Thread: So, I think Christians are stupid.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Personally, I don't believe in evolution but I do believe in Adaptation. I believe dinosaurs walked the earth.

Well... did humans and dinosaurs walk the Earth at the same time then?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

No, what I am basically saying up there is, that it's ok to believe in something with no evidence.

Now in regards to smallpox. Man's original sin brought fourth sickness and death into this world, It didn't exist until man sinned.

How exactly does sinning create smallpox?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Stonedape, you're asking me the exact same question but in a different format. I've already explained this. I believe God's compassion for humans stands in the realm of what he has promised to do in regards to suffering, sickness and death as written in the scriptures on several accounts. Please do not ask me the same question again as I will not waste time repeating myself. Also yes, God is omniscient having the ability to witness various ways your future will turn out depending on the choices you make in life.

I'm doing this to point out what seems to me as an obvious contradiction about what compassion is. Compassion is not promising, oh I'll help you in a minute, it's doing something now. If God is compassionate why would he let suffering occur that he can easily prevent?

What is your definition of compassion?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Are you not the creator of this thread making jokes about Jesus and Religion?

I was just reffering to this thread but either way there's a difference between making a joke and insulting someone or talking down to them. I think people in the RS forum are too serious and angry, their always attacking each other rather than just having a discussion, they need some laughs.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

God didn't cause it, but he is allowing it to happen. People need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not they can live successfully without Him. So far, we're failing.
Even when we make strides and make wonderfully humane or magnificent accomplishments, it's not on a global scale. Someone, somewhere, still suffers.

Maybe you don't believe the same thing as other people, but isn't the idea that we are living without him inconsistent with the idea that he has done miracles since then?

Also is this really compassionate? Letting people go through enormous amounts of unnecessary suffering?

When you view time as eternal, what is an enormous amount of suffering. If you were brutally abused every second of every day during a life that lasted until you were 100 years old- yet you were resurrected and lived on (in humanly form on a physical earth) for over a thousand years, the 100 years of suffering would seem like a puff of wind. I say that, not to diminish the tough times, but to put TIME itself into perspective. God is eternal, so our concept is very different from his.

As for miracles... the Bible says that even Satan and the demons can transform themselves into 'ministers of light'. Even the bad guys can do some good if it serves their larger purpose. I am extremely skeptical of modern miracles because the Bible says certain things would "pass"- like dreaming of the future and speaking in tongues. But I'm not completely dismissive of such claims either. I just try to keep a balanced perspective.

As for whether or not people walked with the dinosaurs... I don't believe the Bible says, but it seems HIGHLY unlikely. I think they ran their course way before humans ever walked the earth.

Oh yeah... as for sin causing sickness... it's not as simple as that. In Jesus' day, a tower fell down and many people were killed. The opposing religious ruling class argued over why they died- they must have done something to tick of God, is what some of them reasoned. But Jesus told them (to paraphrase) that sometimes people are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Back in Job's day, when he was suffering with the boils, people thought the same thing- that Job had brought his sickness on himself by doing something bad. Some of his "friends" lectured him about it and later they were greatly reproved.
Bad things DO happen to good people. Sickness and disease can affect anyone.
But keep in mind that in the very beginning there were no such things. With the first sin and separation from God, sickness and death entered the world. And with the passing of time it has only gotten worse.

Consider: Adam and Eve were perfect until they sinned. Once they no longer had God's protection, they began to age, they got sick, they died. And once they had children, it was passed on to them like a genetic disease.
People didn't eat animals until after the flood. Why was it suddenly okay? I don't know how many generations had passed by that point, but it seems obvious to me that the bodies of man had all the while deteriorated so that the extra nutrients were needed.
And now-a-days, we have better medicine, better technology but we have more pollution, more bad habits and choices.
I find it sad that some people want to blame God when they get cancer after they chose to smoke 2 packs a day for 30 years. The same for STD's, unwanted pregnancy, addiction etc. We bring a lot of suffering onto ourselves. But not always.
Sometimes we're simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. We just have to hold fast to the promise of something better.

[QUOTE=Ne-yo;1606708]First of all, we have never conducted a whole genome comparison between Chimps and Humans as only certain regions are selected for analysis while other regions are omitted and I believe it's far past time that one is done.
Secondly, Chimpanzee's DNA has never been anywhere near fully sequenced so that the proper comparison is made.
Number 3, our DNA with Chimps and Apes should have more of a similarity because we are both mammals with similar shapes. This actually supports the concept of a common designer.
Number 4, DNA coding signifies structures and biochemical molecules, meaning, it should be highly expected that the most akin creatures in structure to have the most analogous DNA. Also supporting a common designer. We do not expect to see much similarities with DNA sequence via humans vs reptiles, as it should be.[quote]

1. Cool story bro. But you've got to admit that even 86-ish percent isn't anything to sneeze at.
2. Yup
3. It absolutely does not support the idea of a common designer. As I've stated, you can't gather evidence for any such entity.
4. So wait. You're saying that, we know evolution exists. We know how it works. We can and have observed it, both in the fossil record and in modern day. And yet, you still think "god dunnit" is still more plausible? What the holy fuck?

We share a similarity of 50% of our DNA with bananas but does that make us half bananas? Think about it.

Actually, to some degree, it does. On a cellular level, we function very similarly, if not identically. So in some regards, yes, we run on the same or similar principles as bananas.

Imagine a basic electric circuit not connected to anything. Imagine, no power source. Now imagine a bulb somewhere in the same vicinity. Imagine a loose wire somewhere nearby also. A gust of wind comes along and bumps everything while carrying along power from who knows where. Causing the electric circuit to obtain power connecting the looser wire to the bulb and connecting the bulb to the new power source. Thats Abiogenesis.

Wrong. We already have organic molecules. Those were in abundance long before life came about. We can be reasonably sure of that. Those organic molecules are signified in my analogy by the things like power sources, bulbs, and wire. Assuming they're all just separate and magically came together would be closer to assuming you have some raw elements and nothing developed yet. But the more developed it becomes, the more complete the circuit becomes, until it lights up.

You can't have an extraordinarily good idea of an event if you have absolutely no foundation to support the idea of that event. There is no way you can have a good idea regarding abiogenesis based off evolution because first and foremost, natural selection doesn't start until life starts. You need a foundation that is just as solid. You do not have that.

We have physics. We have powerful telescopes. We have a motherfucking shit ton of knowledge that backs up single-celled common ancestors to all known life. Like I've been saying, I don't know how life started. I don't know what primordial earth looked like. But prancing around and going "Scientists are just as belief-ridden as creationists!" is bullshit.

You're obviously arguing with me over abiogenesis for a reason. You believe something about it or else you wouldn't be here throwing in URL's trying to support the validity of it, now would you?

I'm arguing against you, a creationist, believing in something you have no evidence for while at the same time criticizing others for thinking abiogenesis might be possible.

Sure

Neat. I wonder how they arrived at those figures, and if they're assuming true randomness. And if they've been debunked in the past 20 years, since those figures were arrived at.

This is true, however, the probability is in the area amongst impossible events based off our current knowledge of the Universe. Now don't get it twisted. I'm for researching the Universe, quasars, galaxies, stars, planets and moons to enhance our knowledge but to throw up idea's unsupported by any evidence is a different story.

Impossible, you say? Why would that be?

As I stated, you obviously believe something or else you wouldn't be here trying to defend it now would you? Why even waste your time on something you don't believe has transpired? It's ok to believe in something with no evidence, you don't have to convince these people here of anything because you believe in something that has no evidence or scientific support. That's faith you posses and you know what? It's ok to have faith. As far as probability, I think we know better now unless you're one of those stubborn atheist.

Dude, I don't believe it happened. Only that it is more probable. That simple. And no, I don't believe in any god or intelligent designer or any other bullshit.

Well produce the numbers of how incredibly improbable God's existence is really. I've produce the numbers of how an event like abiogenesis stands up to the laws of probability and events deemed impossible in our Universe. I've demonstrated how scientist and mathematicians alike consider abiogenesis to be more akin to miracles and magic. Your turn.

Alright. First, you need some sort of sentient, invincible thing that exists without matter nor energy, which as we understand, are essentially the two physical components of our universe. Now this being must be able to interfere in our universe, without matter nor energy. It must also be able to design and create complex life forms. And according to you, it designed the entire human body and all its workings from scratch, then implemented it. What you end up with is not only something completely devoid of evidence, but as far as we know, physically can't exist in our universe.

I don't have a problem with being in the "I don't know and I'm ok with that" camp. Christians invented that camp and I got a no evidence VIP pass. You and other atheist are the ones with problems understanding that it's ok to believe in the unknown. If you want to believe in abiogenesis without any evidence to support it then thats fine. My gripe here isn't even about the validity of Abiogenesis. My gripe is that you think it's a problem with believing in something you have absolutely no evidence for. However you gotta prove it to yourself that you're ok with that which obviously you're not. But whatever makes you sleep well at night. It doesn't really matter to me but now you know.

Like I said, I don't believe in abiogenesis. It would be a lapse in logic to do so...much like believing in a god.

Originally Posted by stonedape

How exactly does sinning create smallpox?

I didn't say sinning created smallpox where did you get that from? I said "suffering, sickness and death was brought fourth through sin". Zhaylin summed it up the best.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Without God's blessing, they grew old and died. The imperfection was passed from offspring to offspring. As time passed, the genetic makeup became weaker. Poor choices and circumstances lead to things like disease. Faulty governments lead to suffering.
God didn't cause it, but he is allowing it to happen. People need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not they can live successfully without Him. So far, we're failing.
Even when we make strides and make wonderfully humane or magnificent accomplishments, it's not on a global scale. Someone, somewhere, still suffers.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

I'm doing this to point out what seems to me as an obvious contradiction about what compassion is. Compassion is not promising, oh I'll help you in a minute, it's doing something now. If God is compassionate why would he let suffering occur that he can easily prevent?

God has demonstrated his compassion when he sent his only begotten son Jesus Christ as a ransom sacrifice so that we could be forgiven for our sins. God will further demonstrate his compassion after the great tribulation as foretold in Matthew 5:5 Blesseth are the meek for they shall in inherit the Earth.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

What is your definition of compassion?

Compassion -a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering.

Sympathy -

• A relationship or an affinity between people or things in which whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other.
• A feeling or an expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another;

Does Jesus posses these qualities of compassion and sympathy for humans? Read the following and let me know if you think he has compassion and sympathy for people.

Originally Posted by Jesus wept

Jesus had just returned to the village of Bethany, to the home of his friends, Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, sisters and a brother who lived together. His dear friend, Lazarus, had died four days earlier, and there was intense mourning surrounding his burial place within the tomb. Lazarus’ sisters, also dear friends of Jesus, were distraught over the loss of this beloved, younger brother.

Jesus stood in the midst of the mourners in this middle Eastern scene of sorrow. He heard their cries of pain and loss, he saw tears streaming down despondent faces and the stench and ugliness of death engulfed Him like a noxious cloud. It must have been a chilling scene. In the midst of this dark moment of weeping and sorrow, Jesus felt intense pain swirling around Him, and He wept.

Here’s an important point to remember: throughout this ordeal, even as hot tears flowed from his eyes Jesus knew that, in a matter of minutes, He was going to be raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11:14). The young man would soon be up, walking around, hugging his sisters and rejoicing with his friends. So, if Jesus knew all along that Lazarus would soon be alive again, why the tears? Why would He feel such deep sorrow just before He was due to perform a joyous miracle?

When you love someone, you empathize with that person’s pain. This verse speaks volumes of the extraordinary love of Jesus Christ for each soul that He created. As Jesus observed that dark scene of death, He felt the heartbreak of those around Him. Such feelings would be painful enough, but I believe His sorrow went even deeper than that single moment in time. I believe the pain He felt as He considered death as an entity encompassed the ages – from the beginning of time until the end of the earth, and His heart was engulfed with sorrow.

Not only was the heart of Jesus intensely sensitive in itself, He was also aware of the thoughts of all the mourners around Him. Over and over in scripture, we are told that Jesus perceived the thoughts of those who were near Him (Luke 5:22; 6:8). He felt the pain we all feel when someone we love dies or when we see others suffer, but, I believe, that pain was multiplied many times over as He also felt the pain of the dozens of people surrounding Him. It was as if the terrible grief of each person present was laid upon the heart of Jesus like a suffocating pall. The heavy burden of their anguish would have been agonizing to the loving heart of the holy Christ. Jesus was being bombarded by an incredible, overwhelming sense of loss that brought Him to tears.

This heartrending sense of loss He felt for Lazarus’ death was further intensified as He considered the impact of death on mankind. This was just one situation out of countless millions throughout the world and across centuries in which death, seemed to be declaring a victory. Jesus had come to this earth to bring life, to trample death underfoot, and to bring eternity into the hearts of men and women. Yet, here He stood, observing the power death still had on the sons of men. The depth of His sorrow must have spanned the ages, past and future, and He wept for every soul who would ever lose a loved one to the clutches of death. The scripture tells us that, "He groaned in the spirit, and was troubled," John 11:33.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

I was just reffering to this thread but either way there's a difference between making a joke and insulting someone or talking down to them. I think people in the RS forum are too serious and angry, their always attacking each other rather than just having a discussion, they need some laughs.

Perhaps you were just referring to this thread but I never said you were talking down about God in this thread. I said that you talk down about God, period. Yea funny as to how you decided to give people some good ole' laughs by making fun of God and Christians. You call it "Religion and Atheism jokes" but how many Atheist jokes did you post? You've been here long enough to know that this R/S sub-form is 90% Atheist. You were not doing it to ease tension, you were doing it because, well... because you're an Atheist and you do not like anything God or Christian. Now don't get me wrong I'm not offended. However, you can't sit there and tell me that your intentions were meek when you know they were not. I think you're a pretty smart kid who is more than aware of the results of actions that take place depending upon your choices.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

Maybe you don't believe the same thing as other people, but isn't the idea that we are living without him inconsistent with the idea that he has done miracles since then?

I don't see an inconsistency. Man has made a choice that he could govern himself and has no use for God. Kind of like you. However, there are those that know for without God nothing is impossible, thus putting a lot of faith into God existence. For those that believe in their hearts, God will answer certain prayers. I mean meaningful prayers, because you just can't pray to God asking God to help you win the Powerball tomorrow. It just doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

Also is this really compassionate? Letting people go through enormous amounts of unnecessary suffering?

Jesus wept for ALL of Earth inhabitants. The suffering is unnecessary but the suffering is not a product of God. It's a product of man. If you want to point fingers at someone make sure you point two back at yourself first and look in the mirror and ask yourself if you've wept for those who have passed that you do not know. Do you have sympathy and compassion for people that hate you, people that do not believe you or believe in you. Do you have compassion at all in your heart for peoples feelings that you do not know? Have you volunteered to help needy organizations in your local neighborhood? Volunteered to help at a senior citizens center? Tell your mother that you love her, just because. I'll answer that for you and save you the time. NO. So before you try checking someone, you better check yourself first. You do not believe in a God and doubt the existence of one but you know for a fact that you exist right? What about your compassion? What are you doing to help those who are suffering? Or are you too busy thinking of your next Jesus and his disciples walks into a bar joke.

I've said everything I needed to say to you. If you have any other questions pertaining to God I suggest you pick up a bible and start looking for answers.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And I hope you realize I've been arguing it up in this R/S subform since 2006. Who's favor do you think I believe he's in? I didn't just pop in here a few days ago you know.

My apologies for not following your every post in the past 5 years.

What truth? First of all a truth must be possible, there is no such thing as an impossible truth. I've already demonstrated how the study of abiogenensis falls well beyond the lowest chance occurrence deemed for an event to be considered a possibility by mathematicians (I have no problem of reproducing this, if you've missed it).There is no truth, it's an idea that has no direct observational evidence that backs it up. What truth are you talking about?

The truth of what abiogenesis is. You called it the presumption, I called it the study. I, nor any serious scientist, would accept abiogenesis as true due to a lack of concrete evidence, or rather presume that it is true even based off likeliness. Abiogenesis is the study of how life may have arisen from non-life, not merely the presumption that it occurred. Maybe this is just useless semantics, but I find calling it the presumption to be a bit lacking.

Don't try to make it seem as though these are two entirely different concepts. The model may be different but the idea is essentially the same. I am talking about the general idea of life arising from non-living matter as a whole. It's all abiogenensis , it's just one idea of abiogenesis was refuted and thus replaced with an alternative.

Well they are two different concepts. One says life just pops into existence, fully formed, (much like how life is allegedly created by your god) from non-living matter, the other says life comes into existence through natural chemical processes over an amount of time. And there's nothing wrong with one model being refuted and replaced with an alternative. This happens all the time in science. It helps us understand the world around us.

If it's more than one hundred years then it should be indicated as such in the plural sense. Yes it's really "hundred'(s) of years".

Saying "hundreds of years" gives the implication that whatever the subject is has existed for at least two-hundred years. Sometimes we round up and say two-hundred when in reality the length of time is only maybe 180 years. But the modern abiogenesis hypothesis has more or less been around for 140 years, so rounding up to two-hundred would be a bit of a stretch.

Right, we don't know what the starting mechanism was, which mean that we do not know if one ever existed. We've never observed it, we have no evidence of such a thing. This is one of the main reasons why I say it falls out of sync with "real science". Science "observes" natural phenomenon and try to make sense out of it by applying experimental techniques to reproduce such phenomenon in such a way as to better understand it. Without observing what has occurred how can you test it? How do you know it has happened in that sense?

I said at least two pages ago that we haven't identified the starting mechanism. However, we know life had to have come from non-life. Even you agree to that. So it doesn't matter what the mechanism or event was, we know there must have been one, otherwise how could life stem from non-life? As far as science is concerned, its likely that the mechanism was a gradual chemical process, even if it was mathematically improbable. Is anyone in this thread saying this is exactly how it happened? No. For the third or fourth time now, given our options, this is the most likely explanation.

I think you're missing my point. I know it's not a scientific fact, I'm not trying to demonstrate how fictional it is. What I'm explaining to you is simply this. Abiogenesis is not science, bottom line. A weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea happens to bring fourth a molecule consisting of properties of self-replication doesn't sound a bit unscientific to you? This has obviously occurred somehow without violating the laws of chemistry and physics. That's so much luck it's like.. magical.

Science is the body of knowledge and methodology used to understand the natural world. Under this definition, how is abiogenesis not science? Work is being done in that field in other to understand how life could have come from non-life. Various sources of such work have been given to you in this thread. You've said multiple times science deals with observation, testing, and replication, which is true. Maybe your problem is that at the moment there isn't much to show for it? Maybe our ability to gather evidence has been stunted by a lack of advanced technology? The solution to this is what I've been saying constantly: give it time. Either evidence will flow in or it won't.

Because thats real science.

I was just curious as to why you would mention it and quickly say you didn't want to discuss it. Whatever, I guess.

I'm not trying to weasel you into anything. As they say "the truth always come fourth to light". If for some reason you feel like a hypocrite then that's your own guilty conscious. However, the fact of the matter is this. I've already demonstrated several times that you do believe and put faith into abiogenesis without evidence.

And I'm not sure why you keep saying that considering I've stated multiple times in clear, concise, fully-understandable words that I'm not putting faith into abiogenesis (i.e. accepting it as true without evidence). And this demonstrates my point. Despite all of my attempts to establish my position, you still misunderstand it and desire to perpetuate a lie.

Ok, so now it's reasoning speaking? Just up there stated that you take an agnostic view regarding the idea. Now you're saying here it's a fact? A fact is something that can be proven. What you are giving me here is your opinion.

Life had to have come from non-life, yes. What is the alternative? Life popping into existence via a god? Where did the god come from? Maybe life from life? Where did the original life come from? Do you see why this is the most likely explanation at the moment, given our options? Yes, I said I take an agnostic view on abiogenesis in the sense that we don't know exactly how life arose. We can indeed say with relative certainty that life had to have come from non-life. But since the mechanism has not been identified, and all we have to run on is minimal evidence and only a stacking of what is likely, I can say without conviction that I don't know.

This is called "FAITH" faith in the unknown.

No, it's making a reasoned prediction based on past experiences. Faith would be accepting something as true without evidence. We have evidence that over time, scientific understanding improves. Thus it isn't faith. If it was faith, I would be saying "give it time" without the basis of: scientific methodology + time = improved scientific understanding.

And creation is not a possible, likely explanation, why?

I didn't say it was impossible. However it isn't likely because the reasons given for supporting the likelihood of an intelligent creation are lacking at best (teleological argument, cosmological argument, etc.). Furthermore, look toward the origins of creationist thought. They come from a time when the scientific methodology was either not known or not employed, and people came up with all sorts of wacky explanations for what happened around them. An example has popped up in this thread, which is that the concept of sin somehow causes and creates disease among humans. Obviously this is false since we know diseases and sickness come about through either viruses or genetic mishaps, and not because Adam and Eve ate an apple. Another example would be noticing that its raining and decide the best explanation is that there is a Rain God.

And this is where you lack basic understanding of general terms. It doesn't matter the model as I mentioned earlier. The idea is essentially the same. The general term "abiogenesis" is the study of life arising from non-life. That's all. I don't care of direction each version has taken, the initial idea is the same. As I mentioned before one concept of abiogenesis was refuted and replace by another. However, the foundation of both idea's are the exact same. Now if you want to break them up then yes, one is refuted spontaneous generation and the current model is autogenesis. The foundation based upon both are the exact same so no use in trying to strip away from one just because it's been debunked.

I've replied to this above.

Abiogenesis has insomuch of a small amount of evidence that it falls into the category of lucky chances. As far as we can tell right now it hasn't happened on any other planet. 1 in a billion billion billion billion billion( I may be missing a few billions here but you get the picture) chance of this event transpiring in the universe.

Which planets outside of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars do we have information about in relation to the contents of their surfaces and whether life (whether advanced or microbial) is on them?

I'm not saying that abiogenesis is 100% impossible. I'm open-minded and there may be just that slight chance that it has occurred. I say this because of the simple fact that autogenesis can't be disproven, nor am I trying to disprove it. However, at this moment right now it cannot be proven and it looks highly unlikely that we will ever prove it. And to say "just give it time, I'm sure we'll prove it" Sounds a lot like faith to me.

I've replied to this above as well.

Evolution eliminates God playing an active role in creating life? I thought evolution and abiogenesis were two entirely different concepts to you atheist? Ah I see, you guys like to put the two together when it's convenient. Since we happen to arrive at this point, let me toss this question out at you. Do you feel that evolution is baseless without a solid working theory of abiogenesis?

It eliminates God from the equation insofar as it eliminates God playing an active role in creating life meaning popping into existence fully-formed life.

I don't understand the rest of your statement. Evolution and abiogenesis are different. Evolution explains the changes in life over time, and abiogenesis attempts to explain the origin of life. Is evolution baseless without a solid working theory of abiogenesis? Uh, no. Evolution is more or less a fact and we don't have a solid working theory of abiogenesis...

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

As for whether or not people walked with the dinosaurs... I don't believe the Bible says, but it seems HIGHLY unlikely. I think they ran their course way before humans ever walked the earth.

So like... god didn't create humans right after he created the world... he decided to make dinosaurs before and then blew them up... and then he decided to make humans... who were perfect and immortal... but then not so much...

I don't even think Christians can agree with that.

Abiogenesis has already been shown in simulations to occur in clouds of dust particles in space. Anyone arguing that life can't arise out of inorganic materials is bullshitting themselves.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I didn't say sinning created smallpox where did you get that from? I said "suffering, sickness and death was brought fourth through sin". Zhaylin summed it up the best.

If God designed this world in a conscious and inteligent manner, why would he make it so that a disease such as smallpox could exist? Did he do it to punish humans for being bad, if so I think that;s pretty harsh.

Why do we need to prove to God that we can live without him, if God is omniscient doesn't he already know?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

God has demonstrated his compassion when he sent his only begotten son Jesus Christ as a ransom sacrifice so that we could be forgiven for our sins. God will further demonstrate his compassion after the great tribulation as foretold in Matthew 5:5 Blesseth are the meek for they shall in inherit the Earth.

If he is infinetly powerful, why even have a sacrifice, why not do something physical to prevent suffering, or even just appear himself and explain to us how we're fucking up?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Compassion -a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering.

Sympathy -

• A relationship or an affinity between people or things in which whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other.
• A feeling or an expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another;

Does Jesus posses these qualities of compassion and sympathy for humans? Read the following and let me know if you think he has compassion and sympathy for people.

I never said Jesus wasn't compassionate. I think he was a compassionate man, I just don't there was anything supernatural about him. He was only God's son in the way that we are all God's children, we are all made from the universe.

However if God has the power to ease suffering here, and if he is deeply aware of what it is like, why doesn't he?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Perhaps you were just referring to this thread but I never said you were talking down about God in this thread. I said that you talk down about God, period. Yea funny as to how you decided to give people some good ole' laughs by making fun of God and Christians. You call it "Religion and Atheism jokes" but how many Atheist jokes did you post? You've been here long enough to know that this R/S sub-form is 90% Atheist. You were not doing it to ease tension, you were doing it because, well... because you're an Atheist and you do not like anything God or Christian. Now don't get me wrong I'm not offended. However, you can't sit there and tell me that your intentions were meek when you know they were not. I think you're a pretty smart kid who is more than aware of the results of actions that take place depending upon your choices.

Actually I made the thread because I wanted to post jokes about buddhism. buddhism is non-theistic, which in my opinion leans more towards lack of belief. I posted 4 buddhism jokes and only 2 christian jokes, which christians in the thread said were funny. I don't consider myself an atheist but it depends on how you define it. I don't believe in deities because it seems to me that God is more of a metaphor vs a literal entity. I see God as either a reference to existential reality/nature as in pantheism, or possibly a reference to a way of being, a kind of ethics perhaps. There are some other interpretations that I think are interesting as well, I just don't think that God is an entity who has a consciousness(unless you want to argue that the universe has a consciousness, but I don't think so anyway) or is something that is non-physical. I see no reason to believe in non-physical deities.

I honestly wanted to post some good atheist jokes, but all the ones I found sucked. I don't think anyone christian or atheist was bothered by my thread.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I don't see an inconsistency. Man has made a choice that he could govern himself and has no use for God. Kind of like you. However, there are those that know for without God nothing is impossible, thus putting a lot of faith into God existence. For those that believe in their hearts, God will answer certain prayers. I mean meaningful prayers, because you just can't pray to God asking God to help you win the Powerball tomorrow. It just doesn't work that way.

Do you live with God or without him? Does he do anything for you? If so aren;t you living with him? If God is the source, the pulse behind all life, do we not live with him regardless of what we believe or do?

So it wasn't meaningful when I prayed my grandma;s cancer would go away when I was 7?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Jesus wept for ALL of Earth inhabitants. The suffering is unnecessary but the suffering is not a product of God. It's a product of man. If you want to point fingers at someone make sure you point two back at yourself first and look in the mirror and ask yourself if you've wept for those who have passed that you do not know. Do you have sympathy and compassion for people that hate you, people that do not believe you or believe in you. Do you have compassion at all in your heart for peoples feelings that you do not know? Have you volunteered to help needy organizations in your local neighborhood? Volunteered to help at a senior citizens center? Tell your mother that you love her, just because. I'll answer that for you and save you the time. NO. So before you try checking someone, you better check yourself first. You do not believe in a God and doubt the existence of one but you know for a fact that you exist right? What about your compassion? What are you doing to help those who are suffering? Or are you too busy thinking of your next Jesus and his disciples walks into a bar joke.

What's with all the finger pointing? Funny enough, I actually volunteered at a church recently helping with some girl scouts. I do have compassion for these people, I only don't do much volunteering because I struggle myself, maybe not monetarily but that doesn't mean that I don't have difficulties in my life. I have no grudge against anyone who hates me or doesn't believe me. I recognize that their hatred is not personal but is caused by the conditions of their life, but I can't really think of anyone who hates me.

I;m not checking a person, I'm checking God. There's a big difference. I don't go around telling people I'm more compassionate then you so go be compassionate. I;m merely setting a standard that I think anyone would agree with, that if you have compassion, if you are deeply aware of and sympathize with another's situation, and you can easily help them you will.

2 Peter 3:8,9 "However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9*Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. "

1,000 years is AS one day. Why not 10,000 years? or more or less? The dinosaurs did roam this planet. Why they died, I don't know.
Were "people" alive with the dinosaurs? Perhaps. But in my eyes (not taught by my religion), they were more animal than people and not included in the creation account for that reason. And no, I don't think we evolved or adapted from monkey's. I see two separate species, developing separately from each other. One species died out. Our Adam and Eve came to be the parents of all people today.

I LOVE Jean Auel and Clan of the Cave Bear.
My imaginative side likes to imagine Cain took a wife from the other species

@greenhavoc

I know exactly how you feel Xei. I remember the first time my state appointed/funded science teacher tried to explain to me how we were once monkeys.

I asked for proof and told him without it I would take no test while the teachings of this mumbo jumbo devilution were being presented. He then told me that I will either take these test or fail his class.

I love science!

Man uses science to fly objects that weigh 400,000 lbs. in the air across the country. Science may not always be right, but it is handy. Scientists know that some of what they teach may not be right. This is why they keep doing research, and accept when new information seems to present flaws in old beliefs. Government forces you to go to school and learn science so that you will be able to be a productive member of society and speak a common language as people from other parts of the world. Government schools do not require you to become a physicist or aeronautics engineer-just to take up to 9th or 10th grade science.

Man uses religion for various reasons. One is for control. The bible was written in Hebrew and Sanskrit. Anything else is a translation. The Bible says that nothing should be added or taken away from the bible, but many people over-look this when reading the King James version...or any other version. If you want to read the bible, you need to know it in its original tongue.

Luckily, nobody forces you to go to church, but people use scientifically engineered devices to protect your right to practice your religion whenever you want to.

If you were in high school, I'm sorry if you didn't want to learn the science in that class, but I imagine G_d knew the day would come when you would have to take that class. If you were in college, you shouldn't have paid for the class, except that you wanted the degree. My guess then would be that you didn't go for a Bachelor's in theology.

They say faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith is only evidence of someone's belief. By dent of definition, it is a belief despite a lack of proof.

I have never known a truth that needed more a d v e r t s i n g.

This system was making that last word into a bogus link.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Our Adam and Eve came to be the parents of all people today.

Who were Adam and Eve's parents?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Who were Adam and Eve's parents?

God

Now this is what I'm talking about! We're rolling as it should be. Do you guys see what's going on here? We're having a discussion. For those who has left responses for me. I'll get to them later tonight. (I'm U.S. based, for those who didn't know) Keep it up!

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

God

Not according to Zhaylin... WHICH CHRISTIAN IS RIGHT??

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

1. Nonsensical argument
2. Incomprehensible question

Originally Posted by Xei

1. Response to nonsensical argument
2. Asks for explication of question

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

1. Totally ignores response
2. Says that this is a way of dodging (irony meter asplodes)

Originally Posted by Xei

Asking to explain the question is not dodging it herpaderp?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I'm referring to the question a few pages back

Originally Posted by Xei

The one where I replied and you dropped it? Sure let's continue

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

*radio silence*

What a master.

Yeah, there's no doubt that Ne-yo's one of the best. I personally think that he actually *accepts* evolution and is trying to get people to deny it for religious purposes. He always knows exactly which way to twist or turn.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I personally think that he actually *accepts* evolution

But not the General Theory of Evolution (GTE).

If you are frustrated by Christianity, try to make money off of the concept. God knows preachers do.

To me, not making a decision about eternity because you need to have complete proof that it will be a correct one is like not seeking treatment for a fatal illness because you don't know if it will be successful or not.

There are over 4000 different religions. I'm going to study all of them and then I'll make my decision. but I don't need "complete proof of G_d," so I won't make a deep study of them. I will also be including the study of G_d as pertains to volcanoes. I think volcanoes may erupt when G_d gets angry. I know science explained that already, but science can be wrong.

I can't believe you'd even ask what the GTE is. What a bunch of PQ5Ls.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

My apologies for not following your every post in the past 5 years.

No worries bro.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

The truth of what abiogenesis is. You called it the presumption, I called it the study. I, nor any serious scientist, would accept abiogenesis as true due to a lack of concrete evidence, or rather presume that it is true even based off likeliness. Abiogenesis is the study of how life may have arisen from non-life, not merely the presumption that it occurred. Maybe this is just useless semantics, but I find calling it the presumption to be a bit lacking.

Right, but with the odds stacked so high against it, what's the point of even study such an hypothetical scenario that mathematicians deem as an impossible event. Now, don't get me wrong, as a result of studying we have gained knowledge regarding life on a molecular level but surely, I don't think we need such an hypothesis to understand this field more in depth. The basis of the study is more bias in my opinion than anything else.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Well they are two different concepts. One says life just pops into existence, fully formed, (much like how life is allegedly created by your god) from non-living matter, the other says life comes into existence through natural chemical processes over an amount of time. And there's nothing wrong with one model being refuted and replaced with an alternative. This happens all the time in science. It helps us understand the world around us.

The reason why I say "the foundation is exactly the same" because, although the models are slightly different they both ad hear to the exact same idea that living organisms are created from nonliving matter. Life's existence as a result of natural chemical processes over time doesn't change this.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Saying "hundreds of years" gives the implication that whatever the subject is has existed for at least two-hundred years. Sometimes we round up and say two-hundred when in reality the length of time is only maybe 180 years. But the modern abiogenesis hypothesis has more or less been around for 140 years, so rounding up to two-hundred would be a bit of a stretch.

ok.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I said at least two pages ago that we haven't identified the starting mechanism. However, we know life had to have come from non-life. Even you agree to that. So it doesn't matter what the mechanism or event was, we know there must have been one, otherwise how could life stem from non-life? As far as science is concerned, its likely that the mechanism was a gradual chemical process, even if it was mathematically improbable. Is anyone in this thread saying this is exactly how it happened? No. For the third or fourth time now, given our options, this is the most likely explanation.

I don't actually agree with that. My belief is that life was initiated by a "will" in which that "will" consists of intelligent conscious direction.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Science is the body of knowledge and methodology used to understand the natural world. Under this definition, how is abiogenesis not science? Work is being done in that field in other to understand how life could have come from non-life. Various sources of such work have been given to you in this thread. You've said multiple times science deals with observation, testing, and replication, which is true. Maybe your problem is that at the moment there isn't much to show for it? Maybe our ability to gather evidence has been stunted by a lack of advanced technology? The solution to this is what I've been saying constantly: give it time. Either evidence will flow in or it won't.

Abiogenesis is not a natural phenomenon as far as what we are able to observe regarding natural events in our world. We only see life coming from life.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I was just curious as to why you would mention it and quickly say you didn't want to discuss it. Whatever, I guess.

I guess I knew it would open up a whole new can of worms. Things are pretty lengthy enough and I didn't really want to go there. It would be extra stuff I'd have to type and I'm pretty lazy. :p

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

And I'm not sure why you keep saying that considering I've stated multiple times in clear, concise, fully-understandable words that I'm not putting faith into abiogenesis (i.e. accepting it as true without evidence). And this demonstrates my point. Despite all of my attempts to establish my position, you still misunderstand it and desire to perpetuate a lie.

I understand, however the reason why I keep harping on that is simply because you haven't really explained to me as to what are you basing support of such a scenario from? Is it because scientist deemed it's a possibility? I know you stated previously, that regarding how great science track record happens to be plays a large roll as to why you support this. But, as I've pointed out previously before, this isn't science.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Life had to have come from non-life, yes. What is the alternative? Life popping into existence via a god? Where did the god come from? Maybe life from life? Where did the original life come from? Do you see why this is the most likely explanation at the moment, given our options? Yes, I said I take an agnostic view on abiogenesis in the sense that we don't know exactly how life arose. We can indeed say with relative certainty that life had to have come from non-life. But since the mechanism has not been identified, and all we have to run on is minimal evidence and only a stacking of what is likely, I can say without conviction that I don't know.

Why do you think God would have to be created also if time is not linear to God as it is with us? You only ask this question because of the fact that we look at our Universe in such a way that by cause and effect that anything could exist. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth as indicated in Genesis 1:1. This shows us that God is acting outside of time as the divine author and creator of time.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

No, it's making a reasoned prediction based on past experiences. Faith would be accepting something as true without evidence. We have evidence that over time, scientific understanding improves. Thus it isn't faith. If it was faith, I would be saying "give it time" without the basis of: scientific methodology + time = improved scientific understanding.

But there are no past experiences to correlate to this hypothesis. The only past experiences that we witness as natural events, is life bringing fourth life. Yes we have evidence that scientific understanding improves over the course of time. However, understanding certain natural phenomenon that's scientific is not the same as presuming an unnatural phenomenon event has taken place that clearly violates the scientific laws of physics, chemistry and biology. It no longer would be considered science. The study is more geared toward supernatural phenomena IMO.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I didn't say it was impossible. However it isn't likely because the reasons given for supporting the likelihood of an intelligent creation are lacking at best (teleological argument, cosmological argument, etc.). Furthermore, look toward the origins of creationist thought. They come from a time when the scientific methodology was either not known or not employed, and people came up with all sorts of wacky explanations for what happened around them. An example has popped up in this thread, which is that the concept of sin somehow causes and creates disease among humans. Obviously this is false since we know diseases and sickness come about through either viruses or genetic mishaps, and not because Adam and Eve ate an apple. Another example would be noticing that its raining and decide the best explanation is that there is a Rain God.

Virus, would've had no ill effect on Adam and Eve in a perfect state. See when Adam and Eve were created, their genome was perfect. Not a line of code out of place, a true work of art. Their bodies were most likely cabable of things that would seem like magic today. To us, the first man and woman would appear to be superheroes. For one thing, they were origially immortal. Every cell divided into 2 perfect copies of the original, and this DNA would have traveled undamaged for eternity to their offspring, had they not rebelled. But the second they rebelled, they began to die, and their bodies/DNA began to fall apart. Now in the 21st century, here we are running on fumes. Our genes are a mess garbage compared to what we once had. Thus, we fall victims to sickness caused by virus and disease and eventually death.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Which planets outside of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars do we have information about in relation to the contents of their surfaces and whether life (whether advanced or microbial) is on them?

Tons, we do not need to be there physically to determine if complex life has the capability of living on one or more of the 500 plus exo-planets we discovered thus far. Also it takes more than just planets. We need to be in just the right location from our parent star. Our parent star needs to be just the right age. We need to have just the right amount of neighboring planets and size matters for location. We need to be in just the right location in our Galaxy. We need just the right amount of matter, The four fundamental forces of physics need to be exact in such a way allowing for complex life chemistry. The list goes on and on, but this gets into how extremely fine-tuned our Universe is, allowing for complex life to exist.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

It eliminates God from the equation insofar as it eliminates God playing an active role in creating life meaning popping into existence fully-formed life.

Well, abiogenesis does but evolution doesn't take God out of the equation at all.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I don't understand the rest of your statement. Evolution and abiogenesis are different. Evolution explains the changes in life over time, and abiogenesis attempts to explain the origin of life. Is evolution baseless without a solid working theory of abiogenesis? Uh, no. Evolution is more or less a fact and we don't have a solid working theory of abiogenesis...

Actually it is baseless, if we are referring to Darwinians evolutionary scenario which dictates that all life on Earth share a common ancestry, not a fact. Evolution is a fact in a way that if you add time + natural selection + deliberate mutation you'll get business and technology. Or, random mutation + deliberate selection + time = Anagrams. Or, random mutation + artificial selection + time= Doberman pincher. There are various scenarios of evolution as you know but just because one scenario is correct doesn't mean random mutation + natural selection + time = fish to man. Never scientifically proven.

Originally Posted by stonedape

If God designed this world in a conscious and inteligent manner, why would he make it so that a disease such as smallpox could exist? Did he do it to punish humans for being bad, if so I think that;s pretty harsh.

Actually if a disease such as smallpox even existed when after God created the first man and woman it would not have had any effect on them before the fall considering their perfection. I'll give you the same response I gave BLUELINE up there regarding this portion of the conversation.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Virus, would've had no ill affect on Adam and Eve in a perfect state. See when Adam and Eve were created, their genome was perfect. Not a line of code out of place, a true work of art. Their bodies were most likely cabable of things that would seem like magic today. To us, the first man and woman would appear to be superheroes. For one thing, they were origially immortal. Every cell divided into 2 perfect copies of the original, and this DNA would have traveled undamaged for eternity to their offspring, had they not rebelled. But the second they rebelled, they began to die, and their bodies/DNA began to fall apart. Now in the 21st century, here we are running on fumes. Our genes are a mess garbage compared to what we once had. Thus, we fall victims to sickness caused by virus and disease and eventually death.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

Why do we need to prove to God that we can live without him, if God is omniscient doesn't he already know?

In my opinion and I know many other Christians think differently but God is not omniscient in the sense that he knows before hand what choices you make. God is omniscient in the sense that he is able to witness the various options before they transpire in your life and is able to witness the result of each option before you choose it. As to which one you decide to chose I do not believe that God knows until you make the choice.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

If he is infinetly powerful, why even have a sacrifice, why not do something physical to prevent suffering, or even just appear himself and explain to us how we're fucking up?

Power can easily force obedience and disregard free will. However, only true love can summon and bring about love. God has given us freedom to believe in Him or not and God always upholds the free will He has created for us. More amazing is His refusal to perform and to overwhelm. God's insistence on human freedom is so absolute that He granted us the power to live as though he does not exist, to spit in his face, to talk down on him, to have disbelief in Him and to essentially do as we please. We have full freedom to choose whatever we want. Do you desire God to reveal himself even though you do not believe in him?

Originally Posted by Stonedape

I never said Jesus wasn't compassionate. I think he was a compassionate man, I just don't there was anything supernatural about him. He was only God's son in the way that we are all God's children, we are all made from the universe.

Jesus was the human personification of God. Yes we are all God's children but Jesus is of a different type of creation. Jesus being the first of God's invisible creations, He is the personification of God in the same sense that He and the Father are essentially on the same page. As it should be, being the Son of God.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

However if God has the power to ease suffering here, and if he is deeply aware of what it is like, why doesn't he?

I've answered this one up there. However, I'll add this. God not doing anything right now doesn't mean that He will never do anything. There will come a time when God will do away with sickness, pain, despair, disease, death etc.. Jesus wept for Lazarus death even though he knew that he was going to resurrect him back to life. God is aware and has sympathy of the pain and suffering upon the human race even though He knows that He will deliver us from it all and death, sickness, disease and pain will be no more.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

Actually I made the thread because I wanted to post jokes about buddhism. buddhism is non-theistic, which in my opinion leans more towards lack of belief. I posted 4 buddhism jokes and only 2 christian jokes, which christians in the thread said were funny. I don't consider myself an atheist but it depends on how you define it. I don't believe in deities because it seems to me that God is more of a metaphor vs a literal entity. I see God as either a reference to existential reality/nature as in pantheism, or possibly a reference to a way of being, a kind of ethics perhaps. There are some other interpretations that I think are interesting as well, I just don't think that God is an entity who has a consciousness(unless you want to argue that the universe has a consciousness, but I don't think so anyway) or is something that is non-physical. I see no reason to believe in non-physical deities.

I can respect your position. I actually see your sincerity in your questions and because of this, I don't mind taking time out to answer them. In the end just remember it's your own thoughts and decisions, keep your mind and your heart open to all possibilities. Draw your conclusions from what you feel is feasible in your eyes. In the end of it all truth prevails all the time. The questions you're asking me, I asked those same questions and didn't take the answers lightly. Mostly, because they were just unacceptable to me. Growing up and becoming an adult changed my entire perspective on how I view things. I guess this is mostly due to experience. It's amazing how you see things differently and understand things differently as the years go by. I know none of these answers I'm giving you is good enough right now, but don't let anything discourage you from searching for your own truth no matter what it is.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

Do you live with God or without him? Does he do anything for you? If so aren;t you living with him? If God is the source, the pulse behind all life, do we not live with him regardless of what we believe or do?

We all do to a certain degree. God doesn't intervene in our free will decisions, so for those who choose to live without God, can make the choice to freely do so.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

So it wasn't meaningful when I prayed my grandma;s cancer would go away when I was 7?

I would say that is extremely meaningful. My condolences to you with regards to your experience.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

What's with all the finger pointing? Funny enough, I actually volunteered at a church recently helping with some girl scouts. I do have compassion for these people, I only don't do much volunteering because I struggle myself, maybe not monetarily but that doesn't mean that I don't have difficulties in my life. I have no grudge against anyone who hates me or doesn't believe me. I recognize that their hatred is not personal but is caused by the conditions of their life, but I can't really think of anyone who hates me.

Not really trying to point the finger and I apologies if I have. I know you're a good person at heart and I know you have deep concerns probably on a level that the average teenager doesn't even posses. So your heart is definitely in the right place. But with regards to where I'm coming from with what seems to be finger pointing. People who do not believe in God always say "why does God allow this" or "why does God allow that" but they never ask, "why are we allowing this?" When there is no God to believe in then who do you turn to get those answers solved? <--- Rhetorical

Originally Posted by Stonedape

I;m not checking a person, I'm checking God. There's a big difference. I don't go around telling people I'm more compassionate then you so go be compassionate. I;m merely setting a standard that I think anyone would agree with, that if you have compassion, if you are deeply aware of and sympathize with another's situation, and you can easily help them you will.

Isaiah 55:8
For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

You cannot check God and I'm just going to leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Not according to Zhaylin... WHICH CHRISTIAN IS RIGHT??

As meant in the sense that God is the Father as we are all children of God. If you want to get technical, then Adam was "created" from dust and Eve was "formed."

Oh thank GOD you're back Ne-yo. I'd thought you'd come to your senses and had left me here all by myself. Fuck that was scary. OK, looks like you've got Blueline, Spart and the ape. I'll deal with Xei.


\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ <-------- Start of me dealing with Xei























^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <------ End of me dealing with Xei


I think I just gave him the intellectual thrashing of his life. He won't soon forget that, will he Ne-yo?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Oh thank GOD you're back Ne-yo. I'd thought you'd come to your senses and had left me here all by myself. Fuck that was scary. OK, looks like you've got Blueline, Spart and the ape.

If only he could get to me...