Thread: Question for athiests...

Originally Posted by kingerman

E = sq(MC)

The m doesn't get squared. If you're going to quote scientific statements to support your backwards and childish beliefs, at least GET IT RIGHT!

Originally Posted by kingerman

That's a big supposition isn't it? That God made people homosexual? The Bible clearly teaches that God made them male and female, and out of the wickedness of their own hearts they chose perversion, so God gave them over to their own lusts.

He made the wickedness possible, he made hell possible, he made it all.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Firstly, where did you get that figure?

Secondly, where these Christians converted to Christianity before or after they went into prison? It's really sneaky if these people were actually converted after their imprisonment wouldn't you think?

Where did you get your figures that people convert to Christianity after getting in prison.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Firstly, how do you quantify that most atheists are good people? Stalin and Hitler were the result of a totally atheist state and they did what they believed to be just and right, and history is the judge of that isn't it?

Hitler wasn't atheist. Stalin didn't kill because he was atheist. Seriously? The mustaches make people evil argument? Also, Germany was as least an atheist country as it can be. The greatest enemy were the godless communists. Hitler even said that it was a sign from God that he survived the assassination attempt and that it's proof that God approves of his deeds.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Secondly, it depends on what you define "good people." In comparison to what standard? Christians believe there is only one moral standard that is applicable, and that is God's standard. Why so narrow? Because God is the one who will judge us, we will not be judged according to how moral we are compared to other people, but judged according to His standard of morality.

Well one standard for being good is not supporting evil overlords that do infinite evil (like God). That would be a start for defining a moral atheist. So basically you're saying that what Christians deem moral is everything god says is moral? So people burning in hell is moral and you're totally cool with that... nice! Did I mention how scary and immoral it seems when there's a person who believes the whole world will burn for an eternity and he does not even twitch?

Originally Posted by kingerman

This is why the Bible teaches us that no man can work his own way to heaven. It is impossible, because our righteousness is like a filthy rag to God. Let me just ask you one question. Since you say atheists are good people, and you are one yourself, what would you say if I gathered your closest friends, family and colleagues together, along with their wives and sisters and mothers, and they sit down together in a theatre to watch a video of your thoughts within the last 48 hours? Will you stay to watch, or run as far as you can?

As I said, God made everything, our nature is his fault. Either he punishes himself for his own sins of making sin or he just has to admit that he likes to burn people for an infinity.

About the hypothetical theater... it wouldn't be even close to Eraserhead and people would find it boring. So they can watch if that's what they want to do. You see kingerman, not everybody here was indoctrinated into thinking that everything natural is bad. I never expect the people around me to be idyllic in any sense or to match my impressions, neither should anybody demand it of me...

Originally Posted by kingerman

People who believe on Christ are no better people. We are all wicked and wretched in our hearts, motives and attitudes. And we will never be any different as long as we still live in this fallen body. The only difference is that a born-again Christian realizes his own wickedness and is honest with his own sinfulness, and accepts God's gift of salvation through his Son.

Well I'm not wicked or wretched. We are animals, some more human than others. It's natural... Well I agree with that we will never be different as long as we exist, but that's just common sense. If you're not human or alive, then you're just not alive. The difference is that a rational human realizes that he doesn't have to act like an animal all the time and to strive for something uniquely human, exploration or trying to live a good life etc. and then everybody actually live a better life as a result of that realization.

Originally Posted by kingerman

If you don't believe in Barrack Obama, will he be obligated to fly to your country and show himself to you? First, there is a huge supposition of arrogance. God is the one who brought the entire Universe, the cosmos into being. He designed and spoke into being all that we know and even things we don't know. He's the eternal king and Lord of our souls. Does he need to do your bidding? God won't be the one trembling with fear when we stand before him on judgement day. No, if we want to approach God and know him, we must come to him with humility and a sincere desire to seek him and know him, not arrogance and pride.

No, you'd be obliged to find evidence to prove his existence to yourself. If that's an analogy to searching for God, then let me say that my evidence says "nothing yet", oh and I don't see "seeking" as brainwashing oneself, although I do admit it's a quick way to find something for which there is no proof of.

All that about God doing this and that are just assumptions and basic preaching. Holds no value to me. I don't expect an infinitely evil dictator to tremble for anything, except maybe out of excitement that he gets to burn more people infinitely. So God want's us to be totally ignorant to anything that isn't in the Bible? It makes sense if you've been indoctrinated into believing that, but it doesn't generally. All I can say is that The Flying Spaghetti Monster want's you to seek him and not be so arogant as to believe some Bible... you get my point?

Originally Posted by kingerman

Even our fallen logic tells us as much. We don't approach even a great earthly leader with arrogance if we hoped to have any kind of meaningful relationship with them or even to gain an audience with them. What more God, who is infinitely above ever human ruler.

That's not my logic. People don't have to be leaders for me to approach them with respect, they just have to earn it. So if you think it's "Earthly illogical" to walk up to Hitler and smack him, just because he's a leader, then I don't know what to say.

And your point that you have to be humble to gain audience with a leader... it's not because it's logical to do so by some absolute standard, but because in nature, the one with power can do whatever he wants with you, so for our own survival we evolved a certain code of conduct when dealing with those in power. This only gives further proof that we are to be humble to God because he'll burn us otherwise. The only difference between me and you is that you are indoctrinated into thinking that no matter what, God will always be respectable and good, while I can clearly see that he's just a mafia boss who at the end get's all his respect from his power to burn you. It seems logical to be a sheep if he threatens to burn you eternally, but at the same time my morals don't allow me to bow down to an infinite Hitler.

Originally Posted by kingerman

I ask the same back to you. How can one choose to believe something illogical, like the Universe, which has a known beginning, came into existence out of nothing? Consider the amount of energy and matter in our Universe (E = sq(MC)), how can so much energy come out of nothing? The 2nd law of thermodynamics and Einstein's theory of relativity tells us the Universe definitely had a beginning. How can someone believe the illogical thought that so much came out of nothing?

No... Nobody ever said that anything came from nothing. That's not what the Big Bang theory says, so stop spreading misinformation.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Explain to me how someone can believe in something so illogical, where no physical facts exist to prove it, that living things came about by macro evolution? Why would someone believe something so illogical? Yes, this is more illogical than a hamster inventing an airplane. The Cambriam explosion shows that life began in full form in all diversity, yet people still believe this myth, why? Why when there is absolutely no evidence after so many years of digging in archaeology, do people still believe this myth? And one can look at the data and design in DNA and the design of the motor in a bacteria flagellum, which if missing one part will fail to work, can someone still believe in evolution and no divine Designer?

There is tons of proof, you just don't care to see it. No wonder it seems illogical if you think we have no proof, it would be illogical, but it's not because there is proof. It's the most logical answer to all the proof we have. Don't talk about the Cambrian explosion as if you knew anything about it and no, nobody said that that's where life began in full form or in all diversity. Stop spreading misinformation, again.

Design is a subjective concept, so it can't be applied to scientific reasoning. Just because you think something is beautiful doesn't mean that God made it, ok? You must be objective, that's how science works and that's what got you that computer. Oh no and not the Flagellum. It's been debunked already, it's not "irreducibly complex". If you remove parts of the flagellum you get other useful organelles, so don't spread misinformation, again. It's obvious that all the propaganda made you feel like evolution has no proof etc. but I am sorry. You've been lied to on many levels, as we see here.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Your great great great grandparents never existed also, because I did not see them in a fossil museum. In fact, neither do you, because I didn't see you in a fossil museum. In fact, neither did the billions of people in civilizations before us, because we don't see their individual bones in the museum. Great logic and reasoning don't you think?

Yes and how do you know you're not dreaming right now or that the universe was created as it is now 5 seconds ago by the FSM etc. What's your logic then, everything we can't prove actually exists?

I'm not an archeologist, so I don't know how "true" the bible is. But if it were true, I'd take a leap of faith and not believe that snakes talk or that an evil God is good etc.

Since you like miracle conversions so much here is a video of a missionary who got converted to atheism by a tribe with an evidence based philosophy. If I didn't know what it meant I could actually say it's ironic in relation to those two archeologists of yours:
http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Eve...Lost_Knowledge

Also, if those two archeologists actually did convert, I don't think they were too bright. If the Bible was such an amazing piece of historical fact, then it would be pretty well known outside of the groups that actually believe that.

I am only going to focus on a few key points as there are way too many brewing.

Originally Posted by kingerman

That's a big supposition isn't it? That God made people homosexual? The Bible clearly teaches that God made them male and female, and out of the wickedness of their own hearts they chose perversion, so God gave them over to their own lusts.

First and foremost; it is empirically proven that homosexuality and other fetishes are biologically born into you. Homosexuals do have a different brain composition size than heterosexuals. It is not a matter of choice.

Perhaps you ought to look up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if you think such foolish things.

Firstly, how do you quantify that most atheists are good people? Stalin and Hitler were the result of a totally atheist state and they did what they believed to be just and right, and history is the judge of that isn't it?

Hitler was not an Atheist - he is a confirmed Christian

Either way, these people did not do the things they did because they were Atheist, they had political agenda's. Learn your history and to stop taking things out of context. Let us not forget crusades and the blood on religions hands.

I ask the same back to you. How can one choose to believe something illogical, like the Universe, which has a known beginning, came into existence out of nothing? Consider the amount of energy and matter in our Universe (E = sq(MC)), how can so much energy come out of nothing? The 2nd law of thermodynamics and Einstein's theory of relativity tells us the Universe definitely had a beginning. How can someone believe the illogical thought that so much came out of nothing?

You are obviously ignorant to the fact that entropy is the quintessential function of evolution. Please consider educating yourself.

Explain to me how someone can believe in something so illogical, where no physical facts exist to prove it, that living things came about by macro evolution? Why would someone believe something so illogical? Yes, this is more illogical than a hamster inventing an airplane. The Cambriam explosion shows that life began in full form in all diversity, yet people still believe this myth, why? Why when there is absolutely no evidence after so many years of digging in archaeology, do people still believe this myth? And one can look at the data and design in DNA and the design of the motor in a bacteria flagellum, which if missing one part will fail to work, can someone still believe in evolution and no divine Designer?

You are actually not being specific in what you are referring to as a myth.

God did not decide everything for us to think and do, he gave us free will to choose, but there are consequences to our choices, just like in our world now. You can choose to walk off a 10 storey building, but there are consequences.

If you think you are conscious of every decision, you are wrong. Please consider;

+ http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ght=experience

Your great great great grandparents never existed also, because I did not see them in a fossil museum. In fact, neither do you, because I didn't see you in a fossil museum. In fact, neither did the billions of people in civilizations before us, because we don't see their individual bones in the museum. Great logic and reasoning don't you think?

This is the most important point that I want to expose;

First of all; notice that you do not actually rebuke but try to defend. This demonstrates the intellectual brainwashing of your closed-mindedness as you will not consider new ideas.

There is evidence for my grandparents; death certificates, ceremonials, tombstones, and yes, you could get the fossils of my grandparents - just get a shovel.

How is it that you are now ignorant to archaeology when it proves your beliefs wrong as opposed to Mormons? Have you never heard of Mt. Vesuvius and Herculaneum? Have you not heard of Dinosaurs?

Don't be stupid - we know you are smarter than that. There is no evidence for Adam and Eve because they do not exist and could not exist.

Even if so; do you think there are such things as talking snakes?

(The above is my ploy to expose that kingerman, even with me saying this, would rather try to interpret my talking snakes question that the archeaology question to demonstrate a lacking capability to cope with the fact that his belief system has been proven wrong. Let him prove otherwise.)

Firstly, archaeology proves the Bible to be true. Down to the smallest detail. Ignorance breeds wrong suppositions and assumptions.

Be a little more specific, hypocrite.

The Smithsonian Instutute even uses the Bible as a guide in identifying archaeological dig sites. Name me another religious text with that kind of authority.

You are sure good at referencing things without support.

I also found a study that showed that all religious people are intellectually more incompetent than nonreligious.

Oops, I have evidence;
+

Oh crap, I did this thing where I found more evidence after posting;


Interesting;

Well, you said use science to prove the bible is correct. Can you use science to prove that Hitler exists? This is a logical fallacy,

You cannot seriously believe this.. do you?

If so, we might as well stop now because you obviously either have severe learning incapabilities or you are being blatantly antagonizing.

I hate holocaust deniers

history cannot be repeated. Can you repeat the creation of the Universe? Were you there to observe it the first time? How about the forming of the Grand Canyon? Can you prove it's creation by science?

You really are an idiot. This is like the fifth or sixth time I am posting this for you;



IF YOU ASK FOR EVIDENCE AT LEAST CONSIDER IT.

I am sick of people, on either side of the debate, not taking the supports into consideration. It is simply being antagonizing and a deliberate asshole. If I ask you to prove something, and you do, I will acknowledge it and expect you to do the same.

However, if something is presented and you flat out completely ignore and then ask for it again five time - it really gets irritating.

kingerman, you ought not even post again till you at least watch that damn video because you keep asking the same question and I keep responding to your inconsiderate ass.

~

I also found a study that showed that all religious people are intellectually more incompetent than nonreligious.

I hope you just phrased this worng, O'nus. I'm sure we've all met atheists who are only so because they would rather not examine their beliefs and instead just decide to believe in nothing. I'm sure we've all met overbearing and dogmatic Christians. I'm sure that we have all met naturalists who deny morality, ethics, etc.

But as soon as we start assuming that one group of people is defined by that impression, or just dumber than the other group, or anything really that ceases to be about the arguments and turns into this back and forth bash of any given group- the whole thing debases itself.

Originally Posted by spockman

I hope you just phrased this worng, O'nus. I'm sure we've all met atheists who are only so because they would rather not examine their beliefs and instead just decide to believe in nothing. I'm sure we've all met overbearing and dogmatic Christians. I'm sure that we have all met naturalists who deny morality, ethics, etc.

But as soon as we start assuming that one group of people is defined by that impression, or just dumber than the other group, or anything really that ceases to be about the arguments and turns into this back and forth bash of any given group- the whole thing debases itself.

I was mocking him. I was hoping people would be a little insightful to the irony of it and the mocking nature of it - of course it's a generalization and if you look at the evidence provided it clearly shows how there are still gaps in the statistic.

I would hope that you would know I would not say anything so stupid.

Why is it that you pick up on when I say it but not when others? I sense a bias.

Besides that, the point I was making remains.

~

Also O'nus, in reference to your point that religious people tend to be more violent then non-religious, remember what the term religious means.

Baha'i, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, and Druidism...

I don't need to continue. Not all violent religious people are real Christians.

I also found a study that showed that all religious people are intellectually more incompetent than nonreligious.

The question is who sponsered that study and why.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I was mocking him. I was hoping people would be a little insightful to the irony of it and the mocking nature of it - of course it's a generalization and if you look at the evidence provided it clearly shows how there are still gaps in the statistic.

I would hope that you would know I would not say anything so stupid.

Why is it that you pick up on when I say it but not when others? I sense a bias.

Besides that, the point I was making remains.

~

Oh, yeah, okay.

Sorry. That's why I was hoping I misunderstood it/it was misphrased. at first I thought you were being sarcastic, then you said you had evidence behind it. My browser gives me a little red x for the image, so rather than be able to tell theat the evidence had a poor correlation- I just assumed it supported the faux point being made.

Anyway, the reason I "called" you on it rather than anyone elses logical gaps was because it surprised me what I read. If I haven't called anyone else out on anything it's because it hasn't surprised me, since I don't know them.

I've been lurking more than anything in this discussion.

As far as kingerman goes, I feel for you man since you are being dog-teamed. But I think it's because alot of the points your making, although many have valid things behind them, are being said kind of off-handedly if that makes sense.

Very little is 'generally accepted' in religous discussions, so you can't go off of assumptions.

Oh, and you'll be hard pressed to fight evolution, man. VERY hard pressed.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Also O'nus, in reference to your point that religious people tend to be more violent then non-religious, remember what the term religious means.

Baha'i, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, and Druidism...

I don't need to continue. Not all violent religious people are real Christians.

You should note that it is a percentage and not a generalization. This means that it gives room for those other peoples that are not violent. Statistics is never absolute (or, at least, it ought not to be).

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

The question is who sponsered that study and why.

You missed the mockery I was making. The gross generalization I made I thought would be easy to discern as it was followed by statistics that only provide norms.. and statistics cannot generalization as a proposition can.

Originally Posted by spockman

Sorry. That's why I was hoping I misunderstood it/it was misphrased. at first I thought you were being sarcastic, then you said you had evidence behind it. My browser gives me a little red x for the image, so rather than be able to tell theat the evidence had a poor correlation- I just assumed it supported the faux point being made.

Ah, if anyone see's the same - I provided statistics that show statistical normalities - not generalizations.

Anyway, the reason I "called" you on it rather than anyone elses logical gaps was because it surprised me what I read. If I haven't called anyone else out on anything it's because it hasn't surprised me, since I don't know them.

I've been lurking more than anything in this discussion.

Fair enough.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I was mocking him.

~

...as mockery against a Christian is the best way to get your point across and prove you're really not a babbling idiot or an atheist bigot, right?

Right. Thanks for the tip.
Sort your arguments, guy. If you're going to stoop then don't even bother standing back up.

PS > I know the aforementioned statement is mockery. What are you gonna do about it? Get angry, go smoke a blunt and think about what you could have done about it? That is typically what most of the forum goers do in this three-ring circus of ignorance, self-righteousness, and pseudo-intellectuality.

PPS > That one was mockery too. Unfortunately, the "alt + Q Q" shortcut does not work in any major web browser.

Do you do anything else but whine? You never engage in any decent debate, all you do is get offended by something trivial whenever a "believer" is involved and then fly around the forums and whine some more. You're so egocentric and narcissistic that you don't even care about how hypocritical you end up looking, it's obviously a part of your plan to show how idiotic all the atheists on this forum are, right?

Originally Posted by ifuturist

...as mockery against a Christian is the best way to get your point across and prove you're really not a babbling idiot or an atheist bigot, right?

Right. Thanks for the tip.
Sort your arguments, guy. If you're going to stoop then don't even bother standing back up.

PS > I know the aforementioned statement is mockery. What are you gonna do about it? Get angry, go smoke a blunt and think about what you could have done about it? That is typically what most of the forum goers do in this three-ring circus of ignorance, self-righteousness, and pseudo-intellectuality.

PPS > That one was mockery too. Unfortunately, the "alt + Q Q" shortcut does not work in any major web browser.

I see that it is obvious that you are lacking any substantial logical argument other than my mocking response to equally stupid propositions.

Except for the fact that I gave evidence for what I said - religious people are generally stupider than nonreligious.

Furthermore, if you actually used your ability to read, you would notice who was the one ignoring arguments and babbling instead of responding with substantial.

Don't be sanctimonious with me when you obviously haven't read a damn thing in the thread. Try to be less of a hypocrite because all you have done is exposed how incapable you are of being insightful and trying more hard to straw man or red herring.
~

Your desire to supersede your perceived moral standards in place of Gods.. So my question is what make you think that your moral standards are any better?

Brian Cox video:How does this explanation take any less faith to believe than the christian version of the "origins" of the universe?Listen from about min 7 forward to what he says about higgs particles.. The entire formula that explains your version of reality depends on (H) which is an essential apart of how this entire theory works.. And of which, has not been discovered yet.. even though they can explain all about higgs particles and how they need to work in order for the theory/formula to have any merit..

All of this is simply based in Faith, faith that what "they" tell you is true. This is the very same faith we have in God.. So my question is what is your reason to believe?

It all boils down to what you want to have in your life as your God...

Thank you for a good response. It is a fair question.

However, why are you neglecting all of the rest of the formula and math? What of the experiment is discovering Higgs particles? The LHC? You do not need faith for it for it is being discovered as we speak.

What can theists possibly have to offer on a paralell level? The only thing possible is a direct revelation from god himself. The bible
is definitely not a reliable source for any persuasion to theism.

What do you think...?
~

Reading religious people on the Internet sometimes makes me wonder if I'm trapped in some kind of endlessly repeating time loop.

Originally Posted by kingerman

All of this is simply based in Faith, faith that what "they" tell you is true. This is the very same faith we have in God.. So my question is what is your reason to believe?

It all boils down to what you want to have in your life as your God...

In that way everything I or you experience can be seen as faith. How do you know you're not dreaming right now? You don't...

The difference between religions and science is clear. Science tries to describe the universe and actually succeeds to a point. You use science when you avoid cars or catch a ball. You trust scientists when they give you computers, but not when they go further? You have a chance to study and see things as they are yourself. This is something religions can never do, all they do is say, believe and you will believe. Yes, on some level we are all caught in circular reasoning and faith. But as I said, the science that gives you a tv is the same science that detects particles or proves evolution. When you stop filtering things because they do not coincide with your beliefs you will see this for yourself. I don't have a problem saying "I don't know how he does it" if some mystic is able to walk through walls and if I can't find a solution. But if there is nothing mystical happening, you can't tell me that my beliefs in reality are the same as your beliefs in something unprovable. You're making claims, so prove them?

Originally Posted by O'nus

First and foremost; it is empirically proven that homosexuality and other fetishes are biologically born into you. Homosexuals do have a different brain composition size than heterosexuals. It is not a matter of choice.

Emprically proven? Please post a link to an academic scientific journal that has been critically peer-reviewed and published, that such fetishes are inborn. I am not aware that one exists, so I'd like to know where you got this idea. I know the pro-homosexual scientists want to prove this very much (how can you want to prove something before you know it exists?) but so far have not yet suceeded.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well one standard for being good is not supporting evil overlords that do infinite evil (like God). That would be a start for defining a moral atheist. So basically you're saying that what Christians deem moral is everything god says is moral? So people burning in hell is moral and you're totally cool with that... nice! Did I mention how scary and immoral it seems when there's a person who believes the whole world will burn for an eternity and he does not even twitch?

No, we are saying that God sets the standards of morality, because He is Creator, not us. Outside of God, why would morality even exist? Yet we know it does, because people instinctively know right from wrong, until their consciences are seared by sin.

If we all evolved from a soup of mud, what point would there be morality? We'd just do everything we can to survive, to be selfish, and to destroy others so as to reap maximum benefit for ourselves..

We do not sit by and not twitch. Where did you get that idea? This is why Christians give their lives to go to the remotest most dangerous places in the world to preach the good news to those who have not heard.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Hitler was not an Atheist - he is a confirmed Christian

Hitler was an athiest. In fact he was strongly occultic, and there are tons of historical documentaries on this very fact. He had a team of Tibetan monks in his employ in the SS. He initially used the Roman Catholic church to gain control over the populace, but he was no Christian.

Just because he invokes God's name does not mean anything. Any crazy dictator can do that to justify anything he does. Confirmed Christian? By whose definition?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

As I said, God made everything, our nature is his fault. Either he punishes himself for his own sins of making sin or he just has to admit that he likes to burn people for an infinity.

God made us, but we chose to rebel, he gave us free will, there can be no love if there is no free choice and love cannot be by compulsion.

By your reasoning, the state should jail the parents for the crimes of their children because the parents not only made the child, they also taught him. So if your child rebels against you, and abandons you in your old age, it is also your fault? No need to discipline children then.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Either way, these people did not do the things they did because they were Atheist, they had political agenda's. Learn your history and to stop taking things out of context. Let us not forget crusades and the blood on religions hands.

Of course they had political agendas. I'm just refuting your point that aethiests were good people, we have on record in history two good examples of that.

On the crusades, again it is understandable that you would classify those who perpetrated those things in the name of Christianity as Christians. They are not. They were perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church, who burned at the stake and slaughtered numerous Christian saints in times gone past, as predicted in Revelations that they would. Christ clearly teaches us that no one can justly do such a thing and still claim to be Christian. However, there are many deluded souls that still do that today.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well I'm not wicked or wretched. We are animals, some more human than others. It's natural... Well I agree with that we will never be different as long as we exist, but that's just common sense. If you're not human or alive, then you're just not alive. The difference is that a rational human realizes that he doesn't have to act like an animal all the time and to strive for something uniquely human, exploration or trying to live a good life etc. and then everybody actually live a better life as a result of that realization.

As I said, we're not judged by our own standards. We're judged by the standards of the One who judges, and it's the only standard that is relevant when we stand trial before Him.

Coincidentally there are numerous interviews of criminals on death row, armed robbers who killed people, serial killers and rapists of children, etc. when interviewed, also thought that they were good people.

Originally Posted by O'nus

No, you'd be obliged to find evidence to prove his existence to yourself. If that's an analogy to searching for God, then let me say that my evidence says "nothing yet", oh and I don't see "seeking" as brainwashing oneself, although I do admit it's a quick way to find something for which there is no proof of.

And I will respond and say that if one were truly searching, you'd look at and consider evidence from both sides. You are not truly searching when you already have made a conclusion in your heart and mind, as your arguments clearly show. Searching implies curiosity, inquisitiveness, and an openess to consider all points.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Thank you for a good response. It is a fair question.

However, why are you neglecting all of the rest of the formula and math? What of the experiment is discovering Higgs particles? The LHC? You do not need faith for it for it is being discovered as we speak.

What can theists possibly have to offer on a paralell level? The only thing possible is a direct revelation from god himself. The bible
is definitely not a reliable source for any persuasion to theism.

What do you think...?
~

The fact that science is continuing to discover things does not challenge my faith in Christ. Your question assumes science is the enemy of my faith, but it is a friend of my faith. Certainly folks living in the past understood scripture to teach this or that, and now today, we think those same scriptures teach something else. The goal is to find the truth, and science is a tool toward that end. But I have faith, that Christ is the truth, so I believe science will increase my faith.

And what is that supposed to proof? We created the conditions 1 millioneth of a second after the Universe was created? You don't have a problem with that supposition? How does anyone know what the conditions were exactly 1 millioneth of a second after Creation? Was anyone there?

And basing conclusions based on that supposition??

What do I think.. I think when someone says "in the process of being discovered as we speak." It really means, (in this case) we are looking for a way to sell the the "Emperor" (the general public) a set of new cloths that only the righteous can see. But first we must package it in a way that all who seek to unravel are package can not do so..

You video has all the signs of a classic swindle. You have a pitch man creating a problem. Like I have an inheritance stuck in the bank of Mogadishu that I just can't get too. Next he pitches a solution like: all I need is 25,000 dollars to pay the fees and taxes. in this case "The great formula" Something that only a hand full of people on this planet can truly decipherer. Then he tells you no matter how complicated it may seem, it doesn't take a mathematician to use it. He shows how a 25,000 dollar investment and a little trust will get you half of a 10,000,000 inheritance.. But Here the hitch (the limited time offer the part that creates desire in the mark to act now)

There is a element in short supply (Higgs particle) but rest assured Everything else is in place and if you don't buy in now someone else will.


Science used to be about observation and discovery.. Now according to your you tube clip, it is about creating a theory and then "discovering" the elements (like higgs particles and neutrinos) to complete a theory.

To me it's like saying I'm going to build a car, and as complicated as that sounds I am simply going to "find" naturally occurring part to complete this project, but on a way way more complicated level than just building a car.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Don't be stupid - we know you are smarter than that. There is no evidence for Adam and Eve because they do not exist and could not exist.

Firstly, you're showing your ignorance of science by that very statement. You cannot prove that something does not exist. Science cannot prove that something cannot exist, because it would mean that we would have to be everywhere all at once in order to prove that, and it is an impossibility.

People believed that all swans were white not so long ago, did you know that? They've never seen black swans. Does that mean black swans don't exist? There are many things we know now which we had no evidence of many hundreds of years ago. We did not know there were galaxies outside our own, does that mean they don't exist? If the existence of a thing is dependant on our knowledge of it, this would be a strange world we live in, wouldn't it?

And you show your own close-mindedness, something you like to accuse Christians of, when you made the claim that "There is no evidence for Adam and Eve because they do not exist and could not exist."

Originally Posted by O'nus

How is it that you are now ignorant to archaeology when it proves your beliefs wrong as opposed to Mormons? Have you never heard of Mt. Vesuvius and Herculaneum? Have you not heard of Dinosaurs?

Archaelogy clearly does not prove Mormons to be right! Many honest Mormon archaelogists have converted to Christianity and this is something that I do have a little knowledge about! I mean to even claim this is laughable! Mormons claim that American Indians are descended from Jews, but their DNA proves otherwise! They claim a mighty battle took place in South America and the peoples used metal weapons, yet there is no proof of this in archaelogy that the ancient people in South America used metal implements! There has not been a major civilization that existed in such expanse and not have any kind of archaelogical proof! I do not know about Mt. Vesuvius and Herculaneum and its relationship to Mormonism.

And I love the way you throw in dinosaurs in there, like what has it got to do with anything? BTW, in case you're ignorant of the fact, the Bible documents the existence of dinosaurs in Job.

Originally Posted by O'nus

First of all; notice that you do not actually rebuke but try to defend. This demonstrates the intellectual brainwashing of your closed-mindedness as you will not consider new ideas.

There is evidence for my grandparents; death certificates, ceremonials, tombstones, and yes, you could get the fossils of my grandparents - just get a shovel.

Firstly, I am not defending anything. I am just pointing out the sillyness of your argument that because museums did not contain the bones of Adam and Eve they did not exist. I think even a secondary school kid can see the cosmic hilarity of that kind of reasoning. Do museums contain the bones of every single person that has lived on this earth? I mean, what kind of leaky logic is that?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Don't talk about the Cambrian explosion as if you knew anything about it and no, nobody said that that's where life began in full form or in all diversity. Stop spreading misinformation, again.

I brought up the Cambrain explosion because I knew something about it, it shows life in all diversity in fully formed bodies at the same time. It shows that life began instantaneously and did not evolve from some primordial soup. Creationists have proof, where's the proof from evolutionists? Every proof they had tried to concoct (peking man, etc.) were all proven to be hoaxes or improper conclusion. BTW, this is accepted by all scientists, not just Creationist scientists.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It's obvious that all the propaganda made you feel like evolution has no proof etc. but I am sorry. You've been lied to on many levels, as we see here.

You know what amazes me about aethiest, it is the utter lack of intellectual honesty or reasoning. Propaganda? What propaganda? You say evolution has proof (I'm referring to macro interspecies evolution), yet provide none to back your facts? You claim I've been lied to on many levels, yet do not state what specifically is a lie. And no we do not see anything here, that is the problem, you make statements with no credible evidence to back your statements.

Originally Posted by kingerman

No, we are saying that God sets the standards of morality, because He is Creator, not us. Outside of God, why would morality even exist? Yet we know it does, because people instinctively know right from wrong, until their consciences are seared by sin.

How come different cultures have different rules of morality?
Were they created by different gods?

Originally Posted by kingerman

If we all evolved from a soup of mud, what point would there be morality? We'd just do everything we can to survive, to be selfish, and to destroy others so as to reap maximum benefit for ourselves..

Nope.
Cooperative behavior increases chances of survival and reproduction. That's why we could have evolved from a soup of mud and still be partially or completely non-selfish.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Hitler was an athiest. In fact he was strongly occultic, and there are tons of historical documentaries on this very fact. He had a team of Tibetan monks in his employ in the SS. He initially used the Roman Catholic church to gain control over the populace, but he was no Christian.

So why did the Roman Catholic church support such a man?

Originally Posted by kingerman

Mormons claim that American Indians are descended from Jews, but their DNA proves otherwise!

It's good you take DNA evidence for what it's worth.
The same principles and techniques used to prove descent of different races/tribes are used to show that you and other apes had a common ancestor.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

It's good you take DNA evidence for what it's worth.
The same principles and techniques used to prove descent of different races/tribes are used to show that you and other apes had a common ancestor.

Yeah but that's no good because the same techniques and physics that we use to keep nuclear material from going critical on us are also used to date some material to older than 6,000 years. So clearly it's possible for science to work sometimes and not others.

The smartest type of Christian is the one who admitts that their views make no sense, that overwhelming evidence proves that it is all bollacks, but they dont care because they have faith. And their fath is so strong it doesn't matter what you say. The worst type of Christian is the one that constantly makes up bullshit to support their bullshit. "I believe in the Bible because archaeology proves it." No It Doesn't. Hitler was not an atheist, he believed in God. Stalin was an Atheist but your comment that he "was the result of a totally atheist state is ridiculous. On the contrary his political ideals, his personality, his ruthlessness was formed in his younger years when he begain his revolutionary activity at a time when Russia was ruled by a Tsar who was deemed as God on earth; and the peasantry from which he came was devoutly religious; he was in fact the result of an extremely religious state.
Do you believe that we require God for morality? That God is by defintion good and all sources of morality stem from God? If so why haven't you answered the question in my thread that was specifically targeted at people like you?

That is just too funny if you seriously believe we need some god do define morality. We don't. Moral values are result of social pressure, they help us to cope with each other and work together. Moral values do not exist alone. Without them, we can live. I stand here as a living proof.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Emprically proven? Please post a link to an academic scientific journal that has been critically peer-reviewed and published, that such fetishes are inborn. I am not aware that one exists, so I'd like to know where you got this idea. I know the pro-homosexual scientists want to prove this very much (how can you want to prove something before you know it exists?) but so far have not yet suceeded.

Homossexuality has been observed in other species, not just the human. There's even footage of it captured by people working for documental channels like National Geographic, Discovery or BBC (I forget which ones).

And you show your own close-mindedness, something you like to accuse Christians of, when you made the claim that "There is no evidence for Adam and Eve because they do not exist and could not exist."

I think he means Adam and Eve do not exist as literal parents of humanity (even if he believes they did not exist at all).
Some people speculate that a fellow named Adam may very well have lived some 7000 years ago, was probably some kind of chieftain or patriarch to a major tribe, and that's why his name was passed down. Of course, it's all just guessing.

Science used to be about observation and discovery.. Now according to your you tube clip, it is about creating a theory and then "discovering" the elements (like higgs particles and neutrinos) to complete a theory.

How do you think we came to know about the other particles? It's not like we can see any of them when we look at things.

Think of it this way - when you're making a puzzle you're likely to start with the pieces that you can tell at once that make the "frame" of the picture because they have one flat side. Then you start noticing some of the inner pieces that will fit these. Later on, as you're nearly finnished, you can tell that some pieces are missing even if you don't have any left in the box because you can see the holes on the pic. You can even tell what their shape and color is, see the missing piece in your mind. But since the missing pieces are not in the box you assume you must have drop them at some point and go on your hands and knees to look for them under the furniture.

That's what these guys do. They start with the obvious, build equations to explain why the obvious behaves the way it does and then they find that, for the obvious to look that way in the end, they'll have to find the missing pieces shown in the equation. At this point they start building contraptions to spot them, as the pieces won't just be seen lying under the couch.