hmmm much more mumbo jumbo. Confusion at its very worst.

k0be:

I knew KAG would be on this thread. Say cheese Mr. Atheism, it's been a while .

Cheese. What now?

Conscience does make cowards of us all.

Although on occasion it can spur even the faint-hearted to heroics.

Whew, thank you shakespeare, otherwise I wouldn't understand why an atheist would devote so much time to proving the inexistence of a God whose punctilious, unscientific ways obviously intensifies his mind.

Shakespeare was an atheist? Your God's unscientific ways intensifies his mind? I guess that's a new kind of afterlife.

Are you fascinated that most religious principles scripted in the Bible defy norm?

I wasn't fascinated until you mentioned it. What principles defy the norm?

God exists; God is real.

I doubt that.

davidylan:

hmmm much more mumbo jumbo. Confusion at its very worst.

Yes, I can see you're confused - it happens.

KAG:

I doubt that.

you've been singing this tune for over a year, its getting so boring. Maybe you should quit looking for Him since you dont believe He exists. Its surprising how many people pre-occupy themselves with trying to prove that God doesnt exist when the simplest option open to them is to just LIVE like they truly believes He doesnt exist.

davidylan:

you've been singing this tune for over a year, its getting so boring.

Okay, I'll try to find some other pitch with which to sing my song.

Maybe you should quit looking for Him since you don't believe He exists.

Hard to look for someone that isn't there, no? I'm not looking for her.

Its surprising how many people pre-occupy themselves with trying to prove that God doesnt exist when the simplest option open to them is to just LIVE like they truly believes He doesnt exist.

I'm not preoccupied with proving any God doesn't exist (if you had bothered to read the thread you'd have seen that wan't the intention of the thread). However, I'm not averse to discussion the issue of the non-existence of Gods: when I can comment or discuss, I do. Moreover, while the Christian God most likely doesn't exist, it doesn't mean people that believe she does aren't in existence.


P.S. Just out of curiousity, do you believe Allah - with the characteristics claimed for her by most Muslims - exists?

It is possible that allah exists, as much as i believe that God exists because He has proven Himself real to me on several occassions i do believe that spirits masquerading as other gods also exist.
Allah exists perhaps not in the fantasy that islam adorns him in.

Just a few questions:
why do you steadfastly believe God does not exist? Or do you believe that there are indeed no superhuman forces that exist? If you do believe such forces exist then what are they? how do you know they exist and for what purpose do they exist?

davidylan:

It is possible that allah exists, as much as i believe that God exists because He has proven Himself real to me on several occassions i do believe that spirits masquerading as other gods also exist.
Allah exists perhaps not in the fantasy that islam adorns him in.

Should I take that as you don't believe Allah (a God), as described by Muslims, exists?

Just a few questions:
why do you steadfastly believe God does not exist?

I have seen no concrete reason to believe one does.

Or do you believe that there are indeed no superhuman forces that exist? If you do believe such forces exist then what are they? how do you know they exist and for what purpose do they exist?

What do you mean by superhuman forces?

KAG:

Should I take that as you don't believe Allah (a God), as described by Muslims, exists?

as described by muslims? No he does not exist.

KAG:

I have seen no concrete reason to believe one does.

What would be your empirical test of God's existence?

KAG:

What do you mean by superhuman forces?

I mean do you believe there are other unseen forces that are beyond human comprehension or do you believe humans are the only inhabitants of the solar system?

how can you be an athiest christian
do u mean to say ur agnostic? i.e u believe theres a God/supernatural, but dont fall under any religion?

In my opinion, every Christian is sort of "faking" Christianity.

that is the genesis of your problem and it goes downhill from there. this is the same thing i addressed in my last post.
What evidence do you have for this statement? By what yardstick do you determine if they are faking it or not? How many christians have you met before making sweeping generalizations?
Again, that's just your opinion. I for one am not 'faking' christianity - that would be the most foolish thing; and i know a lot of people on this forum and elsewhere who aren't. However everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
Of course i understand why you have to assume this. if the contrary is true ie they are not 'faking' it, then you'd have to acknowledge that this thing we are talking about is REAL, and there are consequences, the very thing you don't want.

Perhaps I I should have been clearer and less abrupt when I dismissed the Bible. What I meant was it doesn't matter what the Bible says in regards to how people believe and why they believe because, especially in this instance, it is trumped by factors that it couldn't have taken into account or would have discounted anyway.

You don't have a point here; it isn't trumped by any 'factiors it couldn't have taken into account'. What factors? the bible accounts for every single facet of the faith with spot-on detail. Every important issue/factor that was to be addressed was/is addressed; i still marvel at this in my own experience. the bible CANNOT be discounted when discussing christianity - it is no surprise that you didnt get the whole gist of the faith if you think the word that describes the elements and nitty-gritty of the faith is of no importance.

There are instances when quoting the Bible is useful in a discussion; however, I didn't think it useful in that instance.

sorry, i thought we were talking about the christian faith (pardon my sarcasm)

considering that you think the bible is inconsequential as regards christianity, i really can't be surprised. If you just said 'people', i wouldn't be so concerned although i wouldn't agree. But when you add 'christians' then i have to wonder.

Not quite. I think the Bibel is inconsequential - in a sense - when it comes to the questions of why people believe, how they believe, and the influences their beliefs wield.

we might not concede many things in this argument, however i don't think its hard for you to concede that you don't have a point here. the bible might be 'inconsequential' to the hindu, it is NOT inconsequential to the christian and to christianity.
You are wrong for two reasons, the CONTENT of the belief matters (which is addressed by the bible) and the TRUTH of the belief in question also matters (which is addressed by experience).
You are making an assumption that the process of faith for different religions and belief systems work the same way or are at best similar, and can be detached from the peculiarities of the faith in question - and  you are wrong there. First, people do not believe the same things. Second, the elements that play into different belief systems aren't the same elements - my own belief system, like i've tried to elucidate here, is not isolated from the object of my belief ie Christ. So its not just about me, its about the PERSON (or being) that i believe in (if that person does indeed exist and pocesses the characteristics he claims to pocess).
No matter how much someone beliefs that if he jumps from a skyscraper he will float, if the premises on which he bases his faith is not true (ie that there is no such thing as gravity) his experience will prove him wrong. its the same with christianity - what we believe in matters and the bible is the one that explains WHAT we should believe in; if someone claims to be a christian and believes something contrary to what the bible teaches, his experience will not validate his belief.
Now you can disagree with the content of the bible ie the existence of God (upon which our premises lie) however, you cannot discountenance the importance and relevance of the bible to obtaining the christian experience. And without the need to spell it out, if you do not share the premise (in this case, God's existence) then there is no way you can have the experience - so little wonder you did not find God to be true; you never did give him a benefit of the doubt.

First, the beliefs we hold are usually what affect our actions and behaviour; ergo, a new belief, strongly held, can and has brought about significant changes in the way one thinks, behaves - basically significant changes in the nature. There are untold accounts of people who, on embracing a new religion or philosophy - it matters not which, just that they join a new religion, turn their lives around and become better people. The reverse is also true.


Second, they are Christians because of the beliefs they hold. Think, for instance, of how you classify people of other religions and philosophies. A follower of Athena isn't an Athenian believer because, as one follower has claimed, because She touched his life and has made a big change for the better in his disposition, it's because of the beliefs held.

Third, no they aren't lying, they are most likely mistaken.

Finally, not all Christians believe Jesus is God.

i've addressed the first point partly above; the other part of the reply is that the CONTENT of our beliefs differ, we are not referring to the same kind of 'change in nature'. I too, when i used to be a catholic, had a 'change in nature' but i was no where near where i am now.
Second point i've addressed before using the bible. if you don't agree no wahala.
third issue, your opinion.
Finally, like i've shown many times, you don't know what the term 'christian' means (if you did, you'd see the inherent inconsistency of that statement, 1John 5;10).

.

But again, since I hold the scriptures important to christianity, let me justify my statement. Phil. 1:6, 2;13 (just 2 of very many scriptures that teach this)
"For of this I am confident, that He who has begun a good work within you will go on to perfect it in preparation for the day of Jesus Christ."
"for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure"

I see your point but, again, it isn't the magic touch of a God that makes one a Christian.

Let me help you with phrasing; 'although your bible teaches so, i don't believe.' Shikena. Thats a better way to say it, if you had said that i probably wont budge. It is not your own opinion that detemines what makes one (me) a christian; in fact, your opinion is inconsequential to my faith. I did not believe in you; i beilieve(d) in Jesus.

Um, I don't think I said anyone was/is lying.

ok, you didn't say they are lying, you said they are hypocrites - i wonder which is better. (In case you've forgotten what you said, see 1st quote above)

The only problem is; are you even interested in the possibility of there being a God, and in meeting him if He is? the answer to that will determine a lot of things.

I'm not not interested in the possibilty of a God - I've just found the idea for and evidence of one lacking. Basically, I don't see a God existing.

Now, why didnt i ask this question first. Oh well. You've settled the matter in your mind - good. I've settled the matter in my mind and in my spirit as well - IMO, the only place God might not exist is in your mind and the minds of other atheist folks.

Do you know what a Messiah means? Do you know why there needs to be a messiah? the term messiah is not just a title, it is also a responsibility. There is a work that the messiah had to accomplish on behalf of every individual. Do you know the work of the Messiah? Have you experienced that work in your life and reaped its benefits?

Yes

what do you mean 'yes'?

NB; Just to put the whole thing in perspective because i probably won't continue the argument and so many words detract from the central issue;
the whole point of the argument was this; what makes one a christian? you said;

I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.

AND

Christians - aren't changed because of the actions of any Gods or Spirits, they are most likely changed by the beliefs they adopt and hold strongly.

I've showed you that the bible teaches the contrary. And i've argued that the bible is the determinant of the christian faith because it defines 'what to believe'. However, since you don't agree that there is a God, you disagree.
I don't have any problem with you disagreeing, but i have a problem with you trying to tell me what being a christian is when it is CLEARLY in contradiction with what the bible teaches. You can stick to your own convictions or lack therof but quit making sweeping statements about christianity especially when you cannot back those claims from the bible - like i said earlier, it is not your own opinion that determines what christianity is or should be. Cheers.

Shakespeare was an atheist? Your God's unscientific ways intensifies his mind? I guess that's a new kind of afterlife.

You obviously need lessons on reading.  I was thanking shakespeare for helping me understand why an atheist(such as yourself) would devote so much time to proving the inexistence of the almighty  .

Are you fascinated that most religious principles scripted in the Bible defy norm?

Fascinated? No, with God anything's possible.

I wasn't fascinated until you mentioned it. What principles defy the norm?

You were, that's why you felt the need to disprove most things said in the bible.

I doubt that.

Of course he exists.  Has your science been very capable of proving why the world is the way it is today?
Nobody in their right frame of mind would lay a foundation of trust on their shaky theories.

k0be:

Nobody in their right frame of mind would lay a foundation of trust on their shaky theories.

Get off the internet and throw away your mobile phone, you silly Luddite

Get off the internet and throw away your mobile phone, you silly Luddite

What does that have to do with the foundation I'm talking about here, you silly iconoclast.
Face the truth, your dear scientific theories haven't been able to explain what brought about our world. christianity tells you all you need to know dear infidel.

davidylan:

What do you mean by superhuman forces?

I mean do you believe there are other unseen forces that are beyond human comprehension or do you believe humans are the only inhabitants of the solar system?

Another false dichotomy. So it's either unseen forces exist beyond human comprehension or humans are the only inhabitants of the solar system. It seems that your otherwise sharp mind immediately loses it's edge when it comes to your religion. Must you really put your brain on hold when considering religious questions?

k0be:

Get off the internet and throw away your mobile phone, you silly Luddite

What does that have to do with the foundation I'm talking about here, you silly iconoclast.

Foundation? Which foundation? Are you talking about the collection of incoherent fables commonly known as the Bible?

k0be:

Face the truth, your dear scientific theories haven't been able to explain what brought about our world.

Our world? They definitely have. When it comes to the universe, the currently proposed explanations in cosmology definitely are far more compelling than anything religion has to bring. I don't have very much confidence in your understanding of the scientific method though, so I won't bother to undermine your fantasies.

k0be:

christianity tells you all you need to know dear infidel.

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - [b]never [/b]rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

nferyn:

I mean do you believe there are other unseen forces that are beyond human comprehension or do you believe humans are the only inhabitants of the solar system?

Another false dichotomy. So it's either unseen forces exist beyond human comprehension or humans are the only inhabitants of the solar system. It seems that your otherwise sharp mind immediately loses it's edge when it comes to your religion. Must you really put your brain on hold when considering religious questions?

no problem, in anticipation of mindsets like this the bible already said: the carnal mind cannot comprehend the things of the spirit.

davidylan:

no problem, in anticipation of mindsets like this the bible already said: the carnal mind cannot comprehend the things of the spirit.

Now your reasoning has come full circle or should I say you reached the zenith of what can be achieved through circular reasoning (not very much I'm afraid), though you can still take it a little further and go presuppositional like Plantinga.

nferyn:

Are you talking about the collection of incoherent fables commonly known as the Bible?

Your opinion. Everybody is entitled to his. Just because it is incoherent to you does not mean it is incoherent to everyone.

nferyn:

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never [/b]rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

I like your passion, but it gets overheated sometimes. I wonder where you got this notion from; i'd assume from the 'incoherent' scriptures. However, yet again, you are misinformed.
Luke 4;39
"Then standing over her He rebuked [b]the fever, and it left her; and she at once rose and waited on them." (it didnt say he rebuked the demon)
I don't think its asking too much of him not to have used the term 'germ' - considering when the term came about.
Another example;
Luke 8;44 "Came after him and put her hand on the edge of his robe, and straight away the flowing of her blood was stopped." (Not 'the demon left')
Yet again,
Luke 4;40-41 "While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He healed them" (NOT; 'he cast out the demons').
In healing people suffering from sicknesses, he might have encountered people that were demon pocessed (spiritually sick) and they also encountered his healing as stated in the next verse there:
"41 Moreover, demons came out of many people," ie In addition, (signifying something extra), they came out of many, not all.

Now i'm not saying the bible doesn't mention instances of sicknesses caused by evil spirits, it does (and i don't expect you to agree with that). But that is just some; the bible doesn't teach that all sicknesses are caused by demons. The bible in luke talks of 'various kinds of sicknesses' (Luke 4;40) - some could be as a result of demonic affliction, but many are caused by other things.
Luke 6;18,19
'who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by evil spirits were cured, 19 and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all." [Regardless of the cause of their sickness - (my addition)]
the emphasis on 'those' there showed that its just some. And like i earlier said, it is possible to assume that he referred to those troubled 'spiritually' and not necessarily physically - but that might not be necessary (and is not always the case).

BTW, the writer of Luke was a physician (Col. 4;4) (if you care to accept that he even existed). Cheers.

Lol, nferyn climaxes anytime a Christian comments about the "shaky foundations of scientific theories" he holds dear . Dude cracks me up errtime with his err. . .disses

Silly Luddite. . . . . ROFL

lol gbade, too funny, -climaxes-

Foundation? Which foundation? Are you talking about the collection of incoherent fables commonly known as the Bible?

it must hurt you deep down inside that billions around the world are raving about these incoherent fables , most importantly knowing there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Our world? They definitely have. When it comes to the universe, the currently proposed explanations in cosmology definitely are far more compelling than anything religion has to bring. I don't have very much confidence in your understanding of the scientific method though, so I won't bother to undermine your fantasies.

yawn. keep hallucinating. your delusions are clearly preventing you from reasoning logically.
which "ism" offered this explanation so I can urge google to pull out the faults with these theories.

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

lol, I didn't mean to hit a very sensitive nerve. I'll do just that, then what?
I don't understand why you're unable to reason like a normal human being. Does that little sentence I uttered mean all scientific theories are unusable? no. it's very hard for someone like you to see that however, your hatred for religion diminishes from your ability to think properly.

gbade. x:

Lol, nferyn climaxes anytime a Christian comments about the "shaky foundations of scientific theories" he holds dear . Dude cracks me up errtime with his err. . .disses

Silly Luddite. . . . . ROFL

All I know is that the dude methodically administers asswhipings to these "circular logic reasoning" fools. I really enjoy reading his posts.

@ dtw_sola :

Methodically admnistering asswhipping? Lol, please don't make me laugh in chinese. The dude merely cyber-self-services anytime he see a comment by a Christian concerning whatever "theories" he holds dear to heart. It's almost as if it's a life and death situation for him.

"circular logical reasoning" fools? Perhaps, u should ask urself how much your insults have gotten u so far. What has it done to help whatever you are arguing about? If you and ur crew can't come round the table and respect what i as a believer believes in and applies logic to/in, then don't argue with us in the first place. Abi what is the bloody point? Like david wisely pointed out, what is the use arguing with people on the opposite ("fools" as u call it) since you regard them as "fools"? Abi d tin dey pinch una for bodi?

ricadelide:

Are you talking about the collection of incoherent fables commonly known as the Bible?

Your opinion. Everybody is entitled to his. Just because it is incoherent to you does not mean it is incoherent to everyone.

It's objectively incoherent and takes a lot of mental gymnastics to give it a semblance of coherence. But then again, what can one expect from a book that is collected from several authors over more than a millennium.

ricadelide:

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

I like your passion, but it gets overheated sometimes. I wonder where you got this notion from; i'd assume from the 'incoherent' scriptures. However, yet again, you are misinformed.

You're sidestepping the issue, whether or not the Bible can be made 'consistent' with our current knowledge is not what I'm arguing for. I only wanted to expose that the claim that christianity is all you need to know is rather silly, if not outright idiotic.

Apart from the fact that 'prophecising' the germ theory of disease at that point in history would have done far more to establish the validity of the Bible than any of the other vague prophecies it touts, the only possible cause of disease the Bible came up with at that moment was demonic or otherwise spiritual possession.
It's quite obvious that the Bible really doesn't contain any practical (scientific) knowledge that could help to advance the lot of humankind in this day and age

ricadelide:

Luke 4;39
"Then standing over her He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she at once rose and waited on them." (it didnt say he rebuked the demon)
I don't think its asking too much of him not to have used the term 'germ' - considering when the term came about.

It seems you're using a more sanitised version of the Bible than the KJV. Anyway, fever is a symptom of disease, it doesn't say anything about the origin thereof. Every time the origin of disease is discussed it's either demonic possession or other spiritual problems that are discussed. One could conclude that the Bible doesn't really contain much useful information at all concerning disease.

ricadelide:

Another example;
Luke 8;44 "Came after him and put her hand on the edge of his robe, and straight away the flowing of her blood was stopped." (Not 'the demon left')

So, what was the cause and how does that make the Bible 'the only thing I need to know? Your defense of the indefensible is astonishing. Why on earth did you study to become an MD when the Bible is 'all you need to know?'

ricadelide:

Yet again,
Luke 4;40-41 "While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He healed them" (NOT; 'he cast out the demons').
In healing people suffering from sicknesses, he might have encountered people that were demon pocessed (spiritually sick) and they also encountered his healing as stated in the next verse there:
"41 Moreover, demons came out of many people," ie In addition, (signifying something extra), they came out of many, not all.

Funny that there are far less demon possessions than in Biblical times. It's a bit comparable to the declining quality of miracles. no more parting of seas anymore. Maybe the real reason is that the medical profession and medical research have found the real causes of disease instead of ignorantly boasting of demonic possessions like during the heyday of Christianity. Why on earth did Pasteur even come up with his idiotic theories if 'christianity is all you need to know'.

ricadelide:

Now i'm not saying the bible doesn't mention instances of sicknesses caused by evil spirits, it does (and i don't expect you to agree with that). But that is just some; the bible doesn't teach that all sicknesses are caused by demons. The bible in luke talks of 'various kinds of sicknesses' (Luke 4;40) - some could be as a result of demonic affliction, but many are caused by other things.
Luke 6;18,19
'who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by evil spirits were cured, 19 and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all." [Regardless of the cause of their sickness - (my addition)]
the emphasis on 'those' there showed that its just some. And like i earlier said, it is possible to assume that he referred to those troubled 'spiritually' and not necessarily physically - but that might not be necessary (and is not always the case).

Troubled spirituality? Is that the current newspeak for demonic possession? It's similar to collateral damage or maybe pacification. Anything to make it sound 'acceptable' to modern ears. Christians of old thought those demons and spirits were quite real physical entities, but those times have (luckily) long gone. Whatever it takes to salvage the word of God, no?

ricadelide:

BTW, the writer of Luke was a physician (Col. 4;4) (if you care to accept that he even existed). Cheers.

There was definitely someone that wrote the gospel of Luke, who it was, nobody can say with any level of confidence.

It's objectively incoherent and takes a lot of mental gymnastics to give it a semblance of coherence. But then again, what can one expect from a book that is collected from several authors over more than a millennium.

more like subjectively incoherent, because some of us - rather, many of us - do find it very coherent - so obviously the problem doesn't lie in the bible itself (except our minds are decieving us )

You're sidestepping the issue, whether or not the Bible can be made 'consistent' with our current knowledge is not what I'm arguing for. I only wanted to expose that the claim that christianity is all you need to know is rather silly, if not outright idiotic.

you said,

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

Perhaps i shouldn't have assumed; from your statement, especially your emphasis, you seemed to imply that the bible teaches that diseases are caused by demons; and if you read my post well you'd notice that that was what i was arguing against.

Of course the bible is not all you need to know. Why do we go to school and study? If that was the issue at hand then why would i even bother to reply? everybody knows that. The bible is very specific in what it address, albeit via different perspectives and through different contexts; the issue of God and his relationship with his people. I assumed you had a more saline (or perhaps, subtle) point - ie the issue of the bible teaching that demons caused every disease - and that was what i tried to address, and if you noticed, i said Luke was a physician - did he become one by reading the old testament? Of course not. Some other scholars are found in the bible, Daniel, Job's friends, Paul (religious scholar) etc, they didnt rely only on biblical information.

Apart from the fact that 'prophecising'  the germ theory of disease at that point in history would have done far more to establish the validity of the Bible than any of the other vague prophecies it touts, the only possible cause of disease the Bible came up with at that moment was demonic or otherwise spiritual possession.
It's quite obvious that the Bible really doesn't contain any practical (scientific) knowledge that could help to advance the lot of humankind in this day and age

again, all the reading yet not arriving at any new knowledge. From what i addressed, it should be obvious that the point was that He is able to heal any/every disease regardless of the cause. the cause was not important as long as the people get healed. the emphasis is on his power, rather than whatever the cause was.
To your mind prophesying the germ theory of disease might seem to be something of importance, however to God and to folks that mind the things of God, he couldn't care less because the goal is not to glorify the cause, but the ability of the healer. The bible is not about the creation and anything in it (which science tries to study and understand), it is about the creator - Jesus himself. Scientific knowledge has little or no spiritual value, that is why the bible is not a science textbook. NB - The issue of the 'advancement of the lot of humankind' might be something we could discuss later on more specifically. I seem to be interested in that.

It seems you're using a more sanitised version of the Bible than the KJV. Anyway, fever is a symptom of disease, it doesn't say anything about the origin thereof. Every time the origin of disease is discussed it's either demonic possession or other spiritual problems that are discussed. One could conclude that the Bible doesn't really contain much useful information at all concerning disease.

I don't use KJV. I use NIV and other newer translations; i don't speak archaic english . Like i have said, my arguement was to show you that the bible does not teach that demons cause all diseases and your post kind of gave me reason to infer that. And again, like i have said, the cause is not important, what is important is getting healed.

So, what was the cause and how does that make the Bible 'the only thing I need to know? Your defense of the indefensible is astonishing. Why on earth did you study to become an MD when the Bible is 'all you need to know?'

for goodness sake! (j/k) - reading my post would have shown what my arguement was. OK, Let me formally apologize; sorry for misreading you. we seem to misread each other. the last time it was you, now its my turn This point ('the only thing i need to know') was so simplistic, it didnt even come across to me as an issue worthy of a discussion. And I doubt if that was the insinuation of k0be as well (like he explained in his rejoinder).
NB - i'm not an MD, i'm a DVM (the difference lies in the number of species studied, and the importance placed on the said species, lol)

Funny that there are far less demon possessions than in Biblical times. It's a bit comparable to the declining quality of miracles. no more parting of seas anymore. Maybe the real reason is that the medical profession and medical research have found the real causes of disease instead of ignorantly boasting of demonic possessions like during the heyday of Christianity. Why on earth did Pasteur even come up with his idiotic theories if 'christianity is all you need to know'.

I never did say 'christianity is all you need to know'. If i did, in my own endeavours, i'm already living contrary to that. And no, there aren't 'far less demonic possessions than in biblical times' there might be far less diagnosis, and the cases thereof might warrant far less media attention, but they go on nonetheless. And genuine quality miracles still continue to happen.

Troubled spirituality? Is that the current newspeak for demonic possession? It's similar to collateral damage or maybe pacification. Anything to make it sound 'acceptable' to modern ears. Christians of old thought those demons and spirits were quite real physical entities, but those times have (luckily) long gone. Whatever it takes to salvage the word of God, no?

First, i didnt say; 'troubled spirituality', i said 'troubled spiritually' (there's a considerable amount of difference) and i had spiritually in quotes, for the simple reason that you don't accept nor believe in spirit realm nor in spirits. I thought i was being polite; perhaps it didnt help. I try to put myself in the position of the person i'm addressing as much as possible. But i was not trying to belittle the reality of the situation in any way; they are still thought to be real entities by christians today, including me. There's nothing to be 'salvaged', what needs to be done is to help people understand things better. I have witnessed cases like that first-hand, so i'm not rehashing hearsay.

There was definitely someone that wrote the gospel of Luke, who it was, nobody can say with any level of confidence.

Although the writer of Luke-Acts did not mention his name, I have a lot of reasons to confidently assume that Luke wrote that gospel. I never did expect you to agree, like i insinuated in my post. Cheers .

davidylan:

as described by muslims? No he does not exist.

How did you come to that conclusion? Also, do you understand, then, that you arguing against the existence of the Muslim God doesn't validate her existence?

What would be your empirical test of God's existence?

None. I don't claim to be able to test for the existence of any God.

I mean do you believe there are other unseen forces that are beyond human comprehension or do you believe humans are the only inhabitants of the solar system?

Oh. I suspect we aren't the only living beings in the Universe (with the countless number of galaxies it's almost obscene to think we're the only living beings in the Universe) and I know there are forces that are currently beyond our comprehension.

k0be:

What does that have to do with the foundation I'm talking about here, you silly iconoclast.
Face the truth, your dear scientific theories haven't been able to explain what brought about our world. christianity tells you all you need to know dear infidel.

Actually, that's not quite true. Look up planetary formation.

[/quote][quote author=k0be link=topic=9356.msg1273416#msg1273416 date=1183938916]
You obviously need lessons on reading.  I was thanking shakespeare for helping me understand why an atheist(such as yourself) would devote so much time to proving the inexistence of the almighty  .

Hmm, I guess I either didn't parse it properly or you didn't express that thought as eloquently as you believe you did. So, how did Shakespeare help you understand the mindset of atheists? Also, how much is "so much time"?

Fascinated? No, with God anything's possible.

That's the beauty of fantasy: anything is possible. By the way, I didn't ask: "Are you fascinated that most religious principles scripted in the Bible defy norm?" You did.

You were, that's why you felt the need to disprove most things said in the bible.

Um, no I wasn't fascinated by it. Back to my question, what religious principles defy the norm?

Of course he exists.  Has your science been very capable of proving why the world is the way it is today?
Nobody in their right frame of mind would lay a foundation of trust on their shaky theories.

Prove? Using the strict definition of that word and eschewing dogmatism, science leaves proof to liquor. However, there are ample theories that explain, using evidence, why the world is the way it is. Also, everybody in their right mind lay foundations of trust on science theories and in many cases have had to do so on shaky theories.

ricadelide:

In my opinion, every Christian is sort of "faking" Christianity.

that is the genesis of your problem and it goes downhill from there. this is the same thing i addressed in my last post.
What evidence do you have for this statement? By what yardstick do you determine if they are faking it or not? How many christians have you met before making sweeping generalizations?
Again, that's just your opinion. I for one am not 'faking' christianity - that would be the most foolish thing; and i know a lot of people on this forum and elsewhere who aren't. However everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
Of course i understand why you have to assume this. if the contrary is true ie they are not 'faking' it, then you'd have to acknowledge that this thing we are talking about is REAL, and there are consequences, the very thing you don't want.

The "evidence" for my claim are somewhat circumstantial. That is not to say, though, that they don't represent reality. I've concluded that every Christian is in a sense "faking" Christianity (in much the same way other religious adherents are responding to the "spirituality" of their respective religions) based on several facts which include: the exactly similar responses in other, often opposing religions; the lack of existence of any Gods and Godmen (in the theological sense); the human mind's ability to formulate delusions and be deluded; the report of former fundamentalists and true believers. Also, the claim is dependent on the number of Christians I've met or studied.

Perhaps I I should have been clearer and less abrupt when I dismissed the Bible. What I meant was it doesn't matter what the Bible says in regards to how people believe and why they believe because, especially in this instance, it is trumped by factors that it couldn't have taken into account or would have discounted anyway.

You don't have a point here; it isn't trumped by any 'factiors it couldn't have taken into account'. What factors? the bible accounts for every single facet of the faith with spot-on detail. Every important issue/factor that was to be addressed was/is addressed; i still marvel at this in my own experience. the bible CANNOT be discounted when discussing christianity - it is no surprise that you didnt get the whole gist of the faith if you think the word that describes the elements and nitty-gritty of the faith is of no importance.

The factors include the the psychology of faith and its ubiquity - it's probably not surprising to note that most human experiences with the so called spiritual, articles of faith, and inane beliefs, tend not to differ significantly, if at all. 

In any case, how does the Bible account for faith? Furthermore, I think you've misunderstood. When I was a Christian I would have made the same assertion you've made: "the bible CANNOT be discounted when discussing christianity". Sure it would have missed the point that I was making, but it would have been a response I would have considered. Basically, it would be wrong to presume that because I now acknowledge that the Bible is irrelevant in a discussion that explores how people, including or especially Christians, believe, that "I didn't get the whole gist of the faith" (not to say that I did, though)

[Quote]

There are instances when quoting the Bible is useful in a discussion; however, I didn't think it useful in that instance.

sorry, i thought we were talking about the christian faith (pardon my sarcasm)[/quote]

In a sense, yes, but as part of a larger subject and in relation to the general human mind.

[Quote]

considering that you think the bible is inconsequential as regards christianity, i really can't be surprised. If you just said 'people', i wouldn't be so concerned although i wouldn't agree. But when you add 'christians' then i have to wonder.

Not quite. I think the Bible is inconsequential - in a sense - when it comes to the questions of why people believe, how they believe, and the influences their beliefs wield.

we might not concede many things in this argument, however i don't think its hard for you to concede that you don't have a point here. the bible might be 'inconsequential' to the hindu, it is NOT inconsequential to the christian and to christianity. [/quote]

No, you've missed my point again: when it comes to the questions of why people believe, how they believe, and the influences their beliefs wield, the Bible is inconsequential. I haven't said the Bible is inconsequential to a Christian or anything of the sort.

You are wrong for two reasons, the CONTENT of the belief matters (which is addressed by the bible) and the TRUTH of the belief in question also matters (which is addressed by experience).

The primary question isn't what is contained within the religion per se, it's how and why people believe what they believe.

You are making an assumption that the process of faith for different religions and belief systems work the same way or are at best similar, and can be detached from the peculiarities of the faith in question - and  you are wrong there.

I diasgree that I'm wrong. The processes of faith are actually remarkably similar, the feelings - of rapture, closeness to the God(s)/Godess(es)/nature - are generally indistinguishable, and the importance attached to the beliefs are pretty much the same.

First, people do not believe the same things.

I know; that fact is irrelevant when it comes to the shared experience of the adherents of varying religions.

Second, the elements that play into different belief systems aren't the same elements - my own belief system, like i've tried to elucidate here, is not isolated from the object of my belief ie Christ. So its not just about me, its about the PERSON (or being) that i believe in (if that person does indeed exist and pocesses the characteristics he claims to pocess).
No matter how much someone beliefs that if he jumps from a skyscraper he will float, if the premises on which he bases his faith is not true (ie that there is no such thing as gravity) his experience will prove him wrong. its the same with christianity - what we believe in matters and the bible is the one that explains WHAT we should believe in; if someone claims to be a christian and believes something contrary to what the bible teaches, his experience will not validate his belief.
Now you can disagree with the content of the bible ie the existence of God (upon which our premises lie) however, you cannot discountenance the importance and relevance of the bible to obtaining the christian experience.

In response to your assertion that your belief is centered on a being other than yourself, I should point out that most theists share that trait with you. Also, while you have a valid reason to assume that experience would often rid a person of a belief shown wrong, it's not often the case in religions. From the faith of Mormons standing firm despite concrete evidence disproving their faith based belief to firm Christian geocentricists remaining unmoved despite the findings of modern times, we often observe that people are reluctant to give up their faith based beliefs.

Finally, again, I'm not discounting the relevance of the Bible to a Christian; I considered it inconsequential in a matter that it couldn't explain appropriatel, if at all.

And without the need to spell it out, if you do not share the premise (in this case, God's existence) then there is no way you can have the experience - so little wonder you did not find God to be true; you never did give him a benefit of the doubt.

Once again, you're mistaking the sceptic for the one time believer (and vice versa).

[Quote]
First, the beliefs we hold are usually what affect our actions and behaviour; ergo, a new belief, strongly held, can and has brought about significant changes in the way one thinks, behaves - basically significant changes in the nature. There are untold accounts of people who, on embracing a new religion or philosophy - it matters not which, just that they join a new religion, turn their lives around and become better people. The reverse is also true.


Second, they are Christians because of the beliefs they hold. Think, for instance, of how you classify people of other religions and philosophies. A follower of Athena isn't an Athenian believer because, as one follower has claimed, because She touched his life and has made a big change for the better in his disposition, it's because of the beliefs held.

Third, no they aren't lying, they are most likely mistaken.

Finally, not all Christians believe Jesus is God.

i've addressed the first point partly above; the other part of the reply is that the CONTENT of our beliefs differ, we are not referring to the same kind of 'change in nature'. I too, when i used to be a catholic, had a 'change in nature' but i was no where near where i am now.[/quote]

I have asked what kind of change in nature you mean. Do you mind elucidating?

Second point i've addressed before using the bible. if you don't agree no wahala.

Then, perhaps, my response still holds.

third issue, your opinion.

Indeed.

Finally, like i've shown many times, you don't know what the term 'christian' means (if you did, you'd see the inherent inconsistency of that statement, 1John 5;10).

How does that change the fact that you don't have to believe Jesus is the same as God to be Christian?

[Quote]
But again, since I hold the scriptures important to christianity, let me justify my statement. Phil. 1:6, 2;13 (just 2 of very many scriptures that teach this)
"For of this I am confident, that He who has begun a good work within you will go on to perfect it in preparation for the day of Jesus Christ."
"for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure"

I see your point but, again, it isn't the magic touch of a God that makes one a Christian.

Let me help you with phrasing; 'although your bible teaches so, i don't believe.' Shikena. Thats a better way to say it, if you had said that i probably wont budge. It is not your own opinion that detemines what makes one (me) a christian; in fact, your opinion is inconsequential to my faith. I did not believe in you; i beilieve(d) in Jesus.[/quote]

I believe I'm operating on more than just my opinion, in this instance.

[Quote]
Um, I don't think I said anyone was/is lying.

ok, you didn't say they are lying, you said they are hypocrites - i wonder which is better. (In case you've forgotten what you said, see 1st quote above)[/quote]



Um, no, I didn't say anyone is a hypocrite either.

[Quote][Quote]
The only problem is; are you even interested in the possibility of there being a God, and in meeting him if He is? the answer to that will determine a lot of things.
I'm not not interested in the possibilty of a God - I've just found the idea for and evidence of one lacking. Basically, I don't see a God existing.[/quote]
Now, why didnt i ask this question first. Oh well. You've settled the matter in your mind - good. I've settled the matter in my mind and in my spirit as well - IMO, the only place God might not exist is in your mind and the minds of other atheist folks.[/quote]

Or not at all. In any case, I wait with bated breath for concrete evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

[Quote]
Do you know what a Messiah means? Do you know why there needs to be a messiah? the term messiah is not just a title, it is also a responsibility. There is a work that the messiah had to accomplish on behalf of every individual. Do you know the work of the Messiah? Have you experienced that work in your life and reaped its benefits?

Yes[/quote]
what do you mean 'yes'?

[/quote]

Yes to all the questions above.

[quote]NB; Just to put the whole thing in perspective because i probably won't continue the argument and so many words detract from the central issue;
the whole point of the argument was this; what makes one a christian? you said;

Quote
I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.
AND

Quote
Christians - aren't changed because of the actions of any Gods or Spirits, they are most likely changed by the beliefs they adopt and hold strongly.
I've showed you that the bible teaches the contrary. And i've argued that the bible is the determinant of the christian faith because it defines 'what to believe'. However, since you don't agree that there is a God, you disagree.
I don't have any problem with you disagreeing, but i have a problem with you trying to tell me what being a christian is when it is CLEARLY in contradiction with what the bible teaches.

Actually, I believe my central answer was that a Christian is, basically, a person that believes in Jesus, etc. If you want Biblical support, I will point you in the direction of the famous John 3: 16.

What you've quoted are a step above that and are taken somewhat out of context.

You can stick to your own convictions or lack therof but quit making sweeping statements about christianity especially when you cannot back those claims from the bible - like i said earlier, it is not your own opinion that determines what christianity is or should be. Cheers.

Again, more than my solely my opinion.

k0be:

Foundation? Which foundation? Are you talking about the collection of incoherent fables commonly known as the Bible?

it must hurt you deep down inside that billions around the world are raving about these incoherent fables , most importantly knowing there's nothing you can do to stop it.

It hurts me indeed to see how many people's lives have been destroyed in the name of these fables. From molested altar boys to the witches [/i]burned at the stake, from the Kathars to the [i]Reconquista , from the sack of Jerusalem to the Ustasha. And we shouldn't forget the tolerant behaviour of Calvin in Vienna or the impact of the anti-Semitic pamphlets of Luther. I must say that that is really an excellent foundation indeed, for bigotry and intolerance

k0be:

Our world? They definitely have. When it comes to the universe, the currently proposed explanations in cosmology definitely are far more compelling than anything religion has to bring. I don't have very much confidence in your understanding of the scientific method though, so I won't bother to undermine your fantasies.

yawn. keep hallucinating. your delusions are clearly preventing you from reasoning logically.

I guess you wouldn't recognise logic when it bites you in the ass.
Let's break it down for the less intelligent among us:
* what hallucinations?
* which delusions?
* what illogical reasoning?

k0be:

which "ism" offered this explanation so I can urge google to pull out the faults with these theories.
lol, I didn't mean to hit a very sensitive nerve. I'll do just that, then what?

The origin of the cosmos: the Big bang theory holds out pretty well under scrutiny contrary to Biblical cosmology. Be careful the firmament doesn't fall on your head though.
The origin of life: there are several reasonably well established abiogenesis hypotheses, but of course, instantaneous creation of all the species by God offers a more parsimonious explanation, doesn't it?
The origin of biodiversity: The modern synthesis in evolutionary biology combined with the latest findings of evo-devo do a splendid job in explaining biodiversity, but I guess you must have a far more compelling case.

On the other hand, what really is your foundation and for what reasons? I haven't seen much of substance in your posts thus far.

k0be:

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

I don't understand why you're unable to reason like a normal human being.

If your reasoning ability is anything to go by, I guess I should be glad not to be able to reason like a 'normal' human being like yourself. Proudly 'alien'.

k0be:

Does that little sentence I uttered mean all scientific theories are unusable? no. it's very hard for someone like you to see that however, your hatred for religion diminishes from your ability to think properly.

Could you begin to substantiate that cheap slur instead of dancing around the hot potato?

ricadelide:

It's objectively incoherent and takes a lot of mental gymnastics to give it a semblance of coherence. But then again, what can one expect from a book that is collected from several authors over more than a millennium.

more like subjectively incoherent, because some of us - rather, many of us - do find it very coherent - so obviously the problem doesn't lie in the bible itself (except our minds are decieving us )

Anyone who even looked cursory into the functioning of the human brain will know that our minds are deceiving us all the time. Both memory and perception are constructed realities that do not necessarily correspond with the external, objective reality. The only problem is that most people like to ignore that simple fact or aren't exposed to that knowledge.

ricadelide:

You're sidestepping the issue, whether or not the Bible can be made 'consistent' with our current knowledge is not what I'm arguing for. I only wanted to expose that the claim that christianity is all you need to know is rather silly, if not outright idiotic.

you said,

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

you said,Perhaps i shouldn't have assumed; from your statement, especially your emphasis, you seemed to imply that the bible teaches that diseases are caused by demons; and if you read my post well you'd notice that that was what i was arguing against.

1. I wasn't arguing against you, but against the statement that all you need is the Bible. K0be started the interchange with the following statement (emphasis mine):

Of course he exists. Has your science been very capable of proving why the world is the way it is today?
Nobody in their right frame of mind would lay a foundation of trust on their shaky theories.

2. In this context, my reply was very much to the point. If one rejects scientific knowledge, one should be consequent and also reject the products and applied knowledge that result from it.
3. The Bible indeed doesn't exclusively teach that disease is caused by demons, but it is the only cause of disease it singles out and that, in the context of K0be's statement, is very much to the point

ricadelide:

Of course the bible is not all you need to know. Why do we go to school and study? If that was the issue at hand then why would i even bother to reply? everybody knows that.

Apparently it wasn't all that clear to K0be.

ricadelide:

The bible is very specific in what it address, albeit via different perspectives and through different contexts; the issue of God and his relationship with his people. I assumed you had a more saline (or perhaps, subtle) point - ie the issue of the bible teaching that demons caused every disease - and that was what i tried to address, and if you noticed, i said Luke was a physician - did he become one by reading the old testament? Of course not. Some other scholars are found in the bible, Daniel, Job's friends, Paul (religious scholar) etc, they didnt rely only on biblical information.

Tell that to K0be.

ricadelide:

Apart from the fact that 'prophecising' the germ theory of disease at that point in history would have done far more to establish the validity of the Bible than any of the other vague prophecies it touts, the only possible cause of disease the Bible came up with at that moment was demonic or otherwise spiritual possession.
It's quite obvious that the Bible really doesn't contain any practical (scientific) knowledge that could help to advance the lot of humankind in this day and age

again, all the reading yet not arriving at any new knowledge. From what i addressed, it should be obvious that the point was that He is able to heal any/every disease regardless of the cause. the cause was not important as long as the people get healed. the emphasis is on his power, rather than whatever the cause was.

This is really irrelevant to what I tried to address. Anyway, if that is indeed the focus of the Bible, why don't you (more specifically in your rejection of the TOE) stop reading the Bible as if it were a foundational document for all the natural sciences.

ricadelide:

To your mind prophesying the germ theory of disease might seem to be something of importance, however to God and to folks that mind the things of God, he couldn't care less because the goal is not to glorify the cause, but the ability of the healer. The bible is not about the creation and anything in it (which science tries to study and understand), it is about the creator - Jesus himself.

But still so many Christian apologists like to use fulfilled [/i]prophecy as an argument in favour of the Bible. If it were God's intention to make it abundantly clear to humankind that the Bible is his message, he could have used something that could convince people that don't already believe. For example, prophecising the germ theory of disease would be one thing that could convince me. Or maybe he really doesn't want to save me and people like myself.

ricadelide:
Scientific knowledge has little or no spiritual value, that is why the bible is not a science textbook. NB - The issue of the 'advancement of the lot of humankind' might be something we could discuss later on more specifically. I seem to be interested in that.

I would very much like that. I enjoyed our conversations thus far.

ricadelide:

It seems you're using a more sanitised version of the Bible than the KJV. Anyway, fever is a symptom of disease, it doesn't say anything about the origin thereof. Every time the origin of disease is discussed it's either demonic possession or other spiritual problems that are discussed. One could conclude that the Bible doesn't really contain much useful information at all concerning disease.

I don't use KJV. I use NIV and other newer translations; i don't speak archaic english .

The KJV does have it's literary qualities in the very least and it's the only English version I'm really familiar with anyway.

ricadelide:

Like i have said, my arguement was to show you that the bible does not [i]teach that demons cause all diseases and your post kind of gave me reason to infer that. And again, like i have said, the cause is not important, what is important is getting healed.

Fair enough, but that wasn't really the core of my argument.

ricadelide:

So, what was the cause and how does that make the Bible 'the only thing I need to know? Your defense of the indefensible is astonishing. Why on earth did you study to become an MD when the Bible is 'all you need to know?'

for goodness sake! (j/k) - reading my post would have shown what my arguement was. OK, Let me formally apologize; sorry for misreading you. we seem to misread each other. the last time it was you, now its my turn

My mistake, sorry.

ricadelide:

This point ('the only thing i need to know') was so simplistic, it didnt even come across to me as an issue worthy of a discussion. And I doubt if that was the insinuation of k0be as well (like he explained in his rejoinder).

He did somewhat back pedal, yes, but his original argument was quite clear.

ricadelide:

Funny that there are far less demon possessions than in Biblical times. It's a bit comparable to the declining quality of miracles. no more parting of seas anymore. Maybe the real reason is that the medical profession and medical research have found the real causes of disease instead of ignorantly boasting of demonic possessions like during the heyday of Christianity. Why on earth did Pasteur even come up with his idiotic theories if 'christianity is all you need to know'.

NB - i'm not an MD, i'm a DVM (the difference lies in the number of species studied, and the importance placed on the said species, lol)

I was clearly assuming too much, but the principles remain the same don't they?

ricadelide:

I never did say 'christianity is all you need to know'. If i did, in my own endeavours, i'm already living contrary to that. And no, there aren't 'far less demonic possessions than in biblical times' there might be far less diagnosis, and the cases thereof might warrant far less media attention, but they go on nonetheless. And genuine quality miracles still continue to happen.

And the locality of theses diagnoses gravitate towards those areas where there is a higher level of belief in the supernatural. Perception bias, perhaps?

ricadelide:

Troubled spirituality? Is that the current newspeak for demonic possession? It's similar to collateral damage or maybe pacification. Anything to make it sound 'acceptable' to modern ears. Christians of old thought those demons and spirits were quite real physical entities, but those times have (luckily) long gone. Whatever it takes to salvage the word of God, no?

First, i didnt say; 'troubled spirituality', i said 'troubled spiritually' (there's a considerable amount of difference) and i had spiritually in quotes, for the simple reason that you don't accept nor believe in spirit realm nor in spirits.

Sorry for the cheap shot. I should have worded it differently

ricadelide:

I thought i was being polite; perhaps it didnt help. I try to put myself in the position of the person i'm addressing as much as possible. But i was not trying to belittle the reality of the situation in any way; they are still thought to be real entities by christians today, including me. There's nothing to be 'salvaged', what needs to be done is to help people understand things better. I have witnessed cases like that first-hand, so i'm not rehashing hearsay.

And I wouldn't assume you did. Knowing how belief systems operate and how easy people, even highly educated and intelligent ones, can be fooled, I don't fault you for thinking you really did witness these cases. I hope you can one day bring yourself to employ the same level of scrutiny to your belief system as you would to your every day scientific work.
Anyway, I would every much like to discuss with you how one can operationalise the spiritual realm as you call it in order for it to become tangible. As it does interact with the natural, physical world - as professed by believers - there must be a way to test it.

ricadelide:

There was definitely someone that wrote the gospel of Luke, who it was, nobody can say with any level of confidence.

Although the writer of Luke-Acts did not mention his name, I have a lot of reasons to confidently assume that Luke wrote that gospel. I never did expect you to agree, like i insinuated in my post. Cheers .

You may have lots of reasons to assume the apostle Luke wrote the gospel by his name, but your confidence wouldn't stand the test of historiographical scrutiny, I'm affraid.

It hurts me indeed to see how many people's lives have been destroyed in the name of these fables. From molested altar boys to the witches burned at the stake, from the Kathars to the Reconquista , from the sack of Jerusalem to the Ustasha. And we shouldn't forget the tolerant behaviour of Calvin in Vienna or the impact of the anti-Semitic pamphlets of Luther. I must say that that is really an excellent foundation indeed, for bigotry and intolerance

If you weren't so paranoid and unstable you would realize that so many christians enjoy comfortable lifestyles. George Bush is a christian, I guess America should declare a state of emergency because he will hire some molested altar boys to destroy the nation. While you're in the process of condemning molested altar boys, don't forget the irresponsible atheist men that have gone around destroying innocent lives because they can't distinguish right from wrong.

Our world? They definitely have. When it comes to the universe, the currently proposed explanations in cosmology definitely are far more compelling than anything religion has to bring. I don't have very much confidence in your understanding of the scientific method though, so I won't bother to undermine your fantasies.

Yes 'our world' you know the one you and I inhabit? Perhaps you're an alien from outer-space you certainly reason like one.
Cosmology is just a transparent branch of physics which 'proposes' some shaky theories to explain this worldly phenomena

Could you begin to substantiate that cheap slur instead of dancing around the hot potato?

Lol cheap slur. I'm glad it didn't cost you a fortune. At least I'm not dancing on the hot bananapotato as you would. I did what you asked by the way, it's just unfortunate that your menial skills to correctly interpret the words told to you not only led you down the wrong path, but they also forced you to form the wrong conclusions. You can go back to that post and read it over 100 times, I'm sure you'll understand what I mean on your 101^st attempt.

As far as your little tale about cosmology is concerned I'll be back to tackle it.

k0be:

It hurts me indeed to see how many people's lives have been destroyed in the name of these fables. From molested altar boys to the witches burned at the stake, from the Kathars to the Reconquista , from the sack of Jerusalem to the Ustasha. And we shouldn't forget the tolerant behaviour of Calvin in Vienna or the impact of the anti-Semitic pamphlets of Luther. I must say that that is really an excellent foundation indeed, for bigotry and intolerance

If you weren't so paranoid and unstable you would realize that so many christians enjoy comfortable lifestyles.

False dichotomy based on an incorrect interpretation of what I wrote.
1. I never claimed that Christians cannot enjoy comfortable lifestyles
2. Christians enjoying comfortable lifestyles mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the value of Christianity in itself. The Christian plantation owners in the pre civil war US south did enjoy comfortable lifestyles as well, what on earth does that do to establish the value of Christianity?
3. Where exactly did you encounter any instances of me being paranoid or unstable? Or maybe it's the usual Christian apologist tactic of redefining words, like the re-definition of the word 'good' to explain the goodness of God in the face of evil in this world.

k0be:

George Bush is a christian, I guess America should declare a state of emergency because he will hire some molested altar boys to destroy the nation.

What kind of mental gymnastics did you employ here to construct this [i]treasure [/i]of an idea? Your deductive capabilities are sorely lacking, I'm afraid, but at least now I can guess why you think I can't reason logically

k0be:

While you're in the process of condemning molested altar boys, don't forget the irresponsible atheist men that have gone around destroying innocent lives because they can't distinguish right from wrong.

Condemning molested altar boys? Where did I do that? Anyway, you may or may not know that atheism in itself is not a world view, it's merely the lack of God-belief. Atheists can be just as delusional and destructive as theists (and there have been a few examples in the 20th century), but this does not follow directly from atheism, unlike the rejection of rational thought and it's consequences that follow from Christian theism.
Anyway, I guess Stephen Weinberg captured it very well:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

k0be:

Our world? They definitely have. When it comes to the universe, the currently proposed explanations in cosmology definitely are far more compelling than anything religion has to bring. I don't have very much confidence in your understanding of the scientific method though, so I won't bother to undermine your fantasies.

Yes 'our world' you know the one you and I inhabit? Perhaps you're an alien from outer-space you certainly reason like one.

You really have a hard time bringing substance to this interchange of ideas, haven't you? Please establish where I reason like an alien from outer-space instead of just merely asserting it.

k0be:

Cosmology is just a transparent branch of physics which 'proposes' some shaky theories to explain this worldly phenomena

Really? Can you then begin to explain why the theories of modern cosmology are shaky and why you have a more parsimonious explanation?
You're still in the process of merely asserting things.

k0be:

Could you begin to substantiate that cheap slur instead of dancing around the hot potato?

Lol cheap slur. I'm glad it didn't cost you a fortune. At least I'm not dancing on the hot bananapotato as you would. I did what you asked by the way, it's just unfortunate that your menial skills to correctly interpret the words told to you not only led you down the wrong path, but they also forced you to form the wrong conclusions. You can go back to that post and read it over 100 times, I'm sure you'll understand what I mean on your 101^st attempt.

Unlike you, I value proper deductive and inductive reasoning from well established premisses and data points. I'm not really fond of vague innuendo and unfounded, unevidenced statements of fact. Or maybe you're denying your own (for once) crystal clear words:

christianity tells you all you need to know dear infidel.

k0be:

As far as your little tale about cosmology is concerned I'll be back to tackle it.

Typical apologetics, ignore 90% of one's post and focus on the 10% against which you think you can bring a compelling case. I urge you though to also tackle abiogenesis, biological evolution and to substantiate your claims about my lack of logical abilities.

PROBLEMS WITH COSMOLOGY

I need a qualified physicist (who supports the status quo) to explain to a layman like me why 'Big Bang theory' and relativity theories are correct and also show any genuine flaws with the new theory.


"Associated Cosmological Problems in Need of Solution
Other difficulties the new approach appears to resolve arose from a revision of the "big bang" which, cosmologists freely admit, still contains unacceptable false predictions. It assumes all the energy, ultimately to become the universe, was created in a massive explosion--all over in a split second. [/b]After that, energy, though interchangeable through many different forms, remained fixed forever, so providing matter with a source from which it could condense. Matter appeared flying out radially at immense speeds in all directions but slowing ever-afterwards by mutual gravitational attraction. Depending on the total mass, the universe could go on expanding forever, ending in "heat death", or collapse to a "big crunch".

Theorists can, however, find no way of switching off this explosion, called "inflation". So the theory then [b]predicts that galaxies should still be accelerating away from one another at rates 10120 (a one with 120 noughts after it) higher than astronomical observations can allow. (Some error!) This was the figure given by Greene (2) in 1999 when writing about this problem, known as the "cosmological constant". On page 225 he says:

"quantum mechanical fluctuations in the vacuum of empty space tend to generate a nonzero cosmological constant whose value is some 120 orders of magnitude (a 1 followed by 120 zeros) larger than experiment allows! This represents a wonderful challenge and opportunity for string theorists: Can calculations in string theory improve on this mismatch and explain why the cosmological constant is zero, or if experiments do ultimately establish its value is small but nonzero, can string theory provide an explanation? Should string theorists be able to rise to this challenge - as yet they have not - it would provide a compelling piece of evidence in support of the theory".
This was written by a physicist: an enthusiast and expert in string theory! String theory is the present spearhead of mainline physics. Written in eleven dimensions including time, it is aimed at providing a "Theory of Everything". The seven extra spatial dimensions are described as "curled back on themselves" in minute balls called, "Calabi-Yau spaces".

Greene also states on page 211,

"physicists have not as yet been able to make predictions with the precision necessary to confront experimental data"
followed by:

"Is string theory right? We just don't know."
Obviously when such exotic assumptions are involved it is advisable to keep alive an alternative approach, based on the three spatial dimensions of common experience. Indeed this is necessary as an insurance, just in case theoreticians could be misleading themselves by an excess of sophistication. This is one raison d'être of the argument summarised here. It is strongly backed by my finding that the problems which most bedevil the pure theorists are ones which overlap the expertise of the mechanical engineer. Mechanics, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics are our main specialisations and so some cross collaboration seems desirable.

A second difficulty met with in big-bang theory is that some stars seem older than the universe, whose age cosmologists set at about 12 billion years. Thirdly, in 1998 observations of remote supernovae were claimed by Schwarzschild (3) which show that the expansion of the universe is speeding up instead of slowing down as they had supposed. Puzzled cosmologists are saying that some new mysterious repulsive force must be acting and two invoke "quintessence" having strange anti-gravity effects.

[b]The major problem, however, interrelated with all these, is that Einstein's relativity theories, which describe large scale mechanics of the cosmos, do not match up with quantum theory. [/b]The latter covers the dynamics of small things like atoms and their "sub-atomic particles". It is indeed this problem which Greene (2) shows string theory is set up to solve."

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/bigbang/messages/842.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------------

So is this what I'm supposed to suck up to? Your big bad assumption-filled, prediction-filled, erroneous cosmological theories. looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.
I just haven't had adequate time, I'll find even more problems with your ideal cosmology.

nferyn:

1. I never claimed that Christians cannot enjoy comfortable lifestyles
2. Christians enjoying comfortable lifestyles mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the value of Christianity in itself. The Christian plantation owners in the pre civil war US south did enjoy comfortable lifestyles as well, what on earth does that do to establish the value of Christianity?

How exactly do the altar boys establish the value of christianity in itself? Did christianity tell them to go out there and commit whatever crimes you're accusing them of, no.
Here you are, now retorting to blames because you want so hard to eliminate christianity.  Put yourself out of your misery, go sip on some orange juice to cool your nerves, blame the people for the slavery that went on in the south, some of the slave owners just happened to be christians(or so they say).
It was only a matter of time anyway until their Biblical tactics of justifying slavery were foiled.
Morevover, it isn't written anywhere in the Bible that "christians are perfect" or that christians are without fault.

3. Where exactly did you encounter any instances of me being paranoid or unstable? Or maybe it's the usual Christian apologist tactic of redefining words, like the re-definition of the word 'good' to explain the goodness of God in the face of evil in this world.

Your paranoia and instability are causing you to schizophrenically blame christianity for the shattered ruin that is slowly becoming of your life.
Why did I say this? Because out of the blue you brought up the story about some make-belief altar boys raping your soul.  I want to assure you that it's okay and everything will be alright.

Condemning molested altar boys? Where did I do that? Anyway, you may or may not know that atheism in itself is not a world view, it's merely the lack of God-belief. Atheists can be just as delusional and destructive as theists (and there have been a few examples in the 20th century), but this does not follow directly from atheism, unlike the rejection of rational thought and it's consequences that follow from Christian theism.

oh sure, you claim you never condemned altar boys, but you blamed christianity for breeding menacing altar boys.
What difference is it that I also blamed atheism for creating serial killers.  You are very good at amalgamating so I guess I learned that strategy from you.
You are very backwards, you say atheists can be just as destructive as theists yet you're very quick to combat that statement by claiming "it doesn't follow directly from atheism" on top of that you used that opportunity to try and drag christianity down even more.  Don't mistake me for a fool lol, you're a funny m8.  Christianity doesn't reject your rational thought, christians just urge you to listen when they explain to you why certain things are the way they are, is that too hard for you to comprehend?

Anyway, I guess Stephen Weinberg captured it very well: Yes 'our world' you know the one you and I inhabit? Perhaps you're an alien from outer-space you certainly reason like one.
You really have a hard time bringing substance to this interchange of ideas, haven't you? Please establish where I reason like an alien from outer-space instead of just merely asserting it.

Why else would you ask the question: our world? Does it take a genius to figure out which world I was implying.  Only an alien from outerspace would have asked that sort of question, in my opinion, hence my conclusion.

Really? Can you then begin to explain why the theories of modern cosmology are shaky and why you have a more parsimonious explanation?
You're still in the process of merely asserting things.

I decided to quench your thirst by providing the post above this, and heads up, there's more to come.

Unlike you, I value proper deductive and inductive reasoning from well established premisses and data points. I'm not really fond of vague innuendo and unfounded, unevidenced statements of fact. Or maybe you're denying your own (for once) crystal clear words:Typical apologetics, ignore 90% of one's post and focus on the 10% against which you think you can bring a compelling case. I urge you though to also tackle abiogenesis, biological evolution and to substantiate your claims about my lack of logical abilities.

It appeared to me that you valued backwardsness.  3/4 or 4/5 of your posts to me have been based on nothing but pure shenanigans you pulled out of your as$ so don't try to come at me with that nonsense about statement of facts.
Now will you stop crying&panting, I have responded fully to your post.

"Hi Everyone,
Like most people I grew up with science founded on 'particles', and cosmology founded on the 'big bang' theory. At the time I just accepted it as true with little thought. Now, at the age of 47 and having spent the last 15 years reading physics, philosophy and metaphysics I am completely convinced that both the 'particle' and the 'big bang' are incorrect. (In fact I would now say that they are extremely naive and silly conceptions and I find it hard to believe that I used to accept them as true!)

Below you will find a list of the top ten problems of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology. Most importantly, it is easy to show how these problems can be simply solved with the"

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

For the enthusiasts we have four very good essays on various problems of the Big Bang Theory which provide compelling evidence that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/halton-arp-seeing-red-errors-big-bang.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/lerner-big-bang-never-happened.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/mitchell-big-bang-theory-under-fire.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm