>>>>
>>> Your accusations are inane as well as hollow...you claim that it's the
>>> atheists that refuse to acknowledge possibilities but you, PF and other
>>> theists are actually the worst offenders.
>> ok, but you are still not denying that you refuse to acknowledge the
>> possibility of God's existence which was my point. and still stands.
>
> Just as you refuse to accept the possibility that your god doesn't exist
>
mmhmm.. and, when exactly did i refuse to accept that possibility, pray
tell?? or are you just assuming again? by the way, its kinda ridiculous
that you would point to me when asked something from you. is that what
you tell the cops when you break the law? "ohh, sure, officer, but what
about YOU, huh? dont YOU do things you shouldnt do as well??"
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
>>> You mix science and religion when you feel defensive about your stance on
>>> scientific issues, but your science is wholly suspect and /or missing.
>> oh is it? ok, then, show me examples of where my science has been suspect
>> and/or missing? if you are right, ill correct myself, otherwise the same
>> on your behalf would be kindly accepted
>
> You've given us plenty of your 'evidence' (opinion) that evolution is wrong
> = negative evidence.
"opinion".. hmm.. you mean that same thing upon which that same theory
is based? so it should be enough for you then!
> Now provide some positive scientific evidence for creation.
heres one, we cannot have arrived at this moment in time, if there were
an infinite amount of events leading up to it. (otherwise we'd still be
going through events to get to now) therefore, there mustve been only a
finite number of events to reach this moment. so therefore, there mustve
been a first event. therefore, the universe had a point where it
started. the law of non-self-creation establishes that nothing can
self-create, therefore the universe must have been externally created.
creation needs a creating agent, and that creating agent must not be
subject to time nor space, ie, the agent must be eternal and not
composed of tangible matter of any sort, and have the capacity to exist
of its own.
ie, that creating agent is who we call God. who, to be able to create
must have that almightiness we attribute to Him, and must be infinite.
and please, dont tell me the universe is eternal, or has always existed,
because if it did, that violates the premise of the impossibility of the
negative infinity of time.
>
>>> It's just not important where your religion takes you...its the science
>>> that is important to us(atheists).
>> the problem with your precious science, which is what i have been trying
>> to say here all along, is that it is like a water hose with the tap open
>> full blast.. have you seen that kind of thing in action? it goes
>> everywhere, flipping around wildly. and thats what science is. its not
>> precise, its only the "right now we assert this, as strongly as we will
>> assert the complete opposite a few years from now when it is shown to be
>> completely wrong".. science keeps changing and changing.. correcting
>> itself all the time, and hence can never be deemed "correct" or even
>> "dependable" at any given time. or ever at all.. it can only be at most
>> used as a guide or a "we have observed that.. " but never asserting.
>> however, the bible remains as is, for more than 1500 years now.. not
>> changing at all (again, unless you are a JW or something) so you dont have
>> to worry that you will suddenly have to throw everything out the window
>> and believe something completely opposite tomorrow.. because, oh yeah, we
>> were wrong.. but now we are right.. oh wait, no we were slightly off that
>> last time, but THIS time, this time for sure.. oh wait..
>
> Religion never changes huh?
> Limbo and the RCC?
um.. please read what i wrote before attributing text to me that i did
not write, nor do i believe. i said THE BIBLE does not change.. see? if
you paid attention to what i said, maybe we'd have a better discourse,
but, ah, that wouldnt be interesting to you, now would it? because then
you wouldnt be able to straw-man me constantly..
> Blaming the Jews for crucifying jesus and the RCC?
rcc again.. not bible..
> How many unruly children have you stoned to death recently?
> How many brides that were not virgins on their wedding day have you stoned
> to death recently?
> How many farmers that grew 2 different crops in the same field have you
> stoned to death recently?
> How many people who wear clothes made from 2 or more types of material have
> you stoned to death recently?
as many as ive been allowed to under the covenant i fall under, which is
drawn in blood, the blood of Jesus.. (ie, none. not to mention that
whole.. "thou shallt not murder" dilly)
you are of course quoting from the mosaic law (ah to be atheist and
ignorant), which is the law established for THOSE people in that time..
> Now tell me that the bible remains 'as is'...not changing at all.
the bible, as text, is not changing, God's dealing with man does.. He
dealt with adam differently than He dealt with noah, than He dealt with
abraham, than He dealt with moses, than He dealt with jeremiah, than He
dealt with John than He dealt with me.. that doesnt mean that theres a
different set of rules for each individual person and that i get to say
"God told me i can now kill".. however, certain things were established
as temporal things.. the mosaic pact is the atheist favorite. others
were to be fulfilled, abraham's for example.. others allowed for more,
ie, noah was now allowed to eat meat.. and now christians allowed to eat
pork and shellfish.. however, all those laws had a purpose and a reason,
and only someone unwilling to explore the reason behind them will not
find them.. i asked myself too, in conversing with someone once who
brought up that two fiber clothes, and i thought "why would a nation of
nomads, who carry all their belongings off which they live with them, in
a dry, warm desert land, not be allowed to mix two fibers?" then simple
logic and not very much arduous thought gave me the answer, "well, walk
on a rug with your socks, and touch another person.." *BZZT* static. now
think of all your stuff made of highly flammable material (cloth,
sheepskin, tents, etc) and in a very dry, warm environment, and the fact
that they lived off all that.. and the fact that a desert at night
becomes extremely cold.. and oh my, whats this? a spark that can light a
fire to their liveliness, and 100,000 people would die cuz some idiot
mixed two different fibers.. and yeah, it makes sense to make it such a
harshly punishable rule.
the rest, i have either not heard of (the two crops thing.. but that
could have an equivalently reasonable explanation) or have to do with
the degradation of society.. which, considering the people we were
dealing with, was basically always on the verge of occurring, remember
the revolt? yeah, how many people died then? so some things have harsh
penalties due to the seriousness of the consequences of breaking them..
of course, you atheists loooooove your lack of accountability, so i dont
expect you to understand.. you are all about the "i do what i feel like,
if i feel like it, and when i feel like it.. and _i_ decide what is
right or wrong".. even though you cant even agree on what those right
and wrongs are..
>
>>> If you want to propose a data based opinion an any alternative
>>> theory for the creation, and evolution of mankind, I'm all ears, we all
>>> are-can't wait....but that;s the point. I'm still waiting...
>> all ears, but cant hear? what then is YOUR data based opinion on the
>> creation and evolution of mankind? by the way, the theory of
>> [macro]evolution is based purely on conjecture and assumption..
>>
>> alright fine, ill bite, data based? how about lack of transitional fossils
>> for one, of which darwin said we would basically need an over abundance of
>> to even contemplate his new proposed view of biology. creation? well, i
>> dont know what data i could give you, well, there is that whole polonium
>> radio-halos stuff.. which show the earth cannot be as old as evolutionists
>> require it to be.. also, the appearance of entire beaches full of
>> jellyfish fossils in australia.. you know, those living beings that
>> basically dissolve soon after they die.. leaving no hard parts to make
>> those fossils that require "millions and jillions" of years to form
>
> Unlike you, if given the referrence, I will try to find the answer.
> You, OTOH, will blame it on your god.
?? dont see how thats an answer to the text you wrote under..
>
>>> The pulpit is a great place to spin philosophically about how your
>>> feelings affect you world view. Atheists just want the facts-and when no
>>> facts are available, we don't fill in the blanks with what feels good.
>> except you do. saying "there is no God" is exactly filling the blank.
>> minimal honesty would demand a more open position of at least "there might
>> be, but i dont believe it so"
>
> If there's a blank we say we don't know, not goddidit.
ah, sorry to correct you once again, if you are standing here as an
atheist, thats exactly NOT what you say. if you said "i dont know" that
would make you an agnostic.. you my friend, are an atheist (unless i am
wrong, and you are an agnostic, which would mean all your other answers
are out of character..) the atheist credo is "there is no God" and thats
the assumption you part from to move anywhere.. thats not honest,
firstly, and secondly definitely NOT scientific.. and no, youre right,
you are unable to say "goddidit" because what you say is
"theresnogodsoidonthavetolistentoyoustupidtheistsnomatterhowmuchsensewhatyousaymakes"
or, in short,
"goddidntdidit"
> Minimal honesty on your part would demand a more open position of at least
> "there might not be a god".
what the hell is wrong with you atheists and assuming i dont allow for
that possibility? of course, its as possible as "we are all stuck in the
matrix".. but hey, its possible too, right?
>
>>> We keep looking for facts. Give us facts or stop accusing us of not
>>> listening-just give us something to listen to...we're all still waiting.
>> ill tell you what i told (and have heard from) all the atheists ive met
>> that have later realized they were wrong (about their atheism)
>>
>> ask God to show Himself to you, with an open heart, and no demands. just
>> say "ok God, im ready to find out who you are. show me." guaranteed, if
>> your heart is open, and willing to accept whatever God decides to show
>> you, you wont need me to spew more dry data at you.. or any at all..
>> suddenly you will realize that there it was all the time, staring you in
>> the face, but you just didnt see it ("it" being the data or facts)
>>
>
> If you truly believe in Ra, I'm sure you'll see the chariot he uses to carry
> the sun across the sky every day.
> That's how ridiculous your claim sounds to us.
thats great.. i didnt ask you to believe in ra, or anyone, i asked you
to open yourself up to it. and its because of this refusal to do so,
that you will never know.. because you dont want to know.. so how can i
show you something you refuse to see? i cant! which is why its
ridiculous for you bigoted atheists to ask me for proof/evidence, when
you are just going to reject it no matter how valid it is, based solely
on your "thereisnogod" credo. so, there is no god, therefore the
evidence you have shown me is clearly not correct/inexistent/invalid,
therefore you have not proved that there is a god.. pfft.. gimme a
break.. wheres the honesty in that?? wheres the "science" in that?
geeze.. what a joke.
>
>>> Are you waiting for our facts? Or has your conversion (I seem to
>>> remember an aside from one or more of your posts about a conversion to
>>> christianity-forgive me if I'm wrong),
>> yeah you are very right, anyone who claims to be a christian must have
>> done so by their own choice, you cant be forced into it. so therefore
>> everyone who claims to be a christian must have accepted Christ at some
>> point in their life.
>
> You conveniently forget about all the children of xians who have no choice
> other than be indoctrinated by their parents.
or the children of atheists who have no choice but to be indoctrinated
by THEIR parents.. or the friends/peers/students of atheists who have no
choice but to be harassed and ridiculed by them for their beliefs to
submission.. please, give me a break and step off your hypocrisy for
even a second.. you people have SUCH a love for double standards, its
unbelievable..
> If that's not being forced, I don't know what is.
ditto.. plus, by the way, you can be forced to make a decision.. you
make it yourself, whether its hard or not.. its still upto you.. hence
why we have atheists that grew up in theist homes.. obviously its not
soo forceful is it..
> Talking of being forced into xianity, you also conveniently forgot the
> inquisition.
ok, dood, for once, you atheists need to find yourself a new set of
fallacies to apply. the inquisition was perpetrated by CATHOLICS.. who
by the way, killed many-a-christian.. so be a little less ignorant, and
try to get your facts straight.. you are not talking to a catholic.. im
not your mom, nor your priest.
>
>>> blinded you to alternatives to christ
>> but how does 19 years of alternatives to Christ read then? how was i
>> blinded to those? how many more years did i have to live a suicidal manic
>> depressive life devoid of love so that you can be satisfied that i
>> "explored my options" enough for my accepting Christ to be valid??
>
> So now, instead of being a suicidal manic depressive, you talk to an
> imaginary invisible being that only exists inside your head and for which
> you have absolutely no physical evidence. Hmmmm. Whatever makes you happy,
> but don't expect us to believe you.
"thereisnogod"... "thereisnogod".. "thereisnogod".. *rocks back and
forth*.. is that you??
lets depart from your little mantra there, and for a second, if you are
mentally able, assume that there IS a God.. not so crazy anymore, right?
and it makes me happy to know Him, too.. thats a two-fer, i dont want
to kill myself anymore, AND im happy! yaaay! and no medicine involved,
no trip to the psych-ward, i didnt even make it to jail! wow.. hmm.. if
only more people could be as stupidly delusional as me, to talk to their
creator, right? oh but wait, secular humanism offers the same, right?
uh. no.
if God is soooo inexistent, then how could my will power alone have led
me out of where i was, and permanently so?? how is it that a person such
as myself, who is soo incapable of even controlling his sleep patterns,
be soo super-humanly capable of reversing his entire mental chemistry
(czu thats what you people attribute mental problems to, right?) and
outlook on life, in just one fell swoop of a magical utterance to
himself? holey crap, you people should be following ME! im like david
blaine or something here!!! AMAZING!
>
>>> and whatever else fills the supernatural void in your life?
>>> I seem to remember a myth moral about not casting stones...now where
>>> was that from?....
>>> Atheists will stand up in the midst of the most fervent atheist crowd
>>> and ask for any alternative opinions that will disprove the theories
>>> that seem to fit the the most recent data-we will actively look for more
>>> data and proof that we're dead wrong. You don't . Period.
>> i disagree on both counts.. i dont see atheists questioning their beliefs,
>> EVER..
>
> Mainly because atheists don't have any beliefs to question.
how about the belief that there is no god? how about the belief that we
all come from apes? how about the belief that life "just happened" from
inanimate chemicals? how about the belief that the universe "just
suddenly existed"? what about the belief that the earth is millions and
jillions of years old? how about the belief that there was no world wide
flood, despite the grand canyon, etc.?? huh?? how about those?
> We don't see theists questioning their beliefs either.
well, you also dont see God, so they go hand in hand.. denying is
denying is denying.. just cuz you cant see it, doesnt mean it aint there..
> When presented with incontrevertable evidence or a question that they can't
> answer they just run away or spout some passage(s) from their holy book(s),
> which have less meaning to us than Harry Potter books do to you.
oh? like what? incontrovertible evidence of what exactly? throw one at me.
>
>> they just make demands of everyone for data/evidence/proof that they will
>> not anyways accept in the first place!
>
> We will accept any proof as long as it's scientific, objective and
> repeatable proof.
like the repeatability of evolution right? the objectivity of
"theresnogod" and that same science that just cant stay put and keeps
changing and contradicting-- err, i mean "correcting" itself, alllll the
time.. (so how do you know at any given moment that what you believe in
right now is true at all??)
by the way, no, you wont accept any proof.. not as long as it rejects
your "theresnogod"
> Bet you can't provide any.
nop, not any that can withstand the "science" of the universal
"theresnogod".. you cant disprove an axiom.. if we parted from the
possibility of the existence of God, we might get somewhere.. but not as
long as you part from the assumption that He doesnt exist.
>
> and i live my daily life surrounded by all manner of christians
>> and theists.. i know that not one of them doesnt question at least
>> something in their beliefs..
>
> They don't come here with their doubts.
cuz they have lives.. unlike apparently me. they interact in the social
world instead of on a nerdy 20+ year old system of communication.. most
do it on youtube now..
> All that come here are, like you, so sure of their religion that they think
> they have some sort of proof.
you mean all 3 of us? greeeeeat, so you are basing your entire set of
opinions on me, omj, and pf?
and none of us started our lives as christians, or in christian homes
(actually im not sure about omj, he doesnt answer posts does he?)
proof of what? oh, one thing, if you ask me for proof that the wind
exists.. what could i show you as proof? lets say you dont believe in
gaseous molecules that move "on their own" and carry stuff with them..
how do i prove to you that the wind exists? and if you deny everything i
show you? if i point to stuff moving, and you say "no way, those trees
move on their own, by random chance.. through a process that has had
millions and jillions of years to develop".. thats what you sound like..
> Unfortunately, none of them have any scientific, objective and repeatable
> proof.
but you dont either for any of your evolutionary beliefs! and you
forget, i didnt go to a christian school.. i was indoctrinated in
evolutionary religion from a very early age.. it just became more and
more ridiculous the more i thought about it.. and the more i learned how
to think..
