Slap MessageBoards
General Discussion => WHATEVER => Topic started by: Simon Woodstock on August 11, 2017, 08:34:22 AM
-
Pretty good evidence for God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko)
Are you a good person?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo)
-
guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god
disabled comments because that guys a pussy
-
Well, that settles it!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/A2hLe0V.gif)
-
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
-
also I didn't watch the second video cuz the first one was really boring
-
This is further evidence of God.
(http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/202419-If-God-Shuts-A-Door-Minion-Quotes.jpg)
-
Simon, your skating was cool when you wore a penny suit and skated ironing boards, but I lost respect when you said this to our beloved fellow slap pal, GAY.
Expand Quote
It's funny/sad because I was raised in the church and loved it. Spent a lot of my free time there. Then my mom died of cancer. Several years after that I realized I was gay. Talk about bummed. All that time I thought I was special because the sin of lusting over women seemed to have just passed me by...little did I know. The church and religion got rid of ME, not the other way around. I went to the leaders of the church for help and they tossed me out. My family threw me out too. Everything I had been raised to believe in rejected me. And for anyone who brings that "gay is a choice" bullshit. If gay is a choice for me then it is for everyone else too, which means that when you go into a room you always find the men as attractive as the women...you just choose to get a boner for the women. I mean...why should I be so lucky to get this choice but you didn't? Trust me...I wouldn't EVER have chosen to be gay. In fact I tried and tried for the opposite to be true. Wasn't in the cards. And I prayed and cried over it until I was out of tears...no luck...God wasn't listening. To not accept myself was to spit in the face of God...to think I knew better than to accept what He created.
Simon, I appreciate your spirit and I think you're well intentioned, but religion sucks. It has destroyed far more lives than it has helped to build up. Talk to an "ex-gay" in the church and tell me he doesn't lisp. You can't. It teaches people like me to loathe themselves over something we didn't want in the first place...but something that is quite core to who we are. It was only when I learned to accept myself that I ever had anything close to a spiritual experience.
I am also in recovery from meth addiction...will turn 10 this year if I stay on the track I'm on. If God really hated me for being gay (which hasn't changed...still gay) he could easily have let me slip quietly into the grip of serious addiction. Instead I was given a moment of grace.
I pray now, but I don't know if it's to anything...I just feel like it helps me shift my perspective to something outside of myself. I ask for help in the morning and I say thanks at night. I don't try to convince others what they should or shouldn't believe. I live and let live. I can't stand spiritual people (yoga dorks and buddhist types come to mind) but don't deny that they have found something that works for them...so I do my best to not judge...I just take what works for me and leave the rest.
Like I said, I think you're intentions are good but this thread feels like proselytizing. Take care and congratulations on your sobriety. I know that is a hard-fought battle.
Hey buddy. Sorry to hear about the rough spots in your journey in life. I'm not an expert on this topic, but the former homosexuals that I have talked to have said that their sexual behavior wound up being the root of their emotional and spiritual problems. I have found personally that trying to obey the Bible the best that I can has helped me greatly in life. I know the Bible speaks a lot on sexuality, if your ever in the mood you might want to check out Romans 1:23-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. These passages have been a great help to a lot of people. peace.
-
Special note: have u seen god ???
-
Uh oh...now I'm starting to question it. I'm so conflicted!
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20729737_10159230464640626_2293664953343948651_n.jpg?oh=03283879e7f5239738d607e2f2a75082&oe=59F2B924)
-
Well shit I guess I believe in god now...
-
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
hume covered that in dialogs concerning natural religion
David Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - Summary and Analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bac5b5za67Q#)
-
I don't think you could make any assumptions about the morality of multiple gods who may be in conflict with each other. That video only addresses my last question and only from a monotheistic standpoint, which is exactly the hang-up I was talking about.
-
He's a good rapper, but I'm not sure if he's qualified to be a deity.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/Evidence.jpg)
-
Get back on your self imposed Slap exile Simon.
-
Are those videos of psychedelic mushrooms? I didn't click
-
Believe in yourself, you don't need a babysitter.
-
Hey Simon, send me all your money and worship me.
(https://38.media.tumblr.com/aca94f6a869bd61ef774762021303e7c/tumblr_mk6itnE2z11rhxd21o1_250.gif)
-
Does anyone want to start a megachurch with me?
-
Does anyone want to start a megachurch with me?
Start? This guy will help build it, brick by brick. As long as it's mega.
(http://images.complex.com/complex/images/zkemsvq37mxwqpguniei/danny-way-weekend-buzz)
-
"Man created god in his own image."
-Feuerbach
"But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
...
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed [σιμούς] and black
Thracians that they are pale and red-haired."
-Xenophanes
-
If you believe in god, you believe in satan.
I don't believe in satan.
-
Dear religious people who want to argue,
You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.
Game, set and match.
-
I don't think you could make any assumptions about the morality of multiple gods who may be in conflict with each other. That video only addresses my last question and only from a monotheistic standpoint, which is exactly the hang-up I was talking about.
that video covers argument by design which covers the multiple diety\creator's creator angle
Dear religious people who want to argue,
You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.
Game, set and match.
-
The question of whether there is a God
A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: ?I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behavior would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.?
Bertolt Brecht:
Stories of Mr. Keuner
-
I'm going to Valhalla when I die.
Praise Odin he's the breast gord
-
I can suck my own dick. Therefore, God exists.
-
Get back on your self imposed Slap exile Simon.
-
Expand Quote
Get back on your self imposed Slap exile Simon.
-
I can suck my own dick. Therefore, God exists.
Like just the tip? Or all the way down?
-
Based God, Switch God, Lemmy is God
-
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
In my understanding, as far as the multiple gods question goes, it has to do with the characteristics of of God not being caused and God's attribute of infinity. That is, an uncaused, infinite cause, cannot cause another uncaused, infinite cause, because by the very facts that the caused entity would have a) not always existed, and b) needed to be caused to exist, it would by default be a lesser being than the cause, and thus could not be God (if that makes sense). In other words, as far as my understanding of God goes, such an ultimate being would have to have always existed, and, therefore, a second or third etc. caused being would be less than ultimate, and thus not God.
Also, there are mathematical problems with an actual infinite number of things. While one non-complex being that is infinite is not contradictory, an actual infinite sequence (of individual gods or whatever) is impossible because you cannot add to or subtract from an infinite sequence. If you add two gods to an infinite number of gods, then you still have an infinite number of gods, if you add three gods, same thing.
I would say, following this logic out, the best conclusion is to state that there is one, uncaused God that exists.
Thus, I think the One God conclusion also answers (at least to some extent) your second inquiry about individual minds.
As far as assumptions, I think people in disorganized religion do such things more often.
-
Expand Quote
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
In my understanding, as far as the multiple gods question goes, it has to do with the characteristics of of God not being caused and God's attribute of infinity. That is, an uncaused, infinite cause, cannot cause another uncaused, infinite cause, because by the very facts that the caused entity would have a) not always existed, and b) needed to be caused to exist, it would by default be a lesser being than the cause, and thus could not be God (if that makes sense). In other words, as far as my understanding of God goes, such an ultimate being would have to have always existed, and, therefore, a second or third etc. caused being would be less than ultimate, and thus not God.
Also, there are mathematical problems with an actual infinite number of things. While one non-complex being that is infinite is not contradictory, an actual infinite sequence (of individual gods or whatever) is impossible because you cannot add to or subtract from an infinite sequence. If you add two gods to an infinite number of gods, then you still have an infinite number of gods, if you add three gods, same thing.
I would say, following this logic out, the best conclusion is to state that there is one, uncaused God that exists.
Thus, I think the One God conclusion also answers (at least to some extent) your second inquiry about individual minds.
As far as assumptions, I think people in disorganized religion do such things more often.
fuck off
-
guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god
disabled comments because that guys a pussy
Computers are programmed, which proves they have a programer. This has illustrative purposes in that just as the complex information in computers has been programmed, so has the complex DNA in biological life been programmed by an intelligent programmer.
Also, minds (such as in humans) would necessarily come to be (that is, have been caused to exist) by an uncaused Mind, that is God.
-
Expand Quote
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
hume covered that in dialogs concerning natural religion
David Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - Summary and Analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bac5b5za67Q#)
Time permitting, I would be open to dialoging about Hume. If you present a specific reference (as to provide a particular context of discussion) I would be up for it.
-
I don't think you could make any assumptions about the morality of multiple gods who may be in conflict with each other. That video only addresses my last question and only from a monotheistic standpoint, which is exactly the hang-up I was talking about.
Understandable, but Monotheism would have to be refuted then. There are sufficient arguments for Monotheism. Causality, design, moral argument, etc. they are a cumulative case.
-
Dear religious people who want to argue,
You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.
Game, set and match.
Not so fast, I don't believe God is a complex being. He is simple (in the sense of not consisting as parts). This is an important aspect of the debate. A lot of atheists assume that theists hold that God is an eternal bundle of parts. I myself would argue against a complex God.
-
Expand Quote
Dear religious people who want to argue,
You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.
Game, set and match.
fuck off.
-
God damnit, Simon. Go away.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dear religious people who want to argue,
You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.
Game, set and match.
Not so fast, I don't believe God is a complex being. He is simple (in the sense of not consisting as parts). This is an important aspect of the debate. A lot of atheists assume that theists hold that God is an eternal bundle of parts. I myself would argue against a complex God.
Hahahaha so how is he an intelligent designer then??? How does he do anything you religious nutjobs think he does? Your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Look, if you believe that things must have been created, it doesn't matter what the creator is, if the creator exists then he must have been created as well. It is simpler to believe that the universe just happened (or just is) than God AND the universe.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
hume covered that in dialogs concerning natural religion
David Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - Summary and Analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bac5b5za67Q#)
Time permitting, I would be open to dialoging about Hume. If you present a specific reference (as to provide a particular context of discussion) I would be up for it.
fuck off.
-
Expand Quote
I can suck my own dick. Therefore, God exists.
I actually can't. If there was a god, I would be able to, though.
-
you're honestly going to try and convince slap that god exists? I think you and user: qew0 would get on well :D
how's your veganism going by the way Simon?
-
you're honestly going to try and convince slap that god exists? I think you and user: qew0 would get on well :D
how's your veganism going by the way Simon?
Religious and a vegan?! You can hear the sound of panties dropping all over the world for this guy.
-
for fucks sake, stop trying to prove faith based beliefs. the whole point is that you have faith and don't have to burden yourself with logic and rational thought.
-
Expand Quote
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
In my understanding, as far as the multiple gods question goes, it has to do with the characteristics of of God not being caused and God's attribute of infinity. That is, an uncaused, infinite cause, cannot cause another uncaused, infinite cause, because by the very facts that the caused entity would have a) not always existed, and b) needed to be caused to exist, it would by default be a lesser being than the cause, and thus could not be God (if that makes sense). In other words, as far as my understanding of God goes, such an ultimate being would have to have always existed, and, therefore, a second or third etc. caused being would be less than ultimate, and thus not God.
Also, there are mathematical problems with an actual infinite number of things. While one non-complex being that is infinite is not contradictory, an actual infinite sequence (of individual gods or whatever) is impossible because you cannot add to or subtract from an infinite sequence. If you add two gods to an infinite number of gods, then you still have an infinite number of gods, if you add three gods, same thing.
I would say, following this logic out, the best conclusion is to state that there is one, uncaused God that exists.
Thus, I think the One God conclusion also answers (at least to some extent) your second inquiry about individual minds.
As far as assumptions, I think people in disorganized religion do such things more often.
All you're saying is that "God" cannot be defined.
Having said, we can trace the stories of the Christian god back to cultures that predate Christianity by thousands of years, from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the story of Odin. Not to say it's faith-based plagiarism, but when ancient civilizations didn't understand things they imposed supernatural attributes to things they couldn't explain (much like the video about consciousness you posted at the beginning of this thread). Your own religion was modified greatly by Constantine based off of the beliefs of ancient pagan Saxons, not to mention the selective use of what was and what wasn't included in the scriptures you read via smashing together the Tanakh and certain 1st century pieces rewritten by the Greeks, as well as additional insertions/omissions by the Catholic church.
While that may or may not fall on deaf ears, if it gives you comfort, by all means roll with it... but it's no more valid than any other mono/polytheistic religion out there.
I'd also like to add that higher maths have absolutely no issue with the concepts of infinity, whether you're talking about it on a grand scale or infinite decimals in between whole numbers.
Also, while your comment about adding to an infinite sequence still equals infinity is correct, you're still adding to it, but the total is infinity (∞), not one (1). I can easily add odd numbers to a sequence of infinite even numbers in a sequence.
-
...I'm also really curious about your definition of consciousness. Self awareness? Situational awareness?
I mean, even the simplest photoreceptive cells are aware of light sources, and there are plenty of critters that have demonstrated self awareness. What are you referring to when you use the word?
-
Life, uh, finds a way.
-
Life, uh, finds a way.
Like...yeah, bro.
-
flat earth, what else ?
-
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-religious-adviser-says-god-has-given-president-authority-take-north-648974 (http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-religious-adviser-says-god-has-given-president-authority-take-north-648974)
-
Expand Quote
guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god
disabled comments because that guys a pussy
Computers are programmed, which proves they have a programer. This has illustrative purposes in that just as the complex information in computers has been programmed, so has the complex DNA in biological life been programmed by an intelligent programmer.
Also, minds (such as in humans) would necessarily come to be (that is, have been caused to exist) by an uncaused Mind, that is God.
By your own logic, why don't you just believe that the whole universe (that is everything you believe to exist) isn't just a complex simulation/program? Wouldn't that make more logical sense than some fairy tale/santa claus shit?
-
Like...yeah, bro.
(http://images.hellogiggles.com/uploads/2016/04/15033920/jurass-park-4-world-jeff-goldblum.jpg)
-
for fucks sake, stop trying to prove faith based beliefs. the whole point is that you have faith and don't have to burden yourself with logic and rational thought.
this is great
-
Expand Quote
you're honestly going to try and convince slap that god exists? I think you and user: qew0 would get on well :D
how's your veganism going by the way Simon?
Shhhh, I'm trying to trap him ;)
-
"Proving" that god exists with philosophical proofs always struck me as funny. "Look, I proved god exists with these mental acrobatics." Some people reading that shit might get mesmerized by the big words, logic, and articulate writing but how is that evidence for anything? It's like proving the existence of bigfoot with a long philosophical treatise and saying, "See, I told you so." But that's how religious people function. They convert weak-minded and cowardly people with the threat of hell, and they convert intellectually challenged people with big words that "prove" god is real, basically by confusing the fuck out of them and convincing them with smart-sounding verbosity.
-
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--sKb9O7et--/18qo1hwto00mfjpg.jpg)
-
In 4th grade, some kid found a potato chip that kind of looked like Jesus, so I ate it. Sorry for eating the only evidence of God.
-
https://youtu.be/Y_HOYk9ED9Q (https://youtu.be/Y_HOYk9ED9Q)
-
What did the five heavenly fingers say to the face?
-
What did the five heavenly fingers say to the face?
#blessed
-
What did the five heavenly fingers say to the face?
you better not break any of the 7 deadly sins or it's 5 across the eyes?
-
I thought the whole game with this shit was that you had to have faith in God? Isn't that the fundamental criteria for getting into heaven? And isn't faith belief without justification? Belief even though there is overwhelming evidence against a wise old space wizard and complete lack of evidence for one. That was why you are so ultra extra super duper special for being a Christian, because of your everlasting faith in the face of reason, logic, or basic common sense. So wouldn't evidence for God eliminate the need for faith, and make belief in God just another boring sensory based belief, like belief in trees?
-
I thought the whole game with this shit was that you had to have faith in God? Isn't that the fundamental criteria for getting into heaven? And isn't faith belief without justification? Belief even though there is overwhelming evidence against a wise old space wizard and complete lack of evidence for one. That was why you are so ultra extra super duper special for being a Christian, because of your everlasting faith in the face of reason, logic, or basic common sense. So wouldn't evidence for God eliminate the need for faith, and make belief in God just another boring sensory based belief, like belief in trees?
This is astute.
-
Expand Quote
I thought the whole game with this shit was that you had to have faith in God? Isn't that the fundamental criteria for getting into heaven? And isn't faith belief without justification? Belief even though there is overwhelming evidence against a wise old space wizard and complete lack of evidence for one. That was why you are so ultra extra super duper special for being a Christian, because of your everlasting faith in the face of reason, logic, or basic common sense. So wouldn't evidence for God eliminate the need for faith, and make belief in God just another boring sensory based belief, like belief in trees?
This is astute.
-
the alt right wants you to believe in jesus and a lot of people have drank the kool-aid because they can't think for themselves.
-
the alt right wants you to believe in jesus and a lot of people have drank the kool-aid because they can't think for themselves.
This is... not quite as astute.
-
the alt right wants you to believe that Jesus and Santa Claus are white
-
Did anybody ever notice how the words "right" and "white" rhyme? I can't be the first guy to notice this!
-
Did anybody ever notice how the words "right" and "white" rhyme? I can't be the first guy to notice this!
No, because I've heard chant on a documentary about white supremacists:
"If you ain't white, you ain't right!"
-
People who yell at other people for believing in God, shut up
People who yell at other people for not believing in God, shut up
Doesn't really matter though, you are all fake and just living in my reality for my own amusement. You guys are probably aliens or robots.
#420 #weedsaveslives #IamGodButImReallyJustLivingInGodsGuestHouse
-
Expand Quote
Did anybody ever notice how the words "right" and "white" rhyme? I can't be the first guy to notice this!
"If you ain't white, you ain't right!"
I wonder if the rest of this rhyme goes,
"If your palate be cleft, you might be left!
If your mom played the fiddle, you probably middle!
If you pillage and plunder, you might be under!
If you like to have sex on top, you're definitely a top!"
-
Expand Quote
the alt right wants you to believe in jesus and a lot of people have drank the kool-aid because they can't think for themselves.
there are a lot of evangelicals on alt right sites talking about jesus. they refer to atheists as "fedoras" and other slurs. I don't know if they all sincerely believe in christianity but they view it as part of western civilization and tell people it's necessary for upholding traditional values and fighting islam and cultural marxism and jews. some alt right people are european pagans but they are a minority within that scene. so what part did I get wrong?
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg_nAAQWkb4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg_nAAQWkb4#)
-
People who yell at other people for believing in God, shut up
People who yell at other people for not believing in God, shut up
Doesn't really matter though, you are all fake and just living in my reality for my own amusement. You guys are probably aliens or robots.
#420 #weedsaveslives #IamGodButImReallyJustLivingInGodsGuestHouse
(https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-000135652575-rersfo-t500x500.jpg)
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
the alt right wants you to believe in jesus and a lot of people have drank the kool-aid because they can't think for themselves.
there are a lot of evangelicals on alt right sites talking about jesus. they refer to atheists as "fedoras" and other slurs. I don't know if they all sincerely believe in christianity but they view it as part of western civilization and tell people it's necessary for upholding traditional values and fighting islam and cultural marxism and jews. some alt right people are european pagans but they are a minority within that scene. so what part did I get wrong?
(http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Greg+Lutzka+K+Swiss+Kicks+Off+Open+Week+Fever+-ZHHfT4Dmi9l.jpg)
-
(http://hypebeast.com/image/2016/04/hypebeast-christian-hosoi-vans-05.jpg)
-
God damn you, Simon.
-
I thought the whole game with this shit was that you had to have faith in God? Isn't that the fundamental criteria for getting into heaven? And isn't faith belief without justification? Belief even though there is overwhelming evidence against a wise old space wizard and complete lack of evidence for one. That was why you are so ultra extra super duper special for being a Christian, because of your everlasting faith in the face of reason, logic, or basic common sense. So wouldn't evidence for God eliminate the need for faith, and make belief in God just another boring sensory based belief, like belief in trees?
I would say faith goes along with fact. Or, another way: Christianity is a faith founded on facts. One need not check their brain at the door to become a Christian.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dear religious people who want to argue,
You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.
Game, set and match.
Not so fast, I don't believe God is a complex being. He is simple (in the sense of not consisting as parts). This is an important aspect of the debate. A lot of atheists assume that theists hold that God is an eternal bundle of parts. I myself would argue against a complex God.
Hahahaha so how is he an intelligent designer then??? How does he do anything you religious nutjobs think he does? Your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Look, if you believe that things must have been created, it doesn't matter what the creator is, if the creator exists then he must have been created as well. It is simpler to believe that the universe just happened (or just is) than God AND the universe.
I think it (i.e., my argument) makes sense. God fashions/designs things as the uncaused, efficient cause of all else. He providentially guides all things along as well.
Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
'The who designed the designer' question does arise. But, the solution is as I stated: God is not a bundle or sequence of complex parts. He is infinite and immaterial. An infinite immaterial being not only doesn't need a cause, but cannot be caused. God always existed.
I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
In my understanding, as far as the multiple gods question goes, it has to do with the characteristics of of God not being caused and God's attribute of infinity. That is, an uncaused, infinite cause, cannot cause another uncaused, infinite cause, because by the very facts that the caused entity would have a) not always existed, and b) needed to be caused to exist, it would by default be a lesser being than the cause, and thus could not be God (if that makes sense). In other words, as far as my understanding of God goes, such an ultimate being would have to have always existed, and, therefore, a second or third etc. caused being would be less than ultimate, and thus not God.
Also, there are mathematical problems with an actual infinite number of things. While one non-complex being that is infinite is not contradictory, an actual infinite sequence (of individual gods or whatever) is impossible because you cannot add to or subtract from an infinite sequence. If you add two gods to an infinite number of gods, then you still have an infinite number of gods, if you add three gods, same thing.
I would say, following this logic out, the best conclusion is to state that there is one, uncaused God that exists.
Thus, I think the One God conclusion also answers (at least to some extent) your second inquiry about individual minds.
As far as assumptions, I think people in disorganized religion do such things more often.
All you're saying is that "God" cannot be defined.
Having said, we can trace the stories of the Christian god back to cultures that predate Christianity by thousands of years, from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the story of Odin. Not to say it's faith-based plagiarism, but when ancient civilizations didn't understand things they imposed supernatural attributes to things they couldn't explain (much like the video about consciousness you posted at the beginning of this thread). Your own religion was modified greatly by Constantine based off of the beliefs of ancient pagan Saxons, not to mention the selective use of what was and what wasn't included in the scriptures you read via smashing together the Tanakh and certain 1st century pieces rewritten by the Greeks, as well as additional insertions/omissions by the Catholic church.
While that may or may not fall on deaf ears, if it gives you comfort, by all means roll with it... but it's no more valid than any other mono/polytheistic religion out there.
I'd also like to add that higher maths have absolutely no issue with the concepts of infinity, whether you're talking about it on a grand scale or infinite decimals in between whole numbers.
Also, while your comment about adding to an infinite sequence still equals infinity is correct, you're still adding to it, but the total is infinity (∞), not one (1). I can easily add odd numbers to a sequence of infinite even numbers in a sequence.
Just going point by point here to keep things organized (as I think this is fruitful discussion)
All you're saying is that "God" cannot be defined.
*I am not saying that at all. In fact, God, as the highest metaphysical principle in all of existence has manifold characteristics and can most certainly be defined. Most simply: God is the uncaused cause of everything else that exists.
Having said, we can trace the stories of the Christian god back to cultures that predate Christianity by thousands of years, from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the story of Odin.
*my understanding here is that these claims are shaky and when Christianity is closely compared and contrasted to other religions, Christianity emerges as unique. Also, Christianity historically weaves back through Old Testament Judaism, which stretches back to the very creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1) so it is an extension/completion of the oldest religion in history.
Nevertheless, given that historical world religions do have certain similarities (belief in a God or gods, codes of behavior, prophets, etc.) it is important to note that similarity does not automatically equal same. What I mean is this: if there are similarities between Christianity and other ancient religions, it does not automatically follow that they are all in the same category of ancient historical religious folklore. If you search out the historical factual evidence for Christianity, I firmly believe there is more than enough support for its exclusive claims.
JP Moreland here presents the evidence comprehensibly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AU-R7cKo-U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AU-R7cKo-U)
Not to say it's faith-based plagiarism, but when ancient civilizations didn't understand things they imposed supernatural attributes to things they couldn't explain (much like the video about consciousness you posted at the beginning of this thread).
*In the study of world religions, there are certainly traces of animism, but Christianity is by no means an animistic belief system. Moreover, human consciousness is supported by the philosophical evidence. Rene Descartes posited a 'second substance' necessary for consciousness and that substance is immaterial.
Atheists also posit a 'naturalism of the gaps' to try to explain away things that are best explained by the existence and casualty of God, such as information coded into DNA, the constants of physics in the universe, etc.
Your own religion was modified greatly by Constantine based off of the beliefs of ancient pagan Saxons, not to mention the selective use of what was and what wasn't included in the scriptures you read via smashing together the Tanakh and certain 1st century pieces rewritten by the Greeks, as well as additional insertions/omissions by the Catholic church.
*This is not factual. The New Testament was written 200+ years before Constantine and the pre-Nicene Church Fathers articulated/ratified the core doctrines of New Testament Christianity well before the Constantinoplian counsels.
While the Canon of Scripture (which does contain the Hebrew Bible) was ratified through Constantinople/Chalcedon, it was in circulation well before that and is not suspect.
While that may or may not fall on deaf ears, if it gives you comfort, by all means roll with it...
* I am actually reading all that you post and am quite interested in the dialogue
but it's no more valid than any other mono/polytheistic religion out there.
* I think the historical facts show otherwise.
John Lennox makes a robust presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMc38L44avA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMc38L44avA)
I'd also like to add that higher maths have absolutely no issue with the concepts of infinity, whether you're talking about it on a grand scale or infinite decimals in between whole numbers.
*Conceptually, I understand this. Things such as a potential infinite regress are compressible in the mind. The problem lies with an actual infinite number of things, which is impossible. Nevertheless, we could wind up splitting hairs here: the point is that God is not an in finite bundle of parts, He is in infinite, uncaused, immaterial being.
Also, while your comment about adding to an infinite sequence still equals infinity is correct, you're still adding to it, but the total is infinity (∞), not one (1). I can easily add odd numbers to a sequence of infinite even numbers in a sequence.
*there still would be no actual quantifiable difference.
This is an important thing to get, as atheists, such as Dawkins, argue against God presuming that He is believed to be an eternal bundle of parts. That would be easy to argue against, but it is a straw man, as Classical Theism holds (and the Bible teaches0 that God doesn't consist of quantifiable parts.
[ This video is brutally long, but Dr. Dolezal breaks Divine Simplicity down, i.e., God not consisting of parts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-davnzphHdc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-davnzphHdc) ]
-
yeah, but do you kill god's creatures and eat their carcasses?
-
how about addressing the free will/predestination paradox?
-
Will I go to Hell if I jerk off in a church confessional? What if I confess afterwards, or jerk off in the bathroom instead?
-
I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'
Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.
And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.
Here are my reasons to doubt God:
At best, God can be said consistent, but superfluous to naturalism (science does not evoke "God" as an explanatory principle, but you can say God guides natural processes).
As consistent, but superfluous, God is merely possible.
Most things that are possible are not the case
So God, as merely possible, is not the case.
Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.
If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.
They are not reliable (every generation of Christians, starting with Jesus, predicted end times in their generation based on authority, prayer, and intuition, but they were wrong)
So, God does not exist.
If there is a God that created and sustains the world, acts for good ends, and knowledge of God is possible, then God would fit into explanations of natural phenomena, mind would be fundamental, and religious ways of knowing would be reliable. But since God is explanatorily irrelevant, matter is fundamental, and religious methods of knowing are not reliable, it follows there is no God.
Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.
-
I'm firmly believe that people who live their lives through faith in God are doing something good for themselves.
Proselytizing, however, is just the worst.
-
I'm firmly believe that people who live their lives through faith in God are doing something good for themselves.
Proselytizing, however, is just the worst.
What goods?
If belief is good for the person, wouldn't converting others be good for them? So by proselytizing you do good for others.
And since it's good to do good for others, proselytizing is good.
-
I have many questions about Heaven. Here are a few:
Is it really all white with all of the buildings made of marble and whatnot?
Can you eat food? have sex? skateboard?
Is it mad crowded?
Is there music? if so, is it peaceful harp shit..or can you listen to metal if you want?
Are the pets chilling or are they in a separate pet heaven? Where are all of the other animals? What about zoo animals? Technically they are pets.
-
I have many questions about Heaven. Here are a few:
Is it really all white?
Reported.
-
What about zoo animals?
im picturing a fleet of cruise ships
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIxYE_QUAAAkcHu.jpg:large)
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dear religious people who want to argue,
You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.
Game, set and match.
Not so fast, I don't believe God is a complex being. He is simple (in the sense of not consisting as parts). This is an important aspect of the debate. A lot of atheists assume that theists hold that God is an eternal bundle of parts. I myself would argue against a complex God.
Hahahaha so how is he an intelligent designer then??? How does he do anything you religious nutjobs think he does? Your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Look, if you believe that things must have been created, it doesn't matter what the creator is, if the creator exists then he must have been created as well. It is simpler to believe that the universe just happened (or just is) than God AND the universe.
I think it (i.e., my argument) makes sense. God fashions/designs things as the uncaused, efficient cause of all else. He providentially guides all things along as well.
Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
'The who designed the designer' question does arise. But, the solution is as I stated: God is not a bundle or sequence of complex parts. He is infinite and immaterial. An infinite immaterial being not only doesn't need a cause, but cannot be caused. God always existed.
I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dear religious people who want to argue,
You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.
Game, set and match.
Not so fast, I don't believe God is a complex being. He is simple (in the sense of not consisting as parts). This is an important aspect of the debate. A lot of atheists assume that theists hold that God is an eternal bundle of parts. I myself would argue against a complex God.
Hahahaha so how is he an intelligent designer then??? How does he do anything you religious nutjobs think he does? Your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Look, if you believe that things must have been created, it doesn't matter what the creator is, if the creator exists then he must have been created as well. It is simpler to believe that the universe just happened (or just is) than God AND the universe.
I think it (i.e., my argument) makes sense. God fashions/designs things as the uncaused, efficient cause of all else. He providentially guides all things along as well.
Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
'The who designed the designer' question does arise. But, the solution is as I stated: God is not a bundle or sequence of complex parts. He is infinite and immaterial. An infinite immaterial being not only doesn't need a cause, but cannot be caused. God always existed.
I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'
The universe is infinite and could have always existed. Alternatively, if you believe in the big bang, you could believe the big bang just happened.......why not. In quantum atomic theory, electrons, the smallest building blocks of life appear to vanish and reappear out of nothing. I think this is the 'answer' so many of us seek and I hope science one day confirms it.
You have no concept at all of what an infinite immaterial being is, so how do you know whether it needs a cause or not. This being, by your beliefs, also has direct influence over the physical world, so it EXISTS as opposed to nothing. I'm repeating myself because you struggle with logic here, but if you believe ANYTHING just exists as opposed to nothing, you might as well believe the universe just exists. You are pulling shit out of your ass..........again and again and again, so I'll rest my case here because that's what religious people do and logical sensible people cannot make you see sense because you only see what you want to see, which is ok but you really should shut the fuck up about it.
-
Expand Quote
I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'
Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.
And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.
Here are my reasons to doubt God:
At best, God can be said consistent, but superfluous to naturalism (science does not evoke "God" as an explanatory principle, but you can say God guides natural processes).
As consistent, but superfluous, God is merely possible.
Most things that are possible are not the case
So God, as merely possible, is not the case.
Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.
If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.
They are not reliable (every generation of Christians, starting with Jesus, predicted end times in their generation based on authority, prayer, and intuition, but they were wrong)
So, God does not exist.
If there is a God that created and sustains the world, acts for good ends, and knowledge of God is possible, then God would fit into explanations of natural phenomena, mind would be fundamental, and religious ways of knowing would be reliable. But since God is explanatorily irrelevant, matter is fundamental, and religious methods of knowing are not reliable, it follows there is no God.
Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.
I actually didn't read your post until after I wrote my response.......
-
Fuck God. Just be a good person for the sake of being a good person.
-
one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.
-
one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.
(http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Praying_Emoji_grande.png?v=1480481047)
-
Expand Quote
one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.
(http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Praying_Emoji_grande.png?v=1480481047)
hi five!
-
I'm firmly believe that people who live their lives through faith in God are doing something good for themselves.
Proselytizing, however, is just the worst.
Aaaaaaamen brother GAY!
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.
(http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Praying_Emoji_grande.png?v=1480481047)
hi five!
is that a view of someone from behind lying naked on their stomach with their feet in the air? kinda looks like a butthole in the middle.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.
(http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Praying_Emoji_grande.png?v=1480481047)
hi five!
is that a view of someone from behind lying naked on their stomach with their feet in the air? kinda looks like a butthole in the middle.
Now you pointed it out that's all I can see and since we've got that out of the way, Dear God can this thread please leave the front page of whatever? Amen.
-
one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.
I see what you are saying, but I would follow up that the exact opposite is the case with belief in God. Without God (or, more precisely, when man does not acknowledge God), then the entire focus is on humans (and/or the created world). As I see things, belief in God helps get the focus off of self and onto the bigger picture.
-
how about addressing the free will/predestination paradox?
I think this is an area where the Christian Worldview has a lot to offer philosophically. God is good. He created humans with a good feature; namely the free will ability to chose good over evil, etc. God is uncaused and infinite, therefore He knows all the free choices humans will make. But, he does not directly determine those choices. It all boils down to God's foreknowledge here. From human's finite perspective all events of the will are free. But, from God's perspective, they are determined, as He knows the end from the beginning. To put it philosophically, God is the first efficient cause; men are secondary causes that are still under God's providential domain.
Also, everything pans out (has panned out, is panning out, will pan out) according to His plan and purpose.
I like this verse from the Bible as far as practical application goes in that regard, even though It applies directly to followers of Christ:
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Moreover, for one to deny God, then they are the ones that have a hard time with the free will/determinism tension. An atheist has no real explanation for free will (as they typically deny the existence of immaterial souls in humans, where the will of man presides) so then they get locked in the determinism box, which leads to fatalism. i.e., what then would even be the point of anything at all if everything was just determined?
There is obviously a lot more to this discussion philosophically, but that is the gist of it. The God hypothesis rightly solves the riddle.
-
I thought the whole game with this shit was that you had to have faith in God? Isn't that the fundamental criteria for getting into heaven? And isn't faith belief without justification? Belief even though there is overwhelming evidence against a wise old space wizard and complete lack of evidence for one. That was why you are so ultra extra super duper special for being a Christian, because of your everlasting faith in the face of reason, logic, or basic common sense. So wouldn't evidence for God eliminate the need for faith, and make belief in God just another boring sensory based belief, like belief in trees?
Respectfully, God is not a 'wise wizard' as you state (that is, the preexistent God doesn't have a body, etc.). On the contrary, then, if you properly start with the notion that God is immaterial, and completely outside the the time space continuum as far as His being is concerned, then what i am presenting might (hopefully) make more sense.
Another important route to consider is this: people from all walks of life exercise faith every day. They have faith the food they will eat at a restaurant won't kill them; faith that cross traffic at an intersection will stop on a red light, etc. So, acts of faith are not out of the question for people.
Faith in God is somewhat likened to the faith exercised when getting into an elevator. That is, people wouldn't typically get into the elevator if they could not first see the floor of the compartment. Once you see the floor, then you get in. If its dark, and you can't see the floor, you hesitate.
In the same stride, there is enough 'floor-like' evidence for God to make 'getting in the elevator' of the Christian worldview a reasonable thing to do, but it still takes faith (and a decision making process) to get yourself in.
To summarize, there is enough evidence in the world to make faith in God a most reasonable proposition, but there is just enough evidence left out of the picture to make it impossible to come to belief in God based on just reason alone. It still takes a step of belief. I believe God made the world this way just to keep the proper balance of faith reason in tact.
-
yes, but are you vegan?
-
Expand Quote
I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'
Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.
And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.
Here are my reasons to doubt God:
At best, God can be said consistent, but superfluous to naturalism (science does not evoke "God" as an explanatory principle, but you can say God guides natural processes).
As consistent, but superfluous, God is merely possible.
Most things that are possible are not the case
So God, as merely possible, is not the case.
Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.
If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.
They are not reliable (every generation of Christians, starting with Jesus, predicted end times in their generation based on authority, prayer, and intuition, but they were wrong)
So, God does not exist.
If there is a God that created and sustains the world, acts for good ends, and knowledge of God is possible, then God would fit into explanations of natural phenomena, mind would be fundamental, and religious ways of knowing would be reliable. But since God is explanatorily irrelevant, matter is fundamental, and religious methods of knowing are not reliable, it follows there is no God.
Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.
Thanks for the respectful, thought out dialogue here. I am re-pasting and going point by point, simply for my own organization/expression of response.
Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.
And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.
Here are my reasons to doubt God:
At best, God can be said consistent, but superfluous to naturalism (science does not evoke "God" as an explanatory principle, but you can say God guides natural processes).
I disagree, God is the necessary, fundamental principle by which the natural world came to exist. Plus, you cannot use naturalism to prove naturalism. In other words the totality of "science" (as understood by naturalists) cannot be proved by science. It is already "in the box" as one philosopher explained.
As consistent, but superfluous, God is merely possible.
I would say God is most probable, and the culmination of the evidence for God goes beyond any practical statistical reason to deny His existence.
Most things that are possible are not the case
Conversely, I would state it another way, everything in the created order that is "the case" (that is, exists) was at one time possible, and thus subsequently exists 9as now being actualized).
So God, as merely possible, is not the case.
God, as infinite self-existent, and uncaused, has no potentiality at all. He always is. He cannot not be the case.
Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.
Again, I disagree and go with Aristotle: Humans are a soul/body unity. Matter goes with mind and vice versa (we see this evidenced regularly with psychosomatic traumas, etc.). As far as God's mind goes, His mind is axiomatically immaterial as an infinite being is "too big" to have a material body. God is Mind, and, is the efficient immaterial cause of all other immaterial minds. This is actually the best explanation for the existence of human minds.
If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.
The Bible commands use of reason and understanding of the natural world (along with spiritual disciplines) for understanding, so i would say you have made a mis-caricature (or have a misunderstanding) there.
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
They are not reliable (every generation of Christians, starting with Jesus, predicted end times in their generation based on authority, prayer, and intuition, but they were wrong)
I would like to see an example, from the Bible where Jesus got something wrong about history (I am not trying to overstate my case here, I will be sure to take an objective look at your examples)
So, God does not exist.
I don't think this conclusion follows at all.
If there is a God that created and sustains the world, acts for good ends, and knowledge of God is possible, then God would fit into explanations of natural phenomena, mind would be fundamental, and religious ways of knowing would be reliable.
I would say 'agreed' at this point and follow that this is where the evidence leads.
But since God is explanatorily irrelevant, matter is fundamental, and religious methods of knowing are not reliable, it follows there is no God.
A person (you) who is more than matter (also using intelligence, mind, logic etc. that is immaterial) used immaterial means (i.e. soft computer technology) to communicate this, thus self-refuting.
Also, do you think your views of God here have 'explanatory' value and ought to be considered 'relevant'? You must assume what you are trying to deny with such a statement about God.
Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.
In 7 literal days, God could easily have created all of that in the exact sequential order that is accounted for in Genesis.
-
yes, but are you vegan?
Before I answer, can I ask if you are Vegan, and, if so, why you are? (I am genuinely curious).
-
Sorry, I left a couple out:
Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.
And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.
An efficient cause is, by nature, entirely metaphysically distinct from the crated order. As far as concept goes, Anselm held that God is the highest conceivable being and therefore must necessarily exist (I believe his ontological argument needs more support, but it certainly contributes an important factor to supporting the theistic worldview). So in his sense I would agree with your interpretation of Kant. Nevertheless, I think Kant is entirely off on the study of being. Things are as they are, they aren't merely as they appear. (also, I will point out that Kant essentially denied a true metaphysic and bases his worldview on epistemology, which is a view in contradiction to the empiricism that you have been claiming; at least if I am understanding these things correctly at this point).
Perhaps I should ask a question at this point: Do you think the material world can be known, and, if so, how so?
Also, the quantum level is based in the laws of physics. Where did those laws come from?
Moreover, while there is fluctuation (and, uncertainty at the quantum level) to take things from that level and directly apply them to the cosmological level is an enormous extrapolation. One that is unwarranted (in my opinion).
-
Before I answer, can I ask if you are Vegan, and, if so, why you are? (I am genuinely curious).
yes, because I don't think animals should be raised solely for the purpose of being intentionally killed and tortured. (your) god said, "thou shall not kill" so I'm genuinely curious as to whether you are obeying his teachings.
-
Expand Quote
how about addressing the free will/predestination paradox?
I think this is an area where the Christian Worldview has a lot to offer philosophically. God is good. He created humans with a good feature; namely the free will ability to chose good over evil, etc. God is uncaused and infinite, therefore He knows all the free choices humans will make. But, he does not directly determine those choices. It all boils down to God's foreknowledge here. From human's finite perspective all events of the will are free. But, from God's perspective, they are determined, as He knows the end from the beginning. To put it philosophically, God is the first efficient cause; men are secondary causes that are still under God's providential domain.
Also, everything pans out (has panned out, is panning out, will pan out) according to His plan and purpose.
I like this verse from the Bible as far as practical application goes in that regard, even though It applies directly to followers of Christ:
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Moreover, for one to deny God, then they are the ones that have a hard time with the free will/determinism tension. An atheist has no real explanation for free will (as they typically deny the existence of immaterial souls in humans, where the will of man presides) so then they get locked in the determinism box, which leads to fatalism. i.e., what then would even be the point of anything at all if everything was just determined?
There is obviously a lot more to this discussion philosophically, but that is the gist of it. The God hypothesis rightly solves the riddle.
And god created us, right? Why would he create us knowing many of us will go to hell? What would be the purpose of that? That's pretty messed up. And that explanation about finite versus infinite perspectives is still not convincing. It shouldn't matter whose perspective a person's choices are being viewed from - there's either free will or there isn't. But if everything is already predetermined, then there is no real free will. Everything has been mapped out. God made, and continues to make, a whole lot of people destined from the day they're born to go to hell.
-
Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.
Again, I disagree and go with Aristotle: Humans are a soul/body unity. Matter goes with mind and vice versa (we see this evidenced regularly with psychosomatic traumas, etc.).
Psychosomatic traumas are again manifestations of mind in matter, not the other way around. Where is the empirical evidence for minds outside of matter?
If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.
The Bible commands use of reason and understanding of the natural world (along with spiritual disciplines) for understanding, so i would say you have made a mis-caricature (or have a misunderstanding) there.
I think that asserting that a person can become reasonable by being commanded to be reasonable is a mischaracterization of what it means to be reasonable. Religiosity undermines reason by it's very existence through the appeal to faith.
Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.
In 7 literal days, God could easily have created all of that in the exact sequential order that is accounted for in Genesis.
And yet there is ample physical evidence that the exact sequential order given in Genesis could not have been correct. This is where your claims that "evidence for God goes beyond any practical statistical reason to deny His existence" ring a bit hollow.
-
Is god feminine or masculine? Or both like a tranny? Did he jizz us into creation or birth us?
-
So which god would win at street league?
Would the father, son an holy ghost get a run each?
I think Allah would do well but they couldn't show his image on the big score board.
Shiva would destroy the course.
Buddha would be OK if it was transition heavy.
Osiris would kill it despite not having a cool sponsor.
Thor is always throwing hammers.
-
Jesus HUNG around men all the time...probably gay, which is a sin, Simon...right?
-
I am what you call a Gated Community Christian.
We worship Mary because she was a cell-splitting He/She and impregnated herself with Jesus.
She represents the trinity+1.
We also celebrate animal sacrifice unto the Lord. Although His blood was spilled and animal sacrifice is no longer needed, we practice it to symbolize our love for Him and for the He/She.
We also offer up a virgin to our deacon, Steven Dooley, a virgin who is carried on the shoulders of six sturdy kinsmen. She is then symbolically given over to Deacon Dooley during the ritual slitting of the lamb's throat, after which we break into 30 seconds of what we call the diggery du frenzied dance. The slaughtered animal is then carted out to the woods for coyotes to feed upon.
Amen.
-
^ diggery du's are fucking sick.
-
I'd fuck myself if I could.
-
please answer my heaven questions.
-
please answer my heaven questions.
Fuck that. Just go to Hell.
-
everyone is compost
the end
-
I am what you call a Gated Community Christian.
We worship Mary because she was a cell-splitting He/She and impregnated herself with Jesus.
She represents the trinity+1.
We also celebrate animal sacrifice unto the Lord. Although His blood was spilled and animal sacrifice is no longer needed, we practice it to symbolize our love for Him and for the He/She.
We also offer up a virgin to our deacon, Steven Dooley, a virgin who is carried on the shoulders of six sturdy kinsmen. She is then symbolically given over to Deacon Dooley during the ritual slitting of the lamb's throat, after which we break into 30 seconds of what we call the diggery du frenzied dance. The slaughtered animal is then carted out to the woods for coyotes to feed upon.
Amen.
Can't tell if true story or not.
-
^
I want to believe in that more than, "God."
-
I smoked DMT and met God he told me his greatest creation is monster trucks
-
Simon, all of your arguments are appeals to authority (i.e. the Bible as infallible word of God and completely logical and true), begging the question from a starting point (i.e. the Christian God is the one true god and exists and all true arguments/facts should lead to that), assuming that logic puzzles must be applicable to material reality.
Meanwhile, where is this statistically overwhelming evidence for the Christian God that you claim to have? Because your (poor) philosophical arguments aren't enough. And as Carl Sagan (paraphrasing Truzzi) declared "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And a head's up that the watchmaker analogy isn't proof.
Then once you've convinced me of the existence of the Christian God, we can start talking about if the Christian God is good or moral for any reason other than declaring himself to be so. (Spoiler: he is not.)
EDIT: Sorry if I missed this but your example of everyone having faith in their everyday lives a few pages back was laughable. Not only is faith in a deity not comparable to the "faith" of small everyday actions, those actions usually don't involve faith at all. They're scientific. For example: I assume that properly prepared food and working elevators won't kill me based on my observation that they tend not to kill other people. I then "experiment" by eating properly prepared food and riding in working elevators. Upon discovering that I am still alive, I replicate this study. And after replicating this study innumerable times, I no longer have to have faith or believe that properly prepared food or working elevators won't kill me because I have evidence that the tend not to. That is science.
-
I am what you call a Gated Community Christian.
We worship Mary because she was a cell-splitting He/She and impregnated herself with Jesus.
She represents the trinity+1.
We also celebrate animal sacrifice unto the Lord. Although His blood was spilled and animal sacrifice is no longer needed, we practice it to symbolize our love for Him and for the He/She.
We also offer up a virgin to our deacon, Steven Dooley, a virgin who is carried on the shoulders of six sturdy kinsmen. She is then symbolically given over to Deacon Dooley during the ritual slitting of the lamb's throat, after which we break into 30 seconds of what we call the diggery du frenzied dance. The slaughtered animal is then carted out to the woods for coyotes to feed upon.
Amen.
The flying spaghetti monster is the only true god.
You are going to hell.
I have evidence.
-
Simon, how old to you believe the Earth is?
From reading you, I know you're into apologetics, but I'm trying to figure out what flavor.
-
Simon, how old to you believe the Earth is?
From reading you, I know you're into apologetics, but I'm trying to figure out what flavor.
I am brushing up on my Physics these days and I am re-confirmed on a young universe/earth. Although, I do believe that the time continuum as we know it was not established until the third day of creation, so therefore that needs to be taken into account when studying the historical development of the cosmos.
How about you? are you into a specific branch of philosophy and/or do you have a certain influence as far as physics goes?
-
Expand Quote
Before I answer, can I ask if you are Vegan, and, if so, why you are? (I am genuinely curious).
Thanks for sharing your views. My follow up question then would be, since you are vegan (for the reasons you stated): Are you then also pro-life and an avid defender of the life of unborn human persons?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
how about addressing the free will/predestination paradox?
I think this is an area where the Christian Worldview has a lot to offer philosophically. God is good. He created humans with a good feature; namely the free will ability to chose good over evil, etc. God is uncaused and infinite, therefore He knows all the free choices humans will make. But, he does not directly determine those choices. It all boils down to God's foreknowledge here. From human's finite perspective all events of the will are free. But, from God's perspective, they are determined, as He knows the end from the beginning. To put it philosophically, God is the first efficient cause; men are secondary causes that are still under God's providential domain.
Also, everything pans out (has panned out, is panning out, will pan out) according to His plan and purpose.
I like this verse from the Bible as far as practical application goes in that regard, even though It applies directly to followers of Christ:
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Moreover, for one to deny God, then they are the ones that have a hard time with the free will/determinism tension. An atheist has no real explanation for free will (as they typically deny the existence of immaterial souls in humans, where the will of man presides) so then they get locked in the determinism box, which leads to fatalism. i.e., what then would even be the point of anything at all if everything was just determined?
There is obviously a lot more to this discussion philosophically, but that is the gist of it. The God hypothesis rightly solves the riddle.
And god created us, right? Why would he create us knowing many of us will go to hell? What would be the purpose of that? That's pretty messed up. And that explanation about finite versus infinite perspectives is still not convincing. It shouldn't matter whose perspective a person's choices are being viewed from - there's either free will or there isn't. But if everything is already predetermined, then there is no real free will. Everything has been mapped out. God made, and continues to make, a whole lot of people destined from the day they're born to go to hell.
So, are you saying that the Christian worldview is wrong?
-
Expand Quote
Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.
Again, I disagree and go with Aristotle: Humans are a soul/body unity. Matter goes with mind and vice versa (we see this evidenced regularly with psychosomatic traumas, etc.).
Psychosomatic traumas are again manifestations of mind in matter, not the other way around. Where is the empirical evidence for minds outside of matter?
Expand Quote
If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.
The Bible commands use of reason and understanding of the natural world (along with spiritual disciplines) for understanding, so i would say you have made a mis-caricature (or have a misunderstanding) there.
I think that asserting that a person can become reasonable by being commanded to be reasonable is a mischaracterization of what it means to be reasonable. Religiosity undermines reason by it's very existence through the appeal to faith.
Expand Quote
Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.
In 7 literal days, God could easily have created all of that in the exact sequential order that is accounted for in Genesis.
And yet there is ample physical evidence that the exact sequential order given in Genesis could not have been correct. This is where your claims that "evidence for God goes beyond any practical statistical reason to deny His existence" ring a bit hollow.
1) I would say the evidence of the coded information in DNA implies a Mind (or immaterial Coder) of that information. That would be the logical conclusion in my estimation.
2) I am not sure what you mean by this. Would you mind explaining it a bit further?
3) I am willing to address any evidences agains the chronology of Genesis that you might present.
Also, after that I would like to then ask you a basic question with regard to Kant's epistemology.
-
also I didn't watch the second video cuz the first one was really boring
The second vid is the real deal. Most people think they are good enough on their own to go to heaven. Do you think you are good enough? (Just curious)
-
Special note: have u seen god ???
I see God everywhere evidenced by His creation.
-
"Man created god in his own image."
-Feuerbach
I would say its the other way around. God created humans in His image, with humans having similar characteristics at the finite level (e.g., existence, mind, will, etc.), all the while maintaining characteristics that are only privy to God (e.g., being uncaused, infinite, immaterial, etc.)
-
I don't think you could make any assumptions about the morality of multiple gods who may be in conflict with each other. That video only addresses my last question and only from a monotheistic standpoint, which is exactly the hang-up I was talking about.
I don't think I have replied to this one yet. This is actually a round about case for monotheism. Any 'multiple gods' theory will always be contradictory. That is, "Who's the boss?" would always be the unanswered question with polytheism. That is why the existence of One Supreme God makes the most sense. He alone is uncaused (for to have a cause is to be less than an uncaused being). He alone is infinite, as you cannot have two uncaused infinite beings. Therefore, it is this One God's moral standards that are correct.
Also, to think in terms or Parmenadies, you could not have two God's that were exactly the same, because by default there could only then be one God; as being exactly the same would mean that they were not at all different, and thus the same God.
-
guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god
In a sense, computers do represent a Creator/created analogy that helps support the argument for God. a) Computers do have an immaterial component (information) that needed to be programed by a programmer.
In similitude, DNA has an encrypted code that implies the existence of a coder of that information. I would say that this Coder was/is in fact, God.
-
The question of whether there is a God
A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: ?I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behavior would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.?
Bertolt Brecht:
Stories of Mr. Keuner
Respectfully, the shortcoming here is that there is no proof that God is merely a projection of a person who hopes and desires that God exists. Rather, the evidence for God exists on its own, outside the determination of personal opinion. Although, a person must weigh the evidence and make their own choices based thereon.
-
Hey Simon, send me all your money and worship me.
(https://38.media.tumblr.com/aca94f6a869bd61ef774762021303e7c/tumblr_mk6itnE2z11rhxd21o1_250.gif)
Sorry, probably not today. But, I will send you some stickers in the mail if you like. (Just DM me your address)
-
If you believe in god, you believe in satan.
I don't believe in satan.
In some respects, this is not a bad line of argument. If satan does not exist, then the biblical account of Christianity would be false. Although, I do, in fact, believe satan exists.
Nevertheless, on what grounds would you say that satan does not exist?
-
...I'm also really curious about your definition of consciousness. Self awareness? Situational awareness?
I mean, even the simplest photoreceptive cells are aware of light sources, and there are plenty of critters that have demonstrated self awareness. What are you referring to when you use the word?
If I recall, I meant self consciousness in the sense that it would pertain to human children.
-
flat earth, what else ?
Christian physicists have believed in a spherical earth for quite sometime. Ancient mariners and physicists figured that out long ago. The Bible was privy to this information even in old testament times
Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.
Here is a brief commentary on similar biblical references to a spherical earth http://www.icr.org/article/circle-earth/ (http://www.icr.org/article/circle-earth/)
Note: The Bible does, at times, use figurative language (i.e., 'the four corners of the earth') but people use that kind of language all the time 'the sun set' at 7:47 PM last night, etc. So it need not/ought not to be interpreted as a flat earth.
-
please answer my heaven questions.
I am up for it, but can you rephrase them?
-
So which god would win at street league?
Would the father, son an holy ghost get a run each?
I think Allah would do well but they couldn't show his image on the big score board.
Shiva would destroy the course.
Buddha would be OK if it was transition heavy.
Osiris would kill it despite not having a cool sponsor.
Thor is always throwing hammers.
ha!
-
If God is real than why am I a tiny dicked virgin? Answer me that, Simon.
-
God created you in his own exact image
-
Expand Quote
Simon, how old to you believe the Earth is?
From reading you, I know you're into apologetics, but I'm trying to figure out what flavor.
I am brushing up on my Physics these days and I am re-confirmed on a young universe/earth. Although, I do believe that the time continuum as we know it was not established until the third day of creation, so therefore that needs to be taken into account when studying the historical development of the cosmos.
How about you? are you into a specific branch of philosophy and/or do you have a certain influence as far as physics goes?
I don't subscribe to any particular philosophy outside of humanism, but even then I'm not academic about it. As for physics, too many names to list.
Having said, my question was "how old do you believe the Earth is?"
-
Thanks for sharing your views. My follow up question then would be, since you are vegan (for the reasons you stated): Are you then also pro-life and an avid defender of the life of unborn human persons?
kind of a loaded question and I know you're going to go down the whole "well how can you be against one form of killing but not another?" but I'll bite...
Before I do though, I'd like to go back to the dictionary definition of the term just so that we're clear on where I'm coming from:
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose
in short, it seeks to reduce unnecessary harm and suffering but is not able to eliminate harm and suffering altogether
(as that is pretty much impossible to do while we all still exist here on earth)
Now, am I against abortion? At a base level I think I probably am and I do think it's pretty irresponsible to use as it as say, a method of birth control (so why not just encourage actual birth control then?). Having said that, I also think it is fine in certain instances (rape, incest etc.). Guess what though, I can also justify the killing of animals in some instances too (like if I was camping and a bear attacked me and my family) so I don't think I'm being overly hypocritical here; me killing the bear would cause less suffering than all 3 of us dying.
Where we start to get into grey areas though is a) telling women what they can/ can't do with their bodies and b) the idea of sentience and when it actually comes into play.
In the case of a) I will defend a woman's right to do whatever the fuck she wants to do with her body end of story! If you are against this concept then you truly are living in the dark ages and I honestly don't think you are ready to deal with the current state of our world in 2017, nor will you be able to convince any members of the opposite sex that christianity is a religion that loves, worships and respects women.
Forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is equally as evil in my mind as impregnating a female calf (against her will), stealing her baby and then strapping her to machine while pumping her with hormones just so you can profit from her secretions. Thus you can see that my stance in animal rights also ties in with feminism in this respect. If you are in the whole telling-women-what-they-can/can't-do-with-their-bodies-because-"religion" camp, do you also support concepts such as female circumcision? I'm guessing no...
As for b), the main reason why vegans don't defend the rights of plants, rocks or any other objects basically comes down to the question of sentience and whether or not animals are able to experience emotions, suffering and pain similar to that of humans. Intelligence vs. sentience, as you should be well aware, are two different concepts so please don't even try to bring plants and/ or insects into this argument to try and "disprove" veganism here.
Now the jury is pretty much out when it comes to animals in regard to their sentience and this is why I choose not to cause unnecessary harm to them when I don't need to (i.e. I can survive and be healthy as a human without having to ingest them/ wear their hides as clothing). In the case of fetuses, science has also concluded that they are unable to feel pain until around the third trimester (27 - 28 weeks) and the majority of abortions are conducted well before that time (91% occur at around week 13 or less) so this is consistent with the rock/ plant/ insect argument(s) on my side.
Well now you're going to ask "well what about abortions after 27 weeks, surely you are violently opposed to them no?" and the simple answer is... there is no simple answer. Sure I don't think you should just be aborting fetuses willy-nilly but there also about a million other factors that come into play (health of the mother, rape/ incest that I mentioned about, whether or not the child will be severely disabled, quality of life for said child etc. etc.) before making that decision. What I can say though is making abortion more accessible and/ or cheaper can, and will, help avoid abortions later in the game as women often cite that they waited longer simply because they didn't have the money and/ or access to such services.
Again, I'm seeking to reduce suffering as much as possible, if having a unwanted child would cause suffering to the mother and and give the child a poor quality of life (i.e. more suffering) due to poverty or whatever then I feel that terminating said fetus would reduce the amount of suffering in the world. This is consistent with my beliefs in the same way I would also be pro-aborting a cow's fetus if I knew it was just going to be sold to the veal industry anyway.
Now I know you intentionally set out to "prove" that I'm hypocritical with my ideals, but I actually believe that the burden of hypocrisy needs to put be on the pro-lifers - how can you care so much about an unborn fetus with a barely developed CNS and yet be fine with the death of 60 billion sentient being annually? Cows and pigs have the same mental capacity as 2 -3 year old children, are you saying you're pro-infanticide? I honestly doubt that...
Simon, as a skater you were someone who was able to think outside the box and this is why I think you were so respected, I know that is why I liked you so much in those old 411s/ sonic/ big brother vids.
If you are really down to debate on here then I think you can still do as a christian BUT you also need to know how to think outside of your religious box because there are aspects of your religion that are outdated and need to be changed/ revised in 2017 (see those comments you made towards user: GAY). Vegan christians do exist and they are probably the only group of christians that I have any respect for as they can see that causing the unnecessary pain and suffering to billions upon billions of god's creatures is in no way consistent with the teachings of Christ, nor is it a path towards any sort of peace in the world.
-
God created you in his own exact image
Well, there is not a direct 'one-to-one' correspondence of image representation when it comes to how humans bear the image of God. There are some characteristics of God that are present in humans, such as having existence, having mind, emotion, will, etc.
But, there are many characteristics that only God can have that humans cannot have, such as being uncaused, infinite, immaterial, eternal, all knowing, all powerful, and the like.
Therefore, humans can die, but God cannot. Humans can know some things, while God knows all things. Humans have some power, but God has all power and control.
An easy way to understand it is that humans represent the image of God in a similar way that a flag represents a country. The flag represents the characteristics of the country, but the flag is not the actual country itself.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Simon, how old to you believe the Earth is?
From reading you, I know you're into apologetics, but I'm trying to figure out what flavor.
I am brushing up on my Physics these days and I am re-confirmed on a young universe/earth. Although, I do believe that the time continuum as we know it was not established until the third day of creation, so therefore that needs to be taken into account when studying the historical development of the cosmos.
How about you? are you into a specific branch of philosophy and/or do you have a certain influence as far as physics goes?
I don't subscribe to any particular philosophy outside of humanism, but even then I'm not academic about it. As for physics, too many names to list.
Having said, my question was "how old do you believe the Earth is?"
Well, we have to get into the physics a bit here, as I do believe, after day 3 in the the Genesis creation account anyways, that the earth is under 100,000 years old. But, I do think that the theory of General Relativity has to be taken into consideration, especially in the first three days of the Gen. account. It is then that 'time dilation' needs to be factored in to explain certain characteristics of the cosmos.
Another question, though. As a humanist, are you also a materialist? That is, do you believe that everything that has existence in the cosmos is comprised solely of matter?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Simon, how old to you believe the Earth is?
From reading you, I know you're into apologetics, but I'm trying to figure out what flavor.
I am brushing up on my Physics these days and I am re-confirmed on a young universe/earth. Although, I do believe that the time continuum as we know it was not established until the third day of creation, so therefore that needs to be taken into account when studying the historical development of the cosmos.
How about you? are you into a specific branch of philosophy and/or do you have a certain influence as far as physics goes?
I don't subscribe to any particular philosophy outside of humanism, but even then I'm not academic about it. As for physics, too many names to list.
Having said, my question was "how old do you believe the Earth is?"
Well, we have to get into the physics a bit here, as I do believe, after day 3 in the the Genesis creation account anyways, that the earth is under 100,000 years old. But, I do think that the theory of General Relativity has to be taken into consideration, especially in the first three days of the Gen. account. It is then that 'time dilation' needs to be factored in to explain certain characteristics of the cosmos.
Another question, though. As a humanist, are you also a materialist? That is, do you believe that everything that has existence in the cosmos is comprised solely of matter?
1. It doesn't really take a a lot of physics to understand that if the earth were under 100,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see objects in space that are millions(+) light years away from us. The light wouldn't have made it here yet. Hell, that's simply basic astronomy, that's not even considering other scientific disciplines like geology and archaeology, among others.
2. Humanism is a personal philosophy... as far as a being a materialist, I tend to lean towards all observable things being based on particles directly (like matter), or fields (like gravity, as the existence of gravitons {a proposed particle responsible for gravity} still has yet to graduate into a full on scientific theory). Also, if we're talking about *everything* in the cosmos, the issue of dark matter and dark energy (which really needs a new label) come into play... we can observe the effects of both. I tend to lean towards dark matter being particle based, and dark energy being similar, though the particles may not have mass, but to that, it's strictly conjecture.
I wouldn't classify my understanding as "materialist" so much as I would better identify as a naturalist.
-
Expand Quote
Thanks for sharing your views. My follow up question then would be, since you are vegan (for the reasons you stated): Are you then also pro-life and an avid defender of the life of unborn human persons?
Before I do though, I'd like to go back to the dictionary definition of the term just so that we're clear on where I'm coming from:
Expand Quote
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose
in short, it seeks to reduce unnecessary harm and suffering but is not able to eliminate harm and suffering altogether
(as that is pretty much impossible to do while we all still exist here on earth)
Now, am I against abortion? At a base level I think I probably am and I do think it's pretty irresponsible to use as it as say, a method of birth control (so why not just encourage actual birth control then?). Having said that, I also think it is fine in certain instances (rape, incest etc.). Guess what though, I can also justify the killing of animals in some instances too (like if I was camping and a bear attacked me and my family) so I don't think I'm being overly hypocritical here; me killing the bear would cause less suffering than all 3 of us dying.
Where we start to get into grey areas though is a) telling women what they can/ can't do with their bodies and b) the idea of sentience and when it actually comes into play.
In the case of a) I will defend a woman's right to do whatever the fuck she wants to do with her body end of story! If you are against this concept then you truly are living in the dark ages and I honestly don't think you are ready to deal with the current state of our world in 2017, nor will you be able to convince any members of the opposite sex that christianity is a religion that loves, worships and respects women.
Forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is equally as evil in my mind as impregnating a female calf (against her will), stealing her baby and then strapping her to machine while pumping her with hormones just so you can profit from her secretions. Thus you can see that my stance in animal rights also ties in with feminism in this respect. If you are in the whole telling-women-what-they-can/can't-do-with-their-bodies-because-"religion" camp, do you also support concepts such as female circumcision? I'm guessing no...
As for b), the main reason why vegans don't defend the rights of plants, rocks or any other objects basically comes down to the question of sentience and whether or not animals are able to experience emotions, suffering and pain similar to that of humans. Intelligence vs. sentience, as you should be well aware, are two different concepts so please don't even try to bring plants and/ or insects into this argument to try and "disprove" veganism here.
Now the jury is pretty much out when it comes to animals in regard to their sentience and this is why I choose not to cause unnecessary harm to them when I don't need to (i.e. I can survive and be healthy as a human without having to ingest them/ wear their hides as clothing). In the case of fetuses, science has also concluded that they are unable to feel pain until around the third trimester (27 - 28 weeks) and the majority of abortions are conducted well before that time (91% occur at around week 13 or less) so this is consistent with the rock/ plant/ insect argument(s) on my side.
Well now you're going to ask "well what about abortions after 27 weeks, surely you are violently opposed to them no?" and the simple answer is... there is no simple answer. Sure I don't think you should just be aborting fetuses willy-nilly but there also about a million other factors that come into play (health of the mother, rape/ incest that I mentioned about, whether or not the child will be severely disabled, quality of life for said child etc. etc.) before making that decision. What I can say though is making abortion more accessible and/ or cheaper can, and will, help avoid abortions later in the game as women often cite that they waited longer simply because they didn't have the money and/ or access to such services.
Again, I'm seeking to reduce suffering as much as possible, if having a unwanted child would cause suffering to the mother and and give the child a poor quality of life (i.e. more suffering) due to poverty or whatever then I feel that terminating said fetus would reduce the amount of suffering in the world. This is consistent with my beliefs in the same way I would also be pro-aborting a cow's fetus if I knew it was just going to be sold to the veal industry anyway. �
Now I know you intentionally set out to "prove" that I'm hypocritical with my ideals, but I actually believe that the burden of hypocrisy needs to put be on the pro-lifers - how can you care so much about an unborn fetus with a barely developed CNS and yet be fine with the death of 60 billion sentient being annually? Cows and pigs have the same mental capacity as 2 -3 year old children, are you saying you're pro-infanticide? I honestly doubt that...
Simon, as a skater you were someone who was able to think outside the box and this is why I think you were so respected, I know that is why I liked you so much in those old 411s/ sonic/ big brother vids.
If you are really down to debate on here then I think you can still do as a christian BUT you also need to know how to think outside of your religious box because there are aspects of your religion that are outdated and need to be changed/ revised in 2017 (see those comments you made towards user: GAY). Vegan christians do exist and they are probably the only group of christians that I have any respect for as they can see that causing the unnecessary pain and suffering to billions upon billions of god's creatures is in no way consistent with the teachings of Christ, nor is it a path towards any sort of peace in the world.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I simply think it is inconsistent to be vegan/vegetarian and also be pro-abortion. You have indicated that you also see the inconsistency there.
Nevertheless, the handful of arguments that you have put forth that would support abortion are, in my understanding, mostly suspect.
The 'woman's body' argument fails because from the time of conception, a fertilized ovum is its own 46 chromosomal entity, and it therefore its very own person (i.e., it is not the woman/mother, and, in about 50% of the cases its actually a male).
And, the judicial laws and rules of societal behavior in general also apply to women, so authorities and other citizens tell women (and men) what to do all the time, such as obey traffic laws, or pay your bill at a restaurant, etc. So people tell women what to do with their 'bodies' and lives every day without any controversy. The point being that it is unfounded to just pull that argument out of the hat and try to apply it to so-called abortion rights.
Even more to this point, it was a bunch of men on the supreme court that ruled in favor of abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision, thus it was men telling women that they could subject their bodies (as well as the bodies of the unborn) to abortion procedures. Where is the cry of injustice of men telling women what they can do via Roe v. Wade? There obviously isn't any cry against this. Which is just another example of the inconsistency of the line of argument you are referencing.
Another thing, to attempt to dismiss (although I do realize and appreciate that you are being respectful in this dialogue) my arguments as being outdated because they are Christian (and thus have a tether to ancient times) is actually a logical fallacy. It is called a 'chronological fallacy' and presumes that old truth claims cannot be true because they are old. And, it presumes that all new (or newer) truth claims are by default true (or truer) than the old. This is simply not the cause, a statement can be old or new and be either true or false, based on whether or not the claim accurately expresses the facts of the world.
What is more, to claim that I am not an 'out of the box thinker' is aimed more at me than my arguments, and doesn't really directly address the logic (or purported ill-logic) of what I am saying.
Notwithstanding, I personally think you are in a decent spot as far as the consistency of your views on diet/abortion go. But, I would say that it would be good to consider the pro-life argument further.
Just about every argument in favor of abortion can be refuted by the means of establishing the human personhood of the unborn from the time of conception. I could type these basic arguments out, but Greg Koukl does a great job of defending the premise that it is never justifiable to take the life or an innocent human being here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSRWXNdIqN8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSRWXNdIqN8)
The arguments against the human personhood of the unborn are also pretty simple to refute, so I am prepared to go further down that road.
If you are interested, you can run down the SLED test to see where they all fail:
http://www.epm.org/blog/2016/May/23/sled-personhood-unborn (http://www.epm.org/blog/2016/May/23/sled-personhood-unborn)
-
Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Simon, how old to you believe the Earth is?
From reading you, I know you're into apologetics, but I'm trying to figure out what flavor.
I am brushing up on my Physics these days and I am re-confirmed on a young universe/earth. Although, I do believe that the time continuum as we know it was not established until the third day of creation, so therefore that needs to be taken into account when studying the historical development of the cosmos.
How about you? are you into a specific branch of philosophy and/or do you have a certain influence as far as physics goes?
I don't subscribe to any particular philosophy outside of humanism, but even then I'm not academic about it. As for physics, too many names to list.
Having said, my question was "how old do you believe the Earth is?"
Well, we have to get into the physics a bit here, as I do believe, after day 3 in the the Genesis creation account anyways, that the earth is under 100,000 years old. But, I do think that the theory of General Relativity has to be taken into consideration, especially in the first three days of the Gen. account. It is then that 'time dilation' needs to be factored in to explain certain characteristics of the cosmos.
Another question, though. As a humanist, are you also a materialist? That is, do you believe that everything that has existence in the cosmos is comprised solely of matter?
1. It doesn't really take a a lot of physics to understand that if the earth were under 100,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see objects in space that are millions(+) light years away from us. The light wouldn't have made it here yet. Hell, that's simply basic astronomy, that's not even considering other scientific disciplines like geology and archaeology, among others.
2. Humanism is a personal philosophy... as far as a being a materialist, I tend to lean towards all observable things being based on particles directly (like matter), or fields (like gravity, as the existence of gravitons {a proposed particle responsible for gravity} still has yet to graduate into a full on scientific theory). Also, if we're talking about *everything* in the cosmos, the issue of dark matter and dark energy (which really needs a new label) come into play... we can observe the effects of both. I tend to lean towards dark matter being particle based, and dark energy being similar, though the particles may not have mass, but to that, it's strictly conjecture.
I wouldn't classify my understanding as "materialist" so much as I would better identify as a naturalist.
Fair enough, but you missed my points on General Relativity and time dilation. There are two ways that the travel of starlight can be explained according to Genesis. One is that they are simply age dating factors, that is, put in place with the appearance of age (much like how Adam and Eve were created as grown humans, trees were created as fully matured rather than seeds, etc.).
Nevertheless, I don't think creationists are necessarily locked into this box at all. According to General Relativity and in further accordance with the attending time dilation, before day 3 in Genesis 1, the heavens were being 'stretched out' by God, and, just as we see different gravitational pulls in the Universe today, these pulls would have a direct effect on how time was being meaded out in the earliest stages of the universe.
In short, 100,000 years or less passed here on earth during the Genesis creation week, but the time out in the early Universe as it was being stretched out and formed was (and still is) relative to the local gravitational pulls of the cosmos and came forth in much longer stretches of time based on Relativity.
There is obviously a lot more to explain here (and I can spell out my further understanding of the model, if you are interested).
But, what is problematic is the Big Bang model of origins (especially outside of the context of Genesis as a guide). The two problems that come to mind are the impossibility of a valid naturalistic explanation for a cosmic singularity that would bring all time, matter, and space into existence out of nothing. And how, since there is much inhomogeneous clumping of galaxies together this counters the uniformity of distribution that would be present if the Big Bang were true. That is, if the Big Bang model were correct, the galaxies would not be in clumps but would rather have homogenous distribution throughout the universe. This Galaxy clustering (and many other factors) are evidence against the purported uniformed 'cosmological principle' that the Big Bang model relies on. If these cannot be answered, then folks are simply assuming the Big Bang model to be true without supporting its claims.
I am open to hear any explanations you may have for these (and other problems) with Big Bang cosmology. And, conversely, I am hoping that you would be willing to look further into the Relativity/Time-dilation Genesis model put forth by noted particle physicists, D. Russel Humphries:
Here is the briefest summarization of this cosmology that i am aware of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU)
The bottom line (in my understanding)m is that the Bible is true as far as origins are concerned, and Humphries' model not only coincides with Einstein's' theories of Relativity, but also coincides and affirms the Bible that says:
"He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." Job 9:8
(PS: Thank you for cracking the door open further on this aspect of discussion, I would love to continue as time permits. Have a good weekend, BTW)
-
Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.
In short, much of this purported paleontological evidence is suspect. and there has been a book authored called "Bones of Contention" that refutes the work done in this field that has been used to try to support evolution. If you would be willing to read the book, I would buy you a copy and send it to your house (PM me if interested and/or please do continue to put forth purported evidences in this regard).
Bottom line, evolutionary paleontologists go into their research with the presupposition that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, so they simply crunch their data to support their presuppositions (Note: presuppositions are unavoidable when doing research, but the evolutionary presuppositions continue to go unsupported, but rather 'shouted' by evolutionary scientists in spite of the evidence)
-
^
I want to believe in that more than, "God."
If God exists (which I believe evidence and faith support His existence) then, practically speaking, you cannot believe in more than God. He is infinite, there is no being or thing is existence larger than Him.
-
one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.
Christianity is actually the solution to self centeredness (or, it can and ought to be applied this way). If evolution were true, why not get all that you can while on this earth? But, since God exists and sent His son to die for the sins of the world, once you trust in Him you can then, out of sheer thankfulness for that loving sacrifice, serve others rather than ourselves in humility. Also knowing that man is not the highest intellect, but God is, and He ought to be worshiped in humility because of this.
This is the essence of John 3:16
"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."
Are we good enough on our own? ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo&t=2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo&t=2s)
-
please answer my heaven questions.
Heaven is pretty amazing and is one of the truly awesome aspects of the Christian faith. Heaven is a place of no death, no sorrow, no pain, no grief, etc. Christians can sleep well at night knowing they are going there for eternity.
Here is a brief article/explanation of what Heaven is like from gotquestions.org
Question: "What is Heaven like?"
Answer: Heaven is a real place described in the Bible. The word ?heaven? is found 276 times in the New Testament alone. Scripture refers to three heavens. The apostle Paul was ?caught up to the third heaven,? but he was prohibited from revealing what he experienced there (2 Corinthians 12:1-9).
If a third heaven exists, there must also be two other heavens. The first is most frequently referred to in the Old Testament as the ?sky? or the ?firmament.? This is the heaven that contains clouds, the area that birds fly through. The second heaven is interstellar/outer space, which is the abode of the stars, planets, and other celestial objects (Genesis 1:14-18).
The third heaven, the location of which is not revealed, is the dwelling place of God. Jesus promised to prepare a place for true Christians in heaven (John 14:2). Heaven is also the destination of Old Testament saints who died trusting God's promise of the Redeemer (Ephesians 4:8). Whoever believes in Christ shall never perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).
The apostle John was privileged to see and report on the heavenly city (Revelation 21:10-27). John witnessed that heaven (the new earth) possesses the ?glory of God? (Revelation 21:11), the very presence of God. Because heaven has no night and the Lord Himself is the light, the sun and moon are no longer needed (Revelation 22:5).
The city is filled with the brilliance of costly stones and crystal clear jasper. Heaven has twelve gates (Revelation 21:12) and twelve foundations (Revelation 21:14). The paradise of the Garden of Eden is restored: the river of the water of life flows freely and the tree of life is available once again, yielding fruit monthly with leaves that ?heal the nations? (Revelation 22:1-2). However eloquent John was in his description of heaven, the reality of heaven is beyond the ability of finite man to describe (1 Corinthians 2:9).
Heaven is a place of ?no mores.? There will be no more tears, no more pain, and no more sorrow (Revelation 21:4). There will be no more separation, because death will be conquered (Revelation 20:6). The best thing about heaven is the presence of our Lord and Savior (1 John 3:2). We will be face to face with the Lamb of God who loved us and sacrificed Himself so that we can enjoy His presence in heaven for eternity.
https://www.gotquestions.org/heaven-like.html (https://www.gotquestions.org/heaven-like.html)
-
Then once you've convinced me of the existence of the Christian God, we can start talking about if the Christian God is good or moral for any reason other than declaring himself to be so. (Spoiler: he is not.)
By what standard would you be basing/determining the Christian God to be either moral (i.e., good) or not moral (i.e., evil)?
-
Well shit I guess I believe in god now...
Cool, man. See you at Church on Sunday?
-
stop trying to prove faith based beliefs. the whole point is that you have faith and don't have to burden yourself with logic and rational thought.
It's a faith founded on fact. And, it's beneficial to others, so I share.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god
disabled comments because that guys a pussy
Computers are programmed, which proves they have a programer. This has illustrative purposes in that just as the complex information in computers has been programmed, so has the complex DNA in biological life been programmed by an intelligent programmer.
Also, minds (such as in humans) would necessarily come to be (that is, have been caused to exist) by an uncaused Mind, that is God.
By your own logic, why don't you just believe that the whole universe (that is everything you believe to exist) isn't just a complex simulation/program? Wouldn't that make more logical sense than some fairy tale/santa claus ...
Well, who programmed the program/simulation, then? There would have to be a programmer (i.e., God). that is the point of the illustration, and, it is valid.
-
In 4th grade, some kid found a potato chip that kind of looked like Jesus, so I ate it. Sorry for eating the only evidence of God.
Any of those "evidences" that you see are obviously fake/folklore (Jesus appearing in toast and said toast being sold on ebay, etc.)
-
Pretty good evidence for God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko)
Are you a good person?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo)
Here is the original post I made. Somewhere back in the thread, I thought I had seen someone post that a lot of this religious discussion is riddled with jargon, etc, etc, and seems pretty futile.
Every discipline has it's terms, but I think sometimes the main point can get lost in the discussion.
Friends, towards the end of the 90s, I was out of my mind, miserable, depressed, addicted, anxious, and the like. All the perks of skateboarding had become seemingly futile. There was no joy in it at all. I had committed sin after sin, and was burdened down by those sins. With no where to put them, I tried bearing the burden myself to no avail. Also, I knew I was going to hell.
But, people had reached out to me about Jesus over the years. I went up to Lance Mountain after I had had a hard night out on the town in Vancouver at the Slam City Jam, and he laid it out for me. He basically said that living for Satan and the world leads to despair; the implication being that living for God and Jesus Christ would lead to everlasting life.
I trusted Christ for salvation over 17 years ago, and the only thing I regret about that is that I didn't do it sooner (I borrowed this last line from Jamie Thomas, but it rings true in my life as well).
All I ask is that you consider it. And, please know I do appreciate the time you are spending in discussion.
What is more, anyone who desires to can message me at [email protected]
If you need prayer or anything.
Shalom.
-
Expand Quote
one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.
Christianity is actually the solution to self centeredness (or, it can and ought to be applied this way). If evolution were true, why not get all that you can while on this earth? But, since God exists and sent His son to die for the sins of the world, once you trust in Him you can then, out of sheer thankfulness for that loving sacrifice, serve others rather than ourselves in humility. Also knowing that man is not the highest intellect, but God is, and He ought to be worshiped in humility because of this.
This is the essence of John 3:16
"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."
Are we good enough on our own? ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo&t=2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo&t=2s)
no matter what, our view of the world is human centric. but the religious view of the world is human centric on steroids, rife with delusion, denial, fantasy, subjectivity, arbitrariness, fallacies, bias, etc. and has no qualms about it and is absolutely unwilling to account for it.
-
1. It doesn't really take a a lot of physics to understand that if the earth were under 100,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see objects in space that are millions(+) light years away from us. The light wouldn't have made it here yet. Hell, that's simply basic astronomy, that's not even considering other scientific disciplines like geology and archaeology, among others.
2. Humanism is a personal philosophy... as far as a being a materialist, I tend to lean towards all observable things being based on particles directly (like matter), or fields (like gravity, as the existence of gravitons {a proposed particle responsible for gravity} still has yet to graduate into a full on scientific theory). Also, if we're talking about *everything* in the cosmos, the issue of dark matter and dark energy (which really needs a new label) come into play... we can observe the effects of both. I tend to lean towards dark matter being particle based, and dark energy being similar, though the particles may not have mass, but to that, it's strictly conjecture.
I wouldn't classify my understanding as "materialist" so much as I would better identify as a naturalist.
Fair enough, but you missed my points on General Relativity and time dilation. There are two ways that the travel of starlight can be explained according to Genesis. One is that they are simply age dating factors, that is, put in place with the appearance of age (much like how Adam and Eve were created as grown humans, trees were created as fully matured rather than seeds, etc.).
Nevertheless, I don't think creationists are necessarily locked into this box at all. According to General Relativity and in further accordance with the attending time dilation, before day 3 in Genesis 1, the heavens were being 'stretched out' by God, and, just as we see different gravitational pulls in the Universe today, these pulls would have a direct effect on how time was being meaded out in the earliest stages of the universe.
In short, 100,000 years or less passed here on earth during the Genesis creation week, but the time out in the early Universe as it was being stretched out and formed was (and still is) relative to the local gravitational pulls of the cosmos and came forth in much longer stretches of time based on Relativity.
There is obviously a lot more to explain here (and I can spell out my further understanding of the model, if you are interested).
But, what is problematic is the Big Bang model of origins (especially outside of the context of Genesis as a guide). The two problems that come to mind are the impossibility of a valid naturalistic explanation for a cosmic singularity that would bring all time, matter, and space into existence out of nothing. And how, since there is much inhomogeneous clumping of galaxies together this counters the uniformity of distribution that would be present if the Big Bang were true. That is, if the Big Bang model were correct, the galaxies would not be in clumps but would rather have homogenous distribution throughout the universe. This Galaxy clustering (and many other factors) are evidence against the purported uniformed 'cosmological principle' that the Big Bang model relies on. If these cannot be answered, then folks are simply assuming the Big Bang model to be true without supporting its claims.
I am open to hear any explanations you may have for these (and other problems) with Big Bang cosmology. And, conversely, I am hoping that you would be willing to look further into the Relativity/Time-dilation Genesis model put forth by noted particle physicists, D. Russel Humphries:
Here is the briefest summarization of this cosmology that i am aware of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU)
The bottom line (in my understanding)m is that the Bible is true as far as origins are concerned, and Humphries' model not only coincides with Einstein's' theories of Relativity, but also coincides and affirms the Bible that says:
"He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." Job 9:8
(PS: Thank you for cracking the door open further on this aspect of discussion, I would love to continue as time permits. Have a good weekend, BTW)
Billionths of a second after the "big bang," the universe as it was at the time was pretty homogenous. Galaxies and most elements came millions of years later, as stars started from the beginning of the periodic table and eventually gave rise to more elemental/chemically complex nuclear reactors. With that, we saw the development of various localized gravitational fields that account for everything from solar systems to galaxy clusters (completely consistent with thermodynamics).
To think that the universe poofed into existence with the various types of stars fully formed (close to Earth), then stretched out, pulling stars away from the Earth, just doesn't make any sense (as Humphreys goes into). While there is cosmic expansion, what you and he are actually proposing is that everything was stretched way from this planet at a speed faster than light, and we're essentially looking at things in space the way we predict we'd see things on a black hole's event horizon (the holographic principle). It doesn't make sense that everything would be pulled away from everything else so quickly from this planet, then slowed down into the current rate of cosmic expansion (an expansion that does go faster than the speed of light outside of the observable universe, coinciding with relativity). If the supernatural "stretching" had occurred (using time dilation), our daytime and nighttime sky would be blindingly flooded with light.
His "timeless zone" hypothesis is frankly insane. He's twisting logic like a pretzel... he's saying that the stars moved away at the speed of light (which would have taken billions of years), but also claiming that there was no time, ignoring the fact that space and time are intertwined. I'd also add that his idea that the universe being geocentric is utter rubbish. Space expands at every point, not just away from our planet. If we were at any other location in space, we'd see the same relative expansion, and we'd see it expand exponentially until that space (beyond the visible universe) reached a relative speed faster than light.
The problem with pseudo-academic creationists is that hypotheses have to be force-fit into a presupposition, up to the point that the respective hypothesis becomes so convoluted and absurd that it invalidates itself. If you ignore the scientific method, it's not science at all.
-
Expand Quote
Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.
In short, much of this purported paleontological evidence is suspect. and there has been a book authored called "Bones of Contention" that refutes the work done in this field that has been used to try to support evolution. If you would be willing to read the book, I would buy you a copy and send it to your house (PM me if interested and/or please do continue to put forth purported evidences in this regard).
Bottom line, evolutionary paleontologists go into their research with the presupposition that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, so they simply crunch their data to support their presuppositions (Note: presuppositions are unavoidable when doing research, but the evolutionary presuppositions continue to go unsupported, but rather 'shouted' by evolutionary scientists in spite of the evidence)
This is a maddening misrepresentation of the the study of evolution. Presuppositions in the studies of paleo researchers, geologists, and biologists are based on data, and when data is revealed to be false or incorrect, the scientific method and peer review addresses it and updates that data accordingly.
There's no debate in science that we evolved from a common ancestor. Not because of presuppositions, but because of overwhelming evidence in several fields of study.
-
Expand Quote
Then once you've convinced me of the existence of the Christian God, we can start talking about if the Christian God is good or moral for any reason other than declaring himself to be so. (Spoiler: he is not.)
By what standard would you be basing/determining the Christian God to be either moral (i.e., good) or not moral (i.e., evil)?
The standard is the Bible in which he commands his followers to slaughter other people and covilzations merelt they don't follow or believe in the Juseo-Christian god. That's not what I think a moral or just person would do because I don't think that bigotry is a moral standing.
Regarding your anti-abortion/pro-SLED argument, it's a gross simplification that shows an inability to deal with any level of nuance.
And it's hilarious that you accuse people that disagree with you of arguing from a position of disbelief when all you're doing is arguing from a position of belief. And funny that you ignored the rest of my comment critiquing your logic and pointing out the inherent flaws in your arguments - along with calling you out for your inability to show objective support for all of your "obvious" solutions.
Basically man, if you believe this, fine. But don't come here to preach it. We all appreciate you as a skater and your history and perspective on that world and we're happy to hear it but this is not a place to evangelize.
-
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I simply think it is inconsistent to be vegan/vegetarian and also be pro-abortion. You have indicated that you also see the inconsistency there.
Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion.
-
I'm pro-choice but only if the choice is to get an abortion and then eat the fetus. Fair is fair.
-
this is prolly gonna sound dumb, do bare in mind i am two 40z deep but i always thought if there were a god that we exist inside of it, kind of like how all the cells in our bodies make us. maybe we're the good and bad voices inside it's head and maybe it's a great awareness we live in.
-
goddamn this guy is a fucking idiot
-
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I simply think it is inconsistent to be vegan/vegetarian and also be pro-abortion. You have indicated that you also see the inconsistency there.
Nevertheless, the handful of arguments that you have put forth that would support abortion are, in my understanding, mostly suspect.
Well if you look at my own personal actions and behaviors then you'll see that I actually AM consistent. Case in point: when I found out my wife had fallen pregnant I certainly wasn't ready for parenthood (for a plethora of reasons) and neither was she, we talked about the issue at great length though and seeing as that we are both vegan/ pro-animal rights, we decided not to abort because it would be an unnecessary death that neither of us needed to cause (it was also ended up being the best thing that ever happened to us). In this case, we didn't terminate and in our daily lives we choose not to consume animal products and thus are consistent in our actions no?
Now, do I believe the world should be forced to go vegan? Absolutely not, the same way I don't believe every fertilized human ovary needs to be forced into the world. I brought up rape, incest and a few other valid exceptions to the rule in my initial post, do you honestly believe that women who are raped should be forced to give birth to that child? If so, I'd love to hear your justifications on that one...
The 'woman's body' argument fails because from the time of conception, a fertilized ovum is its own 46 chromosomal entity, and it therefore its very own person (i.e., it is not the woman/mother, and, in about 50% of the cases its actually a male).
And, the judicial laws and rules of societal behavior in general also apply to women, so authorities and other citizens tell women (and men) what to do all the time, such as obey traffic laws, or pay your bill at a restaurant, etc. So people tell women what to do with their 'bodies' and lives every day without any controversy. The point being that it is unfounded to just pull that argument out of the hat and try to apply it to so-called abortion rights.
Even more to this point, it was a bunch of men on the supreme court that ruled in favor of abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision, thus it was men telling women that they could subject their bodies (as well as the bodies of the unborn) to abortion procedures. Where is the cry of injustice of men telling women what they can do via Roe v. Wade? There obviously isn't any cry against this. Which is just another example of the inconsistency of the line of argument you are referencing.
ok great, I actually learnt something + I think your argument is pretty solid here (do note though that paying bills, obeying traffic laws etc. AREN'T gender specific whereas the ability to decide what to do with your womb is), but again, what are you going to do in the case of rape/ incest/ possible death of the mother due to child birth? In your personal opinion why do you think Roe v. Wade case ended up ruling in favor of abortion? I don't think you can 100% blanket this issue hence why I'm pro-choice or TLDR:
Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion.
basically this x1000! Personally I wouldn't choose to abort in (99% of) cases that involved my family, like I wouldn't personally choose to eat meat, but I understand that not every situation is that black/ white.
Another thing, to attempt to dismiss (although I do realize and appreciate that you are being respectful in this dialogue) my arguments as being outdated because they are Christian (and thus have a tether to ancient times) is actually a logical fallacy. It is called a 'chronological fallacy' and presumes that old truth claims cannot be true because they are old. And, it presumes that all new (or newer) truth claims are by default true (or truer) than the old. This is simply not the cause, a statement can be old or new and be either true or false, based on whether or not the claim accurately expresses the facts of the world.
Again, fine, I wasn't claiming that ALL of your beliefs are not true because they are old, but you specifically made a call out on user: GAY saying he, or other homosexuals, could be "cured" or some shit. That is an outdated mode of thinking and I'm going to call you on your shit when you say things like this!
What is more, to claim that I am not an 'out of the box thinker' is aimed more at me than my arguments, and doesn't really directly address the logic (or purported ill-logic) of what I am saying.
It was more just some advice to you mate, I know this is your fight now but if you stay too locked in your confirmation bias bubble I think you're going to find it that much harder to convince people of your actual "message". Of course overly emotional vegans also suffer the same fate, funny that...
Notwithstanding, I personally think you are in a decent spot as far as the consistency of your views on diet/abortion go. But, I would say that it would be good to consider the pro-life argument further.
Just about every argument in favor of abortion can be refuted by the means of establishing the human personhood of the unborn from the time of conception.
Okay let's pretend for a second I am 100% on board with you as a pro-lifer (and I've actually demonstrated this through my actions), you still haven't outlined why you think it's justifiable for humans to needlessly slaughter 60 billion sentient creatures every year when one your god's most famous teachings is "thou shall not kill". thou is killing no?
Please indicate the trait that unborn fetuses possess, and that animals lack, that make you so adamant about protecting the life of one and not the other!
Just about every argument in favor of eating meat can be refuted with a simple discussion of ethics ;)
-
goddamn this guy is a fucking idiot
Yup. Why is anyone even arguing with him?
-
who would have thought that a guy that skated a aquarium would be a total nutcase?
cool if religion works for you, but keep those beliefs to yourself.
-
Does anybody else but me ever wonder about the fact that the bible says gold has value in heaven?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god
disabled comments because that guys a pussy
Computers are programmed, which proves they have a programer. This has illustrative purposes in that just as the complex information in computers has been programmed, so has the complex DNA in biological life been programmed by an intelligent programmer.
Also, minds (such as in humans) would necessarily come to be (that is, have been caused to exist) by an uncaused Mind, that is God.
By your own logic, why don't you just believe that the whole universe (that is everything you believe to exist) isn't just a complex simulation/program? Wouldn't that make more logical sense than some fairy tale/santa claus ...
Well, who programmed the program/simulation, then? There would have to be a programmer (i.e., God). that is the point of the illustration, and, it is valid.
I get the illustration, but it doesn't make sense because we know in the bible that it says the earth, heavens and man, were created by God in a very specific manner..and at this point, knowing what we know about how the world around us works, it just doesn't seem logical or believable at all.
A more believable 'creator' scenario .. The cosmos was created ie:simulated, by a team of programmers. They based the simulation on the world around them (which is also a simulation, previously created). And so.. we live inside one of a seemingly infinite number of embedded simulations. Your God is simply a story told inside that simulation. Eventually perhaps we will have the knowledge and technology to create yet another expanding, evolving universe simulation, very similar to the one we live in.
I am not saying that this is what i believe, I am saying it's more believable than the Christian God explanation.
-
A more believable 'creator' scenario .. The cosmos was created ie:simulated, by a team of programmers. They based the simulation on the world around them (which is also a simulation, previously created). And so.. we live inside one of a seemingly infinite number of embedded simulations. Your God is simply a story told inside that simulation. Eventually perhaps we will have the knowledge and technology to create yet another expanding, evolving universe simulation, very similar to the one we live in.
I am not saying that this is what i believe, I am saying it's more believable than the Christian God explanation.
Since inhabitants of simulated worlds are massively deceived and some suffer horrendously, wouldn't moral concerns outweigh any goods that come from the simulations?
Simulation projects are going to have a hard time passing IRB reviews.
-
Does anybody else but me ever wonder about the fact that the bible says gold has value in heaven?
What are the exchange rates?
-
see what god did to us man?
-
Expand Quote
Does anybody else but me ever wonder about the fact that the bible says gold has value in heaven?
1 dubloon = eternal salvation
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.
There's no debate in science that we evolved from a common ancestor. Not because of presuppositions, but because of overwhelming evidence in several fields of study.
There is quite a debate, its just a matter of if you are willing to listen to it. And, everyone has presuppositions in research. It's just a matter of if the presuppositions are correct. The "evidence" for evolution is far from overwhelming, it is actually quite suspect but Atheists hang on to the theory for dear life as it is the only other (somewhat) viable option to Creation.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.
Christianity is actually the solution to self centeredness (or, it can and ought to be applied this way). If evolution were true, why not get all that you can while on this earth? But, since God exists and sent His son to die for the sins of the world, once you trust in Him you can then, out of sheer thankfulness for that loving sacrifice, serve others rather than ourselves in humility. Also knowing that man is not the highest intellect, but God is, and He ought to be worshiped in humility because of this.
This is the essence of John 3:16
"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."
Are we good enough on our own? ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo&t=2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo&t=2s)
no matter what, our view of the world is human centric. but the religious view of the world is human centric on steroids, rife with delusion, denial, fantasy, subjectivity, arbitrariness, fallacies, bias, etc. and has no qualms about it and is absolutely unwilling to account for it.
I respectfully disagree with you on the matter.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Then once you've convinced me of the existence of the Christian God, we can start talking about if the Christian God is good or moral for any reason other than declaring himself to be so. (Spoiler: he is not.)
By what standard would you be basing/determining the Christian God to be either moral (i.e., good) or not moral (i.e., evil)?
The standard is the Bible in which he commands his followers to slaughter other people and covilzations merelt they don't follow or believe in the Juseo-Christian god. That's not what I think a moral or just person would do because I don't think that bigotry is a moral standing.
I am willing to get to the other challenges you raise, but first, again, by what standard are you saying that the God of the Bible is immoral?
-
this is prolly gonna sound dumb, do bare in mind i am two 40z deep but i always thought if there were a god that we exist inside of it, kind of like how all the cells in our bodies make us. maybe we're the good and bad voices inside it's head and maybe it's a great awareness we live in.
This view you present is not dumb at all. Its a form of Pantheism, the view that everything is God and humans exist inside of that context as part of the overall God-scheme. Some major world religions hold to it as well as prominent philosophers, etc.
I personally think there are problems with the view, but its not dumb. I actually understand how someone could believe it.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god
disabled comments because that guys a pussy
Computers are programmed, which proves they have a programer. This has illustrative purposes in that just as the complex information in computers has been programmed, so has the complex DNA in biological life been programmed by an intelligent programmer.
Also, minds (such as in humans) would necessarily come to be (that is, have been caused to exist) by an uncaused Mind, that is God.
By your own logic, why don't you just believe that the whole universe (that is everything you believe to exist) isn't just a complex simulation/program? Wouldn't that make more logical sense than some fairy tale/santa claus ...
Well, who programmed the program/simulation, then? There would have to be a programmer (i.e., God). that is the point of the illustration, and, it is valid.
I get the illustration, but it doesn't make sense because we know in the bible that it says the earth, heavens and man, were created by God in a very specific manner..and at this point, knowing what we know about how the world around us works, it just doesn't seem logical or believable at all.
A more believable 'creator' scenario .. The cosmos was created ie:simulated, by a team of programmers. They based the simulation on the world around them (which is also a simulation, previously created). And so.. we live inside one of a seemingly infinite number of embedded simulations. Your God is simply a story told inside that simulation. Eventually perhaps we will have the knowledge and technology to create yet another expanding, evolving universe simulation, very similar to the one we live in.
I am not saying that this is what i believe, I am saying it's more believable than the Christian God explanation.
Just about any scenario that is presented like this does not account for a first principle or cause. Where did the programmers come from, etc. etc. etc.?
This is precisely why I hold to the Christian worldview, as the first principle issue is settled in the very first verse of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
And, the claim of Genesis 1:1 is supported by logic, science, and philosophy.
-
Expand Quote
1. It doesn't really take a a lot of physics to understand that if the earth were under 100,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see objects in space that are millions(+) light years away from us. The light wouldn't have made it here yet. Hell, that's simply basic astronomy, that's not even considering other scientific disciplines like geology and archaeology, among others.
2. Humanism is a personal philosophy... as far as a being a materialist, I tend to lean towards all observable things being based on particles directly (like matter), or fields (like gravity, as the existence of gravitons {a proposed particle responsible for gravity} still has yet to graduate into a full on scientific theory). Also, if we're talking about *everything* in the cosmos, the issue of dark matter and dark energy (which really needs a new label) come into play... we can observe the effects of both. I tend to lean towards dark matter being particle based, and dark energy being similar, though the particles may not have mass, but to that, it's strictly conjecture.
I wouldn't classify my understanding as "materialist" so much as I would better identify as a naturalist.
Expand Quote
Fair enough, but you missed my points on General Relativity and time dilation. There are two ways that the travel of starlight can be explained according to Genesis. One is that they are simply age dating factors, that is, put in place with the appearance of age (much like how Adam and Eve were created as grown humans, trees were created as fully matured rather than seeds, etc.).
Nevertheless, I don't think creationists are necessarily locked into this box at all. According to General Relativity and in further accordance with the attending time dilation, before day 3 in Genesis 1, the heavens were being 'stretched out' by God, and, just as we see different gravitational pulls in the Universe today, these pulls would have a direct effect on how time was being meaded out in the earliest stages of the universe.
In short, 100,000 years or less passed here on earth during the Genesis creation week, but the time out in the early Universe as it was being stretched out and formed was (and still is) relative to the local gravitational pulls of the cosmos and came forth in much longer stretches of time based on Relativity.
There is obviously a lot more to explain here (and I can spell out my further understanding of the model, if you are interested).
But, what is problematic is the Big Bang model of origins (especially outside of the context of Genesis as a guide). The two problems that come to mind are the impossibility of a valid naturalistic explanation for a cosmic singularity that would bring all time, matter, and space into existence out of nothing. And how, since there is much inhomogeneous clumping of galaxies together this counters the uniformity of distribution that would be present if the Big Bang were true. That is, if the Big Bang model were correct, the galaxies would not be in clumps but would rather have homogenous distribution throughout the universe. This Galaxy clustering (and many other factors) are evidence against the purported uniformed 'cosmological principle' that the Big Bang model relies on. If these cannot be answered, then folks are simply assuming the Big Bang model to be true without supporting its claims.
I am open to hear any explanations you may have for these (and other problems) with Big Bang cosmology. And, conversely, I am hoping that you would be willing to look further into the Relativity/Time-dilation Genesis model put forth by noted particle physicists, D. Russel Humphries:
Here is the briefest summarization of this cosmology that i am aware of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU)
The bottom line (in my understanding)m is that the Bible is true as far as origins are concerned, and Humphries' model not only coincides with Einstein's' theories of Relativity, but also coincides and affirms the Bible that says:
"He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." Job 9:8
(PS: Thank you for cracking the door open further on this aspect of discussion, I would love to continue as time permits. Have a good weekend, BTW)
Billionths of a second after the "big bang," the universe as it was at the time was pretty homogenous. Galaxies and most elements came millions of years later, as stars started from the beginning of the periodic table and eventually gave rise to more elemental/chemically complex nuclear reactors. With that, we saw the development of various localized gravitational fields that account for everything from solar systems to galaxy clusters (completely consistent with thermodynamics).
To think that the universe poofed into existence with the various types of stars fully formed (close to Earth), then stretched out, pulling stars away from the Earth, just doesn't make any sense (as Humphreys goes into). While there is cosmic expansion, what you and he are actually proposing is that everything was stretched way from this planet at a speed faster than light, and we're essentially looking at things in space the way we predict we'd see things on a black hole's event horizon (the holographic principle). It doesn't make sense that everything would be pulled away from everything else so quickly from this planet, then slowed down into the current rate of cosmic expansion (an expansion that does go faster than the speed of light outside of the observable universe, coinciding with relativity). If the supernatural "stretching" had occurred (using time dilation), our daytime and nighttime sky would be blindingly flooded with light.
His "timeless zone" hypothesis is frankly insane. He's twisting logic like a pretzel... he's saying that the stars moved away at the speed of light (which would have taken billions of years), but also claiming that there was no time, ignoring the fact that space and time are intertwined. I'd also add that his idea that the universe being geocentric is utter rubbish. Space expands at every point, not just away from our planet. If we were at any other location in space, we'd see the same relative expansion, and we'd see it expand exponentially until that space (beyond the visible universe) reached a relative speed faster than light.
The problem with pseudo-academic creationists is that hypotheses have to be force-fit into a presupposition, up to the point that the respective hypothesis becomes so convoluted and absurd that it invalidates itself. If you ignore the scientific method, it's not science at all.
This depth of conversation takes time and effort, but I think it is a fruitful discussion. I printed out your response, I will carefully re-read it and consider your points, and then respond when I can put the needed time into having a clear and better understanding of where you are coming from. Thanks for checking out Humphries BTW.
-
Expand Quote
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I simply think it is inconsistent to be vegan/vegetarian and also be pro-abortion. You have indicated that you also see the inconsistency there.
Nevertheless, the handful of arguments that you have put forth that would support abortion are, in my understanding, mostly suspect.
Now, do I believe the world should be forced to go vegan? Absolutely not, the same way I don't believe every fertilized human ovary needs to be forced into the world. I brought up rape, incest and a few other valid exceptions to the rule in my initial post, do you honestly believe that women who are raped should be forced to give birth to that child? If so, I'd love to hear your justifications on that one...
Expand Quote
The 'woman's body' argument fails because from the time of conception, a fertilized ovum is its own 46 chromosomal entity, and it therefore its very own person (i.e., it is not the woman/mother, and, in about 50% of the cases its actually a male).
And, the judicial laws and rules of societal behavior in general also apply to women, so authorities and other citizens tell women (and men) what to do all the time, such as obey traffic laws, or pay your bill at a restaurant, etc. So people tell women what to do with their 'bodies' and lives every day without any controversy. The point being that it is unfounded to just pull that argument out of the hat and try to apply it to so-called abortion rights.
Even more to this point, it was a bunch of men on the supreme court that ruled in favor of abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision, thus it was men telling women that they could subject their bodies (as well as the bodies of the unborn) to abortion procedures. Where is the cry of injustice of men telling women what they can do via Roe v. Wade? There obviously isn't any cry against this. Which is just another example of the inconsistency of the line of argument you are referencing.
Expand Quote
Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion.
Expand Quote
Another thing, to attempt to dismiss (although I do realize and appreciate that you are being respectful in this dialogue) my arguments as being outdated because they are Christian (and thus have a tether to ancient times) is actually a logical fallacy. It is called a 'chronological fallacy' and presumes that old truth claims cannot be true because they are old. And, it presumes that all new (or newer) truth claims are by default true (or truer) than the old. This is simply not the cause, a statement can be old or new and be either true or false, based on whether or not the claim accurately expresses the facts of the world.
Expand Quote
What is more, to claim that I am not an 'out of the box thinker' is aimed more at me than my arguments, and doesn't really directly address the logic (or purported ill-logic) of what I am saying.
Expand Quote
Notwithstanding, I personally think you are in a decent spot as far as the consistency of your views on diet/abortion go. But, I would say that it would be good to consider the pro-life argument further.
Just about every argument in favor of abortion can be refuted by the means of establishing the human personhood of the unborn from the time of conception.
Okay let's pretend for a second I am 100% on board with you as a pro-lifer (and I've actually demonstrated this through my actions), you still haven't outlined why you think it's justifiable for humans to needlessly slaughter 60 billion sentient creatures every year when one your god's most famous teachings is "thou shall not kill". thou is killing no?
Please indicate the trait that unborn fetuses possess, and that animals lack, that make you so adamant about protecting the life of one and not the other!
Just about every argument in favor of eating meat can be refuted with a simple discussion of ethics ;)
Fair enough. With the emotionally hard cases such as rape or incest, this is where the human personhood of the fetus is even more important. If the fetus is, in fact, a precious unborn human person (which I believe science and philosophy demonstrate) then there is no justifiable reason to kill it. Why punish the innocent child for the crime of the rapist? Also, a lot of times what is not discussed is the unavoidable psychological scars that abortion leaves on the mother. Why lump the additional depression causing trauma on someone who has been raped? As difficult as such situations are, there is still to positive justification for abortion.
As far as abstinence from meat products goes, I am not fundamentally against refraining from meat/dairy consumption and I support a persons free speech right to disseminate information in those regards.
Nevertheless, since you referenced the Bible, I am willing to present a biblical case for the allowance of eating meat (if that would be of interest to you).
Also, if you don't mind me asking, are you by any chance Buddhist?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Then once you've convinced me of the existence of the Christian God, we can start talking about if the Christian God is good or moral for any reason other than declaring himself to be so. (Spoiler: he is not.)
By what standard would you be basing/determining the Christian God to be either moral (i.e., good) or not moral (i.e., evil)?
The standard is the Bible in which he commands his followers to slaughter other people and covilzations merelt they don't follow or believe in the Juseo-Christian god. That's not what I think a moral or just person would do because I don't think that bigotry is a moral standing.
I am willing to get to the other challenges you raise, but first, again, by what standard are you saying that the God of the Bible is immoral?
Or, more precisely, by what standard are you saying that the Bible's representation is that of an immoral God?
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eujCeBC4Lh0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eujCeBC4Lh0#)
-
Expand Quote
Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.
In short, much of this purported paleontological evidence is suspect. and there has been a book authored called "Bones of Contention" that refutes the work done in this field that has been used to try to support evolution. If you would be willing to read the book, I would buy you a copy and send it to your house (PM me if interested and/or please do continue to put forth purported evidences in this regard).
Bottom line, evolutionary paleontologists go into their research with the presupposition that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, so they simply crunch their data to support their presuppositions (Note: presuppositions are unavoidable when doing research, but the evolutionary presuppositions continue to go unsupported, but rather 'shouted' by evolutionary scientists in spite of the evidence)
Fossils of ancient hominin species are still being found. The story of Homo naledi, whose bones were found a couple years ago, might be interesting to you: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/homo-naledi-human-evolution-science/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/homo-naledi-human-evolution-science/)
Also, evolutionary geneticists have been sequencing genomes of ancient species and finding out that human evolution also involved hybridization of Homo sapiens with extinct human groups such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. DNA testing of modern humans has borne this out. There is proof of evolution in your genes.
Paleontologists go into their research assuming evolution is true because everything they've learned has proven it to be. And until some massive trove of evidence and research comes along that proves it is wrong, they will continue to do their research in this way. I don't see anything wrong with that. It seems you approach any materials about evolution with the belief that it's false when you have far less of a basis for thinking that than these researchers have for believing it's a solid theory with a large body of research to support it.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god
disabled comments because that guys a pussy
Computers are programmed, which proves they have a programer. This has illustrative purposes in that just as the complex information in computers has been programmed, so has the complex DNA in biological life been programmed by an intelligent programmer.
Also, minds (such as in humans) would necessarily come to be (that is, have been caused to exist) by an uncaused Mind, that is God.
By your own logic, why don't you just believe that the whole universe (that is everything you believe to exist) isn't just a complex simulation/program? Wouldn't that make more logical sense than some fairy tale/santa claus ...
Well, who programmed the program/simulation, then? There would have to be a programmer (i.e., God). that is the point of the illustration, and, it is valid.
I get the illustration, but it doesn't make sense because we know in the bible that it says the earth, heavens and man, were created by God in a very specific manner..and at this point, knowing what we know about how the world around us works, it just doesn't seem logical or believable at all.
A more believable 'creator' scenario .. The cosmos was created ie:simulated, by a team of programmers. They based the simulation on the world around them (which is also a simulation, previously created). And so.. we live inside one of a seemingly infinite number of embedded simulations. Your God is simply a story told inside that simulation. Eventually perhaps we will have the knowledge and technology to create yet another expanding, evolving universe simulation, very similar to the one we live in.
I am not saying that this is what i believe, I am saying it's more believable than the Christian God explanation.
Just about any scenario that is presented like this does not account for a first principle or cause. Where did the programmers come from, etc. etc. etc.?
This is precisely why I hold to the Christian worldview, as the first principle issue is settled in the very first verse of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
And, the claim of Genesis 1:1 is supported by logic, science, and philosophy.
Dude, Genesis 1:1 doesn't account for first principle or cause. Where did god come from?
Does god believe in god? ..not himself, but does god believe in a higher power?
also super honest question..Is there any part of you that thinks Jesus might have just been a super charismatic cult leader?
-
maybe this has been brought up, and maybe this is a dumb question, but were other humans besides Adam and Eve created by god, or did the entire human race come two people? If it were just Adam and Eve, that's where I've gotta call bullshit.
-
maybe this has been brought up, and maybe this is a dumb question, but we're other humans besides Adam and Eve created by god, or did the entire human race come two people? If it were just Adam and Eve, that's where I've gotta call bullshit.
I don't know any of that shit and I went to CCD school and did all the church shit growing up. There's this nice little commandant though that's basically in every religion and it basically says treat others how you would want to be treated. Strange how no one follows that when they are huge religious freaks
-
maybe this has been brought up, and maybe this is a dumb question, but were other humans besides Adam and Eve created by god, or did the entire human race come two people? If it were just Adam and Eve, that's where I've gotta call bullshit.
It's definitely bullshit, but at the same time, it takes a couple generations of inbreeding for genetic defects. In no way am I condoning incest, for any of you that may be into your siblings or cousins.
-
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
-
I wonder if you died and went to heaven and God said, "Your thread 'Evidence for God' on SLAP actually turned people away from me," would you still get an E for effort, NT for nice try? Would God take into account that you meant well, even though your actions actually sent some people to the eternal lake of fire, where the rending of clothes, gnashing of teeth and unquenchable thirst would consume them forever?
-
I wonder if you died and went to heaven and God said, "Your thread 'Evidence for God' on SLAP actually turned people away from me," would you still get an E for effort, NT for nice try? Would God take into account that you meant well, even though your actions actually sent some people to the eternal lake of fire, where the rending of clothes, gnashing of teeth and unquenchable thirst would consume them forever?
Heaven is kind of like Amway, so he's only going to get silver level, at best, where there's a shitty, all-you-can-eat, Chinese buffet. He's not going to get in the platinum or diamond level, where he can play Twister with Nixon and Pope John Paul II.
-
There's nothing shitty about Chinese buffet.
-
There's nothing shitty about Chinese buffet.
You've never been to Wang's Smorge then... My Grandfather, as wise as he was, had terrible taste in Chinese food.
https://www.yelp.com/biz/wangs-smorge-modesto (https://www.yelp.com/biz/wangs-smorge-modesto)
-
There's nothing shitty about Chinese buffet.
I guess you've never seen roaches in a restaurant, or had low-quality, Chinese food.
-
I like how Friday is Simon's day to come on SLAP and simply go nuts on his keyboard, props to you for trying to be in multiple debates at once mate...
Fair enough. With the emotionally hard cases such as rape or incest, this is where the human personhood of the fetus is even more important. If the fetus is, in fact, a precious unborn human person (which I believe science and philosophy demonstrate) then there is no justifiable reason to kill it. Why punish the innocent child for the crime of the rapist? Also, a lot of times what is not discussed is the unavoidable psychological scars that abortion leaves on the mother. Why lump the additional depression causing trauma on someone who has been raped? As difficult as such situations are, there is still to positive justification for abortion.
I don't think either of us are in any position to be able to judge what is best for ALL women in the case of rape mate; I would argue that each person deals with the trauma in a different way and thus forcing them to go down either path is a violation of basic human rights. To use your own arguments against you: why punish a woman who has already been raped? why lump the additional depression causing trauma (not to mention financial burden) on someone who has been raped?
I'd also like you to get some female input here bro because it's all fine and dandy when two dudes are chatting on a skate message board but could you seriously look your mother/ wife/ sister/ female friends etc. straight in the face and say, "well I'm sorry you got raped but you've got to have this baby because ... (wait for it) ... there is still no positive justification for abortion" ?
c'mon man, for someone whose religion preaches love and respect for their fellow (wo)man, that stance certainly lacks a lot of empathy from your camp.
Also, you failed to touch on the whole mother's health thing, but if I suddenly came to know that my wife's life would be in danger because of child birth, I would 100% be in favor of her living vs. her having the child and then passing away. Having said that, I'd also be 100% in favour of accepting her final decision either way because I respect, and love, her as a human being. If you are can't understand where I'm coming from here then I feel our debate is done... sorry, but I can't take you seriously as a religious man (or even as a human in general) as that sounds like the thought process of a psychopath. If I get no reply from you on this particular point, then we are done!
You mentioned science (because we all like to have science on our side right?) but again, I don't think science is on your side here hence why the medical community, in conjunction with the research carried out, have decided on a figure of around week 13 or less for the majority of abortions (91% in case you forgot the stat!). This is long before the fetus develops any sort of sentience/ ability to feel pain.
Is it a living organism? For sure! Does it react to outside stimuli? No doubt, but if you are going to go down that route why aren't you protesting against people who "holocaust" their gardens when mowing the lawn? What about dudes who jack off into tissues? billions of dead organisms right there! precious life tho right?
This is where I feel your argument is shaky at best because if we start the whole "name the trait" game, you're going to have to start standing up for the "death" of a plethora of other non-sentient things that share similar traits to that of an unborn fetus. Sentience is my base-line, what is yours?
As far as abstinence from meat products goes, I am not fundamentally against refraining from meat/dairy consumption and I support a persons free speech right to disseminate information in those regards.
so ... in the case of killing/ consuming animals you're pro-choice then huh? :D I'm going to quote on this one mate, you said it, not me :p
Nevertheless, since you referenced the Bible, I am willing to present a biblical case for the allowance of eating meat (if that would be of interest to you).
You are free to do so but I'm guessing that back then it was a lot easier to justify said actions when we weren't specifically rearing 60 billion animals annually solely for the purpose of slaughtering them (and profiting from said death).
Yes, you can present your biblical case and guess what? I'll probably agree with it in that certain context/ time period but god alone (or something he said hundreds of years ago) is not an infinite excuse for a certain behavior/ action. It's like Halal food, I don't give a fuck how you killed an animal, you still killed it and in my eyes that is going against the very fibre of your religion and any sense of compassion that you claim to have.
Simon, it's 2017, you live in developed country with a massive variety of non-animal based food options available to you, why do YOU specifically still choose to contribute to the death and suffering of sentient beings/ god's creatures when you could EASILY avoid doing so? I want to know your personal justification here not some 1000 year old out of date/ context quote from the bible.
Your god said, "thou shall not kill", it's one of his most famous teachings and yet you contribute to massive amounts of killing with your food choices on the daily when you don't need to. Please outline your reasons for doing so while being strongly opposed to abortion. Again, if you are having trouble with your answer go back to my original question to you:
Please indicate the trait that unborn fetuses possess, and that animals lack, that make you so adamant about protecting the life of one and not the other
Also, if you don't mind me asking, are you by any chance Buddhist?
not at all, Buddhism also has a terrible track record with hypocrisy in regard to animal rights (not to mention all that pent up homophobia) despite also sharing a "you know, you guys probably shouldn't kill other living things yeah?" mindset.
I don't think fundamentally religions are necessarily evil and I do think that there are some valuable lessons within these texts and teachings, but it becomes very hard to take them seriously when at a base-level most religions preach non-violence and yet their followers are happy to cause unnecessary suffering and violence on a daily basis. I also fail able to comprehend why these type of people are unable to adapt their religions to our current situation(s)/ way of life...
-
re: grass in garden. for most people it's less like holocausting and more like haircutting. just sayin...
don't mean to pick the splinter out of your ear when I've got a log in mine.
-
re: grass in garden. for most people it's less like holocausting and more like haircutting. just sayin...
#plantlivesmatter
-
Expand Quote
There's nothing shitty about Chinese buffet.
Of course I have.
-
Expand Quote
1. It doesn't really take a a lot of physics to understand that if the earth were under 100,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see objects in space that are millions(+) light years away from us. The light wouldn't have made it here yet. Hell, that's simply basic astronomy, that's not even considering other scientific disciplines like geology and archaeology, among others.
2. Humanism is a personal philosophy... as far as a being a materialist, I tend to lean towards all observable things being based on particles directly (like matter), or fields (like gravity, as the existence of gravitons {a proposed particle responsible for gravity} still has yet to graduate into a full on scientific theory). Also, if we're talking about *everything* in the cosmos, the issue of dark matter and dark energy (which really needs a new label) come into play... we can observe the effects of both. I tend to lean towards dark matter being particle based, and dark energy being similar, though the particles may not have mass, but to that, it's strictly conjecture.
I wouldn't classify my understanding as "materialist" so much as I would better identify as a naturalist.
Expand Quote
Fair enough, but you missed my points on General Relativity and time dilation. There are two ways that the travel of starlight can be explained according to Genesis. One is that they are simply age dating factors, that is, put in place with the appearance of age (much like how Adam and Eve were created as grown humans, trees were created as fully matured rather than seeds, etc.).
Nevertheless, I don't think creationists are necessarily locked into this box at all. According to General Relativity and in further accordance with the attending time dilation, before day 3 in Genesis 1, the heavens were being 'stretched out' by God, and, just as we see different gravitational pulls in the Universe today, these pulls would have a direct effect on how time was being meaded out in the earliest stages of the universe.
In short, 100,000 years or less passed here on earth during the Genesis creation week, but the time out in the early Universe as it was being stretched out and formed was (and still is) relative to the local gravitational pulls of the cosmos and came forth in much longer stretches of time based on Relativity.
There is obviously a lot more to explain here (and I can spell out my further understanding of the model, if you are interested).
But, what is problematic is the Big Bang model of origins (especially outside of the context of Genesis as a guide). The two problems that come to mind are the impossibility of a valid naturalistic explanation for a cosmic singularity that would bring all time, matter, and space into existence out of nothing. And how, since there is much inhomogeneous clumping of galaxies together this counters the uniformity of distribution that would be present if the Big Bang were true. That is, if the Big Bang model were correct, the galaxies would not be in clumps but would rather have homogenous distribution throughout the universe. This Galaxy clustering (and many other factors) are evidence against the purported uniformed 'cosmological principle' that the Big Bang model relies on. If these cannot be answered, then folks are simply assuming the Big Bang model to be true without supporting its claims.
I am open to hear any explanations you may have for these (and other problems) with Big Bang cosmology. And, conversely, I am hoping that you would be willing to look further into the Relativity/Time-dilation Genesis model put forth by noted particle physicists, D. Russel Humphries:
Here is the briefest summarization of this cosmology that i am aware of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU)
The bottom line (in my understanding)m is that the Bible is true as far as origins are concerned, and Humphries' model not only coincides with Einstein's' theories of Relativity, but also coincides and affirms the Bible that says:
"He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." Job 9:8
(PS: Thank you for cracking the door open further on this aspect of discussion, I would love to continue as time permits. Have a good weekend, BTW)
Billionths of a second after the "big bang," the universe as it was at the time was pretty homogenous. Galaxies and most elements came millions of years later, as stars started from the beginning of the periodic table and eventually gave rise to more elemental/chemically complex nuclear reactors. With that, we saw the development of various localized gravitational fields that account for everything from solar systems to galaxy clusters (completely consistent with thermodynamics).
To think that the universe poofed into existence with the various types of stars fully formed (close to Earth), then stretched out, pulling stars away from the Earth, just doesn't make any sense (as Humphreys goes into). While there is cosmic expansion, what you and he are actually proposing is that everything was stretched way from this planet at a speed faster than light, and we're essentially looking at things in space the way we predict we'd see things on a black hole's event horizon (the holographic principle). It doesn't make sense that everything would be pulled away from everything else so quickly from this planet, then slowed down into the current rate of cosmic expansion (an expansion that does go faster than the speed of light outside of the observable universe, coinciding with relativity). If the supernatural "stretching" had occurred (using time dilation), our daytime and nighttime sky would be blindingly flooded with light.
His "timeless zone" hypothesis is frankly insane. He's twisting logic like a pretzel... he's saying that the stars moved away at the speed of light (which would have taken billions of years), but also claiming that there was no time, ignoring the fact that space and time are intertwined. I'd also add that his idea that the universe being geocentric is utter rubbish. Space expands at every point, not just away from our planet. If we were at any other location in space, we'd see the same relative expansion, and we'd see it expand exponentially until that space (beyond the visible universe) reached a relative speed faster than light.
The problem with pseudo-academic creationists is that hypotheses have to be force-fit into a presupposition, up to the point that the respective hypothesis becomes so convoluted and absurd that it invalidates itself. If you ignore the scientific method, it's not science at all.
What we are discussing there is Cosmogony, which is different (although certainly related to) Cosmology.
Cosmogony is the study of the universe as we currently observe it, and Cosmology is forensic; a historical science that estimates how the universe began, based on what evidence we do have currently extant (also based on philosophy, etc.). Therefore, some of that you are claiming that evolutionists saw or see is more along the lines of what evolutionists think might have happened based on the evidence that we now see in nature since no human was there at the very beginning of things.
Extemporaneously, what you are positing about the early universe and the gradualistic development of stars, even if somehow shown to have happened in the face of entropy, is simply not probable. That is, even if the universe is a trillion years old and was homogenous early on as you say, the chance that all of the (physical, scientific, natural) complexity that is observable in the universe arose from simple forms and came about by chance through unguided processes goes beyond any and all statistical probability of ever happening.
Nevertheless, in brief defense of what I had proposed to you: D. Russell Humphries Ph.D is basically saying that that the Bible affirmed that the universe was not eternal, and did so before the science of the modern day caught up to the prediction (i.e., secular scientists held to a steady state/eternal universe for years before the Big Bang theory came on the scene).
Psalm 147:4-5 argues against the previously popular steady state universe in that Bible affirms that the stars are numerable (i.e., not infinite in number and thus not eternal) and that, in contrast, God is infinite and able to count them.
He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name. Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite. (Ps. 147:4-5)
Russ is also pointing out that the Bible predicted/affirmed the expansion of the universe as well.
Isaiah 40:21-22 is used to support this: Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle [sphere] of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
(In my understanding, these accuracies from thousands of years ago put the Bible ahead of finite evolutionary science presuppositions).
After pointing out that the Bible is therefore useful as a guide to cosmology, Humphries then hypothesizes that since logic tells us, based on the expansion of the universe, that the cosmos was obviously much smaller in its early history that the time frames of the developmental aspects of the features of the universe (most specifically stars, and their subsequent starlight travel patterns as God was creating them in one 24 hr. earth-clock day) were quite different than what we observe today.
Pointed summarization of the Starlight and Time cosmology.
- The universe has a boundary and a center. The earth is the center of the cosmos as evidenced in that we can see distant galaxies positioned in all different directions from earth; supported further by the red shift in all directions from the perspective of our planet and the galaxy cluster patterns that coincide with the red shifts, etc.
- In accordance with General Relativity, gravitational energy affects time. That is, gravitational potential energy has affect on time duration in geographical proximity throughout the cosmos. (I think this is actually the main point that you missed)
- When the universe was in its early stages of development (day 4 of creation) it was much smaller in size (which Big Bang theorists also hold to by default) and therefore the gravitational energy was large and its affect on the matter of the cosmos much greater.
- This time dilation by way of gravitational energy is not just theoretical but is observable here on earth when atomic clocks are placed at different elevations (ranging from below sea level to high mountaintops) as they have differentiation in time keeping due to the differences in gravitational energy affect on them.
- When the universe was smaller (at the beginning of day 4 of creation), the gravitational potential energy was much greater. Thus producing a slow time duration on earth, and subsequently a much more rapid advancement of time at the edge of the universe. So, from the earth?s perspective, the stars where formed in a 24 hr. day, and from the perspective of the outer limits of the universe, it took billions of years. If you were to be standing on the earth then and if you could see the stars being formed in the outer regions, star formation (theoretically) would look much like videotape does when it is played in fast forward mode.
Important things to note: This is a biblical creation model in accordance with General Relativity. There are certainly differences of opinion (i.e., not all creationists hold to the Starlight and Time model) but there are also other creationists doing cosmologies in accordance with Einstein's theory (Dr. Danny Faulkner comes to mind). And, theories like Humphries? here posit aspects of cosmological physics that are not only consistent with Relativity, but also express fundamental aspects of it.
In general argument against your challenges: The beliefs held by credentialed evolutionary cosmologists are quite different than the understanding propagated to the populace -- that a small dot of matter exploded billions of years ago and is continually expanding throughout pre-existent space. Rather, the evolutionary Big Bang model held by scholars (Hawking, Ellis, et. el.) assumes that everything (i.e., time, matter, and space) is expanding into a 4th dimension of hyperspace. The point being that the scholarly view of expansion into a 4th dimension is held without any substantial proof of naturalistic evidence for a dimension beyond time, matter, and space.
I will also speak towards your specific challenges of the cosmic light blinding of earth etc.; Humphries has had his model challenged (even by fellow creationists) over the years and is making adjustments. For what its worth, he has progressed the postulate that time stood still for everything inside of the event horizon on day 4 of creation and generally posits much variation in expansion. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that you are simply overly committed to the naturalistic explanation of the expansion of space and thus do not understand where Humphries is coming from.
[Also, Humphries does offer some general technical physics support for his theory here if you are interested https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_84-92.pdf (https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_84-92.pdf) ]
What is more, the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe is not utter rubbish and was even held by one of the greatest thinkers in all of history, Aristotle. Nevertheless, the exact location of the center of the universe is debated amongst Bible believing scientists (example, creationist physicist Danny Faulkner believes that the earth is not the center, while he still posits both a center and boundary of the universe based on his research). The point here being that evolutionists typically pre-suppose that there is no center and boundary of the universe, and they do so based entirely on their ideology (i.e., unsupported beliefs).
At this point I will concede that Humphries has basically come up with a plausible explanation for the appearance of age in the cosmos, and I personally prefer his model over the day age theory and/or the progressive creationist's theories that the days of Genesis are long stretches of time rather than 24 hr periods, etc. And, his model is in accordance with General Relativity and takes into account other substantial findings in the fields of physics, astronomy, and the like. It just so happens to fit his biblical worldview and subsequently challenge Big bang cosmology.
Nevertheless, if you are claiming that D. Russell Humphries is not an academic, you are simply wrong. He worked at the prestigious Sandia laboratories for years, has been published, without controversy, in scholarly physics journals, and has an extensive list of achievements in the filed of science (awards, patents, etc.). See here: https: //creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv
What is more, if your implications are that all creationists are pseudo scientists, well, you would have to stay consistent there and lump all other historical creationists such as Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Keplar, Lord Kelvin, etc. into your group of non-scientists which, would be obviously absurd and completely out of step with the historical development of science.
Then, you would have to step off from the shoulders of these giants (Newton, Keplar, Kelvin, etc.), the very men that were integral in developing scientific methodology, a methodology you are wanting to explicitly reference when arguing against Creationism.
Basically, what one does by trying to categorize Creationists (while still in the gate) as not being scientific is stacking the deck against Creationism without first supporting the claim that it is non-scientific; such tactics are considered to be fallacious argumentation.
That being said, the burden of proof is really on you to successfully show evidence against supernaturalism and also show that ?methodological naturalism? is the only way to do science and/or has the only valid explanations for aspects of nature. (This is what is usually meant when an evolutionist references the scientific method, they mean that the presupposition of naturalism is the only allowable approach to science, which again, is a presupposition that needs to first be supported by evidence).
With do respect, in sum, your counter assertions are committed to an evolutionary worldview and what you are presenting is simply taken out of the ongoing evolutionary story book . . . a story that is based on the unsupportable presupposition of anti-supernaturalism. The science of the day changes over time, while the truths of God are immutable. I simply prefer to base my worldview on bedrock rather than shifting sand.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
guess computers have souls and also prove the existence of god
disabled comments because that guys a pussy
Computers are programmed, which proves they have a programer. This has illustrative purposes in that just as the complex information in computers has been programmed, so has the complex DNA in biological life been programmed by an intelligent programmer.
Also, minds (such as in humans) would necessarily come to be (that is, have been caused to exist) by an uncaused Mind, that is God.
By your own logic, why don't you just believe that the whole universe (that is everything you believe to exist) isn't just a complex simulation/program? Wouldn't that make more logical sense than some fairy tale/santa claus ...
Well, who programmed the program/simulation, then? There would have to be a programmer (i.e., God). that is the point of the illustration, and, it is valid.
I get the illustration, but it doesn't make sense because we know in the bible that it says the earth, heavens and man, were created by God in a very specific manner..and at this point, knowing what we know about how the world around us works, it just doesn't seem logical or believable at all.
A more believable 'creator' scenario .. The cosmos was created ie:simulated, by a team of programmers. They based the simulation on the world around them (which is also a simulation, previously created). And so.. we live inside one of a seemingly infinite number of embedded simulations. Your God is simply a story told inside that simulation. Eventually perhaps we will have the knowledge and technology to create yet another expanding, evolving universe simulation, very similar to the one we live in.
I am not saying that this is what i believe, I am saying it's more believable than the Christian God explanation.
Just about any scenario that is presented like this does not account for a first principle or cause. Where did the programmers come from, etc. etc. etc.?
This is precisely why I hold to the Christian worldview, as the first principle issue is settled in the very first verse of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
And, the claim of Genesis 1:1 is supported by logic, science, and philosophy.
Dude, Genesis 1:1 doesn't account for first principle or cause. Where did god come from?
Does god believe in god? ..not himself, but does god believe in a higher power?
also super honest question..Is there any part of you that thinks Jesus might have just been a super charismatic cult leader?
The Bible also accounts for God being infinite, eternal, immaterial, etc. so when you keep that in mind then there is no need to ask the question of who caused god and an infinite, eternal, immaterial, uncaused being simply cannot have a cause of its existence.
As far as your question about Jesus. that certainly comes up in the discussion. I think if you read the new testament, though, the account of Jesus' life gives no indication that He has the characteristics of a cult leader. My personal research has re-affirmed that He is truly the Messiah as He claimed to be.
That is actually the deciding factor as far as my response to your question. Jesus claimed to be God and supported the claim.
This short article might be of some help in understanding if interested: https://www.gotquestions.org/divinity-of-Christ.html (https://www.gotquestions.org/divinity-of-Christ.html)
-
maybe this has been brought up, and maybe this is a dumb question, but were other humans besides Adam and Eve created by god, or did the entire human race come two people? If it were just Adam and Eve, that's where I've gotta call bullshit.
In my understanding, Adam and Eve are the first people to have been created.
I am always open for discussion on such matters. But, if you are up for a short article on a literal Adam and Eve, here is a link: https://www.gotquestions.org/Adam-and-Eve-story.html (https://www.gotquestions.org/Adam-and-Eve-story.html)
-
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
-
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
Swear on my mama if god creates some sort of fuck up at our local dominos and they deliver a pizza (already paid for of course) to my house right now ill devote my life to christianity and become a monk
-
I like how Friday is Simon's day to come on SLAP and simply go nuts on his keyboard, props to you for trying to be in multiple debates at once mate...
Expand Quote
Fair enough. With the emotionally hard cases such as rape or incest, this is where the human personhood of the fetus is even more important. If the fetus is, in fact, a precious unborn human person (which I believe science and philosophy demonstrate) then there is no justifiable reason to kill it. Why punish the innocent child for the crime of the rapist? Also, a lot of times what is not discussed is the unavoidable psychological scars that abortion leaves on the mother. Why lump the additional depression causing trauma on someone who has been raped? As difficult as such situations are, there is still to positive justification for abortion.
I'd also like you to get some female input here bro because it's all fine and dandy when two dudes are chatting on a skate message board but could you seriously look your mother/ wife/ sister/ female friends etc. straight in the face and say, "well I'm sorry you got raped but you've got to have this baby because ... (wait for it) ... there is still no positive justification for abortion" ?
c'mon man, for someone whose religion preaches love and respect for their fellow (wo)man, that stance certainly lacks a lot of empathy from your camp.
Also, you failed to touch on the whole mother's health thing, but if I suddenly came to know that my wife's life would be in danger because of child birth, I would 100% be in favor of her living vs. her having the child and then passing away. Having said that, I'd also be 100% in favour of accepting her final decision either way because I respect, and love, her as a human being. If you are can't understand where I'm coming from here then I feel our debate is done... sorry, but I can't take you seriously as a religious man (or even as a human in general) as that sounds like the thought process of a psychopath. If I get no reply from you on this particular point, then we are done!
You mentioned science (because we all like to have science on our side right?) but again, I don't think science is on your side here hence why the medical community, in conjunction with the research carried out, have decided on a figure of around week 13 or less for the majority of abortions (91% in case you forgot the stat!). This is long before the fetus develops any sort of sentience/ ability to feel pain.
Is it a living organism? For sure! Does it react to outside stimuli? No doubt, but if you are going to go down that route why aren't you protesting against people who "holocaust" their gardens when mowing the lawn? What about dudes who jack off into tissues? billions of dead organisms right there! precious life tho right?
This is where I feel your argument is shaky at best because if we start the whole "name the trait" game, you're going to have to start standing up for the "death" of a plethora of other non-sentient things that share similar traits to that of an unborn fetus. Sentience is my base-line, what is yours?
Expand Quote
As far as abstinence from meat products goes, I am not fundamentally against refraining from meat/dairy consumption and I support a persons free speech right to disseminate information in those regards.
Expand Quote
Nevertheless, since you referenced the Bible, I am willing to present a biblical case for the allowance of eating meat (if that would be of interest to you).
Yes, you can present your biblical case and guess what? I'll probably agree with it in that certain context/ time period but god alone (or something he said hundreds of years ago) is not an infinite excuse for a certain behavior/ action. It's like Halal food, I don't give a fuck how you killed an animal, you still killed it and in my eyes that is going against the very fibre of your religion and any sense of compassion that you claim to have.
Simon, it's 2017, you live in developed country with a massive variety of non-animal based food options available to you, why do YOU specifically still choose to contribute to the death and suffering of sentient beings/ god's creatures when you could EASILY avoid doing so? I want to know your personal justification here not some 1000 year old out of date/ context quote from the bible.
Your god said, "thou shall not kill", it's one of his most famous teachings and yet you contribute to massive amounts of killing with your food choices on the daily when you don't need to. Please outline your reasons for doing so while being strongly opposed to abortion. Again, if you are having trouble with your answer go back to my original question to you:
Please indicate the trait that unborn fetuses possess, and that animals lack, that make you so adamant about protecting the life of one and not the other
Expand Quote
Also, if you don't mind me asking, are you by any chance Buddhist?
I don't think fundamentally religions are necessarily evil and I do think that there are some valuable lessons within these texts and teachings, but it becomes very hard to take them seriously when at a base-level most religions preach non-violence and yet their followers are happy to cause unnecessary suffering and violence on a daily basis. I also fail able to comprehend why these type of people are unable to adapt their religions to our current situation(s)/ way of life...
One of the drawbacks to a forum like this is that it can all seem like dry, non-compassionate philosophy in the nuts and bolts of the discussion. A woman who suffers the trauma of a rape and has subsequently become pregnant as a result is obviously a very serous situation and one that should not be handled lightly. It is a traumatic situation that needs to be treated with love and compassion.
There are pointed responses to each of your specific challenges, though. In sum, the ability to feel pain is not a litmus test for being a human person, else people under anesthesia would not be human persons, etc. What is more, if there is a consensus of any community on anything (such as the medical community that you reference, although I would like to see an official source on that stat) what is being committed there is a logical fallacy of a consensus gentium which is just a fancy way saying an argument that appeals to a general consensus of individuals is a fallacious argument. A consensus of scholars should garner ones attention, but the fact that a group of scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. have a general consensus on a matter is not evidence for its truth. a majority of people can be wrong (and they often are) truth is not determined at the ballot box.
For instance, many years ago the general consensus of scientists believed that animal life spontaneously generated from garbage, which is now obviously false (but was never true just because a general consensus believed it to be true). Also, the general consensus of scientists yeas ago was that the planets of the solar system all orbited the earth. This was later proven to be false, but was never true just because at one time a majority of scientists believed it to be fact. In like manor, even if you show multiple verified sources that the medical community affirms human personhood at 13 weeks, it is still the fallacy of consensus gentium.
I could go on, but I will say two things at this point. One is that even when abortion advocated appeal to the special circumstance of pregnancy due to rape, they don't just want to advocate for abortion in these circumstances, but they errantly use the emotionally charged circumstance to somehow cover the blanket argument for abortion on demand. This is fallacious. Its called an extrapolated argument.
Moreover, a very low percentage of rapes result in pregnancy, so again this even minimizes the force of use in abortion advocacy (a classmate of mine, John Fererr, has written on this and other related topics http://reasonsforjesus.com/why-rape-does-not-justify-abortion/ (http://reasonsforjesus.com/why-rape-does-not-justify-abortion/) )
So, respectfully, since science and philosophy are on the side of precious unborn human life beginning at conception (here is a detailed article in support if you are interested https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/when-does-life-begin/ (https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/when-does-life-begin/) ) then you can simply apply any argument you have made (even if in theory) for abortion advocacy to the status of a two moth old baby.
Can anyone justifiably murder a two month old baby because ... it is a financial burden to the mother? can a two month old can be murdered because the child's life *might* be emotionally difficult? ..because it is not as developed as a 4 year old child? .. because it is not self-conscious yet? etc, etc,? the answer to these is no. And, it (murder) would be no insofar as the two month old child of a mother who conceived by rape as well.
Then make mere change in 'zip code' of location of an unborn back inside the womb (i.e., applying the same arguments to an unborn child) and the same proposed murder justifying questions asked of it are still a resounding No.
Putting it another way, you can just ask this same question over and over to find the same No answer. If the unborn is a precious innocent human person, is is okay to murder them when ___________. (fill in the blank, then answer is still no. hence no justifiable instance)
It is based on this philosophy that I believe a mother (actual or potential) should be informed.
Now, as far as your additional question/challenge. That is a different ethical situation. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy (where the fetus is in the fallopian tube and will eventually kill the mother) the status of the fetus actually changes from innocence to that of being a threat to the mother (rather than being innocent) and often the decision is made to terminate the pregnancy and lose the one life rather than take it to term and lose the life of both the child and the mother. As far as ethics is concerned, this is not technically an abortion
( https://www.liveaction.org/news/get-facts-straight-treating-ectopic-pregnancy-not-abortion/ (https://www.liveaction.org/news/get-facts-straight-treating-ectopic-pregnancy-not-abortion/) ) BTW, this is the ethics of Graded Moral Absolutism and is worthy of further study if you are not familiar with the term.
Again, respectfully (and thanks for the thought out chat, BTW) you seem to be doing what abortion advocates usually do by appealing to extreem, atypical, emotionally charged situations to try to make a case for abortion that goes outside of those parameters. Its simply a fallacious way to argue.
Moving forward, you simply seem to not want to hear my biblical case for the allowance of eating animal products, so my guess is that you don't want to hear my argument outside of the Bible referencing Aristotle and the 'hierarchy of being' argument from base to rational being etc.. so I will simply spare them as well at this point.
And, since at the onset you assured me that this entire debate (and I would imagine the denoted debates of God's existence, the validity of the Bible, the deity of Christ, etc.) would boil down to ethics. And, I agree.
So, at this point, I would just politely, yet assertively ask you. By what grounds are you saying that any behavior carried out by humans should be considered to be wrong?
If veganism is just your opinion, then it is just that, your opinion.
By what standard are you saying that to be non-vegan is universally wrong and should be considered to be wrong by everyone?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.
In short, much of this purported paleontological evidence is suspect. and there has been a book authored called "Bones of Contention" that refutes the work done in this field that has been used to try to support evolution. If you would be willing to read the book, I would buy you a copy and send it to your house (PM me if interested and/or please do continue to put forth purported evidences in this regard).
Bottom line, evolutionary paleontologists go into their research with the presupposition that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, so they simply crunch their data to support their presuppositions (Note: presuppositions are unavoidable when doing research, but the evolutionary presuppositions continue to go unsupported, but rather 'shouted' by evolutionary scientists in spite of the evidence)
Fossils of ancient hominin species are still being found. The story of Homo naledi, whose bones were found a couple years ago, might be interesting to you: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/homo-naledi-human-evolution-science/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/homo-naledi-human-evolution-science/)
Also, evolutionary geneticists have been sequencing genomes of ancient species and finding out that human evolution also involved hybridization of Homo sapiens with extinct human groups such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. DNA testing of modern humans has borne this out. There is proof of evolution in your genes.
Paleontologists go into their research assuming evolution is true because everything they've learned has proven it to be. And until some massive trove of evidence and research comes along that proves it is wrong, they will continue to do their research in this way. I don't see anything wrong with that. It seems you approach any materials about evolution with the belief that it's false when you have far less of a basis for thinking that than these researchers have for believing it's a solid theory with a large body of research to support it.
Fair challenge. If these are new findings that are better than what I have seen before I will print this out and take a couple of weeks to look into it. And, I will try to be unbiased (although I must admit that my previous research on the matters have shown evolution to be dubious and thus difficult to believe things have changes, but yeh I will check these particular findings out).
-
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
Talk to me as soon as churches give up their tax exempt status.
-
Wasn't the world supposed to end today because of what was said in the Bible? Man I'm starting to think the Bible might actually have some lies in it
-
The Bible also accounts for God being infinite, eternal, immaterial, etc.
That's very problematic. Just because something is written doesn't make it truth or fact.
-
Not even if it's written on the internet?
-
If Mary and Jesus were around today, would Mary drive a minivan?
Would she carry Jesus around in a baby bjorn?
-
Expand Quote
I like how Friday is Simon's day to come on SLAP and simply go nuts on his keyboard, props to you for trying to be in multiple debates at once mate...
Expand Quote
Fair enough. With the emotionally hard cases such as rape or incest, this is where the human personhood of the fetus is even more important. If the fetus is, in fact, a precious unborn human person (which I believe science and philosophy demonstrate) then there is no justifiable reason to kill it. Why punish the innocent child for the crime of the rapist? Also, a lot of times what is not discussed is the unavoidable psychological scars that abortion leaves on the mother. Why lump the additional depression causing trauma on someone who has been raped? As difficult as such situations are, there is still to positive justification for abortion.
I'd also like you to get some female input here bro because it's all fine and dandy when two dudes are chatting on a skate message board but could you seriously look your mother/ wife/ sister/ female friends etc. straight in the face and say, "well I'm sorry you got raped but you've got to have this baby because ... (wait for it) ... there is still no positive justification for abortion" ?
c'mon man, for someone whose religion preaches love and respect for their fellow (wo)man, that stance certainly lacks a lot of empathy from your camp.
Also, you failed to touch on the whole mother's health thing, but if I suddenly came to know that my wife's life would be in danger because of child birth, I would 100% be in favor of her living vs. her having the child and then passing away. Having said that, I'd also be 100% in favour of accepting her final decision either way because I respect, and love, her as a human being. If you are can't understand where I'm coming from here then I feel our debate is done... sorry, but I can't take you seriously as a religious man (or even as a human in general) as that sounds like the thought process of a psychopath. If I get no reply from you on this particular point, then we are done!
You mentioned science (because we all like to have science on our side right?) but again, I don't think science is on your side here hence why the medical community, in conjunction with the research carried out, have decided on a figure of around week 13 or less for the majority of abortions (91% in case you forgot the stat!). This is long before the fetus develops any sort of sentience/ ability to feel pain.
Is it a living organism? For sure! Does it react to outside stimuli? No doubt, but if you are going to go down that route why aren't you protesting against people who "holocaust" their gardens when mowing the lawn? What about dudes who jack off into tissues? billions of dead organisms right there! precious life tho right?
This is where I feel your argument is shaky at best because if we start the whole "name the trait" game, you're going to have to start standing up for the "death" of a plethora of other non-sentient things that share similar traits to that of an unborn fetus. Sentience is my base-line, what is yours?
Expand Quote
As far as abstinence from meat products goes, I am not fundamentally against refraining from meat/dairy consumption and I support a persons free speech right to disseminate information in those regards.
Expand Quote
Nevertheless, since you referenced the Bible, I am willing to present a biblical case for the allowance of eating meat (if that would be of interest to you).
Yes, you can present your biblical case and guess what? I'll probably agree with it in that certain context/ time period but god alone (or something he said hundreds of years ago) is not an infinite excuse for a certain behavior/ action. It's like Halal food, I don't give a fuck how you killed an animal, you still killed it and in my eyes that is going against the very fibre of your religion and any sense of compassion that you claim to have.
Simon, it's 2017, you live in developed country with a massive variety of non-animal based food options available to you, why do YOU specifically still choose to contribute to the death and suffering of sentient beings/ god's creatures when you could EASILY avoid doing so? I want to know your personal justification here not some 1000 year old out of date/ context quote from the bible.
Your god said, "thou shall not kill", it's one of his most famous teachings and yet you contribute to massive amounts of killing with your food choices on the daily when you don't need to. Please outline your reasons for doing so while being strongly opposed to abortion. Again, if you are having trouble with your answer go back to my original question to you:
Please indicate the trait that unborn fetuses possess, and that animals lack, that make you so adamant about protecting the life of one and not the other
Expand Quote
Also, if you don't mind me asking, are you by any chance Buddhist?
I don't think fundamentally religions are necessarily evil and I do think that there are some valuable lessons within these texts and teachings, but it becomes very hard to take them seriously when at a base-level most religions preach non-violence and yet their followers are happy to cause unnecessary suffering and violence on a daily basis. I also fail able to comprehend why these type of people are unable to adapt their religions to our current situation(s)/ way of life...
One of the drawbacks to a forum like this is that it can all seem like dry, non-compassionate philosophy in the nuts and bolts of the discussion. A woman who suffers the trauma of a rape and has subsequently become pregnant as a result is obviously a very serous situation and one that should not be handled lightly. It is a traumatic situation that needs to be treated with love and compassion.
There are pointed responses to each of your specific challenges, though. In sum, the ability to feel pain is not a litmus test for being a human person, else people under anesthesia would not be human persons, etc. What is more, if there is a consensus of any community on anything (such as the medical community that you reference, although I would like to see an official source on that stat) what is being committed there is a logical fallacy of a consensus gentium which is just a fancy way saying an argument that appeals to a general consensus of individuals is a fallacious argument. A consensus of scholars should garner ones attention, but the fact that a group of scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. have a general consensus on a matter is not evidence for its truth. a majority of people can be wrong (and they often are) truth is not determined at the ballot box.
For instance, many years ago the general consensus of scientists believed that animal life spontaneously generated from garbage, which is now obviously false (but was never true just because a general consensus believed it to be true). Also, the general consensus of scientists yeas ago was that the planets of the solar system all orbited the earth. This was later proven to be false, but was never true just because at one time a majority of scientists believed it to be fact. In like manor, even if you show multiple verified sources that the medical community affirms human personhood at 13 weeks, it is still the fallacy of consensus gentium.
I could go on, but I will say two things at this point. One is that even when abortion advocated appeal to the special circumstance of pregnancy due to rape, they don't just want to advocate for abortion in these circumstances, but they errantly use the emotionally charged circumstance to somehow cover the blanket argument for abortion on demand. This is fallacious. Its called an extrapolated argument.
Moreover, a very low percentage of rapes result in pregnancy, so again this even minimizes the force of use in abortion advocacy (a classmate of mine, John Fererr, has written on this and other related topics http://reasonsforjesus.com/why-rape-does-not-justify-abortion/ (http://reasonsforjesus.com/why-rape-does-not-justify-abortion/) )
So, respectfully, since science and philosophy are on the side of precious unborn human life beginning at conception (here is a detailed article in support if you are interested https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/when-does-life-begin/ (https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/when-does-life-begin/) ) then you can simply apply any argument you have made (even if in theory) for abortion advocacy to the status of a two moth old baby.
Can anyone justifiably murder a two month old baby because ... it is a financial burden to the mother? can a two month old can be murdered because the child's life *might* be emotionally difficult? ..because it is not as developed as a 4 year old child? .. because it is not self-conscious yet? etc, etc,? the answer to these is no. And, it (murder) would be no insofar as the two month old child of a mother who conceived by rape as well.
Then make mere change in 'zip code' of location of an unborn back inside the womb (i.e., applying the same arguments to an unborn child) and the same proposed murder justifying questions asked of it are still a resounding No.
Putting it another way, you can just ask this same question over and over to find the same No answer. If the unborn is a precious innocent human person, is is okay to murder them when ___________. (fill in the blank, then answer is still no. hence no justifiable instance)
It is based on this philosophy that I believe a mother (actual or potential) should be informed.
Now, as far as your additional question/challenge. That is a different ethical situation. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy (where the fetus is in the fallopian tube and will eventually kill the mother) the status of the fetus actually changes from innocence to that of being a threat to the mother (rather than being innocent) and often the decision is made to terminate the pregnancy and lose the one life rather than take it to term and lose the life of both the child and the mother. As far as ethics is concerned, this is not technically an abortion
( https://www.liveaction.org/news/get-facts-straight-treating-ectopic-pregnancy-not-abortion/ (https://www.liveaction.org/news/get-facts-straight-treating-ectopic-pregnancy-not-abortion/) ) BTW, this is the ethics of Graded Moral Absolutism and is worthy of further study if you are not familiar with the term.
Again, respectfully (and thanks for the thought out chat, BTW) you seem to be doing what abortion advocates usually do by appealing to extreem, atypical, emotionally charged situations to try to make a case for abortion that goes outside of those parameters. Its simply a fallacious way to argue.
Moving forward, you simply seem to not want to hear my biblical case for the allowance of eating animal products, so my guess is that you don't want to hear my argument outside of the Bible referencing Aristotle and the 'hierarchy of being' argument from base to rational being etc.. so I will simply spare them as well at this point.
And, since at the onset you assured me that this entire debate (and I would imagine the denoted debates of God's existence, the validity of the Bible, the deity of Christ, etc.) would boil down to ethics. And, I agree.
So, at this point, I would just politely, yet assertively ask you. By what grounds are you saying that any behavior carried out by humans should be considered to be wrong?
If veganism is just your opinion, then it is just that, your opinion.
By what standard are you saying that to be non-vegan is universally wrong and should be considered to be wrong by everyone?
This made my night.
-
which part of it? I'm thinking of penning a response but I don't know if I can take him too seriously now that he's quoting http://reasonsforjesus.com/ (http://reasonsforjesus.com/) as a reliable source...
-
My apologies for my contribution in giving additional life to this thread. Normally I don't engage apologists, as it's like debating a drunken redneck about politics. Simon, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
-
My apologies for my contribution in giving additional life to this thread. Normally I don't engage apologists, as it's like debating a drunken redneck about politics. Simon, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
I'm glad that you contributed. There, I said it.
-
Simon, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
This. Simon's "faith is factually provable" premise is hardly biblical.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Romans 8:23-24
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Dude doesn't get science or Christianity. He can't even exegete properly, to the point where he misinterprets John 3:16, considered a crux of the gospel, as being a message about rejecting selfishness and humbling yourself before god.
Simon, you were wonderful as a clown on a surfboard. That was just as insane as this thread, but at least you knew what you were doing.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
-
Wasn't the world supposed to end today because of what was said in the Bible? Man I'm starting to think the Bible might actually have some lies in it
That was a misrepresentation of some people who don't understand the Bible. The Bible is clear to not "date set" as far as the events leading up to the return of Jesus are concerned.
"no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen" Matthew 24:36
It is the people trying to set the dates of return (and/or date the end of the world) that are in error, not the Bible. Hope that helps.
-
Expand Quote
The Bible also accounts for God being infinite, eternal, immaterial, etc.
That's very problematic. Just because something is written doesn't make it truth or fact.
Good point. So then we need to look at the evidence in support of the Bible. The Bible has more internal, external, manuscriptural, statistical, and archaeological support for it than any other book from ancient history. If you are open to the evidence, and follow it to its logical conclusion, you might see that the Bible is a reliable source for truth claims about God, Jesus, faith, salvation, humanity, history, etc.
I actually laid some of the evidences out with D2L a while back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFwPg-X7zfM
Please let me know what you think.
-
If Mary and Jesus were around today, would Mary drive a minivan?
Would she carry Jesus around in a baby bjorn?
Interesting questions. In general, I imagine they would carry out normal lives for the most part (speaking entirely theoretically, of course). Mary and Joseph were from normal society in the first century, partook in the Jewish customs of the times, and Jesus did carpentry as employment when He got older.
-
which part of it? I'm thinking of penning a response but I don't know if I can take him too seriously now that he's quoting http://reasonsforjesus.com/ (http://reasonsforjesus.com/) as a reliable source...
You can obviously continue the discussion anyway you see fit. But, keep in mind that you are committing a genetic source fallacy when you simply attack a source, see here: https://www.gotquestions.org/genetic-fallacy.html
If you refute the information presented by the source, that's fine. But a genetic fallacy will not suffice in refutation.
Also, and again please note that I am wanting to provide helpful advice (If you are willing to receive such a thing from me) in argumentation that there are plenty of similar/common fallacies that are best avoided in pointed discussion for the sake of fluidity.
A introductory list of those common fallacies to be avoided is here:
http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions.html
Nevertheless, I am hoping to avoid distraction at this point because I think now we can get somewhere.
I am essentially asking: On what grounds are you saying that there is anything wrong with anything?
If you are arguing from the standpoint that God doesn't exist, then your argument against non-veganism is simply your opinion. That is, there is no meta-ethical foundation on which you can stand in order to make an argument to be considered outside of your personal opinions on diet.
For the sake of clarification, I am not saying that people who don't believe in God cannot have ethics, or that they cannot make assertions about morals (such as animal rights). But, what I am saying is that there is no foundation for the ethical claims (i.e., oughts and ought nots) that enables them to stand outside of one's own personal preference.
In sum, I suppose the basic questions I am asking you (and hoping you will answer/explain) at this juncture are these: Based on your worldview, why is anything wrong with anything? And, if your moral judgements are not founded on anything outside of the scope of your personal opinion, why should I, or anyone else, take them seriously?
-
My apologies for my contribution in giving additional life to this thread. Normally I don't engage apologists, as it's like debating a drunken redneck about politics. Simon, you have no [expletive] clue what you're talking about.
Hate to see you go. I was enjoying the dialogue and was being encouraged to do further research in the fields of discussion.
Nevertheless, since cosmological physics is so theoretical (and thus scholars from all camps even have stark in-house disagreements), it is best to just get to the core of the argument, which this specific thread inside of the other threads has provided a great context for example.
The whole groundbreaking deal with Einstein's theory of General Relativity was that by discovering that time, matter, and space were all co-relative, the universe therefore could not have been eternal as previously thought by scientists.
That is, the universe began to exist at some previous finite time in history (i.e., it had a beginning). Physicists across the board are in agreement of this fact (a fact also supported by the secularly approved purported evidences of fireball radiation, red shift, noted universe expansion, the laws of thermodynamics, etc).
The basic argument now is as follows:
The universe began to exist.
Did it come to exist by nothing, or did it come to exist by something greater than it?
The first option is impossible (or, at best, illogical) so the second option, that something greater than the universe caused it to exist, is the most logical conclusion.
Hence, God exists.
Or, to put it softer, the reader can simply ask themselves which is the most reasonable option out of the two available options of explanation. Was the entire universe caused by nothing, or something? What is the most logical conclusion?
-
Expand Quote
Simon, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
This. Simon's "faith is factually provable" premise is hardly biblical.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Romans 8:23-24
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Dude doesn't get science or Christianity. He can't even exegete properly, to the point where he misinterprets John 3:16, considered a crux of the gospel, as being a message about rejecting selfishness and humbling yourself before god.
Simon, you were wonderful as a clown on a surfboard. That was just as insane as this thread, but at least you knew what you were doing.
These are great verses that you quoted. Notwithstanding, it is important to take the entirety of Scripture in to account when discussing matters such as faith's relation to fact. The Apostle Paul was adamant about teaching the whole Bible "for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God." Acts 20:27 And I think it is important to follow his lead when we are discussing the topic of faith
Therefore, in balance of the important faith leap verses you cited (verses I would by no means argue against when brought into balanced consideration) it must be taken into account that the Bible does not teach that faith is a blind leap that is to be made apart from facts and evidences.
Examples:
The Apostle Paul referenced Creation as evidence for faith in God in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Even the Psalmist, King David, acknowledged the faith supporting aspects of creation and the cosmos: "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork." Psalm 19:1
So, personal faith is to be based on the facts of God's creation.
Moreover, the whole point of Luke's Gospel (and his authorship of the book of Acts) was to provide factual evidences in support of the faith:
"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." Luke 1:1-4
So, according to the full teaching the Bible, personal faith is meant to be founded on historical facts and accounts (which it is, btw).
Even the famous doubting Apostle Thomas wanted to see evidence before he would believe, and Jesus showed him the evidence with a subsequent response of faith from Thomas:
(John 20:24-29)
24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”
So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”
27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
In sum, Thomas wanted to see the evidence before faith, Jesus gave him the evidence (empirical verification of His crucifixion wounds), and he believed.
While here in this context Jesus does commend those who would later come to faith without demanding evidence, this does not negate the existence (or the Bible's teaching) of faith supporting evidence.
In fact, in the context just prior to John 3:16 (the verse you rightly mentioned I was trying to represent) Jesus, speaking to Nicodemus, emphasizes the importance of having faith/belief in His teachings on the natural world in harmonious accordance with His teachings on salvation:
"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" John 3:12
Although I think your analysis of the Bible is off, I would not deny the intended truths expressed in the previous verses that you cited , but a rule in Bible study is that when isolated verses are taken out of context, this often results in a pretext. In other words, when gleaning truths from Scripture, it is important to take the entire counsel of the Bible into consideration, or else one could wind up with a limited or even errant understanding of what it is teaching as a whole.
Also, here is a bit of a helpful commentary on Hebrews 11:1 "That verse reads, 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' While the writer to the Hebrews was trying to give one aspect of what faith means, this verse is no more an exhaustive definition of faith than the statement 'God is a consuming fire'—which is found in the following chapter—defines all aspects of who God is." (1) In similar stride, the other verses you cited need to be considered in light of the may verses that also support faith based on facts.
In conclusion, I would say that the understanding that you presented is limited, and that the Bible teaches that faith and fact go hand in hand.
Footnotes:
1. http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2013/04/what-is-faith-proper-understanding.html
-
I think you're seriously overstating the Bible's support for evidence-based reasoning. Many of the quotations you've used to back up this argument have been taken from fairly trivial anecdotal/descriptive passages which don't seem to hold the prescriptive weight you ascribe to them. It's easy enough to cherry pick quotes from a text like the Bible and extrapolate on them to support a predetermined conclusion, which is another thing that in my eyes undermines its status as a valid source of truth claims.
The cherry picking also seems to be present in your approach to physics and cosmology (i.e. you gravitating to one book that explains the universe with theism despite your supposedly extensive study of physics). Do you ever worry that your own cognitive biases are leading you towards a warped perception of reality?
-
These are great verses that you quoted. Notwithstanding, it is important to take the entirety of Scripture in to account when discussing matters such as faith's relation to fact. The Apostle Paul was adamant about teaching the whole Bible "for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God."[English Standard Version] Acts 20:27 And I think it is important to follow his lead when we are discussing the topic of faith...
...The Apostle Paul referenced Creation as evidence for faith in God in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."[New International Version]
Even the Psalmist, King David, acknowledged the faith supporting aspects of creation and the cosmos: "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork."[New King James Version/American Kings James Version] Psalm 19:1
This is what makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. Your argument uses multiple versions of the bible for no apparent reason.
-
Look Simon we need to know the real answers to the universe and God. Like did God eat Mary's ass before getting her pregnant. I don't want to believe in a God who wouldn't warm up his lady before giving her a child
-
Look Simon we need to know the real answers to the universe and God. Like did God eat Mary's ass before getting her pregnant. I don't want to believe in a God who wouldn't warm up his lady before giving her a child
How could Mary of been a virgin when she had Big Dick Baby Jesus? Someone had to of brought it down the pipe to mammiii
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Nah, I'm good.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.
In short, much of this purported paleontological evidence is suspect. and there has been a book authored called "Bones of Contention" that refutes the work done in this field that has been used to try to support evolution. If you would be willing to read the book, I would buy you a copy and send it to your house (PM me if interested and/or please do continue to put forth purported evidences in this regard).
Bottom line, evolutionary paleontologists go into their research with the presupposition that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, so they simply crunch their data to support their presuppositions (Note: presuppositions are unavoidable when doing research, but the evolutionary presuppositions continue to go unsupported, but rather 'shouted' by evolutionary scientists in spite of the evidence)
Fossils of ancient hominin species are still being found. The story of Homo naledi, whose bones were found a couple years ago, might be interesting to you: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/homo-naledi-human-evolution-science/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/homo-naledi-human-evolution-science/)
Also, evolutionary geneticists have been sequencing genomes of ancient species and finding out that human evolution also involved hybridization of Homo sapiens with extinct human groups such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. DNA testing of modern humans has borne this out. There is proof of evolution in your genes.
Paleontologists go into their research assuming evolution is true because everything they've learned has proven it to be. And until some massive trove of evidence and research comes along that proves it is wrong, they will continue to do their research in this way. I don't see anything wrong with that. It seems you approach any materials about evolution with the belief that it's false when you have far less of a basis for thinking that than these researchers have for believing it's a solid theory with a large body of research to support it.
First off, thanks for the challenge. It is important to take time to look at (or, in this case, revisit) opposing worldviews for better understanding of what is going on. Nevertheless, I am presenting information in response to the Homo naledi example and to the evolutionary approach to human origins in general.
I took a look at the article. While they are making efforts to differentiate the purported Homo naledi as being younger than others on their hominin so-called Ape Men examples, the unsupported rhetoric of previous examples is still prevalent throughout the writing.
The article is speculatory and filled with terms like "Did?" "It could be" "while unproven" etc. while tilting their findings towards fitting the landscape of their evolutionary trees and grids, and frankly I am surprised folks are still being duped by this kind of rhetoric.
Again, this entire discipline of evolutionary paleoanthropology has been dubious, based on exposed lies.
Here are some previous glaring examples of falsified information used to support evolutionary Ape Men.
Piltdown Man is held by some to be the greatest scientific hoax in all of history.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/
Nebraska Man (and his wife) were a deliberate hoax put forth to support evolution, which were actually based on the finding of a pig’s tooth.
http://thecreationclub.com/the-frauds-of-evolution-5-the-nebraska-man-hoax/
Admittedly, opponents of evolution have been guilty of using misinterpreted data as well (see the Piluxy River Tracks example in the link) http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/g3051/fake-fossils/
But, this by no means reverses the propagation of falsehoods and misrepresented data from the evolutionary community.
While Nebraska and Piltdown were put forth form evolutionary paleontologists many years ago, the modern discoveries are not much better.
Example: The direct inclusion of a baboon bone into the Lucy remains
Evolutionist source here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton/
(it is also on record that one evolutionary scientist did extra grinding on a Lucy replica to make it appear as though she could better walk upright)
A full Creationist response to Lucy is here: https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/
Moving forward, before and since Lucy, these purported Ape Men make the news every couple of months. Creation Scientists spend equal time putting out the fires.
Typically, evolutionists will do one or more of three things to make an Ape Man: 1) is to just start a hoax, 2) is to overemphasize ape features in human fossils, or 3) is to overemphasize/extrapolate human-like features in ape fossils.
Then, the artist rendition comes into play. This is the supposed evidence; creative drawings, sculptured replications, computer animations, etc. of what they have in mind as Ape Men must have looked; which are really just unfounded evolutionary art/sculptures/sketches made to fit their presuppositions. This is not evidence, its propaganda.
Again, the discipline in general is just dubious, as is the case with Homo naledi.
Dr. Elizabeth Mitchel responds directly to the Homo naledi case here:
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/homo-naledi-new-species-human-ancestor/
If I understand the point you are trying to make here about DNA and genetics, it is actually a fact that DNA science confirms the existence of Adam and Eve from the book of Genesis:
“Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve” https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/genetics-recent-supernatural-creation-adam-eve/
Paleontologists go into their research assuming evolution is true because everything they've learned has proven it to be. And until some massive trove of evidence and research comes along that proves it is wrong, they will continue to do their research in this way. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Presuppositions in research are unavoidable, but the evolutionary presup in paleontology is unsupported.
Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. Berkley, Ph.D. Yale) calls purported Ape to Man evolution the "Ultimate Icon" and debunks it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzTFeWL19Bs
It seems you approach any materials about evolution with the belief that it's false when you have far less of a basis for thinking that than these researchers have for believing it's a solid theory with a large body of research to support it.
The trove of evidence supports that the presuppositions and subsequent results of evolutionary paleontology are patently dubious, such as any and all of the "Icons of Evolution" are.
Evolutionists are simply trying to use homology to prove missing links and doing so detached from the true facts of the world. As Wells points out, Ape Men are the Ultimate (unsupported) Icon:
Wells further debunks the main evolutionary icons here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te3aShKST1A
Wells’ book Icons of Evolution is a available here:
https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1507398294&sr=8-1&keywords=icons+of+evolution
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Woodstock, what do you have to say about the discipline of paleoanthropology which deals with archaic human fossils from neanderthals, denisovans, erectus, sediba, australopithecus, ardipithecus and others? According to scientists in that field, our species has been around at least 250,000 years. Anyone who studies evolution would say the earth has been supporting life for far longer than creationists believe.
In short, much of this purported paleontological evidence is suspect. and there has been a book authored called "Bones of Contention" that refutes the work done in this field that has been used to try to support evolution. If you would be willing to read the book, I would buy you a copy and send it to your house (PM me if interested and/or please do continue to put forth purported evidences in this regard).
Bottom line, evolutionary paleontologists go into their research with the presupposition that humans evolved from apes over millions of years, so they simply crunch their data to support their presuppositions (Note: presuppositions are unavoidable when doing research, but the evolutionary presuppositions continue to go unsupported, but rather 'shouted' by evolutionary scientists in spite of the evidence)
Fossils of ancient hominin species are still being found. The story of Homo naledi, whose bones were found a couple years ago, might be interesting to you: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/homo-naledi-human-evolution-science/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/homo-naledi-human-evolution-science/)
Also, evolutionary geneticists have been sequencing genomes of ancient species and finding out that human evolution also involved hybridization of Homo sapiens with extinct human groups such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. DNA testing of modern humans has borne this out. There is proof of evolution in your genes.
Paleontologists go into their research assuming evolution is true because everything they've learned has proven it to be. And until some massive trove of evidence and research comes along that proves it is wrong, they will continue to do their research in this way. I don't see anything wrong with that. It seems you approach any materials about evolution with the belief that it's false when you have far less of a basis for thinking that than these researchers have for believing it's a solid theory with a large body of research to support it.
Hey ChurckRamone. I just got around to responding to this. Please take a look at it. And if at this juncture we agree to disagree on those points, all good. Thanks for allowing the two weeks for me to reply.
Notwithstanding, since I took the time to reply, I do now have a related question for you. Can you explain to me how the immaterial souls of humans (souls that possess the mind, the will, emotions, etc.) came about by purely materialistic, naturalistic, evolutionary processes?
-
I think you're seriously overstating the Bible's support for evidence-based reasoning. Many of the quotations you've used to back up this argument have been taken from fairly trivial anecdotal/descriptive passages which don't seem to hold the prescriptive weight you ascribe to them. It's easy enough to cherry pick quotes from a text like the Bible and extrapolate on them to support a predetermined conclusion, which is another thing that in my eyes undermines its status as a valid source of truth claims.
The cherry picking also seems to be present in your approach to physics and cosmology (i.e. you gravitating to one book that explains the universe with theism despite your supposedly extensive study of physics). Do you ever worry that your own cognitive biases are leading you towards a warped perception of reality?
Thanks for this. I do plenty of worldview introspection, that is for sure. I like it.
I disagree with you on the cherry picking. I think the examples that I gave support the faith/fact claims, but would be willing to hear out some further commentary you might have on any or all of the examples that I gave. But, I would express that if you look at Genesis to Revelation as a whole, there is certainly no dichotomy between faith and fact prevalent throughout the Scriptures. What is more, the validity of the Bible relies heavily on external factual verification from history, archaeology, etc. thus has no detachment of faith claims from factual basis.
As far as my studies in Physics (which are by no means exhaustive, btw) I am into three scholars at this time, D. Russel Humphries, Danny Faulkner, and Jason Lisle. I am drawn to their research as I see them as being rightly influenced by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which I believe to be very factually supported in cosmology. And, I see their theories based on General Relativity also coinciding with the Bible. I simply find that interesting. I have researched Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig etc. (Christian scholars that hold to the Big Bang, but also hold to General Relativity) and I find some of their research interesting. Sooner or later I will do other research in Stephen Hawking, et al. to learn more about opposing views to those I currently hold. I have interest in the history of Science as well, so Einstein, Newton, Keplar, and the like are on the reading docket as well.
I am certainly open to further discussion here on the matters too.
What do you think of the previous questions I posed on causality? Did everything come from nothing, or from something? I am curious to hear your thoughts.
-
Expand Quote
These are great verses that you quoted. Notwithstanding, it is important to take the entirety of Scripture in to account when discussing matters such as faith's relation to fact. The Apostle Paul was adamant about teaching the whole Bible "for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God."[English Standard Version] Acts 20:27 And I think it is important to follow his lead when we are discussing the topic of faith...
...The Apostle Paul referenced Creation as evidence for faith in God in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."[New International Version]
Even the Psalmist, King David, acknowledged the faith supporting aspects of creation and the cosmos: "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork."[New King James Version/American Kings James Version] Psalm 19:1
This is what makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. Your argument uses multiple versions of the bible for no apparent reason.
Thanks for paying such close attention. The versions I use are all based on the earliest extant Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts. Moving forward I will indicate the versions used when I quote. If you have a specific issue with any of the versions I cited with regard to any of those specific passages, just let me know.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Well, as the Bible says, there are none good. Maybe take the Good Person Test when you get a chance. Thanks for coming out, man.
Are you a good person? Take the test: http://www.needgod.com/004.shtml
-
My great granddaddy wasn’t a monkey!
-
Pretty good evidence for God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko)
Are you a good person?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo)
The thread that keeps on going:
Lots of great evidence for God.
The Cosmological Argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUPJnr-abPk
The Argument from Design:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCGadbs4NcQ
The Argument from Morals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm6pRWwp22Q
Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkbaJYd8vuE
-
My great granddaddy wasn’t a monkey!
Good insight. None of our ancestors were.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The Bible also accounts for God being infinite, eternal, immaterial, etc.
That's very problematic. Just because something is written doesn't make it truth or fact.
Good point. So then we need to look at the evidence in support of the Bible. The Bible has more internal, external, manuscriptural, statistical, and archaeological support for it than any other book from ancient history. If you are open to the evidence, and follow it to its logical conclusion, you might see that the Bible is a reliable source for truth claims about God, Jesus, faith, salvation, humanity, history, etc.
I actually laid some of the evidences out with D2L a while back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFwPg-X7zfM
Please let me know what you think.
I think that the Bible is an amalgamation of centuries of previously told stories and myths, from multiple cults and religions, all rolled into one book. It seems pretty straight forward if you look at the evidence.
-
Does anyone know this lame christian movie where a teacher said god existed then one of her pussy students texted his mom saying he was dramatized in the classroom? For some reason this is annoying me because I can't think of the name
-
Wait quick google search and found it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxz-Y-c2UUc
LOLLLLLLLLLLL how can a kid be this much of a pussy? Also that teacher is a witch, Christians can't get anything right
-
Wait quick google search and found it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxz-Y-c2UUc
LOLLLLLLLLLLL how can a kid be this much of a pussy? Also that teacher is a witch, Christians can't get anything right
Now I know what to watch later tonight,thanks
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The Bible also accounts for God being infinite, eternal, immaterial, etc.
That's very problematic. Just because something is written doesn't make it truth or fact.
Good point. So then we need to look at the evidence in support of the Bible. The Bible has more internal, external, manuscriptural, statistical, and archaeological support for it than any other book from ancient history. If you are open to the evidence, and follow it to its logical conclusion, you might see that the Bible is a reliable source for truth claims about God, Jesus, faith, salvation, humanity, history, etc.
I actually laid some of the evidences out with D2L a while back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFwPg-X7zfM
Please let me know what you think.
I think that the Bible is an amalgamation of centuries of previously told stories and myths, from multiple cults and religions, all rolled into one book. It seems pretty straight forward if you look at the evidence.
On the contrary, if you look at the evidence, the Bible has stood the test of time as the most supported Book from ancient history. The Holy Scriptures are supported internally, by thousands of manuscripts, supported by world history, archeology, etc.
But, if you would like to present some evidence in favor of your claim, I will gladly read what you have to say.
-
Expand Quote
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
hume covered that in dialogs concerning natural religion
David Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - Summary and Analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bac5b5za67Q#)
Somehow in the flurry of multiple debates, I just noticed that you had posted a video to make your points on Hume and was able to watch it this morning.
Some thoughts.
The arguments for the fine tuning of the universe are very strong, and, in my understanding do not fail by being made from analogy. In fact, a) the analogy holds strong when you think of it as coming across the universe with all of its dials perfectly set for life to be present on earth, it is simply the logical conclusion to believe that "someone had been dialing in the physics" of the universe. In fact, Christopher Hitchens made a taxi cab confession of the strength of the fine tuning arguments sometime before his death. He also asserted that even if he could drive religion out of the world, that he wouldn't do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDJ9BL38PrI
What is more, b) evolutionary Big Bang theorists make cosmological claims taken from the micro-scale as well; like when they assert that the cosmic singularity at the beginning of the universe is likened to a fluctuation at the quantum level, and so forth.
Bottom line, when analyzing arguments, there are good analogies and bad analogies; the question is, then, if an argument from analogy is presented, does the analogy accurately represent the facts of the natural world? which the design arguments for God, in fact, do.
There is another connotation of the term Analogy that is important in religious discussion about God. Hume's dialogue rightly expressed that to try to project human characteristics back upon God is "gross", but the univocal mode of predicating (i.e., human and God's characteristics are the exact same) God's attributes is not the way to speak about God anyway. And, equivocal predication (i.e., that no finite language can accurately express anything about God) leads to self refuting agnosticism.
So, analogous predication is the way to go. That is, humans have similar characteristics to God, but we have them in a finite sense, while God has them in an infinite sense. Humans can and do express love, but our love comes and goes and experiences change. God can and does love, but His love is unchanging and has no ebb and flow to it. Humans have limided knowledge, God has infinite knowledge, and so on in an analogous sense.
But, God does have certain attributes distinctly different humans, simply because humans were created and are thus finite. That is, God is uncaused, infinite and immaterial, while humans are caused, finite, and material. This is the metaphysical gap that separates God from man insofar as being is concerned, but we can still understand a great deal about God through natural reason and special revelation in an analogous sense.
As far as morality goes, the entirety of Hume's dialogue presumes the existence of a standard of right and wrong on which to make the various cases for God's abilities. In other words, how are any in the dialogue saying that anything is evil or that there is such a thing as evil, etc.? To make such meta-ethical claims presupposes God's existence as moral arbitrator.
Moreover, it is important to note, in the context of Classical Theism, that this world we live in is not the best possible world, but rather is the best possible way to the best possible world, which is Heaven.
God has allowed evil to be in the world as a concomitant factor to the gift of human free will. God can and will defeat evil at the consummation of all things at the final judgement (note: Jesus judicially defeated evil at the cross) but until the Final Judgement the world suffers evil as a privation via the Fall of Adam and Eve.
Further thoughts, there is no such thing as "finite perfection" as finite beings can gain and lose characteristics, they are caused by another, effected, limited, prone to err, etc.. and thus cannot be the most perfect conceivable being (i.e., God). Also, Dostoevsky's 'wicked God' is impossible because God, by His very nature, is perfect, and wickedness is far from a perfection.
-
[expletive] Simon. Go away.
I am here simply because I firmly believe what I believe in, and thus it would be un-loving for me to not come on here every once in a while to share faith.
Years ago, Atheist Penn Jillette expressed how Christian beliefs should rightly lead to evangelism, and he shows appreciation for those who respectfully share faith with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Well, as the Bible says, there are none good. Maybe take the Good Person Test when you get a chance. Thanks for coming out, man.
Are you a good person? Take the test: http://www.needgod.com/004.shtml
According to that I'm going to hell, and it said I should be co concerned. That's fine, because none of that shit exists.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The Bible also accounts for God being infinite, eternal, immaterial, etc.
That's very problematic. Just because something is written doesn't make it truth or fact.
Good point. So then we need to look at the evidence in support of the Bible. The Bible has more internal, external, manuscriptural, statistical, and archaeological support for it than any other book from ancient history. If you are open to the evidence, and follow it to its logical conclusion, you might see that the Bible is a reliable source for truth claims about God, Jesus, faith, salvation, humanity, history, etc.
I actually laid some of the evidences out with D2L a while back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFwPg-X7zfM
Please let me know what you think.
I think that the Bible is an amalgamation of centuries of previously told stories and myths, from multiple cults and religions, all rolled into one book. It seems pretty straight forward if you look at the evidence.
On the contrary, if you look at the evidence, the Bible has stood the test of time as the most supported Book from ancient history. The Holy Scriptures are supported internally, by thousands of manuscripts, supported by world history, archeology, etc.
But, if you would like to present some evidence in favor of your claim, I will gladly read what you have to say.
The evidence is there. You can easily find it on your own if you are interested.
-
You should consider enrolling in some theology and relevant history courses at a globally respected university, it may have a big effect on your understanding of history, Christianity and the Bible. It's sounds like your perspective has been really narrowed by "born again" and fundamentalist ideology. I think it would really help to put things into context and make it easier to share you faith with others in a more helpful and practical way.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Well, as the Bible says, there are none good. Maybe take the Good Person Test when you get a chance. Thanks for coming out, man.
Are you a good person? Take the test: http://www.needgod.com/004.shtml
I firmly believe that there are consequences for unbelief. I think there is sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is true, and therefore there exists a God who will judge the world and individuals according to their deeds. If you were to stand before God on judgement day and be judged according to your own merit, how would you do? If not so well, then that is where Jesus comes in. He gave His own life so that those who trust Him as Lord and Savior can have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.
Just some things to consider.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The Bible also accounts for God being infinite, eternal, immaterial, etc.
That's very problematic. Just because something is written doesn't make it truth or fact.
Good point. So then we need to look at the evidence in support of the Bible. The Bible has more internal, external, manuscriptural, statistical, and archaeological support for it than any other book from ancient history. If you are open to the evidence, and follow it to its logical conclusion, you might see that the Bible is a reliable source for truth claims about God, Jesus, faith, salvation, humanity, history, etc.
I actually laid some of the evidences out with D2L a while back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFwPg-X7zfM
Please let me know what you think.
I think that the Bible is an amalgamation of centuries of previously told stories and myths, from multiple cults and religions, all rolled into one book. It seems pretty straight forward if you look at the evidence.
On the contrary, if you look at the evidence, the Bible has stood the test of time as the most supported Book from ancient history. The Holy Scriptures are supported internally, by thousands of manuscripts, supported by world history, archeology, etc.
But, if you would like to present some evidence in favor of your claim, I will gladly read what you have to say.
The evidence is there. You can easily find it on your own if you are interested.
I have familiarity with both sides of the debate (I am actually currently reading "What Kind of Creatures Are We?" by Atheist Noam Chomsky).. If you have some specific examples that have convinced you against Christianity, I am interested.
-
You should consider enrolling in some theology and relevant history courses at a globally respected university, it may have a big effect on your understanding of history, Christianity and the Bible. It's sounds like your perspective has been really narrowed by "born again" and fundamentalist ideology. I think it would really help to put things into context and make it easier to share you faith with others in a more helpful and practical way.
Again, this is the usual genetic source fallacy. My background (i.e., sources) of research do not affirm or disqualify my arguments. They either stand or fall according to the rigors of logic and the facts of the universe.
If we were in a formal debate, and you simply chided my education (which is more of an attack on me, rather than my arguments) you would technically be losing the debate, even by the standards of unbiased moderators.
I am currently in the midst of a respectful critique of "What Kind of Creatures Are We?" by one of the most intellectual atheists in the US, Noam Chomsky. I have a general understanding of the way he is arguing, as well as understanding what I believe. That is, I have sufficient knowledge to comprehend both sides of the issues.
If you have any specific challenges against Christianity, I will take a look at them.
-
(http://www.rantingnewyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/0PA6K.jpg)
-
The implications of the visual are that God is somehow fully responsible for all of the evil and suffering in the world.
Can you explain this to me a bit further?
-
I wasn't debating Christianity at all and find it bizarre that you even felt the need to bring that up, as I made the no statement on the truth or fallacy of any aspect of it. It's clear you are not getting through to people, and there is a reason for this. I just wanted to suggest some things to help broaden your perspective and ultimately share the positive aspects of Christianity with people instead of getting bogged down in fundamentalist semantics. Since you seem to aspire to some type of scholarship, why not undertake a rigorous course of study in your areas of interest from a well respected university?
I also made no statements on your current level of education, hardly a chiding.
-
I wasn't debating Christianity at all and find it bizarre that you even felt the need to bring that up, as I made the no statement on the truth or fallacy of any aspect of it. It's clear you are not getting through to people, and there is a reason for this. I just wanted to suggest some things to help broaden your perspective and ultimately share the positive aspects of Christianity with people instead of getting bogged down in fundamentalist semantics. Since you seem to aspire to some type of scholarship, why not undertake a rigorous course of study in your areas of interest from a well respected university?
I also made no statements on your current level of education, hardly a chiding.
Fair enough. If I misunderstood what you were saying, then no biggie. But, the implications are that you seem to think that I don't know what I am talking about.
So I am curious, on what specific points do you think that I am off as far as Historical Christianity is concerned?
-
I wasn't debating Christianity at all and find it bizarre that you even felt the need to bring that up, as I made the no statement on the truth or fallacy of any aspect of it. It's clear you are not getting through to people, and there is a reason for this. I just wanted to suggest some things to help broaden your perspective and ultimately share the positive aspects of Christianity with people instead of getting bogged down in fundamentalist semantics. Since you seem to aspire to some type of scholarship, why not undertake a rigorous course of study in your areas of interest from a well respected university?
I also made no statements on your current level of education, hardly a chiding.
You can respond to my previous reply too if you feel led. But, I think I might be seeing what you are saying. And, the reason that I have not brought up the positive social aspects of Christianity yet is because no one has asked about it at this point.
There are several that come to mind off the top:
- We have education in America because of the Church (schools started out in Churches, and our universities, even the ones you suggest that I go to such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. all started out as Protestant Seminaries).
- Modern hospitals were started in the US by the Church (and other religious organizations too)
- The Church has founded successful substance abuse programs, such as the Salvation Army (that also reaches out to the homeless)
- Evangelicals are stepping up big time as far as thwarting global human trafficking.
- The Church outdid FEMA as far as Hurricane Harvey relief aid went.
- In fact, the Church has the potential to serve as the largest global distribution network of goods and services to the world.
- Christians have made outstanding contributions to science (we stand on the shoulders of giants such as Newton, Galileo, etc.)
- Three dimensional art came out of the Western Church.
- etc.
-
Expand Quote
I wasn't debating Christianity at all and find it bizarre that you even felt the need to bring that up, as I made the no statement on the truth or fallacy of any aspect of it. It's clear you are not getting through to people, and there is a reason for this. I just wanted to suggest some things to help broaden your perspective and ultimately share the positive aspects of Christianity with people instead of getting bogged down in fundamentalist semantics. Since you seem to aspire to some type of scholarship, why not undertake a rigorous course of study in your areas of interest from a well respected university?
I also made no statements on your current level of education, hardly a chiding.
Fair enough. If I misunderstood what you were saying, then no biggie. But, the implications are that you seem to think that I don't know what I am talking about.
So I am curious, on what specific points do you think that I am off as far as Historical Christianity is concerned?
I don't think you need to argue all these historical points as truth, to justify the moral and philosophical value of the gospels. I think taking a fundamentalist stance on these issues, which most people will never accept, undermines and impedes you from sharing with people their core teachings of love, forgiveness and understanding, which is their true value I'm sure you'll agree.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Well, as the Bible says, there are none good. Maybe take the Good Person Test when you get a chance. Thanks for coming out, man.
Are you a good person? Take the test: http://www.needgod.com/004.shtml
I firmly believe that there are consequences for unbelief. I think there is sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is true, and therefore there exists a God who will judge the world and individuals according to their deeds. If you were to stand before God on judgement day and be judged according to your own merit, how would you do? If not so well, then that is where Jesus comes in. He gave His own life so that those who trust Him as Lord and Savior can have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.
Just some things to consider.
That's fine that you believe that. I believe the opposite, and there's more than sufficient evidence to believe that it's all made up to be a means of social control and oppression. So believe what you want and judge me, but I'll be doing the same over here.
-
If you constantly doubt something there is a reason.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Well, as the Bible says, there are none good. Maybe take the Good Person Test when you get a chance. Thanks for coming out, man.
Are you a good person? Take the test: http://www.needgod.com/004.shtml
I firmly believe that there are consequences for unbelief. I think there is sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is true, and therefore there exists a God who will judge the world and individuals according to their deeds. If you were to stand before God on judgement day and be judged according to your own merit, how would you do? If not so well, then that is where Jesus comes in. He gave His own life so that those who trust Him as Lord and Savior can have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.
Just some things to consider.
Simons response
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/00/7a/7a/007a7a1c12413f0216bc88c0bcd4f1d1--tattoo-mania-tattoo-addiction.jpg)
-
Hi Simon, I'm a Muslim. Just two earnest questions:
1) Do you believe that I won't go to heaven due to my religious beliefs, and are you praying for my soul as a result?
2) Do you have any good Andy Roy or Jason Adams stories?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Well, as the Bible says, there are none good. Maybe take the Good Person Test when you get a chance. Thanks for coming out, man.
Are you a good person? Take the test: http://www.needgod.com/004.shtml
I firmly believe that there are consequences for unbelief. I think there is sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is true, and therefore there exists a God who will judge the world and individuals according to their deeds. If you were to stand before God on judgement day and be judged according to your own merit, how would you do? If not so well, then that is where Jesus comes in. He gave His own life so that those who trust Him as Lord and Savior can have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.
Just some things to consider.
Simons response
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/00/7a/7a/007a7a1c12413f0216bc88c0bcd4f1d1--tattoo-mania-tattoo-addiction.jpg)
whenever I see someone display that message or hear someone say it, I chuckle to myself, and think "I'm judging your right now." the justice system could judge you as well if you end up in court.
-
Hi Simon, I'm a Muslim. Just two earnest questions:
1) Do you believe that I won't go to heaven due to my religious beliefs, and are you praying for my soul as a result?
If he is, then he's praying to the same god that you pray to.
-
I can smell the stench of this thread all the way from Useless Wooden Toy Banter
(http://www.newyorkshitty.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/doddetail.jpg)
-
If we could know everything about God, he wouldn't be much of a God. In our own human minds we seem to always make ourselves God and place a real God in a box and assume that God had parents just like us, thats our mentality, Infact when I found out Jesus is God and that it was God's plan to come and experience our existence and make a way for us and show us true love. When you realise that God wants you to live life to the fullest then you'll realise the rules the bible talks about keeps you and others from harming one another you'll realise how much God loves you.
-
If we could know everything about God, he wouldn't be much of a God. In our own human minds we seem to always make ourselves God and place a real God in a box and assume that God had parents just like us, thats our mentality, Infact when I found out Jesus is God and that it was God's plan to come and experience our existence and make a way for us and show us true love. When you realise that God wants you to live life to the fullest then you'll realise the rules the bible talks about keeps you and others from harming one another you'll realise how much God loves you.
Confirmed God is gay as fuck
-
Expand Quote
If we could know everything about God, he wouldn't be much of a God. In our own human minds we seem to always make ourselves God and place a real God in a box and assume that God had parents just like us, thats our mentality, Infact when I found out Jesus is God and that it was God's plan to come and experience our existence and make a way for us and show us true love. When you realise that God wants you to live life to the fullest then you'll realise the rules the bible talks about keeps you and others from harming one another you'll realise how much God loves you.
Confirmed God is gay as fuck
i suck dick for trukfit
-
when people do things like what is going on in this thread, it bums me out because it forces this whole g-d = religion idea down peoples throats, give a very 2d version of what "g-d" is (or is not) and when people like me say they are a believer people just automatically makes people think we are antiscience,, judgmental, or irrational. although what i'm about will probably bum out a lot of people and and make me look kooky as hell i just want to lay it out.
anyone who spends enough time walking in deep woods knows that there is something greater than the human mind and human ability. there is a flow to nature that just makes much sense. everything just meshes together and works out. everything is indivisibly interconnected that it became very clear every part of "nature" is a piece of one unit. after being able to see this you can just start to "feel" the "presence" the whole, and understand that the whole can feel your presence. that ability to perceive that presence is a muscle just like any other and once you start to use it, you can see it in places where its more subtle. you start to see where things that seem so far apart come together to create these magical things or moments (my favorite tongue in cheek example is this absolute incredible moment: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/syrian-refugees-meet-furries-surreal-scene-vancouver-h-article-1.2559408 ... i mean thinking how the entire history of humanity pretty much led up that one moment and the events set into motion boggles my mind. ive spent literal hours thinking about the events that had to take place for this one absurd moment to come together). i perceive it as a flowing immoral feeling, i spoke with someone who sees it as a gentle push that makes sure the clock keeps working. i hate the word g-d (yet too many years of religious schooling prevents me from even writing the word in its entirety so take what i have with a grain of salt) its so limiting. whatever it is really cannot be boiled down to one word, because its infinite and everything and everything. whatever it is it it cannot be boiled down to one book or messenger. if i wrote a brief and only cited one case i would be laughed out of court. if i wrote a research paper and only used one source my research paper would be (rightfully) tossed out the window. there can be no definitive answer because something definitive is limited and it cant be limited. i think there is a great power that can come from understanding the flow of reality and understanding what "you get out what you put in" really means on a metaphysical level.
this is an extremely surface level, introductory, view of what i think i know. if you have any questions... hike more.
i guess my TL;DR version would be: not everyone who considers themselves a believer depends on one book, or found their answers in a building. not everyone who believes in a higher power is anthropomorphizing it. lastly spend more time in the woods.
-
Hi Simon, I'm a Muslim. Just two earnest questions:
1) Do you believe that I won't go to heaven due to my religious beliefs, and are you praying for my soul as a result?
wait a second follow up question for simon....
Im a jew-- who is more right me or AA? who are you praying for harder? who would win in a cage fight Moses or Mohammad? would your answer change if there was a no magic, no items, fox only, final destination?
-
Expand Quote
Hi Simon, I'm a Muslim. Just two earnest questions:
1) Do you believe that I won't go to heaven due to my religious beliefs, and are you praying for my soul as a result?
wait a second follow up question for simon....
Im a jew-- who is more right me or AA? who are you praying for harder? who would win in a cage fight Moses or Mohammad? would your answer change if there was a no magic, no items, fox only, final destination?
As someone who was raised Baptist, I think I can field this one for you Simon:
You're both going to burn in hell.
I was taught that Catholics burn in hell, so Muslims and Jews DEFINITELY burn for all eternity in the lake of fire, gnashing your teeth and ripping out your hair. It's a shame that you were born into the wrong religions, guys.
But I'll be there right with you. Even though I WAS born into the correct religion (Protestant, particularly of the Baptist variety), I really messed things up with the whole queer thing.
God sure is judgy!
-
Nobody is going anywhere.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hi Simon, I'm a Muslim. Just two earnest questions:
1) Do you believe that I won't go to heaven due to my religious beliefs, and are you praying for my soul as a result?
wait a second follow up question for simon....
Im a jew-- who is more right me or AA? who are you praying for harder? who would win in a cage fight Moses or Mohammad? would your answer change if there was a no magic, no items, fox only, final destination?
As someone who was raised Baptist, I think I can field this one for you Simon:
You're both going to burn in hell.
I was taught that Catholics burn in hell, so Muslims and Jews DEFINITELY burn for all eternity in the lake of fire, gnashing your teeth and ripping out your hair. It's a shame that you were born into the wrong religions, guys.
But I'll be there right with you. Even though I WAS born into the correct religion (Protestant, particularly of the Baptist variety), I really messed things up with the whole queer thing.
God sure is judgy!
He gotcha big time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nz2ZC_60g8
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hi Simon, I'm a Muslim. Just two earnest questions:
1) Do you believe that I won't go to heaven due to my religious beliefs, and are you praying for my soul as a result?
wait a second follow up question for simon....
Im a jew-- who is more right me or AA? who are you praying for harder? who would win in a cage fight Moses or Mohammad? would your answer change if there was a no magic, no items, fox only, final destination?
As someone who was raised Baptist, I think I can field this one for you Simon:
You're both going to burn in hell.
I was taught that Catholics burn in hell, so Muslims and Jews DEFINITELY burn for all eternity in the lake of fire, gnashing your teeth and ripping out your hair. It's a shame that you were born into the wrong religions, guys.
But I'll be there right with you. Even though I WAS born into the correct religion (Protestant, particularly of the Baptist variety), I really messed things up with the whole queer thing.
God sure is judgy!
Hahaha
Love you both
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Well, as the Bible says, there are none good. Maybe take the Good Person Test when you get a chance. Thanks for coming out, man.
Are you a good person? Take the test: http://www.needgod.com/004.shtml
I firmly believe that there are consequences for unbelief. I think there is sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is true, and therefore there exists a God who will judge the world and individuals according to their deeds. If you were to stand before God on judgement day and be judged according to your own merit, how would you do? If not so well, then that is where Jesus comes in. He gave His own life so that those who trust Him as Lord and Savior can have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.
Just some things to consider.
It's fair enough to amicably agree to disagree. Just putting some things out there to consider. It is God who is the ultimate judge, so it is between you and Him, really. Thanks for the chat.
-
If you constantly doubt something there is a reason.
Doubt is a part of any belief system. I have found Christianity to be a stabilizer of doubts. God provides a bedrock First Principle of foundation for belief. So, one need not get blown about by the whirlwind of doubt, or get caught in a regress of doubting the doubts, and then doubting the doubts about doubts, etc. God is the anchor for the soul.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Well, as the Bible says, there are none good. Maybe take the Good Person Test when you get a chance. Thanks for coming out, man.
Are you a good person? Take the test: http://www.needgod.com/004.shtml
I firmly believe that there are consequences for unbelief. I think there is sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is true, and therefore there exists a God who will judge the world and individuals according to their deeds. If you were to stand before God on judgement day and be judged according to your own merit, how would you do? If not so well, then that is where Jesus comes in. He gave His own life so that those who trust Him as Lord and Savior can have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.
Just some things to consider.
Simons response
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/00/7a/7a/007a7a1c12413f0216bc88c0bcd4f1d1--tattoo-mania-tattoo-addiction.jpg)
HA! And God will. But, He will do so according to the imputed rightnesses of Christ.
-
Hi Simon, I'm a Muslim. Just two earnest questions:
1) Do you believe that I won't go to heaven due to my religious beliefs, and are you praying for my soul as a result?
2) Do you have any good Andy Roy or Jason Adams stories?
Hey Adam. I do believe there are consequences of unbelief, but I get this from Jesus Himself who says “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6 ESV cf. Matt 5:29-30; 8:12; 10:28, etc.).
I also think a contrasting comparison between Jesus and Muhammad is a worth while study (and, i would be willing to take up that discussion if you are willing).
All that being said, I did just add you to my prayer list.
I spent one entire summer traveling around and skating with Andy. He was obviously always up to a lot of extracurricular antics, but the best part about hanging out with him was that he killed it at every skate spot. Something does come to mind as far as antics go: There was the time when Andy sensed he was going to get kicked off of Santa Cruz during the big pants small wheels era. So we dressed him up in a bunch of baggy skater/raver type clothes and he went around the entire Santa Cruz Skateboards office facility saying "look guys, I'm fresh! I can be fresh too!" etc. The plan didn't work.
Jason Adams was/is just super cool. I am amazed that he never went off the scene and/or became washed up then having to make a comeback. He just stayed the course, from AM, to rookie pro, to established pro, to old pro, to masters/legend status. Only a handful of skaters have pulled that off.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Seven pages of no evidence. Tight thread Simon. You still in SJ?
I live in Murrieta CA now. Its about 30 mins north east of Fallbrook, CA.
Just curious. What would you be willing to receive as sufficient evidence for the Christian faith? And, if you were given such evidence, would you be willing to become a Christian?
People in these debates often reference the 'separation of Church and state' and your issue with the tax status of the Church in the US is the proper application of that separation. Nevertheless, the Church is global (that is, it extends far beyond the US), and if/when you want to have a pointed discussion about Jesus, the Lord of the Church, then just let me know.
Well, as the Bible says, there are none good. Maybe take the Good Person Test when you get a chance. Thanks for coming out, man.
Are you a good person? Take the test: http://www.needgod.com/004.shtml
I firmly believe that there are consequences for unbelief. I think there is sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is true, and therefore there exists a God who will judge the world and individuals according to their deeds. If you were to stand before God on judgement day and be judged according to your own merit, how would you do? If not so well, then that is where Jesus comes in. He gave His own life so that those who trust Him as Lord and Savior can have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.
Just some things to consider.
Simons response
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/00/7a/7a/007a7a1c12413f0216bc88c0bcd4f1d1--tattoo-mania-tattoo-addiction.jpg)
whenever I see someone display that message or hear someone say it, I chuckle to myself, and think "I'm judging your right now." the justice system could judge you as well if you end up in court.
This is true. Life actually necessitates making judgment calls all the time. And there are hired people called Judges that arbitrate civil matters, etc.
-
Expand Quote
Hi Simon, I'm a Muslim. Just two earnest questions:
1) Do you believe that I won't go to heaven due to my religious beliefs, and are you praying for my soul as a result?
Respectfully, there is a difference between the Christian God and Allah of Islam. Most notably, the Christian God is a Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit) whereas Allah is a strict unity. Moreover, the Christian God is incarnate as the Son, Jesus Christ; conversely, Allah (according to the Koran) emphatically has no son.
Now, both os these views of God can be wrong, but they both can't be right or the same God, based on their stark differences.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I wasn't debating Christianity at all and find it bizarre that you even felt the need to bring that up, as I made the no statement on the truth or fallacy of any aspect of it. It's clear you are not getting through to people, and there is a reason for this. I just wanted to suggest some things to help broaden your perspective and ultimately share the positive aspects of Christianity with people instead of getting bogged down in fundamentalist semantics. Since you seem to aspire to some type of scholarship, why not undertake a rigorous course of study in your areas of interest from a well respected university?
I also made no statements on your current level of education, hardly a chiding.
Fair enough. If I misunderstood what you were saying, then no biggie. But, the implications are that you seem to think that I don't know what I am talking about.
So I am curious, on what specific points do you think that I am off as far as Historical Christianity is concerned?
Duly noted. I try out different approaches here and there.
-
when people do things like what is going on in this thread, it bums me out because it forces this whole g-d = religion idea down peoples throats, give a very 2d version of what "g-d" is (or is not) and when people like me say they are a believer people just automatically makes people think we are antiscience,, judgmental, or irrational. although what i'm about will probably bum out a lot of people and and make me look kooky as hell i just want to lay it out.
anyone who spends enough time walking in deep woods knows that there is something greater than the human mind and human ability. there is a flow to nature that just makes much sense. everything just meshes together and works out. everything is indivisibly interconnected that it became very clear every part of "nature" is a piece of one unit. after being able to see this you can just start to "feel" the "presence" the whole, and understand that the whole can feel your presence. that ability to perceive that presence is a muscle just like any other and once you start to use it, you can see it in places where its more subtle. you start to see where things that seem so far apart come together to create these magical things or moments (my favorite tongue in cheek example is this absolute incredible moment: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/syrian-refugees-meet-furries-surreal-scene-vancouver-h-article-1.2559408 ... i mean thinking how the entire history of humanity pretty much led up that one moment and the events set into motion boggles my mind. ive spent literal hours thinking about the events that had to take place for this one absurd moment to come together). i perceive it as a flowing immoral feeling, i spoke with someone who sees it as a gentle push that makes sure the clock keeps working. i hate the word g-d (yet too many years of religious schooling prevents me from even writing the word in its entirety so take what i have with a grain of salt) its so limiting. whatever it is really cannot be boiled down to one word, because its infinite and everything and everything. whatever it is it it cannot be boiled down to one book or messenger. if i wrote a brief and only cited one case i would be laughed out of court. if i wrote a research paper and only used one source my research paper would be (rightfully) tossed out the window. there can be no definitive answer because something definitive is limited and it cant be limited. i think there is a great power that can come from understanding the flow of reality and understanding what "you get out what you put in" really means on a metaphysical level.
this is an extremely surface level, introductory, view of what i think i know. if you have any questions... hike more.
i guess my TL;DR version would be: not everyone who considers themselves a believer depends on one book, or found their answers in a building. not everyone who believes in a higher power is anthropomorphizing it. lastly spend more time in the woods.
I understand where you are coming from. I agree on several fronts; i.e, nature getting one to ponder the Ultimate and the Highest Principle necessarily being beyond finite grasp, etc.
I personally think the Bible is important, I think a communicated source from the Ultimate to humanity is key to understanding the world. And, I believe the Bible holds up to scrutiny, such as cross examination of the internal and supporting evidence, etc.
There is no need for these discussions to be a bummer. SLAP is actually a good platform for diverse viewpoints and pointed discussion.
Anyway, if you are open to me praying for you, might you have any prayer requests? Also, if there is anything else you need that I might be able to provide, feel free to contact me at [email protected]
-
Expand Quote
Hi Simon, I'm a Muslim. Just two earnest questions:
1) Do you believe that I won't go to heaven due to my religious beliefs, and are you praying for my soul as a result?
wait a second follow up question for simon....
Im a jew-- who is more right me or AA? who are you praying for harder? who would win in a cage fight Moses or Mohammad? would your answer change if there was a no magic, no items, fox only, final destination?
I spent some time off and on in AA. While I am 17 years sober now by the grace of God, I don't use the AA program any more.
I personally see the deity of AA and the deity of Judaism as being incomplete understandings of God. But, I would say to look beyond just my understanding and do some further research yourself.
I am wondering, as a Jew, have you read the entire Old Testament yet? If so, have you read the New Testament yet just to see where it is coming from? Again, just curious.
-
If we could know everything about God, he wouldn't be much of a God. In our own human minds we seem to always make ourselves God and place a real God in a box and assume that God had parents just like us, thats our mentality, Infact when I found out Jesus is God and that it was God's plan to come and experience our existence and make a way for us and show us true love. When you realise that God wants you to live life to the fullest then you'll realise the rules the bible talks about keeps you and others from harming one another you'll realise how much God loves you.
Makes sense to me. And, that is the most important thing, above and beyond all the argumentation, is that God is pure love and through faith in Him one can experience the joys of love and forgiveness, etc.
-
Your acting as a regurgitator, same way of speach, same words as everyone else who attempts to preach. You bring nothing new to the table. I find it pretty pathetic. If your thoughts arent invented on your own but through the bible, just tell us to read the bible and leave it at that. Your serving no purpse being a middleman of ideas.
-
Why did God intelligently design buttholes to be round? Why did he not pick a triangle or an octagon?
-
I just wanna give a major shout out to the Catholics and God, because of them I was able to drink alcohol at the early ages of 4th and 5th grade. I played football for a catholic school team but I went to public school during this time, anyway we as a team had to go to Sunday church before our games in our football jerseys. So during the eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ I would take my little cracker and then take a big chug of the red wine. I didn't know it was alcohol then but I remembered it tasted glorious during those days, thats what made the brutal 45 minute church all worth it. All my other teammates were pussy's and never got the wine though. I think they stopped doing the blood of Christ to the public because of me and now only the priest drinks it
-
Expand Quote
If you constantly doubt something there is a reason.
Doubt is a part of any belief system. I have found Christianity to be a stabilizer of doubts. God provides a bedrock First Principle of foundation for belief. So, one need not get blown about by the whirlwind of doubt, or get caught in a regress of doubting the doubts, and then doubting the doubts about doubts, etc. God is the anchor for the soul.
It's a golden prison for your mind. The truth is cold and nobody is walking on water.
-
I just wanna give a major shout out to the Catholics and God, because of them I was able to drink alcohol at the early ages of 4th and 5th grade. I played football for a catholic school team but I went to public school during this time, anyway we as a team had to go to Sunday church before our games in our football jerseys. So during the eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ I would take my little cracker and then take a big chug of the red wine. I didn't know it was alcohol then but I remembered it tasted glorious during those days, thats what made the brutal 45 minute church all worth it. All my other teammates were pussy's and never got the wine though. I think they stopped doing the blood of Christ to the public because of me and now only the priest drinks it
Aww, so you were that boy the priests would get drunk and fondle? Would they tell you to close your eyes before you took the little "cracker" in your mouth? Did the "cracker" seem more like a sausage or some kind of meat stick? Did they convince you that the true traditional way to take the "cracker" is through the anus? Is this why you can relate with Bruce from Family Guy? God bless tobey
-
Expand Quote
I just wanna give a major shout out to the Catholics and God, because of them I was able to drink alcohol at the early ages of 4th and 5th grade. I played football for a catholic school team but I went to public school during this time, anyway we as a team had to go to Sunday church before our games in our football jerseys. So during the eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ I would take my little cracker and then take a big chug of the red wine. I didn't know it was alcohol then but I remembered it tasted glorious during those days, thats what made the brutal 45 minute church all worth it. All my other teammates were pussy's and never got the wine though. I think they stopped doing the blood of Christ to the public because of me and now only the priest drinks it
Aww, so you were that boy the priests would get drunk and fondle? Would they tell you to close your eyes before you took the little "cracker" in your mouth? Did the "cracker" seem more like a sausage or some kind of meat stick? Did they convince you that the true traditional way to take the "cracker" is through the anus? Is this why you can relate with Bruce from Family Guy? God bless tobey
You aren't very good at this. Did I really upset you that much that now you are gonna follow me from thread to thread to try and make fun of me? Good luck with that
-
The way I see it, religion is just a tool used by those who have the economical and political power to control the people.
They just ask people to have faith on god.
Why is that guy the king who can decide who dies, who goes to war, who lives? Because god decided it.
Why? Nobody knows, you just have have faith on god's decisions.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
If you constantly doubt something there is a reason.
Doubt is a part of any belief system. I have found Christianity to be a stabilizer of doubts. God provides a bedrock First Principle of foundation for belief. So, one need not get blown about by the whirlwind of doubt, or get caught in a regress of doubting the doubts, and then doubting the doubts about doubts, etc. God is the anchor for the soul.
So, you are saying that miracles are impossible (such as Jesus walking on water)? Just curious as to what grounds you would say that they are not possible to happen. In other words, what is your argument against the possibility of miracles?
-
The way I see it, religion is just a tool used by those who have the economical and political power to control the people.
They just ask people to have faith on god.
Why is that guy the king who can decide who dies, who goes to war, who lives? Because god decided it.
Why? Nobody knows, you just have have faith on god's decisions.
It has been misused in this sense before, obviously. But Jesus and the Apostles did not operate in this manner. I think they are the ones to look towards when it comes to true religion.
-
20+ pages = evidence for god is weak, unconvincing, and inconclusive at best
-
20+ pages = evidence for god is weak, unconvincing, and inconclusive at best
Yeah definitely not something worthy of killing people over. Over 150 millions to this day.
-
https://youtu.be/lJT3Re-F4CY
-
Well that settles it.
-
Well that settles it.
Totally. After that video we can all agree that we are even more atheist.
-
Totally. After that video we can all agree that we are even more atheist.
after that video i agree that i need a fucking drink. god damn.
-
You see what god did to us man???
-
He wrote a book, and now evolution is a scam.
-
how the fuck is this still a thread? shit from story books doesn't exist and people that create cults based around them are mentally unstable. the end.
-
You see what man has done to us God?
-
Ok forget religion, how do yall think life started? Did the building blocks already exist? Any theories?
-
still waiting for some evidence to be posted. philosophical wankery does not equal evidence.
-
Ok forget religion, how do yall think life started? Did the building blocks already exist? Any theories?
Um, have you even read Genesis 1:1, bro?
-
Ok forget religion, how do yall think life started? Did the building blocks already exist? Any theories?
Someone needed to pass a drug test to get a job, so they jerked off onto a mushroom, then ate it. Boom. Life as we know it.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHqK21qYsL0
-
well space/univese is contained even if it can expand, i think, so it could be that forces outside that vacuum are introducing rays and other shit which is how shit formed. or this vacuum we are in was tainted from the get, but where would that taintedness come from? or some shit with multiple vacuums interacting can cause some wierd energy. idunno i just wish i had some pcp.
-
chasing the dragon
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs
-
Bumping because I want 2 believe.
-
*It's evident there's no God.
-
Bumping because I want 2 believe.
I also want 2 believe :(
Sorry Father for double-post.
-
Interview from the November 99 issue of "Skateboarder", about how Simon Woodstock is the David Lee Roth of skateboarding...
(https://i.imgur.com/IIxZxhh.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/N5FuJ5S.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Fg4vAwU.jpg)
The last part keeps reverting back to its original size for some reason, when I try to embed it:
https://i.imgur.com/0osrmGK.jpg
-
*It's evident there's no God.
How so? Do we have absolute proof there is no God?
-
Expand Quote
*It's evident there's no God.
How so? Do we have absolute proof there is no God?
No but there’s also no proof that god exists. Nobody gives a fuck if you believe in a god or not, people just care that you try to shove your own beliefs on to them
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
*It's evident there's no God.
How so? Do we have absolute proof there is no God?
No but there’s also no proof that god exists. Nobody gives a fuck if you believe in a god or not, people just care that you try to shove your own beliefs on to them
You're onto someone there.
-
You see what god did to us man???
God didn't do that, you did. You're a fucking narcotics agent,I knew it all along!
Did Simon give up or are we going to a couple pages of responses?
-
Expand Quote
You see what god did to us man???
Did Simon give up or are we going to a couple pages of responses?
I got word hes been writing/working on his response since Thursday... It'll be a doozy. Mindblowing shit. Ya'all get your nice clothes ready for church tomorrow morning
-
Ok forget religion, how do yall think life started? Did the building blocks already exist? Any theories?
The Christian religion has its theories based on Genesis 1. But, one can take a philosophical approach to the matter.
Some questions to ask:
If the early biochemicals did exist before the simplest life forms came to be, how then did those biochemicals come to exist?
And, if they did exist, how then did they assemble themselves in such complex ways without intelligent intervention?
These and related questions, in my understanding, should lead to the logical conclusion of an intelligent designer as the cause of life forms.
-
still waiting for some evidence to be posted. philosophical wankery does not equal evidence.
What kid of evidence would you then be willing to accept? (please give examples)
Also, what concrete evidence do you have that God does not exist?
-
Bumping because I want 2 believe.
Took a bit of a break. The thing that is very appealing to me about God is that He has full explanatory power. A lot of these questions that are raised are good ones, and they are obviously hard to answer. But, they are much harder to answer from the position of God not existing. I am by no means presenting a 'God of the gaps'. Rather, once you have the lens of the God hypothesis in place to look at these matters in depth, the answers start to become clearer and clearer.
-
chasing the dragon
The leviathan is a large aquatic creature of some kind. The Bible refers to it as a fearsome beast having monstrous ferocity and great power. The Hebrew word for “Leviathan” has the root meaning of “coiled” or “twisted.” Isaiah 27:1 speaks of “Leviathan the fast-moving serpent, Leviathan the squirming serpent; . . . the sea monster” (NET). Whatever this monster of the sea is (or was), its strength and wild nature were well known.
There are a handful of references to the leviathan in the Old Testament. Most passages describe the leviathan as a real creature, familiar to people (who, of course, kept their distance) by reputation if not by sight. In Psalm 104:25–26 God is praised as the One who created the habitat for the leviathan: “There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number—living things both large and small. There the ships go to and fro, and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.” Only a great God could have created Leviathan and then made a place big enough for it to “frolic” safely.
In Isaiah 27:1 the leviathan is used as a symbol for the wicked kings of the earth who withstand God’s people. The great power that wicked nations wield can be terrifying, but God assures His children that evil, no matter how monstrous, will be defeated: “In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword—his fierce, great and powerful sword—Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea.” Psalm 74:14 contains a similar reference to God’s victory over Leviathan; in that psalm, the pharaoh of Egypt is most likely meant.
Job 41 gives the most detail about Leviathan as an actual sea creature. In that chapter, God describes Leviathan, emphasizing the animal’s size, strength, and viciousness. The leviathan cannot be tied down or tamed (Job 41:1, 5); it is frightening to even look at (verse 9); it is best left alone (verses 8, 10). The leviathan has a graceful form (verse 12) but is incredibly well protected with scales (verses 13, 15–17). Its chest is as impenetrable as its back (verses 15, 24). It has fearsome teeth (verse 14), and death awaits anyone who approaches its mouth (verses 18–21). Even mighty men are terrified of the leviathan (verse 25). No sword, spear, dart, javelin, arrow, stone, club, or lance can defeat it (verses 26, 28–29). It cannot be caged, because it breaks iron like straw (verse 27). On land, the leviathan leaves a trail of ruts; in the water, it produces a deep, churning wake (verses 30–32). God’s description of the leviathan concludes with a statement that it is the true king of the beasts: “Nothing on earth is its equal—a creature without fear” (verse 33).
So, what animal is Job 41 describing? Some commentators believe Leviathan is a crocodile. Others believe it is a whale or a shark. Based on the biblical description, it seems more likely that Leviathan is a large sea reptile, possibly a species of dinosaur such as the plesiosaurus. Job’s acquaintance with a dinosaur is not far-fetched at all, given that the book of Job is set in a very early time of history.
The point God makes in Job 41 is that Leviathan is under God’s sovereign control. Job had been questioning God (Job 26—31), but God turns the tables and uses the leviathan’s might to emphasize Job’s weakness and frailty. If God created Leviathan (an animal Job cannot stand before), then how great is God? Why is Job even trying to grapple with the Almighty?
Leviathan was a dangerous creature that caused seasoned warriors to turn and run. Leviathan is no myth, but rather a real creature of the sea, subject only to its Creator. As God says in His description of Leviathan, “Who then is able to stand against me? Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me” (Job 41:10–11).
ref: https://www.gotquestions.org/leviathan.html
-
Expand Quote
Bumping because I want 2 believe.
I also want 2 believe :(
Sorry Father for double-post.
Respectfully, I think the evidence points to the existence of God. Take the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, for instance. In oder for the resurrection to have occurred, there needed to be in existence a God outside of time and space that could preform the miracle of raising Jesus from the dead.
In support of the miracolous resurrection you have th following.
1) The validity of the four Gospel accounts.
2) The conversion and testimony of the Apostle Paul.
3) Over 500 witnesses of the risen Jesus.
4) The lack of better explanation for the empty tomb other than the Resurrection of Jesus.
5) The martyrdom of the Apostles for their belief in the Resurrection.
6) The earliest converts, who were Jews, changing their holy day from Saturday to Sunday.
7) Sources outside of the Bible affirming the Christ events (Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, etc.).
There are more evidences for the Resurrection (and the validity of the Gospels), but even these 7 are enough historical support for the belief.
-
Interview from the November 99 issue of "Skateboarder", about how Simon Woodstock is the David Lee Roth of skateboarding...
(https://i.imgur.com/IIxZxhh.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/N5FuJ5S.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Fg4vAwU.jpg)
The last part keeps reverting back to its original size for some reason, when I try to embed it:
https://i.imgur.com/0osrmGK.jpg
I had a good ride. I still make the rounds every once in a while.
http://juicemagazine.com/home/vans-classic-homecoming-celebration-in-costa-mesa-california/
(scroll down pictured with Ray Barbee)
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
*It's evident there's no God.
How so? Do we have absolute proof there is no God?
No but there’s also no proof that god exists. Nobody gives a fuck if you believe in a god or not, people just care that you try to shove your own beliefs on to them
Not really. The whole 'don't push your beliefs' is also a belief that is being pushed. It's self refuting. Why are you pushing your beliefs that people should not push their beliefs, etc.?
I don't really care that its self refuting. I would just rather actually discuss the pertinent issues rather than have to filed contradictory rhetoric.
There is a core issue of discussion here, though.
Lets say that pushing Christianity out in the public square should somehow be considered to be wrong.
On what basis would you say that to do so is wrong? What foundation are you relying on to say that it is wrong to do such a thing, and that your opinion should be considered to be right at the exclusion of the other, and so forth?
[Note: I have raised this question several times on this thread and no one has provided a sufficient response]
-
Expand Quote
You see what god did to us man???
Did Simon give up or are we going to a couple pages of responses?
I've been a bit busy. I am committed to this board/thread through December.
-
Your acting as a regurgitator, same way of speach, same words as everyone else who attempts to preach. You bring nothing new to the table. I find it pretty pathetic. If your thoughts arent invented on your own but through the bible, just tell us to read the bible and leave it at that. Your serving no purpse being a middleman of ideas.
Okay, well then you can take a shot at answering the questions that have gone unanswered by skeptics in this thread:
How did the universe come to exist out of nothing?
How did life come from non-life?
How did all the diversity of life come to exist?
How do we explain the existence of immaterial souls if there is nothing but matter in reality?
How can anyone say that anything is wrong with anything if there is not a universal moral principle by which to make the claims? And, if that universal principle exists, how is it not based on God's existence, etc.?
And I will add:
Since historians agree that the tomb of Jesus was found empty 3 days after his crucifixion:
Is it more logical that Jesus faked His death, that the eyewitnesses all hallucinated thinking they saw the risen Jesus, that Jesus had a twin brother that no one knew about who came on the scene 3 days after the cross, that the apostles stole the body of Jesus, etc.?
-
The way I see it, religion is just a tool used by those who have the economical and political power to control the people.
They just ask people to have faith on god.
Why is that guy the king who can decide who dies, who goes to war, who lives? Because god decided it.
Why? Nobody knows, you just have have faith on god's decisions.
Admittedly, individuals and leadership structures have misused religion for unwarranted political gain. If you read the Gospels, this is not what Jesus did. He actually did the contrary. As The True King, Jesus gave His life so those who believe in Him should have life everlasting. He is the humble King who is the servant of all.
If you have never read the true history of Jesus, you can start with the Gospel of John if you are interested. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1
-
https://youtu.be/lJT3Re-F4CY
This Atheist Delusion video is quite effective in showing that rejection of God is not based on fact, but is rather a moral issue. People wanting to reject God (in spite of the evidence) so they can try to be autonomous from moral accountability for their actions. All the while, those who reject God are often miserable inside, depressed, anxious, fearful, addicted, etc., etc. and are in need of the very Savior whom they reject without evidential warrant.
My friend Eddie Roman actually edited The Atheist Delusion project. The full movie can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
*It's evident there's no God.
How so? Do we have absolute proof there is no God?
No but there’s also no proof that god exists. Nobody gives a fuck if you believe in a god or not, people just care that you try to shove your own beliefs on to them
Not really. The whole 'don't push your beliefs' is also a belief that is being pushed. It's self refuting. Why are you pushing your beliefs that people should not push their beliefs, etc.?
I don't really care that its self refuting. I would just rather actually discuss the pertinent issues rather than have to filed contradictory rhetoric.
There is a core issue of discussion here, though.
Lets say that pushing Christianity out in the public square should somehow be considered to be wrong.
On what basis would you say that to do so is wrong? What foundation are you relying on to say that it is wrong to do such a thing, and that your opinion should be considered to be right at the exclusion of the other, and so forth?
[Note: I have raised this question several times on this thread and no one has provided a sufficient response]
It's not wrong to do that, just no one cares. They want to live life on their own terms, just how you are living life in god terms. Respect other peoples wishes that not everyone has to believe in god
-
Expand Quote
*It's evident there's no God.
How so? Do we have absolute proof there is no God?
This is a good point. It would be entirely correct to say that no person has complete knowledge of everything. Couldn't God exist out there in the categories that a particular individual at any given time are not in the know about? Isn't it possible for God to exist outside of the scope of a person's understanding of reality at a given time in their life? The logical answer is yes.
-
If you started this topic just saying "hey can we have a talk whether people believe in god on this fourm"? You wouldn't have shit show like this. Instead you made this topic saying if you aren't a good person (in gods terms) then you are going to hell
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
*It's evident there's no God.
How so? Do we have absolute proof there is no God?
No but there’s also no proof that god exists. Nobody gives a fuck if you believe in a god or not, people just care that you try to shove your own beliefs on to them
Not really. The whole 'don't push your beliefs' is also a belief that is being pushed. It's self refuting. Why are you pushing your beliefs that people should not push their beliefs, etc.?
I don't really care that its self refuting. I would just rather actually discuss the pertinent issues rather than have to filed contradictory rhetoric.
There is a core issue of discussion here, though.
Lets say that pushing Christianity out in the public square should somehow be considered to be wrong.
On what basis would you say that to do so is wrong? What foundation are you relying on to say that it is wrong to do such a thing, and that your opinion should be considered to be right at the exclusion of the other, and so forth?
[Note: I have raised this question several times on this thread and no one has provided a sufficient response]
It's not wrong to do that, just no one cares. They want to live life on their own terms, just how you are living life in god terms. Respect other peoples wishes that not everyone has to believe in god
Fair enough. If you review the thread, I have taken painstaking efforts to be respectful. To agree to disagree is not disrespectful.
And, that is the specific case here, I simply disagree with you. People do care about the matters. Hosoi cared when he was in prison on a drug charge. Caballero cared when he felt that Daoism wasn't fulfilling. Jaime Thomas cared when he realized that there must be more to life than winning Back to the City and getting sponsors, mag covers, and interviews.
And I think SLAP, with its preference for free speech, is a pretty good forum for hashing these things out.
Now, if you personally don't care, then I understand that. But, you seem to have at least some interest in the discussion (albeit, from the point of a skeptic).
Let me then just ask a couple of things. Is there one thing that really holds you back from becoming a Christian? And, if so, what is it?
Moreover, if I (or anyone else) were able to give you a reasonable explanation in that regard, would you then be willing to consider becoming a Christian?
-
If you started this topic just saying "hey can we have a talk whether people believe in god on this fourm"? You wouldn't have shit show like this. Instead you made this topic saying if you aren't a good person (in gods terms) then you are going to hell
That is the true Gospel. There are consequences for unbelief. So, it would actually be unloving for me to not share that with others if it is something I truly believe to be the case. I have posted this before, but Atheist Penn Jillette perfectly explains how so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8&t=2s
-
If you have never read the true history of Jesus, you can start with the Gospel of John if you are interested. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1
The Bible isn’t real history, fucktard. The real history of Jesus is: some delusional bum got crucified, and people made a religion out of it hundreds of years later.
-
Expand Quote
If you have never read the true history of Jesus, you can start with the Gospel of John if you are interested. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1
This is just factually incorrect. Do the research.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
*It's evident there's no God.
How so? Do we have absolute proof there is no God?
No but there’s also no proof that god exists. Nobody gives a fuck if you believe in a god or not, people just care that you try to shove your own beliefs on to them
Not really. The whole 'don't push your beliefs' is also a belief that is being pushed. It's self refuting. Why are you pushing your beliefs that people should not push their beliefs, etc.?
I don't really care that its self refuting. I would just rather actually discuss the pertinent issues rather than have to filed contradictory rhetoric.
There is a core issue of discussion here, though.
Lets say that pushing Christianity out in the public square should somehow be considered to be wrong.
On what basis would you say that to do so is wrong? What foundation are you relying on to say that it is wrong to do such a thing, and that your opinion should be considered to be right at the exclusion of the other, and so forth?
[Note: I have raised this question several times on this thread and no one has provided a sufficient response]
It's not wrong to do that, just no one cares. They want to live life on their own terms, just how you are living life in god terms. Respect other peoples wishes that not everyone has to believe in god
Fair enough. If you review the thread, I have taken painstaking efforts to be respectful. To agree to disagree is not disrespectful.
And, that is the specific case here, I simply disagree with you. People do care about the matters. Hosoi cared when he was in prison on a drug charge. Caballero cared when he felt that Daoism wasn't fulfilling. Jaime Thomas cared when he realized that there must be more to life than winning Back to the City and getting sponsors, mag covers, and interviews.
And I think SLAP, with its preference for free speech, is a pretty good forum for hashing these things out.
Now, if you personally don't care, then I understand that. But, you seem to have at least some interest in the discussion (albeit, from the point of a skeptic).
Let me then just ask a couple of things. Is there one thing that really holds you back from becoming a Christian? And, if so, what is it?
Moreover, if I (or anyone else) were able to give you a reasonable explanation in that regard, would you then be willing to consider becoming a Christian?
No because I have the best religion already. I'm Irish catholic so I could kill the pope and as long as I went to confession before I die I still go to heaven
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
*It's evident there's no God.
aight. whatevs. Let me know if you come up with a specific issue that troubles you. Have a good week, man.
How so? Do we have absolute proof there is no God?
No but there’s also no proof that god exists. Nobody gives a fuck if you believe in a god or not, people just care that you try to shove your own beliefs on to them
Not really. The whole 'don't push your beliefs' is also a belief that is being pushed. It's self refuting. Why are you pushing your beliefs that people should not push their beliefs, etc.?
I don't really care that its self refuting. I would just rather actually discuss the pertinent issues rather than have to filed contradictory rhetoric.
There is a core issue of discussion here, though.
Lets say that pushing Christianity out in the public square should somehow be considered to be wrong.
On what basis would you say that to do so is wrong? What foundation are you relying on to say that it is wrong to do such a thing, and that your opinion should be considered to be right at the exclusion of the other, and so forth?
[Note: I have raised this question several times on this thread and no one has provided a sufficient response]
It's not wrong to do that, just no one cares. They want to live life on their own terms, just how you are living life in god terms. Respect other peoples wishes that not everyone has to believe in god
Fair enough. If you review the thread, I have taken painstaking efforts to be respectful. To agree to disagree is not disrespectful.
And, that is the specific case here, I simply disagree with you. People do care about the matters. Hosoi cared when he was in prison on a drug charge. Caballero cared when he felt that Daoism wasn't fulfilling. Jaime Thomas cared when he realized that there must be more to life than winning Back to the City and getting sponsors, mag covers, and interviews.
And I think SLAP, with its preference for free speech, is a pretty good forum for hashing these things out.
Now, if you personally don't care, then I understand that. But, you seem to have at least some interest in the discussion (albeit, from the point of a skeptic).
Let me then just ask a couple of things. Is there one thing that really holds you back from becoming a Christian? And, if so, what is it?
Moreover, if I (or anyone else) were able to give you a reasonable explanation in that regard, would you then be willing to consider becoming a Christian?
No because I have the best religion already. I'm Irish catholic so I could kill the pope and as long as I went to confession before I die I still go to heaven
-
Expand Quote
If you started this topic just saying "hey can we have a talk whether people believe in god on this fourm"? You wouldn't have shit show like this. Instead you made this topic saying if you aren't a good person (in gods terms) then you are going to hell
That is the true Gospel. There are consequences for unbelief. So, it would actually be unloving for me to not share that with others if it is something I truly believe to be the case. I have posted this before, but Atheist Penn Jillette perfectly explains how so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8&t=2s
Thats all cool, you have your beliefs and other people have their own beliefs. I can tell you right now though that you aren't a good person. You don't respect other peoples beliefs and you think your religion is the center of the universe. If you actually went to CCD school or were any part of a religion school growing up instead of being a burn out most of your life and just recently getting into god. You would know that being Christian doesn't make you superior than others, and that goes the same as being Jewish doesn't make you superior than others. How do you think ISIS is terrifying the world at this moment? Your ideas isn't that far fetched from them.
It's very simple and I'm pretty sure this is in every religion......... Treat others how you would want to be treated. People don't need a religion to do that
-
I should have never opened this thread...
Treat others how you want to be treated is pretty fuckin simple and definitely a great motto to live by.
I myself, I believe in nature. Nothing else, and nature certainly isn't my God, but IMO it's why I'm here. Simple as that.
-
I should have never opened this thread...
Treat others how you want to be treated is pretty fuckin simple and definitely a great motto to live by.
I myself, I believe in nature. Nothing else, and nature certainly isn't my God, but IMO it's why I'm here. Simple as that.
So strange, I always say Nature is the only thing I believe in. And it most certainly isn'y my God as I'm a part of it.
Also, +1 for the Golden Rule.
-
There's no evidence of god. Freedom of religion is as paramount as being free from religious tyranny. I pray for my family and friends every night. Props to you whether you're a believer or not, life is some shit to navigate.
-
jeus was black
-
Freedom from Religious Tranny
-
Freedom from Religious Tranny
Is that what God created guns for? Shoot all the religious trannies
-
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,
We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.
....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.
P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%$@&! (because of a human)
When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.
Just some thoughts
-
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,
We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.
....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.
P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%$@&! (because of a human)
When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.
Just some thoughts
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/286/358/bea.jpg)
-
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,
We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.
....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.
P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%$@&! (because of a human)
When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.
Just some thoughts
We can also pick up a gun and mow down a church full of people praying to their God.
The evidence you've put forth seems to way that man is, himself, God, the creator of all things.
Look, in order for faith to be of any value whatsoever, the belief behind it must be based on absolutely zero proof. Any "evidence" that God exists would rob it entirely of its power. I'm writing that as somebody who prays every morning for help to stay sober and be of service to my fellow man. But I don't "know" that there's anything there hearing my prayer. If I did then faith would have no power. It's in the believing in something there's no evidence for that I draw my strength.
-
Expand Quote
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,
We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.
....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.
P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%$@&! (because of a human)
When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.
Just some thoughts
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/286/358/bea.jpg)
-
Simon, what are your views on gay marriage, social services, capitalism, and Islam? I'm just curious as to the degree to which you actually follow the advice of the biblical character Joshua the Anointed.
-
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism? That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God. Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20, Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths? Is it because God said they are?
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion
-
I wonder if this is the real simon woodstock. Hey I remember you're 1st interview? you were skating a curb or flatbar doing a combo wearing a denim vest and you skated for dogtown? Lets get some stories on the go here. JJ rodgers? did brian fernandad skate for dog town ? You grinded that out house roof before jeremy klien grinded those fake rooves.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
If you started this topic just saying "hey can we have a talk whether people believe in god on this fourm"? You wouldn't have shit show like this. Instead you made this topic saying if you aren't a good person (in gods terms) then you are going to hell
That is the true Gospel. There are consequences for unbelief. So, it would actually be unloving for me to not share that with others if it is something I truly believe to be the case. I have posted this before, but Atheist Penn Jillette perfectly explains how so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8&t=2s
Thats all cool, you have your beliefs and other people have their own beliefs. I can tell you right now though that you aren't a good person. You don't respect other peoples beliefs and you think your religion is the center of the universe. If you actually went to CCD school or were any part of a religion school growing up instead of being a burn out most of your life and just recently getting into god. You would know that being Christian doesn't make you superior than others, and that goes the same as being Jewish doesn't make you superior than others. How do you think ISIS is terrifying the world at this moment? Your ideas isn't that far fetched from them.
It's very simple and I'm pretty sure this is in every religion......... Treat others how you would want to be treated. People don't need a religion to do that
Respectfully, I think you are just misunderstanding the approach taken here. And, mischaracterizing my views. Nevertheless, I am still open to further dialogue with you on the matters, but I would need something presented to me that is more philosophical and based on logic to be able to accurately and better respond to, rather than emotional rants and complaints. But, if the basic truth put forth from your post is that we should be loving and respectful towards others and their beliefs, this discussion would be a good opportunity for you do do that (i.e., quell the belittling rhetoric moving forward). And, you might want to hold off from raising your beliefs up as being superior to mine, in order to avoid further contradiction and self-refutation in your statements.
What this boils down to is the uniqueness of Jesus. If someone, through rational and evidential argumentation can show that Jesus Christ is not, in fact, God in human from and thus unique in contrast to all other profits, I would be willing to look at the arguments presented.
These two videos support the Uniqueness of Christ argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNwUZ3LySgQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZaZRE5Cr_4
If you or anyone else have respectful counter arguments, I will look at them.
-
I respect your beliefs, I don't respect you for telling people on SLAP that they are going to hell
-
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism? That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God. Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20, Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths? Is it because God said they are?
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion
I am not saying that secular humanists don't have moral systems and/or cannot be moral. What I am saying is that there is no true philosophical foundation for the secular humanists' moral claims. If they are all relative to the individual, or society, etc, then they are all just opinions and thus cannot be consistently applied globally (or supported meta-ethically). Rather, what we see is actually evidence for God; the Golden Rule has been referenced several times on this thread. How or why is the Golden Rule so universally accepted? Because moral standards are universal (i.e., not relativistic to the individual) and thus are set in place by a Standard (God) that exists outside of time and space as arbiter. So, I won't stop using this argument because skeptics actually have to rely on a universal moral standard outside of themselves to say there is no universal moral standard. All arguments against the Moral Argument for God are self-refuting.
What is more, if you believe that the Bible passages that you referenced are morally wrong, by what standard are you saying that they are morally wrong? By your own standard or opinion? Or are you referencing a standard that exists outside of yourself that should apply to other people as well? The latter has to be the case, and, again, this self refuting on behalf of the secular humanist approach.
Further, if I were to take each of the Bible passages you referenced and give you clear philosophical/theological explanations for each of them, would you then consider becoming a Christian in light of the facts presented?
-
I wonder if this is the real simon woodstock. Hey I remember you're 1st interview? you were skating a curb or flatbar doing a combo wearing a denim vest and you skated for dogtown? Lets get some stories on the go here. JJ rodgers? did brian fernandad skate for dog town ? You grinded that out house roof before jeremy klien grinded those fake rooves.
Thanks man: Yeah, the good old days. I got boards for a minute from Dogtowm through Stacy Gibo but wound up as AM on Black Label. I lived with JJ Rogers for a while in downtown SJ. I would come home and say "Hey JJ, what are you up to?" and I would see a dead squirrel on the porch in front of him and he would respond "Trying to learn how to taxidermy this dead squirrel" etc.. etc.. etc.. I remember him shredding that San Jose mini ramp pro contest in the 90s. Omar Hassan won it (I think) but JJ placed top 10.
I think Ferdinand rode for Circle A back in its heyday (I could be wrong on that). Brian is a sick skater, he would trow down at every spot.
The outhouse grind went down at a Tracker party in SD. Felt good to do it.
-
I respect your beliefs, I don't respect you for telling people on SLAP that they are going to hell
Fair enough, man. Its just something to consider. You (obviously) don't have to answer to me. The point is that if God exists and will judge the world according to His holy and righteous standard, those who will inevitably have to stand before God in judgement will have to answer to Him according to their own doings. And, if anyone is not perfectly righteous and holy on their own, there would logically, then, be consequences. Moreover, good works cannot erase bad works that have been done. That is what faith in Christ is for.
This is how I came to Christ 17 + years ago. I was convicted of the total multitude of my sins and knew I needed a Savior for help. Here is basically how that went down if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFCWx8eA28Q&t=2s
I also saw Christian Hosoi a few weeks ago. He looks and sounds like he is doing really well, which is a testimony of God's providence as dude was a complete mess in the late 90s. (I was living in Huntington Beach during his demise and everyone was grieved that he had hit rock bottom).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAv4Q9dg70
Again, just respectfully offering all this up for consideration. Peace.
-
https://youtu.be/lJT3Re-F4CY
This is another good/intense movie about philosophical/moral Worldviews by the same media company. Skaters can do a 180 too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
-
Expand Quote
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism? That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God. Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20, Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths? Is it because God said they are?
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion
I am not saying that secular humanists don't have moral systems and/or cannot be moral. What I am saying is that there is no true philosophical foundation for the secular humanists' moral claims. If they are all relative to the individual, or society, etc, then they are all just opinions and thus cannot be consistently applied globally (or supported meta-ethically). Rather, what we see is actually evidence for God; the Golden Rule has been referenced several times on this thread. How or why is the Golden Rule so universally accepted? Because moral standards are universal (i.e., not relativistic to the individual) and thus are set in place by a Standard (God) that exists outside of time and space as arbiter. So, I won't stop using this argument because skeptics actually have to rely on a universal moral standard outside of themselves to say there is no universal moral standard. All arguments against the Moral Argument for God are self-refuting.
What is more, if you believe that the Bible passages that you referenced are morally wrong, by what standard are you saying that they are morally wrong? By your own standard or opinion? Or are you referencing a standard that exists outside of yourself that should apply to other people as well? The latter has to be the case, and, again, this self refuting on behalf of the secular humanist approach.
Further, if I were to take each of the Bible passages you referenced and give you clear philosophical/theological explanations for each of them, would you then consider becoming a Christian in light of the facts presented?
Thanks for avoiding my request to explain these passages which seemingly contradict the commandment "thou shalt not murder/kill/destroy" for no other reason than they detail something God doesn't like and basically saying "I could totally explain these but I need you to say you'll believe me when I explain them" makes it pretty clear that you're not that confident in your explanation. Furthermore, I think then that a consistent moral code such as "don't kill/harm people whose actions are not killing/harming others (such as witches or homosexuals)" is much more consistent and easy to apply than God's rules as outlined in the Bible. And i'm basing that off my interactions with others and society and that seems valid. Basically, you haven't convincingly argued that an outside arbiter/God is absolutely necessary for a moral framework nor have you convincingly argued that a "consistent" morality (at least as you define it which to non-believers is based on the whims of a outside force insistent on controlling every aspect of your life) is better than one that is relativistic and can change and adapt to different situations and eras.
The Golden Rule as a consistent moral framework can prove merely that different human societies have learned that cooperation is more likely to lead to continued existence that disagreement and strife. It doesn't have to mean that some external arbiter handed it down despite your insistence that that's the only philosophical way for it to make sense. You're not actually doing philosophy when you claim that because you're begging the question and arguing from the starting point that "God exists" versus arguing towards it.
Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me.
And further, even if you were doing philosophy correctly, that does not necessarily mean that God must exist outside of your thought experiment because we have no concrete evidence for it. Plato could logically and philosophical make a case for the existence of perfect forms, but until we can prove their existence in other ways, believing in them requires faith.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism? That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God. Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20, Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths? Is it because God said they are?
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion
I am not saying that secular humanists don't have moral systems and/or cannot be moral. What I am saying is that there is no true philosophical foundation for the secular humanists' moral claims. If they are all relative to the individual, or society, etc, then they are all just opinions and thus cannot be consistently applied globally (or supported meta-ethically). Rather, what we see is actually evidence for God; the Golden Rule has been referenced several times on this thread. How or why is the Golden Rule so universally accepted? Because moral standards are universal (i.e., not relativistic to the individual) and thus are set in place by a Standard (God) that exists outside of time and space as arbiter. So, I won't stop using this argument because skeptics actually have to rely on a universal moral standard outside of themselves to say there is no universal moral standard. All arguments against the Moral Argument for God are self-refuting.
What is more, if you believe that the Bible passages that you referenced are morally wrong, by what standard are you saying that they are morally wrong? By your own standard or opinion? Or are you referencing a standard that exists outside of yourself that should apply to other people as well? The latter has to be the case, and, again, this self refuting on behalf of the secular humanist approach.
Further, if I were to take each of the Bible passages you referenced and give you clear philosophical/theological explanations for each of them, would you then consider becoming a Christian in light of the facts presented?
Thanks for avoiding my request to explain these passages which seemingly contradict the commandment "thou shalt not murder/kill/destroy" for no other reason than they detail something God doesn't like and basically saying "I could totally explain these but I need you to say you'll believe me when I explain them" makes it pretty clear that you're not that confident in your explanation. Furthermore, I think then that a consistent moral code such as "don't kill/harm people whose actions are not killing/harming others (such as witches or homosexuals)" is much more consistent and easy to apply than God's rules as outlined in the Bible. And i'm basing that off my interactions with others and society and that seems valid. Basically, you haven't convincingly argued that an outside arbiter/God is absolutely necessary for a moral framework nor have you convincingly argued that a "consistent" morality (at least as you define it which to non-believers is based on the whims of a outside force insistent on controlling every aspect of your life) is better than one that is relativistic and can change and adapt to different situations and eras.
The Golden Rule as a consistent moral framework can prove merely that different human societies have learned that cooperation is more likely to lead to continued existence that disagreement and strife. It doesn't have to mean that some external arbiter handed it down despite your insistence that that's the only philosophical way for it to make sense. You're not actually doing philosophy when you claim that because you're begging the question and arguing from the starting point that "God exists" versus arguing towards it.
Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me.
And further, even if you were doing philosophy correctly, that does not necessarily mean that God must exist outside of your thought experiment because we have no concrete evidence for it. Plato could logically and philosophical make a case for the existence of perfect forms, but until we can prove their existence in other ways, believing in them requires faith.
Sure thing. I can prove the self refuting nature of relativism with one related yes or no question. Do you believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth? Yes or no?
(no need for a long response, just say yes or no)
-
answer it both ways so I can see the angle your using to outsmart him
-
answer it both ways so I can see the angle your using to outsmart him
Its a tired old tactic being tried on me. The old "bring up a bunch of difficult to explain Bible verses to get the opponent running around in response" trick. There are reasonable answers available for the hard to explain verses and/or the hard to reconcile philosophical tensions in the Bible and Theology. So, I have to put out the provisio of the opponent at least accepting the answers to the first wave of challenge verses they present without adding a second and third wave of challenge verses right after the work is done on the first batch.
Nevertheless, I will make you a deal, though. If there is a verse (or two) in the Bible that has always puzzled you, and you really want to know if there are good explanations, I will be more than happy to make an attempt at response.
But, shy of that, there are plenty of resources on the web that respond to the Bible difficulty challenges.
Also, the foundational moral issue still remains. The challenger is basically saying that the Bible is immoral, or has an immoral representation of God. The question of "Immoral view of God based on what standard of morals?" has to be answered.
What is happening when anyone says that the Bible is of low substance as far as moral representation of God goes, this implies that the Bible could be better in that moral regard. To say that something could be better, implies that there is a Best standard by which to judge things as being less than best, or not as good as something else, etc. There has to be a Best standard (God) in order to have a foundation for stating that something is less than best, could be better, etc.
Relying the Best standard to argue against God (the Best standard) is what Frank Turek calls "Stealing from God" .. which is what the atheist has to do whenever they make universal moral claims about anything.
PS: If you review this entire discussion thread from page one, not one person has properly explained how there can be universal morals apart from the universal moral standard that comes from God. If morals are individually or culturally relative, then the genocides of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. could not be viewed as morally wrong, but rather them merely having their own relativistic views on morals and each of their subsequent societies falling into collective affirmation of the purported moral benefit of genocide (i.e, the elimination of so called inferior races, classes, etc, for the so called benefit of society).
The Christian worldview allows me (or anyone else for that matter) to have a philosophical foundation for saying that Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the like were wrong and evil in every sense of the term, past, present, and future.
-
My answer to your question is "No." And I'm going to ignore your dismissive "no need for a long response" to elaborate on it but feel free to ignore everything beyond that first sentence.
To respond more fully, it's not a tired old tactic to challenge you on your beliefs if your first response is insufficient to your claims OR if your first response is only sufficient to answer the first challenge. Having more challenges to your claims is saying that I don't find your claims sufficiently supported.
And I've told you what my basis that the Bible is immoral is based on - social understandings and empathetic understandings of other people's ability to feel pain and a desire to decreased actively harming others as I would not want them to harm me. That one can reach this morality without a command from the divine is not unreasonable. Again, you're assuming that because you need some greater external command to base your morality on does not mean that we all do. And your need for this does not mean that it is philosophically necessary nor that it must exist in some solid form the way you believe God does. You're arguing for a very narrow Platonic ideal: i.e. there is a perfect moral form that actually exists despite not having concrete evidence to support your claims.
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/5640
-
My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No."
Just one more follow up question:
Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
-
Expand Quote
I wonder if this is the real simon woodstock. Hey I remember you're 1st interview? you were skating a curb or flatbar doing a combo wearing a denim vest and you skated for dogtown? Lets get some stories on the go here. JJ rodgers? did brian fernandad skate for dog town ? You grinded that out house roof before jeremy klien grinded those fake rooves.
Thanks man: Yeah, the good old days. I got boards for a minute from Dogtowm through Stacy Gibo but wound up as AM on Black Label. I lived with JJ Rogers for a while in downtown SJ. I would come home and say "Hey JJ, what are you up to?" and I would see a dead squirrel on the porch in front of him and he would respond "Trying to learn how to taxidermy this dead squirrel" etc.. etc.. etc.. I remember him shredding that San Jose mini ramp pro contest in the 90s. Omar Hassan won it (I think) but JJ placed top 10.
I think Ferdinand rode for Circle A back in its heyday (I could be wrong on that). Brian is a sick skater, he would trow down at every spot.
The outhouse grind went down at a Tracker party in SD. Felt good to do it.
Tight!
-
Expand Quote
My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No."
Just one more follow up question:
Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. If I say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real. For all intents and purposes, yes.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No."
Just one more follow up question:
Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. If i say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real. For for all intents and purposes, yes.
(http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/nba/players/full/3102531.png&w=350&h=254)
Check mate atheist
-
I wasn't raised religious at all as a kid, my parents never talked about religion and we've never been to church. I kinda just assumed the role as an athiest, thinking that believing in god was like believing in santa. Then I studied philosophy in undergrad, where I had a few philosophy of religion classes that kinda got me thinking. One professor I really looked up to and was kinda a mentor admitted to the class (for the first time ever) that he was a theist. Kinda got me thinking...like this guy was incredibly intelligent... and it took him about 30 years of hard thinking to even decide he believed in some form of god. So it's kinda hard to wrap my head around how some angsty teen is committed to atheism, and god is total bullshit, etc. I think I'll take it to the grave deciding if I believe in a god or not.
-
I wasn't raised religious at all as a kid, my parents never talked about religion and we've never been to church. I kinda just assumed the role as an athiest, thinking that believing in god was like believing in santa. Then I studied philosophy in undergrad, where I had a few philosophy of religion classes that kinda got me thinking. One professor I really looked up to and was kinda a mentor admitted to the class (for the first time ever) that he was a theist. Kinda got me thinking...like this guy was incredibly intelligent... and it took him about 30 years of hard thinking to even decide he believed in some form of god. So it's kinda hard to wrap my head around how some angsty teen is committed to atheism, and god is total bullshit, etc. I think I'll take it to the grave deciding if I believe in a god or not.
I mean, incredibly intelligent people believe in things like white supremacy so intelligence in one area doesn't mean intelligence or correctness in all fields.
That said, I think if one is going to believe in a god, deism or some strains of theism makes more since than like Christianisty.
-
If God created me, when did he rape my mom?
-
There are reasonable answers available for the hard to explain verses and/or the hard to reconcile philosophical tensions in the Bible and Theology.
That are not written by god tho like the bible is. Those 'explainations' would vary in quality I imagine (also they are often concocted in the vein of being a defence'\offence in the creationist vs science taught in school war. God's name to me is mutually exclusive from the whole concept of 'evidence' -why would he play that?). Maybe some passages in the good book can be read first and understood years later, thru sunshine/rain and joy/pain. (edit also good works may help contextualize passages). With help from faith hope charity.
-
If you guys know who Roy Moore is, then I think it's easy to see that God is in fact quite real. Roy Moore is all the proof anyone should ever need.
-
Expand Quote
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,
We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.
....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.
P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%$@&! (because of a human)
When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.
Just some thoughts
We can also pick up a gun and mow down a church full of people praying to their God.
The evidence you've put forth seems to way that man is, himself, God, the creator of all things.
Look, in order for faith to be of any value whatsoever, the belief behind it must be based on absolutely zero proof. Any "evidence" that God exists would rob it entirely of its power. I'm writing that as somebody who prays every morning for help to stay sober and be of service to my fellow man. But I don't "know" that there's anything there hearing my prayer. If I did then faith would have no power. It's in the believing in something there's no evidence for that I draw my strength.
I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.
-
phalanx, please stick around.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,
We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.
....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.
P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%$@&! (because of a human)
When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.
Just some thoughts
We can also pick up a gun and mow down a church full of people praying to their God.
The evidence you've put forth seems to way that man is, himself, God, the creator of all things.
Look, in order for faith to be of any value whatsoever, the belief behind it must be based on absolutely zero proof. Any "evidence" that God exists would rob it entirely of its power. I'm writing that as somebody who prays every morning for help to stay sober and be of service to my fellow man. But I don't "know" that there's anything there hearing my prayer. If I did then faith would have no power. It's in the believing in something there's no evidence for that I draw my strength.
I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.
Except we also have substantial scientific evidence for oxygen and how the human body works so your personal evidence as it regards oxygen's existence doesn't matter much by which I mean if you didn't exist, oxygen still would. Whereas if you didn't exist, neither would your personal evidence for god so we should take it with a grain of salt.
Also, plenty of other animals can 'create' things too and they can be more complicated than human's versions (think of honeybees' dances that are their language). Furthermore, the human ability to create is really only evidence of the human ability to create. There is no reason to think that can be extrapolated to mean we must have been created. What you're presenting is a variation on the watchmaker argument.
-
I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist,
What's "personal evidence"?, is that a thing? The chest rising proves existance of lungs? Maybe you're brain has gone dead (and came back, you seem intellegent) -I'm just saying if you don't know, you don't know. Maybe thats okay. If you tell people your lungs don't exist they'll surely laugh but they're the weak ones.
-
Kay so I saw that Simon has the abortion thing up there and I've got 2cents on that one. Right now homeless people get tickets for vagrancy. Most homeless are woken up and made to move 5 or 6 times a night by the police. For many years hospitals kept one rule; preservation of life. Euthinasia and abortion are new and regardless of what side your on, both of those things include a death. Incurring death is a brand new thing for doctors and its a line. The thing is, once that line is crossed and you got doctors doing it for a generation or two and you've got hospitals cutting budgets things will become dicey. Homeless people (partially because of how they're treated) end up with like 10 times as many hospital visits as the average person. I'm saying there would have to be a 180 degree transformation in how homeless people are treated by society for them NOT to 'fall between some cracks' with a enstated euthinasia program. Budget cuts will equal going into the hospital as a penniless addicted 50 year old and not coming back out.
We have large scale (millions) gendercide right now by means of abortion. Abortion and euthinasia are technologies we don't have the capacity to handle. Monumental moral hazzard. Thats why the 'preservation of life' thing was a thing.
-
^
There's no such thing as morality. It's as real as fairies. We are evolved, creative and thinking creatures. People should choose whether or not they wish to create life or end their own.
The real problem is inhumane laws making people want to kill themselves (vagrancy etc.) and terrible living conditions children should never experience.
-
^
There's no such thing as morality. It's as real as fairies. We are evolved, creative and thinking creatures. People should choose whether or not they wish to create life or end their own.
The real problem is inhumane laws making people want to kill themselves (vagrancy etc.) and terrible living conditions children should never experience.
You mention that "the real problem" is homeless driven to suicide (?) -yeah maybe that's it, but I was talking about (what i feel is) an inevitable and avoidable situation that has not come to fruition yet (i'd think someone who read what I'd written, would comprehend that) In some countries they abort females cause they don't want them, its happening en masse (millions) -Does that go under a freedom to "choose whether they wish to create life" or is it maybe fuckn bad? We are conceiving down sydrome humans still but now they don't get born cause they get screened, (which I'm sure people are okay with but 'm not.) Anyway to me it looks like you barely read what I wrote, gathered it was anti abortion and then just hit me with the fluff. edit Also morality is not 'real' on its own, it needs oxygen. If you don't want to give morality a shot that's fine its a free country.
-
^
Obviously, as a North American fluffball, the reasons I'd choose abortion are very different than some living in, say, China. I still think freedom of choice is some fundamental shit to protect, whatever the case may be. Gendercide is despicable, and so is screening children for "disabilities". Don't get me wrong.
I still think removing freedom of choice is infinitely more despicable.
-
^
Obviously, as a North American fluffball, the reasons I'd choose abortion are very different than some living in, say, China. I still think freedom of choice is some fundamental shit to protect, whatever the case may be. Gendercide is despicable, and so is screening children for "disabilities". Don't get me wrong.
I still think removing freedom of choice is infinitely more despicable.
Infinitely? really? Could it not be seen as a safegaurd? Do you want politcally motivated pressure to abort, or racial. You're crazy if you think we are not capable of such things and it seems that the platform ecomony (mega corps) will be deciding this shit and there's defenitely "no such thing as morality" with google or amazon
-
I don't want to feel political pressure to do anything at all (see thread : Anarchy). I'd like to think I understand what the State is capable of in terms of pressure, and I agree with you on that.
I just think we need to work on improving the living conditions and culture in our world. In a theoretical world where humans are taken care of properly from their birth to their death, abortion and suicide don't exist.
I personally would never have a child even though I think it's the apex of human experience. Never say never, but I'm far from convinced it's the best thing to do right now.
Also, anybody that tries to take away my God-given (lol) right to kill myself better look the fuck out.
-
I don't want to feel political pressure to do anything at all (see thread : Anarchy). I'd like to think I understand what the State is capable of in terms of pressure, and I agree with you on that.
I just think we need to work on improving the living conditions and culture in our world. In a theoretical world where humans are taken care of properly from their birth to their death, abortion and suicide don't exist.
I personally would never have a child even though I think it's the apex of human experience. Never say never, but I'm far from convinced it's the best thing to do right now.
Also, anybody that tries to take away my God-given (lol) right to kill myself better look the fuck out.
Thanks, insightful response.
I wouldn't push to make suicide illegal either.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,
We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.
....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.
P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%$@&! (because of a human)
When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.
Just some thoughts
We can also pick up a gun and mow down a church full of people praying to their God.
The evidence you've put forth seems to way that man is, himself, God, the creator of all things.
Look, in order for faith to be of any value whatsoever, the belief behind it must be based on absolutely zero proof. Any "evidence" that God exists would rob it entirely of its power. I'm writing that as somebody who prays every morning for help to stay sober and be of service to my fellow man. But I don't "know" that there's anything there hearing my prayer. If I did then faith would have no power. It's in the believing in something there's no evidence for that I draw my strength.
I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.
Except we also have substantial scientific evidence for oxygen and how the human body works so your personal evidence as it regards oxygen's existence doesn't matter much by which I mean if you didn't exist, oxygen still would. Whereas if you didn't exist, neither would your personal evidence for god so we should take it with a grain of salt.
Also, plenty of other animals can 'create' things too and they can be more complicated than human's versions (think of honeybees' dances that are their language). Furthermore, the human ability to create is really only evidence of the human ability to create. There is no reason to think that can be extrapolated to mean we must have been created. What you're presenting is a variation on the watchmaker argument.
lol! The exact response I expected. It was an analogy of how I believe faith works verses evidence, not submitted as proof of God. The word "personal" was to stand in for "what my perception is" of those things going on around me, and how I can somewhat deduce obvious truths from thier cause and effect (spiritual or physical). All opinion that come from my personal experiences. (there's that word again)
Your right, some animals, do create, such as spiders creating a web or ants building a mound. But there not being creative for creatives sake (i.e. artist), there doing what their instinct tells them to do. No monkey says, "hey, I have this vision to paint a women with a complacent look on her face and call it the Mona Lisa and show it to my monkey buddies." We've been given the ability to create functionally and abstractly. I'm sure someone will post about some monkey that paints flowers. Of course that monkey was given a picture of a flower to go by and a banana every time he got it right.(or a cigarette if Michael Crichton is telling you about it). Just my two or three cents. Thanks for the input.
-
phalanx, please stick around.
I'm going skating! I'll be back soon!
-
Simon, can you post a recent photo of yourself? I need to know if you're a weird lookin people.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,
We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.
....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.
P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%$@&! (because of a human)
When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.
Just some thoughts
We can also pick up a gun and mow down a church full of people praying to their God.
The evidence you've put forth seems to way that man is, himself, God, the creator of all things.
Look, in order for faith to be of any value whatsoever, the belief behind it must be based on absolutely zero proof. Any "evidence" that God exists would rob it entirely of its power. I'm writing that as somebody who prays every morning for help to stay sober and be of service to my fellow man. But I don't "know" that there's anything there hearing my prayer. If I did then faith would have no power. It's in the believing in something there's no evidence for that I draw my strength.
I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.
Except we also have substantial scientific evidence for oxygen and how the human body works so your personal evidence as it regards oxygen's existence doesn't matter much by which I mean if you didn't exist, oxygen still would. Whereas if you didn't exist, neither would your personal evidence for god so we should take it with a grain of salt.
Also, plenty of other animals can 'create' things too and they can be more complicated than human's versions (think of honeybees' dances that are their language). Furthermore, the human ability to create is really only evidence of the human ability to create. There is no reason to think that can be extrapolated to mean we must have been created. What you're presenting is a variation on the watchmaker argument.
lol! The exact response I expected. It was an analogy of how I believe faith works verses evidence, not submitted as proof of God. The word "personal" was to stand in for "what my perception is" of those things going on around me, and how I can somewhat deduce obvious truths from thier cause and effect (spiritual or physical). All opinion that come from my personal experiences. (there's that word again)
Your right, some animals, do create, such as spiders creating a web or ants building a mound. But there not being creative for creatives sake (i.e. artist), there doing what their instinct tells them to do. No monkey says, "hey, I have this vision to paint a women with a complacent look on her face and call it the Mona Lisa and show it to my monkey buddies." We've been given the ability to create functionally and abstractly. I'm sure someone will post about some monkey that paints flowers. Of course that monkey was given a picture of a flower to go by and a banana every time he got it right.(or a cigarette if Michael Crichton is telling you about it). Just my two or three cents. Thanks for the input.
I understood what you were saying and that it was an analogy. It's just a really shitty one for the reasons I described.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
A few things that only humans can do that make me believe there must be a God or intelligent designer,
We can sing beautiful complicated songs.
We can dance a thousand different ways and make new ones up everyday!
We can write computer programs or operate on the human heart.
We can wage a war or declare peace.
We can build airplanes that go faster than sound.
We can choose to forgive those who have wronged us.
....and we can skate! with no limits to our imagination.
P.s. I don't want to hear about a monkey that can identify 800 words (taught by a human) or a parrot that can say #%$@&! (because of a human)
When a monkey can write a symphony or play Eruption on the guitar, or a parrot have a philosophical discussion I might listen.
Just some thoughts
We can also pick up a gun and mow down a church full of people praying to their God.
The evidence you've put forth seems to way that man is, himself, God, the creator of all things.
Look, in order for faith to be of any value whatsoever, the belief behind it must be based on absolutely zero proof. Any "evidence" that God exists would rob it entirely of its power. I'm writing that as somebody who prays every morning for help to stay sober and be of service to my fellow man. But I don't "know" that there's anything there hearing my prayer. If I did then faith would have no power. It's in the believing in something there's no evidence for that I draw my strength.
I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.
Except we also have substantial scientific evidence for oxygen and how the human body works so your personal evidence as it regards oxygen's existence doesn't matter much by which I mean if you didn't exist, oxygen still would. Whereas if you didn't exist, neither would your personal evidence for god so we should take it with a grain of salt.
Also, plenty of other animals can 'create' things too and they can be more complicated than human's versions (think of honeybees' dances that are their language). Furthermore, the human ability to create is really only evidence of the human ability to create. There is no reason to think that can be extrapolated to mean we must have been created. What you're presenting is a variation on the watchmaker argument.
lol! The exact response I expected. It was an analogy of how I believe faith works verses evidence, not submitted as proof of God. The word "personal" was to stand in for "what my perception is" of those things going on around me, and how I can somewhat deduce obvious truths from thier cause and effect (spiritual or physical). All opinion that come from my personal experiences. (there's that word again)
Your right, some animals, do create, such as spiders creating a web or ants building a mound. But there not being creative for creatives sake (i.e. artist), there doing what their instinct tells them to do. No monkey says, "hey, I have this vision to paint a women with a complacent look on her face and call it the Mona Lisa and show it to my monkey buddies." We've been given the ability to create functionally and abstractly. I'm sure someone will post about some monkey that paints flowers. Of course that monkey was given a picture of a flower to go by and a banana every time he got it right.(or a cigarette if Michael Crichton is telling you about it). Just my two or three cents. Thanks for the input.
I understood what you were saying and that it was an analogy. It's just a really shitty one for the reasons I described.
lol! I accept your criticism, Ill try and think of a better analogy.
-
I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2r08fNDeP1rrxxxso1_1280.jpg)
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I wonder if this is the real simon woodstock. Hey I remember you're 1st interview? you were skating a curb or flatbar doing a combo wearing a denim vest and you skated for dogtown? Lets get some stories on the go here. JJ rodgers? did brian fernandad skate for dog town ? You grinded that out house roof before jeremy klien grinded those fake rooves.
Thanks man: Yeah, the good old days. I got boards for a minute from Dogtowm through Stacy Gibo but wound up as AM on Black Label. I lived with JJ Rogers for a while in downtown SJ. I would come home and say "Hey JJ, what are you up to?" and I would see a dead squirrel on the porch in front of him and he would respond "Trying to learn how to taxidermy this dead squirrel" etc.. etc.. etc.. I remember him shredding that San Jose mini ramp pro contest in the 90s. Omar Hassan won it (I think) but JJ placed top 10.
I think Ferdinand rode for Circle A back in its heyday (I could be wrong on that). Brian is a sick skater, he would trow down at every spot.
The outhouse grind went down at a Tracker party in SD. Felt good to do it.
I talked old times on the Shetler Show the other day as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ08IbfrCh0&t=4613s
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No."
Just one more follow up question:
Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. If I say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real. For all intents and purposes, yes.
Thanks for responding, oyolar. This isn't trickery. It's just use of Aristotle's logic. For one to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth, they would have to be absolutely sure of the truth of the statement in order to hold it as true which is thus self refuting and therefore shows the logical impossibility of relativism.
The same goes for relative ethics/morals. To say 'there is no universally true absolute moral standard' is an absolute/universal statement about moral standards. Thus, moral relativism suffers the same self refuting fate.
Nevertheless, if there are truly passages in the Bible that are perplexing to you (especially after you have read them in their context and honestly tried to figure them out for yourself, etc.) I would be glad to try to offer up reasonable responses. I am just making sure that you didn't just copy and paste those verse references off of an atheist website and are thus simply trying to get me running through the gambit there.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No."
Just one more follow up question:
Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. If i say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real. For for all intents and purposes, yes.
(http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/nba/players/full/3102531.png&w=350&h=254)
Check mate atheist
This is not checkmate at all. If relativism were true, one could hold that Unicorns were, in fact, real. And that would have to be considered as equally valid to saying that they are not real. Oyolar is actually further proving that relativism is wrong in his response. All the while arguing that my views are wrong and that his are right. According to relativism, we would both be equally right and there would be no need for argument, etc.
Relativism seems like it is putting forth tolerance, when it is really propagating insanity. This video shows that what I am saying is actually the case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism? That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God. Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20, Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths? Is it because God said they are?
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion
I am not saying that secular humanists don't have moral systems and/or cannot be moral. What I am saying is that there is no true philosophical foundation for the secular humanists' moral claims. If they are all relative to the individual, or society, etc, then they are all just opinions and thus cannot be consistently applied globally (or supported meta-ethically). Rather, what we see is actually evidence for God; the Golden Rule has been referenced several times on this thread. How or why is the Golden Rule so universally accepted? Because moral standards are universal (i.e., not relativistic to the individual) and thus are set in place by a Standard (God) that exists outside of time and space as arbiter. So, I won't stop using this argument because skeptics actually have to rely on a universal moral standard outside of themselves to say there is no universal moral standard. All arguments against the Moral Argument for God are self-refuting.
What is more, if you believe that the Bible passages that you referenced are morally wrong, by what standard are you saying that they are morally wrong? By your own standard or opinion? Or are you referencing a standard that exists outside of yourself that should apply to other people as well? The latter has to be the case, and, again, this self refuting on behalf of the secular humanist approach.
Further, if I were to take each of the Bible passages you referenced and give you clear philosophical/theological explanations for each of them, would you then consider becoming a Christian in light of the facts presented?
Thanks for avoiding my request to explain these passages which seemingly contradict the commandment "thou shalt not murder/kill/destroy" for no other reason than they detail something God doesn't like and basically saying "I could totally explain these but I need you to say you'll believe me when I explain them" makes it pretty clear that you're not that confident in your explanation. Furthermore, I think then that a consistent moral code such as "don't kill/harm people whose actions are not killing/harming others (such as witches or homosexuals)" is much more consistent and easy to apply than God's rules as outlined in the Bible. And i'm basing that off my interactions with others and society and that seems valid. Basically, you haven't convincingly argued that an outside arbiter/God is absolutely necessary for a moral framework nor have you convincingly argued that a "consistent" morality (at least as you define it which to non-believers is based on the whims of a outside force insistent on controlling every aspect of your life) is better than one that is relativistic and can change and adapt to different situations and eras.
The Golden Rule as a consistent moral framework can prove merely that different human societies have learned that cooperation is more likely to lead to continued existence that disagreement and strife. It doesn't have to mean that some external arbiter handed it down despite your insistence that that's the only philosophical way for it to make sense. You're not actually doing philosophy when you claim that because you're begging the question and arguing from the starting point that "God exists" versus arguing towards it.
Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me.
And further, even if you were doing philosophy correctly, that does not necessarily mean that God must exist outside of your thought experiment because we have no concrete evidence for it. Plato could logically and philosophical make a case for the existence of perfect forms, but until we can prove their existence in other ways, believing in them requires faith.
Also, due to various considerations I am tapping out on this thread. But, feel free to follow up via email: [email protected]
If you or anyone else email me I will follow up on the debate issues. Take care, man.
-
Pretty good evidence for God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko)
Are you a good person?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo)
Time for me to peace out. Thanks for the challenging discussion points and be sure to have a great Thanksgiving and Christmas.
In parting, you can view the (relatively recent) last skate part that I ever did here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgP_U5dHyAU&t=8s
And, if anyone on here ever wants to get serious about God, Jesus, and the Church, don't hesitate to email me [email protected]
Audi 10K
Over.
-
"Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me."
I did.
Moreover, generally speaking . . .
(https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23621280_587001244968734_2300551592229721103_n.jpg?oh=15544d344954515ad3927031162d1c03&oe=5A968361)
(https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23621500_587005848301607_7864596355646907857_n.jpg?oh=1f3e9fe5eecc1a99cc4f7a84ac729d42&oe=5AAC9D22)
http://babylonbee.com/news/local-atheist-demands-evidence-god-besides-entire-universe/
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism? That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God. Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20, Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths? Is it because God said they are?
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion
I am not saying that secular humanists don't have moral systems and/or cannot be moral. What I am saying is that there is no true philosophical foundation for the secular humanists' moral claims. If they are all relative to the individual, or society, etc, then they are all just opinions and thus cannot be consistently applied globally (or supported meta-ethically). Rather, what we see is actually evidence for God; the Golden Rule has been referenced several times on this thread. How or why is the Golden Rule so universally accepted? Because moral standards are universal (i.e., not relativistic to the individual) and thus are set in place by a Standard (God) that exists outside of time and space as arbiter. So, I won't stop using this argument because skeptics actually have to rely on a universal moral standard outside of themselves to say there is no universal moral standard. All arguments against the Moral Argument for God are self-refuting.
What is more, if you believe that the Bible passages that you referenced are morally wrong, by what standard are you saying that they are morally wrong? By your own standard or opinion? Or are you referencing a standard that exists outside of yourself that should apply to other people as well? The latter has to be the case, and, again, this self refuting on behalf of the secular humanist approach.
Further, if I were to take each of the Bible passages you referenced and give you clear philosophical/theological explanations for each of them, would you then consider becoming a Christian in light of the facts presented?
Thanks for avoiding my request to explain these passages which seemingly contradict the commandment "thou shalt not murder/kill/destroy" for no other reason than they detail something God doesn't like and basically saying "I could totally explain these but I need you to say you'll believe me when I explain them" makes it pretty clear that you're not that confident in your explanation. Furthermore, I think then that a consistent moral code such as "don't kill/harm people whose actions are not killing/harming others (such as witches or homosexuals)" is much more consistent and easy to apply than God's rules as outlined in the Bible. And i'm basing that off my interactions with others and society and that seems valid. Basically, you haven't convincingly argued that an outside arbiter/God is absolutely necessary for a moral framework nor have you convincingly argued that a "consistent" morality (at least as you define it which to non-believers is based on the whims of a outside force insistent on controlling every aspect of your life) is better than one that is relativistic and can change and adapt to different situations and eras.
The Golden Rule as a consistent moral framework can prove merely that different human societies have learned that cooperation is more likely to lead to continued existence that disagreement and strife. It doesn't have to mean that some external arbiter handed it down despite your insistence that that's the only philosophical way for it to make sense. You're not actually doing philosophy when you claim that because you're begging the question and arguing from the starting point that "God exists" versus arguing towards it.
Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me.
And further, even if you were doing philosophy correctly, that does not necessarily mean that God must exist outside of your thought experiment because we have no concrete evidence for it. Plato could logically and philosophical make a case for the existence of perfect forms, but until we can prove their existence in other ways, believing in them requires faith.
Oh, and the difficult to explain Bible verses have good explanations:
http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-difficulties/
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties
Okay, bye now for real (didn't want to leave that last challenge hanging. You can use those 2 links for finding answers Bible difficulties if you are inclined to do so).
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I wonder if this is the real simon woodstock. Hey I remember you're 1st interview? you were skating a curb or flatbar doing a combo wearing a denim vest and you skated for dogtown? Lets get some stories on the go here. JJ rodgers? did brian fernandad skate for dog town ? You grinded that out house roof before jeremy klien grinded those fake rooves.
Thanks man: Yeah, the good old days. I got boards for a minute from Dogtowm through Stacy Gibo but wound up as AM on Black Label. I lived with JJ Rogers for a while in downtown SJ. I would come home and say "Hey JJ, what are you up to?" and I would see a dead squirrel on the porch in front of him and he would respond "Trying to learn how to taxidermy this dead squirrel" etc.. etc.. etc.. I remember him shredding that San Jose mini ramp pro contest in the 90s. Omar Hassan won it (I think) but JJ placed top 10.
I think Ferdinand rode for Circle A back in its heyday (I could be wrong on that). Brian is a sick skater, he would trow down at every spot.
The outhouse grind went down at a Tracker party in SD. Felt good to do it.
I talked old times on the Shetler Show the other day as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ08IbfrCh0&t=4613s
Will watch. The Shelter show is the shit!! Very entertaining. The 9 clubs existence bums me out.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No."
Just one more follow up question:
Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. If I say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real. For all intents and purposes, yes.
Thanks for responding, oyolar. This isn't trickery. It's just use of Aristotle's logic. For one to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth, they would have to be absolutely sure of the truth of the statement in order to hold it as true which is thus self refuting and therefore shows the logical impossibility of relativism.
The same goes for relative ethics/morals. To say 'there is no universally true absolute moral standard' is an absolute/universal statement about moral standards. Thus, moral relativism suffers the same self refuting fate.
Nevertheless, if there are truly passages in the Bible that are perplexing to you (especially after you have read them in their context and honestly tried to figure them out for yourself, etc.) I would be glad to try to offer up reasonable responses. I am just making sure that you didn't just copy and paste those verse references off of an atheist website and are thus simply trying to get me running through the gambit there.
I'm glad you're tapping out of this conversation (and hopefully this forum) but I feel like it's important to point out that you basically said "haha - I'm totally not going to do what you said I was going to do!" only to do exactly what I said you were going to do, but using slightly different words.
Also glad you're tapping out against my arguments and saying "Your posts prove my point!" without elucidating how (because I don't) or dismissing them based on one section that does not actually refute what I'm saying in totality. Glad to know your totally scientific reasons for believing in God clearly and unequivocally stand up to the scrutiny of a dude bored writing up refutations/questions whenever he's had a few beers and a little free time.
(P.S. Philosophy has evolved beyond Aristotle so to continue to use Ancient Greek and early Christian philosophers as your measuring rod and philosophical barometers shows an unwillingness to wrest with several hundred years of non-Christian and anti-religious philosophies.)
No need to respond. Please stay away.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No."
Just one more follow up question:
Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. If I say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real. For all intents and purposes, yes.
Thanks for responding, oyolar. This isn't trickery. It's just use of Aristotle's logic. For one to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth, they would have to be absolutely sure of the truth of the statement in order to hold it as true which is thus self refuting and therefore shows the logical impossibility of relativism.
The same goes for relative ethics/morals. To say 'there is no universally true absolute moral standard' is an absolute/universal statement about moral standards. Thus, moral relativism suffers the same self refuting fate.
Nevertheless, if there are truly passages in the Bible that are perplexing to you (especially after you have read them in their context and honestly tried to figure them out for yourself, etc.) I would be glad to try to offer up reasonable responses. I am just making sure that you didn't just copy and paste those verse references off of an atheist website and are thus simply trying to get me running through the gambit there.
I'm glad you're tapping out of this conversation (and hopefully this forum) but I feel like it's important to point out that you basically said "haha - I'm totally not going to do what you said I was going to do!" only to do exactly what I said you were going to do, but using slightly different words.
Also glad you're tapping out against my arguments and saying "Your posts prove my point!" without elucidating how (because I don't) or dismissing them based on one section that does not actually refute what I'm saying in totality. Glad to know your totally scientific reasons for believing in God clearly and unequivocally stand up to the scrutiny of a dude bored writing up refutations/questions whenever he's had a few beers and a little free time.
(P.S. Philosophy has evolved beyond Aristotle so to continue to use Ancient Greek and early Christian philosophers as your measuring rod and philosophical barometers shows an unwillingness to wrest with several hundred years of non-Christian and anti-religious philosophies.)
No need to respond. Please stay away.
Jocks
-
wait, so Simon focused without actually giving us any evidence then?
-
wait, so Simon focused without actually giving us any evidence then?
It would be hard to give evidence for god. Simons own sect professes the concept of faith. Why would 'faith' be needed if there existed evidence? It's a sell plain and simple. You sell to the average person by showing them 'evidence'. They feel that any way to get people into church is a good way. Ends justifying means. But there's money, politics and influence at play as well. Simon I think has good intentions tho.
-
Thats it, this thread needs to die. So I'm changing this thread to the dicks thread for the women and gay men who proudly post on these forums. Googling huge dicks and posting whatever pictures I like from that search
(http://78.media.tumblr.com/031bc9ad6199dbf10a6f9cdc374af3ce/tumblr_nif57wO7Xj1r8wd3oo1_500.jpg)
(http://cdn4.thumbs.motherlessmedia.com/thumbs/319B18A-zoom.jpg?from_helper)
(https://bi.phncdn.com/videos/201510/24/60136141/original/(m=eaf8Ggaaaa)(mh=mTGiPprdy1gEVgDD)5.jpg)
(http://pornwifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/big-dicks-huge-cock-2292215.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-29kJNZlN_3I/TesTwlSuRxI/AAAAAAAAANU/I6XcgGewg4w/s1600/frank+defeo9bbig1.jpg)
(https://img-hw.xnxx-cdn.com/videos/thumbslll/bf/c1/ee/bfc1eeab9ce38815458430807a4b1355/bfc1eeab9ce38815458430807a4b1355.26.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BLa_RxlUhTc/U2xku5xGiyI/AAAAAAAAJd0/hCJxbEg8bwA/s1600/buddy+hodges1b+2.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mt6lNEYDfYQ/ULFzpaai0JI/AAAAAAAAEuo/AcXqLhIDzhU/s1600/marco12gtdu.jpg)
(http://www.manhuntdaily.com/files/Josh-West-Luke-Riley-Extra-Big-Dicks-huge-cocks-gay-porn-hardcore-xxx-action-fucking-sucking-beard-facial-hair-tattoos-daddy-top-hairy-sexy-porn-star-cumshot-cumming-16.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMwQOnlUDhl7R84d683-vc54puYRaWe9vuBmoQm8EMAu9cnK02vA)
Now small dicks because theres no shame in having a small pecker
(http://cdn.freepornq.com/a240/010/a4/32/238-0.jpg)
(https://bi.phncdn.com/videos/201412/02/35528731/original/(m=ecuKGgaaaa)(mh=BLebv-BPMz_y9mUR)16.jpg)
(http://cdn2.ok-gay.com/images/objects/120000/120412/320x240/screenshot_10.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVMi8tsZu7PHaneofEk2yp2DO225_f6OWSt8SjZFumyOmHKY-AWQ)
What about our fellas who aren't circumcised? We got love for you too
(http://img-l3.xvideos.com/videos/thumbs169ll/56/9f/7b/569f7b89536c0be60075ff7c31a50a40/569f7b89536c0be60075ff7c31a50a40.24.jpg)
(http://x.imagefapusercontent.com/u/dude%20the%20obscure/2786320/1334965524/mycock57.jpg)
(http://gayanalcreampie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Czech-Hunter-Big-Uncut-Cock-Sucking-and-Barebaking-Outside-Amateur-Gay-Porn-18.jpg)
-
Can you do the same in the Satan thread with vaginas? Thanks in advance.
-
Thats it, this thread needs to die. So I'm changing this thread to the dicks thread for the women and gay men who proudly post on these forums. Googling huge dicks and posting whatever pictures I like from that search
(http://78.media.tumblr.com/031bc9ad6199dbf10a6f9cdc374af3ce/tumblr_nif57wO7Xj1r8wd3oo1_500.jpg)
(http://cdn4.thumbs.motherlessmedia.com/thumbs/319B18A-zoom.jpg?from_helper)
(https://bi.phncdn.com/videos/201510/24/60136141/original/(m=eaf8Ggaaaa)(mh=mTGiPprdy1gEVgDD)5.jpg)
(http://pornwifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/big-dicks-huge-cock-2292215.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-29kJNZlN_3I/TesTwlSuRxI/AAAAAAAAANU/I6XcgGewg4w/s1600/frank+defeo9bbig1.jpg)
(https://img-hw.xnxx-cdn.com/videos/thumbslll/bf/c1/ee/bfc1eeab9ce38815458430807a4b1355/bfc1eeab9ce38815458430807a4b1355.26.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BLa_RxlUhTc/U2xku5xGiyI/AAAAAAAAJd0/hCJxbEg8bwA/s1600/buddy+hodges1b+2.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mt6lNEYDfYQ/ULFzpaai0JI/AAAAAAAAEuo/AcXqLhIDzhU/s1600/marco12gtdu.jpg)
(http://www.manhuntdaily.com/files/Josh-West-Luke-Riley-Extra-Big-Dicks-huge-cocks-gay-porn-hardcore-xxx-action-fucking-sucking-beard-facial-hair-tattoos-daddy-top-hairy-sexy-porn-star-cumshot-cumming-16.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMwQOnlUDhl7R84d683-vc54puYRaWe9vuBmoQm8EMAu9cnK02vA)
Now small dicks because theres no shame in having a small pecker
(http://cdn.freepornq.com/a240/010/a4/32/238-0.jpg)
(https://bi.phncdn.com/videos/201412/02/35528731/original/(m=ecuKGgaaaa)(mh=BLebv-BPMz_y9mUR)16.jpg)
(http://cdn2.ok-gay.com/images/objects/120000/120412/320x240/screenshot_10.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVMi8tsZu7PHaneofEk2yp2DO225_f6OWSt8SjZFumyOmHKY-AWQ)
What about our fellas who aren't circumcised? We got love for you too
(http://img-l3.xvideos.com/videos/thumbs169ll/56/9f/7b/569f7b89536c0be60075ff7c31a50a40/569f7b89536c0be60075ff7c31a50a40.24.jpg)
(http://x.imagefapusercontent.com/u/dude%20the%20obscure/2786320/1334965524/mycock57.jpg)
(http://gayanalcreampie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Czech-Hunter-Big-Uncut-Cock-Sucking-and-Barebaking-Outside-Amateur-Gay-Porn-18.jpg)
These are basically all the dicks I've drawn at the shop I work at,amazing.
wait, so Simon focused without actually giving us any evidence then?
Simon focusing is evidence
-
Expand Quote
wait, so Simon focused without actually giving us any evidence then?
ha! touche my fellow slap brethren, touché
a-fucking-men to that!
-
those are some great dicks, tobey. thanks!
-
Can you do the same in the Satan thread with vaginas? Thanks in advance.
No because that would be gay as fuck
-
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, twinks with a slicked-up bikini wax are evidence for God? What a let down!
-
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, twinks with a slicked-up bikini wax are evidence for God? What a let down!
Can a twink have a big dick or are they mainly called twinks because they aren't packing heat?
-
if man is 5 and man is 5
and my boner is 6 and my boner is 6
then god is 7 then god is 7!!!
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2vxrcw3.jpg)
-
^POTY
Edit : we haven't seen Tiago's though!
-
Twinks' penises come in all shapes and sizes.
-
This thread needs love.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Chlz-ABWEAAmoqD.jpg:large)
-
No..... No it definitely didn't
-
I've thought a lot about this evidence for God question. I realized the biggest evidence I see for an active involved God are changed lives. It blows me away how many of my skate hero's became legit believer's. They had no advantage career wise for this change. People tried to say that about Hosoi right after he got out of jail, but its been, what, a decade or more. When I found out Jay Adams got saved I about fell over. I had to see the interviews to believe it. Think about it, Hosoi, Lance Mountain, Jay Adams, Steve Caballero, Judd Heald, Uriel Luebke, Brian Sumner, Simon Woodstock, Ray Barbee, Beaver Flemming, etc. The list goes on. These guys had no advantage to playing the religion card, as a matter of fact I know it hurt some of them sponsor wise. Just my 2 cents, try not to hate, unless of course you only allow people the freedom of your opinion.
https://youtu.be/Yv5ZaADxdns
-
https://youtu.be/qvIoMKydtDA
-
https://youtu.be/uSZyDLmDw4U
-
https://youtu.be/deThbpIKRfc
-
https://youtu.be/TYAv4Q9dg70
-
https://youtu.be/wFlMJoJJ8A4
-
https://youtu.be/-wKTmtTPd_g
-
https://youtu.be/d0ow4Zk6h0U
-
why the fuck would you resurrect (pun intended) this thread?
-
https://youtu.be/jnpErcb8g84
-
current day Brian Sumner should not be used as evidence for anything!
-
That this delightful thread keeps popping up again and again right as I forget about it is all the evidence I need
-
ps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqQON-CAL24