>On Aug 9, 12:35 pm, Free Lunch wrote:

>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:32:18 -0700 (PDT), lsend...@hotmail.com wrote in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>

>>>On Aug 8, 4:00 am, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:

>>

>>>>> BBC had an interview with both leakies and that was their
>>>>> assessment.  It was also the assessment of personal
>>>>> experience in the early days of a highly closed school
>>>>> lab that use to have outrageously wild parties in its
>>>>> early years -wife swap'n, the whole shabang

>>

>>>> Do you know BBC and CNN invented stories to fool people as in the
>>>> Tibet riot?
>>>> This were pointed out by the media bloggers with illustrations in
>>>> China. The BBC and CNN can invent stories to suit every thing, do you
>>>> know that?

>>

>>>So?  What does that have to do with a live interview?  And why
>>>would either of these two admit to such a thing if it weren't their
>>>conviction of the truth of it all?

>>

>>>> Oh, this is shit.
>>>> You treat evidence as hoax?
>>>> Then what about no evidence of your god......then it must be
>>>> flatulence from your asshole, right?

>>

>>>The evidence is all around.  Evidence is not the issue.
>>>The issue is your disregard of it so that you can continue
>>>to live your life of delusion.

>>
>> How about being a bit less vague. Point to a specific piece of evidence
>> and explain why it is evidence for God. You would be the first to be
>> able to support the contention that there is evidence for God. Everyone
>> else has failed, so if you accomplish this, you will have a lot to be
>> proud of.
>>

>Again, the evidence is not the issue.

>The issue is being able to perceive it.

>If you will, let me quote a verse or two
>of scripture to illustrate my point...

>For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all
>ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
>unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident
>within them; for God made it evident to them; For since the creation
>of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and Divine
>nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been
>made....
>
>I'll stop short of quoting the whole section of Romans 1:18-20
>for the moment.

>Let me put this in the first person. Before I came to
>accept the tenets of the Christian faith, I knew that
>something was amiss. I kept trying this or that to
>scratch an itch. This itch was complicated. It was
>part alienation. I wanted to be accepted. It was
>part sufficiency. I (nor anyone else) is self sufficient
>in and of themselves. Now for both of these, I sought
>various means of satiating myself. We all pursue this
>same "satisfaction" as Mick unknowingly made reference
>to, but never finally achieve it. Capitalism is built
>upon the foundation of the reality of the "Itch."
>
>I pursued satisfaction through sex, through drugs,
>through "higher education and learning," through
>marriage and bringing a family into the world, through
>a workaholic life stashing away more and more
>money into the bank, through even gardening and
>kayaking, experiencing nature. But nature is not
>Nature. (Ever read Francis Crick? He starts out
>with nature but can't help himself as he goes to
>finally writing Nature.)
>
>Now much of this was obviously externals, but not
>all. Marriage and children involved much internal
>change. Education and getting older had changed
>my mind from thinking like a child (unfortunately).
>But the Itch isn't in about mind, emotion or volitions.
>It's about the soul. Something in my "soul" never
>got scratched, was never satisfied or satiated until
>I came to rest in the fact that what is written and
>taught in the Bible is true. THis includes the Genesis
>record for it is foundational to a true understanding
>of "faith."
>
>If God exists, He must disclose Himself because
>the lower can never ascend on its own. He is
>infinite. I am finite. He is beyond all that I know
>or experience. He is simply, incomprehensible.
>Therefore, He must disclose Himself (and God,
>capital "G" must be truthful) and all that is left up
>to me is to accept Him at His word. There's that
>"faith like a child" thing. Do you have children?
>When you tell them, "Go clean up your room,"
>do they need an exhaustive detailing of all that
>is involved? "But dad, I moved my socks off the
>floor and put them in the drawer. You didn't
>specify how much was expected of me." Would
>you accept that as an answer? I wonder.
>
>God declares (because no one was there) that He
>created the universe in 6 literal days.*** He said it,
>that settles it.... whether I chose to believe it or not.
>That is the basis of faith -He said it. Faith is based
>upon Authority, not empirical reproducible evidence.
>That does not equal to say that faith is unreasoned
>or lacking in sensibility. It just means that its
>primary foundation is the Object it refers to.
>
>The reason I have been asking where does morality
>come from, where does personal being come from when
>one starts from the evolutionary idea that everything
>began out of nothing-nothing exploding, eventually,
>somehow, unexplainably, producing rock and this
>big cosmological machine that we see in the night
>sky, is that there is neither reasonablity nor authority
>to base such a conclusion. I have a meteorite here
>on my desk. It is unimaginably heavy. People see
>it and go, "Oh hey, what's that?" and then try to pick
>it up like they would an ordinary earth rock. I keep
>it here because it reminds me that this is what the
>evolutionary model requires life being projected out
>of. Call me daff, but I just don't seek how either
>personality or a moral consciousness, both clearly
>upper echelon energies, could have arisen from it
>self. For me, at least, then, the universe declares
>that there has to be SomeONE outside who created
>me with my moral compass and personality of
>mind, emotions and will, not to mention this thing
>we often call a "soul."
>
>The end of that Romans passage concludes by
>stating.... "so_that_they_are_without_excuse!"

>Christianity isn't a get out hell insurance card. It
>is a cold slap in the face as to the reality of reality.

>Man is given his greatest measure of dignity and
>worth by the above stated conclusion. To paraphrase
>it a bit, it just amounts to, "you were created with
>such a mind and stature that apart from self willed
>delusion, you would recognize this reality that I
>have created for you. But because you stubbornly
>refuse even the most obvious revelation, being
>made a moral being (responsible) you will also
>be held accountable for your failure."

>Admittedly, what theologians term, "general revelation"
>or what Paul here describes in Rom 1, only leads
>to condemnation. For it has no power within it to
>raise one's consciousness any more than nothing
>nothing can turn this fascinating rock into some
>imagined goddess to satisfy all my insatiable
>appetites.

>Therefore, God sent His son, to live and die as
>an example of His love for a creation that had
>gone bad.

>There is a power granted to the believer
>in Christ that isn't available to one who simply
>acquiesces to the magnificance of the physical
>universe or the marvelous workings of the make-up
>of man. For the later, one remains oriented to
>himself in independence. Of the former, man
>recognizes and accepts the fact that he is finite
>and is therefore in dependence upon the Infinite-
>Personal. And when he passes from the one to
>the other, the evidence is all authenticated.

>___________________
>*** There is an Israeli physicist who has taken Einsteins
>theory of relativity and projected that if God is in the
>center of His creation, He can be creating in literal
>24 hour days at the center while on the out edges of
>outward flowing universe, time can record billions of
>years. It is a mathematical projection but it does
>offer another rabbit to chase.