Did God create man or man create God?
Rev Chuck
While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
sure bet his first name was "King".
Dave Haas wrote:
>
> Is this a fair statement?
>
> Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
>
> If so. I would think it makes more sense to assume Man created God
> instead of the other way around.
>
> Just wondering.
>
> D. Haas
Dave Haas
Mark Daniels
Well, there's a bit of a difference between creating something and merely
believing/postulating etc. that it exists.
What if there actually IS a God and that our (my, anyway) belief in him is
founded? What if the one I believe in (identified by his name, his
character as described in the Bible etc.) is actually the ONLY one? It's
what we Christians have always claimed, because to claim otherwise is to
contradict the Bible and negate our faith.
I know it sounds arrogant. Sorry. But I can't admit your God and still
retain faith in mine. Just the way it is.
Mark D.
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote in article
<3579988B...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
maff91
On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:25 -0700, Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com>
wrote:
>While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
>sure bet his first name was "King".
More likely is a Chief advisor to the Kng who wanted to keep the King
under his thumb. and later became the Chief Priest as well :-)
Barry Laderman
I'd say that we humans are pitching a shutout!
We seem to be most pleased with creating gawds in our own image.
Earle Jones
In article <3579988B...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>, Dave Haas
<dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Is this a fair statement?
>
>Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
>
>If so. I would think it makes more sense to assume Man created God
>instead of the other way around.
>
>Just wondering.
>
>D. Haas
--
David:
"Man created God in his own image."
"Man is certainly stark mad: he cannot make a worm, yet he will make
gods by the dozen."
--Michel de Montaigne
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones -- post-christian humanist
JM
> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:25 -0700, Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com>
> wrote:
>
> >While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
> >sure bet his first name was "King".
>
> More likely is a Chief advisor to the Kng who wanted to keep the King
> under his thumb. and later became the Chief Priest as well :-)
Reminds me of how the Hebrew Bible spills out the faults of the kings.
Peter van Velzen
>
> Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
>
> If so. I would think it makes more sense to assume Man created God
> instead of the other way around.
>
> Just wondering.
>
> D. Haas
>
As you need at least two humans to agree on a "God",
to meaningfully speak of it as a "God"
The number of Gods will hardly be greater than the number of Humans.
Nevertheless,
Almost everyone agrees that most Gods did not create Humans at all.
As there must be thousands of Gods
(The Hittites alone had over a thousand)
We may say that 99,9 % of all Gods have not created humans
On the other hand there are 5 billion people
If there are no more than 10.000 Gods.
Over 99,9999 % of all people did not create a God.
But on the other hand, almost everyone agrees that some did.
So numbers alone will not support you're claim.
You will have to proof that not one God created humans.
So without the theory of Evolution
you're lost.
Maybe now, you see why fundamentalist hate this theory even more than they
hat us Atheist?
Peter van Velzen
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Chris Ectomy
On 6 Jun 1998 19:59:52 GMT, "Mark Daniels"
<No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
>What if there actually IS a God and that our (my, anyway) belief in him is
>founded? What if the one I believe in (identified by his name, his
>character as described in the Bible etc.) is actually the ONLY one?
Out of all the gods in the world you, luckily, were born into the one and only
religion? You pompous fuck!
Without evidence for a god, there is no god. All what-if's are meaningless.
All your pretending, hoping, wishing isn't worth spit to the universe and deep
down you know it. Give it up.
Mark Daniels
Why are the responses of atheists always FAR more vehement than the post
they are replying to? Can you answer me? It doesn't offend me, it just
seems unnecessary. A straightforward argument will suffice - the torrent
of abuse is not really necessary.
There isn't any evidence for a god, thank God - if I could prove God it
would reduce him to the level of my arguments (I think we've been over
this)
> All your pretending, hoping, wishing isn't worth spit to the universe and
deep
> down you know it. Give it up.
But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the universe.
Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
Mark D.
Chris Ectomy <c...@interferon.com> wrote in article
<357a1626...@news.erols.com>...
Zoomlings
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote in article
<3579988B...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
: Is this a fair statement?
:
: Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
:
:
You are not very wrong.
God did create Humans.
Humans created Religions.
We now have thousands of Gods.
--
Raymond Evans <Zoom``>, wishing you all eternity with God.
http://www.nettrade.com.au/rabbit/christian.htm
Jesus is alive despite what some Churches teach.
Mark Daniels
Chris Ectomy <c...@interferon.com> wrote in article
<357a1626...@news.erols.com>...
> On 6 Jun 1998 19:59:52 GMT, "Mark Daniels"
> <No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
>
> >What if there actually IS a God and that our (my, anyway) belief in him
is
> >founded? What if the one I believe in (identified by his name, his
> >character as described in the Bible etc.) is actually the ONLY one?
>
> Out of all the gods in the world you, luckily, were born into the one and
only
> religion? You pompous fuck!
P.S. But what would you rather - that I was untrue to my beliefs? If I
say, "God as he revealed himself to Christians is the true God", then I
literally CAN'T then go and say, oh yes, but the God of the Upside-Down
Worshippers of Nant is also the true one! I mean, can you at least agree
with me that if my God is by definition (and by his words) the only one,
then I can't very well accept the existence of another one? I'm not asking
that you agree with my belief, just that you agree with me on this logical
point.
nnee...@my-dejanews.com
In article <01bd91e3$00502ce0$LocalHost@default>,
"Mark Daniels" <No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
<snip>
> But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the universe.
> Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
> Mark D.
I accept it. Our impact, let alone our importance, to the universe is quite
underwhelming. To believe otherwise takes more ego than I am able to garner.
Jason P.
"Man means nothing he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind" - Randy Newman, _God's Song_
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
nnee...@my-dejanews.com
In article <01bd9208$a4186de0$LocalHost@default>,
I can't speak for Chris Ectomy but I would guess that his reference to you as
a 'pompous fuck' is _because_ of your belief. Whether you are or are not
true to said belief is irrelevant. Your statement above is analogous to the
soldier saying, "I'm just following orders." Even though it is a tenet of
the Christian faith, it is still *your* belief and one you must justify if
you wish others to accept it as being credible let alone worthy of the time
to be considered. Your attempt to hide behind Christian doctrine does not
alleviate you from the responsibility of providing support/evidence for your
belief. Your adherence to that doctrine without justification is what makes
you come off as appearing pompous.
Jason P.
Zaar
Dave Haas wrote:
Is this a fair statement?
Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
If so. I would think it makes more sense to assume Man created God
instead of the other way around.
Just wondering.
D. Haas
Man created God in his image which is an illogical one.
Zaar
Christopher A. Lee
In article <01bd91e3$00502ce0$LocalHost@default> "Mark Daniels" <No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> writes:
>Why are the responses of atheists always FAR more vehement than the post
>they are replying to? Can you answer me? It doesn't offend me, it just
>seems unnecessary. A straightforward argument will suffice - the torrent
>of abuse is not really necessary.
Because this newsgroup was set up for atheists to discuss our own
issues amongst ourselves, in a place where we should be free
from theistic presumptions that we don't share, proselytisers,
hellfire merchants and other assorted god-botherers.
It is rude and disrespectful to presume God/Zeus/Allah etc
when you know you are talking to an atheist. Which every
theist posting to that atheist newsgroups knows he is doing.
Unfortunately it is a societal convention that we are expected
to put up with this crap. But when we get together with each
other in a theism-free environment we don't have to. And as
we don't have any religious requirement to turn the other
cheek, we don't.
>There isn't any evidence for a god, thank God - if I could prove God it
>would reduce him to the level of my arguments (I think we've been over
>this)
But you still believe in it, and you're going to talk at those
who don't as though it were mutually established. And that
disrespect is what annoys.
>> All your pretending, hoping, wishing isn't worth spit to the universe and
>deep
>> down you know it. Give it up.
>
>But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the universe.
We're not. But we *are* the most important things in our
own lives, very important to those close to us, important
to friends, colleagues and associates, but just extras in
everybody else's movie.
>Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
Realists do.
Christopher A. Lee
In article <01bd9286$9cce9860$c8af21cb@nettrade> "Zoomlings" <rab...@nettrade.com.au> writes:
>
>Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote in article
><3579988B...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
>:
>: Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
>:
>You are not very wrong.
>God did create Humans.
Evidence?
>Humans created Religions.
>We now have thousands of Gods.
So how does somebody who doen't already believe in your
God, differentiate between that one and all the other
invented ones?
Dave Haas
Zoomlings wrote:
>
> Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote in article
> <3579988B...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
> : Is this a fair statement?
> :
> : Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
> :
> :
> You are not very wrong.
> God did create Humans.
> We now have thousands of Gods.
>
If as you say we have created thousands of Gods how do you KNOW that
your God wasn't one of them? Why do humans need so many? If it is in
human nature to create Gods wouldn't this suggest they created the God
you believe in just like those other Gods? The evidence is much the
same for all gods.
D. Haas
Dave Haas
Mark Daniels wrote:
>
> Why are the responses of atheists always FAR more vehement than the post
> they are replying to? Can you answer me? It doesn't offend me, it just
> seems unnecessary. A straightforward argument will suffice - the torrent
> of abuse is not really necessary.
>
> would reduce him to the level of my arguments (I think we've been over
> this)
>
> deep
> > down you know it. Give it up.
>
> But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the universe.
>
that. IMO it is the ultimate arrogance to believe that your species is
extra special to the earth or universe. If you think you and I are
worth more than spit to the universe give me an example of how the
universe would be affected if we weren't in it. (Which by the way we
won't be for long) Find another species which agrees with you.
D. Haas
D. Haas
Andrew Berry
In article <01bd9208$a4186de0$LocalHost@default>, Mark Daniels
>
> P.S. But what would you rather - that I was untrue to my beliefs?
> If I say, "God as he revealed himself to Christians is the true God",
> then I literally CAN'T then go and say, oh yes, but the God of the
> Upside-Down Worshippers of Nant is also the true one! I mean, can
> you at least agree with me that if my God is by definition (and by
> his words) the only one, then I can't very well accept the existence
> of another one? I'm not asking that you agree with my belief, just
> that you agree with me on this logical point.
What you're saying makes sense, but think about this: I bet that if
you'd been born into another religion you would be have been equally
convinced that its god (if it had one) was the only one.
Cheers,
--
Andrew Berry (and...@metallinks.com)
http://www.metallinks.com/
There's always another opinion as to what life is all about
jim humphreys
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >"Mark Daniels" wrote
> >Why are the responses of atheists always FAR more vehement than the post
> >they are replying to? Can you answer me? It doesn't offend me, it just
> >seems unnecessary. A straightforward argument will suffice - the torrent
> >of abuse is not really necessary.
> Because this newsgroup was set up for atheists to discuss our own
> issues amongst ourselves, in a place where we should be free
> from theistic presumptions that we don't share, proselytisers,
> hellfire merchants and other assorted god-botherers.
The problem here would seem to be in defining what constitutes
for atheists "our own issues". If one accepts the definition of
an atheist as one who "lacks belief in a God or Gods", that
definition does not seem to me to imply a particular set of
issues which could be termed "our own". A "lack of belief"
does not imply that there is any common outlook towards
the expression of religious views. There is also the issue
of to what extent a newsgroup constitutes a "place".
> It is rude and disrespectful to presume God/Zeus/Allah etc
> when you know you are talking to an atheist.
Why should it be presumed to be disrespectful to presume their
existence if one is engaged in conversation with an athiest?
As the atheist lacks belief in these entities it would seem to be no
more disrespectful than presuming the existence of unicorns.
> Unfortunately it is a societal convention that we are expected
> to put up with this crap. But when we get together with each
> other in a theism-free environment we don't have to. And as
> we don't have any religious requirement to turn the other
> cheek, we don't.
This may be your own opinion and it is probably the viewpoint of
various atheists, but it needs to be pointed out that this is not
a viewpoint which is in any way implied by simply being an atheist.
A (hypothetical) atheist as defined above might just as legitimately
say that he finds the views of , say, fundamentalists
interesting and informative - he would be no less an atheist than
his colleague for making this statement.
jim humphreys
jim humphreys
Dave Haas wrote:
> If as you say we have created thousands of Gods how do you KNOW that
> your God wasn't one of them? Why do humans need so many? If it is in
> human nature to create Gods wouldn't this suggest they created the God
> you believe in just like those other Gods? The evidence is much the
> same for all gods.
If its accepted that we somehow "create" a God (Feuerbach suggests that
they are projections of ourselves) this says nothing about whether
or not the God exists or not - you have been persistently confusing
these two separate matters.
jim humphreys
Laura Sugrue
>Is this a fair statement?
>
>Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
>
>instead of the other way around.
Apart from the fact this statement depends on your beliefs about how it
all started, if we assume for the moment that God did create humans,
then surely over the years there have been billions more people than all
the gods from every religion put together.
Personally I think it is humans who have created gods and, not being
entirely convinced of any god's existence, I don't actually believe that
gods created any humans at all. So I agree with your conclusion but the
reasoning is unsafe.
-- Laura Sugrue
Chris Ectomy
On 7 Jun 1998 11:46:02 GMT, "Mark Daniels"
<No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
>
>P.S. But what would you rather - that I was untrue to my beliefs? If I
>say, "God as he revealed himself to Christians is the true God", then I
>literally CAN'T then go and say, oh yes, but the God of the Upside-Down
>Worshippers of Nant is also the true one! I mean, can you at least agree
>with me that if my God is by definition (and by his words) the only one,
>then I can't very well accept the existence of another one? I'm not asking
>that you agree with my belief, just that you agree with me on this logical
>point.
>
Yes, I'll agree with that. I would think it could go without saying.
I apologize for calling you a fuck. It certainly was uncalled for, now that I'm
getting to know you better.
It strikes me that above you state you have God's words and in a prior post in
this thread you state, "There isn't any evidence for a god, ...". How can you
reasonably state that you have God's words but have no evidence for the
existence of God? I mean once you buy into this fantasy you really have to
twist your perception of reality and treat words as if they had no specific
meaning. You're willing to believe all kinds of inanity like immortal beings
that died, immortality in a universe where everything dies, and invisible souls
floating around in our bodies that have been completely inspected and where any
small part of our bodies can be removed without causing loss of being.
These delusions are produced by Faith, which equates to pretending. You can't
just wish that Heaven exists and then expect to go there. And you can't
reasonably expect that you happened to be born into the one and only religion,
because all religious people think that way, regardless of their religion.
There's no intelligent way to choose between them.
Without evidence for any god, there are no gods. Reality is a discernable
thing. We're conquering more of it all the time. You know, of course, that
your religion has changed to adapt to the findings of science, but never the
other way around. It's obvious, then, which is the source of truth. (Of
course, it's not all truth, all the time, but we are just humans, nothing
special really.)
Take care,
Ken
David Johnston
Mark Daniels wrote:
>
> Why are the responses of atheists always FAR more vehement than the post
> they are replying to? Can you answer me? It doesn't offend me, it
Oh I don't know. This response isn't more vehement than your question,
so I'd say your generalisation is unjustified.
just
> seems unnecessary. A straightforward argument will suffice - the torrent
> of abuse is not really necessary.
>
> There isn't any evidence for a god, thank God - if I could prove God it
> would reduce him to the level of my arguments (I think we've been over
> this)
>
> > All your pretending, hoping, wishing isn't worth spit to the universe and
> deep
> > down you know it. Give it up.
>
> But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the universe.
> Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
I can. The truth is, even if God exists, I have trouble believing that
my existence is of great significance.
>
> Mark D.
>
> Chris Ectomy <c...@interferon.com> wrote in article
> <357a1626...@news.erols.com>...
> > On 6 Jun 1998 19:59:52 GMT, "Mark Daniels"
> > <No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
> >
> > >What if there actually IS a God and that our (my, anyway) belief in him
> is
> > >founded? What if the one I believe in (identified by his name, his
> > >character as described in the Bible etc.) is actually the ONLY one?
> >
> > Out of all the gods in the world you, luckily, were born into the one and
> only
Mark Daniels
Chris Ectomy <c...@interferon.com> wrote in article
<357ad51e...@news.erols.com>...
> On 7 Jun 1998 11:46:02 GMT, "Mark Daniels"
> <No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
>
> >
> >P.S. But what would you rather - that I was untrue to my beliefs? If I
> >say, "God as he revealed himself to Christians is the true God", then I
> >literally CAN'T then go and say, oh yes, but the God of the Upside-Down
> >Worshippers of Nant is also the true one! I mean, can you at least
agree
> >with me that if my God is by definition (and by his words) the only one,
> >then I can't very well accept the existence of another one? I'm not
asking
> >that you agree with my belief, just that you agree with me on this
logical
> >point.
> >
> Yes, I'll agree with that. I would think it could go without saying.
>
> I apologize for calling you a fuck. It certainly was uncalled for, now
that I'm
> getting to know you better.
>
Ah well - that's OK. It's all part of the Getting-to-know-you process.
> It strikes me that above you state you have God's words and in a prior
post in
> this thread you state, "There isn't any evidence for a god, ...". How
can you
> reasonably state that you have God's words but have no evidence for the
> existence of God? I mean once you buy into this fantasy you really have
to
> twist your perception of reality and treat words as if they had no
specific
> meaning. You're willing to believe all kinds of inanity like immortal
beings
> that died, immortality in a universe where everything dies, and invisible
souls
> floating around in our bodies that have been completely inspected and
where any
> small part of our bodies can be removed without causing loss of being.
>
> These delusions are produced by Faith, which equates to pretending. You
can't
> just wish that Heaven exists and then expect to go there.
First, I am sorry someone got annoyed that this post was cross-posted into
various atheism discussion groups. However, just as you would like to
discuss atheism in peace, Christians would like to discuss their beliefs in
peace, but we gave up long ago!
I'm sure this has all been gone over COUNTLESS times before in these
groups, but we are basically talking about faith again. No - there is NO
scientific evidence for God. All I can EVER put forward as my basis of
faith is that God as revealed in the Bible has become real to me (I mean
real as in someone I can know and do know). What is written about him in
the bible has been proved to ME as true through my experience. However,
that is something I can never prove to anybody else, neither do I intend to
try. I am not an apologist, or apologian, or however you say it, so look
elsewhere for clever arguments. I'm a witness (as are all Christians
believers supposed to be - see my recent post, Christians - Witnesses or
advocates?) and all I'm telling you is that God lives, Christ is his son,
he died for us to reunite us with God. It's something you can only find
out for yourself. Why not at least say "God, if you exist - reveal
yourself to me!"? The bible says "God rewards all who earnestly seek him".
Problem is, if you're earnestly seeking to disprove his existence, then
you will probably succeed in doing so, and there's not much God can do for
you, that's your choice.
> Without evidence for any god, there are no gods. Reality is a
discernable
> thing. We're conquering more of it all the time. You know, of course,
that
> your religion has changed to adapt to the findings of science, but never
the
> other way around.
No - Christians have changed to adapt to the findings of science. Comes of
trying to use science to prove something unrelated to science - this is in
my opinion a trap. The Christian message has never changed - it will
always be: 'Christ crucified'.
Mark D.
Mark Daniels
P.S. I admit that my original response to this posting was a bit of a
troll, but then, so was the original posting
Mark D.
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote in article
<3579988B...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
> Is this a fair statement?
>
> Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
>
> If so. I would think it makes more sense to assume Man created God
> instead of the other way around.
>
> Just wondering.
>
> D. Haas
>
Chris Peterson
Mark Daniels wrote:
>But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the universe.
>Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
I can accept it with no problem at all. Why is it so hard for you to
accept this? I don't get it.
Chris Peterson
Earle Jones
In article <01bd91e3$00502ce0$LocalHost@default>, "Mark Daniels"
>Why are the responses of atheists always FAR more vehement than the post
>they are replying to? Can you answer me? It doesn't offend me, it just
>seems unnecessary. A straightforward argument will suffice - the torrent
>of abuse is not really necessary.
--
How long have you felt that all responses to you are "...far more
vehement... than your own?
When you feel that you are getting a "...torrent of abuse...", what does it
make you want to do?
You can be helped. You can be saved.
I think you need a christectomy.
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
We want our Internet back! Get rid of Spam.
See http://www.cauce.org
Rev Chuck
Y...@swbell.net wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 22:42:05 +0800, j...@stopspam.com (JM) wrote:
>
> >In article <3579c62e...@news.supernews.com>, maf...@mrdouble.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:25 -0700, Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
> >> >sure bet his first name was "King".
> >>
> >> More likely is a Chief advisor to the Kng who wanted to keep the King
> >> under his thumb. and later became the Chief Priest as well :-)
> >
> >Reminds me of how the Hebrew Bible spills out the faults of the kings.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Dave Haas wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
> >> >>
> >> >> If so. I would think it makes more sense to assume Man created God
> >> >> instead of the other way around.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just wondering.
> >> >>
> >> >> D. Haas
>
(snip snip snip snip...)
Great, but can you explain it without the drawn-out sermon? Can you
cite real evidence SINCE the past 2000 years? Try it WITH the
Eskalith this time.
Don't worry, a nonexistant god can't condemn you to a nonexistant hell
for a perpetuity that defies the very laws of physics.
Rev Chuck
Y...@swbell.net wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 22:42:05 +0800, j...@stopspam.com (JM) wrote:
>
> >In article <3579c62e...@news.supernews.com>, maf...@mrdouble.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:25 -0700, Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
> >> >sure bet his first name was "King".
>
> he died.
>
> The Muslims created their god from a dead man too.
>
> In fact every god was created by their followers who liked to sit
> around learning and repeating their god's wise sayings.
>
> But there is one God who was not created, HE IS GOD--the CREATOR of
> everything.
(Snip)
Never mind that you've totally screwed up on those weird religions (weird
because they're not yours... whoah, what if they're RIGHT???), if we granted
you the benefit of the doubt and agreed that they're idolatous, they'd STILL
be ahead of you. Because at least their "gods" EXISTED.
Mark Daniels
Chris Peterson <chr...@flash.net> wrote in article
<357b1ec3...@news.flash.net>...
Come on - of course you get it. Because if that's the case, then
everything you or I ever did or will do is utterly meaningless and we might
as well kill ourselves now, or at least cease to put any effort whatsoever
into our lives. What is the point of letting our atoms rub a bit with some
other atoms for 3 score and ten so-called years and then 'us' evaporating
back into the universe where we came from? The very fact that you HAVEN'T
killed yourself (well, unless since your last post :-) leads me to believe
that you MUST find SOME meaning, at least in yourself if no-where else.
Where did this sense of meaning come from? Well, evolution must have put
it there in order to help your conglomeration of atoms survive - which
leads us onto the subject of... oh no...! However, I do not hold to my
Christian faith purely in order to bring meaning to my life (although
that's certainly part of it) - my faith is based on an 'offer I couldn't
refuse'. That of God's son giving his life for me. That's something I
will never try and prove to you, because one can only truly prove it to
oneself. That's why it's called faith.
Yours atom-rubbingly,
Mark Daniels
Zaar
Keith W. Peterson wrote:
is this based souly upon your depravity?
HEY KEITH !!!! WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO INSULT OTHERS
BECAUSE OF THIER DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW? GOD???IS IT YOUR LOW SELF ESTEEM THAT DRIVES YOU TO ASK SUCH
A STUPID QUESTION, OR ARE YOU FUSTRATED BECAUSE
YOU KNOW YOU HAVE NO BRAINS?YOUR OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THOSE NARROW MINDED,
HYPOCRITICAL JERKS WHO CAN'T STAND PEOPLE
WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS THAN YOURS!!INSULTS ARE CHEAP SHOTS. ESPECIALLY THE ONES
THROWN FOR JUST MAKING A SIMPLE STATMENT!!GET A LIFE!! GET A BRAIN!!! GET BENT YOU ASS HOLE!!!!!
P.S. WHAT DOES THE (W) IN YOUR NAME
STAND FOR? WIMP?!?
Pat Winstanley
In article <01bd91e3$00502ce0$LocalHost@default>, Mark Daniels <No-to-
>> All your pretending, hoping, wishing isn't worth spit to the universe and
>deep
>> down you know it. Give it up.
>
>Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
Why not? Because you don't want to believe that, perhaps?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
In article <357B45...@netcomuk.co.uk>, jim humphreys
<jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>The problem here would seem to be in defining what constitutes
>for atheists "our own issues". If one accepts the definition of
>an atheist as one who "lacks belief in a God or Gods", that
>definition does not seem to me to imply a particular set of
>issues which could be termed "our own". A "lack of belief"
>does not imply that there is any common outlook towards
>the expression of religious views.
I think the main issue is that when rules of behaviour (national laws,
local laws, or just common laws) are based purely on a belief in a god
(and the protection and promotion of that belief above others), then
those who have no belief in a god are affected by what is to them often
a pointless 'rule'.
For instance, legal restrictions of activities which may be performed on
the holy day of a particular religion affect those who don't follow that
or any religion. Why should they? Things like whether or not a
particular shop may open on a Sunday in the (nominally Christian) UK has
nothing to do with public order or any other safety aspect... it is
purely a sop to the beliefs of a particular subset of society who happen
to treat their personal Sundays in a particular way in their own lives.
Why shouldn't we put restrictions on shops opening on Saturdays to keep
the Jewish sub-set of the community happy, and leave Sunday as a day to
have the shops open? Why only is only Sunday trading that is restricted?
And why should an atheist shopkeepeer not open all the time if they so
wish? Those who want to keep a Saturday or Sunday sacred *for
themselves* have no obligation to shop on their special day... but why
should those of other or no faiths be forced to forego shopping too?
--
Pat Winstanley
Zaar
EVERY CHEAP SHOT INSULT DESERVES
ANOTHER! SO IF YOU WANT MORE, BE
MY GUEST!
IT WILL BE MY PLEASURE TO
THROW THEM BACK AT YOU!
Evrard Nicolas
There is no way to demonstrate the existence of god inside logic.
Because if there is one, god is the consequence of axioms. So thanks to
Godel's theorem, there is at least one thing that can't be prove by this
system
and so god cannot know anything about this thing because he is inside
the system.
But, god may exist, it is the demonstration of his existence that isn't
possible.
So the best philosophy is agnosticism, thinking that because god is
unreachable or
may not exist, we should live without thinking about it. And if he
exists ...
Andrew Berry
In article <01bd92aa$f140e6e0$c3c7f7c2@default>, Mark Daniels
<URL:mailto:No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
> Chris Peterson <chr...@flash.net> wrote in article
> <357b1ec3...@news.flash.net>...
> > Mark Daniels wrote:
> >
> > > universe. Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can
> > > truly accept that.
> >
> > to accept this? I don't get it.
>
> everything you or I ever did or will do is utterly meaningless and we
> might as well kill ourselves now, or at least cease to put any effort
> whatsoever into our lives.
Everything *is* utterly meaningless on a universal scale, but that
doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the most of our lives. What makes
you think that the human race (and this planet as a whole) is anything
*other* than meaningless?
> What is the point of letting our atoms rub a bit with some other
> atoms for 3 score and ten so-called years and then 'us' evaporating
> back into the universe where we came from?
Because we may as well do something useful or interesting while we're
here. In the long term we've got nothing to lose and nothing to gain,
but that doesn't make our lives worthless.
> The very fact that you HAVEN'T killed yourself (well, unless since
> your last post :-) leads me to believe that you MUST find SOME
> meaning, at least in yourself if no-where else.
I wouldn't call it "meaning", but apart from that I agree. I often
wonder why christians don't kill themselves, as their life on earth is
nothing but a way of assessing their destination after they die. Or is
suicide a sin? (It's a serious question; I really don't know the
answer.)
> Where did this sense of meaning come from?
Consciousness and interaction with other people and our environment.
> Well, evolution must have put it there in order to help your
> conglomeration of atoms survive - which leads us onto the subject
> of... oh no...!
Hmm. It seems you've answered your own question by removing the need
for a creator. :-/
> However, I do not hold to my Christian faith purely in order to
> bring meaning to my life (although that's certainly part of it) - my
> faith is based on an 'offer I couldn't refuse'. That of God's son
> giving his life for me.
I hate this selfish attitude which some christians take. The idea that
Jesus died for *you* makes it sound like you have a very high opinion
of yourself.
Cheers,
--
Andrew Berry (and...@metallinks.com)
http://www.metallinks.com/
You know so much about nothing at all
Keith W. Peterson
What ever makes you feel big and puffy Zaar.
Zaar wrote in message <357BB67D...@Zaar.Zaar>...
Keith W. Peterson
Zaar wrote in message <357BAE0F...@Zaar.Zaar>...
HEY KEITH !!!! WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO INSULT OTHERS
BECAUSE OF THIER DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW? GOD???
And who gave you the right? Is it okay for you to insult, but another person can not?
I think you are a bit tender, I did not insult, I pointed out the obvious.
IS IT YOUR LOW SELF ESTEEM THAT DRIVES YOU TO ASK SUCH
A STUPID QUESTION, OR ARE YOU FUSTRATED BECAUSE
YOU KNOW YOU HAVE NO BRAINS?
The question appears stupid to you because you 1) do not understand it
or 2) are in depravity yourself and so feel 'offended' (maybe convicted)
YOUR OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THOSE NARROW MINDED,
HYPOCRITICAL JERKS WHO CAN'T STAND PEOPLE
WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS THAN YOURS!!
You are right that I am narrow minded. And I am, as we all are, at times a hypocrite.
The ideas aren't mine, actually the ideas I support and speak of in my posts are the truths of the God who created you and me.
INSULTS ARE CHEAP SHOTS. ESPECIALLY THE ONES
THROWN FOR JUST MAKING A SIMPLE STATMENT!!
So, I can take this posting of yours and consider it to be a cheap shot, correct?
GET A LIFE!! GET A BRAIN!!! GET BENT YOU ASS HOLE!!!!!
I have a life, eternal life as a matter of fact, eternal life with the God of creation.
You too have eternal life, being in a unsaved state your eternity will be spent in hell. But Jesus Christ can change that.
P.S. WHAT DOES THE (W) IN YOUR NAME
STAND FOR? WIMP?!?
Actually, I don't know what a 'wimp' is. But the 'W' does not stand for that, no.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes
Romans 1:16
jim humphreys
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> For instance, legal restrictions of activities which may be performed on
> the holy day of a particular religion affect those who don't follow that
> or any religion. Why should they? Things like whether or not a
> particular shop may open on a Sunday in the (nominally Christian) UK has
> nothing to do with public order or any other safety aspect... it is
> purely a sop to the beliefs of a particular subset of society who happen
> to treat their personal Sundays in a particular way in their own lives.
>... Why only is only Sunday trading that is restricted?
> And why should an atheist shopkeepeer not open all the time if they so
> wish? Those who want to keep a Saturday or Sunday sacred *for
> themselves* have no obligation to shop on their special day... but why
> should those of other or no faiths be forced to forego shopping too?
But you know as well as I do that much of the opposition to this was
not religion -based. For example Trade Unions opposed it because it
would mean that many individuals would be obliged to work at the weekend
when they did not wish to do so. Likewise there is an argument which says that
it is desirable to have some sort of break from the 6 days of commercial
activity on the grounds of health. If the non-religious are allowed to
have shopping on Sunday, this certainly imposes on other members of the
community in terms of traffic, pollution etc etc.
jim humphreys
Y...@swbell.net
On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 22:42:05 +0800, j...@stopspam.com (JM) wrote:
>In article <3579c62e...@news.supernews.com>, maf...@mrdouble.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:25 -0700, Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
>> >sure bet his first name was "King".
>>
>> More likely is a Chief advisor to the Kng who wanted to keep the King
>> under his thumb. and later became the Chief Priest as well :-)
>
>Reminds me of how the Hebrew Bible spills out the faults of the kings.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Dave Haas wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is this a fair statement?
>> >>
>> >> Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
>> >>
>> >> If so. I would think it makes more sense to assume Man created God
>> >> instead of the other way around.
>> >>
>> >> Just wondering.
>> >>
>> >> D. Haas
God created man, God is real, the Bible is His Word given to Man to
live by because God is choosing out companions to spend eternity with
God.
I have written this story explaining what all the evidence and the
written word seems to be saying. I know you will use sarcasm and lies
to defend what you want to believe but that won't change the truth.
God has done everything that can be done for you to get you to heaven
but if you are determined to go to hell God will send you there.
If you are smart you will read this story and consider it. If you are
dumb you will deny it but you will have had your chance.
I wrote this account of what I believe God is doing and why He is
doing it, so people who think most preachers and most Christians are
hypocrites will not let their beliefs stand between them and God.
After giving mankind a free will to live as he pleases, I
believe God's plan for the ages is to choose people from among mankind
to be His companions throughout eternity. This is not spelled out in
the Bible, but I believe God, after making many things in eternity
past, decided to make someone after His own image. God then made a
place to test this companion, "EARTH."
The Bible says in Revelation 4:11 K.J.V. "You are worthy, O
Lord, To receive glory and honor and power: for You have created all
things, and for your pleasure they are and were created."
This verse teaches us why God is doing what He does, it is for
His own pleasure. He is not magnifying you or me, but he will enjoy
those of us He chooses out of this world to spend eternity with Him.
We that decide to follow Him as Lord, and are obedient to His Word.
If God made us to be companions to Him: then we must be very
special, and we "are" very special; but not all of us, only the ones
who choose God, not lightly, but deliberately. God is choosing out a
very special people for companions, and He has only one scale to
choose from. "We must choose Him." Using the terms He gave in His
Word, the Bible.
The Word of God says in 11 Peter 3:9 K.J.V. "The Lord is not
slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is
long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should parish, but
that all should come to repentance." God doesn't want anyone to go to
hell and God has given us a way to escape.
God has given ample proof of His existence in His creation.
The complexity of design requires a designer by whatever name. We
know Him as God. He then gave us His Word (the Bible) to direct us,
and we can go to Him in prayer, for further instructions.
If that is not enough to convince us, God came to the earth
Himself. He veiled His glory in flesh. Hebrews 10:20 K.J.V. says
"By a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us through the
veil, that is to say, His flesh;" God came to the earth as a baby
"Jesus" that is how He veiled Himself in flesh. Then Jesus was
sacrificed for the sins you and I have sinned. God paid the penalty
for your sins, and my sins! When we are reconciled to God through
Jesus, we are " born again " to God. God's Spirit return's to us, to
dwell within us. This is the method God, the Creator and Judge, has
chosen, argue with Him at your own risk.
We must remember what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 2:14
K.J.V. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned." This teaches us that without
the Spirit of God, the things of God seem foolish to everyone who has
not chosen to follow God.
Many of us who "call" ourselves Christians, hit the wall, which is
what I call telling God we have gone as far as we can go, God will now
have to meet us halfway; NO, He doesn't! He makes the rules! If we
want to be Christians we must go to Him, all the way, hold back
nothing, and we can if we will make the effort.
Why did Satan fall? Also, why is he allowed to cause so much
unhappiness in the world? The Bible says in Proverbs 16:4 K.J.V.
"The Lord has made all things for Himself: yea, even the "wicked" for
the day of evil." I believe God made Satan -for- the day of evil.
God made Satan, an angel, and made him the highest of all the angels.
Satan rebelled against God, and I believe God knew he would rebel. I
believe Satan is used of God to test man.
Satan was once the highest of all the angels and the most
beautiful. In heaven he was next to God in authority and power. But
he wanted to be like God; he was filled with envy and pride. God is
very fair, the Angels are not robots. Satan made a decision to rebel
against God, then organized a revolt in heaven. He wanted to take
over heaven and he tried. He got many angels to follow him, and
brought God's judgement on himself and the angels following him, God
put them all, out of heaven.
God gave Satan authority to use the riches and glories of this
earth to tempt us, to see if we are sincere followers of God. Or will
we turn away from Him when we are tempted with the things of the
world, or if the going gets hard; or is unpopular.
Satan enticed Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Eve enticed
Adam to join her in eating the forbidden fruit. God told Adam in
Genesis 2:16-17 K.J.V. "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying.
Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day
that you eat of it you shall surely die."
When Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit of the tree of
life; God's Spirit left them and God considered them dead to Him.
Christians call this "the original sin." Many years later their bodies
would die also, for they had introduced physical death into this
world, as well as spiritual death. We are all descended from Adam
and Eve and we inherited their rebellious nature.
Satan trying to tempt Jesus says In Matthew 4:8-9 K.J.V.
"Again, the Devil took Him (Jesus) up into an exceeding high mountain,
and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
And said unto Him all these things will I give you, if you will fall
down and worship me." We learn from these verses that God has given
Satan temporary and limited power over the Earth.
Satan offered Jesus Christ all the kingdoms of this world, and
Jesus did not dispute his authority, but He rejected his offer. Even
though Satan has all the pleasures and goods of this world to offer
us; all that he offers is temporary, only God and what He offers is
eternal. Nor does Satan keep his promises to us; instead he sucks us
in with his promises, then he leads us on while moving the goal posts,
often while claiming to be God: that's why so many people go on a
killing rampage saying, "God told me to do it." Satan claiming he is
God tells them to do it.
When his usefulness to God is over, God will take all
authority from Satan, and punish him for rebelling; he is a created
being, not god.
Why would God make it so hard for us to choose Him? BECAUSE
HE IS GOD! I believe if the choice is not a hard one, then our
commitment to God will not be a strong one, we must be tried: our
sincerity must be tested. God must prove us; He is calling out a very
special people; He doesn't want wishy-washy people for His eternal
companions. We must choose God over everything Satan offers, but the
rewards of God are eternal, magnificent, far above anything Satan,
using the world for bait, can offer, no choice we make is more
important to us.
God says in Romans 6:16 K.J.V. "Know ye not, that to whom ye
yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye
obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"
How many hours a week do you spend serving God? Not the church, God!
How many hours a week do you spend serving Satan? We will serve one
or the other! Whom you serve; his you are!
After God chooses His eternal companions He will close this
world down, it will have served it's purpose. God will then judge
those that have not chosen Him at the Great White Throne, from the
judgement seat of God. Those who make light of the sacrifice of Gods
own son, sent by God to redeem us to Himself.
If we die without choosing to follow and serve God; we will be
separated from our Creator completely and for the first time; it will
be worse than a baby being separated from its mother. That I believe
will be the worst thing about hell. I can't imagine the terrible
loneliness and inner emptiness of being separated from God our
Creator. He is a constant source of comfort and hope for all His
creation, for those who choose not to follow Him; that will suddenly
stop!
The Revelations of Jesus Christ 21:1 K.J.V. says "And I saw a
new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth
were passed away; and there was no more sea." God will destroy the
heavens and the earth, He will then make a new heaven and a new earth.
Heaven is God's eternal home, and we that choose to follow Him and
serve Him will be there with Him.
>>><<<
Dave Haas
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> In article <01bd91e3$00502ce0$LocalHost@default>, Mark Daniels <No-to-
> pink-proc...@markd.eunet.yu> writes
> >> All your pretending, hoping, wishing isn't worth spit to the universe and
> >deep
> >> down you know it. Give it up.
> >
> >Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
>
>
That seems logical.
D. Haas
walksalone
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 19:27:29 GMT, Y...@swbell.net wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 22:42:05 +0800, j...@stopspam.com (JM) wrote:
>
>>In article <3579c62e...@news.supernews.com>, maf...@mrdouble.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:25 -0700, Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
>>> >sure bet his first name was "King".
>>>
>>> More likely is a Chief advisor to the Kng who wanted to keep the King
>>> under his thumb. and later became the Chief Priest as well :-)
>>
>>Reminds me of how the Hebrew Bible spills out the faults of the kings.
>>
>>> >Dave Haas wrote:
>>> >> Is this a fair statement?
>>> >> Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
>>> >> If so. I would think it makes more sense to assume Man created God
>>> >> instead of the other way around.
>> >> Just wondering.
>> >> D. Haas
>
>God created man, God is real, the Bible is His Word given to Man to
you wasted 187 lines, was there a point to it, or did you not mean to
cross post to an atheism group. it is the first group in your
header/send to/followup.
philosophy: questions seeking answers that may never be found.
religion: answers that may never be questioned, especially by
one not of the faith.
take care & strive to be happy
the politically incorrect
walksalone @ ala .net
close it up to get it right
Rick Thorne
> Is this a fair statement?
>
> Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
Man created every god he's worshipped from the beginning of this fete we
call "religion." He's created gods for the following reasons:
1) Control of the masses (read Marcus Arelius)
2) Self validation/comfort
3) Possible explanations for creation (all defied, of course, by science)
He perpetuates the god myths for comfort; religions, being businesses,
perpetuate the myths to, well, stay in business.
--
? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ?
? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ?
? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ?
? rick....@lmco.com ? ?
? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ?
Mattheq
In article <01bd92aa$f140e6e0$c3c7f7c2@default>, "Mark Daniels"
> What is the point of letting our atoms rub a bit with some
> other atoms for 3 score and ten so-called years and then 'us' evaporating
> back into the universe where we came from?
Because being alive is better than being dead.
Mattheq
--
"And then, one Thursday nearly two thousand years after one man had been
nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a
change..." http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/9079/ Drop in!
IA i^8 His Holiness, Pope Mattheq I
Chris Peterson
Mark Daniels posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Chris Peterson <chr...@flash.net> wrote in article
>> Mark Daniels wrote:
>>> But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the universe.
>>> Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
>> I can accept it with no problem at all. Why is it so hard for you to
>> accept this? I don't get it.
>Come on - of course you get it.
No, I really don't get it.
>Because if that's the case, then everything you or I ever did or will do is utterly
>meaningless
This is not true. Think about it for a minute, or longer..
>and we might as well kill ourselves now,
Good gawd man, what is your problem?
>or at least cease to put any effort whatsoever into our lives.
Pitiful, just pitiful. Where is your sense of adventure and drive to
seek knowledge? Perhaps it is filed under *W* for who cares?
Does a belief in some magical being and afterlife prevent you
from experiencing such things as curiosity?
>What is the point of letting our atoms rub a bit with some
>other atoms for 3 score and ten so-called years and then 'us' evaporating
>back into the universe where we came from?
Maybe the pursuit of knowledge and science? Is this a foreign concept
to you? Or does awaiting some fictional afterlife tend to distract
you from such things?
>The very fact that you HAVEN'T killed yourself (well, unless since your last post :-)
> leads me to believe that you MUST find SOME meaning, at least in yourself if
> no-where else.
Maybe the desire to survive and procreate, and contribute whatever I
can to the advancement of our species, or at the very least, have no
negative effect on it, if that's what I choose to do.
>Where did this sense of meaning come from?
Common sense, animal instinct, whatever you want to call it.
>Well, evolution must have put it there in order to help your conglomeration
>of atoms survive
Yep.
> - which leads us onto the subject of... oh no...!
What? Evolution? Scared of it are you?
>However, I do not hold to my
>Christian faith purely in order to bring meaning to my life (although
>that's certainly part of it)
You've pretty much said what is the use of living if there is no god
or afterlife, so what's left for you? Nothing, eh? You apparantly
don't have the inborn desire of any species to survive and procreate.
It appears you might be just another christian slacker waiting for a
fantasy life in heaven.
>- my faith is based on an 'offer I couldn't refuse'.
Yeah, that eternal life thing is really attractive isn't it? Go
figure. Wake up man, smell the coffee. You're an animal
among many, with a bad and pompous attitude.
>That of God's son giving his life for me.
Why do you actually believe this ridiculous story? How come
you aren't a Hindu?
>That's something I will never try and prove to you, because one can only
>truly prove it to oneself. That's why it's called faith.
Faith in fairytales is a stupid way to live your life.
Chris Peterson
Chris Ectomy
>There is no way to demonstrate the existence of god inside logic.
Is there a way to demonstrate the existence of fish inside logic? Isn't
observation the tool for determining existence?
>
>So the best philosophy is agnosticism,
And accepting the award is the soul of Thomas Huxley...(clap, clap, clap)...
DTTSIWJBFS
Y...@swbell.net
On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 22:42:05 +0800, j...@stopspam.com (JM) wrote:
>In article <3579c62e...@news.supernews.com>, maf...@mrdouble.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:25 -0700, Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
>> >sure bet his first name was "King".
The Buddhist created a god when they decided to worship Buddha after
he died.
The Muslims created their god from a dead man too.
In fact every god was created by their followers who liked to sit
around learning and repeating their god's wise sayings.
But there is one God who was not created, HE IS GOD--the CREATOR of
everything. He came to earth as Jesus to redeem mankind to Himself
and He has done everything that can be done to redeem us. There is
nothing else to do. The rest is up to us. Will we believe Him?
That's all He asks of us, is that we believe HIM. If we believe Him
we will recognize Him as God as worship Him as Lord and do His will!
What will you do, will you believe Him?
>> More likely is a Chief advisor to the Kng who wanted to keep the King
>> under his thumb. and later became the Chief Priest as well :-)
>
>Reminds me of how the Hebrew Bible spills out the faults of the kings.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Dave Haas wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is this a fair statement?
>> >>
>> >> Humans have created more Gods than Gods have created humans.
>> >>
>> >> If so. I would think it makes more sense to assume Man created God
>> >> instead of the other way around.
>> >>
>> >> Just wondering.
>> >>
>> >> D. Haas
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tim
Y...@swbell.net wrote:
> >> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:25 -0700, Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
> >> >sure bet his first name was "King".
>
> The Buddhist created a god when they decided to worship Buddha after
> he died.
>
But Buddhists don't really worship Buddha like you worship your god.
> The Muslims created their god from a dead man too.
>
And so you also worship a dead person, Jesus. What's the difference???
> In fact every god was created by their followers who liked to sit
> around learning and repeating their god's wise sayings.
>
> But there is one God who was not created, HE IS GOD--the CREATOR of
> everything. He came to earth as Jesus to redeem mankind to Himself
> and He has done everything that can be done to redeem us. There is
> nothing else to do. The rest is up to us. Will we believe Him?
> That's all He asks of us, is that we believe HIM. If we believe Him
> we will recognize Him as God as worship Him as Lord and do His will!
> What will you do, will you believe Him?
>
How can you be so sure?? You've grown up with this hammered into you?? Someone
came along at a weak point in your life and this looked like the only way out??
Just think about your usage of the word 'HIM' above, and think of it as the church
industry, not some great diety. Do you see that you're right under their thumb??
Wake up and stop believeing someone else's idea of the truth. Go find your own...
Mark Richardson
Y...@swbell.net wrote:
>
<Snip meaningless raving>
> The Revelations of Jesus Christ 21:1 K.J.V. says "And I saw a
> new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth
> were passed away; and there was no more sea." God will destroy the
> heavens and the earth, He will then make a new heaven and a new earth.
Will he get it right this time?
How many tries does he get before he is declared a f***-up?
Mark
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
____________________________________________________________
Therion Ware
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 02:04:30 GMT, Y...@swbell.net decided to say, in
alt.atheism, using 53 valuable lines of text:
>On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 22:42:05 +0800, j...@stopspam.com (JM) wrote:
>
>>In article <3579c62e...@news.supernews.com>, maf...@mrdouble.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:25 -0700, Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
>>> >sure bet his first name was "King".
>
>The Buddhist created a god when they decided to worship Buddha after
>he died.
Buddah isn't worshipped, he's venerated. There's a clear difference
that your friendly neighbourhood Buddhist would no doubt be glad to
explain.
>The Muslims created their god from a dead man too.
Um. Completely wrong. One of the first things you'll learn about
Islam, should you ever decide to convert, is that "Mohammed rasool
Allah" i.e. Mohammed is the messenger of God. Mohammed is considered
to be a prophet, and not in any way divine. Calling a Muslim a
"Mohammedan" is, consequently, a good way to be deeply offensive to
those who subscribe to Islam.
[snip][snip]
-----
Hell Is A City Much Like Dis, and it's Pandemonium; for "why this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
------ ------
Visit The City of Dis at: <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/index.html>
Evil Atheist Conspiracy : <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/eac/eac-oath.html>
Alt.Athesim Twit List : <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/aatwit/aatwit.html>
------
remove .eac from address to send email. Site updated: 22 May 1998 - 09:00 GMT.
E.A.C. Member #81 - AA: #422 (ag).
Pat Winstanley
In article <357c38c4...@News.swbell.net>, Y...@swbell.net writes
>God created man, God is real, the Bible is His Word given to Man to
>live by because God is choosing out companions to spend eternity with
>God.
Your personal opinion.
To which you are fully entitled.
What it does NOT entitle you to do is make other people who don't share
your opinion live their lives as if you were correct.
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
In article <357C98...@netcomuk.co.uk>, jim humphreys
<jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>> For instance, legal restrictions of activities which may be performed on
>> the holy day of a particular religion affect those who don't follow that
>> or any religion. Why should they? Things like whether or not a
>> particular shop may open on a Sunday in the (nominally Christian) UK has
>> nothing to do with public order or any other safety aspect... it is
>> purely a sop to the beliefs of a particular subset of society who happen
>> to treat their personal Sundays in a particular way in their own lives.
>>... Why only is only Sunday trading that is restricted?
>> And why should an atheist shopkeepeer not open all the time if they so
>> wish? Those who want to keep a Saturday or Sunday sacred *for
>> themselves* have no obligation to shop on their special day... but why
>> should those of other or no faiths be forced to forego shopping too?
>
>But you know as well as I do that much of the opposition to this was
>not religion -based.
In the past decade or so yes, but not before that.
> For example Trade Unions opposed it because it
>would mean that many individuals would be obliged to work at the weekend
>when they did not wish to do so.
And yet there has been Sunday working (normal hours) in many industries
other than retail since the year dot!
> Likewise there is an argument which says that
>it is desirable to have some sort of break from the 6 days of commercial
>activity on the grounds of health.
Of course... but why *Sunday*? Never heard of shift working?
> If the non-religious are allowed to
>have shopping on Sunday, this certainly imposes on other members of the
> community in terms of traffic, pollution etc etc.
>
If the religious are allowed to have shopping on Saturday this, this
certainly imposes on other members of the community in terms of traffic,
pollution etc...
And what of the *leisure* activities that used to be banned on Sundays
and other Christian high holy days? On peoples's "day of rest" when they
had chance to relax and take their time shopping for luxuries rather
than rushing round for bare essentials, or just have fun after the hard
slog of a week's work?
--
Pat Winstanley
Andrew Berry
In article <357c9807...@News.swbell.net>, <URL:mailto:Y...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>
> The Buddhist created a god when they decided to worship Buddha after
> he died.
>
>
> around learning and repeating their god's wise sayings.
>
> But there is one God who was not created, HE IS GOD--the CREATOR of
> everything.
You seem very keen to dismiss the possibility that the Muslim god is
real. What makes you so sure that your christian god is the only god?
Just because it happens to be the religion you were brought up into?
Cheers,
--
Andrew Berry (and...@metallinks.com)
http://www.metallinks.com/
It's always funny until someone gets hurt, and then it's just hilarious
Darryl L. Pierce
In article <357c9807...@News.swbell.net>, Y...@swbell.net wrote:
>The Buddhist created a god when they decided to worship Buddha after
>he died.
>
>The Muslims created their god from a dead man too.
>
>In fact every god was created by their followers who liked to sit
>around learning and repeating their god's wise sayings.
>
>But there is one God who was not created, HE IS GOD--the CREATOR of
So, in other words, people decided to worship Jesus after he died too. What's
the difference between Jesus and Buddha? Or Jesus and Mithra? Or Jesus and
Osiris? The Buybull doesn't lend much credence, since it's an interpretation
of an interpretation of a written form of hearsay about a mythology that was
handed down orally for centuries.
+-------------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce, Software Engineer |
| Resource Solutions, Int'l |
| (919) 547-7177 |
+-------------------------------------+
High-fidelity
Mattheq wrote in message ...
>In article <01bd92aa$f140e6e0$c3c7f7c2@default>, "Mark Daniels"
><No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
>> other atoms for 3 score and ten so-called years and then 'us' evaporating
>> back into the universe where we came from?
>
Well, _that's_ a biased judgement if I've ever seen one. :)
high fidelity
-
gotbifo = bigfoot
everything i say is my opinion
Christopher Cunningham
Evrard Nicolas wrote:
> There is no way to demonstrate the existence of god inside logic.
Chris Ectomy wrote:
> Is there a way to demonstrate the existence of fish inside logic?
> Isn't
> observation the tool for determining existence?
i've observed fish. have yet to observe god. maybe i'm using the wrong
bait?
Earle Jones
In article <357CDD...@utas.edu.au>, Mark Richardson
<m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>Y...@swbell.net wrote:
>>
><Snip meaningless raving>
>
>> The Revelations of Jesus Christ 21:1 K.J.V. says "And I saw a
>> new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth
>> were passed away; and there was no more sea." God will destroy the
>> heavens and the earth, He will then make a new heaven and a new earth.
>
>Will he get it right this time?
>How many tries does he get before he is declared a f***-up?
--
Mark: Don't you mean a "fuck-up"?
Say what you mean.
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
"The theory that you should always treat the religious convictions of
other people with respect finds no support in the Gospels."
--Arnold Lunn
"If you talk to God, you're praying; if God talks to you, you have
schizophrenia."
--Thomas Szasz
Earle Jones
In article <AemDL6AX...@pierless.demon.co.uk>, Pat Winstanley
<pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <357c38c4...@News.swbell.net>, Y...@swbell.net writes
>>God created man, God is real, the Bible is His Word given to Man to
>>live by because God is choosing out companions to spend eternity with
>>God.
--
No.
"Man created God in his own image."
--Fundamental theorem of religious truth
"Fundamentalism isn't about religion. It's about power."
--Salman Rushdie
"Man is certainly stark mad: he cannot make a worm, yet he will make
gods by the dozen."
--Michel de Montaigne
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
post-christian humanist
Generals of Waterloo
> > Mark Daniels wrote:
> >
> > >But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the universe.
> > >Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
> >
> > I can accept it with no problem at all. Why is it so hard for you to
> > accept this? I don't get it.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Come on - of course you get it. Because if that's the case, then
> everything you or I ever did or will do is utterly meaningless and we might
> as well kill ourselves now, or at least cease to put any effort whatsoever
> into our lives.
Wrong. You live that is all. You try to do whatever you feel is
important to you. We as atheists know that there is nothing after so we
might as well make the best of the time we have here.
> What is the point of letting our atoms rub a bit with some
> other atoms for 3 score and ten so-called years and then 'us' evaporating
> back into the universe where we came from?
There is no point to it, that's the point.
Let me turn it around for you.
If heaven and God are so great and wonderful then why waste your time
here on earth? What's the point of living for 80 years or so and then
having ETERNITY to be with god. Why not do all of eternity with him and
bask in his glory?
> The very fact that you HAVEN'T
> killed yourself (well, unless since your last post :-) leads me to believe
> that you MUST find SOME meaning, at least in yourself if no-where else.
Correct. But not meaning or purpose, just being. We are smart animals
that evolved. We are genetically programmed to reproduce - that is one
of our drives, the other drives are to find food and evade predators;
but these other drives are mainly to support the first one. We want to
pass our genes into the future - we do that now via children, perhaps in
the future we will have clones or immortality.
> Where did this sense of meaning come from?
No sense of meaning or purpose.
> Well, evolution must have put it there in order to help your conglomeration of atoms survive - which
> leads us onto the subject of... oh no...! However, I do not hold to my
> Christian faith purely in order to bring meaning to my life (although
> that's certainly part of it) - my faith is based on an 'offer I couldn't
> refuse'. That of God's son giving his life for me.
Jesus was a man. A philosopher who had the benefits of Greek culture
(since Alexander made Palestine part of his Hellenic Empire in 330 BC.
He also had Judaic teachings and basically said stuff that made sense
morally. At the timeof his life the major religion of Europe and the
MidEast was polytheism with the Cult of Hercules as a major cult that
was only surpassed in followers by the Nazarene Cult a few hundred years
later.
If you think he was GOD in the form of Man then he didn't really die as
he returned to God-form after he was resurrected. So he didn't die for
you. Dying means giving up one's life. God still lives does he not?
(in your faith - us atheists think god died, is dying or is shrinking;
where god is the 'idea of god').
> That's something I will never try and prove to you, because one can only truly prove it to
> oneself. That's why it's called faith.
And children believe in Santa based on the same proof.
>
> Yours atom-rubbingly,
>
> Mark Daniels
--
Ralph Boerke
Generals of Waterloo
ta...@kw.igs.net
Axis&Allies Expansions http://www.kw.igs.net/~tacit/aanda/index.htm
coming soon - http://www.worldatwar.com
Atheist Man
High-fidelity wrote in message ...
>Mattheq wrote in message ...
>>In article <01bd92aa$f140e6e0$c3c7f7c2@default>, "Mark Daniels"
>><No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
>>> other atoms for 3 score and ten so-called years and then 'us'
evaporating
>>> back into the universe where we came from?
>>
>
>Well, _that's_ a biased judgement if I've ever seen one. :)
Only if you're alive. Not that I've tried the alternative yet, but I'm in no
hurry.
Personally, I don't think dead people have much of a thought one way or the
other on the subject, because they are (pay attention, now) _DEAD_.
Bye.
________________________
Atheist Man
Atheist #1190 BAAWA!!!
High Priest of the Church of Hawking
(Atheist Minister #5)
(ath...@atheist.com)
==================================
"God fucked everything up; Jesus never existed."
==================================
c-j...@math.utah.edu
In article <357885...@erolls.com>,
Rev Chuck <cd...@erolls.com> wrote:
>
> While I don't know the last name of the man who created god, it's a
> sure bet his first name was "King".
>
Actually no. The guy who first came up with the idea of one God who was in
charge of everything was Zarathustra, and he never did end up being a king
(although he did end up controlling one like a puppet). If you mean the guy
who first came up with the idea of any sort of god, well I don't know, but if
he didn't turn it into at least being chief of his tribe, then he must have
started that tradition about shamans having a cushy job ;)
The Plasmatron (Rev. Rian Bartholomew Jensen) Atheist #317 Minister #1
c-j...@math.utah.edu Check out my site: http://www.math.utah.edu/~c-jnrb
Visit http://www.ulc.org , get ordained, and e-mail me for your Minister #
The list is kept at: http://www.math.utah.edu/~c-jnrb/minilist
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Richard Price
Christopher Cunningham wrote:
> Chris Ectomy wrote:
> > Is there a way to demonstrate the existence of fish inside logic?
> > Isn't
> > observation the tool for determining existence?
>
> i've observed fish. have yet to observe god. maybe i'm using the wrong
> bait?
Yes you are using the wrong bait. Do not worry, maybe you are not
going to heaven anyway. No one is forcing you to believe, or fish.
Dick
Frank O Wustner
Richard Price (dea...@cdepot.net) wrote:
: Christopher Cunningham wrote:
: > Chris Ectomy wrote:
: > > Is there a way to demonstrate the existence of fish inside logic?
: > > Isn't
: > > observation the tool for determining existence?
: > i've observed fish. have yet to observe god. maybe i'm using the wrong
: > bait?
: Yes you are using the wrong bait.
I have to ask you how you know, since he didn't actually say what bait
he's been using.
: Do not worry, maybe you are not
: going to heaven anyway.
No, he isn't. Heaven doesn't exist, so NOBODY is going to heaven.
: No one is forcing you to believe, or fish.
Maybe not, but a lot of people are trying pretty hard. You, for instance.
You'd deny it, of course, but you're trying to scare him (and everyone
else) into belief by clearly implying where he WILL go after he dies.
The Deadly Nightshade
|-----------------------------------|
|"I, too, believe in fate... |
|the fate a man makes for himself." |
|Lord Soth |
|-----------------------------------|
|"Quoth the raven, 'Eat my shorts!'"|
|Edgar Allan Bart |
|-----------------------------------|
|"Ack. Thpppbt." Bill the Cat |
|-----------------------------------|
| Atheist #119 |
| BAAWA! |
|-----------------------------------|
Al Klein
On 11 Jun 1998 17:45:22 GMT, uwus...@mcl.ucsb.edu (Frank O Wustner)
wrote:
>Richard Price (dea...@cdepot.net) wrote:
>: Christopher Cunningham wrote:
>: > Chris Ectomy wrote:
>: > > Is there a way to demonstrate the existence of fish inside logic?
>: > > Isn't
>: > > observation the tool for determining existence?
>: > i've observed fish. have yet to observe god. maybe i'm using the wrong
>: > bait?
>: Yes you are using the wrong bait.
>I have to ask you how you know, since he didn't actually say what bait
>he's been using.
It's obvious, Frank. The only bait a True Fisherman(tm) would use to
attract the Christian god is sin. He's just not sinning hard enough.
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
Rick.C
In article <ejones12-ya023680...@news.concentric.net>,
ejon...@concentric.net, Earle Jones says...
>
>In article <01bd91e3$00502ce0$LocalHost@default>, "Mark Daniels"
><No-to-pink-p...@markd.eunet.yu> wrote:
>
>>Why are the responses of atheists always FAR more vehement than the post
>>they are replying to? Can you answer me? It doesn't offend me, it just
>>seems unnecessary. A straightforward argument will suffice - the torrent
>>of abuse is not really necessary.
>
>--
>How long have you felt that all responses to you are "...far more
>vehement... than your own?
>
>When you feel that you are getting a "...torrent of abuse...", what does it
>make you want to do?
>
>You can be helped. You can be saved.
>
>I think you need a christectomy.
No need to pay a doctor for this procedure. You can do it at home.
Just tie one end of a rope around Christ's feet and the other
end to a door knob. Bend over and have someone slam the door.
--
Rick.C
mhm 15x3
--
Dave Haas
Christopher Cunningham wrote:
>
> Evrard Nicolas wrote:
>
> Chris Ectomy wrote:
> > Is there a way to demonstrate the existence of fish inside logic?
> > Isn't
> > observation the tool for determining existence?
>
> i've observed fish. have yet to observe god. maybe i'm using the wrong
> bait?
Well.... fish like worms. What does God like? Virgins?
D. Haas
Tim
Mark Daniels wrote:
> Chris Peterson <chr...@flash.net> wrote in article
> <357b1ec3...@news.flash.net>...
> > Mark Daniels wrote:
> >
> > >But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the universe.
> > >Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept that.
> >
> > I can accept it with no problem at all. Why is it so hard for you to
> > accept this? I don't get it.
> >
> > Chris Peterson
> >
> >
>
> Come on - of course you get it. Because if that's the case, then
> everything you or I ever did or will do is utterly meaningless and we might
> as well kill ourselves now, or at least cease to put any effort whatsoever
> into our lives. What is the point of letting our atoms rub a bit with some
> other atoms for 3 score and ten so-called years and then 'us' evaporating
> back into the universe where we came from? The very fact that you HAVEN'T
> killed yourself (well, unless since your last post :-) leads me to believe
> that you MUST find SOME meaning, at least in yourself if no-where else.
> Where did this sense of meaning come from? Well, evolution must have put
> it there in order to help your conglomeration of atoms survive - which
> leads us onto the subject of... oh no...! However, I do not hold to my
> Christian faith purely in order to bring meaning to my life (although
> that's certainly part of it) - my faith is based on an 'offer I couldn't
> refuse'. That of God's son giving his life for me. That's something I
> will never try and prove to you, because one can only truly prove it to
> oneself. That's why it's called faith.
>
> Yours atom-rubbingly,
>
> Mark Daniels
So your ONLY reason for existence is your belief in god???? That must be
why christians are so hard to talk sense to, because they are defending their
only reason for not killing themselves. OK, I may have to stop talking sense to
some of you, because I fear I may cause suicides if I convince you of any
truth...
Try living your own life, not jesus', not the churches, not your religion's
idea of life, and you may find other things worth living for... It works for
most of us...
Dave Haas
Could religion be a form of virtual reality? Or close to it?
D. Haas
Dave Haas
K. O'Hara wrote:
>
> Al - aklein at villagenet dot com wrote (in part)
>
> > It's obvious, Frank. The only bait a True Fisherman(tm) would use to
> > attract the Christian god is sin. He's just not sinning hard enough.
> > --
>
> sin. Think about the effort...the whole world...everyone living, everyone
> who has lived, everyone who will live. What a task. AND what if nobody
> sinned? Where is the pay-back for all that energy if nobody sinned? What
> would there be to justify the position of supreme savior if we weren't out
> there sinning? I think it is incumbent on us to sin just to make the
> whole thing worthwhile. I'm not talking your mass-murderer, child
> molester, thief type sin, but the vice-type sin is wide open for
> consideration.
>
> I think we owe it to the omnipotent God(s) (is it one or three or one in
> three or three in one?) of the New and Old Testaments to sin as best we
> can...we owe it to them/him/her to carry the torch our forefathers carried
> so well.
It appears that to the religious everyone is a sinner because God has
standards that no one can meet. (Daddy is demanding) This gives them a
feeling of warmth and fuzziness since they (as believers) don't have
to worry. God will excuse them (they never say exactly why) no matter
how bad they have sinned. Does this make sense to ANYONE?
D. Haas
Chris Peterson
Dave Haas wrote:
>Could religion be a form of virtual reality? Or close to it?
What are you suggesting here? Please elaborate. :)
Chris Peterson
g&g
>
> It appears that to the religious everyone is a sinner because God has
> standards that no one can meet. (Daddy is demanding) This gives them a
> feeling of warmth and fuzziness since they (as believers) don't have
> to worry. God will excuse them (they never say exactly why) no matter
> how bad they have sinned. Does this make sense to ANYONE?
>
> D. Haas
>
To add to the confusion and stupidity of it all, Dave. Supposedly Jesus
"took upon himself the sins of the world." Right out of the bible, I
guess. I have heard that hundreds of times and yet no one has been able to
tell me why I have to be saved or what I am to be saved from if Jesus
already took upon himself the sins of the WORLD. That includes all
atheists, sins, too, doesn't it? WHEEHAA! I don't have to be saved after
all! YAHOO!!
K. O'Hara
Dave Haas wrote:
> K. O'Hara wrote:
> > I think we owe it to the omnipotent God(s) (is it one or three or one in
> > three or three in one?) of the New and Old Testaments to sin as best we
> > can...we owe it to them/him/her to carry the torch our forefathers carried
> > so well.
>
> It appears that to the religious everyone is a sinner because God has
> standards that no one can meet. (Daddy is demanding) This gives them a
> feeling of warmth and fuzziness since they (as believers) don't have
> to worry. God will excuse them (they never say exactly why) no matter
> how bad they have sinned. Does this make sense to ANYONE?
It depends of which God we speak. The God of the Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim,
Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Baptist, Pagan, Wiccan, Druid, Jew, and
which faction of which religion we are discussing. Each major religion must
have at least a few factions. All religions and all sects of the major
religions have differing views of God (all are right...just ask them). They
all have different views of sins, of what constitutes sin, of what one must do
to please the deity whose will they bow to.
In some cultures virgins are sacrificed...in others a gift of food to the
spirits are left in a spirit house...still others are happy only when wearing
sack cloth, smearing their faces with ashes. I think we should take a stand
here and now on alt.atheism.satire to make a commitment that the only way
any nation can be absolved (collectively) of sin would be to demand the
ritual sacrifice of our politicians from...say...a large pyramid...at least
once every decade. Everybody whose anybody would be there........
That's the only sense I can make of it. But then again, that's just me.
--
The Wild Palms Foundation
Grand Turk, Turks and Caicos//Aleria, Corsica
_________________________________________________________________
There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged
to find the ways in which you yourself have altered.
-Nelson Mandela [A Long Walk to Freedom]
Shawn
Dave Haas wrote:
: K. O'Hara wrote:
: > Al - aklein at villagenet dot com wrote (in part)
: >
: > > It's obvious, Frank. The only bait a True Fisherman(tm) would use to
: > > attract the Christian god is sin. He's just not sinning hard enough.
I guess that fresh dead shrimp won't work anymore.
Michael R. Anderson
Hello Tim,
I believe the existence of God is more intellectually valid, logically
sound, and scientifically supported/pausible than any alternative. Also,
I believe that of all the religions out there, Christianity really is
the only true/correct religion.
I used to not have a problem reconciling the theory of evolution and
Christianity. At the time, I thought the big bang was when God said "Let
there be light..." However, when I began to explore serious arguments
against the theory of evolution it BLEW MY MIND. The theory of evolution
is not only an intellectual joke, it is perhaps the most vicious,
poisoness, and diabolically insidous lie ever inflicted into the minds
of men. And what is outrageous, is that you can go through 20 years of
American academia (and multiple college degrees - as I have) and never
be significantly exposed to any creationist arguments. Not because they
don't exist or aren't any good, but because their is a widespread
dogmatic bias in academia against it.
The following books may be of interest to you. The apologetics section
includes books that argue for why Christianity is true. The prophecy
section describes prophecies from the Holy Bible and shows how they have
already or are in the process of becoming true. I have put an asterik by
the ones you might be most interested in.
APOLOGETICS:
*** Ready with An Answer: For the tough questions about God. (1997) John
Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR. ISBN:
1-56507-618-4
* The Universe Next Door: A basic worldview catalog. 3rd Ed. (1997)
James W. Sire. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. ISBN:
0-8308-1899-5
Understanding the Times: The religious worldviews of our day and the
search for truth. (1991) David A. Noebell. Harvest House Publishers:
Eugene, OR. ISBN: 1-56507-2685
* The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) BakerBooks: Grand Rapids,
MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
* Darwin’s Leap of Faith: Exposing the false religion of evolution.
(1998) John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene,
OR. ISBN: 1-56507-657-5
Cult Watch: What you need to know about spiritural deception. (1991)
John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR.
ISBN 0-89081-851-7
The Philosophical Scientists. (1985) David Foster. Barnes and Noble, NY.
ISBN 0-88029-624-0
To Hell and Back: Life after death - startling new evidence. (1993)
Maurice S. Rawlings, M.D. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN
0-8407-6758-7
The Invisible War: The panorama of the continuing conflict between good
and evil. (1965) Donald Grey Barnhouse. Zondervan Publishing House:
Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-310-20481
The Long War Against God: The history and impact of the
creation/evolution conflict. (1989) Henry M. Morris. Baker Book House:
Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-6257-8
In the Lion’s Den: A shocking account of presectuion and martyrdom of
Christians today and how we should respond. (1997) Nina Shea. Broadman
and Holman Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN: 0-8054-6357-7
China - The Last Superpower: The dragon’s hunger for world conquest.
(1997) Joseph Lam. New Leaf Press: Green Forest, AR.
PROPHECY:
* Beginning of the End: The assasination of Yitzhak Rabin and the coming
antichrist. (1996) John Hagee. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN.
0-7852-7370-0
Day of Deception: Separating truth form falsehood in these last days.
(1997) John Hagee. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN:
0-7852-7573-8
Final Dawn Over Jerusalem: The world’s future hangs in the balance with
the battle for the holy city. (1998) John Hagee. Thomas Nelson
Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN: 0-7852-7083-3
* A Cup of Trembling: Jerusalem and Bible Prophecy. (1995) Dave Hunt.
Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR. ISBN: 1-56507-334-7
* The Master Plan: Making sense of the controversies surrounding Bible
prophecy today. (1993) David Reagan. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene,
OR. ISBN: 1-56507-074-7
The King Is Coming: A compelling Biblical study of the last days. (1991)
H.L. Willmington. Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL. ISBN:
0-8423-2078-4
The Late Great Planet Earth / Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth:
The greatest works of Hal Lindsey. (1994) Hal Lindsey. Inspirational
Press, NY. ISBN 0-88486-104-X. Note: Previously published in separate
volumes: “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970), and “Satan is Alive and
Well on Planet Earth” (1972), both by Zondervan Publishing House.
The Final Battle. (1995) Hal Lindsey. Western Front Publishing Ltd.:
Palos Verdes, CA. ISBN: 0-9641058-2-9
Apocalypse Code. (1997) Hal Lindsey. Western Front Publishing Ltd.:
Palos Verdes, CA. ISBN:1-888848-21-9
2001: On the Edge of Eternity. (1996) Dr. Jack Van Impe. Word
Publishing: Dallas, TX. ISBN: 0-8499-3891-0
Foreshocks of AntiChrist. (1997) William T. James, General Editor.
Harvest House Publishing: Eugene, OR. ISBN: 1-56507-585-4
Project L.U.C.I.D.: The beast 666 universal human control system. (1996)
Texe Marrs. Living Truth Publishers: Austin, TX. ISBN: 1-884302-02-5
God bless you,
MRA.
Aulde...@webtv.net
In response to the closing statement;without evidence for God,there is
no God.
What type of science or math teaches this type of exclusive
reasoning?
Without A there is not A,in order for you to say that something does
not exist,you must also define what it is that you are saying does not
exist..I'm not going to get mean like some may,but this is the way
scientific methods are usually brought about,and many athiests claim to
hold dearly to the evidences that pure science shows us rather than to
speculate whether some unseen force has any mass..right?
Actually,the funny thing about science is that it spends a lot of
effeort trying to discover things that cannot be seen with the human
eye,or detected by any of our senses,but we only allow this type of
research to enter our heads because we feel we can trust science due to
the fact that it has no agenda...but anything with a goal has an
agenda,so therefore we must not allow our good senses to be clouded by
the fantasy that science will answer all of our questions...without
coming up with new and improved ideas about physical properties of life
that is..and this is what science is constantly doing.
I think that science and religion are both necessary evils of the
human species in order for the majority of the planet to have some
foundations of understanding,but neither one can fully explain the
problem and that is where the real problem is..but we know we cannot
revolt against the scientific community,for we do make many break
throughs each year and will hopefully continue to do so,in the mean
time,we should never close the mind to possibilities that are pressently
unexplained...whether these be of god or of man.
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
What chicken,what egg?
Thats just an excuse that the lazy minded of the world have to keep
from puzzling themselves crazy with .
Aulde...@webtv.net
The great and powerful AULDE
awaits your humble reply....
* (Libertarius)
In
<CC5292063500B4CF.B63925BA...@library-proxy.airne
s.net> "Michael R. Anderson" <mr...@airmail.net> writes:
>
>Tim wrote:
>>
>> Mark Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > Chris Peterson <chr...@flash.net> wrote in article
>> > <357b1ec3...@news.flash.net>...
>> > > Mark Daniels wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >But if you're right, then you and I aren't worth spit to the
universe.
>> > > >Deep down, I don't believe for a minute ANYONE can truly accept
that.
>> > >
>> > > I can accept it with no problem at all. Why is it so hard for
you to
>> > > accept this? I don't get it.
>> > >
>> > > Chris Peterson
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
Come on - of course you get it. Because if that's the case, then
everything you or I ever did or will do is utterly meaningless and we
might as well kill ourselves now, or at least cease to put any effort
whatsoever into our lives.
[SNIPALOT]
Funny, but this conclusion, except for your suicide, fully agrees
with ONE book in the Bible collection: ECCLESIASTES. ECCLESIASTES is
the ONLY intelligent, thoughtful book in the collection without all the
B.S. about "afterlife". I cannot stop being amazed that it made its way
to be included among all that other, superstition-laden stuff.
The Bible's scriptures and the multiplicity of religions based on
them, are full of VANITY, and WISHFUL THINKING. As the author of
ECCLESIASTES concludes, there is NOTHING after death. The only life you
have is THIS ONE, and the best thing you can do is to live it to the
FULLEST.
The only RATIONAL conclusion can be is this: PURPOSE in life, in
general, is what you inherit from your genetic history, and the only
SPECIFIC PURPOSE is the one YOU GIVE IT.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
Christopher A. Lee
In article <CC5292063500B4CF.B63925BA...@library-proxy.airnews.net> mr...@airmail.net writes:
>> So your ONLY reason for existence is your belief in god???? That must be
>> why christians are so hard to talk sense to, because they are defending their
>> only reason for not killing themselves. OK, I may have to stop talking sense to
>> some of you, because I fear I may cause suicides if I convince you of any
>> truth...
>> Try living your own life, not jesus', not the churches, not your religion's
>> idea of life, and you may find other things worth living for... It works for
>> most of us...
>
>sound, and scientifically supported/pausible than any alternative. Also,
>I believe that of all the religions out there, Christianity really is
>the only true/correct religion.
But I notice you don't say why. But don't worry too much about
this, no other Christian does too. They won't admit that it's
subjective - that they already believed what they had been taught
and that something happened which they interpreted according to
what they already believed.
>I used to not have a problem reconciling the theory of evolution and
>Christianity. At the time, I thought the big bang was when God said "Let
>there be light..." However, when I began to explore serious arguments
>against the theory of evolution it BLEW MY MIND. The theory of evolution
What "serious arguments against the theory of evolution" would
those be? I notice that you don't give any at all. And that you
also don't know the difference between the fact of evolution
and the theory which explains it. I suspect that like most of
you, you've been reading fundie tracts that attack a strawman
of their own making - instead of acknowledging that science
has progressed in the last 150 years since Darwin, to
investigate and understand the mechanismsbehind it. It is very
well understood that much of modern life that you take for
granted would not work the way it does if we were so wrong about
it. Spinoffs in eg genetics, biotechnolgy etc simply wouldn't
exist.
>is not only an intellectual joke, it is perhaps the most vicious,
>poisoness, and diabolically insidous lie ever inflicted into the minds
Please explain why.
The explanations from evolution are powerfully predictive: they
work in many other fields. For example much of modern medicine
simply wouldn't work the way it does - because is predicated by
understanding drawn from evolution. If this is all an "intellectual
joke" please explain how and why it works when its basis is so
incorrect.
>of men. And what is outrageous, is that you can go through 20 years of
>American academia (and multiple college degrees - as I have) and never
>be significantly exposed to any creationist arguments. Not because they
>don't exist or aren't any good, but because their is a widespread
>dogmatic bias in academia against it.
If they existed or were any good then I'm sure you would have
given some. I'm honestly surprised that you have gone through
"20 years of academia and multiple college degrees" without
understanding what science is, and why creationism is not
science but religion.
But then education in the biological sciences in the US is
an international joke because they emasculate so much because
the religious fundies have so much political power.
[crap deleted]
Michael R. Anderson
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> In article <CC5292063500B4CF.B63925BA...@library-proxy.airnews.net> mr...@airmail.net writes:
> >> why christians are so hard to talk sense to, because they are defending their
> >> only reason for not killing themselves. OK, I may have to stop talking sense to
> >> some of you, because I fear I may cause suicides if I convince you of any
> >> truth...
> >> Try living your own life, not jesus', not the churches, not your religion's
> >> idea of life, and you may find other things worth living for... It works for
> >> most of us...
> >
> >sound, and scientifically supported/pausible than any alternative. Also,
> >I believe that of all the religions out there, Christianity really is
> >the only true/correct religion.
>
> this, no other Christian does too. They won't admit that it's
> subjective - that they already believed what they had been taught
> and that something happened which they interpreted according to
> what they already believed.
There is just plain too much to describe in an email. That is why I
included a bibliography.
I believe we each have our own subjective perception of reality. But I
also believe there is ONE REALITY that we each have our own perception
of.
> >I used to not have a problem reconciling the theory of evolution and
> >Christianity. At the time, I thought the big bang was when God said "Let
> >there be light..." However, when I began to explore serious arguments
> >against the theory of evolution it BLEW MY MIND. The theory of evolution
>
> What "serious arguments against the theory of evolution" would
> those be? I notice that you don't give any at all. And that you
> also don't know the difference between the fact of evolution
> and the theory which explains it. I suspect that like most of
> you, you've been reading fundie tracts that attack a strawman
> of their own making - instead of acknowledging that science
> has progressed in the last 150 years since Darwin, to
> investigate and understand the mechanismsbehind it. It is very
> well understood that much of modern life that you take for
> granted would not work the way it does if we were so wrong about
> it. Spinoffs in eg genetics, biotechnolgy etc simply wouldn't
> exist.
>
Again, there is some much material on this subject I have not net
organized it all into an easily deliverable email. I may organize it
into a web site in the future.
Now, since you insist upon being fiesty, I will include a few teasers
and refer you on to the original bibliography I provided:
LOGIC
1. To understand why we exist we must follow the chain of cause and
effect. Either it extends into infinity or it ends somewhere at a
self-existant something whose existence explains itself. Christians
believe this self-existant something is God, evolutionists believe it is
matter, energy, and the laws of physics. Note: when God told Moses in
the Old Testament what his name was, He said His name was: "I Am That I
Am". Sounds like a self-existant being describing Himself to me.
2. If evolution is true, you and I don't really exist as persons. Oh
sure, our flesh is here. An amazingly complex interaction of matter,
energy, and the laws of physics. But it would be impossible for us to
have an individual identity any more than two Energizer Bunnies facing
each other and beating their symbols together actually represent two
persons exchanging thoughts. Way deep down inside, you know you are a
person, that you have a mind and a will, and that you exist. But that
very awareness is incompatible with evolution. Rocks don't talk to each
other.
THE SCIENCES
The following reasons are only some of the reasons evolution is not true
taken from only one of the books I cited. The catagories and quotes
below are taken from: The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott
M. Huse. BakerBooks: Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
BIOLOGY
1. No missing links. If evolution is true, there should be obvious
examples in the fossil record of one species transforming into another.
There are none. There are only distinct catagories of species. And
although genetic variation within a single species is common, there are
not examples of genetic variations sufficient to create a new species.
2. Design in nature. The very order that exists in nature suggests it
was put there by an intelligent force. For example, a miscellaneous pile
of sticks is decernably different from a birds nest. Why? Because you
can tell that sticks don't just happen that way by chance, something had
to make it that way. This is the reaction a lot of scientists are having
to the cosmos, biology, and nature.
3. Law of Biogenesis. Life cannot come from non-life. They proved that
long ago. Darwin revived it.
GEOLOGY
1. Problems with radioactive dating. The validity of radioactive dating
depends on three basic assumptions that are not valid: "1. The rock
contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms;
2. Since then, no parent or daughter atoms were either added to, or
taken from the rock; and 3. The rate of radioactive decay has remained
constant."
2. The Earth's magnetic field. It is decaying at an identifiable rate.
If projected backwards to when life could still exist until now, it
shows the Earth is much younger than the billions of years suggested by
the theory of evolution.
3. Pleochroic Halos. The existence of these halos in granite cannot be
replicated by man nor explained according to the time frame given by
evolution.
PHYSICS
1. First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and matter can be transformed
from one into the other but never created or destroyed. Then were did it
come from? God created it.
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is moving from order to
disorder, not from disorder to order as the theory of evolution
suggests.
MATHEMATICS
1. The probability that complex chemicals necessary for life could come
together by random chance are unlikely to the point of ridiculus. Here
is just one quote of one estimate: "Wysong has calcualted the
probability of forming the proteins an DNA for the smallest
self-replicating entity to be 1 in 10 to the 167,626 power."
ARCHEOLOGY
1. There are no contradictions between the existence of peoples and
places described in the Bible and the archeological evidence discovered
in the Middle-East.
> >is not only an intellectual joke, it is perhaps the most vicious,
> >poisoness, and diabolically insidous lie ever inflicted into the minds
>
> Please explain why.
>
> The explanations from evolution are powerfully predictive: they
> work in many other fields. For example much of modern medicine
> simply wouldn't work the way it does - because is predicated by
> understanding drawn from evolution. If this is all an "intellectual
> joke" please explain how and why it works when its basis is so
> incorrect.
>
Evolution is more of an overall philosophical framework that attempts to
find an overall pattern in the facts of science. I don't think it is of
much predictive value when you get down to the nitty gritty.
Secondly, the moral implications of the theory of evolution are
disturbing:
1. Survival of the fittest is an extremely cruel social principle to
apply. If have seen evolutionists struggle to explain how cooperation,
compassion, or love could be good things in light of evolution. They
seem to try an explain it as a collective advancement of the gene pool
but I think they are streching it. Also, look at the kind of people who
were really big on evolution/genetics: the Nazi's, the Communists, many
racists.
2. Moral relativity is inevitable if evolution is true. Transient,
semi-democratic ideals for the now if convient is the best ethics
evolution will be able to produce.
> >of men. And what is outrageous, is that you can go through 20 years of
> >American academia (and multiple college degrees - as I have) and never
> >be significantly exposed to any creationist arguments. Not because they
> >don't exist or aren't any good, but because their is a widespread
> >dogmatic bias in academia against it.
>
> If they existed or were any good then I'm sure you would have
> given some. I'm honestly surprised that you have gone through
> "20 years of academia and multiple college degrees" without
> understanding what science is, and why creationism is not
> science but religion.
>
> But then education in the biological sciences in the US is
> an international joke because they emasculate so much because
> the religious fundies have so much political power.
>
> [crap deleted]
Bibliography re-inserted, suggested reading indicated with asterik:
APOLOGETICS
*** Ready with An Answer: For the tough questions about God. (1997) John
Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR. ISBN:
1-56507-618-4
* The Universe Next Door: A basic worldview catalog. 3rd Ed. (1997)
James W. Sire. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. ISBN:
0-8308-1899-5 [This is a fascinating book which claims all world views
can be assessed based on how they answer 7 basic questions: 1) What is
prime reality - the really real; 2) What is the nature of external
reality, that is, the world around us; 3) What is a human being; 4) What
happens to a person at death; 5) Why is it possible to know anything at
all; 6) How do we know what is right and wrong; 7) What is the meaning
of human history? The world views examined are: a) Christian theism, b)
Deism, c) Naturalism, d) Nihlism, e) Existentialism, f) Eastern
pantheistic monism, g) New age, h) postmodernism. A particularly
interesting aspect of this book is that Sire describes these different
world views a progressive disintegrations from an original ideal. (Over
100,000 copies sold.)]
* Understanding the Times: The religious worldviews of our day and the
search for truth. (1991) David A. Noebell. Harvest House Publishers:
Eugene, OR. ISBN: 1-56507-2685
[Noebell compares 1) Secular humanism, 2) Marxism/Leninism, 3) Christian
theism, and 4) New age across the ten catagories of: theology,
philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics,
economics, and history. 891 pages/hardcover.]
* * * The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott M. Huse.
BakerBooks: Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
* Darwin’s Leap of Faith: Exposing the false religion of evolution.
(1998) John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene,
OR. ISBN: 1-56507-657-5
Cult Watch: What you need to know about spiritural deception. (1991)
John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR.
ISBN 0-89081-851-7
The Philosophical Scientists. (1985) David Foster. Barnes and Noble, NY.
ISBN 0-88029-624-0
* To Hell and Back: Life after death - startling new evidence. (1993)
Maurice S. Rawlings, M.D. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN
0-8407-6758-7
The Invisible War: The panorama of the continuing conflict between good
and evil. (1965) Donald Grey Barnhouse. Zondervan Publishing House:
Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-310-20481
The Long War Against God: The history and impact of the
creation/evolution conflict. (1989) Henry M. Morris. Baker Book House:
Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-6257-8
In the Lion’s Den: A shocking account of presectuion and martyrdom of
Christians today and how we should respond. (1997) Nina Shea. Broadman
and Holman Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN: 0-8054-6357-7
China - The Last Superpower: The dragon’s hunger for world conquest.
(1997) Joseph Lam. New Leaf Press: Green Forest, AR.
PROPHECY:
Beginning of the End: The assasination of Yitzhak Rabin and the coming
antichrist. (1996) John Hagee. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN.
0-7852-7370-0
Day of Deception: Separating truth form falsehood in these last days.
(1997) John Hagee. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN:
0-7852-7573-8
Final Dawn Over Jerusalem: The world’s future hangs in the balance with
the battle for the holy city. (1998) John Hagee. Thomas Nelson
Publishers: Nashville, TN. ISBN: 0-7852-7083-3
A Cup of Trembling: Jerusalem and Bible Prophecy. (1995) Dave Hunt.
Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR. ISBN: 1-56507-334-7
The Master Plan: Making sense of the controversies surrounding Bible
Sterling Crowe
Michael R. Anderson wrote in message ...
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> >I used to not have a problem reconciling the theory of evolution and
>> >Christianity. At the time, I thought the big bang was when God said "Let
>> >there be light..." However, when I began to explore serious arguments
>> >against the theory of evolution it BLEW MY MIND. The theory of evolution
>>
>> What "serious arguments against the theory of evolution" would
>> those be? I notice that you don't give any at all. And that you
>> also don't know the difference between the fact of evolution
>> and the theory which explains it. I suspect that like most of
>> you, you've been reading fundie tracts that attack a strawman
>> of their own making - instead of acknowledging that science
>> has progressed in the last 150 years since Darwin, to
>> investigate and understand the mechanismsbehind it. It is very
>> well understood that much of modern life that you take for
>> granted would not work the way it does if we were so wrong about
>> it. Spinoffs in eg genetics, biotechnolgy etc simply wouldn't
>> exist.
>>
>
>Again, there is some much material on this subject I have not net
>organized it all into an easily deliverable email. I may organize it
>into a web site in the future.
Don't bother, there are several out there.
Most notably, www.talkorigins.org has several FAQ's you may wish to look
over.
>Now, since you insist upon being fiesty, I will include a few teasers
>and refer you on to the original bibliography I provided:
>
>LOGIC
>
>1. To understand why we exist we must follow the chain of cause and
>effect. Either it extends into infinity or it ends somewhere at a
>self-existant something whose existence explains itself. Christians
>believe this self-existant something is God, evolutionists believe it is
>matter, energy, and the laws of physics. Note: when God told Moses in
>the Old Testament what his name was, He said His name was: "I Am That I
>Am". Sounds like a self-existant being describing Himself to me.
First cause argument with new window dressing, including a strawman
assumption of what scientists feel is the origin of the universe.
Unsupported assertion that "matter, energy, and the laws of physics" are the
"self-existent something(s) whose existence explains itself" for scientists.
In fact, it is flat out wrong because, currently, scientists are certain
that those things break down and cannot be described for several fractions
of a second after the theoretical "Big Bang".
Finally, you're asking a question that is outside the realm of physical
science. Physical scientists are interested in "how" things occured. You,
like all religious, are primarily interested in "why" things occur.
No wonder science doesn't arrive at the answers you would like, you're
asking science the wrong questions.
>2. If evolution is true, you and I don't really exist as persons.
Define "person".
> Oh
>sure, our flesh is here.
So, we do exist?
> An amazingly complex interaction of matter,
>energy, and the laws of physics.
Okee doke.
> But it would be impossible for us to
>have an individual identity any more than two Energizer Bunnies facing
>each other and beating their symbols together actually represent two
>persons exchanging thoughts.
Completely unsupported in any way.
In fact, I would suggest that in a universe dominated by an infinite being,
it is totally impossible for individual identities to be anything but
illusory.
After all, the being is omnipresent, and totally infinite, which means that
it infuses every single scrap of your being, and, in fact, you are made of
that being, since an infinite being (being, by definition, "without limits")
would not be seperate from the quarks, atoms, molecules, or the calories,
ergs, and joules which make you you.
Being that you are completely of this infinite being and made of this
infinite being, how can you possibly suggest that individual identities
exist in your world view?
Or is your God not infinite? Not omnipresent?
Now, what exactly is it about evolution and the idea of a godless universe
that you feel prevents the existence of individual minds?
> Way deep down inside, you know you are a
>person, that you have a mind and a will, and that you exist.
Hell, I know these right on the surface.
OTOH, if I am a puppet to physical laws or to some God out there, I would
feel exactly the way I do anyway.
> But that
>very awareness is incompatible with evolution.
Support, do not just assert.
> Rocks don't talk to each
>other.
They don't need to, they have a means of communication far superior to our
own, or any form of "talking" out there.
In fact, you are completely under the control of the rocks; they speak in
their ueberspeech to your very bones, the iron in your blood stream, and the
phosphorous in the fatty tissues of your brain. They control your every
action for their own purposes and, because it amuses them, they do not
bother to stop you from thinking that you are controlling yourself.
The rocks made the universe, the rocks set it in motion, the rocks are our
true masters, and they will reward us well when we die, allowing us to
return to the rocks which formed us.
Your Bible addresses some of this, look in Genesis where it points out that
we are formed from the very dust of the Earth and to the dust we shall
return.
Don't ever tell the founder of the Church of Seismology what rocks do and
don't do. After all, the Church of Seismology hasn't yet commited any
atrocities and I'm a thinking we're about due.
At least, I THINK that's the criterion the US Government uses to determine
the tax free status of churches...
>THE SCIENCES
>
>The following reasons are only some of the reasons evolution is not true
>taken from only one of the books I cited. The catagories and quotes
>below are taken from: The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott
>M. Huse. BakerBooks: Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
>
>BIOLOGY
>
>1. No missing links. If evolution is true, there should be obvious
>examples in the fossil record of one species transforming into another.
>There are none. There are only distinct catagories of species. And
>although genetic variation within a single species is common, there are
>not examples of genetic variations sufficient to create a new species.
Total and out and out baloney.
1) Transitional fossil forms exist. Every single fossil, and, in fact, every
single creature alive today is in transition.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
2) New species have been observed forming in the wild (HIV, an evolutionary
offspring of SIV, is a biggee here, not to mention new species of influenza
annually), and in the lab:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>2. Design in nature. The very order that exists in nature suggests it
>was put there by an intelligent force. For example, a miscellaneous pile
>of sticks is decernably different from a birds nest. Why? Because you
>can tell that sticks don't just happen that way by chance, something had
>to make it that way. This is the reaction a lot of scientists are having
>to the cosmos, biology, and nature.
So, birds are intelligent, self aware, designing creatures, now?
Don't forget to add spiders to that list, then, since they are also capable
of producing "obviously designed" webs that cannot be mistaken.
For more fun examples of "perfect design" in nature, check out
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I would suggest that the fact that things are so imperfect would blow the
whole idea of a "perfect" designer right out of the water.
>3. Law of Biogenesis. Life cannot come from non-life. They proved that
>long ago. Darwin revived it.
Are you even aware of the experiment which showed that spontaneous
generation of life does not occur?
No, maggots do not spring magically out of dead meat when a fly cannot lay
eggs on the meat.
There is a lot of difference, however, between producing maggots on rotten
meat and finding out if nonliving material can become living material under
certain conditions. Scientists have gotten as far as producing
self-replicating RNA strands since experiments began a little over fifty
years ago.
Anyway, theories about abiogenesis have nothing to do with the theory of
evolution, which only applies to living systems.
>GEOLOGY
>
>1. Problems with radioactive dating. The validity of radioactive dating
>depends on three basic assumptions that are not valid: "1. The rock
>contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms;
>2. Since then, no parent or daughter atoms were either added to, or
>taken from the rock; and 3. The rate of radioactive decay has remained
>constant."
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html:
A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above.
However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The
actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been
met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.
Head to the site and see what the answer is.
>2. The Earth's magnetic field. It is decaying at an identifiable rate.
>If projected backwards to when life could still exist until now, it
>shows the Earth is much younger than the billions of years suggested by
>the theory of evolution.
Boy, you are even out of date as far as Creationist literature goes.
Humphreys, D. Russell, 1988. "Has the Earth's magnetic field ever flipped?"
in Creation Research Society Quarterly 25, No. 3, pp. 130-137.
According to the article referenced above, the answer is "yes". Ten years
ago, the Creation Research Society Quarterly abandoned this line of
"thinking", why haven't you?
>3. Pleochroic Halos. The existence of these halos in granite cannot be
>replicated by man nor explained according to the time frame given by
>evolution.
I admit it, I have no idea wtf you're talking about here.
Care to elaborate?
>PHYSICS
>
>1. First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and matter can be transformed
>from one into the other but never created or destroyed. Then were did it
>come from? God created it.
No, Odin did. No, wait! It was Chronus!.
No, Shiva!
>2. Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is moving from order to
>disorder, not from disorder to order as the theory of evolution
>suggests.
I was afraid you would show so much ignorance about what you're talking
about that you would come up with this one.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
I am sick and tired of dealing with the many reasons why you are wrong on
this point, so I ask humbly that you go to this site to find out what is
wrong with your assertion.
>MATHEMATICS
>
>1. The probability that complex chemicals necessary for life could come
>together by random chance are unlikely to the point of ridiculus.
"Random chance"?
> Here
>is just one quote of one estimate: "Wysong has calcualted the
>probability of forming the proteins an DNA for the smallest
>self-replicating entity to be 1 in 10 to the 167,626 power."
Interesting assertion. Wysong is, of course, a chemical biologist?
Here's another estimate: "Crowe has calculated the probability of the
formation of protein chains which are self replicating in nature from the
compounds existing in the oceans of 4 billion years ago and has found that
the probability is 1 in 1."
Wheee! That's fun!
Of course, you may not like the fact that I just dumped your assertion with
a simple assertion of my own, so, may I direct you to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
>ARCHEOLOGY
>
>1. There are no contradictions between the existence of peoples and
>places described in the Bible and the archeological evidence discovered
>in the Middle-East.
There is also no contradictions between the existence of peoples and places
described in Homer's Illiad and the archeological discovery of Troy. This,
of course, proves that Zeus exists.
Oh, wait, the book of Exodus describes a population of over a million people
moving as a single group across the desert of the Middle East. Of course the
evidence for even one of their campsites just springs right out at you,
doesn't it?
>
>> >is not only an intellectual joke, it is perhaps the most vicious,
>> >poisoness, and diabolically insidous lie ever inflicted into the minds
>>
>> Please explain why.
>>
>> The explanations from evolution are powerfully predictive: they
>> work in many other fields. For example much of modern medicine
>> simply wouldn't work the way it does - because is predicated by
>> understanding drawn from evolution. If this is all an "intellectual
>> joke" please explain how and why it works when its basis is so
>> incorrect.
>>
>
>Evolution is more of an overall philosophical framework that attempts to
>find an overall pattern in the facts of science. I don't think it is of
>much predictive value when you get down to the nitty gritty.
Well, we think it is. So there :p
>Secondly, the moral implications of the theory of evolution are
>disturbing:
Argument of "it can't be true because that would make me feel bad?"
Are you, by any chance, a Christian?
>1. Survival of the fittest is an extremely cruel social principle to
>apply. If have seen evolutionists struggle to explain how cooperation,
>compassion, or love could be good things in light of evolution.
Cooperation: Infants of "higher" mammels are almost totally helpless. A
father who sticks around and helps provide food for offspring is far more
likely to see that offspring through to adulthood. A father who ditches
forces the female to do her own hunting/ gathering and will be less likely
to have offspring which survive. The offspring which have an affinity for
cooperation are more likely to cooperate with each other against outside
threats or in gathering food. Etc.
Compassion: Null program. Not a trait which seems to have taken hold in
human beings.
Love: Went on about this at length in another thread a while back. To
summarize: A mother with a genetic predisposition towards feeling good when
she cares for her offspring, be it from chemicals or from neural "wiring" is
more likely to bring up successive generations, adjusting the allele
frequency towards "love" and away from indifference.
> They
>seem to try an explain it as a collective advancement of the gene pool
>but I think they are streching it.
And my possible explanations? Are they stretching it?
> Also, look at the kind of people who
>were really big on evolution/genetics: the Nazi's, the Communists, many
>racists.
Hitler, kemosabe, described himself as a devout Catholic. The evolution he
referred to was a version which had every single human being going through
all stages of development in the womb. A person, according to Hitler's
beliefs, would cycle through the various races and only the best would make
it all the way up to "Aryan".
Vocal racists, at least in America, tend to be members of the Christian
Identity Movement which seeks to stamp out "inferior" races not because they
wish to evolve the human race, but because Jesus has abandoned the Jews and
because blacks bear the "mark of Cain". Interestingly enough, many racists
in America refuse to believe that they share any common ancestors with other
"inferior" races.
Almost invariably, white racists justify their actions and attitudes through
their faith and have even less understanding of evolution than you do. Other
racists (like Japanese racists) often tend toward the attitude of assumed
superiority and disgust with the idea of mixing with "gaijin". They want to
avoid mixing of races of man not because they are in favor of evolution, but
because they are worried about having their "breed" wiped out or sullied by
barbarian blood.
>2. Moral relativity is inevitable if evolution is true. Transient,
>semi-democratic ideals for the now if convient is the best ethics
>evolution will be able to produce.
And this differs from how things currently are how....?
<snip>
--Sterling Crowe
#1168
"Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because
he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do
with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly
your business and the universe doesn't care. In fact you may be the universe
and the only cause of all your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope
for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you
are. So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God!'"
-Robert A. Heinlein Oct. 21, 1960
Having warned you of all that, I feel like a tremendous weight
has been lifted off my chest, off my "evil pillows," if you will.
-Anne` Ferguson
Mark C.
>>>Snip<<<
>
>
> Hello Tim,
>
> I believe the existence of God is more intellectually valid, logically
> sound, and scientifically supported/pausible than any alternative. Also,
> I believe that of all the religions out there, Christianity really is
> the only true/correct religion.
Ok, fine. That's your perogitive however, if you want anybody else
here to believe in your views you're going to have to post some
evidence as to the existence of God. You say that the existence of
God is "scientificaly supported". It would help us out here if you
actually came up with some examples of science "supporting" the
existence of God.
Next, you'll have to show us some evidence that *your* religion and
*only* your religion is the *true* religion.
>
> I used to not have a problem reconciling the theory of evolution and
> Christianity. At the time, I thought the big bang was when God said "Let
> there be light..." However, when I began to explore serious arguments
> against the theory of evolution it BLEW MY MIND. The theory of evolution
> is not only an intellectual joke, it is perhaps the most vicious,
> poisoness, and diabolically insidous lie ever inflicted into the minds
> of men.
Examples please.
And what is outrageous, is that you can go through 20 years of
> American academia (and multiple college degrees - as I have) and never
> be significantly exposed to any creationist arguments. Not because they
> don't exist or aren't any good, but because their is a widespread
> dogmatic bias in academia against it.
Creationism is not scientific. That's why it isn't taught. If you
want to learn about creationism, go to a Catholic school.
>>>Snip<<<
--
Mark C.
#99
"Christianity is an appeal to selfishness. It is a promise
of a great reward in the future which is bought with faith,
obedience, time, effort, and money in the present."
[Unknown]
"Men are mammals and Women are femammals."
From a student essay-Skeptic Vol.5 No.3
Mark C.
>
> LOGIC
>
> 1. To understand why we exist we must follow the chain of cause and
> effect. Either it extends into infinity or it ends somewhere at a
> self-existant something whose existence explains itself. Christians
> believe this self-existant something is God,
And where did this God come from? And where did this God's God
come from? And where did this God's God's God come from? And where
did this God's God's God's... well, you get the idea.
evolutionists believe it is
> matter, energy, and the laws of physics.
This is a pretty general statement seeing how evolution doesn't
deal with any of these.
Note: when God told Moses in
> the Old Testament what his name was, He said His name was: "I Am That I
> Am".
Did he eat spinach too?
Sounds like a self-existant being describing Himself to me.
Sounds more like Moses (or whoever wrote the story) was making
stuff up.
>
> 2. If evolution is true, you and I don't really exist as persons.
???
Oh
> sure, our flesh is here. An amazingly complex interaction of matter,
> energy, and the laws of physics. But it would be impossible for us to
> have an individual identity any more than two Energizer Bunnies facing
> each other and beating their symbols together actually represent two
> persons exchanging thoughts.
It's called being sentinent.
Way deep down inside, you know you are a
> person,
And way down deep inside, a cat probably knows it's a cat. What's
your point?
that you have a mind and a will, and that you exist. But that
> very awareness is incompatible with evolution.
How so?
Rocks don't talk to each
> other.
Rocks don't evolve. Rocks don't have a central nervous system.
Rocks aren't sentinent.
>
> THE SCIENCES
>
> The following reasons are only some of the reasons evolution is not true
> taken from only one of the books I cited. The catagories and quotes
> below are taken from: The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott
> M. Huse. BakerBooks: Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
>
> BIOLOGY
>
> 1. No missing links. If evolution is true, there should be obvious
> examples in the fossil record of one species transforming into another.
Except for the ones that *are* evident like "archie". A rreptile
with feathers.
> There are none. There are only distinct catagories of species. And
> although genetic variation within a single species is common, there are
> not examples of genetic variations sufficient to create a new species.
And what happens when you spread those genetic variations over
several million years?
>
> 2. Design in nature.
There is no design in nature.
The very order that exists in nature suggests it
> was put there by an intelligent force.
No it doesn't. Show where there is design in nature.
For example, a miscellaneous pile
> of sticks is decernably different from a birds nest. Why? Because you
> can tell that sticks don't just happen that way by chance, something had
> to make it that way.
Which has zilch to do with evolution. You've yet to show us the
"design" in nature.
This is the reaction a lot of scientists are having
> to the cosmos, biology, and nature.
References to these scientists please.
>
> 3. Law of Biogenesis.
Life cannot come from non-life. They proved that
> long ago.
Which is not the same as Abiogenesis.
>
> GEOLOGY
>
> 1. Problems with radioactive dating.
>>>Snip<<<
I won't comment on this as I am not well versed in radiometric
dating. I'll let someone more knowledgble answer this one.
>
> 2. The Earth's magnetic field. It is decaying at an identifiable rate.
> If projected backwards to when life could still exist until now, it
> shows the Earth is much younger than the billions of years suggested by
> the theory of evolution.
Unless of course the magentic field fluctuates. You're getting
these little tidbits straight from the ICR homepage aren't you?
>
> 3. Pleochroic Halos. The existence of these halos in granite cannot be
> replicated by man nor explained according to the time frame given by
> evolution.
Once again I have no knowledge on this so I won't respond.
>
> PHYSICS
>
> 1. First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and matter can be transformed
> from one into the other but never created or destroyed. Then were did it
> come from? God created it.
This is a major assumption on your part. You first have to prove
that matter was created and that it was your god that created it
first.
If it can't be created or destroyed, how did God create it?
>
> 2. Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is moving from order to
> disorder, not from disorder to order as the theory of evolution
> suggests.
And the Earth is not a closed system. See that big fusion reactor
in the sky that's raining radiation down on our planet?
Really, it's been fun but it's getting late. I have to go to bed
and you haven't provided us with anything new that hasn't been rehased
several times over here. Your just restating crap from the ICR that
has been refuted several times over.
>>>Big Snip<<<
Michael R. Anderson
Thank you for the information.
> >Now, since you insist upon being fiesty, I will include a few teasers
> >and refer you on to the original bibliography I provided:
> >
> >LOGIC
> >
> >1. To understand why we exist we must follow the chain of cause and
> >effect. Either it extends into infinity or it ends somewhere at a
> >self-existant something whose existence explains itself. Christians
> >believe this self-existant something is God, evolutionists believe it is
> >matter, energy, and the laws of physics. Note: when God told Moses in
> >the Old Testament what his name was, He said His name was: "I Am That I
> >Am". Sounds like a self-existant being describing Himself to me.
>
> First cause argument with new window dressing, including a strawman
> assumption of what scientists feel is the origin of the universe.
> Unsupported assertion that "matter, energy, and the laws of physics" are the
> "self-existent something(s) whose existence explains itself" for scientists.
> In fact, it is flat out wrong because, currently, scientists are certain
> that those things break down and cannot be described for several fractions
> of a second after the theoretical "Big Bang".
> Finally, you're asking a question that is outside the realm of physical
> science. Physical scientists are interested in "how" things occured. You,
> like all religious, are primarily interested in "why" things occur.
> No wonder science doesn't arrive at the answers you would like, you're
> asking science the wrong questions.
>
But don't we still have the same dilema? Either the physical universe is
the only thing that has ever existed or it was created by something
else. Even if the current concepts of matter, energy, and the laws of
physics break down just after the big bang, wouldn't they simply be
replaced by more ideas that describe different states or characteristics
of the physical universe?
> >2. If evolution is true, you and I don't really exist as persons.
>
> Define "person".
This is a debate that could last into infinity. However, I know that I
am a person - and I strongly suspect you are one also. What do you
define a person as?
>
> > Oh
> >sure, our flesh is here.
>
> So, we do exist?
I never said we didn't. I just don't believe evolution is the
explanation for our existence.
>
> > An amazingly complex interaction of matter,
> >energy, and the laws of physics.
>
> Okee doke.
I'm sensing smugness here...
>
> > But it would be impossible for us to
> >have an individual identity any more than two Energizer Bunnies facing
> >each other and beating their symbols together actually represent two
> >persons exchanging thoughts.
>
> Completely unsupported in any way.
> In fact, I would suggest that in a universe dominated by an infinite being,
> it is totally impossible for individual identities to be anything but
> illusory.
> After all, the being is omnipresent, and totally infinite, which means that
> it infuses every single scrap of your being, and, in fact, you are made of
> that being, since an infinite being (being, by definition, "without limits")
> would not be seperate from the quarks, atoms, molecules, or the calories,
> ergs, and joules which make you you.
> Being that you are completely of this infinite being and made of this
> infinite being, how can you possibly suggest that individual identities
> exist in your world view?
> Or is your God not infinite? Not omnipresent?
>
There is a difference between spiritural existence and physical
existence. I think God is omni-present in a spiritural sense, with the
ability to intervene in the physical world at will.
Also, the idea of God infusing all physical matter sounds like
pantheism. Christians are not pantheists.
> Now, what exactly is it about evolution and the idea of a godless universe
> that you feel prevents the existence of individual minds?
I think there is something special about life that makes it
qualitatively different from just matter - although I imagine some
viruses stretch the definition of life. Also, I don't know what the
Bible perspective is on animal consciousness (although I did read a book
once called "Animal Minds" which was rather interesting). However, I
think there is also something special about humans as a life form.
Humans are so fantastically beyond other life forms that it only
supports my belief in creation. For example. They say humans are not the
only tool-makers. True. Apes can take a twig, stick it in a termite
hole, and eat the termites that cling to it. Eat your heart out Bob
Vela! Some ants grow there own food. And there are other examples. But
take a walk through Home Depot - and all of that is just a fraction of
the tools used by Man. Why did we keep evolving but all the other
primates stayed put?
>
> > Way deep down inside, you know you are a
> >person, that you have a mind and a will, and that you exist.
>
> Hell, I know these right on the surface.
> OTOH, if I am a puppet to physical laws or to some God out there, I would
> feel exactly the way I do anyway.
> > But that
> >very awareness is incompatible with evolution.
>
> Support, do not just assert.
Life from non-life was my point here.
> > Rocks don't talk to each
> >other.
>
> They don't need to, they have a means of communication far superior to our
> own, or any form of "talking" out there.
> In fact, you are completely under the control of the rocks; they speak in
> their ueberspeech to your very bones, the iron in your blood stream, and the
> phosphorous in the fatty tissues of your brain. They control your every
> action for their own purposes and, because it amuses them, they do not
> bother to stop you from thinking that you are controlling yourself.
> The rocks made the universe, the rocks set it in motion, the rocks are our
> true masters, and they will reward us well when we die, allowing us to
> return to the rocks which formed us.
> Your Bible addresses some of this, look in Genesis where it points out that
> we are formed from the very dust of the Earth and to the dust we shall
> return.
> Don't ever tell the founder of the Church of Seismology what rocks do and
> don't do. After all, the Church of Seismology hasn't yet commited any
> atrocities and I'm a thinking we're about due.
> At least, I THINK that's the criterion the US Government uses to determine
> the tax free status of churches...
>
I realize that I have a physical body that is governed by the laws of
physics, that's why I wear my seatbelt. God did create Man from the dust
of the Earth, however, he also breathed life into him and Man became a
living soul.
> >THE SCIENCES
> >
> >The following reasons are only some of the reasons evolution is not true
> >taken from only one of the books I cited. The catagories and quotes
> >below are taken from: The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott
> >M. Huse. BakerBooks: Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
> >
> >BIOLOGY
> >
> >1. No missing links. If evolution is true, there should be obvious
> >examples in the fossil record of one species transforming into another.
> >There are none. There are only distinct catagories of species. And
> >although genetic variation within a single species is common, there are
> >not examples of genetic variations sufficient to create a new species.
>
> Total and out and out baloney.
> 1) Transitional fossil forms exist. Every single fossil, and, in fact, every
> single creature alive today is in transition.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
I think that is a false assumption. Distinct species exist. If you
assume evolution is true, then they must have got that way by evolution.
I don't believe in evolution anymore.
I think that what the evolutionists have done is analogous to the
following. Suppose you walked into a furniture store and tried to
understand what was in there and why those things exist. You start to
catagorize the different types of furniture based on appearance,
distinctive features, and degree of complexity. Furniture would be like
the plant kingdom. Appliances would be like the animal kingdom. At some
point you decide that they were not made, but evolved via natural
processes from simple to complex. Carpeting is the primordial soup from
which all furniture and appliances evolved. First, over the eons, throw
rugs evolved into existence out of the primordial carpeting. Then, as
more eons passed, throw rugs evolved into been bags. Been bags evolved
into futons. Futons evolved into chairs and sofas. The most highly
evolved chair known is the Deluxicus LazyBoyathon, with vibrator message
no less. All appliances evolved from wall sockets and extension cords.
The lighting and kitchen families are different branches with the same
evolutionary roots. Toasters evolved into first stoves and ovens and
later microwaves. Behold the power of ten times ten times ten times
ten...[inside joke for those who have seen the cinemax movie at the
National Air and Space museum.]
> 2) New species have been observed forming in the wild (HIV, an evolutionary
> offspring of SIV, is a biggee here, not to mention new species of influenza
> annually), and in the lab:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> >2. Design in nature. The very order that exists in nature suggests it
> >was put there by an intelligent force. For example, a miscellaneous pile
> >of sticks is decernably different from a birds nest. Why? Because you
> >can tell that sticks don't just happen that way by chance, something had
> >to make it that way. This is the reaction a lot of scientists are having
> >to the cosmos, biology, and nature.
>
> So, birds are intelligent, self aware, designing creatures, now?
> Don't forget to add spiders to that list, then, since they are also capable
> of producing "obviously designed" webs that cannot be mistaken.
> For more fun examples of "perfect design" in nature, check out
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> I would suggest that the fact that things are so imperfect would blow the
> whole idea of a "perfect" designer right out of the water.
Are you talking about the world being imperfect (crime, poverty, etc.)
therefore there can be no perfect designer or somthing else?
> >3. Law of Biogenesis. Life cannot come from non-life. They proved that
> >long ago. Darwin revived it.
>
> Are you even aware of the experiment which showed that spontaneous
> generation of life does not occur?
I think I have vague memories from jr. high school...
> No, maggots do not spring magically out of dead meat when a fly cannot lay
> eggs on the meat.
> There is a lot of difference, however, between producing maggots on rotten
> meat and finding out if nonliving material can become living material under
> certain conditions. Scientists have gotten as far as producing
> self-replicating RNA strands since experiments began a little over fifty
> years ago.
Are you saying that science is now capable of producing new species by
applying knowledge of evolutionary processes, or that at least the
appearence of progress is being made and they intend to keep on
truckin'?
> Anyway, theories about abiogenesis have nothing to do with the theory of
> evolution, which only applies to living systems.
But it does apply, because the whole idea of evolution is that life
eventually arose from the original non-living matter that exploded into
existence after the big bang.
> >GEOLOGY
> >
> >1. Problems with radioactive dating. The validity of radioactive dating
> >depends on three basic assumptions that are not valid: "1. The rock
> >contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms;
> >2. Since then, no parent or daughter atoms were either added to, or
> >taken from the rock; and 3. The rate of radioactive decay has remained
> >constant."
>
> From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html:
> A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above.
> However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The
> actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been
> met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.
>
> Head to the site and see what the answer is.
I have read that snails were dated at 2300 years old using the carbon 14
method, and that Hawian lava flows known to be less then 200 years old
were dated at 3 billion. Consequently, I remain skeptical, but thank you
for this information.
> >2. The Earth's magnetic field. It is decaying at an identifiable rate.
> >If projected backwards to when life could still exist until now, it
> >shows the Earth is much younger than the billions of years suggested by
> >the theory of evolution.
>
> Boy, you are even out of date as far as Creationist literature goes.
> Humphreys, D. Russell, 1988. "Has the Earth's magnetic field ever flipped?"
> in Creation Research Society Quarterly 25, No. 3, pp. 130-137.
>
> According to the article referenced above, the answer is "yes". Ten years
> ago, the Creation Research Society Quarterly abandoned this line of
> "thinking", why haven't you?
No kidding? Hmmm. Bummer dog! And I was all excited about the whole
magnetic thing. Thanks for this info also. But even if this particular
example is not true, I think the main snow ball is still in tact.
> >3. Pleochroic Halos. The existence of these halos in granite cannot be
> >replicated by man nor explained according to the time frame given by
> >evolution.
>
> I admit it, I have no idea wtf you're talking about here.
> Care to elaborate?
Here is a quote from one of those books:
"Creationists point to evidence from the study of rapidly decaying
radioactive elements and pleochoric halos to support their belief that
creation was sudden and complete. Robert Gentry, the world's leading
authority on radiohalos, has studied the mysterious case of polonium
radiohalos extensively and reached some startling conclusions that
confirm creationst's viewpoint.
Polonium 218 has been considered a daughter element of the natural
decay of uranium, but through the works of Dr. Gentry and other
researchers, polonium halos have been found in mica and fluorite without
any evidence of parents. In other words, it was primordial - present in
the original granite from the very beginning. Also, and most
significantly, polonium halos should not exist because of their
extremely short half-lives. Polonium 218 has a half-life of only three
minutes. If the evolutionists' interpretation were correct and the rock
formations gradually cooled over millions of years, the polonium would
have decayed into other elements long ago.
Thus the evidence clearly points to an instantaneous
crystallization of the host basement rocks of the earth concurrent with
the formation of the polonium. Simply stated, the presence of polonium
radiohalos is one of the greatest blows to evolutionary thinking because
it speaks so eloquently of instantaneous creation."
Quoted from: The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott M. Huse.
BakerBooks: Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4 p. 71-71. The above
book referenced: Melnick, Jim. The Case of the Polonium Radiohalos,
Students for Origins Research, Santa Barbara, CA. v5 n1 1982 pp.4-5.
> >PHYSICS
> >
> >1. First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and matter can be transformed
> >from one into the other but never created or destroyed. Then were did it
> >come from? God created it.
>
> No, Odin did. No, wait! It was Chronus!.
> No, Shiva!
I still don't believe matter and energy is all there is.
> >2. Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is moving from order to
> >disorder, not from disorder to order as the theory of evolution
> >suggests.
>
> I was afraid you would show so much ignorance about what you're talking
> about that you would come up with this one.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
> I am sick and tired of dealing with the many reasons why you are wrong on
> this point, so I ask humbly that you go to this site to find out what is
> wrong with your assertion.
>
Since your comment is dripping with frustration, I did actually briefly
visit the site, and even bookmarked it after a quick scan.
I take your objection to mean that instead of the universe being like a
frizbee cast into existence with a finite limit before all the stars
burn out, the universe will cycle endlessly in cycles of expansion and
contraction and so forth. Here a a couple of questions I have:
1. How are all those galaxies, at such fantastic distances from each
other, hurling away from each other at such increadible speeds ever
going to slow down, reverse direction, and collapse again? Has anyone
measured how much gravitational force our galaxy exerts, on say, the
nearest galaxy to ours?
2. I notice that black holes are supposed to have gravity so intense
that light cannot even escape. If all matter in the universe was
concentrated into a single point, wouldn't that also create the most
increadible gravitational force conceivable? And if so, how can it
explode the matter away from itself? Has a black hole ever exploded?
> >MATHEMATICS
> >
> >1. The probability that complex chemicals necessary for life could come
> >together by random chance are unlikely to the point of ridiculus.
>
> "Random chance"?
>
> > Here
> >is just one quote of one estimate: "Wysong has calcualted the
> >probability of forming the proteins an DNA for the smallest
> >self-replicating entity to be 1 in 10 to the 167,626 power."
>
> Interesting assertion. Wysong is, of course, a chemical biologist?
> Here's another estimate: "Crowe has calculated the probability of the
> formation of protein chains which are self replicating in nature from the
> compounds existing in the oceans of 4 billion years ago and has found that
> the probability is 1 in 1."
> Wheee! That's fun!
> Of course, you may not like the fact that I just dumped your assertion with
> a simple assertion of my own, so, may I direct you to:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
1. Is a self-replicating protein the same thing as life?
2. You know, I've actually read some estimates by a person who had no
problem believing evolution was true, but who asserted that the
presently claimed age of the universe was VASTLY LESS than the time
necessary for evolution to occur.
3. It's not just a matter of whether a single example of evolution is
probable (which I don't think it is). It is also an issue of billions of
examples of evolution occuring again and again across countless
thousands of life forms over the eons.
> >ARCHEOLOGY
> >
> >1. There are no contradictions between the existence of peoples and
> >places described in the Bible and the archeological evidence discovered
> >in the Middle-East.
>
> There is also no contradictions between the existence of peoples and places
> described in Homer's Illiad and the archeological discovery of Troy. This,
> of course, proves that Zeus exists.
> Oh, wait, the book of Exodus describes a population of over a million people
> moving as a single group across the desert of the Middle East. Of course the
> evidence for even one of their campsites just springs right out at you,
> doesn't it?
>
A nomadic people, who wandered around a huge pile of shifting sand, and
who had their material needs provided for them by God (manna from
Heaven, etc.) probably didn't impact the physical environment a whole
lot.
> >
> >> >is not only an intellectual joke, it is perhaps the most vicious,
> >> >poisoness, and diabolically insidous lie ever inflicted into the minds
> >>
> >> Please explain why.
> >>
> >> The explanations from evolution are powerfully predictive: they
> >> work in many other fields. For example much of modern medicine
> >> simply wouldn't work the way it does - because is predicated by
> >> understanding drawn from evolution. If this is all an "intellectual
> >> joke" please explain how and why it works when its basis is so
> >> incorrect.
> >>
> >
> >Evolution is more of an overall philosophical framework that attempts to
> >find an overall pattern in the facts of science. I don't think it is of
> >much predictive value when you get down to the nitty gritty.
>
> Well, we think it is. So there :p
Fair enough. That is why we are having this conversation.
> >Secondly, the moral implications of the theory of evolution are
> >disturbing:
>
> Argument of "it can't be true because that would make me feel bad?"
> Are you, by any chance, a Christian?
1. Yes, it would make me feel bad. I am much happier believing God is
real.
2. I sure like to think I'm a Christian, although I don't claim to be a
very good one.
> >1. Survival of the fittest is an extremely cruel social principle to
> >apply. If have seen evolutionists struggle to explain how cooperation,
> >compassion, or love could be good things in light of evolution.
>
> Cooperation: Infants of "higher" mammels are almost totally helpless. A
> father who sticks around and helps provide food for offspring is far more
> likely to see that offspring through to adulthood. A father who ditches
> forces the female to do her own hunting/ gathering and will be less likely
> to have offspring which survive. The offspring which have an affinity for
> cooperation are more likely to cooperate with each other against outside
> threats or in gathering food. Etc.
I was thinking more along the lines of cooperation between people in
general, beyond the family unit.
> Compassion: Null program. Not a trait which seems to have taken hold in
> human beings.
I agree with you on that one. Wow, what an understatement!
> Love: Went on about this at length in another thread a while back. To
> summarize: A mother with a genetic predisposition towards feeling good when
> she cares for her offspring, be it from chemicals or from neural "wiring" is
> more likely to bring up successive generations, adjusting the allele
> frequency towards "love" and away from indifference.
>
Again, I was thinking beyond the family unit.
> > They
> >seem to try an explain it as a collective advancement of the gene pool
> >but I think they are streching it.
>
> And my possible explanations? Are they stretching it?
>
I think I can see the logic, but am not convinced.
> > Also, look at the kind of people who
> >were really big on evolution/genetics: the Nazi's, the Communists, many
> >racists.
>
> Hitler, kemosabe, described himself as a devout Catholic. The evolution he
> referred to was a version which had every single human being going through
> all stages of development in the womb. A person, according to Hitler's
> beliefs, would cycle through the various races and only the best would make
> it all the way up to "Aryan".
Hid did claim to be a Catholic. Doesn't that just make you want to spew?
> Vocal racists, at least in America, tend to be members of the Christian
> Identity Movement which seeks to stamp out "inferior" races not because they
> wish to evolve the human race, but because Jesus has abandoned the Jews and
> because blacks bear the "mark of Cain". Interestingly enough, many racists
> in America refuse to believe that they share any common ancestors with other
> "inferior" races.
> Almost invariably, white racists justify their actions and attitudes through
> their faith and have even less understanding of evolution than you do. Other
> racists (like Japanese racists) often tend toward the attitude of assumed
> superiority and disgust with the idea of mixing with "gaijin". They want to
> avoid mixing of races of man not because they are in favor of evolution, but
> because they are worried about having their "breed" wiped out or sullied by
> barbarian blood.
Unfortunately, you are correct that there is a fringe of people out
there who are highly racist and simultaneously claim to be Christians.
See: "Armed and Dangerous: the rise of the survivalist right" by James
Coates. Not all the people who claim to be democrats or republicans
actually represent the ideals of those political parties. The same is
true of Christianity. Not all the people who claim to be Christians
practice the ideals Jesus taught. Fanatical, fringe hate groups are an
example of this.
Also, let me make it very clear. I reject racism as fundamentally
irrational. I also reject anti-semitism. According to the Bible, the
Jewish people are the apple of God's eye through which he gave His word
and the hope of salvation to all mankind. There is a clear Biblical
curse for abusing the Jewish people and I will not now or ever support
any anti-semitic anything.
> >2. Moral relativity is inevitable if evolution is true. Transient,
> >semi-democratic ideals for the now if convient is the best ethics
> >evolution will be able to produce.
>
> And this differs from how things currently are how....?
No. That is how things are now because 40 years of secular humanistic
teaching in our public schools has created a generation teaming with
moral relativity.
I would head for a nice cozy Idaho apocalypse bunker but all the crazy
people got there before me.
> <snip>
>
> --Sterling Crowe
> #1168
> "Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because
> he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do
> with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly
> your business and the universe doesn't care. In fact you may be the universe
> and the only cause of all your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope
> for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you
> are. So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God!'"
Satan made the same mistake as this dude...
> -Robert A. Heinlein Oct. 21, 1960
> Having warned you of all that, I feel like a tremendous weight
> has been lifted off my chest, off my "evil pillows," if you will.
> -Anne` Ferguson
Well, that was quite a message. Thank you for sending it.
God bless you,
MRA.
Michael R. Anderson
Mark C. wrote:
Hi Mark,
I just spent about an hour responding to another dude who critiqued
EVERY SINGLE POINT I made. Consequently, I am feeling rather frazzled
and will need to be brief...
>
> >
> > LOGIC
> >
> > 1. To understand why we exist we must follow the chain of cause and
> > effect. Either it extends into infinity or it ends somewhere at a
> > self-existant something whose existence explains itself. Christians
> > believe this self-existant something is God,
>
> And where did this God come from? And where did this God's God
> come from? And where did this God's God's God come from? And where
> did this God's God's God's... well, you get the idea.
That is the whole point. Either there is some self-existant thing out
there or there isn't. And if there is some kind of self-existant thing
out there, it is either God or matter.
> evolutionists believe it is
> > matter, energy, and the laws of physics.
>
> This is a pretty general statement seeing how evolution doesn't
> deal with any of these.
>
> Note: when God told Moses in
> > the Old Testament what his name was, He said His name was: "I Am That I
> > Am".
>
> Did he eat spinach too?
Manna, actually.
> Sounds like a self-existant being describing Himself to me.
>
> Sounds more like Moses (or whoever wrote the story) was making
> stuff up.
I know a gut-feel statement will have zero validity in science land, but
here it is anyways. I get the distinct impression that whatever wrote
the Bible was NO MAN! Twilight zone music, please...
>
> >
> > 2. If evolution is true, you and I don't really exist as persons.
>
> ???
>
> Oh
> > sure, our flesh is here. An amazingly complex interaction of matter,
> > energy, and the laws of physics. But it would be impossible for us to
> > have an individual identity any more than two Energizer Bunnies facing
> > each other and beating their symbols together actually represent two
> > persons exchanging thoughts.
>
> It's called being sentinent.
>
> Way deep down inside, you know you are a
> > person,
>
> And way down deep inside, a cat probably knows it's a cat. What's
> your point?
>
> that you have a mind and a will, and that you exist. But that
> > very awareness is incompatible with evolution.
>
> How so?
>
> Rocks don't talk to each
> > other.
>
> Rocks don't evolve. Rocks don't have a central nervous system.
> Rocks aren't sentinent.
Thank you, the other guy was getting spunky on this one.
>
> >
> > THE SCIENCES
> >
> > The following reasons are only some of the reasons evolution is not true
> > taken from only one of the books I cited. The catagories and quotes
> > below are taken from: The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott
> > M. Huse. BakerBooks: Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
> >
> > BIOLOGY
> >
> > 1. No missing links. If evolution is true, there should be obvious
> > examples in the fossil record of one species transforming into another.
>
> Except for the ones that *are* evident like "archie". A rreptile
> with feathers.
>
> > There are none. There are only distinct catagories of species. And
> > although genetic variation within a single species is common, there are
> > not examples of genetic variations sufficient to create a new species.
>
> And what happens when you spread those genetic variations over
> several million years?
>
> >
> > 2. Design in nature.
>
> There is no design in nature.
>
> The very order that exists in nature suggests it
> > was put there by an intelligent force.
>
> No it doesn't. Show where there is design in nature.
Everyplace that a life form or characteristic of a life form could not
exist in a non-fully developed form. The moth and the Yucca plant, the
exploding beatle, others. See the books I suggest for details.
>
> For example, a miscellaneous pile
> > of sticks is decernably different from a birds nest. Why? Because you
> > can tell that sticks don't just happen that way by chance, something had
> > to make it that way.
>
> Which has zilch to do with evolution. You've yet to show us the
> "design" in nature.
>
> This is the reaction a lot of scientists are having
> > to the cosmos, biology, and nature.
>
> References to these scientists please.
See the books I list at the end.
>
> >
> > 3. Law of Biogenesis.
> Life cannot come from non-life. They proved that
> > long ago.
>
> Which is not the same as Abiogenesis.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > GEOLOGY
> >
> > 1. Problems with radioactive dating.
>
> >>>Snip<<<
>
> I won't comment on this as I am not well versed in radiometric
> dating. I'll let someone more knowledgble answer this one.
I'm not an expert either, but I read some fascinating stuff from people
who supposedly are. See references.
>
> >
> > 2. The Earth's magnetic field. It is decaying at an identifiable rate.
> > If projected backwards to when life could still exist until now, it
> > shows the Earth is much younger than the billions of years suggested by
> > the theory of evolution.
>
> Unless of course the magentic field fluctuates. You're getting
> these little tidbits straight from the ICR homepage aren't you?
What is the ICR homepage?
>
> >
> > 3. Pleochroic Halos. The existence of these halos in granite cannot be
> > replicated by man nor explained according to the time frame given by
> > evolution.
>
> Once again I have no knowledge on this so I won't respond.
We may be on to something with this one. The other guy didn't either.
See "Collapse of Evolution" below.
>
> >
> > PHYSICS
> >
> > 1. First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and matter can be transformed
> > from one into the other but never created or destroyed. Then were did it
> > come from? God created it.
>
> This is a major assumption on your part. You first have to prove
> that matter was created and that it was your god that created it
> first.
True. But I think it helps move us in the right direction.
>
> If it can't be created or destroyed, how did God create it?
>
> >
> > 2. Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is moving from order to
> > disorder, not from disorder to order as the theory of evolution
> > suggests.
>
> And the Earth is not a closed system. See that big fusion reactor
> in the sky that's raining radiation down on our planet?
But the universe is a closed system.
>
> Really, it's been fun but it's getting late. I have to go to bed
> and you haven't provided us with anything new that hasn't been rehased
> several times over here. Your just restating crap from the ICR that
> has been refuted several times over.
I don't know what this ICR home page your talking about is, but I bet
I'd like it. What is the URL?
>
> >>>Big Snip<<<
> --
> Mark C.
> #99
>
> "Christianity is an appeal to selfishness. It is a promise
> of a great reward in the future which is bought with faith,
> obedience, time, effort, and money in the present."
> [Unknown]
Christianity is massively based on compassion for others. How is that an
appeal to selfishness?
>
> "Men are mammals and Women are femammals."
> From a student essay-Skeptic Vol.5 No.3
Here are those references:
Ready with An Answer: For the tough questions about God. (1997) John
Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR. ISBN:
1-56507-618-4 [One of the best Christian apologetic books I’ve found so
far. Three parts: 1. Jesus Christ: the most unique man in history; 2.
Creation: the most unique phenomenon of existence; 3. The Bible: the
most unique book on earth.]
The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott M. Huse. BakerBooks:
Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
Darwin’s Leap of Faith: Exposing the false religion of evolution. (1998)
John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR.
ISBN: 1-56507-657-5
These you might like just out of curiosity:
The Universe Next Door: A basic worldview catalog. 3rd Ed. (1997) James
W. Sire. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. ISBN: 0-8308-1899-5
[This is a fascinating book which claims all world views can be assessed
based on how they answer 7 basic questions: 1) What is prime reality -
the really real; 2) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the
world around us; 3) What is a human being; 4) What happens to a person
at death; 5) Why is it possible to know anything at all; 6) How do we
know what is right and wrong; 7) What is the meaning of human history?
The world views examined are: a) Christian theism, b) Deism, c)
Naturalism, d) Nihlism, e) Existentialism, f) Eastern pantheistic
monism, g) New age, h) postmodernism. A particularly interesting aspect
of this book is that Sire describes these different world views a
progressive disintegrations from an original ideal. (Over 100,000 copies
sold.)]
Understanding the Times: The religious worldviews of our day and the
search for truth. (1991) David A. Noebell. Harvest House Publishers:
Eugene, OR. ISBN: 1-56507-2685
[Noebell compares 1) Secular humanism, 2) Marxism/Leninism, 3) Christian
theism, and 4) New age across the ten catagories of: theology,
philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics,
economics, and history. 891 pages/hardcover.]
Well, I'm on to the next one...
God bless you,
MRA.
Chris
g&g wrote:
>
> >
> > It appears that to the religious everyone is a sinner because God has
> > standards that no one can meet. (Daddy is demanding) This gives them a
> > feeling of warmth and fuzziness since they (as believers) don't have
> > to worry. God will excuse them (they never say exactly why) no matter
> > how bad they have sinned. Does this make sense to ANYONE?
> >
> >
> To add to the confusion and stupidity of it all, Dave. Supposedly Jesus
> "took upon himself the sins of the world." Right out of the bible, I
> guess. I have heard that hundreds of times and yet no one has been able to
> tell me why I have to be saved or what I am to be saved from if Jesus
> already took upon himself the sins of the WORLD. That includes all
> atheists, sins, too, doesn't it? WHEEHAA! I don't have to be saved after
> all! YAHOO!!
It is fantastic i agree. Don't forget the simple childlike faith in what
Jesus did for us and you have a free ticket. Why is that message so
difficult to comprehend?
Chris Hill
maff91
Show us proof other than assertung that it's in the BIble.
>
>Also, the idea of God infusing all physical matter sounds like
>pantheism. Christians are not pantheists.
>
>> Now, what exactly is it about evolution and the idea of a godless universe
>> that you feel prevents the existence of individual minds?
>
>I think there is something special about life that makes it
>qualitatively different from just matter - although I imagine some
>viruses stretch the definition of life. Also, I don't know what the
>Bible perspective is on animal consciousness (although I did read a book
>once called "Animal Minds" which was rather interesting). However, I
>think there is also something special about humans as a life form.
>Humans are so fantastically beyond other life forms that it only
>supports my belief in creation. For example. They say humans are not the
>only tool-makers. True. Apes can take a twig, stick it in a termite
>hole, and eat the termites that cling to it. Eat your heart out Bob
>Vela! Some ants grow there own food. And there are other examples. But
>take a walk through Home Depot - and all of that is just a fraction of
>the tools used by Man. Why did we keep evolving but all the other
>primates stayed put?
You haven't read the Talk Origins FAQ at all. Have you?
You have to prove your assertions other than saying that it's in the
Bible.
Do any body of Scientists support your assertions? Even famous
Scientists have to justify their hypothesis to the Scientific
Community at large before it can become acceptable working theories.
>
>
>> 2) New species have been observed forming in the wild (HIV, an evolutionary
>> offspring of SIV, is a biggee here, not to mention new species of influenza
>> annually), and in the lab:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>>
>> >2. Design in nature. The very order that exists in nature suggests it
>> >was put there by an intelligent force. For example, a miscellaneous pile
>> >of sticks is decernably different from a birds nest. Why? Because you
>> >can tell that sticks don't just happen that way by chance, something had
>> >to make it that way. This is the reaction a lot of scientists are having
>> >to the cosmos, biology, and nature.
>>
>> So, birds are intelligent, self aware, designing creatures, now?
>> Don't forget to add spiders to that list, then, since they are also capable
>> of producing "obviously designed" webs that cannot be mistaken.
>> For more fun examples of "perfect design" in nature, check out
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>> I would suggest that the fact that things are so imperfect would blow the
>> whole idea of a "perfect" designer right out of the water.
>
>Are you talking about the world being imperfect (crime, poverty, etc.)
>therefore there can be no perfect designer or somthing else?
You haven't read the FAQ at all. Have you?
>
>> >3. Law of Biogenesis. Life cannot come from non-life. They proved that
>> >long ago. Darwin revived it.
>>
>> Are you even aware of the experiment which showed that spontaneous
>> generation of life does not occur?
>
>I think I have vague memories from jr. high school...
I think you need to go go back to School and get a good Science
education.
>
>> No, maggots do not spring magically out of dead meat when a fly cannot lay
>> eggs on the meat.
>> There is a lot of difference, however, between producing maggots on rotten
>> meat and finding out if nonliving material can become living material under
>> certain conditions. Scientists have gotten as far as producing
>> self-replicating RNA strands since experiments began a little over fifty
>> years ago.
>
>Are you saying that science is now capable of producing new species by
>applying knowledge of evolutionary processes, or that at least the
>appearence of progress is being made and they intend to keep on
>truckin'?
>
>> Anyway, theories about abiogenesis have nothing to do with the theory of
>> evolution, which only applies to living systems.
>
>But it does apply, because the whole idea of evolution is that life
>eventually arose from the original non-living matter that exploded into
>existence after the big bang.
Show us where Darwin says this strawman in the "Origin of Species".
>
>> >GEOLOGY
>> >
>> >1. Problems with radioactive dating. The validity of radioactive dating
>> >depends on three basic assumptions that are not valid: "1. The rock
>> >contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms;
>> >2. Since then, no parent or daughter atoms were either added to, or
>> >taken from the rock; and 3. The rate of radioactive decay has remained
>> >constant."
>>
>> From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html:
>> A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above.
>> However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The
>> actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been
>> met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.
>>
>> Head to the site and see what the answer is.
>
>I have read that snails were dated at 2300 years old using the carbon 14
>method, and that Hawian lava flows known to be less then 200 years old
>were dated at 3 billion. Consequently, I remain skeptical, but thank you
>for this information.
Can you provide references for your assertions?
Do you kow that the Creationist 'Scientists' are thoroughly
discredited in the Scientific world since they are such bare faced
liars who won't defend their hypothesiss?
>
>> >PHYSICS
>> >
>> >1. First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and matter can be transformed
>> >from one into the other but never created or destroyed. Then were did it
>> >come from? God created it.
>>
>> No, Odin did. No, wait! It was Chronus!.
>> No, Shiva!
>
>I still don't believe matter and energy is all there is.
So? What has Science got to do with belief?
I'll provide you with some more links which I suppose you won't even
look at.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/index.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
>
>> >ARCHEOLOGY
>> >
>> >1. There are no contradictions between the existence of peoples and
>> >places described in the Bible and the archeological evidence discovered
>> >in the Middle-East.
>>
>> There is also no contradictions between the existence of peoples and places
>> described in Homer's Illiad and the archeological discovery of Troy. This,
>> of course, proves that Zeus exists.
>> Oh, wait, the book of Exodus describes a population of over a million people
>> moving as a single group across the desert of the Middle East. Of course the
>> evidence for even one of their campsites just springs right out at you,
>> doesn't it?
>>
>
>A nomadic people, who wandered around a huge pile of shifting sand, and
>who had their material needs provided for them by God (manna from
>Heaven, etc.) probably didn't impact the physical environment a whole
>lot.
We'll let you lose in Desert with no water or food and we'll see
whether your God is going to provide for you.
Look at these references
Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans
and Other Animals, 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; ISBN
0-674-35660-8.
Frans de Waal, Peacemaking among primates (Harvard
University Press, 1989).
Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among
Apes. Harper and Row, New York (1983).
Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
American 272(4):82- 88 (March 1995)
>
>> > They
>> >seem to try an explain it as a collective advancement of the gene pool
>> >but I think they are streching it.
>>
>> And my possible explanations? Are they stretching it?
>>
>
>I think I can see the logic, but am not convinced.
So?
You mean you're rejecting the BIble?
>
>
>> >2. Moral relativity is inevitable if evolution is true. Transient,
>> >semi-democratic ideals for the now if convient is the best ethics
>> >evolution will be able to produce.
>>
>> And this differs from how things currently are how....?
>
>No. That is how things are now because 40 years of secular humanistic
>teaching in our public schools has created a generation teaming with
>moral relativity.
You mean things are more open now and not swept under the carpet!
>
>I would head for a nice cozy Idaho apocalypse bunker but all the crazy
>people got there before me.
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> --Sterling Crowe
>> #1168
>> "Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because
>> he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do
>> with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly
>> your business and the universe doesn't care. In fact you may be the universe
>> and the only cause of all your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope
>> for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you
>> are. So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God!'"
>
>Satan made the same mistake as this dude...
You mean in the fairy tales you read!
>
>> -Robert A. Heinlein Oct. 21, 1960
>> Having warned you of all that, I feel like a tremendous weight
>> has been lifted off my chest, off my "evil pillows," if you will.
>> -Anne` Ferguson
>
>Well, that was quite a message. Thank you for sending it.
>
>God bless you,
Why should something which doen't exist bless you. You might as well
say IPU bless you.
>MRA.
*****************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil, in its worst state
an intolerable one."
"A bad cause will ever be supported by bad means
and bad men."
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but
moderation in principle is always a vice."
"War involves in its progress such a train of
unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances that
no human wisdom can calculate its end. It has
but one thing certain and that is to increase
taxes."
"My country is the world"
*****************************************************
Darryl L. Pierce
In article <358544...@pacifier.com>, ch...@pacifier.com wrote:
;It is fantastic i agree. Don't forget the simple childlike faith in what
;Jesus did for us and you have a free ticket. Why is that message so
;difficult to comprehend?
How about this:
How come, when Jaysus died, all sin didn't suddenly get destroyed then? Why
did it have to continue? Couldn't he had just destroyed sin right then and
there? Why the continuation of sin at all after this "noble deed" was done?
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce, Atheist #1142 | "Those not shocked by quantum |
| Resource Solutions, Int'l @ IBM/RTP | theory have not understood it." |
| (919) 254-4583 (919) 547-7177 | Neils Bohr |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| This message reflects *MY* opinion and not that of my employer. |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Dave Haas
Chris wrote:
>
> g&g wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It appears that to the religious everyone is a sinner because God has
> > > standards that no one can meet. (Daddy is demanding) This gives them a
> > > feeling of warmth and fuzziness since they (as believers) don't have
> > > to worry. God will excuse them (they never say exactly why) no matter
> > > how bad they have sinned. Does this make sense to ANYONE?
> > >
> > > D. Haas
> > >
> > To add to the confusion and stupidity of it all, Dave. Supposedly Jesus
> > "took upon himself the sins of the world." Right out of the bible, I
> > guess. I have heard that hundreds of times and yet no one has been able to
> > tell me why I have to be saved or what I am to be saved from if Jesus
> > already took upon himself the sins of the WORLD. That includes all
> > atheists, sins, too, doesn't it? WHEEHAA! I don't have to be saved after
> > all! YAHOO!!
>
> Jesus did for us and you have a free ticket. Why is that message so
> difficult to comprehend?
>
But what does God have to gain? Why would god play the same
superstitious games with humans that were invented 1000's of years
BC?
Why would he offer salvation ONLY to those who played the game by
certain rules which can't be agreed on.
As an invisible, supernatural, omnipresent, all seeing, all knowing
being he has been a bit quiet over the last 2000 years. I wonder
why? Is this part of the game?
What I would like to know is how can anyone be SURE what the rules of
the game are. For that matter, maybe God changed the rules without
telling anyone. God apparently changed his mind (if he has one) in
the past when he tried killing all the sinners. (that sure didn't
work)
Maybe he finally got fed up and left for the Andromeda galaxy where he
will be appreciated more. Since time doesn't mean anything to him he
could be gone for quite a while. A million years there and a million
years to come back. You better hope he didn't leave for a distant
galaxy. Our sun should only last another 5 or 10 billion years.
Another question: Does God take vacations? Why not?
D. Haas
Atheist Man
Dave Haas wrote in message <35857001...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
<SNIP>
>Another question: Does God take vacations? Why not?
Of _course_ God takes vacations. "And on the seventh day he rested." If He
gets tired that fast, you can bet that a few million years of watching
everything is gonna make Him exhausted. He's probably partying on some other
planet right now.
________________________
Atheist Man
Atheist #1190 BAAWA!!!
High Priest of the Church of Hawking
(Atheist Minister #5)
(ath...@atheist.com)
==================================
"This space for rent."
==================================
Chris
> ;Jesus did for us and you have a free ticket. Why is that message so
> ;difficult to comprehend?
>
>
> How come, when Jaysus died, all sin didn't suddenly get destroyed then? Why
> did it have to continue? Couldn't he had just destroyed sin right then and
> there? Why the continuation of sin at all after this "noble deed" was done?
>
the good of mankind. How silly of me.
Chris Hill
Chris
Dave Haas wrote:
>
> Chris wrote:
> >
> > g&g wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It appears that to the religious everyone is a sinner because God has
> > > > standards that no one can meet. (Daddy is demanding) This gives them a
> > > > feeling of warmth and fuzziness since they (as believers) don't have
> > > > to worry. God will excuse them (they never say exactly why) no matter
> > > > how bad they have sinned. Does this make sense to ANYONE?
> > > >
> > > > D. Haas
> > > >
> > > To add to the confusion and stupidity of it all, Dave. Supposedly Jesus
> > > "took upon himself the sins of the world." Right out of the bible, I
> > > guess. I have heard that hundreds of times and yet no one has been able to
> > > tell me why I have to be saved or what I am to be saved from if Jesus
> > > already took upon himself the sins of the WORLD. That includes all
> > > atheists, sins, too, doesn't it? WHEEHAA! I don't have to be saved after
> > > all! YAHOO!!
> >
> > Jesus did for us and you have a free ticket. Why is that message so
> > difficult to comprehend?
> >
>
> superstitious games with humans that were invented 1000's of years
> BC?
>
> Why would he offer salvation ONLY to those who played the game by
> certain rules which can't be agreed on.
>
> As an invisible, supernatural, omnipresent, all seeing, all knowing
> being he has been a bit quiet over the last 2000 years. I wonder
> why? Is this part of the game?
>
> What I would like to know is how can anyone be SURE what the rules of
> the game are. For that matter, maybe God changed the rules without
> telling anyone. God apparently changed his mind (if he has one) in
> the past when he tried killing all the sinners. (that sure didn't
> work)
>
> Maybe he finally got fed up and left for the Andromeda galaxy where he
> will be appreciated more. Since time doesn't mean anything to him he
> could be gone for quite a while. A million years there and a million
> years to come back. You better hope he didn't leave for a distant
> galaxy. Our sun should only last another 5 or 10 billion years.
>
>
Take heart Dave,
You'll get your chance to have at least one question answered.
Yet another person says"how come God doesn't do what I think is right?"
"Or follow a plan or schedule that I think is right?"
Chris Hill
Andrew Lias
In article <358576...@pacifier.com>, Chris <ch...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>Dave Haas wrote:
>> What I would like to know is how can anyone be SURE what the rules of
>> the game are. For that matter, maybe God changed the rules without
>> telling anyone. God apparently changed his mind (if he has one) in
>> the past when he tried killing all the sinners. (that sure didn't
>> work)
>
>Take heart Dave,
>You'll get your chance to have at least one question answered.
>Yet another person says"how come God doesn't do what I think is right?"
>"Or follow a plan or schedule that I think is right?"
I would say the question is more along the lines of asking why one one
follow an entity whose actions and motives are, by all accounts,
intrinsically inscrutable. [1]
As I've stated many times in the past (and have always been answered with
a resounding silence), the notion that we can not judge the purported
actions of God cuts both ways. If God is too far beyond our ken to allow
us to repudiate it, then so is it too far beyond our ken to exonerate or,
much less, to revere it.
To say that God moves in mysterious way past the boundaries of reasonable
examination is to say that God is an alien entity whose actions are
unpredictable (and, indeed, unknowable).
--
To reply, just replace "@shell." with "@hotmail.com" | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
[1] Positing its existence, in the first place, of course.
Kevin Jaget
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
[snip]
This says nothing about evolution being false. You also falsely
assume that all who believe that evolution best explains the
diversity of life on earth are not Christians.
>2. If evolution is true, you and I don't really exist as persons. Oh
>sure, our flesh is here. An amazingly complex interaction of matter,
>energy, and the laws of physics. But it would be impossible for us to
>have an individual identity any more than two Energizer Bunnies facing
>each other and beating their symbols together actually represent two
>persons exchanging thoughts. Way deep down inside, you know you are a
>person, that you have a mind and a will, and that you exist. But that
>very awareness is incompatible with evolution. Rocks don't talk to each
>other.
You forgot to show your work. Specifically, what about our
personality could not have evolved.
>
>THE SCIENCES
>
>The following reasons are only some of the reasons evolution is not true
>taken from only one of the books I cited. The catagories and quotes
>below are taken from: The Collapse of Evolution. 3rd. Ed. (1997) Scott
>M. Huse. BakerBooks: Grand Rapids, MI. ISBN: 0-8010-5774-4
>
>BIOLOGY
>
>1. No missing links. If evolution is true, there should be obvious
>examples in the fossil record of one species transforming into another.
Even if there were no missing links (there are ... see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html) this argument
would be worthless. Scientists have witnessed speciation first
hand, both in the lab and in the wild --- see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.
>There are none. There are only distinct catagories of species. And
>although genetic variation within a single species is common, there are
>not examples of genetic variations sufficient to create a new species.
>
>2. Design in nature. The very order that exists in nature suggests it
>was put there by an intelligent force. For example, a miscellaneous pile
>of sticks is decernably different from a birds nest. Why? Because you
>can tell that sticks don't just happen that way by chance, something had
>to make it that way. This is the reaction a lot of scientists are having
>to the cosmos, biology, and nature.
We understand that a bird's nest is designed because we can witness
a bird creating a nest and then compare other piles of sticks to
this designed nest. Unfortunately, we have never witnessed a god
designing a universe, nor can we compare this universe to any
others, so we really have no idea if our universe was designed or
not. What we can say is that if it was designed, the designer used
the process of evolution to create the diversity of life on the
earth (unless the designer went to great lengths to lie to us and
cover his tracks --- this causes theological as well as scientific
problems, though).
>3. Law of Biogenesis. Life cannot come from non-life. They proved that
>long ago. Darwin revived it.
Darwin didn't discuss abiogenesis, as far as I am aware. Even so,
it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, so this objection
is moot.
>GEOLOGY
>
>1. Problems with radioactive dating. The validity of radioactive dating
>depends on three basic assumptions that are not valid: "1. The rock
>contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms;
>2. Since then, no parent or daughter atoms were either added to, or
>taken from the rock; and 3. The rate of radioactive decay has remained
>constant."
1 and 2 are addressed by isochron dating
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html, and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html for what
scientists think about the age of the earth). 3 is a conclusion
based on multiple lines of evidence. But I suppose I should ask why
you feel that, despite a total lack of evidence, the rate of
radioactive decay is changing.
>2. The Earth's magnetic field. It is decaying at an identifiable rate.
>If projected backwards to when life could still exist until now, it
>shows the Earth is much younger than the billions of years suggested by
>the theory of evolution.
Unfortunately for this argument, we have strong evidence that the
rate of decay of the magnetic field is not a constant, therefore the
projection in your second sentence is unfounded. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html for more info.
>3. Pleochroic Halos. The existence of these halos in granite cannot be
>replicated by man nor explained according to the time frame given by
>evolution.
This claim is addressed in
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html.
>
>PHYSICS
>
>1. First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy and matter can be transformed
>from one into the other but never created or destroyed. Then were did it
>come from? God created it.
The origin of matter has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Also, you didn't show your work --- how does the penultimate
sentence imply the final sentence. I would think that the better
conclusion would be "we don't know".
>2. Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is moving from order to
>disorder, not from disorder to order as the theory of evolution
>suggests.
This is not what the 2nd law says. Please show your math --- give
the equation which describes the second law, and be specific about
which part of evolution (differential reproductive success,
imperfect replication, etc) violates the law.
>MATHEMATICS
>
>1. The probability that complex chemicals necessary for life could come
>together by random chance are unlikely to the point of ridiculus. Here
Chemistry is not random, therefore this calculation is useless.
It's like trying to calculate the probability of everything falling
down instead of up if things moved about by random chance. It would
be an interesting number and would show that it is totally
impossible for everything to fall down. Unfortunately, it would
also be totally bogus, since there is a non-random force acting on
the objects.
>is just one quote of one estimate: "Wysong has calcualted the
>probability of forming the proteins an DNA for the smallest
>self-replicating entity to be 1 in 10 to the 167,626 power."
>
>ARCHEOLOGY
>
>1. There are no contradictions between the existence of peoples and
>places described in the Bible and the archeological evidence discovered
>in the Middle-East.
This says absolutely nothing about evolution.
[snip]
>
>Evolution is more of an overall philosophical framework that attempts to
>find an overall pattern in the facts of science. I don't think it is of
>much predictive value when you get down to the nitty gritty.
Is the prediction shown in
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html really a
prediction? If not, why not?
>
>Secondly, the moral implications of the theory of evolution are
>disturbing:
The theory of evolution is not a moral guide anymore than relativity
or quantum mechanics are. Even if it were, the fact that it is
disturbing says nothing about whether or not it is true. Your
argument is basically "I don't like it, therefore it is false".
[snip]
--
Kevin Jaget (or an FDA approved generic equivalent)
kcjaget at mindspring.com
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:56:43 -0700, Chris <ch...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>g&g wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > It appears that to the religious everyone is a sinner because God has
>> > standards that no one can meet. (Daddy is demanding) This gives them a
>> > feeling of warmth and fuzziness since they (as believers) don't have
>> > to worry. God will excuse them (they never say exactly why) no matter
>> > how bad they have sinned. Does this make sense to ANYONE?
>> >
>> > D. Haas
>> >
>> To add to the confusion and stupidity of it all, Dave. Supposedly Jesus
>> "took upon himself the sins of the world." Right out of the bible, I
>> guess. I have heard that hundreds of times and yet no one has been able to
>> tell me why I have to be saved or what I am to be saved from if Jesus
>> already took upon himself the sins of the WORLD. That includes all
>> atheists, sins, too, doesn't it? WHEEHAA! I don't have to be saved after
>> all! YAHOO!!
>
>
>It is fantastic i agree. Don't forget the simple childlike faith in what
>Jesus did for us and you have a free ticket. Why is that message so
>difficult to comprehend?
>
>
>Chris Hill
I comprehend it. It is silly. It is more than silly it is grotesque.
Thomas P.
tony...@post6.tele.dk
>In article <358544...@pacifier.com>, ch...@pacifier.com wrote:
>;It is fantastic i agree. Don't forget the simple childlike faith in what
>;Jesus did for us and you have a free ticket. Why is that message so
>;difficult to comprehend?
>
>How about this:
>
>How come, when Jaysus died, all sin didn't suddenly get destroyed then? Why
>did it have to continue? Couldn't he had just destroyed sin right then and
>there? Why the continuation of sin at all after this "noble deed" was done?
>
>+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
>| Darryl L. Pierce, Atheist #1142 | "Those not shocked by quantum |
>| Resource Solutions, Int'l @ IBM/RTP | theory have not understood it." |
>| (919) 254-4583 (919) 547-7177 | Neils Bohr |
>+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
>| This message reflects *MY* opinion and not that of my employer. |
>+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Christians use a lot of time trying to twist and turn very simple
doctrines that simply don't work into something that fits the real
world. They will explain that this verse "obviously" doesn't mean
what it says, but that this other verse means exactly what it says and
must be followed to the letter. God uses the flood to destroy sin; it
doesn't work. Jesus dies on the cross to destroy sin; it doesn't
work. God doesn't seem to have a clue - much like his followers.
Thomas P.
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:32:59 -0700, Chris <ch...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>Dave Haas wrote:
>>
>> Chris wrote:
>> >
>> > g&g wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > It appears that to the religious everyone is a sinner because God has
>> > > > standards that no one can meet. (Daddy is demanding) This gives them a
>> > > > feeling of warmth and fuzziness since they (as believers) don't have
>> > > > to worry. God will excuse them (they never say exactly why) no matter
>> > > > how bad they have sinned. Does this make sense to ANYONE?
>> > > >
>> > > > D. Haas
>> > > >
>> > > To add to the confusion and stupidity of it all, Dave. Supposedly Jesus
>> > > "took upon himself the sins of the world." Right out of the bible, I
>> > > guess. I have heard that hundreds of times and yet no one has been able to
>> > > tell me why I have to be saved or what I am to be saved from if Jesus
>> > > already took upon himself the sins of the WORLD. That includes all
>> > > atheists, sins, too, doesn't it? WHEEHAA! I don't have to be saved after
>> > > all! YAHOO!!
>> >
>> > It is fantastic i agree. Don't forget the simple childlike faith in what
>> > Jesus did for us and you have a free ticket. Why is that message so
>> > difficult to comprehend?
>> >
>>
>> But what does God have to gain? Why would god play the same
>> superstitious games with humans that were invented 1000's of years
>> BC?
>>
>> Why would he offer salvation ONLY to those who played the game by
>> certain rules which can't be agreed on.
>>
>> As an invisible, supernatural, omnipresent, all seeing, all knowing
>> being he has been a bit quiet over the last 2000 years. I wonder
>> why? Is this part of the game?
>>
>> What I would like to know is how can anyone be SURE what the rules of
>> the game are. For that matter, maybe God changed the rules without
>> telling anyone. God apparently changed his mind (if he has one) in
>> the past when he tried killing all the sinners. (that sure didn't
>> work)
>>
>> Maybe he finally got fed up and left for the Andromeda galaxy where he
>> will be appreciated more. Since time doesn't mean anything to him he
>> could be gone for quite a while. A million years there and a million
>> years to come back. You better hope he didn't leave for a distant
>> galaxy. Our sun should only last another 5 or 10 billion years.
>>
>> Another question: Does God take vacations? Why not?
>>
>> D. Haas
>
>Take heart Dave,
>You'll get your chance to have at least one question answered.
>Yet another person says"how come God doesn't do what I think is right?"
>"Or follow a plan or schedule that I think is right?"
>
>Chris Hill
Of course I am only guessing, but it could be that you misunderstood
the question. Perhaps you are being asked why the god you describe
doesn't make any sense. God, of course, would, by definition, do
everything right, but perhaps he is not asking about God but about the
god in your head. They do share one thing in common - their
non-existence.
Thomas P.
Chris
Andrew Lias wrote:
>
> In article <358576...@pacifier.com>, Chris <ch...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> >Dave Haas wrote:
>
> >> What I would like to know is how can anyone be SURE what the rules of
> >> the game are. For that matter, maybe God changed the rules without
> >> telling anyone. God apparently changed his mind (if he has one) in
> >> the past when he tried killing all the sinners. (that sure didn't
> >> work)
> >
> >You'll get your chance to have at least one question answered.
> >Yet another person says"how come God doesn't do what I think is right?"
> >"Or follow a plan or schedule that I think is right?"
>
> follow an entity whose actions and motives are, by all accounts,
> intrinsically inscrutable. [1]
>
> As I've stated many times in the past (and have always been answered with
> a resounding silence), the notion that we can not judge the purported
> actions of God cuts both ways. If God is too far beyond our ken to allow
> us to repudiate it, then so is it too far beyond our ken to exonerate or,
> much less, to revere it.
I don't follow your logic. God does not ask for exoneration. He asks for
faith and trust. Mankinds boundaries change like the wind. What is
murder here is housecleaning in China. What blend of methodologies or
moral code would you hold God accountable to? Yours perhaps?
> To say that God moves in mysterious way past the boundaries of reasonable
> examination is to say that God is an alien entity whose actions are
> unpredictable (and, indeed, unknowable).
>
Even in the OT where atheists rightly points to the acts of God and say
"look your loving God destroyed entire cities and handed over the spoils
to His people". God hated our sin and always will. I would ask you what
is more predictable than God's response to unrepented sin?
In the realm of unbelief i have to ask myself, why if i don't believe
in God, would i be entertaining the thought of examing God and Him not
holding up to my moral scrutiny? The whole concept is lacking in focus
to me anyway.
Chris Hill
Pioneer
In article <3585A2...@pacifier.com>, ch...@pacifier.com wrote:
> Andrew Lias wrote:
> > As I've stated many times in the past (and have always been answered with
> > a resounding silence), the notion that we can not judge the purported
> > actions of God cuts both ways. If God is too far beyond our ken to allow
> > us to repudiate it, then so is it too far beyond our ken to exonerate or,
> > much less, to revere it.
>
> I don't follow your logic. God does not ask for exoneration. He asks for
> faith and trust.
But if we cannot be sure that god is good - faith and trust in what? an
evil creature?
--
Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
Home: www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/
Secular Humanism in OH & PA: www.geocities.com/~shiwpa/
Council for Secular Humanism: www.secularhumanism.org/home.html
Mining Co.: atheism.miningco.com
--- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
--- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
Andrew Lias
>> follow an entity whose actions and motives are, by all accounts,
>> intrinsically inscrutable. [1]
>>
>> a resounding silence), the notion that we can not judge the purported
>> actions of God cuts both ways. If God is too far beyond our ken to allow
>> us to repudiate it, then so is it too far beyond our ken to exonerate or,
>> much less, to revere it.
>
>I don't follow your logic. God does not ask for exoneration. He asks for
>murder here is housecleaning in China. What blend of methodologies or
>moral code would you hold God accountable to? Yours perhaps?
If we can not hold it accountable to a human understanding of morality,
then how can we possibly accept any moral claims regarding it? If it is
the cipher that you are suggesting it is, upon what basis can we possibly
decide to trust it? Because it says that we should? Because it
periodically smites those who do not? What sort of moral basis do you
offer that would reasonably lead to the trust you would have us grant it?
>> To say that God moves in mysterious way past the boundaries of reasonable
>> examination is to say that God is an alien entity whose actions are
>> unpredictable (and, indeed, unknowable).
>
>Even in the OT where atheists rightly points to the acts of God and say
>"look your loving God destroyed entire cities and handed over the spoils
>to His people". God hated our sin and always will. I would ask you what
>is more predictable than God's response to unrepented sin?
If we lived in a world where every virtuous deed had its reward and where
every evil deed was punished, we might suppose the sort of predictability
that you are attempting to infer, but such is not the real world. In the
real world, evil often does prosper and good people suffer grave
injustices. Christianity attempts to circumvent this problem by positing
an afterlife that redresses all these matters, but such an assumption begs
the question.
I would also note that you are arguing against your own thesis. In
stating that God does act in a manner that we ought to deem, you are
implicitly arguing that it *is* possible to judge God. You are also
begging the question is assuming that its definition of sin is morally
justified.
> In the realm of unbelief i have to ask myself, why if i don't believe
>in God, would i be entertaining the thought of examing God and Him not
>holding up to my moral scrutiny?
As I noted in my footnote, I am positing the existence of a god for the
sake of argument.
> The whole concept is lacking in focus to me anyway.
<Shrug>