Reconciliation is possible.......re-posted

Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Reconciliation is possible.......re-posted

I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would suggest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

 

This is a playground for kids. I know you've been called out before. But I tend to believe that if confronted by a apologist or anyone with an educated opinion, you'd be shot down quite handily. I noticed that you've refused to debate anyone with credentails that exceed your own. I've also seen many websites (Christian) that call you a coward for kicking them off of this site. From what I've read your litle club is gaining no favor and is being rejected by atheists and theists alike. I wouldnt mind helping to silence your attempt at deconverting kids to the "dark side". Plus its quite entertaining to watch you dodge "rational debaters"......Smiling

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
noticed that you've

noticed that you've refused to debate anyone with credentails that exceed your own.

LOL. And are you that apologist we've been waiting for? I'm so bored right now with all the idiots posting at present, I'd gladly debate someone, anyone with half a brain who offered.

Unless, of course, you merely posted this thread as a gesture of antagonism. 

You know full well this site has people with real credentials. Yellow #5, LeftofLarry, HeirtoRuin and myself are scientists. Todangst and ChaosLord2004 are logicians and philosophers (he is also a physcologist) etc 

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

-Me

Books about atheism


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
I'm bored too!!!! I didn't

I'm bored too!!!! I didn't say I was that apologist. I can debate but its seems pointless when atheists like Pick apart a post, Then with ignore this point and look at this less signifigant point. But my post is to challenge loud mouths, Brian and Rook, to debate someone they don't know they can beat before hand. I know all about Brian freaking out over Kirks notes before the debate even started. Plus debate someone with a background in theology AND science. believe it or not they do exist 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: I must say, I

Lux wrote:
I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend.

Of course, it couldn't be the nervousness of being on national television. No, way, that's just not possible.

I guess you didn't notice that many of the arguments came from her. Or that she didn't always have the same answers as Brian.

troll wrote:
This is a playground for kids. I know you've been called out before. But I tend to believe that if confronted by a apologist or anyone with an educated opinion, you'd be shot down quite handily.

Some have tried. None have succeeded. And, by all evidence, you do not have an 'educated opinion'.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
no they never succed because

no they never succed because when faced with defeat, Brian and his goons back down and kick theists off their site Eye-wink

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: no they never

Lux wrote:
no they never succed because when faced with defeat, Brian and his goons back down and kick theists off their site Eye-wink

Could you point out a place where theists have prooven the existence of a god here or anywhere else?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Theists prove God all the

Theists prove God all the time! It depends on what proof you choose....A retarded monkey (no offense, Brian) can prove God. Here is the problem. Are you ready? I can't PROVE God on YOUR terms but you can't DISPROVE God on MY terms. This is why this subject will never be won or lost. But theists tend to make believing more rational, than scienctists make certain elements of science sound (i.e. Abiogenesis or the ability of NS to be creative.....ect......)

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Here is the

Lux wrote:
Here is the problem. Are you ready? I can't PROVE God on YOUR terms but you can't DISPROVE God on MY terms. This is why this subject will never be won or lost.

Here's the problem. Are you ready? No one needs to disprove god. Sure, much of the stuff in the Bible is just plain crazy, but the real point is that no one has ever been able to prove any supernatural claim of any kind. You don't normally believe in things just because they can't be disproven, so why should god be any different?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
hmmmmm, like I said there

hmmmmm, like I said there is proof. God is "I am".........look around an open your eyes. I won't bore you with futher details of sites and scientists I could refer you too (not GIsh or hovind either). But you already have a bias. I've considered atheism a long time ago, but I found it lacking in substance.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Theists prove God all the

Theists prove God all the time! It depends on what proof you choose....A retarded monkey (no offense, Brian) can prove God. Here is the problem. Are you ready? I can't PROVE God on YOUR terms

Well. Shall I show you our terms? Todangst and I put together this epistemilogical challenge. Two steps, two hurdles to get over before someone even thinks about trying to prove God:

 

1) Can you provide a positive ontology for God? If not, then forget it. Detailed here:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

2) Cogntive coherency of the concept. If the ontology you created (by the way, if you suceed in that positive ontology, mention me when you get your nobel prize) works, you still have to pass a minefield to ensure that it doesn't directly contradict it's own attributes. And no. I am not referring to the "problem of evil and suffering". I am referring to something deeper. Detailed here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

 

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

-Me

Books about atheism


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:

I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would suggest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

 

This is a playground for kids. I know you've been called out before. But I tend to believe that if confronted by a apologist or anyone with an educated opinion, you'd be shot down quite handily. I noticed that you've refused to debate anyone with credentails that exceed your own. I've also seen many websites (Christian) that call you a coward for kicking them off of this site. From what I've read your litle club is gaining no favor and is being rejected by atheists and theists alike. I wouldnt mind helping to silence your attempt at deconverting kids to the "dark side". Plus its quite entertaining to watch you dodge "rational debaters"......Smiling

Oh, Kelly doesnt live herself by her convictions? Well good for her, your own personal lord and savior would be proud of her. Remember how youre supposed to enter the kingdom of god with the eyes of a child? A child has no convictions - her dismissal of convictions is her greatest asset, she is more of a true christian by living with an open mind and going against the grain of conformity to maintain her independence - leading a more real example of christ, then you are in my mind, even just based on your wild and very rude personal attack you made towards her. It takes a kind of person to debunk another persons argument by attacking their personal character - it takes somebody without character to do that kind of thing. Though she's in oppositional defiance to your pathetically, tragically desperate dogma, shes much more of a seed of truth, in the eyes of god and the eyes of christ. Of course she's not perfect she's still young, you cant expect ivy league discourse here, but she's shown more of a christ-like example then I think a tool like you even has the capacity for. You remember one profound thing about Christ? He stood up for what he believed even though it went against popular thought - youre just mindlessly adhering to popular thought to make it easier on your own life, at least she has found a deeper meaning to life then it seems your dumb ass has.

If youre going to come in here and make some really stupid and hurtful remarks towards others you had better come in with some realistic substantiations, you came with nothing but shallow rhetoric and you carried it like it was the weight of a thousand worlds. Its not, its your pathetic desperation to be loved, accepted, and so you can tragically cling to your human identity in the after life, because you cannot shed your ego here on earth.

Convictions are your downfall little man, convictions are the forbidden fruit in the garden of eden, you are only expelled from the garden if you are effected by its poison, convictions are the hob-goblins of little minds.

If youre really interested in your own faith and your own convictions of the bible. Why dont you explore an interesting and deeply connected parralel that hasnt been assessed or addressed by the christian church - the parallel of the Kingdom of God, and the Garden of Eden. Disregard it as superficial bs right now, but if you do some honest research and you will see the reality of that conjecture.

And your desperate attachment to demanding some credentials is again against the teachings of your lord - your lord teaches you not to act towards people with your own preconceptions.  If you equate a persons intelligence to their academic merit - you are acting out of prejudice, these are not the deeper teachings of 'the eyes of a child'.  You obviously havent done a whole lot of research into the biblical concept of the eyes of a child, otherwise youd be in much better practice of it. 

Try me little man.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Lux, you have broken forum

Lux, you have broken forum rules:

2.1. Antagonism.
Antagonism is giving one or more members a hard time. Cases typically comprise a series of provocations, each not necessarily sanctionable in its own right. Incidents can include, but are by no means limited to the following:

  1. Slander/Libel
  2. Clear intent to not argue a position, but to merely attack a person
  3. Trolling
  4. Abuse
  5. Bullying

What would Jesus say?

Please review the rules here: Forum Rules

We don't mind debate, but coming here with an attitude problem is counter-productive. 

 

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


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1212
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: But I tend to

Lux wrote:

But I tend to believe that if confronted by a apologist or anyone with an educated opinion, you'd be shot down quite handily.

Search for "St. Michael" in the forum threads to see how "handily" a  catholic apologist  performed.  "I tend to believe..." -- you even use his same syntax.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Shallow rhetoric is what RRS

Shallow rhetoric is what RRS is all about....You call yourself a theist? Why would you defend these Bozos who are corrupting Children? There is nothing positive about this group. Also, Don't talk to me as if RRS isn't antagontisic. This is an outright LIE. You may want to get your priorites straight before talking to me. BTW, you're preaching to me, and yet you're using ad hom's yourself with the Dumbass, and little man thing.....you're a joke trying not to be funny....Eye-wink

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: Lux,

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Lux, you have broken forum rules:

2.1. Antagonism.
Antagonism is giving one or more members a hard time. Cases typically comprise a series of provocations, each not necessarily sanctionable in its own right. Incidents can include, but are by no means limited to the following:

  1. Slander/Libel
  2. Clear intent to not argue a position, but to merely attack a person
  3. Trolling
  4. Abuse
  5. Bullying

What would Jesus say?

Please review the rules here: Forum Rules

We don't mind debate, but coming here with an attitude problem is counter-productive. 

 

 

 

do as we say, not as we do eh??????/

 

whatever takes the pressure off....

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
You call us antagonistic?

You call us antagonistic? You’re the one coming into our den calling out our people, but we are the ones being unjust? Well Lux I'm sorry you don't like our message, and you think your opinion is right and our analytical thought process and analysis of rational ideas are wrong. I'm sure you can find forums that will hail you as some kind of theologian of great repute.The difference is what each of our ideals have accomplished on their own merit! Our logic put people on the moon, cured disease, feed the hungry, and split the atom. Yours has done nothing but stagnate old concepts that has anchored society in the grim sunset of a dark age. You’re going to have to get over us, we here, growing, and tired of your fairy tales. The intelligent minority has set back in the shadows long enough, we seen too much failure at the hands of theist. It’s the dawn of what will be held as the Birth of Rationalization. Its time that our children learn that myths our fun to read, but not meant to be used as authorities doctrine.

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:

I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would suggest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

You don't need to post the same thing in two different threads.

 

[This is an automated response from the Sapient-bot.]


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:
Shallow rhetoric is what RRS is all about....You call yourself a theist? Why would you defend these Bozos who are corrupting Children? There is nothing positive about this group. Also, Don't talk to me as if RRS isn't antagontisic. This is an outright LIE. You may want to get your priorites straight before talking to me. BTW, you're preaching to me, and yet you're using ad hom's yourself with the Dumbass, and little man thing.....you're a joke trying not to be funny....Eye-wink

No my friend - nothing corrupts a child more then a Christian fanatic. Anybody that gives any credence to the book of revelations is a childs worst nightmare - and if you asked yourself with sincere honesty - you'd see that teaching our children of that book is in direct conflict with jesus teachings. Who would jesus condemn?

no, my friend, they are resisting your dogma, and your dogma is whats bad for our children.

 Yes, I'm a theist - I believe in god, but to be completely honest - I think these guys in RRS are closer to understanding god then a tool like you.  If you truly believed in god, you would see right through the book of revelations, and right into the passion that motivates the RRS.


LovE-RicH
LovE-RicH's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Just because Kelly's isn't

Just because Kelly's isn't a great public performer (yet?) (I admit that she doesn't look natural when she's having a speech), it doesn't mean she doesn't mean what she says! Are you a body-language expert or something like that, Lux? If not, I'm not sure you're qualified for making such claims.Eye-wink

But anyway, practice makes perfect... in highschool a friend had distinctive and funny speech-language disorders, after few years of practice she ended up working as a talk radio host.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: Lux

Anbesol wrote:

Lux wrote:
Shallow rhetoric is what RRS is all about....You call yourself a theist? Why would you defend these Bozos who are corrupting Children? There is nothing positive about this group. Also, Don't talk to me as if RRS isn't antagontisic. This is an outright LIE. You may want to get your priorites straight before talking to me. BTW, you're preaching to me, and yet you're using ad hom's yourself with the Dumbass, and little man thing.....you're a joke trying not to be funny....Eye-wink

No my friend - nothing corrupts a child more then a Christian fanatic. Anybody that gives any credence to the book of revelations is a childs worst nightmare - and if you asked yourself with sincere honesty - you'd see that teaching our children of that book is in direct conflict with jesus teachings. Who would jesus condemn?

no, my friend, they are resisting your dogma, and your dogma is whats bad for our children.

 Yes, I'm a theist - I believe in god, but to be completely honest - I think these guys in RRS are closer to understanding god then a tool like you.  If you truly believed in god, you would see right through the book of revelations, and right into the passion that motivates the RRS.

 

These guys are closer to understanding God than I am? Are you dumb? These folks don't BELIEVE IN GOD.You sir, are a phony. Who said I was a religious fanatic? Who said I take Revelations seriously? You're making a lot of assumptions which puts you in the same boat as atheists.  

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Who said I was a

Lux wrote:
Who said I was a religious fanatic?

I will, if no one else wants to volunteer, based on your posts thus far.

Listen, Lux, if you have something to contribute to the discussion, please do so. But if all you have are personal attacks, which, so far, are all you have offered, not just against atheists, but against theists who don't share your particular attitude, just don't bother.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Anbesol

Lux wrote:
Anbesol wrote:

Lux wrote:
Shallow rhetoric is what RRS is all about....You call yourself a theist? Why would you defend these Bozos who are corrupting Children? There is nothing positive about this group. Also, Don't talk to me as if RRS isn't antagontisic. This is an outright LIE. You may want to get your priorites straight before talking to me. BTW, you're preaching to me, and yet you're using ad hom's yourself with the Dumbass, and little man thing.....you're a joke trying not to be funny....Eye-wink

No my friend - nothing corrupts a child more then a Christian fanatic. Anybody that gives any credence to the book of revelations is a childs worst nightmare - and if you asked yourself with sincere honesty - you'd see that teaching our children of that book is in direct conflict with jesus teachings. Who would jesus condemn?

no, my friend, they are resisting your dogma, and your dogma is whats bad for our children.

Yes, I'm a theist - I believe in god, but to be completely honest - I think these guys in RRS are closer to understanding god then a tool like you. If you truly believed in god, you would see right through the book of revelations, and right into the passion that motivates the RRS.

 

These guys are closer to understanding God than I am? Are you dumb? These folks don't BELIEVE IN GOD.You sir, are a phony. Who said I was a religious fanatic? Who said I take Revelations seriously? You're making a lot of assumptions which puts you in the same boat as atheists.

Come into my house! Kick my dog! Eat my food!

Lol. Well, yes you do seem like a religious fanatic when you claim we are corrupting children. Well I say we're not and you are! Who decides we are right? Lets let logic and reason decide shall we...

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Being close to god isnt

Being close to god isnt about making some superficial boasting claim of him, its in acting in accordance to your very own holy spirit.  I think that a person must really suppress their own holy spirit NOT to be deeply disturbed by the modern Christian Church, you have expressed a collaboration with them, and thus, you have made them your own personal reference point.  Do you see what they are doing right now, mind-fucking our youth with promises of an eternal after-life of shameless rewards or punishments?  If you asked your own personal holy spirit - you too would be troubled by this condition, and by the societal conditionings OF this problem - which includes teh RRS themselves, they are the other side of that token - as the modern christians have made the belief in them, they have taken a position of superiority against their fellow man and condemned them, you know what jesus says about condemning.  Furthermore - I know that a person who is in accordance with 'gods will' as you so shallowly call it, would not even begin to try and hurt a person by attacking their sexual character as you just did with kelly, I know it takes a certain kind of deviant to do something as self-destructive as that and it takes a person who is not in tune with the holy spirit.

The problem that exists within the confines of this forum, has its rootings in the direct application of the book of revelations in the modern church.  We need to open up the canon for the new testament, remove the book of revelations, and let people still write out of inspiration of god.  You do know how absurd it is that they closed the canon - you do know just what kind of self centered message  that conveys.  Most of the religions in the eastern world have an open canon as well.

So tell me - do you take revelations seriously?  Do you actually believe that god is capable of condemning his own creation?  Do you honestly think that there is something as absurd as an eternal worldly identity manufactured in the fantastic lands of heaven and hell?

And also - have you made the observation of the parallel between the Garden of Eden and the Kingdom of God?

Im in no boat, by the way - I agree with you on many things, and I agree with them on many things, I do not take sides.  You only assumed I am in a boat with them because I took a stance against what you said in the context of this particular discussion. 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: Being close

Anbesol wrote:

Being close to god isnt about making some superficial boasting claim of him, its in acting in accordance to your very own holy spirit.  I think that a person must really suppress their own holy spirit NOT to be deeply disturbed by the modern Christian Church, you have expressed a collaboration with them, and thus, you have made them your own personal reference point.  Do you see what they are doing right now, mind-fucking our youth with promises of an eternal after-life of shameless rewards or punishments?  If you asked your own personal holy spirit - you too would be troubled by this condition, and by the societal conditionings OF this problem - which includes teh RRS themselves, they are the other side of that token - as the modern christians have made the belief in them, they have taken a position of superiority against their fellow man and condemned them, you know what jesus says about condemning.  Furthermore - I know that a person who is in accordance with 'gods will' as you so shallowly call it, would not even begin to try and hurt a person by attacking their sexual character as you just did with kelly, I know it takes a certain kind of deviant to do something as self-destructive as that and it takes a person who is not in tune with the holy spirit.

The problem that exists within the confines of this forum, has its rootings in the direct application of the book of revelations in the modern church.  We need to open up the canon for the new testament, remove the book of revelations, and let people still write out of inspiration of god.  You do know how absurd it is that they closed the canon - you do know just what kind of self centered message  that conveys.  Most of the religions in the eastern world have an open canon as well.

So tell me - do you take revelations seriously?  Do you actually believe that god is capable of condemning his own creation?  Do you honestly think that there is something as absurd as an eternal worldly identity manufactured in the fantastic lands of heaven and hell?

And also - have you made the observation of the parallel between the Garden of Eden and the Kingdom of God?

Im in no boat, by the way - I agree with you on many things, and I agree with them on many things, I do not take sides.  You only assumed I am in a boat with them because I took a stance against what you said in the context of this particular discussion. 

 

 

fair enough

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Wow.  In all my years as

Wow.

 In all my years as an atheist and travelling the atheist related boards I don't think I've ever seen that before. One theist totally shutting down another. I'm going to have to bookmark this thread ... cuz dayumn. 

Sorry to derail, but so far as I could tell this thread didn't have a point to begin with Smiling 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Wow.

marcusfish wrote:

Wow.

 In all my years as an atheist and travelling the atheist related boards I don't think I've ever seen that before. One theist totally shutting down another. I'm going to have to bookmark this thread ... cuz dayumn. 

Sorry to derail, but so far as I could tell this thread didn't have a point to begin with Smiling 

 

I said "fair enough" to his very last paragraph. The rest is pure speculation. I don't respond to assumptions based on my thiesm. It's utterly pointless. If he wants to debate me on the merits of faith and Chrisitianity, so be it. I did agree with his last post, and I replied accordingly,

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: Being close

Anbesol wrote:

Being close to god isnt about making some superficial boasting claim of him, its in acting in accordance to your very own holy spirit.  I think that a person must really suppress their own holy spirit NOT to be deeply disturbed by the modern Christian Church, you have expressed a collaboration with them, and thus, you have made them your own personal reference point.  Do you see what they are doing right now, mind-fucking our youth with promises of an eternal after-life of shameless rewards or punishments?  If you asked your own personal holy spirit - you too would be troubled by this condition, and by the societal conditionings OF this problem - which includes teh RRS themselves, they are the other side of that token - as the modern christians have made the belief in them, they have taken a position of superiority against their fellow man and condemned them, you know what jesus says about condemning.  Furthermore - I know that a person who is in accordance with 'gods will' as you so shallowly call it, would not even begin to try and hurt a person by attacking their sexual character as you just did with kelly, I know it takes a certain kind of deviant to do something as self-destructive as that and it takes a person who is not in tune with the holy spirit.

The problem that exists within the confines of this forum, has its rootings in the direct application of the book of revelations in the modern church.  We need to open up the canon for the new testament, remove the book of revelations, and let people still write out of inspiration of god.  You do know how absurd it is that they closed the canon - you do know just what kind of self centered message  that conveys.  Most of the religions in the eastern world have an open canon as well.

So tell me - do you take revelations seriously?  Do you actually believe that god is capable of condemning his own creation?  Do you honestly think that there is something as absurd as an eternal worldly identity manufactured in the fantastic lands of heaven and hell?

And also - have you made the observation of the parallel between the Garden of Eden and the Kingdom of God?

Im in no boat, by the way - I agree with you on many things, and I agree with them on many things, I do not take sides.  You only assumed I am in a boat with them because I took a stance against what you said in the context of this particular discussion. 

 

 

uh, just for the record. WTF are you talking about? Kelly's sexuality???? I mentioned this when? When did I mention heaven or hell or free will? I really think you read about 1/2 of my post, because you're pulling stuff out of left field.

 

do I believe in heaven, yes. Do I believe in Hell? depends on your definition of hell. I believe in rewards and punishment, don't you? Why must things be more complicated than they really are..LMAO

 

As for the rest of it, there is a lack of coherency. You made no sense what-so-ever. but hey thats just me, but as I pointed out, I agree with the last paragrapgh

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Why did it start out being

Why did it start out being "fair enough?"


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:
Anbesol wrote:

Being close to god isnt about making some superficial boasting claim of him, its in acting in accordance to your very own holy spirit. I think that a person must really suppress their own holy spirit NOT to be deeply disturbed by the modern Christian Church, you have expressed a collaboration with them, and thus, you have made them your own personal reference point. Do you see what they are doing right now, mind-fucking our youth with promises of an eternal after-life of shameless rewards or punishments? If you asked your own personal holy spirit - you too would be troubled by this condition, and by the societal conditionings OF this problem - which includes teh RRS themselves, they are the other side of that token - as the modern christians have made the belief in them, they have taken a position of superiority against their fellow man and condemned them, you know what jesus says about condemning. Furthermore - I know that a person who is in accordance with 'gods will' as you so shallowly call it, would not even begin to try and hurt a person by attacking their sexual character as you just did with kelly, I know it takes a certain kind of deviant to do something as self-destructive as that and it takes a person who is not in tune with the holy spirit.

The problem that exists within the confines of this forum, has its rootings in the direct application of the book of revelations in the modern church. We need to open up the canon for the new testament, remove the book of revelations, and let people still write out of inspiration of god. You do know how absurd it is that they closed the canon - you do know just what kind of self centered message that conveys. Most of the religions in the eastern world have an open canon as well.

So tell me - do you take revelations seriously? Do you actually believe that god is capable of condemning his own creation? Do you honestly think that there is something as absurd as an eternal worldly identity manufactured in the fantastic lands of heaven and hell?

And also - have you made the observation of the parallel between the Garden of Eden and the Kingdom of God?

Im in no boat, by the way - I agree with you on many things, and I agree with them on many things, I do not take sides. You only assumed I am in a boat with them because I took a stance against what you said in the context of this particular discussion.

 

 

uh, just for the record. WTF are you talking about? Kelly's sexuality???? I mentioned this when? When did I mention heaven or hell or free will? I really think you read about 1/2 of my post, because you're pulling stuff out of left field.

 

do I believe in heaven, yes. Do I believe in Hell? depends on your definition of hell. I believe in rewards and punishment, don't you? Why must things be more complicated than they really are..LMAO

 

As for the rest of it, there is a lack of coherency. You made no sense what-so-ever. but hey thats just me, but as I pointed out, I agree with the last paragrapgh

You called Kelly's sexuality into question by implying that shes doing this for her sexual attachment to her boyfriend, and that she has no deep thought or meaning to her expressions, just a senseless desperation to cling to and please her boyfriend. Re-read what you said, and tell me you said otherwise.

What is your concept of punishment? I think that you are not punished for your sin, but by it. To imply that god has an ultimatum outside of your own sense of being is absurd. I think all people atone for their sins constantly - everyone in constant forgiveness, some people simply cling to their sins and remain in punishment by continuing to be their own undoing. Once we release ourselves from our sins, and forgive ourselves of our own sins, we can see beyond the sins in others and see the truly good nature that exists in them.

We all come from god - and as we act, we are expressions of god, some of us express ourselves sinfully, and though it hurts us, this too is an expression of god, all actions seek to create balance, but so many people look for heirarchy and superiority and inferiority that they remain confused about the real meaning of equality and balance. We act outwardly sinful, because we act inwardly sinful. once we stop being inwardly sinful, we can stop acting it outwardly. If you want to be a light unto the world, first, you must be a light unto yourself.

Realize the immediate reciprocating action unto your own holy spirit is that which arises out of all of your actions. This is the balance of god, this is the "god" that has been with you the entire time, this is the god of deep understanding and love - the realization of this is what guides us to god, and lets us see the light of god. the word "god" must stop being such a small concept within our culture if we are to embrace his being through our own holy spirit. As soon as you call the bible "gods perfect word", you limit god, if god can have a "perfect word" then all words are perfect in the context of the expressions of them.

 Youve dismissed your own judgment when you passed all your sense of reason over to a higher authority, being the bible.  If you regard christ as the one and only, if you regard the abrahamic bible as the one and only, as the only "gods perfect word", then certainly I have not said anything out of the context of its proper applications. 

perhaps, though, you think christ was a mortal man just like all of us, and perhaps you simply think he was a great teacher, and perhaps you took from the bible your own senses and not that which is demanded by the modern church, perhaps.  But your attitude was that of a one-sided argument, you took the position AGAINST them, FOR your Christianity.  PErhaps I was wrong in making this assumption, tell me if i was - otherwise, perhaps I can hear you say that the bible is not "Gods perfect word" 


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
I don't know if this thread

I don't know if this thread makes me want to shoot the topic creator or myself more.

 

It's a troll topic.  Come on guys, anyone can see that. 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: You called

Anbesol wrote:
You called Kelly's sexuality into question by implying that shes doing this for her sexual attachment to her boyfriend, and that she has no deep thought or meaning to her expressions, just a senseless desperation to cling to and please her boyfriend. Re-read what you said, and tell me you said otherwise.

I think what you are referring to is the extremely sexist attitude of the original post, right? I agree that there were very strong sexist undertones to the original post, and I noticed this too, but there was so much else wrong with it that I didn't mention it. I'm glad someone did.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
thepatrician - do not feel

thepatrician - do not feel compelled to condemn or shoot the topic creator - because as he is acting outwardly, he is reciprocating that action inwardly, and deeply, he knows this as well. his condemnation doesnt need to be your condemnation. Instead, you can assess his condemnation, and use it agaisnt him.

Lux - God's "reward" is not awaiting us, it is dwelling in the present moment, it is life in and of itself, for as you are born, you are blessed with the holy spirit that gives life - your reward is not awaiting you, your reward is right there with you. You cannot continue breathing without the breath of life, without the breath of the holy spirit, this very act of living is a reward, and it must be cherished as such. Do not think that these people are void of gods reward, for they cannot avoid his reward, as they breathe, they embrace the reward. It is only in the darkness of ones own heart that one can spread darkness unto others, and that darkness does not exist in reality, but in the conscious minds of its perceivers. If you think that the light of life, that the reward for life awaits you in some far away land, then you will not be able to embrace the gift of life right here, right now, in this present moment.

 

by the way I see you quoting CS lewis - I'd like to say that I have found most all of his work deeply disturbing, like that which comes from the darkness, he creates the duality in his own mind and has some shallow sense of god existing only within the confines of his own precious reality, but he cannot see beyond the guise of his own ego to see it in others. Though I can not find it in my heart to condemn a man that is so obviously self-mutilated, I can observe that his assesments of reality are tragic and self-serving, and thus, self-destructive. He is just about one of the worst Christians I have found to be quoted.

He actually had the gall to call your lord and savior "insane", and undermine the principality of his teachings. He actually said that "if jesus was not the son of god, then he was an incredibly insane man, and all that christianity stands for is crumbled, but if he was god, then all that christianity stands for is of permanent importance".

what a way to undermine the teachings of christ - a very disgusting attitude. I remember I met a christian once and asked him "what happens if the body that was found in the tomb really was Jesus", and he responded with "so what, it doesnt change the value of his teachings", and that was the deep and loving response within his own holy spirit, I was touched by his true appreciation for christs lessons. But, tell me something, what if jesus was not god, and they were not one in the same, and rather, that jesus was an expression of god, and a wonderful teacher, that spoke with a pure conscious clarity. If he was mortal, then what of all the things that you have made for yourself in your life? is your concept of god so dependent upon that idea that, were that idea to crumble, your whole concept of god crumbles? I submit to you that, if your concept of god is destroyed by such a simple and unimportant difference as to Jesus' ressurection, then you never really saw the whole of god, you only just saw the conditionings of your own perceptions of god through christ.

Continue your refutations, if any remain. 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
You're misquoting of CS

You're misquoting of CS Lewis only futher add on to my opinion that you're not in fact a theist, or you're a deist. The three major religions of the world all agree on the promise of an afterlife. I wonder which religion you subscribe to. The bible strictly proclaims the rewards of heaven. You are pulling quotes out of context from "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. You sir, are dishonest and a despicable representation of a thiest. CS Lewis was a very devout Christian with a very profound view of his religion. The gift of life is eternal and doesn't end with our death here on earth.  You seem to have a very dismal approach to apologetics and your understanding of Christianity is very limited and backwards. If it wasn't for the poetic way in which you write, you'd be writing absolutely NOTHING. As far as your little question about Jesus' body and ressurection being true and how it would effect my Christian worldview, I'd say it really doesn't. I hold these things to be true. I find some truth in every religion. There is a parallel between many religions that offer insight into the nature of God. I believe that Jesus was who he said he was. I believe that Muhammad was who he said he was. I believe that Moses recieved divine messages from God. So what makes my worldview complete is the acceptance of all God's people not just the Christians.  

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Scooter
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: I must say, I

Lux wrote:

I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would suggest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

 

Oh, I don't think so. I think you're just trying to downplay Kelly's performance in an attempt to make Kirk et. al. look better.

Kelly is a vivacious and beautiful woman and she certainly doesn't come off as a follower. In fact, and I hope Brian doesn't take this poorly, I think Kelly carried the debate. She was the one who seemed better prepared of all the debaters--including Kirk who undoubtedly has far more experience in front of cameras. Granted, she seemed a bit nervous and was perhaps less articulate than Sam Harris. Nevertheless, she was able to focus on her answers and those answers basically decimated the other side.

As for your Jonestown reference: From what part of your anatomy did you pull that out? And, if my memory serves, those folks were theists. Yeah, I know, I was surprised, too!!

 

Lux wrote:
This is a playground for kids. I know you've been called out before. But I tend to believe that if confronted by a apologist or anyone with an educated opinion, you'd be shot down quite handily. I noticed that you've refused to debate anyone with credentails that exceed your own. I've also seen many websites (Christian) that call you a coward for kicking them off of this site. From what I've read your litle club is gaining no favor and is being rejected by atheists and theists alike. I wouldnt mind helping to silence your attempt at deconverting kids to the "dark side". Plus its quite entertaining to watch you dodge "rational debaters"......Smiling

That's quite a boast. I suggest if you have an argument for your God, you ought to post it. I'll be waiting...

Furthermore, I often find that most theists havn't a freakin clue as to why they are "believers". It doesn't seem to stop them from going around blathering about the ressurection of Jesus as if they had first hand experience. You seem to suggest that only post-graduate atheists ought to be allowed to express their views about atheism while the theist has no such restriction[s]. I've got news for you: It doesn't take a degree of any kind to understand that God[s] do not exist. Kelly was correct in saying that all people are born atheist. It is only the social discipline of the community imparted on individuals through religion that creates a "belief." Addtionally, I would say that those theists who claim to be appropriately educated do nothing more than re-hash the same tired cosmological argument that has been thoroughly demolished time and again.

Finally, I find it inspiring that Kelly has taken a keen interest in religion and I think it is clear she is working hard to better understand the universe without the use of mythology.

 

Scooter


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
hmmm, its the old we are

hmmm, its the old we are born atheist arguement.

are we born with knowledge of any kind?

are we born with a favorite color?

are we born with any opions about the world?

 

This is a lame arguement. The rest of your post is hardly worth a response, but if you, Kelly, or Brian want to debate the existance of God, I'm more than happy to do so. I've already made several posts that have been ignored or I've gotten "Just because science hasn't proved EVERYTHING doesn't mean God exists"......please.......spare me from the same old atheist rhetoric

 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
BTW, the arguement from

BTW, the arguement from cosmology is a valid arguement and has not been refuted. There are only competing theories. There are ruputable scientists that don't believe in a special God, but conclude that the universe has all of the traits or elements of having been designed. If you care to dwell more on this subject let me know. Eye-wink

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:

You're misquoting of CS Lewis only futher add on to my opinion that you're not in fact a theist, or you're a deist. The three major religions of the world all agree on the promise of an afterlife. I wonder which religion you subscribe to. The bible strictly proclaims the rewards of heaven. You are pulling quotes out of context from "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. You sir, are dishonest and a despicable representation of a thiest. CS Lewis was a very devout Christian with a very profound view of his religion. The gift of life is eternal and doesn't end with our death here on earth. You seem to have a very dismal approach to apologetics and your understanding of Christianity is very limited and backwards. If it wasn't for the poetic way in which you write, you'd be writing absolutely NOTHING. As far as your little question about Jesus' body and ressurection being true and how it would effect my Christian worldview, I'd say it really doesn't. I hold these things to be true. I find some truth in every religion. There is a parallel between many religions that offer insight into the nature of God. I believe that Jesus was who he said he was. I believe that Muhammad was who he said he was. I believe that Moses recieved divine messages from God. So what makes my worldview complete is the acceptance of all God's people not just the Christians.

First of all - I really dont care what you label me with, I dont label myself - that "theist" label under my name is not who I am. Furthermore - I subscribe to all world religions, because when you pursue them without looking to KNOW but PERCEIVE you will see that they are all one in the same. And to believe that the central idea around other religions is the promised after-life is an incredibly short-sighted remark. You called me dishonest? Your whole response is not intellectual honesty, its self-deceptive, you have not heard a word i said, and are not speaking with the clarity of the pure mindfulness, your words are nothing short of a self-defense mechanism.

but really - beyond all things, what difference is it if im a theist an atheist or a deist or what, does it really make a difference? Do you really judge a person by their labels, rather then the fruits of their labor as your savior says you should? You should not be so quick to thoughtlessly throw around labels.

Also - I think I did a good job representing CS Lewis' quote, but here, I'll make it verbatim. Actually, what he really said was more condescending and explicit

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic, on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg, or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice, either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse."

Oh, that is his quote, verbatim. Did I make it easier for you to read yet?

I will express an agreement with you though - it is a ridiculous argument to contend that "you were born an atheist".  I agree, thats a pretty presupposed but completely unreasonable conjecture to make, definitely not expressed by an open mind.  You are not born believing anything, in god or in no god, you are born breathing, and wondering, and exploring.  To say that you are conditioned out of being atheist is silly, rather, you are only conditioned into beliefs, all beliefs, period.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
"Either this was, and is,

"Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us." CS Lewis

 

You are dishonest......I will no longer continue this dialogue with you. CS Lewis was talking about those who say "Jesus was a great teacher but nothing more". He is simply saying that Jesus didn't set out to be a teacher, he was much much more. Like I said your posts are dishonest and I'm done. The proof is in the pudding

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: "Either this

Lux wrote:

"Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us." CS Lewis

 

You are dishonest......I will no longer continue this dialogue with you. CS Lewis was talking about those who say "Jesus was a great teacher but nothing more". He is simply saying that Jesus didn't set out to be a teacher, he was much much more. Like I said your posts are dishonest and I'm done. The proof is in the pudding

what an incredibly shallow response.  The proof is in what pudding?  The pudding of jesus christs shit, that you turd nuggets area so willingly being mind-fucked into eating?  You call me dishonest - but you havent inquired my conjecture with an expressed honesty, youre a religious hypocrite when you seperate yourself from anybody else.  Jesus did not want worship, he did not demand he was any better then anybody else, he only spoke of a very pure conscious clarity that WE ALL can reach in our own times.  But so long as you feed only on the excrement of christs teachings, rather then the meat and bones, you will remain in your own darkness, deluded from all outside inference. 

YOU sir are the one who is being dishonest.  This is certainly made self-evident by this thread and this argument alone.

 

By the way, I say Jesus was a great teacher and nothing more, because as soon as I say he is something more, everybody else is something less, and I condemn everybody else, including myself.  So, that argument was made towards me.  Jesus is no more the son of god the Brian Sapient himself, Jesus Christ just went through the disillusion of the self and was able to see beyond himself, through himself, and speak of pure consciousness, which is the pureness of god. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Shallow rhetoric

Lux wrote:
Shallow rhetoric is what RRS is all about....You call yourself a theist? Why would you defend these Bozos who are corrupting Children? There is nothing positive about this group. Also, Don't talk to me as if RRS isn't antagontisic. This is an outright LIE. You may want to get your priorites straight before talking to me. BTW, you're preaching to me, and yet you're using ad hom's yourself with the Dumbass, and little man thing.....you're a joke trying not to be funny....Eye-wink

Ok master of maturity, if you are soooooooo above us here then why are you so focused on words?

If you have a child(which you seem to want to treat us like)why would you focus on what you precieve as our tantrum(our tactics). Shouldnt you be focusing on making a case as to why we should adapt your position?

I hope you dont treat your kids, if you have any, like you are trying to treat us here.

Now cut the crap and stop dodging. You are here for a reason. You want to convince us that we should adapt your version of deity. Now, even if we are spoiled brats, complaining about our behavior is not making a case, it is merely complaining.

Can you do that, or is the next post going to be more complaining? If complaints are all you have, and you dont want to make a case for the existance of your deity, you are wasting your time and ours. Even if you dont care about wasting our time, most people I know dont waste time if they think they are pushing a boulder up a cliff. Spinning your wheels is immature if you ask me.

I can get you some cheese for that whine if you continue. 

 

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


Scooter
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: hmmm, its the

Lux wrote:

hmmm, its the old we are born atheist arguement.

Its more like a fact.

Lux wrote:
are we born with knowledge of any kind?

You're getting warm. We are born with some knowledge but none of it is religious--and certainly not Christian. We know this because religion is learned through social experience.

Lux wrote:
are we born with a favorite color?

No

Lux wrote:
are we born with any opions about the world?

Not that are learned.

Lux wrote:
This is a lame arguement.

Hahaha....the only thing lame is your substance- free response that is nothing more than an evasion demonstrated by your dismissive content.

Lux wrote:
The rest of your post is hardly worth a response, but if you, Kelly, or Brian want to debate the existance of God, I'm more than happy to do so.

The rest of my post exposes your transparent attempt at patronization. I can understand why you wouldn't want to respond.

Lux wrote:
 I've already made several posts that have been ignored or I've gotten "Just because science hasn't proved EVERYTHING doesn't mean God exists"......please.......spare me from the same old atheist rhetoric

I'm sure you have. I'm also sure they are just as vacuous as this one.

 


Scooter
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: BTW, the

Lux wrote:
BTW, the arguement from cosmology is a valid arguement and has not been refuted. There are only competing theories. There are ruputable scientists that don't believe in a special God, but conclude that the universe has all of the traits or elements of having been designed. If you care to dwell more on this subject let me know. Eye-wink

 

Because some scientists believe in a God and use metaphor while writing, doesn't validate God's existance.

 

The cosmological argument fails miserably at validating any sort of "intelligent" being with "supernatural" qualities (whatever those are). And, it certainly does not confirm some weird ritualistic requirement of worshipping what the arrogant imagination of the religious mind creates as a "personal God."


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux - I do agree with you

Lux - I do agree with you on one thing. They can be reconciled with god, as can you. Though you are undoubtedly aware of his presence, you can actually touch his presence, it exists within you. Through deep introspection, you shall find, but deep introspection requires strength of mind and strength of heart, most importantly, strength of spirit. As I have said before - he will be found by all, he is the judgment day of Jesus' parables. It is when all things become apperant to you. Though it cannot have any name, because of his infinite transcendence, it is often reffered to as "god", but he has carried many labels, truth, transcendental, infinite, the holy spirit, objectivity, consciousness, conscience. Those all do not speak of him within the confines of the words, they point to him with the expressions of those words.

Religious dogma and ultimatums are spiritually immature productions of religious doctrine - the most important aspect of religious doctrine is to give the reader authority over their own life, not to demand its own authority over them. Often times, in religion when people act with authority, it is because that is the only way the young minds will hear them, but the final job of the teacher is to free the student of the teacher - every time you say "through jesus christ", or "in name of jesus christ", you have not freed and cannot possibly be free of him as a teacher, he remains authoritative over your own will, and you create your own inner conflicts by creating such a schizophrenic perception of reality. I do commend you for finding god through Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is a great channel of god, a wonderful teacher, pure hearted and pure minded, now can you see into it so you can find god through your self, without the attachment to Jesus Christ?

then perhaps you can remove those filtered glasses of your own ego youve been wearing, and see that the God Jesus spoke of, is the same "God" Immanuel Kant speaks of, Krishna, Buddha, Gandhi, Osho, and Nanak speak of. Indeed, he has inspired so many hundreds of thousands of writings through so many people, but you can only see it in your own small concept of him. He is ever present in all things - you can see the rise and fall of him in all things, you can see him in the depths of reason that exist within all conscious action and all human efforts. Sometimes, however, you will see him disturbingly spoke of, through some very deeply dark people, I think there hasnt been a more disgusting writing of him then the Book of Revelations, you can see that the book of revelations was not inspired by god, because god cannot be expressed of such a nature, and cannot be limited by such feeble concepts, rather, it was inspired by the ego of John the exile, his own apperant struggles within his own dark mind, he did not reach the true depths of the transcendental or he would have been touched by gods infinite love - god cannot express hate, it is absurd, hate is a willful act that only comes rise from a persons ego. It is love, transformed by attachment and clinging into something very egocentric and self-centered. By reading the book of revelations, I have not learned about god, I have learned about how John the Exile experienced god.

I dont think, however, you could even have the capacity within you to get that right now, I think you are too spiritually undeveloped to handle grappling that concept quite yet. Perhaps I have misjudged you, perhaps you can understand it and express it with more clarity then I have, so try me.

the pursuit of the perfection of wisdom - a buddhist practice, had the canon remained open in the new testament, it is quite possible somebody could have actually helped express the deeper levels of truth behind Jesus' parables of "The eyes of children".  It contains within that parable alone, an intensely deep and transformational practice, there is so much more we can learn from just assessing Jesus' parables, there is so much that can be written to help bring more people to god, but the canon is closed, and the book of revelations closed it, and as such, destroyed the entire concept of god.  The canon and much of what was written by many of the early christian adopters and put into the canon were not very comprehensive, nor were they very well spoken of.  The synoptic and Gnostic gospels are really the centerpieces of Christ, but people put too much emphassis on the more immature writings, like the Gospel of John or Proverbs, or Corinthians.

But for anybody to give any credence to the book of revelations, is to be consumed by the very darkness that john the exile was, and I see his darkness in so many of his followers, and it is terribly disturbing, and when I see someone who actually believes it, my heart cries out for the pain that person is living, inwardly. 


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
So tell me, how does that

So tell me, how does that prove anything about Christianity?  It seems to me, it proves nothing more then the phenomena of consciousness, and what I call god.  But it actually goes right against the thought that Jesus is the divine unique son of god, how can he be more intelligently designed then anybody else?  how can he have more god-juice in him then others do?

and no response to me - i see, yeah, not much you can say. 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:

"Just because science hasn't proved EVERYTHING doesn't mean God exists"......please.......spare me from the same old atheist rhetoric

Uh huh. So you believe that the absense of such knowledge IS proof in the existance of god? I'm beginning to see why you're so frustrated.

[edited for clarification]

I realized that I did not point out exactly why that argument is silly. As I'm sure has been pointed out many times, the absense of knowledge on a topic is merely proof that there is absense of knowledge. To say that absense of knowledge proves some other point is called a plea to ignorance. Basically this means that if we cannot prove precisely and with zero margin of error how the univers began, this is not proof of the existance of god.

Absense of knowledge of one thing in no way proves the existance of another. It is merely the absense of knowledge.  


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Lux

marcusfish wrote:
Lux wrote:

"Just because science hasn't proved EVERYTHING doesn't mean God exists"......please.......spare me from the same old atheist rhetoric

Uh huh. So you believe that the absense of such knowledge IS proof in the existance of god? I'm beginning to see why you're so frustrated.

[edited for clarification]

I realized that I did not point out exactly why that argument is silly. As I'm sure has been pointed out many times, the absense of knowledge on a topic is merely proof that there is absense of knowledge. To say that absense of knowledge proves some other point is called a plea to ignorance. Basically this means that if we cannot prove precisely and with zero margin of error how the univers began, this is not proof of the existance of god.

Absense of knowledge of one thing in no way proves the existance of another. It is merely the absense of knowledge.  

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. Although I see your point. It still sems to me that "creationists" are accused of playing "God of the Gaps" which is really an unfair assesment. Truely there is not much that science can prove with 100% certainty. Intelligent design seeks to dectect signs of design in nature. They still operate under scientific method to do this. On the same note, evolution science can be accused of playing "science of the gaps". They ssimply fill in the blanks with speculation passed off as fact. So is Intelligent design scientific? Yes, just as scientific as well, evolutionary science. Is intelligent design using the scientific method? yes.....

 

Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
That's pretty cool, I've

That's pretty cool, I've never actually seen a real breakdown of the rational behind creationism. 

Lux wrote:
evolution science can be accused of playing "science of the gaps". They ssimply fill in the blanks with speculation passed off as fact.

Here is where I think the two ideas split apart. [Please keep in mind that I am not a scientist so I'll just go on what I understand]. Science uses what it can observe and test (aparently the same way creationists do). When there is a "gap" the problem is that creationists fill it with the supernatural. The idea of the supernatural has never been proven in any form. 

This is where I believe we have our disagreement.

Scientists, based on what they can observe, claim evolution is a perfectly reliable (and provable if I'm not mistaken) theory.

Creationists, based on what they believe, claim that only a supernatural being could have been responsible for life in its current form.

One of these is much more reasonable than the other.  


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Question:   What exactly

Question:

 

What exactly is an intelligent agent?

These complex-specified information, how are they measured? When are they established?

Why do intelligent agents create csi’s?

 

In your hypothesis, how do we measure these CSI in nature? Is the patter the same for all creatures?

 

How did the intelligent agent establish this information into knowledge that specific creations would need? If the creation roles change, does the intelligent agent update the csi?

 

In your experiment, how do we test these structures to determine their complexity? Why are trying to experiment.

 

On your conclusion, without measuring CSI how do conclude intelligent design? We have no bases that this intelligent agent can create these results? I see no experiments that show a unknown agent creating these CSI’s.

At what level of complexity in CSI move it from a biological structure to a intelligent design structure? Is the complexity based on our knowledge, and scientific understanding? What is your benchmark to establish complexity?

I see were you stated you observation, but you are using observation as experiments to prove your observation.

Why would an intelligent designer design useless organs? Wide range of diversity? Wouldn't it be more efficient to streamline them down to a few creatures?

Why is there so much similarity among creatures of different origins? Why do we share so much DNA with primates?

 

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Basic

Lux wrote:
Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they

Ken Miller decimates this crap. I recommend checking Google video for it, as he has a 2-hour long video going through Behe's specific points. Also read about:

Blood Clotting

The flagellum

The simple fact is that nothing in biology has ever been found to be irreducibly complex, and everything that Michael Behe has suggested is, has turned out to have a very reasonable evolutionary explanation. The ID 'hypothesis' fails, but some people such as yourself (and Behe) continue to push it regardless, which is the opposite of science. Furthermore, since it appeals to the supernatural, ID can't be science fundamentally.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/