Andy9o8 2
Recommended Posts
Royd 0
And you, religiously, stand by that statement?QuoteOK, first of all, and I've had to say this many times before, atheism is not a form of belief; it is simply an absence of religious belief.
Royd 0
Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it takes great faith to have absolutely none.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it takes great faith to have absolutely none.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for those scientific types, out there, it's been freezing, in North Florida, for the last 3 1/2 months, so it must be global warming.QuoteIf this made any sense, so would the following:
It takes a lot of money to be broke.
It takes a lot of happiness to be sad.
And it takes a lot of logic to be insane.
jakee 1,489
QuoteAnd you, religiously, stand by that statement?QuoteOK, first of all, and I've had to say this many times before, atheism is not a form of belief; it is simply an absence of religious belief.
Oh, now that is clever. That is very clever.
Truly, your wordplay is more than a match for the most well constructed of 'logical' arguments!
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteReply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it takes great faith to have absolutely none.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And for those scientific types, out there, it's been freezing, in North Florida, for the last 3 1/2 months, so it must be global warming.QuoteIf this made any sense, so would the following:
It takes a lot of money to be broke.
It takes a lot of happiness to be sad.
And it takes a lot of logic to be insane.
Weather and climate. There's a reason there's a seperate word for each.
Royd 0
For the warmists, it's called a free pass.QuoteWeather and climate. There's a reason there's a seperate word for each.
jakee 1,489
QuoteRead my original post; I gave unbiased evidence for what I believe (the article in the beginning from Yahoo news. Furthermore, the author of the article holds a PhD - how is that an insult to your intelligence?...
1) Wow, a PhD. I bet there's no-one else on here that smart! Oh, wait...
2) The author of the Yahoo article is an AP journalist. How do you know if he has a PhD?
3) Did you notice that the article mentioned how only some archaeologists, including the 'main character' of the article, a woman who already believes in biblical history (How unbiased?) think that the find supports the biblical version of history, while many others don't.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteIt takes a humble person to consider both sides.
There's nothing humble about having an invisible friend who knows everything.
The most humble of all are agnostics. They claim "I don't know"... which is a very honest and humble answer to all the "deep questions" so many love to argue over, and can never prove one way or another.
That's not humility; it's cowardice. I can never prove that there were no monsters under my bed when I was a kid, even though I believed there to be at the time. Nonetheless, I now, as an adult, state categorically that there were none.
How do you know that? They may have been invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, unintrusive, quiet and odor free.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuotePublished by the "Institute for Creation Science". Thanks for the unbiased source. And for the insult to our intelligence.
I could say that National Geographic is biased just the same; that gets us no where. There is no such thing as unbiased, in that the label of biased is always put on the opposing side no matter what.
Read my original post; I gave unbiased evidence for what I believe (the article in the beginning from Yahoo news. Furthermore, the author of the article holds a PhD - how is that an insult to your intelligence?...
The fact that John D. Morris has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of his article. His PhD is in Geological Engineering, while the article appears to be some kind of half-assed sociological presentation of "data" that he's collected over the years about flood stories from around the world. Apparently he finds it shocking that a lot of primitive cultures experienced a flood that they believed to be global. Since I think it's a safe assumption that none of those cultures had any grasp of how large the globe actually was, I'm pretty sure we can assume that none of them knew how global the flood was. If you haven't gone more than one village away from your own for your entire life, a local flood could sure seem global. If you'd like to learn more about why Morris's arguments don't really support what you're saying, here is a great place to start.
As to the Yahoo article, you appear to be arguing that because archeology has found something that supports a portion of the biblical story, then the entire biblical story must be true. That's a huge leap to make. It'd be like if I argued that because they found the ruins of the city of Troy, the Iliad must be true and therefore my faith in the gods of Olympus is strengthened.
The111 1
QuoteThat's not humility; it's cowardice. I can never prove that there were no monsters under my bed when I was a kid, even though I believed there to be at the time. Nonetheless, I now, as an adult, state categorically that there were none.
Per your definition of monster, maybe you were able to prove that. Per most definitions of god, you cannot prove it. Either way.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteThat's not humility; it's cowardice. I can never prove that there were no monsters under my bed when I was a kid, even though I believed there to be at the time. Nonetheless, I now, as an adult, state categorically that there were none.
Per your definition of monster, maybe you were able to prove that. Per most definitions of god, you cannot prove it. Either way.
Utter nonsense.
Try as they might, believers in religion cannot carve out a special category of fantasy that is privileged to be insulated from logic by defining it "not disprovable".
RonD1120 62
Quote?
Christianbook.com advertising on here...
Skydivers & Jesus...that's a good one!
The CHRISTIAN SKYDIVERS ASSOCIATION is represented world wide in several countries. For a list of those countries check out the website below.
Ephesians 2:1-10 provides a good overall description of our community of sport parachutists as well as general aviation.
I have heard it said that about 2% of any organized group will be professing Christians. The CSA membership reflects that rule of thumb. The remaining 98% are accurately described in the above mentioned Scripture.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
maadmax 0
Utter nonsense.
Try as they might, believers in religion cannot carve out a special category of fantasy that is privileged to be insulated from logic by defining it "not disprovable".
Try as they might, believers in religion cannot carve out a special category of fantasy that is privileged to be insulated from logic by defining it "not disprovable".
God will never be reduced to results of a science experiment. God is a Spirit and can only be known by the spirit. To deny the spiritual part of our nature is short sighted at best. For those who have grasped the extent of their spiritual needs and then have seen the daily dilervances of God, have all the proof they will every need. To those who have no spirit or spiritual needs as some have claimed, God bless you, for you are truly blessed indeed. You should give thanks for being exempt form the struggle the rest of us find ourselves apart of.
Andy9o8 2
Quote
Utter nonsense.
Try as they might, believers in religion cannot carve out a special category of fantasy that is privileged to be insulated from logic by defining it "not disprovable".
God will never be reduced to results of a science experiment. God is a Spirit and can only be known by the spirit.
That's actually consistent with what I'm saying. Faith is faith- square peg, square hole; while science and the facts of the physical universe are what they are - round peg, round hole. The trouble occurs when the religious try to ram their square peg into the round hole. They are separate; leave them that way.
dcvet 0
>>I think it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist rather than to believe in God. <<
Many theist have said this exact same line in countless debates and in every single one I've seen it's been shattered with reason.
I'm assuming that you believe in one of the gods of religion in which case you would have to not believe in the others. This makes you an Atheist. As dawkins so eloquently puts it, "we just go one god further"
Many theist have said this exact same line in countless debates and in every single one I've seen it's been shattered with reason.
I'm assuming that you believe in one of the gods of religion in which case you would have to not believe in the others. This makes you an Atheist. As dawkins so eloquently puts it, "we just go one god further"
dcvet 0
>>Um... that is a less than poor analogy.
There aren't many hundreds-of-year-old books and testaments written about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" the last time I checked.<<
So then Zues and Thor and the rest of the greek gods are true because they've been written about?
There aren't many hundreds-of-year-old books and testaments written about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" the last time I checked.<<
So then Zues and Thor and the rest of the greek gods are true because they've been written about?
dcvet 0
>>>Distraction and smoke screens as usual. We live in a self sustaining predeterminant universe,( possibly multiverse[url]), with perfectly established universal parameters governing the interaction of matter and energy. To believe that is just came about by chance, takes a lot of unsupportable conjecture ( ie faith in your atheist belief system). Of course this would be a logical conclusion for someone wishing to justify a self deified view point and expunge themselves from the guilt of rejecting God.<<<
Ahhh, but the answer is actually in your comment. If there were a single universe this would be difficult to grasp (but still not impossible), but with the multiverse theory and the possibility of an infinite number of universes you can now use statistics to easily conclude that a universe such as our that we live in where everything is "dialed"perfectly for life is extremely possible.
Ahhh, but the answer is actually in your comment. If there were a single universe this would be difficult to grasp (but still not impossible), but with the multiverse theory and the possibility of an infinite number of universes you can now use statistics to easily conclude that a universe such as our that we live in where everything is "dialed"perfectly for life is extremely possible.
dcvet 0
>>All we know from History is through what is written down & passed on. There is more evidence for the case of Christianity than any other event in History; if it wasn't for the resurrection more people would believe. It's that 1 claim that makes people go: "nahhhhhhhhhhhh.
Dude, this has to be the most ridiculous thing that I've ever read in my life. How can you guys expect to be taken seriously when you say stuff like this??!!! You're saying that that there is more evidence for the case of Christianity than for say... The fact that the earth is over 4 Billion years old??? Or mayyyybeeee, EVOLUTION... Right of course, the mountains of evidence supporting evolution are nothing compared to the evidence supporting the case for Christianity. 
square peg round hole? Is love a good pursuit or not?
Faith provides a completely logical explanation for reason, if, you accept the evidence for what it is. The "evidence" we have inspires us to take a step of faith to see whats on the other side. Seems to me many more scientists would want to explore this truth. Havent many scientists explored so far as to subject themselves to their own inventions and theories?
You continue ellude that faith is a ridiculous expression of reason and logic, yet are not at all willing to accept the terms associated with its revelation. How can you make such a statement without testing the hypothesis? If you think I knew what was on the other side of this step, you are badly mistaken. We all had to take the first step in repentance. Now if anyone assumes the first step of repentance means you will live a sin-free life, without trials, you are also badly mistaken. But just like any marriage, you have to take the first step to see if that union is something you are meant to be a part of, and to explore the deeper revelations of love.
I for one find plenty to connect God with nature. If you continue to desire a separation between the two, you will not be acting in the spirit of a real, genuine, trustworthy scientist, as your not willing to test all the evidence.
Faith provides a completely logical explanation for reason, if, you accept the evidence for what it is. The "evidence" we have inspires us to take a step of faith to see whats on the other side. Seems to me many more scientists would want to explore this truth. Havent many scientists explored so far as to subject themselves to their own inventions and theories?
You continue ellude that faith is a ridiculous expression of reason and logic, yet are not at all willing to accept the terms associated with its revelation. How can you make such a statement without testing the hypothesis? If you think I knew what was on the other side of this step, you are badly mistaken. We all had to take the first step in repentance. Now if anyone assumes the first step of repentance means you will live a sin-free life, without trials, you are also badly mistaken. But just like any marriage, you have to take the first step to see if that union is something you are meant to be a part of, and to explore the deeper revelations of love.
I for one find plenty to connect God with nature. If you continue to desire a separation between the two, you will not be acting in the spirit of a real, genuine, trustworthy scientist, as your not willing to test all the evidence.
"We didn't start the fire"
Quote
Ahhh, but the answer is actually in your comment. If there were a single universe this would be difficult to grasp (but still not impossible), but with the multiverse theory and the possibility of an infinite number of universes you can now use statistics to easily conclude that a universe such as our that we live in where everything is "dialed"perfectly for life is extremely possible.
You really don't even have to go that far. The chances of conditions being dialed in for life (at least life as we know it) may have been extremely small based on the number of factos that had to be "dailed." However, there were a very large number of possible outcomes based on how the factors were adjusted. Each of those outcomes individually was equally unlikely. One of those outcomes was certain to come true. The guess that most of those outcomes were lifeless doesn't really chnage that there is nothing particularly special about this being the outcome we actually got.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
QuoteThe most humble of all are agnosticse
I dont assume anyone is more humble than another. Humbleness is a pursuit, not a destination.
"We didn't start the fire"
Andy9o8 2
You either have no genuine understanding of the scientific method, or you simply refuse to apply it. Faith is faith; science is science. Ne'er the twain should meet.
maadmax 0
Ahhh, but the answer is actually in your comment. If there were a single universe this would be difficult to grasp (but still not impossible), but with the multiverse theory and the possibility of an infinite number of universes you can now use statistics to easily conclude that a universe such as our that we live in where everything is "dialed"perfectly for life is extremely possible.
Hate to put a little fly in your well thought out logic, but my point is there is a lot of well organized stuff out there. Either it all was initiated by an external source at a point in time or possibly is a part of God and has existed forever. Either way our universe or multiverse is not there to be defined by us, but we are here to be defined by it.
That's not humility; it's cowardice. I can never prove that there were no monsters under my bed when I was a kid, even though I believed there to be at the time. Nonetheless, I now, as an adult, state categorically that there were none.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites