Jesus Lives, and He Loves.

ImAJesusFreak
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Lives, and He Loves.

Jesus still loves all people. And you can still be saved. Why would you not want to believe in God? There's so much bad in the world that it's amazing to know He is there to protect and love. And after life, I love knowing that I'm going to be in an amazing place called Heaven with all my loved ones that have passed on before me, instead of just going in the ground.

I am praying for each and everyone one of you hoping that you will come to know Christ as your personal savior.

Any questions about Christ? Contact me at karabo95@yahoo.com

God Bless.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:giving the

freeminer wrote:

giving the mole a name doesn't make it easier to whack him.

Don't tell me, tell all those other Christian moles who refuse to identify with you ( ie, your "names" )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:God creates because he

Quote:
God creates because he enjoys creating.
Quote:
Then why did he stop?

do you have evidence that he has? What's that you say below about "critical thinking " ability? 

Quote:
Nothing has been added to the universe in 13.7-some billion years.

yet another uniformitarian presupposition..........hardly critical thinking!  Furthermore you presume you see everything extant........which you then contradict with the admission that you only see 4% of it.........why not strive for consistency?........you'll like it! 

Quote:
So, "all the stuff other than the earth" is there for us to enjoy
Quote:
Then why can we only see 4% of it, presuming we had the technology to observe the universe in it's entirety (which is impossible so far as we know), reducing that 4% further to less than 1%?

my kids want all their Christmas presents at once too. 

Quote:
the Bible tells us God is an infinite God
Circular logic proves only your complete lack capacity to apply critical thinking skills to your beliefs.

I have no inherent objection to standard atheist cliches like "circular logic" the moment the Bible is even mentioned but do try to make sure the phrase is at least applicable. The citing of a biblical proposition may just be a point of information as it was in this case. ie the question put to me related directly to the specifically biblical view of an issue. A biblical  quote does not NECESSARILY indicate an attempt to PROVE something. Stop acting like one of Pavlov's dogs. Critical thinking....remember?

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

giving the mole a name doesn't make it easier to whack him.

Don't tell me, tell all those other Christian moles who refuse to identify with you ( ie, your "names" )

 

so you ask for a label then when you're given several you go off on an interminable whinge!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:I have no inherent

Quote:
I have no inherent objection to standard atheist cliches like "circular logic" the moment the Bible is even mentioned but do try to make sure the phrase is at least applicable.

Circular reasoning is NOT a cliche. It is a recognition that to solve problems you cant simply use something you personally like, quote it to prove itself. Things that are universal to everyone outside personal bias, don't use self serving claims.

The computer you typed that tripe on wasn't invented because of circular reasoning. Humans didn't get to the moon because of circular reasoning. China, Russia, Japan, all have tvs, doctors, computers, just like you and I. Superstitious invisible friends by proxy of utterance are NOT universal and are based on self serving circular reasoning.

"The Koran says so the Koran is true"

"The Talmud says so the Talmud is true"

"The Reg Vedas say so the Reg Vedas are true"

"The book of snarfwidget says so the snarfwidget is true"

Here is a cliche, "Claims are like rear ends, everyone has one".

You have a pet god, wow, no one else has one, just you, and magically you got it right. Big woopty doo.

"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


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

freeminer wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

giving the mole a name doesn't make it easier to whack him.

Don't tell me, tell all those other Christian moles who refuse to identify with you ( ie, your "names" )

 

so you ask for a label then when you're given several you go off on an interminable whinge!

You believe in Jesus Christ but aren't a Christian? How'd you pull that off? 

"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: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:freeminer

jcgadfly wrote:

freeminer wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

giving the mole a name doesn't make it easier to whack him.

Don't tell me, tell all those other Christian moles who refuse to identify with you ( ie, your "names" )

 

so you ask for a label then when you're given several you go off on an interminable whinge!

You believe in Jesus Christ but aren't a Christian? How'd you pull that off? 

Same reason all people of all religions pull it off "poof".

Once you swallow a naked assertion you can make up anything you want.

"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


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

jcgadfly wrote:

freeminer wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

giving the mole a name doesn't make it easier to whack him.

Don't tell me, tell all those other Christian moles who refuse to identify with you ( ie, your "names" )

 

so you ask for a label then when you're given several you go off on an interminable whinge!

You believe in Jesus Christ but aren't a Christian? How'd you pull that off? 

You're not a Calvinist but you believe that everyone is depraved but you.

You claim to be a member of an movement created by John Calvin, et al. but you're not a Calvinist. Learn your history.

Oh, and you have no idea what assertions Christ made because the people who put those words in his mouth were Pauline converts who wrote long after Jesus' death. You remember Paul, he created the religion that Calvin felt the need to "reform" because it wasn't easy enough.

 

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I suppose  to be fair

Quote:
I suppose  to be fair to you, you have to pay your atheist dues with this kind of bluster........even now, talk is cheap. 

Swords cut in both directions.

Quote:
ok, but as an argument, it's a bit flaccid ain't it? 

My comment wasn't an argument, it was an offer. Though I would recommend attendance in an actual school, you wanted an education from me, so I set the terms. I'm going to need supplies to adequately teach you.

Quote:
we'll just take it as read that you can't

So you concede your inability to defend your claim.

Quote:
very simple - the only way you can deny it is with the use of an absolute, without it your denial would be absurd, ie irrational...since a relative absolute cannot exist by definition................irrational, of course, pretty well describes your position.

Irrational describes your response perfectly. Though ignorant could be substituted instead.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:which assertion is

Quote:
which assertion is similarly irrational being a plunge into semantic mysticism

So you concede your inability to defend your claim.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Vastet

freeminer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Yay! Another Calvinist who claims that no one is good according to God (except, of course, for him [he hopes]) 
It never ceases to amaze me that a religion which preaches humility can inspire such arrogance.

so you'd just like us all to roll over.........tough

Well it'd be less fun, but more productive. Of course, I don't believe it'll happen. You're destined to become extinct as less people buy the bs of religion every year, until noone is left.

Quote:
do you have evidence that he has?

Do you? All observations are that nothing has been added in 13 some billion years. If your god was still creating, logically we'd have found evidence of it by now.
So much for your critical thinking.

Quote:
my kids want all their Christmas presents at once too. 

Not a response.

Quote:
I have no inherent objection to standard atheist cliches like "circular logic"

Nice of you to demonstrate your inability to

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
comprehend logic and embrace

comprehend logic and embrace critical thinking.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

freeminer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Yay! Another Calvinist who claims that no one is good according to God (except, of course, for him [he hopes]) 
It never ceases to amaze me that a religion which preaches humility can inspire such arrogance.

so you'd just like us all to roll over.........tough

Then don't ask us to roll over for you.

"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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: so you ask

freeminer wrote:

 

so you ask for a label then when you're given several you go off on an interminable whinge!

Well, there's so many God damned Christian labels to choose from how could I resist ?  You guys make it so easy....

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: so you'd

freeminer wrote:

 

so you'd just like us all to roll over.........tough

 

Most likely tough for you.  If the current religious trends in Europe ( especially France and Britain ) are any indication of what's to come here in the States then you will roll over and most likely be crushed by a tidal wave of Islam.  I live in Texas and there is already a Mosque within driving distance of my home.  There is a growing community of native born Muslims walking the halls of most every public school here and there is a transplanted community of Muslims who immigrated here after the Baltic wars of the 90's. They're all having babies like crazy and just like Christian families their children almost always adopt the religion of their parents.  

The "One True Faith" pushed out by another "One True Faith"  Gotta love the sheer irony ! 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
To freeminer;

I have a large, friendly and highly intelligent dog, a Border Collie. He will sit in rapt attention and listen to me talk to him for hours at a time, his tail wagging and a big grin on his face. I could spend a lot of time discussing algebra with him, and he would listen patiently, his tail endangering the coffee table with each swipe, but alas, in the end, he would not be able to solve a quadratic equation... he's a dog, after all.

In much the same way, I will not discuss science with a creationist, you might listen, you might even smile politely, but in the end, I'm wasting my time because you after all, accept a magical solution.

So, let talk about the magic.

How does your god do it?

How does your god manipulate the laws of physics, manipulate matter and energy to 'create' anything?

How does the magic work?

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 Vastet wrote:The state of

 

 

Vastet wrote:
The state of being in accord with fact or reality.

 

Vastet, your definition of "truth"  will never satisfy a crazy Christian like freeminer.  Prepare for his more truthful definition of truth which I suspect should be coming your way any minute, now.

 

freeminer wrote:
Jesus said "I am the truth" ie, he defined himself as the infinite absolute which we know to be necessary  for truth to exist.  Everything else is relative

 

    Bingo !   I knew it was just a matter of time before this religious baloney was trotted out.  Thanks freeminer, ....that's the truthiest, most truthful definition of truth I've ever encountered !  And that's the truth  ... so help me Jesus !!!!

 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: so you'd just like

Quote:

 

so you'd just like us all to roll over.........tough

 

Quote:
Most likely tough for you.  If the current religious trends in Europe ( especially France and Britain ) are any indication of what's to come here in the States then you will roll over and most likely be crushed by a tidal wave of Islam.

we've read the last page, we've seen how the story ends. As a personal view I see Islam as figuring strongly in a 'one-world' religion along with an apostate 'church' so it won't just go away but if my reading of prophecy is correct it is also about to suffer a huge setback given the degree to which it focuses on Israel.l

 

Quote:
I live in Texas and there is already a Mosque within driving distance of my home.  There is a growing community of native born Muslims walking the halls of most every public school here and there is a transplanted community of Muslims who immigrated here after the Baltic wars of the 90's. They're all having babies like crazy and just like Christian families their children almost always adopt the religion of their parents. 

like Catholicism, this leopard never changes its spots. Muslims will actually say, "all we have to do is sit here and outpopulate you"! However, setting aside the radicals, you shouldn't discount the power of secularism! Many muslim girls don't care for forced marriage and get a taste for freedom as do large sections of populations of Islamic countries generally. Ultimately it's the larger picture, the geo-politics, which will determine the future.  

Quote:
The "One True Faith" pushed out by another "One True Faith"  Gotta love the sheer irony ! 

atheists seem to always hold out this 'hope', that christianity will dwindle to half a dozen old ladies in tweed skirts.  It just ain't gonna happen! It's symptomatic of a failure to recognise the possibility that the Church may just be what it claims to be ie. not just another human institution.  Most of the Church is already in Heaven........ we're just the stragglers!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

Vastet wrote:
The state of being in accord with fact or reality.

 

Vastet, your definition of "truth"  will never satisfy a crazy Christian like freeminer.  Prepare for his more truthful definition of truth which I suspect should be coming your way any minute, now.

 

freeminer wrote:
Jesus said "I am the truth" ie, he defined himself as the infinite absolute which we know to be necessary  for truth to exist.  Everything else is relative

 

    Bingo !   I knew it was just a matter of time before this religious baloney was trotted out.  Thanks freeminer, ....that's the truthiest, most truthful definition of truth I've ever encountered !  And that's the truth  ... so help me Jesus !!!!

 

this is all good, run-of-the-mill , standard atheist entertainment and I've seen plenty of this stuff. The trouble is it doesn't amount to a big enough bag of figs to service a decent shit. There isn't one good argument in any of it...........just tumbleweed.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:we've read

freeminer wrote:

we've read the last page, we've seen how the story ends.

 

You've been reading the Koran ?

 

freeminer wrote:
  Many muslim girls don't care for forced marriage and get a taste for freedom as do large sections of populations of Islamic countries generally.

 

Oh yes, I do see that as a negative effect. ...as such, Muslim adherents have dwindled down to a meager 1.57 billion world wide as of 2009

 

  

freeminer wrote:
Ultimately it's the larger picture, the geo-politics, which will determine the future. 

 

That's what I've been telling you, Islam is spilling far beyond the borders of it's ancestral beginnings.  The implications are staggering.

 

freeminer wrote:
atheists seem to always hold out this 'hope', that christianity will dwindle to half a dozen old ladies in tweed skirts.  It just ain't gonna happen!
 

 

It's already happened in many of the tradionally Christian nations of Northern Europe and Scandinavia.         

 

freeminer wrote:
It's symptomatic of a failure to recognise the possibility that the Church may just be what it claims to be ie. not just another human institution.

 

  ....or not

 

 

freeminer wrote:
Most of the Church is already in Heaven........ we're just the stragglers!

 

I bet that phrase looks so cute on a church marquee.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I have a large,

Quote:

I have a large, friendly and highly intelligent dog, a Border Collie. He will sit in rapt attention and listen to me talk to him for hours at a time, his tail wagging and a big grin on his face. I could spend a lot of time discussing algebra with him, and he would listen patiently, his tail endangering the coffee table with each swipe, but alas, in the end, he would not be able to solve a quadratic equation... he's a dog, after all.

In much the same way, I will not discuss science with a creationist, you might listen, you might even smile politely, but in the end, I'm wasting my time because you after all, accept a magical solution.

oh dear, and your attempt to grab the intellectual high ground started off with just so much promise..........and then you spoilt it all with this "magic" nonsense.

Quote:
So, let talk about the magic.

yes, lets

Quote:
How does your god do it?

How does your god manipulate the laws of physics, manipulate matter and energy to 'create' anything?

How does the magic work?

well these all amount to the same question don't they?

Firstly, the notion that God  "manipulates" existing laws reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of God. If God were subject to pre-existing laws such that he could only manipulate them, he would, by definition, not be God. Where 'laws' exist, the first response of a rational mind is to conjecture that a 'law-giver' exists. Thus the fact that we perceive that order exists in the universe is a very real problem for the evolutionist not the creationist. ie the former proposes that order 'appears' out of disorder, contra the Laws of Thermodynamics and driven only by chance.

 

Secondly, here is a definition of "magic":

 

 

mag·ic

AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.dictionary.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FM00%2FM0038800.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=568f7b24&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();/ˈmædʒɪk/ Show Spelled[maj-ik] Show IPAnoun 1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic. 2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic. 3. the use of this art: Magic, it was believed, could drive illness from the body. 4. the effects produced: the magic of recovery. 5. power or influence exerted through this art: a wizard of great magic. i can confirm that Christians don't believe that God uses such techniques.  

Thirdly, regarding his methods, God gives us sufficient but not exhaustive information. He has not yet shared with us the mechanics of the creative processes he's used in this universe but he has left us to discover a good deal about the results.

Now I'd like to ask you some questions. 

Do you only use technologies you understand?

Do you, for example only enter a building once you've personally checked the structural engineer's calculations?

Do you only place your faith in places your personal knowledge extends to?

  

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:    this

freeminer wrote:

 

this is all good, run-of-the-mill , standard atheist entertainment and I've seen plenty of this stuff. The trouble is it doesn't amount to a big enough bag of figs to service a decent shit. There isn't one good argument in any of it...........just tumbleweed.

 

  Don't Christians love to exclaim how their God values giving humans that vaunted free will ?  If you don't feel that we are worthy of your time then exercise your free will, otherwise you can interact with us here and allow us to continually feed on the remains of your pathetically weak arguments.  It's your choice , praise God !!

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You believe in Jesus

Quote:

You believe in Jesus Christ but aren't a Christian? How'd you pull that off? 

read my post again

 

Quote:
You're not a Calvinist but you believe that everyone is depraved but you.

oh? Where did I say so - go on, quote me.

Quote:
You claim to be a member of an movement created by John Calvin,

where did I so claim? 

Quote:
t al. but you're not a Calvinist. Learn your history.

being in the Reformed tradition doesn't make one a Calvinist. Learn a few basic facts.

Quote:
Oh, and you have no idea what assertions Christ made because the people who put those words in his mouth were Pauline converts who wrote long after Jesus' death.

look, everyone has perfect freedom to populate Hell if that's their bag but it grieves me to think of guys stumbling in, in total ignorance of the most basic facts of Biblical scholarship.  

Quote:
You remember Paul, he created the religion that Calvin felt the need to "reform" because it wasn't easy enough.

I've never quite been able to work out why atheists somehow conclude that it helps their case to posit a schism between Paul's writing and the Gospel Christ preached. Go on, dust off a Bible and demonstrate a difference. AND...........Paul didn't "create" Catholicism.  Learn your history.........including, while you're at it, the roots of the Reformation. 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

 

this is all good, run-of-the-mill , standard atheist entertainment and I've seen plenty of this stuff. The trouble is it doesn't amount to a big enough bag of figs to service a decent shit. There isn't one good argument in any of it...........just tumbleweed.

 

  Don't Christians love to exclaim how their God values giving humans that vaunted free will ?  If you don't feel that we are worthy of your time then exercise your free will, otherwise you can interact with us here and allow us to continually feed on the remains of your pathetically weak arguments.  It's your choice , praise God !!

all good stuff.....but here's a debating tip..........mere assertions that an argument is weak, don't mean a bean.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


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

freeminer wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

 

this is all good, run-of-the-mill , standard atheist entertainment and I've seen plenty of this stuff. The trouble is it doesn't amount to a big enough bag of figs to service a decent shit. There isn't one good argument in any of it...........just tumbleweed.

 

  Don't Christians love to exclaim how their God values giving humans that vaunted free will ?  If you don't feel that we are worthy of your time then exercise your free will, otherwise you can interact with us here and allow us to continually feed on the remains of your pathetically weak arguments.  It's your choice , praise God !!

all good stuff.....but here's a debating tip..........mere assertions that an argument is weak, don't mean a bean.

That's your whole debating strategy.

"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


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

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

You believe in Jesus Christ but aren't a Christian? How'd you pull that off? 

read my post again

 

Quote:
You're not a Calvinist but you believe that everyone is depraved but you.

oh? Where did I say so - go on, quote me.

Quote:
You claim to be a member of an movement created by John Calvin,

where did I so claim? 

Quote:
t al. but you're not a Calvinist. Learn your history.

being in the Reformed tradition doesn't make one a Calvinist. Learn a few basic facts.

Quote:
Oh, and you have no idea what assertions Christ made because the people who put those words in his mouth were Pauline converts who wrote long after Jesus' death.

look, everyone has perfect freedom to populate Hell if that's their bag but it grieves me to think of guys stumbling in, in total ignorance of the most basic facts of Biblical scholarship.  

Quote:
You remember Paul, he created the religion that Calvin felt the need to "reform" because it wasn't easy enough.

I've never quite been able to work out why atheists somehow conclude that it helps their case to posit a schism between Paul's writing and the Gospel Christ preached. Go on, dust off a Bible and demonstrate a difference. AND...........Paul didn't "create" Catholicism.  Learn your history.........including, while you're at it, the roots of the Reformation. 

You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. Since you claim to speak for God you must think you are the only one that is good. Doesn't hurt that God conveniently agrees with all you say and do.

You are a member of the reformed movement - Calvin was one of those who started it. Again, learn your history.

I didn't need to create the schism- Paul did that for me. You need to read your bible as well. I didn't say Paul created Catholicism - Paul created Christianity. Calvin need  to reform Catholic Christianity because going to confession and getting forgiveness still wasn't easy enough. Paul's view of just believing without that nasty repentance and doing good was too hard.  If you want an example you can start with Jesus saying that the Law needed to be followed (though he fulfilled it) and Paul abolishing the Law by placing his followers under grace.

How much easier do you want it?

 

"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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:all good

freeminer wrote:

all good stuff.....but here's a debating tip..........mere assertions that an argument is weak, don't mean a bean.

                               Well I do want to be a good debater, should I pray about it ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*Peeks in thread, nothing

*Peeks in thread, nothing new, leaves*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:You claim that Jesus

Quote:
You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. Since you claim to speak for God you must think you are the only one that is good. Doesn't hurt that God conveniently agrees with all you say and do.

Anyone can speak for the deity they believe in, just like Mel Blanc can make Bugs Bunny say and do anything he wants. Just like the author of Harry Potter can make him do anything she wants.

 

 

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:You

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. Since you claim to speak for God you must think you are the only one that is good. Doesn't hurt that God conveniently agrees with all you say and do.

Anyone can speak for the deity they believe in, just like Mel Blanc can make Bugs Bunny say and do anything he wants. Just like the author of Harry Potter can make him do anything she wants.

 

 

I know it's just convenient that they do it and amazing that they insist they don't.

"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


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:I have

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

I have a large, friendly and highly intelligent dog, a Border Collie. He will sit in rapt attention and listen to me talk to him for hours at a time, his tail wagging and a big grin on his face. I could spend a lot of time discussing algebra with him, and he would listen patiently, his tail endangering the coffee table with each swipe, but alas, in the end, he would not be able to solve a quadratic equation... he's a dog, after all.

In much the same way, I will not discuss science with a creationist, you might listen, you might even smile politely, but in the end, I'm wasting my time because you after all, accept a magical solution.

oh dear, and your attempt to grab the intellectual high ground started off with just so much promise..........and then you spoilt it all with this "magic" nonsense.

Quote:
So, let talk about the magic.

yes, lets

Quote:
How does your god do it?

How does your god manipulate the laws of physics, manipulate matter and energy to 'create' anything?

How does the magic work?

well these all amount to the same question don't they?

Firstly, the notion that God  "manipulates" existing laws reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of God. If God were subject to pre-existing laws such that he could only manipulate them, he would, by definition, not be God. Where 'laws' exist, the first response of a rational mind is to conjecture that a 'law-giver' exists. Thus the fact that we perceive that order exists in the universe is a very real problem for the evolutionist not the creationist. ie the former proposes that order 'appears' out of disorder, contra the Laws of Thermodynamics and driven only by chance.

 

Secondly, here is a definition of "magic":

 

 

mag·ic

AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.dictionary.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FM00%2FM0038800.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=568f7b24&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();/ˈmædʒɪk/ Show Spelled[maj-ik] Show IPAnoun 1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic. 2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic. 3. the use of this art: Magic, it was believed, could drive illness from the body. 4. the effects produced: the magic of recovery. 5. power or influence exerted through this art: a wizard of great magic. i can confirm that Christians don't believe that God uses such techniques.  

Thirdly, regarding his methods, God gives us sufficient but not exhaustive information. He has not yet shared with us the mechanics of the creative processes he's used in this universe but he has left us to discover a good deal about the results.

Now I'd like to ask you some questions. 

Do you only use technologies you understand?

Do you, for example only enter a building once you've personally checked the structural engineer's calculations?

Do you only place your faith in places your personal knowledge extends to?

  

 

Firstly: Another definition of 'magic' involves effecting change in the real world by means outside of nature. This is what you lay claim to. You've not shown that such means exist, indeed that anything at all exists outside of nature. The argument is typical, "it must be this way or else I am wrong". It's just an unsupported claim, and as such, can be dismissed.
I could patiently explain the flaw in your mention of the laws of thermodynamics, that they apply only to closed systems, not to open, dynamic systems with a constant flow of energy. (That big thermonuclear engine in the sky we call the 'sun' being one source). But I won't waste my time on science, you believe in magic, in spite of your denial.

Secondly: "And god said..." sounds like an incantation to me. The early shaman's imagined their god to be much like themselves, using words to effect the magical changes they desired... Christians do in fact believe that incantations (prayers) are effective, that such magical acts can drive illness from the body... that their god can simply say things like "Lazarus come forth..." and the magic works... deny, deny deny all you like... just don't piss on my boots and tell me it's rain.

Thirdly: Let's not digress... it's YOUR belief in magic I want to plumb...
I don't need advanced knowledge of electronics to flip a light switch. However, if I claim that the light arises from the actions of invisible spirits that dwell in the wiring, I do need to show how the spirits do what they do.
 

So to sum up, you can not actually give a step by step account of how your god does what you claim it does, yet you reserve a right to snipe away at a science you ill understand and don't actually believe in. You deny that what is called 'magic' is involved, yet you describe what can only be called magic as the cause of all things. You claim a realm outside of nature... magic... yet offer no support.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 freeminer

 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

Firstly, the notion that God  "manipulates" existing laws reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of God. If God were subject to pre-existing laws such that he could only manipulate them, he would, by definition, not be God. Where 'laws' exist, the first response of a rational mind is to conjecture that a 'law-giver' exists. Thus the fact that we perceive that order exists in the universe is a very real problem for the evolutionist not the creationist. ie the former proposes that order 'appears' out of disorder, contra the Laws of Thermodynamics and driven only by chance.

 

 

 

 

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Firstly: Another definition of 'magic' involves effecting change in the real world by means outside of nature. This is what you lay claim to. You've not shown that such means exist, indeed that anything at all exists outside of nature. The argument is typical, "it must be this way or else I am wrong". It's just an unsupported claim, and as such, can be dismissed.
I could patiently explain the flaw in your mention of the laws of thermodynamics, that they apply only to closed systems, not to open, dynamic systems with a constant flow of energy. (That big thermonuclear engine in the sky we call the 'sun' being one source). But I won't waste my time on science, you believe in magic, in spite of your denial.

Secondly: "And god said..." sounds like an incantation to me. The early shaman's imagined their god to be much like themselves, using words to effect the magical changes they desired... Christians do in fact believe that incantations (prayers) are effective, that such magical acts can drive illness from the body... that their god can simply say things like "Lazarus come forth..." and the magic works... deny, deny deny all you like... just don't piss on my boots and tell me it's rain.

Thirdly: Let's not digress... it's YOUR belief in magic I want to plumb...
I don't need advanced knowledge of electronics to flip a light switch. However, if I claim that the light arises from the actions of invisible spirits that dwell in the wiring, I do need to show how the spirits do what they do.
 

So to sum up, you can not actually give a step by step account of how your god does what you claim it does, yet you reserve a right to snipe away at a science you ill understand and don't actually believe in. You deny that what is called 'magic' is involved, yet you describe what can only be called magic as the cause of all things. You claim a realm outside of nature... magic... yet offer no support.

 

 

                                       freeminer congratulations upon your new martyr status, based upon the above post by Louis_Cypher, you were just crucified.

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You claim that Jesus

Quote:
You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. 

read it for yourself

Quote:
Since you claim to speak for God you must think you are the only one that is good.]/quote]

1] I haven't made any claim

2] This is a non sequitur and contradicts my citing of Christ.

 

Quote:
Doesn't hurt that God conveniently agrees with all you say and do.

I just quote him

Quote:
You are a member of the reformed movement -

what IS the "Reformed movement"? Most of the evangelical Church is within the Reformed tradition. It simply indicates that I am not Catholic, Orthodox nor Coptic. It indicates that I belive sola scriptura, sola fidei. 

Quote:
Calvin was one of those who started it. Again, learn your history.

non sequitur, Calvin was wrong about a good deal, as was Luther. Furthermore if YOU learn  YOUR history you will learn that the phrase, "reformed tradition" is little more than a convenience anyway since the gospel was kept alive through groups such as the Paulicians and the Waldenses throughout southern and central Europe and the Rhine valley. John Huss was a dissenter a hundred years before Luther. I rather suspect you are in no position to teach me church history!

Quote:
I didn't need to create the schism- Paul did that for me. You need to read your bible as well. I didn't say Paul created Catholicism - Paul created Christianity.

you'd be advised to stop digging this particular hole........the establishing of the Church which Jesus promised is very well documented. Here it is from Acts 2, written by Luke. 

42And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43And awe[d] came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

 You think Paul "created" Christianity because someone told you that converts were first called "Christians" in Antioch as a result of Paul's ministry. You think the term "christian" necessarily indicates that a man is regenerate. You are inference prone. Critique Christianity by all means but learn what one IS first.

Quote:
Calvin need  to reform Catholic Christianity because going to confession and getting forgiveness still wasn't easy enough.

you are sadly misled. Religion is popular  precisely BECAUSE it is easier to live by a set of rules. Paul tells you that the regenerate are to live by grace not law a very long time before Calvin was a twinkle. Luther nailed that door because of the corruption of Rome. ........he made it clear enough!       

Quote:
Paul's view of just believing without that nasty repentance and doing good was too hard.
 

yes religios think faith is too easy! ..........they all think they can earn their salvation because deep down they really ARE good enough. Christians don't repent once they've done it - they confess. James tells you, faith without works is dead.

Quote:
 If you want an example you can start with Jesus saying that the Law needed to be followed (though he fulfilled it) and Paul abolishing the Law by placing his followers under grace.

this is your most insightful comment. Paul actually says you have a choice. Here is what he says about law.

12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

In other words, yes, the law continues to exist. It existed in the first place to bring men to an awareness of sin. The whole point of the law is that no-one can keep it! As long as men continue to think that they CAN and that they can make themselves 'good enough' by their own efforts, then THAT is the basis on which they will be judged. Some of us realised that our own efforts would never be good enough. For people like that, God says, "I will write my law on their hearts". In other words, by accepting the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit undertakes to guide a person moment by moment as to what the law of God IS. That is why when he breaks it, a christian 'confesses' ie recognises sin for what it is, rather than repents. He became a christian in the first place by repenting. 

 

Quote:
How much easier do you want it?

I accepted it as a gift..........why do you find it so difficult?

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:You

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. Since you claim to speak for God you must think you are the only one that is good. Doesn't hurt that God conveniently agrees with all you say and do.

Anyone can speak for the deity they believe in, just like Mel Blanc can make Bugs Bunny say and do anything he wants. Just like the author of Harry Potter can make him do anything she wants.

 

Brian, the whole point is that the atheist claims the rational high ground. My challenge to him is to prove the irrationality of the 'God conjecture' without dispensing with his own rationality.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Firstly: Another

 

Quote:
Firstly: Another definition of 'magic' involves effecting change in the real world by means outside of nature.

No it isn't. Quote your source. I see no common acceptation of such a "definition".

Quote:
This is what you lay claim to.

this is correct. 

Quote:
You've not shown that such means exist,

you've drawn a mistaken inference of my intention.  Since the evidence is compelling, it is rational for you to "show it" for yourself. 

Quote:
indeed that anything at all exists outside of nature.

do you mean "anything immaterial" ,"anything outside nature", or  both?

I cited the DNA code as evidence within nature of intelligence outside it. The case stands.

Quote:
The argument is typical, "it must be this way or else I am wrong".

you appear to be simply complaining about the existence of logic - which I find odd.

Quote:
It's just an unsupported claim, and as such, can be dismissed.

which claim? The claim as to the rationality of the 'God conjecture' is overwhelming.

 

Quote:
I could patiently explain the flaw in your mention of the laws of thermodynamics, that they apply only to closed systems, not to open, dynamic systems with a constant flow of energy. (That big thermonuclear engine in the sky we call the 'sun' being one source). But I won't waste my time on science, you believe in magic, in spite of your denial.

this appears to be a slightly embarrassed withdrawal before the debate has even begun. I find your implication that the Laws of Thermodynamics DO NOT apply to the solar system...uhmm........interesting.........if dumb. I also await with interest the mechanism you propose for the initial conversion of all this energy into a directed form.    

Quote:
Secondly: "And god said..." sounds like an incantation to me.

which is neither here nor there. 

Quote:
The early shaman's imagined their god to be much like themselves, using words to effect the magical changes they desired...

I don't concur with shamanism but won't purport to answer for them. 

Quote:
Christians do in fact believe that incantations (prayers) are effective,

not being prone to incantation I wouldn't know. 

Quote:
that such magical acts can drive illness from the body...

you appear stuck on this "magic" idea.....you seem to be under the misapprehension that somehow it clinches your point. 

Quote:
that their god can simply say things like "Lazarus come forth..." and the magic works...

 well, there is a simple rationality to the idea that if one believes in a God who can create a whole universe, this is a piece of cake.

Quote:
deny, deny deny all you like...

I wasn't about to.......I rather like consistency. 

Quote:
just don't piss on my boots and tell me it's rain.
no, the piss on your boots probably is...........just piss. Abstinence from coffee may help.

Quote:
Thirdly: Let's not digress... it's YOUR belief in magic I want to plumb...

your false premise may not help.........but you have been warned!


Quote:
I don't need advanced knowledge of electronics to flip a light switch.

when you flip it, you expect an effect. Therefore you exercise faith...........which was the point. 

Quote:
However, if I claim that the light arises from the actions of invisible spirits that dwell in the wiring,

does anyone claim this?! We recognise the operation of specific laws......the rational response to which is conjecture a lawmaker. 

Quote:
I do need to show how the spirits do what they do.

well you need to sort your priorities. Firstly you need to establish whether a "spirit" is involved and if so, at what point. When you've established whether the consistency of the effect suggests an intelligence behind the cause, you'll then need to establish contact with it and then you can ask it to show you. It may, of course, feel under no obligation........but either way, friendship always helps!
 

Quote:
So to sum up, you can not actually give a step by step account of how your god does what you claim it does,

you haven't told me everything about yourself. To conclude from this that you don't exist would be highly irrational..........I have evidence of your intelligence.........such as it is! 

Quote:
yet you reserve a right to snipe away at a science

I don't recall "sniping at science" - would you care to show me where? When Lennox disagrees with Dawkins is he "sniping at science"? 

Quote:
you ill understand

evidence? 

Quote:
and don't actually believe in.

evidence?

Quote:
You deny that what is called 'magic' is involved,

correct. 

Quote:
yet you describe what can only be called magic as the cause of all things.

I'm sorry you can't think of alternatives, "supernatural" seems a perfectly good and considerably more accurate word. 

Quote:
You claim a realm outside of nature.

true but then so does secular science.

Quote:
.. magic...

supernatural. 

Quote:
yet offer no support.

well I offered the DNA code.........information theory agrees with me. I also cited the fact that Einstein and Dawkins also agree with me.   

LC >;-}>

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: freeminer

 

Quote:
 freeminer congratulations upon your new martyr status, based upon the above post by Louis_Cypher, you were just crucified.

 

resurrection comes as part of the package!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

 resurrection comes as part of the package!

 

                                             So does the promise of 70 virgins ...but then you'd have to start attending a different church and praying 5 times a day.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
freeminer wrote:Brian37

freeminer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. Since you claim to speak for God you must think you are the only one that is good. Doesn't hurt that God conveniently agrees with all you say and do.

Anyone can speak for the deity they believe in, just like Mel Blanc can make Bugs Bunny say and do anything he wants. Just like the author of Harry Potter can make him do anything she wants.

 

Brian, the whole point is that the atheist claims the rational high ground. My challenge to him is to prove the irrationality of the 'God conjecture' without dispensing with his own rationality.

Atheists are NOT trying to claim any high ground. Labels don't make someone automatically  good or bad. There is difference between good use of logic and bad use of logic, and that too is independent of labels.

God belief does not start with good logic or even good scientific method.

It is a naked assertion. It is a presumption. And not even a good one considering that SCIENTIFIC FACT says that thoughts require a material process.

Deity belief is merely an anthropomorphic infantile projection of the desire of one's need to have the parents protect them. It is merely the placebo gap answer of wishful thinking in wanting a super hero to protect them.

It wasn't true when the Egyptians thought the sun was a thinking being and they had a physical object to point to. It wasn't true when people thought that a deity named Thor made lightening.

Cognition is NOT needed for a cause of the universe or any life in it. "What is" is a result of natural ongoing non cognitive processes. Just like a hurricane is not caused by the ocean god Posiden.

The reason you and I both are typing on computers is not because of superstition or gods. The reason both you and I can learn and know what DNA is is not because of Allah or Vishnu. God/s/deity/entity/super natural, are all inventions of human imagination.

There is no superiority complex or "I'm better than you" going on here. There are merely human beings OF ALL LABELS refusing to discard bad claims. The earth is not flat and the moon is not made of cheese. Do not blame me for your superstitious myths. I am merely the guy saying "that is not true".

If any claimant of any deity in human history had anything credible they'd be at the patent office by now and have a Nobel Prize by now.

The better explanation and the REALISTIC explanation to why people make deity claims is merely because they like them.

It is 2011. We have much better tools than superstition to make objective observations about the world around us.

 

 

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*Peeks in again, still no

*Peeks in again, still no new unrefuted statements or arguments, leaves*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Let me get my hip waders, the bullshit is getting deep.

Quote:
Quote:
Firstly: Another definition of 'magic' involves effecting change in the real world by means outside of nature.

No it isn't. Quote your source. I see no common acceptation of such a "definition".

1. the art that, by use of spells, supposedly invokes supernatural powers to influence events; sorcery 2. the practice of this art
Collins English Dictionary

Quibbling over a definition is fun, don't you think? It doesn't add to your base argument, but I can see that you ahve a need to spin the discussion off into the clouds whenever possible. Perhaps because of the paucity of your ideas?

 

Quote:
Quote:
You've not shown that such means exist,

you've drawn a mistaken inference of my intention.  Since the evidence is compelling, it is rational for you to "show it" for yourself.



Ah yes, I must simply see and acquiesce to your assertion because you claim it to be compelling. It's not. Making an assertion (goddidit) in itself is neither compelling or convincing.

Quote:
Quote:
indeed that anything at all exists outside of nature.

do you mean "anything immaterial" ,"anything outside nature", or  both?

I cited the DNA code as evidence within nature of intelligence outside it. The case stands.

 

And this goes well with my commentary that you snipe at a science that you (obviously) do not understand, I asvise you to stick to magic. There is no reason to assume or presume that the structure of DNA is in any way shape or form derived from a source outside of the evolutionary process. None.

Quote:
Quote:
The argument is typical, "it must be this way or else I am wrong".

you appear to be simply complaining about the existence of logic - which I find odd.

 

Making an UNSUPPORTED assertion is not 'logic'... making a string of unsupported assertions with a common theme is not a logical argument.

Quote:
Quote:
It's just an unsupported claim, and as such, can be dismissed.

which claim? The claim as to the rationality of the 'God conjecture' is overwhelming.



A claim can not be 'overwhelming'... only the evidence supplied in support of that claim could be qualified with that hyperbole...

 

Quote:
Quote:
I could patiently explain the flaw in your mention of the laws of thermodynamics, that they apply only to closed systems, not to open, dynamic systems with a constant flow of energy. (That big thermonuclear engine in the sky we call the 'sun' being one source). But I won't waste my time on science, you believe in magic, in spite of your denial.

this appears to be a slightly embarrassed withdrawal before the debate has even begun. I find your implication that the Laws of Thermodynamics DO NOT apply to the solar system...uhmm........interesting.........if dumb. I also await with interest the mechanism you propose for the initial conversion of all this energy into a directed form.



I made no such implication, I merely pointed out that your suggestion that the evolutionary process somehow violates the Laws of Thermodynamics ignores the fact that our local system is not closed, but dynamic. In a dynamic system, entropy is DECREASED, albeit, temporarily.
This is why I wish us to focus on your belief in magic and how it works. You simply are innocent of science.

Quote:
Quote:
Secondly: "And god said..." sounds like an incantation to me.

which is neither here nor there.

It's good you can acknowledge the obvious.

Quote:
Quote:
The early shaman's imagined their god to be much like themselves, using words to effect the magical changes they desired...

I don't concur with shamanism but won't purport to answer for them.

Of course you do, there is not one whit of difference between a preacher in a three piece suit, a priest in a vestment and a savage in feathers with a bone through his nose, except wardrobe.

Quote:
Quote:
Christians do in fact believe that incantations (prayers) are effective,

not being prone to incantation I wouldn't know.

Oh? You are a non-practicing (non praying?) christian?

Quote:
Quote:
that such magical acts can drive illness from the body...

you appear stuck on this "magic" idea.....you seem to be under the misapprehension that somehow it clinches your point.

Are ya getting mad, bro?
No, I'm merely pointing out that you do in fact believe in magic. I guess it takes the same mind set to deny such belief as it does to decry science and all its forms while tapping away on a computer...

Quote:
Quote:
that their god can simply say things like "Lazarus come forth..." and the magic works...

 well, there is a simple rationality to the idea that if one believes in a God who can create a whole universe, this is a piece of cake.



Yes, once you accept one absurdity, the rest become easy...

Quote:
Quote:
deny, deny deny all you like...

I wasn't about to.......I rather like consistency.

Yes, you have consistently denied your affiliation with magic, yet...the evidence is dare I say, overwhelming?

Quote:
Quote:
just don't piss on my boots and tell me it's rain.

no, the piss on your boots probably is...........just piss. Abstinence from coffee may help.



Or, not standing so close to the logically incontinent...

Quote:
Quote:
Thirdly: Let's not digress... it's YOUR belief in magic I want to plumb...

your false premise may not help.........but you have been warned!

And I am quivering in my piss stained boots...


Quote:
Quote:
I don't need advanced knowledge of electronics to flip a light switch.

when you flip it, you expect an effect. Therefore you exercise faith...........which was the point.

Ah! That was the point, I knew that to get to the meat of your statement all I had to do was move a sprig of parsley...

Quote:
Quote:
However, if I claim that the light arises from the actions of invisible spirits that dwell in the wiring,

does anyone claim this?! We recognise the operation of specific laws......the rational response to which is conjecture a lawmaker.



We used to recognize a dating system utilizing AD and BC (now CE and BCE)... and I've heard folk like yourself argue that this 'proves' gods existence, (after all how can you have a 'before christ' if there were no christ?)
Similarly, conflating the term "law' as applied to science is equivocation run wild. With the laws of Gravity, it was Newton, not god that was the law giver...

Quote:
Quote:
I do need to show how the spirits do what they do.

well you need to sort your priorities. Firstly you need to establish whether a "spirit" is involved and if so, at what point. When you've established whether the consistency of the effect suggests an intelligence behind the cause, you'll then need to establish contact with it and then you can ask it to show you. It may, of course, feel under no obligation........but either way, friendship always helps!

You do know you just gave a fairly good refutation of god belief, don't you?


 

Quote:
Quote:
So to sum up, you can not actually give a step by step account of how your god does what you claim it does,

you haven't told me everything about yourself. To conclude from this that you don't exist would be highly irrational..........I have evidence of your intelligence.........such as it is!



Ooooo... personal insults... can I play?

Quote:
Quote:
yet you reserve a right to snipe away at a science

I don't recall "sniping at science" - would you care to show me where? When Lennox disagrees with Dawkins is he "sniping at science"?

But when you disagree with nothing more than base superstition and ill thought opinion, it's not quite the same thing, is it? A well thought out critique and a brick through the window share some qualities, but they are not the same thing at all in the end.

Quote:
Quote:
you ill understand

evidence? 

Quote:
and don't actually believe in.

evidence?

The fact that you would insert your system of magic in place of scientific reason is evidence enough of both points.

Quote:
Quote:
You deny that what is called 'magic' is involved,

correct.

Exactly.

Quote:
Quote:
yet you describe what can only be called magic as the cause of all things.

I'm sorry you can't think of alternatives, "supernatural" seems a perfectly good and considerably more accurate word.


It would if there were also a 'sub-nature'... otherwise it's just a semantic quibble and a way to make yourself feel more sophisticated in your belief in MAGIC.

Quote:
Quote:
You claim a realm outside of nature.

true but then so does secular science.

Not true. Evidence, please.

Quote:
Quote:
.. magic...

supernatural. 

Quote:
yet offer no support.

well I offered the DNA code.........information theory agrees with me. I also cited the fact that Einstein and Dawkins also agree with me.


 

Yes, and you have been thoroughly rebuked in you misuse of the terms 'code' and 'information' by several others.
And quote mining, selectively picking bits of someone's words editing them to fit and presenting them out of context is simply dishonest. A form of lying.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Firstly: Another

Quote:
Firstly: Another definition of 'magic' involves effecting change in the real world by means outside of nature.

No it isn't. Quote your source. I see no common acceptation of such a "definition".

Quote:
1. the art that, by use of spells, supposedly invokes supernatural powers to influence events; sorcery2. the practice of this art
Collins English Dictionary

this might be true if it had anything to do with what christians actually DO. FGirstly, they don't use spells, secondly, sorcery is explicitly condemned by  the Bible. These of course are mere details to you.

Quote:
Quibbling over a definition is fun, don't you think? It doesn't add to your base argument,

your use of "quibbling"is interesting. It tells me that you have little regard for the applicable facts; that you have a fixed notion in your head and no interest in any accurate thinking which may impinge on it.   

Quote:
but I can see that you ahve a need to spin the discussion off into the clouds whenever possible.

can you? I'm more than happy for you to take the discussion wherever you like. 

 

Quote:
Perhaps because of the paucity of your ideas?

well, stick around and we may see.

Quote:
You've not shown that such means exist,

you've drawn a mistaken inference of my intention.  Since the evidence is compelling, it is rational for you to "show it" for yourself.



Quote:
Ah yes, I must simply see and acquiesce to your assertion because you claim it to be compelling.

where did I say this?  What I expect is you to either agree that an assertion is rationally compelling or not and if not so, to mount a rational argument as to why you regard this to be so. 

Quote:
It's not. Making an assertion (goddidit) in itself is neither compelling or convincing.

no-one has argued otherwise.

Quote:
Quote:
indeed that anything at all exists outside of nature.

do you mean "anything immaterial" ,"anything outside nature", or  both?

I cited the DNA code as evidence within nature of intelligence outside it. The case stands.

 

Quote:
And this goes well with my commentary that you snipe at a science that you (obviously) do not understand,

an assertion of the very type you've just condemned. 

Quote:
I asvise you to stick to magic.

this might make some sort of sense had it any relationship to reality........as it is it just looks like wishful thinkiing. 

Quote:
There is no reason to assume or presume that the structure of DNA is in any way shape or form derived from a source outside of the evolutionary process. None.

1]on the contrary, there is PRECISELY the same reason that supports every other scientific theory; the simple fact that , empirically, no code has ever been observed to create itself.

2] "Evolutionary" remains undefined in this debate.

Quote:
The argument is typical, "it must be this way or else I am wrong".

you appear to be simply complaining about the existence of logic - which I find odd.

 

Quote:
Making an UNSUPPORTED assertion is not 'logic'... making a string of unsupported assertions with a common theme is not a logical argument.

1] cite an unsupported assertion made by me.

2] logic is immaterial. Atheists don't believe in the immaterial.

3] My comment did not refer to the quality of logic contained in my argument but to the fact that "it must be this way or I'm wrong", simply defines, albeit in a circular manner, the common choice with which the existence of logic inevitably confronts us. It seemed very odd that you should find it necessary to restate it.

Quote:
It's just an unsupported claim, and as such, can be dismissed.

Quote:
which claim? The claim as to the rationality of the 'God conjecture' is overwhelming.


Quote:
A claim can not be 'overwhelming'... only the evidence supplied in support of that claim could be qualified with that hyperbole...

as you appear to wish to take refuge in a semantic argument, I'm content to oblige. The phrase in dispute engages "the rationality of the God conjecture" as evidence in support of its "overwhelming" nature. Therefore the "claim" which I posited to compensate for the lack of clarity from you, was not a claim in isolation as you attempt to suggest. If you wish to dispute the  status of the "rationality of the God conjecture" as "evidence", that is an entirely different issue........please go ahead, it's what I'm here for. 

 

Quote:
I could patiently explain the flaw in your mention of the laws of thermodynamics, that they apply only to closed systems, not to open, dynamic systems with a constant flow of energy. (That big thermonuclear engine in the sky we call the 'sun' being one source). But I won't waste my time on science, you believe in magic, in spite of your denial.

Quote:
this appears to be a slightly embarrassed withdrawal before the debate has even begun. I find your implication that the Laws of Thermodynamics DO NOT apply to the solar system...uhmm........interesting.........if dumb. I also await with interest the mechanism you propose for the initial conversion of all this energy into a directed form.


Quote:
I made no such implication, I merely pointed out that your suggestion that the evolutionary process somehow violates the Laws of Thermodynamics ignores the fact that our local system is not closed, but dynamic.

on the contrary, the rational inference to be drawn was, and is very clear. I accept that you don't mean what you wrote. 

Quote:
In a dynamic system, entropy is DECREASED, albeit, temporarily.

The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a mechanism to use the energy added, as my post pointed out. I await your solution with interest.  


Quote:
This is why I wish us to focus on your belief in magic and how it works. You simply are innocent of science.

as you are not, you will no doubt supply a prompt answer to my last question.

Quote:
Quote:
Secondly: "And god said..." sounds like an incantation to me.

which is neither here nor there.

Quote:
It's good you can acknowledge the obvious.

I'm pleased you approve my recognition of the irrelevance of your statement!  

Quote:
Quote:
The early shaman's imagined their god to be much like themselves, using words to effect the magical changes they desired...

I don't concur with shamanism but won't purport to answer for them.

Quote:
Of course you do, there is not one whit of difference between a preacher in a three piece suit, a priest in a vestment and a savage in feathers with a bone through his nose, except wardrobe.

"shamanism" denotes a specific worldview. As you say, wardrobe tells us nothing so it's odd that you found it necessary to mention it. This being the case it's equally odd that you then proceed to imply that ALL men think identically, without a shred of evidence for the assertion!

Quote:
Quote:
Christians do in fact believe that incantations (prayers) are effective,

not being prone to incantation I wouldn't know.

Quote:
Oh? You are a non-practicing (non praying?) christian?

I'm more than happy to overlook your ignorance of christian practice. Prayer has many aspects. It is not defined by "incantation" either individual or corporate. I'm sure repetition of truth has its place as long as the mind is engaged.

Quote:
Quote:
that such magical acts can drive illness from the body...

you appear stuck on this "magic" idea.....you seem to be under the misapprehension that somehow it clinches your point.

Quote:
Are ya getting mad, bro?

there's no danger of that.......no, I'm just mystified. It's just a word but it evinces a misapprehension on your part and I fail to understand your attachment to it.


Quote:
No, I'm merely pointing out that you do in fact believe in magic.

it is hardly the most consequential of your delusions. 

Quote:
I guess it takes the same mind set to deny such belief as it does to decry science and all its forms while tapping away on a computer...

but you just love unevidenced statements and then see no conflict with espousal of empiricism. This is deeply irrational. 

Quote:
that their god can simply say things like "Lazarus come forth..." and the magic works...

 well, there is a simple rationality to the idea that if one believes in a God who can create a whole universe, this is a piece of cake.



Quote:
Yes, once you accept one absurdity, the rest become easy...

well, your task is to DEMONSTRATE the absurdity........we're still waiting for you to start.

Quote:
Quote:
deny, deny deny all you like...

I wasn't about to.......I rather like consistency.

Quote:
Yes, you have consistently denied your affiliation with magic, yet...the evidence is dare I say, overwhelming?

so SHOW the evidence........as you correctly say, mere assertion is not PROOF of anything.

Quote:
just don't piss on my boots and tell me it's rain.

no, the piss on your boots probably is...........just piss. Abstinence from coffee may help.

Quote:
Or, not standing so close to the logically incontinent...

good advice.......I'll keep well clear of you.

Quote:
Quote:
Thirdly: Let's not digress... it's YOUR belief in magic I want to plumb...

your false premise may not help.........but you have been warned!

Quote:
And I am quivering in my piss stained boots...

whatever the cause of the quivering, it may also be the cause of your dodgy bladder.


Quote:
Quote:
I don't need advanced knowledge of electronics to flip a light switch.

when you flip it, you expect an effect. Therefore you exercise faith...........which was the point.

Quote:
Ah! That was the point, I knew that to get to the meat of your statement all I had to do was move a sprig of parsley...

sorry, I'll take things more slowly for you.

Quote:
However, if I claim that the light arises from the actions of invisible spirits that dwell in the wiring,

does anyone claim this?! We recognise the operation of specific laws......the rational response to which is conjecture a lawmaker.

Quote:
We used to recognize a dating system utilizing AD and BC (now CE and BCE)... and I've heard folk like yourself argue that this 'proves' gods existence, (after all how can you have a 'before christ' if there were no christ?)

I wouldn't argue this - it won't save anyone. There is only one proof of God's existence.


Quote:
Similarly, conflating the term "law' as applied to science is equivocation run wild. With the laws of Gravity, it was Newton, not god that was the law giver...

I hesitate to disturb your semantic refuge but Newton recognised an apparently consistent phenomenon [ similar to the consistency of the DNA code]. The attribution of the term "law" is, indeed, a wholly human response. Newton however, had no responsibility for the genesis of the consistent phenomenon which we term "law". Your inclination to detach phenomenon from nomenclature is an entirely predictable symptom of the epistemological disability your worldview inevitably condemns you to. It's just another form of  mysticism which accompanies a dichotomous outlook.

Quote:
Quote:
I do need to show how the spirits do what they do.

well you need to sort your priorities. Firstly you need to establish whether a "spirit" is involved and if so, at what point. When you've established whether the consistency of the effect suggests an intelligence behind the cause, you'll then need to establish contact with it and then you can ask it to show you. It may, of course, feel under no obligation........but either way, friendship always helps!

Quote:
You do know you just gave a fairly good refutation of god belief, don't you?

you'd like to think so but you can't establish it from anything I've said. Your touching delight is based solely on the PRESUPPOSITION that establishing whether "a spirit is involved" is an impossibility. This thought is merely a psychological comfort blanket. Millions down the ages  have found it to be untrue. 


Quote:
Quote:
So to sum up, you can not actually give a step by step account of how your god does what you claim it does,

you haven't told me everything about yourself. To conclude from this that you don't exist would be highly irrational..........I have evidence of your intelligence.........such as it is!



Quote:
Ooooo... personal insults... can I play?

by all means.......an open goal is just irresistable ain't it?!!

Quote:
yet you reserve a right to snipe away at a science

I don't recall "sniping at science" - would you care to show me where? When Lennox disagrees with Dawkins is he "sniping at science"?

Quote:
But when you disagree with nothing more than base superstition and ill thought opinion, it's not quite the same thing, is it? A well thought out critique and a brick through the window share some qualities, but they are not the same thing at all in the end.

this is more thoughtful of you. I suggest that  it's critical to establish what is ACTUALLY "base superstition" and "ill thought opinion" and what merely looks like it from a contrary viewpoint based on acquired plausibility. For the record, a good deal of modern science is based on the findings of men who held a Biblical worldview. It is pseudo- science I deprecate; nonsensical speculations masquerading as 'fact' and unremmitingly brainwashing a public deeply engaged in avoiding the important questions of life.  

 

Quote:
you ill understand

evidence? 

Quote:
and don't actually believe in.

evidence?

Quote:
The fact that you would insert your system of magic in place of scientific reason is evidence enough of both points.

except that you have no evidence for this either!! Incidentally, what is the difference between "scientific reason" and other sorts? My vocational background requires the manipulation of multiple overlapping technologies.......which is why I regard these bold assertions with some bemusement.

Quote:
Quote:
You deny that what is called 'magic' is involved,

correct.

Quote:
Exactly.

at least you recognise this much!

Quote:
Quote:
yet you describe what can only be called magic as the cause of all things.

I'm sorry you can't think of alternatives, "supernatural" seems a perfectly good and considerably more accurate word.


 

Quote:
It would if there were also a 'sub-nature'..
Quote:

there doesn't need to be something "beneath" nature in order for there to be nothing "above" it.  

Quote:
otherwise it's just a semantic quibble

this is only a restatement of your failure to understand your category error. Repeating it won't make it true.

Quote:
and a way to make yourself feel more sophisticated in your belief in MAGIC.

since I don't perceive myself as believing in magic, it should be obvious to you that I haven't acquired a psychological need for a sense of increased sophistication derived from its practise. The idea is deeply irrational.

Quote:
Quote:
You claim a realm outside of nature.

true but then so does secular science.

Quote:
Not true. Evidence, please.

more than happy to supply it. To ensure accurate communication.......first define "nature".

 

Quote:
Yes, and you have been thoroughly rebuked in you misuse of the terms 'code' and 'information' by several others.

oh, rebukes fly like leaves in fall........so what? I't's one thing for people to flail around trying to prop up their egos, it's quite another to be able to mount a rational, coherent counter-argument. I have yet to see it.

 

Quote:
And quote mining, selectively picking bits of someone's words editing them to fit and presenting them out of context is simply dishonest.

hmm.......it may be. You appear to wish to imply that I've done this.......would you care to cite where or is this just another wild, barrel-scraping in search of some mud you hope will stick?  

Quote:
A form of lying.

LC >;-}>

is this true or not? Is it just another expression of irrational relativism? Go on.......demonstrate that you know  what truth is.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*Victory by concession* And

*Victory by concession*

And another one bites the dust.

Quote:
The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a mechanism to use the energy added, as my post pointed out. I await your solution with interest.

Guess this guy never heard of photosynthesis. But at least he's entertaining in his ignorance of science and logic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Let us reason together...or not.
This I believe is your argument;
 
 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
 
 This is the rather silly bit of theorizing done by the aptly named Gitt.

 

The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, You define into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.

If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information. We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source. We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so.

 

You claim: Increasing order is possible, locally and temporarily, only if there is a program to direct growth and a power converter. 
  1. That claim is pure fantasy. The second law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about programs to direct growth, and the only "power converter" it deals with is change in entropy. Growth and order can be seen arising without a program in many places. Clouds form complex orderly patterns. Streams sort the size of the stones in their bed along their length. Cooling basalt forms a hexagonal pattern of cracks. All of these show an increase in organization, and none involve any program.
  2. Increasing order is not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, even temporarily. A violation would be a decrease in entropy without a greater increase in entropy to go with it. Neither growth nor evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics because both take advantage of local differences in entropy to get work done.
  3. Evolution has a program; it is called the environment. Natural selection serves to communicate information from the environment to the populations of organisms (Adami et al. 2000).
  4. An increase in organized complexity is not the same as a decrease in entropy. The second law applies only to entropy; it says nothing at all about organized complexity as such.

 

Now that we have delved into science, let's get back to what you believe, that MAGIC works and a MAGICAL being exists that uses MAGICAL powers to affect the natural universe.

I know, you really hate the term magic as applied to your beliefs, but, I go by the Waterfowl Standard of evidence, that is to say;

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has little webbed feet and craps while swimming in the pond, it's a duck.

If it looks like magic, sounds like magic and fits the definition of magic, it's magic and magical thinking.

Prayer is indistinguishable from any other type of magic spell, either an impromptu or highly ritualized incantation. The purpose is still the same, to entreat change or aid from a supernatural agency.

My analogy on the similarity of various types of shamans, from the feathered, bone-through-the-nose primitive to the guy with the meteorite proof hair in a three piece suit to Ratzinger in his papal finery stands. There is no real difference in function or sophistication, all depend for their livlihood on the gullibility of the superstitious masses.

You suggested you accept the notion of miraculous healing. Care to share how that works? (going back to my original query, How does the Magic work?) And please tell me how such practice is in any way substantively different from magic.

Do I really have to define nature and natural for you? Are you that disingenuous?

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This I believe is

Quote:

This I believe is your argument;
 
 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
 
 This is the rather silly bit of theorizing done by the aptly named Gitt.

 

 

but the theorizing by Gitt is irrelevant to the codal status of DNA. Gitt's critique of Shannon is valid but irrelevant at this point.

Quote:
The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher.

this is just semantics. You appear to be asserting that the scientific fraternity has its phraseology wrong. 

Quote:
DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code.

we could all have a pretty good shot at putting down a description of the mechanics........some with more help than others - but it doesn't help your case - the talk of arbirariness is amusing.......I like "the only arbitrariness in the genetic code"!......... when one considers that the number of possible code combinations for an average DNA molecule is 4 followed by a thousand zeros!!!!!!! Also the "mapping step" begins to look rather less "arbitrary" when one includes the function of  t-DNA and contemplate the fact that each of the 20 proteins requires a different t-DNA each of which is unlike any other.

 

 

Quote:
The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

classic reductionism.........are you just not familiar with the mind/matter issue or is this deliberately disingenuous? This is just an irrational [and unempirical] denial that communication of immaterial 'meaning' exists. 

Quote:
An essential property of language

Quote:
is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics.

it's not even true in language........try arbitrarily substituting words with other words in the course of normal conversation and the men in white coats are likely to turn up. 

Quote:
The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

this is just a denial that precision is necessary in language.........which probably explains a good deal.

Quote:
By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, You define into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.

it might be were it the case but I DID check whether "one was actually there" - you're the one who hasn't!!! Neither, incidentally, have I "defined" anyone "into existence". Checking whether someone is there is a process which is a rational sequel to observation of the evidence.

Quote:
If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information.

if it carries no information it isn't "data" in the first place, it's noise in the system.........which is why radio astronomers are always on the look out for non-random signals. 

Quote:
We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source. We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so.

 

Those searching for evidence of life in outer space have been instructed to watch for non-random signals as the best evidence that intelligent people live out there. Ponnamperuma says that such a "non-random pattern" would demonstrate intelligent extraterrestrial origin (*C. Ponnamperuma, The Origins of Life, 1972, p. 195). *CarI Sagan adds that a message with high information content would be "an unambiguously artificial [intelligently produced] interstellar message" (*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 314).

"To involve purpose is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin . . The revulsion which biologists feel to the thought that purpose might have a place in the structure of biology is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 32.

You claim: Increasing order is possible, locally and temporarily, only if there is a program to direct growth and a power converter. 
  1. Quote:
    That claim is pure fantasy. The second law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about programs to direct growth,
    strawman - no-one said it did. You are now trying to create a false dichotomy between the Laws of Thermodynamics and their application. 
  2. Quote:
    and the only "power converter" it deals with is change in entropy.
    same again
  3.  
    Quote:
    Growth and order can be seen arising without a program in many places.Clouds form complex orderly patterns. Streams sort the size of the stones in their bed along their length. Cooling basalt forms a hexagonal pattern of cracks. All of these show an increase in organization, and none involve any program.
    yes they do - the program simply exists at a molecular level
  4. Quote:
    Increasing order is not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, even temporarily.
    when there is no energy available to accomplish 'work', perfect "order" will exist!  This is the ONLY sense in which your assertion is true. 
  5. Quote:
    A violation would be a decrease in entropy without a greater increase in entropy to go with it. Neither growth nor evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics because both take advantage of local differences in entropy to get work done.
  6. it is a simple physical fact that undirected energy increases entropy........try leaving meat out in the sun. Suggest a directing mechanism.
  7. Quote:
    Evolution has a program; it is called the environment. Natural selection serves to communicate information from the environment to the populations of organisms (Adami et al. 2000).
    this nonsense is regularly trotted out by evolutionists. What they seek to avoid acknowledgement of is the simple fact that, in their worldview, the "environment" is ALSO the product of random, "informationless" chance!
  8. Quote:
    An increase in organized complexity is not the same as a decrease in entropy.
    no-one is arguing that they are the "same"............just that the latter is necessary to achieve the former.
  9.  
  10. Quote:
    The second law applies only to entropy; it says nothing at all about organized complexity as such.
    this red herring goes back to your attempt to disconnect the Law from its application..........this is irrational. 

 

Quote:
Now that we have delved into science, let's get back to what you believe, that MAGIC works and a MAGICAL being exists that uses MAGICAL powers to affect the natural universe.

I know, you really hate the term magic as applied to your beliefs, but, I go by the Waterfowl Standard of evidence, that is to say;

I'm more than happy to recognise that if you're determined on self-delusion, I can't help you.

 

.

Quote:
Prayer is indistinguishable from any other type of magic spell, either an impromptu or highly ritualized incantation. The purpose is still the same, to entreat change or aid from a supernatural agency.

this only tells us about your lack of discernment; it does nothing to advance your case.

Quote:
My analogy on the similarity of various types of shamans, from the feathered, bone-through-the-nose primitive to the guy with the meteorite proof hair in a three piece suit to Ratzinger in his papal finery stands. There is no real difference in function or sophistication, all depend for their livlihood on the gullibility of the superstitious masses.

see above. I'm not answerable for others. You are wasting your time if you think I'm susceptible to generalised slurs........water off this particular duck!
 

Quote:
You suggested you accept the notion of miraculous healing. Care to share how that works? (going back to my original query, How does the Magic work?)

do I understand you to be looking for the gift of healing?

Quote:
And please tell me how such practice is in any way substantively different from magic.

I did. You ignored it. Are you lonely? Do you just want to troll? The Christian regards 'magic ' as spiritually inspired deceit.......so it's unsurprising that you can't tell the difference.

Quote:
Do I really have to define nature and natural for you? Are you that disingenuous?

 

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand the relevance of the question.........no conversion mechanism yet then?

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


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

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. 

read it for yourself

Quote:
Since you claim to speak for God you must think you are the only one that is good.]/quote]

1] I haven't made any claim

2] This is a non sequitur and contradicts my citing of Christ.

 

Quote:
Doesn't hurt that God conveniently agrees with all you say and do.

I just quote him

Quote:
You are a member of the reformed movement -

what IS the "Reformed movement"? Most of the evangelical Church is within the Reformed tradition. It simply indicates that I am not Catholic, Orthodox nor Coptic. It indicates that I belive sola scriptura, sola fidei. 

Quote:
Calvin was one of those who started it. Again, learn your history.

non sequitur, Calvin was wrong about a good deal, as was Luther. Furthermore if YOU learn  YOUR history you will learn that the phrase, "reformed tradition" is little more than a convenience anyway since the gospel was kept alive through groups such as the Paulicians and the Waldenses throughout southern and central Europe and the Rhine valley. John Huss was a dissenter a hundred years before Luther. I rather suspect you are in no position to teach me church history!

Quote:
I didn't need to create the schism- Paul did that for me. You need to read your bible as well. I didn't say Paul created Catholicism - Paul created Christianity.

you'd be advised to stop digging this particular hole........the establishing of the Church which Jesus promised is very well documented. Here it is from Acts 2, written by Luke. 

42And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43And awe[d] came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

 You think Paul "created" Christianity because someone told you that converts were first called "Christians" in Antioch as a result of Paul's ministry. You think the term "christian" necessarily indicates that a man is regenerate. You are inference prone. Critique Christianity by all means but learn what one IS first.

Quote:
Calvin need  to reform Catholic Christianity because going to confession and getting forgiveness still wasn't easy enough.

you are sadly misled. Religion is popular  precisely BECAUSE it is easier to live by a set of rules. Paul tells you that the regenerate are to live by grace not law a very long time before Calvin was a twinkle. Luther nailed that door because of the corruption of Rome. ........he made it clear enough!       

Quote:
Paul's view of just believing without that nasty repentance and doing good was too hard.
 

yes religios think faith is too easy! ..........they all think they can earn their salvation because deep down they really ARE good enough. Christians don't repent once they've done it - they confess. James tells you, faith without works is dead.

Quote:
 If you want an example you can start with Jesus saying that the Law needed to be followed (though he fulfilled it) and Paul abolishing the Law by placing his followers under grace.

this is your most insightful comment. Paul actually says you have a choice. Here is what he says about law.

12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

In other words, yes, the law continues to exist. It existed in the first place to bring men to an awareness of sin. The whole point of the law is that no-one can keep it! As long as men continue to think that they CAN and that they can make themselves 'good enough' by their own efforts, then THAT is the basis on which they will be judged. Some of us realised that our own efforts would never be good enough. For people like that, God says, "I will write my law on their hearts". In other words, by accepting the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit undertakes to guide a person moment by moment as to what the law of God IS. That is why when he breaks it, a christian 'confesses' ie recognises sin for what it is, rather than repents. He became a christian in the first place by repenting. 

 

Quote:
How much easier do you want it?

I accepted it as a gift..........why do you find it so difficult?

Apologies for the stream of consciousness responses and for not bothering to keep track of the quote tags.

You didn't cite Christ - you cited Paul's convert who wrote those words and attributed them to Christ. Huge difference.

It's not a gift - it's contingent on unconditional obedience. Gifts are given without expectation of return.

I never said the law didn't continue to exist - it just doesn't apply to believers. Romans 4:15, remember? All you have done by quoting that section from Romans 2 is show that Paul can't keep his stories straight (he changes again in Romans 6). 

I agree that the 603 other laws are impossible to keep. Why do you want to get rid of the ten easy ones (many of which atheists keep better than Christians). 

Paul didn't become a Christian. The creator of a religion can't be a follower as well. You keep forgetting that Jesus never started a religion as he was still an observant Jew and would have slapped Paul for what he wanted to do if they met. Funny how there is nothing about Jesus establishing Paul's church that wasn't written by Paul's Greek converts, huh?

Paul created Christianity because Christian doctrine came from his epistles and the gospels that his converts wrote - Jesus was a Jew. You like to keep forgetting this. It had nothing to do with Greeks calling Paul's followers Christians in Antioch. After all, they were called atheists in Rome but I don't see you claiming that title.

Christianity is not popular because of the rules. It is popular because of the forgiveness that allows its adherents to break them continually as long as they come back and "confess" as needed. Incidentally, christians never needing to repent after sinning is quite Calvinistic.

I may not be able to teach you church history but you definitely aren't qualified to teach me the Bible. I can see that you're sola fidei but you need to actually read the scripture instead of cherrypicking it becfore you are sola scriptura.

"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


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You claim that Jesus

Quote:
You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. 

Quote:
read it for yourself

I did, that's why I can quote it - your point is?

Quote:
Apologies for the stream of consciousness responses and for not bothering to keep track of the quote tags.

no problem.

Quote:
You didn't cite Christ - you cited Paul's convert who wrote those words and attributed them to Christ.

1] This irrationally presupposes [ie it is contra all the historical and scholarly evidence] that the writer's testimony is inaccurate

2] All the evidence is that the writer was NOT a convert of Paul.

3] Your assertion irrationally presupposes that the Bible is not God's communication to Man and therefore trustworthy.  

Quote:
Huge difference.

were it true

Quote:
It's not a gift - it's contingent on unconditional obedience. Gifts are given without expectation of return.

1] scripture terms it a "gift". Therefore, in God's view it is a gift.

2] No man is capable of consistent obedience, unconditional or otherwise.

3] Scripture asks what man can give to God [I can quote if you like]. I do the same. The idea stems from hubris and constitutes the ROOT of religiosity.

Quote:
I never said the law didn't continue to exist - it just doesn't apply to believers. Romans 4:15, remember?

ok, Paul is expounding on the functioning of Law and Grace. 

 Here's Romans 4:14.

 5For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Let's look at the sense in which the Law does and does not apply to the believer.

In the above quote Paul asserts that the existence of the law CREATES sin - simple example.....it was not sin for Cain to marry his sister because, at the time there was no law against it. ie. sin is what God says it is.........and as Paul says, HAS TO [legally and philosophically] fall under God's judgment.

When someone chooses to live under Grace, God "imputes" the righteousness of Christ to him ie. God says he will remember his sin no more. He considers Christ to have paid for that sin at Calvary. The Christian can't be condemned for sin because from God's point of view his sin, past, present and future, no longer exists.

BUT

God says , "I will write my law on their hearts" In other words,  the Christian is to live under the constant direction of the indwelling Holy Spirit who shows him what is sin for HIM. So it is possible for the Christian to grieve the Spirit by his behaviour and, until he deals with the issue, to damage his effectiveness and his relationship with God.

Thus, as you say, the written law does not apply to the believer. Then you say:

Quote:
All you have done by quoting that section from Romans 2 is show that Paul can't keep his stories straight (he changes again in Romans 6). 

I think I quoted this:

12     For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13     (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14     For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15     Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one anotherEye-wink

then in Romans 6 Paul writes:

1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

You're not explicit, but I think you're complaining that one moment Paul is asserting that the Christian cannot sin and the next plainly stating that he can. I hope I've explained this above.  As Paul says in ch.6, the power of sin is broken because it is human nature to do things he is told not to do. The Christian is to be drawn into obedience by his OWN willingness to become more like Christ [ie, by the power of love] not cajoled into it by a set of rules - which is the definition of religion.

Quote:
I agree that the 603 other laws are impossible to keep. Why do you want to get rid of the ten easy ones (many of which atheists keep better than Christians).

Firstly, the problem with law is once you break one of them your fox is shot. Secondly, do people find it easy to keep the "ten"? - I see little sign  of this.

 

Quote:
Paul didn't become a Christian.

a Christian is someone who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit [Biblical definition]. Paul clearly was.

Quote:
The creator of a religion can't be a follower as well.

false premise.

  1. Romans 1:9
    For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you
    Romans 1:8-10 (in Context) Romans 1 (Whole Chapter)

 

Quote:
You keep forgetting that Jesus never started a religion as he was still an observant Jew and would have slapped Paul for what he wanted to do if they met.

Paul was an observant Jew. Many Christians are also observant Jews. Paul's ministry was explicitly approved by the Jerusalem church, which was packed with Jews. 

Quote:
Funny how there is nothing about Jesus establishing Paul's church that wasn't written by Paul's Greek converts, huh?

because the assertion is based on a false premise having absolutely zilch evidence.

Quote:
Paul created Christianity because Christian doctrine came from his epistles and the gospels that his converts wrote - Jesus was a Jew.

people on sites such as this choose their delusion..........this is obviously yours. It's a shame that you consider your eternal welfare worthy of so little basic study. 

Quote:
You like to keep forgetting this. It had nothing to do with Greeks calling Paul's followers Christians in Antioch. After all, they were called atheists in Rome but I don't see you claiming that title.

what a Christian IS has nothing to do with the label. We term Jewish "Christians", 'Messianic Jews', their spiritual status is identical. Your notion is a religious one.

Quote:
Christianity is not popular because of the rules. It is popular because of the forgiveness that allows its adherents to break them continually as long as they come back and "confess" as needed.

this is also a religious idea. If you knew the Holy Spirit, you would understand that he has ways and means of achieving sanctification! 

Quote:
Incidentally, christians never needing to repent after sinning is quite Calvinistic.

Calvinistic or not, it's a Biblical one. The Christian "confesses" ie. he recognises his 'sin' for what it is.

Quote:
I may not be able to teach you church history but you definitely aren't qualified to teach me the Bible.

I apologise for my lack of qualification.........I'll continue  to do my best.

Quote:
I can see that you're sola fidei but you need to actually read the scripture instead of cherrypicking it becfore you are sola scriptura.

unless one is sola scriptura from the outset, it implies that one perceives some other text to be inspired in toto. This would be a presumption without theological or philosophical, historical or textual basis. Rationally, one expects an exegesis to be consistent with other scriptures and to present, with them, coherent doctrine and worldview. When an exegesis fails this test, THEN one might bring a charge of "cherrypicking". As it is, YOU are the one failing ,  by your own admission, to recognise its coherence. This may be due to justifiable lack of knowledge, understanding or both but there is no point in claiming to understand while  simultaneously demonstrating that you don't. The question is.........do you think it important enough?

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You claim that Jesus

Quote:
You claim that Jesus said none was good but god. 

Quote:
read it for yourself

I did, that's why I can quote it - your point is?

Quote:
Apologies for the stream of consciousness responses and for not bothering to keep track of the quote tags.

no problem.

Quote:
You didn't cite Christ - you cited Paul's convert who wrote those words and attributed them to Christ.

1] This irrationally presupposes [ie it is contra all the historical and scholarly evidence] that the writer's testimony is inaccurate

2] All the evidence is that the writer was NOT a convert of Paul.

3] Your assertion irrationally presupposes that the Bible is not God's communication to Man and therefore trustworthy.  

Quote:
Huge difference.

were it true

Quote:
It's not a gift - it's contingent on unconditional obedience. Gifts are given without expectation of return.

1] scripture terms it a "gift". Therefore, in God's view it is a gift.

2] No man is capable of consistent obedience, unconditional or otherwise.

3] Scripture asks what man can give to God [I can quote if you like]. I do the same. The idea stems from hubris and constitutes the ROOT of religiosity.

Quote:
I never said the law didn't continue to exist - it just doesn't apply to believers. Romans 4:15, remember?

ok, Paul is expounding on the functioning of Law and Grace. 

 Here's Romans 4:14.

 5For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Let's look at the sense in which the Law does and does not apply to the believer.

In the above quote Paul asserts that the existence of the law CREATES sin - simple example.....it was not sin for Cain to marry his sister because, at the time there was no law against it. ie. sin is what God says it is.........and as Paul says, HAS TO [legally and philosophically] fall under God's judgment.

When someone chooses to live under Grace, God "imputes" the righteousness of Christ to him ie. God says he will remember his sin no more. He considers Christ to have paid for that sin at Calvary. The Christian can't be condemned for sin because from God's point of view his sin, past, present and future, no longer exists.

BUT

God says , "I will write my law on their hearts" In other words,  the Christian is to live under the constant direction of the indwelling Holy Spirit who shows him what is sin for HIM. So it is possible for the Christian to grieve the Spirit by his behaviour and, until he deals with the issue, to damage his effectiveness and his relationship with God.

Thus, as you say, the written law does not apply to the believer. Then you say:

Quote:
All you have done by quoting that section from Romans 2 is show that Paul can't keep his stories straight (he changes again in Romans 6). 

I think I quoted this:

12     For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13     (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14     For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15     Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one anotherEye-wink

then in Romans 6 Paul writes:

1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

You're not explicit, but I think you're complaining that one moment Paul is asserting that the Christian cannot sin and the next plainly stating that he can. I hope I've explained this above.  As Paul says in ch.6, the power of sin is broken because it is human nature to do things he is told not to do. The Christian is to be drawn into obedience by his OWN willingness to become more like Christ [ie, by the power of love] not cajoled into it by a set of rules - which is the definition of religion.

Quote:
I agree that the 603 other laws are impossible to keep. Why do you want to get rid of the ten easy ones (many of which atheists keep better than Christians).

Firstly, the problem with law is once you break one of them your fox is shot. Secondly, do people find it easy to keep the "ten"? - I see little sign  of this.

 

Quote:
Paul didn't become a Christian.

a Christian is someone who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit [Biblical definition]. Paul clearly was.

Quote:
The creator of a religion can't be a follower as well.

false premise.

  1. Romans 1:9
    For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you
    Romans 1:8-10 (in Context) Romans 1 (Whole Chapter)

 

Quote:
You keep forgetting that Jesus never started a religion as he was still an observant Jew and would have slapped Paul for what he wanted to do if they met.

Paul was an observant Jew. Many Christians are also observant Jews. Paul's ministry was explicitly approved by the Jerusalem church, which was packed with Jews. 

Quote:
Funny how there is nothing about Jesus establishing Paul's church that wasn't written by Paul's Greek converts, huh?

because the assertion is based on a false premise having absolutely zilch evidence.

Quote:
Paul created Christianity because Christian doctrine came from his epistles and the gospels that his converts wrote - Jesus was a Jew.

people on sites such as this choose their delusion..........this is obviously yours. It's a shame that you consider your eternal welfare worthy of so little basic study. 

Quote:
You like to keep forgetting this. It had nothing to do with Greeks calling Paul's followers Christians in Antioch. After all, they were called atheists in Rome but I don't see you claiming that title.

what a Christian IS has nothing to do with the label. We term Jewish "Christians", 'Messianic Jews', their spiritual status is identical. Your notion is a religious one.

Quote:
Christianity is not popular because of the rules. It is popular because of the forgiveness that allows its adherents to break them continually as long as they come back and "confess" as needed.

this is also a religious idea. If you knew the Holy Spirit, you would understand that he has ways and means of achieving sanctification! 

Quote:
Incidentally, christians never needing to repent after sinning is quite Calvinistic.

Calvinistic or not, it's a Biblical one. The Christian "confesses" ie. he recognises his 'sin' for what it is.

Quote:
I may not be able to teach you church history but you definitely aren't qualified to teach me the Bible.

I apologise for my lack of qualification.........I'll continue  to do my best.

Quote:
I can see that you're sola fidei but you need to actually read the scripture instead of cherrypicking it becfore you are sola scriptura.

unless one is sola scriptura from the outset, it implies that one perceives some other text to be inspired in toto. This would be a presumption without theological or philosophical, historical or textual basis. Rationally, one expects an exegesis to be consistent with other scriptures and to present, with them, coherent doctrine and worldview. When an exegesis fails this test, THEN one might bring a charge of "cherrypicking". As it is, YOU are the one failing ,  by your own admission, to recognise its coherence. This may be due to justifiable lack of knowledge, understanding or both but there is no point in claiming to understand while  simultaneously demonstrating that you don't. The question is.........do you think it important enough?

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
The bible says.The Koran

The bible says.

The Koran says.

The Torah says.

The Rev Vedas say.

 

When are YOU going to understand that you have no argument with circular reasoning. Pet gods are like sphincters, everyone has one. Big wooopty doooo

"I can quote my holy book". Yea, and I can quote Star Wars.

 

"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


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The bible says.The

Quote:

The bible says.

The Koran says.

The Torah says.

The Rev Vedas say.

 

When are YOU going to understand that you have no argument with circular reasoning.

Brian, instead of just rabbiting atheist mantras.........engage brain. What argument "don't I have"? The points put to me were specifically Biblical.........therefore the context was specifically Biblical. Therefore the answers were inevitably Biblical. The debate was not about the STATUS of the Bible.......ie the grounds for believing that it is God's communication or otherwise

 

Quote:
Pet gods are like sphincters, everyone has one. Big wooopty doooo

"I can quote my holy book". Yea, and I can quote Star Wars.

Don't you ever tire of this sort of trash? I mean, just as one human being to another, don't you ever just wake up some mornings and think, "I'm too old for this, the truth must be out there somewhere, I really should apply my mind to finding it"?

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That's rich, seeing as

That's rich, seeing as you're the one with an invisible friend.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That's rich,

Vastet wrote:
That's rich, seeing as you're the one with an invisible friend.

 

Is this supposed to be masquerading as an argument? You don't believe in love because it' invisible; you don't believe in creativity, honor, truth, morality or any human values because they're "invisible" so you define your life by tiny parameters because most of the entities which make it worthwhile are "invisible" This is your poverty and deep irrationality.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.