Atheism in Vogue?

ARBULUS,

I think you are wrong about the un-indoctrinated 20 yr old laughing. While there is nothing reasonable about religion and its dogma, a fact remains that it "feels" right. I assert that this would lead to a response that many have when they deny reason and accept "truth." The only thing that is true is that it feels right. The power of this feeling is much stronger and deeper rooted than our capability of reason. The fact is that only a small percentage of believers are capable of pulling away from their feelings and trust reason in leaving religion behind.

I assert that the fit of religious dogma, created by strong feelings, is genetically programmed. In our past, the structure of our brain and the resulting propensity to allow ourselves (or inability to avoid) the lure of supernatural explanations some how helped us to leave more copies of that type, and so on, until religion is the default and people of reason are persecuted.

If it is genetic, then I would not call it a fad. I would call it an evolutionary dead end if we all end up dead arguing gods and ghosts and neglect real issues.

People want to talk about the "vogue" of atheism, but I think the point is confused.

Atheism is the default position. We are not born believing in a god. If a person were sheltered from religion from birth, never taught about religion or ever heard of it, and then you talk to this person at age 20 and tell them of a god, they would laugh in your face because the idea would be absurd to them. If anything one could say that religion is the fad.

What's happening now isn't an overwhelming wave of people ridding themselves of belief, it's people who are more willing to be open about the fact that they are atheist. It is VERY difficult to tell people that you are an atheist. People seem to think that you're a violent, immoral, horrible person capable of terrible things. This couldn't be further from the truth. And, if you look at it from an historical perspective, more horrible atrocities have been committed in the name of religion through the ages than any other cause. Atheists aren't the historically horrible people that they're made out to be.

Our society desperately needs to get to the point where people can say: "I believe X, and you don't. I'm ok with that. We don't have to believe the same way to co-exist."

We will be much better off if we can get to that point.

Google is the best search engine Google

Jesus is the Revolution

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/05/jesus_christ_is_the_revolution.html

If you really want liberation, stop believing in things that do not exist. Gods, ghosts, spirits, souls, devils and demon, and life after death all share in that there is no physical evidence that they exist. Here are some other things that share this trait: the Aliens that were supposedly hiding behind the comet that “picked up” those people that killed themselves at just the right time to catch a ride, Santa clause, voodoo, rubbing coins on people as a cure for illness, and the list is endless. People will seemingly believe anything given the promise of a tasty carrot and the threat of a nasty stick.

These things are mental prisons in that they promise punishment and reward for belief and behavior. The “liberation” that Jesus offers is trading one prison cell for another (not exactly a revolution).

The real revolution is to stop believing in things that do not exist.

Giving up unreasoned beliefs is not a license to live without a moral code. Having a moral code is part of being human and is not an exclusive product of religion.

I can be a good, decent, loving human being without believing in, boxing myself into, or chaining myself to fairytales.

Freedom is free thought, where-after you choose to do what is best.

David,

Religions did not come about for the reason you cite in your former post. They came about mostly as an attempt to explain human existence and the miraculous phenomena of the really EXISTING and perceived nature (earth, sun, moon, stars – the whole works!), not primarily from fear of death. Religions also served the purpose of social organisation. You describe your religion as a death cult (the main part of life’s meaning is after death!), while I describe my "atheism" as an appreciation of this life, the only one I have!

Obviously, there are many non-believers, "atheists" like me who are not as much concerned as you as to the eventual loss of their individual consciousness (we all lose it every night). I, for instance, have lived a long full life approaching its end, and I never would be so immodest as to ask “Is that all?” There is such a lot of fulfillment that to me this question is rather ungrateful, egomaniacal. I know there is so infinitely much more than I could grasp in this life span without having to resort to a notion of god.

My personality has been able to develop only through the communication with and participation of OTHERS, through parents, education, language, school, thinking, feeling, loving, discussions, art, music, learning, teaching, nature etc. I am not such a “unique” entity of “sin and redemption”, which as such has to be perpetuated by all means, and I didn’t make myself either. I am a passing, thinking reality, accountable to myself and others, as a part of the wonderful nature, a reality which was generated by thousands and thousands of other people, ancestors, evolutionary steps and events during and prior to my existence, who played a part in my being ME. I am grateful for this immensely rich vision. The term “ME” implies much more the term “ALL OF US” than the term “I”!

The relativity, that is, the lack of “truth” of your personal religion is already documented by the fact which you cite that there are and at all times were hosts of other “true” religions of the "supernatural", all more or less futile attempts to explain the unexplainable at a given (historical, societal) state of available insight and knowledge. For me nature is already “super”, I think the “super-natural” would have to lead to the senseless “super-super….n”- natural and already therefore has no meaning!

Why don’t you stop accusing atheists in general (condescending to maybe a few funny exceptions!) of being more selfish than any fanatical believers, of maximizing their pleasure at the expense of others, of being unaccountable to “God”, therefore to anybody? Why do you repeat this discussion about atheism and morals we have had ad nauseam? I am completely accountable to the people I love (even to the ones I don’t love so much!), to my children, friends, students, society, country and to my CONSCIENCE! Conscience does not require a religious prerequisite. (Aside: I would not regard it as a virtue to be accountable to the present “faith-based” US government, an entity you mentioned.)

Repeating this unprovable accusation of “unaccountability” over and over doesn’t make it any more plausible. Such attacks are part of the reason I and other thinking "atheists" don’t want to share your or anybody else’s religion. This inference is at the bottom of so many totally superfluous religious strifes and wars through history up to this day: “If you believe in the wrong “truth” (or, worse, no “truth” at all, like us non-believers), you must be either converted or eliminated.”

This is not meant personally towards you as an individual unknown to me, David, but as an answer to the ideas you and so many others display from a usurped and illusionary pulpit of superiority, as if we “non-believers” were missing out on something crucial. We can think as profoundly, as sharply and as openly as any given religious person. If we could skip the semantics of “religion” (especially in its "scripture" version) for a moment we might even arrive at a similar spiritual STATE, which causes you to define atheism as a religion. Semantically, the stamp collector example still holds.

But we do feel insulted by these accusations, even if you bring them forth in the friendliest way. I strongly doubt that my life means less to me than yours means to you. I do not place its value and meaning into an unfounded hope of an afterlife: I place it HERE, where I can live it!

I'm off to lunch, so this is being composed on the fly; my apologies for any incoherence...It seems to me, David, that you are reading too much into the word "atheism". It really does mean nothing more or less than the absence of belief in the existence of god(s).

If you want to talk about philosophies or worldviews we can discuss the relative merits of Humanism, Epicurianism, Hedonism, Nihilism, Naturalism, Materialism, Marxism or any number of personal philosophies or worldviews of which atheism is one component.

You are raising some interesting questions, but supposing that there is some coherent philosophy called atheism beyond the simple absence of belief leaves you casting too broad a net.

This is why the stamp collecting analogy is so apt. You are right that everyone needs a hobby, but maybe not the same hobby. In the same way that I have hobbies which have nothing to do with stamp collecting I do have other beliefs, other philosophical points of view but gods are not part of them.

Here's another cliche for you; if (as I'm assuming) you are a monotheist you are also atheistic regarding all other gods. I am just atheistic about one more god than you are.

Regards

A (hasty) Hermit

I typically would not comment further but I do feel I made some mistakes in expressing myself that could lead to some misunderstanding. That is not to say that everyone reading this discussion will agree with my views but I do feel looking back at my post that my language was perhaps too strong and without explanation behind the words so that they could lend themselves to being offensive or meanspirited, which was not my intent. And so particularly for those who read but not post I want to clarify myself:

In terms of atheism as a religion, perhaps that is a mis-categorization. I would however argue that it is a philosophy or worldview. I suppose I act under the assumption that the questions of life are universal and inherent in our very existence. Some of those questions I would propose are: 'is this all there is?' 'how can I account for this experience I am living?' which could translate into such questions as 'how did this earth come to be' or even 'the universe?'. And atheism, while defining itself as not believing in the supernatural as a suitable explanation, must nonetheless answer those fundamental questions. And in my understanding the philosophy ultimately turns to reason and science.

I suppose in the strictest sense the word atheism can simply mean the absence of belief. And I think it can be true that there are those that can live life without thinking of those questions or perpetually putting off such questions, and/or choosing not to believe in any explanation they are presented with. But I think the core questions are built into our very nature and existence. Perhaps the only thing we know for sure is the reality of our own existence "i think, therefore I am" and we are left to our own to explain our existence. This is where the stamp analogy falls short because not everyone has to collect stamps but we are all faced with the reality of our own existence. It is almost as if we are forced to be collectors of something and even deciding not to collect is still a decision about collection.

In terms of meaning, again I think I was unclear and therefore misunderstood. I think an atheist can live a meaningful life in the terms prescribing and finding meaning to their life. They can naturally be good family members, good members of society, kind individuals. I suspect I would be similar in thought and action were it not for the breakthrough of experience. But when we consider the philosophy or worldview of atheism, which is left to reason and science, there is no inherent value or meaning in life or an individual beyond what they create themselves. The cosmic understanding of our individual-self is meaningless. Although seemingly harsh, the earth and all of us on it are but a statistical anomaly and this earth and sun will meet the same fate as other observed stars and galaxies, namely destruction and reorganization. In such a philosophy everything, from our personal lives, to the existence of the earth can be seen as a 'soap bubble'. You can rub your hands together, blow, create a glistening bubble, which floats for a brief moment then disappears in a blink of an eye to have no more individual reality. Again that is from a cosmic understanding of the individual and not seen from the individual self as they see their life. Again I would argue that there is something deep inside us that wants to deny that thought, that when we look into the eye of someone we love, or hold a newborn baby in our hand, or sit at the deathbed of a friend, we want that hope that there is inherent meaning and that death is not an absolute end.

Perhaps an atheist would say it is a false hope. If so, fine. That is congruent with their philosophy, and they lived a meaningful life as they saw it and they can choose that. Why then do many atheists seem to be troubled by those who do believe and do claim experience with the divine? Under their own philosophy meaning is created as we prescribe it. And to what end? Often I hear that we as a society and civilization would be more peaceful and better off without religion. And I can certainly understand that argument considering the atrocities committed in the name of religion throughout history. I would argue that such acts are the result of the imperfections of man and a result of free will and not something inherently wrong with all prospect of a true religion and/or explanation. And that can be disagreed or agreed with. But back to that question of 'to what end?', if the atheist argues that society and life would be better for all if religion were removed, again the question remains 'to what end?' Is it happiness and fulfillment? If someone therefore claims happiness and fulfillment with religion then what does it matter, we will all meet the same fate in the end. The atheist by his very philosophy should accept all choices of belief or non-belief as an individual choice to maximize personal happiness or fulfillment as an attempt to prescribe meaning to their life.

Which leads to clarifying my last misunderstood point about a complete openness to 'personal pleasure maximization'. I do not believe that this is what every atheist does or suggests, I am just saying that the philosophy or worldview itself has no built in reason for withholding an individual from doing so. The fact that most don't brings up a whole new discussion of natural law and or evolutionary benefits of positive social behavior but we can leave that for another time and place. But in terms of the argument that society would be better off if everyone were atheists and religion disappeared, I think the fact that religion in it's very essence does play a role in creating moral standards and positive social behavior, when practiced properly, give it a stronger case for making a more ideal society than a society created on a philosophy that fundamentally does not prescribe a behavioral code.

So the question at hand about an explanation for the current 'vogue'--and I agree that it can be argued whether that is actually the case. But if it the case I would suggest a couple explanations given my reasoning. I think anything that causes mankind to not think of those ultimate questions can be seen as a root explanation. Therefore I identified the removal of the constant interaction with death due to rising health status over the last century. I also think the trend of urbanization over the last century which disengages man from nature and from being able to look up at the starry heavens and ponder the vastness of space, can lead man to be so caught up in his own life and creations and dominion over the earth that those questions can be perpetually put off. I also think the trend of industrialization and capitalism has lead to an emphasis on productivity as a high ideal and therefore the lives of mankind have been continuously filled and occupied that they can go about their lives as good productive members of society and rarely be faced with those questions. I also think there is a feeling of burnout after centuries of atrocities done in the name of religion. And that feeling has increased in recent history, which could be the most accurate explanation for any recent trend in atheism, by increased media coverage of issues such as priests abusing children or even the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and religious war. Again, I think the whole issue can be called into question, but I think from a sociological perspective these can be a number of explanations.

Again I don't mean to be offensive. I think there are many wonderful atheists and in many ways are better members of society in terms of building happiness and fulfillment than a lot of the religious zealots we come across. But as a philosophy I wanted to bring up points that I think deserve consideration. I have pointed out where I have made some basic assumptions and people can disagree with those assumptions. But let's not get to the point where we have hatred or ill-spirit, Atheist to Believer or Believer to Atheist because it truly does go counter to both philosophies.

Hi everyone. Just stopped by to say hi to my old atheist friends. I saw another David on here. Please don't be confused with me (remember the orthopedist??) Where did vinny go? I know you all couldn't stand him. Anyway, I'll be over at the mormon thread bashing some mormons. It's one thing to not believe in God, and respect to you for that, but to take the Bible and pervert God's Word....I can't have that. So, just wanted to say hi and see if anyone has really figured out the orgin of life yet? Guess not. Ok. Good luck.

God bless

David,

Atheism is NOT a religion, even if "believers" repeat this unfounded statement like a prayer mill. ("Not collecting stamps", as A Hermit says, is not a hobby, we’ve had this so many times, let’s just cut out this argument!) And how on earth can you come to the baseless conclusion that life of an atheist is “meaningless” for him, fall into “nothingness”? I think you should try to expand your imagination and your faith-based selective perception. I think even you don’t bother a lot who and where you were in the “vast nothingness” BEFORE the two cells of your parents merged and evolved.

I completely disagree with the explanation of the “fad” of atheism as a result of avoiding any thoughts about the finality of our life. I think of it every day without fear, and it is the reason of the MEANING and of the VALUE I attribute to it! Can’t you understand that meaning is something you attribute to something? You pay money for the MEANING of what you purchase. The things you purchase in THEMSELVES do not have any meaning or value.

And atheism is not a “vogue” or "fad": I am happy about the growing number of modern, accountable, reason-based, meaning-inspired humans! (Meacham’s question is unconscionable!)

"The atheist is responsible to no one, not God, not their fellow man, not their government. The selfish atheist is entitled to pursue a path of complete maximization of pleasure to oneself" says David.

Well, that's news to this atheist. I left faith behind and became an atheist in part because I felt that the artificial constructs of religion put too many barriers between people, and I felt I could be a better person by making myself responsible to my fellow man instead of to some imaginary being. I'm responsible to all kinds of people; to my family, my friends, my neighbours even to people I've never met in countries I'll likely never visit, to the environment I live in and, yes, to myself.

Even being responsible to one's self does not imply a life of unrestrained hedonism. As Shakespeare put it "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou cans't not be false to any man"

Atheism is just the absence of a belief in the existence of god(s). To infer any more about someone's character from that is simply unwarranted.

As for atheism being a religion, as has been said here before, atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Regards

A Hermit

David,

I am a non-believer (in anything supernatural).

Atheist is a word pasted on non-believers (like a target) by believers.

It is not correct to say that we believe in atheism.

(forgot to run spell checker)

David,

I am a non-beliver (in anything supernatural).

Atheist is a word pasted on non-believers (like a target) by believers.

It is not correct to say that we believe in atheism.

I believe religions fundamentally came about and exist to answer one question-
"Is this all there is?"
They are all attempts to answer the reality of death. So is Atheism a religion? Surely. Their answer to the question is, yes. We, even things we call the spirit or personality, are ultimately a result of explainable chemical reactions. And so death is regrettably an ultimate cessation of existence for any one individual. There are grander cycle-of-life explanations, maximizing of the good for all, and such, that keeps some from falling into depression based on the meaninglessness of life. Likewise it keeps some from a full expression of complete personal pleasure maximization at the expense of others which could be a natural result of such beliefs.

So why the recent trend? It is probably not as simple as one explanation but I propose one theory. I believe it is mainly a phenomenom in the West and is a result of our lifestyles being primarily separated from the reality of death. Our life spans have increased dramatically over the last hundred years, childhood deaths are rare, death occurs quietly and separated from society in sanitized hospitals and nursing homes as opposed to in the arms of a loved one in a home. With the reality of death not constantly before us we are not faced with that question "is this all there is?" so frequently. The absence of the question gives us a false sense of security that we have control of the problem. In the meantime we can be occupied with a vast array of fascinating subjects and studies of the world around us that we do not have to think about the question and that vast nothingness that faces us at the end of our existence on the earth.

Is it a good or bad trend? It is hard to say. The religious world would obviously say bad. The atheists themselves see it as good, a heightened society of reason. Seen from the point of view of society it could be good or bad. The atheist is responsible to no one, not God, not their fellow man, not their government. The selfish atheist is entitled to pursue a path of complete maximization of pleasure to oneself. There are those atheists that still believe in the rule of law and ethics for the maximization of benefit for the society as a whole, and such a society could exist peaceably.

That such believers in atheism must function side by side with believers of a host of religions I would propose that all parties must be willing to respect the choices of others in the matter and learn to work together.

Greg, thanks for your answer.

The bible does not describe Jewish history, but it describes what people thought was Jewish and Jesus' history. The Old Testament is not a description (genesis, Josua stopping the sun, Noah, take any of its (necessarily) uninformed attempts of explaining the world, resulting in childish fairy tales). The New testament is not a description either but a description of many descriptions of descriptions. It therefore does not even have a historical value. It may have a limited social value, granted (your main point, "love thy neighbor" etc.), but unless you distort, "interpret" large uncomfortable parts of the bible, calling it "metaphorical" (the terrible genocide orders of god etc. etc., Jesus' exorcism of the demon who fled into the pig herd, the "miracles"), it is a gruesome collection of incredible superstitious demands of violence in the old testament and a religion of fear of hell.

And the proxy death of Jesus corresponds to archaic offering patterns prevailing in other cults at the time of Jesus. Why, then, should anybody believe "in" these baseless promises, threats, myths? The "sin" concept corresponds to the "redemption" concept - both are completely meaningless in the face of modern human responsible scientific thinking, but they have been and still are a formidable fear-based instruments of power, enslavement and brain washing of the masses.

Instead of craving a "redemption", we should take care of this planet and maintain it inhabitable for our children. Faith-based superstitions, e.g. in the shape of "Rapture" or "Armaggedon" to me are the most irresponsible idiocies ever generated. You have a president along this line, and even Reagan believed this. I believe neither "in" nor "that". I grant to you that Christianity has shaped our culture to a large degree, for better or worse, and my own profession would probably not exist without its history.

But I do think the world would be much better off without these mental hindrances, obstacles to development of reason. Instead we should keep our honest, innate wonderful human curiosity, mobilize our fantasy as to possible systems of social coherence, of reason, of proof, of awe and wonder, of love, of compassion, of genuine, non-religious introspection into our human nature, and throw the religious threats and promises out of the window once for all.

It is hardly atheism alone that is getting that vogue, but the whole array of spiritual question marks. Ideas such as deism, pantheism, pandeism, abstract breeds of panentheism, agnosticism, ignosticism (those who say we are too ignorant to know if there is a God), apatheism (those who say it makes no difference whether there is a God).

I think all of these are stoked by the fact that we are entering a generation of people who feel comfortable debating the possibility that there is no God, or that God is radically different from what we have been used to thinking about in modeling God.

A contributing factor is the rising ability of science to explain phenomena of the world, and at the same time to open grand new mysteries and connections. A hundred years ago, there was no Big Bang to factor into God's plan, no Theory of Relativity, no spectre of Jurassic Park tugging at our conscience. Now all of these things are firmly embedded in our conscience, and the old explanations just don't hold up to them.

Fred,

Thanks for your responses, this is very invigorating. These are things I have thought a lot about the last couple years.

You say you cannot possibly be a Christian and cite that a belief "in" the Bible is your obstacle. That is an interesting comment, and I really think the issue is with "in". Too many Christians profess beliefs "in" things like Bible, resurrection, virgin birth etc etc as if believing "in" something is paramount. That is Christianity of the head and really misses the whole point I think. Christianity should be about a change of heart which involves believing "that" we can change the way the world works. Even more when you study Christs life, there are great examples of HOW.

Regarding the Bible, I imagine you would say that you believe "that" the Bible is a story of Jewish history and describes a portion of Christs life. Even further, I imagine you would have no trouble saying "that" the Bible has some accurate stories about the Jewish peoples spiritual journey. If you can admit those things, then you must admit that those stories can be educational, they can give us information regarding our ancestors culture (and to a large extent our culture). The fact that people have killed each other because of abusing the meaning of these stories should not be an indictment of these stories. These stories are just information. Selfish,power seeking and sick humans have misused them. It is not necessary, I'm sure, to give examples of people misusing non religious text information for evil purposes (Social Darwinism??)

I honestly cannot say that the object of my awe is any different than yours. I look at that object from a different angle maybe and see another aspect but its the same object. Its like you appreciating Mozart because you are a musician and you love the composition or any other technical aspect while I just love the way it sounds and affects me. We appreciate different things about the same thing.

May I suggest that you look at some things that Rob Bell, Greg Boyd or Marcus Borg have to say about Christianity. I think you can only sharpen your teeth by listening to the "other" side. I must say that reading all Daniel Dennets books, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (and visits to his website) and Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation have been very enlightening to me. I really think they are doing important work to change the religious landscape of this world. While I think, on a certain level, they hope to eliminate religion , I really think they will end up getting rid of what is bad about religion and enhancing that which is good.

peace

Greg,

I would describe myself as a "spiritual atheist", with a huge amount of awe and wonder towards nature, the universe, my own evolution, myself, my fellow humans. The "feeling" might be similar to the "feeling" of a believer, but the object certainly is different. I cannot possibly be a Christian, believing in something as the bible, which at best is a collection of more or less useful metaphors written by men in order to make people live somewhat reasonably with eachother, originally in a tribal sense. (Let's skip the kindergarten version of believers).

Unfortunately, the metaphoric character is lost, and people have killed and kill eachother about details of those metaphors, details which in reality don't mean anything. As you said so clearly, religions are the CAUSE of atheism (in the more vulgar sense of the word).

The human brain has not developed to find truth, but to stay above water, to survive. Therefore, anything resembling some experience in practical life, up to the old man with a beard, seems more plausible for most people who are not used to think in more abstract terms, asking for example "why do people believe".

Here I agree with you that spiritual "atheists" and "theists", philosophically, are not as far from eachother as it may seem: It depends on the description of the object of their belief. And if you put the token "god" into the gap where we don't know, the difference between religionists and non-believers shrinks to the fact that non-believers leave space for development while religionists don't, which for me is counterintuitive for the ideal of human dignity.

Scott, reading the link about the "Face-off" (which as a European I can't receive) I doubt there will be anything halfway intelligent coming from the pious side, which builds its belief on the "fear of hell". What a moral. Ridiculous.

This should be interesting....

THE NIGHTLINE FACE OFF
Christians and Atheists to Debate the Existence of God

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3130360

Fred wrote:

To me it is much more "miraculous", much more exhilarating to realize that I, as a human, am the - so far - end product of an immeasurably huge chain of evolutionary stages and hidden events over billions of years than the kindergarten idea that some undefined guy took some clay, molded my forefather and breathed a soul into him a couple of thousand years ago.

Fred,

Obviously , you must realize that not everyone sees "God" in the manner in which you describe. I agree with your assessment that this is a "kindergarten" understanding of God, however there are a great many theists who see God differently. Evolution is an amazing process and it should be regarded as miraculous but one need not reject a spiritual nature to reality (God if you will) to embrace scientific findings. The important thing that many people who call themselves theists do not realize is that affirming the existence or non existence of God is not the question, the real question is what does the God you "see" look like??

Most of the people who call themselves atheists are not even looking for a "God" so how could they possibly see. The thing that needs to be emphasized, IMO, is that by not looking or not seeing God these "atheists" are in no lesser or greater position (morally speaking) they are simply in a different position. A different perspective on the same reality.

Many people have vacillated between different degrees of atheism and theism and it is very interesting to hear the reasons people leave one way of thinking or the other. My personal conclusion is that religion is THE CAUSE of atheism. Most religions try to tell people what God looks like instead of genuinely helping them to "discover" for them selves. Most people reject a religion and throw God out with it. I have ordered a book that talks about one guys (Greg Boyd)rejection of atheism (after many years) and am interested to read his story. He is now a preacher and author and has a very active ministry. I've heard a few of his sermons and he is a VERY fresh voice.

For the record, as of now, I regard myself as an Atheistic Christian. Atheistic because the Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon or any other religious text does not fiy my perception of the spiritual reality that I seek and see (at times I see it), but Christian because I find Jesus' teaching of a "Third Way", that tries to turn our centuries old ways of human interaction and conflict resolution (which is what most of our human interaction is) on its ear, a very compelling social model. Part of what I find so compelling about Jesus' teachings (as I understand them) is the counterintuitive nature of them. There is a "rightness" IMO about counterintuitiveness; quantum theory and evolution are both counterintuitive ( how can something be a wave and a particle or how can complexity just happen from simplicity) but certainly have been shown in principle to be valid models.

peace

To me it is much more "miraculous", much more exhilarating to realize that I, as a human, am the - so far - end product of an immeasurably huge chain of evolutionary stages and hidden events over billions of years than the kindergarten idea that some undefined guy took some clay, molded my forefather and breathed a soul into him a couple of thousand years ago.

Plus, everybody, even the craziest creationist, will admit that he exists through an evolution - evolving from two cells through an impressive sequence of metamorphoses. So where is the problem? We don't need the auxiliary concept of a god, any god. It DEMEANS my evaluation of the greatness of life instead of enhancing it.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

If one studies enough religions atheism is the logical deduction... atheism is the thinking person's 'religion'.

The basic precepts of religious dogmas are essentially sound but once you put people in those positions of authority religion becomes corrupt with more tragic consequences than other powerful organizations.

People have 'faith' for one of the same basic reasons they believe atheists have no moral compass... they are fearful... fearful their religion, consequently their lives, may have no meaning if they are wrong.

Here's why I'm not a beliver:

On the surface, the question of God is an enormous one.

“Does God exist?”

But in reality the answer is quite simple: No.

It’s a matter of probability. There is no scientific evidence – not one iota – that there exists in the universe an omnipotent, omniscient being that can read the thoughts and direct the actions of every living being.

Pascal’s Wager
One is tempted to fall back on Blaise Pascal’s wager in this situation. The mathematician said that the chances for God’s existence were slim, but the penalty for guessing wrong was significant. If you believe in God and are right, you are rewarded with everlasting bliss. Contrast that with not believing in God and being right. The reward is a dirt nap. Wrong, however, and one faces eternal damnation.

So, according to Pascal, it’s better to believe. But Pascal may have been being facetious because can you really fake belief in God?

“Pascal’s wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God,” Biologist Richard Dawkins writes in his book “The God Delusion.” “And the God you claim to believe in better not be the omniscient kind or he’d see through the deception.”

Coming to the realization that I’m an atheist was not an easy path. I’ve struggled with the idea of God and religion since I was a boy. I was raised Catholic – with all the trappings, ceremonies, and solemn mysteries of faith (as well as the not so subtle threats not to wander off the reservation or face dire consequences).

I’ve flirted with church attendance throughout my adult life – going to Catholic masses and even a period where I went to a Congregationalist church. But the bouts of faith never took. Organized religion always falls back on tired religious platitudes, the contradictions and downright silliness of the Bible (not to mention the outright cruelty), and the bizarre absolutism of church canon (is it really wrong to never to have an abortion?).

In the end, I fell back on wondering why the most powerful being in the universe would care if I ate a hamburger on Fridays during Lent.

Science vs. Faith
It also comes down to science. At one time, Christians insisted that God placed the Earth at the center of the universe and that the sun, the planets, and everything else revolved around it. Christians persecuted scientists who dared to suggest otherwise – calling it an attack on religion and God. We now know that the Earth is but a tiny satellite in the far corner of the universe – revolving around the sun. Christians had to reluctantly adjust. And despite, mounds of scientific evidence that man (and all life on earth) evolved through natural selection – fundamental Christians continue to fight the obvious.

Christians (and I don’t mean to pick on Christianity, but it’s the religion I’m most familiar with) continue to explain any gap in science with one answer: God. Until, that is, science finally fills the gap with a more logical explanation. Then they scurry back to another gap. Unfortunately for religion – the gaps are getting fewer and harder to find.

As human knowledge progresses (chemists are now trying to create life in the laboratory – and eventually they probably will) it begins to be clear that belief in an omnipotent, omniscient being who controls the universe like some enormous puppet master is rather archaic. Religion appears to be a leftover remnant of our primitive past when lightning and thunder were God’s wrath rather than a naturally occurring weather pattern.

Long Odds
Fundamental Christians argue for a “designer” theory; that the universe is too complicated to have randomly occurred. But everything is random. Take a look around you. What were the improbable odds that the coffee cup on your desk would have ended up there? A thousand years ago your own birth was an improbable equation. Think of all the events that had to line up to make it happen and how the odds improved each time the event before it occurred. Then, finally, your parents are born and all that had to happen was the long-shot of them meeting, falling in love, and reproducing (and the one sperm among the millions that was you had to win the race).

The fact that any of us are living – is an astronomical ridiculous mathematical improbability. But those long odds are true about everything in existence.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection will also remind us that moles, lily pads, elephants, and redwood trees didn’t just “occur.” It was a long, slow process of evolution where the hardiest, most beneficial traits survived. Moles and redwood trees didn’t just “occur” they were slowly and painstakingly created over millions of years.

Celebration of Death
There’s also another factor. Call it the gut check. If the average religious person (and 73 percent of Americans believe in God, according to Harris Poll taken in October, 2006) truly believed in God and an afterlife, wouldn’t that belief manifest itself in the way we view death? Americans view death as sorrowful and the prospect of it scares most people.

But why is this? If heaven exists – wouldn’t death be cause for celebration? Wouldn’t we look forward to our deaths? Wouldn’t we envy those who died before us because they are with God and in heaven with all of our ancestors? The answer, of course, is that most people – deep down – understand the contradictions and improbability of the existence of God – especially one who reads our thoughts and intervenes in our actions sporadically and without design.

The idea of no God, however, frightens most people. But it shouldn’t. Life is just as precious without a supreme being. You are still you. The people in your life still exist and our societies will continue to function and run and thrive. The control, however, belongs to us.

I would argue that meaning is something you ACTIVELY bestow on something or someone or some entity. It is your active contribution. Belief is never an original active contribution, in the religious sense: It always has been TOLD you by someone for whatever agenda this someone might pursue, even unwittingly. Nobody in the possession of his full senses would invent stories we find as historical oddities in the bible or the Quran or other religious "scriptures".

I, as a proud non-believer, have such a huge amount of meaning in my life, that believing in something which might contradict my honest perception, my honest thinking, would SUBTRACT from this meaning, not add anything. I would be ashamed of simultaneously pursuing two contradictory paths in my thinking by believing things which in my real life I would be forced to regard as nonsense. Btw, it has taken some time for me to arrive at his position.

People have such difficulty to accept that their lives are "knots" in the immense network of life, of ideas, of intelligence, of evolution, of the cosmos, of the miracle of the existing world, and that they have to return to the state they were in BEFORE being conceived and born, before developing and evolving from two cells into an individual personality. They are so proud of their "eternal" egos that its passing away, to give room to other parts of the universe, other "knots", is unbearable to them. That is the root of the stupid threat of hell and its eternal torture, as well as the equally stupid reward system (72 virgins!), only to cater to the hope of eternally perpetuating what this life span encompasses for some time. The whole "sin and salvation" system, therefore, is meaningless.

The very notion of being able to say "I" is a product of our incredibly complex brain: Patients with brain injuries may lose the ability of feeling and saying "I".

The fact that we will all die, as well as the fact that there was a world before our conception and birth, does not take away a grain of meaning which I feel towards my own existence.

Thus, the concept of "god" to me is nothing but a metaphor for this impossibility to explain the fact of my existence. A metaphor is an idea originated by ME.

When reading Vinny's and other "believers'" hostile aggressive nonsense, when I read and hear them talking about their (very "human") unctuous fantasies, it always strikes me that NOBODY ever dares to even start defining their "god". They talk of god as a reality, as a person (projecting their limited fantasy on an entity resembling themselves), but are unable to attribute the faintest real property or feature or quality to this entity, except maybe that god is "everything". But here we encounter a semantic problem: A concept which defines everything really defines nothing. Words must contain definitions and fix boundaries to other words. "God", therefore, is not a definition of anything, only a negative, a void into which we might place our immanent ignorance.

Scott,

First let’s agree on terms. (quotes are from Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/)
I have selected the definitions that apply to our discussion:

Belief
“1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing”

Fact
“4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality”

Faith
“2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust”

Rationalism
“2b: a view that reason and experience rather than the nonrational are the fundamental criteria in the solution of problems”

Our conceptual structure is built in layers starting with naming experiences, such as apple, and then adds relationships between these things, I eat apples, apples are good, apples are found on apple trees. Some of these are facts and others are beliefs. “Apples are good” is a belief (no physical reality) and I eat apples is a fact. Everyone can watch me eat an apple. God is a belief because it has no physical reality. As humans we naturally perceive things and relationships.

The difference between “believers” and “non-believers” is not the existence or lack of beliefs, but how we come to them. “Believers” come to their beliefs through faith and “non-believers” come to their beliefs by reasoning. Most people are a mix of both. The specific beliefs that are at issue are that

god exists
we have a soul
god authored the bible, quran, … and that it is correct
god directly intervenes (answers prayers, gives rewards & punishment…)
there is an afterlife
god has our interests at heart (i.e. not raising us as we do cattle)

Believers believe them and nonbelievers do not. All of these things are not facts, as actual existence cannot be proven.

The believers have heartburn with ONLY the Facts and Beliefs (hypothesis, theories, deductions) that contradict the statements made in the holy books. They will do anything to discredit them. (--> anything <--)

We non-believers should argue back by highlighting the difference between a belief based on faith and one based one based on reason. We could set up demonstrations (a game show?) whereby a believer and a scientist work to solve a practical problem, say, “is this food poisonous?” and each uses their skills, faith, prayer, scientific method, logical deductions, and see who-is-correct more often.

Mack,

Intelligent design IS religion. Make no mistake about it. The problem with ID is that it has ZERO value. What do you do with it? It offers no chance to expand and enhance our body of knowledge. ID is just gonna sit back and be a "science heckler".

"No way, that can be true" ...... "Prove it" ...... "Yeah sure!!"

It will NEVER add anything to what we know. All it does is claim what we do not know. ID is pure rhetoric and NO SUBSTANCE

peace

Wow Scott,

What a great post!

I would only suggest that the currency of theists is "meaning" and not belief. Everyone has belief but what does the belief "mean". That is where the different beliefs diverge.

Using that as a context, maybe a proper view of some people is that they are autistic with respect to meaning. Studies on autistic people (there is a wide spectrum within autism) show that at a very basic level there is a "concreteness" to their consciousness. They cannot pick up on subtle non verbal cues and sarcasm has no meaning to them. Of course the other end of the spectrum from these autistics are the people who 'over subscribe" meaning to things and make up meaning where there is none, acting in an almost paranoid manner.

Maybe the people that view them selves as atheist are "autistic" in regards to seeking meaning. On the other hand, Vinny and David require meaning to such a high degree, they will even find a "dictionary" that has all the meanings in it.

So, I guess the next challenge would be to find ways to express what life means to you in a way which rings true with other humans. If you and I find common meaning we will work together.

I think there is common meaning for the vast majority of people however the "fringe" players can certainly negatively impact things for the rest of us.

peace

I liked vinny's arguments. He came off a little strong, but I thought many of his points were very good.

I don't think he was advocating religion as much as he was Intelligent Design.

Nice thread.

Acrapist wrote: "He has that la-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-la-la-la-la thing going. I call it ignorance. He ignores what does not fit into his belief system. To varying levels I think this is common of all believers. This is part of the mental structure that willingly calls the sun the moon. I think it is an integral part of the self delusion that allows imaginary things to be real and to then cause any number of events in peoples lives. "

I see the issue as twofold.

01. It appears that many theists have literally woven God into the very thread of their reality. They have become inseparable. Any time you claim that God does not exist, they see it as a claim that reality does not exist.

In other words, if I believe that God is responsible for morality in the world, and this belief is based on the Bible's claim that God created man, and I believe the Bible has authority because it claims it is the word of God, then anything that threatens the Bible's accuracy is a threat to our societies' morals.

However, when thesis claim that the Bible is true because it is the word of God, It's really a two edged sword. The very claim they use to prove the Bible's authority exposes the very foundation of their existence to annihilation. Death of one's reality is not something one takes lightly, so for theists to simply ignore things that contradict their beliefs is a very natural reaction. It could even be thought of as a natural survival mechanism that's part of the human condition.

However, you and I have mental models that view the concept of God and reality as separate. How did this come about? What events or experiences causes us to have such radically different views about the very same universe than those as Vinny?

Since I consider the BIble to simply be a compilation of stories and metaphors created by men thousands of years ago, I'm free to examine the Bible in an objective way. Any errors I might find in the Bible would would not invalidate it's entire contents and my concept of reality. Fundamentalists have no such luxury - It's either all or nothing. The Bible must be true or the entire concept unravels.

02. How do we, as rationalists, present this separate model in such a way that it does not come off as another belief system, yet speaks to theists?

Clearly, theists look at the world as a series of belief systems. If you do not believe in God, then you must believe in something else. In fact, some people have proposed that religion is a language that theists use to talk about their experiences and situations.

If you and I do not speak someone's language, it makes it difficult for us to understand each other. If belief is the currency of theists, and you and I do not believe in anything, then we are bankrupt in their eyes. They ignore us because, in their mind, we're not saying anything they can relate to.

There have been similar to studies made about communication preferences in specific geographic areas. Some cultures strongly prefer oral communication over written language. In fact, While I find the exact figure, approximately 75% percent of the world's population will choose oral communication over written language when they have a choice. Drama, exaggeration and entertainment are key to this type of communication. As such, information that is not presented in a story like fashion is much less likely to be absorbed by these cultures.

How can one present rationalism in either a religious or story like context when their very core of seems contradictory to each other?

Acrapist commented in regards to Vinnys inability to introspect

To be honest, I must assert that we all have some of that going on. I think that it is part of being human. Not a desirable part, but one that we are stuck with nonetheless.

Acrapist,

I couldn't agree more. I think it is called subjectivism. How many people want to knowingly do or think wrong things?? None, so by definition what we do or think is what WE think is right. Some go through more convolutions of rationalizations (or ir-rationalizations) but in the end we arrive where we think is right.

What do we do with that "rightness" is really the crucial question.
Do we fear the potential "wrongness" of our "rightness" so much that we go to extreme measures to inflict our rightness on others or do we accept our "rightness" as "rightness for now" and truly view it as a journey which could take us almost anywhere. Even to places we can't imagine and may not like.

Do you operate from a position of hope or fear( I am not referring to the "keep your fingers crossed" type of hope)? The Vinnys of the world operate from a position of fear but try to convince others of the "hopefulness" of their fears. "This world is evil but if you have my faith you will be saved. Faith like mine is your hope"

Truly hopeful people see through that message and know it is false.

There is plenty to fear in this world (most of it man made) but life itself is not to be feared.

Religion has made its mark scaring the hell out of people but I am hopeful (this time with my fingers slightly crossed) that religion will not eventually get to carry out its threats.

peace

Instead of talking to V, lets talk about him.

What if most Christians were at the same level of maturity as V? How would we, as people of reason, deal with such childishness? I think that all believers share something that V so proudly displays.

He has that la-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-la-la-la-la thing going. I call it ignorance. He ignores what does not fit into his belief system. To varying levels I think this is common of all believers. This is part of the mental structure that willingly calls the sun the moon. I think it is an integral part of the self delusion that allows imaginary things to be real and to then cause any number of events in peoples lives.

To be honest, I must assert that we all have some of that going on. I think that it is part of being human. Not a desirable part, but one that we are stuck with nonetheless. The way to disempower these things is the same as for superstitions. Acknowledge it for what it is. Bring it out into the light and ask others to help stamp it out like a cockroach.

In this thread we all call each other on it if we detect B.S. With V, we have someone who is unwilling to look at himself. I hear that one of the worst punishments is ostracism. Many of you have suggested this but do not know how. The way to do it is to talk about him and not to him.

Maybe someone can suggest a different approach? There may be something I am ignoring. Right now it is V's posts.

Vinnys last post was by FAR his best. If he would have had that tone all along maybe people would have enjoyed his input.

peace

End of the Road.

Anyway, I came here with some attitude, and a little humor for one simple reason; TO GET YOUR ATTENTION.

If nothing else I am sure many of you just looked at these things more carefully then. Looked DEEPER inside to examine what you really do believe. By doing that, some along the way may see the folly in believing that there is no chance of any kind of intelligence behind such purposeful and at times just amazing things. For others, then perhaps you are more convinced in what you formally believe.

Good enough then. I am actually a very nice guy. I have no issues with atheists accept for disagreeing with them. I respect that all people have the right to believe what they wish to believe, as long as they do not burt other people. But in the debating world, like here, it can seem like we are enemies. I do not feel that way deep down. The phony Vinny did cause some problems, but so did I.

We are all human beings, with feelings and thoughts that have value. I do know this.

This is why I asked for answers as well.

Nothing posted has persuaded me to believe anything differently than what I do believe now, which is that some intelligence is needed for life and for the other features to be here today.

But we are all different. I will always be open. I hope you are too.

I need to get back to my own business now. The trip through
this thread was a fun ride.

I wish you all the best.

A hui hou from the Hawaiian Islands!

My best to you all,

Vinny

Atheists have had a rough time on this thread in my view.

Like I have said many times, the more complex the feature, the more you need intelligence behind the cause.

A little baby can throw paint on a canvass. But look at a master's painting, and then you know without a doubt there was something special behind that work of art. Look at the more amazing earth with an array of wonderful things. Sunsets that make your jaw drop. Food that is wonderful to smell and taste. Beautiful turquoise waters and a white sandy beach with coconut trees are an exquisite sight for me. Mountains and valley and waterfalls and beautiful forests and flowers on and on... they reflect the hand of an amazing Supreme Artist. At least for me they do as well as 95 percent of the human population.

All the universe is in amazing order. The human body is simply incredible. Cut youself and it can heal itself. Just get the food and enjoy eating it, the body does the rest for you by breaking it down and using it for living. Want kids? You know what to do. But then amazing things happen to make that little one into a human being. We love other people. We have a conscience. We all have some built in desire to search for and worship something. We speculate and contemplate many things many times.

There are just too many things to ever believe that these just happened by some series of chances and lot's of luck making everything we see today. Just NO WAY that can happen.

Sorry but atheists really have not done very good at all here.

Is why Albert Einstein was not an atheist as well. Is why he said "God does not play dice with the universe".

True indeed.

Vinny has an agenda. Clearly, it's not having a rational discussion on the issues.

Again, please do not feed the Troll.

Look folks, Joey's a poet.

How bout that!

Can you frame those for me Joey?

You da man!

Proud Vinny keeps on a'trollin'
Huffin' and puffin' and crowin'

He says the same thing
Agane and agane

"'Tis Vinny, let's keep a'snorin'"

The vinny IMPOSTER rides again:

Well Greg,

"You sound like an atheist who can't admit he's an atheist.

It is sooo sad that you atheists cannot see the folly of your ways.
Science will NEVER give you the answers for the HOWS or WHYS.
They will just come up with theories or reasonable guesses, nothing provable.

I thank you for at least not continuing to be a coward and run from my questions but your answers are as pathetic as I would expect from a little atheist.

Well

Bwahahhahahhahahaha

******* This is the phony, loser Vinny. The original Vinny (me) will reply to your post soon Greg. Disregard the imitation guy.

He needs some help.

There once was a man named Vinny
Who insulted this thread aplenty

He thinks he is wise
But to his surprise

His words mean nuttin' to many

Vinny,

Shame on me for thinking I could actually have a reasonable discussion with you. You are a toxic personality.

peace

Well Greg,

You sound like an atheist who can't admit he's an atheist.

It is sooo sad that you atheists cannot see the folly of your ways.
Science will NEVER give you the answers for the HOWS or WHYS.
They will just come up with theories or reasonable guesses, nothing provable.

I thank you for at least not continuing to be a coward and run from my questions but your answers are as pathetic as I would expect from a little atheist.

Well

Bwahahhahahhahahaha

Actually Vinny, I am not an atheist but I absolutely trust science to answer the 'HOW' questions for me. I'll answer the 'WHY' questions for myself. I don't need a 3000 yr old book to tell me the whys.

You ask the "Little atheists" here to answer a question that NO ONE can answer. But I would rather trust the scientific method to discover "some" truths(nothing will discover all truths). You on the other hand would rather claim things to be impossible (as if you KNOW all the possibilities) that you do not understand.

Face it Vinny, we were not a unique creation. We evolved from a common ancestor with apes. Adam and Eve never existed and nothing intelligent designed us (I work in medicine and we are a cosmic Rube Goldberg machine)

No one can explain yet how the first replicators came to exist but they will one day. Once it is shown how RNA and DNA came to be the "life cannot come from nothin crowd" will get verrrry silent.

You obviously have a higher than average IQ. Start using it to actually answer questions meaningfully. Deferring everything to an intelligent designer has NO value. We can do nothing with that information. That way of thinking stops investigation, which ultimately is what most religious zealots want in the first place.

peace

Vinny,

You completely misrepresent atheists and agnostics. Atheists do not claim "nothing started this" they simply claim, a personal being (who had humans in mind as an end point when this whole universe thing got going) that was incarnated in the form of Jesus Christ and is described in detail in the Bible, did not get this started.

Agnostics simply say I do not know if there is a God or not. Actually, technically an agnostic is one who doubts the "God ness" of Jesus Christ. They do not say "there must be a God"

You are putting out Vinny definitions that do not exist and then attacking them. You are poking holes in "your" oppositions. not anyone elses.

I'll be back later Greg. But I look forward to your answers when I get back.

No more politics though. Okay?

No more running or hiding.

Just answer the questions.

Bye for now,

vinny

Folks, this is what we call a SMOKESCREEN.

DID YOU NOTICE GREG NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS?

Why not Greg? Too hard for you to answer?

So Are you atheist Greg?

If so, how did life and all features GET HERE from nothing at all? Science cannot even put life back where life once was, much less make even the simplest life from dead matter, much less get the human brain from dead soup, polymers etc.

Yet atheists say everything came from nothing, from luck and fat chances.

And if you are not atheist, then WHY NOT, Greg?

Poor Greg, he is hiding from the questions. And smokescreens. Like politicians.

Bwaaahahyahahahahahaha

Now Greg, no more running.

No more hiding.

Answer the questions.

Guys,

Vinny has been such an inspiration, I think I'm gonna start using Vinny logic to solve other problems.

Cancer:
There is no way those scientists can ever KNOW for certain how a cancer starts in the cells of a person. SO instead of wasting valuable dollars on unproven reaearch we just have to tell cancer patients that they were designed to have cancer. Obviously it is part of THE PLAN.

Mental illness:

Finding the root causes of depression or schizophrenia is something that will never be proven. Tell them all they were designed that way for a reason and get off those mind altering substances.

Child abuse:

No one can ever PROVE what makes a parent want to beat or sexually assault their own offspring so we need to just stop pretending to be able to know and simply tell the kids "Its all part of the plan". Your life was designed this way we just cannot know why YET. We're working on the why.

Gosh this is soooo easy. Vinny has shown me the "HOW" (Its just designed that way) and if I believe hard enough I will find out the WHY on my judgement day.

Thanks Vinny you have just simplified all our lives.

Sorry Greg, but vinny is nothing. It's simply a matter of being on the WRONG SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT that gets atheists buried.

All I do show why and provide the shovels. Atheists bury THEMSELVES.

You see atheists have no argument the minute they say no God, no way at all.

Agnostics say, must be some God, I just don't know WHO or WHAT.

That makes enough sense to me then.

But you see atheists say we got here some way, all from nothing at all, and i can't tell you how, nor can science show you how, but it does not matter, cause there was NO CHANCE it was by some kind of God at all. Just lot's of fat chances and luck.

This is where atheists get stuck in mud.

Are you atheist Greg?

If yes, then how did all things arrive from nothing? Please tell us how.

And if not atheist, then WHY NOT?

Vinny,

I think you ought to take your show on the road. You need to publish your arguments. I'm not sure why you waste your time with us, you really have it all figured out. I mean you have PROVEN the existence of an intelligent designer ( and I'll bet you could even name him/her if you wanted to.... stop holding out!!)

This is so important you owe it to mankind to get this info out. Your argument is bulletproof so I can not see how anyone could disagree with it.

YOU WIN VINNY!!!

VINNY IS THE GREATEST!!!

VINNY IS THE SMARTEST!!!

Poor Hermit says:... "http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/virtualfc/Stats/introst.html

"None of this will come close to answering your questions"

******** Bwaaahahahahahahahahah

No answers as to just how life arose from NOTHING, by Hermit.

And then he uses "potholes and mudpuddles" to prove he is missing a few screws as well.

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH

Hermit, you male atheists looks worse than they actually are (which is stuck in mud with their beliefs). I hope you continue to post Hermit.

You help my side.

: )

Hey everybody, I just saw the most amazing thing! It was a pothole and in the pothole was a puddle and the puddle FIT INTO THE POTHOLE PERFECTLY!!!

God must have made that pothole just for that puddle...

A Hermit

Vinny: "And if inside our very own organized and orderly galaxy, in what is known as our own orderly SOLAR SYSTEM, we have at just the right distance from our perfectly sized SUN, a perfectly located and sized planet EARTH, that also rotates at the perfect speed of 24 hours (needed to sustain life) as well as orbits around the sun at the perfect speed of 66,600 mph to keep it in that precise orbiting pattern and not sucked into the gravitational pull of the sun itself. And if this perfectly located, spinning and orbiting EARTH also has perfectly, purposeful and finely balanced SYSTEMS upon it (NEEDED TO SUSTAIN LIFE) such as different atmospheric layers, with protective ozone layer, with just the correct amount of gases needed to sustain life. (.Oxygen, Nitrogen, CO2, argon, water vapor and other smaller trace gasses)."

Yeah, and isn't it AMAZING that fish are always surrounded by WATER that ALLOWS THEM TO LIVE? I mean, the chances that water would RANDOMLY appear just where the fish live is ASTRONOMICAL; so this clearly indicates an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER put the water around the fish!

(Hint: The reason the earth looks like it was built for us is that we are adapted to live on it as it is. If it were different, we'd be different, and it would *still* look like it was built for us. Also consider: if the universe is designed for life, why is the vast, VAST majority of it either very cold vacuum or very hot hydrogen?)

I think Vinny is trying to make some sort of probability based argument, without realizing that this is what he is doing.

Vinny, before you go out in public and make an ass of yourself with nonsensical tirades about spontaneously self generating sports cars you should try to have some basic understanding of what it is you are talking about. Take some time to look at this link for an elementary introduction to statistical analysis. It has cute pictures and small words in large type. Should be right about your level...>;-}

http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/virtualfc/Stats/introst.html

None of this will come close to answering your questions, but at least it might give you enough vocabulary to begin a conversation if you take the time to read it carefully. See you in a few months...

Regards

A Hermit

I think Vinny is trying to make some sort of probability based argument, without realizing that this is what he is doing.

Vinny, before you go out in public and make an ass of yourself with nonsensical tirades about spontaneously self generating sports cars you should try to have some basic understanding of what it is you are talking about. Take some time to look at this link for an elementary introduction to statistical analysis. It has cute pictures and small words in large type. Should be right about your level...>;-}

http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/virtualfc/Stats/introst.html

None of this will come close to answering your questions, but at least it might give you enough vocabulary to begin a conversation if you take the time to read it carefully. See you in a few months...

Regards

A Hermit

Freddy says:.."Vinny: Chevrolet) example has been debunked centuries ago"

*****Well step up to the plate and put your money where your mouth is. Enough stalling. Debunk it then.

It's "answer-time" for freddyboy the atheist.

Here is why freddy can't touch red vette, but only whine about it:

If through some cosmic "BIG BANG", ALL of the billions of stars in our own organized, orderly Milky Way Galaxy, as well as the BILLIONS of other organized and orderly Galaxies with their billions of stars came into existence. And if inside our very own organized and orderly galaxy, in what is known as our own orderly SOLAR SYSTEM, we have at just the right distance from our perfectly sized SUN, a perfectly located and sized planet EARTH, that also rotates at the perfect speed of 24 hours (needed to sustain life) as well as orbits around the sun at the perfect speed of 66,600 mph to keep it in that precise orbiting pattern and not sucked into the gravitational pull of the sun itself. And if this perfectly located, spinning and orbiting EARTH also has perfectly, purposeful and finely balanced SYSTEMS upon it (NEEDED TO SUSTAIN LIFE) such as different atmospheric layers, with protective ozone layer, with just the correct amount of gases needed to sustain life. (.Oxygen, Nitrogen, CO2, argon, water vapor and other smaller trace gasses).

And if this same, orbiting, spinning, perfectly located EARTH with perfect atmosphere for life, located perfectly inside the universe with many billions of organized galaxies ALSO has a variety of unique, perfectly balanced SYSTEMS AND FEATURES such as water cycles, weather systems, eco systems, food chain systems, microbial systems, photosynthesis, tides due to a perfectly located and spinning and sized moon at the precisely needed location and too many others to list here.

And if UPON this perfectly located, spinning EARTH, with it's many perfectly balanced features and systems (found in the middle of an organized orderly universe), there also happens to be a variety of LIVING THINGS on this earth, with ITS OWN amazingly complex varieties of different systems such as digestive, circulatory, reproductive, elimination, immune, neurological etc etc, that just happened to originate from NOTHING AT ALL, through some BIG BANG, into an organized gargantuan UNIVERSE, with a perfectly located, spinning, orbiting EARTH located within that universe, that just so happened to come WITH the many FEATURES needed to support life, along with all these many varieties OF LIFE FORMS that supposedly arose from lifeless matter, primordial soup, to polymers, into complex living things including human BRAINS and beyond.

Then FOLKS if all this happened, ***ALL ON ITS VERY OWN***, without any INTELLECTUAL SOURCE anywhere, then THAT RED CORVETTE showing up in the wilderness with gas, keys and everything in place is a PIECE OF CAKE. That Red Vette, all on it's own, is easy as counting 1,2,3 when compared to all THESE OTHER things arising from and existing because of a series of what can only be described as FAT-CHANCES, ALL ON THEIR VERY OWN.

NOW DEAL WITH IT ATHEISTS!

Poor freddy is buried deep in mud on this one.

Folks, anybody got shovels to find freddy?

Cause Freddy is BURIED.

Never has there been produced any "machine" by a bodyless entity. (Watchmakers and car makers have bodies). So God either has a body (what kind of a body to produce so much??) or doesn't exist. Snow flakes come into existence without a "producer". The evolve out of natural laws.
The analogy to the watchmaker example is therefore fallacious. (One of many other reasons).

The stupid overbearing attitude of Vinny, the new acquisition on this board, who tries to teach others on the basis of complete aggressive ignorance is just laughable and destroys any serious discussion. The watchmaker (Vinny: Chevrolet) example has been debunked centuries ago, of course Vinny never reads anything beyond his own horizon.

So enjoy yourselves with this dubitable entertainment.

Poor Joey says:.."And your "here's Vinny" -- "no, here's the real Vinny" is childish. What?"

**** There is somebody else that types comments, in my name, claiming to be me. All I do is identify his exact time of comments and letting you know it was not the original Vinny. There are two different Vinny's during the past few comments.

Believe me or not, I am just telling it how it is.

Comprende??

Dear Vinny,

You haven't said anything that I and others haven't said months ago. But you are adroitly adept at offending practically everyone. And your "here's Vinny" -- "no, here's the real Vinny" is childish. What? Is it supposed to be some second-rate John Barth, Giles Goat-Boy impersonation? I nominate you for the "most boorish behavior" award. You might come in 2nd. Not sure.

You might want to spend more time reading than yapping. You might want to spend more time reading than repeating yourself ad nauseum.

You don't "win" when people stop responding to you. People stop responding to you because you're insufferable.

As for suggested reading: I humbly submit Matthew
12:36. You might find some relevance there...

"But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken."

jeers! oops, I mean Cheers!

IF YOU ARE ATHEIST, THEN THIS BELOW IS YOUR BABY FOR LIFE, STOCK ON YOUR FOREHEADS.

A RED CORVETTE FOR ATHEISTS:

Let's imagine that you are completely alone in the middle of North Dakota somewhere, surrounded by nothing but mountainous wilderness, no people, no buildings, just you alone and the wilderness for hundreds of miles. And right there in the middle of it all you suddenly walk up to a brand new looking Red Chevrolet Corvette, unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, a full tank of gas and one road taking you out. Now, it would in my opinion be nothing short of preposterous, actually INSANE to even entertain the mere possibility if someone were to try telling you that THAT brand new looking Red Corvette just happened to get there, on its own, without any intelligent designer behind it whatsoever. That somehow, some way it just happened to be some product of "blind chance" without any intellectual forces behind that ready-to-drive automobile.

That all the parts just "happened" to come together absolutely perfectly through some kind of Big BANG/Abiogenesis/Evolutionary etc etc.. series of events. A cosmic primordial "soup" if you will that eventually turned into that beautiful automobile, ready to take off. Who of us out here would even consider such an outrageous suggestion as this? Okay sure, these processes just happened to turn into eight perfectly designed and gapped spark plugs, placed precisely into their sockets, tightened down exactly as needed. The spark plug wires too just happened to fall into place connecting to all eight plugs, while coincidentally also connecting to a computer chip, a continuously self calibrating one (that happened to just come together o its own by the way), designed to tell it exactly how often to fire those eight perfectly placed spark plugs. Of course, the steering wheel just by CHANCE happened to be in the right location, while also connecting the front-end with it's front axle, ball joints, tie rods and perfectly synchronizing the movement of the tires. The tires by the way also all happen to be perfectly sized, with identical tread, perfect air pressure (how did air pressure even get in there by the way??) made of just the right rubber material, while perfectly balanced and with perfect alignment all by itself. All along the way to turn those tires somehow a power steering pump made itself, with belt and fluid with it's case and cap filed just where it needs to go. The doors so one can get inside the car are perfectly fitted and actually open with the lift of a handle. An armrest also somehow conveniently evolved, while still looking and smelling brand new. Of course rather than just look at this beauty, it actually runs and will even automatically shift into different gears because low and behold there is a TRANSMISION too. One that somehow and some way just perfectly connected with the motor which somehow and some way has eight pistons, a crank shaft, fuel injectors, cam shaft, a perfectly sealed even (though removable) head so that the transmission actually has something to shift for. Of course you need high octane, fresh, clean, combustable GASOLINE to run the entire thing, but low and behold it has a full tank of just that. How bout that? (And how's the gas TANK get there?) In fact believe it or not, the fuel tank has a fuel line as well, that just so happens to be connected to a fuel filter which leads it right to eight perfectly fitted and located fuel injectors, which somehow and some way are attached to the ENGINE itself that is still perfectly situated in the front of that automobile that just happened to be formed by itself through through blind CHANCE.

Unbelievable there is also a hood, with an outside and inside hood latch that allows you to look at the motor that evolved on its own. All the while fitting perfectly and symmetrically into perfect place. In another incredible act of CHANCE, there is a gas pedal too that when pressed carefully lets that amazingly complex machine (that just happened by series chances) to move forward. Of course once you did get in it and realized this amazing machine can actually take you wherever you wish to go, you have another serious problem; whoops, how do you STOP IT? Big problem. Well lookey here!... there is a BRAKE PEDAL right next to the gas pedal that just so happens to connect to four disc brakes that also are perfectly hitched to brake rotors, and calipers that are coincidentally just perfectly hooked up with those perfectly rounded and symmetrical tires that we already discovered earlier. And through some act of evolutionary coincidence, this braking system has a MASTER CYLINDER that just also happens to have the perfectly positioned brake lines, filled with just the correct kind and correct amount of brake fluid. Of course if it were instead power steering fluid, or transmission fluid or gasoline in them there brake lines it would not work one bit, and may even catch on fire, but since it has the exact consistency needed for brake fluid, it works like a charm. How bout that!

There are several clear windows to look out from as well. Sure need those; glad they just happened to FALL INTO PLACE where they did too. Pretty amazing how the elements and other external forces just happened to get that red shiny paint job only where it is and not on the windows, would have a problem there for sure. And guess what else, inside it has heat and ac and rear defrost and windshield wiper blades, a fuel gauge, temp gauge, tachometer with speedometer, with perfectly located knobs that even say heat and ac and wiper speeds. How did that get here on it's own? Amazing aint it? And for some strange reason it needs to have some little piece of metal to turn the thing on, I believe they call it a KEY. Low and behold THERE IS A KEY, with the exact correct notches already in the perfectly located steering wheel. How bout all that, what an amazing coincidence!

Obviously I could continue on with this for pages and pages folks. I am sure you can see the point. (Try as you may to AVOID the point), It would be silly, foolish, absurd, outrageous, strange, weird and just impossibly IGNORANT to believe ALL of these things just happened by blind chance, without any intelligence at all, creating one single, ready-to drive Red Chevrolet Corvette. If nobody on this board could be convinced of such a foolish idea with one automobile in the middle of nowhere, how then could people POSSIBLY believe that a FAR, FAR MORE complex universe and earth, filled with far more complicated life (than that single corvette) could possibly just happen by itself, through some evolutionary process, with absolutely no help from an intelligent source anywhere?

The reality is, I would have a better chance of selling somebody on that car that just formed by itself, through a Big Bang/abiogenesis (the supposed origination of life from lifeless matter) and then evolved with all the perfect pieces fitting together, than on the UNIVERSE and EARTH itself just happening to form themselves as well as all life forms upon the earth. A human being is far, far more complex that that car. With our immune systems, lymphatic systems, digestive systems, cardio systems with heart chambers and blood vessels, nervous systems, joints, muscles, tendons, brains with billions or neurons, eyes that see, ears that hear, nose that smells, fingers that feel, skin that sweats, mouth that tastes, chews and swallows. Feet, legs, knees that move and bend. Reproductive systems that can create new life etc etc on and on. The complexity of one human being puts that new Corvette to shame. Millions of time more complex. You get a scratch on that new car and you will visiting the body shop. Scratch or hurt yourself, and the body has the ability to actually heal itself. And you really hope to convince me it happened all by CHANCE, with no designer, no intelligence behind it all? Some primordial evolutionary soup like process, which resulted from a big ole BANG? We haven't even started discussing the complexity and incredible order of our UNIVERSE yet. Or the earth , how outstandingly complex yet perfectly harmonized it is. Photosynthesis, clouds and rain, the perfect tilt and rotational speed of the earth, perfect location of the sun, the moon, our orbit speed. The atmosphere, ozone layer, perfect amount of oxygen in the air. Gravity, food cycles, fire; all happened by blind chance? No intelligence required? Sorry atheists, but you are DEAD IN WATER here.

Lets talk about science for just a moment. The science where many get there beliefs that there is NO GOD, no maker because they cannot prove he exists. If science is so smart and such a trustworthy source, why cannot science then create life from non living matter? It has not been done. ANYWHERE, EVER. Not only can it not do such a thing as make life from non-living matter, even if all the parts are already there, in human form, animal form or any form, science cannot even PUT LIFE BACK to the BODY that just lost it prematurely through accidents, disease or any other disaster, or death through natural aging? With all the parts ALREADY TOGETHER, in front of these scientists, they are still helpless and cannot make LIFE exist. Yet they insist that ALL life as we see it today, just happened by some series of chances, without ANY help from any intelligent source. How reasonable is this? Let me answer that for you, IT'S NOT REASONABLE AT ALL.

This is why I believe in an Intelligent DESIGNER, a Creator rather than some abiogenesis/evolutionary/Big BANG series of processes resulting in all that we have today. It makes perfect sense. It is reasonable, it is logical and rational. To believe everything we see just happened BY ITSELF is none of those things in my sincere and honest opinion. Science cannot even feed the poor nor cure the worlds problems either. It has not even cured AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, fixed global warming, the ozone layer and tens of thousands of other issues. And people wish to put their FULL TRUST in science when it comes to believing in a God or not? Sorry, I am not convinced and do not buy any of what they are selling. It is actually laughable to believe all things originated from nothing, all on their very own, without any intelligence behind it

When I look at the entire picture then, the fact that ANY kind of intelligent design around us today requires an intelligent designer. The simple truth that it would be absurd to try to explain a red corvette, a house or even a number 2 pencil (structured, purposeful things) as having just ARRIVED from out of nothingness. The facts that this earth, the universe and all upon them are very complex, very organized, highly structured and simply demanding in all reasonableness that an intelligent creator be the one responsible for such incredible, organized, purposeful DESIGN. That science itself cannot even create life out of non-living matter, nor from dead, former living matter and has far too many holes in its theories and is far from a source worth putting all trust in. Adding it all up for me then, I cannot get away from the inescapable conclusion that there IS A GOD responsible for all of the many features we see around us right now.

There is NO LOGIC and NO REASONABLENESS to atheist claims that all intelligent life and all organized systems and planets and stars galaxies just happened to fall into place without any intelligent force behind it.

There is just no way that it is even remotely, plausibly even MINUTELY possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided CHANCES. When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a chance that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized, finely tuned and intricate. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY.

The many systems that allow LIFE ON EARTH to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and again are finely tuned with other systems. AGAIN, by some merely accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence. For me there is just NO WAY these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect. For you and some others they may have come together by mere chance or in fact did come together by mere chance. I disagree. I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from scientists like Richard Dawkins. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant stretch after another. Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.

You see folks, a perfectly spinning, tilted and orbiting earth did not EVOLVE, like you claim all OTHER LIFE on earth did. Neither did the atmosphere including ozone layer on earth, the water cycles, nor did the moon, sun and stars EVOLVE as you state in your explanations above. Nor did many BILLIONS of other things similar. Your argument, like I said, is LOSE LOSE for atheists. Again, this is why all atheists that you see today, anywhere, have a little red corvette stuck on their forehead. You cannot ignore it. It is always there.

In the simplest of terms then:

If through some cosmic "BIG BANG", ALL of the billions of stars in our own organized, orderly Milky Way Galaxy, as well as the BILLIONS of other organized and orderly Galaxies with their billions of stars came into existence. And if inside our very own organized and orderly galaxy, in what is known as our own orderly SOLAR SYSTEM, we have at just the right distance from our perfectly sized SUN, a perfectly located and sized planet EARTH, that also rotates at the perfect speed of 24 hours (needed to sustain life) as well as orbits around the sun at the perfect speed of 66,600 mph to keep it in that precise orbiting pattern and not sucked into the gravitational pull of the sun itself. And if this perfectly located, spinning and orbiting EARTH also has perfectly, purposeful and finely balanced SYSTEMS upon it (NEEDED TO SUSTAIN LIFE) such as different atmospheric layers, with protective ozone layer, with just the correct amount of gases needed to sustain life. (.Oxygen, Nitrogen, CO2, argon, water vapor and other smaller trace gasses). And if this same, orbiting, spinning, perfectly located EARTH with perfect atnosphere for life, located perfectly inside the universe with many billions of organized galaxies ALSO has a variety of unique, perfectly balanced SYSTEMS AND FEATURES such as water cycles, weather systems, eco systems, food chain systems, microbial systems, photosynthesis, tides due to a perfectly located and spinning and sized moon at the precisely needed location and too many others to list here.

And if UPON this perfectly located, spinning EARTH, with it's many perfectly balanced features and systems (found in the middle of an organized orderly universe), there also happens to be a variety of LIVING THINGS on this earth, with ITS OWN amazingly complex varieties of different systems such as digestive, circulatory, reproductive, elimination, immune, neurological etc etc, that just happened to originate from NOTHING AT ALL, through some BIG BANG, into an organized gargantuan UNIVERSE, with a perfectly located, spinning, orbiting EARTH located within that universe, that just so happened to come WITH the many FEATURES needed to support life, along with all these many varieties OF LIFE FORMS that supposedly arose from lifeless matter, primordial soup, to polymers, into complex living things including human BRAINS and beyond; then FOLKS if all this happened, ***ALL ON ITS VERY OWN***, without any INTELLECTUAL SOURCE anywhere, then THAT RED CORVETTE showing up in the wilderness with gas, keys and everything in place is a PIECE OF CAKE. That Red Vette, all on it's own, is easy as counting 1,2,3 when compared to all THESE OTHER things arising from and existing because of a series of what can only be described as FAT-CHANCES, ALL ON THEIR VERY OWN.

NOW DEAL WITH IT ATHEISTS!

This is why you athesists are STUCK with red corvette on your foreheads for life. It applies, it fits, it works. For those of you that want to try wiggling off the hook because red vette aint living, breathing, self-replicating life form, you are then BURIED by the fact that neither is the earth, moon, sun, and stars or universe living, breathing, self-replicating life forms. Neither is atmosphere, water cycles, photosynthesis, weather systems etc living breathing self-replicating life forms. But I already addressed that in the other thread. I am only repeating myself here AGAIN. This is why Almost Atheist failed in presenting the argument correctly. Is why atheists arguments above have no legs at all.

Is why I also used the bomb-explosions never turning into a New York city with buildings, plumbing, door knobs and yellow cabs. This is just plain old, laughable nonsense, passed down to people that want to cut out the reality that there is a God.

Is also why so few humans ever buy into it.

Poor ATHEISTS still stuck in the mud with his, "I DON'T KNOW".

Now that they realizs how bad it is to be stuck in the mud, they wants to TRY to bring creationists in the mud with him and all his little atheists.

You see ATHEISTS, you seem to lack the intellectual capacity to recognize the difference between you and I.

I say, God made the universe, the earth and life upon the earth.

You ask HOW did God do it? I say we don't know how God did it, and that it does not matter one bit; but that he did it because here we are. Because life is complex. Because universe, earth and life forms have purposeful FEATURES, are extremely fine tuned, have order, harmony and display complexity throughout etc etc.

You say, it all happened to come together through some series of FAT CHANCES. Lot's of LUCK made all things just come together. (heh... I always laugh when atheists teach this...

What kills all of the atheists arguments, is that scientific, intelligent forces cannot make ANY LIFE AT ALL out of dead matter. ZERO. Zero means NONE.

Yet even though intelligent scientists (who can send man to the moon and back, make computer chips etc) cannot make even the SIMPLEST life form from dead matter, while in a controlled setting, you then want to sell us on things like the HUMAN BRAIN just happend to be the result of this same DEAD MATTER ***WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENCE AT ALL***.

SAY WHAT???

That the EARTH itself with all of its perfectly balanced features such as different atmospheric layers, with protective ozone layer, with just the correct amount of gases needed to sustain life. (.Oxygen, Nitrogen, CO2, argon, water vapor and other smaller trace gasses), water cycles, weather systems, eco systems, food chain systems, microbial systems, photosynthesis, tides due to a perfectly located and spinning and sized moon at the precisely needed location and too many others to list here, just happened to be the result of an unguided BIG BANG.

Your arguments have no hope at all. THEY HAVE NO LEGS AT ALL.

We are both sitting in front of computers. I am telling you that Apple made mine. I have no CLUE just HOW Apple makes computers. But because it is very sophisticated, even if no name was on it WE KNOW SOMEBODY MADE IT. Same with the universe, earth and life upon earth.

YOU SAY that you don't know exactly HOW it happened either.

The difference though (and what BURIES ATHEISTS) is that you say it all happened by iteslf, with no designer whatsoever involved. By series of random chances. All from nothing.

Huge HUGE difference ATHEISTS.

So then, how did our computers get here again?

I say, Apple made it, but I have no clue how... and don't care really.

You say, I have no clue how, but it somehow formed all by itself. Big difference and completely ignorant, foolish laughable nonsense.

That is why I put the Red Vette on your laps in the very beginning.

It could be ba computer instead. Is all the same to me.

The chances of that red vette, or this apple computer coming together ALL BY THEMSELVES is NILL.

Yet you want us to believe that the far more complex universe, earth, life including the human brain just happend this same way BY LOTS OF LUCK.

This my friendS is Oscar Mayar Bologna Salami!

And THIS is why ATHEISTS have Red Vettes stuck on their foreheads.

Sorry to tell it to you how it is.

(The imposter vinny is starting to sound more like me now. The 11:03 response is the imposter again) But I don't mind, he sounds pretty good to me...

Don't fall for it guys. The imposter is trying to make me look bad. I'm not trolling, I love discussing with you smart LITTLE ATHEISTS.

I just want someone to answer my question. How does life come from nothing??? What do your science friends say??? Oh thats right THEY CANT TELL YOU!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHH

Hmmmmmmm lets see........

Vinny comes here and posts excessively long and obnoxious messages, he calls everyone here "those little atheists". he poses questions that not even he can answer and criticizes the lack of responses and then he closes most of his posts with ............... Bwahahahahhaha. Yep, this fits Scotts definition of maximum disruption and argumentativeness...... Vinny is a TROLL !!

Please stay busy Vinny. No one wants to hear what you have to say.

peace

Quote:"Vinny wrote: "I know there is nothing attractive about my behavior so please accept my apologies. BWAHAHAHAHAHA"

It appears that Vinny is a "troll*." Please do not feed the troll.

***** I never said that. The phony Viiny has showed up twice now. You guys just fell for it.

I am not a troll.

Been busy, but will come back soon.

The real vinny

David,

I'm not sure what was so uncivil about my comment. It is undoubtedly true that if science ever 'PROVES' no need for a "Designing God" , you and Vinny will be very scared. The whole of your position "requires" God (of the Bible) to be an active participant who dictates and has ALREADY planned the end of our existence. Without that you will be flapping in the breeze so to speak. Science is continuing to work in the direction of answering these questions, you and Vinny believe they have already been answered.

I have been very impressed with where your spirituality has brought you David and I have said as much before, however, I cannot subscribe to your views of the Bible as some sort of inerrant text that has been "proven". We will NEVER agree on this I'm sure but I really hope that you, in your future interactions with non believers, do not focus on Bible literalness. That will be a dead end street I am afraid.

peace

Hi everyone....remember me???

What happened? I left the post and then all of a sudden everyone started making personal attacks. I intend to stay away from this thread but I was so interested what people were saying I had to take a peak. C'mon atheists...I know you missed me for these couple of days. But I promise I'm not gonna stay. I just hope that you all can stay civil. Vinny, please act Christian-like. The atheists are intelligent people as well and we must give them the same respect we deserve. Remember..."turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" even though you guys really arent my enemies.

Everyone else, can you all stay reasonable. It's just getting ugly in here. Quit the stupid science debate already. Neither side has a case. Let's just leave it at that ok. C'mon now kids play nice.

I do have one personal response though.

Greg,

you said

The more we learn the "scareder" they become.

C'mon bro'!! Don't put yourself on a lower level with a comment like that. I hope you all learn more. And I hope science does figure out how God made it all. That would be great. But cmon greg, you've kept it pretty civil the whole time. Now this crap. Where's the love????

So that's it for me.....maybe.....bwhahahahahah!!!

I'm headin' out like a fetus. Peace.

God bless

By the way, if you want to understand why some atheists don't have any patience with theists just read Vinny's comments below. If that's the kind of believer you most often run into the "delusional" label seems almost like an understatement.

Vinny, the answer to your question about how "DEAD MATTER" turns into "LIVING THINGS" is not "we don't know" it's "we don't know all the details yet." There is plenty of material out there on the potential role of self replicating polymers in abiogenesis. We don't have all the answers yet, but we do know where to look.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=abiogenesis+self+replicating+polymers&btnG=Search

Thor's Child, I'm sure you enjoyed your little object lesson, and like I said I generally agree with you in terms of tactics; although I reserve the right to be a nasty SOB when circumstances call for it.

In any case, I hadn't intended to get into any more discussions (let alone role-playing object lessons) just now, just popped in for peek at what was happening here and was struck by the weakness of your anti-rationalist argument; if that's the closest we can come to a "fundamental weakness" in the atheist argument I'd say we're in pretty good shape.

Regards

A Hermit

Vinny: "1- Everything which has a beginning has a cause."

Except this isn't true. Quantum level events don't have causes. For example, look up vacuum energy and the Casimir effect. Right now, everywhere in empty space, pairs particles and anti-particles are being created at random out of nothing and then annihilating each other a fraction of a second later. Another example is the decay of radioactive elements. Given a large sample of atoms, you can predict how many of them will decay in a certain length of time, but not which ones.

Since not everything has a cause, your premise is wrong, and therefore the rest of your argument is invalid.

Vinny wrote: "I know there is nothing attractive about my behavior so please accept my apologies. BWAHAHAHAHAHA"

It appears that Vinny is a "troll*." Please do not feed the troll.

*Troll : One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Scott,

I really liked your last two posts. It really is hilarious (and somewhat sad) that people like Vinny and David cannot see that the STRENGTH of the science claims is their uncertainty. Leaving it open for further interpretation with more information. By the same token the weakness of "God did it" is that it closes the book and stops the investigation.

The more we learn the "scareder" they become.

peace

Hey Guys,

Sorry again. I just had one of those moments I can't control again earlier. I really am not as obnoxious an A$$ as I appear in some of my posts. I sometimes forget my lithium and I just cannot control myself. Please forgive me I'll double my dose this evening. I just want all of you to experience the love of Jesus through me and I just blow it. I know there is nothing attractive about my behavior so please accept my apologies.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Vinny,

Your assessments of your "opponents" arguments are laughable.

You make fun of people because they can not answer how living matter came to be, AS IF YOU CAN!!?? You are a MORON. At least science is intellectualy honest and makes no claims to have "figured it all out". Such cannot be said of you or your right wing whacko friends who claim to have a 3000 yr old book with ALL the answers.

All you have given is YOUR OPINIONS. You have presented ZERO facts.

You act as if evolution were somehow 'Proven" wrong that the only thing left would be your "intelligent design".

Do you realize there is as much evidence that aliens brought life here years ago as there is evidence that "THE BIBLES GOD" created all at once as described in Genesis.

peace

Vinny wrote: "Folks, this is one reason why the internet is soooooo great, everything that is being said, is in PRINT. Just reading what our little atheists have to say is LAUGHABLE here. I feel sorry for them. Seriously. Poor little atheists. They are completely stuck in mud with their beliefs."

I'm Stuck? Clearly you must be mistaken. See, you already claim to know the answer. You claim to have the whole thing figured out. And you've spelled it out here in black and white.

While all I've said is "we don't know." Science has no agenda, so it will continue to update it's theories to match what we've learned.

You, however, can't. You're limited to the 2,000 year old account of how the world was created. You're stuck with theories written by a civilization who thought the world was flat and the sun orbited around the earth.

Clearly, you're the one who's stuck, not me.

Vinny wrote: "not even IN A CONTROLLED SCIENTIFIC ENVIRONMENT."

I fail to see your point. Science does not claim that human beings created life on earth. Science simply says it does not see any proof that it was created by a supernatural source. Perhaps life was brought here by a comet or some other external source. Or perhaps it was formed under conditions that we simply can not replicate. We may never know the exact conditions and components needed to create life, but this does not mean the answer defaults to God.

Vinny wrote: "there is just no way that it is even remotely possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided chances. When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a FAT CHANCE that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY."

If you KNOW that there is no remotely possible way that the universe and life could have formed naturally, then prove it.

We've seen stars forming and even the remnants of very young supernovas. We've even found stars which seem to be in the process of forming planets. Through these observations, we we've been able to confirm many of the theories that explain how our own solar system was formed.

And there was no "explosion" that created a completed world populated with humans, plants and animals. Random mutation is only part of the process. Natural selection is the process of deciding what mutations should "survive" and which will not. It promotes "better" mutations over "worse" mutations. As such, these changes may appear to be designed but are not.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In fact, Ken Miller's gave a excellent presentation on ID vs evolution at American University based on his testimony at the 2005 Dover Pennsylvania school board trial. Ken is a Cellular Biologist and a theists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&eurl=

David wrote: " I love how you all claim scienctific evidence for your cause (whatever that may be??) but never can think deep enough on how we all became."

David, I have thought about how we came into existence. I'd even venture I've given it significantly more thought than you have.

For example, there is more than just one theory of the Big Bang. There are several theories that could explain the origin of the universe. Some even suggest that the universe expands from a infinitely small point for billions of years, then begins to collapse until, billions of years later, in shrinks back into an infinitely small point, to begin the process over and over again. In other words, the universe may have been exploding and imploding without a beginning or an end. We just happen to exist in one particular cycle.

However, we can prove none of them. We may never know what happened. Yet, when I wake up in the morning, there I am. The universe exists. I exist. Just because we lack proof that explains the exact way in which the universe and life formed on doesn't mean the answer defaults to God. Until your theory can be proven, it's not more valid than any others that have exist.

Again, when your reality is based on the concept that God created everything, where ever you look you will see a world created by God. This is how our minds work.

David wrote : "We as a species are not going to survive. Did you not get the memo??? Doesn't science say so? So does God."

SCIENCE SAYS NO SUCH THING. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I'M ON THIS THREAD.

Again, your belief in Gods plan for your life has biased your interpretation of not only the Bible, but science as well.

Where does science say that humanity will not survive? Please show me the exact paper that claims that humanity as a species will die.

Saying that the sun will eventual expand and make the Earth's surface too hot to support life 5 billions of years from now does not guarantee that we'll still be on it when it happens.

5 BILLIONS YEARS. History shows that the earliest civilization was formed in the fourth millennia BC. We now live in the second millennia AD. This represents a fraction of the time (.000006) we have until this even occurs. Look how much has happened in the last 300 years.

Your attitude is one that it's doesn't matter what happens because Jesus will return and take us all anyway. How can we build a future based on this kind of thought? I refuse to allow such thinking to doom mankind to destroy itself or sit by and allow itself to be made extinct by natural causes when it can be avoided.

You may be willing to give up on humanity, but I'm not. Which is exactly why I'm on this thread.

Folks, this is one reason why the internet is soooooo great, everything that is being said, is in PRINT. Just reading what our little atheists have to say is LAUGHABLE here. I feel sorry for them. Seriously. Poor little atheists. They are completely stuck in mud with their beliefs.

I have asked our little atheists to explain just how "DEAD MATTER" turns into "LIVING THINGS". Now read the thread, all of it folks. A lot of comments have been posted. After all of these written posts, THIS IS ALL that the little atheists could come up with in answer to how dead matter turns into living things:

1-"We don't know".

AND THAT IS IT.

You got to just love this. I am not making this stuff up. So tell me, where I can sign up and join the little atheists club now. Bwahahahahaaa

Well, pretty much what I figured folks, a whole lot of NOTHING.

All living things today ORIGINATING FROM lifeless matter. The entire organized universe resulting from some BIG BANG without any guiding hand of intelligence. And THIST is the laughable attempt to explain how complex life arose from lifeless matter?

It's embarrassing to read actually. But it's really all you have. Before ever becoming a Christian I never bought into this joke of a concept. And neither do most humans today. It's not even a theory at this point, only a hypothesis because it has not been proven, as I have stated many times now, not even IN A CONTROLLED SCIENTIFIC ENVIRONMENT. Yet scientists and atheists desperately cling to such hopes because there are no alternatives as to how all these things originated, unless one is willing to consider CREATION. And we all know THAT can't happen for the little atheists. And this is supposedly SCIENCE. Well, Science just FLUNKED folks!

***** Let me explain just how far off science is my little friends. Not only can science not create life from dead matter, but science cannot even put life back into what once WAS LIVING. Take 4 year old Johnny that just drowned. ALL THE PIECES are right there in front of them. The brain, lungs, liver, circulatory systems etc etc etc are already RIGHT THERE. But guess what, they can't even make that little Johnny LIVE AGAIN, much less create life, from lifeless matter in a controlled environment. And yet, you believe ALL THINGS just happened to come exist from lifeless matter, OUTSIDE OF a controlled setting? And answer this, where did that lifeless matter come from to begin with? Where did the earth, sun, moon and gazillion of stars originate from? How did the mountains originate? The clouds, water, the perfect spin of the earth??? I can put ten million questions just like these on your lap as well. No matter how you slice and dice it, these things cannot, THEY COULD NOT simply originate on there own, as intricate, **PURPOSEFUL** highly organized and structured systems that they are.

Sorry, I have read your posts, there is no chance for these things to have happened or any reasonableness to them. Yet you cling to them hanging on for dear life. What's wrong with this picture?

"I DON'T KNOW".... PRETTY WELL WRAPS IT UP FOR ATHEISTS!

In a nutshell:

I can fully respect why anybody might choose to be agnostic. I can even respect those that are atheist, though adamantly disagree with you. Because I personally believe the bible is inspired does not mean that it is. Though, as I stated above, my reasons for such belief are not without a strong measure of evidence .It's more than "just blind faith" to be sure.

Most people today do have a difficulty with the "all things just happened to form into these beautiful, complex, intricate features out of lifeless matter, by a series of chances" concept. Well, the difference between many of you and I then, is perhaps the degree of difficulty with which we find such a concept. I believe it is impossible for things, like the human brain for example, to have evolved from lifeless matter at all. When I watch a beautiful sunset (and I live in Hawaii as a professional landscape photographer, so get to see plenty of them), there is just no way that it is even remotely possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided chances. When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a FAT CHANCE that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY.

The many systems that allow life on this earth to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and finely tuned with other systems. Again, by some accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence. For me there is just no way these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect. For you and some others they may have come together by chance or in fact did come together by chance. I disagree. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant stretch after another. Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.

Though I do respect anybody's right to believe what they wish, to convince me to accept such beliefs then, one will have to do a whole lot better than what's been presented so far, which is not much at all.

The "Vinny" at 9:42 was not the real Vinny at all.

But a boring imposter wwith no arguments presented anywhere.

Bwaaaahahahahahhah

Anything you experience that does not affirm your belief simply does not exist or is automatically false.

Even more worrying, you seem to be oblivious to this fact, even when someone point it out to you.

No I'm not oblivious to this. There are no experiences that make me disbelieve my faith. Never have been. Never will. I've heard all of your arguments and haven't seen one shred of evidence or an experience that contradicts the Bible. I love how you all claim scienctific evidence for your cause (whatever that may be??) but never can think deep enough on how we all became. Like I said before, I will not debate the science issue anymore because the facts show in favor of God and talking to atheists about this subject is like talking to a drunk man.

you said

We see our world though different colored lenses, some of which are genetic, cultural, political, social, economical or religious in nature. If we do not realize how our view of reality is tinted by these lenses, I don't know how we, as a species, are going to survive.

We as a species are not going to survive. Did you not get the memo??? Doesn't science say so? So does God.

I felt compelled to respond because I don't want you to get the wrong idea about me Scott. You think I treat any evidence as false because of my beliefs. Not so. So far there hasn't been any evidence that the Bible is inaccurate in any way or that God could possibly not exist. I believe you to be a reasonable person but I know you truly do not understand the Bible. If you can say that you look at both sides of the argument, you will study the Bible and look to those who know for answers. But challenge all sides. Eventually you will KNOW that God is real. I have no doubt about that. But I wouldn't bet that you would accept Him. That's your decision.

Now, throughout this whole discussion I've asked over and over agian, WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE FOR BEING ON THIS THREAD??? Still no response. I've made assumptions which may or may not be correct. But I have told you my purpose. I think I've come to the end of my purpose here. I've expressed my love for Christ and shared true meanings of His word. You choose to not accept Him. That's fine. That's between you and God. Don't say I didn't warn you.

So anyway, this is it for me this time for real. Later peoples. I hope you find Christ before your time of judgement. I pray for that. I pray for that out of love. That was my purpose here. Take care.

God bless

Scott wrote:

"As such, it does not matter what I say or what science finds. It is invisible to you."

Science seems to keep pointing towards God not away from Him. Researchers keep discovering that the microscopic organisms are vastly more complex than they ever realized. Cosmologists are almost certain that the dimension of time was created along with space (length, width, height) during the Big Bang creation event. Even Stephen Hawking, a folk hero for many Americans and a cult figure for New Agers, admits that God must exist. Also, Evolutionary biologists are dealing with the cold hard fact that the universe isn't nearly old enough for life to have evolved to its present state of complexity.

I argue that there is just as much justification to say that atheists have their head in the sand as there is for Christians. I also argue that there's more.

Believing that God doesn't exist is however a convenient way for us to make up our own code of morality and live our lives our own way.

David wrote: "Can you just admit that there is a God and that you choose not to accept Him? Nope."

David, this is the crux of the issue. You simply can't conceive of a world where someone might not believe in God. The concept is completely foreign to you. As such, it does not matter what I say or what science finds. It is invisible to you.

Again, the quote I posted earlier comes to mind...

"We can do not learn from experience, but by our capacity for experience."

If you cannot conceive of a world that was not created by God, then you will see a world created by God wherever you look. You're incapable of seeing anything else. Anything you experience that does not affirm your belief simply does not exist or is automatically false.

Even more worrying, you seem to be oblivious to this fact, even when someone point it out to you.

We see our world though different colored lenses, some of which are genetic, cultural, political, social, economical or religious in nature. If we do not realize how our view of reality is tinted by these lenses, I don't know how we, as a species, are going to survive.

Hey guys,

Y'all are right. I've been an obnoxious boor. I really mean well. I only want to spread the love that I have for Jesus. I really hope that someday everyone on here will come to see that Christianity is not a religion that creates feeble minded critics of anything resembling reasoned analysis of the world around us. Please forgive my behavior.

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/science.html

CONVINCING ENOUGH FOR ME.

Scott,

Ok now your getting petty. I think it really is time to wrap it up for me here. Good luck Scott. I hope your faith in nothingness brings you something. But I will pray for you that maybe one day you can recieve God's gift of life and realize that there is hope past the grave. Once you stop thinking that this life is all about you, then you can truly understand God. For me, this is a vacation. I'm on a temporary stay until God decides He wants me home. This world is not my home. You atheists think it is your home, but if fact there will be another place for you if you cannot change your hardened hearts and accept God. All I've heard have been EXCUSES. Can you just admit that there is a God and that you choose not to accept Him? Nope. You instead have faith in man that tells you we just happened by accident. Good luck with that faith. Don't be upset when someone laughs at you when you tell them that everything in this world and universe was an accident that formed all together perfectly. Like I said before, it takes a greater faith to believe in that garbage than in God.

Vinny,

Keep doing what your doing brotha!!! You have TRUTH in those words. I still havent seen the atheists answer your questions. Guess they don't have an answer like we do. It would be kind of hard to explain how we magically appeared out of nothing. Ha Ha!! God bless you Vinny. Take care my brother in Christ!!

God Bless you all
I'll pray for you all.

David wrote: "but all true believers come to the same outcome. "

David, do you realize what you just said? You effectually said...

Everyone who believes that Jesus was the son of God, who died for our sins and was resurrected, have come to the conclusion that the BIble says: Jesus was the son of God, who died for our sins and was resurrected.

What other conclusion would they come up with?

Scott,

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

Ok Scott, I think you made your point. How can any one persons translation be trusted? So, first of all I guess you didn't read the article oh HOW to STUDY the Bible. The Bible has 40 different authors over a 1500 year period. It is not like any other book in history. It would HAVE to be studied for a gaining of understanding. The culture changes over 1500 years were so dramatic that you would need to study the culture of the time of the passage written to gain a true understanding of the "minor" aspects of the Bible even though the whole book's true message is the Redemption of Man. But still how can we come up with a true translation?

When you were in school you had a math teacher that knew all the laws of division and subtraction etc. You listened to that teacher and learned how to add, subtract, do long division, etc. You accepted the teachings of that teacher to be true and therefore learned how to do math. The same can be said for the Bible. Theologians have studied the Bible for centuries. There are a few arguments amongst them, hence the different denominations, but all true believers come to the same outcome. Jesus died for our sins. Jesus was God in the flesh. Salvation comes through faith and not works. Jesus the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit all make up ONE God, the Trinity. These are all the basic beliefs of Christianity. Now, whether you want to say a verse can be translated to the earth being flat, feel free if you want, but you really have no idea because you choose not to listen to someone who believes in God. If I thought math wasn't important and did not want anything to do with it, I wouldn't listen to the teacher either. And then I wouldn't learn how to do math. So if I didn't learn how to do math do I have a right to argue that 2+2=5? Nope.

Scott, why not build yourself around the foundation of Christianity before trying to put the roof on it. You cannot put the roof on until you understand how the foundation works. Then you can argue things and maybe throw up a couple of walls. Once you understand how the walls work together with the foundation then maybe you can throw the roof on and have a completed understanding.

For example: Study the basics of Christianity, then move on up to...let's say...prophecy. Study that some more. Then move up to how it was fulfilled. Then move up to what do the verses really mean when it says "the lord sitteth upon the CIRCLE". Ya gotta crawl before you walk brother.

God bless

Vinny,

If God is as powerful and capable as you claim, then how could something that purposeful not have a designer? And then what about God's designer's designer?

Vinny wrote: "Design begets a designer."

Just because something "looks" like it was designed, doesn't mean it really was. No one designed a snowflake, yet it appears to be designed. And if someone designed human beings, they should be fired. Surly, an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God would have done a better job.

Vinny wrote: " It does offer answers as well as a good measure of comfort. It is believable."

Bingo - You hit the nail right on the head. It gives you answers that makes you feel good. And if you squint your eyes enough, it almost makes sense. God was born of a virgin, so he could become a man, so he could die, so he could save us from his own damnation?

We did not find the Bible in nature. We did not find it encoded in our DNA. It is a concept created by Man to explain his world. Nature does not substantiate God's authorship of the universe at all.

Vinny wrote: "You know, I keep waiting for one of those many explosions on the earth nowadays to result in a new New York City skyline, complete with electricty, plumbing, door knobs, elevators, streets, signs, lights and plenty of yellow cabs."

If you think that's how the concept of evolution works, no wonder you believe in God. Thanks for clearing that up.

Vinny Says

First of all, it is my personal belief that:

1- Everything which has a beginning has a cause. This an understood and accepted principle in human civilizations throughout the earth. If it had a beginning, then somebody or something made it. Fairly simple. The computers each of us are using at this moment had to be made by somebody. Mine was made by Apple, for example. But if there were no name mentioned at all, we still know that somebody had to make it. Design begets a designer.

2- The Universe, including our earth (and all life upon the earth) had a beginning. Most scientists believe in the 'Big Bang" theory. While omitting God altogether, the common belief is that it did have a definite beginning and is still developing and expanding.

3- Therefore, the Universe, that had a beginning, must also have a Cause. That Cause, in my opinion is God.

4-The bible, in my opinion, is a reliable source of information. It claims to be authored by God. There is an abundance of evidence that it could be authored by God. As briefly listed on another thread (now defunct) here is a very short list of reasons why I believe the bible is from God and thus a reliable, trustworthy source of information today:

Congratulations Vinny,

You have just explained your personal beliefs!! Just do not confuse them with ABSOLUTE TRUTHS.

You are right the universe did have a beginning no argument there. Something caused it. IN YOUR OPINION it was God. More specifically, the EXACT God described in the Bible. Fine. Once again YOUR OPINION.

The Bible makes no claims to be authored by God, people make those claims. Show me a line anywhere in the Bible that says "This book authored by God ", can't find it. Just like David pointed out that there is no line that says "the earth is flat".

BTW Vinny, you have trounced no one with your obnoxious rants. Debates are not "won" by the loudest and longest winded.
The only thing you have trounced is any micromilligram of hope that anyone might look at you as a model of Christian thinking and say "Gee, I want to be like that guy." Thank God (and I DO mean it) that virtually none of the Christians I know are like you.
YOU are the reason for atheists. Who wants to be like you??

peace

David wrote: "Let's say they did falsify the NT and claim Jesus fit all the descriptions of OT prophecy. Please tell me why they would be persecuted, beaten, land taken, imprisoned and
eventually murdered for a belief they knew was false."

A falsehood and a metaphor are two different things.

Again, you're assuming the original source of the Bible is referring to redemption of Man from his separation from God, which leads to an individual's eventual physical death.

The people who wrote the New Testament did not actually have a physical experience with Jesus. As such, the canonical books of the New Testament were based on second or third hand reports.

It could be that Jesus used redemption as a metaphor for preventing the extinction (death) of all mankind as a species. As such...

- The authors were aware of this metaphor and continued it in the canonical text of the New Testament.

- The authors mistook the metaphor in the handed down reports for a literal message and portrayed it literally in canonical text of the New Testament.

In either case, If I thought I could save mankind from destroying itself though the message of the Bible, regardless if it was metaphorical or literal, I'd probably risk being persecuted, beaten, having land taken, imprisonment and the potential of being killed.

David wrote: "He's not talking about where he's from on earth obviously. Obviously he's talking about being from heaven since he is God. Dont' say that that's my interpretation because that one is obvious bro!"

I did read the verse in content of the chapter....

"Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29but I know him because I am from him and he sent me."

Look at the progression of each sentence. Jesus doesn't tell the crowd that he is not on his own and that someone had sent him until AFTER he says they know where he is from. He even says, "...you do not know him.."

How could the crowd know the "divine" aspect of where Jesus was from if they did not know the "he" who sent him?

In other words, why would Jesus tell the crowd that they know his origin then, in the next sentences, say that they don't know his origin (the one who sent them,) unless they were two different origins? (place of birth vs. divine origin)

A literal translation could be...

You know who I claim to be and where I was born. But I am accompanied by someone who sent me. And, while you do not know he who sent me, I do, because I am from him and he sent me.

Again, I'm not saying that this verse really means that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. I'm pointing out that either of us could interpret the these verses in a way that says what we want it to say. And nether of use can be proven wrong or right. It's all how you interpret it.

In addition, the Gospels are very inconstant when compared with each other. Who saw Jesus first? Where was he seen first? In fact, the earliest version of the Gospel of Mark was modified to include content from other Gospels in an attempt to make it more consistent.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible contains a reference to this very fact.

"in the earliest manuscripts, Mark ends abruptly at 16.8. This (apparently original) open ending invites the reader to continue the story of Jesus and the kingdom. In some later manuscripts Mark's story was "completed" with resurrection appearances of amalgamated elements from the other canonical Gospels, to make it conform to their common pattern."

Vinny,

Thank you for the brevity in your answer.

I have no time to wade through a ton of crap to find out what you want to say, hence, my appreciation.

I am neither poor nor foolish. I am practical. I am not an atheist (as that is a Christian insult) I am a non-believer. I have found no reason to believe and that does not make me less of a person than you.

I do not have nightmares. The “prophecy fulfilled” means nothing to me. That someone said something and that sometime later, it happened, is not connected to the existence of anything supernatural. That the universe, the world, and life is complex is not a requirement that something supernatural exist. It just means that things are complex. I require the same level of proof that I require for most of the important things in my life. Just because it has a label of god does not mean that treat it differently.

If I, as an inventor, told you that I could transport you from here to there, say, like on star-trek, you would want to see it demonstrated before you stepped into the booth and allowed me to zap you. Similarly, before I allow you to turn my brains into Christian mush, I do, in deed want to see this god thing. At least have a good face to face chat. Then, I would want to visit this heaven place to see if it is all that it is cracked up to be. I do not buy a house sight unseen and neither would you.

As it is, I have just as much reason to believe that god is one of the aliens that were flying in a spaceship behind the comet and took with them those people that committed suicide at just the right time to catch a ride. And, for that too, I would want some proof.

Nice responses David. You sound like a nice brother in Christ.

I come across a bit stronger than you to really get these athesists to think deeply. It really gets them up for the challenge too. But then, when they do get up, they realize their arguments have no legs at all.

Atheism is total foolishness. Go agnostic then. Fine with me. But all things arriving from nothing is completely useless.

All the best,

Vinny

The fact is, the atheists have been TROUNCED on this one thread alone. There is no debating this fact. Just read it again. Ask any other neutral party to read the whole thread.

The reason they have been TROUNCED is because the concept that all of the complexities and features and THINGS we see surrounding us today, could NEVER ever just happen, by some embarrassingly laughable, convoluted random series of events. ALL LIFE just happened on its own, without any guiding intelligence anywhere? If even the simplest of life-forms cannot be generated from non-life, in a scientific, controlled setting, then how on God's earth can you expect to believe that EVERYTHING from the universe itself, to the amazing human body, the many incredible features of the earth and everything in between and beyond just HAPPENED to come together like we see them now. All by themselves. Intricate, complex, purposeful features and life from DEAD matter? IMPOSSIBLE.

Complex life and purposeful features surrounding through some abiogenesis BURIES atheists since it is the most embarrassing and laughable of attempts to explain the origin of life without any Creator. Evolution, they say, is what happens after abiogenesis. Still "no creator at all" is what atheists believe and that things like the human brain are the end results of replicating polymers from primordial soup and dead matter. A pretty sad story to push on all these kids in school today, eh?

The big bang is the very same story, only applying to the lifeless yet supremely organized and power-laden UNIVERSE. You know, I keep waiting for one of those many explosions on the earth nowadays to result in a new New York City skyline, complete with electricty, plumbing, door knobs, elevators, streets, signs, lights and plenty of yellow cabs. But for some reason, it has not quite happened yet. What you think atheists? Pretty soon perhaps? I'd like to go see this place and maybe even live there for the summer and take pics for my mom and aunty Mildred. When will an explosion result in a new city for us?

heh

"So Vinny , who made God?"

**** This is such an old, sophomoric argument from atheists. I've already answered this before in other places. But to appease you, I will address here again:

First of all, it is my personal belief that:

1- Everything which has a beginning has a cause. This an understood and accepted principle in human civilizations throughout the earth. If it had a beginning, then somebody or something made it. Fairly simple. The computers each of us are using at this moment had to be made by somebody. Mine was made by Apple, for example. But if there were no name mentioned at all, we still know that somebody had to make it. Design begets a designer.

2- The Universe, including our earth (and all life upon the earth) had a beginning. Most scientists believe in the 'Big Bang" theory. While omitting God altogether, the common belief is that it did have a definite beginning and is still developing and expanding.

3- Therefore, the Universe, that had a beginning, must also have a Cause. That Cause, in my opinion is God.

4-The bible, in my opinion, is a reliable source of information. It claims to be authored by God. There is an abundance of evidence that it could be authored by God. As briefly listed on another thread (now defunct) here is a very short list of reasons why I believe the bible is from God and thus a reliable, trustworthy source of information today:

"For me, the idea that all four of gospel writers just made up these accounts about Jesus Christ is not something I quickly buy into. The way they claim to have changed their lives, leaving many significant occupations and other personal things behind, leads me to believe they sure found something powerfully persuasive in this person called Christ. They also admit their mistakes which only adds to their credibility in my mind. Likewise the bible writer Paul; he certainly had something dramatic happen to him. He claims to have had a vision of Christ himself, became blind, went to Ananias as instructed and received his sight back. Then completely changed his direction from a persecutor of Christians to becoming an ardent member, one of the foremost of the apostles actually, spearheading the preaching of Christ to the Gentiles. The apostles did not even trust or believe him initially, which again, only adds to the believability in my opinion. I guess all of these writers could have just made these things up. That is possible. But it is also possible they happened just as were written. And if so, then we have some very interesting events taking place that would support Jesus' claim to be God's son, representing God himself. And if so, then what he says about God, about the earth, the future, life... can be and should be seriously considered. I would consider such a source as very reliable. Very trustworthy, *IF* these accounts about him are true.

The many prophecies written that had exact fulfillments adds ever more weight to possibility of the bible being more than just some good book. The bible's statement that the earth is round, and that it hangs upon nothing, though men at that time believed the earth was flat, again adds value to the claim that it is from a higher source than men. Are all of these just mere coincidences? It is possible, I guess. But it's also possible that these facts give evidence that the source of these prophecies and scientific accuracies is from a much higher source than humans, who cannot predict the future with any kind of certainty. There are not only a couple of such prophecies, but literally hundreds which exact, detailed fulfillment.

There is secular testimony as well, that Christ did exist and did perform miraculous events. The calendar we use today is based on the very year he was born. Just a coincidence? A person that really did not exist at all, or whose accomplishments were greatly exaggerated? Possible, I guess. But possibly not. The scriptures contain numerous accounts of miracles where people were brought back to life, sick and dying were healed, people were miraculously fed whether from food falling out of the sky or a few fishes feeding thousands, olive oil and bread jars that never ran out and other examples. Sea's were parted, were walked on and calmed down upon commands. You do not hear stories like this today, with hundreds of eye-witnesses to collaborate. This collection of books is available in over 2000 languages today. It the worlds best selling book of all time. The information contained is also very practical for those that wish to believe it and apply it. The Golden Rule for example. Children obeying their parents is another. Husbands loving their wives as their own bodies makes good marriages even better. And answer when mild turns away rage is a proven valuable principle in life. Jesus sermon on the mount in Matthew chapters 5-7 is still considered by many to be the greatest speech ever given. Priceless gems for many.

Is it possible then that this bible is from God? I believe it is possible, and even very probable. If so, if it is from God himself, then the very question as to how life arrived is answered. Because it also tells the reader that God himself made these things that we see today. No soup-like conditions that somehow evolved into the beautiful yet complex systems we see surrounding us today. It answers many of man's perplexing questions. Does it answer everything? No, it does not. Yet it does say there are new scrolls to be opened. It talks about everlasting life being possible for those that believe and apply God's sons teachings in his life. A life where death and pain and mourning are things of the past. Not the kind of life we see today. It promises these things we see causing pain and death and heartaches will be done away completely and permanently. That is a beautiful hope. Many other answers, too many to list here are given as well. If the bible is true then, the human race has much to look forward to.

For me, it does make sense. It does offer hope. It is worth putting my trust in. It does offer answers as well as a good measure of comfort. It is believable."

5- The bible tells us that God had NO beginning.

Psalm 90:2 ...Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.

psalm 93:2... You are from time indefinite to time indefinite.

Isaiah 57:15 ....God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’

Revelation 15:3 ...righteous and true are your ways, King of Eternity.Revelation 15:3 ...righteous and true are your ways, King of Eternity.

If the bible is inspired of God (as I have sound reason to believe, by the reasons posted above), and if what it says is true that God had No Beginning, where then is the need for a Cause or designer? This is perhaps the crux of my argument then; NOBODY created God, because according inspired scripture, God had no beginning, hence eliminating the need for a cause altogether. This is the only example, the one sole instance where this principle would apply. All other features of the universe including the earth as well as all life on the earth, the spirit world and anything else anywhere, had a beginning and thus demands a cause. God, the intelligent designer himself, exclusively, is this one sole exception.

ADDITIONALLY, aside from the bible, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which has tremendous experimental support, standing the test of time many decades later, states that "time" is linked to matter and space. The way that man keeps track of time, for example is based on the physical universe. Minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years are all related to the earth's rotation around the sun. Time itself then, it is believed, would have begun along with matter and space with the beginning of the universe. Hence, *If* an Intelligent Designer Created the universe, he would also be the creator of time? Being the Creator of time, he would NOT be limited to the time "dimension" that HE himself created. He is thus outside of time. He would not be limited by time or space (dimensions again both of which he created) and thus once again, not requiring a cause for his very own existence. . Because all of us personally live in the dimension of time, it can be impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning or an end. He, simply put, always existed.

No human beings were there in the beginning of the universe to witness what exactly happened. Brilliant minds today can only guess and try to formulate theories. The bible says pointedly: "In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth". There is sound and reasonable reasons to believe, as many (including some of the most intellectual minds ever born) in Creation. That all life as we know it today was deigned by the only one who is not subject to time, the only one that never had a beginning. The only one that is not confined by space and bound by physical laws. Laws in which he created and therefore would not be subject to. None of which here is a stretch to either grasp, believe or understand. It makes sense to me. It is believable, logical and reasonable.

Some like to suggest, "well you cannot prove this, so you really cannot say with any certainty that you believe this". And for those that do feel this way, I disagree. I should add, I "respectfully" disagree. I have no problems with others that feel differently than I. But I can believe and do believe in the existence of God, through more than just faith itself. Though faith is an integral part of this equation too. In fact it is needed to a degree. But there is also EVIDENCE, logical PROOF that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today. Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself. There are numerous court cases that have gone to trial where all of the evidence is circumstantial. Perhaps no body has been found. Still, today's technology now allows trace evidences and other signs to give very convincing testimony that a crime was committed. Juries have been thoroughly and unitedly and fully convinced to convict criminals based on such outside, circumstantial evidence exclusively. Likewise then, there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer. The complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible. The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents. Just some fortuitous combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune?

As Einstein astutely stated, "God does not play dice with the universe". So though we cannot see God, we can see EVIDENCE that he does indeed exist. Just as we cannot see our own brains or gravity, or oxygen etc... the evidence that these things are nonetheless real is overwhelming. For myself then, evidence that God exists is even more powerful. The evidence supports this belief for me.

After an examination of much evidence, I am 100 percent certain that these things surrounding us are the result of a Superior Designer. In my mind and in my sincere opinion God DOES exist. And He is responsible for my being here right now. I owe him the gratitude he so deserves. I thank him for letting me live and exist. Sure I am also here because my mother and father married, had intimate relations and I was born. But that process in itself is so complex, such an outstanding system of design that, for me, the credit rightfully goes to the Creator himself. This is why HE deserves the credit; my parents had me because a masterful designer created this process called REPRODUCTION. In fact there was very little on their part, to be truthful. He is worthy of worship in my mind. My questions as to how life arose are answered.

Now ATHEISTS, I have addressed your questions. It is time for you to answer mine.

Please tell those following this thread just how these very complicated systems in the universe and the earth, along with all life forms upon the earth ORIGINATED. Just how did they START? If Science cannot create life, from non-living matter, in a controlled, scientific environment, nor give life BACK to a dead person or animal (though having all the parts needed right in front of them), then how could all these very things come to exist without ANY intellectual force behind them at all? Just FELL into place?

BWAAAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAH

It has never been done ANYWHERE. Yet you want to just chalk up all these complex, massive, amazing features surrounding us today, up to just blind series of chances?

Sure, there is a red corvette just sitting in North Dakota wilderness, that happened to come together with gas and keys ready to drive without any designer somewhere too...

Sorry. But I am Not buying what you are selling ATHEISTS.

YOU ARE DEAD IN WATER ATHEISTS.

There is NO LOGIC and NO REASONABLENESS to your claims that all intelligent life and all organized systems and planets and stars galaxies just happened to fall into place without any intelligent force behind it.

There is just no way that it is even remotely possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided chances. When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a chance that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY.

The many systems that allow life on this earth to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and finely tuned with other systems. Again, by some accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence. For me there is just no way these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect. For you and some others they may have come together by chance or in fact did come together by chance. I disagree. I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from scientists like Richard Dawkins. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant stretch after another. Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.

Folks, this is one reason why the internet is so coooool, everything that is being said, is in PRINT. Just reading what our little atheists have to say is LAUGHABLE here. I feel sorry for them. Seriously. Poor little atheists. They are completely stuck in mud with their beliefs.

I have asked our little atheists to explain just how "DEAD MATTER" turns into "LIVING THINGS". Now read the thread, all of it folks. A lot of comments have been posted. WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS??

You got to just love this. I am not making this stuff up. So tell me, where I can sign up and join the little atheists club now.

Bwahahahahaaa

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Folks, our little atheists believe that all LIVING THINGS on the earth today; all plants, all trees, all vegetables, fruit trees, every single creature on the earth, whether in the ocean, lakes rivers or streams, whether on land or in the air; that ALL **HUMAN BEINGS** with their outstandingly complex brain's, circulatory systems, nervous systems, digestive and lymphatic systems, immune systems along with the ability to procreate through a remarkable Reproductive system; yep EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING that we see out there today arose either from some self-replicating polymer, which arose from DEAD MATTER, from sosme PRIMORDIAL SOUP-like quagmire, all on it's own, without any guiding force WHATSOEVER.

Folks, our little atheists also believe that the entire UNIVERSE with all of it's PRECISION and ORDER and POWER just happened to result from some COSMIC EXPLOSION, without ANY INTELLECTUAL FORCE behind it at all, yet resulting in such precise alignment, that we humans (who came from that soup/dead-matter/polymer etc.) can tell exactly when and where planets, moons, comets, asteroids, stars etc. etc. will be located at any given moment in time.

Yep, our little atheists believe that in the middle of this intricate, expanding, gargantuan universe, our perfectly located, tilted, spinning and orbiting EARTH just happened to fall right into place (and stays in place) with atmosphere, ozone layer, water cycles, just the exact amount of oxygen and other delicately balanced systems due to some fortuitous series of LUCK. A continuous stream of "FAT CHANCES" that all just fell right into place so that all of this LIFE could then arise from those soup-like, dead matter conditions where a polymer can turn into the human brain and beyond.

Not only do our little atheists BELIEVE THIS HILARIOUS LOAD OF GARBAGE, even though it's only a scientific "hypothesis" (cause it's NEVER been duplicated in ANY CONTROLLED scientific setting, so ain't even a THEORY yet). But then, our little atheists go beyond just believing but now want to show up on this debate thread and CONVINCE OTHERS here to believe this same HILARIOUS LOAD OF GARBAGE.

Folks, like I said, this is why the web is so great today. It's all there in b&w PRINT for everybody to read for many years to come. I will be BOOKMARKING this thread.

Here ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE LITTLE ATHEISTS:, (I will help you BY NUMBERING THEM so you can't be too confused):

1- ATHEISTS, how does life evolve from lifeless matter? Please tell us.

2- ATHEISTS, how does it feel believing that red corvette simply could arrive all on its own since universe, life and earth (all far more complex) all arrived on their own?

3- ATHEISTS, if its true that all these things just happened on their own, why cannot the same science and technology which sends folks to the moon, create ANY LIFE (even the simplest of living things) from non-living matter today?

4- ATHEISTS, what about the universal fact of life PRINCIPLE that EVERY BEGINNING MUST HAVE A CAUSE CAUSE? What does THAT do for atheism?

5- ATHEISTS, what does it say to you when people such as Einstein, Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Max Planck, and thousands of others scientists, philosophers, leaders such as Ghandi, MLK, every single President elected and many other successful people as well as BILLIONS of others believe in a Supreme Intelligent Designer and REJECT ATHEISM OUTRIGHT.

It's time to put your money where your mouth is.

Though I won't be holding my breath.

Scott,

Hey on a brighter note. Do you watch boxing? I want to know who you think might win next weekend. De la Hoya or Mayweather?

Ok what the heck, maybe a couple more responses then I'm done.

"The authors of the New Testament knew exactly what was prophesied in the Old Testament. They even made reference to it directly in the text. Since much of the New Testament was written by people who did not actually meet Jesus, much of what they wrote was based on verbal stories and Old Testament prophecies. As such, It would not be difficult to make sure their description of the life of Jesus fulfilled prophecy."

True that. Let's say they did falsify the NT and claim Jesus fit all the descriptions of OT prophecy. Please tell me why they would be persecuted, beaten, land taken, imprisoned and eventually murdered for a belief they knew was false. Even the islamic extremists of this day blow themselves up because they truly believe they will go to heaven and have 10 virgins or whatever. But for the apostles to write about a fake Jesus, what are they to gain. In fact they lost everything and the early Christians were persecuted until 325 A.D until the reign of Constantine. If their belief brought them power and money in the beginning of their ministry, then you have an argument. But through their persecutions lives truth. Even Paul gave up a life of comfort for a life of persecution. For a lie??? No way!

Concerning Jesus' birth.

Micah 5:2 Bethlehem fulfilled-Matt 2:1
Isaiah 9:1-2 Galilee fulfilled-Matt 4:13-16
Hosea 11:1 out of egypt fulfilled-Matt 2:13-15

Jesus was born in bethlehem. fled to egypt and settled in nazareth of galilee.

John 7 you mentioned....read the WHOLE context

Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29but I know him because I am from him and he sent me."

He's not talking about where he's from on earth obviously. Obviously he's talking about being from heaven since he is God. Dont' say that that's my interpretation because that one is obvious bro!

John 7:41-43 "Others said, 'This is the Messiah.' But some asked, 'Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he?Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?' So there was a division in the crowd because of him."

I'm from the bay area. But I was born in Nevada. But when people ask me where I'm from I say the bay area because the majority of my life I've spent here.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He fled to Egypt because of Herod when he was a child. He went to Nazareth in Galilee after that. He was from Nazareth (Galilee) but born in Bethlehem. Even the people of that day couldn't figure that out.

Gotta run. Just about done with this party and must move on. Like I said Scott, continue to challenge God's word. You will eventually find out that it cannot be found false.

God bless

David,

I'm not trying to prove that God does not exist. I don't have to. Nor am I trying to say the Bible says the things I've pointed out.

My point is that you can not PROVE that my interpretation is wrong, any more than you PROVE that your interpretation is right.

As such, all of your statements that claim to KNOW what the Bible says can not be substantiated. It's as simple as that.

Even you could prove that the author's of the Bible were referring to the physical redemption of Man from death, instead of metaphorical death, you would still lack proof to substantiate that claim as well.

David wrote: "I have proven that the Bible contains prophecies concerning the coming of Jesus that were written 100's if not 1000's thousands of years before there occurance."

The authors of the New Testament knew exactly what was prophesied in the Old Testament. They even made reference to it directly in the text. Since much of the New Testament was written by people who did not actually meet Jesus, much of what they wrote was based on verbal stories and Old Testament prophecies. As such, It would not be difficult to make sure their description of the life of Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

Yet it seems like the author of John didn't get the memo. Here, I've clearly cast significant doubt on the Bible's claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. In case you missed it..

- - - - -

John 7:41-43 "Others said, 'This is the Messiah.' But some asked, 'Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he?Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?' So there was a division in the crowd because of him."

Surely John would have corrected them if he thought Jesus had been born in Bethlehem. Even Jesus himself seems to indicate that the crowds knew his birthplace.

John 7:28 "..Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from."

- - - - - -

Does this mean that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem? No. It means what the Bible says and what it really means is a matter of interpretation, not facts. You seem to confuse the two. This is the point I'm trying to make.

David wrote: "So, you can continue to live in your ignorance and make far fetched claims that supposedly prove there is no God, or you can accept Him. Its your decision."

You're the one who needs to prove that your interpretation of the Bible is correct. So far, you have yet to do so. However, there is NO EVIDENCE in nature that God created the universe or humanity. It's all a theory created by Man ON TOP OF NATUE that can not be proven. I consider your claims just as far fetched as you do mine.

And, your stooping to call me 'ignorant' because I don't share a belief that you can't prove really isn't that different from Frank's comment regarding your fitness to be a surgeon.

Frank was calling you unfit to be a surgeon without having evidence of your competency (or lack of it).

You're calling me ignorant without evidence that your interpretation of the BIble is correct or what it's authors claim is accurate.

Both comments are not very productive.

Scott,

Don't get too happy about that article you posted about a habitable planet other than ours. I knew atheists would be quick to jump on that one. So far it is all in theory and really will most likely stay that way, kind of like macroevolution and big bang and all those.

I am coming to a end on this thread and would like to make a final statement. First to you Scott. Please give up the flat earth in the Bible theory. Your starting to sound desperate for anything you can come up with to make the Bible not sound credible. You continue to take all verses in a literal sense and not all of them are meant to be literal. I'll post this for you so that maybe you can learn HOW to study the Bible.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3983

I promise you that you cannot use God's word against Him. Never will your arguments surpass the Word of God. Just like the "like a lion" instead of "pierced" theory you had. But of course you would not recognize that you were wrong in that case because of your pride. You can continue to make excuses not to believe in Him but soon you will fail to run out of excuses. I urge you to make a commitment to study the scripture the way it is supposed to be studied and then you might know what the true meaning is. But how can someone who does not know God, understand God?

So, in conclusion I have seen many arguments for and against God. The scientific argument for the atheists only consists of man-made theories that have never been proven. Whether it be by chance, big bang, or whatever else you can come up with, it takes a lot more faith in believing that than God. So how can the creator of science be proven wrong through His own creation? He can't. I think Vinny made it pretty obvious how far stretched atheists are in their argument.

I have proven previously how the Bible is reliable historically and Vinny came up with more evidence to support Jesus as well. I have proven that the Bible contains prophecies concerning the coming of Jesus that were written 100's if not 1000's thousands of years before there occurance. Not only are the prophecies accurate to the minute detail but also all of them (except all end time prophecy) have been fulfilled through Christ. This proves the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Now, we see end time prophecy taking place here in our lives today. In 1948 Israel became a nation which is the "super sign" for end times. The scattered nation of Israel came home just as God prophecied about. Now we have the EU whose goal is to form a one government in Europe with one currency. God said this would happen too. The new temple in Jerusalem is being built right now as prophecied as well. Animal sacrifice is making a come back because Jews are starting to go back to traditional methods of the Torah, as prophecied. And Hebrew is becoming a well-known and more common spoken language again according to Bible prophecy. You can ignore this and say coincidence, but that would be just ignorance. There are more prophecies that have taken place as God said they will. Christ will be back, maybe in our lifetimes, maybe not. No one knows the hour. But be prepared.

So, you can continue to live in your ignorance and make far fetched claims that supposedly prove there is no God, or you can accept Him. Its your decision.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

And now in these end days people will come up with excuses. And guess what; God said they would. He prophecied about you atheists as well.

But I do thank you because I have studied the Bible a lot more than usual because of your disbelief. I realize that the methods of your arguments take much greater faith in believing than mine. Thank you for helping me to understand and gain a brighter knowledge of God than before this post.

God bless

Vinny wrote: "Yep, our little atheists believe that in the middle of this intricate, expanding, gargantuan universe, our perfectly located, tilted, spinning and orbiting EARTH just happened to fall right into place (and stays in place) with atmosphere, ozone layer, water cycles, just the exact amount of oxygen and other delicately balanced systems due to some fortuitous series of LUCK."

And it looks like Earth could could be one of many planets in many solar systems that "just happened" to have be formed in a Goldilocks zone.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/04/25/habitable.planet.ap/index.html

Poor Vinny,

He needs scientists to create life from a primordial soup in a laboratory before he can believe it could have happened on its own. Never mind the fact that watching a petrie dish for 50 yrs is like declaring that Old Faithful is a once in a lifetime eruption about .00001 milliseconds after it happens.

OBVIOUSLY if Vinny (or any other brilliant Christian) can't conceive of it, it cannot be true. How dare anyone try to hypothesize anything which Vinny himself finds ridiculous or impossible. He, the greatest mind on earth, knows there is no way this world could have happened without the intervention of an intelligent, caring, personal God. Oh, he also happens to have a book which describes just such a God. Now the writing in this book can seem a little cryptic at times but just let Vinny translate it for you, he knows EXACTLY what is meant here. Just trust him. If you trust in Vinny to read it for you, you will know the mind of God. It is so nice to have people like Vinny around to keep the rest of us "lost sheep" in line. What would we do without Vinny. Let us start worshiping Vinny. Praying to Vinny. Sing songs about Vinny. Lets all become Vinnitions so we can "know" truth and understand everything.

Who needs science when we have Vinny. Tell us when we wil die and what heaven looks like Vinny. We need to know so we can have a reason to live. Be sure to remind us of all the "false doctrines" out there so we will not lose our way. OOOH Vinny we love you, we need you.

Vinny,

Your tone and your obnoxiousness are not winning over any atheists to your side. Maybe you don't care about being friendly but that would certainly belie any claims you might make about yourself and Christian virtues. Your long posts are un readable and make you look like a pompous ass. If this is what a Christian world view makes people act like, I hope you soon become a denomination of one.

Regarding prophetic claims, when ONE Bible scholar who claims to be an expert in prophesy can tell us a SPECIFIC event that will happen and EXACTLY what conditions it will happen under, then they will have some validity( If that event happens as they say). Currently all that is done is after the fact perusing of scripture and post event re-reading of texts. Hardly convincing except to those who do not NEED convincing.

Maybe your goal is to close this thread, to shut up all dissenters from your view. If that is the case carry on as you have been because no one will want to talk to you. Somehow I think that is all you care about, silencing the critics.

peace

Vinny wrote: "Secular PROOF that Jesus existed and performed miracles:"

History will record that all of our modern day religions cults existed. It will even record who there leaders were, what their claims were and what their followers believed. However, none of that means any of their claims or beliefs were real. It's simply history.

Secular PROOF is when a secular historic document says that God claimed to have moved a mountain, we can see where that mountain was and we can see where he moved it to - today. Got anything like that? Saying that God created the universe isn't going to cut it.

The rest of your quotes are self referencing. The Bible says it's the word of God. God said xyz, etc.

Vinny wrote: "Concerning his nature Prophesied Fulfilled 12. He shall be called Lord"

You've got to be kidding me. Lord means: someone or something having power, authority, or influence. If you believe that Jesus was the son of God, what else would you call him? LIttle G? And the Old Testament is so full of metaphors that you could claim it prophesied the space shuttle if you tried hard enough.

And the whole traveling to Bethlehem for the census for the birth of Jesus?

- The Romans had always taken the census at the place of residence, not in their ancestral hometown.

- If the census was conducted in the manner described by Luke, every Israelite will have to recall the residence of their ancestors who lived when Joshua partitioned the land of Palestine among the twelve tribes. This was an event that occurred more than one thousand years before the census. That's at least 10 generations.

- Mary was already in an advances stage of pregnancy and the distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is about one hundred kilometers. Traveling this distance would have taken an exhausting ten days or so on donkey-back. And Mary wasn't even required to accompany Joseph to the census.

- John 7:41-43 Others said, "This is the Messiah." But some asked, "Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?" So there was a division in the crowd because of him.

Surely John would have corrected them if he knew Jesus had been born in Bethlehem. Even Jesus himself seems to indicate that the crowds knew his birthplace.

John 7:28 "..Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from."

If that doesn't have "let's make sure Prophecy is fulfilled" written all over it, I don't know what does. In fact, Matthew even makes a direct reference to Micah 5:2 in the New Testament...

Matthew 2:4-5 When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet..."

Vinny wrote: "Every design has a designer. Universally proven as fact."

So who designed God?

Poor Acrapist, needs God to show up and say hello.

Because this Creator of Life has chosen not to show up on your doorstep today, to prove Himself to you, in April of 2007, you then automatically conclude HE must not even exist. It matters NOT (to you) that the evidence itself points to the NEED for this Creator. (Evidence such as Every single beginning has a CAUSE without exceptions. The order, the harmony, complexity and purposefulness of the features on earth, humans having a moral conscience, appreciation for art, the incredible brain, the vast power, symmetry and orderliness of the universe itself etc etc.).

It also seems not to matter to you that other humans, like yourself, have claimed and written down that this Creator HAS plainly shown Himself to themselves. Nor does it seem to matter to you that another PERSON has claimed to be SENT BY that Creator, representing that ONE HIMSELF, performing miraculous events such as healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead as well as teaching those willing to listen, all about this Grand Creator.

But no, since you could never fully UNDERSTAND or COMPREHEND this Supreme One, and because you could never PROVE HE ACTUALLY *IS* THAT ONE in your own mind, you then conclude he either does not exist at all, or it just does not matter at all.

This my friend is FOOLISH thinking. And you want others to buy into this?

Who cares what you believe? You will believe whatever you want to.

But like I said earlier, bible prophecy fulfilled, is an ATHEISTS NIGHTMARE.

Why not comment on all those fulfillments of prophecy along with all of the testimony that Jesus was REAL!

Vinny,

Your bible means nothing to me. Stuff that was written 2000 years ago? Please.

I want you to show me physical evidence --> today <-- of anything supernatural. Show us a god or angel or devil or spirit or soul. But, do it today. If your god is real, then it should be just as real today as it supposedly was then.

Either Jesus existed and what the bible teaches is true. Or it is a bunch of fictional stories.

THERE IS NO WAY TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN A FEW SHORT PARAGRAPHS. SORRY.

IF TRUE, then what he said should be of interest to EVERYBODY!

Secular PROOF that Jesus existed and performed miracles:

What Josephus Tells Us:

What is the significance of Josephus' references to Jesus? Josephus provides valuable, independent confirmation of the existence, life, and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Leading scholar Luke T. Johnson offers the following opinion:

Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus' writing.

(Luke T. Johnson, The Real Jesus, pages 113-14).

F.F. Bruce breaks it down thus:

We have therefore very good reason for believing that Josephus did make reference to Jesus, bearing witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as a wonder-worker, (c) His being the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion under Pilate at the information of Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim, (f) His being the founder of the tribe of Christians, and probably, (g) the belief in His rising from the dead.

(F.F. Bruce, op. cit., page 112).

Jewish authors recognize the miraculous character of some of Jesus' works.

1. Josephus.

Josephus is the earliest witness we have to the miracle-working of Jesus.

From Van Voorst:

"The reconstructed neutral Testimonium also provides evidence about the ministry of Jesus. Josephus calls Jesus 'a wise man.' Note that this characterization is directly linked first to Jesus' miracles, then to his teachings. "He was a worker of amazing deeds" is an explicit characterization of Jesus' ministry as a miracle-worker, with stress on the effect those deeds had on others ("amazing"). Again, there is no detail; what kind of miracles Jesus worked, Josephus does not say. "

2. The other, very early non-Biblical Jewish traditions about Jesus can be found in pre-Rabbinic Jewish tradition in Justin Martyr , in the form of accusations of sorcery and magic. These traditions can arguably be traced back to the very controversies of Jesus day:

4. Celsus seems to believe that Jesus did miracles, but consistently ascribes those to magical powers.

5. Porphyry seems to not make an explicit statement in this area, but similarly argues that (a) the disciples fabricated stories; yet (b) Jesus was semi-divine as was the miracle-working Pythagoras. This would imply an acceptance of His miracles (since Porphyry seemed to believe in Pythagoras' miracles). See Wilken's chapter on this in [CRST].

6. Hierocles wrote a piece on Apollonius and made several references to Jesus' miracles:

7. The emperor Julian (the Apostate) accepted the reality of (some of) the miracles, but downplayed the significance of them:

Interestingly enough he does not deny the reality of the miracles…Julian does not question the reality of the miracles, but asserts that they were ineffective in changing his audience…Julian's statement about the 'Miracle working and fabrication of the gospels' indicates that he could question the veracity of the gospel narratives, but in general he does not seem to question the belief that Jesus performed miracles.

In summary:

Josephus affirms that Jesus worked miracles.

Early hostile Jewish tradition--in Justin and the Rabbinics--manifest the memory that Jesus did works of a miraculous nature.

The hostile Graeco-Roman writers [Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, Julian] accept that some of Jesus' miraculous works actually occurred.

There are two strands of independent, extra-biblical tradition that support the historicity of one specific NT miracle: The Feeding of the 5000.

The general trends and patterns in post-Jesus G-R literature and popular belief are easily explained (and perhaps 'best explained' or 'only explained') by the widespread acceptance by the Roman Empire that a real human in recent history (Jesus) had actually performed credible, 'sane', and non-bizarre miracles.

There ARE indications from extra-biblical sources which suggest that (some of) the miracle stories reflect actual historical events.

Additionally:

Even those who rejected Him acknowledged that He had unusual powers. Rather than deny Jesus' miracles, His enemies accounted for them by saying that He did them with the aid of the devil (Matt. 12:24).

Many books outside of the bible (Quran, Hippocrates, Apocrypha books etc.) have detailed descriptions of Jesus as well.

Cornelius Tacitus:

Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

Lucian of Samosata:
Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.

Suetoniu:
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].

Pliny the Younger:
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Thallus and Phlegon:
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Mara Bar-Serapion:
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Josephus:
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!

The four Gospels:
The four Gospels are the four accounts of Jesus’ life, which are contained in the New Testament part of the Bible. Historians will tell you that the closer an historical document is written to the time of the events it describes, the generally more reliable it is as a source of information about those events. Matthew’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life is now reckoned to have been written sometime between AD 70 and AD 80. Mark’s Gospel is dated between AD. 50 and AD. 65. Luke’s Gospel is dated in the early AD 60s and John’s Gospel sometime between AD 80 and 100. If Jesus died sometime in the AD 30s, it is clear that Mark, Luke and Matthew wrote their Gospels within living memory of Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel comes later and probably outside of living memory for most as John lived to an unusually old age for the ancient period, but the accuracy of his Gospel was verified no doubt by those who read the earlier Gospels.

Another feature of the Gospels is that they were written by men who either knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who themselves knew Jesus personally. Matthew was a former tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus. Mark was a close associate of Simon Peter, who is regarded as being Jesus’ most prominent disciple whilst Jesus was on the earth. Luke was a close associate of Paul who is the most famous of Christian missionaries and who wrote the largest contribution to the New Testament. Paul, in turn, was a close colleague of Simon Peter. John was the former fisherman who became the closest disciple of Jesus. The accounts of such men need to be considered at least seriously.

For me, the idea that all four of gospel writers just MADE UP these accounts about Jesus Christ is not something I quickly buy into. The way they claim to have changed their lives, leaving many significant occupations and other personal things behind, leads me to believe they sure found SOMETHING powerfully persuasive in this person called Christ. They also admit their mistakes which only adds to their credibility in my mind. Likewise the bible writer Paul; he certainly had something dramatic happen to him. He claims to have had a vision of Christ himself, became blind, went to Ananias as instructed and received his sight back. Then completely changed his direction from a persecutor of Christians to becoming an ardent member, one of the FOREMOST of the apostles actually, spearheading the preaching of Christ to the Gentiles. The apostles did not even trust or believe him initially, which again, only adds to the believability in my opinion. I guess all of these writers COULD HAVE just made these things up. That is possible. But it is also possible they happened just as were written. And if so, then we have some very interesting events taking place that would support Jesus' claim to be God's son, representing God himself. And if so, then what he says about God, about the earth, the future, life... can be and should be seriously considered. I would consider such a source as very reliable. Very trustworthy, *IF* these accounts about him are true.

The many PROPHECIES written that had exact fulfillments adds even more weight to possibility of the bible being more than just some good book. The bible's statement that the earth is "ROUND", and that it "HANGS UPON NOTHING", though men at that time believed the earth was FLAT, again adds value to the claim that it is from a higher source than MERE MEN. Are all of these just mere COINCIDENCES? It is possible, I guess. But it's also possible that these facts give evidence that the source of these prophecies and scientific accuracies is from a much higher source than humans, who cannot predict the future with any kind of certainty. There are not just a couple of such prophecies, but literally hundreds which exact, detailed fulfillment. This is very compelling to myself and to billions today.

Bible prophecies are almost always specific and detailed. Fulfillment of bible prophecies are usually obvious and are always 100 percent accurate. In fact, the bible itself has something to say about knowing whether or not a person giving a prophecy is a true prophet of God or not.

Bible prophecies are an **ATHEISTS NIGHTMARE**, Here are just some fulfilled prophecies.

Concerning his birth Prophesied Fulfilled:

1. Born of the seed of woman
Gen 3:15
Gal 4:4

2. Born of a virgin
Isa 7:14
Mt 1:18-25

3. Seed of Abraham
Gen 22:18
Mt 1:1

4. Seed of Isaac
Gen 21:12
Lk 3:23+34

5. Seed of Jacob
Num 24:17
Lk 3:34

6. Seed of David
Jer 23:5
Lk 3:31

7. Tribe of Judah
Gen 49:10
Rev 5:5

8. Family line of Jesse
Isa 11:1
Lk 3:32

9. Born in Bethlehem
Mic 5:2
Mt 2:1-6

10. Herod kills the children
Jer 31:15
Mt 2:16-18

Concerning his nature Prophesied Fulfilled

11. He pre-existed creation
Mic 5:2
1 Pet 1:20

12. He shall be called Lord
Ps 110:1
Acts 2:36

13. Called Immanuel (God with us)
Isa 7:14
Mt 1:22-23

14. Prophet
Deut 18:18-19
Acts 3:18-25

15. Priest
Ps 110:4
Heb 5:5-6

16. Judge
Isa 33:22
Jn 5:22-23

17. King
Ps 2:6
Jn 18:33-37

18. Anointed by the Spirit
Isa 11:2
Mt 3:16-17

19. His zeal for God
Ps 69:9
Jn 2:15-17

Concerning his ministry Prophesied Fulfilled:

20. Preceded by a messenger
Isa 40:3
Mt 3:1-3

21. To begin in Galilee
Isa 9:1-2
Mt 4:12-17

22. Ministry of Miracles
Isa 35:5-6
Mt 9:35;11:4

23. Teacher of parables
Ps 78:1-4
Mt 13:34-35

24. He was to enter the temple
Mal 3:1
Mt 21:10-12

25. Enter Jerusalem on donkey
Zech 9:9
Mt 21:1-7

26. Stone of stumbling to Jews
Isa 28:16; Ps 118:22
1 Pet 2:6-8

27. Light to Gentiles
Isa 49:6
Acts 13:46-48

The day Jesus was crucified Prophesied Fulfilled:

28. Betrayed by a friend
Ps 41:9
Jn 13:18-27

29. Sold for 30 pieces of silver
Zech 11:12
Mt 26:14-15

30. 30 pieces thrown in Temple
Zech 11:13
Mt 27:3-5

31. 30 pieces buys potters field
Zech 11:13
Mt 27:6-10

32. Forsaken by His disciples
Zech 13:7
Mk 14:27+50

33. Accused by false witnesses
Ps 35:11+20-21
Mt 26:59-61

34. Silent before accusers
Isa 53:7
Mt 27:12-14

35. Wounded and bruised
Isa 53:4-6
1 Pet 2:21-25

36. Beaten and spit upon
Isa 50:6
Mt 26:67-68

37. Mocked
Ps 22:6-8
Mt 27:27-31

38. Fell under the cross
Ps 109:24-25
Jn 19:17; Lk23:26

39. Hands and feet pierced
Ps 22:16
Jn 20:24-28

40. Crucified with thieves
Isa 53:12
Mt 27:38

41. Prayed for enemies
Isa 53:12
Lk 23:34

42. Rejected by His own people
Isa 53:3
Jn 19:14-15

43. Hated without cause
Ps 69:4
Jn 15:25

44. Friends stood aloof
Ps 38:11
Lk22:54;23:49

45. People wag their heads
Ps 22:7;109:25
Mt 27:39

46. People stared at Him
Ps 22:17
Lk 23:35

47. Cloths divided and gambled for
Ps 22:18
Jn 19:23-24

48. Became very thirsty
Ps 22:15
Jn 19:28

49. Gall and vinegar offered Him
Ps 69:21
Mt 27:34

50. His forsaken cry
Ps 22:1
Mt 27:46

51. Committed Himself to God
Ps 31:5

Lk 23:46
52. Bones not broken
Ps 34:20
Jn 19:32-36

53. Heart broken
Ps 69:20;22:14
Jn 19:34

54. His side pierced
Zech 12:10
Jn 19:34+37

55. Darkness over the land
Amos 8:9
Lk 23:44-45

56. Buried in rich man's tomb
Isa 53:9
Mt 27:57-60

His Resurrection & Ascension Prophesied Fulfilled:

57. Raised from the dead
Ps 16:8-11
Acts 2:24-31

58. Begotten as Son of God
Ps 2:7
Acts 13:32-35

59. Ascended to God
Ps 68:18
Eph 2:8-10

60. Seated beside God
Ps 110:1
Heb 1:3+13

In particular, I always appreciated this one: The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Bible passage: Micah 5:2

Written: sometime between 750-686 BC. Fulfilled: 5 BC

In Micah 5:2, there is the prophecy that reveals that Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah.

For Christians, the prophecy is very powerful in a very simple way. It eliminates all other cities and towns throughout the world as a place in which the Messiah could be born. It narrows the possibilities to one tiny village just south of Jerusalem.

And throughout the span of the past 27 centuries, from the days of the prophet Micah up through the present time, Bethlehem is credited as being the birthplace for only one person who is widely known throughout the world. And that person is Jesus Christ.

The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke list Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. Matthew 2:1-6 describes the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of Micah's prophecy.

There is also SECULAR testimony as well (AS PRESENTED CLEARLY ABOVE) that Christ did exist and did perform miraculous events. The calendar we use today is based on the very year he was born. Just a coincidence? A person that really did not exist AT ALL, or whose accomplishments were greatly exaggerated? Possible, I guess. But possibly NOT exaggerated at all. The scriptures contain numerous accounts of MIRACLES where people were brought back to life, sick and dying were healed, people were miraculously fed whether from food falling out of the sky or a few fishes feeding thousands, olive oil and bread jars that never ran out and other examples. Sea's were parted, were walked on and calmed down upon commands. You do not hear stories like this today, with hundreds of eye-witnesses to collaborate. This collection of books is available in over 2000 languages today. It the worlds best selling book of all time right now. The information contained is also very practical for those that wish to believe it and apply it. The Golden Rule for example. Children obeying their parents is another. Husbands loving their wives as their own bodies makes good marriages even better. And answer when mild turns away rage is a proven valuable principle in life. Jesus sermon on the mount in Matthew chapters 5-7 is still considered by many to be the greatest speech ever given. Priceless gems for many.

Is it POSSIBLE then, that this bible is from God? I believe it is possible, and even very probable. And If so, if it IS from God Himself, this Supreme Grand Designer, then the very question as to how life arrived is ANSWERED. Because it also tells the reader that God himself made these very things that we see today. No SOUP-LIKE conditions that somehow, some way evolved into the beautiful yet complex and purposeful systems we see surrounding us today. It answers many of man's perplexing questions. Does it answer everything? No, it does not. Yet it does say there are new scrolls to be opened as well in the future. It talks about Everlasting Life being possible for those that believe and apply God's sons teachings in his or her life. A life where death and pain and mourning are things of the past. Not the kind of life we see today. It promises these things we see causing pain and death and heartaches will be done away completely and PERMANENTLY. That is a beautiful hope to me. Many other answers, too many to list here are given as well. If the bible is true then, the human race has much to look forward to.

For me, it does make sense. It does offer hope. It is worth putting my trust in. It does offer answers as well as a good measure of comfort. It is believable.

You see to many it is an old book, and I can respect that. But to myself and many, many others, it is much, much more than this. There are genuine answers and a real positive hope for those that do believe what it contains.

Yet even WITHOUT THE BIBLE, the idea that all of these amazingly complex features simply came to exist on their very own, without any help from a higher Intellect is just not acceptable, believable or even POSSIBLE to me. Every design has a designer. Universally proven as fact. Yet somehow you want to throw that out the window because you don't believe in God and you are adamant that such a God just could not exist. At least agnostics open the door for the possibility and even believe it is probable. You say NO WAY. That EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING that we see out there today arose either from some self-replicating polymer, which arose from DEAD MATTER, from sosme PRIMORDIAL SOUP-like quagmire, all on it's own, without any guiding force WHATSOEVER. That the entire UNIVERSE with all of it's PRECISION and ORDER and POWER just happened to result from some COSMIC EXPLOSION, without ANY INTELLECTUAL FORCE behind it at all, yet resulting in such precise alignment, that we humans (who came from that soup/dead-matter/polymer etc.) can tell exactly when and where planets, moons, comets, asteroids, stars etc. etc. will be located at any given moment in time. And that in the middle of this intricate, expanding, gargantuan universe, our perfectly located, tilted, spinning and orbiting EARTH just happened to fall right into place (and stays in place) with atmosphere, ozone layer, water cycles, just the exact amount of oxygen and other delicately balanced systems due to some fortuitous series of LUCK. A continuous stream of "FAT CHANCES" that all just fell right into place so that all of this LIFE could then arise from those soup-like, dead matter conditions where a polymer can turn into the human brain and beyond.

FOLKS, our little atheists believe that all LIVING THINGS on the earth today; all plants, all trees, all vegetables, fruit trees, every single creature on the earth, whether in the ocean, lakes rivers or streams, whether on land or in the air; that ALL **HUMAN BEINGS** with their outstandingly complex brain's, circulatory systems, nervous systems, digestive and lymphatic systems, immune systems along with the ability to procreate through a remarkable Reproductive system; yep EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING that we see out there today arose either from some self-replicating polymer, which arose from DEAD MATTER, from sosme PRIMORDIAL SOUP-like quagmire, all on it's own, without any guiding force WHATSOEVER.

Folks, our little atheists also believe that the entire UNIVERSE with all of it's PRECISION and ORDER and POWER just happened to result from some COSMIC EXPLOSION, without ANY INTELLECTUAL FORCE behind it at all, yet resulting in such precise alignment, that we humans (who came from that soup/dead-matter/polymer etc.) can tell exactly when and where planets, moons, comets, asteroids, stars etc. etc. will be located at any given moment in time.

Yep, our little atheists believe that in the middle of this intricate, expanding, gargantuan universe, our perfectly located, tilted, spinning and orbiting EARTH just happened to fall right into place (and stays in place) with atmosphere, ozone layer, water cycles, just the exact amount of oxygen and other delicately balanced systems due to some fortuitous series of LUCK. A continuous stream of "FAT CHANCES" that all just fell right into place so that all of this LIFE could then arise from those soup-like, dead matter conditions where a polymer can turn into the human brain and beyond.

Not only do our little atheists BELIEVE THIS HILARIOUS LOAD OF GARBAGE, even though it's only a scientific "hypothesis" (cause it's NEVER been duplicated in ANY CONTROLLED scientific setting, so ain't even a THEORY yet). But then, our little atheists go beyond just believing but now want to show up on this debate thread and CONVINCE OTHERS here to believe this same HILARIOUS LOAD OF GARBAGE.

Folks, like I said, this is why the web is so great today. It's all there in b&w PRINT for everybody to read for many years to come. I will be BOOKMARKING this thread.

David wrote: "Heres a confusing article for ya."

What this article fails to note is that both Isaiah 22:18 & 40:22 the words in question are both nouns.

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in..."

"He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house."

The circle that belongs to the Earth. The person is being compared with a ball that is being tossed.

In Isaiah 29:3 it is used as an adverb.

"And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee."

'Round about' is describing how they will camp.

Saying "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a round about" does not make any sense. (unless you simply choose to believe that it does)

Vinny, Vinny ,Vinny

You are still left with the question of what this "Intelligent Designer" is. You cannot even hope to describe "It". If you think anyone, anytime has accurately or completely described this "designer" you would be claiming them to be even more knowing than the designer.

Can a Corvette really know it is red??? Does he know he's a car??

You have solved NOTHING!!

You cannot claim with any amount of certainty that the Bibles God is true or the Korans or any others.

The "Intelligent Designer" teaches us NOTHING.

Science has taught us a lot. It has given us useful information to exist and understand our world. "Intelligent Design" is completely useless. It is tits on a bull.

I happen to believe in a God,. I also know that none of the current religions, that think they have God described and fully accounted for, have a clue.

So the proper response to your post would have to be " Thank you sir for your input, now we can move on to something that might be of use to this planet"

peace

David wrote: " I just wish someone had the balls to just say 'yeah I beleive in God but I dont want to follow Him.'"

David, it appears that you simply cannot conceive that I do not believe in God. The concept is completely foreign to you. Instead, you think that I believe but claim not to because I don't agree with his teachings. To be honest, I'm not surprised.

Let me repeat myself. I really do not believe that God exists.

We exist. The universe exists. However, there is no physical proof that any God created the universe. Instead, we have an elaborate concept called the BIble, created over 2,000 years ago by men, that tries to explain how and why were here. Yet we continue to discover facts about our universe that seem to contradict the very claims it makes.

Perhaps you're willing to accept this concept due to it's promise of eternal life and the meaning it gives to your existence, but I'm not. It would simply be wishful thinking on my part.

I'd like to believe that I wouldn't simply blink out of existence when I die. I'd like to believe I could live forever with my friends in family. I would like nothing more to believe these things were true, but I can't.

I don't claim to know exactly how the universe or life was formed. You're the one who's claiming that the world was created by God. As such, the burden of proof is yours to bear.

However, as I said earlier, a purposeless universe could appear and behave exactly like a universe created by an omnipotent, omniscient God who's will is incomprehensible. Neither have to make any sense and both could appear random.

Again, if I were creating a God, I'd make sure his will was incomprehensible. By doing this, you could explain absolutely anything and everything that could ever happen.

David wrote: "you continue to bring up verses that you TRY to make sense for yourself. it's not working."

And I can say the exact same thing to you. This is my point. Neither of us can know author's true intention. Yet you act as if you KNOW your interpretation is correct. Many people, such as Calvin have done so in the past and have been wrong.

David wrote: "God chooses to remain hidden so that He can know if we truly love Him through faith"

Looks like you're the one "making excuses" for God. Please show me the verse that says God is hiding his word so he can tell we really love him. This is your interpretation.

"otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!"

So, you're saying that the Bible didn't come out and say that slavery was wrong because Jesus doesn't want me to be forgiven? How exactly does this make any sense at all? Again, this is simply playing the "God's will is incomprehensible" card.

David wrote: "You try to explain it off like the world is flat the sun revolves around the earth, but it is meaningless and misinterpreted over and over again."

I can simply say the same thing to you. That you've the one who has misinterpreted the Bible, like many before you. And you can't prove that either of us are right or wrong.

However, everyone at that time though the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Isaiah could have used the word for ball (duwr) instead of circle (chuwg) when describing the earth since he used it to describe a spherical object in the very same book. People continued to believe this until we discovered otherwise. Even then, many Christians said this was blasphemy. Do you deny this?

David wrote: "Study it and you might find your truth."

Study and you will find it says want you want it to say.

Again, how do you KNOW your interpretation is correct? Will you answer this one question?

David wrote: "There's meaning in that phrase which pertains to you, Scott.'

And here's one that pertains to everyone: "We do not learn by experience, but our capacity for experience."

In other words, we can experience reality, but fail to learn from it due to our pre-concived notions about the world and our universe. If we are not open to ALL possibilities then we will not experience Truth - even if it's looking us straight in the eye.

Vinny,

I think you just made it "case closed." All I know is that if you and me were sitting together and I heard a very loud BANG and I asked what was that. If you responded "nothing" should I really believe that? I think you did a great job explaining that vinny. Props to you.

Scott,

Heres a confusing article for ya.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html

I think it sums up the "flat earth" assumption. Its kinda long but I think it goes into great detail about the meanings of those verses you wrote about. I like that you continue to challenge the Bible. I have great faith that it can never be proven false. Only man can be proven false. Myself included.

I hope you read Vinny's post. That was the best argument for a Creator that I've ever heard. I must agree with him in the way atheists look at things is out of ignorance. They come up with any excuse not to believe in God. There really is no reason not to. I just wish someone had the balls to just say "yeah I beleive in God but I dont want to follow Him." That is more respectable. Instead all I've heard on here are excuses for not believing. Taking every possible "theory" and trying to turn it on God. It is so much easier to convince yourself there isn't a God than to be held accountable for your actions. That's too bad too, because that's all in pride.

God bless

The only way a tree could be visible to "the whole earth" is if the earth was flat. A single tree, even if it was tall enough to reach the sun, could not be visible from the opposite side of a spherical earth.

Why not? If a tree were big enough to reach the sun dont you think its limbs could be wide enough for the world to see?

Scott,

you continue to bring up verses that you TRY to make sense for yourself. it's not working. I have no idea who these "Jains" so I wont comment on that. But you continue to ask why God speaks like this and does not give an exact answer.

Even Jesus spoke in parables. Why?

'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'[a]"

God chooses to remain hidden so that He can know if we truly love Him through faith. All the scientific crap you bring up has no case. You try to explain it off like the world is flat the sun revolves around the earth, but it is meaningless and misinterpreted over and over again. You continue to READ instead of STUDY. And that is why you come to your conclusions. Accept Christ first and then will come understanding. Jesus made this very clear. But if you continue to just READ the Bible you will continue to be erroneous in your interpretations. Study it and you might find your truth. "He who has an ear, let him hear." There's meaning in that phrase which pertains to you, Scott.

God bless

It's time to play BURY THE ATHEISTS. This is far too easy. Nothing personal folks.

***** Every beginning has a CAUSE. You and I and everybody else must accept and do accept this as a simple fact of life. The items in your house, your car, your work place, your clothes, everything in the local Walmart, the Walmart building itself, ALL of these "effects", each and every one, had a cause; a beginning, were made, created, designed or whatever else you may choose to call it. There is NOTHING out there existing for specific purposes, that were not created either directly or indirectly. Yet the atheists wants to now just conveniently discard this UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE which applies to EVERYTHING, and now subscribe to the theory that since God has not shown up on their doorsteps, proving his existence in front of their own faces, that he has not done so for the one single reason that he must not exist. This is rational thinking? This is ignorance. Sorry to be the bearer of the bad news atheists.

Allow me to be a little more specific for you.

Yes, I am a "theist". I am CERTAIN that there is a God; a Creator, behind all of the life we see around us. "Intelligent design", which the earth, and universe is abundantly filled with, very simply requires "intelligence", as well as "a designer". The complexity of life, when one chooses to delve deeper into how complicated even the simplest forms of life in actuality really are, only adds to the simplest requirement that there be an intelligent design force responsible.

Let me illustrate exactly what I am talking about here, in terms that might bring the reality of all life happening without any intelligent designer being responsible for it, to a simpler, easier to relate to example.

A RED CORVETTE FOR ATHEISTS:

Let's imagine that you are completely alone in the middle of North Dakota somewhere, surrounded by nothing but mountainous wilderness, no people, no buildings, just you alone and the wilderness for hundreds of miles. And right there in the middle of it all you suddenly walk up to a brand new looking Red Chevrolet Corvette, unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, a full tank of gas and one road taking you out. Now, it would in my opinion be nothing short of preposterous, actually INSANE to even entertain the mere possibility if someone were to try telling you that THAT brand new looking Red Corvette just happened to get there, on its own, without any intelligent designer behind it whatsoever. That somehow, some way it just happened to be some product of "blind chance" without any intellectual forces behind that ready-to-drive automobile.

That all the parts just "happened" to come together absolutely perfectly through some kind of Big BANG/Abiogenesis/Evolutionary etc etc.. series of events. A cosmic primordial "soup" if you will that eventually turned into that beautiful automobile, ready to take off. Who of us out here would even consider such an outrageous suggestion as this? Okay sure, these processes just happened to turn into eight perfectly designed and gapped spark plugs, placed precisely into their sockets, tightened down exactly as needed. The spark plug wires too just happened to fall into place connecting to all eight plugs, while coincidentally also connecting to a computer chip, a continuously self calibrating one (that happened to just come together o its own by the way), designed to tell it exactly how often to fire those eight perfectly placed spark plugs. Of course, the steering wheel just by CHANCE happened to be in the right location, while also connecting the front-end with it's front axle, ball joints, tie rods and perfectly synchronizing the movement of the tires. The tires by the way also all happen to be perfectly sized, with identical tread, perfect air pressure (how did air pressure even get in there by the way??) made of just the right rubber material, while perfectly balanced and with perfect alignment all by itself. All along the way to turn those tires somehow a power steering pump made itself, with belt and fluid with it's case and cap filed just where it needs to go. The doors so one can get inside the car are perfectly fitted and actually open with the lift of a handle. An armrest also somehow conveniently evolved, while still looking and smelling brand new. Of course rather than just look at this beauty, it actually runs and will even automatically shift into different gears because low and behold there is a TRANSMISION too. One that somehow and some way just perfectly connected with the motor which somehow and some way has eight pistons, a crank shaft, fuel injectors, cam shaft, a perfectly sealed even (though removable) head so that the transmission actually has something to shift for. Of course you need high octane, fresh, clean, combustable GASOLINE to run the entire thing, but low and behold it has a full tank of just that. How bout that? (And how's the gas TANK get there?) In fact believe it or not, the fuel tank has a fuel line as well, that just so happens to be connected to a fuel filter which leads it right to eight perfectly fitted and located fuel injectors, which somehow and some way are attached to the ENGINE itself that is still perfectly situated in the front of that automobile that just happened to be formed by itself through through blind CHANCE.

Unbelievable there is also a hood, with an outside and inside hood latch that allows you to look at the motor that evolved on its own. All the while fitting perfectly and symmetrically into perfect place. In another incredible act of CHANCE, there is a gas pedal too that when pressed carefully lets that amazingly complex machine (that just happened by series chances) to move forward. Of course once you did get in it and realized this amazing machine can actually take you wherever you wish to go, you have another serious problem; whoops, how do you STOP IT? Big problem. Well lookey here!... there is a BRAKE PEDAL right next to the gas pedal that just so happens to connect to four disc brakes that also are perfectly hitched to brake rotors, and calipers that are coincidentally just perfectly hooked up with those perfectly rounded and symmetrical tires that we already discovered earlier. And through some act of evolutionary coincidence, this braking system has a MASTER CYLINDER that just also happens to have the perfectly positioned brake lines, filled with just the correct kind and correct amount of brake fluid. Of course if it were instead power steering fluid, or transmission fluid or gasoline in them there brake lines it would not work one bit, and may even catch on fire, but since it has the exact consistency needed for brake fluid, it works like a charm. How bout that!

There are several clear windows to look out from as well. Sure need those; glad they just happened to FALL INTO PLACE where they did too. Pretty amazing how the elements and other external forces just happened to get that red shiny paint job only where it is and not on the windows, would have a problem there for sure. And guess what else, inside it has heat and ac and rear defrost and windshield wiper blades, a fuel gauge, temp gauge, tachometer with speedometer, with perfectly located knobs that even say heat and ac and wiper speeds. How did that get here on it's own? Amazing aint it? And for some strange reason it needs to have some little piece of metal to turn the thing on, I believe they call it a KEY. Low and behold THERE IS A KEY, with the exact correct notches already in the perfectly located steering wheel. How bout all that, what an amazing coincidence!

Obviously I could continue on with this for pages and pages folks. I am sure you can see the point. (Try as you may to AVOID the point), It would be silly, foolish, absurd, outrageous, strange, weird and just impossibly IGNORANT to believe ALL of these things just happened by blind chance, without any intelligence at all, creating one single, ready-to drive Red Chevrolet Corvette. If nobody on this board could be convinced of such a foolish idea with one automobile in the middle of nowhere, how then could people POSSIBLY believe that a FAR, FAR MORE complex universe and earth, filled with far more complicated life (than that single corvette) could possibly just happen by itself, through some evolutionary process, with absolutely no help from an intelligent source anywhere?

The reality is, I would have a better chance of selling somebody on that car that just formed by itself, through a Big Bang/abiogenesis (the supposed origination of life from lifeless matter) and then evolved with all the perfect pieces fitting together, than on the UNIVERSE and EARTH itself just happening to form themselves as well as all life forms upon the earth. A human being is far, far more complex that that car. With our immune systems, lymphatic systems, digestive systems, cardio systems with heart chambers and blood vessels, nervous systems, joints, muscles, tendons, brains with billions or neurons, eyes that see, ears that hear, nose that smells, fingers that feel, skin that sweats, mouth that tastes, chews and swallows. Feet, legs, knees that move and bend. Reproductive systems that can create new life etc etc on and on. The complexity of one human being puts that new Corvette to shame. Millions of time more complex. You get a scratch on that new car and you will visiting the body shop. Scratch or hurt yourself, and the body has the ability to actually heal itself. And you really hope to convince me it happened all by CHANCE, with no designer, no intelligence behind it all? Some primordial evolutionary soup like process, which resulted from a big ole BANG? We haven't even started discussing the complexity and incredible order of our UNIVERSE yet. Or the earth , how outstandingly complex yet perfectly harmonized it is. Photosynthesis, clouds and rain, the perfect tilt and rotational speed of the earth, perfect location of the sun, the moon, our orbit speed. The atmosphere, ozone layer, perfect amount of oxygen in the air. Gravity, food cycles, fire; all happened by blind chance? No intelligence required? Sorry atheists, but you are DEAD IN WATER here.

Lets talk about science for just a moment. The science where many get there beliefs that there is NO GOD, no maker because they cannot prove he exists. If science is so smart and such a trustworthy source, why cannot science then create life from non living matter? It has not been done. ANYWHERE, EVER. Not only can it not do such a thing as make life from non-living matter, even if all the parts are already there, in human form, animal form or any form, science cannot even PUT LIFE BACK to the BODY that just lost it prematurely through accidents, disease or any other disaster, or death through natural aging? With all the parts ALREADY TOGETHER, in front of these scientists, they are still helpless and cannot make LIFE exist. Yet they insist that ALL life as we see it today, just happened by some series of chances, without ANY help from any intelligent source. How reasonable is this? Let me answer that for you, IT'S NOT REASONABLE AT ALL.

This is why I believe in an Intelligent DESIGNER, a Creator rather than some abiogenesis/evolutionary/Big BANG series of processes resulting in all that we have today. It makes perfect sense. It is reasonable, it is logical and rational. To believe everything we see just happened BY ITSELF is none of those things in my sincere and honest opinion. Science cannot even feed the poor nor cure the worlds problems either. It has not even cured AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, fixed global warming, the ozone layer and tens of thousands of other issues. And people wish to put their FULL TRUST in science when it comes to believing in a God or not? Sorry, I am not convinced and do not buy any of what they are selling. It is actually laughable to believe all things originated from nothing, all on their very own, without any intelligence behind it

When I look at the entire picture then, the fact that ANY kind of intelligent design around us today requires an intelligent designer. The simple truth that it would be absurd to try to explain a red corvette, a house or even a number 2 pencil (structured, purposeful things) as having just ARRIVED from out of nothingness. The facts that this earth, the universe and all upon them are very complex, very organized, highly structured and simply demanding in all reasonableness that an intelligent creator be the one responsible for such incredible, organized, purposeful DESIGN. That science itself cannot even create life out of non-living matter, nor from dead, former living matter and has far too many holes in its theories and is far from a source worth putting all trust in. Adding it all up for me then, I cannot get away from the inescapable conclusion that there IS A GOD responsible for all of the many features we see around us right now.

There is NO LOGIC and NO REASONABLENESS to atheist claims that all intelligent life and all organized systems and planets and stars galaxies just happened to fall into place without any intelligent force behind it.

There is just no way that it is even remotely, plausibly even MINUTELY possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided CHANCES. When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a chance that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized, finely tuned and intricate. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY.

The many systems that allow LIFE ON EARTH to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and again are finely tuned with other systems. AGAIN, by some merely accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence. For me there is just NO WAY these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect. For you and some others they may have come together by mere chance or in fact did come together by mere chance. I disagree. I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from scientists like Richard Dawkins. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant stretch after another. Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.

You see folks, a perfectly spinning, tilted and orbiting earth did not EVOLVE, like you claim all OTHER LIFE on earth did. Neither did the atmosphere including ozone layer on earth, the water cycles, nor did the moon, sun and stars EVOLVE as you state in your explanations above. Nor did many BILLIONS of other things similar. Your argument, like I said, is LOSE LOSE for atheists. Again, this is why all atheists that you see today, anywhere, have a little red corvette stuck on their forehead. You cannot ignore it. It is always there.

In the simplest of terms then:

If through some cosmic "BIG BANG", ALL of the billions of stars in our own organized, orderly Milky Way Galaxy, as well as the BILLIONS of other organized and orderly Galaxies with their billions of stars came into existence. And if inside our very own organized and orderly galaxy, in what is known as our own orderly SOLAR SYSTEM, we have at just the right distance from our perfectly sized SUN, a perfectly located and sized planet EARTH, that also rotates at the perfect speed of 24 hours (needed to sustain life) as well as orbits around the sun at the perfect speed of 66,600 mph to keep it in that precise orbiting pattern and not sucked into the gravitational pull of the sun itself. And if this perfectly located, spinning and orbiting EARTH also has perfectly, purposeful and finely balanced SYSTEMS upon it (NEEDED TO SUSTAIN LIFE) such as different atmospheric layers, with protective ozone layer, with just the correct amount of gases needed to sustain life. (.Oxygen, Nitrogen, CO2, argon, water vapor and other smaller trace gasses). And if this same, orbiting, spinning, perfectly located EARTH with perfect atnosphere for life, located perfectly inside the universe with many billions of organized galaxies ALSO has a variety of unique, perfectly balanced SYSTEMS AND FEATURES such as water cycles, weather systems, eco systems, food chain systems, microbial systems, photosynthesis, tides due to a perfectly located and spinning and sized moon at the precisely needed location and too many others to list here.

And if UPON this perfectly located, spinning EARTH, with it's many perfectly balanced features and systems (found in the middle of an organized orderly universe), there also happens to be a variety of LIVING THINGS on this earth, with ITS OWN amazingly complex varieties of different systems such as digestive, circulatory, reproductive, elimination, immune, neurological etc etc, that just happened to originate from NOTHING AT ALL, through some BIG BANG, into an organized gargantuan UNIVERSE, with a perfectly located, spinning, orbiting EARTH located within that universe, that just so happened to come WITH the many FEATURES needed to support life, along with all these many varieties OF LIFE FORMS that supposedly arose from lifeless matter, primordial soup, to polymers, into complex living things including human BRAINS and beyond; then FOLKS if all this happened, ***ALL ON ITS VERY OWN***, without any INTELLECTUAL SOURCE anywhere, then THAT RED CORVETTE showing up in the wilderness with gas, keys and everything in place is a PIECE OF CAKE. That Red Vette, all on it's own, is easy as counting 1,2,3 when compared to all THESE OTHER things arising from and existing because of a series of what can only be described as FAT-CHANCES, ALL ON THEIR VERY OWN.

NOW DEAL WITH IT ATHEISTS!

This is why you athesists are STUCK with red corvette on your foreheads for life. It applies, it fits, it works. For those of you that want to try wiggling off the hook because red vette aint living, breathing, self-replicating life form, you are then BURIED by the fact that neither is the earth, moon, sun, and stars or universe living, breathing, self-replicating life forms. Neither is atmosphere, water cycles, photosynthesis, weather systems etc living breathing self-replicating life forms. But I already addressed that in the other thread. I am only repeating myself here AGAIN. This is why Almost Atheist failed in presenting the argument correctly. Is why atheists arguments above have no legs at all.

Is why I also used the bomb-explosions never turning into a New York city with buildings, plumbing, door knobs and yellow cabs. This is just plain old, laughable nonsense, passed down to people that want to cut out the reality that there is a God.

Is also why so few humans ever buy into it.

I wrote: Here The Bible says the sun does not move, the earth moves around the sun.

Should have said: "WE KNOW the sun does not move around the earth, the earth moves around the sun. "

David wrote: "He did. How clear are the important aspects of the Bible. The ten commandments."

Where in the 10 commandments does it talk about slavery? How is it that the Jains can clearly do in one simple sentence what the entire Bible cannot?

The Mahavira of Jains "Do not injure, abuse, *oppress*, *enslave*, insult, torment or kill any living beings or creatures."

David wrote: "Until you find me a verse that says "the world is flat" then I cannot come to a conclusion that the Bible is contradicting to science."

Why would the Bible come out and say that the world was flat? Everyone believed the earth was flat at that time, so it would be simply stating the obvious. Instead, why didn't the Bible, based on the infinite knowledge of God, set mankind straight by clearly saying the earth was a sphere?

Instead, it uses wording that implies the earth was flat, as I've illustrated.

David wrote: "I tried to look up the hebrew word for "sphere" and there isnt one. ... So with a limited ability to describe a "sphere" I think maybe that's the best they could have came up with."

In the same book, Isaiah uses the word 'duwr' as a NOUN to describe a spherical object.

Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

If the author of Isaiah meant the earth was round like a sphere, he would have used 'duwr' instead of 'chuwg'. The modern Hebrew word for ball, kaddur, has its roots in the ancient word duwr used in Isaiah 22:18. Also, "THE circle of the earth" implies the earth only has one circle. A spherical earth wound not have one single circle, but many.

Daniel 4:10-11: The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

The only way a tree could be visible to "the whole earth" is if the earth was flat. A single tree, even if it was tall enough to reach the sun, could not be visible from the opposite side of a spherical earth.

David wrote: "what is the sky?"

Again, Genesis says the sky is a dome that separates the waters of the earth and the waters of the heavens. Over verses confirm that this dome is hard.

Gen 1:6-7 And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

Job 37:18 Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

Prov 8:28 when he made firm the skies above, …

The Bible also claims that God made two lights...

Gen 1: 17 God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.

The moon does not give light, it reflects it.

David wrote: "I have not seen a literal translation of the sun rotating around the earth."

Of course you haven't. You can decide to take anything the Bible says literally or metaphorically, depending on what YOU want it to say.

Joshua [12] Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. [13] And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day

Here The Bible says the sun does not move, the earth moves around the sun.

David wrote: "I dont see rain in this passage. Is there water in heaven? I dont know never been there."

Revelation 11:6 These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

Men shut the sky, which is a dome, to prevent the water in heaven from falling as rain.

Note: I'm not saying that this IS what the Bible means. I'm saying it was once widely believed that these some of these verses should be taken literally. People even made important decisions based on such literal interpretations. We later found out that these verses were either wrong or meant to be taken metaphorically.

Again, how do you know the verses you've decided to take literally really do reflect the reality of our universe?

I think much of this boils down to the following: some people seem to lack the concept of having a core belief that could be untrue. It's as if it's simply not part of their vocabulary. They think, "If I believe in something this much, then it must be true." They may purposely or unknowingly ignore aspects of reality that conflict with that belief.

Being someone who has realized one of my core beliefs was wrong, I started questioning my other beliefs, including religion. While I've always had doubt, this questioning has lead be to no longer believe in God.

In some cases, such as a survival scenario, this kind of belief can save your life. If you are lost in a blizzard, you may have a 1:100 chance of surviving. You could just give in to your fear and confusion of the situation around you and freeze to death, or you could ignore them and have faith that you will survive if you keep looking for shelter.

However, there is even a subtle difference in this situation between a theist and a non-thesist. Even if I didn't know the odds, I might guess that there is a chance that I may survive if I evaluate the situation and decide to find or perhaps even create shelter. Someone of religious faith may ask God to save them, then keep moving based on their belief that he will answer their prayer. The results could be exactly the same.

Both the theist and non-theists could be that 1 in 100 person to survive. In fact, studies show that out of four groups with a terminal illness, two groups that were prayed for had less than or equal number of survivors than the two groups that were not prayed for. Yet the theist would think that God was always in control, regardless of the outcome, since his will is incompressible.

In cases where the believer's faith had a positive outcome, they may fold these results into their core belief system and start applying their religious faith to other parts of their life where it may not have value, such as making important decisions based on a claim of eternal life or believing that God has a plan for their life and they are helpless to change it. If we accept their belief, we lay the groundwork for others to apply their religious beliefs to matters that effect the life and death of all mankind.

This is where I believe that religion poses a danger to our survival.

Science does not claim to be Truth. It's job is to reveal things that are around us. While what we learn though scientific discoveries may help us make moral decisions, it does not dictate morality.

Religion, on the other hand, does dictate morality. It even claims to be the source of morality that you and I currently exhibit in the present day. However, In most cases, this claim is is based on sovereignty though the creation of the universe and humanity by it's God. In other words, Religion not only makes claims about morality, but about science as well. In my opinion, this is where the concept of religion and God fails to be Truth. No concept, including science, can have value in all contexts and situations.

When interviewed about his book "It takes a family", Senator Rick Santorum, was asked why he, as a non-scientist, took a serious shot at evolution.

To paraphrase, he said, "because it really matters. It's were we come from. If we're just an accident - a mistake of nature - then that puts a different moral demand on us - In fact it, doesn't put a moral demand on us - then if we are the intentional creation of a supreme being that does make moral demands of us"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905

If theists believe that evolution would destroy morality because they believe our morality comes from God, it's likely they would oppose it - regardless if there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support it or not.

Scott,

you said,

Why didn't God just tell us what he meant? Is this too much to ask from an all knowing and infinitely powerful God? Surely not. The Jains didn't seem to have any problems being clear in the 6th century BC.

He did. How clear are the important aspects of the Bible. The ten commandments. John 3:16. These are all very clear and to be taken very literal. And these two things are the true meanings of the Bible. The earth being "spherical" has nothing to do with the redemption of Man. But indeed they are important because they verify the validity of God.

So, Isaiah says the earth is a circle. But then God talks about the edges of the earth. This may seem contradicting to one another but the edges are simply nautical; North, South, East, West. Of course a circle cannot have edge(s) because it has but one edge. I tried to look up the hebrew word for "sphere" and there isnt one. The only word used is "circle." They could have used "round" but that would indicate the same thing as "circle." So with a limited ability to describe a "sphere" I think maybe that's the best they could have came up with.

This site explains the "generation" meaning too

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/001.html

So when Christ was talking about "this generation shall not pass" he meant Israel. I wanted to clarify that so you do not think Christ should have come back already. And dont listen to Jehovah Witnesses either because they think Christ came back in 1914. That's a false doctrine and was due to false prophecy from their founder.

Matthew 16: [27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works*. [28]Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Looking at the whole text, Jesus was describing His second coming. "there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death" is an easy interpretation that shows that upon Jesus' second coming there will be people still alive. He didnt say "there be some standing here today". "Here" could possibly mean in a positional aspect of things. "Here" as a location. Jesus was obviously letting people know that when He returns there still will be civilization.

I have said before I would not like to debate the scientific aspect of things, but since scripture brings up science I will get into it a little bit here.

Psalm 148:4 you said refers to "rain" I dont see rain in this passage. Is there water in heaven? I dont know never been there. Maybe there is. Can we scientifically prove that? Nope. Could this verse be a reference to water in heaven? Maybe. But I think it says water above the skies. I wonder at the time of David if the skies were referred to not just as our atmosphere but outer space as well.

Gen 1:14-17 And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.

You brought this verse up which I think makes my point sound logical. The "lights in the dome of the sky." Did the ancient hebrews seperate our sky from space? So that referring to rain could be from the heavens as well. Maybe the heavens were just as a means of looking up to see them. As far as they knew, water came from heaven which is in the sky.

I can go on with what seems like interpretative excuses with the rest of the verses you brought up. But I won't. In any of those verses I have not seen a literal translation of the sun rotating around the earth. I havent seen a literal flat earth reference either. What I do get from these verses is that the wind blows around, the sun sets and rises in the same place. Ex: every sunset I've seen the sun sets in the west. Every sunrise I've seen rises from the east. I think those verses point that out. I'm sure that they have nothing to do with claiming a flat earth. It just points out where you see the sun rise and set.

God put the sun, moon and stars inside a solid dome, which is the sky. The sun moves around the earth. Again, we know these things are false.

Again, what is the sky? Our atmosphere or the whole expanse of the universe. According to modern day science we have our Earthly sky and then outer space. But why wouldnt the Hebrews refer to the sky as anything above ground including the universe. They are not wrong in thinking so, because it is only by definition of "sky" according to our terms that seems to conflict.

I would like to point out who you quoted on these subjects. Calvin says the earth is the centre of the universe. Could he mean the center of God's interest? Maybe but probably not. So he was wrong. You quoted two catholic priests as well. As we all know, the roman catholic church has used the Bible as a means of empowerment over the people of their time. The message in the Bible was not intent on creating a powerful church that would involve itself with politics. They very well could have believed the earth was flat. And if people were to find out otherwise, then there goes their power. I do not trust one word the catholic church says. Never have and never will. Historically they have made their own rules using scripture as a means of power. They have changed their rules over time according to how society reacts. Recently with the popes announcement that babies can go to heaven now and not be in "limbo" because they werent baptized. What authority does the pope have that he can send babies to heaven? They have and will always be a false religion and contain false doctrines. The Bible describes this church in the end times. The church in the seven hills within rome; the vatican. The woman riding on a beast. The church who sides with the anti-christ. "She has fornicated herself with the nations." Has any other church in history been so involved with world affairs as the catholic church? To quote any authority within this church would be quoting a church consistent with false doctrine. With this false doctrine they have been found false. Including their views in the past on a flat earth. Can a church with so much historical inaccuracy really be trusted in interpreting the Bible? So again I say, they are the ones who said the world is flat. Not the Bible. Until you find me a verse that says "the world is flat" then I cannot come to a conclusion that the Bible is contradicting to science.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

I posted this article for you and I hope you will read its entirety. It shows how God in the Bible describes many scientific things way before they were ever founded. It also talks about the flat earth theory and the people you quoted. Please read through this and let me know what you think. Thanks.

God bless

A. Hermit, my tactic had three purposes.

1) To drive past my corollary, which is that it is reasonable to leave a little room in one's thinking (and rhetoric) for other viewpoints. Sometimes one has to push beyond what one wants so that when you stop pushing, the rebound doesn't push you back off your goal. I realize this effort was not needed with you, but others will surely read these posts.

2) As an object lesson in what it is like for theists when confronted with classical Atheist tactics: locate the fundamental weakness in the other argument and hammer it continuously with the phrase 'prove it.' To be authentic, one needs to occasionally switch it up and go after the other arguer before returning to 'prove it.' That you, Acrapist, and Gerry were all offended by my tactic should be telling. The same tactics, when applied to theists have exactly the same effect, and I've never seen any good come of it. I have seen plenty of bad results.

3) To see if I could take up News Cynic at least partially on his challenge and do so convincingly.

My main objection is not just the word delusional, but the entire confrontational approach taken by many atheists. The word delusional is simply one example of many, and accurate or not, its only utility in the discussion is an ad-hominum attack, a point which both you an Acrapist seem to keep ignoring. Have you ever witnessed one of those confrontational discussions that ended in the believer switching sides?

Scott and Thor's child,

Sorry I dont have time to comment on the passages you wrote. But I will try here in the near future. Like I said, being on-call this week has been crazy. But I would like to thank you both very much for sticking up for me there. I read a few posts and I'm glad to see that you all have a respect for me that I hope I earned. Even though we have our differences, it is well appreciated that my faith is respected. I have tried very hard to express my faith without crossing any personal lines and with a sincerity to those who do not the believe the same. Once again thank you.

Fred,

you said,

David says he is a surgeon. I would have great restraint to let a person with this world view cut into my body, even with his best intent."

How can anyone say anything so ignorant. I think even the atheists can agree on that. So, I would like to ask you. Would you be upset that I said a prayer before every surgery? Would you not want to be my patient because I believe in God?

That's ok because I guess I wouldn't want a non-believer washing my windows. The squeegee might scratch my windshield.

Hey, your the one who wanted to make it personal.

God bless

Scott and Thor's child,

Sorry I dont have time to comment on the passages you wrote. But I will try here in the near future. Like I said, being on-call this week has been crazy. But I would like to thank you both very much for sticking up for me there. I read a few posts and I'm glad to see that you all have a respect for me that I hope I earned. Even though we have our differences, it is well appreciated that my faith is respected. I have tried very hard to express my faith without crossing any personal lines and with a sincerity to those who do not the believe the same. Once again thank you.

Fred,

you said,

David says he is a surgeon. I would have great restraint to let a person with this world view cut into my body, even with his best intent."

How can anyone say anything so ignorant. I think even the atheists can agree on that. So, I would like to ask you. Would you be upset that I said a prayer before every surgery? Would you not want to be my patient because I believe in God?

That's ok because I guess I wouldn't want a non-believer washing my windows. The squeegee might scratch my windshield.

Hey, your the one who wanted to make it personal.

God bless

A delusion is not different when held by an idiot, a genius, a prophet, a pope, foot surgeon, a guru, a messiah, an avatar, the president or me. It is exactly the same thing: crap.

When is a superstition, not a superstition? When you CALL it a superstition. If you do not have the balls to call god a superstition, then it will remain real.

A real god will be called upon to deal with polluted drinking water, deliberate oppression, atomic weapons, genocide, and the education of our youth. Nothing fails like prayer.

I agree with Thor’s Child in that strategy and tactics are appropriate for debate. We non-believers have been defined by the enemy, run over roughshod by the enemy, tricked into thinking that the high-road is the only road by the enemy and are loosing the battle for control over the destiny of the human race. What ever we are doing is wrong.

We can no longer be reactionary to the clever religious right. We must be stronger in our assertions, proactive in attacking their positions and twice as clever. This is how they have been keeping control. I say, fight fire with fire. We need to present a stronger front.

Fred,

I'm gonna have to disagree that we cannot have "faith based" political, environmental, social and economic decisions any more. It just has to be a more compassionate, genuine faith.

The rapture theology is a poison, has no basis in reality and is without a doubt, the most irresponsible attitude a Christian can hold.

Peace

Thors Child,

I must confess to not reading all your previous posts but simply seeing parts of SOME of your discussions. I erroneously concluded things about your position and posed my question based on an incomplete view. I am sorry and somewhat embarassed I did not take the proper time to learn about whom I was responding to.

I COMPLETELY agree with your statements about "tone" of discussion. How you say someyhing is often times more important than what you say.

Jack brings up a good point regarding how more scientists (cosmologists and physicists) are beginning to talk about a "God". Certainly not the one described in the Bible or Koran
but the "immovable mover" type.

I have stated that, IMO, the answer is not NO religion simply better, more responsible religion.

I really think that "atheists" (I hate that word its almost the modern N-word) who do care about these issues can find much support from the theistic community. People like Rob Bell, Robin Myers, Bishop John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg speak very eloquently to this issue. Give them a try. You wanna change religion ? Do it from within not from without. You will find MANY voices receptive to your concerns WITHIN the Christian community.

peace

Thor's Child,

I appreciate your tactical approach. But we do have to make a difference between what we think is true or reasonable and how we want it to be propagated. Acrapist is clear in his attitude: The world cannot afford faith-based political, social, economical or environmental decisions anymore.

The tactical approach, useful as it may be, is always in danger of putting fog around the facts, to concede parts of nonsense just for the sake of peace. Therefore I think, both positions have their legitimacy, but tactics alone won't bring us further, as can be seen in US congress politics these days.

Jack, please don't resuscitate the moral discussion. There were about 1000 posts about it on this thread, and it has become pretty clear that nobody needs religion to behave morally. Conscience does not depend on religion.

Scott, it is not the Christian position of David that enrages me. It is the "Rapture" poison which to me is the summit of irresponsibility towards fellow humans and future generations. Even the most benign intent of David and his friends cannot make up for this disastrous attitude. Intent is not the final criterion for results. Bush is a liar and a mass killer, but he may be honest about his state of being "born-again." So much for the worse! If he were only a criminal liar, he might be approachable to some reason!

Acrapist, I'm not objecting to clear, plain, English, in fact I encourage you to stick to clear, plain English, just without the insults. Let me illustrate with the help of Wesley, the farm boy: (This one's for A. Hermit :) )

Clear plain English: It's conceivable that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand.

English with gratuitous insults: It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand.

Now, when you labeled the Pope 'delusional,' were you intending
a) to use that to help him get treatment for your clinical diagnosis of mental illness, or
b) to emphasize his presumed inferiority, or
c) to pass it off as a rational description?

If a), I'd say you lack the necessary clinical contact time for such a diagnosis. If b) (which is still how I read it) it was clearly an insult. If c), do you really think that Christians will view your 'delusional' label as merely a description and not an insult? I don't think you're that naive.

And, more importantly, what is your plan? How do you expect your denigration (either intended or perceived) of the Pope and all other believers to lead towards a more tolerant world for non believers? I've outlined why I think it won't work, now I'd like your thoughts on why it will. If the plan is good, I may just join you.

Hi Fred, I understand your frustration. Here are a few things I think about in those situations. I do not always succeed in reigning in the frustration, but I try.

1) I remember that I have a choice on how I respond, and the desire to hurl insults back is really just the fight or flight response kicking in. I also have a choice to not respond at all. I really liked Soja's post awhile back about Budda not responding to insults.

2) I try to analyze the discussion from a tactical point of view to give me a little perspective. This is especially helpful if it can be done before beginning the discussion. In this case, it became clear to me very shortly that David did not start posting to have a general discussion, but rather to proselytize. He has every right to try and do so. I have no obligation to read or react to his posts.

3) I try and consider the source from more than a superficial perspective. David seems sincere, and I do not believe he intends to insult anyone, so I choose to not take insult when none is intended. He also seems driven by the urgency of his belief in the end times and by the command to 'make disciples.' From my perspective, that is his burden to bear and need not involve me.

4) Before firing back at the irritator, I still have the choice to simply ask them to stop. I'd be surprised if simple knowledge of your negative reaction didn't prompt a change in tactic on David's part.

Peace

Engineers and Scientists (such as myself) are trained in the importance of defining the problem to be solved. Without a clear definition, we run the risk of chasing too many rabbits and catching none.

The problem, as I see it, is that people are trying to solve today’s issues within the context of primitive, irrational and erroneous belief systems.

Even with the aid of rational thought, I give the human race a slim chance of surviving another 2000 years. But to continue to work from within the current faith based beliefs, I give it no chance at all.

I do not think that you can solve any problem by tip-toeing around the 800 pound gorilla in the living room; I call that gorilla delusion. The more people that come to recognize that belief in what is not there distracts us from the real issues, the better. The route that I have chosen is to speak clearly and in plain English. Belief in god is a delusion that we can no longer afford.

Atheism is in vogue for 3 reasons:
First, some people are scared by the ongoing clash between Christianity and Islam and Islam and Hinduism - so they play the game of the ostrich - and say none of it is real - why can't we all just be friends.
Second, many atheists are unwilling to confront the ramifications of the Big Blank Theory that has even Die Hard Atheists like Stephen Hawking talking about "God". Now I grant that he hasn't ascribed to the God of the Bible - but his thinking certainly is in tune with Aristotle's unmoved mover.
Third, atheism fits a morally weak or self-indulgent life style a lot better than being a believer. If you have a guilty conscience or are telling yourself you are entitled to do something that is obviously unethical - the last thing you want to admit to is a higher power that may punish you forever for your wicked or less than virtuous actions.

Atheism is in vogue for 3 reasons:
First, some people are scared by the ongoing clash between Christianity and Islam and Islam and Hinduism - so they play the game of the ostrich - and say none of it is real - why can't we all just be friends.
Second, many atheists are unwilling to confront the ramifications of the Big Blank Theory that has even Die Hard Atheists like Stephen Hawking talking about "God". Now I grant that he hasn't ascribed to the God of the Bible - but his thinking certainly is in tune with Aristotle's unmoved mover.
Third, atheism fits a morally weak or self-indulgent life style a lot better than being a believer. If you have a guilty conscience or are telling yourself you are entitled to do something that is obviously unethical - the last thing you want to admit to is a higher power that may punish you forever for your wicked or less than virtuous deed.

Fred wrote: "David says he is a surgeon. I would have great restraint to let a person with this world view cut into my body, even with his best intent."

Fred, comments like this will not help our discussion.

By becoming a surgeon, David is in a position to study what he conceders God's design and even help fix it when something goes wrong. It's quite possible that David considers his work to be an extension of his religious studies. Someone with this kind of motivation could make an excellent surgeon.

David's profession could help explain his faith. If we can be repaired like a watch, I can see why David might assume we have a "watchmaker" (God) that designed us.

I should point out I agree with Thor's larger point about the desirability of a moderate tone in the atheist's approach to discussion with theists, my objection was to the unnecessary attack on rationalism.

Thor's Child, if atheists have an ugly reputation it sems to me this is due more to the lies and misrepresentations of theists who defame us so regularly. The fact that this provokes a passionate, even hostile reaction from some of us doesn't invalidate their arguments. Dawkins and our friend Acrapist may be blunt, even rude but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

I don't think I am committing any "neglected aspect" fallacy here, but I do think you are grossly overstating the limits of logic and reason, and mis-stating the expressed opinions of the defenders of rationalism here.

You're main objection seems to be that we can't call a belief "delusional" because no belief can be held with 100% certainty. But plainly some beliefs are more reliable than others, and those which have no rational, empirical basis, or worse are held in spite of contradictory rational, empirical evidence may properly be termed delusional. Again, it's not a word I would choose, but that's because I'm one of those over-polite Canadians you hear about, not because the characterization of blind faith beliefs as delusional is inaccurate.

Regards

A Hermit

David wrote: "So I urge you not to take everything literal. You must look at the context and compare scripture with scripture for verification of its meaning."

While I appreciate you trying to direct me to the interpretation you believe to be correct, I fail to see how you can be sure what the author had in mind when he wrote these passages. In fact, how do you know the entire Bible isn't a metaphor?

David wrote: "They have theological seminaries because it takes years of study to truly understand (almost) everything. I have and always will tell people to not just READ the Bible but STUDY the Bible."

With enough scholars, enough years and an incomprehensible God, you can pretty much decide the Bible says whatever you want it to say. If God's will is beyond our comprehension, then I can't see how even scholars, or anyone else, can claim to know what the Bible really means.

Why didn't God just tell us what he meant? Is this too much to ask from an all knowing and infinitely powerful God? Surely not. The Jains didn't seem to have any problems being clear in the 6th century BC.

The Mahavira of Jains "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment or kill any living beings or creatures."

This leaves no question, even about slavery or abuse. Surly a book inspired by God wouldn't require millennia to interpret. Unless, of course, his will is beyond our comprehension. Again, if God doesn't make sense, you can always play the "get out of logic free" card.

David wrote: " I don[']'t know where you got the idea that Christ should have returned already according to the Bible. A few things have to come first."

I know what's supposed to have happened first. You're saying that since we can physically observe that these things have yet to happen, then these verses should be taken metaphorically. I'm saying that these verses imply these things should have happened much sooner, but did not.

Note: I could simply do the same thing with human beings. Since the physical evidence we have strongly suggest that humans and the great apes both evolved from a single ancestor, instead of being created in our final form as described in Genesis, then several key verses in Genesis should either be taken metaphorically or we're not the people that God is describing in the Bible since Genesis is describing some event that had not happened yet.

Matthew 16: [27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works*. [28]Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

How much clearer can you get than "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death" before God enters his kingdom and rewards every man according to his works. Clearly, this has not yet happened, yet these men died over 2,000 years ago.

David wrote "You also mentioned how the Bible says the earth is flat. Here's a verse to clarify that.

It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE* "

Circles are flat planes with a round boundary. They are not spheres. This verse also describes the sky as a tent. What are tents erected on? On the ground, which is a flat plane. Circles also have edges.

Job 38 [13] "that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"

The Bible is describing the Earth as if it's a flat, circular rug that's could be shaken.

Ecclesiastes 1 [5]The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [6] The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

Here, the sun sets, then it quickly moves to the place it rose from. The wind blows south, then does a 180 degree turn and blows north. It does this in a cycle. These are not descriptions of a spherical world.

And you failed to address the fact that stars are not in the sky and the sky is not a solid dome that opens to allow the rain to fall.

Gen 1:6-7 And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Job 37:18 Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

Prov 8:28 when he made firm the skies above, …

Psa 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
The Bible says there should be water, which is the source of our rain, above a solid dome, where we know there is empty space.

Gen 1:14-17 And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.

God put the sun, moon and stars inside a solid dome, which is the sky. The sun moves around the earth. Again, we know these things are false.

KEY POINT

Before we knew these things were false, people thought these parts of the Bible SHOULD BE TAKEN LITERALLY.

“We are indeed not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the centre.”
-John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis

"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophy and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scipture.”
-The Roman Catholic Church, sentencing Galileo

“If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe… and the sun does not go round the Earth… then we should have (great difficulty) in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary.”
-Cardinal Bellarmine, leading theologian and member of the Inquisition, Letter to Father Foscarini

Who's to say you're not doing the same thing right now?

David may be a friendly person. But if he really endorses the nonsense on the links he recommends I have great difficulty to stay polite, although I agree with you, Thor's Child, that it is more efficient to stay polite if you want to convince somebody.

But when I read this awful blahblah in these "Rapture links" I feel almost personally insulted. It is an attack on intellectual dignity, even on human dignity, and I cannot but react accordingly. David says he is a surgeon. I would have great restraint to let a person with this world view cut into my body, even with his best intent.

Greg, I've been going with reason over faith for a long time. You could have seen that if you looked.

Acrapist, I object to gratuitous insults as they are an impediment to a civil society. Believers in space aliens, or anything else will respond better to your arguments when shown respect than they will if they feel attacked. And rational as your description of the believers' alleged delusional state appears to be, it still amounts to an ad-hominum attack on the persons who believe than a critique of their message.

A. Hermit, I agree with you that many atheists pay lip service to the limitations of reason, and some even mean it and act accordingly. I try to. Unfortunately enough others do not, so that atheism has acquired an ugly reputation. In ignoring that part of the atheist community which fits my description, you are committing a fallacy of neglected aspect. However, since we are at a point where interpretation of human behavior, rather than logic, is separating our positions, I suggest we leave it there.

Acrapist: Now on to one of your questions: What is the focus of my concern in the relationship between believers and non believers?

The focus of my concern is the polarization of our society in many areas, but particularly in the tinderbox that is religious discussion. Religious fundamentalism is the single most dangerous element in society to people like us. Religious fundamentalism does well in hostile societies because it offers a sense of authority and stability in the chaos. Fundamentalists know this, and intentionally increase the tenor of their rhetoric to amplify the fears of the population so they will follow blindly. (e.g.: War On TERROR)

In this particular discussion, I've gone after the rhetoric of what I tend to think of as 'atheist fundamentalism' because it plays right into the tactics of the religious right. In David Dawkins' post on this question, he complains that another panelist describes atheists as 'obnoxious.' He goes on to 'prove' that there are many very nice atheists. He is missing the point. The ones who really are obnoxious do far more damage to our quest for acceptance than the nice, quiet ones can hope to repair. In my dealings with people, I have run into several who, upon hearing my response to the 'faith' question, will visibly flinch as if expecting me to attack them. When I can, I ask them about that reaction and often they respond that they had some prior interaction with another atheist who heaped scorn and ridicule upon them, just because they believe. That kind of hostile approach only feeds into the hostility in society and feeds the hostility fundamentalists want.

I expect a great deal of rational people. In particular, I expect that when they have an important societal goal (and what could be more important that eliminating bigotry?) they will also employ tactics which will move them towards the goal. I also recognize that a message like mine will not be heard if it comes from the religious community, after all, it is easy to dismiss all messages from people who are 'delusional.' And so it is incumbent on people like me to deliver it.

Peace

Scott,

Hi how's it going? I want to let you know that you cannot take every verse in a literal sense. There are many metaphors and symbolic messages in the Bible.

First you mention "this generation will not pass" What you need to understand is what generation means in this instance. From what I know this "generation" is not a literal term but a term for the Jews. The Jews will not pass until His return. There have been a few historical instances, such as Hitler, that tried to defy that statement by wiping out the Jews alltogether. Can't happen. The Jews are the one race on earth that has been from the beginning and will be until the end.

We shall not all sleep"

Thats right we all shall not sleep, meaning that when Christ returns there will be some who are still alive. Sleep in this instance refers to permanent sleep.

You have to understand the context of which Jesus is speaking. He is talking about end times. For a better understanding of how things must happen first before Christ's return, read Revelation. I dont know where you got the idea that Christ should have returned already according to the Bible. A few things have to come first. Here's a couple of examples.

Israel needs to be estabilished as a nation. Happened already in 1948.

http://home.flash.net/~venzor/nasb.htm

The temple needs to be rebuilt and animal sacrifice has to return like the good old days.
I read an article on cnn.com a few months ago about how in Israel many Jews want to return to this practice and already have on the site where the new temple is being built now. Check out these other end time prophecies as well.

http://home.flash.net/~venzor/nasbchapter2signs.htm

Only until the anti-christ is revealed and the 7 year tribulation must pass until Christ's return.

You also mentioned how the Bible says the earth is flat. Here's a verse to clarify that.

It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE*
of the earth, and the inhabitants
thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the
heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent
to dwell in." --Isaiah 40:22

The verse you used was that the angels will pull the 4 corners of the earth. Yes taken literally that would mean a square earth. But it really means North, South, East and West.

So I urge you not to take everything literal. You must look at the context and compare scripture with scripture for verification of its meaning.

The Bible can be simple but I know it can be very complicated at times too. That's why people spend years studying it and examining it. They have theological seminaries because it takes years of study to truly understand (almost) everything. I have and always will tell people to not just READ the Bible but STUDY the Bible.

You have brought up many verses that deal with end times in your last two posts. I'll tell you that Eschology (end time prophecy) is probably has the most metaphorical phrases concerning one subject in the Bible. There's the woman on the beast, the city in the seven hills, the dragon, ten horn and the little horn. How can all this make sense? They are metaphorical in their meanings. The woman is the church. The beast is either the anti-christ or satan, the dragon is satan, ten horns represent ten kings (daniel's interpretation of nebuchadnezzers dream). A lot of metaphors. That's why it takes a lot of study to understand. I think it's good if you take an interest in eschology. You would be amazed how accurate some things have turned out. Check out that website I posted above. People always say how vague these prophecies are and really they arent that vague. Take care Scott. Gotta run.

God bless

Thor's Child :

Sorry, you're still doing it. I don't make claims of absolute truth (and neither, I think do Acrapist or other atheists here) in fact it's this idea that one can claim to be in possession of absolute truth which is regarded as delusional.

Rationalists do qualify their assertions in terms of levels of confidence, but this does not mean, as your comments tend to imply, that all truth claims are therefore to be regarded as of equal value. In fact the term "level of confidence" should make it pretty clear that some assertions can be held with greater confidence than others. Once again you present a strawman by characterizing this approach as simply "it works for me." the argument is a weeee bit more subtle than that, and you know it.

I have concluded, for example, that Elvis Presley really is dead. I place a high degree of confidence in this conclusion, based on the available evidence in news reports, my own knowledge of life, death, health, the effects of drug abuse, etc.

There are those who claim Elvis is still alive, perhaps even abducted by aliens. I concede that they could be right, but I have little reason to assign much confidence to that sort of belief, based as it apparently is in wishful thinking and emotion as opposed to empirical evidence, reason and logic.

You're right, of course, that logic has its limits. That is why most of the atheists I've seen here (and elsewhere) readily acknowledge that they don't have all the answers, and that any answers they do have are, to some degree, provisional and open to revision.

The "delusional" charge is usually, it seems to me, directed at those who claim certainty on the basis of faith alone and admit to no possibility of error or revision of their beliefs. It's the rigidity, and the kind of baseless certainty that you yourself are objecting to, which prompts the charge. Rude, perhaps, but illogical..no.

Regards

A Hermit

I was the author of the previous post.

Note: I do not claim these interpretations are true, but that they reflect a literal interpretation of the bible.

David wrote: "How do any of those verses suggest the time when Jesus will return. 'The hour will be unknown'"

These verses did not specify the exact hour, but they do say that Jesus was to return sometime before the current generation had died.

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death"

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled"

"Then we which are alive and remain"

"We shall not all sleep"

"We shall not all sleep" either means that Jesus would come before they all fell asleep that evening or that he would come before they died.

The authors of the New Testament describe Jesus' return as if he was coming very soon. The urgency is quite clear.

I John 2: [18] Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

[28] And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

John is saying that these children will be alive when Jesus returns.

Scott,

You'll have to forgive me but I rushed through that last post so quick I think I confused myself. My facts may be wrong in some aspect. I don't have time today (too many surgeries scheduled) but I will try to clarify the issue some time this week. Sorry. Take care.

God bless

Scott,

Real quick because I have to go.

you said

Based on these verses and a literal interpretation of the Bible, "it doesn't take a scholar to figure" that Jesus should have returned by now. Yet we're all still here.

How do any of those verses suggest the time when Jesus will return. "The hour will be unknown." Look that up. Have all end time prophecies been fulfilled? Nope. The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus' return will be seen by everyone.

Now let me clarify real quick about those who die.

I said,

David wrote: "But, obviously it is talking about going to heaven or hell since no one can live forever here on this earth."

Ok let me claify that. If Jesus does not return before our time, of course we will all die eventually. But, if Jesus returns during my lifetime, I will not need to die a physical death. I think you need to check your interpretations of the Bible. Also, the new Earth will be the same Earth we are living on. Christ's second coming establish His kingdom here on Earth for a 1000 years. "The millenium" After the 1000 years satan will be released for a short time. After that short period, satan will be sent to hell for eternity (because he never has been sent there forever yet) along with all those who are not "written in the Lamb's Book of Life." Then God will establish the eternal heaven for Him and His followers to live in His presence for eternity. That's pretty much how it goes, but sorry I cannot look up the verses for you right now. Way too busy at work. Search that for yourself and you will find truth in that is what the Bible clearly says.

A new Earth simply means that this evil Earth will be no more. "God created the Heavens and the earth." Not the heavens and two earths. Scripture has to back up scripture in order to get a true meaning. God will destroy the wicked at Armageddon (Megiddo, Israel) then His kindom here on this earth will make for peace for 1000 years. A new Earth. No evil, just peace. Not a new earth somewhere else in our galaxy. Bad assumption. But I gotta go. I'll check in with you all later.

God bless.

David:
"Your right in one aspect. That there are metaphorical phrases within the Bible. But the whole Bible is not a metaphorical story. There are several literal messages in the Bible. Did Jesus die on the cross metaphorically? No, that was a literal message. Same goes as far as redemption. John 3:16 being one of the most well-known verses in the Bible is a clear message of how to recieve salvation through Christ."

That's fine as far as it goes, but how do you tell the metaphorical stories from the literal stories?

Also, if the Bible is "a clear and literal message directed at all mankind", then why has there been so much disagreement over the centuries (sometimes leading to schisms or violence!) as to what some of it means?

Friends, I am leaving this discussion. A few final remarks:

David, when you were a child, you asked all sorts of curious questions that came through your mind. Then somebody, most probably your parents, told you the "Christian story". You had not the slightest reason not to trust that they were speaking the truth. Children always trust their parents in the first years of their life. Santa Claus is as real as it can get! They told you to read the bible, to believe in god and Jesus and the holy ghost, which, of course, neither they nor you ever understood what that could possibly mean.

Then you shaped your picture of the world according to this "brain wiring". There was not a single idea that came from yourself, that you produced originally through your own thinking. All the religious ideas, morphed into "truths" were instilled into your brain by others. They were delivered from generation to generation in a series of translations with thousands of mistakes, changed, perverted, adjusted through all sorts of historical political developments, through fraud, power, opportunism, greed, violence, ignorance - and still regarded as "eternal truths". And you think on such a meager basis you can proselytize?

The real development of knowledge ("science") clashed with these ideas up to the present day.

Thus, we have a culture of open thinking (curiosity, science, research, development of knowledge) and a system of closed thinking, which is unwilling (and therefore unable) to change according to insight into former fallacies. We have two parallel cultures. The culture of religions (all of them), and the culture of open, developing and adjusting knowledge.

For a true scientist, nature provokes more awe and wonder than all the warped stories in religions. As an artist and a scientist, I fervently hope that one day these religions will be replaced by a "spiritual science", formed by the always asking, curious, open human mind with the insight of the greatness of the universe, with the open acknowledgment of the possibilities and the limits of the human mind. To me, this insight comes with an almost "religion-like" feeling and experience.

Some biblical concepts, as I said before, may or may not be useful - people have always tried to live together - somehow, with the demand of love and understanding certainly being one of the great issues. But "scriptural" concepts are not necessary for humans to establish a moral and accountable society. God, devil, angels, "trinity", demons, sin, redemption, Jesus' proxy death, resurrection, virgin conception, eternal life, heaven, hell all belong to these old religious concepts created by man's fantasy. They don't exist. They are metaphors at best. They cannot be binding, not valid any more in the light of todays world view judged sincerely. Otherwise you would have to adhere to the earth being flat, the stars being fixed to the firmament and all the other nonsense you can destill from the bible.

Have you seen the wonderful photographs of the blue earth hovering in the black, awe-inspiring, unimaginable universe? Do you believe your eyes? Can you imagine the sun being our life-giving star 330.000 times the mass of our little globe, 8 light minutes away (150 million kilometers, more than 1200 times the diameter of our little globe away, surpassing the power of imagination of most people)? If the earth would be the size of a pea, the sun would have the size of the trunk of your car, approximately, at a distance of ca. 400 feet of eachother. Then think of 4 light years, our next neighbor star, Alpha Centauri. It would be (in the dimension of) 10000 kilometers away, but still belonging to our galaxy, the Milky Way! Then think of millions of light years. Not getting dizzy yet? To me, that is a feeling infinitely more superb than the primitive creationism and similar ideas, adapted 3 to 2000 years ago to the then even more limited human imagination. I don't need faith for this, I simply can observe it!

I wish you all a rich and rewarding - and developing - life!

Gerry

Addressing the topic of atheism:

My biggest problem with religionists is that they want to talk about interpretations of the bible and what God thinks or what He meant by this 'statement' or that one, whereas I want to start at a point a little farther back than that. This leaves many people aghast.

I question the infallibility of the bible. I question the existence of God. People ask 'How can you? God demands that you believe in him and his book!'. I ask for evidence. They say, even more aghast, how I can have the temerity to even think about asking. Not only do I ask, I demand evidence. So far no one has been able to provide such evidence.

After all, we do not accept Newton's second law without evidence - evidence via experiments able to be repeated anywhere, anytime, by anybody. The bible says to believe that what the bible says is true because the bible says to. This self-referring proof does not survive in any academic discipline.

In the interests of causality, I will grant that we may name the creating agency of the universe as we know it 'God'. Now what? Where is the evidence that he knows (or cares) about our existence? Is it in the bible? The book that recommends itself to us? The book which was written in a different time by men with their own particular agendas?

Then there are the bees - didn't God just rapture the bees? (Read the NYT science section 4/24/2007) What about the koran? And Allah? Which is stronger, God or Allah? I propose having G and A fight it out to see instead of wasting the lives of the best and brightest youth of Iraq and the US. I have proposed this proxy fight before, and to my knowledge, neither god has chosen to do anything.

David wrote: "But, obviously it is talking about going to heaven or hell since no one can live forever here on this earth."

Obviously? Are you sure we're talking about the same Bible here?

If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, Revelation 21 says that God will live with "those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life" on Earth, not in Heaven.

[1] Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. [2] I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. [3] And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.

[10] And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

[27] Nothing impure will ever enter it [New Jerusalem], nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Note that the Bible is describing two Earths. Two different planets that are both called Earth. It seems that the Bible is quite comfortable using the world Earth to describe a planet other than the one you and I live on today.

Also a literal interpretation of Revelation implies that the Earth is flat, that the sky is a dome and the stars rotate around the Earth in the sky.

Revelation 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

Revelation 6:13 And the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.

Revelation 11:6 These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want. There are other references in the Bible that describe "the circle of the earth."

These are but a few of verses in the Bible that imply that the earth is flat and that the sky is a dome that contains the sun, moon and stars. Yet we know these things are not true.

In addition, the Bible clearly states that Jesus was to have returned over 2,000 years ago.

Matthew 16: [27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Fatherwith his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works*. [28]Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Revelation 20: [12]And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened:and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged outof those things which were written in the books, according to their works*.

Matthew 24: [30]And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the cloudsof heaven with power and great glory. [31]And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. [32]Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. [33]Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

I Thessalonians 4: [16]For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout [17]Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air."

I Corinthians 15:[51]Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52]In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump..."

Based on these verses and a literal interpretation of the Bible, "it doesn't take a scholar to figure" that Jesus should have returned by now. Yet we're all still here.

Thor’s Child,

I do not understand why it would be acceptable to “logically” label as delusional those who revere as gods the imagined space aliens hiding behind comets and not those who revere Abraham’s imagined god? What is the difference? If there is no difference, then, are you saying that the group that drugged and head bagged themselves were not worthy of such a label? I do not see any difference with Christian beliefs.

Scott,

You wrote,

Again, your making the claim that Bible should be interpreted literally.

The Bible is not written in the same style as other historical documents in the same time period. As such, it's quite possible that it is series of books that uses metaphors to tell a story.

Your right in one aspect. That there are metaphorical phrases within the Bible. But the whole Bible is not a metaphorical story. There are several literal messages in the Bible. Did Jesus die on the cross metaphorically? No, that was a literal message. Same goes as far as redemption. John 3:16 being one of the most well-known verses in the Bible is a clear message of how to recieve salvation through Christ.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

If we take "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life," literally it would mean we never die here on earth but will live forever in our bodies. But, obviously it is talking about going to heaven or hell since no one can live forever here on this earth.

So, I'm not too sure why you think the Bible doesn't make a strong case for redemption through Christ. It is very obvious and should be taken as so. In other words, it doesn't take a scholar to figure out that redemption is through Christ according to the Bible.

You do not believe in the Bible however, so I'm not too sure why we continue to argue this. You have your ways as I have mine. I guess we should let it be. I believe I've done my job and shown you what the Bible clearly states. And you have made your choice to go with your beliefs. I now know that no matter what our arguments for or against Christianity may be, that we both have OUR ways and neither can convince the other otherwise. But like I said before, my intentions are not to impose my faith on you but to express it. I believe I have and I believe I have done what God wanted me to, which is to spread the Gospel. Some choose to believe it and some don't. Does that make you a bad person? No way! Or does that make me better than you? Far from it. I know we are all Gods children and that He loves us all the same as we love our children equivolently.

So, please try not to take any offense in that I try to teach the Bible to those who do not believe. I gain nothing by it but the joy of showing God's love to all. No where in the Bible does it say I have to convert anyone to Christianity to recieve redemption. It is by love only that I speak to you. I wonder the same from you Scott. Is it by love you express your disbelief? Is it because you and many other atheists are tired of Christian influence on society? I've heard that one several times, and I agree on that. But what are you to gain if you convince a Christian he is wrong? Please answer this question because it's very important to me.

So to conclude our discussion I just want to say thank you. I hope this isnt taken offensively but hearing all of your comments has brought me closer to God. If I didnt hear all the opposing arguments, I wouldnt have studied the Bible so hard to see what God had to say about it. I've learned a lot through this experience of sharing with you all and hope that we can keep the respect for one another we all deserve. It's good to know too that no matter how different we are, we have remained civil in our discussions. And if any of you ever feel compelled to accept Christ, then I would love to share in that experience with you. If not I wish you luck on life's journey. I'll check in every once in awhile but I'm on-call this week so I'm gonna be crazy busy. Take care all. Much love to you.

God bless.

David wrote: "How do I know what all the authors of the Bible meant? Because it's a clear and literal message directed at all mankind."

Again, your making the claim that Bible should be interpreted literally.

The Bible is not written in the same style as other historical documents in the same time period. As such, it's quite possible that it is series of books that uses metaphors to tell a story.

David wrote: "If my particular religious doctrine says otherwise, why should I believe you because you WANT to believe redemption is through love and forgiveness. And your right too. Redemption is through love and forgiveness. But only if accepted through Christ, according to the Bible."

There are other religions who's holy text disagree with the Bible. And they KNOW their text is just as right as yours. And guess what part they disagree on the most? The details. The literal interpretation in each text. This is the source of the conflict.

David wrote: "Do you believe we have souls? Or do you believe we are just organisms waiting to die with no hope or purpose but to just get through this life so we can be buried in the dirt and forgotten? I'm just curious if you have any spiritual beliefs at all."

Again, you're assuming that Biblical redemption is from physical and literal death. The term "death" can be used as a metaphor for separation or loss or suffering, just as redemption can be use a metaphor for renewal, discovery or reconciliation.

Why should I believe YOU because YOU WANT to believe Biblical redemption is about eternal life?

Thors Child,

Is it safe to say then; when your life is on the line you will go with reason and not faith??

peace

Thors Child,

Is it safe to say then; when your life is on the line you will go with reason and not faith??

peace

A. Hermit, I'd agree with you if the limited level of confidence you suggest was reflected in the rhetoric I read. If all atheists took your line in discussions, and limited their rhetoric accordingly, my argument would be unnecessary. However, it takes more than a 'qualified trust in what has worked' to make the claim that others are 'insane,' 'delusional' and the like; it takes a claim of truth. Those are pretty serious charges and require more than 'it works for me' to back them up, no matter how rationally the argument is presented. As one example, I found this post by an atheist on another thread in less than a minute of looking: "Can you not find some sensible people who would definitely write a more logical post than a raving illogical lunatic?"

I'd also like to point out that if I have set up a straw man (a point not conceded), it is less an abuse of logic than expecting believers, who bring to the table the (admittedly non-rational) statement 'belief is enough' to use logic and then ripping them with ad-hominem attacks for not being rational. Again, A. Hermit, I do not see such attacks in your posts, but in enough others' to warrant the statement.

Greg, I used 'rationalist' because it fit the line of argument I was making. I probably should have specified something like 'strict rationalist' to clarify, and avoid A. Hermit's objection altogether.

I have not argued against the utility of reason, nor have I once suggested that it be abandoned for something else. I have argued that logic has its limits, and should be treated accordingly.

Gerry,

Good response. Now that makes for a compelling argument. Since you do not believe in the Bible, you can say you do not believe in hell or your going to be there when you die. That makes total sense. If I didn't believe in the Bible I could say the same thing, but how can I say that the Bible does not make such a claim. It does. Does that mean that my interpretation of it is incorrect? No. Because it's clear as day that that is the message being portrayed. As clear as the Constitution of the United States saying we have a right to bear arms is as just clear as the Bible saying salvation comes through Jesus Christ. Am I saying that it is right? For my beliefs yes and for yours no.

Gerry you said,

"Again: Quotations from the bible may be valid WITHIN the system of the Christian religion, not outside it. They therefore prove simply nothing´except for people who are already adherents of this "truth"."

Well put and I can't agree with you anymore on that statement. And I think that is the point I was trying to make. I adhere to the "truth" of the Bible so in it effects me. But how can I say it does not effect you as well if that is the clear message. I cannot. But you choose not to believe in that message so in your mind it does not apply to you. Thats fine too! But am I saying your gonna go to hell? NO!!! Christians believe when we die we stand before God in judgement. How am I to know what that verdict will be for you? So can I say with confidence that you or Scott are going to hell. No way. But because I believe in the Bible as God's word I can say that if you do not accept Christ you will recieve eternal seperation from God. Which I think is you what you want anyway, right?

Scott,

How do I know what all the authors of the Bible meant? Because it's a clear and literal message directed at all mankind. I could quote several verses to prove this but you do not believe that so I won't. You can call the Bible fiction if you want and claim that all the stories are legends and myth. But the stories indicate something so literal as the message is being portrayed to mankind. (Right now I'm not trying to prove the Bibles validity, just what the message says.) Saying that the message in the Bible only included certain people would be like saying that Moby Dick was a dolphin. I don't want to believe that he was a whale, so I'll change the message to my liking because I think dolphins are much nicer. Doesnt make sense. The message is more than clear to apply to mankind in general for all times. What's so hard about accepting the true message the Bible was giving if you dont believe it anyway?

You said,

When different people claim that their own set of rules and events apply to everyone, instead of claiming that we should be redeemed by love and forgiveness, we set ourselves up for discrimination, hatred and violence.

How so? If my particular religious doctrine says otherwise, why should I believe you because you WANT to believe redemption is through love and forgiveness. And your right too. Redemption is through love and forgiveness. But only if accepted through Christ, according to the Bible. God sent His Son to die for us so that we could be forgiven. To me that's love. God took one for the team. Just like the ancient Hebrews used to sacrifice male lambs without defect for God, God sacrificed His male Lamb without defect for us so that we could recieve forgivenes if we only acknowledge that Jesus died for us. God loves us so much that all we have to do is believe in His Son. That's all. Now that's love. So how could a God who loves and forgives not accept you Scott? Because to Him you are a stranger. You choose not to accept Him so why should He let you in His house. Do you let strangers in your house? Same goes for God.

So I'm curious about you Scott. Do you believe we have souls? Or do you believe we are just organisms waiting to die with no hope or purpose but to just get through this life so we can be buried in the dirt and forgotten? I'm just curious if you have any spiritual beliefs at all. If not, that's ok. My beliefs give me hope past the grave. Yours are restricted to the grave. Just as hard as it is for you to understand why I believe what I believe, I feel the same way about you. I just want to know why, thats all.

God bless

Here's a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

Gerry, you are just wrong, the truth value of the contrapositive is the same as the original statement. In your example, both statements are false.

Thors Child,

Why is it that you refer to your "opponents" here as rationalists?
Are you an "irrationalist"?

Question for you;

You have been diagnosed with a life threatening condition that can only be cured with surgery and you only have two choices.

Surgeon A is a rationalist (atheist if you like) but he has successfully completed this surgery many times.

Surgeon B is a "believer" and tells you that while he has never successfully completed this operation he "knows" that God will direct him in the proper manner. He knows you are a believer too and asks that you put your "faith" in him.

Each surgeon wants $2,500 up front.

Who you gonna go with??

peace

Thor's Child says: "A. Hermit: No semantic word play that I'm aware of here. Feel free to point it out if you find it."

I really haven't the time to pick apart every example, so let's just take a quick look at this latest one:

"The rationalist argument can be summed up as: If it is not logical it is false."

Here you are reducing the real argument (that experience tells us we can have more confidence in a conclusion which is supported by objective evidence and coherent logical reasoning than in one which is not so supported) to a statement of absolute values. This is simultaneously a straw man and a false dichotomy (either/or) which badly misrepresents the case for reason. Rather than address the real issues you choose here to change the terms by substituting demands for absolutes in place of the relative levels of confidence asserted by rationalism. That's a "semantic game" in my book.

Regards

A Hermit

David,

even if you post many more contributions, you cannot wiggle yourself out of the fact that you are convinced Scott goes to hell. Your excuse as merely being a messenger (the bible says ...) would only hold if you left it open if the message (bible) was true. But you maintain the absolute truth of the message, hence you are part of it: YOU maintain Scott goes to hell. Again: Your premises are false! Please understand, we do not accept the validity of the bible, let alone the validity of quotations from the bible (They may or may not be true, beautiful or useful).

Again: Quotations from the bible may be valid WITHIN the system of the Christian religion, not outside it. They therefore prove simply nothing´except for people who are already adherents of this "truth".

And Thor's Child, your two contrapositions are formally not equivalent: If the sun shines, there are no clouds in the sky. If there are no clouds in the sky, the sun shines??? (night?).

I would like to exit this rather fruitless debate about logical formalities and concentrate on and side with your very valid statement that the claimer of truth has to come up with the proof. In the question of god's existence, nobody has ever come up with such a proof.

A quest for living together in peace with the concepts of love and forgiveness is what I as a non-believer subscribe to fervently.

David, I did read your post....

David wrote: "You say that is was a message for the present day for the authors that wrote it. That's fine. But the clear message from Genesis to Revelation is God's redemption of Man. That is God's main goal in the Bible."

Wow! We agree about something! I too believe that the message of the Bible is about the redemption of Man. But I believe that the exact events that occurred in the Bible are not real, but simply a way to illustrate the message of the redemption of humanity through love and forgiveness.

However, it appears that you somehow KNOW what the authors of the Bible had in mind. You KNOW that the Bible's God is real and that you KNOW that his message was about his redemption of Man from the sin of Adam and Eve through the death and resurrection of his son, Jesus. You also KNOW that when the Bible says Man, it includes myself and everyone in the present day.

The Bible contains words. When you claim that these words to say that I'M going to hell, you're interpreting those words to have a specific meaning that applies to myself and the rest of humanity. This is YOUR claim.

However, other people make the same claims about their favorite religious text. They KNOW what it's author hand in mind and they KNOW that the "Man" in their text includes you, me and everyone in the present day.

When different people claim that their own set of rules and events apply to everyone, instead of claiming that we should be redeemed by love and forgiveness, we set ourselves up for discrimination, hatred and violence.

Make that 'distill my argument down one more time.' I'd hate to leave a mixed metaphor dangling out there. :)

Scott,

You said,

You're the one who claims I will go to hell, since I do not recognize myself as a decedent of the Biblical Adam and Eve.

Did you not read my whole post?? Now this is getting frustrating. I clearly stated that the BIBLE SAYS...get it?? THE BIBLE SAYS: you will go to hell if you do not believe in Jesus. How is it again that ME, I am the one saying it. If you do not recognize yourself as a descendant of Adam and Eve that's fine. What does that have to do with believing in Jesus? Look. If I did not know you whatsoever and said "your going to hell." That is judgemental meaning that that is not right because God is the Judge. Not me. But if I say "THE BIBLE SAYS" then I'm just relaying the message. Let me give you an example since you clearly do not understand this.

If I tell you you have a right to free speech ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, then I am telling you what the constitution says. But If it werent written in the constitution and I told you "you have a right to free speech." Who am I to give you this right? Get it yet?????? What's so hard about saying, fine that's what the Bible says, but I don't believe in it. Instead you want to place blame on me like I wrote it.

So once again let's try this ok.

You say you do not believe in Jesus. Fine. Because of your disbelief, THE BIBLE SAYS....you will go to hell. Not me. I'm just telling you what the Bible says. I really don't know how much clearer I can make it Scott. But it is not me that's telling you this, once again, I'm just telling you what the Bible says. If I told you this from myself it would be purely opinion. But it is a fact that this is written in the Bible. Please tell me you understand this now and please acknowledge that it is not me but the Bible that says this. I'm just the message carrier.

God bless

Scott,

You said,

You're the one who claims I will go to hell, since I do not recognize myself as a decedent of the Biblical Adam and Eve.

Did you not read my whole post?? Now this is getting frustrating. I clearly stated that the BIBLE SAYS...get it?? THE BIBLE SAYS: you will go to hell if you do not believe in Jesus. How is it again that ME, I am the one saying it. If you do not recognize yourself as a descendant of Adam and Eve that's fine. What does that have to do with believing in Jesus? Look. If I did not know you whatsoever and said "your going to hell." That is judgemental meaning that that is not right because God is the Judge. Not me. But if I say "THE BIBLE SAYS" then I'm just relaying the message. Let me give you an example since you clearly do not understand this.

If I tell you you have a right to free speech ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, then I am telling you what the constitution says. But If it werent written in the constitution and I told you "you have a right to free speech." Who am I to give you this right? Get it yet?????? What's so hard about saying, fine that's what the Bible says, but I don't believe in it. Instead you want to place blame on me like I wrote it.

So once again let's try this ok.

You say you do not believe in Jesus. Fine. Because of your disbelief, THE BIBLE SAYS....you will go to hell. Not me. I'm just telling you what the Bible says. I really don't know how much clearer I can make it Scott. But it is not me that's telling you this, once again, I'm just telling you what the Bible says. If I told you this from myself it would be purely opinion. But it is a fact that this is written in the Bible. Please tell me you understand this now and please acknowledge that it is not me but the Bible that says this. I'm just the message carrier.

God bless

I'm sorry to all if it seem that I've been arguing the same point ad nauseum, but one of the rules of the game in debating rationalists is that every rational challenge must be met rationally and without fail, or you're out of the game.

Acrapist: Thanks for your questions, they 'cut to the chase' quite nicely. I suggest that all of us concentrate on that list for a while, I'd love to read others' answers to the same questions. It may take me some time to compose answers to them, so I wont try all at once. Expect them in the coming week or so, unless someone wants to go back and have another round of 'prove that logic is the truth' ;) . Here are some comments to chew on for now:

First: a corollary to my earlier argument:
If it is indeterminate whether truth = rational, then it is rational to leave a little space in our thinking for the possibility that truth might be something else. The 'truth is experiential' posts (which I enjoyed) might fall into that category, as do things like pantheism or deism. (Please don't jump on the 'but now your opening the floodgates to any sort of nonsense' button just yet. The floodgates can still remain mostly closed for a controlled release with a set of useful rules. I submit that internal-consistency would make one such useful rule for sorting sense from nonsense, but we can handle that in a different post, if anyone would like to read it.)

Second: an observation: The questions like 'Why am I here' and 'Is there a god?' have been debated for centuries to no conclusive results. It is my opinion that the 'big questions' list might just be a list of the wrong questions. Let me attempt to explain by analogy: The ancient Greeks might have asked 'What is the substance called fire?' From our understanding now, that is the wrong question. Fire is not a substance, it is a process by which fuel reacts with oxygen and generates enough heat for the air above the reaction to glow. What if the 'big questions' which people seem so set on fighting over were simply the wrong questions?

Third: Communication between believers and non believers must happen civilly for our society to function as designed. Our society must function as designed for all of us (especially non believers and fringe religions like Wiccans) to eventually get equal treatment and equal protection under the law. Any discussion tactic which is designed to head straight for an impasse or worse, (insult), is counter productive to the non-believers' cause. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Spain have not lived together peacefully for hundreds of years by finding new and creative ways to insult each other.

Thats all for now; as Greg says: peace.

A. Hermit, Gerry: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to distill my argument down yet one more notch. That's what I love about debate with rationalists, it helps one reduce one's arguments down to the bare essentials.

The rationalist argument can be summed up as: If it is not logical it is false.*

The (equivalent) contrapositive of that inference is: If it is true then it is logical.

That, my friends, is a truth claim. The burden of proof is on the claimer of the truth. I do not have to prove it false to justify my argument, rationalists must prove it true to justify theirs.

To save you the time, I have already demonstrated that such a proof cannot be constructed in a logically valid manner.

A. Hermit: No semantic word play that I'm aware of here. Feel free to point it out if you find it.

Gerry: Even though your last post contained a nicely constructed reducto ad absurdum argument, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

*If you want to debate this point, it is practically the definition of rationalism, and there must be at least a couple hundred posts on this thread alone that can be used as examples.

David wrote: "But, "ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE" if you died right now without recognizing God's sacrifice for your sins, YES you would."

The Bible describes a God who creates a man, woman in a garden. When the man and woman disobey this God, he decides to punish them and their decedents by separation from their creator. Unless they believe they are saved by the death and resurrection of this God's son, Jesus, this separation will lead to their eventual death and eternal suffering in Hell.

You're the one claiming that WE are are the decedents of the man and woman described in the Bible. You're the one claiming the Bible's God is real. As such, you claim that his son, Jesus, is real and died for ME.

You're the one who claims I will go to hell, since I do not recognize myself as a decedent of the Biblical Adam and Eve.

Scott,

you said,

If Jesus was not born of a virgin birth, then how is Jesus any more the son of God than you and I would be?

If he was just a man, why couldn't anyone have died for our "sins?"

I never did say he wasn't born of a virgin birth. I wrote right after that I do believe that. The virgin birth is just one confirmation that he was the Son of God. Yeah I guess you can say that it would be hard to recognize Jesus' death and resurrection without recognizing the virgin birth as well. But the point I was making was that salvation comes to those who recognize Jesus as the Son of God and to recognize His death and resurrection. You could say, sure, I guess its not scientifically possible to be born of a virgin birth but maybe I'll believe that. But no, He didnt die for our sins. Should you recieve salvation according to the Bible. No. I was just trying to say what would be the most important thing to believe. But it takes a lot to believe in Jesus and if you were to do so, it would be very difficult not to believe he was born of a virgin birth.

Now, what seperates Jesus from anyone else that could have came? Over a thousand years of prophecy concerning His coming. No other man in history fits that description. A man prophecied to be born in Bethlehem out of Egypt, from Nazereth (Micah 5:2). A man born of a virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14), A man who is to be pierced through the hands and feet (Psalm 22:16), A man to be crucified without any bones being broken even though a persons legs were to be broken to speed up death (Psalm 22:17 and 34:20), A man that needed to be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9), and I could go on and on. And this man had to be before the time of the destruction of the Holy Temple in 70 A.D. according to Isaiah. This is how we know it couldnt be just some man. It could only be Jesus. How could anyone "arrange" all of these things. Not possible. So that's how I know Jesus was the Son of God.

God bless

David wrote: "No. You are not required to recognize the virgin birth but to recognize that Jesus died for the sins of man that we should recieve salvation through faith. That's what is required. Not the belief in the virgin birth. I believe it, but if I believed Jesus was born from a virgin and didnt recognize His death and resurrection, I would not recieve salvation according to the Bible."

If Jesus was not born of a virgin birth, then how is Jesus any more the son of God than you and I would be?

If he was just a man, why couldn't anyone have died for our "sins?"

Gerry,

Wow buddy. You sound kinda upset there. Did I strike a nerve? I think I made my point in the last statement. But, to clarify something, Gerry no matter how much it sucks to hear, the Bible clearly states that those who do not accept Jesus will go to hell. What's the argument here? You said you don't agree with the Bible so why do you care what it says?

You said,

In addition, to adapt your way of thinking: Since you "believe in Jesus", you will, of course, not go to hell, meaning you are good and we are bad. This is and through history has been the underlying feeling of superiority that non-believers observe and hate in believers of any religion, because WE non-believers think, ALL people have equal rights, not only the "believers", whoever that is! This feeling of superiority through so-called "truth" was and still is the reason for so much evil in the world, wars, genocide, suppression, terror.

It's not about good and bad. If any Christian said they are better than you because of their beliefs they are way wrong. We are all sinners and fall way short of the glory of God. I feel no way "superior" to you Gerry. We are all equal.....on this earth. But once again I say, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if you do not believe you recieve eternal seperation from God. Does that make me better than you? NO!!! And, do not make a terrible assumption that Christians have brought wars, genocide, suppression and terror. But the Catholics??? Yep. It was earlyhristians thatwere persecuted and terrorized and suppressed. Then the good ol' catholic church came along and loved the power of brainwashing people. But that's a different subject.

But, in what way have freewilled people brought peace amongst this world. If we all followed Jesus, in truth, not hipocracy, wouldnt His message being lived in peace. There would be no STD's. No wars. No rich or poor. Basically, no genocide, no suppression, no quarrelling but utter peace. Now, look at society these days with our freewill to believe what we want and act like we want. What do we have. Genocide in Darfur. Idiot presidents going to war for a lie. STD's, AIDS, poverty, the greed of the rich suppressing the poor, lovers of money and themselves, murder, rape, and a million other non-Christian things that are detestable and utterly immoral. Now, you tell me that the Bible is behind all this? That would be either a misinformation, or just plain ignorance to believe that. If we all followed Christ's message, ah how this world would be nice. But instead we choose to live how we want. Including shooting up schools, child abuse, drug addictions, prostitution.....should I go on? Does Christs message tell us to abuse kids, oppress the poor, do drugs, etc? Nope. So don't blame evil society on Jesus. Blame evil society on freewill of man, and hipocritical Christians all you want, but don't blame it on the Bible.

Gerry, what the Bible clearly states is that it is you that is favored by God right now over me. I already am a believer. But you are considered the lost sheep. If the sheppard loses one sheep and finds him, how much happier would he be in finding that one lost than to those who were already in order. God is desperate to have you and will show you in many ways in your life (without effecting your freewill). You may not believe that but I do and like I said before, I am only here to share my faith and answer biblical questions. If you truly want to understand the Bible, do not let any man, including myself, tell about its truth but study it and examine it in relation to your life. Then you will know the Bible is not responsible for all that you say. But people are responsible, from all walks of life. Well, gotta run. have a great day Gerry and to you all.

God bless

David,

don't you feel you are getting into serious trouble?
You say: "ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE" if you died right now without recognizing God's sacrifice for your sins, YES you would go to hell".

And you say, the bible is the unerring truth.
Consequence: You actually, without any qualifying restriction, say, "Scott, you go to hell" (or I and every other non- (or otherwise-) believer, for that matter). Doesn't it dawn on you that your premises might be wrong???

In addition, to adapt your way of thinking: Since you "believe in Jesus", you will, of course, not go to hell, meaning you are good and we are bad. This is and through history has been the underlying feeling of superiority that non-believers observe and hate in believers of any religion, because WE non-believers think, ALL people have equal rights, not only the "believers", whoever that is! This feeling of superiority through so-called "truth" was and still is the reason for so much evil in the world, wars, genocide, suppression, terror.

And: If the "missionaries", like you, haven't succeeded in convincing us poor souls, it is the believers that should go to hell for their inadequacy to convince us erring humans! It is their fault, not ours!!

Its pretty much accepted by all that there is no actual "proof of god" and belief in god is based on "faith". This then makes it a matter of choice so I suggest you take a look at the sides you choose to join. In an effort to simplify the argument for the dense "faith" based people or "wishful thinkers" its comes down to taking sides, your gang or mine. Do you want to stand next to the termite Jerry Falwell and his ilk or do you want to associate with some long dead guy from history? These issues have no more meaning than that and if you like being told what to do by some sanctimonious creep in a weird robe/strange hat/business suit/ all intent in either abusing your children, stealing your money or interfering in your life then pick your flavor of superstition. Once chosen then join that mass of unthinking fools, and go slaughter another bunch of unthinking fools as you have been doing for thousands of years, I for one cannot express the level of contempt I feel for you all and have certainly decided to divorce myself from what is laughingly called the human race.

Scott,

I just wanted to respond on what you said earlier. I forgot I wanted to respond to this.

"When you tell me that If I do not believe the story of the Bible really happened, as it was written, that it's God will punish me. When you tell me that I will go to Hell unless I truly believe the chapters where it says that Jesus was born of a virgin birth. When you tell me that this story's God created man and has all the answers to every possible question, even though these statements seem to conflict with recent discoveries about the world we live in, I can no longer relate to the story of the Bible. It's effect is one that is negative, instead of positive."

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16

I'm sure everyone knows that verse, and I know you all hate it when I use scripture but I just want to make a point really quick.

Why is this verse so popular? Why do people know this verse, whether they believe it or not? Why do you see it in sports stadiums all the time? Because no other verse in the Bible could sum up the true meaning of the whole Bible in a single sentence. Now, there are many messages in the Bible. Of course it's great to love one another and all that good stuff, but the main message in the Bible is to believe in Jesus for salvation or choose not to for eternal seperation from God. I always tell people to believe in the Bible in its entirety and not to pick and choose the messages you want to hear depending on your own comfort of the message.

Now, you said above,

When you tell me that I will go to Hell unless I truly believe the chapters where it says that Jesus was born of a virgin birth.

No. You are not required to recognize the virgin birth but to recognize that Jesus died for the sins of man that we should recieve salvation through faith. That's what is required. Not the belief in the virgin birth. I believe it, but if I believed Jesus was born from a virgin and didnt recognize His death and resurrection, I would not recieve salvation according to the Bible.

So, my main point in all this is that you are right that the Bible says to recieve salvation is to have faith in Jesus Christ. If I told you that ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, you will go to hell because you do not believe, I am not lying to you. If I tell you "your going to hell." Then, that defies the purpose of God being the judge. I warn you that if any Christian says "your gonna go to hell," remind them that they are not the judge. But if they say "according to the Bible, you will go to hell for your disbelief," then they are right. And for argument sake they are right, because the Bible does say so, and we are just relaying the message. So please do not hold us accountable for that message or take it as a personal attack. I see a lot of people take it personal. That tells me one of two things: they either fear that message because it just might be true and would hate to be in hell. Or, they take it as a personal attack from someone. It's just what the Bible says, that's all. Choose to believe it or don't.

So. Scott. Will you go to hell? I have no friggin idea. I'm not God and who am I but a man.

But, "ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE" if you died right now without recognizing God's sacrifice for your sins, YES you would.

Now, do I hope that you could believe in Jesus one day? Yes I do brotha more than you know. If I truly believe the Bible I would have to hope for anyone to believe in Jesus. It's out of love for man. But I respect your decision and my only intention on this note was so that if any Christian tries to use condemning words that you may know that they need to say "the Bible say so" and that they are not to judge. And that you may not take it personal if someone presents that message to you in an appropriate manner. Take care.

God bless

Scott,

I appreciate your comment and respect your opinion. It was well thought out with no sign of discrimination. One thing I am happy to say is that you recognize that the true message of the Bible is to love.

I think we can all take our own meaning of the Bible in the way that we want. And the way that we want is our choice. I choose different. You say that is was a message for the present day for the authors that wrote it. That's fine. But the clear message from Genesis to Revelation is God's redemption of Man. That is God's main goal in the Bible. You can CHOOSE to believe that or not, but I do think it is important to recognize that meaning. As far as everything else, I am glad to see that you too can appreciate the message of love given in the Bible. My main concern is that people do not mistake true Christianity for extremism and recognize the values in the Bible instead of the Catholic churchs' history which has tainted that message. I read a previous post about how someone doesnt have a problem with someone who believes in rapture and apocalype but with someone who tries to hurry it up. I totally agree. That's extremism. And that's not Christian either.

God bless

Thanks Greg..

Unfortunately, my last post was full of typos and transpositions. I was in a hurry and didn't have time to proofread.

"Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the earth."

Obviously should have been.

"Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon."

But you've probably figured that out already....

- Scott

Scott,

I don't know what to say about your post. I couldn't agree more with your ideas. I think I will copy that and keep it for a later time (giving you full credit of course)

peace

Greg

Acrapist,

I wanted to respond to your post earlier but I got called in to work.

I would argue that the way a leader achieves political and economic power is through religion. I do not think that any leader lets go of religion to save money and power. They use religious "tools" to gain money and power. Capitalism is our "god" now and Communism is the atheism. Everyone challenging the current power structure is labeled "communist" or "liberal"
Religion is used to define who you are and what you believe and those in power want to know where all there potential "opponents" stand.

Money and power are "ends" while religion is a "means".

Interesting points you make about memes. Dennetts book was the first I'd heard of the concept so I know very little about it.
I found it interesting any potentially useful. I look forward to seeing more about them.

You are right about desperate times increasing religions strength. I'm not worried about people hoping for an apocalypse as much as I worry about those doing their part to usher it in.

When I referred to our biology keeping up with cultural changes I was merely saying that "memes" can replicate much faster and can change our destiny much faster too. The meme of "American abundance is desirable" could change to "Americans should be conservationists" in a very short time. This meme change could have enormous effects on our world and change the course of history quickly. Any biologic changes we might make as a species require generations.

peace

David wrote: "You really dont know how much that statement means to me. I thank you so much for pointing that out. I understand my reasons for my faith may not suit everyone as everyone is so different. But I am glad you recognize that it has helped me with the giving of love to others."

David,

History tells us that, in 1969, Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the earth. Being only one year old at the time, I was too young to remember the exact moment. But millions of Americans watched Neil take his first step on the moon's surface on their television in homes across the nation.

Yet there are people that claim we did not go to the moon. That it was all smoke and mirrors - shot in a production studio. Unless you and I actually went with them, we can not say behind a shadow of a doubt that they did reach the moon in 1969, as NASA claimed. Flags posted on the moon could have been placed their on a later mission. Photographs could have been forged. Space debris could have been planted.

Due to the significant amount of empirical evidence, I do believe that the US was the first country to land a man on the moon. But what if it was faked?

Was being first on the moon the real goal? Was creating the technical and scientific knowledge required to get there first the most important result of our trip?

In 1961, when president John F. Kennedy said "...I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.", the US was in the middle of a cold war with Russia. A year later, the cuban missile crises would occur. Americans lived in fear that their very way of live would be destroyed by a nuclear war.

Kennedy's speech gave the nation a clear purpose. It also provided a way for the US to defeat the Russians without resorting to violence. Most important, it gave Americans hope for a better tomorrow. I think these were President Kennedy's real goals. The technology and skill required to step foot on the moon first was simply a vehicle to meet them.

In this light, does it really matter if the United States was the first to the moon? No. The important thing was the shared purpose, vision, focus and hope the nation exhibited in as it strived to meet these goals.

You've said that you're faith in the BIble has helped you give love to others. As such, I can see why you're faith is so important to you.

When I read the Bible, I hear the story of the search for meaning and understanding by an oppressed people. In the New Testament, I hear the story of a man who's message of love is rejected by his own people and who is willing to give his own life for this message when he is killed by the Roman Government. His resurrection symbolizes hope and forgiveness.

Could it be that that is the Bible's real purpose? To speak to the people who lived in that age? To promote unity, love and forgiveness, instead of war with the Romans? Can we not find value in this same story today? I think we can.

However, great stories are not great because a specific series of events occur, but because of how the story presents these events in a way that the audience can relate to and, in turn, how that effects the reader.

When you tell me that If I do not believe the story of the Bible really happened, as it was written, that it's God will punish me. When you tell me that I will go to Hell unless I truly believe the chapters where it says that Jesus was born of a virgin birth. When you tell me that this story's God created man and has all the answers to every possible question, even though these statements seem to conflict with recent discoveries about the world we live in, I can no longer relate to the story of the Bible. It's effect is one that is negative, instead of positive.

Things get even more complected when different cultures have their own stores that conflict with each other.

By focusing of the events of the story, instead of their intended meaning, the message of religion is lost. Instead, we see discrimination, persecution and even hatred and violence. I believe that unless we let go of the details and focus on their meaning, humanity will eventually destroy itself over them. I do not believe this is result the authors had in mind.

David,

thank you!
Limbo is not mentioned in the bible. It was introduced by pope Gregor I in th 6th century. Martin Luther strongly opposed it, calling it a "phantasm of the devil" ("Teufelsgespinst").

Gerry,

Yes, we did agree to disagree. But I saw a response to Thor's Child and thought it was kinda harsh bro. I read it over again and I think I may have misinterpreted it. Sorry about the confusion. I am wrong for that. But I will respond to this.

The Pope these days, btw, abolished the limbo concept, as not fitting into Christian belief. It will take some more time until the hell concept will be abolished likewise. Talking about eternal truths...

The pope is a knucklehead. What gives him the right to change God's rules. He's just a man. I wish people could seperate Catholicism and Christianity. They are two differnt things. Look at the Catholic church's history. They are the ones to give Christianity a bad name.

Suggested reading for newcomers to jump right into the discussion without scrolling back:

http://www.thercg.org/books/dge.html

http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.pdf

David,

what made you change your mind again? I thought we could agree to disagree and stay friends.

What makes you jump to the conclusion that I hate Christians? Or that I think no one else is intelligent? Or that I insist on not getting along? Or that I only hear myself? Many a beloved and respected friend of mine is Christian. But when Mr. Meecham poses a question which is bound to deeply insult a non-believer, I feel free to describe and defend my point. It resembles the question:" Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?" I hope this answers your question why I am here. If not, too bad.

My feeling of awe and wonder towards the universe and my own life and that of my fellow humans probably is a similarly strong FEELING as yours as a Christian, even if not mounted on an auxiliary vehicle, the Christian belief. I have pointed this out again and again, but people seem to read only parts of a post, the one's that irk them to contradiction, even aggression.

The MOTIVE of your Luke 14,11 quotation, to me, does not seem to be particularly Christian, since you expect (hope?) me to roast in hell. Accountable? I don't subscribe to the notion of fear, reward and punishment for doing what I think is right, and still feel completely accountable on what I do. (We discussed the accountability question over and over, and I think we all have arrived at the insight that one does not need religion to be completely responsible and accountable.)

The Pope these days, btw, abolished the limbo concept, as not fitting into Christian belief. It will take some more time until the hell concept will be abolished likewise. Talking about eternal truths...

Greg,

Well put. I love your response. I'm happy to know that someone believes the Bible can change someone for the better. Thanks again for a most intelligent response. If someone is to not turn to Christ in their life, I would just hope that having a Christian faith can be respected. You out of all the people on here have shown that. For that, I'm very grateful. Have a great day Greg.

Peace
and

(my trademark)
God bless

David,

I only said what I feel I have learned of your "spirit" in these discussions. Reading your responses to mine and others posts, it is clear how your faith has shaped you.

Marcus Borg said it best in one of his books, believe what you want about a particular verse in the Bible but what does it mean to you?? How does it change you?

Many people I know who call themselves Christian take part in all kinds of activities which suppress, marginalize and hurt people. You, it is obvious to me, take very seriously the "least of these" passages and the "do unto others". You would likely stand up against such activity even if it was against someone on this board ( like me for example) whom you disagree with on some serious issues. You get it. You get what Jesus asked of himself and others. That is ALL a Christian is supposed to do. The rest is really superfluous, in my view.

You are wrong in that I don't believe in the Bible, I believe in its power to change people for the better. I just don't think you have to believe in the literal accuracy of it for it to change you.
All the prophecy stuff and the "end times" stuff is absolutely useless to me. If it all was someday proven false it would change nothing regarding my view Christs message. I do not subscribe to Christs views on the proper way to live socially so that someday I will be "raptured" from this earth and taken away to heaven. I ask nothing like that in return for my actions and personally, I think those who do DONT get it. I feel like I am asked to GIVE what I can (and just a little extra too), to "Pay it forward" so to speak. Thats all. Its that simple. I'll die one day and if theres a heaven for me, great. If not, I gave my best while here.

Peace

Luke 14:11

11For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I think this is especially true for you Gerry. You may be pretty intelligent but that doesn't mean no one else is. I think Rodney King said it best:

CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!!

But you insist otherwise. You hear yourself and no one else. Of course you don't want to hear about prophecy because then you might actually question your beliefs and have to be accountable for your actions. But instead you choose to ignore so you may live your life without regrets because there is no one to be accountable to. You have heard God's word here and choose to not accept it. I respect you for your decision. But why are you here then? Because you hate Christians? I've asked this question several times but get no answer. Please. I want to know.

Thor’s Child,

For the sake of moving things forward, let’s just say that you are right: Logic and reason are not the cat’s meow.

Now what.

What is it that you want to see different in this conversation between believers and non-believers?

What is the focus of your concern in the relationship between believers and non-believers?

What, in your view, is a positive outcome of such a dialog?

If the future could be somehow different because of your being here, what would that look like?

I really don't have time to participate here these days, but I'd like to point out to Thor's Child that there is a difference between logical reasoning and semantic gameplaying. Guess which one you're engaging in...

Thor's Child,

logic is a tool YOU use for defying logic. That is what I call circular reasoning, no matter how long ago it was that you had your logic 101 course.

Of course one can use logic in a faulty way (then "logic" in quotation marks is not true, ha, you are right!), arriving at faulty conclusions, but if logic itself is a priori questionable (2+2 is not 4, all math is false), your conclusion, based on your logic, is just as questionable. We are back at the nice little games "all Cretians are liars", preventing ANY definite statement about anything - which is an obvious fallacy. You may look up your notes in logic 102, without attributing stupidity to a fellow arguer.

My claim that only assumptions can be true or false may have been a little narrow, since descriptions, beliefs, memories should be included in this category of "assumptions". We could instead speak about real or virtual objects of observation, which, even including Heisenberg, would hold the "tool" quality of logic. If the premises are faulty, "correct" logic, of course, must arrive at false conclusions.

The whole argument has very little to do with the questions of god vs. universe. Following your LOGIC, we cannot make any statement about anything, neither on the universe, a personal god, the spaghetti monster or the bible.

That, by the way is a reason I lead a very happy life without any divine notion, successfully using a lot of logic and inspiration in my profession as an artist (musician).

And Craig: Congratulations to the next big step of openmindedness (no irony!) of religionists. Only: Did god create himself? Improbable. So, both science and religion, if reasoned seriously, arrive at a similar point of impossibility to define a primary cause. If you put a vague entity as "god" into this void, you are really not explaining anything. Void = god, a merely semantic play, and everybody can agree.

And to the other friends arguing about prophesies in the scriptures: An interesting philological discourse, which, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on my fundamental distrust to everything religious: It is all man-made, therefore those discussions are limited to man-made philological talks, as if you were discussing some rhythms in the Iliad. With some fantasy and some philological education, anybody could derive anything from those old scriptures. It amounts even to an intellectual game to prove the contrary of every given statement by using rhethorical devices "e contrario", or similar tricks.

Craig,

I thought we shifted our discussion off of the scientific aspect of things to biblical. I already made it clear that I would not continue to debate on science, archaeology or human reasoning. We had a discussion concerning a prophesy from David. I suppose that you found my response quite accurate in light of your assumptions on that verse. Would you be willing to admit that my response was correct? Maybe not, so I guess you resort to going back to some old post where I posted those statements even if they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Look we all have our beliefs. Even in science. Just let it be. Like I said before, I would love to continue to talk about aspects of the Bible if you wish. I intend to give knowledge to those who desire in biblical aspects. I'll leave the rest to you all to debate. My job here is to teach the Bible as best that I can. And I assume you do not like to be proven wrong which is why you posted a personal attack? I hope that you would admit to your mistakes as I will too. And if I offended you at all, I'm very sorry.

In conclusion, if you want to learn about the Bible, let me know. If not, go about your own way. I encourage any questions regarding the reliability of the Bible or any assumed contradictions you may have found so that I may enlighten you on its true meaning. Thank you.

God bless

David: "Good luck on continuing to try to prove science = no God. Never gonna happen."

Why do you think that God and evolution cannot co-exist? The fact that species evolve (and it is a fact: we've seen speciation happen) in no way disproves the existence of God. How do you know that evolution isn't how God does His work?

David: "I refuse to believe some "theory" that I have a long lost cousin named amino acid that lived in a pool of chemicals."

Nice open mind you have there. :)

Gerry: Premature triumph? Oh well, I got an extra celebration out of it. :)

Only assumptions can be true or false? Well ... Acrapist has aptly pointed out several times on this thread that rational arguments can be true or false, and that in order to be deemed true, an argument must have true premises and valid form of argument.

That is: the statement "Form of argument x is valid" must be a true statement for the argument to be deemed true.

The statement "The rational form of argument (a.k.a Logic) is valid" cannot be declared true, since to do so invokes circular reasoning as previously posted. Capice?

Your (and Acrapist's) protest that logic is merely a tool, and so should be exempt from logical analysis falls short because the main (and only) use of the tool called logic is the evaluation of the truth of arguments. Part of that process is evaluating the form of the arguments. Since the tool involved is also a form of argument, to exempt it from itself is both a fallacy of neglected aspect* and hypocritical.

* The neglected aspect here being that Logic is also a form of argument, a.k.a. Rational argument.

I was made aware of this fundamental limitation on logic way back in my college logic course. I'm a little surprised that it is not common knowledge among professed rationalists.

Soja,

The existence of god as something other that internal brain function is what I argue against. People have an extraordinary experience and assign its cause to something outside themselves. This goes unquestioned, and soon, god is “doing” things like deciding that the sky should be blue to make us happy.

Non-believer:
All purpose is internally assigned by each thinking being. No ultimate purpose exists (as there is no evidence for it). The goodness of our feelings is evolutionarily defined because an attraction to “good” things keeps us fed and out of danger. Hence, sugar is sweet.

Believer:
Ultimate purpose is external (god given) and therefore, more authoritative.
That assigned individually is subjective and therefore suspect. God made us and he made us to like blue skies and because he is not a total jerk, (ahem, excuse me) because he loves us, he blesses us by giving us some sunny days with the blue skies that he predetermined we would like in the first place.

The reason that I call…

The reasin the I call...

Greg,

The reason that is call Religion a side show is that I prioritize the strength of the various elements that shape our behavior. I am not sure that my prioritization is correct but I think it is close:

From strongest to weakest I first look to the strength of influence that the various parts of the brain have on our behavior: fear is stronger than love, hunger is stronger than respect of ownership and so on. When push comes to shove, the “older brain structures” seem to dominate. It is be true that some strong willed people can die for an ideal, but my basic prioritization is but a generalization that ignores the exceptions.

The question at hand is whether Economic and Political Power is driven more or less than Religion by our “primal” nature. I argue that when push comes to shove, the leader of a group will let go of religion before they let go of economic and political power (generally speaking). This is also to say that, in general, considerations of money and power are slightly ahead of religious considerations.

Regarding memes, what I find interesting is looking at various parts of a conceptual construct and evaluating its relationship to the success of its host community. Take, for instance, the Catholic ban on contraceptives and abortion. Such a construct will have the effect of increasing the population of Catholics and thus the probability that the construct itself will exist into the future. Now with AIDS, such a construct may have a reverse effect by allowing the spread of disease amongst it host population thus decreasing the chance that the meme “catholic morality” will be dominant in the future. The “science” of memetics is still in its infancy and as a meme itself, its future is in doubt. None the less, it poses some interesting ideas with regard to the study of thought, ideas and culture.

Times of desperation may strengthen religion as they welcome the rapture and apocalypse as fulfillment pf prophecy.

The only way our biology can “keep up with” our cultural changes is that those who are not suited to overpopulation and pollution will die out of the gene pool and leave only those who can live in such conditions. That works until the count of those who can survive equals zero.

Greg,

you said,

I can tell that your theology has changed your life (for the better) and that is all that matters. You are obviously a caring, "others" minded person and your faith is to credit for that.

You really dont know how much that statement means to me. I thank you so much for pointing that out. I understand my reasons for my faith may not suit everyone as everyone is so different. But I am glad you recognize that it has helped me with the giving of love to others. If my theology will not turn others to a different way of thinking, I hope that at least others may recognize that it is peace and love that is the real message. So many people think religion is the problem in todays society. But its not the religion, its the person. Sure there are religious extremists, but they miss the whole point of the Bible. That's why I consider myself spiritual, not religious. Religion is man-made and has its faults. I do not choose a denomination, but choose God. I know you dont believe in the Bible, but this verse sums it up for humanity as a whole and shows the importance of love as a message in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Greater than faith, and hope. Love.

Despite our differneces it's important to love one another. Let's stick to that and I think we'll do pretty good living together in a society of differences.

One thing to clarify too.

I just want to point out something about the translation of that Bible verse you cited. Since it was an ancient Jewish piece of literature, do you not think that a Jew would be more reliable than a Roman in regards to the translation of it? That is really what it comes down to. Romans wrote the Bible.

The Jews originally had it as "pierced" but then when Jesus came and didn't save them from the Roman occupation, they didn't want to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Keep in mind that the OT was what the Jews lived by. Also, at the council of Jamnia, where the OT was canonized, it was Jewish Rabbis that canonized it as the "pierced" message. Also, keep in mind that the early Christians were Jewish. Also, today we have people that can read Ancient Hebrew who arent Jewish. Does that mean Americans wrote the Bible? I speak spanish and can translate anything to its exact meaning and such is the same for those who translated the Bible. Looking at the original Hebrew text for "like a lion" and "pierced" are SO similiar that only a centimeter mark distiguishes the difference. But you would have to add words originally not in the Hebrew text for the "like a lion" to fit. So if I wanted to believe that heaven and earth are the same thing I could take Genesis 1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

and change "and" to "as" to read

In the beginning God created the heavens "as" the earth.

To put it in simple terms. It just aint right. You cant add or take away words to fit the meaning you want.

The translation was very reliable and to say the Romans wrote the Bible would be of great historical inaccuracy. Now over the years as the Bible was translated to English and other languages, it was very difficult. There are words (like in any language) that do not have exact word meanings in English. So to properly translate the meaning, an english word to our understanding would have to be used. But when a verse in its complete context seems contradictory we have to look at the original text as it was written for verification.

Its unfortunate, and I wish we all could speak ancient Hebrew and Greek, but we can't. If we could, the Bible would be so much easier to understand. That's why it takes great patience and study to verify it's meaning.

Have a great day. Thanks again for the compliment Greg. I really appreciate it. You show great character in recoginizing that and I can tell you have a love and compassion for others just as I do. Thanks again

God bless you.

Gerry,

Thanks for agreeing to disagree. I hope we can be friends in light of our disagreements.

Anonymous,

Your right that verse would work well with Jews as the lion part. But you need to add words which are not originally in the Hebrew text.

"For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, (at) my hands and feet."

If you take out the "at" then you have "like a lion, my hands and feet." I don't think David had paws. But throwing in one word to make the sentence fitting for ones own purpose would be wrong biblically and just as a whole for any document. David was describing Himself in relation to the coming Messiah. Being persecuted by many just like Jesus was. You can call it a vague prophecy but there are 455 more that all lead to Jesus' coming.

Also, not to be anti-semitic, but if I were a Jew, wouldn't it be better to come up with some conspiracy theory, or add words to the text instead of admitting to killing God?

If you'd like, I searched the mathematical probabilities that the prophecies described show Jesus as the Christ.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

It goes into detail about several prophecies. I also encourage you to look at Daniel's seventy sevens. That prophecies the exact date that Jesus would enter Jerusalem (triumphal entry). For all these prophecies to be fulfilled by one Man in history, the only possibility would be Jesus. According to Daniel, He had to come before the temple was destroyed in 70 a.d which rules out possible future Messiahs.

Now I've heard the argument that NT authors wrote so the prophecies would be fulfilled but didnt really happen. Historically, as we all should know, the early Chrisians were persecuted beyond belief until Constantines reign. Look at Saul of tarsus. He was one of the biggest Christian persecuters of that time. He had a good life, financially, and also socially being a higher up in the Sanhedrin. My son's history book tells of Saul of tarsus and the Christian persecution. Then later describes him as Paul. Why would Saul (later known as Paul) be willing to give up his nice life for a life of prosecution and eventually to be murdered for a lie? As with all the apostles as well. If they knew it was a lie then why go to through the torture, imprisonment, and eventual death for a lie? No one in history would do that. It's not logical.

Have a good day.

God bless you all.

David,

no hard feelings. To conclude just a few general remarks we both might agree on.

1. Our brain is not equipped (by evolution for me, by god for you) to find truth. It is equipped to survive and make a person happy. Our mutual attitudes obviously help each of us reach that goal. None of us seems to miss something.

2. Sometimes it is advantagious to turn our binoculars around to observe things from a greater distance to see how things act on eachother.

3. Finally a little philosophical joke: Three guys drink beer together. Says one: "I wish I was a stork, then I could fly". Says the second: "I wish I were two storks, then I could fly behind myself". Says the third: "I wish I could be three storks, then I could watch myself flying behind myself". With some humor, the story could easily translate some insight into our discussion.

David wrote: "For the lion verse to work words you need to add "are" and "at." That would be contradictory to Rev 22."

First, when that verse was written, the Bible had yet to be compelled into a single book. The author could not have known what other books would be added along with Revelation to ultimately become the Bible. Nor did he explicitly mention the Bible as a whole.

As such I don't see how it could refer to the entire Bible. Instead the only book the author could have been referring to was Revelation.

Second, the Christians had just as much motivation to use 'pierced' as the Jews had to use 'like a lion.' They both gained to benefit equally in using either translation. Your enemy's enemy is your friend and vice versa.

Third, when someone is crucified, their wrist and ankles are pierced, not their hands and feet.

Fourth, using the word 'lion' fits better with the rest of the verse and with the entire text as a whole. It also fits with what David was going though at the time since he was being pursued by Saul and his army.

Another translation that makes even more sense: "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, (at) my hands and feet." here only one additional word is used. Since David used the word Lion to describe his enemies several times in the same Psalm, why should he not use it here?

Fifth, in Psalm 22:7-8, David describes himself as a worm, not a man.

"But I am a worm and not a man; a reproach of man, despised by peoples. 8 All who see me will mock me; they will open their lips, they will shake their head."

When Jesus said "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30-33) he meant that he was a man and God, not less than a God. While some that saw him did mock him while he was crucified, not All of them did. There were some there that did not, such as his mother Mary and and Mary Magdalene. (John 19:25)

If this psalm was an accurate prophecy of the crucifixion, then Jesus didn't think he a man who was also God, but less than a God.

Sixth, even if the correct word was 'pierced', it could just as well be describing someone who was bitten by dogs or jackals. It does not say that anyone was physically pinned to anything, including the ground or any sort of structure. If you're willing to conceder this vague text an accurate prophecy of Christ's crucifixion, be my guest. But the Old Testament is so full of metaphors like this you could claim it covers nearly any event.

David,

I just want to point out something about the translation of that Bible verse you cited. Since it was an ancient Jewish piece of literature, do you not think that a Jew would be more reliable than a Roman in regards to the translation of it? That is really what it comes down to. Romans wrote the Bible.

So you are an orthopedist? I am an anesthetist and marvel at our bodies daily as well. I hope to be able to soon do medical mission work on a much more frequent basis. I understand you need to do no paperwork and have no insurance payments to worry about. Plus each patient genuinely appreciates all your efforts.

I can tell that your theology has changed your life (for the better) and that is all that matters. You are obviously a caring, "others" minded person and your faith is to credit for that.

Peace

Gerry,

Cool beans bro! Let's leave it at that then. No hard feelings. Sorry if I ever offended you but I speak my mind. I'm glad you have a happy life and are no threat to society. I am here to answer any questions regarding the Bible for those who are interested. If not, so be it. I'm done with the scientific debates, archaeological debates and human reasoning debates. But for those who wish to know more about the Bible, feel free to ask.

God bless.

David,

why get so personal instead of arguing? Well, people always get personal when they are running out of arguments...

Where do I compliment my reasoning? Why do you call a differing viewpoint "ignorance" as opposed to your "wisdom", at the same time when you complain about the aggressive atheists? When you call your ("spiritual") thinking superior to mine, you only profess a hypocritical attitude. (The Pharisean thanking god that he is not a tax collector). Calling it superior certainly does'nt make it superior. Quotations from the bible do not mean anything to me whatsoever. They mean something to you, within the system of your religiosity, but nothing to me, since I do not subscribe to the basis of the quotations.

I have had and still have a very rich and rewarding life full of love for and from a lot of wonderful people. I see no connection whatsoever with any necessity to posit a god for this life. I feel completely accountable for this love, and I don't want to defer it to any other instance. I don't expect any reward nor punishment, nor any afterlife for that matter. I am quite a happy person. Smart? Smart enough to lead such a life, but otherwise to let other people (like you, for instance) judge over my smartness.

Thor's Child,

you got me all wrong (my fault, probably): What I was pointing at is, that logic cannot be true, because only assumptions can be true or false. Logic is never an assumption (it is in a different category of concepts), therefore it has no quality to be true or false. It is an instrument to find out if an assumption is true or false. So your triumph over my "conversion" certainly is premature.

You cannot put logic and theism into any relationship of analogy. Apples and oranges.

Scott,

I have heard of this dispute before. This disputed verse has been between Jews and Christians for a long time. Since Christians believe in Yeshua as the prophetical Messiah, this translation fits. But for Jews, who do not believe in Jesus, they choose otherwise. First, let me point out something.

Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

For the lion verse to work words you need to add "are" and "at." That would be contradictory to Rev 22.

http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/psalm22.htm

Look at this site and in the middle of the page you see K'aru (pierced), and K'ari (like a lion) written in Hebrew. The difference is literally a centimeter measurement. The only verse to make sense would be the "pierced" otherwise you break the rules of the Bible according to Revelation 22 and have to add two words. So pierced is a correct translation even though Jews wouldnt agree. But look how close the actual Hebrew letters are in comparison. I hope you found this explanation understandable and enlightening.

God bless.

Acrapist

Your post of 31 March 2007, 9:04 PM left me speechless, hence the long silence! : - )

Thank you for your kind words. I’m still wondering how to respond to your difficult questions though. Atheists seem to be very good at brezeling my mind - I am forced to think, something I can do without when I write spontaneously (which is almost all the time).

I notice that the eternal discussion on ‘God exists – no He doesn’t’ is still very active here, just as I expected. The ongoing discussion achieves one great purpose, even though I don’t expect the debate to come to any meaningful conclusion in a zillion years, it keeps everyone engaged in a dialogue. That is a success in itself.

By the way I found this: “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic”, 14 September 1993, Chicago, Parliament of the World’s Religions. The sixteen page document on Global Ethic can be downloaded as a PDF document on this link:

http://www.cpwr.org/resource/global_ethic.htm

I also found the following poem:

I once asked a scientist why the sky was so blue,
He was not sure if the answer he knew.
"I thought you knew it all," in surprise said I.
"Your why isn’t clear,” he gave as reply.
"If you wish to know the reason, why blue is the sky:
Blue waves are scattered, and reach the human eye.
For what purpose is it blue, and it is not green?
That I know not. You see, what I mean."
I asked a man of religion why the sky was so blue.
He said in the Scriptures there was for this a clue:
God made us and the world, this of course is true,
And to give us more joy, He made sky so blue.

-------------- V V Raman

I’ll get back when I have managed to find some more words to answer your challenging questions. Until then, keep up the good work of giving theists like me a tough time!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

David wrote: "Taking those into consideration and the 456 prophetical messages about Jesus over a 1000 years before His time, and Jesus fulfilling them all to minute detail. Ex: He was to be crucified according to David (1000 b.c) when crucifixcion wanst around until the emergence of the Roman Empire. But then He was crucified."

The verse you're referring to is Palms 22:16, which reads...

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."

However, in this verse, the word "pierced" is translated from the Hebrew "ka'ari," which means "like a lion." In fact, the same word is translated into 'Lion' five verses later (Palms 22:21) "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."

So, one of these translations is incorrect. If we replace the words 'they pierced my hands and my feet.' with lion, the verse reads...

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet."

Doesn't this make more sense than "Save me from the pierced mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."?

Let's look at the revised verse in context with the rest of the text.

- - - -

"My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me."

- - - -

The person they are describing is weak, trapped like a wild animal who is surrounded by dogs and so malnourished and dehydrated, you can see his bones.

How does this foretell the crucifixion of Jesus?

Does it only take 12 minutes to get to the post a comment part on my computer or yours too? This thread is getting too slow. I think I'll move my message to another. In conclusion, I gave my reasons for my beliefs and they are what they are. You all base yours on human reasoning which is fallible and mine on spiritual reasoning which is not. You all have a problem with an "all-knowing infallible" God. The arrogance of Man is evident in this post. Why do we have to been the highest of intelligence? What is the TRUE reason you dont want to believe in God? To be accountable for you sins. Well, I'm leaving this thread for now. It's too slow too. God gives me hope and reason. Not having Him does not make sense whether scientifically, psychologically, or at all. It seems to me that this "theory of evolution" plays a big part in your decision. It's unfortunate that thats the only hurdle for many of you. I'm sure Darwin is pissed that you all used his theory for this purpose. It wasnt meant to be that way. Even he was agnostic knowing something had to make all this. Good luck on your quest for ...........nothingness. I'll pray for all of you. Craig, Scott, Greg, Acrapist. I love ya'll like a fat kid love cake. Your people and for that I respect you and care. That is why I want to share God's love with you. I still havent heard your reasons probably because you all dont know either. Later

God bless

Acrapist,

That sounds like a very interesting book and I will have to go find it soon. Daniel Dennett talks about similar phenomena in his book "Breaking the Spell". He uses the term "meme" to describe the way humans pass on "cultural" things. Our imagination has allowed us to evolve much faster culturally than genetically (not that this evolution is for the better always). There is no way our biology can keep up with our sociology or psychology.

I have a more optimistic view of our situation. I know that we will probably have some mega disasters of our own making but we will get the right idea simply by necessity.

I wish I agreed that "Religion was a side show". I think spirituality is a side show but religion IS front and center with politics and economics. My hope is that we will start listening to more spiritual voices and not religious leaders. I think we will when things get desperate, which may not be far off.

peace

David wrote: "Then you cannot conclude about Universe A or B and the reason for their actions. I suggest learning about the real God and not just assume "A" God.

is it not true that Bad things happen just as often to those who believe in the Bible as those who do not?

Terminal disease do not make exceptions for any religion, including Christianity. Statistical studies have shown that, between two groups of patients with terminal diseases - one which was prayed for and one which was not - the group that was prayed for had equal or lower survival rates than the group that was not.

Jesus says in Matthew 18:19-20 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Of course, you may say that God had some reason why these people should have died. Can you tell me this reason? No, because God's infinite knowledge is incomprehensible. Right?

Again, the results of these studies is indistinguishable from a universe that has no meaning or purpose, where some people recover, others do not. They are effectively the same thing.

David asked if anyone has ever seen a tendon evolve. The answer to that is millions of times a day.

Everyone here started as a single cell and through multiple divisions and cell differentiations "evolved" into a complete human being with all tendons in the right places (most of the time). The entire process is evolution in action. THE demonstration of simplicity becoming complexity.

peace

Greg,

The cultural and biological (physical) sides that I refer to are best described in David Barash’s book referenced earlier in this post. It has to do with our biology evolving slowly and our culture changing relatively quickly. Sometimes they get very far from each other where we have a culture that does not work with our genetic makeup. The lower parts of our brain (reptilian) are in conflict (out of balance) with the higher parts of our brain (neocortex) that maintains our conceptual structures (culture). An example of a culture that did not work with who we are as animals is communism. We are too selfish for that to work. In this thread we spend a lot of time trashing religion as a cultural construct that no longer works.

Today, religion is but a side show in the circus of (human) life. In center ring is Economic & Political Power. For quite a while Christian religion was intertwined with western economics and political power and it has moved aside in deference to secular economic and political structures. You could argue that U.S. pres Bush is in some part, Christianity trying to muscle it way bad in and the fact that you generally have to be Christian to even be in U.S. politics, as examples of earlier entanglement, but I am talking about the Church as the seat of such power. Islam is struggling fiercely with this issue today. What is interesting is that when it comes to people slaughtering each other, it often involves ethnic and or religious differences, as they go hand in hand. Religion may help define the enemy, and justify the slaughter, but it, in and of itself, is not the cause.

Even if you get rid of religion, the deeper issues will still remain. In our brains we are still animals, and in our thinking, rationale for cruelty comes easily. I personally do not have much hope for the human race. We are truly f’d up.

We see the struggle on a small scale with cops and robbers. We make cultural rules to control the punishment and profitability of stealing. Note why the war on drugs is such a failure. We are trying to control an insatiable demand.

Maybe I spent too much time studying the Armenian Holocaust yesterday. I have got the stop doing that. There seems to be no end to us slaughtering each other. Maybe it is all just the stress of overpopulation. Reminds me of a Gary Larson cartoon where the two alien boys have a couple of human space men in a mason jar and one says “shake em up and see if they fight.”

Scott,

Even if God did exist, you've said, "..we cannot know everything about God.." So what makes you think you know exactly what his will is in every situation? How do you know the Bible is really God's word? How can you know your belief is correct?

I dont know His will in every situation. If I did that would make me God. You ask how I know the Bible is God's word? So how do I know that the Bible has a divine authorship? Through prophecy. I know you do not want to believe in that but what it comes down to first is reviewing the facts as: Is the Bible a reliable document? Seperate from divine intervention. Has the "hand-me-down" of translations tainted the message? By looking at how the Bible was transfered from man to man (due to no printing press until 1455) you will have to look at the culture of the Jewish people and how they translated the message over such a long period of time. At first, they wrote on papryus which could not stand the length of time and therefore the message had to be re-written several times. By the time the NT was written and done with there were 24,000 copies of the OT and the NT. In comparison, the most ever coopied historical document was Homer (Iliad) at 648 which in comparison had many discrepancies. The Bible was 99.9% accurate due to the diligence of the scribes of those days. Only common mispellings and marks were found which did not taint the message in detail. The Koran was found to have a similiar amount of accuracy as the documents were written repeatedly over time. because of the shared culture in which scribes of that time were persistent in making sure the accuracy was exact. But the Koran and the Bible are a different story which I wont get into.

Then we look at the historical accuracy:

If Daniel (who wrote in 700 b.c) said that Julius Caesar told him to mow his lawn, then the historical accuracy would be incorrect. But the Bible remained historically accurate all the way through.

Taking those into consideration and the 456 prophetical messages about Jesus over a 1000 years before His time, and Jesus fulfilling them all to minute detail. Ex: He was to be crucified according to David (1000 b.c) when crucifixcion wanst around until the emergence of the Roman Empire. But then He was crucified.

Thats' just one example of many.

And that's why I believe in divine authorship.

God bless

David wrote: 'But I wrote earlier on how we should respect one another's decisions in our beliefs. I still don't hear any respect from the other side. I ask how has Christianity been a danger in today's society? No answer. Instead, I get responses that only deal with argumentative discrepencies."

David, the point I'm trying to make is that concepts have limited value in a particular contexts. No concept can represent TRUTH.

When we mistake a concept for Truth, we may use it in a context where is has no value. As such, you we may make improper judgments. We may make choices that result in "worse" outcomes We might even decide to blow ourselves up.

This is not limited to the concept of religion, but it seems to be one common example.

By positing the concept of God as Truth, you're claiming it has value in every conceivable situation and context. Regardless of what the question is, God has the right answer. Regardless of what happens, God is in control. Regardless of what empirical evidence shows us, God is the creator of the universe.

We cannot prove that God does or does not exist, nor can you be sure that the Bible really does have all the answers in every situation. Yet many are willing to make decisions that could effect the entire human race based on the same very concept. Is this not dangerous?

Even if God did exist, you've said, "..we cannot know everything about God.." So what makes you think you know exactly what his will is in every situation? How do you know the Bible is really God's word? How can you know your belief is correct?

Scott,

Nice universe concept but it lacks one thing. You are making up a "God" inconsistent with the Bible. First, before making any assumptions, you should learn what the Bible says about God. Then you cannot conclude about Universe A or B and the reason for their actions. I suggest learning about the real God and not just assume "A" God.

And I'm not sure what "empirical evidence" your talking about as far as not being a God. But, like me, I have my beliefs and you have yours. I "know" there is God and you "know" there isn't. So who's right. I think I am, but you disagree. So let's just agree to disagree, because you can come up with all the "empirical evidence" you want but it still does not show that God is not real. You all speak as if your SO intelligent, but lack so much wisdom. Even if you do not believe in God, maybe you should learn from the Bible on how you can live better. Stop putting yourselves on such a high mountain that you think your not sinful. "We all fall short of the glory of God." Believing in God would take away the comfort of being able to live your lives without accountability. Feel free to do so, its your freewill.

David wrote: Yep pretty much. Also, depends on what you mean by something "bad." But I get the drift. And it looks like your catching on."

Yes, I caught on a long time ago. And here's what I've noticed....

For the purpose of discussion, lets say we have two parallel universes. Both of which are very similar to ours in that they have stars, planets, their own version of Earth and the same type of life, including human beings. However, universe A is created by nature and has no purpose. Universe B is created by an omniscient, omnipotent and incomprehensible God.

Now, you might say, "If both universes have such a radically different origin, they could not look or behave the same way." However, by positioning the God of universe B as all powerful and incomprehensible, he doesn't have to behave in any predictable or logical way and can do anything. As such, the results of his actions (or the lack there of) universe B could look and behave exactly like the purposeless universe A. They could be essentially indistinguishable from each other.

For example. In universe A, random events happen to random people. These events cannot be just or unjust, Good or Evil, because these imply a sense of fairness or malice, which is not present in a purposeless universe. Nor does it pick a particular person over another since universe A has no agenda.

In universe B, statistics show the exact same number of random events happen to the exact same number of random people. However, since this universe was created with a purpose, these same events must be interpreted within the absolute moral concepts of Good or Evil. Since he is omniscient and omnipotent, the God of universe B must have decided to give good things to some people but not others. To allow bad things to happen to some, but protect others. To punish some evil doers, but not others. Since statics show these events occur in the same number to believers and non-believers of the God of universe B, these choices must some how be part of his incomprehensible will, not because of their choice to believe in him or his purpose.

I could go on and on about the motivations, actions and flaws of the the life in both universes, the methods in which they were created, etc. The results would be the same, but the interpretation would be different.

Both universe A and B could be indistinguishable. We cannot say with absolute knowledge which universe we live in. Yet, implying some kind of purpose exists in universe B requires us to go out of our way for it to remain coherent. If God of universe B is sovereign, all-knowing and all-powerful, we must assume his will is incomprehensible, otherwise, the very reality of his universe would contradict these very same properties.

So why would someone go out of their way to suggest that we live in universe B? Especially when much of the empirical evidence we do have supports the concept of universe A? Because of the implications.

In universe A we have no protector. We have no way to universally decide what's moral. We simply blink out of existence when we die. And, probably the most significant, is that we have no unified purpose.

These people would simply rather live in universe B. As such, they are willing to go significantly out of their way and ignore significant empirical evidence to the contrary to do so.

Unsure,

I'm not sure where you go to become an atheist, but if you have any questions about Christianity I can help you there. Good luck on your spiritual quest. Remember to weigh ALL the facts and I'm sure God will show you the Truth.

Jeremiah 29:13

For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

Craig,

*because* we evolved the tendons

That is the point I made. I knew someone would come up with the "scientific" explanation. And that's where we differ. Has anyone seen a tendon "evolve?" Ok. Case closed. Good luck on continuing to try to prove science = no God. Never gonna happen. And I refuse to comment on this matter any further because trust me I've heard them all. I refuse to believe some "theory" that I have a long lost cousin named amino acid that lived in a pool of chemicals. Go ahead and respond with what you think is an intelligent response but I've debated the science aspect of God way too much and it's the same old excuse. Trust me it takes a lot more faith to believe in the scientific "theories" that have come up than God.

Gerry: Logic can never be "true".
Exactly!At last, someone who concedes the point already proven! I must be getting through.

Logic is used as more than a mere thinking tool or mnemonic device, and you know it. It is held up as THE standard by which the truth of other conceptual structures (such as theism) gets judged.* Logic itself is also a structure of concepts, and should be held up for the same scrutiny. It is only fair to judge Logic by the same standards used on other structures. When one does, one easily concludes that the structure we call Logic itself cannot be deemed to be either logically true or false.

*See: "Beliefs A contradicts itself, therefore it is false" and other such statements. The implication is obvious: If it is not logical then it is not part of the TRUTH. An inferential statement is deductively equivalent to its contrapositive, so the implication (not logical => not truth) is equivalent to truth => logical. Hence my claim that Logic is held up as the standard by which to measure TRUTH.

You were right, I should have stated in my juxtaposition:

Theism, as a structure of concepts is TRUE.
Logic, as a structure of concepts is TRUE.

The deductive truth value for each is indeterminate. You knew that already, but preferred to go for the mixed metaphor.

Since we agree that Logic can never be "true," it is rational to reject the assertion that all claims of truth must be rational.

David: "the only thing that came to my mind was how amazing the body knows that we need that specific tendon to extend our finger."

The problem with this way of thinking is that it's exactly backward. It's not that the body "knows" it needs a tendon to extend a finger, it's that we can extend a finger *because* we evolved the tendons to do it. Think about what it would be like if you didn't have the tendon. Would you even have the *concept* of extending your finger?

"So complicated that I can't imagine how it could just happen. It's too perfect. There are so many parts that synchronize together in perfect fashion for me to believe that we just are. Only a Creator could come up with such a beautiful piece of work."

Beautiful piece of work? Why are our eyes wired backwards? Why are we able to choke on our food? Why are our spines not well-suited for walking upright? Why does our reproductive system look like it was built by Rube Goldberg? Why do we have an appendix? Why do a lot of us grow more teeth than can fit in our mouths? Why do we even have toes, since they're not needed for walking?

If I wanted to be atheist where do I sign up? Just wondering how I can join.

. In all cases, I do see that the balance forces both within ourselves and amongst ourselves remain a requirement. The question is how far is it wise to push that balance and in which direction.

Acrapist,

I couldn't agree more with your statement about the good of all living things. It is crystal clear to me that there is a connection between our species, all other species and our planet that we better tune in with or we will perish.

Actually I think we are currently acting CONTRARY to our nature and that is why we are experiencing such problems. What we have been describing as human nature for so long is not really "natural" but pathological. Religious dogma plays a HUGE role in this, you are correct. Think about telling your child that he is evil by nature, worthless and he/she needs to start believing the "right" things in order to be saved, its madness. The question of whether religion is accidental or reasoned is interesting. I think it is entirely reasoned to ask "what is our nature" and that is essentially what religion thinks it has the answer for. It certainly isn't accidental as a tool for "mind control of the masses", so I'm inclined to disagree with that blanket statement. As I've said in earlier posts, In regards to religion, I'm not sure the answer is "No Religion" just "Better Religion".

What do you mean, when you say; "The first step as I see it is to free ourselves from current thinking structures to allow individuals to become more effective at building/adopting learning structures that, in tern, allow for our cultural side to become more powerful with respect to our physical nature."

Are you saying that our cultural sides are being suppressed by our physical nature?? And if so, in what way?

Peace

Gerry,

I love seeing how you continuously compliment your own reasoning. I guess there's ignorance in intelligence.

But I wrote earlier on how we should respect one another's decisions in our beliefs. I still don't hear any respect from the other side. I ask how has Christianity been a danger in today's society? No answer. Instead, I get responses that only deal with argumentative discrepencies.

Ex: Sentence No 1 and sentence No 2 are frontally contradicting eachother. You use "evidence" to proof that there is no "evidence". No wonder you get into thinking trouble.

Sorry, I forgot to join the debate team in college.

So your point of debating this is what? Let me point out something.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Even Voltaire thought that God's Word would be forgotten or irrelevant in society within a hundred years of his time. But no, he passed on and God's Word continues to this day. What is so ironic about this is that they used his house as a printing shop that produced the first copies of the Bible.

So, I'm wondering what your getting out of this? I've made my reasons clear but if you truly believe what your saying, is it out of love for man, or hate for God. Or neither? Maybe you just think your really smart, I dont know?

I'll share something personal about my beliefs which of course you will come up with an excuse or some scientific evidence for the contrary.

I'm an orthopedist. I was repairing a tendon the other day and the only thing that came to my mind was how amazing the body knows that we need that specific tendon to extend our finger. I think when we look at our bodies on the outside we can easily imagine how it was created scientifically. But when I see all necessary tendons and ligaments a body needs for function, it's so complicated. So complicated that I can't imagine how it could just happen. It's too perfect. There are so many parts that synchronize together in perfect fashion for me to believe that we just are. Only a Creator could come up with such a beautiful piece of work. Now I know thats opiniontive, but for me personally, I see God in my everyday work.

Greg,

It is even more difficult when one says, as I do, that “the good of all” refers to all living things.

We as humans are predisposed by our 5 senses and our brain structure to have certain limits to the scope of our sphere of concern. The problems we face are much larger than what we typically desire to take on. We have created a “life out of balance” (http://www.koyaanisqatsi.org/films/koyaanisqatsi.php ) and it will either run its course to some unknown end, or we will take it upon ourselves to act contrary to our nature to change our relationship to our society, to all people, to our environment, etc. The key issue with this that the “against our nature” part. That means it is an uphill struggle that will work against the effort to return to equilibrium. In chemistry, this is possible by setting up a meta stable state where one aspect of the dynamics overpowers other aspects to maintain a state to one side of equilibrium. I see this as the very situation that I argue against in the nature of religious dogma to trap and hold people in a type of psychological prison. The difference is that I see religion as an accidental structure as opposed to a reasoned structure. In either case this is a very dangerous road to tread and I do not recommend it. This is just one possible road; perhaps others can define a better one.

The first step as I see it is to free ourselves from current thinking structures to allow individuals to become more effective at building/adopting learning structures that, in tern, allow for our cultural side to become more powerful with respect to our physical nature. In all cases, I do see that the balance forces both within ourselves and amongst ourselves remain a requirement. The question is how far is it wise to push that balance and in which direction.

Acrapist,

I loved your last post. Excellent essay on how we build our "consciousness" and experience "truth".

I would only argue that we ALREADY have the tools to "create" a system which is flexible enough and stable enough to build a future. What we lack,as a global society, is the will.

A " system that is balanced between individual desires and the good of all" really is what most "good" citizens of this planet seek, don't you think?? The $64,000 question is how will people be motivated to care about the "good of all"? Tending to our individual desires has never been a problem, especially in our society.
Once we are motivated we WILL find the way. Their is no limit to our human imagination and right now their are no financial limits on our planet. The amount of money it would take to provide clean drinking water and provide effective sanitary conditions for the entire planet (9 Billion dollars) is the amount we spent on gifts for each other on the day after Thanksgiving.

How do we develop the sense that the "good of all" is important?

Peace

Gerry,

I love your description of God; Not a tool but something we try to grasp using our tools (paraphrased).

You would make a heck of a theist!!!

I think you are starting to understand God.

Peace

David:

You said:
1. "I know through physical evidence that there is enough of it to convince me that the Bible is reliable historically with greater accuracy than all other ancient forms of writing."
2. "I know that scientifically God cannot be tested".

Sentence No 1 and sentence No 2 are frontally contradicting eachother. You use "evidence" to proof that there is no "evidence". No wonder you get into thinking trouble.

I must repeat: Of course believing is assuming something for which there is no evidence, leaving it undecided if it is true or not. That is what the word "believe" means. Every believer will proudly confirm this: Belief without, even against evidence. Why not you?

Thor's Child:

You constantly compare apples and oranges and arrive at false deductions.

Logic can never be "true". The phrase "logic is true" is nonsense. Logic is a tool for consistently constructing Acrapist's and all our reasonable (ever more reasonable) structures. You are either able or unable to use this tool.

God, no matter if he exists or not, is not a tool, he is, grammatically speaking, an object you try to grasp with whatever tool at your disposition. So, your two phrases:

God is true.
Logic is true.,

as used as a juxtaposition, are void of any meaning. Again, they resemble the pseudo-deduction:

Peas are green
Your eyes are green
therefore your eyes are peas, etc.

You are yourself pretty much dangling in the ropes. Don't throw so much sand into people's eyes!

Acrapist,

Very nice response. I read it thouroughly and I have a great deal of respect for what you said. Now that we both know where each of us stand I just wish someone (and maybe that person is you)can agree to disagree with me. How about I respect your decision and you respect mine and that's that. I've given that to all of you but seem to not get a return on that. My beliefs are not dangerous unless dangerous people take them out of context. I am part of no cult or particular religious following. I call myself Christian. I'm not Jehovah witness, mormon, 7th day adventist, baptist, catholic, etc. Those are "religions" and religions are man-made which means they are fallible. I am spiritual which comes from God and is infallible (to me of course) not meaning I'm infallible of course. But you get the idea. I believe "religions" have perverted God's Word and driven many people to not accept Christ. It's unfortunate but that's what it is. So please accept my beliefs and know that I am not ignorant in my beliefs or unreasonable. I accept your beliefs and accept that you cannot change those. Let's agree to disagree and be friends. Peace out.

God bless you all(that is a compliment even if you dont believe in Him)

P.S.

GOOD LUCK IN HELL NON-BELIEVERS!!!!!

COME ON THAT WAS FUNNY :)

Acrapist,

Very nice response. I read it thouroughly and I have a great deal of respect for what you said. Now that we both know where each of us stand I just wish someone (and maybe that person is you)can agree to disagree with me. How about I respect your decision and you respect mine and that's that. I've given that to all of you but seem to not get a return on that. My beliefs are not dangerous unless dangerous people take them out of context. I am part of no cult or particular religious following. I call myself Christian. I'm not Jehovah witness, mormon, 7th day adventist, baptist, catholic, etc. Those are "religions" and religions are man-made which means they are fallible. I am spiritual which comes from God and is infallible (to me of course) not meaning I'm infallible of course. But you get the idea. I believe "religions" have perverted God's Word and driven many people to not accept Christ. It's unfortunate but that's what it is. So please accept my beliefs and know that I am not ignorant in my beliefs or unreasonable. I accept your beliefs and accept that you cannot change those. Let's agree to disagree and be friends. Peace out.

God bless you all(that is a compliment even if you dont believe in Him)

The truth is what is so. - It is also so what.

When you take the phenomena that life is (truth) and write down names for things you have taken the first step into a conceptual structure. When you describe relationships between the things, you have taken the second step. When you believe that what is written down is the truth, you have made the structure a prison.

Conceptual structures are powerful for understanding and communicating important distinctions such as food, danger, and sexual opportunities, (reptilian brain) relationships and trust, (emotional part) and rules for cooperation and properties of materials, (thinking part). We have a multi layered brain that has a predisposition to create multilayered conceptual structures.

Our conceptual structure can also lock us into rule structures that we think are absolute. There is nothing absolute about conceptual structures as they are all made up. First we have a physical ability to perceive distinctions like colors and object boundaries. Then we agree on what to call the distinctions. Then we forget that we authored them and treat them as the truth. Take the experience that we now agree to call apple. Most everyone would point to the experience and say that it truly is an apple. What is true is the experience, what is not is the concept, as the concept is a name and exists merely by agreement.

For the most part we all are stuck relating to that experience as an apple and nothing more. This limits the experience and reinforces the absoluteness truth of the experience. Most of our lives we live in this fixed conceptually "true" structure and are oblivious to its even existence. It is like the water that surrounds the fish. The fish does not even know it is there, unless, on rare occasion, it happens to jump out and experience “not water.” The experience of “not water” for humans we call enlightenment. Some people seek this experience through, art, dance, music, drugs, meditation or prayer, extreme sports and the like.

Some people work at building the structure using science or religion to extend the conceptual structure out into what was the unknown, or to refine and adjust parts they thought they knew but did not quite fit together right. The objective of logic and science is to create a structure that is internally consistent, accurate and predictable. The object of religion is to establish and maintain a conceptual structure that authoritatively defines our relationship with its parts. This dogmatic structure is distinct from religious practice of being in such relationships, as that gets closer to the fish jumping out of the water. Science is criticized as being cold in this respect for it does little to guide the average person to extraordinary experiences. Science has a narrower focus on the conceptual structure it self.

Conceptual structures take the form of a bible, a constitution, a dictionary, a physics book, the astrology section in the newspaper, a medical journal, a romance novel and a nursery rhyme. They can lead one to great feats of engineering, to societies that care for each other, to financial systems that are out of control, to medical cures, and to unbearable cruelty.

Non-believers are often viewed by believers as cold because science and logic are the primary tools with which we build our structure. Believers are viewed by non-believers as crazy for having adopted ancient and dysfunctional structures that make no reasonable sense and create things that are not physically there. I side with the non-believers as I know the nature of what we have built. I have de-constructed it and rebuilt mine many times. Having done so, I have seen and used many structures and then chosen freely. I have chosen a structure that can “learn” and be corrected.

I argue against religious dogma, especially with those in cult like structures, for I know those in it, are not free to choose. I do not argue against religious ritual that squeezes the fish such that it pops right out of the water. The more times you are out of the water, the better you know what the nature of the water is. When you understand the nature of conceptual systems, you can learn to take them apart and reconstruct them. Sometimes they are constructed in ways that are against our nature; these tend to fall apart. Sometimes they are constructed in way that trap people into servitude; these are enduring but cause suffering. Sometimes they are constructed in accordance with our nature yet result in excessive pollution causing suffering for our children. We are complex, our ecosystem is complex, and creating a system that is balanced between our individual desires and the good of all is no simple task. Some day our basic education will give us the skills to create one that is flexible enough to adapt and stable enough to build a future on.

If something good happens it probably came from God
- If something bad happens to a believer it comes from the Devil or it was God's will
- If something bad happens to the enemy of God or his people, it was God's judgement.

Yep pretty much. Also, depends on what you mean by something "bad." But I get the drift. And it looks like your catching on.

You said,

So where did Sin come from? Did man create it? I though God created everything?

And if Sin came from the Devil, then why did he rebelled from God if he was flawless? Either God created sin to tempt the perfect Lucifer, or Lucifer was a flawed creation of God.

Someone just asked me that the other day and I tried to explain it well, but I think I could have done better. So, I found the best explanation I could find for you.

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00623.html

I like how this explanation addresses both questions too. Have a good evening. Ill check in tomorrow. Sleep well.

God bless

David,

Why do you call me an"atheist" simply because I try to convince you that the Bible is not THE "Handbook for finding God". I have already made it clear that I am a theist and a Christian theist at that. There were Christians before there was the Bible so one does not have to have any particular relationship with the Bible to be an authentic Christian. My argument with many Christians is simply that they really are "Biblicans" and not Christians. Christ himself had never heard of the Bible and he himself told the Jews of his time the 'wrong headedness" of their affinity for the Laws of the Torah. There is a real movement in Christianity, the Emergent Christians, who look to the pre Bible first century Christians as a source of spiritual enlightenment. That early church looked very unlike and cared about far different things than most of todays Christian churches. It was a group of people interested in social activism and social change. They cared very little about convincing people to believe any certain sets of "facts" about Jesus. I personally feel that Jesus himself would be very disappointed at what the religion bearing his name looks like today and what its primary goals are.

I think the Bible is a book to be taken seriously, just not literally.

Peace

David wrote: "Your right there is nothing he cannot do. God created the universe which would put Him on an infinite level. And why is it so hard to rely on the fact that we cannot know everything about God? "

David,

My point is that I too can claim my God is infinitely wise and powerful. I too can claim that it's impossible to know everything about my God. If you don't believe in my God, you're simply foolish or not open to his presence.

How is this any different than your claim?

Since my God can do anything, he could be the force behind anything that happens. If he is incomprehensible, it's possible that he might allow anything to happen. This covers every conceivable scenario or event that could ever happen. In other words, we can't tell if what were experiencing is because of a infinitely knowledgeable, incomprehensible God or just because it was going to happen anyway. The two are essentially indistinguishable.

A God than can do whatever he wants without the requirement to conform to any logic can take any position on any event or occurrence.

- If something good happens it probably came from God
- If something bad happens to a believer it comes from the Devil or it was God's will
- If something bad happens to the enemy of God or his people, it was God's judgement

Again, I believe this is by design. By creating a invisible, incomprehensible God, man has created an safe haven for his desire to be watch over by an all-knowing, all-seeing being and explain everything that happens to him. God cannot reveal himself to us. If he did, he would loose his omnipotence, just like our parents did when we grew up, and become a myth.

David wrote: "Though we were created flawless, that perfection has been tarnished through sin (Ro 3:23), explaining why there are tragedies (911, va tech.,etc...)"

So where did Sin come from? Did man create it? I though God created everything?

And if Sin came from the Devil, then why did he rebelled from God if he was flawless? Either God created sin to tempt the perfect Lucifer, or Lucifer was a flawed creation of God.

Acrapist: I still have you on the ropes, I just choose to stop pushing. All I really need to do to keep you there is to continue to insist that you must prove that Logic is TRUE, in much the same manner that you and Guy and Gerry and Scott and A. Hermit have been insisting that David prove his statements of belief.

Anyone who insists that Truth be arrived at rationally, is concurrently insisting that Reason is True. (Well, maybe just once more) :)

Similarly, anyone, like David, who insists that Truth be arrived at through Belief is concurrently insisting that Belief is True.

Inevitably, both sides come to an impasse (just read the posts since David joined us):

Believe it! (Where's the proof?)
Prove it! (Why bother? I believe!)

And, from a completely deductive, rational standpoint, each rests on an unprovable statement:

God is True.
Logic is True.

Now, I to agree that there are empirical reasons which make Logic a better choice*, but the fact remains that it is within the limits of rational proof that either statement, or both could be False.

*There are a few theistic ideas, like pantheism or deism, or even the nature-based ones like wikka or Native American beliefs that have some appeal. I try to leave a little space in my thinking to allow room for options that are at least self-consistent. None have been convincing as yet.

David,

Those words mean nothing to me. That you must follow them as truth is your chosen prison.

I think I'll end this with a great verse that is relevant not only to today's society but to you all as well.

2 Timothy 3:1-9

1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

verse 7: 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.

isn't that the truth.

God bless

David,

Without proof that god exists, the bible is just the word of man.
If you did prove that god exists, then you need to prove that god authored the book.
I am not going to hold my breath in anticipation.

Because we have no proof that god exists, the Bible has no authority. It does not matter what it says. Non-believers cannot accept bible based arguments.

Using Einstein’s work to refute your premise that time had a beginning, is not to say that Einstein is an atheist. It just means that you should find a different premise to prove your point. Because we find a problem with your argument for the existence of god, we are not proving that god does not exist. Einstein is safe in his faith and in his science.

Prophecy cannot be used to prove the existence in god. If I prophesize that fire will come from the sky, I only need to wait until a meteorite falls in that given area. Eventually one will. My prophecy is not at all connected to the eventual “fulfillment”. If you claim divine intervention, you must first prove that the divine exists. Without such proof, the coincidence means nothing at all.

Greg

You said,

As far as the Bible, Einstein knew it was not inerrant. He knew God did not create life in the way the Bible describes it and also knew that the earth was much older than 10-12000 yrs.

Please tell me where in the Bible (as I may have missed it) that God described any of the following: the theory of evolution, thermodynamics, fossil records....I guess I could go on. But why wouldnt He explain these theories? The Bible was meant for people from all ages in history. Explaining these scientific evidences that we know of today would make no sense to someone in 200 b.c. Yeah I think God put it in terms for the lameman to understand. What do we know about how God describes creation? From dust to Adam. That could mean several scientific evidences. Who knows maybe even dealing with evolution for that matter. I really don't know. And I'm not sure where you got the theory of the Bible stating existence has been around for only 10 to 12,000 years.

Genesis 1:1-2

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I'm not too sure how long it was before God started creating the things on earth as we know it, but the second verse clearly shows that there is a possibility of infinite time in between a formless and void earth until God's first creation. Light. Now I would be cautious about this because many Christian use what is called a "gap theory" with these two verses which entales a lot more than just the time reference. This theory in its entire detail shows to be contradicting to other scripture and therefore void in itself. If you care to read about it, it's here.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=36

I want you to be aware of this in case any other Christian approaches you with this theory as it is not the true interpretation of God's Word.

I just have one question for you all too. What are you to gain by trying to convert Christians to atheism? Is there a reason? Is it harmful to be a Christian. I know it's obvious that you will not accept the teachings of Christ and so be it. But I do for many great reasons. And I want to share with you all these teachings as I do believe (and you don't) that they do have an effect on our eternal beings. I am told to love everyone and I do. For me to show that love I feel compelled to show the love of God. My faith has shown me that those who do not believe will be in a state of eternal seperation from God. Once God shows you His true being this is something you do not want to face. And because of my love for my fellow man, I want you to experience the love of God now and beyond the grave. This is my reason on this post as it is not for personal gain but for yours. Now I want to know what your reasons are.

I've come to the conclusion that no matter what we debate on, my evidence is mainly biblical and if biblical isnt an acceptable tool for debate, the reason for it is meaningless. I know through physical evidence that there is enough of it to convince me that the Bible is reliable historically with greater accuracy than all other ancient forms of writing. I know that scientifically God cannot be tested therefore He cannot be excluded either and that whatever evidence we do find on our origen of life, that we found that to show how God created it. These are my conclusions which I expect to be respected as I will yours. But if you do come to God one day, as I will pray you do, then and only then will you have a true understanding of what life's about. As death is a part of life, you will have a true understanding of that as well with a commitment to God. Good luck on your search for life's answers whether it be scientifically, historically or spiritually.

God bless

David,

The whole thing about Einstein and God has to do with the fact that when Einstein"discovered" relativity the prevailing thought was that EVERYTHING was predictable. If you knew all the conditions in a particular circumstance you could definitively say what would happen next. This seemed to fit in with a "designer" and made sense in light of where physics was in the early 1900s.
Once quantum theory was "discovered" the whole ballgame changed. Einstein thought for the longest time that quantum theory was wrong and that their was no "randomness". Unfortunately for him he was wrong and never used his own great mind to try and further quantum theory. He died trying to find the competing answer.

As far as the Bible, Einstein knew it was not inerrant. He knew God did not create life in the way the Bible describes it and also knew that the earth was much older than 10-12000 yrs.

You really are barking up the wrong tree in your defense of your faith David. Quoting what someone else may think, no matter how brilliant they are, does not add credence to your position.
Trying to use any logic arguments to defend your postions are doomed to fail. There is no logic in beleiving todays Bible to be "The Word of God". God did not speak in English (there was no such language then) and ANY translation would have entailed human error. So you must admit that no one knows EXACTLY what God said.

Your example of your mothers love is a poor one by the way, because if she has never shown you by her actions that she loves you (and you DO know what loving actions look like) then she probably doesn't, although that probably shows something wrong on her part and not yours. She can say it all she wants but you KNOW if she does or doesn't. I know you're not so dense to not realize whether someone is showing you love.

Peace

David,

of course believing is assuming something for which there is no evidence, leaving it undecided if it is true or not. That is what the word "believe" means. Every believer will proudly confirm this: Belief without, even against evidence. Why not you?

The difference between my mother and god: There is unquestionable evidence that she exists (existed, otherwise I wouldn't be born), as opposed to the lack of evidence that god exists. I am (was) assuming that she loved me, although there are examples of mothers who do not love their children. But her behavior towards me is (was) EVIDENCE that she loved me. (Btw.: Did god love all the Blacksburg victims?)

Then, David, get a little logic into your arguments. Your inferment that I regard all other historical writings as false is utterly nonsensical. Your logic corresponds to the following:

The sky is blue
my eyes are blue
therefore my eyes are the sky.

I do not negate the EXISTENCE of scripture, I just negate the Truth of its contents (God's word etc.). Understand?

And it totally escapes my understanding what a difference it would make íf scientifically evidenced documents and facts are written or printed or brought to light through other scientific methods - none whatsoever. I am a very interested amateur historian (brought up studying original Greek and Latin texts), one of the reasons I regard the bible as a collection of documents written within a historical context of 3000 to 2000 years ago, but nothing more, just as any other historical document and with the same degree of HISTORICAL plausibility when studied carefully.

Then, I didn't say faith is meaningless, I only said it obviously makes you happy (it is meaningful for you), and I am glad about it. I am quite happy without it, as I outlined before. For me, therefore, it is meaningless.

Einstein might have believed that Jesus existed, but that doesn't mean he believed in Chistianity or Jadaism for that matter. Some more quotes:

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Guy,

Glad you brought up einstein because so many people think he came up with all these ideas in opposition to God.

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

I'll pull out a few quotes from einstein.

Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. 17

Here's an inteview from the saturday evening post, in 1929.

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7

I encourage you to read this whole article and remember that as we are not to take out biblical passages out of context for our own reasoning, maybe we shouldnt use einsteins theories out of context to say they are proof of God's inexistence.

Gerry,

you said,

believing is assuming something for which you have no evidence

So, I guess what your saying is having faith is meaningless? That everything must have evidence for it to be true? That really sucks because I can find no evidence that my mother really does love me. I go on faith alone. Do you not realize how much faith you are willing to put into your everyday lives but not willing to put into God? That's fine too if you dont wish for me to explain the reliability of the Bible as an hisotical document. But then you must accept ALL ancient documents as false as well. The printing press wasnt invented until 1455 so I guess all documents preceding that are incorrect and therefore we should not look at the likes of socrates, plato, and whoever came before 1455. They didnt exist. Oh either did the persian empire, the roman empire and all recorded history before 1455.

Scott,

You said,
As soon as you play the "You can't comprehend God" card, there's nothing he cannot do and nothing he does has to make any sense at all. Sounds very familiar to the world we live in doesn't it? Tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, disease, tragic accidents that occur for apparently no reason at all.

Your right there is nothing he cannot do. God created the universe which would put Him on an infinite level. And why is it so hard to rely on the fact that we cannot know everything about God? The prophet Isaiah, like Jeremiah, mentions an analogy whereby God is the potter and we are the clay. Isaiah 29:16 records, "...shall the thing made say of him who made it, ‘He did not make me’? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, ‘He has no understanding’?" (cf. 45:9). Such foolishness, and yet those who refuse to know the LORD do exactly that (Ro 1:22-25, 28). Rather, the claim of all humanity ought to be, "...O LORD, You are our Father; we are the clay, and You our potter; and all we are the work of Your hand." (Isaiah 64:8)

Though we were created flawless, that perfection has been tarnished through sin (Ro 3:23), explaining why there are tragedies (911, va tech.,etc...)

For you to begin to debate this subject I suggest STUDYING (not reading) the Bible. Basic theology will show you why there are tragedies and that it's our fault as man, not God's. God gives us freewill out of love and so that He may know which ones truly love Him. You have the freewill to do or not do God's work. He could have forced us all to love Him but then that wouldnt have been true love. That is His reason for freewill. So some of us choose to follow and love God, while some of us choose to shoot up schools, hate people, or just plain live a nice moral life without God. But to not accept God will bring you to eternal seperation from God which is known as Hell. (No its not a place of fire and little devils with pitchforks either.) It's the eternal seperation from God who is love. It's your freewill, choose as you please.

Matthew 6:19-21

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

I think I'll make the long term investment in heaven. The return is much better and theres no risk involved.

David,

You said: “There has to be a beginning. If there was no beginning that defies all logic and reason.”

I have already posted a logical and reasonable explanation for why many scientists believe there was no beginning. It is difficult to get your head around this, but please consider again:

“If I asked you the question "When did speed begin?" you couldn't answer that question, because the question is meaningless. Speed is relative and variable. In just the same way it is meaningless to ask the question "When did time begin?" because time is also relative and variable, as Einstein proved. The fact that you cannot say when time began leads scientists to conclude that the universe must have always existed, in some form (i.e. it was never created, because it must have always existed).

It is the human experience of time which causes us to believe that there is a background time to the universe (which is required for it to have a beginning), but Einstein proved that human intuition in regards to time is wrong. Time is a variable, like speed. It has no beginning.”

David,

You said: “There has to be a beginning. If there was no beginning that defies all logic and reason.”

I have already posted a logical and reasonable explanation for why many scientists believe there was no beginning. It is difficult to get your head around this, but please consider again:

“If I asked you the question "When did speed begin?" you couldn't answer that question, because the question is meaningless. Speed is relative and variable. In just the same way it is meaningless to ask the question "When did time begin?" because time is also relative and variable, as Einstein proved. The fact that you cannot say when time began leads scientists to conclude that the universe must have always existed, in some form (i.e. it was never created, because it must have always existed).

It is the human experience of time which causes us to believe that there is a background time to the universe (which is required for it to have a beginning), but Einstein proved that human intuition in regards to time is wrong. Time is a variable, like speed. It has no beginning.”

All is possible with Hank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

David wrote: "God is too high a power for any mortal mind to be able to understand. All I can understand is His Word that was given to us through scripture."

David, is this not simply a get of "Reason" free card?

Couldn't I say that my God is so infinitely wise and powerful that you can't conceive of him either? In fact, my God is so powerful that his "Bible" was somehow transmitted to my computer over a WI-FI connection. I was deep in the mountains, far away from any wireless hot spots, when I received a signal - "None of your default wireless networks could be found, would you like to join the network 'GOD 2.0'?" It was a miracle!

I could go on and on... including how I knew it was God since he used Emacs instead of Microsoft Word (surely a sign of his infinite knowledge and Unix skills), but I think you get the point.

As soon as you play the "You can't comprehend God" card, there's nothing he cannot do and nothing he does has to make any sense at all. Sounds very familiar to the world we live in doesn't it? Tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, disease, tragic accidents that occur for apparently no reason at all.

Again, another perfect example of how to write for your audience. If the universe your followers live in doesn't always make sense, make sure your God is incomprehensible so he doesn't always have to make sense either. This is especially important if you claim he's responsible for the universe in the first place.

Dear David,

believing is assuming something for which you have no evidence. Knowing, if ever language means anything, means having evidence of something. You don't say "I believe it is 10 o'clock" if you look at your watch and it is 10 o'clock. Strangely, in religion, the lack of evidence not only is perceived as a "lack", on the contrary: The lack of evidence even is the CONDITION for believing. In other words: In order to enable somebody to believe, there MUST be lack of evidence.

If you are happy with this mental setup in your life, fine, I don't grudge you this happiness. Main thing you are happy.

But please, spare us the attempt to "explain why the Bible is a reliable and accurate document". Millions of believers have tried this for 2000 years, to no avail whatsoever, so I doubt that you would succeed. "This is a long discussion", you said. Indeed. You would be forced to produce evidence. This is impossible. Worse, even if you succeeded, it would destroy your belief and your happiness - see above.

So we better leave things as they are: You keep your happy belief and stay with this perceived "truth", we keep our fascinating scepticism against any claim of truth, let alone eternal truth, ready to learn and to change - to evolve.

Evolution even corroborates your attitude: Our brains prefer being happy to discovering truth and knowledge, the latter being an endeavour which appeared rather late in the history of humans.

Dear David,

believing is assuming something for which you have no evidence. Knowing, if ever language means anything, means having evidence of something. You don't say "I believe it is 10 o'clock" if you look at your watch and it is 10 o'clock. Strangely, in religion, the lack of evidence not only is perceived as a "lack", on the contrary: The lack of evidence even is the CONDITION for believing. In other words: In order to enable somebody to believe, there MUST be lack of evidence.

If you are happy with this mental setup in your life, fine, I don't grudge you this happiness. Main thing you are happy.

But please, spare us the attempt to "explain why the Bible is a reliable and accurate document". Millions of believers have tried this for 2000 years, to no avail whatsoever, so I doubt that you would succeed. "This is a long discussion", you said. Indeed. You would be forced to produce evidence. This is impossible. Worse, even if you succeeded, it would destroy your belief and your happiness - see above.

So we better leave things as they are: You keep your happy belief and stay with this perceived "truth", we keep our fascinating scepticism against any claim of truth, let alone eternal truth, ready to learn and to change - to evolve.

Evolution even corroborates your attitude: Our brains prefer being happy to discovering truth and knowledge, the latter being an endeavour which appeared rather late in the history of humans.

David,

I knew I should not have used zeus as you would take it too literally. Say my ethereal guy is Bob and he as a bible book even bigger and full of more prophesy than yours.

The point I am trying to make, that that you seem to have missed, is that IF your god is not verifiable, then it IS competing with Ra, Zeus, the Mother Goddess, Santa clause, the tooth fairy and puff the magic dragon. I cannot prove that these fictions are real either. Equally un-provable.

There will be a new god, maybe bob, maybe the orb, who will take the place of Yahweh, Jehovah, God, Allah,… and people will consider the god of Abraham as much a joke as we consider zeus.

None of them exists at all. Consider the possibility that when you pray, you are just talking to yourself.

Acrapist,

Sure, go ahead and believe in Zeus if you want to. But I think the difference between zeus and the God of the Bible is well, the Bible. I dont know too much about zeus and mythology so I cant really compare them. All I can tell you is about my God, Jesus.

About the prophcies in the Bible. Of course you will all come to your own conclusions on this and of course your own theories. I've heard them all. And I think as I continue to approach people concerning prophecies in the Bible I've made the same mistakes. I realize now that how can someone who does not trust in the reliability of the Bible, trust in the prophetical messages? So first we must seperate the divine inspiration from the fact of the Bible being a reliable ancient document as in compared to other ancient documents. If I may would you all allow me to explain why the Bible is a reliable and accurate document? Please let me know because this is a long discussion and I would rather not waste time if you don't want to hear it.

David,

If I believed is something other than your god, say zeus to give it a name, who is ethereal and scientifically un-provable, and I believed in zeus with equal conviction to that which you believe in god, would that make them equal?

Now, your god says my zeus is a fake and my zeus says that your god is a fake. What it really comes down to is which set of believers has a bigger stick. This has been and is the history of man an his gods. That is, the one deity left standing, that one must be real. (for now)

A Hermit,

I never did say that God was not inconcievable. He is very inconcievable in many ways. You ask what created God and I ask what created this dark matter with which nothing made something. They both are inconceivable thoughts. God is too high a power for any mortal mind to be able to understand. All I can understand is His Word that was given to us through scripture. Jesus said it best Himself.

John 3:12

12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things.

There is no argument that God cannot be scientifically proven. And there is no argument that dark matter and the such can be scientifically proven to have been around forever. There has to be a beginning. If there was no beginning that defies all logic and reason. You may say that that can be applied to God too. But if you do believe that God created all things then it is concievable that He has been and always will be. Only a higher intelligence could make something out of nothing. Even if scientists create life in a lab from non-living chemicals, I would love to see them do it without those chemicals that would have had to be created by somebody.

God bless

David says: "...it is more concievable that God created these chemicals and living matter than they have just been around FOREVER."

But where did God come from? If it is inconceivable for something to have "just been around forever" why is an uncaused entity like God not inconceivable to you? In fact, since chemicals and living matter can be shown to have had origins in earlier, more fundamental forces they should be less inconceivable than an ineffable, eternal, uncaused deity.

To quote the great Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes

;-)

I in no way think that science can prove ID. It cant and I'm fine with that. But science is not meant to prove there is no ID. It is inconcievable that all matter has been around forever just as it is inconceivable that God has been around forever. But it is more concievable that God created these chemicals and living matter than they have just been around FOREVER. I do hope science can create living matter out of non-living one day. I know that does not prove there is no God. It could just prove how God did it. But as far as scientists have gone is come up with 11 of the necessary 20 amino acids needed to form one of about 100 cells to create a functionable protein cell. They do have a long way to go and I hope they can figure it out. I think it's great for humanity to know how life got started scientifically. But in order for evolution to be correct they would also need those cells to mutate over a long (billions of years) time. Unfortunately I dont think we have that much time. I agree with you all on the scientific aspect of things. But remember that the purpose of science is to not try to prove there is no God. Just like people pervert the Word of God, people have perverted the purpose of science. I'll get into the prophecy thing later on. Gotta get back to work. Have a good day.

God bless.

The whole "prophecy" thing in the Bible is completely misunderstood. Those old Testament prophets were the social commentators of their day, like Rush Limbaugh or Don Imus. They were telling people what they saw TODAY (in their time) not about something years down the road. No one would have listened to people who were not telling them about "their" times but rather about generations down the road.

We look back and think they were predicting the future but they were simply commentating on the present. Certainly they warned their audiences of what might happen if their warnings were not heeded but they were no different than our current politicians talking about "what will happen" if we withdraw from Iraq now. They had no ESP and an ability to predict the future with absolute certainty. They were simply wise, concerned citizens of their time. They also in most cases were VERY spiritually minded folks who were looking for "what God would have us do".

Peace

Theo,

FIRST SYNTHETIC VIRUS CREATED - 11th July 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm
BBC News Online

"Scientists have assembled the first synthetic virus. The US researchers built the infectious agent from scratch using the genome sequence for polio. […] Having constructed the virus, which appears to be identical to its natural counterpart, the researchers, from the University of New York at Stony Brook, injected it into mice to demonstrate that it was active. The animals were paralysed and then died"

David wrote: "I've looked at all the evidence and the Bible is historically correct proven through archaeological finds. ... Prophetical outcomes are the reason I believe in Divine inspiration and the reason I believe in Jesus."

History will show that the multitudes of modern-day religious movements and cults existed. They will even document the claims their leaders made and their followers believed. This does not mean these claims are true. It's simply historical facts. Due to our current level of scientific knowledge, media coverage and documentation, I believe it would be nearly impossible for a new supernatural religion to be as successful as the big three we have today (Christianity, Islam or Judaism).

Much of the prophecy in the Bible is self-fulfilling. The New Testament collaborates with the Old Testament with specific detail in only few key locations. In these instances, it appears that the authors (and during the census, David and Mary) went specifically out of their way to ensure prophecy was fulfilled. In many cases, other books in the Bible simply do not mention these facts and seem oblivious to them. Examples include how Jesus would be born of a virgin birth, would be of the house of David/Isaac/Abraham and would be born in Bethlehem. Since the canonical versions of these events were written centuries after the life of Jesus, it would not be difficult make small retroactive changes or use different interpretations of the text to ensure prophecy was fulfilled. IE, young woman vs. virgin. Etc.

David wrote: "And the issue with science is that it had NOT proven that there is no God. Like I said before, once scientists can create another planet in a lab and create life, then consider me on the side of Christianity."

David, I'm confused by your need for science to be able to create life. Why is this a important factor in your belief in God?

Scientific concepts about the origin of life do not claim that human beings created the earth or other life-forms. They suggest that these things were created millions of years ago thorough some non-supernatural process. If human beings can not create life, it may be due to the fact that the original environment or components required may no longer be present at this time or came from somewhere else in the universe. If this were the case, we would need to figure out what components are needed, synthesize them and combine them in a simulated environment. Clearly, this could be a very difficult task.

However, I fail to see how humans creating life would prove the theory of natural creation. While I believe we are the product of nature, what we know of nature at that time indicates it was not conscious. If human beings create life, would this simply be an example of Intelligent Design that is not supernatural in nature? This is not what science claims, yet it appears to be a prerequisite for you to believe that we were created in a non-supernatural way.

In other words, you seem to reject the concept that life could be created without some kind of designer, be it human or otherwise. Is this an correct assumption?

Dave,

I have to ask. How has the Bible been historically proven correct through archaeological finds?? That is the first such claim I have heard of that. You do understand the meaning of proven don't you?? There is only one standard of "proven". The same one you expect scientists to give you of anything that contradicts the Bible.

Peace

I think that atheism isn't right, but I am not one to tell all what to believe. I think that we could communicate with them about a lot of different things because I have a few friends that are atheist and we talk about normal teenage stuff. Yes we have different belives, but the lord taught me to treat others the way you want to be treated and to love everyone as equals.

Great comments everyone. My theory:
God created electricity.
Man found out how to use it. Please don't give me any static.

Great reading you all.

"Human beings have already created live viruses in the lab from simple chemicals."

Can someone point to a source for this? Thanks

Dave,

Human beings have already created live viruses in the lab from simple chemicals.

Many scientists are now working on creating cellular life from scratch. It may be less than 10 years away, and experiments could soon show that life arises spontaneously under various circumstances, without any intelligence required.

Quantum loop gravity theory indicates that all particles are nothing more than knots in the fabric of space time. Newton’s laws of gravity emerge automatically out of this theory, as do the fundamental particles of the standard model.

Your life has a beginning, middle and an end, therefore it is not surprising that you assume everything else must also have a beginning, middle and an end. Einstein proved that time itself is a variable, it is not constant throughout the universe, and proved that there is no background time to the universe, because time is part of the fabric of the universe, not a background to it.

If I asked you the question "When did speed begin?" you couldn't answer that question, because the question is meaningless. Speed is relative and variable. In just the same way it is meaningless to ask the question "When did time begin?" because time is also relative and variable, as Einstein proved. The fact that you cannot say when time began leads scientists to conclude that the universe must have always existed, in some form (i.e. it was never created, because it must have always existed).

It is the human experience of time which causes us to believe that there is a background time to the universe (which is required for it to have a beginning), but Einstein proved that human intuition in regards to time is wrong. Time is a variable, like speed. It has no beginning.

Did God order, allow, forget, ignore the Blacksburg massacre?

And, let us not forget: In Irak EVERY DAY more than 33 people are killed due to the Bush invasion into Iraq. Again, does god (Allah, whoever) order, allow, forget, ignore this daily bloodbath?

One more thing too. I do not live a life of "blind faith". Ive looked at all the evidence and the Bible is historically correct proven through archaeological finds. Its the divine influence that people have a hard time believing. But, for me to believe in a divine inspiration what should I look at? Prophecy. Ok, now go ahead and give me your opinions about that, I know its coming. Prophetical outcomes are the reason I believe in Divine inspiration and the reason I believe in Jesus. And the issue with science is that it had NOT proven that there is no God. Like I said before, once scientists can create another planet in a lab and create life, then consider me on the side of Christianity. Just so you know too, the Bible is the only religious document that asks us to not live a life in blind faith. God wants us to challenge Him so that we may know He is God. Peace out homies. Good luck on trying to influence someone else to not believe in God because I aint budgin.

God bless

Well, obviously for you to believe in God you would have to see him come out of the sky and declare He is God. For me to believe otherwise, I need to see scientists create another universe and an earth with all the living matter that we have here. Had God come out of the sky to reveal himself physically yet? No. So you choose not to believe. Have scientists made another earth? No. So I choose to believe in a Creator not a just happened by chance, big bang, particles to people, oops, science created life theory. But to each is own.

David wrote: "I truly believe in the Bible and no matter what I have to believe that God was the creator of this beautiful and yet so complicated world we live in."

Let me make sure understand you correctly...

You're saying that regardless of physical evidence, your belief in a particular religious text requires you to support the theory of creationism.

Essentially, this means that any empirical evidence to the contrary will not change your position.

Is this correct?

David wrote: "I KNOW God is real"

Unless you have some evidence you're withholding from us, you BELIEVE that the concept of God best describes what you've experienced. For you to KNOW God is real, whatever you've claimed to experienced would have had to clearly identify itself as the Abrahamic God of the Bible. Is this the case?

Just because the Bible calls a particular experience or feeling "God", it doesn't mean that experience IS God. It could have other sources, include those of a natural or chemical nature.

If you were creating a religion, can you think of a better way to create an instant group of followers than to purposely associate your "God" with a known, widely-shared, transcendental human experience?

You've heard of writing to your audience, right? The Bible could be the most successful example in history.

David,

It is not “too bad” that we require proof of existence; it is actually quite good that we do. Let’s say that I was the leader of a great church of “orb” with a following of over a billion. And, I told my followers that orb requires sacrifice. All the members “KNOW” that orb is “real.” Now, the orb required that each member sacrifice (kill) a non-believer to him on every full moon. You, as a non-believer of orb would object quite adamantly and it would be you who would be asking for proof of existence.

Tell me if I am wrong.

(and may the orb bless you)

Greg,

Thanks for you kind words:

"Consider something David, maybe just maybe, the God you and I know is not the Geoffrey Beane that "designed" this "fabric" of life we all exist in but something even more important...........
the "thread" that keeps it all together."

Sorry I cant agree with you Greg because that would make me agnostic. I truly believe in the Bible and no matter what I have to believe that God was the creator of this beautiful and yet so complicated world we live in. I have my own personal proof which cannot be scientifically tested or proven. I KNOW God is real. It's too bad we live in a society where everything has to be proven scientifically. I guess the next faith to lose is that my own mother doesn't love me anymore....since I cannot scientifically prove that she does. Naw, I'll keep my faith.

God bless

David wrote: "Oh and I wonder why we're not seeing evidence today of these different stages of evolution."

Actually, we have seen at least one example that occurred in less than 100 years. There have been documented instances where certain times of bacteria have evolved to digest nylon and other kinds of plastics. Since these materials have only existed for only 50-75 years, their evolution must have occurred in this timeframe.

Note: This information was actually part of Ken's presentation, which I posted a link to bellow.

However, I'd say that humanity as a species is still evolving. It just happening so slow that it appears we're in a "finished" state.

Here's an interesting thought: If we do survive for another 3 millions years and could document substantial evolution in humans, what effect would have have on religion?

The question how something comes out of nothing is not answered by positing god, because god must be "something". Did he come out of nothing? Did he create himself? Religion puts the unanswerable question only one shelf higher without being able to answer it.

Only, by doing this, the possibility of clear observation and maybe approaching an answer to the question of the origin of the universe, is obfuscated by this philosophical, religious "trick", a sort of a "smoke grenade", metaphorically speaking.

You are both right. The ID theory cannot be scientifically tested therefore cannot be considered a scientific theory. And your right about the issue of debating this subject as we should not. I will for surely admit that my scientific knowledge is amateur at best but from the minimal research I've done I continue to ask a few simple questions.

How does something come out of nothing? How do non-living chemicals become living matter? And if they could, what, or who I should say, made those chemicals? These are questions the scientific community cannot agree on. Can scientists re-create creation from non-living chemicals in a lab? So far I havent found the evidence for that. Yeah I know it takes billions of years for that to happen and this scientifc knowledge has been around only since 1859. So I guess we have to wait a few billion years for real answers. Till then, I'll keep my faith in God knowing that someone had to make all these chemicals in order for them to become living matter. Oh and I wonder why we're not seeing evidence today of these different stages of evolution. I haven't met an english speaking monkey lately.

I am very interested in science and I hope you all could shed some light on the subject for me. However, your right in that we shouldnt debate this. I'll leave it up to the pros. But I do think my questions are valid points and no science could ever answer them. Thanks for your responses as I find them very intelligent and informative.

God bless.

I'm gonna keep this discussion going just a little longer even though I know it is not the best place for it. Where else to do it with you guys??

David,

I suggest you read Dennetts book "Darwins Dangerous Idea" to really see what evolutionary theory has to say. You seem to me to be able to follow arguments of logic and thought experiments and I think you will find some very "compelling" stuff in there. The book is 10 yrs old now (a dinosaur in research time) but still relevant.
You say the scientific knowledge has been around since 1859 about evolution?? I think you would have to say that the discovery of the "replicator" DNA is when the knowledge started.
Darwin knew that there had to be some way for "information" to be tran