Intelligent Design?

Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Intelligent Design?

 When it comes to the Evolution v Creationism debate, I have wondered for a while now... what  sort of intelligent designer would make us in such a manner that we have to do so many bodily functions... Such as eating... excrementing waste.

For example there are animals out there that can produce vitamin C... we cannot, and must get our daily vitamin C from food. If we were designed intelligently, what sort of sense does it make to give some (un?)intelligently designed creatures this ability, and then keep it from the Pièce de résistance so to speak. Or going further to plants... they get most of what they need from the Sun, and then other random nutrients in water that can even be given via a mist. (Aeroponics) Why can't we, as intelligently designed creatures utilize the same process as plants when it comes to aeroponics? .-. It doesn't make sense.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re :: I too am detecting a 'tone' . . . (See: Image)

  IS IT JUST ME ? I TOO AM DETECTING A TONE!


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
 Blacklight, I've also

 Blacklight, I've also explained it numerous times on this thread... .-. They were then ignored and later the question was repeated.

 

Morals come from culture. It's as simple as that... One culture might consider it the most horrid act possible to harm a cow, while another culture eats millions of cattle on a regular basis. The two opinions are respected because they don't really harm each other over it. Where if in one culture it is appropriate to sacrifice slaves and prisoners to the Gods, and in many other cultures it's not... The one that is deviating from the global common would be considered immoral.

On the topic of slaves, morals, and intelligent design...

Do you really think that God intelligently designed some of us just for slave labour? That doesn't seem very loving to me...

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote:Blacklight,

Wladyslaw wrote:

Blacklight, I've also explained it numerous times on this thread... .-. They were then ignored and later the question was repeated.

Oh, yeah...

 

Wladyslaw wrote:

Do you really think that God intelligently designed some of us just for slave labour? That doesn't seem very loving to me...

Of course not! But I'm also an atheist. Interestingly enough, however, the God many Christians (many of the one's I've talked to, at least) believe in is actually much worse: He created billions of people for the purpose of going to Hell and suffering forever.

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Don't be glum chum

Don't be glum chum


blacklight915 wrote:

Wladyslaw wrote:

Blacklight, I've also explained it numerous times on this thread... .-. They were then ignored and later the question was repeated.

Oh, yeah...

    Please dont feel discouraged, know e-v-e-r-y word is read; you can count on that.   As with everyone on the board  all of them do. And  we're all cool again Smiling

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:They

angelobrazil wrote:
They resorted to that method, because it was the most efficient one.

Ridiculous. A knife is the most efficient method of execution. The cost of a few knives is microscopic compared to the cost of a single gas chamber.

angelobrazil wrote:
Fact is, they thought it was the right thing to do.

Bullshit. If they thought it was the right thing to do they wouldn't have hid their activities from the world at large.

angelobrazil wrote:
could you point out just ONE big protest of the german populatin against the killing of the jews, during nazi germany ?

How about YOU show the common folk executing jews in the streets. While you're at it, show the people protesting ANYTHING under the iron fist of the Nazi's. It was a one way ticket to being thrown in death camps with the jews. Suicide.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:No. That

angelobrazil wrote:
No. That does not prove,

Yes, it does prove that morality is subjective.

angelobrazil wrote:
its ok to rape and kill small babies,

Funny that's what YOUR god does and demands. So in your own words your god is immoral.

The morality of society arises from the consensus of the individuals of that society. No single individual gets to make the choice on what society considers to be ethical.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: So you

angelobrazil wrote:


So you confirm any opinion is equally valid. You cannot say objectively, that rape small babies is wrong, since  its just your personal opinion.

No, I argue that some personal opinions are clearly better than others. I reject the notion that "just an opinion" means that the idea has no value. Sure, I agree you are free to have whatever opinion you want because I support free speech and free thought, however that does not mean I think your opinion has the same value as my own and it certainly does not mean that I think it is unimportant whether society structures their rules more in line with my opinions or with yours. Opinions are extraordinarily important and which opinions are held by the controlling power of any legal authority holds is probably the single most influential thing in any of our lives. Opinions are not "just" opinions. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:

Genocide of jews was a desirable thing for the Nazi regime.... based on what can you say, they were wrong ? In their society, it was justified and ok.

Exactly a good demonstration of my point that morality is not universal. The Nazi's justified all sorts of abuses that I believe are immoral. Clearly, there is not a universal morality, otherwise the Nazi's would have been bothered by the immorality of their actions; when they clearly were not. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:

 
That would categorize it to be no.1. They would come from us, humans, and would be relative, depending on each nations subjective standard.

Obviously, every nation and even every city has at least a slightly different concept of morality. Again, more evidence that morality is not universal.

 

angelobrazil wrote:

God ordered it based on a higher good. War is morally acceptable, when the reasons justify it.

So killing babies is not always immoral? I disagree. Even in the most fierce of wars, killing babies is an immoral act. Your god believes otherwise, I believe your god is immoral if he exists and did what the bible says he did. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:

Was it morally ok for the u.s. to invade europe, to free it from nazi germany, despite the fact that many human lifes were brough to death ?

All of the rapes that occurred and murder of children that was intentionally caused by soldiers, whatever side they were on, is immoral. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:

The canaanite genocide was a isolated event, and had clear reasons to be, which are described in the bible. If the absolute of morality does not come from us, it comes from a higher being, which is God.

So is rape and the murder of children absolutely immoral or not? You can't have it both ways. Either you argue there is some situation where it is justified, or there is no situation where it is justified. I argue there is absolutely no situation where such actions are justified. Your god obviously holds a different morality and I believe it is clearly inferior.

 

 

angelobrazil wrote:

Quote:
Whether it is hard to imagine or not is irrelevant.


Its actually not irrelevant, but the crucial point. Where does the inborn knowledge come from, that certain things are bad to be done ?

It is not inborn. You have the sense that it is wrong because you grew up in a culture where it was considered wrong. As evidenced by the Nazi's, human cultures can develop that justify the murder and rape of innocent people. You yourself justified the murder and rape of the Canaanites as an "isolated event" with "clear reasons". The Nazi's were no different. They thought their terrible actions had clear reasons. If there was an absolute morality, sick fucks like you would be disturbed by the idea of slaughtering babies and raping teenagers and refuse to worship any being that ordered such actions. I wish there was an absolute morality, the world would be a much more pleasant place to live.  

 

angelobrazil wrote:


Absolutely not. You can visit a jungle tribe, that had never contact to modern civilisation, and they know as we do, that certain things are bad to be done.

You are obviously completely ignorant of anthropology. Societies have existed that thought the idea of sacrificing a virgin or child to the gods was a good thing. There are societies that think cannibalism is a good thing. There are societies that don't have a concept of rape because women are expected to surrender to a man whenever. Societies that respect women's rights, don't encourage killing within the society and support human rights have been more successful simply because such beliefs encourage population growth. As I said above, just because something is an opinion does not mean that all opinions are equally good.  

 

angelobrazil wrote:


But certain behavior, like kill, rape, torture, lie, betray etc. are held as bad things, independently if in modern, or ancient civilisations.

Demonstrably false. Your own bible has God ordering rape several times. In many ancient civilizations rape, especially as a spoil or war, was regarded as a necessary and even good thing. Torture has also been regarded as a positive throughout history and often advocated by the church. Killing is almost always subjective in whether or not it is good or bad. You claim that killing the Canaanites was a good thing. Some people claim that all killing is bad even in self defense. Killing is often highlighted as being good. How many "heroes" in history are heroes because they were exceptionally good at killing? We often idolize and respect killers, while at the same time demonize and hate other killers solely depending on which people they kill. It is extremely subjective and which killers you consider "heroes" and which you consider "villains" is mostly dependent upon which culture you belong to. Was Geronimo a brave hero who fought to protect his homeland? Or a heartless murderer who slaughtered innocent pioneers? Was Che Guevara a fearless warrior fighting for the people? Or a cruel mercenary who reveled in killing?

As one of my personal heroes said

General Robert E. Lee wrote:

It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

A hero of mine, even though I am steadfastly opposed to the idea of slavery that was supported by his side in the war. Can a truly good man find himself fighting on the "bad" side of a conflict? I would say the General Lee is evidence that he can. Whether or not a killing is moral mostly depends upon who you ask. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:
 
Quote:
None of these morals come from the Christian god.


Where do the ten commandments come from ?

Thou shalt not kill is clearly a moral that was not followed strictly by the Christian God as he ordered and personal committed many killings. It has brought many Christians to argue that there is a fundamental difference between "murder" and "kill". I fail to see how genocide is anything other than murder.

 

angelobrazil wrote:
 

 

Quote:
He explicitly ordered his followers to kill undesirables in some of the most painful ways imaginable, he explicitly ordered them to kill all men in war, to pillage and to rape. If a group of soldiers today went through a village killing every male child and all of the non-virgin women and then forcibly taking the virgins (pretty much the underage girls) as their "wives" we would call them immoral and try to stop them.
  

Do you know the first commandment of the new testament ? Which is it ?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

A good example of gods lack of morality that the number one thing on his list is not something like "be kind to others" or "treat others with respect". No it is "worship me or else". God is clearly a narcissist. The first three commandments (out of only 10) are all about him. It isn't until commandment 6 that I think you have anything worthy of translating into an actual law. (7 should not be a law) And the idea that you shouldn't kill or steal from your neighbor was hardly a new idea when the new testament was written. By then, humans had figured out that to work together in a society that laws against killing and stealing were good ideas to make things work. Civilizations had been making similar laws for years. What is noteworthy, is that not all civilizations agreed who counted as murder and what people shouldn't be stolen from. Even today, most civilizations are willing to support taxation which is arguably theft.

 

angelobrazil wrote:
  

Quote:
Why can't we argue against other people's opinions? We do so all the time.


Sure we can. But based on what ground are they objectively valid ? If they are not objectively valid, anything can be justified. Everything is just relative, based on subject opinion.

So? Does it make a difference if things are relative? Everything about how we govern ourselves is relative. What kind of food you prefer to eat is relative, that doesn't mean that whether a restaurant serves good food or shit is irrelevant. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:
 

You have not answered the point. If you disagree that killing small babies is objectively wrong, then it depends just on personal opinion. If that is the case, based on what can you say, kill young babies is wrong ? It will be just your personal opinion.

It is a personal opinion. My opinion is right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Anyone who says otherwise is free to argue with my new friend.


(Side note for Prozac: I bit the bullet at ordered a custom job. Going with a Bartlein barrel and a Surgeon Action in the 300 WinMag with a suppressor. Loaded with weight so it is going to be over 40 pounds when it is all said and done so that should help with the recoil. The good folk at Templar Tactical have promised me less that .5 MOA at 1000 yards. Eagerly awaiting for it to be finished so I can try this baby out )  

The point is that inside of society, the opinions of others matter and matter a lot. It has an effect on your ability to trade with them, to interact with them, to get their help when you need it and ultimately, it has an effect on your ability to continue living. If the social group decides you need to die for whatever reason, your chances of survival are severely diminished. People who are held in high esteem will be more successful, have more money and be safe from punishment. Those held in low esteem will find difficulty getting work, finding help and be at risk of being imprisoned, deprived of property or even killed. 

Killing babies is not "objectively" wrong the same way that claiming the world is flat is objectively wrong. However, it is objectively a fact that the vast majority of people in modern civilization believe that killing babies is wrong and the vast majority of people will support having you punished if you kill a baby, so killing babies in a modern civilization is objectively a bad idea if you want to live a comfortable life inside it. 

Even in modern times we have a debate over what exactly constitutes a "baby". Whether abortion is immoral is a much more contentious issue and I think those who are it is immoral have a very good argument. Personally, I would never support an abortion as I find it very disturbing. I would prefer that most people found abortion as disturbing as I do, however, the reality is that many people do not see it as a bad thing so the society I live in doesn't find abortion as immoral as killing born infants. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:

Quote:
It comes from our thoughts and our thoughts have many physical properties.


No kidding.....

Can you specify what physical properties thoughts do have ????

Do I look like a neurology professor? Here is on of the most recent articles I have read on the subject 

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S096098221300002X

If you really give a shit about how the brain works I suggest you take an online course with a decent university. I have neither the time nor desire to teach you the details of how the brain works. It is an area of science where we are learning new things every day. One thing that is clear is that thoughts are created by significant activity in the brain. We are not yet at the point where we can determine thoughts simply by analyzing that activity. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:

Quote:
Again, you declare there are only two possibilities when there are many more. Just because you can only think of two doesn't mean there are only two. It simply shows the limits of your thought process.


You have only then a point, if you can point toward a third point.

I did. I have argued that morality is a set of cultural norms that arise as a compilation of preferences from the various people and groups that have influence over a particular culture. It is not made by a single person and inside any culture are many moralities which are often in competition and conflict with each other- which is why we have this thing called politics. In short, morality is nothing more or less than an ongoing attempt of humans to find a way to live together as a society and/or control each other to live in a way we prefer. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:  IS IT

danatemporary wrote:

  IS IT JUST ME ? I TOO AM DETECTING A TONE!

ROFLMAO


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: Do you know the

 

 

Quote:

Do you know the first commandment of the new testament ? Which is it ?"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

kkk.... wrong.

 

Quote:

Can you specify what physical properties thoughts do have ????

Do I look like a neurology professor? Here is on of the most recent articles I have read on the subject 

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S096098221300002X

If you really give a shit about how the brain works I suggest you take an online course with a decent university. I have neither the time nor desire to teach you the details of how the brain works. It is an area of science where we are learning new things every day. One thing that is clear is that thoughts are created by significant activity in the brain. We are not yet at the point where we can determine thoughts simply by analyzing that activity.

 No, but you made the claim, that thoughts do have physical properties. 

So how do you explain near death experiences, like from Dr.Eben Alexander ?

here is what he wrote :

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

In the fall of 2008, however, after seven days in a coma during which the human part of my brain, the neocortex, was inactivated, I experienced something so profound that it gave me a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death.For seven days I lay in a deep coma, my body unresponsive, my higher-order brain functions totally offline.

There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body lay in coma, my mind—my conscious, inner self—was alive and well. While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension I’d never dreamed existed and which the old, pre-coma me would have been more than happy to explain was a simple impossibility.

But that dimension—in rough outline, the same one described by countless subjects of near-death experiences and other mystical states—is there. It exists, and what I saw and learned there has placed me quite literally in a new world: a world where we are much more than our brains and bodies, and where death is not the end of consciousness but rather a chapter in a vast, and incalculably positive, journey.

 


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

Wladyslaw wrote:

Blacklight, I've also explained it numerous times on this thread... .-. They were then ignored and later the question was repeated.

Oh, yeah...

 

Wladyslaw wrote:

Do you really think that God intelligently designed some of us just for slave labour? That doesn't seem very loving to me...

Of course not! But I'm also an atheist. Interestingly enough, however, the God many Christians (many of the one's I've talked to, at least) believe in is actually much worse: He created billions of people for the purpose of going to Hell and suffering forever.

 

 

No no no no no no no! You totally misunderstood my post! I was telling you that you explaining it to Angelo was rather pointless, I've explained it more than once to him and he keeps repeating himself, I just wanted to save you the hassle. The last statement was also directed at Angelo! Yes, that created billions just to damn them thing doesn't make sense either... So to reiterate, I wasn't trying to be mean at all! I was trying to be helpful. v.v

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote:He created

Wladyslaw wrote:
He created billions of people for the purpose of going to Hell and suffering forever.

Who teached you that nonsense ? Lets get that straight. Just to make it clear, i am not here for preaching, but if you have completely wrong concepts about what the bible actually teaches, i will take the freedom to correct you :

http://www.redeemer.com/news_and_events/articles/the_importance_of_hell.html

In Romans 1-2 Paul explains that God, in his wrath against those who reject him, 'gives them up' to the sinful passions of their hearts. Commentators (cf. Douglas Moo) point out that this cannot mean God impels people to sin, since in Ephesians 4:19 it is said that sinners give themselves up to their sinful desires. It means that the worst (and fairest) punishment God can give a person is to allow them their sinful hearts' deepest desire.

What is that? The desire of the sinful human heart is for independence. We want to choose and go our own way (Isaiah 53:6.) This is no idle 'wandering from the path.' As Jeremiah puts it, 'No one repents . . . each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle. (8:6)' (We want to get away from God-but, as we have seen, this is the very thing that is most destructive to us. Cain is warned not to sin because sin is slavery. (Genesis 4:7; John 8:34.) It destroys your ability to choose, love, enjoy. Sin also brings blindness-the more you reject the truth about God the more incapable you are of perceiving any truth about yourself or the world (Isaiah 29:9-10; Romans 1:21.)

What is hell, then? It is God actively giving us up to what we have freely chosen-to go our own way, be our own "the master of our fate, the captain of our soul," to get away from him and his control. It is God banishing us to regions we have desperately tried to get into all our lives. J.I.Packer writes: "Scripture sees hell as self-chosen . . . [H]ell appears as God's gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshipping him, or without God forever, worshipping themselves." (J.I.Packer, Concise Theology p.262-263.) If the thing you most want is to worship God in the beauty of his holiness, then that is what you will get (Ps 96:9-13.) If the thing you most want is to be your own master, then the holiness of God will become an agony, and the presence of God a terror you will flee forever (Rev 6:16; cf. Is 6:1-6.)


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:  Quote:

angelobrazil wrote:

 

Quote:

Can you specify what physical properties thoughts do have ????

Do I look like a neurology professor? Here is on of the most recent articles I have read on the subject 

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S096098221300002X

If you really give a shit about how the brain works I suggest you take an online course with a decent university. I have neither the time nor desire to teach you the details of how the brain works. It is an area of science where we are learning new things every day. One thing that is clear is that thoughts are created by significant activity in the brain. We are not yet at the point where we can determine thoughts simply by analyzing that activity.

 No, but you made the claim, that thoughts do have physical properties. 

So how do you explain near death experiences, like from Dr.Eben Alexander ?

here is what he wrote :

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

In the fall of 2008, however, after seven days in a coma during which the human part of my brain, the neocortex, was inactivated, I experienced something so profound that it gave me a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death.For seven days I lay in a deep coma, my body unresponsive, my higher-order brain functions totally offline.

There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body lay in coma, my mind—my conscious, inner self—was alive and well. While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension I’d never dreamed existed and which the old, pre-coma me would have been more than happy to explain was a simple impossibility.

But that dimension—in rough outline, the same one described by countless subjects of near-death experiences and other mystical states—is there. It exists, and what I saw and learned there has placed me quite literally in a new world: a world where we are much more than our brains and bodies, and where death is not the end of consciousness but rather a chapter in a vast, and incalculably positive, journey.

 

 

Did he not literally just say

Quote:
Do I look like a neurology professor?

In a manner that suggests that he is not. AND

Quote:
[Neuroscience] is an area of science where we are learning new things every day.

Suggesting that we are VERY far from understanding everything about the brain and the way it works.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Wladyslaw

angelobrazil wrote:

Wladyslaw wrote:
He created billions of people for the purpose of going to Hell and suffering forever.

Who teached you that nonsense ? Lets get that straight. Just to make it clear, i am not here for preaching, but if you have completely wrong concepts about what the bible actually teaches, i will take the freedom to correct you :

http://www.redeemer.com/news_and_events/articles/the_importance_of_hell.html

In Romans 1-2 Paul explains that God, in his wrath against those who reject him, 'gives them up' to the sinful passions of their hearts. Commentators (cf. Douglas Moo) point out that this cannot mean God impels people to sin, since in Ephesians 4:19 it is said that sinners give themselves up to their sinful desires. It means that the worst (and fairest) punishment God can give a person is to allow them their sinful hearts' deepest desire.

What is that? The desire of the sinful human heart is for independence. We want to choose and go our own way (Isaiah 53:6.) This is no idle 'wandering from the path.' As Jeremiah puts it, 'No one repents . . . each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle. (8:6)' (We want to get away from God-but, as we have seen, this is the very thing that is most destructive to us. Cain is warned not to sin because sin is slavery. (Genesis 4:7; John 8:34.) It destroys your ability to choose, love, enjoy. Sin also brings blindness-the more you reject the truth about God the more incapable you are of perceiving any truth about yourself or the world (Isaiah 29:9-10; Romans 1:21.)

What is hell, then? It is God actively giving us up to what we have freely chosen-to go our own way, be our own "the master of our fate, the captain of our soul," to get away from him and his control. It is God banishing us to regions we have desperately tried to get into all our lives. J.I.Packer writes: "Scripture sees hell as self-chosen . . . [H]ell appears as God's gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshipping him, or without God forever, worshipping themselves." (J.I.Packer, Concise Theology p.262-263.) If the thing you most want is to worship God in the beauty of his holiness, then that is what you will get (Ps 96:9-13.) If the thing you most want is to be your own master, then the holiness of God will become an agony, and the presence of God a terror you will flee forever (Rev 6:16; cf. Is 6:1-6.)

 

No one taught me that I gathered it from fact, and that metaphysical book you adhere to.

God creates man. God chooses one tribe, the Jews. Right there that condemns pretty much everyone else in the entire world. Later the New Testament events "happen." Now, rather than making his presence known to every human on Earth. He entrusts humans to spread the word, pretty much through any means necessary and expects them to reach places far beyond their reach, North America.

 

Oh and just so you know Hell wasn't even in Christianity until it reached Scandinavia and clashed with Norse mythology. It came from the concept of Hel, a place overseen by a woman/hag of the same name. Hell wasn't even a part of your mythos until a thousand years in..

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:could you

angelobrazil wrote:

could you point out just ONE big protest of the german populatin against the killing of the jews, during nazi germany ?

As usual the theist resorts to ignorance to make their point. Unfortunately for said theist, he happens to be on a site where some people have an interest in history and can expose the ignorance upon which his point rests. There was significant protests against the Nazi regime and it is estimated that approximately 80,000 non-Jewish Germans were killed by the regime because of their opposition. 

Perhaps one of the most famous protests was the Rosenstrasse protest in which hundreds of women protested toe to toe against the Gestapo aiming machine guns with them. Due to their fearlessness, the Jews were released because the Nazi's made the calculation that murdering all of the German women would be a public relations disaster. 

http://rinr.fsu.edu/fallwinter97/features/hitler.html

Other brave people dared to challenge the Nazi regime such as General Ludwig Beck who fought Hitler's policies all the way and eventually participated in a conspiracy to attempt to overthrow him along with three other high German leaders that would have made Carl Goerdeler chancellor. His attempt failed and when arrested he voluntarily attempted suicide.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/1900s/p/World-War-Ii-Colonel-General-Ludwig-Beck.htm

Then we should all know of the heroics of Oskar Schindler and other people like him who did everything they could to save lives. While we all know of Oskar Schindler because of him being immortalized in one of the best movies of all time, there were thousands of other Germans who passively resisted the Nazi regime in similar ways by helping to hide Jews or warn them when they were about to be arrested. 

The Red Orchestra was a communist German group that opposed the Nazi's. Harro Schulze-Boysen was one of the leaders who was captured and sentenced to death in 1942 because of his resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harro_Schulze-Boysen

Hitler faced many coups and assassination attempts that arose from Germans. He hardly had 100% support from his country and no doubt for every person who was willing to face near certain death, thousands of others supported them but were too afraid to fight.

Even teenagers got into the opposition against the Nazis. Gangs began to form known as the "Edelweiss Pirates" which consisted of kids 14-17 who escaped Nazi education centers. While their protests mostly involved the type of minor vandalism you expect from teenagers and street fights with youth who supported Hitler, it demonstrates an undercurrent of revolt against the regime. The Nazi's thought it was a serious enough threat to imprison many of them and send some to the concentration camps (not everyone sent to the camps was a Jew).  

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/edelweiss_pirates.htm

Care to make any more confident declarations about what didn't happen in history? Or what isn't happening in science? Sorry pal, your ignorance isn't going far here. We have a lot of intelligent people here who all happen to have interests in different subjects. Just because you have already gotten owned in the science aspect by Vastet and Wladyslaw doesn't mean you can turn around and hope that we are ignorant of history. And now that you have been shown to be a fool here, I can guarantee that whatever you turn to next, someone on this site will have the information at their fingertips to reveal your ignorance for what it is. People on this site read books other than the Bible. The only arguments that have a prayer here are those made from knowledge. Any argument that begins with "I bet you can't explain ______" is going to find someone with an ability to provide an explanation. This isn't your typical forum full of uneducated idiots, we have a good group of people who like to read and value knowledge. (even though we do tend to call each other idiots when debating with each other and when we feel really insulting we will say "like a theist" 

 

Want to try linguistics? Got some people who can school you there. Archaeology? Yeah, you will get schooled there. Want to talk about the origin of the bible? I guarantee a couple of our members know more about how it was written and the interpretations than you ever will. Care to try the "you're taking the bible out of context" approach? Some of our members were ministers and many have read the bible more in depth than you ever will; plus they actually thought when they read it. Want to get fancy with some philosophy? Have a few people here who could give all of us a university level education. And you should probably avoid science entirely as I think nearly every field of science is represented here either by someone who is involved professionally or is a well informed amateur. One of the reasons I love this site is how much I learn from the shear wealth of knowledge held collectively.  

You might catch any one of us on some subject which we are less interested in and therefore less informed of, but someone else on here is going to catch it. Go ahead, bring it on.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Quote: Do

angelobrazil wrote:

Quote:

Do you know the first commandment of the new testament ? Which is it ?"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

kkk.... wrong.

Really? I just googled it to make sure I was right, because I have to admit I don't consider myself an expert on the bible. What I found was that I am right about the first commandment.

https://www.google.com/search?q=1st+commandment&rlz=1C1DVCA_enUS325US325&oq=1st+commandment&aqs=chrome.0.59j0l3j62l2.3500j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So are all of those sites wrong? If so, please let me know and tell me. 

 

angelobrazil wrote:

So how do you explain near death experiences, like from Dr.Eben Alexander ?

here is what he wrote :

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

In the fall of 2008, however, after seven days in a coma during which the human part of my brain, the neocortex, was inactivated, I experienced something so profound that it gave me a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death.For seven days I lay in a deep coma, my body unresponsive, my higher-order brain functions totally offline.

There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body lay in coma, my mind—my conscious, inner self—was alive and well. While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension I’d never dreamed existed and which the old, pre-coma me would have been more than happy to explain was a simple impossibility.

But that dimension—in rough outline, the same one described by countless subjects of near-death experiences and other mystical states—is there. It exists, and what I saw and learned there has placed me quite literally in a new world: a world where we are much more than our brains and bodies, and where death is not the end of consciousness but rather a chapter in a vast, and incalculably positive, journey.

And now you change the subject to NDE. I made no claims about NDE at all, I didn't even mention it. I simply made the claim that thoughts have a physical response. Even in a coma, the brain is active (if it wasn't you would die). I freely admit that there is a lot we do not know about the brain or how it works. For specific questions about what we do know, someone else on here is probably better qualified to answer those questions as I have not spent significant time studying the brain. But, like I pointed out in my post above, subject hopping isn't going to save you. While I am not well informed about NDE's many people on here are. For starters, you can check out this which is a list of dozens of threads we have had about NDE's and include a lot of contribution from people smarter than me who have studied the subject.

Since you obviously did not check out the link I provided before, I assume you will not click on that link either. If you are relying on "thedailybeast" as a source of your knowledge I suspect you are incapable of holding an even slightly intelligent conversation on the topic anyway. For starters, from a purely amateur perspective the good Dr. Alexander has no way of knowing when the memory of the NDE was created and has no way of knowing that it was created while his neocortex was not functioning. We know that our time perception of false memories is not accurate. Something that we perceive as a long time, could in fact be created in a short time. The memory could easily be created immediately before the neocortex stopped functioning or immediately upon it starting to work again and Dr. Alexander would have no way of knowing the difference. But for now I will cede this particular topic to someone more informed than me if you care to (and are informed enough) to get into the details.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote:No no no no

Wladyslaw wrote:

No no no no no no no! You totally misunderstood my post! I was telling you that you explaining it to Angelo was rather pointless, I've explained it more than once to him and he keeps repeating himself, I just wanted to save you the hassle. The last statement was also directed at Angelo! Yes, that created billions just to damn them thing doesn't make sense either... So to reiterate, I wasn't trying to be mean at all! I was trying to be helpful. v.v

While I didn't correctly deduce to whom your last sentence was addressed, I definitely didn't think you were trying to be mean anywhere in your post. The sad face was only to express my sympathy that you were being ignored. I do really appreciate the clarification, though. (:

 

angelobrazil wrote:

Who teached you that nonsense ? Lets get that straight. Just to make it clear, i am not here for preaching, but if you have completely wrong concepts about what the bible actually teaches, i will take the freedom to correct you

My statement was not about what the Bible teaches--it was about what many of the Christians I've communicated with claim to believe.

 

angelobrazil wrote:

Scripture sees hell as self-chosen . . . [H]ell appears as God's gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshipping him, or without God forever, worshipping themselves.

Neither the Biblical God, nor any human, is worthy of worship.

 

angelobrazil wrote:

If the thing you most want is to worship God in the beauty of his holiness, then that is what you will get (Ps 96:9-13.) If the thing you most want is to be your own master, then the holiness of God will become an agony, and the presence of God a terror you will flee forever (Rev 6:16; cf. Is 6:1-6.)

Since the thing I want most is to improve the world in a significant way, where do I go?

 

Sorry I didn't respond to your whole post; I'm feeling rather tired.

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:God creates man. God

 

Quote:
God creates man. God chooses one tribe, the Jews. Right there that condemns pretty much everyone else in the entire world.

Is written where in the bible ?

 

Quote:

Oh and just so you know Hell wasn't even in Christianity until it reached Scandinavia and clashed with Norse mythology. It came from the concept of Hel, a place overseen by a woman/hag of the same name. Hell wasn't even a part of your mythos until a thousand years in..

No kidding.... and you know that how exactly ? and what  about the new testament copies, that preceed the year 1000aC pretty much , and teach the existence of hell ? And what do yo think would Jesus save us from, if not from hell ?


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
NDE's

 One more thing I wanted to mention about Near Death experiences, is that the things experienced during the near death experiences, are infact relative to the culture of the person have it. By which I mean a Christian would likely see "Heaven" and " angels" etc... while an Indian may have a glimpse of his reincarnation or of seeing Vishnu, or perhaps even meeting Brahma. I would dig up some links, though I think you'd ignore them. However if you express interest I would gladly cite my source.

@ Whoever is curious about NDE's

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
AngeloBrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

 

Quote:
God creates man. God chooses one tribe, the Jews. Right there that condemns pretty much everyone else in the entire world.

Is written where in the bible ?

 

Quote:

Oh and just so you know Hell wasn't even in Christianity until it reached Scandinavia and clashed with Norse mythology. It came from the concept of Hel, a place overseen by a woman/hag of the same name. Hell wasn't even a part of your mythos until a thousand years in..

No kidding.... and you know that how exactly ? and what  about the new testament copies, that preceed the year 1000aC pretty much , and teach the existence of hell ? And what do yo think would Jesus save us from, if not from hell ?

 

Those were in reference to Hades Smiling Afterall everyone goes to Hades until Judgement day, except some arbitrary Saints that were in Hades when Jesus came to visit and went to heaven with the six or seven saints that were in Hades. Laughing out loud

 

And what the Hel ( Sticking out tongue) I'll even cite it for you: http://fowardthought.blogspot.com/2009/10/origin-of-hell-history-mythology.html

 

First few words: "Origin Of "Hell": History & Mythology Explains It is no shock, what is the origin of the word “hell”?  Why the change in translation to “hell” in the first place?"

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote: One more

Wladyslaw wrote:

 One more thing I wanted to mention about Near Death experiences, is that the things experienced during the near death experiences, are infact relative to the culture of the person have it. By which I mean a Christian would likely see "Heaven" and " angels" etc... while an Indian may have a glimpse of his reincarnation or of seeing Vishnu, or perhaps even meeting Brahma. I would dig up some links, though I think you'd ignore them. However if you express interest I would gladly cite my source.

@ Whoever is curious about NDE's

The relevant fact to mention was, that the brain activity of the  example was completely off. The near death experience provides good evidence , that thoughts are not depending on brain activity.


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Wladyslaw

angelobrazil wrote:

Wladyslaw wrote:

 One more thing I wanted to mention about Near Death experiences, is that the things experienced during the near death experiences, are infact relative to the culture of the person have it. By which I mean a Christian would likely see "Heaven" and " angels" etc... while an Indian may have a glimpse of his reincarnation or of seeing Vishnu, or perhaps even meeting Brahma. I would dig up some links, though I think you'd ignore them. However if you express interest I would gladly cite my source.

@ Whoever is curious about NDE's

The relevant fact to mention was, that the brain activity of the  example was completely off. The near death experience provides good evidence , that thoughts are not depending on brain activity.

 

How did he know that his own brain activity was off? Which, by the way, would result in death, because your brain would quit sending electricity to your heart meaning that your pulse would stop and your brain would die. Then all of your other organs would shut down. Smiling

 

EDIT: To keep from all of the post hopping due to lag between typing and what not I missed your comment about where in the Bible it says what I said about god creating man etc; Welp... that's pretty much the nonviolent version of the Old Testament. Ever heard of the word " Gentile?" 

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Awesome posts folks. The

Awesome posts folks. The best thing about ignorant theists making fools of themselves is that sometimes they provoke the posting of extensive amounts of knowledge that can be verified simply by reading and researching. I learned a few things today. Thanks!

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Take a peek at Abaddon, Gehenna, Hades, Tartarus; Sheol (& Kur)

Wladyslaw wrote:

 

Oh and just so you know Hell wasn't even in Christianity until it reached Scandinavia and clashed with Norse mythology. It came from the concept of Hel, a place overseen by a woman/hag of the same name. Hell wasn't even a part of your mythos until a thousand years in..

 Dana said,  I'll give you points for having a better grasp of its' 'etymology' than  the Catholic Encyclopedia. Yours is superior to theirs on this one. Although Remember  the OT and NT were not written in English.  WORDs like : Abaddon, Gehenna, Hades, Tartarus & Sheol (could be thought of dually as Grave and the Netherworld simultaneously) are certainly found, however.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
An attempt at clarification

angelobrazil wrote:

x wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Evolution

The development of modern morality is...................................

 

If that'd be true, then on what moral ground could you blame me, if my opinion on morals would be different than yours, and if my opinion would be, that rape, torture, kill your wifes new born baby would be the most sublime and best thing to do ?

But the key issue here is : morality is not a physical thing. In the same way, as consciousness, thoughts, feelings, will , intelligence are. These are all spiritual things, essencially different to the physical body. They cannot be explained through evolution.

This is a problem, that Einstein has brought so nicely straight to the point :

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional space-time relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages (e.g., English, French, Navajo, etc.). Between the two realms shown in figure 1, we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

I should first have a bash at defining what I mean by morality. I see it is a code of conduct that describes why and what one does when one feels/thinks that it’s ‘the right thing to do’. What one does is partly due to our nature (eg we do it even when we are babies) and partly nurture, due to what we have learnt from people and experience.

This code of conduct can be expressed as a set of rules to follow, and one of these rules is do what feels right in certain ‘instinctive’ circumstances.
If these rules are written on a piece of paper they are just an approximate representation of one’s morality.
One’s morality exists in one’s body, seemingly in the brain. When we are dead we have no morality, so our morality is physical. It requires a living body even if that piece of paper still exists. 

Yes, concepts, mind, consciousness etc. are not physical in the same sense that grains of sand are, but they are a property of brains. If there are no brains, there are no concepts. Feelings are a property of physical things and so will be in the realm of evolution. 

I grant that as far as I know, science hasn’t yet totally pinned down what mind is, but each new discovery in this field seems to support this interpretation.  I’ve never seen any evidence that these properties are spirits. If they were, they’d be found existing outside of physical bodies. 

 

I could be wrong. If these spirits can be found to exist, I’ll believe in them. I’ll also grant that some of my argument above could be improved, but it’ll do for starters.
 

If you plan on killing my babies, I’d argue that it is immoral because acceptance of such a plan as moral creates a society I don’t want to live in. My first reaction though would probably be instinctive opposition, much as if I were a baby and I saw you about to torture another baby. It seems that I’d still disapprove, even if I had no articulate concept of morality and society. The adult responses and the infantile response are both aspects of morality and both require a physical brain.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:One’s morality

x wrote:

One’s morality exists in one’s body, seemingly in the brain.

Then you should be able to show them to me ?

x wrote:

When we are dead we have no morality, so our morality is physical.

That is not a logical deduction. That'd be  only the case, if you could provide empirical proof, that we consist only in a physical, not a spiritual part.

 

x wrote:

Yes, concepts, mind, consciousness etc. are not physical in the same sense that grains of sand are, but they are a property of brains.

And you know that how exactly ?

x wrote:

 

I grant that as far as I know, science hasn’t yet totally pinned down what mind is, but each new discovery in this field seems to support this interpretation.

Actually not. Near death experiences provide compelling evidence, that the physical body, and the soul/spirit are separete entities.

x wrote:

  I’ve never seen any evidence that these properties are spirits. If they were, they’d be found existing outside of physical bodies.

Demonic possession is a reality as well, and is one more evidence, that there is not only a physical , but as well a spiritual world.

 


 

x wrote:

If you plan on killing my babies, I’d argue that it is immoral because acceptance of such a plan as moral creates a society I don’t want to live in.

Its immoral upon YOUR moral standard. But if no moral giver exists, that legislates objective moral standards, then whatever you think is moral or immoral, is subjective. You have no ground to blame someone that tortures and kills your baby as immoral, if that person helds, that doing so, is the best thing someone could do.

 

x wrote:
My first reaction though would probably be instinctive opposition

That would be the reaction of anyone. Thats why i said. There is something, that is higher than your self, that tells you killing and torturing small babies, is wrong. Thats clear evidence of God, that put this conscience into ourselfs.

 

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:So how do

angelobrazil wrote:

So how do you explain near death experiences, like from Dr.Eben Alexander ?

here is what he wrote :

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

In the fall of 2008, however, after seven days in a coma during which the human part of my brain, the neocortex, was inactivated, I experienced something so profound that it gave me a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death.For seven days I lay in a deep coma, my body unresponsive, my higher-order brain functions totally offline.

There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body lay in coma, my mind—my conscious, inner self—was alive and well. While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension I’d never dreamed existed and which the old, pre-coma me would have been more than happy to explain was a simple impossibility.

But that dimension—in rough outline, the same one described by countless subjects of near-death experiences and other mystical states—is there. It exists, and what I saw and learned there has placed me quite literally in a new world: a world where we are much more than our brains and bodies, and where death is not the end of consciousness but rather a chapter in a vast, and incalculably positive, journey. 

Ketamine

The drug ketamine (a hallucinogenic, dissociative anesthetic) can replicate the effects of a NDE perfectly. These experiences seem so genuine that people feel like they happened. All of the effects that are commonly described during a NDE happed with ketamine. Things that deviate are things that vary culture by culture; people see what they expect to see.

Memory is a weird thing and is not reliable. So, just because he claimed to be conscious during a period of zero brain activity doesn't mean he actually was. He just remembers it. After having observably been in a coma. You expect us to take the word of a person suffering from severe brain problems seriously. Especially when he's claiming impossible things.

How is this evidence?


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Do you plan on responding to

Do you plan on responding to my previous post, angelobrazil? I am genuinely curious as to where I would be placed, given that I do not fit in the dichotomy you specified.

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Neither the Biblical

Quote:

Neither the Biblical God, nor any human, is worthy of worship.

If there is a God, which created the universe and all in it, ( which is what i STRONGLY believe ),  then that God deserves to be worshipped, as its written :

Revelation 4:11  “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.”

 

Quote:

Since the thing I want most is to improve the world in a significant way, where do I go?

First of all, in what sense do you think positive atheism would improve anything, since it lacks explanatory power on almost all essencial questions of humanity ? The outcome of consequent application of atheism is nihilism.

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

To the question: where do you go ?

I can give you a view of what the bible teaches. Again : i answer this only on behalf of your question. It is explicitally NOT my intent to preach.

http://jeffandcindy.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/topic-51b-where-do-unbelievers-go-when-they-die/

In the case of the unsaved person, he is already under the judgment of God because his sins have not been covered by the atoning blood of Christ. “The wages of sin is death,” and the death that God has in view is a spiritual death — eternal damnation.   When he dies, he’s not unlike a criminal awaiting his trial before the Judge.  His trial and sentencing will occur when Christ returns in glory on the Last Day.     

During the intervening time between the unbeliever’s death and the return of Christ, his body goes into the grave to return to dust (no different from believers); however, what about the unbeliever’s soul?  His soul cannot go to be with Christ.  Scripture tells us his soul goes down to a place of silence…a place of soul sleep also referred to in the Bible as Hades.  This is where unbelievers will await the call of Christ on the Last Day.    

John 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.   

Unbelievers are those who come forth to the resurrection of damnation. It is at this time when they will experience judgment for their actions. Every unsaved person will give an account of all of his sins before Christ and he will be judged in the light of the Bible’s statement that “the wages of sin is death”.  The Judge of Heaven and Earth will find each one of them guilty and every one will be removed into hell to spend eternity paying for their sins.   

There is no happy ending for the unsaved. They won’t simply cease to exist.  That’s a fallacy that many unsaved people would love to believe.  But that’s not what the Bible says.  There will forever be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Hell is described as a place where the worm dieth not.  It’s so horrible that any words we could think of simply would not be sufficient.   

 

If you haven’t placed your trust in Christ and what He’s done for your salvation, the Bible says unequivocally that this will be your eternal destination when you die.  But, the Bible also says, that TODAY is the day of salvation.  As long as there’s breath in your lungs, you can still cry out to God for the salvation only He can offer. 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants

RobbyPants wrote:
Ketamine
The drug ketamine (a hallucinogenic, dissociative anesthetic) can replicate the effects of a NDE perfectly. These experiences seem so genuine that people feel like they happened. All of the effects that are commonly described during a NDE happed with ketamine. Things that deviate are things that vary culture by culture; people see what they expect to see.

I'd like to add that NDE's have been replicated without drugs. NASA stumbled onto it completely by accident. I don't remember the exact figure, but I believe that it was 13% of all people will have a NDE during G Force training. You know, that giant spinning contraption pilots get strapped into long before they were allowed to fly in the shuttle (before the shuttle was retired of course). If you go in it and it starts spinning, you could have a NDE without being remotely close to death or being drugged.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:If there

angelobrazil wrote:
If there is a God, which created the universe and all in it, ( which is what i STRONGLY believe ),  then that God deserves to be worshipped, as its written

Why?

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:angelobrazil

Vastet wrote:
angelobrazil wrote:
If there is a God, which created the universe and all in it, ( which is what i STRONGLY believe ),  then that God deserves to be worshipped, as its written
Why?

http://notatthedinnertable.weebly.com/1/post/2010/11/why-does-god-deserve-your-worship.html

because God is our creator he deserves everything from us. For if we owe our lives to him, if we owe our existence, the existence of the universe, if we owe everything he deserves everything in return.

God’s command for us to worship him isn’t egotistical, it isn’t done out of proud, it is done because if we grasp the fact that God is creator it becomes blindingly obvious that we need to worship God.

“Sing to the LORD a new song;
   sing to the LORD, all the earth.
  Sing to the LORD, praise his name;
   proclaim his salvation day after day.
  Declare his glory among the nations,
   his marvellous deeds among all peoples.


  For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise;
   he is to be feared above all gods.
  For all the gods of the nations are idols,
   but the LORD made the heavens.
  Splendor and majesty are before him;
   strength and glory are in his sanctuary.

  Ascribe to the LORD, all you families of nations,
   ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
  Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name;
   bring an offering and come into his courts.
  Worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness;
   tremble before him, all the earth.
  Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.”
   The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved;
   he will judge the peoples with equity.

   Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;
   let the sea resound, and all that is in it.
   Let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them;
   let all the trees of the forest sing for joy.
   Let all creation rejoice before the LORD, for he comes,
   he comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness
   and the peoples in his faithfulness.”
            Psalm 96

In this Psalm the writer lays the facts down – we worship God because he is great and worthy of all praise.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Not good enough. My parents

Not good enough. My parents not only created me, but actually were there for me. They are largely responsible for much of who I am. But they don't deserve my worship, merely my respect and gratitude.
Your god has never even shown himself, let alone actually done anything. And if the bible is to be believed, he's the biggest asshole in the universe. That hardly warrants my devotion and worship.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
creation ex nihilo is one of

creation ex nihilo is one of mankind's greatest delusions.  pretty much every indian system of thought (post-vedic anyhow) dismissed it as absurd thousands of years ago and now science is coming to similar conclusions.  no matter what we say about the big bang, i've never read any scientist who said there was "nothing" before it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: And if the

Vastet wrote:
And if the bible is to be believed, he's the biggest asshole in the universe. .

And you do not deserve any response of mine anymore. Might God have mercy of you.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:creation ex

iwbiek wrote:

creation ex nihilo is one of mankind's greatest delusions.  pretty much every indian system of thought (post-vedic anyhow) dismissed it as absurd thousands of years ago and now science is coming to similar conclusions.  no matter what we say about the big bang, i've never read any scientist who said there was "nothing" before it.

 

Well, there certainly wasn't anything physical beyond it, since according to the Big Bang theory, time, space, and matter began through the Big Bang. But there could not be anything at all eigher, since from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:iwbiek

angelobrazil wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

creation ex nihilo is one of mankind's greatest delusions.  pretty much every indian system of thought (post-vedic anyhow) dismissed it as absurd thousands of years ago and now science is coming to similar conclusions.  no matter what we say about the big bang, i've never read any scientist who said there was "nothing" before it.

 

Well, there certainly wasn't anything physical beyond it, since according to the Big Bang theory, time, space, and matter began through the Big Bang. But there could not be anything at all eigher, since from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

The Big Bang doesn't posit that everything came from nothing. It posits that all the matter was at a singular location. The notion of everything coming from nothing is what creationsim claims. 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:The Big

RobbyPants wrote:

The Big Bang doesn't posit that everything came from nothing. It posits that all the matter was at a singular location. The notion of everything coming from nothing is what creationsim claims. 

Thats not what i understand, when reading sentences like these ones :

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html


"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time
"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University
"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." CalTech
"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan
"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University
"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington
"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." University of Illinois
"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University ()
"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University
"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles
"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University
"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama
"Now, after decades of observing and thinking, we have come to answer confidently the question of the origin of our universe... with what is known as the "big bang"." Yuki D. Takahashi, Caltech
"The theory is the conceptual and the calculational tool used by particle physicists to describe the structure of the hadrons and the beginning of the universe." Keh-Fei Liu, University of Kentucky.
"The three-part lecture series includes: "How the Universe Began," "The Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy" and "Cosmic Inflation: The Dynamite Behind the Big Bang?" (Lectures by Michael S. Turner, Bruce V. and Diana M. Rauner at Penn State University)
"Travel back in time to the beginning of the Universe: The Big Bang" Douglas Miller, University of Arizona
"Beginning of the Universe 20.0 billion yr ago" Charly Mallery, University of Miami
"At the beginning the universe was extremely hot and dense (more about this later) and as it expanded it cooled." Syracuse University
"THE UNIVERSE AND ALL OF SPACE ARE EXPANDING FROM A BIG BANG BEGINNING" Center for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago
"Gamow realized that at a point a few minutes after its beginning, the universe would behave as a giant nuclear reactor." Valparaiso University, Department of Physics and Astronomy
"I'll also include what the time is since the creation of the Universe, and an estimate of the temperature of the Universe at each point." Siobahn M. Morgan, University of Northern Iowa.
"The Universe is thought to have formed between 6-20 billion years ago (Ga) as a result of the "Big Bang" Kevin P. Hefferan, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
"The dominant idea of Cosmology is that the Universe had a beginning." Adam Frank, University of Rochester Department of Physics & Astronomy
"The hot dense phase is generally regarded as the beginning of the universe, and the time since the beginning is, by definition, the age of the universe." Harrison B. Prosper, Florida State University
"One of the major hypotheses on which modern cosmology is based is that the Universe originated in an explosion called the Big Bang, in which all energy (and matter) that exists today was created." Eric S. Rowland, UC Santa Cruz
"Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking "Origin of the Universe" lecture

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Vastet

angelobrazil wrote:

Vastet wrote:
And if the bible is to be believed, he's the biggest asshole in the universe. .

And you do not deserve any response of mine anymore. Might God have mercy of you.

More so on you, since you are the one who believes yet shuns his teachings. If your god is real, I'll fare better than you will.

I'm also not going to leave you alone just because you're too stupid to respond to refutations of your lies and delusions. I'll keep tearing you a new asshole whenever I feel the urge to do so.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
: I need my pain (Star Trek) . . .

 

 Nu 134




Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country ..


   Some of the memorable dialogue ... somewhere back in the recesses of my mind, I remember, the movie quote: In Star Trek V or Star Trek VI: The Kirk line : "I don't want my pain taken away... I need my pain!!''


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:First of

angelobrazil wrote:

First of all, in what sense do you think positive atheism would improve anything, since it lacks explanatory power on almost all essencial questions of humanity ? The outcome of consequent application of atheism is nihilism.

I am not going to back up a claim I didn't make. Does anyone see anything about "positive atheism" in the following sentence: "Since the thing I want most is to improve the world in a significant way, where do I go?"?

 

angelobrazil wrote:

In the case of the unsaved person, he is already under the judgment of God because his sins have not been covered by the atoning blood of Christ. “The wages of sin is death,” and the death that God has in view is a spiritual death — eternal damnation.   When he dies, he’s not unlike a criminal awaiting his trial before the Judge.  His trial and sentencing will occur when Christ returns in glory on the Last Day.

Which means I'm being sent to Hell because I sinned and "the wages of sin is death"--not because I want to worship myself, not because my greatest desire is to be my own master.

 

angelobrazil wrote:

they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation

I can't think of a single person ever who hasn't done at least one good thing. What qualifies as "doing good"? as "doing evil"?

 

angelobrazil wrote:

But that’s not what the Bible says.

How do you know what the Bible says is true?

 

angelobrazil wrote:

There will forever be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Hell is described as a place where the worm dieth not.  It’s so horrible that any words we could think of simply would not be sufficient.

Am I correct in assuming you believe I deserve such a fate?

 

angelobrazil wrote:

If you haven’t placed your trust in Christ and what He’s done for your salvation, the Bible says unequivocally that this will be your eternal destination when you die.  But, the Bible also says, that TODAY is the day of salvation.  As long as there’s breath in your lungs, you can still cry out to God for the salvation only He can offer.

I said a genuine prayer of salvation about two years ago.

 


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
@Angelo

  The reason atheism doesn't provide answers to " essential" human questions is that it a) does not have any form of dogma. b) leaves science and reason to provide explanations, not metaphysical explanations. 

f Also, you just admitted that you believe that the universe was created 1.5 E10 years ago, if not you're ignoring " overwhelming scientific evidence." Asserting that the Earth and all of "creation'' is only 6k years old.Also the big bang can be correct ( which it is still not proven, by the way) and it not be the beginning of everything. You see, we only live in the fourth dimension, with free movement in three and only able to see and understand two at a time. (The third is inferred due to our having two eyes) Who is to say that there aren't more dimensions. M theory, formerly known as string theory, suggests that there are eleven dimensions. Why can't our universe have come into existence when some dark matter propelled by dark energy moved into this plain, or part of its own existence? OH and just so you know something can come from complete "nothingness" due to a physical phenomena known as virtual particles. They still obey the law of the conservation of energy because they only exist for a finite amount of time, but the reactions they cause stay. I would link you, but I don't feel like having my citation ignored. Smiling  Post Script: Actually I think I read that somewhere that wasn't on the surface net. Heh, So the link wouldn't work anyway. ^_^

 

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Are you versed in any of the details of these accounts of NDE ?

 re :: Check into the Details at all ??? Near Death Experiences or no ?

Quote:
The near death experience provides good evidence

   Were you ever curious about the details of these accounts by actual dNDE and NDE survivors ? Did you read many of the various accounts ? You stated these experience are supposed to lend credence and/or believability to a literal Heaven or Hell (notice I didnt ask, as I should or ought to...according to which tradition) ? I am aware, North America and the United States and Canada have some the largest clearing-houses for details about these accounts. Have you looked into the details at all (by-yourself)?. And spent some time in perual of one particular english language website that was considered a clearing-house for these types of stories, as I have ? And taken the time to read any of these accounts yourself, and not can you find a fast link to post and give us on this board ? Consensus has begun to coalesce from people sharing the details of these experiences with their fellow survivors, and exchanging the actual details within these experiences. (Do you know what youre talking about ?.) 

  Science has weighed in with journals of neurophysiological literature of actual NDE survivors focusing on neuronal activity, in neuroscience.

  I was specifically asking if 'you' read the details of these accounts And if you were confident you know what you are talking about, to a degree of confidence ? Details and comparisons of the accounts of actual NDE cases, what they said, in their own words ? I personal could say no I did not pore over the hundreds of cases, at the cost of thousands of dollars and the premature greying of my hair. However I did review a sampling of over 30 of the dNDE ? I bit more than a half an afternoons worth with me. I did check out a handy and useful website give extensive quotes and summaries of some of the less famous cases of NDE. Would that make me a near expert on the subject ? Answer: Honestly, Heavens No!! More closer to barely above novice, who is kidding themselves I am the novice here, all I can claim. I cannot read only four Journals and expect to know much, (I could lay claim to this tertiary knowledge, if that, myself). With maybe a couple of factoids you not able to find in a couple of hours using a search engine or google. I will stress, I will never be able to be as knowledgeable as these interviewers that have sat down with and continue to sit down w/ not dozens but hundreds of people to compile details of the accounts and compile data. Or read well over half a dozen works from cover to cover. Especially about comparing account to account. People engaged in this are devoted, I am not willing to do that at any point, K? Plus they were dNDE accounts almost exclusively out-side of only a tiny three descriptions of a Heaven like account. That is how I would answer the question. That does not mean I know nothing whatever about the subject (It works for me shows, I have brought up the topic in the past). I can only speak for myself. I have no clue about what you have learned about the dNDE, none whatsoever!  I am not asking if you have expert knowledge about the subject. I was very curious about the subject, how about you then ? Just curious (?)

  . . . . . . . 

  None were of the accounts of Laksmi, the Maa Devi or Yama, or various other faiths. But my favorite is one with an account of meeting Yama though. With maybe a Single Marian account you can also find on YouTube (English language only). You lucked out they were not of ‘Your worshipable goddess of fortune, Lakṣmī, always remains on the chest of Nārāyaṇa, and she is certainly the most chaste woman in the creation' of Hindu accounts. So missed out on all those being drawn by swans upward and above, sorry!


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote:OH and just

Wladyslaw wrote:

OH and just so you know something can come from complete "nothingness" due to a physical phenomena known as virtual particles. They still obey the law of the conservation of energy because they only exist for a finite amount of time, but the reactions they cause stay. I would link you, but I don't feel like having my citation ignored. Smiling 

There is no such thing as complete nothingness to our knowledge.  Empty space has energy to the best of our measurements, and hence, the virtual particle theory.  The "you can't get something from nothing" is a tautological statement that theists opposing the Big Bang Theory parrot.  That statement is of course, true.  Luckily, there is something and hence, there has always been something. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
 @ Ktulu There was a

 @ Ktulu

 

There was a reason I used quotes ^_^ I realize that we're very far from knowing everything about our universe, we probably have barely scratched the surface. 

However! I do pose a question to you. Isn't it possible that there was nothing before our universe was created? I mean if we look at our universe as a geometric space of a geometric object of higher dimensions than we are, then we can posit that our universe was "created" when matter and energy moved from one part of those higher dimensions and our universe will die when all of it passes through... a la the big crunch. ( mind you this is just speculation, that I'm coming up with) After all, there are parts of this universe that we will never be able to visit and be able to see. ( For the most part, I mean science may evolve from our current limitations, so I say this lightly.)  Oh, and virtual particles have been observed elsewhere, they seemed, to me at least, to be akin to bosons.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 We have to be wary of

 Smiling

We have to be wary of semantics when discussing philosophy. Not so much physics, though once you cross the line into theoretical physics it is really difficult to tell the difference.  

Logically speaking, you cannot get something from nothing.  The answer is no.  It is impossible that there was nothing before our universe was "created".  Of course we can only speculate what may or may not exist outside our universe, or if such a concept is even coherent.  Us being restrained by our space-time and all.  

Speaking from a scientific perspective, there is a large amount of controversy on the most fundamental concepts, such as time, inertia and basically everything else.  The answers are all relative to a frame of reference, just like everything else.  Virtual particles are useful in calculations as a concept, and are also used to explain certain phenomena such as the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation , but have not been physically observed.  Our current technology can only observe particle signatures at any given time, not follow them through a timeline.  A boson has an integer spin, such as the force carrying bosons.  A virtual particle pair can in theory be any particle Smiling

As for universe forming theories, while there are a good number of interesting ones, and a large number of horrible ones (see religion), we have no real way of testing, however they would need a framework to take place in.  This framework, call it a field, or the space time foam, or call it the ever present chicken forming universes, must exist for anything of any dimension to manifest in.  Therefore, coming full circle, there is no such thing as "nothing" Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
h/[(λ^2)ν]=m

When I related virtual particles to bosons, I meant that, magnetic fields caused by magnetic dipoles are due to the exchange of virtual particles. My thought was that they both carry force. Bosons are totally different in their own right. The virtual particles I mentioned would be virtual photons.  I will, admit however, that what I read was wrong in at least one dept. saying that the magnetic field would have infinite range from calculations using the inverse cube law because photons don't have mass, which they do. As modeled by:  h/[(λ^2)ν]=m the mass of the photon just varies depending on its wavelength/energy/frequency.

While technically speaking, something cannot come from nothing, and you may have already said this, it's late where I am, but nothing doesn't really exist in reality. Strange concept but it's true. (Unless, we define as a space as completely empty, I suppose)

Oh hahhaah I just read your last sentence, I was replying as I was reading. >.<

Your  space time foam reminds me a bit of the Higgs field. Didn't read all of it though...

 

PS how do you make the urls  so nice in the words like that?

 

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Because

angelobrazil wrote:
Because God is our creator he deserves everything from us. For if we owe our lives to him, if we owe our existence, the existence of the universe, if we owe everything he deserves everything in return.

God’s command for us to worship him isn’t egotistical, it isn’t done out of proud, it is done because if we grasp the fact that God is creator it becomes blindingly obvious that we need to worship God.


I don’t need to believe in a mountain because I can see it but as far as God is concerned the proofs are weak since they don’t exist and the evidence is especially weak. If God existed shouldn’t his presence be easier to feel or perceive so that all we’d need to do is open our eyes or our soul.  I’ve tried to do this in the past but it never worked.  Rather than philosophers and theologians trying to convince us of God’s existence wouldn’t it be much simpler for him to just appear! If God doesn’t want me to believe why does anyone bother to try and convert us?
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
It seems to revolve around spirits

angelobrazil wrote:
x wrote:
One’s morality exists in one’s body, seemingly in the brain.

Then you should be able to show them to me ?

Maybe one day when technology is better. For now I’ll have to do with the general consensus of scientists that dualism is unfounded. See spirits below.


angelobrazil wrote:
x wrote:
When we are dead we have no morality, so our morality is physical.

That is not a logical deduction. That'd be only the case, if you could provide empirical proof, that we consist only in a physical, not a spiritual part.

Well, when one is dead an MRI shows no activity, so no mind, so no morality.
See spirits below.

angelobrazil wrote:
x wrote:
Yes, concepts, mind, consciousness etc. are not physical in the same sense that grains of sand are, but they are a property of brains.

And you know that how exactly ?

See spirits below.

angelobrazil wrote:
x wrote:
I grant that as far as I know, science hasn’t yet totally pinned down what mind is, but each new discovery in this field seems to support this interpretation.

Actually not. Near death experiences provide compelling evidence, that the physical body, and the soul/spirit are separete entities.

See spirits below.

angelobrazil wrote:
x wrote:
  I’ve never seen any evidence that these properties are spirits. If they were, they’d be found existing outside of physical bodies.

Demonic possession is a reality as well, and is one more evidence, that there is not only a physical , but as well a spiritual world.

See spirits below.


angelobrazil wrote:
x wrote:
If you plan on killing my babies, I’d argue that it is immoral because acceptance of such a plan as moral creates a society I don’t want to live in.

Its immoral upon YOUR moral standard. But if no moral giver exists, that legislates objective moral standards, then whatever you think is moral or immoral, is subjective. You have no ground to blame someone that tortures and kills your baby as immoral, if that person helds, that doing so, is the best thing someone could do.

Yes, morality is subjective to a degree. It is about consequences. If actions have bad consequences, they are immoral. Torturing has bad consequences in this world and pretty much everyone agrees with this, so it is not a problem.
I suppose it would theoretically be possible to imagine some world where torturing babies has good consequences for that world. If it did it would be moral. Of course, this God character of yours thinks it is moral to do this, so we have evidence that people have dreamt up scenarios where it is moral.

angelobrazil wrote:
x wrote:
My first reaction though would probably be instinctive opposition

That would be the reaction of anyone. Thats why i said. There is something, that is higher than your self, that tells you killing and torturing small babies, is wrong. Thats clear evidence of God, that put this conscience into ourselfs.

I suppose it is something higher than us in a way. Evolution.
Your argument has a slight snag in that animals and bacteria also have a form of this conscience. So they must have these spirits in them too. Will they go to your heaven or are they ruled out because they didn't worship god hard enough?


Spirits:

I’m afraid I can’t muster the enthusiasm to seriously debate whether spirits, ghosts, djinns, demons etc. exist. I see you’re discussing NDEs with others, so I’ll leave it up to them.
It’ll be redundant for me to say this, but I have seen zero evidence of them.
As regards the old mind-brain problem, neither of us look much like neuroscientists, so we aren’t qualified to argue about the fine details; but I can safely say that the general consensus among scientists who have studied this is that they are monists and do not believe in spirits.

 

[edited for spelling]


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
↑ (No Subject)

  (No Subject)

Both Nu. 147 & Nu. 148

 




  ( Caption :: Image of Ned ... Reads:  "Tough Crowd" )


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

The Big Bang doesn't posit that everything came from nothing. It posits that all the matter was at a singular location. The notion of everything coming from nothing is what creationsim claims. 

Thats not what i understand, when reading sentences like these ones :

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html


"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time
"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University
"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." CalTech
"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan
"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University
"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington
"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." University of Illinois
"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University ()
"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University
"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles
"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University
"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama
"Now, after decades of observing and thinking, we have come to answer confidently the question of the origin of our universe... with what is known as the "big bang"." Yuki D. Takahashi, Caltech
"The theory is the conceptual and the calculational tool used by particle physicists to describe the structure of the hadrons and the beginning of the universe." Keh-Fei Liu, University of Kentucky.
"The three-part lecture series includes: "How the Universe Began," "The Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy" and "Cosmic Inflation: The Dynamite Behind the Big Bang?" (Lectures by Michael S. Turner, Bruce V. and Diana M. Rauner at Penn State University)
"Travel back in time to the beginning of the Universe: The Big Bang" Douglas Miller, University of Arizona
"Beginning of the Universe 20.0 billion yr ago" Charly Mallery, University of Miami
"At the beginning the universe was extremely hot and dense (more about this later) and as it expanded it cooled." Syracuse University
"THE UNIVERSE AND ALL OF SPACE ARE EXPANDING FROM A BIG BANG BEGINNING" Center for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago
"Gamow realized that at a point a few minutes after its beginning, the universe would behave as a giant nuclear reactor." Valparaiso University, Department of Physics and Astronomy
"I'll also include what the time is since the creation of the Universe, and an estimate of the temperature of the Universe at each point." Siobahn M. Morgan, University of Northern Iowa.
"The Universe is thought to have formed between 6-20 billion years ago (Ga) as a result of the "Big Bang" Kevin P. Hefferan, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
"The dominant idea of Cosmology is that the Universe had a beginning." Adam Frank, University of Rochester Department of Physics & Astronomy
"The hot dense phase is generally regarded as the beginning of the universe, and the time since the beginning is, by definition, the age of the universe." Harrison B. Prosper, Florida State University
"One of the major hypotheses on which modern cosmology is based is that the Universe originated in an explosion called the Big Bang, in which all energy (and matter) that exists today was created." Eric S. Rowland, UC Santa Cruz
"Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking "Origin of the Universe" lecture

 

none of those quotes say nothing was before the big bang.  they just say time and the universe as we know it began with the big bang.  everything that exists now, rather in the form of matter or energy, "existed" in some way before the big bang.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson