GOD EXISTS

cthia wrote:Cancer should be eradicated. I often afford myself a certain gedanken of what our Earth would be like if all who believe in God were to suddenly disappear. And it's always the same -- a close encounter of the Stephen King kind.

I wonder how many people would honestly choose to live in a world with no religious conscience. There's no way in hell I would.

"CLOSE AND LOCK THE DOORS. DRAW THE CURTAINS. DON'T YOU DARE GO OUTSIDE!"
Be careful what you ask for.

cthia, it seems to me that you are convinced that morality, and the ability to tell good from evil, have religion as a requirement. Is this the case? If it is, I'd like to engage you in a small back-and-forth debate. Because I'm pretty sure I could disprove the claim. Interested?

PeterZ wrote:The E,

Do you consider your response an expression of intolerance? I am not trying to be facetious or to goad you in any way. I am really curious.

Err, yes?

Let me be clear. I have nothing but contempt and disgust for creationism in all its forms. It is an intellectually and morally corrupt bastard child of science and religion. It does nothing except muddy the waters when it comes to bringing our understanding of the world forwards. Creationists have done more damage to you americans than any amount of islamists or communists have ever been able to.

So yes. I am absolutely, unabashedly intolerant of people who wish to sell that particular brand of snake oil.

The E wrote:
Err, yes?

Let me be clear. I have nothing but contempt and disgust for creationism in all its forms. It is an intellectually and morally corrupt bastard child of science and religion. It does nothing except muddy the waters when it comes to bringing our understanding of the world forwards. Creationists have done more damage to you americans than any amount of islamists or communists have ever been able to.

So yes. I am absolutely, unabashedly intolerant of people who wish to sell that particular brand of snake oil.

Thank you for your honesty. I suppose that all of us have things we are intolerant of. In many cases as passionately intolerant as you admit to being with respect to creationism. I wonder how we can usefully discriminate between the various intolerances each of us hold? After all some things should not or indeed must not be tolerated.

cthia wrote:Statistics was one copper-plated Cordelia Ransom of a subject to many in my class. But it was because of an arse of a professor whose lineage surely gave way to Ransom, I'm certain.

Yet we all came out of it knowing that 'statistically correct' does not necessarily mean correct - lest skewed data and scattered 'plots.'

-'plots' enjoying a double entendre.

No, the implication was that the five percent of the world's population who think that the other ninety-five percent are delusional are scaling a steep precipice of arrogance.

Except you're not being honest about that statement, because that number is nowhere near 95%. You don't think 95% of the world has it right and 5% are in opposition to that other 95% who all agree with each other. You think Hindus are wrong. You think Buddhists are wrong. You think Shintoists are wrong. Etc, etc, etc... You in fact think that the MAJORITY of the world's population is wrong about God.

And they think you're wrong too. And not just about little pesky details like what day of the week God wants us to take a rest or something. You are lumping multiple groups of people with *mutually contradictory beliefs* into one lump sum of people who you claim all agree on something they do not agree on.


And thanks for the self promotional autobiography, not sure why you felt compelled to tell me about your finances but whatever.

gcomeau wrote:

cthia wrote:Statistics was one copper-plated Cordelia Ransom of a subject to many in my class. But it was because of an arse of a professor whose lineage surely gave way to Ransom, I'm certain.

Yet we all came out of it knowing that 'statistically correct' does not necessarily mean correct - lest skewed data and scattered 'plots.'

-'plots' enjoying a double entendre.

No, the implication was that the five percent of the world's population who think that the other ninety-five percent are delusional are scaling a very steep precipice of arrogance.

Except you're not being honest about that statement, because that number is nowhere near 95%. You don't think 95% of the world has it right and 5% are in opposition to that other 95% who all agree with each other. You think Hindus are wrong. You think Buddhists are wrong. You think Shintoists are wrong. Etc, etc, etc... You in fact think that the MAJORITY of the world's population is wrong about God.

And they think you're wrong too. And not just about little pesky details like what day of the week God wants us to take a rest or something. You are lumping multiple groups of people with *mutually contradictory beliefs* into one lump sum of people who you claim all agree on something they do not agree on.


And thanks for the self promotional autobiography, not sure why you felt compelled to tell me about your finances but whatever.

Yes, the statement is correct! I even linked you to a popular movie that used the same statistics. Whoa, video-textev.

If you would pay closer attention. You'd read it as it is...

Ninety-six percent of the world's population believe in a Supreme Being of some form.

The fact that there is broad disagreement within that paradigm is besides the intended point.

And you are quite welcome regarding my free autobiography. It was given as a little background to who I am. Because it seemed that my intelligence was being challenged, since an intelligent conversation seemed to be bereft of several posts. An acknowledgement of intelligence demands respect. Respect that seems to be a given in my social circles.

My father taught us...

Son, the common belief that a man has to earn respect is not true. What a man has to earn is your continued respect.

I'd rather be respected because I am a decent person, not because of any accomplishments. But IF I could convince you that I may have a 'little' intelligence, Then perhaps you could find a matching 'little' and show an equal amount of decency. I sincerely hope that that theory isn't a fallacy. I do not want this thread to deteriorate into a war, prompting Duckk to close the thread.

This thread was created to discuss its title with decency and respect. A subject that I am most interested in. I didn't intend on defending myself against witch burners. Obviously you claim to know - at least the bare minimum - of what a Christian entails. So, until or unless I approach you from the wrong bedside of respect, why is it beyond you to do the same? I don't agree with your beliefs or non-beliefs, however, my beliefs don't drive me to social disrespect, inconsideration or vehement anger.

If you are so keen on the science of observation, consider the differences in respect, or lack thereof, between you and me.

Are all professed Christians respectful? Absolutely not! Human nature - in people, will skew any data plot. Yet to close your eyes to all Christians when they are respectful and decent to you - isn't employing the scientific approach. Or is it?

From the appalling exchange of posts from some of you, scientific observation argues for the need of Christianity. And if your demeanor in an obviously meant to be friendly and intelligent thread is as it is, then scientific observation just might support the chance that you should not continue to drive by every church you see without stopping for one.

It isn't that I doubt its truth - because I don't - yet I find it rather ironic that a non-believer would claim that a belief in a higher power is not needed to have morality, respect and decency when their very actions are bereft of it! And I agree, the same meter stick can be applied to many Christians, inasmuch as their actions belie their claimed beliefs. Yet they are not in this thread to consider them as a data point. You are.

Not all non-believers in this thread has acted so. And several hyper in and out and make their points decently. Mostly. I can respect that. And I do!

Don't hate me because I am at peace in my beliefs. If anything, show me that you are at peace with yours - at the moment, it doesn't seem so.

Edit:
Typos and grammar.
.

cthia wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Except you're not being honest about that statement, because that number is nowhere near 95%. You don't think 95% of the world has it right and 5% are in opposition to that other 95% who all agree with each other. You think Hindus are wrong. You think Buddhists are wrong. You think Shintoists are wrong. Etc, etc, etc... You in fact think that the MAJORITY of the world's population is wrong about God.

And they think you're wrong too. And not just about little pesky details like what day of the week God wants us to take a rest or something. You are lumping multiple groups of people with *mutually contradictory beliefs* into one lump sum of people who you claim all agree on something they do not agree on.


And thanks for the self promotional autobiography, not sure why you felt compelled to tell me about your finances but whatever.

Yes, the statement is correct! I even linked you to a popular movie that used the same statistics. Whoa, video-textev.

If you would pay closer attention. You'd read it as it is...

Ninety-six percent of the world's population believe in a Supreme Being of some form.

The fact that there is broad disagreement within that paradigm is besides the intended point.

I am entirely aware of what the intended point was. It was the intent to misrepresent generic belief in a vaguely defined "higher power" as a commonality of belief among 95% of the world agreeing on something when there is nothing common about it and they don't agree on it at all.

My point was pointing out the dishonesty in that intent.



(And it was not your intelligence being questioned, it was your understanding of this specific subject matter. Those are different things... and your autobiography does not speak to the latter.)

Annachie wrote:Some history Poker. The Germans first [committed] mass genocide during the crusades. Long before Darwin.

Technically, the term "Genocide" didn't exist back then, it was originated during the Nuremberg trials to describe what:

pokermind wrote:My point is that a scientific idea can lead to just as atrocious behavior as a religious. Survival of the fittest the driving force of evolution was and is still used to back atrocious political theories. I was a little sarcastic when the post replied to said no scientist ever caused hatred. Interpretations by others in Religion and Science can cause bad things to happen. You can't blame God for the inquisition with out blaming Charles Darwin for the Holicost.

refereed to.
Lots of other groups committed mass slaughter, including the Romans, Hittites, Greeks, Egyptians, Celts/Gauls and just about every other ancient tribe in the world, for both religious as well as territorial/resource reasons. The reason the Romans committed mass slaughter on the Carthaginians was territorial/Commerce NOT religion, though some contemporary Roman Propaganda tried to use unsubstantiated religious reasons to justify it to the public - there is no evidence that the propaganda had any basis in truth and the actual reason for the Punic wars was that Carthage and Rome were at odds commercially in the Mediterranean. His point was that Science HAS been used to justify Mass Murder - making it no different than any other excuse. Your own words

The E wrote:... I have nothing but contempt and disgust for creationism in all its forms...I am absolutely, unabashedly intolerant of people who wish to sell that particular brand of snake oil.

show how people can corrupt any belief to there own agenda and use it to justify hatred and intolerance - which you have just admitted to having - I (a Christian) disagree with Atheism and think it is a corrupt, egotistical and narcissistic belief that places humans as somehow the highest for of life, but I am not intolerant of it as you just admitted you are to me, so who is in the wrong here? the tolerant & enlightened Christian or the ignorant & intolerant Atheist? As your intolerance spreads, it is just a matter of time before a new religious war breaks out between the Atheists and the non-Atheists, with the Atheists demanding everyone stop worshiping the way they choose.

Of-course this may not materialize, as Atheism is so small a cult, and is likely not to spread very far. The reason the Greek/Roman religions failed was that they offered no incentive to believe in them. only the very high ups got anything out of them, they got to join the "Gods". The "average/Joe-schmuck" farmer/merchant/builder etc... had no future to look forward too. Everyone else were said to die and go to (what Christians would call) "Purgatory" basically hell without the "fire-&-pitchforks" no mater how good they were. Christianity offers some hope. If your a good person, you can avoid hell/purgatory and have a good life for eternity. If given the choice, any rational person will take a chance for something good. What does Atheism offer? BEST Case: If right, death, non-existence. WORST case: If wrong, eternity in HELL. no rational person would risk an eternity in hell for the option of just dying. Alternatively, My best case, if right, is an eternity in Heaven, worst case, if your right, death/non-existence, but if so, I'll be dead and won't know it. this goes to my challenge mentioned earlier:

I challenge every Atheist to this:
$1 billion US dollars, or the current equivalent purchasing power, that there is an afterlife, to be paid in 1000 Earth years, between us, not transferable or inheritable, if I'm wrong I'll owe anyone who takes me up on it in 1000 years, if I'm right anyone who take me up on it will owe me in 1000 years. Is there any Atheist with enough conviction in his beliefs to take me up on this challenge? After-all we'll all be dead when it comes due. Right?

peke wrote:

cthia wrote:Cancer should be eradicated. I often afford myself a certain gedanken of what our Earth would be like if all who believe in God were to suddenly disappear. And it's always the same -- a close encounter of the Stephen King kind.

I wonder how many people would honestly choose to live in a world with no religious conscience. There's no way in hell I would.

"CLOSE AND LOCK THE DOORS. DRAW THE CURTAINS. DON'T YOU DARE GO OUTSIDE!"
Be careful what you ask for.

cthia, it seems to me that you are convinced that morality, and the ability to tell good from evil, have religion as a requirement. Is this the case? If it is, I'd like to engage you in a small back-and-forth debate. Because I'm pretty sure I could disprove the claim. Interested?

I do NOT believe that. In fact, my faith teaches that ALL have the morality and the 'inherent' ability to know good from evil. *Therefore, a debate on this matter would be pointless, since in that regard, I agree with you. The Holy Ghost represents our 'inherent' ability.

That is one of the main differences between the Old and the New Testament. In my teachings, during the Old Testament, man was descendent from Adam and as a result of that, man had the 'inherent' excuse of being weak of the flesh. Just blame it on Adam. But with the New Testament comes a new covenant (contract).

Romans 8:2-4
…2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.…

If interested, the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel contain these promises.

Ezekiel 36:26-27
26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. 28"You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.…

Man had a heart of stone and he was weak of flesh. God sent his only begotten Son to bring the word of truth and to show an example of 'enduring temptations and all the evils' while living in the flesh as man. Leading by example. As a consequence, man can no longer claim weakness of the flesh (descended from Adam) as an excuse. Since the New Testament man is now descended from Jesus. To help us on this new path, man was given the Holy Spirit. However, man still holds on to free will. And misery loves company, therefore powers and principalities follow us wherever we go.

This is how I was taught anyways. I pray I did it justice. I would always encourage any who might be interested to do their own research.

Isaiah 44:3
For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.

Isaiah 59:21
"As for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD. "My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants--from this time on and forever," says the LORD.

*And even if that wasn't the case, I have absolutely NO time to commit to any formal debate. I am so busy this time of the year (bridges, structures, lab tests, etc.), compounded by the needs of my niece about to enter college at 13 (since my sister says I created that monster), my fiancée and the plans of the quickly approaching wedding, my publishing and research efforts, that I'm afraid the IRS will audit me because I'm using more than the allotted 24 hrs in a day!

I haven't posted on the main page in a while now. Of course, it seems that I'm really not missing anything there. They're still trying to figure out what to do with captured Solly junk. And I was MIA in this thread for a while. My plate runneth over. And I'm afraid I won't be here long. Lots of travel coming up. Lots!

MAD-4A wrote:I challenge every Atheist to this:
$1 billion US dollars, or the current equivalent purchasing power, that there is an afterlife, to be paid in 1000 Earth years, between us, not transferable or inheritable, if I'm wrong I'll owe anyone who takes me up on it in 1000 years, if I'm right anyone who take me up on it will owe me in 1000 years. is there any Atheist with enough conviction in his beliefs to take me up on this challenge?

You do realize you just provided an illustration of how religion is very like a con game... right?