# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Athiesm Vs Religion... let battle commence

## QDO1

Who's brave?

----------


## Chairtime

Bring it on !!

----------


## QDO1

I thought getting a thread for this subject ought to get the many "off message" debates out of the other threads

So to begin.  I am an Athiest.  I dont believe in god.  For me - I havent seen, experienced, or known a god to believe in.  For me god is a figment of the immagination in the minds of the religious.  I dont see why laws and government seem to be dictated to by religion

----------


## drk

Here you go, QDO1:

Do you believe "there is no God", or do you "not believe in God"?  Please be excruciatingly specific.

----------


## eyecarepro

"Religion is the opiate of the masses"- Karl Marx (I think). One of my favourite quotes. I'm always up for a controversial topic. My 2 favourites- Politics and RELIGION. I respect EVERYONE'S beliefs, however, I do NOT necessarily think they're all RIGHT. Ozzy Osbourne and his evil minion's of the famed Black Sabbath have had a great impact on MY belief's. I too, am a devout atheist. Unfortunately, since Bush's second term, the lines that separate church and state have become more and more blurry. That scares me like I scare an Evangelical Christian.

----------


## drk

Hey, if you worship the Devil, and Satan believes in God (since he's met him many, many, many times..) why don't you?

----------


## QDO1

> Here you go, QDO1:
> 
> Do you believe "there is no God", or do you "not believe in God"? Please be excruciatingly specific.


As far as i am concerned there is no god for me to believe in

----------


## drk

Ok, I will take that to mean you believe, rather certainly, that there is no God. 

It seems like you are saying: "I've used my five senses, and integrated the whole thing in my head, and, nope, I don't see any evidence of God." 

You are a "show me" kind of guy, right? You are a skeptic, a materialist, right?  You are prepared to make statements of truth based on your senses and reason, right?

----------


## chm2023

Heard from God.  He sez he'll weigh in on this once he solves the more pesky "tastes great/less filling" controversy.  Jeez, no rest for the weary I guess...:cheers:

----------


## drk

Hey, CHM, don't you have a standing appointment to go flying around on your broom tonight?  Better get dressed...:D

----------


## Chairtime

For the record:

I am Catholic and believe in God.  I have never seen God but I have had some personal experiences that I cannot explain using an Encyclopedia Brittanica.

The fighting words:
I know God exists and I believe athiests are missing out on a large part of their existence.  They live superficially.

----------


## chm2023

> Hey, CHM, don't you have a standing appointment to go flying around on your broom tonight? Better get dressed...:D


Indeed I do.  And you better hope I am in a more Treat than Trick mode!!  

(Maniacal laughter here)  

You need to close up shop as well:  those razor blades aren't going to put themselves in the Milky Ways!!!!!;)

----------


## eyecarepro

Hey! Who says atheists live superficially?? I happen to live a very full life, WELL below the surface.

----------


## Chairtime

> As far as i am concerned there is no god for me to believe in


Hypothetical question for you.  If you found out that both God and Satan exist, whom would you worship?

----------


## Chairtime

> Hey! Who says atheists live superficially?? I happen to live a very full life, WELL below the surface.


It may be a full life, but full of what?

----------


## Chairtime

Just so we all know who is who,  please respond using letter only.

a)  I believe in God and Satan but worship God and reject Satan.
b)  I believe in God and Satan but worship Satan and reject God.
c)  I believe in God and Satan but worship neither.
d)  I believe in and worship only God.
e)  I believe in and worship only Satan.
f)  I don't believe in or worship God or Satan.
g)  I don't know what to believe.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Wow, I haven't been to OptiBoard lately (busy, busy, busy)... I just decided to drop by and see what's been going on, and this thread was the first thing I saw!

I guess God has a sense of humor (um, with respects to your view- that is, assuming there is a God and that He cares about OptiBoard or anything else that happens on our little sphere we call Earth).
:)

Anyway, I happen to believe in God. By way of definition, specifically the God who goes by various names (Yahweh, Jehovah, etc.) and who is worshipped by Judeo-Christians.

So to begin. I am an Athiest. I dont believe in god. For me - I havent seen, experienced, or known a god to believe in. For me god is a figment of the immagination in the minds of the religious. 
This about sums up what will likely be our different view of the world, as it defines the _a priori_ assumptions we will each make in our approach to any discussion of the divine. As mentioned, I believe in God. This belief comes from observation and experiences (therefore, it can probably be assumed that you and I have had a different set of experiences up to this point in life).

Since you believe in no divine power, I'm assuming you subscribe to the theory that the universe came into being through a great explosion called the "Big Bang." Of course, unless you are very creative, you probably have no data regarding the origin of the infintesimal speck of matter that predated this explosion. Likewise, I can offer no explanation as to the origin of God. I'm just attempting to note up front that the origin of the universe is something which cannot be absolutely accounted for by either an atheistic or religious approach.

Furthermore, I'll assume you believe in the theory of evolution to explain the presence of life on this planet. Since evolution is not observable or repeatable (the requirements for science to make a definitive statement), again we'll have to argue based on our assumptions. Likewise, although a proposed account of creation is posted in Genesis, I wasn't personally there and obviously cannot scientifically prove the accuracy of that account- so neither of us has an absolutely provable position here either.

That is a tremendously long-winded way of stating that we're back to what we each "believe" based on experience (which you were able to do in one sentence, my compliments). So, what experiences do I have that lead me to a conclusion which differs from your own?

First, I find myself unable to believe that the universe, this planet, life, etc. came into being by time and chance (perhaps I'm just not imaginative enough to think through the remoteness of how this could happen through chance). From the beginning, then, I admit that the origin of my travel toward a belief in God comes from the ordered nature of the universe and an inability to account for it otherwise (religion usually begins thus- the Greeks believed in religious forces behind lightning and all sorts of other nonsense). 

Based on my assumption that "something" put us here, it seems improbable to me that that "something" would have no purpose behind going to all that trouble. Basically, it seems such an imaginative creator would have had a purpose and would have communicated that purpose. That belief resulted in an evaluation of my options. Most religions seem nice enough, but Christianity seems to make the most sense to me (perhaps because I was born in a country that is primarily Judeo-Christian, to parents that hold that faith- who knows?). Of course, I've done some study to validate my belief in this particular religion. The ultimate validation (for me) being that Jesus Christ obviously lived (according to both Biblical and secular accounts), his appearance seems to be in accordance with any number of earlier prophesies, and (to use a cliche) no one seems to be able to produce his body (which is pretty much the keystone of the Christian faith).

Furthermore, every day I _believe_ I feel the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus before His departure from the earth (that's right, you're dealing with a real "wacko" here- after all, Paul says the faith is basically foolishness). I'd love to say I always heed and live by that guidance- fact is, I don't (in my belief system, that's called sin). I can't claim any particular "miracles" in my life that reaffirm this belief (although a lot of otherwise coincidental things have happened that- due to the a priori beliefs mentioned earlier- lead me to see these event as being a confirmation of my belief in God).

So there it is. I should mention that I also believe that religion is pretty much for the birds. True religion is loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself- according to the Bible, anyway. The rest of it is trappings that have arisen in man's attempt to assist people in believing (although with the trappings come an alarming number of unnecessary additions, distortions, and outright heresies). Furthermore, I beleive belief in God can only come through His reaching out to us (cf. several passages in the Bible). The Bible seems to indicate that not everyone will come to a belief in God (although Romans 1 claims that the necessary elements to believe are contained in nature itself). 

So, other than stating that I do believe in God based on my own experiences, there is nothing I can offer by way of argument to claim that I'm right and you are wrong. As Keikergaard (sp?) claimed, it all boils down to a leap of faith. It is completely possible that you are absolutely correct- the world originated from an explosion, life evolved to the point it is today, and we'll all pass into oblivion soon enough with no consequences one way or the other. Likewise, it would seem I could also be correct in my beliefs- each of us can only go by our own observations.

One question I would ask, however. Why should an atheist submit to ANY law- religious or otherwise? That is, if we are all here by chance, it seems each of us should pretty much govern ourselves. Forget all the "living together in society" crap. After all, society- like religion- is just a vehicle of the weak (who are too feeble to make their own decisions and livelihood). I'm not even suggesting atheism is wrong- I'd just like to know what a world comprised solely of true atheists would look like (I think it would have some rather interesting characteristics). Religion has resulted in all sorts of historically documentable atrocities- so has atheism (e.g., the U.S.S.R. was an atheistic community).

Great thread topic!

PS- Um, put me down as an "a.)"

----------


## Chairtime

a)

----------


## eyecarepro

F)  For Sure.

----------


## drk

a)

----------


## Chairtime

Pete, great post, but I think you surpassed the 500 word limit.  Its easier for the rest of us to keep it under the limit.

----------


## drk

Pete, man, that was awesome.

Minor niggling difference: the faith "seems" like foolishness to the natural man.

Big, fat, difference, in line with Romans: A solid review of the body of evidence for all intents and purposes disproves evolution and shows that cosmology supports intelligent design.  You know about Strobel's work, right?

----------


## Chairtime

drk, what makes you think evolution isn't part of the intelligent design?

----------


## drk

Because evolution, by definition, says that life evolved from non-life, spontaneously, with absolutely no purpose, by random chance.  That, at least, is the evolutionist's origin of life myth that they believe.

Not to be confused with the evolutionist's unproven and shaky theory as to why species exist. (Macroevolutionary theory)

Not to be confused with what you're probably thinking of: change over time.  This is provable. (Microevolutionary theory)

----------


## Chairtime

> Because evolution, by definition, says that life evolved from non-life, spontaneously, with absolutely no purpose, by random chance. That, at least, is the evolutionist's origin of life myth that they believe.


Well then.  That's preposterous.

----------


## drk

Ok, all you atheist pigs: eat this::bbg: 

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/index.html

You're SO outgunned...muhahahahaha....

----------


## QDO1

> Ok, all you atheist pigs: eat this::bbg: 
> 
> http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/index.html
> 
> You're SO outgunned...muhahahahaha....


yes the whole site is like this snippet:




> *"No Other Name"*
> _A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ_ _The conviction of the New Testament writers was that there is no salvation apart from Jesus. This orthodox doctrine is widely rejected today because God's condemnation of persons in other world religions seems incompatible with various attributes of God. Analysis reveals the real problem to involve certain counterfactuals of freedom, e.g., why did not God create a world in which all people would freely believe in Christ and be saved? Such questions presuppose that God possesses middle knowledge. But it can be shown that no inconsistency exists between God's having middle knowledge and certain persons' being damned; on the contrary, it can be positively shown that these two notions_ _are compatible._




the site then goes on to show what - it says "it can positivley show... " and then moves on to the next topic without positivley showing anything

----------


## QDO1

> This thread is not about whether the Bible is true or false. Personally, I don't know the Bible as well as the "Athiests" in here. It's really about whether the universe was created deliberately or not. If we continue this thread as "Evolution vs Intelligent Design," it would eliminate a lot of bible talk and we can make analytical and logical progress based only on known facts.


Well a lot of theists hold the scriptures to be true, and unlike people who just accept ancent scriptures as gospel truth, most athiests are free thinking.  that would be why I have read most of the main religious texts, across the religions - because, I, like most other athiests are not starting from the standpoint of knowing we are right

My second point on this is that we are bombarded with so many religious texts and philosophies, most athiests make a point of trying to understand where the rest of you are comming from.  If that means we are a little more gemmed up on things, thats because in general we do make a point of reading up something and understanding it before taking a view

----------


## finklstiltskin

> Ok, all you atheist *pigs*:


Well, that's mighty white of you. And mighty "Christian," too. I guess some people don't realize that the word "Christian" means "Christ-like".

----------


## Bill West

1 Cor 1:18
18 For *the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness*; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 
1 Cor 1:19
19 *For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent*. 
1 Cor 1:20
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? *hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world*? 
1 Cor 1:21
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, *it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.* 
1 Cor 1:22
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 
1 Cor 1:23
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 
1 Cor 1:24
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 
1 Cor 1:25
25 Because *the foolishness of God is wiser than men*; and *the weakness of God is stronger than men.* 
1 Cor 1:26
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, *how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called*: 
1 Cor 1:27
27 But *God hath chosen* the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 
1 Cor 1:28
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 
1 Cor 1:29
29 That *no flesh should glory in his presence.* 




> Translation: the Bible is neither analytical nor factual. Thank you, Rimmy.

----------


## QDO1

> 1 Cor 1:18
> 18 For *the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness*; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 
> 1 Cor 1:19
> 19 *For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent*. 
> 1 Cor 1:20
> 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? *hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world*? 
> 1 Cor 1:21
> 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, *it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.* 
> 1 Cor 1:22
> ...


Rather than baltantly post texts from the bible like we are all gonna jump, why not read through my long analytical post made earlier today, and make a adult and reasonably argued comment

That would be my post starting..."The problem with the religious version of intelligent design"

----------


## Bill West

Ps 14:1
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (KJV)
Ps 14:2
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. (KJV)
Ps 14:3
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (KJV)
Ps 14:4
4 Have all the workers of iniquity no
(KJV)





> Rather than baltantly post texts from the bible like we are all gonna jump, why not read through my long analytical post made earlier today, and make a adult and reasonably argued comment
> 
> That would be my post starting..."The problem with the religious version of intelligent design"

----------


## drk

> Well, that's mighty white of you. And mighty "Christian," too. I guess some people don't realize that the word "Christian" means "Christ-like".


Finklestiltskein, don't drop in on a 280-post thread and cherry pick. That's just immature.

----------


## QDO1

> Ps 14:1
> 1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (KJV)
> Ps 14:2
> 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. (KJV)
> Ps 14:3
> 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (KJV)
> Ps 14:4
> 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no
> (KJV)


you are right... how do you manage do deal with a customer... is the phrase "D28 with a hardcoat" in the (KJV)?

Dammit I meant the phrase "Uncoated Crown Glass Exec in to a library frame".  what was i thinking?

----------


## QDO1

Im not a muslim, but the folowing text will be as relevant to Bill West as his rantings are to me

Koran.009
_9.30_: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! 

Perhaps this will drive home to him, how utterly rude and irrelevant just posting  texts from some ancient manuscripts can be.  Join in the debate, or crawl back under your rock

----------


## chm2023

> Thank you for helping me support my position, Chairtime. You did a simple and effective job.
> 
> CHM, "science" is just a way of thinking, and a body of knowledge. Don't make it more than it is. If one of my kids were sick, I would try to help them by taking them to another Dr., like my patient's parents do. That's not hypocritical.
> 
> [What is hypocritical is me saying "Wow, I'm so smart. Humans are so smart. We've figured out how this universe works. God is unnecessary, or impotent."]
> 
> CHM, are you really willing to spend a little time reading the science? Or, is your mind made up? I've spent a decent amount of time so that what I post is not "bull****" or "junk science". I can point you to respectable sources for what I say. You may disagree, but I think a little of your respect would be earned.
> 
> CHM, if I'm "laughably arrogant" you're needlessly sycophantic regarding cosmology or physics. Why should we not discuss cosmological things on this forum, such as the universe collapsing? 
> ...


 
First, my relationship with God is just fine; second, it is very personal, so I appreciate your concern but I retain the right to keep my most intimate relationship a mystery to people I occasionally converse with on a conversation forum. Suggest you try it, it's nice to maintain a little dignity.

My father was a doctor and my husband is a doctor so I have great respect for medicine and by extension science. "Hanging around" scientists is not a proper way to see what is and isn't as you suggest--its a hell of a lot easier I suppose--but from doing it nearly 60 years I can tell you it's not sometime you pick up by osmosis.

(I also have a brother who is a priest. Same deal.;) )

----------


## Chairtime

*Directions* 

Print | E-Mail | Send to Phone | PDA 

 CA US Revise | New Directions 



 NJ US Revise | New Directions 

*Total Est. Time:* 43 hours, 43 minutes
*Total Est. Distance:* 2902.47 miles



*Online Offers*
HotelsSchools in Real Estate*Maneuvers* Reverse Route

Distance Maps 1:Start out going SOUTHWEST on ROAD 400 / RIVER RD toward FRESH MEADOWS LN.1.1 2:Turn LEFT onto YOSEMITE SPRINGS PKWY.4.8 
Merge onto CA-99 S toward BAKERSFIELD / LOS ANGELES.107.5 miles:

Merge onto CA-58 E toward TEHACHAPI / MOJAVE.125.9 

Merge onto I-15 N via the exit on the LEFT toward LAS VEGAS.4.4 miles

Merge onto I-40 E.1210.6 

Merge onto I-44 E via EXIT 147B on the LEFT toward TULSA / WICHITA.15.3 

Merge onto I-44 E via EXIT 138A toward TULSA (Portions toll).484.6 

Take the I-55 N exit- EXIT 290A- on the LEFT toward I-70 EAST / ILLINOIS.<0.1 NORTH

Merge onto I-55 N via EXIT 290B toward I-70 EAST / ILLINOIS.20.6 miles

Merge onto I-70 E toward INDIANAPOLIS.516.9!!!!

Merge onto I-470 E via EXIT 219 toward BELLAIRE / WASHINGTON PA.10.5 

Merge onto I-70 E.66.7 miles

Merge onto I-76 E via EXIT 58 toward BREEZEWOOD / NEW JERSEY (Portions toll).252.7 miles

I-76 E becomes I-276 E / PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE (Portions toll).25.0 miles

Take the US-1 exit- EXIT 351- toward PHILADELPHIA / TRENTON.0.5 miles

Merge onto US-1 N via the exit on the LEFT toward I-95 N / MORRISVILLE (Portions toll).21.2 miles

Merge onto US-1 S / BRUNSWICK PIKE via the exit on the LEFT toward CR-533 / QUAKER BRIDGE RD.1.9 miles

 End at NJ US 

*Total Est. Time:* 43 hours, 43 minutes *Total Est. Distance:* 2902.47 miles

----------


## Chairtime

> My father was a doctor and my husband is a doctor so I have great respect for medicine


Just out of curiosity, if your father was a carpet cleaner, would you have great respect for carpets?  Never mind, you don't have to answer that.

----------


## chm2023

> Just out of curiosity, if your father was a carpet cleaner, would you have great respect for carpets? Never mind, you don't have to answer that.


I don't respect carpets, indeed I don't believe they demand, and certainly would not appreciate, respect.  But that's me, by all means, have at it.   I'm fairly certainly carpets _are_ intelligently designed--tastefully designed most often not, but that's another subject.

----------


## Chairtime

> I don't respect carpets, indeed I don't believe they demand, and certainly would not appreciate, respect. But that's me, by all means, have at it. I'm fairly certainly carpets _are_ intelligently designed--tastefully designed most often not, but that's another subject.


Since we're off topic, did you ever want to be a writer? Your literation is like prose.

----------


## QDO1

> First, my relationship with God is just fine; second, it is very personal


There is a thing you can clear up for me.  how come millions of christians, on the one hand, have a personal relationship with god... and on the other have the massive desire to worship collectivley.

----------


## finklstiltskin

> Finklestiltskein, don't drop in on a 280-post thread and cherry pick. That's just immature.


What do you expect from a "punk" who should "go pick your nose"? 

Instead of giving me "advice," maybe you should not refer to people as pigs and fools because they believe differently than you.

----------


## rinselberg

Hey Fink,

I know it's always foolish to butt into scrapes between other folks like this, but I just thought that I would point out that *drk* is not the one who made that most unfortunate "nasal reference".

When *drk* said "pigs" he was obviously just trying to be humorous.

That's my two cents worth.


_Listen to RinselTunes online at ..._
http://www.laramyk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=558

----------


## drk

Thank you for your genteel post, Rinselberg

----------


## Jubilee

How can science coincide with creationism? For one, many religions believe that God's time is different than our time. That one day for him is thousands of years to us.  Also, people before the flood had longer life spans than we do. Methuselah lived to be 969. Sarah, Abraham's wife, gave birth at 90!

As far as a personal relationship is just that.. Each of us makes our own committment to God, worships how we see fit, and lives in accordance to that. Meeting as a congregation is to help one another and to learn more about God, to look at things in a different perspective or to be reminded of things. Meeting with a group can help encourage one another, many churches also promote welfare programs, and its nice to get together with people who think the same way you do, where you don't have to defend your beliefs. 

Cassandra

----------


## spartus

> Spartus,
> 
> I'm not sure how you feel about the ID (Intelligent Design) theorists - whether you consider their efforts to prove that life was purposely created by an intelligent designer, instead of by the more random or undirected processes of Neo-Darwinian evolution, a search for the "supernatural". But I would like to observe that the ID theorists do have a logical avenue of approach: *Their objective is to show by various means that life forms as they are observed today and in the past (by fossil evidence) are demonstrably so complex that no known or imaginable process of Neo-Darwinian evolution could explain their development.* They have brought forward research papers using the tools of mathematics and statistical analysis to study evolution-related issues like genome structures and the way that genes change or mutate. Among the ID theorists, Michael Behe in particular has had some success in getting the wider scientific community to review some of his research papers.


Sheesh, no one ever reads my links, do they? Once more, with feeling. Hey, and Behe's even mentioned on the page that one specifically links to, regarding to the "argument from incredulity", which, for you lazy clickers out there, is the position of "I don't get it, so it must be MAGIC!"

The short way around to what I'm trying to say is that the portion of your post up there that I've helpfully bolded for context is exactly the argument from incredulity. 

Anyway. Behe's adventures into peer review don't seem to be going well, eh? Oh--it seems it's a process similar to, but not entirely unlike peer review:




> ....
> 
> The editor shared his concerns with his wife. His wife was a student in my class. She advised her husband to give me a call. So, unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. *We spent approximately 10 minutes on the phone.* After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript. I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although _I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript._ We hung up and I never thought about it again. At least until two years later.
> 
> After some time Behe's book Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996) was published. It became an instant best-seller and was widely acclaimed in the news media. It is currently in its 15th printing and over 40,000 copies have been sold. I heard about it, but could not remember if this was the same book that I received the call about from the publisher. Could it be? In November 1998, I finally met Michael Behe when he visited Penn for a Faculty Outreach talk. He told me that yes, indeed, it was his book that the publisher called me about. In fact, he said _my comments were the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the book._


*Bold* emphasis mine. _Italics_ from the original.

About Behe, I have to admit I haven't been following the whole struggle lately terribly closely, but this is pretty remarkable:




> Source:
> 
> *Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science*, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
> 
> Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.


Oh, and that school board in Dover, PA that had Behe on the stand? They sort of all got voted out two days ago.

From the article:




> All eight Dover, Pennsylvania school board members up for re-election have been booted out after introducing intelligent design to the science classroom. In their place are a number of those who campaigned against the policy.
> 
> The original school board ruled that intelligent design could be taught alongside Darwinian evolution, in science classes. A group of 11 parents decided to challenge the decision in court, on the grounds that intelligent design is merely creationism in disguise, and is therefore unconstitutional.
> 
> The trial wrapped last week, and the judge is expected to rule by January 2006 at the latest. Both sides had been expected to appeal a loss, but now the school board maybe less likely to do so.
> 
> One of the winners, Bernadette Reinking, told the New York Times: "I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about."
> 
> *During the trial it emerged that one of the main proponents of the intelligent design policy, Mr. Bonsell, has previously tried to get creationism on to the local curriculum.* Of all the candidates up for re-election, Mr. Bonsell recorded the fewest votes, the NYT reports.


I do want to point out, that in all cases--this included--correlation is not causality. But a proponent of creationism who later tries to get ID approved for the curriculum? Makes one wonder, don't it?

And I know there's a new creationism/ID thread, but I wanted to reply to this where it was at least vaguely salient.

----------


## spartus

> 1 Cor 1:18
> 18 For *the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness*; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 
> 1 Cor 1:19
> 19 *For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent*. 
> 1 Cor 1:20
> 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? *hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world*? 
> 1 Cor 1:21
> 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, *it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.* 
> 1 Cor 1:22
> ...


I bet if I sat in on one of your church's services, I'd probably crap my pants. Do you just grab people by the shoulders and shake them until they convert?

----------


## chip anderson

Magic? No!,  Supernatural, Yes!   God is supernatural.  When you can make all the rules, including those of physics and time.  You don't have to obey your own rules, they are for underlings.  If God chooses to develop things in the blink of an eyelash or over Eons, when you make the rules you can do it your way.

God doesn't even have to have done things in the same way men have attempted to explain and chronical his acts.

----------


## QDO1

> Magic? No!, Supernatural, Yes! God is supernatural. When you can make all the rules, including those of physics and time. You don't have to obey your own rules, they are for underlings. If God chooses to develop things in the blink of an eyelash or over Eons, when you make the rules you can do it your way.
> 
> God doesn't even have to have done things in the same way men have attempted to explain and chronical his acts.


Well thats fine and dandy then... seems like a cop-out to me..  when you cant win the argument, just move the goal posts by saying your god is so immensly clever and powerful, he can change the rules beyond anyones comprehension

----------


## chm2023

> Since we're off topic, did you ever want to be a writer? Your literation is like prose.


Perhaps because it is prose???
Actually I started off as a writer and realized I could make about 10 times more money in business.  Did I sell out?  Yes.  Am I sorry?  Hell no.:cheers:

----------


## chm2023

> There is a thing you can clear up for me. how come millions of christians, on the one hand, have a personal relationship with god... and on the other have the massive desire to worship collectivley.


Beats me.  It is rather comical when you think about it.  "I'm going to save your soul or kill you trying".  Yikes!!!!! :Eek:

----------


## chip anderson

ODIE:  If it were not so, he would not be God!

----------


## QDO1

> ODIE: If it were not so, he would not be God!


it is amazing how something so alegedly powerful (God) is so absoloutly un-detectable

----------


## Chairtime

> it is amazing how something so alegedly powerful (God) is so absoloutly un-detectable


I wonder about that myself.

----------


## Lynne

> it is amazing how something so alegedly powerful (God) is so absoloutly un-detectable


Maybe because you're looking in all the wrong places, like science labs and test tubes!!:) 

Enjoy your arguement for arguement's sake!

----------


## chip anderson

I have no trouble finding Him and He has no trouble finding me. _ You_ must be the problem.Chip

----------


## QDO1

As I said God seems to only exist in the minds of the believers.  Asylums are full of people who believe things and/or have faith in something

I think that people of religion "need" to believe in something, firstly in a  social way, and then in a social, personal and psychological sense

----------


## Jubilee

I admit I do need something to believe in.

To think that this life is all there is to our existance. That we are no more than carbon based life forms whose main purpose is to procreate to further our evolving species. That once someone passes on, that we will never see, hear, touch, or feel them again. That there isn't such a thing as a soul... 

What's your motivation for life? What is it that gives you comfort when someone passes on? What about your own mortality?

I think I would go insane _if I didn't believe_ in God's plan and the Afterlife. 

Cassandra

----------


## Chairtime

Why would you want to go on living through suffering if there were no purpose to life?

----------


## Spexvet

> Why would you want to go on living through suffering if there were no purpose to life?


Why suffer at all?

----------


## finklstiltskin

I am curious about something:

Of all the self-professed Christians and 'Believers' on Optiboard, what denominations do you claim? Baptists, Catholics? What are you?

----------


## chm2023

Catholic.  (With all the guilt to prove it!):D

----------


## QDO1

> I admit I do need something to believe in.


why?

----------


## Chairtime

> Catholic.


Sorry but no.  Not if you're pro-gay marriage.  You are what's known as a "Cafeteria Catholic."  You pick and choose what tastes good and reject the rest.

----------


## QDO1

> Sorry but no. Not if you're pro-gay marriage. You are what's known as a "Cafeteria Catholic." You pick and choose what tastes good and reject the rest.


whats that got to do with athiesm Vs religion?   just shows you religious sorts are more factional than I thought

----------


## Spexvet

> Why would you want to go on living through suffering if there were no purpose to life?


Why do you think there has to be suffering at all????

----------


## drk

> Why do you think there has to be suffering at all????


 
Because Buddha said so.

----------


## finklstiltskin

> Because Buddha said so.


Now _that_...is real comedy. Thanks, drk. I needed that today.

----------


## chm2023

> Sorry but no. Not if you're pro-gay marriage. You are what's known as a "Cafeteria Catholic." You pick and choose what tastes good and reject the rest.


I'm sorry. I missed the announcement that you are the arbiter of my religious affiliation and faith. Imagine my surprise.

----------


## QDO1

when you all finish arguing amongst yourselves.. why not try to explain to me what proof you have of god existing

----------


## Bill West

Why don't you prove that there is no God? According to him you could look quite foolish trying to do that. GO FOR IT!




> when you all finish arguing amongst yourselves.. why not try to explain to me what proof you have of god existing

----------


## QDO1

well Bill we covered this earlier, but.. 

a.  There is no substantive evidence of God or any of his alledged works
b.  Athiests do not believe in god, so we feel there is nothing to prove or dis-prove.  It is you claiming to believe in something, so start proving it
c.  when born, the Inate human does not believe in anything, and is by default an athiest, untill belief is taught by society or parants
d. all arguments by the religious camp are full of holes, and only work with faith
e. the scriptures used by the religious are firstly ancient and poorly translated, and secondly, not accepted to be 100% correct

----------


## chip anderson

Ohhdie,   Oh Ohhdie.  The damn rock you are standing on is evidence of His works.

----------


## Chairtime

> whats that got to do with athiesm Vs religion? just shows you religious sorts are more factional than I thought


chm was the one who announced "I am Catholic" like its a badge of honor, meanwhile she's been a vocal supporter of gay marriage. That's like declaring you're a member of GreenPeace and then dumping oil in the Pacific.

----------


## QDO1

> Ohhdie, Oh Ohhdie. The damn rock you are standing on is evidence of His works.


so easy to say, but so hard to prove... go on - prove the rock i stand on is evidence of his works

----------


## QDO1

> chm was the one who announced "I am Catholic" like its a badge of honor, meanwhile she's been a vocal supporter of gay marriage. That's like declaring you're a member of GreenPeace and then dumping oil in the Pacific.


io take your point.  Now letsget it back on subject

----------


## Chairtime

> Why do you think there has to be suffering at all????


Suffering is an unavoidable part of life.  Those who think they can avoid all suffering end up divorced 3 times, alcoholic, on drugs, committing suicide, chronic gamblers or some other problem that comes from living for pleasure only.  Look at the number of "anti-suffering" pills that are sold today.  The commercial goes like this: [Are you feeling sad or stressed about money, work or relationships?  Ask your doctor if _______ is right for you and you could be feeling happy again in no time.]  This promotes the selfish "why suffer" attitude.  

What matters is how you deal with the suffering.  Can you honestly say that you didn't learn something after suffering through a problem in life?  or that it didn't make you stronger?

The desire to avoid suffering at all costs is what causes millions of abortions every year.  [After all, those poor women aren't ready for kids yet and we don't want them to suffer financially.]  It also causes people to push for euthanasia laws that threaten our elderly and sick.

Suffering should never be self-inflicted but sometimes it is necessary.

----------


## drk

1. Can you discern truth? Y or N?

2. Do you exist? Y or N?

3. What is the likely cause of your existence?

4. If you are organized matter (and physical only), you began to exist at the beginning of the universe, in a physical sense (matter/energy).

5. Your matter/energy is therefore eternal if the universe is eternal, and finite if the universe is finite.

6. As an atheist, you deny a spiritual aspect to your existence. If you die, you cease to exist as QDO1 and exist only as matter/energy, again. 

If you believe that there is a spiritual component of your being (non-space/time), then the option arises that your spiritual component is independent of the physical universe (by definition), and will putatively have a separate fate from the universe.

The only reasonable atheist position is to believe in Baruch Spinoza's god, which is the "nature god" of the eternal material universe, which, of course is not really a "god". That the universe is eternal and self-existant is what you must adhere to.

The point: does cosmology support an eternal universe, or one with a beginning and therefore external cause? I ask you: which position seems more supported by man's observation?

----------


## Chairtime

> so easy to say, but so hard to prove... go on - prove the rock i stand on is evidence of his works


Okay, the big challenge that's being thrown down to all the believers is this:  PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS.  Here's my response.

An analogy.  Your patient walks into your office with $100 dollars in his pocket.  He is the type that is very cheap and always has been.  He comes from a long line of cheapos and doesn't like salespeople.  He always buys his goods at the cheapest place in town and if he can't get a good price he will go without.  He cuts his own hair so he doesn't have to pay someone else.  This man is determined to buy glasses for $100 because he has seen adverts for this price and he has bought specs for this price before.  He has also been "tricked" into buying expensive ($200) glasses before and won't be had this time.  

QDO1 begins to explain to him the benefits of the Panamic Progressive when the man interrupts quickly. "How much?!?"

After laughing at the price, the man says "I don't believe glasses are worth more than $100."

Unfazed, QDO1 tells him of the independent laboratory tests that prove Panamic is the far superior lens and will make his life more enjoyable.  He even hands him a brochure that illustrates the evidence and indisputable proof.

Quiz:  Do you think the man will buy the glasses?

Answer:  No matter how much evidence you have, a person who likes his belief will resist changing it.  And will resist vigorously.

----------


## rinselberg

> Answer: No matter how much evidence you have, a person who likes his belief will resist changing it. And will resist vigorously.


I couldn't agree with you more, *chairtime.* But I'm not sure that you are making the point that you _want_ to make. I don't see any argument here for (or against, or even about) the existence of God - only an observation that it's generally (damn) difficult to persuade anyone to change whatever ideas they have already ascribed to: Religious ideas, political ideas, scientific ideas - any kind of ideas.

Purely as an historical aside, I would like to offer that few understood this (the relative immovability of beliefs) any better than the master Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels - but that is not anything much to the point here. (I think you could say that as a forums poster, I have "a fascination with fascination" ...)





> If you are organized matter (and physical only), you began to exist at the beginning of the universe, in a physical sense (matter/energy).


I think an atheist could sign on to this without a serious doubt or reservation.





> Your matter/energy is therefore eternal if the universe is eternal, and finite if the universe is finite.


I think this makes sense to atheists and believers alike.





> As an atheist, you deny a *spiritual* aspect to your existence. *If you die* you cease to exist as [whoever] and exist only as matter/energy again.


"Spiritual": An atheist would deny a *supernatural* aspect to their existence: "Spiritual" is a word with broader connotations, some of which come to mind more readily than the way that you mean here. "If you die": You could make that "When you die" - for *me.* Aside from that, I think you spoke the truth about what constitutes an atheistic POV.





> The only reasonable atheist position is to believe in Baruch Spinoza's god, which is the "nature god" of the eternal material universe, and, of course, is not really a god. That the universe is eternal and self-existant is what you must adhere to.


I don't see your logic. Why should an atheist particularly believe that the universe - or at least THIS universe - is eternal?





> Does cosmology support an eternal universe, or one with a beginning and therefore an external cause? ... Which position seems more supported by man's observations?


I think that there could be a universe that has a beginning and so did not exist eternally prior to our time - as best as we can discern, scientifically - but has an open-ended existence into the future: No predictable end to it, that we can discern. Not strictly illogical, as far as I can fathom - not necessarily what science is informing us. I'm not sure how you go directly from having a "beginning" to an "external cause." Personally I happen to think that there could be multiple and possibly even an infinite number of universes - all at once or one after another - all the same to me! And I doubt that I am alone in that trend. The Big Bang is pretty much a household term (at least in my travels), but how many of us can remember reading or seeing something recently on TV about string theory, or more precisely: Brane theory? (Brane: Abbreviated form of "membrane" - which in this context, is a mathematician's usage.) I think it's a moot point until there is more concensus on a scientific way to observe another universe or strongly infer its existence.



_Ready for a coffee break and some music? Visit my online jukebox by clicking on RinselTunes. Emphasis on jazz, but somewhat eclectic. I've tried to make it captivating. Sponsored by Laramy-K Optical._

----------


## ksquared

> Originally Posted by *Rinselberg:* I'm not sure how you go directly from having a "beginning" to an "external cause."


 Everything that had a beginning had a cause is the fundamental principal of science. It even has a name, the Law of Causality. Without this law, science would be impossible since science is, after all, a search for causes. If the universe had a beginning as the scientific evidence seems to support, than the universe had a cause.

----------


## rinselberg

> Everything that had a beginning had a cause is the fundamental principal of science. It even has a name, the Law of Causality. Without this law, science would be impossible since science is, after all, a search for causes. If the universe had a beginning as the scientific evidence seems to support, than the universe had a cause.


Hello *ksquared.* Ah, but the beginning of the universe could be the one scientifically valid exception to this principle or rule. Are you familiar with the term "singularity", as it appears in the context of astrophysics or cosmology? It may just be that those old, familiar scientific principles that we are all so comfortable with are only applicable from the beginning of time *forward*. In other words, the usual scientific laws need not apply at the exact beginning of the universe - or before the beginning, if anyone can make any sense of that. That's my two cents worth for the moment.

----------


## chm2023

> when you all finish arguing amongst yourselves.. why not try to explain to me what proof you have of god existing


First re yr earlier post, I was responding to a question posed by Finklstiltskin.  Second, you're not serious?  Either you believe in God or you don't.  Articles of faith are by definition not "provable";  otherwise they would be articles of fact.

----------


## Chairtime

> I'm not sure that you are making the point that you _want_ to make. I don't see any argument here for (or against, or even about) the existence of God - only an observation that it's generally (damn) difficult to persuade anyone to change whatever ideas they have already ascribed to: Religious ideas, political ideas, scientific ideas - any kind of ideas.


True, Rinselberg. Furthermore, usually the ONLY WAY that will happen is with the introduction of new information, which makes it easier to change one's opinion. 

I guess how you view my response depends on how you view the question. Trying to convince someone to believe in God is like trying to convince them to like the taste of pickles. Either you like them or you don't. I'm really starting to believe that evidence, proof, observations, logic and science are just about the last things that will ever convince someone to believe in God. All these things are strictly left-brained and non-emotional. Belief in God begins in the heart, not the head. At least not in a defensive head.

If at all, I'm more likely to convince an athiest by sharing my own story of conversion. As for evidence, drk is much more educated than I am and is more capable of presenting a case for belief. There has been "evidence" to support both beliefs in this thread. None of which has been acceptable to those with the opposite belief. For those people, only the experience of God's love is proof of God's love.

----------


## Spexvet

> Why don't you prove that there is no God? According to him you could look quite foolish trying to do that. GO FOR IT!


Wow, Bill can form his own words, and has thoughts beyond scripture! :cheers:

----------


## QDO1

> Okay, the big challenge that's being thrown down to all the believers is this: PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS. Here's my response.
> 
> An analogy. Your patient walks into your office with $100 dollars in his pocket. He is the type that is very cheap and always has been. He comes from a long line of cheapos and doesn't like salespeople. He always buys his goods at the cheapest place in town and if he can't get a good price he will go without. He cuts his own hair so he doesn't have to pay someone else. This man is determined to buy glasses for $100 because he has seen adverts for this price and he has bought specs for this price before. He has also been "tricked" into buying expensive ($200) glasses before and won't be had this time. 
> 
> QDO1 begins to explain to him the benefits of the Panamic Progressive when the man interrupts quickly. "How much?!?"
> 
> After laughing at the price, the man says "I don't believe glasses are worth more than $100."
> 
> Unfazed, QDO1 tells him of the independent laboratory tests that prove Panamic is the far superior lens and will make his life more enjoyable. He even hands him a brochure that illustrates the evidence and indisputable proof.
> ...


This is a poor analogy, because the man woud accept them if I gave them to him for $50.00, or he would at least acccept they were a good lens in a demonstration, even if he were not prepared to pay the price for them.  His objection is on price, not on the substantive nature of the product...  

What you are asking us to accept is the existance of an un-demonstrable god, that is in-tangiable, and un-measureable.  Furthermore you are then asking us to accept that god is "everywhere" and all powerful.  In another thread you are asking us to accept that we are exactly where we are today because of "ID" but, then in the next breath, you say that god gave you the freedom to choose, because he loves you so much

Freedom of choice is incompatible with pre-destination or IDImmesurable and intangiable is incompatible with omnipresent and all powerfulBeyond that no one has stabed at the other question.... why does a god that love everyone so much, leave humans in the predicament that unless they happen accross a man of faith they wont be saved (in the christian sense) and thus not go to your hevan... a man born on an isolated island for example?

Your god is far from universal, infact it seems quite polarised.  Surely a omnipresent god, would have an inate universal appeal?

----------


## QDO1

> Wow, Bill can form his own words, and has thoughts beyond scripture! :cheers:


I was begining to wonder that myself

----------


## QDO1

> I'm really starting to believe that evidence, proof, observations, logic and science are just about the last things that will ever convince someone to believe in God. All these things are strictly left-brained and non-emotional. Belief in God begins in the heart, not the head. At least not in a defensive head


So belief in god is emotional huh? is that all?

----------


## QDO1

> I admit I do need something to believe in.
> 
> To think that this life is all there is to our existance. That we are no more than carbon based life forms whose main purpose is to procreate to further our evolving species. That once someone passes on, that we will never see, hear, touch, or feel them again. That there isn't such a thing as a soul... 
> 
> What's your motivation for life? What is it that gives you comfort when someone passes on? What about your own mortality?
> 
> I think I would go insane _if I didn't believe_ in God's plan and the Afterlife. 
> 
> Cassandra


My motivations are numerous, but mainly selfish ones.  I have no children, my genes will never be passed on.  I like to know that I have given to society, but I do that silently

Nothing gives me comfort when someone dies

When  I die, I will be dead, and thats that.   That isn't scary and doesnt bother me

----------


## Chairtime

> This is a poor analogy, because the man woud accept them if I gave them to him for $50.00,


The analogy works because you are asking for something the man is very reluctant to give. Just as you are very reluctant to give up your belief.


> What you are asking us to accept is the existance of an un-demonstrable god, that is in-tangiable, and un-measureable.


YES.


> Furthermore you are then asking us to accept that god is "everywhere" and all powerful.


YES.


> In another thread you are asking us to accept that we are exactly where we are today because of "ID"


In a physical, genetic sense, yes.


> but, then in the next breath, you say that god gave you the freedom to choose, because he loves you so much


YES. Why is that so hard to understand?! What kind of car do you drive? Did you design it? NO!! (someone did) Do you control where it goes? How fast it travels? When and if the oil is changed? YES!!


> Freedom of choice is incompatible with pre-destination or ID


NO WAY. Again, your car designer does not decide where you drive your car!


> Immesurable and intangiable is incompatible with omnipresent and all powerful


NO WAY! Love is immesurable and intangible but you can't deny its power.


> Beyond that no one has stabed at the other question.... why does a god that love everyone so much, leave humans in the predicament that unless they happen accross a man of faith they wont be saved (in the christian sense) and thus not go to your hevan... a man born on an isolated island for example?


What makes you think that not everyone will happen across a man of faith? Do you know anyone who hasn't heard of Jesus Christ? Do you know anyone who was born on an isolated island?


> Your god is far from universal, infact it seems quite polarised. Surely a omnipresent god, would have an inate universal appeal?


In other words, why doesn't everyone believe in God? You tell me.  I don't expect you to agree to this but I think deep down inside, you WANT to believe in God.  You are searching for something that will make sense to you and open up the possibility that there is a God.  If that is even remotely true I can only say, keep searching.

----------


## QDO1

> 1. Can you discern truth? Y or N?
> 
> 2. Do you exist? Y or N?
> 
> 3. What is the likely cause of your existence?
> 
> 4. If you are organized matter (and physical only), you began to exist at the beginning of the universe, in a physical sense (matter/energy).
> 
> 5. Your matter/energy is therefore eternal if the universe is eternal, and finite if the universe is finite.
> ...


1.  Most of the time
2.  Yes
3.  I would say that the standard darwinian model does a fairly adequate job of describing why we are all here.  There are gaps, but only comparitivly small ones
4. yes in a sense of matter, no problems with that suposition
5. no, you are making the assumption that the matter is mine.  matter is matter. How it is organised has no sense of belonging to a person.  If I breath an oxygen molecule it is no more belonging to me, than the last person who breathed it in.  Yes matter in one sense is eternal, but its organisation is transient
6.  when I die, my physical body will no more belong to me than it does the worm that eats my body, or the bird that eats the worm, or the human that eats the bird.  I have no spiritural concept of the energy which is found in the matter that we happen to call my body

I dont have the need to search for an emotive term for spirituality - you call it nature in this instance.  it is not the case that "if you cant call it god, it must be the spirit of nature"

i do not believe in a spiritural component to my being, so there is no requirement for a separate fate from the universe

the words spiritural, nature and energy are used too loosly, and are poorly associated with eachother.  I know not of Baruch Spinoza's god, I dont belive there are any gods

----------


## QDO1

> YES. Why is that so hard to understand?! What kind of car do you drive? Did you design it? NO!! (someone did) Do you control where it goes? How fast it travels? When and if the oil is changed?


Actually I understand this much better than you think.  You would have us believe that each individual human is here because of intellegent design...  But unless intellegent design includes the "sins" that you are freely allowed to make, the intellegent design would be flawed, as it would have no control over what was true at any given time.  For example.. If WW2 didnt happen, many of us would not be here.  Intellegent design either has its hands on the reigns all the way through, or freewill has its hands on the reigns for the majoitory of the time, It cant be both

If however Intellegent design has also factored in each individual sin, then why do you need to ask repentance for them, because you had no choices in making them

On the other hand, if intellegent design has not factored in each indepenant sin, then the concept of intelegent design falls to pieces, we could have destroyed ourselves years before we were supposed to exist




> NO WAY! Love is immesurable and intangible but you can't deny its power.


you use the word power so freely, but in such a wrong way. 10000000 people could love a child to bits, but that wont stop it from dying from an incurable desiese.  This power - is it measured in Watts, Joules, Electron volts, Celcius ...



> What makes you think that not everyone will happen across a man of faith? Do you know anyone who hasn't heard of Jesus Christ? Do you know anyone who was born on an isolated island?In other words, why doesn't everyone believe in God?


Common - you are intellegent, you should just re-think what you just said... what on earth do you ahve missionaries for?



> You tell me. I don't expect you to agree to this but I think deep down inside, you WANT to believe in God. You are searching for something that will make sense to you and open up the possibility that there is a God. If that is even remotely true I can only say, keep searching.


you are so wrong

----------


## chip anderson

Kang:

There are too many documented cases of multiple people loving and praying to the God in which you do not believe in which children and adults were cured of the incureable.  With God's help all foe's no matter how overwhelming can be defeated.

Your "research" is too limited.

Chip

And yes, I do realize that God does not choose to answer all prayers as we would have them answered.  Our solutions are not always God's.

Chp

----------


## QDO1

> Kang:
> 
> There are too many documented cases of multiple people loving and praying to the God in which you do not believe in which children and adults were cured of the incureable. With God's help all foe's no matter how overwhelming can be defeated.
> 
> Your "research" is too limited.
> 
> Chip


can you cite one that isnt contriversial.  it isnt good enough to reel out some doctor and patient that claims XYZ and atribute it to god.  This week a man with HIV was declared not to have HIV, and god isnt supposed to have anything to do with that case



> And yes, I do realize that God does not choose to answer all prayers as we would have them answered. Our solutions are not always God's.
> 
> Chp


that would be a relief, as each side of a war prays to one god or another, or prehaps the same god.  Are not most prayers basically selfish?

----------


## Spexvet

> 1. Can you discern truth? Y or N?


What is truth? In 1490, was it true that the world was flat?



> 2. Do you exist? Y or N?


Yes, I do. But you don't. You are a figment of my imagination.;) 



> 3. What is the likely cause of your existence?


A combination of atoms, arranged in exactly the right order for me to be me.



> 4. If you are organized matter (and physical only), you began to exist at the beginning of the universe, in a physical sense (matter/energy).


... 



> 5. Your matter/energy is therefore eternal if the universe is eternal, and finite if the universe is finite.


Okay...



> 6. As an atheist, you deny a spiritual aspect to your existence. If you die, you cease to exist as QDO1 and exist only as matter/energy, again.


Which is really all we are, anyway. Don't forget: worms eat you.



> If you believe that there is a spiritual component of your being (non-space/time), then the option arises that your spiritual component is independent of the physical universe (by definition), and will putatively have a separate fate from the universe.


If the "spiritual component of your being" is not matter or energy, what is it? Where is it before and after it resides in your brain (it does, doesn't it?). If it exists before and after your life, here on Earth, why all the hubbub about suicide, abortion, etc? After all, the life of your "spiritual component" doesn't really have a beginning or end, does it? 



> The only reasonable atheist position is to believe in Baruch Spinoza's god, which is the "nature god" of the eternal material universe, which, of course is not really a "god". That the universe is eternal and self-existant is what you must adhere to.


Nature just is. It is what it is. Like Popeye. :p I don't think there's anything that I "must adhere to". New information can, and does, effect my beliefs.



> The point: does cosmology support an eternal universe, or one with a beginning and therefore external cause? I ask you: which position seems more supported by man's observation?


I've conceded more than once: if you want to define God as that which created matter/energy and caused the Big Bang, I won't argue. 
However, consider that the Big Bang is not necessarily in conflict with an eternal universe. The Big Bang, expansion and contraction could be cyclical, and eternal.
Additionally, "external cause" does not limit possibilities to God. There could be "external causes" that we don't even know that we don't understand.

----------


## chip anderson

The accounts I have read the doctors assigned it to God, not god.

----------


## Spexvet

> Kang:
> 
> There are too many documented cases of multiple people loving and praying to the God in which you do not believe in which children and adults were cured of the incureable. With God's help all foe's no matter how overwhelming can be defeated.
> 
> Your "research" is too limited.
> 
> Chip


So is yours. Check healing that is attributed to Allah, Buddha, Mary, the Hindu gods, etc. Native Americans believed it would rain if they danced - and I'm sure sometimes it actually did.

----------


## QDO1

> The accounts I have read the doctors assigned it to God, not god.


dont pick me up on my spelling - you will be there all day, I dont profess to be an expert at grammer

----------


## drk

I think we don't disagree on some of the fundamental concepts, but we do on some.

Spexvet and Rinselberg, there is scant, scant evidence that there is sufficient mass to cause the universe to contract upon itself when the acceleration of the "big bang" goes to zero (assuming, of course, that it would: I've read reports that purport an _increase_ in velocity of distant objects, over time, but that's neither here nor there). Not only that, but all the constants of the universe that have mysteriously emerged in this universe would be obliterated in the "singularity" that exists in a "big crunch". Maybe the reincarnation of this universe would be doomed to failure, but another universe in some other dimension would take it's place, eventually. This really is just another way of saying that the universe (universes) are eternal, collectively. Reality would be a self-existing, oscillating, infinitude of random universes one of which we currently inhabit.

Tough question: if universes don't have observers to observe them, do they exist? What would be their criterion for existence? What would be the vantage point by which anything would be able to measure it's existence? Some extra-universal platform? This argument really reduces to absurdity, in my opinion.

This is a lllloooootttttt of work to disprove God's existence. The Bible says (if you care) that your existence is your only needed evidence of God's existence. You exist, the universe exists, God exists. It's a simple concept; simple enough to be true. God just so happens to be a self-existent personal super-being who has set the definition of goodness (whatever He is) and truth (whatever He says; literally, any pronouncement by God becomes reality). He decided to create. The universe has resulted. You have resulted. 

What would you do with such knowledge, if you had irrefutable proof of it? Whatever you'd want to do, according to what it seems God has given us the space to do. Ignore the knowledge, if you'd want, for as long as you can get away with it. Adjust your behavior and thoughts to please the loving super being that created you and holds all possible power, perhaps, in an effort to get in good with Him. Perhaps rebel, despite knowing that there may be ultimate consequences. You see, ultimately if we really knew with all certainty that God exists, we would not behave any differently than we do now. 

God has chosen to reveal Himself in certain ways: physically, and on a spiritual (supernatural) level (which is where He lives, at least in part.) He seems to be more interested in the spiritual communication. I think it's because His ultimate concern is our development as spiritual entities. He wants us to be "good" which, by definition, is like Him. He puts us in this crucible called physical reality to become better spiritually. If you meet His criterion, you get to spend "time" where He is. If you don't, He must isolate you in a closet, somewhere, for eternity, because He can't endlessly be around entities that rebel against Him. Those are His rules, and that's our reality.

You can make mental contructs as to who/what God is, you can make mental constructs as to how existence occurs without Him, but ultimately you are dodging the only important decision you have been empowed to make. Don't mess it up. Face reality. Reality is, literally, God.
:)

----------


## chip anderson

Odie:  It's not grammar or spelling it's respect for God.  It's always capitalized if refering to the God of Abraham.  All other monkeys, brass statues, bronze cows, etc. are with a small g.


Chip

----------


## QDO1

> there is scant, scant evidence that there is sufficient mass to cause the universe to contract upon itself when the acceleration of the "big bang" goes to zero (assuming, of course, that it would: I've read reports that purport an _increase_ in velocity of distant objects, over time, but that's neither here nor there). Not only that, but all the constants of the universe that have mysteriously emerged in this universe would be obliterated in the "singularity" that exists in a "big crunch". :)


I am inclined to disagree with you.. 35 years ago your argument may have been stronger but now, dark matter is recognized today to be nearly 25% of all the mass in the universe. In less than 30 years, it has gone from" nonexistence" to near universal acceptance

Who is to say that the next discovery will account for even more of the universe... we are not that far off the sufficient mass to garuntee an eventual  contraction.  35 years isnt exactly a long time

----------


## Bill West

*I still don't understand why I have to prove there is a God and yet you don't have to disprove that He is. I'm not trying to prove anything to anybody, God stands on his own merit and his word is true. You are the one who tries to prove that God does not exist and yet he is in much of your conversation. You try to agitate with your babbling and your own lifting up of yourself in knowledge and consider yourself so smart. So let's see you make a star or a tree. If I felt for sure something did not exist, I'll be hanged if I would waste my time talking about it. I think you should apply all your great wisdom to changing the world around you for the better and quit wasting all your valuable time talking about something that does not even exist.*

*a*. 
Heb 4:4
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from *all his works.* 

Ps 19:1
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and *the firmament sheweth his handywork.* 

*b.* 
Ps 14:1
1 *The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God*. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (KJV)

*c.* 
Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.* (KJV)
Job 33:4
4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and *the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.* (KJV)

*d.* 
Gal 3:24
24 *Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith*. (KJV)
Gal 3:25
25 *But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster*. (KJV)
Gal 3:26
26 *For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus*. (KJV)
Rom 5:1
1 *Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ*: (KJV)

*e.*
2 Tim 3:16
16 *All scripture* is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)
2 Tim 3:17
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (KJV)





> well Bill we covered this earlier, but.. 
> 
> a. There is no substantive evidence of God or any of his alledged works
> b. Athiests do not believe in god, so we feel there is nothing to prove or dis-prove. It is you claiming to believe in something, so start proving it
> c. when born, the Inate human does not believe in anything, and is by default an athiest, untill belief is taught by society or parants
> d. all arguments by the religious camp are full of holes, and only work with faith
> e. the scriptures used by the religious are firstly ancient and poorly translated, and secondly, not accepted to be 100% correct

----------


## Spexvet

> Suffering is an unavoidable part of life. Those who think they can avoid all suffering end up divorced 3 times, alcoholic, on drugs, committing suicide, chronic gamblers or some other problem that comes from living for pleasure only. Look at the number of "anti-suffering" pills that are sold today. The commercial goes like this: [Are you feeling sad or stressed about money, work or relationships? Ask your doctor if _______ is right for you and you could be feeling happy again in no time.] This promotes the selfish "why suffer" attitude. 
> 
> What matters is how you deal with the suffering. Can you honestly say that you didn't learn something after suffering through a problem in life? or that it didn't make you stronger?
> 
> The desire to avoid suffering at all costs is what causes millions of abortions every year. [After all, those poor women aren't ready for kids yet and we don't want them to suffer financially.] It also causes people to push for euthanasia laws that threaten our elderly and sick.
> 
> Suffering should never be self-inflicted but sometimes it is necessary.


I learn from challenges and problems, not suffering. I doubt that you have ever truly suffered. Africans with AIDS, political prisoners in a Gulag, the very poor in American inner cities suffer, typical Americans who have the means to debate religion on the internet are not suffering. Do you think God wants you to suffer?

----------


## QDO1

Bill,If you dont want to prove the existance of your god that is up to you. If you cant cope with people pointing out how inconsistant your scriptures are, or how from a logical point of view the existance of god is just beyong comprehension, then again, your view is your view. what I dont understand is how a logical and educated man can plant his whole life in what I percieve as a fairytale, and then base most of his comments on poorly translated scriptures, and have the nerve to assume the rest of the world should just "fall in line"

We tried logical arguments, right at the foot of the thread, which are derived from your own scriptures... see references to the trinity and Muslims, we have asked the religious for a tangiable proof of anything they assert, and so far they have not. we are not probing you to be faceacious, but because we recognise that many millions of people believe in something, and we wonder why

----------


## Jacqui

> Odie: It's not grammar or spelling it's respect for God. It's always capitalized if refering to the God of Abraham. All other monkeys, brass statues, bronze cows, etc. are with a small g. 
> 
> Chip


Chip, I'm pagan, the only reason I capitalize God is out of respect for others beliefs. I also capitalize Allah, Shiva, Zeus, Thor and Great Spirit, for the same reason. I just wish more Christians would capitalize Goddess.

----------


## Spexvet

> Chip, I'm pagan, the only reason I capitalize God is out of respect for others beliefs. I also capitalize Allah, Shiva, Zeus, Thor and Great Spirit, for the same reason. I just wish more Christians would capitalize Goddess.


It would be courteous and respectful.

----------


## QDO1

no disrespect is intended, i just dont do spelling and punctuation unless I really concentrate

----------


## Chairtime

Both god (male god) and goddess (a female god) are nouns and are therefore lowercase.  The only exception is the proper name God, who is the creator and ruler of the universe.  He is a male entity (Our Father).  If you want to believe in another entity called "The Goddess" that's your business.

----------


## QDO1

Chip, this adds no value to the debate.  calling me Odie is just as bad in my opinion.  I prefer QDO1 or King, or Richard if you care

----------


## Spexvet

> Both god (male god) and goddess (a female god) are nouns and are therefore lowercase. The only exception is the proper name God, who is the creator and ruler of the universe. He is a male entity (Our Father). If you want to believe in another entity called "The Goddess" that's your business.


So someone who worships Allah or The Goddess is, in your opinion, justified in writing Abraham's god? Works both ways.

----------


## Spexvet

> no disrespect is intended, i just dont do spelling and punctuation unless I really concentrate


Don't worry, that was only intended for chip. ;)

----------


## spartus

> _ You_ must be the problem.Chip


That should have been a comma, not a period. ;)

----------


## spartus

> drk:
> If you are organized matter (and physical only), you began to exist at the beginning of the universe, in a physical sense (matter/energy).
> 
> Rinselberg:
> I think an atheist could sign on to this without a serious doubt or reservation.  
> 
> drk:
> Your matter/energy is therefore eternal if the universe is eternal, and finite if the universe is finite.
> 
> ...


To get up to speed, I'm good with everything up to here. 






> As an atheist, you deny a *spiritual* aspect to your existence. If you die you cease to exist as [whoever] and exist only as matter/energy again.


This is where you slip the turd into the punchbowl--consciousness is not spirituality. To conflate the two is to make a leap into spiritualopinioreligion territory. If I die, my consciousness--probably--just goes away. To call it "spirit", that's your bag.




> The only reasonable atheist position is to believe in Baruch Spinoza's god, which is the "nature god" of the eternal material universe, and, of course, is not really a god. That the universe is eternal and self-existant is what you must adhere to.


Atheist=without god(s). Anyway, the universe isn't eternal, is it? We know, within a few millionths of a second, when it began. But it does exist, unless this is a really *detailed* hallucination.




> Trying to convince someone to believe in God is like trying to convince them to like the taste of pickles.


No, it's like telling them that the orange and purple striped pickles are really delicious, but you've only ever read about them in this old book.




> I'm really starting to believe that evidence, proof, observations, logic and science are just about the last things that will ever convince someone to believe in God.


Faith, like I've been trying to tell you, has little to do with reason, logic, proof, observations, or anything else. That's why it's *faith*.

Or, as someone much, much smarter than I put it, a few years back:




> "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the _non_-existence of God. 
>    "The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
>    "'But,' says Man, 'The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
>    "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
>    "'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
>    "Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his bestselling book _Well That About Wraps It Up For God_."





> There are too many documented cases of multiple people loving and praying to the God in which you do not believe in which children and adults were cured of the incureable. With God's help all foe's no matter how overwhelming can be defeated.


Can't say this enough: Correlation is not causality. You do, helpfully, include the easy caveat:




> And yes, I do realize that God does not choose to answer all prayers as we would have them answered. Our solutions are not always God's.


What a petulant deity you've got there. So, to sum up: Praying always works, except when it doesn't. And inconvenient cases are to be ignored. Explain how, other than reasons of intent, that isn't exactly the same as random chance?

----------


## Spexvet

> What a petulant deity you've got there. So, to sum up: Praying always works, except when it doesn't. And inconvenient cases are to be ignored. Explain how, other than reasons of intent, that isn't exactly the same as random chance?


A portion of your linked artical:



> *Cure sans medicine: UK gay overcomes Aids, naturally* From Shyam Bhatia DH News Service London: 
> In what is seen as a medical miracle, a 25-year-old gay man from the UK has been completely cured of Aids without any medication. The case of Andrew Stimson, who moved to London from Scotland four years ago, is a sensational development for Aids researchers who have so far tried and failed to develop a vaccine. 
> 
> Medical experts are unable to explain the Stimson phenomenon, which they describe as spontaneous viral clearance, the mechanism that enabled the former hairdresser to clear the virus naturally from his body.


This cannot be! Would God cure a homosexual?

----------


## Bill West

what if you are wrong, oh wise one? Seems to be a little doubt here as to what will happen. 
I have no doubt what will happen to me.


This is where you slip the turd into the punchbowl--consciousness is not spirituality. To conflate the two is to make a leap into spiritualopinioreligion territory. If I die, my consciousness--*probably*--just goes away. To call it "spirit", that's your bag.

----------


## spartus

You looked up from scary scripture passages long enough to catch that, did you? I probably should have said "as I see it" as opposed to "probably", but whatever. 

And you don't "know". You "believe", which is a dangerous thing to get confused with what you _actually_ know. We both know the sun will come up tomorrow, we just disagree on who created it. :)




> This cannot be! Would God cure a homosexual?


That's why it's an "inconvenient case". ;)

----------


## Bill West

I Jn 3:1
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore *the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.* (KJV)
I Jn 3:2
2 Beloved, *now are we the sons of God*, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but *we know* that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (KJV)

not scary to me, you maybe, I know i'd be if I were you. I'll pray for you.






> You looked up from scary scripture passages long enough to catch that, did you? I probably should have said "as I see it" as opposed to "probably", but whatever. 
> 
> *And you don't "know*". You "believe", which is a dangerous thing to get confused with what you _actually_ know. We both know the sun will come up tomorrow, we just disagree on who created it. :)
> 
> 
> 
> That's why it's an "inconvenient case". ;)

----------


## spartus

Dude, every time you do that, it just looks like this to me:




> From the Book of Fire, Verse Brimstone:
> 
> 1 Yea, and the *butcher* spake, "The blood does please the *** LORD ***" 
> 
> 2 And he did take the unbelievers' *HEADS* and SQUEEZE them until they went "POP",
> 
> 3 And lo the *falafel sellers* laughed, for they knew not _they_ were *NEXT*.
> 
> 4 Meanwhile, in the lake of fire, the     damned     did scream and flop around in a comical manner,
> ...


Seriously, can I come to one of your services? Do you have to wear fake vampire fangs and a black cape to get in?

----------


## Chairtime

> I learn from challenges and problems, not suffering.


Have you ever suffered through a family problem? financial problem? health problem? personal problem? I'm sure you did, and I hope you have learned from it.


> I doubt that you have ever truly suffered. Africans with AIDS, political prisoners in a Gulag, the very poor in American inner cities suffer, typical Americans who have the means to debate religion on the internet are not suffering.


You think "true suffering" only comes to the very poor or imprisoned? There are many forms of suffering. Even the wealthy suffer. Maybe even more so than the poor because of the attachment to their wealth. To those who value money highly, poverty would seem the worst type of suffering.


> Do you think God wants you to suffer?


Do you want your children to suffer?

----------


## Spexvet

> I Jn 3:1
> 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore *the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.* (KJV)
> I Jn 3:2
> 2 Beloved, *now are we the sons of God*, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but *we know* that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (KJV)
> 
> not scary to me, you maybe, I know i'd be if I were you. I'll pray for you.


They also knew that *the world is flat*, *the sun moves around the earth*, *leeches and "blood letting" cure disease*, *sacrificing animals pleases God*, *cutting off the foreskin of the penis shows a covenant with God*, etc, etc, etc. 

Boy, they sure did know alot!

----------


## chip anderson

Spexvet:  Circumcision made Egypt the most powerful country in the world (reduction of  VD in an inhygenic world, you know).   Moses adapted this as for a time Israel became very powerful for the same reason.  Now days some argue that since we wash a lot more often this is not necessary.

----------


## chm2023

[QUOTE=Bill West]I Jn 3:1



> 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore *the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.* (KJV)


It occurs to me that we don't use the word "Behold" nearly often enough. I think I am going to integrate it into my vocabulary. Behold, the phone is ringing, gotta run....

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet: Circumcision made Egypt the most powerful country in the world (reduction of VD in an inhygenic world, you know). Moses adapted this as for a time Israel became very powerful for the same reason. Now days some argue that since we wash a lot more often this is not necessary.


That's a very interesting and persuasive argument. Let me change your words a little, and see how you like that same logic applied to a different topic.




> Spexvet: HETEROSEXUALITY made HUMANS the most powerful SPECIES in the world (INCREASED POPULATION VS OTHER SPECIES, you know). HUMANS adapted this as for a time HUMANS became very powerful for the same reason. Now days some argue that since THERE ARE ENOUGH HUMANS IN THE WORLD this is not necessary.


Yeah, that is a sound argument!:cheers:

----------


## QDO1

interestingly there is a story that an african anthrapologist had a map of the tribes that were circumsised, and a leading Aids researcher "borrowed his office" and commented that the map was the inverse of the map that shows the distribution of aids in africa.  It seems that circumcission helps prevent the chances of a male contracting aids.  this was previously evident to the tribal leaders in africa, to the extent that a while ago, the leaders of the uncircumsised tribes began sending thier boys to be circumsised by the other tribes...

----------


## Spexvet

> interestingly there is a story that an african anthrapologist had a map of the tribes that were circumsised, and a leading Aids researcher "borrowed his office" and commented that the map was the inverse of the map that shows the distribution of aids in africa. It seems that circumcission helps prevent the chances of a male contracting aids. this was previously evident to the tribal leaders in africa, to the extent that a while ago, the leaders of the uncircumsised tribes began sending thier boys to be circumsised by the other tribes...


Okay, but does it signify a covenant with God?

----------


## QDO1

> Okay, but does it signify a covenant with God?


Nope, just how smart they are

----------


## drk

QDO1: We'll see about dark matter. It does not address the cosmological constants being maintained in a singularity, either. What about that?

Spartus: I think you misunderstand. I meant that a pure materialist/atheist WOULD believe, as QOD admits to, of annihilation of consciousness at death, because consciousness is a physical phenomenon...I'm not trying to be tricky, there. When you die, from this perspective, you consciously cease to exist, and the more disorganized matter/energy you've been borrowing, as QOD puts it, is all that's left. Your corpse. 

You seem to believe in temporal limits for this universe's incarnation. Do you believe in a "re-incarnating" "oscillating" universe theory? That seems to be the only reasonable explanation I've ever heard to explain the apparent beginning of this universe. 

Remember, infinite universe or infinite personal external cause of the universe is what is being debated. You've chosen to believe infinite universe, despite a lack of evidence for your case. 

Not that I have given any more compelling evidence for you.  A quick read of the cosmological evidence, however, is more supportive of my belief than of yours.  But I do want to level the playing field, a little, to say that you have faith, and I have faith, but only in different things, no?

----------


## QDO1

> QDO1: We'll see about dark matter. It does not address the cosmological constants being maintained in a singularity, either. What about that?


which cosmological constants? there are a few of them.  Hawkings and Penrose themselves are unsure about the maintanence and breakdown of some of the constants and thier proposed singularlarity.  Some constasnts are a fudge, to make the equations work, and most cosmologists admit that.

----------


## spartus

> You seem to believe in temporal limits for this universe's incarnation. Do you believe in a "re-incarnating" "oscillating" universe theory? That seems to be the only reasonable explanation I've ever heard to explain the apparent beginning of this universe. 
> 
> Remember, infinite universe or infinite personal external cause of the universe is what is being debated. You've chosen to believe infinite universe, despite a lack of evidence for your case.


I'm not sure how I can believe in a beginning of something that's "eternal". The universe as we know it certainly had a beginning, since it's here. Part of being eternal is being beginning- and endless. We've definitely got one side of that, so eternal's out the window. 

Do I know what happened before the universe as we know it existed? Of course not. Do I "know", in the sense of "have studied and understand all the available data relevant to the discussion" the beginnings of the universe? Again, no. Science--or as close to it as we can get right now, since our conclusions are things that do evolve and change over time as we learn more--has figured it back to within a few millionths of a second of the creation/beginning/big bang, etc., and I'm reasonably well-read on it, but not to any rigorous standard. What/where/how was everything before the aforementioned creation? I think that falls out of the scope of human understanding. At least, so far. And I'm okay with that. 

And it's not in a sense of "We weren't meant to know." I'm just not entirely convinced we _can_. I'm also okay with that. Not everything is quantifiable and explainable and I don't know if it needs to be. Existence and reality is already here--I don't need a post-hoc rationalization for why it happened in order to keep getting out of bed in the morning.




> Not that I have given any more compelling evidence for you. A quick read of the cosmological evidence, however, is more supportive of my belief than of yours. But I do want to level the playing field, a little, to say that you have faith, and I have faith, but only in different things, no?


This is why talking to religious people about this sort of thing is so tricky--the blank incomprehension: "Surely you believe in *something*! The devil, _that's_ who you follow." Let me put it another way: If you have an orange, you have an orange. If you eat the orange, or you lose it somehow, you're now without an orange. However, if you're from Tibet and you've never heard of oranges, it's hard to say that you "don't have" an orange. 

Now, I realize you're probably used to pinning some loosely defined "faith" on others to help wrap your head around this sort of discussion, but please stop. Some people are just allergic to citrus.

----------


## QDO1

I am actually starting to be more convinced of the multi-universe, multi-big-bang theory, some of which willl keep on expanding, some of which will occilate, this theory could be considered as an extension of the steady state theory, where local universes do there own thing, relative to the other universes...

----------


## rinselberg

> I am actually starting to be more convinced of the multi-universe, multi-big-bang theory, some of which willl keep on expanding, some of which will occilate, this theory could be considered as an extension of the steady state theory, where local universes do there own thing, relative to the other universes...


Just out of curiosity, QD, I wonder what prompts your post: A book? A TV segment? Was there any reference to string theory or "brane" (membrane) theory? "Bubble"? "Singularity"? "Gravitons"? Some of the latest cosmological buzz words - I recognize the buzz words, even though some of them are completely beyond me, and the rest, mostly beyond me.



*RinselTunes* online jukebox: _Click_ (below) for access. No membership or download fees. Mostly jazz, but somewhat eclectic, and growing every day.

----------


## QDO1

> Just out of curiosity, QD, I wonder what prompts your post: A book? A TV segment? Was there any reference to string theory or "brane" (membrane) theory?


Nope, I happen to be doing a physics degree at the moment.  A module I did last year was on space time and cosmology.  I was responding to the thoughts in Spartus's post

----------


## ksquared

> I am actually starting to be more convinced of the multi-universe, multi-big-bang theory, some of which willl keep on expanding, some of which will occilate, this theory could be considered as an extension of the steady state theory, where local universes do there own thing, relative to the other universes...


 I would have expected nothing less from a person like yourself who bases his decisions on feelings and faith. Myself, I prefer to base my decisions on the scientific facts and the evidence. Not that science has all the answers but I think its a good place to start.

 Ahhh.the steady state theory. The steady state theory popularized by Fred Hoyle in 1948 turned out to be so ugly that most people (scientists and cosmologists included) have dismissed it by now. And if the theory itself werent ugly enough, all of the evidence points in the opposite direction. 

So if were talking science and logic, it would appear that there is just one universe based on the evidence to date. Now, we can certainly wish for more based on our hope or on blind faith, but lets try and be logical, not hopeful.

      Multiple universes, multiple 1st causes or no cause at all.  May all of your dreams come true.

----------


## rinselberg

> I am actually starting to be more convinced of the multi-universe, multi-big-bang theory, some of which will keep on expanding, and some of which will oscillate. This could be considered an extension of the [earlier] steady state theory, where local universes "do their own thing" relative to the other universes ...


Just out of curiosity, QD, I wonder what prompts your post: A book? A TV segment? Was there any reference to string theory or "brane" (membrane) theory? Space-time bubbles or singularities? Gravitons? Just some of the latest cosmological buzz words: I recognize the buzz words, even though some of them are completely beyond me, and the rest, mostly beyond me.


_In this artist's conception, the blue sphere (at the top) represents a graviton escaping from the three spatial dimensions that define our universe, into a hard-to-visualize extradimensional space._

The theory that the accelerated expansion of the universe is caused by mysterious "dark energy" is being challenged by New York University physicist Georgi Dvali: He thinks there's just a *gravity leak.*

For the complete MSNBC report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047871/




*RinselTunes* online jukebox: No membership *or* download fees. Mostly jazz, but somewhat eclectic, and growing every day. CLICK (below, left) for access.

----------


## QDO1

> I would have expected nothing less from a person like yourself who bases his decisions on feelings and faith.


I dont know where yhou get that idea from, I dont base things on faith at all


> Myself, I prefer to base my decisions on the scientific facts and the evidence. Not that science has all the answers but I think its a good place to start.


thats eactly my position



> Ahhh.the steady state theory. The steady state theory popularized by Fred Hoyle in 1948 turned out to be so ugly that most people (scientists and cosmologists included) have dismissed it by now. And if the theory itself werent ugly enough, all of the evidence points in the opposite direction.


I said an etension of the steady state theory, not "the steady state theory on its own"



> So if were talking science and logic, it would appear that there is just one universe based on the evidence to date. Now, we can certainly wish for more based on our hope or on blind faith, but lets try and be logical, not hopeful.
> 
> Multiple universes, multiple 1st causes or no cause at all. May all of your dreams come true.


the idea of multiple universes, and many singularities isnt so unpopular -  at no point was I proposing multiple universes as a pre-cursor for anthropic causation.  When  I was taught in Oxford, the concept of multiple universes was being floated to accomadate the lack of observed mass in our own universe, furthermore, measurements of the cosmic background radiation (the echo left over from the big bang) show that the space we live in is infinite where matter is spread out randomly through out it.  That doesnt quite account for our usual standard model of the universe.  So my standpoint was an open one, but in as much as I can comperhend a scientifically balanced one, in a subject matter which is contentious amongst the leading scientists in the field

----------


## QDO1

> Just out of curiosity, QD, I wonder what prompts your post: A book? A TV segment? Was there any reference to string theory or "brane" (membrane) theory? Space-time bubbles or singularities? Gravitons? Just some of the latest cosmological buzz words: I recognize the buzz words, even though some of them are completely beyond me, and the rest, mostly beyond me.
> 
> 
> _In this artist's conception, the blue sphere (at the top) represents a graviton escaping from the three spatial dimensions that define our universe, into a hard-to-visualize extradimensional space._


 Thats a cute picture. As of yet gravitons are only theoretical particles having no mass and no charge that carry gravitational force. theoretically they can ecsape a black hole. The scientists ar CERN will probrably be the first on this planet to detect them if they are detectable at all.




> The theory that the accelerated expansion of the universe is caused by mysterious "dark energy" is being challenged by New York University physicist Georgi Dvali: He thinks there's just a *gravity leak.*
> 
> For the complete MSNBC report:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047871/


His theory has it that as two masses move apart from each other, instead of the whole gravity field being applied to the motion, the gravity continuiously leaks away to another dimension. He proposes this theory to explain the lack of matter observed in the universe, whilst the universe is still expanding. i.e. the expansion continues, because the gravitational forces are actually lower than they would be in the classical equations of gravitational forces, because the gravitational force had "leaked away". Without this leaking the universe could not continue to expand, or the epansion accellerate in the way it does.. unless there is more mass found

----------


## drk

So, Spartus, to summarize, you believe in a finite universe that may or may not be self-existant, but it really isn't bothering you all that much?  

What you're saying later is: there is a dichotomy between those who "desire/need to believe in something" (meaning of life, origins, e.g.), and those who really don't have such a need?  The "religious" vs. the "non-religious"?

As to the Tibet analogy, ignorance of oranges does not nullify the assertion that the Tibetans do not have oranges.  It still is a true statement.  If you do not have faith in Jesus, you do have faith in something else, and you do not have faith in Jesus Christ.  To say that you do not have religious faith of any kind is easily refutable; whether you call it religious faith or not is a matter of semantics.

Don't condescend, Spartus.  I have been a non-Christian longer than a Christian, so I know both sides of the fence.  

The truth is, despite our best attempts to be like the beasts, we are uniquely different.  We have a spiritual dimension/soul that is not part of the material universe.  If one elevates oneself away from one's belly for awhile, it will be seen intellectually.  If you do not elevate yourself, you will still feel the truth gnawing you, and it will manifest in depression, psychosomosis, or worse.  We are, as has been said by your side, "religious animals".




> I'm not sure how I can believe in a beginning of something that's "eternal". The universe as we know it certainly had a beginning, since it's here. Part of being eternal is being beginning- and endless. We've definitely got one side of that, so eternal's out the window. 
> 
> Do I know what happened before the universe as we know it existed? Of course not. Do I "know", in the sense of "have studied and understand all the available data relevant to the discussion" the beginnings of the universe? Again, no. Science--or as close to it as we can get right now, since our conclusions are things that do evolve and change over time as we learn more--has figured it back to within a few millionths of a second of the creation/beginning/big bang, etc., and I'm reasonably well-read on it, but not to any rigorous standard. What/where/how was everything before the aforementioned creation? I think that falls out of the scope of human understanding. At least, so far. And I'm okay with that. 
> 
> And it's not in a sense of "We weren't meant to know." I'm just not entirely convinced we _can_. I'm also okay with that. Not everything is quantifiable and explainable and I don't know if it needs to be. Existence and reality is already here--I don't need a post-hoc rationalization for why it happened in order to keep getting out of bed in the morning.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why talking to religious people about this sort of thing is so tricky--the blank incomprehension: "Surely you believe in *something*! The devil, _that's_ who you follow." Let me put it another way: If you have an orange, you have an orange. If you eat the orange, or you lose it somehow, you're now without an orange. However, if you're from Tibet and you've never heard of oranges, it's hard to say that you "don't have" an orange. 
> ...

----------


## drk

Multiple universes seems like a pretty weak argument to me.  But if it works for you, great.  You see, I have religious tolerance after all.

----------


## QDO1

i dont see that multiple universes is an argument for or against any view, except that some religious views pooh pooh the idea, because they are told there is only one universe, and blindly believe what they are told

I just happen to think that multiple universes are on balance a possible/probrable reality, having reviewed the science recently.. but that doesnt mean I am right

the fact I have tollerance is a good thing, perhaps some of the hard nosed religious sorts could learn a little tollerance too, and the world would be a easier place to live in

----------


## spartus

> So, Spartus, to summarize, you believe in a finite universe that may or may not be self-existant, but it really isn't bothering you all that much?


I just said it had a beginning. That it exists is, to me, self-evident. Not really sure why that's controversial.




> What you're saying later is: there is a dichotomy between those who "desire/need to believe in something" (meaning of life, origins, e.g.), and those who really don't have such a need?  The "religious" vs. the "non-religious"?



I was trying to obliquely say it, but if you really want it out in the open, fine. I believe religion is no longer relevant to society. It's mutated through several forms over the millenia, from explaining the basics of the natural world and where we go if we die, through meaningless rituals of all sizes and shapes, to its current form, which is nauseatingly fixated on sin and punishment, with an emphasis on punishment. Faith--not religion--at its best is transcendent and is about redemption. We seem to have regressed to the "Bad-doggie!" style of religion--not faith---grinding our metaphorical faces in the poo of hell and doom and sin.

Faith is following your own spiritual path, whatever that may be. Religion is doing what people--fallible humans like you and me--tell you your faith is about. I don't have a problem with faith. I don't really have a problem with religion, provided you don't come knocking on my door selling it to me. What I don't like is nutjob religious demi-cults messing up the minds of otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people, preventing humanity from growing societally at the pace it really should. Paraphrasing what I said before, faith is great. Religion is faith with a marketing department. It's really great that your religion works for you. Don't assume that it will for anyone else.




> As to the Tibet analogy, ignorance of oranges does not nullify the assertion that the Tibetans do not have oranges.  It still is a true statement.  If you do not have faith in Jesus, you do have faith in something else, and you do not have faith in Jesus Christ.  To say that you do not have religious faith of any kind is easily refutable; whether you call it religious faith or not is a matter of semantics.


My point was that you can't be lacking something you don't need, want, or know of. However, what I do or don't have faith in, to be perfectly frank, is none of your business. 




> Don't condescend, Spartus.  I have been a non-Christian longer than a Christian, so I know both sides of the fence.


So then you know how annoying you're being, yet you continue. Truly interesting behavior.




> The truth is, despite our best attempts to be like the beasts, we are uniquely different.


You're talking about thumbs, right? They are pretty useful.




> We have a spiritual dimension/soul that is not part of the material universe. If one elevates oneself away from one's belly for awhile, it will be seen intellectually.  If you do not elevate yourself, you will still feel the truth gnawing you, and it will manifest in depression, psychosomosis, or worse.  We are, as has been said by your side, "religious animals".


It is our species' unique conceit that since we are more intelligent than virtually everything else on the planet, we must be divinely chosen. We're just the smartest thing _yet_.




> ...Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.
> _--Douglas Adams,_ The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

----------


## QDO1

it seems there is a massive divide between God(s) (allegedly supernatural being(s)) and Religion(s) (human invention(s))

----------


## QDO1

> Just out of curiosity, QD, I wonder what prompts your post: A book? A TV segment? Was there any reference to string theory or "brane" (membrane) theory? Space-time bubbles or singularities? Gravitons? Just some of the latest cosmological buzz words: I recognize the buzz words, even though some of them are completely beyond me, and the rest, mostly beyond me.
> 
> 
> _In this artist's conception, the blue sphere (at the top) represents a graviton escaping from the three spatial dimensions that define our universe, into a hard-to-visualize extradimensional space._
> 
> The theory that the accelerated expansion of the universe is caused by mysterious "dark energy" is being challenged by New York University physicist Georgi Dvali: He thinks there's just a *gravity leak.*
> 
> For the complete MSNBC report:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047871/
> ...


this is remarkaby similar to a discussion about time travel, where particles are said to exit from one universe to another, to avoid problems with  violating causality

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> i dont see that multiple universes is an argument for or against any view, except that some religious views pooh pooh the idea, because they are told there is only one universe, and blindly believe what they are told
> 
> I just happen to think that multiple universes are on balance a possible/probrable reality, having reviewed the science recently.. but that doesnt mean I am right
> 
> the fact I have tollerance is a good thing, perhaps some of the hard nosed religious sorts could learn a little tollerance too, and the world would be a easier place to live in


Sorry for coming in to this debate so late.

I find it ironic that it was believed at some point that Jerusalem was the center of the world.  Then it was the earth at the center, but Copernicus and Galileo showed us otherwise.  We then believed that humans were at least the centerpiece of creation.  Now evolution has somewhat made a dent in that. We believe that our universe is the only universe.  The irony would not be lost on me if it turned out that the multiverse is correct.  I personally subscribe to the brane theory myself though.

----------


## chip anderson

Rejoice Oh Odie:

On June the 6th the date will be 6/6/6 perhaps (at least according to some soothsayers) your leader will begin his ascention to power.

----------


## rinselberg

666 - "Mark of the Beast"

For the short of it - a single page of interesting lore on "666":
http://www.apocalypse-soon.com/the_m..._the_beast.htm

For the long of it - even more than I had imagined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_of_the_Beast

Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia (defined):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexakos...ontahexaphobia

----------


## spartus

> Rejoice Oh Odie:
> 
> On June the 6th the date will be 6/6/6 perhaps (at least according to some soothsayers) your leader will begin his ascention to power.


Someone mention June 1st? Or, in our European friends' cases, January 6th. ;)

----------


## QDO1

> Rejoice Oh Odie:
> 
> On June the 6th the date will be 6/6/6 perhaps (at least according to some soothsayers) your leader will begin his ascention to power.


Athiests dont believe in god, or satan, so we dont have a leader

I prefer 4th May - starwars day - "may the fourth be with you"

----------


## Sodium D

http://www.evilbible.com/

----------


## drk

"www.i'mgoingtohell.org"Get your theology on the web, come one, come all.

----------


## Sodium D

Not exactly a refutation of the content on the evil bible website drk

you can have your vengeful god

----------


## QDO1

> "www.i'mgoingtohell.org"Get your theology on the web, come one, come all.


link doesnt work

----------


## chm2023

Think I'll stick with "I'm going to Disney World!";)

----------


## QDO1

> Think I'll stick with "I'm going to Disney World!";)


at least that is the physical manefestation of a fantasy world

----------


## drk

It's not a real site; I couldn't get the forum software to understand otherwise.  I'm saying that the EVIL BIBLE link is sending people to hell, in a "cheeky" way.

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> It's not a real site; I couldn't get the forum software to understand otherwise.  I'm saying that the EVIL BIBLE link is sending people to hell, in a "cheeky" way.


Ultimately, the fear of eternal torment is the only reason many continue to follow their respective religion.  What I still can't understand for the life of me is why so many assume the bible to be valid when it has some clearly questionable ethics (selling your daughter, ordering hundreds killed etc..).  This is not the behavior of a "good God."  Many who believe that anything that God does is good, devalue goodness and makes God into a machiavellian being in which might makes right.  Just my opinion, and I'm not trying to incite or anything close.

----------

