I am a Christian and no I don't hate atheist. [YOU RESPOND]

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
I am a Christian and no I don't hate atheist. [YOU RESPOND]

From: jnnaj@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 12:12 AM
Subject: [General Question] Debate w/ Kirk & Ray on Nightline

Joe sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.

I am a Christian and no I don't hate atheist.  I am also sorry I do not
remember your names.  I saw some inconsistencies on both sides in the
debate but would like to ask if you believe in a first uncaused cause which
Ray stated was GOD and you said he could not support it because then GOD
needs a cause.  If that is true then that law of thermodynamics is in error
because it is an argument for a first uncaused cause that is greater than
the results we see.  I understand your uncaused cause to be matter and
Ray's to be GOD. I agree with Ray because matter can't create a GOD as
people can and do, but a GOD can create matter.  You also made mention when
transitional forms were discussed that there are plenty and that we are
transitional forms.  I have never heard that before, so could you tell me
whose theory that is?  I know of no transitional forms and many so called
have turned out to be false.  I have even read quotes from Nobel Prize
winning scientist and museum directors that the fossil record is an
embarrassment. Next time I go to the AMNH I hope to remember to ask about
the transitional forms they say they have.  One comment made on the atheist
side was that transitional forms was like a thousand foot steps.  That
sounds rational but it is not rational to believe that we have the first
and last steps and nothing in between.  Also if I remember correctly the
woman atheist mentioned something about a new form not having anything to
mate with.  It would die and no transitional form would be available.  How
then do you get to step two of the thousand steps?  Christians and atheist
have the same matter and evidence yet different explanations.  I grew up
Catholic and only when I became born again did I begin to read and study
and check out the Bible for myself. The evidence you are looking for is,
there HE is.  I don't think that will happen that way for anyone.  IF GOD
means all powerful, all knowing and present everywhere and HE would have to
be to have created everything, then HE is too great for me or anyone to
shake a small puny fist at and say show yourself on my terms and by the way
explain yourself to me.  If he was truly a GOD of evil I could picture a
much more evil existence than we have today.  If HE is a GOD of love only
he could explain it.  Both sides seemed to make mention of the Bible that
did not bear on the existence of a GOD but that was to be expected.  Sorry
this is so long, but I hope you can email me the information so I can look
into it.  New theories pop up all the time but until proven they remain
irrational and only theories.  But I will say that many theories can't be
proven by science though they present them as fact!  Rationally if you are
not there to observe they need to make sure people know it is a theory.

GOD Bless

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
*bangs head on desk*

*bangs head on desk*


Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Just a general response.

It may not seem like a very good argument from your point of view... but there may be a cause without a cause. And that being may rightfully be called a god. But that is no reason to assume that that god has any of the characteristics of YHWH... At least any more than it is reasonable for it to have the characteristics of Ra or any of the other tens of thousands of gods. What you are talking about is the Deist god. The ground of all things that doesn't seem to care what we pray about or or how or with whom we have sex. In other words... you argument is for the existence of a god... not some god in particular. That god is just as likely Allah as YHWH as Ra as Thor...

As to your questions about evolution... Now forms arising in a single generation... that's just not how it happens. Some people once thought that's how it happened. They were called Saltationists. But it doesn't happen like that... because you're right... a completely new thing would have nothing to mate with. Instead what happens is that the whole species changes over time. Very slowly and very gradually. So that everyone has someone to mate with... more so... they have a large variety of people to mate with.

I don't doubt that you've read the Bible. But I challenge to you read it carefully... and try to pick out at least half of the 397 contradictions in it. It's hard. I don't know if I myself could do it if I were not privy to them. At any rate... it's just not the kind of handy-work that one would expect from an all knowing god. I mean... for the sake of common sense... he makes Night and Day on the first day and makes the sun on the fourth.

 


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
"The evidence you are

"The evidence you are looking for is, there HE is."

Where?  I don't notice anything there.  What you're giving is not evidence but belief.

 

"If HE is a GOD of love only he could explain it."

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.  Why would his being a god of love mean that only he can explain who he is? 

 

Ministers/priests/reverends/etc. exist in order to help draw people closer to god.  If they cannot explain why I should believe that god exists, then what's the point?  Shouldn't that be one of the basic questions that any of them can explain in a straightforward manner to a layperson?  I continue to be underwhelmed by what those 2 guys had to say.

On a personal note, if you could please use paragraphs next time I would very much appreciate it.  You certainly do not need to do so, but it helps in the reading process.  Thanks.

 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
*bangs head on bible* WTF

*bangs head on bible*

 WTF ain't gawed? Please show me the idol ... Religions of idols is fucking dirt stupid ...

                                

                     

 


jnnaj (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Response to 8/7/08 Comment

Dear Anniet,

The arguments proposed by both believers and unbelievers can be the same with minor changes.

GOD always existed - can't prove it - it is just faith.

Matter always existed - can't prove it - it is just faith.

 

In the beginning GOD - can't prove it - it is just faith.

In the beginning matter - can't prove it - it is just faith.

 

Start with GOD creating less complex yet more complex than man can understand - can't prove it - faith.

Start with matter exploding into more complex than man can understand - can't prove it - faith.

Both arguments have circunstantial evidence.  I can't point to GOD and science can't point to the beginning of matter or before matter if they suppose there was a before?  With respect to evolution the respected ahtiest/scientist - the GOD Delusion (book, debate) can't truly explain where new information comes from and can't argue against a 1st uncaused cause.  Yet his argument will not be thrown out by rational athiest. Why do you suppose that is?

I am not sure what the term GOD means to you, but if it means what the battle says it means (all powerful & all knowing to name a few) then why do limited created beings with limited intellect beleive the given explanation for GOD is insufficient?  In the Bible is state in Romans 1:18 ...they deny the truth in unrighteousness... I did not write the Bible.  I have to struggle with every verse I read just like anyone else. If the statement is false then throw it out, but if it is true where do you go from there?

If people can't accept the concept of GOD then creation, sin and CHRIST's death mean nothing.  But if it is true where do you go from there?  I pray GOD speaks to your heart.

Sorry about the paragraphs, someone else posted it.

GOD Bless - seek and ye shall find.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
God and religion hardly go

God and religion hardly go in the same sentence or train of thought. The story jesus also serves as an atheist mentor for many atheists, as in jesus saying "Fuck idol worship religion shit." Story Jesus said no dogma, no religion, as is ONE. It's the main part of the story that snuck thru .... No Master yet found .... religion is ALL make believe.

Faith? My faith is scientific. Religion faith is voodoo superstition.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In the beginning

Quote:

In the beginning matter - can't prove it - it is just faith.

This is an ignorant strawman of basic cosmology:

Please read my response in this thread:

Bring it.

If you want more information I have compiled on the formation of complex structures, you should probably read these:

Biology and Thermodynamics

Chemical Evolution

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
DG, any brief thoughts on

DG, any brief thoughts on this, no hurry , but a bit curious .... even a yes / no will do,

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15313

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:In

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

In the beginning matter - can't prove it - it is just faith.

This is an ignorant strawman of basic cosmology:

Please read my response in this thread:

Bring it.

If you want more information I have compiled on the formation of complex structures, you should probably read these:

Biology and Thermodynamics

Chemical Evolution

Why do I think that....

1. It won't be read.

2. It will be read but not understood (like explaining astrophysics to a tarantula).

3. It will be read and ignored.

4. It will be read and you'll get a response like "Isn't God wonderful that he did all tha by just speaking it into existence?"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:deludedgod

jcgadfly wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

In the beginning matter - can't prove it - it is just faith.

This is an ignorant strawman of basic cosmology:

Please read my response in this thread:

Bring it.

If you want more information I have compiled on the formation of complex structures, you should probably read these:

Biology and Thermodynamics

Chemical Evolution

Why do I think that....

1. It won't be read.

2. It will be read but not understood (like explaining astrophysics to a tarantula).

3. It will be read and ignored.

4. It will be read and you'll get a response like "Isn't God wonderful that he did all tha by just speaking it into existence?"

 

Yeah, but the 1 time out of 100 that it is read and actually thought about a bit makes it worth trying the other 99 times, doesn't it?  Small steps.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
jnnaj wrote:Dear Anniet,The

jnnaj wrote:

Dear Anniet,

The arguments proposed by both believers and unbelievers can be the same with minor changes.

GOD always existed - can't prove it - it is just faith.

Matter always existed - can't prove it - it is just faith.

 

In the beginning GOD - can't prove it - it is just faith.

In the beginning matter - can't prove it - it is just faith.

 

Try again:

god always existed - can't prove it - no evidence - just faith

Matter always existed - can't prove it - evidence - logical conclusion

 

In the beginning god - can't prove it - no evidence - just faith

In the beginning matter (big bang?) - can prove it - evidence - logical conclusion

Maybe the LHC will become the new god?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:jcgadfly

anniet wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

In the beginning matter - can't prove it - it is just faith.

This is an ignorant strawman of basic cosmology:

Please read my response in this thread:

Bring it.

If you want more information I have compiled on the formation of complex structures, you should probably read these:

Biology and Thermodynamics

Chemical Evolution

Why do I think that....

1. It won't be read.

2. It will be read but not understood (like explaining astrophysics to a tarantula).

3. It will be read and ignored.

4. It will be read and you'll get a response like "Isn't God wonderful that he did all tha by just speaking it into existence?"

 

Yeah, but the 1 time out of 100 that it is read and actually thought about a bit makes it worth trying the other 99 times, doesn't it?  Small steps.

One can always hope...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jnnaj wrote:Dear Anniet,The

jnnaj wrote:

Dear Anniet,

The arguments proposed by both believers and unbelievers can be the same with minor changes.

GOD always existed - can't prove it - it is just faith.

Matter always existed - can't prove it - it is just faith.

 

In the beginning GOD - can't prove it - it is just faith.

In the beginning matter - can't prove it - it is just faith.

 

Start with GOD creating less complex yet more complex than man can understand - can't prove it - faith.

Start with matter exploding into more complex than man can understand - can't prove it - faith.

Both arguments have circunstantial evidence.  I can't point to GOD and science can't point to the beginning of matter or before matter if they suppose there was a before?  With respect to evolution the respected ahtiest/scientist - the GOD Delusion (book, debate) can't truly explain where new information comes from and can't argue against a 1st uncaused cause.  Yet his argument will not be thrown out by rational athiest. Why do you suppose that is?

I am not sure what the term GOD means to you, but if it means what the battle says it means (all powerful & all knowing to name a few) then why do limited created beings with limited intellect beleive the given explanation for GOD is insufficient?  In the Bible is state in Romans 1:18 ...they deny the truth in unrighteousness... I did not write the Bible.  I have to struggle with every verse I read just like anyone else. If the statement is false then throw it out, but if it is true where do you go from there?

If people can't accept the concept of GOD then creation, sin and CHRIST's death mean nothing.  But if it is true where do you go from there?  I pray GOD speaks to your heart.

Sorry about the paragraphs, someone else posted it.

GOD Bless - seek and ye shall find.

 

Are the following statements equally valid?

1. Cars exist. Before cars there were bikes. Bikes have wheels. Someone invented the wheel.

OR.

2. Lamborginni's exist. I have a butthole. I can fart one out of my ass because my ass exists and Lamborginnis exist.

The difference between scientific method and claims of the supernatural(gods/vampires/ghosts) is that scientific method is not based on a naked assertion.

Certainly no one knows what happend before the big bang. But to nakedly jump to the conclusion that a "who" did it is absurd. Non thinking objects interact throughout the universe without cognition so why would we assume that what came before was cognative?

Pollen interacts with plant life and produces more plants, but we don't accuse the plant or the pollen of having a brain.

On the other hand, deity claims did not start from prior data, but were carried on by effective marketing based on prior myth.

Which makes more sense to you? Which of these statements to you holds more validity?

1. Thor made lighting in reality?

OR

2. Someone made up that story.

God belief is NOT a 50/50 proposition anymore that Allah or Isis is a 50/50 proposition. The best method to mesuring reality is not by using ancient myth. You don't classify the species of birds based on the Egyptian stories of Horus. Nor would you become a Hindu if they made up a prayer for gravity.

The difference between the "circumstantial" that the theists claim is merely one of popularity and tradition. It was once tradition and popular to believe that the sun was a thinking entity  and the Egyptians did it for over 3,000 years. It was once popular and tradition to believe that the earth was flat.

"Circumstantial" is NOT a word used by scientists. "Hypthosis and Theory" are and are NOT naked assertions that came out of nowhere.

Atheists do not have "faith" that is why we are atheists. The vehicle I drive is only a year old. If, for example tomorrow, I get in and turn the ignition and it doesn't start, I wont drop to my knees pray to a god. I will seek to figure out why it wont start. I'd I wont assume it didn't start because of Thor wanting to get even with me for not believing in him.

I could get hit by a bus tomorrow. I could win the lottery tomorrow. But either way no magical being with a white robe or a man in a red leotard is needed to explain reality.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jnnaj (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Response to several

Hello & GOD Bless - To one & all: 

 

I Am God As You - This is what the Bible says about religion: James 1:27 NIV

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.  It also says this: James 1:26 NIV If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.  Faith is only as good as the object of faith.  That includes having faith in science.

 

Deludedgod - I have heard Richard Dawkins and others explain some of the science on the structures and the cosmology we see and they can’t avoid the time & chance argument.  Without time & chance that science has no chance no matter what scientific explanation you employ.  Another dead end leads to another unproven hypothesis.  On the GOD delusion Richard mentions the Anthropic principal and Multiverse hypothesis.  Mr Dawkins is well known and respected yet from hearing him I believe he is intellectually honest about the limits of scientific explanation.

 

Jcgadfly – So long as the scientists I look to on both sides are respected I don’t need to read everything.   Mr Dawkins is well respected among atheist and unbelievers.

 

Sleestack – The evidence studied by both sides of this argument is the same evidence with two very different explanations.  Evidence to logical conclusion is not rational science.  For example some of the evidence put forth for evolution before microbiology has since been eliminated by microbiology, specifically DNA testing thus proving an illogical conclusion.  Some of that evidence was tampered with also.  Had Darwin been around for microbiology he would have conceded that his argument crumbles as he stated in Origin of Species.  By the way, Richard Dawkins stated in his debate with John Lennox that science came from believers who, knowing GOD created things, expected to find order and laws in the creation.

 

Brian37 – I mean circumstantial in the sense that an inference is drawn.  Then scientists form a hypothesis or theory, which in either case is a guess until tested and proven true or false.  No one believer or unbeliever can go to the beginning, making any analogy we use about things we know vain attempts to reconcile an unknown, so all we can infer is something always existed for the believer it is GOD (because of other evidence that unbelievers do not consider evidence) and for the unbeliever it is matter.  There is no evidence for Thor in the same way Dawkins admits there is no evidence for the flying spaghetti monster illustration he uses do I believe Thor is a story. With respect to the bike and Lamborghini, which pale in comparison to the discussion of the created order we are discussing, if all the necessary parts were present for both, how much time and how many explosion would it take to assemble them by chance without any intelligence?

 

We can only know about a GOD if HE reveals HIMSELF.  There are many religious books but not all are the same.  Has HE revealed HIMSELF in any of them by manuscript evidence, historical evidence, archaeological evidence, scientific evidence and prophetic evidence?  Yes, if there is a GOD which I do believe, the entire creation is an abundance of evidence.  However because GOD does not behave the way “I” need HIM to HE does not exist.  Even Richard Dawkins says you cannot disprove GOD.  Did JESUS exist and live a pure life, teaching us to do so, and die for us taking the wrath of GOD in our place so long as by faith you trust in HIM? I admit sounds unbelievable.  But that does not mean it is not true.  You could all say the same about the Big Bang and evolution.  I go back to Romans 1:18 ...they deny the truth in unrighteousness...  for that listen to Richard Dawkins opening statement in the GOD Delusion debate.  He does not use it as an argument for GOD but he explains how what we see does raise a sense of worship in side of each and every one of us, himself included.  I pray GOD speaks to each and every one of you.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: which in either case

Quote:
which in either case is a guess until tested and proven true or false.

And if you read my post you whould know WHY one is valid and the other is not.

Scientific "guesses" are based on prior data. When scientific method uses the term "Theory" it is based ON PRIOR DATA!

"I can fart a Lamborginni out of my ass in theory" is a NAKED ASSERTION!

Guesses by the theist are based upon emotional appeal because the believer likes it.

Quote:
We can only know about a GOD if HE reveals HIMSELF

We know about deity claims because people utter them, it doesn't make them true because they make you feel good.

Quote:
Even Richard Dawkins says you cannot disprove GOD.

I am quite sure you took that out of context.

I also cant disprove that there is a giant invisable teapot orbiting Jupiter. But that doesn't make it true by default.

We do know it takes two sets of DNA for human life to replicate. Yet you will suspend rational thought in favor of a naked assertion that a being with no body or penis got a human girl pregnant.

That old stupid airplane in the junkyard argument is absurd. If we are to blindly buy your naked assertion that everything implies design, then cancer is designed, ecoli is designed. Do you want daddy to take credit for everything or not?

Excuse me while I grab my popcorn bucket, the back peddling will be quite entertaining.


 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Deludedgod - I have

 

Quote:

Deludedgod - I have heard Richard Dawkins and others explain some of the science on the structures and the cosmology we see and they can’t avoid the time & chance argument.  Without time & chance that science has no chance no matter what scientific explanation you employ.  Another dead end leads to another unproven hypothesis.  On the GOD delusion Richard mentions the Anthropic principal and Multiverse hypothesis.  Mr Dawkins is well known and respected yet from hearing him I believe he is intellectually honest about the limits of scientific explanation.

I need to pinch myself to check I am not dreaming. This is what you call an intellectually valid response? Insofar as your response had precisely nothing to do with the material (of my own writing) which I provided you, I surmise that you have not taken the time to read and absorb the information I have presented, which means your presence on this thread serves only to humiliate yourself. Let me make myself perfectly clear. Nobody is taking about Richard Dawkins except you. The above writings I provided you with are not those of Richard Dawkins. They are my own writings which I compiled for precisely the purpose of answering questions like the ones you asked. So please do not waste my time. You asked a question and received an answer. I am a molecular biologist and therefore am very, very qualified to talk about chemical evolution and the relationship between thermodynamics and biology. Please take the time to read what I wrote or I will disregard you from now on. I have demonstrated that your understanding of Cosmology is flawed. Please acknowledge this demonstration of your misunderstanding by (a) attempting a counterrefutation or (b) admitting your error.  

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jmaj wrote:Jcgadfly –

jmaj wrote:

Jcgadfly – So long as the scientists I look to on both sides are respected I don’t need to read everything.   Mr Dawkins is well respected among atheist and unbelievers.

So you only get information from scientists or others whose names you recognize? Such a barren field of knowledge you glean from.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
The little book of James

The little book of James seems my favorite, tho not perfect.

James 1:26 NIV - "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless."

  That would be directed at the church of pubic praying hypocrites enforcing dogma and harsh laws, as Jesus was so vocally LOUD against. Bad ass story Jesus also called Peter Satan.

   Considering the state of the world even today, it's our moral obligation to be LOUD, as we should not tolorate and appease authoritarian dogmatic religion of gawed separatism idol worship and prejudice. Jesus said we are all god, as he .... SIMPLE.

   I read story Jesus from an atheistic, all is one with the cosmos (father), point of view, and find jesus to be buddha like, simple, and pretty rational considering those very superstitious times. The problem with story jesus, if he even existed, who wrote nothing, is the biographers, interpreters, inventors and followers of religion. 

   I rather like jesus, I really dislike christianity. God of abe is the erecting of an idol, and in religious language, the anti-christ, hell and the devil of wrong separatist thinking. ATHEISM SAVES, and is the simple "good word".     


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Please

deludedgod wrote:

Please acknowledge this demonstration of your misunderstanding by (a) attempting a counterrefutation or (b) admitting your error.

I wonder when we'll all tire of having to make those requests.  No one ever seems to fulfill them.  (I suppose it is easier, though, to make those request rather than continue in futility, but...)


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


jnnaj (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Several responses

GOD Bless all,

I sense much anger and frustration and you will most likely dismiss and/or laugh at this response, but that also is spoken of in the Bible about unbelievers.  I will not be hostile with my language either.

Brian37: If we are to blindly buy your naked assertion that everything implies design, then cancer is designed, ecoli is designed.

Actually there is two possible explanations for your statement.  If there is no GOD which is asserted on this site then you get cancer and everything else we see and experience because things are breaking down not evolving up.  The other possibility I submit which will not be accepted is we sinned in Adam and did not want GOD and HE gave us almost exactly what we wanted - a world without HIM to hold it all together before the curse.

deludedgod: I am a molecular biologist and therefore am very, very qualified (see below - I do not mean to insult you but knowledge, right or wrong, can be a god also) to talk about chemical evolution and the relationship between thermodynamics and biology.  ...Please acknowledge this demonstration of your misunderstanding by (a) attempting a counterrefutation or (b) admitting your error... 

I don't doubt your credentials and I am not a scientist.  I did not know any of the believing or unbelieving scientist from whom I am informed before I looked into the creation vs evolution/cosmology debate.  They have credentials as well and several are well known.  You may chose (a) or (b) because I have no reason to believe your science is superior to the science I have already heard.  With both the religious crowd and those in political authority JESUS remained silent as I will here. 

I AM GOD AS YOU: If you know anything about JESUS then you know HE did not choose the most learned men to go out and give his message and the one HE did counted it as loss.  To those who think of themselves as intellectually superior - and I am not - the Bible says (by the way JESUS is the WORD)

1 Corinthians 1:20 NIV  Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  and

1 Corinthians 1:21 NIV  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.   and

1 Corinthians 3:19 NIV  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"

Please note JESUS had people who followed HIM, mostly those who counted for nothing in this world.  Or can you not trust that HE accepted followers.  Will any of you follow HIM?

I AM GOD AS YOU: Considering the state of the world even today, it's our moral obligation to be LOUD, as we should not tolorate and appease authoritarian dogmatic religion of gawed separatism idol worship and prejudice. Jesus said we are all god, as he .... SIMPLE.

Jesus was not loud but spoke the truth in love and with authority.  The world is the way it is because unbelievers (those who do not believe or believe error) do not want the real GOD but want a god of their own making.  JESUS was not violent nor did HE mean what you think by "we are god" or why would HE as GOD have people follow HIM and share HIS message if they also are god?  Could they not have a message of their own?  When JESUS spoke HE was authoritative like no one else but HE did not force anyone to follow HIM or obey HIS message.  Which is why you are free to speak your message.  Without religion people as they have in history would still conqure others because of lust for money, power and property.

I have nothing to offer that your hearts are prepared for and the Bible says it this way:

1 Corinthians 3:7 NAS  So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

I pray you do not harden your hearts as Pharaoh did which GOD brought to completion.

Yours in CHRIST,


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I don't doubt your

Quote:

I don't doubt your credentials and I am not a scientist.  I did not know any of the believing or unbelieving scientist from whom I am informed before I looked into the creation vs evolution/cosmology debate.  They have credentials as well and several are well known.  You may chose (a) or (b) because I have no reason to believe your science is superior to the science I have already heard.  With both the religious crowd and those in political authority JESUS remained silent as I will here.

What on Earth does this even mean? Is English your first language? Insofar as you did not attempt to defend against my accusation that you have not actually read what I have provided you, I surmise that you still have not bothered.

Quote:

  You may chose (a) or (b) because I have no reason to believe your science is superior to the science I have already heard.

What? I asked you to make a decision. I have shown you wrong. You will either rebut me or admit you were wrong. Your sentence above is so confused that I cannot make any sense of it. Indeed, the entire paragraph above is impossible to decipher. If English is your first langugage, you need to put a great deal more time into your writing. The above paragraph is completely meaningless. It has no relation to my response and is barely readable.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism