goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: JohnCurrie is Weird/Gross on March 31, 2013, 11:40:49 AM
-
Probably not, but I'm not for sure. Do you guys know?
-
Probably not, but I'm not for sure. Do you guys know?
Not sure. I bet kat kid knows.
-
Ask the five who tell everyone on this board what to think.
-
Yes.
I grew up going to church my whole life, but the Gospel didn't make sense to me until 4 years ago, as a sophomore at K-State.
I will do my best to answer any questions/concerns you have.
-
Yes.
I grew up going to church my whole life, but the Gospel didn't make sense to me until 4 years ago, as a sophomore at K-State.
I will do my best to answer any questions/concerns you have.
Sorry, last I checked you aren't one of the blessed five.
-
I will blindly follow steve dave and pissclams in all things K-state, but not on this. (no idea of their beliefs)
-
I think if there is a God, it is ridiculous to assume we can fully comprehend something so far above us
-
Yes.
I grew up going to church my whole life, but the Gospel didn't make sense to me until 4 years ago, as a sophomore at K-State.
I will do my best to answer any questions/concerns you have.
How old is the earth? Why did the bible not get that part right?
-
Yes.
I grew up going to church my whole life, but the Gospel didn't make sense to me until 4 years ago, as a sophomore at K-State.
I will do my best to answer any questions/concerns you have.
How old is the earth? Why did the bible not get that part right?
First off I don't believe that the Bible got anything wrong, and I do agree with Chicat that you can't fully understand God.
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! Romans 11:33
I don't think a human finite mind can fully comprehend an eternal being. Thankfully God gave us the Bible to help us get to know Him.
Within the Christian community, there are also different views of creation:
1. Old universe, old earth, old life: This view is commonly held by theistic evolutionists, or those who claim Christian beliefs regarding Jesus Christ but do not accept Genesis as a straightforward account of the beginning of all things. This model accepts ancient ages based on man's knowledge of science, and the laws science is aware of today. This is the compromise position, basically, between creation and evolution. When there is seeming opposition between the Bible and current science, science wins and the Bible is considered either incorrectly translated or incorrectly understood. Although God is acknowledged in this model, He is generally relegated to the position of "clockmaker" in an almost deistic fashion; He set up the universe and life and established the laws by which it has run ever since.
2. Old universe, old earth, recent life: This position is held by those who subscribe to what is often referred to as the "Gap Theory" of Genesis, wherein it is believed that the universe and the earth are quite old, but that, at one point or another and for one reason or another, the early earth was either destroyed and re-created or simply held in abeyance until the creation of recent life. This is the official, or semi-official, doctrine of some churches.
3. Old universe, young earth, recent life: This position, not as commonly held, considers the universe to be old; but earth itself, and subsequently life, to be young. This is also the position of some parts of Christianity.
4. Young universe, young earth, recent life: This is the classic Christian model which is so widely disputed by those of the evolution camp. In this model the entire universe, including of course the earth and all life, is less than 10,000 years old. This is in keeping with the most straightforward reading of the Genesis account in combination with the lists of generations in Genesis 5, 10, and 11.
Disclaimer: All information I give you I will provide links for you so you can investigate yourself. For this question go here. http://carm.org/creationism (http://carm.org/creationism)
As for myself, I don't know where I fall on this particular issue. I'm still a relatively young Christian and I believe it is much more beneficial to focus on Jesus and learn about who he is and what he did.
-
Does God exist?
Yes.
-
Does God exist?
Yes.
Pretty ironic post wackycat.
-
I don't know if Wackycat is a man of faith, but I hope so.
-
I don't know if Wackycat is a man of faith, but I hope so.
posted from church using tapatalk 2
-
I don't know if Wackycat is a man of faith, but I hope so.
posted from church using tapatalk 2
:combofan:
-
:lol:
-
Why so many denominations? If they are all going to heaven, what's the point?
-
Why so many denominations? If they are all going to heaven, what's the point?
The reason there are different denominations within Christianity is because the Bible allows for us to have differences of opinions. Within Christianity there are very few essential doctrines that define what it means to be a Christian. These essential doctrines are,
1.Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2.Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3.Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2).
4.The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8).
6. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity).
7. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (nature of incarnation).
As long as a church believes in these essential doctrines, then it is Christian. However, there are many things in the scriptures that have been interpreted in different ways. For example, on what day of the week should we worship, Saturday or Sunday? Should we baptize by sprinkling or baptize by immersion? Do we take communion every Sunday, once a month, or once a year? The answers to these questions do not affect whether or not someone is a Christian. It is in these issues, and others like them, that denominations are formed. It does not mean that one denomination contradicts another. It means that though they agree in the essentials, they differ in some nonessentials.
Link http://carm.org/what-about-different-denominations (http://carm.org/what-about-different-denominations)
-
NO
/thread
-
As a Christian, what are your views on Adam and Eve being cast out of the Garden of Eden?
It' one thing that's puzzled me about Christianity - who would God get angry? If God is all-knowing, then surely God knew that Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, even before he/she created Adam. Thus, Eve eating the forbidden fruit is something that was expected to happen. So, why get angry about a choice one of your creations made, when you designed them to think that way?
-
This is a pretty meaty question. But I think this link will help a lot. http://carm.org/god-satan-garden-sin (http://carm.org/god-satan-garden-sin)
I would encourage you to skim through this site for yourself. It's a great resource, and has answered many of my questions.
-
Seems like they go with the "God gave man free will," line of thinking. Fine, though this means God cannot be all-knowing, which may seem blasphemous to some Christians (don't know how many)
Also Fun,
First off I don't believe that the Bible got anything wrong, and I do agree with Chicat that you can't fully understand God.
If you believe this, then why worship God? There's no way of knowing if God is just, or kind, or loving, until you die. So why spend your time worshiping a being whose motivations are unknown? Do you just take it all as a matter of faith?
-
Seems like they go with the "God gave man free will," line of thinking. Fine, though this means God cannot be all-knowing, which may seem blasphemous to some Christians (don't know how many)
Also Fun,
First off I don't believe that the Bible got anything wrong, and I do agree with Chicat that you can't fully understand God.
If you believe this, then why worship God? There's no way of knowing if God is just, or kind, or loving, until you die. So why spend your time worshiping a being whose motivations are unknown? Do you just take it all as a matter of faith?
I don't know how that means God is not all-knowing. You'll have to explain that to me more.
I believe that God is just and loving because that is the central theme to the Bible. I believe his motivations are known. I mean the whole purpose of the Bible is to show that man disobeyed God and is sinful. But God loved us, even though we are sinners, and sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. Jesus didn't even do anything wrong. This proves to me that God is just, loving, gracious, merciful, gentle, and kind.
-
Seems like they go with the "God gave man free will," line of thinking. Fine, though this means God cannot be all-knowing, which may seem blasphemous to some Christians (don't know how many)
C.S. Lewis described it free will in a way that I could understand it in "Mere Christianity." I highly recommend it. Even if you're not a Christian, or theist in any way, it may give you insight into how the phenomenon (would/could?) work(s).
-
This thread: :lol: pfft :jerk:
-
Also, we did this already
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=11241.0
-
There is lots of evidence to support theism, and lots of evidence to support atheism. Because of this, people will always believe what they want to believe. The only dumb belief is to believe either side is dumb.
-
The only dumb belief is to believe either side is dumb.
no, sorry ksu_fansie. there is not evidence to support both sides of every argument. in fact, in most arguments one side is fairly clearly better supported than the other, and it is fair to consider people that choose to believe the less well supported side stupid,
-
The only dumb belief is to believe either side is dumb.
no, sorry ksu_fansie. there is not evidence to support both sides of every argument. in fact, in most arguments one side is fairly clearly better supported than the other, and it is fair to consider people that choose to believe the less well supported side stupid,
how do you choose which side is fairly clearly better supported in this instance?
-
how do you choose which side is fairly clearly better supported in this instance?
examine the evidence, the same as any other issue.
-
how do you choose which side is fairly clearly better supported in this instance?
examine the evidence, the same as any other issue.
Sure, but everyone wants to believe one way or another. Very few people can examine the evidence for/against the existence of God without bias.
-
Sure, I think God probably did create everything. But God is gone.
-
Very few people can examine the evidence for/against the existence of God without bias.
right, most people are dumb. that was my point.
-
how do you choose which side is fairly clearly better supported in this instance?
examine the evidence, the same as any other issue.
good possibility that i'm one of the dumb people, but in this instance i see no evidence to support either side. what now?
-
Very few people can examine the evidence for/against the existence of God without bias.
right, most people are dumb. that was my point.
Oh I get it. Yeah, I can't argue that.
-
good possibility that i'm one of the dumb people, but in this instance i see no evidence to support either side. what now?
you probably haven't looked. that doesn't make you dumb, just uninterested.
-
Sure, I think God probably did create everything. But God is gone.
Is he coming back?
-
Sure, I think God probably did create everything. But God is gone.
Is he coming back?
How should I know?
-
people will always believe what they want to believe.
You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.
-
Sure, I think God probably did create everything. But God is gone.
Is he coming back?
How should I know?
I thought you knew he was gone cause he left a note.
-
people will always believe what they want to believe.
You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.
Also occasionally untrue.
-
people will always believe what they want to believe.
You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.
Also occasionally untrue.
Yeah, I am basically always swayed by things I read. My opinions on almost everything are constantly evolving.
-
I was mainly inferring becoming a nonbeliever growing up in the bible belt but that works too rustymichigansanfranciscocat.
-
Does God exist?
Yes.
How are you on the whole sexist God thing?
I mean you're here to serve us and he really didn't want you preaching the word.
-
Certainly not.
-
Define "God" -- that should give you an answer.
-
yes
-
Yes.
-
people will always believe what they want to believe.
You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.
Find me an atheist who reads books like "Case For Christ" or "Reason For God" or a theist who reads "The God Delusion" or "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and I'll concede your point. Protip: it doesn't happen. They only read books that confirm what they believe. There are very few examples in which people read both sides to see which one makes the most sense.
-
Sure, I think God probably did create everything. But God is gone.
I swear to god I almost posted a fake KK post saying more or less exactly this.
-
people will always believe what they want to believe.
You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.
Find me an atheist who reads books like "Case For Christ" or "Reason For God" or a theist who reads "The God Delusion" or "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and I'll concede your point. Protip: it doesn't happen. They only read books that confirm what they believe. There are very few examples in which people read both sides to see which one makes the most sense.
I will look for these people and get back to you. I bet there's lots of people who have read both types. Heck, I'd start with Pete.
-
I'm a Christian and I have read both "The Case for Christ" and the "The God Delusion."
-
I believe in God, so I vote yes. I have not read any of those books though. Also I believe the christian bible and other religious writings are mostly not true.
-
My dad saw him in Hale Library one late night in college. Yes, he's real and he's emaw!
-
Yes, he's real and he's emaw!
Wouldn't be much of a god if he wasn't.
Little known fact, Zeus, the greatest God ever, was totally emaw!
-
I don't care what anyone's personal believes are. I just hate the fucks who don't think he's real cause "all the bad in this world!" It's such a pussy mentality.
-
I don't care what anyone's personal believes are. I just hate the fucks who don't think he's real cause "all the bad in this world!" It's such a pussy mentality.
A pussy mentality is using god as an excuse to justify things, "Well it's all apart of god's plan!"......No it's not, stfu
-
Are believers or non-believers bigger pussies?
-
I don't care what anyone's personal believes are. I just hate the fucks who don't think he's real cause "all the bad in this world!" It's such a pussy mentality.
A pussy mentality is using god as an excuse to justify things, "Well it's all apart of god's plan!"......No it's not, stfu
Sounds like there's a lot of ways to have a pussy mentality.
-
thoughts on being able to be a horribly, terrible, awful person and then being able to accept him or whatever and it all being washed away and A OK? seems pretty dumb
-
lot of people in this thread worrying too much about what someone else believes. do your thing, others can do theirs, big whoop.
-
For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.
-
lot of people in this thread worrying too much about what someone else believes. do your thing, others can do theirs, big whoop.
Tried to do my thing yesterday and get Chipotle but it was closed due to easter :frown:
-
For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.
the only people that demand more attention for their beliefs than christians are athiests, imo.
-
lot of people in this thread worrying too much about what someone else believes. do your thing, others can do theirs, big whoop.
Tried to do my thing yesterday and get Chipotle but it was closed due to easter :frown:
free market
-
For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.
the only people that demand more attention for their beliefs than christians are athiests, imo.
Probably. I wish everyone could be as laid back as agnostics.
-
Are believers or non-believers bigger pussies?
I am a believer and I am pretty big pussy. :dunno:
-
Are believers or non-believers bigger pussies?
I am a believer and I am pretty big pussy. :dunno:
Yeah, same here.
-
Are most believers that way because society tells you that you should believe in a god? What reasons do you have for believing?
-
Seems like they go with the "God gave man free will," line of thinking. Fine, though this means God cannot be all-knowing, which may seem blasphemous to some Christians (don't know how many)
Also Fun,
First off I don't believe that the Bible got anything wrong, and I do agree with Chicat that you can't fully understand God.
If you believe this, then why worship God? There's no way of knowing if God is just, or kind, or loving, until you die. So why spend your time worshiping a being whose motivations are unknown? Do you just take it all as a matter of faith?
I don't know how that means God is not all-knowing. You'll have to explain that to me more.
From the link you provided -
Adam had been given a Law to follow that in itself included the option to obey or disobey. ...
Fourth, God didn't cause Adam to sin. Adam freely chose, when presented with the fruit from his wife, to rebel against God. Adam fell because he freely chose to disobey God, ...
Fifth, if someone doesn't like the idea that God knew they would be tempted and would fall, and therefore says it was wrong for God to let it happen, then what he would be requesting is that God not allow people to fall into sin, no matter what. Think about it. Freedom of choice means that temptations will occur.
If God did give mankind free will than God cannot know what decisions we make, until they are made. God got angry at Adam because he chose to "fall into sin," but that means God didn't know whether Adam would do so or not until the moment he did.
God cannot be all knowing if mankind has free will. If God is all knowing, then humans do not have free will.
-
Billions of years after the universe came to existence, a small planet developed life and through millions and millions of years of evolution here we are today. It's a pretty simple story imo
-
For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.
the only people that demand more attention for their beliefs than christians are athiests, imo.
I don't know, I think Moslems and Jews draw more attention to their beliefs than atheists. probably lots of other religions, too.
-
Are believers or non-believers bigger pussies?
spiritual but not religious agnostics
-
Are believers or non-believers bigger pussies?
spiritual but not religious agnostics
San Francisco things?
-
Are believers or non-believers bigger pussies?
spiritual but not religious agnostics
San Francisco things?
It's the hottest new religion among white midwestern college grads, too. Pussies, all of them
-
Are most believers that way because society tells you that you should believe in a god? What reasons do you have for believing?
If you're really interested you could read "Reason For God".
-
Are most believers that way because society tells you that you should believe in a god? What reasons do you have for believing?
If you're really interested you could read "Reason For God".
Can we do weekly readings with discussion at Station?
-
Are most believers that way because society tells you that you should believe in a god? What reasons do you have for believing?
If you're really interested you could read "Reason For God".
Can we do weekly readings with discussion at Station?
:thumbs:
-
Adam had been given a Law to follow that in itself included the option to obey or disobey. ...
Fourth, God didn't cause Adam to sin. Adam freely chose, when presented with the fruit from his wife, to rebel against God. Adam fell because he freely chose to disobey God, ...
Fifth, if someone doesn't like the idea that God knew they would be tempted and would fall, and therefore says it was wrong for God to let it happen, then what he would be requesting is that God not allow people to fall into sin, no matter what. Think about it. Freedom of choice means that temptations will occur.
If God did give mankind free will than God cannot know what decisions we make, until they are made. God got angry at Adam because he chose to "fall into sin," but that means God didn't know whether Adam would do so or not until the moment he did.
God cannot be all knowing if mankind has free will. If God is all knowing, then humans do not have free will.
A great point and gets the heart of the whole "is there a god debate". It all boils down to one question:
Do you believe in free will (i.e. do we, as individuals, actually make independent choices to live our lives a certain way)?
From a purely scientific perspective, there is no free will. AT ALL. Every action/reaction we have in life is the sum product of our previous experiences. It's simple physics, nothing happens on it is own, all happenings are the result of all previous interactions - starting with the big bang, of course. Everything is predetermined and nothing that will happen can be changed.
Therefore, an atheist CANNOT believe in free will or a conscious or anything metaphysical. It is not possible to have free will if there is no god and we are merely a bunch or molecules that somehow came together via an evolutionary process.
So, do you believe in "free will"? If so, then we are more than just the physical make-ups of our bodies and there is god/metaphysical world. If not, you are no different than the computer you're typing on.
C.S Lewis does a much job explaining all of this...
-
C.S Lewis does a much job explaining all of this...
He's the famous fantasy author, correct?
-
Adam had been given a Law to follow that in itself included the option to obey or disobey. ...
Fourth, God didn't cause Adam to sin. Adam freely chose, when presented with the fruit from his wife, to rebel against God. Adam fell because he freely chose to disobey God, ...
Fifth, if someone doesn't like the idea that God knew they would be tempted and would fall, and therefore says it was wrong for God to let it happen, then what he would be requesting is that God not allow people to fall into sin, no matter what. Think about it. Freedom of choice means that temptations will occur.
If God did give mankind free will than God cannot know what decisions we make, until they are made. God got angry at Adam because he chose to "fall into sin," but that means God didn't know whether Adam would do so or not until the moment he did.
God cannot be all knowing if mankind has free will. If God is all knowing, then humans do not have free will.
A great point and gets the heart of the whole "is there a god debate". It all boils down to one question:
Do you believe in free will (i.e. do we, as individuals, actually make independent choices to live our lives a certain way)?
From a purely scientific perspective, there is no free will. AT ALL. Every action/reaction we have in life is the sum product of our previous experiences. It's simple physics, nothing happens on it is own, all happenings are the result of all previous interactions - starting with the big bang, of course. Everything is predetermined and nothing that will happen can be changed.
Therefore, an atheist CANNOT believe in free will or a conscious or anything metaphysical. It is not possible to have free will if there is no god and we are merely a bunch or molecules that somehow came together via an evolutionary process.
So, do you believe in "free will"? If so, then we are more than just the physical make-ups of our bodies and there is god/metaphysical world. If not, you are no different than the computer you're typing on.
C.S Lewis does a much job explaining all of this...
that doesn't make any sense unless you are trying to screw with an atheist.
-
C.S Lewis does a much job explaining all of this...
He's the famous fantasy author, correct?
No, your thinking of Ron Hubbard.
-
C.S Lewis does a much job explaining all of this...
He's the famous fantasy author, correct?
No, your thinking of Ron Hubbard.
Who is the religious guy who wrote about Narnia and what not?
-
C.S Lewis does a much job explaining all of this...
He's the famous fantasy author, correct?
No, your thinking of Ron Hubbard.
Who is the religious guy who wrote about Narnia and what not?
you're thinking of dave ramsey
-
Adam had been given a Law to follow that in itself included the option to obey or disobey. ...
Fourth, God didn't cause Adam to sin. Adam freely chose, when presented with the fruit from his wife, to rebel against God. Adam fell because he freely chose to disobey God, ...
Fifth, if someone doesn't like the idea that God knew they would be tempted and would fall, and therefore says it was wrong for God to let it happen, then what he would be requesting is that God not allow people to fall into sin, no matter what. Think about it. Freedom of choice means that temptations will occur.
If God did give mankind free will than God cannot know what decisions we make, until they are made. God got angry at Adam because he chose to "fall into sin," but that means God didn't know whether Adam would do so or not until the moment he did.
God cannot be all knowing if mankind has free will. If God is all knowing, then humans do not have free will.
A great point and gets the heart of the whole "is there a god debate". It all boils down to one question:
Do you believe in free will (i.e. do we, as individuals, actually make independent choices to live our lives a certain way)?
From a purely scientific perspective, there is no free will. AT ALL. Every action/reaction we have in life is the sum product of our previous experiences. It's simple physics, nothing happens on it is own, all happenings are the result of all previous interactions - starting with the big bang, of course. Everything is predetermined and nothing that will happen can be changed.
Therefore, an atheist CANNOT believe in free will or a conscious or anything metaphysical. It is not possible to have free will if there is no god and we are merely a bunch or molecules that somehow came together via an evolutionary process.
So, do you believe in "free will"? If so, then we are more than just the physical make-ups of our bodies and there is god/metaphysical world. If not, you are no different than the computer you're typing on.
C.S Lewis does a much job explaining all of this...
that doesn't make any sense unless you are trying to screw with an atheist.
How does it not make sense?
There is no gray area here. how does free will/choice exist without a soul/conscience/whatever?
-
your argument is super flawed croop
-
How does it not make sense?
There is no gray area here. how does free will/choice exist without a soul/conscience/whatever?
Of course there is gray area. Dogs and monkeys have freaking free will. We are all just giant robots for genes to replicate themselves. Free thought is just some advanced crap the molecules ended up with.
-
your argument is super flawed croop
then please explain how. It's a pretty simple and widely accepted theory by both atheists and non-atheists.
-
C.S Lewis does a much job explaining all of this...
He's the famous fantasy author, correct?
No, your thinking of Ron Hubbard.
Who is the religious guy who wrote about Narnia and what not?
You guys are probs right. I keep getting all these fiction writers that heavily effect the religious world confused.
-
your argument is super flawed croop
then please explain how. It's a pretty simple and widely accepted theory by both atheists and non-atheists.
It's widely accepted that God exists. But, to you point, you can believe whatever you want about God and also believe whatever you want about free will and still be logically consistent.
-
pretty sure you guys are just effing around, but it's like this:
science fiction author, creator of scientology/tom cruise - ron hubbard
science fiction author, narnia, mere christianity/screwtape letters/other christian writings author - c.s. lewis
-
pretty sure you guys are just effing around, but it's like this:
science fiction author, creator of scientology/tom cruise - ron hubbard
science fiction author, narnia, mere christianity/screwtape letters/other christian writings author - c.s. lewis
then which religion does Dave Ramsey write for?
-
If God exists, is he a wise old lion?
-
pretty sure you guys are just effing around, but it's like this:
science fiction author, creator of scientology/tom cruise - ron hubbard
science fiction author, narnia, mere christianity/screwtape letters/other christian writings author - c.s. lewis
then which religion does Dave Ramsey write for?
cash carrying evangelicals :shrugs:
-
your argument is super flawed croop
then please explain how. It's a pretty simple and widely accepted theory by both atheists and non-atheists.
It's widely accepted that God exists. But, to you point, you can believe whatever you want about God and also believe whatever you want about free will and still be logically consistent.
:sdeek: based on what? Faith?
-
your argument is super flawed croop
then please explain how. It's a pretty simple and widely accepted theory by both atheists and non-atheists.
It's widely accepted that God exists. But, to you point, you can believe whatever you want about God and also believe whatever you want about free will and still be logically consistent.
:sdeek: based on what? Faith?
just because something is widely accepted doesn't mean it's true.
-
Wives' Tales.
-
your argument is super flawed croop
then please explain how. It's a pretty simple and widely accepted theory by both atheists and non-atheists.
It's widely accepted that God exists. But, to you point, you can believe whatever you want about God and also believe whatever you want about free will and still be logically consistent.
:sdeek: based on what? Faith?
just because something is widely accepted doesn't mean it's true.
That's true. I have something new to add to the Overrated Things thread
-
your argument is super flawed croop
then please explain how. It's a pretty simple and widely accepted theory by both atheists and non-atheists.
Because most people I know have free will. Your horribly flawed argument just lost its free will.
-
If God exists, is he a wise old lion?
no, jesus is the lion (of judah). he's also part man and part god. that's why he's called the trinity.
-
If God exists, is he a wise old lion?
no, jesus is the lion (of judah). he's also part man and part god. that's why he's called the trinity.
lion, man, god? rad.
-
croop, your argument rests on defining free will in a way that no one has ever defined it. except maybe cs lewis, don't know because i slept through most of those movies.
-
croop, your argument rests on defining free will in a way that no one has ever defined it. except maybe cs lewis, don't know because i slept through most of those movies.
we are definitely seeing eye to eye here. I slept the sleep of the dead during that crap.
-
lion, man, god? rad.
yeah, pretty badass entity.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kKjrNsGlZbE/TMiIdvKpjXI/AAAAAAAAAzQ/Sv9GsqTFLVw/s400/Maahes1.gif)
-
croop, your argument rests on defining free will in a way that no one has ever defined it. except maybe cs lewis, don't know because i slept through most of those movies.
guess im just original
:gocho:
-
lion, man, god? rad.
yeah, pretty badass entity.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kKjrNsGlZbE/TMiIdvKpjXI/AAAAAAAAAzQ/Sv9GsqTFLVw/s400/Maahes1.gif)
I think I saw that thing on Lost
-
croop, your argument rests on defining free will in a way that no one has ever defined it. except maybe cs lewis, don't know because i slept through most of those movies.
guess im just original
:gocho:
It's just such a blatant idiot's ploy. "If you don't believe in god then you don't believe in free will!"---->"If you don't agree with the president then you're un-American!" or "If you're for gay marriage then you're against families!"
You set it up by associating it with something most people don't want to be labeled as. It's a tactic geared toward swaying the simple-minded. "I don't want to be that thing that he said so I'd better agree with him!"
-
lion, man, god? rad.
yeah, pretty badass entity.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kKjrNsGlZbE/TMiIdvKpjXI/AAAAAAAAAzQ/Sv9GsqTFLVw/s400/Maahes1.gif)
Guys, that is totally a Jaguar. So, that can't be Jesus.
-
on saturday my dad asked me if i'd lost my belief. i did a shitty job of saying that i hadn't and i think it made him feel like a bad father. i definitely felt like a bad son.
someone tell me it's ok.
-
Croop - what about quantum physics?
-
Everyone places faith in something.
-
on saturday my dad asked me if i'd lost my belief. i did a shitty job of saying that i hadn't and i think it made him feel like a bad father. i definitely felt like a bad son.
someone tell me it's ok.
You should have just told him you lost it but he's still a great dad and you're still a great person and you love each other very much and God has nothing to do with it.
-
Been away from the thread for awhile. I assume this has been settled one way or the other 5 pages in. Whats the verdict?
-
Been away from the thread for awhile. I assume this has been settled one way or the other 5 pages in. Whats the verdict?
Survey says......................NO
-
Been away from the thread for awhile. I assume this has been settled one way or the other 5 pages in. Whats the verdict?
Survey says......................NO
You're pretty passionate about this subject, ERII. What did god do to you?
-
What if God was one of us?
-
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us.
-
Been away from the thread for awhile. I assume this has been settled one way or the other 5 pages in. Whats the verdict?
Survey says......................NO
You're pretty passionate about this subject, ERII. What did god do to you?
I am assuming "nothing".
-
Everyone places faith in something.
Faith is not needing to cling to anything, is it not? How then could you describe someone who clings to religion as faithful?
Short answer, is God real? Irrelevant question.
-
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us.
Just a stranger on the bus.
-
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us.
Just a stranger on the bus.
Ten thousand spoons
-
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us.
Just a stranger on the bus.
Ten thousand spoons
yes
-
Been away from the thread for awhile. I assume this has been settled one way or the other 5 pages in. Whats the verdict?
Survey says......................NO
You're pretty passionate about this subject, ERII. What did god do to you?
Went through a quarter-life crisis within the last couple of years and totally changed my outlook on life. I just came to the realization that religion as a whole, not just christianity, is a bunch of BS. Like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, it's a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.
The fact that people honestly believe that the stories told in the bible are true just blows my mind. And I won't even get started on nutjobs who think Earth is 6000 years old and Adam and Eve were the first 2 people on this planet.
Why does there have to be a god that created everything? Why is it such a foreign idea to think that we just got lucky and by some combination of random events, life evolved on earth over millions of years to create what we are today?
-
sounds like your quarter life crisis was watching bill maher
-
sounds like your quarter life crisis was watching bill maher
:love:
-
Been away from the thread for awhile. I assume this has been settled one way or the other 5 pages in. Whats the verdict?
Survey says......................NO
You're pretty passionate about this subject, ERII. What did god do to you?
Went through a quarter-life crisis within the last couple of years and totally changed my outlook on life. I just came to the realization that religion as a whole, not just christianity, is a bunch of BS. Like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, it's a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.
Interesting, my quarter-life crisis deepened my faith in God.
-
people will always believe what they want to believe.
You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.
Find me an atheist who reads books like "Case For Christ" or "Reason For God" or a theist who reads "The God Delusion" or "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and I'll concede your point. Protip: it doesn't happen. They only read books that confirm what they believe. There are very few examples in which people read both sides to see which one makes the most sense.
I will look for these people and get back to you. I bet there's lots of people who have read both types. Heck, I'd start with Pete.
Find anyone yet?
-
people will always believe what they want to believe.
You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.
Find me an atheist who reads books like "Case For Christ" or "Reason For God" or a theist who reads "The God Delusion" or "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and I'll concede your point. Protip: it doesn't happen. They only read books that confirm what they believe. There are very few examples in which people read both sides to see which one makes the most sense.
I will look for these people and get back to you. I bet there's lots of people who have read both types. Heck, I'd start with Pete.
Find anyone yet?
OH crap I FORGOT!
But here's an example of someone who read the God Delusion and reaffirmed their Christianity:
http://findingtruthtoday.typepad.com/finding-truth-today/2012/06/the-god-delusion-changed-my-life-part-1.html
more:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120622222837AA8Qpzk
I don't know anyone personally who has read both (PETE!!!!) but I generally don't talk to people about religion in real life.
-
Guys, quarter-life crises aren't a thing.
Also, I am not religious but the argument interests me a lot. I mean, what other subject can people devote so much time and energy to and be no further to explaining away a line of questions that a 5yr can come up with and can be repeated until the other person ends in exhaustion and short of an answer?
"what came before that?"
"What started that?"
I mean, it's fascinating.
-
Most religious people have no real faith - only a strong desire to cling to something they feel helpless with. They believe in god only with hope of being "saved" - regardless of what it is they're being saved from. Faithful people have no need to convert others or be offended by non-believers.
What is the purpose of religion? Does every religious person here believe in hell? How do you define god? Would it matter to you if Jesus was no different than Krishna, Mithra, etc? Do you believe morality only exist through secular belief structures? Is Penn Gillette not entertaining?
-
This isn't a Christian god thread, this is a god thread
-
people will always believe what they want to believe.
You've done this before, I think. It's a very lazy/blissfully unaware stance.
Find me an atheist who reads books like "Case For Christ" or "Reason For God" or a theist who reads "The God Delusion" or "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and I'll concede your point. Protip: it doesn't happen. They only read books that confirm what they believe. There are very few examples in which people read both sides to see which one makes the most sense.
I will look for these people and get back to you. I bet there's lots of people who have read both types. Heck, I'd start with Pete.
Find anyone yet?
OH crap I FORGOT!
But here's an example of someone who read the God Delusion and reaffirmed their Christianity:
http://findingtruthtoday.typepad.com/finding-truth-today/2012/06/the-god-delusion-changed-my-life-part-1.html
more:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120622222837AA8Qpzk
I don't know anyone personally who has read both (PETE!!!!) but I generally don't talk to people about religion in real life.
Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.
-
This isn't a Christian god thread, this is a god thread
I'd wager most of the people here that are religious, are likely Christians. If I am incorrect on this assumption, I apologize for my ignorance.
My assertions on faith would hold true for any deity based religion that allows the existence of god to be up for debate however.
-
Also, I am not religious but the argument interests me a lot. I mean, what other subject can people devote so much time and energy to and be no further to explaining away a line of questions that a 5yr can come up with and can be repeated until the other person ends in exhaustion and short of an answer?
"what came before that?"
"What started that?"
I mean, it's fascinating.
That's not unique to religion, right?
-
I don't read literature on anything.
-
Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.
i read "the case for christ" and "more than a carpenter" when i was having doubts about my faith. i was insulted by the circular reasoning in them. those two books did a lot to show me that there was no evidence for the christian god.
-
I really wanted to believe when I was reading Da Vinci Code
-
Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.
very few people read either.
But my main point is that I don't like the notion that this shouldn't be discussed because everyone has already made up their mind here:
people will always believe what they want to believe.
It's the equivalent of plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA" because you don't want to hear something you don't like. People can be swayed (both ways) by having discussions like this.
-
Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.
very few people read either.
But my main point is that I don't like the notion that this shouldn't be discussed because everyone has already made up their mind here:
people will always believe what they want to believe.
It's the equivalent of plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA" because you don't want to hear something you don't like. People can be swayed (both ways) by having discussions like this.
Nobody on this board is going to change their mind because of this thread. But you know this.
-
I really like St. Francis of Assisi. What should I read? I tried reading the part of Matthew that apparently caused St. Francis to take on a life of poverty. It had a couple good parts, but then it was just a bunch of boring and kind of prickish advice from Jesus to his apostles. Like, if someone doesn't help you, wipe all the dust off your feet and I'll take care of them Sodom and Gomorrah style later. That part wasn't very inspiring.
-
Nobody on this board is going to change their mind because of this thread. But you know this.
You can't say that with any certainty. While I agree that this thread and this thread alone could change someone's mind, that doesn't mean it isn't a discussion worth having. It could definitely plant a seed that inspires someone to learn more. Perhaps someone will read one of the books you mentioned or ask someone they respect about their relationship with God. Who knows?
-
Name of the Rose
-
Like I said, very few people read both. Lots of people in this thread have read my post by now, only one has said they've read literature on both sides.
i read "the case for christ" and "more than a carpenter" when i was having doubts about my faith. i was insulted by the circular reasoning in them. those two books did a lot to show me that there was no evidence for the christian god.
I am sorry to hear that. I know a lot of those types of books (on both sides) do have circular reasoning. I thought "Case for Christ" was a good one, but I haven't read it in a while. I've more recently read "The Reason for God" thought it was better at making points. No idea on "More than a Carpenter."
-
Nobody on this board is going to change their mind because of this thread. But you know this.
You can't say that with any certainty. While I agree that this thread and this thread alone could change someone's mind, that doesn't mean it isn't a discussion worth having. It could definitely plant a seed that inspires someone to learn more. Perhaps someone will read one of the books you mentioned or ask someone they respect about their relationship with God. Who knows?
Possibly! :D
-
Devils advocate: how do the local Christians feel about the arguments that early Christianity was sun worshipping and a lot of the stories about Jesus can be tied to astrological events. These same events also being the basis for why so many other gods/saviors were: "being born to a virgin on December 25th" or "their birth being accompanied by a star in the east that lead three kings to the place of birth" "significance of having 12 apostles" or a "resurrection shortly after spring equinox after being dead for 3 days" etc etc?
-
I really like St. Francis of Assisi. What should I read? I tried reading the part of Matthew that apparently caused St. Francis to take on a life of poverty. It had a couple good parts, but then it was just a bunch of boring and kind of prickish advice from Jesus to his apostles. Like, if someone doesn't help you, wipe all the dust off your feet and I'll take care of them Sodom and Gomorrah style later. That part wasn't very inspiring.
they didn't have many good books back then, kat kid. you can bet that if the game of thrones had been around, francis would have been nose deep in that instead reading about dusty feet.
-
i forgot that he's also part lamb. lion, man, god and lamb.
-
croop, your argument rests on defining free will in a way that no one has ever defined it. except maybe cs lewis, don't know because i slept through most of those movies.
guess im just original
:gocho:
It's just such a blatant idiot's ploy. "If you don't believe in god then you don't believe in free will!"---->"If you don't agree with the president then you're un-American!" or "If you're for gay marriage then you're against families!"
You set it up by associating it with something most people don't want to be labeled as. It's a tactic geared toward swaying the simple-minded. "I don't want to be that thing that he said so I'd better agree with him!"
no ploy here, bread... but since you've reverted to basically using the exact tactic your accusing me of against me, I'll try and explain better or maybe it's just a misunderstanding of defining the terms upfront.
Free will - the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (commonly viewed as having a soul/conscience)
Atheist - a rejection of belief in the existence of god/deities. Which I'm assuming they don't believe in life after death or that people have a soul.
So here are the two main view points about free will:
1.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events and therefore anything that will happen has already been preordained and cannot be changed.
A.) both deity believing and atheist people can technically believe this - I associated my argument with a christian god definition (which does not allow this viewpoint), but I guess someone could believe in a god that has their entire life planned for them and there is nothing they can do to change it.
1.1) (since someone brought up quantum phsyics) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events, but through the inherent 'random' nature of quantum level interactions, there are an infinite number of possibilities that can result - random is quoted since we/me don't really understand how something can truly be random.
A.) Again, both deity believing and atheist people can technically believe this - but it still does not allow for free will to exist, only infinite randomness. So, our lives are not preordained, but we do not possess the ability to freely choose our own path. This one is tricky though...
2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
A.) I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us. The prior two view points rely upon either prior cause or random interaction (but still physical or material interaction) to determine future events, so they leave no room for the existence free will. Therefore, if intervention beyond the physical world (i.e. metaphysical) is necessary for free will to exist, then how can someone who does not believe in the existence of a soul (again, I'm assuming atheist don't believe in souls/consciences) hold that free will exists and there is no god?
not saying any of the above ways are better than the other, just trying to make logical arguments...
-
I've never understood why people don't start with the basics regarding questions of gods, afterlifes, etc
Well first we have to ask what consciousness is? No one seems to have a freaking clue other than that you know its there because of your personal experience. Its impossible to deny you are a conscious being. Try it.
So that one seems overly difficult. How about the next question. Mainstream scientists operate under a mechanistic view of the brain and believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. In other words, consciousness is dependent on the brain and when your brain dies, your consciousness dies with it. So the question is, is there any evidence that suggests that consciousness is more than a byproduct of the brain?
And yes there is:
Extremely comprehensive but kind of expensive. They made a crucial mistake in my opinion with the title by using the term 'irreducible' and that makes people think its a book from intelligent design people. Its not.
http://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/1442202068/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364863247&sr=8-1&keywords=irreducible+mind
I recommend this one. Its smaller, less comprehensive, but gives a good overview of the types of studies being done and why they are serious, statistically significant results. He has an hour and half long talk on youtube that summarizes some points of the book but moreover explains the taboo of any subject labeled parapsychology:
http://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Minds-Extrasensory-Experiences-Quantum/dp/1416516778/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364863400&sr=1-1&keywords=entangled+minds
There are other books but those are the ones I recommend most often.
So if you're with me so far and agree with the material or at the very least agree its all worth some more serious study, the idea that the mind can operate outside the body is of serious consideration. So the concept of an afterlife seems not so remote. That doesn't mean a god exists but it makes it more likely in my opinion. But lets take it further.
A shitload of people experience something called a Near Death Experience. These people across all cultures and backgrounds have an experience with very similar but not always the same results. If you're catholic you'll often see 'jesus' whereas an atheist won't. But there are a lot of similarities. They almost always report these same activities.... they float outside of their body with a degree of vision different than the peripheral vision of having eyes, they feel 'realer than real' as in its not a vague dreamlike state, they see a giant being of light that gives them nothing but unconditional love(god?), they experience the interactions they had with people over their lives and in those experiences they feel the joy, terror, pain etc that they caused in other people.
Not everybody has a near death experience they recall when resuscitated but last I heard it was around 20% of people do. Even mainstream science admits this is happening but from a reductive, materialist perspective they say its a powerful dream and nothing more. Given the information I already outlined, and interesting cases where the person outside their body recalls events happening usually in hospitals while out cold and well outside of their bodily physical senses range, there is reason to believe its an actual experience of something real.
So is God real? Don't know, I think so though. I think that so many civilizations and cultures thought there was both some sort of intelligent god thing and afterlife is interesting. Also, this doesn't get into the anthropic principle material which is only countered by positing a multiverse, both explanations being absurdly exotic.
-
Basically, he is saying that without the spirit realm, our entire existence is nothing but a cosmic Rube Goldberg machine.
Kinda fun both ways!
-
For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally weak.
Weird statement.
-
For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally weak.
Weird statement.
Maybe he meant mentally weak.
-
2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
A.) I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.
Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.
-
2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
A.) I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.
Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.
sorry, bro - it's not what is right or wrong, but if we choose what is right or wrong. actually you're proving my point by stating we don't freely choose what is right or wrong and our "gene pool" implies that our entire make-up is the result of multiple trials and error over time, thus we are not free thinking, just pods byproducts of the evolutionary process.
-
2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
A.) I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.
Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.
sorry, bro - it's not what is right or wrong, but if we choose what is right or wrong. actually you're proving my point by stating we don't freely choose what is right or wrong and our "gene pool" implies that our entire make-up is the result of multiple trials and error over time, thus we are not free thinking, just pods byproducts of the evolutionary process.
there can still be some free will since humans have consciousness and stuff. less than there would be had we not evolved over millions of years, but some.
-
2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
A.) I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.
Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.
sorry, bro - it's not what is right or wrong, but if we choose what is right or wrong. actually you're proving my point by stating we don't freely choose what is right or wrong and our "gene pool" implies that our entire make-up is the result of multiple trials and error over time, thus we are not free thinking, just pods byproducts of the evolutionary process.
there can still be some free will since humans have consciousness and stuff. less than there would be had we not evolved over millions of years, but some.
Nope, you are a random series of chemical reactions. You have as much free will as a baking soda vinegar volcano.
-
2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
A.) I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.
Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.
sorry, bro - it's not what is right or wrong, but if we choose what is right or wrong. actually you're proving my point by stating we don't freely choose what is right or wrong and our "gene pool" implies that our entire make-up is the result of multiple trials and error over time, thus we are not free thinking, just pods byproducts of the evolutionary process.
we can be free thinking pods of the evolutionary process.
our ability to choose our path is an evolutionary advantage.
also your punctuation and grammar makes it very hard to follow you.
-
Smart people tend to do evolutionarily novel things.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence)
-
I think man invented God when we evolved to a certain state of consciousness and wanted to explain natural phenomenon and mortality.
I think man perpetuated the belief in God because it's easier to control other people through that mechanism.
I think man still believes in God because we have an inherent desire to know where we've come from and where we're going. It's very unsettling to believe that this brief existence is all there is and there is no deeper meaning.
That's my boiled down version of it.
-
Smart people tend to do evolutionarily novel things.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence)
Same dude:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/satoshi-kanazawa-black-women-less-attractive_n_863327.html
Also here's his article on why liberals are more intelligent than conservatives:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives
Note this part:
It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.
Notice anything.... self serving... about that definition?
-
So... I'm confused. Is free will arguing for a God, or against?
And a serious question I posed earlier; how do you define god? A mystic intelligent creator as described in the Bible that created you specifically and knew you personally before you were born?
Or a power we cannot comprehend that did nothing more than ignite a Big Bang sending the waves of energy that could only, by sheer statistical reason, create some form of life through the infinite possibilities from the infinite amounts of matter, possibly on the level of spitting in a Petri dish? And all existence of a soul could be attributed simply to basic laws of conservation of energy...
-
Hey!! What about ancient aliens??
-
Smart people tend to do evolutionarily novel things.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence)
This is fascinating.
-
Hey!! What about ancient aliens??
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j161/Goldbrick/1327648439650.gif)
-
Hey!! What about ancient aliens??
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mavqx72Tew1rg0c3ao1_500.jpg)
-
Note this part:
It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.
Notice anything.... self serving... about that definition?
who are the "genetically unrelated others"?
-
Note this part:
It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.
Notice anything.... self serving... about that definition?
who are the "genetically unrelated others"?
In the minds of the bleeding heart liberals, EVERYBODY!!!
-
Note this part:
It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.
Notice anything.... self serving... about that definition?
who are the "genetically unrelated others"?
In the minds of the bleeding heart liberals, EVERYBODY!!!
awfully self serving if you ask me.
-
So... I'm confused. Is free will arguing for a God, or against?
And a serious question I posed earlier; how do you define god? A mystic intelligent creator as described in the Bible that created you specifically and knew you personally before you were born?
Or a power we cannot comprehend that did nothing more than ignite a Big Bang sending the waves of energy that could only, by sheer statistical reason, create some form of life through the infinite possibilities from the infinite amounts of matter, possibly on the level of spitting in a Petri dish? And all existence of a soul could be attributed simply to basic laws of conservation of energy...
My personal opinion is that people put way too much effort into the philosophy behind it, and I crossed the line into atheism when I tried to figure out why people felt the psychological need to believe in God.
Why would we invent a non-corporeal God? There's a ton of reasons. It's metaphysical putty that you can use to fix all kinds of things wrong in your life. You can use it to fix a marriage. You can use it to find strength when you need to dig deeper. You can use it to convince other people to do what you want. You can use it to get people to give you money. The list goes on and on.
Anyway, people get all philosophical about it and try to really reason around it, but I think the psychology of "why" is much more damning than the philosophy of "why".
-
So... I'm confused. Is free will arguing for a God, or against?
And a serious question I posed earlier; how do you define god? A mystic intelligent creator as described in the Bible that created you specifically and knew you personally before you were born?
Or a power we cannot comprehend that did nothing more than ignite a Big Bang sending the waves of energy that could only, by sheer statistical reason, create some form of life through the infinite possibilities from the infinite amounts of matter, possibly on the level of spitting in a Petri dish? And all existence of a soul could be attributed simply to basic laws of conservation of energy...
My personal opinion is that people put way too much effort into the philosophy behind it, and I crossed the line into atheism when I tried to figure out why people felt the psychological need to believe in God.
Why would we invent a non-corporeal God? There's a ton of reasons. It's metaphysical putty that you can use to fix all kinds of things wrong in your life. You can use it to fix a marriage. You can use it to find strength when you need to dig deeper. You can use it to convince other people to do what you want. You can use it to get people to give you money. The list goes on and on.
Anyway, people get all philosophical about it and try to really reason around it, but I think the psychology of "why" is much more damning than the philosophy of "why".
Why would you invent a reason to answer only one of the two very different questions? To fix some kind of wrong in your life?
-
Certainly not.
:lol:
-
Smart people tend to do evolutionarily novel things.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence)
Actually, less intelligent people are better at doing most things.
he's talking about coaching.
-
For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.
the only people that demand more attention for their beliefs than christians are athiests, imo.
I don't know, I think Moslems and Jews draw more attention to their beliefs than atheists. probably lots of other religions, too.
You know who's surprisingly low key in my experience? Mormons. Also, definitely non-pussies.
-
For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.
the only people that demand more attention for their beliefs than christians are athiests, imo.
I don't know, I think Moslems and Jews draw more attention to their beliefs than atheists. probably lots of other religions, too.
You know who's surprisingly low key in my experience? Mormons. Also, definitely non-pussies.
eh, you're around them in kind of a unique situation. In their natural state, they call all their friends "Brother Weber" or "Sister Thompson" which is kind of an in-your-face way of saying "all our friends go to our church".
Also, I once picked up the byu alumni magazine at a family function and read an article about Moslems that went to byu because of the "clean living". kind of a fun little tidbit.
-
Name of the Rose
The only truths that are useful are instruments to be thrown away.
-
HE DOES EXIST!
-
THEY DO EXIST!
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h298/misterclean182/MMsanta.jpg)
-
So... I'm confused. Is free will arguing for a God, or against?
And a serious question I posed earlier; how do you define god? A mystic intelligent creator as described in the Bible that created you specifically and knew you personally before you were born?
Or a power we cannot comprehend that did nothing more than ignite a Big Bang sending the waves of energy that could only, by sheer statistical reason, create some form of life through the infinite possibilities from the infinite amounts of matter, possibly on the level of spitting in a Petri dish? And all existence of a soul could be attributed simply to basic laws of conservation of energy...
My personal opinion is that people put way too much effort into the philosophy behind it, and I crossed the line into atheism when I tried to figure out why people felt the psychological need to believe in God.
Why would we invent a non-corporeal God? There's a ton of reasons. It's metaphysical putty that you can use to fix all kinds of things wrong in your life. You can use it to fix a marriage. You can use it to find strength when you need to dig deeper. You can use it to convince other people to do what you want. You can use it to get people to give you money. The list goes on and on.
Anyway, people get all philosophical about it and try to really reason around it, but I think the psychology of "why" is much more damning than the philosophy of "why".
Number one on the list is to keep the poor from killing the rich.
-
Not to believe He exists is pure folly.
-
Pat Robertson is truly the gift that just keeps giving.
It may have been April 1st yesterday, but televangelist Pat Robertson wasn't kidding when he told a viewer that Americans aren't experiencing God's miracles because they are too "sophisticated."
Why do miracles "happen with great frequency in Africa, and not here in the USA?" asked a 700 Club patron Ken. "People overseas didn't go to Ivy League schools," Robertson replied with a chuckle.
"We are so sophisticated, we think we've got everything figured out," the Christian Broadcasting Network chairman continued. "We know about evolution, we know about Darwin, we know about all these things that says God isn't real, we know about all this stuff."
According to Robertson, it's the "skepticism and secularism" that is being taught at "the most advanced schools" around the country that is keeping God's miracles at bay.
Meanwhile, Africans are "simple" and "humble." "You tell ‘em God loves ‘em and they say, ‘Okay, he loves me'," said Robertson. "You say God will do miracles and they say, ‘Okay, we believe him'."
If Americans wish to experience more miracle, Robertson concluded, they must reject their miracle-negating sophistication in favor of the more credulous African way of life.
http://gawker.com/5993285/pat-robertson-blames-ivy-league-schools-for-lack-of-miracles-in-america?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
-
Knowledge: the enemy of God.
That quote brings to mind shitty magic shows.
-
I would punch Pat Robertson in the face then :dance:
-
I don't think God can exist if we know whether or not He does exist.
-
I don't think God can exist if we know whether or not He does exist.
well that's convenient
-
I don't think God can exist if we know whether or not He does exist.
Exactly. Just like UFOs.
-
This is called the Santa Clause Principle and there are several movies that document this.
-
What do you think the checklist is for hell? Like I think if you're a cold blooded murderer, you're done for. However, what if you've slayed a lot of fillies, but are really nice in everyday life? Just curious, my friend wanted to know.
-
What do you think the checklist is for hell? Like I think if you're a cold blooded murderer, you're done for. However, what if you've slayed a lot of fillies, but are really nice in everyday life? Just curious, my friend wanted to know.
I'm pretty sure everyone gets in who believes and asks for forgiveness.
-
Relax wc, no one goes to hell. What a childish idea.
-
Relax wc, no one goes to hell. What a childish idea.
Pure folly, if you will.
-
THEY DO EXIST!
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h298/misterclean182/MMsanta.jpg)
Oh, wow. That was unexpected yet delightful.
-
God exists because this thread exists.
-
A serious Saul fan.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I'd ask religious types how God was created
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I'd ask religious types how God was created
If God exists I doubt he is bound by space and time like the universe is.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I'd ask religious types how God was created
If God exists I doubt he is bound by space and time like the universe is.
Science is an ever expanding and evolving knowledge base. Is the question you posed suggesting because we don't know the answer right now with absolute certainty at this point in human history that god must therefore exist? That seems awfully simplistic and shortsighted. It's the selfsame as saying the earth was flat until it was proven that it wasn't. What we know now has increased by leaps and bounds just in the past few centuries. Just think what we might discover in the next few.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
Not that I identify as an atheist, but of the speakers I've heard and blogs I've read, the general consensus is the Big Bang was caused by something science has not yet explained, however - they believe it was not caused by a god or intelligent creator.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I'd ask religious types how God was created
If God exists I doubt he is bound by space and time like the universe is.
Science is an ever expanding and evolving knowledge base. Is the question you posed suggesting because we don't know the answer right now with absolute certainty at this point in human history that god must therefore exist? That seems awfully simplistic and shortsighted. It's the selfsame as saying the earth was flat until it was proven that it wasn't. What we know now has increased by leaps and bounds just in the past few centuries. Just think what we might discover in the next few.
I was asking because I didn't know if there were theories/hypotheses out there yet. Please tell me where I said "science may figure it out some day, but it may not" was not an acceptable answer.
-
Really no different of any argument I've heard arguing that it was an intelligent creator. Atheist have just as much conviction in their belief structure as most creationists.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I'd ask religious types how God was created
If God exists I doubt he is bound by space and time like the universe is.
Science is an ever expanding and evolving knowledge base. Is the question you posed suggesting because we don't know the answer right now with absolute certainty at this point in human history that god must therefore exist? That seems awfully simplistic and shortsighted. It's the selfsame as saying the earth was flat until it was proven that it wasn't. What we know now has increased by leaps and bounds just in the past few centuries. Just think what we might discover in the next few.
I was asking because I didn't know if there were theories/hypotheses out there yet. Please tell me where I said "science may figure it out some day, but it may not" was not an acceptable answer.
I just assumed you knew that and therefore had an ulterior motive in asking the question. Sorry.
-
I've had this theory about free will but you'll need to have a general understanding of physics to get it. Odds are I might blow your minds and your defense mechanisms kick in. Do I risk being mocked and ridiculed to share it? Tough to say. Avoidance is my defense mechanism. Anyway, according to my theory, whether or not I share it has already been determined; I just don't know it yet.
-
Again - how does the existence of free will prove or disprove god? Please explain this to me.
-
Again - how does the existence of free will prove or disprove god? Please explain this to me.
It doesn't
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
Not that I identify as an atheist, but of the speakers I've heard and blogs I've read, the general consensus is the Big Bang was caused by something science has not yet explained, however - they believe it was not caused by a god or intelligent creator.
The scientific community will never offer the conclusion of 'god did it.'
Not because god didn't do it.
But because in science, that can't be a legitimate explainable answer. They'll seek a 'natural', reductive materialistic answer and believe that over a God answer even if their own is more exotic.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I don't think humans will ever find the answer to this question with definite proof. Science's best hypothesis is that it was created from 1 small point and has been expanding for the last 13+ billion years and will continue to do so. Now what was the cause of this action? I have no clue, a god like being is definitely a possibility, not likely in my opinion but a possibility none the less.
-
Again - how does the existence of free will prove or disprove god? Please explain this to me.
It doesn't
Thought so.... Guess people can stop talking about it then, right?
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
Not that I identify as an atheist, but of the speakers I've heard and blogs I've read, the general consensus is the Big Bang was caused by something science has not yet explained, however - they believe it was not caused by a god or intelligent creator.
The scientific community will never offer the conclusion of 'god did it.'
Not because god didn't do it.
But because in science, that can't be a legitimate explainable answer. They'll seek a 'natural', reductive materialistic answer and believe that over a God answer even if their own is more exotic.
Hence the ATHEISM.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I don't think humans will ever find the answer to this question with definite proof. Science's best hypothesis is that it was created from 1 small point and has been expanding for the last 13+ billion years and will continue to do so. Now what was the cause of this action? I have no clue, a god like being is definitely a possibility, not likely in my opinion but a possibility none the less.
But as SD asked... if god did it, who created god?
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I don't think humans will ever find the answer to this question with definite proof. Science's best hypothesis is that it was created from 1 small point and has been expanding for the last 13+ billion years and will continue to do so. Now what was the cause of this action? I have no clue, a god like being is definitely a possibility, not likely in my opinion but a possibility none the less.
But as SD asked... if god did it, who created god?
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I'd ask religious types how God was created
If God exists I doubt he is bound by space and time like the universe is.
-
That was a good answer stevesie
-
idk. #4 "the judge" seems like he's been bound by time and space before. Look at how quickly he covered the field against RG3 with time running out.
looks like you've been judged and have been de-kleined, stevesie :dance:
-
That was a good answer stevesie
Thanks, steve dave.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I don't think humans will ever find the answer to this question with definite proof. Science's best hypothesis is that it was created from 1 small point and has been expanding for the last 13+ billion years and will continue to do so. Now what was the cause of this action? I have no clue, a god like being is definitely a possibility, not likely in my opinion but a possibility none the less.
But as SD asked... if god did it, who created god?
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I'd ask religious types how God was created
If God exists I doubt he is bound by space and time like the universe is.
Like I said earlier - the convictions of your average creationist are no more or less well founded than that of an atheist.
When it comes down to it; the argument is "you can't prove it so" vs. "you can't prove it isn't so". So I'll maintain my perspective of it being a ridiculous question that serves no other purpose other than dividing people.
-
Seems like they go with the "God gave man free will," line of thinking. Fine, though this means God cannot be all-knowing, which may seem blasphemous to some Christians (don't know how many)
Also Fun,
First off I don't believe that the Bible got anything wrong, and I do agree with Chicat that you can't fully understand God.
If you believe this, then why worship God? There's no way of knowing if God is just, or kind, or loving, until you die. So why spend your time worshiping a being whose motivations are unknown? Do you just take it all as a matter of faith?
I don't know how that means God is not all-knowing. You'll have to explain that to me more.
From the link you provided -
Adam had been given a Law to follow that in itself included the option to obey or disobey. ...
Fourth, God didn't cause Adam to sin. Adam freely chose, when presented with the fruit from his wife, to rebel against God. Adam fell because he freely chose to disobey God, ...
Fifth, if someone doesn't like the idea that God knew they would be tempted and would fall, and therefore says it was wrong for God to let it happen, then what he would be requesting is that God not allow people to fall into sin, no matter what. Think about it. Freedom of choice means that temptations will occur.
If God did give mankind free will than God cannot know what decisions we make, until they are made. God got angry at Adam because he chose to "fall into sin," but that means God didn't know whether Adam would do so or not until the moment he did.
God cannot be all knowing if mankind has free will. If God is all knowing, then humans do not have free will.
I guess I don't know why you think that just because man has free will that God automatically can't know what we will do. I believe we can have free will and that God can still know what we are about to do. I believe God knows what we will do, but we have the freedom to do whatever. Either seek God and obey Him, or not.
http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-god-all-knowing-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will (http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-god-all-knowing-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will) This link explains it really well.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I don't think humans will ever find the answer to this question with definite proof. Science's best hypothesis is that it was created from 1 small point and has been expanding for the last 13+ billion years and will continue to do so. Now what was the cause of this action? I have no clue, a god like being is definitely a possibility, not likely in my opinion but a possibility none the less.
But as SD asked... if god did it, who created god?
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
I'd ask religious types how God was created
If God exists I doubt he is bound by space and time like the universe is.
Like I said earlier - the convictions of your average creationist are no more or less well founded than that of an atheist.
When it comes down to it; the argument is "you can't prove it so" vs. "you can't prove it isn't so". So I'll maintain my perspective of it being a ridiculous question that serves no other purpose other than dividing people.
I happily agree that there isn't an answer to the question of "who created it all" including the question of "who created god"... It's when people tell me that god hates homosexuals, you have to accept a guy named Jesus as your savior or burn in hell, there were no dinosaurs, every religion but Christians are wrong, etc. that I say nope.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
Super God
-
In all honesty, god seems just as likely as an ever expanding explosion of matter caused by something nobody knows.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
They need a bigger book.
-
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful and intervenes in the affairs of earth sometimes, then he is a rough ridin' bad person for all of the horrible things he allows (causes?) to happen. I'm not sure that is debatable. If he never intervenes, maybe he is just a mildly disinterested bad person.
-
In all honesty, god seems just as likely as an ever expanding explosion of matter caused by something nobody knows.
Well, I can see the ever expanding explosion of matter.
-
Earth is the women's basketball of the universe. God is busy elsewhere
-
In all honesty, god seems just as likely as an ever expanding explosion of matter caused by something nobody knows.
Well, I can see the ever expanding explosion of matter.
Only because god allows you to see it.
I wonder what Steven hawking thinks.
-
In all honesty, god seems just as likely as an ever expanding explosion of matter caused by something nobody knows.
Well, I can see the ever expanding explosion of matter.
Only because god allows you to see it.
I wonder what Steven hawking thinks.
Netflix it.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins (http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins)
-
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful and intervenes in the affairs of earth sometimes, then he is a rough ridin' bad person for all of the horrible things he allows (causes?) to happen. I'm not sure that is debatable. If he never intervenes, maybe he is just a mildly disinterested bad person.
http://carm.org/why-do-bad-things-happen-good-people (http://carm.org/why-do-bad-things-happen-good-people)
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins (http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins)
Why does the author try to sound smart by repeating "ex nihilo" when he is basically saying " you have to just believe in God"
Can I post a link to the definition of circular reasoning now?
-
I think god found me to go to goEMAW! "WHAT NOW?"
-
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful and intervenes in the affairs of earth sometimes, then he is a rough ridin' bad person for all of the horrible things he allows (causes?) to happen. I'm not sure that is debatable. If he never intervenes, maybe he is just a mildly disinterested bad person.
http://carm.org/why-do-bad-things-happen-good-people (http://carm.org/why-do-bad-things-happen-good-people) which says: Why do bad things happen to good people?
by Matt Slick
There are two ways to look at this question. First of all, technically speaking there are no good people. The Bible says in Romans 3:12, “All have turned aside. Together they have become useless. There is none who does good. There is not even one.” The reason there are none who are good is because God alone is truly good. Luke 18:19 says, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.” God is the standard of righteousness, and all of us have fallen short of that standard (Rom. 3:23). Therefore, there really aren't any good people and bad things to happen to them.
On the other hand, from a human perspective there are decent people who are very nice. They are honest, don't lie, don't steal, and treat people very well. So, though they aren't perfect, they are trying to do what's right. So why would God allow bad things to happen to them? The easiest answer lies in the effect of sin. Sin is in the world and it affects everyone to different degrees. I once heard an illustration where someone said that when someone throws a grenade into a crowd, one person gets hit but another does not. That's how sin is. It affects people differently, some a lot and some a little.
Also, God can allow bad things to happen to good people in order to teach them lessons, to discipline them, to improve their character, to encourage them to depend on him, etc. We know from the Scriptures that nothing occurs without God's permission (Ephesians 1:11). We also know that God is good, so we must conclude that he allows bad things to occur because they are according to his sovereign plan and ultimately it will work out for good - especially for those who love him (Romans 8:28).
Also, think about this. If we want God to stop bad things happening to good people, where is the line to be drawn? How good must a person be in order to be saved from bad things? Or, what level of bad do we want God to stop at? What about a bad thing that can ultimately lead to a good thing, such as the crucifixion of Jesus? Should such really bad things be stopped when they can lead to greater good? Also, what would constitute something that's bad? What is bad to one person might not be bad for another. So, ultimately,the question becomes difficult to answer the more we look at it, so the best thing to do is trust that God allows things to happen to us for a reason.
This is just the worst kind of baseless tripe. I appreciate that you took the time to source an article but, my god you can't truly take that as your justification, can you? It essentially boils down to:
1. God works in mysterious ways
2. God does stuff that seems bad, but he is good so it must actually be good stuff.
What a joke.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins (http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins)
Why does the author try to sound smart by repeating "ex nihilo" when he is basically saying " you have to just believe in God"
Can I post a link to the definition of circular reasoning now?
That was the first thing that came to mind.
That was a very long winded way of saying, "God isn't physical, so he isn't bound to the physical constraints of the universe."
Well, no crap. And granting me the ability to believe in evolution because it exists after God's creation is mighty kind. However, considering that I completely reject the premise of God to begin with, the whole house of cards starts to fall down.
-
I could write an article that says "you just have to believe there is no god" as easily. That is the worst writing I have seen.
-
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful and intervenes in the affairs of earth sometimes, then he is a rough ridin' bad person for all of the horrible things he allows (causes?) to happen. I'm not sure that is debatable. If he never intervenes, maybe he is just a mildly disinterested bad person.
http://carm.org/why-do-bad-things-happen-good-people (http://carm.org/why-do-bad-things-happen-good-people) which says: Why do bad things happen to good people?
by Matt Slick
There are two ways to look at this question. First of all, technically speaking there are no good people. The Bible says in Romans 3:12, “All have turned aside. Together they have become useless. There is none who does good. There is not even one.” The reason there are none who are good is because God alone is truly good. Luke 18:19 says, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.” God is the standard of righteousness, and all of us have fallen short of that standard (Rom. 3:23). Therefore, there really aren't any good people and bad things to happen to them.
On the other hand, from a human perspective there are decent people who are very nice. They are honest, don't lie, don't steal, and treat people very well. So, though they aren't perfect, they are trying to do what's right. So why would God allow bad things to happen to them? The easiest answer lies in the effect of sin. Sin is in the world and it affects everyone to different degrees. I once heard an illustration where someone said that when someone throws a grenade into a crowd, one person gets hit but another does not. That's how sin is. It affects people differently, some a lot and some a little.
Also, God can allow bad things to happen to good people in order to teach them lessons, to discipline them, to improve their character, to encourage them to depend on him, etc. We know from the Scriptures that nothing occurs without God's permission (Ephesians 1:11). We also know that God is good, so we must conclude that he allows bad things to occur because they are according to his sovereign plan and ultimately it will work out for good - especially for those who love him (Romans 8:28).
Also, think about this. If we want God to stop bad things happening to good people, where is the line to be drawn? How good must a person be in order to be saved from bad things? Or, what level of bad do we want God to stop at? What about a bad thing that can ultimately lead to a good thing, such as the crucifixion of Jesus? Should such really bad things be stopped when they can lead to greater good? Also, what would constitute something that's bad? What is bad to one person might not be bad for another. So, ultimately,the question becomes difficult to answer the more we look at it, so the best thing to do is trust that God allows things to happen to us for a reason.
This is just the worst kind of baseless tripe. I appreciate that you took the time to source an article but, my god you can't truly take that as your justification, can you? It essentially boils down to:
1. God works in mysterious ways
2. God does stuff that seems bad, but he is good so it must actually be good stuff.
What a joke.
George Carlin once said, "If this is the work of a supreme being, I am not impressed. It's more like an office temp with a bad attitude."
I'm paraphrasing, but the point is clear. If bad things happen, it's because God is a prick or he is bad at his job.
-
since this is now a fun muffin Q&A, i've always wondered why jesus had to die "for our sins". if god is all powerful, can't he just be like "bros, you guys are cleaned of sin now" and skip killing his son that is also himself?
eagerly awaiting the answer, it's something i've been stuck on for a while.
-
1. God works in mysterious ways
2. God does stuff that seems bad, but he is good so it must actually be good stuff.
What a joke.
I believe that God does work in mysterious ways. If we knew everything about God then we wouldn't need him. We would just rely upon ourselves. The whole purpose of the Gospel is to do what humans cannot do which is defeat sin. God wants us rely upon Him, not ourselves.
Look, I can't make you believe anything. All I can do is lay out what I believe as clearly as possible. You want like to hear this, but there is an element of faith involved. And if you don't have that faith , well then I pray you will find it someday.
I wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of finding these links if I didn't care. Because I do care. I want everyone to be at peace, happy, and in heaven.
-
Seems like they go with the "God gave man free will," line of thinking. Fine, though this means God cannot be all-knowing, which may seem blasphemous to some Christians (don't know how many)
Also Fun,
First off I don't believe that the Bible got anything wrong, and I do agree with Chicat that you can't fully understand God.
If you believe this, then why worship God? There's no way of knowing if God is just, or kind, or loving, until you die. So why spend your time worshiping a being whose motivations are unknown? Do you just take it all as a matter of faith?
I don't know how that means God is not all-knowing. You'll have to explain that to me more.
From the link you provided -
Adam had been given a Law to follow that in itself included the option to obey or disobey. ...
Fourth, God didn't cause Adam to sin. Adam freely chose, when presented with the fruit from his wife, to rebel against God. Adam fell because he freely chose to disobey God, ...
Fifth, if someone doesn't like the idea that God knew they would be tempted and would fall, and therefore says it was wrong for God to let it happen, then what he would be requesting is that God not allow people to fall into sin, no matter what. Think about it. Freedom of choice means that temptations will occur.
If God did give mankind free will than God cannot know what decisions we make, until they are made. God got angry at Adam because he chose to "fall into sin," but that means God didn't know whether Adam would do so or not until the moment he did.
God cannot be all knowing if mankind has free will. If God is all knowing, then humans do not have free will.
I guess I don't know why you think that just because man has free will that God automatically can't know what we will do. I believe we can have free will and that God can still know what we are about to do. I believe God knows what we will do, but we have the freedom to do whatever. Either seek God and obey Him, or not.
http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-god-all-knowing-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will (http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-god-all-knowing-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will) This link explains it really well.
I believe God knows what we will do, but we have the freedom to do whatever.
These two statements cannot coexist. How do I have freedom of choice if God knows what I'll choose? What you are telling me is that God has planned everyone's life, and just gives us the illusion of choice.
Why would God get angry at Adam? According to Christians, even before God created Adam, he knew what decision he would make when faced with the choice of eating the forbidden fruit. Why would he get angry at his own creation for doing what he designed it to do?
Example - Someone asks you if you want a shirt in size Small or Medium. You think about it for a second, and then say Small. According to you, God knew you would pick small before the choice was presented to you. That means there is no way you were ever going to pick Medium. The choice of shirt size existed, but the outcome was predetermined. The "choice" you were faced with was merely an illusion.
Taken further, this means every decision I've made when faced with a choice wasn't mine, rather it was the decision God made for me. How do I have free will if someone knows every decision I'll make in the future?
-
1. God works in mysterious ways
2. God does stuff that seems bad, but he is good so it must actually be good stuff.
What a joke.
I believe that God does work in mysterious ways. If we knew everything about God then we wouldn't need him. We would just rely upon ourselves. The whole purpose of the Gospel is to do what humans cannot do which is defeat sin. God wants us rely upon Him, not ourselves.
Look, I can't make you believe anything. All I can do is lay out what I believe as clearly as possible. You want like to hear this, but there is an element of faith involved. And if you don't have that faith , well then I pray you will find it someday.
I wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of finding these links if I didn't care. Because I do care. I want everyone to be at peace, happy, and in heaven.
Well, it's awfully convenient that he stays so well hidden, then.
-
Just because God knows something, doesn't mean He made you do something. There's a difference between knowing and doing.
Did you read the link? I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't.
-
Just because God knows something, doesn't mean He made you do something. There's a difference between knowing and doing.
Did you read the link? I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't.
With all due respect, the links are bullshit. You need to bring better links.
-
1. God works in mysterious ways
2. God does stuff that seems bad, but he is good so it must actually be good stuff.
What a joke.
I believe that God does work in mysterious ways. If we knew everything about God then we wouldn't need him. We would just rely upon ourselves. The whole purpose of the Gospel is to do what humans cannot do which is defeat sin. God wants us rely upon Him, not ourselves.
Look, I can't make you believe anything. All I can do is lay out what I believe as clearly as possible. You want like to hear this, but there is an element of faith involved. And if you don't have that faith , well then I pray you will find it someday.
I wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of finding these links if I didn't care. Because I do care. I want everyone to be at peace, happy, and in heaven.
Well, it's awfully convenient that he stays so well hidden, then.
I don't think He's hidden at all. Seek and you will find 8manpick, seek and you will find.
Honestly it seems you just don't want to believe, which makes me sad.
-
Just because God knows something, doesn't mean He made you do something. There's a difference between knowing and doing.
Did you read the link? I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't.
With all due respect, the links are bullshit. You need to bring better links.
There is nothing wrong with the links.
-
The whole purpose of the Gospel is to do what humans cannot do which is defeat sin. God wants us rely upon Him, not ourselves.
then why even invent sin in the first place? he could have just made a bunch of perfect happy people that worship him.
-
Just because God knows something, doesn't mean He made you do something. There's a difference between knowing and doing.
Did you read the link? I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't.
With all due respect, the links are bullshit. You need to bring better links.
There is nothing wrong with the links.
Except that they are wordy exercises in circular logic full of holes.
-
I'm not going to side with fun muffin on this one, but I will say that it appears to me that atheists are quick to dismiss worldwide objective morals (at least Richard Dawkins was) yet also say God lets bad things happen all the time.
-
Just because God knows something, doesn't mean He made you do something. There's a difference between knowing and doing.
Did you read the link? I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't.
With all due respect, the links are bullshit. You need to bring better links.
There is nothing wrong with the links.
Except that they are wordy exercises in circular logic full of holes.
goEMAW is a wordy exercise in circular logic full of holes. i'm just doing the best with what i got.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
I gave an explanation for this like five posts before this, then answered it for someone else like, two posts after that. But this is proving my point that I made on page one that michigancat said I shouldn't make, that no one's mind is going to be changed because of this thread. Just like no conservative is going to change their mind when in an argument with a liberal, a K-State fan is in a argument with a KU fan, etc. In fact if you look at the research on arguments, people get so defenses about their own beliefs that arguments actually reaffirm them. Sad, isn't it (no matter the subject)? Everyone is so busy getting ready to make their next point that they're not even listening to what the other person is saying. The whole exercise is so futile, but we all feel the need to come post why WE'RE right.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
I gave an explanation for this like five posts before this, then answered it for someone else like, two posts after that. But this is proving my point that I made on page one that michigancat said I shouldn't make, that no one's mind is going to be changed because of this thread. Just like no conservative is going to change their mind when in an argument with a liberal, a K-State fan is in a argument with a KU fan, etc. In fact if you look at the research on arguments, people get so defenses about their own beliefs that arguments actually reaffirm them. Sad, isn't it (no matter the subject)? Everyone is so busy getting ready to make their next point that they're not even listening to what the other person is saying. The whole exercise is so futile, but we all feel the need to come post why WE'RE right.
don't get mad just because nirvana is better than the pumpkins.
-
I listened to Nevermind again today. Didn't hate it! :D
-
I listened to Nevermind again today. Didn't hate it! :D
in utero is my fav.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
I gave an explanation for this like five posts before this, then answered it for someone else like, two posts after that. But this is proving my point that I made on page one that michigancat said I shouldn't make, that no one's mind is going to be changed because of this thread. Just like no conservative is going to change their mind when in an argument with a liberal, a K-State fan is in a argument with a KU fan, etc. In fact if you look at the research on arguments, people get so defenses about their own beliefs that arguments actually reaffirm them. Sad, isn't it (no matter the subject)? Everyone is so busy getting ready to make their next point that they're not even listening to what the other person is saying. The whole exercise is so futile, but we all feel the need to come post why WE'RE right.
You're wrong. I was raised Catholic, and even went through RCIA during college and went to church after I graduated. I used to be pretty conservative, even opposed to things like gay marriage. Do you think I changed without reading debates on the subject or hearing opinions from other people?
-
I think it had more to do with your personal experiences that were confirmed by debates you read.
-
I evolved (heh) pretty much like michcat minus the catholic thing. I didn't change my mind because of debates but because I actually got old enough to start thinking about things on my own.
-
since this is now a fun muffin Q&A, i've always wondered why jesus had to die "for our sins". if god is all powerful, can't he just be like "bros, you guys are cleaned of sin now" and skip killing his son that is also himself?
eagerly awaiting the answer, it's something i've been stuck on for a while.
Sin is like an insurmountable debt that must be paid. Jesus did not commit any sin, therefore He is eligible to bear our sin in our place.
Sin like any other debt must be paid i.e. punished, otherwise God would not be just. If he just handed out forgiveness and everyone was clean, without the penalty being paid- justice would not be carried out. In the old testament, the system of atoning for sin is that sin would be transferred into an animal (goat or lamb). And then it would be sacrificed. but this process had to be done continuously. The priest would have to atone for the sins of the people in this way over and over.
Jesus, the 'Lamb' of God, was the ultimate sacrifice for sin. He absorbed sin, into himself and laid his life down as the perfect atoning sacrifice. because he is God, this sacrifice was good enough to be perfect and absorb the punishment for sin, fully, finally and forever. And then in Jesus's resurrection the victory over sin was/is completed.
-
Also, fun muffin, their point is (to paraphrase someone famous) "I am me AND my circumstance". God created me, physical and mental strengths and weaknesses included, then put me in a circumstance that he also created. If he is all knowing, then he would know how his creation would interact with his created environmental model, like an engineer who designs bridges with different load bearing capacities but who also controls traffic and weather. Does the weak bridge choose to buckle?
Hence, either no free will or no omniscience/omnipotence.
I mean, Calvinists figured this out like 400 years ago. Hence the Protestant work ethic.
-
since this is now a fun muffin Q&A, i've always wondered why jesus had to die "for our sins". if god is all powerful, can't he just be like "bros, you guys are cleaned of sin now" and skip killing his son that is also himself?
eagerly awaiting the answer, it's something i've been stuck on for a while.
Sin is like an insurmountable debt that must be paid. Jesus did not commit any sin, therefore He is eligible to bear our sin in our place.
Sin like any other debt must be paid i.e. punished, otherwise God would not be just. If he just handed out forgiveness and everyone was clean, without the penalty being paid- justice would not be carried out. In the old testament, the system of atoning for sin is that sin would be transferred into an animal (goat or lamb). And then it would be sacrificed. but this process had to be done continuously. The priest would have to atone for the sins of the people in this way over and over.
Jesus, the 'Lamb' of God, was the ultimate sacrifice for sin. He absorbed sin, into himself and laid his life down as the perfect atoning sacrifice. because he is God, this sacrifice was good enough to be perfect and absorb the punishment for sin, fully, finally and forever. And then in Jesus's resurrection the victory over sin was/is completed.
Again, the root question is if omnipotent god made all the rules, why did he make this one? Why not just replace crucifixion with a penalty box or community service? You're lumbering towards the "best of all possible worlds" question.
-
since this is now a fun muffin Q&A, i've always wondered why jesus had to die "for our sins". if god is all powerful, can't he just be like "bros, you guys are cleaned of sin now" and skip killing his son that is also himself?
eagerly awaiting the answer, it's something i've been stuck on for a while.
Sin is like an insurmountable debt that must be paid. Jesus did not commit any sin, therefore He is eligible to bear our sin in our place.
Sin like any other debt must be paid i.e. punished, otherwise God would not be just. If he just handed out forgiveness and everyone was clean, without the penalty being paid- justice would not be carried out. In the old testament, the system of atoning for sin is that sin would be transferred into an animal (goat or lamb). And then it would be sacrificed. but this process had to be done continuously. The priest would have to atone for the sins of the people in this way over and over.
people in the old testament sounded like friggin idiots
-
What in the world.
-
Doesn't really instill personal responsibility if one dude can just get punished for everyone.
-
Doesn't really instill personal responsibility if one dude can just get punished for everyone.
Well no way that's true, then. Religion was made up to control people.
-
since this is now a fun muffin Q&A, i've always wondered why jesus had to die "for our sins". if god is all powerful, can't he just be like "bros, you guys are cleaned of sin now" and skip killing his son that is also himself?
eagerly awaiting the answer, it's something i've been stuck on for a while.
Sin is like an insurmountable debt that must be paid. Jesus did not commit any sin, therefore He is eligible to bear our sin in our place.
Sin like any other debt must be paid i.e. punished, otherwise God would not be just. If he just handed out forgiveness and everyone was clean, without the penalty being paid- justice would not be carried out. In the old testament, the system of atoning for sin is that sin would be transferred into an animal (goat or lamb). And then it would be sacrificed. but this process had to be done continuously. The priest would have to atone for the sins of the people in this way over and over.
people in the old testament sounded like friggin idiots
Can you blame goats for starting the whole Satan worship thing? They were really getting mumped in this deal. Every time Onan cranked one out behind the hut, one of their kids got gutted and set on fire.
-
Doesn't really instill personal responsibility if one dude can just get punished for everyone.
Well no way that's true, then. Religion was made up to control people.
Fwiw, I don't think it started out as a means of control, but was eventually hijacked by assholes.
-
Everyone is so busy getting ready to make their next point that they're not even listening to what the other person is saying. The whole exercise is so futile, but we all feel the need to come post why WE'RE right.
i don't think that people usually change their minds in the middle of a debate; they attempt to vigorously defend their position and refute the opposing position. however, i think that people later reflect upon their debates and ameliorate their positions if they found, in making their argument, themselves asserting things without basis in fact or logic.
-
Everyone is defending and attacking a traditional Christian omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent god. There're a lot of other options.
-
Everyone is defending and attacking a traditional Christian omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent god. There're a lot of other options.
I think several believe in a vaguely defined higher power, but until someone one-ups fun muffins links, this is his show.
-
There is nothing wrong with the links.
In all honesty, I'm just deeply amused by this quote on the "inspired, inerrant" links. If there ever was a real discussion with fun muffin, it pretty much ended there.
EVERYONE: But what about [paradox]
FUN MUFFIN: LINKS
EVERYONE: But what about [problem of evil]
FUN MUFFIN: LINKS
EVERYONE: But what about [best of all possible worlds]
FUN MUFFIN: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE LINKS!
-
fun muffin, you are doing a good job!
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins (http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins)
Ummm.. yeah, that answered nothing.
-
One of my biggest worries is that if Jesus does ever come back no one will believe him and everyone will just think he is a crazy and dismiss him (or repersecute him). He probably already has come back and is in prison or on the side of the road holding a sign.
-
I hate Richard Dawkins. To me, the eqivalent would be listening to Cookie Monster lecture on Bakery Science. Dawkins' logic skills are putrid.
-
One of my biggest worries is that if Jesus does ever come back no one will believe him and everyone will just think he is a crazy and dismiss him (or repersecute him). He probably already has come back and is in prison or on the side of the road holding a sign.
He will probably have to resemble how da Vinci depicted him as well. If he comes back looking like a middle eastener, nobody will buy it.
-
Got some time to kill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guXirzknYYE&feature=player_detailpage#t=523s
-
Got some time to kill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guXirzknYYE&feature=player_detailpage#t=523s
I enjoy the Zeitgeist documentaries, all 3 are on Netflix as well
-
Got some time to kill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guXirzknYYE&feature=player_detailpage#t=523s
I saw this several years ago. Although I enjoyed it; It irritated the crap out of me with the Horus / Jesus assertions it made. Only because I know Horus was a god that spanned several dynasties and had several different stories depending on what dynasty you were referring to. There were several different accounts as to who his mother/brother/children were. Even completely different names used to refer to Horus. Sure, point out the similarities between Jesus and all other gods... But don't say Jesus is exactly the same story of an Egyptian god that has very little information/stories that don't completely contradict themselves from others bits of info.
-
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, but I'd honestly like to ask how atheists think the universe was created.
We need a bigger super collider.
How do religious people think god was created?
http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins (http://carm.org/who-made-god-richard-dawkins)
Ummm.. yeah, that answered nothing.
I like the half-ass deconstruction approach that he probably wouldn't want applied to any other questions.
What created God?
What created existence?
What existed creation?
Existence created what?
-
Fun muffin, my intent was not to attack you last night, fwiw. I'm happy for you that you can feel some security and comfort in your beliefs. I personally think they are silly, but I'm just some guy on the internet.
-
Everyone is defending and attacking a traditional Christian omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent god. There're a lot of other options.
no one cares about your half-stupid, powerless and traditionless gods, steve dave. they aren't interested in us, and we're not interested in them.
-
since this is now a fun muffin Q&A, i've always wondered why jesus had to die "for our sins". if god is all powerful, can't he just be like "bros, you guys are cleaned of sin now" and skip killing his son that is also himself?
eagerly awaiting the answer, it's something i've been stuck on for a while.
Sin is like an insurmountable debt that must be paid. Jesus did not commit any sin, therefore He is eligible to bear our sin in our place.
Sin like any other debt must be paid i.e. punished, otherwise God would not be just. If he just handed out forgiveness and everyone was clean, without the penalty being paid- justice would not be carried out. In the old testament, the system of atoning for sin is that sin would be transferred into an animal (goat or lamb). And then it would be sacrificed. but this process had to be done continuously. The priest would have to atone for the sins of the people in this way over and over.
Jesus, the 'Lamb' of God, was the ultimate sacrifice for sin. He absorbed sin, into himself and laid his life down as the perfect atoning sacrifice. because he is God, this sacrifice was good enough to be perfect and absorb the punishment for sin, fully, finally and forever. And then in Jesus's resurrection the victory over sin was/is completed.
Not trolling - serious question. Do you feel obligated to convert someone or preach to or anything like that if a person, such as myself, doesn't believe in hell or sin, but still sees value in the bible from a historical perspective. And really only sees "sin" as something that really doesn't bring fulfillment to your life - therefore it's a waste of time.
I mean, I would imagine in your eyes, I'm guilty of the sin of not worshipping and maybe occasionally lustful or prideful - but for the most part, my moral compass would not interfere with anything or anyone within society including yourself.
-
Does anyone want to answer my question on how God can allow bad to happen if there is no objective worldwide morality?
-
if there is a god, he really hates kansas state fans
-
Does anyone want to answer my question on how God can allow bad to happen if there is no objective worldwide morality?
why does god have to be benevolent?
-
I'm not going to side with fun muffin on this one, but I will say that it appears to me that atheists are quick to dismiss worldwide objective morals (at least Richard Dawkins was) yet also say God lets bad things happen all the time.
This? If it's someome like Dawkins, they're probably just full of crap.
-
Does anyone want to answer my question on how God can allow bad to happen if there is no objective worldwide morality?
why does god have to be benevolent?
I'm not taking a stance either way. I'm just pointing out two conflicting statements that atheists seem to consistently make.
-
Does anyone want to answer my question on how God can allow bad to happen if there is no objective worldwide morality?
There are some things that are objectively bad as deemed by any society, regardless of any religion or God, but you already know that.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
-
I remember during my confirmation I asked my pastor, and really anyone I could find, how we could have free will to choose things if God already knew what we would do. The answer I got was that it works because God exists in the past, present and future simultaneously. This allows God to know what we are going to choose because God exists in the the future, but also gives us free will because God simultaneously is in the present. Essentially God does not perceive time the same way humans do and is not restricted by time.
I :dunno: if that really makes sense or actually works, but for some reason that explanation given to the 7th grade me as stuck with me.
-
I remember during my confirmation I asked my pastor, and really anyone I could find, how we could have free will to choose things if God already knew what we would do. The answer I got was that it works because God exists in the past, present and future simultaneously. This allows God to know what we are going to choose because God exists in the the future, but also gives us free will because God simultaneously is in the present. Essentially God does not perceive time the same way humans do and is not restricted by time.
I :dunno: if that really makes sense or actually works, but for some reason that explanation given to the 7th grade me as stuck with me.
:lol:
Answers like this irritate me, they make absolutely no sense and is just another cop out
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
It's within all nature - it's the natural balance of things. There will be times of immorality within society, but like a free market; these are self correcting.
-
Does anyone want to answer my question on how God can allow bad to happen if there is no objective worldwide morality?
google "problem of evil"
-
I think it's interesting what people perceive as bad or evil - especially by those that believe in an afterlife. Why is death so bad?
-
Does anyone want to answer my question on how God can allow bad to happen if there is no objective worldwide morality?
google "problem of evil"
I think "secular ethics" would be more beneficial, but okay.
-
I think it's interesting what people perceive as bad or evil - especially by those that believe in an afterlife. Why is death so bad?
Totally agree.
-
Fun muffin, my intent was not to attack you last night, fwiw. I'm happy for you that you can feel some security and comfort in your beliefs. I personally think they are silly, but I'm just some guy on the internet.
Agreed. I think he just needs better argument links.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
I think most morals could be explained as ways the species tries to advance.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
It's within all nature - it's the natural balance of things. There will be times of immorality within society, but like a free market; these are self correcting.
I should clarified, I believe they're self balancing without the external manipulator of some authoritative figure threatening violence or punishment.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
I think most morals could be explained as ways the species tries to advance.
I've read some people trying to make a case for that. They were pretty bad explanations. Do you have anything you've read you could link or care to explain this stance any further?
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
I think most morals could be explained as ways the species tries to advance.
I think rusty and I are on the same page here. He's just better at summarizing my long convoluted thoughts into a succinct single sentence.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
I think most morals could be explained as ways the species tries to advance.
I've read some people trying to make a case for that. They were pretty bad explanations. Do you have anything you've read you could link or care to explain this stance any further?
Homosexuality. Considered immoral by most religions. In nature however, sometimes essential. Some amphibians physically change gender in times of low population and will engage in same sex relationships in times of high populations.
... Almost as if it were by intelligent design.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
Yes, but of course, since I don't think there is a god, I would also argue that the Christian set of morals were some human's nature. I think at this point moral reasoning has been developed over millennia by societies and I would tend to agree with rusty's summarization for the most part.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
I think most morals could be explained as ways the species tries to advance.
I've read some people trying to make a case for that. They were pretty bad explanations. Do you have anything you've read you could link or care to explain this stance any further?
Homosexuality. Considered immoral by most religions. In nature however, sometimes essential. Some amphibians physically change gender in times of low population and will engage in same sex relationships in times of high populations.
What in the world are you talking about? I'm asking why people in all societies, even atheists, consider some certain things to be immoral. Things like lying and stealing are all considered bad. I haven't heard a good reason why this would be the case if there wasn't a God. My question was does michigancat (or you, if you can grasp the concept of this post) have an explanation for why people want to be good/fair to others even when it doesn't benefit themselves.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
I think most morals could be explained as ways the species tries to advance.
I've read some people trying to make a case for that. They were pretty bad explanations. Do you have anything you've read you could link or care to explain this stance any further?
Homosexuality. Considered immoral by most religions. In nature however, sometimes essential. Some amphibians physically change gender in times of low population and will engage in same sex relationships in times of high populations.
What in the world are you talking about? I'm asking why people in all societies, even atheists, consider some certain things to be immoral. Things like lying and stealing are all considered bad. I haven't heard a good reason why this would be the case if there wasn't a God. My question was does michigancat (or you, if you can grasp the concept of this post) have an explanation for why people want to be good/fair to others even when it doesn't benefit themselves.
There's no reason to be a dick. Especially when you can't even comprehend my post. I won't accuse you of being so intellectually insecure that you need to belittle and lash out of people... But if the shoe fits.
Anyway, How do you explain empathy? Do I have empathy only because if I don't, I might be condemned to a fiery eternity in hell by some authoritative figure? Do you have a conscious? Do you think it's exclusive to Christians?
-
There's no reason to be a dick. Especially when you can't even comprehend my post. I won't accuse you of being so intellectually insecure that you need to belittle and lash out of people... But if the shoe fits.
Anyway, How do you explain empathy? Do I have empathy only because if I don't, I might be condemned to a fiery eternity in hell by some authoritative figure? Do you have a conscious? Do you think it's exclusive to Christians?
1. It's the nature of goEMAW to be a dick during arguments. It's in jest.
2. It's funny because in general (not as much in this thread, but definitely earlier in this thread) it's pretty common to make fun of deists. I thought it'd be funny to go the opposite way. I have been refraining this entire time, but figured when you didn't seem to comprehend my post that it would be a good time to break it out.
3. I believe if we are made in God's image, it would be human nature to have empathy for others. I do not believe it is exclusive to Christians, or even deists, as I had plenty of empathy for others when I was an atheist and have lots of atheist friends who are great people and care about the well being of others.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
If you believe that humans are animals (with a higher level of intelligence), our base instinct is for the preservation of our species, and a part of that is protecting the "herd". Therefore, there are societal norms that we will enforce on the whole so we can survive.
You see this in nature. Go to the zoo and stare at meerkats for a while. Honestly, just watching their social structure for about twenty minutes helped reinforce my thoughts on that subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meerkats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meerkats)
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
If you believe that humans are animals (with a higher level of intelligence), our base instinct is for the preservation of our species, and a part of that is protecting the "herd". Therefore, there are societal norms that we will enforce on the whole so we can survive.
Best explanation I've heard. Thanks, Panj.
-
It's wrong to torture cats, you preservation of species idiots.
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
I think most morals could be explained as ways the species tries to advance.
I've read some people trying to make a case for that. They were pretty bad explanations. Do you have anything you've read you could link or care to explain this stance any further?
Homosexuality. Considered immoral by most religions. In nature however, sometimes essential. Some amphibians physically change gender in times of low population and will engage in same sex relationships in times of high populations.
What in the world are you talking about? I'm asking why people in all societies, even atheists, consider some certain things to be immoral. Things like lying and stealing are all considered bad. I haven't heard a good reason why this would be the case if there wasn't a God. My question was does michigancat (or you, if you can grasp the concept of this post) have an explanation for why people want to be good/fair to others even when it doesn't benefit themselves.
Being good to each other benefits the species. The species dies out if everyone murders each other.
Stealing is bad because it creates conflict. If everyone in the tribe is stealing from each other, the tribe splits up and boom, you're rough ridin' eaten by a sabre-toothed tiger if the tribe doesn't kill everyone on their own. Lying is considered wrong because it leads to mistrust which leads to tribes falling apart and everyone getting eaten by sabre-toothed tigers.
Thinking homosexuality is morally wrong could be rooted in the fact that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, and if they do, their offspring will be less likely to reproduce. And I imagine gene pools have a general aversion to members of the gene pool that are vastly different from themselves.
-
There's no reason to be a dick. Especially when you can't even comprehend my post. I won't accuse you of being so intellectually insecure that you need to belittle and lash out of people... But if the shoe fits.
Anyway, How do you explain empathy? Do I have empathy only because if I don't, I might be condemned to a fiery eternity in hell by some authoritative figure? Do you have a conscious? Do you think it's exclusive to Christians?
1. It's the nature of goEMAW to be a dick during arguments. It's in jest.
2. It's funny because in general (not as much in this thread, but definitely earlier in this thread) it's pretty common to make fun of deists. I thought it'd be funny to go the opposite way. I have been refraining this entire time, but figured when you didn't seem to comprehend my post that it would be a good time to break it out.
3. I believe if we are made in God's image, it would be human nature to have empathy for others. I do not believe it is exclusive to Christians, or even deists, as I had plenty of empathy for others when I was an atheist and have lots of atheist friends who are great people and care about the well being of others.
1. I'm aware of the atmosphere within goEMAW. But your timing made you appear small and insecure. Do what you want; but my response was not a defensive act, more of a friend placing a hand on your shoulder letting you know everyone could see your balls hanging out.
2. I don't think you understand what rusty was suggesting if you couldn't accept my response. And who said I was an atheist?
3. I can accept being made in gods image. But I have an extremely different perspective on what god is.
-
I like to think of "God" as a kid playing with his toys. Sometimes he gets called away and and sometimes he gets upset and smashes all the toys. He's like some kind of higher being which our puny minds can't understand, but he's just a child higher being.
-
Do what you want; but my response was not a defensive act, more of a friend placing a hand on your shoulder letting you know everyone could see your balls hanging out.
Lol. Alright, bud.
-
It's wrong to torture cats, you preservation of species idiots.
cats kill mice and keep disease away. Thanks for preserving our species you idiot cats!
-
It's wrong to torture cats, you preservation of species idiots.
cats kill mice and keep disease away. Thanks for preserving our species you idiot cats!
A cat that's been tortured can still kill mice.
-
It's wrong to torture cats, you preservation of species idiots.
cats kill mice and keep disease away. Thanks for preserving our species you idiot cats!
A cat that's been tortured can still kill mice.
as well as a healthy cat? LOL, whatevs
-
So you're saying it's human nature to have morals?
If you believe that humans are animals (with a higher level of intelligence), our base instinct is for the preservation of our species, and a part of that is protecting the "herd". Therefore, there are societal norms that we will enforce on the whole so we can survive.
Best explanation I've heard. Thanks, Panj.
Thanks. I don't like talking about "morals". I look at things as "norms".
Most animals stamp out dischord in their herds because it upsets the herd. Lying, stealing, infidelity, greed, etc. are all things that cause discord between members of the herd, therefore, we look down on them, and in some cases punish them, because we are trying to bring harmony back to the group.
You can see a lot of this in mammals. The more "evolved" the species is, the more social norms you see them enforce. Primates, specifically, exhibit a lot of "human" traits in their social interactions. The thought is that the more intelligent we become, the more intricate our social interactions, and the more advanced our concepts of right/wrong, moral/immoral, etc. are.
-
It's wrong to torture cats, you preservation of species idiots.
We are capable of feeling empathy. That empathy can extend to other species.
-
It's wrong to torture cats, you preservation of species idiots.
We are capable of feeling empathy. That empathy can extend to other species.
Maybe. But it's still wrong.
-
Panj, or anyone really, do you have an explanation for aesthetics? It doesn't get talked about too much, but I think it's a legitimate question. I can't think of a reason in evolution in which people would develop a reason to appreciate beauty (except for in other humans).
-
Panj, or anyone really, do you have an explanation for aesthetics? It doesn't get talked about too much, but I think it's a legitimate question. I can't think of a reason in evolution in which people would develop a reason to appreciate beauty (except for in other humans).
really cute and beautiful things don't usually kill you. scary gross stuff does.
-
Panj, or anyone really, do you have an explanation for aesthetics? It doesn't get talked about too much, but I think it's a legitimate question. I can't think of a reason in evolution in which people would develop a reason to appreciate beauty (except for in other humans).
really cute and beautiful things don't usually kill you. scary gross stuff does.
Bears are pretty cute, steve dave.
-
little baby sheep: adorable and also delicious
enormous poisonous disgusting cobra: dead
beautiful forest: safe and good for foraging
scary as crap volcano caldera: dead
-
Panj, or anyone really, do you have an explanation for aesthetics? It doesn't get talked about too much, but I think it's a legitimate question. I can't think of a reason in evolution in which people would develop a reason to appreciate beauty (except for in other humans).
really cute and beautiful things don't usually kill you. scary gross stuff does.
Bears are pretty cute, steve dave.
just little baby ones. huge scary killer bears aren't cute at all
-
Panj, or anyone really, do you have an explanation for aesthetics? It doesn't get talked about too much, but I think it's a legitimate question. I can't think of a reason in evolution in which people would develop a reason to appreciate beauty (except for in other humans).
Like the grand canyon?
-
I would say beautiful forests are pretty dangerous. Have you read the accounts of the explorers when they got to the Amazon? Pretty scary stuff. Basically a historical account of the movie Anaconda. And volcanoes are very beautiful.
-
Panj, or anyone really, do you have an explanation for aesthetics? It doesn't get talked about too much, but I think it's a legitimate question. I can't think of a reason in evolution in which people would develop a reason to appreciate beauty (except for in other humans).
Like the grand canyon?
I said I was glad I went! :curse:
-
I believe for selfish reasons. Thinking that I'm done when I die is kinda depressing. Atleast make me a ghost or something, so I can troll fescoe.
-
Panj, or anyone really, do you have an explanation for aesthetics? It doesn't get talked about too much, but I think it's a legitimate question. I can't think of a reason in evolution in which people would develop a reason to appreciate beauty (except for in other humans).
When you hear music, neural patterns in your brain change. When you see pleasant images, neural patterns in your brain change. There is something physical that changes when you see or hear something that is aesthetically pleasing.
The fact that we can express that is more of a by product of our ability to communicate and reason.
-
Brainstorming a possible evolutionary cause of this beauty/wonder/awe feeling:
This feeling drives people to explore new places to see things they haven't seen before. This could help spread out the gene pool and encourage genetic diversity as well as gaining new habitats and resources.
-
I would say beautiful forests are pretty dangerous. Have you read the accounts of the explorers when they got to the Amazon? Pretty scary stuff. Basically a historical account of the movie Anaconda. And volcanoes are very beautiful.
that's a rough ridin' scary ass jungle. not an apple orchard forest with blueberry bush middles and strawberry ground parts.
-
I definitely understand that for music, the melody can be soothing and I assume that it could be shown in other species. I meant to limit my post to visual stimuli.
However, I don't think that just because it can be explained physiologically that it means it was a natural process to becoming human. I'm asking why does something change physiologically in us when we see a mountain range or sunset.
-
I definitely understand that for music, the melody can be soothing and I assume that it could be shown in other species. I meant to limit my post to visual stimuli.
However, I don't think that just because it can be explained physiologically that it means it was a natural process to becoming human. I'm asking why does something change physiologically in us when we see a mountain range or sunset.
I guess that's where I differ. I think that if it can be explained physiologically, it was an evolutionary process.
I don't believe in God as a designer. If he/she were a designer, the human body would have been developed in a much more efficient manner. Why do we need an appendix? Why is the eye such an inefficient means of viewing the world around us? Why do our systems fail? Why do cells mutate and cause cancer?
I guess that punts God back to a cosmic designer, which I'm okay with, because as I said earlier in this thread, we can't explain what happened before the Big Bang. But, IMO, if that's where we're at, concepts of issues specific to humanity are fraught with issues because when you start digging into the details, God doesn't fit most situations.
-
I don't believe in God as a designer. If he/she were a designer, the human body would have been developed in a much more efficient manner. Why do we need an appendix? Why is the eye such an inefficient means of viewing the world around us? Why do our systems fail? Why do cells mutate and cause cancer?
I do have answers for these, but they're personal beliefs that I won't post for fear (legitimate or not) of being mocked. I am getting the feeling that we just need to have a late night turntable session soon so we can discuss this in a more personal setting.
-
I don't believe in God as a designer. If he/she were a designer, the human body would have been developed in a much more efficient manner. Why do we need an appendix? Why is the eye such an inefficient means of viewing the world around us? Why do our systems fail? Why do cells mutate and cause cancer?
I do have answers for these, but they're personal beliefs that I won't post for fear (legitimate or not) of being mocked. I am getting the feeling that we just need to have a late night turntable session soon so we can discuss this in a more personal setting.
I won't mock you, bro.
-
I don't believe in God as a designer. If he/she were a designer, the human body would have been developed in a much more efficient manner. Why do we need an appendix? Why is the eye such an inefficient means of viewing the world around us? Why do our systems fail? Why do cells mutate and cause cancer?
I do have answers for these, but they're personal beliefs that I won't post for fear (legitimate or not) of being mocked. I am getting the feeling that we just need to have a late night turntable session soon so we can discuss this in a more personal setting.
I won't mock you, bro.
I know you won't. It's others that I'm worried about.
-
Panjandrum and I would enjoy drinking beers together and randomly high-fiving (I think).
-
Panjandrum and I would enjoy drinking beers together and randomly high-fiving (I think).
I get that feeling.
-
I will say a couple things without delving into anything too personal.
Regarding Panj's comment about the appendix, more recently there have been studies to show a use. A very brief description:
It has recently been found that the appendix has a function in embryology as it develops endocrine cells in the 11th week which secrete amines and hormones used in development
So you are willing to wait on science to figure out how the universe was created (admittedly a much more difficult thing to figure out) but not willing to see if science can explain what we currently view as "useless" organs? Regardless, if we were created by God, I think we have most likely evolved since then.
seven asked earlier if there is a God, why wouldn't He just create humans to love Him no matter what. To give you my explanation, one cannot love without the option to not love. If we were forced to love, that'd be a lot more like rape. It would be the equivalent of making my computer say, "I love you, Jakesie" every once in a while. I doubt anyone would feel rewarded by that.
-
How is the eye an inefficient way of viewing the world around us?
-
I don't believe in God as a designer. If he/she were a designer, the human body would have been developed in a much more efficient manner. Why do we need an appendix? Why is the eye such an inefficient means of viewing the world around us? Why do our systems fail? Why do cells mutate and cause cancer?
I do have answers for these, but they're personal beliefs that I won't post for fear (legitimate or not) of being mocked. I am getting the feeling that we just need to have a late night turntable session soon so we can discuss this in a more personal setting.
I won't mock you, bro.
I know you won't. It's others that I'm worried about.
Jakesie, you had me at "late night turntable session"
-
I don't believe in God as a designer. If he/she were a designer, the human body would have been developed in a much more efficient manner. Why do we need an appendix? Why is the eye such an inefficient means of viewing the world around us? Why do our systems fail? Why do cells mutate and cause cancer?
I do have answers for these, but they're personal beliefs that I won't post for fear (legitimate or not) of being mocked. I am getting the feeling that we just need to have a late night turntable session soon so we can discuss this in a more personal setting.
I won't mock you, bro.
I know you won't. It's others that I'm worried about.
Why would you worry? People can mock if they want to; won't change anything unless you let it. Embrace your vulnerability.
Ftr, I personally would never initiate any mocking. Nor would I partake.
-
I'm always looking for a good mocking.
-
I don't believe in God as a designer. If he/she were a designer, the human body would have been developed in a much more efficient manner. Why do we need an appendix? Why is the eye such an inefficient means of viewing the world around us? Why do our systems fail? Why do cells mutate and cause cancer?
I do have answers for these, but they're personal beliefs that I won't post for fear (legitimate or not) of being mocked. I am getting the feeling that we just need to have a late night turntable session soon so we can discuss this in a more personal setting.
I won't mock you, bro.
I know you won't. It's others that I'm worried about.
Why would you worry? People can mock if they want to; won't change anything unless you let it. Embrace your vulnerability.
Ftr, I personally would never initiate any mocking. Nor would I partake.
It's not my confidence or anything, I just think that once someone makes a joke after someone is vulnerable, everyone dismisses the first person's comment. I'd rather it be in an environment where I know everyone will be serious for the duration of the conversation.
-
What in the world are you talking about? I'm asking why people in all societies, even atheists, consider some certain things to be immoral. Things like lying and stealing are all considered bad. I haven't heard a good reason why this would be the case if there wasn't a God. My question was does michigancat (or you, if you can grasp the concept of this post) have an explanation for why people want to be good/fair to others even when it doesn't benefit themselves.
there's been a ton of research on this stuff. look some of it up (it's pretty similar to what panj has expressed).
re. beauty, etc. our preferences in sensory perceptions usually align with evolutionary advantageous behaviors. if you like steak, it's because that's a good way to get you to ingest animal protein. if you like the view from a hill overlooking a green grassy plain, it's because that's a good place for you to find food and avoid getting eaten. if you feel a weird urge to climb up a majestic mountain just because it's there, that because you'd probably never go rape the women in the village on the other side if you didn't. etc.
-
If there is a God, we aren't Him.
Therefore, we can't know everything about Him or us.
Other answers (http://www.youtube.com/user/KSUPoetWarrior)
-
IMO, the interesting thing about natural selection isn't that it affords us the opportunity for ad hoc explanations of how every biological phenomenon in the world is the result of it. The interesting thing about it is merely that it exists and that we can actually observe it in a very limited number of cases.
-
the interesting thing about natural selection isn't that it affords us the opportunity for ad hoc explanations of how every biological phenomenon in the world is the result of it.
that's very funny.
we can actually observe it in a very limited number of cases.
not so limited.
-
IMO, the interesting thing about natural selection isn't that it affords us the opportunity for ad hoc explanations of how every biological phenomenon in the world is the result of it. The interesting thing about it is merely that it exists and that we can actually observe it in a very limited number of cases.
Well put.
-
not so limited.
Judging by what I understand are supposed to be modern scieftific standards (including things like observed repeatability), I think so.
-
Judging by what I understand are supposed to be modern scieftific standards (including things like observed repeatability), I think so.
you're wrong. you can't open a journal without seeing a paper in which natural selection is observed.
-
Judging by what I understand are supposed to be modern scieftific standards (including things like observed repeatability), I think so.
you're wrong. you can't open a journal without seeing a paper in which natural selection is observed.
Oh, I know it's said all the time, but I don't think those observations meet suitable scientific standards. Like, you can demonstrate natural selction in a lab. That works. But just looking at something and saying "Eureka! Natural selection!" ultimately isn't much different than looking at something and saying, "Eureka! Intelligent design!" I don't care if every scientist disagrees about that. I think they're wrong.
-
And, really, is it so hard to believe that many scientists aren't as rigorous as they should be?
-
Judging by what I understand are supposed to be modern scieftific standards (including things like observed repeatability), I think so.
you're wrong. you can't open a journal without seeing a paper in which natural selection is observed.
Oh, I know it's said all the time, but I don't think those observations meet suitable scientific standards. Like, you can demonstrate natural selction in a lab. That works. But just looking at something and saying "Eureka! Natural selection!" ultimately isn't much different than looking at something and saying, "Eureka! Intelligent design!" I don't care if every scientist disagrees about that. I think they're wrong.
drug resistant bacteria is consistently evolving outside the lab.
-
people record empirical observations of natural selection in nature and report those observations. not every article here contains observations of natural selection, but many do. this is one journal of dozens.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.2013.67.issue-4/issuetoc
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HooeZrC76s0#t=91s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HooeZrC76s0#t=91s)
a lot of people use yet unanswered questions to justify their belief.
-
people record empirical observations of natural selection in nature and report those observations. not every article here contains observations of natural selection, but many do. this is one journal of dozens.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.2013.67.issue-4/issuetoc
The problem with observations in nature is that you can only observe the thing one time, not repeatedly. Without establishing repeatability, you're just guessing that it will happen again. But guessing is supposed to be a no-no for science. It's tempting to think things like, "OBVIOUSLY, it happen the same way again." But that's hardly scientific.
-
And, really, is it so hard to believe that many scientists aren't as rigorous as they should be?
Clarification: Every profession is seriously faulty in some way. Science isn't exempt.
-
What in the world are you talking about? I'm asking why people in all societies, even atheists, consider some certain things to be immoral. Things like lying and stealing are all considered bad. I haven't heard a good reason why this would be the case if there wasn't a God. My question was does michigancat (or you, if you can grasp the concept of this post) have an explanation for why people want to be good/fair to others even when it doesn't benefit themselves.
there's been a ton of research on this stuff. look some of it up (it's pretty similar to what panj has expressed).
re. beauty, etc. our preferences in sensory perceptions usually align with evolutionary advantageous behaviors. if you like steak, it's because that's a good way to get you to ingest animal protein. if you like the view from a hill overlooking a green grassy plain, it's because that's a good place for you to find food and avoid getting eaten. if you feel a weird urge to climb up a majestic mountain just because it's there, that because you'd probably never go rape the women in the village on the other side if you didn't. etc.
I think you're reaching, but that's your right. Everyone has to at some point to justify their beliefs. Do you have an explanation for why people generally think sunsets are beautiful? It sounds like it would be a very terrifying thing in a hunter-gatherer society. Nocturnal animals about to be on the prowl, limited visibility, etc.
-
I think you're reaching, but that's your right. Everyone has to at some point to justify their beliefs. Do you have an explanation for why people generally think sunsets are beautiful? It sounds like it would be a very terrifying thing in a hunter-gatherer society. Nocturnal animals about to be on the prowl, limited visibility, etc.
i'm not, actually. these aren't beliefs, they are hypotheses. like i said re. ethics, there's been a ton of research into these subjects. you can rely on beliefs or can you educate yourself and base your thoughts on evidence.
i could come up with a number of just-so hypothesis for sunsets. i'm sure you could as well.
-
The problem with observations in nature is that you can only observe the thing one time, not repeatedly. Without establishing repeatability, you're just guessing that it will happen again. But guessing is supposed to be a no-no for science. It's tempting to think things like, "OBVIOUSLY, it happen the same way again." But that's hardly scientific.
poor chum1, wondering as he wanders in a popperian dystopia.
science isn't popper's myth they teach in freshman year "intro to -" classes. it's just a rigorous process of observation. natural selection is as repeatedly observable as anything in a complex, hugely multi-variable system.
-
The problem with observations in nature is that you can only observe the thing one time, not repeatedly. Without establishing repeatability, you're just guessing that it will happen again. But guessing is supposed to be a no-no for science. It's tempting to think things like, "OBVIOUSLY, it happen the same way again." But that's hardly scientific.
poor chum1, wondering as he wanders in a popperian dystopia.
science isn't popper's myth they teach in freshman year "intro to -" classes. it's just a rigorous process of observation. natural selection is as repeatedly observable as anything in a complex, hugely multi-variable system.
I may have overstated the point. I meant to be talking only about a theory like natural selection. Unlike other scientific theories, it isn't measurable and predictable. That's a very significant difference. Going around, pointing at things, and calling it natural selection isn't much different from going around, pointing at things, and calling it intelligent design. You can't measure for either.
And, like that blowhard Neil guy said in the video, we shouldn't just accept an idea because it's conventional. This is true whether the idea is purported to be about something supernatural or natural.
-
sys, do you find snakes to be beautiful?
-
sys, do you find snakes to be beautiful?
hell no.
-
I will say a couple things without delving into anything too personal.
Regarding Panj's comment about the appendix, more recently there have been studies to show a use. A very brief description:
It has recently been found that the appendix has a function in embryology as it develops endocrine cells in the 11th week which secrete amines and hormones used in development
So you are willing to wait on science to figure out how the universe was created (admittedly a much more difficult thing to figure out) but not willing to see if science can explain what we currently view as "useless" organs? Regardless, if we were created by God, I think we have most likely evolved since then.
seven asked earlier if there is a God, why wouldn't He just create humans to love Him no matter what. To give you my explanation, one cannot love without the option to not love. If we were forced to love, that'd be a lot more like rape. It would be the equivalent of making my computer say, "I love you, Jakesie" every once in a while. I doubt anyone would feel rewarded by that.
would take.
-
The problem with observations in nature is that you can only observe the thing one time, not repeatedly. Without establishing repeatability, you're just guessing that it will happen again. But guessing is supposed to be a no-no for science. It's tempting to think things like, "OBVIOUSLY, it happen the same way again." But that's hardly scientific.
poor chum1, wondering as he wanders in a popperian dystopia.
science isn't popper's myth they teach in freshman year "intro to -" classes. it's just a rigorous process of observation. natural selection is as repeatedly observable as anything in a complex, hugely multi-variable system.
I may have overstated the point. I meant to be talking only about a theory like natural selection. Unlike other scientific theories, it isn't measurable and predictable. That's a very significant difference. Going around, pointing at things, and calling it natural selection isn't much different from going around, pointing at things, and calling it intelligent design. You can't measure for either.
And, like that blowhard Neil guy said in the video, we shouldn't just accept an idea because it's conventional. This is true whether the idea is purported to be about something supernatural or natural.
is the existence and coming existence of antibiotic resistant bacteria measurable and predictable? or maybe god is designing new stuff to show humanity who is boss and the "evolution" of superbugs is him asserting his assholish dominance.
-
The problem with observations in nature is that you can only observe the thing one time, not repeatedly. Without establishing repeatability, you're just guessing that it will happen again. But guessing is supposed to be a no-no for science. It's tempting to think things like, "OBVIOUSLY, it happen the same way again." But that's hardly scientific.
poor chum1, wondering as he wanders in a popperian dystopia.
science isn't popper's myth they teach in freshman year "intro to -" classes. it's just a rigorous process of observation. natural selection is as repeatedly observable as anything in a complex, hugely multi-variable system.
I may have overstated the point. I meant to be talking only about a theory like natural selection. Unlike other scientific theories, it isn't measurable and predictable. That's a very significant difference. Going around, pointing at things, and calling it natural selection isn't much different from going around, pointing at things, and calling it intelligent design. You can't measure for either.
And, like that blowhard Neil guy said in the video, we shouldn't just accept an idea because it's conventional. This is true whether the idea is purported to be about something supernatural or natural.
is the existence and coming existence of antibiotic resistant bacteria measurable and predictable? or maybe god is designing new stuff to show humanity who is boss and the "evolution" of superbugs is him asserting his assholish dominance.
That is not loving at all. That is sadistic.
-
sys, do you find snakes to be beautiful?
most snakes, yes. biophilia.
-
I may have overstated the point. I meant to be talking only about a theory like natural selection. Unlike other scientific theories, it isn't measurable and predictable. That's a very significant difference. Going around, pointing at things, and calling it natural selection isn't much different from going around, pointing at things, and calling it intelligent design. You can't measure for either.
And, like that blowhard Neil guy said in the video, we shouldn't just accept an idea because it's conventional. This is true whether the idea is purported to be about something supernatural or natural.
i think i understand what you are driving at. if you refer back to your original post, i thought your observation regarding the numerous just-so stories that scientists as well as non-scientists invoke using selection was humorous in its accuracy.
however, i also think you would be surprised at how frequently people do observe, measure and describe natural selection. prediction is a difficult standard, and what you might label as predictable can depend on the degree of change, the degree of the precision and the period of time over which you wish to predict. if you'll accept an analogy to weather forecast, biologists commonly measure and predict tomorrow, we can usually predict the equivalent of a day being hot next summer and we have about as much trouble predicting the exact temperature of an individual day ten years from now as meteorologist do.
all of which certainly points to the complexities of the systems people are attempting to study. the idea that natural selection is difficult to observe, or even more speciously, unmeasurable and unsupported by evidence is simply grossly incorrect.
-
I will say a couple things without delving into anything too personal.
Regarding Panj's comment about the appendix, more recently there have been studies to show a use. A very brief description:
It has recently been found that the appendix has a function in embryology as it develops endocrine cells in the 11th week which secrete amines and hormones used in development
So you are willing to wait on science to figure out how the universe was created (admittedly a much more difficult thing to figure out) but not willing to see if science can explain what we currently view as "useless" organs? Regardless, if we were created by God, I think we have most likely evolved since then.
seven asked earlier if there is a God, why wouldn't He just create humans to love Him no matter what. To give you my explanation, one cannot love without the option to not love. If we were forced to love, that'd be a lot more like rape. It would be the equivalent of making my computer say, "I love you, Jakesie" every once in a while. I doubt anyone would feel rewarded by that.
In regards to the first bolded point, if the appendix serves one purpose during the embryonic process, but only has the potential to cause problems later, I'd consider that bad design. A good design, if it was no longer useful after it's initial function, would be for it to simply shrink or disappear after it was done, or use a different method altogether. And if God is relying on evolution to do the dirty work, and we weren't explicitly designed, the widely accepted belief that most religious people hold of God designing humans in his own image is tossed out the window. If we're a hot mess, what does that make God?
In this situation, one of two things is true. Either God is an incompetent designer, or he didn't design us in his own image. If he's incompetent, then why should I do anything he says? He's obviously stupid. If he didn't design us in his own image, most Abrahamic religions are in a bind, because that's a core belief in the Tanakh and the Old Testament. I'm still a little shaky on how that all plays into the Islamic version, but whatever. Two outta three ain't bad.
In regards to the computer example, love is a biological and psychological "soup" based primarily on sexual attraction and attachment theory. There have been tons of studies done on the biological basis for love and why we end up getting attached to one another. A lot of it is evolutionary.
The bottom line, to me, is that the crux of the issue is that we've evolved to the point where our species has developed a super ego, and our narcissism for finding a deeper meaning and our special place in this world must be satisfied. To do that, we need to be God's "special children", and we need to be created in his image. We cannot live knowing that we are simply a mathematical anomaly and all of what we perceive to be beautiful and wonderful in the world is really a complex and advanced biological and psychological response to our base evolutionary instincts. To know how unlikely it was that "you" were the winner in reproductive race of millions in your mother's womb. To know that you will die and there will be nothing left but the DNA that you passed onto your children. It's too depressing for most people and won't satisfy our super ego, so we yearn to believe that there is more to this accidental existence.
Hence, God.
The best example of this thought came from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in the form of the "Total Perspective Vortex":
"The Total Perspective Vortex derives its picture of the whole Universe on the principle of extrapolated matter analyses.
To explain — since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation — every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.
The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically in order to annoy his wife.
Trin Tragula — for that was his name — was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.
“Have some sense of proportion!” she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day.
And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex — just to show her.
And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife: so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it.
To Trin Tragula’s horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to his satisfaction he realized that he had proved conclusively that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion."
-
is the existence and coming existence of antibiotic resistant bacteria measurable and predictable? or maybe god is designing new stuff to show humanity who is boss and the "evolution" of superbugs is him asserting his assholish dominance.
1. Probably not. 2. I'm not sure we're on the same page.
-
I may have overstated the point. I meant to be talking only about a theory like natural selection. Unlike other scientific theories, it isn't measurable and predictable. That's a very significant difference. Going around, pointing at things, and calling it natural selection isn't much different from going around, pointing at things, and calling it intelligent design. You can't measure for either.
And, like that blowhard Neil guy said in the video, we shouldn't just accept an idea because it's conventional. This is true whether the idea is purported to be about something supernatural or natural.
i think i understand what you are driving at. if you refer back to your original post, i thought your observation regarding the numerous just-so stories that scientists as well as non-scientists invoke using selection was humorous in its accuracy.
however, i also think you would be surprised at how frequently people do observe, measure and describe natural selection. prediction is a difficult standard, and what you might label as predictable can depend on the degree of change, the degree of the precision and the period of time over which you wish to predict. if you'll accept an analogy to weather forecast, biologists commonly measure and predict tomorrow, we can usually predict the equivalent of a day being hot next summer and we have about as much trouble predicting the exact temperature of an individual day ten years from now as meteorologist do.
all of which certainly points to the complexities of the systems people are attempting to study. the idea that natural selection is difficult to observe, or even more speciously, unmeasurable and unsupported by evidence is simply grossly incorrect.
It's not that it's too difficult. It's that it's too easy. You can observe, measure, describe, make roughly accurate predictions about, and have evidence for things in all sorts of different ways. There are people in this world who observe, measure, describe, make roughly accurate predictions about, and have evidence for intelligent design. If someone shows me something and says, "Hey, check out this intelligent design," I don't think it really means anything beyond them telling some story. There is no additional step they can take to confirm that the observations jibes with the theory. That's just not the nature of the theory. Same with natural selection.
(I'm not trying to say that intelligent design should be regarded in the same way as natural selection, just giving reasons why I'm reluctant to say that we actually observe natural selection very often.)
-
is the existence and coming existence of antibiotic resistant bacteria measurable and predictable? or maybe god is designing new stuff to show humanity who is boss and the "evolution" of superbugs is him asserting his assholish dominance.
1. Probably not. 2. I'm not sure we're on the same page.
we aren't on the same page, but i'm convinced you're either trolling or not trying very hard so i'm making my own points.
-
The problem with observations in nature is that you can only observe the thing one time, not repeatedly. Without establishing repeatability, you're just guessing that it will happen again. But guessing is supposed to be a no-no for science. It's tempting to think things like, "OBVIOUSLY, it happen the same way again." But that's hardly scientific.
popperian dystopia.
:love: what a great phrase (and also would be a kick ass band name)
-
Panj, I think the world as evolved since sin entered the world, and because of that we are changing. I think we were made perfectly for a perfect world, but it is no longer a perfect world.
Also, regarding your explanation of love, if I understand what you're saying, you're saying that the physiological effects that happen are the causation of love. If you're saying I think I love my wife simply because my heart beat gets faster and my eyes dilate when I see her, that still does not explain why my heart beat gets faster and my eyes dilate.
I understand everyone's point about why humans would make up God. That is a decent explanation as to why He came into existence (so to speak). But you seem to be treating it as the only reason possible. I don't think anyone is arguing that it is impossible for people to have made up a reason to live. It's a nice thought, but as an atheist I had no desire to have a reason for my life. I didn't find it necessary, and was completely content living just to benefit myself. When I became aware of reasons God could exist, having a purpose in life was never a reason for me to look into it. So there has to be another reason than just that, at least for some people.
-
You might find this to your tastes j60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manich%C3%A6ans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicians
-
Yeah, that's not really a new concept to me. As an atheist it reiterated my belief that religion was man made, so I definitely understand that idea. But if we all are made by God, I think we would have a natural idea that something bigger is going on. I have heard stories about explorers even recently going to islands in which people haven't had interaction with anyone outside of the island, but they have an idea of God/Christianity. They don't have a name for Jesus, but an idea that God had a son that died for them.
-
Yeah, that's not really a new concept to me. As an atheist it reiterated my belief that religion was man made, so I definitely understand that idea. But if we all are made by God, I think we would have a natural idea that something bigger is going on. I have heard stories about explorers even recently going to islands in which people haven't had interaction with anyone outside of the island, but they have an idea of God/Christianity. They don't have a name for Jesus, but an idea that God had a son that died for them.
that's not unique to Christianity
-
Yeah, that's not really a new concept to me. As an atheist it reiterated my belief that religion was man made, so I definitely understand that idea. But if we all are made by God, I think we would have a natural idea that something bigger is going on. I have heard stories about explorers even recently going to islands in which people haven't had interaction with anyone outside of the island, but they have an idea of God/Christianity. They don't have a name for Jesus, but an idea that God had a son that died for them.
To me this proves the opposite actually and reminds me of the Voltaire quote,
"If God didn't exist, it would have been necessary for man to invent him,"
-
Same with natural selection.
it's not the same. we can actually observe natural selection acting on natural populations. like we can measure a selective pressure, and measure a change in some character in a population of organisms subject to that pressure. measurements of before, after and an agent. that's not the same at all.
-
Same with natural selection.
it's not the same. we can actually observe natural selection acting on natural populations. like we can measure a selective pressure, and measure a change in some character in a population of organisms subject to that pressure. measurements of before, after and an agent. that's not the same at all.
I don't understand why my little, imaginary intelligent design researcher couldn't take measurements that are similar in kind.
Why isn't the fact that the complex nature of natural selection makes it difficult to predict enough for me to want to be a little cautious when talking about how often we're observing it?
Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are? If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natrual selection?
I'm not normally skeptical. I've just seen quite a bit of hypocrisy from scientists who are eager to belittle religious people yet are completely dismissive of the idea that the version of evolutionary theory they learned in high school can be questioned in any way. That just makes me want to question it more.
-
This thread has become too level headed to be in the Birther Pit...
Somebody get offended/weird..
-
Hard core believers in free will are pretty much the same as hard core believers in God. Both point to similar kinds of "evidence" to rationalize their belief, but it's really all about faith. Both feel that life would lose meaning without it. Both beliefs tend to get in the way of explaining the real world. But free willers don't usually think that people that disagree are gonna burn for eternity. 3 similarities. 1 difference.
-
Yeah, that's not really a new concept to me. As an atheist it reiterated my belief that religion was man made, so I definitely understand that idea. But if we all are made by God, I think we would have a natural idea that something bigger is going on. I have heard stories about explorers even recently going to islands in which people haven't had interaction with anyone outside of the island, but they have an idea of God/Christianity. They don't have a name for Jesus, but an idea that God had a son that died for them.
that's not unique to Christianity
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply it was. Just that there are people who have independently felt that there is some form of higher power. I think you can either say man has this need and because of this need, created God, or you can say man felt this need because since we were made my God, he put that desire in us to know Him.
-
I don't understand why my little, imaginary intelligent design researcher couldn't take measurements that are similar in kind.
i don't see how. how would an intelligent design researcher measure a character of a population of organisms, identify and measure a selective force (an instrument of design?) and then measure the change in the character after the design would be applied?
Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are? If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?
no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms. that has not occurred.
I'm not normally skeptical. I've just seen quite a bit of hypocrisy from scientists who are eager to belittle religious people yet are completely dismissive of the idea that the version of evolutionary theory they learned in high school can be questioned in any way. That just makes me want to question it more.
i understand the impulse, but scientists are dismissive of evolution skeptics because evolution is a theory that is extremely well supported by evidence.
-
I don't understand why my little, imaginary intelligent design researcher couldn't take measurements that are similar in kind.
i don't see how. how would an intelligent design researcher measure a character of a population of organisms, identify and measure a selective force (an instrument of design?) and then measure the change in the character after the design would be applied?
Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are? If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?
no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms. that has not occurred.
I'm not normally skeptical. I've just seen quite a bit of hypocrisy from scientists who are eager to belittle religious people yet are completely dismissive of the idea that the version of evolutionary theory they learned in high school can be questioned in any way. That just makes me want to question it more.
i understand the impulse, but scientists are dismissive of evolution skeptics because evolution is a theory that is extremely well supported by evidence.
I don't think you're attempting to follow any longer. I'm okay with that.
-
I don't think you're attempting to follow any longer. I'm okay with that.
gmafb.
-
Probably not, but I'm not for sure. Do you guys know?
LOL NO, what are you a jesuit or something?
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoVCElHKd_PEgCO_-qhz_9TxnFmqF6a_aor5AYwAVUaaCJG1oRWxchWgcoSA)
-
I don't think you're attempting to follow any longer. I'm okay with that.
gmafb.
I didn't think you addressed the questions I was asking at all. We're too far apart.
-
I didn't think you addressed the questions I was asking at all. We're too far apart.
i addressed your points individually and with some consideration. you're either being lazy or disingenuous.
-
I don't understand why my little, imaginary intelligent design researcher couldn't take measurements that are similar in kind.
i don't see how. how would an intelligent design researcher measure a character of a population of organisms, identify and measure a selective force (an instrument of design?) and then measure the change in the character after the design would be applied?
For what I'm saying, I don't need the hypothetical intelligent design theory to do everything that the natural selection theory does. We shouldn't expect it to, either. They're different theories.
Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are? If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?
no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms. that has not occurred.
Falsification is stronger than failure to observe. It means that you've observed something contrary to the theory.
I'm not normally skeptical. I've just seen quite a bit of hypocrisy from scientists who are eager to belittle religious people yet are completely dismissive of the idea that the version of evolutionary theory they learned in high school can be questioned in any way. That just makes me want to question it more.
i understand the impulse, but scientists are dismissive of evolution skeptics because evolution is a theory that is extremely well supported by evidence.
I understand their psychology. It's still hypocritical. Plus, I was speaking from personal experience and these people were being assholes.
-
Can someone post evidence of evolution in this thread? Thanks.
kim
-
Can someone post evidence of evolution in this thread? Thanks.
kim
Dlew12's posting history.
-
Can someone post evidence of evolution in this thread? Thanks.
kim
I like you kim. You are the second best troll on this blog.
-
Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are? If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?
no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms. that has not occurred.
Falsification is stronger than failure to observe. It means that you've observed something contrary to the theory.
Numerous examples of potential (indirect) ways to falsify common descent have been proposed by its proponents. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era". Richard Dawkins adds that any other modern animal, such as a hippo, would suffice.
Karl Popper at first spoke against the testability of natural selection but later recanted, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."
-
Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are? If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?
no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms. that has not occurred.
Falsification is stronger than failure to observe. It means that you've observed something contrary to the theory.
Numerous examples of potential (indirect) ways to falsify common descent have been proposed by its proponents. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era". Richard Dawkins adds that any other modern animal, such as a hippo, would suffice.
Karl Popper at first spoke against the testability of natural selection but later recanted, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."
It's all consistent. The first two guys are talking about falsification with regard to some vague theory of evolution, which, given their examples, might as well be a theory that merely says, "things change." I was talking specifically about natural selection. Popper was giving up a claim of his that natural selection is a tautology (which is a really interesting and challenging idea). He conceded that natural selection can be tested in certain cases, which parallels what I said about how it can be observed in certain cases.
-
i am keeping this out of the tornado thread on purpose. i don't intend for this to be a religion-hating session, i'm merely asking a question.
you've probably seen this today... http://news.sky.com/story/1093711/tornado-survivor-finds-dog-during-tv-interview (http://news.sky.com/story/1093711/tornado-survivor-finds-dog-during-tv-interview)
it's all over twitter, facebook. it's a pretty awesome moment. very happy for that woman that she found her dog.
the reactions from people confuse me though. a brutal tornado destroys hundreds of homes, kills many people, and because we find a dog it's because "prayers were answered"? some have even said "God is good!" in response to the video. i will always struggle with this. if God is good for sparing that dog's life, then what is he for the people that died and homes were destroyed (including the lady in the video).
i will never claim to know everything, but times like these and some of the reactions i see make little sense.
-
i am keeping this out of the tornado thread on purpose. i don't intend for this to be a religion-hating session, i'm merely asking a question.
you've probably seen this today... http://news.sky.com/story/1093711/tornado-survivor-finds-dog-during-tv-interview (http://news.sky.com/story/1093711/tornado-survivor-finds-dog-during-tv-interview)
it's all over twitter, facebook. it's a pretty awesome moment. very happy for that woman that she found her dog.
the reactions from people confuse me though. a brutal tornado destroys hundreds of homes, kills many people, and because we find a dog it's because "prayers were answered"? some have even said "God is good!" in response to the video. i will always struggle with this. if God is good for sparing that dog's life, then what is he for the people that died and homes were destroyed (including the lady in the video).
i will never claim to know everything, but times like these and some of the reactions i see make little sense.
It's no different than blaming the tornado on man made climate change. It's a religion.
-
ok, wow.
-
it's no different emawblast
-
I haven't heard 1 person blame this on climate change
-
I haven't heard 1 person blame this on climate change
Watch the video, better than the text.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/)
-
I haven't heard 1 person blame this on climate change
Watch the video, better than the text.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/)
Ok, that's 1. Any more?
-
I haven't heard 1 person blame this on climate change
Watch the video, better than the text.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/)
Ok, that's 1. Any more?
You only asked for one, I give you a senator, and now you want more. :rolleyes:
-
BOXER RINGS THE BELL ON CLIMATE CHANGE: Sen. Barbara Boxer took to the Senate floor and invoked the Oklahoma tornadoes in her speech on global warming. “This is climate change,” she said. “This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather. Not just hot weather. But extreme weather. When I had my hearings, when I had the gavel years ago. —It’s been a while — the scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather. And people looked at one another and said ‘what do you mean? It’s gonna get hot?’ Yeah, it’s gonna get hot. But you’re also going to see snow in the summer in some places. You’re gonna have terrible storms. You’re going to have tornados and all the rest. We need to protect our people. That’s our number one obligation and we have to deal with this threat that is upon us and that is gonna get worse and worse though the years.” She also plugged her own bill, cosponsored with Sen. Bernie Sanders that would put a tax on carbon. “Carbon could cost us the planet,” she said. “The least we could do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy.”
http://www.politico.com/morningenergy/ (http://www.politico.com/morningenergy/)
-
Politicians are just the worst sometimes.
-
turned into a global warming politics discussion within one post. awesome.
-
turned into a global warming politics discussion within one post. awesome.
those crafty cons :shakesfist:
-
According to Oklahoma news channels, this was the worst tornado in the history of the planet
-
maybe god did this because oklahoma banned sharia law, and really muslims are the correct religion. :dunno:
-
I sure think so.
Source: A+
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/942766_479539962120494_235525171_n.jpg)
-
turned into a global warming politics discussion within one post. awesome.
From Rahm Emanuel's "Big Book of Disaster Manipulation".
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/942766_479539962120494_235525171_n.jpg)
Snap!
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/942766_479539962120494_235525171_n.jpg)
made me laugh
-
Guys, no crap, I bumped into god yesterday. He was cradling a baby ducky that had lost its mother. Then he vanished with the baby ducky and later I saw a momma duck with six baby duckies.
Therefore, god does exist.
-
Guys, no crap, I bumped into god yesterday. He was cradling a baby ducky that had lost its mother. Then he vanished with the baby ducky and later I saw a momma duck with six baby duckies.
Therefore, god does exist.
That totally made up story is exactly as credible of evidence for the existence of God as the bible so grats
-
Guys, no crap, I bumped into god yesterday. He was cradling a baby ducky that had lost its mother. Then he vanished with the baby ducky and later I saw a momma duck with six baby duckies.
Therefore, god does exist.
That totally made up story is exactly as credible of evidence for the existence of God as the bible so grats
Why don't you prove my story is made up, heathen.
-
I found a thread that matched the title of this song: 'Dear God' but it was a thread started by fatty on the basketball board, so obviously I wasn't going to post it there. There was a religion thread I just can't remember or find what it was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzCIeNhw8oE&list=PL3-sRm8xAzY-556lOpSGH6wVzyofoGpzU&index=59