Unreason and Christianity
Bear
astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150 years after Darwin,
reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic component of science, and
essential to biology and geology. How can anyone understand science if they
do not understand evolution? The reason that so many Americans reject
evolution is that only one in seven Americans have rejected
Christianity—only backward Catholic and Moslem countries have fewer
disbelievers.
Many believers in God denigrate logic and reason, and reject science as a
way of knowing anything, in favor of an ancient book of tales and rules.
They do not seem to reject cars, TVs, mobile phones or computers, not to
mention modern housing, electricity, man-made fabrics, detergents,
insecticides, anesthetics, disinfectants, medical treatments and so on. All
of these are products of science. Unless angels brought all of these from
God in the strange world of these rejecters of reality. Against this, how
many souls can Christians prove they have saved? These people ignore or deny
empirical knowledge in full or in part, though readily accepting its
benefits while accepting utter fantasy. What could be more unreasonable?
Christianity is an opinion and nothing more, and it is shown in Christians’
selective choice of data. Opinions and values are more important than facts
and reason. It is the opinion of some people that God came to earth to save
mankind. There is no evidence that this is true, yet Christians base their
lives, and worse, try to base other people’s lives on their opinions. When
evidence is ignored and conclusions are based on opinion, then knowledge
suffers and our rational society is endangered. That happened in the fall of
classical society and its replacement by the Christian Dark Ages. That is
the seriousness of Christianity.
Christianity rejects science, logic and reason. In the face of so much
anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and dogmatic
belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not. The
trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
anything based on experiment and sound assessment. Thus empirical knowledge
is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do is to
ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on evidence,
but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept what
seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what seems
sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible with
skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth; Dr M D
Magee; http://www.askwhy.co.uk/)
--
Bear
And I know it’s my own damn fault.
Azrael
wrote:
>The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever known is
<-----Snipped---->
>sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible with
>skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth; Dr M D
>Magee; http://www.askwhy.co.uk/)
Not to denigrate your post and the observation of the writer; but in
defense of the Americans
1)Many of the Original Settlers were the prosecuted religious minority
in the countries that they came from
2)They did not and have not experienced the religious confrontations
between the various religious sects that Europe has
3)Yet they have had some intelligent leaders (especially the founders)
in trying to limit the religious establishment
4)Their isolationism for most of their history prevented them from
experiencing much religious strife, they are after all surrounded by
fellow xians
5)Most of the ultra-religious is in the non-industrial areas and in
areas that have very little outside influence.
RS
"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
news:Dd6dnbXcB9_...@comcast.com...
> The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever known
> is
> astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150 years after
> Darwin,
> reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic component of science, and
> essential to biology and geology. How can anyone understand science if
> they
> do not understand evolution? The reason that so many Americans reject
> evolution is that only one in seven Americans have rejected
> disbelievers.
You write as though half of Americans are in an educational position to
understand science and evolution... rather, one doesn't need an education to
watch a television, use a mobile phone, or to an extent understand a
computer. Most of these things make life easier. A simple understanding of
the theory of evolution may not do that for most. Rather, you can say that
uneducated Americans really don't find themselves asking if evolution is
real. They may be more concerned with "Am I earning a enough to feed my
family?"
You do, understand, that many would say I do not believe in evolution
because I apply the Divine as an inspiration of evolution. All those things
you listed (detergents, electricity, fabrics, anesthetics, disinfectants,
lighbulbs, etc.) are all black-box technologies. It is great that people
educate themselves to produce them, but hte standard consumer doesn't need
to understand how they work in order to know that they work. Faith has been
and always will be a strong part of human culture, sometimes separate from
science, sometimes a part of science. Just because we can't prove with
formulas or scientific research that the Divine exists, that doesn't mean
our beliefs are wrong.
> Christianity is an opinion and nothing more, and it is shown in
> Christians'
> selective choice of data. Opinions and values are more important than
> facts
> and reason. It is the opinion of some people that God came to earth to
> save
> mankind. There is no evidence that this is true, yet Christians base their
> lives, and worse, try to base other people's lives on their opinions. When
> evidence is ignored and conclusions are based on opinion, then knowledge
> suffers and our rational society is endangered. That happened in the fall
> of
> classical society and its replacement by the Christian Dark Ages. That is
> the seriousness of Christianity.
It is hardly an opinion, as much as it is a trait of culture. Opinions and
values are mostly more important than fact and reason. I have a values and
morals which guide me. Fact and reason don't always play a role in that.
If I were to reason for every single choice, I would find myself making
selfish decisions much more often rather than if I were to simply follow my
morals. Knowledge is hardly limited by scientific. Thousands of religious
scholars would completely disagree with you and tell you that knowledge
expands all areas of human culture. Having a religion hardly rejects
rationality, because for us, rationality is defined by our faith as well as
our interaction with the world.
> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason.
No it doesn't. Millions of Christians are strong and learned scientists,
understanding that their faith and science are hand in hand. God inspires
wisdom and knowledge. He has given us the ability to understand the
physical world so that we can evolve as cultural and social creatures.
> In the face of so much
> anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
> replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and dogmatic
> belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not.
> The
> trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
> anything based on experiment and sound assessment.
Don't claim that since our approach isn't based in scientific experiment
that it doesn't include sound assessement. Discernment is a huge part of
our faith. Much thought, prayer, meditation, and contimplation goes into
our religious lives and the results we achieve from them, presuming
inspiration from God, is sound.
> Thus empirical knowledge
> is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do is
> to
> ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on evidence,
> but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept what
> seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what seems
> sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible
> with
> skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth; Dr M D
> Magee; http://www.askwhy.co.uk/)
You would benefit from reading Augustine. He writes that people born into
the city of men aren't necessarily bad people. They live their lives
seeking morals and peace, but to the end of having peace so that they can
enjoy goods of the world. They fight in wars to restore the peace and even
when having peace, divide themselves among different issues. Since they
live for short-lived peace and joy, they will always end up feeling sorrow
in the end. Rather, those who are born of the city of God live for that
which brings eternal joy.
Belief is quite compatible with skepticism. We must be skeptical about
everything that is told to us by those around us in matters of faith, and
through prayer and meditation, determine whether or not it fits in with what
God wants us to believe.
I do respect your opinion. It is well thought out, though doesn't seem to
be your own... It is biased and lacking the two-sided understanding
necessary to fulfill a completely justified statement.
-RS
Bear
: "Bear" wrote
: > The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever known
Although I disagree, I appreciate your input.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
Really? when adam and eve gained knowledge in the garden of eden, what did
the jackass god do? He kicked them the hell out, doesn't sound to me like
god inspires wisdom and knowledge (which is obvious if you talk to religious
people for more than about 10 seconds). .
"RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:d4ptc8$abq$1...@news3.bu.edu...
wmech
knowledgeable.
I had a friend who was well schooled with a Doctorate degree in science. He
also was quite apparently
not very well educated and knowledgeable when it came to dealing with daily
life and interpersonal skills.
--
Bill
"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
news:uNydnXwAUtU...@comcast.com...
John Ings
>> Christianity is an opinion and nothing more, and it is shown in
>> Christians' selective choice of data. Opinions and values are more important than
>> facts and reason. It is the opinion of some people that God came to earth to
>> save mankind. There is no evidence that this is true, yet Christians base their
>> lives, and worse, try to base other people's lives on their opinions. When
>> evidence is ignored and conclusions are based on opinion, then knowledge
>> suffers and our rational society is endangered. That happened in the fall
>> of classical society and its replacement by the Christian Dark Ages. That is
>> the seriousness of Christianity.
>
>It is hardly an opinion, as much as it is a trait of culture. Opinions and
>values are mostly more important than fact and reason.
But should they be?
> I have a values and morals which guide me.
So do we all.
> Fact and reason don't always play a role in that.
Indeed! But again, fact and reason should.
>If I were to reason for every single choice, I would find myself making
>selfish decisions much more often rather than if I were to simply follow my
>morals.
Not necessarily. Logic and reason should tell you for instance, that
the use of birth control devices to limit skyrocketing population
growth in third world countries is a good thing. Yet half of
Christianity cannot see that, on 'moral' grounds.
>Knowledge is hardly limited by scientific.
Did you mean 'limited to scientific matters'?
>Thousands of religious
>scholars would completely disagree with you and tell you that knowledge
>expands all areas of human culture.
But is usually strenuously resisted by religion, which prefers its
laity ignorant and gullible.
> Having a religion hardly rejects rationality,
Often it insists on doing so, as Martin Luther repeatedly pointed out.
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the
aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not-- struggles
against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from
God." he wrote.
> because for us, rationality is defined by our faith as well as
>our interaction with the world.
And that's a big mistake. Rationality should delimit faith, not faith
rationality.
>> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason.
>
>No it doesn't.
Often it does just that. We can discuss specific cases if you like.
> Millions of Christians are strong and learned scientists,
>understanding that their faith and science are hand in hand.
And I have never been able to understand that, since as H.L. Mencken
put it:
"The truth is that every priest who really understands the nature of
his business is well aware that science is its natural and implacable
enemy . . . The truth is that Christian theology like every other
theology, is opposed to the scientific spirit, it is also opposed to
all attempts at rational thinking."
> God inspires wisdom and knowledge.
According to the Bible he prefers gullible innocence.
>> In the face of so much
>> anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
>> replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and dogmatic
>> belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not.
>> The trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
>> anything based on experiment and sound assessment.
>
>Don't claim that since our approach isn't based in scientific experiment
>that it doesn't include sound assessement.
I would claim exactly that.
> Discernment is a huge part of our faith.
Discernment or self-delusion?
> Much thought, prayer, meditation, and contimplation goes into
>our religious lives and the results we achieve from them,
But no experimental verification. When you try that the facade
crumbles.
>presuming inspiration from God, is sound.
When it produces such contrary, contradicory, intolerance-inspiring
results?
>> Thus empirical knowledge
>> is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do is
>> to ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on evidence,
>> but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept what
>> seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what seems
>> sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible
>> with skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth;
>> Dr M D Magee; http://www.askwhy.co.uk/)
>
>You would benefit from reading Augustine.
He who among many other Mideval fools declared theology to be the
"Queen of Sciences"?
> He writes that people born into
>the city of men aren't necessarily bad people. They live their lives
>seeking morals and peace, but to the end of having peace so that they can
>enjoy goods of the world. They fight in wars to restore the peace and even
>when having peace, divide themselves among different issues.
Especially religious issues.
> Since they
>live for short-lived peace and joy, they will always end up feeling sorrow
>in the end. Rather, those who are born of the city of God live for that
>which brings eternal joy.
He also wrote:
"It is impossible that there should be inhabitants on the opposite
side of the Earth, since no such race is recorded by Scripture among
the descendants of Adam."
>Belief is quite compatible with skepticism.
Not Christian belief.
> We must be skeptical about
>everything that is told to us by those around us in matters of faith, and
>through prayer and meditation, determine whether or not it fits in with what
>God wants us to believe.
Through prayer and meditation? Hah! Real scepticism can never be
satisfied by those blunt tools. Try a little scholarship instead! Read
your Bible by all means, but read history too, and then it will become
more obvious what sort of malarkey the Bible is peddling.
## The light of faith makes us see what we believe.
St Thomas Aquinas.
skyeyes
>The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever
>known is astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150
>years after Darwin, >reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic
>component of science, and >essential to biology and geology. How
>can anyone understand science if they >do not understand evolution?
>The reason that so many Americans reject >evolution is that only
>one in seven Americans have rejected >Christianity-only backward
>Catholic and Moslem countries have fewer disbelievers.
The reason so many Americans reject evolution is that it isn't about
*evolution* - it's about *salvation*. The logic goes like this: the
formula [belief in/acceptance of Jesus' death on the cross as sacrifice
for sin] for salvation [i.e., not having to be dead, ever] is given in
the Bible. In order to rely on the formula, they must believe the
Bible to be true. If evolution happened, rather than the Garden of
Eden scenario, then every word of the Bible might *not* be true,
including the bit about salvation and getting Everlasting [*not*
"eternal"] Life.
And besides, they all get big warm fuzzies when they align themselves
"with" God and against evolution. It's an in-thang to do.
Trust me on this. I grew up amongst these idiots, and have to deal
with them every day.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
Bear
I don't have to trust you to agree with you; I used to be one of those
idiots ;-)
Vic Sagerquist
shouted:
>> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason.
>
> No it doesn't. Millions of Christians are strong and learned
> scientists,
Ignoring the number cited, I have to agree with this, but...
> understanding that their faith and science are hand in
> hand.
Not true. It is an observable fact that most Christians cling to their
fantasy when reality contradicts it. Either they deny reality, or revise
their fantasy to make it fit reality.
> God inspires wisdom and knowledge. He has given us the ability
> to understand the physical world so that we can evolve as cultural and
> social creatures.
Really? Then why does the bible contain so many scientific errors?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
Gregory Gadow
I'm glad to see you are doing better nowadays. :-b
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Bear wrote:
>
>>The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever
>>known is astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150
>>years after Darwin, >reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic
>>component of science, and >essential to biology and geology. How
>>can anyone understand science if they >do not understand evolution?
>>The reason that so many Americans reject >evolution is that only
>>one in seven Americans have rejected >Christianity-only backward
>>Catholic and Moslem countries have fewer disbelievers.
>
>The reason so many Americans reject evolution is that it isn't about
>*evolution* - it's about *salvation*. The logic goes like this: the
>formula [belief in/acceptance of Jesus' death on the cross as sacrifice
>for sin] for salvation [i.e., not having to be dead, ever] is given in
>the Bible. In order to rely on the formula, they must believe the
>Bible to be true. If evolution happened, rather than the Garden of
>Eden scenario, then every word of the Bible might *not* be true,
>including the bit about salvation and getting Everlasting [*not*
>"eternal"] Life.
Mainstream Christians dont have a problem with this.
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns96466B58...@127.0.0.1...
>> on 27 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, RS dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
>> shouted:
>>
>>>> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. Millions of Christians are strong and learned
>>> scientists,
>>
>> Ignoring the number cited, I have to agree with this, but...
>>
>>> understanding that their faith and science are hand in
>>> hand.
>>
>> Not true. It is an observable fact that most Christians cling to their
>> fantasy when reality contradicts it. Either they deny reality, or revise
>> their fantasy to make it fit reality.
>>
>>> God inspires wisdom and knowledge. He has given us the ability
>>> to understand the physical world so that we can evolve as cultural and
>>> social creatures.
>>
>> Really? Then why does the bible contain so many scientific errors?
>
>Because the bible is not a book of science. Also, the bible is written from
>the old paradigm (when geocentricity was not only a theological model, but a
>cosmological model and scientific model. Please, though, point out all of
>these scientific errors and I will explain that you are wrong for
>considering them that. I wasn't refering to science in scripture, anyhow.
>Rather, I was discussing that God has given us the ability to understand the
>world through science (amongst other aspects) so that we can evolve as a
>society.
Except that it hasn't done any of those things outside the fantasies
of its believers.
RS
> shouted:
>
>>> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Millions of Christians are strong and learned
>> scientists,
>
> Ignoring the number cited, I have to agree with this, but...
>
>> understanding that their faith and science are hand in
>> hand.
>
> Not true. It is an observable fact that most Christians cling to their
> fantasy when reality contradicts it. Either they deny reality, or revise
> their fantasy to make it fit reality.
>
>> God inspires wisdom and knowledge. He has given us the ability
>> to understand the physical world so that we can evolve as cultural and
>> social creatures.
>
> Really? Then why does the bible contain so many scientific errors?
Because the bible is not a book of science. Also, the bible is written from
the old paradigm (when geocentricity was not only a theological model, but a
cosmological model and scientific model. Please, though, point out all of
these scientific errors and I will explain that you are wrong for
considering them that. I wasn't refering to science in scripture, anyhow.
Rather, I was discussing that God has given us the ability to understand the
world through science (amongst other aspects) so that we can evolve as a
society.
Bear
: "skyeyes" wrote:
: >Bear wrote:
: >
: >>The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever
: >>known is astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150
: >>years after Darwin, >reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic
: >>component of science, and >essential to biology and geology. How
: >>can anyone understand science if they >do not understand evolution?
: >>The reason that so many Americans reject >evolution is that only
: >>one in seven Americans have rejected >Christianity-only backward
: >>Catholic and Moslem countries have fewer disbelievers.
: >
: >The reason so many Americans reject evolution is that it isn't about
: >*evolution* - it's about *salvation*. The logic goes like this: the
: >formula [belief in/acceptance of Jesus' death on the cross as sacrifice
: >for sin] for salvation [i.e., not having to be dead, ever] is given in
: >the Bible. In order to rely on the formula, they must believe the
: >Bible to be true. If evolution happened, rather than the Garden of
: >Eden scenario, then every word of the Bible might *not* be true,
: >including the bit about salvation and getting Everlasting [*not*
: >"eternal"] Life.
:
: Mainstream Christians dont have a problem with this.
I think some do on an individual or demominational basis.
Bear
Much better now that I don't have that burden on my shoulders.
RS
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <kil...@killgod.com> wrote in message
news:Ti3ce.782$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "God inspires wisdom and knowledge".
>
> Really? when adam and eve gained knowledge in the garden of eden, what did
> the jackass god do? He kicked them the hell out, doesn't sound to me like
> god inspires wisdom and knowledge (which is obvious if you talk to
> religious people for more than about 10 seconds). .
They didn't as much get kicked out, but were so changed that they wouldn't
be able to stay. The Garden of Eden, was then, the whole world as a
paradise seen through their eyes. They had little work to do and knew only
that everything was provided to them by God. Upon betraying God, they
gained the knowledge of good and evil and thus, couldn't stay in the garden
anymore. Don't tell me that you think this second genesis is complete
literal truth? That would be utterly foolish.
-RS
Vic Sagerquist
shouted:
>>> God inspires wisdom and knowledge. He has given us the ability
>>> to understand the physical world so that we can evolve as cultural
>>> and social creatures.
>>
>> Really? Then why does the bible contain so many scientific errors?
>
> Because the bible is not a book of science.
Then it should have left science alone. Instead, it goes about describing
the universe as a flat piece of land covered by a dome. The skylights are
hung from the dome, and there is water above and below. The moon makes its
own light, stars can fall to the ground, the sun rotates around this
conglameration, and we are at the center of this universe. This
information you people claim is "god inspired" sounds like the findings of
superstitious astronomers of thousands of years ago, who had no means of
observing the sky with anything other than the naked eye.
> Also, the bible is
> written from the old paradigm (when geocentricity was not only a
> theological model, but a cosmological model and scientific model.
And wrong, to boot. God-inspired knowledge is obviously not to be taken
seriously, is it?
> Please, though, point out all of these scientific errors and I will
> explain that you are wrong for considering them that. I wasn't
> refering to science in scripture, anyhow. Rather, I was discussing
> that God has given us the ability to understand the world through
> science (amongst other aspects) so that we can evolve as a society.
The only knowledge that "god" supposedly gave us is claimed to be the
bible. The rest is you people assigning the virtues of manking to your own
invisible hero.
John Ings
>Don't tell me that you think this second genesis is complete
>literal truth? That would be utterly foolish.
The fundamentalists with whom most of us unbelievers debate in these
forums believe exactly that. They deny the findings of science and
term it 'eevilooshunism' and post the lies of the ICR, CRI and other
Creationist propaganda mills here.
## Shall God govern by the laws of nature,
## or priests by fictitious miracles?
John Adams
Vic Sagerquist
shouted:
>
You're right. There is very little truth in the bible.
skyeyes
>I don't have to trust you to agree with you; I used to be one of those
>idiots ;-)
So did I, Bear, so did I.
<Waving> Say "Hi" to Oz for me, okay?
Vic Sagerquist
shouted:
> Bear wrote:
>
>>I don't have to trust you to agree with you; I used to be one of those
>>idiots ;-)
>
> So did I, Bear, so did I.
>
> <Waving> Say "Hi" to Oz for me, okay?
>
Not me. Even when I was going to Sunday School I recognized it for
nonsense.
Bear
: Bear wrote:
:
: >I don't have to trust you to agree with you; I used to be one of those
: >idiots ;-)
:
: So did I, Bear, so did I.
:
: <Waving> Say "Hi" to Oz for me, okay?
LOL!!! Will do if I see him, but that probably won't be happening any too
soon. ;-)
skyeyes
>LOL!!! Will do if I see him, but that probably won't be happening any
too
soon. ;-)
Oh, fer pete's sake, I'm such a dummy. I got you misrememberobulated
</bush> with The Great Hairy One, who is an Ozzie.
Great, hairy critter = "bear," I guess. <Lame grin>
<Smacks self smartly on side of head> Sorry. Be kind to me. I'm old,
you know. ;->
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
so, if you gain knowledge, you betray god? how the hell does that happen? If
you use your brain, you betray god? what the hell?
why did god give us a brain if we did not want us to gain knowledge?
good grief, religious fruitcakes get further into insanity every day
"RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:d4rc1q$649$1...@news3.bu.edu...
RS
> "they gained the knowledge of good and evil "
>
> so, if you gain knowledge, you betray god? how the hell does that happen?
> If you use your brain, you betray god? what the hell?
>
> why did god give us a brain if we did not want us to gain knowledge?
>
God forbade them to eat of that specific tree. They promised him that.
They betrayed that promise. It was the first human sin.
They weren't seeking knowledge when they ate of the fruit. They were
decieved into believing that it would make them like God. It did make them
like God... it gave them rationality and the ability to know both good and
evil.
Bear
: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" wrote
: > "they gained the knowledge of good and evil "
: >
: > so, if you gain knowledge, you betray god? how the hell does that
happen?
: > If you use your brain, you betray god? what the hell?
: >
: > why did god give us a brain if we did not want us to gain knowledge?
: >
:
: God forbade them to eat of that specific tree. They promised him that.
: They betrayed that promise. It was the first human sin.
Where do you read that Adam and Eve promised their god that they wouldn't
eat of the "that specific tree?"
: They weren't seeking knowledge when they ate of the fruit. They were
: decieved into believing that it would make them like God. It did make
them
: like God... it gave them rationality and the ability to know both good and
: evil.
And "to know both good and evil" is not knowledge? C'mon, get real!
skyeyes
>Not me. Even when I was going to Sunday School I recognized it for
>nonsense.
If it had stopped at Sunday School, I probably would have recognized it
for nonsense too. However, it was Sunday School, then church (Sunday
mornings), then Youth Group and church (Sunday night), then prayer
meeting on Wednesday night, then choir on Thursday night, then a youth
group activity on Saturday. Plus Vacation Bible School for a month in
the summer, *plus* Christian Bible Camp when I got old enough to go to
a sleep-away type camp.
I was saturated.
High school got the skeptical ball rolling for me; college gave it a
swift and powerful kick into the net. By the time I was 20, I was no
longer a Christian, let alone a fundamentalist. It took me a few more
years to realize that I held no beliefs whatsoever - but I had an awful
lot of indoctrination to overcome.
I admire you, Vic, I wish I could have known at a younger age what I
know now. Good on ya' for figuring it out early.
Dean
>have it. To unbeliever it foolish. Because God is Love.
Bear
: "Bear" wrote
: > "RS" wrote
: > : "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" wrote
: > : > "they gained the knowledge of good and evil "
: > : >
: > : > so, if you gain knowledge, you betray god? how the hell does that
: > happen?
: > : > If you use your brain, you betray god? what the hell?
: > : >
: > : > why did god give us a brain if we did not want us to gain knowledge?
: > : >
: > :
: > : God forbade them to eat of that specific tree. They promised him
that.
: > : They betrayed that promise. It was the first human sin.
: >
: > Where do you read that Adam and Eve promised their god that they
wouldn't
: > eat of the "that specific tree?"
: >
: > : They weren't seeking knowledge when they ate of the fruit. They were
: > : decieved into believing that it would make them like God. It did make
: > them
: > : like God... it gave them rationality and the ability to know both good
: > and
: > : evil.
: >
: > And "to know both good and evil" is not knowledge? C'mon, get real!
: How can evolution explain love? With evolution you don't need love but we
: have it. To unbeliever it foolish. Because God is Love.
Where did I mention evolution? I don't believe I did. How do you define love
and how do you know that your god is love?
Dore
> The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever known
> is
> astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150 years after
> Darwin,
> reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic component of science, and
> essential to biology and geology. How can anyone understand science if
> they
> do not understand evolution? The reason that so many Americans reject
> evolution is that only one in seven Americans have rejected
> Christianity—only backward Catholic and Moslem countries have fewer
> disbelievers.
>
Science is merely the study of what God has created. Evolution is a THEORY,
not a basic component of science and NOT essential to biology and geology,
for these things are complex systems that are still not fully understood by
science.
cont
> Christianity is an opinion and nothing more, and it is shown in Christians’
> selective choice of data. Opinions and values are more important than
> facts
> and reason. It is the opinion of some people that God came to earth to
> save
> mankind. There is no evidence that this is true, yet Christians base their
> lives, and worse, try to base other people’s lives on their opinions. When
> evidence is ignored and conclusions are based on opinion, then knowledge
> suffers and our rational society is endangered. That happened in the fall
> of
> classical society and its replacement by the Christian Dark Ages. That is
> the seriousness of Christianity.
No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the imagination of
the ungodly scientists, and to state otherwise, is without reason and logic
and evolution is certainly NOT fact, however, the existence of God IS FACT,
or there would be NO science to study. The whole purpose of mankind's
existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT exist at
all. Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
purpose on the earth, from the beginning to the end and that is seen in the
plan of salvation. Man, a created soul by God, placed in human vessels, and
through the fall of the first man, sin, evil and death came upon the earth,
thus to return to God, man NEEDED a method and an act for the remission of
sins and to overcome evil and death. God CHOSE to send His own Son to
fulfill this purpose. To base all of your thoughts, ideas and life on just
the one dimension of the physical things of life, is small minded and
limited, thereby narrow-minded, unreasonable and illogical.
cont
> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason. In the face of so much
> anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
> replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and dogmatic
> belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not.
> The
> trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
> anything based on experiment and sound assessment. Thus empirical
> knowledge
> is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do is
> to
> ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on evidence,
> but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept what
> seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what seems
> sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible
> with
> skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth; Dr M D
No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic. As I said,
science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and true
Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things, including the
tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc, they are
NOT limited to merely one aspect of study, but the seeking and understanding
of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to exist
and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places. Religion is merely
the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe, and faith is the
greatest power that man has, whether they believe in a higher intellect and
supreme being, money, lies, fantasies, myths or truths whatever, for what a
man believes is what drives every aspect of his life and choices. The
supernatural and spiritual realm is just as REAL as the physical, however,
because it is completely different from the physical realm, and science is
ONLY involved in the physical things, then the spiritual and supernatural
cannot be measured by the methods of physical science, but certainly the
spiritual and supernatural cannot be dismissed because it cannot be measured
by science. Any science that is NOT physical science, which can be proven
through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
imagination, such as the space science, psychology, psychiatry, the
beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting to
measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is none,
and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories. However,
with Christianity, that belief system can be proven to the believer through
the person's own spirit, experiences, wisdom, truths, knowledge and power of
God, according to His will and what He chooses to reveal and they are just
as REAL, logical, reasonable and fact as any physical science. But because
they cannot be measured by physical means, does NOT negate them by any means
whatsoever. You can "test" faith, the spiritual realm, spirits, etc, but
only by intangible means and can only be understood by the one doing the
testing through their own spirit and mind.
--
Dore
"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
news:Dd6dnbXcB9_...@comcast.com...
> The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever known
> is
> astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150 years after
> Darwin,
> reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic component of science, and
> essential to biology and geology. How can anyone understand science if
> they
> do not understand evolution? The reason that so many Americans reject
> evolution is that only one in seven Americans have rejected
> Christianity—only backward Catholic and Moslem countries have fewer
> disbelievers.
>
> Many believers in God denigrate logic and reason, and reject science as a
> way of knowing anything, in favor of an ancient book of tales and rules.
> They do not seem to reject cars, TVs, mobile phones or computers, not to
> mention modern housing, electricity, man-made fabrics, detergents,
> insecticides, anesthetics, disinfectants, medical treatments and so on.
> All
> of these are products of science. Unless angels brought all of these from
> God in the strange world of these rejecters of reality. Against this, how
> many souls can Christians prove they have saved? These people ignore or
> deny
> empirical knowledge in full or in part, though readily accepting its
> benefits while accepting utter fantasy. What could be more unreasonable?
>
> Christianity is an opinion and nothing more, and it is shown in Christians’
> selective choice of data. Opinions and values are more important than
> facts
> and reason. It is the opinion of some people that God came to earth to
> save
> mankind. There is no evidence that this is true, yet Christians base their
> lives, and worse, try to base other people’s lives on their opinions. When
> evidence is ignored and conclusions are based on opinion, then knowledge
> suffers and our rational society is endangered. That happened in the fall
> of
> classical society and its replacement by the Christian Dark Ages. That is
> the seriousness of Christianity.
>
> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason. In the face of so much
> anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
> replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and dogmatic
> belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not.
> The
> trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
> anything based on experiment and sound assessment. Thus empirical
> knowledge
> is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do is
> to
> ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on evidence,
> but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept what
> seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what seems
> sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible
> with
> skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth; Dr M D
> Magee; http://www.askwhy.co.uk/)
>
John Ings
wrote:
>Science is merely the study of what God has created. Evolution is a THEORY,
No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
>not a basic component of science and NOT essential to biology and geology,
>for these things are complex systems that are still not fully understood by
>science.
Nonsense!
"The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of
biology and is a critical component of many related scientific
disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack
empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
National Academy of Sciences
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
>No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the imagination of
>the ungodly scientists,
Only in the minds of fundamentalist Creationists who have chosen to
worship the Bible rather than God.
> and to state otherwise, is without reason and logic
>and evolution is certainly NOT fact, however, the existence of God IS FACT,
>or there would be NO science to study. The whole purpose of mankind's
>existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT exist at
>all.
Theological sheepdip!
> Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
>purpose on the earth,
No, it's just another religion, one more among many that have plagued
mankind.
>> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason. In the face of so much
>> anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
>> replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and dogmatic
>> belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not.
>> The trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
>> anything based on experiment and sound assessment. Thus empirical
>> knowledge is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do is
>> to ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on evidence,
>> but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept what
>> seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what seems
>> sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible
>> with skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science.
>No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic.
Fundamentalist Christianity does. It insistes on a literal reading of
an inerrant Bible. To do that you must abandon reason and deny
science.
>As I said,
>science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and true
>Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things, including the
>tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc,
Well they delude themselves that they do.
>they are
>NOT limited to merely one aspect of study, but the seeking and understanding
>of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to exist
>and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places.
And they're not finding anything.
>Religion is merely
>the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe, and faith is the
>greatest power that man has,
No, it's a weakness, and has led many astray.
> The
>supernatural and spiritual realm is just as REAL as the physical,
Not demonstrated or demonstrable.
> however,
>because it is completely different from the physical realm, and science is
>ONLY involved in the physical things, then the spiritual and supernatural
>cannot be measured by the methods of physical science, but certainly the
>spiritual and supernatural cannot be dismissed because it cannot be measured
>by science.
Yes it can. If we can't measure it and can't understand it, and you
can't even prove it exists, I think that dismissing it is just what we
should do.
> Any science that is NOT physical science
There is no such thing. All sciences are natural sciences.
That's how science is defined.
> which can be proven
>through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
>imagination, such as the space science, psychology, psychiatry, the
>beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting to
>measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is none,
>and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories.
You're obviously scientifically illiterate.
That statement is completely wrong and spoken from ignorance.
> However,
>with Christianity, that belief system can be proven to the believer through
>the person's own spirit, experiences, wisdom, truths, knowledge and power of
>God, according to His will and what He chooses to reveal
No such 'proof' can be shown to be anything but the believer's own
delusions.
## God ain't so bad. It's his fan clubs that will drive you crazy!
The...@storm.net
wrote:
>Christianity rejects science, logic and reason. In the face of so much
>anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
>replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and dogmatic
>belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not. The
>trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
>anything based on experiment and sound assessment. Thus empirical knowledge
>is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do is to
>ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on evidence,
>but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept what
>seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what seems
>sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible with
>skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth; Dr M D
>Magee; http://www.askwhy.co.uk/)
I think that religious people are victims of a giant con job. The
reason I mention that is that it's the only reason I can think of for
them to accept modern technology and conveniences, while believing in
a system that preaches against material things, yet demands material
payment for their "services". How can someone believe that God needs
money while they believe that He created us and everything else and
has all the power they say he has?
Here's the root of the problem, however: Us few realists deal with
truth, and we are not con artists. We believe in a free society,
assuming that the theocrats understand the constitution. After all,
why should someone defy the U.S Constitution?
The crux is that we cannot penetrate the shell of bullshit these
people live in without being con artists ourselves, and out con the
con.
We can't do that because we deal with reality which is refused by
these god dammed idiots.
So we are doomed. A mental disease is, like rust, eroding the
structure of human sanity and we had better find a way to stop it. But
it's a catch 22: we must con people out of being conned.
How can we do that?
TheRain
Bear
: "Bear" wrote
: > The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever known
I disagree on all counts, but thank you for your input.
Vic Sagerquist
It never meant anything to me, playing with my friends was more
important. Granted, It was never the part of my life it was for you.
Holy shit! I probably have my father to thank. He went into WW2 a JW
and came out...not. He was one of those guys who'd check the box marked
"couldn't care less" if there was one.
RS
> on 28 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, RS dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
> shouted:
>
>>>> God inspires wisdom and knowledge. He has given us the ability
>>>> to understand the physical world so that we can evolve as cultural
>>>> and social creatures.
>>>
>>> Really? Then why does the bible contain so many scientific errors?
>>
>> Because the bible is not a book of science.
>
> Then it should have left science alone. Instead, it goes about describing
> the universe as a flat piece of land covered by a dome. The skylights are
> hung from the dome, and there is water above and below. The moon makes
> its
> own light, stars can fall to the ground, the sun rotates around this
> conglameration, and we are at the center of this universe. This
> information you people claim is "god inspired" sounds like the findings of
> superstitious astronomers of thousands of years ago, who had no means of
> observing the sky with anything other than the naked eye.
And to think... what will people be saying of us in 2000 years? You fail to
give them any credit. These "superstitious astronomers" looked up to the
sky and were in the mindset of asking "What does all that mean?" That was a
true explorer, a true scientist. With the best of their ability, therefore,
they made as much sense of it as they could. They were able to outline a
calendar which is very accurate (some ancient cultures created many more
accurate than our own). They were able to apply reason to each and
everything they saw and recorded. They discovered and formed knowledge.
Today, we don't do that... we merely pick up from where other people left
off, forgetting that we should approach the cosmos as those men did, in a
time where there were no computers, there were no telescopes, or satallites,
or compasses. Sounds to me like they were men worth admiring, for their
deep admiration of exploration.
-RS
Vic Sagerquist
Excellent! Now, what do we need this damn god for?
Dore
"John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
news:g01371db2fji3vskb...@4ax.com...
> No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
> evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
> We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
There is absolutely NO evidence nor facts that support evolution. The mere
fact that much of creation has similar attributes, qualities or connections
does NOT evident evolution. It merely means that GOD used similar
engineering, design, qualities and elements in much of His creation. In
fact, Darwin could not, nor could any scientist offer any link between ape
and men, nor is there any evidence that invertebrates and vertebrates are
derived from the same source. It is ALL conjecture, hypothesis and attempts
by evil man to negate any Intelligent design, which in intricate study and
consideration of all of the complexity and intricacies of all that exists,
PROVES that ONLY a greater power and intelligence could have created all
that exists, for it could NOT have possibly been created all by itself.
There are some links between separate species, but NO definite connection
that is proven through scientific means. A bird was NEVER a fish and man was
NEVER an ape.
cont
> Nonsense!
>
> "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of
> biology and is a critical component of many related scientific
> disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack
> empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
> National Academy of Sciences
> http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
It's amazing that you believe without any question or doubts what FALLIBLE,
self-serving and prideful men imagine and publish for monetary gain, but
completely question, doubt, deny and ignore the miraculousness of all that
is created by God. How does evolution fit into the source of all that is
created? Answer these questions. Where did the first cell originate? How
does the chemical interaction between atoms cause other atoms to suddenly
appear and procreate? How does a branch suddenly grow from a tree? How did
the first electron come into existence? Go back to the beginning and source
of ALL things and tell me, how any ONE of them came into existence ALL BY
THEMSELVES, especially since even the smallest detail is so complex,
intricate and systematically perfected to sustain each other, from the
smallest of cells or atoms and their numerous elements and properties to the
greatest complex organisms and beings? It doesn't take evolution to define
gravity, or provide any explanation how the earth is perfectly positioned to
the sun to sustain life, or how the stars, planets or celestial beings are
situated in their places, revolve or have the properties, energies,
chemistries or elements, to exist. For example, if it takes an opposite and
equal reaction for energy to occur, then who or what spun any celestial body
to begin to rotate? Gravity could NOT begin the motion, it can only sustain
it, AFTER some other force caused it to begin in motion in the first place.
You can't actually believe that ALL planets, comets, stars, meteors, moons,
etc all began their rotations and revolutions all by accident, all by
themselves, without some force or greater intellect and power to start the
process. And you can't certainly believe that MAN would KNOW, by FACT, how
it all came into being, how it works, and why it exists, simply because
they have peered through a telescope and that evolution had anything to do
with it. If evolution is the central unifying concept of biology and many
related scientific disciplines, since ALL things are connected and work in
perfect order with each other to continue in existence, then science would
have perfect explanations for ALL things to exist, how, why and it's source
and beginnings, but the fact is, that ALL science has is their own
conjecture, theory, hypothesis, ideas, concepts and imaginations and WITHOUT
GOD, then they can ONLY be open and influenced by the lies, deceit,
temptations and influence by evil entities that they don't even KNOW exist,
since they have chosen to LIMIT themselves to ONLY the physical
understandings and experiments of their own making, which ONLY provides them
with a small part of the whole picture, thus, they really KNOW NOTHING AT
ALL.
cont
>>No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the imagination
>>of
>>the ungodly scientists,
>
> Only in the minds of fundamentalist Creationists who have chosen to
> worship the Bible rather than God.
>
NO, it is reasonable and logical FACT that men of science, WITHOUT GOD, can
only be UNGODLY, solely relying on their own imaginations, conjecture,
opinions, and hypothesis, and because of pride, government or privatized
financial support, make claims as FACT, and pretend that it is true, and
YOU, who worship THEM, believe these deceitful liars or ignorant blind
guides, rather than GOD and HIS truths.
cont
>> and to state otherwise, is without reason and logic
>>and evolution is certainly NOT fact, however, the existence of God IS
>>FACT,
>>or there would be NO science to study. The whole purpose of mankind's
>>existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT exist
>>at
>>all.
> Theological sheepdip!
HAHAHAHA, a man who claims to have reason and logic, proves to have NONE.
You can't even explain how all things came into existence, and yet have the
pride and audacity to pretend that GOD, the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE, doesn't
exist, but mere fallible mortals contain ALL knowledge, wisdom and truths
regarding things that they cannot possibly have the answers to and yet claim
to, and YOU, being evil, believe THEM, when YOU have NO knowledge, wisdom or
truths yourself. YOU blindly are the sheep of mortal, fallible, blind,
ignorant, liars, EVIL and money oriented scientists, and have the audacity
to call TRUTH, LOGIC, REASON AND FACT, theological sheepdip. HAHAHAHA Can
you say HYPOCRITE!!!!
cont
>
>> Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
>>purpose on the earth,
>
> No, it's just another religion, one more among many that have plagued
> mankind.
Do you always have opinions on things you know NOTHING about? It appears so,
but then again, most ignorant people do.
cont
>>No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic.
>
> Fundamentalist Christianity does. It insistes on a literal reading of
> an inerrant Bible. To do that you must abandon reason and deny
> science.
I agree that modern fundamentalist Christianity are HYPOCRITES and because
of their own imaginations, sins, evil, deceptions, lies, ignorance,
self-servitude and pretense defy science merely because they really don't
know what they are talking about either, no more than science pretending to
know ALL about ALL that God has created and pretend that their hypotheses,
conjectures, imaginations, and pretense is fact as well, but two groups,
modern fundamental Christianity and governmental financed science, with the
same illogical and unreasonable attributes, ideology, lies, arrogance,
pride, hypocrisy and pretense, benefits NO ONE. Fact is, the Bible is NOT
inerrant, and neither is man's science. But to dismiss the Bible, or
science, because of the actions, beliefs and theology of those who claim
faith in, is just as unreasonable and illogical as they are. The truth is
the truth, and no matter what man, Christian, science or otherwise state,
cannot change that fact. As I said, science is merely the study of what God
created and mostly just the physical aspects of it, which is minimal
compared to the whole picture. I state this, meaning that the aspects,
reality, truths and connection of the spiritual realm with the physical, of
which the spiritual realm is greater, more complex, more powerful and
intricate than the physical realm, and actually CONTROLS the physical realm,
to deny either is limiting oneself to never seeing the whole semblance of
things and all that exists in BOTH realms and thus BOTH are wrong. For
without the complete and utter truth of all things that are real and exists,
one cannot comprehend the reality and truths of either and thus argument
ensues, when neither know what they are actually talking about.
cont
>>As I said,
>>science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and true
>>Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things, including the
>>tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc,
>
> Well they delude themselves that they do.
>
And yet YOU delude yourself and deny that fact in yourself, for YOU neither
have all knowledge of your stance, as well, for you deny the spiritual,
while claiming theory, conjecture, imaginations of your beliefs as fact,
being NO different than the ones you accuse, while yours is your faith in
man's fallible science and their faith is in their interpretation of
scripture.
cont
>>they are
>>NOT limited to merely one aspect of study, but the seeking and
>>understanding
>>of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>>interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to exist
>>and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places.
>
> And they're not finding anything.
Well, they are finding more than ungodly men of science who are searching
and not finding in things that they cannot understand, while lying and
claiming that they do. Men of science don't even look further than the
physical realm, where at least, those who seek and study all realms, places,
times, dimensions, tangible and intangible are open to greater and more
complex understandings, that can ONLY be found through realization of the
existence and power of GOD.
cont
>>Religion is merely
>>the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe, and faith is the
>>greatest power that man has,
>
> No, it's a weakness, and has led many astray.
NO, as I said, religion is what a person has chosen to believe. Faith is the
driving force of ALL things, whether it be in a divine or supposedly divine
being or whether it be in physical or materialistic things, governments,
lies, evil or anything that exists. Man, who has been led to believe that
MONEY is the force of life and thus has enslaved themselves in servitude of
it, for which is the greatest weakness that ALL mankind has allowed,
submitted and enslaved themselves to, is just as much as religion as any
belief or faith. For example, If you believe that if you step on cracks, it
breaks your mother's back, then you will make ALL choices and decisions
based on NOT stepping on cracks, thus whatever man has chosen to believe, he
lives his life according to and thus anything that is NOT the truth leads
you astray, whether it be organized religion or simple faith in the smallest
of things. In your case, it appears to be man's claims of science, blindly
believing whatever they claim and make statements of, whether it is derived
in fact or truth or not. Thus, YOUR faith in them is just as much weakness
as you claim those in their chosen religion is.
cont
>> Any science that is NOT physical science
>
> There is no such thing. All sciences are natural sciences.
> That's how science is defined.
BULL. Man has claimed to know the source, timeline, and age of the earth,
stars, sun and Universe and they have absolutely NO possible evidence for
their claims, nor is there any possibility to KNOW it. Man claims to know
the science of how the mind works and why man reacts, thinks and does what
they do, what emotions are derived from and what their personalities will
consist and will always consist of, but they really don't have a clue, as it
is ALL conjecture, hypothesis, theory and imagination, as they cannot
explain most of why, how, when and what man does and what causes it, but
pretend to. Think about it, if they would concede that they are not finding
the answers, then it is clear that their FUNDING and monetary gain would dry
up, and since, as I explained before, money is the driving force in most
societal actions today. There is NO possible way for man to determine the
age of the Universe, it's beginnings or source, how it came into being or
anything regarding celestial bodies, nor is it possible to determine WHY
man's mind and brain works in the ways it does, and yet, they CLAIM that
their imaginations, concepts, ideologies, hypothesis and theories are FACT,
and pretend that their science defines it, when that is an outright LIE. But
because their funding would cease to exist, they HAVE to make statements of
fact, otherwise, what they spent thousands of dollars for, countless hours
in college, research, study and work, and their life's work would come to an
end and you know that man only concerns himself with his own desires, wants,
family and material possessions and will defend it with any means possible,
including lying, to hold onto it.
cont
>> which can be proven
>>through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
>>imagination, such as the space science, psychology, psychiatry, the
>>beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting to
>>measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is none,
>>and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories.
>
> You're obviously scientifically illiterate.
> That statement is completely wrong and spoken from ignorance.
No, apparently you are blind and ignorant, believing liars because you want
to and it serves YOUR purpose, being close and narrow minded, illogical,
unreasonable and self-serving, because to face truths higher and more
complex than you are willing to accept, you defend yourself with ignorant
accusations of MY ignorance of science, when I have the complete and
ultimate picture from a higher plane, that you couldn't possibly understand
nor comprehend. Your denial of FACT, REASON AND LOGIC, pretending that
science is always pure, honest, truthful, without corruption and always
believable, no matter the source or intent, is IGNORANCE on your part. Why
do you BELIEVE what ungodly science states WITHOUT question? Isn't YOUR
faith in them, just as fallible as what you think the faith in those who
claim to be fundamental Christians?
Why do you refute and deny them, when you are just as guilty of the a
similar, howbeit different belief system?
cont
>> However,
>>with Christianity, that belief system can be proven to the believer
>>through
>>the person's own spirit, experiences, wisdom, truths, knowledge and power
>>of
>>God, according to His will and what He chooses to reveal
>
> No such 'proof' can be shown to be anything but the believer's own
> delusions.
>
> ## God ain't so bad. It's his fan clubs that will drive you crazy!
>
And YOUR delusions, lying to yourself, blind belief in ungodly men of
science for their own agenda's is YOUR own delusion, but you are NOT MAN
enough to consider anyone's but your own faith in what you believe in, while
arrogantly defiantly and pridefully refuting something that is clear that
you really know NOTHING about. What you call delusion in others, may very
well be truth, while your own delusions can be full of lies and deceptions,
while YOUR delusions have eternal and detrimental consequences, that you
refuse to consider, because of YOUR small mindedness, arrogance, pride and
blind faith in people that are corrupt, liars, ungodly and evil, which is
the same as yourself and that is why you defend them, while you have
absolutely NO proof in what you believe in either, other than what other men
of science state, while condemning others for believing in what men of God
have stated. It appears, that those who believe in GOD, have the advantage
than you do for at least they seek a HIGHER, GREATER, MORE POWERFUL source,
than you do, for all you have, is what ungodly, evil, self-serving,
materialistic, money serving, prideful and arrogant men of science state for
societal stance and financial support agenda's have deceitfully told you. At
least, those who believe in God have opportunity for eternal life in heaven,
and great rewards unknown by mortal men, than you do, for all you have, in
your stance and defiance is condemnation into eternal hellfire. I hope you
think that the wealth, societal acceptance and lies of men of science have
attained is worth your eternal soul screaming in hell for all eternity. You
should for that is all you get.
--
Dore
"John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
news:g01371db2fji3vskb...@4ax.com...
Dore
> I disagree on all counts, but thank you for your input.
>
> --
> Bear
>
> And I know it’s my own damn fault.
>
>
At least you know that your ignorance and blindness is all your own damn
fault, so you won't be surprised when you find yourself in hell.
--
Dore
"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
news:t8SdndoiO9q...@comcast.com...
Bear
: "Bear" wrote
: > I disagree on all counts, but thank you for your input.
: >
: > --
: > Bear
: >
: > And I know it’s my own damn fault.
: >
: >
:
: At least you know that your ignorance and blindness is all your own damn
: fault, so you won't be surprised when you find yourself in hell.
You obviously don't understand my signature. That signature means that I am
free from ancient superstitions and myths. That I have come to see that
there is no reason anymore to believe in some nonexistent entity. That the
book you christians and jews call holy is nothing but propaganda expounded
by the clergy in order to gain control over the lives of the gullible and to
take their money while their at it. That signature means that whatever I do
with the rest of my life won't be because some ancient superstitious book,
some hypocritical clergy or some make believe god told me what to do; it
will be my own damn fault based on rational decisions!
You theists are always projecting. It is not atheists that are ignorant and
blind; it is you that are gullible enough to believe ancient myths and
superstitions. And yes, I will be totally surprised if I find myself in hell
since it is nothing more than another christian superstition.
Azrael
wrote:
>"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
>news:Dd6dnbXcB9_...@comcast.com...
>
<---snip--->
>
>Science is merely the study of what God has created. Evolution is a THEORY,
>not a basic component of science and NOT essential to biology and geology,
>for these things are complex systems that are still not fully understood by
>science.
Science is the study of the world from sub atomic- particles to the
whole of the universe and everything in between.
Proof of this god or evidence of its existence would be ?
Do you even know what a Theory means in scientific terms, I'm guessing
not by you statement.
You are correct that evolution is not a basic part of science it's
more like a branch or to put it more simply, part of the foundation.
Evolution is as unessential to biology as wheels are on car or wings
on a plane. You are correct in that evolution is not a essential to
geology since geology is the study of the planet not the life forms on
it.
>for these things are complex systems that are still not fully understood by
>science
The only true thing that you said, but then science is studying them
so eventually we will fully understand them, and we do have a pretty
good understanding of them now
>cont
>
>> Christianity is an opinion and nothing more, and it is shown in Christians’
>> selective choice of data. Opinions and values are more important than
>> facts
>> and reason. It is the opinion of some people that God came to earth to
>> save
>> mankind. There is no evidence that this is true, yet Christians base their
>> lives, and worse, try to base other people’s lives on their opinions. When
>> evidence is ignored and conclusions are based on opinion, then knowledge
>> suffers and our rational society is endangered. That happened in the fall
>> of
>> classical society and its replacement by the Christian Dark Ages. That is
>> the seriousness of Christianity.
>
>No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the imagination of
>the ungodly scientists, and to state otherwise, is without reason and logic
>and evolution is certainly NOT fact,
Wrong Evolution is proved, provable and is observed nearly every day,
no imagination is needed it is based in reality with fact, evidence,
and observation and it is even repeatable and as you say and to state
otherwise, is without reason and logic
> however, the existence of God IS FACT,
And you can provide evidence to this claim? Please provide some facts,
or evidence of gods existance.
>or there would be NO science to study.
Nonsense
> The whole purpose of mankind's
>existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT exist at
>all.
If you have evidence of this or some proof to substantiate this claim,
provide it.
> Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
>purpose on the earth, from the beginning to the end and that is seen in the
>plan of salvation.
Xianianity is the second youngest western religion and is stolen from
various other irreligious belief systems, you might want to do some
study and research before you make such an outrageous claim.Don't
forget that minor fact that 5 out of 6 people in the world do not
share your claim.
> Man, a created soul by God, placed in human vessels, and
>through the fall of the first man, sin, evil and death came upon the earth,
If you have evidence of this or some proof to substantiate this claim,
provide it.
>thus to return to God, man NEEDED a method and an act for the remission of
>sins and to overcome evil and death. God CHOSE to send His own Son to
>fulfill this purpose.
So god sacrificed himself to himself to forgive the sins of those he
created from his wrath. This is believable how? It doesn't even make
sense. An all powerful god could just have not created that which
would lead his creation away from him.
>To base all of your thoughts, ideas and life on just
>the one dimension of the physical things of life, is small minded and
>limited, thereby narrow-minded, unreasonable and illogical.
It's three dimensions for physical things, just basic geometry, btw;
and to believe in some fanciful story of some supreme being that wipes
out whole civilizations, creates floods, turns people into pillars of
salt, sends plagues, disease and commands his followers to kill is so
much more reasonable, logical, unlimited and open minded how. So to
believe in something in which there is no evidence of it's existence,
it doesn't communicate to anybody and does nothing is logical and
reasonable? Not by any stretch of the imagination
>cont
>
>> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason. In the face of so much
>> anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
>> replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and dogmatic
>> belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not.
>> The
>> trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
>> anything based on experiment and sound assessment. Thus empirical
>> knowledge
>> is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do is
>> to
>> ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on evidence,
>> but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept what
>> seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what seems
>> sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible
>> with
>> skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth; Dr M D
>
>No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic.
Oh were to start here lets see:
The earth is flat
the sun rotates around the earth
The moon is a perfect spere without hills valleys etc.
Holy water not soap and water will prevent disease
These are but a few of the things of science, reason and logic that
xianity has rejected
> As I said, science is merely the study of what the Christian God created
You need proof that a god created anything and you have yet to provide
one, and not one xian has ever supplied proof of a god, for that
matter in the whole of humanity there exists no proof of the existance
of god. If you have some please share it will be very enlightning.
> and true Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things,
There must be very few 'true xians' since they don't seem to
contribute much to anything.
> including the tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc,
So what is this intangible, super natural, metaphysical again? I'm am
sure you have some evidence of that which you speak, share with us
this evidence.
> they are NOT limited to merely one aspect of study,
Very few people are so what is your point here?
> but the seeking and understanding
>of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to exist
>and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places.
yes that is what sciencetists do from botinist, biolgist,neuralogist,
all the way up to quantum physist
>Religion is merely the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe,
You should not use words unless you know their meaning
Religion
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from
religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
Religious
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin
religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
- re·li·gious·ly adverb
- re·li·gious·ness noun
Faith
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin
fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to
one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the
traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something
for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
especially : a system of religious beliefs
> and faith is the greatest power that man has,
Faith is not a power see above definition
> whether they believe in a higher intellect and supreme being, money,
> lies, fantasies, myths or truths whatever, for what a
>man believes is what drives every aspect of his life and choices.
Some are just based in reality and some are not
> The supernatural and spiritual realm is just as REAL as the physical,
And you can provide evidence to these supernatural and spiritual
realms? Please provide some facts and evidence of thiere existance.
> however, because it is completely different from the physical realm, and science is
>ONLY involved in the physical things,
Well physical things are the only things in which there is evidence of
this only makes sense, you cant study something that does not exist.
> then the spiritual and supernatural cannot be measured by the methods
> of physical science, but certainly the spiritual and supernatural cannot be
> dismissed because it cannot be measured by science.
Of course it can there exists no evidence of it's existance, ergo it
is dismissed.
> Any science that is NOT physical science, which can be proven
>through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
>imagination, such as the space science
Space science is proved and validated daily if not hourly
>, psychology, psychiatry,
No but then they are soft sciences and unless you want to relaxe the
slavery laws and allow someone to completely control, influence,
study, and subject to various stimuli other groups of humans for an
entire life time it will always be a soft science but we can observe
how large groups of humans react to a certain set of stimuli and
extrapulate how certain members will react in future cicumstances that
are similar.
> the beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting to
>measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is none,
>and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories.
Here a few things to help measure those things:
speed of light-I know how fast it is I can measure distance it travels
in a given time period between differant points and viola the age of
the universe is easily calculated.
I can also measure the decay of atoms so then I can figure out how old
something is
I can even count the number of layers in a sediment deposit and
calculate how long it took to get each layer so it's veary easy to
calculate the age of something within it.
You can also take a couple of scince classes and you could do this
yourself.
> However, with Christianity, that belief system can be proven to the
> believer through the person's own spirit,
You have proof of a spirit? Do share this
> experiences, wisdom, truths,
This is merely education
> knowledge and power of
>God, according to His will and what He chooses to reveal and they are just
>as REAL, logical, reasonable and fact as any physical science.
No they are illusions and fantasies
> But because they cannot be measured by physical means, does NOT
> negate them by any means whatsoever. You can "test" faith,
> the spiritual realm, spirits, etc, but only by intangible means and
> can only be understood by the one doing the testing through their
> own spirit and mind.
Are these tests observable, documentable, repeatable? If not and you
state that only the tester can understand them then they are not tests
and they proof nothing.
Azrael
There was no "before" the beginning of our universe, because once upon a time there was no time.
John D. Barrow
Question: If I get im my spaceship and fly to the very edge of the universe what do I see out the front window?
Question #2 if I ever meet Stephen Hawkings "What is the most mass a black hole can obsorb and what happens after it reaches that point and trys to absorb more matter?
R. Steve Walz
The story is a Babylonian fairy tale dating LONG BEFORE Genesis and
which came out of Israel's first captivity in Iraq. It was told to
Iraqi children who were pagans worshipping the very sexual goddess
Ishtar as they had for centuries and having lots of public sex as
worship, and NOT to emphasize some "original sin" by man, which, by
the way is a VERY RECENT interpretation, but to teach children how
the human mind arose out of animal nature that never questioned its
nature and enjoyed the bliss of not worrying about the "useful and
the useless", the actual translation of the fruit of that "Tree of
Awareness of the Useful and the Useless". The "Garden of Eden" was
the allegory for the world of animals, where life was easy and pain
and death not understood. The very sickly prudish proto-Jews were
theistically paranoid desert folk, as all desert folk seem to be
in the middle east, and they misinterpreted the legends of this very
lush fertile crescent at its peak where pyramidal buildings were
covered in fruit-bearing plants, and they converted it to their own
insane religious paranoias of their own very hateful demon-god.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Science is merely the study of what God has created.
WRONGO! No evidence of creation exists.
> Evolution is a THEORY,
> not a basic component of science and NOT essential to biology and geology,
-----------------------
Absolute blathering antiscientific nonsense.
> No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the imagination of
> the ungodly scientists,
--------------------------
No. Evolution is repeatable in the fossil record, in bacterial
research and in the observation of all forms of life, and is
supported by reason and computer simulation experiments, as well
as in active biological experimentation.
> and to state otherwise, is without reason and logic
> and evolution is certainly NOT fact,
----------------------------
You wouldn't know reason and logic if they bit your dick off.
> however, the existence of God IS FACT,
----------------------
Absolute lie.
> or there would be NO science to study.
--------------------
No proof or evidence exists of any such thing other than the opinions
of middle eastern pagan sheepfucker religions with hateful demon-gods.
> The whole purpose of mankind's
> existence is to find there way back to God,
------------------------
That's merely your desperately paramoid delusion.
> otherwise man would NOT exist at
> all.
--------------------------
You have no actual idea why we exist.
>Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
> purpose on the earth, from the beginning to the end and that is seen in the
> plan of salvation.
------------------------------
More of your paranoid delusion which you mistake for reality.
> Man, a created soul by God, placed in human vessels, and
> through the fall of the first man, sin, evil and death came upon the earth,
> thus to return to God, man NEEDED a method and an act for the remission of
> sins and to overcome evil and death. God CHOSE to send His own Son to
> fulfill this purpose.
----------------------------------
Made-up fantasy.
> To base all of your thoughts, ideas and life on just
> the one dimension of the physical things of life, is small minded and
> limited, thereby narrow-minded, unreasonable and illogical.
--------------------------------
And by that you mean we should all just make up mystical fantasy
shit that sounds nuts instead of merely looking around us for
reason and logic and evidence.
> No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic.
-----------------------
YOURS DOES, MORON!!
> As I said,
> science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and true
> Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things,
---------------------------
For pretending that YOU have some "higher understanding" than the
REST of us, you really need your ass kicked up between your
shoulderblades.
> including the
> tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc,
> --
> Dore
----------------
You mean the way you shit made it up.
You're one of the most pompous deluded little pricks we've seen here!
Steve
Azrael
wrote:
>
>"John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
>news:g01371db2fji3vskb...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
>> evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
>> We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
>
>
>There is absolutely NO evidence nor facts that support evolution. The mere
>fact that much of creation has similar attributes, qualities or connections
>does NOT evident evolution. It merely means that GOD used similar
>engineering, design, qualities and elements in much of His creation. In
>fact, Darwin could not, nor could any scientist offer any link between ape
>and men, nor is there any evidence that invertebrates and vertebrates are
>derived from the same source. It is ALL conjecture, hypothesis and attempts
>by evil man to negate any Intelligent design, which in intricate study and
>consideration of all of the complexity and intricacies of all that exists,
>PROVES that ONLY a greater power and intelligence could have created all
>that exists, for it could NOT have possibly been created all by itself.
>There are some links between separate species, but NO definite connection
>that is proven through scientific means. A bird was NEVER a fish and man was
>NEVER an ape.
>
<---Snipped--->
I can't be bothered to refute this rameling idiot. Hell I'm still
picking my jaw off the floor from some of his statements. After some
sleep I might change my mind though and have a go at it.
Your Name Here=Harvey
says...
>
>The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever known is
>astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150 years after Darwin,
>reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic component of science, and
>essential to biology and geology. How can anyone understand science if they
>do not understand evolution? The reason that so many Americans reject
>evolution is that only one in seven Americans have rejected
>Christianity—only backward Catholic and Moslem countries have fewer
>disbelievers.
>
>way of knowing anything, in favor of an ancient book of tales and rules.
>They do not seem to reject cars, TVs, mobile phones or computers, not to
>mention modern housing, electricity, man-made fabrics, detergents,
>insecticides, anesthetics, disinfectants, medical treatments and so on. All
>of these are products of science. Unless angels brought all of these from
>God in the strange world of these rejecters of reality. Against this, how
>many souls can Christians prove they have saved? These people ignore or deny
>empirical knowledge in full or in part, though readily accepting its
>benefits while accepting utter fantasy. What could be more unreasonable?
>
>selective choice of data. Opinions and values are more important than facts
>and reason. It is the opinion of some people that God came to earth to save
>mankind. There is no evidence that this is true, yet Christians base their
>lives, and worse, try to base other people’s lives on their opinions. When
>evidence is ignored and conclusions are based on opinion, then knowledge
>suffers and our rational society is endangered. That happened in the fall of
>classical society and its replacement by the Christian Dark Ages. That is
>the seriousness of Christianity.
>
>anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
>replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and dogmatic
>belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not. The
>trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
>anything based on experiment and sound assessment. Thus empirical knowledge
>is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do is to
>ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on evidence,
>but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept what
>seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what seems
>sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible with
>skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth; Dr M D
>
>--
>Bear
>
>And I know it’s my own damn fault.
I think it is possible to arrive at certain truths, if we all take
the time to look at the same evidence/teachings/information
together, and slowly go through the motions of analysing things
slowly through.
If you wish to find out the truth of the matter, you can ---
but it takes some leap of the imagination and brain to do so.
God is so over rated, and will never answer any queries, only it is
written that so and so god did, in the bible, after the event(s) that
supposedly happened. Were there any witnesses? No.
The bible is unreliable because of so many changes made to the writing.
The bible was written by writers unknown - anonymously.
To say that the Holy Spirit was present throughout ensuring accuracy of
writing and understanding/interpretation is a cop out.
You cannot make such claims without so kind of proof, or else anyone
can make similar claims (and without proof) are equally valid as that
of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
However I believe there is such a thing as spirituality.
The spirit / life force within you - and connecting with this, probably
gives the person, the contact with 'god' type of feeling.
That when people claim they had some kind of liason or contact with god,
that they in fact connected with the spirit within themself.
I think the following teachings from the Talmud Jmmanuel
has more truth to it, than any Christian, Jewish or Islamic teaching...
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
1. Immutability
Creation and its laws are
Eternal and unchanging
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
3. Omnipotence
Creation is Omnipotent
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
4. Love
Creation's Love is unconditional
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
5. Logic
Every effect has a cause
Every action has a
Consequence
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
6. Mystery
Creation is infinitely
Mysterious
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
7. Life
The Life Force is
the Power of the Spirit
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
8. Creational Evolution
Creation never stops
Creating in the process
of perfecting itself
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
9. Human Evolution
A Human Spirit evolves
by growing in love, logic
and wisdom
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
10. Spiritual Immortality
& Reincarnation
A Human Spirit is
indestructible & evoles
through the experiences
of many lifetimes
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
11. Free Will & Desire
Free Will allows Humans
to learn by trial, error
and correction
Laws of Creation - Spiritual
12. Justice
Justice follows logically
from the Laws of Creation
-
Creation does not judge
Harvey
R. Steve Walz
>
> "Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
> news:t8SdndoiO9q...@comcast.com...
>
> > I disagree on all counts, but thank you for your input.
> >
> > --
> > Bear
> >
> > And I know it’s my own damn fault.
> >
> >
>
> At least you know that your ignorance and blindness is all your own damn
> fault, so you won't be surprised when you find yourself in hell.
> --
> Dore
Your pompous imagination, you poor deluded fool.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> "John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
> news:g01371db2fji3vskb...@4ax.com...
>
> > No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
> > evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
> > We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
>
> There is absolutely NO evidence nor facts that support evolution.
The MONSTROUS percentage of Scientists, Schools, Courts, and
thinking humans disagree!
When you abandon such bald-faced lies we will talk to you.
Until you do all you're doing is wasting everyone's time
imagining that you might somehow become reasoned.
Steve
Robibnikoff
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:4271F8...@armory.com...
Dore thinks she's Jesus! What a hoot! Have you seen her website? The part
where she talks about being anally probed by demons while god, who looks
like Santa Claus, watches and winces is hilarious. She's quite mad ;)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
John Ings
wrote:
>> No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
>> evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
>> We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
>
>There is absolutely NO evidence nor facts that support evolution.
You're either ignorant or a liar. Which is it?
>The mere
>fact that much of creation has similar attributes, qualities or connections
>does NOT evident evolution.
But observing species evolving does provide evidence of evolution.
> It merely means that GOD used similar
>engineering, design, qualities and elements in much of His creation. In
>fact, Darwin could not, nor could any scientist offer any link between ape
>and men,
But he could, and did. And as the decades passed, more and more
evidence was discovered, culminating in the evidence of DNA analysis.
>nor is there any evidence that invertebrates and vertebrates are
>derived from the same source. It is ALL conjecture, hypothesis and attempts
>by evil man to negate any Intelligent design,
Any scientist who confronts your Bible worship being automatically an
evil man? No, I think you and your lies on the subject are more evil.
>> "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of
>> biology and is a critical component of many related scientific
>> disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack
>> empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
>> National Academy of Sciences
>> http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
>
>It's amazing that you believe without any question or doubts what FALLIBLE,
>self-serving and prideful men imagine
Why not? You do! You believe what ancient self-serving Bible writers
scribbled in their devious piety.
>and publish for monetary gain, but
>completely question, doubt, deny and ignore the miraculousness of all that
>is created by God.
Miracle lies in the mind of the beholder. It's an intellectual copout.
> How does evolution fit into the source of all that is
>created?
Very well.
>Answer these questions. Where did the first cell originate? How
>does the chemical interaction between atoms cause other atoms to suddenly
>appear and procreate? How does a branch suddenly grow from a tree? How did
>the first electron come into existence? Go back to the beginning and source
>of ALL things and tell me, how any ONE of them came into existence ALL BY
>THEMSELVES,
Given the laws of physics, all the above are readily explained. Now
you can claim that those laws, and the matter on which they operate
are the creation of some deity, but you have no evidence that such a
creation is necessary, only that it is possible. And you have no
evidence whatsoever that said deity, if it exists, is anything like
the one your Bible portrays.
>You can't actually believe that ALL planets, comets, stars, meteors, moons,
>etc all began their rotations and revolutions all by accident,
No, by the laws of physics.
> all by
>themselves, without some force or greater intellect and power to start the
>process. And you can't certainly believe that MAN would KNOW, by FACT, how
>it all came into being, how it works, and why it exists,
Then why do you claim to?
> If evolution is the central unifying concept of biology and many
>related scientific disciplines, since ALL things are connected and work in
>perfect order with each other to continue in existence,
But they don't. The vast majority of species that have ever existed
are now extinct.
>>>No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the imagination
>>>of the ungodly scientists,
>>
>> Only in the minds of fundamentalist Creationists who have chosen to
>> worship the Bible rather than God.
>
>NO, it is reasonable and logical FACT that men of science, WITHOUT GOD, can
>only be UNGODLY,
No, that's neither logical nor fact. You have no evidence that there
is a God, or that if there is he either knows or cares about this
little dustspeck of a planet let alone the life forms on it.
>>> The whole purpose of mankind's
>>>existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT exist
>>>at all.
>
>> Theological sheepdip!
>
>HAHAHAHA, a man who claims to have reason and logic, proves to have NONE.
I have more evidence for my beliefs than you have for yours.
>You can't even explain how all things came into existence,
Nor can you. "Goddidit!" is not an explanation.
> and yet have the
>pride and audacity to pretend that GOD, the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE, doesn't
>exist,
I have not said any such thing. A Universal Creator may indeed exist.
What I deny is that said creator is anything like the monster God of
the Bible.
>but mere fallible mortals contain ALL knowledge, wisdom and truths
>regarding things that they cannot possibly have the answers to and yet claim
>to, and YOU, being evil, believe THEM, when YOU have NO knowledge, wisdom or
>truths yourself. YOU blindly are the sheep of mortal, fallible, blind,
>ignorant, liars, EVIL and money oriented scientists, and have the audacity
>to call TRUTH, LOGIC, REASON AND FACT, theological sheepdip. HAHAHAHA Can
>you say HYPOCRITE!!!!
Can you, oh believing sheep of mortal, fallible, blind, ignorant,
liars, EVIL and money oriented priests and prophets dead 2000 years
and more?
>>> Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
>>>purpose on the earth,
>>
>> No, it's just another religion, one more among many that have plagued
>> mankind.
>
>Do you always have opinions on things you know NOTHING about?
I know more about Christianity than you do I suspect.
Enough not to believe in it.
>Fact is, the Bible is NOT inerrant,
Well It's good to have that point established.
>nd neither is man's science. But to dismiss the Bible, or
>science, because of the actions, beliefs and theology of those who claim
>faith in, is just as unreasonable and illogical as they are.
I dismiss the Bible on other grounds.
Primarily the disingenousness of its writers.
> As I said, science is merely the study of what God
>created and mostly just the physical aspects of it, which is minimal
>compared to the whole picture.
You have no proof that there is any more to the 'picture'.
>>>As I said,
>>>science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and true
>>>Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things, including the
>>>tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc,
>>
>> Well they delude themselves that they do.
>And yet YOU delude yourself and deny that fact in yourself, for YOU neither
>have all knowledge of your stance, as well, for you deny the spiritual,
Pending evidence to the contrary. Got any?
>while claiming theory, conjecture, imaginations of your beliefs as fact,
Based on evidence. Where's yours?
>>>they are
>>>NOT limited to merely one aspect of study, but the seeking and
>>>understanding
>>>of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>>>interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to exist
>>>and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places.
>>
>> And they're not finding anything.
>
>
>Well, they are finding more than ungodly men of science
Not that you can show evidence for.
> Men of science don't even look further than the
>physical realm, where at least, those who seek and study all realms, places,
>times, dimensions, tangible and intangible are open to greater and more
>complex understandings, that can ONLY be found through realization of the
>existence and power of GOD.
So where are your proven results? Where is your proof that all that
'understanding' is anything more than fevered imagination and
theological maunderings?
>>>Religion is merely
>>>the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe, and faith is the
>>>greatest power that man has,
>>
>> No, it's a weakness, and has led many astray.
>
>NO,
YES! The majority of faith must be in error if any of it is true,
for it is contrary and contradictory.
>>> Any science that is NOT physical science
>>
>> There is no such thing. All sciences are natural sciences.
>> That's how science is defined.
>
>BULL.
science, n
. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained
. through observation and experimentation.
. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
If you can't observe it or experiment with it, you're not doing
science.
> Man has claimed to know the source, timeline, and age of the earth,
>stars, sun and Universe and they have absolutely NO possible evidence for
>their claims,
What an arrogant declaration by a scientific illiterate! There are
libraries of such evidence gathered by generations of scientists.
What is the source of your insight into this issue? Divine
inspiration? What evidence have you looked at, to so boldly declare
there is not only no evidence but no possible evidence?
>>> which can be proven
>>>through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
>>>imagination, such as the space science, psychology, psychiatry, the
>>>beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting to
>>>measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is none,
>>>and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories.
>>
>> You're obviously scientifically illiterate.
>> That statement is completely wrong and spoken from ignorance.
>
>No, apparently you are blind and ignorant, believing liars because you want
>to and it serves YOUR purpose, being close and narrow minded, illogical,
>unreasonable and self-serving,
I know enough science to check up on what scientists state. What is
your level of expertise? Space science has sent probes to the planets
of our solar system. Are you claiming that there really isn't a
satellite orbiting Saturn right this minute, sending back picures of
its moons? That there aren't two rovers driving around on the surface
of Mars sending us pictures of rock strata?
> because to face truths higher and more
>complex than you are willing to accept, you defend yourself with ignorant
>accusations of MY ignorance of science, when I have the complete and
>ultimate picture from a higher plane, that you couldn't possibly understand
>nor comprehend.
You're a raving looney! Complete and ultimate picture from a higher
plane? Ha! All the scientists who have brought to us the wonders and
luxuries of modern civilization are wrong, but Dore of the Higher
Plane knows all! They have evidence and you have none, but they're
wrong and you're right? I think the word schizophrenia applies here.
But you're not paranoid. The whole word IS against you!
>Your denial of FACT, REASON AND LOGIC, pretending that
>science is always pure, honest, truthful, without corruption and always
>believable, no matter the source or intent, is IGNORANCE on your part. Why
>do you BELIEVE what ungodly science states WITHOUT question?
I do question. And when I question my questions receive answers, which
is more than I get from the religious. Morover ungodly science WORKS.
Aeroplanes fly, my car takes me where i want to go, electricity lights
and heats my house. Religion only makes promises that I have to die to
find out if they are true.
> Isn't YOUR faith in them, just as fallible as what you think the faith in those who
>claim to be fundamental Christians?
No. I can test their declarations. I can't test yours. You show me no
evidence. Worse, you show strong signs of mental delusion in your
claims. Many who post in here just act as if they're nuts. I think you
may actually have psychological problems.
## OK! Who put a stop payment on your reality check?
wmech
challenge your "God belief". You probably consider this too frightening.
There are tons of objective, factual data that support the science of
evolution. Go to your local Library and check out some books on Evolution
and Anthropology. There is NO, NADA objective evidence to support
"Creationism"
--
Bill
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Nxice.9568$WX.8443@trndny01...
wmech
Have run out of facts to support your silly belief system?
--
Bill
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:jzice.9569$WX.5254@trndny01...
> > : > Christianity-only backward Catholic and Moslem countries have fewer
Les Hellawell
wrote:
>You quite obviously do not want to consider or face up to the facts that
>challenge your "God belief". You probably consider this too frightening.
>
>There are tons of objective, factual data that support the science of
>evolution. Go to your local Library and check out some books on Evolution
>and Anthropology. There is NO, NADA objective evidence to support
>"Creationism"
That evolution occurs is not in doubt since many have observed its
results and there is tons of observations of that recorded. What is
in doubt and is still only theoretical is how it occurred in the way
it has. Darwin suggested though that we should not assume what we
observe to be solely due to evolution evolution until a satisfactory
explantion of how it occurs has been deomonstrated. I am reasonably
satisfied, though I accept it can never be more than just a good
model.
Nobody as yet has produced an alternative explanation of
how evolution occurred that fits all the facts better than our
current model so it remains unchallenged.
There are some that even claim evolution does not occur in
spite of the fact that virtually all living things have an
evolutionary mechanism and indeed are different from
their parents in some way. Denying this flies against what we all
can plainly see for ourselves every time we look at a family
photograph. We are clearly not clones and have in some
way changed or evolved. So this idea that we are all identical
is just laughable.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
stoney
wrote:
>Vic Sagerquist wrote:
>
>>Not me. Even when I was going to Sunday School I recognized it for
>>nonsense.
>
>If it had stopped at Sunday School, I probably would have recognized it
>for nonsense too. However, it was Sunday School, then church (Sunday
>mornings), then Youth Group and church (Sunday night), then prayer
>meeting on Wednesday night, then choir on Thursday night, then a youth
>group activity on Saturday. Plus Vacation Bible School for a month in
>the summer, *plus* Christian Bible Camp when I got old enough to go to
>a sleep-away type camp.
>
>I was saturated.
>
>High school got the skeptical ball rolling for me; college gave it a
>swift and powerful kick into the net. By the time I was 20, I was no
>longer a Christian, let alone a fundamentalist. It took me a few more
>years to realize that I held no beliefs whatsoever - but I had an awful
>lot of indoctrination to overcome.
No kidding. Getting rid of the bullshit programming, bootstrapping,
on your own is a royal bitch and takes years to eliminate the mind
virus tenticles. Much worse for you than me though.
>I admire you, Vic, I wish I could have known at a younger age what I
>know now. Good on ya' for figuring it out early.
>
>Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
stoney
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
>news:4271F8...@armory.com...
>> Dore wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
>>> news:t8SdndoiO9q...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> > I disagree on all counts, but thank you for your input.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Bear
>>> >
>>> > And I know it's my own damn fault.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> At least you know that your ignorance and blindness is all your own damn
>>> fault, so you won't be surprised when you find yourself in hell.
>>> --
>>> Dore
>> --------------------------
>> Your pompous imagination, you poor deluded fool.
>
>Dore thinks she's Jesus! What a hoot! Have you seen her website? The part
>where she talks about being anally probed by demons while god, who looks
>like Santa Claus, watches and winces is hilarious. She's quite mad ;)
Draw it! :))))
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
evil".
oh hell, that explains it, well, we wouldn't want religious fruitcakes to be
rational or know about good and evil. Thanks for explaining it.
.
Libertarius
Libertarius
duke
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>ARE INCOMPATIBLE. -- L.
So tell me one excuse why atheism and reason are compatible. There is no
reasonable logic for the nonexistence of God.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Dean
> "Dean" wrote
> : "Bear" wrote
> : > "RS" wrote
> : > : "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" wrote
> : > : > "they gained the knowledge of good and evil "
> : > : >
> : > : > so, if you gain knowledge, you betray god? how the hell does that
> : > happen?
> : > : > If you use your brain, you betray god? what the hell?
> : > : >
> : > : > why did god give us a brain if we did not want us to gain
> knowledge?
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > : God forbade them to eat of that specific tree. They promised him
> that.
> : > : They betrayed that promise. It was the first human sin.
> : > Where do you read that Adam and Eve promised their god that they
> wouldn't
> : > eat of the "that specific tree?"
> : >
> : > : They weren't seeking knowledge when they ate of the fruit. They
> : > : decieved into believing that it would make them like God. It did
> make
> : > them
> good
> : > and
> : > : evil.
> : >
> : > And "to know both good and evil" is not knowledge? C'mon, get real!
> : >
> : How can evolution explain love? With evolution you don't need love but
> we
> : have it. To unbeliever it foolish. Because God is Love.
>
> Where did I mention evolution? I don't believe I did. How do you define
> love
> and how do you know that your god is love?
> on 4-27-2005 you said The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the
astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150 years after Darwin,
reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic component of science, and
essential to biology and geology. How can anyone understand science if they
do not understand evolution?
How can I explain love if you never gave it?
How can some one explain a color to a blind person?
If you don't understand Love how can you know God?
Bear
: "Bear" wrote
: > "Dean" wrote
I am undecided concerning evolution and I never claimed that I understand
science.
: How can I explain love if you never gave it?
You are very presumptuous aren't you? Show me where I said that I never gave
love.
: How can some one explain a color to a blind person?
Red herring.
: If you don't understand Love how can you know God?
I understand love just fine and it has nothing to do with your imaginary
gods.
Dean
But the Bible says.
11": I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift,
nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches
to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance
happeneth to them all. Ecclesiastes 9:11
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:4271EA...@armory.com...
Bear
: Evolution says survival of the fittest. Darwin
That is a bit simplistic.
: But the Bible says.
: 11": I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift,
: nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet
riches
: to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and
chance
: happeneth to them all. Ecclesiastes 9:11
So the gods don't have anything to do with it?
Bear
: Bear wrote:
:
: Don't over evaluate.
:
: piddie -- cordiality is my middle name.
:
: comments?
What do you mean, don't over evaluate?
wcb
This is Dore. A well known net kook.
Give up. Its like wrestling with a pig.
All you do is get dirty and annoy the pig.
Dore claims to be Jesus. She has no more sense
than a doodlebug.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Les Hellawell
>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:25:31 -0600, Libertarius
><Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
>>ARE INCOMPATIBLE. -- L.
>
>So tell me one excuse why atheism and reason are compatible. There is no
>reasonable logic for the nonexistence of God.
Indeed that's why atheists do not claim that. It would be unreasonable
to claim that which cannot be proven and yet... there is no reason to
believe a god exists either.
>
>duke
>*****
>"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Indeed it dukes - sorry dupes many.
duke
<myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>So tell me one excuse why atheism and reason are compatible. There is no
>>reasonable logic for the nonexistence of God.
>Indeed that's why atheists do not claim that. It would be unreasonable
>to claim that which cannot be proven and yet... there is no reason to
>believe a god exists either.
I'm thrilled to see that you finally agree with me, *all* evidence demands the
existence of God. "No God" is a dream-filled position of the atheist. All you
atheists do is say no to the existence of God, a position totally unsupported.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Les Hellawell
>On Sun, 01 May 2005 11:03:23 +0100, Les Hellawell
><myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>>So tell me one excuse why atheism and reason are compatible. There is no
>>>reasonable logic for the nonexistence of God.
>
>>Indeed that's why atheists do not claim that. It would be unreasonable
>>to claim that which cannot be proven and yet... there is no reason to
>>believe a god exists either.
>
>I'm thrilled to see that you finally agree with me,
And yet I have repeated often enough that atheism is the lack of
believe in the existence of a god or gods. Without theism, that's
me. You are the one who seems to have difficulty with this simplest
of concepts but at least you appear to understand now.
> *all* evidence demands the
>existence of God. "No God" is a dream-filled position of the atheist. All you
>atheists do is say no to the existence of God, a position totally unsupported.
That 'all' being none at all leastways there seems to be some kind of
conspirarcy against revealing this evidence for our benefit. Is there
some kind of non-disclosure agreement in force or something?
Vic Sagerquist
>>Indeed that's why atheists do not claim that. It would be unreasonable
>>to claim that which cannot be proven and yet... there is no reason to
>>believe a god exists either.
>
> I'm thrilled to see that you finally agree with me, *all* evidence
> demands the existence of God.
You have this statement backward. It should read "all gods demand the
existence of evidence". It's kind of on the same line as "extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof".
> "No God" is a dream-filled position of the atheist.
Why would anyone dream of "nogod"? I don't.
> All you atheists do is say no to the existence of God, a
> position totally unsupported.
Liar. Atheists just don't believe your god assertions. Your position is
a logical fallacy called Circulus in Demonstrando, where your premise is
the same as your conclusion. IOW, you assume your god is real, then
argue its existence from there. That's illogical, duke. You have to
show that this god exists before it can be used as a premise, or your
argument is invalid.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
Dean
I know that all people and you too have loved or have receive love because
God made us like that. If we don't love we will be like animals.news:XbadnYaynaN...@comcast.com...
Dean
and mine. Because God so loved the world (that is the people) that He sent
His Son to save Us all. If He loved us this much than we should love one
another.news:3t-dnWNIntK...@comcast.com...
Bear
: Well if you understand love you are on your way to God for God is love.
That is merely your delusion.
Bear
: God created time and chance.
Your god didn't create anything. Your god is a figment of your imagination.
Bruce Mallory
news:d51ln2$5d2m$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> Evolution says survival of the fittest. Darwin
> But the Bible says.
> 11": I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift,
> nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet
riches
> to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and
chance
> happeneth to them all. Ecclesiastes 9:11
The problem is, Darwin represents science. Bible represents fictional
literature, to be exact, its subgenre known as Fantasy. An intelligent mind
is expected to grasp the difference between the two.
Bruce M.
Bear
: Les Hellawell wrote:
:
: >>So tell me one excuse why atheism and reason are compatible. There is
no
: >>reasonable logic for the nonexistence of God.
:
: >Indeed that's why atheists do not claim that. It would be unreasonable
: >to claim that which cannot be proven and yet... there is no reason to
: >believe a god exists either.
:
: I'm thrilled to see that you finally agree with me, *all* evidence demands
the
: existence of God. "No God" is a dream-filled position of the atheist.
All you
: atheists do is say no to the existence of God, a position totally
unsupported.
Another moronic theist resorts to deception because that's all he's got!
Libertarius
duke wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:25:31 -0600, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >ARE INCOMPATIBLE. -- L.
>
> So tell me one excuse why atheism and reason are compatible.
===>They are not, really.
Only "atheism" with respect to certain specific, defined deities is
reasonable. But in that sense everyone is an "atheist", as the late
Bertrand Russell so clearly explained.
"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience
I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I
do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that
there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary
man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when
I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that
I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer
really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration
that
Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an
awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical
audience,
I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of
us would
say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian
God,
I should, I think, take exactly the same line."
> There is no
> reasonable logic for the nonexistence of God.
===>The only "GOD" that clearly and undeniable does exist is the one referred to
by Albert Einstein as the "God of Spinoza".
That is NATURE, the COSMIC TOTALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE,
ALWAYS AND FOR EVER.
Anything else, anything less, including the deities of the Bible,
is just a human-made IDOL! -- L.
Antagonist for God
<st...@insanity.org> spake thusly:
>"Dean" <griff...@comporium.net> wrote in message
>news:d51ln2$5d2m$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>
>> Evolution says survival of the fittest. Darwin
>
>> But the Bible says.
>> 11": I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race
>> is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither
>> yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of
>> understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time
>> and chance happeneth to them all. Ecclesiastes 9:11
>
>The problem is, Darwin represents science.
Not even close.
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
re...@believer.com
right ahead. Truth is you have never experienced God so instead of seeing
fault with yourself, you project the fault on millions and millions of
others. It's a bit of a mental illness to do such if you think about it.
The Fool has said in his heart there is no God, but you have gone and
written it down! LMAO!!!!
"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
news:N7adnf7yZ8y...@comcast.com...
Christopher A. Lee
>If that is what you need to believe to make yourself inexcusable then go
>right ahead. Truth is you have never experienced God so instead of seeing
>fault with yourself, you project the fault on millions and millions of
>others.
Until you demonstrate that there is something outside your deluded
imagination to experience, you have nothing whatsoever to say on the
subject.
And until you do that you are no different than a Santa-Claus believer
lying about and insulting those who don't believe in the jolly red elf
with the flying sleigh. Too stupid to grasp that this is all he is.
And you accuse _us_ of being mentally ill?
> It's a bit of a mental illness to do such if you think about it.
Believing in magic, virgin births, people dying and coming back to
life three days later, etc is mental illness.
>The Fool has said in his heart there is no God, but you have gone and
>written it down! LMAO!!!!
The deliberately nasty lying theist invents this stupid strawman
atheist to insult while hiding behind his book'o'myths - when the
nastiness is his and his alone because he posted it.
>"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
>news:N7adnf7yZ8y...@comcast.com...
>> "Dean" wrote
>> : God created time and chance.
>>
>> Your god didn't create anything. Your god is a figment of your
>> imagination.
Instead of lying about why Bear concludes this, feel free to prove him
wrong?
What's that? You can't?
THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.
wcb
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:25:31 -0600, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
>>ARE INCOMPATIBLE. -- L.
>
> So tell me one excuse why atheism and reason are compatible. There is no
> reasonable logic for the nonexistence of God.
You lie.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************
1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.
2. God is also said to have free will.
3. God is also said to be omnipotent.
4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.
5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?
6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.
7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.
6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.
7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.
8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?
9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.
10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.
(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent.
4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.
5. The creator of all.
6. Intelligent and concious, having will.
7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.
16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.
21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
**********************************
God Disproven Number 3
**********************************
Romans 11:7-8
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for; but the election hath obtained it; and the
rest were blinded.
(According as it is written, God hath given them
the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not
see, ears that they should not hear) unto this
day.
Many christians claim god gave us free will,
but here we see that that in fact, god is
said to blind many to spiritual truth. So
in fact, free will means nothing to god. Here
Paul is trying to explain why Israel has rejected
Jesus as a messiah.
Thus, if god does not care about free will, and even
denies men free will by so blinding them, free will is
no longer an arguable claim if the bible is true.
If god is omnibenevolent, then he would be duty
bound to make all men believers and all men capable
of only doing moral good. If he could do so, and
does not he is not omnibenevolent.
So a benevolent god that does not care about free will
cannot exist in a world where we see unbelief and moral
evil.
*********
Most theologians in the past have agreed god has free will.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica made that quite explicit.
Yet all theologians also agree god is omnibenevolent.
That is he has free will yet can only do good, never evil.
Yet many apologists tell us man needs free will and thus
ability to do evil. This is to get god off the hook for
existance of evil.
But as god can have a good nature and free will, so can man.
That argument is no longer viable.
But if god can make man with a god like free will
and good nature incapable of never doing moral
evil and fails to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil and is evil himself.
That we live in a world where moral evil exists proves
an omnibenevolent god is nonexistant.
**********
God is said to be omnipotent.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
If yes he cannot lift such a rock and thus is
non-omnipotent. If no, he cannot create such a
rock and is non-omnipotent.
Omnipotent is a self destructing concept that cannot
exist in reality. It is literally nonsense, incoherent,
impossible.
Thus an omnipotent god is not possible.
***********
Is god omnipotent? In Judges 1:19, god
cannot deal with iron chariots.
And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive
out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had
chariots of iron.
An inventive and intelligent god would have
made the chariot wheels fall off or killed
the horses such as he killed all the cattle
of Egypt in Exodus 9:6.
If the bible is true, there is no omnipotent god.
If apologists wish to claim there is such and
omnipotent god, they have to admit the bible is
false and rather silly.
***********
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die.
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this lie
would not achieve its goal.
Again, if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
***********
Is god omnibenevolent? By all claims, yes.
That is god must always do good and never evil.
But if he can never do evil, then there is
god cannot do, evil. Thus he has no free will
after all. And there is something he cannot do.
Evil. He is not omnipotent.
Thus a an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god with
free will cannot exist as claimed. Theology has
pretended to solve this problem by essentially
redefining free will and omnipotent in a very
dishonest manner and hoping nobody ever noticed.
And of course there was always the torture chamber
for those who might be honest.
************
Exodus Chapter 5
5:4
And it came to pass by the way into the inn
that the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill
him. Then Zipporah (Moses's wife see Exodus 2;21)
took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her
son and cast it at his feet, and said, surely
a bloody husband thou art to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband
thou art because of the circumcission.
This bizaare tale presents god as being unable
to kill Moses in a personal attack upon his
person bodily.
Thus if the bible is true, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. This is one tale you will not hear
preached from the local pulpits.
A god incapable of killing a solitary Israelite
in an ambush outside an inn isn't much of a god.
****************
(End)
***********************************************
God Disproven Omniscience #1
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
***********************************************
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die."
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this
lie would not achieve its goal.
Thus if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
(End)
wcb
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:33:57 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:25:31 -0600, Libertarius
>><Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>>
>>>ARE INCOMPATIBLE. -- L.
>>
>>So tell me one excuse why atheism and reason are compatible. There is no
>>reasonable logic for the nonexistence of God.
>
> Indeed that's why atheists do not claim that. It would be unreasonable
> to claim that which cannot be proven and yet... there is no reason to
> believe a god exists either.
Jesus! I prove repeatedly its possible
to prove exactly that and nobody gets it?
Neither fundy fanatics or Atheists?
There is no god! And its not just I prove that god
does not exist, I show the class of maximalist, open ended gods
that can do anything cannot exist. No matter that god's
supposed name or partcular religion.
Is posting at all in AA just a waste of my time?
Its almost trivial to show god cannot exist, yet despite posting such proofs
at least 1000 times over a few months, still, nobody gets that simple,
easy, obvious fact?
(End)
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent.
(END)
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
20. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
23. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
A few quotes from the experts:
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
**************************************************
duke
<myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>Indeed that's why atheists do not claim that. It would be unreasonable
>>>to claim that which cannot be proven and yet... there is no reason to
>>>believe a god exists either.
>>I'm thrilled to see that you finally agree with me,
>And yet I have repeated often enough that atheism is the lack of
>believe in the existence of a god or gods. Without theism, that's
>me. You are the one who seems to have difficulty with this simplest
>of concepts but at least you appear to understand now.
Atheism is NOT a lack of belief in God. Atheism is a rejection of the
existence of God. Agnostism is a lack of belief in the existence of God based
on the evidence being unconvincing.
You seem to have difficulty with the simplest of concepts.
>> *all* evidence demands the
>>existence of God. "No God" is a dream-filled position of the atheist. All you
>>atheists do is say no to the existence of God, a position totally unsupported.
>That 'all' being none at all leastways there seems to be some kind of
>conspirarcy against revealing this evidence for our benefit. Is there
>some kind of non-disclosure agreement in force or something?
Oh there is evidence galore. The main consideration is the big bang. First
there was nothing, then an infinitely dense mass of matter appeared from whence
there was nothing. Creation at it best.
This is further substantiated by the recent discovery that the universe is
expanding unhindered (an open system). If the system was closed, that would
mean the universe expanded and collapsed, expanded and collapsed, forever due to
fixed mass, thereby lending weight to the nonexistence of God. But it is
expanding forever, no collapse. Creation at it finest.
Then we have the death and resurrection of Christ. If it was a fake deal, it
would have died out long ago. It was witnessed, it was written, it is fully
professed by a very large percentage of the world population.
You yourself have not professed the lack of evidence for no God. You're right.
There is no such thing. No evidence that there is not God. So you position is
reduced to "lack of acceptable evidence". That makes you an agnostic, not an
atheist.
duke
>> I'm thrilled to see that you finally agree with me, *all* evidence
>> demands the existence of God.
>You have this statement backward. It should read "all gods demand the
>existence of evidence". It's kind of on the same line as "extraordinary
>claims require extraordinary proof".
How's this for extraordinary - 53% of the world population believes in one and
only one and the same God almighty.
The rest never lifted so much as one wooden finger.
>> "No God" is a dream-filled position of the atheist.
>Why would anyone dream of "nogod"? I don't.
Because if you're wrong, it's an eternity experiencing something you definitely
don't want to experience.
>> All you atheists do is say no to the existence of God, a
>> position totally unsupported.
>Liar. Atheists just don't believe your god assertions. Your position is
>a logical fallacy called Circulus in Demonstrando, where your premise is
>the same as your conclusion. IOW, you assume your god is real, then
>argue its existence from there. That's illogical, duke. You have to
>show that this god exists before it can be used as a premise, or your
>argument is invalid.
No, you got it all wrong. You view God in terms of both no pain and no gain.
The nonexistence of God is totally unreasonable. I believe in gain, you
desperately hope there is no pain.
Bear
: If that is what you need to believe to make yourself inexcusable then go
: right ahead.
You are being presumptuous just like any "good" theist.
: Truth is you have never experienced God so instead of seeing
: fault with yourself, you project the fault on millions and millions of
: others.
Who in the hell are you to tell me what I have or have not experienced?
: It's a bit of a mental illness to do such if you think about it.
It is mental illness to believe that imaginary beings are real.
: The Fool has said in his heart there is no God, but you have gone and
: written it down! LMAO!!!!
Actually, it is the fool who claims that there is any gods. A gullible fool
that believes without objective, verifiable evidence.
Dore
news:p5t371tqcn2vjk6bk...@4ax.com...
> Question: If I get im my spaceship and fly to the very edge of the
> universe what do I see out the front window?
Blackness
cont
> Question #2 if I ever meet Stephen Hawkings "What is the most mass a black
> hole can obsorb and what happens after it reaches that point and trys to
> absorb more matter?
Who said that black holes actually exist? NO ONE, except the imagination of
men.
cont
> There was no "before" the beginning of our universe, because once upon a
> time there was no time.
> John D. Barrow
In the spiritual realm, there is no need for time, for God always existed.
However, before God created the Universe, He created physical time.
--
Dore
"Azrael" <g...@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in message
news:p5t371tqcn2vjk6bk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 04:15:41 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
>>news:g01371db2fji3vskb...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>> No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
>>> evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
>>> We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
>>
>>
>>There is absolutely NO evidence nor facts that support evolution. The mere
>>fact that much of creation has similar attributes, qualities or
>>connections
>>does NOT evident evolution. It merely means that GOD used similar
>>engineering, design, qualities and elements in much of His creation. In
>>fact, Darwin could not, nor could any scientist offer any link between ape
>>and men, nor is there any evidence that invertebrates and vertebrates are
>>derived from the same source. It is ALL conjecture, hypothesis and
>>attempts
>>by evil man to negate any Intelligent design, which in intricate study and
>>consideration of all of the complexity and intricacies of all that exists,
>>PROVES that ONLY a greater power and intelligence could have created all
>>that exists, for it could NOT have possibly been created all by itself.
>>There are some links between separate species, but NO definite connection
>>that is proven through scientific means. A bird was NEVER a fish and man
>>was
>>NEVER an ape.
>>
> <---Snipped--->
> I can't be bothered to refute this rameling idiot. Hell I'm still
> picking my jaw off the floor from some of his statements. After some
> sleep I might change my mind though and have a go at it.
>
>
> Azrael
> There was no "before" the beginning of our universe, because once upon a
> time there was no time.
> John D. Barrow
>
> Question: If I get im my spaceship and fly to the very edge of the
> universe what do I see out the front window?
> Question #2 if I ever meet Stephen Hawkings "What is the most mass a black
> hole can obsorb and what happens after it reaches that point and trys to
> absorb more matter?
Dore
> --------------------
> The MONSTROUS percentage of Scientists, Schools, Courts, and
> thinking humans disagree!
Things don't exist just because a number of people happen to believe in
them.
cont
>
> When you abandon such bald-faced lies we will talk to you.
It is you who embrace the lies.
cont
>
> Until you do all you're doing is wasting everyone's time
> imagining that you might somehow become reasoned.
Man's imagination spreading lies, deceit and fantasy is what wastes
everyone's time, and you are just one of the many that fall for it.
--
Dore
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:4271F8...@armory.com...
> Dore wrote:
>>
>> "John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
>> news:g01371db2fji3vskb...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
>> > evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
>> > We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
>>
>> There is absolutely NO evidence nor facts that support evolution.
> --------------------
> The MONSTROUS percentage of Scientists, Schools, Courts, and
> thinking humans disagree!
>
> When you abandon such bald-faced lies we will talk to you.
>
> Until you do all you're doing is wasting everyone's time
> imagining that you might somehow become reasoned.
> Steve
Dore
> You're either ignorant or a liar. Which is it?
Neither, it is your ignorance that is the problem.
cont
> But observing species evolving does provide evidence of evolution.
>
No, it provides a fact of creation that certain things can minimally evolve
in time or through the use of cross breeding evolves. It does NOT prove that
man, animals, birds etc all evolved from a single cell creature.
cont
> But he could, and did. And as the decades passed, more and more
> evidence was discovered, culminating in the evidence of DNA analysis.
>
Like I said, just because God uses similar chemistry, genetics, attributes
etc in His engineering and creation does NOT mean that all living things
evolved from the same source.
cont
> Any scientist who confronts your Bible worship being automatically an
> evil man? No, I think you and your lies on the subject are more evil.
>
No, any scientist who refuses to acknowledge a greater intellect and
Creator, who believes that all things did NOT come from God, and are all
evolved from the same single cell creature, who tells lies to get his name
written in periodicals, or for financial support or imagines things and
pretend it is truth and states as much, is evil.
cont
>>It's amazing that you believe without any question or doubts what
>>FALLIBLE,
>>self-serving and prideful men imagine
>
> Why not? You do! You believe what ancient self-serving Bible writers
> scribbled in their devious piety.
>
No, my faith comes from knowing God personally, for what He has taught and
shown me, did not come from any humans. What He has revealed to the ancients
who published what they have personally experienced with God, has also
proven to be true, with my own experiences.
cont
> Miracle lies in the mind of the beholder. It's an intellectual copout.
It is NO copout, but a mature intelligent realization and affirmation in the
one who has the wisdom and ability to see miracles as they are.
cont
>>Answer these questions. Where did the first cell originate? How
>>does the chemical interaction between atoms cause other atoms to suddenly
>>appear and procreate? How does a branch suddenly grow from a tree? How did
>>the first electron come into existence? Go back to the beginning and
>>source
>>of ALL things and tell me, how any ONE of them came into existence ALL BY
>>THEMSELVES,
> Given the laws of physics, all the above are readily explained. Now
> you can claim that those laws, and the matter on which they operate
> are the creation of some deity, but you have no evidence that such a
> creation is necessary, only that it is possible. And you have no
> evidence whatsoever that said deity, if it exists, is anything like
> the one your Bible portrays.
The laws of physics do NOT explain how the first cell originates, because
the laws of physics can ONLY corroborate what already exists. I have
Multitudes of evidence that God exists, however because it is HIS plan that
He is ONLY revealed to those who sincerely and truly seek Him, YOU are not
given my evidence and I will NOT give them to you, for you to trample under
your feet, for you are evil. You have to seek and find Him on your own.
cont
>>You can't actually believe that ALL planets, comets, stars, meteors,
>>moons,
>>etc all began their rotations and revolutions all by accident,
> No, by the laws of physics.
>
As I said, the laws of physics only came into existence after studying what
already exists, it does NOTHING to prove it's source or beginning.
cont
>> all by
>>themselves, without some force or greater intellect and power to start the
>>process. And you can't certainly believe that MAN would KNOW, by FACT,
>>how
>>it all came into being, how it works, and why it exists,
>
> Then why do you claim to?
I know God.
cont
> I have more evidence for my beliefs than you have for yours.
No, you don't, your evidence is merely what other men, scientists have
stated, my evidence is from GOD, and from what I have seen God do and
provide, is greater than the whole Universe.
cont
>> If evolution is the central unifying concept of biology and many
>>related scientific disciplines, since ALL things are connected and work in
>>perfect order with each other to continue in existence,
>
> But they don't. The vast majority of species that have ever existed
> are now extinct.
It's not about certain species, it is about all things relevant to each
other, all things need each other to exist.
cont
>>You can't even explain how all things came into existence,
>
> Nor can you. "Goddidit!" is not an explanation.
But it is the truth.
cont
> I have not said any such thing. A Universal Creator may indeed exist.
> What I deny is that said creator is anything like the monster God of
> the Bible.
What is monstrous about the God of the Bible? Do you take exception that He
has warned of destruction, suffering and horror which brings His wrath for
the consequences of choosing evil, and then has stood by His word?
cont
>>Do you always have opinions on things you know NOTHING about?
>
> I know more about Christianity than you do I suspect.
> Enough not to believe in it.
>
Hahahaha, you have NO clue to whom you are speaking..
cont
> Can you, oh believing sheep of mortal, fallible, blind, ignorant,
> liars, EVIL and money oriented priests and prophets dead 2000 years
> and more?
Let's see, YOU believe the lies of the ungodly, ignorant, self-serving,
wicked and sinful, and I believe and have had it proven by experience, the
same truths that the chosen elect of God, who's experiences, truths, and
relationship with GOD has written and published. Who are these priests that
are blind, ignorant, liars, evil and money oriented that you speak of?
Certainly none of those who's accounts are written in the Bible, for they
were NOT priests, and the prophets have proven to be true for their
prophecies have come to pass or are coming to pass now.
cont
> I dismiss the Bible on other grounds.
> Primarily the disingenousness of its writers.
Then YOU are evil and God has blinded you, for the Bible holds the truths of
God, contains His plan of salvation, attributes, history of men with God,
His ways, will, and various truths of the spiritual realm, as well as the
plan of the earth from the beginning until the end. You don't KNOW the
writers, nor any truths of God, therefore you are in NO position to call
them disingenuous.
cont
> Based on evidence. Where's yours?
You want evidence? DO everything written in the gospels, repent, stop
sinning and obey God and He will provide all of the evidence you need.
cont
> YES! The majority of faith must be in error if any of it is true,
> for it is contrary and contradictory.
No, there are only minor details of no consequence that are contradictory
and contrary. The meat and truths are power and righteousness, but the
wicked, such as yourself are BLIND to it, as God has given you eyes of
slumber for you are NOT worthy to see them. And that being said, I will not
waste any more time on you.
--
Dore
"John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
news:0fc47199hjhs8rkkm...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 04:15:41 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
>>> evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
>>> We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
>>
>>There is absolutely NO evidence nor facts that support evolution.
>
> You're either ignorant or a liar. Which is it?
>
>>The mere
>>fact that much of creation has similar attributes, qualities or
>>connections
>>does NOT evident evolution.
>
> But observing species evolving does provide evidence of evolution.
>
>> It merely means that GOD used similar
>>engineering, design, qualities and elements in much of His creation. In
>>fact, Darwin could not, nor could any scientist offer any link between ape
>>and men,
>
> But he could, and did. And as the decades passed, more and more
> evidence was discovered, culminating in the evidence of DNA analysis.
>
>>nor is there any evidence that invertebrates and vertebrates are
>>derived from the same source. It is ALL conjecture, hypothesis and
>>attempts
>>by evil man to negate any Intelligent design,
>
> Any scientist who confronts your Bible worship being automatically an
> evil man? No, I think you and your lies on the subject are more evil.
>
>>> "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of
>>> biology and is a critical component of many related scientific
>>> disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack
>>> empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
>>> National Academy of Sciences
>>> http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
>>
>>It's amazing that you believe without any question or doubts what
>>FALLIBLE,
>>self-serving and prideful men imagine
>
> Why not? You do! You believe what ancient self-serving Bible writers
> scribbled in their devious piety.
>
>>and publish for monetary gain, but
>>completely question, doubt, deny and ignore the miraculousness of all that
>>is created by God.
>
> Miracle lies in the mind of the beholder. It's an intellectual copout.
>
>> How does evolution fit into the source of all that is
>>created?
>
> Very well.
>
>>Answer these questions. Where did the first cell originate? How
>>does the chemical interaction between atoms cause other atoms to suddenly
>>appear and procreate? How does a branch suddenly grow from a tree? How did
>>the first electron come into existence? Go back to the beginning and
>>source
>>of ALL things and tell me, how any ONE of them came into existence ALL BY
>>THEMSELVES,
>
> Given the laws of physics, all the above are readily explained. Now
> you can claim that those laws, and the matter on which they operate
> are the creation of some deity, but you have no evidence that such a
> creation is necessary, only that it is possible. And you have no
> evidence whatsoever that said deity, if it exists, is anything like
> the one your Bible portrays.
>
>>You can't actually believe that ALL planets, comets, stars, meteors,
>>moons,
>>etc all began their rotations and revolutions all by accident,
>
> No, by the laws of physics.
>
>> all by
>>themselves, without some force or greater intellect and power to start the
>>process. And you can't certainly believe that MAN would KNOW, by FACT,
>>how
>>it all came into being, how it works, and why it exists,
>
> Then why do you claim to?
>
>> If evolution is the central unifying concept of biology and many
>>related scientific disciplines, since ALL things are connected and work in
>>perfect order with each other to continue in existence,
>
> But they don't. The vast majority of species that have ever existed
> are now extinct.
>
>>>>No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the imagination
>>>>of the ungodly scientists,
>>>
>>> Only in the minds of fundamentalist Creationists who have chosen to
>>> worship the Bible rather than God.
>>
>>NO, it is reasonable and logical FACT that men of science, WITHOUT GOD,
>>can
>>only be UNGODLY,
>
> No, that's neither logical nor fact. You have no evidence that there
> is a God, or that if there is he either knows or cares about this
> little dustspeck of a planet let alone the life forms on it.
>
>>>> The whole purpose of mankind's
>>>>existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT
>>>>exist
>>>>at all.
>>
>>> Theological sheepdip!
>>
>>HAHAHAHA, a man who claims to have reason and logic, proves to have NONE.
>
> I have more evidence for my beliefs than you have for yours.
>
>>You can't even explain how all things came into existence,
>
> Nor can you. "Goddidit!" is not an explanation.
>
>> and yet have the
>>pride and audacity to pretend that GOD, the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE,
>>doesn't
>>exist,
>
> I have not said any such thing. A Universal Creator may indeed exist.
> What I deny is that said creator is anything like the monster God of
> the Bible.
>
>>but mere fallible mortals contain ALL knowledge, wisdom and truths
>>regarding things that they cannot possibly have the answers to and yet
>>claim
>>to, and YOU, being evil, believe THEM, when YOU have NO knowledge, wisdom
>>or
>>truths yourself. YOU blindly are the sheep of mortal, fallible, blind,
>>ignorant, liars, EVIL and money oriented scientists, and have the audacity
>>to call TRUTH, LOGIC, REASON AND FACT, theological sheepdip. HAHAHAHA Can
>>you say HYPOCRITE!!!!
>
> Can you, oh believing sheep of mortal, fallible, blind, ignorant,
> liars, EVIL and money oriented priests and prophets dead 2000 years
> and more?
>
>>>> Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
>>>>purpose on the earth,
>>>
>>> No, it's just another religion, one more among many that have plagued
>>> mankind.
>>
>>Do you always have opinions on things you know NOTHING about?
>
> I know more about Christianity than you do I suspect.
> Enough not to believe in it.
>
>>Fact is, the Bible is NOT inerrant,
>
> Well It's good to have that point established.
>
>>nd neither is man's science. But to dismiss the Bible, or
>>science, because of the actions, beliefs and theology of those who claim
>>faith in, is just as unreasonable and illogical as they are.
>
> I dismiss the Bible on other grounds.
> Primarily the disingenousness of its writers.
>
>> As I said, science is merely the study of what God
>>created and mostly just the physical aspects of it, which is minimal
>>compared to the whole picture.
>
> You have no proof that there is any more to the 'picture'.
>
>>>>As I said,
>>>>science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and true
>>>>Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things, including the
>>>>tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc,
>>>
>>> Well they delude themselves that they do.
>
>>And yet YOU delude yourself and deny that fact in yourself, for YOU
>>neither
>>have all knowledge of your stance, as well, for you deny the spiritual,
>
> Pending evidence to the contrary. Got any?
>
>>while claiming theory, conjecture, imaginations of your beliefs as fact,
>
> Based on evidence. Where's yours?
>
>>>>they are
>>>>NOT limited to merely one aspect of study, but the seeking and
>>>>understanding
>>>>of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>>>>interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to
>>>>exist
>>>>and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places.
>>>
>>> And they're not finding anything.
>>
>>
>>Well, they are finding more than ungodly men of science
>
> Not that you can show evidence for.
>
>> Men of science don't even look further than the
>>physical realm, where at least, those who seek and study all realms,
>>places,
>>times, dimensions, tangible and intangible are open to greater and more
>>complex understandings, that can ONLY be found through realization of the
>>existence and power of GOD.
>
> So where are your proven results? Where is your proof that all that
> 'understanding' is anything more than fevered imagination and
> theological maunderings?
>
>>>>Religion is merely
>>>>the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe, and faith is the
>>>>greatest power that man has,
>>>
>>> No, it's a weakness, and has led many astray.
>>
>>NO,
>
> YES! The majority of faith must be in error if any of it is true,
> for it is contrary and contradictory.
>
>>>> Any science that is NOT physical science
>>>
>>> There is no such thing. All sciences are natural sciences.
>>> That's how science is defined.
>>
>>BULL.
>
> science, n
> . systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained
> . through observation and experimentation.
> . any of the branches of natural or physical science.
>
> If you can't observe it or experiment with it, you're not doing
> science.
>
>> Man has claimed to know the source, timeline, and age of the earth,
>>stars, sun and Universe and they have absolutely NO possible evidence for
>>their claims,
>
> What an arrogant declaration by a scientific illiterate! There are
> libraries of such evidence gathered by generations of scientists.
> What is the source of your insight into this issue? Divine
> inspiration? What evidence have you looked at, to so boldly declare
> there is not only no evidence but no possible evidence?
>
>>>> which can be proven
>>>>through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
>>>>imagination, such as the space science, psychology, psychiatry, the
>>>>beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting to
>>>>measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is
>>>>none,
>>>>and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories.
>>>
>>> You're obviously scientifically illiterate.
>>> That statement is completely wrong and spoken from ignorance.
>>
>>No, apparently you are blind and ignorant, believing liars because you
>>want
>>to and it serves YOUR purpose, being close and narrow minded, illogical,
>>unreasonable and self-serving,
>
> I know enough science to check up on what scientists state. What is
> your level of expertise? Space science has sent probes to the planets
> of our solar system. Are you claiming that there really isn't a
> satellite orbiting Saturn right this minute, sending back picures of
> its moons? That there aren't two rovers driving around on the surface
> of Mars sending us pictures of rock strata?
>
>> because to face truths higher and more
>>complex than you are willing to accept, you defend yourself with ignorant
>>accusations of MY ignorance of science, when I have the complete and
>>ultimate picture from a higher plane, that you couldn't possibly
>>understand
>>nor comprehend.
>
> You're a raving looney! Complete and ultimate picture from a higher
> plane? Ha! All the scientists who have brought to us the wonders and
> luxuries of modern civilization are wrong, but Dore of the Higher
> Plane knows all! They have evidence and you have none, but they're
> wrong and you're right? I think the word schizophrenia applies here.
> But you're not paranoid. The whole word IS against you!
>
>>Your denial of FACT, REASON AND LOGIC, pretending that
>>science is always pure, honest, truthful, without corruption and always
>>believable, no matter the source or intent, is IGNORANCE on your part. Why
>>do you BELIEVE what ungodly science states WITHOUT question?
>
> I do question. And when I question my questions receive answers, which
> is more than I get from the religious. Morover ungodly science WORKS.
> Aeroplanes fly, my car takes me where i want to go, electricity lights
> and heats my house. Religion only makes promises that I have to die to
> find out if they are true.
>
>> Isn't YOUR faith in them, just as fallible as what you think the faith
>> in those who
>>claim to be fundamental Christians?
>
> No. I can test their declarations. I can't test yours. You show me no
> evidence. Worse, you show strong signs of mental delusion in your
> claims. Many who post in here just act as if they're nuts. I think you
> may actually have psychological problems.
>
> ## OK! Who put a stop payment on your reality check?
>
>
>
Dore
news:w3Ace.140859$vL3.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> You quite obviously do not want to consider or face up to the facts that
> challenge your "God belief". You probably consider this too frightening.
I KNOW GOD, and NOTHING of man is frightening to me.
>
> There are tons of objective, factual data that support the science of
> evolution. Go to your local Library and check out some books on Evolution
> and Anthropology. There is NO, NADA objective evidence to support
> "Creationism"
>
Books with lies, imaginations, fantasies, conjecture and deceit by wicked
ungodly men of science for profit. What good are they? They tell you it is
fact, but that is the beginning of their lies.
--
Dore
"wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:w3Ace.140859$vL3.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> You quite obviously do not want to consider or face up to the facts that
> challenge your "God belief". You probably consider this too frightening.
>
> There are tons of objective, factual data that support the science of
> evolution. Go to your local Library and check out some books on Evolution
> and Anthropology. There is NO, NADA objective evidence to support
> "Creationism"
>
> --
> Bill
> "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Nxice.9568$WX.8443@trndny01...
>>
>> "John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
>> news:g01371db2fji3vskb...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> > No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
>> > evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
>> > We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
>>
>>
>> There is absolutely NO evidence nor facts that support evolution. The
>> mere
>> fact that much of creation has similar attributes, qualities or
> connections
>> does NOT evident evolution. It merely means that GOD used similar
>> engineering, design, qualities and elements in much of His creation. In
>> fact, Darwin could not, nor could any scientist offer any link between
>> ape
>> and men, nor is there any evidence that invertebrates and vertebrates are
>> derived from the same source. It is ALL conjecture, hypothesis and
> attempts
>> by evil man to negate any Intelligent design, which in intricate study
>> and
>> consideration of all of the complexity and intricacies of all that
>> exists,
>> PROVES that ONLY a greater power and intelligence could have created all
>> that exists, for it could NOT have possibly been created all by itself.
>> There are some links between separate species, but NO definite connection
>> that is proven through scientific means. A bird was NEVER a fish and man
> was
>> NEVER an ape.
>>
>> cont
>>
>> > Nonsense!
>> >
>> > "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of
>> > biology and is a critical component of many related scientific
>> > disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack
>> > empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
>> > National Academy of Sciences
>> > http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
>>
>>
>> It's amazing that you believe without any question or doubts what
> FALLIBLE,
>> self-serving and prideful men imagine and publish for monetary gain, but
>> completely question, doubt, deny and ignore the miraculousness of all
>> that
>> is created by God. How does evolution fit into the source of all that is
>> created? Answer these questions. Where did the first cell originate? How
>> does the chemical interaction between atoms cause other atoms to suddenly
>> appear and procreate? How does a branch suddenly grow from a tree? How
>> did
>> the first electron come into existence? Go back to the beginning and
> source
>> of ALL things and tell me, how any ONE of them came into existence ALL BY
>> THEMSELVES, especially since even the smallest detail is so complex,
>> intricate and systematically perfected to sustain each other, from the
>> smallest of cells or atoms and their numerous elements and properties to
> the
>> greatest complex organisms and beings? It doesn't take evolution to
>> define
>> gravity, or provide any explanation how the earth is perfectly positioned
> to
>> the sun to sustain life, or how the stars, planets or celestial beings
>> are
>> situated in their places, revolve or have the properties, energies,
>> chemistries or elements, to exist. For example, if it takes an opposite
> and
>> equal reaction for energy to occur, then who or what spun any celestial
> body
>> to begin to rotate? Gravity could NOT begin the motion, it can only
> sustain
>> it, AFTER some other force caused it to begin in motion in the first
> place.
>> You can't actually believe that ALL planets, comets, stars, meteors,
> moons,
>> etc all began their rotations and revolutions all by accident, all by
>> themselves, without some force or greater intellect and power to start
>> the
>> process. And you can't certainly believe that MAN would KNOW, by FACT,
> how
>> it all came into being, how it works, and why it exists, simply because
>> they have peered through a telescope and that evolution had anything to
>> do
>> with it. If evolution is the central unifying concept of biology and many
>> related scientific disciplines, since ALL things are connected and work
>> in
>> perfect order with each other to continue in existence, then science
>> would
>> have perfect explanations for ALL things to exist, how, why and it's
> source
>> and beginnings, but the fact is, that ALL science has is their own
>> conjecture, theory, hypothesis, ideas, concepts and imaginations and
> WITHOUT
>> GOD, then they can ONLY be open and influenced by the lies, deceit,
>> temptations and influence by evil entities that they don't even KNOW
> exist,
>> since they have chosen to LIMIT themselves to ONLY the physical
>> understandings and experiments of their own making, which ONLY provides
> them
>> with a small part of the whole picture, thus, they really KNOW NOTHING AT
>> ALL.
>>
>> cont
>>
>> >>No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the
>> >>imagination
>> >>of
>> >>the ungodly scientists,
>> >
>> > Only in the minds of fundamentalist Creationists who have chosen to
>> > worship the Bible rather than God.
>> >
>>
>>
>> NO, it is reasonable and logical FACT that men of science, WITHOUT GOD,
> can
>> only be UNGODLY, solely relying on their own imaginations, conjecture,
>> opinions, and hypothesis, and because of pride, government or privatized
>> financial support, make claims as FACT, and pretend that it is true, and
>> YOU, who worship THEM, believe these deceitful liars or ignorant blind
>> guides, rather than GOD and HIS truths.
>>
>> cont
>>
>> >> and to state otherwise, is without reason and logic
>> >>and evolution is certainly NOT fact, however, the existence of God IS
>> >>FACT,
>> >>or there would be NO science to study. The whole purpose of mankind's
>> >>existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT
> exist
>> >>at
>> >>all.
>>
>>
>> > Theological sheepdip!
>>
>> HAHAHAHA, a man who claims to have reason and logic, proves to have NONE.
>> You can't even explain how all things came into existence, and yet have
> the
>> pride and audacity to pretend that GOD, the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE,
> doesn't
>> exist, but mere fallible mortals contain ALL knowledge, wisdom and
>> truths
>> regarding things that they cannot possibly have the answers to and yet
> claim
>> to, and YOU, being evil, believe THEM, when YOU have NO knowledge, wisdom
> or
>> truths yourself. YOU blindly are the sheep of mortal, fallible, blind,
>> ignorant, liars, EVIL and money oriented scientists, and have the
>> audacity
>> to call TRUTH, LOGIC, REASON AND FACT, theological sheepdip. HAHAHAHA Can
>> you say HYPOCRITE!!!!
>>
>> cont
>> >
>> >> Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
>> >>purpose on the earth,
>> >
>> > No, it's just another religion, one more among many that have plagued
>> > mankind.
>>
>> Do you always have opinions on things you know NOTHING about? It appears
> so,
>> but then again, most ignorant people do.
>>
>> cont
>>
>> >>No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic.
>> >
>> > Fundamentalist Christianity does. It insistes on a literal reading of
>> > an inerrant Bible. To do that you must abandon reason and deny
>> > science.
>>
>>
>> I agree that modern fundamentalist Christianity are HYPOCRITES and
>> because
>> of their own imaginations, sins, evil, deceptions, lies, ignorance,
>> self-servitude and pretense defy science merely because they really don't
>> know what they are talking about either, no more than science pretending
> to
>> know ALL about ALL that God has created and pretend that their
>> hypotheses,
>> conjectures, imaginations, and pretense is fact as well, but two groups,
>> modern fundamental Christianity and governmental financed science, with
> the
>> same illogical and unreasonable attributes, ideology, lies, arrogance,
>> pride, hypocrisy and pretense, benefits NO ONE. Fact is, the Bible is NOT
>> inerrant, and neither is man's science. But to dismiss the Bible, or
>> science, because of the actions, beliefs and theology of those who claim
>> faith in, is just as unreasonable and illogical as they are. The truth is
>> the truth, and no matter what man, Christian, science or otherwise state,
>> cannot change that fact. As I said, science is merely the study of what
> God
>> created and mostly just the physical aspects of it, which is minimal
>> compared to the whole picture. I state this, meaning that the aspects,
>> reality, truths and connection of the spiritual realm with the physical,
> of
>> which the spiritual realm is greater, more complex, more powerful and
>> intricate than the physical realm, and actually CONTROLS the physical
> realm,
>> to deny either is limiting oneself to never seeing the whole semblance of
>> things and all that exists in BOTH realms and thus BOTH are wrong. For
>> without the complete and utter truth of all things that are real and
> exists,
>> one cannot comprehend the reality and truths of either and thus argument
>> ensues, when neither know what they are actually talking about.
>>
>> cont
>>
>> >>As I said,
>> >>science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and true
>> >>Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things, including the
>> >>tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc,
>> >
>> > Well they delude themselves that they do.
>> >
>>
>>
>> And yet YOU delude yourself and deny that fact in yourself, for YOU
> neither
>> have all knowledge of your stance, as well, for you deny the spiritual,
>> while claiming theory, conjecture, imaginations of your beliefs as fact,
>> being NO different than the ones you accuse, while yours is your faith in
>> man's fallible science and their faith is in their interpretation of
>> scripture.
>>
>> cont
>>
>> >>they are
>> >>NOT limited to merely one aspect of study, but the seeking and
>> >>understanding
>> >>of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>> >>interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to
> exist
>> >>and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places.
>> >
>> > And they're not finding anything.
>>
>>
>> Well, they are finding more than ungodly men of science who are searching
>> and not finding in things that they cannot understand, while lying and
>> claiming that they do. Men of science don't even look further than the
>> physical realm, where at least, those who seek and study all realms,
> places,
>> times, dimensions, tangible and intangible are open to greater and more
>> complex understandings, that can ONLY be found through realization of the
>> existence and power of GOD.
>>
>> cont
>>
>> >>Religion is merely
>> >>the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe, and faith is
>> >>the
>> >>greatest power that man has,
>> >
>> > No, it's a weakness, and has led many astray.
>>
>> NO, as I said, religion is what a person has chosen to believe. Faith is
> the
>> driving force of ALL things, whether it be in a divine or supposedly
> divine
>> being or whether it be in physical or materialistic things, governments,
>> lies, evil or anything that exists. Man, who has been led to believe that
>> MONEY is the force of life and thus has enslaved themselves in servitude
> of
>> it, for which is the greatest weakness that ALL mankind has allowed,
>> submitted and enslaved themselves to, is just as much as religion as any
>> belief or faith. For example, If you believe that if you step on cracks,
> it
>> breaks your mother's back, then you will make ALL choices and decisions
>> based on NOT stepping on cracks, thus whatever man has chosen to believe,
> he
>> lives his life according to and thus anything that is NOT the truth leads
>> you astray, whether it be organized religion or simple faith in the
> smallest
>> of things. In your case, it appears to be man's claims of science,
>> blindly
>> believing whatever they claim and make statements of, whether it is
> derived
>> in fact or truth or not. Thus, YOUR faith in them is just as much
>> weakness
>> as you claim those in their chosen religion is.
>>
>> cont
>>
>> >> Any science that is NOT physical science
>> >
>> > There is no such thing. All sciences are natural sciences.
>> > That's how science is defined.
>>
>>
>> BULL. Man has claimed to know the source, timeline, and age of the earth,
>> stars, sun and Universe and they have absolutely NO possible evidence for
>> their claims, nor is there any possibility to KNOW it. Man claims to know
>> the science of how the mind works and why man reacts, thinks and does
>> what
>> they do, what emotions are derived from and what their personalities will
>> consist and will always consist of, but they really don't have a clue, as
> it
>> is ALL conjecture, hypothesis, theory and imagination, as they cannot
>> explain most of why, how, when and what man does and what causes it, but
>> pretend to. Think about it, if they would concede that they are not
> finding
>> the answers, then it is clear that their FUNDING and monetary gain would
> dry
>> up, and since, as I explained before, money is the driving force in most
>> societal actions today. There is NO possible way for man to determine the
>> age of the Universe, it's beginnings or source, how it came into being or
>> anything regarding celestial bodies, nor is it possible to determine WHY
>> man's mind and brain works in the ways it does, and yet, they CLAIM that
>> their imaginations, concepts, ideologies, hypothesis and theories are
> FACT,
>> and pretend that their science defines it, when that is an outright LIE.
> But
>> because their funding would cease to exist, they HAVE to make statements
> of
>> fact, otherwise, what they spent thousands of dollars for, countless
>> hours
>> in college, research, study and work, and their life's work would come to
> an
>> end and you know that man only concerns himself with his own desires,
> wants,
>> family and material possessions and will defend it with any means
> possible,
>> including lying, to hold onto it.
>>
>> cont
>>
>> >> which can be proven
>> >>through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
>> >>imagination, such as the space science, psychology, psychiatry, the
>> >>beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting to
>> >>measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is
> none,
>> >>and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories.
>> >
>> > You're obviously scientifically illiterate.
>> > That statement is completely wrong and spoken from ignorance.
>>
>> No, apparently you are blind and ignorant, believing liars because you
> want
>> to and it serves YOUR purpose, being close and narrow minded, illogical,
>> unreasonable and self-serving, because to face truths higher and more
>> complex than you are willing to accept, you defend yourself with ignorant
>> accusations of MY ignorance of science, when I have the complete and
>> ultimate picture from a higher plane, that you couldn't possibly
> understand
>> nor comprehend. Your denial of FACT, REASON AND LOGIC, pretending that
>> science is always pure, honest, truthful, without corruption and always
>> believable, no matter the source or intent, is IGNORANCE on your part.
>> Why
>> do you BELIEVE what ungodly science states WITHOUT question? Isn't YOUR
>> faith in them, just as fallible as what you think the faith in those who
>> claim to be fundamental Christians?
>> Why do you refute and deny them, when you are just as guilty of the a
>> similar, howbeit different belief system?
>>
>> cont
>>
>> >> However,
>> >>with Christianity, that belief system can be proven to the believer
>> >>through
>> >>the person's own spirit, experiences, wisdom, truths, knowledge and
> power
>> >>of
>> >>God, according to His will and what He chooses to reveal
>> >
>> > No such 'proof' can be shown to be anything but the believer's own
>> > delusions.
>> >
>> > ## God ain't so bad. It's his fan clubs that will drive you crazy!
>> >
>> And YOUR delusions, lying to yourself, blind belief in ungodly men of
>> science for their own agenda's is YOUR own delusion, but you are NOT MAN
>> enough to consider anyone's but your own faith in what you believe in,
> while
>> arrogantly defiantly and pridefully refuting something that is clear that
>> you really know NOTHING about. What you call delusion in others, may very
>> well be truth, while your own delusions can be full of lies and
> deceptions,
>> while YOUR delusions have eternal and detrimental consequences, that you
>> refuse to consider, because of YOUR small mindedness, arrogance, pride
>> and
>> blind faith in people that are corrupt, liars, ungodly and evil, which is
>> the same as yourself and that is why you defend them, while you have
>> absolutely NO proof in what you believe in either, other than what other
> men
>> of science state, while condemning others for believing in what men of
>> God
>> have stated. It appears, that those who believe in GOD, have the
>> advantage
>> than you do for at least they seek a HIGHER, GREATER, MORE POWERFUL
> source,
>> than you do, for all you have, is what ungodly, evil, self-serving,
>> materialistic, money serving, prideful and arrogant men of science state
> for
>> societal stance and financial support agenda's have deceitfully told you.
> At
>> least, those who believe in God have opportunity for eternal life in
> heaven,
>> and great rewards unknown by mortal men, than you do, for all you have,
>> in
>> your stance and defiance is condemnation into eternal hellfire. I hope
>> you
>> think that the wealth, societal acceptance and lies of men of science
>> have
>> attained is worth your eternal soul screaming in hell for all eternity.
> You
>> should for that is all you get.
>>
>> --
>> Dore
>>
>> www.dorewilliamson.com
>>
>>
>> "John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
>> news:g01371db2fji3vskb...@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:43:32 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Science is merely the study of what God has created. Evolution is a
>> >>THEORY,
>> >
>> > No, evolution is a fact. There is not and never has been a theory that
>> > evolution happens anymore than there is a theory that gravity happens.
>> > We observe both. The theorizing is only about the how and why.
>> >
>> >>not a basic component of science and NOT essential to biology and
> geology,
>> >>for these things are complex systems that are still not fully
> understood
>> >>by
>> >>science.
>> >
>> > Nonsense!
>> >
>> > "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of
>> > biology and is a critical component of many related scientific
>> > disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack
>> > empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
>> > National Academy of Sciences
>> > http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
>> >
>> >>No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the
>> >>imagination
>> >>of
>> >>the ungodly scientists,
>> >
>> > Only in the minds of fundamentalist Creationists who have chosen to
>> > worship the Bible rather than God.
>> >
>> >> and to state otherwise, is without reason and logic
>> >>and evolution is certainly NOT fact, however, the existence of God IS
>> >>FACT,
>> >>or there would be NO science to study. The whole purpose of mankind's
>> >>existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT
> exist
>> >>at
>> >>all.
>> >
>> > Theological sheepdip!
>> >
>> >> Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
>> >>purpose on the earth,
>> >
>> > No, it's just another religion, one more among many that have plagued
>> > mankind.
>> >
>> >>> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason. In the face of so
>> >>> much
>> >>> anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about
>> >>> the
>> >>> replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and
>> >>> dogmatic
>> >>> belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are
> not.
>> >>> The trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer
>> >>> than
>> >>> anything based on experiment and sound assessment. Thus empirical
>> >>> knowledge is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for
>> >>> people to do is
>> >>> to ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on
>> >>> evidence,
>> >>> but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept
>> >>> what
>> >>> seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what
>> >>> seems
>> >>> sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is
>> >>> incompatible
>> >>> with skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science.
>> >
>> >>No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic.
>> >
>> > Fundamentalist Christianity does. It insistes on a literal reading of
>> > an inerrant Bible. To do that you must abandon reason and deny
>> > science.
>> >
>> >>As I said,
>> >>science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and true
>> >>Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things, including the
>> >>tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc,
>> >
>> > Well they delude themselves that they do.
>> >
>> >>they are
>> >>NOT limited to merely one aspect of study, but the seeking and
>> >>understanding
>> >>of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>> >>interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to
> exist
>> >>and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places.
>> >
>> > And they're not finding anything.
>> >
>> >>Religion is merely
>> >>the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe, and faith is
>> >>the
>> >>greatest power that man has,
>> >
>> > No, it's a weakness, and has led many astray.
>> >
>> >> The
>> >>supernatural and spiritual realm is just as REAL as the physical,
>> >
>> > Not demonstrated or demonstrable.
>> >
>> >> however,
>> >>because it is completely different from the physical realm, and science
> is
>> >>ONLY involved in the physical things, then the spiritual and
> supernatural
>> >>cannot be measured by the methods of physical science, but certainly
>> >>the
>> >>spiritual and supernatural cannot be dismissed because it cannot be
>> >>measured
>> >>by science.
>> >
>> > Yes it can. If we can't measure it and can't understand it, and you
>> > can't even prove it exists, I think that dismissing it is just what we
>> > should do.
>> >
>> >> Any science that is NOT physical science
>> >
>> > There is no such thing. All sciences are natural sciences.
>> > That's how science is defined.
>> >
>> >> which can be proven
>> >>through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
>> >>imagination, such as the space science, psychology, psychiatry, the
>> >>beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting to
>> >>measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is
> none,
>> >>and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories.
>> >
>> > You're obviously scientifically illiterate.
>> > That statement is completely wrong and spoken from ignorance.
>> >
>> >> However,
>> >>with Christianity, that belief system can be proven to the believer
>> >>through
>> >>the person's own spirit, experiences, wisdom, truths, knowledge and
> power
>> >>of
>> >>God, according to His will and what He chooses to reveal
>> >
>> > No such 'proof' can be shown to be anything but the believer's own
>> > delusions.
>> >
>> > ## God ain't so bad. It's his fan clubs that will drive you crazy!
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Dore
> You obviously don't understand my signature. That signature means that I
> am
> free from ancient superstitions and myths. That I have come to see that
> there is no reason anymore to believe in some nonexistent entity. That the
> book you christians and jews call holy is nothing but propaganda expounded
> by the clergy in order to gain control over the lives of the gullible and
> to
> take their money while their at it. That signature means that whatever I
> do
> with the rest of my life won't be because some ancient superstitious book,
> some hypocritical clergy or some make believe god told me what to do; it
> will be my own damn fault based on rational decisions!
You being FREE from truth, does NOT change truth, it is only you deluding
yourself. What YOU do with YOUR life is dictated by your government and it's
laws and demands, which is EVIL, therefore you are more enslaved than I am.
And we won't even get into the taking of money, for at least clergy accept
donations, whereas your government steals it from you, upon the threat of
imprisonment, enslaves you to it, in threat of homelessness, denying you
food, clothing, water, shelter etc if you don't seek money.
cont
>
> You theists are always projecting. It is not atheists that are ignorant
> and
> blind; it is you that are gullible enough to believe ancient myths and
> superstitions. And yes, I will be totally surprised if I find myself in
> hell
> since it is nothing more than another christian superstition.
No, it is atheists that are ignorant and blind. And you WILL find yourself
in hell, screaming and wondering why you are in a place that you didn't
believe existed.
--
Dore
"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
news:acKdnVWqg78...@comcast.com...
> "Dore" wrote
> : "Bear" wrote
> : > I disagree on all counts, but thank you for your input.
> : >
> : > --
> : > Bear
> : >
> : > And I know it’s my own damn fault.
> : >
> : >
> :
> : At least you know that your ignorance and blindness is all your own damn
> : fault, so you won't be surprised when you find yourself in hell.
>
> You obviously don't understand my signature. That signature means that I
> am
> free from ancient superstitions and myths. That I have come to see that
> there is no reason anymore to believe in some nonexistent entity. That the
> book you christians and jews call holy is nothing but propaganda expounded
> by the clergy in order to gain control over the lives of the gullible and
> to
> take their money while their at it. That signature means that whatever I
> do
> with the rest of my life won't be because some ancient superstitious book,
> some hypocritical clergy or some make believe god told me what to do; it
> will be my own damn fault based on rational decisions!
>
> You theists are always projecting. It is not atheists that are ignorant
> and
> blind; it is you that are gullible enough to believe ancient myths and
> superstitions. And yes, I will be totally surprised if I find myself in
> hell
> since it is nothing more than another christian superstition.
Dore
news:4271F8...@armory.com...
> Your pompous imagination, you poor deluded fool.
There are countless souls screaming in hell right now, living out my
delusions and imaginations as FACT, and you will too.
--
Dore
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:4271F8...@armory.com...
> Dore wrote:
>>
>> "Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
>> news:t8SdndoiO9q...@comcast.com...
>>
>> > I disagree on all counts, but thank you for your input.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bear
>> >
>> > And I know it's my own damn fault.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> At least you know that your ignorance and blindness is all your own damn
>> fault, so you won't be surprised when you find yourself in hell.
Dore
> Why do you feel it necessary to threaten people with your imaginary hell?
It is NOT threats, it is warning and it is also NOT imaginary, but I suppose
you will discover that fact, when you are screaming in it.
cont
> Have run out of facts to support your silly belief system?
>
No, I have countless facts, experiences, truths and evidence that support my
belief system. Do you expect me to give them to you? Sorry, I don't throw
pearls to swine.
Dore
"wmech" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:g7Ace.140860$vL3....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Why do you feel it necessary to threaten people with your imaginary hell?
> Have run out of facts to support your silly belief system?
>
> --
> Bill
> "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:jzice.9569$WX.5254@trndny01...
>> "Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
>> news:t8SdndoiO9q...@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>> > I disagree on all counts, but thank you for your input.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bear
>> >
>> > And I know it's my own damn fault.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> At least you know that your ignorance and blindness is all your own damn
>> fault, so you won't be surprised when you find yourself in hell.
>> --
>> Dore
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
>> news:t8SdndoiO9q...@comcast.com...
>> > "Dore" wrote
>> > : "Bear" wrote
>> > : > The amount of unreason in the mightiest country the world has ever
>> > known
>> > : > is
>> > : > astonishing and frightening. Half of all Americans, 150 years after
>> > : > Darwin,
>> > : > reject evolution. Yet, evolution is a basic component of science,
> and
>> > : > essential to biology and geology. How can anyone understand science
> if
>> > : > they
>> > : > do not understand evolution? The reason that so many Americans
> reject
>> > : > evolution is that only one in seven Americans have rejected
>> > : > Christianity-only backward Catholic and Moslem countries have fewer
>> > : > disbelievers.
>> > : >
>> > :
>> > : Science is merely the study of what God has created. Evolution is a
>> > THEORY,
>> > : not a basic component of science and NOT essential to biology and
>> > geology,
>> > : for these things are complex systems that are still not fully
>> > understood
>> > by
>> > : science.
>> > :
>> > : cont
>> > :
>> > : > Christianity is an opinion and nothing more, and it is shown in
>> > Christians'
>> > : > selective choice of data. Opinions and values are more important
> than
>> > : > facts
>> > : > and reason. It is the opinion of some people that God came to earth
> to
>> > : > save
>> > : > mankind. There is no evidence that this is true, yet Christians
>> > base
>> > their
>> > : > lives, and worse, try to base other people's lives on their
> opinions.
>> > When
>> > : > evidence is ignored and conclusions are based on opinion, then
>> > knowledge
>> > : > suffers and our rational society is endangered. That happened in
>> > the
>> > fall
>> > : > of
>> > : > classical society and its replacement by the Christian Dark Ages.
> That
>> > is
>> > : > the seriousness of Christianity.
>> > :
>> > : No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the
> imagination
>> > of
>> > : the ungodly scientists, and to state otherwise, is without reason and
>> > logic
>> > : and evolution is certainly NOT fact, however, the existence of God IS
>> > FACT,
>> > : or there would be NO science to study. The whole purpose of mankind's
>> > : existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT
>> > exist
>> > at
>> > : all. Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's
>> > history
>> > and
>> > : purpose on the earth, from the beginning to the end and that is seen
> in
>> > the
>> > : plan of salvation. Man, a created soul by God, placed in human
> vessels,
>> > and
>> > : through the fall of the first man, sin, evil and death came upon the
>> > earth,
>> > : thus to return to God, man NEEDED a method and an act for the
> remission
>> > of
>> > : sins and to overcome evil and death. God CHOSE to send His own Son to
>> > : fulfill this purpose. To base all of your thoughts, ideas and life on
>> > just
>> > : the one dimension of the physical things of life, is small minded and
>> > : limited, thereby narrow-minded, unreasonable and illogical.
>> > :
>> > : cont
>> > :
>> > : > Christianity rejects science, logic and reason. In the face of so
>> > : > skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth;
> Dr
>> > M
>> > D
>> > :
>> > : No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic. As I said,
>> > : science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and
>> > true
>> > : Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things, including
>> > the
>> > : tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc, they
>> > are
>> > : NOT limited to merely one aspect of study, but the seeking and
>> > understanding
>> > : of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>> > : interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to
>> > exist
>> > : and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places. Religion is
>> > merely
>> > : the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe, and faith is
> the
>> > : greatest power that man has, whether they believe in a higher
> intellect
>> > and
>> > : supreme being, money, lies, fantasies, myths or truths whatever, for
>> > what
>> > a
>> > : man believes is what drives every aspect of his life and choices. The
>> > : supernatural and spiritual realm is just as REAL as the physical,
>> > however,
>> > : because it is completely different from the physical realm, and
> science
>> > is
>> > : ONLY involved in the physical things, then the spiritual and
>> > supernatural
>> > : cannot be measured by the methods of physical science, but certainly
> the
>> > : spiritual and supernatural cannot be dismissed because it cannot be
>> > measured
>> > : by science. Any science that is NOT physical science, which can be
>> > proven
>> > : through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
>> > : imagination, such as the space science, psychology, psychiatry, the
>> > : beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting
> to
>> > : measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is
>> > none,
>> > : and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories.
> However,
>> > : with Christianity, that belief system can be proven to the believer
>> > through
>> > : the person's own spirit, experiences, wisdom, truths, knowledge and
>> > power
>> > of
>> > : God, according to His will and what He chooses to reveal and they are
>> > just
>> > : as REAL, logical, reasonable and fact as any physical science. But
>> > because
>> > : they cannot be measured by physical means, does NOT negate them by
>> > any
>> > means
>> > : whatsoever. You can "test" faith, the spiritual realm, spirits, etc,
> but
>> > : only by intangible means and can only be understood by the one doing
> the
>> > : testing through their own spirit and mind.
Bear
: You being FREE from truth, does NOT change truth, it is only you deluding
: yourself.
I'm not free from truth! I have finally found truth! What I am free from is
ancient supertitions and myths!
: What YOU do with YOUR life is dictated by your government and it's
: laws and demands, which is EVIL, therefore you are more enslaved than I
am.
A you being deceitful by implying that what you do with your life is not
dictated by your government and its laws and demands? If what you do with
your life is not dictated by your government and its laws and demands, go
ahead and cheat on your taxes, or rob a bank, or break the speed limit.
Don't be ridiculous.
: And we won't even get into the taking of money, for at least clergy accept
: donations, whereas your government steals it from you, upon the threat of
: imprisonment, enslaves you to it, in threat of homelessness, denying you
: food, clothing, water, shelter etc if you don't seek money.
You rob gullible people blind with your lying and deceiving.
: No, it is atheists that are ignorant and blind.
No, it is you superstitious theists who believe in ancient myths that are
ignorant and blind.
: And you WILL find yourself
: in hell, screaming and wondering why you are in a place that you didn't
: believe existed.
Hell is merely another one of your myths that superstitious ancients
invented in their ignorance. Here's a test: show me this hell of yours on a
map and I will consider it.
Bear
: There are countless souls screaming in hell right now, living out my
: delusions and imaginations as FACT, and you will too.
I suppose you can hear them can't you Dore? LMAO!
Bear
: It is NOT threats, it is warning and it is also NOT imaginary, but I
: you will discover that fact, when you are screaming in it.
If you are so smart Dore, present objective, verifiable evidence that your
hell exists.
Dore
> Proof of this god or evidence of its existence would be ?
>
ALL that exists is evidence of God.
cont
> Do you even know what a Theory means in scientific terms, I'm guessing
> not by you statement.
Theory: A guess deduced by certain facts to attempt to make a whole picture
with only some pieces to support it.
cont
>>No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic.
> Oh were to start here lets see:
> The earth is flat
> the sun rotates around the earth
> The moon is a perfect spere without hills valleys etc.
> Holy water not soap and water will prevent disease
> These are but a few of the things of science, reason and logic that
> xianity has rejected
Christianity does NOT believe any of these things. From where do you get
your information, other than your imagination?
cont
>> As I said, science is merely the study of what the Christian God created
> You need proof that a god created anything and you have yet to provide
> one, and not one xian has ever supplied proof of a god, for that
> matter in the whole of humanity there exists no proof of the existance
> of god. If you have some please share it will be very enlightning.
ALL things exist, therefore God created it. They certainly didn't come into
existence all by itself. If you believe all things have, then take an empty
box, and see how long something suddenly appears in it. Heck, put in all of
the elements that exist and shake it up. How long do you think such a
complex, intricate, and in perfect order a living being would come into
existence? If you believe it can, then you must believe that if you take
lead, copper, rubber, oil, tin, steal, silicon, glass, etc throw it into the
ocean, and wait for a perfectly working, self-healing, self-powered computer
to wash up on the beach. And then that would be similar to a living being.
cont
>> and true Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things,
> There must be very few 'true xians' since they don't seem to
> contribute much to anything.
Yes, there are only a few TRUE Christians.
cont
>> including the tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical
>> etc,
> So what is this intangible, super natural, metaphysical again? I'm am
> sure you have some evidence of that which you speak, share with us
> this evidence.
>> they are NOT limited to merely one aspect of study,
> Very few people are so what is your point here?
Dreams, visions, emotions, thought, spirits, ghosts, power, miracles and
unexplained phenomena for example.
cont
>> but the seeking and understanding
>>of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>>interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to exist
>>and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places.
> yes that is what sciencetists do from botinist, biolgist,neuralogist,
> all the way up to quantum physist
Science does not study realms, dimensions, time and as for places, are
limited to this solar system and what they can see through a telescope. Most
science, except the study of the paranormal, study only the physical aspects
of anything.
cont
> You should not use words unless you know their meaning
> Religious
> Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
> Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin
> religiosus, from religio
> 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
> ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
> 2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
> 3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
> - re·li·gious·ly adverb
> - re·li·gious·ness noun
Snip
Who said Webster is the authority on definition and why do I have to abide
by his beliefs? He is NOT MY GOD.
cont
> Faith is not a power see above definition
Faith is the greatest power for what a man believes drives all of his
thinking and actions. Obviously, Webster doesn't know what he is talking
about. It is by faith that people act and react in the ways they do. It is
by their faith that constrains or sets free a man. It is by faith, for
example that men believe that money is power, when it is only a piece of
paper, a digit in a computer, a metal disc etc and it is by man's faith that
gives it's power over all mankind.
cont
>> whether they believe in a higher intellect and supreme being, money,
>> lies, fantasies, myths or truths whatever, for what a
>>man believes is what drives every aspect of his life and choices.
> Some are just based in reality and some are not
Doesn't matter, it is the faith that drives it, whether real or imagined.
cont
> Well physical things are the only things in which there is evidence of
> this only makes sense, you cant study something that does not exist.
The spirit realm exists, but you can't study it, you can only experience it.
cont
> Here a few things to help measure those things:
> speed of light-I know how fast it is I can measure distance it travels
> in a given time period between differant points and viola the age of
> the universe is easily calculated.
The speed of light has absolutely NOTHING to do with the age of the
Universe. Since light dissipates over time and space, that nonsense that you
are seeing the light from a star from billions of years ago, is merely more
of science's imagination.
cont
> I can also measure the decay of atoms so then I can figure out how old
> something is
You can't figure out the age of the earth or the Universe by the decay of
atoms, for everything regenerates, procreates or changes over time. Sure you
can figure out the decay of any one certain thing through stringent
conditions, but that is it. You can't make stuff up about other things and
pretend that what your experiment has proven ALL things.
cont
> I can even count the number of layers in a sediment deposit and
> calculate how long it took to get each layer so it's veary easy to
> calculate the age of something within it.
Really, what about other conditions, as weather, wind, air, water, rain,
man's interference, volcanic activity, time, chemistry, elements and it's
reaction to them, and the vast amounts of other conditions that would have
affected the layers?
cont
> You can also take a couple of scince classes and you could do this
> yourself.
I learn everything from God, for who would be a better teacher, the One who
created it, or some human, who like you makes stuff up, not taking into
consideration all of the elements and conditions over time.
cont
> Space science is proved and validated daily if not hourly
HAHAHAHA, man can only imagine what he sees through a telescope and his
man-made instruments in his immediate space. Do you know that man has never
went to the moon? Just another lie from science and government, who delude
you every day.
cont
> You have proof of a spirit? Do share this
Do you have life? Do you have emotions? Then you have a spirit.
cont
>> knowledge and power of
>>God, according to His will and what He chooses to reveal and they are just
>>as REAL, logical, reasonable and fact as any physical science.
> No they are illusions and fantasies
No, they are FACT, however, it is hidden from the evil and wicked.
cont
>> But because they cannot be measured by physical means, does NOT
>> negate them by any means whatsoever. You can "test" faith,
>> the spiritual realm, spirits, etc, but only by intangible means and
>> can only be understood by the one doing the testing through their
>> own spirit and mind.
> Are these tests observable, documentable, repeatable?
Of course they can be repeated, observed and documented by the one
experiencing them.
cont
If not and you
> state that only the tester can understand them then they are not tests
> and they proof nothing.
So you are saying unless there are more than one person experiencing
something, it doesn't exist? They are tests to the individual and they are
proof for the individual. Who are you to determine what another human
experiences and judge it as fact or not?
--
Dore
"Azrael" <g...@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in message
news:drj371tlh16glg8m3...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:43:32 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
>>news:Dd6dnbXcB9_...@comcast.com...
>>
> <---snip--->
>>
>>Science is merely the study of what God has created. Evolution is a
>>THEORY,
>>not a basic component of science and NOT essential to biology and geology,
>>for these things are complex systems that are still not fully understood
>>by
>>science.
> Science is the study of the world from sub atomic- particles to the
> whole of the universe and everything in between.
>
> Proof of this god or evidence of its existence would be ?
>
> Do you even know what a Theory means in scientific terms, I'm guessing
> not by you statement.
>
> You are correct that evolution is not a basic part of science it's
> more like a branch or to put it more simply, part of the foundation.
> Evolution is as unessential to biology as wheels are on car or wings
> on a plane. You are correct in that evolution is not a essential to
> geology since geology is the study of the planet not the life forms on
> it.
>>for these things are complex systems that are still not fully understood
>>by
>>science
> The only true thing that you said, but then science is studying them
> so eventually we will fully understand them, and we do have a pretty
> good understanding of them now
>>cont
>>
>>> Christianity is an opinion and nothing more, and it is shown in
>>> Christians'
>>> selective choice of data. Opinions and values are more important than
>>> facts
>>> and reason. It is the opinion of some people that God came to earth to
>>> save
>>> mankind. There is no evidence that this is true, yet Christians base
>>> their
>>> lives, and worse, try to base other people's lives on their opinions.
>>> When
>>> evidence is ignored and conclusions are based on opinion, then knowledge
>>> suffers and our rational society is endangered. That happened in the
>>> fall
>>> of
>>> classical society and its replacement by the Christian Dark Ages. That
>>> is
>>> the seriousness of Christianity.
>>
>>No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the imagination
>>of
>>the ungodly scientists, and to state otherwise, is without reason and
>>logic
>>and evolution is certainly NOT fact,
> Wrong Evolution is proved, provable and is observed nearly every day,
> no imagination is needed it is based in reality with fact, evidence,
> and observation and it is even repeatable and as you say and to state
> otherwise, is without reason and logic
>> however, the existence of God IS FACT,
> And you can provide evidence to this claim? Please provide some facts,
> or evidence of gods existance.
>>or there would be NO science to study.
> Nonsense
>> The whole purpose of mankind's
>>existence is to find there way back to God, otherwise man would NOT exist
>>at
>>all.
> If you have evidence of this or some proof to substantiate this claim,
> provide it.
>> Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
>>purpose on the earth, from the beginning to the end and that is seen in
>>the
>>plan of salvation.
> Xianianity is the second youngest western religion and is stolen from
> various other irreligious belief systems, you might want to do some
> study and research before you make such an outrageous claim.Don't
> forget that minor fact that 5 out of 6 people in the world do not
> share your claim.
>> Man, a created soul by God, placed in human vessels, and
>>through the fall of the first man, sin, evil and death came upon the
>>earth,
> If you have evidence of this or some proof to substantiate this claim,
> provide it.
>>thus to return to God, man NEEDED a method and an act for the remission of
>>sins and to overcome evil and death. God CHOSE to send His own Son to
>>fulfill this purpose.
> So god sacrificed himself to himself to forgive the sins of those he
> created from his wrath. This is believable how? It doesn't even make
> sense. An all powerful god could just have not created that which
> would lead his creation away from him.
>>To base all of your thoughts, ideas and life on just
>>the one dimension of the physical things of life, is small minded and
>>limited, thereby narrow-minded, unreasonable and illogical.
> It's three dimensions for physical things, just basic geometry, btw;
> and to believe in some fanciful story of some supreme being that wipes
> out whole civilizations, creates floods, turns people into pillars of
> salt, sends plagues, disease and commands his followers to kill is so
> much more reasonable, logical, unlimited and open minded how. So to
> believe in something in which there is no evidence of it's existence,
> it doesn't communicate to anybody and does nothing is logical and
> reasonable? Not by any stretch of the imagination
>>cont
>>
>>> Christianity rejects science, logic and reason. In the face of so much
>>> anti-science, supporters of science and reason are concerned about the
>>> replacement of empirical and logical evidence with religious and
>>> dogmatic
>>> belief. Religions may be based on evidence, but most often they are not.
>>> The
>>> trouble is that religious people take their religion to be truer than
>>> anything based on experiment and sound assessment. Thus empirical
>>> knowledge
>>> is replaced or denied by religion. The sensible thing for people to do
>>> is
>>> to
>>> ensure that whatever religion attracts them is soundly based on
>>> evidence,
>>> but they will not. It is never scientific or even sensible to accept
>>> what
>>> seems as though it ought to be so, without testing. Most often what
>>> seems
>>> sensible is not what it seems to be in reality. Belief is incompatible
>>> with
>>> skepticism, and skepticism is necessary for science. (God's Truth; Dr M
>>> D
>>
>>No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic.
> Oh were to start here lets see:
> The earth is flat
> the sun rotates around the earth
> The moon is a perfect spere without hills valleys etc.
> Holy water not soap and water will prevent disease
> These are but a few of the things of science, reason and logic that
> xianity has rejected
>> As I said, science is merely the study of what the Christian God created
> You need proof that a god created anything and you have yet to provide
> one, and not one xian has ever supplied proof of a god, for that
> matter in the whole of humanity there exists no proof of the existance
> of god. If you have some please share it will be very enlightning.
>> and true Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things,
> There must be very few 'true xians' since they don't seem to
> contribute much to anything.
>> including the tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical
>> etc,
> So what is this intangible, super natural, metaphysical again? I'm am
> sure you have some evidence of that which you speak, share with us
> this evidence.
>> they are NOT limited to merely one aspect of study,
> Very few people are so what is your point here?
>> but the seeking and understanding
>>of ALL realms, dimensions, times, places and realms and how they all
>>interact, are systematically connected and necessary for ALL life to exist
>>and sustain in all realms, dimensions, time and places.
> yes that is what sciencetists do from botinist, biolgist,neuralogist,
> all the way up to quantum physist
>>Religion is merely the terminology of what a person has chosen to believe,
> You should not use words unless you know their meaning
> Religion
> Main Entry: re·li·gion
> Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
> supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from
> religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
> 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
> (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
> commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
> beliefs, and practices
> 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
> 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
> faith
> - re·li·gion·less adjective
>
> Religious
> Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
> Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin
> religiosus, from religio
> 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
> ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
> 2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
> 3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
> - re·li·gious·ly adverb
> - re·li·gious·ness noun
>
> Faith
> Main Entry: 1faith
> Pronunciation: 'fAth
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
> Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin
> fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
> 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to
> one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
> 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the
> traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something
> for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
> 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
> especially : a system of religious beliefs
>
>> and faith is the greatest power that man has,
> Faith is not a power see above definition
>> whether they believe in a higher intellect and supreme being, money,
>> lies, fantasies, myths or truths whatever, for what a
>>man believes is what drives every aspect of his life and choices.
> Some are just based in reality and some are not
>> The supernatural and spiritual realm is just as REAL as the physical,
> And you can provide evidence to these supernatural and spiritual
> realms? Please provide some facts and evidence of thiere existance.
>> however, because it is completely different from the physical realm, and
>> science is
>>ONLY involved in the physical things,
> Well physical things are the only things in which there is evidence of
> this only makes sense, you cant study something that does not exist.
>> then the spiritual and supernatural cannot be measured by the methods
>> of physical science, but certainly the spiritual and supernatural cannot
>> be
>> dismissed because it cannot be measured by science.
> Of course it can there exists no evidence of it's existance, ergo it
> is dismissed.
>> Any science that is NOT physical science, which can be proven
>>through experiment and validated, is all conjecture, hypothesis, and
>>imagination, such as the space science
> Space science is proved and validated daily if not hourly
>>, psychology, psychiatry,
> No but then they are soft sciences and unless you want to relaxe the
> slavery laws and allow someone to completely control, influence,
> study, and subject to various stimuli other groups of humans for an
> entire life time it will always be a soft science but we can observe
> how large groups of humans react to a certain set of stimuli and
> extrapulate how certain members will react in future cicumstances that
> are similar.
>> the beginnings and creation of the Universe or things such as attempting
>> to
>>measure the age of the Universe, earth, sun, stars etc, for there is none,
>>and cannot be any, concrete evidence to support their theories.
> Here a few things to help measure those things:
> speed of light-I know how fast it is I can measure distance it travels
> in a given time period between differant points and viola the age of
> the universe is easily calculated.
> I can also measure the decay of atoms so then I can figure out how old
> something is
> I can even count the number of layers in a sediment deposit and
> calculate how long it took to get each layer so it's veary easy to
> calculate the age of something within it.
> You can also take a couple of scince classes and you could do this
> yourself.
>> However, with Christianity, that belief system can be proven to the
>> believer through the person's own spirit,
> You have proof of a spirit? Do share this
>> experiences, wisdom, truths,
> This is merely education
>> knowledge and power of
>>God, according to His will and what He chooses to reveal and they are just
>>as REAL, logical, reasonable and fact as any physical science.
> No they are illusions and fantasies
>> But because they cannot be measured by physical means, does NOT
>> negate them by any means whatsoever. You can "test" faith,
>> the spiritual realm, spirits, etc, but only by intangible means and
>> can only be understood by the one doing the testing through their
>> own spirit and mind.
> Are these tests observable, documentable, repeatable? If not and you
> state that only the tester can understand them then they are not tests
> and they proof nothing.
Dore
> WRONGO! No evidence of creation exists.
Then NOTHING exists for all there is is evidence.
--
Dore
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:4271EA...@armory.com...
> Dore wrote:
>>
>> Science is merely the study of what God has created.
> ----------------------
> WRONGO! No evidence of creation exists.
>
>
>> Evolution is a THEORY,
>> not a basic component of science and NOT essential to biology and
>> geology,
> -----------------------
> Absolute blathering antiscientific nonsense.
>
>
>> No, Evolution is the opinion, conjecture, hypothesis and the imagination
>> of
>> the ungodly scientists,
> --------------------------
> No. Evolution is repeatable in the fossil record, in bacterial
> research and in the observation of all forms of life, and is
> supported by reason and computer simulation experiments, as well
> as in active biological experimentation.
>
>
>> and to state otherwise, is without reason and logic
>> and evolution is certainly NOT fact,
> ----------------------------
> You wouldn't know reason and logic if they bit your dick off.
>
>
>> however, the existence of God IS FACT,
> ----------------------
> Absolute lie.
>
>
>> or there would be NO science to study.
> --------------------
> No proof or evidence exists of any such thing other than the opinions
> of middle eastern pagan sheepfucker religions with hateful demon-gods.
>
>
>> The whole purpose of mankind's
>> existence is to find there way back to God,
> ------------------------
> That's merely your desperately paramoid delusion.
>
>
>> otherwise man would NOT exist at
>> all.
> --------------------------
> You have no actual idea why we exist.
>
>
>>Christianity, is the basis of the whole plan of mankind's history and
>> purpose on the earth, from the beginning to the end and that is seen in
>> the
>> plan of salvation.
> ------------------------------
> More of your paranoid delusion which you mistake for reality.
>
>
>> Man, a created soul by God, placed in human vessels, and
>> through the fall of the first man, sin, evil and death came upon the
>> earth,
>> thus to return to God, man NEEDED a method and an act for the remission
>> of
>> sins and to overcome evil and death. God CHOSE to send His own Son to
>> fulfill this purpose.
> ----------------------------------
> Made-up fantasy.
>
>
>> To base all of your thoughts, ideas and life on just
>> the one dimension of the physical things of life, is small minded and
>> limited, thereby narrow-minded, unreasonable and illogical.
> --------------------------------
> And by that you mean we should all just make up mystical fantasy
> shit that sounds nuts instead of merely looking around us for
> reason and logic and evidence.
>
>
>> No, Christianity does NOT reject science, reason or logic.
> -----------------------
> YOURS DOES, MORON!!
>
>
>> As I said,
>> science is merely the study of what the Christian God created and true
>> Christians, having a HIGHER understanding of ALL things,
> ---------------------------
> For pretending that YOU have some "higher understanding" than the
> REST of us, you really need your ass kicked up between your
> shoulderblades.
>
>
>> including the
>> tangible and intangible, the supernatural, the metaphysical etc,
re...@believer.com
don't read. You do all your learning from tv. LMAO
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:i4ia7197gerv7vjai...@4ax.com...
re...@believer.com
atheist? So what?
"Bear" <bigbe...@native.web.net> wrote in message
news:7KudnT1WnPe...@comcast.com...
Bear
: "R. Steve Walz" wrote
:
: > WRONGO! No evidence of creation exists.
:
:
: Then NOTHING exists for all there is is evidence.
It isn't evidence of creation.
Bear
: "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
<real wrote
: It's all documented and unrefuted by contemporaries.
Wrong!
: Oh, I forgot, you
: don't read. You do all your learning from tv. LMAO
Obviously, it is you that doesn't read!
--