your willing to admit.
I bring up my experiences because, even though i absolutley hated AA and got nothing from it, i couldnt possibly tell someone else not to try something that might remove them from the gell that is their day to day life as an addict, especially after seeing so many people that it has worked for.
Is it anecdotal? Yes. Is it a small percentage? Probably, i dont know. Regardless, for that tiny percentage, its a god send, and no amouny of cold hard math is going to tell me that they shouldnt have the opportunity to choose that program if it works for them.
Addiction medicine isnt an absolute science yet; everyone is different and everone has different needs as everyones reason for addiction is different.
Let them choose. Let THEM find a program, a reason for sobriety, instead of telling them 'you shouldnt try that because it doesnt work for that many people'.
No one is advocating AA as the only thing that works, or even that it should be a 1st line treatment... just thay it DOES work for many addicts and it deserves to remain for that simple fact. Just because something isnt highly successful does not mean it doesnt have its place.
Anyway, were going to have to agree to disagree.
-
why not let people find a program that works for them, whichever it may be, rather than advocating complete removal of a program because you dont agree with its message and dont like its success rate?
You keep pointing to the success rate over and over, but you gloss over the large fact that you absolutley , vehemtly disagree with the spirituality message, and try to act like it has nothing to do with your absolute belief that AA needs to go as a treatment. Now if you dont see that as an emotional response, thats fine. Maybe im way off, but i think its more tied into this subject than your willing to admit.
I bring up my experiences because, even though i absolutley hated AA and got nothing from it, i couldnt possibly tell someone else not to try something that might remove them from the gell that is their day to day life as an addict, especially after seeing so many people that it has worked for.
Is it anecdotal? Yes. Is it a small percentage? Probably, i dont know. Regardless, for that tiny percentage, its a god send, and no amouny of cold hard math is going to tell me that they shouldnt have the opportunity to choose that program if it works for them.
Addiction medicine isnt an absolute science yet; everyone is different and everone has different needs as everyones reason for addiction is different.
Let them choose. Let THEM find a program, a reason for sobriety, instead of telling them 'you shouldnt try that because it doesnt work for that many people'.
No one is advocating AA as the only thing that works, or even that it should be a 1st line treatment... just thay it DOES work for many addicts and it deserves to remain for that simple fact. Just because something isnt highly successful does not mean it doesnt have its place.
Anyway, were going to have to agree to disagree.
The first thing I want you to do is point out to me where I said I disliked AA because of the spirituality piece? Once you can present that to me, I will answer you. But I think youre lying and putting words into my mouth to make me appear "emotional" regarding this topic. Once you start to lie to make yourself seem right, you've already shown that it would be impossible to have any type of serious conversation with you.
-
The first thing I want you to do is point out to me where I said I disliked AA because of the spirituality piece? Once you can present that to me, I will answer you. But I think youre lying and putting words into my mouth to make me appear "emotional" regarding this topic. Once you start to lie to make yourself seem right, you've already shown that it would be impossible to have any type of serious conversation with you.
Its all over many threads, every time something involved in sprituality comes up, you express your opinion on how you vehemently disagree with anything that involvss spirituality, as it functions as a crutch. Hell, in this thread alone, youve made a couple comments on your dislike of spirituality.
Now, you are correct when you said you never put the actual words of your oersonal opinion on spirituality together with AA.
But cmon man, you make you opinion on spirituality very well known on getbig, and its disengenous to try and state that your opinion on it has nothing to do with this issue at hand, when that very fact is so closely tied in with AA, as Adam has brought up several times.
-
Thats pure shit. That is putting alcoholism on some sort of pedestal and casting you as the weakling. By doing so, I could see human nature overriding and wanting it even more. What a joke.
It's exactly what they're doing. You are powerless because you have a "disease," the story goes. Whatever psychology is behind it, it does seem to work for many who "surrender."
-
Its all over many threads, every time something involved in sprituality comes up, you express your opinion on how you vehemently disagree with anything that involvss spirituality, as it functions as a crutch. Hell, in this thread alone, youve made a couple comments on your dislike of spirituality.
Now, you are correct when you said you never put the actual words of your oersonal opinion on spirituality together with AA.
But cmon man, you make you opinion on spirituality very well known on getbig, and its disengenous to try and state that your opinion on it has nothing to do with this issue at hand, when that very fact is so closely tied in with AA, as Adam has brought up several times.
Oh really? Well, did you know that I work with many religious/spiritual people every day? In fact, I promote their spirituality and religion. But you didn't know that about me. So, maybe you should just shut the fuck up on what you do and do not know about me ;)
I can easily express my disdain for spirituality/religion on a message board; however, how I present in real life is much different.
I do not care that AA is spiritual. I only care that is has a poor success rate. If there was a treatment available that was evidence based and was spiritual, I would have no problem with it.
-
I can easily express my disdain for spirituality/religion on a message board;
Thanks for proving my point.
Your disdain is the only rhing that matters, hiding it in public doesnt change your opinion on it.
Regardless, as i said originally, i may or may not be right, but i think it plays more of a role than youre willing to admit.
-
It's exactly what they're doing. You are powerless because you have a "disease," the story goes. Whatever psychology is behind it, it does seem to work for many who "surrender."
I didn`t call it that and no, it does not work for many. It fails for 95 percent of the people who attend. 3/4ths who show up for the first time, don`t even bother coming back.
-
Oh really? Well, did you know that I work with many religious/spiritual people every day? In fact, I promote their spirituality and religion. But you didn't know that about me. So, maybe you should just shut the fuck up on what you do and do not know about me ;)
I can easily express my disdain for spirituality/religion on a message board; however, how I present in real life is much different.
I do not care that AA is spiritual. I only care that is has a poor success rate. If there was a treatment available that was evidence based and was spiritual, I would have no problem with it.
oh, and fyi, i never pretended to be Mr. Objective.
Ive only maintained the same point -
it works for people that have had no other success'. Let them have it.
-
Thanks for proving my point.
Your disdain is the only rhing that matters, hiding it in public doesnt change your opinion on it.
Regardless, as i said originally, i may or may not be right, but i think it plays more of a role than youre willing to admit.
I didnt prove your point at all. No, it doesn't change my opinion, but it does show that I can compartmentalize different facets of my self. I can put aside my disdain for religion when I work with others and look at evidence. However, I can bring that disdain back up when I need to. Its called being an adult and being able to show different self-states according to the context.
When I am being objective and looking at evidence, I put my disdain aside and look at the data. Same when I work with others. Thus, I am able to alter my opinion on religion/spirituality when I need to, i.e., when that specific context presents itself. Similarly, when looking at the data for AA, it is clear it is highly ineffective.
By the way, I have referred people for spiritual guidance.
-
no one is arguing that it should be the primary treatment.
What im saying, over and over, is that a lot of these people have NOTHING and AA is the only thing they can grab onto to give them something to move forward for.
For many of these addicts, with no families, no homes, they have literally NOTHING, they find sanctuary with AA.
And there are plenty of people who AA is the only thing theyve found that works.
Let them have it. Its their life, its taken them from a hell im pretty sure neither of you understand to something that they can actually move forward from.
Thats the whole point. It DOES help these people, and we have no right to tell them that they shouldnt go along with whatever it is that got them straight.
Everyone has to find their own path home from addiction. If AA works for them, great. Let them have it. Theres no reason to tell them they cant because you dont agree with its message.
You're getting shit on for simply relating your experience, which is exactly the same as mine, down to how neither of us could buy into the process.
-
I didnt prove your point at all. No, it doesn't change my opinion, but it does show that I can compartmentalize different facets of my self. I can put aside my disdain for religion when I work with others and look at evidence. However, I can bring that disdain back up when I need to. Its called being an adult and being able to show different self-states according to the context.
When I am being objective and looking at evidence, I put my disdain aside and look at the data. Same when I work with others. Thus, I am able to alter my opinion on religion/spirituality when I need to, i.e., when that specific context presents itself. Similarly, when looking at the data for AA, it is clear it is highly ineffective.
By the way, I have referred people for spiritual guidance.
hey man, like i said. Were going to have to agree to disagree.
I like you and I dont this bullshit is worth getting upset about, especially, as ive maintained, that I really didnt like AA at all and got nothing out of it.
Lets just let it go, weve both said our peace.
-
You're getting shit on for simply relating your experience, which is exactly the same as mine, down to how neither of us could buy into the process.
So the program was an utter failure. Good to know.
-
hey man, like i said. Were going to have to agree to disagree.
I like you and I dont this bullshit is worth getting upset about, especially, as ive maintained, that I really didnt like AA at all and got nothing out of it.
Lets just let it go, weve both said our peace.
I just find it hard how you can tell me what I am feeling and thinking you're right about my own internal world, when you only know me from a message board? lol. The fact is you do not know how I present in real life, which is the main criteria to judge me on. You can't judge someone off of a message board. But if it makes you feel better to think you know my internal world, then so be it.
-
This is some sick shit:
(http://www.addiction-recovery.com/images/the_twelve_steps.jpg)
-
You're getting shit on for simply relating your experience, which is exactly the same as mine, down to how neither of us could buy into the process.
Yeah, i know, no biggie. Arguing addiction/AA is just like arguing religion.
Hell, ive talked to a couple docs, and even they say there is a huge rift in the medical community over it, that many want to discount the psycholigical/social aspect of it and focus on the cold, hard numbers, and treat it medicinally.
But, it seems, addiction is still an enigma to the medical community, since ir has so many factors that play into it, so they cant really break it down and treat it like they would normal medical or psychological issues.
It encompasses everything and they dont fully understand the whys and the hows beyond the chemical reactions that the drugs have in the brain.
Last time i talked to this one doc in particular (specialized in addiction medicine and travels the country involved in it), he basically said ita still a kind of black art in the medical community and theres a lot of arguing on how best to approach it.
-
I didn`t call it that and no, it does not work for many. It fails for 95 percent of the people who attend. 3/4ths who show up for the first time, don`t even bother coming back.
You're turning it into a semantical pissing contest, when I'm agreeing with you. You said "weakling." That's exactly what they mean when they forego the pejorative for something less insulting, hence "disease."
And it does work for many. Even those who keep relapsing find help again when they return. A lifelong cycle for many. Shockwave knows exactly what he's talking about, ask Wes. Many of these first-timers, who never return, are probably court ordered cases, where the person is attending completely against their will. It never works in those cases, only when someone makes the decision to quit themselves but needs the support.
I've already been overly critical of their cultish methods, as has Shock, but it's you now, and Adonis always has to make it an argument to prove what "morons" we all are. Even when we're mostly on the same f'n side. Amazing.
You win. The floor is yours.
-
I just find it hard how you can tell me what I am feeling and thinking you're right about my own internal world, when you only know me from a message board? lol. The fact is you do not know how I present in real life, which is the main criteria to judge me on. You can't judge someone off of a message board. But if it makes you feel better to think you know my internal world, then so be it.
Im not judging you on shit, i was merely stating that ita human nature to introduce your bias into things even when you try and remain objective. Some people are better at it then others.
You make your disdain of spirituality/religion very clear all over getbig, so why is it a stretch to think that disdain might creep into your opinion on a system BASED around sprituality?
No where was i judging you for your opinion on spirituality, just stating it IS your opinion, stated by you, many times, and its very much tied into the issue at hand, so why would it be hard to believe it may bias your opinion?
I literally said in that post that i may very well be wrong, but i know most people have an extremely hard time separating their views on religion from their views on AA. Doesnt mean youre necessarily doing that, just means its what most people do.
Itd be akin to me trying to be objective when discussing the US military. I can try, but my bias will always creep in the subject in one way or another, as im just too close the the subject.
-
Im not judging you on shit, i was merely stating that ita human nature to introduce your bias into things even when you try and remain objective. Some people are better at it then others.
You make your disdain of spirituality/religion very clear all over getbig, so why is it a stretch to think that disdain might creep into your opinion on a system BASED around sprituality?
No where was i judging you for your opinion on spirituality, just stating it IS your opinion, stated by you, many times, and its very much tied into the issue at hand, so why would it be hard to believe it may bias your opinion?
I literally said in that post that i may very well be wrong, but i know most people have an extremely hard time separating their views on religion from their views on AA. Doesnt mean youre necessarily doing that, just means its what most people do.
Because it doesn't. I told you I work with spiritual/religious people a lot and I keep it in check. If not, I would have been fired long ago. In fact, I work with people from all difference ethnicities, cultures and religious practices. If you choose not to believe this, that is your choice.
And I have no real problem with spirituality, but moreso with religion. There are many ways to be spiritual via yoga, meditation, arts and science.
-
Because it doesn't. I told you I work with spiritual/religious people a lot and I keep it in check. If not, I would have been fired long ago. In fact, I work with people from all difference ethnicities, cultures and religious practices. If you choose not to believe this, that is your choice.
And I have no real problem with spirituality, but moreso with religion. There are many ways to be spiritual via yoga, meditation, arts and science.
Alright man, thats fine. This argument is pointless anyway. Only you know for sure if youre letting it creep in or not, so lets just drop it and move on.
-
Alright man, this argument is pointless. Only you know for sure if youre letting it creep in or not, so lets just drop it and move on.
of course im the only one who knows for sure, well, and my boss.
hey, youre the one who kept going on about how you know my internal world so well, especially from just a message board lol. it was pointless from the get-go to assume you know my internal world from a message board. :-\ :-\
but id be happy to drop it.
-
of course im the only one who knows for sure, well, and my boss.
hey, youre the one who kept going on about how you know my internal world so well, especially from just a message board lol. it was pointless from the get-go to assume you know my internal world from a message board. :-\ :-\
but id be happy to drop it.
Bro, i never pretended to know anything about your personal life, or how you are outside of getbif.
I just took a very clear opinion you expressed on getbig and pointed out that theres a very real possibility that opinion could have tainted your view on the subject we were discussing, since they were so tightly intertwined. Thats it.
Honestly i couldnt even figure out why you were bring up your work or outside life at 1st, I was very confused, my mind never even went there.
-
Bro, i never pretended to know anything about your personal life, or how you are outside of getbif.
I just took a very clear opinion you expressed on getbig and pointed out that theres a very real possibility that opinion could have tainted your view on the subject we were discussing, since they were so tightly intertwined. Thats it.
Honestly i couldnt even figure out why you were bring up your work or outside life at 1st, I was very confused, my mind never even went there.
Because showing that I can separate my disdain for religion from my work, also indicates that I can separate my disdain for religion when evaluating the AA program.
It was meant to be an analogy. I thought the connection was quite clear. Sorry you didn't understand. :-\ :-\
-
Because showing that I can separate my disdain for religion from my work, also indicates that I can separate my disdain for religion when evaluating the AA program.
It was meant to be an analogy. I thought the connection was quite clear. Sorry you didn't understand. :-\ :-\
well i got it after the 2nd post, but the 1st one, i was like 'wtf, i never mentioned how he acts IRL, where is this coming from?' :D
-
well i got it after the 2nd post, but the 1st one, i was like 'wtf, i never mentioned how he acts IRL, where is this coming from?' :D
Fair enough.
-
Lets bring this whole thing back around.
My bet is that AA does nothing for Shizzo given the horrendous success rate.
I think he should use getting in shape instead or something like that. Or if he took up a hobby of some sort.
-
Not interested. I like my synapses the way they are and do not need some chemical to alter them.
Sam Harris sort of recommended LSD. Also said there's almost no one who wouldn't benefit from occasional cannabis use. You seem to like Sam Harris, do you you think his views on drugs are idiotic?
-
No no, animals follow after there kind, noah's ark is real and what happened before the big bang? who made it bang?
My great, great, great*x1000000000000000000000000000 grandpa shot his load and bang, the universe was created.
-
Sam Harris sort of recommended LSD. Also said there's almost no one who wouldn't benefit from occasional cannabis use. You seem to like Sam Harris, do you you think his views on drugs are idiotic?
I stated exactly what I meant. I am happy with my synapses as they are and have no reason to chemically alter them. There is probably a benefit to drinking turpentine in some way, but I am not interested in that either.
-
My great, great, great*x1000000000000000000000000000 grandpa shot his load and bang, the universe was created.
who shot the load that was thus shot by your great grammpy. :P
-
who shot the load that was thus shot by your great grammpy. :P
True Adonis, aka GOD ;)
-
No, you moron, I am speaking objectively because I want on the SAMSHA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices. Go ahead and present your evidence.
Here is a list of 200 evidence based treatments for substance abuse/issues. I believe AA did not even make the list.
http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/SearchResultsNew.aspx?s=b&q=substance%20abuse
Thats why I said I was speaking in general "you moron" I was not addressing the subject at hand. I dont like the AA dogma.
-
Why is anyone critical of someone getting help with alcohol addiction at AA?
-
Why is anyone critical of someone getting help with alcohol addiction at AA?
Would you criticize someone for using blood letting for infections?
-
Would you criticize someone for using blood letting for infections?
How does that relate to someone seeking help with alcohol addiction?
Has blood letting proven to help with infection better than current medicine? Not that I'm aware but despite that I dont understand the connection you're making.
-
How does that relate to someone seeking help with alcohol addiction?
Has blood letting proven to help with infection better than current medicine? Not that I'm aware but despite that I dont understand the connection you're making.
You are equating AA with medicine? that was my point. Will power won't work, faith doesn't work etc it's a biochemical abnormality, most likely fucked up reward processing and elevated glutamate in the Limbic system.
-
You are equating AA with medicine? that was my point. Will power won't work, faith doesn't work etc it's a biochemical abnormality, most likely fucked up reward processing and elevated glutamate in the Limbic system.
That may be true, but there are also numerous environmental factors that can maintain and/or exacerbate an addiction. It may not be the root cause of the addiction, but environmental factors may contribute to the ongoing problem of addiction.
-
That may be true, but there are also numerous environmental factors that can maintain and/or exacerbate an addiction. It may not be the root cause of the addiction, but environmental factors may contribute to the ongoing problem of addiction.
this goes back to my earlier post on the large rift in opinions within the scientific community.
Theres a number of docs that agree with Necrosis, and want to look at it from a strict chemical "what happems in the brain" basis, that the drug activates the reward pathway causing addiction based on the brain wanting that shot of dopamine/serotonin all the time.
However, many other medical professionals argue that the psycholical/social/environmental aspect is being discounted when you try and break it down to a strictly 'by the numbers' approach which is so common in people like Necrosis.
Its a vwry complicated issue and from what ive heard, my own personal experience, and ive read, they dont have a solid grasp on how all these factors play into it, since it varies so wildly from person to person.
I know that when one doc tried the strict 'balance the reward pathway' through medication trick on me, id didnt work. Eventually i would get bored and get high again, even though my system was 'fixed' and functioning normally again.
This is what ive seen from most other addicts as well, theres a lot more to it than just fixing the chemical imbalance.
But, its still hotly debated in the medical field so my views are just anecdotal.
-
this goes back to my earlier post on the large rift in opinions within the scientific community.
Theres a number of docs that agree with Necrosis, and want to look at it from a strict chemical "what happems in the brain" basis, that the drug activates the reward pathway causing addiction based on the brain wanting that shot of dopamine/serotonin all the time.
However, many other medical professionals argue that the psycholical/social/environmental aspect is being discounted when you try and break it down to a strictly 'by the numbers' approach which is so common in people like Necrosis.
Its a vwry complicated issue and from what ive heard, my own personal experience, and ive read, they dont have a solid grasp on how all these factors play into it, since it varies so wildly from person to person.
I know that when one doc tried the strict 'balance the reward pathway' through medication trick on me, id didnt work. Eventually i would get bored and get high again, even though my system was 'fixed' and functioning normally again.
This is what ive seen from most other addicts as well, theres a lot more to it than just fixing the chemical imbalance.
But, its still hotly debated in the medical field so my views are just anecdotal.
I think everything should be looked at. If someone wants to drink or whatever, I do not think any medication will stop them from doing so. If it were me, I would not want any medication that alters my brain in any way. People are not born wanting alcohol. In the end, you can only drink what you can buy or steal or what someone gives you, so don`t do either of those things and don`t hang around those people. :D
-
You are equating AA with medicine? that was my point. Will power won't work, faith doesn't work etc it's a biochemical abnormality, most likely fucked up reward processing and elevated glutamate in the Limbic system.
Not entirely true. Biochemical abnormalities don't force alcohol down one's throat. Certainly may apply to the desire, but the action itself really comes down to nothing BUT willpower.
-
Not entirely true. Biochemical abnormalities don't force alcohol down one's throat. Certainly may apply to the desire, but the action itself really comes down to nothing BUT willpower.
will power worked in my case. Eventually i had to make a choice between my wife, or getting high. I havent touched it since. I tried to replace my old unhealthy addictions with healthy lifestyle changes, exercising, tactical shooting competitions, getting back into hot rods, etc.
I have also seen people who turn to faith, and seen it work for them as well.
Ive seen people have success with most kinds of things, but its usually involves several factors. Rarely have i ever seen anyone simply will power it without making drastic life changes.
-
You are equating AA with medicine? that was my point. Will power won't work, faith doesn't work etc it's a biochemical abnormality, most likely fucked up reward processing and elevated glutamate in the Limbic system.
Let's be clear here....those are your words and that's a connection you're making. Not once did I mention science or faith.
Again, I asked why others are critical of someone seeking help with alcohol addiction at AA?
-
Not entirely true. Biochemical abnormalities don't force alcohol down one's throat. Certainly may apply to the desire, but the action itself really comes down to nothing BUT willpower.
That sucks that you deleted your long post. I thought it relevant to the topic and extremely insightful. Hopefully you put it back up.
-
Let's be clear here....those are your words and that's a connection you're making. Not once did I mention science or faith.
Again, I asked why others are critical of someone seeking help with alcohol addiction at AA?
Check your pms
-
Let's be clear here....those are your words and that's a connection you're making. Not once did I mention science or faith.
Again, I asked why others are critical of someone seeking help with alcohol addiction at AA?
Why am I critical? hasn't adonis already explained that? my point stands, it misses the point of addiction. Even shockwave has unknowingly hinted that he is now addicted to something else, the problem isn't will, or thought, it's biochemical and should be treated as such. nothing wrong with social supports etc but addiction is an illness that many can simply will themselves out of. Am I totally against it? definitely not, however, I think there are alot of better, quicker options. The emotional shit shoudl come after.
-
Why am I critical? hasn't adonis already explained that? my point stands, it misses the point of addiction. Even shockwave has unknowingly hinted that he is now addicted to something else, the problem isn't will, or thought, it's biochemical and should be treated as such. nothing wrong with social supports etc but addiction is an illness that many can simply will themselves out of. Am I totally against it? definitely not, however, I think there are alot of better, quicker options. The emotional shit shoudl come after.
Humans cant be simply reduced to brain processes. Treatment should involve multiple different pathways.
People diagnosed with cancer who attend support groups do better than those who don't. Although the first line of defense against cancer is medicine, the social support is crucial and should not come after medical treatment is complete. It should occur at the same time.
-
Not entirely true. Biochemical abnormalities don't force alcohol down one's throat. Certainly may apply to the desire, but the action itself really comes down to nothing BUT willpower.
I disagree, it will work to switch one addiction to the other, but the behaviour is driven by the brain, you are the brain, the fucked up reward processing remains. You simply try to fill it with "healthier" addictions. There is something wrong in the brain.
-
Why am I critical? hasn't adonis already explained that? my point stands, it misses the point of addiction. Even shockwave has unknowingly hinted that he is now addicted to something else, the problem isn't will, or thought, it's biochemical and should be treated as such. nothing wrong with social supports etc but addiction is an illness that many can simply will themselves out of. Am I totally against it? definitely not, however, I think there are alot of better, quicker options. The emotional shit shoudl come after.
Not really. Im not addicted to any of my current activities, they come and go in my life as i have time or things change.
I said i tried to replace my addiction with healthier activities, which i did.
The people youre talking about pour their entire life into their new addiction, just like they did with drugs, whether it be AA, or working out, or whatever to get their rush.
My point wasnt that i swap one addiction for another obession, it was that you have to find healthy activities to fill the MASSIVE amount of time that used to be spent finding/funding/doing drugs.
People can and DO decide to put it down all the time, and their brain heals over time. Its getting that initial clean time away from the addicion long enough to develop a normal lifestyle thays difficult.
-
That sucks that you deleted your long post. I thought it relevant to the topic and extremely insightful. Hopefully you put it back up.
It was just too much, Adam. And you would've tore me apart mercilessly for that shit, be honest.
-
It was just too much, Adam. And you would've tore me apart mercilessly for that shit, be honest.
That was a sweet meltdown bro.
-
It was just too much, Adam. And you would've tore me apart mercilessly for that shit, be honest.
Why and for what? You were honest and added to the fact that AA was pure shit and is typical of what most people experience.
-
That was a sweet meltdown bro.
It was epic. So glad it wasn't quoted.
-
Why and for what? You were honest and added to the fact that AA was pure shit and is typical of what most people experience.
You've had it in here for me lately, even though I'd been overwhelmingly agreeing with you on most issues. And I might have gone full retard with my personal biz last night. You'd have crucified my fragile ego, wouldn't recover.
Thinking about this shit just reminded me of the hell I endured at the court-mandated recovery program is all, not really AA. AA might be culty nonsense, which it most certainly was for me, but the folks there weren't horrible people, mostly; just sad, weak, lost souls - rock bottom and all that. I went way too far off topic with my rant.
Thanks, though, for not quoting the post.
-
You've had it in here for me lately, even though I'd been overwhelmingly agreeing with you on most issues. And I might have gone full retard with my personal biz last night. You'd have crucified my fragile ego, wouldn't recover.
Thinking about this shit just reminded me of the hell I endured at the court-mandated recovery program is all, not really AA. AA might be culty nonsense, which it most certainly was for me, but the folks there weren't horrible people, mostly; just sad, weak, lost souls - rock bottom and all that. I went way too far off topic with my rant.
Thanks, though, for not quoting the post.
I have? What on earth are you referring to?
-
I have? What on earth are you referring to?
Nevermind. Nothing important.
-
Nevermind. Nothing important.
I always liked your posts so I was kind of wondering what you meant is all.
-
Dude.
Please explain. Your analogy doesn't work, friend. Other possible explanations for life, but none for a book. Agree it probably can never be explained definitively, but the 'Gaps' explanation is no explanation.
It is simple really. Without a poster (you), there would not be posts from your account. Likewise, no life would exist without a God. All other explanations have been thoroughly debunked by modern science.
-
It is simple really. Without a poster (you), there would not be posts from your account. Likewise, no life would exist without a God. All other explanations have been thoroughly debunked by modern science.
You're simply trolling. Because life exists there has to be a creator is just poor logic. And modern science has done anything but debunked other explanations; they overwhelmingly accept them; evolution, for instance, is accepted by and large as fact (as "theory" to a scientist is pretty much the same thing), Even many Christians are warming to the reality of evolution. Of course, science still working on the original source of life, and they may never fully understand it, but your God of the Gaps is an incredibly weak and lazy explanation. If anything, science has come much closer to debunking the need for a creator.
Do you have any idea the percentage of scientists who are atheists? Very high. And the more specialized the science, meaning biologists, physicists, etc. (the higher ups), that percentage gets pretty damn close to 100. Again, horrible analogy, but I'm not here to specifically undermine your faith. Just be honest is all.
-
Because life exists there has to be a creator is just poor logic.
How so? We ever witness life arising from life (Biogenesis). Abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) was debunked ages ago.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
-
How so? We ever witness life arising from life (Biogenesis). Abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) was debunked ages ago.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Abiogenesis was proven with the urey miller experiment. was it how life started on earth? nope, but is shows life can form from basic building blocks. You are out to lunch if you think anything has been debunked lol. You are clearly MCWAY. You have his bullshit approach with spontaneous generation, a long dead concept, along with his bullshit authority argument. I mean a third possibility is that life always existed in the universe? what about reality being a figment of your imagination? what about life being a simulation? are these not possible?
so the only options are a long dead concept not held by many people, that has no bearing on biology today as we know it OR a all powerful sky daddy that goes around creating things which we cannot see, touch or have a shred of evidence for.
Simple minds man.
-
How so? We ever witness life arising from life (Biogenesis). Abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) was debunked ages ago.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
If life requires life in order to exist, mustn't we also conclude, then, that the creator Himself was also created? And His creator, too, ad infinitum? I'm assuming the creationists' reasoning is that God is eternal and therefore requires no creator. If we can accept this possibility, then, and this is my own (possibly naive) proposition: Why, too, can't life, in its most simple carbon-based form - along with the universe - likewise be eternal?
And I'm not discounting the Big Bang, either (which I believe is still the accepted theory by the physicist community), only suggesting an eternal Bang/Crunch cycle which may never be observable or fully understood by the human brain. Yet it still attempts to explain, logically, the origins of time, space, and life without inserting a 'throw in the towel' God Gap conclusion.
I'll fully admit I'm in over my head toying with ideas about the universe on a quantum level and/or the grandest scale of cosmic study, where the astrophysicists hypothesize; but I believe your assertions about abiogenesis (new to my vocabulary) have been reconsidered more recently, just not in language or mathematics I find accessible.
Lastly, your quote by Dr. Wald, although I'll grant he said it, flies in the face of how science and scientists work(s). They are obligated to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead. If the facts suggested a creator, this is the direction they would undoubtedly pursue, as true discovery is what ultimately gets you published and secures grants. The fact that they haven't, and don't, leads me to believe your post contains discrepancies I'm unprepared to challenge.
More personally, if you are as convinced as your post suggests, have you selected a particular God or gods to whom we owe our existence? And if so, how did you arrive at your decision?
Thanks for being civil, btw.
-
everything, everybody dies. Some just die faster than others cause they are weaker. If we dont find any answer to the question WHY, it s simply because there s none. Science killed god, now we re developing substitutes. Family and god, nations disapear, it s the reign of the individual, the egocentric animal. We will produce more and more monsters and increase the odds one s going to kill everyone else.
-
everything, everybody dies. Some just die faster than others cause they are weaker. If we dont find any answer to the question WHY, it s simply because there s none. Science killed god, now we re developing substitutes. Family and god, nations disapear, it s the reign of the individual, the egocentric animal. We will produce more and more monsters and increase the odds one s going to kill everyone else.
Actually not. Violence has dramatically decreased. Today we are living in the most peaceful era ever. You should definitely watch this.
-
Actually not. Violence has dramatically decreased. Today we are living in the most peaceful era ever. You should definitely watch this.
I guess you are discounting the millions in africa who've died from disease and violence in the last few years?
-
I guess you are discounting the millions in africa who've died from disease and violence in the last few years?
He covers that.
-
Abiogenesis was proven with the urey miller experiment. was it how life started on earth? nope, but is shows life can form from basic building blocks. You are out to lunch if you think anything has been debunked lol. You are clearly MCWAY. You have his bullshit approach with spontaneous generation, a long dead concept, along with his bullshit authority argument. I mean a third possibility is that life always existed in the universe? what about reality being a figment of your imagination? what about life being a simulation? are these not possible?
so the only options are a long dead concept not held by many people, that has no bearing on biology today as we know it OR a all powerful sky daddy that goes around creating things which we cannot see, touch or have a shred of evidence for.
Simple minds man.
Actually, Miller and Urey only managed to drive yet more nails into the coffin of evolutionary theory by further shattering the myth of abiogenesis. These articles should prove helpful.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4498&topic=296 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4498&topic=296)
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1040 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1040)
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1037 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1037)
-
Actually, Miller and Urey only managed to drive yet more nails into the coffin of evolutionary theory by further shattering the myth of abiogenesis. These articles should prove helpful.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4498&topic=296 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4498&topic=296)
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1040 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1040)
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1037 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1037)
Ah no they didn't they showed that there is nothing special about life, that the raw materials can produce lifes essential building blocks. It doesn't matter that the climate wasn't correct for earth, the fact that they DID it is the point.
Nice christian websites for science bro, definitely going to read what those guys are saying.
Nice try MCWAY.
-
If life requires life in order to exist, mustn't we also conclude, then, that the creator Himself was also created? And His creator, too, ad infinitum? I'm assuming the creationists' reasoning is that God is eternal and therefore requires no creator. If we can accept this possibility, then, and this is my own (possibly naive) proposition: Why, too, can't life, in its most simple carbon-based form - along with the universe - likewise be eternal?
And I'm not discounting the Big Bang, either (which I believe is still the accepted theory by the physicist community), only suggesting an eternal Bang/Crunch cycle which may never be observable or fully understood by the human brain. Yet it still attempts to explain, logically, the origins of time, space, and life without inserting a 'throw in the towel' God Gap conclusion.
I'll fully admit I'm in over my head toying with ideas about the universe on a quantum level and/or the grandest scale of cosmic study, where the astrophysicists hypothesize; but I believe your assertions about abiogenesis (new to my vocabulary) have been reconsidered more recently, just not in language or mathematics I find accessible.
Lastly, your quote by Dr. Wald, although I'll grant he said it, flies in the face of how science and scientists work(s). They are obligated to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead. If the facts suggested a creator, this is the direction they would undoubtedly pursue, as true discovery is what ultimately gets you published and secures grants. The fact that they haven't, and don't, leads me to believe your post contains discrepancies I'm unprepared to challenge.
More personally, if you are as convinced as your post suggests, have you selected a particular God or gods to whom we owe our existence? And if so, how did you arrive at your decision?
Thanks for being civil, btw.
We know, from science, that the universe had a beginning. Life (God's being) is eternal but physical life is not. So as your computer has to have a manufacturer, even so does the world's biology necessitate a Maker. It is illogical to assert that the cars you see on the road always existed or that your father had no parents or that the universe is infinitely old. Do you know why this is so? Things that came into existence must of course have a cause (just as Getbig posters like yourself are needed in order for there to be posts on Getbig) but the eternal Creator was always already there and thus nothing could have brought about His existence. If you understood the Wald quote I gave you, you should see why it is that many scientists set aside truth, in favour of their atheistic leanings and dogmas. These then are no scientists but charlatans.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3572&topic=56 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3572&topic=56)
-
We know, from science, that the universe had a beginning. Life (God's being) is eternal but physical life is not. So as your computer has to have a manufacturer, even so does the world's biology necessitate a Maker. It is illogical to assert that the cars you see on the road always existed or that your father had no parents or that the universe is infinitely old. Do you know why this is so? Things that came into existence must of course have a cause (just as Getbig posters like yourself are needed in order for there to be posts on Getbig) but the eternal Creator was always already there and thus nothing could have brought about His existence. If you understood the Wald quote I gave you, you should see why it is that many scientists set aside truth, in favour of their atheistic leanings and dogmas. These then are no scientists but charlatans.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3572&topic=56 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3572&topic=56)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-X
-
For me, the actual existence of a Creator is less important than what he does after he created the universe.
Thus, even if the universe was started by a Creator, there is still no evidence that:
1) we need to worship Him
2) that he answers prayers
3) that he sends people to heaven or hell, depending on whether or not they masturbate or have sex before marriage
4) that he is constantly interfering with the affairs of mankind, i.e., helps the giants win a football game when the players pray, but sits idly by while children are raped and tortured.
So even if I granted you the proposition that a Creator exists, you would still need to prove the other 4 points (and MANY MANY more).
Great, a Creator created the universe, now what?
-
visit the geriatric department of any hospital or mental asylum and you ll quickly understand god doesnt exist.
-
visit the geriatric department of any hospital or mental asylum and you ll quickly understand god doesnt exist.
The inmates there say the exact same thing. For real.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-X
Facts are dreadfully inconvenient, aren't they?
-
Facts are dreadfully inconvenient, aren't they?
Yes facts from a christian website, not biased at all. you love that lou pasteur thing, but no one in the right mind supports that notion, nor has it been relevant for a long long time. Abiogenesis is not evolution, thus the pasteur argument, albeit retarded, misses the mark for other reasons.
I find it funny that you get your science from a christian website, really digging deep there buddy.
your posts are laughably stupid. The whole god is eternal argument is absurd, using temporal language to describe the absence of time as if it is an argument.
You are super stupid, super stupid.
-
For me, the actual existence of a Creator is less important than what he does after he created the universe.
Thus, even if the universe was started by a Creator, there is still no evidence that:
1) we need to worship Him
2) that he answers prayers
3) that he sends people to heaven or hell, depending on whether or not they masturbate or have sex before marriage
4) that he is constantly interfering with the affairs of mankind, i.e., helps the giants win a football game when the players pray, but sits idly by while children are raped and tortured.
So even if I granted you the proposition that a Creator exists, you would still need to prove the other 4 points (and MANY MANY more).
Great, a Creator created the universe, now what?
Absentee landlord?
-
Absentee landlord?
Bingo. I think an even more important question to ask is, if a Creator did create the universe, what is his role in human affairs. If we could figure that out (hypothetically speaking), the implications would be tremendous.
-
Bingo. I think an even more important question to ask is, if a Creator did create the universe, what is his role in human affairs. If we could figure that out (hypothetically speaking), the implications would be tremendous.
Zero.
-
Zero.
I agree it is zero.
But if by some chance we are wrong, because we could be wrong (as any atheist would tell you), I'd want to know what His role is in human affairs. And id want to know why he cares about sport teams winning while he lets children get tortured and killed. :-\ :-\ You always see those sport players huddling around and praying for a victory.
-
I agree it is zero.
But if by some chance we are wrong, because we could be wrong (as any atheist would tell you), I'd want to know what His role is in human affairs. And id want to know why he cares about sport teams winning while he lets children get tortured and killed. :-\ :-\ You always see those sport players huddling around and praying for a victory.
Well, both teams usually pray and only one wins, so I can see Him not being bothered by such trivial matters and ignoring those altogether. Never understand the other one, though.
Cancer kid recovers, miracle. Dies = God's will, bigger plan, mysterious ways, or disingenuous praying.
Win/win.
-
Well, both teams usually pray and only one wins, so I can see Him not being bothered by such trivial matters and ignoring those altogether. Never understand the other one, though.
Cancer kid recovers, miracle. Dies = God's will, bigger plan, mysterious ways, or disingenuous praying.
Win/win.
Yes, religious people always hide between, "It was Gods will", when backed into a corner they cannot get out of. Its a very easy way to dismiss the conundrum of an an all-powerful, all-loving God.
-
fact is the white race will disapear first, then all others. It will take time, but it will happen, our specie is condemned, we are designed by the absurd, to fail.
Interesting to read , the end of nietszche who prophetized that after killing god, we would all kill ourselves. Basically after abandoning christianism, humans are led to beleive in atheism and nihilism, or they can embrace other religions like buddhism, islam.
http://blogs.walkerart.org/filmvideo/2012/03/16/the-madness-letters-friedrich-nietzsche-and-bela-tarr/
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_%28book%29
-
fact is the white race will disapear first, then all others. It will take time, but it will happen, our specie is condemned, we are designed by the absurd, to fail.
Interesting to read , the end of nietszche who prophetized that after killing god, we would all kill ourselves. Basically after abandoning christianism, humans are led to beleive in atheism and nihilism, or they can embrace other religions like buddhism, islam.
http://blogs.walkerart.org/filmvideo/2012/03/16/the-madness-letters-friedrich-nietzsche-and-bela-tarr/
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_%28book%29
Nietzsche was a moron with syphilis who was kicked by a horse.
-
We know, from science, that the universe had a beginning.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3572&topic=56 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3572&topic=56)
No we don;t there are multiple theories, one being a multiverse that is eternal and infinite, you are talking out of your ass again. We have defined a singularity which doesn't exist in reality due to us not having the math to describe it, is this the beginning? no one knows.
-
Yes facts from a christian website, not biased at all. you love that lou pasteur thing, but no one in the right mind supports that notion, nor has it been relevant for a long long time. Abiogenesis is not evolution, thus the pasteur argument, albeit retarded, misses the mark for other reasons.
I find it funny that you get your science from a christian website, really digging deep there buddy.
your posts are laughably stupid. The whole god is eternal argument is absurd, using temporal language to describe the absence of time as if it is an argument.
You are super stupid, super stupid.
No we don;t there are multiple theories, one being a multiverse that is eternal and infinite, you are talking out of your ass again. We have defined a singularity which doesn't exist in reality due to us not having the math to describe it, is this the beginning? no one knows.
Typically cosmologists use metaphysical positions such as string theory (which gave way to the multiverse theory) as a method to eliminate any singularity event...not create one. From what I've read the majority of cosmologists and physicists prefer the notion of the eternality of the universe in that has no beginning, singularity or causal event. It simply "is what it is" but is self-sustaining and theoretically regenerative or healing....yet without purpose. Even Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson seemingly concur that the universe is purposeless....a singularity event would substantiate a notion of purpose.
Krauss repeatedly states the following:
The universe is flat.
The universe has zero total energy.
The universe could’ve begun from nothing.
Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is "there had to be". If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you’ll always get something. It’s that simple, but it’s true.
Quantum fluctuations produced the flat universe out of nothing....virtual particles popping in and out of existence. How is this possible? No idea, but we've defined that their nature is to do so.
Within metaphysics the impossible is allowed......better, it's acceptable provided the caveat of "we just haven't discovered the reason yet" or "we don't have the math yet" is applied then all impossibilities are reasonably justified. It's perfectly acceptable to not have an answer, but that can't be the crutch on which the premise is grounded. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows for changes in mass, energy, position, momentum and time that are basically impossible.
In the end, as long as the "singularity event" isn't God all else is justifiably fair game. Just too much accountability appended to that idea.....who needs that noise, right?! Let's concentrate on reasoning that one away, disguised in the noble yet generic endeavour of "the name of science". As long as we define terms and state that things within our metaphysical ideas have been "reasonably observed" all is good and acceptable.
-
Typically cosmologists use metaphysical positions such as string theory (which gave way to the multiverse theory) as a method to eliminate any singularity event...not create one. From what I've read the majority of cosmologists and physicists prefer the notion of the eternality of the universe in that has no beginning, singularity or causal event. It simply "is what it is" but is self-sustaining and theoretically regenerative or healing....yet without purpose. Even Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson seemingly concur that the universe is purposeless....a singularity event would substantiate a notion of purpose.
Krauss repeatedly states the following:
The universe is flat.
The universe has zero total energy.
The universe could’ve begun from nothing.
Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is "there had to be". If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you’ll always get something. It’s that simple, but it’s true.
Quantum fluctuations produced the flat universe out of nothing....virtual particles popping in and out of existence. How is this possible? No idea, but we've defined that their nature is to do so.
Within metaphysics the impossible is allowed......better, it's acceptable provided the caveat of "we just haven't discovered the reason yet" or "we don't have the math yet" is applied then all impossibilities are reasonably justified. It's perfectly acceptable to not have an answer, but that can't be the crutch on which the premise is grounded. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows for changes in mass, energy, position, momentum and time that are basically impossible.
In the end, as long as the "singularity event" isn't God all else is justifiably fair game. Just too much accountability appended to that idea.....who needs that noise, right?! Let's concentrate on reasoning that one away, disguised in the noble yet generic endeavour of "the name of science". As long as we define terms and state that things within our metaphysical ideas have been "reasonably observed" all is good and acceptable.
string theory is not metaphysical, real math and predictions are made.
-
string theory is not metaphysical, real math and predictions are made.
traditional math (advanced yet traditional) and predictions are also used in metaphysical scenarios.
what do you mean by "real math"?
what are the predictions?
what are the predictions compared against?
-
Did we find out if god exists yet?
-
Did we find out if god exists yet?
told you a long time ago he does LOL
-
traditional math (advanced yet traditional) and predictions are also used in metaphysical scenarios.
what do you mean by "real math"?
what are the predictions?
what are the predictions compared against?
serious question?
real math in the way a singularity is not.
Metaphysical things can be tested experimentally? any examples? are you talking about theoretical physics?
-
serious question?
real math in the way a singularity is not.
Metaphysical things can be tested experimentally? any examples? are you talking about theoretical physics?
String theory is considered theoretical when it attempts to unify the natural world, but when it attempts to eliminate a singularity event (or invent one) it degrades into metaphysics (ex: multiverse theory). It's "science's" attempt at engaging and justifying the transcendent yet making every effort to negate the problem of God. The problem is scientific methods are incompatible with the transcendant yet ironically are demanded to be forcefit into discussions of spirituality. Natural methods can't measure or replicate supernatural properties (God). Since God stands outside the natural, testable, observable world he must be approached on his terms as set forth in scripture. Either you are willing and desire to do so or you aren't and don't. You don't demand things of God, you willfully submit to him....that's when he reveals himself......on his terms, not the world's.
So again, from a metaphysical perspective:
what do you mean by "real math"?
what are the predictions?
what are the predictions compared against?
I'm not cornering you, I'm just asking questions.
-
String theory is considered theoretical when it attempts to unify the natural world, but when it attempts to eliminate a singularity event (or invent one) it degrades into metaphysics (ex: multiverse theory). It's "science's" attempt at engaging and justifying the transcendent yet making every effort to negate the problem of God. The problem is scientific methods are incompatible with the transcendant yet ironically are demanded to be forcefit into discussions of spirituality. Natural methods can't measure or replicate supernatural properties (God). Since God stands outside the natural, testable, observable world he must be approached on his terms as set forth in scripture. Either you are willing and desire to do so or you aren't and don't. You don't demand things of God, you willfully submit to him....that's when he reveals himself......on his terms, not the world's.
You are missing my point, there is NO SUCH THING AS A SINGULARITY, it is a failure of our observations and mathematics. I got raped on this years ago on a cosmology board, it's a simplified account of the math. We can eliminate the god of bible straight away imo.
So again, from a metaphysical perspective:
what do you mean by "real math"?
what are the predictions?
what are the predictions compared against?
I'm not cornering you, I'm just asking questions.
ed whitten for example condensed the dimensions to 11, using mathematics that can be used to make predictions about these dimensions, this is what I am referring to as real math, not elegant numbers with no bearing on reality, several theoretical theories, like loop quantum gravity have been accused of elegant solutions with no applicability.
If you know about string theory I am unsure why you are asking about the predictions. It also depends on which theory you are talking about, there are several, however, super symmetry is one prediction,string harmonics (untestable currently), phase energy and eternal inflation in areas of vaccum ie the expansion of space and the curvature of it, gravitational lensing etc. there are many more but again that's neither here no there, because to be honest, neither one of us is equipped to understand it truly.
We need a better particle accelerator. However, it's laughable to compare string theory to god, one makes sense the other does not. The bible is clearly written by a human or humans, where is god now? could we get some updated info?
-
String theory is considered theoretical when it attempts to unify the natural world, but when it attempts to eliminate a singularity event (or invent one) it degrades into metaphysics (ex: multiverse theory).
what are the predictions compared against?
I'm not cornering you, I'm just asking questions.
again, incorrect, multiverse theory has predictions unlike your god.
-
Ignorance of History is strong in this thread.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg/240px-Lemaitre.jpg)
Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic Priest, was the originator of what would become known as the "Big Bang Theory".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
-
Ignorance of History is strong in this thread.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg/240px-Lemaitre.jpg)
Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic Priest, was the originator of what would become known as the "Big Bang Theory".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
There is nothing wrong with being religious and scientific, however, you can't let it interfere with your science. If this guy for example said "then the planck epoch begins and boom god did it" it wouldn't be taken seriously. Nor does the fact that he is religious add any strength to the case for god, there is no connection. Hitler could have came up with the theory, it wouldn't mean the nazis were right.
-
There is nothing wrong with being religious and scientific, however, you can't let it interfere with your science. If this guy for example said "then the planck epoch begins and boom god did it" it wouldn't be taken seriously. Nor does the fact that he is religious add any strength to the case for god, there is no connection. Hitler could have came up with the theory, it wouldn't mean the nazis were right.
The thread is about Pope Francis saying the Big Bang is real. This is ancient news as you can see...as if a Christian shouldn't accept or say something like that.
-
Nietzsche was a moron with syphilis who was kicked by a horse.
What's your excuse, fucktard? Got assfucked by a strap-on dipped in AIDS and powered by a sHe-beast dressed as your mother disguised as your father pretending to be the Flying Nun or what? Surely something traumatic happened to turn you into a quivering bloblet of a bitter little man.
No one, not a one of us knows how this all happened, much less how it all really started. It's all a guess, some more educated than a great many others. But I can tell you how it will all end.
We die. Then, and it is only a maybe, will we know. Or not. I prefer not to worry. I will know nothing. I will know peace. I will know more. Who knows? As a friend was used to saying, only the dead know and they're not talking.
STFU TA you cancerous lesion.
-
The thread is about Pope Francis saying the Big Bang is real. This is ancient news as you can see...as if a Christian shouldn't accept or say something like that.
so you also accept evolution?
-
so you also accept evolution?
We (all living creatures) are all a variation on a theme, albeit a variety of themes if you will. If someone chooses not to accept that theory I have nothing against them. Why should I? Unless they're like those sub-human muslims they're not going to do any harm to me or mine with their faith in a God or gods. Or turtles for that matter.
Yeah. It's turtles all the way down.
-
so you also accept evolution?
(http://badassmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/not-again.jpg)
-
We (all living creatures) are all a variation on a theme, albeit a variety of themes if you will. If someone chooses not to accept that theory I have nothing against them. Why should I? Unless they're like those sub-human muslims they're not going to do any harm to me or mine with their faith in a God or gods. Or turtles for that matter.
Yeah. It's turtles all the way down.
The only issue I have with someone not accepting something (especially a theory with overwhelming evidence) is the dumbing down of America. I mean, what's next? Are people going to start to disregard all scientific theory because those scientists are "evil" and are involved in a huge, major conspiracy? Look at the south. The southern states tend to be the states that are filled with most uneducated people. And there is a strong connection between the south and disregard for science (especially among really strict conservatives). This is a major problem. I am not saying we have to accept every scientific theory because science is about PROGRESS. But you have to trust the scientific process. This whole world is science. Everything we have done (most every thing), good or bad, is because of science. So while people are free to believe what they want to believe, there needs to be a better balance between ones subjective (what I want to believe is true) and objective (what in fact is true) reality.
Cheers. :) :)
-
Fuck the catholic church. I have no respect for them.
-
The only issue I have with someone not accepting something (especially a theory with overwhelming evidence) is the dumbing down of America. I mean, what's next? Are people going to start to disregard all scientific theory because those scientists are "evil" and are involved in a huge, major conspiracy? Look at the south. The southern states tend to be the states that are filled with most uneducated people. And there is a strong connection between the south and disregard for science (especially among really strict conservatives). This is a major problem. I am not saying we have to accept every scientific theory because science is about PROGRESS. But you have to trust the scientific process. This whole world is science. Everything we have done (most every thing), good or bad, is because of science. So while people are free to believe what they want to believe, there needs to be a better balance between ones subjective (what I want to believe is true) and objective (what in fact is true) reality.
I agree completely. The only thing faith can provide is hope of more. Nothing wrong with that. Excepting the outlook of True Adonis as of late I find him to be a total fucktard and more than worthy of my feeble ire. ;D
I digress. Again, I agree completely with you. Science can be good. It can also be used to lie (just as religion can and has been used). I find Climate Change to be a total canard and its proponents (or at least the vocal and (in)famous ones to be jackasses of the worst kind. They remind me of that turd Joel Osteen. Made of shit and full of themselves.
I apologize if I am overstepping the boundaries of good taste where you and a few others here are concerned by friend.
Be well.
-
I agree completely. The only thing faith can provide is hope of more. Nothing wrong with that. Excepting the outlook of True Adonis as of late I find him to be a total fucktard and more than worthy of my feeble ire. ;D
I digress. Again, I agree completely with you. Science can be good. It can also be used to lie (just as religion can and has been used). I find Climate Change to be a total canard and its proponents (or at least the vocal and (in)famous ones to be jackasses of the worst kind. They remind me of that turd Joel Osteen. Made of shit and full of themselves.
I apologize if I am overstepping the boundaries of good taste where you and a few others here are concerned by friend.
Be well.
The issue is this: There have been many pastors and many scientists who have lied. There have been scientists who falsify data to receive more grant or to try and prove their theory. For example, the psychiatrist that initially published the study about autism and vaccines. He totally falsified data. Similarly, there are many preachers who lie about numerous things also (they lie and disregard scientific theory to promote their religion, which leads to people handing their money to them).
I am a strong proponent of science because it does A LOT more good than bad. Besides the climate change, look at all the good science has done, especially with technology and medicine. Just walk through a hospital and look at all the machines people are hooked up to. Not to mention our computers, cars, phones, etc. It is endless.
So, it is worrisome that there is a disregarding of science for creationism. You can teach creationism if you want, but NEVER at the expense of science. The problem is that its hardly ever easy to teach creationism and science together. Both sides want it their way, or no way at all. I, personally do not think that creationism should be taught in science class, because as you said, its Faith. If people gain strength and hope from their religion, I am fine with that. But no way should it ever replace science.
-
The issue is this: There have been many pastors and many scientists who have lied. There have been scientists who falsify data to receive more grant or to try and prove their theory. For example, the psychiatrist that initially published the study about autism and vaccines. He totally falsified data. Similarly, there are many preachers who lie about numerous things also (they lie and disregard scientific theory to promote their religion, which leads to people handing their money to them).
I am a strong proponent of science because it does A LOT more good than bad. Besides the climate change, look at all the good science has done, especially with technology and medicine. Just walk through a hospital and look at all the machines people are hooked up to. Not to mention our computers, cars, phones, etc. It is endless.
So, it is worrisome that there is a disregarding of science for creationism. You can teach creationism if you want, but NEVER at the expense of science. The problem is that its hardly ever easy to teach creationism and science together. Both sides want it their way, or no way at all. I, personally do not think that creationism should be taught in science class, because as you said, its Faith. If people gain strength and hope from their religion, I am fine with that. But no way should it ever replace science.
To be honest, science is merely a subset of creationism. Saying that 'there is a disregarding of science for creationism' is akin to saying that 'there is a disregarding of science for science'. This amazing new resource below should shed more light on the truth of creation as laid out in the Bible.
http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels (http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels)
-
good point always enjoy your input brother harridan
-
good point always enjoy your input brother harridan
I'm always glad to be of assistance.
-
(http://badassmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/not-again.jpg)
You realize evolution has far more evidence then the big bang right? it is literally overwhelming and the backbone of all of biology.
I am just saying that if any motive besides factual is keeping you from believing it you are doing yourself a big disservice. You are effectively denying reality in favour of fantasy.
-
You realize evolution has far more evidence then the big bang right? it is literally overwhelming and the backbone of all of biology.
I am just saying that if any motive besides factual is keeping you from believing it you are doing yourself a big disservice. You are effectively denying reality in favour of fantasy.
Very well said
-
You realize evolution has far more evidence then the big bang right? it is literally overwhelming and the backbone of all of biology.
I am just saying that if any motive besides factual is keeping you from believing it you are doing yourself a big disservice. You are effectively denying reality in favour of fantasy.
My best advice is to look into what is actually known. There is no need to take my word for it. However, no. Evolution isn't a 'scientific theory'. It's the antithesis of science, an impediment to science. A scientist cares very much about evidence and the rational evaluation of ideas. To be a evolutionist is to have no interest in evidence, to insist on beliefs in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. You hoped that scientists would be a little more accepting of evolution as it was 'the backbone of all of biology'? It's not reality, Necrosis. It's a myth that was shown not to be true a long time ago.
-
Very well said
Among the most remarkable characteristics of evolutionists is not just how tenaciously they hang onto fallacious beliefs in the face of all facts. It is how, once the absurdity of their claims has been pointed out, rather than climbing out of the hole they have already dug, they double down and dig still deeper. It would be amusing if it weren't so terribly sad.
-
I'm not trying to stir anything here, just a thought. Last night when I was reading my son some of his new Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs (which he is crazy about!) I was reading some of the numbers that the author 'throws' out there like "2 billion years ago this happened" then "40 million years ago, these guys died and then these guys were here etc etc" and I wondered to myself - If evolution is a religious belief, then what the 'believers' were missing was some kind of Holy Text/Authoritative Text. Maybe without even realising it, they wrote their own.
-
I'm not trying to stir anything here, just a thought. Last night when I was reading my son some of his new Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs (which he is crazy about!) I was reading some of the numbers that the author 'throws' out there like "2 billion years ago this happened" then "40 million years ago, these guys died and then these guys were here etc etc" and I wondered to myself - If evolution is a religious belief, then what the 'believers' were missing was some kind of Holy Text/Authoritative Text. Maybe without even realising it, they wrote their own.
Perhaps. You see, science NEVER brings up the 'God does not exist' script. Science has nothing to do with repudiating God. The argument instead is in the opposite direction. Our scientific understanding of how the natural world works reveals that the universe is divinely guided. Much, if not all, of what people insist on believing ABOUT a hypothetical evolutionary progression is simply not compatible with empirical evidence.
-
Says god isnt a magician. :D
Is Pope Francis related to Bev Francis?
-
Perhaps. You see, science NEVER brings up the 'God does not exist' script. Science has nothing to do with repudiating God. The argument instead is in the opposite direction. Our scientific understanding of how the natural world works reveals that the universe is divinely guided. Much, if not all, of what people insist on believing ABOUT a hypothetical evolutionary progression is simply not compatible with empirical evidence.
Hence why I refer to evolutionists as 'believers' not scientists. The two are not the same thing.
-
My best advice is to look into what is actually known. There is no need to take my word for it. However, no. Evolution isn't a 'scientific theory'. It's the antithesis of science, an impediment to science. A scientist cares very much about evidence and the rational evaluation of ideas. To be a evolutionist is to have no interest in evidence, to insist on beliefs in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. You hoped that scientists would be a little more accepting of evolution as it was 'the backbone of all of biology'? It's not reality, Necrosis. It's a myth that was shown not to be true a long time ago.
you are right, god did it.
-
is it really fair to claim that because evolutionary theory is limited that therefore the bible is correct?
will have to examine this creation dvd miniseries carefully for answers
-
this thread invokes the spirit of st joseph of cupertino
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/San_Giuseppe_da_Copertino_si_eleva_in_volo_alla_vista_della_Basilica_di_Loreto.jpg)
Joseph was beatified in 1753 and canonized in 1763.
He has been declared the patron saint of air travelers, aviators,
astronauts, people with a mental handicap, test takers and poor students.
-
is it really fair to claim that because evolutionary theory is limited that therefore the bible is correct?
will have to examine this creation dvd miniseries carefully for answers
The notion that the evident complexity of the natural world reflects design dates back to ancient times. It is a perfectly logical way to accommodate everyday experience. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being stubborn or rejecting evolution. It is what the evidence shows. To argue that "science is always changing," and can therefore be conveniently dismissed on that basis, is to misrepresent how science works. That the frontiers of science are ephemeral is a strength not a weakness, the working through of competing ideas in search of the correct or best explanation for available facts, the rejection of implausible ideas that turn out not to fit the observations. That is starkly different from ideas such as creation, at the other extreme - rational ideas that have been thoroughly tested over centuries, and that have proven consistent with EVERYTHING we know about biology, genetics, paleontology, Earth science and so forth. The most remarkable thing about science is that it works. Planes fly. Medicines cure. The theory of evolution has not a leg to stand on.
-
The notion that the evident complexity of the natural world reflects design dates back to ancient times. It is a perfectly logical way to accommodate everyday experience. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being stubborn or rejecting evolution. It is what the evidence shows. To argue that "science is always changing," and can therefore be conveniently dismissed on that basis, is to misrepresent how science works. That the frontiers of science are ephemeral is a strength not a weakness, the working through of competing ideas in search of the correct or best explanation for available facts, the rejection of implausible ideas that turn out not to fit the observations. That is starkly different from ideas such as creation, at the other extreme - rational ideas that have been thoroughly tested over centuries, and that have proven consistent with EVERYTHING we know about biology, genetics, paleontology, Earth science and so forth. The most remarkable thing about science is that it works. Planes fly. Medicines cure. The theory of evolution has not a leg to stand on.
you are out to lunch. god is a failed hypothesis and explains nothing. I would never design something this shitty.
-
you are out to lunch. god is a failed hypothesis and explains nothing. I would never design something this shitty.
When all of the facts are on the side of creation, and none in support of evolution, what is an evolutionist to do? Deny, ignore, misrepresent and lie about what is known. Evidence for both the historical fact of creation and the mechanisms by which it occurred are established by mountains of data. That you are unaware of that evidence - or more likely, not interested in becoming informed - is irrelevant.
-
Among the most remarkable characteristics of evolutionists is not just how tenaciously they hang onto fallacious beliefs in the face of all facts. It is how, once the absurdity of their claims has been pointed out, rather than climbing out of the hole they have already dug, they double down and dig still deeper. It would be amusing if it weren't so terribly sad.
Sorry bro, not gonna wind up in an argument over basic biology against magical thinking/wishing. its painful to think in 2014, this "debate" is still out there. This is why other countries are really out shining us in scientific discovery, business, etc,
-
Sorry bro, not gonna wind up in an argument over basic biology against magical thinking/wishing. its painful to think in 2014, this "debate" is still out there. This is why other countries are really out shining us in scientific discovery, business, etc,
Deep breath. This has nothing to do with 'basic biology'. You are merely repeating standard dogma. To what end? What is the basis for supposing that your standard dogma is correct and that everyone else holds 'magical' beliefs? Have you considered the possibility that the development of critical thinking skills might be more useful than indoctrination? What happens when the received wisdom that you choose to impart is contradicted by new information?
-
The notion that the evident complexity of the natural world reflects design dates back to ancient times. It is a perfectly logical way to accommodate everyday experience. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being stubborn or rejecting evolution. It is what the evidence shows. To argue that "science is always changing," and can therefore be conveniently dismissed on that basis, is to misrepresent how science works. That the frontiers of science are ephemeral is a strength not a weakness, the working through of competing ideas in search of the correct or best explanation for available facts, the rejection of implausible ideas that turn out not to fit the observations. That is starkly different from ideas such as creation, at the other extreme - rational ideas that have been thoroughly tested over centuries, and that have proven consistent with EVERYTHING we know about biology, genetics, paleontology, Earth science and so forth. The most remarkable thing about science is that it works. Planes fly. Medicines cure. The theory of evolution has not a leg to stand on.
what was sir isaac newton smoking when he said this?
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[6]
:o
-
Deep breath. This has nothing to do with 'basic biology'. You are merely repeating standard dogma. To what end? What is the basis for supposing that your standard dogma is correct and that everyone else holds 'magical' beliefs? Have you considered the possibility that the development of critical thinking skills might be more useful than indoctrination? What happens when the received wisdom that you choose to impart is contradicted by new information?
Im the indoctrinated one? I studied life sciences for my degree.
Your right, "god" did it. God works in mysterious ways. You win.
To add to your point, sure, show me proof of a god or gods and id gladly accept. Infact, I hope there is as that would be cool as shit
-
That you are unaware of that evidence - or more likely, not interested in becoming informed - is irrelevant.
Most aren't unfortunately. There is quite a bit of talk of media bias in what they choose to portray on this forum by many but when it comes to this matter very few take the initiative to actually look at "facts"/what data is most likely to support, etc.
-
The notion that the evident complexity of the natural world reflects design dates back to ancient times. It is a perfectly logical way to accommodate everyday experience. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being stubborn or rejecting evolution. It is what the evidence shows. To argue that "science is always changing," and can therefore be conveniently dismissed on that basis, is to misrepresent how science works. That the frontiers of science are ephemeral is a strength not a weakness, the working through of competing ideas in search of the correct or best explanation for available facts, the rejection of implausible ideas that turn out not to fit the observations. That is starkly different from ideas such as creation, at the other extreme - rational ideas that have been thoroughly tested over centuries, and that have proven consistent with EVERYTHING we know about biology, genetics, paleontology, Earth science and so forth. The most remarkable thing about science is that it works. Planes fly. Medicines cure. The theory of evolution has not a leg to stand on.
You have big words and sound clever - but you're still deluded.
-
my personal feeling is the bible contains some truth but its puzzling to decipher.
The individual who created it seems to have been motivated by certain agendas.
nobody wants to admit what the druids were doing in the basement of the cathedrals.
look at the scandals with the vatican these days.
these fellows are not to be trusted.
-
You have big words and sound clever - but you're still deluded.
brother harridan is at his best in this mode :D
-
Im the indoctrinated one? I studied life sciences for my degree.
Your right, "god" did it. God works in mysterious ways. You win.
To add to your point, sure, show me proof of a god or gods and id gladly accept. Infact, I hope there is as that would be cool as shit
What can I say? Please pick up a book, and become better informed about the rudiments of creation (and science more generally).
http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels
-
What can I say? Please pick up a book, and become better informed about the rudiments of creation (and science more generally).
http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels
Bible education vs. life science/biology degree....hmmm, nah im good. Thanks though.
Nice source from creation.com lol
-
You have big words and sound clever - but you're still deluded.
The most remarkable thing about creation denialists is not just that they're wrong or hopelessly ignorant or determined to misrepresent science after it has been pointed out repeatedly that they're misrepresenting science, or even that they are committed to demonstrably false beliefs that apparently make them feel better about themselves and the circumstances of their lives. It is that for whatever combination of reasons they have no interest in discovering that they might be wrong. So they pass up every opportunity to learn for themselves that their perception of reality is imaginary. And they hide behind disdain, crude insults and ad hominem attacks because that is all they have left – an observation that they will now reinforce with fresh attacks.
-
The most remarkable thing about creationists is not just that they're wrong or hopelessly ignorant or determined to misrepresent science after it has been pointed out repeatedly that they're misrepresenting science, or even that they are committed to demonstrably false beliefs that apparently make them feel better about themselves and the circumstances of their lives. It is that for whatever combination of reasons they have no interest in discovering that they might be wrong. So they pass up every opportunity to learn for themselves that their perception of reality is imaginary. And they hide behind disdain, crude insults and ad hominem attacks because that is all they have left – an observation that they will now reinforce with fresh attacks.
Fixed. your not so different than us who feel differently. Your just on the other side of the fence. That same paragraph can be totally applied to you and others.
-
The most remarkable thing about creation denialists is not just that they're wrong or hopelessly ignorant or determined to misrepresent science after it has been pointed out repeatedly that they're misrepresenting science, or even that they are committed to demonstrably false beliefs that apparently make them feel better about themselves and the circumstances of their lives. It is that for whatever combination of reasons they have no interest in discovering that they might be wrong. So they pass up every opportunity to learn for themselves that their perception of reality is imaginary. And they hide behind disdain, crude insults and ad hominem attacks because that is all they have left – an observation that they will now reinforce with fresh attacks.
You sound like you're cherry picking - It's hard I know - everything they taught you about god is a lie and you can't handle it.
-
Bible education vs. life science/biology degree....hmmm, nah im good. Thanks though.
Nice source from creation.com lol
Good grief. Almost all, if not all, of the writers to be found on that website to which I referred you are PhD holders. There is an excellent reason why those who are educated, who have completed graduate school, who are well grounded in science, or who are in fact scientists accept creationism. It currently holds the only plausible explanation for the diversity of life and for a highly resolved fossil record. All forms of evolutionist mythology are known to be incompatible with that same evidence. Again, it is rather clear that you would benefit from picking up a book - though I do not think that you are in the least interested in becoming better informed. Facts are dreadfully inconvenient, aren't they?
-
this so called debate is characteristic of a false dichotomy
my understanding is that evolution doesn't adequately account for gaps and leaps in species development
what is the anthropological antecedent of something like industrialization?
why is a crocodile the same its been for millions of years?
-
Good grief. Almost all, if not all, of the writers to be found on that website to which I referred you are PhD holders. There is an excellent reason why those who are educated, who have completed graduate school, who are well grounded in science, or who are in fact scientists accept creationism. It currently holds the only plausible explanation for the diversity of life and for a highly resolved fossil record. All forms of evolutionist mythology are known to be incompatible with that same evidence. Again, it is rather clear that you would benefit from picking up a book - though I do not think that you are in the least interested in becoming better informed. Facts are dreadfully inconvenient, aren't they?
Again, insert yourself into this paragraph you wrote and it applies to you. I dont care if you pick up a book or not. You were raised on this stuff from a young age and could be smacked in the face with scientific discoveries and never budge on your dark aged belief structure. The difference here is, show me proof of a god and I will glady be pumped an excited. You on the other hand, would never accept hardcore science, as you can always disprove by saying "god works in mysterious ways". Its the total "trump card".
-
Good grief. Almost all, if not all, of the writers to be found on that website to which I referred you are PhD holders. There is an excellent reason why those who are educated, who have completed graduate school, who are well grounded in science, or who are in fact scientists accept creationism. It currently holds the only plausible explanation for the diversity of life and for a highly resolved fossil record. All forms of evolutionist mythology are known to be incompatible with that same evidence. Again, it is rather clear that you would benefit from picking up a book - though I do not think that you are in the least interested in becoming better informed. Facts are dreadfully inconvenient, aren't they?
Stop being arrogant and provide evidence for what you are saying. Creationism is NOT accepted as mainstream science - I don't believe that for one second - show me the evidence.
-
You sound like you're cherry picking - It's hard I know - everything they taught you about god is a lie and you can't handle it.
Among the essential characteristics of scientists: an ability to evaluate evidence. A characteristic of evolutionists is an inclination to ignore evidence. Those behaviours are incompatible. I understand from what you write that you yourself are generally ignorant of the basis for creation. That of course has no bearing on the reality of the science. Your ill-considered mention of God is a red herring that has nothing to do with our scientific understanding of how creation occurred. I recommend picking up a book. There are several authoritative summaries aimed at non-scientists.
-
this so called debate is characteristic of a false dichotomy
my understanding is that evolution doesn't adequately account for gaps and leaps in species development
what is the anthropological antecedent of something like industrialization?
why is a crocodile the same its been for millions of years?
You don't seem to understand evolution.
Evolution explains the mechanism - just like physics can explain the mechanism for the functioning of a car.
The specifics for any given situation require more detailed information - the gaps don't disprove evolution - they just tell us we don't have all the information.
Why does there need to be an antecedent for industrialization?
Crocodiles are a "successful" species - natural selection means that they are fit to the purpose they hold in the eco-system - why should they need to evolve if they already fit their niche and have for millions of years.
-
Again, insert yourself into this paragraph you wrote and it applies to you. I dont care if you pick up a book or not. You were raised on this stuff from a young age and could be smacked in the face with scientific discoveries and never budge on your dark aged belief structure. The difference here is, show me proof of a god and I will glady be pumped an excited. You on the other hand, would never accept hardcore science, as you can always disprove by saying "god works in mysterious ways". Its the total "trump card".
Neither of your latest posts makes any sense. So I encourage you to look into what is known about creation using the sources recommended.
-
Among the essential characteristics of scientists: an ability to evaluate evidence. A characteristic of evolutionists is an inclination to ignore evidence. Those behaviours are incompatible. I understand from what you write that you yourself are generally ignorant of the basis for creation. That of course has no bearing on the reality of the science. Your ill-considered mention of God is a red herring that has nothing to do with our scientific understanding of how creation occurred. I recommend picking up a book. There are several authoritative summaries aimed at non-scientists.
Concrete - it's strong and makes a good foundation, both in science and construction. Where is your concrete evidence?
-
Crocodiles are a "successful" species - natural selection means that they are fit to the purpose they hold in the eco-system - why should they need to evolve if they already fit their niche and have for millions of years.
Your issue is not that you know nothing about evolution - though your knowledge is admittedly paltry. It is that you stray away from what is known to make assertions about evolution for which there is no evidence. Denial, misrepresentation, quote mining, straw men and sophomoric insults don't constitute an argument.
-
Your issue is not that you know nothing about evolution - though your knowledge is admittedly paltry. It is that you stray away from what is known to make assertions about evolution for which there is no evidence. Denial, misrepresentation, quote mining, straw men and sophomoric insults don't constitute an argument.
OK - you're just a troll - with clever words. You have provide no arguments and no concrete evidence of anything. That is why science ultimately rejects your viewpoint.
-
OK - you're just a troll - with clever words. You have provide no arguments and no concrete evidence of anything. That is why science ultimately rejects your viewpoint.
Why you are so fearful of 'science' only you can know. But it's really simple. Some of us have a lot of trouble believing stuff on the basis of authority, in the absence of evidence, and particularly when beliefs are contradicted by evidence. That's much of what evolutionists insist on believing by the way. There is no evidence AGAINST science. How could there be evidence against reality?
-
Neither of your latest posts makes any sense. So I encourage you to look into what is known about creation using the sources recommended.
What do you not follow? Your posts are just filled with telling people they dont understand. What are you missing here? Insert a "creationist" into all of your rants instead of "evolutionists" and your tired argument will apply either way. Your just on the other side of the spectrum. not willing or even capable to agree even in the slightest.
Not hating here, but were you homeschooled? Im honestly curious
-
You don't seem to understand evolution.
Evolution explains the mechanism - just like physics can explain the mechanism for the functioning of a car.
The specifics for any given situation require more detailed information - the gaps don't disprove evolution - they just tell us we don't have all the information.
Why does there need to be an antecedent for industrialization?
Crocodiles are a "successful" species - natural selection means that they are fit to the purpose they hold in the eco-system - why should they need to evolve if they already fit their niche and have for millions of years.
industrialization is pretty impressive. I don't see it much with other primate species so I'm curious to know where it came from.
like yo say seems to be another mechanism a work here or we've got part of the anthropological story wrong.
my feeling is we are missing about half the story.
-
industrialization is pretty impressive. I don't see it much with other primate species so I'm curious to know where it came from.
like yo say seems to be another mechanism a work here or we've got part of the anthropological story wrong.
my feeling is we are missing about half the story.
Well beavers make pretty impressive damns - there are probably other examples of "technology" being used by other animals, just nothing as impressive as industrialization.
-
You don't seem to understand evolution.
Huge surprise.
YOUR CHALLENGE: In the so-called evolutionary process, what exactly 'evolves'?
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain why many dominant species on Earth went non-evolved for tens of millions of years.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain how the eye evolved, from what state, and what was its prior purpose.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain the evolution of the Sexual Reproductive system, also, that of the heart.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain why, over millions of years, evolution happened with some apes but not others.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
You are a right old droll.
-
brother harridan is at his best in this mode :D
The best way to demonstrate that evolutionist dogma is intellectually bankrupt is to allow an evolutionist to hold forth. Every post reinforces that conclusion.
-
Well beavers make pretty impressive damns - there are probably other examples of "technology" being used by other animals, just nothing as impressive as industrialization.
we dont really know where anything impressive comes from if you start to think about it.
a very curious situation!
-
What do you not follow? Your posts are just filled with telling people they dont understand. What are you missing here? Insert a "creationist" into all of your rants instead of "evolutionists" and your tired argument will apply either way. Your just on the other side of the spectrum. not willing or even capable to agree even in the slightest.
Not hating here, but were you homeschooled? Im honestly curious
Why? Because the historical fact of creation doesn't depend on whether you are curious, honestly or otherwise. It depends on evidence. Talk about red herrings. The some-scientists-do-not-have-any-kind-of-religion-therefore-ANY-beliefs-are-OK argument. You guys are endlessly amusing.
-
The best way to demonstrate that evolutionist dogma is intellectually bankrupt is to allow an evolutionist to hold forth. Every post reinforces that conclusion.
find this thread highly amusing, thanks again for you efforts brother
-
evolution does not explain much but religious institutions are rotten almost universally
that pretty much leaves us staring out into space
anybody out there?
-
Huge surprise.
YOUR CHALLENGE: In the so-called evolutionary process, what exactly 'evolves'?
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain why many dominant species on Earth went non-evolved for tens of millions of years.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain how the eye evolved, from what state, and what was its prior purpose.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain the evolution of the Sexual Reproductive system, also, that of the heart.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
YOUR CHALLENGE: Explain why, over millions of years, evolution happened with some apes but not others.
EVO's ANSWER: "Your ignorance about what evolution actually is won't make evolution go away."
You are a right old droll.
Again you have not provided concrete evidence - you've just said - these things can't be explained.
There was a pretty good discourse of the evolution of the eye - looking at a more primitive snail/slug eye and how it could have evolved to a full fledged eye - obviously you're not familiar with it.
-
what was sir isaac newton smoking when he said this?
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[6]
:o
Atheism was punishable by death at the time.
-
Again you have not provided concrete evidence - you've just said - these things can't be explained.
There was a pretty good discourse of the evolution of the eye - looking at a more primitive snail/slug eye and how it could have evolved to a full fledged eye - obviously you're not familiar with it.
Strange fellow. There is a difference, is there not, between the promotion of evolutionist ignorance and objecting, by the promotion of science and reason, to evolutionist ignorance. So reference to the supposed evolution of the eye is nothing more than another factually challenged red herring. My role as an educator is not to indoctrinate, but to inspire the acquisition of critical thinking skills. Evolution, in contrast, is about the preservation of dogma in the face of all evidence to the contrary. There is no symmetry.
-
Atheism was punishable by death at the time.
It still is.
-
It still is.
Maybe if you live in some backwater Islamic shithole but the civilized world has moved onto a more enlightened state.
-
Strange fellow. There is a difference, is there not, between the promotion of evolutionist ignorance and objecting, by the promotion of science and reason, to evolutionist ignorance. So reference to the supposed evolution of the eye is nothing more than another factually challenged red herring. My role as an educator is not to indoctrinate, but to inspire the acquisition of critical thinking skills. Evolution, in contrast, is about the preservation of dogma in the face of all evidence to the contrary. There is no symmetry.
Hey - look I'm no expert. But obviously neither are you. You've claimed the following "gaps" in evolution because you don't think they can be explained and based on that you are saying creation is real.
Here is a wikipedia entry for you (they're trolls as well obviously): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)
-
Hey - look I'm no expert. But obviously neither are you. You've claimed the following "gaps" in evolution because you don't think they can be explained and based on that you are saying creation is real.
Here is a wikipedia entry for you (they're trolls as well obviously): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)
I am an expert. Wikipedia is irrelevant, primarily because it cannot be verified. It's a decoy. What CAN be tested is what Genesis claims to be true. But why bother with facts when you have denial?
-
I am an expert. Wikipedia is irrelevant, primarily because it cannot be verified. It's a decoy. What CAN be tested is what Genesis claims to be true. But why bother with facts when you have denial?
I'm not denying creation - I'm simply saying I don't know - just like evolutionary scientists do. You're the one saying "it's creation now move along".
So tell me troll what of Genesis is true?
-
Atheism was punishable by death at the time.
Newton was raised Anglican but did not believe in the trinity so he's described as an Arian.
He had to conceal his movement away from the Anglicans but he was not athiest.
He studied the bible very seriously.
Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. (newton)
-
I'm not denying creation - I'm simply saying I don't know - just like evolutionary scientists do. You're the one saying "it's creation now move along".
So tell me troll what of Genesis is true?
All of it.
-
Newton was raised Anglican but did not believe in the trinity so he's described as an Arian.
He had to conceal his movement away from the Anglicans but he was not athiest.
He studied the bible very seriously.
Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. (newton)
I did not say he was an atheist. That's not the point.
The bottom line is Newton was afraid to present his true views on religion because of the repercussion that would have resulted. He would have been branded a heretic. This is not my opinion, this is well established by people who study Newton's life professionally. None of his "very serious studies of the bible" were published in his lifetime. People that like to hold up Newton as some sort of paragon of Christian Science are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb.
-
All of it.
OK - you're no expert and have no idea and you are a troll.
-
OK - you're no expert and have no idea and you are a troll.
Why is it that evolutionists always end up in denial? Well, it must be dreadfully tiresome to have to deal with facts that get in the way of what you believe. So let's do that reality check, shall we? The facts don't go away just because you happen not to be interested in them.
-
People that like to hold up Newton as some sort of paragon of Christian Science are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb.
Are they?
-
I did not say he was an atheist. That's not the point.
The bottom line is Newton was afraid to present his true views on religion because of the repercussion that would have resulted. He would have been branded a heretic. This is not my opinion, this is well established by people who study Newton's life professionally. None of his "very serious studies of the bible" were published in his lifetime. People that like to hold up Newton as some sort of paragon of Christian Science are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb.
you seem to have strong feelings about this
perhaps you can clarify the meaning of the quote about the motion of planets.
I must have misunderstood
-
you seem to have strong feelings about this
perhaps you can clarify the meaning of the quote about the motion of planets.
I must have misunderstood
I can't explain it any simpler than I already have so I'm afraid you must fall in the "just plain dumb" category.
-
I can't explain it any simpler than I already have so I'm afraid you must fall in the "just plain dumb" category.
Huge surprise. You have returned to my list of strategies adopted by atheists when deeply held evolutionist beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence.
Point 1: "Deny or ignore the evidence".
Point 2: "Complain that creationists never provide the evidence, as if one’s personal ignorance were somehow the responsibility of others."
Point 3: "Refuse to consult any and all sources of legitimate factual information, even when references are supplied."
Point 5: "Misrepresent both the science and the evidence on which it is based, either deliberately or through a failure to understand. Make liberal use of red herrings, straw men and non sequiturs. Never deviate from one's atheist stance, no matter how many times factual corrections are received."
Point 14: "If all fails, resort to insults."
-
Huge surprise. You have returned to my list of strategies adopted by atheists when deeply held evolutionist beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence.
Point 1: "Deny or ignore the evidence".
Point 2: "Complain that creationists never provide the evidence, as if one’s personal ignorance were somehow the responsibility of others."
Point 3: "Refuse to consult any and all sources of legitimate factual information, even when references are supplied."
Point 5: "Misrepresent both the science and the evidence on which it is based, either deliberately or through a failure to understand. Make liberal use of red herrings, straw men and non sequiturs. Never deviate from one's atheist stance, no matter how many times factual corrections are received."
Point 14: "If all fails, resort to insults."
I'm pretty sure Pope Francis is smarter than you - both in bible study and evolution. You need to sort him out bro.
-
I'm pretty sure Pope Francis is smarter than you - both in bible study and evolution. You need to sort him out bro.
The Pope adopts what I call the fudge: special pleading that allows him not to contradict the Scripture that he knows and at the same time to claim some sort of evolutionary role for which there isn't actually any evidence. The reality, of course, is that the fudge doesn't work. Pope Francis is merely having trouble following the evidence to its logical conclusion. I understand that everyone suffers from the same human frailties. Pontiffs are human too. Unlike you, I am an expert. Unlike you, I don't need to rely on fact-twisting in an intellectual vacuum. PLEASE, go find out what you are missing. This is my last response until you have done that.
http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels
-
Next you'll be telling me the earth is flat.
-
Huge surprise. You have returned to my list of strategies adopted by creationists when deeply held bible beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence.
Point 1: "Deny or ignore the evidence".
Point 2: "Complain that science never provide the evidence, as if one’s personal ignorance were somehow the responsibility of others."
Point 3: "Refuse to consult any and all sources of legitimate factual information, even when references are supplied."
Point 5: "Misrepresent both the science and the evidence on which it is based, either deliberately or through a failure to understand. Make liberal use of red herrings, straw men, and phrases like "god works in mysterious ways". Never deviate from one's biblical stance, no matter how many times factual corrections are received."
Point 14: "If all fails, resort to insults."
Fixed this for you bro. We are very alike. Just flipped atheist for creationist. Pretty easy.
Can you post more links from creation.com as evidence? it had so many non-biased PhDs, was great. Must be true! Mega lol. Isn't that the same place that is still writing articles about pieces of "Noahs Ark" in some mountain chain...?
When you find a source from Nature or BIO or other routine and respected scientific publication of peer reviewed work, let me know.
As you mentioned already, you seem to know more about evolution than myself and the Pope and other NIH scientists. You got it all solved bro. Maybe I should home school my kids so they become as intelligent as you. Im being serious. I want my children to grow up hella smart like you since you are so educated in the sciences. Let me know where your degree is and what your background is because you figured it all out!
-
Fixed this for you bro. We are very alike. Just flipped atheist for creationist. Pretty easy.
Can you post more links from creation.com as evidence? it had so many non-biased PhDs, was great. Must be true! Mega lol. Isn't that the same place that is still writing articles about pieces of "Noahs Ark" in some mountain chain...?
When you find a source from Nature or BIO or other routine and respected scientific publication of peer reviewed work, let me know.
As you mentioned already, you seem to know more about evolution than myself and the Pope and other NIH scientists. You got it all solved bro. Maybe I should home school my kids so they become as intelligent as you. Im being serious. I want my children to grow up hella smart like you since you are so educated in the sciences. Let me know where your degree is and what your background is because you figured it all out!
Science doesn't depend on wild distortions and ad hominem fallacies. It depends upon the careful evaluation of evidence. There is, however, no point bothering with evidence incompatible with your beliefs, is there?
-
Science doesn't depend on wild distortions and ad hominem fallacies. It depends upon the careful evaluation of evidence. There is, however, no point bothering with evidence incompatible with your beliefs, is there?
Correct. Just like all the literature in Nature in BIO, wouldnt change your opinion. Creation.com and the bible is all the research you need
-
Correct. Just like all the literature in Nature in BIO, wouldnt change your opinion. Creation.com and the bible is all the research you need
You are in deep denial. You are raising issues that were resolved many decades ago. So you have a choice (other than parroting the posts of individuals for whom you harbour deep admiration). You can remain ignorant or you can pick up a book. For an accessible yet authoritative summary, I recommend Jonathan Sarfati's comprehensive refutation of Richard Dawkins. A few bucks from Amazon.com. My expectation: you will choose to remain ignorant. There is no point in dissevering fact from fiction, is there?
-
You are in deep denial. You are raising issues that were resolved many decades ago. So you have a choice (other than parroting the posts of individuals for whom you harbour deep admiration). You can remain ignorant or you can pick up a book. For an accessible yet authoritative summary, I recommend Jonathan Sarfati's comprehensive refutation of Richard Dawkins. A few bucks from Amazon.com. My expectation: you will choose to remain ignorant. There is no point in dissevering fact from fiction, is there?
Lets keep playing this game. You will remain ignorant as well and parrot your own dogma from the few odd balls with PhDs who think they know the "real truth". Quit convincing yourself that you are the righteous one here. You refuse to accept the other side as well. It is cute as fuck how you read one book from creation.com and think your an expert now on the concept of evolution. I dont even claim to be an expert in evolution. Ive read quite a few rebuttals to evolution. None of them held much weight. As Im sure you feel the same way about articles you read from Dawkins.
The glaring issue with your trolling here is, you are using a pro-christianity source as your proof to counter evolution theory. Find a rebuttal from a secular source if you want to change opinions. Www.creation.com,
i mean come on son, thats just embarrassing. Is that how home school debates are won? Posting proof from an obviously slanted source? Wow
-
Lets keep playing this game. You will remain ignorant as well and parrot your own dogma from the few odd balls with PhDs who think they know the "real truth". Quit convincing yourself that you are the righteous one here. You refuse to accept the other side as well. It is cute as fuck how you read one book from creation.com and think your an expert now on the concept of evolution. I dont even claim to be an expert in evolution. Ive read quite a few rebuttals to evolution. None of them held much weight. As Im sure you feel the same way about articles you read from Dawkins.
The glaring issue with your trolling here is, you are using a pro-christianity source as your proof to counter evolution theory. Find a rebuttal from a secular source if you want to change opinions. Www.creation.com,
i mean come on son, thats just embarrassing. Is that how home school debates are won? Posting proof from an obviously slanted source? Wow
You're not actually interested in answers to any of your questions, are you? I have already recommended a source that provides the answers. I recognize that facts are dreadfully inconvenient for you.
-
You're not actually interested in answers to any of your questions, are you? I have already recommended a source that provides the answers. I recognize that facts are dreadfully inconvenient for you.
Creation.com is not a secular unbiased source, please try again troll.
-
Creation.com is not a secular unbiased source, please try again troll.
As anticipated, you're not in the least interested in becoming better informed. Among the most common characteristics of evolutionists. Once more. Evolution is a figment of your imagination. It didn't happen. The extent to which well established biology must be contorted and misrepresented to justify such an event is, frankly, absurd.
-
if anthropology was a tunnel the creation truck would be driving through it right now.
what is this bullshit?
some British guy found the "missing link" and everyone believed it for 50 years :o
turned out "piltdown man" was "the greatest hoax in scientific history"
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/
take it up with the natural history museum!!!!!!!!!
-
As anticipated, you're not in the least interested in becoming better informed. Among the most common characteristics of evolutionists. Once more. Evolution is a figment of your imagination. It didn't happen. The extent to which well established biology must be contorted and misrepresented to justify such an event is, frankly, absurd.
rOfl, damn. Uber troll. Creation.com, LOL!
-
rOfl, damn. Uber troll. Creation.com, LOL!
That doesn't even make any sense. You seem determined to demonstrate that you are a nutcase. How is it possible for someone to be quite so ignorant and out of touch with reality? Winter?
-
I don`t have to. You make the claim it exists, you have to prove it.
Kinda like your physique and your pictures.
Where is the proof that there's no God?
-
Where is the proof that there's no God?
Where is the proof that there is no floating lawnmowers winning Mr. Olympia titles and cooking Shrimp in 24 Karat gold Stock Pots?
Tell me that?
-
Where is the proof that there is no floating lawnmowers winning Mr. Olympia titles and cooking Shrimp in 24 Karat gold Stock Pots?
Tell me that?
The statement strikes me as yet another bold assertion without firm basis. The huge leap to the possibility of 'floating lawnmovers' being able to 'win titles' and 'cook Shrimp' is a non sequitur so absurd that there is no need to deal with it.
-
Where is the proof that there's no God?
How do you define proof?
-
Today I say "meh" to these threads LOL.
-
The statement strikes me as yet another bold assertion without firm basis. The huge leap to the possibility of 'floating lawnmovers' being able to 'win titles' and 'cook Shrimp' is a non sequitur so absurd that there is no need to deal with it.
You can`t prove they don`t exist, so therefore it might be true. Right?
-
You can`t prove they don`t exist, so therefore it might be true. Right?
Good grief. Like clockwork. Round and around in circles. Apparently you failed to read my post addressing this.
-
Good grief. Like clockwork. Round and around in circles. Apparently you failed to read my post addressing this.
You can`t prove that it doesn`t exist though.
Why not?
-
You can`t prove that it doesn`t exist though.
Why not?
Can't I? It makes no sense to talk about the rejection of propositions unsupported by evidence, does it?
-
Can't I? It makes no sense to talk about the rejection of propositions unsupported by evidence, does it?
Where is your proof that it doesn`t exist?
-
Where is your proof that it doesn`t exist?
Irrelevant. Truly irrelevant. You are grasping at straws. Talk about missing the point entirely.
-
That doesn't even make any sense. You seem determined to demonstrate that you are a nutcase. How is it possible for someone to be quite so ignorant and out of touch with reality? Winter?
Using creation.com as a source for your whacky argument is no different than using a MuscleTech ad in a magazine for proof that muscleTech supplements are the best at growing muscle compared to all other supps. Of course its going to be pro-muscletech.
Its cute how you dont understand this. Homeschool does not do favors kids, remember that.
-
Using creation.com as a source for your whacky argument is no different than using a MuscleTech ad in a magazine for proof that muscleTech supplements are the best at growing muscle compared to all other supps. Of course its going to be pro-muscletech.
Its cute how you dont understand this. Homeschool does not do favors kids, remember that.
False analogy. Not to mention an argument from incredulity fallacy. What is an evolutionist to do when facts get in the way? Moreover, there are countless sources (apart from the website I recommended) that back me. Then again, you aren't interested in answers, are you?
-
False analogy. Not to mention an argument from incredulity fallacy. What is an evolutionist to do when facts get in the way? Moreover, there are countless sources that back me. Then again, you aren't interested in answers, are you?
Facts? lol! Stop trolling bro. My analogy is spot on. Evolution debunking from creation.com.
Hahahha doesnt get much better than that dude
-
Facts? lol! Stop trolling bro. My analogy is spot on. Evolution debunking from creation.com.
Hahahha doesnt get much better than that dude
Again, you miss the point. A person who is unable to review representative evidence/arguments for the historical fact of creation, and understand why that is the best established ideas in all of science, has no capacity for thinking scientifically. The latter is a VERY serious shortcoming for any person who expects to function in today's world. You seem incapable of rational thought. A conclusion, not an assumption.
-
Again, you miss the point. A person who is unable to review representative evidence/arguments for the historical fact of creation, and understand why that is the best established ideas in all of science, has no capacity for thinking scientifically. The latter is a VERY serious shortcoming for any person who expects to function in today's world. You seem incapable of rational thought. A conclusion, not an assumption.
Your right bro, i lack critical thinking. My life science degree was bullshit. Your right, God did it. Cant believe I wasted my parents money. Next time Ill just read creation.com and go to church and i will know everything about biology like you.
Would be so funny if it was "proven" that aliens seeded the planet or some other alternate theory. You would still have this fringe group of jesus trolls like you saying that god was some how still involved. Mega lol. Super easy explanation "god works in mysterious ways" lol
-
Your right bro, i lack critical thinking. My life science degree was bullshit. Your right, God did it. Cant believe I wasted my parents money. Next time Ill just read creation.com and go to church and i will know everything about biology like you.
Would be so funny if it was "proven" that aliens seeded the planet or some other alternate theory. You would still have this fringe group of jesus trolls like you saying that god was some how still involved. Mega lol. Super easy explanation "god works in mysterious ways" lol
The Vatican has had contact with ETs.. or so is rumoured. No Disrespect to the Catholics on here. There are films i posted on the UFO thread which have very believable evidence that the Vatican takes this very seriously.
-
Just an opinion and not attacking anyone.
-
Your right bro, i lack critical thinking. My life science degree was bullshit. Your right, God did it. Cant believe I wasted my parents money. Next time Ill just read creation.com and go to church and i will know everything about biology like you.
Would be so funny if it was "proven" that aliens seeded the planet or some other alternate theory. You would still have this fringe group of jesus trolls like you saying that god was some how still involved. Mega lol. Super easy explanation "god works in mysterious ways" lol
Your comments through several rounds are almost scripted, so closely do evolutionists hold to the party line. It would be amusing if it weren't quite so sad. You picked up evolution nonsense in college, and assume on that basis that you know everything there is to know about biology. The possibility that an expert might know a thing or two about science never crosses your mind. Who would use biased websites as a reference point? You're kidding, right? How about armies of atheists like yourself fed nonsense by slick websites and charlatan 'preachers' like Mr. Dawkins? It is rather clear just where the bias lies.
"We take the side of science in spite of the
patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite
of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises
of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated justso
stories, because we have a prior commitment,
a commitment to materialism. It is not that the
methods and institutions of science somehow compel us
to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we
are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and
a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter
how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow
a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, Evolutionist
-
Again, you miss the point. A person who is unable to review representative evidence/arguments for the historical fact of creation, and understand why that is the best established ideas in all of science, has no capacity for thinking scientifically. The latter is a VERY serious shortcoming for any person who expects to function in today's world. You seem incapable of rational thought. A conclusion, not an assumption.
the fact that we can determine that some things are created and others not for example a painting on a beach or even a watch indicates that somethings are not created, otherwise what criteria are you using? said another way, if you find a watch on a beach you can conclude it was created, and by logical extension the beach was not.
Every creation argument is weak, never evolving only getting in the way of reality, it dismisses progress, it purports to have the conclusion before the facts are even in, a intellectually weak method of thinking.
-
the fact that we can determine that some things are created and others not for example a painting on a beach or even a watch indicates that somethings are not created, otherwise what criteria are you using? said another way, if you find a watch on a beach you can conclude it was created, and by logical extension the beach was not.
Every creation argument is weak, never evolving only getting in the way of reality, it dismisses progress, it purports to have the conclusion before the facts are even in, a intellectually weak method of thinking.
Once again, Necrosis, you are wrong. A creationist isn't weighing evidence and reaching a different conclusion. A creationist follows the evidence to its logical conclusion. To be an evolutionist, on the other hand, is to systematically ignore, deny, misrepresent and lie about evidence. In short it is to be the antithesis of everything that is needed to be effective as a scientist or engineer. Evolution has nothing whatever to do with skepticism. You haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Sorry. Please pick up a book, and become acquainted with the facts. You’re thrashing around in a vacuum.
-
Your comments through several rounds are almost scripted, so closely do evolutionists hold to the party line. It would be amusing if it weren't quite so sad. You picked up evolution nonsense in college, and assume on that basis that you know everything there is to know about biology. The possibility that an expert might know a thing or two about science never crosses your mind. Who would use biased websites as a reference point? You're kidding, right? How about armies of atheists like yourself fed nonsense by slick websites and charlatan 'preachers' like Mr. Dawkins? It is rather clear just where the bias lies.
"We take the side of science in spite of the
patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite
of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises
of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated justso
stories, because we have a prior commitment,
a commitment to materialism. It is not that the
methods and institutions of science somehow compel us
to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we
are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and
a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter
how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow
a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, Evolutionist
Find the post where i said im far from an expert on evolution. Shows how much you read and comprehend...
more trolling from a delusional neo-con. You have all the answers. "God did it"
-
I suspect Ron Harrigan's mother participated in the center of "The Big Bang".
-
Yawn, more trolling from a delusional neo-con.
Why is it that so many atheist zealots turn out to be irrational nutjobs? You are the latest. Your core claim involves 'trolling' and other such bunkum. I had the temerity to suggest that you might benefit from discovering what science was -and recommended a couple of authoritative sources for that purpose. There is nothing that upsets an evolutionist more than facts.
-
Why is it that so many atheist zealots turn out to be irrational nutjobs? You are the latest. Your core claim involves 'trolling' and other such bunkum. I had the temerity to suggest that you might benefit from discovering what science was -and recommended a couple of authoritative sources for that purpose. There is nothing that upsets an evolutionist more than facts.
Nothing funnier than a churchy neo-con using the term "facts" in argument and recommending creation.com as a source
-
Nothing funnier than a churchy neo-con using the term "facts" in argument.
Argument from incredulity fallacy. A clear Fail. Please read Sarfati (or any comparable source). I cannot open the mind of someone who refuses to take responsibility for his own education.
-
Argument from incredulity fallacy. A clear Fail. Please read Sarfati (or any comparable source). I cannot open the mind of someone who refuses to take responsibility for his own education.
"I cannot open the mind of someone who refuses to take responsibility for his own education"
Totally agree, back at you. We done here yet troll?
-
Once again, Necrosis, you are wrong. A creationist isn't weighing evidence and reaching a different conclusion. A creationist follows the evidence to its logical conclusion. To be an evolutionist, on the other hand, is to systematically ignore, deny, misrepresent and lie about evidence. In short it is to be the antithesis of everything that is needed to be effective as a scientist or engineer. Evolution has nothing whatever to do with skepticism. You haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Sorry. Please pick up a book, and become acquainted with the facts. You’re thrashing around in a vacuum.
ok the modern backbone of biology isn't science got it, genetics is not science, got it. you are a brutal troll due to the fact that you are too hardcore with the creationist thing. which books would you recommend? "why are there still monkeys?" or "If unsure, god did it", which would you recommend for those unable to see this self evident truth.
-
Why is it that so many atheist zealots turn out to be irrational nutjobs? You are the latest. Your core claim involves 'trolling' and other such bunkum. I had the temerity to suggest that you might benefit from discovering what science was -and recommended a couple of authoritative sources for that purpose. There is nothing that upsets an evolutionist more than facts.
ahahahahah authoritative sources lololo. Fuckers are selling shit on their website, real professional and scientific. I wonder why they are doing that? probably because no one with a brain believes in their fantasy and they couldn't pass peer review if their life depended on it.
you and kent hovind would be good friends.
-
Argument from incredulity fallacy. A clear Fail. Please read Sarfati (or any comparable source). I cannot open the mind of someone who refuses to take responsibility for his own education.
you cannot debunk science using feelings, you seem to be lost on this. Thought is not a good way to determine truth, experiment is, unfortunately you can;t test your god hypothesis, hence it's failure.
-
"I cannot open the mind of someone who refuses to take responsibility for his own education"
Totally agree, back at you. We done here yet troll?
Yes. And you will continue to 'stick to it' until you take the trouble to discover for yourself what you are missing.
-
you cannot debunk science using feelings, you seem to be lost on this. Thought is not a good way to determine truth, experiment is, unfortunately you can;t test your god hypothesis, hence it's failure.
Can't I? As if reality were invalidated by your personal ignorance.
-
ahahahahah authoritative sources lololo. Fuckers are selling shit on their website, real professional and scientific. I wonder why they are doing that? probably because no one with a brain believes in their fantasy and they couldn't pass peer review if their life depended on it.
you and kent hovind would be good friends.
Any and all hypotheses of evolution are incompatible with everything we have learned through science about the natural world and how that world functions. The only way to preserve an atheistic mindset is to deny, ignore, misrepresent or lie about what is known. Your response will inevitably fit within that spectrum.
-
Creationism starts with the assertion that god is real and he did create the universe. From that initial assertion they search only for evidence that supports that assertion. No effort is made to disprove their assertion.
Science will may well begin with a hypothesis but the merit of the hypothesis is dependent on corroborating evidence and contrary evidence. A hypothesis is always are or should be tentative and are assertions. Science actively tries to disprove an assertion.
I would argue that the social sciences don't employ as rigid methodologies as the hard sciences. Take what is produced by the social sciences with a grain of salt.
-
ok the modern backbone of biology isn't science got it, genetics is not science, got it. you are a brutal troll due to the fact that you are too hardcore with the creationist thing. which books would you recommend? "why are there still monkeys?" or "If unsure, god did it", which would you recommend for those unable to see this self evident truth.
The 'modern backbone of biology'? Genetics? It is truly hard to fathom that someone could be quite so dense and out of touch with reality. The theory of evolution is naturalist mythology, long since eclipsed by scientific discovery. There is no need, nor any point, trying to merge that story with science. You don't need answers to random questions. You need an education. Were you interested in becoming informed rather than merely scoring points, you would take the trouble to pick up a book. But you don't have the guts to discover that you are wrong, do you?
-
Yes. And you will continue to 'stick to it' until you take the trouble to discover for yourself what you are missing.
Yep, as will you. Keep going self righteous troll
-
ahahahahah authoritative sources lololo. Fuckers are selling shit on their website, real professional and scientific. I wonder why they are doing that? probably because no one with a brain believes in their fantasy and they couldn't pass peer review if their life depended on it.
you and kent hovind would be good friends.
Exactly, that was his source. He also just told me to look at some guy as saratofi or soemthing, his wiki page says hes a young earth creationist. Totally unbiased and peer reviewed im sure lol
-
Creationism starts with the assertion that god is real and he did create the universe. From that initial assertion they search only for evidence that supports that assertion. No effort is made to disprove their assertion.
Science will may well begin with a hypothesis but the merit of the hypothesis is dependent on corroborating evidence and contrary evidence. A hypothesis is always are or should be tentative and are assertions. Science actively tries to disprove an assertion.
I would argue that the social sciences don't employ as rigid methodologies as the hard sciences. Take what is produced by the social sciences with a grain of salt.
The good news when it comes to the fact of creation is that there isn't any contrary evidence. None. Meanwhile, in marked contrast to creation, belief in evolution is supported by no evidence, and it’s incompatible with virtually everything we have learned through genetics, biology, ecology, paleontology and Earth science. I recommend this ground-breaking, exhaustive resource.
http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels
-
Exactly, that was his source. He also just told me to look at some guy as saratofi or soemthing, his wiki page says hes a young earth creationist. Totally unbiased and peer reviewed im sure lol
You don't get it, do you? Go pick up a book. Find out what science is, and (most important) the basis for creationism. Evolutionists all duck and weave the same way. I'm not playing that game. If you prefer to remain in denial, that's your call. [I don't need to prove anything. I'm an expert. You know what an expert is, right?]
-
The good news when it comes to the fact of creation is that there isn't any contrary evidence. None. Meanwhile, in marked contrast to creation, belief in evolution is supported by no evidence, and it’s incompatible with virtually everything we have learned through genetics, biology, ecology, paleontology and Earth science. I recommend this ground-breaking, exhaustive resource.
http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels
logic is contrary to god unfortunately, it's a failed hypothesis for the lazy who can't make sense of the world. if this world is intelligently created then I am smarter then god. For example, why do we eat and breath through the same hole? dolphins don't. This fact (brilliant engineering) means people will choke to death trying to eat, it's stupid. Which fits the premise more, that an all powerful god did this for some mysterious reason or evolution is imperfect hence the fuck ups.
are you an expert in creationism? lol. I love the link also, scientists hate him, find out the evolutionists one weakness.
-
You don't get it, do you? Go pick up a book. Find out what science is, and (most important) the basis for creationism. Evolutionists all duck and weave the same way. I'm not playing that game. If you prefer to remain in denial, that's your call. [I don't need to prove anything. I'm an expert. You know what an expert is, right?]
Creation.com, rofl! Still awaiting your peer reviewed, non biased sources
-
logic is contrary to god unfortunately, it's a failed hypothesis for the lazy who can't make sense of the world. if this world is intelligently created then I am smarter then god. For example, why do we eat and breath through the same hole? dolphins don't. This fact (brilliant engineering) means people will choke to death trying to eat, it's stupid. Which fits the premise more, that an all powerful god did this for some mysterious reason or evolution is imperfect hence the fuck ups.
are you an expert in creationism? lol. I love the link also, scientists hate him, find out the evolutionists one weakness.
So much confusion. So little time. The place to begin is with the source provided in the preceding posts or any of a number of excellent books on creationism. It isn't productive to offer opinion when you know so little. And no, logic has no conflict with truth.
-
logic is contrary to god unfortunately, it's a failed hypothesis for the lazy who can't make sense of the world. if this world is intelligently created then I am smarter then god. For example, why do we eat and breath through the same hole? dolphins don't. This fact (brilliant engineering) means people will choke to death trying to eat, it's stupid. Which fits the premise more, that an all powerful god did this for some mysterious reason or evolution is imperfect hence the fuck ups.
are you an expert in creationism? lol. I love the link also, scientists hate him, find out the evolutionists one weakness.
This ron fellow is like one of those nuts living in the hills, saying god told him to stock pile ammo and guns to fight the devil and await for jesus to return. You ever see Kevin Smith's Red State movie?
-
The UFO phenomenon is real. Disclosure will happen in our life times. The Churches know where the "angels" came from. Catholic and Prodistant.
-
Creation.com, rofl! Still awaiting your peer reviewed, non biased sources
No one is playing the 'scientist' card. I am merely encouraging you, and a great many others, to take the trouble to find out what science is. It is hard to imagine that creation denialists continue to fight a rearguard action at this site as if there were anything to debate. There isn't. No really, there isn't.
-
No one is playing the 'scientist' card. I am merely encouraging you, and a great many others, to take the trouble to find out what science is. It is hard to imagine that creation denialists continue to fight a rearguard action at this site as if there were anything to debate. There isn't. No really, there isn't.
I studied "science" for my degree, i already told you that. I guess creation.com is all the info i needed.
-
So much confusion. So little time. The place to begin is with the source provided in the preceding posts or any of a number of excellent books on creationism. It isn't productive to offer opinion when you know so little. And no, logic has no conflict with truth.
you seem unable to articulate your point, generally that indicates you have no idea, your trolling is boring. Say something interesting at least.
-
you seem unable to articulate your point, generally that indicates you have no idea, your trolling is boring. Say something interesting at least.
Yes. We know that you are confused. It is utterly inconceivable, to you, that the fact of creation could be veridic. So you grasp at every straw to justify the imaginary world that you have constructed with strawmen akin to the one offered here. Yes. The scientific frontiers have to do with the arcane details of how creation occurred (and yet occurs), not with whether it occurred. It is hard to imagine that you can so consistently miss that distinction. Nothing in anything we understand about science is compatible with any form of evolutionary hypothesis. You appear not to grasp that either.
-
I dont think ive ever interacted with someone who has no college degree or traditional high school for that matter, yet with such a level of arrogance , and self righteousness about them and their ideas. Its pretty amazing. Also someone who still doesn't understand that a site called creation.com is not neutral and unbiased.
-
I studied "science" for my degree, i already told you that. I guess creation.com is all the info i needed.
Sorry, Thong Maniac: You're nothing of the sort. A person with any of the qualifications you claim wouldn't make the kinds of assertions you make in the disparaging language that you adopt. So please. Pick up a book and discover for yourself what you are missing. Ignorance can be fixed. Wilful ignorance – and lying and projecting and plagiarising – are just sad.
-
I would love to hear this free thinker and over all master of sciences opinion on gay people. Im sure that will be a mega-lol eye opening conversation as well
-
Also someone who still doesn't understand that a site called creation.com is not neutral and unbiased.
And we're back to our friend Lewontin. Huge surprise. It is rather clear where the bias lies, and whose sources are biased.
"We take the side of science in spite of the
patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite
of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises
of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated justso
stories, because we have a prior commitment,
a commitment to materialism. It is not that the
methods and institutions of science somehow compel us
to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we
are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and
a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter
how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow
a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, Evolutionist
-
Sorry, Thong Maniac: You're nothing of the sort. A person with any of the qualifications you claim wouldn't make the kinds of assertions you make in the disparaging language that you adopt. So please. Pick up a book and discover for yourself what you are missing. Ignorance can be fixed. Wilful ignorance – and lying and projecting and plagiarising – are just sad.
Lol
-
And we're back to our friend Lewontin. Huge surprise. It is rather clear where the bias lies, and whose sources are biased.
"We take the side of science in spite of the
patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite
of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises
of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated justso
stories, because we have a prior commitment,
a commitment to materialism. It is not that the
methods and institutions of science somehow compel us
to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we
are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and
a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter
how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow
a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, Evolutionist
Again, show me where i used any link or quote in this lil tiff. Of course an evolutionary scientist who writes is biased on the side of evolution. Are you dense? I make no claims to say that guy isnt biased. Again, your argument fails when you cite the bible or creation.com. Show me peer reviewed research from a neutral lab, collaborative, study, etc. thanks...you wont though
-
Lol
That is practically an admission of weeping hereabouts. Facts are dreadfully inconvenient, aren't they?
-
Again, show me where i used any link or quote in this lil tiff. Of course an evolutionary scientist who writes is biased on the side of evolution. Are you dense? I make no claims to say that guy isnt biased. Again, your argument fails when you cite the bible or creation.com. Show me peer reviewed research from a neutral lab, collaborative, study, etc. thanks...you wont though
I am just baffled that you continue with the line that creationist sources entail bias as your atheistic sources do. First, they don't. That is merely another false assertion. Second, and more important, details of genetics, anatomy, physiology, embryology, biogeography and fossil records over millennia make no sense as expressions of an evolutionary progression. Please pick up a book and catch up with where the science is. Right now, you're stuck in the 19th century.
-
Yep, atheist sources are biased, while creation ones are not? Hmm, conversation over I guess. Mental midget bro; sorry. Thats amazing you said that in a public forum. Good luck with getting people to take you seriously now.
-
Yes. We know that you are confused. It is utterly inconceivable, to you, that the fact of creation could be veridic. So you grasp at every straw to justify the imaginary world that you have constructed with strawmen akin to the one offered here. Yes. The scientific frontiers have to do with the arcane details of how creation occurred (and yet occurs), not with whether it occurred. It is hard to imagine that you can so consistently miss that distinction. Nothing in anything we understand about science is compatible with any form of evolutionary hypothesis. You appear not to grasp that either.
everything we understand about science is compatible with evolution, to have the position you do which is completely counter you must be retarded or trolling.
-
I am just baffled that you continue with the line that creationist sources entail bias as your atheistic sources do. First, they don't. That is merely another false assertion. Second, and more important, details of genetics, anatomy, physiology, embryology, biogeography and fossil records over millennia make no sense as expressions of an evolutionary progression. Please pick up a book and catch up with where the science is. Right now, you're stuck in the 19th century.
atheistic sources, lol.
-
atheistic sources, lol.
Lol he thinks a creation based source is unbiased, while an atheism based source is biased, lol.
He also thinks muscletech ads are totally neutral
-
Harrigan is trolling.
-
Lol he thinks a creation based source is unbiased, while an atheism based source is biased, lol.
He also thinks muscletech ads are totally neutral
You are beginning to sound like a broken record. You persist in using a false analogy, a straw man, even after you were corrected. As if factual sources were in any way biased. Science depends on the careful evaluation of evidence. Then again there is no point in bothering with evidence, is there? What is an evolutionist to do when facts get in the way?
-
You are beginning to sound like a broken record. You persist in using a false analogy, a straw man, even after you were corrected. As if factual sources were in any way biased. Science depends on the careful evaluation of evidence. Then again there is no point in bothering with evidence, is there? What is an evolutionist to do when facts get in the way?
http://creation.mobi/a/43
Website says adam and eve were the first humans. Yep...
"Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God." - creation.com...yep, sounds totally credible. Omfg thats a creepy ass site
Going to get all my research and science background from that site now.
"Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."-creation.com...so all facts are not facts unless it says so in the bible. Wow.... Sounds totally reasonable and unbiased. Total fail.
-
http://creation.mobi/a/43
Website says adam and eve were the first humans. Yep...
Good grief. You return to impugning the established facts. We must conclude that you are a) incapable of rational thought, b) irretrievably deluded, c) clinically insane, or perhaps a combination of all three. I suppose you would rather believe that your grandfather was a monkey. Sorry, mate. You are clueless.
-
so all facts are not facts unless it says so in the bible.
Sorry. With regard to the stated beliefs of creation.com, you present another strawman (see the above), as if rejecting the erroneous interpretation of facts were invalid. There is only one correct way to interpret evidence. That you happen not to be interested in reality is hardly the responsibility of others.
-
Good grief. You return to impugning the established facts. We must conclude that you are a) incapable of rational thought, b) irretrievably deluded, c) clinically insane, or perhaps a combination of all three. I suppose you would rather believe that your grandfather was a monkey. Sorry, mate. You are clueless.
I like you ;D
-
(http://www.funniestmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/Funniest_Memes_jesus-was-born-in-the-middle-east_15426.jpeg)
-
(http://thefunniestpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Funny-memes-how-did-jesus-find.jpg)
-
(http://whyareyoustupid.com/wp-content/uploads/god-hitler-funny-hitler-memes-pics.jpg)
-
(http://whyareyoustupid.com/wp-content/uploads/god-hitler-funny-hitler-memes-pics.jpg)
False equivalence. God created man. Hitler didn't. God is the perfect Judge. Hitler deserved nothing but damnation.
-
False equivalence. God created man. Hitler didn't. God is the perfect Judge. Hitler deserved nothing but damnation.
So god created man (in the image of himself ??? ) as a flawed species, and then gets butthurt when said species shows those flaws?
You would think god would be smarter.
Unless he enjoys killing people and wiping the slate clean.
"Gods work".
-
So god created man (in the image of himself ??? ) as a flawed species, and then gets butthurt when said species shows those flaws?
You would think god would be smarter.
Unless he enjoys killing people and wiping the slate clean.
"Gods work".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ1v6oFHefc
I heard this was based on Rons fam.
-
So god created man (in the image of himself ??? ) as a flawed species, and then gets butthurt when said species shows those flaws?
You would think god would be smarter.
Unless he enjoys killing people and wiping the slate clean.
"Gods work".
For heaven's sake. Your tall tales are getting away from you. Man was created perfect. Man chose the way of depravity. Man was justly punished. The end.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ1v6oFHefc
I heard this was based on Rons fam.
Evidently you aren't in the business of facts. Too bad.
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-index
-
Evidently you aren't in the business of facts. Too bad.
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-index
one of the arguments is irreducible complexity lol, a long debunked moronic theory.
-
So god created man (in the image of himself ??? ) as a flawed species, and then gets butthurt when said species shows those flaws?
You would think god would be smarter.
Unless he enjoys killing people and wiping the slate clean.
"Gods work".
its all really ridiculous and stupid. theists will always have an answer like, "god is perfect, he can do anything he wants." or some bullshit like that. it just excuses his bad morality.
-
one of the arguments is irreducible complexity lol, a long debunked moronic theory.
Irreducible complexity is among the best established ideas in all of science. It puts evolution, and atheism, to the sword, which is of course why you stand opposed to it. The idea that science was long ago debunked as you claim is incompatible with empirical evidence.
-
its all really ridiculous and stupid. theists will always have an answer like, "god is perfect, he can do anything he wants." or some bullshit like that. it just excuses his bad morality.
Allow me to interpose a few corrections. All humans are wicked. God is good. You will be righteously judged. Resistance is futile. End of discussion.
-
For heaven's sake. Your tall tales are getting away from you. Man was created perfect. Man chose the way of depravity. Man was justly punished. The end.
How could a perfect being choose depravity?
Imperfect then, no?
-
How could a perfect being choose depravity?
Imperfect then, no?
Not imperfect. Merely finite and fallible. God endowed His creations with free will. He never created mindless automatons.
-
Irreducible complexity is among the best established ideas in all of science. It puts evolution, and atheism, to the sword, which is of course why you stand opposed to it. The idea that science was long ago debunked as you claim is incompatible with empirical evidence.
HAHAHA
give me a good example from behe's nonsense please.
-
Not imperfect. Merely finite and fallible. God endowed His creations with free will. He never created mindless automatons.
Perfect and fallible are incompatible. A perfect being couldn't choose anything less than perfect, ala Jesus.
-
HAHAHA
give me a good example from behe's nonsense please.
One's personal ignorance doesn't negate the actual science. Facts matter. Fantasy doesn't. Checkmate.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=980
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=927
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2391
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1446
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1412
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=249&article=1581
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=1125
-
Perfect and fallible are incompatible. A perfect being couldn't choose anything less than perfect, ala Jesus.
That of course depends on your definition of the word. 'Perfect' here simply means 'unblemished'. The devil was created without sin in him. He simply chose to disobey.
-
That of course depends on your definition of the word. 'Perfect' here simply means 'unblemished'. The devil was created without sin in him. He simply chose to disobey.
Yet the same word is used to describe Jesus, who is clearly more than unblemished. Sounds like semantics.
-
Yet the same word is used to describe Jesus, who is clearly more than unblemished. Sounds like semantics.
Again. The same word means several things. Perhaps 'sinless' would be a more fitting term in this context.
-
Yet the same word is used to describe Jesus, who is clearly more than unblemished. Sounds like semantics.
You should have been drowned at birth.
-
You should have been drowned at birth.
Wow, all this over a smiley?
-
Don´t spell my name Donnie. Only one Person had the right to spell it that way.
-
Don´t spell my name Donnie. Only one Person had the right to spell it that way.
Honestly, Don. Is it me, the movie, or your name that troubles you most?
-
Imagine if Pope Frank lifts the ban on celibacy how much pussy will be knocking on his doorstep.
-
This is exactly the type of thread I am talking about MOS.
If they move threads that have, say 100( ;)) replies into the proper subforum, all of the posters who made a post in that thread
Will automatically be aware of new posts through the updated topics tab.
They will be more likely to continue discussions this way. Just look at how many threads have gone nowhere here.
-
This is exactly the type of thread I am talking about MOS.
If they move threads that have, say 100( ;)) replies into the proper subforum, all of the posters who made a post in that thread
Will automatically be aware of new posts through the updated topics tab.
They will be more likely to continue discussions this way. Just look at how many threads have gone nowhere here.
I think most folks on these boards that object to religion only want to "hit and run" because without similar objectors high-fiving them after mocking posts are made all they have left to do is actually discuss. And when answers to their objections start coming their way they often bail out......quickly.
If folks were genuinely passionate about their objections they'd seek discussion, but I don't believe that's the case for the vast majority.
-
I think most folks on these boards that object to religion only want to "hit and run" because without similar objectors high-fiving them after mocking posts are made all they have left to do is actually discuss. And when answers to their objections start coming their way they often bail out......quickly.
If folks were genuinely passionate about their objections they'd seek discussion, but I don't believe that's the case for the vast majority.
It;s probably because your answers include supernatural non-sense and other equally irrational things. How can anyone argue with someone not bound by logic, facts and reason?
Like God killed everyone in a flood, even the plants, he knew of the events before they happened yet choose that route. It makes no sense, if something makes no sense it can be discarded, no need for debate.
Like you discard the beliefs of Hindu's, is the earth held up by four different colour palm trees? is it turtles all the way down? it's absurd, equally as much as your myth, neither are subject to discussion because they are non-sensical.
-
It;s probably because your answers include supernatural non-sense and other equally irrational things. How can anyone argue with someone not bound by logic, facts and reason?
Like God killed everyone in a flood, even the plants, he knew of the events before they happened yet choose that route. It makes no sense, if something makes no sense it can be discarded, no need for debate.
Like you discard the beliefs of Hindu's, is the earth held up by four different colour palm trees? is it turtles all the way down? it's absurd, equally as much as your myth, neither are subject to discussion because they are non-sensical.
You challenge the bible, but often do so only from your worldview. You refuse to allow God's divine nature to be what it is. If the providence of God is removed then you've essentially created something new that allows your arguments to hold, but it's not scripture. Although, atheists love to step in and out of the Christian worldview as they see fit....the taxi cab fallacy I believe it's called.
Always the flood, but always from a perspective of naturalism when the entire event was governed by God's divine providence. Of course all of the events of the flood don't work from a purely naturalistic perspective because your argument necessitates that God can't be God. God must only be or not be what suits your worldview and you refuse to entertain otherwise. Although it's not my problem and it's an invention of your mind that does not represent scripture.
You call it illogic when in fact logic itself is transcendent and exists with or without the natural world and your mind (folks get this concept backwards).....the transcendent nature of logic is consistent with the infinite, transcendent nature of God and is grounded in him. In fact the moment you engage logic you've entered the Christian worldview (and exited atheism) and are thereby bound by it's axioms.
-
You challenge the bible, but often do so only from your worldview. You refuse to allow God's divine nature to be what it is. If the providence of God is removed then you've essentially created something new that allows your arguments to hold, but it's not scripture. Although, atheists love to step in and out of the Christian worldview as they see fit....the taxi cab fallacy I believe it's called.
What is my own worldview? how do you know I refuse to allow God's divine nature blah blah... you are making all these assumptions as if you are correct, that's the issue.
Always the flood, but always from a perspective of naturalism when the entire event was governed by God's divine providence. Of course all of the events of the flood don't work from a purely naturalistic perspective because your argument necessitates that God can't be God. God must only be or not be what suits your worldview and you refuse to entertain otherwise. Although it's not my problem and it's an invention of your mind that does not represent scripture.
You call it illogic when in fact logic itself is transcendent and exists with or without the natural world and your mind (folks get this concept backwards).....the transcendent nature of logic is consistent with the infinite, transcendent nature of God and is grounded in him. In fact the moment you engage logic you've entered the Christian worldview (and exited atheism) and are thereby bound by it's axioms.
The pure irony in the first post is mindblowing. My worldview is called "reality", never ever have the laws of physics been violated, predictions of the past and future are couched in the belief of a rational universe (it works). If God is up there picking and choosing when to intervene his plan or rules are poor which doesn't make any sense in light of his attributes.
So you clearly see the absurdity of a literal noah's ark, but you still actually believed it existed? but instead god divinely feed the animals etc... is that your position?
I am not sure you understand what logic is, it's the study and use of valid reasoning generally. So if reason is grounded in the almighty my friend, why does everything you say make no sense at all?
I can reason, if this is his creation, if that book is his best work etc.. then he is a moron. Which is it? faith of reason? you can't have both because it makes no fucking sense.
If actual life if an employee came up to you and said he broke something due to devil spirits forcing him too, what would you say? you would use reason to determine if he is telling the truth. God is unreasonable throughout the bible, I have a hard time buying he is all that smart, reminds me of sheep herders.
-
It;s probably because your answers include supernatural non-sense and other equally irrational things. How can anyone argue with someone not bound by logic, facts and reason?
Like God killed everyone in a flood, even the plants, he knew of the events before they happened yet choose that route. It makes no sense, if something makes no sense it can be discarded, no need for debate.
Like you discard the beliefs of Hindu's, is the earth held up by four different colour palm trees? is it turtles all the way down? it's absurd, equally as much as your myth, neither are subject to discussion because they are non-sensical.
good point.. when you can introduce magic into a debate as part of your evidence, it becomes pretty pointless to continue the debate.
-
good point.. when you can introduce magic into a debate as part of your evidence, it becomes pretty pointless to continue the debate.
Once you remove God from the equation you've stepped outside the Christian worldview and you've invented a different worldview from which to argue from.
Call God "magic" if you want, but the reality is he's trascendent, infinite and supernatural.....this can't be force fit into naturalism so the debate is typically either thrown out or mocked.....solves absolutely nothing.
Evidence must be followed to where it leads; although, it seems the only evidence allowed is that of naturalism and that won't get the job done for God....sorry, but it won't. You must consider the transcendent nature of logic and special revelation of God to his body of believers (most apologists disagree with this approach....I don't care). Special revelation achieved by proactively seeking God according to his terms established in scripture is a great way to go. You can begin with the testimony of believers as a baseline (which is an enormous body of evidence), but refuse to follow (or accept) that evidence and it provides no value because it isn't utilized....it's justified away. Demand reproduction of God in a lab and you'll always fall short......natural can't bottle the supernatural. God must be allowed to be God.
-
What is my own worldview? how do you know I refuse to allow God's divine nature blah blah... you are making all these assumptions as if you are correct, that's the issue.
Fine, do you allow God to be God in your worldview? Do you accept that he's transcendent, supernatural and infinite?
The pure irony in the first post is mindblowing. My worldview is called "reality", never ever have the laws of physics been violated, predictions of the past and future are couched in the belief of a rational universe (it works). If God is up there picking and choosing when to intervene his plan or rules are poor which doesn't make any sense in light of his attributes.
Reality is subjective. I've experienced the risen God in my life....the divine nature of God comports with my reality. Does it with yours?
So you clearly see the absurdity of a literal noah's ark, but you still actually believed it existed? but instead god divinely feed the animals etc... is that your position?
I am not sure you understand what logic is, it's the study and use of valid reasoning generally. So if reason is grounded in the almighty my friend, why does everything you say make no sense at all?
I can understand it seems absurd from a perspective that denies God or doesn't allow God to be God.....I don't have your problem because I know God.
I can reason, if this is his creation, if that book is his best work etc.. then he is a moron. Which is it? faith of reason? you can't have both because it makes no fucking sense.
Why is God a moron? You've only presented a blanket statement here.
What is faith? What is reason? What doesn't make sense? Need context here. Examples are helpful.
If actual life if an employee came up to you and said he broke something due to devil spirits forcing him too, what would you say? you would use reason to determine if he is telling the truth. God is unreasonable throughout the bible, I have a hard time buying he is all that smart, reminds me of sheep herders.
Yes, I would use reason, my experience, my worldview and presuppositions...I'd assume you'd do the same. Just because someone presents something seemingly impossible doesn't make it impossible.
Why is God unreasonable throughout the bible? Need context here. Examples are helpful.
-
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18
In other news, the Museum of Arts was blasted today by critics who were outraged that the Museum said that their artworks were actually "made" by somebody. The critics, a group called "WARI" (we are really intelligent), have said that there is absolutely no evidence that any of the artworks had a maker.
(http://megaodd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/20-Wonderful-Art-World-Of-Sand-Sculpting-03.jpg)
-
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18
In other news, the Museum of Arts was blasted today by critics who were outraged that the Museum said that their artworks were actually "made" by somebody. The critics, a group called "WARI" (we are really intelligent), have said that there is absolutely no evidence that any of the artworks had a maker.
(http://megaodd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/20-Wonderful-Art-World-Of-Sand-Sculpting-03.jpg)
No point in arguing with you MOS, you seem to think reality is subjective which is laughable. I am sure a schizo's reality is much different then yours, who is right?
No evidence that the artworks had a maker? they are pieces of art, wtf..... this shit is so fucking stupid, grow up people, it's a scary world there isn't someone watching out for you.
The hilarious thing is you can tell this is a piece of art and not a sand dune because of it's qualities, by extension the dune was not created, otherwise how could you tell.
-
No point in arguing with you MOS, you seem to think reality is subjective which is laughable. I am sure a schizo's reality is much different then yours, who is right?
No evidence that the artworks had a maker? they are pieces of art, wtf..... this shit is so fucking stupid, grow up people, it's a scary world there isn't someone watching out for you.
The hilarious thing is you can tell this is a piece of art and not a sand dune because of it's qualities, by extension the dune was not created, otherwise how could you tell.
I like how you respond to tbombz, but address me indirectly and don't answer my questions....as if they're "too ridiculous to even entertain" LOL!
I could be a lot harsher here, but I won't....it's just typical atheist thinking in that atheism somehow corners the market on asking reasonable questions.
That's ok, maybe you think about them and maybe get back to me.
-
Man of Steel... its obvious that the sand art had a creator, because it has "qualities" that demand one
... but the human brain, that one the other hand, well there are no qualities about it which demand a creator.
how great the sand art in comparison to the human brain!
;D
No evidence that the artworks had a maker? they are pieces of art, wtf..... this shit is so fucking stupid, grow up people, it's a scary world there isn't someone watching out for you.
The hilarious thing is you can tell this is a piece of art and not a sand dune because of it's qualities, by extension the dune was not created, otherwise how could you tell.
-
Let Everything Praise the Lord
Praise the LORD!
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens!
Praise him for his mighty deeds;
praise him according to his excellent greatness!
Praise him with trumpet sound;
praise him with lute and harp!
Praise him with tambourine and dance;
praise him with strings and pipe!
Praise him with sounding cymbals;
praise him with loud clashing cymbals!
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD!
Praise the LORD!
Psalms 150
(http://stylonica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/spring_beauty_sky_nature_earth_photography_hd-wallpaper-1447628.jpg)
-
I like how you respond to tbombz, but address me indirectly and don't answer my questions....as if they're "too ridiculous to even entertain" LOL!
I could be a lot harsher here, but I won't....it's just typical atheist thinking in that atheism somehow corners the market on asking reasonable questions.
That's ok, maybe you think about them and maybe get back to me.
They are too ridiculous. Your argument is basically god is supernatural etc etc.. you say you are using reason.
There is nothing to think about at all, it's the same old tired non-sense. God is all powerful, he is eternal so needs no beginning blah blah. Meanwhile the very terms you are using negate what you say,you just don't understand them. So in order to explain complexity you evoke a hyper complex being, one infinitely more complex then the universe and you see nothing wrong with this? if the complexity of the universe demands an explanation and we take your argument to it's logical conclusion, then god requires a explanation doubly.
The flood is example of god being unreasonable, particularly if he knows the future. This also negates free will, you don't know what you will do but he does, it's pre-ordained.
How can we have an argument if you aren't even in the ballpark? you purport to be using logic, I see nothing but special arguments, none of which can even be scrutinized. How could I argue against supernatural things? there name alone indicates we cannot.
-
Man of Steel... its obvious that the sand art had a creator, because it has "qualities" that demand one
... but the human brain, that one the other hand, well there are no qualities about it which demand a creator.
how great the sand art in comparison to the human brain!
;D
That's my point, the fact that we can both tell the art was created is because the fucking surrounding sand is not, do you understand what I am saying? If you come across a watch on the beach you are going to assume it was created, by logical extension the beach was not. If all is created by god, it would all have properties of being "created". Can you tell a rock apart from a watch, is one created? if both are they should share the same properties of created things.
The art also has a maker you can meet, you can see how it is made, where it is made etc. this is another attribute of created things.
This is also another key point, if this is his creation we should be able to determine things about the creator. Like if the watch was rolex we know it's expensive, expensive materials, took time to create, appearance is key etc.. so god created brain eating parasites that kill kids brutally for trying to drink some water, sounds like a moron to me. This is the point, the creation blows, The sun will kill us all eventually, some creation. Imagine building a watch with a timebomb in it, makes sense ::) but carry on, you guys are reasonable.
-
That's my point, the fact that we can both tell the art was created is because the fucking surrounding sand is not, do you understand what I am saying? If you come across a watch on the beach you are going to assume it was created, by logical extension the beach was not. If all is created by god, it would all have properties of being "created". Can you tell a rock apart from a watch, is one created? if both are they should share the same properties of created things.
The art also has a maker you can meet, you can see how it is made, where it is made etc. this is another attribute of created things.
This is also another key point, if this is his creation we should be able to determine things about the creator. Like if the watch was rolex we know it's expensive, expensive materials, took time to create, appearance is key etc.. so god created brain eating parasites that kill kids brutally for trying to drink some water, sounds like a moron to me. This is the point, the creation blows, The sun will kill us all eventually, some creation. Imagine building a watch with a timebomb in it, makes sense ::) but carry on, you guys are reasonable.
I've spent the last several years pleading with folks and letting them know that they can "meet the maker" in this life......I desperately desire for others to understand this!! Come unto him now.....you don't want to meet him for the first time during his judgement.
It is our sin that introduced death, decay and disease upon the world.
Your curiosities about "why God did this" or "why God did that" don't negate or cancel anything....they're just curiosities and nothing more. See you again step in and out of worldviews. You implant the naturalistic worldview of an exploding sun into the Christian worldview and call that a "bad creation". I'm not suggesting stars don't explode....they certainly do....we've witnessed it. Although, an exploding star won't be our end.....neither scripture nor science adhere to that view.
Actually according to cosmology the expansion of the universe will kill us via way of dark, cold death (Lawrence Krauss affirms this). Given that scientists view the human species as a cancer of sorts upon this planet, mother earth will eventually eliminate us on her own. The sun could go supernova one day, but according to science we'd be gone already.
Romans 1:20
20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
-
Fine, do you allow God to be God in your worldview? Do you accept that he's transcendent, supernatural and infinite?
No, how can he be infinite, that means he would be the universe also, that is without bounds. You don't understand the words you are using.
Reality is subjective. I've experienced the risen God in my life....the divine nature of God comports with my reality. Does it with yours?
Absolutely not, reality is objective, ever hear of delusion or hallucinations? I cannot see them, hence it's not subjective. It must be nice living in a world where logic and common sense take a back seat. Truth is truth, it's the same for everyone otherwise you cannot determine if it is true. If you think gravity doesn't effect you jump off a building, I bet reality will smack that nonsense right out your mouth.
I can understand it seems absurd from a perspective that denies God or doesn't allow God to be God.....I don't have your problem because I know God.
You don't know god, because I don't, you are a human, you do not have special information etc. You are just another human who is clinging to the god hypothesis.
Why is God a moron? You've only presented a blanket statement here.
The flood. Why not just snap his fingers and make them disappear, no, let's drown everyone, every plant etc it's stupid. Applying logic to it as you seem to think you are doing indicates it's moronic.
What is faith? What is reason? What doesn't make sense? Need context here. Examples are helpful.
definitions for these things exist
Yes, I would use reason, my experience, my worldview and presuppositions...I'd assume you'd do the same. Just because someone presents something seemingly impossible doesn't make it impossible.
you are not using your reason, as you are continuously asking for it to be suspended.
Why is God unreasonable throughout the bible? Need context here. Examples are helpful.
-
I've spent the last several years pleading with folks and letting them know that they can "meet the maker" in this life......I desperately desire for others to understand this!! Come unto him now.....you don't want to meet him for the first time during his judgement.
Two way street, he should know how to reveal himself to me if he so covets. I don't particularly like the guy if this is his idea of a creation.
It is our sin that introduced death, decay and disease upon the world.
So before us animals never suffered or decayed? fossils contradict you. If there was a world with no sin, then god is responsible for the sin, why even have it as a possibility, he controls the parameters does he not? He would have put the apple there, would have required incest to populate the earth, again god resembles a stupid sheep herder, I wonder why? (jesus this is absurd). I will stop there.
Your curiosities about "why God did this" or "why God did that" don't negate or cancel anything....they're just curiosities and nothing more. See you again step in and out of worldviews. You implant the naturalistic worldview of an exploding sun into the Christian worldview and call that a "bad creation". I'm not suggesting stars don't explode....they certainly do....we've witnessed it. Although, an exploding star won't be our end.....neither scripture nor science adhere to that view.
Actually according to cosmology the expansion of the universe will kill us via way of dark, cold death (Lawrence Krauss affirms this). Given that scientists view the human species as a cancer of sorts upon this planet, mother earth will eventually eliminate us on her own. The sun could go supernova one day, but according to science we'd be gone already.
According to science? Krauss is correct, however, the sun will supernova before this. Who would say mother earth will eliminate us, as if it's a conscious decision. Regardless the point is we are in a death trap, the whole universe is.
Romans 1:20
20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
Again not the same thing, I can go to his shop, see where he made it, talk to him, others can verify him etc. You are basically saying there is an immaterial thing creating the material, it makes no sense.
-
I've spent the last several years pleading with folks and letting them know that they can "meet the maker" in this life......I desperately desire for others to understand this!! Come unto him now.....you don't want to meet him for the first time during his judgement.
It is our sin that introduced death, decay and disease upon the world.
Your curiosities about "why God did this" or "why God did that" don't negate or cancel anything....they're just curiosities and nothing more. See you again step in and out of worldviews. You implant the naturalistic worldview of an exploding sun into the Christian worldview and call that a "bad creation". I'm not suggesting stars don't explode....they certainly do....we've witnessed it. Although, an exploding star won't be our end.....neither scripture nor science adhere to that view.
Actually according to cosmology the expansion of the universe will kill us via way of dark, cold death (Lawrence Krauss affirms this). Given that scientists view the human species as a cancer of sorts upon this planet, mother earth will eventually eliminate us on her own. The sun could go supernova one day, but according to science we'd be gone already.
Romans 1:20
20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
-
Again not the same thing, I can go to his shop, see where he made it, talk to him, others can verify him etc. You are basically saying there is an immaterial thing creating the material, it makes no sense.
I'll pick you apart a little later....busy now. ;)
-
That's my point, the fact that we can both tell the art was created is because the fucking surrounding sand is not, do you understand what I am saying? If you come across a watch on the beach you are going to assume it was created, by logical extension the beach was not. If all is created by god, it would all have properties of being "created". Can you tell a rock apart from a watch, is one created? if both are they should share the same properties of created things.
The art also has a maker you can meet, you can see how it is made, where it is made etc. this is another attribute of created things.
This is also another key point, if this is his creation we should be able to determine things about the creator. Like if the watch was rolex we know it's expensive, expensive materials, took time to create, appearance is key etc.. so god created brain eating parasites that kill kids brutally for trying to drink some water, sounds like a moron to me. This is the point, the creation blows, The sun will kill us all eventually, some creation. Imagine building a watch with a timebomb in it, makes sense ::) but carry on, you guys are reasonable.
You know, Necrosis, I do not think that there is anything that anyone could say to you to make you believe. It is obvious that you are not trying to be persuaded, but rather trying to persuade. Man of Steel has been very kind to you and has been sincerely giving you a piece of his heart, in love and affection pouring himself into you, answering your every question; but you don't quit. So, while I could take the time to write you a response dealing with your arguments, i think i know that all i would be doing is wasting my time.
One thing I will tell you is that for a true Christian, faith is not blind. It is not as if me and you have the same evidence but come to different conclusions. You have the witness of creation, the witness of human life, and the witness of your own soul against you; all of these as evidence. But those are your only evidences. The Christian has much more than that, for the Christian experiences God's very own Spirit. The Christian experiences supernatual works of God on a daily basis, in ways that the unbeliever can never imagine. No atheist, or muslim, or agnostic, or jew could ever understand what it means to truly believe in God because they have never experienced the indwelling presence of God's Holy Spirit. But for the Christian, this experience is indeed a revelation, and logical evidence, in fact concrete proof of what we believe. We call it 'faith', but it's more like fact. Indeed, it is fact. I know that I know, and I know that I know that I know. Not because the bible says so, not because some preacher says so, but because I experience the supernatural power of God in my life and because God Himself reveals Himself to me on a daily basis.
Seek Jesus, my friend.
-
You know, Necrosis, I do not think that there is anything that anyone could say to you to make you believe. It is obvious that you are not trying to be persuaded, but rather trying to persuade. Man of Steel has been very kind to you and has been sincerely giving you a piece of his heart, in love and affection pouring himself into you, answering your every question; but you don't quit. So, while I could take the time to write you a response dealing with your arguments, i think i know that all i would be doing is wasting my time.
I only care about truth, the quickest way there is reason. I am not interested as you correctly ascertained in others feelings or what they feel is right. Clearly you can see the problem with this.
One thing I will tell you is that for a true Christian, faith is not blind. It is not as if me and you have the same evidence but come to different conclusions. You have the witness of creation, the witness of human life, and the witness of your own soul against you; all of these as evidence. But those are your only evidences. The Christian has much more than that, for the Christian experiences God's very own Spirit. The Christian experiences supernatual works of God on a daily basis, in ways that the unbeliever can never imagine. No atheist, or muslim, or agnostic, or jew could ever understand what it means to truly believe in God because they have never experienced the indwelling presence of God's Holy Spirit. But for the Christian, this experience is indeed a revelation, and logical evidence, in fact concrete proof of what we believe. We call it 'faith', but it's more like fact. Indeed, it is fact. I know that I know, and I know that I know that I know. Not because the bible says so, not because some preacher says so, but because I experience the supernatural power of God in my life and because God Himself reveals Himself to me on a daily basis.
Why is this evidence of a christian god specifically? life is evidence of god? you are to far gone, completely indoctrinated, unable to think for himself, exactly what they want (religion). A crazy person knows there are cops watching him, a schizo knows god is an ant in his ear that feeds on wax. Your inner reality is not reality, how hard is this to grasp? A muslim, knows allah is god, how can we tell who is correct? a little thing called logic, applying logic to your beliefs decimates them. you seem to not understand what concrete means, your inner subjective experiences are not concrete, the fact that you have stopped questioning them is sad.
Seek Jesus, my friend.
-
i was not talking primarily about inner personal experiences, although those are proof as well, but i was talking about external events that are undeniably the supernatural work of God.
an example of this would be a dead man who came back to life after being prayed for, a house that burns to the ground and absolutely everything is destroyed and completely burned to pieces except for a bible (the covers were burnt, but not a single page inside was touched), and i could go on and on with these types of things that God has performed.
-
Romans 1:20
20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
I hope you understand I'm not ganging up here, my friend, but MoS. Dude. You're way too smart to believe this verse explains anything, really.
The earth and sky somehow reveal God? C'mon, guy. This is childish. Akin to Bill O'Reilly defending creation with the rising tide (Google). This wouldn't work for you, so why use it here? With this angle, science provides plenty of "excuses" for "not knowing God."
Also, why doesn't Romans capitalize "his"?
-
i was not talking primarily about inner personal experiences, although those are proof as well, but i was talking about external events that are undeniably the supernatural work of God.
ok, have some examples?
an example of this would be a dead man who came back to life after being prayed for, a house that burns to the ground and absolutely everything is destroyed and completely burned to pieces except for a bible (the covers were burnt, but not a single page inside was touched), and i could go on and on with these types of things that God has performed.
The universe is infinite, there are trillions of stars, the vastness and scale is unimaginable, yet you think god's power is shown in a house fire, why doesn't he grow back an amputee's leg? how silly is this? so god decides to let someones house burn down (your implication) but keeps the bible from burning? he decides to intervene in this instance, to suspend natural order to ensure a bible in some house was flame retardant. You guys are right, completely reasonable. If we all approached this world in the manner you are nothing would be known. Maybe the bible was covered in retardant, perhaps it was added as in a lie etc etc.. you have to critically appraise things.
-
i was not talking primarily about inner personal experiences, although those are proof as well, but i was talking about external events that are undeniably the supernatural work of God.
an example of this would be a dead man who came back to life after being prayed for, a house that burns to the ground and absolutely everything is destroyed and completely burned to pieces except for a bible (the covers were burnt, but not a single page inside was touched), and i could go on and on with these types of things that God has performed.
This kind of "proof" is funny. For example, a tornado comes through a town, wipes out whole subdivisions, killing dozens, but a child is found in the rubble with minor injuries and people will declare a miracle from god. They conveniently forget the other 4 kids that were mangled
-
how about the holocaust? or the gang rape and murder of young children all over the world?
where was God?
or, better yet, when Jesus was tortured and nailed to a cross?
where was God?
(hint, He was up on the cross)
-
how about the holocaust? or the gang rape and murder of young children all over the world?
where was God?
or, better yet, when Jesus was tortured and nailed to a cross?
where was God?
(hint, He was up on the cross)
Seems an odd place for a god
-
how about the holocaust?
where was God?
(hint, He was up on the cross)
Still, in the 1940s? Typical Roman city workers, man. Lazy trough-feeders.
-
how about the holocaust? or the gang rape and murder of young children all over the world?
where was God?
or, better yet, when Jesus was tortured and nailed to a cross?
where was God?
(hint, He was up on the cross)
Are you saying god is the holocaust victims? the children being raped? by juxtaposing it with the cross you are semantically implying this.
-
Are you saying god is the holocaust victims? the children being raped? by juxtaposing it with the cross you are semantically implying this.
in fact, God was indeed some of the holocaust victims and some of the children being raped.
the body of Christ, those who are filled with His Spirit, is part of God, and whatever a member of the body suffers, so does the whole body suffer.
these are spiritual things that only God can reveal to you.
they are absurd, and foolish, and completely insane. at least, according to the flesh.
anyways.. it's funny, well, it's not really funny, but sad. i told you i had proof of God, you ask for the proof as if you could be convinced if I had real proof. i tell you i experience supernatual miracles of God, and you tell me that i should doubt my experiences. what you are really saying is that it doesnt matter what i tell you, you will never believe. I am certain that if God Himself came down from Heaven, knocked on your door, introduced Himself to you and showed you all the majesty of His glory; you would spit on His face and tell Him that either He should make you God or else He could go to hell.
-
in fact, God was indeed some of the holocaust victims and some of the children being raped.
the body of Christ, those who are filled with His Spirit, is part of God, and whatever a member of the body suffers, so does the whole body suffer.
these are spiritual things that only God can reveal to you.
they are absurd, and foolish, and completely insane. at least, according to the flesh.
anyways.. it's funny, well, it's not really funny, but sad. i told you i had proof of God, you ask for the proof as if you could be convinced if I had real proof. i tell you i experience supernatual miracles of God, and you tell me that i should doubt my experiences. what you are really saying is that it doesnt matter what i tell you, you will never believe. I am certain that if God Himself came down from Heaven, knocked on your door, introduced Himself to you and showed you all the majesty of His glory; you would spit on His face and tell Him that either He should make you God or else He could go to hell.
No, I want proof, verifiable proof otherwise my muslim friend is just as convinced as you and you both can't be right?
I can't just believe you.
-
No, I want proof, verifiable proof otherwise my muslim friend is just as convinced as you and you both can't be right?
I can't just believe you.
Muslims are equally convinced Christians will suffer eternal torture, yet neither side loses sleep over the possibility they might have chosen incorrectly.
Odd.
-
Muslims are equally convinced Christians will suffer eternal torture, yet neither side loses sleep over the possibility they might have chosen incorrectly.
Odd.
Because nothing is correct. There is no such thing as "one true god", or the correct religion. If there is something that happens when we die, no human being knows what that is. It certainly isn't held in some earthly manuscript.
-
Because nothing is correct. There is no such thing as "one true god", or the correct religion. If there is something that happens when we die, no human being knows what that is. It certainly isn't held in some earthly manuscript.
quite obviously, religious people are funny, christianity is no more plausible then scientology but because it's "ancient" (more retarded) the idea of divinity and specialness is there.
-
Because nothing is correct. There is no such thing as "one true god", or the correct religion. If there is something that happens when we die, no human being knows what that is. It certainly isn't held in some earthly manuscript.
You and I believe this, but billions worldwide are convinced we'll suffer eternal damnation for such thoughts.
Crazy world, my friend.
-
You and I believe this, but billions worldwide are convinced we'll suffer eternal damnation for such thoughts.
Crazy world, my friend.
The conversation kind of dies off when you ask the average Christian to describe heaven in detail. Other than a cloudy jack and the bean stalk type castle in the sky with streets paved of gold there is very little info about it.. But that's the golden ring they are reaching for.
Will we know everyone up there from our previous life?
Will my ex wife be there? Will she get along with my current wife?
What will we wear? What will we eat? Are there bathrooms?
Will there be a bunch of aborted fetuses and babies who died from cancer that we'll have to take care of?
Will they be eternally the same age or will they grow older?
Will we age while there?
Is it cable or dish?
New York style Pizza or Chicago?
So we sleep? If not, what do we do all day?
-
The conversation kind of dies off when you ask the average Christian to describe heaven in detail. Other than a cloudy jack and the bean stalk type castle in the sky with streets paved of gold there is very little info about it.. But that's the golden ring they are reaching for.
Will we know everyone up there from our previous life?
Will my ex wife be there? Will she get along with my current wife?
What will we wear? What will we eat? Are there bathrooms?
Will there be a bunch of aborted fetuses and babies who died from cancer that we'll have to take care of?
Will they be eternally the same age or will they grow older?
Will we age while there?
Is it cable or dish?
New York style Pizza or Chicago?
So we sleep? If not, what do we do all day?
Hilarious, but very true at the same time. Those ancient thought processes should have gone extinct long ago.
The main reason it doesn't, is population control and the fact that religion is big business.
-
No, I want proof, verifiable proof otherwise my muslim friend is just as convinced as you and you both can't be right?
I can't just believe you.
you are proof. :)
-
you are proof. :)
Proof of God, or proof that his parents fucked?
God creates us, right? We keep hearing this. So why all the fucking?
-
Proof of God, or prooff that his parents fucked?
God creates us, right? We keep hearing this. So why all the fucking?
Are you now mad at God because He has blessed you with the beautiful pleasures of sexual relations? ;D
-
you are proof. :)
So everything is proof of god, the christian god. Seems a bit tautological
-
So everything is proof of god, the christian god. Seems a bit tautological
i remember the first time i heard a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
"how stupid, and ridiculously circular, i can't believe my professor wants us to learn this!"
but then a couple days later, a weight dropped on my head. my eyes started to tear. for the first time in my life i realized that God exists.
it took me almost 5 years of obsessive searching until I finally found Him.
only to find out that He was not hidden at all.
He had been under my nose the whole time.
I had been making fun of Him, arguing against Him, calling His testimony a fraud and a fake.
So i understand why He seems tautological to you. :)
-
i remember the first time i heard a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
"how stupid, and ridiculously circular, i can't believe my professor wants us to learn this!"
but then a couple days later, a weight dropped on my head. my eyes started to tear. for the first time in my life i realized that God exists.
it took me almost 5 years of obsessive searching until I finally found Him.
only to find out that He was not hidden at all.
He had been under my nose the whole time.
I had been making fun of Him, arguing against Him, calling His testimony a fraud and a fake.
So i understand why He seems tautological to you. :)
Mental illness can strike at any age.. .
-
Are you now mad at God because He has blessed you with the beautiful pleasures of sexual relations? ;D
Not angry, certainly not at him. Authors just didn't think this through is all.
-
i remember the first time i heard a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
"how stupid, and ridiculously circular, i can't believe my professor wants us to learn this!"
but then a couple days later, a weight dropped on my head. my eyes started to tear. for the first time in my life i realized that God exists.
it took me almost 5 years of obsessive searching until I finally found Him.
only to find out that He was not hidden at all.
He had been under my nose the whole time.
I had been making fun of Him, arguing against Him, calling His testimony a fraud and a fake.
So i understand why He seems tautological to you. :)
You bumped into him right about the time you got Aids?
-
I hope you understand I'm not ganging up here, my friend, but MoS. Dude. You're way too smart to believe this verse explains anything, really.
The earth and sky somehow reveal God? C'mon, guy. This is childish. Akin to Bill O'Reilly defending creation with the rising tide (Google). This wouldn't work for you, so why use it here? With this angle, science provides plenty of "excuses" for "not knowing God."
Also, why doesn't Romans capitalize "his"?
It's all good. I've actually never quoted this verse....this was the first time I have on these boards.
It's a reminder for me that no matter how often folks attempt to suppress the reality of God that his law is written on each of our hearts and his existence is evident to everyone.
This won't convince an unbeliever of anything, but it's not convincing that people need. It's just about leading others to the mercy and truth of Christ. For some this takes only a few moments for others it takes a lifetime. If I can somehow be used in that process then glory to God for that. :)
-
No, I want proof, verifiable proof otherwise my muslim friend is just as convinced as you and you both can't be right?
I can't just believe you.
Proof is grounded in mathematics and logic.
Once you remove God from the equation you've stepped outside the Christian worldview and you've invented a different worldview from which to argue from.
Call God "magic" if you want, but the reality is he's trascendent, infinite and supernatural.....this can't be force fit into naturalism so the debate is typically either thrown out or mocked.....solves absolutely nothing.
Evidence must be followed to where it leads; although, it seems the only evidence allowed is that of naturalism and that won't get the job done for God....sorry, but it won't. You must consider the transcendent nature of logic and special revelation of God to his body of believers (most apologists disagree with this approach....I don't care). Special revelation achieved by proactively seeking God according to his terms established in scripture is a great way to go. You can begin with the testimony of believers as a baseline (which is an enormous body of evidence), but refuse to follow (or accept) that evidence and it provides no value because it isn't utilized....it's justified away. Demand reproduction of God in a lab and you'll always fall short......natural can't bottle the supernatural. God must be allowed to be God.
-
It's all good. I've actually never quoted this verse....this was the first time I have on these boards.
It's a reminder for me that no matter how often folks attempt to suppress the reality of God that his law is written on each of our hearts and his existence is evident to everyone.
This won't convince an unbeliever of anything, but it's not convincing that people need. It's just about leading others to the mercy and truth of Christ. For some this takes only a few moments for others it takes a lifetime. If I can somehow be used in that process then glory to God for that. :)
Can't I just be a good boy for Christ's sake?
:)
-
Proof is grounded in mathematics and logic.
so the logic is that god is written in our hearts and he is the christian god. How can you verify this? why the christian god?
-
Francis is antichrist
-
so the logic is that god is written in our hearts and he is the christian god. How can you verify this? why the christian god?
It's not necessarily a statement of logic, just the truth of scripture understood specifically by believers born again in Christ.
How can I verify this? The life changing work of Christ in my life coupled with the tangible presence and experience of the Holy Spirit. Validates the essence of salvific scripture. Special revelation of God achieved by proactively seeking God according to his terms as established in scripture is the most concrete method I know to verify this.
Biblical scripture affirms only one God expressed in a trinity of coeternal,coequal persons in Father, Son and Spirit.
There is no comparison between the one and only God of the bible nor is there any similar means whatsoever to verify any invented gods such as Zeus, Horus, Mithra, Osirus or demonically-inspired gods such as Allah, Shiva, Vishnu. It's tougher to toss out the demonically-inspired gods because the enemy of Christ (who is also the leader of this world) empowers these fictions via demonic "miracles" and other such tactics of spiritual warfare that cause people to suppress God while simultaneously convincing them that the demonic world (which stands opposed to Christ) absolutely does not exist.
It's only through Christ Jesus that the reality of both the light and dark is made real for folks and verifies scripture and confirms the testimony of believers.
Experiencing the righteous, loving, powerful, peaceful presence of the Holy Spirit can quickly put to rest many issues and objections.......folks refuse to surrender to the will of God though. I can't help them.
-
It's not necessarily a statement of logic, just the truth of scripture understood specifically by believers born again in Christ.
How can I verify this? The life changing work of Christ in my life coupled with the tangible presence and experience of the Holy Spirit. Validates the essence of salvific scripture. Special revelation of God achieved by proactively seeking God according to his terms as established in scripture is the most concrete method I know to verify this.
Biblical scripture affirms only one God expressed in a trinity of coeternal,coequal persons in Father, Son and Spirit.
There is no comparison between the one and only God of the bible nor is there any similar means whatsoever to verify any invented gods such as Zeus, Horus, Mithra, Osirus or demonically-inspired gods such as Allah, Shiva, Vishnu. It's tougher to toss out the demonically-inspired gods because the enemy of Christ (who is also the leader of this world) empowers these fictions via demonic "miracles" and other such tactics of spiritual warfare that cause people to suppress God while simultaneously convincing them that the demonic world (which stands opposed to Christ) absolutely does not exist.
It's only through Christ Jesus that the reality of both the light and dark is made real for folks and verifies scripture and confirms the testimony of believers.
Experiencing the righteous, loving, powerful, peaceful presence of the Holy Spirit can quickly put to rest many issues and objections.......folks refuse to surrender to the will of God though. I can't help them.
How do you detect god? what is the evidence that it's god? it's a feeling? or it's good things happening in your life?
You realize that this is a completely subjective method correct? A muslim may say the same thing, what would you say in response to that?
I am actually curious
-
How do you detect god?
So how do I detect God and know that it is God I'm experiencing?
First, as a new believer my perceptions about things of this world almost instantly changed when I gave my life to Christ. Many of my desires changed. My feelings towards others changed. I was drawn to his word and desired to learn all I could about him. So from within the core of me I was changed without any effort on my part. That was definite evidence that the promises of God were being fulfilled in me.
Second, during moments of private prayer, private worship, public worship, debate and discussion, durings periods of tribulation and strife the presence of the Holy Spirit of the Lord will literally envelop me. I can feel his presence in both light touches and undeniable, overwhelming, enveloping sensations of warmth, tingling, peace, righteousness and love.
what is the evidence that it's god? it's a feeling? or it's good things happening in your life?
The first evidence that it's God is the peace, righteousness and love that I experience. The second evidence is the presence of demonic darkness that also confronts believers. Some experience that darkness far greater than others. I myself have experienced that demonic darkness in powerful ways. It's only when I called upon the name of Lord that the darkness fled and that warm, tingling, overwhelming, enveloping peace, grace, mercy, righteousness and love was replaced. Experiencing the definite contrast between demonic darkness and the light of God has made a world of difference. And to experience that darkness be lifted and replaced with light in almost an instant is undeniable.
Yes, it's absolutely a feeling.
Good things happening in my life? In a lot of ways my life is far more difficult now as a definite believer than before when I wasn't aligned with Christ. Although I give thanks for those trials because they're opportunities for me to draw closer and closer to my Lord and Savior. Good things in my life aren't necessarily about bad things going away or lessening, but about how I perceive the trials and how I am able to work through them like never before with Christ in my life.
You realize that this is a completely subjective method correct?
It's subjective because a relation with Christ is personal. There isn't a universal experience with God, but there certainly are similarities in experiences that others believers will absolutely affirm. For example, others believers have experienced sweet aromas when in the presence of the Holy Spirit. I have not experienced that yet in my life. I have experienced the definite contrast between light and darkness that others believers have not. Yet, the warmth and love and tingling and tangible enveloping presence of the Lord is a common theme.
A muslim may say the same thing, what would you say in response to that? I am actually curious
As I noted before the Islamic god in Allah is a demonically-inspired, fictitious god of their prophet Muhammad. He was deceived by Satanic influence.
Now, I wouldn't share that sentiment with a Muslim from the get go. I would share my faith. I would share the gospel. It would not be a short process nor is there a universal script for engaging in such a fashion. The main thing to remember is that the Muslim folks in the world are also precious in the sight of the Lord so it's up to believers in Christ to fully represent Christ and help Muslims understand why their objections are unfounded and why Jesus Christ of biblical scripture is God. It's presented on a case-by-case basis unfortunately.
You must expect a ton of resistance and be willing to follow through. Expect ridicule. Expect mockery. Expect to be patient and always represent Christ. You want to get folks thinking and do so lovingly, but you must also present the truth of God's wrath and judgment. It's not an easy task because many of these folks have devoted their entire life - since the first moment they were born - to Islam.
-
It's not necessarily a statement of logic, just the truth of scripture understood specifically by believers born again in Christ.
How can I verify this? The life changing work of Christ in my life coupled with the tangible presence and experience of the Holy Spirit. Validates the essence of salvific scripture. Special revelation of God achieved by proactively seeking God according to his terms as established in scripture is the most concrete method I know to verify this.
Biblical scripture affirms only one God expressed in a trinity of coeternal,coequal persons in Father, Son and Spirit.
"There is no comparison between the one and only God of the bible nor is there any similar means whatsoever to verify any invented gods such as Zeus, Horus, Mithra, Osirus or demonically-inspired gods such as Allah, Shiva, Vishnu. It's tougher to toss out the demonically-inspired gods because the enemy of Christ (who is also the leader of this world) empowers these fictions via demonic "miracles" and other such tactics of spiritual warfare that cause people to suppress God while simultaneously convincing them that the demonic world (which stands opposed to Christ) absolutely does not exist. "
It's only through Christ Jesus that the reality of both the light and dark is made real for folks and verifies scripture and confirms the testimony of believers.
Experiencing the righteous, loving, powerful, peaceful presence of the Holy Spirit can quickly put to rest many issues and objections.......folks refuse to surrender to the will of God though. I can't help them.
"There is no comparison between the one and only God of the bible nor is there any similar means whatsoever to verify any invented gods such as Zeus, Horus, Mithra, Osirus or demonically-inspired gods such as Allah, Shiva, Vishnu. It's tougher to toss out the demonically-inspired gods because the enemy of Christ (who is also the leader of this world) empowers these fictions via demonic "miracles" and other such tactics of spiritual warfare that cause people to suppress God while simultaneously convincing them that the demonic world (which stands opposed to Christ) absolutely does not exist.
who can argue with that argument ?
-
I've spent the last several years pleading with folks and letting them know that they can "meet the maker" in this life......I desperately desire for others to understand this!! Come unto him now.....you don't want to meet him for the first time during his judgement.
No! You can't meet god in the same way you can meet the creator of a sculpture. First of all, to "meet" god requires that one accept that he exists; no such belief is required for an artist. Secondly, you never actually "meet" god in the sense that you meet the artist - this twisting of words is typical when theists try to debate. They'll use some word to describe their deity or have it interact but the caveat is that the word doesn't really have the common meaning of the term or is modified in a meaningless way (typically involving the use of the term "infinite"). Lastly, while the artist exists within the framework of nature and logic, god does not and the usual tools of congition and understanding don't apply.
It is our sin that introduced death, decay and disease upon the world.
No. That's what your particular interpretation of your grimoire of choice suggests. But none of that has a bearing on reality. Unless you can concretely and rationally establish your beliefs as facts without appealing to the supernatural, then stop making these grand proclamations.
Actually according to cosmology the expansion of the universe will kill us via way of dark, cold death (Lawrence Krauss affirms this).
If we don't kill ourselves off first. Or if a extinction-level event doesn't happen. Or if we are still earth-bound when our sun goes nova. Or... or... or...
Given that scientists view the human species as a cancer of sorts upon this planet [...]
You shouldn't generalize the fringe opinions of a few - like James Lovelock and Deepak Chopra - as representative of all scientists. Science is about rational examination of facts, the development of theories to explain those facts and allow inferences to be drawn and then tested. No evidence for the Gaia hypothesis has ever been presented and the general scientific consensus is that it is bullshit.
You may as well argue that snake-handling is a core Christian belief. After all, some nutjobs practice it.
-
No! You can't meet god in the same way you can meet the creator of a sculpture. First of all, to "meet" god requires that one accept that he exists; no such belief is required for an artist. Secondly, you never actually "meet" god in the sense that you meet the artist - this twisting of words is typical when theists try to debate. They'll use some word to describe their deity or have it interact but the caveat is that the word doesn't really have the common meaning of the term or is modified in a meaningless way (typically involving the use of the term "infinite"). Lastly, while the artist exists within the framework of nature and logic, god does not and the usual tools of congition and understanding don't apply.
Correct. "Meeting God" or "entering into a relationship with God" or "coming to know God" is not the same as meeting a sculpture. God's nature is divine and he is transcendent and infinite. The sculpture's nature is human and he is part of this world and finite. We must abide my God's terms as outlined in scripture in order to know his reality and that includes belief…..God’s in the business of believers.
Scripture and believers anthropomorphize God so that his nature is more relatable to folks, but that isn't a matter of deception. Objecting to this notion and simply referrring to it as "theist's twisted words" is just a matter of convenience in an argument, but it doesn't negate anything nor does it make it true.
No. That's what your particular interpretation of your grimoire of choice suggests. But none of that has a bearing on reality. Unless you can concretely and rationally establish your beliefs as facts without appealing to the supernatural, then stop making these grand proclamations.
You can use terms such as “grimoire” if you choose. Much like acclaimed atheist AronRa continually referring to the bible as “storybook” and God as “bigger than big, stronger than strong”. Terms like that are used to annoy….unnecessary for me though. You can just call refer to it as the bible because we both know what we’re talking about.
Well, yes, of course naturalism requires the elimination of the supernatural. Certainly atheists, nonbelievers, agnostics, etc…want God removed from the equation. Once you remove the providence of God you’ve essentially exited the Christian worldview and entered a newly created worldview from which it’s easier to argue from. You can play in that world all day. Although If you intend to discuss God then you must allow God to be God and engage the Christian worldview. God don’t work at Burger King…..can’t have it your way.
If we don't kill ourselves off first. Or if a extinction-level event doesn't happen. Or if we are still earth-bound when our sun goes nova. Or... or... or...
Sure there are plenty of other theories. I just refer to Lawrence Krauss given he’s beginning to replace Hitchens as one of the four “new atheists”.
You shouldn't generalize the fringe opinions of a few - like James Lovelock and Deepak Chopra - as representative of all scientists. Science is about rational examination of facts, the development of theories to explain those facts and allow inferences to be drawn and then tested. No evidence for the Gaia hypothesis has ever been presented and the general scientific consensus is that it is bullshit.
You may as well argue that snake-handling is a core Christian belief. After all, some nutjobs practice it.
Sorry wasn’t my intention. As far as I’m concerned, feel free to refer to whichever scientific theories give you greatest warm fuzzies about the death of humanity.
-
"There is no comparison between the one and only God of the bible nor is there any similar means whatsoever to verify any invented gods such as Zeus, Horus, Mithra, Osirus or demonically-inspired gods such as Allah, Shiva, Vishnu. It's tougher to toss out the demonically-inspired gods because the enemy of Christ (who is also the leader of this world) empowers these fictions via demonic "miracles" and other such tactics of spiritual warfare that cause people to suppress God while simultaneously convincing them that the demonic world (which stands opposed to Christ) absolutely does not exist.
who can argue with that argument ?
Here's a step-by-step on how most would respond:
1) Simply exclaim "Bull$*%t".
2) Call me a "brainwashed and delusional bibliotard".
3) Shift the topic to "Noah's ark" and ask how all the species of animals fit on it.
4) Pepper reply with a few "flying spaghetti monsters".
Now it isn't the only way to respond, but it's certainly a popular method....usually garners a couple of online high fives or "LOLs"!!
;) Glad to help.
-
Correct. "Meeting God" or "entering into a relationship with God" or "coming to know God" is not the same as meeting a sculpture. God's nature is divine and he is transcendent and infinite. The sculpture's nature is human and he is part of this world and finite. We must abide my God's terms as outlined in scripture in order to know his reality and that includes belief…..God’s in the business of believers.
No. He's not the in the business of belief. If your particular god exists and he's in a business, he's in the business of faith - that is belief in the absence of evidence. Some religious people take it further and believe contrary to evidence.
Scripture and believers anthropomorphize God so that his nature is more relatable to folks, but that isn't a matter of deception. Objecting to this notion and simply referrring to it as "theist's twisted words" is just a matter of convenience in an argument, but it doesn't negate anything nor does it make it true.
Of course it's twisting words when "meet" is used in the context you used it. One can meet a person but one cannot meet your god. As for anthropomorphism: you use it to describe your god when it serves you and reject it when it doesn't.
You can use terms such as “grimoire” if you choose. Much like acclaimed atheist AronRa continually referring to the bible as “storybook” and God as “bigger than big, stronger than strong”. Terms like that are used to annoy….unnecessary for me though. You can just call refer to it as the bible because we both know what we’re talking about.
No idea who "AronRa" is why he's acclaimed, but "grimoire" accurately reflects the bible's content in my view. Can you tell me how it's different to someone who doesn't accept the divine origin of the book but sees it as the collected writings of many, interpreted and reinterpreted over a millennia?
Well, yes, of course naturalism requires the elimination of the supernatural.
Naturalism doesn't require the elimination of the supernatural. In fact it says nothing more than "the supernatural isn't needed to explain our world."
Certainly atheists, nonbelievers, agnostics, etc…want God removed from the equation.
From which equation?
Once you remove the providence of God you’ve essentially exited the Christian worldview and entered a newly created worldview from which it’s easier to argue from.
The Christian worldview is not supported by facts and I think that it's silly for us to support such a worldview or to treat faith and logic as two sides of the same coin that allow us to gain a a concrete and verifiable understanding of our environment.
As for the non-Christian worldview being easier, I beg to differ. In your worldview, the answer is always "God!" and what could be easier than that? Why does the earth orbit the sun? God! Why is the sky blue? God! One needn't even finish a question: the answer is God!
You can play in that world all day. Although If you intend to discuss God then you must allow God to be God and engage the Christian worldview. God don’t work at Burger King…..can’t have it your way.
I don't need to accept God to argue that the Christian worldview is wrong. You're saying: "debate God all you want, but first believe he exists and accept all this stuff at face value." But if I do that what's there to talk about? Whether we're saved by faith, intercession or works? We're back to snake-biting...
Sure there are plenty of other theories. I just refer to Lawrence Krauss given he’s beginning to replace Hitchens as one of the four “new atheists”.
No idea who he is, or what the four "new atheists" are. I'm not a dues-paying member of that particular club.
Sorry wasn’t my intention. As far as I’m concerned, feel free to refer to whichever scientific theories give you greatest warm fuzzies about the death of humanity.
In what context?
-
Tbombz, have you ever prayed to God and asked him what propelled you to dress up in a bunny costume? Did god reveal himself with an answer?
Your friend,
SF1900
-
No. He's not the in the business of belief. If your particular god exists and he's in a business, he's in the business of faith - that is belief in the absence of evidence. Some religious people take it further and believe contrary to evidence.
If I had said “God is in the business of the faithful” you probably would’ve said that isn’t correct either. From what I’ve experienced, all that most care about is simply finding a way to object to whatever the theist posts.
Of course it's twisting words when "meet" is used in the context you used it.
It’s clear you grasp the language. Sure I could’ve selected another term and you would’ve understood that as well. I have "faith" in the comprehension abilities of the reader.
Still, arguing from a “word game” platform isn’t negating anything I’ve said.
One can meet a person but one cannot meet your god.
And how is it that you know that?
Clearly you grasp that the use of the word "meet" is used in different contexts.....one "meet" is about interacting with human beings in the natural world and one "meet" is about interacting with the supernatural God. Could I have used another word to convey the same idea? Sure. You understood this though.
I try now to keep my language more simplistic with less jargon.
As for anthropomorphism: you use it to describe your god when it serves you and reject it when it doesn't.
Some scripture is anthropomorphic and some isn’t. You accuse me of cherry picking. Please provide me some examples.
No idea who "AronRa" is why he's acclaimed, but "grimoire" accurately reflects the bible's content in my view. Can you tell me how it's different to someone who doesn't accept the divine origin of the book but sees it as the collected writings of many, interpreted and reinterpreted over a millennia?
How is what different exactly? The bible's content? Sorry, need more clarification. I can assure you the bible isn't the "Necronomicon" or Hogwart's "Defense Against the Dark Arts" textbook.
Naturalism doesn't require the elimination of the supernatural. In fact it says nothing more than "the supernatural isn't needed to explain our world."
I’m fine with how you define it. Include or exclude elimination.....no supernatural is the gist. Again that's clear.
From which equation?
Figure of speech.
The Christian worldview is not supported by facts and I think that it's silly for us to support such a worldview or to treat faith and logic as two sides of the same coin that allow us to gain a a concrete and verifiable understanding of our environment.
There are plenty of facts and a huge body of evidence to support Christianity. You're engaging some of that evidence right now. Atheists simply reject it. Again, their rejection doesn’t negate anything.....it's just a choice.
Why would you use Christian theology to understand the natural environment? Wouldn’t you use theology to understand the supernatural (God) and scientific methods to understand the natural? Of course with the atheist caveat being that there is no supernatural.
As for the non-Christian worldview being easier, I beg to differ. In your worldview, the answer is always "God!" and what could be easier than that? Why does the earth orbit the sun? God! Why is the sky blue? God! One needn't even finish a question: the answer is God!
This is silly. In your worldview, the answer is always "Science!" and what could be easier than that? Why does the earth orbit the sun? Science! Why is the sky blue? Science! One needn't even finish a question: the answer is Science!
Comments like this are just meant to annoy. Clearly this is not how I respond to things and it's not how you respond either.
I don't need to accept God to argue that the Christian worldview is wrong. You're saying: "debate God all you want, but first believe he exists and accept all this stuff at face value." But if I do that what's there to talk about? Whether we're saved by faith, intercession or works? We're back to snake-biting...
If you want to know the reality of God you must proactively approach him as outlined in scripture. Yes, “faith and belief” are a part of that. Folks that truly desire to know God in their lives follow through and seek him on his terms.....it's about humility and surrender.
In what context?
Whichever context you feel best supports your preferred scientific theories about this particular topic. I'm not married to a particular theory.....sun exploding, universe expanding, asteroid hitting earth, massive earthquake, super-flu, worldwide outbreak of F-5 sharknados, etc.....all could theoretically wipe out humanity.
-
You got what you wanted, MOS
This is a good discussion thread.
-
You got what you wanted, MOS
This is a good discussion thread.
You know the boards are dull when folks are slumming it on the Religion board. :)
-
You know the boards are dull when folks are slumming it on the Religion board. :)
Yes, the overall thread quality is severely lacking on the G&O now.
-
Big bang Religion and evolution creationsim is a bunch of garbage that comes from the human desire to know shit but the fact is they dont know shit, all these dumbass scientistreligious zealots have is a bunch of theoriesfictional stories that they keep changing every month with a bunch of dumbfucks following behind them eating up their stupid words.
FIXED
-
Yes, the overall thread quality is always severely lacking in the MMA on the G&O now.
Fixed
-
If I had said “God is in the business of the faithful” you probably would’ve said that isn’t correct either. From what I’ve experienced, all that most care about is simply finding a way to object to whatever the theist posts.
Deities - regardless of flavor - aren't in business. The people behind most of them, on the other hand, are: the business of selling fiction.
It’s clear you grasp the language. Sure I could’ve selected another term and you would’ve understood that as well. I have "faith" in the comprehension abilities of the reader.
Of course I grasp it, but the problem is that by using such "common" terms confusion sets is. Can one meet God? What about know him? Can one go out for a beer with God? Which words sorta-kinda apply and which don't?
And how is it that you know that?
Because - even if viewed in the light most positive to your position - the Christian God is not a physical person.
Clearly you grasp that use of the word "meet" is used for different contexts.....one "meet" is about interacting with human beings in the natural world and one "meet" is about interacting with the supernatural God.
The problem is that you instigated confusion when you started comparing those two contexts, which you agree are different, by comparing meeting a person to meeting God.
Some scripture is anthropomorphic and some isn’t. You accuse me of cherry picking. Please provide me some examples.
I'm not accusing you, personally. I'm accusing the Bible.
How what is different exactly? Sorry, need more clarification.
How is your particular book is different to a non-believer from, say, the Qur'an, or some vedic writings. The answer is it isn't.
You don't believe in Islam and you reject the Qur'an. I don't believe in Islam or Christianity and I reject both the Qur'an and the Bible. I called the bible a "grimoire" which literally means "a book of magic spells and invocations." To someone who doesn't believe it's divinely inspired, is it not a book of magic spells and invocations? There's detailed descriptions of how to sacrifice animals to God to curry favor, or how to pray for a deity to intercede. Again, if that's not magic spells and incantations what is it?
There are plenty of facts and a huge body of evidence to support Christianity. Atheists simply reject it. Again, their rejection doesn’t negate anything.
Please list three facts which support Christianity. Do note that per the definition, a fact is something that is, essentially, indisputable.
Why would you use Christian theology to understand the natural environment? Wouldn’t you use theology to understand the supernatural (God) and scientific methods to understand the natural? Of course with the atheist caveat being that there is no supernatural.
So, you assert that the natural environment is outside the purview of Christianity then?
This is silly. In your worldview, the answer is always "Science!" and what could be easier than that? Why does the earth orbit the sun? Science! Why is the sky blue? Science! One needn't even finish a question: the answer is Science!
No, you're wrong. In my worldview, the answer is: "Well, the theory I have is <W>, supported by <X> and <Y> and predicting <Z>. Let's see if we can observe <Z>." Before that, my answer is "Huh, I don't know. Let's find out." And I base that on one simple maxim: that we live in a world that can be understood by using logic and our rational faculity.
The difference between the answers "God!" and "Science!" is that one requires blind faith in the absence evidence while the other reasoned examination of presented evidence. The difference is that "God!" is not testable of falsifiable, whereas "Science!" is. Here, I'll give you an example: why do we fall back down to the earth after we jump?
God answer: "Because God has only allowed birds to fly."
Science answer: "Because the earth exerts a force on you that is directly proportional to the product of your two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."
One answer is meaningless - it answers nothing and couldn't be tested. The other provides useful information that can be tested and if found to be incorrect, improved.
Comments like this are just meant to annoy. Clearly this is not how I respond to things and it's not how you respond either.
Of course it's not how people generally respond. It's a gross simplification. But people do respond along those lines, even if not that simplistically.
If you want to know the reality of God you must proactively approach him as outlined in scripture. Yes, “faith and belief” are a part of that. Folks that truly desire to know God in their lives follow through and seek him on his terms.....it's about humility and surrender.
There's an invisible flying unicorn in my back yard - a unicorn that was the source of all creation as outlined in his scripture. Are you willing to proactively approach that invisible flying unicorn as outlined in the scripture? If not, why not?
Whichever context you feel best supports your preferred scientific theories about this particular topic. I'm not married to a particular theory.....sun exploding, universe expanding, asteroid hitting earth, super-flu, etc.....all could theoretically wipe out humanity.
Well, there's no arguing that our sun will go nova. So, let's assume that humans will remain a one planet species and survive long enough for Sol to become a red giant. Let's talk...
-
WHALE EVOLUTION
;D
-
People have to understand life is meaningless...death is the end for everyone..Even conqueror's die like dogs, who's going to remember Alexander the Great in 500,000 years?...Our lives are without any meaning and the signs are all around us....We can travel around our blue marble in 3 days, 1/2 if you use military technology.Earth is one quintillionth the size of the largest star in the known universe....Average people are forgotten completely 50 years after their death... etc etc
Just accept it, Biblical fairy tales will only make you feel better, nothing else.. :-\ :'( ;)
-
People have to understand life is meaningless...death is the end for everyone..Even conqueror's die like dogs, who's going to remember Alexander the Great in 500,000 years?...Our lives are without any meaning and the signs are all around us....We can travel around our blue marble in 3 days, 1/2 if you use military technology.Earth is one quintillionth the size of the largest star in the known universe....Average people are forgotten completely 50 years after their death... etc etc
Just accept it, Biblical fairy tales will only make you feel better, nothing else.. :-\ :'( ;)
Hey David.
You know.. back when I was about 6 years old, I thought the same thing.
I can remember looking at people walking out from church and thinking to myself...
"It is so obvious that God is a lie, and that these people are just going to church because they are scared of death"
That's what I thought when I was about 6 years old.
But then one day when I was about 20 years old, I was taking a philosophy course in college, and a weight from Heaven came down and smacked me upside my head: For every effect, there is a cause! Things happen for a reason. This is basic science. So, it follows that there is a cause for the universe. There is a cause for existence! What is that cause? Only one thing can possibly be the ultimate cause of everything: God! (the only eternal, uncaused, CREATOR).
And then it was a long journey of obsessive, passionate, reckless devotion to searching out who God is. Because I adamantly rejected Jesus, and because I knew in my inner most being that all other religions were false, I tried to find God on my own. And it took me down some very dark paths, and I met many demons along the way. But, eventually, God had mercy on me and touched my life in a supernatural way and proved Himself to me.
So, these days, I do not only have "faith", I know that I know that I know that Jesus is God and that His Word is true.
:)
Now, for you, you will never believe. You will never, ever, ever believe in Jesus Christ and The Holy Bible.
That is, you will never believe unless at some point you becoming willing to surrender your entire life over to Him, and then pursue Him with all your heart and keep on pursuing until He has mercy on you and reveals Himself to you.
You see, God created us, and gave His only Son for us, and yet we wage war against Him on a daily basis. We all deserve to be destroyed in eternal hell fire.
So God is not going to come down and let you grab Him by the balls and jerk him around, slap Him in the face, spit all over Him, and curse His name. He already created you, gave you everything you have, and died on the cross for you too. Its up to you now whether you accept His infinite love and mercy, or die in your sins and experience the most unimaginable torment for all of eternity.
-
Hey David.
You know.. back when I was about 6 years old, I thought the same thing.
I can remember looking at people walking out from church and thinking to myself...
"It is so obvious that God is a lie, and that these people are just going to church because they are scared of death"
That's what I thought when I was about 6 years old.
But then one day when I was about 20 years old, I was taking a philosophy course in college, and a weight from Heaven came down and smacked me upside my head: For every effect, there is a cause! Things happen for a reason. This is basic science. So, it follows that there is a cause for the universe. There is a cause for existence! What is that cause? Only one thing can possibly be the ultimate cause of everything: God! (the only eternal, uncaused, CREATOR).
And then it was a long journey of obsessive, passionate, reckless devotion to searching out who God is. Because I adamantly rejected Jesus, and because I knew in my inner most being that all other religions were false, I tried to find God on my own. And it took me down some very dark paths, and I met many demons along the way. But, eventually, God had mercy on me and touched my life in a supernatural way and proved Himself to me.
So, these days, I do not only have "faith", I know that I know that I know that Jesus is God and that His Word is true.
:)
Now, for you, you will never believe. You will never, ever, ever believe in Jesus Christ and The Holy Bible.
That is, you will never believe unless at some point you becoming willing to surrender your entire life over to Him, and then pursue Him with all your heart and keep on pursuing until He has mercy on you and reveals Himself to you.
You see, God created us, and gave His only Son for us, and yet we wage war against Him on a daily basis. We all deserve to be destroyed in eternal hell fire.
So God is not going to come down and let you grab Him by the balls and jerk him around, slap Him in the face, spit all over Him, and curse His name. He already created you, gave you everything you have, and died on the cross for you too. Its up to you now whether you accept His infinite love and mercy, or die in your sins and experience the most unimaginable torment for all of eternity.
Eh, not really. Just loaned him out for thirty-some years before snatching him back.
-
Hey David.
You know.. back when I was about 6 years old, I thought the same thing.
I can remember looking at people walking out from church and thinking to myself...
"It is so obvious that God is a lie, and that these people are just going to church because they are scared of death"
That's what I thought when I was about 6 years old.
But then one day when I was about 20 years old, I was taking a philosophy course in college, and a weight from Heaven came down and smacked me upside my head: For every effect, there is a cause! Things happen for a reason. This is basic science. So, it follows that there is a cause for the universe. There is a cause for existence! What is that cause? Only one thing can possibly be the ultimate cause of everything: God! (the only eternal, uncaused, CREATOR).
And then it was a long journey of obsessive, passionate, reckless devotion to searching out who God is. Because I adamantly rejected Jesus, and because I knew in my inner most being that all other religions were false, I tried to find God on my own. And it took me down some very dark paths, and I met many demons along the way. But, eventually, God had mercy on me and touched my life in a supernatural way and proved Himself to me.
So, these days, I do not only have "faith", I know that I know that I know that Jesus is God and that His Word is true.
:)
Now, for you, you will never believe. You will never, ever, ever believe in Jesus Christ and The Holy Bible.
That is, you will never believe unless at some point you becoming willing to surrender your entire life over to Him, and then pursue Him with all your heart and keep on pursuing until He has mercy on you and reveals Himself to you.
You see, God created us, and gave His only Son for us, and yet we wage war against Him on a daily basis. We all deserve to be destroyed in eternal hell fire.
So God is not going to come down and let you grab Him by the balls and jerk him around, slap Him in the face, spit all over Him, and curse His name. He already created you, gave you everything you have, and died on the cross for you too. Its up to you now whether you accept His infinite love and mercy, or die in your sins and experience the most unimaginable torment for all of eternity.
Such a small, meaningless crust of land in the middle of many many galaxies billions of times the size of earth...Why anyone would think someone would be watching over it with a smile on their face while these beings destroy the land and negatively affect the environment is beyond me..We are the ones who created time..We are also the ones who created the bible..You believe what you believe because that is what is closest and most true to you..Yes i b elieve that it is some type of comfort zone but i am entitled to my own opinion as you are to yours...
Makes me think of terrorists as an extreme example to why people need to believe for themselves based on logic and not on emotion even though emotion is not a weakness...Terrorists are not born wanting to be suicide bombers and to blow things up..it's the version of the bible that THEY ARE GIVEN and the version of the bible THEY READ that says that is the right thing to do..So they know no better..For someone else to judge them based on their beliefs, but to have such an unrealistic happening of occurences be believed in your mind something like the holy bible is extremely hypocritical IMO...Many many smart people have been born and died throughout this world over the years..MANY MANY MANY smart people and the common theme they all have in common is that they usually don't believe in god..People like hawking, Einstein etc believe there is no god..And they're widely looked upon for all of their other theories and known as the smartest people of all time..But with a touchy subject like religion...The average shmo suddenly knows more than them? I think not... Who knows though?
-
Hey David.
You know.. back when I was about 6 years old, I thought the same thing.
I can remember looking at people walking out from church and thinking to myself...
"It is so obvious that God is a lie, and that these people are just going to church because they are scared of death"
That's what I thought when I was about 6 years old.
But then one day when I was about 20 years old, I was taking a philosophy course in college, and a weight from Heaven came down and smacked me upside my head: For every effect, there is a cause! Things happen for a reason. This is basic science. So, it follows that there is a cause for the universe. There is a cause for existence! What is that cause? Only one thing can possibly be the ultimate cause of everything: God! (the only eternal, uncaused, CREATOR).
And then it was a long journey of obsessive, passionate, reckless devotion to searching out who God is. Because I adamantly rejected Jesus, and because I knew in my inner most being that all other religions were false, I tried to find God on my own. And it took me down some very dark paths, and I met many demons along the way. But, eventually, God had mercy on me and touched my life in a supernatural way and proved Himself to me.
So, these days, I do not only have "faith", I know that I know that I know that Jesus is God and that His Word is true.
:)
Now, for you, you will never believe. You will never, ever, ever believe in Jesus Christ and The Holy Bible.
That is, you will never believe unless at some point you becoming willing to surrender your entire life over to Him, and then pursue Him with all your heart and keep on pursuing until He has mercy on you and reveals Himself to you.
You see, God created us, and gave His only Son for us, and yet we wage war against Him on a daily basis. We all deserve to be destroyed in eternal hell fire.
So God is not going to come down and let you grab Him by the balls and jerk him around, slap Him in the face, spit all over Him, and curse His name. He already created you, gave you everything you have, and died on the cross for you too. Its up to you now whether you accept His infinite love and mercy, or die in your sins and experience the most unimaginable torment for all of eternity.
so your logic is everything needs a cause, expect the original cause, there is a cause for everything expect that which needs no cause?
you are violating your principle, if you can violate everything needs a cause why can't I?
Quite the deal, Imagine you have a kid, you say to that kid, look at everything I gave you, here is how I want you to live and if you do not you are will burn in hell, makes perfect sense, true love!!! I bought you a bike but don't ride it, you willl cause everyone to potentially burn in hell, makes sense dad, thanks!!!
virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time, cause is not required, hence you argument doesn't make sense in reality, not everything needs a cause, your brain is adding that pattern.
-
You know.. back when I was about 6 years old, I thought the same thing.
I can remember looking at people walking out from church and thinking to myself...
"It is so obvious that God is a lie, and that these people are just going to church because they are scared of death"
Damn. You were thinking all this when you were six years old? I was thinking about Transformers and GI*Joe!
But then one day when I was about 20 years old, I was taking a philosophy course in college, and a weight from Heaven came down and smacked me upside my head: For every effect, there is a cause! Things happen for a reason. This is basic science. So, it follows that there is a cause for the universe. There is a cause for existence! What is that cause? Only one thing can possibly be the ultimate cause of everything: God! (the only eternal, uncaused, CREATOR).
So you were thinking all those deep thoughts at 6 and then at 20 you were taking philosophy and thinking the above garbage? What happened between six and twenty? Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury?
-
Damn. You were thinking all this when you were six years old? I was thinking about Transformers and GI*Joe!
So you were thinking all those deep thoughts at 6 and then at 20 you were taking philosophy and thinking the above garbage? What happened between six and twenty? Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury?
at that rate, at 40 he'll be gurgling baby talk
-
at that rate, at 40 he'll be gurgling baby talk
Benjamin fucking Button.
-
so your logic is everything needs a cause, expect the original cause, there is a cause for everything expect that which needs no cause?
you are violating your principle, if you can violate everything needs a cause why can't I?
Quite the deal, Imagine you have a kid, you say to that kid, look at everything I gave you, here is how I want you to live and if you do not you are will burn in hell, makes perfect sense, true love!!! I bought you a bike but don't ride it, you willl cause everyone to potentially burn in hell, makes sense dad, thanks!!!
virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time, cause is not required, hence you argument doesn't make sense in reality, not everything needs a cause, your brain is adding that pattern.
No, not everything needs a cause, but only things that have a beginning. God is eternal. That is the definition of God. God does not need a cause because God did not have a beginning.
God will not send good people to hell. Hell is not for good people. Hell is for bad people.
Virtual Particles?
"...In this chapter, Krauss gives evidence for entities called virtual particles. They are called virtual because they have never been directly observed due to their fleeting lifetimes (less than Planck time). However, the existence of virtual particles is allowed by quantum mechanics, from the uncertainty principle. There is indirect evidence for their existence. The calculated energy levels associated with the orbitals of hydrogen differ slightly from experimental measurement. However, if a virtual particle pair is assumed to be located around the hydrogen nucleus, the calculated energy levels match experiment exactly. They are believed to convey the strong force between quarks in protons and neutrons. Virtual particles are usually invoked in strong fields (electromagnetic, gravitational). Hawking radiation, predicted to be a mechanism by which black holes could ‘evaporate’, depends on the existence of virtual particles, but has not been observed so far. Krauss says a universe where the total mass/energy is balanced by the potential gravitational energy has zero net energy and so could pop into existence from nothing without violation of the first law. Such a universe should, however, collapse and disappear in periods shorter than the Planck time unless inflation allows it to exist beyond the Planck time. Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with nonzero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with nonzero energy is something! A quantum theory of gravity would mean quantum mechanics applies to space, not just to objects in space. Then we could say that spacetimes pop in and out of nothing if the total energy is zero. But we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity. Krauss concedes that this speculation does not prove our universe arose from nothing, but says it makes such a scenario more plausible. And plausibility is apparently all he needs to justify rejection of God. So much for basing his worldview on hard, cold facts alone. The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is (10 to the 120th power) times greater than that observed. This is a longstanding unsolved problem."
Damn. You were thinking all this when you were six years old? I was thinking about Transformers and GI*Joe!
So you were thinking all those deep thoughts at 6 and then at 20 you were taking philosophy and thinking the above garbage? What happened between six and twenty? Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury?
Those thoughts are not deep. They are the thoughts of a self-willed person who lives for their own desires, who refuses to believe in a God who demands obedience. They are the thoughts of an infant child with a reprobate mind.
-
No, not everything needs a cause, but only things that have a beginning. God is eternal. That is the definition of God. God does not need a cause because God did not have a beginning.
God will not send good people to hell. Hell is not for good people. Hell is for bad people.
Virtual Particles?
"...In this chapter, Krauss gives evidence for entities called virtual particles. They are called virtual because they have never been directly observed due to their fleeting lifetimes (less than Planck time). However, the existence of virtual particles is allowed by quantum mechanics, from the uncertainty principle. There is indirect evidence for their existence. The calculated energy levels associated with the orbitals of hydrogen differ slightly from experimental measurement. However, if a virtual particle pair is assumed to be located around the hydrogen nucleus, the calculated energy levels match experiment exactly. They are believed to convey the strong force between quarks in protons and neutrons. Virtual particles are usually invoked in strong fields (electromagnetic, gravitational). Hawking radiation, predicted to be a mechanism by which black holes could ‘evaporate’, depends on the existence of virtual particles, but has not been observed so far. Krauss says a universe where the total mass/energy is balanced by the potential gravitational energy has zero net energy and so could pop into existence from nothing without violation of the first law. Such a universe should, however, collapse and disappear in periods shorter than the Planck time unless inflation allows it to exist beyond the Planck time. Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with nonzero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with nonzero energy is something! A quantum theory of gravity would mean quantum mechanics applies to space, not just to objects in space. Then we could say that spacetimes pop in and out of nothing if the total energy is zero. But we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity. Krauss concedes that this speculation does not prove our universe arose from nothing, but says it makes such a scenario more plausible. And plausibility is apparently all he needs to justify rejection of God. So much for basing his worldview on hard, cold facts alone. The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is (10 to the 120th power) times greater than that observed. This is a longstanding unsolved problem."
Those thoughts are not deep. They are the thoughts of a self-willed person who lives for their own desires, who refuses to believe in a God who demands obedience. They are the thoughts of an infant child with a reprobate mind.
Not according to scripture, unless you wanna fuck with the definition of "good." Non-believer can live like a perfect saint, but he's guaranteed eternal torture. You know this. Bad people, on the other hand, just gotta be gullible to reach heaven.
Odd rules, don't you think?
-
No, not everything needs a cause, but only things that have a beginning. God is eternal. That is the definition of God. God does not need a cause because God did not have a beginning.
PROVIDE INDISPUTABLE, LOGICAL, OBJECTIVE PROOF FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS. DEFINE THE ENTITY YOU TERM GOD IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS US TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM A POTATO OR YOUR HOT PINK 16" MOTORIZED DILDO. YOU MAY NOT QUOTE THE BOOK THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY INSPIRED BY THE ENTITY THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE, AS THAT WOULD BE CIRCULAR REASONING.
God will not send good people to hell. Hell is not for good people. Hell is for bad people.
Did God not explicitly and knowingly harden some people's hearts so that they would not be saved and, thus, go to Hell?
Virtual Particles?
"..."
More copy-pasting from the people at creation.com. What qualifications does Daniel W. Reynolds have? Does he have a degree in physics? Does he understand the basics of quantum mechanics? Does he have specific criticisms against quantum mechanics that can demonstrate the existing theories are wrong or produce incorrect results?
Those thoughts are not deep. They are the thoughts of a self-willed person who lives for their own desires, who refuses to believe in a God who demands obedience. They are the thoughts of an infant child with a reprobate mind.
Sure... whatever floats your boat. ::)
-
No, not everything needs a cause, but only things that have a beginning. God is eternal. That is the definition of God. God does not need a cause because God did not have a beginning.
God will not send good people to hell. Hell is not for good people. Hell is for bad people.
Virtual Particles?
"...In this chapter, Krauss gives evidence for entities called virtual particles. They are called virtual because they have never been directly observed due to their fleeting lifetimes (less than Planck time). However, the existence of virtual particles is allowed by quantum mechanics, from the uncertainty principle. There is indirect evidence for their existence. The calculated energy levels associated with the orbitals of hydrogen differ slightly from experimental measurement. However, if a virtual particle pair is assumed to be located around the hydrogen nucleus, the calculated energy levels match experiment exactly. They are believed to convey the strong force between quarks in protons and neutrons. Virtual particles are usually invoked in strong fields (electromagnetic, gravitational). Hawking radiation, predicted to be a mechanism by which black holes could ‘evaporate’, depends on the existence of virtual particles, but has not been observed so far. Krauss says a universe where the total mass/energy is balanced by the potential gravitational energy has zero net energy and so could pop into existence from nothing without violation of the first law. Such a universe should, however, collapse and disappear in periods shorter than the Planck time unless inflation allows it to exist beyond the Planck time. Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with nonzero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with nonzero energy is something! A quantum theory of gravity would mean quantum mechanics applies to space, not just to objects in space. Then we could say that spacetimes pop in and out of nothing if the total energy is zero. But we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity. Krauss concedes that this speculation does not prove our universe arose from nothing, but says it makes such a scenario more plausible. And plausibility is apparently all he needs to justify rejection of God. So much for basing his worldview on hard, cold facts alone. The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is (10 to the 120th power) times greater than that observed. This is a longstanding unsolved problem."
Those thoughts are not deep. They are the thoughts of a self-willed person who lives for their own desires, who refuses to believe in a God who demands obedience. They are the thoughts of an infant child with a reprobate mind.
So god is the only possible eternal thing? the universe itself cannot be?